More news on super trawler!

[afishyfish 4]

where does Australia benefit from this??

Nothing from what I can see apart from maybe a few Pollies Super Funds ? What we could still lose, even if we "win" is a few Mill$ in compensation being paid out :S

[kon 300]

A few sentences in this article brought a rather wry smile to my facehttp://phys.org/news/2012-06-sea-european-fishing.htmlThis was a whopperDue to the depletion of fish stocks, boats are forced to sail further and further afield to cast nets...so what is part of the solution?...to introduce "transferable fishing concessions" to fish certain stock, and enable those quotas to be traded privately at a national level.Oh, my...does that one ring any bells with respect to recent events...?But hey, it`s a great idea;Similar systems of concessions have... kept the fishing sector healthy in countries such as Australia...Well, maybe before such countries started utilising 10 year old assessments to increase a quota so that is financially worthwhile to operate a foreign supertrawler in their part of the world? :whistle:

[afishyfish 4]

...to introduce "transferable fishing concessions" to fish certain stock' date=' and enable those quotas to be traded privately at a national level.[/color']Oh, my...does that one ring any bells with respect to recent events...?But hey, it`s a great idea;

We used to think circumcision was a great idea too, along with the "Edsel" car, Thalidomide, Agent Orange and a plethora of other ideas too :whistle:

[khombi 10]

The law of Precautionary principle,does it mean that at the time when these boats drop their nets they have to prove that they are not damaging fish stocks or seabeds or bycatch,does it also mean that do not have to heed the advise of scientists as to the sustainability of certain types of fishing practices providing they feel that they are not doing any damage or depleting stocks and do they have to prove it, or does the country concerned have to prove otherwise.I wonder if in a court of law if they argued thier case based on the precautionary principle it would then have to be proven that they were wrong and im not to sure how any body could do that based on fact that nobody realy knows for sure how much redbait is realy out there {or do they}.It sounds to me that this PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIBLE STUFF is something that lawyers may want to use when all else fails or they need more time to gather imformation. :ohmy: On a ligher note i wonder if i could use this when i get in the shit with the missus

[afishyfish 4]

The law of Precautionary principle' date='does it mean that at the time when these boats drop their nets they have to prove that they are not damaging fish stocks or seabeds or bycatch,does it also mean that do not have to heed the advise of scientists as to the sustainability of certain types of fishing practices providing they feel that they are not doing any damage or depleting stocks and do they have to prove it, or does the country concerned have to prove otherwise.I wonder if in a court of law if they argued thier case based on the precautionary principle it would then have to be proven that they were wrong and im not to sure how any body could do that based on fact that nobody realy knows for sure how much redbait is realy out there {or do they}.It sounds to me that this PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIBLE STUFF is something that lawyers may want to use when all else fails or they need more time to gather imformation. :ohmy: :[/quote']You might have the wrong end of the stick there a bit Khombi. It seems more about treading carefully before any much damage is done.Try googling it for the Wiki definition

On a ligher note i wonder if i could use this when i get in the shit with the missus

Best precautionary principle there might be to keep low for a while or run, depending :whistle:

[Tacklebags 404]

Looks like the doubling of the quota for the 'Abel Tasman' :whistle: was purely to accomodate 'capacity' not sustainable science?

This report by IMAS confirms that the science behind the quota was unsound, and the use of incorrect methods of analysis in the Neira (2011) led to the false outcome that a TAC of 10,100 tonne was precautionary.The current TAC of 10,100 tonne is almost 50% of the average biomass estimate – if the quota had been taken up, the jack mackerel fishery would have been devastated.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2Fweblog%2Farticle%2Fscientists-confirm-that-margiris-quota-is-unsound%2FTB

[kon 300]

Nice one TBIf this is true (assuming acceptable methodology being used for the "egg-production to biomass" conversion)Their conclusion is “there is greater agreement between methods about the lowest plausible biomass than there is about the best estimate”. then...oopsies, AFMA and Mr Geen...This from the linked paper is interestingIn the case of the SPF, the SPF Harvest Strategy dictates that the recommended biological catch (RBC) should not exceed a prescribed percentage of the best available spawning biomass estimate (the percentage values determined by the age of the estimate). A shortcoming of the current harvest strategy is that it does not explicitly consider the effect of differing uncertainties between studies and analytical methods. Not entirely comfortable with the bit in brackets, just from a layman`s perspective seems like a bit of a judgement call if I am interpreting the intent correctly?Never mind, move along folks, nothing to see... :evil:

[RJ5023 230]

The politics of this issue are getting more bizarre as time passes.http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-18/super-trawler-bill-set-to-sail-through-the-senate/4266698Referring to the legislation that will ban the supertrawler:-Greens Senator Rachel Siewert says she will try to overturn the legislation."There are a lot of people that are concerned about these socio-economic issues," she said.Can't work that one out!Cheers,RJ

[khombi 10]

Morning AFF,i did look it up on Wiki and it says Precautionary Princible is that the burden of proof falls upon those taking the action ,does that mean that any person protesting against this vessel has to be able to prove that she is doing damage or is it the otherway around in that she has to prove that she is not.How therefor does one interpret this statement.Is this some form of goblygook law that a business might use as a legal loophole.Not being a legal eagle nor a rhode scholar i am probably not reading this in its true context,If any one can explain it to me in laymans terms i would certainly appreciate it.REGARDS TO ALL AND HAVE A GOOD DAY KHOMBI :S

[khombi 10]

I read somewhere once that if the name on ship of a ship is changed for whatever reason it brings bad luck to the ship and its crew.seems to be something in that rumor

[kon 300]

RJI think the Siewert quote is reporting out of context and thus confusing the issue - the Greens position was to have Recs included conceptually, thus I believe the intent of what she said is that she would like to overturn the legislation as currently before the Senate, ie to remove the amendments introduced at the 11th hour by the independents in the lower house to safeguard Recfishing.Khombi

Precautionary Princible is that the burden of proof falls upon those taking the action ,does that mean that any person protesting against this vessel has to be able to prove that she is doing damage or is it the otherway around in that she has to prove that she is not.

The latter - the PP can be invoked against you if you, in effect, can`t positively prove that you`re not going to cause serious or irreversible harm. Shades of the witch segment out of the Holy Grail actually, when you think about it...it`s a brilliant philosophical construct to be used as a debating weapon in justifying a position potentially based on (effectively) nothing more than speculation or assertion.A [sarcastic and admittedly simplistic!] example - Khombi, prove to me that Rec fishers are not adversely affecting biomass in SA. Oh, you can`t, even though you`re pretty sure there are no probs? Well, we`ll just have to halve bag limits...just in case, you understand... This is from the Rio 1992 UN gabfestWhere there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradationFrom our very own Marine Parks Act 2007(3) The following principles should be taken into account in connection with achieving ecologically sustainable development for the purposes of this Act:( if there are threats of serious or irreversible harm to the marine environment, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm; :whistle: This rather sardonic explanation of the PP is my personal favourite though"The Precautionary Principle gives the impression of being the very antithesis of rational argument and scientific debate. Anything contended through its application cannot, by definition, be disproved. It has been legitimised as an environmentalist modus operandi, has gained politically correct acceptance to the extent that it is enshrined in legislation and regulation, and provides the ultimate refuge for policy justification by political and bureaucratic bodies in implementing any decision even remotely based on scientific advice or research. Thus it can be utilised to justify virtually anything, the conundrum being that a precautionary measure may itself generate an unknown risk."Having said all of that - the Abel Margiris Tasman saga is seemingly more to do with cherry picking to support the case for the commercial operation than anything else. The PP was only invoked after the outcry and assertions of lack of process probity...when Burke realised he had to start putting out spot fires... :dry:

[Tacklebags 404]

See AFMA and the Libs are not happy with the federal ombudsman?The whole thing is so utterly confusing to me? I just can't make sense of it to be honest?What I do know is that this issue has only served to divide not only rec fisher and commercial authority/management relationships but also those relationships from pro fisher to pro management!Words simply fail me as to why AFMA tried to bring in this trawler during the implementation period for the MPA's?Has this only empowered the conservation argument for larger sanctuary zones and divided the fishing sectors even more?TB

[khombi 10]

Good morning KON, many thanks for your expl about the PP subect. I am finding it to be very interesting ,if not a bit confusing.The more i read it the more it seems to make some sort of sense.May get back to you with some questions if you dont mind.regards KHOMBI

[kon 300]

Cheers Khombi, the PP basically works like this;- There is some information which indicates there could be a problem- We are not sure with full certainty that there is a problem, but because there could be a problem we thus invoke the PPie, the basic concept is much more readable if you insert the bit in square brackets;"Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty [that this will actually occur] shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation"Thereafter there are only three possible outcomes;- If no further information comes to light positively confirming the problem, the PP must obviously still continue to be applied for the very reason it was implemented in the first instance- If further information definitely confirms there is a problem, the PP becomes a mandatory outcome- Therefore by definition, the only way the PP can be rolled back is if information comes to hand which positively confirms there is not a problemEffectively, as long as there is unresolved scientific argument the PP remains in place. Well, depends on who is running the show, but I`m being cynical now...(Please note that I am not denigrating the basic concept of the PP, just making the point that it can be misused as a vehicle of convenience for ideologically driven decisions!)Love this rather tongue-in-cheek PP modern-day fable someone came up with some time ago now;- The local council writes to you stating they have received peer-reviewed scientific advice that there could be fairies at the bottom of your garden- Fairies are bad, mischievous creatures- To avoid the possibility of fairies infesting neighbouring properties (because there has been a possibility flagged that you may have some on yours) the council requires you to place a glass dome over your garden...just as a precaution...unless, of course, you can categorically demonstrate there are no fairies on your property...

[khombi 10]

G,day Kon,just for the record, and i woudn,t tell anybody else this but there are fairy,s at the bottom of my garden, i know so because my granddaughter said so, and no im not going tell the council about it and im not going to put a glass dome over the top of my house to stop them getting out,now that wouldnt be fair now would itOn another note,does this mean thatwhen i go fishing an inspector can say to me that they are not sure there is a problem but just in case there is a problem we will invoke the precautionary principle and ban you from fishing.this is like saying to a suspected robber, i dont think you will rob someone but just to be on the safe side we will jail you for life/I it sounds a bit over the top but it is a bit of an open ended law or statement if you like.By the way Kon where do you get all your imfo from,I have to admit i have had a bit of a chuckle the way you put things sometimes makes for interesting reading.regards Khombi

[Wahoo 146]

@ Khombi: By the way Kon where do you get all your imfo from,He's the consumate research machine with a quirky sense of humour!!

[khombi 10]

love the way he explains things,serious with a laugh or two thrown in for good messure.Top stuff Regards Khombi

[RJ5023 230]

RJI think the Siewert quote is reporting out of context and thus confusing the issue - the Greens position was to have Recs included conceptually' date=' thus I believe the intent of what she said is that she would like to overturn the legislation [i']as currently before the Senate[/i], ie to remove the amendments introduced at the 11th hour by the independents in the lower house to safeguard Recfishing.

And he's right as well.One of the more important aspects of the Magiris saga was that the Greens tried to retain the part of the legislation that would have allowed the Minister to block any aspect of rec fishing any time he chose. That wasn't very clear to me, but it is now.So after teaming up with rec fishers in protests all over the country, the Greens then tried to make sure that the environment Minister would have the power to shut us down for 2 years whenever he liked, and for whatever reason he liked. Considering that 'valid' reasons include the Precautionary Principle (as has been applied to the Magiris), this would have been a disaster if someone ever had an agenda to stop any particular aspect of rec fishing.Good job the Greens move wasn't supported, and a warning about getting too close to them even if we all seem to be on the same side. Sorry about repeating this information. I guess that most already understood what really happened here, but I certainly didn't.Cheers,RJ

[kon 300]

KhombiI just do a little reading here and there, sir. As do quite a few other forum members, may I add. RJ

So after teaming up with rec fishers in protests all over the country, the Greens then tried to make sure that the environment Minister would have the power to shut us down for 2 years whenever he liked, and for whatever reason he liked.

Initially it was a little inspiring, but the matter-specific marriage of convenience did have a bit of an NQR feeling for me...

Good job the Greens move wasn't supported, and a warning about getting too close to them even if we all seem to be on the same side.

A lesson learnt - all well and good for fishos to be standing shoulder-to-shoulder with greenies (on the steps of any given parliament house in the land) regarding the Abel Margiris, but that is where it ends. They are not and never will be our "friends" - just check out The Wilderness Society`s "Information Kit" pertaining to the SA Marine Parks Draft Management Plans on their website, eek!BTW - the "Margiris legislation" originated as a private members bill, drafted by one Melissa Parke who is a Fed WA Labor MP [but really would belong more in the Greens Party]...from wiki"Over the years Parke’s community activities have included acting as a Western Australian representative on the National Council of the Australian Conservation Foundation, as the spokesperson for the Communities for Coastal Conservation..."From her website [spew bucket alert!]http://www.melissaparke.com.au/speeches/484-environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-declared-fishing-activities-bill-2012.htmlTowards the endI have no doubt that it was a great relief to hundreds of thousands of concerned Australians to hear yesterday that the government will create the additional powers under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to allow the minister for the environment to stop the supertrawler operating for up to two years while the environmental, social and economic impacts are assessed by an expert panel.Simplistically, the opposition and a few people in the Lower House didn`t like the "social and economic" bit...and a few other "fine print" details, by the sound of it. Not aware of the finer points. Close call.Just as an aside, note this gem shortly thereafterAmong those who will be celebrating this outcome are the students of Fremantle primary school who last week, on a blustery morning at South Beach Cafe, presented the Prime Minister with a card that said, 'Thank you for introducing the world's largest network of marine sanctuaries.' "Get `em young", as they say... :vomit:

[archerfish 685]

...and still the debate continues:http://tools.ntnews.com.au/stories/53586439.php :whistle:

[afishyfish 4]

Yet another can of worms is opened af :whistle: :pinch:

From her website [spew bucket alert!]http://www.melissaparke.com.au/speeches/484-environment-protection-and-biodiversity-conservation-amendment-declared-fishing-activities-bill-2012.html :vomit:

I Dreamed A Dream :whistle: :pinch:

[Guest Red Bull]

"I HAVE A DREAM"

[Wokkas 0]

Story on the Margiris issue ABC 4 corners next Monday 22/10

[Tacklebags 404]

While the last part of this article from 'fishingworld' below only touches on AFMA's position about an issue other than the super trawler....once you read all the readers comments below I think it gives us all some food for thought on AFMA's credibility.http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/us-billfish-conservation-act-shifts-spotlight-to-declining-local-marlin-stocksThen post reading this full article you may have some questions over the equality of DAFF's consultation process for licence approval in 2 years time?

Borthwick fisheries review integrity compromised?Lindsay Tuffin16.10.12 4:15 am22 commentsDavid Borthwick, currently the Chair of the Cooperative Research Centre for Greenhouse Gas Technologies, was recently appointed by the Minister for Fisheries Joe Ludwig to undertake an independent review of Australia’s fisheries legislation. This important review was initiated by the minister in response to widespread public concern about the likely impacts of the supertrawler Margiris. This is an important review, as the Commonwealth legislation has not had a major overhaul for two decades.However meetings held by Borthwick in Hobart on Friday October 12 have raised concerns over the review’s “independence” and thus its integrity. Proper process for such an important review has not been followed, it appears.This review, given the controversy behind its inception, must be conducted impartially, where all points of view are given equal consideration and priority during the information-gathering phase. While the review has called for public submissions, Borthwick also needs to be seen to be impartial in his schedule of meetings. A review of this stature would normally hold short public meetings in each capital city (announced by small advertisments in daily media) complemented by private meetings with key stakeholders. While private, these meetings should not be ‘secret’ – the meeting program must be on the public record. The review’s tight timeframe (3 months) means that these meetings should be taking place now.This is where things seem to have gone wrong.David Borthwick visited Hobart last Friday, and met with pro-supertrawler stakeholders, while other key stakeholders opposing the supertrawler were not even informed of his visit.In Hobart, obvious key stakeholders include:• Gerry Geen, owner of SeaFish Tasmania, who paid for the supertrawler’s visit.• Prof Colin Buxton, a fisheries scientist, who authored a supportive ‘background paper’ on the science underpinning the supertrawler’s visit;• Martin Haley and Nobby Clark, from the Tasmanian Tuna Club, who were instrumental in early discussions with the government, and later in organising public protests against the supertrawler;• Rebecca Hubbard, of the NGO Ocean Planet, also instrumental in organising public protests;• Dr Jonathan Nevill, a policy analyst and author of the book “Overfishing under regulation: the application of the precautionary principle and the ecosystem approach in Australian fisheries management”.• Dr Andrew Wadsley, a statistician, who identified flaws in the mathematical techniques used to estimate stock levels in the supertrawler’s fishery;• Andrew Wilkie, an independent politician, who initiated a Commonwealth Ombudsman review of procedures behind the determination of catch levels in the supertrawler’s fishery;• Green politicians, such as Kim Booth, Paul O’Halloran, and Peter Whish-Wilson, who raised concerns over the supertrawler’s activities.Of this list, Borthwick invited only with those supportive of the supertrawler (Gerry Geen and Colin Buxton) to meet with him. The Tuna Club, whose grapevine picked up news of Borthwick’s visit late in the day, insisted on meeting with him, and a rushed half-hour meeting was arranged by Borthwick’s secretariat. At this stage the review’s secretariat has not released details on Borthwick’s proposed public and private meetings. Given Friday’s turn of events, this program, including all private meetings, should be made public immediately. Dr Nevill is understood to have phoned the review secretariat on Friday, and was informed that Borthwick was too busy to meet with him. Given that the review’s terms of reference emphasize the precautionary principle, and that Dr Nevill is the author of the only book specifically examining that principle in Australian fisheries management, this omission seems impossible to explain without revealing a disturbing bias in the review’s process.Warning from Kim Booth: urgent action by the public needed In fact Greens Primary Industries spokesperson Kim Booth warned yesterday that the super trawler threat to Tasmanian fisheries remained very real and urged “concerned Tasmanians to submit to the federal review before Tuesday.”“There is a danger that super trawlers could be allowed to operate in Australian waters, and it is important for the whole community to have input into the Federal Governments’ decision making process,” said Mr Booth.“The Federal Government might have given the impression that the super trawler formerly named FV Margiris has gone for good, but the boat remains at anchor in Port Lincoln,” Mr Booth said.“The Bill passed in the House of Representatives last month did not put a permanent stop to super trawlers in Australia, and there’s still a chance that it could be out fishing within weeks.”“SeaFish Tasmania principals have been haunting Ministers’ offices in Federal Parliament, and we are seriously concerned that unless the community stands up again and makes submission to this process, that the ship could be allowed to go fishing.”“There are two reviews currently underway, one through Minister Ludwig’s office, but critically Minister Burke is seeking reasons why the Margiris should not be able to fish whilst the Ludwig review in to the EPBC Act is being carried out.“That’s why there is now great urgency for people to make a submission to sustainablefisheries@environment.gov.au and cc the Minister for Environment Tony Burke tony.burke.mp@environment.gov.au.“It would be an outrageous slight upon the Australian community to allow this or any other super trawler to operate without a thorough review of the legislation governing the Commonwealth’s fisheries management system.“We still don’t have any of the necessary data to determine the level of impact a trawler of this size would have on the marine ecosystem and our shared ocean resources.“The Tasmanian community will need to be ready to take this fight up again, because this could just be delay that allows the super trawler to slip under the radar.” Background to the processes: PROCESS ONEIn Joe Ludwig’s department (DAFF) David Borthwick has been appointed as of about a month ago under terms of reference aimed at reviewing the Commonwealth’s Fisheries Management Act 1991, with particular emphasis on the use of the precautionary principle in fisheries management. He has a timeframe of 3 months - fairly tight - and a couple of staff.Commonwealth Fisheries Management Review SecretariatDepartment of Agriculture, Fisheries and ForestryGPO Box 858, Canberra ACT 2601E: fisheries.review@daff.gov.auhttp://www.daff.gov.au/fisheriesreviewDepartment switch (02) 62723933PROCESS TWOTony Burke, Minister for the Environment, amended the EPBC Act to put an interim hold on the fishing activities of the Margiris. Affected parties have until October 16 to comment on the necessity or otherwise of this interim hold. Following October 16 Tony Burke has two choices: (a) relax the interim hold and allow the Margiris to fish, or ( maintain the hold for a period not exceeding two years while advice on the possible impacts of the supertrawler are prepared. In this case Tony Burke would appoint an “Expert Panel” (taking advice from his department) to prepare this report, which would centre around the scientific basis for the stock assessments and subsequent catch limits. Dept Environment switch 02 6274 1111.Earlier on Tasmanian Times: • Failures of Australian fisheries management• Celebrations are premature over the MargirisFirst published: 2012-10-14 01:32 PM• Kim Booth, Tuesday: SUPER TRAWLER THREAT REMAINSState Minister Must Put Pressure on Federal MinisterKim Booth MPGreens Primary Industries SpokespersonTuesday, 16 October 2012The Tasmanian Greens today urged the Minster for Primary Industries Bryan Green, and all Tasmanians, to write immediately to the Federal Minister for Environment, Tony Burke, to remind him that the Tasmanian House of Assembly remains unchanged in its opposition to the super trawler. Greens Primary Industries spokesperson Kim Booth MP said there was a danger that the super trawler, Abel Tasman (formerly known as the FV Margiris) could be allowed to operate in Australian waters within weeks.“The Federal Government’s intervention last month did not put a permanent stop to super trawlers in Australia, and without further pressure on Minister Burke, there’s still a chance that the super trawler currently tied up at Port Lincoln could be out fishing within weeks,” Mr Booth said.“The Environment Minister Tony Burke will soon decide whether the super trawler should be allowed to operate now, before an expert panel makes a decision on a two year federal review of the EPBC Act.”“It was only two months ago that the Tasmanian House of Assembly agreed to oppose operation of the vessel because it was not satisfied that a super trawler could fish sustainably.”“Minister Green must now undertake to write a simple letter to Minister Burke to reinforce the message that the people of Tasmania still stand opposed to the operation of this vessel.”“It would be an outrageous slight upon the Australian community to allow this or any other super trawler to operate without a thorough review of the legislation governing the Commonwealth’s fisheries management system.”“There’s now great urgency for the Minister to write a letter and for Tasmanians to make a submission to sustainablefisheries@environment.gov.au and cc the Minister for Environment Tony Burke tony.burke.mp@environment.gov.au.”

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/weblog/article/borthwick-fisheries-review-integrity-compromised/show_commentsReportTB

[Tacklebags 404]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-10-16/super-trawler-concerns/4316842It is for the very reason stated by this minister that the 70 plus 'latent' licences should not be bought out by Seafood Tasmania so they can increase their quota and monopolise the market.Too many consecutive days taking 250 tonnes a day. TB

[Tacklebags 404]

4 Corners preview video and write up can be found here....

According to the owners of The Margiris, they began negotiations with the Australian Fishing Management Authority (AFMA) at the beginning of 2012. When they met with AFMA they came away convinced they had the go ahead to bring their trawler to fish in Australian waters."Literally what they said, we will back you up no matter what happens, if you follow the rules. And we said we can accept that of course."However Four Corners has discovered that the owners of The Margiris were also trying to buy up additional small fish quotas from Australian fishermen, so they could potentially increase their catch.

This doesn't tell you that there are over 70 of these licences that Seafood Tasmania wanted to buy in order to increase their quota.Greed and monopolisation of the market at the expense of our environment or the chance for small commercial operators to remain viable. AFMA should realise that it is the public that determines whether such ventures proceed not them and their incestuous, comercially bias committees.http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2012/10/18/3613408.htmTB

[yorke_angler 0]

some more interesting reading here..http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/15183510/govt-was-warned-about-trawler-risk/This government is becoming more laughable as days go by!I'll be sure to take a kodak moment when im in lincoln with this montrocity behind me at xmas with a big fat middle finger pointed at the camera!

[yorke_angler 0]

this thing must be costing the owners a fortune to keep it docked at the wharf, and i imagine Vitera would be loosing a fortune not being able to dock other ships in its spot.. If i was the major of lincoln i'd be pretty pissed at the whole situation

[Del 245]

they can anchor it elsewhere.. not always at the wharf.. no dramas there... its not allowed to fish. but it can translocate if needed

[Grazz64 0]

Four Corners was very interesting and at the same time very alarming. I have very little faith in AFMA now to do what is in the best interest of sustainable fishing, i have even less faith that it is independent and cant be swayed.Gerry Geene has his seen his profit margin decline over the last few years as fish have gotten harder to find while holding approximately half of the allowable quota to be taken in Australian waters. This would be costing him a great deal i imagine. So what does he decide to do bring a Super Trawler to our waters and clean up while we can as things are only going to get more difficult. He bases his whole argument on ten year old science, the numbers of Jack Mackerel out there is unknown today as we speak.He admits himself we are finding it harder to find our quotas of this species as the fish aren't here anymore the numbers they used to be. Why is that Gerry why haven't you tried to understand why this is the case, fund the science. I'll tell you why its because the results would probably damning to your required needs.He tells us we modified the nets they work, when in fact they don't work as well as we've been lead to believe, when their own footage showed this wasn't the case they tried to cover it up, bury it and AFMA assisted in this. I have no faith in AFMA anymore they are as crooked in my opinion as the tossers that own the boat and Gerry Greene for that matter. The modifications will allow 40% to 100% of Seals Dolphins etc to escape, what the hell kind of figures are they 40% to 100%, if Rec fishers brought any figures like that to the debate we'd be laughed out the building. Geene also states we are only going to take 7%, 7% is fine but when you don't know what the real numbers are of Jack Mackerel today in our waters how do you measure 7%. He basis his argument on "this is a commercial enterprise" ie what hes saying is we want to make as much as we can as cheap as we can as quickly as we can and we have 10 year old science to support our argument that we should be allowed to do this. Get stuffed Gerry. The bycatch from these nets would be massive, 70% percent of the bycatch that gets tossed back in the water is dead or dying when trawled from great depths if anyone ever tries to tell you different they are lying. 70% is a conservative number as well its possibly more like 85% in reality.Colin Buxton Director of the Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies spews out the same figures "they were going to take 10% but revised that to 7.5%, we are only going to take 7.5% now'He doesn't know what numbers of Jack Mackerel are present in Australian waters as the studies are ten years old, he's aware the stocks are harder to find and agrees they are further south and also sitting off the continental shelf. So how does he know 7.5% is really 7.5% i find this absolutely laughable and probably the dumbest thing i have heard come from an educated man. A suspicious person would think he has another agenda to support. Every bit of our (Rec Fishers) argument is scrutinised and must have a basis of some fact this is demanded of us yet these clowns are allowed to debate based on ten year old science that is no longer relevant today. Everyone is in agreement with this even Geene feels global warming has had a significant impact on stocks looking for cooler waters he's seen his bottom line decreasing he knows better than most.Colin Buxton also thought we are silly to think the Trawler would sit in one spot and take everything that was there, he doesn't think that would happen. What a load of bull of course that is what would happen when all that matters is the bottom line and the Trawler has been guilty of this on numerous occasions already. Why was Geene reluctant to admit they were buying up or leasing quotas form other local pro fisherman in order to raise their allowable quota and when pressed on the issue spewed out "well it is a commercial enterprise" Already they been seen to be deceptive so whats stopping them from deception in the future, their conscience. Give me a break. Wouldn't mind seeing a Royal Commision into this whole thing includings AFMA's involvement and what else they've assisted in burying in order to get the Trawler fishing here.One thing Ive learnt is those people that have money are the hardest to get it from and they are never satisfied and always want to be wealthier with little or no regard for people fauna or environment. I don't understand Geene's stupidity in an industry that has to be sustainablefor him and his business to survive into the future unless he only see's himself in it for not to much longer and the Super Trawler his retirement package. Big assumption i know but you tell me what his thought process is then. Why would he risk the same thing happening here that has happened everywhere else the Trawlers been. Wouldn't it be in his best interest to fund the science or assist with funding to acquire more up to date science to ensure sustainability. Why was Dirk Van Der Plas under the impression the Trawler would be here indefinitely when everywhere its been its had to move on to find more viable waters in order to turn a profit. These views and suspicions are entirely my own and in no way a reflection of Strike & Hook'sopinion to the best of my knowledge. Four Corners has raised many more questions for me and shown Geene to be a deceptive character. No Super Trawler never ever and Graham Pyke you are a God to me and to all Rec Fishers in Tasmania i bow in your general direction you are worth your wait in gold.There are 5 million Rec Fishers in this country when the hell are we going to start wielding the power we have. An email or a letter cost practicaly nothing to send our/your State and Federal Goverment and reminding them they are elected by the people for the people and we dont want Super Trawlers fishing in Australian waters ever or you'll find yourself in opposition. This always makes me feel better for about ten minutes. A much bigger rant than i was intending but this whole thing stinks to the core.

[afishyfish 4]

Great Post there Grazz Unfortunateley the attitude "grab it while there's still some left" is rife among many business operators.I remeber taking a tour of a winery near Lake Alexandrina a few years ago, and when asking about their water usage, the reply was " We're going to take as much as we can while we can "Obviously this mentality and sustainability dont go together

[Wahoo 146]

As AFF said: Great Post Grazz. I watched the 4 corners report as well and one thing that stood out to myself and the wife was that neither Gerry Geen, Dirk Van der Plas nor Colin Buxton were able to look straight at the camera or the interviewer. To us that meant, shifty as all hell!! Something nobody in the media seems to have latched onto is: If this thing can process 4,500 tonnes per day and has a catch limit of 18,000 tonnes it can fill its quota in 5 days, even if they did manage to double the quota to 36,000 tonnes it will still be finished in 8 days. It can fish in some pretty heavy sea states so the only thing preventing it getting a quota in 8 days is actually finding the fish. Conservatively it should be done in a month. What does it do for the rest of the year?

[Grazz64 0]

Thanks afishyfish,Wahoo. It was a massive rant that was brought on by Buxtons comment of 7% of an unknown number, that just sent me over the deep end tbh. Pitty about the spelling lol.Yeh unfortunately that mentality afishyfish is rife through out big business. The winery incident you speak of is just another example, sadly it spans all industries. The wealthy love their money and will do anything and i mean anything to protect it.The doubling of the quota from 5000 tonnes to 10,000, this was another comment that blew my mind. Off the their own bat AFMA was prepared to double the allowable quota of Jack Mackeral for the Super Trawler. Now call me suspicious but i feel this was only done so the Trawler could break even, 5 tonnes wasnt a viable amount to send a ship that size out there for. This was revised to 7.5 tonnes which i magine is the break even number. My question is if AFMA see that as not being anykind of issue to sustainability then why didnt they do it earlier for the Fishing industry and Pro's in Tasmania in order to help them out, why in the space of a few weeks decide it was ok for the Super Trawler. I'll tell you why, AFMA would now be under pressure from the owners aswell as the Government,ie lets do what we can to just shut the whole story down and get it off the front pages and maybe the Rec Fishers will forget about it and move on, they never expected the backlash in Tasmania and around the country.I have huge concerns regarding AFMA and Finlays (think that was his name) involvement and feel an inquiry is waranted and a sacking or two. AFMA should be entirely independent for obvious reasons, they are meant to be but in this case i dont believe they have been. Something rotten stinks in AFMA at the minute.I long for the day that Rec Fish Australia is as powerful as the National Rifle Assc is in the USA. AFMA need to be reminded that just like the minerals in the ground that belong to all Australians so do the fish in our waters. Independent bodies are great but all to often they are open to corruption and can be infected by it terminally. AFMA should be made to consult with all peoples involved at the pointy end of the industry before any quota is raised or lowered, before anything like a Super Trawler is allowed to fish in our waters etcso everybody is on the same page and understand whatever the situation the same as the bloke sitting next to him. The rules should apply across the board to all concerned ie if Rec Fish Australia have to use up to date Data then all parties should have to opperate the same way.Rec Fish Australia should always be involved in any major decision regarding Australian waters because of the shear amount of cash we pump into the economy. I wonder also Wahoo what it will do for the other 11 months, my suspicious self thinks there is nothing stopping Geen and his cronies from leasing the boat to other large fishing industries in this country to go chase other species in and around Australian waters if they get the go ahead to fish. There would be other rich men just waiting to pick the phone up to get a little richer.

[kon 300]

Gerry is trying a new approach, this is gold!http://www.examiner.com.au/story/327542/super-trawler-move-a-blow-for-triabunna/Seafish Tasmania is based in Triabunna where it operates a fish processing factory employing about 25 people. Yesterday, company director Gerry Geen told ABC radio the company had invested ``millions'' in bringing the super trawler to Australia and could not say if the existing business could continue in the wake of the federal government's last minute intervention to prevent it using the 142-metre long vessel. Please explain...the survival of the business is now predicated upon utilising the Abel Margiris? Given that in the subsequently-linked article in the news item there is this statementThe advantage of the super trawler, which has its own processing facilities and freezers, was that it could fish over a large area without being tied to ports.

[chuckemback 0]

Nicley said/written Grazz ! Well done !