Thread: super sized trawlers- no thanks!

Originally Posted by garrycol

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.

Garry

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?

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

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

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

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 .

Originally Posted by garrycol

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’.

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

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.

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

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-n...1027-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.

Originally Posted by weakestlink

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
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