Ross Sea

[Fogg 427]

Anyone else see The Last Ocean?

 

I have a new target - the Antarctic policy unit of NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Sanford.

 

100% Pure NZ?

 

100% bullshit.

[Guest]

Didn't see it but having been involved in commercial fishing down there in the early days and involved more recently supporting scientific research I am definitely of the opinion that there should be no commercial fishing happening south of 60s. Art Devries and his side kick Clive Evans (main toothfish scientists) are practical and pragmatic guys with more experience than anybody else can shake at. I've worked with these guys and seen the results of their observations first hand.

[Fogg 427]

Yeah it just seems such a shame, can't we leave somewhere untouched. And those tooth fish look like prehistoric animals that deserve to be left in peace, not marketed as Chilean Sea Bass. At least Safeway (US) has started to recognise the problem and stopped buying it.

 

I can't get over the fact it was NZ that started this fishery and both govt and Sanford continue to defend it on a pretty flimsy basis, almost as bad as the Jap whaling excuses ("research").

[Guest]

3 problems. First, toothfish tastes bloody good, it's worth shitloads and Sanford and Sealord have enormous political and economic clout. I've worked for both of them in fishing and aquaculture and trust their platitudes not a bit. BTW, their are 2 separate species being caught and the distinctions are not always clear for catch records/quotas etc. Patagonian toothfish (the target species) and Antarctic toothfish. Patagonian toothfish numbers are rapidly declining, Anarctic toothfish numbers appear to be in a state of total collapse. Admittedly it is a hard environment to conduct stock distribution research but no reason why we shouldn't apply the brakes before we destroy yet another fishery.

[idlerboat 116]

Jump to: navigation, search

Patagonian toothfish

Scientific classification

Kingdom: Animalia

Phylum: Chordata

Class: Actinopterygii

Order: Perciformes

Family: Nototheniidae

Genus: Dissostichus

Species: D. eleginoides

Binomial name

Dissostichus eleginoides

Smitt, 1898

 

The Patagonian toothfish, Dissostichus eleginoides, marketed as Chilean sea bass in the United States and Canada, is a fish found in the cold, temperate waters (between depths of 45 m (148 ft) to 3,850 m (12,631 ft)) of the southern Atlantic, Pacific & Indian Oceans and Southern Ocean on seamounts and continental shelves around most sub-Antarctic islands.

 

A close relative, the Antarctic toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni), is found farther south around the edges of the Antarctic shelf; and an MSC certified fishery is active in the Ross Sea.

 

The average weight of a commercially caught Patagonian toothfish is 7–10 kg (15–22 lb), depending on the fishery, with large adults occasionally exceeding 100 kilograms (220 lb). They are thought to live up to fifty years[1] and to reach a length up to 2.3 m (7.5 ft).

 

The orange roughy, red roughy, slimehead or deep sea perch, Hoplostethus atlanticus, is a relatively large deep-sea fish belonging to the slimehead family (Trachichthyidae). The Marine Conservation Society has categorized orange roughy as vulnerable to exploitation. It is found in 3 to 9 °C (37 to 48 °F) deep (bathypelagic, 180 to 1,800 metres (590 to 5,900 ft) waters of the Western Pacific Ocean, eastern Atlantic Ocean (from Iceland to Morocco; and from Walvis Bay, Namibia, to off Durban, South Africa), Indo-Pacific (off New Zealand and Australia), and in the Eastern Pacific off Chile. The orange roughy is notable for its extraordinary lifespan, with lifespans up to 149 years determined by scientific methods.

 

 

I have mentioned before about "management:.....

I would be greatful if anyone could point me towards a management plan that takes into considederation deep sea fish management on a fifty year cycle.....let alone a 150 years !!!

So far the closest I have had in reply is "the fish stock dosnt have to live anywhere that long to make a commercialy viable, sustainable venture"..........

.....

Yeah ? !! so they have done 50 ?150 ? years of study on these two species.......or are they "Extrapolating.tha data"..........

[wheels 543]

The ONLY data the Fishing industry is using is that so far they are still hauling in large catches. That's it, full stop. When it gets harder to catch them, they will then lower the quota.

To me, that is a complete and utter idiotic way to manage any fishery, let alone one that nobody has no other knowledge about.

I didn't get to see this particular program, but if it is a repeat of what I have seen before, the scientists against fishing this species said, (quoted from my memory) we don't know how long they live, how often they breed, where they breed, the survival rate of new young fish introduced each breeding season, what they feed on, what feeds on them.

IMO, like PW said, fishing down in those waters shouldn't be allowed. There is a very fragile and critically important balance of species down there that goes along way to balancing the rest of the worlds oceans. As in, animals like Whales go down there for food so as they can survive long periods in warmer waters to bring up their young, for just one example.

[Guest]

I would be greatful if anyone could point me towards a management plan that takes into considederation deep sea fish management on a fifty year cycle.....let alone a 150 years !!!

So far the closest I have had in reply is "the fish stock dosnt have to live anywhere that long to make a commercialy viable, sustainable venture"..........

.....

Yeah ? !! so they have done 50 ?150 ? years of study on these two species.......or are they "Extrapolating.tha data"..........

Art Devries http://mcb.illinois.edu/faculty/profile/adevries has been studying Antarctic fishes for 50 years but has only recently (last 20 or so years) been involved in stock distribution as an adjunct to his core studies.

[Guest]

Yeah it just seems such a shame, can't we leave somewhere untouched. And those tooth fish look like prehistoric animals that deserve to be left in peace, not marketed as Chilean Sea Bass. At least Safeway (US) has started to recognise the problem and stopped buying it.

 

I can't get over the fact it was NZ that started this fishery and both govt and Sanford continue to defend it on a pretty flimsy basis, almost as bad as the Jap whaling excuses ("research").

 

 

N.Z. earns $20 million a year latest statement from Govt for the fishery which you call research but N.Z. openly state it,s a managed fishery.

 

What other research institutes in N.Z. show huge earnings each year. Most have allocations from the budget each year.

 

And the Marine reserve they propose does not include the area they are catching them from the proposed reserve is stated by Atlantic ocean Alliance as a area that does not have the so call fish in them.

 

So a area with the fish is going to be open with increased catches while they try to hood wink the public they are creating a reserve to protect the fish.

 

 

 

http://www.wwf.org.nz/?9361/Critical-habitats-missing-from-NZ-Ross-Sea-marine-reserve-proposal---AOA

 

 

[Jethro 0]

You have to be careful not to believe something just because it was in a documentary. The 'research' talked about in the last ocean doco hasn't been backed up. Scientists have asked for the data to be presented so it can be peer reviewed but the people involved in the doco haven't been able to do that.

All the real science shows that the Toothfish stock is healthy.

Patagonian Toothfish are not the target species. Antarctic Tootfish are. There would probably be only a dozen Patagonian Toothfish caught in the Ross Sea in any year. Neither the onboard independent scientific observers (on every vessel fishing there) or the crew have any problem telling the difference between them. Peter Young obviously does though as his doco regularly showed boats fishing for Patagonian Toothfish in places other than the Ross Sea.

Despite what the doco tells you lots of research has been done on Toothfish and on the Ross Sea fishery. The amount of actual research carried out by NZ vastly outnumbers the 'research' completed by the doco makers. This research is publically available on the CCAMLR website and has all been peer reviewed. The USA have no involvement in the Ross Sea Fishery - they sent two vessels once years ago but both of those baots were later busted for pirate fishing and other illegal activities. NZ has led the way in research and in protecting the environment in the Ross Sea and will continue to do so.

The Ross Sea has already been discovered. We can't hide it now. NZ does not own it and cannot stop other countries fishing there.

I saw a documentary last year that expects me to believe the world trade centre was actually blown up by the US government -not terrorists. I didn't believe that doco either

[Bad Kitty 252]

Well I'll try to be open minded but let's see: "F#$k off Jethro"

[wheels 543]

All the real science shows that the Toothfish stock is healthy.

What "real science" ????? There is no real science. There is "what has been observed". What has been observed in this case is not science.

So what has been observed on the side of the Fishing is that they get good catches.

What has been observed on the side other side of the argument is that many species that feed on the Antarctic Cod are declining and seeming to be declining from starvation or lack of food stock. Why??? no one really knows because no real scientific study has been done....or at least, completed yet.

[Guest]

I would place a lot more credence in the CCLAMR if the integrity (by my own and other's direct observations) of some member representatives wasn't highly questionable. www.bigdeadplace.com is an amusing counterpoint to some treaty propaganda foisted on us.

BTW, the CCALMR website needs a new developer or do they really have something to hide?

[Jethro 0]

Thanks for the response "Bad Kitty". Very intelligent argument that has completely convinced me that I am wrong.

 

At least "Wheels" and Pwederell" have made some attempt to argue the point.

 

BUT - pwedrell, you seem to make some sort of claim that you were involved in fishing in the Ross Sea, yet you don't know that Antarctic toothfish is the target species, not Patagonian. You also claim that there is confusion between identifying the two different species. I have never seen even the stupidest crew member struggle to tell them apart -trust me its real easy. Had a quick look at the website you recommended. Are you serious?

 

Wheels - the real science I mentioned is the dozens of peer reviewed published scientific papers specifically on Antarctic toothfish, the Ross Sea ecosystem, bycatch species etc.

The scientists involved with the last ocean project have published not a single peer reviewed paper.

The "real science" done has been by independent scientists. On each vessel there are also two independent observers. These observers do full biological sampling on up to 150 toothfish per day. By the end of a trip and multiplied by all the boats fishing that is a lot of data. 13 years worth of that data has helped scientists to form a pretty good picture of what the fish stocks are like and what impact fishing is having. Not sure what you are talking about when you refer to Antarctic cod - not sure if there is even any such species. There is no evidence that any species in the Ross Sea is 'starving' or declining in numbers.

 

NIWA have also done extensive research and have published numerous papers on Toothfish - try their website if you found the CCAMLR one too confusing.

 

But I suppose you are going to claim that NIWA, CCAMLR, the observers and other independent scientists are all part of some sort of mad conspiracy and that only a couple of blokes fishing through a hole in the ice (next to a polluted base) know the real truth.

[wheels 543]

Jethro, PW was skipper of one of the Ships that fished for Toothfish. Plus he spent several seasons on the ice.

The Antarctic Toothfish are actually a cod. Hence why as you said, they look so different. The two are very different species. The Patagonian Tooth fish is only called a Chillian Sea Bass for marketing. It is not a Sea Bass.

I don't know where you get the idea that the target species is Antarctic Toothfish. Sanfords most certainly are catching Patagonian Tooth Fish as their target species.

Yes scientists know lots about the fish itself, but as I said earlier, they have no idea about breading and many other points and the ONLY test of strength of the Fishery is that they are catching the fish. The reason for that is the fish are in very deep and very cold water in an extremely remote part of the earth. No one has ever studied the fish in it's environment. They can only study the thing once it is on the lab table.

[Guest]

Thanks for the promotion Wheels but I was somewhat further down the food chain from skipper in those days.

Jethro, I never fished the Ross Sea but did trawl in the bad old days around Heard & Kerguelen Island as well as the south coast of Chile. All times we were targeting Patagonian Toothfish. I do have a couple of mates driving longliners down in the Ross Sea but haven't seen them in a few years.

I was also involved in developing sub ice fish tracking procedures and equipment for a mad Scottish BAS scientist in conjunction with Art Devries' work but have only heard anecdotally the results as it is 7 years since my involvement.

Yep, bigdeadplace is a bit of a joke but given the lack of integrity of several (many) CCALMR (as observed by me) I suggest it bears as much scrutiny as any CCALMR funded research does.

[Jethro 0]

I guess things have changed a lot over the years. I have been in the Ross Sea for 6 of the last 7 years on the research and monitoring side of the fishery. From first hand recent experience I assure you that the NZ vessels are highly professional and have no problems as far as integrity goes. Likewise for the observers who are placed on board the NZ boats and all the other people who work for CCAMLR.

As far as Sanford goes (in my opinion-from being there on their boats and others) they are leading the way in managing this area responsibly. They don't just meet the very strict requirements but actually have a policy of exceeding them. The other vessels ( Tallys and Sealord) are also very professional. This is part of the reason they have all been given MSC certification.

All the NZ companies also fish for Patagonian toothfish in either South Georgia, Heard Island or Mcquarrie islands but not in the Ross Sea. Patagonians don't live in the Ross Sea - Antarctic toothfish (not a cod!!) are definately the target species there. A lot of the information put out by environmental groups relate to Patagonians instead of Antarctic toothfish which is where the confusion starts. Antarctic toothfish have never been endangered because the fishery has been very well managed from the beginning. Like any fish they are sustainable provided the fish stocks are properly managed.

Despite what you may have been told Antarctic toothfish are probably one of the most studied fish around. They do know where they live, what they eat, who eats them, how long they live, when they reach sexual maturity etc etc. They also know almost all the stuff about where and when they breed. The reason they don't know the full picture isn't because no one studies them. Its because the area they live is covered in ice for 8 months of the year (when the spawning takes place) and it is not possible to get to them. The fact they are protected from fishing by the ice for most of the year is one of the reasons the stocks are so healthy. The estimates of stock sizes are not based on catch rates as you claim. They are based on a whole lot of independantly collected data such as returns of tagged fish, length frequency measurements and research surveys.

The problem in the Ross Sea is not the fishing but who is fishing. It is harder to monitor the foreign vessels down there and that is where the risk is.

If people really want to protect the Ross Sea they should be pushing for consumers to only buy MSC approved toothfish. All the boats down there would soon match NZs high standard if they want to sell their fish.

[Guest]

Jethro, you won't last long on here if you continue to be dispassionate and rational.

My lack of integrity comments were certainly not directed at the science and observer programmes which I have a great deal of respect for. They were directed at the international level CCALMR and treaty representatives. The same sh*t that happened when NZ introduced the quota system and the policy makers ignored the scientists. Yes, I was there and became rich during the destruction of the roughy fishery.

I do stand by my comments re the big 3 in NZ. Having been involved with them in international waters and seen their policies of rape and pillage when away from NZ legal oversight I trust them not. Their behaviour was responsible for me leaving the commercial fishing game once and for all

[wheels 543]

I stand corrected on the Cod.

As far as Sanford goes (in my opinion-from being there on their boats and others) they are leading the way in managing this area responsibly. They don't just meet the very strict requirements but actually have a policy of exceeding them. The other vessels ( Tallys and Sealord) are also very professional.

My argument is not with any of those companies themselves, but with the way the Fish stock is judged as to being plentiful or not. It is the process of coming to that idea that is flawed. As I said, there is a big difference between studying a fish on a table and studying it in it's environment. But of course, this is my personal view.

[Guest]

Jethro, you won't last long on here if you continue to be dispassionate and rational.

 

 

 

 

My lack of integrity comments were certainly not directed at the science and observer programmes which I have a great deal of respect for. They were directed at the international level CCALMR and treaty representatives. The same sh*t that happened when NZ introduced the quota system and the policy makers ignored the scientists. Yes, I was there and became rich during the destruction of the roughy fishery.

I do stand by my comments re the big 3 in NZ. Having been involved with them in international waters and seen their policies of rape and pillage when away from NZ legal oversight I trust them not. Their behaviour was responsible for me leaving the commercial fishing game once and for all

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The oceans around Antarctic are the only oceans on this earth still relatively untouched by human activity. They are home to almost 10,000 unique and diverse species, many of which cannot be found anywhere else on the planet. But today the Antarctic waters are under threat. While other marine ecosystems are threatened and devastated by development, pollution, mining, oil drilling and overfishing, Antarctica's Ross Sea remains one of the most intact on the planet and call for the establishment of the world's largest network of Marine Protected Areas and no-take marine reserves to protect antarctic marine habitats

Fishing by illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) vessels, often using "flags of convenience" is on the rise. In some parts of the Southern Ocean, unsustainable fishing methods such as deep sea gillnets are in use in some areas. These gillnets can reach more than 100 kilometres in length and are a threat to almost all marine life, including marine mammals and non-targeted fish species such as rays.

 

As the world's oceans continue to run out of fish, due to decades of overfishing, more and more fishing vessels are traveling to remote areas such as Antarctica's Southern Ocean to fill their holds. Commercial harvesting, particularly of the slow-growing and long-lived Antarctic and Patagonian toothfish (also known as the Chilean sea bass) is on the rise. As well as threatening this pivotal species, the removal of any toothfish and the taking of krill as food for fish farms is not acceptable in Antarctica's Marine Ecosystem and a no-take marine reserve in the Antarctic region is mandatory.

 

In 1991, the international community made a courageous decision to protect the Antarctic region as a natural reserve for peace research and science. This included a ban on mining, oil exploration and should have extend to Antarctica's magnificent marine environment, leaving it at risk. The Japanese killing and taking of whales in no way should be accepted as research.

 

New Zealand was one of two countries to oppose further protection measures in a secret vote at the International Union for Conservation of Nature's conference. A vote was held on New Zealand banning gill and trawl nets in waters up to 100 metres deep - 117 countries and 459 organisations voted for the move. By voting against essential protection for the world's most endangered marine dolphin, the New Zealand government has acted shamefully and can no longer claim to be leaders in conservation

 

The Environmental Defence Society report, Wonders of the Sea: protection of New Zealand's marine mammals, cites a failure of leadership, legislation and the ability of lobbyists and self-serving bureaucrats to stymie progress. The report, co-written by EDS oceans researcher Kate Mulcahy, exposes what amounts to buck-passing, lack of responsibility, toothless regulations and the triumph of economics over science and research. The systemic problems are more subtle than overt - legislation without practical powers split among agencies with silo mentalities and sometimes conflicting priorities, and a lack of public funding for much-needed research.

In this environment, a well-resourced fishing lobby has been free to conduct an obfuscation masterclass to running rings around bureaucrats, politicians, scientists, conservationists, and Government agency the Department of Conservation, which the report argues should be taking the leadership role, is cast as growing weaker as the pressures on species have strengthened.

When the Marine Mammals Protection Act was passed in 1978, New Zealand was hailed as world-leading. Its main mechanism for helping threatened marine mammals is for New Zealand's Department of Conversation to prepare a population management plan, which can include measures such as limits on fishing by-catch (marine life accidentally caught in the hunt for fish). Work on a plan for sea lions began in the late 1990s but took eight years to complete. In 2009, the Directo r- General of Conservation shelved the plan because it was out of date. Over that period, the sea lion was reclassified from nationally threatened to nationally critical.

 

Hector's and Maui's dolphin among the rarest and smallest dolphins in the world. Maui's population critically endangered; Hector's nationally threatened. 2011 estimate that only 55 Maui's adults remain, confined to part of west coast North Island. Vulnerable to entanglement in set (gill) nets and trawling. Set net bans and other protection measures often delayed or overturned by fishing industry court challenges. Hector's population off Canterbury also affected by dolphinwatching vessels

 

Fishing threats in New Zealand have, by default, been managed by the fisheries ministry (now merged into the MPI), whose "sustainable management" focus aims to allow continued fishing of commercial stocks. The Fisheries Act has no specific goals to protect marine mammals and, like the MMPA, no specific powers to minimise by-catch. The New Zealand Department of Conservation is grossly underfunded and conservation science in general is grossly underfunded," says Dr Rochelle Constantine, a marine scientist at Auckland University. She praises The Departmentof Conservation for funding surveys of the critically endangered Maui's dolphin in 2010 and 2011 which led to the population estimate being further slashed to around 55 adults. "But no one else is stepping up to fund more research."

 

A likely consequence of it all is the extinction of Maui's dolphin, which risks putting New Zealand's environmental reputation on a par with China's - the last country to preside over the loss of a cetacean, the Yangtse River dolphin. Accordingly this shows New Zealand does not have the ability or political will to manage, save and fund endangered species in its owns coastal waters let alone have the responsibilty to manage such an important area as the Antarctic ecosystems The New Zealand fishing industry has used scientific doubt to routinely challenge fishing bans or limits, succeeding as often as not.

In 34 years, no population management plan has been put in place. Accordingly how can the New Zealand Government be trusted to manage, police, apprehend and prosecute partial fishing in Antarctic waters, a no take fishery should be imposed immediately and a ban on all whaling taking should also be imposed immediately in the entire Antarctic region.

 

 

 

So, are more rules needed to force countries to comply, or fewer? Right now it,s bottom, the system is in semi chaos. There's an industry in negotiating new agreements and it's chaos out there. The trouble is, it's not in the interests of most governments to change the status quo unless the common people rally and tell them on a massive scale that they must do so. Join the revolution of people power and rise with the tide and force them to stop procasternating around and make the Artic and Antarctic regions

 

 

A no take, no touch, no exploration, no mining, no killing mammals or whales regions.

Ban commercial vessels And military vessels dumping rubbish, waste and untreated sewage into the seas & oceans, free from oil exporation,

oil drilling mining, and the killing of mammals in the Artic and Antarctic Oceans, Seas and Waters . NOW !

 

by sending them a message to all listed below.

 

 

 

 

 

SEND YOUR MESSAGE

 

Make the Artic and Antarctic regions A no take, no touch, no exploration, no mining, no killing mammals or whales regions.

Ban commercial vessels And military vessels dumping rubbish, waste and untreated sewage into the seas & oceans, free from oil exporation,

oil drilling mining, and the killing of mammals in the Artic and Antarctic Oceans, Seas and Waters . NOW !!

 

 

TO

 

The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), made up of 24 nationals and the European Union,

 

Heads of States Worldwide,

 

Mr President of the U.S.A.

 

The Prime Ministers of New Zealand and Australia

 

Your nearest New Zealand Embassy.

 

 

 

[Jethro 0]

I think I will bow out of this discussion at this point. Sorry if my postings got a bit longwinded - I just get upset when I see the nonsense said about this issue (Oceancruiser's posting is an excellent example of this - please dont send that letter on to prime minister, president of US etc as suggested - they will think it is a joke and you will personally set back the environmental movement by at least 20 years).

I will now focus on trying to get back out into the sounds where I can drink huge quantities of whisky and enjoy the more important stuff

 

cheers