super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

[conco46]

I know the super trawler has been a hot topic, BUT I need your opinions on not just the super trawler, but the thought of it being in OZ waters.

here my spray, ive been fishing since i was 3yrs old, mum dad said i caught 5 whiting in 30mins at 3 yrs old and i was hooked. been fishing, learning, buying equiment, hireing boats, buying boats, keeping up with rules, & limits, paying regos and now after 29yrs of fishing, teaching my kids & they love it.

after we obey these rules, limts, sizes, safety gear, reef fish closures, ect.
the last 18mnth we weve told that the snapper is nearly gone, let sharks go bigger than 1.5m, nearly double the size of jew fish size limit.
now these rules r fine and for good reason and these rules are policed and alot of money been spent on dpi, police, research, & so on.
we follow these rules cause we want fish there tomorrow, we want our kids to have fish there too.

so heres my question
SO why is it us fighting out this super trawler, why does the gov even give it a second thought, do the rules get throne out for someone eles, is it money under the table from this super trawler, to get its way, the gov even thinking of letting it in is so hypercritical
HOW MUCH WILL OZZIES PUT UP WITH?????????????????????????????????????
and the super trawler will be back with more money, trying to get in and reck the best waters in the world, if they didnt reck things why wouldnt they stay were they are? il tell u why, cause where they last left, is dead and empty.

whats your opinions or am i missing something? do i need educating ?

[TheRealAndy]

I know the super trawler has been a hot topic, BUT I need your opinions on not just the super trawler, but the thought of it being in OZ waters.

here my spray, ive been fishing since i was 3yrs old, mum dad said i caught 5 whiting in 30mins at 3 yrs old and i was hooked. been fishing, learning, buying equiment, hireing boats, buying boats, keeping up with rules, & limits, paying regos and now after 29yrs of fishing, teaching my kids & they love it.

after we obey these rules, limts, sizes, safety gear, reef fish closures, ect.
the last 18mnth we weve told that the snapper is nearly gone, let sharks go bigger than 1.5m, nearly double the size of jew fish size limit.
now these rules r fine and for good reason and these rules are policed and alot of money been spent on dpi, police, research, & so on.
we follow these rules cause we want fish there tomorrow, we want our kids to have fish there too.

so heres my question
SO why is it us fighting out this super trawler, why does the gov even give it a second thought, do the rules get throne out for someone eles, is it money under the table from this super trawler, to get its way, the gov even thinking of letting it in is so hypercritical
HOW MUCH WILL OZZIES PUT UP WITH?????????????????????????????????????
and the super trawler will be back with more money, trying to get in and reck the best waters in the world, if they didnt reck things why wouldnt they stay were they are? il tell u why, cause where they last left, is dead and empty.

whats your opinions or am i missing something? do i need educating ?

Well in short, all your size and bag limits are determined using scientific modelling. The quota allocated to seafish tasmania (who organised the supertrawler) was also determined using science. The managament practices applied to you, are also applied to the commercial sector to prevent the decimation of fish stocks as has occured in other parts of the world.

I posted up another thread about this. Personally I dont like it, because I would rather see the quota go to aussie based boats (unfortunately we don't have the capability). But I refuse to align with the greens on this issue and say its bullshit just because I dont like it. To argue against it must be done on science and/or economics, not emotion.

[conco46]

Well in short, all your size and bag limits are determined using scientific modelling. The quota allocated to seafish tasmania (who organised the supertrawler) was also determined using science. The managament practices applied to you, are also applied to the commercial sector to prevent the decimation of fish stocks as has occured in other parts of the world.

I posted up another thread about this. Personally I dont like it, because I would rather see the quota go to aussie based boats (unfortunately we don't have the capability). But I refuse to align with the greens on this issue and say its bullshit just because I dont like it. To argue against it must be done on science and/or economics, not emotion.

thats actually a realy good answer mate cheers and its settled me down a bit, thanks mate looks like u have looked into it a bit

[ThePinkPanther]

Fact is that their proposed catch are species nobody else wants and Aussie fisherman rarely go after or process.

If the trawler were to be allowed to fish, it would benefit the local fishermen who could add their own catch to that of the trawler and access a market that requires considerable volumer, something they can't do at the moment.

The majority of commercial fishermen concerned were mainly all in favour of the trawler being allowed access to Aussie waters, as usual the galahs in Government stuffed it up thanks to the Greens yet again!

[bigjudge]

I personally dont wont to the bast.......d of a thing anywhere near aussie waters when our own aussie fisherman(commercial) are doing it tough,lets get fairdinkum and start helping our own fisherman make a quid(pollies)so lets hope it stays away.
CHEERS AND BEERS

[robo55]

it is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard get the bast**d out as it has already raped and pillaged the sea where it come from so why even think about it ,anyone who even thought about it be ok should be shark shite the next day we do the right thing and along comes the clowns with a big circus and the goodie two shoes alias the idiots will let it happen crikey someone use their brains for once ROB

[Donkeyzmilk]

much like the mining debate , they rape resources , a certain few get really rich and the rest (normal law abiding tax paying citizens ) live with whats left!

[TheRealAndy]

it is the most ridiculous thing i ever heard get the bast**d out as it has already raped and pillaged the sea where it come from so why even think about it ,anyone who even thought about it be ok should be shark shite the next day we do the right thing and along comes the clowns with a big circus and the goodie two shoes alias the idiots will let it happen crikey someone use their brains for once ROB

Please explain how it will rape and pillage. I certainly cannot find any evidence to support your rant, in fact its quite the opposite. There was a quota, the management procedure reduces the quote each year by a set percentage until it is proved that the fishery is sustainable and they are forced to pay for research to ensure sustainability.

This is the typical opinion that gets as rec fisherman kicked out of the fishery. If you want to argue against it, try to use fact, not emotion.

[Donkeyzmilk]

Please explain how it will rape and pillage. I certainly cannot find any evidence to support your rant, in fact its quite the opposite. There was a quota, the management procedure reduces the quote each year by a set percentage until it is proved that the fishery is sustainable and they are forced to pay for research to ensure sustainability.

This is the typical opinion that gets as rec fisherman kicked out of the fishery. If you want to argue against it, try to use fact, not emotion.

fact is your trusting government to " do the right thing" it doesn't happen .

[Scott79]

An interesting report from the ABC, highlighting that a part owner of the 'SuperTrawler' was also part of the Government Advisory Panel that recommended the quota:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...2/s3579036.htm

Scott

[bigjudge]

Has anyone got any figures as to how much $ this super trawler is going to add to our economy.
CHEERS AND BEERS

[SunnyCoastMark]

Fact is that their proposed catch are species nobody else wants and Aussie fisherman rarely go after or process.

If the trawler were to be allowed to fish, it would benefit the local fishermen who could add their own catch to that of the trawler and access a market that requires considerable volumer, something they can't do at the moment.

The majority of commercial fishermen concerned were mainly all in favour of the trawler being allowed access to Aussie waters, as usual the galahs in Government stuffed it up thanks to the Greens yet again!

FACT - The small pelagics that the super trawler is targeting are a vital part of the food chain.

FACT - The 18000 tonnes of fish that these guys will take out of OUR oceans equates to the following:-

Average fish size of 5kg = 3.5 million fish

Average fish size of 1kg = 17.5 million fish

FACT - You take that many fish out of the ecological system in a relatively short time span - You are going to have a serious effect upon whatever these fish feed upon and whatever feeds upon them.

FACT - Whatever this foreign vessel catches - goes overseas.

FACT - Bycatch - will be substantial.

FACT - The greenies were not the only ones incensed by this whole sorry saga. You only need an ounce of commonsense and logic to work this one out. Every single person I have spoken to and the majority of posters on this board can see how wrong this was.

FACT - You don't have to be Einstein - you don't have to read the results of 2 years scientific reasearch (or however long it takes) to work this one out. It is what it is and it's pretty plain for all to see.

FACT - Australians will receive very little (if any) benefit from having a super trawler operate in our waters. - So why even consider it?

FACT - If you don't think this will open the door for more international operations to come and target our fish in our waters - you are delusional.

Once these guys get "The science" on their side - (and if that is all it takes - then that is what they will do - Science can be funny like that - it can be a two edged sword depending upon your perspective) - They will up the quota on a regular basis and other overseas interests will follow.

FACT - Science will only be able to accurately determine what the long term effects of this operation will be - after the fact - until then all the research in the world is just conjecture - at best an educated guess. Once again the research itself and the results will only be valid if they are performed without a predetermined outcome in mind ( like, lets see if we can get the numbers on this to justify the removal of these fish from our waters).

In this day and age I have little faith in a scientific world that relies on funding and grants from wherever they can get them. I may be sceptical here, but I am also a realist. We will never really know if the research has been unbiased.

How much scientific research do we hear the results of every day that is contradictory to what the research stated perviously. Look at what they say about the food we eat or our enviroment . One moment it's good for you - next it's bad for you - One study says climate change is caused by us - another says it's cyclic. Fair dinkum - it is like being on a merry go round.

I can't believe that anyone would put any faith in so called scientific research, which does not have exhaustive conclusive research data to be able to come to an accurate finding. 2 years is not enough time to accurately determine the seasonal cycles of these fish and there is certainly no way to accurately count how many there are now - and how many there will be after 18000 tonnes have been removed (per season) ALL I know is there will be 18000 tonnes less.

Common Sense - fills in the gaps that science can't.....or won't

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

FACT - The small pelagics that the super trawler is targeting are a vital part of the food chain.

FACT - The 18000 tonnes of fish that these guys will take out of OUR oceans equates to the following:-

Average fish size of 5kg = 3.5 million fish

Average fish size of 1kg = 17.5 million fish

FACT - You take that many fish out of the ecological system in a relatively short time span - You are going to have a serious effect upon whatever these fish feed upon and whatever feeds upon them.

Proof please

FACT - Whatever this foreign vessel catches - goes overseas.

No one here wants it + lots of our seafood is exported

FACT - Bycatch - will be substantial.

Proof please

FACT - The greenies were not the only ones incensed by this whole sorry saga. You only need an ounce of commonsense and logic to work this one out. Every single person I have spoken to and the majority of posters on this board can see how wrong this was.

Sorry, but I see a lot of unsubstantiated claims from you. This is not logic

FACT - You don't have to be Einstein - you don't have to read the results of 2 years scientific research (or however long it takes) to work this one out. It is what it is and it's pretty plain for all to see.

Proof please

FACT - Australians will receive very little (if any) benefit from having a super trawler operate in our waters. - So why even consider it?

Proof please. It was to create about 40 jobs IIRC and was to provide an economic boost

FACT - If you don't think this will open the door for more international operations to come and target our fish in our waters - you are delusional.

Once these guys get "The science" on their side - (and if that is all it takes - then that is what they will do - Science can be funny like that - it can be a two edged sword depending upon your perspective) - They will up the quota on a regular basis and other overseas interests will follow.

Proof please

FACT - Science will only be able to accurately determine what the long term effects of this operation will be - after the fact - until then all the research in the world is just conjecture - at best an educated guess. Once again the research itself and the results will only be valid if they are performed without a predetermined outcome in mind ( like, lets see if we can get the numbers on this to justify the removal of these fish from our waters).

Proof please

In this day and age I have little faith in a scientific world that relies on funding and grants from wherever they can get them. I may be sceptical here, but I am also a realist. We will never really know if the research has been unbiased.

How much scientific research do we hear the results of every day that is contradictory to what the research stated perviously. Look at what they say about the food we eat or our enviroment . One moment it's good for you - next it's bad for you - One study says climate change is caused by us - another says it's cyclic. Fair dinkum - it is like being on a merry go round.

I can't believe that anyone would put any faith in so called scientific research, which does not have exhaustive conclusive research data to be able to come to an accurate finding. 2 years is not enough time to accurately determine the seasonal cycles of these fish and there is certainly no way to accurately count how many there are now - and how many there will be after 18000 tonnes have been removed (per season) ALL I know is there will be 18000 tonnes less.

Common Sense - fills in the gaps that science can't.....or won't

Mark

You are happy to throw around claims, please provide evidence.

As the late great Christopher Hitchens said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and those claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This was the same attitude that saw the green zones in moreton bay and GBRMP.

[bigjudge]

Didnt the pollies tell us that green zones would be opened back up after a sustainable preiod,didnt they also say there would be no GST ,no carbon tax, i personally dont believe any research evidence they produce,i have fished my local area for over 35yrs and i have never seen a research vessel,or been approached by anyone doing research.If this trawler is good for our country(aussie aussie oh)Then let our aussie fisherman get into it.They could start by giving our commercial blokes the tax benefits they give to overseas bussiness,s that come here.
CHEERS AND BEERS

[SunnyCoastMark]

You are happy to throw around claims, please provide evidence.

As the late great Christopher Hitchens said, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and those claims asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

This was the same attitude that saw the green zones in moreton bay and GBRMP.

Andy, If you need proof for what is staring you in the face - you are lost indeed. Asking for proof that taking millions of fish out of our oceans will have an affect is akin to asking for proof that your fridge will be empty if you eat all the food in it.

You don't need to prove the obvious. That is just ridiculous. Additionally - nothing can be proven until after the fact. By which time the damage is already done.

Asking for proof of something that hasn't happened yet is called speculation. Therefore your premise is flawed...........

It is my premise that you lack commonsense and logic - No offence intended - I don't know you and can only theorise my deductions by what I have read in your post.

However, I am happy for you to offer proof to the contrary......

Mark