People keep claiming all these major losses due to sanctuary zones, but where is the evidence? I think you will find right on our doorstop that Exmouth does quite fine out of fishing tourism, despite having 30% of coastal waters of Ningaloo in sanctuary zones.

Imagine if people could fish for bonefish via a permit in the zones how much greater the tourism would be.  The reason there is great fishing tourism is these people are fishing for game fish which dont reside in the zone space in the first place.

I dont have any numbers, but if you have been up there you would have seen the boats being dragged up there from down south pretty much all day every day of the year. Petrol prices have far more of an effect IMO

These same people also dive.  Far stricter boat-posession, trip-possession limits on certain species would have greater stock recovery/protection rather than the same number of boats fishing the reduced areas outside the zone wiping out the potential of cross region spawning instead of forming fish deserts outside the zones from increasing the fishing area to the remaining zones by 60%.  What? to protect only 20% of the species which have been found to be protected inside a zone.  And wait? theyre only getting bigger which will exasberate the serial depletion. Ok, have a zone which prevents total biomass collapse but when the other areas dry up dont start pointing fingers at fishermen when other areas dry up leaving an area which cant be fished with 20% of the remaining species.  This statement just demonstrates how much localised tourism was occurring.  Big no take zones have to be patrolled over large areas with boats by the small amount of staff that reside in these regional areas.  Possesion limits can be secured by one officer at a boat ramp.

Shark Bay is another mecca for fishing where there also is a marine park, the only problems there for fishing tourism were due to a near collapse in fish stocks due to overfishing - perhaps a large sanctuary zone might have protected these stocks, thus protecting the fishery, thus protecting the rec fishing dollar?

Quite funny really when some people couldnt catch any yet others who knew where the Snapper were could bag out in less than 20 mins if they wished.  Now we have a replenished Snapper stock with a remained tagging system where by the other species are copping an absolute hammering while the serial spawning Snapper have supposably recovered.  Why hasnt the $10 tag system been dropped now that the Snapper have recovered?

If government hadnt knocked back the 20kilo trip limit regulation etc which was proposed by recreational fishermen maybe 15 years ago we probably wouldnt be having this conversation.

If you think the ever expandng sanctuary zones is the magic bullet then contemplate a complete closure, no fishing revenue to manage the area.  No money for fisheries officers and the large infrastructure and patrol boats to manage the area raided by pirate fishermen.

Have a look at many of the fisheries websites across Europe and how they "promote" fishing tourism in a sustainable way because its not the people with the licences that savage the stocks.  Its the poachers that decimate the fishery.

the many marine sanctuary zones in and around Jervis Bay in NSW has made some of the small towns around that area very quiet in the way of the tourist dollar and including job losses. This is from a small band of LBG fishos who have taken up other interests because they are no longer allowed to fish their fave spots.

As far as diving not everyone is into it. Im not. So ok they can still dive it but what about the damage their anchors and chain do to the habitat of these fish? 

How do more and bigger fish in a sanctuary zone help fisherpeople when they arent allowed to fish in the sanctuary zone in the first place, demersal and residental fish speaking. 

I honestly think that if they are going to do this they need to supliment that area with some sort of artificial system to cater for fishos and to take the added pressure off natural systems that will get cained>>

I reckon that the recfishing dollar in europe is so big (havent been there yet!) is because there are so many people and so many places that have been fished out? we have the chance to stop this.

They have rapid growing fish populations due to mainly enviromental correction ie: less pollution.  No sanctuary zones but substantial cod extraction from the commercial sector are seeing a slow impact.  A totally different situation with a much smaller boat ownership.

So have the current SZ's that have been implemented seen the overflow effect anticipated?  Some have been in place well over a decade.

They also attract funding to police and research them - alot of fisheries officers are paid for out of marine park money.

I havent seen the Transit reef SZ provide one bit to the attraction of money for policing. 

Also if there aren't large areas that havent been disturbed/fished, how can we tell what the natural state of play is? And so hw can we identify things like climate change impacts or other changes that might cause problems to the stock?

We dont need 30% marine park area to do that?

 Also if there aren't large areas that havent been disturbed/fished, how can we tell what the natural state of play is? And so hw can we identify things like climate change impacts or other changes that might cause problems to the stock?

I can tell without research that if you have the same amount of boats outside the 30% on the remaining 70% that you have increased pressure by the other 60% of boats that fished inside the 30%.  Its going to make the marine parks look really really effective on the surface.

However, I still believe this problem of overfishing, the general Fish Biomass in the Bioregion, goes back forty odd years ago. As there was a culture, to just take any fish from the sea, its a never ending food source it will never run out, but now its been greatly reduced. 40 years ago there was the paper sounder and no GPS.

As a recreational you were pretty wealthy to have a paper sounder then. During the depression it wasnt uncommon for families to catch large quanities of fish like Herring and Skippy to feed the neighbours.  Young people of today wouldnt know what a deep economic depression is like not affording even shoes GOD forbid the IPOD.

I think the iron structures when they oxidise actually super generate microbiological food for fish species.  Considering Cockburn sound has lost kilometres of seagrass 90% and growing having a food generating structure around the area wouldnt hurt and others.  Considering Coral is dying it wouldnt hurt either.

Why are seagrasses important?

Without seagrasses our inshore coastal areas would be like deserts. Seagrass communities are one of the most productive breeding grounds because they provide a valuable nursery for commercially important fish and crustaceans, such as prawns and rock lobsters. Overall, seagrasses play a key role in the marine food web as they provide the basis of a habitat for many marine animals that would otherwise not survive there.

Their function includes slowing down the water current, maintaining water clarity by trapping sediments to allow light penetration and providing shade and habitats for small marine species. These marine species include microscopic plants such as seaweeds, diatoms and macroalgae and animals such as sea squirts and epizoites. These provide a food source for other species such as small shrimps and snails. These are in turn eaten by larger creatures, such as fish, rock lobsters and crabs, that inhabit the dense seagrass beds. In tropical waters, dugongs and green turtles feed on the leaves and roots of the seagrasses. Manatee and bottlenose dolphins and a variety of diving and wading birds use areas of seagrasses for feeding.

Seagrasses are continuously subjected to the inflowing and outflowing of the tides, and to avoid being washed away the seagrass has a root system and stems. The roots help in stabilising the seabed against powerful water currents.