super sized trawlers- no thanks!

[NavyDiver]

https://www.facebook.com/VictorianAnglersNOSuperTrawlerRally

Care to join a few boats towed from Carrum to Altona on Saturday 1st of September?

The kids and I will be going. I find it amazing we have catch limits to be sustainable in our recreational fishing then see a Dutch mega trawler be allowed to fish in our waters. The fish required to fund the trawlers running costs alone would dwarf all fish caught by recreational fishing children, men and women.

It will be too late to protest if our fish stocks are decimated by this type of fishing trawler. The statement they are doing no harm as they are only targeting bait with the super trawler fish is waffle. Bait fish feed all our larger fish including Bluefin and Yellow fin Tuna, marlin sharks and other and are critical to the ecosystem in our oceans and coastal waters. The Australian waters and the southern oceans are being targeted due to overfishing in the Northern hemisphere. We do not want to follow their path to destruction by allowing super trawlers here or anywhere.for more information see

http://www.mrfisho.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php't=18998
(http://www.mrfisho.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php't=18998)

[NavyDiver]

want to see how big this thing is?
The Vessel | Seafish Pelagic (http://seafishpelagic.com.au/the-vessel/):eek:

[Lotz-A-Landies]

https://www.facebook.com/VictorianAnglersNOSuperTrawlerRally

Care to join a few boats towed from Carrum to Altona on Saturday 1st of September?

The kids and I will be going. I find it amazing we have catch limits to be sustainable in our recreational fishing then see a Dutch mega trawler be allowed to fish in our waters. The fish required to fund the trawlers running costs alone would dwarf all fish caught by recreational fishing children, men and women.

It will be too late to protest if our fish stocks are decimated by this type of fishing trawler. The statement they are doing no harm as they are only targeting bait with the super trawler fish is waffle. Bait fish feed all our larger fish including Bluefin and Yellow fin Tuna, marlin sharks and other and are critical to the ecosystem in our oceans and coastal waters. The Australian waters and the southern oceans are being targeted due to overfishing in the Northern hemisphere. We do not want to follow their path to destruction by allowing super trawlers here or anywhere. ...Not only in the Northern Hemisphere.

If you want to know what it will be used for see: oceans campaign, global overfishing (http://archive.greenpeace.org/oceans/globaloverfishing/fishingforfff.html) and realise how inefficient this type of fishing actually is! Also Preventing the collapse of one of the world (http://digitaljournal.com/article/319626) and http://www.publicintegrity.org/node/7900/

[101RRS]

It is not the first time large vessels like this have been hired by local fisheries companies and used in our southern fisheries.

The scientific information that the quotas are based on is reasonably robust despite alternative claims in the media.

Even with this this quota the fish stocks will be taken sustainably. However like all commercial fishing processes there is always the issue of bycatch and this is always a concern - in this part of the world the main issue will be seals but there are means to mitigate this but unfortunately the seals are often too smart for their own good and swim up the holes into nets that are designed to let them out when caught.

Observers will be onboard the vessel to ensure all the rules and laws are followed.

As I indicated large vessels (not as large but not far off) operate in our southern waters on a fairly regular basis.

Garry

[Lotz-A-Landies]

The problem with this one is still that the livebait that this vessel is targetting is the food source for large pellagic fish like tuna, marlin, large sharks and mamals like seals and dolphins. There is anecdotal "evidence" that the last time the livebate was fished extensively around Tasmania the tuna numbers dropped significantly.

More than that the tonnage of fish caught by this monster will only produce 1/5 the tonnage of cattle feed to be used in Africa so we are not value adding but producing cheep protein feed at the same time as we potentially reduce the population of high value fish.

The reason the ship is here is because the they have overexploited the resources in other fishing zones.

IMHO, for the 20 or so short term jobs it may create the potential loss in other areas isn't worth it.

[101RRS]

The reason the ship is here is because the they have overexploited the resources in other fishing zones.

Lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The ship is being leased by a Tassie fish company - it will not be operated by some Northern Hemisphere fisheries company.

The impact on the entire environment will have been taken into account. Now the allowable catch in the fishery has been determined - it can be taken by one operator or could be taken by 100 operators - depends on who has the quota - so what is the issue - the total allowable catch or the fact that one ship will take most of it.

Garry

[Lotz-A-Landies]

Lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The ship is being leased by a Tassie fish company - it will not be operated by some Northern Hemisphere fisheries company.

...If this and other European megatrawlers are so good and so safe, why are they no longer allowed to fish in European waters?

In West Africa the small pelagic fish targetted by this megatrawler were decimated, falling 90% in one year of operation of the FV Magrius and other European megatrawlers.

The FV Magrius catches in one day what it takes 56 traditional Mauritanian boats one year to catch. 10 days of the FV Magrius in a fishery could mean 56 crews are out of work for years while the fishery recovers.

Just because Seafish tasmania is applying for the licences, doesn't mean that SeafishTasmania is an Australian Company. In other countries the practice has been for foreign capital, often Chinese and Russian, buy up local fishing companies to acquire the quotas and because of the structure of these companies it is often very difficult to track who actually owns what. Do we actually know who owns Seafish Tasmania?

[Chucaro]

Lets not let the facts get in the way of a good story.

The ship is being leased by a Tassie fish company - it will not be operated by some Northern Hemisphere fisheries company.
The impact on the entire environment will have been taken into account.
Now the allowable catch in the fishery has been determined - it can be taken by one operator or could be taken by 100 operators - depends on who has the quota - so what is the issue - the total allowable catch or the fact that one ship will take most of it.

Garry

So was the introduction of the cane toad :angel:

[101RRS]

Some facts

Q. What is the issue?
Seafish Tasmania, a fishing company in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF), intends to bring a vessel to fish in the SPF. The vessel is coming from overseas and is larger than other vessels that fish in the Australian fishing zone
Q. How would the boat be allowed to come into Australia?
To fish in Commonwealth waters a boat must meet the definition of an Australian boat under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A04237).
There are a number of steps for the boat to become an Australian boat. These include AFMA declaring the boat to be an Australian boat under the Fisheries Management Act 1991 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A04237), or the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) registering the boat under the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A02386).
Seafish Tasmania has applied to AMSA for Australian registration of the Margiris. AMSA will assess the application in accordance with the Shipping Registration Act 1981 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A02386).
Q. What is the status of fish stocks in the fishery?
The ABARES Fishery Status Reports 2010 list all stocks of SPF species, except for Redbait west, as ‘not overfished / not subject to overfishing’. Redbait west is assessed as ‘uncertain’ because of limited information available to assess its status. AFMA has implemented a conservative total allowable catch to reflect this uncertainty.
Table 1: Status of the Small Pelagic Fishery stocks from ABARES Status report 2010
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/08/148.jpg
Q. How will AFMA limit the amount of fish that can be taken from the fishery?
AFMA sets catch limits for the fishery each year, which are sustainable amounts of fish (by weight) that can be taken from the fishery. The best available science is used to set these limits, and due to the important place of small fish in the food chain, the limits are set at precautionary levels in the SPF. The total allowable catch is divided up between the operators in the form of quota. Operators must inform AFMA of all catch landed and AFMA verifies this information. If operators are found to have caught more than their quota holdings strict penalties apply.
Q. What does AFMA consider in setting catches?
In setting the total allowable catch each year, the AFMA considers advice from the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SPFRAG), South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC), AFMA Management and other relevant information. Agreement amongst RAG and MAC members is not always unanimous and AFMA takes into consideration all views when making its decisions.
SPFRAG is made up of scientific members and members from fisheries management, industry, states and the environmental and recreational sectors. It provides its advice after considering an annual stock assessment prepared by scientists led by the South Australian Research and Development Institute, catch and effort trends, risks and other relevant factors.
SEMAC includes representatives from AFMA, resource assessment groups, states, industry bodies, scientists and economists. It also has representatives from the environment and recreational sectors. SEMAC considers the recommendations of SPFRAG and makes its own recommendations of total allowable catch to the AFMA Commission.
The SPF Harvest Strategy, in place since 2008, specifies decision rules for setting sustainable catch limits based on the level of information known about the stocks. It uses a three tiered approach which allows higher potential catches where there is a higher level of information known about a stock.
Q. How do SPF catch limits compare?
The catch limits for species in the SPF are all at or below 10 per cent of the estimated spawning fish population. This is low compared to other Commonwealth fisheries, and is also considered conservative when compared to international standards for small pelagic fishes.
Q. What are total allowable catches for the SPF for the current season?
The table below outlines the total allowable catches (TAC) for the current season (1 May 2012 to 30 April 2013) and TACs for last season.
Redbait East8,6006,90010
Table 2: 2011-12 and 2012-13 TAC and estimated proportion of spawning biomass Species TAC (t) 2011-12 TAC (t) 2012-13 % of estimated spawning
biomass in 2012-13 Redbait West 5,000 5,000 7.5 Blue Mackerel East 2,500 2,600 <7.5 Blue Mackerel West 4,200 6,500 7.5 Jack Mackerel East 4,600 10,100 <7.5 Jack Mackerel West 5,000 5,000 7.5 Australian Sardine East 400 200 <7.5
Q. Why did the Jack Mackerel (East) TAC increase for 2012-13?
The TAC was increased because of research, based on surveys conducted in 2002-2004, that was published in 2011. The research indicated Jack Mackerel (East) had a higher spawning biomass than previously thought.
Based on this information, SPFRAG recommended a take of 7.5 per cent of the estimated spawning biomass. This was reduced by 500 tonnes to account for other factors (such as state catches) to give a TAC of 10,100 tonnes.
Q. Do environmental and recreational sectors have a say in the catch limits?
The views of the environmental and recreational sectors were taken into account when developing the SPF Harvest Strategy and setting TACs for SPF species. Environmental and recreational members sit on SPFRAG and SEMAC, which provide advice to the AFMA Commission in relation to SPF catch limits.
Q. Are state issues considered?
State catches are incorporated into the catch setting process. State representatives also attend meetings of SPFRAG and SEMAC to provide advice on state issues.
Q. How is research funded and are there any stock assessments planned for the coming years?
AFMA continues to facilitate the annual stock assessment of this fishery, which is used to assist in making catch limit decisions and is funded by the fishing industry through levies.
There is a proposal for South Australian Research and Development Institute to undertake a daily egg production method survey later this year which would be funded by Seafish Tasmania. The research proposal has been considered by SPFRAG but would not impact on the TAC for 2012-13.
Q. What is the effect of SPF catches on predator species such as tuna?
The SPF Harvest Strategy recognises that small pelagic species are an important component of the wider ecosystem, providing food for a range of species including larger fish, marine mammals and seabirds. Total allowable catch levels for SPF species are set at precautionary levels that take into consideration both the species’ productivity and broader ecosystem impacts.
At the moment, the total available catch in the fishery for all species does not exceed 10 per cent of the estimated spawning fish population and therefore, at least 90 per cent of the fish remain in the ecosystem for predator species.
Q. What will AFMA do to prevent localised depletion?
The annual fishery assessment report, currently undertaken for all SPF stocks, aims to determine the likelihood of localised depletion or change in the size/age structure of the catch that cannot be adequately explained by reasons other than a decline in abundance. Scientific advice suggests that, given the mobile nature of small pelagic species, any localised reductions in abundance less likely in comparison to species that stay in one area.
Quota allocations in the SPF have been divided into east and west zones by a line along 146°30’ East (roughly through the middle of Tasmania). This spreads fishing effort across zones and lowers the risk of localised depletion. In addition, large boats with freezing capacity are not restricted to fishing in areas close to processing facilities, as has historically been the case in the SPF, and so can spread fishing effort over more of the geographical distribution of the stock. The fishery extends from southern Queensland to southern Western Australia as shown in the map below.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2012/08/149.jpgThe area of the Small Pelagic Fishery
AFMA will be monitoring this issue closely and will address any suspected instances of localised depletion if they arise.
Q. How will the boat be required to minimise bycatch of protected species?
Fishing methods used in the SPF are relatively selective, which means they have comparatively low levels of bycatch.
When requested by AFMA, Commonwealth fishing boats must carry independent AFMA observers to monitor fishing activities and any impact on the marine environment. Observers collect biological data about fish and bycatch, which forms part of the scientific assessment used to decide sustainable catch limits. AFMA will implement high levels of observer coverage on the proposed large freezer boat if it is introduced to the SPF.
Seal excluder devices are required to be used on midwater trawl nets to protect species such as seals and dolphins.
While the risk is not high, AFMA will work with Seafish Tasmania to develop a seabird management plan to minimise seabird interactions. AFMA understands that the proposed freezer boat will be processing whole fish so expects that there will be little offal discharge to attract seabirds.
Q. What monitoring and enforcement powers does AFMA have to deal with fishing operations that break the rules?
All Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessels (concession holders) are subject to AFMA’s domestic compliance and enforcement programs and monitoring arrangements. The FV Margiris, if permitted to fish in Australian waters, would be subject to these arrangements as is the case with any other Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessel.
AFMA has in place a range of monitoring programs and technologies which are used to monitor the activity of each of the vessels in the Commonwealth fleet:


Vessel monitoring systems (VMS) – All Commonwealth-endorsed fishing vessels (including the FV Margiris if it fishes in Australia) are required to fit and maintain a satellite based electronic VMS unit, which reports a vessel’s position to AFMA in near-real time on a regular basis to ensure vessels are not fishing in closed areas.
Electronic monitoring systems – AFMA has implemented electronic monitoring systems in a number of fisheries. These systems comprise both cameras and sensors which record and monitor all fishing activity.
Observers – Commonwealth fishing boats must carry independent AFMA observers, when required, in order to monitor fishing activities and any impact on the marine environment. AFMA will implement 100% observer coverage on the FV Margiris, if it is permitted to fish in Australian waters.

AFMA has a program of inspections and at-sea patrols that focus on targeting identified high risk ‘key’ fishing ports, vessels/operators and fish receivers relevant to Commonwealth jurisdiction. These inspections are carried out by uniformed AFMA fisheries officers and are conducted based on risk analysis and relevant intelligence information.
The Fisheries Management Act 1991 (http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Series/C2004A04237) and Regulations allow for a range of enforcement measures. These measures can be used in combination or separately depending on the severity of the offence and include:


Warnings & cautions
Commonwealth Fisheries Infringement Notices – a $220 “on the spot” fine
Amendments to fishing concession conditions – to prevent the offence being repeated
Directions by fisheries officers – such as ordering a vessel to port
Suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions
Prosecution – Maximum penalties under the Act which can be imposed by a court include:

- fines up to $55,000 for an individual or $275,000 for a corporation
- forfeiture of vessel, catch and fishing equipment;
- suspension or cancellation of fishing concessions or prohibiting a person from being on a boat either within or outside the AFZ for a period prescribed by the court; and
- up to 12 months imprisonment in the case of obstructing, threatening, assaulting or impersonating an officer.

[LandyAndy]

I fish the Albany area in my boat when I can get down there.
The pickings are thin as it is,areas we can fish are to be reduced under new fishing rules.
We dont need a rape and pillage boat operating in the area harvesting "baitfish" that attract our bigger fish.The local Pilchard industry will be destroyed,both south and west coast,they havent yet recovered from the last Pilchard die off disesase.
For the WA blokes there is a Perth protest meet tommorow to match the eastern taters meet,I cant get up there unfortunately.Google FISHWRECKED,info there.
Cheers
Andrew

[101RRS]

For the WA blokes there is a Perth protest meet tommorow to match the eastern taters meet,I cant get up there unfortunately.Google FISHWRECKED,info there.
Cheers
Andrew

So you protesting the use of this ship or the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) allowed in this fishery because the TAC is set and having ship in the fishery does not change that - even if this ship is not in the fishery then all things being equal the same amount of fish will still be taken - just spread over a larger number of vessels. Seafish Tasmania does not have a larger quota just because it has a bigger ship - once the quota allocated to Seafish is taken - fishing stops.

Logically you should be protesting the Total Allowable Catch in the fishery if you think it too great but the size of the boats is almost irrelevant.

Garry

Garry

[Lotz-A-Landies]

So you protesting the use of this ship ...

...Logically you should be protesting the Total Allowable Catch in the fishery if you think it too great but the size of the boats is almost irrelevant.

GarryGarry you seem to be an apologist for the FV Margiris, have you read today's news where Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke, has revealed that SeaFish Tasmania's Director, Gerry Geen, first advised AFMA then continued to sit in on an AFMA meeting where doubling of the quota for Seafish Tasmania was being decided. How rock solid is the science behind AFMA's decision if the person benefiting from the quota increase is at the same table where the decision is being made and no further research is being conducted??

Do you also realise that the science behind the TAC quota assumed that the catch of mackerel and redbait would be done by a multitude of small vessels and not a single mega vessel vacuuming up the fishery?

In this case the size of the vessel and particularly it's net is of great importance, the opening of the FV Margiris net is some 200m wide at the mouth and 100m tall, so the chance of some individuals in a school of fish escaping is much less than when the net is 20 or 50 metres wide and only 10 or 20 metres tall. A smaller net allows parts of schools to escape and form small schools that can breed up in the next season. When the large nets remove whole schools, both the juveniles and adult breeding population of the target species are lost and recovery takes much longer to re-establish the fishery.

Diana

[101RRS]

Garry you seem to be an apologist for the FV Margiris, have you read today's news where Federal Environment Minister, Tony Burke, has revealed that SeaFish Tasmania's Director, Gerry Geen, first advised AFMA then continued to sit in on an AFMA meeting where doubling of the quota for Seafish Tasmania was being decided. How rock solid is the science behind AFMA's decision if the person benefiting from the quota increase is at the same table where the decision is being made and no further research is being conducted??

Do you also realise that the science behind the TAC quota assumed that the catch of mackerel and redbait would be done by a multitude of small vessels and not a single mega vessel vacuuming up the fishery?

Diana

I am not an apologist for anyone. The Management Advisory Commiittees (MAC) are exactly that - advisory committees and they do not make the decisions - it is the AFMA Board of Directors or the AFMA Board sub committee on Scientific issues.

The MACS comprise members from various sectors - the industry (where Gerry Green comes from, scientific research organisations, conservation organisations (WWF etc), an AFMA member (usually the Fishery Manager) and other members where appropriate like RecFish. They also have an scientific sub-committee. The issue of having fishermen on these is constantly being raised but all industry members are involved in the industry so where is the industry input going to come from - where a member has a direct conflict of interest they do not participate in the discussion and are not normally allowed in the meeting room.

So while Green may or may not have contributed to the process of developing advice he was not part of the decision making process. I can assure you the conservation members would have been just as strong and vocal in opposition if appropriate.

For sure when the TAC was being determined it would have been based on the sustainability of the fishery not the fishing vessels being used and quota initially allocated to SeaFish would have taken a range of factors into account - but given quotas can be traded SeaFish may now have a substantially larger quota that initially allocated and has made a business decision to catch its quota as quick as possible in the season buy using the Margisis.

It is Government Policy (both Liberal and Labor) to improve the efficiencies of the industry by encouraging fishers who hold quota but are not using them to leave the industry and I would assume the SeaFish has been buying up these loose unused quotas.

Garry

[dero]

My personal experience , fishing the SW. WA. is that when the local pro's fish an area , they do so with long term in mind .
Whenever the larger boats turn up they fish the area until it is no longer viable to do so , then move on to the next area , leaving very little behind them for the locals , pro and rec. alike .
i.e. the smaller local boats take their quota over the whole year, whereas the big boats rape and move on .

[NavyDiver]

So you protesting the use of this ship or the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) allowed in this fishery because the TAC is set and having ship in the fishery does not change that - even if this ship is not in the fishery then all things being equal the same amount of fish will still be taken - just spread over a larger number of vessels. Seafish Tasmania does not have a larger quota just because it has a bigger ship - once the quota allocated to Seafish is taken - fishing stops.

Logically you should be protesting the Total Allowable Catch in the fishery if you think it too great but the size of the boats is almost irrelevant.

Garry

Garry

Garry the Quota was set by a commitee including Mr Gerry Geen. Mr Gerry Geen has a clear conflict of interest and his participation direct abuses of the ‘Fisheries administration act’ by the Australia Fisheries Management Authority he is part of.

Complete failure to measure the impact on other fish species.
Many other species (seals, dolphins, some whales, penguins, tuna, game-fish, sharks, and seabirds) that rely on these pelagic fish have much slower recovery cycles. So even if the pelagics were able to recover from a serious impact, it is not clear what the impact on these other species would be.

Threat of localised depletion.
This has not been addressed at all. The only response has been that the fish are mobile and so will eventually re-populate an area wiped-out by a visit from the super trawler. This is bad, but what is worse is that the recovery of slower-growing predators (which is probably all of them) will re-populate/visit areas even slower… and finally, the recreational fishermen and tourists will take even longer to return… meanwhile whole communities could be weakened by a number of poor seasons.

The rife nepotism at AFMA.
Whilst Stuart RICHEY was chairman at AFMA both Geoff RICHEY and Gael RICHEY were appointed to multiple committees (and in some cases to role of “chair”). This has to raise serious questions about the “health” of AFMA governance.

“Pet scientists” used to burn critics.
AFMA use a “pre-eminent scientist” (Dr. Bob Kearney) to say that the science is fine, and that those protesting are hysterical and irrational… but what they don’t disclose in those statements is that that scientist has been an AFMA director for 6 years, and 3 of those under Stuart Richey. You have to also wonder whether AFMA has been a funding participant to research activities of this scientist and any others that they pedal out.

Doubling quotas when the last study is nearly 10 years old.
AFMA keep telling us that the quotas are based on very pessimistic approach using the “precautionary” principle (which means the older the. data the lower the quota should be)… so how can they justify doubling some quotas whilst the relevant reports have just got another year older?


I fully support sustaninable fishing. Can you find anywhere in the northern Hemisphere fisheries which has not been degraded or destroyed by over fishing. tradtional african fishermen are starving after the rape of their occeans and some turned to priracy. Not suggesting Austalian fishermen and women will become pirates.

If the scince is so clear then how come so many people who do not appear to be raving lunatics seem to be joining the some what more lunatic fringe groups to try and stop this. Your points are vailid but underlining basis supporting your points seem biased on a "I HOPE SO" rather than "I know so". I want Dr Bob Brown back!

RE "protesting the Total Allowable Catch" we have some of the toughest bag limits and see more and more put in every time we blink. WA is possibly the toughest with VIC and other states much more resticted than SA at present. I follow the rules AFMA did not follw the rules in the ‘Fisheries administration act’.

[101RRS]

Its a democracy an the above are your views and that is fine.

Some points though -

The the TAC for small pelagics in the upcoming period of time are set irrespective of whether this ship is used or not. So removing the ship does not change the take - hence my previous comments about challenging the allocated TAC if you think it is too high that is what the objections should be about.

The TAC is 10% of the conservative estimate of the biomass and is actually less than most other fisheries.

As I indicated earlier the decision on the TAC is a Board decision on advice from the Allocation ADVISORY Panel (AAP) which Green may have been on. The AAP only advises it does not make the decision.

As I have already mentioned the conflict of issue, issue is well known and is a reality that has to be dealt with in the Governance of the various advisory committees and indeed the Board. To exclude people active in the fisheries means the key stakeholder group - the fishermen themselves cannot participate. Not ideal but is managed and works - is there any actual evidence that Green has biased the process to his personal advantage?

There may very well be localised depletion of stocks but these are pelagics so the fish will be back (noting the take is less than 10%) - by way of example - 5000t of juvenile Southern Bluefin Tuna are taken in waters just off Port Lincoln each year and while stocks are being threatened by overseas processes else where on the migration route, SBt stocks continue to arrive off the coast of SA each year.

Stuart Richey has not been involved with the Board for over 10 years the point you make is not relevant to the here and now - he and his ex do participate in some committees to provide industry expertise.

AFMA does provide some research grants to different areas but generally does not do its own research (it is a management agency). Organisations such as Fisheries Research Development Corporation (FRDC), CSIRO and ABARE provide most of the scientific information that management decisions are based on. Again Bob Kearney has not been a Board member for some time but he does (or did) contribute to various committees.

Questions you have raised about the doubling of the TAC etc are very valid and if there are concerns then these should be raised but the emotive arguments raised by some out in the media about a big ship are less relevant.

Garry

[d3syd]

The way I see it is the fish stocks shouldn't be affected by the super trawler, afterall the catch quota is set scientifically and monitored/adjusted by the government.

Basically the size of the pie remains the same, the super trawler just gets a much bigger slice of the it.

The problem therfore is not running out of pie, but it is who is going to miss out on a slice (presumably smaller commercial operators and recreational fishers). Opponents of the ship should thus be arguing this point, and not that the ocean is about to be raped.

[NavyDiver]

Fair points Garry- I do not pretend to be an expert. Visiting Canada years ago I did talk with a gent who had seen the total collapse of their cod fisheries and the flow on impacts which went far beyond cod and the fishermen. Africa is an example of how quickly the Somalia and nearby countries in that areas fisheries were exploited and collapsed harming local communities is very well documented.

My concerns is directly related to the fisheries here, the unknown effects, the data used to make the decisions appearing to be on a different species of fish not the quota listed fish, clear conflicts of interest and apparent governance failures in the statuary body with oversight.Australian Fisheries Management Authority (http://www.afma.gov.au/)

All enough reason for me to park my boat in a massive traffic jam this weekend. prove it is safe I would happily go hunting in the snow instead.

Was AFMA over seeing the Tuna fisheries? Massive over exploitation scandal by Japan recently. Trust after this and Mr Green must at least question the data and decision coming out of them.http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-and-japan-discuss-overfishing-20091027-hh1u.html
I cannot find right one sorry.

I like hunting and fishing. I am very happy to be a conservationist in my hobbies and sharing our great outdoors with others in our landrovers.

[101RRS]

Was AFMA over seeing the Tuna fisheries? Massive over exploitation scandal by Japan recently. Trust after this and Mr Green must at least question the data and decision coming out of them.Australia and Japan discuss overfishing (http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/australia-and-japan-discuss-overfishing-20091027-hh1u.html)
I cannot find right one sorry.

I like hunting and fishing. I am very happy to be a conservationist in my hobbies and sharing our great outdoors with others in our landrovers.

Differing reasoned views on the topic is to be applauded. In my view many are linking the size of the fish take to the size of the ship but that is not the case - issues such as how quickly the ship can take its quota and the short term impact on an area may have some relevance.

AFMA does have responsibility for the Tuna fisheries noting that migration of the fish during their life cycle cover many different jurisdictions. Australia primarily targets younger fish off Port Lincoln (but they are taken all around the coast) where they caught and then taken to coastal cages for fattening up. We take about 5000t and one of the main issues that AFMA has to deal with are the fishermen who cannot understand why they cannot take more as other countries are not as conservative as we are.

Despite all its faults AFMA is a recognised world leader in fisheries management and it is through its efforts that Commonwealth fisheries in Aust are still viable with fish stocks in the majority of Commonwealth fisheries are improving.

Garry

[NavyDiver]

Thanks Gary, the point "issues such as how quickly the ship can take its quota and the short term impact" may be issues such as how quickly the ship can take its quota and the long term impact is unknown.
Spear fishing is usually totally selective fishing, rod and line fishing is hopefully somewhat selective and we can generally release what we do not need or want. Reading the recreational tailor take in WA several years ago opened my eyes to what we can do where recreational fishers took more than the commercial take of tailor. If we could clearly work out the tonnage of the target fish in a manner which was both transparent and accepted then it would be more likely we could then assume/accept the by catch and localized impact. Remembering the ‘localized’ impact is from Sydney all the way around to Perth.
Remember the Mulie or pilchard fishery collapse due to a disease in the last few years and the dramatic impact that had on fishing stocks across southern Australian. Lots of evidence at least some pilchards used for feed or bait spread this across the southern sea board. Few if any fishing boats have fished from Brisbane, Sydney, Hobart to Perth before. None would haul in the tonnage which got this ship kicked out of Senegal. I might be wrong and clearly some of the data I copied from others is a bit thin or off target. To introduce this without a proper study of its impact is in my opinion both alarming and very short sighted. Sure you will not join the traffic jam but your thought would not stop me from joining it sadly. Sadly as the snow looks like a lot more fun for a drive and a walk.

[101RRS]

You may be very well correct and the science is not perfect hence why the precautionary effect is used in determining targets.

AFMA is not backward in closing fisheries - the Bass Strait Scallop fishery was closed (may still be closed) for many years even despite evidence of recovery as AFMA believed it had not recovered enough - so if they thought there were any sustainability issues they would have been acted upon.

In this case I think the low TAC as a % of biomass and the Pelagic nature of the fish mitigate against localised loss of fish stocks (noting that large purse sein trawlers up to 5000t have been operating in the south east before and certainly did not create the feared localised effects - or Margiris hysteria). If the small pelagics were like orange roughy which are slow breeding and just live around sea mounts and cannot swim to other sea mounts to repopulate them then i doubt AFMA would approve the use of large vessels that could wipe out sea mount populations (large Russian trawlers did this many years ago to many Southern Ocean seamounts and the orange roughy stocks either no longer exist on some or are taking a long time to recover).

Any way enough of my rambling

[NavyDiver]

Most of my day spend playing eye spy and similar witht the kids while in a cue of boats about 20km long. If we were using union tacics the roads would have been kaos, we quietly stuck hard to the left hand side to allow people to get past:)

Was told it is not just 18000 tonnes it come with an option of a 2nd 18000 tonnes of fish none of which is for you or I to eat :mad:

Template below for asking my local Pollies where they sit on this. Feel free to use or adapt it to your own use.

Dear Ministers
Several dozen boat towed from Portland, Warrnambool and even Doncaster joined a long cue of hundreds of people protesting the “Margiris”. I was almost at the front of a long line of boats about 20km from the Westgate and heard people on the bridge giving some indication on how many families and people who enjoy fishing where involved. I did meet several dozen people from your electorates whom are as concerned as I am on this issue.

I am more than disgusted that the (federal) government body which authorised this ship and the quotas of 18000 tonnes plus another 18000 tonnes of our fishery stocks to be abused without first checking the basis of the data the decisions where based on. It is more disturbing to hear of fraud or significant procedural anomalies including blatant conflicts of interest of people paid in advisory/board roles by this government.

Could you please state your positions on this topic. Please help stop the ship the Labour government has allowed into to our waters. Please support any independent members bills to gt this ship back to its home in the already overfished northern oceans.


Sitting on the fence on this issue is not appreciated

Regards

[NavyDiver]

Senator Joe Ludwig
Phone: (02) 6277 7520 or (07) 3229 4477
Email: joe.ludwig@maff.gov.au Mail PO Box 6022 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600

Dear Minister Ludwig

My family and I are very concerned about the lack of a proper study before allowing the FV Margiris to take 18,000,000 or more kilograms of fish from our oceans.

Experiments on this scale are not acceptable. Please stop this ship at least until a full scientific study of the impact:
· on the actual target species,
· on other fish dependant on the target species,
· on non target fish and birds
· on recreation fishing
· on tourism in areas to be impacted by this ship

Regards

you I hope:D

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I know what a billiard cue looks like and even cued music so it came in on cue, I've even seen plenty of queues but one wonders what a boat cue looks like? :twisted:

[Disco44]

Personally I'd like to see our Navy authorised to put a few shots over their bow and told to nick off back to the Northern Hemisphere (Holland) where they came from and told{in not so kind terms} not to come back.But pigs can't fly either.

[NavyDiver]

Personally I'd like to see our Navy authorised to put a few shots over their bow and told to nick off back to the Northern Hemisphere (Holland) where they came from and told{in not so kind terms} not to come back.But pigs can't fly either.
Can see were your coming from:) Clearly threatening them will give them 'excuses' of calling us nutters which would not help. I am more a former submarine or torpedo type myself.
The ministers staff told me he is getting thousands of emails, letters and phone calls:angel:. Hope he get the point the polite way and via all the other political types who are calling.

Spelling is not my strong point sorry Lotz-A-Landies. Consider myself "Moderated":)

[dero]

Saw this thing on the news the other night , there was mention of how quickly it could take it's quota , [cant remember the exact details] .
can't help wondering what it will do once it reaches it's quota , sit around idle ?
How can it be viable to bring it here ? Is there more to it ?

[NavyDiver]

Stop the Super Trawler | CommunityRun (http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/stop-giant-fishing-trawler-in-tasmania'time=1346046359)

only takes a minute. :D

[Chucaro]

Good news and about time :banana::banana:

Government to legislate to stop super trawlers (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-11/government-to-legislate-to-stop-super-trawlers/4254626)

[LandyAndy]

It seems they may have got it thru and a 2 year ban on that size fishing vessel.
They say it was largely to a huge backlash from recreational fishers and proffessional fishermen.:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Andrew

[NavyDiver]

It seems they may have got it thru and a 2 year ban on that size fishing vessel.
They say it was largely to a huge backlash from recreational fishers and proffessional fishermen.:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:
Andrew


It is great. Funnily Green groups seem to be getting most of the credit. With several thousand people involved in emails, phone calls and protests I find that a little funny. Fishermen, women and children appreciate greens support on this topic of course but it would be a bit cheeky for them to claim ownership of this one.

Note to Lotz-A-Landies. I copied this into M.S. word to do a spell check:D No typos mate! Almost a first for me. :angel:

[DT-P38]

Not sure why would even consider allowing this big monster near our waters, but ahh well there you go... EVERYONE on this planet now thinks we are a soft touch nation. Even our good friends the Dutch!

How many sitting ministers haven't done a back flip this year? There can't be that many left now. It would make a lovely musical or comedy show!

So what do you all think? Have the ministers acted to fix this or postpone the fixing? Can fishing this way not hurt the environment? The videos I saw showed a waterfall of creatures sliding into the hull that looked more like a mining operation than fishing.

[akelly]

Despite the media hype, the science is not as sure about this as the Greens are (shock!). Will be interesting to see what the eventual outcome is.

People gotta eat something.

[akelly]

Looks like the Libs are going to vote against the Enviro Ministers new powers today, so the trawler will go ahead...

We'll see.

[newlandyowner]

Its called a super trawler! It's going to rape the sea bare.

Anyone who thinks it wont effect the ocean is crazy. It might not change fish stocks immediately, but what is the flow on affect in years to come?

Would be very sad if you took your kids/grand kids fishing in years to come and had to tell stories on what the sea used to be like before they let the super trawler in.

Personally, I think they should tell it to set sail and never return. Like they should do with the Japanese whaling boats.

[Chucaro]

Despite the media hype, the science is not as sure about this as the Greens are (shock!). Will be interesting to see what the eventual outcome is.

People gotta eat something.

Well when we talk about the ecosystem we have to be very careful about what we are doing.
Science have made big blunders like the introduction of the canetoad the use OS of DDT to combat malaria.
More specifically about fishing, try to get the Orrin H. Pilkey and Linda Pilkey-Jarvis, book Useless Arithmetic: Why Environmental Scientists Can't Predict the Future summed up the case of the Grand Banks cod fisheries.

[Chucaro]

To not repeat threads this topic is here with the input of many members ;)

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/fishing-shack/157700-super-sized-trawlers-no-thanks.html

[THE BOOGER]

As I understand it the total fish take will remain the same the super trawler has to acquire their quota from the existing catch so no more fish will be caught but it will be caught in a shorter period. If fisheries does its job as they do now i dont see a big problem:)

[akelly]

I know it's an unpopular viewpoint, and will be dismissed by many, but perhaps we could base this thread on an understanding of the facts?

Get them here, if you want them: Super trawler FAQs « Australian Fisheries Management Authority (http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/08/super-trawler-faqs-3/)

Bottom line: the quota is the quota. Smaller boats will take the same amount of fish as a bigger boat. I know it's more complicated than that, but I'm into reductionism...

:D

[KarlB]

From Andrew Macintosh, ANU:

One of the tragic things about environmental policy is that it tends to follow the principle of factor sparsity, or what is more generally known as the 80-20 rule — 80% is for show, 20% for go. Put another way, 80% of policy is designed to do nothing more than send political signals to the electorate or make voters feel better about themselves. The remaining 20% is actually intended to change environmental outcomes.
There is no better example of the 80% in action than the government’s treatment of the Abel Tasman super trawler issue.
Since the early 1990s, Commonwealth fisheries policy has largely been based on three simple principles. First, overfishing is addressed by placing caps (or quotas) on how many fish can be taken in each fishery. Second, government policy should encourage the caps to be filled at least cost — that is, the fish should be caught in the cheapest way possible to free up resources for other uses. Third, the use of fishing gear is regulated in order to reduce by-catch, or the unintentional capture of non-commercial species.
Sitting above the fisheries regime are environmental protection laws. Under federal environmental law, all Commonwealth-managed fisheries are strategically assessed on a rolling basis. These assessments look at the environmental impacts of the management arrangements for each fishery and determine whether they are sustainable. After the completion of the assessment, if the environment minister is satisfied with the arrangements, the fishery is approved for the purpose of export and an exemption is granted to ensure individual fishers do not have to comply with project-based environmental approval requirements.
Despite the noise in the media, the proposed operations of the Abel Tasman tick all the boxes of the fisheries and environmental regime. The fishing will occur within the quota set for the Small Pelagic Fishery. The fisheries management arrangements for this fishery have been strategically assessed by the Environment Department on four occasions: 2003, 2007, 2009 and 2012. Moreover, the introduction of the larger vessel is in keeping with the desire to improve efficiency as it will lower unit costs, and Environment Minister Tony Burke had set stringent bycatch conditions on the operation of the vessel.
This is not to say that the general management arrangements for the Small Pelagic Fishery or any other Commonwealth-managed fishery are sustainable. Several of them are overfished and subject to serious bycatch and environmental degradation issues (noting that the Small Pelagic Fishery is probably among the better-managed Commonwealth fisheries). However, the operator of the Abel Tasman, Seafish, has done everything according to the book. Its only crime was to run into a government in a tight political spot that is looking to attract votes on the back of a populist environmental campaign.
As if to highlight the absurdity of the situation, the government is rushing through legislation today in order to give it the power to stop the Abel Tasman from fishing pending an environmental assessment, even though it already possesses this power. There are provisions in the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act that allow Burke to call in the Abel Tasman’s proposed activities and subject them to the project-based environmental assessment and approval process. It is unclear why the government thinks it needs to duplicate these existing powers.
Given the way the process has unfolded, at the very least, Seafish should be offered compensation for its treatment. If it isn’t, the company is justified in asking why its losses are any different from those incurred by the fossil-fuel generators and other emissions-intensive polluters, which have been so grossly overcompensated for the effects of the carbon pricing scheme.
Beyond that, this incident shines a light toward more serious policy questions, particularly the sustainability of the current fisheries management arrangements and efficacy of the Commonwealth’s strategic assessment process.
To date, there has been only one independent analysis of the fisheries strategic assessment process. It found that the strategic assessments rarely led to material changes in fisheries practices and that its environmental achievements were modest. If there is a need for change, it is in the way these assessments are conducted and the level of transparency in environmental and fisheries regulation.
As Seafish has pleaded today, fishers need certainty in the regulatory environment in which they operate. Equally, the community is entitled to ask that its marine resources are effectively and sustainably managed, and that it is provided with the data to make these judgments.

Cheers
KarlB

[Davie]

Just my opinion, but can't Australian fishing boats catch fish anymore,It's like the iron ore and manufacturing, let someone else do it and pay the government royalties. Why is there a need for this super trawler to come all this way to fish? are there no fish left in the northern hemisphere?
Tell them to bugger off.

[vnx205]

Just my opinion, but can't Australian fishing boats catch fish anymore,It's like the iron ore and manufacturing, let someone else do it and pay the government royalties. Why is there a need for this super trawler to come all this way to fish? are there no fish left in the northern hemisphere?
Tell them to bugger off.

Seafish, the company planning to operate the trawler, is a Tasmanian company.

Like a lot of other industries, fishermen need to find more efficient ways to operate. Bigger is often more efficient.

The total number of fish caught in our waters will not change.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest that this is a mob of foreigners coming to pinch our fish. However, it suits opponents of the trawler to let this myth continue.

[akelly]

We shouldn't let a simple, distorted, politicised load of garbage distract us from the important work of govt. thankfully the diligent members of the parliament are onto the big issues - supporting the telegraph's war on trolls...

**** you labor, you're on your own with this nonsense!

[Chucaro]

We shouldn't let a simple, distorted, politicised load of garbage distract us from the important work of govt. thankfully the diligent members of the parliament are onto the big issues - supporting the telegraph's war on trolls...

**** you labor, you're on your own with this nonsense!

Perhaps yes, perhaps no, going by the public opinion their are not in their own.
Then again, who cares about what the people want :angel:

[Chucaro]

Seafish, the company planning to operate the trawler, is a Tasmanian company.

Like a lot of other industries, fishermen need to find more efficient ways to operate. Bigger is often more efficient.

The total number of fish caught in our waters will not change.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest that this is a mob of foreigners coming to pinch our fish. However, it suits opponents of the trawler to let this myth continue.

The ship has been brought to Australia by a Dutch-Australian joint venture, which the embassy official says has invested millions of dollars.

[akelly]

I think the govt has a responsibility to lead debate, not simply enact emotional reactions driven by the media.

The greens are driving this campaign via the media, knowing that these sorts of issues are a boon to newspapers and news outlets. The govt should be leading the public by focusing on the facts and making decisions in the public interest.

The govt may well believe that stopping this boat is in the public interest, but it sure doesn't look that way. It actually looks like they believe stopping this boat is in their political interest.

I dont know either way, but from the information available it seems like a zero sum game. Either way the same number of fish are going to be caught.

[Chucaro]

Seafish, the company planning to operate the trawler, is a Tasmanian company.

Like a lot of other industries, fishermen need to find more efficient ways to operate. Bigger is often more efficient.

The total number of fish caught in our waters will not change.

It is a misrepresentation to suggest that this is a mob of foreigners coming to pinch our fish. However, it suits opponents of the trawler to let this myth continue.

I guess that if the Australian fishermen get the help for the Australian government as the owners of the Margiris, Parlevliet & Van der Plas, owners of the Margiris, the fishing business in Australia will be "very efficientt"


Parlevliet & Van der Plashas received direct subsidies of €39m since 1994 and in recent years (2006-2011) has also received indirect subsidies within the range of €16m and €28m. A large proportion of these subsidies are used to pay for fuel with the Margiris alone receiving up to €4.2m every year for the past 6 years.

[akelly]

So do you oppose the trawler on ecological, economic or nationalistic grounds?

[Ean Austral]

To put this in simple terms people need to decide which would be worse.

1 truck towing 3 trailers or
3 trucks towing 1 trailer.

In the end the same amount of freight ( now think fish quota ) is acheived.

Then think about enviromental impact... which will be more 1 truck or 3 trucks.

When it comes to cost its the same arguement.

The Able Tasman is designed to catch its amount of quota as quick and as efficient as possible.

As for fuel subsidies, primary producers in Australia have been recieving them for years, so the more fuel you use the more you get back...nothing new here.

Cheers Ean

[isuzurover]

This is an issue where public sensationalism has created knee-jerk reactions which ignore the science. (Not to say the science is perfect or cannot be improved).

A mate of mine used to be a fisheries inspector.

He said back in the '90s there was a 110m russian trawler fishing in our waters which did not create much fuss.

[KarlB]

So do you oppose the trawler on ecological, economic or nationalistic grounds?

The issue is not as simple as your question, nor is the management of the small pelagic fishery. Sufficient to say that AFMA have seen the Eastern Gemfish, Orange Roughy and SBT fished to the point that they are now vulnerable to extinction in Australian waters. They are officially listed as Conservation Dependent. It is easy to abuse the science. We see it every day.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Chucaro]

So do you oppose the trawler on ecological, economic or nationalistic grounds?

I just try to correct some comments ;)
Ecological I do not like big trawlers :)

[akelly]

The issue is not as simple as your question, nor is the management of the small pelagic fishery. Sufficient to say that AFMA have seen the Eastern Gemfish, Orange Roughy and SBT fished to the point that they are now vulnerable to extinction in Australian waters. They are officially listed as Conservation Dependent. It is easy to abuse the science. We see it every day.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

Perhaps, but if you oppose something there must be a basis for your opposition, surely?

There are plenty of reasons to oppose the trawler - not all of them are reasonable.

I'm no fan of the concept of a giant floating factory dragging enormous amounts of fish from the ocean - in fact I'm against it. But in this case the thing to oppose is the quota and the science it is based on - the trawler itself is just an easy target for emotional attacks. Banning this boat will do nothing to fix the apparent issue - which is that the fisheries management plan might be based on flawed science.

I would prefer the govt spend some time and effort getting that sorted out rather than tilting at windmills errected by the greens. The opposition are opposing because thats what they do, so there is no refuge there. The only bloke that seems to be making any sense at all in the debate is Rob Oakeshott.

The meeja crapping on about the 'super trawler' and the idiot politicians pandering to the fear mongering demean us all. It's the 'stop the trolls' nonsense in a different coat.

Cheers,

Adam

[Ean Austral]

I must say i'm confused with the governments arguement.. In one hand they are stopping a vessel from fishing a set quota because they now dont believe the science that has set the quota.

BUT,

To my knowledge the same quota is still able to be fished, just not by this 1 vessel..

What is the real issue ? If the science is un-acceptable then suspend all fishing for those species to all both commercial and recreational.

Cheers Ean

[akelly]

That's my problem too Ean - I don't think the govt is making this decision for the right reasons. I doubt they are going to do anything about the actual problem.

[Ean Austral]

That's my problem too Ean - I don't think the govt is making this decision for the right reasons. I doubt they are going to do anything about the actual problem.

Some on here need to google the pantagonian toothfish fishery in heard and maquarie Isl and see the size of the Australian toothfish boats that fish down there.

The whole issue of by-catch is a no-win arguement , because as I said with my crude eg using the trucks. The quota is there to be caught, what does more damage 1 big net or 40 smaller nets that can cover 40 different spots at once and truth be known the bottom area coverage ( or swept area as its called) would likely be more than the 1 big net.

Something to think about, if you can see past all the hype of the size of the vessel

Cheers Ean

[KarlB]

The decision is just part of Andrew Macintosh's 80%, I suggest.

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[Ean Austral]

This is an issue where public sensationalism has created knee-jerk reactions which ignore the science. (Not to say the science is perfect or cannot be improved).

A mate of mine used to be a fisheries inspector.

He said back in the '90s there was a 110m russian trawler fishing in our waters which did not create much fuss.

There was also a Soviet factory ship that came to the Gulf of Carpenteria in 1968, it was 103 mtrs long with a crew of 130, the standard NPF trawler in those days was less than 20 mtrs with 4 crew.

So its not the first foreign factory ship to fish in our waters.It was called the "Van Gogh"

Cheers Ean

[DT-P38]

Oh dear this mob are really up to no good now. What will it take to restore some sort of integrity back to our leadership?

How can we trust anything red anymore? I am gonna have to start buying green tomatoes!

[akelly]

Well, the bill had passed the lower house. Seems like the Libs are just as ****weak as the ALP. What a shock.

[akelly]

My mistake, it was the indies that got it up.

[Chucaro]

Are they fishing now in ACT or reading between the lines :confused:
Why this serious questions were not raised before?

Mr Burke says there are some "serious questions" about the assessment process that has taken place.

"Whether it be because of their legislation or because of their own actions, I do not believe they (AFMA) have been precautionary enough," Mr Burke told Question Time.

"AFMA themselves, in the last 24 hours, have reported to the Government legal advice that some aspects of the Act, they have been implementing incorrectly."

[87County]

... the EU ?

yes - Oz could be in big trouble if the Dutch get their way

Dutch take supertrawler ban to EU (http://www.smh.com.au/world/dutch-take-supertrawler-ban-to-eu-20120913-25v5w.html)

fancy that... us having the temerity to not want them to vacuum our seas up

[isuzutoo-eh]

So...since we aren't part of the EU what can the EU do? Ban the import of our wool or something? Up the shipping on all internet purchases from within Europe?

Wouldn't it be similar to hmmm Canada whining to NATO that New Zealand wouldn't let them club some seals?

This article has a little more info
Netherlands raises trawler ban with EU (http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/netherlands-raises-trawler-ban-with-eu-20120913-25v7t.html)

[dirtdawg]

whats wrong have they already overfished their own waters

[loanrangie]

whats wrong have they already overfished their own waters

Yes and thats exactly why we should tell them to **** off, i dont care who's name or flag they fly on that ship its still a euro vessel and not welcome here.

[JDNSW]

Regaardless of whether you think the ship should have been allowed or not, to allow the owners to spend millions bringing it to Australia, after years of discussions with Federal departments, and meeting all requirements specified, including reflagging as Australian, and only then saying "no we'll change the law to stop you", is hardly going to improve the world view of Australia as a place to do business.

This is regardless of any trouble with the EU. It is exactly what is meant by "sovereign risk" - the risk that the rules will change after you have invested your money. Same problem as with the mining tax, but probably even more damaging, as the change in rules came without warning in just a few days, and unlike the mining tax, which simply takes part of the profits, this change means no income at all.

John

[THE BOOGER]

As for "vacuming" up the sea they had to purchase their quota from existing australian fishermen so more fish will be caught by this trawler only caught more effciently and in a shorter time many small trawlers were/are happy to sell their quota :( This is all about looking good for the greens not what is good for the rest of australia.:(

[PhilipA]

Ha! ha! what a joke.
The EEC now prohibits all but derisory amounts of Australian goods.

Take meat for instance. AFAIR the quota from Australia is 7700 tonnes. Gee that would hurt. Virtually NO agricultural products are let in.

Of course if we then banned import of Mercedes and BMW, Renault. Peugeot (and maybe Land Rovers?)in retaliation it could really hurt them.
Regard s Philip A

[bob10]

whats wrong have they already overfished their own waters

Yes, and the west African waters, Bob.

[bob10]

As for "vacuming" up the sea they had to purchase their quota from existing australian fishermen so more fish will be caught by this trawler only caught more effciently and in a shorter time many small trawlers were/are happy to sell their quota :( This is all about looking good for the greens not what is good for the rest of australia.:(

Sorry, mate, I'm not a green, and some of my best mates are fishermen, this about a handful of Australians in the fishing industry making money out of a deal with the Dutch , who have fished out the waters of West Africa, and are looking for somewhere else to fish out, before moving on. Where next? the Pacific Islands? Do you think New Zealand would put up with this blatant exploitation of their fishing industry? Who in Australia benefits from this ? A handful of grubs in the industry, Bob

[Ean Austral]

So the governments stops this vessel from fishing because it beleives the science behind the setting of the T.A.C (quota ) may be flawed, but yet the quota itself hasn't been suspended, so 50 other boats can go out and catch the same amount of fish using the same science that set the T.A.C in the first place. mmmm interesting logic.

What abou the everyday fisherman who have leased their quota to the operaters, maybe its their retirerment plan after years of working.

This will be settled in the courts..

Cheers Ean

[jakeslouw]

I think a bigger global problem is illegal trawler fishing in general: Both coasts of Africa are swarming with Taiwanese, Chinese, Japanese and European trawlers that feel zip for international fishing agreements and for crossing international maritime borders.

They use gill nets and simply rape the coastlines.

[bob10]

I think a bigger global problem is illegal trawler fishing in general: Both coasts of Africa are swarming with Taiwanese, Chinese, Japanese and European trawlers that feel zip for international fishing agreements and for crossing international maritime borders.

They use gill nets and simply rape the coastlines.
Three years of my life were spent on a patrol boat out of Darwin boarding taiwanese stern trawlers , and Indonesian fishing boats trying to enforce our fishing laws. The Indonesian boats I almost felt sorry for, just little wooden boats doing what they had done for a hundred years. But, they took trochus shell & shark fins. The Taiwanese took everything , using stern trawlers, we gave them a hard time, and more than one occassion we had a taiwanese fisherman with his knife against one of our boarding parties throat, and a 9 mm pistol against the taiwanese head.I can not believe our fishing industry would sell themselves out for a few silver dollars, Bob

[101RRS]

So the governments stops this vessel from fishing because it beleives the science behind the setting of the T.A.C (quota ) may be flawed, but yet the quota itself hasn't been suspended, so 50 other boats can go out and catch the same amount of fish using the same science that set the T.A.C in the first place. mmmm interesting logic.

What abou the everyday fisherman who have leased their quota to the operaters, maybe its their retirerment plan after years of working.

This will be settled in the courts..

Cheers Ean

I know the science is sound as best it can be and this decision is all political with Labor running scared - emotion has won over science.

The Govt has broken one of its own objectives to make fisheries more efficient and one way this can be achieved is by economies of scale.

The Govt (you and I) will have major issues in Court and will have to pay out millions in compensation (I can assure you the Minister will have been receiving as a minimum weekly briefings on this for a long time) - it will cost us directly through compensation and through increases in the price of seafood. Fisheries Management is a full cost recovery industry, so this extra scientific work which will not achieve anything will have to be paid for by the fishing industry so costs will be passed onto us.

This is what happens when you create "Independent Statutory Authorities" to manage functions but when they exercise their authority and deliver decisions in line with their governing legislation that the Government does not like - then you just change the legislation to suit the Government - who will be next - the RBA when it does not deliver interest rate changes that the Government wants, Fair Work Aust or what about the Australian Electoral Commission when it makes electoral decisions that the Government does not agree with.

Not a good decision.

Garry

[bob10]

I know the science is sound as best it can be a

Garry
Could you please explain the science to a layman like me, as you know it is sound, Bob

[Lotz-A-Landies]

I know the science is sound as best it can be a

GarryCould you please explain the science to a layman like me, as you know it is sound, BobYes I'd like to hear it too, particularly the bit about the research being done a decade ago without any concept of the size of this vessel and it's ability to continue taking more fish out an area while normal sized trawlers have to return to port to empty their holds.

As I understand it the ban is two years for up-to-date research considering a vessel of this size.

[Ean Austral]

Yes I'd like to hear it too, particularly the bit about the research being done a decade ago without any concept of the size of this vessel and it's ability to continue taking more fish out an area while normal sized trawlers have to return to port to empty their holds.

As I understand it the ban is two years for up-to-date research considering a vessel of this size.

The size of the vessel doesn't matter under a quota system. To operate a vessel with the amount of quota this one has, those other normal size trawlers would not be fishing anyway as their quota has likely been baught or leased by the operaters of the larger vessel.

Under Quota based management , it does not matter if 1 boat or 100 boats go fishing the total amount that can be caught in that fishery is still the same overall amount

Quota is not an endless number, so the fact that others trawlers have to go to port sooner or later doesn't effect the fishery in any way. The only thing it does is lengthen the time it takes for the total quota to be caught.

Cheers Ean

PS for what its worth I have spent many hours arguing with AFMA when I was on the Management Advisory Committee of the prawn fishery I was involved in.. I just think that the minister has got the handling of this totally wrong.. If the science is wrong shut the whole fishery down.

[Pinelli]

For those with an Australian subscription, Peter van Olsen (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/tony-burke-shows-himself-an-appalling-policymaker/story-fn53lw5p-1226473693621) explains it well



As a summary, the 'super trawler' has a net no larger than any other vessel. It is large because of the processing and freezing facilities on board. This allows it to fish further out to sea, where it is less likely to trap unwanted fish (so actually does less damage to the ecosystem). Its efficiencies of scale would also likely bring down the price of fish.

Because they have bought out other fisher's quotas, it won't actually bring in more fish than before, just cheaper fish and do less damage.

They have spent 7 years and millions of dollars trying to get accreditation and have some of the strictest rules against any trawler in the world, including a rule where a single caught dolphin means they must stop fishing immediately and review their operations.

So now, they will take away their efficient and safe boat, and go and trawl somewhere where no one cares about the environment, leaving us with a less efficient and environmentally-safe fleet, more expensive fish and a poor business reputation world wide.

Somewhat akin to the live cattle trade fiasco we saw not that long ago.

[Chucaro]

I know the science is sound as best it can be and this decision is all political with Labor running scared - emotion has won over science.

The Govt has broken one of its own objectives to make fisheries more efficient and one way this can be achieved is by economies of scale.

The Govt (you and I) will have major issues in Court and will have to pay out millions in compensation (I can assure you the Minister will have been receiving as a minimum weekly briefings on this for a long time) - it will cost us directly through compensation and through increases in the price of seafood. Fisheries Management is a full cost recovery industry, so this extra scientific work which will not achieve anything will have to be paid for by the fishing industry so costs will be passed onto us.

This is what happens when you create "Independent Statutory Authorities" to manage functions but when they exercise their authority and deliver decisions in line with their governing legislation that the Government does not like - then you just change the legislation to suit the Government - who will be next - the RBA when it does not deliver interest rate changes that the Government wants, Fair Work Aust or what about the Australian Electoral Commission when it makes electoral decisions that the Government does not agree with.

Not a good decision.

Garry

Then again.....
Fisheries breached act on super trawler quota (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/fisheries-breached-act-on-super-trawler-quota/4263172)

The Commonwealth Ombudsman has found the federal fisheries authority breached the Fisheries Act in the process of setting the quota for the controversial super trawler.


Between the politicians in the federal gov and the opposition, the ones in the states together with senior public servants and independent agencies we have a good case to nominate Australia as the Banana Republic :D

[Chucaro]

Fisheries breached act on super trawler quota (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-15/fisheries-breached-act-on-super-trawler-quota/4263172)

It was "an Italian job" or perhaps someone will say that is because the Carbon Tax? :p
Time will tell, then again maybe not and the important answers will be under a carpet some were in the ACT.

[THE BOOGER]

Arthur the story you linked says nothing about the science it says they let the Australian who was bring the trawler here to sit in on 1 meeting not that the quota or science was wrong:(

[Chucaro]

Arthur the story you linked says nothing about the science it says they let the Australian who was bring the trawler here to sit in on 1 meeting not that the quota or science was wrong:(

I agree with you bad it have something to do with the process used by AFMA and this live questions to be answer.
Possible one of the answers to the questions is if there was any influence to dictate the quotes or the arrival of the decision to approve the permit.

People take science to suit their own interest. Regarding fishing when science say enough is enough regarding fishing in the Great Barrier Reef people do not like to hearing that and now in this case when science say it is ok to fishing with some conditions attached people do not like that either.
I guess the the question is: what it is more important, public opinion or science?
Perhaps in a democratic country the wish of the majority of the population overrules science.......I do not know any more :(

[manchild21000]

So after years of buying up quotas from local fisherman and comply with all the regulations and countless hurdles they been told to bugger off .Nice work .
George

[KarlB]

The science and consequential management is so good that under AFMA's watch we have seen the Eastern Gemfish, Orange Roughy and School Shark fisheries decimated. These species are now officially listed as Conservation Dependent, but unofficially they are clearly vulnerable to extinction. The Southern Bluefin Tuna is similarly classified. Seems to me we have management for the fishers benefit, not the fishes.

Cheers
KarlB
:mad:

[Ean Austral]

The science and consequential management is so good that under AFMA's watch we have seen the Eastern Gemfish, Orange Roughy and School Shark fisheries decimated. These species are now officially listed as Conservation Dependent, but unofficially they are clearly vulnerable to extinction. The Southern Bluefin Tuna is similarly classified. Seems to me we have management for the fishers benefit, not the fishes.

Cheers
KarlB
:mad:

Gday Karl,

where did you hear that about the S.B.T

Cheers Ean

[Chucaro]

That it is what I have read about
The World Conservation Union (IUCN) lists SBT as 'critically endangered.'
SBT is listed as 'threatened' under the Victorian Flora and Fauna Guarantee Act 1988
SBT is listed as 'endangered' under the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act 1994The parental biomass (breeding population) of SBT in 1995 was 5-8% of the parental biomass in 1960 (Bureau of Rural Sciences 2001).
SBT has undergone a population reduction of at least 80% over three generations (IUCN, 2000).
Present SBT spawning biomass is "in the order of 7-15% of that which existed in 1960 (a time when substantial reductions had already occurred) and in the order of 25-53% of the 1980 level" (Bureau of Rural Sciences 2001).
High levels of unreported catch coupled with a management system trying to manage an already depleted population by consensus, has proved difficult.
A reviewed carried out in 2006 of the Japanese market confirmed that there are significant levels of unreported catches of SBT for at least the past 20 years. It is estimated that up to 178 000 t of unreported SBT have been caught (Bureau of Resource Sciences, 2007).
An independent review of Australia's SBT catch was showed no evidence of mis-reporting by the Australian SBT fleet.
The Australian and South Australian governments have never reduced the Australian quota of SBT in an effort to recover the species, preferring to shift blame to other countries which fish SBT.
The Australian and South Australian governments continue to allow the exploitation of this species.

[KarlB]

Gday Karl,

where did you hear that about the S.B.T

Cheers Ean

Have a look here Ean: Thunnus maccoyii &mdash; Southern Bluefin Tuna (http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl'taxon_id=69402)

Cheers
KarlB
:)

[KarlB]

The Outdoor Pastimes Fishing Shack seems a bizarre place to move this imortant thread! :eek:

[Chucaro]

The Outdoor Pastimes Fishing Shack seems a bizarre place to move this imortant thread! :eek:

Specially when the majority of us have only a fishing rod :D
As sun as some members gone hot under the collar it will be moved to the soapbox :)

[101RRS]

Could you please explain the science to a layman like me, as you know it is sound, Bob


Yes I'd like to hear it too, particularly the bit about the research being done a decade ago without any concept of the size of this vessel and it's ability to continue taking more fish out an area while normal sized trawlers have to return to port to empty their holds.

As I understand it the ban is two years for up-to-date research considering a vessel of this size.

Well you can both go and do your own research as to the science starting with the AFMA, DAFF and Environment websites.

The Government is not disputing the fishery stock assessments and indeed Minister Burke last signed off on them as late a 2009 - data is constantly being collected via the Observer and other programs and fed into the models that scientists use to calculate the stock assessment process.

The issue the Government now has seems to relate to bycatch issues etc - the fact is that bycatch is an issue in most fisheries and its impacts are well known with mitigation measures in place in many fisheries. All well and good but the issues are known so there is nothing new here. With this method of fishing, I do not know about the impact on dolphins but seals will generally be quite safe as they are smart enough and agile enough to swim in and out of the nets and if get caught up to escape via the chutes in the net - indeed they swim up the chute to steal the fish. But bycatch is a fact off life.

garry