Paul



The South Australian Premier's media statement http://www.ministers.sa.gov.au/news.php?id=4260&page=1 and there are more details of the areas in http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/marineparks/



That media statement says

Problems with some Marine Parks in WA and some other States have included that actions don't match the promises, and some "consultation" has not been in good faith.



The devil is always in the detail, in the science or lack of it, in the assessment of the risks, in what they mean by "sustainable", and not acting on the things which pose the greatest risk and give the greatest benefit, but rather take the easy way and do little else but restrict fishing and then try to give everyone the warm and fuzzy feeling that they have actually done something that will make a difference, yet they still allow things like anchoring which clearly is damaging to the very things they say they want to conserve.



In some areas, the greatest risk is development and run off and pollution from the land, but nothing effective is done about that for the Marine Park areas. Yep, I know those are very hard.



Marine Parks and sanctuary zones in the right places for the right reasons should be part of a much bigger package.



IF or WHERE overfishing is a problem, (and no doubt it is in some places) then closing areas without actually controlling the overfishing could just concentrate the fishing into the areas which are left open, potentially making them worse. Proper fisheries and fishing management needs to be put in also.



TerryF

=====

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

All of my family live in the lower south east at a coastal town called Blackfellows Caves and they are really concerned as to what is going to happen. As it stands now they will be surrounded by marine parks stretching up to 100km east and 100km west and if they make these a no go area in the future what will be left of a lot of these towns. The government is saying that they are open to everyone now but what is install next year and the year after. All these towns rely on the professional crayfishing sector to boost the towns economy and the summer time tourists who also come for the crayfish and abalone.

I am truly concerned as it was always my grandfather and dads dream to retire on the coast and fish when the weather permitted and relax around the house when the weather was foul. There is definately some changes ahead but what effect it has on the coastal communities and tackle industry only time will tell.     

Paul H, and Mitta79,

Ningaloo Marine Park is huge, covers a couple of hundred Km of coast near Exmouth WA, and has 30% of its area as no-take sanctuary zones.

Despite this, Exmouth is a fishing mecca, a very good place to own a tackle shop or accomodation service, and the fact that it is a marine park is widely used in its promotion as a tourist hotspot. Being a marine park has focussed millions of $ of research into the area, and makes sure that the quality of the environment and therefore fishing, must be maintained by the govt, by law.

Dive operators focus their diving on sanctuary zones, as there are more and bigger fish there and they wont have to compete with fishers for the spot.

Fishers can fish the remaining 70% of the park, which only extends to state waters (3nm offshore), and where there are sanctuary zones which abut the land, where people like to fish from shore, there is usually a 200m exclusion to the zone - in other words, you can still fish from shore.

So it is not all bad - get involved in the consultation process and be constructive with your comments, organise fellow fishers to do the same and hopefully your advice will be heard and adjustments made to reduce any impact on your fishing, whilst still having the conservation outcomes. You cant expect to walk into a room, pronounce that it is all shlt and bunkam and that youve been doing this or that for x number of years, and have your way with it!! They will put in zones, and they will want your (constructive) input on that. 

Having the sanctuaries will ensure that the environment is kept intact and puts focus on that for the future, which is good for everyone I reckon.

Cheers,

Ewan

Proud contributor to Fishwrecked-Reeltime:

http://fishwrecked-reeltime.com/

Thanks Ewan,

I'm not against the marine parks at all what I am concerned about is their implimentaion in SA.  The areas purposed cover approximately 46% of SA's total coastal waters.  There is a distinct lack of information regarding the total exclusion zones other we keep being told they are small and nothing to worry about.  The have implimented these already in a few areas already (Backstairs passage is one) and the exclusion zones were the information has been provided do show some small exclusion zones which I am happy with.  Some of these are in shallow 'nursery areas' and a few others small areas around a few islands such as the Pages off Cape Jervios again no problem with these. However other exclusion zones are not small by any means such as the one purposed off Peneshaw (east of) on Kangaroo Island.

The DEH (dept for Env and Heratige) states our Marine Ecosystems are not under threat (in their info) and our fisheries are already amoungst the best managed.  So why the need for such large marine parks? 

Section 8.3.f of the act also states DEH can recover costs from those benefiting from the parks. - a lack of info on this point is also disturbing as it appears to be very open ended. 

I have provided some info to the consultation process as requested and have been constructive with this.  Most in SA are not aginst them its just the size and lack of info available that has us worried along with what may be changed in the future without any consultation with the users etc.

Thanks again for everyones imput