Oh boy, here we go.

Wade, Gerry Geen is not on the AFMA board. See http://www.afma.com.au/structure/directors.html

Sustainability comes from the fisheries management processes, not the size of the vessel that refrigerates the catch...

I'm pretty sure Gerry Geen has never been on the AFMA board.

Given there would have been (and presumably might still be) 100% observer on-board coverage, I think AFMA would react remarkably quickly if there was a problem.

The extraction capacity hasn't been changed at all - same nets as available now/previously. Sure, more freezing capacity, but that's really just to enable a high added-value - human food rather than bait.

The centuries-long history of fishery collapse in the North Atlantic does not engender confidence in fishing equipment the Europeans devise, especially if it is designed to be "bigger and better"; "bigger" is easily observed, but "better" requires decades of assessment.

Non-quota fisheries in the North Atlantic are a very far cry from the Australian ITQ systems.

Besides, the proposal as per the article is for the big boat to not fish at all, just be a refrigerator.

Can't see how your comment is relevant.

My comment is relevant because if they want to bring a refrigeration vessel here, they'd bring a refrigeration vessel, not a super trawler.

That they are now conniving to bring a super-trawler here, under cover of some other use, speaks volumes.

Garry, given that Australia imports ~70% of our seafood requirements some of that desertification is attributable to us.
We can"t shut down our own fisheries and say look how good we are. All we are doing is shifting the problem and putting increased pressure on the rest of the worlds fisheries.

Granted Nev, our own demands may be contributing to desertification, however there's never been a suggestion about shutting down our local fisheries. More to the point, manage them for a long term haul - Albeit, perhaps in an inefficient manner compared to the owners of these factory ships who actively search the world for large scale harvesting in a business that's doomed to extinction. Indeed, a cursory glance at the worlds remaining fisheries indicates their business model now belongs to a past era. Sort of like a Buggy Whip manufacturer pushing his wares at the dawn of the car age.

Unlike a farmer, who buys or leases the land, tills the soil, plants a crop, then prays for good weather before the harvest - Over the ages, these "free riders" merely buy the Harvester. Which was Ok in a prior generation with far less people on the planet, but is no longer sustainable - Collapse of global fish stocks, and all that - Grand Banks style.

Added to this, when it is revealed that the company behind the super trawler Margiris is being heavily subsidised by EU taxpayers. At a time when fishing capacity must be reduced, the European Government is bankrolling the collapse of fish stocks around the world.

In other words, the EU is supporting a race to the bottom,(an extinction event) and in the process, doesn't give a toss about Australia's long term welfare.

Garry, I remain far from convinced that there is any truth to the statement " however there's never been a suggestion about shutting down our local fisheries." I believe thats exactly where the Engo's are taking us. I also believe it's happening right now, little by little, piece by piece. I've read sufficient of what I could only describe as propaganda and heard enough anecdotal evidence to have little doubt.
Take ex Greenpeace co founder Patrick Moore who said "The truth is Greenpeace and I had divergent evolutions. I became a sensible Environmentalist; greenpeace became increasingly sensless as it adopted an agenda that is anti-science, anti-business, and downright anti-human." I see these same types of Engo's across all facets of primary industry in this country, not just fisheries. In addittion the amount of power Engo's seem to have in the political sphere seems quite staggering.
There is a paper titled "Australian seafood Consumers mislead by prophets of doom and gloom" and co authored by Dr R Hilborn (Proffessor of Aquatic and Fisheries science, University of Washington) and Dr B Kearney AM (Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Managment, ANU)
This paper is well worth a read.

Ah, the doom and gloom report from an independent - a paper co-authored by Bob Kearney, who was a director of AFMA for more than five years, and for the first three he served with Stuart Richey, Chairman of AFMA.-. The same Stuart Richey who went to join the board of Seafish Tasmania.

Garry, I'm not understanding your reasoning here. You are sounding like an activist, of the type Patrick Moore would describe as Anti-science, Anti-business, Anti-human. AFMA is a commonwealth government statutory authority. So what if someone (Richey) who also served on the board moved on to a paid position in private industry, hardly an uncommon thing to do, nor did Richey write the paper.

As of July 2012

Stuart Richey
Independent Chairman: Past Chairman and Board member of AFMA. Current Board member of the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, successful Australian fishing company owner.

Though he's not the only Richey connected to the business - it's more of a family affair... others are involved

His nexus to the supposedly independent Bob Kearney is the problem, not the issue that he changed occupations. Kearney/Richey, and the old boys network, if you like. Indeed, the facts about fishing - What would you like them to be.

Given that a Dutch company wholly owns the working partner in this operation, ie: Seafish Tasmania Pelagic", which is a fully owned subsidiary of Parlevliet & Van der Plas BV, of Holland, then it seems all too evident that Seafish Tasmania(the perceived local outfit) is a mere conduit for these global harvesters to reap the rewards.

Meanwhile, about 70 local fishing operators(albeit in a very small/inefficient way by comparison) will have to live with the desertification that will follow in the wake of this industrial syphon.

One could go on - perhaps revisiting the wake of the Margiris in its past life - but that's another story.

Yes, Stuart Richey is well connected in the fishing world. You'd hope an AFMA board member would be well connected. There is indeed a bit of an old-boys network in the commercial fishing world, as there is in any small industry I guess.

But where did you get that Stuart was on the Seafish Tasmania board? I wasn't aware that he had any interest in Seafish, please enlighten me.

In a typical Australian quota fishery like the SPF, you need two vital things to catch fish - the vessel/gear, and the quota. Seafish Tasmania has the quota, which is the scarce thing - there are plenty of surplus vessels especially out of the EU. I don't know any of the contract details between the quota company (which incidentally is no slouch at fishing - it already owns the second-largest (after the Abel Tasman) fishing vessel in Australia) and the vessel company, but given the mid-water trawl oversupply and the SPF scarcity I'd hope/expect the contract would be slanted somewhat in favour of Seafish Tasmania. Certainly not a "mere conduit", perhaps more like a contracted catching operation.

Given the Seafish quota is somewhere less than 4% of the total stock (which being very fecund would barely be detectably dented by that catch), to use words like "desertification" is misleading to say the least. To say "industrial syphon" is also an exaggeration. The Abel Tasman catch gear (net) is smaller than others already operating in the SPF.

TAC setting is (properly...) set by scientific measures rather than anecdotes. The fish are there... the DEPM is pretty robust.

Almost by definition, a highly migratory species has an ability to resist localised depletion. Normally (and I think this is the case with the SPF) zones are based on distinct stocks, in turn these days decided by genetic differences. That's a pretty robust method also.

What perhaps some people don't realise is that any fishing operator doesn't want localised depletion, especially if they have a very mobile (large...) vessel - they'd rather go where the fish aren't depleted rather than overfish a small area...

Mr Saunders, with respect, your assertion that the "TAC setting is (properly ...) set by scientific measures rather than by anecdotes' ...... is a statement of your opinion. Personally, I would rather decide for myself, what is 'proper'. I'd like to think that any scientific research would at least consider ANY evidence or data that was possibly relevant to its enquiry.

Are you saying that the 'evidence' of observation by local fishermen over an extended period should be ignored? We should only heed the advice of an 'expert' with a clipboard and ignore the observations of any 'non-expert'?

If the claims of local depletion of some fish stocks off the Tasmanian East coast are inaccurate, I'm surprised that we didn't have an expert, scientifically refuting the 'anecdotal' claims.

In any event, I mentioned that matter to underscore that there is no consensus, even within the scientific community, regarding the ability of these small pelagics to resist localised depletion. I recall reading about how our local small pelagic species are likely to be more fragile than similar species in warmer climates, having slower growth rates, slower maturity and greater longevity.

As for fishing operators not wanting localised depletion, this issue apparently wasn't a concern in the West Africa fishery.where the Margiris was recently operating. Nor has it seemingly been an issue elsewhere in the world where fisheries have been over exploited, often to the point of collapse.

I'm sorry but I don't accept that these fish species are immune to danger, simply because you claim that is so. The further scientific appraisal of this issue seems like common sense to me.

I am only a private citizen who has a concern for the sustainability of the world that we will leave to our children and to all of the other creatures who call this planet home. I am not a radical person who is against the sustainable exploitation of the planet's resources. But noone is paying me to push my barrow. These are just my personal opinions.

The trouble with the world's scientists, lobbyists, consultants and spin doctors, is that they are all inevitably bowed down to whoever holds their purse strings. The agenda which they support is rarely their own.

To be asked to belive that this industry will only operate in a manner that supports its own, long-term best interest and will only fish sustainably ,,, is a bit insulting. There's just too much 'anecdotal' evidence of collapsed and destroyed fisheries elsewhere in the world? But there I go again ..... relying on anecdotes! Sorry.