34
TOPICS
4626
VOTES
1166
COMMENTS
621
PARTICIPANTS
National Forum
In the National forum we cover a range of public issues of importance to all Australians. Is multiculturalism failing? Is our democracy damaged by corporate donations? Should the Melbourne Cup be a national holiday?
The super-trawler Margiris should be banned from Australian waters.
In Brief
Will it boost Australia's fishing industry and help feed a hungry world? Or will the super trawler Margiris devastate fisheries and the marine environment?
The largest fishing trawler ever to be used in Australian waters has arrived and is preparing to start sweeping the seas for small pelagic fish such as redbait, jack mackerel and blue mackerel.
The trawler has been given a catch quota of 18,000 tonnes for 2012-13 by Seafish Tasmania through the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. The fishery extends from Tasmania to Western Australia and Queensland.
The fish caught by the Margiris will be sold to West Africa for human consumption and it is expected that some fish will also be sold to the Asian markets.
While the Tasmanian Parliament has passed a motion opposing the super trawler until it can be proved it is safe, the Federal Parliament Tasmanian Labor and Liberal senators are rejecting a Greens motion to block all quotas in the fishery. Seafish Tasmania, the company behind the trawler, is still confident the fishing will go ahead.
Protests have been held across Tasmania in opposition to the super trawler fishing in Commonwealth waters. Overall the trawler seems to have very little support from the Tasmanian public and Parliament.
Federal Environment Monister Tony Burke said he could use his powers to ban a controversial super-trawler if it poses a big enough threat to marine life. Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig holds responsibility for the super-trawler Margiris but Mr Burke says he could override a decision if scientific advice shows it could result in a major environmental impact.
Conservation actvists are petitioning Mr Ludwig and Mr Burke to refuse the super-trawler Margiris access to Australian fisheries.
There are some very strong views on this issue in the community, but as always, there are arguments on both sides. What's the truth - or rather, whats the collective wisdom?
Arguments For Banning
It will devastate fish stocks by overfishing
The super trawler will devastate fish stocks by overfishing. The approved quota for the super trawler is 18,000 tonnes but critics maintain that adherence to these quotas cannot be verified. The quota has not been broken down into smaller limits for specific areas, meaning the trawler could overfish in the richest fisheries. Overfishing by trawlers will affect the local fishing industry and recreational fishing.
It will affect key species in the food chain
Redbait, jack mackerel and blue mackerel, are key species in the food chain. These species feed predator species such as bottlenose dolphins, Australian fur seals, sea birds, sharks and other large fish.
It will result in by-catch
By-catch is unwanted marine creatures that become caught in nets while fishing for another species. The size of the nets used by super-trawlers can result in the by-catch of non-target marine animals such as dolphins, seals and birds.
The stock assessments are out-dated
The stock assessments are based on one or two years sampling, which are up to eight years old, meaning they are too old to ensure an accurate estimate of fish numbers and how these change over time. Blue mackerel were last surveyed in 2004, redbait in 2005 and 2006 and jack mackerel in 2003.
Arguments Against Banning
It will benefit Australia’s economy
The super trawler has already employed 45 Australians and provisions used on the trawler will be bought from Australian businesses. This includes food, fuel, freight and packaging, the costs of which are between 10-15 million dollars a year.
It will allow Australia to compete in a global market
The super-trawler will help to create a new fishing industry that will enable Australia to compete more effectively in global markets.
We’re morally obliged to help feed the world
We have an international moral obligation to utilize our resources effectively and sustainably. The super-trawler’s target market is West Africa, which does not have access to this seafood.
It enables better fisheries research
The size of the boat means it can travel long distances and the scale it operates on means it can cover the cost of research. Better research means fishers can fish more sustainably.
See also:
- Margiris Super Trawler - Destructive or Sustainable? Balanced debate both for and against the trawler
- Stop the Super Trawler Anti-trawler lobby group website
- Seafish Tasmania Official site of the company behind the super trawler
- Super Trawler FAQs from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority
- Science doesn't support the super trawler - article on The Conversation
Vote
Views (36)
Support YourView
YourView's mission is to enhance democracy in Australia by identifying the collective wisdom on major public issues.
It relies entirely on volunteer efforts and donated funds, and is independent of any government, corporate or political organisation.
Please consider helping YourView to build momentum.
FOR (23)
More accurate, up-to-date figures for fish stock are needed before such an assessment and decision are made.
Even then, the peripheral effects on marine life need to be better understood. Sustainability is everything in this industry and until that can be proven to a reasonable degree, permission for super-trawling should be put on hold.
Agreed, more up-to-date figures would be good. However, if you look at the way the catch quotas are worked out, the age of the data is actually factored in to the calculations. Basically, the older the data, the more conservative the catch quota allowed.
I like to know the evidence for a position and not just make a knee-jerk reaction. My concern for the environment provokes knee-jerk opposition to super trawlers. So I decided to do some research. Greenpeace obviously disagree http://www.greenpeace.org/australia/en/news/oceans/Super-trawlers-and-bycatch-the-true-story/ and points to research at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165783606000403 I could find little else. Frankly, the little research seems to support the environmental concerns. Until there are follow up studies and evidence that super trawlers actually use the recommended mitigation strategies, and that they are effective, I think the wiser course is to invest in the research rather than give carte blanche to the aquatic version of a giant bulldozer.
(see http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/SPFdiscussionpaper_%28FINAL%29.pdf , and http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/06/super-trawler-faqs/ ) Apparently by-catch is already being fairly effectively limited and there are monitoring procedures in place to make sure that preventative measures are being implemented. I think it would be wise, given the heightened concern over this particular trawler, to have a fisheries inspector on board for at least the first few months of operations
Fisihing on this scale over exploits limited fish stocks. Additionally the unwanted by-catch is likely to be as large, or even larger, than the primary catch which will weigh heavily on the populations of by-catch species.
If this is allowed then the obvious sequel is the deployment of more super-trawlers and in a short space of time the oceans will becomes deserts.
Professor Keith Sainsbury says “I have no doubt that this fishery is an example of world’s best practice and it meets or exceeds the most rigorous scientific requirements for an ecologically sustainable fishery on forage fish.” you can read more about it here http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/SPFdiscussionpaper_%28FINAL%29.pdf
I feel that there needs to be a full impartial impact study done, and if there is no breakdown on the catch per area quota I fell the catch should be limited to the catch limit of the the area that is in most danger of over fishing. Therefore if they chose to fish and fill there quota in one area, it would not devastate that area and its marine life. We do have an obligation to help those starving in other countries, but not at the risk of our own future.
I don't normally subscribe to bans. Bans are generally the preserve of those too weak to look for another solution. But how can you agree with an argument so vacuous that this ship will support just 45 Australians? Twenty small boats working locally will employ more people than this. In the past 60 years the fishing industry has been decimated by over fishing. As a result fish stock, of species once sustainably fished, have been decimated by long net trawling by boats much smaller than this ship. Our need for fish protein can more economically be provided from fish farming and local catches. So a ban seems the most logical solution to sustainability. It is because the diversity of the sea dwellers is no less important to us than the effort we go to to preserve the beasts living on the land. A trawler cannot discriminate its catch and even if it could catch only one species. A few seeps of our oceans would take centuries to recover.
I think your first point is right. More targeted fishing. But fish farming can be unspeakably cruel to fish. And none-too healthy to eat. Let's just learn to manage the oceans we already have.
Twenty small boats will cause localised depletion - that can't spread there catch over the entire fishery (perth to sydney). Fish farms need to be fed.... by wild fish. Fish farming is NOT the answer! Mid-water trawlers is one of the most targeted fishing methods we have - much better than long lining or bottem trawling.
Like anything in nature, everything is good in moderation. If fishing spots are over-fished, the effect on the eco-system and time to recover the fish numbers may put to much stress on nature and potentially cause irrecoverable damage to the environment.
The catch quotas have been very carefully worked out, even taking into account the age of the population data. They are deliberately conservative and there are regulations in place to prevent local overfishing as well. The fact that this trawler is bigger than the others isn't really the issue at all.
Boats like these have been stripping the oceans bare around the world. Fish stocks are crashing. Soon all all we'll have to eat is jellyfish. Now it seems the same devastation is going to happen right on our shores.
The ABARES Fishery Status Reports 2010 list all stocks of SPF species, except for Redbait west, as ‘not overfished / not subject to overfishing’. Redbait west is assessed as ‘uncertain’ because of limited information available to assess its status. AFMA has implemented a conservative total allowable catch to reflect this uncertainty. http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/06/super-trawler-faqs/
As the book by that title documents in depressing detail, trawling has been devastating fish stocks since 1376 (that's not a typo, that's the time of Edward III), and still somehow, trawling continues. We humans are pretty dumb, aren't we? We exploit resources like there is no tomorrow, and care little about unintended consequences (ie by-catch).
You open the door to one super trawler and you pave the way for more. Also, I believe it is always difficult to determine accurately fish stock numbers and trends, therefore determing quotas and whether we are overfishing could be highly subjective. We need to understand this better before allowing larger industries to fish.
The Margiris has a poor history - lots of overfishing.
The world fish stocks are dangerously depleted now. Such super trawlers have a lot to answer for such depletion. Why employ them to diminish the fish stocks off our coast. It will not only deprive our own fishermen of a livelihood but we the consumers of our ocean's bounty will be the ultimate losers.
I don't think you understand how the quota system works in Australia. No australian fishermen will be deprived as a result of this quota http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/08/fishing-regulator-re-affirms-management-is-watertight-2/
I"m not against all forms of trawling. And i don't think it's inherently wrong to tuck into an ancient species of fish. But it seems obvious to me that our nation has been entrusted with a myriad of rare marine creatures, then we're expected to make sure they all flourish. But this 9,500-tonne species-hoover is almost rigged to annihilate whole branches of the underwater animal kingdom. Back to Holland with this visserman.
A measely 45 jobs and $10-15 million for an environmental disaster waiting to happen? World fish stocks are plummeting due to massive overfishing through industrialised factory ships. If we do happen to have some good fish stocks left, we really shouldn't be squandering them on a short-term folly like this!
Have a read of this: http://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=L-DLXbsmBJA%3D&tabid=103 Australian stock are well managed - Professor Keith Sainsbury says “I have no doubt that this fishery is an example of world’s best practice and it meets or exceeds the most rigorous scientific requirements for an ecologically sustainable fishery on forage fish.”
I think this was already banned earlier this year. I still think the reaction of the government has taken too long in this matter. Greenpeace to be exact.
I did a case on this in a class a few weeks back, the debates amongst all students after researching the facts all pointed towards banning the margiris. This is due to a number of reasons:
These trawlers have devastated fish stocks in all the unprotected parts of the world leading to local fisherman becoming pirates in Africa. Now they want to get their rapacious nets into our better stocks of fish. I don't trust them in any way. The owners are just immoral in their care for sustainable seas. As soon as they make their fortune from the seas and the catches are no longer profitable, they'll turn their attention to the next unbridled assault on nature. They are the scum of the earth and should be treated as such.
The impacts on the whole marine ecosystem is of foremost concern. Current science available does not allow an accurate assessment of the ecosystem impacts of taking this quantity of pelagic fish from around Tasmania, so the 'environmental impact statements' on which the approval of this application depends are seriously flawed. The Dutch company also intends to apply to trawl off South Australia and Western Australia. Small fish are the primary food source of larger species sharks, seals and dolphins, who are also in danger of dying as part of the by-catch of these huge nets. As for employment, this ship is crewed by only 45 people who aren't required to be Australians, so the argument of providing employment for Tasmania locals is not valid. The catch will not be sold in Australia but in Asia and Africa. These super trawlers have already depleted and decimated fish stocks in the Northern Hemisphere and off the coast of Africa. Now this huge trawler the Margiris is coming down to do the same to Australia's.
This is an indiscriminate killing machine, and should be stopped immediately
Remember the saying: "There are plenty of fish in the sea"? Well' that's just not true anymore. With a history of causing fish stocks to collapse in West Africa and the Pacific, super trawlers are a major threat to the health of our marine ecosystem.
Far larger than any fishing vessel ever to fish in Australian waters, the Margiris is 142 metres long; it is the world’s second largest super trawler (the average Australian commercial fishing vessel is 25m long).
Its enormous nets routinely kill other sea life such as dolphins and seals, something the operators state is inevitable. This is unacceptable; all unsustainable fishing practices should be banned immediately!
Its not the size of the vessel you should be worrying about - its the quota level. 10x 25m vessels can take the same quota - actually a larger vessel is less likely to cause local depletion as it can fish the further from port. IN australia the measures are simple – ‘move on’ rules that stop fishing and move the vessel to a different location if dolphins are sighted. There have been no further reports of dolphin captures since mid-2005, and this is corroborated by observers and trawl net video cameras. There remains some ongoing risk of dolphin capture and management of this risk will require ongoing mitigation measures.” - move on distance is 50nm
Seal excluder devices have been developed and tested on similar fishing gear in southern Australian conditions and have been demonstrated to be highly effective.
"Here we have a situation where a fishing method is associated with very, very low risks of accidentally killing a handful of very, very numerous marine mammals."
Geoff Ashton authority on United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
UNCLOS Part V Article 62 says "The coastal State shall promote the objective of optimum utilization of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ARTICLE 61." And Article 61 says "The coastal State...shall ensure...that the maintenance of the living resources in the exclusive economic zone is NOT ENDANGERED BY OVER-EXPLOITATION." Over-exploitation is exactly what opponents are arguing is the problem with the Margiris.
I hope you don't have to represent me in court any time, the Australian Fisheries Act 1991 is a solid management system. The maximum TAC possible in Australian fisheries is 17.5% of total biomass and considered sustainable and is world class. Your claim of over exploitation is untrue because this TAC is 7.5% and leaves 92.5% of the biomass still in the ocean. Therefore I would say IT IS NOT ENDANGERED BY OVER-EXPLOITATION.... caps lock ups the impact.
These vessels have nuked small pelagic fish stocks everywhere they have been used - why bother trying to justify the inevitable result?
Leave our waters now. The damage a small trawler does to the floor of the ocean is irrapairable, and then you want to target specific species, what aload of rubbish. Who are you to wipe out species of animals for a big pay...I would like you to explain that to the next generation or your children/grandchildren when they ask what the f%^& happened & you can only say thats what i do to provide for my family.What you are doing now, you cannot put back, alive.
When a resource (e.g. fish) that has been plentiful for a long time starts becoming scarce, it may seem natural to increase the capacity to harvest that resource, but that only increases the competition among resource consumers, which increases the rate of resource depletion. In the age of dwindling natural resources, as humans we must now learn to create mechanisms (resource markets or governance systems, for example) that limit the rate of harvesting dwindling resources, not continue to use technology to "solve" the resource scarcity problem by allowing it to be harvested faster (e.g. with new super-trawlers).
As long as we keep going for the short term (usually economic) benefits, trying to postpone the inevitable crash of the resource, we will keep betraying ourselves and our children, eating the seed corn and soiling the nest.
The catch quotas are based on the best scientific advice and are deliberately conservative. They even allow for the age of the fish stock assessments by lowering the quota if the data is more than 5 years old.
It is not a solution for Europe's obese fishing fleet to be exported all around the world. This vessel has been fishing in the North Atlantic, South Pacific and West Africa. It has now set its hungry eyes on the Australian fishstocks. It's proposed quota of 18000 tons will be fished out within 3-4 months. What will be next?
AGAINST (13)
Initially I was in favour of the ban. The arguments against it are very weak. 45 jobs certainly isn't a lot, and it seemed to me that if there was a risk of overfishing, then the jobs of smaller fishing operations would be at risk. Also, while we indeed are morally obliged to help feed those people in parts of the world who are strugling, this should surely be done by helping these countries improve their own food production infrastructure, not by letting a foreign owned super-trawler SELL them food at what is certainly not going to be anything more than the highest price the market will bear. These guys are not in the charity business! However, after reading about the basis on which the catch limits are set, and about the minimal level of by-catch and the procedures in place to make sure that it IS minimal, (see http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/SPFdiscussionpaper_%28FINAL%29.pdf , and http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/06/super-trawler-faqs/ ) the arguments for the ban seem to be misguided. The best scientific evidence available suggests that the species of fish in question are in no danger of being overfished, the marine ecosystem in this part of the world is quite diverse, so predator species are not in particular danger in any case, the levels of by-catch for this type of trawling are minimal and procedures are in place both to monitor by-catch and to make sure by-catch iremains minimal, and laastly the age of the stock assessments has already been taken into account in determining the catch quotas. These quotas are deliberately conservative. Since there is no good reason to favour a ban, the default position would seem to be to allow the trawler to operate, but to make sure that its operations are carefully monitored.
Although the Margiris is being brought from overseas, it is being done by a Tasmanian company, so the operation is not foreign owned. All my other points stand however.
As pretty much the last major food source that hasn't been agriculturalised on a large scale fishing is something that requires careful management. On the one hand fish are tasty, nutritious and a source of income for many coastal populations. On the other hand fishing can lead to damage to marine ecosystems (either through overfishing, by-catch or damage to the seafloor and corals) and the collapse of fisheries.
Although the Margiris has turned out to be a lightening rod issue, it's distracting attention (although conservationists could use the issue to educate the public more about sustainable fisheries) from the complexities of fisheries management.
It may be the case that the catch allowed for the Margiris or for the fishery it is in is too high. If this is the case it obviously shouldn't be allowed to fish there. But a blanket ban on a ship due to its capacity to catch and process fish isn't the solution. There could be other Australian fisheries that it could operate in sustainably. Or there may not be - but the decision needs to be based around each fishery's capacity and good solid (and independent) research and monitoring.
I hope that the controversy surrounding the Margiris leads to more government investment in fisheries research (as some of the studies for the Margiris' proposed operating zone are woefully out of date) so this precious resource can be managed in a way that it will be there for future generations.
Oh yes we have devastated fisheries however the solution is not banning the Margiris. All of the "arguments for banning" have nothing to do with this ship. They have to do with the broader issue of sustainability and fishing stocks.
We should be looking at reducing the overall catch – from ALL ships – as this would actually address the issues of devastated fish stocks, by-catch and destruction of key species in the food chain. But banning this ship is too simplistic. The result would be others will take up the catch.
The Margiris gives people who are not engaged with the issue of sustainability an excuse to sign a petition, change their facebook status and be generally outraged at this “outsider ruining our fisheries” without having to lift a finger or actually change their own behaviour. It’s the Kony of the oceans.
The Margiris will catch the same amount as a smaller ship would – just in less time. You ban this ship the fish and by-produce will be caught by others.
You want more sustainable fisheries and less depletion of oceans? Don’t eat or buy from places that sell orange roughy (deep sea perch), blue grenadier, striped marlin or southern bluefin tuna.
I can see the “Stop The Margiris” wristbands now. On the wrists of warriors who have fought the good fight for our fisheries and are now lining up for flake and chips.
@alexilynch makes a great point here, but this “Against” actually responds to a different question, something like "How should we make our fishery management more sustainable?". You can shoehorn this point into the Margiris debate, but its real contribution is to open the discussion to the more strategic issue of sustainable fishing.
I wonder if there's a way to do that in YourView?
Thanks for your response @jeffconklin. I appreciate that the Margiris has the potential to open up the debate about sustainable fishing but I am not hopeful. To me it sounds feels like a ruse – the Margiris is not the issue.
I’m very much in favour of action to reduce fishing catches, even if it has involves bans; or all fish sales to carry traffic light warnings to tell consumers if they’re eating a threatened species; or something drastic, say a (eeek!) tax that consumers pay for.
However I genuinely believe banning the Margiris is not the answer and it is not fair to single out one ship.
I agree with your reasoning, but not your conclusion. I think it is unfair to ban one ship, but we desperately need sustainable fishing and banning one ship is better than a free for all. I am in favor of tighter regulation on fishing which means banning on ship today and more later. Callum Roberts has done extensive work on fisheries and it does not look good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callum_Roberts
The only relevant question I can see is whether the total damage being done to the fishery and the marine environment is increased by the operation of this vessel or not. I would have thought that the size of the vessel wasn't anywhere near as important as the overall damage caused by all vessels combined. A number of smaller vessels operating as a fleet could no doubt strip the resource just as efficiently, if not more so. Banning only a large ship - but not a fleet capable of worse - would be ridiculous.
The issue is really whether there is enough room for this ship in these fisheries or not. Were any smaller boats retired to make room for this behemoth? If not, and the fisheries are stressed: ban all new boats, not just large ones.
The ship and the marine environment do need to be monitored very closely. I concede that there may be an issue with more indiscriminate by-catch associated with larger boats. So let's get the data. Stick a fisheries inspector on the boat. Or put HD cameras on the hauling deck connected to a 'black box'. It's probably cheaper to police big boats rather than devote resources to chasing a nebulous fleet.
The bigger the nets, the longer it's dragged along, the more fish of all kinds are caught up. Which all means less opportunity to discard live fish that are endangered.
The arguments against the trawler are based on worst case scenarios about what would happen if the boat doesn't stick to its quota. Greenpeace and co should be arguing for strict enforcement of quotas and regulations, not banning this boat or that boat.
Quite right. We need the fishing industry to act as partners in the health of our fish stocks. And that's in their interests too.
There is a plethora of speculation as to the effect of the Margiris and its impact on Australian fisheries. None of it is factual; most of it is hot air. Would it not be better to conduct a logical, informed enquiry with factual overtones before even conducting a survey? Surely there is room for accuracy when making decisions about Australia's future.
Although there may be stock management issues in waters outside of Australia, AFMA is managing Australian fisheries better than anywhere else in the world. The science behind this quota and vessel is backed by australias best marine scientist. http://tasmaniantimes.com/images/uploads/SPFdiscussionpaper_%28FINAL%29.pdf http://www.sydneyfishmarket.com.au/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=L-DLXbsmBJA%3D&tabid=103 The general public has been ‘misled, misinformed or manipulated’ on this issue - the science clearly backs the Magiris. “I have no doubt that this fishery is an example of world’s best practice and it meets or exceeds the most rigorous scientific requirements for an ecologically sustainable fishery on forage fish.” - Keith Sainsbury
Although you have not actually made any of the points which these papers support, just quoting someone saying how well things are being managed is no substitute for actually giving reasons as to why this is the case, reading these has caused me to change my mind about the arguments in favour of the ban. They are all specifically dealt with already by the AFMA
The decision to grant permission to this vessel was based on best available information about the sustainability of this operation. Obviously, if new information indicates a likely problem, the quota should be reduced (and a smaller vessel might suffice).
It will devastate fish stocks by overfishing: NO. A conservative TAC is set based on science and worlds best practice. Perhaps some additional management regulations are required to minimise the chances of localised depletion (in any case the chance of significant localised depletion is low). These are being discussed. More so they may be required just to lay the public fears.
It will affect key species in the food chain; NO. Ecosystem modelling shows it won't affect higher order predators. This if further proved from studies in other fisheries with similar harvest rates.
It will result in by-catch: By-catch will occur but at an insignificant level (<1%). Further studies to monitor and perfect SED operation could be beneficial.
The stock assessments are out-dated: The management plan takes into account the age of the stock assessment so this is a non-issue. New stock assessments are being planned.
I was initially in favour of the ban, but having done some research, I came to exactly these same conclusions.
The worlds population is still growing, agricultural land area is contracting and the extremely fertile soils are doing it tough which pushes more and more food production into marginal soils and landscapes. Their is a lot of ocean and we need to start consuming a more diverse range of species from this huge natural resource. As affluence increases it would appear the consumption of higher trophic species also increases, consumers have preferences for minimal to zero bones, large single serve fillets and minimal to nil preperation prior to cooking. As a result we have seen a lot of the larger bodied species such as salmon, tuna, swordfish, flathead and blue eye to name a few become the dominant species available at fish mongers.
The rapid growth in aquaculture in the 90's drove a demand for cheap meal and also requires wild caught fish oil to add to the fish diets to boost their long chain omega-3 content, specifically EPA and DHA. Scientists and the community realised you could not rely on fish proteins to fatten the stock and as a result a very concerted effort in the aquaculture sector globally has lead to the fish in, fish out ratio being bought down to a far more sustainable level. This is great news for the small pelagic fish and also opens the door way for the large trawler fleets to explore higher value markets for this fish as opposed to meal. Due to the high oil content, small bodies and inability to rapidly gut the fish they need to be frozen whole rapidly to reduce the chance of spoilage. This either limits vessels without freezer capacity to a geographical extremity dictated by their onshore freezer or you need a freezer trawler.
I am all for these low trophic species being eaten and caught, the science has been debated and proven robust, the fishery is being managed in accordance with the Australian Fisheries Managment Act 1991 which is recognised as world class. Many of the objectors here have simply opposed the big boat and I bet well over half will consume some cheap imported prawns this week, eat a high order trophic species like flake and chips and also make multiple purchasing decisions for their diet solely on price rather than impact on the world. Moral high ground "liking" on facebook is so easy but this really is the next Kony! Hypocracy is rife with the so called "majority of Australians opposed to the trawler" yet the majority of Australians do not eat responsible seafood choices and we import 72% of our seafood demonstrating we are not eating what is available in our own ocean and want what the other nations have.
One big ship replacing several smaller ships but total catch unchanged so what is the big problem.
Should let regulators do their work based on best science available, not change rules at last minute
An extra 18000 tonnes will dramatically affect the eco-system.
You might want to clarify your position. Are you for, or against, a ban on this supertrawler?
Again another "flash in the pan" moral social media campaign failed to read the questions and understand the issue perhaps? I like how they have posed the question to show who is reading it.