Jump to content

Marine Park Rally, Sydney Town Hall


Recommended Posts

Due to some personal commitments was unable to attend the rally on Saturday.

Did not see any coverage on TV or in the Sundays papers.

Did any raiders attend , were there many fisho's there. Would be interested to read any feedback

Tks

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff –

I went along, guess there was probably 60 odd rec fishos and some spearos there. A bit hard to get a handle on the numbers as probably a few were coming and going.

A guy from Warringa Fishing Club got up on the steps and spoke pretty passionately and intelligently about the Marine Park issues. Alex Bellisimo (the rock fishing legend) also had a few words to the wise as well.

Dont know too many fish raider faces, so a bit hard to answer your question - saw Jocool and Darryl for those that remember them.

One of the Sydney radio stations was interviewing one of the fishos and also read on another site that Ian McDonald was spoken to and that 10 News were also around.

Guess the hard bit is getting the message out to all rec fishos when these things are on, great if you are on a web site, may be the tackle shops will get on board and help get the message out to those who are not.

Hope there is more there for the next one, just cant be enough.

John

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Jewel

There were not a lot of fishos in attendance unfortunately, but there was a presence.

There are a few pics here

http://www.communi-gate.net/news.php

Best we not be as apethetic for the next ones!

It will affect all of us regardless of political affiliation, so best we all get together to let the government know that the proposals are NOT ACCEPTABLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's strange. :1prop:

Listening to "Hi-Tide" and the bloke from The Fishermans Wharehouse (Peter?) was talking it up like it was a huge success. 250+ people and made inroads with the Federal Government as well. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys Tks for the feedback & the web site with the photo's.

May not have been the largest rally in town but every bit helps & another step foward when all can have their say at the next election

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest madsmc

That's strange. :1prop:

Listening to "Hi-Tide" and the bloke from The Fishermans Wharehouse (Peter?) was talking it up like it was a huge success. 250+ people and made inroads with the Federal Government as well. :wacko:

Hooky, if your talking about the Fishermans Warehouse at Lake Macquarie, that would be Pete Sanderson.

Shane

:1fishing1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Geoff –

I went along, guess there was probably 60 odd rec fishos and some spearos there.

I've tried to avoid this topic as its really none of my business; other than from a tourists point of view.

But Eco-tourism is one of the spin-offs from Marine Parks that your govt. is touting.........so that could affect me :biggrin2:

60.....100........even the 250 Hooky said he heard mention on the radio are pretty pathetic numbers and must have the Govt. rubbing their hands with glee.

If that is the amount of fishers in the Sydney area prepared to voice there opinion and sacrifice one of their days off, then I suggest you plan for a future with Marine Parks.

I realise that you can submit you opinions online and urge you to do so.

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if people will actually become less active now that the opposition government has announced that they will look at reversing the decision on marine parks if they get elected into government at the next poll? A sort of wait and see approach :1prop:

Hopefully people won't be so naive as to think that this may happen.

Problem is that when it comes to election time people have short memories and can be easily influenced by last minute policy changes or handouts to take ones mind off the issues of the past. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering if people will actually become less active now that the opposition government has announced that they will look at reversing the decision on marine parks if they get elected into government at the next poll? A sort of wait and see approach :1prop:

Hopefully people won't be so naive as to think that this may happen.

Problem is that when it comes to election time people have short memories and can be easily influenced by last minute policy changes or handouts to take ones mind off the issues of the past. :wacko:

I don't believe they have promised anything. They have just said they will "review" the parks and lockout zones. Politicians love declaring marine park. Even George Bush, not known as an avid environmentalist, has announced one recently in the US. They like them because get a lot of touchy feely good press and give the appearance that they are doing something for the environment. At the same time they require absolutely no thought or responsibility and little funding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK - please don't bite my head off for suggesting this, but is everyone here sure that the proposed marine parks are actually a bad thing?

My understanding is that recreational fishing will still be allowed in the vast majority of the marine park zone, but that commercial fishing will be severely limited throughout. If this is actually the case (and obviously I don't know this for sure) then isn't the marine park a great result?

I would certainly support a plan to reduce the rec fishing areas by 5% if it were accompanied by a 90% reduction in commercial fishing in the same region. Clearly I would be disappointed if the 5% just happened to be the area that I fished in regularly, but to object to it on that basis would be a bit of a NIMBY reaction.

Does anyone have any concrete info on the actual zoning within the proposed marine parks?

Mondo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Port Stevens Great Lakes marine park:

I may be reading the map wrong, but it looks to me like the majority of the direct coastline will now be open to recreational fishing but closed to commercial fishing (a good result). The pink areas, where all forms of fishing are prohibited, are certainly quite prevalent however, and I can understand how those who used to fish these areas would be unhappy.

Batemans Bay marine park

I still can't see any maps showing the areas that will be closed to rec fishing. There seems to be an overview of the region that will be covered, but no actual detail.

I know that many on this site feel quite passionately about this issue - fishermen who I have come to respect both as anglers and people - so I don't want to offend. I do wonder, however, whether the santuary zones are a reasonable price to pay in order to get the conmmercial fishos out of our immediate coastal waters.

Mondo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Port Stevens Great Lakes marine park:

I may be reading the map wrong, but it looks to me like the majority of the direct coastline will now be open to recreational fishing but closed to commercial fishing (a good result). The pink areas, where all forms of fishing are prohibited, are certainly quite prevalent however, and I can understand how those who used to fish these areas would be unhappy.

Batemans Bay marine park

I still can't see any maps showing the areas that will be closed to rec fishing. There seems to be an overview of the region that will be covered, but no actual detail.

I know that many on this site feel quite passionately about this issue - fishermen who I have come to respect both as anglers and people - so I don't want to offend. I do wonder, however, whether the santuary zones are a reasonable price to pay in order to get the conmmercial fishos out of our immediate coastal waters.

Mondo

Some very rational and balanced words there Mondo.

I think what most anti-MPA fishos are saying is once they submit their right to fish anywhere they please to the government then there is a fairly significant risk that they will continue to lose further rights to their favourite waters in a vote winning war. To be really honest, the govt doesn't exactly have a great track record keeping promises with many aspects of their job, and fisheries is definitely one area where they come out weak.

Additionally I'm not sure how much you know about batemans bay and port stephens (I'm a complete alien to those areas so enlighten me if you know more), a number of fishos claim that the marine parks are centred around good fishing spots (because they hold good populations of fish and other marine creatures, surprise surprise!) and the vast majority of area where rec fishing is allowed is pretty much 'marine desert'.

Anyhow even if fishing in 'marine desert' doesn't bother you (doesn't bother me so long as I can nail a reasonable fish from time to time :biggrin2: ) the very proposition of complete lockout marine parks seems to imply that we as rec fishos have no respect for the environment and the fish that we pursue. I don't know about the other fishos, but this I find infinitely insulting and offensive because nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm not an overtly political person (or fisho for that matter). I didn't go to the protest, though I probably could (should?) have. But the anti-MPA movement has made me aware that I may lose the right to have a fish in certain places, and that some people see me as a rec fisho as a disrespectful marine environment wrecker which I will unequivocally refute. This will definitely affect my vote (as I used to vote democrats greens and labour) or at least make me think twice before I number my one two three four.

I would love to see marine parks, but well researched, well thought-out and well run parks that exist for those who appreciate the marine environment.

Anyhow that's my two cents worth.

Hope I don't get shot down for being a fence sitter :biggrin2:

Mike

Edited by Little_Flatty
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mondo,

Make no mistake marine Parks are disasters for anglers who live or like to visit the areas they are declared. Sactuary zones of 20 to 30% may look reasonable on a map but they can include closer to 100% of the productive areas. We tend to get left the sandy desert areas. In the case of Byron bay recreational fishing is effectively curtailed. Plus you must remember that the MPA lobby wanted the lock out zones to be twice the area that was declared and they may get their way as they are to be reviewed after 5 years.

Also you should realise that there is no real science behind them as a method of fisheries management. Our own CSIRO concluded this after they reviewed all the research. It is really quite a draconian action to take when there is no proven benifit. Of course it is welcome that some professionals are removed and they are well compensated by the buy out of their licenses. But it has not been shown that there won't be increased commercial effort in other areas, ie displaced effort leading to overfishing elswhere. And no one can show why we anglers must be locked out.

Its not hard to see it has more to do with the government securing green preferences in the upcoming election. These groups have an ideology which includes an anti angling agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Little Flatty and Billfisher - thanks for the information, it certainly clarifies the basis of the objection by rec fisho's against the proposed marine parks.

I agree that Fisheries has a poor record when it comes to looking after the interests of recreational fishos and I certainly agree that there appears to be a Green agenda to curtail rec fishing as a legitimate passtime. These are issues that we neet ot maintain awareness of - and we particularly need to be conscious of any 'slippery slope' increases in lock-out areas in the future. I also agree that Fisheries had better be damn sure that they prevent over-fishing in the other areas now that the commercial fishos are locked out of large swathes of coastline.

It would be awful if this was the thin end of the wedge that eventuated with we recreational fishermen being locked out of significant areas of coastline.

My doubts remain, however, about the knee-jerk opposition to the proposal, particularly in relation to the following:

1. Claims that the areas we are allowed to fish will be 'marine deserts': I know the Batemans Bay area very well and my view is that every beach, every headland, and every estuary between Bawley Point and Narooma fishes brilliantly if you know what you're doing. They will fish even better in the future if commercial fishing is stopped in these areas. Maybe boat fishos will have a different view - but from a land-based perspective I simply can't accept that there is any such thing as a 'marine desert' on the NSW coast. The exception to this would be LBG spots I guess - they are pretty few and far between and I can appreciate that the closure of one might mean that fishermen were left with no viable alternatives.

2. As far as I can tell, the zones within the Batemans Bay marine park still have not yet been set. I don't understand how anyone can say that the areas that have the best fishing will be closed if the Govt has yet to actually announce which areas they intend to close? I may be completely wrong here - but I can't find any reference to the proposed zoning of the BB park on the internet (other than the map of the whole area) - can anyone help?

3. (And this is the bit that might upset some Fishraiders) I actually do believe that a percentage of recreational fishermen, maybe not the majority and certainly not any fishraiders (I hope), do not give the ocean the repsect it deserves. I'm talking about going to the beach/headlands and finding bundles of discarded fishing line, old bait packets, plastic bags, beer bottles and broken rods. I'm talking about fishermen who take undersized fish with total abandon, who take more than their bag limit and who take species that are protected. There is no way to effectively stop these idiots from what they're doing and so the only reasonable alternative is to close areas that are particularly sensitive to these practices, such as known breeding areas and nurseries. As long as the science is good I have no problem with this (although I appreciate that the science applied by Fisheries may not be particularly great).

Imagine that, hypothetically, you discovered that your favourite fishing spot was to be closed under the new proposals. You would be understandably upset, right? But imagine that you then discovered that this favourite fishing area was actually an important breeding ground for Jewies, and that your fishing in that area had a disproportionately large impact on the health of the Jewfish population in the region. Wouldn't you then be willing to accept the closure? Wouldn't you ultimately support the closure?

I don't know - I'm really just pouring my thoughts onto the page (probably without screening them properly, and for that I apologise) - but I think these marine park proposals could have some merit if they are managed properly. I guess it all comes down to a question of whether the science behind the closures is good or is just a slap-dash approach thrown together to obtain political advantage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mondo,

We do get left the sandy deserts and the MPAs own figures back this up. If you think there are no marine deserts try catching a snapper or jewfish from a sandy bottom miles from any reef. Here are some of the figures for the Port Stevens MP.

48 % of all the intermediate reefs - sanctuary zones. Percentage of habitat being intermediate reef - 2%

16% of beaches and 11% of rocky shores - sanctuary zones. % of habitat - 0.5%.

Yet the MP propaganda blurb state that sancutary zones are only chosen from representative areas of each habitat!

As to a small percentage of anglers doing the wrong thing, then the authoratories would be better off spending more money on enforcement of existing rules than punishing the vast majoritory. Also do you seriously think these wrong doers will suddenly start obeying the new rules? No laws result in 100% compliance, bad or draconian laws result in civil disobedience. Already civil disobedience is rife in Byron Bay. Locals laughingly call the parks "political parks" and the rangers are called the "fun police". There is hardly a MPA sign left standing and locals are openly fishing sactuary zones and walking their dogs on MP beaches. MP rangers don't dare wear their uniforms in public.

As to your hypothetical arguments they are hardly worth answering. If you are serious about conservation then you you collect a few facts and then apply appropriate and measured action. These marine parks are based on green ideology - not science.

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billfish - my hypothetical argument was meant to do nothing more than highlight a scenario under which I would accept a marine park being declared over a favourite fishing spot. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pretending that I'm aware of any situation that fits those hypothetical facts, I'm just wondering whether there are any circumstances under which opponents to the proposals, such as yourself (and maybe me too - I haven't decided yet), would accept a marine park being declared over a local fishing location.

Anyone who asks themself this question and then decides that the answer is 'no, there are no circumstances under which I would accept a marine park in my local area' would, I suggest, be unable to contribute meaningfully to any debate. Keeping an open mind on an issue as important as the conservation and preservation of our ocean is a good thing in my opinion, and extreme positions are never conducive to a positive outcome.

You will get no arguments from me re the impact of bad or draconian laws and the civil disobedience that follows. I have many fishing friends who refuse to buy a NSW fishing licence on the basis that they see it purely as a revenue raising exercise by a Fisheries department that is less than committed to assisting NSW anglers. I can't say that I necessarily disagree with them (although I have purchased one myself).

The bottom line, however, is that I am just not convinced (yet) that these proposed Marine Parks are bad or draconian laws that should be objected to in their entirety. You are clearly convinced that they are - and I have no basis on which to argue with your conclusion. However if I can be convinced that a particular area is, in fact, a sensitive and important habitat for our fish stocks then I will voluntarily not fish there, and if the Government decides to legislate that nobody can fish there I will also support that.

I don't think that I am alone in this either. I suspect that many Fishraiders and fishermen in general have not yet made up their minds as to this issue, and this is why there is such a poor turnout ot the protest events. We just don't know enough to conclude on the impact (both positive and negative) of the closures.

I can't speak for others, but I don't want to come down on the wrong side of this argument. This is why I am keen to find as much info as I can about the science behind the closures, and the likely benefits to the fishing areas in which recreational fishing is still allowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the information of Fishraiders - I have contacted the Batemans Bay marine park authority to enquire as to whether details about the zones within the proposed BB marine park are currently available.

I have been told that a draft zoning plan will be available for a three month public comment period in early July. It is not, however, available at this point.

Looks like that three month period will be our chance to make an impact on the rec fishing exclusions within the proposed marine park.

Will update further if I can find out any more info.

Mondo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys, this is my first post. I decided to join as this issue gets me fired up.

I agree with Mondo BUT it is up to the authorities, scientists, whoever to prove that there is a benefit to the fishery in proclaiming sanctuaries. Up to this point there is no evidence of any benefit.

If it was proven that your favourite jewie spot was a breeding ground & they propose a sanctuary then that's a different story.

It seems from all evidence so far that the main proponents are environmental fundamentalists whose ability to influence government through the green groups preferences at poll time gets these things legislated. None that I know of are informed users of these resources, ie fishos, divers, etc.

I am in Queensland & I am concerned the same thing will happen up here because it looks like Beatty will not p*** it in this time around & will need green preferences.

Les

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair call Les - if, as you say, there is more politics than science behind the marine parks and the selection of fishing closures then we as rec fishermen should fight to protect our favorite passtime.

It would be a disaster if the pollies horse traded our fishing rights for nothing more than preference votes at the next election.

Billfisher - do you have a link to the CSIRO review you mentioned that concluded that there was little to no science behind these marine park closures?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who asks themself this question and then decides that the answer is 'no, there are no circumstances under which I would accept a marine park in my local area' would, I suggest, be unable to contribute meaningfully to any debate. Keeping an open mind on an issue as important as the conservation and preservation of our ocean is a good thing in my opinion, and extreme positions are never conducive to a positive outcome.

Are you seriously suggesting that being able to fish where we wish (a common law right for centuries), while obeying size and bag limits (well supported by anglers) is somehow an extreme position. You sound a bit like the government. They are stating that the Marine Parks are a reasonable compromise because the greens only got half the extreme demands they proposed.

Recreation angling is no threat to biodiversity or fish stocks and there is plenty of scientific evidence to support this. Have a look at the $%^&* web site as well as the site of Dr John Jenkins MLC for some of the scientific reports. I find it hard to understand why you think that we must put this reality on equal footing with green fundamentalism. They know that they are on shakey ground targeting us anglers so basically they lie and distort.

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Billfisher

Well, I guess I am saying that an angler who asserts his/her right to fish absolutley anywhere they want is taking an extreme position. I mean, there are already marine parks in place that are not particularly controversial - such as the marine park established at Jervis Bay and the sanctuary over the Great Barrier Reef. I don't think it is unreasonable to accept that there should be some marine parks throughout our coastline in order to protect habitats that are particularly threatened or fragile.

Certainly I agree with you that we need to be very alert to moves by Green groups to shut down fishing in areas where there is no established threat to the marine environment. Certainly we need to fight, and fight hard, when we are convinced that fishing closures and marine parks are being established for no good scientific reason and are merely a political trade to make extremist greenies feel good about themselves. I absolutley love to fish - it is my number one passion in life (the fairer sex excluded) - I would be just as unhappy as any Fishraider, including you, if any of my favorite fishing grounds were closed for no good reason.

I guess that is the point I am making though - I just don't know enough about the science behind the closures to make an informed decision about whether there is a good reason for the proposals. I am tryng to find out more, and I will make everything I find available to Fishraiders so that we can all be better informed about this. I don't think that any independant minded person should allow their view on something as important as this to be dictated to them, not by you and certainly not by me.

I will certainly have a look at the sites that you mention. If their argument is persuasive then it is likely that I will end up agreeing with you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...