Super trawler politics

[TheRealAndy]

The Truth? - In this case we certainly can't handle the truth. You state above that this ship's quota is 7.5% of our bio mass - 1 ship taking 7.5% - This is what I have an issue with - the notion that that is acceptable. - Then they will want to up the quota - and they will find some scientists/ researches to say whatever they need to - to accomplish that. - It won't stop there.

So why do you have a problem with taking 7.5% of the biomass? Its a sustainable level. And yes, then can open up the quota, but only provided it is sustainable. Also, during the process of obtaining that quota, they will be doing research to ensure it is sustainable. There is legislation and practices to protect the fishery from becoming unsustainable.

This ship was not invited by "Australians" but by a couple or maybe even a few - that certainly do not represent the wishes of the majority of Australia's population.

"Australians" will get paid a small percentage which will go to a government that already wastes far to much money.

The quote was obtained by Seafood Tasmania (not Seafood Tasmania Pelagic for the record) Australians means more than one Australian. So yes, it was invited here by Australians. I never said "All Australians". Difference.

You state that "we don't have any suitable vessels" - Now, I don't get the thinking there? - What, is the government or who ever actively looking for ways to sell our fish stocks to other countries? - Then because we don't have a big enough boat to do it - lets get someone else in?

Seafish Tasmania obtained the quota, then partnered up with a dutch company to catch the quota. Seafish Tasmania manages a bunch of smaller trawlers designed to target the same species, but they are not large enough, and cannot process the quote obtained, hence the reason the Margiris was bought to Australia.

Valid grounds to ban the boat would be that we (Australians) don't want it here......... - That is all the validation necessary.

Yup, just the same valid grounds that were used by the greens to prevent recreational fishing in moreton bay, great barrier reef, coral sea, and the other no fish zones around Australia. I think you are missing the point of my post. No science, no valid reason, just becuase.

I read a great article on the abc website on this trawler. The fisheries and governments in west africa where this boat and others like it fish, are now being or are in the process of being banned from fishing as they have destroyed there fishery.
Realandy, the fish its going to catch here are being sent back to west africa, why, because theres bugga all left over there, why, thats not rocket 'SCIENCE'.
Why has this boat come up for lease by the mob in Tasmania. 1- Again there stopping these boats fishing out off west africa for obvious reasons. 2- The fish stocks over there are stuffed so its ended up here.

Lets not even go there, let one in and it could open up for you wouldn't know how many. NO NO NO.

The reason the West African fishery has been decimated is because it has been over fished for the last 20 years, no quota, no management. Big big difference to what is (or was) about to happen here in Australia.

[TREVELLY]

A better use for this ship would be to take the net off and throw it away then arm the ship and use it to patrol the southern coast for illegal fishing and whaling.

Scientists used to be regarded as worthy and wholesome - I think the Global Warming debate has degraded their standing immensely.

With industry science to my knowledge has never been used in an environmental impact study to stop the industry that employed it from allowing them to do what they want - to stop anything the common means is not the science but rather the industry endangering some weird and wonderful species that no one has ever seen before.

[Qlder1]

TheRealAndy science is a great thing....and can be interpreted differently depending on which side of the fence your on... Maybe you could read this

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?...-is-unsound%2F

one persons "quota erring on the size of caution" is anothers "disaster if allowed"

[PROS]

So why do you have a problem with taking 7.5% of the biomass? Its a sustainable level.

Trawling is a destructive and indiscriminate fishing practice, thats why I am happy to see this ship going away.

Fish is part of our diet, should be a commercial activity.
The commercial world is moving towards sustainability also great, makes sense and will help to build up biomass.

Trawling is completely against sustainability.
I watched a documentary recently, the link was posted here.
What Canadian scientist said made great sense about trawling that since it alters the habitat of the fish and laminates the fishing ground - destroying the bottom structure - it can not be sustainable.
Had a great example of describing trawling as hunting a rabbit with bulldozers.
Since the bottom is modified, fish reproduction will be significantly reduced.

[TheRealAndy]

TheRealAndy science is a great thing....and can be interpreted differently depending on which side of the fence your on... Maybe you could read this

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?...-is-unsound%2F

one persons "quota erring on the size of caution" is anothers "disaster if allowed"

Yeah, good find there. I missed that one. The stuff I read estimated the sustainable biomass to be about 15% take, so the quota allocated to seafish tasmania is half that. Even with the suggestions in that paper (mind you I only just briefed over it) the quota is still within the sustainable range. IIRC the AMFA reduces the quote each year until further studies are done to ensure sustainability.

However arguments against it from a scientific point of view hold much more relevance to me, than some idiot green politician yelling it down just because they don't like it.

[Si]

Trawling is a destructive and indiscriminate fishing practice, thats why I am happy to see this ship going away.

Fish is part of our diet, should be a commercial activity.
The commercial world is moving towards sustainability also great, makes sense and will help to build up biomass.

Trawling is completely against sustainability.
I watched a documentary recently, the link was posted here.
What Canadian scientist said made great sense about trawling that since it alters the habitat of the fish and laminates the fishing ground - destroying the bottom structure - it can not be sustainable.
Had a great example of describing trawling as hunting a rabbit with bulldozers.
Since the bottom is modified, fish reproduction will be significantly reduced.

agree but this boat and others use either purse seine or mid water trawl techniques where nets wont touch the bottom.