super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

[conco46]

I know the super trawler has been a hot topic, BUT I need your opinions on not just the super trawler, but the thought of it being in OZ waters.

here my spray, ive been fishing since i was 3yrs old, mum dad said i caught 5 whiting in 30mins at 3 yrs old and i was hooked. been fishing, learning, buying equiment, hireing boats, buying boats, keeping up with rules, & limits, paying regos and now after 29yrs of fishing, teaching my kids & they love it.

after we obey these rules, limts, sizes, safety gear, reef fish closures, ect.
the last 18mnth we weve told that the snapper is nearly gone, let sharks go bigger than 1.5m, nearly double the size of jew fish size limit.
now these rules r fine and for good reason and these rules are policed and alot of money been spent on dpi, police, research, & so on.
we follow these rules cause we want fish there tomorrow, we want our kids to have fish there too.

so heres my question
SO why is it us fighting out this super trawler, why does the gov even give it a second thought, do the rules get throne out for someone eles, is it money under the table from this super trawler, to get its way, the gov even thinking of letting it in is so hypercritical
HOW MUCH WILL OZZIES PUT UP WITH?????????????????????????????????????
and the super trawler will be back with more money, trying to get in and reck the best waters in the world, if they didnt reck things why wouldnt they stay were they are? il tell u why, cause where they last left, is dead and empty.

whats your opinions or am i missing something? do i need educating ?

[TheRealAndy]

I know the super trawler has been a hot topic, BUT I need your opinions on not just the super trawler, but the thought of it being in OZ waters.

here my spray, ive been fishing since i was 3yrs old, mum dad said i caught 5 whiting in 30mins at 3 yrs old and i was hooked. been fishing, learning, buying equiment, hireing boats, buying boats, keeping up with rules, & limits, paying regos and now after 29yrs of fishing, teaching my kids & they love it.

after we obey these rules, limts, sizes, safety gear, reef fish closures, ect.
the last 18mnth we weve told that the snapper is nearly gone, let sharks go bigger than 1.5m, nearly double the size of jew fish size limit.
now these rules r fine and for good reason and these rules are policed and alot of money been spent on dpi, police, research, & so on.
we follow these rules cause we want fish there tomorrow, we want our kids to have fish there too.

so heres my question
SO why is it us fighting out this super trawler, why does the gov even give it a second thought, do the rules get throne out for someone eles, is it money under the table from this super trawler, to get its way, the gov even thinking of letting it in is so hypercritical
HOW MUCH WILL OZZIES PUT UP WITH?????????????????????????????????????
and the super trawler will be back with more money, trying to get in and reck the best waters in the world, if they didnt reck things why wouldnt they stay were they are? il tell u why, cause where they last left, is dead and empty.

whats your opinions or am i missing something? do i need educating ?

Well in short, all your size and bag limits are determined using scientific modelling. The quota allocated to seafish tasmania (who organised the supertrawler) was also determined using science. The managament practices applied to you, are also applied to the commercial sector to prevent the decimation of fish stocks as has occured in other parts of the world.

I posted up another thread about this. Personally I dont like it, because I would rather see the quota go to aussie based boats (unfortunately we don't have the capability). But I refuse to align with the greens on this issue and say its bullshit just because I dont like it. To argue against it must be done on science and/or economics, not emotion.

[conco46]

Well in short, all your size and bag limits are determined using scientific modelling. The quota allocated to seafish tasmania (who organised the supertrawler) was also determined using science. The managament practices applied to you, are also applied to the commercial sector to prevent the decimation of fish stocks as has occured in other parts of the world.

I posted up another thread about this. Personally I dont like it, because I would rather see the quota go to aussie based boats (unfortunately we don't have the capability). But I refuse to align with the greens on this issue and say its bullshit just because I dont like it. To argue against it must be done on science and/or economics, not emotion.
thats actually a realy good answer mate cheers and its settled me down a bit, thanks mate looks like u have looked into it a bit

[ThePinkPanther]

Fact is that their proposed catch are species nobody else wants and Aussie fisherman rarely go after or process.

If the trawler were to be allowed to fish, it would benefit the local fishermen who could add their own catch to that of the trawler and access a market that requires considerable volumer, something they can't do at the moment.

The majority of commercial fishermen concerned were mainly all in favour of the trawler being allowed access to Aussie waters, as usual the galahs in Government stuffed it up thanks to the Greens yet again!

[bigjudge]

I personally dont wont to the bast.......d of a thing anywhere near aussie waters when our own aussie fisherman(commercial) are doing it tough,lets get fairdinkum and start helping our own fisherman make a quid(pollies)so lets hope it stays away.
CHEERS AND BEERS

[robo55]

it is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard get the bast**d out as it has already raped and pillaged the sea where it come from so why even think about it ,anyone who even thought about it be ok should be shark shite the next day we do the right thing and along comes the clowns with a big circus and the goodie two shoes alias the idiots will let it happen crikey someone use their brains for once ROB

[Donkeyzmilk]

much like the mining debate , they rape resources , a certain few get really rich and the rest (normal law abiding tax paying citizens ) live with whats left!

[TheRealAndy]

it is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard get the bast**d out as it has already raped and pillaged the sea where it come from so why even think about it ,anyone who even thought about it be ok should be shark shite the next day we do the right thing and along comes the clowns with a big circus and the goodie two shoes alias the idiots will let it happen crikey someone use their brains for once ROB

Please explain how it will rape and pillage. I certainly cannot find any evidence to support your rant, in fact its quite the opposite. There was a quota, the management procedure reduces the quote each year by a set percentage until it is proved that the fishery is sustainable and they are forced to pay for research to ensure sustainability.

This is the typical opinion that gets as rec fisherman kicked out of the fishery. If you want to argue against it, try to use fact, not emotion.

[Donkeyzmilk]

Please explain how it will rape and pillage. I certainly cannot find any evidence to support your rant, in fact its quite the opposite. There was a quota, the management procedure reduces the quote each year by a set percentage until it is proved that the fishery is sustainable and they are forced to pay for research to ensure sustainability.

This is the typical opinion that gets as rec fisherman kicked out of the fishery. If you want to argue against it, try to use fact, not emotion.

fact is your trusting government to " do the right thing" it doesn't happen .

[Scott79]

An interesting report from the ABC, highlighting that a part owner of the 'SuperTrawler' was also part of the Government Advisory Panel that recommended the quota:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3579036.htm

Scott

[bigjudge]

Has anyone got any figures as to how much $ this super trawler is going to add to our economy.
CHEERS AND BEERS

[SunnyCoastMark]

Fact is that their proposed catch are species nobody else wants and Aussie fisherman rarely go after or process.

If the trawler were to be allowed to fish, it would benefit the local fishermen who could add their own catch to that of the trawler and access a market that requires considerable volumer, something they can't do at the moment.

The majority of commercial fishermen concerned were mainly all in favour of the trawler being allowed access to Aussie waters, as usual the galahs in Government stuffed it up thanks to the Greens yet again!


FACT - The small pelagics that the super trawler is targeting are a vital part of the food chain.

FACT - The 18000 tonnes of fish that these guys will take out of OUR oceans equates to the following:-

Average fish size of 5kg = 3.5 million fish

Average fish size of 1kg = 17.5 million fish

FACT - You take that many fish out of the ecological system in a relatively short time span - You are going to have a serious effect upon whatever these fish feed upon and whatever feeds upon them.

FACT - Whatever this foreign vessel catches - goes overseas.

FACT - Bycatch - will be substantial.

FACT - The greenies were not the only ones incensed by this whole sorry saga. You only need an ounce of commonsense and logic to work this one out. Every single person I have spoken to and the majority of posters on this board can see how wrong this was.

FACT - You don't have to be Einstein - you don't have to read the results of 2 years scientific reasearch (or however long it takes) to work this one out. It is what it is and it's pretty plain for all to see.

FACT - Australians will receive very little (if any) benefit from having a super trawler operate in our waters. - So why even consider it?

FACT - If you don't think this will open the door for more international operations to come and target our fish in our waters - you are delusional.

Once these guys get "The science" on their side - (and if that is all it takes - then that is what they will do - Science can be funny like that - it can be a two edged sword depending upon your perspective) - They will up the quota on a regular basis and other overseas interests will follow.

FACT - Science will only be able to accurately determine what the long term effects of this operation will be - after the fact - until then all the research in the world is just conjecture - at best an educated guess. Once again the research itself and the results will only be valid if they are performed without a predetermined outcome in mind ( like, lets see if we can get the numbers on this to justify the removal of these fish from our waters).

In this day and age I have little faith in a scientific world that relies on funding and grants from wherever they can get them. I may be sceptical here, but I am also a realist. We will never really know if the research has been unbiased.

How much scientific research do we hear the results of every day that is contradictory to what the research stated perviously. Look at what they say about the food we eat or our enviroment . One moment it's good for you - next it's bad for you - One study says climate change is caused by us - another says it's cyclic. Fair dinkum - it is like being on a merry go round.

I can't believe that anyone would put any faith in so called scientific research, which does not have exhaustive conclusive research data to be able to come to an accurate finding. 2 years is not enough time to accurately determine the seasonal cycles of these fish and there is certainly no way to accurately count how many there are now - and how many there will be after 18000 tonnes have been removed (per season) ALL I know is there will be 18000 tonnes less.

Common Sense - fills in the gaps that science can't.....or won't

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

FACT - The small pelagics that the super trawler is targeting are a vital part of the food chain.

FACT - The 18000 tonnes of fish that these guys will take out of OUR oceans equates to the following:-

Average fish size of 5kg = 3.5 million fish

Average fish size of 1kg = 17.5 million fish

FACT - You take that many fish out of the ecological system in a relatively short time span - You are going to have a serious effect upon whatever these fish feed upon and whatever feeds upon them.

Proof please

FACT - Whatever this foreign vessel catches - goes overseas.

No one here wants it + lots of our seafood is exported

FACT - Bycatch - will be substantial.

Proof please

FACT - The greenies were not the only ones incensed by this whole sorry saga. You only need an ounce of commonsense and logic to work this one out. Every single person I have spoken to and the majority of posters on this board can see how wrong this was.

Sorry, but I see a lot of unsubstantiated claims from you. This is not logic

FACT - You don't have to be Einstein - you don't have to read the results of 2 years scientific research (or however long it takes) to work this one out. It is what it is and it's pretty plain for all to see.

Proof please

FACT - Australians will receive very little (if any) benefit from having a super trawler operate in our waters. - So why even consider it?

Proof please. It was to create about 40 jobs IIRC and was to provide an economic boost

FACT - If you don't think this will open the door for more international operations to come and target our fish in our waters - you are delusional.

Once these guys get "The science" on their side - (and if that is all it takes - then that is what they will do - Science can be funny like that - it can be a two edged sword depending upon your perspective) - They will up the quota on a regular basis and other overseas interests will follow.

Proof please

FACT - Science will only be able to accurately determine what the long term effects of this operation will be - after the fact - until then all the research in the world is just conjecture - at best an educated guess. Once again the research itself and the results will only be valid if they are performed without a predetermined outcome in mind ( like, lets see if we can get the numbers on this to justify the removal of these fish from our waters).

Proof please

In this day and age I have little faith in a scientific world that relies on funding and grants from wherever they can get them. I may be sceptical here, but I am also a realist. We will never really know if the research has been unbiased.

How much scientific research do we hear the results of every day that is contradictory to what the research stated perviously. Look at what they say about the food we eat or our enviroment . One moment it's good for you - next it's bad for you - One study says climate change is caused by us - another says it's cyclic. Fair dinkum - it is like being on a merry go round.

I can't believe that anyone would put any faith in so called scientific research, which does not have exhaustive conclusive research data to be able to come to an accurate finding. 2 years is not enough time to accurately determine the seasonal cycles of these fish and there is certainly no way to accurately count how many there are now - and how many there will be after 18000 tonnes have been removed (per season) ALL I know is there will be 18000 tonnes less.

Common Sense - fills in the gaps that science can't.....or won't

Mark

You are happy to throw around claims, please provide evidence.

As the late great Christopher Hitchens said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and those claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This was the same attitude that saw the green zones in moreton bay and GBRMP.

[bigjudge]

Didnt the pollies tell us that green zones would be opened back up after a sustainable preiod,didnt they also say there would be no GST ,no carbon tax, i personally dont believe any research evidence they produce,i have fished my local area for over 35yrs and i have never seen a research vessel,or been approached by anyone doing research.If this trawler is good for our country(aussie aussie oh)Then let our aussie fisherman get into it.They could start by giving our commercial blokes the tax benefits they give to overseas bussiness,s that come here.
CHEERS AND BEERS

[SunnyCoastMark]

You are happy to throw around claims, please provide evidence.

As the late great Christopher Hitchens said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and those claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This was the same attitude that saw the green zones in moreton bay and GBRMP.

Andy, If you need proof for what is staring you in the face - you are lost indeed. Asking for proof that taking millions of fish out of our oceans will have an affect is akin to asking for proof that your fridge will be empty if you eat all the food in it.

You don't need to prove the obvious. That is just ridiculous. Additionally - nothing can be proven until after the fact. By which time the damage is already done.

Asking for proof of something that hasn't happened yet is called speculation. Therefore your premise is flawed...........

It is my premise that you lack commonsense and logic - No offence intended - I don't know you and can only theorise my deductions by what I have read in your post.

However, I am happy for you to offer proof to the contrary......

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

Andy, If you need proof for what is staring you in the face - you are lost indeed. Asking for proof that taking millions of fish out of our oceans will have an affect is akin to asking for proof that your fridge will be empty if you eat all the food in it.

You don't need to prove the obvious. That is just ridiculous. Additionally - nothing can be proven until after the fact. By which time the damage is already done.

Asking for proof of something that hasn't happened yet is called speculation. Therefore your premise is flawed...........

It is my premise that you lack commonsense and logic - No offence intended - I don't know you and can only theorise my deductions by what I have read in your post.

However, I am happy for you to offer proof to the contrary......

Mark

But what you are missing, is the fact that they are not taking all the fish, only 15% of the biomass, which is considered to be sustainable (and that is for the first year only, it reduces after that). There is no speculation, they have very conservative estimates of the biomass and they work on the lowest margin of error. As someone pointed out in the other post I started, there is further papers suggesting that the biomass had a further margin of error, but even then, the quote is still under what is considered to be sustainable.

You say that I lack commonsense and logic, but I am yet to see you counter an argument with anything other than opinion. You are clearly overlooking the fundamental rules of logic.

Just hear me for a second mark, I am not trying to defend the super trawler, in fact I could not give a shit either way be honest. What I am trying to say, is when arguing against things like this, we need to use science and economics, or true logical reasoning. Over the years, the greens and organisations like PEW have fought to lock up fisheries (and everything else for that matter) based on peoples emotion, rather than fighting against the real scientifically proved reasons behind the degradation of our fisheries. I like to consider myself as a conservationist, not a green. I don't have a problem with people utilising natural resources, so long as its done in a sustainable way. On the the other hand, greens want everything locked up just because, no reason, just in case. They provide no reason, no evidence, just because they dont like, and thats where the argument stops. Its not the right way to do it.

[robo55]

Seems like you are defending the trawler andy, you be first to cry when there is no fish left use your brains how do you know what they will take ,then why come this side of world if they have not yet depleted the resources from where they come from ,we can only lose from it ....rob

[PADDLES]

i like your post andy, in that i too believe that all fisheries management should be based on scientific fact. unfortunately though, hasn't anecdotal evidence told us that this style of trawling has pretty much ruined some fisheries where it has been allowed? hasn't this style of trawling (on a massive scale) generally only been tolerated in the third world where more often than not a corrupt government has been given enough of a kickback to allow it to happen. wasn't this the style of trawling that arguably started the entire problem of somali piracy where the incumbent regime allowed it to continue unmanaged until the locals couldn't catch any more fish so they turned to piracy instead? i personally believe that there's no place for this style of mass fishing in this world, but that's only my emotional opinion based on no scientific fact. these trawlers are nearly always used by countries that have little or none of their own fishery, in order to plunder the rest of the world's fisheries in order to cheaply feed their own people at the expense of the people who depend on that fishery to survive.

[TheRealAndy]

Seems like you are defending the trawler andy, you be first to cry when there is no fish left use your brains how do you know what they will take ,then why come this side of world if they have not yet depleted the resources from where they come from ,we can only lose from it ....rob

I think you are once again missing the point. I am not defending the trawler, I am defending the science and management practices. I am happy, for anyone here to provide factual evidence too the contrary. Opinion is worthless, that is what the greens rely on.

To be honest, people just hate it because they THINK that it may affect them. It probably would not be a concern if it were another country. Its this narrow minded self interest that is to be expected from the greens. What I am trying to do, is persuade the rec fishing community not to think like that, but to think rationally.


i like your post andy, in that i too believe that all fisheries management should be based on scientific fact. unfortunately though, hasn't anecdotal evidence told us that this style of trawling has pretty much ruined some fisheries where it has been allowed? hasn't this style of trawling (on a massive scale) generally only been tolerated in the third world where more often than not a corrupt government has been given enough of a kickback to allow it to happen. wasn't this the style of trawling that arguably started the entire problem of somali piracy where the incumbent regime allowed it to continue unmanaged until the locals couldn't catch any more fish so they turned to piracy instead? i personally believe that there's no place for this style of mass fishing in this world, but that's only my emotional opinion based on no scientific fact. these trawlers are nearly always used by countries that have little or none of their own fishery, in order to plunder the rest of the world's fisheries in order to cheaply feed their own people at the expense of the people who depend on that fishery to survive.

The problem with third world countries is they dont have the fisheries management structures that we have here in Australia, nor do they have any research to determine sustainable biomass. So yes, large scale trawling has destroyed fisheries in other parts of the world. Providing the fishery is managed, and there is ongoing research to determine any ongoing issues, then I dont understand why its a problem.

[PADDLES]

Hi Andy, given that these things fish well offshore and well away from any areas of scientific interest (ie. out of sight and out of mind for most government regulators), is there much in the way of research being done in these areas? Is there a chance that the indicators used to determine the health or sustainability of the fishery that this vessel operates in, react so slowly or in fact may only be measured very inaccurately, and that damage to the fishery may occur well before it actually shows up as a measurable quantity? ie. the horse has already bolted.

Am I being a little ignorant by stating that because our government is struggling to get good enough science to properly manage our inshore fisheries, what chance would they have of properly managing offshore fisheries where the data would be a whole lot more difficult to collect due to the remoteness? To be honest, the only way I could ever see a large trawling operation operating responsibly well offshore would be for the government to place observers on the ship.

[SunnyCoastMark]

Hi Andy, given that these things fish well offshore and well away from any areas of scientific interest (ie. out of sight and out of mind for most government regulators), is there much in the way of research being done in these areas? Is there a chance that the indicators used to determine the health or sustainability of the fishery that this vessel operates in, react so slowly or in fact may only be measured very inaccurately, and that damage to the fishery may occur well before it actually shows up as a measurable quantity? ie. the horse has already bolted.

Am I being a little ignorant by stating that because our government is struggling to get good enough science to properly manage our inshore fisheries, what chance would they have of properly managing offshore fisheries where the data would be a whole lot more difficult to collect due to the remoteness? To be honest, the only way I could ever see a large trawling operation operating responsibly well offshore would be for the government to place observers on the ship.


That is one of my concerns - that any research or scientific studies carried out on this issue will be inconclusive at best. The result of either very little in the way of funding or the desire tt reach a certain conclusion with defined perameters. They are taking 15% of the biomass - Is that an accurate figure? What effect will removing 15% of the biomass have on the foodchain.

I am not a scientist and so like most of us - we have to trust that what the research is telling us is correct and accurate. - Only problem is - as you said Paddles - the only conclusive resaerch will not be available until after the fact - and to get an accurate picture of causality and effect will take years. How many other tens of thousands of tonnes will they take in the meantime?

Sorry Andy, but this is where commonsense comes in - not emotion - not scaremongering - just plain old commonsense - it is what it is - I don't know any other way to put it.

By the way - please don't lump the greenies in with commonsense - that is usually an oxymoron.

The other good thing about commonsense - doesn't matter how much science or research you throw at it - either it is or it isn't (pretty deep huh?)

Mark

[SunnyCoastMark]

But what you are missing, is the fact that they are not taking all the fish, only 15% of the biomass, which is considered to be sustainable (and that is for the first year only, it reduces after that). There is no speculation, they have very conservative estimates of the biomass and they work on the lowest margin of error. As someone pointed out in the other post I started, there is further papers suggesting that the biomass had a further margin of error, but even then, the quote is still under what is considered to be sustainable.

You say that I lack commonsense and logic, but I am yet to see you counter an argument with anything other than opinion. You are clearly overlooking the fundamental rules of logic.

Just hear me for a second mark, I am not trying to defend the super trawler, in fact I could not give a shit either way be honest. What I am trying to say, is when arguing against things like this, we need to use science and economics, or true logical reasoning. Over the years, the greens and organisations like PEW have fought to lock up fisheries (and everything else for that matter) based on peoples emotion, rather than fighting against the real scientifically proved reasons behind the degradation of our fisheries. I like to consider myself as a conservationist, not a green. I don't have a problem with people utilising natural resources, so long as its done in a sustainable way. On the the other hand, greens want everything locked up just because, no reason, just in case. They provide no reason, no evidence, just because they dont like, and thats where the argument stops. Its not the right way to do it.

I guess your quote above sums up your position nicely. Unlike you I do care what happens to our environment and I want my kids and their kids to be able to enjoy our resources and environment the same as I do(if not better).

I dislike your dismissive attitude towards the obvious and insisting that everything be proven or disproven by science. The facts or points I have stated previously are extermely logical. In fact you can draw no other conclusion.

If your attitude is truly depicted in your quote above - then you must only be here for the sake of an argument - in which case your opinion has no value.

Of course Fisheries mangement has to be based on accurate research that is gather over many seasons and years. That is one of my points with this supertrawler - by then it will be too late. Therefore it cannot proceed as the risk of irreversable damage is a very real concern.

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

I guess your quote above sums up your position nicely. Unlike you I do care what happens to our environment and I want my kids and their kids to be able to enjoy our resources and environment the same as I do(if not better).


I suggest you read my post again carefully. Because you are quite wrong. You are just cherry picking lines out of my post.

BTW, do you care about anyone else's kids, or just yours?




I dislike your dismissive attitude towards the obvious and insisting that everything be proven or disproven by science. The facts or points I have stated previously are extermely logical. In fact you can draw no other conclusion.


Sorry, but I am not dismissing the obvious at all. You have pointed out no fact, just opinion. I have asked you to back that up with some evidence, or some research even. You have not, therefore you are either misunderstanding the fundamentals of logic or avoiding them due to emotion.

Have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance One of the great logical fallacies, Ad ignorantiam.



If your attitude is truly depicted in your quote above - then you must only be here for the sake of an argument - in which case your opinion has no value.


As I said many before, I am trying to convince rec fisherman not to use the same emotional debate that the greens use to attack us.

If you think that has no value, then you should stop fishing right now and align with PETA and/or the greens. You are using the same argument they do.



Of course Fisheries mangement has to be based on accurate research that is gather over many seasons and years. That is one of my points with this supertrawler - by then it will be too late. Therefore it cannot proceed as the risk of irreversable damage is a very real concern.

Mark

The research is already there, that is how they obtained the quota. Ongoing research will help to narrow the margin of error.

BTW, have a look at the humpback whales we see going up the coast these days. They were almost extinct, yet they have recovered quite well. The idea behind the science, is to make a very conservative estimate of the biomass, and take a small percentage of that. On going monitoring off the fishery prevents it becoming unsustainable.

[MudRiverDan]

The trouble with science is, that if a government or powerful bunch of stake holders are funding it and one outcome is favorable to them , any science to the contrary may have trouble getting off the ground.

Science is not the "Fact" we believe it to be, science costs a lot of money, a hell of a lot and oceanography is probably even more expensive.

The money has to come from somewhere and nothing is for free ;)

No one is going to fund studies contrary to their interests and gains.

Science is just a tool, not a truth machine.

Dan

[PADDLES]

now that dan ................... is an unfortunate truth ..........................

however i totally agree with andy, too many decisions have been made, and unfortunately will continue to be made, with emotions in mind, especially when it comes to the emotions of the voting public and it does suck

[TheRealAndy]

The trouble with science is, that if a government or powerful bunch of stake holders are funding it and one outcome is favorable to them , any science to the contrary may have trouble getting off the ground.

Science is not the "Fact" we believe it to be, science costs a lot of money, a hell of a lot and oceanography is probably even more expensive.

The money has to come from somewhere and nothing is for free ;)

No one is going to fund studies contrary to their interests and gains.

Science is just a tool, not a truth machine.

Dan

Science is science, its outcome is not favoured if peer reviewed. There is a process, if its not followed then it is not science.

Science is not fact, its based on facts. Yes it does cost money, and it has cost money, and will continue to do so. But the science has been undertaken, take a look here: http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/ and any further research will enable the scientist to further reduce error.

IF we don't rely on the science, then what do we do? Gut feeling? Precautionary principle? Just because we don't like it? NIMBY? In that case, we could also argue that all recreational fishing has an adverse impact on the fishery and should be totally banned (this is what PEW does). To protect our fishery for future generations, we should completely ban all types of fishing.

[Qlder1]

Wow I have gone a bit cold on the Margiris since it got put on hold. I think the rec fishers, greens etc did a good job to stop it until more research is done, also the authorities now have a chance to look at AFMA and see if any dodgy deals were done . If there is good unbiased findings that it will be sustainable then I say go for it.

To be honest there are much worse things happening in Aus for fishing/environment, that are conveniently brushed under the carpet, or are actually being allowed to happen with the support of govts.....things like the dumping of toxic chemicals into our river systems by massive mining operations, destruction of mangrove and breeding areas, etc... Believe me nothing will really be able to stop most of this as the culprits are capable of spending millions on research to support their causes.

[robo55]

sorry andy and co it had the rights to come in to 3 miles if you think that is ok then you have unfortunately lost the plot ,and those people who work here already had their jobs ,the boat doesn't have work for any aussie at all ,and i'd say you be first to say why did it happen after the fact ,,we dont need it here there is the rest of the world or is the fishing gone pot elsewhere crikey your welcome to have it up there in darwin then where next every state come on ????????????

[Mr Squiggles]

G'Day Andy
When I was at school in the 50's it was a "Scientific" fact that the oceans could sustain mankind ad infinitum. What are the boffins saying now " Wrong wrong wrong" Don't rely on science mate however good it sounds.

[robo55]

TheRealAndy (http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/member.php?43875-TheRealAndy)
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/splash/statusicon/user-online.png
Ausfish Premium Member http://www.ausfish.com.au/yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/starsplatinum.gif http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/customavatars/avatar43875_1.gif (http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/member.php?43875-TheRealAndy)
Join DateJun 2007Post Thanks / Like http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/buttons/collapse_40b.png (http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?187607-super-trawler-educate-me-or-tell-me-your-opinion-please#top)

Re: super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please


http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by robo55 http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?p=1425771#post1425771)
it is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard get the bast**d out as it has already raped and pillaged the sea where it come from so why even think about it ,anyone who even thought about it be ok should be shark shite the next day we do the right thing and along comes the clowns with a big circus and the goodie two shoes alias the idiots will let it happen crikey someone use their brains for once ROB



Please explain how it will rape and pillage. I certainly cannot find any evidence to support your rant, in fact its quite the opposite. There was a quota, the management procedure reduces the quote each year by a set percentage until it is proved that the fishery is sustainable and they are forced to pay for research to ensure sustainability.

This is the typical opinion that gets as rec fisherman kicked out of the fishery. If you want to argue against it, try to use fact, not emotion.****************************************** *****************************************well how about you mr real andy show us or explain how good the waters are to fish where this huge thing has been before it seems you and the likes can tell us all this is ok ,,,us rec fisho's have to stick together or we end up with nothing my kids and grandkids are entitled to catch fish years down the track ,,,,,if their waters were so good would be no need to come here other side of world

[SunnyCoastMark]

I suggest you read my post again carefully. Because you are quite wrong. You are just cherry picking lines out of my post. Umm - yep read you post again and you definitely said that you don't give a sh#t either way

BTW, do you care about anyone else's kids, or just yours? I'll ignore that comment




Sorry, but I am not dismissing the obvious at all. Yes you are - you continually ask for proof of something any school kid could tell you.You have pointed out no fact, just opinion. I have asked you to back that up with some evidence, or some research even. Lets be realistic here - I am not a scientist - nor do I have access to research funding, oceanographic data, etc. etc. etc. Obviously neither does the Australian government or they wouldn't have put this whole sorry saga on hold for 2 years while they have research (science) conducted. One might say that the owners of the supertrawler also do not have adequate research or science to back themselves up = or they would have put it on the table by now - hows that for logic? You have not, therefore you are either misunderstanding the fundamentals of logic or avoiding them due to emotion. Once again not only is your premise flawed, but your conclusion is incorrect

Have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance One of the great logical fallacies, Ad ignorantiam.



As I said many before, I am trying to convince rec fisherman not to use the same emotional debate that the greens use to attack us.

If you think that has no value, then you should stop fishing right now and align with PETA and/or the greens. You are using the same argument they do. Not quite - they would see all fishing banned - and if you think they don't use science to back up their viewpoint - you need to do a bit more research yourself.



The research is already there, that is how they obtained the quota. Ongoing research will help to narrow the margin of error.

BTW, have a look at the humpback whales we see going up the coast these days. They were almost extinct, yet they have recovered quite well. The idea behind the science, is to make a very conservative estimate of the biomass, and take a small percentage of that. On going monitoring off the fishery prevents it becoming unsustainable.

Humpback whales - Funny you should mention them - yes they were almost extinct - and you didn't need science to tell you that.
There was no measured quota put in place. In actual fact I believe whaling in Australian territorial waters and almost worldwide is banned & has been since 1966 - it is only the Japanese who take a measured quota for ......"scientific research" - and we all know how legitimate that is.

I think the point has been well made that you don't need science to tell us what is blatantly obvious, that is common knowledge. Has nothing to do with emotions or a feeling

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

Umm - yep read you post again and you definitely said that you don't give a sh#t either way

Correct, but thats because I personally dont see an issue with the supertrawler. I also said " I like to consider myself as a conservationist, not a green. I don't have a problem with people utilising natural resources, so long as its done in a sustainable way"

Funny thing is, I dont have kids, dont intend to, but I do give a shit about your kids and their kids having the right to utilise the fishery, just as I do, just as you do, and everyone else does. As long as its done in a sustainable fashion.



Lets be realistic here - I am not a scientist - nor do I have access to research funding, oceanographic data, etc. etc. etc. Obviously neither does the Australian government


Here is the science that you claim the Australian Government does not have: http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/




or they wouldn't have put this whole sorry saga on hold for 2 years while they have research (science) conducted. One might say that the owners of the supertrawler also do not have adequate research or science to back themselves up = or they would have put it on the table by now - hows that for logic?


The quota was obtained before the super trawler was contracted, so really, they dont have a lot to do with it. Seafish Tasmania obtained via the AFMA, so it was AFMA job to provide the science, please refer to the link above if you wish to see it.

The reason it was put on hold, was due to people people complaining about it on emotive grounds, not factual.

BTW, bad logic ;)



Once again not only is your premise flawed, but your conclusion is incorrect


The AFMA and the fisheries scientists disagree with you. I back them over an emotive opinion.



Humpback whales - Funny you should mention them - yes they were almost extinct - and you didn't need science to tell you that.
There was no measured quota put in place.


Bingo, now there is some logic. Extinction, no quota. Quite the opposite of the situation with super trawler. The reason whaling was stopped, was due to science back in the late 1940's IIRC. Science has progressed somewhat since then.



it is only the Japanese who take a measured quota for ......"scientific research" - and we all know how legitimate that is.


To be honest, its not only the japanese that still take whales, but lets not let fact get in the way of a good story. In fact, the japanese take less than some other countries, Greenland and Faroe Islands for example. The current japanese take is sustainable.

[TheRealAndy]

well how about you mr real andy show us or explain how good the waters are to fish where this huge thing has been before it seems you and the likes can tell us all this is ok ,,,us rec fisho's have to stick together or we end up with nothing my kids and grandkids are entitled to catch fish years down the track ,,,,,if their waters were so good would be no need to come here other side of world


Have you actually read anything I have posted?

[NAGG]

Trawling is an indiscriminate form of fishing - Do it on a grand scale like the super trawler & you are asking for trouble ........ both removing a vast amount of target fish from an area & the bycatch that will go with it . You dont need science to determine that....... & the best science can only come after the fact.


Chris

[robo55]

: super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please


http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by robo55 http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?p=1426279#post1426279)
well how about you mr real andy show us or explain how good the waters are to fish where this huge thing has been before it seems you and the likes can tell us all this is ok ,,,us rec fisho's have to stick together or we end up with nothing my kids and grandkids are entitled to catch fish years down the track ,,,,,if their waters were so good would be no need to come here other side of world



Have you actually read anything I have posted ******** YES I HAVE READ IT and i cant believe what you come out with ,,,,,, where is your proof ,i cant believe i'm even answering you ,how can anyone even think about something like this ? if it sustainable then let it stay where it was ????????????????? are you for real ?

[TheRealAndy]

Trawling is an indiscriminate form of fishing - Do it on a grand scale like the super trawler & you are asking for trouble ........ both removing a vast amount of target fish from an area & the bycatch that will go with it . You dont need science to determine that....... & the best science can only come after the fact.

Chris

Yup, you have a valid point, however by-catch is less than 1% of the total catch. That means the supertrawler will take less than 180 ton of by-catch. They have used science to improve by-catch mitigation, once again, covered in the research supplied by AMSA. My distant memory seems to recall that by-catch from prawn trawling is a lot more severe.

[TheRealAndy]

YES I HAVE READ IT and i cant believe what you come out with ,,,,,, where is your proof ,i cant believe i'm even answering you ,how can anyone even think about something like this ? if it sustainable then let it stay where it was ????????????????? are you for real ?


My proof is supplied on several occasions, but just in case you missed it, here it is again. http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/

[TREVELLY]

Andy science is not just science - it is propaganda.

Global warming is a classic example.

Now lets see we want something to happen but need science, so we poll 500 scientists and 495 are against our proposal but 5 are in favour - oh guess who gets the gig?

Now let me see this needs peer review - 95 are against our proposal but 5 are in favour - so who gets to peer review?

We are cinics and we have every reason to be life has taught us there is no pure science.

What I am stating is fundamental material taught in statistics at university - nothing special and classically used in industry.

How many decades did we have smoking doesn't cause cancer - have we gone to the other extreme now?

Yes I am an engineer and that makes me a scientist and yes I read enough environmental impact studies by scientists who amazingly are never against the proposals put forward by their employer but ever so carefully put in place a few cautionary clauses to make them environmentaly friendly.

I am a cinic and I am too old not to be.

I do not believe the numbers - they would definitley be done in a fashion to suit a favourable outcome as science does when large amounts of money are involved.

[TheRealAndy]

Andy science is not just science - it is propaganda.

Global warming is a classic example.

Now lets see we want something to happen but need science we poll 500 scientists and 495 are against our proposal but 5 are in favour - oh guess who gets the gig?

Now let me see this needs peer review - 95 are against our proposal but 5 are in favour - so who gets to peer review.

We are cinics and we have every reason to be life has tought us there is no pure science.

Yes I am an engineer and that makes me a scientist and yes I read enough environmental impact studies by scientists who amazingly are never against the proposals put forward by their employer but ever so carefully put in place a few cautionary clauses to make them environmantaly friendly.

I am a cinic and I am too old not to be.

I do not believe the numbers - they would definitley be done in a fashion to suit a favourable outcome as science does when large amounts of money are involved.

Ok, so we dont trust the science, then what do we do? Like I said earlier, we better close down the whole fishery just in case. That means you better stop fishing, just in case. I reckon science has done us pretty well to date, as an engineer you should be able to vouch for this.

BTW, An environmental impact study is not science, its a report done by an engineer, it may utilise science, but its far from it. But alas, this is getting of topic.

May I ask why you don't believe the numbers? As an engineer (not sure what type, so I cant provide an example), you no doubt use a lot of statistics. What's the difference?

[TREVELLY]

The difference is who collected the information and how they collected the information and was it fair or biased.

As i stated numbers are collected and information is used in a fashion that suits.

How do we get a fair outcome?

When dealing with opposing bodies you need a balance in the representation to ensure there is fairness, but the research and numbers are invariably done by those who stand to profit and as such they pick and chose who puts forward their argument.

Let the bodies who want this trawler but forward as many scientists as the opposition propose and see if they come up with concensus.

Similarly have an open and transparent peer review done in the same way so that there is balance to the review not vested interests.

Also have the science over a sustained period of time to avoid natural short-term cycles.

I am a structural design engineer - per my profile

[PADDLES]

andy's right, we need to be able to trust the science, but the science needs to be transparent and all methods need to be open to scrutiny. nothing is beyond corruption, even an environmental impact study can be manipulated to say what you want said. i do agree with andy though in that we should not descend into the depths of the historical "green" decision making process where science has very little to do with it and the world just gets shut down without thinking about it too much. i think that if these guys want to use their trawler then they should be able to do so if the science says it's sustainable, but i actually question the existence of any good data or study on the location and target species of this operation and can only relate to anecdotal evidence from around the world that says that this style of fishing is completely unsustainable, but again there's little science to support either side of this argument. i think maybe there's only two real options, the government simply bans this style of fishing from our waters and doesn't allow any of this type of vessel into our territorial waters, or they allow it to operate with government observers/scientists on board and use it's operations as a study to see what the impacts really are, whilst retaining the ability to shut it down at any time.

[SunnyCoastMark]

My proof is supplied on several occasions, but just in case you missed it, here it is again. http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-fisheries/fisheries-a-to-z-index/small-pelagic-fishery/publications/

OK Andy, Looking at the link you have provided, I already knew what I would find. how did I know - because I have some measure of knowledge & common sense gained from 50 years of life on this planet - most of them being involved in fishing. For the sake of time and expediency, I have copied and pasted some excerpts from this particular study. They pretty much back up exactly what I and several other posters have been saying.....



Spawning stock biomass of jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis) in south-eastern Australia is currently unknown. Accordingly, Commonwealth harvest strategies in place for this commercially-fished mackerel, along with that for the closely-related yellowtail scad (T. novaezelandiae), are likely to remain at Tier 2 until biomass estimates are obtained. The lack of stock information on jack mackerel prompted the author to seek external funding to attempt determine spawning biomass levels of this species applying the daily egg production method (DEPM).

The study presented a number of challenges due to the lack of key adult parameters required by the DEPM, including spawning fraction and batch fecundity. Another major hurdle constituted the lack of a species-specific temperature-dependent incubation model to assign ages to eggs according to developmental stage, as required when estimating daily egg production by area. Best estimates obtained during this study were thus based on the availability of pelagic eggs of jack mackerel collected during egg surveys carried out off south-eastern Australia in October 2002

However, test results proved highly ambiguous to separate eggs at the species level, with sequences returning positive matches (83-100%) for jack mackerel and yellowtail scad, as well as T. japonicus and T. trachurus which do not occur in Australasian waters. Such results led to relying on morphological descriptions based on New Zealand populations to identify jack mackerel eggs and distinguish these from those of the co-occurring yellowtail scad. Jack mackerel eggs were thus separated from those of yellowtail scad by their larger diameter, i.e. 0.93-1.04 c.f. 0.75-0.80 mm.

Results of this study indicate that DEPM is an appropriate technique to estimate spawning biomass of jack mackerel. However, the estimates reported here are considered negatively biased and thus largely imprecise, and hence need to be treated with due caution. Key problems leading to this uncertainty are: (1) lack of reproductive data for jack mackerel in south-eastern Australia; (2) absence of a species-specific temperature-dependent incubation model to age eggs; (3) the October 2002 egg survey was timed to study spawning dynamics of blue mackerel along shelf waters of Qld and NSW, and did not correspond to the peak spawning period of jack mackerel; and (4) sampling design during that survey was not optimal to apply DEPM for jack mackerel.

Main issues concerning each parameter employed to estimate spawning biomass of jack mackerel are discussed, and several recommendations provided in relation to future work, including the need to collect adult reproductive data as well as additional molecular tests to verify with certainty the identity of jack mackerel eggs.

I rest my case..................

[SunnyCoastMark]

Some more info:-

The main outcome of this project constitutes the provision of indicative spawning biomass estimates for the eastern zone jack mackerel. The estimates are aimed to address a major gap in understanding population characteristics of jack mackerel in south-eastern Australia, and are intended to underpin the decision-making process for the allocation of sustainable harvest levels of this pelagic resource. In addition, estimates are likely to assist the SPF Management and Resource Advisory groups in developing more scientifically-defensible catch limits for mackerels. This is particularly relevant to address serious concerns posed by recreational and conservation groups in relation to current harvest levels implemented for SPF species, particularly those assigned to jack mackerel (5,000 t eastern zone TAC) which are not scientifically based. Results of this study are also relevant to the impending expansion of the SPF fishery in south-eastern Australia, especially in terms of likely effects on other marine species and overall pelagic ecosystem.

Wow - what a surprise!! ::)- Seems my concerns about this are reiterated here. Meaning they are legitimate - not based on emotion after all....

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

You are cherry picking phrases again mark. If you want to try and argue from the scientific point of view refer to this paper referred to by another AF member: http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Analysis_of_jack_mackerel_biomass_estimates_(Wadsl ey,_August_2012).pdf

[Qlder1]

OK I have probably posted this link before but while we are on a science copy/paste....

The truth is out there as they say... trouble is there seem to be many "truths" ;)

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-fish-two-fish-red-fish-blue-fish-science-doesnt-support-the-super-trawler-9143

edit... this was published by Jessica Meeuwig, Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures at University of Western Australia

[Qlder1]

How do I delete a post

[TheRealAndy]

OK I have probably posted this link before but while we are on a science copy/paste....

The truth is out there as they say... trouble is there seem to be many "truths" ;)

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-fish-two-fish-red-fish-blue-fish-science-doesnt-support-the-super-trawler-9143

edit... this was published by Jessica Meeuwig, Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures at University of Western Australia

I think lovey80 touched on this in the last post. Interstingly enough, the author once again the author makes a whole bunch of claims but fails to back them up with any data. IF OTOH, it was a scientific paper, then it would hold a lot more credibility in my eyes. BTW, do a google search on Jessica Meeuwi ;) The uncertainty of the estimates is documented in the research, and the quota is half the sustainable amount based on the lower limits of that research IIRC.

[SunnyCoastMark]

Phrases??!! - I have copied whole paragraphs. You gave us the link. Which states as we have been alluding to - that the estimates given are largely imprecise...........ergo - the science is limited by the available data and therefore is barely even worth the paper it is written on.....

The only benefit is to make a few people in governement sleep a little better at night, thinking they have followed procedure before signing off on another questionable decision.....

If you want to argue science with more science - that is a never ending path around a mountain.

Be

[NAGG]

Yup, you have a valid point, however by-catch is less than 1% of the total catch. That means the supertrawler will take less than 180 ton of by-catch. They have used science to improve by-catch mitigation, once again, covered in the research supplied by AMSA. My distant memory seems to recall that by-catch from prawn trawling is a lot more severe.

Andy - I really struggle with the bycatch figures & any science associated with the number ........ I've been around long enough & seen way too many examples in person where the bycatch ends up being considerably more than the target species eg Salmon being netted at port Kembla and the school contained more kingfish (undersized) than Salmon - South West Rocks - Mullet school that were full of tailor / bream / mulloway - Bermagui where two trawlers came in with decks littered with undersized kingfish , trevally & dory ...the following day the sea off the coast was littered with dead fish - toads & other bycatch. Then the amount of juvenile snapper , bream , mulloway that I've seen come out of trawl prawn nets - My recent trip to Hervey Bay where we came accross the end result of tailor netting .. hundreds & hundreds of dead undersized tailor.

Yes nets have been improved ( as in to let out smaller fish) - but it is still indiscriminate & the super trawler wont know if they have jack mackeral or juvenile yellowfin tuna .... dolphins or anything else ........ & what ever is caught will be mostly killed anyway . 150 tonne (1%) is still a hell of a lot of fish that need not have been killed! .... the bycatch rates in reality would be much higher . The only form of netting that is sustainable is like how they harvest bluefin tuna these days - the fish are netted , kept alive and grown out.

No - keep the super trawler away from our waters ...... no good can come from it!

Chris

[Qlder1]

You are cherry picking phrases again mark. If you want to try and argue from the scientific point of view refer to this paper referred to by another AF member: http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/Analysis_of_jack_mackerel_biomass_estimates_(Wadsl ey,_August_2012).pdf

Now you have really confused me Andy, the above link, (which I think I posted here a while ago??) supports the theory that the new quota is not sustainable....are you agreeing with this assessment or are you going to discount Dr Wadsley as well as Prof Meeuwi??

[Qlder1]

Also the publication from AFMA site (Neira) that you posted earlier in this tread has a couple of interesting paragraphs(yes I am Cherry Picking;) )

Current information regarding the status of jack mackerel stocks in south-eastern Australia is limited. This particularly relevant to Tasmania, where the disappearance of large surface/sub-surface schools in the early 90s ended a productive purse-seine fishery with reported peak catches over 40,000 t in 86/87. With catches not exceeding ~3,000 t since 1999/2000, the sudden decline was described as climate induced, with the assumed shrinkage and dispersal of jack mackerel schools implying a possible shift in spawning pattern due to changes in key physical and biological drivers (Harris et al., 1987, 1992)."

and

Results of this study indicate that DEPM is an appropriate technique to estimate
spawning biomass of jack mackerel. However, the estimates reported here are
considered negatively biased and thus largely imprecise, and hence need to be
treated with due caution. Key problems leading to this uncertainty are: (1) lack of
reproductive data for jack mackerel in south-eastern Australia; (2) absence of a
species-specific temperature-dependent incubation model to age eggs; (3) the
October 2002 egg survey was timed to study spawning dynamics of blue mackerel
along shelf waters of Qld and NSW, and did not correspond to the peak spawning
period of jack mackerel; and (4) sampling design during that survey was not
optimal to apply DEPM for jack mackerel. Given the biology distribution of jack
mackerel in south-eastern Australia, three key aspects will need to be considered
in future DEPM applications to provide biomass estimates for this species: (1)
spawning of the south-eastern Australia stock may take place progressively south
towards eastern Tasmania and possibly peak in summer; (2) the region defined as
spawning area in October 2002 comprises a fraction of the entire area at peak
spawning, which is likely to include eastern Bass Strait and Tasmania; and (3) daily
egg production estimated at the start of the spawning season may not be as high as
when the bulk of spawning takes place. Main issues concerning each parameter
employed to estimate spawning biomass of jack mackerel are discussed, and
several recommendations provided in relation to future work, including the need
to collect adult reproductive data as well as additional molecular tests to verify
with certainty the identity of jack mackerel eggs.

I am def. no scientist but reading these statements, while they can be taken either for or against the updated quota, surely the science done proves that there is a need for more detailed and updated studies before risking the fishery.

[TheRealAndy]

Now you have really confused me Andy, the above link, (which I think I posted here a while ago??) supports the theory that the new quota is not sustainable....are you agreeing with this assessment or are you going to discount Dr Wadsley as well as Prof Meeuwi??

What that paper says is that the stsistics have a greater error than the initial paper suggested. These guys are reviewing the statics.

@nagg, the <1% bycatch comes from research done on current purse seine netting in the small pelagic fishery.

[SunnyCoastMark]

OK I have probably posted this link before but while we are on a science copy/paste....

The truth is out there as they say... trouble is there seem to be many "truths" ;)

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-fish-two-fish-red-fish-blue-fish-science-doesnt-support-the-super-trawler-9143

edit... this was published by Jessica Meeuwig, Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures at University of Western Australia

Hey Andy,
What does this article do for you? here we have a professor offering her opinion, which not surprisingly is pretty much the same as my own. She just has the credentials to back it up.

Should not having recognised credentials negate or lessen the value of mine or anyone else's commonsense, logical reasoning? - No of course not.

Right is right and wrong is wrong - no matter what science you throw at it.

[Qlder1]

Andy if I can ask you a question, do you agree or discount Dr Wadsleys conclusions?

btw here is the last part of it.

30. The Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch Determination 2012 of 10,100 t for jack
mackerel is based on unreliable statistical analysis and is unsafe.

[shauno555]

Reading everything here makes me laugh. I'm sorry Andy but your comments are going around in circles. Yes we should rely on science. But it's hard to rely on it when the key researcher comes out and says it was only an estimate and no actual research had been done. And then to find out that one of the owners are affiliated with the super trawler. Yeah that's really promising.
Your name says you are the real Andy. If so think real!!! Why do we want something taking our fish when it gives us nothing in return. Even if it doesn't affect our ecosystem.
How many australians lost their jobs because they couldn't work on this trawler?
You may not be backing up the trawler. But how can you back up inconclusive science??

I'm no scientist and I barely kno what a lot of it means but can see when something isn't right within the research.

This is just opinion.

[TheRealAndy]

Andy if I can ask you a question, do you agree or discount Dr Wadsleys conclusions?

btw here is the last part of it.

30. The Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch Determination 2012 of 10,100 t for jack
mackerel is based on unreliable statistical analysis and is unsafe.


He could be correct in his review, but it was just a knee jerk response to what is happening and was published in a newspaper, not a journal. There has been further suggestion to say that the statistical modelling does not align with what has been used in the AFMA published papers and therefore is incorrect. I cant agree or disagree with that, as my understanding of statistics is not that broad.

I am surprised no one has made the link to the conflict of interest beween Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen and AFMA ;) If you look at the approval process, there is some question as if it was done legally anyway.

[edit] had a bunch of links to responses, but edited them out by accident. Google will turn up the responses to Wadsley.

[TheRealAndy]

I'm no scientist and I barely kno what a lot of it means but can see when something isn't right within the research.


If you dont know, then how can you say it isn't right?

[TREVELLY]

You are a fisherman Andy - have a nice day ;D

[TheRealAndy]

You are a fisherman Andy - have a nice day ;D

I was a fisherman, but I dont fish much anymore cause my old haunts are green zones ;)

For those who question the scientific process, have a good read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[SunnyCoastMark]

Hey Conco46,
Haven't heard from you since the first page? - Are you educated yet?

[netmaker]

i am suspicious of "science". our new snapper regs were introduced on the back of a knee-jerk 3 month ban. it seems science can evolve at a rapid rate when it is deemed required. likewise green zone science moved along rapidly. science brought us the cane toad (via the cane beetle) and a myriad of other pests.
if anyone has a short memory about the annihilation of orange roughy and the current "science" that allows this species to still be commercially harvested, spend a minute here: http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=358
these fish allegedly live to 150 years and do not breed until they are 25-30. the fact they are still being harvested is shameful.

[TheRealAndy]

i am suspicious of "science". our new snapper regs were introduced on the back of a knee-jerk 3 month ban. it seems science can evolve at a rapid rate when it is deemed required. likewise green zone science moved along rapidly. science brought us the cane toad (via the cane beetle) and a myriad of other pests.
if anyone has a short memory about the annihilation of orange roughy and the current "science" that allows this species to still be commercially harvested, spend a minute here: http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=358
these fish allegedly live to 150 years and do not breed until they are 25-30. the fact they are still being harvested is shameful.

The snapper science was quite sound. Used commercial and rec catch data going back some 50 odd years. But hey, I have done this argument before. Recs dont trust science, Greens dont use science. Its got me beat.

[TREVELLY]

Hey Conco46,
Haven't heard from you since the first page? - Are you educated yet?

He should be:-

Statistically we have had:-

1 person who said they didn't care whether it came or not but is convinced beyond reason that the science no matter how poor supports this coming - so it should be allowed.

14 others who are concerned at the damage it will do, see the science as shonky along with other problems such as bycatch and say we don't want it.

62 posts and 30% of them from the one person who doesn't care if it comes or not but continues to argue that the propaganda (i mean vague and sketchy science and poorly gathered one sided statistics) supports bringing it so let it in.

So put to a vote this thread statistically shows 30% support for the trawler, so lets do it!!

I think the picture is clear that the noisey minority will always get heard regardless of their grounds and whether they are right or wrong (usually wrong).

I had better go fishing before the noisey minority completely screw it for all of us - cheers :)

[NAGG]

science hey ? .....
where are the controlled conditions ?

A lot of the so called science when it comes to fish biomass is a "snap shot" - that snap shot can change completely from year to year and altered by conditions .
Unless scientific data is based on ongoing research over a extended period of time the data is only of limited use. ........ How much marine biomass research falls into the area of good & reliable data ?

Chris

[TREVELLY]

If only we had one more person that really doesn't care whether this trawler comes or not and they put in their 30% of replies supporting bringing it in then we could statistically say 60% of responses support the trawler so bring it on.

Aren't statistics great - we could have 2 people who don't care but write too often in favour and 14 people who do care and don't want the thing yet statistically we could report 60% of responses supported it.

So we should trust the science, trust the statistics.

Only yesterday we heard the GBR is cactus - give us $500 million to study it and fix it. Not too long ago they said it was great - not too long before they said it was cactus again - bet they were all scientists basing their absolute and correct views on the science they looked at and all correct too. Have they studied the GBR - you can bet they should know a lot more about it than our southern ocean and still they don't seem to have concensus.

Trust the science - :LMAO:

Scientists are becoming self funding scare-mongering propaganda machines and losing all credibility.

Scientists are too closely aligned with vested interest groups and politicians.

[SunnyCoastMark]

the snapper science was quite sound. Used commercial and rec catch data going back some 50 odd years. But hey, i have done this argument before. Recs dont trust science, greens dont use science. Its got me beat.

:LMAO::LMAO::LMAO::LMAO::LMAO::LMAO::hammer::hamme r::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer::hammer:


Not to get off topic - but that is the most ridculous statement yet. It is common knowledge and a matter of record, that the snapper science was the biggest load of rubbish ever contrived....


Unbelievable..........................

Mark

Oh and BTW - the Greens absolutely use science - especially when it strengthens their position. In other words, they are selective about the science they use.

[netmaker]

The snapper science was quite sound. Used commercial and rec catch data going back some 50 odd years. But hey, I have done this argument before. Recs dont trust science, Greens dont use science. Its got me beat.

andy, your reply re snapper regs is noted. having worked prawn trawlers 25 years ago i am somewhat qualified to state that catch data WAS NOT recorded 25 years ago - at least on the dozen odd vessels i worked on at the time. i know that has since improved but recreational catch data was and still is a collection of guesses at best.
do you have any comment regarding the ongoing science sanctioning the extinction of orange roughy?
cheers
davo

[Noelm]

I guess what it comes down to is... Science holds credibility, hear say and emotion does not, just because (say) Andy says he believes what is going on is correct, based on science, does NOT make him an outcast in the eyes of rec fishos, pro V rec, Greens V everyone else wars have raged for years, and will continue to rage for years to come, I tend to go Andy's way, in so much as it is documented evidence, even though it may be skewed and collected to suit the purpose, it still holds more water than rants and emotional outbursts from "us" recs. OK, steel cap boots on, flack jacket done up tight, hard had strapped on, let the stone throwing begin!

[netmaker]

let he without blame cast the first stone lol. at the end of the day, i believe you are correct. science is what we use to make decisions. unfortunately, as science has proved many times through history, science itself is flawed. how many times can we look back and say: "yep, we got that wrong, we should have done things differently?" how many hundreds of species have we managed to eradicate through "bad" science? hindsight is a wonderful thing. i cringe to think how our generations will appear to those we leave this world to.

[TREVELLY]

The sad thing is we can do the science right but chose not to.

[PADDLES]

hey i've got an ideal substitute for science in the government decision making process .................................................. ......... let's use religion .......................

[Qlder1]

I think I may have said this before on this thread, but I would not argue with this trawler being here if there was up to date, unbiased science supporting its sustainability, as well as no evidence of shady deals or conflict of interests.... and that is what the Govt. is doing.

As for studies of fish populations and estimating biomass, I read somewhere that a scientist said its like counting trees in a forest , except you can't see them and they keep moving....;);)

[cod_botherer]

There are problems with recreational fishing. Let me back that up under several categories:

Observations from experience:
I see a lot of other people keeping small fish when I’m fishing
I often find discarded nylon line in the water
Lead is poisonous; lots of lead sinkers go missing in the water
I catch less fish than I did twenty years ago
The fish I catch now are smaller
I have to go further to catch fish

Obvious things a schoolkid could see:
There are thousands of rec fishos fishing every day, which must add up to tons of fish which is unsustainable
Fish must get injured by hooks even if they are released
You can’t trust people to only take their limit
Some people throw out frozen fish months after it was caught, this is wasteful

Other side effects:
Some boats leak oil and petrol into the water
Wash from boats can cause erosion and mangrove damage
Tons of bait is collected each year. Squid, pilchards, prawns, worms, shellfish; all terrible “by-catch”
Boats sometimes injure or kill dolphins, turtles and dugongs

Recreational fishing is indiscriminate, wasteful and a threat to the marine environment. There is little doubt that it should be banned.

Ok, paddles, robo, SunnyCoastMark, Trevally are you getting Andy’s original point yet?

And Andy, try to stay on your original point, it’s well made but you’re getting muddy by fighting with pigs

[Gazza]

IMO :rifle: ;D

I just think needing ~15,000T ??(i think) to break even .....
Is a WASTE of resource(however plentiful) and a BAD Business case.:thumbsdown:

i.e. Gazzas' ::) , food-chain buffer-stock theory :P

[SunnyCoastMark]

There are problems with recreational fishing. Let me back that up under several categories:

Observations from experience:
I see a lot of other people keeping small fish when I’m fishing
I often find discarded nylon line in the water
Lead is poisonous; lots of lead sinkers go missing in the water
I catch less fish than I did twenty years ago
The fish I catch now are smaller
I have to go further to catch fish

Obvious things a schoolkid could see:
There are thousands of rec fishos fishing every day, which must add up to tons of fish which is unsustainable
Fish must get injured by hooks even if they are released
You can’t trust people to only take their limit
Some people throw out frozen fish months after it was caught, this is wasteful

Other side effects:
Some boats leak oil and petrol into the water
Wash from boats can cause erosion and mangrove damage
Tons of bait is collected each year. Squid, pilchards, prawns, worms, shellfish; all terrible “by-catch”
Boats sometimes injure or kill dolphins, turtles and dugongs

Recreational fishing is indiscriminate, wasteful and a threat to the marine environment. There is little doubt that it should be banned.

Ok, paddles, robo, SunnyCoastMark, Trevally are you getting Andy’s original point yet?

And Andy, try to stay on your original point, it’s well made but you’re getting muddy by fighting with pigs


As far as I can see - your post is largely made up of emotive, unsubstantiated claims . WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??!!

Fighting with Pigs.....Really?

So your first contribution to this topic is to call 4 members of this board pigs?

Who are you? - I don't recall you or any of your posts and doubt if you have had any positive input on this forum.

Go back to where ever it was you came from......

[cod_botherer]

As far as I can see - your post is largely made up of emotive, unsubstantiated claims . WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??!!

Fighting with Pigs.....Really?

So your first contribution to this topic is to call 4 members of this board pigs?

Who are you? - I don't recall you or any of your posts and doubt if you have had any positive input on this forum.

Go back ito where ever it was your came from......

Oink! Oink!

[TREVELLY]

Okay so it has denegraded to the level a DH troll - I am out of this one - clown!

[cod_botherer]

Okay so it has denegraded to the level a DH troll - I am out of this one - clown!

I would like to unreservedly apologise for any implication that SunnyCoastMark or any other member of this forum is a pig. It was wrong and with the benefit of hindsight I would like to withdraw the remark. The “Oink Oink”, while comedic genius in its own way, further exacerbated my insensitive and reprehensible remark, and that, I also withdraw.

[Gazza]

Geez , handbags @ 2paces girls *rolleyes*

[Triple]

The Abel Tasman was licensed to take 18,000 tonnes of mainly mackerel and red bait fish, using 600-metre nets.

Asked if the government's concern was about the size of the vessel or the quota, Mr Burke said a fishing ship with a large freezer capacity and the ability to stay in one place for a long period created “a different set of environmental factors”.

“It's not a small vessel going in and out of port.”

Did they reduce or increase the allowable catch quota for all trawlers in the area after it got banned or did the 18000 tonnes get added back into to the yearly limit down there for other trawlers? If not what is the difference between 1 super trawler or 25 smaller trawlers taking the same quota? Can someone explain “a different set of environmental factors” and the science behind that comment?

[Gazza]

See triple , we can rid ourselves of woolies/coles and have heaps more "Independent Operators" , or do we actually "need them".....and a fish-factory is the latest MUST HAVE ?
p.s. i believe zero/zip/NIL catch will be available to Oz residents ??

[TheRealAndy]

hey i've got an ideal substitute for science in the government decision making process .................................................. ......... let's use religion .......................

Isn't green the new religion! (Sorry OT I know).

[cod_botherer]

Anyway back to the real topic, I have a pet piglet called Henry. He's 9 weeks old. When I showed him my original post he said he thought it was somewhat instructive of the argument but he was concerned about the subtlety. Further discourse revealed that he was uneasy that someone might reply to the effect that I was being emotive and without proof, thereby entirely missing the irony. Eventually I agreed with Henry, hence my earlier apology to him.

[PADDLES]

my god, CB i think i understand your comments and they're maybe not what people are thinking they are at face value, but frikken hell i haven't had to try this hard to interpret a post since some of FNQ's ones from a few years back.

am i correct in thinking that the real point of your post is that for the various unsubstantiated reasons you have listed, you have hypothetically created a knee jerk argument for recreational fishing to be banned? and you are using this to highlight how easy it would be for people to make an equally knee jerk decision to not allow mega trawlers to operate in australian waters.

well you'll get no argument from me my friend, knee jerks are bad, but unfortunately are the cornerstone of australian political survival, keep enough of the greater unwashed happy and you'll have a job for another few years.

my main argument is that if this ship being allowed to trawl were to pave the way for more of this style of ship to be allowed to operate, then how quickly would the reporting systems react to the damage that they may or may not be doing to the fishery? could the horse have actually bolted by the time we realise the gate's been left open?

[Matthias]

^^^ thankyou- saves me having to think of something to write =)

[TheRealAndy]

He should be:-

Statistically we have had:-

1 person who said they didn't care whether it came or not but is convinced beyond reason that the science no matter how poor supports this coming - so it should be allowed.

14 others who are concerned at the damage it will do, see the science as shonky along with other problems such as bycatch and say we don't want it.

62 posts and 30% of them from the one person who doesn't care if it comes or not but continues to argue that the propaganda (i mean vague and sketchy science and poorly gathered one sided statistics) supports bringing it so let it in.

So put to a vote this thread statistically shows 30% support for the trawler, so lets do it!!

I think the picture is clear that the noisey minority will always get heard regardless of their grounds and whether they are right or wrong (usually wrong).

I had better go fishing before the noisey minority completely screw it for all of us - cheers :)

Dont worry Trevally, there are others here that understand my point, including some fisheries scientists. Most don't bother posting anymore because they have been beaten up here in the past.

Like I said, the argument from science holds credibility, shouting it down based on opinion and hearsay is exactly what the greens do. My point was that it should be argued based on science (yup, even if discrediting the AFMA science, provided its done correctly) and/or economics. The rec fishing community should not lower themselves to the same standard as the greens, it makes us no better than them. I don't have an issue with people saying the science is not correct, or needs more information, but if you do, make sure you can back up what you are saying with fact, not opinion.

I like to use the example of the MBMP, yup there was "science" (and I use that term lightly in this context, perhaps I should say faux science) done, but it was just a research paper from a uni student. It was not real science because the state government refused to release teh paper, so how the hell could it be reviewed? The areas were shut down because the greens wanted it shut down, just in case there was a problem in the future. Ad ignorantiam or as its known in the green circles, the "Precautionary Principle". So when the rec fishing community say they don't want the super trawler here just because it might affect the fishery, it means they too are applying the precautionary principle, the great green fallacy.

[PADDLES]

CB, how many weeks before henry is big enough for an apple to fit in his mouth?

[cod_botherer]

CB, how many weeks before henry is big enough for an apple to fit in his mouth?

Excellent question. I love it when you ham it up.

Well, let's see...personally I always find a pig on a spit a bit distasteful, so usually I'd want to get Henry up to around baconer size, say 85kg with about 23mm back fat. Delicious.

[cod_botherer]

my god, CB i think i understand your comments and they're maybe not what people are thinking they are at face value, but frikken hell i haven't had to try this hard to interpret a post since some of FNQ's ones from a few years back.

am i correct in thinking that the real point of your post is that for the various unsubstantiated reasons you have listed, you have hypothetically created a knee jerk argument for recreational fishing to be banned? and you are using this to highlight how easy it would be for people to make an equally knee jerk decision to not allow mega trawlers to operate in australian waters.

well you'll get no argument from me my friend, knee jerks are bad, but unfortunately are the cornerstone of australian political survival, keep enough of the greater unwashed happy and you'll have a job for another few years.

my main argument is that if this ship being allowed to trawl were to pave the way for more of this style of ship to be allowed to operate, then how quickly would the reporting systems react to the damage that they may or may not be doing to the fishery? could the horse have actually bolted by the time we realise the gate's been left open?

Henry says he thinks you've got it.

The last time the horse bolted from here he tried to go with it but couldn't keep up. He agrees horses are an untrustworthy animal but he can't see how the farm would run without them.

[TheRealAndy]

It is common knowledge and a matter of record, that the snapper science was the biggest load of rubbish ever contrived....



Why? Have you got any reason for this, or just opinion once again?

[PADDLES]

so close supervision of the horse may stop it going out the gate or at least let henry close the gate if the horse does try to do a runner. i guess henry not being able to keep up with the horse still sits in my mind as being quite risky ..................... maybe some hobbles would be a good solution in addition to constant surveillance of the gate ........................ the farm would be able to run a little less efficiently with a hobbled horse but at least it couldn't bolt without being seen or captured ............... heaps less running around for henry, and let's face it he will be wanting to avoid excercise if he's to get that 23mm of back fat

[cod_botherer]

Paddles, we are so glad you have got into the spirit! Henry says he is as happy as a pig in shit - but then he would, wouldn't he?

So we like your ideas so much we have come up with a plan. The first thing is hobbling: the bad news is, while we think it's a great idea, we are not experts in horse hobbling efficiency ratios or how to calculate them. The good news is that apparently some smarter people have spent their entire lives looking at the problem, some even have a PhD - who would have thought? So we'll get them to come up with the best advice. Of course it's our money, not theirs, so we'll make sure they come up with something conservative. Then we're gonna check up on their calcs periodically and adjust as necessary. Henry is excited. He even wants to have a permanent guard to check what's going on. Honestly I've never met a rasher piglet.

Secondly, we further discussed the lock on the gate. Henry thought it best that we check that's it's working every 3 years or so and if we don't like it we'll throw it out. Hope that doesn't get too complicated.

I should also say that Henry won't be exercising too much, he read my previous post and has gone quite off his food too.

[robo55]

c.b. call me what you like but crikey use ya brains think about taking the bait away nothing follows then what do we hear you cry? andy wow what to say the real andy are you really for real ,since when has the govt ever told truth and what science as i said why is itr half way round the world if the stocks where it has been is still ok ,i have friends in england and they can tell you what it's like , as you said you were once a fisherman so what now you dont care ,,well i'd have to say you a very sad sort of fisherman who can say you dont care whether it here or not we gain nothing from it cant you get that into your head ,we fought hard down here to get info from pollies if you could read what they wrote it bit like you they not real sure ,, maybe you and cb could go back join your circus

[cobiaman]

Can someone interpret in english please???

[SunnyCoastMark]

c.b. call me what you like but crikey use ya brains think about taking the bait away nothing follows then what do we hear you cry? andy wow what to say the real andy are you really for real ,since when has the govt ever told truth and what science as i said why is itr half way round the world if the stocks where it has been is still ok ,i have friends in england and they can tell you what it's like , as you said you were once a fisherman so what now you dont care ,,well i'd have to say you a very sad sort of fisherman who can say you dont care whether it here or not we gain nothing from it cant you get that into your head ,we fought hard down here to get info from pollies if you could read what they wrote it bit like you they not real sure ,, maybe you and cb could go back join your circus

Now look what you've done Andy - robo55 has gone away & tried to find this "mystical science" that you speak of and his brain has turned to mush.............:o::)

Hope you are satisfied now...........:P;D

Mark

[cod_botherer]

Can someone interpret in english please???

No problem cobiaman.

CB, I am happy for you to disagree with me, but I think you need to give it more thought. If we remove all the biomass of a bait species, larger predatory fish will suffer. What will happen then I hear you say?

As to you Andy, perhaps your moniker is a misnomer. I believe the government is untrustworthy. As previously stated, there are other parts of the world where this type of fishing has decimated stocks while governments allow it. Some of my very dear acquaintances in mother Britain are in a position to confirm this.

In any event, I am disturbed that you say you are not a fishermen anymore, it saddens me to be frank. It implies that you no longer care if this trawler is here or not. I would like to reiterate that we attain no benefit from allowing it to plunder our resources, and I'm surprised you can't see that. In the southern states, we have mounted a concerted campaign to reveal information from political sources. If you could read the data we have been given, you would see that, like you they are not entirely sure of the outcomes.

Perhaps you and CB should concentrate on your real vocation, travelling entertainment.

[PADDLES]

so C_B, do you have a firm opinion on this ship? it appears you have an opinion on this style of fishing? what do you really think? how do you think this should be managed? straight english opinion please, no horses, pigs or farms.

personally, i don't know what to think. on the one hand i'd love to think that the government knows enough about fisheries management to make an informed decision on this issue. on the other, it's been shown that these things can wreck the place, but usually this is where there is very little management.

there is a third stakeholder here, the many smaller boats/operators/livelihoods that this ship will suddenly replace in the total quota.

[netmaker]

will be a sad day when the stake holders are just steak holders

[cod_botherer]

so C_B, do you have a firm opinion on this ship? it appears you have an opinion on this style of fishing? what do you really think? how do you think this should be managed? straight english opinion please, no horses, pigs or farms.

personally, i don't know what to think. on the one hand i'd love to think that the government knows enough about fisheries management to make an informed decision on this issue. on the other, it's been shown that these things can wreck the place, but usually this is where there is very little management.

there is a third stakeholder here, the many smaller boats/operators/livelihoods that this ship will suddenly replace in the total quota.

Paddles, I only really got involved to back up the idea that reason should triumph over reactionary hearsay.

But since you asked me a straight question, I’ll be straight.

After six years of due process including scientific analysis, expense and conditional approval up the ying yang, this boat has been blocked by a twitter campaign run by mis-informed, politically obsessed, far-left, sandal wearing inner-city latte sippers who have possibly never been in a boat.

As a brief aside, some of you may know that the original hastily written legislation to block the boat after the twitter scare was to allow the minister to ban any fishing, of any type, anywhere he saw fit (paraphrasing a bit). Thankfully this was opposed and amended, can you imagine the consequences?

What has not been discussed on this forum is sovereign risk. Who now wants to invest in Australia after this debacle? If we keep doing this, we won’t be able to afford to fish, full stop.

As a general principle, I think resources should be exploited provided they are carefully managed, unless you want to live by candle light and walk everywhere.

[PADDLES]

i agree C_B

[Matthias]

Finally some people with half a brain!

[SunnyCoastMark]

Paddles, I only really got involved to back up the idea that reason should triumph over reactionary hearsay.

But since you asked me a straight question, I’ll be straight.

After six years of due process including scientific analysis, expense and conditional approval up the ying yang, this boat has been blocked by a twitter campaign run by mis-informed, politically obsessed, far-left, sandal wearing inner-city latte sippers who have possibly never been in a boat.

As a brief aside, some of you may know that the original hastily written legislation to block the boat after the twitter scare was to allow the minister to ban any fishing, of any type, anywhere he saw fit (paraphrasing a bit). Thankfully this was opposed and amended, can you imagine the consequences?

What has not been discussed on this forum is sovereign risk. Who now wants to invest in Australia after this debacle? If we keep doing this, we won’t be able to afford to fish, full stop.

As a general principle, I think resources should be exploited provided they are carefully managed, unless you want to live by candle light and walk everywhere.

Not sure if "exploited" is the right word?. but yes our resources can certainly be used if well managed with the aid of unbiased complete science.

Obviously the preference is by Australian interests for Australian interests. The whole idea of an overseas conglomerate setting up shop here to take our fish and send them back overseas, is the main bug bear for me.

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

Not sure if "exploited" is the right word?.
Mark

From the oxford dictionary :
Definition of exploit
verb
Pronunciation: /ɪkˈsplɔɪt, ɛk-/ [with object]
1 make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource):

[MudRiverDan]

Not sure if "exploited" is the right word?. but yes our resources can certainly be used if well managed with the aid of unbiased complete science.

Obviously the preference is by Australian interests for Australian interests. The whole idea of an overseas conglomerate setting up shop here to take our fish and send them back overseas, is the main bug bear for me.

Mark

Yes it is kind of funny, for years we were told of the great threat of fishermen from the North coming to Australian waters in their tin shanty punts catching a few sharks.

Now we got a boat the size of the Opera house here and it is all okely dokely..

Of course we would have to question this.

Dan

[MudRiverDan]

Here are some links.

Environmental Economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_economics

Ecological Economics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_economics

I wonder which one they are going with?


Dan

[NorthC]

4 Corners - ABC 1 - tonight 8:30pm (as in now)

[TheRealAndy]

Linky: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/18/3613408.htm

[TheRealAndy]

Graeme Pike is a champ, "In my opinion", "My feeling", etc. Typical green arguments.

[robo55]

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/margiris59001.jpg
It seems to me there is a connection between the much-publicised trial of earthquake scientists in Italy, and the “background to the science” paper published on the small pelagic fishery by seven senior Australian fishery scientists.

In Italy, it appears that the scientific panel charged with informing the public on earthquake risk refrained from presenting a “full picture” of the risk quite deliberately, in order to counter what they perceived as “public hysteria”.

I fully support the Italian judge’s sentencing of the scientists. Although they perceived that their role included a responsibility to calm the public, this was a responsibility which they adopted quite voluntarily. In fact their charter was simply to provide the public with a balanced and comprehensive statement of the risk. They failed in this respect, with unfortunate results.

In the same way, the seven scientists authoring the “background to the science” paper, as I pointed out at length in the my submission (here) (http://tasmaniantimes.com/www.onlyoneplanet.com/marineHonestFisheriesManagement_3.doc) to Ministers Burke and Ludwig, deliberately refrained from disclosing the full picture - one presumes in an effort to quiet what they perceived as public hysteria in relation to the imminent arrival of the supertrawler “Margiris”.

In my view scientists should stick to science, and leave “calming the public” to politicians.
Download:
marineHonestFisheriesManagement_4.doc (http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/marineHonestFisheriesManagement_4.doc)
*Earlier on Tasmanian Times (includes links to bio of Dr Nevill):
• Celebrations are premature over the Margiris (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/celebrations-are-premature-over-the-margiris/)
• Borthwick fisheries review compromised? (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/borthwick-fisheries-review-integrity-compromised/)
First published: 2012-10-26 09:15 AM

[TheRealAndy]

http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/margiris59001.jpg
It seems to me there is a connection between the much-publicised trial of earthquake scientists in Italy, and the “background to the science” paper published on the small pelagic fishery by seven senior Australian fishery scientists.

In Italy, it appears that the scientific panel charged with informing the public on earthquake risk refrained from presenting a “full picture” of the risk quite deliberately, in order to counter what they perceived as “public hysteria”.

I fully support the Italian judge’s sentencing of the scientists. Although they perceived that their role included a responsibility to calm the public, this was a responsibility which they adopted quite voluntarily. In fact their charter was simply to provide the public with a balanced and comprehensive statement of the risk. They failed in this respect, with unfortunate results.

In the same way, the seven scientists authoring the “background to the science” paper, as I pointed out at length in the my submission (here) (http://tasmaniantimes.com/www.onlyoneplanet.com/marineHonestFisheriesManagement_3.doc) to Ministers Burke and Ludwig, deliberately refrained from disclosing the full picture - one presumes in an effort to quiet what they perceived as public hysteria in relation to the imminent arrival of the supertrawler “Margiris”.

In my view scientists should stick to science, and leave “calming the public” to politicians.
Download:
marineHonestFisheriesManagement_4.doc (http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/marineHonestFisheriesManagement_4.doc)
*Earlier on Tasmanian Times (includes links to bio of Dr Nevill):
• Celebrations are premature over the Margiris (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/celebrations-are-premature-over-the-margiris/)
• Borthwick fisheries review compromised? (http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/article/borthwick-fisheries-review-integrity-compromised/)
First published: 2012-10-26 09:15 AM


Who wrote that?

Edit. Ok, looks like John Neville. Pot calling the kettle black.

The paper reviewed:



Review of this paper:

Professor Colin Buxton (University of Tasmania) was invited to comment on this paper in draft form. In reply he stated that: “I do not share your views and in fact disagree with many of your statements and interpretations.” However beyond that he offered no specific comment (email 24/9/2012). Professor Craig Johnson (also University of Tasmania) was likewise invited and his comments are available as document 2.43b at http://www.onlyoneplanet.com/marine.htm.

Well document 2.43b is not available on the website as suggested.

I need to have a good read of that paper, it looks like there may be some valid points regarding the science, but sounds like someone is throwing a tantrum. His reference to the Italian scientists is poor form and incorrect also. Sounds like a scientist pushing an agenda, maybe he should stick to science and not politics, or should that be the otherway around? ;)

[robo55]

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2005/05/01/veronica_wideweb__430x265.jpg"Death ship" ... the catching capacity of Veronica had greens in a spin.



The super trawler has backed off, but not before lighting a fire under the fishing industry. Robert Wainwright reports.
It seemed such a bland end to a confrontation that offered so much. News that the fishing super trawler the Veronica is up for sale in Iceland appears to have ended controversial plans by the Irish fishing kingpin Kevin McHugh to bring one of the world's biggest fishing trawlers to Australia.
The website of the Icelandic shipbrokers Alasund was sparse in its description of the giant vessel. The dimensions, tonnage and horsepower bore none of the colourful descriptions used by protesting fishermen and environmentalists when the Herald first reported last August McHugh's well-established plans to trawl virtually untouched fishing grounds for migratory fish such as mackerel.
"Death ship" seemed a much more appropriate description for a vessel the size of a football field and able to stay at sea for months as it sucked up hundreds of tonnes of fish and processed them into frozen blocks via three onboard factories.
Revelations that the boat was being moored in Cape Town while it was fitted out and a crew assembled for its journey across the Indian Ocean sparked cries of outrage and hasty determinations by four state governments that it wouldn't be allowed into state waters. The Geelong docks, where the boat was likely to be based, were preparing for mass protests against a ship credited with more fish kills than any other.
AdvertisementAdvertisement
But it never came. Blocked by a Federal Government freeze on licences for new boats to fish in Commonwealth waters extending 200 kilometres off the coastline, McHugh withdrew - reluctantly and temporarily, he said. Now it seems certain.
The Alasund website did not say how much McHugh wants for his beloved vessel, named after his wife. It didn't even mention the $35 million it cost the former electrician from Killybegs on the west coast of Ireland to build 11 years ago.
The impact of the Veronica on Australia's fragile fishing industry has been significant, even if the boat never came in. There was evidence of this in Canberra last week, when Australia's industry leaders gathered to discuss the future of the fishery known as small pelagics. The trawler and its owner may be off the horizon but the issue of how to manage the nation's most under-utilised fishery remains.
The problem with McHugh's plans was not just that his boat had the capacity to catch the entire annual quota by itself, but that no one could say with any scientific certainty how much pressure his activities would have placed on the ecosystem.
The history of the fishery highlights the dilemma. There are five species defined as small pelagic, or migratory, fish: blue mackerel, jack mackerel, Peruvian jack mackerel, redbait and yellowtail scad. They are not fished for human consumption, but to be ground into fishmeal and sold to tuna farms.
The industry has flourished only around Tasmania in recent years. Just five of the 75 boat licences are being used, and barely 5000 tonnes were taken in 2002-03. Even so, operators say the 60,000-tonne limit should be increased to allow companies to operate in the three zones outside Tasmanian waters, from South Australia around the eastern seaboard to the southern waters off NSW.
The difficulty has been the lack of research into the species and their important place in the marine ecosystem. A report by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority last year warned: "Small pelagic species play a vital predator and prey role in the marine ecosystem and their over-exploitation may cause detrimental population effects on other species. This is an area of uncertainty in the context of full exploitation. There is limited information available on the biology and fisheries … A current project is developing stock assessment methods for small pelagic fisheries … [and is] due for completion in 2005."
The report acknowledged there was no management plan in three of the four fishing zones. Even though catch trigger levels provided a safeguard, it concluded that "the management policy does not specifically address the levels of latent effort in the fishery".
It now appears it will take much longer to finalise how the fishery will be managed in future. As Australian operators line up for their own chance to explore the fishery, the authority is expected to maintain the quota limits and put a freeze on nominations for new boat licences until next year.
The management update highlighted the conflict faced by officials: balancing the environmental unknowns with the commercial demands of operators. "The reason for the freeze is to ensure that the fishery does not suffer overcapitalisation in this critical period prior to the commencement of a statutory management plan," it said. "The board is aware, however, that the freeze imposes constraints on operators not motivated by competition but wanting to fish commercially.
"[The authority's] key concern is individuals investing heavily to fish in the small pelagic fishery for reasons other than to exploit the stocks within an appropriate management framework. It is not known whether the Australian small pelagic fishery stocks will support large-scale operations."
The NSW Greens MP Ian Cohen has been among the most outspoken environmentalists. He insisted the authority should maintain a conservative view on the fishery. "The market for pelagic fish in Australia is untested, and the already stated intentions of operators to exploit species such as redbait, jack mackerel and slimy mackerel for use as fishmeal is unsustainable. Demand for fish is growing and it is already clear that wild fish stocks cannot meet that demand. The alternative, fish farming, must become more efficient and less wasteful if it is to be a legitimate solution.
"Research well under way has already shown that Australia's low-cost grain producers could develop and grow specific aquaculture grains for use as fishmeal, instead of grinding up a resource that is largely unknown. In Australia, about 22 million tonnes of fish are used to make fishmeal and fish oil each year, with another 5 million tonnes of low-value, 'trash' fish fed directly to aquaculture fish. This can't continue indefinitely and alternatives must be found."
Industry operators disagree. One said: "There is a place for reasonable commercial operations which take into account the environmental considerations. Obviously the Veronica was too radical and McHugh came at the wrong time, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for increased quotas if the environmental reports clear the way."
But would it mean super trawlers like the Veronica? "There might be bigger boats but nothing on the scale of the Veronica. I think it was an extreme example, possibly driven by the fact that McHugh had nowhere else to take the boat."
So what are scientists doing, and how long will it take?
Researchers are assessing spawning patterns for mackerel and redbait in the Great Australian Bight and off the east coast, using fine mesh nets to trap roe. One industry veteran said: "In lay terms they count the eggs, work out the daily spawning rates of females and divide the numbers to give an indication of fish numbers in the area. It's a bit hit and miss but gives a reasonable picture of stock numbers. There have been some setbacks but it is going ahead now. It looks like it will be well into next year before allocations can be worked out."
Fisheries officials conceded there had been some delays but insisted the management plan was on track. The authority's board will consider the panel's advice next month. "The [meeting] considered and made good progress on the development of a statutory management plan for the fishery," a spokesman said.
"While some delay was noted in relation to research being conducted into particular stocks in the fishery, this will not delay the implementation of the management plan or the allocation process. Research results and other information about the fishery will be used to set specific catch limits within the framework of the statutory management plan.
"Meanwhile, the fishery continues to be managed on conservative catch limits. There is strong agreement amongst stakeholders that conservative limits remain in place until research results and fishery information can show that growth in the fishery will be ecologically sustainable."
Jon Bryan attended the Canberra meetings as a representative of the Tasmanian Conservation Trust. He said the early work on establishing fish numbers by egg count was promising, and was the first indication that future management of the fishery would be based on scientific evidence rather than anecdotal assessment. "I think there is a great deal of hope here. The great advantage of the assessments being done is that it is real time and gives an accurate reflection of fish numbers."
Do we know any more about the fishery than last August, when news of the Veronica broke? "Not really," Bryan said. "There is still a great deal of uncertainty and we need to be careful about making decisions that could cause the collapse of the fishery and the ecosystem it supports.",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,MIGHT BE WORTH A READ?????????????????

[conco46]

does anyone know were the super trawler is now?

[Boat Hog]

does anyone know were the super trawler is now?

Last reported position 8 days ago was in the port of Talcahuano in Chile, South Americas.

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/shipdetails.aspx?MMSI=277330000

[GBC]

No wonder labour managed to ban the trawler after reading this lot....

It is my understanding that the boat was banned, not the quota - the fish will be caught anyway, and also that:
The fish are now being caught by smaller boats which have been shown to have a much higher bycatch (fur seal/sea lion) rate than the better funded and more up to date "super trawler".
So people are arguing about 'how' the fish die, not whether or not they do?

The 'science' was based on 2003/2004 catch rates. The quota was doubled last year. To my way of thinking, there simply is no science. However - the quota is linked to the fish, not the colour/size/nationality of the crew of the boat that catches them. The fish are being removed anyway.
This bullshit should never have been about the boat.

I would think that the good people of Australia will now be paying a shitload more money to get dragged through the court system as seafish Tasmania tries to recoup the millions lost owing to our inept federal government showing a complete lack of business acumen - again. Three years the negotiations went for, the the Margaris was refitted in Europe for this fishery then driven down here on a promise then arseholed over votes - we deserve everything we get for doing business like that. And remember - the fish are dead anyway.