Just ring the department of fisheries and find out they do not know anything at all!
Their jusrisdiction is 3 mile from shore and WA state funded and legislated based.
This is a feral oops Federal Government issue and is not policed by this department according to this department.
They do have jurisdiction further out but only on State based legislation, not Federal, unless they will be instructed by Norman Moore and be appointed to act on Federal legislation and have to receive federal funding/ compensated to do so.
These marine parks will not be expected to become law till 07-2014 I have just found out
By then hopefully this feral government and the watermelons that hold the balance of power will have been voted out!
There are two opportunities for public participation in the development of management plans:
Public comment will be invited on a proposal to prepare a draft management plan for each regional marine reserves network. This provides an opportunity to comment on what the management plan should cover. The statutory period for this first round of consultation began on 17 November 2012 and ends on 18 December 2012.
Following the first round of public comments, draft management plans will be released for public comment for a period of at least 30 days.
Versus the map in the link you posted. The existing Jurien Marine Park extends to 3nm from the high tide mark as it is state waters, the new marine parks are federal. The existing Jurien marine park is as big as the striped zone but not all of it is a no fish area, just the whole area is called the Jurien Marine Park.
It annoys me how some of these zones are in just completely stupid areas. I don't understand. they say we should protect the stocks by creating these zones for the future generations, however how are the future generations going to enjoy the thrill of fishing if we can't even put a line in. I completely understand bag limits and season however I don't believe in just wiping rec fishing areas completely off the map. Espeicaly since once there in they will NEVER be removed.
Creating 'no take' sanctuary zones is vital in biodiversity protection, and promoting sustainable fisheries. Although you cant fish in the actual sanctuary area, 'spillover' affect often occurs into adjacent fisheries.
We need marine sanctuaries, however they obvoiusly need to be blased in areas that provide the most ecological benfit, and where there will be a balance between social, economical and enviornmental values.
Your post came staight out of the greenie hand book Daniel Y and when you mentioned the spill over affect just gives us a insight into your lack of knowledge of really what happens out on the ocean. Fish only hang around the best habitat and that is usually inside the sanctuary zones. No fish will leave an area of protection and venture into an area that would make them vulnerable to predation.
LOL. Greenie handbook? I'm far from a greenie and I'm pretty sure I have far more knowledge than you. Do you have a BSc in Marine Science?
There is plenty of evidence that indicates Marine Parks are benefitial, and your statement that fish won't leave an area of protection is, in a nutshell, retarded.
In many cases sanctuaries have displayed evidence of boosting adjacent fisheries. It's just obvious that if you replenish the fish stocks in one region, they will eventually disperse to other areas.
I'm guessing you haven't heard of migratory species or planktonic spawning either?
I'd link you to some papers explanining it in futher detail, but you sound like a redneck bogan who probably wouldn't understand them.
Even if a sanctuary didn't boost other surrounding fisheries, it would still provide an area where marine biodiversity could recover somewhat, providing asthetic value for snorkeling, diving etc and be used as benchmark area for comparing research too.
You'd have to be an idiot not to support sanctuaries, however like I mentioned in my above post they do have to be placed in areas that will provide the most benefit, whilst minimizing conflict with various groups.
Your BSc in Marine science doesn't impress me in the least Daniel Y and you need to get out and open your eyes and have a good look at whats happening in the ocean. Take the Busselton Jetty as an example only because everyone knows that what I'm saying is the truth but put a camera under the jetty there's fish everywhere. Put another camera 100 metres away from the jetty there is absolutely nothing.I've got so many video's that show this but according to you the spillover should be populating surrounding areas and it's just not happening and hasn't been happening for the fifty something years I've been fishing the Jetty. Thats whats making the jetty such a popular fishing platform but I notice the powers that be have made the end a sanctuary zone and if you or anyone else thinks that fish stocks or bio-diversity will benefit from this are kidding themselves.
Oops... everyones an expert, Do you tell the dentist to get stuffed when he says you need a filling?
You must have to at least take in a bit of what a Marine Scientist has to say about Marine Science
Are you suggesting spook that what I'm saying is not the truth. I only take notice of a Marine sciencist when they demonstrate that they actually know something about what is happening in the ocean and Daniel Y has failed to do that on several counts. Respect is something that needs to be gained and not a given simply because you've got some fancy letters after your name. If I went to a dentist and he made mess of my teeth spook I can tell you now not all the certificates in the world would stop me sueing the pants off him.
Mate, the reason busselton jetty has an abundance of fish and marine life, and there is 'nothing' 100m away, is because the physical structure of the jetty acts as a fish agregating device. Macroalgae, corals and sponges growing on the pylons provide vital habitat for small fish and invertebrates, and i'm sure even you're aware, that if you have an abundance of baitfish, predatory species will also come to the area.
I think you've just supported what I posted earlier and you chose to question it Daniel Y. If I was to say the same thing is happening on other major reef structures in the bay the question is are the fish there chasing food or are they using the reefs for protection from other predatory fish.We have an artfiicial reef going into the bay in the next few months and within a matter of minutes fish will take up residence on them with no extra food avalable but plenty of protection being provided.
Not even a small hint of me suggesting your not telling the truth Howard. Daniel Y has studied it and as much as you don't like it he has some local experience into what's happening and ways to fix it so give him some respect. Wasn't about when and after you go to the dentist in my metaphor, more if he told you that you had a problem would you isten too it. Let them do the work so we can go fishing not thinking Howard
I didn't realy make it to clear in my post how ever I do agree with generally Marine parks how ever I don't like it when they put them in stupid spots like the rottnest trench, where virtually the only fish around there are dolphinfish and its not like there's much of a shortage of them. You may get the occasional marline or tuna but they can be restricted on bag limits, size ect.
It's well know that a healthy marine environment means more sharks and it is also well known that we are having a lot of trouble with Great Whites in Geo. Bay so what does the Federal Govt. do? Give us a Sanctuary Zone a few K's offshore right in front of the popular holiday resorts of Dunsborough and Busselton and they're actually bragging about how good they are. Some of these federal pollies need to get jobs in a circus because that's about all they're qualifide for.
I know many people who did marine science who aren't the brightest. Then again, which profession doesn't have a few idiots in it?
I seriously cannot beleive you guys are trying to correlate an increase in marine sanctuaries with an increase in human deaths due to great whites. This implies to me, that you are most definitely not the sharpest tools in the shed.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but great whites are already completley protected from recreational and commerical fishing state wide.
Having healtheir fish populations will mean more natural food for sharks, not less.
Are you saying we should completley degrade and overexploit our fisheries to a level that will no longer sustain shark populations, to reduce the chance of shark attacks on humans?
If you are scared, stay out of the water mate, it's that simple.
Thank god some sensible voice(s) are coming through. Every time an issue like this comes up (Marine Parks, the supertrawler etc) the ratio of 'howard georges' to 'brad ys' seems like 10:1.
comments like "So we can expect an even healthier fishery which could mean more white pointers and more human deaths" are just beyond bothering to argue with. Bloody healthy fisheries! Its a big scam to get us all killed by white pointers!
And your point about the Busso Jetty Howard: If half the jetty was a sanctuary zone, are you saying that the other half of the jetty WOULD NOT BENEFIT at all or that fish would somehow know where the boundary is and won't cross into the unprotected zone?
A current study near Barrow Island shows a positive correlation between fish recruits and macroalgae cover. In the same way that some fish spawn in rivers/estuaries etc before moving out into the ocean, young fish are hanging around in the cover of these seaweed patches before moving onto the reef. So, this may raise the 'profile' of plain old ugly brown seaweed as an important key to protecting fish stocks, instead of focusing efforts solely on coral reefs.
It is also important to remember that politics plays a very large part in these things (marine parks etc), and it is generally lobbying from one group or another that gets these things happening. Just think about what your arguing about, the politics or the science behind it. Frankly the majority of us don't know much about the science behind it, or what we think we know is gathered from people like Howard.
And scientists don't always get it right, but who does?
When we put these artifical reefs in they have to positioned on a sand only bottom with no significant habitat in the vicinity and as we found with the tyre reef off Quindalup in 1986 a big school of skippy were there within 30 minutes.As far as fish not recognising boundries you'ld have to be right but there is a popular opinion on the jetty since fishing was stopped on the end of the jetty such species as bonito and SB fin Tuna are no longer caught anywhere else on the jetty and other forum topics have confirmed this.
Maybe the Tuna and Bonito are hanging around the sanctuary zone as there is better food sources etc there. Were they caught all along the jetty, or only out the very end in the first place? I'd hate to go against popular opinion on this one, the evidence is so concrete.
Besides, pretty sure people catch them while trolling etc. If they're getting fat in the sanctuary at the end of the jetty, this is pretty much textbook spillover effect. Yes, its a shame to lose good fishing grounds, but perhaps it improves the fishery overall?
Daniel Y, can you give us acredible explination into the green zone at the Rottnest Trench?
I am not asking this in an antagonistic way, but;
Is this area going to be able to assist in biodiversity protection, and promoting sustainable fisheries, as well as, 'spillover' affect into adjacent fisheries?
It is my understanding from reading quite a few articles on these zones, presented by both sides of the argument. This Rottnest Trench sanctuary was created from lobbying by the foreign group P.E.W. to "protect the food source of migrating whales". Now surely we all know this theory is CRAP?
What food source are the Recreational fisherman targeting from this area that is actually taking from the whales?
So am I John!!! To actually get an answer & education from someone who seems to have technical knowledge based on science & without the political persuasion on the subject. Instead of skewd views either way, oh & the usual smart arse crap.
Will a sanctuary in the rotto trench promote biodiversity? I'm going to say yes.
Does this area need protection more than other areas which haven't been given protection? Probably not. In my opinion there are plenty of other regions that could benfit more from the protection. I never said I agreed with the placement of all of the government's marine sanctuaries, I simply said that sanctuaries are beneficial, and we do need them.
I haven't read much into the specific reasoning behind the sanctuary in the trench, however I highly doubt rec fishing there will have any significant effect on the migrating of whales. If this is their main reasoning, then as till said, the marine reserve there is probably more likely due to pollitical pressures, than anything else.
Navy Live ammo training ground, high speed boating traffic, mock warfare with sonar training while whales migrate; all happening in and around the trench.
Need for a sanctury from rec fishermen who can get there occasionally catching a tuna or heaven forbid a marlin that is 99% of the time released, Hmmmm.
Minning tax with out revenue, now a sanctury without a clear cause!
Never mind it will not be patrolled as there are no boats/crews available for it other than the revenue raising marine equivalent of the dreaded Grey ghosts who are under the state jurisdiction.
The sancturies should be clearly marked, fenced off and fully signwritten, as landbased sanctuaries are, so jo blogs can not be mistaken, and fish in these sancturies by mistake!
Its pretty obvious that the zones designed are politically expedient.
Why they are where they are is a better question for a politician than a scientist. Its ``green appeasement'' politics.
I don't think you're going to find a lot of science behind them, no matter how hard you look. This still doesn't mean that marine parks and sanctuary are a bad idea, just that they are poorly implemented again.
My point exactly Till. If the science does not support them being in that area, why were they placed there? The groups lobbying for them should be as annoyed as the rec fishermen if they are not in the correct area. I don't disagree with the concept, just the placement to meet a political end rather than the ideology of marine parks.
Sure, and that's why the guys bagging scientists aren't going to really help.
Historically in WA, fisheries management has always been very political. Lots of horsetrading, lots of interest groups. As a side note, I consider myself informed because I live with an Environmental Historian(1).
1) No, that doesn't necessarily make her a greenie, it means she studies the relationship people have with their environment.
Keep going Howard!! Although the SS George is almost sunk due to a barrage of accurate shells from the SS Daniel - most likely fired in annoyance than attack, your perserverance in your argument must not waiver as we are all receiving wisdom from Daniel who clearly know what he is talking about. Not to mention the entertainment of a quality debate!!
• Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II)–1107 km² (The green one) • Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN Category IV)–2569 km² • Multiple Use Zone (IUCN Category VI )–3733 km²
The Green zone is the one where all fishing is banned. The other two allow most types.
At 1107km square, this is roughl 14% of the entire zone. I don't know how or why they chose these specific areas as the no fishing zones, but it could be to do with reference sites, so that they can compare the effects (of the different levels of protection) from one zone to another.
In the blue and yellow zones you are allowed Pelagic Longline, Minor line (Dropline, handline), and Trolling. In the blue you are allowed crab, lobster and occy pots, whereas in the yellow you are not. This would provide a fairly simple method of comparison between the sites.
I don't know, I didn't devise the thing, but that would be my first guess as to the how and why of it. So you can still go catch dollies and deep stuff in the yellow and blue, if im not mistaken.
If you want to sit back with popcorn and hope to see people squirm, or ask antagonistic questions without even doing a quick google to try and find some answers for yourself, I'd guess you're in the category of peole that dont change their minds.
I know the answer mate, its political dodgy dealing and paybacks.
Got SFA to do with Science (in most cases), the popcorn reference is more to do with the absurdity of how some people like to justify the new measures.
As responsible anglers, most of us value our resource and are happy to follow bag limits, seasonal closures etc. However I don't like having shit forced down my throat because idealists think its good for me.
Hopefully those who oppose this new arrangement get a chance to reverse it at the next federal election.
Do you really think a change in gov is going to change things BJ? Like you say this PEW group has a big wallet and conservatives like money. Can't say I've heard any Liberal pollies saying they will repeal or at least look into the justification of these zones.
I've just read through the lot of this and I reckon Danile Y makes a few good points and with an unpolitical and unbiased opinion. Blokes like Howard Goerge who have plenty to say could do themselves a favour and maybe listen once in a while without shooting from the hip. We all know that Rottnest trench zone like Till stated is political appeasement, but sanctuary zones situated in the right places in my opinion can make a difference. The relatively small zones on the Ningaloo reef for example are good examples. The video posted on the Abrolhos sanctuary shows it full of Dhuies and just about everything else can't tell me they stay inside and invisible line. What I don't agree with is wholesale lockup zones with no real proven research.SHOW US THE STUDY PAPERS.
I've read all the posts sea-kem and not one person including your-self has discredited any of the arguments i've used to support the message i'm trying to get out and that is Marine Parks with sanctuary Zones don't achieve everything that some people would have you believe. The classic is the sanctuary zone on the end of Rottnest island that when CSIRO did their research a year or so back all the fish had disappeared. It would be interesting to know the reasons why that happened. Maybe we can even use the great Barrier Reef as an example whereby 7 of the 8 sites that were being monitored the fish stocks had remained the same or had decreased in number. You mention Ningaloo Reef sea-kem and i'm wondering if the reasons for the fish being there has anything to do with them being fed for the Tourists similar to what is happening on the end of Busso. Jetty.
I was thinking more of the one at Gnaraloo etc where they are fairly remote. I can see what you're saying Howard but you hosed down Daniel Y pretty quickly. We are all entitled to our opinions on here without being told we're full of shit. Busso jetty is a showpiece for sure, just need to get rid of the boguns ;)
If people think I was treating anyone as a piece of shit I'd like to apologise here and now because I'm simply not like that and as far as bogans on the jetty are concerned , yes it's a problem and it's something all jetty users are aware of and are trying to address and eliminate but it's only reared it's ugly head in the last year or so and it's difficult to get a handle on why it's happening. Everyone has an opinion but no solutions.
It is very interesting where the green zone sits, about 6 months ago I plotted the 4 corners of it from the image you posted & set it as a course on the Plotter to see the outline. Just so happens that 1 of my trolling courses, plus an area i have triangulated though yellow fin catches over the past 3 years is in there. Many a litre of BP's finest burnt in that green zone.
It possibly IS a study in progress. Lobby groups says to government "Give us Marine Parks"
Government says to scientists "Quick, we need a marine park here, draw up something for us ok"
Scientists say "Ok well, based on what we know so far we think this is the best proposal"
Hence (maybe, im guessing here) they include a few different areas so they can compare one to another. THEN they study it and in a couple years (10, 20?) decide ok well its doing good/bad, it needs more/less protection here/there etc.
As with recent bag limits on rock lobster (and some fish? I dont know that story) they have said ok, they're doing alright I think we can increase them. They might in the future decide that they don't need the green zones and blue or yellow is enough protection as its not under much threat etc.
I know many people who did marine science who aren't the brightest. Then again, which profession doesn't have a few idiots in it?
I seriously cannot beleive you guys are trying to correlate an increase in marine sanctuaries with an increase in human deaths due to great whites. This implies to me, that you are most definitely not the sharpest tools in the shed.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but great whites are already completley protected from recreational and commerical fishing state wide.
Having healtheir fish populations will mean more natural food for sharks, not less.
Are you saying we should completley degrade and overexploit our fisheries to a level that will no longer sustain shark populations, to reduce the chance of shark attacks on humans?
If you are scared, stay out of the water mate, it's that simple.
"Australia's oceans support many of the world's endangered marine animals including the Green Turtle, the Blue Whale, the Southern Right Whale, the Australian Sea Lion and the whale shark."
The South-west Marine Region which extends from South Australia to Shark Bay in Western Australia is of global significance as a breeding and feeding ground for a number of protected marine species such as southern right whales, blue whales and the Australian Sea Lion. Features in the South-West region include the Perth Canyon – an underwater area bigger than the Grand Canyon – and the Diamantina Fracture Zone – a large underwater mountain chain which includes Australia's deepest water.
I am not sure if Tony Burke is aware that the species mentioned are already completely protectected from recreational and commercial fishing state wide. Why isnt he talking about the Iconic Western Australian Dhufish or Southern Blue Fin Tuna, instead hes off hugging the bloody sea kittens. If you want to take any of this green shit seriously they would have to lock out mining, oil and gas etc but they have not.
"Will a sanctuary in the rotto trench promote biodiversity? I'm going to say yes.
Does this area need protection more than other areas which haven't been given protection? Probably not. In my opinion there are plenty of other regions that could benfit more from the protection. I never said I agreed with the placement of all of the government's marine sanctuaries, I simply said that sanctuaries are beneficial, and we do need them.
I haven't read much into the specific reasoning behind the sanctuary in the trench, however I highly doubt rec fishing there will have any significant effect on the migrating of whales. If this is their main reasoning, then as till said, the marine reserve there is probably more likely due to pollitical pressures, than anything else."
I think we all agree its political. No-one is defending the politics of it. Daniel Y was talking about sanctuary zones in general.
The biggest threat to marine bio-diversity is coming from what is happening on land not from fishermen and the great barrier reef is a classic example and instead of the various councils being targeted to clean up their act you'll get the mantra that just by shutting out the fishermen the ocean is protected and bio-diversity survives which is laughable.
Not really sure why im barking up the wrong tree here.
Do I need to show a political science and a batchelor of science degree before allowing me to comment on it?. All I pointed out was that Daniel Y was using a point that Tony Burke clearly does not understand. So is it ok for it to be done for political reasons? Cause that really worries me.
PS. Do you think you are the only one who has done any research on the topic, cause you seem to be pretty quick off the mark telling everyone their opinion doesnt count.
fairs fair, i misinterpreted that then. You quoted him then said "...if you want to take any of this green shit seriously"- I thought you were implying that sanctuary zones are 'green shit' like howard george seems to think.
I dont think im the only one whos researched it, but I was interested so i DID do a little research on it. What I found was the 'no-take' zones are quite small, so those people who were worried about being locked out needn't worry so much (unless the no take zones are in the best spots, which would suck i suppose).
What shits me is that there definately ARE people who are willing to chuck their 2 cents in WITHOUT bothering to do a little research. And the only opinion I disreputed was Howard George who was arguing that sanctuary zones are worthless.
I DO think its all political bulls***. I DO think that sanctuary zones in the general sense are beneficial to fish stocks/biodiversity etc IF in the right area, etc. i DONT think there is much benefit of the Perth Canyon zone, because (as far as i can tell, and i haven't looked into it much) there is not much pressure on it at this time.
I have formulated my opinions based on everything i know (or think i know) thus far. Presented with evidence otherwise, i would change my mind.
I don't appreciate being slandered by you versus and I'd like to point out as I've done on this web-site previously that my submissions on all the Marine Parks both State and Federal began with " I'm not opposed to the concept of Marine Parks with Sanctuary Zones as long as they are thoroughly researched and are put in the right places " which I feel is consistant with a lot of other rec-fishers views in Australia.When the opinions of the biggest user group of the oceans that being fishermen enjoying one of the most favourite past-times that being fishing are completely overlooked by a government something is drastically wrong and needs fixing. We rec-fishers can fix the problem but it's entirely in our own hands. I don't doubt for a minute that everyone is fully aware of what needs to be done so lets get on with it.
"...have made the end a sanctuary zone and if you or anyone else thinks that fish stocks or bio-diversity will benefit from this are kidding themselves". You were pretty much saying sanctuary zones do not benefit fish stocks or biodiversity, and reiterated this in a number of posts in a couple different ways/examples.
I disagree with that view. lets agree to disagree. I cbf with this topic anymore.
"Do you really think a change in gov is going to change things BJ? Like you say this PEW group has a big wallet and conservatives like money. Can't say I've heard any Liberal pollies saying they will repeal or at least look into the justification of these zones."
I will stand corrected but didnt Abbott say if the Libs was in government they would repeal this, and looks at it from a "scientific" angle.
If the Labor Govt. get returned at the next election they will claim that they have a mandate from the people to do exactly what the greenies are saying at the moment and that is they want more protection for the ocean. If we can't use our numbers to get rid of them and lets face it they're not listening to us anyway maybe the next Govt. might take notice of what we're saying. If we can't get a new Govt. things are going to get a whole heap worse and we've only got ourselves to blame.
Bit of a knee jerk reaction when I created this thread, my apologies.....the zones where we wont be allowed to fish/spear wont affect me and others that much.
I just HOPE this isnt the start of many more sactuary zones in the years to come where we are locked out.
What about the brotherhood of rec fishers as a whole?
Sadly this is why rec fishers will be steamrolled (and continue to do so), we are usually only worried about 'our' patch and not others. Personally would love to fish the Coral Sea one day but that dreams mostly gone.
Now this surely is nonsense. Why would a great white patrol the edge? If it wanted to feed on things in the zone it could just swim straight through...
Just like we had "Fish For The Future" we now have to concentrate on" Fishermen For The Future" and unfortunatly it doesn't seem that fishing and the federal Labor Govt. are compatable anymore.
If anybody believes that this Fish zone declaration has been done by this Burk for the good of the fishstock then you realy are a simple, gullablee soul!
Watermelon lunacy funded by mischievious Yanks who do NOT lobby their own USA Government anymore as they have been told to go away.
They bought somehow these union thugs who now walk in a suit and have a title of federal Minister to implement these radical plans.
In the mean time they tried to let a super trawlwer wipe out the scaly mackarel feed stock in Aussie waters.
And as a matter of fact, 3 big trawlers are still plundering this same stock and have a HUGE by catch killing rate of seals, dolphins and other fish species.
From what I reed on the subject the whole thing is political and nothing to do with either biodiversity or the environment (but it is environmentalist driven).
All the studies showing overflow benefits from sanctuary zones are done in other countries which are overfished and do not have fishery restrictions (I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction if anyone wants to argue/disprove this). It's a no brainer that in and overfished fishery with no regulations that a no take zone will show an improvement in fish sizes and numbers but we have one of the best managed fisheries in the world.
No take zones (taking the exploration/mining zones etc out of the equation) do nothing but ban fishing. When you consider that runoff, introduced species, spills etc pose a far greater threat to our marine enviorment you have to question what these no take zone will acheive when they do nothing to address these factors.
Burke etc try to convince us that this is not about the fishery but about biodiveristy (then why does a no take zones only ban fishing and acheive nothing else).
We have one of the largest marine parks in the world - the great barrier reef. This marine park (which has no take zones) is doing nothing to preserve the reef against global warming, coral bleeching, enviormental disasters such as oil/chemical spills or introduced species. These are the real dangers and are currently having a real effect on biodiversity within this marine park (including the no take zones) and the great barrier reef is suffering. The damage these factors are having is 100 fold when compared to fishing (in a regulated fishery) and this goes to show lines on map will acheive nothing unless these other factors are addressed. I hope Daniel and others like him can put his degree to use and come up with a solution to address this or is it in the too hard basket for the goverment??
I leave you with this comment by the USA Pew director of federal fisheries policy Lee Crockett (Crockett is a marine scientist and holds a bachelor’s degree in biology and a master’s degree in biological oceanography from the University of Connecticut)
In a letter published in the August edition of the US-based Sport Fishing magazine, Pew director of federal fisheries policy Lee Crockett said closing American waters to fishing "wouldn't make sense – for fishing enthusiasts or the environment".
Crockett stated PEW has targeted Australia because they see us as an easy target (with our useless goverment who are in bed with the greens to have enough seats to govern this would hardly be suprising)
So a world leading marine scientist (who works for PEW no less) states that closing american waters to fishing does not make sense for "the evironment"
This has to make you wonder why it supposedly makes sense here!!
Cheers
Paul
(who has no degree or qualifications other than a love of fishing and the marine enviorment, a little common sense and an ablility to see through political spin).
The_Wanderer
Posts: 735
Date Joined: 24/09/08
But it says we
But it says we can
recriational fish in
Multiple Use Zone(IUCN VI)
Habitat Protection Zone(IUCN IV)
just not in the Marine National Park Zone
(IUCN II)
does any one know what the reacreational zone arround the north west cape is? ie what is permitted?
kmo
Posts: 127
Date Joined: 17/01/12
North West Cape
http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/north-west/gascoyne/images/map-nw-gascoyne.jpg
I think we are only locked out of the green bit.
glastronomic
Posts: 892
Date Joined: 16/02/11
Just ring the department of
Just ring the department of fisheries and find out they do not know anything at all!
Their jusrisdiction is 3 mile from shore and WA state funded and legislated based.
This is a feral oops Federal Government issue and is not policed by this department according to this department.
They do have jurisdiction further out but only on State based legislation, not Federal, unless they will be instructed by Norman Moore and be appointed to act on Federal legislation and have to receive federal funding/ compensated to do so.
These marine parks will not be expected to become law till 07-2014 I have just found out
By then hopefully this feral government and the watermelons that hold the balance of power will have been voted out!
.
Brad Y
Posts: 260
Date Joined: 03/02/12
So we have 2 years to fish
So we have 2 years to fish and collect carcasses to be posted to Tony Burkes front doorstep. Well might as well go out in a bang eh?
Fish for thrills....
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
There are two opportunities
There are two opportunities for public participation in the development of management plans:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
Can someone advise whether
Can someone advise whether rec fishing is allowed in the stripped zone?
http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/south-west/jurien/maps.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Federal Marine Parks
The striped zone is State waters, covered by the states existing Jurien Marine Park http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dec.wa.gov.au%2Fpublications%2Fdoc_download%2F4227-jurien-bay-marine-park.html&ei=2S2mUNe7DISOiAfyo4HQDg&usg=AFQjCNEnLDLJzeeojYLYLWynkhVGUCbxKA for more info.
The new federal marine parks are 3nm offshore if im not mistaken.
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
Existing Jurien marine park
Existing Jurien marine park is not as big as the new stripped zone?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Have a look at the last page in the pdf
Versus the map in the link you posted. The existing Jurien Marine Park extends to 3nm from the high tide mark as it is state waters, the new marine parks are federal. The existing Jurien marine park is as big as the striped zone but not all of it is a no fish area, just the whole area is called the Jurien Marine Park.
Trevor68
Posts: 32
Date Joined: 28/05/12
It annoys me how some of
It annoys me how some of these zones are in just completely stupid areas. I don't understand. they say we should protect the stocks by creating these zones for the future generations, however how are the future generations going to enjoy the thrill of fishing if we can't even put a line in. I completely understand bag limits and season however I don't believe in just wiping rec fishing areas completely off the map. Espeicaly since once there in they will NEVER be removed.
1989 14ft caper cat with deck and 5hp marina
1990 21 ft natwel with mercury 250 pro xs 2013
42ft Bertram
Daniel Y
Posts: 423
Date Joined: 30/09/05
Creating 'no take' sanctuary
Creating 'no take' sanctuary zones is vital in biodiversity protection, and promoting sustainable fisheries. Although you cant fish in the actual sanctuary area, 'spillover' affect often occurs into adjacent fisheries.
We need marine sanctuaries, however they obvoiusly need to be blased in areas that provide the most ecological benfit, and where there will be a balance between social, economical and enviornmental values.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
greenie Hand book
Your post came staight out of the greenie hand book Daniel Y and when you mentioned the spill over affect just gives us a insight into your lack of knowledge of really what happens out on the ocean. Fish only hang around the best habitat and that is usually inside the sanctuary zones. No fish will leave an area of protection and venture into an area that would make them vulnerable to predation.
Daniel Y
Posts: 423
Date Joined: 30/09/05
LOL. Greenie handbook? I'm
LOL. Greenie handbook? I'm far from a greenie and I'm pretty sure I have far more knowledge than you. Do you have a BSc in Marine Science?
There is plenty of evidence that indicates Marine Parks are benefitial, and your statement that fish won't leave an area of protection is, in a nutshell, retarded.
In many cases sanctuaries have displayed evidence of boosting adjacent fisheries. It's just obvious that if you replenish the fish stocks in one region, they will eventually disperse to other areas.
I'm guessing you haven't heard of migratory species or planktonic spawning either?
I'd link you to some papers explanining it in futher detail, but you sound like a redneck bogan who probably wouldn't understand them.
Even if a sanctuary didn't boost other surrounding fisheries, it would still provide an area where marine biodiversity could recover somewhat, providing asthetic value for snorkeling, diving etc and be used as benchmark area for comparing research too.
You'd have to be an idiot not to support sanctuaries, however like I mentioned in my above post they do have to be placed in areas that will provide the most benefit, whilst minimizing conflict with various groups.
soupster51
Posts: 2724
Date Joined: 29/11/06
Comeback
Best comeback I've seen on here for ages. Congrats. LOL. Boom!
The best reason for doing what's right today is tomorrow.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
BSC Marine Science Daniel Y
Your BSc in Marine science doesn't impress me in the least Daniel Y and you need to get out and open your eyes and have a good look at whats happening in the ocean. Take the Busselton Jetty as an example only because everyone knows that what I'm saying is the truth but put a camera under the jetty there's fish everywhere. Put another camera 100 metres away from the jetty there is absolutely nothing.I've got so many video's that show this but according to you the spillover should be populating surrounding areas and it's just not happening and hasn't been happening for the fifty something years I've been fishing the Jetty. Thats whats making the jetty such a popular fishing platform but I notice the powers that be have made the end a sanctuary zone and if you or anyone else thinks that fish stocks or bio-diversity will benefit from this are kidding themselves.
spook
Posts: 325
Date Joined: 15/02/10
Oops... everyones an expert,
Oops... everyones an expert, Do you tell the dentist to get stuffed when he says you need a filling?
You must have to at least take in a bit of what a Marine Scientist has to say about Marine Science
Haunted by water
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Are You Suggesting Spook
Are you suggesting spook that what I'm saying is not the truth. I only take notice of a Marine sciencist when they demonstrate that they actually know something about what is happening in the ocean and Daniel Y has failed to do that on several counts. Respect is something that needs to be gained and not a given simply because you've got some fancy letters after your name. If I went to a dentist and he made mess of my teeth spook I can tell you now not all the certificates in the world would stop me sueing the pants off him.
Daniel Y
Posts: 423
Date Joined: 30/09/05
Mate, the reason busselton
Mate, the reason busselton jetty has an abundance of fish and marine life, and there is 'nothing' 100m away, is because the physical structure of the jetty acts as a fish agregating device. Macroalgae, corals and sponges growing on the pylons provide vital habitat for small fish and invertebrates, and i'm sure even you're aware, that if you have an abundance of baitfish, predatory species will also come to the area.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I Think Daniel Y
I think you've just supported what I posted earlier and you chose to question it Daniel Y. If I was to say the same thing is happening on other major reef structures in the bay the question is are the fish there chasing food or are they using the reefs for protection from other predatory fish.We have an artfiicial reef going into the bay in the next few months and within a matter of minutes fish will take up residence on them with no extra food avalable but plenty of protection being provided.
spook
Posts: 325
Date Joined: 15/02/10
Not even a small hint of me
Not even a small hint of me suggesting your not telling the truth Howard. Daniel Y has studied it and as much as you don't like it he has some local experience into what's happening and ways to fix it so give him some respect. Wasn't about when and after you go to the dentist in my metaphor, more if he told you that you had a problem would you isten too it. Let them do the work so we can go fishing not thinking Howard
Haunted by water
crasny1
Posts: 7003
Date Joined: 16/10/08
Typical "TV" generated Yank comment
Everyone just wants to sue everyone else.
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
Trevor68
Posts: 32
Date Joined: 28/05/12
I didn't realy make it to
I didn't realy make it to clear in my post how ever I do agree with generally Marine parks how ever I don't like it when they put them in stupid spots like the rottnest trench, where virtually the only fish around there are dolphinfish and its not like there's much of a shortage of them. You may get the occasional marline or tuna but they can be restricted on bag limits, size ect.
1989 14ft caper cat with deck and 5hp marina
1990 21 ft natwel with mercury 250 pro xs 2013
42ft Bertram
MattMiller
Posts: 4171
Date Joined: 15/06/09
Umm...
never heard of deep drop Trevor???
Liam A
Posts: 86
Date Joined: 18/07/11
You got 4 km
Of line mate? Good luck with that deep drop
MattMiller
Posts: 4171
Date Joined: 15/06/09
Details
have a look here.
http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/south-west/perth-canyon/index.html
Stated depth range of 120-500m.
Colt_Striker
Posts: 624
Date Joined: 26/07/09
You forgot a zero after the 5
You forgot a zero after the 5 Matt, it's actually down to 5000m.
MattMiller
Posts: 4171
Date Joined: 15/06/09
Oh well
keyboards do funny things sometimes
Jim
Posts: 1336
Date Joined: 05/05/06
Marine science
A bloke i know did a Marine science degree and hes not the sharpest tool in the shed.
So we can expect an even healthier fishery which could mean more white pointers and more human deaths.
Bend over
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
That's Right Jim.
It's well know that a healthy marine environment means more sharks and it is also well known that we are having a lot of trouble with Great Whites in Geo. Bay so what does the Federal Govt. do? Give us a Sanctuary Zone a few K's offshore right in front of the popular holiday resorts of Dunsborough and Busselton and they're actually bragging about how good they are. Some of these federal pollies need to get jobs in a circus because that's about all they're qualifide for.
Daniel Y
Posts: 423
Date Joined: 30/09/05
I know many people who did
I know many people who did marine science who aren't the brightest. Then again, which profession doesn't have a few idiots in it?
I seriously cannot beleive you guys are trying to correlate an increase in marine sanctuaries with an increase in human deaths due to great whites. This implies to me, that you are most definitely not the sharpest tools in the shed.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but great whites are already completley protected from recreational and commerical fishing state wide.
Having healtheir fish populations will mean more natural food for sharks, not less.
Are you saying we should completley degrade and overexploit our fisheries to a level that will no longer sustain shark populations, to reduce the chance of shark attacks on humans?
If you are scared, stay out of the water mate, it's that simple.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
"A wise man changes his mind,
"A wise man changes his mind, a fool never will"
Thank god some sensible voice(s) are coming through. Every time an issue like this comes up (Marine Parks, the supertrawler etc) the ratio of 'howard georges' to 'brad ys' seems like 10:1.
comments like "So we can expect an even healthier fishery which could mean more white pointers and more human deaths" are just beyond bothering to argue with. Bloody healthy fisheries! Its a big scam to get us all killed by white pointers!
And your point about the Busso Jetty Howard: If half the jetty was a sanctuary zone, are you saying that the other half of the jetty WOULD NOT BENEFIT at all or that fish would somehow know where the boundary is and won't cross into the unprotected zone?
A current study near Barrow Island shows a positive correlation between fish recruits and macroalgae cover. In the same way that some fish spawn in rivers/estuaries etc before moving out into the ocean, young fish are hanging around in the cover of these seaweed patches before moving onto the reef. So, this may raise the 'profile' of plain old ugly brown seaweed as an important key to protecting fish stocks, instead of focusing efforts solely on coral reefs.
It is also important to remember that politics plays a very large part in these things (marine parks etc), and it is generally lobbying from one group or another that gets these things happening. Just think about what your arguing about, the politics or the science behind it. Frankly the majority of us don't know much about the science behind it, or what we think we know is gathered from people like Howard.
And scientists don't always get it right, but who does?
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I Should Have Pointed Out.
When we put these artifical reefs in they have to positioned on a sand only bottom with no significant habitat in the vicinity and as we found with the tyre reef off Quindalup in 1986 a big school of skippy were there within 30 minutes.As far as fish not recognising boundries you'ld have to be right but there is a popular opinion on the jetty since fishing was stopped on the end of the jetty such species as bonito and SB fin Tuna are no longer caught anywhere else on the jetty and other forum topics have confirmed this.
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
So what do you think would
So what do you think would happen if they put the artificial reef on an existing reef?
Are we close yet?
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
Maybe the Tuna and Bonito are
Maybe the Tuna and Bonito are hanging around the sanctuary zone as there is better food sources etc there. Were they caught all along the jetty, or only out the very end in the first place? I'd hate to go against popular opinion on this one, the evidence is so concrete.
Besides, pretty sure people catch them while trolling etc. If they're getting fat in the sanctuary at the end of the jetty, this is pretty much textbook spillover effect. Yes, its a shame to lose good fishing grounds, but perhaps it improves the fishery overall?
Colt_Striker
Posts: 624
Date Joined: 26/07/09
Daniel Y, can you give us
Daniel Y, can you give us acredible explination into the green zone at the Rottnest Trench?
I am not asking this in an antagonistic way, but;
Is this area going to be able to assist in biodiversity protection, and promoting sustainable fisheries, as well as, 'spillover' affect into adjacent fisheries?
It is my understanding from reading quite a few articles on these zones, presented by both sides of the argument. This Rottnest Trench sanctuary was created from lobbying by the foreign group P.E.W. to "protect the food source of migrating whales". Now surely we all know this theory is CRAP?
What food source are the Recreational fisherman targeting from this area that is actually taking from the whales?
big john
Posts: 8756
Date Joined: 20/07/06
Popcorn
Adam, we need a popcorn chewing emoticon. Looking forward to this answer from Daniel.
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
Colt_Striker
Posts: 624
Date Joined: 26/07/09
So am I John!!! To actually
So am I John!!! To actually get an answer & education from someone who seems to have technical knowledge based on science & without the political persuasion on the subject. Instead of skewd views either way, oh & the usual smart arse crap.
MattMiller
Posts: 4171
Date Joined: 15/06/09
Might be
a good business opportunity for someone who could invent a lure for Plankton
Daniel Y
Posts: 423
Date Joined: 30/09/05
Will a sanctuary in the rotto
Will a sanctuary in the rotto trench promote biodiversity? I'm going to say yes.
Does this area need protection more than other areas which haven't been given protection? Probably not. In my opinion there are plenty of other regions that could benfit more from the protection. I never said I agreed with the placement of all of the government's marine sanctuaries, I simply said that sanctuaries are beneficial, and we do need them.
I haven't read much into the specific reasoning behind the sanctuary in the trench, however I highly doubt rec fishing there will have any significant effect on the migrating of whales. If this is their main reasoning, then as till said, the marine reserve there is probably more likely due to pollitical pressures, than anything else.
Colt_Striker
Posts: 624
Date Joined: 26/07/09
Cheers for the reply
Cheers for the reply mate.
Thought you may have seen some science behind it specifically for that area. I reckon we all think it is a political stunt for the placement.
glastronomic
Posts: 892
Date Joined: 16/02/11
Navy Live ammo training
Navy Live ammo training ground, high speed boating traffic, mock warfare with sonar training while whales migrate; all happening in and around the trench.
Need for a sanctury from rec fishermen who can get there occasionally catching a tuna or heaven forbid a marlin that is 99% of the time released, Hmmmm.
Minning tax with out revenue, now a sanctury without a clear cause!
Never mind it will not be patrolled as there are no boats/crews available for it other than the revenue raising marine equivalent of the dreaded Grey ghosts who are under the state jurisdiction.
The sancturies should be clearly marked, fenced off and fully signwritten, as landbased sanctuaries are, so jo blogs can not be mistaken, and fish in these sancturies by mistake!
These "sancturies" are a big disaster
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Its pretty obvious that the
Its pretty obvious that the zones designed are politically expedient.
Why they are where they are is a better question for a politician than a scientist. Its ``green appeasement'' politics.
I don't think you're going to find a lot of science behind them, no matter how hard you look. This still doesn't mean that marine parks and sanctuary are a bad idea, just that they are poorly implemented again.
Colt_Striker
Posts: 624
Date Joined: 26/07/09
My point exactly Till. If the
My point exactly Till. If the science does not support them being in that area, why were they placed there? The groups lobbying for them should be as annoyed as the rec fishermen if they are not in the correct area. I don't disagree with the concept, just the placement to meet a political end rather than the ideology of marine parks.
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
Sure, and that's why the guys
Sure, and that's why the guys bagging scientists aren't going to really help.
Historically in WA, fisheries management has always been very political. Lots of horsetrading, lots of interest groups. As a side note, I consider myself informed because I live with an Environmental Historian(1).
1) No, that doesn't necessarily make her a greenie, it means she studies the relationship people have with their environment.
WSHN4FSHN
Posts: 224
Date Joined: 19/09/12
Don't stop now!!
Keep going Howard!! Although the SS George is almost sunk due to a barrage of accurate shells from the SS Daniel - most likely fired in annoyance than attack, your perserverance in your argument must not waiver as we are all receiving wisdom from Daniel who clearly know what he is talking about. Not to mention the entertainment of a quality debate!!
Burley it and they will come.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
• Marine National Park Zone
• Marine National Park Zone (IUCN Category II)–1107 km² (The green one)
• Habitat Protection Zone (IUCN Category IV)–2569 km²
• Multiple Use Zone (IUCN Category VI )–3733 km²
The Green zone is the one where all fishing is banned. The other two allow most types.
At 1107km square, this is roughl 14% of the entire zone. I don't know how or why they chose these specific areas as the no fishing zones, but it could be to do with reference sites, so that they can compare the effects (of the different levels of protection) from one zone to another.
In the blue and yellow zones you are allowed Pelagic Longline, Minor line (Dropline, handline), and Trolling. In the blue you are allowed crab, lobster and occy pots, whereas in the yellow you are not. This would provide a fairly simple method of comparison between the sites.
I don't know, I didn't devise the thing, but that would be my first guess as to the how and why of it. So you can still go catch dollies and deep stuff in the yellow and blue, if im not mistaken.
If you want to sit back with popcorn and hope to see people squirm, or ask antagonistic questions without even doing a quick google to try and find some answers for yourself, I'd guess you're in the category of peole that dont change their minds.
big john
Posts: 8756
Date Joined: 20/07/06
Versus
I know the answer mate, its political dodgy dealing and paybacks.
Got SFA to do with Science (in most cases), the popcorn reference is more to do with the absurdity of how some people like to justify the new measures.
As responsible anglers, most of us value our resource and are happy to follow bag limits, seasonal closures etc. However I don't like having shit forced down my throat because idealists think its good for me.
Hopefully those who oppose this new arrangement get a chance to reverse it at the next federal election.
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
sea-kem
Posts: 15021
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Do you really think a change
Do you really think a change in gov is going to change things BJ? Like you say this PEW group has a big wallet and conservatives like money. Can't say I've heard any Liberal pollies saying they will repeal or at least look into the justification of these zones.
Love the West!
big john
Posts: 8756
Date Joined: 20/07/06
LOL
Maybe I'm living in denial. Be glad to see the back of labour/greens though but that's a thread for elsewhere.
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
sea-kem
Posts: 15021
Date Joined: 30/11/09
I've just read through the
I've just read through the lot of this and I reckon Danile Y makes a few good points and with an unpolitical and unbiased opinion. Blokes like Howard Goerge who have plenty to say could do themselves a favour and maybe listen once in a while without shooting from the hip. We all know that Rottnest trench zone like Till stated is political appeasement, but sanctuary zones situated in the right places in my opinion can make a difference. The relatively small zones on the Ningaloo reef for example are good examples. The video posted on the Abrolhos sanctuary shows it full of Dhuies and just about everything else can't tell me they stay inside and invisible line. What I don't agree with is wholesale lockup zones with no real proven research.SHOW US THE STUDY PAPERS.
Love the West!
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I'm Just Waiting sea-kem
I've read all the posts sea-kem and not one person including your-self has discredited any of the arguments i've used to support the message i'm trying to get out and that is Marine Parks with sanctuary Zones don't achieve everything that some people would have you believe. The classic is the sanctuary zone on the end of Rottnest island that when CSIRO did their research a year or so back all the fish had disappeared. It would be interesting to know the reasons why that happened. Maybe we can even use the great Barrier Reef as an example whereby 7 of the 8 sites that were being monitored the fish stocks had remained the same or had decreased in number. You mention Ningaloo Reef sea-kem and i'm wondering if the reasons for the fish being there has anything to do with them being fed for the Tourists similar to what is happening on the end of Busso. Jetty.
sea-kem
Posts: 15021
Date Joined: 30/11/09
I was thinking more of the
I was thinking more of the one at Gnaraloo etc where they are fairly remote. I can see what you're saying Howard but you hosed down Daniel Y pretty quickly. We are all entitled to our opinions on here without being told we're full of shit. Busso jetty is a showpiece for sure, just need to get rid of the boguns ;)
Love the West!
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Again i agree sea-kem
If people think I was treating anyone as a piece of shit I'd like to apologise here and now because I'm simply not like that and as far as bogans on the jetty are concerned , yes it's a problem and it's something all jetty users are aware of and are trying to address and eliminate but it's only reared it's ugly head in the last year or so and it's difficult to get a handle on why it's happening. Everyone has an opinion but no solutions.
Colt_Striker
Posts: 624
Date Joined: 26/07/09
It is very interesting where
It is very interesting where the green zone sits, about 6 months ago I plotted the 4 corners of it from the image you posted & set it as a course on the Plotter to see the outline. Just so happens that 1 of my trolling courses, plus an area i have triangulated though yellow fin catches over the past 3 years is in there. Many a litre of BP's finest burnt in that green zone.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
Maybe it has been identified
Maybe it has been identified as an area of high diversity/productivity etc
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
It possibly IS a study in
It possibly IS a study in progress. Lobby groups says to government "Give us Marine Parks"
Government says to scientists "Quick, we need a marine park here, draw up something for us ok"
Scientists say "Ok well, based on what we know so far we think this is the best proposal"
Hence (maybe, im guessing here) they include a few different areas so they can compare one to another. THEN they study it and in a couple years (10, 20?) decide ok well its doing good/bad, it needs more/less protection here/there etc.
As with recent bag limits on rock lobster (and some fish? I dont know that story) they have said ok, they're doing alright I think we can increase them. They might in the future decide that they don't need the green zones and blue or yellow is enough protection as its not under much threat etc.
big john
Posts: 8756
Date Joined: 20/07/06
Denial
Not only a river it seems.
Good old lobby groups hey, like anything in life, those with financial backing get listened to more favourably (PEW).
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
jettyrat
Posts: 62
Date Joined: 08/11/11
the solution is
The solution to the marine sanctuaries for rec fishers are artificial reefs (marine enhancement reefs).
1 There is ample marine science evidence to support artificial reefs as being positive to marine ecosystems.
2 Western Australia has thousands of sights for artificial reefs.
3 There is money available right now for rec fishers to access for this purpose.
4 There are people that can help rec fishers identify and establish sights.
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
Daniel Y
Posts: 269
Date Joined: 30/09/05
I know many people who did marine science who aren't the brightest. Then again, which profession doesn't have a few idiots in it?
I seriously cannot beleive you guys are trying to correlate an increase in marine sanctuaries with an increase in human deaths due to great whites. This implies to me, that you are most definitely not the sharpest tools in the shed.
I'm not sure if you are aware, but great whites are already completley protected from recreational and commerical fishing state wide.
Having healtheir fish populations will mean more natural food for sharks, not less.
Are you saying we should completley degrade and overexploit our fisheries to a level that will no longer sustain shark populations, to reduce the chance of shark attacks on humans?
If you are scared, stay out of the water mate, it's that simple.
http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/burke/2012/mr20121116.html
"Australia's oceans support many of the world's endangered marine animals including the Green Turtle, the Blue Whale, the Southern Right Whale, the Australian Sea Lion and the whale shark."
The South-west Marine Region which extends from South Australia to Shark Bay in Western Australia is of global significance as a breeding and feeding ground for a number of protected marine species such as southern right whales, blue whales and the Australian Sea Lion. Features in the South-West region include the Perth Canyon – an underwater area bigger than the Grand Canyon – and the Diamantina Fracture Zone – a large underwater mountain chain which includes Australia's deepest water.
I am not sure if Tony Burke is aware that the species mentioned are already completely protectected from recreational and commercial fishing state wide. Why isnt he talking about the Iconic Western Australian Dhufish or Southern Blue Fin Tuna, instead hes off hugging the bloody sea kittens. If you want to take any of this green shit seriously they would have to lock out mining, oil and gas etc but they have not.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
Barking up the wrong tree
Barking up the wrong tree sarcasmo.
"Will a sanctuary in the rotto trench promote biodiversity? I'm going to say yes.
Does this area need protection more than other areas which haven't been given protection? Probably not. In my opinion there are plenty of other regions that could benfit more from the protection. I never said I agreed with the placement of all of the government's marine sanctuaries, I simply said that sanctuaries are beneficial, and we do need them.
I haven't read much into the specific reasoning behind the sanctuary in the trench, however I highly doubt rec fishing there will have any significant effect on the migrating of whales. If this is their main reasoning, then as till said, the marine reserve there is probably more likely due to pollitical pressures, than anything else."
I think we all agree its political. No-one is defending the politics of it. Daniel Y was talking about sanctuary zones in general.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
The Heading Versus Used.
The biggest threat to marine bio-diversity is coming from what is happening on land not from fishermen and the great barrier reef is a classic example and instead of the various councils being targeted to clean up their act you'll get the mantra that just by shutting out the fishermen the ocean is protected and bio-diversity survives which is laughable.
sarcasm0
Posts: 1396
Date Joined: 25/06/09
So because its political its ok?
WTF?
Not really sure why im barking up the wrong tree here.
Do I need to show a political science and a batchelor of science degree before allowing me to comment on it?. All I pointed out was that Daniel Y was using a point that Tony Burke clearly does not understand. So is it ok for it to be done for political reasons? Cause that really worries me.
PS. Do you think you are the only one who has done any research on the topic, cause you seem to be pretty quick off the mark telling everyone their opinion doesnt count.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
fairs fair, i misinterpreted
fairs fair, i misinterpreted that then. You quoted him then said "...if you want to take any of this green shit seriously"- I thought you were implying that sanctuary zones are 'green shit' like howard george seems to think.
I dont think im the only one whos researched it, but I was interested so i DID do a little research on it. What I found was the 'no-take' zones are quite small, so those people who were worried about being locked out needn't worry so much (unless the no take zones are in the best spots, which would suck i suppose).
What shits me is that there definately ARE people who are willing to chuck their 2 cents in WITHOUT bothering to do a little research. And the only opinion I disreputed was Howard George who was arguing that sanctuary zones are worthless.
I DO think its all political bulls***. I DO think that sanctuary zones in the general sense are beneficial to fish stocks/biodiversity etc IF in the right area, etc. i DONT think there is much benefit of the Perth Canyon zone, because (as far as i can tell, and i haven't looked into it much) there is not much pressure on it at this time.
I have formulated my opinions based on everything i know (or think i know) thus far. Presented with evidence otherwise, i would change my mind.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
I Don't Appreciate Versus
I don't appreciate being slandered by you versus and I'd like to point out as I've done on this web-site previously that my submissions on all the Marine Parks both State and Federal began with " I'm not opposed to the concept of Marine Parks with Sanctuary Zones as long as they are thoroughly researched and are put in the right places " which I feel is consistant with a lot of other rec-fishers views in Australia.When the opinions of the biggest user group of the oceans that being fishermen enjoying one of the most favourite past-times that being fishing are completely overlooked by a government something is drastically wrong and needs fixing. We rec-fishers can fix the problem but it's entirely in our own hands. I don't doubt for a minute that everyone is fully aware of what needs to be done so lets get on with it.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
"...have made the end a
"...have made the end a sanctuary zone and if you or anyone else thinks that fish stocks or bio-diversity will benefit from this are kidding themselves". You were pretty much saying sanctuary zones do not benefit fish stocks or biodiversity, and reiterated this in a number of posts in a couple different ways/examples.
I disagree with that view. lets agree to disagree. I cbf with this topic anymore.
Versus
Posts: 918
Date Joined: 06/03/09
I don't even know where this
I don't even know where this is going anymore
big john
Posts: 8756
Date Joined: 20/07/06
LOL
Political spin on fishwrecked?
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
till
Posts: 9358
Date Joined: 21/02/08
I like candy.
I like candy.
crasny1
Posts: 7003
Date Joined: 16/10/08
Seakem
"Do you really think a change in gov is going to change things BJ? Like you say this PEW group has a big wallet and conservatives like money. Can't say I've heard any Liberal pollies saying they will repeal or at least look into the justification of these zones."
I will stand corrected but didnt Abbott say if the Libs was in government they would repeal this, and looks at it from a "scientific" angle.
"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
We've Got To Change Govts. crasny1
If the Labor Govt. get returned at the next election they will claim that they have a mandate from the people to do exactly what the greenies are saying at the moment and that is they want more protection for the ocean. If we can't use our numbers to get rid of them and lets face it they're not listening to us anyway maybe the next Govt. might take notice of what we're saying. If we can't get a new Govt. things are going to get a whole heap worse and we've only got ourselves to blame.
sea-kem
Posts: 15021
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Maybe he did Crasny. But have
Maybe he did Crasny. But have you ever known a politician to tell the truth?
Love the West!
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
Bit of a knee jerk reaction
Bit of a knee jerk reaction when I created this thread, my apologies.....the zones where we wont be allowed to fish/spear wont affect me and others that much.
I just HOPE this isnt the start of many more sactuary zones in the years to come where we are locked out.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
big john
Posts: 8756
Date Joined: 20/07/06
You?
What about the brotherhood of rec fishers as a whole?
Sadly this is why rec fishers will be steamrolled (and continue to do so), we are usually only worried about 'our' patch and not others. Personally would love to fish the Coral Sea one day but that dreams mostly gone.
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
Jelle
Posts: 142
Date Joined: 21/12/11
I wouldn't despair actually,
I wouldn't despair actually, 18 out of 24 reefs in the CS will still be available to rec fishing / diving.
Or that's what I understood at least.
Jim
Posts: 1336
Date Joined: 05/05/06
Great whites will be
Great whites will be attracted to sanctuary zones. They will patrol the edges
I just dont think we need any more sancturay zones or bans.
Nothing personal intended in my previous post, just a cynical stab at the world.
Bend over
Daniel Y
Posts: 423
Date Joined: 30/09/05
Now this surely is nonsense.
Now this surely is nonsense. Why would a great white patrol the edge? If it wanted to feed on things in the zone it could just swim straight through...
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
Fishermen For The Future
Just like we had "Fish For The Future" we now have to concentrate on" Fishermen For The Future" and unfortunatly it doesn't seem that fishing and the federal Labor Govt. are compatable anymore.
glastronomic
Posts: 892
Date Joined: 16/02/11
If anybody believes that this
If anybody believes that this Fish zone declaration has been done by this Burk for the good of the fishstock then you realy are a simple, gullablee soul!
Watermelon lunacy funded by mischievious Yanks who do NOT lobby their own USA Government anymore as they have been told to go away.
They bought somehow these union thugs who now walk in a suit and have a title of federal Minister to implement these radical plans.
In the mean time they tried to let a super trawlwer wipe out the scaly mackarel feed stock in Aussie waters.
And as a matter of fact, 3 big trawlers are still plundering this same stock and have a HUGE by catch killing rate of seals, dolphins and other fish species.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
From what I reed on the
From what I reed on the subject the whole thing is political and nothing to do with either biodiversity or the environment (but it is environmentalist driven).
All the studies showing overflow benefits from sanctuary zones are done in other countries which are overfished and do not have fishery restrictions (I'm happy to be pointed in the right direction if anyone wants to argue/disprove this). It's a no brainer that in and overfished fishery with no regulations that a no take zone will show an improvement in fish sizes and numbers but we have one of the best managed fisheries in the world.
No take zones (taking the exploration/mining zones etc out of the equation) do nothing but ban fishing. When you consider that runoff, introduced species, spills etc pose a far greater threat to our marine enviorment you have to question what these no take zone will acheive when they do nothing to address these factors.
Burke etc try to convince us that this is not about the fishery but about biodiveristy (then why does a no take zones only ban fishing and acheive nothing else).
We have one of the largest marine parks in the world - the great barrier reef. This marine park (which has no take zones) is doing nothing to preserve the reef against global warming, coral bleeching, enviormental disasters such as oil/chemical spills or introduced species. These are the real dangers and are currently having a real effect on biodiversity within this marine park (including the no take zones) and the great barrier reef is suffering. The damage these factors are having is 100 fold when compared to fishing (in a regulated fishery) and this goes to show lines on map will acheive nothing unless these other factors are addressed. I hope Daniel and others like him can put his degree to use and come up with a solution to address this or is it in the too hard basket for the goverment??
I leave you with this comment by the USA Pew director of federal fisheries policy Lee Crockett (Crockett is a marine scientist and holds a bachelor’s degree in biology and a master’s degree in biological oceanography from the University of Connecticut)
In a letter published in the August edition of the US-based Sport Fishing magazine, Pew director of federal fisheries policy Lee Crockett said closing American waters to fishing "wouldn't make sense – for fishing enthusiasts or the environment".
Crockett stated PEW has targeted Australia because they see us as an easy target (with our useless goverment who are in bed with the greens to have enough seats to govern this would hardly be suprising)
So a world leading marine scientist (who works for PEW no less) states that closing american waters to fishing does not make sense for "the evironment"
This has to make you wonder why it supposedly makes sense here!!
Cheers
Paul
(who has no degree or qualifications other than a love of fishing and the marine enviorment, a little common sense and an ablility to see through political spin).
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
uncle
Posts: 9489
Date Joined: 10/02/07
this is all
a bit deep for me!
all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs