Australian Seafood Consumers misled by prophets of gloom and doom
I couldnt find the paper itself but it certainly looks like it raises some interesting points about the state of Australian Fisheries and the influence of environmental organisations. Professor Ray Hilborn is out here on behalf of the Sydney Fish Market so read into that what you will.
On 29 February, Professor Ray Hilborn and Dr Bob Kearney (AM) released a paper titled, “Australian seafood consumers misled by prophets of doom and gloom”. Professor Hilborn is an authority on the management of aquatic ecosystems and the status and sustainability of the world’s fisheries. He is the author of four books and 255 scientific papers. His contribution to science has been recognized by many awards.
Dr Kearney (AM) is the Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management at the University of Canberra. He has authored 150 scientific papers and is the Chairman of the Research Committees of the Hermon Slade Foundation and the Australia Pacific Science Foundation. His contribution to fisheries science has been recognised in his membership of the Order of Australia.
Their paper concludes that “According to the list of threatened species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act Australia already has 27 species of land mammals, 23 birds and four frog extinctions but not a single extinction of a species of marine fish. Furthermore that there have been some serious problems with overfishing around the world, and some of them are continuing”. “But the global picture provides three fundamental messages; the problems are not universal, they are not uniformly distributed and the overly pessimistic view is simply not relevant to Australia”. Furthermore the paper states that 85 per cent of Australian species are not in an overfished state. "This rapid recovery of the status of Australia’s exploited fish stocks highlights the fundamental effectiveness of traditional fisheries management compared to attempts to recover terrestrial systems that have been impacted by urban development, mining or agriculture."
http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/search_brief.asp?l=e&id=50348&ndb=1
Professor Ray Hilborn and Dr Bob Kearney have released a paper titled, ‘Australian seafood consumers misled by prophets of doom and gloom’.
Their paper concludes that the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act’s list of threatened species does not include any marine fish species, and that although overfishing is a serious problem around the world, 85% of Australian species are not in an overfished state.
-
With regard to certification schemes and what seafood Australians should buy the paper states that, “the process of certification and periodic review of each individual fishery and/or species is not necessary in a country like Australia that has collectively well managed, sustainable fisheries.”
It says that most of the guides to which fish Australians should and should not eat list many species for which assessments are given that are highly questionable, at best. It continues to say that there are 16 or more different organisations in Australia that produce guides of various forms that are intended to influence public opinion, but, “There are no standards or government regulation of the efficacy of these guides.”
The question then is why does Australia understate the sustainability of its fisheries? In a press conference at Sydney Fish Market Professor Hilborn said, “Australia is subject to a relentless anti-fishing campaign that is causing doom and gloom myths from misrepresentations of overseas examples of inadequate fisheries management. I believe NGOs need the public to believe fisheries are in poor shape to boost their fundraising”.
Tom Bibby, Chairman of the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA), explains, “Today’s report is conformation of what we have known for many years. The truth is finally coming out and the tide is turning. Buying sustainable fish is as simple as buying Australian fish. The Australian Government must take note and act now to ensure consumers understand how sustainable Australian fish is.”
http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/australian-fish-is-sustainable-fish
black gen
Posts: 762
Date Joined: 13/04/11
this is definately in the
so why are we constantly subject to changes and proposed changes if "85% of fish stocks are in a non threatened state"
Dan
Posts: 168
Date Joined: 23/02/06
I remember at Uni
'Hillborn & Walters" book was the bible when it came to fisheries management and stock assessment
Good to hear they are speaking out and stating a clear message beyond all the tripe that the Greens love bandying on about !
cuthbad
Posts: 1266
Date Joined: 22/04/09
Thats good news. Worth
Thats good news. Worth considering though, that means 15% of fish species remain in an overfished state. I would guess that a good part of that 15% which are overfished are the top table fish. Just because the rest of the world is in an even worse state doesn't mean we are doing everything right.
black gen I don't know much about this but I would assume the constant changes to regulations are because of the constantly increasing number of people goin out for a fish. Not defending the changes but I reckon that might be part of the logic behind it.
Yep, theres heaps of bs coming from the Greens and some NGOs. But the statement from Tom Bibby shows theres a fiar bit of bs from both sides. If 15% are overfished, how can he claim "buying sustainable fish is as simple as buying Australian fish"?
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Cuthbad - From the document, problems with definitions
Some problems with definitions
There are two commonly used reference points in the regulation of fisheries in the interests of sustainability. First is when the biomass of stocks is so low that the long-term sustainable yield has been reduced – this is called “overfished.” The second is when the fishing pressure is so high that the long-term sustainable yield will be reduced if fishing continues at this level, this is called “overfishing. As undesirable as overfishing is it should not be over-dramatised; stocks that are overfished or subject to even moderate overfishing are still usually biologically sustainable with no immediate threat to the survival of the species (there has never been a species of fished confirmed to have been fished to extinction, and certainly not in Australia). In fact fishing levels that technically constitute “overfishing” can be deliberately employed on underexploited stocks for controlled periods with the intended result of reducing a stock to target levels where surplus production and long-term sustainable yields are estimated to be maximized. Stocks can sometimes remain at lower than desired abundance (technically ‘overfished’) for generations, and still recover under improved fisheries management, as demonstrated by Figure 2. During their period of low abundance reduced catches can often still be sustainable; the yield from the fishery is simply less than it could have been.
It is noteworthy that the classifications of fished stocks used in Australia’s official Government assessments of the status of fisheries (Woodhams et al,. 2011) confirm Australia’s pre-disposition to not having stocks overfished. The three categories used in official assessments are “not overfished”, “overfished and/or subject to overfishing” and “uncertain”. ‘Under-fished’ or ‘under-utilised’ are not prominent categories in Australia’s assessments and underutilized stocks are merely given the ‘green light’ of “not overfished”. This complete concentration on the regulatory side of fisheries management, at the expense of drawing attention to new fishery development opportunities, is surprising for a country with such a huge EEZ but a dependence on imports for the bulk of its seafood (discussed below). It reflects the failure by fisheries and marine environmental managers to adjust policies to recognize the successes of traditional fisheries management in Australia and develop new fisheries, not further restrict existing ones.
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Australian Seafood Consumers Mislead by prophets document
Anyone who is interested I have a copy of this document -
AUSTRALIAN SEAFOOD CONSUMERS MISLED BY PROPHETS OF
DOOM AND GLOOM
DR RAY HILBORN
Professor of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences,
University of Washington
&
DR BOB KEARNEY (AM)
Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management,
University of Canberra
In pdf form, its 654kb and 19 pages long. I have emailed the Fishwrecked support email to see about getting it posted on here, but havent received anything yet. Email me: sarcasm081@gmail.com if you would like a copy.
Bryan
Faulkner Family
Posts: 18026
Date Joined: 11/03/08
good to hear that we are not
good to hear that we are not as bad off as they say. altho we ouseelves know how many fish are out there the government dont want to believe as they can make the $ from the rec and pro fisho's.
just gotta look on this site to see how many undersize fish are being caught and returned as well as the so called pink snapper risk of stock loss with how many undersize pinkies are about. thats just in the metro, could only imagine how the stocks are going up the coast further.
i feel we are better off now than we were 10 years ago as far as fish stocks go. ok yes some species have reduced in size a bit due to over targeting like the dhuie but the numbers are still great.
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together