Yeah right. More anti-fishing ideology masquerading as conservation. And now its gone from 30% to 50%....pretty obvious which way it is going.

There is just as much research that shows huge area closures aren't a guaranteed cure for anything. And plenty of scientists who disagree.

Strange how the WWF, CC, Save Our Marine Life, Pew and co never mention that.

Strange also how the report doesn't mention it was commissioned by Pew...who, in a major surprise, got the result their money paid for.

Do NOT be fooled people.

i bet there was plenty of under the table deals going on to come up with that conclusion!!

PEW told Doug Olander from the magazine Sport Fishing a couple of years ago that they had no interest in Australia at all.

Yet here they are paying vast sums of money to contract a team of scientists to produce this report.

I think I smell a rat...

one prob i can see in this is if they are going to close off so much area the remaining areas are going to suffer even more. . same amount of people fishing a whole lot less area and to me that means trouble and a whole lot more fish in strife

Hemp wearing, wine swilling tossers gain some power..

Why dont the bloody Hypocritical Greens do a scientific study on what impact wineries have on the environment and fauna.. The amount of crap they put into the ground to fertilise the vines and All that grape by product is seeping into something..

Im sorry but this post is as narrow minded and infactual as that scientific report.

Yes we need to protect the South West of WA but its not from oil spills.Maybe look into Perths Kwinana strip where they used to manafacture agent orange and dump the waste into shallow pits on the ground. *Where multi million $$ companies grease the palms of the DEP and says "Move along people there is nothing to see here"!    *(total speculation)

For all those people worried about the Rotto trench and cry "Oh No you cant put a rig out from Rotto". It might ruin the views and low and behold it might have a leak. Look at the Gulf of Mexico!!

All you people should read this and of you that believe that some guy holding up a sample of water from a Rockingham beach with thick rubber gloves on. Stating the water is totally safe id like him to have a swig from it and say that!

http://www.hydrosolutions.com.au/hydrogeologist-in-perth/case-study-hydrogeology-14/

Any way time to pull the plug out of the puter again..(But i wont eat anything out of the sound)..

Along the same lines as you freoboi, big business will probably wipe out/kill/damage more marine life than rec fishos.

Bunch of foreigners and knobs from Queensland university can f*** off!!!!
The country is f****d.
Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

Furthermore - I think you'll find that the report quite clearly states that Pew funded it.

You can get the report here:

http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/news/Marine%20Blueprint%20Final%20Report.pdf

Or are you content with flying off the handle about a media release?

Have a read of the actual report, and let us discuss.

Come on...really? All that anti-conservation anger, all that talk of anti-fishing ideology - and no one wants to actually read any of the report? It's pretty long and in-depth, but the summary and the information source is at least worth a read isn't it?

They don't just make these things up, you know...fishos continually campaign for more science in planning...well - here it is. Keep in mind it is very broadscale stuff.

hugging that tree you watermelon

That's some pretty thoughtful debate yellow and black - nice one.

I wonder what the repercussions will be when meagre, misleading or even false scientific advice is given to government who acts on that advice which then adversely affects communities and industry.

Could litigation be brought upon those intuitions and scientists who knowing mislead or misrepresent so called science whilst allegedly supporting an underlying environmental agenda?

Class action from groups affected by poor decisions based on untruths could be expensive for those who offer a scientific opinion or advice.

Maybe one for the law students to ponder.

Who would you litigate for failing to act.....

Failing to act is presuming foresight.....you can’t be "judged" for not having forsight after the event unless you can PROVE prior knowledge....

Whereas people who mislead, misrepresent or act improperly have used knowledge or false information to gain an unfair advantage by deception to disadvantage others

Scientists offer an opinion from analysis of data or other information. That opinion can be challenged by peers which ever diproves or gives veracity to the assumptions or hypothesis.

Why not challenge that hypothesis in court.... and litigate those who knowing mislead causing others to be adverse affected

Ewan,

You know as well as I do there is a heap of research out there on marine parks, some of which supports it and some of which doesn't. I've written about it in Wangler many times previously and in the next magazine I look at some of the reports out there and what they say. People can then make up their own minds, at least they'll have more info.

Here is one name - Bob Kearney (emeritus professor of fisheries at Canberra University and a former head of fisheries research with the New South Wales government - "What I said was the science we've used to justify the creation of the parks was fraudulent and I stand by that absolutely adamantly,” he told ABC TV's Landline.)

Here is another - Ben Diggles. Here is another - Jim Penn. Three off the top of my head who have expressed doubts on marine parks. Also, in a previous Wangler I quoted Alex Hesp and Norm Hall from UWA.

AS for research, try  Fisheries research paper 169, The efficacy of sanctuary area for the management of fish stocks biodiversity in WA... or

Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves,  (Jones et al 2004)

or

Harriett et al (1997), which recognised that: “At intensively dived, coral-dominated sites, the potential exists for considerable environmental impact as the number of recreational divers increases beyond present levels.”

or

Studies in Indonesia by Maynard et al (2009) revealed: “that damage caused by rock anchoring was equal to or possibly more devastating to coral reefs in the area than the impact of overfishing”.

Frankly though, I am sick of this debate being hijacked by a vocal few via the media, and being completely one-sided.

Regardless of what you or I believe, there are two sides to this.

My main gripe is how this topic has been hijacked in the media.

You are entitled to your opinion, I have no issue with that.

Dunno what happened to previous post, some disappeared...

Some more research...

Research by Nardi et al (2004) at the Abrolhos Islands revealed that some species responded positively to protection, but others did not.

Hardiman and Burgin 2010 also found that introduced and exotic pests were the main threat to marine fauna, concluding that: “The greatest risk of negative ecological impact from coastal marine recreation is, however, arguably the spread of non-indigenous species which are capable of fundamentally restructuring entire ecosystems.”

 2008-09 State of the Fisheries report also noted that habitat degradation was the major issue for many fisheries.

They are just a few snippets that can be found on the internet. But they don't get the media coverage of a PEW-funded report.

For those who didnt read it.....

Snagged Attitude December 2010

Water Melons In The Veggie Patch

The Kimberley Wilderness Park announcement last month by Premier Barnett wasn’t that well received by either anglers or the conservationists. Hardly surprising really, considering the whole thing is a hoax cooked up for political points by men in dark suits with backgrounds in market research. They think anglers are stupid vegetable garden grown potato heads with their spin and rhetoric about protecting the whales. Protect them from what? The last time I heard of a whale been caught in WA was in 1976 by some blokes down in Albany with an explosive tipped gidgee mounted on the front of a dingy. Can you get hooks big enough for catching whales??? Jokes aside, the numbers and frequency of whales I’ve seen this spring swimming past Rotto indicate to this couch potato that they are hardly under threat. And considering the lack of human population in the wider Kimberley region I can’t see them being under threat up there either, other than maybe by running into a whale watching tourist boat or an oil and gas platform.

Don’t get me wrong. I like whales but to use their protection as an excuse to implement a marine park without any other scientific justification is purely political bullshit. But hey, it was meant to be a peace offering for those watermelons who want to halt development in our northern region. Pity it didn’t have its intended impact.

It’s somewhat ironic that a group who are demanding large areas of our beautiful coast line be locked up in marine parks are out there pressuring the world’s big energy companies for funding to do “marine research” to strengthen their argument that fishers are killing all the sea kittens. Walls talk in this town and I would think more than a few people including non anglers would be angry they are being deceived by those who profess to be saving our marine life.

No longer chaining themselves to trees, this new crop of environmental warriors are clean, well dressed academics with gigantic marketing budgets to spruik their propaganda to the western suburban house wives who can’t separate saving the whales from implementing massive marine parks. Let’s see what happens when places like Bunker and Eagle Bay become “scientifically important” habitats which can only be protected with sanctuary zones.

We already have a heap of marine parks which are managed by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC)  with guidance from the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority (MPRA), a so called independent group made up of representatives from mining, commercial and recreational fishing, unbiased scientific experts and members of the public. 

If we look at the Jurien Bay Marine Park which was declared in August 2003 one would wonder why you would even bother. Scientific audit reports contradict the view that marine parks protect fish from over exploitation and in fact could be detrimental to local biodiversity. To quote from the Jurien Bay Marine Park Periodic Audit Report July 2008: “Based on the information supplied during this audit, the park appears to be failing to meet the objective of comprehensive protection of its biodiversity through provision of adequate sanctuary zones, and there is qualitative evidence that the objectives for the conservation of populations of targeted finfish are not being achieved.”

Did anyone ever tell these people fish can’t see lines on a map as they swim around?? The Community Advisory Committee has become sadly inactive and local staff has lost the motivation and support from within DEC to act on recommendations suggested almost two years ago! If DEC can’t manage a small little marine park like the one in Jurien how the hell do they expect to manage any more, especially massive ones in remote areas without costing tax payers millions of dollars and risking not protecting the right areas because politics got in the way of sensible decisions.

What’s scarier, is that the Commonwealth is closely watching the marine park debate here in WA because they want to introduce their own huge marine parks in the South West to keep their green mates happy. The local watermelons have set off a chain reaction which could possibly change the face of recreational fishing forever. Be warned this is a direct attack on our way of life here in this state and our right to go out and catch a fresh feed of fish. This is a very serious situation and more of an immediate threat than any reduced bag limits or demersal ban.

We can’t let the watermelons overrun our veggie patch, pressuring politicians that the only way to protect our beautiful coast is to lock it up in sanctuary zones. Write letters to your local members, both State and Federal stating you are angry about them bending over to the greenies. Then write letters to both the Federal Environment and Fisheries ministers expressing your concerns, including the failure of existing park managements to achieve what they said they would, the lack of scientific justification for parks in remote areas and the largely emotive basis for the arguments presented in favour of marine parks. Don’t worry about the poor boat people - the invasion of green monsters in the back garden is more of a concern. If you don’t, our kids will be living on lentil burgers and textured vegetable protein, never experiencing the thrill of wetting a line or catching their own dinner.

Merry Christmas and I hope Father Christmas gives you a something you want, not something a minority tell you is needed.

couldnt have said it better myself.We can lay down and let this bulls#!t happen or make a stand and fight for our rights.Ho Ho Ho merry christmas government.

Good stuff salmo

Damn I am sick of this pissweak govt sucking greenies cock

in parliment?? pale ale are you sure greenies have cocks?? cause im sure any pure blooded male would not think the way they do!

Am I to presume from your posts that you haven't actually read the report that was the topic of this thread?? You haven't said anything about it!

You speak about 'greenies' hijacking this that and the other, but you've both done exactly the same thing in this thread - even throwing in some pretty blatant advertising for your respective magazines!!

The report is worth a look and a discussion, have a look in particular at the methodology for coming up with the areas. Also - perhaps you'd care to have a look at the boundaries in there, and make a comment on how much it would change our way of life? Is your fishing experience in Ningaloo ruined under a 30% no-take zoning scheme?? Rotto? Jurien?

My understanding about the Jurien Bay MPA is that the no-take zones are too small to be effective on fish populations - ie they need to be bigger!!

Sanctuary Zones also need to be well enforced to be effective, which is an ongoing problem with WA's MPAs. Especially with our targeted fish species being generally very old and slow-growing - one person poaching in a Sanctuary Zone can catch fish that might have taken 20 years to get to a large size...so hypothetically, 20 years of no-take sanctuary down the gurgler.

Worth noting that under the fishing regulations we have a number of species already over-exploited and at risk of local populations collapsing. And we have seasonal bans in place - how has that affected your lifestyle? Why all the fuss about no-take zones?? Do you find your magazine readership goes up at all when you fan some flames??

Food for thought - the two-month ban on demersal fishing equates to a 16% ban on fishing for demersals. Would you accept a 16% no-take zone instead? Why/Why not?

Salmo your comments on political interference are great. We need scientific input to the MPA planning, not political. So have a read of the report that was the topic of this thread. It doesn't matter who paid for it - it matters who did it, how they did it, with what information and what were the parameters used in the planning...all is spelled out clearly in the report.

You seem to be implying that the scientists providing information to the 'debate' are the greenies? Why?

Ewan

Am I to presume from your posts that you haven't actually read the report that was the topic of this thread?? You haven't said anything about it!

You speak about 'greenies' hijacking this that and the other, but you've both done exactly the same thing in this thread - even throwing in some pretty blatant advertising for your respective magazines!!

The report is worth a look and a discussion, have a look in particular at the methodology for coming up with the areas. Also - perhaps you'd care to have a look at the boundaries in there, and make a comment on how much it would change our way of life? Is your fishing experience in Ningaloo ruined under a 30% no-take zoning scheme?? Rotto? Jurien?

My understanding about the Jurien Bay MPA is that the no-take zones are too small to be effective on fish populations - ie they need to be bigger!!

Sanctuary Zones also need to be well enforced to be effective, which is an ongoing problem with WA's MPAs. Especially with our targeted fish species being generally very old and slow-growing - one person poaching in a Sanctuary Zone can catch fish that might have taken 20 years to get to a large size...so hypothetically, 20 years of no-take sanctuary down the gurgler.

Worth noting that under the fishing regulations we have a number of species already over-exploited and at risk of local populations collapsing. And we have seasonal bans in place - how has that affected your lifestyle? Why all the fuss about no-take zones?? Do you find your magazine readership goes up at all when you fan some flames??

Food for thought - the two-month ban on demersal fishing equates to a 16% ban on fishing for demersals. Would you accept a 16% no-take zone instead? Why/Why not?

Salmo your comments on political interference are great. We need scientific input to the MPA planning, not political. So have a read of the report that was the topic of this thread. It doesn't matter who paid for it - it matters who did it, how they did it, with what information and what were the parameters used in the planning...all is spelled out clearly in the report.

You seem to be implying that the scientists providing information to the 'debate' are the greenies? Why?

Ewan

I have fished this region for years and only ever take what I need.

I'm so tempted to get into this discussion but know from previous experiance that when a government has made it's mind up... and they do the "Lets here what the people say" discussion... they my friends have already made their mind up!

I for one will continue to fish where I want to fish and continue to practice conservation, and if I should be sent to jail because of this...? Then we all will know this world has gone mad, and I wouldn't be surprised if true criminals (rapists, child molesters, murderers etc) will have more rights than me!

As a group of people who love fishing... How many of us will stand up and stop this madness?

The world is going crazy Adam, and maybe a site like this can have some sort of impact against this? especially if we all get together...? Yes! this is contrary to what I have just said in paragraph 2, but the more I think about this the angryer I get!

You used to work for Fisheries, your partner works for fisheries if I'm not wrong? Does this info hold true to what our Queensland cousins say? Just asking but also realise this is a study that you and fisheries may not have been privy to...? so not trying to put you on the spot mate and sorry if i have, what do you know?

In a sentence! I believe in conservation parks/no fishing zones, but not a whole F@#k#n coast!

Fishnut: the same litigation should also apply to organisations that fail to act on accurate scientific advice, such as failing fish stocks, climate change,

Funny enough today I was reading a book published about the Southwest capes today.  It made mention of fossils demonstrating that the Capes region had water more of the associated tropical regions in the past. 

It is slowly returning to that period which means tropical water in the capes region and the extinction of species that cannot adapt.

Do some research into the last cooling period 18000 years ago where the shore line was actually just past Rottnest.

Research into no fishing zones are showing that the waterfall effect is not happening as stated for many species by these proponents.  Some of the current no fishing zones are based around commercial operations such as glass bottom boats.

Its easy to get caught up in the caring culture but when factors like sunscreen impact on coral bleaching and other chemicals that pour from waterways are ignored, theres nothing wrong with questioning an international body based out of the US want to close more and more of Australian waters, especially since many of the people involved are anti recreational fishing.

Personally, I dont believe their interests are entirely about biodiversity protection.

They do ignore the plethora of current state rules, current protection for their ideoligical new world order,anew world order which benefits employment in their genre.

Im allowed to question their motives, if the federal government wishes to ignore it, well.

Mate we both know that this is all about politics,

Greens, liberal, ALP, Unions, big end of town all want to be loved.....

You are right about Jurien....

I have read the paper, sorry but it’s all just bullish conservationism spin... the disclaimer gives it away

Interesting one of the authors is a members of the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority here in WA, who are  suppose to give independent advice to DEC.....hope he isn’t biased when reading peoples submissions to Camden IMP

The opening line “The Ecology Centre of The University of Queensland has conducted an independent analysis of marine sanctuaries for the Commonwealth‘s South West Marine Region”

Independent analysis ??????

of what???? There is very little if any data

 ‘The Ecology Centre’s blueprint, the result of more than two years of analysis and research, is the first of its kind to be developed to safeguard marine life and protect economic and social interests as well.’

That’s not research!!!! That’s making assumptions and predetermined opinion from a computer model!!!!

Look at the list of data sets they used.... that’s embarrassing.....

Come on Ewan – love the passion mate but that’s crap

.....Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxan

then look up the ‘Knapsack problem’

i would write out the equation but no one would care

duh......

Why has every one abandoned IUCN guiding principles??

You can’t copy and paste pages or comments from the report and I cant be bothered typing it all out.

Its full of contradictions and jargon....lucky it’s not tax payers money they wasted

spin bro....

all 150 pages of it....

wasted my time....