we have the most healthy fisheries in the world yet we are the most regulated?
i think you just answered your own question in that one statement. im not one for all the banns and so forth but i can see the logic in their madness , there are lots of fish in our waters atm but without regulations we would end up in the same boat as a lot of other countries. all that aside welcome aboard to our family friendly site

No offence mate, but I disagree with this statement, even as a fisherman:
'We as rec anglers are more enviromentaly responsible than any pollie/green on earth !'
Ummm, as fisherman we catch fish, take fish, release fish - all doing harm on fish and the grounds where we take them from. I think that is having a significant impact on the environment, how we manage the 'take' of these fish and the areas they come from is whats important.
Personally I think marine parks and closures are a good thing, having worked in fisheries research for several years I can understand the thinking that we need habitats where fish can reproduce without fishing pressure. How can more fish in future years be a bad thing?
I also don't have a problem with fishing licenses and fees, as long as they are spent bettering our fishery and don't go into consolidated revenue. The amount, well, thats another story...
What I don't like is losing the right to fish altogether, as long as the whole coast isn't locked up and I can't go wet a line, then that gets to me. But, if we have to lose a little for a greater outcome in the end, considering what we do is environmentally damaging, well, sorry I don't have a problem with that.
Cheers,
Adam

I couldn't agree more with that post Adam.

Damo - there is ample scientific evidence discussing the role of marine protected areas for the conservation of marine biodiversity, which includes the role of MPAs in fisheries management and as a buffer against the other impacts you mentioned such as pollution, runoff etc. 

As i understand it, runoff is the most significant problem the Great Barrier Reef is facing, due to many effects, but one of the best ways to reduce the problem is to ensure the ecosystems affected are as intact and biodiverse as possible, thus maximising the ecosystems resilience to change. taking out the predators on the reef results in shifted tropic structures (Google 'trophic cascade') which can radically alter the overall functioning of an ecosystem. One sure way to remove the predators is to catch them.

I think Adam well covered the impacts that fishers have. I guess when you remove a fish from the water you are having the most direct and measureable impact there can be, no? 

 you have the power of the world at your fingertips - it is called Google, and more specifically Google Scholar. You will find alot of the information you seem to be lacking, as a start here is just one site where you will find 12 pages of scientific references (250-odd articles), relevant to this issue

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/MPA-literature-listing.pdf

How long and hard did you look? It took me less than one minute to find that page. It took me less time to find it than it did for me to write this sentence telling you how long it took me. Perhaps you consider this to be 'spin' because it is from a govt website??

 the use of MPAs in fisheries management is less straightforward than for biodiversity conservation in general, but it is generally well accepted that closed areas do have a role to play in fisheries management. they are, however, not a panacea.

i have read several articles that relate directly to the closed areas on the Great Barrier Reef, showing more and bigger fish on the closed reefs than the fished ones. Google Great Barrier Reef and Marine Protected Area and i suspect you will find them quite easily.

I think the Faulkner's said it well too - regulation = protection. I think duck hunters would feel quite a bit more regulated, seeing as though they are banned completely...?

Cheers,

Ewan 

Hi Ya,

Personally, I have no problem with the idea of locking up large portions of the coast of Australia to protect fish - PROVIDED - it is the large portions that nobody can get to.

What these people want to do is lock up all the coast line that we can get to knowing very well that that will kill fishing as a recreational pass time.

Don't know about the east coast but I have seen there ads here where they say that less than 1% of the WA cost is reserved as fishing free habitat and that may well be the case.  But what they conveniently forget to say is that (probably) more than 50% of the coast line is inaccessible to fishermen and women - at least on a large scale.

Yes, I agree with regulation.  Yes I agree with tighter bag limits.  Yes I agree with total closures.  Yes I agree with a license.  But for me, these kind folk should be told where to go with their misinformation.

Cheers.

You only need to look back ten years ago the whales of our coast were slowly reducing in numbers to the point where you would see a hand full each year .Governments throughout the world have made changes and I have seen the whale population in the last five year increase tenfold we now see whales on most trips and what an experience this is, thing have to start somewhere and marine parks, and tight regulation can only be good in the long term.