I'm with Steve on this. Nuff said.

Cheers Matt; we'll gettem!

We'll get them alright.

Thank you for the email of the enemy..As a teacher, I'll have a few things to get off my chest, with regard to children. Plus, i have all summer to do it..again, and again, and again..... :twisted:

I'm starting forcing my friends to sign a e-mail that will be sent to Owen Symmans afterwards.

I will write to him, but he might just send it off to the Trash Bin.

Send one every day. Email and regular mail (because it's all to easy to block somebody :wink: ). Much easier when you know someone who can send letters for free from work. Ask your friends to do the same.
And remember that you can create endless accounts on Hotmail (and other such providers).

He's bound to read one in the end. Refrain from abusive language, never goes very far... trust me, i know :hmm:
Best way is to prep a letter detailling your impressions about that bottom trawling stuff (note: don't use "stuff" either) and making a constructed reflection (i.e. including the fishing industry's point of view and the fact that you can understand why they do that but disagreeing with it all the while). Then send it to :oshea: for review (he likes the extra work) and get ready to flood Mr Symmans' mailbox.

TPOTH

:grin:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3314782a7693,00.html

Injunction against Greenpeace fails
16 June 2005
By ELEANOR WILSON

A Nelson fishing company has failed to obtain a High Court injunction to stop Greenpeace protesters approaching one of its trawlers.

Amaltal accused activists aboard Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior of piracy, claiming they deliberately damaged its deep-sea trawler Ocean Reward during protests last week.

Greenpeace spokesman Dean Baigent-Mercer said Amaltal, part-owned by Nelson company Talley's Fisheries Ltd, had twice applied for a High Court injunction since the clash more than 550km offshore in the Tasman Sea last week, but had been unsuccessful on both occasions.

"Amaltal has twice sought an injunction to stop the Rainbow Warrior from going near the Ocean Reward," he said. "Twice we have been happy to provide undertakings and information to the court which shows that we are not intending to go near the Ocean Reward."

The undertakings included that Greenpeace would not interfere with the Ocean Reward's fishing operation or go within 50m of it at sea, he said.

Activists prevented four trawls over two days last week as part of a campaign against bottom-trawling.

Amaltal's latest bid to have the injunction enforced, in the High Court in Auckland on Tuesday, failed when Greenpeace told the court its yacht was heading back to Nelson.

"We hope that Amaltal will now put its efforts into addressing the destruction caused by its activities to the marine life at the bottom of the sea," Baigent-Mercer said.

Amaltal managing director Andrew Talley said Greenpeace's undertakings meant the injunction was no longer necessary.

He said Amaltal was still considering whether to apply for compensation for thousands of dollars of damage it claims was deliberately caused to the Ocean Reward's net by Greenpeace.

"We're still considering the issue in respect of damages," said Talley.

Talley told reporters last week the trawler was being "attacked by a bunch of hairies and hippies with knives and gaffs".

Greenpeace denied the claim, saying the damage was not deliberate and happened when activists tied a liferaft to the net to prevent it being deployed.

The protesters claimed the trawler crew responded by spraying them with high-pressure water hoses and firing potato "bullets" at them from "spud guns".

The Greenpeace boat and its 24-strong crew have spent nearly three weeks at sea campaigning for a moratorium on bottom-trawling in international waters.

Go Greenpeace, go and tie barrels to their nets and top them from destroying the world's oceans. Now, my friends say that bottom trawling is like justifying that blowing up New York does nto affect humans becuase the Saharen Desert is unharmed. Right?

Heaven's; these are Questions and Answers discussed in parliament. Check out the end bit (but follow the thread!!!).

...........
3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Conservation: What conservation goals led the Government to end the logging of indigenous forests on Crown-managed land?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Conservation): The Government protected indigenous forests on Crown-owned and managed land to help meet the goals of the New Zealand biodiversity strategy. These included maintaining and restoring a full range of remaining natural habitats and ecosystems to a healthy, functioning condition.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the biodiversity strategy also apply under the sea; if so, will he agree that the same goals should apply to the equally ancient underwater forests of tall corals and their multitude of associated species, and what discussion has he had with his colleague the Minister of Fisheries about ways of protecting them?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Indeed it does, and, in fact, in 2004 the Government adopted a strategy to protect deep-water biodiversity.

David Parker: What other actions has the Government taken to meet the conservation goals of the biodiversity strategy?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have increased funding for the Department of Conservation by over 40 percent, enabling it to tackle weed and pest problems better than ever before. We have embarked on the most ambitious island pest eradication programme found anywhere in the world. Large new areas of forest, high-country, and coastal land have been protected as public conservation land. Eleven new marine reserves have been created, and 2 percent of our exclusive economic zone is now in some form of marine protection.

Jim Peters: What goal motivated the Government to give the West Coast councils $120 million of taxpayers’ money to cut taxpayer-owned forests, yet that Minister denied many SILNA landowners compensation for the Government’s denial of their right to realise the economic value of the lands awarded to them by this House in 1906?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I know that it was National that exempted the SILNA forests from an amendment to the Forests Act in 1993. By the time National was thrown out of office in 1999, it had not resolved the issues. This Government adopted a comprehensive policy for SILNA forests in 2002.

David Parker: Has the Minister seen any reports that some of the indigenous forests protected since 1999 could be at risk?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Indeed I have. I have seen a recent report that Don Brash and Nick Smith had called for resumption of logging of the West Coast native forests, which were protected under the Labour Government.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is it not true that conservation goals would be assisted better if his strategy required all fishing methods to undergo environmental impact assessment, as the Greens have proposed, and what representations is his department making to advance this?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: My department—indeed, the Government—is very committed to the defence of New Zealand’s unique marine biodiversity. Different Government departments continue to collaborate closely on that issue.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has he seen the recent Greenpeace photos in the New Zealand Herald today, and on television on Sunday, in which New Zealand fishing vessels are shown hauling up, then dumping over the side, giant corals and rare sea creatures, and how long does he think it is acceptable for that practice to continue?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Indeed I have seen those photographs, but I am pleased to announce that, today, my colleague David Benson-Pope, the Minister of Fisheries, announced that New Zealand, together with Chile and Australia, would lead development of a regional fisheries management agreement that will give greater protection to high-seas biodiversity.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Returning to New Zealand’s economic zone, rather than the high seas, does he agree with marine biologist Dr Steve O’Shea, of Auckland University, as reported in today’s New Zealand Herald, who describes bottom trawling as absolute annihilation, and goes on to say: “There should be some urgency. For God’s sake, let’s do something practical now before it’s too late.”; if so, what will he do in New Zealand waters?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Indeed I do agree with those comments, but as there is no international proposal at the moment for a complete moratorium on bottom trawling, New Zealand is working closely with Australia to develop a regional agreement.

[said]: marine biologist Dr Steve O’Shea, of Auckland University

:roll: Apart from a few factual errors...

Here's a very interesting thread!!

http://www.vnv.org.au/Articles/Fish.htm

Just the intro below; it is followed by numerous links (very interesting information) that I cannot post online.

SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH FISHING?

By David Ogilvie
Introduction
"So what is wrong with fishing?", I hear you sceptically ask. Well, in my opinion, there's not much actually right with it. There are so many issues associated with modern fishing practices that it actually makes it difficult to justify the consumption of fish and seafood at all. Globally, the growing human population and seemingly insatiable desire for seafood has come at a great cost. Studies have shown that two-thirds of the world's fish stocks are being fished unsustainably. Many species are disappearing altogether and once thriving fisheries are collapsing.

People who reduce consumption of red meat often opt for fish and seafood as a 'healthy' alternative. The fact is that there is NO evidence implying that fish or seafood is necessary for optimal individual health. Omega-3 essential fatty acids can be obtained from other sources, and the believed dietary benefits of fish and seafood are questionable when their fat and cholesterol content, and often high levels of heavy metals and other contaminants, are considered.

On this page we outline the current status of fisheries around the world, cover some of the issues surrounding both commercial and recreational fishing, and discuss fish and human health.

... and this, dating back to 2002!! Bottom Trawling is not new news!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2002/boston_2002/1823575.stm

By BBC News Online's Jonathan Amos in Boston

Deep-sea trawlers are destroying populations of fish and other creatures in the ocean at an alarming rate, according to research presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting in Boston.

In the Southern Ocean lush forests of invertebrates have been literally stripped from the top of seamounts

Dr Callum Roberts
Fishermen are now using military sonar to hunt in the deep ocean, but the slow life cycles of the species that live hundreds of metres below the surface mean their populations will collapse if they are exposed to industrial-scale exploitation.

"In the deep sea, fishing gear is encountering species and habitats that are much less able to bounce back from the effects of fishing than those that live in the fast lane of the shallow seas," Dr Callum Roberts, from the University of York, UK, told the meeting.

"The pace of life in the deep sea is literally glacial. Species grow extremely slowly and they live to extraordinary ages, so, for example, the orange roughy can reach 150 years old and they don't reproduce until they are in their mid-20s to mid-30s."

Short-lived catches

Licensing fishing or introducing quota schemes to preserve stocks was unlikely to be effective, said Dr Roberts. Marine reserves, he believes, are the only answer. The problem is that deep-sea fisheries are in international waters and getting many countries to agree to a proposal that would close off thousands of square kilometres of ocean to trawlers will be extremely difficult.

"What is more, the move to deep-water fishing is being encouraged by governments who are offering subsidies to alleviate the hardship that has been brought on by the collapse of shallow-water fish stocks," Dr Roberts said.

"There is a worldwide scramble to exploit deep-sea fish. Forty percent of the world's trawling grounds are now waters that are deeper than the edge of the continental shelves."

The early rewards from deep-sea fishing can be extremely high. The orange roughy fisheries that took off in the 1980s around seamounts in the waters off New Zealand and Australia were said to be producing catches of 60 tonnes from a 20 minute trawl.

'Lush forests'

"But the decline came very swiftly and today there is less than 20% of the roughy there were 10 or 15 years ago," Dr Roberts said.

The impact of fishing in the deep sea goes far beyond just removing the fish. Fisheries are concentrated into places that have the greatest biological significance; places like seamounts and canyon walls where materials that are wafted in on currents support rich communities of species - corals, sponges, seafans and hydroids.

Deep-sea fishing is said to be inflicting terrible collateral damage on these species as trawl meshes plough through the water.

"Off the East Coast of North America bizarre and beautiful fields of glass sponges have been trawled to oblivion. In the Southern Ocean, 'lush forests' of invertebrates have been literally stripped from the top of seamounts by trawlers targeting orange roughy."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0506/S00276.htm

Chile commits to Sth Pacific fisheries management
Tuesday, 14 June 2005, 1:20 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government
14 June 2005
Chile commits to South Pacific fisheries management

Chile has committed to join with New Zealand and Australia to lead the development of a regional fisheries management agreement that will help protect high seas biodiversity, Fisheries Minister David Benson-Pope announced today.

“Chile is a key coastal state in the eastern South Pacific,” said Mr Benson-Pope. “At a meeting held last week with New Zealand officials, the Chilean Under-Secretary of Fisheries committed to join with New Zealand and Australia to develop a Regional Fisheries Management Organisation to cover non-tuna fisheries in the South Pacific region. This includes species like orange roughy, alfonsino, oreo dories and jack mackerel.

“It is vital that we secure international buy-in and corporation so that management measures are effective and binding on all states with vessels fishing in the area," said Mr Benson-Pope. “A key role of the new organisation will be to manage the adverse impacts of fishing activity on biodiversity, including the seafloor.

"Bottom trawling can take a heavy toll on marine life in vulnerable areas and it is in everybody’s interests to improve management of the practice throughout the world.”

New Zealand and Australia began taking action early this year to establish the new regional fisheries management organisation, which will plug gaps in the legal framework for the conservation and management of high seas fisheries.

“The most practical solution globally to problems caused by deep sea bottom trawling is to have more effective management of high seas areas,” Mr Benson-Pope said. “New Zealand places a great deal of significance on fisheries cooperation in the Pacific and Southern Oceans. Our desire is to work with other nations in the region to promote international ‘best practice’ in fisheries management, and the protection of the environment."

The next stage will come in February 2006, when New Zealand will host the first inter-governmental meeting with interested states, to discuss the establishment of the new organisation.

The next stage will come in February 2006, when New Zealand will host the first inter-governmental meeting with interested states, to discuss the establishment of the new organisation.

What I don't understand is why this has to get bogged down in bureaucracy. The evidence is there. The fishing practice is destructive! Why cannot they just meet around a table right now and thrash this out!!

I am in no way criticising the Minister. This Government has an extraordinary record when it comes to environmental matters. However, despite it being a very-promising development, the crisis is here and now, and the matter must be dealt with with the same degree or urgency.

From France
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/15/opinion/ednikita.php

It's the least we can do for our world
Nikita Lopoukhine International Herald Tribune

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2005

There have always been protected areas, though not always for the same reasons. Robin Hood poached deer in the Royal Sherwood Forest, an area protected for royal hunting parties.

The Yellowstone and Banff National Parks in North America were set up in the 19th century for the enjoyment of ordinary people, though the needs of residents were not taken into account.

More recently, the notion of conserving areas has been extended to include not only nature, but also the way of life of the people living in them. In many parts of the world, the lands on which indigenous and traditional peoples depend for their survival are now protected.

Six categories of protection are recognized around the world, from a strict-protection regime to one devoted to the sustainable use of resources. Each meets the World Conservation Union definition of a protected area and is a legitimate approach to integrating conservation with other uses.

Such areas, of course, are good for protecting nature. Yet it is not science alone that drives their establishment. Emotion is part of the equation: People feel strongly about the beauty of a landscape or the possible loss of species like the grizzly bear.

More and more, people are embracing protected areas as a tool to ensure that their lands and lifestyles are both protected for future generations. This has resulted in the establishment of more than 100,000 protected areas around the world, covering nearly 12 percent of the world's land area. The percentage is even higher if it includes privately protected areas or community-based conservation zones.

Yet less than half of 1 percent of the world's oceans are similarly protected, despite strong evidence of the value of protected marine areas for restocking depleted fisheries. At the same time, deep-sea trawling is destroying productive areas of the world; species as yet unnamed are disappearing and important fisheries are collapsing one after another.

Despite the world's seeming enthusiasm for the idea of protected areas, the reality is less encouraging. Budgets are stagnating, infrastructure is collapsing, marine ecosystems are woefully underrepresented and the protected values are increasingly at risk from threats that are global as much as local. In addition, climate change is poised to cause dramatic changes in protected areas.

More than 50 percent of the world's population lives in an urban setting. The human experience of the natural world is declining, and the protection of nature is foundering in the face of poverty and loss of livelihoods.

There is no question that donors and governments must respond to the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the United Nations, which are intended to combat poverty. Unfortunately, this is often done to the detriment of conservation, notwithstanding the clear statement by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, that "Environmental sustainability is the foundation on which strategies for achieving all the other Millennium Development Goals are based."

In effect, if we ignore the health of ecosystems, our efforts elsewhere are doomed.

Protected areas are important to the world and the people living within and around them. They provide ecosystem services such as clean water for communities or cities like New York. They contribute to human health by offering mental and physical exercise. They store carbon, and thus mitigate the global warming effects of gas emissions. Protected areas also serve as a buffer against the impacts of extreme storm events, like the 2004 Asian tsunami.

The Biodiversity Convention signed by more than 180 governments recognizes protected areas for their value in the conservation of biodiversity. The convention provides a blueprint for renewing the fervor that initially built up the world's protected area estate.

This week, the Italian government is sponsoring a meeting here of an international group of experts, policy makers, scientists and donors. With financing in place, the mandate of protected areas can be met and targets achieved, supporting the UN millennium goals and reflecting a commitment to significantly reduce biodiversity loss by 2010.

If we get it right, there will be no need for a future Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the poor.

There have always been protected areas, though not always for the same reasons. Robin Hood poached deer in the Royal Sherwood Forest, an area protected for royal hunting parties.

The Yellowstone and Banff National Parks in North America were set up in the 19th century for the enjoyment of ordinary people, though the needs of residents were not taken into account.

More recently, the notion of conserving areas has been extended to include not only nature, but also the way of life of the people living in them. In many parts of the world, the lands on which indigenous and traditional peoples depend for their survival are now protected.

Six categories of protection are recognized around the world, from a strict-protection regime to one devoted to the sustainable use of resources. Each meets the World Conservation Union definition of a protected area and is a legitimate approach to integrating conservation with other uses.

Such areas, of course, are good for protecting nature. Yet it is not science alone that drives their establishment. Emotion is part of the equation: People feel strongly about the beauty of a landscape or the possible loss of species like the grizzly bear.

More and more, people are embracing protected areas as a tool to ensure that their lands and lifestyles are both protected for future generations. This has resulted in the establishment of more than 100,000 protected areas around the world, covering nearly 12 percent of the world's land area. The percentage is even higher if it includes privately protected areas or community-based conservation zones.

Yet less than half of 1 percent of the world's oceans are similarly protected, despite strong evidence of the value of protected marine areas for restocking depleted fisheries. At the same time, deep-sea trawling is destroying productive areas of the world; species as yet unnamed are disappearing and important fisheries are collapsing one after another.

Despite the world's seeming enthusiasm for the idea of protected areas, the reality is less encouraging. Budgets are stagnating, infrastructure is collapsing, marine ecosystems are woefully underrepresented and the protected values are increasingly at risk from threats that are global as much as local. In addition, climate change is poised to cause dramatic changes in protected areas.

More than 50 percent of the world's population lives in an urban setting. The human experience of the natural world is declining, and the protection of nature is foundering in the face of poverty and loss of livelihoods.

There is no question that donors and governments must respond to the Millennium Development Goals adopted by the United Nations, which are intended to combat poverty. Unfortunately, this is often done to the detriment of conservation, notwithstanding the clear statement by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, that "Environmental sustainability is the foundation on which strategies for achieving all the other Millennium Development Goals are based."

In effect, if we ignore the health of ecosystems, our efforts elsewhere are doomed.

Protected areas are important to the world and the people living within and around them. They provide ecosystem services such as clean water for communities or cities like New York. They contribute to human health by offering mental and physical exercise. They store carbon, and thus mitigate the global warming effects of gas emissions. Protected areas also serve as a buffer against the impacts of extreme storm events, like the 2004 Asian tsunami.

The Biodiversity Convention signed by more than 180 governments recognizes protected areas for their value in the conservation of biodiversity. The convention provides a blueprint for renewing the fervor that initially built up the world's protected area estate.

This week, the Italian government is sponsoring a meeting here of an international group of experts, policy makers, scientists and donors. With financing in place, the mandate of protected areas can be met and targets achieved, supporting the UN millennium goals and reflecting a commitment to significantly reduce biodiversity loss by 2010.

If we get it right, there will be no need for a future Robin Hood to steal from the rich to give to the poor.

(Nikita Lopoukhine, formerly director general of national parks in Canada, is chair of the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas.)

Wouldn't you know it!! Our dear friend, Owen Symmans, is ex meatworks (as in he has absolutely no experience with fisheries!!!!)

When he was with the meatworks he made this marvelous statement (in red in the passage below). Sound familiar?
Environment Canterbury chairman Richard Johnson said it was up to the dairy industry to clean up its act if it wanted to promote its products as clean and green. Dairy Board industry relations manager Owen Symmans said a set of industry guidelines were being prepared that would assist farmers to mitigate environmental impacts. "The industry recognises the need to be a good corporate citizen and be aware of the environment."

From the following link:
http://www.fishing.net.nz/news/index.cfm?fullarticle=219&newsid=219

DAIRYING KILLING FISH, SAY ANGLERS -
10 April 2001
Canterbury's reputation as a fishing paradise is under threat from farm pollution killing fish in rivers, fishermen say. The New Zealand Fish and Game Council is calling for urgent action to regulate the rapidly expanding dairy industry in Canterbury which it blames, in part, for one of the worst fishing seasons on record. Hunting and fishing drew an estimated 100,000 tourists last year, who spent more, proportionally, than other visitors, according to a New Zealand Tourism Board survey. Fishing is also popular with locals, with more than 14,000 fishing licence holders in the region.

North Canterbury Fish and Game regional manager Ross Millichamp said there was now virtually no trout fishing in Canterbury's lowland streams, which were running dry because of drought and over-abstraction by irrigators. "The low-country trout fishing in coastal streams has been dreadful and the salmon fishing has been rubbish this year. "It's probably half of last year, and last year was not particularly good. It's easily the worst run we've measured in recent years," he said.

Fish and Game director Bryce Johnson said fishing was under threat from the dairy industry which was discharging huge amounts of effluent into South Island waterways. "The current number of cows in the South Island are producing as much sewage as 10 million people," Mr Johnson said. South Island cow numbers were up more than 300 per cent in the last 10 years, with milk solids production up 400 per cent, he said, quoting Dairy Board figures. More than 90 dairy conversions are under way in Canterbury. "This is a colossal change in farming practice and we're seeing a definite increase in pollution which is being inadequately managed by dairy farmers and regional councils," Mr Johnson said.

Fishing guide Patti Magnano, who immigrated from the United States 13 years ago, said high-country streams were becoming crowded. Locals, unable to fish damaged waterways near Christchurch, were joining tourists flown in by helicopter, leading to over-fishing of mountain streams. "The pressure on the high-country streams has become extreme," she said. "It is not sustainable with that many anglers." Malcolm Bell, who owns the Complete Angler shop in Christchurch, said it was embarrassing when tourists asked if they would find fish nearby. "You know what? They can't," he said. The Selwyn River, which had 60,000 trout in it in the 1940s, was typical of many lowland waterways suffering because of too much irrigation, he said. "The fishery has been virtually eliminated because there's not enough water," Mr Bell said. "When I went to the Selwyn last there were no fish and I was horrified by the smell."

Environment Canterbury chairman Richard Johnson said it was up to the dairy industry to clean up its act if it wanted to promote its products as clean and green. Dairy Board industry relations manager Owen Symmans said a set of industry guidelines were being prepared that would assist farmers to mitigate environmental impacts. "The industry recognises the need to be a good corporate citizen and be aware of the environment."
The Press 29/3/01

Hello Mr Symmans,

I am writing to you to express my point of view regarding deep-sea trawling and its impacts. I am passionate about the sea and the creatures inhabiting it. I see the practice of deep-sea trawling as a rather ruthless and non-selective method of fishing that needs to be reviewed.

I understand that a lot of people rely on this practice for their living and I am not about to say "No Fishing". What I am saying is that we need to be up-front about this fishing process and how destructive it is to the marine environment.

The obvious consolation for those working in the fishing industry is to provide new opportunities for them like Aquaculture, where their interests and experience would be valuable.

As the sea-floor is being destroyed you are eliminating not only the fish stocks, of these often-long-lived species, but annihilating the breeding grounds, feeding grounds and spawning grounds of prey items as well!!!

Bottom trawling is often compared to clear-felling of forests yet the process is allowed to continue? Why?

I am a 24 year old masters student who has been made aware of the disturbing processes going on in New Zealand waters. We need to do something about this NOW, not next year or the year later, otherwise as more and more of the public are being made aware of this method of fishing and its destructive nature, you may well see boycotts to the eating of deep-sea fish species which would have an immediate impact on fisherman and their livelihoods.

Why are you letting the obviousness of this destruction continue? I hope it is not a matter of "out of sight, out of mind" because that would be truly sad.

C'm'on everyone, we've all got some way of making a point, now's the time!!!

Thanks Jason!! An excellent letter! Others, please do write to him. He might be, given his dairy industry background, legitimately ignorant of fishing industry practices. Perhaps he's not deliberately lying - perhaps he truly believes what he is saying. You might just sway this man.

Ask him, in light of overwhelming evidence, would his industry consider a voluntary moratorium on high-seas bottom trawling. That would be one way of saving grace (and enable them to crawl from this very deep hole that they have dug for themselves, and retain some dignity).

Pride is a terrible thing!

Maybe he doesn't know much about fishing practices, but maybe he does and he's just lying...or maybe he does know it but is pressured to keep the fisherfolks happy so that the dough can continue to roll into the goverment coffers.

Well said Jason!

Regardless of the environmental destruction caused by bottom-trawling the fisher-folk themselves are in trouble. The only reason there are trawlers operating in international waters is that fisheries closer in have been depleted. These days fishermen have to steam further and further, trawl for longer and longer just to cover overheads. I for one would be interested in the nationalities and pay-rates of the fishermen filmed by Greenpeace throwing that big piece of coral overboard. But that's a whole other story.

The point is, that if this method of fishing continues the industry will eventually collapse, and when that happens (and it will happen) everyone will have lost.

Almost forgot, gotta agree with Matt.

At the risk of a cliche, I had the idea of some sort of online petition could be organised at TONMO to be sent to Owen Symmans. We certainly could gather a great number of signatures.

However, I then realised that he only needs to delete such a petition once. Maybe it would be better for him to receive numerous individual letters to sustain pressure. They would probably have more (if any) impact.

INdeed, the time is urgent....we must make haste. Timing is everything. I agree with Steve! Why Wait...They know the issues, they know the problem..

do you think they are stalling for something? Or is it just paperwork and coffee?

I hate to quote huge industries...but "NIKE" Got it right.....Just DO It!

Gaetan with 2 days left of school.

Greenpeace have produced an excellent bottom trawling action toolkit (http://greenpeace.org.nz/pdf/bottom_trawling_action_toolkit.pdf). One needs an acrobat .pdf reader to open it.

This includes contact addresses, suggested courses of action and tips on phrasing letters to newspapers and to Owen Symmans and Helen Clark.

I got the toolkit and yes, let's all sign some sort of petition to Owen, ( who needs his eyes checked)

Can Tony launch a page that has an online petition?

G

I think there's a website that does that, but people spam a lot there. I would suggest that we start a thread, those that signs it should just respond once and leave their full name or maybe even location.

do we know that lady in the pic of the pdf that Phil posted????

Phil, ever hear if anything like this is going on for our area?

Nah, never seen her before

:shock: Aw, crap. Not again... :oops:
Seems the time is ripe for contacting people about environmental issues... I fired an email off to the head of the Green Party in NZ today about the Kyoto protocol and the botched calculations of NZ greenhouse gases. Maybe I should write to Helen and Owen next. :twisted:

Go get em' fisch!!!

You go, get'em.


Like my sig?

I quite like your signature!!

It's been a busy past few days; rewards will become apparent in another four days. Nevertheless, there has been some good news on the conservation front, down here in NZ.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10331365

MP wants law revamp to avoid marine battlefield
18.06.05

By Anne Beston

The process of deciding on areas of marine conservation needs a major revamp, says Conservation Minister Chris Carter.

A bill now languishing in Parliament gives the Minister of Conservation sole power to decide on marine reserves without having to consult the Ministers of Fisheries and Transport, as happens now.

But that bill needed to be re-written, Mr Carter said, because "every proposal becomes a major battle".

He wants working groups set up to propose marine reserve areas, instead of the Department of Conservation leading the charge.

The groups, three of which have already been established, will comprise DoC staff, iwi, commercial and recreational fishers and conservationists.

"It's more sensible to do the negotiation at the beginning," Mr Carter said.

The latest battleground is the Great Barrier Island marine reserve, approved by the minister this week and opposed by recreational fishers and some commercial companies.

At 49,500ha, it dwarfs others close to the mainland and is the first to stretch to the 12-mile limit, something fishers consider a dangerous precedent.

Forest and Bird spokesman David Pattemore said another problem with the Marine Reserves Act 1971 was that the minister had to justify approval of a reserve by detailing how he had taken account of opposition.

That meant "strong support" for reserves was not taken into account.

But Gulf Harbour charter fisherman Damian Clayton said the Barrier reserve would exclude a favoured spot for kingfish and snapper.

"Why it had to take up nearly 50,000ha, I just don't get it."

... and more detail. Go Chris Carter!!! Just before an election this is the best thing that you could have done, contrary to some statements in this report!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10331164

Legal showdown over Hauraki no-fishing zone
17.06.05

By Anne Beston

A legal showdown is looming between recreational fishers and Conservation Minister Chris Carter now a giant no-fishing zone at the gateway to the Hauraki Gulf looks almost certain to go ahead.

Fishers have fought a long and sometimes bitter battle over the Great Barrier marine reserve, the first to stretch from the coast as far as the 12-mile limit and, at 49,500ha, dwarfing others around New Zealand.

They campaigned for more than two years to get the proposal either dumped or substantially downsized.

But the minister has approved virtually the area as proposed in 2003 that saw a series of angry public meetings and a Department of Conservation questionnaire on the reserve ending up as wrapper for a dead possum - widely seen as a threat from reserve opponents because the island has always been free of the pests.

The original boundary is downsized by just 500ha in the final version, so a handful of local families can continue to fish and gather seafood at Whangapoua Inlet.

Recreational Fishing Council president Keith Ingram said that was a "bribe" to local iwi, some of whom opposed the reserve.

Fishers were "very disappointed" by the minister's decision.

"We didn't think he would be so dumb just before an election," Mr Ingram said.

He would not be drawn on what legal action his council might take but the Herald understands a court challenge is almost certain after plans to mount legal action against the Waiheke Island marine reserve, approved in 2003, were shelved to fight this one instead.

Mr Ingram said the Great Barrier reserve would deny game fishermen the right to hunt marlin, kingfish and tuna at a favoured spot. "[The minister] has once again adopted a steamroller tactic," said Mr Ingram.

"This marine reserve will become a haven for poachers and thieves because there simply isn't the means to enforce compliance."

But Mr Carter said islanders would help police it, as would Department of Conservation staff on the island, and said 2200 of the 3513 submissions on the reserve were supportive.

He also cited a Colmar Brunton poll commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund which found 95 per cent of New Zealanders thought the marine environment needed protection. "A lot of people out there think we should be doing more," he said.

Conservation lobby group Forest and Bird yesterday welcomed the decision.

"New Zealand's record in marine protection lags well behind our achievements in creating national parks and reserves on land," said spokesman David Pattemore.

:notworth: My biggest beef with environmental organizations is that they are frequently so interested in rallying their members by being as polarized as possible that they alienate possible valuable allies. I believe that a great deal of positive progress can be made on environmental issues by reaching out to people who have sound sensibilities, but aren't (and don't want to be) "environmental zealots." Rather than embracing an "us vs. them" attitude, I think it's a great idea to educate the fishermen about the truth, and get their support in effecting change!

I think (although perhaps I am naive) that a lot of people in the fishing and forestry industries are very much like your friend-- but often, they have been brought into the "group think" of their communities to think that environmentalists are all unrealistic and idealistic and "out to get them." And likewise, many environmental groups seem to raise money and energize their members by vilifying fishermen, foresters, corporate leaders, and the like.

Because I agree with Greenpeace's stance with respect to bottom trawling, I haven't been inclined to mention this, but I think Greenpeace has frequently been guilty of taking political and strategic positions that are part of the problem more than part of the solution, frequently because of internal factions and a need to pander to their supporters idealized and romanticized positions on issues, even when those are at odds with what's actually good for the environment or what would make the most effective impact on the problems. I know a number of very smart people who care deeply about the evironment who have left Greenpeace in various degrees of disgust, as well as some people who have been attacked by Greenpeace as "the enemy" who actually would have been open to being (or even had been) Greenpeace supporters!

I feel mildly guilty for this rant, because I also respect Kat and :oshea: enough that I don't want to come across as saying supporting Greenpeace is bad or anything, but I really think that Greenpeace and other environmental organizations are stuck in a bad, intellectually inbred place that makes them much less effective than they could be. I'm also curious if other people have not seen these problems with Greenpeace, or if they just tolerate them because they believe in the cause? "

===>Hey, don't feel in the least bit guilty about your opinion. Hey,
we live in free countries, don't we? Anyhoo, I happen to agree with
you, in that organizations such as Greenpeace tend to take a "radical"
approach to their stances. In fact, I would argue that they do far more
harm than good.

Activism as a means to promote change tends to be counterproductive,
as it absolutely DOES alienate those who would otherwise side with
their points of view. I myself am a prime example--at one point, I
sided with organizations such as Greenpeace, PETA, et al., until I
discovered the tactics utilized by them to achieve their goals. Now,
I stand nearly 100% opposed to them--at least in terms of their
single-minded approach to problems, and their grand sweeping
generalizations of said problems. (I realize that I, too, run the risk
of making a grand sweeping generalization here, but. . . .)

The fishermen are NOT evil people, at least not as a whole. And
corporations, too, are not inherently evil. Hell, capitalism for that
matter is not evil. Just because THEIR goals and objectives at times
conflict with those of Greenpeace make them (in Greenpeace's eyes)
"sinners" who need to be stopped at all costs.

I feel that this viewpoint is ludicrous, because the folks at Greenpeace
are NOT taking into consideration the fishermen's (and corporations')
needs. They are in those particular businesses to make a profit,
which enables them to feed their families. I don't know about any
of you, but I put my family FIRST *before* any environmental
concerns.

I also reject the notion of "buying off" the fishing industry--i.e., giving
their money NOT to fish, for several reasons: 1. Who is going to
pay them? It had better not be MY government that does--after all,
the government's money is MY money. That is known as corporate
welfare, and it already exists too much, at least here in the States.
2. If they don't fish, then the supply of their product will decrease,
which will lead to shortages and higher prices. That's simple
capitalism. 3. The fishing industry will learn nothing from such
a tactic, and worse, will keep them from determining alternative
methods of harvesting their product (e.g., ways other than
bottom trawling).

I guess to sum up, I agree that there are genuine (and very
important) concerns about this method of fishing; however,
an activist response is NOT the way to go about it.

My solution: let the capitalist market sort it out. Give them
a financial incentive to come up with a safer (and more efficient)
method, such as (for example) through technological innovation.
Abandon Greenpeace and its unproductive methods, and utilize
your new-found time, energy, and resources by coming up with
a better solution--AND SELL THOSE IDEAS AND/OR RESULTING
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FISHING COMPANIES. You make money
in the process, the fishing companies make money in the process,
and bottom trawling ends--everybody wins!

I fully understand that most folks in Greenpeace are NOT
capitalists (quite the opposite); however, the free world is,
and as the free market economy is the most powerful, making
enemies with them is foolish, and ultimately, counterproductive.

It's late, so I don't have much time to make a more coherent
argument, but I sign off with a quote from _Atlas Shrugged_,
"The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality."

(Incidentally, one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated on
Penn & Teller's show, _Bullshit!_, that Greenpeace no longer
represents what the organzation was founded for, and that most of
its initial goals were achieved, and that it now stirs up "new" problems
to justify its own existence--much like Jesse Jackson here in the
U.S.)

Flame away! :twisted: :tomato:

Vincent

....
I guess to sum up, I agree that there are genuine (and very
important) concerns about this method of fishing; however,
an activist response is NOT the way to go about it.

My solution: let the capitalist market sort it out. Give them
a financial incentive to come up with a safer (and more efficient)
method, such as (for example) through technological innovation.
Abandon Greenpeace and its unproductive methods, and utilize
your new-found time, energy, and resources by coming up with
a better solution--AND SELL THOSE IDEAS AND/OR RESULTING
TECHNOLOGIES TO THE FISHING COMPANIES. You make money
in the process, the fishing companies make money in the process,
and bottom trawling ends--everybody wins!


The hard part of this approach is to make sure that the economic structure reflects all of the actual costs. I'm continually annoyed by the fact that some industries seem to have convinced the public that they have a right to make short-term profit by using up public resources without compensation... which is really just putting a differnt spin on "corporate welfare." So it's important to somehow establish an incentive structure that reflects the true costs of various practices.

Weirdly, I heard some timber lobbyist on the radio recently, who for some reason tried to counter the arguments that his company's practices were causing various problems by saying "but if we stop doing it, our company won't remain solvent," as if the company has some inalienable right to have a bad business model, but still be solvent. Certainly, forcing companies out of business is bad for employment and the economy in general, but if their business is based on a bad business model, then they need to "evolve or die"-- they shouldn't be allowed to manipulate the system to allow them to exist as parasites on the public interest (where long-term environmental interests are part of that public interest). But what really bugged me is that this guy seemed to think it was an accepted fact that the company's survival was more important than any other concerns... very odd.

Anyway, since the fishing companies can make a big short-term profit on exploitative practices, should the long-term and public-interest costs be forced into their economics in order for laissez-faire capitalism to incentivize the bottom-trawling companies to stop? I'm not saying it can't be done; I'm just not sure how....
Generally, I find it more aesthetic to allow markets' to be self-regulating, but particularly since the 80s or so, wall street investors have been only interested in short-term profits and continuation of proven business practices, so any the markets favor companies that exploit any resources they have access to for short-term profit, even if it's a losing strategy in some longer term.

Not so much applicable to fishing, I'm also disgusted at how companies are manipulating legislation on patents and copyrights in order to maintain their archaic business model... record companies, in particular, used to have a lot of value-added by providing expensive recording equipment to artists, by mastering records, pressing records in factories, and distributing them through a large trucking network. Now, all of this can be done at almost zero cost with modern computers and networks, yet the record companies are establishing justifications for controlling "intellectual property" and now charging even more for music, even though they are essentially spending nothing on anything except lobbying and promotion, are adding no value added over what the artist produced, yet getting the lion's share of the profits.


(Incidentally, one of the founders of Greenpeace has stated on
Penn & Teller's show, _Bullshit!_, that Greenpeace no longer
represents what the organzation was founded for, and that most of
its initial goals were achieved, and that it now stirs up "new" problems
to justify its own existence--much like Jesse Jackson here in the
U.S.)


Penn and Teller are great. Sometimes they do a little more showmanship than science in their "demonstrations," though...

I have to admit that there are a few posts that I didn't read, just skimmed, but there are a couple of things that I want to say. RE Erich's comments about Tom Clancy...not only did he chase people off the beach (I know some of them) he's a total #*+#^E@)(%^ in a lot of other areas too. He cut down all the trees on the front of his property because they obscured his unobstructed view of the Chesapeake Bay. For that action he was heavily fined by the county and he also had to replant a whole range of plants, (trees, shrubs, ground covers) because he had violated the county's regulations designed to prevent erosion. Another point about his jerkiness. He had an Abrams tank in his front yard as a lawn ornament! I say had, because he divorced his wife (and mother to his huge litter of children) of many years to marry a blond bimbo and no longer lives here, but that's another issue.
On the subject of bottom trawling...in the bay we have had a variation of the same problem. For years some of the oyster fishers have dredged the bay in order to catch as many oysters as possible. The oystering in the bay is now so bad that fisheries are now discussing bringing in non native varieties of oysters to enable the watermen to continue to make a living. The very major downside to that is that no one knows how the introduction of an alien species will impact the overall health of the bay, which is already pretty lousy. For those few of you who may not know this, the Chesapeake Bay and it's tributaries are essential to the health of the fauna of the Atlantic. Even after years of intense efforts to clean up the bay, it's still in dire straits. SAV is in really bad shape, oxygen levels are low, non point source pollution is getting worse, not better, and although major efforts to clean up point source pollution have yielded some results, overall, the situation is pretty grim. So while bottom trawling is going on, the oceans nurseries are getting less productive because of human activity.
By the way, for those of you who may be interested, Oceans Alive has a web site discussing health risks from eating certain kinds of fish. Orange Roughy is one of the fish that, probably because of it's long life span, is considered a dangerous fish to ingest because of the mercury accumulations. Maybe that could also be used as a talking point against bottom trawling...eat them and your kids will be born dullards (major leaping to conclusions there). Hey, whatever works. A lot of the young and affluent would rather die than risk the chance that their kids wouldn't be bright enough to get into the most prestigious colleges. It's really late and I'm probably typing gibberish now...sorry if I rambled.

Re: Abrams Tank on front lawn

I like it...but it does sound dumb. What's next? A Stealth bobmber balanced on the roof?

Re: Cutting down trees

Shame on him! Serves him right to be fined and forced to plant stuff back.

And about the oysters:
It's not only about the dredging, it's also becuase of polution from the farms, houses, industry...etc. and there was a oyster disease back in the 80's that killed the oysters. A think there was this pic of a person with tongs pretending to catchs oysters but the person actaully admitted that there was no oysters there when they took it.

Above in info is from reading NG too often.
Heh. I think there's an article about this in one of the books, not sure if it's online though...



And now, back to bottom trawling.

I have reports that describe levels of toxins in orange roughy:

Mormede, S.; Davies, I.M. 2003. Horizontal and vertical distribution of organic contaminants in deep-sea fish species. Chemosphere 50: 563–574.

Fenaughty, C. M.; Tracey, D.M.; Lock, J.W. 1988. Heavy metal and organochlorine concentrations in New Zealand aquatic fish, crustaceans, and molluscs. New Zealand Fisheries Data Report 34:

must be all that industrial waste that is dumped into the sea.

Although I get most of my information on NZ :kiwiflag: bottom trawling from this thread, I have been hearing about positive-sounding things in the US :usa: legislation quite a bit recently. Apparently, Governator Schwarzenegger signed a bill "banning" (although maybe just limiting) bottom trawling in California waters last year, and some new federal bill is imposing limits on it (I didn't get enough details about that one to know if it's a significan ban or more of a token "spin" environmental bill that just bans it somewhere no one wants to do it anyway, though). There was also some federal project announced to set up susainable fish farms off the northern Atlantic coast somewhere-- the National Public Radio folks brought in some people who were concerned about the details, but they seem to be trying.

So anyway, my misgivings about Greenpeace notwithstanding, discussion and/or activism does seem to have served to get new marine ecology concerns onto the radar screen of US politicians in the past year or so.

(don't know enough politics in :canada: or :unionjac:, but I wanted to use all the flags... No Aussie flag, but I had to look up the difference between it and the NZ one, they're so similar... one of you should sue the other in a "look and feel" lawsuit about that!)

So anyway, my misgivings about Greenpeace notwithstanding, discussion and/or activism does seem to have served to get new marine ecology concerns onto the radar screen of US politicians in the past year or so.

Unfortunately, people holding hands on beaches, singing psalms, praying for coral, doesn't make the headlines. Unless it makes headlines people don't care. You need activism in this day and age to get your message heard. It's not the fault of the environmentalists - it's the fault of the press.

Watch the news every night; what do you see. Global current affairs, a little domestic current affairs (usually politics), sports and weather. There should be a 5-minute section dedicated to environmental issues. Then these people wouldn't have to be extreme to get their message heard.

If poeple just listened, then a lot of things wouldn't have happened, would they? ANd that goes for enviromental issues, politics and a lot of other stuff.

If poeple just listened, then a lot of things wouldn't have happened, would they? ANd that goes for enviromental issues, politics and a lot of other stuff.

Amen to that!

TPOTH

If poeple just listened, then a lot of things wouldn't have happened, would they? ANd that goes for enviromental issues, politics and a lot of other stuff.

Yeah, a lot of bad things stem from the fact that many people would much rather talk than listen...

and after they finally finished, they would say, "Let's have a vote." then, "Let's do a recount." When that's done, it's time for "Let's do a questionarrie and ask the general public.". And finally, l"et's see what the industry thinks." And if anyone disagrees or thinks of something new, then we can do it all over again!

and after they finally finished, they would say, "Let's have a vote." then, "Let's do a recount." When that's done, it's time for "Let's do a questionarrie and ask the general public.". And finally, l"et's see what the industry thinks." And if anyone disagrees or thinks of something new, then we can do it all over again!

Yeah, maybe things would be better if we just made me the dictator of the world, and then I could issue an edict to stop bottom trawling. Of course, I'd make reasonable decisions about everything else, too, except things I don't care about or that bug me or I don't have time to think about. And then we could be over-and-done with all this voting and opinion polling entirely; if someone wanted me to know their opinion, they could just make an appointment, and, just so people wouldn't eat into my free time making appointments to talk about boring or stupid things, the rule could be that anyone who talks to me about something stupid is put to death.

Does that sound better? It works for me... :twisted:

Yeah, maybe things would be better if we just made me the dictator of the world, and then I could issue an edict to stop bottom trawling. Of course, I'd make reasonable decisions about everything else, too, except things I don't care about or that bug me or I don't have time to think about. And then we could be over-and-done with all this voting and opinion polling entirely; if someone wanted me to know their opinion, they could just make an appointment, and, just so people wouldn't eat into my free time making appointments to talk about boring or stupid things, the rule could be that anyone who talks to me about something stupid is put to death.

Does that sound better? It works for me... :twisted:

Sorry, Monty, that job is mine.

Sorry, Monty, that job is mine.
I called it first :razz:

...they would say, "Let's have a vote." then, "Let's do a recount." When that's done, it's time for "Let's do a questionarrie and ask the general public.". And finally, l"et's see what the industry thinks." And if anyone disagrees or thinks of something new, then we can do it all over again!

Douglas Adams wrote something like that about Vogons, but I think it can apply to humans like Owen Symmans:

"Humans are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy-not actually evil, but bad tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from a mesonychoteuthis without orders signed in triplicate, sent in sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters."

In the end, I think that all of the horrible things that are happening to the natural world come down to one problem, and it makes me salute all of the cults that get people to believe in mass suicide.

THERE ARE TOO MANY FRICKING PEOPLE!!!

More than not eating certain things, more than not driving certain vehicles, I think that the most responsible decision is not to have so many children. This has to be one of the most unpopular and most difficult decisions to stick with on the planet. It goes against nearly everything that means to be a normal human, not a normal person ( if such a thing exists), because like every other living thing, we are born to create more.

This is not me slagging people who have children, I like kids. It's just a statement of what I see as fact. Please don't take it personally, althought I am sure that someone will, because it is likely the MOST sensitive issue I can think of.

And no, I don't have any children, so I don't know what it is like to have them. But I do have a long term veiw of the world, and I do not fit into it, nor do my sperm.

And I'm tired and probably would not post this if I weren't, and it's off topic, but I felt that it should be said. Doesn't make it right.......Please excuse me.

I agree entirely, and I'm not entirely sure that it is off topic. I was a believer in ZPG, so we had the 2 children. Now I am a believer in negative pg, but if I had believed in that in the late 60s then there would be no Erich and the convention would be someone else's problem.
The urge to procreate is very stong in all animals, and for most of history it has served us well. Unfortunately, you would think that the ablility to make the strides in medicine that have enabled us to nearly wipe out most childhood diseases, transplant hearts, livers, kidneys and so many other things would mean that we are a race of intelligent beings, but if that were the case rationality would reign and we wouldn't be overpopulating the earth. It would be really nice if we could distinquish between our need for food and shelter, and our desire to consume. A lot of our environmental problems wouldn't even exist. Bottom trawling is but one very ugly manifestation of it.
Clear cutting, spewing of chemicals into waterways, creating miasmas of smog are all a part of our consumer culture, and we're killing our world. Even if we were still doing all of the above but there were far fewer people doing it we probably wouldn't be on the verge of catastrophic climate change. Of course the alternative is to stop doing all of those things, but we won't. It's always someone else's responsibility.......thus we put on blinders and refuse to see what is happening, and our part in it.
And Thus endeth the reading of the sermon for today.
Sorry about that...I tend to get a bit carried away on certain subjects.

Sorry about that...I tend to get a bit carried away on certain subjects.
You are in good company!

This should not be a political argument (it is an environmental one). However, New Zealand's National party has just outlined what it will do!! My word - I'd certainly not vote for them (not that I ever have)!

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0506/S00219.htm

National fisheries policy will lead to job losses
Monday, 20 June 2005, 4:46 pm
Press Release: Forest And Bird
20 June 2005 - Wellington

The National Party's fisheries policy is likely to lead to greater destruction of the marine environment, more fisheries collapses and therefore further fishing industry job losses, according to Forest and Bird.

"The policy aims at removing an ecosystem approach to fisheries management which is in the 1996 Fisheries Act passed by National," said Forest and Bird's senior researcher Barry Weeber. "This policy will encourage greater over-fishing, more seabird and marine mammal bykill and the continued destruction of marine ecosystems by fishing methods such as bottom trawling."

"We're mystified by National's criticism of fisheries management as being too focused on ecosystems and preservation. It's nonsense because this has been the key area where the Ministry of Fisheries' has failed to fully implement the 1996 Fisheries Act," he said.

"If the Ministry had taken an ecosystems approach we wouldn't have seen the big loss of industry jobs from the closure of two of the orange roughy fisheries and the collapse of the hoki fishery."

"The long-term future of both industrial and recreational fishing is dependent on the maintenance of a healthy marine environment. It is very disappointing to see that the National Party is preparing to undermine that future."

"These policies are a radical departure from National's last term in office, and only offer New Zealanders depleted oceans and a collapsed fishing industry."

Key National Party policies released over the last week include plans to:

* Retreat from ecosystem based management of the oceans

* Promote aquaculture management areas and curtail the Minister of Conservation's role;

* Encourage fishing in Antarctic waters

"If Nick Smith had been brave enough to outline these policies at Forest and Bird's recent Annual Conference, there would have been an uproar."

"At our conference Nick Smith spoke about improving the management of the oceans and made the point that the last time National was in power it passed environmental laws like the Fisheries Act (1996). Yet the policies outlined just days later would gut those laws," he said.

"He told us that oceans policy needed reforming. He didn't tell us that National wanted to abandon environmental management of the oceans. The new Fisheries Policy represents a major retreat from the principles of ecosystem based management that National put in the Fisheries Act in 1996," he said.

It doesn't go far enough, but it's better than nothing.
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:26 a.m. ET June 16, 2005

FOSTER CITY, Calif. - Federal fishing regulators voted to impose a permanent ban on trawl fishing in nearly 300,000 square miles of Pacific waters off the West Coast, a move hailed by environmentalists as a landmark in marine conservation.

advertisement
The Pacific Fishery Management Council, which regulates West Coast fishing, chose a plan Wednesday that will ban bottom trawling in depths beyond about 4,200 feet and dozens of shallower areas believed to be critical habitat for groundfish such as rockfish, ling Cod and Dover sole.

The plan is aimed at protecting coral beds, kelp forests, rocky reefs and other sensitive fish habitat from trawling — a fishing practice in which weighted nets are dragged on the ocean floor to scoop up bottom-dwelling species.

“It’s a huge victory for conservation,” said Jim Ayers, Pacific region director for Oceana, which developed a plan similar to the one chosen. “It maintains economic opportunity for today’s commercial fishermen, but more importantly, it ensures economic opportunity for future generations.”

U.S. waters 3-200 miles off shore
The new regulations apply in federal waters that extend from three miles to 200 miles off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington. California and Washington have banned trawling in state waters that extend three miles from the shore. Other types of fishing are allowed in the no-trawl zones.

Trawl fishermen were skeptical that the new regulations would boost declining stocks of West Coast groundfish, but did not think the trawling ban would hurt their livelihoods because most of the restricted areas are too deep for trawlers.

“I think the council’s selection minimizes the negative impact on the fishing industry,” said Pete Leipzig, who heads the Fishermen’s Marketing Association, which represents groundfish and shrimp trawlers.

Environmentalists say trawling destroys delicate sea-floor habitats. But fishermen say there’s no evidence that trawl fishing has affected the productivity of groundfish stocks that make up the foundation of West Coast commercial fishing.

The 14-member council chose the plan from more than a dozen proposals offered by environmentalists, fishermen other interest groups. The council will recommend action to the National Marine Fisheries Service, which is expected to implement the new regulations early next year.

Earlier move in Alaska
The council’s decision follows a similar move by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council which voted in February to ban bottom trawling on more than 370,000 square miles off the Alaskan Coast.

In recent years, the government has declared the West Coast groundfish fishery an economic disaster due to a combination of overfishing and poor ocean conditions. Nine species were declared overfished, some fisheries were closed and the groundfish fleet was cut by a third to allow remaining boats to earn a better living.

Environmentalists said Wednesday’s decision won’t just help groundfish species recover, but will protect delicate sea-floor ecosystems that scientists are just beginning to study.

“There’s whole world down there that people don’t know about,” said Karen Garrison, who heads the ocean initiative at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “It’s beautiful, it’s fragile and it’s full of life.”

Yeah! And now for Ocean Wars Episode 5: The Enviromentals Strikes Back.

THERE ARE TOO MANY FRICKING PEOPLE!!!

*grabs shotgun*
So much work to do, so little time....

TPOTH

Fireworks tomorrow night

Deep Trouble
Environmentalists describe their boats as weapons of mass destruction, their practices as barbaric and their actions as criminal but some deep sea trawler fishermen call those environmentalists hairy hippies. Pete Cronshaw investigates what has escalated into more than a war of words as environmentalists target New Zealand's bottom trawling fishing industry. Is there really an underwater environmental disaster going on just off our coasts?

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/410965/486021/

I wish I could see it. (Tell me the results!)

anything? anymore? Jus curious if there have been any more developments or happenings since the last post a little while ago.

Cheers!

You can actually see the show if you click on the link below the picture ... but those on dialup might not be too happy (it's ~ 12 minutes long).

We've just finished filming another piece today, but this is unlikely to air until October (and will be a domestic telecast only). In the meantime, I thing there's a segment to air on Discovery Channel (Australasia) on 14 July - a programme called 'One Step Beyond'. I was told that the fishing segment aired on this 'current affairs' programme, but haven't seen it and am not entirely sure. It's ~ 10.30pm NZT, ~ 6-7pm Ausi time. We did it late last year, but it's still topical. There's another segment likely to air on an Australian programme called 'Dateline' that we did several weeks ago, but I haven't a date for that either.

aw..man. I never get to see anything interesting. Good thing I still have TONMO.com :grin:

ooops (forgot the link)

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/536641/593718/

no wonder, I started clicking every darn word in your last post. :lol:

Hey Everyone!

It looks like we're next on greenpeace's agenda (Canada). There was an article in the Toronto Star two days ago on the inside cover. Check it out here:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1122241808977&DPL=JvsODSH7Aw0u%2bwoRO%2bYKDSblFxAk%2bw oVO%2bYODSbhFxAg%2bwkRO%2bUPDSXiFxMh%2bw kZO%2bUCDSTmFxIk%2bw8RO%2bMKDSPkFxUj%2bw 8UO%2bMNDSPgFxUv%2bw8YO%2bILDSLkFxQh1w%3 d%3d&tacodalogin=yes

(sorry for the crazy URL!) Its basically the exact same arguement they had in New Zealand only now they're applying it to North America. I'm really pleased as i've often tried to find out what Canada's stance and impact was through bottom trawling but I got nothing as I had no idea where to look. Now I'll just be able to read it in the newspaper! I really hope that the government takes this seriously as I think this is a great opportunity to make some changes and show the world how important it is to Canadians to be 'green' and enviro-friendly. If any other North Americans find more articles that I've missed please post as I know that at least I'd love to read them.

Cheers~!

see here too

:canada:
http://www.canada.com/maritimes/soundoff/story.html?id=f1d77642-6722-4510-bf00-67a3b6abbf16

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/greenpeace-intercepts-pirate-f

Nice catch by Greenpeace, thanks for posting sorseress.

I'm not an expert on green peace or sea creatures for that matter. But you've got me curious, maybe I should learn more?
I'm into animal and sea lif photography, I love sharks and whales.
I'm still not sure what this is all about?
Camie

Hey Everyone!

It looks like we're next on greenpeace's agenda (Canada). There was an article in the Toronto Star two days ago on the inside cover. Check it out here:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1122241808977&DPL=JvsODSH7Aw0u%2bwoRO%2bYKDSblFxAk%2bw oVO%2bYODSbhFxAg%2bwkRO%2bUPDSXiFxMh%2bw kZO%2bUCDSTmFxIk%2bw8RO%2bMKDSPkFxUj%2bw 8UO%2bMNDSPgFxUv%2bw8YO%2bILDSLkFxQh1w%3 d%3d&tacodalogin=yes

(sorry for the crazy URL!) Its basically the exact same arguement they had in New Zealand only now they're applying it to North America. I'm really pleased as i've often tried to find out what Canada's stance and impact was through bottom trawling but I got nothing as I had no idea where to look. Now I'll just be able to read it in the newspaper! I really hope that the government takes this seriously as I think this is a great opportunity to make some changes and show the world how important it is to Canadians to be 'green' and enviro-friendly. If any other North Americans find more articles that I've missed please post as I know that at least I'd love to read them.

Cheers~!
Thanks for the link, I've learned a little bit more.
When it comes to any living thing, I cherish it. It's ashame that this is happening.
Wish I could help.:wink:

Not sure whether online petitions ever get anywhere, but if you want to sign an anti-whaling one (and play a sad game), there's one at Whales' Revenge (http://www.whalesrevenge.com/poll.php?show_all=1). I think they're going for 1,000,000 signatures. Can't hurt, I guess... ?

Not sure whether online petitions ever get anywhere, but if you want to sign an anti-whaling one (and play a sad game), there's one at Whales' Revenge (http://www.whalesrevenge.com/poll.php?show_all=1). I think they're going for 1,000,000 signatures. Can't hurt, I guess... ?

My laptop doesn't do flash well, so I can't play the game. However, I can't find the petition! Do you have to play the game to read the petition? I'm rather reluctant to put my name on something I haven't read... seems like pretty bad web design if they want people to sign... (or am I just being stupid?)

My laptop doesn't do flash well, so I can't play the game. However, I can't find the petition! Do you have to play the game to read the petition? I'm rather reluctant to put my name on something I haven't read... seems like pretty bad web design if they want people to sign... (or am I just being stupid?)

Ok, I was curious enough to switch to another computer that could run the game and I still can't find the text of the petition they want me to find. However, I found the game patently offensive. Although I think it's not cool to kill whales, I also think it's not cool to sink ships, even if they're whalers. And the game seems to take a lot from the WWII anti-Japanese propoganda: the whalers are shown with the "rising sun" flag, and the drowning crewmen are little guys in white robes and pointy rice-farmer hats. If they want me to sign their petition, in addition to letting me read the damn thing, it'd help a lot of they didn't come across as a bunch of racist jerks. Just my :twocents:, but I really think that hate-mongering is not conducive to any sort of agenda in the long term, including environmentalism. (Maybe particularly environmentalism, since environmentalists are frequently guilty of taking a "we're morally superior" stance, so combining that with shallow, racist imagery seems particularly hypocritical to me).

My friend was talking to his flatmate about bottom trawling, and his flatmates dad actually owns a bottom trawling ship. He said that they got sick of having the lines getting caught on the bottom, so they dragged massive metal chains around to rip out everything to make it easier to fish. Shocking. :cry:

Very fair point, Monty.

Feelers, those chains they drag around aren't even the half of it - they also use 2m-diameter steel bobbins to bounce over the bottom and smash obstacles, allowing the net to 'skip' over things it otherwise might snag on (like 500-yr-old coral).

I mean sure humans aren't smart enuf to unite all the land masses up and live in harmony.... but surely we could create a sort of 'world navy' that patrols the seas and puts the fear of H.E. driven shrap into the hearts of GREEDY fishermen.
Sadly many people only understand violence or the threat of violence... a few 'world navy' cruisers and choppers cruising around would increase the illegals fear a million times.
If I got caught napalming a national park in your coutry I's be lynched by the media and hung out to dry... long stint in jail or death.
Once people wake up to the reality, they will be all like 'I can't believe we never did this before!'.
But until people learn enough about whats on, on the bottem and all the cool relationships and stuff. Creatures start getting funky common names and stuff. Thats love right there, and people will die to protect what they love.
Make the people love a few of the things on the bottem of the sea and threaten those who destroy it with death. Works with most humans.
Just need a 'panda/cheeta/koala:boohoo: ' of the trench and it aint giant squid I'm afraid. As for random enforcement and scapegoat public execution I think perhaps a mere carrier group would suffice.
I know, nucleared powered an all but some times you do have to become the devil to fight him and win.
The ocean is one big thing, it aint a patchwork of crap for countrys to squabble over and rape. It gets messed up we probably die or something..... who knows?
Just need to ban bottem trawling people and phase one of my oceanic empire begins.
:twisted:

Originally posted by Swarvegorilla
Just need a 'panda/cheeta/koala ' of the trench and it aint giant squid I'm afraid.

How true, even cute whales don't interest the general public too much anymore (still can't convince some of the world to stop whaling).

Why's the game sad? You're savin precious whales!

It's sad because it doesn't make sense (Whale upgrades? What in the world?) and oh wow, "EVIL" JAPANESE whaling ships. It's like a public accusation to the Japanese nation as a whole and oh wow, why do we know they are Japanese? Becuase they have these white robes and straw-hats! Tiz a insult to a nation, not its actions.

In video games I will kill anyone.
Jeeze I have sent some things to hell over the years playing as every force that ever had a tif.
sure it's stereo typical leftist propaganda but I bet it gets a few rabidly environmentalist mums into video gaming and then we move them on to 'call of duty' or 'zero hour' or 'battle field 2'
Gaming mums are cool.
It is also meant to be an attack against the japs. Little kids need to be able to work out who the bad guys are.
I just don't get how the bubbles hurt ships. I mean thats insane. Look how the Japanese made the game Ecco! That was a ripper but at least he butted things at high speed. Bubbles are just too unrealistic. I mean COME ON!!! :roll:

It's sad because it doesn't make sense (Whale upgrades? What in the world?) and oh wow, "EVIL" JAPANESE whaling ships. It's like a public accusation to the Japanese nation as a whole and oh wow, why do we know they are Japanese? Becuase they have these white robes and straw-hats! Tiz a insult to a nation, not its actions.

Ah. All I really saw in it was the last screen. (I'm not to good at spotting racial slurs).

In video games I will kill anyone.
Jeeze I have sent some things to hell over the years playing as every force that ever had a tif.
sure it's stereo typical leftist propaganda but I bet it gets a few rabidly environmentalist mums into video gaming and then we move them on to 'call of duty' or 'zero hour' or 'battle field 2'
Gaming mums are cool.
It is also meant to be an attack against the japs. Little kids need to be able to work out who the bad guys are.
I just don't get how the bubbles hurt ships. I mean thats insane. Look how the Japanese made the game Ecco! That was a ripper but at least he butted things at high speed. Bubbles are just too unrealistic. I mean COME ON!!! :roll:

I think its supposed to go like this: bubbles at deep pressure accelerate towards surface --> bubbles hit surface at high speed (i.e. resonable force) --> Pressurized bubbles exploding/popping launch boats in air --> boat suffers impact damage from smacking into water very hard. (this is just a guess, of course.)

If enough bubbles are produced, ships will sink - there was a documentary on things like this happening in the Berumuda Triangle, turns out to be forzen methane under the sea turning into bubbles and sinking the poor ships. No whale could every produce that much bubbles.

Re:Swarvegorilla 's post.
You play Battlefield 2 and Zero Hour too?

This cropped up on one of the modeling sites, and I thought you'd get a chuckle:

http://www.whatifmodelers.com/forum//index.php?showtopic=9047&st=0&

Wait,...this is a dumb question but is that good or bad?

I think its supposed to go like this: bubbles at deep pressure accelerate towards surface --> bubbles hit surface at high speed (i.e. resonable force) --> Pressurized bubbles exploding/popping launch boats in air --> boat suffers impact damage from smacking into water very hard. (this is just a guess, of course.)

That's the very same idea behind depth charges, and high explosives detonating under ships, sort of. An explosion happens under the keel of a ship, the expanded gas rises to the area beneath the enemy vessle, a void is present, where water used to be, the keel of the ship no longer has the support of the water beneath it and breaks. Thus sinking the ship and smoting the enemy.

depth charges are for subs, but the one you are talking about applies to SOME, not ALL torpedoes.

New Greenpeace expedition info...

http://www.projectthinice.org/

depth charges are for subs, but the one you are talking about applies to SOME, not ALL torpedoes.
Hate I missed this the first time around. large methane hydrate releases might also take out low flying aircraft (under 10,000 ft say). Take any kind of combustion engine into a cloud of methane mixed with oxygen and the plane, or even a cruise ship, goes bye bye.

Glad to see the new Greenpeace expedition info, but also must comment on bigGdelta's methane release info. Yes. You can sink a ship or potentially knock a plane out of the sky with enough methane release from the sea floor. They've replicated it enough under laboratory conditions that it's rather convincing. Eric, you called this first (I think).

Indeed I have. (Wow, watching Discovery Channel helps! :grin:)

But hydrates are not only found in say...The Berrmuda Triangle, but why does it only take place there?

On a side note, more ships disappeared between the Taiwan Straits than in the Bermuda Triangle.

very large concentrations of methane hydrate are found in this area, although by rights, this should be more common in the gulf of mexico as this is where most of the cold seeps (think ice worms here people) are found. BTW saw something a few weeks back blaming the permian extinction on a large scale release of methane from undersea hydrates (after a global temp rise of 5 degrees---the methane added another 5).

Its fashionable now to blame every event in geologic history on hydrate release (In the same way that not so long ago it was fashionable to blame each event on a bolide impact). This was first suggested in 1995to explain coincident negative carbon and oxygen stable isotope excursions. Both excursions are "approximately" instantaneous and hydrate release is a very compelling (albeit inherently untestable) way to explain it.

Given that, the P/T event doesn't really have any of the attributes that really make hydrate release a compelling argument.

Dan