Jump to content

Ecofishers


the_lure

Recommended Posts

Sweep,

You obviously don't live in a marine park infected area. The theory is great ! The practice is abysmal.

I live in Byron shire and thanks to the Labour gov'ts quest for the green vote I can no longer easily go for a fish after work. When you combine the 50 % lockout zones for the headlands and beaches with the national parks restricted access there are very few likely productive fishing spots that can be accessed in time.

It is much worse offshore. 98% of all close reef has been locked up so there is no more easy evening snapper sessions. You have to travel miles at sea to get outside the park to find any productive fishing country.

Community consultation - HAH!!!!!!!!!!!! 6000 out of 6327 submissions rejected the proposed lockout zones ,which mysteriously became even larger when the zones were gazetted.

TRUST - not this government. or the fundamentalist greens.

There has been NO science put forward apart from general motherhood statements ( much the same as yours ) to justify any of this.

MAD - as HELL. the whole community. And this is coming to all future marine parks. I grew up as a kid fishing in Durras lake. I see today that it is on the specific wish list of the greens for lockout. Where are my kid and nephew supposed to fish safely while they are growing up. The rec fishing impact on Durras lake has been pi$$all in the 45 years I have fished it.

I could go on as long as your extended post but no. I am one of the workers but labour has abandoned me in their quest for the green vote and they will never get mine again.

Moderator - if any of this is too much pls edit rather than delete the lot. As requested it is all factual and verifiable.

Ian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The marine park idea is not opposed by the majority of fishers, now please listen, the marine park concept is not opposed by anybody that I know, including $%^&*, the problem is the zoning plans within marine parks, Sweep, see www.$%^&*.com . The zoning is based on an agreement between the labor govt and the greens, that's it, that's the reason for the min 20%, I have met with Max Haste, the MPA Manager at Port Stephens and he has said to me and all the others present at that meeting that you can move the pink bits around the map as much as you want but there is no way that the no take zoning will go below 20%, I have also met with the minister Mr Ian Macdonald and he has specifically said to me that there is nothing you can do to change the plans, well I disagree, I think that the traditional guardians of the marine environment who are recreational fisherman are the only people with the necessary experience to say which fisheries are in danger and what needs to be done about it, do you think we are a bunch of fools who do not care about the future of a culture we hold so dearly, I hear some greenies saying "yes", and to them I say go and bury your head in another issue or overdose on mungbeans, because you have no idea what you are talking about, I have recently been reviewing my fishing magazine collection due to the surge of green intellect in local papers recently and going back as far a 1997 have seen efforts by greenies to undermine the real efforts of conservational fisherman, and have also seen the very real efforts of rec fishos to conserve and preserve fish stocks, C&R, environets, voluntary bag limits by fishing clubs, widespread acceptance of fishing licence fees, RFH's, etc, etc, etc.

The creed that if you tell the same lie long enough and loud enough that people will believe it is just not true, please provide some real proof, and do not quote some obscure study from the Phillipines or Atlantic Cod or Gemfish. Something which relates to NSW >3 miles. Please.

Edited by swordfisherman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahh, nice to be allowed back to post on the forum,

My last 3 posts are lost, deleted by the moderator, not sure why, perhaps because other posters were getting abusive and the moderator wanted to be seen as impartial blocking all posts? so I must start again(might have one of them saved as a word document) , just don't think I was ignoring you all.

I would like to state that opposing marine parks because of a perception that they are a Green party idea is crazy, Both Liberal and Labor Governments have proposed and supported MPAs in Australia. Even Bush Jr has recently declared the biggest MPA in the world - it is not only governments known for their environmental policies that support this idea. I really doubt that the MPA process would be that different in NSW under a Lib Govt.

Yoda, you make a good point, which I agree with - most rec fishers don't oppose marine parks. Clearly a proportion of NSW fishers disagree with the zoning and I am increasingly inclined to agree. [Note that I never declared support for NSW zoning, ever, I simply support the concept of Marine Parks from a conservation perpective] My point is that groups like $%^&* and individuals on this forum should be opposing the aspects of MPAs they disagree with rather than opposing MPAs in general.

The SA Govt. has recently released draft MPA legeslation in preparation for the rollout of 19 MPAs in this State. I am trying to prepare to represent the members of Fishers For Conservation www.ffc.org.au during this process and learning about the problems in NSW is very relevant to me.

Yoda, what are these efforts to undermine fishos conservation efforts to which you refer, I don't understand.

Regarding your call for proof, there are no studies done that I am aware of that focus on NSW waters in regard to MPAs - Would have been hard to research something that did not exist. I know its a bit lame just to turn it around but can you point to any NSW studies that support your view? - nil all

Yoda, saying that what I have written is lies is counterproductive and basically not nice, my opinions are not lies.

Ian, 98% of inshore reef locked up? I think its more like %50 right? I can't help but agree that this is excessive. Yoda the moving the pink bits strategy is the one I would take, did you follow this up? So the %20 of each park no take thing is something that the MPA managers wont budge on? (note this is a lot less than the marine conservation scientists are calling for) Then make sure that you have access to %80 of inshore reef to fish rather than trying futilely to scuttle the huge conservation inititive that is Marine Parks.

I think Marine Park managers are more likely to be receptive to pro MPA rec fishers arguing for fair access than anti MPA fundamentalists opposing the whole process.

Edited by Sweep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billfisher I don't know why you hate me so much, i am a reasonable man who loves his fishing and wants whats best for the marine environment. I bet we actually agree on more things than we don't. You seem to want to use me to air some well worn arguments you must have prepared over a long campaign. Please stop putting wors in my mouth that i never said. Lets be friends :biggrin2::1fishing1: (though perhaps friends who disagree on some points).

I don’t like this style of posting (sentence by sentence) but it is the only way to deal with the way you are misrepresenting my comments. Note this was written and posted some days ago then removed by the moderator. I repost it now.

The CSIRO report was published in 2000, I am sure you can find it if you do some digging.Thanks 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? It doesn’t and I didn’t say that it did 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. My opinions are my own, I was not aware of the NNC 'line' I would be interested to know where this is published as I am not aware of any other another responses to the UBC rebuttal paper, I wonder If they borrowed mine without crediting me?, probably not as anyone who could read and understand both papers would agree that that is the case. BTW was it you who brought the paper to my attention in the first place* Well it plainly does when it states that NSW fisheries are being managed sustainably. I refer you back to the comments regarding the variability in the meanings of the concept of sustainability, especially when applied to fisheries management

With the GBR research once again you question the integrity of any researcher who doesn't tow the marine park line. No I did/do not. What researcher with decades of experience has not had something to do with commercial fishing? many, but that’s beside the point How does this disqualify their work? nasty, I did not say the work was invalid, I praised the researcher in question and pointed out that results from his various studies have been interpreted as both in support and against the fisheries effectiveness of MPAs for coral trout You said that some of the studies I mentioned were quoted to justify the GBRMP. No, I did not, though it is true that they were 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. Are you reading what I am saying? MPAs are not about single species fisheries management. So you say that coral trout are plentiful and not at all over fished (not so sure of this) yet there are still better numbers and larger individuals in protected areas. Is this not evidence that they work?

The figure that 42% of anglers in the GBR region gave up fishing because of the Park came from a Qld Government survey . Would need to see this to believe it 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. I would like to learn more about this survey you refer too and would be interested in info regarding Qld compensation payouts if you could provide it

You state that the Parks are designed on a representative basis covering all types of habitats No, I said this is the stated aim of Govt., well this is simply not the case. Unfortunately this has on occasion been true 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. I have heard this accusation and counter claims before and am as yet unconvinced that this is indeed the case

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. Would be interested to hear themI 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. I too noted the seeming overrepresentation of rocky reef habitat in two of the NSW park zoning plans I had time to look at, these are the issues you should be addressing rather than opposing MPAs outright. Maybe I could even help you in arguning re zoning of reef areas in particular, there are other potential solutions

*http://www.ffc.org.au/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=32

Edited by Sweep
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to state that opposing marine parks because of a perception that they are a Green party idea is crazy, Both Liberal and Labor Governments have proposed and supported MPAs in Australia. Even Bush Jr has recently declared the biggest MPA in the world - it is not only governments known for their environmental policies that support this idea. I really doubt that the MPA process would be that different in NSW under a Lib Govt.

Sweep, I didn't say that Marine Parks were an idea of the Greens, because as most of us here in NSW know, there have been small pockets of marine sanctuary areas in place for some years now.

However, the Greens, and the extremists groups (NCC, Wilderness Society, NPA etc) that are behind them are responsible for pushing the current form of MPA's that are being put in place along the NSW coastline. The format, placement, and extent of those proposed parks was used as a bargaining chip by the NSW Labour party to secure the Green preferences.

The lack of research and proper community consultation throughout this process shows the level of contempt the current Government are showing towards recreational anglers. Locking recreational anglers out of large areas of water with no clear evidence that we are doing any damage makes no sense whatsoever, and is more than likely the reason our DPI minister refuses to discuss the issue in any way, shape or form.

Regarding your call for proof, there are no studies done that I am aware of that focus on NSW waters in regard to MPAs - Would have been hard to research something that did not exist. I know its a bit lame just to turn it around but can you point to any NSW studies that support your view? - nil all

There is not a single fish species in NSW that is targeted by recreational anglers that is deemed to be under threat. That is the view of NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries), and it is backed by their research.

Based on that research, and a healthy dose of common sense, I say that MPA sanctuary zones are completely unjustified as far as recreational fishing is concerned.

Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yoda, you make a good point, which I agree with - most rec fishers don't oppose marine parks. Clearly a proportion of NSW fishers disagree with the zoning and I am increasingly inclined to agree. [Note that I never declared support for NSW zoning, ever, I simply support the concept of Marine Parks from a conservation perpective] My point is that groups like $%^&* and individuals on this forum should be opposing the aspects of MPAs they disagree with rather than opposing MPAs in general.

Finally, a consensus, yes, that is exactly the case, I'm sure that the concept of MPAs is broadly supported by all, the aspects of opposition are related to the zonings, no take zones in particular.

Yoda, what are these efforts to undermine fishos conservation efforts to which you refer, I don't understand.

Opposition to stocking waterways with fingerlings is one, there are many more.

Regarding your call for proof, there are no studies done that I am aware of that focus on NSW waters in regard to MPAs - Would have been hard to research something that did not exist. I know its a bit lame just to turn it around but can you point to any NSW studies that support your view? - nil all

But there is comments from NSW DPI fisheries scientists that "no rec. targetted species is in decline or under threat and fisheries are being sustainably managed". The CSIRO states:

“the benefits of sanctuary zones are theoretical and have not been demonstrated in practice”.

The effect of closed areas needs to be monitored and evaluated on an experimental basis before even considering their broad scale application.

Quote: Ray Hillborn, fisheries biologist, University of Washington,

"It is being argued that reserves will protect both biodiversity and increase fish yields, but scientific data used to support these claims have internal biases. First, the protected areas used in the research were almost certainly selected for protection because of their higher productivity – thus making comparisons with outside areas unfair – and, second, the effort that was excluded from the protected areas would have been redircted to the unprotected areas. Together these factors frustrate attempts to measure the effects of the closures. In short, most studies have no rigorous control sites – that is, fished sites that are otherwise equivalent to closed areas – against which to evaluate reserves.

My gut feeling is that we should probably go ahead and lock up a good portion of the sea, but not pretend like it will benefit fisherman."

Yoda, saying that what I have written is lies is counterproductive and basically not nice, my opinions are not lies.

Sorry to infer you are lying, I should say I do not agree with your opinion, the way I see it is a lot of the things you say seem to be the same stuff we are hearing from the extreme green anti fishing machine, with no proof of benefit, just the same rhetoric.

Ian, 98% of inshore reef locked up? I think its more like %50 right? I can't help but agree that this is excessive. Yoda the moving the pink bits strategy is the one I would take, did you follow this up? So the %20 of each park no take thing is something that the MPA managers wont budge on? (note this is a lot less than the marine conservation scientists are calling for) Then make sure that you have access to %80 of inshore reef to fish rather than trying futilely to scuttle the huge conservation inititive that is Marine Parks.

Many rec fishers feel that the consultation process was used to reveal all the best fish agregation sites to include them in NTZs, Port Stephens Marine Park has 1468ha of Intermediate reef habitat (20-60m,) 708ha or 48% of of that is earmarked for NTZs

This is a gross overrepresentation and also happens to be the the habitat favoured by rec fishers.

The Byron Bay NTZs engulf the entire inshore reefs.

I think Marine Park managers are more likely to be receptive to pro MPA rec fishers arguing for fair access than anti MPA fundamentalists opposing the whole process.

While there exists a determined politically powerful anti fishing oriented lobby group, there is a very real need for a just as determined opposing power to try to keep them in check, I think that if these groups had their way there would be no recreational fishing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

Nice to see the adversarial tone mellowing, my apologies for my contribution to making this an argument not a discussion.

It is my understanding that the Greens are actually arguing for a completely different framework for marine parks than the multiple use model adopted by NSW. They argue for marine parks like the Victorian system where there are no zonings within parks and they are all no take. Due to the location of the Vic parks (not directly next to popular rec fishing ports) they have been relatively well received. That the greens are lobbying in NSW I do not doubt, that they are getting exactly what they want is not the case.

“There is not a single fish species in NSW that is targeted by recreational anglers that is deemed to be under threat. That is the view of NSW Department of Primary Industries (Fisheries), and it is backed by their research. Based on that research, and a healthy dose of common sense, I say that MPA sanctuary zones are completely unjustified as far as recreational fishing is concerned.”

I do not believe that all fisheries are being managed sustainably from an ecosystem perspective or that the NSW fisheries would tell us if they were not (can’t expect them to be ones to tell us if they are not doing their job properly). Regardless the idea of the no take zones is not to manage individual fish species (targeted by recs or not) it is to manage the whole marine ecosystem. Saying rec fishing has no impact* is just burying your head in the sand, I freely admit that rec fishing is not the biggest threat to marine ecosystems, not by a long shot, that doesn’t mean it should be ignored. That sanctuary zones are unjustified in terms of rec fishing only is not the point, sanctuary zones are justified in terms of the precautionary principle and conserving habitat and species for the future.

Yoda,

Consensus, really? Yay! Glad that we are getting somewhere. Campaigning against MPAs in general is not justified and gives rec fishos a bad name. Campaigning against park zonings that do not give fishos a fair go – I’m right there with you.

Re. stocking – this can have negative effects on genetic diversity of stocked species and negative ecosystem effects (ie population structure issues). Surely a healthy ecosystem with plenty of fish is the goal rather than one that has to be managed by expensive and ecologically risky stocking. That said I do support some impoundment stocking with native species, stocking of natural waterways is a last resort that will rarely find support from me as a marine biologist.

What other things were you referring to? I really don’t think the majority of environmental groups are anti fishing (I am involved with one that is pro fishing – www.ffc.org.au) . There are extremists though who are anti fishing or anti any restriction on fishing at all, there are always extremists.

The CSIRO states:

“the benefits of sanctuary zones are theoretical and have not been demonstrated in practice”.

Would like to be able to put this quote in context please (ref?). I will say that there have been demonstrated benefits from MPAs but there are so few that have been around long enough for proper study and so little funding for the studies (which must generally use expensive methodologies to get useful results) that there is not the amount of evidence of benefit (or otherwise) around that we would like. Also I have not yet read any research that indicated negative environmental consequences from MPAs.

Ray Hilborn succinctly sums up one of the problems with MPA research. I am surprised you used his quote though as he clearly stated he thinks sanctuary zones are a good idea despite the unavailability of research data.

I do think there will be fishery benefits from MPAs and sanctuary zones but these will be in the form of maintained ecosystem resilience/diversity and protection of population structures not in the form of magically increased catches, though over time I do think that catches will be more stable and in some cases higher than if they are not implemented. MPAs are not a fishery management tactic to increase fish catches they will help ensure that there are catches still many years down the track.

I actually agree with you that inshore reef habitat is over represented in the Byron and Pt Stephens MPA Sanc zones, especially in terms of the CAR system used in zoning justification. Are there any other specific examples of zoning you are unhappy with (or support)?.

* a no impact fishing trip would be one where you did not contact the water, did not use bait and did not get a bite or catch a fish or lose any tackle etc. I agree that fishing can be low impact and sustainably managed. I think that some sanctuary areas should be part of this management. I also think that rec fishing only areas should be too and note there is no provision for this in NSW or SA MPA planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray Hilborn succinctly sums up one of the problems with MPA research. I am surprised you used his quote though as he clearly stated he thinks sanctuary zones are a good idea despite the unavailability of research data.

I've used this quote to show that future investigations of NTZs in areas which have had no "before" studies done will have inherent biases, and would not give an accurate evaluation of the success of NTZs, My interpretation Hillborn's comments is; well there is no real proof that NTZs work but we should do it anyway and not say that it will be good for fish stocks. Isn't that exactly what many proponents are spruiking, that it will lead to increases in fish stocks.

I see no benefit in squashing fishers into smaller areas, this can only increase pressure in those areas and ultimately lead to calls for these areas to be protected as well.

Edited by Yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good to see you back here posting Sweep, I think there needs to be some alternate views to this debate for it to be worthwile. Not too many park advocates are prepared to share thier views on a rec fishing site.

Sweep and i have had a few 'to & fro's' at ffc and we dont see eye to eye on this debate, but I value his opinion as an alternate view we need to have.

:biggrin2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saying rec fishing has no impact* is just burying your head in the sand, I freely admit that rec fishing is not the biggest threat to marine ecosystems, not by a long shot, that doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

That sanctuary zones are unjustified in terms of rec fishing only is not the point, sanctuary zones are justified in terms of the precautionary principle and conserving habitat and species for the future.

Who said anything about rec fishing not having an impact? Surely no one would be silly enough to think that we are not having some sort of impact on the fish. My point is that that impact does not justify us being locked out of fishing areas on a permanent basis. The fact is that no political party, or environmental group has the scientific evidence needed to convince me that sanctuary "no take" zones are justified where recreational fishing is concerned.

If rec fishing is having such an adverse effect on the marine environment, how is it that the fishing in Lake Macquarie, and other designated recreational fishing havens (RFHs) in NSW, is the best it has been for many years. Not only that, but the Minister has already stated on a number of occassions that no RFHs will be subjected to sanctuary zones!

How can they say that, and not expect us to be very suspicious when we are locked out of other areas altogether. Are our practises somehow less damaging in the RFH than they are elsewhere? :wacko: I don't think so.

Like I have said previously, if someone can show me competent, well researched evidence that a lock out zone is necessary then it will get my support.

At this point in time, all I have seen is dodgy research papers from closet environmental groups, and fluffy personal opinions that we should just let the parks go ahead because someone thinks its the right thing to do.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one Sweep.

Shane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Empty Ocean - Empty Nets report. My opinions are my own, I was not aware of the NNC 'line' I would be interested to know where this is published as I am not aware of any other another responses to the UBC rebuttal paper, I wonder If they borrowed mine without crediting me?, probably not as anyone who could read and understand both papers would agree that that is the case. BTW was it you who brought the paper to my attention in the first place*

Well Sweep I think I can read and understand as well as anyone else. The Empty Oceans - Empty Nets report did not make any general conclusion but made four recommendations:

1. Reduce latent effort (rarely used fishing licences);

2. Phase out trawling and passive line methods (except for whiting);

3. Set a total allowable catch for whiting of 600 tonnes per year; and

4. Close 20% of each bioregion to fishing.

The UBC commented on each recommendation and it doesn't sound like they were agreeing to me (I will abreviate it a bit but I will cover all their points, refer to page 10 of their report)

1. Agree that reduction of latent effort should be reduced as much as possible in input controlled fisheries. They acknowledge that the NSW DPI has already made efforts in this direction. Also the Commonwealth gov., responsible for most of the deepwater fisheries has anounced a restructure of its fisheries which should see a reduction of fishing effort and improved management.

2. Agree that trawling can be potentially destructive. Do not agree the claim that trawling removes larval fish as they pass through the mesh and are often spatially separate from the adults. Localised studies and evaluation should be done on the extent of trawling in NSW before such a broad and costly recommendation is made. Public opinion should be involved as much of the states fresh seafood comes from trawling and line fishing.

3. Not clear which species of whiting the report refers to (assume the school whiting). The authors cite no source for their recommendation. The UBC views the recommendation baseless.

4. Marine protected areas are cited as a precautionary management method. Their effacy will be determined by a wide range of localised factors, particularly the degree to which fish move and the spatial structure of fish populations. MPA's will be more effective if they have the support of the community. Blanket recommendations for the areas to be protected are therefore meaningless. The size and location of closures should be determined on a case by case basis if costly, unpopular and ineffective protected areas are to be avoided.

They concluded that general concerns for sustainability should not be obscured by value-laden rhetoric masquerading as science. Talk is cheap.

To sum up they concluded:

We recommend that the Pew Charitable Trust withdraw this report from any further mailings and publish a statement recognising the ill-informed and misleading nature of the arguments presented in the report.

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. Are you reading what I am saying? MPAs are not about single species fisheries management. So you say that coral trout are plentiful and not at all over fished (not so sure of this) yet there are still better numbers and larger individuals in protected areas. Is this not evidence that they work?

No Sweep it is not evidence the SZ's work. I pointed out the the increase is slight and not as large as differences between seasons and between regions. Also I failed to mention that in this study the most productive reef with most and largest trout was the most heavily fished one! Also zero human impact is not a legitimate goal and is a misuse of the precautionary principle.

You also criticise these studies because they focus one one species and not the whole ecosystem. Some studies looked at red emperor as well. We are talking about fishing bans so it makes sense to focus on the main target species, any impact of fishing on the ecosystem is likely to show up on these species first. It is just good scientific practice to design the study with clear objectives and results which can be measured. An over ambitious study is not likely to give meaningful results. Even then the Mapstone study took 14 years to carry out.

You doubt that the GBR is productive and not overfished. Well most of it is naturally a SZ and was likely to remain that way without the costly and unpopular MP. Its adjacent coastline is sparsely populated, the reef is a long way offshore and the weather is often bad. The commercial line fishery was tightly controlled. The harvest of reef fish was 17kg/km2. This was 1% of what is regarded as sustainable in other coral reefs. Are you saying that the GBR is naturally a 100 times less productive than these overseas reefs?

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to state that opposing marine parks because of a perception that they are a Green party idea is crazy, Both Liberal and Labor Governments have proposed and supported MPAs in Australia. Even Bush Jr has recently declared the biggest MPA in the world - it is not only governments known for their environmental policies that support this idea. I really doubt that the MPA process would be that different in NSW under a Lib Govt.

Yoda, you make a good point, which I agree with - most rec fishers don't oppose marine parks. Clearly a proportion of NSW fishers disagree with the zoning and I am increasingly inclined to agree. [Note that I never declared support for NSW zoning, ever, I simply support the concept of Marine Parks from a conservation perpective] My point is that groups like $%^&* and individuals on this forum should be opposing the aspects of MPAs they disagree with rather than opposing MPAs in general.

I think Marine Park managers are more likely to be receptive to pro MPA rec fishers arguing for fair access than anti MPA fundamentalists opposing the whole process.

Sweep you say we should oppose the zonings we object to and not MP's in general. Well thats a subtle point considering that these parks have already been established and the form of these parks in NSW and QLD is so anti-angling and user unfriendly. Also given that our submission are totally ignored or even used against us (ie the locking up of areas of value to anglers). Not to mention the lack of scientific justification.

There is a difference between the parties on the MP issue. The NSW Coalition is sympathetic to anglers concerns and the lack of community consultation and promise to immediately review all zonings on gaining office. They will also remove responsibility for MP's from the Dep. of the Environment and put it under the Dep. of Primary Industries.

If anyone is a fundamentalist it is you. You still can't say why anglers have to be locked out of large areas of the environment. This is a total misuse of the precautionary principle. When we ask why can't anglers fish where we used to you argument just amounts to "Well you just can't, thats why!".

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweep'

No Mate it is actually 98.5% locked up of all inshore reef in the Byron park . Just have a look at the MPA's own documents and that is what they show.

Even if it was 50% ,that still makes a lie of the 27.5% bullshit we hear of representative areas.

Sick of lies !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

World renown coral reef researcher, Walter Starck has provided $%^&* with this reference:

The following is a quote from SUSTAINING THE WET TROPICS: A regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 2A, Condition Report: Biodiversity Conservation, Rainforest CRC 2004 by Nigel Weston and Steve Goosem:

"Many species are long-lived and recruitment of new juveniles varies markedly from year to year. Thus, when a particular year has an unusually high recruitment event, that age-class can dominate the population. It is a feature of reef fish populations that they decline slowly over time, but increase rapidly after a good recruitment season. These slow declines and rapid increases are not synchronised between species because good recruitment seasons happen in different years for different species and may be widely separated.

Juvenile recruitment pulses (as described above) can also dramatically affect the stock size on both closed and open reefs.

Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout."

"A major problem with interpreting results from most studies that have compared open and closed reefs is that studies did not quantify the actual amount of fishing pressure on reefs.

Available catch, effort and catch per unit effort data are variable from year to year, but show no consistent trends at a regional scale."

Starck has also provided the following remarks:

"The claim that the first good year for coral trout recruitment following the new closures is attributable to the closures is, if not dubious scientific judgement, deliberately misleading. This is especially so in the absence of any assessment of fishing effort or catch. Those responsible should be required to explain why they are not either incompetent or guilty of scientific misconduct."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

my comments in red

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.

The management of our marine waters as a commons is outdated and destined for disaster. This statement is not supported by any facts, it is a blatantly misleading generalisation. 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. Exactly, you hit the nail on the head and really a large amount of what follows is made redundant by this statement. 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. . . . and we're not ??? 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? It is not a fear mate it is a fact ! If this is the case why the anti parks talk? Most (all?) of us are not anti park & to say so shows ignorance of our oft stated view. The vast majority of fishos would support parks which were PROVEN to be necessary to protect species &/or habitats. 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). Take a look at Botany Bay. The ban on commercial fishing has seen an improvement in fish numbers despite continued dredging, containerport & airport impact, & a huge amount of recreational fishing

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? No, if there is a decline trend then it is clearly not sustainable. If it can be maintaineed at a reduced level then that is possibly acceptable. To expect that man can survive on this earth without impacting upon the environment is naive. We are part of the ecosystem not observers. 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? No, but quite possibly pointless at the expense of those who wish to share that environment Probably not but the fear is that the restriction will be in your ‘backyard’ or favourite spot. I, and many others, would find this statement offensive. It implies that fishos are self interested & in my experience this is not the case. The concernes that I have heard raised from local fishos are the same as those raised by other informed persons. 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).

This is not the time to argue about the comparative impacts of rec vs commercial fishing. Why not ? it is clear that commercial fishing has much more impact than rec fishing. I disagree with lumping commercial & recreational fishing together - there is a vast difference in impact & from a political point of view . 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. Let's stick with facts not slogans . 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.

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 No I'm afraid there is just as much evidence to question spillover as there is to support it. and also evidence of the effectiveness of spatial management for more mobile species. Even less to support this theory 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. Hello !, how many times do you need to be told, most fishos are not against MPA's !!! They just want properly conducted research, proven scientific evidence and consultation to support them before accepting them. It is not hard for this to be done properly, in which case recommendations for MPAs will be accepted by the majority. It is aso widely known that MPA's & other impositions have been the result of trade in preferences between the major parties & the greens - this stinks & no one should be expected to accept any restrictions on their liberties on this basis.

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. I think your imaginery headline is a bit Freudian in that it reveals your real opinions of the fishing majority .

Happy to debate the point with anybody but personal attacks and unfounded assertions there are plenty of these in your statements 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

I buy a few new fishings magazines every month and read them in bed before I go to sleep, most other nights I read old issues of the same magazines, every now and then I come across some articles which trigger feelings of deja-vu, take this extract from an article in Modern Fishing October 2001 in relation to the expansion of Sanctuary zones in the SIMP:

"As an example of the MPA's arrogance, they recently called for public comment on proposed changes to the park. The process is laughingly referred to as "Community Consultation". Well ,the public commented all right, but it became obvious that their input was completely ignored when the Draft Zoning Plan recently came to light. And how do we know the public was railroaded? Well, the hard working Coff's region Anglers Action Group accessed the public comment papers through the FOI act. After analysis it was revealed that only 9% of submissions endorsed the proposed changes, 8% were unclear on their direction and a staggering 83% of submissions rejected any changes to the status quo.

Community Consultation my rear end! The MPA totally disregarded the public's opinions"

Sound familiar. Seems the MPA's interpretation of "Consultation" is a little bit different to everone else. The methodology has been the same regarding consultation ever since, Just look what they did after "consultation" at Byron Bay.

It's time for the public to stand up for themselves. Or this is just going to go on and on and on and eventually fisherfolk will be extinct.

Edited by Yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, wow.

What an overwhelming response. To most of you I say Hi and thanks for posting your opinions. To those of you who are cutting and pasting arguments regarding coral trout or University of British Columbia editorials etc. please start other threads with this stuff and desist from (completley untrue*) statements like "You also criticise these studies because they focus one one species and not the whole ecosystem." and "You doubt that the GBR is productive and not overfished" to preface bringing in your well practiced 'counter arguments' to statements I never made.

I will try to reply to you all as soon as possible.

:1fishing1::1welcomeani::05:

:beersmile::tease::1prop:

* do you guys read my posts? persistantly you ascribe statements or opinions to be that I have never stated or held.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sweep, I will reply any way I like. I quote researchers with decades of field experience, you come back with motherhood preservationist statements and silly semantic arguments about what you did or didn't say.

PS: I think you need to re-read your posts too. I'll use one of your examples:

I said: "you criticise these studies because they focus on on species and not the whole ecosystem".

Did you not say in response to the coral trout study: "Are you reading what I am saying, MP's are not about single species management."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, wow.

What an overwhelming response. To those of you who are cutting and pasting arguments regarding coral trout or University of British Columbia editorials etc.

Well, wow, It seems that your ever present feeling of superiority seems to have taken a blow, why should we not be cutting and pasting the opinions of world experts in the field, this is not a thesis, it is a public argument, any resource to reinforce that argument is fair and right and should be used to it's full extent to expose the truth, or is truth secondary in this theatre, I would rather be right and of lesser intellect than be wrong and trying to lord my opinion by using my misguided feelings of superiority. Our few supporters within the ranks of the Marine Science field who do not feel that thay have to tow the popular line as they have already proven their expertise are the very few real truthsayers that exist in this field as they have no need to produce misinformation to advance their careers and we will use this minimal but honest scientific resource to its full extent.

Edited by Yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been some articles in the media recently regarding a press release from the Australian Institute of Marine Science regarding Coral Trout and Stripey Perch on the Great Barrier Reef, $%^&* has been in contact with Walter Starck, who is a World renowned coral reef researcher and has more than 15 years experience on the Great Barrier Reef.

Walter Starck has provided $%^&* with this reference:

The following is a quote from SUSTAINING THE WET TROPICS: A regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 2A, Condition Report: Biodiversity Conservation, Rainforest CRC 2004 by Nigel Weston and Steve Goosem:

"Many species are long-lived and recruitment of new juveniles varies markedly from year to year. Thus, when a particular year has an unusually high recruitment event, that age-class can dominate the population. It is a feature of reef fish populations that they decline slowly over time, but increase rapidly after a good recruitment season. These slow declines and rapid increases are not synchronised between species because good recruitment seasons happen in different years for different species and may be widely separated.

Juvenile recruitment pulses (as described above) can also dramatically affect the stock size on both closed and open reefs.

Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout."

"A major problem with interpreting results from most studies that have compared open and closed reefs is that studies did not quantify the actual amount of fishing pressure on reefs.

Available catch, effort and catch per unit effort data are variable from year to year, but show no consistent trends at a regional scale."

Starck has also provided the following remarks:

"The claim that the first good year for coral trout recruitment following the new closures is attributable to the closures is, if not dubious scientific judgement, deliberately misleading. This is especially so in the absence of any assessment of fishing effort or catch. Those responsible should be required to explain why they are not either incompetent or guilty of scientific misconduct."

Edited by Yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any scientist who can prove the benefits of closures of fishing areas conclusively is going to get some serious brownie points, in other words some serious funding, so it is in their best interest to produce the results which are in the advancement of the MPA, so in my opinion there is a swathe of junior scientists out there who are trying to prove the benefits of no take zones, and any report that they can edit to their advantage they are going to pursue. Really, if a young scientist were to say, well, hang on I do not really agree, I think that the fish stocks are OK, well that brilliant junior scientist would be next to Lazy Larry in the dole queue the next day.

My argument is that there must be at least 1000's of sanctuary zones worldwide now and the most conclusive evidence that they work is limited to a few reports, 1 quotes Blackfish on the south coast, highly dubious due to the nature of blackfish schooling habits, another quotes Jackass Morwong, now any fisherman knows that this species is not a fish which will take a hooked bait, and they are not palatable anyway, another quotes a remote reef in the Phillipines which was previously fished with dynamite and the only species mentioned was one Chiccilid species, and now comes the report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science which I dealt with in my previous post, any fisho will attest to the dynamic nature of fish populations, I am surprised that the greenies are not attributing the current explosion in Leatherjacket and Salmon populations on the east coast to sanctuary zones. Sweep, you can quote some more if you like and I will attempt to get the real information on them as well, but you can see what I am getting at.

Edited by Yoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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