not pulling the piss here mate and i didnt even click on the link... what part of west oz do u think we west australians own or have any control over??? small fish, big ocean. we are already sold but feel free to discuss it as much as you want.

i think you answered the question yourself, isnt it our ocean, out to our borders, i didnt put it up for a debate, the question is? are you happy with a "no take zone foe the whole of wa or most of it, from augusta to past perth and exxy"

because i tell you now i am not, and its a joke, so none of our kids etc can fish out waters again, i mean WTF!!

thats why we need to speak out jamos, unless our coast is going to be sold to an overseas group telling our gov what we should and should not do!! bye bye wa fishing, I hope not everyone has the same melow aproach as you mate, and thats no piss take mate, this is serious stuff mate,

"are you happy with a "no take zone foe the whole of wa or most of it, from augusta to past perth and exx"

Where did you see or hear about that. The plans I have seen are much less drastic.

my mellow approach is due to the fact i have accepted the minority (being us, western australians) have less say in what goes on here than anyone, if what your claiming is true who ever now owns our ocean already do, pockets are lined and deals are done. its not a debate but a statement im making, my personal view on how things work and more so pointing out if this is true your community outrage and peoples voices are a barely a mouses squeak to the lions roar of multi billion dollar companys, im sure history will support me. i hope what ever it is your trying to alert people to is a chinese whisper of massive proportions if not god (if he or she was real) help us all. my voice will be wasted on discussions such as these, armchair internet fisherman extrordinaire today, just another ant in line tomorrow.

in all seriousness i hope you get the support your looking for.

Before the Gillard Government locks up vast new areas off the WA coast from fishing, the public have the right to know who is calling the shots.
Do we really want local fishing policy dictated by an American charitable trust about which most West Australians know nothing, but has among its principal stated aims saving "the critical habitat" in our waters of a whale that is under no threat and increasing the number of great white sharks?
That is what is happening in the development of the Gillard Government's new plans to ban commercial activity in huge areas of our best fisheries - with little or no public involvement.
 
The Pew Environmental Group is an offshoot of a $4.5 billion Philadelphia-based charity founded by the heirs to an old Pennsylvania oil fortune. Each year it spends around the world about $250 million of what appears to be guilt money furthering its own agenda.
Pew is the lead body in a group of environmental organisations called Save Our Marine Life that has been at the forefront of agitating for new no-fishing marine sanctuaries off the WA coast.
The plan was set out two years ago with the launch of a report called Protecting WA's Big Blue Backyard. Among the "threatened" species and ecosystems targeted by the report were these:
*"Critical habitat for a range of significant species including the world's biggest animal, the endangered blue whale. Perth Canyon is one of only two blue whale feeding grounds known in Australia. It is a key to the survival and recovery of blue whales."
*"One of the world's largest sharks, the threatened white shark."
 
One effect of the Federal lockup would be to close the South West gill net shark fishery.
Interestingly, the report didn't offer any of its own scientific research, but it did quote what it said was recent opinion polling. And that is the nub of this issue. The campaign plays solely to green sentiment, not science.
 
"Of those polled, 73 per cent saw marine protection as very important, 75 per cent felt there was not enough marine protection in WA and almost 50 per cent called for protection to cover at least 30 per cent of the marine environment," the report said.
"Protecting WA's Big Blue Backyard concludes that a CAR (catch and release) network of large no-take marine reserves is needed now to secure the future of marine life, industries and people in the Kalbarri to Eucla region."
 
The commercial fishing industry has been fighting a losing battle ever since to stop locking up 30 per cent of WA waters for no good reason.
The recreational fishing lobby has now decided to take on Pew and its local conservationist backers, directly raising a number of "inconvenient truths" missing from their campaign.
"A common trick of these groups is to use emotive images of species under no threat to base sensational claims that the marine environment is in imminent danger if they are not heeded," Recfishwest executive director Frank Prokop said.
"The cynical marketing campaign by these green groups ensures that a sad looking seal is asking them to help save it when the truth is that populations are actually increasing and sanctuary zones will have no effect on them.
"The public have been force-fed rubbish masquerading as science by self-interested groups at every opportunity."
These are some of Mr Prokop's "uncomfortable truths":
* Australia has more marine areas in sanctuary zones than anywhere in the world. When the current marine planning process is finished, Australia will have more sanctuaries than the rest of the world combined.
* Victoria's Auditor-General questioned the effectiveness of sanctuary zones, reporting they had "uncertain benefits". A Department of Environment and Conservation audit of Jurien Bay Marine Park showed that despite 24 per cent being closed to line fishing there were no clear benefits after 10 years. of lock up.
* Most of the claims to lock up ocean areas derived from a single paper by Canadian marine ecologist Boris Wurm who had since retracted it, stating his assumptions did not measure up.
* Pew's claim that the South West bioregion had up to 80 per cent unique species (a blatant piece of green marketing) was wrong.
* Seal, sea lion, dolphin, whale and turtle numbers were increasing. They were already protected species.
* Whales are not under threat in Australia where whaling is banned. (Neither is the Perth Canyon).
* There is no public review of submissions to the Federal marine planning process. The relevant bureaucracy in Canberra abolished the only marine reference committee.
 
The bottom line is that Pew and its greenie mates have got away with blue murder for too long.
It's time some politicians grew a spine and started questioning their spin instead of just trying to turn it into votes.
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/opinion/post/-/blog/paulmurray/post/2551/comment/1

my point is, our coastline is threatened to be locked up as a "no take zone" by an overseas group, if you dont mind it then hats your call, find another hobby, but not just for hobbies , tourism in wa will die especially southwest towns like dunsborough etc, and a lot more,

maybe this agenda is well underway harro, if you go by bag limit changes over the last 10 years it seems like they are just setting us up for the big finale.

my home town Cairns struggled through this mentioned period when they tried to shut the reef down they ended up expanding the green zones {no fishing or anchoring}by a substantial area goverments bought back licences paid out company,s who could prove loss of trade, commercial fishermen and women went bust this went on for twelve months . I was running my own business at that time and was in hard financial times my self even the family man was reluctant to rebuild or build a new boat the tackle shops struggled and the whole retail industry was up in arms . We had may meetings through out the year and protests from commercial fishos to the family  if this happens in WA then it is up to us to have our say.I am all for preservation and bag limits but as long as they are fair.

put it this way, if your kid says "dad can we go fishing today after school" and you reply no sorry son/daughter we cant fish anymore, the americans have told our gov we cant,

does that seem right??no it f%$#*^ doesnt

there are programs in  place to replenish stocks etc, and sancturaries im sure may come into place but this is way beyond,

c,mon  man get real! this is total lock down, my whole point of the thread,

anyways if you dont care then dont say, move to the hills or desert as the ocean will just be a water feature ,

cheers

 anyway before this thread turns too opionated, i call upon anyone that does think its a worry to post a message to the above link,

otherwise fuk it ,im not here to debate, this is for pple who want to have a say, not for tree huggers to lie down and say "oh well"

if you dont agree then dont say fugg all, if you do then post on the link, simple.

done, if we all get lazy then lazy it will be and say goodbye to fishing,

it's the typical government approach like we had with the rfbl costs , and a million other things besides.

tell everyone the worst case scenario , people get up in arms ,    so they reign in  costs/no take zones/whatever a bit  , and everyone pumps fists into the air for a win , when weve all really just been shafted.

must admit Jamos's attitude pretty indicative of the general roll over and take it mindset here.

Make an online submission on the North-West draft plan (south-west public comment period has closed) at www.rla.net.au

I am very pleased to see Paul Murray balancing the previously lopsided pro-SOML coverage in The West Australian of the previous two or three years.

Lol f##ck that couldnt stop me from fishing she should piss off back to america

 i know west aussies dont eat whales,turtles,great whites,seals etc,most fisher people stick to their bag limits,these greenies from america and the radical greenies should be told where to go instead of imposing on our lifestyle without scientific proof,im all for fishing for the future,but santuries are not the answer,i have also posted this on facebook,to tell other people not to be dictated by the radical pew group from america and radical greens here,this is my own opinion

Not doubting, I just want the information of the sign to do some research and pass it on to some contacts.  As championruby said above, the plans I have seen dont seem so drastic so I would like some more info if possible.

Bryan

So is it going to be a'no take' zone or 'no fishing' zone.  ie will catch and release be permitted?  Any chance of some sort of diagram showing the plans, a proposal paper of some kind.  I'm not 100% convinced anyone can shut down over 2000km of coastline.  Sounds like a beat up.  It will probly end up with further reduced baglimits, and if its the whales they are on about then maybe shut down the perth canyon.  When was the last time you were out there?   Not trying to sound like a dickhead but lets get some facts.

Over the top claims in my view.

It seems that both sides of this arguement are as bad as another. All this talk of civil liberties and not being able to take your kid for a fish is total scaremongering.

If you look at the final submissions they have significant areas of protection but many are off the coastline.

^

bigdave - http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/publications/south-west/index.html - go down to  the fact sheet area. That shows them all

Cheers Harro, have sent an email of support to Paul Murray,took about 5 mins about half the time it took Jamos to have his winge LOL.

Good on you Harro.  I think you are the future of fishing. 

Have just had a look at these:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-network.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-albrohos.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-jurien.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-perth-canyon.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-eastern-recherche.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-western-eyre.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/publications/pubs/fs-western-ki.pdf

I cant see any reason to get upset.  Looks pretty good to me actually.  Its hitting the commercial boys pretty hard, not us really.  I feel for them but wild fisheries are only going to become more and more scarse, and hey we are gonna need a shitload of blokes working in the midwest, pilbara and kimberly in the next 10 years .  I far as i understand it, their principal is to protected large tracts of environment that are untouched or relatively intact, to preserve areas we have not exploited yet.  That pretty much excludes all our normal (recreational) fishing grounds.  As far as i can tell. 

The only areas i can see that we would now be banned from are; a patch way, way west of the Abrolhos, a strip from shore out to international waters - between Cape Arid and Israelite Bay, and a few bits near Streaky Bay and Flinders Island in SA.  The rest all allow recreational fishing, as managed by the State.

Now let me be clear, i do not approve of an organisation such as PEW, interfering with our government and aparently strongarming their agenda into law by way of influencing the Commonwealth Governement.  But their proposal barely effects us (from the info i have), so I would not be against it.  It will give the greenies a nice warm feeling to know they have done something good (who knows maybe they have) and we keep going as normal.

And if they achieve this Dave, do you think they will happily sit on their hands OR do you reckon it will inspire them to go for more?

I know what I reckon the answer is.

Typical Aussie government doing F*** all for its people, takes care of every other nation and its bullshit problems besides the problems in there own backyard what a joke , im blood disgusted, Dirty Bastards.

"I know what I reckon the answer is"

Now that sounds like a riddle big dave wouldn't understand big john.

There is certainly a risk that they will try and take more in the future, but a bit of nouse would tell you that they would be pushing for even more the next time there is an opportunity, if this gets rejected.  Plus if this were to get knocked back would that see them defeated?  Would they just give up?  "I know what i reckon the answer is".  Some times you have to make a deal.

Plus, as a recreational fisherman it seems a bit irrational to be making a big deal out of the "closures" of parts of ocean areas if there is very little impact on rec. fishing areas.  Both parties need to make concessions.  I think they have been reasonably fair compared to their attempt at taking the coral sea.  Should we not be trying to get along with the greenies where we can?  Would that make the situation any worse?  Sure we might get a bit of a "greenie" influence, but then they get a bit of our influence too.  Thats how i see it anyway.

"The thing I find interesting is that the species they explicitly say they are trying to protect aren't targeted by fishers anyway. Who knows though, people may troll for blue whales in the Perth canyon, so let's lock it up.

Unfortunately most fun things are in the gun these days, fishing, hunting, 4wdriving, camping on a beach. Not a fan of the lock it up mentality myself."

But they aren't locking it up!!! have a quick squiz at the plans.  Its mostly affecting the Pro's.  It is actually quite a different proposal, from all the typical "lock it up" plans put forward.  No one on here would be a fan of the lockup mentality but this plan doesnt lock many people out of anywhere.  You can troll the perth canyon till your hearts content...  look at the plans

Old article about this stuff..

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/peter-garrett-under-fresh-attack-over-coral-sea/story-e6freoof-1225836287204

Daryl McPhee has a few interesting comments on the marine park issue below are a few excerpts from his paper

THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SCIENCE IN SOCIETY

Marine Park Planning and Recreational Fishing: Is

the Science Lost at Sea? Case Studies from

Australia

"Overall, marine reserves do not provide any protection from introduced marine species

and water quality impacts and only limited or no protection (depending on the jurisdiction)

against developments that impact habitat. In fact, recent work has suggested that marine reserves

may make a marine community as a whole more susceptible to invasion by introduced

species as a result of increasing the spatial heterogeneity of habitats at a regional level

(Kellner and Hastings, 2009; Halpern et al., 2010). Such work highlights again the need for

a more considered and focussed assessment of the costs and benefits of marine reserves

rather than an oversimplified assumption that they are of clear benefit".

&

The biodiversity benefits from marine reserves can include increased biomass, species richness

and average size in marine park areas compared to similar areas where fishing remains permissible.

There are a large number of studies from a variety of locations and habitats that

demonstrate this (e.g. Ferreira and Russ, 1995; Edgar and Barrett, 1999; McClanahan and

Arthur, 2001; Willis et al., 2003; Williamson et al., 2004), but the implied biodiversity benefits

of marine reserves are by no means universal (see Jones et al. 2004). Frequently however,

it is implied that biodiversity benefits are universal, and fisheries benefits also accrue. In

fact, marine reserves established for marine biodiversity conservation are often “sold” to

stakeholders explicitly or implicitly on the basis of fisheries benefits. However, for a benefit

to a fishery to accrue from a marine reserve, a simple build up of biomass or an increase in

species richness or the average size of fish is not sufficient in itself. There needs to be a

“spillover” of either adult fish or eggs and larvae from the marine reserve to areas where

fishing access remains.

The spillover of adult fish is influenced by the movement dynamics of a species relative

to marine reserve size and how exploited species respond to density dependent effects

within the marine reserve (e.g. Le Quesne and Codling, 2009; Moffitt et al., 2009; Miethe

et al., 2010; Kellner et al. 2010). Additional biological/ecological factors that influence adult

spillover can include body size, habitat, depth range, and schooling behaviour (Claudet et

al., 2010). Where adult spillover has been demonstrated through modelling or empirical

studies, it has been generally found to be limited spatially to 100s metres from the marine

reserve boundary (Russ, 2004; Halpern et al., 2010). If the adult spillover effect is too large

it may compromise the achievement of biodiversity outcomes in some instances by limiting

the retention of exploited species within the marine reserve itself (Mora et al., 2006; Miethe

et al., 2010).

&

"The biodiversity conservation benefits within a marine reserve are documented in a large

number of habitats globally, but the benefits are not universal and will most likely fail to

occur in degrading environments or where fisheries are well managed (Jones et al. 2004;

Myers and Ambrose 2009). Benefits can accrue outside of marine reserves and this potentially

includes benefits to recreational fisheries through spillover. This however is contentious as

magnitude and spatial scale of spillover is species and area specific and is likely to be highly

dependent on environmental quality".

Given we are often told these sanctuary zones will increase the size and number of fish around them I find the above underlined "limited to 100 metres from the boundary" as interesting.  Not only that he sates the "benefits will most likely fail where fisheries are already well managed"

Before anyone jumps on me saying he also says this is no reason to totally dismiss having marine parks or sanctuary zones I will inlcude his discussion and conclusion at the risk of boring some persons. 

 6 but to date an imperative that has not been enacted in anyper se and introduces an additional level of complexity into debates

Conclusion

Overall, there needs to be a significant rethink of how marine parks in Australia that incorporate

marine reserves for biodiversity protection are developed and implemented. There

needs to be a commitment to more participatory approaches in the design of marine park

networks and a wider application of participatory partnerships between scientists, managers

and the community in the monitoring of marine reserves. There needs to be consistent acknowledgement

from government agencies that marine reserves have potential costs as well

as possible benefits to the recreational fishery (and others), and a commitment to robustly

assess these costs and benefits. Marine reserve implementation will also be aided by focusing

on the potential biodiversity benefits within the marine reserve, rather than hypothesising

significant and universal benefits through spillover that, depending on the species, habitats

and size and location of the marine reserve, might not eventuate. There needs to be an understanding

that marine reserves are not a panacea - they do not mitigate all important impacts

on the marine environment. Management of marine biodiversity should be through mitigation

of hazards and risks, while includes but is far from limited to, the implementation of marine

reserves ".

 Discussion

This paper has investigated the major identified contentions raised by recreational fishing

interests in regard to the development and implementation of marine reserves for biodiversity

protection in Australia. With reference to the scientific literature base (biological and social),

the major contentions have been demonstrated to have validity. This conclusion does not

mean that marine reserves should be dismissed as either a biodiversity conservation tool or

a fisheries management tool. Rather it suggests that changes to the way: a) marine reserve

networks are developed, and b) costs and benefits to the recreational fishery are conceptualised

and communicated, are warranted. Failing to do this will most likely lead to continued conflict.

More critical evaluation of the science behind marine reserves, particularly related to spillover

effects is warranted, as is a more generally consideration of the individual biology of key

species and the dynamics of marine ecological assemblages.

At a conceptual level, it needs to be acknowledged by decision making agencies that

marine reserves have both potential costs and benefits for the recreational fishery, and not

just benefits. This acknowledgement then needs to be translated into rigorous cost-benefit

analysis that includes analysis of social issues of relevance to the recreational fishery. Such

an analysis needs to take into consideration that costs and benefits will not be spread evenly

through a recreational fishing population as the population itself is heterogeneous, and the

ability of recreational fishers to adapt to change to achieve a similar level of satisfaction

from the activity is highly variable. Undertaking a cost-benefit analysis approach is consistent

with developing a network of marine reserves that minimises social and economic cost which

is an identified imperative

meaningful way for recreational fisheries affected by marine reserves in Australia.

The biodiversity conservation benefits within a marine reserve are documented in a large

number of habitats globally, but the benefits are not universal and will most likely fail to

occur in degrading environments or where fisheries are well managed (Jones et al. 2004;

Myers and Ambrose 2009). Benefits can accrue outside of marine reserves and this potentially

includes benefits to recreational fisheries through spillover. This however is contentious as

magnitude and spatial scale of spillover is species and area specific and is likely to be highly

dependent on environmental quality. Such an important complexity that is meaningful to

recreational fishers is not effectively acknowledged in government documents and reports

that underpin marine reserve network development in Australia. Instead, all encompassing

benefits have frequently been postulated which is inconsistent with available scientific information

and inconsistent with the views of recreational fishing interests in general. The

“sale” of marine reserves for marine biodiversity conservation on the basis of fisheries benefits

is potentially counter-productive as it detracts from the legitimacy of marine biodiversity

conservation objectives

(Jones, 2006).To move forward, government agencies in Australia should be more circumspect

in claiming broad and direct fisheries benefits from marine reserves for biodiversity conservation,

unless detailed aspects of the biology and ecology of key target species are understood,

and demonstrable benefits follow from this understanding.

Marine reserves are not effective at mitigating important hazards and risks in coastal

systems such as pollution that can cross reserve boundaries. Pollution can directly impact

the most sensitive life history stages of marine organisms (larvae) and habitat. Marine reserves

only benefit habitat if previously occurring fishing activities (e.g. trawling) that impact

habitat are excluded, or other impacts on habitat (e.g. dredging and coastal development)

are also excluded. The promotion implicitly or explicitly of marine reserves as a panacea,

including for habitat protection and water quality, can potentially create false comfort that

important components of the marine environment are protected when in fact the hazards and

risks remain unmitigated. Where benefits to habitats and water quality are claimed to be

valid they should be supported with identification of the exact mechanisms whereby the

proposed marine reserves can achieve them, and the likely magnitude of the benefits to both

the environment and stakeholders. Overall, mitigating hazard and risks to marine environments

requires a broader approach than current marine reserve initiatives. Approaches that should

be adopted are those that identify and rank all relevant hazards and risks, and where appropriate

implement management responses to reduce or eliminate hazards and risks.

To assist planning that minimises impacts on the recreational fishery and can potentially

lead to broader long-term support for marine reserves, there is a need to move to more participatory

approaches. Overall, there is a significant body of literature which documents that

the incorporation of participatory approaches in decision making can lead to better social,

economic and environmental outcomes in many different contexts (e.g. Hernandez and

Kempton, 2003; Walker, 2007; Wheeler et al., 2008). In the case of fisheries and marine

reserves, participatory approaches have the potential to be an effective bridge between traditional

fisheries management and marine biodiversity conservation. For such participatory

approaches to be effective, recreational fishing interests may need assistance in building

social capital and leadership skills.

The Spillover Effect

dont take my comments the wrong way, I do not oppose sancturaries and closures for breeding etc, and I am fish for the future etc, but like I stated PEW wanted alot more than what our own state gov wanted, my point is  that it seems we are owned by an overseas group, that alone is a worry,

anyway thanks for all comments, and yes the drafts do not look so bad,I had seen them before, and recently heard all sorts of other stories that made me say wtf!!,

thats for the input paul, & dave,

this thread is not meant to go pairshaped, there was another thread similar to this a few months back which i recently found,

fishwrecked.com/forum/recfishwest-warns-greens-groups-are-set-hijack-federal-marine-parks-plan

another interesting read is here-

www.westernangler.com.au/articles/editorials/331-something-smells-fishy

cheers again FW crew!

is this woman on crack !!! please not only has she got a head that only a dog w six tits would love but she a yank! and she has no frikkn idea! so wot do we do import all our fish fm asia! i dont bloody think so! im all for marine parks but on the scale that she is talking shes definatly on the good stuff and obs a puppet for someone else! multi use zones are a better example of what is to be used but a total shut off is just bullshit! bloody septic tanks!

Ah this'll all change once China takes over the world Just thought I'd bring some humour into it.