Marine Parks diversity protection - 600 species list

[DerekD]

Dear Fishraiders,

During the recent Marine park proposal discussions I have frequently seen reference to the 600 marine species that need to be protected. I wanted to learn more and after a quick search I found a list prepared by the Australian museum.

https://australianmuseum.net.au/fishes-of-sydney-harbour

To me it has made some interesting reading and left me with loads more questions (some will only take time to sit down and work it out).

• While titled "Fishes of Sydney harbour" it is pretty broad in the inclusions. For example, as per the list I am really looking forward to catching a Mahi Mahi or Marlin in Sydney harbour this coming summer from the kayak.
• There is only one species on the list which is only found in Sydney harbour – the Sydney Scorpion fish
• How many of the listed species are specifically targeted by recreational fishing and of those how many range predominantly outside Sydney harbour
• How many are under threat or vulnerable (due to fishing or other factors)? Mulloway (Jewfish) and Gemfish come to mind which is why the bag or boat limits would be so low at this time.
• Do the pro marine park campaigners really see us targetting species such as sea horses, wrasse, box fishes, pufferfishes, scorpionfishes and others. I figure if you leave them alone the populations will generally look after themselves.

While I was surprised to catch the attached in Mosman I noticed it did make the list. It was released even though it has, by all accounts, excellent table properties.

On a side note, the last Fairy Penguin (I still prefer that name to Little Penguin) breeding ground on the mainland in NSW is in Manly ( http://www.manlywharf.com.au/see-do/fairy-penguins/ ). As per the link I understand the biggest threats to them are the land-based predators (specifically dogs) and humans. While the blanket protection of marine species is on the agenda I’m waiting to see if Justin Field (Greens NSW spokesperson for the Marine Environments) and company will get around to arguing that all dogs should be removed from the Manly peninsula. I'm pretty sure if there was a telephone poll we could get a 99% plus approval rate for the protection of these lovely birds which I am fortunate enough to see now and again on Sydney Harbour. Now that would be an interesting campaign.

Regards,

Derek

Edited September 19, 2018 by DerekD

[connico]

Couple points to add...

1. Humans recreational activities and pets are higher on the threat list than rec fishing...

2. The predominate issue or threat of fish species in and around Sydney harbour is habitat. Habitat pressure is from pollution and development.

These "conservationist" and i use the term lightly are not tackling the real issues...

[wazatherfisherman]

Great post Derek! A key statement in the Museum's info says "currently known to live in OR have swum into the harbour"????!- No wonder the greens are worried, Sydney Harbour Marlin and Mahi Mahi are definitely not abundant, no doubt from 'wholesale slaughter' by the irresponsible rec fishers who target them there. Made me consider hanging up the seahorse trolling rods and the custom puffer fish stick.  Disappointing that they can source information from a reputable institution such as the Australian Museum and 'twist' it to their advantage. Of those listed, 'genuinely targeted' species is less than 50 and 'popularly targeted' about 30

[anthman]

Nooo, not the "poor man's lobster"!!

[Guest Guest123456789]

It’s an interesting point you make Derek which has me asking myself ‘who are these people that work in the DPI? What’s their political viewpoints? Who are these ‘scientists’ they’re commissioning?

It reminds me of the ‘safe schools’ program in victoria that was a government program that was meant to be antii bullying but ended up confusing young kids and teenagers about their gender and encouraged them to engage in marches and rallies. This was instituted by a Marxist, left wing academic who once said she wanted to make the Australian flag red. Just one influential academic or bureaucrat can do a lot of damage.

[DerekD]

12 hours ago, flatheadluke said:

It’s an interesting point you make Derek which has me asking myself ‘who are these people that work in the DPI? What’s their political viewpoints? Who are these ‘scientists’ they’re commissioning?

Hi FlatheadLuke,

I went to one of the first information sessions which was held in Bronte. There was a good group of people from the fishing fraternity there and some passionate speakers. After they had had their say I went to talk to some of the DPI people to draw my own conclusions. The following impressions are what I came back with (correct or incorrect).

Firstly, the DPI people I talked to were proud of the work they had done. While I am strongly against the proposed fishing lockouts, if you look at the research and factors they tried to take into account I think they have a right to be proud. If you haven't already please take the time to look at the TARA (Threat And Risk Assesment) and the Marine Estate Management Strategy 2018 - 2028. This wasn't something you can cobble together in a few months.

https://www.marine.nsw.gov.au/key-initiatives/hawkesbury-shelf-marine-assessment

The following is conjecture but I don't think (hope) I am far off the mark. I don't think this was political. The majority of the people in the DPI wouldn't get changed out each election. They are there to do a job no matter which party is in power. Their concern (as well as most recreational anglers) is that we have a healthy marine environment. I think it has gone pear shaped for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think with a survey showing 90% approval (I want to know the exact question which was asked of the 2,600 people) and an election coming up it probably looked like a good way of getting votes so why not promote it. I also think if they had sat down with a few key people from the fishing fraternity the path forward would have been far more moderate and probably productive. While the proposal identifies pollution or development as the biggest threats to the marine environment to me it doesn't show a clear path to resolving some of these issues. To be fair, if I was in their position I wouldn't know how to target the pollution issues. Targeting recreational fishing is probably an easy (well not really as they have found out) starting point.

Some of the people I talked to sounded like they knew and more importantly loved their fishing but still had to promote the proposal. I asked one gentleman for specifics and nominated the North Head zone as a discussion point. In this case he used groper and drummer as a concern. This sort of information is something which both sides can work with to a long term benefit. Studies could be carried out, local bag limits could be adjusted. As an example, I have heard almost no complaints from the fishing fraternity about the recent change in bag limits for mulloway from 2 to 1. Another gentleman there admitted he knew very little about the situation but he was there as an observer from overseas and appeared genuine in wanting to learn more. I have since corresponded with one of the managers there about some of my concerns. Please go to one of the remaining information sessions and have an open minded discussion with the people from the DPI. Have a look at the following link for the next one.

https://www.marine.nsw.gov.au/key-initiatives/hawkesbury-shelf-marine-assessment/phase-3-information-sessions

I can't answer the question on the science or the scientists and I'd be very sceptical about most data. I fish most weeks of the year and generally more than once a week. I see the seasonal changes in the fishing but also the ups and downs over the years. There are good years and bad ones and because of that I'd want to see 10 plus years of data for multiple regions before I had faith in it. I'd like to see input from people that are out there most days of the year and from different sources (fishing, divers, spearfisherman, guides, scientists, etc). I read somewhere about the fishing reports from the early settlers and how there were good and bad years even before we had mechanised commercial fishing as such in the harbour.

Regards,

Derek

Edited September 19, 2018 by DerekD

[Guest Guest123456789]

11 hours ago, DerekD said:

Hi FlatheadLuke,

I went to one of the first information sessions which was held in Bronte. There was a good group of people from the fishing fraternity there and some passionate speakers. After they had had their say I went to talk to some of the DPI people to draw my own conclusions. The following impressions are what I came back with (correct or incorrect).

Firstly, the DPI people I talked to were proud of the work they had done. While I am strongly against the proposed fishing lockouts, if you look at the research and factors they tried to take into account I think they have a right to be proud. If you haven't already please take the time to look at the TARA (Threat And Risk Assesment) and the Marine Estate Management Strategy 2018 - 2028. This wasn't something you can cobble together in a few months.

https://www.marine.nsw.gov.au/key-initiatives/hawkesbury-shelf-marine-assessment

The following is conjecture but I don't think (hope) I am far off the mark. I don't think this was political. The majority of the people in the DPI wouldn't get changed out each election. They are there to do a job no matter which party is in power. Their concern (as well as most recreational anglers) is that we have a healthy marine environment. I think it has gone pear shaped for a number of reasons. Firstly, I think with a survey showing 90% approval (I want to know the exact question which was asked of the 2,600 people) and an election coming up it probably looked like a good way of getting votes so why not promote it. I also think if they had sat down with a few key people from the fishing fraternity the path forward would have been far more moderate and probably productive. While the proposal identifies pollution or development as the biggest threats to the marine environment to me it doesn't show a clear path to resolving some of these issues. To be fair, if I was in their position I wouldn't know how to target the pollution issues. Targeting recreational fishing is probably an easy (well not really as they have found out) starting point.

Some of the people I talked to sounded like they knew and more importantly loved their fishing but still had to promote the proposal. I asked one gentleman for specifics and nominated the North Head zone as a discussion point. In this case he used groper and drummer as a concern. This sort of information is something which both sides can work with to a long term benefit. Studies could be carried out, local bag limits could be adjusted. As an example, I have heard almost no complaints from the fishing fraternity about the recent change in bag limits for mulloway from 2 to 1. Another gentleman there admitted he knew very little about the situation but he was there as an observer from overseas and appeared genuine in wanting to learn more. I have since corresponded with one of the managers there about some of my concerns. Please go to one of the remaining information sessions and have an open minded discussion with the people from the DPI. Have a look at the following link for the next one.

https://www.marine.nsw.gov.au/key-initiatives/hawkesbury-shelf-marine-assessment/phase-3-information-sessions

I can't answer the question on the science or the scientists and I'd be very sceptical about most data. I fish most weeks of the year and generally more than once a week. I see the seasonal changes in the fishing but also the ups and downs over the years. There are good years and bad ones and because of that I'd want to see 10 plus years of data for multiple regions before I had faith in it. I'd like to see input from people that are out there most days of the year and from different sources (fishing, divers, spearfisherman, guides, scientists, etc). I read somewhere about the fishing reports from the early settlers and how there were good and bad years even before we had mechanised commercial fishing as such in the harbour.

Regards,

Derek

Good to hear Derek. I did put in our family calendar to attend one of the information sessions but my sister in laws wedding scuttled that plan.

I can only hope DPI sort things out, I really do worry a lot about the sustainability of the fishery.

Snapper for example, they don’t spawn until they’re about 33cms yet they’re legal to catch when juvenile???? I’m no scientist or philosopher but I know you need an egg first in order to get a chicken.

[JonD]

From someone who fishes, spears and scuba dives regularly, the term regularly comes from 400 engine hours per year in my own boat and approximately 150 hrs on comercial boats. Also the fact I do this in the Batemans marine park gives me a little more experience than many on marine sanctuaries. I also offer any doubters to join me to see what I state is 100% truthful. The sanctuary zones ( even though they have illegal fishers ) by far out number edible fish by a large amount, these are areas I use to photograph fish.

The non sanctuary areas are very different not only in fish numbers but also the fact that the lack of predators on certain species have also transformed the sea floor to mostly urchin barrens. 

Dont get me wrong I would like less restrictions, unfortunately removing them here would instantly see traps and setlines as well as the sheer number of us rec anglers soon deplete the small reef restrictions we have. I'm not quite sure why so many people consider the marine park down here a big issue, the park maybe covered over a large area but only a very small amount doesn't allow fishing. 

A report I posted a few days ago where I mentioned a comercial boat returning with just a few wrasse and rock cod is a fact that these are targeted here by pro's and now becoming rare catches ( just like everything else)..

[kingfishbig]

54 minutes ago, JonD said:

From someone who fishes, spears and scuba dives regularly, the term regularly comes from 400 engine hours per year in my own boat and approximately 150 hrs on comercial boats. Also the fact I do this in the Batemans marine park gives me a little more experience than many on marine sanctuaries. I also offer any doubters to join me to see what I state is 100% truthful. The sanctuary zones ( even though they have illegal fishers ) by far out number edible fish by a large amount, these are areas I use to photograph fish.

The non sanctuary areas are very different not only in fish numbers but also the fact that the lack of predators on certain species have also transformed the sea floor to mostly urchin barrens. 

Dont get me wrong I would like less restrictions, unfortunately removing them here would instantly see traps and setlines as well as the sheer number of us rec anglers soon deplete the small reef restrictions we have. I'm not quite sure why so many people consider the marine park down here a big issue, the park maybe covered over a large area but only a very small amount doesn't allow fishing. 

A report I posted a few days ago where I mentioned a comercial boat returning with just a few wrasse and rock cod is a fact that these are targeted here by pro's and now becoming rare catches ( just like everything else)..

Didn't a published survey only show modest increases in fish nos between sanctuary zones and fished zones for the Batemans Bay marine park? Ie a  proper study rather than anecdotes. And given that sanctuary zones are often chosen in more productive areas, that they displace fishing effort to the fished areas and that most of the park is still open to fishing, it can't be said that there is an overall fisheries benefit from the zoning.

PS: A NSW government assessment for snapper has shown that commercial catch per unit effort for snapper has actually risen and that the average size has been stable.

Edited September 19, 2018 by kingfishbig

[DerekD]

12 hours ago, JonD said:

From someone who fishes, spears and scuba dives regularly, the term regularly comes from 400 engine hours per year in my own boat and approximately 150 hrs on comercial boats. Also the fact I do this in the Batemans marine park gives me a little more experience than many on marine sanctuaries. I also offer any doubters to join me to see what I state is 100% truthful. The sanctuary zones ( even though they have illegal fishers ) by far out number edible fish by a large amount, these are areas I use to photograph fish.

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your input. I have enjoyed the posts and photos submitted by you and your eldest daughter (Georgia?) for a long time. I also enjoy and respect your well thought out responses on a variety of topics.

Unfortunately due to nasal problems I have had since I was a kid I suffer pressure equalisation issues and have stayed away from Scuba diving (but will snorkel). As a result I have to take input from others on some aspects of marine life that I would prefer to see for myself. BTW - swam with this little fish in the Philippines and at about 6m it was a small one. I'd love to see a full grown 18m one weighing an estimated 34 tonnes.

Based on your experiences and observations would you say the areas you see more fish in are from a seascape perspective very similar to those which are not protected as part of a marine sanctuary? My feeling is that the areas that have been tabled for marine sanctuaries have been cherry picked as they already are known to hold good fish stocks. The reason they hold fish could be a combination of structure, food sources, currents and temperatures. It has been seen time and time again that when either a wreck ends up on the bottom or a reef is built there is a good build-up of fish species. I went snorkelling in Rhodes (Greece) decades ago and the clarity of the water was amazing but the lack of sea life was a disappointment and I put it down to a lack of structure. What would be interesting is creating a marine sanctuary in an area which is technically devoid of marine and structure and seeing if that changes things.

I look forward to further discussion on this and thanks for sharing all those amazing photos.

Regards,

Derek

Edited September 20, 2018 by DerekD

[Guest Guest123456789]

8 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

Didn't a published survey only show modest increases in fish nos between sanctuary zones and fished zones for the Batemans Bay marine park? Ie a  proper study rather than anecdotes. And given that sanctuary zones are often chosen in more productive areas, that they displace fishing effort to the fished areas and that most of the park is still open to fishing, it can't be said that there is an overall fisheries benefit from the zoning.

PS: A NSW government assessment for snapper has shown that commercial catch per unit effort for snapper has actually risen and that the average size has been stable.

Hi Kingfishbig,

 I’m curious to hear about how you commercial fisherman think the best ways are address the pollution problem mentioned in the DPI report? Might be a crazy idea but I thought maybe your trawlers could get paid a ‘rubbish fee’ say one day a month to use your nets to catch rubbish on the surface. You could get a daily fee then maybe a payment per tonne of rubbish caught that day.

your thoughts?

[kingfishbig]

27 minutes ago, flatheadluke said:

Hi Kingfishbig,

 I’m curious to hear about how you commercial fisherman think the best ways are address the pollution problem mentioned in the DPI report? Might be a crazy idea but I thought maybe your trawlers could get paid a ‘rubbish fee’ say one day a month to use your nets to catch rubbish on the surface. You could get a daily fee then maybe a payment per tonne of rubbish caught that day.

your thoughts?

Why do you think I am a commercial fisherman? Is this a serious question?

 

Edited September 20, 2018 by kingfishbig

[JonD]

Sorry for th delay getting back guys ( been a long day at work ).  My comparison of non sanctuary to sanctuary is based on areas of equal depths and structure.

I would also like to point out that we have guided many dives with scientists in helping them gather info within the marine park. Unfortunately due to how science works many of these scientists get very little time under the water and don't have the diving and freediving skills that those of us in the water regularly do have. This is one of the things that puts my daughter off uni, the fact they do very little field work. 

Even though we are not scientists we are constantly told by scientists we actually are ( sitizens scientists ) and without our contributions much of their work would be incomplete. My daughter has been on several tv shows for her contributions to marine science, her name appears in numerous scientific reports. Several new species are now within Australian museums under her name as well as completing her own film work for fisheries research.

 An upcoming marine science semina over three days with over 200 international marine scientists and buisness is to be held on the south coast.  This event is a closed event to the public, my daughter has been invited as one of the many speaker simply because of the respect she has gained in producing true facts.  So about the published paper on the marine park, those people must have been diving with their eyes closed.

A very interesting fact is that one of the sanctuary zones does actually have very few fish, infact we've seen a decline over the last few years with increased tourism. The funny thing is this is in the area where the Eco tours do the shark and seal dives. During holiday periods there can be 5-6 boats with up to 25 people on some boats all Jumping in for their non harming experience. These boats often do three trips per day, each trip often involves dropping anchors twice to move between locations. Beneath the water a rush of the first divers armed with cameras, strobes and video lights home in at the grey nurse sharks. Groups of snorkelers chase the seals around as if they are puppy dogs. 

To me the actions of these non fishers have not only changed the marine environment but also the behaviour of the creatures they invaid. As little as 50m away from these boats a clear change in both species and marine growth is abundant.  I would greatly like to see a study on this.

The weekend before last we did a photo shoot in a marine sanctuary again to promote the high end spearfishing gear my daughter is sponsored by. We notified fisheries where we would be and that we were not fishing, just wanting pictures of legal fish ( which there are heaps of ).After the shoot we headed to Montague where 5hrs were spent in the water where we saw 0 snapper 1 blue morwong and a couple of red morwong, nothing was taken. It's not unusual to cover up to 10km while underwater hunting, this is a far cry from a session on scuba. 

Statemants of non target species being effected by fishing always sounded strange to me but after speaking with scientists on my own boat who explained it a bit like taking away bees from the planet and the effect they have on everything else. Or simply removing humans, how would this effect everything on the planet, same goes for the marine environment.

 

 

 

 

[wazatherfisherman]

6 hours ago, DerekD said:

Hi Jon,

Thanks for your input. I have enjoyed the posts and photos submitted by you and your eldest daughter (Georgia?) for a long time. I also enjoy and respect your well thought out responses on a variety of topics.

Unfortunately due to nasal problems I have had since I was a kid I suffer pressure equalisation issues and have stayed away from Scuba diving (but will snorkel). As a result I have to take input from others on some aspects of marine life that I would prefer to see for myself. BTW - swam with this little fish in the Philippines and at about 6m it was a small one. I'd love to see a full grown 18m one weighing an estimated 34 tonnes.

Based on your experiences and observations would you say the areas you see more fish in are from a seascape perspective very similar to those which are not protected as part of a marine sanctuary? My feeling is that the areas that have been tabled for marine sanctuaries have been cherry picked as they already are known to hold good fish stocks. The reason they hold fish could be a combination of structure, food sources, currents and temperatures. It has been seen time and time again that when either a wreck ends up on the bottom or a reef is built there is a good build-up of fish species. I went snorkelling in Rhodes decades ago and the clarity of the water was amazing but the lack of sea life was a disappointment and I put it down to a lack of structure. What would be interesting is creating a marine sanctuary in an area which is technically devoid of marine and structure and seeing if that changes things.

I look forward to further discussion on this and thanks for sharing all those amazing photos.

Regards,

Derek

Another great post Derek. From memory, one of the first modern artificial reefs was one created mainly of tyres, fairly close to shore near Warumbul in Port Hacking. Pretty sure it was in an area devoid of structure. Never hear much about it these days

[JonD]

In regards to artificial reefs, I was informed at a marine science seminar that there had been some conflict with comercial fishers netting livebaits and fishing these reefs paid for from recreational licence money. 

This was something I hadn't really thought about as I assumed these were to of been for rec use. I would of also thought any boat sitting in gear over the top dropping livebaits would be considered simular to someone tying to a fad stopping others fish it.

Not having one locally or ever fished one, what's the ruling or aren't there any, could a dive boat rock up and stick their flag up stopping others etc. 

Edited September 20, 2018 by JonD

[wazatherfisherman]

14 minutes ago, JonD said:

In regards to artificial reefs, I was informed at a marine science seminar that there had been some conflict with comercial fishers netting livebaits and fishing these reefs paid for from recreational licence money. 

This was something I hadn't really thought about as I assumed these were to of been for rec use. I would of also thought any boat sitting in gear over the top dropping livebaits would be considered simular to someone tying to a fad stopping others fish it.

Not having one locally or ever fished one, what's the ruling or aren't there any, could a dive boat rock up and stick their flag up stopping others etc. 

That's a good question JonD in seasons past there have been problems with people tying up to both Fads and Waverider buoys , mind you they have been other fisho's not dive boats. Pros doing it is pretty 'ordinary' though

[Guest Guest123456789]

13 hours ago, kingfishbig said:

Why do you think I am a commercial fisherman? Is this a serious question?

 

It’s pretty obvious when you defend the Geelong star using detailed information about its operations, quote statistics about the amount of fish imported, quote statistics claiming the recreational catch is the same as the commercial catch, argue that its sustainable to catch fish en masse before they spawn. I could go on.

Edited September 20, 2018 by Guest123456789
Typo

[kingfishbig]

1 hour ago, flatheadluke said:

It’s pretty obvious when you defend the Geelong star using detailed information about its operations, quote statistics about the amount of fish imported, quote statistics claiming the recreational catch is the same as the commercial catch, argue that its sustainable to catch fish en masse before they spawn. I could go on.

All that information is readily accessible and published on the internet. I realise it takes slightly more effort to look them up compared to name calling and making up strawman arguments.