Jump to content

Ecofishers


the_lure

Recommended Posts

$%^&*, marine conservationists, as distinct from extreme Green preservationists, you beaut. And scientifically supported and based. Just what 1,000,000 fishing families have been waiting for to support their cause. Think about this. Governments at all levels have drained our wetlands,concreted our foreshores,removed the mangroves, added sewage, stormwater,toxins,exotic plants and animals to our waterways and they dammed our rivers. Now the Labor government wants to ban negligible impact recreational fishing in parts of their (not ours) marine parks. As if it is all our fault! $%^&* will be damned if they will. You all need these guys and gals and they need you. Check them out at www.$%^&*.com Sounds like the real deal to me. They have got me. I'm hooked.It's just what we all have been waiting for and so timely. Have a bo - peep and let them help us. It's all on their website. Don't ever underestimate the power of a small (initially) group of dedicated people to change he world. Tarki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bluecod

Tarki,

Didn't know we have to pay more license fees - extract from the Marine Park Authority's website

" Permits and licences

Permits and licences can be used to manage human use of the park and activities that have the potential to impact on marine life. The regulation of allowable activities within marine protected areas may require permits or licences"

Looks like there are 60 Bioregions where they will establish Marine Parks - the Marine Parks seem to lock out recreational angling from about 30% of their total area.

post-106-1134913741_thumb.jpg

Edited by bluecod
Link to comment
Share on other sites

$%^&*, marine conservationists, as distinct from extreme Green preservationists, you beaut. And scientifically supported and based. Just what 1,000,000 fishing families have been waiting for to support their cause. Think about this. Governments at all levels have drained our wetlands,concreted our foreshores,removed the mangroves, added sewage, stormwater,toxins,exotic plants and animals to our waterways and they dammed our rivers. Now the Labor government wants to ban negligible impact recreational fishing in parts of their (not ours) marine parks. As if it is all our fault! $%^&* will be damned if they will. You all need these guys and gals and they need you. Check them out at www.$%^&*.com Sounds like the real deal to me. They have got me. I'm hooked.It's just what we all have been waiting for and so timely. Have a bo - peep and let them help us. It's all on their website. Don't ever underestimate the power of a small (initially) group of dedicated people to change he world. Tarki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G'day World,

Cop this you slouch backs. No anchoring on any reef in a sanctuary zone in the Cape Byron Political Park.

A marine park permit is required to undertake a commercial activity in any marine park (and it may not be forthcoming)

Fishing vessels may transit a sanctuary zone provided all fishing gear is stowed. Fishing lines must be inboarded and must not be baited.

Commercial whale and dolphin watching is banned for 1 nautical mile north east and south of Cape Byron.

All species of sharks and rays are protected in Habitat Protection Zones (where recreational fishers are allowed to fish) BUT not in the General Use Zone (about 50% of the park) where the prawn trawlers plow the bottom night after night. And they expect us to believe their parks are to protect the biodiversity? They can't even fool some of the people some of the time.

I'm fishing in the morning, in a sanctuary zone, because that is where the fish are. Lookout for the khaki Nazis ie the Fun Police. Who wants to live with these sort of nonsensical rules and regulations? Not me . More power to $%^&* Tarki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

THE BOTTOM LINE.

If the community doesn't support the marine (political) park, it simply won't work! That's what the northern rivers fishing families are doing - simply ignoring the marine park and drive the fun police mad. It is as simple as that! Civil disobedience is the only way now they have of beating this unwanted and unwarranted political park. It is also one way to change the draconian rules, short of going to the ballot box in March 2007.

Anyone else got any other good ideas? Let's all hear them. Tarki.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ive signed up and will be giving EF my full support they sound great god knows we need a voice in these politically correct mad times. Im following all this up with a continued letter writing campagin and Im all for the civil disobedence line F#@#$@ em no one has been consolted about these parks except the fanatical left so they should the recive the same contempt they have shown us.

Edited by phild
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought you blokes might be interested in this:

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/eci...parks/index.htm

While I'm at it, I know a number of fishing groups have made submissions already but anyone who feels inclined should make a submission to the inquiry about the Animal Welfare Bill, which tacitly seeks to ban all forms of hunting (including angling)

http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rra...are05/index.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good work Phil,

I too am writing a number of letters and will continue to speak out. I urge you all to make some noise as well.

Come on boys and girls get involved. :biggrin2:

Grantm I can barely believe it's you becoming militant :1yikes: might make a unionist of you yet :1prop::tease:

Edited by kikila
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Fishers banding together to oppose marine conservation measures?

I love my fishing and wish to see future generations have the opportunity to go out and catch a fish. I believe that marine protected areas including some sanctuary (no fishing) areas are an important part of the new approach to marine management that must be taken.

In my opinion many of those who lack foresight and are opposing the parks now will in the future become supporters as the long-term benefits start to accrue. Times change and marine management must change too.

By all means fight to protect access to your favourite fishing spot but make sure similar habitat in the areas is protected, in time you will catch more fish. Do not oppose marine parks in general, be specific if there is one area that is too important to fishers to close and support the protection of a similar (perhaps less accessible) area in the region. The real point is that you will still catch a fish both the day after the Park is implemented and in the future, if changes are not made (MPAs are only one of them) I seriously believe that (like in other parts of the world already) in our lifetimes you will not be able to catch fish in many parts of Australia.

I understand that many rec fishers feel like they were not consulted on these parks, it's generally true and not good. By all means fight for better representation in marine park planning and management.

Don't blindly oppose the whole process, more good than bad will come of it for recreational fishing. Remember if you do somehow manage to derail the marine parks process you will regret it in the long run. Don't listen to commercial interests (the pros have more to lose in the short term, though (a reduced number) of pros will also benefit in the long run. Have a think about it. Were national parks on land a good idea?

There are plenty of forward thinking rec fishers out there who support Marine Parks, think before jumping on the anti marine park bandwagon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry but I think most rec fishermen and women would support marine parks if they were based on any scientific fact.

In reality there have been numerous scientific groups that have said the data the parks act was base on is flawed.

The park creation is more about preferences in the next state election than saving fish species for the future (My opinion).

The fact that in the future government bodies will be able to grant licenses for activity in these PARK areas will not be bad for consolidated revenue either. :mad3:

If you want to use our current National Parks you pay to enter. What makes anyone think that this will not be the case in the future with the marine parks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweep, if you read any of the fishing forums with any diligence you will note that all ( and in my experience I mean 100% !) fishers agree with conserving fish stocks & habitats.

Afterall it is in everyone's interest except perhaps commercial fishos who need to make a living now & maybe aren't too concerned about 50 years hence.

Most recreational fishos believe in thorough scientific investigation, consultation with ALL stakeholders and responsible decisions based on conservation NOT politics. We are not anti marine park per se and believe in ecologically sustainable recreational fishing.

Your oblique generalisations add nothing to the debate. There is no band wagon it is just a matter of previously apathetic fishos finally getting together & having their say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge misconception from pro park groups that rec fishos in general oppose the entire concept of marine parks thinking we just want to have the whole place to ourselves with no thought of the future.

I and most rec fisho's I know dont oppose parks as such, its just the unjustified implementation of sanctuary zones with no scientific evidence.

Les i think your on the money. I too dont know any rec fisho's who dont give a toss about the future of the marine environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is a huge misconception from pro park groups that rec fishos in general oppose the entire concept of marine parks thinking we just want to have the whole place to ourselves with no thought of the future.

I and most rec fisho's I know dont oppose parks as such, its just the unjustified implementation of sanctuary zones with no scientific evidence.

Les i think your on the money. I too dont know any rec fisho's who dont give a toss about the future of the marine environment.

agree with all of the above. Im notin opposition to the parks themselves or the idea that we need to protect our environment, but the way in which these parks have come about and the not so scientific reasoning behind most closures.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is some valid points here. Marine Parks have merrit if managed for the common interest of ALL stakeholders.

The biggest problem i see is small minded individuals, and goverment party politics. Without any real care for the common interest of the whole situation this process will end up only catering for the needs of who can help the sitting government retain power.

Scientific methods, research and above all a thorough public and transparent process is the only way this mess can be sorted.

Here is a quote from 2000 years ago, that rings a very loud bell with the current issue.

"For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."

Aristotle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweep,

You do seem to use the words "I believe" and "opinion" a lot don't you. If you believe that in some parts of Australia you will not be able to catch a fish in the future, what evidence do you have to back it up? Do you really thing we are so uniformed that we will fall for that emotive rubbish.

Why is the fishing so good on the doorstep of our oldest city Sydney, with a population of 5 million. Why is commercial catch per unit effort steadily rising in NSW and the fishery deemed to be managed sustainably in a recent University of British Columbia review. Doesn't "sustainable" mean that you will be able to catch a fish in the future? Why did the greens have to concoct their own report "Empty Oceans - Empty Nets" on NSW fisheries, which was slammed by the UBC as so erronious and without scientific merit they recomended that it should not be used or quoted?

Why did the CSIRO review of marine park data state they are not an effective fisheries managment tool? As to the GBRMP did you know that fisheries experts estimate it was being harvested at 1% of its sustainable yield. Plenty of studies had been done on the GBR and sanctuary zones (eg the Mapstone study and the work of Dr Stark and Grayling and the 12 year ELF study) and found no evidence of the much touted spill over effect, or indeed much increase in fish size and numbers in the sanctuary zones. Of the GBRMP Dr Stark said "for all the good they do they might as well be managing the moon".

You did a remarkable job toning down the draconian nature of these parks. Did you know that in coastal towns affected by the GBRMP 42% of people gave up angling as the sancturay zones are so pervasive. Also due to the fact that they face a $25,000 fine and a criminal conviction for catching a fish in the wrong place!

If anglers have such an impact, why have catch rates for popular species gone up 100-300% after 2 years in the rec fishing havens of Lakes Macquaire and Toross. Why then has angling got to be banned in 20- 30% of Marine Parks (ie 70-90% of productive areas)?

Comparing national parks on land to marine parks is ridiculous. The marine environment is fundamentally different to the terrestrial one. Fish and their larvae are mobile and wide ranging. Fish also have tremendous fecundacy (reproductive capacity). There is still no clear evidence for the spillover effect from marine sanctuaries.

I know some marine biologists are very keen on marine parks because it represents a growth industry for them, ie opportunities for jobs and funding. I think that is were you are coming from. Otherwise if you really believe what you have posted here and you are a paid marine biologist then your employer is being robbed!

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Sweep,

Don't take it personally, just do your research & you will see that the comments expressed are supported by fact and correct. What we want is more informed people & that applies to EVERYTHING not just marine parks.

There are too many groups with hidden agendas. Fishos that support ecologically sustainable recreational fishing are not one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Les, and others I agree that almost all rec fishos support conserving fish stocks & habitats and that the majority or fishers try to do the right thing to make this happen. Education and research into exactly what the right thing is needs to continue and expand. I too want to see more informed people.

Lightweight, thanks for the quote, very relevant. I would love to hear about the NSW community consultation process, where it went wrong (or didn’t exist) and how it could be done better. Commercial fishers, mining (geosequstration as a consideration in MPA location?!??) and just about every other marine user do seem to have got more consideration and concessions in many of the Australian MPA processes to date. Lets talk about how it can be done better.

Here is a quote from 2000 years ago, that rings a very loud bell with the current issue.

"For that which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it. Every one thinks chiefly of his own, hardly at all of the common interest; and only when he is himself concerned as an individual."

Aristotle.

The management of our marine waters as a commons is outdated and destined for disaster. We need to establish intellectual ‘ownership’ of our marine environments from all users, this is why I support RFHs, Restricted entry commercial fisheries, spatial management of marine environments (at a general access and commercial licensing level) and Marine Protected Areas. I know that sanctuary zones will put some rec fishers out, the impost can be minimised and agree there should be scientific basis to zoning decisions. The largest benefits from the marine parks will come from the restrictions on commercial fishing and (to a lesser extent) other industry. Recreational fishers have to accept that new management strategies are needed and rather that assigning blame for the problems work to be part of the solution. MPAs are one of those and I see that a couple of the posts here support that widely held view.

MPAs are not going to work in isolation and must be part of wider management of marine ecosystems and impacts.

The argument here seems to be about NSW sanctuary zone location and fear that the parks are not about conservation but about politics? If this is the case why the anti parks talk? Why not campaign for the rezoning of sanctuary zones you disagree with or the political party of your choice rather than opposing the whole Marine Protected Area concept?

I would be interested to hear of peoples local experience with sanctuary zones (actual and proposed) and which they don’t support and why. There are not that many no fishing areas that have been around for a long time in Australia, it is my experience that they are generally well supported by local fishers (even though many of them initially opposed their introduction).

The old way of thinking is that if catching one type of fish is the goal you manage catch of that fish and nothing else. The concept of sustainable can have different meanings in this context. If a fishery can catch fish every year that is sustainable right? But if that fishery is at a drastically lower level of abundance than the unfished state the whole balance of the system they live in is changed. Maybe the predators of the target fish are also reduced in numbers, maybe another non target species thrives, if the ecosystem balance is tipped major changes occur and this may be to the detriment of other fisheries or non fished species.

The new way of thinking is that to have a sustainable future the need to retain balance in the ecosystem as a whole and that piecemeal management is ineffective. Having areas protected from impacts like aquaculture, mining and fishing is about allowing area where natural processes are less impacted by human influence. This protects the diversity and integrity of ecosystem processes and acts like an insurance policy for the future of marine life as we know it. The protected areas buffer the marine environment against the known and unpredictable impacts of humans and climate (not sure I need to separate these). Having some relatively un-impacted populations and habitat areas increases the resilience of the environment as a whole. Highly protected areas are not about the old ‘will we catch more fish?’ management they are about the new ‘lets make sure there is a healthy diverse environment in the future to support fish and all marine life’ management. This will benefit fishers and everybody else in the long term, in the short term it seems fishers must bear the brunt of the immediate burden of change.

Do you really think that stopping fishing in some areas, setting aside some areas in as natural state as possible for the future is a bad idea? Probably not but the fear is that the restriction will be in your ‘backyard’ or favourite spot. For sanctuary zones to work on a large scale they do need to protect a proportion of all of the habitats in the marine environment and there must be large areas protected. This is not incompatible with reasonable fishing access (I accept that poor planning could result in unreasonable local situations and would be happy to discuss specific examples).

Billfisher,

Pretty full on attack there you really do hate the greens don’t you. I am sure they feel just as strongly about the issue as you and you are entitled to your opinion.

“Why is commercial catch per unit effort steadily rising in NSW and the fishery deemed to be managed sustainably in a recent University of British Columbia review.”

The simplest explanation for the increasing CPU in NSW is the reduction of effort (in terms of fishing days) combined with the vast and ongoing improvements in fishing technology, there are other factors including improved management strategies and expansion into new fisheries as well. Regarding sustainability I refer you to what I have written above re. commercial vs ecological sustainability. MPAs are not about the old style of fishery management and are about ecological not specific fishery sustainability (hence the CSIRO quote I am guessing, could you post a reference to that review please). I have read the UBC paper you refer to and it was a case of an ex NSW Fisheries associated academic defending their turf. The paper does put in question some of the fisheries data related interpretations used in the Empty Oceans report but does not deny (or confirm) the general conclusions made.

Regarding the GBRMP research you refer to I imagine you are aware that the same studies (Grayling) are commonly used to show the beneficial effects of MPAs. Many of Graylings’ papers do indeed point to increased abundance of fish in protected areas and variations in stock structure (fish size) between fished and unfished areas. This really highlights more than anything the lack of good data regarding marine parks in Australia and the main reason for this is the lack of MPAs to study (data from recently declared parks will be years coming) and the lack of funding (and expense) of MPA research. Dr Graying is an interesting character and seems a bit of a maverick with known associations with the commercial fishing industry. I commend him for devoting his life to tropical reef research we need a lot more researchers out there and we need MPAs to study. I don’t think that many people would deny the need for protected areas as scientific reference points?

I would be interested to know where you got the 42% of anglers quitting fishing figure.

No surprises that catches have gone up in rec fishing havens (commercial impact removed) and I am a big supporter of the concept. I would like to see sanctuary zones buffered with rec only areas regulated as catch and release and/or strict(er) bag/ size limitation. This would create a win-win for rec fishos and marine conservation. The losers would be the commercial fishers and it is for this reason that they are not being incorporated into MPA planning by current governments.

This is not the time to argue about the comparative impacts of rec vs commercial fishing. I agree that rec fishing is relatively benign when compared to dredge trawling. Just because rec fishers aren’t the biggest part of the problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be a big part of the solution. It does take a big picture long term view to support restrictions on our favourite pastime and benefits that might be measured in the timescale of decades not years.

“Why then has angling got to be banned in 20- 30% of Marine Parks (ie 70-90% of productive areas)?”

The current rationale behind MPA planning is the ‘representative area’ concept where examples of all known habitats in all marine bioregions are protected. If a target of 20-30% is chosen this should mean 70-80% of all types of area (productive or not) would be available to fishing. In situations where there is one or few areas in a region that have a particular habitat the situation gets a bit more sticky but in general it should be possible to protect habitat and still allow access to fishing in other examples of the given habitat type. Not having a go but I would be interested to know where and how you have calculated your 70-90% figure.

Did I compare marine parks to terrestrial ones? The ecosystems they protect are very different, the concept of protecting nature by restricting human impacts on areas is comparable. Your statements regarding mobility and fecundity are true of many marine species (they are also true of some terrestrial species). There is good evidence of spill over effects for less mobile species and also evidence of the effectiveness of spatial management for more mobile species. But, that’s really not the point, until we know a hell of a lot more about the marine environment than we do today I don’t think we can afford to not act to protect our marine habitats. We stand to lose a whole lot more by not supporting MPAs than we do by supporting them.

I believe I have an opinion and I believe you have an opinion and that you believe in that opinion, yes I use those words a bit. Would you prefer me to state my opinions as immutable facts or my beliefs as commandments from on high? (I wouldn't be the first). I have seen the state of marine environments decline in my lifetime, I know that history paints a picture of a more vibrant marine environment with fishing we can only dream of in many areas of Australia. Something has to be done to arrest this decline and acknowledge that ‘shifting baselines’ can lead to acceptance of degraded environments.

FYI I have no commercial interest in MPAs and I am not currently doing any paid MPA research. I do not expect to quickly change the opinion of someone as clearly fervent as you but I do ask that you consider changing the focus of your opposition from opposing MPAs in general to opposing the aspect(s) of MPA zoning you disagree with.

I reckon the civil disobedience line that a couple of posters are advocating is madness and would be highly detrimental to public perception of rec fishers and your cause of sanctuary zone change. I can see the mental news headline now - ‘Redneck Fishing Cowboys Flout Local Laws’ - almost as good for Rec fisho PR as shooting seals.

Happy to debate the point with anybody but personal attacks and unfounded assertions are not appreciated. Glad to read that not everybody on this thread opposes marine parks and I look forward to hearing more about the flaws in the NSW process and about other areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swordfisherman,

How is the post off track? Are you saying we can't mention politics? The subject heading is "Fisheries News and Politics" and politics is intimately intwined with the Marine Park issue. I am asking because I don't want to type a lenghty post just to find the topic locked down or my post deleted.

It looks like you just deleted a post which seemed very relevant to me.

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweep,

The CSIRO report was published in 2000, I am sure you can find it if you do some digging. You have dismissed the UBC report because the UBC has done some work for NSW fisheries. How does this disqualify them from talking on the subject? I notice you are towing the Nature Conservation Council (NCC) line that the UBC report does not contradict the conclusions of of the Empty Ocean - Empty Nets report. Well it plainly does when it states that NSW fisheries are being managed sustainably.

With the GBR research once again you question the integrity of any researcher who doesn't tow the marine park line. What researcher with decades of experience has not had something to do with commercial fishing? How does this disqualify their work? You said that some of the studies I mentioned were quoted to justify the GBRMP. I would say they were misquoted. Eg this Mapstone study was used but it was not published until after the Park came into being. Yes it did show some increase in coral trout numbers and size in the most heavily fished region when made into sanctuaries, but it was not large and was smaller than differences between regions and between seasons. In the lightly fished regions there was no difference. Given that most of the GBR is lightly fished then the latter is more likely to be indicative of the effect of the Park as a whole. Also in all areas coral trout were plentiful and of good size and there has been no sign of a decline.

The figure that 42% of anglers in the GBR region gave up fishing because of the Park came from a Qld Government survey. They also found that tackle sales were down 40%. The compensation bill (not counting the buyout of commercial licences but for secondary impacts) has reached $100 million and is set to top $200m.

You state that the Parks are designed on a representative basis covering all types of habitats, well this is simply not the case. The experience of the GBRMP 'consultation' was that anglers were asked to identify the areas important to them so they can keep them. When the zonings came out they invariable ended up in the green zones.

It is a similar situation with the new Parks in NSW with areas of value to anglers grossly over represented in the sanctuary zones. Im sure Tarki can give you figures on the Byron Bay Park. I have seen the MPA's own figures as well, breaking down habitat type, % of park and % of sanctuary zones. Once again habitats of value to anglers such as inshore reef and rocky headlands are likey to end up in sanctuary zones at a far greater proportion than the area of the park they represent.

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I am not 100% against the idea of marine parks.

However I am 100% against the current marine parks in NSW, because I cannot see the logic behind their implementation. That conclusion is based on two basic points:

1) The NSW Labour Government has traded the implementation of marine parks with the Greens in return for their preference votes at the next state election.

2) From my research on marine parks, I have yet to find any scientific research from a reputable organisation that demonstrate a need for recreational anglers to be banned from fishing in any NSW waterway.

For me it really is as simple as that.

If the Labour Government didn't feel that they needed to have the Greens support to win next years election, then the whole marine park issue wouldn't have gotten off the ground. The fact that the current Fisheries Minister refuses to debate the facts on the marine parks issue speaks volumes. Surely if there was a demonstratable need to lock rec fishers out, then they would only be too happy to tell us why, and show us the proof to back their stance.

In future, if there is some research done that proves, without any doubt, that rec fishing is having an adverse effect on an area, then I would support some form of conservation effort for that area. Until such time, I will continue to oppose the current marine park regime in this state.

Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...