Thread: super sized trawlers- no thanks!

Originally Posted by akelly

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

Originally Posted by KarlB

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

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

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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

Cheers
KarlB

Originally Posted by 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.

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

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!