By Kim George taken from
http://fishlife.tv/blog/fv-margiris-your-call/
The old boys network between AFMA and Seafish Tasmania.
Stuart Richey, who was (the founding) chairman of AFMA for 9 years, is now Director of Seafish Tasmania… and unsurprisingly is receiving strong support from AFMA.
The old boys network between AFMA and Seafish Tasmania.
Stuart Richey, who was (the founding) chairman of AFMA for 9 years, is now Director of Seafish Tasmania… and unsurprisingly is receiving strong support from AFMA.
The rife nepotism at AFMA.
Whilst Stuart RICHEY was chairman at AFMA both Geoff RICHEY and Gael RICHEY were appointed to multiple committees (and in some cases to role of “chair”). This has to raise serious questions about the “health” of AFMA governance.
“Pet scientists” used to burn critics.
AFMA use a “pre-eminent scientist” (Dr. Bob Kearney) to say that the science is fine, and that those protesting are hysterical and irrational… but what they don’t disclose in those statements is that that scientist has been an AFMA director for 6 years, and 3 of those under Stuart Richey. You have to also wonder whether AFMA has been a funding participant to research activities of this scientist and any others that they pedal out.
Doubling quotas when the last study is nearly 10 years old.
AFMA keep telling us that the quotas are based on very pessimistic approach using the “precautionary” principle (which means the older the. data the lower the quota should be)… so how can they justify doubling some quotas whilst the relevant reports have just got another year older?
Misleading use of the old quota as a baseline.
The historic catch over at least the last 6 years has been less than 10% of the quota. AFMA are fully aware that in the first year the super trawler will catch 6 times what all 70 license-holders caught last year – which makes “doubled quota” irrelevant for judging the impact on the fishery.
Seafish Tasmania intend to further increase the catch.
In talking of “a new industry” what they intend to do is gain control of the dormant quota held by many of the other 70 license-holders. This dormant quota is currently 12 times the size of the last season’s catch! In addition, Seafish Tasmania will pay for studies on the healthy stocks (just as the pillage starts) in order to have the total quota increased even more (as if AFMA believe that they have applied a precautionary approach with old data it means that with new data showing the same stock levels they can justify increasing the quotas even further).
Complete failure to measure the impact on other fish species.
Many other species (seals, dolphins, some whales, penguins, tuna, game-fish, sharks, and seabirds) that rely on these pelagic fish have much slower recovery cycles. So even if the pelagics were able to recover from a serious impact, it is not clear what the impact on these other species would be.
Threat of localised depletion.
This has not been addressed at all. The only response has been that the fish are mobile and so will eventually re-populate an area wiped-out by a visit from the super trawler. This is bad, but what is worse is that the recovery of slower-growing predators (which is probably all of them) will re-populate/visit areas even slower… and finally, the recreational fishermen and tourists will take even longer to return… meanwhile whole communities could be weakened by a number of poor seasons.
Failure to evaluate the impact on other commercial fisheries.
Failure to evaluate the impact on the recreational fishing industry.
Failure to evaluate the impact on tourism.
Tourism benefits from the recreational fishing; penguin watching; dives with seals and dolphins; whale watching
Failure to evaluate the total economic business case.
The maximum revenue of $18 million for the super trawler needs to be compared with a reduction in the commercial, recreational and tourism industries along the eastern and southern sea-board of Australia. The fact that 66% of the benefits will go to foreign owners, and that the number of Australian beneficiaries can probably be counted on one hand.
The Environmental risks are not addressed.
Legally the super trawler can fish in the marine parks. The indirect impact on other species is not measured.
By-catch concerns.
AFMA claiming “targeted fishing” results in almost no by-catch yet AFMA’s own reports on their website clearly state that seals are present in over 50% (60%) of the time. Seal exclusion devices have not been tested on this type of ship.
The scale/power of supertrawlers cannot be balanced by nature.
There is not one place on this planet that has a healthy fishery operated by ships of this scale. They are so effective at sweeping the seas clean that mother nature cannot possibly keep up – whether it be in localized areas or whole regions.
Weakly defined monitoring.
AFMA failing to disclose that monitoring will only be at 10% level. Three AFMA officers would need to be present on the trawler for full monitoring.
The economic argument
The Margiris is owned by Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV, a company that receives subsidies from the European Economic Union. Would this venture break even economically without a subsidy?
What about outside Australian waters?
The
trawler can travel a long distance. Other than the quotas, how much fishing will occur outside of Australian territorial
waters in an unregulated
fishery?
