Super Trawler Round 2

[Gad]

Taken from FW email newsletter 22-10-12

Super trawler saga not over

19 Oct 2012

By Jim Harnwell

THE Tasmanian company responsible for bringing a Dutch-owned super trawler to Australian waters to exploit baitfish stocks is pushing the federal Government to allow it to fish while scientific studies to assess its environmental impact are conducted.

Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen has asked Burke to allow the controversial 142m super trawler to operate under "restrictions" for 12 months while research is carried out.

Geen claims the factory ship, which is capable of processing hundreds of tonnes of jack mackerel and other baitfish per day, is the only economically viable way to exploit the Small Pelagic Fishery.

Fisho today contacted Tony Burke's office for comments on this latest development in the super trawler saga. The minister is currently in India but a spokesperson said a final decision on the super trawler's fate would be made after a 60-day consultation period concludes on November 20.

Sources say the Government is unlikely to approve any moves to allow the super trawler to extract baitfish in Australian waters. However, the same sources warn that Seafish Tasmania is desperate to recoup the significant costs associated with bringing the super trawler to Australia and would more than likely take what ever action was necessary to get the ship's nets in the water.

Anglers around the nation would again vehemently oppose any moves to allow the super trawler to operate in our waters. Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation director Allan Hansard told Fisho. "We stopped the super trawler last time and we'll stop it again," Hansard said. "There is no science to support the industrial extraction of baitfish stocks from our waters. Until conclusive science has been presented, we can't allow these factory ships to operate here. It's as simple as that."

Sources have told Fisho that the latest move by Seafish Tasmania signals that the campaign to stop the super trawler is far from over.

"Gerry Geen is attempting to stop a two-year ban (which may or may not be declared by Minister Burke after the current 60-day ban expires) by saying he will operate the super trawler as a non-super trawler for the next 12 months so that it does not fall within the super trawler definition prescribed in the September amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act," recreational fishing activist Graham Pike said.

"As someone who has been involved in the Small Pelagic Fishery for 12 years ... I can state unequivocally that the fundamental issue is that there should be no large scale or industrial scale fishing of the Small Pelagic Fishery (SPF) until the federal Government spends the $2.5 million necessary to undertake scientifically sound, comprehensive Daily Egg Production surveys of all SPF target species, including jack mackerel, redbait, blue mackerel and sardines (pilchards) in all areas of the SPF so that we can prevent the overfishing of these vital forage fish in future.

Conservationists also strongly oppose attempts by the super trawler to exploit the baitfish fishery.

"Seafish and (the Australian Fisheries Management Authority) will not provide information to the public on where or when the ship will be operating, or how much fish they are catching,"

Tasmanian Conservation Trust spokesman Jon Bryan said. "The public will not be able to find out what is going on with this fishing operation. The company's proposals are not based on science and will not reduce concerns about localised depletion or the threat to dolphins and other marine life."

[Gad]

Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation The Voice of Australia’s Recreational Fishing Community

Media Release – 19 October 2012

When is a Super Trawler not a Super Trawler?

The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) is calling on the Government to honour its commitment to Australia’s 5 million recreational fishers and stop the Super Trawler FV Abel Tasman (Margiris) from fishing.

This follows a proposal from Seafish Tasmania to the Federal Government to modify the activities of the Super Trawler in an attempt to gain approval to fish in Australian waters.

Any decision on whether the Super Trawler should fish Australian waters should not be made before the scientific assessments and reviews of Australia’s fisheries management systems have been completed.

ARFF spokesman Allan Hansard said, “We are concerned that Seafish Tasmania is trying to use technical loopholes to reclassify the Margiris so that it is not classified as a ‘Super Trawler’, slipping around the recent amendments to the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act to ban it from fishing.

“There is a reason Australia’s recreational fishers strongly opposed the Super Trawler and that is that the science was not there on the effects of the Super Trawler on localised bait stocks or their movements.

“Nor do we have the required information on the implications for the marine food chain, existing recreational and commercial fishing and the communities that rely on them. We cannot make informed decisions on whether the Super Trawler should fish until we have that scientific, economic and social foundation.

“We ask the Federal Government to stick to its word and follow through with the process to improve the science and management of our fisheries before a decision on whether the Margiris can fish in Australian waters is made.â€

The Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation (ARFF) is the newly formed national peak body representing Australia’s Recreational Fishing Community and is supported by the Australian Fishing Trade Association (AFTA), Recfish Australia, Game Fishing Association Australia (GFAA), Sunfish Queensland, Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory (AFANT), Recfishwest, Recreational Fishing Alliance of NSW (RFANSW), Underwater Skindivers and Fishermen’s Association (USFA), Australian National Sportfishing Association (ANSA), Professional Fishing Instructors and Guides Association (PFIGA), Victorian Recreational Fishing Peak Body Peak Body (VRFish), and Australian Underwater Federation (AUF).

ENDS

Media Contact: Alice Logan Edwards

Mob: 0419 464 270

Email: alice.loganedwards@afta.net.au

[ellicat]

Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation might represent the views of the gullible and others, but they certainly don't represent mine. Don't you just love the self-appointed representative orgs. :evil:

PS Thanks for bringing this topic up again :whistle:

I came into the thread expecting to see tugger here :dry: :pinch:

[Gad]

I find it sadly amusing at the number of fishing groups that title themselves 'The Voice of the Recreational Fisherman'and with their compromising with govt departments,it`s always the average fisho who gets the shafting.

No probs,I thought you might be up for it now,after all you had a week away on R&R

sorry.. no pornstars in here :silly:

[Old Scaley]

This is the topic for 4 Corners on the ABC tonight. That show usually has a pretty balanced approach (my opinion). Could be interesting.

[ellicat]

The live cattle debacle springs to mind in contrast to your take on their 50/50 approach, Steve. :whistle:

I'll watch warily as usual though, looking out for those "might, may, could..." type words. :pinch:

[darcy]

although it sucks you guys do understand that there are trawlers out there the same size atm. The super trawler just made it big due to the media. If the super trawler is stopped its quota will be sold to another boat. If you really want to make a difference there needs to be a push for on board inspectors on every boat imo only way you can make sure everyone is following the rules. As long as japan keeps paying more and more $$ Australian waters will still get raped.

[aussie123]

There is a doco on the ABC right now about this ship

[ellicat]

Nothing new in the 4 Corners show. Just confirmation of what I've said previously.

Disgraceful result.

[Old Scaley]

I think what stands out for me from this program is something that I have been concerned about for a while, and that is that many people generally do not have faith any longer in government funded science bodies such as CSIRO, AFMA etc. This is probably because successive governments of all persuasions have increasingly politicised science to the point where those bodies are expected to echo the politics of the government rather than good science. So, rather than being seen as independent contributors to a debate, they are seen (rightly or wrongly) as a political voice for whatever is the expedient view of the government. That is a great shame for people who have spent many years studying in their area of expertise and who are highly regarded.

It is also a by-product of an era where people on blogs and forums like this are free to express a view that becomes popular but may have absolutely no scientific worth at all and the government is forced to form policy on the run and react to social media power. That can be a good or a bad thing, but it is dangerous to allow social media to overide considered scientific opinion.

Just my 2 bob's worth.

The live cattle debacle springs to mind in contrast to your take on their 50/50 approach, Steve. :whistle:

I'll watch warily as usual though, looking out for those "might, may, could..." type words. :pinch:

[ellicat]

Always a worthy 2 bob.

[aussie123]

I think the 2 year ban on this vessel is a good thing.

I am not for it nor against it at this stage but as an ex long term commercial fisher I do see a lot of concerns with it.

The data is just not there to support the quota that has been given to this ship.

The government does not even know when or where these fish spawn let alone what the biomass is.

They think there is spawning populations in various areas along the East Coast and in Tasmania but in the end they are not sure.

The current Biomass stats are taken from old egg sampling data which now has been confirmed that a lot of the eggs sampled were from close cousins of the Jack Mackeral and not the actual target species.

Also as mentioned tonight,the BRD's were proven several years ago as ineffective and there is no current BRD that is proven to work on a large scale net which involves removing turtles,dolphins,seals ect.

Their current designs are a stab in the dark as to whether they will work and this practice is not good enough.

The footage tonight showing their BRD in action was a joke.

That design does not and cannot work and was very obviously a quick fix to try and get around some legal issue or legislative authority at the time.

The quota is a massive issue here with several major concerns.

Firstly the doubling of quota without current evidence of the biomass is a major concern.

Then we have the issue of the rest of the original quotas that were already out there but they were latent quotas.

Exploiting the latent quotas plus the new quota without scientific evidence could possibly turn out to be a massive disaster.

It is one thing to over exploit a single species of fish but if we damage the main food chain which is what these fish are,we will have some serious problems to deal with.

Many demersal and pelagic species rely on these fish as a main food source along with the birds,seals,dolphins and many other animals.

Another issue that annoys me here is the government keeps saying this ship will be fishing so far offshore that it will have no effect on anyone.

Jack Mackeral are only found out to around 300 fathoms with the bulk inside 200 fm.

This is not what you would call a long way offshore and is right smack in the middle of the main fishing grounds for both recs and commercial fishers.

Commonwealth waters start at 3nm from the Territorial Baselines so this ship can work right in to 3nm from the coast and no one can stop them.

Get the science right and at least understand what months these fish spawn and where they spawn and go from there.

This fishery has already failed a few years ago with a small fleet of australian boats working it so that alone should be a red flag to get it right.

[ellicat]

They didn't hammer it home well on the show but the current fleet that fishes for this out of essentially one port will have a far greater effect on the local depletion problem than this vessel would have if fished over a vaster area which is the excellent capability it has. So that argument is rubbish really. The whole food chain argument that flows from it is rubbish too imo. Like I said to Jarryd in the other thread - take away 5% of your fries from Maccas and you wont notice the difference, you'll still get fat.

The seal issue that the show played on for a bit is again a red herring considering the absence of coastal species such as seals in the target areas. Some poor government employee will be onboard getting bored counting little in the way of by-catch. At least that's what one of those government employees said in an interview. I don't believe turtles have been mentioned before by anyone (not even Greenpeace) as a concern for by-catch. That leaves dolphins. Let me know when they are scarce lol. Keep me a head.

The show played a lot on what super trawlers may or may not have done off Africa. What this has to do with us is ridiculous considering the stringent regulations etc that will apply here. What the Africans did or didn't do is irrelevant.

As for the stock levels, the scientist dudes have based their assumptions on 10 year old data but have been conservative. Considering the target areas would be on virgin grounds I think it's a pretty fair assumption that they wont be too depleted or less than the estimates.

Sure there are some unanswered questions and certainties, but there was a time when man took the plunge and caught the first fish.

[aussie123]

I have noticed numerous times you have mentioned the lack of seals in the target areas.

I think you need to go and spend some time on the water down in Southern NSW and Vic and see how many seals are out there beyond the continental shelf.

Years ago one of the main enemies of the dropliners were seals knocking the fish off their lines.

The further inshore you come,the more there are so yes it is a real concern.

Do you really think the company is working of an effective seal excluder if there is no seals out there?

Also this other argument that the ship will keep moving around and not depleting local stocks is a bit of a joke too.

Do you believe that if they are hauling nets full of a paying product that they are just going to steam off 100's of kilometers away or possibly into another state in the hope of maybe finding more fish.

When they find a concentration of fish they will fully exploit that area until it becomes unviable to fish any further and then they will move on.

There is an old saying out there,never leave fish to find fish.

Your dolphin comment seems a bit bizarre too.

It sounds like you think it is ok for those to be killed because there is heaps out there.

If you or I went out and started killing dolphins we would end up in jail so I don't understand why a foreign vessel should be allowed to come into our waters and start killing them.

Our own commercial sector are not allowed to do it so why should any one else?

The Australian state and federal governments have spent billions of dollars over the years creating a sustainable commercial and recreational fishery so we will have healthy fish stocks for years to come.

I do not see any reason to throw that policy out the window because some overseas company wants access to our fish stocks.

If the precautionary principal ever existed,it applies right here right now.

As I said previously,I am not against this ship or its quotas but it should not be given free reign until the health of the fish stocks are fully known and understood.

[tugger]

This super trawler is also allowed to keep bycatch such as pilchard, Yakka, slimie mackerel as well as the intended jack mackerel and redfish this trawler cannot distinquish what school of fish they sound out before shooting the net Pilchards and yakkas are known to also swim with these other schools. With this trawler now looking to work from southern qld down along the rest of the east coast of australia and along the bottom half of southern australia as close as 3 nautical miles from the coast it will have real impact of food sources of many of our offshore fish species.

Lets hope we never see this large foriegn vaccum cleaner that has been banned in many countries able to ply our waters. The company seafish tasmania sounds australian but funny thing it is owned by the same dutch company that owns this trawler so dont think any australians will be affected with this thing banned.

I have to agree with you there Lance everywhere we went on merchant ships down south and I got a chance to fish It wasnt long before the seals moved in they are attracted to ships and would soon steal what you were catching they are everywhere through bass strait and the great australian bight, around tassie and up the east coast into nsw to think they just live close to the coast is a joke they swim right through the tasman sea looking for these fish schools on which to feed on. Over a couple of decades at sea I often saw large schools of fish out along way off the coast with huge pods of dolphins and seals into them they push these schools of fish from the depths up to the surface so they can easily feed on them they would have huge schools of tuna doing the same to these fish schools and as a fisherman I would be amased watching this from the decks of the ships I worked on either travelling to Newzealand or Tasmania or around into south australia which was some of the trade routes we took.

This super trawler can only do damage to our fish stocks in my opinion and on our own doorstep here it will encircle whole schools and wipe them out what good can come from this foriegn venture

[coughy]

Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation might represent the views of the gullible and others, but they certainly don't represent mine. Don't you just love the self-appointed representative orgs. :evil:

PS Thanks for bringing this topic up again :whistle:

I came into the thread expecting to see tugger here :dry: :pinch:

LOL you got it m8

look up 1 post He is here :whistle:

[Gad]

Taken from todays Fishing Worlds email newsletter

Super trawler saga - It's "only" bait

25 Oct 2012

By John Newbery

THE fight over plans to allow the world's second largest super trawler to fish in the Commonwealth-controlled jack mackerel fishery has united previously unaligned groups and has had the side benefit of explaining to lay people why bait fish are a crucial part of the marine ecosystem. Even Channel 10 ran an explanatory story on it.

AFMA defended its support of the Abel Tasman/Magiris by saying that stocks of jack mackerel and redbait are currently strong and the super trawler's take will be limited, despite the fact that the monster was to range across from Tasmania to Western Australia, in effect where "no trawler has gone before."

We'd argue that this support is both dangerous and non-precautionary, from both a contemporary and an historical perspective.

A study just released by the University of Sydney on bass and their prey may seem to be a long way from the current debate. It basically suggests that higher temperatures caused by climate change are affecting the way predators (bass) and a favourite prey species (mosquitofish) react. Mosquitofish get faster as temperatures rise, which in turn limits the ability of the bass to catch them, which in turn may affect bass numbers and the entire ecosystem.

We also know that the temperatures of east and south coast waters of Australia are changing and that tropical predator species are extending further south. Has AFMA considered the longer term effects of these sorts of environmental changes and possible impacts when setting jack mackerel fishery catch limits, or just "current" stock assessments?

History warns against ignoring these factors. The Peruvian anchovy fishery looked extremely healthy until its total collapse in 1972. In 1971 it was still being touted as a model of successful fishery management. But in '72 it collapsed completely when recruitment failed for some reason (i.e. no breeding that year) and the surviving adult stock moved inshore as a result of a severe El Nino event. There a combination of heavy fishing and the extreme environmental conditions finished the stocks off. No more anchovies, no more fishery, no more feed for a vast range of predator species.

Now AFMA would have learnt from the overfishing part of that event, surely, but it can't control severe environmental / weather events. Think back to 1999. Our South and Western Australian pilchard fisheries ground to an absolute halt when stocks were wiped out by a herpes virus. Healthy one day, gone the next. Doesn't really matter whether the virus was imported or broke out naturally, it still destroyed stocks and fishermen's livelihoods, and clearly wasn't predicted or modelled.

Those sorts of events are examples of exactly why super trawlers have no place in our fisheries, and why for once Australian anglers, conservationists and small-scale, sustainable commercial fishers are of like mind and united in opposition to this outrageous plan.

[Gad]

the cats of Australia and a few other places, may also have something to do with non-sustainable fishing practices and a large impact on the marine food chains in the fisheries.

/>http://www.talkingnature.com/2010/02/conservation/forage-fish-for-pets/

Fish are used for two main purposes that do not relate to human food. Fish are used:

To feed animals that are being grown for their fur and,as food for pets, for example cat food.

What sort of fish are being used for non-food purposes?

These non-human-food purposes mainly use small fish. You may have heard them called ‘forage fish’ and sometimes ‘trash fish’. These fish are the sort of small fish seen schooling along coasts – the baitfish: pilchards, sardines and herrings.

Is a large amount caught?

A recent paper by researchers from Deakin University tried to quantify just how many tonnes of fish are used for these non-human-food purposes globally. It turned out to be a significant amount.

In their calculations the researchers excluded China. Why? Because China had very few precise data. Rather than overestimate global use, the researchers excluded the data and acknowledged that they have underestimated global use of fish for non-human-food purposes.

Globally, at least 5,400,000 tonnes were used in non-human-food based industries (fur production and pet food).

As a comparison, in 2008 the total Australian commercial fishery production of all fish species was only 236 thousand tonnes (ABARE 2008)! – so, the amount of fish used for non-human-food globally is more than 20 times Australia’s total fisheries production of all fish in 2008!

Summary

Understanding where our food and our pet’s food comes from is important because it empowers us to make decisions that lighten our footprint on our oceans and planet. Should small forage fish, a foundation of marine ecosystem foodwebs, be food for fish, pets, or humans?

All fisheries require good management. In the case of the global forage fish fisheries, good management might best start at home by making pet food choices that are beneficial for fisheries.

Note:

According to the Australian Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics, domestic cats eat more fish (13.7 kg/yr) than the average Australian person (11 kg/yr) (ABARE, 2005 cited in [1])…. End of quote}

PS. Down at my local Woolies stores jack mackeral also appears in content labels on

some tinned mackerel cat food.

[cboy69]

There is a doco on the ABC right now about this ship

In case anyone missed it. you can watch it on iView here

/>http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/view/1022608

[Terry H]

Surprised I'm getting this one in before Gad

/>http://www.news.com.au/news/super-trawlers-banned-from-australian-waters-for-two-years/story-fnejlrpu-1226519764199

Super Trawler appears to be banned from fishing in Australian waters for 2 years, such that expert analysis can be performed.

[Gad]

Bugger

[Gad]

Quote: "After considering the matters raised in the submissions, I am of the view that there is uncertainty about the environmental impacts of this type of fishing operation and it is appropriate to prohibit it while it is assessed by an expert panel."…. end quote.

This should all change after the Federal election next year ..

[Gad]

seems like terry H is occuppied

/>http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2012/11/20/14/01/seafish-tasmania-pleads-for-trawler-rules

Seafish Tas pleads for super trawler rules

1:36pm November 20, 2012

Seafish Tasmania says a 90-metre factory ship could be a viable replacement for its banned super trawler but the government won't tell it the rules of operation.

________________________________________

•

Seafish director Gerry Geen says freezer vessels of up to 90m already operate in Australian waters and a similar boat could be used instead of the 142m Abel Tasman, formerly known as the Margiris.

"Vessels of 90m and above which have the capability of freezing the fish on board for human consumption would be potentially viable," Mr Geen told ABC radio.

But he said he couldn't get any advice from federal environment minister Tony Burke or fisheries minister Joe Ludwig about what vessel could be used to catch the company's 18,000-tonne quota of small pelagic fish.

"What we've heard back from Minister Ludwig ... is ask Minister Burke," Mr Geen said.

"And what we've heard back from Minister Burke is 'I administer the Environment Act, I don't give advice'.

"This is just ridiculous. Nobody will talk to us.

"We need to fish our quota.

"We're not going to bring a vessel halfway around the world again without some concrete guidance."

Mr Burke on Monday exercised new powers to stop the giant ship trawling Australian waters while the potential impacts on the environment are assessed.

He said it would be inappropriate to negotiate directly with Seafish rather than follow the legal process.

He added new types of fishing in Australian waters that created "environmental uncertainty" would continue to result in him taking a "cautious view".

Anti-trawler protest organiser Rebecca Hubbard said Seafish was unlikely to face a campaign similar to the massive backlash over the Margiris if it used a type of boat already fishing in Australian waters.

"If Gerry Geen is suggesting using the kind of fishing vessel that's just part of the typical Australian fishing industry, then that's what happens already and that's not a big deal," Ms Hubbard told AAP.

"But if he's talking about taking on a really new type of activity at a different scale then, of course, that needs to be assessed and addressed."

Ms Hubbard said the company's quota remained an issue and should be reviewed.

Mr Geen said he would rather reach a compromise with the government than go to court in an attempt to recover the millions of dollars the failed venture has cost Seafish.

"If ultimately the government won't talk to us then we have to explore the legal option," he said.

Mr Ludwig's department was contacted for comment but referred the matter to Mr Burke's....

quote..Anti-trawler protest organiser Rebecca Hubbard said Seafish was unlikely to face a campaign similar to the massive backlash over the Margiris if it used a type of boat already fishing in Australian waters... end quote

so Beccy reckons size does matter :whistle: I thought it was about operational efficiency

[ellicat]