This has been reinforced by advertising on television > Professor Jessica Meeuwig was the Author?

well worth doing.

Fishing isn't a matter of life or death, it's much more serious than that!!!

 for future generations to see our beautiful fish and all marine life.

SPEWIE LEWIE

Cockburn Power Boat Member

The devil is in the detail.

I'm all for conservation etc, but as has been discussed on many occassions in many forums, I hope this is done with a cool assessment, not an emotive knee jerk or an 'easy solution to doing something'.

I'll be VERY interested if this has an impact on the South Coast Bioregion as this has been largely unscathed in the recent range of changes (mainly to do with WCB initiatives).

Colin Molloy

RECFISHWEST Member

(Colin 2 - Co-founding member of the prestigious Colin Club)

I'm with you Dreamweaver,

I believe in conservation but I hope here we are not going to see the minority groups speak the loudest and have their own way...?

I'm all for more marine sanctuaries, but will us as fisherman have a say, or more to the point, will we be listened to?

What are the 9 of 10 species? What research has been done to varify these species need marine sanctuaries because they are under threat?

I only take what I need and release a lot of fish, ever trying to reduce barotrauma. Unfortunately I know a lot of fishers don't , and this is what will altermately threaten our unique species! Maybe we still need a better educational program on the protection of these species?

Blue Sky! Blue Water! BLUETONIC

Haven't seen the TV advertisements, but that link is for

The feds led by the baldie garret , were going to do wonders for the whales down south until the japs told him to piss off. So off he ran to his other weak mate and all they could do for the poor buggers was beg to disagree with the japanesse govt.,[ They were going to send in the navy before the last election] So Peter, his green and academic mates should sort this major issue out before starting on us and protecting the feeding ground of the the poor old blue whale..What about the wrest of them

he may have known his way around the bush but he should never have taken W.A. into Federation - we are just a cash cow for the rest of the country and somewhere N.S.W. crims hide out. Peter Garret is one of the most useless time wasters in Federal Parliament - but unfortunately he can dictate with the best of them.

You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.

Who else has the time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?

Support Recfishwest http://www.recfishwest.org.au

it may be a good idea, we all know that its not the serious fishos that deplenish stocks but from what ive seen metro land based fishing has really suffered from the population growth and the lack of fisheries enforcing the rules, after launching at cockburn sound and returning with a bucket full of snapper(all Legal) the fisheries didn't even ask were we caught them even though the sound was closed, as much as it will cause contraversy maybe the implementation of a recreational fishing licence might be the go. They have been on the east for several years and ive seen personally the difference that it has made it only costs approx$20 a year which is less than a deccent lure, but they reinvest the money into the fisheries with advertising, restocking and policeing the poachers that do us all harm,( I have seen brand new 7m boats and land cruisers confiscated buy fisheries targeting abalone poachers, how many got away with undersized or over catch limits this season. if this legislation is passed we all need to think about how we protect OUR fish stocks for the futre, sorry guys I really hate pollitics but this is a topic that im sure is close to all our hearts. Tight lines

as far as Fisheries Officers, would like to know why they closed the Fisheries Office in Jurien Bay.. Bob and I went to Jurien Bay January 09 to do some shopping and Bob wanted the up to date regs for dhuie's snapper etc and the bloody office was closed.  Notice stated please ring Perth for any queries.  Who the hell is looking after and checking catches in Green Head, Leeman etc. Who's looking and checking the pros cray catchs? Looks like its open slather for the illegal fishers? I know its got nothing to do with the comments at hand but how the hell do the fish stocks survive when there's no Fishery Officers to check catches whether crays or fish.  We could have brought in anything in the two days we fished, nobody home.

Are they (Fisheries) coming from Geraldton (don't know if they have office in Gerry Town) or Perth?

SPEWIE LEWIE

Cockburn Power Boat Member

Listened to this Professor Jessica Meeuwig on talk back radio the other day and I think we should all be very alert on what this mob plan to do! I have stated before that I am all for marine sanctuaries and a "Fish for the future" attitude but from what I can gather is UWA's Centre for Marine Futures, combined with some other very powerful organisations plan to not have pocket sanctuaries but a complete 'No Fish!" zone from the Abrolhos incorporating the Perth Canyon right round to Albany. Don't believe me? I urge everyone to do some more research on this because this topic is very big on a lot of other sites and unless we all get the true facts,... the minority voice will win again because they are speaking the loudest!

There is no scientific evidence in this report at all and quotes like below are designed to get people worried about our environment and onboard!

"The report, written by Australian Conservation Foundation marine campaign co-ordinator Chris Smyth, found big marine sanctuaries would also buffer the impact of climate change, which would be felt along the ecologically important 5500km Leeuwin Current.
The report said marine sanctuaries would boost the region’s $3 billion marine-based tourism industry".

How does this impact on climate change?

How much money does recreational fishing contribute to the region?

Don't think Peter Garrett will help us here! Recreational and commercial fisherman need to combine here and  become a very loud voice!

I'm very concerned!

Blue Sky! Blue Water! BLUETONIC

Please all read the attached document, of particular interest is Chapter 4 onwards.

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/south-west/pubs/sw-profile-full.pdf

Blue Sky! Blue Water! BLUETONIC

Thanks for that link. I'll endeavour to digest that document (hey, it's only 193 pages , but take off the nice pics - but then, there's all the external/peripheral refrred to/linked stuff

It gets a bit confusing when the State and Federal Bioregions don't concide - but (and Terry correct me if my recollection is incorrect here) - there's a diliniation beased on distance from the coast?

Colin Molloy

RECFISHWEST Member

(Colin 2 - Co-founding member of the prestigious Colin Club)

State/Commonwealth Marine Boundary



Colin.



Will wave to you on our way to Bluff Creek today. Lots more reading for you.



State boundary to 3 nautical miles with islands complicating some areas.



The "Save Our Marine Life" campaign has a website http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/ with a copy of the TV advertisement presented by Jessica Meeuwig.



Some emotive stuff on this website, and some of the detail would be misleading.



Website has the Media Release: Major new collaboration formed to secure future of WA’s marine life  http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/file.php?file=/ournews.html



The full "Big Blue Backyard" report is on http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/file.php?file=/findoutmore.html



It's a mixture of enormous emotive images (some cuddly, some not cuddly) and small text, formatted for printing on an A3 or larger printer, just to make things easy.



Then there's the "science" in the the Marine Futures research website.  Watch the size of the dounloads. Full details im http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/fb.asp?m=212117



TerryF

=====

Beavering away in the background.......

I have the day "off" (apparently, my wife's definition of that is me mowing 1500 sqm of lawns ), so I'll try and look up as you go past.

Thanks for the expedient confirmation/clarification. Just read (page 19 of 208) 'The Region is bounded inshore by the inshore by the outer limit of the State waters jurisdictional boundary (which general extends out to three nautical miles from the territorial sea baseline...

It's a mixture of enormous emotive images (some cuddly, some not cuddly) and small text, formatted for printing on an A3 or larger printer, just to make things easy.

Then there's the "science"...

It's the emotive content that has me unsettled, I guess, at best, it's to solicit interest and engagement (but by whom?) , at worst....well, I'll let everyone draw their own conclusions.

TERRY - if you are passing, pop in for a cuppa - PM sent!

Colin Molloy

RECFISHWEST Member

(Colin 2 - Co-founding member of the prestigious Colin Club)

Less than 1% of no fishing restriction (sanctuary zoning) is not very much dont you think? surely it could increase without destroying our fishing quality of life? It would actually increase my fishing quality of life knowing that i can take fish from here, knowing that the ones over there are protected. I might also catch more because there is a certain population allowed to feed and breed unmolested by us.

It should always be remembered that you can fish in marine parks, they are not something to be scared of in regards to a percieved loss of access for fishing - take Ningaloo for an example. The whole west coast up there is a marine park, but it is a mecca for fishos. Likewise Jurien, Shark Bay, etc, etc.

Within the marine parks are (usually) sanctuary zones, where you cant fish. These are not just there to protect fish stocks. They are there to protect the overall ecological integrity of that area. Fish are but one important part of that ecology - people on both sides of the fence shouldn't be talking about this issue in terms of fish stock conservation/protection - we have fisheries legislation and a fisheries department to do that - an issue which has been raised well in posts above - we need more and better fishery management to solve our impending overfishing problem.

But being the largest, most visible and economically important bunch of animals out there - it always seems to come back to the fish. Actually I would argue the 'economically important' bit there - the primary producers, base of the food chain, and every other species in between the base and the apex (fish) are equally, if not more important in terms of economics.

Which is the point of marine parks and sanctuaries - to preserve the whole system in as much of an unaltered state as possible. Having more and bigger fish in the area is one consequence of a large enough and enforced sanctuary zone, but other consequences include (amongst many others) the maintenance of a balanced ecosystem structure, where prey species dont over-dominate as a result of predators being fished out. For example, in other places (I dont know of ay particular research that indicates this in WA yet), it has been found that the removal of predators such as coral trout, cod/groper and sharks leads to large increases in populations of prey fish like parrotfish, which then chomp down the coral much more, which changes the reef structure, algae can then grow more instead of coral and the reef changes. Where sanctuary zones have been in place (and enforced - very important point!! and very pertinent to the argument here in WA) for a number of years, there are more and bigger predators in the zones and also in the immediate areas around them - better fishing!!

But the sanctuary zones have to be big enough to allow numerous different populations and habitats to be able to do their thing under protection - i.e. eat and breed. Being a very difficult part of the world to research, requiring huge sums of money and very specific expertise, we are never likely know enough about our species to know exactly how big they need to be - it becomes a judgement based on the best advice available.

The thing is that the oceans are commons - for arguments sake there are essentially no fences or property boundaries out there, everyone just does their thing where they want to - this is both the best thing and the worst thing about it. Going out to the ocean/coast represents freedom. Freedom in the face of growing populations and technology equates to massive pressure on the ecology of the area. The response to that pressure is to reduce the freedoms through fishery regulation and marine park establishment with sanctuary zones.

So is then becomes a negotiation, which becomes political. Fish and their habitats can't speak up for themselves, so it comes down to limited science/research being interpreted by planners, who then negotiate with rec fishers, of course, as well as commercial fishos, oil and gas industry, port industries, aquculturalists, solar salt farms, wave/tide energy operators, cement sand miners, etc, etc. You get the picture. Everyone knows exactly how much money and jobs etc are involved in exploiting a particular area, but no-one can quantify what it is worth to be protected.

So the argument is inherently biased in a political world - dont for one second think that the conservation lobby is powerful!!! Certainly not in the face of fishing and mining and so on.

I hate to see it go emotive from either side - it just raises hackles and starts an ideological war. The real issue is much simpler - areas need to be protected from exploitation to keep the ecology going as it has evolved to do. It is in everyones interest to do this. There must be give and take in the negotiation, but it must be recognised by all involved that there must be sanctuary zones and they must be reasonably large. There must be research conducted to find out where and how big they need to be, but if it doesnt exist that should not stop marine reservation going ahead based on the best available information and a precautionary approach, mixed with common sense.

Zoning based on best science will almost always result in sanctuary zones that end up being reduced in size from what is required, and moved from where they are required, to accomodate human uses.

There will never be a no-fish zone from Abrolhos to Albany - not a government on the planet would implement it, and not a sensible conservation group would propose it. Think of the amount of money that comes from fishing in this area. But I hope there will be some no fishing areas, which includes places where you cant fish for dhuies, snapper, etc at all, ever. Much better than 3-month bans, or lottery bag limits, or releasing barotraumered fish.

Hopefully any of these processes allow plenty of opportunity for everyone to be involved - some of the best conservationists are wise and informed fishers (rec and commercial) - after all, we cant fish for things that arent out there any more. And a more consultative process fosters more acceptance, and thus less reliance on enforcement.

The fight for more protection, and more involvement in decision making should be targetted at the politicians, not at other stakeholders such as the conservation lobby.

I dare you to look at the Liberal party's marine environmental policy. Actually - if you can find one, I'd be interested in reading it!

Cheers,

Ewan