Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 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 Which sounds? You're not hanging out with that incorrigible Bennett in Elaine Bay are you? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 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 Ignore OC Jethro. Don't go keep chatting as I'm both enjoying this thread and learning some interesting stuff. Like I didn't know there were assorted toothfish. I'd heard of Patagonian and Antarctic but just thought they were the same thing. A couple of questions if I may someone- What's this MSC thing/outfit? I was told those toothfish are popular in the US as they are bland on bland. Do they actually taste OK? Do they have an equivalent of those under the Arctic does anyone know? Can you really claim Whiskey is important stuff when there is so much Rum so easily at hand? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 A couple of questions if I may someone- What's this MSC thing/outfit? I was told those toothfish are popular in the US as they are bland on bland. Do they actually taste OK? Do they have an equivalent of those under the Arctic does anyone know? Can you really claim Whiskey is important stuff when there is so much Rum so easily at hand? I can answer a couple of those. Taste is always a matter of Umm, well, taste I suppose. Personally I think toothfish is one of the best eating fish I've had. Although quite bland it absorbs flavours like nothing else and its oil content gives it a great texture. We were lucky enough to eat large portions of it at McMurdo when I was there (all in the name of science of course ) My favourite is smear a bit of basil pesto on it and bake lightly in foil. Bloody hell I'm hungry now, that muttonbird I had for lunch just wasn't enough. No toothfish in the northern hemisphere although there was a bit of a hoax in 2003. For some bizarre reason a fisherman off Alaska claimed to have caught one. Must be the long winter nights I guess but it was proven a hoax. The furthest north I've ever seen them was Concepcion at around 37 south from memory. We weren't targeting them then and the scientists were quite interested but we ate it. A good quality scotch is a perfect alternative to rum and stop being such a bloody snob Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Toothfish is pretty popular with the Japanese - I've had it and wasn't that impressed at all. Yeah don't go Jethro it sounds like you have a lot to add - OC's posts are all cut and pastes off propaganda sites - try it - copy the first 10 words of each paragraph without major typos in it and Google it.... Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 And besides Jethro, if the sounds are your play ground, then you can't be a bad sort of bloke? Both PW and I have spent many years there. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Toothfish is pretty popular with the Japanese - I've had it and wasn't that impressed at all. Yeah don't go Jethro it sounds like you have a lot to add - OC's posts are all cut and pastes off propaganda sites - try it - copy the first 10 words of each paragraph without major typos in it and Google it.... Certainly not propaganda and whats more the quotes are from qualified scientists like "says Dr Rochelle Constantine, a marine scientist at Auckland University", Dr. Sylvia Earle and from reviewed articles from the New Zealand hearald. Not hear say from unqualified Rum and Whisky drinking crew org so called authoritive and unqualified forum chat posters. Take no notice of these unqualified opinions which they are entitled to have and send your messages NOW !!! Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 my spin on this is this... both side have good arguments and if it is sustainable then that is fine.... but Was it not the same bunch of experts that said the orange roughy fishery was sustainable? then it collapsed? Also why is this toothfish not sold in NZ if it is fished by NZ companies?... probably price and a average taste compared to our local fish. Why are NZ companies even involved in this if it has a risk attached? I think, with all the science and measurement that takes place this is probably ok.... but they have cocked this sort of stuff up before and certain cod fisheries in Europe have had fisheries depleted beyound repair. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Was it not the same bunch of experts that said the orange roughy fishery was sustainable? then it collapsed? Why are NZ companies even involved in this if it has a risk attached? cod fisheries in Europe have had fisheries depleted beyound repair. It was not the experts that got it wrong BUT the Govt on the day and the Commercial fisheries lobby. Jim Anderton at the time took the risk and bowed to the lobby. Hence orange roughy fishery is in repair status I believe. Thats why you can't trust the N.Z. Govt to Manage it, let alone police it unless N.Z. gets some Drones. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Drones.... now there is an idea! Link to post Share on other sites
wheels 543 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Orange ruffy are a perfect example of my side of the argument, where the stocks looked good an suddenly it was all over rover. Simply because at the time our NZ fishery was being hammered, no one really understood much about the Fish. Once again, they studied the fish on the Lab table and that was it. Apart from the fact they fish lives a really long time and is slow growing, What they know now is that the species lived in schools over Seamounts and Canyons and those schools probably had no interaction with any same species in another area. So once wiped off the top of a Seamount, that was it. The school was gone for ever. Link to post Share on other sites
Jethro 0 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Ok -have got back from a few days pottering around the sounds and see this thread is still going. Thought you would all be sick of it by now. So if you don't mind I will hop back in - pwederell - would happily drink with JB but preferably if he pays. I'm north west bay rather than elaine bay but its all good in pelorous. Knot me - whisky is important but its horses for courses. Whisky I drink to savour, rum I've always though of as more of a morning drink. MSC is certification issued by the marine stewardship council. To qualify a fishing company have to meet a whole raft of standards. It's the holy grail for fishing companies wanting to promote their product as environmentally friendly. If a fish has MSC approval its considered to be sustainable and to be caught by responsible operators. wheels - Mostly agree with you about orange roughy. I think the problem at the time was that the fishery took off so quick and was such a bonanza that the science couldn't keep up. By the time they realised how old the fish lived lots of it had already been caught. I think the Ministry of fisheries learnt from that lesson and are a bit more cautious now (well, maybe a bit anyway). The good news is that orange roughy have recovered pretty well oceancruiser - you continue to sound like one of those conspiracy sort of nutters. Putting something in bold print and sticking a line under it doesn't make it true Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Ok -have got back from a few days pottering around the sounds and see this thread is still going. Thought you would all be sick of it by now. So if you don't mind I will hop back in - pwederell - would happily drink with JB but preferably if he pays. I'm north west bay rather than elaine bay but its all good in pelorous. Knot me - whisky is important but its horses for courses. Whisky I drink to savour, rum I've always though of as more of a morning drink. MSC is certification issued by the marine stewardship council. To qualify a fishing company have to meet a whole raft of standards. It's the holy grail for fishing companies wanting to promote their product as environmentally friendly. If a fish has MSC approval its considered to be sustainable and to be caught by responsible operators. wheels - Mostly agree with you about orange roughy. I think the problem at the time was that the fishery took off so quick and was such a bonanza that the science couldn't keep up. By the time they realised how old the fish lived lots of it had already been caught. I think the Ministry of fisheries learnt from that lesson and are a bit more cautious now (well, maybe a bit anyway). The good news is that orange roughy have recovered pretty well oceancruiser - you continue to sound like one of those conspiracy sort of nutters. Putting something in bold print and sticking a line under it doesn't make it true Jethro, you just blew some of your cred with two things above... 1. Any man who drinks spirits before lunchtime is either alcoholic or a has serious social issues. 2. By calling OC a nutter just because he does not agree with you're point of view is a bit silly. the reason i say this is... you will look very very silly if these toothfish suddenly are found to be over fished and the science that backed up its sustainability was found to be flawed (LIKE MANY MANY OTHER FISHERIES AROUND THE WORLD HAVE BECOME) Sustainable fisheries are ones where the re birth and survival rate is higher than the take rate. Snapper in Auckland, and trout in Taupo are good examples because man seed the growth via hatcheries bad examples are cod in Europe (North), Orange roughy in Nz, Blue cod in the malborough sounds, Crayfish in NZ.... in fact heres the Facts... http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/22965/The%20 ... l.pdf.ashx Add bluenose, and black Cardinal fish as well. this report says we a favorable but is only bench marked against fish on the "status" list (NOT ALL FISH) and is favourable as a comparison to the US figure. But we are still high at 15% the main thing to remember is this fact... In 2011, 19 stocks were considered to be overfished (below the soft limit): southern bluefin tuna (a highly migratory species over which New Zealand has limited influence), three stocks of black cardinalfish, five stocks of bluenose, six stocks or sub-stocks of orange roughy, and one stock or sub-stock each of rock lobster, scallop, snapper and rig. this is the link to this fact... http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=16 so! does this convey complete confidence in the toothfish fishery? or is this just someone like you justifying something because you may have vested interests. Also with other less "carefulL" Countries down there i think the facts speak for themselves and OC has a point to consider. at the end of the day the science may be right but from what i have seen of deep see fisheries over the years i am not at all confident in the science and sustainability when you consider MONEY is the root cause of most evil in this industry. From my perspective the people who back this science out side of the scientists themselves is usually current or ex fisherman. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we ... fish-guide Note where Patagonian Tooth fish is on the guide! according to forest and bird they are not a great "sustainable" species. according to the scienctists HALF the monitored stocks are EXPLOITED!. See 3.0, 3.1 and 3.2 in this link... http://www.greenfacts.org/en/fisheries/index.htm#il1 this link is from Forest and birds web site and is backed up by the people whom study this kind of stuff. So these scientists are telling us there is an issue. whose right here? Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 1. Any man who drinks spirits before lunchtime is either alcoholic or a has serious social issues. I know a number of people that have a rum and orange in the morning (maybe not every morning) - they have done it for many years are not alcoholics and do not have any serious (or even minor) social issues. What has prejudiced your thinking? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 I guess most of our war vets count as winos and social misfits on ANZAC day then. Jethro, is MSC accreditation awarded to a vessel or a fishing company? If awarded to the company how do they measure the performance of that company away from MOF etc. oversight? Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Rigger Just observations of people who are alcoholics who cannot keep away from the stuff. and knowing people who advise to the AA and substance abuse organisations. Sun and Yard arm as a rule works well. but this mAY HELP... http://alcoholism.about.com/cs/homework/a/blsigns.htm Namely parargraph... Have you ever felt bad or Guilty about your drinking? Have you ever had a drink first thing in the morning to steady your nerves or to get rid of a hangover (Eye opener)? One "yes" response suggests a possible alcohol problem. If you responded "yes" to more than one question, it is highly likely that a problem exists. Not convinced? Take this more extensive Alcohol Abuse Screening Quiz. In either case, it is important that you see your doctor or other health care provider right away to discuss your responses to these questions. He or she can help you determine whether you have a drinking problem and, if so, recommend the best course of action for you. Even if you answered "no" to all of the above questions, if you are encountering drinking-related problems with your job, relationships, health, or with the law, you should still seek professional help. Link to post Share on other sites
rigger 47 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 JP just pointing out that your statement was false when applied to a number of people I know. You might even know one of those people I know... BTW - If you need a rule as to when you can drink you may have an impulse control issue, or you may just have some sensible rules to prevent you over indulging? Link to post Share on other sites
Jethro 0 Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Justin Port - relax a little (maybe have a drink). My comment about rum in the morning was an attempt at humour. Obviously not a good one. I would never drink before 10am. I stand by my statement about OC. Note I said he SOUNDS like a conspiracy nutter - not that he IS one. However, the person who wrote the original articles that OC is fond of quoting is without doubt a conspiracy nut job. Go to any conspiracy website and you will see the same style of writing (ie very poor English, lots of bold print and underlining, completely unfounded claims and in the absence of any facts an attempt to discredit the people who do know something). If OC wishes to use such material as his 'authority' then he does indeed risk sounding like a nutter. Not sure what the point of the links you have given is. None of them are relevant to the Antarctic toothfish fishery in the Ross Sea. This is the same scattergun approach used by environmental groups. Having absolutely no credible facts about the topic being discussed they try to introduce other vaguely related (and also dubious) 'facts' about other things - eg cod fisheries in the northern hemisphere, mining in the Arctic!! Talking about an entirely different fishery is like saying a farmer in Texas got caught mistreating his animals therefore all farmers worldwide are bad. Pwederell - RE MSC - Firstly the fishery is assessed to make sure it is being sustainably managed. This is done by examining all the available scientific data (the last ocean alliance put in a submission as part of that process but the data they provided could not be supported by the overwhelming amount of information already collated by scientists). The fishing company and the vessels used are then assessed to make sure they have the proceedures in place to sustainably catch the fish. Its a pretty rigorous assessment requiring a very high standard from the vessels involved. At the moment 4 NZ vessels and 3 UK vessels have MSC for the Ross Sea. Its purpose is to give consumers confidence that the fish they buy is sustainably caught. I absolutely believe that if consumers only bought MSC certified toothfish then other vessels operating there would be lifting their game to get access to the market. Personally I would rather there was no fishing or any other activity in the Ross Sea or on Antarctica itself. But kicking the licensed, regulated boats out wont achieve that. It will open the door to unregulated 'pirate' vessels and then we would really have a problem. The fishery can't be undiscovered. Better to focus on managing it properly. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Jethro, regardless of you drinking habits i notice you have not refuted the examples i give from credible NZ GOVERNMENT agencies and other well regarded organisations that have experts and scientists the SAY THERE ARE OVERFISHING ISSUES including TOOTHFISH. (Fand B report) these experts also back up what OC's guys are saying and the science either way may be robust or it may be flawed so.... why take a risk! Anyway i think you are as much a "tongue in cheek NUTTER" and "conspiracy theorist" as OC is. It just depends on your point of view. Link to post Share on other sites
Jethro 0 Posted October 15, 2012 Share Posted October 15, 2012 Hmm, lets see Justin Port. Who should I believe? The Ministry of Primary Industries scientists, the NIWA scientists (Stu Hanchett has more knowledge of Antarctic toothfish than anyone), the countless other scientists who have contributed peer reviewed papers, all of whom say Antarctic toothfish stocks are good, OR the unqualified people of forest and bird who have given their own unique interpretation of that science? Points to note are that the F&B site has snapper right at the bottom (didn't you just tell us that snapper were a good example of sustainable fish?) and that F&B rely on donations to survive. To get donations you need attention grabbing headlines -sensible, reasoned positions based on all the available information do not get donations. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.