# Margiris Forum



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

I went to a forum yesterday at Devonport about the super trawler Margiris, and it was very clear that the science just wasn't there. All the speakers talked about localised fish depletion; A representative of the Game Fishing Club showed how a small trawler targeting small pelargic fish had ruined game fishing for a number of years on the East Coast. Once the trawling stopped game fishing improved and is now back to what it had been. The Club keeps records of catch and so this is far from just conjecture.

The number one aspect of this trawler is greed; its at the expense of 1,000s of recreation fishers in Tasmania, and a few million Australia wide. 
The Liberal Party here in Tasmania is useless in relation to this matter and Labor not much better.

This trawler if it operates, will vaccum fish from Queensland to Western Australia. So it is a matter for the majority of Australian recreational fishers and commercial fishers.


----------



## Artie (Dec 19, 2011)

I HATE this thing... Ive written a note to the relevant minister and so far have been ignored.... I really dont know what to do about it, anyone have any ideas? We really do have to stop this thing....

Emails to here would be good, but as has been said, he aint answering..... [email protected]


----------



## Nativeman (Sep 6, 2005)

Why don't you call Tracey Grimshaw


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

Hi Artie
Try an email to the Federal Minister, Joe Ludwig. Bryan Green is for the trawler like his Labor and Liberal mates in Tasmania, but it is a Federal matter whether this monster trawler gets proper accreditation. Recreational fishermen are being left out of the loop I'm afraid till so far. Pretty moronic really when there are millions of us who wet a line.
Keith


----------



## spork (Jan 21, 2012)

Occy, all that is (probably) true, although there has been much discussion on the Tassie fishong forums, and I did see a utube video of this (or a similar - can't remember for sure) super trawler where crew were "sorting" the catch and removing bycatch BEFORE the fish got to the "observer", thus giving a falsely low % of non target species.
Another problem I believe is that while there has been a quota for the target species in place for ages, they have not been targeted before as they have not been commercially viable. All of a sudden, a quota (that due to not being fished for, therefore not "managed") has been doubled so that this thing can catch them in a commercially viable way. This concerns me.
Lastly, and a more localised concern - although they may be fishing anywhere from QLD to SA, economics dictate that the less traveling it needs to do the greater the profirts, so I imagine local stocks will be depleted seriously before it goes further afield to fill it's freezers and it's quota.
Many of us in Tassie still remember the debacle that was "management" of the orange roughy fishery in the 80's.

I really hope I am wrong and just being paranoid, but would sooner not have to find out, perhaps the hard way.


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

Occy, it was Seafish Tasmania, the same company that depleted bait fish stocks off the East Coast of Tasmania from 2003, that is now associated with the freezer trawler. The Company claimed that climate change was the issue; but, once the trawling stopped there was a gradual increase in game fish over a few years. The trawling continued for enough time to show the trend, happily now the game fishing is back to how it was. There may be enough mackerel etc for the trawler to catch but it is at the expense of local depletion. There are a number of fisheries that have collapsed in Tasmania through over fishing; couta, white bait, lobster and more recently orange roughy.


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Sounds a bit like agriculture, everyone is almost broke and hanging on by the skin of their teeth but at least there is cheap food for the masses. ;-)


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

You just can't remove that much bait fish without it have an impact on the fishery as a whole.
These guys will say what ever you want to hear as long as they can make some money.
It really disgusts me that this can be allowed at the same time as they are locking up so much coast line for marine parks.
The Bluefin are running off Sydney at the moment in a way that hasn't been seen in a very long time, this wont be happening again if their food is removed.

It seems to me that it is a free for all as long as it is out of view of the snorkelers.

Barra, you are so right about the cheap food.
I have always said, halve the quoter, double the price. Fish is special and should be treated as such.


----------



## Artie (Dec 19, 2011)

A recent statement indicated that there would be no increase in quota limits. This thing is supposed to generate 40 new jobs for Tasmanians, if this thing is so efficient and can take almost the entire quota on its own, what happens to the many small trawlers and crew? I can tell you, out of business with the subsquent unemployment! (a whole lot more than 40 jobs will go, Im certain)


----------



## spork (Jan 21, 2012)

The quota has been doubled so that this thing can operate viably. 
The target species are not economically viable for small boats to catch. They will be sold as cat food etc. for $SFA/kg.
It's not only commercial fishermen who's livelihoods will be effected. With no decent game fishery the people who sell and service 6m+ boats will be in less demand. Accommodation and tourism will be effected. Coastal petrol stations that sell more fuel for boats than for cars will suffer. Tackle stores who sell a lot of game fishing gear will loose business. Shit, just in my town (Launceston) where we are over 100 k's from the (East) coast there are 2 marine chandlers who sell mostly game fishing gear. One of them (Tamar Marine) employs (I'd estimate from the # of people I see working there) at least 8 full time staff, and you have to queue for the checkout in the week before any of the big game fishing comps. down here. Thats 8(ish) full time, permanent jobs, just in one shop, jeopardised for 40 jobs that will not likely last over 12 months, a fast profit for a few, and some cat food.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

I hope Beven writes a letter - he'll se 'em true!


----------



## Theumage (Oct 13, 2010)

The other problem with the 18,000 tons is that there is no limit on WHERE they get the majority of the quota.
They may hit the jackpot in one area, get 12,000 of the 18,000 in that one spot before moving on. The seals, sea life, bird life etc in that one area would be devastated. The rest of the ocean around Australia won't see any change, they might measure life in WA when the quota was met all around SE Aust. No impact, carry on. Pfft


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

The 143m 9500-tonne Margiris is one of the world's largest fishing trawlers, and has been accused by Greenpeace in the past of over-fishing off West Africa.

"Wherever this ship has gone it has destroyed fish stocks and ruined fishermen's livelihoods,"

Full story here http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/wo ... 6411187181

Removing 18000 tonnes of anything from the ocean in one go is bad, when it is bait fish that are a major part of the food chain for larger fish it's stupid, when it is done in a very localised area, it will be disastrous . And all to line the wallets of a few and fatten already spoilt cats. It's akin to haveing a super dredge , dredge the noosa river for yabbies/nippers for cat food while crowing that no dolphins will be hurt and that yabbie populations in Australia won't be noticably affected. Insaneity!


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

I hate the thought of this thing too.

But I have to allow my left brain to come into play as well. I heard the university researcher that did the science to set the quota. The quota has been around for some time now, but no-one has been able to reach it. He stated that the quota was extremely conservative, about 7% of what the science says can be sustainably taken. I have no means nor knowledge to challenge this science.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

Yes but science gave us nucler bombs, ddt, genetic modification. People still say good science, bad science. The problem is that science can and is manipulated. Figures and statistics can and do get manipulated. An example might be "I conduct a flathead number count to assertain weather a flathead trawer is comerically viable...mind you I'm being well paid for my efforts in a cruisy govt department.... so I head out with my trusty kayak I find a nice mudflat where I know flatties gather in good number and do my count....it's recorded so I can't fudge it.....6 flathead counted in 100 square meters...i move to my next 3 spots and get a similar count....multiply it by the entire area of the water way, add a 20% margin for the fish that I couldn't see and all of a sudden flatheads are everywhere.....10000 tonnes is quite doable...sustainably. 10 years later and there are no flathead left . And when the same dept 10 years later wants to start a kingfish fishery and you say but 10 years ago you destroyed the flathead fishery they'll say...oh yes but the science is better now. We can't dwell on the mistakes of the past.

Now days the best sience can offer us is comfort so we don't muck with the status qou...business as usseral. For example look at global warming. I was studing enviro science when al gore produced his j curve with his carbon scare. I fell for it too, as did the rest of the western world. What has since come out is not only did he admit to manipulating his "facts", he was in charge of the only company set up to trade carbon credits internationally.
At the end of the day I don't trust science nor polititions. To me it is simple, take a vast number of anything from a localised area and watch the numbers decline. What is sustainable, the stocks replenish in 10 years, 20 years....

Before I finish my rant (thank you if you have made it this far) if you think I'm being cinical, in physc they teach "start with the answer" devise your question, if you don't get the right answer, tweak the question. Don't trust em...they are taught to lie!


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Mobynick said:


> Yes but science gave us nucler bombs, ddt, genetic modification.


Yep it did. They tried to do and succeeded. That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them right.



Mobynick said:


> The problem is that science can and is manipulated.


Yes it can, but not by scientists. Any scientist that manupulates data loses his job and reputation.



Mobynick said:


> An example might be "I conduct a flathead number count to assertain weather a flathead trawer is comerically viable...mind you I'm being well paid for my efforts in a cruisy govt department.... so I head out with my trusty kayak I find a nice mudflat where I know flatties gather in good number and do my count....it's recorded so I can't fudge it.....6 flathead counted in 100 square meters...i move to my next 3 spots and get a similar count....multiply it by the entire area of the water way, add a 20% margin for the fish that I couldn't see and all of a sudden flatheads are everywhere.....10000 tonnes is quite doable...sustainably.


That may be how you would do it, but it has nothing to do with science. Scientists take great care no ensure there is no bias in there samples or data.



Mobynick said:


> I was studing enviro science when al gore produced his j curve with his carbon scare. I fell for it too, as did the rest of the western world. What has since come out is not only did he admit to manipulating his "facts", he was in charge of the only company set up to trade carbon credits internationally.


Al Gore is not a scientist.



Mobynick said:


> At the end of the day I don't trust science nor polititions.


If we don't trust scientists, with all their attention to detail, high bar for proof, rigour of peer review and inate conservatism then there are very few (if any) people left in the world to trust. Do they alkways get it right? No. But it's not through lack of trying or hidden agendas. To me, we are on a slippery slope when we stop believing science because it doesn't suit what we like to believe.

That's not to say I want this trawler in our waters. I don't. But after listening to the scientist I can't justify it on the grounds of the quota.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

"Yes but science gave us nucler bombs, ddt, genetic modification.
Yep it did. They tried to do and succeeded. That doesn't make them wrong, it makes them right."

True enough but I have seen people in a pool being hosed down with DDT cause it was a safe chemical...and of course now we know it isn't...so they weren't entirely right. Genetic modification, yes they suscedded and it may or may not be the greatest threat to biodiversity and food security.

"The problem is that science can and is manipulated.
Yes it can, but not by scientists. Any scientist that manupulates data loses his job and reputation."

Only years later once the science has been proven suspect.

"but it has nothing to do with science. Scientists take great care no ensure there is no bias in there samples or data."

It has everything to do with science, this is how people make the science fit!! You seem to suggest that scientits are all good stand up citizens immune to the lure of money and fame. Scientist do lie, do falsify evidence because the rewards are great. Not all of them, not most of them, but enough that dodgy science exists.

"Al Gore is not a scientist."
lol no he isn't but he employed them to come up with a j curve for carbon. Many scientist were decieved so the peer review system doesn't always work.Science exist to both prove and disprove current global warming is anthropogenic clearly they can't both be right.....

aT THE END OF THE DAY i CONCEED WE HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW OF SCIENCE BUT THE TOPIC IS THE SUPER TRAWLER. i'M JUST SAYING DON'T TRUST THE SCIENCE cause it can be misleading , even bought and paid for comercally. (sorry fat fingers hit the caps key) ,


----------



## avayak (May 23, 2007)

Ado said:


> I heard the university researcher that did the science to set the quota. The quota has been around for some time now, but no-one has been able to reach it.


So the quota has not changed. Nice little sound bite for the media but the actual take is going to increase because no one has made the quota so far. If that's the case then we are on new ground and will be "guessing", sorry hypothesising from here on in. The stakes are high and will the researcher be held to account if they are wrong? Nobody will be held to account.


Ado said:


> He stated that the quota was extremely conservative, about 7% of what the science says can be sustainably taken.


On the surface this statement sounds comforting but what does it mean?
Sustainable for whom, humans or the fish? Does it mean that humans can continue to take from the fishery at a constant rate without that particular fishery collapsing. If so then what about the rest of the ecosystem? Can other species continue to take from the fishery at the same rate that they have before? Surely not, there is only one pie to go around and puss wants his bit too.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I presume that you saw this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=55538&hilit=super+trawler#p573593
I wonder what the signatures are up to now.


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

This is a copy of a email I have sent to Tony Burke and Joe Ludwig,the "science" is not as good as it appears

Dear Minister Burke

Re: Margiris

I'm concerned that the quota employed by AFMA using the Neira Report as their basis; may be completely out. I base this on the opinion of Dr Andrew Wadsley who stated : "The correlation presented in this report is ridiculous, the fitted decline curve bears no relationship whatsoever to the observed data. The inferred daily egg production values at age zero, from which the effective spawning mass of females is calculated (using additional parameters), are meaningless.". 
Dr Wadsley, also stated "I have some background in statistics (having been awarded a Statistical Society of Australia prize for my undergraduate degree) so I'm qualified to comment."

In the Neira report that he critises, it says in the recommendations "The main issue pertains to when and where to sample, with a plan that should ideally follow a design incorporating simultaneous adult and egg surveys covering as much of the suspected spawning area as possible. In the case of jack mackerel, much work is needed to precisely pinpoint when and where to sample." The Neira scientific report was published in 2011, the surveys conducted by AFMA were completed a number of years prior to this.

I believe this information is strong enough to veto AFMA from allowing the Margiris from taking Australian fish.

Yours sincerely


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Is the a royalty to be paid on marine resources? What about forestry? I know there are royalties to be paid on certain extracted natural resources like sand and the like , curious what else they apply to.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

One of the members of the board that set the quota owns 60% of Tasfish. I'm pretty certain he's no scienctist nor unbiased.

The prosecution rest your honor


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

Andrew Wilke wants an inquiry into their quota

http://au.news.yahoo.com/local/tas/a/-/local/14375094/mp-seeks-super-trawler-quota-inquiry/


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Mobynick said:


> One of the members of the board that set the quota owns 60% of Tasfish. I'm pretty certain he's no scienctist nor unbiased.
> 
> The prosecution rest your honor


My reference to science at the start of this debate was when I heard the scientist (i.e. the person that does scientific research as a profession) from a university (i.e. someone paid by the government to do unbiased science) explain that the quota adopted was the same as the one he devised and that was based on 7% of the safe take. He said the science is sound and highly conservative.

Other arguments by other scientists, that are also paid by the government, that are unbiased and are speciaists in the field are indeed relevant to the scientific debate on the quota. I'm more than happy to be persuaded by those. I find the rest irrelevant to the debate on the quota. I'm not in a position to arue against the quota because I don't have the scientific evidence. Simple.

I don't like this ship coming to our shores either. I find it sickening. But I need another argument other than the science of the quota to argue my case unless or until it can be scientifically dispelled to a degree accepted by the majority of the scientific community.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Scott said:


> Andrew Wilke wants an inquiry into their quota
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/local/tas/a/-/local/14375094/mp-seeks-super-trawler-quota-inquiry/


Something smells fishy.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

(i.e. someone paid by the government to do unbiased science).....how can you be paid and unbiased?

Pffft science


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Mobynick said:


> (i.e. someone paid by the government to do unbiased science).....how can you be paid and unbiased?


Are you suggesting that judges are biased because they get paid?
If you get paid by someone that doesn't have any financial interest in the outcome then why would you be biased?
Good scientists, like good engineers, will be unbiased even if they are paid by someone that does have a financial interest. It's called ethics. Such a stange concept does still exist in the modern world.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

Your suggesting that the govt isn't biased and next to banks the govt are the biggest bunch of crooks out there.
Science is bought and paid for.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Mobynick said:


> Your suggesting that the govt isn't biased and next to banks the govt are the biggest bunch of crooks out there.
> Science is bought and paid for.


Any evidence for such a bold statement, or is this just conjecture on your part? You are accusing a lot of people of being corrupt.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Ado said:


> Mobynick said:
> 
> 
> > Your suggesting that the govt isn't biased and next to banks the govt are the biggest bunch of crooks out there.
> ...


Oil companies and pharmaceutical companies.
Surely no one would need wiki links for that.

It's not the science that is in question in the article above, it's the fact the they person that assigned the quote will profit from it.


----------



## Mobynick (Jul 10, 2012)

I promise, last post on the off topic topic. I'm not accusing every scientist out there of being corrupt. You just need one that will support the right"science". Science isn't always right and it ammuses me that so many people still think that because some controlled experiment in a sterile lab proves anything. I find it incredulous that people can't accept we live in a comercially driven society and that anything or anyone can be bought and sold. He if hobie gave me a free kayak with the premise I tell you all how good it is offshore I'd do it. If they paid me heaps I'd tell you it was good even if it leaked like a seive and only paddled in circles. Many of you have told me how bad ebay brand kayaks are, yet the people selling them tell me they are perfectly suitable.....surely these trust worthy business people don't lie just to sell a few plastic canoes!!! :shock:

As for the inferiority complex....hell no. I know I'm right and your all wrong 

Forget the science, rationality, egos and politics....we are all agreed that the trawler is a bad thing.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Mobynick said:


> if hobie gave me a free kayak with the premise I tell you all how good it is offshore I'd do it. If they paid me heaps I'd tell you it was good even if it leaked like a seive and only paddled in circles.


I wouldn't. I have ethical and moral standards that cannot be so easily bought. Maybe that's just me, but I think it's also most that work in ethically driven professions like medicine, science and engineering. From my experience, almost all my colleagues would refuse any influence from their client when documenting findings. My client, however, has every right to produce their own report from my report and say whatever they want. They own my report. It's their IP. My unedited report still stands however. I refuse to let them influence me because in the end it is not in my interest or theirs to do so.



Mobynick said:


> I'm not accusing every scientist out there of being corrupt. You just need one that will support the right"science".


There is no right science and wrong science. There is just science.



Mobynick said:


> Science isn't always right and it ammuses me that so many people still think that because some controlled experiment in a sterile lab proves anything.


No, of course science isn't always right. In fact, it's never right. The best it can ever hope to be is not wrong. It strives to be as right as ot can but can't ever succeed. It is, however, of greater validity than a bunch of us sitting behind a keyboard at home saying 'I don't agree with that outcome, therefore I'm going to say it's wrong'. Science should be used to prove science wrong, not conjecture. Once science proves other science to be wrong then it is discarded and they move on. Scientists are far more willing to accept they are wrong than almost anyone else because they are trained that way.



Mobynick said:


> Forget the science, rationality, egos and politics....we are all agreed that the trawler is a bad thing.


Indeed we are. Couldn't agree more.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Occulator said:


> Oh now I get it. It's the oil and pharmaceutical companies who are behind the Magiris. :roll:
> 
> I remember once posting something here about a scientific study which concluded that the internet and the whole instant comment blog thing turned seemingly rational people into .... erh .... irrational people.
> Apparently the extent to which they become irrational (even though many start from a low base in the first place) is directly related to how many facts or truths one throws at them. And I should know because I've been at the business end of that argument too. ;-)


I'm not sure what you are saying about yourself here Occy but it doesn't sound good.
You should be careful what you read and how you interpret it.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Occulator said:


> I'm fine with self deprecation Keza. You should try it sometime.


My sex life is full enough at the moment but I see where you're coming from


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

There have been a number of articles written about the Margiris on 
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php?/we ... w_comments

Quote from Dr Wadsley (a Mathematician) mathematical calculations are a major component of AFMA data, and so when their data is questioned we need to take notice:

"Digitized data from the top diagram of Fig 8 of the IMAS-Neira Study was fitted using a non-linear least squares (NLS) exponential decline curve as discussed in Section 3.6 of the Study. Although the correlation is poor, the extrapolated P0 (mean daily egg production of jack mackerel at spawning time) was 1.18 eggs/0.05m2/day compared with 3.36 eggs/0.05m2/day given in Table 3.1 of the Study. Thus the Study appears to be over-estimating spawning mass by a factor of 2.9. The total spawning mass, based on this P0, should be 40,000t, not the 115,000t reported. This translates to an maximum TAC of 3,000t. The low estimate of total spawning mass is consistent with the low jack mackerel (east) catches of <2000t since 2005/06.

Based on this analysis, the IMAS-Neira Study has over-estimated total Jack Mackerel spawning mass by a factor of 2.9, and the AFMA approved TAC of 10,600t for 2012/13 is 3.5 times greater than the Tier 2 maximum Recommended Biological Catch (RBC) of 7.5% of total spawning mass as specified under the AFMA's Small Pelagic Fishery Harvest Strategy." Unquote

The tier system is used to make up for the lenghth of time that has elapsed since the bio mass had been measured, it is up to 10 years old for the quota allowed for Margiris. The CEO of Seafish Tasmania has had pecunary interest charges laid against him, one such challenge having arisen at an actual AFMA meeting that the CEO is a member of; it was recorded in AFMA notes.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

It is good to see people using science to dispell the science. That is what is needed.


----------



## spork (Jan 21, 2012)

Ado said:


> It is good to see people using science to dispell the science. That is what is needed.


I prefer garlic, silver or mirrors.

Wait... thats vampires. Sorry. As you were...

Back onto the off topic bit of this discussion - I'm pretty sure that there was lots pf "scientific proof" that smoking tobacco was harmless back in the 60's. No prizes for guessing which industry funded those "studies"...


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

spork said:


> I'm pretty sure that there was lots pf "scientific proof" that smoking tobacco was harmless back in the 60's. No prizes for guessing which industry funded those "studies"...


I think you'll find that there wasn't. I think you will find there were studies that said the opposite that tobacco companies hid, which is why they got sued. The scientists told them what they didn't want to hear so the hid it.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Seem to be scientists who support the climate change denialists too.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

keza said:


> Seem to be scientists who support the climate change denialists too.


Very very few. Using bacterial culture terminology TFTC (too few to count).


----------

