At last the media is investigating and beginning to present the true story to the public.

www.smh.com.au/environment/conservation/rusty-boat-in-eye-of-a-storm-20120915-25yzw.html
www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/all-we-want-is-to-fish-within-the-rules-20120912-25s43.html
www.theaustralian.com.au/nocookies?a=A.flavipes

Perhaps a little late to prevent a government minister making a fool of himself to appease the ill-informed.

As I have said all along, this vessel is here to value add the product of a fishery that has existed for over 30 years.

It would introduce potentially 250 tons per day of food for human consumption.
Current practice is that it is dug into the ground as fertiliser.

It would do it with much less harm to other marine life than current practice.
It would do it with a much smaller carbon footprint that current practice.
It would do it much more efficiently than current practice.
There really is no downside to this.

To the detractors, I ask you this.

There are now over 7 billion humans on this plannet that need to eat. If this fish is not processed and added to the food supply, Where else will it come from?

Perhaps you are in favour of clearing more forest for cropping.
Maybe that same denuded land could be used for livestock.
Please don't start me up on aquaculture.