Cast netting

[pickers]

yes it is , but a tickler chain is not dragged by a pair of HUGE dozers.
if only we could sort out the REAL fact and fiction things just mite work a little easier for all , but untill we can find an honest polly it's stacked against everybody.
pickers

[NorthC]

Kingtin,

I admire your passion, though do not agree with some of the views you hold.

Your swift dismissal of the Clynick et al research hits a little bit of a raw nerve with me though. It seems you are quite talented with your abilities to search the web and it is a shame you did not do this for Clynick.

A quick search would have demonstrated to you that this was a research project of a graduate student. To you, it may be a case of "Doh, the answers is obvious!", however the processes undertaken provides an exceptional learning experience for the student.

Find a question, formulate a hypothesis, construct a sampling design, collect data, manage data, statistical analysis of data, interpret data, and finally report those findings in a peer reviewed journal. This is not a simple process regardless of how simple the question and answer may seem to an outsiders perspective.

Tony Underwood was most likely the supervisor of this student during this project, hence his placement as the junior author.

Regards
Andy

[kingtin]

i wonder if you know the legislative requirements re 'tickler chains'.......
6mm maximum.
to compare this to chain links the size of your head being dragged by bulldozers is a purely emotive 'spin'.

Nothing to do with emotive spin mate. Bigger obstacles, bigger chain, smaller obstacles/life forms, obviously, a smaller chain can be just as damaging. I would think that anybody can safely assume that a 6mm chain can be damaging enough to sponges, sea fans etc.


quote=bay trawler;619506]i

may i remind you that all of your 'assertions' have been made without seeing the article,
"the sampling done on non trawl areas took place in permanent clousures to trawlers."
[/quote]

So what exactly does that show? It makes absolutely no sense to me to sample an area closed to trawlers? would it be to compare it to a trawled area? Useless, because: As for "permanent closures" The likelihood is that although they may be closed now and for the future, they once weren't, so the floor is likely not in it's original condition. Although closed, it will be in a state of regeneration (hopefully), dependent on how long it's been closed, but certainly not as it once was. Without the paper though, I cannot pass (fair) judgement.


quote=bay trawler;619506]
as to the CISRO or DPI&F quote ur so fond of using re removal rates wheres the title of the paper [ which i have been informed is bad form that is to quote without providing reference] .

[/quote]


I would have thought that the fact that it is one of the CSIRO's own reports, and the fact that I stated so, would suffice as an attribute. If you wish to know where the results were published further, then Poiner at al could be your starting point. This is the brief:

"Changes to benthic habitats

Trawling is one of the most widely used commercial fishing methods in Australia, with demersal trawling being the major technique. There are trawl fisheries for fish, scallops, scampi, prawns, and other seafood. The nature of the catch in trawl fisheries can include threatened species and invertebrate and other species.
Because demersal trawling and shellfish dredging makes contact with the seafloor, it can have substantial impacts on seabed habitats and benthic ecosystems (Harris and Ward 1999). The extent of essentially indiscriminate impacts can be significant, including physical removal of organisms and non-living components and increases in water turbidity. Impacts arise from the removal of target and non-target species and the removal and disturbance of invertebrate species and associated benthic habitat. Repeated trawling may prevent the recolonisation of benthic species, both sedentary and mobile.
CSIRO and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries completed a five-year study of the environmental effects of prawn trawling in 1996 (Poiner et al. 1998). The study area covered 10 000 km2 in the far northern Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. The research showed that each pass of a trawl along the seabed removes about 5 to 25% of the seabed life. However, there is a cumulative effect; seven trawls over the same area of seabed removed about half of the seabed life, and 13 trawls removed 70 to 90%. Different species have different levels of vulnerability. Large sponges, for example, are particularly susceptible to trawling."

from:
Coasts and Oceans Theme Report

Australia State of the Environment Report 2001 (Theme Report)
Australian State of the Environment Committee
Authors, CSIRO Publishing on behalf of the Department of the Environment and Heritage
© Commonwealth of Australia 2001, ISBN 0 643 06751 5




Hope this suffices




quote=bay trawler;619506]

without having read the paper, without intimate local knowledge of which areas have been trawled and which have not, with nothing more than ur inquiring mind and a handfull of quotes you know all of it,
you must be the most cost effective means of scientific research available today.

[/quote]

Well, it's not costing me anything, other than my time. As I said, it doesn't matter how much research is thrown at me or uncovered by me, by the DPI&F own admission (which I have published at this site in a past thread), the (Australian) research available to them is limited and what there is, is in it's infancy. Now if they are limited in what they have to draw on, just where does average Joe Blow stand? One can only have a "limited" idea of what is likely to be true, if one is provided only with limited research. An alternative may well be to draw on research from other countries and one's own experience/logic, which I have clearly attempted to do, and illustrate here. Again, I repeat <sigh>

"put all research (brilliant or flawed) to one side and tap into one's own grey matter. Can anyone seriously believe that dragging a tickler across any environment will not damage it? How do they clear bushland? Do they not use a chain?"

and:

I see first hand the dead fish floating in the Pine as do many of the members here. We see clearly those skippers throwing fish to the gulls and egrets. We SEE it with our own eyes. It isn't something that we've read about in a research paper or have anecdotal evidence of.........IT'S HAPPENED, IT'S HAPPENING NOW, AND IT WILL CONTINUE TO HAPPEN and I don't for a minute think the MBAA will do a damn thing about it and neither will any body or pressure group that has a professional trawler operator withing it's ranks.

Now, I think you will agree, that from the above, I've made it pretty clear, based on experience, simple logic, and not research, just where I stand. Even if I was to base my opinions solely on research (flawed or otherwise), then my opinions would not at this time, change.

As for your comments regarding me personally. Resorting to personal attacks in debate, is not usually the recourse of someone who is sure that they have a justified case to argue. I'll simply leave it at that.

A personal observation here regarding research. I am not a researcher and have absolutely no training or knowledge of correct procedures, other than helping my deckie with her grad dip years ago. One thing I learned though, is that a good research paper/researcher, constantly questions previous research. It is an ongoing thing, current research tends to prove or disprove previous research, that is why, in my mind, for me, in regards to the current debate, nothing is set in stone, other than experience. If I tend to dismiss the research that you are referring to, then I have made it clear that it is because I do not have the paper to draw on, and that I can only, at this time, make assumptions. I did make that clear did I not? (rhetorical) If that is the case, then your resorting to further assert your case by resorting to personal comments does nothing to help your case, in fact, fair minded people tend to "switch off" when this kind of thing happens, a luxury that I shall shortly avail myself of..............finally

quote=bay trawler;619506]

what happened to the foto of the shovel nose by the way?[/quote]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

kev

[kingtin]

Kingtin,

I admire your passion, though do not agree with some of the views you hold.

Your swift dismissal of the Clynick et al research hits a little bit of a raw nerve with me though. It seems you are quite talented with your abilities to search the web and it is a shame you did not do this for Clynick.

A quick search would have demonstrated to you that this was a research project of a graduate student. To you, it may be a case of "Doh, the answers is obvious!", however the processes undertaken provides an exceptional learning experience for the student.

Find a question, formulate a hypothesis, construct a sampling design, collect data, manage data, statistical analysis of data, interpret data, and finally report those findings in a peer reviewed journal. This is not a simple process regardless of how simple the question and answer may seem to an outsiders perspective.

Tony Underwood was most likely the supervisor of this student during this project, hence his placement as the junior author.

Regards
Andy

Andy, my apologies and my thanks to you for pointing out that my comments may have detracted from someone's hard work and commitment.

My comments were aimed not at being dismissive of someone's work, (although on re-read it seems to do just that) but was meant to be an illustration of the fact that sometimes we don't need a piece of research to tell us what we can see with our own eyes, and know from experience. In this case, being rec fishers we are well conversant with the fact that fish will populate areas where "lower life" accumulates.

I was frustrated, flippant, simplistic, and downright rude, in using this example to press my point. Once again, my apologies.

kev

[pickers]

this thread started out as a cast netting debate , but the hair you have in place about the beam trawlers in the Pine has gone nutso again.
maybe you should just go down there and ask if he'd mind if you burnt his boat.
trawler gone.
pickers