Western Port Seagrass

Greenpeace Line & Pole poster

Marine seismic survey in the Bass Strait Canyons by Bass Strait Oil Company Limited

The Bass Strait Oil Company Limited (“BSOC”), is proposing to conduct a marine seismic survey (MSS) program located in the Gippsland Basin which is expected to be undertaken between either 1 March 2013 and 17 May 2013 OR 1 December 2013 to 30 April 2014, for a period of approximately 10-12 days (dependent on weather and seismic vessel availability).  This activity is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements of a work program approved by the Department of Resources, Energy & Tourism (DRET) as part of the awarding of the Vic/P41 and Vic/P66 Petroleum Exploration Permits.  

BSOC, as operator of these permits, proposes to acquire seismic data within the nominated area shown in Figure 1 below (refer Table 1 for coordinates).  The proposed seismic program, known as the ‘Stanton 3D Survey’, covers an area of 128km² in the Commonwealth waters of the Gippsland Basin.  The northern margin of the survey area is located approximately 52km south of Point Hicks (Vic) and the survey area covers water depths between 350-750m (approx.).

Figure 1 – Proposed Survey Area for Stanton 3D Seismic Survey  

Table 1 – Stanton 3D Seismic Survey Area Coordinates (WGS84)

Point	Latitude	Longitude
1	38o16’08.97”S	149o13’25.97”E
2	38o20’53.39”S	149o13’21.81”E
3	38o20’54.76”S	149o23’15.67”E
4	38o16’06.83”S	149o23’18.28”E

A marine seismic consists of an acoustic source towed behind the vessel within a few metres of the surface that acoustically pulses at a controlled frequency range at set time intervals.  The signals reflected back from sub-surface geological structures are recorded by hydrophones located in a “streamer” towed behind the vessel.  The purpose of the survey is to determine the subsurface geology of the area.  The method employed will be 3 Dimensional, with the vessel towing up to 12 (twelve) x 6km long streamers at a depth of approximately 7 m (refer to Figure 2 for typical MSS Vessel Layout).  The survey vessel will traverse the nominated survey area along defined transects referred to as seismic lines.  The vessel will also operate at a distance of up to 10km from the survey boundary to allow for vessel lead-in/lead-out and turning. A scout vessel will be present to assist with minimizing any potential impacts on other marine users and assist with deployment of streamers.

Figure 2: Layout of a Typical 3D MSS Vessel

 

The survey will be carried out adhering to all government requirements, in particular:

·          In accordance with EPBC Referral ‘manner specified’ conditions (& associated EPBC Policy 2.1 Guidelines http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/seismic.html) issued under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Act 1999;

·          With an Environmental Plan (EP) submitted, under the requirements of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009, to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety & Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) for acceptance prior to the commencement of any activities.  Note that all activities will be undertaken in accordance with the requirements of this EP; and

·          With the vessel operator following the relevant maritime operational, safety and environmental legislation, guidelines and procedures.

Please note that during survey activities, fishing can continue within the area, however the activities will need to be coordinated directly with the seismic vessel. 

In undertaking this activity, The Bass Strait Oil Company Limited (“BSOC”), seek to minimize as far as practicable any potential impact on relevant marine stakeholders and the environment. They understand from AFMA that ‘active’ commercial fishing activity in the area is associated with the Commonwealth Trawl Sector (Danish Seine and Otter-board Trawl) and Gillnet Hook and Trap Sectors. The Bass Strait Oil Company Limited (“BSOC”), would like to know whether there is also any recreational fishing activity undertaken in the survey area during these planned times.

In undertaking this activity they would like to understand any issues recreational fishers may have with this survey; identify members who might be affected by the survey and request details of other relevant stakeholders for further consultation. This will assist them in identifying possible impacts and, where practicable, develop actions which can minimize impacts.

This information is provided to promote awareness of the proposed activities; further identify all relevant persons; encourage on-going consultation and reduce any risks to as low as reasonably practicable. It should be noted that responses provided to BSOC associated with this request is required under legislation, to be provided to NOPSEMA as part of the Environment Plan submission for this petroleum activity.

If there are any recreational fishers that envisage that they will be fishing in this area during the planned marine seismic survey times, or if there are any recreational fishers that see some sort of issue with this planned marine seismic survey procedure and possible effects on targeted species in the area, please contact Bass Strait Oil Company Limited direct or wefish on we_fish@hotmail.com, if you require assistance in anyway.

Thank you

We fish team

Open letter to Mr Ian Kiernan AO Chairman, Clean Up Australia

I have recently been made aware of a web page by Ian Kiernan, AO, not only advocating for the federal marine parks but claiming that the anglers concerns are unfounded. Almost all the information Mr Kiernan presents is straight from PEW group almost word for word, here is a little trick copy a paragraph from Mr Kiernan’s page and paste it in Google search you will them be presented with where that paragraph initially came from.

I though the best way to answer was an open letter to Mr Ian Kiernan.

I am writing this open letter to you Mr Ian Kiernan, as I was made aware that you have joined the 20 year anti-fishing campaign in Australia. I have read your “Marine Parks-Great for Australia” page, and would like to bring some points to your attention.

This anti-fishing campaign run in this country has had a huge influence on public perception on the impacts fishing in Australia has, on not only targeted species but the marine environment in general, something that is so far from the truth that it’s no longer funny. In Australia we have some of the world’s best recreational and commercial fisheries management in the world. This anti-fishing campaign is detrimental to our marine environment, as I will try and point out to you in this letter.   

Your main point appears to be that these marine parks will not affect recreational or commercial fishing as they are so far off shore and people don’t fish there anyway, lets for a minute assume you, minister Burke, all the Australian environmental NGOs and the PEW group are correct, what is it that we have done to now all of a sudden call these marine park areas fully protected? According to you and all the advocates for these marine parks recreational anglers don’t go there anyway and only 1% of commercial fishing will be affected, how is removing something that doesn’t happen going to protect these areas?

You say that the claim that there is no science is a load of garbage, well I have to strongly disagree with you. This model of marine parks we are introducing are called the CAR model (comprehensive, adequate and representative) the idea behind these marine parks is to select an adequate size of different types of areas that hold a true representation of species these areas should have in them, then remove the threats we can control today, so these areas are in a better position to look after themselves in the future from threats we cannot control, as a sort of insurance policy for the future. So just in case you are not aware that is the model of Marine Park you are advocating for.

Now here lays the problem, to remove the treats from anywhere you must first identify them, something that would take time and resources to do properly, something that the advocates for these marine parks did not want to invest in, so instead of identifying the real threats they simply made them up, and this is where fishing enters the picture, a very soft target, the precedence has been set in other places in the world, and something that most people like yourself, will not investigate further after you see the emotive quotes and photos. Who hasn’t seen the quote “90% of our big fish are gone” completely false, but hey it works!

Mr Ian Kiernan I ask you to provide me with the science that shows the list of threats to the areas we have just proclaimed highly protected marine parks. What is of concern is that during this advocacy period, in the Coral Sea for example the jewel in the crown as it’s called, we have had 2 ships that would have run aground after engine failure on shallow uncharted reefs in the Coral Sea, was it not for pure luck, there is now overwhelming evidence that noise pollution from shipping and sonar is not only responsible for marine mammal beaching’s, but is having a profound impact on them, forcing them to change their migratory path to areas that have little or no food, affecting their ability to locate mates during the breeding season, to name a very few issues, Yet not ONE of our environmental NGO’s even mentioned shipping as a threat in there submissions, and nothing in the marine park plan has even touched on these threat, yet the Whale is the poster child of the advocacy groups, the emotive photo.

The article you list by the Australian Marine Science Association list 5 threats to marine biodiversity in Australia, at the top is overfishing, both from commercial and recreational sectors, they then go on to say that on a global scale fishing has been regarded as the major threat, due to overharvesting, changes in the food web, habitat destruction and by-catch, what they fail to mention is that the fisheries management in Australia is very different from most of these other places in the world, the status of 2012 status of key Australian fish stocks has just been released, out of the 111 stock assessed, 98 stocks were assessed as being sustainable, 8 stocks are transitioning into recovery, 3 as transitioning into depleting stocks and 2 assessed as overfished. This is real science not shit borrowed from other places in the world that have nothing in common with Australia, show me a comparative study on non-targeted species.

The AMSA say that marine parks improve the numbers and size of targeted species, my 7 year old daughter could tell us that if we stop taking apples from one tree it will have a larger amount of apples then the tree we are taking fruit from, but what is the relationship to this and all the non-targeted species in the protected area and what is the impact of increasing the fishing pressure on the non-targeted area, as we are seeing already these not protected areas are already been used as a gauge to justify the protection areas.

Here is one study by FRDC, that clearly shows that a protection area does not benefit all the species of that area.
 
 “Changes within the remote Maria Island MPA(the largest) relative to references sites have increased in the abundance of lobster and susceptible fish (Latridopsis frosteri), increase in the mean size of rock lobster and a decrease in the abundance of prey species such as urchins and abalone

“At Maria Island there was also a 30% decline in the abundance of common urchins within the reserve, which may be the first Tasmanian evidence of  cascading ecosystem effect related to protection from fishing, Abalone numbers were also observed to decline sharply in the period sampled. This change was interesting in that one possible explanation was an inverse relationship between predators (lobsters) and the prey (abalone). “
Another study in the Great Barrier reef, in its brief was trying to say that a marine protection area was having an impact on the reducing the overpopulation of the Crown of thorn starfish, and thus good for all the species of the system. But in reading the full report the whole story was reviled, as fishing was banned there was a greater amount of large fish ( recreational targeted species) this resulted in a lower number of the middle size fish which in turn resulted in a greater number of the small fish that feed on the eggs of the Crown of thorn star fish, so clearly the middle size fish are not benefiting from the protection areas and its these very species due to the fact that they largely spend their entire life in this same area that is being affected by our terrestrial activity, that are the ones that need the most protection, as it has been recently reported of the huge hard coral loss in the Great Barrier Reef, you would have to agree that the marine park has grossly failed in controlling the Crown of thorn starfish outbreak and its effects.

But by far the biggest threat our marine environment faces doesn’t come from activities conducted on the water, but in fact from what we do on our terrestrial environment, on your page you briefly touch on the Great Barrier Reef marine park, as an example of success, well let’s have a closer look at this one of the oldest marine park’s in the country most iconic and the most well-funded marine park in Australia, last season a ban on snapper fishing due to reported low numbers, April 2010 a ship runs aground almost spilling its guts all over the highly protected area, recent studies report that we have lost half the hard coral coverage in the last 27 years, and that almost 50% of this loss was a direct result of what we do on our land, what impact do you think losing half the hard coral will have on fish numbers in the future? I would say that the low snapper numbers would be a result of this very coral loses, but I am no scientist being funded by the juggernaut to find justifications in banning fishing.

Another species used by the advocates in the Coral Sea was the Black Marlin, we know that the Black Marlin spawn in an area in the Coral Sea, we know this only because of the information anglers have provided in the past, in fact if it wasn’t for anglers we would not only know very little about some of these species, we probably wouldn’t even know they were there, but more importantly we now will not know when they disappear. Now mind you the Black marlin fisher is primarily a catch and release fishery for the recreational sector and a non-targeted species for the commercial sector, so the impact from anglers would be well below that of natural mortality for this species. So you may ask what is the threat to the Black Marlin, let me reassure you there is no threat to the Black marlin in the Coral Sea from fishing, again like most species the threat comes from what we do on our land. The black marlin nursery areas is in fact very close to our shores, in the Great Barrier Reef lagoons, the same area that has seen a number of fish kills this season, now I am not sure about you but this concerns me greatly, the Black Marlin can spawn as much as they like but if there nursery area is devastated by activities we do on our land they will become extinct no matter how you restrict anglers. And this is the problem with this anti-fishing campaign even someone like you who cares enough to set up a web page on the issue probably isn’t aware of the real threats our marine environment faces let alone a species like a Black Marlin, an you can bet that the general public who now believe that fishing is the greatest threat, probably don’t care! They have done there bit by helping create these highly protected areas, and think this is enough to endure the survival of all our marine species.

These marine parks are not intendant to be a fisheries management tool yet the only think they do is manage anglers.

 This type of marine parks are a great tool for countries that have poor or no fisheries management, that have no political will do something positive in the marine environment and lack the means to do so, but there is no place for this type of marine park model in Australia, until the criteria of success of conservation changes from how much are you have locked away to how the species are actually doing then we are going backwards, it is that simple!

If you would like to discuss this further please feel free to contact me, the email address is at the top of the page.

Daniel Stanilovic

here is the link to the web site mentioned for anyone wanting to have a closer look at it.

http://greatforaustralia.net/

Greenpeace/John West FAD fishing, from a recreational angler’s perspective.

The Issue

Some people might be aware of the Greenpeace campaign against John West, complete with TV ads, billboards, a video game as well as the usual social media outlets, Greenpeace have singled out John West as they hold the largest share of the canned tuna market in Australia, and started a campaign against their use of FADs (fish aggregation device) and advocating a change to FAD free and line and pole tuna fishing.   

Greenpeace claims that using FADs for tuna fishing has a buy-catch of over 10%, John West claims that independent observers have this figure at about 2% on average, (different areas have slightly different figures) included in the by-catch figures are also other juvenile species targeted by recreational anglers.

John West is working with WWF, to ensure fishing will be totally suitable by 2015, they are first investigat gear changes to eliminate the by-catch if that doesn’t work they will stop using the FADs. WWF has confirmed this and fully support this initiative, together they are investigating gear modifications to reduce by-catch.

The Greenpeace 2012 canned tuna guide

The two top companies listed are 100% line and pole fishing, and one of them actively targets yellow fin tuna, out of the rest, some of the others that have made a commitment to stop using FAD’s have given a time frame of 2015. John West is number six on the list out of 10 Australian companies.

Initially Greenpeace was not only claiming that FAD fishing should be stopped but that line and pole fishing is the better alternative and was advocating a change to line and pole fishing, as clearly indicated by its 2012 canned tuna guide.

Greenpeace include non-targeted tuna species (yellow fin and big eye) in the by-catch of FAD fishing, yet completely ignore not only the fact that the company at number one on its 2012 canned tuna guide actively target yellow fin tuna, but that the bait fishery associated with the line and pole fishery they are so actively promoting has its own by-catch problem that include non-targeted tuna species, and around Indonesia possibly a by-catch of juvenile Southern Blue Fin Tuna.  

FADs and recreational fishing                                                                         

FADs are used to attract bait fish and then in turn other species to the area, the fishing boat then uses a purse-seine to capture the fish. FAD’s can be very simple (like a group of logs) or very sophisticated that not only incorporate GPS location but also sensors to identify the species and amount of fish under them, this make for a very effective operation that has a lower carbon footprint and is a lot more efficient than non-FAD fishing.
As long as we have some sort of input or output (preferably output i.e. quotas) controls FAD fishing should not be of concern to recreational fishing, as regardless of method the same amount will be removed from the system by commercial fishing, as the use of FAD’s dosnt increase the numbers of fish merely congregate more of them into one area, so the primary concern is by-catch.
It is always desirable to minimise the impact of by-catch with any fishing technique, but I think we need to be realistic, non-target tuna account for 0.2% of the catch and bill fish account for 0.05% of the catch, this sill amounts to a few fish in the big picture but I think they are pretty low figures to start with, but like I said I am still happy to see improvements on them.

It’s interesting to note that the use of FAD’s by the tuna purse-seine fleets was an initiative by Greenpeace and Greenpeace foundation (Greenpeace foundation is a separate group to Greenpeace) in the 1980’s, in the dolphin safe campaign. What used to happen before FAD’s was that the fishing vessels would use dolphins on the surface as an indicator for where the tuna which are deeper in the water Colum, thus dolphins would be caught in the process. Now most canned tuna brands are labelled dolphin safe as this method is not used anymore, I suspect that in the years to come Greenpeace will be running a campaign to ban the use of live bait fish in line and pole tuna fisheries.

Looking at the figures, shows that there has been little increase in line and pole fishing since the Greenpeace campaign started, more likely it has been a case of the line and pole fishery reacting to this campaign and simply marketing the line and pole range to western countries, instead of it going to traditional markets.     
Fad free Purse-seine fishing

FAD free purse-seine fishing has a lower by-catch rate than fishing using FAD’s, although it is far less efficient, as this method requires the vessel to basically search feeding surface schools of tuna, not only is their time on the water less efficient but as there is nothing to hold the fish in that area and each shot of the net produces far less fish, for this reason the carbon footprint of FAD free purse-seine fishing is much greater than with using FAD’s

Line and pole fishing

Line and pole fishing is essentially two types of fishing, bait collection in inshore/reef areas and an offshore tuna fishery, the live bait fish are used to keep the tuna in a frenzy near the boat while they are caught using line and pole methods, estimated figures show that for every 6-7 kg of tuna caught 1 kg of bait fish are used, currently line and pole fishing accounts for less than 7% of the canned tuna market and its estimated that up to 48,000 ton of bait fish are used to catch this amount of tuna.

It must be remembered that the Margiris was going to harvest 18,000 ton of bait fish from a much larger area.

Indonesia and the Maldives account for the largest line and pole fishing fleets, Indonesia having 232 vessels and taking 66,000 ton of tuna and the Maldives with 1000 vessels and 110,000 ton of tuna, with Japan with a fleet of 96 vessels, USA 60 vessels and Spain with 52, apart from the Senegal with 9 vessels all other countries have less than 4. The Japanese line and pole flee, sources locally caught bait, but fish for the tuna in different waters, using the live bait fish from a foreign areas, there has already been some evidence of this practise has resulting introducing new specie to the area, although again no research has been done on the effects of this. Japanese companies had established through various arrangements substantial pole-and-line tuna fishing presence in several Pacific Island countries, including Papua New Guinea (1970), Solomon Islands (1971), and Fiji (1976), Palau in 1964, supporting eight to 15 pole-and-line vessels, just to name a few.

There are fears that further expanding the pole-and-line fishery would see a lack of or unavailability of live bait. Today about 15% more bait is required per day compared 20 years ago. Currently there is little or no management of the bait fishery in these areas, and there has been no assessment of the impact that increasing this demand on bait will have on the species, other species that rely on them for food, indigenous users or recreational fishers. Further problems with the line and pole method require a consistent supply of bait fish, which isn’t always available due to seasonal fluctuations or environmental factors.
Line and pole fishing in the Maldives is a major economical earner for them. The success of this fishery depends in turn on the availability of live bait. Live bait, are therefore the most important reef fish resource in the Maldives. Major management issues include live bait habitat destruction by coral mining, black coral collecting and as a result of live bait collection itself, have reportedly negative effects of reef fish, as well as the use of SCUBA diving gear and lights for live bait collection. There has been no concerted stock assessment, so the status of the Maldivian live bait resource is poorly known, broader management issues include localised depletion of bait fish, the by-catch of other species as well as introduced species,

The Maldivian live bait fishery is a multispecies one. Small species (i.e. about 3-10 cm in length) that school close to reefs are targeted. Maniku (1989) looked into the by-catch in the bait fishery in the Maldives and report that the by-catch account for up to 30% of the catch, and Anderson (2009) in a more recent study based on 4 year sampling data found a low by-catch level on average but concluded that large by-catches were taken on rare occasions and that this amount needed to be quantified.

The Maldives has an excellent fisheries statistics system for tuna catches, but not for live bait utilization, there has been no live bait stock assessment in the Maldives, no assessment of by-catch issues using lights at night for this fishery, and only rudimentary investigation into quantifying harvest numbers and by-catch issues, the status of live bait stocks is unknown. Other pole and line bait fisheries have even less information or management, which is quite concerning.

There have been very few studies addressing the issue of by-catch in these bait fisheries in general, Rawlinson (1989) found that a number of large predator species where caught as by-catch in the Solomon Island bait fishery and concluded that although the number were low as a percentage, totals over a whole season in a heavily fished bait fishery area could be sizable and potentially damaging to the food fishery.

With a little gentle persuasion from myself Greenpeace has now backed away from advocating a 100% line and pole fishery for canned tuna, they have publicly admitted that if the canned tuna industry was to move to a 100% line and pole it would not only not be effective but not sustainable, getting them to push for greater management controls over these live bait fisheries has been another issue altogether as it contradicts their John West campaign.
Although their advocacy the message is somewhat confusing, and the majority of their supporters have a very poor understanding of the issue and most are still of the opinion that the most sustainable canned tuna industry is one that is 100% line and pole fishing, and that the harvesting of skip jack tuna is unsuitable, regardless of method used.

From the John West perspective

For a company that controls a large percentage of the canned tuna industry it’s not that simple for them to move away from FAD fishing, John West does not own fishing boats that catch tuna for their canned tuna range they simply source the tuna from the fish markets, from a company like John West to move to FAD free fishing these fisheries need to be able to identify FAD free tuna right through the entire supply chain, and this takes time, hence the 2015 time frame. For companies that have a much smaller market share it is much easier as they can purchase their limited supply directly from small commercial fishing businesses in the area, thus they can have a 100% FAD free or line and pole product.

John West is the only Australian canned tuna company to have an agreement in place with the WWF or any similar organisation.  John West is now also investigating my claims with the line and pole fishery to ensure their line and pole range is not having a negative impact due to the harvesting of the live bait for this method.

Responsibility

The tuna fishing industry provides a cheap source of food to a large amount of people, overall the main targeted species is Skip Jack Tuna, a fast growing quickly producing abundant species, perfect for a sustainable food source that has a very low impact on the environment when compared to other food sources, research has shown that our terrestrial farming practises are having a far greater impact on our marine environment than sustainable commercial fishing, and even with the by-catch figures quoted by Greenpeace, it is still having less environmental impact on other species than terrestrial farming, remembering that they are not clearing the habitat to grow our mono crops, are not using fertilizers to increase their yield or pesticides to destroy native species.

Conclusion

As you can see with the figures quoted above the use of FAD or FAD free fishing will have no major impact on recreational anglers either way as long as there are input or output controls on the fishery to ensure the targeted species is not fished beyond a sustainable level, as the by-catch rates are well below the natural mortality of the species that concern us. On the other hand the harvesting of bait fish for line and pole fishing could have very detrimental effects for recreational fishing, not just for recreational anglers venturing to explore the recreational fishing in other countries, but also for our local pelagic fishery, this is highlighted by the fact that our Southern Blue Fin Tuna spawning ground in Indonesia is in one of the largest line and pole fishing grounds, the very area the bait fish are harvested for the line and pole fishery. Any detrimental effect on this bait fishery could have major implications for our recreational Southern Blue Fin fishery, and considering that this species is in the recovery stage, there is a real danger that any reduction in numbers will simply be blamed on either the commercial or recreational catch of this species, I would like to see some investigation in to what possible impact the line and pole bait fishery near the SBT spawning ground has had on past SBT declining numbers.

Recreational anglers must be vocal in condemning any increase in line and pole fishing for the canned tuna industry as well as advocating for the implementation of some sort of management plan for the bait fishery for this technique, we must insist on research to evaluate what current impact this practise is having on species like the SBT, regardless if it’s on our back door or somewhere far away. We must show responsible leadership in the face of campaigns such as this Greenpeace one, that could not only be detrimental to what we do but the ecosystem as a whole, the bait fish are at the start of the marine food chain, not only do so many species rely on them but, these bait fish are in the range of recreational anglers, and local fishers. These are the very areas that are at greatest risk at the moment, as they are being affected by the things we do on our land far more than other areas.

Our peak recreational bodies need to speak out, so anglers are educated about the possible impacts, and don’t blindly support a campaign like this one from Greenpeace or anyone else, thinking that they are doing the right thing.


Greenpeace changes the world again

Well it appears that the Greenpeace campaign has been a tremendous success, well according to Greenpeace that is, the truth be told, nothing has changed, John West has all along said that it has a commitment as well as an agreement with WWF to ensure that all its fishing is sustainable by 2015, and that in the event that gear modifications its working on with WWF, fail to yield the desired results it will cease to source FAD caught tuna by 2015, I suspect that the small opposition to the Greenpeace campaign, using sound argument, research and science has helped in Greenpeace finding a solution to the issue, the sad part is that the overwhelming majority of Greenpeace supporters are more akin to religious fanatics, who have blind faith in the Greenpeace organisation. This is what we are up against, the details and facts are not important when you have an emotive photo to plaster all over the place.