THE FV MARGIRIS SUPER TRAWLER

It would make a good artificial reef.

Hi Jeff, I'm totally against it.

This thing just goes through the ocean indiscriminately collecting and killing everything in its path.

It cleared out the local fisheries off West Africa and ironically will sell the fish it catches back to West Africa!!

Have a short think about my last sentence, not good at all.

Email sent to me by Get Up!

It's here.

At 2.34pm yesterday the world's second largest super trawler docked in Australia, despite having no license to fish in our waters and facing massive community opposition. It can fish with nets whose mouth stretches up to 100 meters high, 200m meters wide and 600m long - that's longer than the length of the Sydney Harbour Bridge. It vacuums up everthing in its way killing dolphins, seals, migratory sea birds and other protected species.

But, there's one person who has the power and authority to stop the super trawler from plundering our seas: Federal Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig. Despite this issue being on the agenda for weeks, he's been dragging his heels and advised media on Tuesday that he was yet to make a decision one way or another on the super trawler. Let's help him decide!

With your help an ad which shows the shocking by-catch of a super trawler can be run on Monday in The Australian, to show Joe Ludwig that Australians will not accept the super trawler's impact on our marine life:

www.getup.org.au/stop-the-super-trawler

Almost 78,000 people have signed the petition to stop the super trawler, begun by GetUp member Rebecca Hubbard on GetUp's new community campaigning tool, CommunityRun.org. As people come to understand the incredible damage the super trawler will do in Australian seas, they are moved to action.

The shocking photo in this ad, provided by our friends at Greenpeace, was taken by a fisheries researcher whilst on board another Dutch-owned super trawler fishing off Mauritania in 2006. It's a stark and shocking reminder that super trawlers, with their enormous nets, are designed to catch everything it their path.

The target species the ship wants are mackrel and redbait but there is no proven way to stop seals, dolphins and other marine life getting trapped and crushed in the enoroumous net. Scientists also say that the 18,000 tonnes of fish the trawler could be allowed to catch is far too high and based on outdated information - concluding there is not a scientific case to allow the trawler to fish in Australian waters.

The person who has responsibility to stop the super trawel is the Fisheries Minister, Joe Ludwig.

Each of us can help make Joe Ludwig's decison a lot easier by making sure the implications of his decison are widely known. Can you chip in to get this ad in The Australian?

www.getup.org.au/stop-the-super-trawler

This issue is at a tipping point: it could go either way. But we know that when, as a community movement, we get behind great campaigns like this one started by Rebecca on CommunityRun.org we have the people power to win!

Jeff, you asked what people thought.

Informed or not.

I personally think it would make a wonderful internationally funded research vessel, studying the depletion of fish stocks around the globe.

That's just my thoughts though.

I signed the petition some time ago, and admit I didn't, do much research into it, but have been following the story since reading what I can, which is often hard because often you just get two views, one view from radical groups and one view from the company's that want to make the money, both hard to trust IMO?

I have also noticed some people in the commercial fishing industry here in Victoria are against it as a recreational fishing groups in Tasmania and Victoria, so when these guys start siding with green groups like green peace and sea shepard, I think there has to be something in it.

One article I did read an ABC one, so not from green peace website or something had some info a quote that was pretty crazy that stood out.

"Seafish Tasmania admits it needs to catch 15,000 tonnes of its 18,000 tonnes quota to break even"

That seems pretty crazy in itself, but spells out to me that they intend to somehow get that quota increased?

Interstingly the jack mackerel quota has been doubled from 5,000 to 10,000 tonnes in recent times and that red bait hasn't been fished for comercially since 2008.

Personally I think they should keep commercial fishing of all bait fish sp to a bare minimum and let it feed the larger species of fish that we prefer to eat, I just thought this would be common sence?

What would you rather eat the chook food or the chicken and the egg?

No worries mate, you would be much more informed than me spending a lifetime on the water.

I live in a land where the ocean is treated with contempt, raped and pillaged at any cost. It is a fish desert here and my hosts seem to go further and further afield to get their catch. They've virtually stripped everything out of here.

No worries about sharks here, there's nothing for them to feed on. I saw a Tsunomeri (finless dolphin) once, extremely rare and it was a real treat.

Contrasts to where I'm from- surfing with pods of dolphins, schools of dart, tailor, rays cruising on the bottom. None of that here. Just can't seem to think that a boat that can take several thousand tonnes in one go is a good thing.

I have to admit I didn't realize they took that much pilchards, where do they all go? Cant be all for bait so must go OS?

I do understand the smaller these fish are the faster they grow and shorter life span, so makes it more sustainable..but still.

I just think it sucks that recreational fishermen have all these things put on them,size limits min and max and amounts and areas are closed down for recreational fishing like marine national parks, while recreational fishing provides so much in the way of stoke and spreads money into local community's on so many levels.

While on the other hand the super trawler seems like the exact opposite, just one huge company taking huge amounts of fish out of the ocean, just to make a few rich, then most of the fish gets sent OS and imagine most of the money also, seems crazy.

BTW I once went for a job on a prawn trawler in morton bay off brisbane, i was totally blown away by the whole deal it was practically raping the sea floor just the method of fishing and then the bi catch was crazy, we picked out the prawns that took some time, then the bi catch went back out, all kinds of living things but the worse was seeing lots of tiny whiting and flathead and other fish by that time truelly dead just wasted it was crazy, it was early season so expect I saw worse of it, but it was just so sad knowing most recreational fisherman do there best to do the right thing..but it seemed pointless after what I saw.

I know the super trawlers bi catch is nothing like that and there nets are much higher in the water.

I think all the scrutiny regarding the size of this vessel is ill-directed. If the public want to get engaged in a debate about commercial fishing it should be about the fisheries management science and the policies arising from that science. I think you will find the stock assessments made by our fisheries researchers are some of the most rigorous in the world and the total allowable catch is a very very small percentage of the total biomass. The west african fishery did not fail because big boats caught the fish, it failed because of the amount of fish the boats were allowed to catch. The midwater trawl technique is very species specific with much lower bycatch than a lot of the demersal trawl fisheries that already exist in Australia.

Should be sunk.

I've done time on trawlers and it aint pretty. The by-catch of tertiary species is simply unacceptable, no matter the dough it brings a few or the feed it brings a few more.

Our fisheries may be better off than others on this planet, yet they're not even close to what they were 200 years ago.

*gets off high horse*

Don't know much about the super trawler or what it is chasing but one thing is for sure is that the Australian Fisheries certainly aren't as amazing as they think they are.
The people that generally know the most about a fisherie are the fisherman and also have the biggest investment in making sure the fisherie is sustainable, to listen to them goes along way.
Something they have been guilty of neglecting in the past (maybe present?).
The Fisheries deprtment was established by fisherman who understood that they needed to regulate the catch and now they are a law unto themselves with very little direct involvement from the people who make their livleyhoods from the ocean.
Gotta say trawlers (in some cases) are maybe the exception to the rule as there investment depends on taking as much as they can when they can and is in a lot of cases totally indescrimanant as to what gets dragged up or in the case of the bottom draggers what they destroy in the process.
Heres hoping they have the science right in this case.

And zephatalien, got to agree they arent even close in Australia anyway to what they were 50 years ago. Catches might be stable in some fisheries but what the statistics fail to show is the technology and "smarts" of the fisherman who when catches dwindle have just got better and better at catching which skews the "science".
No fisherman 50 years ago had access to all of the fish finding technology and fish pillaging hardware that they have today, and if catches are "stable" that has to sign warning bells I reckon.

http://tasmaniantimesnorth.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/the-magiris-and-seafi...

"We can reveal the supertrawler the Magiris and the company 'Seafish Tasmania' are owned by the same Dutch company Parlevliet & Van der Plas.
Thanks to an ASIC document on Seafish Tasmania available here it's obvious both entities are owned by Parlevliet and van der Plas.
Given an employee of Seafish Tasmania managed to become an advisor to the regulator that manages Australia's fishing industry AFMA, Tasmanian Times North believes this is more than just another 'conflict of interest'. Dirk and Jan Parlevliet and Dirk van der Plas have obviously put in a lot of thought and planning into removing Tasmania's fish stocks."

Afma claim to have 100 % observor coverage for this vessel while fishing in Australian waters. After the hardline stance they have taken on the bicatch taken in the nets of the commonwealth shark industry it will be interesting to see what the big bitch trawls up and how it is policed.

reecen, I don't know anything about this super trawler but I do know that fisheries biologists do take into account the ongoing improvement in fishing gear, when using fishery data for stock assessments. It's a whole sub-field of work called effort standardisation. That way they can account for increases in catch that might occur when stocks are declining from overfishing or otherwise.

Getup! campaign has asked for peoples' e-mails to Joe Ludwig, who has the power to boot the boat out of Oz.

http://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/marine/super-trawler/stop-the-super-trawler

What I wrote...

Hi,

As a student of environmental science and management I believe it is in Australia's best interest, both as a management practice and conservation agenda, to halt the "super trawler" operation in Australian and Antarctic waters. The risk of tertiary species, some listed under the EPBC Act, is too great.

I spent enough time (two seasons) on prawn trawlers and I know that there are no preventative measures to employ in inhibiting particular species into the nets. Mitigation such as fish holes and escape hatches are reactive and their effectiveness is often questioned. The net of a trawler literally creates a vacuum, into which species critical for marine diversity and trophic structure are pulled into and drowned.

Please consider my view into your decision to disallow the super trawler in Australian and Antarctic waters. My concerns with Tony Bourke's SWEPC department' are mirrored by many and include:

The conditions do nothing to address the concerns of recreational or commercial fishers and conservations in relation to local over exploitation of fish stocks.
Most of the conditions are standard for all trawlers - such as management plans for sea birds - but this does not stop protected bird species being caught in the first place.
The conditions allow up to 10 seals to be killed every day, if more are killed the a simple 'review' is triggered and the trawler is required to move 50 nautical miles. Trawlers can cover these distances in a few hours and given marine wildlife such as seals, dolphins and turtles are highly mobile this does nothing to protect them.
The conditions do not address the flow-on effect of localised depletion of fish stocks on the marine environment or the flow on effects to other marine wildlife who may lose their food source such as penguins, tuna, seals, whales and dolphins.

Thankyou and sincerely,

Zephatali Walsh

If nothing else, turning this boat around sets a precedent. Today the super trawler, tomorrow the Japanese whalers?

I respect your comments and knowledge Jeff and I understand your point that while there is a lot of stink kicked up about this issue other damaging fishing going on is ignored, hopefully this issue will bring to light some of those issues.

But i am a bit confused why someone involved with a love of the ocean would be for this?

Hhmmph!

I'd like to see the science that says "The gummy shark needs 40-48% of its original biomass for best results in survivability. Perhaps your misinterpreting the information? As we all know, a population cannot outgrow the ecology around it. Interdependent relationships as well as competition between individuals, in a setting of fixed or fluctuating resources, will reach an equilibrium where a population will survive indefinitely. The trophic system highlights interdependent relationships as a way of interpreting the movement of energy through from sun to earth [basic}[sun>primary producers>herbivores>predators>tertiary predators>detrivores]. By affecting even the smallest of creatures or vegetation, rippling unbalance works to reach another equilibrium.

Keep in mind this planet has been changing for billions of years to reach this time of flora and fauna. I confess i'm not very well versed in the present state of the global fisheries. But like most other places on Earth, the oceans are in crisis mode. Unprecedented species extinction means wildly unbalanced trophic structure. Perhaps this is the case for your gummys' Jef, where the population of shark has boomed in a time of easy food or low predation, collapsing a balance between themselves and their prey.

I can show you numerous articles showing how whole communities of fish and marine mammals immigrate into sanctuary zones. I've really no idea on the contentious marine parks plans for SA, but i'll reckon its something fishy and opens up drilling in some way.

And Jef, hopefully we get some activists in positions of power to stop the damage being done now. For what, you ask? For the land, man! Moments of thrilling life will always accompany the human spirit and as most of us live out our lives we, mostly unintentionally, fuck up the Earth around us. Marine science is a very tricky field.

Perhaps, as you say Jef, the populations of target species are in a state of exponential growth and by the quota being taken the ecological equilibrium will be sustained. We just don't know and as always, for me, this means bail or fail. Obviously this boat is not in good hands and hopefully the best hands in the world" because it's aiming to conduct large scale trawling in Australian waters. These people aren't out to look after the integrity, biodiversity or sustainability of our ocean they're out there to make money. Bugger ya money guys, go get a sunrise up ya.

It is a disgrace that such misinformation can go so far. This is a midwater trawler fishing species specific schools of fish under full observation and under strict quotas. The quota is set at about 7% of the total biomass calculated from the most conservative estimate. Its therefore probably much less than 7%. Exclusion devices free any marine mammals that may be encountered and non-quota fish (bycatch) in these schools of red-bait and mackrel is very rare. Where is the suggestion for a better way to do it or should humans just stop eating fish? Demersal trawl fisheries have a by-catch issue that needs more work, but this is not one of them.

indo....i love the ocean and live in it and on and for it.....i wanna be careful that we dont lose access to it all bit by bit through fear....imagine if you couldnt surf the island beacause the ospreys were nesting there and it was someones opinion that the paddle surfing would scare them away... they have been co existing there for the last 35 years from single fins to boogers.

on the abel tasman......they are NOT going to decimate these species and the political mileage is getting every bit they can out of it....78000 + , paranoid uninformed signatorys brother....its a disgrace to the australian way!

By: "jeff-schmucker"

I do hear you on that, things can go to far and minority groups get there way.

But I still don't get it all, why would we let a foreign company and boat come in to our waters, allow them to use a heavy handed fishing method, take our fish, that are then most likely sold overseas and most likely the majority of the money also goes overseas, what benefit do we see? a few jobs?...bit of tax money for the government?

There should be laws that control this kind of thing, for example the company be over 51% Aussie owned and that only one tenth of any quota be able to be taken by one company.

But i guess its not much different to whats happening on land we are selling that of, screwing our own farmers over and letting foreign owned companies dig up our riches to send OS.

I think we are pretty screwed up in australia, we sell our soul on a lot of things.

I was going to question how the trawler helps local fishermen...?

Anyways, I dunno where your going with that link Jef, but here is one I found a little informing.

http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/oceans/top-10-facts-about-super-trawlers

Perhaps you were looking for this link?

http://www.almcglashan.com/news_details.php?news_id=371

Though it seems the author is definitely against the fishing taking place...

Man, there,s been so much debate and drama over 1 boat.

Surely AFMA s policies and management practices can deal with any issues that arise from it's fishing efforts. Fisheries management has been turned around in the last decade or so and become quite tough.

This situation reminds me of the development of the Herd and Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery. Just a couple of boats with full observer coverage. This transparency having every shot monitored along the way with fairly large factory trawlers and liners worked well and, I believe, that the fishery has now received Marine Stewardship Certification. This is a credit to AFMA and its policies and also industry which have adopted a responsible attitude when going about its fishing practices.

The SPF fishery is fished in two zones East and West of Tassie with three different species that are targeted separately. This will spread out the Margaris's effort somewhat and any concerns of localised depletion will not be realised. Also we are talking about a Pelagic Resource that is migratory and transitory in its movement.

If she is the right boat to utilise the resource sustainably and be economically efficient let her have a go!

I think it's a big win personally Jeff, and hopefully it ships off back home never to return. Or you could cut it down for scrap metal, haha!

Also a win for democracy.

When the vested interests of a minority can dictate to the wishes of the majority, then we cease to live in a democracy.

Although the cynic inside of me believes the decision maybe political, it's still a win for the people.

Yep, fantastic news, i'm cheerin' loud.

:D

...and it's not the greenies that are now safe, just all those pelagic species.

:)

I don't eat fish purely because I'm not the biggest fan of it, not really because of any moral or ethical reasons.

Also if I don't eat them, they won't eat me ;)

Will be interested to read your opinion.

I eat lots of fish. Most of it raw.

But hey, I live in Japan;)

the boat is called the Abel Tasman now.

hey Smuko, this mob are dutch aren't they ? how does a dutch mob get the rights to 18kT of fish from Aussie waters, do they just buy the quota on open market ?

I got no probs with the boat or size per se' cos the take will be within the quota system, I just reckon the fish resource should be owned, caught and processed by Aust entities, and most definitely not bypass our marketplace/tax system.

can they simply fill up the freezers and do the bolt... how's it work on this scale ?

more info please Jeff.

political grandstanding for sure.

my basic understanding of the operation is that the take would be part of the quota system, fished relatively high in the water column, using nets no bigger than already in operation , so to me thats all above board.

my concern is the ownership of the fish resource and the integrity of our marketplace.

if these dutch wanna do a smash n grab freezer fill, they can fuck right off.

to me, its all the same resource soveriegnty issue I raise about Cubbie Station the other week. I'm sick of cheap/hot money flowing into this country, buying the ground right out from under us, pushing the AU$ too high and in turn making our own opeartions internationally uncompetitive.

votes.

the 18kT of pilchards will not "be saved", someone else will take the quota.

I'm not fully ok with some fat dutch boat doing a smash n grab / hit n run, but for other reasons, and for the record I'm not a fan dutchies.

but if people think they've saved the little fishy fishies , they have been stooged by political spin. cos most the same people will happily go to the biggest supaTrawlers of them all, Woolies & Coles, and be stoked for "cheaper" fish, no matter where it comes from, or how dodgy it was obtained.

my biggest issues was

Internationally owned
Internationally staffed
Fish caught processed on board by overseas workers.
and all fish sold internationally
all profits are overseas.
id also like to see the so called 40 aussie jobs? the ship is already fully operational it doesnt need fisherman?
we were actually going to subsidise their freight costs too???

where does Australia benefit from this??

yeah Del, that's exactly where I'm coming from.

general public who think the fish "take" has been stopped, they simply don't understand how things work.

the media and the politics are giving a very superficial representation of the situation.

all a bit too easy really, the real question that should be getting asked is...

"who really owns our fish resources." ?

and the answers to that would blow people away.

if the quota is fished by aussie boats and aussie workers.. and paid aussie wages and aussie tax.. no issue at all..

jeff, thats how most processing industry is operating in Aust now ie: profitless.

Another situation is unfolding in SA with the softwood timber industry in Mt Gambier, Carter Holt Harvey, a big timber firm is about to shut 3 to 4 mills. Carter holt is losing $35 for every cubic meter of timber cut.

About 1000+ jobs are on the line if Carter Holt pulls the pin, the SA log resource will get shipped and processed offshore.

The SA gov't sold the Forest resource to a Yank consortium for an "undisclosed sum", the new owners then upped the log price, which in turn has priced SA softwood products out of the market.