Dear Jennifer,
Don’t miss the Sunday programme tomorrow on Channel 9. Ross Coulthart exposes phony claims about the “threatened” grey nurse shark.
The eco-nazis have already made a press release ‘Bogus Grey Nurse Sharks Claims Quashed’ responding to the story before it is even broadcast. Obviously they know they are in trouble.
Best,
Walter
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Seems like your mind is made up Walter. If you’re in early possession of all the independent facts then why not share them with us? What was your standard for the scientific evidence?
It’s OK for you to prejudge the “eco-nazis” but no OK for them to respond to the aspects of the story that’s already public. Unless you mean “Obviously they (eco-nazis) know they (the sharks) are in trouble” as yes, this would explain their reaction. Who cares about the sharks?
Fascinating story! Great photography.
But it’s a real pity about the growing disconnect between scientists and resource users, in this case fisherman.
And it was interesting the extent to which Ross Coulthart went into the science, including the samplying methodology so the home viewer could almost evaluate the standard for the scientific evidence.
I wonder how many grey nurse shark there really are off the east coast of Australia?
PS Should soon be a transcript here: http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/cover_stories/article_2156.asp
The term nazi is specific to the German party founded in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 by Hitler. To use such a term as eco-nazi makes no sense and is designed to be offensive in the extreme. You are not Jewish are you Walter? Such terms are often used by Schiller as well. When those who oppose anti-whaling on this blog bring up the Japanese atrocites of WWII they are told it was over 40 years ago and to move on. Sound advice and should be applicable to all.
Regarding the footage, it is always amusing to have a cameraman saying how the animal was gettng too close, and yet the actual shot reveals it pinned up against a rock wall with nowhere else to go except closer to the cameraman. And such scientific language as ‘family group of sharks cavorting’ is bound to distill faith in the reporting for me.
When were the reports done? 2004, 2005? It is now 2007. Why are these people complaining so loudly now? The fact the group said something about the program before it going to air is because the issue has been in the media lately. They are entitled to do so.
There are two aspects to the term eco nazi, one is as a political term of abuse and the other relates to Fascism in general (national socialism) and Nazism in particular and their strong themes of purity, animal rights, naturalism and conservation. Once Hitler embarked on his grand imperialist project romantic notions of “nature” were discarded or distorted into eugenics and racial purity.
Travis,
I don’t necessarily agree with ‘the tactic’, but reference to ‘Nazis’is increasingly common in ‘environmental debate’ with global warming skeptics increasingly labelled ‘deniers’ some even suggesting they be prosecuted like war criminals: http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/1782/
My apologies for the eco-nazi comment. It was only intended as a private comment to Jennifer not the blog and it does detract from the substance of public debate. However, I do not resile from the aptness of the characterisation. The extreme environmental movement shares with national socialism a surfeit of righteousness, intolerance of dissent, authority worship, indifference to harm inflicted on any who stand in their way and sundry other totalitarian characteristics.
As for the substance of the matter, a quote from a review I have made on a similar claim about “threatened” shark populations on the GBR seems highly relevant as it involves still another population survey by NSW Fisheries.
“Estimates of abundance made by academics should be treated with caution. For example, a widely cited NSW Fisheries survey in 1995-96 (Harris and Gehrke, 1997) reported that: “A telling indication of the condition of rivers in the Murray region was the fact that, despite intensive fishing with the most efficient types of sampling gear for a total of 220 person-days over a two-year period in twenty randomly chosen Murray-region sites, not a single Murray cod or freshwater catfish was caught.” Yet the national Recreational Fishing Survey (Henry and Lyle 2003), conducted for 12 months in 2001 and 2002, estimated that during the survey period recreational fishers caught 483,284 Murray cod of which 374,932 were released and 108,352 weighing 144,222 Kg were kept. An obvious conclusion is that the inability of biologists to find an organism may have more to do with their lack of relevant skills than with the abundance of that organism.”
The pre-emptive rejection by the National Parks Association of irrefutable indication of higher than estimated populations of a species
feared to be under severe threat clearly reveals that the only threat they are really concerned with is the one to their own agenda.
References-
My review on threatened reefs sharks can be downloaded at http://www.goldendolphin.com/eco/GBR%20sharks%20threatned.pdf
J.H. Harris and P.C. Gehrke (Eds)
1997. Fish and Rivers in Stress: The NSW Rivers Survey. Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology, Canberra, pp. xv+299
G. W. Henry and J. M. Lyle (Eds.)
2003. The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey. Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (2003), 190 pp.
Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, stated recently that environmental activists were the new menace after communism…. hard words indeed!
I can agree that many statements from ” environmentalists” are exaggerared,and these statements are undermining the movement and trust to NGOs.
Vaclav Klaus makes some valid points; he has embraced the free market philosophy which has brought an increased measure of stability and prosperity to the Czech Republic post Communism.
We know what Walter thinks and writes to associates by this choice term eco-nazis in relation to our marine conservationists, but it’s curious to the extreme why it got passed through to the blog. I suspect it’s something madam would like to say herself but hasn’t the guts to do it on public record.
I know nothing about the sharks or the NPA however I reckon it’s insulting to the lot of us to have these unchecked snipers being constantly employed in the background. It reminds me of the old League of Rights in action. Like the Socialist Workers and one or two others not game to stand up where it counts.
Apologies to no one for that perception since I’ve met them all on the hustings during a stroll down the middle.
Walter’s apologetic defence doesn’t cut it – the authors seem to have a significant result on the Barrier Reef. Presumable avoidance of divers is the same across all treatments so how relevant?
What I did on my holidays or what happens elsewhere are interesting anecdotes but that’s it. What’s actually wrong with Robbin’s survey statistically?
Sounds like more of the same defence of resource exploitive industries again.
Speaking of eco-nazis, it has been confirmed to me that the Iemma govt is to reverse the rule of the Carr Govt and allow some logging in National Parks, particularly those areas that were once forestry and were seized by the State. The subjects of dwindling royalties and failed plantations were mentioned..
Gavin,
I will admit publicly, once calling someone, who was much more concerned about their diet than me, a ‘food-nazi’.
And I have more than once, to the horror of at least one colleague, admitted to being what John Quiggin calls a ‘global warming denier’.
There is no comparison between the term denier and nazi and suggesting the term ‘global warming denier’ has the same connotations and emotional consequences is appalling.
Regarding the GNS, I have known of people across a variety of disciplines who have spoken of coastal gutters up and down NSW where GNS have been regularly sighted. These sites would not have been included in the surveys, but residency patterns of animals at these sites would also not be known. Having listened to the skewed group on the 9 program, they are just as much at fault when they say they do not want Fisheries and researchers to know of their sites for fear of making them into a protected zone. Common sense should tell them that if they all cooperated, and what they claim is true of GNS high numbers, their precious sites wont be cut off from them. Instead they would rather that other sites are cut off to other users so theirs can be protected. The bunch featured had their own vested interests at heart. The fact there was one spokesman for the survey and current research into the species is typical of such media coverage.
If the species is more numerous than claimed it is good news for all, but it is clear that more work needs to be done into establishing the short and long term movements of animals, recruitment and basic other life history information. A future survey with a commitment from recreational fishers, sprearfishermen and divers who can let go of their preciousness long enough to cooperate with researchers is needed. You can unlist a species if it has recovered. The only listing it can receive if you are too late is ‘extinct’.
Jennifer on confessions: As the juice in Ribena gets more exposed we need to focus again on the unfortunate brainwashed. There was a time when I when I went to see a ward full of young ladies in the final stages of their self destruction. Such delusion is difficult to understand but IMO it runs at its worst in dysfunctional families.
Coping with delusion based on some obscure “reason” is not helped by the use of terms like “nazi”. From experience it’s best to face “death” of a system squarely and the imminent death of a person likewise however difficult it is to haul back from the brink.
Since I grew up with mal nutrition I take a keen interest in our follies including “food fads” and truth in labelling. Standards that affect both our young and the elderly have to be constantly overhauled and frequently examined for wilful deceit. Having said all that; this blog is hardly the place to find a properly trained watchdog on the multi nationals.
Rog; Speaking of eco-nazis: “It has been confirmed to me that the Iemma govt is to reverse the rule of the Carr Govt and allow some logging in National Parks” could do more damage to a fragile review process by insisting on insulting.
Mate: it was obvious to even a casual observer that the NP complete takeover of NSW timber reserves could wind up with the death of an industry with out some leakage in traditional values all round.
Jargon is the enemy here.
As usual, Travis is taking a high moral tone to divert attention from the issue. The term Nazi has now become a common and accepted suffix for any person who takes an extremist view on the management of any issue. It is common in any office environment to refer to the person in charge of the stationary as the “supplies-nazi”. Ditto for militant feminists to be called “feminazis”. The inspectors on trains are called “ticket nazis” etc, etc.
So walter has no need to apologise. Frankly, I thought he was a bit mild. I would have called them Gucci-green, brain damaged, drug crazed eco-scum bent on gratuitous, onanistic planet salvation.
Coming from you Ian, who consistently takes the low moral ground, this comment is not surprising. At least I has something to add to the general discussion regarding GNS. You, yet again, have resorted to your Neanderthal name-calling. Play with your chainsaws Ian, and see if you can contribute to the Darwin awards.
Hello All,
I’ve come across Jennifer’s site whilst doing some research and can honestly say that I am suprised at the name calling and level of negativity displayed,
Anyway, regarding the Grey Nurse Shark issue, I am still neutral on this issue and I am both a spearfisherman and a scuba diver. Basically, I want to understand the facts before I make any final judgements. From one side, I would be extremely unhappy at being denied access to a activity that I enjoy, based on some potentially flawed surveys. On the other hand, there is a genuine concern for the plight of an animal that at best breeds once every two years and personally do not wish to contribute to this problem.
I watched the program on channel 9 hoping that I would receive a balanced report. Unfortunately however, Ross Coulthart’s story just did not feel very balanced at all. To myself, his story was very one sided in both the way he conducted his interviews, his commentry and inability to include all parties in his report on an equal footing. I think the clincher for me was seeing him freedive down to ten metres… hardly the actions of a beginner or of one who is not associated with the sport. I guess this spoilt the possibility of a balanced and fair report.
Interesting story nevertherless.
That’s all – please do not call me any names! : )
Those Ribina girls, skeptics?
Correction, Quiggin has rebranded the denialists as delusionsists instead. So Jennifer you can’t admit to being a Quiggin branded denialist as category withdrawn. You need to admit to being a GW delusionist. He explained it well at his blog, it’s there for the reading.
Bloody big yeah to Gavin’s post btw.
I note that Walter didn’t provide any propa evidence to back his slanderous accusations. At least we know what he truly thinks and will remember it the next time he tries to baffle us.
Pinxi,
You might also note that while my eco-nazi characterisation was directed specifically at the source of the preemptive press release you have quite voluntarily decided that you qualify for inclusion. As for my trying to baffle you, the effort would be superfluous. You are already doing a better job of that than I ever could.
Good to see that you respond with insults Walter and not with more information on GNS to engage in meaningful dialogue with contributors here. Perhaps if you had chosen your insults more carefully and refrained from the eco-nazi term, more readers would be willing to contribute. As Ian has already shown us, insults and nastiness have a habit of putting people off this blog. If that is the way you want to get your point across (including your research) keep up the good work.
Awaiting your relevant science Walter, not desperate insults to hide baseless prejudgements. Who’s baffled? You’re trying to stuff your turkey through the neck. Try the other end, it’s more forgiving.
Jennifer
If someone knowingly worked to say AGW was not true, when they knew it was true, I would expect them to be prosecuted.
There would be several people in the tobacco industry who should be brought to justice, IMHO.
Hi Walter,
marine science, especially that to do with stock assessment – counting fish – has become very political at the expense of both science or conservation. Almost every Australian Marine Biologist is also a member of a conservation advocacy organisation. They simply do not see it as a problem.
Marine Biologists that work on sharks are a clique. Their basic premise is that sharks are ancient and have a low rate of reproduction which makes them vulnerable.
Ancient simply means successful over millions of years – regardless of the emotional reaction it is designed to generate. There is certainly nothing ancient about the biology of school sharks (pseudo placentals) – another species once declared endangered – now stripped from the EPBC list completely.
The supposed low rates of reproduction are actually at the high end of animals that produce well developed young with school shark pups bon live and independent.
If there is a weak point in the life cycle of many species of sharks it is the dependence of their young on high quality sheltered water habitats, especially bays, estuaries and inlets. These are the same places where we build cities, ports, heavy industry etc.
Blind adherence to inappropriate scientific method has promoted Grey Nurse Sharks well beyond their deserved status. This means that research, even artificial breeding, of grey nurse costs millions of dollars that could be better spent on monitoring juvenile shark use of inshore environments and the factors that regulate that use.
When the Commonwealth invited marine scientists to look at the southern shark fishery in the mid 1980’s very little effort was made to examine the nature and history of the Australian fishery. Economists and other academics had already made up their mind that the fishery was in danger of being ‘overfished’ and already had the solutions in mind.
Ironically the collapse of the Californian school shark (tope, soupfin) fishery in the early 1950’s was cited as an example of the impact of over fishing. Actually it was the loss of the market for liver oil which was replaced by artificial vitamin A. There was no market for shark flesh or skins and the Californian fishery collapsed.
By contrast school shark had become a keystone fishery in Victoria since the 1920’s owing to their reliable year round abundance across an amazing range of depths and habitats in that state.
Further historical research would have revealed that the WW2 liver oil industry from mainly school sharks provided one company alone 500,000 gallons in a single year. There are about 20 sharks needed to make a gallon of oil and the weighed and average of 10-20 kilos per beast. As school shark made up around 80% of the catch for liver oil that actually weight/number of sharks during the war years was many times the post war catches.
The oil market was steadily lost in Australia and the post war fishery went back to supplying shark flesh to an eager public that called it flake. It withstood rapid expansion – sustained high catches for the war years and then went back to supplying flesh with oil from livers as a by-product of the then most valuable single species market in Australia.
A very suspicious ban on Victorian school shark only instituted by the health department in 1972 almost closed the Victorian fishery and enabled New Zealand, SA and Tasmania to get a major foothold for their school shark of any size (!)in the Melbourne market – the only decent paying market.
Victorian fishermen swapped from longlines, which did not discriminate the size of fish hooked to gillnets which the Hobson and Mitchellson families of Lakes Entrance had shown would mesh smaller gummy sharks.
Within months a new gillnet fishery was borne and the market preferred gummy shark, paying a premium price of 10-30% greater than that for especially large school shark.
In 1985, coincident with the Commonwealth move to take over fisheries beyond 3 miles Victorian shark scientists had the ban on oversize school shark lifted. The data base was already a shambles with most jurisdictions not distinguishing one shark landed from another – but the newly formed shark science team recorded a peak in school shark catches after the ban- and then a steady decline.
Common sense at the wharf would tell you that school shark misdescribed as gummy shark were school shark again and the renewed interest in school shark fishing was tempered by the poor price. Then the whole fishery became a complete mess as bureaucrats, scientists and economists took turns in kicking it around – to ‘conserve school sharks’ – and for the ‘future of the fishery’.
Entry was frozen – then licences were issued based on what fishermen had caught in select previous years. Bass Strait is a mixed fishery the one boat being used for crays, sharks, scallops and even danish seining and trawling.
Then in 1988 a complicated formulae was used to deny boats the number of nets they needed to fish profitably unless they bought out another high catch boat. In the middle of the buyout there was a call for an ‘urgent’ 50% cut in catches and the creation of five committees that met between three and six times a year in addition to port and general meetings. A mess became a increasingly expensive shambles with ‘full cost recovery’ in the 1993 Fisheries Management Act enabling managers to push licence fees and charges from a few hundred dollars per boat to more than $20,000 for the same boat – before quota
From 240 odd licences only just over one hundred remained and of these only some sixty boats fished – the rest holding their license to cash it in later.
Aging skippers that had to hire others to run boats and increasing costs across the board which saw the fleet land pretty much as it always had and the price of flake to the public double.
With even fewer targeting school shark the catch dropped to around 700t. The scientist used catches from ‘indicative vessels’ to work out the catch per unit effort. It seemed well ‘sustainable’ so the selection criteria for indicative vessels was altered, slipping boats in that actually targeted gummy shark with low school shark catches. Like the grey nurse counting method there may be an explanation but it appears illusive.
The fleet was set a target catch of 540t of school shark for the year. An international fisheries scientist Ric Deriso reviewed the school shark stock assessment of April 1996 – noted the ‘noisy data’ and commented on catch per unit effort figures that were ‘guessed by a committee according to rules that made that guess pessimistic.
The fishermen made a few calls, did a few deals and got the catch below the target – but it was not good enough – the selection criteria for indicative vessels was altered yet again and the new ‘sustainable catch was et at 350t for 2000.
Managers said industry would never make it and put it under set catches ITQs, (the catch actually came in at a little over 300t – but the figures were released after quota which increased management cost by a further 200% and causing havoc as fishermen who could not buy boats ‘legally’ were having to pay more than $ 1 million for a catch history they actually caught for someone else. School shark are extremely common at the moment – the remaining fleet steams away from them with the quota used up already this year – so dumping of dead school sharks will start all over again as it will as long as scientist insist on being allowed to count fish – something they clearly cannot do adequately.
It is ironic that the catches of school shark were always regulated by the market – the number of buyers at the fish market on Tuesday. Thursday and Friday. When I fished in the early 1980’s when the weather was fine. gummys and schoolies abundant and the price of scallops and crays a bit average a whole pack of boats would go sharking. This would have the affect of crashing the price by as much as 30% – which saw the ‘excess’ boats leave as fast as they came. A general purpose license allowed the very few people capable of running fishing boats to move between fisheries adapting to catches, weather and the market.
The cost of the overstatement of the impact of fishing on shark catches in the south has cost the Australian economy millions of dollars, thousands of jobs on boats, in provedore, processing etc.
The cost of developing a marine conservation industry instead of expanding fisheries into the Australian post 1989 200 nautical mile territorial waters is ridiculously unsustainable as the costs of enforcement industry to ‘keep others out’ to taxpayers grows to hundreds of millions of dollars.