More news on super trawler!

[Tacklebags 404]

"Turns out that as the row over the super-trawler Margiris grows into a defining national resource battle, it's not the green groups who are holding the whip; it's the recreational fishers," Darby wrote for Fairfax's National Times website

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/rec-fishing-makes-its-mark-in-mainstream-mediahttp://www.smh.com.au/opinion/angling-for-power-20120821-24jqc.html#ixzz24QAOTKtCTB

[afishyfish 4]

"Turns out that as the row over the super-trawler Margiris grows into a defining national resource battle' date=' it's not the green groups who are holding the whip; it's the recreational fishers," Darby wrote for Fairfax's National Times website[/quote']http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/rec-fishing-makes-its-mark-in-mainstream-mediahttp://www.smh.com.au/opinion/angling-for-power-20120821-24jqc.html#ixzz24QAOTKtCTB

Hi TB.Have you seen anything published about the likelihood of the Marigis' sister ships turning up too Seems to me they are trying to get away with this all by letting us think there may be only the one ship taking itys quota, whereas from what I understand, she may have up to SIX sister ships, meaning it would be SEVEN times the Quota :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: :ohmy: I think this aspect is being kept very quiet, while on the contrary it should be " shouted from the rooftops "

[Tacklebags 404]

Haven't heard that mate.See what's around the web but it could be hyperbowl?CheersTB

[afishyfish 4]

Haven't heard that mate.TB

Exactly, Keeping it quiet would be a great way of 'sneaking in " maybe ?Sure I saw it "somewhere" , but not exactly IMHO, its definiteley making an extra fuss about if true !

[archerfish 685]

Haven't heard about it either, aff...Some interesting sister ships, though... :S http://www.parlevliet-vanderplas.nl/vessels.php(FV Margiris is KL 749)

[afishyfish 4]

Haven't heard about it either' date=' aff...Some interesting sister ships, though... :S http://www.parlevliet-vanderplas.nl/vessels.php(FV Margiris is KL 749)[/quote']Very interesting for sure af.Call me paranoid, but alarm bells are ringing for me !

[archerfish 685]

Another site I just stumbled upon...http://www.stopthemargiris.net/

[afishyfish 4]

Another site I just stumbled upon...http://www.stopthemargiris.net/

You're doing well on the research af

[Tacklebags 404]

Presentation to Rec Fishing Conference - Graham Pike "Margiris Super Trawler" YOU’VE GOT TO BE IN IT TO WIN IT:The Art and Science of Influencing AustralianGovernments in Favour of Recreational FishingGraham PikeA paper presented to the Australian Recreational Fishing Conference,Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia18 August 2012How things have changed! It was the Hawke Labor government in 1983 whichencouraged and funded the establishment of what we now know as Recfish Australia.And Prime Minister Hawke and his Sports Minister, John Brown, in pushing theseven national fishing bodies of the time to form this peak representative body,always intended it to be an advocacy organisation – a lobby group.Hawke and Brown clearly wanted us to lobby them and why wouldn’t they? Eventhough Recfish Australia would not initiate and fund the first national survey of thesocio-economics of recreational fishing for another 12 months, we had earlier toldMinister Brown of the suspected size and value of the national recreational fishingconstituency – 2.5 million fishers generating about $3.0 billion annually. Our firstsurvey, and the ones since, have confirmed these large-scale figuresLittle wonder that the Hawke government encouraged Recfish to lobby it. Thegovernment wanted us to inform it how best to develop the recreational fishingindustry and increase the numbers of recreational fishers participating.Increasing the number of fishers and showing continued government funding supportwould achieve two purposes. The first was to increase the health, well-being andenjoyment of participants – the new government’s stated policy goal. The second wassimply to increase the number of fishers voting Labor at future elections – theunstated political aim.In the lobbying game - and lobbying on behalf of recreational fishers is precisely thesame as lobbying on behalf of any other community - you get policy and fundingsupport from governments only if you give something directly or indirectly back togovernments.That does not in any way mean you have to do their bidding or refrain from criticisingthem, although it is conducive to maintaining working relationships to tell them inadvance if you’re going to get stuck into them as part of your lobbying.To lobby effectively on behalf of recreational fishers, you must have an office inCanberra. It needs to be staffed with, or have immediate access to, (i) fearless,politically unbiased people (preferably with their mortgages paid up); (ii) people withvery sound written and spoken communication skills; (iii) people with political savvyand with an intimate knowledge of not only all the issues affecting recreationalfishing nationally, but of commercial fishing issues; and (iv), very importantly, peoplewith sound natural resource management, resource allocation and fisheriesmanagement knowledge.Recfish Australia had such a Canberra office within months of its formation.However, after two decades, this office was moved to Brisbane, of all places, to suit aparticular individual in Recfish. This undoubtedly weakened Recfish’s capacity toproperly represent and lobby fully effectively on behalf of Australia’s fishers.To be effective as a lobby group, you must use your resources to work not only withthe appropriate ministers but equally importantly, with their advisers. These are, byand large, the public servants of the ministers’ departments. If you develop effective2working relations with the appropriate public servants, your job on behalf ofAustralia’s recreational fishers is 90 per cent done.It must be noted that part of this giving by Recfish was in the form of pure, loudlobbying, simply because no government listens to a voice it cannot hear. Some of thetime, you have to yell in the ear of government – but keep it positive and constructive.Unreasonable or unjustified criticism of government or just continued carping atgovernment because your organisation, or some key members of its executive, are notof the same political hue, will soon have you put out in the cold. You will be cut offor deterred from the essential lines of communication to the policy makers and thelawmakers and their invaluable public service advisers.As a successful lobby organisation from the start, Recfish Australia achieved so muchfor recreational fishers in its first quarter century. It’s a simple fact that there is notone recreational fisher or fishing boater in this country, including those of you at thisconference, who is not benefiting one way or another in your sport and recreationfrom the initiatives of Recfish Australia over the years.1It was Recfish Australia’s demonstration of responsible, representative lobbyingpower and contributions to fishing-related policy-making which prompted the federalgovernment in the 1990s to make Recfish a Representative Organisation of theFRDC, the government’s outstanding Fisheries Research and DevelopmentCorporation.This arrangement endures, formalised by a government amendment to federallegislation. It continues to produce recreational fishing-related research and projectsof excellent quality. The Recfish - FRDC relationship has also resulted directly in theestablishment of the joint, continuing entity – Recfishing Research – increasinglybehind much of the knowledge available to today’s fishers.However, the halcyon years of national recreational fisher representation are gone, buthopefully only temporarily. There are lessons as to why this is so for current andfuture organisations purporting to represent the nation’s recreational fishers.During nearly two decades following Recfish’s formation, the State fishing bodiespressured it for more say, for more power in the running of Recfish Australia. Theyeventually captured Recfish from the seven founding national fishing associations andpromised to help fund it. But when they captured the beast, they simply did not knowwhat to do with it.The funding promises fell short and worst of all, parochial state views and somepersonal egos and agendas – always self serving and totally destructive – beganpermeating and narrowing the national perspective on vital national issues which hadmade Recfish effective for more than 20 years.And it also saw the emergence of hitherto unforseen political bias in RecfishAustralia. Recfish’s administration and operations had always been funded from thebudgets of successive federal governments of both political persuasions. In lateryears, Recfish also received funding for research and management of special projects3to advance recreational fishing. However, in 2007 the new government ceased allfunding to Recfish..That funding halt coincided with two factors. The first was the emergence of small,State-based political parties claiming to represent recreational fishers. After the 2007election, the new government formed the perception, rightly or wrongly, thatconservative elements in those parties were antithetical to it and were in some wayinfluencing members of the Board of Recfish Australia. Second, in the government’sview, this seemed to be confirmed by recreational fishing-related questions, clearlyantagonistic to the new government, asked of it in the parliament. At least onegovernment minister saw those questions as being asked with the direct and fullsupport of Recfish Australia. That was not the case but unfortunately, the damage hadbeen done.The result was nearly immediate. Federal government funding for Recfish Australiadried up and more seriously, federal public servants and many politicians, sniffing theministerial animosity, turned their backs. Those were the very public servants andpoliticians with whom Recfish had been working closely for 25 years, giving andtaking - giving successive governments the policy formulation advice and informationthey needed to benefit Australian fishers and fish habitats and in return, taking fromthe governments the operational and project funds essential to continue such work.Now to the present. Recfish Australia announced in June this year that it had reachedan agreement jointly with the Australian Fishing Trade Association, AFTA, to form anational recreational fishing organisation. This new organisation has been created byAFTA as a tax exempt company under the Corporations Act 2001. It’s called theAustralian Recreational Fishing Foundation Limited, or ARFF. With an acronym likethat, I hope it has some bite!The Recfish – AFTA marriage is yet to be consummated in the ARFF bed but RecfishAustralia is expected to very soon become a member of the new Foundation and haveat least two of its representatives on the ARFF Board.I strongly believe that to create the optimum and most effective peak nationalrepresentative organisation for Australia’s recreational fishers, Recfish Australia andthe new Recreational Fishing Foundation, from the outset, must form a symbioticrelationship. They must maintain their identities and structures and work together,fully complementing each other’s work. Neither will be effective without the otherand the reason is simple.Recfish Australia has a long and proud history of being a very effective, responsibleand productive lobby organisation for recreational fishing. On the other hand, that issomething the new Fishing Foundation cannot be. Its Constitutional Objects prevent itfrom being an advocacy or lobby organisation. It’s Objects, basically to ‘educateabout and promote the benefits of sustainable recreational fishing’, are designed tomaintain its tax exempt status at the same time as maximising government fundingpossibilities to further its Constitutional Objects.. In fact, its Objects sound very muchas though they’re straight out of a funding application to some federal governmentenvironment-related agency!4So Recfish Australia, with its tried and tested Constitution and 29 years’ lobbyingexperience, should be the ARFF member responsible for advocating and lobbying onbehalf of all Australia’s recreational fishers. At the same time, for its part, ARFF canfulfil its role as recreational fishing’s education and extension entity. Theiradministration and funding can be shared and all this can be done withoutcompromising ARFF’s Constitutional Objects, thereby keeping intact its tax exemptstatus.Such a union is an unprecedented opportunity for renewed and strengthenedrepresentation of our nation’s recreational fishers. I believe all Australian fishersshould rightly expect both ARFF and Recfish, and their respective memberorganisations, to seize the moment - now..The immediate joint task of the united ARFF and Recfish should be to show theAustralian Government why it must stop the foreign-owned super trawler, theMargiris, the world’s second largest fish factory ship or freezer/trawler, fromexploiting our stocks of small pelagic fishes in the SPF, Australia’s Small PelagicFishery. The SPF covers our huge 200-mile wide ocean ecosystems from Pertharound to the Queensland border and for 200 miles around Tasmania. If wecommercially overfish the SPF, as we have done with the majority of our otherCommonwealth-managed fisheries, we can severely damage or crash the ecosystemson which countless other fish species, birds, seals and whales depend.For what reason should the federal government stop the Margiris? Simple, for thesame reason the previous federal government stopped the entry of the foreign-ownedsuper trawler, Veronica, eight years ago. That was after a national public campaignled by Recfish Australia made Australians aware that the foreign vessel would beattacking our small pelagic fish stocks before we really knew the size and biology oftheir populations.It’s the same situation now. The decision to double the quota of small pelagic fishes toeconomically justify the entry of the Margiris was based on very limited, old andunreliable data, and a perverted process. I know because I have been involved in themanagement of the Small Pelagic Fishery for 12 years and I represent Australianrecreational fishers and the charter fishing industry on the Australian FisheryManagement Authority’s SPF Resource Assessment Group.This is the Group which first made the decision, on 28 February 2012, to double thequota of Jack mackerel in the SPF’s eastern zone. That original decision by theAssessment Group is precisely the one subsequently endorsed by AFMA to formallydouble the quota and the one which has paved the way for the Margiris.Together with the Conservation member of the Resource Assessment Group, Istrongly opposed the decision at the February meeting but was defeated by themajority of commercial fishers on the Group, including the partner in and director ofthe company now bringing the Margiris to Australia.While the record of the 28 February Assessment Group meeting has still not beenpublished by AFMA because it is so contentious2, these are the facts:51. A director of and partner in the Australian commercial fishing companybringing in the Margiris is also a member of the SPF Resource AssessmentGroup. At the February meeting, he invoked a metarule of the SPF HarvestStrategy, a metarule never before used, to support his request for a substantialincrease in the quota of Jack mackerel in the SPF’s eastern zone toeconomically justify the introduction of the super trawler.2. The same member was also present for and participated in all the discussionand the decision-making process about the quota issue which ensued at themeeting.3. The SPF Harvest Strategy says “Any such request (to invoke the metarule)must be made in writing to AFMA and be accompanied by supportingdocumentation”.3 I know of no such written request or documentation beingreceived before or at the meeting from the Assessment Group memberconcerned, in this case the Margiris proponent company partner and director.4. In his 2011 report, the scientist who produced the estimates on which theResource Assessment Group and AFMA based their decision to double theJack mackerel east quota, warned that those Jack mackerel biomass estimateshe produced ”are considered negatively biased and thus largely imprecise, andhence need to be treated with due caution”.4 He cited a number ofshortcomings including a lack of needed data, the absence of a neededscientific model and the fact that sampling was done at the wrong time for theJack mackerel spawning period.5. Worse, because the Jack mackerel sampling was only part of a separate surveyfor another species, the researcher states: “…sampling design during thatsurvey was not optimal to apply (the) Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM)for jack mackerel”.5 Here is a scientist telling us clearly in writing that theJack mackerel population estimates which AFMA and the government areusing to allow entry of the foreign super trawler are unreliable, imprecise,incomplete and should never have been used for such a purpose.6. The samples used to produce the Jack mackerel population estimates werecollected in October 2002, so not only did the SPF Resource AssessmentGroup and AFMA base the doubling of the Jack mackerel eastern zone quotafor 2012 – 2013 on very shaky, insubstantial and incomplete data, they knewthe information was nearly a decade old. AFMA’s Harvest Strategy for theSmall Pelagic Fishery prohibits the use of such data. It states clearly andsimply: “The Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) survey cannot be used toset the Recommended Biological Catch (or quota) once it exceeds the age 5category”.6 The quota decision therefore contravened AFMA’s owngovernment-approved Harvest Strategy for the SPF.7. The data used to set the Jack mackerel east zone quota and to economicallyjustify the Margiris are so old that most if not all of the Jack mackerelpopulations they estimated are no longer in the fishery – they’re gone, dead,passed on. This was confirmed by a small pelagic research specialist, Dr TimWard, at AFMA’s South East Management Advisory Committee on 26 March62012.7 The Minutes of that meeting also record: “The Committee took sometime to understand how a 10-tear-old survey could still be relevant andreferenced to current settings”.8 In truth, the survey cannot still be relevantand no amount of pseudo-scientific blue smoke and mirrors can make it so.The Margiris has been kicked out of West African fisheries for nearly exterminatingsmall pelagic fish stocks there. Its Dutch-owned sister ships have also been among themain culprits responsible for fishing down the once bountiful stocks of Peruvian Jackmackerel to commercially extinct levels in only about four years.Now the Margiris is coming to Australia. It set sail weeks ago on the arrogantassumption that the Australian Government will approve its entry to fish our waters.Yet the simple but frightening fact is that we do not know the size, distribution andbiology of the Jack mackerel species it will remove from our waters in quantities of amagnitude not seen before in Australian commercial fishing.The huge ship’s catches will be sold overseas after being processed, frozen and storedon board by a crew only partially Australian.Even a federal government minister warned this week of the ecological dangers posedby the Margiris. On ABC, the Environment Minister, Tony Burke, said the Margiriscould cause localised overfishing or depletions - ocean areas and parts of our marineecosystems devoid of their vital forage fish, with possible disastrous consequence forother fish, birds and marine mammals further up the food chains.Locally overfished areas or ecosystems could take years to recover if, in fact, theyever recovered and cause commensurate declines in the numbers of other fish speciesand marine life which had relied for food on the stocks now missing.And don’t let AFMA or anyone else tell you that localised depletions will not occurbecause no one – neither scientist nor fisheries manager – yet knows how toeffectively prevent or quickly recognise localised depletions caused by commercialfishing in any Australian fishery, and certainly not the SPF.We just don’t have the scientific data to justify letting the Margiris loose on ourforage fish, those small fish essential for the future health and survival of our otherfish, seabirds, seals and whales. If we do not stop the Margiris, it will get stuck intonot the fish populations estimated in that old research – they’re gone – but thereplacement stocks.These replacement stocks have not been researched or scientifically surveyed.Therefore, we just don’t know the size of the Jack mackerel populations on whichwe’re about to unleash the Margiris. Consequently, without the scientific data, thereis every risk that the Margiris will seriously deplete or crash our Australian Jackmackerel stocks, just as it has done in other parts of the world.The federal government must ensure that the new research is done before it approvesthe entry of the Margiris. That research, in the form of sounder and morecomprehensive DEPM surveys, will take a year or more but it would be well worth7the wait to first make sure that our fish stocks can survive the large-scale industrialfishing which the Margiris undertakes.At least until that research is done and the results known, I think Recfish Australia,ARFF, and all Australians, the ultimate owners of our fish resources, should demand astop to the Margiris – and the government should accede to those demands on doubtsabout the science alone.Sure, the Margiris’s owners say they will fund a DEPM survey for Jack mackerel offeastern Tasmania and the east coast but that would be only after the world’s secondlargest freezer/trawler started operating and would cover only a very small area of theSPF. The federal government must do the science first and not risk a West African orPacific Jack mackerel-style depletion of our vital Small Pelagic Fishery.The federal government, of course, has the power to stop the Margiris in a number ofways. The Fisheries Minister recently told me of one. In a letter dated 23 July 2012,he states: “Total allowable catch (or quota) determinations are legislative instrumentsand are therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny, including a period ofdisallowance”.9The Margiris, is capable, within a short time, of catching and processing at sea themajority of quota for all of Australia’s small pelagic species. And if and when thathappens, what then for this factory ship? The introduction of the Margiris is openended – there are no details or statements of the criteria on which a decision would bebased to take this ship out of the SPF.10This entire issue is a challenge to, and test of, the strength, effectiveness and purposeof the national organisations currently aspiring to represent Australia’s recreationalfishers. United, they need to get in there and lobby the federal government andopposition without fear or favour to win this one for Australia’s recreational fishersand ultimately, for the Australian people.81Among its very many achievements, Recfish Australia initiated and organised the first national recreational fishingconference, the precursor of this one today. It initiated, funded and coordinated Australia’s first national survey of thesocio-economics of recreational fishing. It initiated, funded and coordinated the first national surveys of the ecologicaland fish-habitat status of all significant inland lakes and streams and of estuaries and bays around the continent. Itprovided the only recreational fishing representation on countless government advisory and review committees,including thefisheries policy review committee whose work resulted in the quite dramatic rationalisation, effortreduction and structural adjustment of Australia’s commercial fishing fleets Australia-wide about 10 years ago. Recfishalso developed the first animal welfare code of practice for fishing and standards for fishing competitions andtournaments.Additionally, entirely because of Recfish’s campaigns and lobbying duriing the past 13 years, the SPF is unique in thatit is the only Commonwealth-managed fishery in which commercial development and management has been basedentirely on scientific resource assessment and the precautionary principle. Until now, commercial fishing has beenprevented from proceeding before all necessary stock assessments and biological studies have been done. The Margirisnow threatens that established policy and if allowed to proceed, will fish unresearched stocks on a very large scale.2 The record (minutes) of the 28 February 2012 meeting of the SPF Resource Assessment Group is expected to bepublished by AFMA following another RAG meeting on 30 and 31 August 2012. The current draft (8 August 2012)reflects the facts presented here. The author’s responsibilities as a member of the SPF RAG prevent him frompublishing the meeting record before it is published by AFMA, although it is understood that AFMA has recentlyreleased a February meeting record draft under Freedom of Information legislation.3 Metarule – General application, in Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, Australian Fisheries ManagementAuthority (AFMA), Australian Government, Canberra, Revised 2009, p. 7.4 Neira, Francisco J. Application of daily egg production to estimate biomass of jack mackerel, Trachurus declivis – akey fish species in the pelagic ecosystem of south-eastern Australia, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies,University of Tasmania, Hobart, 2011. Executive Summary, p. 6.5 Ibid., p. 6.6 Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy, Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA), AustralianGovernment, Canberra, Revised 2009, p. 6.7 Minutes of the Meeting of the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC), 26 March 2012. Released byAFMA on 15 August 2012. p. 5.8 Ibid., p. 5.9 Letter from the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Senator Joe Ludwig, to Graham Pike, 23 July 2012. p.2.10 Pike, Graham, Attachment 3: Submission from Mr Pike (SPF RAG (recreational member), Attachment to the Minutesof the 26 March 2012 meeting of the South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC), Released by AFMA on15 August 2012. p. 2. Attachment also appended to this Conference paper.continued. http://facebook.com/FatCodLures Reply With Quote .--------------------------------------------------------------------------------1 Week Ago #2 Tombowler76 FatCodLures --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Join Date:Jan 2007Posts:1,415Thanks:132Thanked 145 Times in 105 Posts -----Original Message-----From: Graham Pike [mailto:gofishoz@iprimus.com.au]Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012 2:01 PMTo: 'Graham Pike'Subject: FW: YOUR SPF DECISION - IT'S NOT JUST FOR A YEARDear SEMAC MemberAs a former MAC member (SPFMAC) and occasional observer over many years on theMACs of other fisheries, I appreciate how difficult it sometimes is to arrive at a decisionthat is right for the fishery, not just to satisfy apiece of legislation and/or those commercially involved.The Small Pelagic Fishery, a small one when compared to other Commonwealth fisheries,usually takes very little of your MAC's time. But SPF is unique in that because of its targetfish species and the concern recreational and commercial fishers and fisheries managershave for those species, the SPF is the only Commonwealth fishery in which commercialdevelopment and management has been based entirely on scientific resourceassessments and the precautionary principle.However, at the SEMAC telemeeting scheduled for Monday (26 March 2012) you arefaced with a decision which could adversely change the SPF irrevocably. That is quite astatement coming from someone who has been involved at policy, working group,management plan, RAG and MAC level in this fishery for nearly 13 years - since beforethe SPF was the SPF, when it was called simply the Jack mackerel fishery.You are likely to have read a letter emailed to you in the past 24 hoursfrom Jon Bryan, a longstanding fellow member of the SPF Resource Assessment Groupand a long serving member on MACs, including the SPFMAC. I unequivocally supportevery one of John's reasons for opposing the Jack mackerel East recommendation fromthe February meeting of the SPFRAG, the facts he sets out about the processes andoutcomes of the meeting and also the basis on which he argues for maintenance of theprecautionary principle, particularly in relation to Jack mackerel.Because of Jon's excellent statement of the facts and the reasons forstrongly opposing the recommendation which is being put to you at the SEMAC meeting, Iwill not repeat it, except to make quite clear that I stronglyoppose the Jack mackerel East recommendation as well.Instead, I want to propose an outcome for SEMAC to consider which couldsatisfy most, with the possible exception of the proponents of the supertrawler; still enable a SPF DEPM to proceed, maintain the precautionaryprinciple, and not jeopardise the future of the stocks of SPF species andtheir management.My proposal, if you adopt it, would also pass the Canberra Times Test. Thattest is applied mentally by all senior public servants when makingdecisions: If my (the decision-maker's) decision or anything arising from itappears on the front page of The Canberra Times, will it (i) embarrass theMinister or the Government and/or generate media inquiries to both, and (ii)is it absolutely unchallengeable and unimpeachable on the basis of all thefacts or could a probing journalist find irregularities, anomalies orweaknesses in any of the processes or decisions leading to my ultimatedecision?It is simply a fact that the reason for the controversy and disagreementabout the SPF's Jack mackerel East recommendation is that it was arrived atin a way different to the other RBC recommendations following a proposal bya RAG member that a corporation of which he is part is planning to introducea large trawler/freezer vessel into the SPF (see the proposal before theSEMAC meeting) and that this vessel would also undertake a one-off DEPM of an area ofthe SPF of his corporation's choosing. There was also thestatement made in the SPF meeting that a minimum of about 10,000 tonnes of easternJack mackerel (a doubling of the RBC that would have been the case if the HarvestStrategy metarule and an old stock assessment had not been invoked) would be neededto make the venture commercially viable.As you are aware, Jon Bryan and I have serious concerns about the soundness, scientificand otherwise, of the Jack mackerel East recommendation before you at SEMAC.If SEMAC approves it, we are told we are likely to see a supertrawler/freezer vessel introduced from another part of the south Pacificfishery where the once bountiful Peruvian Jack mackerel have been rapidlyfished down to non-commercial levels - and there is absolutely no way thatthe SPF's Jack mackerel East resource is anything but miniscule whencompared to the pre-commercial fishing stocks of Peruvian Jack mackerel.The planned introduction of the super trawler/freezer vessel is open ended -there are no details or statements of the criteria on which a decision wouldbe based to take the super trawler out of the SPF, or its minimum commercialviability requirements. Long experience by fisheries managers also showsthat it is exceedingly difficult to take units out of a fishery.My suggestion to SEMAC is the same as my suggestion to the February meeting of theSPF - do not use the SPF Harvest Strategy to enable of theintroduction of the super trawler - there are serious policy and futurefisheries management hazards which could flow from that. Instead, treat theintroduction of the super trawler in the context of a discrete, separateresearch project, with its own TAC allocation, in which researchrequirements, such as DEPM surveys (at least one of which has been promised byproponents of the super trawler, albeit in an area of the SPF of the operators' choosing)can proceed at the same time as the vessel fishes itsproject TAC commercially, which will also provide catch data.In this way, the project would satisfy The Canberra Times test, theprecautionary principle would still be maintained while research proceeded,providing more stock assessment data; the rigour and integrity of the SPFHarvest Strategy (and its review process/es) would be maintained; thecommercial viability of the super trawler would be proven or otherwise anddepending on which, stay in a viable fishery or exit it for economicreasons.I thank you for giving me the opportunity to canvas this issue and toparticipate in the SEMAC meeting discussion on the matter.Regards,Graham PikeMember, SPF RAGrepresenting the Australian recreational and charter fishing industry.See Biography next page.Graham PikeDriven by a desire to ensure his son and peers experienced higher quality recreational fishing thanhe did as a young fisher, Graham has dedicated nearly 40 years to very actively and stronglyadvocating and lobbying at local, state and national levels for fish and fish habitat conservation andenhancement and for wiser use and management of the vast and complex range of natural resourceson which fishing uniquely and entirely depends as a sport and recreation. His work on behalf ofrecreational fishers has been reinforced by a degree in political science and environmental sciencefrom Canadian and Australian universities and a career including national and internationaljournalism and broadcasting, book publishing, state and federal public service at a senior level(including policy formulation, advice and implementation), guided fishing tourism and fishingtuition, business administration and company management and directorship. In 1983, he co-foundedthe peak national recreational fishing representative body, now known as Recfish Australia, was itsfoundation president for six years and national executive director for another eight of its first 21years. As a member of a number of government fisheries’ management and advisory bodies,Graham continues to advocate the interests of recreational fishers and the betterment of recreationalfishing.

http://www.tacklebox.com.au/forums/fishing-general-chat/16812-presentation-rec-fishing-conference-graham-pike-margiris-super-trawler.htmlTB

[Tacklebags 404]

Refer PDF article attached by ex pollie Wilson Tuckey....Good read.TB

120827WilsonTuckeyArticleonMargiris.pdf

[khombi 10]

Its good that the alarm bells are starting ring at last,and for good reason,this could well be a test run to see what peoples reactions are, and it could end up being the same as up in northern waters with all the asian fishing vessels coming in and taking what ever they want.Im not to sure how other people think,but i am very scepticle about these sorts of issues and where they might end up. We have all seen it before where things have been changed by the Goverments because no one bothered to stand up and say what they think.You can make a sure bet that if this boat does all right here you are going to see a hell of a lot more of them coming in for their share. regards Chris :ohmy: :sick:

[Tacklebags 404]

Well...if the European Union who support this super fleet and enabled them to cause so much damage threaten our Government with legal action in the international court, things will really heat up.It's typical of these greedy overseas mobs when it comes to forcing their monetry wants on Australian citizens who don't want these things. If Labor researched this properly before saying 'YES' then all this public discontent could have been avoided.TB

[Cleaver 65]

I bumped into Senator Nick X at my local store on Saturday and had a chat to him about the Margris.I basically let him know that the community is aware of this and we are concerned and it flies in the face of the countries stance on ocean conservation etc.He agreed and said he will be raising the issues in Parliament and with his colleagues.Very approachable man and had all the time in the world for me.

[khombi 10]

Gday Cleaver,a sure way to get some action out of Nick X is to sneak some poker machines onboard the Margaris and he as sure as hell will slip a bann on them quick smart :woohoo:

[khombi 10]

hey Cleaver, Just joking,nick is a good bloke and at least he doesnt go ducking for cover when things or issues get a bit tough and he is not afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right or have a go at someone if he thinks they are wrong.Chris

[urhookedfish 12]

Im hoping that this attachment from TARFISH works. if it does its really worth reading as it shows that there are many un-answered questions about fish stocks. It is an in-sight into what questions where asked by the WORKING GROUP, and it clearly shows that the data is not accurate enough and not enough is known about the effects the trawler could have on predatory fish.

SPFMediaStatement201208242.pdf

[Cleaver 65]

hey Cleaver' date=' Just joking,nick is a good bloke and at least he doesnt go ducking for cover when things or issues get a bit tough and he is not afraid to stand up for what he thinks is right or have a go at someone if he thinks they are wrong.Chris[/quote']Hey mate, no worries.

[khombi 10]

Gday all.in case any one is interested,channel 2 today at 12pm had a segment on about the margaris arriving here in a couple of days and the inderpenant member for tassie Mr Andrew Wilkie had a fair bit to say about it,they may repeat it tonight at 7pm ,its worth a look Regards Khombi

[Cleaver 65]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/claims-super-trawler-set-to-berth/4230910Port Lincoln huh?The news report-http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/growing-opposition-to-the-imminent-arrival-of/4230752

[Guest]

yep just heard it on the radio. Will be in Pt Lincoln for 5 days doing repairs and customs checks.

[Cleaver 65]

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/burke/2012/tr20120822.html

[Guest]

It's here in Lincoln!Its anchored out behind Boston Island and is supposed to be berthing at the wharf sometime later today.

[chuckemback 0]

It seems this trawler is more welcome in Pt Lincon than anywhere in Tasmania.It appears the tuna industry supports this trawler and imo it could be possible that its now going to be based in Pt Lincon. Cheap tuna feed would be welcome from that industry from what i can gather.In minutes time this will be docking on a Lincon warf.http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2012/s3579065.htm

[Tacklebags 404]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-08-29/conflicts-of-interest-on-board-overseeing-super/4231826TB

[Cleaver 65]

'Relax, we're here to feed the starving masses of Africa, we just don't want to see the tuna go hungry either, do YOU?'

[chuckemback 0]

Australian Fisheries Management Authority should take their nets away and issue them with 2 rods per person on board with 3 hooks on each trace and tell them they can go catch the 18 000 ton quota of bait fish with the devices that they have been issued with.On another note , why are Australian soldiers overseas fighting for when we are selling(giving away) our land , farming and fisheries. Bring back all our defence force personel right now please alive!Wonder if the FV Margiris will be fitted with gps and live cameras so we can see real time fishing as to what exactly is getting caught. Know im dreaming , but this is all annoying me ! If our fishery is so good why do we have restrctions, size , bag limits , closed seasons etc for rec fishing since baitfish are part of the same food chain?Makes me sick :sick:

[Cleaver 65]

Mark Parnell on 5aa right now.

[Cleaver 65]

double post

[Cleaver 65]

Australian Fisheries Management Authority should take their nets away and issue them with 2 rods per person on board with 3 hooks on each trace and tell them they can go catch the 18 000 ton quota of bait fish with the devices that they have been issued with.On another note ' date=' why are Australian soldiers overseas fighting for when we are selling(giving away) our land , farming and fisheries. Bring back all our defence force personel right now please alive!Wonder if the FV Margiris will be fitted with gps and live cameras so we can see real time fishing as to what exactly is getting caught. Black is white, up is down. We're through the looking glass people.Know im dreaming , but this is all annoying me ! If our fishery is so good why do we have restrctions, size , bag limits , closed seasons etc for rec fishing since baitfish are part of the same food chain?Makes me sick :sick:[/quote']Black is white, up is down, we're through the looking glass people.

[Tacklebags 404]

Australian Fisheries Management Authority should take their nets away and issue them with 2 rods per person on board with 3 hooks on each trace and tell them they can go catch the 18 000 ton quota of bait fish with the devices that they have been issued with.On another note ' date=' why are Australian soldiers overseas fighting for when we are selling(giving away) our land ' date=' farming and fisheries. Bring back all our defence force personel right now please alive!Wonder if the FV Margiris will be fitted with gps and live cameras so we can see real time fishing as to what exactly is getting caught. Black is white, up is down. We're through the looking glass people.Know im dreaming , but this is all annoying me ! If our fishery is so good why do we have restrctions, size , bag limits , closed seasons etc for rec fishing since baitfish are part of the same food chain?Makes me sick :sick:[/quote'']Black is white, up is down, we're through the looking glass people.

It's all about snouts in troughs and the power transformation to a one world government. Control of all markets and natural resources.Most of our pollies will support this trawler for no other reason than to prove they hold the power to do what they wish over their constituents.TB

[Guest]

Took these photos from down the wharf earlier. There's security everywhere and the end of the wharf is blocked off.Greenies have already tried to board it. I'd say they'll be lots of greeny reinforcements coming in the next day or two.The ship "Steve Irwin" is here too.

[Ugly4Life 41]

My mate has been called up to run security for it. I tried to convince him not to but, "work is work" and all that. :(Don't think he gets the point that if the fishery collapses there'll be no work for anyone, because small towns like Port Lincoln will cease to exist.

[Cleaver 65]

It's a fait accompli i believe TB.Can't blame your mate U4F. Sadly though the the Mayor and local fishing industry are showing support.Port Lincoln mayor Bruce Green also defended the ship and said the tools of the fishing industry had changed, becoming more sophisticated with locating catch and species.“It's not about whether you've got one ship or two, or 10 rather than one, it's about what is the quota, what is the biomass, how can we target that and not do damage to other species?” Mr Green said.Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association spokesman David Ellis said the local fishing industry supported the ship's arrival, and was satisfied AFMA had introduced sustainable quotas and adequate checks to ensure it had a very low by-catch.“This vessel is fishing on behalf of an Australian company; its going to be going out and fishing sustainably within fishery management plans,” Mr Ellis said.“It's a new way of looking at how we can best meet the market demand of seafood - I think change is what confronts people.”

[Guest]

To be honest both the Mayor and the Tuna Industry spokesman are correct in that it doesn't matter how big and nasty the boat is......its the quota thats important.Provided the quota is correctly set then it shouldn't matter whether one big boat or 50 small boats catch it.To put a bit of perspective on this how many of you know what the annual pilchard fishery quota in SA is? Its around 30,000 tonnes and its caught every year off port lincoln. It represents 15% of the pilchard biomas and hence is considered sustainable.The problem with this boat is the perception of what it represents. It represents industrial fishing at its absolute worst even though in Australia it will catch a set quota.Politics is a lot about perception rather than practicality.

[Cleaver 65]

To be honest both the Mayor and the Tuna Industry spokesman are correct in that it doesn't matter how big and nasty the boat is......its the quota thats important.Provided the quota is correctly set then it shouldn't matter whether one big boat or 50 small boats catch it.To put a bit of perspective on this how many of you know what the annual pilchard fishery quota in SA is? Its around 30' date='000 tonnes and its caught every year off port lincoln. It represents 15% of the pilchard biomas and hence is considered sustainable.The problem with this boat is the perception of what it represents. It represents industrial fishing at its absolute worst even though in Australia it will catch a set quota.Politics is a lot about perception rather than practicality.[/quote']That's the problem Nanman, we don't know if the quota has been correctly set. Conflicts of interest, the act not adhered to etc.If you have a chance have a look at the TARfish webpage, specifically the questions raised.