Enviromentalists Turn Out In Force In Bega

[Little_Flatty]

Wettingaline

i found those stats i was talking about, it was in the letter to the premier from Bruce Schumacher, Chair, Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing.

Hi Gibbo,

Don't mean to be condescending but where did Bruce get his information from?

I'm sure Bruce has the best of intentions but his information has to come from an objective source otherwise the greenies (not that there is anything wrong with being ***sensibly*** green), can lampoon us for the very thing that they lack - balanced, well-researched opinions.

Just food for thought.

Thanks to all for this thought provoking topic.

Cheers

Mike

[Gibbofisho]

Hi Gibbo,

Don't mean to be condescending but where did Bruce get his information from?

I'm sure Bruce has the best of intentions but his information has to come from an objective source otherwise the greenies (not that there is anything wrong with being ***sensibly*** green), can lampoon us for the very thing that they lack - balanced, well-researched opinions.

Just food for thought.

Thanks to all for this thought provoking topic.

Cheers

Mike

Mate, that is something you'd have to take up with Bruce i'm afraid, and no condesention noted

I'm quietly confident though that Bruce wouldn't be throwing figures into the air, he's very knowledgable.

[pjbink]

Whatever the figures are there is no doubt that angling is a huge shot in the arm for small coastal towns like SW Rocks, Bermaui etc. You just have to look at the number of boats there at peak fishing times, then add up all they spend on accomodation, food, petrol etc. I doubt if I would visit these places if the best spots were lock out zones.

Then for more evidence theres the 90m dollars the Qld government is being sued for for damage to businesses over their marine parks.

[Gibbofisho]

Hi Gibbo,

Don't mean to be condescending but where did Bruce get his information from?

I'm sure Bruce has the best of intentions but his information has to come from an objective source otherwise the greenies (not that there is anything wrong with being ***sensibly*** green), can lampoon us for the very thing that they lack - balanced, well-researched opinions.

Just food for thought.

Thanks to all for this thought provoking topic.

Cheers

Mike

Here ya go mate, got this of Bruce himself.

www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/resources/majorpubs/reports/?a=36305

Edited July 6, 2006 by Gibbofisho

[OWZAT]

G`day Fellas ,

Perhaps , Just perhaps , the Ist crack in the mirror may have just appeared .

Prime TV here last night announced that the port stephens to forster MPs would be put back till late september , because " people had not had enough time to appraise the Changes , and so needed more time ".

Now being a prolific reader of thing between the lines when listening to political speak , I`m just wondering if this announcement , is really the result of behind the scene approaches by the Masses to the ministers concerned , that these MP`S , espicially the port stephens to forster one , was a terminal mistake .

Only time will tell , and if there is any move to abandon them , it will have to come within the next two weeks , or any momentum they would have hoped to gain will be buried by the hysteria of Howards retirement .

Mick

[Gibbofisho]

That is tops news Mick, it also means that now is the time to pounce, people need to become proactive and hammer the ministers with E-mails, letters and petitions, hopefully this is evidence enough to coerce those with their heads in the sand.

[Little_Flatty]

Here ya go mate, got this of Bruce himself.

www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/aboutus/resources/majorpubs/reports/?a=36305

Cheers Gibbo...reading away now.

[Guest Sweep]

Interesting discussion.

Is it possible that few people turned up to the anti MPA rally because most people fishers and otherwise actually support marine protected areas? Terrestrial national parks are well understood by most people and widey supported, though it is true that some were controversial when first declared.

I feel that some anglers miss the point regarding marine protected areas.

There is indeed considerable scientific evidence emerging that strongly supports 'no take' marine areas from the biodiversity and ecosystem health perspective. Large scale MPAs are a relatively new thing and this is a major reason for the perceived lack of scientific evidence for them. Expect the scientific knowledge to increase as scientists have time to study MPA effects more. Indeed a number of recent cutting edge scientific studies are coming out in favour of MPAs – a number of these were presented at the first ever International MPA Congress held recently in Geelong.

Anti MPA activists will often refer to the lack of evidence for 'spillover' effects and increased fisheries catches (despite the fact this evidence does exist especially for less mobile species such as crayfish) - THEY ARE MISSING THE POINT

Marine Protected Areas do not exist for the purpose of fisheries management. While MPAs are in fact valid and effective fisheries management tools for a number of species this is not the reason they are/should be established.

MPAs do exist to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health but the good news is that for those of the ‘catching more fish is the only thing I care about’ mentality there are benefits too!

At the simplest level healthy ecosystems mean a wider variety of and increased numbers of the fish we love to catch.

Highly protected marine areas also act as a kind of insurance policy against unexpected shocks to the marine environment such as extreme weather or geological events, disease, recruitment failure, introduced species, climate change and overfishing. Essentially, healthy environments protected from adverse impacts are more resilient to these shocks and act to 'restock' areas without such protection in times after periods of natural (or unnatural) adversity. This is a benefit to all fishers.

Re. the struggling towns that will lose tourism revenue I think it will actually work the other way. Marine Parks will attract increased numbers of fishing tourists keen to access healthy waters and diverse catches within MPAs (in areas where rec fishing is allowed but damaging fishing gear, mining and intensive aquaculture are excluded) and in areas adjoining MPAs. Add to this increased dive, ecotourism (eg dolphin watching) and non fishing boaties and you have a recipie for economic success. Would I be right in thinking non fishing tourism is more valuable to the economy in the Great Barrier Reef area than fishing tourism and commercial fishing revenues combined?

No recreational fisher wants to be locked out of favoured fishing areas and left with nowhere to fish but similarly no rec fisher wants to be able to fish wherever they like when there are no fish anywhere! There must be a balance and there is room for both line fishing only areas and no extractive use areas in our marine environment. I love fishing but one would have to have their head permanently stuck in the berly bucket to not see that even the with generally low impact fishing gear used by most of us (line fishing) we have an effect on the environment we fish in. Though the negative impact of such factors as land based nutrient, chemical and other pollution and damaging and unsustainable commercial fishing gear/ practices far outweigh the impact of recreational fishing on the environment recreational fishers must responsibly accept and manage the impact for the good of all concerned. Fishing regulations such as size/bag limits were met with opposition from the more extreme fishing community when first introduced but are accepted by the vast majority as sensible practical measures for the common good.

Rec fishers are the real aquatic environmentalists but we are getting a bad name from the right wing anti-MPA extremists. For example the so called 'eco'fishers are a single issue political group and do not represent the fishing community as a whole (I am not saying they do not represent some recreational fishers, in my opinion they do not represent a majority or even a high proportion of fishers). It is my suspicion that $%^&* is actually a front for commercial fishing interests opposed to MPAs for economic gain.

Time to declare my interest - I am a member of a fishing group that is pro MPAs (including intelligently chosen areas closed to all fishing) but is far from a single issue group - Fishers For Conservation http://www.ffc.org.au

This group realises that MPAs are no magic cure all for the degraded state of some of our recreational fishing areas but see that there is a place for them along with a wide range of other measures that need to be implemented to protect our valuable aquatic environments. The FFC seeks to educate and involve the fishing community on a wide range of marine conservation issues. We are a new group just starting off and not as well established as groups like the fishing party (who I support in principle but not in policy) but if some of the attitudes from other recreational fishing groups are making you see red (necks), them perhaps the FFC is for you.

Regarding my suspicion of $%^&* being a front for commercial fishers - I have no evidence to back this up and I do not doubt that the majority of their membership are indeed concerned (if somewhat misguided) recreational fishers. The FFC was recently insultingly slagged off by $%^&* founder Rod Burston with accusations that we were 'greenies' posing as fishers - this is absolutely untrue, I prefer the term 'blueies' and we are real recreational fishers committed to protecting the environment we love. The FFC is not about extreme environmental policies that are associated with 'greenies' rather we are about sensible whole of ecosystem management and protection of aquatic environments to ensure that future generations can make the same connections to healthy environments via recreational fishing that were so formative in my own childhood....

So if my suspicion of commercial fishing interests behind $%^&* is not true I apologise in advance, not that anyone is likely to admit it if its true… I’m not usually the type to express that kind of suspicion but well, they started it. I know that is a childish attitude but bugger it they really got my back up.

I have chosen to post on this forum because of the generally intelligent and reasoned nature of the debate and I hope this post will be accepted as the sincere contribution to reasoned debate it is intended to be.

Sweep

[OWZAT]

Interesting discussion.

Is it possible that few people turned up to the anti MPA rally because most people fishers and otherwise actually support marine protected areas? Terrestrial national parks are well understood by most people and widey supported, though it is true that some were controversial when first declared.

I feel that some anglers miss the point regarding marine protected areas.

There is indeed considerable scientific evidence emerging that strongly supports 'no take' marine areas from the biodiversity and ecosystem health perspective. Large scale MPAs are a relatively new thing and this is a major reason for the perceived lack of scientific evidence for them. Expect the scientific knowledge to increase as scientists have time to study MPA effects more. Indeed a number of recent cutting edge scientific studies are coming out in favour of MPAs – a number of these were presented at the first ever International MPA Congress held recently in Geelong.

Anti MPA activists will often refer to the lack of evidence for 'spillover' effects and increased fisheries catches (despite the fact this evidence does exist especially for less mobile species such as crayfish) - THEY ARE MISSING THE POINT

Marine Protected Areas do not exist for the purpose of fisheries management. While MPAs are in fact valid and effective fisheries management tools for a number of species this is not the reason they are/should be established.

MPAs do exist to protect biodiversity and ecosystem health but the good news is that for those of the ‘catching more fish is the only thing I care about’ mentality there are benefits too!

At the simplest level healthy ecosystems mean a wider variety of and increased numbers of the fish we love to catch.

Highly protected marine areas also act as a kind of insurance policy against unexpected shocks to the marine environment such as extreme weather or geological events, disease, recruitment failure, introduced species, climate change and overfishing. Essentially, healthy environments protected from adverse impacts are more resilient to these shocks and act to 'restock' areas without such protection in times after periods of natural (or unnatural) adversity. This is a benefit to all fishers.

Re. the struggling towns that will lose tourism revenue I think it will actually work the other way. Marine Parks will attract increased numbers of fishing tourists keen to access healthy waters and diverse catches within MPAs (in areas where rec fishing is allowed but damaging fishing gear, mining and intensive aquaculture are excluded) and in areas adjoining MPAs. Add to this increased dive, ecotourism (eg dolphin watching) and non fishing boaties and you have a recipie for economic success. Would I be right in thinking non fishing tourism is more valuable to the economy in the Great Barrier Reef area than fishing tourism and commercial fishing revenues combined?

No recreational fisher wants to be locked out of favoured fishing areas and left with nowhere to fish but similarly no rec fisher wants to be able to fish wherever they like when there are no fish anywhere! There must be a balance and there is room for both line fishing only areas and no extractive use areas in our marine environment. I love fishing but one would have to have their head permanently stuck in the berly bucket to not see that even the with generally low impact fishing gear used by most of us (line fishing) we have an effect on the environment we fish in. Though the negative impact of such factors as land based nutrient, chemical and other pollution and damaging and unsustainable commercial fishing gear/ practices far outweigh the impact of recreational fishing on the environment recreational fishers must responsibly accept and manage the impact for the good of all concerned. Fishing regulations such as size/bag limits were met with opposition from the more extreme fishing community when first introduced but are accepted by the vast majority as sensible practical measures for the common good.

Rec fishers are the real aquatic environmentalists but we are getting a bad name from the right wing anti-MPA extremists. For example the so called 'eco'fishers are a single issue political group and do not represent the fishing community as a whole (I am not saying they do not represent some recreational fishers, in my opinion they do not represent a majority or even a high proportion of fishers). It is my suspicion that $%^&* is actually a front for commercial fishing interests opposed to MPAs for economic gain.

Time to declare my interest - I am a member of a fishing group that is pro MPAs (including intelligently chosen areas closed to all fishing) but is far from a single issue group - Fishers For Conservation http://www.ffc.org.au

This group realises that MPAs are no magic cure all for the degraded state of some of our recreational fishing areas but see that there is a place for them along with a wide range of other measures that need to be implemented to protect our valuable aquatic environments. The FFC seeks to educate and involve the fishing community on a wide range of marine conservation issues. We are a new group just starting off and not as well established as groups like the fishing party (who I support in principle but not in policy) but if some of the attitudes from other recreational fishing groups are making you see red (necks), them perhaps the FFC is for you.

Regarding my suspicion of $%^&* being a front for commercial fishers - I have no evidence to back this up and I do not doubt that the majority of their membership are indeed concerned (if somewhat misguided) recreational fishers. The FFC was recently insultingly slagged off by $%^&* founder Rod Burston with accusations that we were 'greenies' posing as fishers - this is absolutely untrue, I prefer the term 'blueies' and we are real recreational fishers committed to protecting the environment we love. The FFC is not about extreme environmental policies that are associated with 'greenies' rather we are about sensible whole of ecosystem management and protection of aquatic environments to ensure that future generations can make the same connections to healthy environments via recreational fishing that were so formative in my own childhood....

So if my suspicion of commercial fishing interests behind $%^&* is not true I apologise in advance, not that anyone is likely to admit it if its true… I’m not usually the type to express that kind of suspicion but well, they started it. I know that is a childish attitude but bugger it they really got my back up.

I have chosen to post on this forum because of the generally intelligent and reasoned nature of the debate and I hope this post will be accepted as the sincere contribution to reasoned debate it is intended to be.

Sweep

Sweep ,

G`day Mate ,

( the degraded state of some of our recreational fishing areas ) can you name 2 of these areas with scientific facts to Back up what exactly caused this "depletion" , because too many parties are claiming to be the Messaih , spruking the exact same party line !!!.

The FP in my opinion are political opportunists , and closet liberals , and I`m still waitng for someone to point out to me anything they as a party Have achieved up till now .

And I don`t mean turning up to every protest just to get your head on camera either .

I`m perfectly willing to adopt, and support any serious group that wants to better the health of the Fish stocks of this nation , but have grown tired of Gobblygook and poli speak when addressing the cure , and not the cause.

Mick

[Blackfish]

All these closures don't address the real Problems ...................

Targeting Spawning Fish ......Beach Hauling etc.

Estuary Trawling.. destroying the Eco that a lot of

Juvenile

fish grow up in .

How about addressing these and I bet you'll have more fish.

B.F.

[BOB_SMITH]

Sweep ,

G`day Mate ,

( the degraded state of some of our recreational fishing areas ) can you name 2 of these areas with scientific facts to Back up what exactly caused this "depletion" , because too many parties are claiming to be the Messaih , spruking the exact same party line !!!.

The FP in my opinion are political opportunists , and closet liberals , and I`m still waitng for someone to point out to me anything they as a party Have achieved up till now .

And I don`t mean turning up to every protest just to get your head on camera either .

I`m perfectly willing to adopt, and support any serious group that wants to better the health of the Fish stocks of this nation , but have grown tired of Gobblygook and poli speak when addressing the cure , and not the cause.

Mick

G'Day Mick

Are you refering to The Fishing Party. If you are, what do you expect them to do as your input would be welcome.

We have met with ALL sides of politics and we WILL do deals with whatever party serves fishing best. At the moment it is NOT the Labor Party or the Greens or the Democrats, but after all it is YOUR choice at the ballot box.

TFP attends most protests and especially if they are invited (should we do that) and always state our case.

Here is what I said at the Mingara Central Coast protest and I did not see a camera anywhere??

If anybody is interested here is my 10 minute topic presentation, about 350 attended I believe >

Welcome

Firstly- I want to make it quite clear that $%^&* and The NSW Fishing Clubs Association IS NOT THE FISHING PARTY. There is no financial or dependence or any control between them other than a mutual agreement of support aiming for the same outcome. The Fishing Party has a Political aim of leverage in Politics and to challenge the major party structure with sensible alternatives to the Greens. That’s the way politics work and that’s your decision to either support or dismiss the idea.

But for now it’s about the Marine agenda and Regional Biodiversity Assessments creating Marine Parks where the fishing community is locked out of 20-50% of declared parks. Today being the Hawkesbury shelf bio-region stretching from Shellharbour in the south to Stockton Beach in the North including all tidal Estuaries, Headlands, Beaches and waterways out to the 3 nautical mile state-waters line.

Ban fishing, No more family days down the beach, Close that track off, Don’t walk on the grass, Don’t park there, Pay these fees, Don’t drive on the beach, You need a license, Over-fishing, 50%-30%-20% sanctuaries, Precautionary principal, Spillover affect.

These are today’s Marine headlines, and I hope everybody is asking WHY???? And what you should be asking is “WELL - What about true conservation issues.”

Don’t eat that- it’s toxic, Another major fish kill, Bad luck- there’s no compensation for your business, What science –there is none,

CONFUSING –you bet, Mismanagement- you bet, Misleading- guaranteed.

My answer to this is ANTI-FISHING LOBBYING AND POLITICAL POWER PLAY is prevailing. The fishing community is divided (some of that is on purpose and others are blinded by authority and opportunity)

The magic word today is BIO-DIVERSITY This word is manipulated and lied about whenever the bureaucrats fail in research, science, facts and data to get their way. Even you and I can manipulate it to get a desired outcome. I seem to have a different meaning and responsibility to the decision makers. The newspapers and media love it, especially when promoted by warm cuddly land and sea animals in a one sided emotional propaganda campaign. This is the legacy of BOB Carr’s 10 year Labor reign of an arrogant mandate driven by stealth which now must be exposed for it’s deceitful merit and especially the major downfalls. The Extremists and their ground support (of which we the taxpayers are funding) are writing Labor green policy, they all will deny it of course but the evidence is overwhelming. We all see “Save the Koalas, Save the Trees” as headlines but we don’t see the extremists in the aftermath of the smoldering carcasses and the destruction. How many extremists do you know who are members of the rural fire service or part of the rescue teams who put their lives on the line trying to protect these green policy aftermaths.

What we are trying to expose in this vast land of under-utilised Marine resources is the true conservation measures that need addressing and to be prioritised by a committed and responsible government rather than stopping fishing to appease the so-called greenies.

Referring to our NSW waterways, some of which are so toxic by 40 times the W.H.O. standard, there is a major failure to even recognize the disastrous state of marine survival let alone the human health nasty potential.

Prof Leon Zann from Southern Cross has some excellent papers on the state of the environment in relation to the marine resource survival. He promotes that up to 50% of eastern coastal stocks (NSW & southern Qld) have succumbed to environmental disaster.

With my own research and along with TFP Environmental Officer Paul Hennelly we have personally witnessed all along our coast, Major fish-kills, Massive sewage problems (the central coast has major sewage and nutrient problems), Major water quality and quantity issues (some have no inter-tidal water change at all), Erosion, Diseases and viruses, Massive siltation problems, Stagnant and de-oxygenated water meaning stuffed fish nurseries, Toxic Blue-green Algae. None of which receives very little rectification commitment from governing bodies, as it’s easier to put up a NO-FISHING sign or create no-fishing zones by default.

The Sydney Harbor toxic fiasco is just the tip of the iceberg that could not be avoided in getting the public eye like other disasters have. The results of the Green Olympics as we were to be at the time. For 10 years Governments have known about this problem with promises emerging at every election, even in 2002 an Upper House inquiry exposed the facts- results NOTHING but toxic fish.

I remember having arguments on the south coast radio with Steve Dunn about why fisheries don’t do something to prevent fish kills. Not their responsibility was his reply as his department was only managing the fish resource and it’s harvesting, not their health. That answer showed me the proof of why our oyster industry is suffering, our Abalone industry is diseased and why there are headlines weekly and sometimes daily of major environmental fish kills somewhere in NSW. I hear now there is ANOTHER sewage outfall going in below the Hawkesbury rail bridge. Do Governments ever learn, apparently not?

Nobody in this room and as a matter of fact anybody I know, is not conscious of the environment and deliberately works for it’s destruction but I can’t find the right answer for stopping recreational fishing in AUSTRALIA other than the toxic health issue.

For any part of Australian Government in power, state or federal, whether Labor or Liberal, to promote the best and easiest access fishing spots as NO-FISHING ZONES without backing it up with any scientific evidence is surely embarking on an anti-fishing program and MUST be challenged.

We hear from the managers and Ministers that our state controlled marine stocks are not over fished but they continue with having No-Fishing zones and promote 20-50% sanctuaries. Somebody is telling a lie when we hear from the extremists (NCC. TWS. NPA etc) about the collapse of our marine resource. If it is the extremists then Minister you need to say so and denounce them. If it is you then you need to be sacked. We (the majority of the fishing community) are being hoodwinked into believing it’s for our own benefit.

This lockout agenda is failing to see the Real Conservation problems that affect our Marine Resource, and that’s what we want to get public guarantees from the major party political structure to happen. The Fishing communities CAN make that happen come 24th March 2007.

Robert Smith

The Fishing Party

0265560338, 0432252789, sinali@optusnet.com.au, www.thefishingparty.info

I Fish I Vote I Care

Taken from research links on the party website.

Bob Smith

[OWZAT]

G`day Bob ,

As a retirre Now living In Old Bar , I attended A meeting at the Old Bar Bowling club where you attended and spoke some time back .

Now , only a small handfull of people on this site would know what it was all about , and probably wouldn`t care either , so I won`t bother going over it .

Ironiclay , I had hoped to have our local Activist online by now , but we are still having problems setting up his PC , and he`s no greenie either .

This will be the fella to speak on our behalf where we are , and the last time I spoke to him , he stated quite emphatically he was no longer a fan of yours .

Why , he did not have time to explain , but rest assured he will be online soon , and because he is so passionate about this and other issues , and also has all the Data to back it up , I will let him speak for me .

That meeting , for the I`st time in history , brought together , Fishermen , Pro fishers , Farmers , Dairy Farmers ,Oyster growers , and a stack of concerned residents , but as yet .....zilch .

Even now , Gobblygook speaking officials , arrive at the club regularly , fill their mouthes with bullshit , spray it around the room , and then head for a free meal at the Diner .

I no longer attend these meetings , they , like splinter Groups are a waste of time in my opinion .

But I`m not totaly against them , lets face it every bit helps , or its supposed to.

Mick

PS , Bob , with the greatest of respect , I could not be bothered reading the post mate , I`m so over politcal speeches , sorry.

Mick

[Guest bluecod]

I think a lot of people overlook the fact that it is public land - if the National Parks Association got their way all people would be locked out of all National Parks. I also understand that the NPA are pushing big-time for far more exclusion zones in MPA's

Where does this Government get off stopping taxpayers from catching an occasional feed of fish based on dubious arguments about protecting biodiversity when a lot of available scientific evidence suggests they're barking up the wrong tree. Wouldn't it be far easier to ban fishing practises that impact on biodiversity - anchoring, net hauling?

[Guest Sweep]

Hi,

didn't manage to check this forum yesterday - plenty of posts.

( the degraded state of some of our recreational fishing areas ) can you name 2 of these areas with scientific facts to Back up what exactly caused this "depletion" , because too many parties are claiming to be the Messaih , spruking the exact same party line !!!.

The FP in my opinion are political opportunists , and closet liberals , and I`m still waitng for someone to point out to me anything they as a party Have achieved up till now .

And I don`t mean turning up to every protest just to get your head on camera either .

I`m perfectly willing to adopt, and support any serious group that wants to better the health of the Fish stocks of this nation , but have grown tired of Gobblygook and poli speak when addressing the cure , and not the cause.

Mick

Hi Mick,

I will use SA examples as they are the closest to home for me personally. To start with you don't need scientific facts to see the decline in certain fisheries and associated habitat over my lifetime, and when talking to even older fishers the problem becomes even more apparent. As more and more aquatic research is done increasingly the scientific facts backing up what we can plainly see are becoming available.

For example the effects of illegal but common unsustainable commercial fishing practices on the benthic habitat on sand/mud flats in the Spencer gulf SA (near Pt Broughton). I have fond memories of jumping off the boat at the side of a channel and collecting a few razor fish for a feed, however a few years later these razor fish beds and the rest of the associated algae’s/seagrass and larger benthic organisms were gone. The cause of this was the illegal practice of dragging a net between two pro fishing boats (a practice I witnessed personally but was too young and naive to realise was illegal at the time) the evidence of large drifts of recently live uprooted seagrasses (even in periods of no storm action) and the lage numbers of dead razor fish shells with the tops broken off attested to the widespread use of this fishing method.

Interestingly the recent proliferation of oyster farms in the area has given this sand/mudflat ecosystem a chance to recover somewhat - but only in the direct vicinity of the oyster leases (they physically prevent the dragging of nets).

In terms of scientific evidence a recent SARDI (SA research and development institute) report from a long term study of Garfish in SA (I actually assisted this project as a research assistant around 7 years ago) concluded that the garfish stock in SA was severely depleted and at risk of collapse. This report has received some of the credit for the introduction in SA of major netting ban zones and an associated pro fishing licence buyback. This action goes some of the way to addressing both overfishing and habitat destruction from commercial fishing. (However the inshore netting bans were widespread but not state-wide and the region I refer to was not included.)

The oyster lease example is in my mind a clear example of how exclusion of damaging fishing practices can allow habitat recovery even on relatively small scales. (walking the leases with one of the owners I was pleased to note high species diversity coexisting with the oyster racks when compared to surrounding areas, including numbers of small fish including garfish - and I even picked up a few razor fish for a fantastic feed - Razor fish are also an unbeatable bait for many fish species).

To continue to focus on garfish the association of garfish with seagrass habitat (food source shelter etc.), the drastic decline in seagrass in the waters off metropolitan Adelaide (associated with nutrification, sedimentation and direct impacts from dredging) and the recent decline in catches of garfish are all scientifically documented.

There are plenty of other scientifically backed up local examples of degraded fishing habitat eg. The proliferation of and introduced species Caulerpa taxifolia to the Port Adelaide region and the associated smothering of native species.

As for the FP being closet liberals I don't really think they are in the closet here and have expressed pride that it was their preferences that gave the last Qld senate seat to Barnaby Joyce (Pseudo National) rather than the Greens. They have made their opposition to the greens and association by preference deal with the coalition clear to me and I have no problem with this as long as they are open and upfront about this. I support the concept of a fishing party and one cannot expect a political party to be apolitical but I think that aligning themselves with the coalition is not the way to achieve the best outcomes for rec fishers, nor, by the way, is sticking their head in the sand with a blanket opposition to all fisheries closures.

If you do want to adopt and support a serious group that wants to better the health of the Fish stocks then now is your chance to get in on the 'ground floor' so to speak with the FFC www.ffc.org.au (we have only been operating publicly for a couple of months but have already generated significant interest and support) This group understands that there are many factors that effect ecosystem health and in turn recreational fishing. The FFC is not a political party instead we intend to focus on education, research and direct action ie habitat restoration projects.

Marine Parks are not the most important issue for recreational fishers but they do have a place in the better management of our aquatic environment - but they will not work by themselves. Fishers For Conservation will speak out against closures that unduly effect recreational fishing access, support the establishment of line fishing only zones and acknowledge that exclusion of all damaging processes (including the relatively minor but still significant effects of rec fishing) from some areas will be good for the ecosystem and hence recreational fishing in the long term.

Cheers

Sweep

[Guest Sweep]

All these closures don't address the real Problems ...................

Targeting Spawning Fish ......Beach Hauling etc.

Estuary Trawling.. destroying the Eco that a lot of

Juvenile

fish grow up in .

How about addressing these and I bet you'll have more fish.

B.F.

G'day blackfish

As I touched on in the previous post I agree that addressing these issues will lead to more fish. Closures (including seasonal and permanent spatial restrictions on damaging practices such as trawl fishing, inappropriate or unsustainable aquaculture developments... even military sonar!) are only one of a wide range of measures that can and must be implemented to protect our aquatic ecosystems.

Thanks for your post

Sweep

[Guest Sweep]

I think a lot of people overlook the fact that it is public land - if the National Parks Association got their way all people would be locked out of all National Parks. I also understand that the NPA are pushing big-time for far more exclusion zones in MPA's

Where does this Government get off stopping taxpayers from catching an occasional feed of fish based on dubious arguments about protecting biodiversity when a lot of available scientific evidence suggests they're barking up the wrong tree. Wouldn't it be far easier to ban fishing practises that impact on biodiversity - anchoring, net hauling?

Hi Bluecod

You mean public waters I assume – If you are not familiar with the concept of the ‘tragedy of the commons’ I urge you to do some research. Basically this is the effect of common ownership of a resource, land, whatever providing no incentive for individuals to manage or protect that resource. The idea is that if I (as say a commercial fisher) don’t catch as many fish as I can or use efficient but damaging gear, regardless of the effect on the stock or the habitat that supports it, somebody else will, so why should I disadvantage my income/family in the short term when doing the right thing won’t benefit the environment/fish stocks (and hence my business/family) in the long term either.

Limited entry fisheries address this problem to an extent, as do quota systems. Marine protected areas in public waters are another way of encouraging ‘ownership’ and responsible stewardship. This is in terms of government (hopefully) taking a more responsible approach to managing these areas and in terms of the sectors of the public not presently knowledgeable about the aquatic environment realising that there is indeed something there worth protecting.

I cannot speak for the NPA (and consider some of the policies I have read attributed to them on this forum to be extreme) but I doubt that they really want to lock people out of National Parks, though there could be arguments for excluding some areas from human impact.

No Government I know of wants to stop taxpayers from catching a feed of fish and they would not remain in a democratic government very long if they did! I do not consider the need to protect biodiversity to be 'dubious' in any way.

MPA's are indeed one way of banning "practises that impact on biodiversity - anchoring, net hauling" from some areas of the aquatic environment. This is not the whole solution to the problems facing our ecosystems but MPAs are in my opinion one of the many measures that should be implemented to reverse the decline of habitat health and fish populations. I believe that in the long run protected areas (including well chosen areas that exclude all damaging processes but do not remove the opportunity for rec fishing for residents and others in the regions they are established) will provide a long term positive outcome for recreational fishers of this generation, and more importantly for recreational fishing aquatic environment lovers yet to be born.

Good fishing,

Sweep

[BOB_SMITH]

Sweep and all

FFC is suspiciously a psuedo GREENIE group set up to decoy the Marine Park no-take zone debate

This is their web summary

Signatories include:

The Wilderness Society

Australian Marine Conservation Society

Australian Conservation Foundation

Greenpeace

Conservation Council of SA

Nature Conservation Society SA

Surfrider Foundation

Marine Education Society Australia

Marine Life Society

Ocean Defenders Inc

Animal Liberation SA

Friends of Newland Head

Fishers for Conservation

Friends of Corvisat Bay

Friends of Sceale Bay

Baird Bay Ocean Eco-experience

Consensus Statement - full text below

South Australian Marine Conservation

We the undersigned groups working for a better protected, managed and healthier South Australian marine environment state that:

South Australia’s marine environment is an important part of Australia’s ‘Unique South’, the southern temperate waters, where up to 90% of the species in some plant and animal groups are found nowhere else in the world.

There is strong and increasing scientific support for networks of strictly protected areas in Australia’s southern temperate oceans.

Our marine waters have many uses. They will all benefit from a better-protected and healthier marine environment.

We the undersigned groups believe that:

South Australia’s unique marine waters deserve and need a system of strictly protected Marine National Parks.

Marine National Parks are marine areas that are strictly protected for non-extractive uses including conservation, research, education, recreation (diving, snorkelling, boating, surfing, swimming) and tourism. They prohibit all extractive use.

Marine National Parks constitute the core protection within broader, ecosystem-based management of the total ocean, in which marine uses are allocated within an integrated, spatially-managed framework.

Marine National Parks and ecosystem-based management plans should be established without further delay, and before any further potentially harmful extraction activities, including aquaculture developments, are permitted.

Adequate resources must be allocated within management plans to provide for ongoing, long-term scientific monitoring and research of Marine National Park areas.

The Marine National Park network can be declared under the existing National Parks and Wildlife Act 1972 and/or the Wilderness Protection Act 1992. Any new 'Marine Protected Areas' legislation must deliver at least the protection of IUCN category Ia or Ib and should not further delay the implementation of the network of Marine National Parks.

A community nomination process similar to that in the Wilderness Protection Act should be incorporated into any new Act, with legislated minimum time frames for response to nominations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For my two bobs worth please be careful as NO FISHING ORGANISATION is a signatory

My research puts a different perspective on Marine Park science and any MPA should reflect the condition of the area nominated or TAKEN for so-called protection. Again I base my statement from the research links on TFP Website. Don't fall for this emotional rhetoric but consider the facts and make up your own mind.

Bob Smith.

PS Todays Sunday Tele (NSW) reveals the deals being done in the Labor/Green marriage

[Guest bluecod]

Hi Bluecod

You mean public waters I assume –

Sweep

Hi Sweep ,

You assume incorrectly!

If you are not familiar with the concept of the ownership of the seabed [which provides the habitat and the basis for the biodiversity that is in question, I urge you to do some research.

No one can protect the environmental value of the water by excluding fishing from any or all zones. Don't you reliase that the water is not a stationary vehicle and is greatly influenced by the East Australian Current. What is there one day is gone the next - not so with the sea bed.

Happy dreams!

[Gibbofisho]

Sweep,

I urge you to chat with any marine biologist not affiliated with the greens, (i sound like a skeptic i know!) The spillover effect does not work full stop. Larger fish will not move to another area once thet have out grown their current one, they will remain where the food source is. An effective management scheme would be to close fishing in strugling areas, and have moving sactuary zones, or seasonal zones, similar to canada's management of the salmon fishery.

Also, in regards to the tourism effects, i for one will never travel to seal rocks again, it has nothing for me when i can travel further to the solitary islands Marine park, Coffs Harbour. A well managed MP. Seal rocks is closed to all fishing, as is Sawtooth, the entire headland, is unfishable. The town will go bust, you can not argue against this. And comparing the $$$'s from the Great Barrier Reef MP, all this advises is how much is at stake, the Queensland State Government is currently being Sued for $90,000,000 in lost revenue due to the park. This is solely from fishing tourism $$$'s. Check the link i posted earlier in this thread, its a study/survey of fishing/toursim $'s spent in batemens bay/narooma and port stephens.

I'll check back later and hopefully i can learn to spell once i've had a coffee or two, 8:30 on a monday is to earloy for me.

[Guest Sweep]

Hi Gibbo,

I am myself a marine biologist not affiliated with the greens. Your comments regarding larger fish are generally correct, spill over effects for fish are usually smaller individuals. It is indeed true that from a fisheries management perspective only, moving zones and seasonal zones are more effective and I support these kind of spatial management strategies in addition to fixed marine protected areas. Marine protected areas excluding damaging processes such as demersal trawl fisheries protect habitat more so than highly mobile fish and are biodiversity protection tools, the fisheries management benefits are incidental and not fully understood yet. The long term benefits of fixed protected areas are in biodiversity and ecosystem resilience (both of benefit to rec fishers).

That being said Spill over effects for some less mobile species are increasingly well documented - the best temperate Australian example is crayfish in Tasmania where increased catches and larger individuals are recorded in areas adjoining marine parks.

As well the large fish that do not move from protected areas do provide a very tangible fisheries benefit, contributing more to recruitment than numbers of smaller fish.

I am not familiar with the Seal Rocks example but am open to the possibility that rec fishing exclusion zones may be poorly located and remove the opportunity for the average fisho in that area (this would indeed have the negative economic effects you refer to), this I do not support.

Bluecod.

I think the comments in this post go some way to addressing your point. Thankyou for your welcome.

Sweep

Edited July 24, 2006 by Sweep

[Gibbofisho]

Hey Sweep,

Its nice to have an informed opinion, its not usually the case when arguing with die hard greens, which is something i have pulled my hair out on, on occaison, the hypocracies alone are enough to cause a coronary!

In regards to crayfish, the tasmanian cray (southern rock lobster) is a different species than that that is found on the NSW coast (regulary-i've caught southerns in maroubra!) the North half (narooma north) is the eastern rock lobster (being a marine biologist you prob know this, so don't think i'm patronizing) i was of the impression that the cray's i catch in cronulla have migrated from the far north coast down the shelf and back into the shallows, wouldn't this make them a highly mobile species? I've dived locations and checked regular holes over a large area and found none, and gone back the next day and seen hundreds?

In regards to the seal rocks issue, this is a big impact that the "Sanctuary zones" will have, don't get me wrong, i have no beef with a marine park, but these fly by night sanctuary zones are un informed and errected with sketchy research. I mean they've locked up the research documents, and wont allow for them to be cross refernced with independant findings?

Edited July 24, 2006 by Gibbofisho

[BOB_SMITH]

Sweep

Seeing you are coming from SA, as a TEST and no detraction from Fishraider could you please post your credentials and story on the SA fish chat site as well > fishsa.com. This lot will give you the thumbs up or down on SA MPA's. After all they will be the fishos you ought to be convincing.

Just an idea

Bob Smith

[Guest Sweep]

Hi Gibbo,

The study I was referring to was indeed regarding Southern Rock Lobster, I used it simply as one example of scientifically proven spill over fisheries effects and did not mean to imply that would apply to your local area and other specific marine parks/areas.

I can certainly understand your frustration at research documents being held back from public scrutiny, this is unscientific and not in the public interest - especially when the research is funded by taxpayer dollars, the taxpayers should have access to the results and independent scientists should have the opportunity to review the research methodologies and conclusions.

By the way are you in with this Bob Smith character who keeps interrupting with these red herrings and uninformed misrepresentations of our fishing and environment protection group?

Sweep

[Gibbofisho]

Mate, i'm 'in' with anyone who's a keen fisho and who's interests are keeping the waters free.

[BOB_SMITH]

Sweep

I am renown for catching red herrings.

The more I go fishing these days the bigger they are getting, and not surprisingly they seem to be getting more plentiful.

As of me being uninformed you need to open both eyes and be honest. I will keep interupting in any discussion on subjects that are politically motivated over scientific facts. In NSW that is rife in regard to Marine Protected Areas and the stopping of recreational activities. i.e FISHING

The Bob Smith character

PS How is the TEST going in SA

Edited July 27, 2006 by BOB_SMITH