Propaganda regarding Commercial Fisheries

[pickers]

It's funny how the public thinks that anything that comes within 2miles of a trawler ends up dead.(I better not drive my car too close to tied up trawlers or it might shat itself)
If people only knew what conditions pro fishermen go thru to catch fish or prawns , otherwise the price of seafood here would be tripple what it is now.
Next time you fuel up your boats , buy bait,tackle,drinks,sunscreen, rods and reels just think about what you have just done.
PAID A HEEP OF TAXES
POLLY FOOD
next they will want to tax us on every fish we catch and we keep voting for them , where will it end , the pro's have been squeezed to a point of make or break and the ams have been bamboozled with crap and have a misguided view of it all , it's all a well needed restructure of the industry and it will work out for the better , you now have about 1/3 of the trawlers to what there was 15years ago and even less net fishermen but memories of the past linger on for a while and are sometimes hard to swallow.
As for the hoppers on the northern prawn fleet they cut down the time everything is out of the water , now the catch is only out of the water for around 1 minute.
The hopper is half ful of water and the catch is dropped straight into it , it then go's up the conveyor along a short level distance and drops into a well that go's through the vessel and back into the sea , it is along the flat part of the conveyor that the prawns are picked out and this only takes about 30 seconds to complete and the bycatch kill has been reduced dramatically.
I have been a pro and I also fish for a hobbie with about 38yrs of fishing to my name and if the polly's think I'm gonna roll over and let them close all my fishing spots to the tourist trade (oh yeh I forgot to mention them as well , they are in the polly's pockets and are behind a lot of the closures) they can think again , you can leed a horse to water but you can't make it drink it.
pickers

[kingtin]

As for the hoppers on the northern prawn fleet they cut down the time everything is out of the water , now the catch is only out of the water for around 1 minute.
The hopper is half ful of water and the catch is dropped straight into it , it then go's up the conveyor along a short level distance and drops into a well that go's through the vessel and back into the sea , it is along the flat part of the conveyor that the prawns are picked out and this only takes about 30 seconds to complete and the bycatch kill has been reduced dramatically.

"Recently it has been reported that trawlers operating in the Northern Territory Prawn fishery use hoppers on the deck of the vessel to assist in sorting of the catch. The prawns and fish are dumped on a grid above the hopper. The small animals fall into the hopper which is filled with sea water. The large ones are released over the side. The prawns sink to the bottom and land on a conveyor belt. These are brought out and transferred to a sorting conveyor belt. The fish swim around in the hopper until the prawns are sorted. The water is released and the fish are quickly moved along the conveyors back into the sea. No information is presently available regarding the eventual survival of the released fish. (S Kennelly Pers. comm.). A system of sorting in the water has also been reported as being used in the New South Wales prawn fishery where the mixed catch in the cod end of the trawl is emptied into a water tank, the live prawns settle at the bottom and the fish are taken from the top and floated off."

Food 7 Agricultural Organisation - United Nations

All well and good Pickers, but let's not lose sight of the fact that these hoppers were not developed for the elimination of by-catch purely because the pro sector wanted to "polish up it's act". They were developed primarily to keep the prawns in a better condition ie to prevent damage to the prawn and prevent them drying out in the tropical heat. They weren't developed for benevolent reasons, they were developed purely with profit in mind.

There is documentary evidence showing that by-catch elimination was/is co-incidental and that the motives for the development of hoppers was the intent to produce a better product, and not purely to eliminate by-catch.

The pros seemed to have claimed it as an "environmental move" when it was in fact, motivated purely by economic necessity ie profit.

The latest research that I have found (which I can't seem to extract from a pdf file atm to post here) aims for a "60% survival rate using hoppers, as opposed to 70% mortality rate without"

Now some may see that as a vast improvement, after all, they're aiming to double the survival rate of by-catch, but what shouldn't be overlooked is that there is still an estimated 40% mortality rate, even with the use of hoppers..................40% of total catch landed is what exactly? 3000 tons of by catch in Moreton Bay alone according to DPIF and CSIRO figures equates to 1200 tons of dead by-catch even if all boats were fitted with hoppers.

Don't get me wrong, I agree for the need of a pro fleet and I agree that in many ways, by-catch is inevitable. What I don't agree with is that by-catch coming from breeding and nursery grounds. That is my stance, and always has been.

kev

[pickers]

KINGTIN
You think you have all the data so why don't you (SUPERMAN)GO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE STATE OF THE FISHING GROUNDS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
let's see how long you take.

[kingtin]

KINGTIN
You think you have all the data so why don't you (SUPERMAN)GO FIX THE PROBLEMS OF THE STATE OF THE FISHING GROUNDS ALL OVER THE WORLD.
let's see how long you take.

No. I don't have all the data, although if I did, I think it would only reinforce my current thinking.

As for fixing problems, that's all I am trying to do mate, in my own sweet way.
In the past. an interest was shown, by the members here, in what I was trying to do via researching BRD's and publishing facts here. Whilst doing that, I encountered other research which interested and enlightened me. If, in passing that research on to others, I can help educate and enlighten those that are interested, then in some way, I feel that I am helping aid a sustainable fishery. Pretending that change infers that there is now no major problem does not help hasten a sustainable fishery.

If others see it as finger pointing and personalise it, by insinuating that I blame only the pro fishing sector, then that is their problem, not mine.

My pet subject is The Pine River and FYI and FWIW, I consider the recco sector to be as guilty of destroying a nursery ground as are the beam trawlers.........a no wash limit should be imposed IMHO. If there was a debate on that, I would be just as vociferous as I am about beam trawkling in nursery grounds

Contrary to what you may think, I put blame where facts show that blame is deserved, and do not target the pro sector only...........it is just unfortunate that the pressure on fish stocks due to overfishing is the current en vogue debate atm. I prsonally, consider development is the major cause for concern with regards to dwindling habitat and turbidity but just because I recognise that, does not mean that I should ignore, or not debate, anything of smaller impact.

Yes, I agree, it takes time, but thinking that any criticism is unwarranted as long as change is taking place, or being sarcastic to those who point that out, will only result in the change taking longer.............I wish I was bloody superman, then I wouldn't need to debate.

kev

[pickers]

Kingtin
you've hit the nail on the head on your point of land development as mangrove systems are where "life begins" for a lot of marine creatures.
the developers don't give a rats ass about them only the $$$ and when they backfill the swampy land that is left with dirt or what ever it takes to harden the ground to make it solid for building god only knows whats going to leak out into the nearest waterway and what damage it will do to the marine organisms that start life there.
take a look at the port that is reclaiming land to expand the pot of bris , they filled in one of the best sandcrabing areas in the bay but did it cause any concern to anybody ?? only a few , but it will only take one container with toxic chemicals to get split open and you can kiss goodbye the whole bay (no fishermen involved)
but some how the blame for it would get washed our way.
don't get me wrong because I want an enviroment for my kids (2girls who love fishing) to fish in just like we have and enjoy it just as much.
We should think ourselves lucky we live here and still have a fisherie to enjoy unlike some other countries who's are completely stuffed and will never recover , we still have a very good fisherie and are prepared to do something to save it , bag limits , quoata systems , closed seasons , nat parks ect
Another thing I hear all the time is "the bay's fished out , didn'tcatch a thing" thats because they don't know how to fish. I admit that I don't know to much about placcies and have had bugger all luck with them but I know other people who do but I don't say "it's fished out" more like bombed out but bait is my thing and have very good luck with bait.if you know how , when and where.
pickers

[rando]

Pickers
Here we have a bloke (Kingtin) who is prepared to put the his own time and effort into researching a subject,( the effects of fishing in its various forms on habitat) and sharing his knowledge in a balanced way without thought of reward.
An act of considerable generosity, I might add.
I am not capable or willing to put in the work that Kev puts in to present facts that are verifiably rather that supposition and hearsay,,, Are you..
And rather than applaude his efforts and learn from his research, you take the opportunity to put the boot into him.
Personal attacks against someone with an opposing view to yours says a lot about your ability to communicate.
What we are doing here is communicating, sharing knowledge.
Resorting to personal attack can only have one outcome. The dialogue will close, sharing of knowledge will cease.
Engage with the man in a dialogue and i can assure you he will generously share his knowledge and research ability.
Even if you dont share his view you will be richer for the effort.

rando

[FNQCairns]

Personally I think there is more to it than logging each fish that is still moving as it goes back into the water, although I cannot know, I would suspect that every fish packed by mass and water pressure within the net has some level of systemic brain damage, the higher levels of brain function (in a fish) are knocked out forever only the lower levels remain (parasympathetic?) so it swims upright, breaths, may even strike at bait but does not do much more ie cannot sense danger until it is bitten etc.

Watched the only fishing show presenter I like a couple of weekends ago catch a good size barra in a stocked impoundment, he was tickled pink and used a lot of tape jabbering over it, then to finally place back in the water, that fish was a blubbering idiot upon release and will not survive, it was a stocked fish of nothing but commercial value so I really couldn't care one way or another.

Laboratory Studies have been done world wide for many decades how long brain damage takes, because it is easy and cheap to fund.
Consider a fish that is in O2 deficit due to a fight and stress has bugger all/next to no time out of the water before brain damage, posssibly not even a photo and dehook in may instances.

cheers fnq

[kingtin]

Thanks for the vote of confidence Rando.

kev

[bay trawler]

king tin u keep using the 3000 t figure to describe bycatch mortality in the bay trawl sector when it does not. reread the figures.......72% of that figure goes back to the bottom alive and 8 % of it is rubble and non taxa. the figure u speak of is 600 t for the bay and argue as u might this figure is straight from the article you quoted. the 3000 t is a measure of the discard in total not the measure of the mortality rate of bycatch. if you, as others so vociferously maintain ,are capable of unbiased scientific research you would acknowledge this.

[bay trawler]

good onya pickers for being willing to keep an open mind in such an intense atmosphere of rabid greenie trawler bashing. pity the people who waaaark on so much about personal attacks could remember to try not to do so next time they get a little steamed under the collar or are presented with scientific discourse that doesnt match or calls into questionstheir very narrow world view.

[kingtin]

king tin u keep using the 3000 t figure to describe bycatch mortality in the bay trawl sector when it does not. reread the figures.......72% of that figure goes back to the bottom alive and 8 % of it is rubble and non taxa. the figure u speak of is 600 t for the bay and argue as u might this figure is straight from the article you quoted. the 3000 t is a measure of the discard in total not the measure of the mortality rate of bycatch. if you, as others so vociferously maintain ,are capable of unbiased scientific research you would acknowledge this.

Pickers, my apologies if my post has sounded misleading.........late night posting and a few grogs doesn't lend itself to explaining very well.

I'll try again: 3000tons of by-catch in the Bay with a research based mortality rate of 20% = 600tons of mortalities under current methods..........a not insignificant number.

Then this:

"The latest research that I have found (which I can't seem to extract from a pdf file atm to post here) aims for a "60% survival rate using hoppers, as opposed to 70% mortality rate without"

Now some may see that as a vast improvement, after all, they're aiming to double the survival rate of by-catch, but what shouldn't be overlooked is that there is still an estimated 40% mortality rate, even with the use of hoppers..................40% of total catch landed is what exactly? 3000 tons of by catch in Moreton Bay alone according to DPIF and CSIRO figures equates to 1200 tons of dead by-catch even if all boats were fitted with hoppers."

Here we go with what I was trying to illustrate..........please bear with me:

So the latest estimates of hopper related mortalities is 40%........yes?

40% of the Moreton Bay by-catch which stands at 3000 tons is 1200 tons....yes?

So if hoppers were introduced into the bay......... 1200 tons of mortalities as opposed to current practices producing 600.....yes?

So here we have two pieces of research, one based on Moreton bay indicating a 20% by-catch mortality and another based on the Gulf Fleet stating a by-catch mortality rate previously of 70% and hopper mortality rate of 40%.

A couple of questions to self:

Is one or both pieces of research skewed or deliberately falsified?

Are fishing practices elsewhere so much different than the bay that a published mortality by-catch in the bay can truly be so much lower than elsewhere?

Why a mortality rate in the Bay of 20% and a stated mortality rate elsewhere of 70%?

Where did the figures come from? Anecdotal from skippers? Observed by DPI&F inspectors?

Why introduce hoppers to the Bay when it appears from the above that the bay fleet is already producing less mortality than boats fitted with hoppers in the Gulf?

Or is something more sinister at play here and the stated mortality rate without hoppers of 70% is deliberately inflated to facilitate the introduction of the hoppers so that catch quality and therefore profits, are increased? Profit before environment based on fraudulent "research"?

I could pose many more questions based on these two pieces of "research" which is why I have constantly emphasised what I and other members have seen with our own eyes in the Pine. If you can't trust the research and two pieces of research can produce such stark differences, then where to from here?

kev

I have no answers (yet)

[kingtin]

good onya pickers for being willing to keep an open mind in such an intense atmosphere of rabid greenie trawler bashing. pity the people who waaaark on so much about personal attacks could remember to try not to do so next time they get a little steamed under the collar or are presented with scientific discourse that doesnt match or calls into questionstheir very narrow world view.

Mate, I'm sorry if that's how I have presented myself and my debate to you. I have always tried to be open minded and in previous debates I have often brought into question some research that I have found biased and flawed.

If you did a search on previous similar debates that I have been involved in, you would see that I have cautioned against making snap judgements where others' livelihoods are involved, which is one of the reasons that I started researching in the first place. Unfair loss of livelihood is something that I am well familiar with.

As for a "very narrow world view" you will see that in a response (which should show above this post) that I was formulating as you were posting this, I have questioned the veracity of the research that I have quoted, which I think a fair man would admit does not illustrate that I have a "narrow world view". I could simply say, "the research proves"

Your right to tag me with that characteristic, or any characteristic that you would wish, I would whole heartedly support though, if the debate was about free speech.

Seems that I am not presenting the case as it should be so I shall cease forthwith before my "steamed collar" burns my "rabid green" neck

kev

[bigjimg]

Gidday all
It's all well and good to have quotas and restrictions on catch but who looks after the publics quota to eat it all?It's scarey to think how much is turned into fertilizer or goes into the sustenance for you pet or whatever..........or maybe just into landfill.Humans are just greedy.Ahhh opinions everyones got one just my thoughts.Jimbo

[kingtin]

Gidday all
It's all well and good to have quotas and restrictions on catch but who looks after the publics quota to eat it all?It's scarey to think how much is turned into fertilizer or goes into the sustenance for you pet or whatever..........or maybe just into landfill.Humans are just greedy.Ahhh opinions everyones got one just my thoughts.Jimbo

Jimbo, good point raised mate. I'm going to be bowing out of this one for the time being, but I'll have one last word, seeing as the debate has swung to by-catch. Instead of me quoting what I have in the past, I could open up a whole new ball game. Forget about the mortality of by-catch, in some countries it's shot up to 100% 'cause nothing is returned. It's all killed. Why? Because a fishery that once targeted a specific species is now utilising everything it catches due to limitations placed on it by the limiting of traditional markets. Everything is fair game for pet food.

If you think it can't happen here, just research the tonnage of pinkies (food chain) landed currently, as opposed to what they once were. Even Morgans, higher priced than doggie mackerels is knocking 'em out at 5.99 a kilo..........higher priced than doggie mackerel........a short while ago they were fit for nothing and returned as dispensables. Folk need to open their eyes............restrict one species..........and they'll only find a way to make a buck from another. Go to Morgans (Moreton Bay retailer) and look at the damaged blue swimmer crabs for sale at top bucks. Once upon a time, if they didn't have all their legs, you couldn't give 'em away. By-catch has become part of the major catch.

Yes, the more I research, the more I see what is really going on........chill out.....get a life (you say).........you must be joking (no you're not because the likelihood is you have a vested interest - note the influx of new members all of a sudden))........by -catch is no longer that, but has become a viable source of income to supplement what has been lost by quotas on traditional catches. I'll say no more other than to say it's all there on google and if one is really interested, it doesn't need the likes of me to put a case.

The again, I'm just a whingeing pom with an axe to grind because my old fishery has disappeared and I really need to get a life and chill out. God forbid that a whingeing pomm should ever be proved to be right in his concerns for a fishery that derived from colonialism

kev

[bay trawler]

reread the 3000t of discard blurb you showed.20% of discards are eaten at to or bottom......72 % of discarded material reaches the bottom alive.... so what now that this figure has been shown to disagree with your contention you call those figure you so freely quoted into disrepute.. make up your mind mate.
as to bay trawlers making providing cat food just not true .
as to crabs bay trawlers have a possesion limit of 100 crabs and i resent the implication that any restrictions placed the professional fishing industry results in us targeting other bycatch as a viable sorce of income; most bycatch has strict possession limits placed on it[ with the exception of economically important species such as bugs and squid] to ensure [ along the lines of recco bag limit] the sustainability.
hard to maintain a stance where research is fine only if it agrees with your world view.