super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

[Qlder1]

How do I delete a post

[TheRealAndy]

OK I have probably posted this link before but while we are on a science copy/paste....

The truth is out there as they say... trouble is there seem to be many "truths"

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-fi...r-trawler-9143

edit... this was published by Jessica Meeuwig, Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures at University of Western Australia

I think lovey80 touched on this in the last post. Interstingly enough, the author once again the author makes a whole bunch of claims but fails to back them up with any data. IF OTOH, it was a scientific paper, then it would hold a lot more credibility in my eyes. BTW, do a google search on Jessica Meeuwi The uncertainty of the estimates is documented in the research, and the quota is half the sustainable amount based on the lower limits of that research IIRC.

[SunnyCoastMark]

Phrases??!! - I have copied whole paragraphs. You gave us the link. Which states as we have been alluding to - that the estimates given are largely imprecise...........ergo - the science is limited by the available data and therefore is barely even worth the paper it is written on.....

The only benefit is to make a few people in governement sleep a little better at night, thinking they have followed procedure before signing off on another questionable decision.....

If you want to argue science with more science - that is a never ending path around a mountain.

Be

[NAGG]

Yup, you have a valid point, however by-catch is less than 1% of the total catch. That means the supertrawler will take less than 180 ton of by-catch. They have used science to improve by-catch mitigation, once again, covered in the research supplied by AMSA. My distant memory seems to recall that by-catch from prawn trawling is a lot more severe.

Andy - I really struggle with the bycatch figures & any science associated with the number ........ I've been around long enough & seen way too many examples in person where the bycatch ends up being considerably more than the target species eg Salmon being netted at port Kembla and the school contained more kingfish (undersized) than Salmon - South West Rocks - Mullet school that were full of tailor / bream / mulloway - Bermagui where two trawlers came in with decks littered with undersized kingfish , trevally & dory ...the following day the sea off the coast was littered with dead fish - toads & other bycatch. Then the amount of juvenile snapper , bream , mulloway that I've seen come out of trawl prawn nets - My recent trip to Hervey Bay where we came accross the end result of tailor netting .. hundreds & hundreds of dead undersized tailor.

Yes nets have been improved ( as in to let out smaller fish) - but it is still indiscriminate & the super trawler wont know if they have jack mackeral or juvenile yellowfin tuna .... dolphins or anything else ........ & what ever is caught will be mostly killed anyway . 150 tonne (1%) is still a hell of a lot of fish that need not have been killed! .... the bycatch rates in reality would be much higher . The only form of netting that is sustainable is like how they harvest bluefin tuna these days - the fish are netted , kept alive and grown out.

No - keep the super trawler away from our waters ...... no good can come from it!

Chris

[Qlder1]

You are cherry picking phrases again mark. If you want to try and argue from the scientific point of view refer to this paper referred to by another AF member: http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/upl...gust_2012).pdf

Now you have really confused me Andy, the above link, (which I think I posted here a while ago??) supports the theory that the new quota is not sustainable....are you agreeing with this assessment or are you going to discount Dr Wadsley as well as Prof Meeuwi??

[Qlder1]

Also the publication from AFMA site (Neira) that you posted earlier in this tread has a couple of interesting paragraphs(yes I am Cherry Picking )

Current information regarding the status of jack mackerel stocks in south-eastern Australia is limited. This particularly relevant to Tasmania, where the disappearance of large surface/sub-surface schools in the early 90s ended a productive purse-seine fishery with reported peak catches over 40,000 t in 86/87. With catches not exceeding ~3,000 t since 1999/2000, the sudden decline was described as climate induced, with the assumed shrinkage and dispersal of jack mackerel schools implying a possible shift in spawning pattern due to changes in key physical and biological drivers (Harris et al., 1987, 1992)."

and

Results of this study indicate that DEPM is an appropriate technique to estimate
spawning biomass of jack mackerel. However, the estimates reported here are
considered negatively biased and thus largely imprecise, and hence need to be
treated with due caution. Key problems leading to this uncertainty are: (1) lack of
reproductive data for jack mackerel in south-eastern Australia; (2) absence of a
species-specific temperature-dependent incubation model to age eggs; (3) the
October 2002 egg survey was timed to study spawning dynamics of blue mackerel
along shelf waters of Qld and NSW, and did not correspond to the peak spawning
period of jack mackerel; and (4) sampling design during that survey was not
optimal to apply DEPM for jack mackerel. Given the biology distribution of jack
mackerel in south-eastern Australia, three key aspects will need to be considered
in future DEPM applications to provide biomass estimates for this species: (1)
spawning of the south-eastern Australia stock may take place progressively south
towards eastern Tasmania and possibly peak in summer; (2) the region defined as
spawning area in October 2002 comprises a fraction of the entire area at peak
spawning, which is likely to include eastern Bass Strait and Tasmania; and (3) daily
egg production estimated at the start of the spawning season may not be as high as
when the bulk of spawning takes place. Main issues concerning each parameter
employed to estimate spawning biomass of jack mackerel are discussed, and
several recommendations provided in relation to future work, including the need
to collect adult reproductive data as well as additional molecular tests to verify
with certainty the identity of jack mackerel eggs.

I am def. no scientist but reading these statements, while they can be taken either for or against the updated quota, surely the science done proves that there is a need for more detailed and updated studies before risking the fishery.

[TheRealAndy]

Now you have really confused me Andy, the above link, (which I think I posted here a while ago??) supports the theory that the new quota is not sustainable....are you agreeing with this assessment or are you going to discount Dr Wadsley as well as Prof Meeuwi??

What that paper says is that the stsistics have a greater error than the initial paper suggested. These guys are reviewing the statics.

@nagg, the <1% bycatch comes from research done on current purse seine netting in the small pelagic fishery.

[SunnyCoastMark]

OK I have probably posted this link before but while we are on a science copy/paste....

The truth is out there as they say... trouble is there seem to be many "truths"

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-fi...r-trawler-9143

edit... this was published by Jessica Meeuwig, Professor & Director, Centre for Marine Futures at University of Western Australia

Hey Andy,
What does this article do for you? here we have a professor offering her opinion, which not surprisingly is pretty much the same as my own. She just has the credentials to back it up.

Should not having recognised credentials negate or lessen the value of mine or anyone else's commonsense, logical reasoning? - No of course not.

Right is right and wrong is wrong - no matter what science you throw at it.

[Qlder1]

Andy if I can ask you a question, do you agree or discount Dr Wadsleys conclusions?

btw here is the last part of it.

30. The Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch Determination 2012 of 10,100 t for jack
mackerel is based on unreliable statistical analysis and is unsafe.

[shauno555]

Reading everything here makes me laugh. I'm sorry Andy but your comments are going around in circles. Yes we should rely on science. But it's hard to rely on it when the key researcher comes out and says it was only an estimate and no actual research had been done. And then to find out that one of the owners are affiliated with the super trawler. Yeah that's really promising.
Your name says you are the real Andy. If so think real!!! Why do we want something taking our fish when it gives us nothing in return. Even if it doesn't affect our ecosystem.
How many australians lost their jobs because they couldn't work on this trawler?
You may not be backing up the trawler. But how can you back up inconclusive science??

I'm no scientist and I barely kno what a lot of it means but can see when something isn't right within the research.

This is just opinion.

[TheRealAndy]

Andy if I can ask you a question, do you agree or discount Dr Wadsleys conclusions?

btw here is the last part of it.

30. The Small Pelagic Fishery Total Allowable Catch Determination 2012 of 10,100 t for jack
mackerel is based on unreliable statistical analysis and is unsafe.

He could be correct in his review, but it was just a knee jerk response to what is happening and was published in a newspaper, not a journal. There has been further suggestion to say that the statistical modelling does not align with what has been used in the AFMA published papers and therefore is incorrect. I cant agree or disagree with that, as my understanding of statistics is not that broad.

I am surprised no one has made the link to the conflict of interest beween Seafish Tasmania, Gerry Geen and AFMA If you look at the approval process, there is some question as if it was done legally anyway.

[edit] had a bunch of links to responses, but edited them out by accident. Google will turn up the responses to Wadsley.

[TheRealAndy]

I'm no scientist and I barely kno what a lot of it means but can see when something isn't right within the research.

If you dont know, then how can you say it isn't right?

[TREVELLY]

You are a fisherman Andy - have a nice day

[TheRealAndy]

You are a fisherman Andy - have a nice day

I was a fisherman, but I dont fish much anymore cause my old haunts are green zones

For those who question the scientific process, have a good read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

[SunnyCoastMark]

Hey Conco46,
Haven't heard from you since the first page? - Are you educated yet?