Green Wars

[coastspinna]

firstly, i consider myself to be a fisherman who cares about the environment, but

all anyone needs to do is take a look at the greens own websites at both a nsw and national level.....

they tell you that...

A) the greens primary objective is to gain balance of power at the federal election via the climate change debate...

B ) they are actively campaigning for more marine parks (amongst other policies that i do actually agree with)

C)they use the precautionary principle as a guideline for policy (ie: not having evidence about something happening is no reason not to do something about it)

most of the fishos i hang around with are fairly vocal about the environment, and caring for the health of both the rivers, bays and oceans we frequent.....

the greenies have made powerful enemies with the people they need to be uniting with against:

i)destructive commercial practices

ii)pollution in our estuarys, rivers and ocean

iii)unscrupulous rec fishos

iv)destruction of foreshore habitat

v) harmful govt. policy

after all it would definitely be in ourt better interest to preserve and maintaion the beautiful areas which we are probably the only ones lucky enough to see

as an example, who is more knowledgeable about a bass and what it needs to survive???

a bloke who has fished for them for 30 years, or a green pre selected candidate?

i think you would be hard pressed to find a bass fisho who isn't extremely angry about the inaction regarding fishways that are condemning whole species of native fish.

greens and rec fishos need to stand together on these issues and we will be a powerful environmentalist force to be reckoned with...

divided we will be conquered by industry and govt.

my opinion only

regards

ian

[Penguin]

I thought that the Greens want to lock pros and rec fishos out of a lot of fishing

areas.

penguin.

[coastspinna]

I thought that the Greens want to lock pros and rec fishos out of a lot of fishing

areas.

penguin.

imho it seem that greens are happy to permit the pros to keep netting our estuarys(nurserys) which is unsustainable and destructive

you are right penguin if the greens hold balance of power we will see marine parks spread up and down the coast based on little or no science...this would be a disaster, but there will still be pro fisherman

rec fishos are just the easy target for the greens...

[davebrewer]

Too true Ian-the Batemans Bay example is a case in point of the shape of things to come if they get their way.The whole process was scathingly condemned by Professor Bob Kearney at a national conference of fish biologists last month,where he took the "scientific evidence" used to justify the Park's establishment to pieces item by item.

ahttp://aerg.canberra.edu.au/reprints/2007_Kearney_pros_cons_marine_protected_areas_NSW.pdf

It is fairly technical in places but well worth reading.The summary is on pages 14-16.We all owe it to ourselves,our kids and future generations of anglers to be aware of the forces operating to steal our birthright for no better reason than unsupported advocacy backed by political expediency.

Cheers,

Dave.

[neilm]

Idealistically I think most thinking fishos are "greener" and more environmentally aware than your average green voter who wouldn't know a mullet if it landed on their head.

The problem is that the greens are simply another radical party in all of their many guises - and they will eat fishos alive if we're prepared to form a "partnership" with them. Did you realise that the Recfish organisation has a NCC representative on the board? Do you see any fishos on Marine Park boards? No.

Have a look at this site:

http://www.greenswatch.com/

Bob Kearney's report is spot on, these organisations have manipulated the Govt with a pack of lies.

Cheers,

neil

[Mondo Rock]

The Greens have an agenda that is surprisingly consistent with rec fishos, even if their proposed policies in furtherance of that agenda are inconsistent with ours.

Yes marine parks have been forced on us without propoer consultation, and yes the benefits to the areas they seek to protect are uncertain at best - but at least they are trying to protect our marine environment. It's more than any Labor or Liberal government will do voluntarily - and after the fuss has died down are we really suffering much at all from these new protected areas?

I am 100% in agreement with flathead fanatic when he points out the areas of common ground between us and the Greens - each of the five priorities he provides are absolutely spot on. If only the Greens realised that recreational fishos will be their most passionate advocates provided they include us in their consultation process.

The problem is that the Greens continue to see 'fishermen' as a single homogenous group. They don't distinguish between commercial and recreational, nor are they aware of the significant (and ever growing) proportion of us that are committed to sustainability by limiting our catches and employing catch and release. For example, I reckon your average Green member would be surprised to learn that catching and keeping big flatties is widely frowned upon by a large segment of the fishing community. They might equally be surprised to learn about the important role we play in fish tagging and habitat replenishment.

If only the Greens would stop seeing us as the enemy, and vice versa, we could really achieve some great things together. Especially if they have the balance of power.

And neilm - careful what you link to. That website you list below is a front for the Exclusive Brethren, who are a far more insidious and nasty threat to our society than the Greens will ever be.

[Davemmm]

Yes marine parks have been forced on us without propoer consultation, and yes the benefits to the areas they seek to protect are uncertain at best - but at least they are trying to protect our marine environment. It's more than any Labor or Liberal government will do voluntarily - and after the fuss has died down are we really suffering much at all from these new protected areas?

I think Mondo has nailed it. The problems with the enviroment, from global warming to loss of diversity, have been talked about for years on end. Unfortunately none of the major parties throughout the world are prepared to do anything about it. Most of them are beholden to their financial backers who unfortunately are the ones who benefit the most from raping and pillaging the world.

Both Labor and Liberal (I am a member of the ALP) should hang their heads in shame over their lack of commitment to fixing obvious problems. The ALP saved one area in Tasmania from being dammed twenty years ago and legislated for big numbers of National Parks in NSW. This has amounted to two-tenths of stuff all in the greater scheme of things. The Libs on the other hand seem to think they should only preserve enough sand to keep their heads in.

The reason the Green vote has increased to a level that is notable is that all the people who once felt the Green policies were written by chicken little now believe the sky is falling.

They might not be right but at least the Greens are having a go.

Dave

[pjbink]

As resource users we have more in common with the commercial sector than the Greens or like minded conservation (I should say preservation) groups. These groups want to shut us down and they are well on the way to doing so.

The recreational take equals or even exceeds the take of those nasty commercial fishermen for a lot of popular species. I haven't heard anything here to change my mind except mushy platitudes about how the Greens care about the environment.

Mondo, how do you know that the Bretheren are behind Greenswatch. They describe the EB as a kooky sect, but they add that they are almost as kooky as some greens!

[Mondo Rock]

Nobody knows for certain Billfisher - the Greenswatch site is extremely secretive about who funds and runs it. Nonetheless, I am a relatively active political blogger and the consensus amongst those who have been trying to uncover the source of the site is that they are an Exclusive Brethren organisation.

But feel free to simply treat it as a hate site run by unnamed and unknown people if you're uncomfortable with speculation about who is behind it.

As for your talk of 'mushy platitudes', well OK - that's your opinion. As much as I agree that the marine parks were rammed through without proper consultation, I also note that the doom and gloom predictions of those opposed to them have completely failed to materialise. I reckon that in several years time the hysteria over these parks will have died off completely.

Like it or not the Greens are going to increasingly become a political force in this country as the climate change issue heats up and the ALP moves farther to the Right. We can either work with them towards common goals, or we can raise our hackles and call them the enemy.

I know which course of action I believe is more likely to be successful.

(BTW - I should state for the record that I am not a Green member nor in any way associated or affiliated with the Greens. I am simply a voter who spends far too much time thinking and writing about politics).

[davebrewer]

The Greens have an agenda that is surprisingly consistent with rec fishos, even if their proposed policies in furtherance of that agenda are inconsistent with ours.

Yes marine parks have been forced on us without propoer consultation, and yes the benefits to the areas they seek to protect are uncertain at best - but at least they are trying to protect our marine environment. It's more than any Labor or Liberal government will do voluntarily - and after the fuss has died down are we really suffering much at all from these new protected areas?

My impressions:

I recently spent a week on the south coast and was astonished at just how many areas have been locked up.I went to check out several spots mentioned in magazine articles the previous year and many were signposted.This is the pattern-it isn't the % but the distribution of closed zones that effects recreational fishing,as any angler knows.Certainly the locals do-go and ask them Mondo are they really suffering,like the guys that can't fish of their local beach,where they have built their family home or retired to, or the associated businesses,tackle shops and accomodation operators and so on.I didn't find anyone that week who had a good thing to say about the park as it stands-the consultative meetings were from all accounts just a facade with no interest shown in local input or impact.The really destructive aspect of this whole business is that confidence in the concept of marine parks gets shot to hell,so that if in future the opportunity to establish them on a legitimate basis,in response to a properly researched need rather than sham advocacy where you make your mind up then try and rationalise your position with bullshit "science",they will face a lack of credibility as well.

Dave.

[pjbink]

Nobody knows for certain Billfisher - the Greenswatch site is extremely secretive about who funds and runs As for your talk of 'mushy platitudes', well OK - that's your opinion. As much as I agree that the marine parks were rammed through without proper consultation, I also note that the doom and gloom predictions of those opposed to them have completely failed to materialise. I reckon that in several years time the hysteria over these parks will have died off completely.

How do you work that out? In a lot of cases marine park outcomes have been far worse than imagined. In Qld compensation for shore based businesses has cost the taxpayers 200m and its still going northwards. The GBRMPA said it would cost just a few million! There won't be that problem in NSW as they are not bothering with compensation. In Qld a lot of towns (eg Cairns) lost 75% of their accessible reefs to green zones. Participation in fishing in the Cairns area dropped by 40%, maybe thats what you mean by the hysteria dying off - people giving up fishing! No wonder seeing that 320 anglers have been given heavy fines and criminal convictions for straying (usually accidentally) into green zones. The bureaucratic empire building of the GBRMPA has seen it mislead parliament as to the fishing pressure on the GBR and ignore or supress research that does not fit its agenda.

30% of NSW waters are now marine parks! In the case of Byron Bay 98% of the inshore reef is locked up. other parks commonly take 50% of inshore reefs. Criminal convictions apply here also. The green zones can be expanded at the ministers discretion. Control of the parks has been removed from the DPI and given to the environmental zealots within the NPWS. The Greens want more locked up too (50% of NSW waters). Do you really think that we have seen the end of the lockouts?

Edited October 4, 2007 by billfisher

[Mondo Rock]

It's very difficult to discuss politics - passions are so easily inflamed and enraged, and on a site like Fishraider we need to be careful to remember that we're all on the same side (fundamentally) even if our views on how to promote the interests of rec fishos may be different.

I just wanted to note that, since these discussions can so easily degenerate to a level where the Administrators will (quite rightly) pull the plug.

So Billfisher and Dave B - please know that no matter how much we disagree, nor how passionately we disagree, I absolutely do not want you to think that I don't respect your views or recognise that they are equally valid to my own.

Dave - you said: "Certainly the locals do-go and ask them Mondo are they really suffering,like the guys that can't fish of their local beach,where they have built their family home or retired to, or the associated businesses,tackle shops and accomodation operators and so on."

However my reading of the Batemens Bay marine park is that there are almost no beaches that fall within sanctuary zones, and certainly none that are adjacent to local towns. Are you aware of any specific areas that people are complaining about, or specific businesses that have gone out of business, because I certainly have seen no evidence of this.

I'm not claiming it hasn't happened - I'm just saying it doesn't seem to be anywhere near as big of a problem as your comment implies that it is.

And Billfisher - I really won't attempt to comment on the GBRMP, as it is in Queensland, has been in operation for many years now, and is (as I understand it) structured completely differently (i.e. rec fishing is much more severely restricted). Certainly it is valid to draw conclusions from it in NSW, but again I note that I have seen little evidence that the NSW parks, which you note cover 30% of our water, have had a similar impact. Maybe you're aware of specific hardships, business closures or reductions in fishing operations that I'm not - and if so then it would be very informative to learn more about them.

I'd be just as disappointed as you if these parks were forcing locals out of business without proper consultation. I'm just not aware of this actually happening anywhere in NSW.

Edited October 4, 2007 by Mondo

[huntman]

I think it is important to note that each marine park's process and outcomes are very different. You have some where the process was very inclusive and exhaustive to try and get the best for everyone (jervis bay) and others where they just said "screw it we'll put the sanctuary zones wherever we want" (byron bay). There is also a whole lot of approaches inbetween.

On this board we definately underestimate the impact of recreational catch. The "semi pro" guys which is the top 10% of recreational anglers catch around 80% of that catch, and in volume on popular recreational species it often exceeds commercial catch. I am constantly impressed by the mentality of fishraiders practicing catch and release well below legal bag limits, and most people only take what they need, but there IS a lot of us, and we ARE mostly pretty adept fishermen compared to joe "frozen prawns and a $10 plastic rod" blogs. I'm not convinced marine parks are the answer to sustainable recreational fishing, but I will be supporting measures I see to effectively control and sustain fish stocks, particularly ones based on good science like the increase to the legal length of kingfish.

Whether or not the greens are as willing to cooperate with conservationally minded fishos as those speaking in this discussion remains to be seen though.

Edited October 4, 2007 by huntman

[Mondo Rock]

On this board we definately underestimate the impact of recreational catch. The "semi pro" guys which is the top 10% of recreational anglers catch around 80% of that catch, and in volume on popular recreational species it often exceeds commercial catch.

Where are you sourcing this information from Huntman, and which 'popular recreational species' are you referring to?

I would have thought that the 'semi-pros' almost overwhelmingly employ catch and release in their fishing. You'd certainly be hard pressed to find many of the good fishermen on this site taking home more than a handful of fish from any one outing.

I simply won't accept anecdotal claims like this about the impact of recreational fishing unless some data is provided. It seems silly to me that we rec fishos would 'admit' to having a greater impact on fish stocks than the pros on the basis of speculation.

[huntman]

I'm glad you asked for a source, because it is too easy these days to spout out claims without evidence.

Exact data is impossible to get because there are so many fishermen to servey, however you can look at models and good stats work and be confident that for the most commonly targeted species (bream, whiting flathead) catch rates in sydney of recreational fishermen approach or exceed those of commercial fishermen.

One source: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:pjCzrX...;cd=4&gl=au

(for those that can't be bothered reading it, it puts the NSW recreational catch conservatively at 50,000 tonnes per year, and suggests flathead, bream and whiting recreational catches approach or exceed commercial catch in certain places.)

Another source I read I have the notes for at home, I'll try and find them and update.

The species where recreational anglers don't do as much damage as the pros are the ones like gemfish and tuna that are internationally targeted, and available only to those with bigger boats. Inshore esturine species however, I think we often put the total recreational catch in the realm of what us and our friends catch (maybe a hundred fish per month) when the reality is there are a lot more fish than that caught. It's true that pros measure their catch in tonnes and us in kilos, but there are a lot more of us than them. If all the raiders out on a sunday catch a couple of kilo of fish that is already approaching a tonne, and not everyone out on a sunday is even a raider (yet... although stewie will probably see to that before long )

As I said before, the raiders as a whole are very conservation minded, and almost always start throwing back fish way BEFORE they bag out, however there are a lot of us, and a lot of non raider fishermen as well, and the weight of this, as well as bad practices (which i wont get into because it's against site rules) does add up.

I know people who fish 3 or 4 nights a week, and are very good fishermen. The cumulative impact of one person is definately negligable, however with 100s and 1000s of recreational fishermen in sydney who would be in the "upper echelon" or "semi pro" categories, the guys who are consistently catching fish, the impact definately is not negligable.

We have a right to fish, and on this site we're all pretty good conservationally... we all want to do the right thing. I think we should definately try though, to make sure we know as best as possible what our impact is, and try to work out ways where we can still fish, but in a way that makes sure there will definately be good catches for our grand children.

For the record, I am not yet convinced marine parks are the best way of doing this, but I recognise there is an impact that recreational anglers have, and it needs to be managed ALONG WITH all the other things affecting fish life (international fleets, aquarium trade, pollution, siltation, overdevelopment). I hope it can happen in my life time in a way that is fair for everyone.

I realise this is a challenging topic, so thanks mondo for the way you replied. I definately don't expect you to believe claims without a source, and even with one source presented it is good to do your own investigation to make sure I'm not talking out of my butt... because I am definately still in the process of fully educating myself about this.

Edited October 4, 2007 by huntman

[Mondo Rock]

Good stuff Huntman - I appreciate the response and the stats.

I guess it isn't entirely surprising that rec fishos may account for more flathead, bream and whiting than the pros, but on the other hand these species are not in any trouble from overfishing as far as I'm aware. Thus any approach to the Greens, or Green groups, in relation to our right to continue to freely target these would be based around that fact.

I agree that there is an 'emotional' element within the Green movement (for lack of a better word) who see fishing as a cruel or evil practice regardless of whether it has any impact on natural fish stocks, and that these idiots are the ones who need to be worked around when highlighting the very positive contribution that the rec fishing movement could make to the Green agenda (see Fishing Fanatic's list of five areas of common ground above). But I think that there are some sensible Greens who would be delighted to know that rec fisho's are possibly even more committed to maintaining pristine waterways and healthy fish stocks than they are.

Take Kingies for example - here is a fish that has absolutely surged around Sydney since the pros activities were limited and much of the public impetus for this came from rec fishermen. It's a win-win for both environmental and recreational fishing interests.

Bottom line for me is that I believe we should not treat the Greens as our enemies, nor attempt to smear them all as hair-shirted hippies who are trying to shut down fishing. If we make enemies of their movement then there is little incentive for them to consider the needs of rec fishos once they get their hands on the levers of power (which it seems likely they will).

[jewgaffer]

Took a drive with the rock rods along the track at the side of the chip mill at Shellharbour and was handed brochures and got talk about the sky turning green or something but rolled them a couple of durries as they were out of a smoke and they soon changed their beliefs and told me it was only a part time job.

Yes the old scientific findings and numbers caper again.

But what can we really do about it, it's the old boys in the bird cage story and the payers getting soaked on the hill.

jewgaffer

[Penguin]

Did they whip out some weed, and ask u to roll it up in them durries for them too?

And were their greeny brochures printed on recycled paper, printed in environmentaly

friendly ink. Were their shoes made of sythetic materials, or did someone go out and kill

a cow. Did they drive to your spot in a car and burn fuel, and as a result release carbon

monoxide gasses into the air, and did they blah blah blah.

penguin

[fishguts]

Did they whip out some weed, and ask u to roll it up in them durries for them too?

And were their greeny brochures printed on recycled paper, printed in environmentaly

friendly ink. Were their shoes made of sythetic materials, or did someone go out and kill

a cow. Did they drive to your spot in a car and burn fuel, and as a result release carbon

monoxide gasses into the air, and did they blah blah blah.

penguin

you said it all penguin!

bit i did remove my stupid hipocritical post as i buy red salmon, and have had a filet o fish

..cheers!..stevo!..

[jewgaffer]

Come to think of it Penguin when those greenie blokes had a few puffs my eyes started to water and when they walked off they wobbled so much it looked like they were riding a cow.

Cheers

jewgaffer

[Mondo Rock]

A great example of the mutual interests of recreational fishermen and the Greens is the new pulp mill in Tasmania.

From today's Australian:

However, Tamar tourism, fisheries and wine businesses and conservationist were scathing of Mr Turnbull's failure to examine the impact of the mill on their industries, as well as on native forests, which will initially provide 80 per cent of mill

.

It's not in any way surprising that the Greens and local Tasmanian fisheries businesses are natural allies in the fight against this project. Leaving aside the broader issue of the mill itself, which has bipartisan ALP and Lib support, this issue is further proof that we as recreational fishermen will often have a vested interest in working with the Greens rather than against them.

[pjbink]

Your example doesn't hold a lot of water Mondo. Tasmanian forests are a big deal to the Greens both ideologically and as a vote catcher. They couldn't give a toss about the fishermen. It's also doubtful the the mill will have any adverse effects on the marine environment - if you believe the government's chief scientist.

The Green's main objective with the marine environment in locking up to 50% in no take zones and this should never be forgotten.

[Mondo Rock]

It's also doubtful the the mill will have any adverse effects on the marine environment - if you believe the government's chief scientist.

Well the local fisheries groups appear to disagree. Ergo their opposition to the mill.

The example holds exactly the amount of water I intended it to Billfisher - it is not meant to prove that the Greens support recreational fishos, it is meant to show that the Greens and Rec fishos will often have interests that closely align. The Tasmanian pulp mill is an undeniable example of exactly that phenomenon.

It's interesting to see you taking a pro-mill position in your post above. I'm a little confused as to why you would argue a position contrary to the clearly expressed interests of the local fishing community.

[pjbink]

Well the local fisheries groups appear to disagree. Ergo their opposition to the mill.

The example holds exactly the amount of water I intended it to Billfisher - it is not meant to prove that the Greens support recreational fishos, it is meant to show that the Greens and Rec fishos will often have interests that closely align. The Tasmanian pulp mill is an undeniable example of exactly that phenomenon.

It's interesting to see you taking a pro-mill position in your post above. I'm a little confused as to why you would argue a position contrary to the clearly expressed interests of the local fishing community.

All I'm saying is that the government's chief scientist looked closely at the issue of marine pollution and approved the project on environmental grounds. The local fishing community was naturally fearful about the project - but what evidence is there that the fears were founded?

Also to expand on the example we are only recreational fishermen. We are breadwinners first. We need jobs to go to support our hobby - not to mention our families. A lot of us would be described as blue collar workers. The Greens would be happy to see an end to (or at least severly restrict) a lot of the industries which provide our jobs, eg coal mining, forestry, farming etc. A lot of us work in the private sector too - the Green's economic policies have been described by those who should know as economic vandalism. It's the ordinary worker who cops it in the neck when there is an economic downturn.

[davebrewer]

All I'm saying is that the government's chief scientist looked closely at the issue of marine pollution and approved the project on environmental grounds. The local fishing community was naturally fearful about the project - but what evidence is there that the fears were founded?

The consistent lack of valid evidence is the big problem with this whole issue.Show me credible data that recreational anglers are devastating the biomass in a given fishery and I'll put my hand up for controls,and even vote Green again if it will help achieve it.(I have once or twice,I admit it).So in one respect you're preaching to the converted,Mondo,and I agree that in an ideal world we probably should be aligned with them.But I reserve the right to scream bloody murder when the very people we pay handsomely to represent our interests ride roughshod over them WITHOUT valid evidence at the behest of a lobby group which at present can only be considered inimical to our interests.Don't take my word for it,read Prof. Kearney's address at the link above.And have a look at the BBMP website to see affected areas in the context of his report.Then ask yourself,what about if one of these parks impacts on me.Won't I want to be sure the restrictions on me and future fishos at least have a scientifically validated foundation?

Cheers,

Dave.