There will always be a problem with the process of planning marine reserves, especially when they are opposed before they begin.

A political party wants to deliver their promises (such as a marine park, for example) within 3-4 years.

If they feel like there will be too much opposition from a group, such as fishers, they are more likely to sway their gaze towards the green votes they might get. If fishers get behind marine reservation as a fishery management tool, then perhaps they will see fishing votes in it, and have more motivation to meaningfully engage??

just a thought!

Cheers,

Ewan

If the pollies had the balls to go ahead and do it there would be no problems but they are shit scared of losing their seat in the enxt election and having to go out and make a living in the real world again.

Look what the Libs did to get back in to power at the last state election, promised no demeral closure and come the next year and along comes a closure, Rec Fish Licence and hefty catch reductions once they had a good look at the stock numbers that they had said before the election were a false report.

Hi Ewan, as always there are two sides to these debates...see below...not all scientists reckon marine parks will solve all the problems...

ABC Radio story...

The Australian public is being deceived on the effectiveness of marine parks and other fishing sanctuary zones, according to one of the nation's leading scientists.

Bob Kearney is emeritus professor of Fisheries at Canberra University and a former head of fisheries research with the New South Wales Government.

He recently told a NSW parliamentary inquiry into recreational fishing that the basis on which marine parks have been sold to the public is fraudulent.

"What I said was the science we've used to justify the creation of the parks was fraudulent and I stand by that absolutely adamantly," he told ABC TV's Landline program.

"The science that was used and put out at the time of the Bateman's Marine Park, called the science paper, contained blatant abuse of scientific practises.

"It claimed that authors said things in their papers which they did not say. That is worse than plagiarism - it's as bad as it gets in the scientific community."

Professor Kearney, who now also works as an industry consultant, says marine parks do not address the real threats to the marine environment such as pollution, agricultural run-off, coastal development and introduced species.

"Marine parks in New South Wales have already cost more than $30 million in the last three years alone and probably tens of millions more than that, and they can't demonstrate any benefit," he said.

"In fact, the latest report by the Department of Industry and Investment, formerly New South Wales fisheries, actually concludes that the sanctuary zones cause a decline in biodiversity."

And Fisheries report 169...seems to me to say marine parks are only a small part of the puzzle that is fisheries management in WA...

“marine habitats, and therefore a large proportion of the biodiversity in WA waters, are highly protected from negative fishery impacts compared to nearly all other locations in the world. Approximately 35 per cent of continental shelf waters already have full habitat protection at levels equivalent to MPAs (marine parks).”

“There are few fish stocks in WA with reduced spawning biomass levels where general no-take areas would lead to increased recruitment levels of their juveniles.

“In such circumstances, highly targeted closures (not necessarily to all fishing activities or for the entire year) in conjunction with other broad scale actions have proven to be effective management options.

“Most of the marine species subject to fishing (including those with benthic stages) in WA are highly mobile either as adults, juveniles or both; which greatly reduces the efficacy of

small, static, non-targeted spatial controls for their management at a stock level.

“The implementation of sanctuaries alone, will generally not improve the quality of fishing in the areas left open along the WA coast, as the re-direction of effort from a newly established sanctuary area is likely to result in a reduction in local catch rates within the surrounding regions.”

“The main marine habitats in WA at risk are the estuaries and embayments where land-based, non-fishing activities have resulted in nutrient rich run-off and eutrophication, which has significantly altered ecosystems (e.g. the Peel-Harvey Estuary). In these situations closures would neither rebuild affected fish stocks nor assist with the protection of the broader

ecosystem.

“Based on these assessments this report supports the concept that clearly defined sanctuary areas (within marine parks or FHPAs) will play a valuable, but restricted part of an overall scheme of management to sustain resources and protect biodiversity in WA waters. This is consistent with another recent review, which concluded that ‘MPAs must be designed and operated in the context of higher-order management frameworks’ (World Bank, 2006)”.

“Consequently, there is a rational basis to support the establishment of marine sanctuary areas where they have clear, measurable objectives that relate to achievable benefits for tourism, biodiversity, research and other ‘no-take’ outcomes. There is, however, little scientific basis within the WA context to support their justification where they are proposed as a precaution against undefined ‘bad practices’ in the management of fisheries.”

Of course they are one part ofthe puzzle Scott, but his part of the puzzle is missing from fisheries management in this state.
Thy fisheries paper would be all well and good, except that under their "world class management" we are in the predicament we are in... All those in favour of a 4 month ban on fishing? Lottery tag limits? $150 licences to exclude the poorer amongst us? 30% allocations of a declining resource? Sounds like fabulous fisheries management! Nothing to worry bout!!

only allowed to consume catch on location

no extraction/freezers

But you are still allowed to fish......

What he said:-

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2010/07/27/Real-action-to-protect-our-marine-environments-and-fishing-communities.aspx

Real action to protect our marine environments and fishing communities. 27/07/10

A Coalition government will take immediate action to ensure that future Marine Protected Areas balance environmental preservation with economic growth and strong coastal communities.

The Coalition supports a balanced approach to marine conservation and will immediately put on hold the Marine Bioregional Planning process. We will then restructure this process, in consultation with the community and industry, within the first year of government.

When previously in government, the Coalition began the process of establishing Marine Protected Areas around Australia's coastline. Marine Protected Areas are intended to protect and maintain biologically and culturally significant marine areas.

Since its election, the Rudd-Gillard Government has not adopted a balanced approach to Marine Protected Areas, nor has it engaged in appropriate consultation with the community and the fishing industry.

This has led to unnecessary anxiety and uncertainty in the fishing industry. Many communities will face enormous economic losses unless there is proper and effective consultation on future Marine Protected Areas, particularly in relation to fishing practices in these Areas.

The Coalition will also require future decisions on Marine Protected Areas to consider peer reviewed scientific evidence of threats to marine biodiversity and for this evidence to be made available to all stakeholders, including affected communities and industries.

In establishing Marine Protected Areas, the Coalition will consult closely with those people and industries who use the marine environment, including the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, to determine Marine Protected Area management plans in accordance with relevant legislation and other regulatory frameworks.

The Coalition will take the action necessary to make decisions on Marine Protected Areas fair, considered and balance environmental and cultural preservation and also considers the needs of fishing industries and coastal communities.

==============

1.    Fisheries Research Report No. 169, 2010, "The efficacy of sanctuary areas for the management of fish stocks and biodiversity in WA waters." 48 pages available from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/frr/frr169/index.php?0401 and

2.    "Report on the Scientific Basis for and the Role of Marine Sanctuaries in Marine Planning." by the Marine Scientific Panel. Both the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Fisheries are named on the front cover. 96 pages http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/category/40/952/2323/

TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......

Have you guys read through the Fishers For Conservation website I posted in the original thread?
Scott, that stat doesn't seem at all right to me, MPAs are very well progressed in the US, who I believe have the largest in the recent Hawaiian reserves, and they have them all around their coast. Most European states have them. SE Asian countries have them. So do African countries. I think Canada does, even the former soviet union nations have them or are progressing them. The whole world mate. Compare terrestrial reserves with MPAs and you can see we have a long way to go.
Last I heard was that DoF had little confidence that the recent reg changes would achieve the outcomes required. Where does DoF say that they will?

Hi Ewen,

Lindsay Joll made the comment re the 50% reduction at the public meeting on Wednesday. He said he expected it to work.

I did a bit of digging late yesterday on that 1% stat, and heard from another source that it is correct and there is some data to confirm it, but I have yet to find it. Gonna try chasing it up on Monday and get an answer one way or the other.

I did read the website and have spoken with Adrian Meder, who wrote a lot of it, before...actually been trying to catch up with him for a fish!!! :)

For those unaware, Adrian, who supplied a lot of the text on that site, works for the Conservation Council.

Quote:- Last I heard was that DoF had little confidence that the recent reg changes would achieve the outcomes required. Where does DoF say that they will?

More misinformation being spread around.

Well you heard wrong. At the Allocation public meeting, Wed 28 July at FSC, Fisheries' Lindsay Joll said:-

The changes to commercial wetline management in the West Coast were designed to achieve a 50% cut in commercial catches, and will be adapted if/as required base on the recorded catch which is very tightly monitored. Plenty of documentation on that management plan.

The changes to recreational management in the West Coast (latest starting in October 2009) were designed to achieve a 50% cut in recreational catches. The explanation of and justifications and calculations of the 50% were widely debated and was widely publicised.

The Minister requires a report initially covering the first 12 months after the implementation of the West Coast changes which started in Oct 2009. Data is being collected by Fisheries. Since it's only the end of July, there are 2 1/2 months still to go.

Yes that will be a challenge for Fisheries Research who have great difficulty (it seems) getting any data out to the public in any reasonable time.

Why would anyone have any problems with a policy that says "The Coalition will also require future decisions on Marine Protected Areas to consider peer reviewed scientific evidence of threats to marine biodiversity and for this evidence to be made available to all stakeholders, including affected communities and industries."

Coz if there are no real threats to biodiversity then it is not essential to put in draconian protection which doesn't actually change anything, except give a warm and fuzzy feeling about percentages of areas which are "protected", and lock out activities which could continue with the economic and social benefits.

Marine protected areas don't replace proper fisheries management but DO have a place as part of a package of environmental and fisheries management.

TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......

Recreational anglers want sustainable fishing and good fishing experiences and a FAIR GO!.

Informed Recreational anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks.

Informed Recreational anglers aren't opposed to sanctuary zones in the right places for the right reasons.

Informed Recreational anglers want to protect nursery areas, spawning fish stocks and spawning fish aggregations, but these don't need total closures all year long. Example:- Cockburn Sound Pink Snapper seasonal spawning closures championed by concerned recreational anglers.

Recreational anglers want to protect the environment, but locking up large areas is not the only way to protect the environment and is not sufficient to protect the environment.

Informed conservationists would talk about the outcomes they want, and not just keep promoting one of the methods which might achieve them and ignore all the other methods.

Oh and add "Marine Parks and sanctuary/no fishing zones are not the same, but are often used interchangeably which confuses lots of people."

Currently we have had some Sanctuary zones in place the eg:Rottnest for some time.

How much impact have they improved on the demersal population?

Sanctuary zones can appear productive though they are placed on the most productive ground in many cases that hold fish species.

Sanctuary zones have been shown to be a little effective on as little as 5% of species.

The other 95% it does little for in growing populations.

Calculate the square kilometres of no-take zones Western Australia already has.

Think of the other restrictions Western Australia already has.

• Strict Bag limits
• Upper size limits
• Possesion limits
• Min size limits
• Trip limits
• Monthly Closures
• Fishing licences
• Boat limits

Harsh ones at that, the deaerest licence in the country to discourage social family angling

Combine that with the current closed areas

Unfortunately WWF and Pew want to close 30% of the ocean where 90% of the fish population reside.

Combine that with the current state implementations and what do you have?

A complete fishing ban?

WWF and PEW dont have a compromise option.

Basically, its the PEW way or no way so the big finger goes up to them..

Maybe PEW should focus on the Mexican Gulf in their own country, one things for sure the MPRA's would do **** all for that place in their own country.

Do you think the place will be fully paid for by the culprit to fix it?  Fat chance..

So if there is not a compromise, stick it up ya red rum WWF/PEW with a pelagic if you want to destroy our state tourism when you cant even manage waters in your own country.

Just think, now the IFM board wants to hand your sacrifices over to the commercial sector.  Thats not management, its daylight robbery.

Yeah recreationals did all the damage but Norman Moore and the IFM thinks commercials should get 70% of the TAC because they have done 70% of the damage?

Marine Parks and sanctuary / no fishing zones:- myths and realities

I wrote this for a club publication May 2010 Reel Talk Magazine http://www.surfcasters.iinet.net.au/ReelTalkMain.html#May2010 See pages 14-16 for the full article.

Marine Parks and sanctuary/no fishing zones are not the same, but are often used interchangeably which confuses lots of people. Marine Parks (in WA) can have different zones, of which sanctuary/no fishing zones are just one type, and usually make up less than 30% of the area covered by the Marine Park. Of course taking a large part of the good fishing spots into no fishing zones can mean that the impact on certain types of fishing like shore based fishing can be much greater than 30%, since what is left can be areas which are not very productive for shore based fishing.

A topic which comes up regularly is the justifications for Marine Parks to protect the marine environment and actually improve fishing. Environmentalists claim that large Marine parks (and they really mean large areas/percentage of no fishing zones) are essential for lots of reasons. They cite lots of overseas research about no fishing zones and benefits for everything from whales to leafy seadragons to better catches of fish outside the no fishing zones.

Some claim many universal and indisputable benefits from closing areas to all fishing, and then apply that to the WA situation which is quite different in many ways, and is ignoring the actual levels of fishing which may be taking place, and the management rules applied to that fishing or the past lack of rules or enforcement in some countries.

When challenged on that, they sometimes cite the "precautionary principle" which is that if there is not enough information, then the correct approach is to take a low risk approach and restrict or prohibit activities which might be having an impact now or might do so in the future.

Finally, two separate very informative and important reports have been released which cover the West Australian situation, and confirm things informed people in the fishing community have been saying for years. The reports are:-

1.    Fisheries Research Report No. 169, 2010, "The efficacy of sanctuary areas for the management of fish stocks and biodiversity in WA waters." 48 pages available from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/frr/frr169/index.php?0401 and

2.    "Report on the Scientific Basis for and the Role of Marine Sanctuaries in Marine Planning." by the Marine Scientific Panel. Both the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Fisheries are named on the front cover. 96 pages http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/category/40/952/2323/

Already the Conservation Council of WA has issued a media release and very selectively used the contents and recommendations of the second paper in its attempts to put uninformed or misinformed public pressure on politicians in support of large Sanctuary/no fishing zones for WA. Don't be surprised to see more.

These are long papers with lots of complex information. But I see these as THE most important papers on WA Marine planning in the last 10 years or more because of their potential to put Marine Planning into a proper context and answer many of the misleading and misinformed statements flying around.

But that also needs people to be aware of the existence of the reports and to have some idea of their contents and then to challenge the misinformation so it isn't used against fishermen. That's against YOU and your fishing in case there's any doubt.

TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......

Saltatrix - where have MPAs "destroyed tourism" can you tell me where? All the research evidence is to the contrary. The focus and publicity MPAs bring increases tourism, land prices go up and all kinds of benefits. And yes, fishing catches can increase.

Saltatrix, the tiny little sanctuary zones at Rottnest Island are too small to have impact on many fish species' stocks. However the scientific research has shown very significant benefits to a range of species, and has raised many questions about what we though we knew about rock lobster. Only the fact that there has been no-take zones there for 20-odd years has allowed scientists the chance to research a non-fished area.

I've never heard any green group advocate banning fishing. I've never heard Labour or Greens advocate banning fishing. All they are going for is sustainable marine biodiversity. That means nothing goes to the brink of collapse, and it means we build in environmental uncertainty (such as changing climate, oil spill and pollution impacts, etc) into things like fishing quotas. History should show you that traditional fisheries management alone (i.e. without no-take zones) has not been able to provide this. Evidence from around the world shows no net loss of fishing amenity or income from MPAs. Look it up - its there for you to see.

Well that is good news Terry, and I'm glad to hear it. I'm quite positive that more than 12 months of research will be needed to validate it. Hmmm....still, I've seen an analysis that showed that the latest reg changes wouldn't do the 50% required. I mean...does anyone out there feel like they caught 50% less metro demersal fish last year? Because that is what is required. No one wants to catch 50% less fish, but they have to.

Again, my key point is not that MPAs are a panacea for fisheries. But as we all seem to agree, are an essential tool. So where are they in the fisheries management of, for example, the V5? Best practice says (amongst innumerable other benefits) that you need no-take MPAs in order to assess fisheries impacts in fished areas. So where are ours? BTW - exisiting marine parks only go out to the state waters limit (3 nautical mile offshore), They don't extend offshore into our key V5 habitats. So where is the plan to implement some no-take zones in dhufish habitat to be able to assess fishing impacts?

Terry, the people who say this:

QUOTE: "...large Marine parks (and they really mean large areas/percentage of no fishing zones) are essential for lots of reasons. They cite lots of overseas research about no fishing zones and benefits for everything from whales to leafy seadragons to better catches of fish outside the no fishing zones.

Some claim many universal and indisputable benefits from closing areas to all fishing, and then apply that to the WA situation which is quite different in many ways, and is ignoring the actual levels of fishing which may be taking place, and the management rules applied to that fishing or the past lack of rules or enforcement in some countries."

Are marine scientists. They might know a thing or two about it.

From:

http://depts.washington.edu/mpanews/MPA115.htm

Last decade, multiple international goals were set for the protection of oceans through MPAs, with deadlines for reaching them.  For some of the main goals, the deadline is now just two years away:

• At the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), national leaders agreed to create representative networks of MPAs worldwide by 2012.
• At the 2003 World Parks Congress, IUCN members called for a global system of MPA networks to exist by 2012, including "strictly protected areas" amounting to at least 20-30% of each habitat.
• In 2005, a subsidiary body of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) called for 10% of all marine and coastal ecological regions to be conserved in MPAs, also by 2012.

When we last reported on the field's progress toward these goals, the trends were not promising (MPA News 7:5).  At the time (five years ago), an academic analysis of worldwide MPA designations indicated the CBD goal would not be met until 2069.  Even worse, trends indicated the World Parks Congress goal would not be met until 2085 at best.

In the past five years, however, the MPA field has experienced the designation of some massive protected areas that have substantially increased global MPA coverage, including in the Chagos Islands (MPA News 11:6) and the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (8:1).  And several governments have accelerated their designation of MPAs with the WSSD and CBD commitments in mind.  Russia is among the latest to announce plans to expand MPA coverage, citing CBD commitments (see Notes & News, this issue).  This past May, the parties to the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) formally endorsed the development of a network of MPAs in the Southern Ocean by 2012 to meet the international targets.

How much closer the MPA field is now to meeting the targets is unclear.  Answers are expected this October when the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas and the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre will co-release an updated assessment of global progress on ocean protection.  The assessment will coincide with the CBD's 10th Conference of the Parties (COP 10), to be held in Nagoya, Japan.

Partial answers are already available from the World Database on Protected Areas, which provides year-by-year statistics on protected area coverage from 1990 to 2009 (www.wdpa.org/Statistics.aspx).  However, the statistics only consider MPAs within a country's territorial sea (out to 12 nm), not within its much larger Exclusive Economic Zone (out to 200 nm).  And the figures are broken down only by country and geographic region, not by habitat or ecological region.

I just looked into the stats and came up with some numbers, typed them all out and accidentally hit 'back' and lost it all. I can't bring myself to redo it!! Gotta help do some gardening so I can go down south to do some real fishing next weekend ;-)

Australian Commonwealth stats:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/commonwealth/manage/index.html

Global stats:

World Database on Protected Areas:

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/wdpa/statistics/2009MDG_Growth_Chart.gif

http://www.wdpa.org/Statistics.aspx

And GoogleEarth shows MPAs around the globe - you can see them in the "Ocean" layers. Doesn't look like 30% of the world's MPAs...and you've got to look at no-take areas, IUCN Category IV.

Thanks Terry.

I did read what you posted...by all accounts the west coast demersals were in dire straits several years ago. It took several years (what, 5 or so?) to bring about regulation change. It will take several years to see what change those increased restrictions made. So a 12-month report is good and all, but I sure hope the 50% cut was achieved now and into the future! Or else, like usual, and like it is around the globe, traditional fisheries management lags behind the need.

Did anyone catch 50% less than they did a year ago?, due to the regulation changes?

I think the Minister made his decisions based on the politics of a watered-down regulation change.

You're right...I need to find that analysis that showed the recent reg changes as being of some but not total value. I was sure it came from a fisheries paper. It was a while ago, late at night after several beers.

Yep, the Scientific Panel are scientists and say exactly what I and you both say. What I am talking about is that no-take sanctuary zones are missing from the Fisheries management models. If dhufish (and everything else) spawned in known and localised areas like snapper it would be a bit easier to temporarily close them...as it is, it seems that large sanctuary zones are the only way to protect at least some of them...?

That's semantics.

Sure, semantics in response to several other comments on this thread and on others where people are writing about the green conspiracy to end fishing via sanctuary zones.

Are you aware of any established MPAs that haven't resulted in improvements in biodiversity? Every paper I've ever read on the subject finds that they do...is that not evidence?

OK then, in clear terms. Evidence from around the world shows no net loss of fishing amenity or income from no-take sanctuary zones.

Initial loss of catch as a result of spatial closures get negated in the medium to long term by increased catches of larger and therefore more valuable target species. There are not many papers out there on the subject, because MPAs are only at best 20 years old, and so are just starting to hit their straps.

When I say MPA, I generally mean no-take area. Sorry if there are any mix ups.

The states progression of marine reserves is waaaay too slow, I agree. Tis a rather political thing, the change of Govt in WA last time interrupted things. The new Govt is perhaps scared of fishers threatening to lose them votes about it?

Ewan...you say every paper you have read says MPAs mean improvements in biodiversity...see the last couple of lines in the recent ABC story on Professor Bob Kearney from the University of Canberra.

Professor Kearney, who now also works as an industry consultant, says marine parks do not address the real threats to the marine environment such as pollution, agricultural run-off, coastal development and introduced species.
"Marine parks in New South Wales have already cost more than $30 million in the last three years alone and probably tens of millions more than that, and they can't demonstrate any benefit," he said.
"In fact, the latest report by the Department of Industry and Investment, formerly New South Wales fisheries, actually concludes that the sanctuary zones cause a decline in biodiversity."

The State of Fisheries Report 2008/09 states that the breeding stock of Pink Snapper remains unacceptable.

Perhaps all the little fellas you mentioned will grow old and breed. Perhaps a large proportion of them will be caught in the 99% of all our coastal waters that allows them to be.

Scotty - last time I checked, the ABC was not a scientific reference point. Professor Bob Kearney was not talking about Western Australia, and was referencing estuarine and inshore coastal fisheries over east...the mullet fishery. Where those factors he mentioned and that you quoted would indeed have the most impact.

Have you read through that website I posted in the original topic? Any thoughts on the content therein?

Given that here in WA we have very little run-off, and outside Cockburn Sound, very little pollution, little coastal development and so far little or no discernible impacts from introduced species, as well as the fact that Department of Fisheries research says that several key species are over-fished, it would suggest that fishing does actually have quite a role to play in fisheries (and therefore biodiversity) decline here - on the West Coast anyway.

This is the study Bob Kearney was talking about:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/281185/Gibbs-et-al_CSIRO-report-re-ESD_REPORT.pdf

it was not an analysis of existing marine reserves, it was a modelling (i.e. hypothetical) study.

As I understand it, the decline in biodiversity it mentions is due to a modelled increase in large predators that occurs following a hypothetical reservation, eating their prey species. So prey species declines, and therefore so too does a measure of 'biodiversity'. However, the goal is not to maximise our measurements of biodiversity, but to maintain some semblance of the way things were before we started industrial harvesting of fish.

The main conclusions from the model runs were:

(i) The Ocean Trawl Fishery is already fully exploited.

(ii) Reduced fishing would allow a significant proportion of overfished predatory groups to

recover with an accompanying decline in their prey (e.g. forage groups and juveniles).

(iii) Fishing levels seen in the 1970s and 1980s achieved biodiversity levels (of the groups

represented in the model) that are equal to or better than other harvest strategies (a result

that can be understood in terms of the intermediate disturbance hypothesis).

(iv) Marine reserves have a very positive impact on sharks and rays and a mainly negative

impact on their prey groups. Shallow demersals and their prey can be impacted

positively or negatively depending on whether fishing effort previously in the reserve

areas is removed (e.g. buy-outs) or displaced to neighbouring areas.

(v) Marine reserves cause a decline in the biodiversity of the groups represented in the

model irrespective of whether historical fishing effort is entirely removed (low

disturbance) or redistributed into neighbouring areas outside the reserve (leading to

excessive disturbance).

The intermediate disturbance hypothesis he talks about in this context would mean that by fishing down the top order predators (in our case, for example dhufish, sharks etc), their prey species numbers (e.g. wrasse) can increase, and therefore under some measurements of biodiversity (there are many), it can be seen to increase. If you take too many predators away then prey species can increase so much that they start to have negative impacts on their prey species, such as marine plants, algae and such, as the consume more than can be produced. This would be high disturbance, as opposed to intermediate disturbance, and would then likely show lower biodiversity again. The 'measurement' of biodiversity is a rather complex and inexact science.

You get down to philosophy if you too far into it, in that how can we measure and observe something that we are intrinsically a part of? Measurement comes down to control and understanding of the variable in question - you can't measure what you can't observe. For example fish behaviour is a huge unknown.

It is still vitally important to have large sections of the marine environment protected from any fishing pressure (because it is highly selective on higher predator species), so that as close to natural predator/prey/habitat interactions can be maintained. Under that intermediate disturbance scenario of the 1970's and 1980's that is described, the system is still not in it's natural state regardless of what the measurement of biodiversity is. Given that pretty much all of our waters are in some way exploited, without large, naturally functioning sections of the environment set aside for study, we really have little idea what impact we are having on the environment. You need these areas in order to compare between fished and unfished areas.

For example, Western Rock Lobster are very migratory species, right? Moving in and out and all about as they breed and moult through the seasons? Maybe not...the Sanctuary zones at Rotto have yielded many very very large individuals that seem to stay put through the seasons, and over the years. These whoppers are able to eat bigger prey, and can resist being eaten by bigger predators. They likely breed up to 100 times more than the 'normal' sized critters. This throws a very important piece of information into the management mix that would not have been available if it were not for the 20-year existence of these little no-take areas. You see, we started measuring and observing our exploited species long after they started being harvested at industrial levels.

How do we really know what is going on with our 'overfished' and 'highly vulnerable' iconic species if we don't know what the fishery looks like in it's natural state?

Hence, we as fishers, should be advocating for significant closed areas to have some surety of our resource.

There are always details we won't like about politics and process and lack of research. Do you avoid building a hospital when there is a need because it neglects one or two areas of medicine?

Quote:

The following is not a political comment, it's just a statement of historical fact:- The State Labor Gov't had 2 terms to introduce more Marine Parks

Yep, and this is also not a political comment, but a statement of fact, they did - Jurien MP, Barrow/Montebellos MP, Barrow and Muiron Islands MMAs, Ningaloo MP, Rowley Shoals MP, and they did the work on Walpole MP, and Capes and Dampier MPs which had been through most of the process until the Govt change. Ps. - I am not a Labor voter.

I should say that I haven't read all the papers Scott, and there are likely to be examples in the literature where MPAs have had little difference on biodiversity. The consensus remains that they are an essential and so far underutilized tool in marine planning, sustainable fishing and biodiversity conservation. And that very much includes WA

Oooo, of course not... Quite right Terry, well caught! We don't give fish much of a chance ay? Between polluting estuaries and rivers and then catching too many offshore...
Perhaps we need more sanctuary zones? There is mounting evidence in the Great Barrier Reef area that protected areas are more resilient to environmental pollution and climate change. Fish and habitats are more likely to be more resilient if they are closer to their unexploited state...