# Super Trawler



## Tiberium (Mar 3, 2012)

We all know now about the second biggest Super trawler is now in Australian waters so there are a lot of people trying to stop it. I myself am trying to do my best to help get it out of our waters. 
It makes my blood boil to think that this THING is able to trawl in the waters we fish and catch plus KILL TONS and TONS of marine life. What makes it worse is that in my lifetime and if your a parent your kids lifetime wont be so great with almost no marine life in the ocean if this destroyer is allowed to fish.

So please post reply of any website you know of that is trying to stop the super trawler.

Here is one
https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/marine/stop-the-super-trawler/stop-the-super-trawler#

IM PISSED.

Cheers Izak


----------



## imtheman (Aug 24, 2012)

Give him a call mate urself ur the one who has his number dont be soft


----------



## Tiberium (Mar 3, 2012)

http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=56786&p=589661&hilit=super+trawler#p589661

http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=55696&hilit=super+trawler

http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=55843&hilit=super+trawler


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Anyone in Sydney looking to protest this thing ?
(copied from sydney angler)

Show up at Tony Burke's Electoral Office with Banners and Signs against the Super Trawler at 3pm Friday 7th at Roselands:
Shop G29, Centro Roselands
Roselands Drive
Roselands, NSW, 2196


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Just in case anyone was going to head down to the protest in sydney, I have just heard it has been pushed back a week.



> The protest which was arranged for tomorrow has been pushed back 1 week to next Friday at 3-4pm outside Burke's office at Centro Roselands.
> 
> Hopefully that gives everyone some more time and notice to arrange time to be there.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

looks like the Govenment are putting a stop to it

http://www.news.com.au/business/labor-t ... 6471683034


----------



## GlenelgKiller (Mar 13, 2012)

A victory for people power and common sense! Postponing operations will allow a true impact assessment to be conducted as it is very clear that various agencies don't currently understand what the aftermath may be.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

2 year closure. Commercially that should kill off the Margiris. Amazing to see the change in language from Burke.


----------



## paffoh (Aug 24, 2006)




----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

paffoh said:


>


i'm from the government and i'm here to help    .

a good win BUT keep your eyes open.

bourkey has given himself very powerful powers 

he can now declare at the stroke of a pen ANY fishing activity in OZ a banned "delared" fishing activity and ban it for 2 years with no input from anyone.

if he thinks the kayaks on LBG are interfering with his view of the waterlillies. he just declares burley griffin closed. this is a power he's never had before and lets face it most environment ministers dont like us very much.
maybe patwah dropped his yak on tony's car whilst he was loading it one day


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Eric, the quota has been in place for years, it's hasn't been worth their while to fish it (profit wise), if they do now, it will be out of spite.
The benefit of using smaller boats is that the fish wont all be taken from one area in such large quantities as the smaller boats need to return to port.
This will put less pressure on any one area and is a good result.
I would like to see the quota removed and now that they will be looking in to the impact removing bait has, there is at least a chance of this happening.
It also sets a precedent for not letting these ships in.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

That's my understanding too Keza. They have been unable to take even half of the quota over many years with smaller boats.

This is a victory of public will and political expediancy over carefully developed policy. I personally like the outcome, but what do I know? If the process was wrong then change the process, not the outcome of the process. Simply not good governance. Just because I'm on the side of popularism this time doesn't make popularism right, just popular.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Tonystott said:


> Of course there is an apparently valid argument that one big ship which contains its own processing plant can carry out its fishing over a wide area, whereas smaller ones will by necessity need to radiate from their port(s), thus potentially depleting stocks more severely in their more limited area, compared to the big one not needing to retrace its steps, so its impact on breeding stocks is actually less severe.
> 
> I do wonder if policy by petition is the right way to go...


You are presuming that all the boats would come out of one port. The quota goes from Queens land to WA, so it would be fished from many ports.
They wouldn't have the capacity to clean up huge school in one go. 
I think a 600m net could clean out a lot more from one area and I doubt they would say "that's enough from here, we should try a thousand k's up the coast.
They would fill their quota in as shorter time and distance as they could as that would make the most $$$.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I agree with Occy and eric (peas in a pod).

I don't like the super-trawler. I don't base my distaste on any scientific evidence - I just object to the concept of a single dirty great big part-foreign ship taking 18,000 tons of baitfish out of our fishery to sell cheap to the Africans (or pet food packagers).

But if you want to apply the rules of "common sense", the objection must be to the size of the small pelagic quota, not to the size of the vessel catching the quota. One large factory vessel is obviously more efficient and environmentally friendly than a whole lot of little ones. (I presume this is why nobody else has bothered to catch the slimey quota before).

Is the quota sustainable? Or is it too high? Buggered if I know - let the scientists decide. There is a process in place for setting fishing quotas.

Regardless, there is a set quota (like our bag limits) and Seafish Tasmania is entitled to fish it.

Before bringing the supertrawler out here, Seafish spent several years negotiating with all interested parties (including our government) to fish that quota - investing millions of dollars in the project.

Yesterday, our government abruptly decided to drastically change the law, specifically to stop that vessel fishing.

There is far greater problem here than a big boat. The proposed legislation is a disaster. You can't just change the law like that without consequences.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

If you can't just change a law like that Tom, then you would still have your hand cut off for stealing.
What is sustainable ? will if mean the bait fish can survive but where is the science on the affect it will have on the rest of the ecosystem, that is what needs to be carried out.
The other thing is that our fish stocks are vastly depleted and need to be allowed to recover. I don't see how this can be expected if we remove some of their food.
Is sustainable a place where fish can hold their present ground ? I thought we were trying to protect it and help it to recover. 
If the argument is that it is more environmentally friendly to have one big boat rather than lots of small ones, then I guess we are f#cked as recreational fisherman. 
Better for the environment if we buy our fish.

The fishery is in a sad state compared with what it used to be. Nature has a way of balancing things and we are messing with that balance. On a small scale the cuts will heal but on a larger scale it will change. What do the bait fish eat and what happens when that isn't being eaten.
At a time when I think we need to be looking at cutting back on what we take from the ocean, we are yet again finding a way to make more money from it, we own these fish, they don't belong to the private sector.

I think letting ships in like that signals the beginning of the end. It has been for other fisheries.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I agree with you too, Keza.

And I reckon the quota is probably too high. Why? The scientific basis for the quota is thin. And the AMFA recently doubled it for the supertrawler in dubious circumstances.


----------



## paulb (Nov 12, 2006)

Is the government allowed to grant one boat / operator exclusive access for that 18,000 quota, or would they have to allow at least one or two other operators a quota of similar size ? Just wondering if there are any anti-competitive practices at play that would force the government to allow similar rights to others.

I recall somewhere mentioning 18,000 tonnes was approx 7%, so you'd think based on the science we could easily allow at least one or two other operators to have a similar quota.

If the science it right then, we should have nothing to worry about. I just think there may be migratory routes that fish follow and creating large 'holes' in that path might affect other species (imagine if the NSW government said it would reduce service station numbers by 7% - no worries right ? But what if that 7% meant all servo's on or near the F3 and Pacific Highway were removed.... that would be a little more inconvenient.)

I'm rambling and speculating, but I just don't think the game is/was only about 18,000 tonnes of one species and the player's haven't revealed all their hands yet. Now there is another game of politics being added to the mix from - all about power. Feels like we may be getting screwed boat or no boat......


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I agree with PaulB.

The supertrawler is about to become another ugly saga in the power politics of a hung parliament. Joining the live cattle exports to Indonesia debacle.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

MrX said:


> I agree with PaulB.


I'm starting to see a pattern here.
Are you married ?


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> "Are you married?"


Flattered by the interest Kerry, but I prefer girls (with big boobs ;-) )


----------



## sbd (Aug 18, 2006)

That's boobist Tom.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

sbd said:


> That's boobist Tom.


Give me a few years, I'm at the age when they start to grow.
In the mean time, i'll report his post.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I agree with sbd.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

MrX said:


> I agree with sbd.


Fine, why don't you marry him then.
Bitch.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

Don't take it personally, Kerry. He already has boobs.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

MrX said:


> Don't take it personally, Kerry. He already has boobs.


It's true, we may have to fight over him.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2012)

keza said:


> MrX said:
> 
> 
> > Don't take it personally, Kerry. He already has boobs.
> ...


Jelly wrestle?


----------



## sbd (Aug 18, 2006)

Fox minding the hen house, but I'm sure the "science" was there.


SMH said:


> The Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) has admitted its advisory committee allowed Seafish Tasmania director Gerry Geen to participate in discussions.


http://www.smh.com.au/environment/conse ... 25ym2.html

Love a bit of science, especially when espoused by those with commercial interest.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/ ... 579036.htm


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I agree with Andrew Wilkie. The quota is the issue, and it smells dodgy.

Sorry Occy - I changed my mind, I don't agree with you any more. Our maligned gov't is on a winner this time.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

OMG the science WAS wrong. People with a comercial agengda lied, manipulated or mis read data. I didn't see that coming.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2F ... unsound%2F


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

Mobynick said:


> OMG the science WAS wrong. People with a comercial agengda lied, manipulated or mis read data. I didn't see that coming.
> 
> http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?%2F ... unsound%2F


Nick, i think we all saw that coming with the exception of Occy.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

It must have been an honest mistake, scientist, politicians etc would never lie.....
Will the blind followers learn from this ? NO.
Thank god for everyone that signed the partition and fought to get this turned over, I think the implications of what could have happened here far outreach our imaginations.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

This appears to be science calling other science into question. This is what science is meant to do. There are different methods being used to cross check the original method, and minimum rather than most likely results being used as a basis. The results are therefore different. It doesn't mean anyone lied, or that the system is corrupt, or that those that state science should be judged by opionion are right. Science should (and does) challenge science.

I am however a tad worried by a scientific article that has typos and where the figures don't seem to add up. What does the following mean?

"A bias corrected estimate is approximately 1,800 tonne - stillless that 80% ofthe current TAC of 10,100 tonne!"

Lets see what comes of this.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Lied is the wrong word to use, as you point out, but most things can be looked at from an angle that lets you see what you want to see.
If money is involved then some one should be able to come up with the figures you require, the science and skill is in doing in it using correct figures.
Of course, this may require leaving out a few figures that may add up to the wrong sums.

Pretty hard to get unbiased information these days.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

lied, manipulated or mis read data.....though I think lied is the right word. Someone went to the stat authority and produced "wrong" figures based on science evidence.
" 1,800 tonne - stillless that 80% ofthe current TAC of 10,100 tonne" should read "still less than 80%"
the way I read this (or misread) is that 1800 tonnes is what is sustainable, not 10 100 tonnes which is the current allowable quota, meaning we are taking 80% more than the fishery can sustain?


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

So instead of saying ...

"A bias corrected estimate is approximately 1,800 tonne - stillless that 80% ofthe current TAC of 10,100 tonne!"

He should have said ...

"A bias corrected estimate is approximately 1,800 tonne - still less than 20% of the current TAC of 10,100 tonne!"

That's quite a few errors in one sentence from a scientific article. Teacher notes 'Needs to take more care when reviewing work'.

Lied and manipulated are very strong words. There is no evidence of this suggested in the article. Are you basing that statement on other scientific studies, or is that just your opinion Mobynick?


----------



## Tiberium (Mar 3, 2012)

I'm loving the support.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

I've stated my personal loathing of this trawler Tiberium. I don't want it here either. I'd like to see all fish stocks protected for us recreational fishermen. I'm sure commercial fisherman want all fish stocks protected for them too. I love the end result (so far).

I just don't like science being rubbished for this or any cause unless it's done by other scientists.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

Occulator said:


> Scott said:
> 
> 
> > Mobynick said:
> ...


So Paul, this one's gotten your goat?

The climate change thing is so off topic... But as you bring it up. The issue was the IPCC and the way they portrayed the "science". Not the same thing as "the science".

But here we are on another wicket. You are utterly right, the beaurocratic science response has been positive to this. And the belated political response to brick wall this investment is unacceptable. It held a major multi million dollar investment at bay, and then canned it.

But I completely argue against a proposal that these guys did not understand the politics or the beaurocracy (take note). And in the mean time, as poorly done as it was. We have the right response right now.

Major good thing.


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

taken from wefishaustralia.blogspot.com.au

Commonwealth Ombudsman on AFMA
The Independent Member for Denison, Andrew Wilkie, has been advised by the Commonwealth Ombudsman that AFMA did in fact fail to comply with the Fisheries Administration Act when it set the quota relevant to the super trawler.

Over the last two months Mr Wilkie has lodged a number of complaints with the Ombudsman regarding AFMA's conduct when setting the quota. She agreed to investigate and this became central to Environment Minister Tony Burke's condemnation of AFMA and Independent Rob Oakeshott's decision to support banning the vessel.

"This is a dramatic development and a thumping win for proper process and the rule of law,"
Mr Wilkie said. "No less than the Commonwealth Ombudsman has agreed AFMA has acted unlawfully, and this should rule a line under the whole sorry super trawler saga and compel the Senate to kill the project forever next Monday.

"Moreover the Ombudsman has informed me she is investigating 'other matters' which adds to the case that AFMA is in serious need of reform, that the Government's decision to stop the boat is entirely warranted and that the House of Representative's passing of legislation was the right thing to do. It's up to the Senate now to finish the job.

"Super trawlers stink, but even worse is government agencies thinking they're above the law. Hopefully this will lead to changes which might give us much more confidence in future that our environment as well as recreational and sensible commercial fishing is protected." A copy of the Commonwealth Ombudsman's latest letter to Mr Wilkie is attached.

Our ref: 2012-300213
14 September 2012
Mr Andrew Wilkie MP

Dear Mr Wilkie
I am writing to provide you with an update on our investigation of your complaint about the
Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA).

Your specific concerns relate to AFMA's administrative process in setting the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) in the small pelagic fishery for 2012-13, and the failure of its South East Management Advisory Committee (SEMAC) to exclude a committee member, Mr Gerry Geen. from its meeting of 28 February 2012, after Mr Geen declared a 'conflict of interest' in TAC deliberations listed for that meeting. You have also raised concerns about the presentation of dissenting members' views of the Small Pelagic Fishery Resource Assessment Group (SPFRAG) to SEMAC which inform AFMA's formal determination of the TAC.

SEMAC compliance with s64C of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991

The key issue that you have raised is whether SEMAC complied with s.64C of the Fisheries Administration Act 1991 (the Act) which sets out the procedures that must be followed when a committee member declares a conflict of interest in matters for deliberation by SEMAC. Relevantly, s.64C(4)(a) of the Act requires that "nless the committee otherwise determines! the member must not be present during deliberation by the committee on the matter".

On 28 February 2012, Mr Geen declared a conflict of interest in matters for deliberation by SEMAC. The declaration was formally noted and recorded by the SEMAC chairperson. The chairperson did not seek a final position from Mr Geen on the TAC for jack mackerel (east) due to his declared conflict of interest. However, Mr Geen was allowed to remain in the meeting and to participate in deliberations on the TAC.

In the course of our investigation, AFMA has admitted that the SEMAC failed to comply with
s.64C of the Act in this regard. By allowing Mr Geen to remain in the meeting while the TAC
matter was deliberated, after noting his conflict of interest as the holder of statutory fishing
rights for the fishery, the SEMAC chairperson failed to followthe process set out under s.64C
of the Act.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

A procedural error, not an error in setting the quota, but still grounds for overturning the quota and starting again.


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

Another link on why one big super trawler would have been worse than a few smaller trawlers. 
http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-super-trawlers-high-tech-secret-seal-saving-device/381/


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

And another link on how scientists confirm that the quota was unsound.

http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php...tists-confirm-that-margiris-quota-is-unsound/


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

Occy, that is indeed a clever article by the young Mr Bolt. The only fault I can find in his selective quoting of "experts" and "the company", is that he has completely missed the point.

Victoria nailed it in her comment:


> "This time Tony Bourke got it 100% right. The scientific evidence supporting this super trawler is 8-10 years old. The scientist who gave the go ahead based on egg samples is on the board of AFMA. Gerry Geen [Seafish Tasmania] is also on the board of AFMA. The former head of AFMA is also a director of Seafish Tasmania. The correct procedure re: conflict of interest was not followed [see Andrew Wilkie]. The track record of super trawlers really is frightening. There isn't one place on this planet that can be safely trawled by these vessels. Pelagic fish in the Southern Ocean grow 30% more slowly than in other oceans. Last time they were over fished Bluefin Tuna disappeared for nearly 5 years. As for the 45-50 jobs now lost, the sports fishing for Tuna will continue to bring in tourists. Tony Bourke would have no credibility to declare marine parks everywhere only to let heavily subsidised EU trawlers take our fish."


Our goverrnment is at fault for initially agreeing to allow a single heavily subsidised EU supertrawler into out waters to take *5% of the total stocks* of our a small palegic fish from our oceans in the area stretching from southern Qld, NSW, Tassie and SA all the way around to WA. That's a huge area, and a hell-of-a-lot of slimeys. One boat.

The deal was: We swap 5% of our total baitfish stocks off southern Australia in return for (according to the company) 45/50 jobs for the long term unemployed in Devonport? (or were those jobs in Pt Augusta? Or Brisbane?)

Is that the upside, Occy


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I hope these guys get removed from the board of AFMA, this has revealed their interest in being there and it isn't for the management and preservation of our fish stocks.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> Occy,
> "I reckon on this ocassion he actually got it right."


Bolt makes a valid point - on process, if we ignore the big picture.

Bourke got it 100% right (although a couple of years late).

Can you think of an upside in allowing the supertrawler to operate in our waters?


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2012)

The fish should form a union so they have a common voice. They are being exploited by the big bad progressive industry. Seems you are on the wrong side of the debate Occy.


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

The science is not quite as good as we have been led to believe. As shown by the attached article, the article indicates lots of ifs and buts, as did the original Neira Report.
http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploa ... ra2011.pdf
Two members of SPFRAG wrote to Ludwig some months ago stating they were concerned about increasing the spf quota to allow a super trawler. SPFRAG being a committee which makes recommendations about what quotas should be made for various small pelagic fish.
The AFMA has not been able to touch the arguments about local depletion; in the past it has been noticed by at least two communities off the East Coast of Tasmania when smaller trawlers took out small pelagic fish; these places being St Helens and Eagle Hawk Neck. Since trawling stopped game fish have reappeared.
By catch is another matter. 
The proposed Review of AFMA acknowledges that AFMA have not been able to meet their prime considerations of a precautionary principle and give a view on what impact a super trawler will have on a particular marine environment.
Occy I've been concentrating on Tasmanian fishing forums, we have lots of information in relation to the super trawler, the report from the six marine scientists has been shelved as far as we are concerned down here.
For example, South Australia became agitated when they realized that sardines could become by catch, leading to destabalisation of their sardine industry. A clear case of the marine environment not being taken into account in allowing the super trawler off South Australia.
An interesting read from a Fisheries Professor http://theconversation.edu.au/super-tra ... ishes-9697


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> "Yep sure can Mr X. Two actually. Efficiency and employment. &#8230;. Can you think of any actual provable downsides?. Real as in 'substantiated' facts only please .. your reply should be fairly short and sweet"


Agree, the upside is we get one small (albeit efficient) factory, and it might employ up to 50 people. That's good.

The downside: We lose 18,000 tons of baitfish - guesstimated to be 5% of the total small pelagic stocks off southern Australia - without any solid understanding of the consequences.

True, the owners of the supertrawler claim the "best scientific brains in fisheries management" have come up with what is arguably a sustainable quota.

But other experts claim that the fisheries management authority is under-resourced and ill-equipped to make that decision based on the currently available information; there has been no proper scientific study of the impact this quota *and method of fishing *will have on our fishery; the process itself was seriously flawed&#8230;... They say we should conduct a proper independent scientific study of the effects before proceeding. I agree with them.

Further - I reckon the owners of the supertrawler they should pay the cost of the research to demonstrate their new method is sustainable in the long term. Why should I pay?

That said, the owners have every right to be upset about the lateness of the decision, and they should be compensated (although they probably have no legal right to compo).

Short. Probably not. Sweet? What do you think, Occy?


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

> MrX wrote:
> and it might employ up to 50 people. That's good.


It might employ 50 workers, but what of it's impact on sea side local communities? When localised depletion has occurred fishing people will not be so inclined to visit seaside townships from where fishing has been great in the past; few spf equals less game fish.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

MrX said:


> Agree, the upside is we get one small (albeit efficient) factory, and it might employ up to 50 people. That's good.


Come on Tom, you are smarter than that.
If employing 50 people is a selling point. How many people would it take work away from on smaller boats and the factories that process the fish on land ?
Is it classed as employing when the job lasts for, how many weeks ? once a year ?
The loses in the commercial fishing, fish processing, tourist and tackle industries would far out way this.

Some people just love to argue and the facts are selectively chosen to suit their argument.
Generally these people are not interested in the truth, the facts, they just love the process and winding people up.
I would suggest that forum members become aware of these people and think if they have enough spare time to waste it on them, if not, just ignore their posts.
If you really don't want to see what they have to say, hit the 'foe' button and their posts no longer show up.
Don't feed the trolls, they will keep coming back.

A general comment, not talking about you here Tom. x


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

I'm with you, troutfisher. I can't see how that marginal employment benefit could outweigh the prospective diabolical risk to our fishery (and people associated with it).

But if Occy's international supertrawler industry can demonstrate by reliable scientific studies over the next couple of years that the supertrawlers are a good thing for our fisheries, the industry will get the approval to go ahead. And they'll be free to bring their enormous factory ships over here to catch our fish after the moratorium expires. If they can't demonstrate this, they will have fish at other places around the world that are prepared to let them operate (third world?)

Edit: Didn't see you there Keza. 
Re employment benefits - I'm on your side. Was making the point that 50 possible jobs = bugger-all, against the potential damage. 
Re trolls: Don't get mad, get even ;-)


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

> Keza wrote
> How many people would it take work away from on smaller boats and the factories that process the fish on land ?


A really good point Keza, at the Rallies and Forums we have had in Tassie, we have had commercial fishing people show their disgust along with the rec fishers.
Even the State politicians from the 3 three different politician parties were all against the Margiris, recognising that localised depletion was a major matter.


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

> Occy wrote
> I see is that all this debate over which scientist/expert said what is starting to sound a bit like the climate change debate. And we all know where that one went. Nowhere. At the moment.


One problem with your statement Occy; in the reference that I provided before, a couple of the scientists ( Colin Buxton and Jeremy Lyle) that were part of your seven have restated their views in conjunction with a couple of other scientists. They make it quite clear that how the DEPM is calculated determines what the projected bio-mass will be.
They indicate that the calculations made were less than robust, and call into question the quota arrived at.
The DEPM survey was taken off NSW about ten years ago and used to compute what the bio-mass off Tasmania is. Trawling had occurred off Tasmania's East Coast this century but stopped when the results became marginal. Meaning that the calculated bio-mass off Tasmania is questionable. AFMA did not have the resources available to do timely surveys to provide better data.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> "Only problem I see is that all this debate over which scientist/expert said what is starting to sound a bit like the climate change debate"


I think you missed the point, Kraley. Based on the information available, Bourke made the right decision.

And Bolt is the troll (not you ;-) ).


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

> Quoting Andrew Bolt as a reference... desperation


If you take the opposite view to Andrew Bolt your probably near to what is true. :roll: 
Mr Bolt might show some of the characteristics of a conservative as indicated by this amusing reference:
http://2012election.procon.org/view.res ... eID=004818 :lol: 
A triple dose of #2, I would reckon. :lol:


----------



## SharkNett (Feb 20, 2006)

"Seafish says a "move-on provision" will limit the catch during a six-week period to 2000 tonnes within a 100 nautical mile area."

So they promise to follow the migrating schools catching their limit every 100nm. Isn't that what they would have done anyway?


----------

