This
is it, anglers of Australia this is your chance to make some difference,
the anglers week of action, we have the submission due on the Monday 10th
September 2012 for the Final Commonwealth marine reserves network
proposal, and our email and phone campaign on the Super Trawler issue.
We Fish Australia now request every angler nationally to email and/or
mail both Minister for Fisheries Senator Joe Ludwig and Environment
Minister Hon Tony Burke every day this week and to call their offices on
Friday 7th September between 9.00 am and 3.00 pm voicing your concerns
about this overseas owned vessel fishing Australian Waters.
Senator Joe Ludwig
Phone: (02) 6277 7520 or (07) 3229 4477
Email: joe.ludwig@maff.gov.au Mail PO Box 6022 Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
Minister Tony Burkes
Phone: (02) 6277 7640 or 02) 9750 9088
Email: Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au PO Box 6022 House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
http://wefishaustralia.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/we-fish-press-release-3rd-september-2012.html
and the Commonwealth marine reserves network proposal submission
http://
WE NEED
every single angler to send in a submission, stay tuned some information to help
you write your submission will be posted on the blog in a couple of days.
Anglers re post your emails to Minister Burke and Senator
Ludwig in the comments section on this blog update (anonymously please) to
assist others in writing there emails.
Minister Tony Burkes
Phone: (02) 6277 7640 or 02) 9750 9088
Email: Tony.Burke.MP@aph.gov.au PO Box 6022 House of Representatives Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600
http://wefishaustralia.blogspot.com.au/2012/09/we-fish-press-release-3rd-september-2012.html
and the Commonwealth marine reserves network proposal submission
http://
WE NEED
every single angler to send in a submission, stay tuned some information to help
you write your submission will be posted on the blog in a couple of days.
Anglers re post your emails to Minister Burke and Senator
Ludwig in the comments section on this blog update (anonymously please) to
assist others in writing there emails.
Australian anglers are once again seen as a soft target that no one needs to listen to, if it’s not enough the Minister Burke, the Australian government and PEW, are introducing marine parks that they claim will not affect anglers, as they are 400 km off shore yet the only thing these marine parks appear to ban is fishing, you can’t have it both ways, so according to what you’re saying you have fully protected this area by banning something that isn’t happening in it, while totally ignoring the threats this area does face today, interesting concept! You would have us believe that there are other measures in place to protect against these other threats yet in the Coral Sea in the last 10 months has seen two ships almost run aground on shallow reefs due to engine frailer, shipping has clearly be shown to the biggest threat to our whale population, you allow shark feeding dives in an area that has seen fishing banned, shark feeding has already altered the behaviour of the sharks of this area and impacted on the other species of that area. Although we have some of the world’s best fisheries management practises the only group that is affected by these marine parks are the anglers, our kids are a bigger threat according to you then a ship running aground and spilling its guts all over the reef system.
ReplyDeleteThen we have been let down again by this governments management of the Margiris, soon to be renamed, there is nothing stopping this super trawler taking its entire quota from one location, 18,000 tons of bait fish out of the system in one local area, would have a far greater impact than a few sea lions or dolphins being caught in the gear, yet both minister Ludwig and Minister Burke have failed to address this issue, which by all means would be a very simple solution with adequate management controls. Once again our government tries to appease the environmental groups of this country while totality ignoring the voice and concerns of the anglers. This government can only be viewed as hostile dismissive to the interest of anglers of this country.
If this trawler was to take its entire quota outside one of our fishing towns this would have an enormous economic impact to the town, recreational fishing is a $6-8 Billion industry in Australia, and yet this government have completely failed to offer any safe guards to this industry from the potential impacts of this super trawler, placing the foreign owners interest above those of Australia.
Why is it that fishing in Australian is so unimportant to this government?
Dear Mr Burke and Mr Ludwig
ReplyDeleteWhilst I fully agree with some of the implementation of Environmental concerns and including observers and move on procedures to protect cetaceans and seals etc. there seem to be absolutely no provisions for limiting localised depletion or impact on the recreational fishing community
I am also concerned that this trawler will be allowed to work in Marine reserves that other Commercial fishing is excluded purely because it is a mid-water trawl . The food chain in these benthic protection regions does not stop at the sea floor as many species rise vertically through the water column thousands of metres to feed
I am also disappointed that a spacial and time management agreement to limit impact on Recreational fishing has not been implemented and scant regard for localised depletion has also not been considered.
Why has environmental issues not included localised depletion when it is clear that some bait stock are resident and some bait stocks of particular species show clear genetic differences from area to area
Recreational fishing is 6 to 8 Billion dollars into the Australian economy and has been given no consideration in this vessels impact when in fact with the foreign owned interests of this vessel mean most of any profit along with the entire catch will leave our shores
Surely a 60 nautical mile exclusion around major recreational fishing ports and a 1000 tonne then 100 nautical mile move on order could be included as well as a time protection agreement not to fish certain areas when recreational fishing is in its prime time (such as the Port Stephens car park in February and March during the marlin run) must be considered to at least give recreational fishing some protection in the process
Dear Mr Burke,
ReplyDeleteI am disgusted and appalled at your decision to approval the right for the MV Margiris super trawler to fish in Australian waters.
In no way shape or form can this be considered sustainable fishing practice. Australia has (up until now) had some of the best managed fisheries in the world. This vessel has left a trail of destruction in its wake and is not welcome to return to several countries. This vessel will deplete food sources at the base for the entire marine food web, leading to potential drastic consequences for not only the natural environment, but the economic and sustainable future of terrestrial resources also.
AFMA has traditionally set realistic catch quotas for fishery over the past 20 to 30 years. How can a quota for a fishery be increased so dramatically and immediately and still be considered sustainable, when the catch quota is calcuated from from a 10 year old survey and this population of fish is likely to not be present in the fishery? Fisheries management practices are based around the precautionary principle and doubling the TAC of Jack Mackerel in the eastern zone is far from being considered sustainable and precautionary. It seems fairly clear that this decision has been made with a higher regard for the economic value of the fishery rather than the long term sustainibility of the species population. This is an appalling decision and this will be reflected not only in my voting pattern for the future, but that of all friends and families.
Another point is that it has become clear that Seafish Tasmania is owned by the same company that owns the super trawler. It is also public knowledge that the director of Seafish Tasmania was on the committee that decided to allow a substantial increase in quota for the small pelagic fishery. Do you concede that there is something fishy about this deal and how do we deal with the conflict of interest now it's public? How can Gerry Geen remain present in a meeting of AFMA to set the quota for the small pelagic fishery when he has a vested interest in increasing the catch quota? This conflict of interest is clearly unacceptable and should be dealt with, firstly by revoking the change of quotas for the upcoming season unitl relevant and realisitic research is completed for the fishery.
I am sure you aware, but just to remind you there is well in excess of 3,400,000 anglers across the country (DAFF, 2011). These figures were from the year 2000 and have grown substatially. In my home state of Victoria, our recreational fishing industry direct expenditure was valued at $2.3 billion in 2008-09. The industry produced an estimated total Gross State Product (GSP) of $825 million in 2008-09. The net present value of the recreational fishing industry over the next 20 years is estimated at $10.6 billion. In addition, the recreational fishing industry contributes 5,200 jobs in Victoria in 2008-09 (including flow on jobs). These figures are only for Victoria, imagine if this is extrapolated to other states and I think you agree we are talking about serious financial amounts. Bear in mind that recreational anglers vote and you as a politition are employed BY US to RERESENT US. Maybe this needs consideration before narrow minded decisions such as this are made?
This issue is an absolute disgrace and has been handled extremely poorly and unprofessionally. The only viable option is to reverse this situation unitl the relevant research is completed.
Dear, Joe,
ReplyDeleteYou cannot be serious enough to allow the FV Margiris in Australian waters allowing it to rape the bait fish from our waters.
FV Margiris and Seafish Tasmania, both owned by the Dutch Company Parlevliet & Van Der Plas will be subject to an enquiry for its conflicts of interest very shortly and if you allow this to happen in our waters then I would argue that you also should be held accountable for making a decision without having evaluated the facts.
Joe, let logic prevail, and stop this from being the decision that in 10 years time will be looked back upon as the Ludwig calamity.
You cannot be serious in allowing the FV Margiris in Australian waters sitting idle while it rapes the bait fish from our waters. SHAME ON YOU BURKE,
ReplyDeleteFV Margiris and Seafish Tasmania, both owned by the Dutch Company Parlevliet & Van Der Plas will be subject to an enquiry for its conflicts of interest very shortly and having approved this to happen in our waters then you also will be held accountable for signing this off without having evaluated the facts.
Dear Minister,
ReplyDeleteI am writing to voice my concerns with the ‘super trawler’ FV Margiris. I am deeply concerned that this ship has been allowed to fish our well managed waters. It has the potential to decimate the main source of food of all the pelagic species down the east coast and around to perth. The terms of the fishing quota has no protection for localised depletion, and therefore can wipe out a whole area of bait fish and if done around the time of the annual blue fin tuna run down the east coast and west coast of victoria, it has the ability to cripple struggling country towns that rely on the winter tourism dollar.
There is also a sever conflict of interest regarding the issuing of the quota, as Gerry Geen sits on the board of AFMA and also runs Seafish Tasmania, who owns the quota. Not only that the overseas vessel is going to be flagged as an australian ship, for little or no economical benefit to our country.
Thanks
Dear Tony Burke and Joe Ludwig,
ReplyDeleteI and the recreational fishing community of Austarlia are totally disgusted and so disappointed that you have fallen into line and have approved the operation of the SuperTrawler FV Margiris in Australia Commonwealth waters. The recently increased quota allocated to Seafish under such conflicts of interest defies belief and your so-called conditions do little to lessen my concern that this supertrawler will forever destroy the marine ecosystem of these waters. There is no way that you can justify your proposed Federal Marine Parks when you have just allowed this supertrawler to destroys marine ecosystems just outside them. What's the use of protecting areas if you're going to standby and allow other areas to be totally dissiemated by foreign corporates who are only after a quick dollar.
The message is clear and don't forget it!!
No supertrawlers in Australians full stop and no to marine parks that only discriminate against user groups and aren't based on science but on emotion from PEW and other environmental NGO's.
The recreational fishermen of austrtalia will never forget what you are proposing to do to our hobby, lifestyle, businesses (tourism, hospitality, marine and tackle industries (just to name a couple).
Totally disappointed in a governement that governs for corporate greed and has it strings pulled by foreign interests!!
Dear Joe Ludwig,
ReplyDeleteI hope you took note of the "Victorian Anglers No SuperTrawler Rally" that took place on Saturday 1st September. This rally was attended by about 350 boats which were towed in a convoy over the westagate bridge to highlight the recreational fishermens disgust at your support of the FV Margiris. Over 1200 anglers then congregated at Altona boat ramp and heard from industry experts on the destruction that will be caused by the supertrawler, the outdated scientific data and/or the lack of present day sound scientific data that the increase in the Jack mackerel quota was based on. We also heard of the astonishing conflict of interests between AFMA and Gerry Green that has been reported recently. This is utterly
unacceptable and now the proposal to rename the environment destroying Margiris after one of our great pioneers (Abel Tasman) is hugely disrespectful and insulting to all Australians.
Australian recreational fishermen are united on this and overwhelmingly urge you and your governement to ban the FV Margiris from fishing in Australian waters and introduce legislation to ban all supertrawlers from ever, ever operating in Australian waters again.
Kind regards
Senator the Hon. Joe Ludwig, Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry
ReplyDeleteDear Minister
As a recreational angler that is actively a real conservationist I am concerned with the with you allowing the Margiris, into out waters, can you guarantee the recreational anglers of this country that this trawler will deplete the bait from our fishing grounds? Currently there is nothing stopping the Margiris getting its entire quota from one area, if you were the captain of the trawler why would you leave fish to drive some distance to look for more fish?
Right now it’s in Port Lincoln, it can unload its cargo and refuel there, why would it go anywhere else. 18,000 tons plus another 18,000 tons when that’s done out of our prime SBT ground, how do you think next seasons SBT will be?
Minister Burkes measures are a waste of time how, there is no point protecting the buy catch unless you protect it food source, if this trawler was to deplete the bait of any particular area it would be devastation not only to the local community but the environment as well.
Furthermore I have a philosophical objection to fishing vessels of this size it offers little or no benefit to Australia, yet has a huge risk, one only needs to look at what our supermarket chains have done to the small local shop and what they are doing to the suppliers, or the example with the hardware store, if our commercial fishing goes this same way then our environment is doomed.
Again I ask you for a guarantee that the Margiris, will not take the majority of its quota from one area, can you provide me with that guarantee?
Pissed off angler
The Hon. Tony Burke, MP Minister Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities
ReplyDeleteDear Minister
You have put in place some environmental controls on the supper trawler, but I think you failed to grasp the complexity of the issue, currently there is nothing stopping the Margiris getting its entire quota from one area, if you were the captain of the trawler why would you leave fish to drive some distance to look for more fish?
Right now it’s in Port Lincoln, it can unload its cargo and refuel there, why would it go anywhere else.
18,000 tons plus another 18,000 tons when that’s done out of our prime SBT ground, how do you think next seasons SBT will be?
You have not only failed the recreational fishers of this country you have failed the environment, as if there is no food for the Dolphin Sea Lion and they will not breed. And placing protections to protect these species from the nets od the trawler is a complete waste of time.
I urge you to put aside you hatred of anglers in this country, and do what you are responsible for doing!
Gerry Geen is not on the AFMA advisory committee but is on 2 advisory committees. If one jointly owns a company, a boat and wanted a quota to make a profit or wanted a bigger quota to make a bigger profit, by gee wouldn’t that person be the best advisor(actually they would become the best lobbyist) the world has ever seen!! The word precautionary is getting thrown around a lot as well. How can it be precautionary to increase the jack mackerel quota by 100% in just one year. Surely, a precautionary increase would be an increase of 5, 10 or 15% not 100%.
ReplyDeleteAs for localized depletion, it has been said that this is unlikely for the mobile pelagic nature of these baitfish. These baitfish are said to be more resilient to localized depletion but what of the resident populations that have been spoken of. Do we have any solid data/science on these populations? Also it is said that the supertrawler is less likely to cause localized depletion ‘cos it can steam further from port and thus is not restricted to near port areas. Why would a supertrawler that would also be a superguzzler waste fuel steaming around catching a little here and a little there to avoid catching too many fish from the one area? Surely, the supertrawler would trawl an area until the area became unproductive and then and only then would it move on. You don’t make a profit by just burning fuel, just ask Qantas!!! Tony Burke have you set a “condition” that the trawler must “move on” once an area has been trawled once or twice in day or something to that affect that would limit over trawling in one certain area. Tony Burke you did set a condition that if a dolphin, seal or etc was caught that the “move on” condition would come into effect and supertrawler must stop trawling and move 50nm and then can resume trawling. Well, Tony Burke or Joe Ludwig you better tell the dolphins etc that this is the case. Also, who is going to enforce these conditions? One lone AFMA observer! I’d like to see that person tell the crew of 45 that there’s a by-catch species in the net and they need to stop fishing and steam 50nm away when they have just brought in a large haul onboard. Or maybe you’ll be on board Tony Burke or Joe Ludwig and you can stand up to 45 big blokes and tell them to “move on”!
to be continued
Yes, recreational fishers are the main consumer of pilchards caught from the GAB and WA coasts. Which has been a well-managed fishery, due to its great economic and consumer value, (apart from the Herpes like virus that nearly wiped out the entire fishery in the early 2000’s or was it late 1990’s) that is based on sound scientific data and a sound knowledge of the reproductive capacity, movements of the species, i.e. sound science. What is our level of scientific knowledge for the SPF species that the Margiris will target. It has been reported that the science for the SPF is old and fundamentally flawed. Pilchards are used as bait and burley and thus returned to the local marine ecosystem. The Seafish quota is to be exported half around the world, lost from our local ecosystem forever. Last snapper season I think I paid $12-15 for a frozen 2kg block of pilchards, so around $6-7.50a kg. As opposed to the $1/kg that Seafish will be selling our baitfish for to Sth Africa for. As it has been pointed out that FV Margiris, Seafish Tasmania and Seafish Tasmania Pelagic are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der!! At least the profits and benefits from the pilchard fishery stay in Australia as opposed to the Seafish profits going overseas and no benefits to Australians. If you want seafood and you go to Woolies and Coles, you’ll have to settle for some horrific imported seafood from god knows where.
ReplyDeleteWe all know local commercial fishermen in the whole look after their fisheries well, after all it is their livelihoods and respect recreational anglers access to areas and avoid these areas to allow them a fair go. As for the Margiris, they’re not locals and wouldn’t care less for the sustainability of the fishery let alone avoiding recreational fishing hotspots such as the Carpark, JB, 12 Mile, parts of the Tas east coast, or parts of South west Victoria and SE South Australia (Southern Bluefin tuna, marlin, kingfish or other recreational desirable species).
And one last thought for now anyway. Maybe a hypothetical but who will pick up the pieces or repair the damage if the precautioinary approach is over-exploitiary and the fishery collapses as many fisheries around the world have. Who is going to re-sow the seas?? It won't be the Dutch owned Margiris or Seafish Tasmania, they'll be long gone when the fish are all gone!!! Will it be you Tony Burke or Joe Ludwig while kicking back with your taxpayer funded retirement packages????
That’s my piece of opinion, questioning and commentary based on sound factual information or one may call it sound science. Hope I was not emotive but then again we’re talking about our Australian recreational fishing and Australia’s marine fisheries and biodiversity!!
Yours hopefully, that you take a stand and send the Margiris home. Please "INSIST" that your counterpart Joe Ludwig exercise his powers under section 91 of the Fisheries Management Act, which allow the fisheries Minister (that’s Joe Ludwig isn’t it) to take action in 'exceptional circumstances' like this to ban super trawlers from our waters. And then introduce legislation to ban any and all supertrawlers from ever, ever coming into Australian waters, i.e. limit the size of trawlers allowed to fish in Australian waters.
TBC
Dear Joe Ludwig,
ReplyDeleteGerry Geen is not on the AFMA advisory committee but is on 2 advisory committees. If one jointly owns a company, a boat and wanted a quota to make a profit or wanted a bigger quota to make a bigger profit, by gee wouldn’t that person be the best advisor(actually they would become the best lobbyist) the world has ever seen!! The word precautionary is getting thrown around a lot as well. How can it be precautionary to increase the jack mackerel quota by 100% in just one year. Surely, a precautionary increase would be an increase of 5, 10 or 15% not 100%.As for localized depletion, it has been said that this is unlikely for the mobile pelagic nature of these baitfish. These baitfish are said to be more resilient to localized depletion but what of the resident populations that have been spoken of. Do we have any solid data/science on these populations? Also it is said that the supertrawler is less likely to cause localized depletion ‘cos it can steam further from port and thus is not restricted to near port areas. Why would a supertrawler that would also be a superguzzler waste fuel steaming around catching a little here and a little there to avoid catching too many fish from the one area? Surely, the supertrawler would trawl an area until the area became unproductive and then and only then would it move on. You don’t make a profit by just burning fuel, just ask Qantas!!! Tony Burke have you set a “condition” that the trawler must “move on” once an area has been trawled once or twice in day or something to that affect that would limit over trawling in one certain area. Tony Burke you did set a condition that if a dolphin, seal or etc was caught that the “move on” condition would come into effect and supertrawler must stop trawling and move 50nm and then can resume trawling. Well, Tony Burke or Joe Ludwig you better tell the dolphins etc that this is the case. Also, who is going to enforce these conditions? One lone AFMA observer! I’d like to see that person tell the crew of 45 that there’s a by-catch species in the net and they need to stop fishing and steam 50nm away when they have just brought in a large haul onboard. Or maybe you’ll be on board Tony Burke or Joe Ludwig and you can stand up to 45 big blokes and tell them to “move on”!Yes, recreational fishers are the main consumer of pilchards caught from the GAB and WA coasts. Which has been a well-managed fishery, due to its great economic and consumer value, (apart from the Herpes like virus that nearly wiped out the entire fishery in the early 2000’s or was it late 1990’s) that is based on sound scientific data and a sound knowledge of the reproductive capacity, movements of the species, i.e. sound science. What is our level of scientific knowledge for the SPF species that the Margiris will target. It has been reported that the science for the SPF is old and fundamentally flawed. Pilchards are used as bait and burley and thus returned to the local marine ecosystem. The Seafish quota is to be exported half around the world, lost from our local ecosystem forever. Last snapper season I think I paid $12-15 for a frozen 2kg block of pilchards, so around $6-7.50a kg. As opposed to the $1/kg that Seafish will be selling our baitfish for to Sth Africa for. As it has been pointed out that FV Margiris, Seafish Tasmania and Seafish Tasmania Pelagic are wholly owned subsidiaries of the Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der!! At least the profits and benefits from the pilchard fishery stay in Australia as opposed to the Seafish profits going overseas and no benefits to Australians. If you want seafood and you go to Woolies and Coles, you’ll have to settle for some horrific imported seafood from god knows where.
Part B
ReplyDeleteWe all know local commercial fishermen in the whole look after their fisheries well, after all it is their livelihoods and respect recreational anglers access to areas and avoid these areas to allow them a fair go. As for the Margiris, they’re not locals and wouldn’t care less for the sustainability of the fishery let alone avoiding recreational fishing hotspots such as the Carpark, JB, 12 Mile, parts of the Tas east coast, or parts of South west Victoria and SE South Australia (Southern Bluefin tuna, marlin, kingfish or other recreational desirable species).
And one last thought for now anyway. Maybe a hypothetical but who will pick up the pieces or repair the damage if the precautioinary approach is over-exploitiary and the fishery collapses as many fisheries around the world have. Who is going to re-sow the seas?? It won't be the Dutch owned Margiris or Seafish Tasmania, they'll be long gone when the fish are all gone!!! Will it be you Tony Burke or Joe Ludwig while kicking back with your taxpayer funded retirement packages????
That’s my piece of opinion, questioning and commentary based on sound factual information or one may call it sound science. Hope I was not emotive but then again we’re talking about our Australian recreational fishing and Australia’s marine fisheries and biodiversity!!
Yours hopefully,
That you take a stand and send the Margiris home as you do have the power too.Exercise your powers under section 91 of the Fisheries Management Act, which allow the fisheries Minister (that’s you Joe Ludwig isn’t it) to take action in 'exceptional circumstances' like this to ban super trawlers from our waters. And then introduce legislation to ban any and all supertrawlers from ever, ever coming into Australian waters, i.e. limit the size of trawlers allowed to fish in Australian waters.
Dear Minister
ReplyDeleteWe have this quote by Gerry Geen in 2008
“The factual brief provided to the panel identifies that the TCL’s FOR Zones B,C and D have been st in a precautionary fashion, based on advice from the RAG. The levels of TCLS reflects the lack of fishing activity on the stock in these areas and hence the trivial amounts of information available to assist in even rudimentary biological assessments. An egg survey for blue mackerel conducted by SARDI over the period 2003-2006 provided coarse information on the size of the spawning stock of blue mackerel in the Eastern and Western Zone. Lack of commercial sampling of blue mackerel populations in association with egg surveys by Zone B,C and D operators significantly reduced the robustness and potential value of the research.
In contrast Zones A has a long and continues history of fishing activity for more than 20 years that has generated substantial amounts of catch and biological information on the key target stock.
http://www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/n20080509.pdf
Then we have this from AFMA in 2004.
“AFMA is concerned that the ongoing speculation over the possible entry of a large fishing vessels into the fishery could lead to rapid over-capitalisation in the fishery, “Mr McLoughlin said.
Michael Parolin, said the ban would protect investors by ensuring the catch limit was not reached too quickly. “we have to have a secure, stable environment for the fishery to develop in so it isn’t over-capitalised, because over-capitalisation in the fishery can have long-term effects.” Mr Parolin said.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-fishing-boat-ban-extendeds/2004/11/27/1101495453364.html
I ask the minister for fisheries since we have had no new science since these quotes were made, what has changes?