Victor Harbor Fish Cage
http://www.victorharbortimes.com.au/story/3245605/weekly-poll-oceanic-vi...
here is the link to the poll to vote against it. We don't want more sharks in the surf
Here is a link to a petition we have had running for a while.
The best way to beat this is to send credible submissions to PIRSA, and make noise.
There has only ever been one study globally into fish pens and shark movements. It was in Hawaii and indicated that second tier sharks will loiter in the vicinity of the pens permanently. Larger migratory species (tigers) will hang around the pen for 2-4 weeks as part of their annual migration. Uni of Hawaii looked at this Victor Proposal and commented, "it will almost certainly attract sharks".
Sign up peeps!!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-aquaculture-on-the-fleurieu
The study done in Hawaii (Site Fidelity and shark movements associated with ocean-farming cages in Hawaii) is the one that PIRSA is using to assure people that the cage doesn't attract sharks.
Here are some direct quotes from that study "We cannot unequivocally determine whether or not ocean fish farms attract or aggregate sharks because we do not know how sharks in the area behaved before the deployment of the cages. However, on the basis of the telemetry results from the present study and others, and from fishing and diving in many areas around Oahu and Kona (e.g. Friedlander and DeMartini 2002), we believe ocean fish cages aggregate sandbar sharks, whereas tiger sharks only ‘visit’ these sites. "
"The current data suggest that the cages may perhaps serve as ‘landmarks’ for tiger sharks moving along the Oahu coastline. Some individuals showed longer than expected periods of residency around the Kona Blue Water Fish farms."
"It may be prudent for recreational water users to avoid the areas directly surrounding the ocean fish cages, although we found no evidence of farming operations having an impact on public safety on adjacent beaches; however, our monitoring coverage of popular beaches was limited."
Feeling a bit safer now folks?
On another basis, the fish in the cage will be kept at an underfed state at all times to ensure a good reaction for the punters when they hand feed them. So not only are they caging free ranging fish they are also going to half starve the buggers
Interesting. Have you heard that hawian study quoted from PIRSA directly as a defense of this installation?
I have been in touch with Dr P who did the Hawaii study. He has looked at the Victor proposal and made comment on it certainly attracting sharks. PIRSA are aware of this and his remarks.
I wonder if PIRSA are just selecting usefu sections of this study or have actually seemed his opinion?
Darvio, I originally read an article in the Victor Times about the community meeting and in that article the representative from PIRSA was quoted saying that studies have shown that although the cages may initially attract the sharks they will eventually move on. In response to another article about a critic of the cage the paper contacted PIRSA and another representative said basically the same thing. I contacted PIRSA and asked for a link to the specific studies they were referring to and Peter Lauer (from PIRSA and who was the representative at the community meeting) provided a link to the Hawiian study and the name of another study which covered the movements of white sharks by Barry Bruce at CSIRO. So on both occasions, and also on the proposal website, these are the only two studies they have specifically referred to, mainly because they are the only 2 studies that have been completed. At best the results are ambiguous and I doubt if you could positively say that they have no effect on the sharks movements or behaviour going by the study results. In fact with one species the cage actually attracts them and they stay in the area.
there is PIRSA document that states that the results are not confirmed.. as in they don't know for sure if the sharks hang around or not. This is enough to state the case that as it is "inconclusive" they shouldn't be trialling it at victor harbor where there are kids and families in the water nearby.
If this is the case then PIRSA representatives should not be telling community forums and media that everything will be okay. As a government agency they should imperial and stick to the known facts. In this case there seems to be a bit of a bias in favour of the proposal.
impartial not imperial!
here is Peter Lauer's email
send him an email and tell him what you think about this
lets make some noise about it
You wont get this stopped........guaranteed this will go ahead.
Peter actually left PIRSA a few weeks ago. Not sure why.
Yes there is certainly a lot of SA Gov support for this.
Just received an email regarding the Victor cage proposal and a link to the PIRSA document regarding the proposal. In the section regarding sharks and aquaculture there is no longer a reference to the Hawaiian studies that was originally put forward by PIRSA as an argument to say the cages don’t attract sharks, no doubt because the results said that the cages do attract sharks.
Now PIRSA is referencing a workshop in 2004 and using this as an assurance that the cages don’t attract sharks. Unfortunately, whoever did the proof reading of the document, missed these gems
“Interactions between the white shark and aquaculture cages in South Australia have also been identified as a threat to the species (EA, 2002). The white shark is known to become entangled in nets or to enter aquaculture cages in search of food, posing a risk to stock and cage operators.Most of the sharks are destroyed in the cage.”
Also “In 2004, a meeting titled ‘Workshop on Shark Interactions with Aquaculture’ was held in South Australia to bring together industry representatives, state representatives and shark researchers. The meeting addressed the need for best practice guidelines for removing white sharks from cages….”
Anyone feel like a surf at the Pines or The Dump?
Link ?
Most of the sharks are destroyed in the cage........but were made a protected species in 1999.....are cage owners exempt from this law ?
The section about the aquaculture cages is on page 32
https://www.environment.gov.au/system/files/resources/6eb72ed4-a3fa-4604...
There is a Fish farm with 3 pens full of Salmon near Roaring Beach in Tassie (and near some popular harbour beaches across the bay). They have been there for 20 years or so. No attacks but I am sure they would have changed the migration patterns of sharks around the area. A permanent burley exists there with oily food pellets. Seals come into more too and hang around the pens. Some farm workers there have seen some big whites there. One story was a diver in the pen cleaning it felt something clamp on their arm and looked around to see a GW trying to bite her? arm through the net. Some years ago a rello of mine had his daughter jump off the back of the dingy to swim the last 50 metres at the "safe" calm sandy beach nearby there and watched in horror as a big fin followed her in. So it might not be doom and gloom but there will definitely be more GW visiting they area.
Previously the area would have been flathead territory with just lots of sand bottom and of not much interest to big GW. Roaring works on sunny summer days and gloomy easterly weather. Tend to avoid the gloomy days there now.
The very public incident with Mick Fanning has been of benefit to surfers as it has highlighted the risk we all take whilst surfing. At least the non-surfing public will have some insight when we protest about fish farming and it's possibility of attracting sharks.
I regularly surf in this area of Tasmania where there are many fish pens and often wonder about the relationship between the fish farms and shark numbers. No chance of the Tasmanian government doing anything proactive about it. They are all about growth, growth, growth and damn anyone with any ideas that restrict a business plan. Probably the same everywhere else in Australia too.
everything will be just peachy... a comment from another web site for fishos
"talking to the Marine Operations Manager of Tassal North West Bay the other day and he told me there's a 14 ft Great white cruising the farms ! Understandly the dive boys are freaking out! Reminded me of the time a lady diver on the nubanna site came face to face with one in a pen! Only the net was between them. She went off on stress leave and never came back. Never dived again either i heard"
Tasty smells wafting out to the ocean from food cages getting the appetite primed and drawing in the curious GWs to see tourists swimming in the cage with the fish creating a nice association between food and human shapes - what could go wrong? Cage diving has been excellent training for hundreds of GW to overcome their fear of humans and boats and to build an association between them and food. Pavlov would be proud.
50 years ago Jacque Cousteau saw his first GW in the ocean. It saw him and it promptly shat itself and sped away as he was probably the first human it had ever seen. Now many would think "might check this out a bit more closely" or perhaps "here is dinner"
The Encounter Bay idea will be great for Tourism until one day it isn't.
Just came across this forum topic. Well the surfer community voices have been very quiet on this matter. I would have thought the boogers would be outraged as Knights will soon b much more vulnerable to GW attacks. Come on surfers make some noise where it counts by putting your thoughts in writing to politicians and the media. FYI the project has been through all state govt hoops...the Development Assessment Committee stage most recent. We await their decision. At the moment the final gate is the EPBC in the federal arena. This last stage is to look at Environmental impact and in particular endangered species. We can now only be vocal about the tuna, whales, penguins, the great white etc. Deadline the 10th November. OH yeah and in their miniscule wisdom the VH council CDAP meeting on Monday decided to support it. I bet none of those fnbs even go near the ocean.
Below is Dan Morceaux's submission to DAC...read it pls... he will have 5 minutes with them (DAC) on the 12th to state our case. Read it and cut and paste and add your own thoughts to.. http://epbcnotices.environment.gov.au/referralslist/referral-details/?id...
and this link shows you how to comment... http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/public-notices/assessment-help#referrals
Dan Monceaux’s submission to the Development Assessment Commission regarding Oceanic Victor’s marine aquarium proposal
October 21, 2015
To the Secretary, members of the Development Assessment Commission and any interested parties,
Please accept my personal submission in response to development number 010/V030/15 – a proposal for the development of an “in sea marine aquarium in Encounter Bay” made by Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd.
I am providing this submission in two parts. The first is a response to newly available information contained in the development application public notice. The second part of my submission is a copy of a submission I made earlier this year to PIRSA related to the same project. Many of the points I raised in my earlier submission have not been acknowledged or referred to in the Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd Marine Pilot Lease and License Application – Submission response document prepared by PIRSA Fisheries & Aquaculture in September 2015.
The documentation to which this submission refers can be found archived at The Internet Archive.
1 – General criticism
It is my belief that the proponents of this development, whose application to the DAC has been prepared by Donna Ferretti and Associates Pty Ltd, have deliberately avoided mentioning the principle attraction at the proposed facility: the Southern bluefin tuna, Thunnus maccoyi. This is significant, as directors of the company Oceanic Victor Pty Ltd have commercial interests in the tuna ranching and harvesting industry through directorships and/or employment at Tony’s Tuna International. It is also significant as tuna are listed by the IUCN Red List as a Critically Endangered species. To propose a tourism enterprise, the key attraction of which has such high international conservation significance, and then not mention it in the development application to the DAC, is in my opinion both disingenuous and manipulative. The subjects to be held in the aquarium are described ambiguously as “a range of native fish species” where the PIRSA Submission response documentclearly specifies that up to five tonnes of Southern bluefin tuna are to be held, and up to 0.5 tonnes of other species. This operation’s success relies on the keeping of SBT, which is consistent with the wider commercial interests of its proponents, and the nature of the infrastructure proposed to be deployed in Encounter Bay.
2 – Description of the Proposed Development
The application states that “two 1500 litre flow through touch tanks” will operate at the facility. It refers to “proposed low fish stocking rates” yet provides no detail regarding the species and stocking density of these touch tanks. Each of these tanks is its own enclosed environment, and the keeping of certain numbers or indeed certain species given the shallowness of the tanks and their exposure to ultraviolet light are aspects that in my opinion should be detailed and made available for public consideration. I previously requested that a mortality register be kept by the facility, to provide evidence that the facility was doing its best to keep any captive marine species in a healthy condition, including but not limited to those organisms kept in touch tanks.
I am concerned that the application states that the aquarium will be stocked with fish in Port Lincoln before it is towed into place in Encounter Bay. It is plausible that some of the species chosen for display would come from populations which are range limited, and represent genetically distinct populations which are entirely separate from populations found in Encounter Bay. While I can see how towing Southern bluefin tuna over from Port Lincoln would be necessary for the proponents, I would recommend that the DAC applies a condition that all other species to be displayed by Oceanic Victor are obtained from the Encounter Bay area, in order to avoid interfering with the genetic make-up of Encounter Bay populations. Another unintended consequence of not applying this condition could be the introduction of parasites or diseases from one population of a species to another.
3 – Location of the Proposed Development
The application acknowledges that the proposal is located within a Habitat Protect Zone of the Encounter Marine Park and claims that marine park management allows “activities that will not cause environmental harm.” PIRSA’s own documentation suggests that harm is anticipated, but that fallow periods, and relocating the seacage within the lease area will allow damaged habitat to recover. Is this consistent with the objectives of a Habitat Protection Zone, within a State managed marine park?
It goes on to state that “PIRSA is supportive of the proposed development and, by requiring only five conditions to be met as part of its environmental assessment, is confident that the tourism operation poses no threat to marine habitats.” It would be appropriate, given that the proponent has acknowledged that these conditions have been established, to make them available for public consideration. What are these five conditions the proponent must meet?
The application also states that “no contaminating substances or materials that may pollute, contaminate or degrade the site or adjacent land and waters are allowed on the lease area.” This condition is ironic given that the proposal’s main attraction, the keeping of Southern bluefin tuna, produces and introduces such contaminating substances. Through feed and faeces, SBT ranching contributes contaminating substances directly into the lease area. The known implications of this contamination are further evidenced by the requirement that the sea cage be moved every twelve months in order to facilitate recovery of habitat below the sea cage, caused by cover and contamination.
4 – Operational Procedures
The development application states that its operational plan has been developed “in consultation with PIRSA and other marine experts” who remain unnamed. I would argue that it would be appropriate in the public interest for these persons and their involvement in the project to be specified and for this operational plan to be disclosed to the public, rather than the selective disclosure of “key features”. For example, one “key feature” states that “the marine site will be accessed up to five times daily (weather permitting) during the tourist season and once daily outside the tourist season.” This raises more questions than it answers.
The term “tourist season” should be clearly defined as this will have implications for the feeding regime, which will change across the seasons. Will stocking density also change during the off-season? I wish to know whether non-SBT species will be kept on the premises at all during the off-season. It is my opinion that they should not be held during periods in which there is no tourist demand for the attraction, and that any captive non-SBT species should be sourced locally (in the Encounter Bay area) and kept for a limited time, after which they are returned to the sea in good health. I would also like to understand the seasonality of nutrient loading and how this relates to the feeding regime given that feeding frequency will change from up to five times a day to once a day in and out of “tourist season”. Will the nutritional requirements of southern bluefin tuna be met with such a change? If so, can the proponent demonstrate how, given the high conservation status of the species? I would also like to know how the dietary requirements of non-SBT species will be met (some of which are likely to be herbivorous or eat molluscs) and if a holding time for some species is to be specified, after which specimens can be returned to the sea in good health- rather than retaining animals in touch tanks, potentially without feeding them, until they die.
In short, without seeing an operational plan for the facility, and no commitment by the proponent to keep a mortality register (a recommendation I made in my prior submission to PIRSA) that citizens cannot be assured that the captive non-SBT species’ health and welfare is being duly considered.
5 – Assessment
The Development Application claims that PIRSA’s assessment report “attests to the ecological integrity and sustainability of the proposed development… particularly in relation to water quality, seafloor health, ecosystems and biodiversity.” While it claims that it will “avoid any adverse impacts on wildlife in the locality” the only way to guarantee such an outcome is for the proposal to not be approved. I am not advocating for the dismissal of this application- but I am advocating that the proponents fully disclose their plans, their potential conflicts of interest, their operational procedures with respect to maintaining animal health, and their response plans in the event of interactions with threatened or protected species.
Such disclosure should also include a statement by the proponents as to whether they are likely to be beneficiaries of the proposal to establish a cruise ship anchorage which overlaps Oceanic Victor’s lease area.
I am also directly asking the question: do the directors or management of Oceanic Victor have any direct or indirect commercial interests in the potential establishment of commercial tuna ranching operations in any future lease areas in the Encounter Bay region? If they do not, it would help allay scepticism in the wider community immensely should such a statement be made.
I wish to request that the DAC also consider in full my prior submission made to PIRSA. Many matters raised therein are yet to be acknowledged or addressed to my satisfaction.
Your sincerely,
Dan Monceaux
DAN MONCEAUX'S SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO OCEANIC VICTOR PROPOSAL
In "Aquaculture"
MARINE & ESTUARINE STRATEGY
In "Marine Protected Areas"
Dan Monceaux
Dan Monceaux is a documentary filmmaker with a keen interest in marine biodoversity and conservation issues. He joined MLSSA in 2013 and served as Secretary from April-December 2014. Dan snorkels regularly and has burning passions for underwater photography and citizen science.
Yesterday's Victor Times front page headline "One Step Closer"
The pig sty of the ocean has been given next level approval by City of Victor Harbor's Development Assessment Panel (CDAP) on 3rd Nov. I would love to put a link to the article however it's one of the only articles left off The Times' website from this edition...Melbourne Cup fashion or CWA Cookbook anyone, FFS.
More than one way to bake a cake hey ladies!
Carol Schofield is one to watch, and lobby. The cynic in me says she has undue infuence. She is listed as an Aquaculture Consultant on her Linkedin profile...conflict of interest perhaps? https://au.linkedin.com/pub/carol-schofield-am/71/47/b8
Carol was the owner of Galloway Yabbie Farm in Inman Valley and has done extensive work for the freshwater crayfish industry throughout Australia.
She also has close ties to PIRSA...she was the chair of the conference organising committee for PIRSA's recent International Rural Women's Conference.
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/regions/publications/e-news/6_march_2015_-_issue_8/interatnational_rural_womens_conference
trippergreenfeet wrote:Yesterday's Victor Times front page headline "One Step Closer". I would love to put a link to the article however it's one of the only articles left off The Times' website from this edition.
Hmmmm. Very suspicious. I cannot believe that this is seemingly coasting through the approval process!
Thursdays Victor Times website had an article from a PIRSA representative letting everyone know that there is a likelihood of increased shark activity due to the time of year and that is a normal occurrence. Had some helpful advice about if you see a shark it is safer that you don’t interact with it. Also supplied a few contact details and who to report sightings too. What is very unusual though is that by the afternoon the article had been removed from the Victor Times website. Usually articles stay up there for at least a week. Maybe a bit of coercion going on here? Don't want to panic the people?
It seems that the public “information” campaign has started in an attempt to soften everyone up for the cage being setup. Here is direct quote from the study PIRSA was using using to say that fish cages don’t attract sharks
“We cannot unequivocally determine whether or not ocean fish farms attract or aggregate sharks because we do not know how sharks in the area behaved before the deployment of the cages. However, on the basis of the telemetry results from the present study and others, and from fishing and diving in many areas around Oahu and Kona (e.g. Friedlander and DeMartini 2002), we believe ocean fish cages aggregate sandbar sharks, whereas tiger sharks only ‘visit’ these sites. It may be prudent for recreational water users to avoid the areas directly surrounding the ocean fish cages, although we found no evidence of farming operations having an impact on public safety on adjacent beaches; however, our monitoring coverage of popular beaches was limited. Large stretches of heavily utilised coastline lacked receiver coverage, raising the possibility of tagged tiger sharks visiting those locations undetected.”
"The current data suggest that the cages may perhaps serve as ‘landmarks’ for tiger sharks moving along the Oahu coastline. Some individuals showed longer than expected periods of residency around the Kona Blue Water Fish farms." (From the paper entitled Site fidelity and movements of sharks associated with ocean-farming cages in Hawaii)
Just to point out, no research has been done before now in the Victor area to determine the numbers of sharks so as to set a base line to test the affects of the cage. In the workshop of tuna cage industry representatives there was an incident that would suggest that sharks are attracted to cages. A team was trying to get a 4.4m white shark out of a cage while a 5m white shark was hanging around outside the cage.
(From the Workshop on Shark Interactions with Aquaculture) )
To say that sharks won’t be attracted in fact has no evidence to back the statement. The published facts would suggest that fish cages do attract sharks.
Victor Harbor the new Ballina?
Yep .....but what will be cruising around Victor wont be 2mt juveniles but 5mt plus adults as seen around Boston Bay tuna pens.
Update time...seems a "little" mistake has been made in the way of consultation times for the DAC.
e wrote:"Following a review of the previously undertaken notification process, it has come to our attention that the closing date for submissions finished a day earlier than allowed under the Development Act 1993. This oversight had the potential to disadvantage someone contemplating making a submission but where the publicly stated time had since expired.
Accordingly, to ensure proper process, the application will be re-notified on 12 November in The Advertiser and the Victor Harbor Times. A copy of the notice is enclosed, along with a representation form. New or revised submissions may be received up until the 26 November 2015.
The commencement of the new notification process will require the re-scheduling of the hearing of this matter before the Commission meeting which was planned for 12 November 2015. The item will now be referred to a later meeting, and you will be advised of the new date in due course. The Commission apologises for any inconvenience this may cause."
Here's the article from last week that couldn't be found on The Times website...with poll.
http://www.victorharbortimes.com.au/story/3483246/poll-oceanic-victor-moves-one-step-closer/?cs=1537
I wonder how many of the 56 yes voters are ocean users?
Dan Monceaux’s submission in response to Oceanic Victor’s EPBC Act referral.
Lots of great info here and yes we aquatic folk are stepping up to fight this. We certainly need the surfing community to have a say. Read the updates here re DACS submissions due 26th Nov...a window of opportunity to voice your opinions. We can win this...Sun 22 at Victor HArbor Yacht Club to get assistance to write a submission.
http://www.victorharbortimes.com.au/story/3500339/focus-on-sea-proposal/
One of the problems is that most surfers probably wouldn't know where to start. So the offer from Simon and David is very welcome.
But, for surfers that can't get to Victor on Sunday, it'd be great if someone could point out a fact sheet showing how to submit to the DAC, or even better, a ready-to-go template (as most surfers are probably going to say the same thing - concerns with sharks). I'll have a look around and see what's available.
Hit it on the head thermalben, were do you start?.. I've contacted local councils and the Environment minister, just seem to get the same response ill try work through the DACS? tonight and submit something as I cant make it to the yacht club this weekend. Would appreciate if someone with expertise in this area could make a simple guide on how-to. Seems like the numbers are against but not being heard ... typical
OK, here's some info about the DAC process:
How to make a representation
The Development Act 1993 provides – in certain circumstances - individuals and groups the right to make both written and verbal submissions setting out their views on a development application. These people are known as ‘representors’. Where the DAC is the decision making body, it receives such submissions and conducts hearings for representors and applicants.
Making written submissions
Written comments must set out the reasons for your representation and will be taken into consideration by DAC when it makes a decision (for Category 2 and 3 developments) or provides a recommendation (to the Minister for Planning on Crown applications). Your written representation must indicate if you or a representative wishes to appear before DAC to further explain your views. Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act 1991 and Development Act 1993 any information provided may become part of a public document.
Written representations can be posted, hand-delivered, faxed or emailed to DAC.
Representations received after the close date are not required to be considered.
Submissions and Privacy
The Development Act requires that all written representations received must be forwarded to the applicant who is then entitled to make a response to DAC. Written submissions to be valid must contain, amongst other things, the name and contact details of the person making the submission. Representations will be included in agenda documentation that is publicly available prior to each meeting, and may be discoverable under the Freedom of Information Act.
DAC contact details
Postal address
The Secretary
Development Assessment Commission
GPO Box 1815
ADELAIDE SA 5001
Street address (opposite Adelaide Railway Station)
Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure
Roma Mitchell House
Level 5, 136 North Terrace
ADELAIDE, SA
Phone: 1800 752 664 (Select Option 4)
Fax: (08) 8303 0753
E-mail: dacadmin@sa.gov.au
The fact that hasn't been raised is that surfing has been one of the biggest tourism drawcards for the South Coast for close to 5 decades now. Despite the bagging it gets from the surfing community, the south coast has the closest consistent surf to Adelaide and the local businesses such as bakeries, accommodation, petrol stations, surf shops, pubs etc have survived because of surfing. A couple of shark attacks at Knights, Bullies, Chiton or the Dump will kill the surfing visitor numbers overnight and the inevitable boycott of the area will ensure these businesses will suffer. Surely the VH council and MPs can see that a mile away? The previous fish cage setup at Granite Island failed dismally, this one will as well as the pea soup water clarity will be a major disappointment for the rubbernecks foolish enough to visit it. I can just hear them asking for their money back. I lived in Port Lincoln when the tuna farms started in Boston Bay in 1990 - all the experts were paid by the tuna barons to spin the lies that tuna farming won't attract sharks, well they were proven wrong eh. Surf lifesaving SA seem to be very quiet on this one given the numbers of their members swimming across Horseshoe Bay and at Chiton regularly. Ahh I can just see the headlines now - Kiddies chomped by a white shark while paddling in the safe shores of Horseshoe Bay Port Elliot.
PIRSA hasn’t taken into account all info regarding shark interactions. In a Aquafin CRC report they state that in a period of 5 years there were 9 recorded incidents.
Emphasis on “recorded” because in the same report they said that the industry under reports particularly with White Sharks as they are protected and the operators don’t want to attract any attention to the industry. They are the author of the reports’ words not mine.
This is important because in the Response Document from PIRSA after their approval they site the 2004 workshop which says there were only 2 interactions, and that sharks aren't a problem with cages. PIRSA is closely linked to Aquafin CRC so they would know about the research and reports carried out by Aquafin CRC.
The report makes special mention of the under reporting by the tuna industry.
In the Aquafin report there is a paragraph that says there are regular interactions with aquaculture and sharks. This statement is a direct denial of PIRSA comments.
The safety concern is one of the major problems with this venture
Link to that report. Details on Page 31
http://pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/231656/No_235_RESA_Fina...
Flip lip, that's a great find. Good one.
Nat-old, top post too. Now more than ever the whole water sports scene is booming down here. The car parks are packed each half decent weekend. We are also seeing lots of middle aged/semi retired guys transitioning down here from the city. They all come down for the ocean. Lots of them selling up in the city and building substantial homes on the coast. It's not just small business that's winning from the ocean sports community.
It's great to see this topic getting lots of attention and discussion. Keep it up. If you, your mates, your Neighbour, or your dog has not yet signed the petition please do.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-aquaculture-on-the-fleurieu
I have been hammering PIRSA with data and research highlighting that this will create a shark threat. They are publicly still in denial around this issue.
Interestingly I have contacted 3 of Australia's leading shark scientists about OV. All have declined to make comment either way at this point in time. I assume they don't want to endorse it because they know it will attract sharks. I am guessing they don't want to speak out against it as the aquaculture industry is a big employer of marine scientists in this country.
Fortunately the author of the Hawaiin study, which many of you have read, has given some great comments that support our concerns.
Please get a submission into DAC. Please email relevant politicians.
Cheers All
Darvio
I have been hammering PIRSA with data and evidence of regular interactions between sharks and fish farming.
A chicken coop attracts rats and foxs...this is the same deal...a tuna pen will attract natural predators too woth a food source held in one spot for them. I used to commercial dive and have seen workers fixing holes in nets chewed on by sharks trying to get at the tuna. If they are teased and excited it may lead them to search nearby for easier targets. Im all for tourism but surely there is a better alternative.
is there is a bona fide organisation fighting this insanity that needs financial assistance? (have signed petition but unable to make it to yacht club meeting, am unable to write submission with the technical expertise of contributors above, do people that know about this stuff think there is value in concerned laypeople such as myself writing submissions ? will there be some published suggestions post the sunday meeting?)
Flip lip, that's a great find. Good one.Nat-old, top post too. Now more than ever the whole water sports scene is booming down here. The car parks are packed each half decent weekend. We are also seeing lots of middle aged/semi retired guys transitioning down here from the city. They all come down for the ocean. Lots of them selling up in the city and building substantial homes on the coast. It's not just small business that's winning from the ocean sports community.
It's great to see this topic getting lots of attention and discussion. Keep it up. If you, your mates, your Neighbour, or your dog has not yet signed the petition please do.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/no-to-aquaculture-on-the-fleurieu
I have been hammering PIRSA with data and research highlighting that this will create a shark threat. They are publicly still in denial around this issue.
Interestingly I have contacted 3 of Australia's leading shark scientists about OV. All have declined to make comment either way at this point in time. I assume they don't want to endorse it because they know it will attract sharks. I am guessing they don't want to speak out against it as the aquaculture industry is a big employer of marine scientists in this country.
Fortunately the author of the Hawaiin study, which many of you have read, has given some great comments that support our concerns.
Please get a submission into DAC. Please email relevant politicians.
Cheers All
Darvio
Nat - old
Any chance you could send your comments/post on to some local members, politicians etc?
Here is my list I have been contacting.
Leon Bignell
Ian Hunter
Jay Weatherill
Graham Philip - VH mayor
Michael Pengilly
Jamie Briggs
The VH business development association
Their email addresses are all very easy to get from Google.
Loungelizard - it's through social media such as this forum that helps to get people together over issues like this, action will inevitably follow. Thanks Darvio - I've lived at Port Elliot for the last 18 years so I just might have a bit of an idea of what I'm talking about! Yes the whole water sport scene is booming and has taken many years to build up to what it is today, it's an integral part of the south coast lifestyle and psyche. It is easy to take it for granted but its real - and this flash in the pan, doomed to fail tuna viewing cage idea, which will be only short lived, has the potential to destroy the water sport attraction of the south coast overnite. Gusto is spot on - there are plenty of docos around such as "Tuna Cowboys" which show the attraction tuna cages have to dangerous sharks. There is a better tourism alternative, leave the south coast alone and leave the tuna viewing cage at Boston Island.
"There is a better tourism alternative, leave the south coast alone and leave the tuna viewing cage at Boston Island". - Could not be a truer comment
For those who want to write to DAC here is an email I received from them. It outlines the documents the proposal will be judged against.
Cheers
Dave
A relevant authority (DAC or Council) is required to assess a development application against the planning policies that apply to the land at time of lodgement.
In this case, the Victor Harbor (City) Development Plan (Consolidated 10 January 2013) and the Land Not Within a Council Area (Coastal Waters) Development Plan (dated 31 July 2014 - not consolidated) would apply. A proposal’s conformity and/or departure from these polices is then weighed-up to arrive at a planning recommendation and decision.
So as we have feared, it looks as though the burley cage will go ahead in victor. Ludicrous! Feet up boys!
That is so fucking wrong!
Meanwhile the council at Semaphore are pushing for a shark proof swimming enclosure.
Very sad to hear, what a joke!
So we can expect to see a little more of this then, except not at Parsons but a little further around the corner.
This is no round rock and cigar.
This is the latest Google Map imaging of Parsons Beach, western end.
An interesting article on ABC site and 4 corners tonight.
This comment from the article
“There was a cluster of shark attacks in Ballina last year, and in Western Australia seven people were killed by great whites sharks between 2010 and 2013.
Scientists believe during those clusters, great whites were likely drawn to the coast to feed.”
And then check out the hand feeding on Youtube link and remember that about 100 to 200kg of pilchards are being “hand fed” each day. Gives an idea as to the amount of activity there will be to act as an attractant
Shark encounters a plenty the Last few days along eyre pen , warnings about huge whites just today
New venture for Victor Harbor on the proposal board that might be of interest to the surfers around there. Although it's not cage diving I guess that with the fish stock it will hold you could say it will be a kind of berley pot.
According to Dr Peter Lauer from Primary Industries and Regions South Australia (PIRSA), “studies show sharks may be curious, but if there is no benefit from staying in the proximity of the cages they will move on.” My thought though is where do they move on too and what or who is in the path of where they are moving to? Particularly when there are surf breaks in direct line of sight along the coast only a very short distance, literally only one kilometre as the sharks swims so to speak. How long would it take a Great White to cover that distance? There has been one or a few cruising around this very bay in recent times, even mentioned on this site a couple of days ago.
The venture will be moved from the current location in Port Lincoln to Victor because it is closer to more tourists, or in other words closer to more $$$. Again a few individuals chasing some monetary benefit are disregarding the risks associated with their venture to other people in the same region.
A public information meeting was held on the 23rd and comments and feedback was closed on the 31st so the public had only a few days to voice any opinions or concerns which seems inadequate for what could be a public safety matter like this. SA surfers should consider some action over this one as it will affect most of the surfers in that region. Here's a link for the proposal showing just where it is.
http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/aquaculture/community_engagement/granite_island
and then go to "application summary document" to get a run down on the location etc