Adam

People need to understand what's what about these forms.

We have plenty of time to put in comments and there is no screaming urgency to fill in those particular survey forms, particularly since you get only ONE chance per email address and the questions are biassed and the operation of the online form needs to be redesigned.

The info people put into those survey forms might not have any impact for some time. It's going to a survey company who probably won't change anything unless they are forced to.

We need to get the blatant bias message out to the Ministers and media and the public because that's what's needed to get this changed to the way it should have been done.

At present I believe we should be telling people NOT to fill in any of those survey forms, particularly not the online version, until they are redesigned and the questions are reworded.

We produced an alternative set of questions for the Ningaloo Marine Park questionnaire which had the same sort of bias and steering of answers towards their desired outcome.

We should produce an alternative set of questions for the Rottnest proposals so that people are better informed and have the freedom to say whatever they want to say.

That will take a little time, and I'm prepared to draft something.

If people do want to use the online survey form, they should use a secondary email address and challenge and object to the questions and the way the form is pushing them in a specific direction and limiting their ability to make comments - but that's not always possible because the online form DOESN'T LET YOU COMMENT if you agree with the principle but disagree with the actual proposed "solution" they want to use.

See http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/m_97129/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm for the full story on all this.

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background...... There'll be more on this....

That the outcomes a done deal?
That our comments aren't going to make any difference to the outcome?
That we shouldn't participate, and that to do so only encourages them?
Gee what a difference a few weeks makes!
Perish the thought!
TYS
Sorry - couldn't resist! ;o)

Cheers!

I have just finished reading TerryF's link...every word...and have come away more confused and knowing that there will never be concensus in this matter. However, UNLESS TerryF can assure us there will be a timely, definitive alternative form produced which will be accepted by the relevant authorities, imho, the synovate survey (however poorly constructed) should be filled in by EVERY recreational fisherman, whatever his opinion, to indicate that recfishers are not apathetic, want a voice, are educated in what affects them and care about their sport/the ongoing effects. Too often the silent majority sits back, because they ARE the majority, and do nothing and the vocal minority wins again.

I make my case with the fact that only two comments have been posted on this important thread....

Adam, you need to keep this topic in your readers' faces because they'll all have comments after the deed is done!

This may seem like a stupid question but how would the santuary zones be identifiable. For example if you were trawling east from the eastern end of the sanctury zone at west end through to green island on the south side of the island how would you ensure you are not encroaching on the sanctuary zone???

I have included a link to a pdf of the proposed zones for everyones consideration as it took me a while to find any sort a of map which illustrated the proposed changes (I hope I havn't missed a link elsewhere on the site)

http://www.rottnestisland.com/NR/rdonlyres/22119E3C-32DB-4963-94B8-D1D79CC1CF02/6570/Figure7_ProposedManagementZoning.pdf

OR is it the case that these zones are a bit too close to the coast and would only fished by boats in low swell conditions. This I cannot tell because I dont have a marine map ATM and I cant read the depths on the pdf of the proposed zones (see link above)

Perhaps these answers and those of many others who will most probably remain silent on the issue are hidden in the depths of the burocratic process BUT whose got time to read through all that information and whose got the balls to ask the "stupid" questions because they dont have the time to trawl through all the bull$hit.

I am sure only a small dedicated bunch including TerryF and Flywest will be prepared to trawl (excuse the pun;))through the retoric and therefore have a truely informed opinion on the matter

But all this is just IMO

I did once ask a similar question of CALM at the Busselton Public meeting about the Capes National Parks Exclusion Zones!

While I don't have an exact word for word taped copy of the verbal reply, it went something along the lines of!

You could NOT run thru the sanctuary zone on your way too or coming home from a fishing trip - with fish aboard, OR with rigged rods - i.e. rods in your rod holders with lures or hooks, sinkers etc tied to the end, as those would be deemed as offences! (Engaged in an act of fishing or having fish in ones posession within a fishing exclusion zone!).

The fact the sannctuary zones were between the boat ramps and places like wrights bank effectively meant little boats might have to go so far out to sea to bring their catch home legally, the occupants safety would be placed at risk!

Effectively CALM were using the letter of the law in how they interpeted the definition, "to be in the act of fishing" or "in the posession of fish" - in as far as how they would enforce the sanctuarys, - to effectively shut down the entire geograph bay to recreational fishing, was basically in a nutshell, how they responded!

One has no reason to assume they would be any different in how they enforced sanctuary zones at Rottnest Island, in effect I suspect they would basically close the place down!

CALM is riddled with management who have an anti-fishing "conservation" agenda!

They make no distinction in their legislation "legal definition" of "fishing" for example between commercial tuna longlining by professionals - to catch and release light tackle sport fishing!.

They make no distinction between pelagics like salmon passing thru a sanctuary and demersals that live ther permanently, for which the sanctuary zone was ostensibly created to protect!)
ALL FISHING by definition is BAD in CALM Marine Management planning policy & prctice.

The whole system is fundamentally flawed with such obvious and scientificaly unsubstantiable errors!

IMHO - a Recreational Fishing peak body like Recfishwest, should launch a class action injunction against CALM on the matter of Marine Parks - based on such obvious errors of legal definition - on behalf of recreational anglers!

Also - they should seek damages for recreational ameniity lost thru inadequate legal definitions rammed thru in marine parks legislation, IMHO in order to help preserve anglers traditional rights!!

The funds won in such court cases should be used to KEEP CALM ACCOUNTABLE to the public they serve, including recreational anglers!

I think when CALM finds itself in court over every sngle marine park vesting and consistently on the losing team - costing them lwyers fees and fines / damages $ etc, they will quickly rethink their existing nefarious marine parks planning process and practices!

An organisation such as a "fishing rights alliance" - would need to have such litigation role against the predatory vast land and ocean grab practices of CALM, as it's primary function!

Thats just how I see it!

Cheers!

Funkybunch
==========

Thanks for the comments. Normally I would post information, extracts and links as answers to questions like these and let people form their own opinions.

But you should all know that I'm not prepared to post on this forum and have the threads hijacked and be personally abused and deliberately misrepresented as has happened in the past. Adam knows all the details and why.

You'll find everything on the Western Angler forum and I'll answer any questions asked there, so keep watching.

But Rottnest is so important that I'll risk a post or two and hope Adam keeps the post reasonably on track. If not, well that says something, doesn't it? After all he started the thread.

Bruiser
=======

The chance of getting them to agree to an alternative submission form is zero, because that would be seen to admit there are problems with the form they produced, and they won't do that unless they are forced to.

No one can force you to use any particular preformatted feedback form. Just write your own comments out in a letter if that's what you want to do.

The important thing is for people to be aware of the sneakiness and misleading stuff and not get conned into putting in any comments which can be misused - because if they can be they WILL.

And if anyone has any doubts there's something sneaky or stupid going on, get a copy of the printed version of the Rottnest Strategy and see for yourself.

The hard copy booklet of the Rottnest Strategy is 20 A4 pages including the cover. The PDF version downloaded from their web site is 18 A4 pages. - so what are the two missing pages?.

You would expect (demand?) that the two documents to be very similar, if not actually identical, so people would get consistent information from the two sources and use exactly the same information in deciding their comments.

Oh no, the real situation is nothing like that.The two documents are in fact completely different in layout and contents and words and details.

I started doing a summary of the differences - but it got so large coz there are so many "in one, not in the other", "one says...the other says " (different) that even a summary would run to pages of details.

How the hell can they claim to do a valid public consultation when they put out two very different versions of the information? GET REAL

So why the differences? In the words of the TV program Yes Minister - "Good question Minister. A VERY good question." What's the answer?
======
Fishing in Marine Reserves.

Anyone who wants to know what is the real story about fishing restrictions in Marine Reserves under the CALM and Fisheries Acts can read up the Acts. Enough to say that not everything posted in this thread so far is accurate. And yes I could easily quote the exact parts to look at, but see above.

Any restrictions at Rottnest will probably be under the Fisheries Act and Rottnest Island Act, not the CALM Act. Yes, CALM Marine Branch has been involved in the Rottnest write ups and their influence is obvious.

Conservation and Land Management Act 1984 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/PDFbyName/0C91E37026AD9DB3482565DC00308ED3?openDocument

Fish Resources Management Act 1994 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/PDFbyName/1CD1FA9D3E96C554482568AC00063735?openDocument

Rottnest Island Authority Act 1987 http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/statutes/swans.nsf/PDFbyName/1B772232E08FAB8E482565D700095A06?openDocument

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background...... There'll be more.... in the Wangler forum

Yes Terry, I did start it. Because I was out there fishing the Chicken Run, Rottnest, West End, the proposed 'Sanctuary Zone' yesterday for salmon, fish some people take, but we catch and release - a heavily targetted professional fish not demersal to the proposed Rottnest zone.

We as anglers cause little damage to the area and it would be a shame to see it become prohibited. There are other areas which need protection, but I assume the commercial fishermen wouldn't like that, and with an organisation that has a voice and money to back them up, I suppose its us disorganised rec's who pay as a result.

Touce!

How will the sanctuarys be marked?

It will depend is probably the answer on which agency is in control of them and under which legislation they are enacted!!
Most of the "claim to fame" on the document seems to be CALM Marine Branch as Terry pointed out yet he suspects they will not be the managing or controlling authority? Maybe not - time will tell.
Who else but CALM (A LAND management agency) would put a scale on a nautical chart! :rollseyes:

It might be nice if the sanctuary zoes were marked with "yellow special marine marks" of the DPI Marine safety Branch type...bearing the words "fishing excusion sanctuary zone" or something along those lines - but then again, they MAY just end up (under Fisheries) like the Abrolhos sanctuary zones as lats longs marks on some obscure deptle brochure they once printed 20 years ago that everyone is sposed to have a copy of somewhere (but doesn't) and they aren't on the nautical charts etc etc....but if your caught inside of one ya history! :Rollseyes:!

Course of CALM manage it, they will have landmarks!! ROTFLMAO!!! Tooth!

I notice also besides the sanctuary zones - another green line...indicating another potential gazettal management area (called a marine reserve??) that it woukd pay to keep a close eye on IMHO.

It's entirely possible that fishing could be 'outlawed' inside the dreaded 'green line' (I feel like a Palestinian in Israel!!!) :rollseyes: depending on the wording of the legislation, and in particular the "defnitions" - which in CALM planning documents are simplistic to the point of being childlike, but inevitably leave them with broad and sweeping powers to "implement" the whole thing in any pre-determined manner they wish by there own interpetation f their definitions, IMHO!

Now don't anyone challenge anything Terry says, or you will be accused of "hijacking the thread" and Terry will take his bat n bal n go home (again!).

All I can repeat (in my own words) is the overall content / meaning of the reply the good CALM Dr M. gave at Busselton Meeting re the Capes marine parks proposals about fishing and the sanctuary zones and what the real world implications would be for anglers travelling THRU sanctuary zones. Of course Terry would know different - he always does, even when he wasn't there to hear it with his own ears!! (Or ask the question in the first place!).

No doubt he will enlightem us as to how he personally interprets the wording when it eventuates after the legislation is passed!

Cheers!

How marked? The wonderfully vague RIA Strategy doesn't get down to that level of detail. Maybe like in this photo.

[img_assist|fid=20840|thumb=1|alt=Ningaloo Zone Marker]

Travelling through sanctuary zones with fish or fishing gear? Maybe like many fishing trips every year launching from Exmouth or Bundegi to go around Point Murat and NW Cape.

[img_assist|fid=20843|thumb=1|alt=Exmouth Zones]

If by "CALM Dr M" you mean Dr Jessica Meeuwig, I would be happy to ask her to tell me what she said, but she no longer works for CALM Marine Branch.

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......

Best ask her Terry!
Although she has no training or knowledge in CAAALM Act legislation specifically with regard to enforcement - she was happy to answer that particular "Question" at the Busselton Capes Marine Park meeting - in the basic terms I outlined above, much to the shock horror and absolute amazement of everyone pressent!

The entire response was "anti angler" and antagonistic in the extreme IMHO. Her dearture from CALM would not be missed by me (Seeing I wrote to the premier and asked him to fire her!) - hopefully she has gone back to the Philipines to study sea horses or her native Canada to study mussells, her only two claims to fame, before landing the job with CALM :Rollseyes:

Whilst I may not agree with her description of how the z9ones would be n\enforced I've repeated her to the best of my memory what she said in response to the question.

Perhaps you'd like to put the same question to whichever authority will end up owning this debacle as to how they wish anglers returning thru sanctuary zones with fish and fishing gear to travel / behave!

All sorts of difficulties arise...your travelling back thru a zone with rigged rods and dead fish. You break down in the sanctuary zone. A CAALM (Rotto ranger Fisheries inspector whoever) approaches and sees you stationary for a lengthy period in a sanctuary zone - you have fishing gear ready to be deployed and dead fish aboard- how do you prove you were fishing elsewhere?

IF your allowed to travel thru - with gear ready to be deployed and dead fish aboard, then whats to stop ANYONE from actually fishing within the zone and just claiming "we were travelling thru when the engione stopped - we caught our fish - over there (pointing outside the zone?).

Tis frought with difficulties tis bidness!

IMHO - sanctuary zones ahould NPT under any cicumstances be created within 2 hours travel distance in a small boat (say 15 ft with 100 HP i.e. 40 Nm iof ANY recreational boat launch site boat ramp). Fisheries and CALM have big enough vessels to travel well outside the range of small recreational craft if they wish tio have scientific areas to study in peace!

To deliberately place sanctuary zones in the travel path of launch retir\eva ramps for rec boats is to just set boaters and anglers up to be unwitting criminals thru overzealous enfocement of the sanctuary zones laws.

Theres plenty of bloody cean out there - let em go create their private study zones OUT of the way of the greater populace!

Rotto's a tough on (in respect of the close proximity to Perth) and the need to do SOMETHING to protect demersals, without taking away the pelagics action such a big fad necessarily represents!

It'll be a shtefight is my best guess!

Personally couldn't give a rats - can't stand the place!

Cheers!

Well, unfortunately I like the place, mainly because it one of the few locations in the metropolitan area where pelagics can be successfully targetted without having to head to the trench or the fads or another 15km out to sea, which in most cases inaccessable to smaller boats. We have only just been able to get out there the last 2 years due to buying a new engine and having a support boat, taking away the chicken run is removing the ability for small boaties to target the one place they are most likely to catch a spanish mackerel - or pelagic species.

Are there any other areas they plan to lock up? I'm sure it can't be long before there is a 500m exclusion from the island. I feel there would be more damage caused to the system by the large boats that moor up in the bays, dump their waste or like last week, burn to the waterline. I would like to see the scientific data which shows the damage caused to west end and how they came to the figure that there is an 80% reduction in demersals.

If they were serious about conservation and fish stocks they would ban commercial fishing from the 5 fathom bank, from within 2km of Rottnest, and remove Crayfishermen's wetline licenses.

now there's a BIG call Adam...Fi$h con$ervation doe$nt extend THAT far..

TerryF, if you know the chances of getting an alternative submission form is zero, as stated by you above, aren't you doing a disservice to recreational fishermen by urging them NOT fill in the survey form, despite its very obvious problems. Surely there is a need for a strong show of numbers first and foremost, which can be exhibited by submitting the synovate survey. Then follow up with the letters of protest...is there a publicly available email address list of those we should target?

Also, recfishers should not just see this as a 'local' issue for those who enjoy fishing Rottnest..who knows where's next, you can bet once taken, never returned.

ps...attempted earlier to reference the marine management website but the important bits were 'temporarily unavailable due to maintenance'...interrresting...

Live to dream, maybe one day.

Are there any other areas they plan to lock up? I'm sure it can't be long before there is a 500m exclusion from the island. I feel there would be more damage caused to the system by the large boats that moor up in the bays, dump their waste or like last week, burn to the waterline. I would like to see the scientific data which shows the damage caused to west end and how they came to the figure that there is an 80% reduction in demersals.

sorry adam you know what you can do with the data that you are asking for.

That comment shows too me how long you have been fishing off of rotto for.if you knew you wouldnt be making a crap stement like that.

Yep I agree you should be able to troll around the whole island.but the guts has been ripped out of the demersals and any respectable concerning rec fisherman or commercial knows this for a fact.do you think the club boys head out too rotto to win the blue water classic.where do you, adam think they head

Stick ya head in the sand adam listen too both sides of the propaganda and make ya own mind up, it doesnt matter because this half arse proposal wont protect sh7t. the fish will loose again.

Wally Parkin

what's your solution?

Lock the joint up Bruiser 3 nautical miles, allow trolling under power and shore based fishing only. the only sticking point i can see is guys that wish to chuck poppers from boats, but I am sure that could be solved.

As for policing i reckon the concerned recs would do a mighty fine job.

Wally

Bruiser

You ask "if you know the chances of getting an alternative submission form is zero... aren't you doing a disservice to recreational fishermen by urging them NOT fill in the survey form..." and that's a very good question.

I can see that what I posted was not clear because I left out a few very important words. Sorry.

I meant and should have said "The chance of getting them to agree to an alternative submission form produced by someone else is zero, because that would be seen to admit there are problems with the form they produced, and they won't do that unless they are forced to."

I believe that the problems with the forms and the differences between the information on the website and in the printed booklet are just so bad and incompetent and misleading that the Rottnest Island Board will be forced by the Government to revise and reissue all of it.

That forcing will need the Government to direct the RIB to do it, and that needs the public to protest in writing to the Premier and the Minister for Tourism, Fisheries and the Environment and people's local Member of Parliament.

Then what I posted earlier "We need to get the blatant bias message out to the Ministers and media and the public because that's what's needed to get this changed to the way it should have been done. At present I believe we should be telling people NOT to fill in any of those survey forms, particularly not the online version, until they are redesigned and the questions are reworded." should make sense.

Also remember no one can force you to use any particular preformatted feedback form. Just write your own comments out in a letter or email if that's what you want to do.

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......

Wally (and others)having only been involved in fishing the water adjacent to Rottnest for the last 6 or so years..... would it be possible for you or any other contributers to please share ANY personal experiences which could corroberate the "80% reduction in dermersals" (per Adams post above) for those of us who did not have the good fortune to fish these more than 6++++ years ago???

Cheers

Back on track then..

Wally, I'm very interested to hear more about these recs which are going to be policing your trolling only no take bottom bouncing zone's with 3 nautical mile boundaries surrounding Rottnest.

Personally I don't mind the fact that its being done around the Island, some area's do need protection, its just unfortunate that they've chosen the Chicken Run which is a prime fishing spot for certain fish which aren't under pressure.

See Adam i think that is one of the best posts I have read from trouty, believe me he is telling us how he has seen it.We need too acknowledge that the fishery will never be the same, but we can make sure it is still there too be enjoyed by future generations,

as for the recs policing it, well most concerned recs would police it.You ever rang fisheries or had a confrontation on land over someone doing the wrong thing Adam

Bruiser ,cant be asked describing it again here's a link, check out the posts read thought the propaganda. agro and look at the Mike Constantine's post a charter operator out of freo for a a couple of decades, then read a post I put up from a memoirs about a eighty year old bloke.Then Terry has put up about from Hugh Edwards what the fishing was like in the 50's

http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/Rottnest_Island_No_Fishing_Zones/m_97129/tm.htm

Also look at the thread Terry has put up a few links from the Jewie workshop minutes thats a good read as well

Wally

Longest thread since war n peace!:Rollseyes:
Funny Clique the Wangeler crowd! ;o)
WUW&WP!
Now remember, why I prefer posting here! ;o) ;o)
History don't count these days.
Young guns know it all! LOL
You think they are ready to be the custodians of our resource for future genertions???
Some days I have my doubts! :Rollseyes:
If we are "the post war baby boomers"
this crowd are The "me" generation! ;o)
What hope, the fish eh?

Nets in Estuaries
Pumping Groundwater
Salt Drainage
Sewage Spills
Oil Spills
GPS & Chartplotters
Large Fast Boats
SCUBA & Spearguns
Pro's pillaging
Fish Kills in Rivers
Eutrophication
But don't stock any Australian natives - you'll be lynched! :Rollseyes!:
Anyone besdes me, think this generation has lost the plot?

We don't own this resource, we are just custodians of it for future generations and our responsibility is to hand it on in better shape than we found it from our parents!
Think they mightta lost sight of that philosophy!
Theres no substiute for experience!
We cannot see the way forward
if we cannot clearly see & acknowledge
from where we have come!

Those who fail to do so
are doomed to repeat
the mistakes of our forebears!!

Cheers!

Well Trouty at least some of us don't bury our heads in the sand.

Me old man always said, listen too the old boys son. you will learn from their mistakes, sometimes you need too learn from ya own, but this one since there is no scientific data ( fisheries mismanagement for 50 years) we need too listen to the old boys

Wally

a good result for me .

What a stupid comment.I am trying too help the next generation mate and theirs.Have you got kids, from that comment I doubt you have, and if ya have, i hope you can look them in the eyes

Thats the problem with freeza filler days, it breeds, and its a curse on the metro fishery and beyond, that will never go away unless a poli has a pair of balls, and thats not just filling ya freezer, you guys think its ya god dam given right too fish where ya wish,Stocks are down too critical levels in the Metro and still ya demand you want fish,

hell I put 150 bucks in my tank I want fillets.

but hey you guys don't wish too pay for the access.Let the pros' pay for science, then we can keep saying its their fault because there is none.

Picture a emu sticking ya head in the sand Adam thats you. wake up for god sake, well maybe ya kids sake

Wally

Edit, and know i aint that old ( 37) , just fished it, from a young age, and read alot.Here is one for ya Adam you wish too work for fisheries hey.well read the last West coast review papers for the last 10 years and then come and tell me that the fishery off the West Coast is sustainable

I dont want to work for fisheries Wally and I am concerned about the state of the fishery and have a right to an opinion. I think a rfl is a good idea as well as a big reduction in bag limits in the metropolitan. I agree with marine parks as well as fish conservation and catch and release. I'm one of the people that you should be congratulating on fish practices rather than attacking Wally, I'm for the fish, but just against the current process.

I was going to say State of fisheries reports, but since ya don't want too educate ya self fair enough.

As for the proposed rotto closure yep croak of sh&t and it ain't going too help any biodiversity whats so ever ( but something needs too be done around rotto), but don't come in and say a good result for me.You run a fishing website Adam. i suggest if you wish too, and involve yourself around Fisheries management issues.( you started this post) you read and educate yourself on these matters before you mention my name in a post.or you will get a response. its that simple

Wally

I have just tried to get a grasp on what has been discussed in this forum and the first few entries have been full off absolute synical sarcasm. He said, she said that rubbish. Fair enough it's a worrying issue, but how about respecting other people's views. If the information is not correct don't see it as a invitation to give someone a serve.

OK you older blokes may have been around many years and seen the dramatic changes that recreational and professional fishing has undertaken, so offcourse your going to have the BACK IN MY DAY stories but realistically you need to start living in the present and look to the future.

Wally I can back Adam in saying that he is definitely a catch a release guy, and sometimes I dont even see the sense in spending a $150 on fuel for the day and bringing home nothing for the freezer. However it seems to be the way fishing is heading, more for the digital cameras and videos. I reckon that Adams kids (god forbid that he decides to breed) one day will get more out of seeing his pictures and videos of his fishing adventures than anyones long fishing tales. One postive maybe to use those tales to get your children to sleep quicker at night ;-)

As for the rottnest saga and sanctuary zones I must withdraw my opinions as I do not have the knowledge on this topic. I enjoy using this website and reading peoples comments, however this forum has turned upside down and is getting away from the topic at hand. Keep the synical banta to a minimum and stick to catching fish.

After all you have all propbably heard about Adams website through word of mouth. If you are unhappy with what is happening on the website, press the BACK button on your browser window and leave.

Regards Spooled

Catch & release, thats funny how ya mentioned that spooled.Wait till the boffens come out and say catch & release should be included in ya bag limit.Fish die from catch and release, didn't ya know that

Its a hella of a lot more then catch & release, its about sustainability Spooled, and if anyone is going too put rights in front of that, well then we can only blame ourselves hey.

Bag and size limits cut the mustard for so long then they aren't worth a pinch of goat sh&t, something has too give from 50 years of mismanagement

Wally

Rohan BevanI'm selling my boat and rods. My next fishing trip is going to be on my computer. Hours of fun.

After all you have all propbably heard about Adams website through word of mouth. If you are unhappy with what is happening on the website, press the BACK button on your browser window and leave.

Regards Spooled

Sex, religion and politics, the 3 main causes of every war ever fought by man!

How can you expect to have a forum on a website dedicated to 'fishing poilitics' without spirited discussion?

Spooled, your last comment would be appropriate on any of the forums of this site except this one - this one is definitely NOT about fishing it's about the politics of future fishing, which is a very emotive subject - sorry but respectfully fella - ya last comments out of order!

Point of order Mr Chairman! ;o)

Cheers!

As an old fart in comparison to some (45) I like to take a balanced view of things before I jump the gun and shoot my mouth off. I have immense respect for people who genuinely have passion for fishing and sustainability of such a sport and I definately class Adam in that league, having fished with him and seen how much respect he has for the fish he catches. I don;t know you from a bar of soap Wally, but if you are a fisherman who likes to catch a fish and is equally concerned with sustaining that "right" or "privilage" then I have respect for you too.

But I cannot believe the "school yard" comments I am reading over such an important topic. Passion is great Wally, but don;t let that passion blind you to that fact that others have valid opinions too, however flawed they might be in your opinion. Self-righteous sarcassm in discussing such topics is not welcome in my book and is possibly the root of a lot of our fisheries management problems. Nobody it seems is prepared to listen and learn from anyone with a differing view without resorting to belittling them or trumping up wild conclusions that they are somehow "freezer filling" red necks who "think it our god damn given right to fish where we like". (More fuel for the conspiracy theorists)

And as an "old bloke" I personally feel that it is "our" generation that are currently making the powerful decisions that effect our fish stocks, we are the guys and gals in senior management and government not the younger generation who in my view are more and more frustrated with the name calling and hair trigger sensitivities that seem to be going on. In fact I feel more atuned to the younger generation than that of my own if this is the sort of response a concerned fisho gets when he posts up a topic of interest.

Grow up gentlemen, lets get our egos back in check and get back to the discussing the sport we all love in a civilized manner.

I have re-opened the Rottnest Marine Park thread. Keep it on topic, keep it civil and keep it without personal attacks, you are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone else.

Just read an interesting article in the March 2005, Western Fisheries magazine about the: (extracts)
Rottnest Reef Mystery - Why are the coral areas expanding?

"Dr Barry Hutchins, curator of fishes at the Western Australian Museum, has been conducting research at Rottnest Island for more than 30 years as part of his work at the museum. He has dived on possibly every reef and sea grass bed in its waters between the intertidal zone and depths to 45 meters."

"At the start of my study, some areas on the Parker Point Peninsula, such as little salmon bay and Jeannies Pools, had very little coral, but these areas are NOW COVERED with Pocillopora Coral."

"It is this small increase that Dr Hutchins believes could be responsible for the increased growth of coral, which, if the trend continues, could see the Rottnest reef habitat become more diverse, perhaps approaching the diversity of the reefs at the Abrolhos Islands."

"Is Rottnest becoming more tropical due to a stronger Leeuwin Current? Is the increase in tropical animals and reef habitats at the island an indicator that global warming and the greenhouse effect are real, or are they just further examples of a long term cyclic event?"

"Only time will tell why Rottnest Island is becoming more tropical but, for now, we should embrace and explore its change and wait and hope that the island's evolution continues unhindered in the years ahead."

This makes more sense to me about why they may be locking up certain areas. Still leaves many questions unanswered in my mind thou.

I think it's unquestionable that cycling of the leeuwin current is increasing..

I believe the 7 year el nino / la nina pacific current cycle is now said to be cycling every 4 years?

Apparently this controls theseas and temps rght across the top of Aus into the Indian ocean, and also cirss the southern ocean as well to the Indian O and as a result the cycling of the Leeuwin and Southern currents.

It seems to me at least in my own experience watching said currents for a few years we are getting more tropical species down south, then we ever heard of im my parents generatons for example..

Spanish Mackeral being caught in Flinders bay at Augusta, Mud Crabs in the Murray riover, Giant (Wolf) herring at Walpole being but a few examples..

Of course Rottnest corals are changing as well!

All part of a trend - but will the trend last or reverse itself?
These are good questions!
What we don't have is good answers!

Maybe it's not all bad - a few crocodiles & barra in the Swan River could make life in the city a little more 'interesting" perhaps! LOL LOL

Cheers!

Rottnest Comments on Marine Strategy, No Fishing Zones

The Surf Casting and Angling Club submission on Rottnest is on their website at http://www.surfcasters.iinet.net.au/RottnestMarineStrategyCommentsJuly2006.pdf

Some extracts:- "The official feedback form contains the most biased set of questions our members have ever seen in any public feedback process.

Almost all the questions and information on the form are emotive, would be very difficult to answer with a "no", and make it very clear they are deliberately designed to achieve "yes" responses leading to a predetermined outcome of majority support for the majority of proposals.

These demonstrate bias and failure to identify a set of key outcomes and measures, assess the risks, identify a range of alternative solutions, and pick solutions which deliver real and measurable outcomes.

We are concerned that unnecessary restrictions might be imposed for ideological or convenience reasons rather than to manage the real risks which might be involved in allowing recreational line fishing from the shore for pelagic species which does not pose any significant threat to these features under existing regulations.

This is just another way of asking the previous question 2. This is an example where a topic is given two separate questions, yet really important questions which deserve separate answers are combined into one question or not asked at all.

This question has multiple parts which should have been asked separately so that separate answers can be given. "Maintained at current levels" and "restored to 1950 conditions" are two very different objectives which would require very different management. This is a biased question which is aimed at getting a majority of "agree" answers from people who do not realise the implications.

We expect that the majority of respondents will be seduced by this question. We demand that any analysis of the negative responses include the qualifying comments and not be portrayed as objections which show that "recreational anglers are part of the problem."

and lots more......

Please use anything from this, or from http://www.recfishwest.org.au/RottnestSubmissionMain.html in your own comments, but please PUT YOUR COMMENTS IN!

Official submission period closes 15 July - that's Saturday.....

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......

Tourism Minister's Media Release 27/12/06

New marine sanctuary zones for Rottnest Island

Rottnest Island’s spectacular marine environment will be better protected under a new marine sanctuary zone plan announced today.

Tourism Minister Sheila McHale said that under the changes, three new marine sanctuary zones would be created and two existing zones expanded.

"This is about enhancing the marine environment, protecting biodiversity and ensuring habitat protection," Ms McHale said.

"Significant efforts have been taken to minimise the effects on recreational fishing from the shore or from boats."

The Minister said that under the plan new sanctuary zones would be created at Green Island, West End and Armstrong Bay and existing zones at Parker Point and Kingston Reef would be extended.

"Rottnest Island is an extremely popular recreation and holiday destination and it deserves to be well protected," she said.

"The island's marine environment supports a unique blend of tropical and temperate marine life, including many species endemic to Western Australia.

"The tropical corals that inhabit the reserve are just one part of a diverse mix of habitats ranging from coral reefs to sea grass."

In total, the sanctuary or ‘look but don’t take’ zones will cover approximately 17 per cent of the reserve’s waters (615ha).

Ms McHale said the plan would have minimal impact on shoreline and boat-based recreational fishing, as 83 per cent of the shoreline would remain accessible for fishing.

The Minister said certain areas in each sanctuary zone had been excised to maintain access to recognised shore-based fishing sites. Boat-based trolling would still be allowed in the entire West End area.

Perth-based consulting marine ecologist Dr Trevor Ward said the sanctuary zones would make an important contribution to the local recovery of fish and other marine fauna that formerly existed in Rottnest waters.

"The sanctuaries will provide the most effective and efficient tool to help in the recovery of these aquatic plants and animals," Dr Ward said.

"The sanctuaries are likely to provide for large ‘trophy’ size examples of several fish species, such as dhufish, that would be prized attractions for high-value tourism experiences like snorkelling and scuba.

"International experience with sanctuaries is that they can enhance the recreational fishing experience near the sanctuary boundaries where some large fish would be occasionally caught in the nearby fishing-permitted zones."

The zoning plan is expected to come into force on July 1, 2007.

Minister's office - 9213 6900
=====================
Info from Rottnest Island Authority:-

The final zoning plan was developed after taking into account the submissions received through the feedback survey, as well as focus groups held during the consultation phase.

Discussions were also held with the Department of Fisheries following the recommendations of the Evaluation Panel.

Essentially, changes to the draft Strategy Sanctuary Zone plan include:

Parker Point
" Reduction in area of deep water habitat.
Rationale:
- Remove impacts on Commercial Fishers
- Allows trolling in this area
- Maintains a buffer between recreational and commercial rock lobster fishers
- Maintains an area for blue water spear fishing

Green Island
" Reduced area along Southern extension to boundary.
" Sanctuary Zone spread laterally to west, to include Mary Cove
Rationale:
Remove impacts on Commercial Fishers
- Retain total area of sanctuary zones from draft Strategy
- Mary Cove listed as important by Marine & Coastal Ecosystem Based Management focus group

West End
" Demersal Sanctuary Zone (marine life at or near the sea bed is protected)
" Increased area of sanctuary zone to the edge of the Reserve boundary
" Allow trolling activity throughout Sanctuary Zone.
Rationale:
Extended area captures deep water habitat (likely ground of better value) lost in the reduction of Parker Point.
- Allowing trolling to occur negates the need to bring protected area in from Marine Reserve boundary, as per the draft sanctuary zone proposed.

Armstrong-North Point and Thompson Bay Sanctuary Zones were unchanged from the draft Strategy.
=========

There's still nothing new about the proposals on the Rottnest Island Authority website 2 1/2 days after the Ministers' media release - it only has the draft from earlier in 2006.

And I now note that the info from RIA's letter said:- "The Rottnest Island Marine Management Strategy release is planned for the 1st July 2007, when the legislation for the Sanctuary Zones comes into effect."

I hope that doesn't mean that the public won't get any of the details of the final management plan until July next year.

But based on the RIA's actions in the past with their versions of consultation and information, I wouldn't be surprised if that's exactly what they mean.

So there's heaps of potential for plenty of unpleasant surprises in the details of what's banned.

After all, if they can rationalise that it's OK to tow a lure behind a boat at West End, but it's not OK to throw the same sort of lure into the same water from the shore, then they can rationalise anything.
===========

For maps of the no fishing areas, see http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/fb.asp?m=126127&key=

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......

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

Informed Recreational anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks.

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

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

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

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

When I read:
Boat-based trolling would still be allowed in the entire West End area.

I was initially very pleased, but I can see where you are coming from Terry in how they wish to perceive things. Does trolling a lure mean you can be stationary and cast/retrieving etc etc - that in effect is trolling a lure - is it under power only. I spose there are more specifics which could be defined in a negative term for anglers. Interesting developments, will take a look at the maps now and see how significant they really are.

http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/upfiles/51/C0CBDECAC02747FBB102D9C8F2355676.jpg

Youch, good bye West End for stopping off for protection and dropping a line when the wind is howling!!!