Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Davie
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by akelly
Then again, who cares about what the people want :angel:
The ship has been brought to Australia by a Dutch-Australian joint venture, which the embassy official says has invested millions of dollars.Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
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.
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by vnx205
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.
So do you oppose the trawler on ecological, economic or nationalistic grounds?
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
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.