While it look like Tony was just trying to gauge, by poll, some general feelings it seems the other post has certainly spilled over into this one.
So...might as well restate the reasons it all started.
Within the total catch we think a percentage should be directed (by law)domestically, regardless of the export price and direct enough so that supply and demand forces resulted in lower domestic prices. As it stands, with one of the few fisheries I am well versed about, nothing is stopping 100% of the coral trout catch, which has risen as a direct result of the live trout trade, from 1500 tonnes per year to in excess of 2500 tonnes a year, all being exported.
When the reductions in TAC come into effect later this year the chance of buying it will be near impossible (at $120/kg for fillets...based on top price of $70/kg whole live weight ex Bowen) The TAC will be just too valuable to the pros to fish for the fillet/domestic market if they are only allowed to catch a certain amount per vessel per year and THIS is what will spur on a black market.
Export markets and increased prices DIRECTLY and unequivicabley(yeh I know I spelt that one wrong) increase pressure on the fishery. Of that there can be no augument. Call it greed, human nature or supply and demand forces....no matter which way you look at it in any fishery, if the price commercial fishers receive for their "product" suddenly increases, so does the effort...bigger boats..better equipment so they can fish more days..make more money!! Just human nature.
The only thing stopping this is generally fisheries managers stepping in to put the brakes on. Just look at what they are doing in SA, now catching pre spawning age tuna, hand feeding them and then selling them off before they ever have a chance to breed. Would this happen if it was not export driven?? I think not! There is absolutely no doubt that this is good for the economy, but at what long term cost to the fishery?
It is well recognised..finally, that the ocean is not an endless provider. It has its limits. The largest fish consuming nation in the world has so destroyed its own fisheries resources that it has now turned its attention to countries prepared to do the same...all in the name of the mighty buck.
I know Jockey & I will continue to disagree on this issue but personally, I see the export demand for our seafood as a prime driving force in the overfishing of many species, not just here but worldwide.
Somehow it needs to be reined in. I just don't know the mechanism for doing this without upsetting the economic rationalists who control government policy. I just feel very strongly that Australia should not become fishmongers to a world that has already destroyed so much of its own fisheries.
& Peterbo3..mate. tell me where I can buy 4/5 long fillets, or veal backstraps...at any price. Since Mad Cow hit Amercia our beef exports have also gone Off!! and good meat is as rare as rockin'horse poop. I'm currently getting VFO 3/4's and paying $29 (wholesale)...mind you it is still pretty cheap compared to what I have to pay for trout fillets and U8 tigers.
Regards
KC
I know what my answer would be...with my business..If I have the chance to do 2 similar jobs..cost of materials on both is $1000.00 and one client will pay $2000.00 for the job and another $3000.00, I sure as hell know which one I will be doing and it isn't the $2000.00 job.
Exactly!! Human nature. You can't blame the pros for trying to make the best money they can....you can only look for regulations to curb a problem like this and this falls back in the governments lap.
KC
LMFAO at the responses here Tony,
I bet you wished you never posted it now lol...
I never, and I bet you never thought so many people would find it so hard to simply say yes or no lol...
Cheers Mate,
Rich.
Controlling the market won't get rid of that demand. The only effective way to reign it in is via a TAC. Yes the price will go up, but with a limited resource that everyone wants a piece of it's inevitable. I would certainly prefer the free market to decide who gets it than have the government decide who gets the fish. And it won't stop there. Whoever gets the fish is just going to want to sell it because of the even higher black market price. It's hard enough for the gov't to keep illegal fishing boats out and stop locals raping and pillaging. Trying to control the export market in a country where (as far as I know) only the import market is currently monitored would be futile. Fishing our waters illegally is a risky business. Handing out the fish for free or dirt cheap (comparitively) to locals would only make things easier and more profitable for the black market. Why risk life and limb on a dodgy fishing boat on the open sea and pay people to do the same when you can just book a holiday and turn up to woolies and buy it?Originally Posted by kc
Once upon a time rent control was introduced for inner city apartments in big american cities so that the average joe who worked in the city (say at maccas) could afford to live near work. In fact the exact opposite happened. Owners would only rent their appartments to the richest people. A poor tenant will wait six weeks for you to get off your arse and get a plumber in. A filthy rich one will call the plumber themselves and pay for it them selves, and probably leave the apartment in a much better state than they found it. They would even rent completely empty, badly damaged appartments and do them up for you. Plus you had to know someone or bribe someone to get into a rent controlled apartment. Maybe even pay extra rent 'under the table.' But not just anyone could do that. You can't trust a poor person to give you the extra rent and you can't kick them out if they don't, but a rich person is less likely to do that. So it was the rich and the dodgy who benefitted, not the poor.
The same would happen here. You can't stop this supply and demand thing. There are ways to stop overfishing (a TAC) and to take from the rich and give to the poor (tax), but the government can't dictate who buys what.
Well...... that really stirred the pot! LOL
My question was meant to be a very simple one, purely to satisfy my curiosity as to what mr average thought about the issue. Yes Chris I suppose it could have been worded a little different,but I did think it a simple question. The answer to your question was covered by jockey, so I wont go into it again. My intention was not to transfer your arguments to another thread, to support the fishing party, or to load a question. I am a simple person not affiliated with any political group trying to sway public opinions in anyway, just curious how others see this issue. Some of you guys must be really uptight to be able to read all of this crap in between the lines. My appologies to those who are offended by this thread this is not my intention. Ithought the arguing had all been done.
Thanks to those who could see my intentions, and replyed with a sensible answer. To all the others- Crikey! relax! go fishing and enjoy the weekend, the weathers good, the fish are biting, lifes good. To anyone who wishes to continue the arguing-Argue with someone who gives a rats!
Regards, Tony
Touchee!! Well said Tony. Interesting results from the poll so far.
Regards
KC
I don't much like your attitude Tony.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote