creafield

Greetings All I may have had my initial information wrong on this(Post #9), however the NPA have still not posted on their website http://www.marine.org.au/ any more info. However they have announced the "necessity" of a Marine Park from Merimbula to the Victorian border AS WELL It must be a big report as it is >167pages long. I heard on the radio they wanted 5 NEW Marine Reserves from Tweed Heads to the Vic border. Of course it may be a 4 month early April fool's day ... I think not. As a matter of interest Professor Kearney has given an interview to ABC South East (Batemans thru to Victoria FM 103.5) which will be played at 8.30am Friday (5th December) morning. Andrew Constance the local member (NSW Liberal) is also speaking .. he has been very helpful to us in the past. I will be trying to get on (1300 810 222) I think I have posted all of the links to Prof. Kearney's papers on NSW Marine Parks on this site. The three papers he did in September 2006, October 2007 and October 2008 are REQUIRED reading by anyone who wants to argue with a Greenie or a Pro Marine Park Labor politician. Regards Philip C. Greetings Luring Bream No that only shows the CURRENT NSW Marine reserves in the Hawkesbury bioregion. They only total 500hectares of Sanctuary Zones Below is a "Letter to the Editor" I wrote about this in October 2006 in relation to the Batemans Marine Park andd a "proposed" Hawkesbury Marine Park When Minister Debus speaks to Parliament Despite living on the South Coast, only 400kms from Sydney, when Minister Debus rises to answer a question in Parliament, many of us sometimes wonder whether we are living on the same planet. In Parliament on Thursday 28th September 2006 Minister Debus answered a question from the Hon A. McTaggart, who asked if a "Hawkesbury Marine Park" was scheduled for the area between Shellharbour and Newcastle. Mr Debus replied that " The Government has NO PLANS AT ALL to create a Marine Park in the Hawkesbury Bioregion .... this area already has 27 Aquatic and Marine Reserves, as well as 9 intertidal regions within the bioregion that are fully protected". What he failed to mention was that they are approximately 4,360h in size and have about 550h of "no take" zones". To put it into context with what we have in the Batemans Bioregion, that is a pittance. In the Batemans bioregion we are "fortunate" to have two Marine Parks, with a total area of 110,000h and about 22,000h of "No Take" sanctuary zones. Mr. Debus must not like the good people in the Hawkesbury Bioregion, they only have 2% of the "No take" zones that we have in the Batemans Bioregion. Perhaps he forgot to mention as well that the Hawkesbury Marine Park would affect 26 Labor held seats between Shellharbour and Newcastle. In the Batemans and Twofold bioregion after March 2007 there will be no Labor held seats. I would be getting nervous if I was a keen fisher who lived between Bermagui and the Victorian Border.

Greetings All Roberta .. this is different issue to the Hawkesbury Shelf bioregion Marine Park. The National Parks Association, an effective lobby group based in Sydney, is NOW lobbying for the ENTIRE NSW Coast to be a Marine Park, and 30% of the ENTIRE Coastline to be a "no take" sanctuary zone. That is 200,000 hectares of sanctuary zone (3 nautical miles to sea for about 400kms of NSW Coastline) Fishers will be brave if they ignore this from the rat-bag NPA Do NOT forget ... Marine Parks are NOT the issue. It is the no take sanctuary zones on beaches and in Estuaries that will do absolutely NOTHING for the environment, biodiversity or improving fishing elsewhere. All they do is ban fishing, they offer no other protection at all. In the Batemans Marine Park you can drag your anchor all the way across a SZ, no problems, yet bring out a fish hook and it costs you $550 A small sub note Professor kearney will be on the Sydney fishing show early on Sunday morning. I think it is 2KY?

Greetings All Well it didn't take long. The National Parks Association pushes for the entire NSW Coastline to be a Marine Park. Below is the announcement sent to NPA supporters about the rerlease of their second report on the "Torn Blue fringe" their specious arguments about how and why fishing in NSW will be ultimately banned. Expect uncritical Politicians, out of work actors and others to hop on the bandwagon. NOTE it comes out Thursday 4th December, just in time for the weekend press. Perhaps Nicky could be informed of the displeasure that nearly one million fishers will feel? Protecting our oceans to benefit us all now and for future Blue Is The New Green We wanted you to be amongst the first to know that we are launching the biggest NSW marine sanctuary plan ever next Thursday, 4th December. Thank you for your involvement in this campaign to date. Your support is very important to us. Thursday's launch will unveil a proposal to gain marine sanctuary status for 20% of NSW oceans. This will include the creation of the largest urban marine park in the world and collectively result in over 200,000ha of completely protected marine sanctuaries reaching from Tweed Heads in the north to Cape Howe in the south. Further information on the plan and how you can help will follow after the launch! Thanks once again for your role in this campaign. We look forward to continuing to work together to help provide the world's best protection for NSW oceans and the marine life that calls it home. Kind regards, Nicky Nicky Hammond Marine Program Manager National Parks Association of NSW PO Box 337, Newtown NSW 2042 Tel: 02 9299 0000; Fax: 02 9290 2525 Email: marine@marine.org.au Website: www.marine.org.au

Greetings All The item below appeared in the Narooma News this Wednesday 19th November 2008. It surely raises the point that they have attacked the messenger and not the message. I have a very strong suspicion that this riposte was authored by the National Parks and Wildlife Service. * An appalling lack of professionalism on the part of Booth, Gladstone and Davis. * They do not address any issue that Kearney raised in his paper. * There has been no rebuttal by either the Marine Parks Authority or these scientists to Kearney's paper presented to ASFB in September 2007, and, so far, this anaemic attack on Kearney's credentials rather than anything that Kearney said. * These three Marine Scientists stand condemned by their own words. It is worth noting that Booth has made extravagant comments regarding MarineParks on a site called "realdirt" which is edited by James Woodforde the Sydney Morning Herald's occasional writer on environmental issues. Wesbsite URL here http://realdirtcomau.melbourneitwebsites.c...in_data_id=7913 Gladstone has produced a paper extolling the virtues of the Booderee Marine Extension. Davis was the "Marine Science" representative on the Batemans Marine Park Advisory Committee. He attended virtually 0 meetings , but could be assumed that the "science" in the design of BMP would be suitably biassed? Kearney's talk disappoints leading NSW scientists NSW marine scientists were dissatisfied with the controversial rhetoric put forward by Professor Robert Kearney at a recent seminar about NSW Marine Parks in Sydney. Professor David Booth, chair of the Sydney Institute of Marine Science's Scientific Committee said "Professor Kearney made all sorts assertions, but he did not support them with robust data from NSW Marine Parks." These sentiments were echoed by Associate Professor Andy Davis from the University of Wollongong who added "that unless Professor Kearney shortly publishes his claims in a credible scientific journal they will have little impact on the broader science community." President of the Australian Marine Science Association (NSW branch), Associate Professor Bill Gladstone, felt that Professor Kearney's seminar was out of touch with views of the vast majority of Australia's marine scientists. "In the last decade, hundreds of marine scientists have signed statements supporting the need for marine reserves to conserve biodiversity. This support is based on hundreds of published studies costing million and millions of dollars, although more work need to be done. In the end, it takes a lot more than unpublished rhetoric to change scientists' minds." Professor Booth was also disappointed by comments in the media from unqualified individuals. "There appear to be a lot of charlatans in this debate. If you want sensible comment about marine biological issues, you should go to professional marine biologists. If not, comments should be taken with a grain of salt."

Greetings Brickman Debate is always good, I do not mind debate .. even off topic debate. However the REAL issues have to be addressed, and in my opinion they are quite simple 1. The general public feels Marine Parks, indeed ANY National Park, animal reserve protected area is a "warm and fuzzy" in this "pro ecological conservation of the environment" climate. Prof Kearney and ANY rec. or concerned commercial fisher knows the REAL threats are not about over-fishing but from pollution, ag run-off etc. etc. The solution: * To consistently present, to the media, the message in a rational calm, scientific manner the points raised in Kearney's paper. * To ACTIVELY lobby every local member we can. Don't forget the National Parks Association, Nature Conservation Council, The Wilderness Society and Humane Society International are ACTIVELY lobbying the NSW Government for a Sydney Marine Park. Down here in Narooma we are 400kms away, their Sydney Offices are about 1km from Parliament House. * The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and Marine Parks Authority are looking at sites between Wollongong and Stockton Beach ... they require 100kms of coastline and 3nm offshore. This is happening NOW * Since the Batemans Marine Park was gazetted in April 2006 a survey has found that 44 business have closed down or relocated, including one Marine repair business and one tackle store. Obviously not ALL due to the BMP, how many are is impossible to estimate. * Arguing the semantics of how many fish are in the sea, or how justified Marine Parks are in the Hawkesbury bioregion are absolutey irrelevent to the Scientists within DECC and the MPA ... they are environmental zealots and your concerns are of no consequence to them. What I am saying is they DO NOT care what you think. Only politics will save this * A fishers organization .. RECFISH, NSW Fishing Council etc HAVE to take this issue forward. Prof. Kearney has fired the bulltes, now the infantry have to go in.

Greetings All I have read with interest the comments thus far, and it has been dominated a lot about a belief or not in statistics. I honestly feel as Recreational fishers we are barking up the wrong tree, as over the last few years I have picked up a lot on how the folks from Department of Environment and Climate Change think. The VERY first thing you have to realise is that any SCIENTIST in this Department is an environemental zealot ... I have met them all. The next thing you have to realise is that these scientists feed info to their heads of Department .. who are NOT scientists but bureaucrats, who THEN feed it onto the Minister. If people remember "Yes Minister" you would get a feel for the way information flows .. ie. On a need to know basis, and totally stuffed up when it gets there. The rubbish I have seen fed to Minister Firth included: 1. One International Consensus statement on the Benefits of Marine Protected Areas, and the Australian Marine Science Association's position paper, which was heavily edited by the Batemans Marine Park manager, who is a NSW Councillor on AMSA. Minister Firth accepted this without question, she is after all a Lawyer from the electorate of Balmain, which did return a 31% Green vote in the NSW 2007 election. We can not expect much better from Tebbutt, an economist, from Marrickville which voted 30% Green. This International Consensus statement has been quoted by both Debus, Macdonald and Firth as to why NSW "must have a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of MPAs" This is despite the statement being completely and absolutely irrelevent to NSW. Certainly the principle applies to the Areas in the Red Sea that were bombed by Egyptian fishermen, using left over ordinance from the 1972 Israel/Egyptian war. I personally saw this happening in February 1974. Also areas in the Phillipinnes were Cyanide was used and the fish picked up in nets after. Certainly MPAs work in this environment. However in NSW were RELATIVELY benign methods have been used over the past 200 years this is rubbish. 2. In the Batemans MP, it was shown that the MPA had "accidentally" banned the catching and keeping of any shark except Gummy and School in any HPZ. This was admitted by the SE manger of National Parks, Tim Shepherd at a meeting the Narooma Port Committee had with the Minister, NPWS & MPA staff in early May 2008 .. However this was the reply we got from the Minister "The provision in the zoning plan prohibiting the taking of sharks(other than gummy and school sharks) in parts of the Batemans Marine Park addresses the fact shark numbers are known to have declined massively around the world, as well as in NSW waters. Generally fishers target gummy and school sharks for eating, and this is still allowed in habitat protection zones. All sharks, apart from protected species, can still be taken in general use zones." This followed the advice from the BMP manager to the Minister to the effect that Sharks were being featured in the Sydeny media as threatened worldwide and hence would affect public perception as such. Hence that should be the status quo in the BMP. So we get the court of public opinion forcing unscientific opinions on a select group (the fishers), with no political clout ... which raises another point I will address Now look at this quote from the BMP Manager, Brendan Kelaher "Marine Parks spatially manage areas to ensure conservation of biodiversity – that is we protect biodiversity by controlling where people can do things and by having marine areas with minimal human impacts (like National Parks)" Note how he implies that restricting access and what people can do in NSW Marine Parks, will help biodiversity. Compare this to what Macdonald had to say ‘People can generally continue to do what they’ve always done within the sanctuary zones except commercial and recreational fishing’(Marine Parks Authority Media Release 14/7/2006). So basically the lower levels of the MPA have a more “lockout” mentality than the Minister’s “pronouncements” which are merely meant to fool the powerless group (fisheres) but not the powerful group ..the “general public”. This has to change as there are at least 1.2 million fishers ranging from once a year to once a day in NSW, ....or we are stuffed. A few very general facts worth bearing in mind 1. If the population of NSW consumed fish at the recommended rate (300g x 3 times per week) then adults would eat about 50kg of fish per adult per year .... About 225,000 tonnes per year for NSW alone. Australia’s TOTAL catch rate of commercially useful fish is about 250,000 tonnes. 2. At the current rate of consumption NSW ...IMPORTS 90% of its Fish from Overseas and Interstate. 3. If the Commercial fishing industry ceases then we will import 100% of our publicly consumed fish per year. 4. Within two years the Green and Animal Rights movement will start a move to have Recreational fishing banned in NSW, as a blood sport, similar to hunting. I believe this scenario is the one we should be looking at rather than the semantics of who catches what in NSW. I STRONGLY believe everyone should read Professor Kearney’s three papers, they are available on this site http://sites.google.com/site/aagfish/Home/...on-marine-parks Philip Creagh

On Thursday 31st October 2008, I attended Professor Kearney’s speech at the NSW Fisheries Research centre, Cronulla. This is my account of the seminar. The seminar started at 4pm. There were between 50 and 60 attendees. Most were DPI Fisheries staff, about 10 or so Rec anglers, including a few luminaries and holders of prominent positions. Jack Tait drove from Batemans Bay just for the seminar and drove home that night. A significant number of MPA staff, including Brendan Kelaher, Manager of the Batemans Marine Park, plus a senior Policy adviser to DECC on MPAs. Also there appeared to be a few Green conservationists. I was told there were a few scuba divers as well. Bob is a very good speaker, with a slightly pugnacious delivery style on this subject, which sounded good to my ears .. perhaps not to the MPA however. The speech was exactly as delivered, with the attached document (14 pages), and should be carefully read. After he finished speaking there was a Q & A session. Dr Kelaher asked Bob if it was true that the reason he was opposed to the Batemans Marine Park was because he had lost his favourite jewfish fishing spot. Bob replied “that he was unimpressed with the inference and for the benefit of Dr Kelaher, and anybody else who wished to think that was important he had never fished in the area now covered in the Batemans Marine Park, for jewfish or anything else.” The issue here is not so much that Bob took exception to the suggestion that a self-interest such as this would bias his approach to the science of this public policy issue, but rather Dr Kelaher's inference that anybody who had a particular interest in any part of the Park, for example an angler who wished to fish in a certain spot they may have fished in for years, would be a biased commentator on the subject. This is just yet another example of the vilification of fishers by the Marine Parks Authority that Bob describes in his seminar. There is no doubt the staff of the Marine Parks Authority and the Nature Conservation Council, National Parks Association and the Wilderness Society have an anti-fishing bias that is projected with considerable zealotry. By making this statement Dr Kelaher confirmed that he holds the view that anybody who fishes would not be capable of unbiased comment, and really should not be allowed to defend their opposition to the loss of their favourite fishing spot. In reality the supporters of marine parks cannot counter Professor Kearney's science, so they revert to personal attacks and innuendo as a way of manufacturing reasons why he should not be listened to. These actions also confirm that the so called 'consultation' by the Marine Parks Authority does not extend to listening to, let alone taking notice of, anybody who has a real interest in the park that is contrary to the closing of huge areas to fishing. Clearly to the Authority the science is irrelevant. Next Dr. Kelaher stated that he had been misquoted in the Sydney Morning Herald piece on BMP, which Bob mentioned in his speech (page 12). He claimed the quote that Bob mentioned on Page 12 of his speech should have been “What we know is that Biodiversity will likely increase in sanctuary zones”. To my ears Dr. Kelaher’s correction absolutely begged the question .. “Why would the SMH print his true statement, when it sound so profoundly incorrect when talking about a warm and fuzzy thing like a Marine Park?” Also the cynicism of Minister Firth in the “Northern Star” newspaper stating how good Marine Parks would be to “preserve (the) recreational fisher’s future” being printed shortly after the Richmond River fish kill. A question from the DECC rep was rather obscure, suggesting that MPAs were only “one tool in the toolbox”, and he went off at a tangent discussing his own question before Bob could get to it. He did say one thing which was outlandish in that anchoring is banned in Sanctuary Zones as well as fishing, shell collecting etc. He was picked up on anchoring and was surprised that it was not .. certainly in Batemans Marine Park. It is quite OK to drag your anchor all the way across a seagrass Sanctuary Zone, but put a hooked line in the water .. $550, thank you very much! Bob tried to answer this question by giving the analogy that the MPAs were rather like a screwdriver trying to cut down a tree, which was nice and succinct. There was about 1 hours Q&A’s, however two questions bothered me. One was a female, who knew her stuff on Underwood’s paper (page 6 & 7), was quite aggressive when stating that it would cost a fortune to individually work out which areas were safe to trawl, rather than adopting the “thousands of papers” vilifying trawling as the status quo and accepting that. Bob answered this question very carefully and made the valid point that Underwood’s paper was specifically on NSW, specifically on a sand substrate (not rocky reef), specifically was on the Clarence River, and specifically on Prawn trawling, whereas all her data was from overseas and on different substrates. Bob claimed the Marine Parks Authority was trying to get all rec. fishers on side by claiming “Trawling is bad and we are good”. The claimed improvements in Batemans MP, because NSW Trawling has been removed, would also have been substantially helped by the $250mill Commonwealth buyout of Commonwealth waters (>3nm) as well. After the meeting I heard her accusing Bob of “not allowing the people adjacent to Batemans Marine Park to enjoy their Marine Park” .. she was really quite aggressive. (anyone know her, could I get her name please) Another was from a fellow with a white T shirt and cap (anyone know him, could I get his name please) who claimed the truth behind the massive size of tarpon in the “spillover” from Merritt Island (Cape Canaveral) Refuge (Callum Roberts, U of York) was proof that MPAs worked. Bob explained the answer, however it was fairly complex and he did not understand it ... I do not think he was a scientist. Summarizing the seminar and Prof. Kearney’s paper 1. Bob has loaded the bullets, somebody has to have the financial backing to fire them ... could I suggest a legal opinion on zoning within Marine Parks, from an SC or QC. This MUST be done. Estuaries and Beach sanctuary zones MUST be fought. The VERY strong point that Bob makes is that Rec and Commercial fishers have been banned from 20-25% of Estuaries and Beaches, for absolutely NO demonstrable gain, either practically or even theoretically. This has cost recreational anglers millions of dollars, with NO compensation. This has cost NSW seafood industries millions of dollars, with a pittance compensation. This has cost the NSW public much less access to fresh NSW fish. 2. Rec fishermen HAVE to work together with Commercial fishermen. He made the interesting point that if, hypothetically, all commercial fishers disappeared and ALL our fish was imported, the move by the Greens and Conservationists to ban fishing ALTOGETHER would be made a lot easier. Who would take sympathy on a SPORT that kills defenceless fish?? As it stands now NSW IMPORTS about 90% of all its fish .. interstate and O’seas. 3. Marine Parks are no more than fisheries allocation exercises that will NEVER protect biodiversity. This is particularly so in beaches and estuaries. The only thing banned in MPAs is fishing 4. The Marine Parks Authority by deliberately deleting the data and documentation relating to ocean beaches from their paper on “Benefits of MPAs 2008” have committed scientific fraud. As far as I am concerned this is the worst sin in science, and I will be working over the next few months to work out who did this. 5. Bob Kearney makes, and has always made the point that well designed marine parks are a necessity for Australia. Not simply as a requirement for Comprehensive, Representative and Adequate areas set aside, but as useful tools in the protection of marine biodiversity. 6. Legal opinions need to be sought on a variety of issues. We have several “expert witnesses” who are absolutely disillusioned with the MPA and, dare I say it, the majority of DPI (Fisheries). This is for the near future, and should be organized by national fishing bodies. Philip Creagh Marine_Park___EMAIL_GROUP_2008_10_30____47a_KEARNEY_presentation_Cronulla_Who__s_being_Hoodwinked_2.doc

Greetings All Professor Kearney will be giving a seminar at NSW Fisheries, Research centre, 202 Nicholson Pde., Cronulla on Thursday afternoon, 30th. October at 4pm. The seminar is open to anyone and everyone. Phone Dr. Matt. Ives, phone no ??, or email at matthew.ives@dpi.nsw.gov.au His talk will go for about 40minutes and there will be time for a Q&A session. I have heard there will be some amazing revelations made as to how the NSW public, including fishers, have been deluded. Just because the Government does it, doesn't mean we have to put up with it. Attendance is STRONGLY recommended to anyone with an interest, and to see Prof. Kearney in person. He doesn't suffer fools gladly and I have a feeling what he thinks about the NSW Marine Parks Authority ... it will be MOST interesting.

The Narooma Port Coimmittee put out the following media release Monday morning 25th August 2008. Underneath it is the response of the Member for Bega, Andrew Constance NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE Chairman Dr. Philip Creagh BVSc. Secretary Mr. John Moore PO Box 596, Narooma, NSW, 2546, Narooma Port Committee welcomes the review of the effectiveness of Marine Parks in New South Wales. 25th August 2008 On 16th July 2008, in a response to Mr. Alan Ashton, NSW Member for East Hills (Sydney), Minister Firth announced there would be an independent and expert-based science panel to review the scientific monitoring and research in NSW Marine Parks. The text of the relevant section of her letter to Mr. Ashton follows: " ... A review of scientific monitoring and research in NSW Marine Parks is due to commence later this year, and the Marine Parks Authority has recently agreed to establish an independent and expert-based science panel to undertake this review. The panel will include several eminent experts who will provide me with important scientific advice about how effective Marine Parks have been in protecting marine biodiversity and what directions are needed in future research. Work to establish the panel and set the terms of reference have already commenced. Professor Kearney will be invited to address the panel." The Narooma Port Committee applauds the setting up of this panel, and especially that it will be expert-based and independent of the Department of Climate Change and the Environment. The Narooma Port Committee also appreciates the invitation to Professor Kearney, one of Australia?s leading Marine Science and Marine Biodiversity experts, to address the panel. We can only hope that the "eminent experts" selected for the panel will truly be experts and independent of the Department of Climate Change and Environment. The Narooma Port Committee has been disappointed in the advice that Minister Firth has been receiving from her senior bureaucrats within the Department of Climate Change and Environment as much of it appears to be based on "faith based scientific beliefs" rather than science which is based on observation, logic, objectivity and reasoning. Much of the "scientific" statements emanating from this Department appear to be consistent with an environmental fundamentalism that relies on "consensus statements", rather than a cumulative build-up of corroborative evidence. The Narooma Port Committee looks forward to notification of the members of the scientific panel, and the time frame for its actions. We expect, as part of the transparent process of Government, that all submissions to the panel will be made public. ENDS MP Questions Marine Park Science Review The Member for Bega Andrew Constance has called on the Minister for the Environment Verity Firth to formally announce an 'independent' review into the science behind NSW Marine Parks and to consult broadly on its terms of reference. "True to form the Iemma Government has again failed the test of open and transperant government by failing to communicate its intentions with this review," Mr Constance said. "The least the Minister should have done is write to organisations such as the Narooma Ports Committee given their involvement in the marine park," he said. "The management of the Batemans Marine Park's inception was farcicial and fishers in our region are right to expect openness, transperancy and accountability throughout such a review," Mr Constance said. "The fact that such a review has been agreed to is an admission that the whole marine park process has been political to date rather than based on sound science," Mr Constance said. "Scientific peer reviews should have been undertaken in the first place before closing 16000 ha in our region to commercial and recreational fishers," Mr Constance said. "Hundreds of people were directly affected," he said. "The Minister has finally realised that there is a need for such a review following the enormous angst against the Iemma Governments lack of consultation regarding the Batemans Marine Park and in particular the lack of science behind the zoning plan process," Mr Constance said. "My worry is that the terms of reference for the impending review will be restrictive," Mr Constance said. "For instance what involvement will NSW Fisheries have to play in this? " Mr Constance asked "Such a review should be open, transperant and inclusive," Mr Constance said. "The Minister needs to consult on its terms of reference," he said.