Professor Kearney On Nsw Marine Parks .. A Report

[Boban]

I cannot say that I am convinced about the accuracy of the reported numbers, however, I am not in a position to make an informed opinion on the methodology. Perhaps I will read the report sometime and change my mind.

In my uninformed opinion, there does however seem to be too many variables for an accurate estimation.

My biggest issue with pro's is not that they exist as they certainly have a place, but rather in the manner in which they conduct themselves. There is a perception, and with good reason, that they show no restraint, no consideration for the environment, nor indeed any consideration for future generations (I appreciate there is a degree of overlap there). I could list a number of grievances with their practices and indeed the Professor intimated as much in his report.

If nothing else, it is evident that a lack of pro's equates to a better catch for the recreational angler. If there are competing interests here, should the next question be which group provides a better return from the resource to society and the economy?

With their inefficient methods and amount expended per fish caught, I think the dollar return per kilo of fish caught by the rec angler would dwarf what the local pro's bring to the economy. The fresh seafood industry can rely on imports entirely by the looks of it, given that 90% of the seafood sold is imported.

The no of pros is limited not by accident or because some can no longer make a go of it, but because the number of endorsments is limited by our fisheries managers (only 1200 now in NSW).

From everything I've read and heard, that is simply not the case. Do you honestly believe that all the pros are doing well. I'm sure there would be many inactive licence holders as there were in Botany Bay when they received a handsome payout. Would you give a commercial licence up? Not a chance.

[pjbink]

If nothing else, it is evident that a lack of pro's equates to a better catch for the recreational angler. If there are competing interests here, should the next question be which group provides a better return from the resource to society and the economy?

With their inefficient methods and amount expended per fish caught, I think the dollar return per kilo of fish caught by the rec angler would dwarf what the local pro's bring to the economy. The fresh seafood industry can rely on imports entirely by the looks of it, given that 90% of the seafood sold is imported.

From everything I've read and heard, that is simply not the case. Do you honestly believe that all the pros are doing well. I'm sure there would be many inactive licence holders as there were in Botany Bay when they received a handsome payout. Would you give a commercial licence up? Not a chance.

They pay for those licenses Boban - it would be simply throwing money away to give their licenses away without recompense. NSW fisheries data shows the commercial catch per unit effort is rising in the last few years. Ie the pro that are left are taking less time (effort) to catch the same number of fish. Some pros (like anglers) are better fishermen than others.

I don't know if importing all our seafood is an environmental or economic gain. A lot of these imports come from more heavily fished waters than our own. They will have to be paid for by other economic activity which in turn will have its own environmental impacts. A sustainable commercial fishery is not mutually exclusive with a thriving recreational fishery.

For an understanding of NSW fisheries I suggest you have a look at the University of British Columbia's report by Pitcher and Forrest which rebutted the green's 'Empty Nets - Empty Oceans' report.

[huntman]

I cannot say that I am convinced about the accuracy of the reported numbers, however, I am not in a position to make an informed opinion on the methodology. Perhaps I will read the report sometime and change my mind.

In my uninformed opinion, there does however seem to be too many variables for an accurate estimation.

My biggest issue with pro's is not that they exist as they certainly have a place, but rather in the manner in which they conduct themselves. There is a perception, and with good reason, that they show no restraint, no consideration for the environment, nor indeed any consideration for future generations (I appreciate there is a degree of overlap there). I could list a number of grievances with their practices and indeed the Professor intimated as much in his report.

If nothing else, it is evident that a lack of pro's equates to a better catch for the recreational angler. If there are competing interests here, should the next question be which group provides a better return from the resource to society and the economy?

With their inefficient methods and amount expended per fish caught, I think the dollar return per kilo of fish caught by the rec angler would dwarf what the local pro's bring to the economy. The fresh seafood industry can rely on imports entirely by the looks of it, given that 90% of the seafood sold is imported.

From everything I've read and heard, that is simply not the case. Do you honestly believe that all the pros are doing well. I'm sure there would be many inactive licence holders as there were in Botany Bay when they received a handsome payout. Would you give a commercial licence up? Not a chance.

Some interesting points there boban. I reckon when you have time check the report out, I enjoyed reading it, and you can skip some of the sections if they are of no interest to you. The report is here: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recrea...South-Wales.pdf

I just re-read the methods and if you know about stats you should be able to understand it all very easily, the only jargon they used was stratified random sampling, which as you know is a technique used by all researchers in sampling a portion of something to get an idea of the whole.

Interesing point about the economic balance, like would we be better off economically if we imported all seafood and left fish for recreational anglers. I reckon there is some merit to that as aquaculture develops, but the fish in the sea are a renewable resource, and until we can culture all the commercially important species, the yeild from the ocean will be exploited to the maximum level where it can reproduce itself (MSY - maximum sustainable yield) so that we are making the most of our oceans. Rather than importing.

It raises another question for me too, are we repsonsible if driving up demand overseas by importing lots of seafood ruins fisheries in other places? I guess we can't be but it is an interesting thing to think about, and a lot of the problems with fisheries management are global ones, like how do you conserve a tuna that is protected in australia, but swims to thailand and gets caught and canned?

regarding the state of the pro fisheries, I know two professional fishermen, one is old and basically is hoping to get bought out not because he is catching no fish (he actually does quite well), but because he will have to retire soon, otherwise he'll sell the licence. The other one is not catchign many fish, but that's because just a few years ago he got moved out of the harbour into a new location and he doesn't know the spots.

On a system by system basis I think some systems are overfished and some are underfished. I hope in the next ten years there is an agreed management plan that is fair that protects the waters, however it will be hard to come up with something that achieves that goal while remaining simple. For example, if sanctuary zones in marine parks were replaced with catch and release zones, or trolling only zones, it would be great for greenies and fishermen, but very hard to police, and prone to ignorance.

What do you think is a good way of regulating recreational fishermen boban? assuming bag limits are not enough because of a rising population. I'm keen to hear your ideas.

i read that empty nets empty oceans report... it was odd.

[Dreamtime]

What do you think is a good way of regulating recreational fishermen boban? assuming bag limits are not enough because of a rising population. I'm keen to hear your ideas.

Have a closed season on a particular species. Alternate the species annually.

That might work.

Cheers

Mariner

[Boban]

On a system by system basis I think some systems are overfished and some are underfished.

And this is where we have a problem with pros. In the overfished fishery the human instinct is to make a living irrespective of what the system can sustain.

What do you think is a good way of regulating recreational fishermen boban? assuming bag limits are not enough because of a rising population. I'm keen to hear your ideas.

i read that empty nets empty oceans report... it was odd.

A very tongue in cheek comment here. Lets say we progressively remove pros as the population increases and aquaculture develops then we have a period of time where there are sufficient numbers for the rec anglers.

All this raises another conundrum whereby we are failing to control our populations. I know it is very popular amongst some theorists, especially greenies, to advocate the reduction of human populations. This is at odds with economists who believe in ever increasing growth to stimulate our western economies.

Now this is starting to get depressing.

As to the regulation of recreational fishing, I would have thought it would have to be tied to bag limits as most anglers want to take home some fish. We already have strict limits on some species and logic would seem to dictate that this is the method that would need to be modified as required. When we come to a point were any take it is not sustainable, then I assume it would have to be based on a purely recreational exercise. But I'm assuming that we won't get to that point if we manage our fisheries well.

Whilst I appreciate my obvious bias, I would have thought that we are very well regulated at the moment. The implementation of the regulation seems to be somewhat lacking which I understand is a direct result of a lack of funding. The next time we hear of about the bloke with 20cm bream in it wont be the last time.

[pjbink]

The USA still has good fishing, despite a population of 300 million. They have some inovative ideas like closed seasons and wilderness areas where you can still fish but with tight bag limits. They got there without relying on marine parks, though lately some juristictions are sucuming to the marine park mania. Nowhere but Australia has gone in for marine parks so enthusiastically. We now have 30% of the World's marine parks!

[Guest]

This is a very good debate and Admin is quietly pleased that it has not gotten personal.

Regards Admin

[Ross Hunter]

I thought the black market catch was amatuers selling their catch, Ross. In the old days before bag limits it was rife. People paid off their mortgages selling fish 'on the black'. I don't see the relevance of past commercial practices either. The fact is that 80% of commercial fishermen have been removed from the NSW fishery since the 1990's (only 1200 left) and most fish are being caught at their historic lows commercially. I'm not sure what your observations of big hauls proves either. Most fish stocks can handle 20-30% being taken out each year. Maximum sustainable yield is reached when 30 - 40% of the unfished population is left. We as anglers would prefer a bit lighter fishing than the MSY but it is expecting a bit much to not tolerate any decline. Fish grow faster at the MSY due to changes in the population dynamics. Recruits benifit from less predation and less competition for food. Most of our fish are fast growing and there is not much risk in winding back fishing pressure if signs of overfishing occur. As Prof Keaney pointed out our fish stocks in NSW appear to have great resiliance with respect to fishing pressure. In any case NSW imports 90% of it's seafood!

I haven't seen much respect shown here for scientific method. The methods used in the angling survey weren't dreamed up by some politician one day. They have rigor and have been proven over time. I don't think it will do us much good being like the know- nothing greens who seem to have reached the state of enlightenment of 'just knowing' everything.

Seeing we are dealing with opinions I don't think there is anything wrong with the fishing in NSW. Actually I catch more than I did 20 years ago (partly because I am a better fishermen now). There are signs of improvement too. The kingfish recovery rolls on (and not just small ones either).

The green's love to see the pro and rec sector squabbling and finger pointing. They can then say that we are both just as greedy and irresponsible and can justifiy stepping in to 'manage' things by locking up large parts of the ocean in marine parks. It makes things look like there really is a problem when in fact all the problems of overfishing have/ are being addressed.

I brought up the issue of commercial take vs the rec as some anglers erroneously believe that they might benifit from marine parks and its worth losing 30-50% (or more) of their spots just to see the pro's excluded as well! The various MPA's are exploiting this sentiment by painting themselves as the 'good guys' who are restricting the pro fishermen.

PS: the NSW Coalition promised to buy back some commercial licenses in the last election as well as axe two marine parks and review the zoning of others with a favourable view towards angling.

Billfisher,

DPI'S survey stats are so wrong that I would not use them as toilet paper but I guess in a democratic country everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. As I mentioned before our hostpitals, schools are in fine fettle according to that survey. The Greens have done a lot of good over the years with forests etc, but to set up Marine Parks with not one shred of scientific study is totally wrong and undemocratic. Our fishery has nothing to do or is in no way similar to any other country but we accepted or should I say had no choice but to accept Marine Parks all in the name of Green preferences. Politics and brown nosing Who said we need these parks and who said we should not fight back They are not needed and in my opinion do nothing for our fishery and I can see the day where you and your family will have no where within 3 nautical mile of the coast to wet a line in a normal manner because of the fishing restrictions imposed by MP laws.

Please be aware that not all you read is correct I guess its all part of my practical experience spending 250 days per annum as a professional fisherman over a lifetime and your scientific background as a scientist.

I rely on what I've seen and experienced over that lifetime of fishing and you believe more in what you read.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe the southern bluefin are not approaching extinction , maybe there used to be bluefin in the Mediterranean, maybe gemfish are not endangered, maybe I saw 10 tonne of long tails caught in a mesh net , maybe the 300 tonne of mullet, blackfish and bream were a figment of my imagination, maybe the worlds tuna stocks are not being overfished by every country that can afford a long liner or purse seiner, maybe I used to catch 100kg tuna at the Peak in the 70's but no one has caught one there since the late 80’s, maybe we used to catch 20 kings in 2 hours at the Peak up to 25 kilos. maybe orange roughie are not endangered. Maybe I used to see schools off salmon that were a mile square in the 70’s., maybe I used to fish Montigue Island in the late 60’s and catch 70 and 80 kilo tuna every trip and take it for granted…now don’t tell me that recreational fishing is responsible for this demise or I will scream. TONNAGE V KILOS and I am not changing my mind.

The same people that did your survey have allowed this to happen they have allowed species to diss appear in my lifetime and you want me to believe their survey.....like hell I will.

PS The coalition had to win to make their changes ...hopefully that will happen next time

[pjbink]

Billfisher,

DPI'S survey stats are so wrong that I would not use them as toilet paper but I guess in a democratic country everyone is entitled to their own beliefs. As I mentioned before our hostpitals, schools are in fine fettle according to that survey.

Assessments of schools and hostpitals have nothing to do with the rec fishing survey Ross. There totally different parameters and completely different methods. It's a red herring/ strawman argument to say that they invalidate the fishing survey.

The Greens have done a lot of good over the years with forests etc, but to set up Marine Parks with not one shred of scientific study is totally wrong and undemocratic. Our fishery has nothing to do or is in no way similar to any other country but we accepted or should I say had no choice but to accept Marine Parks all in the name of Green preferences. Politics and brown nosing Who said we need these parks and who said we should not fight back They are not needed and in my opinion do nothing for our fishery and I can see the day where you and your family will have no where within 3 nautical mile of the coast to wet a line in a normal manner because of the fishing restrictions imposed by MP laws.

No disagreement from me!

Please be aware that not all you read is correct I guess its all part of my practical experience spending 250 days per annum as a professional fisherman over a lifetime and your scientific background as a scientist.

I rely on what I've seen and experienced over that lifetime of fishing and you believe more in what you read.

Maybe I am wrong, maybe the southern bluefin are not approaching extinction , maybe there used to be bluefin in the Mediterranean, maybe gemfish are not endangered, maybe I saw 10 tonne of long tails caught in a mesh net , maybe the 300 tonne of mullet, blackfish and bream were a figment of my imagination, maybe the worlds tuna stocks are not being overfished by every country that can afford a long liner or purse seiner, maybe I used to catch 100kg tuna at the Peak in the 70's but no one has caught one there since the late 80’s, maybe we used to catch 20 kings in 2 hours at the Peak up to 25 kilos. maybe orange roughie are not endangered. Maybe I used to see schools off salmon that were a mile square in the 70’s., maybe I used to fish Montigue Island in the late 60’s and catch 70 and 80 kilo tuna every trip and take it for granted…now don’t tell me that recreational fishing is responsible for this demise or I will scream. TONNAGE V KILOS and I am not changing my mind.

The same people that did your survey have allowed this to happen they have allowed species to diss appear in my lifetime and you want me to believe their survey.....like hell I will.

PS The coalition had to win to make their changes ...hopefully that will happen next time

No species of fish has ever disappeared as a result of overfishing Ross. And they have the abilty to recover when fishing is would back. Sometimes it only takes 2-3 years. To apply irrelvant examples like orange roughy or Meditrerranean tuna to inshore NSW waters doesn't seem very logical to me. Nor is calling some fishing down a "demise", given that the maximum sustainable yield is when they are fished down to 30-40% of the unfished population.

Regarding kingfish, I bet those 20 kings from the Peak were kept too! You can't tell me that when a lot of anglers did that back then and it adds up to tonnes of kingies. I have seen the old fishing mags from that time showing scores of very dead looking big kingies kept by anglers with some lame exuse such as "the bunch of surfers in the next tent look like they need a feed"! In any case there were catches like that at the Peak this winter. Only saw one pro boat out there too.

Regarding yellowfin the longline fleet has been reduced and they are not regarded as overfished. There have been good numbers out at the shelf and browns Mountain this winter. Yes not as many as in the old mouldy days but as Professor Keaney said if you dont mow the lawn the grass grows longer. If we don't have a longline fleet it is likely there will be challenges to our 200 mile EEZ and we will have to let foreign boats in. The principle is 'use it or lose it'. It's preferable then that we use it ouselves sustainably.

[Ross Hunter]

Assessments of schools and hostpitals have nothing to do with the rec fishing survey Ross. There totally different parameters and completely different methods. It's a red herring/ strawman argument to say that they invalidate the fishing survey.

No disagreement from me!

No species of fish has ever disappeared as a result of overfishing Ross. And they have the abilty to recover when fishing is would back. Sometimes it only takes 2-3 years. To apply irrelvant examples like orange roughy or Meditrerranean tuna to inshore NSW waters doesn't seem very logical to me. Nor is calling some fishing down a "demise", given that the maximum sustainable yield is when they are fished down to 30-40% of the unfished population.

Regarding kingfish, I bet those 20 kings from the Peak were kept too! You can't tell me that when a lot of anglers did that back then and it adds up to tonnes of kingies. I have seen the old fishing mags from that time showing scores of very dead looking big kingies kept by anglers with some lame exuse such as "the bunch of surfers in the next tent look like they need a feed"! In any case there were catches like that at the Peak this winter. Only saw one pro boat out there too.

Regarding yellowfin the longline fleet has been reduced and they are not regarded as overfished. There have been good numbers out at the shelf and browns Mountain this winter. Yes not as many as in the old mouldy days but as Professor Keaney said if you dont mow the lawn the grass grows longer. If we don't have a longline fleet it is likely there will be challenges to our 200 mile EEZ and we will have to let foreign boats in. The principle is 'use it or lose it'. It's preferable then that we use it ouselves sustainably.

Billfisher,

In my opinion You are so wrong it is not worthy of an answer..There fore I am out of this debate ..Too much crap for me. You keep reading your papers whilst our fish dissapear by the way that pro boats catches up to 1500 kgs a week at the Peak and no we tagged 13 of those kings and kept 6.. Can show you the video if you want..anyway i'm out of here..

Ross

[brickman]

one point that hasen't been mentioned is the fish caught in australian waters and sold over seas

i've been sussing a customer of mine for a few years that owns 2 boats 1 long linner and a netting trawler

some facts that i have weeded out of him over the last 6 months

getting any info off this guy is hard as and he is usuly very tight liped

1;the boats are regestered in tonga for tax perposes i think

2they fish australian waters with a kiwi crew and an australian master

3;they buy frozen yakkas buy the tonne[he wouldent tell me were]

4;they very seldom sell there catch in australia it is sold in international waters and goes to p n g to be sold over seas

5;they will fish anywere there is fish from nz to wa and anywere inbetween

my question is it all seems dodgy and there is no acoutability i think fish caught in australian waters should stay in australia

i personaly would 'nt feed fish from over seas to a dog as you never know where it came from or how long it took to get here

i also think that thousands of tonnes of fish are taken by the longliners and trawlers in australian waters and nevers sold here or even added to the tonnage count

i would also hope that ross rejoins the debate as his knoledge off east coast waters is well and truely worth much more than any uni degree paper

cherrs gary

[jewgaffer]

Assessments of schools and hostpitals have nothing to do with the rec fishing survey Ross. There totally different parameters and completely different methods. It's a red herring/ strawman argument to say that they invalidate the fishing survey.

Like other analogies used for comparison, schools and hospitals and recreational fishing don't have to have anything to do with one another for the purpose of using an analolgy. After a lifetime of experience, Ross Hunter has simply passed on an analogy of a real situation that no doubt the majority of fair minded people would agree with.

jewgaffer

[pjbink]

Like other analogies used for comparison, schools and hospitals and recreational fishing don't have to have anything to do with one another for the purpose of using an analolgy. After a lifetime of experience, Ross Hunter has simply passed on an analogy of a real situation that no doubt the majority of fair minded people would agree with.

jewgaffer

It's a strawman jewgaffer, not an apt analogy. Hospital waiting lists can be fudged by changing definitions. There is an incentive for government spin doctors to try to make them look good. The're a collation of government figures - not a survey of the public - its like chalk and cheese. No one has explained what school sats are being refered to. In the case of fishing its a clear cut definition as to whether a fish is caught or not. In the fishing survey the methods are clearly described, established and have been peer reviewed. I don't think his fishing experience is of much relevance to whether the survey methods are sound or not.

Billfisher,

In my opinion You are so wrong it is not worthy of an answer..There fore I am out of this debate ..Too much crap for me. You keep reading your papers whilst our fish dissapear by the way that pro boats catches up to 1500 kgs a week at the Peak and no we tagged 13 of those kings and kept 6.. Can show you the video if you want..anyway i'm out of here..

Ross

'Up to' is an important qualifcation - some days he doesn't catch any because they are not biting. He would lose a lot of days to bad weather to seeing he has a smaller boat than a lot of rec fishermen. When the're on and he can get out there may well catch 1500kg a week - so to would the 15-20 rec and charter boats out there too. The seasons relatively short there too. In the warmer months the kingies are spread out and must be hard to target commercially.

[brickman]

I don't think his fishing experience is of much relevance to whether the survey methods are sound or not.

i would have to dis agree with this statment and i think rosses years on the water by far out weigh all the stats that have been colated

it's a bit like an uni educated eng.looks good on paper but will it work in practice most times it is the person with hands on experiance that can make it work while the eng.sraches his head and says it should work in theory

i do'nt know ross but have followed his fishing antics for many years if anyone knows the east coast off australia as well as ross i would like to know his name

cherrs gary

[huntman]

Thankfully the issue does not receive clarity by trusting only Ross or trusting only the marine science community. Ross' years on the water are qualitative evaluation, and are as important as the quantitative survey done by DPI. Both have strengths and both have shortcomings:

Ross's experience falls short in that it's not a complete piece of the puzzle, it's just localised observation. His experience provides good insight into trends and what is happening (for example long term decline of fish stocks) but no concrete evidence as to why, or concrete numbers to be able to analyse the rates at which the stock is declining.

The DPI research provides good insight into overall catch rates at a snapshot in time, and shows generally the proportion of catch by the two parties but it fails to show any temporal variation, so whether this has always been the case or if it is just a recent trend. It also only answers one question (how much fish are being caught and by who) so follow up information on findings from the report necessitate another report being carried out, which is expensive.

Neither is able to tell us conclusively who is most responsible historically for the catch rate decline experienced by Ross, and "what you reckon" is fine to share, but it cannot be treated as fact and acted upon unless it is somehow verified. Otherwise if you are misinformed then acting on the misinformation can lead to worse problems.

It is very dangerous to dismiss science and just trust heresay, as it is easier to mislead people if you only need anecdotal evidence to back up your views. I am not saying Ross is doing that, but if we all agree science and the process of peer review is not to be trusted in favour of spoken experience, then the door is left open for someone more sinister than Ross to come in and sway people's opinion with misinformation and emotionally charged words. This process is what the media uses on the general public quite a lot, and is the reason why marine parks here have so much support.

It is also beneficial to try to see other people's points of view. In Ross' case, professional fishermen take a portion of the catch on some species his customers target, so it is natural that he would not be happy with the way they operate. If there was a professional fishermen involved in this discussion I would be suprised if he didn't somewhat resent charter boats and hardcore recreational fishermen who eat into his catch, as it is his sole source of income.

re: tonnes vs kilos, a bit of simple maths will make you think twice about just repeating the phrase without thinking about it:

1 million(ish) recreational fishermen catching kilos = 1,000,000 kilos

1000(ish) pros catching tonnes = 1,000,000 kilos

So even in such a simplified example the weight of numbers adds up to the point where you can not honestly say to yourself that the recreational catch is insignificant.

Boban: wasn't meant to be tongue in cheek at all, I like to hear other people's ideas especially people like yourself who are humble enough to admit when they are not informed about something rather than pretending and making something up like a lot of people do. I've enjoyed this discussion with you.

billfisher: I read the other day yellowfin are overfished but not yet endangered. Bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore are desperately in need of some creative international fisheries management. Aquaculture of bluefin will be a good start.

[pjbink]

billfisher: I read the other day yellowfin are overfished but not yet endangered. Bluefin, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore are desperately in need of some creative international fisheries management. Aquaculture of bluefin will be a good start.

Was that international waters or Australian? The info I saw was that in our waters were they are not regarded as overfished but there was potential for ovefishing. This was before the fleet was cut back considerably. Actually the Commonwealth fleet has been halved from 1200 to 600 boats.

There is alway potential for friction between different types of fishermen as they are competing for the same resource, even different types of commercial fishermen don't always get along! Not surprising when livelyhoods are involved. People make money out of recreational fishing too, notably charter boat operators. Though anglers catches aren't always a good guide to abundance. Not all have the skills to be successful and fish do wise up in heavily fished waters.

I think to be credible in advocating our interests we need to acknowledge the commercial fishery as another stakeholder and argue from a position of respect for scientific processes and recognition of our own impacts. Just having a zero tolerance for the pro's is not going to wash - especially when we catch as much as they do for a lot of important species. The ideology behind marine parks is anti-use and they make little distinction between recreational fishing and commercial. The uniformed can easily be hoodwinked into accepting marine parks by exaggerated claims of overfishing.

So I don't think I or others should be derided for 'reading papers' (I spend a lot of time fishing too). It's a bit like Bill Shorten the union official (now Labor MP) having an MBA. We questioned "what is a union official doing having an MBA" he would reply - well that makes me a better negotiator, I can talk the bosses language, understand where they are coming fom, make a better case, not get hoodwinked etc.

Edited November 7, 2008 by billfisher

[brickman]

i 've had a few dealings with bill[say no more]the prob i see in taking all the science as fact and disregarding hands on people leads us down a very dangerous path

a good saying from my old man

son beleave nothing you here or read and only half off what you see

cherrs gary

[pjbink]

i 've had a few dealings with bill[say no more]the prob i see in taking all the science as fact and disregarding hands on people leads us down a very dangerous path

a good saying from my old man

son beleave nothing you here or read and only half off what you see

cherrs gary

True, and if someone has some 'hands on' experience with surveys and statistics who questions the methodology of the fishing survey then I will be interested. I'm afraid 'don't believe it' or draging hospitals and schools in doesn't have a lot of credibility.

[double pluggers]

i 've had a few dealings with bill[say no more]the prob i see in taking all the science as fact and disregarding hands on people leads us down a very dangerous path

a good saying from my old man

son beleave nothing you here or read and only half off what you see

cherrs gary

My father used to tell me the same thing. Im not about to pour my blind faith into something just because some scientist tells me it is so. They work for a living too you can not tell me their reports wont be biased towards who ever is commissioning them. However my step father used to have a saying as well its better to say nothing & let people think your a d**k head than to open your mouth & confirm it. Any way i will take the risk.

[brickman]

i just read the formula they used for the rec survey although the exact numbers wern't there using the full budget they were alocated it was'nt hard to get the numbers in worst case senerios and best case sernerios

here how i did the maths

22 people making random calls and follow up call to reg.particapants

10 people doing beaches boat ramp and the like

the budget $68000.00 to be fare i did the maths on the hole buget this did not take into acount wages for contractors or any paper work it is based on phone calls only

$68000.00 divided by $.50 =1360000 phone calls

136000 calls divided by1000000 fisher people means they x the stats by 7.57

now i know your all having a good laught at me right now but i am on medication

my point is the formula is flawed and a good stab in the dark at best

they only have to be out .5 kg with 10 people to make the survey a wast off time

im sorry but once you start x stats per population off fisher people the formula is flawed

we call it accumultive error' in the real world it can be a matter off will that building stand up or fall down

cherrs gary

[creafield]

Greetings All

I have read with interest the comments thus far, and it has been dominated a lot about a belief or not in statistics.

I honestly feel as Recreational fishers we are barking up the wrong tree, as over the last few years I have picked up a lot on how the folks from Department of Environment and Climate Change think.

The VERY first thing you have to realise is that any SCIENTIST in this Department is an environemental zealot ... I have met them all.

The next thing you have to realise is that these scientists feed info to their heads of Department .. who are NOT scientists but bureaucrats, who THEN feed it onto the Minister. If people remember "Yes Minister" you would get a feel for the way information flows .. ie. On a need to know basis, and totally stuffed up when it gets there.

The rubbish I have seen fed to Minister Firth included:

1. One International Consensus statement on the Benefits of Marine Protected Areas, and the Australian Marine Science Association's position paper, which was heavily edited by the Batemans Marine Park manager, who is a NSW Councillor on AMSA.

Minister Firth accepted this without question, she is after all a Lawyer from the electorate of Balmain, which did return a 31% Green vote in the NSW 2007 election. We can not expect much better from Tebbutt, an economist, from Marrickville which voted 30% Green.

This International Consensus statement has been quoted by both Debus, Macdonald and Firth as to why NSW "must have a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of MPAs" This is despite the statement being completely and absolutely irrelevent to NSW. Certainly the principle applies to the Areas in the Red Sea that were bombed by Egyptian fishermen, using left over ordinance from the 1972 Israel/Egyptian war. I personally saw this happening in February 1974.

Also areas in the Phillipinnes were Cyanide was used and the fish picked up in nets after. Certainly MPAs work in this environment.

However in NSW were RELATIVELY benign methods have been used over the past 200 years this is rubbish.

2. In the Batemans MP, it was shown that the MPA had "accidentally" banned the catching and keeping of any shark except Gummy and School in any HPZ. This was admitted by the SE manger of National Parks, Tim Shepherd at a meeting the Narooma Port Committee had with the Minister, NPWS & MPA staff in early May 2008 .. However this was the reply we got from the Minister "The provision in the zoning plan prohibiting the taking of sharks(other than gummy and school sharks) in parts of the Batemans Marine Park addresses the fact shark numbers are known to have declined massively around the world, as well as in NSW waters. Generally fishers target gummy and school sharks for eating, and this is still allowed in habitat protection zones. All sharks, apart from protected species, can still be taken in general use zones."

This followed the advice from the BMP manager to the Minister to the effect that Sharks were being featured in the Sydeny media as threatened worldwide and hence would affect public perception as such. Hence that should be the status quo in the BMP. So we get the court of public opinion forcing unscientific opinions on a select group (the fishers), with no political clout ... which raises another point I will address

Now look at this quote from the BMP Manager, Brendan Kelaher "Marine Parks spatially manage areas to ensure conservation of biodiversity – that is we protect biodiversity by controlling where people can do things and by having marine areas with minimal human impacts (like National Parks)" Note how he implies that restricting access and what people can do in NSW Marine Parks, will help biodiversity.

Compare this to what Macdonald had to say ‘People can generally continue to do what they’ve always done within the sanctuary zones except commercial and recreational fishing’(Marine Parks Authority Media Release 14/7/2006).

So basically the lower levels of the MPA have a more “lockout” mentality than the Minister’s “pronouncements” which are merely meant to fool the powerless group (fisheres) but not the powerful group ..the “general public”. This has to change as there are at least 1.2 million fishers ranging from once a year to once a day in NSW, ....or we are stuffed.

A few very general facts worth bearing in mind

1. If the population of NSW consumed fish at the recommended rate (300g x 3 times per week) then adults would eat about 50kg of fish per adult per year .... About 225,000 tonnes per year for NSW alone. Australia’s TOTAL catch rate of commercially useful fish is about 250,000 tonnes.

2. At the current rate of consumption NSW ...IMPORTS 90% of its Fish from Overseas and Interstate.

3. If the Commercial fishing industry ceases then we will import 100% of our publicly consumed fish per year.

4. Within two years the Green and Animal Rights movement will start a move to have Recreational fishing banned in NSW, as a blood sport, similar to hunting.

I believe this scenario is the one we should be looking at rather than the semantics of who catches what in NSW. I STRONGLY believe everyone should read Professor Kearney’s three papers, they are available on this site

http://sites.google.com/site/aagfish/Home/...on-marine-parks

Philip Creagh

[brickman]

sorry for staying off topic phil

what can we do to help

cherrs gary

[creafield]

Greetings Brickman

Debate is always good, I do not mind debate .. even off topic debate. However the REAL issues have to be addressed, and in my opinion they are quite simple

1. The general public feels Marine Parks, indeed ANY National Park, animal reserve protected area is a "warm and fuzzy" in this "pro ecological conservation of the environment" climate.

Prof Kearney and ANY rec. or concerned commercial fisher knows the REAL threats are not about over-fishing but from pollution, ag run-off etc. etc.

The solution:

* To consistently present, to the media, the message in a rational calm, scientific manner the points raised in Kearney's paper.

* To ACTIVELY lobby every local member we can. Don't forget the National Parks Association, Nature Conservation Council, The Wilderness Society and Humane Society International are ACTIVELY lobbying the NSW Government for a Sydney Marine Park. Down here in Narooma we are 400kms away, their Sydney Offices are about 1km from Parliament House.

* The NSW Department of Environment and Climate Change (DECC) and Marine Parks Authority are looking at sites between Wollongong and Stockton Beach ... they require 100kms of coastline and 3nm offshore. This is happening NOW

* Since the Batemans Marine Park was gazetted in April 2006 a survey has found that 44 business have closed down or relocated, including one Marine repair business and one tackle store. Obviously not ALL due to the BMP, how many are is impossible to estimate.

* Arguing the semantics of how many fish are in the sea, or how justified Marine Parks are in the Hawkesbury bioregion are absolutey irrelevent to the Scientists within DECC and the MPA ... they are environmental zealots and your concerns are of no consequence to them. What I am saying is they DO NOT care what you think. Only politics will save this

* A fishers organization .. RECFISH, NSW Fishing Council etc HAVE to take this issue forward. Prof. Kearney has fired the bulltes, now the infantry have to go in.

[pjbink]

i just read the formula they used for the rec survey although the exact numbers wern't there using the full budget they were alocated it was'nt hard to get the numbers in worst case senerios and best case sernerios

here how i did the maths

22 people making random calls and follow up call to reg.particapants

10 people doing beaches boat ramp and the like

the budget $68000.00 to be fare i did the maths on the hole buget this did not take into acount wages for contractors or any paper work it is based on phone calls only

$68000.00 divided by $.50 =1360000 phone calls

136000 calls divided by1000000 fisher people means they x the stats by 7.57

now i know your all having a good laught at me right now but i am on medication

my point is the formula is flawed and a good stab in the dark at best

they only have to be out .5 kg with 10 people to make the survey a wast off time

im sorry but once you start x stats per population off fisher people the formula is flawed

we call it accumultive error' in the real world it can be a matter off will that building stand up or fall down

cherrs gary

It would be a random error wouldn't it Gary? In that case the errors would tend to be cancelled out. They quote an error range or confidence level. This is worked out statistically and is related to the sample size. Once again this is a peer reviewed, published method and you have not demonstrated it lacks validity.

[brickman]

It would be a random error wouldn't it Gary? In that case the errors would tend to be cancelled out. They quote an error range or confidence level. This is worked out statistically and is related to the sample size. Once again this is a peer reviewed, published method and you have not demonstrated it lacks validity.

ok were off topic again .one last time it is a survey using a random phone call system

there is no science to it it is mathamaticly flawed a bit like a polly pole a stab in the dark at best

it did'nt even take into consideration the blackmarket or fish sold in inter. waters by the pro's and resold in png to asia

if you belive surveys then were probely not in resesson and the usa has only just gone into one

we may have to agree to dis agree cherrs gary