super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

[TheRealAndy]

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

But what you are missing, is the fact that they are not taking all the fish, only 15% of the biomass, which is considered to be sustainable (and that is for the first year only, it reduces after that). There is no speculation, they have very conservative estimates of the biomass and they work on the lowest margin of error. As someone pointed out in the other post I started, there is further papers suggesting that the biomass had a further margin of error, but even then, the quote is still under what is considered to be sustainable.

You say that I lack commonsense and logic, but I am yet to see you counter an argument with anything other than opinion. You are clearly overlooking the fundamental rules of logic.

Just hear me for a second mark, I am not trying to defend the super trawler, in fact I could not give a shit either way be honest. What I am trying to say, is when arguing against things like this, we need to use science and economics, or true logical reasoning. Over the years, the greens and organisations like PEW have fought to lock up fisheries (and everything else for that matter) based on peoples emotion, rather than fighting against the real scientifically proved reasons behind the degradation of our fisheries. I like to consider myself as a conservationist, not a green. I don't have a problem with people utilising natural resources, so long as its done in a sustainable way. On the the other hand, greens want everything locked up just because, no reason, just in case. They provide no reason, no evidence, just because they dont like, and thats where the argument stops. Its not the right way to do it.

[robo55]

Seems like you are defending the trawler andy, you be first to cry when there is no fish left use your brains how do you know what they will take ,then why come this side of world if they have not yet depleted the resources from where they come from ,we can only lose from it ....rob

[PADDLES]

i like your post andy, in that i too believe that all fisheries management should be based on scientific fact. unfortunately though, hasn't anecdotal evidence told us that this style of trawling has pretty much ruined some fisheries where it has been allowed? hasn't this style of trawling (on a massive scale) generally only been tolerated in the third world where more often than not a corrupt government has been given enough of a kickback to allow it to happen. wasn't this the style of trawling that arguably started the entire problem of somali piracy where the incumbent regime allowed it to continue unmanaged until the locals couldn't catch any more fish so they turned to piracy instead? i personally believe that there's no place for this style of mass fishing in this world, but that's only my emotional opinion based on no scientific fact. these trawlers are nearly always used by countries that have little or none of their own fishery, in order to plunder the rest of the world's fisheries in order to cheaply feed their own people at the expense of the people who depend on that fishery to survive.

[TheRealAndy]

Seems like you are defending the trawler andy, you be first to cry when there is no fish left use your brains how do you know what they will take ,then why come this side of world if they have not yet depleted the resources from where they come from ,we can only lose from it ....rob

I think you are once again missing the point. I am not defending the trawler, I am defending the science and management practices. I am happy, for anyone here to provide factual evidence too the contrary. Opinion is worthless, that is what the greens rely on.

To be honest, people just hate it because they THINK that it may affect them. It probably would not be a concern if it were another country. Its this narrow minded self interest that is to be expected from the greens. What I am trying to do, is persuade the rec fishing community not to think like that, but to think rationally.

i like your post andy, in that i too believe that all fisheries management should be based on scientific fact. unfortunately though, hasn't anecdotal evidence told us that this style of trawling has pretty much ruined some fisheries where it has been allowed? hasn't this style of trawling (on a massive scale) generally only been tolerated in the third world where more often than not a corrupt government has been given enough of a kickback to allow it to happen. wasn't this the style of trawling that arguably started the entire problem of somali piracy where the incumbent regime allowed it to continue unmanaged until the locals couldn't catch any more fish so they turned to piracy instead? i personally believe that there's no place for this style of mass fishing in this world, but that's only my emotional opinion based on no scientific fact. these trawlers are nearly always used by countries that have little or none of their own fishery, in order to plunder the rest of the world's fisheries in order to cheaply feed their own people at the expense of the people who depend on that fishery to survive.

The problem with third world countries is they dont have the fisheries management structures that we have here in Australia, nor do they have any research to determine sustainable biomass. So yes, large scale trawling has destroyed fisheries in other parts of the world. Providing the fishery is managed, and there is ongoing research to determine any ongoing issues, then I dont understand why its a problem.

[PADDLES]

Hi Andy, given that these things fish well offshore and well away from any areas of scientific interest (ie. out of sight and out of mind for most government regulators), is there much in the way of research being done in these areas? Is there a chance that the indicators used to determine the health or sustainability of the fishery that this vessel operates in, react so slowly or in fact may only be measured very inaccurately, and that damage to the fishery may occur well before it actually shows up as a measurable quantity? ie. the horse has already bolted.

Am I being a little ignorant by stating that because our government is struggling to get good enough science to properly manage our inshore fisheries, what chance would they have of properly managing offshore fisheries where the data would be a whole lot more difficult to collect due to the remoteness? To be honest, the only way I could ever see a large trawling operation operating responsibly well offshore would be for the government to place observers on the ship.

[SunnyCoastMark]

Hi Andy, given that these things fish well offshore and well away from any areas of scientific interest (ie. out of sight and out of mind for most government regulators), is there much in the way of research being done in these areas? Is there a chance that the indicators used to determine the health or sustainability of the fishery that this vessel operates in, react so slowly or in fact may only be measured very inaccurately, and that damage to the fishery may occur well before it actually shows up as a measurable quantity? ie. the horse has already bolted.

Am I being a little ignorant by stating that because our government is struggling to get good enough science to properly manage our inshore fisheries, what chance would they have of properly managing offshore fisheries where the data would be a whole lot more difficult to collect due to the remoteness? To be honest, the only way I could ever see a large trawling operation operating responsibly well offshore would be for the government to place observers on the ship.

That is one of my concerns - that any research or scientific studies carried out on this issue will be inconclusive at best. The result of either very little in the way of funding or the desire tt reach a certain conclusion with defined perameters. They are taking 15% of the biomass - Is that an accurate figure? What effect will removing 15% of the biomass have on the foodchain.

I am not a scientist and so like most of us - we have to trust that what the research is telling us is correct and accurate. - Only problem is - as you said Paddles - the only conclusive resaerch will not be available until after the fact - and to get an accurate picture of causality and effect will take years. How many other tens of thousands of tonnes will they take in the meantime?

Sorry Andy, but this is where commonsense comes in - not emotion - not scaremongering - just plain old commonsense - it is what it is - I don't know any other way to put it.

By the way - please don't lump the greenies in with commonsense - that is usually an oxymoron.

The other good thing about commonsense - doesn't matter how much science or research you throw at it - either it is or it isn't (pretty deep huh?)

Mark

[SunnyCoastMark]

But what you are missing, is the fact that they are not taking all the fish, only 15% of the biomass, which is considered to be sustainable (and that is for the first year only, it reduces after that). There is no speculation, they have very conservative estimates of the biomass and they work on the lowest margin of error. As someone pointed out in the other post I started, there is further papers suggesting that the biomass had a further margin of error, but even then, the quote is still under what is considered to be sustainable.

You say that I lack commonsense and logic, but I am yet to see you counter an argument with anything other than opinion. You are clearly overlooking the fundamental rules of logic.

Just hear me for a second mark, I am not trying to defend the super trawler, in fact I could not give a shit either way be honest. What I am trying to say, is when arguing against things like this, we need to use science and economics, or true logical reasoning. Over the years, the greens and organisations like PEW have fought to lock up fisheries (and everything else for that matter) based on peoples emotion, rather than fighting against the real scientifically proved reasons behind the degradation of our fisheries. I like to consider myself as a conservationist, not a green. I don't have a problem with people utilising natural resources, so long as its done in a sustainable way. On the the other hand, greens want everything locked up just because, no reason, just in case. They provide no reason, no evidence, just because they dont like, and thats where the argument stops. Its not the right way to do it.

I guess your quote above sums up your position nicely. Unlike you I do care what happens to our environment and I want my kids and their kids to be able to enjoy our resources and environment the same as I do(if not better).

I dislike your dismissive attitude towards the obvious and insisting that everything be proven or disproven by science. The facts or points I have stated previously are extermely logical. In fact you can draw no other conclusion.

If your attitude is truly depicted in your quote above - then you must only be here for the sake of an argument - in which case your opinion has no value.

Of course Fisheries mangement has to be based on accurate research that is gather over many seasons and years. That is one of my points with this supertrawler - by then it will be too late. Therefore it cannot proceed as the risk of irreversable damage is a very real concern.

Mark

[TheRealAndy]

I guess your quote above sums up your position nicely. Unlike you I do care what happens to our environment and I want my kids and their kids to be able to enjoy our resources and environment the same as I do(if not better).

I suggest you read my post again carefully. Because you are quite wrong. You are just cherry picking lines out of my post.

BTW, do you care about anyone else's kids, or just yours?

I dislike your dismissive attitude towards the obvious and insisting that everything be proven or disproven by science. The facts or points I have stated previously are extermely logical. In fact you can draw no other conclusion.

Sorry, but I am not dismissing the obvious at all. You have pointed out no fact, just opinion. I have asked you to back that up with some evidence, or some research even. You have not, therefore you are either misunderstanding the fundamentals of logic or avoiding them due to emotion.

Have a read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance One of the great logical fallacies, Ad ignorantiam.

If your attitude is truly depicted in your quote above - then you must only be here for the sake of an argument - in which case your opinion has no value.

As I said many before, I am trying to convince rec fisherman not to use the same emotional debate that the greens use to attack us.

If you think that has no value, then you should stop fishing right now and align with PETA and/or the greens. You are using the same argument they do.

Of course Fisheries mangement has to be based on accurate research that is gather over many seasons and years. That is one of my points with this supertrawler - by then it will be too late. Therefore it cannot proceed as the risk of irreversable damage is a very real concern.

Mark

The research is already there, that is how they obtained the quota. Ongoing research will help to narrow the margin of error.

BTW, have a look at the humpback whales we see going up the coast these days. They were almost extinct, yet they have recovered quite well. The idea behind the science, is to make a very conservative estimate of the biomass, and take a small percentage of that. On going monitoring off the fishery prevents it becoming unsustainable.

[MudRiverDan]

The trouble with science is, that if a government or powerful bunch of stake holders are funding it and one outcome is favorable to them , any science to the contrary may have trouble getting off the ground.

Science is not the "Fact" we believe it to be, science costs a lot of money, a hell of a lot and oceanography is probably even more expensive.

The money has to come from somewhere and nothing is for free

No one is going to fund studies contrary to their interests and gains.

Science is just a tool, not a truth machine.

Dan

[PADDLES]

now that dan ................... is an unfortunate truth ..........................

however i totally agree with andy, too many decisions have been made, and unfortunately will continue to be made, with emotions in mind, especially when it comes to the emotions of the voting public and it does suck

[TheRealAndy]

The trouble with science is, that if a government or powerful bunch of stake holders are funding it and one outcome is favorable to them , any science to the contrary may have trouble getting off the ground.

Science is not the "Fact" we believe it to be, science costs a lot of money, a hell of a lot and oceanography is probably even more expensive.

The money has to come from somewhere and nothing is for free

No one is going to fund studies contrary to their interests and gains.

Science is just a tool, not a truth machine.

Dan

Science is science, its outcome is not favoured if peer reviewed. There is a process, if its not followed then it is not science.

Science is not fact, its based on facts. Yes it does cost money, and it has cost money, and will continue to do so. But the science has been undertaken, take a look here: http://www.afma.gov.au/managing-our-.../publications/ and any further research will enable the scientist to further reduce error.

IF we don't rely on the science, then what do we do? Gut feeling? Precautionary principle? Just because we don't like it? NIMBY? In that case, we could also argue that all recreational fishing has an adverse impact on the fishery and should be totally banned (this is what PEW does). To protect our fishery for future generations, we should completely ban all types of fishing.

[Qlder1]

Wow I have gone a bit cold on the Margiris since it got put on hold. I think the rec fishers, greens etc did a good job to stop it until more research is done, also the authorities now have a chance to look at AFMA and see if any dodgy deals were done . If there is good unbiased findings that it will be sustainable then I say go for it.

To be honest there are much worse things happening in Aus for fishing/environment, that are conveniently brushed under the carpet, or are actually being allowed to happen with the support of govts.....things like the dumping of toxic chemicals into our river systems by massive mining operations, destruction of mangrove and breeding areas, etc... Believe me nothing will really be able to stop most of this as the culprits are capable of spending millions on research to support their causes.

[robo55]

sorry andy and co it had the rights to come in to 3 miles if you think that is ok then you have unfortunately lost the plot ,and those people who work here already had their jobs ,the boat doesn't have work for any aussie at all ,and i'd say you be first to say why did it happen after the fact ,,we dont need it here there is the rest of the world or is the fishing gone pot elsewhere crikey your welcome to have it up there in darwin then where next every state come on ????????????

[Mr Squiggles]

G'Day Andy
When I was at school in the 50's it was a "Scientific" fact that the oceans could sustain mankind ad infinitum. What are the boffins saying now " Wrong wrong wrong" Don't rely on science mate however good it sounds.

[robo55]

TheRealAndy

Ausfish Premium Member
Join DateJun 2007Post Thanks / Like

Re: super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

Originally Posted by 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



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.****************************************** *****************************************well how about you mr real andy show us or explain how good the waters are to fish where this huge thing has been before it seems you and the likes can tell us all this is ok ,,,us rec fisho's have to stick together or we end up with nothing my kids and grandkids are entitled to catch fish years down the track ,,,,,if their waters were so good would be no need to come here other side of world