Marine Park For Sydney

[pjbink]

For Sydney fishos who have been complacent about marine parks - well, I'll let this speak for itself!

Fishers angry over marine park proposal PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY

PM - Wednesday, 19 December , 2007 18:29:00

Reporter: Simon Santow

BRENDAN TREMBATH: For many people, throwing a line in the water in the hope of catching a fish is one of life's simple pleasures. But over the years, increasing regulation has taken a toll on both recreational and commercial anglers.

Now they're up in arms in New South Wales over a proposal to triple the area where fishing is either restricted or banned altogether.

The idea has come from the National Parks Association which says overfishing and the threat of global warming requires drastic action be taken as soon as possible.

Simon Santow has our report.

SIMON SANTOW: Ask fishing groups about what's important to them and they'll tell you sustainability. Conservationists say much the same thing.

But there's no agreement on how to go about safeguarding fish stocks and how to go about protecting the marine environment.

Paul Winn is with the National Parks Association in New South Wales. He's written a report which shows the waters off that State are at greatest risk from the effects of imminent global warming.

PAUL WINN: Our fisheries are in real trouble. We have been overfishing it for far too long but also it is a consequence of the current regime. The east Australian current brings warm water down from the tropics and it meets with southern waters that come up from the Tasman Sea so south-east marine biodiversity is pretty well endemic to south-east Australia.

Between 65 and 95 per cent of the species in the south-east of Australia are endemic, living nowhere else in the world, and those warmer tropical species are going to basically invade those colder water species as temperatures increase.

SIMON SANTOW: Bob Smith is a fishing enthusiast and President of the Fishing Clubs Association.

BOB SMITH: There is nothing wrong with the fishing in New South Wales or even on the New South Wales' coast. Fisheries will tell you that. It is very sustainable. There might be a couple of species that have been overfished by commercial fishing but as far as the recreational fishing industry goes, there is no species on the east coast of New South Wales that is under threat of extinction or past the level of sustainability.

You only just have to look at all the reports that come in each week from fishing shows, fishing magazines that continue and catch, you know, even by commercial fishes has been at a sustainable level now that the commercial industry has been reduced dramatically.

SIMON SANTOW: Paul Winn's report says global warming could lead to the overall commercial catch dropping by a third.

And he warns storm surges and wave activity is going to play havoc with seabeds and other marine species already damaged by overfishing in New South Wales.

PAUL WINN: What National Parks Association is saying is that these are the impacts. There is an emerging consensus around the world that marine or all eco-systems that are degraded are likely to be significantly more affected by climate change than those that are intact.

We are have a significantly degraded marine environment in New South Wales and unless we start building resistance into that, resilience into that eco-system we are going to see far greater impact on our biodiversity than we are elsewhere.

SIMON SANTOW: His solution is to triple the area protected by marine sanctuaries to cover at least 20 per cent of the State's waters.

With that would come severe restrictions on fishing, and for the first time the bans would take in heavily populated Sydney.

PAUL WINN: We would like to see a marine park off the city of Sydney which includes the major estuaries from the Hawkesbury down to Botany Bay, including the Royal National Park.

We, obviously within that marine park there would be a lot of scope for fishing, both commercial and recreation. What we could do then is define an area we could look more closely at, identify the areas that need to be protected and make them sanctuary zones where fishing is excluded.

SIMON SANTOW: But of the areas that are currently available for both commercial and recreational fishing, what percentage would fishing be banned in?

PAUL WINN: Well, we are advocating that 33 per cent of all our marine parks be no-take marine sanctuaries.

SIMON SANTOW: Recreational fishers say the proposal is over the top.

BOB SMITH: Could you just imagine the economic damage that it would do the tourism, to the fishing industry, you know, to the tackle industry, to the holiday units, to all facets of whatever revolves around access to the resource and to the water?

And the best example I can give you is in Queensland where they locked up 30 per cent of the Barrier Reef, the initial response was that they were going to allow about $2.5 million to $4 million for compensation to offset, you know, for locking up the areas.

That bill now is in the vicinity of $222 million. Somebody made a huge mistake when they thought that locking up a few areas was just going to stop a few fishermen from going fishing.

SIMON SANTOW: And Bob Smith has this warning.

BOB SMITH: We've put up with all these little changes over the years you know. I mean, the New South Wales Government has been good at this. They just do a little bit at a time. I could nearly guarantee you that if fishing was stopped off Sydney there would be a huge massive protest and this would probably be the straw that broke the camel's back and unite all the fishing community together, whether they are commercial, recreational or just fish eaters. I believe that they would all be united.

BRENDAN TREMBATH: Bob Smith, President of the Fishing Clubs Association of New South Wales ending Simon Santow's report.

Edited December 20, 2007 by billfisher

[squizzytaylor]

Beat me to it ross, Full report and audio here.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2123300.htm

Dont think it will just go away guys, too many people thought that would be the case with Byron, JB and Port Stephens.

Geoff

[squizzytaylor]

Just browsing through the report and here are a few snippets of real concern.

http://www.marine.org.au/NSW%20MARINE%20RE...T%201_FINAL.pdf

Marine Parks are required to be established within the NSW section of both the Hawkesbury Sand Twofold Shelf Marine Bioregions to meet stated NSW Government commitments to a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine parks. Recommendations

Recommendation 1: That the NSW Government implement its policy on a comprehensive

adequate and representative of marine protected areas by agreeing to establish 10% of all

comprehensively mapped NSW marine habitats and ecosystems in marine sanctuaries by 2011

and 20% by 2020

Recommendation 2: That the NSW Government undertake a review of the Marine Parks Act and

Regulations that includes, as its core term of reference, the fulfilment by the existing Marine Parks

and Zoning Plans of the conservation objectives set by the Act and Regulations.

Recommendation 3: That a new section 6a be inserted into the Marine Parks Act that allows the

Governor to declare marine park zoning plans.

Recommendation 4: That section 8 of the Marine Parks Act be amended to read “A declaration of

a marine park and zoning plan must not be revoked except by an Act of Parliament” as per s 37 of

the National Parks and Wildlife Act.

Recommendation 5:That the objects for zones in Part 2 of the Marine Park Regulations be set out

in the Marine Parks Act and all zonings of Marine Parks be standardised accordingly.

Recommendation 6: That the NSW Government establishes at least 33% of all existing marine parks and future marine parks as sanctuary zones. Recommendation 7:That the NSW Government legislate to remove all commercial fishing from

habitat protection zones in NSW marine parks by 2011

Recommendation 8: That the NSW Government legislates to prohibit anchoring over seagrass

beds and reef habitats in sanctuary and habitat protection zones in NSW marine parks by 2011.

Recommendation 9: That the NSW Government legislate to prohibit bottom trawling within all general use zones and thus all marine parks by 2011. .

Recommendation 10: That section 30C( of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 be repealed

by 2011. Recommendation 11: That all marine and estuary components of reserves under the National Parks and Wildlife Act be established as IUCN Category Ia Aquatic Reserves by 2011. Recommendation 12: That all marine and estuary boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Act reserves be extended to include the intertidal zone and an additional 10 metres seaward of the

mean low water mark by 2011.

Recommendation 13: That DPI Fisheries undertake a comprehensive education campaign to inform the community of the benefits and whereabouts of intertidal protected areas. Recommendation 14: That all the 69 rock platforms recommended for protection by TEC in 1995

be established as intertidal protected areas by 2011.

Recommendation 15: That an area of at least 1500m radius surrounding all NSW aggregation sites identified as critical for the survival of grey nurse sharks in eastern Australia by the

Commonwealth Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark in Australia be established as no-take

aquatic reserves by 2008.

Edited December 20, 2007 by squizzytaylor

[Boban]

I actually look forward to the planned Sydney Marine Parks.

It will finally get all the lazy arse, couldn't be stuffed fisherman to finally do something because it is in their backyard, not somewhere they holiday.

When it becomes a vote winner, then you will get an opposing policy from the Liberals, unless of course, Labor realises that it could lose the next election over it.

Yep, bring it on greenies.

[squizzytaylor]

I actually look forward to the planned Sydney Marine Parks.

It will finally get all the lazy arse, couldn't be stuffed fisherman to finally do something because it is in their backyard, not somewhere they holiday.

When it becomes a vote winner, then you will get an opposing policy from the Liberals, unless of course, Labor realises that it could lose the next election over it.

Yep, bring it on greenies.

I hope they do get off thier butts this time boban, it was really demotivating last time round with the Port Stephens park to get numbers of around 50 people turning up to protests, info nights etc.

The bottom line is guys if ya dont act, ya cant bitch when it happens.

As they say "apathy is the enemy".

GT

Edited December 20, 2007 by squizzytaylor

[neilm]

Once again the greenies lose the plot.

There's no flipping point having a marine park if everything is screwed by global warming!!!!

Another non-scientifically proven, emotionally charged statement by the greens. The worrying thing is that the State Gov't are buying this cr@p.

[pjbink]

If anyone thinks that marine parks are not little more than a cleverly designed way to restrict the public's access to our oceans then I would like to see them to deny it now. All our fisheries are operating under tight constraints. The number of commercial fishermen in NSW waters has been drastically cut - from over 7000 in the 1990's to 1300 (and still falling), now. Bag and size limits have been further limited for anglers and compliance is high. All this is never enough for the greenies though.

Edited December 21, 2007 by billfisher

[squizzytaylor]

The number of commercial fishermen in NSW waters has been drastically cut - from over 7000 in the 1990's to 1300 (and still falling), now.

Herein lies one of the greatest green lies Ross, The greens use reported catch figures from the commercial guys themselves to warrant the overfishing myths and never once in any of thier reports will you find reference to the fact that the commercial fishing fleet itself has been reduced by over 80% in the last 20 years.

GT

[pjbink]

Herein lies one of the greatest green lies Ross, The greens use reported catch figures from the commercial guys themselves to warrant the overfishing myths and never once in any of thier reports will you find reference to the fact that the commercial fishing fleet itself has been reduced by over 80% in the last 20 years.

GT

All they do is lie squizzy - when you catch them lying they just lie again!

PS I'm not Ross. Ross Hunter posts under his own name.

[squizzytaylor]

Sorry mate, the name does it!

GT

[snag]

Im sure most people know that this has been happening both south and north of sydney for the last few years now, they just wanted to wait till the election was over before hitting the bigger parts of sydney.

Id be getting use to the name santury park and no-go zones in the near future guys.

[neilm]

When you read the detail of their report, you'll see lots of statements like: "it is generally accepted" and other such nonsense.

Then I checked out some of the references of their cornerstone ideology - and the documentation is being produced by themselves! So much for independent.

Anyone know who the author Paul Winn is? I noticed that he does not appear to append details of his qualifications after his name which seems unusual.

[pjbink]

When you read the detail of their report, you'll see lots of statements like: "it is generally accepted" and other such nonsense.

Then I checked out some of the references of their cornerstone ideology - and the documentation is being produced by themselves! So much for independent.

Anyone know who the author Paul Winn is? I noticed that he does not appear to append details of his qualifications after his name which seems unusual.

Paul Winn is the marine sanctuaries campaigner with the National Parks Association and the Hunter Community Environment Centre. He is also on the Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park Advisory Committee. It is likely that he wrote the hugely flawed and anonomous "Empty Nets - Empty Oceans" report on NSW fisheries. If he has any formal qualifications in marine science then he is keeping quiet about them.

Edited December 22, 2007 by billfisher

[pjbink]

When you read the detail of their report, you'll see lots of statements like: "it is generally accepted" and other such nonsense.

Then I checked out some of the references of their cornerstone ideology - and the documentation is being produced by themselves! So much for independent.

A lot that goes on these days - even the the major scientific journals:

Faith-based Fisheries

Ray Hilborn

Hilborn is the Richard C. and Lois M.

Worthington Professor of Fisheries

Management at the School of Aquatic and

Fisheries Sciences, University of

Washington, Seattle. He can be contacted

at rayh@u.washington.edu.

The scientific community gave a collective

sigh of relief just before Christmas

2005 when Judge John E. Jones III ruled

that intelligent design is not a scientific

theory and cannot be taught alongside evolution

as an alternative scientific

hypothesis. There is no better way to unite

any group of fractious scientists than to

bring up creationism and intelligent design

as alternative scientific hypotheses—scientists

know that these faith-based ideas are

not scientific and have no place in a scientific

course. The court’s ruling is a triumph

for the scientific method of hypotheses

being confronted by data and a setback for

those with a political agenda masquerading

as science.

However, before we congratulate ourselves

too much for the triumph of the

scientific method over belief, I suggest the

fisheries community needs to look at itself

and question whether there is not a within

our own field a strong movement of faithbased

acceptance of ideas, and a search for

data that support these ideas, rather than

critical and skeptical analysis of the evidence.

This faith-based fisheries movement has

emerged in the last decade, and it threatens

the very heart of the scientific

process—peer review and publication in

the top journals. Two journals with the

highest profile, Science and Nature, clearly

publish articles on fisheries not for their scientific

merit, but for their publicity value.

Beginning in at least 1993 with an article I

co-authored (Ludwig et al. 1993), Science

and Nature have published a long string of

papers on the decline and collapse of fisheries

that have attracted considerable

public attention, and occasionally gaining

coverage in the New York Times and the

Washington Post. I assert that the peer

review process has now totally failed and

many of these papers are being published

only because the editors and selected

reviewers believe in the message, or

because of their potential newsworthiness.

As examples, let me choose papers by

well-established professionals who have

long records of significant work beyond the

papers discussed below and I emphasize the

problem is with the peer review and editorial

editorial

system, not the authors of the papers.

Casey and Myers’ paper on barndoor skate

(Casey and Myers 1998) argued that these

skates were headed towards extinction.

Analysis by others more familiar with the

data showed that the survey data came

from areas that are not the core of the range

of the species (Kulka et al. 2002), and subsequent

evaluation of the status of

barndoor skate in New England by the

National Marine Fisheries Service concluded

they were not overfished (Boelke et

al. 2005), hardly headed towards extinction.

A review by the Canadian

Department of Fisheries and Oceans

removed barndoor skates from a list of

species that are threatened or endangered.

The original paper has not been withdrawn

and continues to frequently cited as an

example of near extinction of marine

species.

Myers and Worm published a paper in

Nature (Myers and Worm 2003) which

made the front page of major national

newspapers, purporting to show that large

pelagic fish stocks around the world had

declined rapidly and by the 1980s were at

less than 10% of their historic abundance.

Widely cited in the scientific and popular

literature, this paper raised a furor among

many scientists specializing in pelagic fisheries

who knew the same data, knew it was

being misinterpreted, and knew there was a

large body of other data that contradicted

Myers and Worm’s results. At least three

independent critiques of the paper subsequently

have been published: Walters

(2003), Hampton et al. (2005), and

Polacheck (2006). The critics are not the

“old guard defending their turf,” because it

is not as if no one had noticed that the

catch-per-unit effort data Myers and Worm

used had declined. Rather these critics

have themselves long been arguing that

some of these fisheries are now depleted

and overfished. What they criticized was

Myers and Worm’s analysis, their highly

selective use of data, and specific conclusions

about the extent and timing of

depletion of these stocks, not their concern

about overexploitation.

Conover and Munch (2002) published

a highly cited paper in Science showing

experimental evidence that size-selective

fishing could induce growth changes in fish

stocks and suggested this was a mechanism

that could lead to collapse of fish stocks.

The article never looked at actual fisheries

data to ask if the laboratory selection

regime imposed resembled what happens in

fisheries, nor did they look at the vast body

of fisheries data which shows that fish more

commonly grow faster, not slower, when

fishing pressure is high.

A paper in Science (Roberts et al. 2001)

purported to show an example of how a

marine protected area (MPA) increased

yields outside the protected area, when in

fact the abundance of fish outside the protected

area increased within one year of the

establishment of the MPA. Any competent

peer reviewer would have seen the flaw in

this logic—the theory of MPA impacts on

adjoining areas requires at least a generation

for abundance to build inside reserves

and recruitment to spill out (Hilborn

2002). The displacement of fishing effort

from inside to outside the reserve should

initially cause abundance outside to

decrease, so the increasing abundance outside

the reserve after MPA establishment

must have been due to an uncontrolled

effect.

These four examples illustrate a failure

of the peer review system and lack of the

basic skepticism needed in science, and are

unfortunately but a few of the many papers

now appearing with similar sensational but

unsubstantiated headlines.

Edited December 22, 2007 by billfisher

[pjbink]

Faith-based Fisheries, cont.

The people who knew the data used in the Casey and

Myers paper and the Myers and Worm

paper clearly were not involved in the

review process, or the editors chose to

ignore their opinions. The complete

absence of skepticism by the reviewers of

the Roberts paper is a concern. The

Conover and Munch paper demonstrated

that growth is a heritable trait, but failed to

demonstrate anything about how commercial

fisheries operate. It did pose a testable

hypothesis, but the paper did not include

the real fisheries data to see if there was

support for the hypothesis.

A community of belief has arisen whose

credo has become “fisheries management

has failed, we need to abandon the old

approaches and use marine protected areas

and ecosystem-based management.” I fear

that this belief has shaded the peer review

process so badly that almost any paper

showing a significant decline in fish abundance

or benefits of marine protected areas

has a high probability of getting favorable

reviews in some journals regardless of the

quality of the analysis. Critical peer review

has been replaced by faith-based support for

ideas and too many scientists have become

advocates. An advocate knows the answer

and looks for evidence to support it; a scientist

asks nature how much support there

is for competing hypotheses.

Much of the problem lies in the kind

of journals Science and Nature have

become: commercial enterprises covering

a broad range of scientific issues. In a

spoof of a Science article published on the

New York Times web site, one of the

fictitious authors is quoted as saying

“journal editors favor bold claims, because

these attract press attention and help

recruit further bold papers, which in turn

is a tonic for circulation and advertising”

(www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/science/17f

rau.html?ex=1295154000&en=9ca2921bc

88fe0e3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&e

mc=rss). Given the high prestige of Science

and Nature and the impact publication in

these journals has on promotion and grants,

one cannot blame authors for making bold

claims. Perhaps those of us in fisheries

should simply not give articles in these

journals the prestige they now enjoy.

Because of their general coverage, Science

and Nature must have problems identifying

appropriate reviewers for an individual

paper. While there is no easy solution to

this, a good step would be for journals to

publish the names of reviewers who

recommend publication. That would at

least make it clear if these journals are

relying on a small group of like-minded

reviewers who have little expertise relevant

to technical papers. Finally, the fact that

discredited papers continue to be widely

cited is aggravated by the fact the rebuttals

frequently are not published by the original

journal and may appear in gray literature or

technical journals. The high-profile

journals need to be especially sensitive to

critiques of articles they have published and

to formally withdraw discredited papers.

Although the scientific community was

unanimous in its condemnation of faithbased

teachings in evolution, we need to

also reject agenda-driven, faith-based publication

in fisheries and revive the peer

review and publication process within our

own community. Let’s go back to testable

hypotheses and evidence, and make sure

that the peer reviewers know the data and

the problem, and are not chosen because of

their faith.

[Yeeros]

I voted for the sporting shooters and they got 2 seats and they will fight against this stupidity.

I tell you what though i have my own personal line in the sand and if they take any of 3 rock ledges away from me i have decided that i will fish any ledge i want and if i need to go to court over it i will, this really gets under my skin, really really badly.

Hell i have obided by all the fisheries laws all my life, i have seen an inspector once in 10 years and i reckon they will go too far if they impose what they want to do!

[pjbink]

I voted for the sporting shooters and they got 2 seats and they will fight against this stupidity.

I tell you what though i have my own personal line in the sand and if they take any of 3 rock ledges away from me i have decided that i will fish any ledge i want and if i need to go to court over it i will, this really gets under my skin, really really badly.

Hell i have obided by all the fisheries laws all my life, i have seen an inspector once in 10 years and i reckon they will go too far if they impose what they want to do!

NSW Labor Caucus met earlier this month - word is that marine parks were on the agenda.

I understand your sentiments Yerros. I just wrote a letter to my State MP. I suggested that if they go ahead with this policy they will have trouble getting funds raised through the fishing license. Note that Winn mentioned Botany Bay for closures - a rec haven funded by the fishing license! Also I suggested it might be a good idea to build bigger jails to lock people like me up!

[pjbink]

Herein lies one of the greatest green lies Ross, The greens use reported catch figures from the commercial guys themselves to warrant the overfishing myths and never once in any of thier reports will you find reference to the fact that the commercial fishing fleet itself has been reduced by over 80% in the last 20 years.

GT

That and the change in reporting practices which saw some catch statistics removed from NSW data and reported in the Commonwealth data can explain the sharp drop in landings in the 1990's. The greenies in the Empty Nets - Empty Oceans report tried to say this decline in landings was evidence of a collapsing fishery. This was pure chareletonism. They didn't mention that commercial catch per unit effort has actually been rising in recent years. A rising CPU points to more abundance - not a decline in fish stocks.

The Empty Nets report recieved wide publicity in the greenie's publicity arms, ie the ABC and the SMH! The reports validity was never questioned by these oultlets. It recieved a scathing review from the University of British Columbia who recommended that the report should be withdrawn from circulation and a retraction be published.

Notice that the greens are now trying a different tack in the form of the global warming hysteria. No doubt to soften the gullible public up for more closures.

[RockHoppin]

I tell you what though i have my own personal line in the sand and if they take any of 3 rock ledges away from me i have decided that i will fish any ledge i want and if i need to go to court over it i will, this really gets under my skin, really really badly.

Im with you mate..i cant see myself hanging up my fishing rods if they succeed in pulling this rubbish over us...there is no bloody way I'll stop fishing and i dont know how the hell they think they will police this. This will piss even the most calm of us off and it will no doubt get ugly.

I havnt seen one inspector in 14 years of rock fishing...they wont have the resources to successfully implement this but i'll be very surprised if it gets through..

Cant believe the stupidity of the #$*&$# greens!

[Chris 55]

Jeez that didn't take long, but was only to be expected once Kev was in

and the Greens would get their trade off

wish I could get that quick a payoff from my investments

Remember it's cheaper to legislate than it is to educate

Chris

[pjbink]

$%^&* have waded in:

NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION CRIES WOLF AGAIN.

$%^&*, the state's peak conservation fishing organization, scoffs at the latest claims, by the NPA, for more massive marine parks. (Push for expanded marine parks. NS 21/12/07)

NSW Fisheries Chief Scientist, recently announced, No NSW recreationally targeted fish are under threat or in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and are constantly monitored by the fisheries managers.

Incredibly, a terrestrial ecologist, from the extreme green National Parks Association, now claims, nine (9) NSW species are seriously overfished! And 50% of our offshore reefs have been denuded of all life. Radical claims indeed and without any supportive scientific evidence whatsoever.

Fishers are aware that four (4) species of NSW fish were growth overfished. This is an economic issue, not a biological one. That situation was simply rectified, by increasing the legal length and lowering the bag limit on those species.

Nor has the NPA been able to explain, the population explosion in Leatherjackets and Australian Salmon numbers. These species have been in plague proportions for years. So much so that billions of juvenile Leatherjackets perish every year, simply because there isn't sufficient food, to sustain their mass.

With another radical claim, the NPA is demanding more massive marine parks, in NSW. They are relying upon the 1998 suggestion from overseas scientists, that up to 20% of the marine environment be protected from over exploitation. Clearly, NSW stocks are not overexploited!

Even the United Nations Charter on Biological Diversity, has not adopted specific targets for marine protected areas. And the Commonwealth Department of Environment policy says, since the objective of setting up marine protected areas, is to protect a representative sample of biodiversity, there may be no need to prohibit extractive activities that are well managed and do not affect that biodiversity.

NSW recreational fisheries are well managed and no stocks are under threat or in imminent danger of collapse. Hence, the outrageous claims by the NPA cannot be justified.

The NPA continue to use recreational fishers, Catch Per Unit Effort, as an indicator of fish stock abundance. It is not! It is merely an indicator of localised and relative fish stock abundance, not of the entire biomass!

Unfortunately, NSW marine parks ignore the real threats to the marine environment. They are, pollution, siltation, coastal development and loss of wetlands etc. NSW marine parks simply lock these problems in and lock the community out!

World renown marine scientist and fisheries biologist, Australia?s Emeritus Professor Bob Kearney PhD, DSc, AM, has already condemned NSW marine parks, describing them as, a sham. And the documentation relating to them, as very poorly disguised advocacy, marketed to the unsuspecting public as science. This, says Emeritus Professor Kearney, calls into question, the credibility of the NSW Marine Park Authority and the justification of all existing and proposed marine parks in NSW. This has always been the view of informed NSW recreational fishers!

The Marine Park Authority has been unable to clearly identify just what it is they seek to protect and exactly what it is being protected from. Recreational fishing has minimal impact on the marine biodiversity.

Despite this overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the NPA continue to demand more and larger government marine parks. They also cite the predicted impacts of climate change as a reason. So they simplistically propose to ban recreational fishing!

Closing huge areas to fishing simply forces fishers and other uses of the marine environment, to travel significantly further. This uses more fossil fuels, producing more green-house gasses, that contribute to climate change. So there is no science or logic or sense, in their solution at all. It is laughable. Realistically, their claims are not credible.

It is just another case of the NPA, crying wolf, again!

The NPA plan to release yet another statement, early next year. $%^&* considers 1st April 2008, would be a most appropriate date.

Ken Thurlow

CEO $%^&* NSW.

[pjbink]

Heres an interesting study:

[pelican]

"I havnt seen one inspector in 14 years of rock fishing...they wont have the resources to successfully implement this but i'll be very surprised if it gets through.."

With new laws they will find new funding - amazing they can find it when they have total closure but not to protect it under the current rules. The dumber the law the easier it gets through as no one believes it could ever happen.

Just think of the words Desal plant when you think something dumb won't get up and happen

My only thought is to let a couple of Govt or semi govt departments fight it out and then with dry powder focus on the one left standing.

The 2 semi govt departments to be affected are Maritime and NPWS. Both are trying to create empires and hence be funded accordingly. NPWS wants to do it by creating more new parks that come with specific funding and maritime is trying to do it by gradually making you pay for everything at a ever increasing rate as they gain new responsibilities for harbour security and foreshore.

Fisheries - well there will be no need for them soon by the look of this apart from stocking a lake or 2 and checking your fishtank.

Boat manufacturers , outboard suppliers, fishing tackle and marinas will all lose significantly and many of these have structured organisation that should be starting this fight on boat owners and fishos behalf.

Conclusion tell maritime how much it is going to lose in Lic , rego and mooring income if fishing is put out of reach of boat owners with small boats. Tell the marine and tackle industry the income they will lose and how fast it will disappear .

Be nice if there was some factual science done to actually resolve what is happening with the resource rather than these silly turf wars.

I hate the politics with no science

Pel

PS - Time to start saving for the big big boat that can do a quick weekend run outside to international waters to have a fish.

PSS- New Tax - tax at $10 a word for every word from politicians wages and then mayby they wouldn't waste so many on schemes

[pjbink]

All the NSW marine parks have full time rangers and patrol boats with radar. In Port Stevens they have the locals cowered with jackboot tactics. Several boats have been boarded at sea and licences demanded.

For fishing in a so called sanctuary zone you face a $500 on the spot fine or you can take your chances in court. To show the contempt with which we are held if you are caught a second time it automatically goes to court and you face a $110,000 fine and or jail.

Edited January 26, 2008 by billfisher

[Lasty]

Who is this National Parks Association? They have nothing to do with the NSW Government or the National Parks and Wildlife Service.

I think they could well be another looney greeny mob who have given themselves an official sounding name so that people think they have some authority.