John,

The capacity of this trawler versus the current quota set means it could extract its allowance in 3 months.

No operator should be capable of such short, sharp detrimental effect on the marine food chain especially once you consider the bycatch over this short period as well.

I find it highly unlikely that the dutch company Van Der Plas who own both this trawler and Seafood Tasmania will want their investment sitting at a wharf for the other 9 months of the year?

Buying out the smaller Aussie operators licences to increase their quota and monopolise the market will be the ultimate goal here no doubt.

The independent senator for wakefield has already revealed this dutch companies true intentions regarding increasing quotas in the future.

As one Minister stated today..."it is the Woolworths of the seas".

This type of fishing should be confined to the last century, not the present one!

So... they would catch their quota in 3 months, meaning their share of 7% of the biomass, and then stop. Because they had no quota left.

What's wrong with that (apart from being unlikely - I suspect it would take much longer, the fish don't exactly jump into the boat)? The vessel goes elsewhere (someone else's fishing regime).

The quota is not owned by the Dutch, and even if it was they couldn't increase it (unless they bought someone else's quota - but then that other person wouldn't be catching it...).

So is it better that a bunch of small vessels catch (expensively... and with much greater total bycatch) the fish, or one large efficient one with less bycatch and much greater observer coverage? Opinions can vary, but for sure the economics favour the large vessel.

Disgraceful performance by the government, in my opinion. Pandering to political popularity.

Andy,

My point is that it has the potential to remove a large amount of the local population over short, sharp periods. Unlike smaller operators who have smaller capacity.

This is the problem because it not only creates localised depletion (however temporary) it also renders smaller operators unviable for the few months it is fishing.

Rather than follow a purely economic stance and poor mental history that has promoted factory fishing, we need to lower capacity as it is large percentages of biomass extraction over short time frames that break down food chains.

The same catch over 12 months will always be more sustainable than the same catch over 3 months because it gives a larger % of the biomass more time in the water and hence more consistent catch rates.

Cheers

Wade

Wade,

Not quite. It only has one net, and that is the limiting factor. Many smaller boats each with a substantial net will catch (potentially) much more quickly. In practice it depends how easily they find the fish.

In any case, localised depletion isn't an issue with these highly-migratory species - they move fast, so any "holes" or localised depletion would pretty quickly be filled in.

Even if they caught all their quota in a short period (which they can't), they'd only catch low single-digits percent of the fish stock. So no danger of food chain collapse.

Anyway, all a bit academic now the government seems keen to ignore the science...

Andy your title and subsequent posts on several articles on this topic lead me to ask who you consult for?

No need to respond...I just wonder why you deny localised depletions as being possible when these trawlers have caused extreme cases of mackeral depletion off the coasts of Chile and Africa let alone EU fisheries?

I know for a fact that local commercial operators in SA say that this super trawler will cause localised depletion through sheer capacity especially if it targets areas just outside the 3NM state limits.

I cannot find any peer reviewed science that shows a sustainable fishery and includes these trawlers for any management regime.

Anyone who thinks that we should allow this trawler to operate based on 10 year old stock assessments on top of my last sentence must have no environmental conscience.

Regards

Wade

I consult to various clients, but have no consulting or financial links with any of the actors in this drama. Should I ask your conflicts?

"I know for a fact that local commercial operators in SA say that this super trawler will cause localised depletion through sheer capacity especially if it targets areas just outside the 3NM state limits." Well I know for fact that it hasn't actually fished there yet, so that's just bar talk then, isn't it? Did they mention the 35000 tonnes of sardines caught annually in a very localised area of South Australia?

Have you seen the opinion of Dr Keith Sainsbury on localised depletion in relation to this vessel? He'd know, being both well respected and very well informed about this situation (not to mention well-qualified).

Bear in mind the quota for Seafish has varied between 16000 and 25000 tonnes over the last decade, I think the stock is pretty healthy, no?

Different species require different fishing rates. As shown in another article on this forum the same mackeral species targeted by the super trawlers elsewhere has not shown the same reproduction capability as other pelagics in the northern hemisphere and is sensitive to collapse.

The SA commercial operators have serious concerns about the sardine bycatch potential if this trawler chooses to fish adjacent state waters. Other commercial operators interstate share those concerns.

I would put the knowledge of those who are out there on the water and understand the ripple effect from this super trawler before anybody else.

I am a recreational angler who has worked in the professional handline industry years ago. No formal relationships with any green groups or commercial fishing entities.

Hi Wade (and honestly, I'm really not trying to have a go at you)

"I would put the knowledge of those who are out there on the water..." Yes, but they are competitors, so take what they say with a pinch of salt (just as you should if I start bad-mouthing other consultants). They don't really now compete as the end-markets are different, but have competed in the past (for tuna feed in Port Lincoln).

Given that they have pronounced this before it has fished anywhere near is indicative of competitive talk. Given that Seafish Tasmania would have to buy or lease quota to land sardines (and, by the way, they have every right to do so), I can't see the problem. No quota = no landings of sardines...

John, agree with your comments. Except that the company can't ask for an increased quota (well, I suppose they could, but no-one would be listening).

Will, I suspect that lots of smaller boats would fill the quota much more rapidly, and with much more local depletion. Everyone is focussed on the size of the vessel, which is a bit of a furphy. The actual net they would use would be roughly the same size as every other pelagic trawler. What is different about the boat is its freezing and storage capacity, meaning it could cover larger areas before needing to return to port (so spreading the depletion, improving the product freshness - no waiting for unloading to freeze, being more cost-effective - less steaming to/from port, less impact on recreational fishers - more catches would be distant from ports which is where rec fishers concentrate). And their targeting gear (sonar) might be better.

Your assumption about bycatch being less with smaller vessels is probably wrong (certainly wrong for albatross which are impacted by warps - more vessels means more warps means more seabird mortality). Seal mortality also probably would have reduced with one large vessel, certainly given the observer/operation conditions. Many people suspect that smaller boats without observers possibly kill seals without reporting.

"How does a ship with a 600 metre net effectively target only two species ie the red bait and mackerel?" Actually three species (there is another mackerel species as well). They have sonar gear that shows them where schoold of fish are. Most fish in the area are not mid-water species (eg Blue Grenadier, bottom dwelling), so a mid-water school is very likely to be small pelagic. Other species are rarely caught (the occasional specimen maybe). If they were, they'd have to acquire (lease...) quota for the bycatch species, if it was a quota-controlled species. The 18000 tonnes is just for the 3 small-pelagic species.

"What reports or evidence is there to support some opponents claims that the super trawler has crippled fish stocks in NZ and other places?" Probably none in the case of NZ - I suspect the boat has never been there. A Korean ship was convicted of fishing over-quota - different boat.

"How does the 18 tonne quota compare to the quota from previous years?" About the same, I believe.

Andy,

The net size may not be significantly bigger but the ability for this boat to fish constantly over long periods of time at sea in comparison renders this net size argument null and void.

As for licences, this companies intentions to buy out other operators in the future in an effort to increase its quota have been declared from my knowledge.

And so Seafish might catch the fish instead of someone else? Why would that make any significant difference?

Actually, it might reduce localised depletion. Because the small operators can only fish near ports. The large boat can roam across the entire fishery.

The question is 'if' the operator spreads its load across the entire fishery which is looking very small considering its just been banned in the lower house for two years until up to date scientific assessments are carried out.

If Seafish Tasmainia had followed up to date science as well as they did the government legalities they probably wouldn't be in this mess?

They can cry all they like but true to form they didn't want to wait for the science prior to pushing thier vested interests.

Any compensation to the prospective employees caught up in this venture should be paid out by Seafish Tasmania for not wanting to include current science in their plans to trawl before applying etc.

This isn't the Governments fault...its theirs!

As I understand it the answer to 5) is "Seafish Tasmania" is a majority NZ owned company, in this case operating in partnership with the wholly Dutch owned , and similarly named, "Seafood Tasmania Pelagic" (a subsidiary of Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV), which owns the boat.

Seafish Tasmania is an Australian company, not NZ.

1) Unknown. Most small boats have small crews.

2) Almost certainly less fuel/pollution in aggregate for one big boat than several smaller ones.

3) No, Seafish doesn't pay the government fees for the quota (although there are cost-recovered management fees), so no refunds. Seafish Tasmania still owns the quota and can catch the fish (presumably using a different boat). There could be legal consequences/compensation claims, I imagine this could take a long time and be complicated.

4) "Is the Bill before Parliament a knee-jerk reaction of government or is it a good sign that the government is listening to the people it is supposed to represent?" Probably both. Not sure which "scientists" the government is going to use to review the situation that either haven't already been used to review it, or are less qualified than the ones at the coalface. Saying "the review will take 2 years" is a bit bold, and just means they are kicking the can past the next election.

5) Seafish Tasmania is an Australian company, probably with Australian-majority shareholders. It may have some foreign shareholders (that's not exactly illegal or underhand). It has a joint venture with a company called Seafish Tasmania Pelagic that is owned by the (Dutch) company that owns the boat - the Dutch company is owned by two Dutch fishing families. Presumably the Dutch supply the boat, the Tasmanians supply the quota, one side or both do the marketing and logistics, and they split any profits (or as seems more likely now, the losses)

Seafish Tasmania is owned by the stated dutch company above and so is the trawler.

Who are you trying to kid?

This is like saying the Department of Fisheries is not part of the Government.

Quote..." 3) No, Seafish doesn't pay the government fees for the quota (although there are cost-recovered management fees), so no refunds. Seafish Tasmania still owns the quota and can catch the fish (presumably using a different boat). There could be legal consequences/compensation claims, I imagine this could take a long time and be complicated."

Quite right, but our Government will use our tax payers money to subsidise the exported stock to Africa.

How nice considering it is using our waters/money to supply fish to the very same populations whose waters it destroyed.

That's factually wrong.

There are two companies with similar names. Seafish Tasmania has been based in Triabunna for yonks, with majority Australian owners. It owns the fish quota.

Seafish Tasmania Pelagic is a separate, new company (owned by two Dutch fishing families) that owns the boat that is being chartered by the Tasmanians.

Not a separate, new company Andy. What's a 'name' when the same people are involved?

Alfred,

The thrust of modern fisheries management is to avoid the Atlantic cod-style collapse. Modern quota systems (ITQs) completely avoid this problem.

Andy - the reassuring efficiency of the modern itq systems you refer to must be the reason the article cites dr Lawlor as saying the factory ship in question has "collapsed fisheries in New Zealand and Africa". -a.v.

Plenty of Australian managed fisheries don't even have a total allowable catch system. The SA snapper fishery being one that has been abused by no TAC and the over allocation of longlining licences since 2005.

This is currently under review and a TAC is on the agenda.