Provided always that it is sustainable for ALL.
The problem is that reports on commercial fishing look at the sustainability of THAT fishery not ALL fisheries.
You cant take one piece out of the puzzle and say this piece looks OK, the rest does not matter.
As I said, sound scientific evidence, not peoples opinions.Originally Posted by rando
Derek
Derek
I think If you read page 58 Part 3 section 11 of the report tabled in Dinga's post on the other tread Titled :How sustainability of the fishery is measured.
Where it states that
achievement of the objective is measured only by surveys or studies, accepted by the cheif executive, of commercial fishing for principal fish by trawling in the fishery
that might lend some weight to my "opinion"
cheers
rando
Not arguing that point Rando and wasnt referring to your opinions. Was referring to matters in general. The greens and conservationists have "opinions", ploiticians have "opinions", rec fishers have "opinions", pro fishers have "opinions" but how many of those opinions are actually based on sound scientific evidence. I would say not a lot even though there are a lot of good people out there trying to "do the right thing".
The whole marine park issue right across the country was and still is in many cases political decision making with people quoting this and that about protecting the biodiversity but very little of it is based on sound scientific evidence
Lets get some real studies done and come up with the facts.
Derek
maybe , the "Commercial Business Plan" is to take ALL THE FISH from inshore , so when you catch "nothing" we buy it from them???
what facts are being requested???
Gazza,
monopolies are frowned upon by the ACCC........
Rando,
the controlled environment of a scentific survey gives the best quality of data as most of the variability can be factored out and the "true" results can be interpreted without uncertainty
as oppossed to using fishery dependent data where you have no control over apparatus locations methods etc and the results are full of uncertainty
Dinga1
I was making the point that sustainability of the fishery is measured on the target species alone not the environmental effects such as bycatch. habitat destruction , turbidity.
rando
Rando,
have a look at the review event section, this says they are doing surveys to look at whether benthos and the amount of fish other than principal fish have been reduced in catch rate by a set percentage from the baseline point. as well as various other things like effort moving around etc.
would things like this allow the evaluation of the effects on bycatch, habitat destruction etc etc
Dinga
Relies on accurate reporting from trawlermen, they only have a vested interest in prawns.!!!
this is done via observers on board vessels now
A very small percentage of the whole data is collected by observers. The majority of data comes from log books. The transference of "conclusions" drawn from the boats with observers, to reflect the whole fishery, is highly suspect. That aside, if you worked in a factory and the boss put a time and motion blokey with a stop watch at your machine, would your work at that time, truly reflect everyday practice?
kev
It is not the size of the dog in the fight but the size of the fight in the dog.
isnt it amazing that an industry thats effort is 'estimated' on the back of a PHONE SURVEY has the gall to question the emperical data gathered by the pro fishing sector.
im am constantly amazed by peoples willingness to argue the blackness of white.
Waldo, I am not highly educated and am in fact, self taught, but I am not stupid and have learned a lot from helping my deckie with her research into health promotion. It never fails to not only amuse me, but disgust me, that highly educated people embark on research with fundamentally flawed questionnaires. If the thruth be known, that is the reason for the state of Qld Health, not because the money isn't there, but because, some duff reseach concluded that it wasn't needed.
I have clearly stated that data collection from both recreational and pro fishing is sus. Just how many folk in these busy times have the "strength" or even motive to keep a diary correctly or to answer questions over the phone at times when they are making the kid's dinner etc. They will say what is most expedient.
Where is the methodology (in detail) as to how the questions to the rec sector were posed, and at what times those agreeing to the survey were contacted?? I have a "precis" of the methodology but there is not indication at all as to the questions posed.
eg Were the questions posed along the lines of most surveys where you are asked "how many times did you watch this programme...a)1to 5, b)5to 10, c)10to 15?
If a rec fisher was asked. "how many times, or what quantity in a similar manner to the above, there is a disparity between figures of 4. So if he caught 1 fish and answered a) the researcher could conclude 5!Multiply that by the 4,500 reccos who took part apply that to the whole Qld recco sector, and you've got a crock of crap.
I suspect that I am unable to find a copy of the questions and the manner in which they were posed because in retrospect, they have been subject to scrutiny that would cast doubts on their findings.
Taking into account the data collected at ramps, wouldn't that affect the outcome in a biased manner? How can you apply data collected from ramps (boaties landings at that time) across a whole sector that is (in the main) made up of none boaties who's catches bear no resemblance at all to the fisho with a boat? Even the state of tide and time of year would have an influence on data collected at that point.
Has anybody here actually been part of that survey? No? hardly representative then, is it?
You can't have it both ways mate. You've pointed the finger at reccos based on data that you now infer is sus.........and I fully agree with you....it is sus.........but in which direction? Does it overstate impact or understate? If I was watching my own backyard then I would say "overstate" but if nothing else, I am honest and I will admit that it could actually (if done properly) show that we the reccos are a bigger impact on stocks than has previously been concluded. I only want the truth and am not arguing for "protectionist" reasons.
The reccos have bag limits based on the research. Irrespective of whether that research is flawed, the bag limit is the bag limit.......5 is 5 and that's it! Unlike the pro sector where you are given the choice of 5 BRD's soon to be 7. You are allowed to choose which is more convenient to you..the reccos aren't afforded that luxury. Can't you see the anomoly and why reccos view pros as they do?
I am fully prepared to accept any findings (both regarding reccos and pros) based on competent methodology, but to date, I have found very little. What I have found, IMHO is that nearly all the data I have collected to date does not state in sufficient detail as to the methodology and if it does, I find that methodology flawed.
kev
It now costs more to amuse a child than it once did to educate his father.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote