Diving v fishing - damage caused?
Submitted by scottywiper on Tue, 2011-10-18 09:33
Not only is that a blatantly misleading comment on the state of fish stocks, that smacks of an industry simply wanting more of the ocean to itself for obvious financial and personal reasons. Why share the ocean when you don't want or have to? Standard playground child mentality.
Sadly for the person involved, there is research that shows that anchor damage is one of he major problems for coral reefs around the world so if there are sanctuary zones, it is obvious that diving must go.
Papers on this:
Lamb and Willis, 2010. "Using Coral Disease Prevalence to Assess the Effects of Concentrating Tourism Activities on Offshore Reefs in a Tropical Marine Park" says “Coral diseases were 15 times more prevalent at reefs with tourism platforms.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … x/abstract
Scuba diver behaviour and the
management of diving impacts on coral
reefs
Nola H. L. Barker, and Callum M. Roberts
“Coral reefs worldwide are attracting increasing numbers of scuba divers, leading to
growing concern about damage.”
Making a Model Meaningful to Coral Reef Managers
in a Developing Nation: a Case Study of Overfishing
and Rock Anchoring in Indonesia
JEFFREY A. MAYNARD,? KENNETH R. N. ANTHONY,†‡ SIHAM AFATTA,†
NANCY DAHL-TACCONI,§ AND OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG†
“Results of the model indicated that damage caused by rock anchoring was equal to or possibly
more devastating to coral reefs in the area than the impact of overfishing.”
Harriott, V.J., Davis, D., Banks, S.A., 1997. Recreational diving and its impact in marine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio 26(3): 173 – 179.)
“Recreational scuba diving has generally been perceived as an activity with low environmental impact. With the rapid growth in popularity of diving, concerns have arisen that some heavily-dived sites may have diver visitation rates approaching the limit of ecological sustainability. The potential impacts of divers were assessed in underwater surveys at four major dive-sites in Eastern Australia. Recreational divers were followed for 30 minutes, and all contacts with and damage to the substratum or biota were recorded. Information on diver qualifications and experience was collected. The mean number of contacts with the substratum per 30 minute dive at each site ranged from 35 to 121, with a maximum of 304 in a single dive. The majority of contacts were made with fins. Breakage of coral ranged from an average of 0.6 per dive to 1.9 per dive. Most divers damaged no coral, but a small minority of divers broke between 10 and 15 corals each per 30 minute dive. The level of damage to the sites studied appeared to be sustainable at present levels of use by divers. However, at intensively dived, coral- dominated sites, the potential exists for considerable environmental impact as the number of recreational divers increases beyond present levels”
Juhasz, Ho, Bender, Fong
Does use of tropical beaches by tourists and island residents result in damage to
fringing coral reefs? A case study in Moorea French Polynesia
http://www.rla.net.au/science/tourism%2 … corals.pdf
"Understanding the effects reef-goers have on corals is critical to the maintenance of
this economic asset."
Myers and Ambrose - Differences in benthic cover inside and outside marine protected
areas on the Great Barrier Reef: influence of protection
or disturbance history?
“For example, moored pontoons are often used as bases for tourist activities on the GBR; coral damage as a result of snorkeling activity was observed to be up to seven times greater on the Hardy Reef pontoon site than at a control site (Nelson and Mapstone, 1998). More importantly, anchor damage, which has been shown on the GBR (Dinsdale and Harriott, 2004) and elsewhere (Dustan and Halas, 1987) to significantly affect coral reefs, is likely to be much higher in General Use zones.”
In fact, catch and release fishing (trolling and such) without anchoring would be far preferable from an environmental point of view to any diving at anchor.
On his website this diving mogul also claims:
"The final (draft) proposal, which was out for public comment for 3 months recently brought 42000 submissions in favour and only 200 against the proposal."
Interesting, we had 500 submissions through the website and many more through tackle shops, and yet only 200 according to Lee? More lies.
At least he shows his hand in the end:
"5 and 10 years from now – we will have some of the best shore diving in the country.”
Good to see blatant self-interest is alive and well though, not that this is news in this debate.
I have nothing against scuba diving at all, and am happy for all to share the oceans.
Bearing in mind that coral reef health is crucial to the health of our oceans...
Interesting to see a rep from one of the WA dive shops today declare in the local rag that marine parks imperative as there are "virtually no fish off Perth".Not only is that a blatantly misleading comment on the state of fish stocks, that smacks of an industry simply wanting more of the ocean to itself for obvious financial and personal reasons. Why share the ocean when you don't want or have to? Standard playground child mentality.
Sadly for the person involved, there is research that shows that anchor damage is one of he major problems for coral reefs around the world so if there are sanctuary zones, it is obvious that diving must go.
Papers on this:
Lamb and Willis, 2010. "Using Coral Disease Prevalence to Assess the Effects of Concentrating Tourism Activities on Offshore Reefs in a Tropical Marine Park" says “Coral diseases were 15 times more prevalent at reefs with tourism platforms.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 … x/abstract
Scuba diver behaviour and the
management of diving impacts on coral
reefs
Nola H. L. Barker, and Callum M. Roberts
“Coral reefs worldwide are attracting increasing numbers of scuba divers, leading to
growing concern about damage.”
Making a Model Meaningful to Coral Reef Managers
in a Developing Nation: a Case Study of Overfishing
and Rock Anchoring in Indonesia
JEFFREY A. MAYNARD,? KENNETH R. N. ANTHONY,†‡ SIHAM AFATTA,†
NANCY DAHL-TACCONI,§ AND OVE HOEGH-GULDBERG†
“Results of the model indicated that damage caused by rock anchoring was equal to or possibly
more devastating to coral reefs in the area than the impact of overfishing.”
Harriott, V.J., Davis, D., Banks, S.A., 1997. Recreational diving and its impact in marine protected areas in Eastern Australia. Ambio 26(3): 173 – 179.)
“Recreational scuba diving has generally been perceived as an activity with low environmental impact. With the rapid growth in popularity of diving, concerns have arisen that some heavily-dived sites may have diver visitation rates approaching the limit of ecological sustainability. The potential impacts of divers were assessed in underwater surveys at four major dive-sites in Eastern Australia. Recreational divers were followed for 30 minutes, and all contacts with and damage to the substratum or biota were recorded. Information on diver qualifications and experience was collected. The mean number of contacts with the substratum per 30 minute dive at each site ranged from 35 to 121, with a maximum of 304 in a single dive. The majority of contacts were made with fins. Breakage of coral ranged from an average of 0.6 per dive to 1.9 per dive. Most divers damaged no coral, but a small minority of divers broke between 10 and 15 corals each per 30 minute dive. The level of damage to the sites studied appeared to be sustainable at present levels of use by divers. However, at intensively dived, coral- dominated sites, the potential exists for considerable environmental impact as the number of recreational divers increases beyond present levels”
Juhasz, Ho, Bender, Fong
Does use of tropical beaches by tourists and island residents result in damage to
fringing coral reefs? A case study in Moorea French Polynesia
http://www.rla.net.au/science/tourism%2 … corals.pdf
"Understanding the effects reef-goers have on corals is critical to the maintenance of
this economic asset."
Myers and Ambrose - Differences in benthic cover inside and outside marine protected
areas on the Great Barrier Reef: influence of protection
or disturbance history?
“For example, moored pontoons are often used as bases for tourist activities on the GBR; coral damage as a result of snorkeling activity was observed to be up to seven times greater on the Hardy Reef pontoon site than at a control site (Nelson and Mapstone, 1998). More importantly, anchor damage, which has been shown on the GBR (Dinsdale and Harriott, 2004) and elsewhere (Dustan and Halas, 1987) to significantly affect coral reefs, is likely to be much higher in General Use zones.”
In fact, catch and release fishing (trolling and such) without anchoring would be far preferable from an environmental point of view to any diving at anchor.
On his website this diving mogul also claims:
"The final (draft) proposal, which was out for public comment for 3 months recently brought 42000 submissions in favour and only 200 against the proposal."
Interesting, we had 500 submissions through the website and many more through tackle shops, and yet only 200 according to Lee? More lies.
At least he shows his hand in the end:
"5 and 10 years from now – we will have some of the best shore diving in the country.”
Good to see blatant self-interest is alive and well though, not that this is news in this debate.
I have nothing against scuba diving at all, and am happy for all to share the oceans.
.thumbnail.jpg "June Snapper")
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
Carnts.
How do these carnts get away with construing this info as much as they do?!?
99% of my ( and probably most divers on here) diving is for crays, and as anyone knows, the crays prefer the limestone caves to coral, and further more, I hardly see any coral where I dive, let alone anchor.
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
Diving -Reef - Damage
Just when you think all users of the local ocean would unite to form a common assualt against unfounded and irrational barriers along comes the self centred narrow minded single cell life form who seeks to rule all that he can grap.
What a W***er
My sincere thanks to Scottywiper for some very serious investigative researching on the subject.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
Smoking much
What Scotty here is doing is fundamentally the same.
Fact is that every one of us should be working to the same tune and that is to save what we have WITHOUT loosing part of our basic rights. By throwing the blame from one to the other you simply compound the problems. Truth be told I fish and dive and I honestly believe fishing does FAR FAR FAR more damage to fish stocks then diving. Spear fishing is far more selective and therefore does far less damage.
As per previous post I dont (and dont know many that do) anchor to reef.
You can SPIN crap how ever you want to. By misrepresenting situations (ie selectivley showing data) you can spin any tale you want and that (to me) appears to be scottys aim.
Go spearfishing and go fishing on the same spot. Then be honest and tell me how many fish you catch and release and how many you shoot. If your any good you will shoot and stone 1 fish, maybe 2 diving. You could catch 10 or more fishing the same spot releasing 8 of them. Being that 50% (very very optimistic for demersals caught on any decent depth of water and not looked after with some massive amounts of care) of these fish live you have killed 6 to get you 2. Congrats.
Jody
Posts: 1578
Date Joined: 19/04/07
Wild statement
Dunno about this bit ..........
" Being that 50% (very very optimistic for demersals caught on any decent depth of water and not looked after with some massive amounts of care) of these fish live you have killed 6 to get you 2. Congrats."
As said, if we do not band together we will be squeezed out of some magic spots ......... very close to home.
Time to stop squabbling and get an act
TWiZTED
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
I think you should check the
I think you should check the current fisheries numbers they suggested at the last meeting I went to with Moore that 80% of WA dhufish caught in 50m or more die. Also suggest that more than 60% of total released demersal catch dies. (this is why they term everything in EFFORT not catch. They realise, unlike some others, that animals can not be pulled from 5 or more times atmospheric pressure to atmospheric pressure at the speed most people pull them in at without having massive barrotrauma issues.) Yes they are fish but they still hold air in their body this air expands as they come up....generally it has to go somewhere. Even if you dont see it, it can do them a lot of internal damage.
This is why they have implemented the release weights etc, but even with the use of the release weights they are very questionable as to how many live through being caught. Thats why they are doing so much on the catch and release tagging thing and why it is a good thing when done right, but what we have to understand is that even then it doesnt give a realistic veiw as most people that do the tagging care fare more then the average punter.
I call liar to anyone that tries to tell me they have not had to put something back when they thought it would not live, that gill hooked 40cm snapper from the last trip, come on you know the one.
Personally I think that they should be taking areas off us. I agree with bans during the year. My thoughts on it that it should be based on fact and breeding though. Not on spin BS like the initial post.
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
I can't be 100%, but those
I can't be 100%, but those figures could well be from the Jill St John cage experiments a few years ago. I can't think of any further demersal mortality studies being completed since.
These St John findings have been widely discredited, even within Fisheries, as the research was very poorly conducted. I believe Recfishwest is pushing for them to be binned altogether.
Big fish were crammed into small cages that were not secured to the bottom and I know that some of those assisting with the research pulled out due to being disgusted with how it was being done.
This is not to say that releasing dhufish is not a sensitive area, but I do know that recent tagging efforts are suggesting pretty good recapture rates.
As you rightly point out though, the people doing the tagging are much more likely to release fish properly than many other anglers.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
:) yes the figures were the
:) yes the figures were the St John Cage figures. Yes we (WADivers) argued that they were fairly inaccurate as well. But they are the closest we have at the moment to figures we can work on, And also why I dropped the figure back to 50% not 60%.
Fathom
Posts: 619
Date Joined: 18/04/08
I was involved, wish I wasn't
I was involved, wish I wasn't
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
Quote from website of the
Quote from website of the person who made the claim of "virtually no fish off Perth."
“With areas put aside like this and listed as A Class Marine Reserves we can be assured that the future of the marine species that live within these areas or used to live in these areas will be guaranteed and they can return, rebuild and restock without the interference of both recreational and commercial fishing. 5 and 10 years from now – we will have some of the best shore diving in the country.”
Clearly, he believes fishing is the only issue. Convenient considering unfettered access for divers suits his ends. I personally believe the oceans are for all of us - divers, swimmer, fishers and general boaters.
I was merely pointing out (slightly tongue in cheek) that diving might also be an issue, as those papers clearly point out that anchoring, and incidental reef contact, by divers is an issue.
Truth is there are many issues and simply locking up chunks of ocean does not solve them magically, which is what he is claiming.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
I think we can agree on one
I think we can agree on one thing, The dive opperator does have a massive reason to suggest that fishing is the big problem. I dont have an issue at all with your suggesting he is out of line, I agree and to an extent think he will also be doing himself out of customers. However, stateing the info above is just as slanted and the fact remains that it (both sides) is spin.
Honestly having spent time inside the reserves and outside the reserves at the AB's diving goes a long way to show that reserves do work well. If it is between putting in reserves now and haveing the rest available to us for the rest of our lives OR in 10 years having a total ban on fishing, what would you pick.
I for one would go for the reserves. Fact is fisheries are going to do something regardless of if we like it or not. (We should know that as they have been working on this stuff for a fair while) Honestly I believe they HAVE to do something, as the population increases our individaul catch really does have to decrease (100 tonne into 100 is a tonne each, 100 tonne into 500 is 0.2 tonne each sort of thing.) On top of this they have to ensure breed stocks are healthy and up to now we have not been doing enough to ensure that. Combine these mean big cuts.
Jody
Posts: 1578
Date Joined: 19/04/07
Give it a chance
"I believe they HAVE to do something, as the population increases our individaul catch really does have to decrease (100 tonne into 100 is a tonne each, 100 tonne into 500 is 0.2 tonne each sort of thing.) On top of this they have to ensure breed stocks are healthy and up to now we have not been doing enough to ensure that. Combine these mean big cuts. "
Rec fishers (including Divers) have very recently had new regulations imposed, such as heavily reduced bag and boat limits, Minimum size increases and demersal closures. I believe it was the minister for fisheries himself, backed by the fisheries department who stated that these new restrictions have already achieved the 50% reduction in the recreational catch they were targeting, and these current regulations should remain in place for an appropriate time frame to assess the stock levels. We are only just now entering the second demersal closure - that is only one year under these regulations.
On top of that, as I am sure most fishers can attest to, there are an incredible amount of just size and undersize Dhu fish around the entire metro area.
I believe we have a few stoic fishermen and their wives to thank for this, as they dedicated their time and effort to ensure the closure of the commercial take from our doorstep.
The current tagging program is going to seriously ruffle some academic feathers
TWiZTED
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
Nearly
“The new management rules came into effect last October and the latest survey results are very encouraging - revealing that we have almost achieved the desired 50 per cent catch reduction outcome,” Mr Moore said.
If your going to bold it atleast get it as facts :)
“This issue will require further investigation along with a higher than expected catch of baldchin groper in the Mid-West and around the Abrolhos Islands.
Oh wait he puts something in there to allow himself room to move...
Jody
Posts: 1578
Date Joined: 19/04/07
Sheeesh
Come on Ray ..... play the topic, not the person
That most certainly is not a quote, otherwise I would've put it in itallics
As I said earlier, if we don't get together on this, it will be to out detriment. There are quite a few fanatical & financially well backed groups circling with the agenda to lock up as much of our back yard as possible and if we do not get our heads out of our asses, we WILL loose big time.
FFS ..... I absolutely do not understand how the proposal to close Geograph Bay has not created a riot. That means not even a herring folks. No Crabbing. Salmon from the beach ..... Nada.
I do not believe sweeping/total closures are an effective fisheries management tool.
TWiZTED
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Great Barrier Reef. WADRay
If you go to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Management authority web-site you'll notice that they have restricted the number of divers that can dive on some sites as they consider the damage that is done by divers is not sustainable and thats in no-take zones. Our fisheries in Western Australia is considered sustainable and is being managed as such but when they start talking about Eco-Tourism and the dollars they generate for the local economy with the establishment of marine parks I think at what cost to the environment.
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
Turns out the person in
Turns out the person in question has apparently been lobbying in Canberra for a sanctuary zone off Marmion, for his diving interests.
Reefmonkey
Posts: 711
Date Joined: 22/09/08
.
.
Dave J.
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
From Norman Moore's office
From Norman Moore's office this morning...
Normal
0
false
false
false
EN-AU
X-NONE
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}
WA fisheries gets top report card
· Scientific monitoring research and assessment shows healthy fisheries
· WA has world-leading initiative with ecosystem-based fisheries management
The annual status report on Western Australia’s fisheries and aquatic resources shows the State’s marine environment is well managed and healthy.
Fisheries Minister Norman Moore said the latest State of the Fisheries 2011 Report showed the State Government’s management approach had been successful.
“The report contains detailed analysis of current fish stocks, plus their associated habitats and ecosystems being managed by the Department of Fisheries,” Mr Moore said.
“Given the comprehensive systems of fisheries management that are in place, fishing in WA generally does not present an unacceptable risk to fish stocks or to the marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems underpinning them.
“Notably, the fishing methods that may affect the habitat (for example trawling) are highly regulated with more than 90 per cent of coastline protected from these types of activities.
These activities are permitted under carefully managed conditions to protect the environment and ensure the sustainable supply of fresh fish to the public.
“WA is one of the first fisheries jurisdictions in the world to implement a management framework to consider all ecological resources and community values within various bioregions to determine what requires direct management intervention, so this is a very pleasing result.”
The Minister said the report also showed that the majority of the State’s significant fish stocks continued to be in a healthy condition.
“About 94 per cent of fisheries are targeting stocks where no additional management is required, to either maintain or reach acceptable egg production or breeding stock levels. In addition, 94 per cent of managed fisheries have catches considered to be appropriate based on the status of the stocks and the current environmental conditions,” he said.
“For example, the new management arrangements for West Coast Demersal Scalefish (including snapper and dhufish) have been successful in reducing the catch levels of these species by 50 per cent, which was required to ensure long term sustainability.”
Mr Moore said the report showed the overwhelming majority of WA’s fisheries had also been assessed as posing only negligible or minor risks to bycatch species, protected species, habitats or the broader ecosystem.
The Department of Fisheries also has a positive record of collaboration with industry and stakeholder groups and other science-based institutions.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Country Hour Today
Nic Dunlop of the Conservation Council was on the Country Hour today and said the report is not an acurate assessment on the true state of the fishery and is only modeling done by the fisheries department and what really annoys me is that all the scientists and staff associated with fisheries department dont know what is happening out in the ocean but the guys in the Conservation Council are full bottles on the subject. Give me a break.
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
In all seriousness. How do
In all seriousness. How do you argue with that logic? Nic sits in his office and declares he knows better than Fisheries.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Got to agree Scottywiper
You can check it out yourself by going to WA country Hour and listen to the podcast titled Bad fisheries report. These jerks at the conservation council have been jerking to much and are starting to look more like a comedy team playing for laughs than a responsable group presenting the facts. The laughs on them. Cheers.
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
Here is the story from it
Here is the story from it Howard...the hypocrisy and arrogance of the comments is breathtaking.
The Conservation Council of WA has dismissed a State Government report on the annual status of our fisheries and aquatic resources.
Fisheries Minister Norman Moore says the latest State of the Fisheries report shows WA's marine environment is well managed and healthy.
The Minister also says "fishing in WA generally does not present an unacceptable risk to fish stocks or to the marine, estuarine and freshwater ecosystems underpining them."
That's quite a stark contrast to what Tim Nicol from the Conservation Council told us on Monday's program, where he stressed the need for the Federal Government to increase the number and size of its proposed marine park sanctuaries in south west Australia.
Dr Nick Dunlop is an environmental scientist and policy coordinator with Conservation Council.
He says the latest fisheries report card is not a true reflection of what is occurring in our waters.
"A very large part of the conclusions that have been drawn are based on modelling exercises with very little verification in terms of real world measured outcomes."
"Modelling is useful in asking questions it's a very dangerous thing to use on which to base management decisions. So for example with the demersal fin fishery the modelling shows that the measures that have been taken should have reduced the catch by the required amount but did it, we don't know, it hasn't been measured and has that brought about any change in the age structure of the fish concerned or anything like that."
The State Government has rejected calls by conservationists for more of Western Australia's oceans to be 'locked up' by proposed Federal Government marine sanctuaries.
Fisheries Minister Norman Moore says he's not opposed to 'no take' zones provided they are established to meet clear, measurable objectives, and biodiversity conservation outcomes that cannot be delivered through fisheries management arrangements.
He says he doesn't support the 'lock up' of an area if other management systems and processes can be implemented to protect certain species and biodiversity values.
The proposed sanctuary zones off WA's coast include the State's rock lobster fishery off the Abrolhos Islands and in South-West recreational fishing areas, north of Busselton and Geographe Bay.
The Minister said he was prepared to work with the Federal Government to reach an agreed position.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Surely Scottywiper
I can't believe that Govt. departments take what the conservation council say as genuine and factual and not some manufactured evidence that supports their arguments. Sure they'll get some arm chair environmentalist to parrot what they say and not know any difference but surely the feds. have got the intelligence to work out whats what with regards this marine park planning process but wasn't it the feds. that provided funding so an accurate assessment of the state fisheries could be determined and now Nic Dunlop is questioning that result. Surely not. That's similar to calling the people who conducted that research as liars.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
I hate to agree with Dunlop
I hate to agree with Dunlop but fisheries WA has many times used numbers we do not agree with because of this model or that study (ie the cage study mentioned above) and they are actually doing it again. They do not know what the actual rec fishing catch is. Their model tells them that they would be close to but slightly under the 50%.
Now not actually having any set facts means that Dunlop can use the figures to fight against fisheries, this is really the same as us arguing that more then 60% of released fish survive.
Sorry but someone has to be sensible enough to play devils advocate.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Think about what your saying WADRay
By agreeing with Dunlop your saying that the report presented to Parliament is not a true and accurate document but then offer no evidence to suggest why it's not other than to say the figures may or may not be rubbery. The authors of the report most likely don't agree with you having used every available bit of information to form an opinion and the Feds have blown their $1/2 mill. on reseach all because you're not familiar with the processes they used to form that opinion. Now as a fisherman myself do I listen to the comments made by Nic Dunlop and the Conservation Council or do I rely on a report prepared by Fisheries and presented to Parliament as a foundation to form my own opinion as to the true state of the fishery? I would have thought the answer to that is obvious but then for you sensible people out there that act as devils advocate maybe the answer is not so obvious but then you're quite entitled to your own opinion so we beg to differ.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
Howard, Having been a part of
Howard, Having been a part of how the fisheries department made their decisions in their workshops, as I said above, I can most definately tell tell you that a fair portion of their numbers come from a computer model. They do not actually know what you have caught this year. They simply put in a few days worth of vollenteer info from a few different ramps in the WCBR and then try to spread that over the entire year.
Untill someone without a vested interest in the result is in charge or actually doing a comprehensive review we will never know where the fishery realistically is. Rather then just suggesting I dont know what I am talking about maybe you should spend some of your time looking into it. Fisheries made up many of the numbers last review (they admit that) with their models. They then came up with the 50%. It is in their best interest for that 50% to have worked (means they did their job). They then used a model to show that the 50% has worked.
Rather then just believeing what a polly tells you how about going and doing some looking into something you supposedly love so much.
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
From AAP...Jessica at her
From AAP...Jessica at her devious best. The next demersal stock assessment is due next year, but it is widely known that Fisheries believe pink snapper and dhufish stocks are recovering well since the two-month closure, removal of commercial effort from metro waters and other rule changes to drop the rec catch by 50%.
And I wasn't aware there are only "four local shark species"? Which four is she banging on about?
And which species don't fall under fisheries management?
Western Australia does not need a marine park network because its fisheries are "some of the best managed in the world", says Fisheries Minister Norman Moore
Mr Moore said on Wednesday he opposed federal government plans to establish a network of marine sanctuaries along the west coast and accused conservationists of trying to "lock up" vast tracts of ocean.
Detailing the government's annual State of the Fisheries Report, Mr Moore said WA's marine environment was "well managed and healthy".
This was despite rock lobster and demersal scalefish quotas being halved in recent years to prevent the collapse of valuable commercial fisheries.
Mr Moore said this had been done to "ensure long term sustainability".
But he did not support marine sanctuaries that would impact on commercial fishing.
"I do not see the need for the extensive network of 'no take' zones proposed by the Commonwealth," Mr Moore said.
"WA's fisheries are regarded as some of the best managed in the world.
"I do not support the 'lock up' of an area if other management systems and processes can be implemented to protect certain species and biodiversity values."
University of WA Oceans Institute research professor Jessica Meeuwig said there would be no need to cut catch quotas in half if fisheries were well-managed.
"There doesn't appear to be any evidence that rock lobster are recovering," Dr Meeuwig said.
"There's been no published evidence on the recovery of dhufish, baldchin grouper and these are species only found in WA.
"Of the four local shark species, two are at unacceptable levels of breeding stock."
Dr Meeuwig said marine sanctuaries could protect commercial breeding populations as well as other species that did not fall under fisheries management.
"People are keen on fishing, there is economic value to it, so it's difficult to bring change to the industry," she said.
WA Conservation Council marine spokesman Tim Nicol said Mr Moore's comments were at odds with his own premier, Colin Barnett, who recently announced a network of marine parks along WA's northern coastline.
"Norman Moore really needs to talk to the premier, because he's actually putting in marine sanctuaries in the Kimberley, Pilbara and other areas," he said.
"It's really old-fashioned thinking that you can't have marine sanctuaries and a fishing industry at the same time."
WWF marine manager Paul Gamblin said while fish stocks needed to be managed, other marine life also need protection.
"It's not locking up large areas, its looking at a proportion of important habitat that needs to be protected for all species," he said.
Mr Gamblin said marine parks would benefit fisheries by reducing the threat of oil and gas exploration.
Mr Moore said the WA government was prepared to compromise with Canberra and had submitted its views on the marine park proposal.
harro
Posts: 1959
Date Joined: 07/02/08
if they are so smart
if they are so smart at what they do, and to be honest i have seen some the graphs showing how much recs and pros alike take ,they are quite heavy and if what they do here increases stocks its great, BUT,
the fish species they have targeted in cat 1 seems ludicrous,
i mean nannies? red snapper, deep sea cod, etc, surely these species are not a threat to our rec or prof industry, like it has been said before one would think they would have the target species correct,
ie dhufish,pinks, these are the fish that everyone can catch,and yes stocks need some work from overfishing, but then again our ban is on, and the pros get them anyway, i,m lost..
only a personal opinion and not a dig at anyone at all, I have talked this over with lots of people , bag limits seem ok, but a closure on these other species ?? i dont understand,
they just want us to stay out of the water,
i dont reckon they will shut geo bay down or at least bloody hope not,, it will kill the tourism down south,
the bay is recovering from yrs of trawling and its looking good , not just for fish but the seagrass seems to be recovering, and the shallow reefs,
cheers
:::: Bass Hunter ::::
scottywiper
Posts: 247
Date Joined: 09/03/08
Harro,I have seen a draft map
Harro,
I have seen a draft map of the South-West and the Greens have laid claim to half of Geographe Bay. It is on the map. It reaches as far north as Bunbury and includes the Four and Seven-Mile reefs. If you don't want it to happen, then speak up now.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
I had a very long discussion
I had a very long discussion with a few fisheries officers on the fish inc in the demersal closure not long ago and basically they have said to me that in order for almost all catch and release to be minimalised (ie fishing effort to be close to 0) of the species that are in danger they have had to put all fish caught in simialr areas in the ban. IE if you can target the red snapper in the same area as you would target dhuies or Pinkies then they need to be in the ban too. This again comes down to the current figures of survival of released fish being low.
As much as we think we know we dont actually have all the facts.
Now just so that it is clear Im not a greenie. Anyone that knows me would know that I will fight for my rights more then the average person. I am simply trying to point out that we in general as fishermen like to only see our side of an argument and ignore that the other side do have points. If we try to hard bargain, take a position and say the other side are just stupid, and they do the same then we will never win.
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
?
So then, you reckon us fishermen, the guys on the coal face, the guys out there on a day to day basis, don't know our own backyard or what's going on in it, and furthermore think that we should just allow the politicians to control it on our behalf without any input from us?
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
No I dont honestly think you
No I dont honestly think you have a clue, Not to what the total catch has been this year. I know for a fact that I dont. I dont even know what my catch has been this year v last or the year before, let alone what anyone elses has been. Do you?
I dont see anywhere that I have suggested that you shouldnt have input, what I suggest is that you cannot just say; no no no everything is fine, when you dont actually know what is going on. The only way to fight a structured organisation with the funding and aims these people have is to actually take facts to the governing bodys.
Us saying we dont want the parks isnt going to get us anywhere.
Infighting isnt going to get us anywhere. Saying everything is fine isnt going to help either. SHOWING everything is fine would but how do we do it. We know that fisheries WA say that they achieved the 50% but they cannot prove it.
Fact is that the weakness in our argument is that we have no facts. They can use this day in and day out to discredit us. Did you fill in your catch books and send them to fisheries?
More data we get together the less they can discredit us...
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Hang On WADRay
Your argument is weak WADRay because the catch closure is only for rec-fishers and not for the commercial sector and they can catch as much as they wish of any species but wouldn't it make more sense to have both closures at the same time. We can still go fishing in the West coast bio-region during the closure but we can't keep the fish we catch that is on the list that is banned. You claim to be a fisherman so have you noticed whether fish stocks have improved since the rec closure was put in place because down here in Geo. Bay we're certainly seeing a wider range of fish that we have not witnessed in previous years and in larger numbers but that might be the Leeuwin Current but that doesn't explain the large numbers of Southern Blue Fin Tuna we had last year a species that has been described as endangered or is that just greenie speak. I think the closure is working though my only discontent is that it should be a spawning closure and not a catch closure.Different time of year.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
o.O
Commercial sector has exact weights they can catch. Their catch is monitored and fisheries can ensure that they catch within their range. The Ban we as recs face is there (fisheries words) TO MINIMISE FISHING EFFORT. This means that they want to stop you trying to catch ANY fish around the areas the "high risk" fish live.
I live in Busselton too Howard. I fish weekly, both on my boat and ferals boat. I have noticed a lot of Juvies in parts of the bay Yes, But we tend to catch our limits and go wider most days regardless. If anything in the bay the last year or so I have noticed Less fish (a lot less baldies) on some of my normal diving grounds. This may just be they have found other ground to sit on.
As for your range of fish the water last year was a freak and as you suggest discredits any claims to seeing a larger range of fish being due to the closure.
I agree the closure should have been based more around the breeding.
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Fishing aint that great
off Bunbury I can tell you. As for the cape area I cannot speak.
Having the closed season for both parties at the same time certainly makes sense.
I'm led to believe the Commercial sector do not have to stop by law but do it on a voluntary basis, correct me if I'm wrong.
Some of the Demersal gill netters stopped netting but have drop line licences and they continued to fish??? great management- wonder what they targeted.
Why has no mentioned the SHIPS ANCHORS when they come to port, surely that should be considered by the Conservation Council, 4.5t of anchor and a 100metres of chain would mow down a bit of coral and see grasses.
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
Whoa up a minute
Fist off the only study that I know that has taken place on caught demesial fish survivability has been discredited by a number of sources as being a slip shod affair and nobody should hang their hat on it's results.
What WADray says about there not being any facts to back up the statement that the catch rate of the big five has been reduced by 50% is quite true, it is also true that there are no figures to prove that the statement about the reduction is untrue.
This year I believe that fisheries are going to undertake an intensive catch servey (by rec fishermen) that will be of a standard that will survive peer revue, unlike the last. It is only when a number of these surveys have been conducted that a clear picture of what effect the 2 month ban has had on the big 5 demerial stocks can be evaluated. However as there has not been a creditable study carried out before there (in my oppinion) will not be a base line on which to judge the results.
Fisheries by putting a ban on pinkies when they school up to breed in cockburn sound are demonstrating that they have learnt the lesson from the collapse of breeding stocks as happened in shark bay and I believe now have their hand on the pulse of what is happening with fish stocks.
Conservation groups quite frequently quote figures that they claim are reliable when they know that what they say can not be held up to examination,as do fishing groups.The fact of the matter as I see it is untill there is some examinable facts gained through creditable research put on the table no one can claim to know exactly what the state of the fish stocks are.
just my 2 pennies
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
WooooohooooSomeone can see
Wooooohoooo
Someone can see the light :)
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Are You aware Meglodon
The Fisheries Department have been conducting research into the fish stocks in the Capes and surrounding areas for some time now and though they haven't published the outcomes of that research for us to examine theres every chance they know exactly whats happening in the region. We see their boat out there all the time weather permitting.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
Wow I have spent countless
Wow I have spent countless hours on the ocean out of the bay (mainly off the capes) and have never seen a fisheries boat.
I have only ever (outside of salmon season) actually seen 1 fisheries volenteer in Busselton.
Dont know where you have seen him. I havnt even seen a boat in the marina parked up....
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Of all the comments WADRay.
I don't know how often you use your boat WADRay but it's more often than not we are being asked to show our licenses and safety gear by fisheries officers when launching the boat and thats on all the ramps but the 4x4 and trailer they use is often parked at Quindalup but now we're getting away from the subject so getting back on track if one reads all the comments you've made WADRay you've never once provided one bit of evidence that discredits what the report declares and that is that the fishery is healthy and being fished in a sustainable way. Actually one of your comments supports the reports findings when you stated that you got your bag limit which was difficult to do a year or so back.
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Research
as much as they like but it's pretty clear that since the abolitition of Demersal GILL nets in the metro region fishing has surely improved somewhat buy all reports on this particular website.
Meglodon's point on the Snapper ban in the sound, when they are schooling, is what's needed in more spots along the coast-NOT Marine Parks- I might say.
I have a few spots in the bay where one can bag out on Snapper very quickly at certain times of the year, maybe they need protecting?.
As for being checked by fisheries officers as regularly as you have, you must/might be on their radar
. As for myself I've only been checked 5 times in 54 yrs.
WADRay
Posts: 301
Date Joined: 20/12/09
Got picked up by fisheries
Got picked up by fisheries (actual officer) yesterday for the first time in the 10 years I have lived in busselton. He was in the marina and checking speed as someone had called up a hour later and reported a "hoon".
They are "everywhere"....:)
Billcollector
Posts: 2080
Date Joined: 16/05/09
Sure it wasn't DoT Officer as
Sure it wasn't DoT Officer as Fisheries officers have no power to check speed?
Buz
Posts: 1555
Date Joined: 28/08/07
Hmmmm i watch a heap of
Hmmmm i watch a heap of Fisheries Officer's getting trainned down at the Freo Fisheries Center at the beginning of the year. They were out near the main drag pointing them at cars that drove by.
From what i gathered they can do any laws regarding to Marine. Hence why they are called Fisheries and Marine Officers.
Fathom
Posts: 619
Date Joined: 18/04/08
I've done a few trips with fisheries research
I have only had an interest in helping to find out what our fish stocks are really like and will help further if asked...free of charge.
What I have noticed though, is the so called scientists and other "smart kids" really dont have much of a clue about the ocean and how to use the instruments they are given. Shame they were not allowed to use my piece of specialized underwater surveilance equipment (bought by me) after they drowned theirs...twice.
Would like to be out there now doing private research but who is going to listen?