New Marine Park Plans Announcement - 14/6/12

[CarlRak]

Just had a read of the following two pieces by Jim Harnwell on the Fishing World website in relation to Tony Burke’s announcements today.

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/mixed-outcome-for-fishos-in-burke-s-final-marine-parks-plan

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/analysis-burke-s-oceanic-compromise

Was curious as to how everyone interprets, without too much hyperbole, the new marine park plans? Only asking because most of us are Illawarra-Sydney-Hunter based.

Does it have any real effect on us? Assuming most do 95-99% of their fishing in home waters.

Or is it just a matter of principle?

[Trapper Tom]

Hey Nibbles

Yes it is a matter of principle.

There is no credible science attached to this, it is driven by whats called the "Green Dollar".

Idiot intellectuals chasing funding for a project etc etc, and bingo some wacko hairbrained scheme appears.

The green dollar value around the world amounts to billions of dollars, its a economy unto itself.

I am a enviromentalist and I can never support actions that divert money away from the true enviromental issues that face our eco systems.

Greenies be ashamed of yourselves, you only serve yourselves and not the environment anymore.

God damn I get cranky about this stuff!!!!!!

My rant for the day.

Trapper Tom.

[joel.pringle]

East coast fisherman don't seem to think it was dreamed up by idiot intellectuals:

However, the NSW fishing sector welcomes the Federal Government's proposed eastern marine reserve, running from north of Brisbane to Bermagui on the NSW south coast.

Tony Lagana, manager of Bermagui fishing co-op, says it took two years of negotiations with government to develop conservation plans that will not hurt fishing-dependent towns like Ulladulla, Bermagui and Eden.

"It is a good outcome for the far south coast (of NSW). We have had a lot of discussion with the government and Tony Burke has done a great job for Bermagui," he said.

"He has listened to our concerns and our fishers are very happy with the outcome we have achieved."

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201206/s3524936.htm

[fishmaniac]

It is pathetic that the proposals for new marine parks make the news in the process of effectively big-noting the govenrmnet for their efforts in conservation. Yet the recent approval by the federal labour/green government to allow a foreign vessel to take 18000 Tonnes of baitfish has slipped under the radar.

I object to marine parks for recreational fishermen based on science and principle. I understand that a large commercial vessel will have a significant impact on an ecosystem but a father and son getting out to catch a few reefies every few weeks is certainly sustainable.

hrgh, i don't know if you are taking the piss with your sweeping comment that east coast fishermen don't seem to think marine parks were thought up by intellectual idiots which quotes an article from the abc (which is no doubt the most pro-labour news reporter in the country)!!!!

Polical preference aside, it is extremely easy to write an article to favour a particular point of view. I would like to see how many people approve of lockouts from their favourite spots while the same government is simultaneously giving the green light to foreign vessels - certainly the minority from my conversations with many other anglers and online fishing forum discussions.

1) I would support such sanctuaries if there was no goverment hypocrisy in policy making

2) If there was sound scientific evidence to suggest that lockouts of RECREATIONAL fishermen were beneficial to the environment.

One of my main concerns is that governments are not differentiating enough between the recreational fishermen and the commercial fishermen with respect to the policy making.

I had a discussion with a recent marine biologist graduate regarding marine parks in reference to recreational fishermen. I can can tell you, i tore this person to shreds. They had noithing - just about the only thing i could give them credit for was the imposition of a sancturay in a known (and proven) breeding grounds during spawning season. So, like in South Australia perhaps a closed season in a given area for a species would be practical? This is just about the only legitimate reason for a marine park we found from our lengthy discussion.

But hey, who cares about logic, science or what people want. As long as we keep the loudest polical groups quiet and improve our political image (and make money in the process) our government can just do whatever the hell they want (liberal, labour, nationals, greens etc.. they are all the same)

Edited June 14, 2012 by fishmaniac

[CarlRak]

One of my main concerns is that governments are not differentiating enough between the recreational fishermen and the commercial fishermen with respect to the policy making.

Agreed, but, are we then our own worst enemies for not forming a peak body early enough to affect these decisions? I presume the Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation was formed to advocate for recreational fisherpeople and convey our collective concerns. But from a relatively new fisho's point of view it just seems too little too late. The organisation only coming together a few months ago.

[joel.pringle]

hrgh, i don't know if you are taking the piss with your sweeping comment that east coast fishermen don't seem to think marine parks were thought up by intellectual idiots which quotes an article from the abc (which is no doubt the most pro-labour news reporter in the country)!!!!

G'day fishmaniac

I wasn't taking the piss, I was quoting someone who represents those with a big stake in the fishery (manager of a fisherman's co-op, his livelihood) who was happy with the process. He felt well consulted and appeared happy with the outcome.

It was in response to a comment about idiot intellectuals coming up with the plan, demonstrating that there had been an inclusive consultation. I have seen other supportive comments about the standard of the consultation from fisherman, people who have been involved in the policy development, even if they don't agree with the outcome. Apologies for no links, I can't find them right now, but it was someone from WA.

Anyone who is critical of the process should give examples of how the process came up short, rather than abstractly blaming idiot intellectuals.

I 100% agree with your comments on recreational fishing vs commercial, and don't see recreational fishing as a risk to fish populations except in spawning seasons, and that this could be better managed. I'd love to see a stronger recreational fishing peak develop and keep working to overturn the decisions, I'd like to join the campaign if there is an opportunity. I also agree about the supertrawler, absolutely outrageous decision.

I get upset with comments such as 'There is no credible science attached to this,', when people do not back up their claim. The role of science in the creation of the parks is laid out here http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/about/science.html. I didn't go into the data, because I am not a scientist and would find it hard work. I take from Trapper Tom's criticism of the credibility of the data that he is a marine biologist, it would be great to hear his rebuttal to the documents that the government relied on.

Hrgh

[fishmaniac]

Hrgh, I can understand where you are coming from with respect to people making unsubstantiated claims (such as the science of marine parks is bogus).

Although I have not studied marine biology, as a keen fisherman I have made a point of learning a bit about the marine biosphere. After have a lengthy discussion with a marine biologist regarding this topic, I am confident to say that the science used to justify the imposition of marine parks is not entirely 'bogus', but at the same time it is not relevent to the recreational fishing community.

The major principles that marine parks stand for are preserving the natural environment and reducing the number of fish taken from a given area. The vast majority of marine park studies have focused on reef ecosystems and the marine biologists examine the behaviour and monitor the population size of reef inhabitants. In theory, by protecting a given portion of reef, higher fish populations shall result in the protected area which in turn creates a larger breeding stock which will inherently benefit fisheries in the surrounding regions.

In theory this sounds great, but here lies the major flaw with respect to the recreational fishermen. The main species that recreational fishermen target are arguable:

- Snapper

- Kingfish

- Jewfish

- Australian Salmon

- Flathead

These species are migratory and do not form local colonies in a given reef. In one week the flathead are in 40m, the next they are in 60m. The kings are swarming at the colours one week and a few weeks later they are up at Coffs Harbour our out at the 12 mile. The marine parks will benefit local reef inhabitants the most. Things like wrass, rock cod etc which are not under any pressure from the recreational fishing fleet.

The main recreational species that should be protected cannot be effectively managed by marine parks! It is as simple as that!

With respect to habitat destruction - apart from a few lost hooks and sinkers, there is very little to no habitat destruction from recreational fishermen. Even pulling hard on an anchor is at worst going to move one or two rocks!!! I would much rather see better collection of stormwater runoff to manage pollutants entering our waterways prior to worrying about small quanitities of terminal tackle.

The only argument that I saw reason in was that the breeding cycle of fish may be interupted if fish are under stress from catch and release practices. I did point out that the fish will go off the bite and wisen up, but nonetheless I can see the importance of this from a logical perspective. Hence, I would be accepting of a monthly closure on a particular species during breeding season.

It seems the recreational fisherman are a mis-understood bunch. We are placed in the same category as those who rape and pillage the oceans and leave a wake of destruction behind them. This marine biologist asked if I keep to my bag limits. I laughed in their face, as the vast majority of very keen fishermen, who catch lots of fish only take a couple for their immediate needs.

We all pay taxes, we all share the environment. With education, better management, better enforcement, and conducting scientific research that is relevant to recreational fishermen (as opposed to what the greenies like to look at when they dive) we will not need lockouts and marine sancturies that ban us from entering.

[joel.pringle]

Although I have not studied marine biology, as a keen fisherman I have made a point of learning a bit about the marine biosphere. After have a lengthy discussion with a marine biologist regarding this topic, I am confident to say that the science used to justify the imposition of marine parks is not entirely 'bogus', but at the same time it is not relevent to the recreational fishing community.

Mate, I clearly stated that I agreed with you regarding recreational fishing. I said "I 100% agree with your comments on recreational fishing vs commercial, and don't see recreational fishing as a risk to fish populations except in spawning seasons,". I also said "I'd love to see a stronger recreational fishing peak develop and keep working to overturn the decisions, I'd like to join the campaign if there is an opportunity." I don't know that I can agree with you more clearly than that.

This stuff "as opposed to what the greenies like to look at when they dive" "Greenies be ashamed of yourselves" is actually what will stop recreational fishers from achieving good outcomes; getting political wins is about building alliances between different groups in society. Look at the success that the anti-coal seam gas movement is starting to have, from an unlikely alliance of the Greens and farmers. And not just Greens of course, but all parties.

Recreational fishers need to build alliances with conservationists and the Greens, not deride them. As a Green who enjoys fishing, I see the possibility of that happening look less every time I see rec fishos have a go at greenies. I believe it's to the detriment to the future of recreational fishing.

Hrgh

Edited June 15, 2012 by hrgh

[fishmaniac]

No worries mate, I was not having a go or trying to force a point in my previous post. I was just adressing a comment you made regarding some reasons behind why some perople oppose the science of marine parks. You had asked if Trapper Tom could give some reasons against the science and I thought i'd take that upon myself to give some reasons.

With respect to forming alliances, I could not agree with you more. I think one of the difficulties with recreational fishermen is that we are currently the 'enemy' of many green groups. And in saying that, I'm not try to point the finger at the Greens, because the majority of recreational fishermen see the Greens as their enemy!

As you said, perhaps we need to exercise less animosity towards green groups and instead, offer them the opportunity to see the actions of the recreational fishing community.

Edited June 16, 2012 by fishmaniac

[barnzey]

No use enacting more marine parks if they can't police it. Who is it that will be patrolling these borders?

Without enforcement these marine parks mean little more than writing on paper.

[pjbink]

No use enacting more marine parks if they can't police it. Who is it that will be patrolling these borders?

Without enforcement these marine parks mean little more than writing on paper.

They will get you by utilising aerial surveilence.

Edited July 6, 2012 by billfisher

[elferoz777]

How about investing in a missile to blow that dastardly super trawler up!!

Surely that thing will pose a greater threat that bloody casual fishos??

I agree with the above green dollar comments.

I work for government and work on projects and I know people will use and wanky hugs and kisses scheme to secure dollars that will always get diverted away from the cause they were meant for

I support marine parks (within reason) but dont get the idea of them when we are going to let that big trawler in??