More news on super trawler!

[Tacklebags 404]

Despite Tasmanian Labor senators expressing concerns about the trawler, they did not support the motion and it was voted down 30 votes to 10. Senator Whish-Wilson says it is extremely disappointing."They had their chance to take action today and they sat on their hands," he said."Anything else they've been saying in the media is a red herring. This was the only opportunity to put a halt to this boat."

Labor doing what they do best...pretending to care about their constituents!'Snouts in troughs' win again!TB

[Del 245]

http://www.markmaldridge.com/SUPER-TRAWLER-EXPOSE-UPDATE.htmla VERY interesting article... too long to post the exact article so please click the link.http://www.markmaldridge.com/SUPER-TRAWLER-EXPOSE-UPDATE.html

[snapper15.4kg 67]

We should be hearing from Canberra at about 11.30 am, On a turn arround of thinking, as to the trawler.

[Del 245]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/abcnews24/video interview. some good questions

[Crusher 18]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-11/government-to-legislate-to-stop-super-trawlers/4254626thankyou Tony Burke

[mrballs 12]

Good news! ... power to the people.

[alexczarn 146]

Yes! Great news!

[Del 245]

at this stage from reading and watching the links around.. he is juts putting forth the paper work to be allowed to stop it for 2 yrs.. this hasnt yet been officially passed by government so... lets hope it does get up!

[Crusher 18]

at this stage from reading and watching the links around.. he is juts putting forth the paper work to be allowed to stop it for 2 yrs.. this hasnt yet been officially passed by government so... lets hope it does get up!

Yeah thats correct Del. Baby steps. At least someone has listened.

[Del 245]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-11/government-to-legislate-to-stop-super-trawlers/4254626"But now he says he will introduce legislation to Parliament today that will extend his legal powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC), allowing him to order that more scientific research be undertaken to assess the impact of the trawler on Australia's oceans."

[Del 245]

another issue with whats already been released with the restrictions is the so called " move on" clause. if dolphins and sea lions are "bought up in the nets"the fact that the whole issue of dead sealions and dolphins being " bought up in the net" is a non existent till its too late issue. as this boatuses a oceanic vacuum so suck up the fish from the net into the holding tanks for storage and preperation prior to freezing. these dead dolphins and sealions will be stuck in the net or washed out of the over flow shoot while they continue to trawl their nets till they see fit. the notion of " abandoning a shot" if a dead dolphin comes up is non existent! as the nets dont come up till they are done!just one of my thoughts...

[brenton 637]

Good news! ... power to the people.

Ditto to that

[Tacklebags 404]

This is good news that I am sure Van Der Plas/Seafood Tasmania will fight.I really don't see how they can assure sustainability through science unless this boat spends more days alongside a wharf than it does fishing.18,000,000kg's (quota)250,000kg's (per day catching/processing capability)This means that potentially only 72 days at sea and it's done fishing for a year? Make it say 90 days if you include the 9,000,000kg limit on its storage.What is it going to do for the other 266 days of the year?Surely to remove 18,000,000kgs of targeted catch (not including tonnes of bycatch) over such a potentially short, sharp period of time would have adverse effects of the wider ecosystem?This impact would be magnified if it chooses to fish close to state waters IMHO.TB

[Del 245]

TB they also stated that they intended to buy up all available quota allowances from other license holders. there for not limiting it to its 18million kg...

[Tacklebags 404]

If that's the case Del...We should push for anti monopolisation of the industry as well.TB

[Boyington214 0]

Sorry Gerry. You Lose!!

[afishyfish 4]

Definiteley agree re shooting the nets Del. To me its a pointless exercise.Once those animals are bought up, no doubt there would be a very high mortality rate. Its too late to return them then.The other thought I have on that though, is that if they are preying on the targetted baitfish, and were returned alive, there'd be an increased predator/prey happening, which would not be good for what was left :S Considering the ship is targetting baitfish, I fail to see how shifting to another area can possibly avoid catching more predators, given that the two go hand in hand anyway !

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-11/government-to-legislate-to-stop-super-trawlers/4254626thankyou Tony Burke

Thats definiteley good to hear.The line " Restoring Public Confidence " worries me a bit tho !

[khombi 10]

I would have to say that to remove 18000 tons of redbait fish in one hit would have to affect the rebreeding cycle of this species unlike taking some now and some a bit later on. At some given point of time,after being heavily fished they would not be able rebreed in sustainable numbers.

[spinyeel 2]

We should start hunting down and punishing the idiots that thought this was a good idea in the first place. Bring out the torches and pitch forks,I say. :evil: :evil:

[afishyfish 4]

We should start hunting down and punishing the idiots that thought this was a good idea in the first place. Bring out the torches and pitch forks' date='I say. :evil: :evil:[/quote']200 years ago in The Wild West it would have been a case of Hang 'em High !Geez I wish this was happening 200 years ago there

[Del 245]

and the saga continues.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-12/government-facing-roadblock-over-super-trawler-laws/4256344The Government's plan to rush through legislation aimed at stopping the Abel Tasman super trawler appears increasingly likely to fail, with the Coalition declaring its opposition to the move and key crossbenchers voicing concerns about the bill... click link for morethis is exactly what i thought would happen when it was announced yesterday...

[Jimmy. 173]

Fairly sure I wrote exactly that is how they would write the laws yesterday in the shoutout box. You also have to remember for that thing to be allowed into AUS waters to begin with deals would have already had to have been made and pockets lined...

[Ale 301]

what a monumental fck up, first they endorse it, even have a webpage saying how good it is,( was still online yesty as they moved to ban it) then they backflip try and can it and claim its not cos of public pressure!! But now Rabbit and his gimps arnt going to help ban it to prove a point that the current government are hopeless and it could create problems down the track as the legislation is currently drafted!! Instead they could help make the legislation better, still get the thing banned and still point the finger at labour .to top it off, u have the Tasmanian fkrs winging they will sue the government now, saying this only could happen in 3rd world countries!! Where in fact, In 3rd world countries, the trawler would be welcomed with open arms and for a small fee turn the waters into barren wastelands within months!!!Just can’t help but think its all about the $$$$, and political point scoring, with the environment , lively hood of other commercial fishos and the flow on effect to us Recs ignored

[Del 245]

it wouldn't happen in 3rd world countries.. because there is no fish left in their waters for this rapist to pillage..

[SamN 0]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114say they are gonna consider both sides, urm seems pretty one sided to me, people just dont understand where we are coming from etc. The whole idea really was a joke

[afishyfish 4]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114. The whole idea really was a joke

Interesting looking at the photos of the device in the net that supposedly lets animals escape, actually showing a pic of a seal exiting.Could that just be "selective" journalism at its best/worst ?Smoke and mirrors :whistle:

[khombi 10]

lets not be fooled by this lattest development regards the banning of the Margaris fishing our waters,i am suspicious that this goverment is playing games at the moment to try to calm the situation down and gain a bit more breathing space as one might say, after all this is politics at its best right now, you can almost see them number crunching before the campaining begins prior to the elections. The federal goverment right now is starting to shit its pants because it did not expect the backlash that it got and right now it will say anything it can to try and get out of this mess its in,they cannot aford to lose anymore votes and if they allow this ship to fish our waters they are going to lose more than they expected. Lets face it this ship would not have come here without some sort of assuranse from the goverment to be allowed to fish and im damn sure she is not going to give up without some sort fight and go home with empty holds. I DONT THINK SO. :evil: Round one is over round two is about to begin.

[Del 245]

it has been stated that there has been 7 years of negotiations and behind the scenes deals and discussions prior to the arrival.. id assume with the labour government in power..the objections are now from the Coalition. LIbrals..the laws need to be fail safe if they are changed. to protect our fisheries but not allow total power of one man to decided who and when. there needs to be checklists in place before a total banning of a fishery is activated.

[afishyfish 4]

it has been stated that there has been 7 years of negotiations and behind the scenes deals and discussions prior to the arrival.. id assume with the labour government in power..the objections are now from the Coalition. LIbrals..the laws need to be fail safe if they are changed. to protect our fisheries but not allow total power of one man to decided who and when. there needs to be checklists in place before a total banning of a fishery is activated.

Check this Del http://www.news.com.au/business/independent-mps-to-decide-on-super-trawler-ban/story-e6frfm1i-1226472323528THE Federal Government has agreed to amend its controversial bill to ban the super trawler Abel Tasman from Australian waters. The amendment' date=' moved by former Labor member Craig Thompson, makes it clear that only commercial fishers will come under the new legislation.It also exempts current agreed arrangements from the ban, in a bid to ease the fears of other commercial fishers that they will be excluded from fishing under the act.The amendments come as lawyers for the Australian partners of banned super trawler, the Abel Tasman, are investigating whether the Government is liable for significant compensation.Seafish Tasmania refused to speculate on a figure it would seek, but sources say that amount would have to be on the tens of millions of dollars.Environment Minister Tony Burke has repeatedly denied the Government will be held liable, because, he says, they had not officially been approved to take their 18,000 tonne quota of fish.A vote on the bill, which needs to garner the support of at least one of the key independents, Bob Katter or Tony Windsor, is expected later today.A public uprising against the 142-metre trawler prompted Labor to introduce the new laws to stop it operating off the coast for at least two years.Mr Burke said the laws would protect Australian fisheries, as current legislation did not take into account vessels of the size and haul potential of the Abel Tasman.Earlier, Opposition Manager of Business Chris Pyne said the Bill was a "Trojan horse" it could not support."It allows the minister to ban any fishing in Australia of any kind – recreational fishing, charter fishing, commercial fishing – on the basis of the minister deciding it has a social impact," he said.Tasmanian Independent Andrew Wilkie signalled he would support the moves, but NSW MP Rob Oakeshott said he was unlikely to.He said science, not emotion, should dictate fishing licences.Mr Oakeshott said the new legislation built in "some pretty big discretionary powers" for ministers that was "a loss for science and a loss for due process".That would have a lasting impact over future decisions, he said."I certainly accept the emotional arguments around this," he told ABC Radio earlier this morning."It is a big boat, it looks bad, it looks like it's going to do more damage to nature and fish than a lot of small boats."I'm really raising questions because the science looks to be disregarded over the last couple of years over how a quota has been established."Mr Oakeshott said he worried politicians were reacting to "the emotions of a big boat and a very good campaign by Greenpeace and the Greens".Unless a real flaw in the science could be proven to him, he would not support the changes, he said.Seafish Tasmania wants to use the 142-metre trawler, which was originally named the Margiris, to fish for 18,000 tonnes of red bait and mackerel.It says banning the super-trawler will cost 50 jobs.Mr Burke acknowledged the company was considering its legal options in regards to compensation.But he said the vessel had not formally been awarded a quota yet."So the normal situation of them saying they've got some right that was then taken away doesn't necessarily apply at the moment," he told Channel Seven's Sunrise program.Super trawler graphic. Source: news.com.au .."But I'll leave it to lawyers to argue that out."Our advice is that we're on pretty strong ground here."He said there were gaps in the science and therefore there were too many unknowns."My concern is the species that you're not actually trying to catch but end up getting caught up anyway," he said."Be it your dolphins, be it your seals, be it your seabirds when the net's being raised that get entangled as well."The Australian Greens insist research shows the controversial super trawler Abel Tasman would damage the marine environment, despite experts suggesting no such evidence exists.Labor wants to stop the trawler from fishing in Australian waters for up to two years while an expert panel gathers scientific evidence about the impact of such a large-scale operation.The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has so far found "no evidence" that larger boats pose a higher risk.But Greens MP Adam Bandt says one big trawler is clearly worse than a number of smaller boats."Everywhere this super trawler has gone around the world it has damaged the local industry and damaged the local environment," he said today."That is clear to anyone who has done the research. That's why the Greens have been pushing for so long together with the community to get the super trawler out."The 142-metre Abel Tasman, previously known as the Margiris, has a factory and freezer on board.But the AFMA notes its net "is not at all the biggest net in the current Australian fishing fleet".The authority also has stated that "midwater trawling is one of the most selective which means the by-catch will be very low".Liberal backbencher Andrew Laming said the super trawler ban showed lobby groups could squeeze Labor "and see what pops out"."This is a last-minute panicked decision," he said, adding it would make gathering scientific evidence harder."If you really want to know the impact of the super trawler you supervise it and monitor it carefully and watch its impact."But Mr Laming wouldn't say if he would vote against the government's legislation to effectively ban the Abel Tasman.Greens leader Christine Milne said it was more important to address the collapse of fisheries globally."That's where we have to focus our effort," she told reporters.But Senator Milne welcomed the government's move to "stall" the Abel Tasman from fishing in Australian waters."But that is all that has happened."Unless it and other super trawlers were blocked altogether from being in Australia, the issue would again need to be campaigned in two years' time, she said.Canberra Nationals MP Darren Chester said the government's move suggested it had lost confidence in AFMA.It also showed Mr Burke really wanted to lead the Greens."I'm not sure why Labor members even bother going to caucus anymore - they just sign on to GetUp or go to the Greens' meetings and find out what their policy is going to be," Mr Chester told reporters.."The Australian fishing industry is tightly regulated already. It's one of the most sustainable fishing industries in the world."But Mr Chester - like his colleague Mr Laming - would not say how the coalition would vote on the proposed changes to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act.Abel Tasman's operator Seafish Tasmania is gutted."I'm absolutely astonished this could actually happen in Australia," director Gerry Geen told ABC radio.''Feels like a third world country reaction to me - I think this is just unbelievable."[/b']

[Del 245]

looks like i spoke a bit soon

[afishyfish 4]

looks like i spoke a bit soon

[Tacklebags 404]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-15/super-trawler-debate/4200114. The whole idea really was a joke

Interesting looking at the photos of the device in the net that supposedly lets animals escape' date=' actually showing a pic of a seal exiting.Could that just be "selective" journalism at its best/worst ?Smoke and mirrors :whistle:[/quote']FYI AFF....From AFMA's trials on seal interactions using the escape device.

By contrast' date=' interaction times for seals judged as unresponsive and assumed to be mortalities, exceeded 20 min in the vast majority of instances, many pinned motionless against the SED for several hours (Fig. 15D). Overt responsiveness in individuals that were subsequently judged to have died ceased after an average of 8.3 min (SE 0.8, n = 12; range 4.5 -12.7 min), suggesting that this may represent a critical time limit if the seal is to exit the net and have a chance if surviving.[/quote']Still waiting on evidence where these super trawlers have been in operation for a few years as a minimum and scientific reports have deemed their operations sustainable under ANY management regime?If this boat targets the waters just over the 3NM state limits then surely just through sheer capacity it has to cause some localised depletion?TB :whistle:

[Del 245]

from my understanding a full grown 350kg bull sealion can swim to depths of 100 odd meters and maintain his fishing for up to about 12 minutes. the females are around 8minutes. Sealions often hunt between 80-120km offshore. hunting for 4 days and then returning to shore for 4 days rest. since the Ship cannot hunt in Sealion Feeding/hunting areas and the population of 13,000 ( yes almost extinct) stretches from Geraldton WA to Victor Harbor SA. this ship should there for be banned from WA to SA with in 120km of shore..

[afishyfish 4]

Thanks TB and Del.My comments on the "selective Journalism" point was from a very sceptical angle.Obviously theyre not going to show the real numbers if they can help it :whistle: From a Commercial point of view, I can understand their wanting to keep going, but with the growing tide of people looking at sustainability issues, ships like that just dont belong in a modern world, imo anyway

[khombi 10]

Well said aff,boats of this size with their fishing capabilities do not belong in any waters.No species of fish could recover fast enough to make this sort of fishing sustainableA good example is what happened in England with the cod fishing, which is now strugling to recover after much the same problem.