super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

[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-.../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

Originally Posted by robo55
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-.../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-.../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/upl...gust_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-fi...r-trawler-9143

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