super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please

[netmaker]

i am suspicious of "science". our new snapper regs were introduced on the back of a knee-jerk 3 month ban. it seems science can evolve at a rapid rate when it is deemed required. likewise green zone science moved along rapidly. science brought us the cane toad (via the cane beetle) and a myriad of other pests.
if anyone has a short memory about the annihilation of orange roughy and the current "science" that allows this species to still be commercially harvested, spend a minute here: http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=358
these fish allegedly live to 150 years and do not breed until they are 25-30. the fact they are still being harvested is shameful.

[TheRealAndy]

i am suspicious of "science". our new snapper regs were introduced on the back of a knee-jerk 3 month ban. it seems science can evolve at a rapid rate when it is deemed required. likewise green zone science moved along rapidly. science brought us the cane toad (via the cane beetle) and a myriad of other pests.
if anyone has a short memory about the annihilation of orange roughy and the current "science" that allows this species to still be commercially harvested, spend a minute here: http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=358
these fish allegedly live to 150 years and do not breed until they are 25-30. the fact they are still being harvested is shameful.

The snapper science was quite sound. Used commercial and rec catch data going back some 50 odd years. But hey, I have done this argument before. Recs dont trust science, Greens dont use science. Its got me beat.

[TREVELLY]

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

He should be:-

Statistically we have had:-

1 person who said they didn't care whether it came or not but is convinced beyond reason that the science no matter how poor supports this coming - so it should be allowed.

14 others who are concerned at the damage it will do, see the science as shonky along with other problems such as bycatch and say we don't want it.

62 posts and 30% of them from the one person who doesn't care if it comes or not but continues to argue that the propaganda (i mean vague and sketchy science and poorly gathered one sided statistics) supports bringing it so let it in.

So put to a vote this thread statistically shows 30% support for the trawler, so lets do it!!

I think the picture is clear that the noisey minority will always get heard regardless of their grounds and whether they are right or wrong (usually wrong).

I had better go fishing before the noisey minority completely screw it for all of us - cheers

[NAGG]

science hey ? .....
where are the controlled conditions ?

A lot of the so called science when it comes to fish biomass is a "snap shot" - that snap shot can change completely from year to year and altered by conditions .
Unless scientific data is based on ongoing research over a extended period of time the data is only of limited use. ........ How much marine biomass research falls into the area of good & reliable data ?

Chris

[TREVELLY]

If only we had one more person that really doesn't care whether this trawler comes or not and they put in their 30% of replies supporting bringing it in then we could statistically say 60% of responses support the trawler so bring it on.

Aren't statistics great - we could have 2 people who don't care but write too often in favour and 14 people who do care and don't want the thing yet statistically we could report 60% of responses supported it.

So we should trust the science, trust the statistics.

Only yesterday we heard the GBR is cactus - give us $500 million to study it and fix it. Not too long ago they said it was great - not too long before they said it was cactus again - bet they were all scientists basing their absolute and correct views on the science they looked at and all correct too. Have they studied the GBR - you can bet they should know a lot more about it than our southern ocean and still they don't seem to have concensus.

Trust the science -

Scientists are becoming self funding scare-mongering propaganda machines and losing all credibility.

Scientists are too closely aligned with vested interest groups and politicians.

[SunnyCoastMark]

the snapper science was quite sound. Used commercial and rec catch data going back some 50 odd years. But hey, i have done this argument before. Recs dont trust science, greens dont use science. Its got me beat.

Not to get off topic - but that is the most ridculous statement yet. It is common knowledge and a matter of record, that the snapper science was the biggest load of rubbish ever contrived....


Unbelievable..........................

Mark

Oh and BTW - the Greens absolutely use science - especially when it strengthens their position. In other words, they are selective about the science they use.

[netmaker]

The snapper science was quite sound. Used commercial and rec catch data going back some 50 odd years. But hey, I have done this argument before. Recs dont trust science, Greens dont use science. Its got me beat.

andy, your reply re snapper regs is noted. having worked prawn trawlers 25 years ago i am somewhat qualified to state that catch data WAS NOT recorded 25 years ago - at least on the dozen odd vessels i worked on at the time. i know that has since improved but recreational catch data was and still is a collection of guesses at best.
do you have any comment regarding the ongoing science sanctioning the extinction of orange roughy?
cheers
davo

[Noelm]

I guess what it comes down to is... Science holds credibility, hear say and emotion does not, just because (say) Andy says he believes what is going on is correct, based on science, does NOT make him an outcast in the eyes of rec fishos, pro V rec, Greens V everyone else wars have raged for years, and will continue to rage for years to come, I tend to go Andy's way, in so much as it is documented evidence, even though it may be skewed and collected to suit the purpose, it still holds more water than rants and emotional outbursts from "us" recs. OK, steel cap boots on, flack jacket done up tight, hard had strapped on, let the stone throwing begin!

[netmaker]

let he without blame cast the first stone lol. at the end of the day, i believe you are correct. science is what we use to make decisions. unfortunately, as science has proved many times through history, science itself is flawed. how many times can we look back and say: "yep, we got that wrong, we should have done things differently?" how many hundreds of species have we managed to eradicate through "bad" science? hindsight is a wonderful thing. i cringe to think how our generations will appear to those we leave this world to.

[TREVELLY]

The sad thing is we can do the science right but chose not to.

[PADDLES]

hey i've got an ideal substitute for science in the government decision making process .................................................. ......... let's use religion .......................

[Qlder1]

I think I may have said this before on this thread, but I would not argue with this trawler being here if there was up to date, unbiased science supporting its sustainability, as well as no evidence of shady deals or conflict of interests.... and that is what the Govt. is doing.

As for studies of fish populations and estimating biomass, I read somewhere that a scientist said its like counting trees in a forest , except you can't see them and they keep moving....

[cod_botherer]

There are problems with recreational fishing. Let me back that up under several categories:

Observations from experience:
I see a lot of other people keeping small fish when I’m fishing
I often find discarded nylon line in the water
Lead is poisonous; lots of lead sinkers go missing in the water
I catch less fish than I did twenty years ago
The fish I catch now are smaller
I have to go further to catch fish

Obvious things a schoolkid could see:
There are thousands of rec fishos fishing every day, which must add up to tons of fish which is unsustainable
Fish must get injured by hooks even if they are released
You can’t trust people to only take their limit
Some people throw out frozen fish months after it was caught, this is wasteful

Other side effects:
Some boats leak oil and petrol into the water
Wash from boats can cause erosion and mangrove damage
Tons of bait is collected each year. Squid, pilchards, prawns, worms, shellfish; all terrible “by-catch”
Boats sometimes injure or kill dolphins, turtles and dugongs

Recreational fishing is indiscriminate, wasteful and a threat to the marine environment. There is little doubt that it should be banned.

Ok, paddles, robo, SunnyCoastMark, Trevally are you getting Andy’s original point yet?

And Andy, try to stay on your original point, it’s well made but you’re getting muddy by fighting with pigs

[Gazza]

IMO

I just think needing ~15,000T ??(i think) to break even .....
Is a WASTE of resource(however plentiful) and a BAD Business case.

i.e. Gazzas' , food-chain buffer-stock theory

[SunnyCoastMark]

There are problems with recreational fishing. Let me back that up under several categories:

Observations from experience:
I see a lot of other people keeping small fish when I’m fishing
I often find discarded nylon line in the water
Lead is poisonous; lots of lead sinkers go missing in the water
I catch less fish than I did twenty years ago
The fish I catch now are smaller
I have to go further to catch fish

Obvious things a schoolkid could see:
There are thousands of rec fishos fishing every day, which must add up to tons of fish which is unsustainable
Fish must get injured by hooks even if they are released
You can’t trust people to only take their limit
Some people throw out frozen fish months after it was caught, this is wasteful

Other side effects:
Some boats leak oil and petrol into the water
Wash from boats can cause erosion and mangrove damage
Tons of bait is collected each year. Squid, pilchards, prawns, worms, shellfish; all terrible “by-catch”
Boats sometimes injure or kill dolphins, turtles and dugongs

Recreational fishing is indiscriminate, wasteful and a threat to the marine environment. There is little doubt that it should be banned.

Ok, paddles, robo, SunnyCoastMark, Trevally are you getting Andy’s original point yet?

And Andy, try to stay on your original point, it’s well made but you’re getting muddy by fighting with pigs

As far as I can see - your post is largely made up of emotive, unsubstantiated claims . WHERE IS YOUR PROOF??!!

Fighting with Pigs.....Really?

So your first contribution to this topic is to call 4 members of this board pigs?

Who are you? - I don't recall you or any of your posts and doubt if you have had any positive input on this forum.

Go back to where ever it was you came from......