Guest Ecofisher Posted August 6, 2006 Share Posted August 6, 2006 A report titled ‘Empty Oceans, Empty Nets’ on the state of NSW fisheries produced by Paul Winn, from the Nature Conservation Council and is the basis of claims by various greeen groups of declining fish stocks, has been scathingly criticised by fisheries experts from the University of British Columbia. Prof. Tony J. Pitcher has slammed the report, here are some excerpts from the 15 page rebuttal of the report: “The report lacks both consistency and rigour, analytical methods are not clearly described, fisheries science is not appropriately applied and there is a failure to comprehend the management systems and responsibilities in Australian fisheries. In summary, the published report is so seriously flawed that it should not be used or quoted”. “The report is poorly formulated, and provides no evidence to support it’s claims, at best is liable to provide an incomplete picture of the status of the fishery and, at worst, serves to perpetrate confusion and misinformation. Publication of the report’s findings in the Sydney Morning Herald (140406) which announced that the state’s fisheries are “on the edge of collapse”, sparked accusatory responses from members of the public, accusing different sectors of irresponsible fishing practices (SMH 170406). The reports credibility was not questioned. Not surprisingly, the public are not, in general, well informed about the details of fisheries science and should not be expected to be able to distinguish between reliable and unreliable sources. The Australian public deserves to be properly informed on the issue of marine conservation”. “Care needs to be taken that the genuine concerns for sustainability are not obscured by value-laden rhetoric masquerading as science”. ”we recommend that the Pew Charitable Trust withdraw this report from any further mailings and publish a statement recognising the ill informed and misleading nature of the arguments presented within the report”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madsmc Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 That is a great result! Does anyone have Prof. Pitcher's address? This gentleman has just become a life member on my christmas card list! Can't wait to see the greenies and labour getting bashed with this! Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOB_SMITH Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 Shane Probably get it here http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/working/index.php Bob Smith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 A couple of interesting points. The paper does not seem to disagree with MPA's but moreso the amount of protection being sought. I think we need to appreciate that there will be parks put in no matter what and its the amount of sanctuary zones that are the concern. Commercial fishing practices were singles out as destructive. I wish $%^&* were more supportive of getting the pro's removed from inshore waterways. No offence $%^&* but i would love to see the pro's GONE ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted August 7, 2006 Share Posted August 7, 2006 A couple of interesting points. I wish $%^&* were more supportive of getting the pro's removed from inshore waterways. No offence $%^&* but i would love to see the pro's GONE ! Not very realistic Grantm. We don't have the right to deprive the non fishing public of a feed of fish. So professional fishing should be managed sustainably. There is no evidence that marine parks help to do this and it is not even their stated aim. Professional fishing is having the most adverse impact in estuarine areas and deep water trawl fisheries. Yet marine parks cover mainly inshore reefs, many of them said to be "pristine in nature". Also no one can show why we anglers must be excluded in these sanctuary zones. The rise in catch rates and fish sizes in the rec fishing havens proves this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Not very realistic Grantm. We don't have the right to deprive the non fishing public of a feed of fish. Maybe not realistic but certainly a popular opinion. Totally opposing the parks does not seem to be a realistic approach either but we do it because we believe its the right thing to do. I agree that the public have the right to a feed of fresh fish and if you had seen some of my previous posts on this forum I have said just that, in fact i have been quite vocal about it. I am certainly not suggesting anyone should be deprived and I dont believe buying out pro's who net these areas will do this. From what i understand the vast majority of fish purchased at the fish markets by the public IS NOT taken in our local estuaries and rivers anyway, and is imported or caught offshore. Turning rivers like the Hawkesbury and Pittwater into pro' free zones will not impact on whether people can buy a feed of fish. There is nothing wrong with wanting our coastal rivers to be free of commercial activity not just from a fish stock persprective, but also from the damage done by their netting methods. Anyone who supports giant nets being hauled through the shallows and weed beds is a certified mental patient in my opinion. Remember the weed problem ? Sit in the Hawkesbury during the week and watch these blokes go back and forth up the river. Its not nice especially when they dump thier bycatch on Patonga beach. Its just wrong. I agree thier is a place for sustainable commercial activity, but in moderation and preferably offshore or in remote access areas away from heavy rec areas. I stand by my comment that commercial activity should be wound up in rivers and estuaries. Im sure not everyone agrees but its just my opinion to which im entitled. $%^&* is probably one group who maybe dissagrees which is fine, but its a point of contention for me. They are also trying to represent fishers as a whole and not just the rec sector which i can accept. Is trying to stop the MARINE PARK INVASION ( which i dont like either ) any more unrealistic than my comments about stopping the pro's in the rivers. Buying out the pro's is a phylosiphy that has already been supported by the Government and does actually happen, so yes i do think its a realistic hope. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 From what i understand the vast majority of fish purchased at the fish markets by the public IS NOT taken in our local estuaries and rivers anyway, and is imported or caught offshore. Actually the states catch statistics show that the Estuarine General Fishery is the largest fishery in NSW in terms of landings. Also I think you will find that $%^&* don't totally oppose Marine Parks, just the way they have been carried out with the draconian lockout of anglers with no scientific justification in their so called sanctuary zones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ecofisher Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 (edited) Hi Grant, Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect yours, my opinion as to the pro fishers is much the same as billfisher's, the non-fishing public has the right to access to a feed of fresh fish at reasonable prices, pros and recs are in the same boat with this issue, what I would like to request from the rec fishing public is to set aside your issues with the pros until we get the antifishing green problem out of the way first, we have a common enemy, we do not need to get into public arguments with pros at this time, we need solidarity, worry about the pros later. It is only 6 months until this issue is over. what I would like to emphasise is that $%^&* are not anti marine park, on the contrary, we support the concept, what we do not support is a mentality displayed by the extreme green anti fishing machine that major percentages of the parks be locked out of reach of fishers with no scientific proof of the need to do so, we do not support lockouts, we support conservation through sustainable use and traditional management systems, it is a hell of a lot better than the methods being proposed which only serve to produce a transfer of effort and are not proven to work anyway, no fishers that I know do not practice sustainable fishing, we know the finite nature of the resource and we act accordingly, my fishing club has much more stringent rules than fisheries,(lower bag limits and larger minimum sizes) the green agenda is all about stopping as many people from fishing as they possibly can with total disregard for the socio-economic consequences, it is all about the warm fuzzy feeling greenies get when they think they are saving the world from itself. Edited August 8, 2006 by Ecofisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Yes, I agree that calling for blanket bans on pros just gives these greens ammunition to use against use. It looks like finger pointing and blame shifting. They will use it to support their claims that we unworthy humans are inacapable of managing fisheries so we need to lock them out with marine parks. Also Sydney anglers are quite fortunate with most of the major estuaries being rec havens. Ie Botany Bay, Port Hacking and now Sydney Harbour effectively being one with the dioxin scare and the banning of commercial fishing. I think the Hawkesbury Nepean system fishes quite well too, despite the professional fishing there. I lot of anglers driving north for a holiday don't realise they are probably driving over better fishing when the cross the Hawkesbury! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah righto ! Going back to my original comment where i said i'd like to see 'the pro's gone from inshore waterways', was only spawned from the paper that was used to respond to the 'empty nets' propanda, where it says that commercial practices were destructive. Cant blame me for agreeing with that after all its this rebutle paper that everyone is supporting. You cant just pick bits and pieces from it and ignore the rest. I think you me and Billfisher agree that everyone has a right to seafood so please dont think I oppose this. The fact that NSW has the highest catch rate really doesnt suprise me Billfisher. Its not hard to see we get hit the hardest hence my opposition. That fact does not mean that it is sold at the local markets and that too is my problem. Why have the highest catch rates only to export it. Do you really support that ? Im sure anyone who fishers places like the Hawkesbury will agree that the pro's affect these areas badly. I just have trouble supporting a group that supports commercial fishing in our rivers who ive always opposed. That is simply my point. Maybe now is not the best time to deal with this but when will be? Perhaps $%^&* should put forward what they believe is fair with the park issue. I have only ever seen total opposition to the concept and nothing else. If this is not true please show me the link or info cause i must have missed it. Appologies if thats the case. Please understand I do totally dissagree with the sanctuary areas zoned from the maps ive seen and feel they are way over the top. I also dissagree with the reasoning behind them and feel they are politcally motivated. Just though id point that out so you dont think im 'pro park' cause im not. I dont want to loose my fishing spots either. I just like to look at things from all angles and keep things in perspective. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ecofisher Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 $%^&* does not oppose Marine Parks and never have, we just want the proper science applied to the process, and that just is not happenning, on the contrary, the greens are getting away with dodgy self serving articles being printed in the media, misleading the public, it makes my blood boil, they are charletains, it's all about the left wing preference deals and that's it. We are not pushing the pros cause, they can do that themselves, we just don't want to get into a public fight with them, as I see it we have enough to deal with just to represent recos, the government and the opposition are rapidly coming to the realisation that $%^&* means business. Grant, your opinions are not that much different from any other $%^&* supporter, we are in there fighting for your rights and the rights of any Australian outdoors person, to pursue their recreation in a responsible and sustainable manner, we love our fishing, why would we do anything to jeopardise it, we are the guardians of our environment, the greenies try to paint a picture of us as incapable and unworthy of interacting with our environment, they are wrong, they are the enemy, and "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". It is us against the extreme green antifishing machine. You might like to visit the $%^&* website and check out the policy statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 (edited) Mate I know we are all on the same side, im just trying to voice the fact the we all dont share the exact same views. Surely im allowed to oppose the pro's if i want without feeling like im going against the grain. Im certainly not alone in my opinion. Look back though my posts and you will see i am always offering a different perspective and asking questions no one else does. Although i struggle to support a group that supports the pro's - I do. I have posted on the site and have been there for a while. Dont get me wrong $%^&* are doing a good job in offering an alternative view and im wrapped that a group is out their fighting, i just havent seen anything other than anti marine park views with no comprimise. Thats the way ive read it anyway. Ive gone away from an $%^&* meeting thinking geez these guys hate marine parks dont they. Its just the impression that i get. Ill go searching for $%^&* alternative outcomes and see what i find. Maybe im just reading it wrong. I just refuse to go with the flow and like to form my own opinion after looking at everything. Like ive said i dont support the current format but wish to remain open minded. Is it really us against them ? Im sure there are plenty of people somewhere in the middle. Your forum name is Ecofisher. What is your association with them ? No need to be shy here ! Edited August 8, 2006 by Grantm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 Yeah righto ! Going back to my original comment where i said i'd like to see 'the pro's gone from inshore waterways', was only spawned from the paper that was used to respond to the 'empty nets' propanda, where it says that commercial practices were destructive. Cant blame me for agreeing with that after all its this rebutle paper that everyone is supporting. You cant just pick bits and pieces from it and ignore the rest. I don't think that is quite what the scientific paper said. The writer said that "commercial trawling is potentially destructve". But also said that broad and costly restrictions should not be undertaken before localised studies have been done. Also given that the general public relies on commercially trawled and line caught fish for most of their fresh seafood they should also be consulted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluecod Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 $%^&* does not oppose Marine Parks and never have, we just want the proper science applied .... We are not pushing the pros cause..... we are in there fighting ..... we love our fishing, why would we do anything to jeopardise it, we are the guardians of our environment, ..... It is us against the extreme green antifishing machine. Good words, but stop discouraging an active supporter of the $%^&* cause, Grant is entitled to his opinion on pro fishing even if it doesn't align with $%^&* [the group not the individual] stated cause. At least we can work out that Grantm uses at least part of his name. By chance that's also his login on Fishnitis - I'm George aka Bluecod on Fishnitis and other forums, so who are you - is it Rod or Bob or Tarkis or netequette ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cap3 Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 But also said that broad and costly restrictions should not be undertaken before localised studies have been done. What a load of rubbish, one only needs to have a look at Botany Bay as an example, despite the ongoing pressure from recreational anglers, fish stocks are substantially better now than they were 5 years ago, Why??? because the the Pro's are gone, dont need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out. I've seen the difference first hand, I fish Botany Bay regularly and have done for the last 30 years, over the last couple of years not only have the numbers of certain species increased out of sight but also their size as well. And these crackpots wanna carry on and waste money on 'studies' pay me the six figure salary and I'll do the study for you, it'll be short and sweet!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ecofisher Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 I have no intention to discourage any supporter of rec fishing at all, I did state that anyone is entitled to their opinion, I respect his opinion and assume he respects mine, I did not criticise him at all, If this is the feeling you get it is not my intention. I'm here to try to stop the greenies from stopping us from going fishing, no other reason, I do not wish to be drawn into an argument about pro fishing, as far as I'm concerned it is separate issue, I have enough to do already, If anyone else wishes to pursue that issue then good luck to them, like I said, I respect other peoples opinions and hope to get the same respect for mine. Who I am by name is totally irrelevant, I am a concerned angler fighting for my rights to fish, nothing more, nothing less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbofisho Posted August 8, 2006 Share Posted August 8, 2006 opposition within our own ranks will be the demise of fishing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 opposition within our own ranks will be the demise of fishing. Geez sorry peoples didnt mean to cause a shitfight. I dont actually think its opposition with the ranks either. Rec fisherman come from a wide range of backgrounds and beliefs, and there are bound to be differences of opinion but still be on the same side. I dont think I or anyone else has made out to be on a different side, so no offence but i dont see that statement making much sense. In fact it just blows things out of proportion. Sorry Gibbo no offence intended mate i do agree with most of what you say. This is where these debates go sour though. It needs to be accepted that people on the same side can have different views on some items. Like mine ( and others ) in regards to pro fishing. It does not man we are on a different page of the marine park issue. When ever some one offers a differing view it is seen as a split when in fact its not. Its important that we ( rec fisho's ) listen to eachother and respect eachother differing opinions. I have no problem with the $%^&* group and like i said support their sentiments but just dissagree on the pro fishing stuff. The marine park issues and the professional fishing issues are wide spread and complex and will require some from of comprimise. Yes i want the pro's gone but i would comprimise to get a better than now solution. So, I still see that everyone who has posted here is on the same side regardless of the comments made. Im not at all offened by Ecofisher and Billfish or anyone else. I love the openness of the discussion and feel its important. I dont think they have a problem either and respect my views. Yes we have some differences on the pro's and that needs to be discussed but I still say WE ARE UNITED on the MARINE PARK ISSUE and agree that the current sanctuary zones are unacceptable and need to be challanged. I applaud $%^&* for their efforts in that area. There is no split and no rec fisho i know agrees with the current zoneing proposal. Lets keep moving forward and openly discuss our differences while knowing we are together as recreational fisherpeople ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackant Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Yes we have some differences on the pro's and that needs to be discussed but I still say WE ARE UNITED on the MARINE PARK ISSUE and agree that the current sanctuary zones are unacceptable and need to be challanged. I applaud $%^&* for their efforts in that area. There is no split and no rec fisho i know agrees with the current zoneing proposal. Lets keep moving forward and openly discuss our differences while knowing we are together as recreational fisherpeople ! well said Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ecofisher Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 One thing I should point out to everyone is that although my username is ecofisher, I should not be regarded as speaking on behalf of the $%^&* organisation, nor do I profess to, I can offer statements on some things which I know to be $%^&* policy, but most of what I post should be taken to be my own personal opinion, I think that you will find that many people in the $%^&* organisation do not support trawling in rivers and estuaries, in my locality the rivers and estuaries are not trawled and have not been for many years, so it is not really an issue for me personally, where you live and the commercial activity in that area will have a large bearing on your point of view, and what you deem to be a threat should be important to you, to me the immediate and most serious threat is the extreme green anti fishing machine and lock it up, lock em out zoning plans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 (edited) What a load of rubbish, one only needs to have a look at Botany Bay as an example, despite the ongoing pressure from recreational anglers, fish stocks are substantially better now than they were 5 years ago, Why??? because the the Pro's are gone, dont need to be a rocket scientist to work that one out. I've seen the difference first hand, I fish Botany Bay regularly and have done for the last 30 years, over the last couple of years not only have the numbers of certain species increased out of sight but also their size as well. And these crackpots wanna carry on and waste money on 'studies' pay me the six figure salary and I'll do the study for you, it'll be short and sweet!!! Cap, They are not crackpots they are among the most prestigious fisheries scientists in the world! Plus you left half my quote out, ie that the general public relies on professional fishing in NSW waters for most of is fresh fish and that their needs must be taken into account. The rec havens are a great thing but we can't expect 100% rec havens up and down the coast. The Hawkesbury system is large and well endowed and there is no reason it can't support a reasonable level of professional fishing as well as providing good angling. I have always found it to be a good angling destination. As to Botany Bay I am pleased it is a rec haven, but it also fished very well when the pros were in there also. Remember fisheries are a renewable resource and are well monitored by fisheries authoratories for sustainability. Our real enemy is the purile lock out mentality behind these marine parks. Edited August 9, 2006 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Ahh ok, well that now makes sense. Fishing the Hawkesbury does give you a different perspective on things. Im not suprised your concerns arent the pro's if youve not lived with their destruction. So i suppose its all been worth it just to know that. Yes it is a bit confusing with your usename Ecofisher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibbofisho Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 Well, i didn't expect my comment to stir the pot that much, but i'm glad it was an effective catalyst. to shed some light on what i was reffering to for the naysayers, i will beg borrow and steal in order to get the numbers to overturn these sanctuary zones. I'd rather fish the depleted hawksbury then not fish it at all. What the desired outcome of rallying for me is, would be for the gov. to apply some experst and unbiased research into depleted areas to derive an outcome as to what will best maintain fish stocks, if its seasonal fishing, or pros being bought out or less licences and heavier policing, then so be it, but lockouts are alway's going to be a big no no from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ecofisher Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 (edited) My sentiments exactly, the desired outcome is conservation and sustainability. You should notice my new alias, this has been implemented to avoid any confusion as to whether my comments are my own or that of any organisation. Regards Yoda. Try not, do, or do not, there is no try. (yoda) Edited August 9, 2006 by Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted August 9, 2006 Share Posted August 9, 2006 You should notice my new alias, this has been implemented to avoid any confusion as to whether my comments are my own or that of any organisation. Regards Yoda. Hmmm.... Like it I do ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts