Guest Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 From 22t to 325t = WTF!! And that's only the meat, knot including the shell. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/7442428/Scallop-quota-rise-sparks-fears Link to post Share on other sites
Murky 1 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Holy #$%& Mr Carter responded last night, saying the new commercial catch limit was based on a comprehensive survey of the beds and was sustainable. So 325 tonnes is replenishing itself every year without fail? Thank you Mother Nature for leaving all this good stuff lying around for someone to pick up and flog off. All we need now is to see them appear at half price on a weekend windback and the circle of stupidity will be complete. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So sad. You do wonder what Mr Carter's qualifications are here. Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Carter's qualifications are irrelevant. He's not the one making the assessment as to whether the new quota is sustainable or not, he's taking advice from NIWA. NIWA are advising the minister thru the Ministry of Fisheries and/or the Ministry of Primary Resources (or whatever bullshit name it has) ... Carter's just a figurehead who will take the fall if the backroom boffins turn out to be completely wrong with their modelling results, estimations and extrapolations from very limited and extremely sketchy data which is plugged into shonky models that spit out numbers that people then tend to have absolute faith in. Don't blame Carter, he's just the poor sap that's going to wear it when the sh*t starts hitting the fan. Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Aggree Grinna. If he refuses to sign it off he gets slated, he signs it off he gets slated. Why are the greens not jumping on this one? Link to post Share on other sites
Atom Ant 0 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Aggree Grinna. If he refuses to sign it off he gets slated, he signs it off he gets slated. Why are the greens not jumping on this one? I imagine the Maori Party are assessing this right now in order to see how they milk it for all it's worth. Of course it will be terrible for the ecosystem but money will make them stop worrying about it. Oh. Wait, they probably own it already. Link to post Share on other sites
JK 28 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Read the article, seems to be based upon the comments made by one person - a spokesman for the Recreational Fishing Council who is against the advice of NIWA Scientists findings from the "most extensive survey to date" of scallop stocks. On his assertion that this is a "mother bed", a quick Google search indicates that there is only 1 website that has a page relating to scallops & "mother bed" & that is the article in question. There are 229,000 results from a search on Scallop Breeding. So, I do not think his assertion that this is a central breeding point holds much water which unfortunately stuffs up his other arguements as well. Seems that the commercial fishers will not have the capacity to harvest the full amount anyway & no doubt some government department will be willing to step in & limit the catch if things start to go downhill. Link to post Share on other sites
Fogg 427 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 The issue is when you see such a huge change in quota (either up or down for that matter), it suggests that either something about scallops has changed or else the quota was wrong before. Which means the previous facts or assumptions were wrong. Which raises the question of how certain we are about the new facts and assumptions. Or could they turn out to be wrong later too? Which means a more detailed explanation is required to work out if it is OK or not. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 He's National I love watching assorted places to see just how quick an issue, any issue what so ever no matter what it is, was caused by JK and/or Co. But I wasn't expecting it so fast here on Crew. Nice work so now on top of JK causing the Chch earthquake, some ship to run into a reef, a famine in Ethiopia, a Tragic25 to take out a F1220 and Miss World's secret pregnancy, he's now that bored he wants to rape the gulf of every scallop I have put a word into a team who knows stuff about this so should have a very good idea if there is such a thing as 'the motherload'. I do know they know there are extensive amounts out there but I was under the impression most are wondering beds and the sizes weren't that large. It'll be interesting to see what they have to say, stand by. Farrrk... a quick work out has that 325t being worth, at New World level, over $21 million bucks. Closer to but possibly a lot more than 50 mill at restaurant level. I think AC has something there. No way can such a dramatic change happen in policy without a equally dramatic change in the stock. It maybe they have just serious underestimated the numbers for many years. Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 "I wanted a precautionary approach but they said no [the scallops] are going to die anyway, so we're going to take them now. What do they mean by, "they are going to die anyway" ??? Link to post Share on other sites
DrWatson 378 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I read the "article" - typically excellent reporting from stuff This statement from the minister is the one which holds the most concern for me: Mr Carter responded last night, saying the new commercial catch limit was based on a comprehensive survey of the beds and was sustainable. That statement is far too complete to have been what any scientist worth his salt would tell a minister. The statement should have the words in bold replaced with: ...and according to current knowledge is believed to be sustainable. The first statement is absolute, a 100%. The modification gives the man an out. There is no 100% in science. Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 How large are these Beds when compared to Tasman Bay?? Tasman has about 700 + tonnes of Scollop harvested during a Season. However, the commercial guys are very good at self regulating. If they feel that the Beds need a rest, they will rest them and harvest from another area for that season, such as Marlborough. One thing that has become evident in Marlborough is that the Beds do well when they have had a Harvest. There have been lots of guesses as to why, but no real study. I suggest it is because the competition has reduced. The only thing I have always been concerned with is the Sea floor itself. The area's that are favored for harvesting are completely trashed as far as anything else is concerned. The bottom is wiped clean of all other life. We had one commercial guy wipe out a bay of scollops one year. He systematically just trawled back and forth and cleaned it completely. It took years and years for Scollop to return and even then it has been small numbers. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Glad to see you humour isn't wasted on you Oh hell yes. Taking things seriously is just no fun at all. Anyway, rape and pillage it may be, but the Minister can only act on advise from his senior ministry officials. Lets hope that our scientists have studied well. I'll keep that for future reference Link to post Share on other sites
Murky 1 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Really finding it hard to make the sequence of events stack up in a believable way: - so NIWA was out there, going about its duties [not on a commercial contract for any interest?] and discovered there were heaps more scallops than previously thought? - this info made its way through officials to the Minister, who, although he says he was not lobbied by the fishing industry which in turn says it is unlikely to take full advantage of the quota increase, spontaneously decided to give them more than they had [not?] asked for anyway. Is there a downside to leaving them as they are/do they need to be culled back? What is wrong with having some small part of our environment actually thriving? Is "sustainable" another word for "as far back as we believe we can knock them without killing them off forever?'. Link to post Share on other sites
Grinna 2 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Is "sustainable" another word for "as far back as we believe we can knock them without killing them off forever?'. Essentially, yes. That's exactly what it means. Link to post Share on other sites
leathem 0 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 So the numbers are growing.....what is wrong with an increase half the size and recheck next year? It will still be a windfall for the scollop boys and if they got it a little wrong it wont do the same damage as the increase approved Or does that make to much sense for them... Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 perhaps the massive increase is a way of creating more jobs? for the short term at least.... Link to post Share on other sites
leathem 0 Posted August 10, 2012 Share Posted August 10, 2012 perhaps the massive increase is a way of creating more jobs? for the short term at least.... but what is going to be the long term cost of those jobs? Scollops have a 5 year life... so yes if they are not taken they die but if you take to many the breeding stock is gone for ever Link to post Share on other sites
Murky 1 Posted August 16, 2012 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Well...first to admit that sometimes these international scorecards can be a crock. But still I wonder... New Zealand's seafood harvesting practices have scored poorly in a major new effort to assess the health of the oceans http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7492 ... alth-index Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.