In his letter to the editor Frank completely misquotes the findings of the McCook research. This is very disappointing in a letter that pleades for balance and credibility in the planning of sanctuary zones. The letter to the editor makes it sound like sanctuary zones are a waste of money and have no outcomes. Which is a very strange summary if you have read the paper.
Below is a copy of the abstract/summary of the McCook paper, available from
The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) provides a globally significant demonstration of the effectiveness of large-scale networks of marine reserves in contributing to integrated, adaptive management.
Comprehensive review of available evidence shows major, rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted fish and sharks, in both reef and nonreef habitats, with potential benefits for fisheries as well as biodiversity conservation.
Large, mobile species like sharks benefit less than smaller, site-attached fish. Critically, reserves also appear to benefit overall ecosystem health and resilience: outbreaks of coral-eating, crown-of-thorns starfish appear less frequent on no-take reefs, which consequently have higher abundance of coral, the very foundation of reef ecosystems.
Effective marine reserves require regular review of compliance: fish abundances in no-entry zones suggest that even no-take zones may be significantly depleted due to poaching. Spatial analyses comparing zoning with seabed biodiversity or dugong distributions illustrate significant benefits from application of best-practice conservation principles in data-poor situations.
Increases in the marine reserve network in 2004 affected fishers, but preliminary economic analysis suggests considerable net benefits, in terms of protecting environmental and tourism values. Relative to the revenue generated by reef tourism, current expenditure on protection is minor. Recent implementation of an Outlook Report provides regular, formal review of environmental condition and management and links to policy responses, key aspects of adaptive management.
Given the major threat posed by climate change, the expanded network of marine reserves provides a critical and cost-effective contribution to enhancing the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.
I have read the paper - it is a compelling case FOR sanctuary zones, for a range of reasons, including outcomes for fishing. There are so many studies showing more and bigger fish in established no-take zones, that the argument really isnt even an argument. In many places around the world, people fish along the edge of sanctuary zones because they catch more fish there. Why would it be any different here?
Frank wrote:
Recfishwest and the wider community is asking what is the driver for expensive and often inappropriate lines on the water, when other management strategies can deliver a better outcome?
I am certainly not asking, and neither does anyone that I go fishing with. The driver is clear - we have caught too many fish and need to start protecting them by not catching them so much. The research is clear - this GBR paper is but one of hundreds that show conclusive results supporting the role of sanctuary zones for protecting fish and the broader ecology that supports them (and us).
The answer sadly is that Professor Meeuwig makes money by supporting green paint in Australia to better win long term results in the United States.
Professor Meeuwig makes money by leading a team providing the best available research we have about our fish off WA. You don't get the title of Professor by being in the news or writing letters to the editor, it comes by publishing many peer-reviewed papers that are recognised by the scientific community for their importance in that field of research. The fact that a prominent scientist is calling for more sanctuary zones should carry a bit of weight ay? Or should more weight be assigned to people who do make their money by writing letters to the editor? Don't forget that RecFishWest is also a lobby group.
The recreational sector agrees that Camden Sound is an important place, but we are disgusted that green fundamentalists have used the need to protect whales as an excuse to ban fishing. Australians have always rejected fundamentalism in any form and it is essential that we have an informed and responsible debate on conservation in the entire Kimberley, rather than having the views of a small number of scientists with clearly vested interests pushing a foreign agenda.
A foreign agenda? The only foreign agenda would be that we are protecting whales that the Japanese eat...but that is another story. Green fundamentalists? Does he mean fundamental as in, the best way to protect fish stocks for the future is by not catching all of them today? Then I am a fundamentalist. I am also Australian.
Don't forget, 'green fundamentalists' caused the protection of our forests, endangered native animals, national parks and the list goes on. Doesnt seem so bad to me.
Comments??? I was very disappointed to read this letter - it is a long way from the opinions of this recreational fisher, and everyone else I know.
He is right though, balance is important to maintain. Anyone out there feel like there are too many places that you are not allowed to fish? Would you prefer to be banned from fishing for 2 or 4 months of the year??
Frank completely misquotes the findings of the McCook research.
Frank was responding to the following in the article signed by Jessica Meeuwig and others
Quote:
Global evidence, including from the Great Barrier Reef and Ningaloo Marine Park, shows that fish abundance and biomass are two to five times greater within sanctuary zones than areas open to fishing.
when Frank said:-
Quote:
A recent study in the Great Barrier Reef by McCook et al, found higher abundances of fish in a number of instances in fished rather than unfished areas.
The only foreign agenda would be that we are protecting whales
Protecting them from what? Existing commercial and recreational fishing in the area? Get real!
Do a search for Pew, example in http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/news/search for some enlightening info on their hard line, no compromise approach and their massive funding, etc. and you WILL find a foreign agenda, which includes getting what they want by direct political appeal to and pressure on the State and Commonwealth governments, rather than proper risk assessments.
Then note that the organisations involved in http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/ (covering the South West of Australia) includes Pew Environmental Group.
Yes, protecting whales and other "charismatic megafauna" is important. Does that mean banning fishing is essential to protect whales?. No.
Charismatic megafauna are large animal species with widespread popular appeal that environmental activists use to achieve conservation goals well beyond just those species.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
I guess it depends on the “Quality” of the habitat contained within the sanctuary...will fish want to live there....
Also note that McCook says that the findings of more fish in some fished areas shows a lack of compliance – is that not a non-empirical and values judgement....
Ironically what it actually says is that not all habitats are created equal and that some habitats will continue to be attractive to and populated with fish under fishing pressure.
It does NOT mean that sanctuary zones solve anything
Recreational anglers want sustainable fishing and good fishing experiences and a FAIR GO!.
Informed Recreational anglers are not opposed to Marine Parks.
Informed Recreational anglers are not opposed to sanctuary zones in the right places for the right reasons.
Informed Recreational anglers want to protect nursery areas, spawning fish stocks and spawning fish aggregations, (and whales) but these don't need total closures all year long. Example:- Cockburn Sound Pink Snapper seasonal spawning closures championed by concerned recreational anglers.
Recreational anglers want to protect the environment, but locking up large areas is not the only way to protect the environment and indeed is not sufficient to protect the environment.
Informed conservationists would talk about the outcomes they want, the risks to achieving those outcomes, and not just keep promoting one of the methods which might achieve them and ignoring all the other methods........
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Salmo, there is ample evidence that sanctuaries result in more and bigger fish. Come on, just think about it - you don't need to be a scientist. If no fish are caught from there, more will be there, and they can grow bigger. It's not rocket science.
People always want science to prove that sanctuaries will 'work'. But where is the proof that fishing at the levels we are, and traditionally have, can work? The only science to be done on this topic is what has recently triggered the drastic management changes, because it found that we are overexploiting the fish stocks to the point of near collapse!! Why do you see all these scientists stating that we need to catch less fish, and that we need sanctuary zones? Because the evidence says so. Blind freddy says so too.
Do you like having seasonal bans, when you are not allowed to fish for these species at all ? What is wrong with having an area set aside permanently, thus allowing you to fish all year round elsewhere? It has far more benefits for the ecosystem, and as far as I can see it, for the fishers too!?
There has been other published research which found positive results at Rotto - sorry, but a news article doesn't cut it. I'll wait for the published results, and their in-depth analysis. The sanctuaries at Rottnest are tiny, smaller than would be required, as Tim Langlois suggested as a result of pressure from fishers.
Increased density, biomass and egg production in an unfished population of Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) at Rottnest Island, Western Australia
In the 'right places for the right reasons' - you keep saying that Terry - where would they be exactly, in the view of the Informed Rec Fisher? Some place that they don't fish? How many people do you reckon would fish in Camden Sound? enough to mount a campaign against sanctuary zones there? seems like it?
There is no other way to keep some part of the ecosystem free of human pressure, than to set it aside as a sanctuary. This is exactly why 'informed conservationists' push the need for sanctuary zones so hard. It's that simple. Fishing is the biggest pressure on fish. Not that hard to contemplate is it? As a fisherman it is as plain as the nose on my face that I am a threat to my targets!! Especially as I pull the trigger or sink the knife in!!
A recent study in the Great Barrier Reef by McCook et al, found higher abundances of fish in a number of instances in fished rather than unfished areas.
OK Terry/Frank (originally), there were a number of instances where there were more fish on fished than unfished reefs - thus technically it wasn't a misquote. Perhaps more correctly, it was a mischievious quote.
The overhwelming point of the paper was the effectiveness of sanctuary zones established in previously fished areas. No scientific study in the world has 100% results. To use the outliers of the study to make a point it mischievious at best...
Salmo - do you think you would catch a lot of fish in an established sanctuary zone where there were lots of fish? If you were a poacher, do you think you might like to do that? Compliance issues are well recognised. Very difficult to test or measure of course...surely you would grant experts in their field permission to speculate on inconsistent results? If you've ever been spearing for coral trout, you will know that it doesn't take much to clean them out of an area...even within bag limits, totally legally. It would only take one or two episodes of poaching to undo years and years of replenishment of such species after being protected.
Around the world, there are examples of people railing against sanctuaries being established, who 10 years later are now supporters. Why? tell me why? Could it...could it be because life is better with them?? Could it? Life in Exmouth seems pretty dandy, fishing wise! despite there being 89,000Ha of sanctuary zoning!! The fishing and boating business up there is pretty booming from what I've seen!! So is the tourism business! and there is millions of $ of funding put into marine research there, focussed on the marine park.
Who says protecting whales means stopping fishing? I have to admit I didn't see the opinion piece by Professor Meeuwig. But I havent seen a plan where fishing is banned to protect whales either...where did this idea come from?
I have no delusions that Salmo or Terry will accept these things I write, we have been at this for ages in many other posts.
But to anyone reading this stuff or with some interest in learning more - please, please please, learn it from the scientists, not the fishing lobby groups!!!? Even ones who 'represent' us!
Just google "effectiveness of marine protected areas" and you have thousands of webpages, hundreds of articles, at least 90% of which show the benefits for fishing, for biodiversity conservation and even for local economies - despite what you'll hear from lobby groups.
For benefits to local fishing - look especially into the NZ marine reserves for comparitive culture and ecology to here, or to the Great Barrier Reef research. I believe there is some good stuff coming from Ningaloo too, despite compliance problems there.
The key to them 'working' is being big enough (that is, resisting the lobbying of self-interest groups that will want them smaller) and being enforced and monitored - which is where the $ comes into play. There is beginning to be a body of research which shows increased $ over the longer term as a result of a better ecosystem due to no-take zones.
It's all there, accessible from the primary sources right on this old internet - don't just believe the media or the lobby groups! (which includes the conservation lobby!!)
Who says protecting whales means stopping fishing? I have to admit I didn't see the opinion piece by Professor Meeuwig. But I havent seen a plan where fishing is banned to protect whales either...where did this idea come from?
Perhaps if you had actually read the article you would see what RFW and WAFIC are responding to. The article is not on the West website, and I am concious of copyright, so here are some extracts that answer your questions.
Quote:
This is why the State Government's decision to establish a marine park at Camden Sound is so important and why it is equally important that this marine park covers a large area of coast and ocean and contains substantial sections that are classified as sanctuary zones and protected as marine wilderness.....
First, it would protect calving and nursing grounds for humpback whales.....
If the Government is sincere in its desire to create a world-class marine park in and around Camden Sound as part of its commitment to "balance the need to develop industry and create wealth with the expectation that the environment and special places will be protected".... a large marine park with extensive sanctuary zones will be created in the Camden Sound......
....Commercial and recreational fishing, .....would be prohibited within the extensive sanctuary zones....
The State Government has a significant opportunity to provide global leadership in the protection of critical habitats for humpback whales.....
Signed by Curt Jenner, Centre for Whale Research WA; Professor Jessica Meeuwig, Centre for Marine Futures, UWA; Micheline Jenner, Centre for Whale Research WA; Associate Professor Robert McCauley, Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University; Dr Hugh rim, Murdoch University Cetacean Research Unit Simon Allen, Murdoch University, Cetacean Research Unit; Dr Chandra P. T-Jgiii Kent, Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University; Dr Lars Bejder, Murdoch University, Cetacean Research Unit; Associate Professor Euan Harvey, School of Plant Biology, UWA; Dr Kris Waddington, Centre for Marine Futures, UWA
And Ewan, you are implying those letters as being against marine parks and against sanctuary zones. They are NOT.
It's about risk assessment and matching the management and prohibitions to the risks.
Quote:
Commercial fishing, pearling and recreational representative bodies have supported the creation of a Camden Sound marine park on the basis that there is a fair and credible assessment of their activities against the objectives of the proposed park.
is clearly NOT opposing the Camden Sound Marine Park.
The Rottnest West End Demersal Sanctuary Zone is to protect, among other things, special corals in the area. So it prohibits me from catching a prolific and pelagic herring from the shore under threat of up to $10,000 fine, yet it doesn't stop a dive (or any other boat) from dropping their anchor on those very corals. Balanced and addressing the real risks? I think not.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Mate you are a well informed marine scientist, and I have nothing but admiration for your passionate knowledge. Personally I'm not informed enough to have an opinion either way about whether Protection Zones work or not. I would probably agree it would seem logical that BIG locked up areas would contain more marine diversity....
As Terry said, anglers including myself are not necessarily against sanctuary zones being used as a management tool to preserve and protect marine environments. But like fixing your car...you dont need a tool like a sledge hammer to fix a wonky windscreen wiper.
The issue here is that one fundamentalist environmental group with a questionable agenda is playing on people’s emotions to achieve their goals. The environmental lobby is highly motivated in applying politically pressure by using whatever misinformation they can.
The letters from both FRW and WAFIC was to clarify and correct assertions made by Pew and their associates that there was a strong argument for a massive sanctuary zone around Montague Reef. This is just not true.
As you rightly point out there is currently only a small amount of recreational and commercial fishing pressure in this Camden Sound area. Because of its remoteness this is unlikely to change in the future. If anything there would likely be an increase in “Whale” industry pressure which no doubt would/could impact the calving whales more than a handful of recreational fishing boats. Why exclude one group when they have little if any impact.
Truth is RFW and WAFIC have been involved in consultation with Government over Camden Sound. Both parties in principally agreed to the suggestion of a larger whale protection area than was originally planned, while advocating for the continued access to safe anchorage provided by Montague Island.
I hope you understand RFW are a representative and advocate body, not a lobby group. They try to do their best at offering balanced advice on marine resource issues based on sound unbiased reasoning, not emotional blackmail.
Let’s leave that to our girl friends and wives eh
I respect your view Ewan, but I just cant see a strong arguement to claim that the only way to protect is to lockup.
Ah shoot I've done it again - too much to say in a short few lines! I just previewed this and it is a massive post. So main bits are in bold...
Andrew - emotional blackmail is not the exclusive domain of women (I wonder how the women fisherfolk out there, whom you represent, feel about that comment?) - man I had to read that twice to make sure you actually wrote it.
Compare the relatively calm letter written by Guy Leyland of WAFIC, to that written by Frank Prokop of RFW and you will see what I mean.
Emotional blackmail - do you mean like using words like 'vilified' to describe the need to exclude fishing from areas to ensure total ecosystem protection under scientific guidance that, conservatively, 20% of the worlds oceans should be made no-take to ensure long-term viability? I am searching for that reference. 20% is on the lower end of the scale - others say 40-60% - phew! that is alot
vilified:To make vicious and defamatory statements about.
The only vilification I have read - according to the definition - is the vilification of Jessica Meeuwig, other scientists, and conservation groups who are lobbying - yes, lobbying (Lobby: to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body) to bring the no-take areas in WA up to approach what is recommended by marine scientists world-wide (and locally - hence their letter to the West).
Prof. Meeuwig and her scientific group are funded by a range of organisations, including the Dept of Fisheries, DEC, DPI, the WA Museum, community Natural Resource Management groups and the Federal Dept Environment etc. Not Pew. I could be wrong but I just looked on their list of project partners.
Pew are one of the many groups associated with the Save Our Marine Life campaign which advocates for more no-take zones. Scientists support this campaign because scientific research shows that no-take zones are effective and required to keep the ocean in good condition for the future. It's not complicated. It's not an anti-fishing conspiracy.
There is no insidious plot to take over WA's waters and ban fishing, despite what Frank Prokop's letter implys. No-take MPAs are pro-fish, not anti-fisher.
What is this 'questionable agenda' that you guys speak of - what do you mean by thisambiguous statement? Can you please make it clear? Otherwise, it is scare campaign.
Thankyou Terry for posting (I gather you've typed it out from the paper - sorry to make you do that!) that excerpt of Prof. Meeuwig's letter. I still don't see in there that they are asking for no-fishing zones to protect whales - though I accept that could be in the rest of the letter that you haven't repeated for me. My interpretation is that they are saying - "if you are putting in a Marine Park one purpose of which is for whale conservation, take the opportunity to include large no-take zones in this special place that we don't know alot about, and which is currently not highly used". Large no-take sanctuary zones within multi-use marine parks is best-practice. They need to cover the full variety of habitat types, and also the 'special' areas and critical habitat areas.
You raise the point about anchoring in sanctuary zones which is a very good point and one which RFW push well and should be commended for. It is not, however, a tool to use in debates for or against excluding fishing from areas. Fishing is the biggest impact we make in most places that aren't polluted. The Florida Keys example Frank Prokop gave is another misleading statement. - Anchoring and diver damage are the biggest impacts there - since fishing was excluded!! These anchoring and diver-related threats should be addressed, no doubt about it. Sanctuary zones should be total sanctuaries to the whole system. They are catching more fish in the Forida Keys region since the no-take zones were inacted.
Does WA recieve special attention from overseas? Of course - wanna know why? Because it is highly globally significant for it's marine and terrestrial biodiversity (they are linked). Ensuring this place is well protected is in the global interest of maintaining the health of the oceans in the long term. Existing fishery management here has brought several species close to the edge. Adequate (i.e. large) no-take zones would complement the fishery regulation strategies that have been failing us. RecFishWest should be lobbying hard for more and bigger no-take zones even where there is not alot of available knowledge if they really want to take the best advice possible and do the best thing for the long term fishing amenity in WA.
Being concerned about 'foreign interests' is scare campaign. It's like when the Exxon Valdez ran aground...should the rest of the world butted out and minded it's own business? How about saving gorillas from being extinct? There are no gorillas in Australia, but I am sure we all want them to be protected. Charismatic megafauna are often used to galvanise public empathy for a cause - so what? They are also usually apex organisms...to save the gorilla, you have to protect the rainforest. To protect whale calving areas, not doubt prawn trawling would be off the happy list. Rec fishing? I can't see much impact of rec fishers on whales, other than disturbance, which as you point out would certainly also apply to whale watching. But I just dont see where anyone has said that.
Labelling conservation groups as un-Australian 'green fundamentalists' (I know, I paraphrased that, but accurately I think) - tell me, how emotive is that? How balanced is that? On one hand there are many industries continually pushing for development and access, on the other you have the conservation movement. Two sides to a balanced coin.
I assure you, native Western Australians, including fisherfolk like me, have been campaigning for more marine protected areas for alot longer than the last couple of years when the Pew group started supporting it.
Andrew - the claim is not that the only way to protect is to lock up, the claim is that one necessary tool in the toolbox is to lock up. It is not a sledgehammer - it is a multi-tool. A leatherman if you wish. I use mine every single day for everything!!! You can fix a windscreen wiper with a leatherman - I have actually done it. No, really - I'm not being a smart-arse - I actually have!
Look - I always come across as being anti-RecFishWest, but I am truly not - nor am I anti-TerryF (quite the contrary)!!! You do some great things, and put good pressure on the Govt in many areas, such as the anchoring in SZs issue amongst others.
But you are not up-to-speed with the no-take MPA thing, in regards to how it would affect fishers (loss of amenity and all that rhetoric). Letters to the editor from the Exec Director of RFW like the one Terry has kindly repeated for us here do not contribute meaningfully to the negotiations. Guy Leyland's letter said most of the same things in a way that was not as emotive, not so us-and-them, line-in-the-sand, much more constructive. I write on here to say that this opinion, and particularly the way in which it was delivered, does not represent me and I reckon it doesnt represent alot of other fishos who are reasonably well informed in these things.
Andrew you said you are not well-informed enough to have an opinion either way and I respect that you would say that (though I think you are being a bit modest), and that is totally fair enough. Your policy officers would be in charge of getting informed and formulating policy I gather.
However there is bucketloads of information that shows how MPAs are not a panacea for fishery management problems (I have never said that they are, and neither do the conservationists). But they are one necessary tool - it has been shown all over the world, in a variety of ecological and socio-economic political contexts to be a successful management tool, for a variety of management outcomes. No other management option can preserve a representative chunk of marine environment totally intact - which is what is required to maintain a healthy ecosystem - like we do in National Parks on land!! If you want to be informed, you can be - it's only a few google-clicks away.
Mate - RecFishWest are a lobby group. Lobby groups represent and advocate on behalf of their representative group. They are not evil corporations - lobbying is a vital function of a democracy like ours. RFW are the lobby group for recreational fishers.
It's a shame that no-one else is really engaged in this here, it's pretty important to explore these issues, not just opinions - it's seems to mostly just be TerryF, Salmo and Ewan doing this tit-for-tat thing. So I will be trying to bow out of this discussion once (if) you guys reply to this one.
I thoroughly enjoy the discussion/debate - but this 'Pew this' and 'Pew that', 'foreign interests' scare campaign, personal criticism of Prof. Meeuwig and other scientists who are providing the knowledge we need to be informed (they are allowed to have opinions too), emotive language like 'vilification', mis-quoting or mis-use of research like the McCook paper and the Florida Keys thing are not useful and need to be pulled up.
If RFW really want marine parks and no-take areas - where does RFW propose they be? I only ever hear of where they don't want them to be, or why they don't want them to be. I mean, thinking outside of current planning processes - if it were up to you, where would they be, and why would you put them there?
It has a lot in it, so I'm not going to extract bits.
Read it all as a package containing many simple, self evident but very important principles, explained in enough detail to clearly show Recfishwest's policies, approaches and concerns. Yes, it could benefit from an update of some details.
The PROPER investigation, proposal and selection of areas for Marine Parks and sanctuary zones is an enormous and time consuming job, one which Recfishwest is not resourced to do, nor is it RFW's job to do that, because
WA has the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) AND the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority (MPRA)
The Commonwealth has the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
These ARE resourced and legislatively REQUIRED to protect the environment. Marine Parks (and sanctuary and other zones within them) are just one of the many tools which should be used.
Then there's the Dept of Fisheries for Fish Habitat Protection Areas and management of fisheries in State and Commonwealth waters.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
OK Terry/Frank (originally), there were a number of instances where there were more fish on fished than unfished reefs - thus technically it wasn't a misquote. Perhaps more correctly, it was a mischievious quote.
Quote:
... mis-quoting or mis-use of research like the McCook paper and the Florida Keys thing are not useful and need to be pulled up.
People can read a 9 page analysis of the McCook report, and can decide for themselves where the misquoting is being done. It's headed "Extraordinary Claims in Great Barrier Reef Assessment Require Evidence" http://www.quadrant.org.au/Starck%20document.pdf and says it is "a discussion restricted to a sampling of key points as emphasized in the report and in the press release"
RecFishWest should be lobbying hard for more and bigger no-take zones
even where there is not alot of available knowledge if they really want
to take the best advice possible and do the best thing for the long term
fishing amenity in WA.
I think you've said it all there Ewan. The general fisherman isn't going to support this, not because it may not be the right thing to do, because its a loss of fishing access and in a world where people are constantly loosing their rights (pay a new boat fishing license, pay a new l/b fishing license, pay for a skippers ticket, loose umbrella licenses and pay more for the whole thing etc) they aren't going to want to lose where they can fish as well. Its seen as more, bend over and take it rather than protecting a valuable resource. (even if it is ultimately for their own gain - its forest from the trees stuff)
Thats the difficulty I see for RFW, how can you lobby and try to attain members to survive when you are supporting regulations which are going to go against the majority of the public, especially when you need them to be able to survive as a representative body.
I could go into how the information is deciphered, but that would start a whole new debate, I'll just point out my opinion and that is that the science is not readily available for general public and if it is, its 'food' amongst scientists and those in the know and not converted into information that can be digested by the general public who just like to throw a line in.
I'll have one last opinion, I can't speak about Meeuwig as I don't know enough about what happens down that way these days, but as I see it PEW is an extremist organisation for conservation and pushes the boundaries way past my comfort zone. Thats not necessarily a bad thing as both ends of the scale need to be represented, its just how much sway that may have in biasing research/management decisions - one hopes that it wouldn't, but you just don't know people's personal agendas these days.
Agree with you Adam, Often some of the hardest decisions for RFW are the most unpopular with anglers. You get that on the big jobs.
One of the many other important roles undertaken by RFW is education......“educate the young and they will save the future”
As you said scientific papers and opinions are often way over the heads of people who just like to go fishing for fun.
By deciphering that (good quality) research and breaking it down into simple understanding gives people a better idea about the things that affect our chosen pastime, including their collective impacts on marine resources. To me recreational anglers are marine conservationist (except maybe a few rednecks, but you get them in all groups even the greenies) and aren’t just out there to kill something to eat.
Look at the concerns about commercial netting, an issue mostly driven by recreational anglers. Where are the opinion pieces in the papers from these “concerned scientists”. What about the proposed island port planned in Cockburn Sound, right on top of a well documented Snapper breeding ground? Then there is the recent and continuing pollution of the Swan and Canning Rivers by a government body....I haven’t seen any affirmative action from Save our Marine Life over that. Why haven’t any of these scientists funded by tax payer dollars jumped up and down and lobbied government about that??? Nope ....all left to poorly resourced community groups like RFW.
This group has from what I can see only one agenda, that’s removing access from large sections of our coast line. Yes there are concerns with sustainability of our marine life but to use misinformation and questionable science as an argument for exclusion doesn’t cut it in my book.
Oh and Ewan.....I find humour useful in lighten a arguement.....if I offended with the emotional black mail comment....build a bridge
They try to do their best at offering balanced advice on
marine resource issues based on sound unbiased reasoning, not emotional
blackmail.
Let’s leave that to our girl friends and wives eh
Quote:
Oh and Ewan.....I find humour useful in lighten a arguement.....if I
offended with the emotional black mail comment....build a bridge
Andrew Matthews
Chairman Recfishwest
I think the point is your sense of humor is a little backwards, if its that lousy, best keep it to yourself. Just another reason why RFW have zero credibility in my eyes. Kind of reminds me of Abbot - best chance of getting a vote is keeping your mouth shut.
I can't seem to find any peer-reviewed published papers by Walter Starck on these issues...only opinion pieces in right-wing slanted Institute of Public Affairs, National Observer and the like. And on his own website...?
erm...? Surely this isn't RFW's research base?
According to the eminent Mr Starck - there is no overfishing, no nutrification, no sedimentation, no need to protect or manage the marine world. OK. Nothing to worry about - never mind everyone, you are actually catching the same amount of fish as you grandparents did!!! Trust us!! (sarcasm emoticon)
I can't seem to find any peer-reviewed published papers by Walter Starck on these issues...
Peer reviewed papers aren't the only place where logical and factual arguments can be presented for people to consider and make up their own mind. You are a trained person. Treat and critique the contents on their merits.
I have seen plenty of publications (including peer reviewed ones) which simply don't stand up to a "the data has alternative interpretations" and "where's the evidence for the statements" assessment.
Quote:
According to the eminent Mr Starck - there is no overfishing, no nutrification, no sedimentation, no need to protect or manage the marine world. OK. Nothing to worry about...
Where does he say that? Links please.
How would marine protected areas generally as they are implemented and managed now, and sanctuary zones specifically stop/reduce significantly nutrification or sedimentation?
If you have a good argument and a good case, there's no need to overstate it, or you risk getting proved wrong.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Yep good points Terry, and I also didn't acknowledge Dr Walter Starck's experience in fish biology. I guess I got a little emotional!
I came across as a scientific elitist, which I am definitely not - one of my dreams in this stuff is to see better ways to incorporate 'anecdotal' or 'experiential' information from fishos, divers, etc into the information systems available to marine planning stuff. Collectively, we all know alot about the marine world. Commercial fishos even more than us (generally)
For the record, as it has been mentioned here a couple of times (not by me) - I have a marine science education, and undertook my own research project for my Honours year, but besides that years ago, - I am not a research scientist. You don't need to be...all this stuff is available in the interwebs.
But for a fellow of Dr Starck's scientific experience (as lushly described on his website)
Surely one might expect him to take the fight about scientific credibility of a scientific journal article, to the scientific community? In other words - wouldn't you publish a paper that includes the evidence and discusses it in the appropriate scientific context - and let other scientists review it's relevance?
Why are his opinions only published on opinion websites? Open question - I am new to Dr Starck's work and stand to be corrected.
But it's not fair to put out these pseudo-scientific treatises - which include some great points, that in my opinion are sometimes supported by his indirect evidence, but more often are not - to the public and expect us to be able to tell whether his criticisms are valid or if they are bunkum. This is what scientists are for - so he should present his criticisms to the scientific community (maybe he has and it's too soon to see the results)
He discusses the need for evidence so much, and then writes large slabs of unreferenced opinion:
which is where the nutrification and sedimentation and overfishing comment above came from. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that comment as it wasn't particularly relevant to what we are talking about, and now we are even more diverted.
Terry I never said that marine sanctuaries would protect from nutrification and sedimentation. However, by protecting unaltered ecosystems with all of the built in resilience and redundancy (where more than one organism can fill an ecological niche, thereby providing buffer against impact if one of those organisms is impacted) that comes with an unfished (and otherwise protected) area - I understand that it is expected that protected areas are likely to withstand such things better.
An ex-politician friend of mine once told me one of the best weapons you can use in a debate is to put words in someone else's mouth and then deny them - then they have to spend time defending the thing they didn't say!! I'll try not to do that ( I know that sometimes I do it accidentally!) if you don't!!
He mentions that we under-exploit our fisheries compared to our Asian neighbours, whose own fisheries modelling from their trawling operations in our NW waters a couple of decades ago suggested much a much higher sustainable yield than our DoF modellers found. His argument is that our fisheries are over-regulated, which he supports with a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't take the time to understand.
Now - I don't know about you, but I actually prefer our 'over-regulated' fishery to that of any of the countries in Asia. The very fact that they were fishing here is quite a testament to their lack of management in their territorial waters one would have thought!! The large fish you see in Asian fish markets comes from places like Australia - because there are none left in those countries!! Great model of exploitation!!
For those that are interested, Dr Starck also brings his intellect and critical thinking skills to the topics of climate change and crop circles:
Environmentalism has a lot going for it. A righteous cause offers purpose and direction to life along with a delicious sense of moral superiority. Why feel guilt or gratitude when you can feel righteous superiority instead?
Environmentalism has come to embody an unholy coalition of disparate parties whose main commonality is a vested interest in there being problems. Followers and leaders of the movement, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media all thrive on environmental problems.
ya - well, I don't thrive on environmental problems, in fact I think environmental problems suck, and so we should do something about them. No doubt most of us here do too!
So - to come back full circle to the original point - I would prefer to take scientific guidance on scientific matters from scientists submitting their science to other scientists for their scientific critique prior to publication. I would prefer it if all decision-makers, and representative bodies do the same too!
On Walter Stark:- I find your comment "Dr Starck also brings his intellect and critical thinking skills.." insulting. Who cares if he is ALSO interested in and has commented on crop circles or the VERY controversial climate change or whatever? And so what if some of THOSE comments could be challenged? Those are just red herrings and diversions in the context of Marine protected areas.
His comment about "under-exploit our fisheries" in the bairdmaritime.com article is in the context of one specific WA fishery. Yet you say "he supports with a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't take the time to understand" and that's the real issue.
And I think we have reached the stage where we would both benefit from a face to face discussion which can cover so much more than heaps of forum posts.
I have PM'd you my contact details. Waiting to hear back from you to arrange where and when. I'll come to your choice of place.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
personally I would like to see more than just a locked up area trying to breed more fish,
sometimes you need to give nature a helping hand in the survival game, then you need to look at stocking of reef-balls and other artificial reef systems along our coast.
I believe the Sound could hugely benefit from a reef-ball system to develop safer nurseries for you fish of all types.
We often forget fish eat other fish and others need algae and plant growth to eat...
So food becomes the bottle neck and safe places to hide from other bigger toothies the challenge.
We have several large areas that have suffered huge impacts from shipping and other marine activity's besides fishing,
We should be seeing a tax system on anchoring ships and transit harbor places like all the way from Freo to Rockingham where cargo, ore etc is loaded on and off wharfs etc having a marine tax to allow the purchase and development of reef systems.
Fish can be farmed for the greater good of the ecology, with many thinking that fish farming is just a tank system on a wharf or netted tuna fingerlings being fattened up or some barra being bred in captivity.
Wild Fish farming has been done for thousands of years by the Japanese and other cultures where they use FADS, Reef-balls and artificial reef systems.
We could develop a series of nursery reefs to give an edge to fish stocks in raising the spawn rate, survival from egg to fingerling rate and finally more juvenile fish going back into the wild
I find your comment "Dr Starck also brings his intellect and critical thinking skills.." insulting
Apologies Terry, as I guess we pointed out to Salmo - it is difficult to convey the cheeky glint in ones eye as you write something, that can translate as being insulting rather than cheeky. But really it was most insulting to Dr Starck - I had meant to delete it before posting but clearly didn't. I am looking into Dr Starck's work and scientific experience in a better way than flippant remarks like that one.
Quote:
His comment about "under-exploit our fisheries" in the bairdmaritime.com article is in the context of one specific WA fishery. Yet you say "he supports with a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't take the time to understand" and that's the real issue.
Fortunately this Starck review was subjected to scientific scrutiny you can find here:
On page 6 they outline the same problems with his review that I did, with the degree of scientific rigour that I couldn't provide. They add several more.
Terry I've looked at the RFW policy before and it looks sound, as do the things in the WAFIC letter above, as do your "Informed fishers..." tags. I also believe that we all have the same intentions to make the world a better place. As I've said I believe there are many good pressure points coming out of RFW on marine planning issues.
But I see inconsistencies with RFWs delivery/implementation of the no-take policies, in the comments that key people make (which was the subject of my posting on this thread), and in the way things like recent proposed regulation changes seem to me to get chipped down - for example where measures designed by the scientists to cut take by a certain amount, ends up getting cut in half to satisfy political pressure from fishers. Thus can't deliver the original scientific recommendations to cut pressure on the stocks. There is surely more to it than what I know, but all I know is what has resulted, which to me is inadequate.
There is alot of literature out there on the effectiveness of marine protected areas - real published science showing both benefits and non-benefits. There is a great one that I haven't been able to find since I read, which outlines the danger of promoting MPAs as primary tools for fisheries management. Which you might think I would not enjoy, but on the contrary it offers excellent advice on the setting of MPA goals and objectives.
I would much prefer to see these cited rather than unpublished opinion pieces - hence my criticisms of the Starck paper Terry provided above, which Frank Prokop seems to have drawn on for his letter to the editor. It may or may not be a good paper - there is a deep mixture of opinion, conspiracy, broad comparisons and scientific reference - the best judges would be the scientific community, to which it hasn't been submitted. The crop circles and climate change links I provided above both cite his Dr Starck's seniority and experience in marine science in Australia - the currency of scientists is peer-reviewed papers. I am still searching, but haven't found any relevant ones since the 1970's. That doesnt mean that they don't exist, but I have so far had a reasonable look into it...and not found any. Peer reviewed papers are not the bastion of truth, but they are how you measure scientific achievement.
Compare typing J J Meeuwig into Google Scholar, and with W Starck, and you will see a significant difference in scientific action.
So - thanks for the invite to meet Terry - I look forward to it, as you said this is not very productive when there is clearly quite a gulf between my understanding of your (and RFW) position and your understanding of it!! I may come back in a week or two with glowing support for RFW stance on no-take zonings. I may not. But either way we will start a new thread...!
like backsides.....everybody has a opinion on subjects such as the complexities of marine management issues. Right or wrong the only way you can hope to improve things is to seek opinions from others with views which may differ from your own.
Looking forward to a beer to discuss further Ewan.
PS...I personally put crop circles and man made climate change in the same science bucket....but thats for another discussion.
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Letter to editor misquoted the research...
Wow.
In his letter to the editor Frank completely misquotes the findings of the McCook research. This is very disappointing in a letter that pleades for balance and credibility in the planning of sanctuary zones. The letter to the editor makes it sound like sanctuary zones are a waste of money and have no outcomes. Which is a very strange summary if you have read the paper.
Below is a copy of the abstract/summary of the McCook paper, available from
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/18/0909335107
The Great Barrier Reef (GBR) provides a globally significant demonstration of the effectiveness of large-scale networks of marine reserves in contributing to integrated, adaptive management.
Comprehensive review of available evidence shows major, rapid benefits of no-take areas for targeted fish and sharks, in both reef and nonreef habitats, with potential benefits for fisheries as well as biodiversity conservation.
Large, mobile species like sharks benefit less than smaller, site-attached fish. Critically, reserves also appear to benefit overall ecosystem health and resilience: outbreaks of coral-eating, crown-of-thorns starfish appear less frequent on no-take reefs, which consequently have higher abundance of coral, the very foundation of reef ecosystems.
Effective marine reserves require regular review of compliance: fish abundances in no-entry zones suggest that even no-take zones may be significantly depleted due to poaching. Spatial analyses comparing zoning with seabed biodiversity or dugong distributions illustrate significant benefits from application of best-practice conservation principles in data-poor situations.
Increases in the marine reserve network in 2004 affected fishers, but preliminary economic analysis suggests considerable net benefits, in terms of protecting environmental and tourism values. Relative to the revenue generated by reef tourism, current expenditure on protection is minor. Recent implementation of an Outlook Report provides regular, formal review of environmental condition and management and links to policy responses, key aspects of adaptive management.
Given the major threat posed by climate change, the expanded network of marine reserves provides a critical and cost-effective contribution to enhancing the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef.
I have read the paper - it is a compelling case FOR sanctuary zones, for a range of reasons, including outcomes for fishing. There are so many studies showing more and bigger fish in established no-take zones, that the argument really isnt even an argument. In many places around the world, people fish along the edge of sanctuary zones because they catch more fish there. Why would it be any different here?
Frank wrote:
Recfishwest and the wider community is asking what is the driver for expensive and often inappropriate lines on the water, when other management strategies can deliver a better outcome?
I am certainly not asking, and neither does anyone that I go fishing with. The driver is clear - we have caught too many fish and need to start protecting them by not catching them so much. The research is clear - this GBR paper is but one of hundreds that show conclusive results supporting the role of sanctuary zones for protecting fish and the broader ecology that supports them (and us).
The answer sadly is that Professor Meeuwig makes money by supporting green paint in Australia to better win long term results in the United States.
Professor Meeuwig makes money by leading a team providing the best available research we have about our fish off WA. You don't get the title of Professor by being in the news or writing letters to the editor, it comes by publishing many peer-reviewed papers that are recognised by the scientific community for their importance in that field of research. The fact that a prominent scientist is calling for more sanctuary zones should carry a bit of weight ay? Or should more weight be assigned to people who do make their money by writing letters to the editor? Don't forget that RecFishWest is also a lobby group.
The recreational sector agrees that Camden Sound is an important place, but we are disgusted that green fundamentalists have used the need to protect whales as an excuse to ban fishing. Australians have always rejected fundamentalism in any form and it is essential that we have an informed and responsible debate on conservation in the entire Kimberley, rather than having the views of a small number of scientists with clearly vested interests pushing a foreign agenda.
A foreign agenda? The only foreign agenda would be that we are protecting whales that the Japanese eat...but that is another story. Green fundamentalists? Does he mean fundamental as in, the best way to protect fish stocks for the future is by not catching all of them today? Then I am a fundamentalist. I am also Australian.
Don't forget, 'green fundamentalists' caused the protection of our forests, endangered native animals, national parks and the list goes on. Doesnt seem so bad to me.
Comments??? I was very disappointed to read this letter - it is a long way from the opinions of this recreational fisher, and everyone else I know.
He is right though, balance is important to maintain. Anyone out there feel like there are too many places that you are not allowed to fish? Would you prefer to be banned from fishing for 2 or 4 months of the year??
Cheers,
Ewan
Dan
Posts: 168
Date Joined: 23/02/06
I thought it was more to do
I thought it was more to do with opposition to excluding rec fisho's in order to protect whales ??
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Quote:Frank completely
Frank was responding to the following in the article signed by Jessica Meeuwig and others
when Frank said:-
Reading all thirteen (13) pages of the complex and qualified detail in http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2010/02/19/0909335107.DCSupplemental/pnas.200909335SI.pdf will show that statement is not actually a misquote.
Protecting them from what? Existing commercial and recreational fishing in the area? Get real!
Do a search for Pew, example in http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/news/search for some enlightening info on their hard line, no compromise approach and their massive funding, etc. and you WILL find a foreign agenda, which includes getting what they want by direct political appeal to and pressure on the State and Commonwealth governments, rather than proper risk assessments.
Then note that the organisations involved in http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/ (covering the South West of Australia) includes Pew Environmental Group.
Yes, protecting whales and other "charismatic megafauna" is important. Does that mean banning fishing is essential to protect whales?. No.
"charismatic megafauna?" Not my preferred words, but see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charismatic_megafauna
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
Do sanctuaries work ????
Maybe....maybe not
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/03/19/2851194.htm
I guess it depends on the “Quality” of the habitat contained within the sanctuary...will fish want to live there....
Also note that McCook says that the findings of more fish in some fished areas shows a lack of compliance – is that not a non-empirical and values judgement....
Ironically what it actually says is that not all habitats are created equal and that some habitats will continue to be attractive to and populated with fish under fishing pressure.
It does NOT mean that sanctuary zones solve anything
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Recreational anglers want
Recreational anglers want sustainable fishing and good fishing experiences and a FAIR GO!.
Informed Recreational anglers are not opposed to Marine Parks.
Informed Recreational anglers are not opposed to sanctuary zones in the right places for the right reasons.
Informed Recreational anglers want to protect nursery areas, spawning fish stocks and spawning fish aggregations, (and whales) but these don't need total closures all year long. Example:- Cockburn Sound Pink Snapper seasonal spawning closures championed by concerned recreational anglers.
Recreational anglers want to protect the environment, but locking up large areas is not the only way to protect the environment and indeed is not sufficient to protect the environment.
Informed conservationists would talk about the outcomes they want, the risks to achieving those outcomes, and not just keep promoting one of the methods which might achieve them and ignoring all the other methods........
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Salmo, there is ample
Salmo, there is ample evidence that sanctuaries result in more and bigger fish. Come on, just think about it - you don't need to be a scientist. If no fish are caught from there, more will be there, and they can grow bigger. It's not rocket science.
People always want science to prove that sanctuaries will 'work'. But where is the proof that fishing at the levels we are, and traditionally have, can work? The only science to be done on this topic is what has recently triggered the drastic management changes, because it found that we are overexploiting the fish stocks to the point of near collapse!! Why do you see all these scientists stating that we need to catch less fish, and that we need sanctuary zones? Because the evidence says so. Blind freddy says so too.
Do you like having seasonal bans, when you are not allowed to fish for these species at all ? What is wrong with having an area set aside permanently, thus allowing you to fish all year round elsewhere? It has far more benefits for the ecosystem, and as far as I can see it, for the fishers too!?
There has been other published research which found positive results at Rotto - sorry, but a news article doesn't cut it. I'll wait for the published results, and their in-depth analysis. The sanctuaries at Rottnest are tiny, smaller than would be required, as Tim Langlois suggested as a result of pressure from fishers.
Increased density, biomass and egg production in an unfished population of Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) at Rottnest Island, Western Australia
http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=MF06204
Density and size of reef fishes in and around a temperate marine reserve
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF07093.htm
sorry for the formatting...
In the 'right places for the right reasons' - you keep saying that Terry - where would they be exactly, in the view of the Informed Rec Fisher? Some place that they don't fish? How many people do you reckon would fish in Camden Sound? enough to mount a campaign against sanctuary zones there? seems like it?
There is no other way to keep some part of the ecosystem free of human pressure, than to set it aside as a sanctuary. This is exactly why 'informed conservationists' push the need for sanctuary zones so hard. It's that simple. Fishing is the biggest pressure on fish. Not that hard to contemplate is it? As a fisherman it is as plain as the nose on my face that I am a threat to my targets!! Especially as I pull the trigger or sink the knife in!!
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Salmo - here you go - 13
Salmo - here you go - 13 pages of peer-reviewed scientific references on the effectiveness of sanctuary zones:
http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/MPA-literature-listing.pdf
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Quote Quote: A recent
Quote Quote:
A recent study in the Great Barrier Reef by McCook et al, found higher abundances of fish in a number of instances in fished rather than unfished areas.
OK Terry/Frank (originally), there were a number of instances where there were more fish on fished than unfished reefs - thus technically it wasn't a misquote. Perhaps more correctly, it was a mischievious quote.
The overhwelming point of the paper was the effectiveness of sanctuary zones established in previously fished areas. No scientific study in the world has 100% results. To use the outliers of the study to make a point it mischievious at best...
Salmo - do you think you would catch a lot of fish in an established sanctuary zone where there were lots of fish? If you were a poacher, do you think you might like to do that? Compliance issues are well recognised. Very difficult to test or measure of course...surely you would grant experts in their field permission to speculate on inconsistent results? If you've ever been spearing for coral trout, you will know that it doesn't take much to clean them out of an area...even within bag limits, totally legally. It would only take one or two episodes of poaching to undo years and years of replenishment of such species after being protected.
Around the world, there are examples of people railing against sanctuaries being established, who 10 years later are now supporters. Why? tell me why? Could it...could it be because life is better with them?? Could it? Life in Exmouth seems pretty dandy, fishing wise! despite there being 89,000Ha of sanctuary zoning!! The fishing and boating business up there is pretty booming from what I've seen!! So is the tourism business! and there is millions of $ of funding put into marine research there, focussed on the marine park.
Who says protecting whales means stopping fishing? I have to admit I didn't see the opinion piece by Professor Meeuwig. But I havent seen a plan where fishing is banned to protect whales either...where did this idea come from?
I have no delusions that Salmo or Terry will accept these things I write, we have been at this for ages in many other posts.
But to anyone reading this stuff or with some interest in learning more - please, please please, learn it from the scientists, not the fishing lobby groups!!!? Even ones who 'represent' us!
Just google "effectiveness of marine protected areas" and you have thousands of webpages, hundreds of articles, at least 90% of which show the benefits for fishing, for biodiversity conservation and even for local economies - despite what you'll hear from lobby groups.
For benefits to local fishing - look especially into the NZ marine reserves for comparitive culture and ecology to here, or to the Great Barrier Reef research. I believe there is some good stuff coming from Ningaloo too, despite compliance problems there.
The key to them 'working' is being big enough (that is, resisting the lobbying of self-interest groups that will want them smaller) and being enforced and monitored - which is where the $ comes into play. There is beginning to be a body of research which shows increased $ over the longer term as a result of a better ecosystem due to no-take zones.
It's all there, accessible from the primary sources right on this old internet - don't just believe the media or the lobby groups! (which includes the conservation lobby!!)
Cheers,
Ewan
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Quote:Who says protecting
Perhaps if you had actually read the article you would see what RFW and WAFIC are responding to. The article is not on the West website, and I am concious of copyright, so here are some extracts that answer your questions.
And Ewan, you are implying those letters as being against marine parks and against sanctuary zones. They are NOT.
It's about risk assessment and matching the management and prohibitions to the risks.
is clearly NOT opposing the Camden Sound Marine Park.
The Rottnest West End Demersal Sanctuary Zone is to protect, among other things, special corals in the area. So it prohibits me from catching a prolific and pelagic herring from the shore under threat of up to $10,000 fine, yet it doesn't stop a dive (or any other boat) from dropping their anchor on those very corals. Balanced and addressing the real risks? I think not.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
Yo Ewan
Ewan,
Mate you are a well informed marine scientist, and I have nothing but admiration for your passionate knowledge. Personally I'm not informed enough to have an opinion either way about whether Protection Zones work or not. I would probably agree it would seem logical that BIG locked up areas would contain more marine diversity....
As Terry said, anglers including myself are not necessarily against sanctuary zones being used as a management tool to preserve and protect marine environments. But like fixing your car...you dont need a tool like a sledge hammer to fix a wonky windscreen wiper.
The issue here is that one fundamentalist environmental group with a questionable agenda is playing on people’s emotions to achieve their goals. The environmental lobby is highly motivated in applying politically pressure by using whatever misinformation they can.
The letters from both FRW and WAFIC was to clarify and correct assertions made by Pew and their associates that there was a strong argument for a massive sanctuary zone around Montague Reef. This is just not true.
As you rightly point out there is currently only a small amount of recreational and commercial fishing pressure in this Camden Sound area. Because of its remoteness this is unlikely to change in the future. If anything there would likely be an increase in “Whale” industry pressure which no doubt would/could impact the calving whales more than a handful of recreational fishing boats. Why exclude one group when they have little if any impact.
Truth is RFW and WAFIC have been involved in consultation with Government over Camden Sound. Both parties in principally agreed to the suggestion of a larger whale protection area than was originally planned, while advocating for the continued access to safe anchorage provided by Montague Island.
I hope you understand RFW are a representative and advocate body, not a lobby group. They try to do their best at offering balanced advice on marine resource issues based on sound unbiased reasoning, not emotional blackmail.
Let’s leave that to our girl friends and wives eh
I respect your view Ewan, but I just cant see a strong arguement to claim that the only way to protect is to lockup.
cheers
Andrew Matthews
Chairman Recfishwest
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Ah shoot I've done it again
Ah shoot I've done it again - too much to say in a short few lines! I just previewed this and it is a massive post. So main bits are in bold...
Andrew - emotional blackmail is not the exclusive domain of women (I wonder how the women fisherfolk out there, whom you represent, feel about that comment?) - man I had to read that twice to make sure you actually wrote it.
Compare the relatively calm letter written by Guy Leyland of WAFIC, to that written by Frank Prokop of RFW and you will see what I mean.
Emotional blackmail - do you mean like using words like 'vilified' to describe the need to exclude fishing from areas to ensure total ecosystem protection under scientific guidance that, conservatively, 20% of the worlds oceans should be made no-take to ensure long-term viability? I am searching for that reference. 20% is on the lower end of the scale - others say 40-60% - phew! that is alot
vilified:To make vicious and defamatory statements about.
The only vilification I have read - according to the definition - is the vilification of Jessica Meeuwig, other scientists, and conservation groups who are lobbying - yes, lobbying (Lobby: to solicit or try to influence the votes of members of a legislative body) to bring the no-take areas in WA up to approach what is recommended by marine scientists world-wide (and locally - hence their letter to the West).
Prof. Meeuwig and her scientific group are funded by a range of organisations, including the Dept of Fisheries, DEC, DPI, the WA Museum, community Natural Resource Management groups and the Federal Dept Environment etc. Not Pew. I could be wrong but I just looked on their list of project partners.
Pew are one of the many groups associated with the Save Our Marine Life campaign which advocates for more no-take zones. Scientists support this campaign because scientific research shows that no-take zones are effective and required to keep the ocean in good condition for the future. It's not complicated. It's not an anti-fishing conspiracy.
There is no insidious plot to take over WA's waters and ban fishing, despite what Frank Prokop's letter implys. No-take MPAs are pro-fish, not anti-fisher.
What is this 'questionable agenda' that you guys speak of - what do you mean by this ambiguous statement? Can you please make it clear? Otherwise, it is scare campaign.
Thankyou Terry for posting (I gather you've typed it out from the paper - sorry to make you do that!) that excerpt of Prof. Meeuwig's letter. I still don't see in there that they are asking for no-fishing zones to protect whales - though I accept that could be in the rest of the letter that you haven't repeated for me. My interpretation is that they are saying - "if you are putting in a Marine Park one purpose of which is for whale conservation, take the opportunity to include large no-take zones in this special place that we don't know alot about, and which is currently not highly used". Large no-take sanctuary zones within multi-use marine parks is best-practice. They need to cover the full variety of habitat types, and also the 'special' areas and critical habitat areas.
You raise the point about anchoring in sanctuary zones which is a very good point and one which RFW push well and should be commended for. It is not, however, a tool to use in debates for or against excluding fishing from areas. Fishing is the biggest impact we make in most places that aren't polluted. The Florida Keys example Frank Prokop gave is another misleading statement. - Anchoring and diver damage are the biggest impacts there - since fishing was excluded!! These anchoring and diver-related threats should be addressed, no doubt about it. Sanctuary zones should be total sanctuaries to the whole system. They are catching more fish in the Forida Keys region since the no-take zones were inacted.
Does WA recieve special attention from overseas? Of course - wanna know why? Because it is highly globally significant for it's marine and terrestrial biodiversity (they are linked). Ensuring this place is well protected is in the global interest of maintaining the health of the oceans in the long term. Existing fishery management here has brought several species close to the edge. Adequate (i.e. large) no-take zones would complement the fishery regulation strategies that have been failing us. RecFishWest should be lobbying hard for more and bigger no-take zones even where there is not alot of available knowledge if they really want to take the best advice possible and do the best thing for the long term fishing amenity in WA.
Being concerned about 'foreign interests' is scare campaign. It's like when the Exxon Valdez ran aground...should the rest of the world butted out and minded it's own business? How about saving gorillas from being extinct? There are no gorillas in Australia, but I am sure we all want them to be protected. Charismatic megafauna are often used to galvanise public empathy for a cause - so what? They are also usually apex organisms...to save the gorilla, you have to protect the rainforest. To protect whale calving areas, not doubt prawn trawling would be off the happy list. Rec fishing? I can't see much impact of rec fishers on whales, other than disturbance, which as you point out would certainly also apply to whale watching. But I just dont see where anyone has said that.
Labelling conservation groups as un-Australian 'green fundamentalists' (I know, I paraphrased that, but accurately I think) - tell me, how emotive is that? How balanced is that? On one hand there are many industries continually pushing for development and access, on the other you have the conservation movement. Two sides to a balanced coin.
I assure you, native Western Australians, including fisherfolk like me, have been campaigning for more marine protected areas for alot longer than the last couple of years when the Pew group started supporting it.
Andrew - the claim is not that the only way to protect is to lock up, the claim is that one necessary tool in the toolbox is to lock up. It is not a sledgehammer - it is a multi-tool. A leatherman if you wish. I use mine every single day for everything!!! You can fix a windscreen wiper with a leatherman - I have actually done it. No, really - I'm not being a smart-arse - I actually have!
Look - I always come across as being anti-RecFishWest, but I am truly not - nor am I anti-TerryF (quite the contrary)!!! You do some great things, and put good pressure on the Govt in many areas, such as the anchoring in SZs issue amongst others.
But you are not up-to-speed with the no-take MPA thing, in regards to how it would affect fishers (loss of amenity and all that rhetoric). Letters to the editor from the Exec Director of RFW like the one Terry has kindly repeated for us here do not contribute meaningfully to the negotiations. Guy Leyland's letter said most of the same things in a way that was not as emotive, not so us-and-them, line-in-the-sand, much more constructive. I write on here to say that this opinion, and particularly the way in which it was delivered, does not represent me and I reckon it doesnt represent alot of other fishos who are reasonably well informed in these things.
Andrew you said you are not well-informed enough to have an opinion either way and I respect that you would say that (though I think you are being a bit modest), and that is totally fair enough. Your policy officers would be in charge of getting informed and formulating policy I gather.
However there is bucketloads of information that shows how MPAs are not a panacea for fishery management problems (I have never said that they are, and neither do the conservationists). But they are one necessary tool - it has been shown all over the world, in a variety of ecological and socio-economic political contexts to be a successful management tool, for a variety of management outcomes. No other management option can preserve a representative chunk of marine environment totally intact - which is what is required to maintain a healthy ecosystem - like we do in National Parks on land!! If you want to be informed, you can be - it's only a few google-clicks away.
Mate - RecFishWest are a lobby group. Lobby groups represent and advocate on behalf of their representative group. They are not evil corporations - lobbying is a vital function of a democracy like ours. RFW are the lobby group for recreational fishers.
It's a shame that no-one else is really engaged in this here, it's pretty important to explore these issues, not just opinions - it's seems to mostly just be TerryF, Salmo and Ewan doing this tit-for-tat thing. So I will be trying to bow out of this discussion once (if) you guys reply to this one.
I thoroughly enjoy the discussion/debate - but this 'Pew this' and 'Pew that', 'foreign interests' scare campaign, personal criticism of Prof. Meeuwig and other scientists who are providing the knowledge we need to be informed (they are allowed to have opinions too), emotive language like 'vilification', mis-quoting or mis-use of research like the McCook paper and the Florida Keys thing are not useful and need to be pulled up.
If RFW really want marine parks and no-take areas - where does RFW propose they be? I only ever hear of where they don't want them to be, or why they don't want them to be. I mean, thinking outside of current planning processes - if it were up to you, where would they be, and why would you put them there?
Cheers!
Ewan
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Ewan The answers to your
Ewan
The answers to your questions are in Recfishwest's Policy:- Marine Reservation and No Take Zones http://www.recfishwest.org.au/PolicyMarineReservations.htm
It has a lot in it, so I'm not going to extract bits.
Read it all as a package containing many simple, self evident but very important principles, explained in enough detail to clearly show Recfishwest's policies, approaches and concerns. Yes, it could benefit from an update of some details.
The PROPER investigation, proposal and selection of areas for Marine Parks and sanctuary zones is an enormous and time consuming job, one which Recfishwest is not resourced to do, nor is it RFW's job to do that, because
WA has the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) AND the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority (MPRA)
The Commonwealth has the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA)
These ARE resourced and legislatively REQUIRED to protect the environment. Marine Parks (and sanctuary and other zones within them) are just one of the many tools which should be used.
Then there's the Dept of Fisheries for Fish Habitat Protection Areas and management of fisheries in State and Commonwealth waters.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Quote:OK Terry/Frank
People can read a 9 page analysis of the McCook report, and can decide for themselves where the misquoting is being done. It's headed "Extraordinary Claims in Great Barrier Reef Assessment Require Evidence" http://www.quadrant.org.au/Starck%20document.pdf and says it is "a discussion restricted to a sampling of key points as emphasized in the report and in the press release"
McCook Report http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/02/18/0909335107.full.pdf+html
Press release about the report http://www.coralcoe.org.au/news_stories/reserves.html
Then there's some interesting publishing procedural stuff about the McCook report in http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2010/03/starck-barrier-reef
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15654
Date Joined: 29/11/05
info
Quote:
RecFishWest should be lobbying hard for more and bigger no-take zones even where there is not alot of available knowledge if they really want to take the best advice possible and do the best thing for the long term fishing amenity in WA.
I think you've said it all there Ewan. The general fisherman isn't going to support this, not because it may not be the right thing to do, because its a loss of fishing access and in a world where people are constantly loosing their rights (pay a new boat fishing license, pay a new l/b fishing license, pay for a skippers ticket, loose umbrella licenses and pay more for the whole thing etc) they aren't going to want to lose where they can fish as well. Its seen as more, bend over and take it rather than protecting a valuable resource. (even if it is ultimately for their own gain - its forest from the trees stuff)
Thats the difficulty I see for RFW, how can you lobby and try to attain members to survive when you are supporting regulations which are going to go against the majority of the public, especially when you need them to be able to survive as a representative body.
I could go into how the information is deciphered, but that would start a whole new debate, I'll just point out my opinion and that is that the science is not readily available for general public and if it is, its 'food' amongst scientists and those in the know and not converted into information that can be digested by the general public who just like to throw a line in.
I'll have one last opinion, I can't speak about Meeuwig as I don't know enough about what happens down that way these days, but as I see it PEW is an extremist organisation for conservation and pushes the boundaries way past my comfort zone. Thats not necessarily a bad thing as both ends of the scale need to be represented, its just how much sway that may have in biasing research/management decisions - one hopes that it wouldn't, but you just don't know people's personal agendas these days.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
One last word
Agree with you Adam, Often some of the hardest decisions for RFW are the most unpopular with anglers. You get that on the big jobs.
One of the many other important roles undertaken by RFW is education......“educate the young and they will save the future”
As you said scientific papers and opinions are often way over the heads of people who just like to go fishing for fun.
By deciphering that (good quality) research and breaking it down into simple understanding gives people a better idea about the things that affect our chosen pastime, including their collective impacts on marine resources. To me recreational anglers are marine conservationist (except maybe a few rednecks, but you get them in all groups even the greenies) and aren’t just out there to kill something to eat.
Look at the concerns about commercial netting, an issue mostly driven by recreational anglers. Where are the opinion pieces in the papers from these “concerned scientists”. What about the proposed island port planned in Cockburn Sound, right on top of a well documented Snapper breeding ground? Then there is the recent and continuing pollution of the Swan and Canning Rivers by a government body....I haven’t seen any affirmative action from Save our Marine Life over that. Why haven’t any of these scientists funded by tax payer dollars jumped up and down and lobbied government about that??? Nope ....all left to poorly resourced community groups like RFW.
This group has from what I can see only one agenda, that’s removing access from large sections of our coast line. Yes there are concerns with sustainability of our marine life but to use misinformation and questionable science as an argument for exclusion doesn’t cut it in my book.
Oh and Ewan.....I find humour useful in lighten a arguement.....if I offended with the emotional black mail comment....build a bridge
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
RFW = dinosaurs
Quote:
They try to do their best at offering balanced advice on marine resource issues based on sound unbiased reasoning, not emotional blackmail.
Let’s leave that to our girl friends and wives eh
Quote:
Oh and Ewan.....I find humour useful in lighten a arguement.....if I offended with the emotional black mail comment....build a bridge
Andrew MatthewsChairman Recfishwest
I think the point is your sense of humor is a little backwards, if its that lousy, best keep it to yourself. Just another reason why RFW have zero credibility in my eyes. Kind of reminds me of Abbot - best chance of getting a vote is keeping your mouth shut.
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
I can't seem to find any
I can't seem to find any peer-reviewed published papers by Walter Starck on these issues...only opinion pieces in right-wing slanted Institute of Public Affairs, National Observer and the like. And on his own website...?
erm...? Surely this isn't RFW's research base?
According to the eminent Mr Starck - there is no overfishing, no nutrification, no sedimentation, no need to protect or manage the marine world. OK. Nothing to worry about - never mind everyone, you are actually catching the same amount of fish as you grandparents did!!! Trust us!! (sarcasm emoticon)
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Quote:I can't seem to find
Peer reviewed papers aren't the only place where logical and factual arguments can be presented for people to consider and make up their own mind. You are a trained person. Treat and critique the contents on their merits.
I have seen plenty of publications (including peer reviewed ones) which simply don't stand up to a "the data has alternative interpretations" and "where's the evidence for the statements" assessment.
Where does he say that? Links please.
How would marine protected areas generally as they are implemented and managed now, and sanctuary zones specifically stop/reduce significantly nutrification or sedimentation?
If you have a good argument and a good case, there's no need to overstate it, or you risk getting proved wrong.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Yep good points Terry, and I
Yep good points Terry, and I also didn't acknowledge Dr Walter Starck's experience in fish biology. I guess I got a little emotional!
I came across as a scientific elitist, which I am definitely not - one of my dreams in this stuff is to see better ways to incorporate 'anecdotal' or 'experiential' information from fishos, divers, etc into the information systems available to marine planning stuff. Collectively, we all know alot about the marine world. Commercial fishos even more than us (generally)
For the record, as it has been mentioned here a couple of times (not by me) - I have a marine science education, and undertook my own research project for my Honours year, but besides that years ago, - I am not a research scientist. You don't need to be...all this stuff is available in the interwebs.
But for a fellow of Dr Starck's scientific experience (as lushly described on his website)
http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm
Surely one might expect him to take the fight about scientific credibility of a scientific journal article, to the scientific community? In other words - wouldn't you publish a paper that includes the evidence and discusses it in the appropriate scientific context - and let other scientists review it's relevance?
Why are his opinions only published on opinion websites? Open question - I am new to Dr Starck's work and stand to be corrected.
But it's not fair to put out these pseudo-scientific treatises - which include some great points, that in my opinion are sometimes supported by his indirect evidence, but more often are not - to the public and expect us to be able to tell whether his criticisms are valid or if they are bunkum. This is what scientists are for - so he should present his criticisms to the scientific community (maybe he has and it's too soon to see the results)
He discusses the need for evidence so much, and then writes large slabs of unreferenced opinion:
http://www.ipa.org.au/library/IPABackgrounder17-1.pdf
which is where the nutrification and sedimentation and overfishing comment above came from. Perhaps I shouldn't have made that comment as it wasn't particularly relevant to what we are talking about, and now we are even more diverted.
Terry I never said that marine sanctuaries would protect from nutrification and sedimentation. However, by protecting unaltered ecosystems with all of the built in resilience and redundancy (where more than one organism can fill an ecological niche, thereby providing buffer against impact if one of those organisms is impacted) that comes with an unfished (and otherwise protected) area - I understand that it is expected that protected areas are likely to withstand such things better.
An ex-politician friend of mine once told me one of the best weapons you can use in a debate is to put words in someone else's mouth and then deny them - then they have to spend time defending the thing they didn't say!! I'll try not to do that ( I know that sometimes I do it accidentally!) if you don't!!
In several places on the web, including:
http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4407:western-australia-fisheries-in-decline-over-management-not-overfishing-&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123
He mentions that we under-exploit our fisheries compared to our Asian neighbours, whose own fisheries modelling from their trawling operations in our NW waters a couple of decades ago suggested much a much higher sustainable yield than our DoF modellers found. His argument is that our fisheries are over-regulated, which he supports with a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't take the time to understand.
Now - I don't know about you, but I actually prefer our 'over-regulated' fishery to that of any of the countries in Asia. The very fact that they were fishing here is quite a testament to their lack of management in their territorial waters one would have thought!! The large fish you see in Asian fish markets comes from places like Australia - because there are none left in those countries!! Great model of exploitation!!
For those that are interested, Dr Starck also brings his intellect and critical thinking skills to the topics of climate change and crop circles:
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=3850
http://theconversation.org/archive/c-walterstarck.html
More Starckisms:
http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2005jul30_e.html
Environmentalism has a lot going for it. A righteous cause offers purpose and direction to life along with a delicious sense of moral superiority. Why feel guilt or gratitude when you can feel righteous superiority instead?
Environmentalism has come to embody an unholy coalition of disparate parties whose main commonality is a vested interest in there being problems. Followers and leaders of the movement, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media all thrive on environmental problems.
ya - well, I don't thrive on environmental problems, in fact I think environmental problems suck, and so we should do something about them. No doubt most of us here do too!
So - to come back full circle to the original point - I would prefer to take scientific guidance on scientific matters from scientists submitting their science to other scientists for their scientific critique prior to publication. I would prefer it if all decision-makers, and representative bodies do the same too!
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Ewan Gotto go out now. Will
Ewan
Gotto go out now. Will read your links later.
Have you read Recfishwest's Policy:- Marine Reservation and No Take Zones http://www.recfishwest.org.au/PolicyMarineReservations.htm I would really appreciate your comments on that.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Ewan There's little more
Ewan
There's little more time wasting than spending time urging someone to do something he's actually already doing.
Unlesss it's spending time urging someone NOT to do something he's NOT actually doing and has NO INTENTION of doing.
That's why I would like your comments on the real issue in this thread, and that is Recfishwest's Policy:- Marine Reservation and No Take Zones http://www.recfishwest.org.au/PolicyMarineReservations.htm
On Walter Stark:- I find your comment "Dr Starck also brings his intellect and critical thinking skills.." insulting. Who cares if he is ALSO interested in and has commented on crop circles or the VERY controversial climate change or whatever? And so what if some of THOSE comments could be challenged? Those are just red herrings and diversions in the context of Marine protected areas.
His comment about "under-exploit our fisheries" in the bairdmaritime.com article is in the context of one specific WA fishery. Yet you say "he supports with a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't take the time to understand" and that's the real issue.
Leads to another one for you to comment on please:- Recfishwest Policy Setting of Fish Harvest Levels http://www.recfishwest.org.au/PolicySettingFishHarvestLevels.html
And I think we have reached the stage where we would both benefit from a face to face discussion which can cover so much more than heaps of forum posts.
I have PM'd you my contact details. Waiting to hear back from you to arrange where and when. I'll come to your choice of place.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background.......
You need Recfishwest to look after your recreational fishing future.
Who else has time, knowledge, professional approach, realistic alternatives, willingness and contacts?
Become a member www.recfishwest.org.au/MembershipDet.htm
Tony Halliday
Posts: 2500
Date Joined: 14/06/07
personally I would like to
personally I would like to see more than just a locked up area trying to breed more fish,
sometimes you need to give nature a helping hand in the survival game, then you need to look at stocking of reef-balls and other artificial reef systems along our coast.
I believe the Sound could hugely benefit from a reef-ball system to develop safer nurseries for you fish of all types.
We often forget fish eat other fish and others need algae and plant growth to eat...
So food becomes the bottle neck and safe places to hide from other bigger toothies the challenge.
We have several large areas that have suffered huge impacts from shipping and other marine activity's besides fishing,
We should be seeing a tax system on anchoring ships and transit harbor places like all the way from Freo to Rockingham where cargo, ore etc is loaded on and off wharfs etc having a marine tax to allow the purchase and development of reef systems.
Fish can be farmed for the greater good of the ecology, with many thinking that fish farming is just a tank system on a wharf or netted tuna fingerlings being fattened up or some barra being bred in captivity.
Wild Fish farming has been done for thousands of years by the Japanese and other cultures where they use FADS, Reef-balls and artificial reef systems.
We could develop a series of nursery reefs to give an edge to fish stocks in raising the spawn rate, survival from egg to fingerling rate and finally more juvenile fish going back into the wild
some reading for you...
http://www.turksandcaicos.tc/coralreefs/
http://www.reefball.org/marinereserves.htm
http://www.reefball.org/album/index.html
Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~
It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it
"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)
"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Quote: I find your comment
Quote:
I find your comment "Dr Starck also brings his intellect and critical thinking skills.." insulting
Apologies Terry, as I guess we pointed out to Salmo - it is difficult to convey the cheeky glint in ones eye as you write something, that can translate as being insulting rather than cheeky. But really it was most insulting to Dr Starck - I had meant to delete it before posting but clearly didn't. I am looking into Dr Starck's work and scientific experience in a better way than flippant remarks like that one.
Quote:
His comment about "under-exploit our fisheries" in the bairdmaritime.com article is in the context of one specific WA fishery. Yet you say "he supports with a whole bunch of stuff that I didn't take the time to understand" and that's the real issue.
Fortunately this Starck review was subjected to scientific scrutiny you can find here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/wa/northern-demersal/pubs/ndsf-review.pdf
On page 6 they outline the same problems with his review that I did, with the degree of scientific rigour that I couldn't provide. They add several more.
Terry I've looked at the RFW policy before and it looks sound, as do the things in the WAFIC letter above, as do your "Informed fishers..." tags. I also believe that we all have the same intentions to make the world a better place. As I've said I believe there are many good pressure points coming out of RFW on marine planning issues.
But I see inconsistencies with RFWs delivery/implementation of the no-take policies, in the comments that key people make (which was the subject of my posting on this thread), and in the way things like recent proposed regulation changes seem to me to get chipped down - for example where measures designed by the scientists to cut take by a certain amount, ends up getting cut in half to satisfy political pressure from fishers. Thus can't deliver the original scientific recommendations to cut pressure on the stocks. There is surely more to it than what I know, but all I know is what has resulted, which to me is inadequate.
There is alot of literature out there on the effectiveness of marine protected areas - real published science showing both benefits and non-benefits. There is a great one that I haven't been able to find since I read, which outlines the danger of promoting MPAs as primary tools for fisheries management. Which you might think I would not enjoy, but on the contrary it offers excellent advice on the setting of MPA goals and objectives.
I would much prefer to see these cited rather than unpublished opinion pieces - hence my criticisms of the Starck paper Terry provided above, which Frank Prokop seems to have drawn on for his letter to the editor. It may or may not be a good paper - there is a deep mixture of opinion, conspiracy, broad comparisons and scientific reference - the best judges would be the scientific community, to which it hasn't been submitted. The crop circles and climate change links I provided above both cite his Dr Starck's seniority and experience in marine science in Australia - the currency of scientists is peer-reviewed papers. I am still searching, but haven't found any relevant ones since the 1970's. That doesnt mean that they don't exist, but I have so far had a reasonable look into it...and not found any. Peer reviewed papers are not the bastion of truth, but they are how you measure scientific achievement.
Compare typing J J Meeuwig into Google Scholar, and with W Starck, and you will see a significant difference in scientific action.
So - thanks for the invite to meet Terry - I look forward to it, as you said this is not very productive when there is clearly quite a gulf between my understanding of your (and RFW) position and your understanding of it!! I may come back in a week or two with glowing support for RFW stance on no-take zonings. I may not. But either way we will start a new thread...!
Cheers,
Ewan
Salmo
Posts: 913
Date Joined: 15/08/05
Everybody has one
like backsides.....everybody has a opinion on subjects such as the complexities of marine management issues. Right or wrong the only way you can hope to improve things is to seek opinions from others with views which may differ from your own.
Looking forward to a beer to discuss further Ewan.
PS...I personally put crop circles and man made climate change in the same science bucket....but thats for another discussion.