4 Corners - ABC 1 - tonight 8:30pm (as in now)
Graeme Pike is a champ, "In my opinion", "My feeling", etc. Typical green arguments.
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) 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
*Earlier on Tasmanian Times (includes links to bio of Dr Nevill):
• Celebrations are premature over the Margiris
• Borthwick fisheries review compromised?
First published: 2012-10-26 09:15 AM
Who wrote that?Originally Posted by robo55
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) 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
*Earlier on Tasmanian Times (includes links to bio of Dr Nevill):
• Celebrations are premature over the Margiris
• Borthwick fisheries review compromised?
First published: 2012-10-26 09:15 AM
Edit. Ok, looks like John Neville. Pot calling the kettle black.
The paper reviewed:
Well document 2.43b is not available on the website as suggested.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.
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?
"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?????????????????
does anyone know were the super trawler is now?
Screaming drag is my drug
Last reported position 8 days ago was in the port of Talcahuano in Chile, South Americas.
http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/shi...MMSI=277330000
Jim
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.
nil carborundum illegitimi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote