We are Ozzies, and why do we let a Yankie well funded bunch tell us how to run our waters.

"Come on Ozzie, come On!!!" Tell them to PO and I am sure we can do a better job than some Yanks.

Neels

PS and I am all for fish conservation.

Hi All,

Some of the intentions of the environmentalists eg the "Pew Foundation" are not always honourable. It is worth reading up on this group to see how they operate. Their financial resources are huge, around $5 billion and that is money that is originally derived from a petroleum business called Sun Oil Company. Their tactics include financing smaller environmental organisations and seizing power to drive their own agenda. They sometimes "fund research" at Universities eg Queensland and there is no guessing which way the research results will be presented. It is these tactics which are of greatest concern with their campaign to lockup vast areas of our marine environment, afterall they are environmentalists and perhaps they are well meanining but I think they are misguided and over zealous. 

Locking up areas as marine parks is not the be all and end all of marine conservation. For example fish stocks will get hammered in adjoing areas. There are better management strategies.

It is time that we made our voices heard to present a fair outcome for the present debate on Marine Parks so that we end up with a sustainable marine environment where we can still "Fish for the Future"

I am filing my teeth to extra sharp points in readiness for a good fight.

Toothfish

And what if scientists who are not funded by Pew say exactly the same thing? Who are you going to blame then?

Here is a link to the Australian Marine Science Association's Position paper on Marine Protected Areas https://www.amsa.asn.au/PDF-files/Submissions/AMSA_MPA_2008_Paper.pdf

AMSA believes that MPAs are vital for the conservation of Australia’s marine environment and threatened species.  AMSA recommends the following:  

a) Given national commitments set out within the NRSMPA strategy, we urge all Australian governments to establish networks of marine protected areas, with the objective of comprehensive, adequate and representative protection of Australia’s marine biodiversity assets. National or State marine reserve area targets are only useful in the absence of systematic regional conservation plans. Where detailed planning has not been undertaken, a goal should aim to protect all major marine ecosystems, with a minimum target of 10% of all habitat types under full no-take protection by 2012. Rare and vulnerable ecosystems or communities should be provided with greater protection – up to 100% where an isolated ecosystem or habitat type is endangered. Such no-take reserves should lie within larger multi-use protected areas, designed to provide limited harvesting opportunities which will not prejudice biodiversity assets. A figure of 10% under no-take protection would slow but not prevent loss of biodiversity: the current notake level in the GBRMP of 33% is more likely to achieve substantial and sustained biodiversity benefits

Science, not ideology. I keep hearing/reading people say "I am all for conservation, but..." or "Marine Parks are a good thing, but..." Well, are they or aren't they - do you want them or don't you? It is the scientists saying that 20-40% of the ocean should be in no-take zones along with complimentary fishing regulations. So why would a recreational fishing lobby group say that we don't need (say) 30%?? Ideology, that is why. I'd much prefer that decisions were made on science, not ideology.

Seriously - it's a bit long, but if you are 'filing up your teeth for a good fight' wouldn't you want to actually know what the science says? Forget about Pew for just one second - heck, forget about the Conservation Council and the green groups. Have a read of the Australian Marine Science Association's position paper and/or position statement. https://www.amsa.asn.au/PDF-files/Submissions/AMSA_MPA_2008_Statement.pdf

And here is just one example of a home-grown bit of science done by CSIRO about Rottnest. - It's hardly tropical, or a developing country.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF06204.htm

Increased density, biomass and egg production in an unfished population of Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) at Rottnest Island, Western Australia

R. C. Babcock A B, J. C. Phillips A, M. Lourey A, G. Clapin A 

A CSIRO Marine Research, Private Bag No. 5, Wembley 6913, WA, Australia. 
B Corresponding author. Email: russ.babcock@csiro.au 

Abstract:

Surveys of spiny lobster (Panulirus cygnus) populations in shallow waters surrounding Rottnest Island in Western Australia revealed much higher levels of density, biomass and egg production in no-take than in fished areas. Density of lobsters was ~34 times higher in the sanctuary, and density of lobsters above minimum legal size around 50 times higher than in other areas around the island where recreational fishing is allowed. Mean carapace length (CL), total biomass and egg production of lobsters in the sanctuary zone were significantly higher than in adjacent fished areas. Large individuals (≥100 mm CL), especially large males, were found almost exclusively within the sanctuary. The abundance of mature animals in these shallow waters indicates that not all P. cygnus migrate to deep water and that shallow water habitats may currently be well below carrying capacity in terms of biomass and egg production. If implemented in a systematic way, unfished areas such as the Kingston Reefs could also provide a useful fisheries-independent tool for assessing trophic interactions and the structure and density of unfished populations, and for estimating parameters such as growth of larger individuals that may be rare or absent in more widely fished populations.

Unfortunately most reports are biased in some way by the pure nature that someone has to fund them. 

That being said the studies Pew use to support their basis for calling for large and comprensive no go zone are from overfished areas in other countries.  These are areas with no bag limits, no closed seasons to protect breeding populations, no catch and release and no size limits.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out a no take zone is going to improve stocks in an overfished area. 

Fortunately our fishery is regulated in many ways already and is in a good an healthy state.  Comparing our waters to an overfished area is like chalk and cheese.  Many scientists with appropraite qualifications suggest we do not need huge no take zones given our fisheries management is already doing an adequate job with further fine tinkering only required.

I suggest to anyone intereted that they read the recent report by the Select Commitee on Recreational fishing in NSW.  www.parliment.nsw.gov.au/fishinginquiry  This report called for a halt on further marine parks being made and showed the planning process for the implementaion of marine parks in NSW was largely botched with no real benefit to the fisheries.

Another aspect to consider is marine parks do absolutely nothing in reagrds to preventing, controling addressing run off from the land which one of the biggest threats to our marine life in Australia.  The goverment (federal and state) is merely pulling the wool over the public's eyes to present the farce of we're doing something to protect our marine enviorment without addressing the real issues purely in order to gain green credits with the public.  As a fisher in SA I am concerned as are may of my fellow fishers regarding the marine parks being touted here in SA.  As an example of the hyprocrisy by the SA goverment I give this example:

The Upper Spencer gulf is touted for a large marine park taking up the top of the gulf to an area south of Whyalla.  This area is one of Australias best snapper fishery (for large snapper in particular) and home to the Annuall Whyalla Snapper fishing competition.  The area is being considered for a marine park and no take zone which would affect this fishery and country communities.  At the same time as considering this marine park the goverment is also looking like it is going to allow BHP to build a desal plant near whyalla.  The area proposed for this is the main breeding grounds for cuttlefish and is a sensitive area as a result.  Fishing is not believed to have any effect on the cuttlefish breeding in the area yet our state goverment is considering  the desal plant.  Due to the shallow area being at the top of the gulf many scientists have stated the desal plant will be disastorous to the cuttlefish due to the highly saline water not being able to be dispersed due to the low tidal flow and shallow nature of the top of this gulf.  Go figure..........

PS for the record I'm not opposed to marine parks and I think they have there uses. 'No take zones' however are another thing.  I think better management including size limits, bag and possesion limits, breeding closures etc are alot more effective at managing our fisheries as a WHOLE fishery.  No take zone are and will be devastating to various country communities.  The size of some of the zones being considered here in SA will virtually wipe some communities out as far as tourism goes given fishing is their main tourism drawcard.  I know more than one area I wouldn't want a renatl shack in at the moment (currently considering if I make a booking for next year at one location being touted as a marine park because if the marine park is brought in I won't be going thats for sure, The caravan park will also be shut down if its brought in (80% of bookings are by fisherman).

Cheers Paul

"Density of lobsters was ~34 times higher in the sanctuary, and density of lobsters above minimum legal size around 50 times higher than in other areas around the island where recreational fishing is allowed".

Just a thought but is this possibly suggesting the no take zone is just concentrating efforts on the surrounding area.  Seems to take out the arguement that a no take zone actually improves fishing in areas surrounding it.  My other question would be if the no take zone was not introduced what would the density and size be in both areas (currently no take and take allowed).

I also note we are talking about lobsters here not scale fishes.  It would be interesting to note what factors are commercially related and rec related (assuming comercial take is also allowed as well as Rec. in the other areas).  I suspect (not knowing the area myself and basing it on the lobster fishery in SA) that commercial fishing is a bigger factor in this than Rec fishers.

Cheers

 The commercial and recreational takes of scalefish in these parts is roughly 50-50.

The Rottnest Sanctuary zones are tiny - in the region they are basically the only places you can't take crays and they are very small in the context of the range of your average boat. So nope - they are not concentrating catches outside of those areas. People catch crays the length and breadth of the state.

Until this research was done, the collective wisdom on rock lobster habits was that they don't stay in the one place, they all move around alot. This was because since WWII, the fishery has been extremely productive, and we have caught out all the big sedentary ones before monitoring and research began. In other words, all of the management was based on an already heavily fished industry/stock, with little idea of what an unfished population looked like. Now - thanks to sanctuary zones, we know that if given the chance, they do stay put and grow large. And the larger ones have something like 10x the egg production potential of the smaller ones that are everywhere else. Now the industry is facing a crisis point.

 ps. the conclusions of the CSIRO scientist that did that study say that in their scientific opinion, we need more no-take zones to ensure long-term viability of the stock.

He was not funded by a left-wing green conspiracy.

Hi Ewan,

Closed seasons to protect breeding stocks have only recently been introduced both here in SA and in WA (correct me if I'm wrong) and whilst we have bag had bag and size limits for decades these to have only recently been tightened I suspect so I don't nessecarily buy the these regulations have been in place for decades arguement (aware you mentioned the closed season(s) was only introduces recently).  Compare the regulations of ten years ago to those of today.  I also note the recreational fishers of today are more likely to have better practices in relation to releasing fish to ensure their survival than those of years gone. 

I'm not saying rec fishers have no effect on the biomass of a particular species but commercial fishing is a huge aspect and many commercial practices are more damaging (prawn trawling or other net fishing for example which often has a large by catch which ends up dead and thrown over the side).

The snapper fishery here in SA is showing signs of not being overfished but making a comeback by the fact it is now better managed than what it once was.  Dhufish are not generally caught here in SA but I understand they are very slow growing which will not help their cause.  Here in SA we have a policy which allows only two snapper over 60cm which helps protect the larger breeders.  No I don't have the answer on how to bring back the dhuie fishery (particularly given I'm SA based).

"It is painfully clear that traditional fisheries management techniques have not been successful". 

Traditional - i.e. outdated, outmoded, oldstyle.  What exactly is traditional fisheries management given it is a evolving thing with many changes being made over time to bag limits, closed seasons etc.  No argument from me - the rules/regulations of say 10-20 years ago were not sustainable.

Does this mean that things can't be turned around by other means other than large no take zones which will have ecconomic impacts around our country.  This is exactly why I do support further tightening of baglimits, possesion limits, sizelimits and closed seasons etc.  But are no take zones the answer - yes I have seen the arguements for them but no I don't agree with them.  Note we do not have a possesion limit here in SA for any species only bag limits and I would love to hear that they are bringing some in provided they take into account fishing on the west coast of SA is generally a once a year 1-2 week trip type scenario and make a reasonable allowance for those bring back fish from this area.

"The Rottnest Sanctuary zones are tiny - in the region they are basically the only places you can't take crays and they are very small in the context of the range of your average boat. So nope - they are not concentrating catches outside of those areas. People catch crays the length and breadth of the state."

Ewan - I haven't seen the areas (as to their size and if I would consider them as tiny as you suggest - with all due respect intended to yourself),  so defer to others with more knowledge of the area.  But this study is comparing the size etc of lobsters to "other areas around the island where recreational fishing is allowed" so I would have to have to say that in some at least a small way the no take zone is shifting more fishers both commercial and rec into the other areas around the Island (rest of the state aside). 

Rottnest Island aside  -  if the no take zones proposed for our fishery were not as large as what is on the table and were what could be considered as small no take zones )let alone tiny) I think we would find they would not generate as much passion against them amoungst a large proportion of rec fishers.  In fact if I can speak for others on this site I'd suspect if they were only small zones being proposed many would in fact be at least somewhat more supportive of them rather than dead against them.  Unfortunately from my point of view the size of the zones being proposed are very large and over the top.  Hence my lack of support for them.

Regards Paul

He was not funded by a left-wing green conspiracy.

Bet he doesn't own a boat or go fishing or own a rental shack/business in one of the proposed no take zones either :-)

Again, see I just don't understand why people would advocate on one hand, more regulatory restriction of seasonal bans, bag limits, possession limits, etc, but on the other hand have such a passionate hatred and denial about the scientifically-validated and consensus viewpoint (see the AMSA position paper - READ IT!).

The population is growing exponentially, doubling every 30-40 years. Fishing technology is getting better faster than that. Limiting the catch to say 1 fish per person will still mean that in one generation, there will be twice as many people able to catch one fish, using much more powerful sounders, etc. Have a think about it. It is unsustainable - Fishing regulations do most of the heavy lifting, but they cannot keep pace with our catches. For example, the recent changes over here took nearly 10 years to make it from scientific advice through to policy development through to the political process of actually making the changes. In that time, the cost of commercial-grade technology plummetted, and boat ownership rocketed, and the over-exploited fishery continued to be fished at unsustainable levels.

Again, see I just don't understand why people would advocate on one hand, more regulatory restriction of seasonal bans, bag limits, possession limits, etc, but on the other hand have such a passionate hatred and denial about the scientifically-validated and consensus viewpoint (see the AMSA position paper - READ IT!).

Ewan I did actually go to the AMSA website - not to read the paper you suggest but to see if I could find out where they get their funding etc.  Couldn't find anything in the time limits I have (should be working), and until I do I'm not going to assume their work is independant.

"denial about the scientifically-validated and consensus viewpoint"  Sorry Ewan but there are other scientists who believe the zones either don't need to be as large as proposed or there are other options which have less an effect on our regional econimy that should also be considered.

Cheers thats my last word on the subject for now.

Paul

 OK mate - no worries - it chews your time!

AMSA is funded only by membership. It's members are all marine scientists working in their fields - it is the peak professional association of marine scientists.

Sorry guys but after doing some research I think this needs saying.

“Why does a group of 900 scientists need funding to produce an piece based on their scientific research and their beliefs. Looking at the information they provide most income comes from memberships and conferances, they are not supported by the big green lobby you seem to expect. They are not an institute just a representive body for marine scientists, and as such provide a majority view from scientists. Those scientists that are not in agreeance are in the definite minority”.

“AMSA is funded only by membership. It's members are all marine scientists working in their fields - it is the peak professional association of marine scientists”.

Thanks Ewen and Championruby for your imput.  Have to work to earn money so ran out of time earlier.  As you suggested I did some research and looked into the AMSA so I can obtain a balanced view behind the implementation of marine parks around our country.

The following are taken from the Ecology Centre at the University Of Queensland (link below)

http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/Scientific_Principles_MPAs_c6.pdf

“The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland (2009) Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement.”

“This statement aims to provide clear science-based guidance on design principles and criteria

for scientifically-qualified conservation planners involved in the selection, design and

implementation of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas”

This document represents a broad consensus of the contributed opinions of more than 40

scientists who have an active involvement in the planning and management of marine

protected areas in Australia. Development of the document has been moderated by

researchers from The Ecology Centre , The University of Queensland”

Further down in the report under acknowledgements we find this statement is funded by guess who.

"Acknowledgements

Funding support

This work has been supported by the Pew Environment Group (Wild Australia Project) and

by the institutions hosting individual researchers named above”.

 Amongst the researchers named we find

 Current President of the AMSA - Lynnath Beckley of the Murdoch Universtity

And

Past president of the AMSA (1996-1997) - DR Alan J Butler   - CSIRO division of Marine Research

Seems though the AMSA is self funded by hosting comferences and by memberships only, the current and past Presidents of the organisation work somewhere else along the line in roles connected to implimenting marine parks around Australia and this work is funded by the PEW Enviorment Group.

My faith in the system is restored and us fisherman need not worry we are all in good hands and our rights will be considered.  We should all just sit back and let the peak professional association of marine scientists (the AMSA) present their “scientifically-validated and consensus viewpoint” to our government so they can make an informed choice on our behalf. 

Regards

Paul

Sorry guys but after doing some research I think this needs saying.

“Why does a group of 900 scientists need funding to produce an piece based on their scientific research and their beliefs. Looking at the information they provide most income comes from memberships and conferances, they are not supported by the big green lobby you seem to expect. They are not an institute just a representive body for marine scientists, and as such provide a majority view from scientists. Those scientists that are not in agreeance are in the definite minority”.

“AMSA is funded only by membership. It's members are all marine scientists working in their fields - it is the peak professional association of marine scientists”.

Thanks Ewen and Championruby for your imput.  Have to work to earn money so ran out of time earlier.  As you suggested I did some research and looked into the AMSA so I can obtain a balanced view behind the implementation of marine parks around our country.

The following are taken from the Ecology Centre at the University Of Queensland (link below)

http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/Scientific_Principles_MPAs_c6.pdf

“The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland (2009) Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement.”

“This statement aims to provide clear science-based guidance on design principles and criteria

for scientifically-qualified conservation planners involved in the selection, design and

implementation of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas”

This document represents a broad consensus of the contributed opinions of more than 40

scientists who have an active involvement in the planning and management of marine

protected areas in Australia. Development of the document has been moderated by

researchers from The Ecology Centre , The University of Queensland”

Further down in the report under acknowledgements we find this statement is funded by guess who.

"Acknowledgements

Funding support

This work has been supported by the Pew Environment Group (Wild Australia Project) and

by the institutions hosting individual researchers named above”.

 Amongst the researchers named we find

 Current President of the AMSA - Lynnath Beckley of the Murdoch Universtity

And

Past president of the AMSA (1996-1997) - DR Alan J Butler   - CSIRO division of Marine Research

Seems though the AMSA is self funded by hosting comferences and by memberships only, the current and past Presidents of the organisation work somewhere else along the line in roles connected to implimenting marine parks around Australia and this work is funded by the PEW Enviorment Group.

My faith in the system is restored and us fisherman need not worry we are all in good hands and our rights will be considered.  We should all just sit back and let the peak professional association of marine scientists (the AMSA) present their “scientifically-validated and consensus viewpoint” to our government so they can make an informed choice on our behalf. 

Regards

Paul

Trace anything back far enough and you'll find money from self interest groups. Nice find Paul.

 Sorry guys but after doing some research I think this needs saying.

“Why does a group of 900 scientists need funding to produce an piece based on their scientific research and their beliefs. Looking at the information they provide most income comes from memberships and conferances, they are not supported by the big green lobby you seem to expect. They are not an institute just a representive body for marine scientists, and as such provide a majority view from scientists. Those scientists that are not in agreeance are in the definite minority”.

“AMSA is funded only by membership. It's members are all marine scientists working in their fields - it is the peak professional association of marine scientists”.

Thanks Ewen and Championruby for your imput.  Have to work to earn money so ran out of time earlier.  As you suggested I did some research and looked into the AMSA so I can obtain a balanced view behind the implementation of marine parks around our country.

The following are taken from the Ecology Centre at the University Of Queensland (link below)

http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/Scientific_Principles_MPAs_c6.pdf

“The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland (2009) Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement.”

“This statement aims to provide clear science-based guidance on design principles and criteria

for scientifically-qualified conservation planners involved in the selection, design and

implementation of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas”

This document represents a broad consensus of the contributed opinions of more than 40

scientists who have an active involvement in the planning and management of marine

protected areas in Australia. Development of the document has been moderated by

researchers from The Ecology Centre , The University of Queensland”

Further down in the report under acknowledgements we find this statement is funded by guess who.

Acknowledgements

“Funding support

This work has been supported by the Pew Environment Group (Wild Australia Project) and

by the institutions hosting individual researchers named above”.

Amongst the researchers named we find

Current President of the AMSA - Lynnath Beckley of the Murdoch Universtity

And

Past president of the AMSA (1996-1997) - DR Alan J Butler   - CSIRO division of Marine Research

My faith in the system is restored and us fisherman need not worry we are all in good hands and our rights will be considered.  We should all just sit back and let the peak professional association of marine scientists (the AMSA) present their “scientifically-validated and consensus viewpoint” to our government so they can make an informed choice on our behalf. 

Sorry went to edit the post and for somereason most if it failed to show

Cheers

Good work Paul.

"Density of lobsters was ~34 times higher in the sanctuary, and density of lobsters above minimum legal size around 50 times higher than in other areas around the island where recreational fishing is allowed".

Lobsters are very different than demersel fishes.  They are high recruiters with an easy come back.  Hardly justification for bio-diversity protection.

If you lock off the best spots this is going to be the case.  Having locked off the best area is pretty obvious its going to have an increase of population but only slightly.  The perimeter is then fished out and the pathways hammered into the ground.

It does not mean the area will be pristine as it is hit by cyclones, large storms and major run offs such as has happened with the barrier reef. 

Having a locked off area has shown that only a small percentage of fish benefit from the locking out recreational fisherman method.

It has been shown that the fish do not waterfall to out lying areas of the locked out area.  This is mainly because the area locked off is the terrain the fish reside, not the desert non-habitat areas around it.

Never mind, its only 50% for ever..

Im voting out Julia Gillard, shes a piece of s***

read  this http://www.recfishwest.org.au/data/client/files/1240_wilderness_conservation_areas_policy_december_2010.pdf

why do you need to total lock-up 30%-50%

then concentrate 100% remaining effort in 50% of the area......yeh that will work.

dont use the metro as a example of over exploitation......thats just misleading

what are the fishing threats in a area like Cape Arid????? Geographe bay????? Cape Nat???? 

To be blunt I'm saying your argument that this is all based on sound science may be flawed, if so, is it then possibly based on 'ideology', if so whose??

One of the papers being used as evidence for the extend of no take zones is funded by Pew - I personally have my doubts this research is independent.   

Ewen says

"And what if scientists who are not funded by Pew say exactly the same thing? Who are you going to blame then?  Here is a link to the Australian Marine Science Association's Position paper on Marine Protected Areas"

&

"Science, not ideology. I keep hearing/reading people say "I am all for conservation, but..." or "Marine Parks are a good thing, but..." Well, are they or aren't they - do you want them or don't you? It is the scientists saying that 20-40% of the ocean should be in no-take zones along with complimentary fishing regulations. So why would a recreational fishing lobby group say that we don't need (say) 30%?? Ideology, that is why. I'd much prefer that decisions were made on science, not ideology".

&

& "Seriously - it's a bit long, but if you are 'filing up your teeth for a good fight' wouldn't you want to actually know what the science says? Forget about Pew for just one second - heck, forget about the Conservation Council and the green groups. Have a read of the Australian Marine Science Association's position paper and/or position statement".

Sorry but when the present and past presidents of the AMSA are having imput into a paper being used as evidence for introducing no take zones and the paper is funded by Pew I would suggest the AMSA (or at least some of those connected to it) are possibly not as independent as you suggest.   The Ecology Centre at the Queeensland Uni has also received other funding from Pew.  They certainly have an interest which is not in my view 'independent' by any means.

Cheers

Paul

 "I'm genuinely not too sure what you are saying there...?

so.... do you guys want science to support planning or not? I am genuinely confused."

Yes I want science to support planing but I want that science to be independant and not funded by a group who are all to happy to ban fishing altogether!!

Cheers

good work....with fair and reasonable assumptions on what is a difficult debate.

we want to protect fish and their habitat from over exploitation with science based risk assessments.

even happy if my tax goes to paying for more researchers

but should we sit back and watch these chicken littles run around spreading chookpoo... wherebe sucking in western suburbs pseudo greenie house wifes who feel guilt from over consuming on their husbands creditcards?????? same ones who are happy to pay more for "green" power even if it comes down the same ransmission line?????

good luck with your fight over there Paul.....you guys are looking like copping it hard

5% sanctuary

25% wilderness

30% General use

30% commercial

10% for just in case

This is politicing to get votes for a feel good cause that is very very flawed. Its corrupted. Its funded by a large overseas body with vested interests that has failed to keep its own backyard tidy.

Currently due to the cyclone/floods there must be a bucket load of silt and pollution sitting on corals and killing fish in QLD.  A sanctuary zone wont save that.

There is currently many "inshore" sanctuary zones combined with size limits, bag limits, possession limits, seasonal area closures, trip limits, boat limits, fishing licences, fishing capture tags, (Shark Bay), max size limits, minimum size size limits. 

But no, Julia doesnt think that is enough.

Many of the proposals are just plain anti-recreational fishing and not holisitc management strategies. 

Personally, Im tired of the communist attitude from the federal Labour government.

Enough is enough. We dont need foreign entities like PEW and WWF to tell us how to manage the fishery.

On top of that in reagrds to sanctuary zones Bob Brown from the Greens gets on television stating we need to save Tuna, Marlin and Sharks with the use of sanctuary zones.

They are pelagics you whackjob Bob.  They swim over large areas of the ocean.

This is how much these people know about what they are talking about.  They just perpetuate the garbage they are fed for their own selfish political gain.

Theyre going to bugger this country.

Can anyone actually tell me where these zones are to be? If you read comments by Recfishwest they try to give you the impression that the whole region between the Abrolhos Islands in WA and Kangaroo Island in SA is to be locked up.

The fact that it is the commonwealth marine planning does this mean commonwealth waters?

In particular, Recfishwest is concerned about an imminent decision on Commonwealth bioregional marine planning in waters between South Australia’s Kangaroo Island and along the west coast as far north as Western Australia’s Abrolhos Islands. The area is of vital importance to not just the recreational fishing industry, but also WA’s commercial fishers and tourism.” Mr Moyle said.

I know when I worked for fisheries research the funding for my position came from the NRM rangelands group.  They didn't have any agenda but did have criteria for us to meet to get further funding into the future.

It wouldn't suprise me in the least that some of these scientists have to produce results which allow for easy 'moderation' by PEW for their continued funding, keeping them employed (doing what they enjoy and with nice job descriptions and titles)  It is very easy to skew statistical data through the various means of collecting it, one I'm sure a savvy environmental group that has solid funding could do quite easily.  I'm not necessarily saying this is the case, but I wouldn't be shocked either.

Those types of figures just concern me Salmo.

the same could be said of Recfishwest. Half the board is represented by people who directly benefit  financially from the recreational fishing sector, so I do not know how self fullfilling their view is either....and when I see someone on fishwrecked called Biggles ( perhaps the Biggles that is a Recfishwest board member ) calling someone a green stooge it really makes me wonder.

And when I see prominent members of the Tackle industry (who are represented on the Recfishwest board) gathering signatures on petitions outside Boat Shows I often wonder who's interest they are really representing.

west coast

[the same could be said of Recfishwest. Half the board is represented by people who directly benefit  financially from the recreational fishing sector, ]

this statement above is totally wrong ....id suggest you check your facts , before you post such misleading info,.... it adds nothing to the debate

hezzy

I must have looked at the wrong Recfishwest I guess. The one I looked up had plenty of self interest groups represented...fishing magazines, fishing shows, tackle shops, tackle companies, fishing guides.

west coast .

 your last comment is a  bit different to your first statement hey ?? half the board .......just wrong ....not easy to say hey ?

would you care to offer up your income source /vested intrest group  you represent  west coast ??  put your cards on the table ...easy to criticise from the sidelines

hezzy

Westcoast: "And when I see prominent members of the Tackle industry (who are represented on the Recfishwest board) gathering signatures on petitions outside Boat Shows I often wonder who's interest they are really representing."

Theyre not the ones proposing the large spatial closures on top of the above mentioned plethora state legislation.

If you want to put down that card, one prominant ex-FRDC scientist now works for WWF.  Set up an outcome for future employment in the private sector?

Westcoast

feel free to have a look at the link below to direct you to the locations and size of the marine parks being brought into South Australia.  This will give you an idea of what is likely to follow in WA

http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/Conservation/Coastal_Marine/Marine_Parks

Take note of how much coast line between the WA border and Port Lincoln is marine park - I'm talking coast line - and its more than 50%

Have a look at Kangeroo Island again well over 50% - more like 80% 

bear in mind not all the marine park is a no take zone but these are larger (the marine parks) than what we were initailly being told thats for sure

Cheers Paul

I have no doubt the tackle boating industry have ther own interests in all of this as do our regional communities - that have plenty to lose.

Just Identified my favorite fishing area off Smoky bay is one of the proposed no take zones to be implimented in early 2012.  Well guess that makes my trip planned in april 2012 looking pointless depending on when they start it.  Feel sorry for the caravan park and rental shack owners at least 80% (and thats being generous ) of their take is from rec fishing.  The general store will also suffer but at least he'll still get some trade from the workers from the oyster farms .

Stupid thing is most of the year this area gets little pressure due to the pervailing winds (why I and most people go in late march to early may) and even then the large swells can keep you inside the island/bay for a week or more at a time.  It is also a long way to travel from Adelaide and this fact keeps the dickheads away as you need to plan your trips and also stay for at lest a week - Natures version of a sanctuary area without the no take zones.

Sucks if you ask me

Cheers

Paul

Westcoast,

These are the same people who want the working class not to own cars, want the working class to live in high-rise tiny apartments, no longer have access to many parts of my own country.

Basically, communism.  The Greens even dont want coal, but wont embrace 'modern' nuclear technology. A technology that could produce hydrogen fuel for vehicles and boats that would further make the country cleaner.

Anyone who wants that go live in China.  Many countries with the above policies are too poor to manage their enviroment because they dont have an economy.

Before anyone tells me the goverment and studies will take recreational fishing and the effect on regional economies into account consider the following.

The NSW shooters and fishers party MLC Robert Brown initiated an independant report by The Select Committee on Recreational Fishing in NSW - into the implimentation of the marine park network in NSW (after they were implimented.  The report was released in December last year.  The report went some way into showing the planning process was somewhat botched.

On this committee amoungst others were ALP - Lynda VOLTZ and outgoing Greens MLC Ian Cohen. If you check the minutes which can be downloaded with this report you will find COHEN had the following removed from the report

1. Removal; of data on the economic benefits of Recreational fishing to local communities.

2. Deleting of evidence showing poor practice in marine park planning

3. Deleting references to catch and release and the effectiveness of circle hooks

whilst both COHEN and  VOLTZ reworded a section to

4. make recreational fishers seem less compliant and less willing to countenance increases in size and bag limits

(Source editorial- February 2011 Fishing World Magazine)

Cheers Paul

I have been exposed to the workings of government and the game of politics

Things are never what they seem......especially through the media

The good thing is that if you get involved and play the game well it somehow seems to work.....government that is.

Things go pear shaped when egos get involved....bit like fishing websites.....

Then you get bad decisions.

Just understand that there are powerful groups out there who are trying to influence government by suggesting that they have the answers.

Regarding maps with lines on it..... There isn’t officially one... but some have seen the “proposed” areas of further interests which scared the hell out of them.

This marine parks issue is going to be a big deal......

I think you guys are pretty much scaremongering. Recfishwest media statements are clearly misleading and try to lead people to the belief that the whole region between the Abrolhos and kangaroo Islands is at risk. I highly doubt it. It only reduces your credibility.

Are marine reserves/parks/etc such a bad thing? They do not necessarily rule out fishing. Have you guys ever been to the Abrolhos or Shark Bay or Dirk Hartog. How many cray’s and fish have you caught around Rottnest? How many abalone have you taken along Marmion.  All some form of marine reserve area.

I respect your views and your dedication, but don’t think someone has a hidden agenda should they voice an opposing view and don’t think they are any less dedicated to a particular cause because they are not part of a lobby group!!

We probably need groups such as Recfishwest to voice an opinion for the average punter. Sorry if I seem skeptical and question the motives of some!!

Paul H – I hope it all works out for you over in SA. I had a quick look at the link you provided. Time will tell, but they do state that “The majority of waters in each marine park will still be available for a wide range of commercial and recreational activities, including fishing and boating."

Hezzy – I am just a recreational angler. I do not represent any interest group. No hidden agenda. Within my industry we are prohibited from posting on industry forums as it may be seen as promoting self interest!!

Salmo – I will sit on the sidelines re Recfishwest membership. No doubt we need their/your view to help balance the argument. Let’s wait and see what the proposals are. Until then everything is scaremongering…from both sides. I really don’t see it as a big deal.

Salatrix – whoah - take your medication!!

"Scaremongering"

This is a parlimentary report, this occured and the following can be found in the minutes of the report if you care to check for yourself. 

The NSW shooters and fishers party MLC Robert Brown initiated an independant report by The Select Committee on Recreational Fishing in NSW - into the implimentation of the marine park network in NSW (after they were implimented.  The report was released in December last year.  The report went some way into showing the planning process was somewhat botched.

On this committee amoungst others were ALP - Lynda VOLTZ and outgoing Greens MLC Ian Cohen. If you check the minutes which can be downloaded with this report you will find

COHEN had the following removed from the report

1. Removal; of data on the economic benefits of Recreational fishing to local communities.

2. Deleting of evidence showing poor practice in marine park planning

3. Deleting references to catch and release and the effectiveness of circle hooks

Whilst both COHEN and  VOLTZ reworded a section to

4. make recreational fishers seem less compliant and less willing to countenance increases in size and bag limits

Hardly suggesting recreational anglers (or local communities for that matter), are getting a fair deal is it.

Cheers

Paul

Hi Westcoast

"Paul H – I hope it all works out for you over in SA. I had a quick look at the link you provided. Time will tell, but they do state that “The majority of waters in each marine park will still be available for a wide range of commercial and recreational activities, including fishing and boating." Are marine reserves/parks/etc such a bad thing? They do not necessarily rule out fishing."

Cheers for that so do I.

I do realise that not all of the marine park will be off limits to fishing however I am also aware of where the proposed no take zones are in SA.  A few areas I fish and know well - Smoky Bay in particular the no take zone is smack bang in one of the best areas to fish for KG whiting, it also covers a snapper spot which is not well known and hardly fished (in 10 years I have only ever seen one boat on it and they didn't catch a thing). 

The rec fishing in the area is 10% snapper and 90% KG whiting.  apart from squid (which are in the bay and not in the no take zone anyway) no other fish are really targeted in the area. Both the snapper and whiting fishery in smoky bay is in very good health which brings into question why a no take zone is required to ensure this continues (given the retoric above that there will be no fish left for our kids argument).  Both snapper and KG's are all ready well managed with bag and boat limits, snapper also have a 2 over 60cm boat limit to ensure the bigger breeders are not overfished and this is working well across the state.

I put a submission in before the no take zones were decided suggesting areas were they could protect the natural reef in the area and still leave plenty of area for rec fishing.  My submission left an area of reef for rec fishing (where most of the fishing is conducted) and a no take zone for the same area of reef just further out of the natural reach of most boats (which received little fishing effort anyway) -  would have been a good result for all - Guess what they are proposing the no take zone covering the exact area i suggested would impact most on fishers.    I can still fish the same reef however now have to go out twice as far out which will also compromise saftey in certain conditions. Would have been much better for all concerned to do the reverse and have the sanctuary zone further out.  There is no difference in these areas (it is all the same reef and there is no barren area involved).

Much of smoky bay is a nursery area - none of this is being protected and most resposible anglers would not have a problem with protection in these areas as it would ensure the continued replenishment of the KG whiting fishery in the area.

Rocky Island 80 km off Coffin Bay - only big capable boats go out here and only when the weathers good due top the distance and conditions it receives little pressure anyway - they fish (trolling) for blue fin tuna (pelagic) and sampsons or kingies (mostly jigging and catch and release) so no real benefit gained here. 

Farm beach coffin bay - again 90% KG whiting fished here so little benefit for an already well managed fishery.

I could list other examples around SA where they seem to be ballsing things up.

Cheers

Just wondering paul h ,the information that these no take zones are based on in sa, was it founded by the so called expert scientists that other so called experts on this thread are talkin about.I dont know about anyone else but it doesnt take a scientist to work out what needs to be done to preserve fish stocks, more so just a bit of common sense, all this science talk is just nonsense.I think the rec fisher should have more of a say before decisions are made not after they have been made. The rec fisher spends more time and probably just as much money than both the government and the scientist experts and probably have more of an idea on what is really happenin in the water.if you think that the powers to be give a shit about the rec fisherman,you need to get in the reel world.If they did stop and consider us a bit more it wouldnt be so hard to convince us that there doin the right thing or even on the right track.

Meersy,

I'm in the real world mate and don't like some of the stuff I'm seeing I must admit.  Don't get me wrong I think some of the stuff is positive but have real concerns about lack of consulation with communities and rec fishers, most of the commercial sector appears to be looked after due to economic factors and the more organised voice they have.  I have been to more than a few of the community consulation meetings and they are largely a farce so the goverment can say they gave us a chance to be involved i.e. our imput is overlooked, dismissed or not heard.

I agree genuine rec fishers have a very good idea as to what is really happening out there and how to best manage any issues regarding conservation (and yep there are some rec fishers who don't help our cause at all and or have no idea).  I've never seen a scientist in a boat off Smoky Bay once (or anywhere else)  thats for sure.  We certainly have logged more on water hours. 

Yes the info they are using from the scientists seems to be broad info (mostly conducted in Queensland and possibly some from other areas in Northern Australia from what I gather -  if any one wants to point to any research actually conducted in SA which supports the zones I'm all ears), and then applied across the board for all areas rather than based on any specific loaction or state based science/research. 

I do know that the 'science' for the marine parks on a national level does include research by the The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland including their paper "Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement".

as above this was funded by PEW...

Cheers

Just wondering paul h ,the information that these no take zones are based on in sa, was it founded by the so called expert scientists that other so called experts on this thread are talkin about.

Two of the zones at Rottnest are based on one the glass bottom boat business and the other used by dive charters.

I see now Julia has introduced her carbon tax which is going to put price pressure on goods such food transport etc.

This will mean less money in your pocket to go fishing that you bargained via productivity gains all driven by the communist greens.

The future for your children is live in a little cubical in the UBD with no car, not much different to Japan.

Big Australia, pigs bloody a....

I say, bugger off, you commy bitch.

If you take all the cars off the freeway; you will have a pristine freeway.  In the same foul swoop you will destroy every arterial pathway in the process.  The same spawning arterial pathways for biodiversity.

Does that make analogical sense of vast spatial closures?  Holistic management is a much better strategy than one that will destroy all the minor fisheries in between.

I fully understand what ya trying to say saltatrix.I agree.All the information the greens/labour/scientists or whoevers bright idea these new laws are is over exadurated,extremist,scare-mongering,misleading and untruthful.Sure there are some spots on the wa coast that are over fished,and that would be lucky to be 10% of the wa coast.Just because people fish at a certain spot doesnt mean that it is over fished.And as far as red headed female pollies go i think pauline hanson would have done a better job than the current thing.

Just seen your post West Coast - your a true gutless wonder hiding behind a faceless web name!!  You don't even know what areas are under consideration by the looks of your posts.  Suggestion 1 Do your homework next time sunshine. Suggestion 2 ... well I will leave it to your imagination - rude letter to follow.

Most people know who I am and that I represent the tackle trade on the board of Recfishwest - never hid from the fact at any stage.  I have devoted countless hours to the detriment of my working and family life like the rest of my fellow board members trying to protect the rights of rec anglers (you included unfortunately) and for you to come out on your high horse critisizing anyone on the board (myself included) is bullshit, plain and simple.  I suggest since you are so highly informed (cough splutter etc..) why don't you get off your arse and try and make a difference - run for a seat and see how you go.

A now really pissed off Biggles

Why biggles, who are you?

Can't say I disagree with West Coast, your media releases are pretty over-excitiable.

Well, I am not on the board of Recfishwest, but know a lot of people who are.

I am however involved in a fishing magazine, along with one of the Recfishwest board members in Gary Wotherspoon.

I can assure anyone and everyone that Gary's only motivation for being on RFW is wanting to see our fisheries managed well. You might suggest he has a vested interest, but to suggest that the enormous amount of time and effort he puts into rec fishing is any way related to whatever modest income he makes is so wide of the mark it is laughable. It actually detracts from his core business, which is not fishing related in any way.

Gary is extremely passionate about rec fishing, that is his only driving factor.

Furthermore, I have found this to be the case with all of the RFW board members that I have had lots of contact with. Including Biggles.

They willingly donate a lot of their time to a cause they believe in, and vested interests do not enter into it.

As for suggestions the RFW media releases are over-excitable (if I read that right?), the Marine Futures Group has actively courted the media with sensationalist claims over the last couple of years, and RFW would be derelict in its duty if it didn't seek to get its voice heard in the media also. Sometimes to do that you need to say things that capture the attention of the media. It's a clear PR battle.

If self interest isnt big in the fishing industry then it must be extremely coincidental that a large tackle chain owners wife entered politics around the same time as the proposed demersal closure.

I wonder who else on the board of Recfishwest has close ties to the fishing industry in one way or another.

Says the next clown in the circus.

Wish you lot had the energy to do the work involved.

One more theing that really annoys me is here in SA I note when the proposed zones for the marine parks came out the boundries were reasonably well defined with straight edges and you could look at a seperate map for each marine park to have a good look I.E they put good info out there for everyone to look at and you knew where they were going to put them. 

Not so with the Proposed Sanctuary zones - for them we get only a state based map (whole of the state) and little green blobs indicating the locations of the no take areas.  These green blobs look like they have been cut with those zig zag craft sissors and the defintion on the coast line also leave a lot to be desired.  I still can't (despite zooming in) work out where exactly the boundries may be - I gather this is a deliberate effort to make the zones look smaller than what they may be.  We are also now getting info that you will get pinched if you have fishing gear in a no take zone even if your just passing through.  Problem is the locations of the no take zones them make it very difficult to get around to other grounds beyond without major detours (which rules out actually being able to get to these places). 

The more I get into this stuff it looks like the more we are getting screwed.  I'm speaking to some people to see if we can organise a rally or something similar to show our voice as the consultative councils for each area don't appear to be listening to any feedback.  The fact you have to approach the representatives for each area also makes it hard if you want to have input into more than one area.  Good luck when they bring it in over in WA.

Cheers

Paul

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8218688/marine-management-lacking-vic-report

Parks Victoria is not effectively managing the state's marine-protected areas and can't justify the funding it gets, an auditor-general's report says.

About $38.1 million was provided to Parks Victoria between 2002-03 and 2009-10 but it could show only that 10 per cent - $3.8 million - was actually spent on marine-related areas, the report said.

The report, tabled in parliament on Wednesday, said Parks Victoria was not effectively managing the state's 30 marine-protected areas (MPAs) and dedicated funding had not been used for marine protection.

"Parks Victoria cannot show that its efforts to protect marine biodiversity are commensurate with the funding it receives for that purpose," the auditor-general found.

"Parks Victoria has not used dedicated funding for MPAs, and its staff are not required to record how much time they spend on their activities."

There was little assurance that Parks Victoria was adequately protecting marine biodiversity, the report said.

The Department of Sustainability and Environment and Parks Victoria have accepted the auditor-general's recommendations and said they would work to improve the transparency and accountability for marine park management.

Environment Minister Ryan Smith said the report showed the previous Labor government could account only for $4 million of the $38 million provided for the management of marine areas.

"What this report shows is the former government failed to provide any information in regards to whether marine-protected areas were working as they were supposed to," he told parliament.

"The report also showed that the previous government failed to ensure marine and pest biosecurity at a time when abalone stocks were being decimated by a virus which threatened to have a major impact on this part of the fishing industry."

Mr Smith said the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council would monitor marine parks as well as investigate biodiversity threats