"Currently less than one percent of WA’s waters are protected"

just wondering what percentage of WA's waters within rec trailerboat range are protected??

Marine sanctuaries are a no brainer to me. Protect breeding grounds and allow them to replenish the surrounding waters. As long as they don't restrict to many heavily fished areas I can't see why the public would complain.

The inconvenient truth

Can someone show me where the facts are to back up this statement that only 1% of our oceans are protected.

Clearly it’s a straight out lie and misleading.

Rough figures

WA state waters = 17 million ha

Current DEC MPs = 1.2 mil ha

Add Camden = about 2 mil ha

Equals about 12% state waters inside MPs add other 3 Kimberley MPs coming on

need to check but probably another 2-3 million ha will equal about 30% of state waters.

If other proposed parks included such as Capes and Dampier will be close to 40 % !!!

Time the Save our marine lie...(f) stopped the bull dust and faced the truth.....australia -our country.. has the worlds best managed fisheries....

Look at the maps and its clearly not 12%. They are including all offshore waters in their calculations also.

I agree we have some of the best managed fisheries but that doesnt mean a whole lot when you consider that world fish stocks are reaching a critically low point. We can still do better, having to close the seasons for fish is a definite sign that stocks are under serious pressure.

your map is wrong

include all fishing exclusion zones

link to the map your looking at pls mate. I must admit to be lookin at the  map which is off the conservation council website and very rough

To me the % value is worthless, sanctuaries must be targeted at spots of high productivity that can replenish surrounding waters . No use protecting 30 % of our waters that are barren grounds.

gonna do my best to keep my mouth shut on this one cuz I got sick of talking about it during the election.

 One point to consider though, marine parks and no take zones are 2 different things!

 

Hold the press!

They used to catch dhufish in rowboats!!!

FFS. Honestly. They used to have kangaroos where I live too...don't reckon there is many left around here anymore.

Our fisheries are so well managed that Fisheries scientists only just found out that the Vulnerable 5 species that we know and love were on the verge of collapse, and had to put in new regulations to reduce our catch of them by HALF! And they had to totally ban metropolitan commercial fishing for them!

So well managed that the pink snapper stocks in Shark Bay all but did collapse and they had to take radical regulatory action to bring them back from the brink.

So well managed that they had to close the Cockburn Sound and Mandurah crab fisheries.

So well managed that the first research paper on Dhufish breeding was done only in 2003!

So well managed that the crayfish puerulus counts were practically none last year! And so 4 years from now, don't be expecting to see too many crays out there.

So well managed that in reality, no one knows what an un-fished fish stock looks like, yet management decisions are taken regarding quotas etc.

The Department of Fisheries are and always have been chronically under-funded. They manage people's catches, not the fish and the ecosystems. Hence the over-exploitation. "Over-exploitated" is the term the Fisheries Department themselves use to describe the state of fisheries such as Dhufish, etc.

Yes Scottywiper - they did used to catch dhufish from rowboats - doesn't this concern you? Fish are not kangaroos - ridiculous comparison. Why would you not be concerned about serious serial depletion? The Department of Fisheries is, and the environmental lobby groups are too - it seems they have more concern for the state of our fisheries than you do, from that post you just made.

Marine Parks do bugger all for fish stocks - it's the sanctuary zones that we are all talking about - where you can't take anything, and so the ecosystem is protected. And less than 1% of our oceans have that protection. Many people like to blur that extremely important point so that they can throw figures around. Australia is a signatory to an international agreement to bring that level of protection up to 10% globally. http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/nrsmpa/index.html

Scientists - yes, scientists, whos job it is to objectively figure this stuff out rather than say "I can still catch a fish (using my big boat, colour echo sounder and GPS) so there's nothing wrong" - conclude that somewhere in the order of 20% - 40% of our oceans should be protected as no-take zones, to ensure long term sustainability. In other words, if we don't have that level of protection, we are cheating our children and their children out of a decent fishing experience in the future.

There are hundreds of scientific articles that demonstrate the positive effect that large no-take zones have on fisheries, as opposed to the incorrect viewpoint of RecFishWest that there is little justification for it. Perhaps RFW is also chronically underfunded and don't have the resources to do the research - which would be fair enough, if there weren't scientific organisations that regularly call for 20-40% protection.

Our "iconic way of life is under threat" from marine parks? What a crock of shit! I understand that the Great Barrier Reef is quite an iconic fishing destination, as is Ningaloo - and both have over 30% of their waters in no-take zones!

Our "iconic way of life is under threat" is under threat from over-exploitation - and fishing regulations - already we have 2 months of the year when we can't fish for the big ones! What is the difference between no being able to fish anywhere in the West Coast bioregion for 17% of the time, versus having (say) 17% of the area in no-take zones? Which have a far better effect on the ecosystem than seasonal bans.

The following comes from the Great Barrier Reef planning principles and summarises their scientific review and subsequent conclusions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't understand how I am wasting your time.

Science stooge mate, science stooge. That media statement from RecFishWest says that "To add weight to their claims, these environmental groups are presenting data from severely over exploited tropical systems in developing countries that bear little resemblance to Australia's marine environment"

I'd say Rottnest Island would be pretty similar to Australia's marine environment, wouldn't you? Here is a recent study showing more and bigger crays in the sanctuary zones there. I mean, come on. I would have thought that this science would be rather relevant, wouldn't you?

Here is a link to the Australian Marine Science Association's Position paper on Marine Protected Areas https://www.amsa.asn.au/PDF-files/Submissions/AMSA_MPA_2008_Paper.pdf

Science, not ideology.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF06204.htm

Increased density, biomass and egg production in an unfished population of Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) at Rottnest Island, Western Australia

R. C. Babcock A B, J. C. Phillips A, M. Lourey A, G. Clapin A 

A CSIRO Marine Research, Private Bag No. 5, Wembley 6913, WA, Australia. 
B Corresponding author. Email: russ.babcock@csiro.au 

Abstract:

Surveys of spiny lobster (Panulirus cygnus) populations in shallow waters surrounding Rottnest Island in Western Australia revealed much higher levels of density, biomass and egg production in no-take than in fished areas. Density of lobsters was ~34 times higher in the sanctuary, and density of lobsters above minimum legal size around 50 times higher than in other areas around the island where recreational fishing is allowed. Mean carapace length (CL), total biomass and egg production of lobsters in the sanctuary zone were significantly higher than in adjacent fished areas. Large individuals (≥100 mm CL), especially large males, were found almost exclusively within the sanctuary. The abundance of mature animals in these shallow waters indicates that not all P. cygnus migrate to deep water and that shallow water habitats may currently be well below carrying capacity in terms of biomass and egg production. If implemented in a systematic way, unfished areas such as the Kingston Reefs could also provide a useful fisheries-independent tool for assessing trophic interactions and the structure and density of unfished populations, and for estimating parameters such as growth of larger individuals that may be rare or absent in more widely fished populations.

this weekend I drove from Jurien Bay down the new Indian Coast Rd all the way back to Hillaries to show my sister the coastline.

Well even if 90% of that area is not marine parks, it's 90% unfishable for people in trailer boats. Last launch point is the beach off Cervantes, then only tinnie beach launches till Lancelin, where it is again a beach launch, then bugger all till Two Rocks again. That's over 150km of area protected just by being in accessible to the most fisher folk.

I’m all for controlled and planned breeding marine park zones that have good sound science behind them and have been peer reviewed in a public scientific journal for scrutiny by the majority of respected members of their field. Not the cr@p we see at times with one camera in the ocean saying “ no dhuies…!!!”

From the Kimberly’s to Nullabar coast, we have huge vast sections of water open in theory to the public to fish, but practically impossible to reach unless you from the Malcolm Douglass school of extreme fishing.

Yes the metro zone has been over fished in the past, and now is under much tighter control and better management, but saying the WA coast is not protected is cr@p, as natural access limitations are mother-natures protection mechanism as well. As for taking the water into account deep off shore, well apples should be compared to apples only for rec fishing and a 50mile limit put on stats calculated, as 99,9% of fishermen can not venture more than 50 miles off shore, so any protection zones placed out there beyond the 50mile zone limit is purely to prevent Pro over fishing, same goes for regions like Seabird and Cervantes, area north of Jurien to within 30 miles of Geraldton, they have been the stomping grounds of the lobster boys and Pro boats with holds refrigerated and moorings off the coast capable of keeping a big boat in those zones. Off Seabird you can go out 15miles and bag out a dozen dhuies if you got a commercial license for the area. So no shortage of good fish in those zones.

What I have said since I first got on a WA fishing forum and still believe is the answer if a rec max take limit for the year, that’s based on tags for Cat1 fish, That Way you can stop the big yearly hitters and still let the moms, dads and granpops with grandkids get a few good fish a year. You don’t need more than 10 dhuies a year and 30 Snapper a year. Yet with even the strict bag limits we now have, people are taking in excess off 30 dhuies a year and over 100 snapper per person in some circles. These are the guys killing the cat for everyone, the ones going out into the Sound at 6am fishing 3 hours, back at the ramp by 9am and off to their trade for the rest of the day etc… Guys that say “ look at me I’m a conservation fisherman, I only take one snapper and a dhuie” but they do it 6 times a month or more!!!

Cmon Tony thats not true, but I've beach launched and 8m boat between Cervantes and Wedge.

ok Till, how many people do you know that can safely beach launch most days a 6m boat??? I grew up beach launching in conditions that would curl your toes here in WA, but hey we had no choice.

Go average boatie ( ie 95% of the boaties) could not bech launch a 5~6m boat from most beaches and safely get it back on the trailer with a slight swell coming in.

Yes launching at Greys and Wedge can be done and locals do it all the time, Wedge is nice and hard till the drop off and Greys has a nice bit of rock to keep the second  4x4 solid if you need to winch out a tandem launch. BUT how many on this forum will beach launch anything bigger than a 4m tinny???

of the 5% that could do it, maybe 1 in 5 may actualy do it in a year. We still only looking at 1% of the fisher folks having the skills and drive to get out there and beach launch from those remote areas.

 There is plenty of commercial fishing going on in those areas...

"Marine sanctuaries are supported by a major science institutions in Australia, including the peak marine science body for Australia, the Australian Marine Science Association"

The current president of the AMSA Lynnath Beckley of the Murdoch University and the past president of the AMSA Dr Alan Butler of the CSIRO division of Marine Research are both listed as contributors on a paper by the Ecology Center of the University of Queensland titled  Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement.

The main funding for this paper (the main one listed) is the PEW enviormental group.  This paper gives its aims as

“This statement aims to provide clear science-based guidance on design principles and criteria

for scientifically-qualified conservation planners involved in the selection, design and

implementation of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas”

This document represents a broad consensus of the contributed opinions of more than 40

scientists who have an active involvement in the planning and management of marine

protected areas in Australia. Development of the document has been moderated by

researchers from The Ecology Centre , The University of Queensland”

So the paper designed as a "clear science based guidance" for persons involved with the implimentation of marine protected areas & with the imput of over 40 scientists with an active involvement in the planning and management of the marine protected areas of Australia is at least partly funded by PEW.

Little wonder myself and others are worried as to how no take zones are going to be brought in across the country.  As the above suggests possibly on the basis of research funded by PEW

Cheers Paul

Cheers Paul

 Have a look at the paper in question - the model that they use to plan is called Marxan. It's primary purpose is to use validated data with stakeholders who all agree to a common goal, to produce a result that does not get interfered with politically.

So, basically, you take all the information about habitats, fish, seabirds, mammals, etc, add in the information about where people fish the most, swim, dive, snorkel, shipping lanes, etc. Then you enter various criteria for protection - i.e. "Protect X amount of a fish population", or "X percentage of a habitat". 

Marxan is an equation - mathematically based - which then crunches all of the information so as to achieve the criteria, whilst impacting the human uses as little as possible, whilst achieving the goal. It has been proven (under the right conditions - which include adquate stakeholder consultation) to do this better than the normal way, which is all about who has the loudest voice. Fish, unfortunately, don't have a voice.

The absolute key is the best available information at the time, with extensive stakeholder consultation. The scientists provide much of that information, and then it is up to us (unfortunately) to have input into the process. Ideally, this consultation should be extensive from the start to the end. Unfortunately neither State nor Federal Governments seem to be doing this.

Best practice marine planning includes extensive stakeholder consultation, coupled with scientific advice. The scientific advice is 20-40% of various habitat types in sanctuary zones, and then it comes back to us fishers to advise how they can achieve that target with least impact to us.

NOT LOBBY FOR LESS SANCTUARY ZONES!

But to accept some loss of area in exchange for a much more certain future, and maintenance of a fishery for the future.

BLAH BLAH BLAH

Come on Ewan...why are complete lock-outs of 30-50% the only answer

Have you looked at RFW Wilderness Conservation Areas zoning? Why not just protect the areas that need protecting from this alleged risk....once the watermelons know what they think you know....

Camden MP was saving the whales......from what???? Dying of old age????

Joke of the matter is the WHOLE OF AUSRALIA IS A WHALE SANCTUARY!!! Established in 1999

In Australia, humpback whales are listed as vulnerable under the EPBC Act. The EPBC Act established the Australian Whale Sanctuary and gives high levels of protection to cetaceans in Commonwealth waters. The Australian Whale Sanctuary encompasses the area of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) outside state waters and generally extends 200 nm from the coast, but further in some areas to cover the continental shelf and slope. It also includes the waters around the Australian Antarctic Territory and external territories including Christmas, Macquarie, Heard and McDonald Islands.

South coast MP and these these boffins believe they have found Atlantis???? On a borrowed underwater camera??????

Have a read mate on what wilderness conservation zoning offers

http://www.recfishwest.org.au/data/client/files/1240_wilderness_conservation_areas_policy_december_2010.pdf

 Policy

A Wilderness Conservation Area is a specified area which aims to protect wilderness values while allowing low impact recreational fishing. Fish can be caught and consumed within the area but not taken away.Recfishwest believes there can be benefits for recreational fishers and the community generally from establishing some of Western Australia’s coastal areas or rivers as Wilderness Conservation Areas.

Wilderness Conservation Areas should focus on the preservation of the areas’ natural condition and biodiversity value, while allowing for a low level of recreational fishing.

Recfishwest views Wilderness Conservation Areas as an important management tool in the suite of marine conservation measures. Wilderness Conservation Areas are Marine Protected Areas that offer an extensive level of protection whilst still retaining all recreational amenity values.

Wilderness Conservation Areas are not seen as a replacement for IUCN Strict Nature Reserve Category 1a (sanctuary zones) rather they are a complementary zoning tool that aims to meet conservation objectives while maintaining recreational fishing values in a given area.

Wilderness Conservation Areas would be characterised by two principal features:

• That the populations of fish species would be very close to their natural state before human exploitation, i.e. they would be only lightly exploited. This accords with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature description of “slightly modified” and meets IUCN Category 1b.

• In order to maintain fish populations at near natural levels, mortality due to fishing must be minimal. Regulations should prevent the accumulation of fish and their removal from the area. Retained catch must only be for personal consumption while in the Wilderness Conservation Area. Any catch over and above this must be carefully released.

• That Wilderness Conservation Areas should be virtually free of evidence of human development and there should be very few people in the area. In this way very low levels of exploitation will occur. Recfishwest prefers not to be prescriptive with respect to restrictions on numbers of people and methods of access. However the principles should fit the IUCN definition that the area is “without significant and permanent habitation” and should be “managed so as to preserve its natural condition”. It must be clear that the aim is that the area will look natural, it cannot be allowed to become overcrowded, and theminimal take of fish will have a negligible impact on fish populations.

 More details in the link above

sooo

Say in a particular MP area ‘xxxx’ you identify and audit the precieved threat ....and its real ....in a area no one can get to easierly.....

why not have 2% scientific reference areas - (1a) sanctuary zones and say 15-30% (1b) wilderness conservation 30% general use and 30% commercial (people who don’t fish have to buy it)

would this work??????

Just out of curiosity Ewan, Have you been fishing long?

I would have thought the weather on the south and SW coasts woulds be protection enough? 

23rd February 2011

Australians deserve a say in marine park decisions

The Coalition will seek to hold the Gillard government to account over marine planning by ensuring the declaration of marine parks - within an area twice the size of the Australian landmass – are subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

Currently, the Environment Minister can declare marine reserves, with potentially major ramifications for all users of the ocean across this vast area, at the stroke of a pen.

Senator Boswell said it was ridiculous that a single Minister could make far-reaching decisions over waters extending to the edge of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone without any checks and balances.

The Gillard government is continuing a process for the development of marine reserves in the EEZ that began under the Coalition.

But Senator Boswell said the government’s consultation process had been minimalistic, especially under former Environment Minister Peter Garrett, who demonstrably favoured green organisations over all other affected interest groups.

“The most stark example of that was his declaration of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone after discussions only with selected green groups, while all other stakeholders were frozen out,” Senator Boswell said.

It appeared discussions with potentially impacted groups had improved under replacement Environment Minister Tony Burke and Fisheries Minister Joe Ludwig, but Senator Boswell said there was ongoing deep concern among both professional and recreational fishermen about the degree and standard of consultation, and the lack of any role for the parliament.

“Green groups, and conservationists generally, deserve a say in the process but so too do the tens of thousands of people who have a deep stake in the ocean environment for their livelihood and their leisure activities,” Senator Boswell said.

A Bill will be introduced to the Parliament to amend the Environment Biodiversity and Conservation Act to make the declaration of marine reserves disallowable instruments.

Over the next year the Government is due to roll out a vast network of marine reserves throughout the EEZ, starting with a declaration within weeks over waters that stretch from offshore of Adelaide to well north of Perth.

The reserves will contain potentially large areas where many activities will be totally banned.

ENDS

Media Contact – Rachael Power 07 3001 8150   

"But Senator Boswell said the government’s consultation process had been minimalistic, especially under former Environment Minister Peter Garrett, who demonstrably favoured green organisations over all other affected interest groups".

This would be hardly suprising given Peter Garrett was the president of the Australin Conservation Foundation from 1989-93 and then again from 1998 to until at least 2001 - possibly up to when he became a minister.  During his time as president of the ACF he was pushing very hard to impliment Marine Parks

I note there is lots of talk about the science staing we need marine parks or we behind the need for Marine Parks but as I have said before and elsewhere this science is not nessecarily independant and alot of it is in fact funded by green groups. 

"UTS: Science and the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) intend to collaborate on research projects that strengthen, protect and benefit the environmental, social, and economical needs of our ocean ecosystems and marine life".

"On Tuesday 25 May (2010), a small ceremony was held at UTS on behalf of the Dean of the Faculty of Science, Professor Bruce Milthorpe and Professor David Booth from the Department of Environmental Sciences to celebrate future research partnerships between UTS and the Australian Conservation Foundation".

(Source UTS Science website)

There are plenty of other non-green group funded scientists who say no take zones are not required and we can protect the marine life with other methods than blanket bans on fishing.

Paul

[EWAN ]That media statement from RecFishWest says that "To add weight to their claims, these environmental groups are presenting data from severely over exploited tropical systems in developing countries that bear little resemblance to Australia's marine environment"

I'd say Rottnest Island would be pretty similar to Australia's marine environment, wouldn't you? Here is a recent study showing more and bigger crays in the sanctuary zones there. I mean, come on. I would have thought that this science would be rather relevant, wouldn't you?

Here is a link to the Australian Marine Science Association's Position paper on Marine Protected Areas https://www.amsa.asn.au/PDF-files/Submissions/AMSA_MPA_2008_Paper.pdf

Science, not ideology.

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF06204.htm

Increased density, biomass and egg production in an unfished population of Western Rock Lobster (Panulirus cygnus) at Rottnest Island, Western Australia

R. C. Babcock A B, J. C. Phillips A, M. Lourey A, G. Clapin A 

A CSIRO Marine Research, Private Bag No. 5, Wembley 6913, WA, Australia. 
B Corresponding author. Email: russ.babcock@csiro.au 

Abstract:

Surveys of spiny lobster (Panulirus cygnus) populations in shallow waters surrounding Rottnest Island in Western Australia revealed much higher levels of density, biomass and egg production in no-take than in fished areas. Density of lobsters was ~34 times higher in the sanctuary, and density of lobsters above minimum legal size around 50 times higher than in other areas around the island where recreational fishing is allowed. Mean carapace length (CL), total biomass and egg production of lobsters in the sanctuary zone were significantly higher than in adjacent fished areas. Large individuals (≥100 mm CL), especially large males, were found almost exclusively within the sanctuary. The abundance of mature animals in these shallow waters indicates that not all P. cygnus migrate to deep water and that shallow water habitats may currently be well below carrying capacity in terms of biomass and egg production. If implemented in a systematic way, unfished areas such as the Kingston Reefs could also provide a useful fisheries-independent tool for assessing trophic interactions and the structure and density of unfished populations, and for estimating parameters such as growth of larger individuals that may be rare or absent in more widely fished populations.]

 ____________________________________________________________________________________________

couple of points on this above ewan ......

first rec fishers have a TAC of just 5% of the harvested lobster resource in WA ....JUST 5% .....  so rec fishing is definitly not causing a sustainability issue here ....

second ....do you think it is possible the abundance of lobster in the  sanctuary areas is also highly likly to be because it is their prefered habitate ?? rather than the less favourable sourounding , seagrass and sand , and lesser quality reef areas ?? ..lobster have prime habitate ...this area may well be just that ...any fishermen who fishes for crays can tell you there are preffered areas of higher abundance all along the coast and for many reasons lobster will shift theri abundance from season to season ......what fires one year may well be lower stocked the next ...sanctuary or not

  three ....instead of sanctuary zones is it not just as potentially viable to revamp DOF ...if the gov gave them adequate resources to manage ...curently this is an issue i believe that needs addressign and would ahve abig impact ...and the cost would be possibly comparable to marine park management  ....

fourth ....the above study has not considerd the impact outcomes  of the last two years ruthless management changes in the rock lobster sector under IFM ...that have been implemented and will bring benefits in future years ..

their  are other alternatives to look at other than just large sanctuary zones within marine parks .....to think otherwise is just not realistic ...and is fairy tail driven imo ...

however if you have a set agenda already as part of your brief ............and you are funded by like minded groups ...it predetermines the results .........

hezzy

Jim/Biggles: I have no problem in telling you that I am a paid-up member of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, and I follow the fortunes of the Conservation Council via Facebook and Twitter and the likes. I do not see them at all as opposed to fishing. I would not be a marine conservationist, if I wasn't a fisherman. Figure that one out. I want better marine conservation to help put the brakes on what I have seen in my life as a rapidly declining fishing experience - you know, that 'amenity' thing that gets talked about? That 'iconic way of life'?. I have the stories of the old fellas to back me up on that.

NINGALOO IS 30% SANCTUARY ZONE AND IT IS ONE OF THE BEST PLACES IN WA TO FISH. What the problem is?

Do you want to discuss my fishing 'cred' or something? You can name a fish, and name a place in WA and I have more than likely fished it. I have been extremely fortunate in my life to be able to say that! I have blank spots north of Fitzroy Crossing, and between the Zuytdorp Cliffs and Pt Gregory and offshore south coast but that is about it.

Jim - I have been fishing all my life. The obvious decline in fisheries that I saw during my childhood fishing offshore for dhuies and the like more or less every weekend, and travelling to places like Quobba, Dampier, Exmouth and Steep Pt several times a year made me study marine science - since I was old enough to think about my future I wanted to study marine biology. What I learnt through 5 years of study, and through 30 years of life tells me unequivocally that we need more no-take protection. I also rely on the scientific advice from experts in the field, as well as commentary from commercial fishermen. Recreational fishos only see what us and our friends catch. I used to work with an old commercial fisherman and his stories sound like another place. The kind of fishing we expect when we head to Exmouth or somewhere like that was found 100m offshore down in the SW.

Not. Any. More.

The Dampier Archipelago is a thrashed-out joke of what it used to be like. Believe it or not, so is Exmouth. Shark Bay, Quobba, Steep Pt, Metro, and to perhaps a lesser extent coastal SW and Sth Coast. And that is because of recreational and commercial fishing. Not run-off, not agriculture (well, except for the SW rivers and estuaries of course). Fishing. You and Me and our buddies catching fish on the weekend. Within bag limits. There are too many of us doing it too efficiently and there will only be more.

Does the weather afford some protection? Of course it does. So if the weather is so bad there - what is the problem with putting some of it in a no-take zone, so that commercials and recs alike can't interfere with the ecology? Permanent no-take zoning is far better than seasonal bans (weather-enforced or by regulation) for protecting and enhancing biodiversity.

Jeez - I'm glad you lot weren't around when National Parks were being established! Can you tell me what the difference between a National Park on the land and a no-take zone in the ocean is?

PS - I completely and utterly agree that there should be more consultation and quite frankly, education about no-take zones and their impacts on biodiversity and on the human usage. Once you've read all the information it is a no-brainer. The Commonwealth and State Govts both fail completely on this front.

Ewen,

You are saying no take zones are an "essential tool" though.

Most of the science you tout as stating marine parks are an essential tool is not independant research in my opinion (no doubt we have differing opinions on this).

Do you have any ties/association or other connection to the Conservation Council (or any other enviormental organisation) as suggested.

Cheers

Paul

Ewen don't worry you just answered my question above.  I too would not be as interested or as passionate about our marine life if I wasn't a fisherman - nothing wrong with that.  Looks like we do have something in common just different ideas about how it should be acheived.

Cheers

Paul

I never suggested the AMSA was funded by green groups - I did however show a link that a research paper used in support of marine parks and no take zones had the current and one past presidents of the AMSA listed as contributors to this reseach.  The research paper lists PEW as providing at least some support in the way of funding. 

Not a direct link to the ASMA I know and I never suggested this.  The particular paper was done by the Ecology Centre of the University of Queensland which has also had other research funded by PEW.

PS As a recreational fisherman I am not opposed to marine parks as such, I am largely opposed to no take zones (for scale fish caught by line fishing methods) when they are being rolled out across Australia in a broad manner. No take zones for shell fish etc are another matter and I may depending on the actual detail be supportive of something along these lines.  - Bag/size/possesion limits, closed seasons, etc and other tools to control the impact of recreational fishing (within reason - by which I mean there is not one current fishing regulation I have a problem with) I don't have a problem with at all.

Cheers

Paul - can you tell me what 'independant' scientific research would be? Scientists get their funding from all kinds of places. Their findings get reviewed by other scientists who are not associated with them, or (usually) even Australia to ensure that their findings are validated. This is the scientific process. If they publish something that doesn't hold up, they get shot down by other scientists. The people with the expertise in the matter. The people who constitute the membership of (say) AMSA.

 Coral Trout are scale fish.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/about_us/great_barrier_reef_outlook_report/outlook_report/evidence/01_standard_evidence_page137

"Here we report evidence, first, that the densities of the major target species of the Great Barrier Reef reef line fisheries were significantly higher in the new No-Take Marine Reserves (NTMRs), compared with fished sites, in just two years; and second, that the positive differences were consistent for multiple marine reserves over an unprecedented spatial scale (> 1000 km)."

I gotta go now.

[[ewan ]RecFishWest used to say that too. Don't you still? I remembe TerryF's tagline well: "Informed recreational fishermen aren't against marine parks in the right places for the right reasons" or some such thing.]

ewan ..terrys  catch dry above  imo  is still the case .......and exactly like  paul mentioned i am not personally opposed to marine parks in principle , but the biased clamouring for large % sanctuary zones within those marine parks  that is being insisted on as part of their  must have agenda , the lobbying and misleading info being pushed on a left wing green leaning gov , who is trying to make policy on the run  by opinion poll , rather than good independent , unbiased science and consultation with ALL stakeholders ..

the lack of consultation and input rec fishers are having in this process is frightening .

we dont need/want  it done like this......it should be A PART of a complete over arching management package ...not the only large scale  solution as is curently being pushed imo ...this will end  up like the insulation fiasco ......ill concieved , incorrect information , poor implementation .....with equally poor results , but to disenfranchise a large part of the community from their preffered pastime ....

wilderness conservation areas offer some huge alternatives .....why wont they consider them also ??  rather than total sanctuary lock out ?

hezzy

Since my footer has been quoted, but only in part, here is the full version.

It comes as a package of statements, where all parts are important. I could add emphasis to some parts, but I reckon it is clear enough, particularly the last 2 sentences.

Quote:-

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

Informed Recreational anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks.

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

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

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

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

End quote

And for anyone who wants the real links to what's being proposed by the Commonwealth Government, see http://www.aaawa.iinet.net.au/MarineParks.htm#Commonwealth

Lots more reference stuff there too, for the VERY complex topic of Marine Parks.

Always reminds me of a quote from a Ginger Meggs comic:- "Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." 

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......
 

Ewen

I agree nothing much is independant these days.  I don't know that they would nessecarily get shot down though.  Not even the scientists who state global warming is not happening and its all just earths natural cycle have not been shot down yet.  There are plenty of scientists which put forward arguements both for and against no take zones (as above I don't have a problem with Marine Parks as such).

Cheers 

"Coral Trout are scale fish".

Pulling one example out of the hat does not show a need to have no take zones on all fishes. 

I think something such as KG whiting in SA are an entirely different matter for instance yet these are no doubt being excluded for being caught in the blanket and broad no take zones - thats just one example of why we should be examining a range of things for different species and areas rather than the broad approach being brought in. 

Surely there are other things which can be brought in on individual species as each are a different kettle of fish in thier own right. 

Cheers

Good grief.

You all quote these various (anonymous) scientific studies that show no need for sanctuary zones - where are they? I want peer-reviewed, scientific papers please, not fishery policy papers, and nothing from Walter Stark. The papers I have mentioned have been plucked out of my memory. I would expect the board members of RecFishWest and Paul H who seems to be well involved over there in SA to have similar information on hand that supports their views. I know these papers exist - I have read them and they are sound. Have you? Have you also read the ones that find SZs effective? Are you informed by the science or by the viewpoint of a former Australian cricket captain who seems to have exactly the same (verbatim) viewpoint as RFW (coincidence?) - nice plant in the West Australian there!!

Perhaps I have only read papers that espouse the pro-MPA view? No - I have also read others that describe how they have not been effective. This almost invariably comes down to incorrect location, inadequate size or lack of compliance - or importantly as you guys also state - lack of clear objectives. I agree there are greenies out there who want them just to have them. But there is no need for this - there is a need for SZs in places that they will be beneficial - education and research and consultation with an educated recfishing population will assist with this. The need for a network of SZs must also be stressed, placed appropriately to get maximum benefit from fish spawning, dispersal and recruitment processes of the species at hand. The need for complimentary fishing regulations is also of very high importance.

At the most simple and fundamental level - If we don't have places where they fish and their ecosystems can exist in a 'natural' state - we CANNOT know our effects (on the individual population and the species in question) from fishing them down to over-exploited levels, as much of our fish stocks are. We CANNOT know whether declining stocks and changing population structures is a result of fishing, or of other natural processes like a warming ocean.

On the Rock Lobster/Rottnest paper. Are you seriously trying to tell me that there are more and bigger crays in the Rotto Sanctuary zones, where people have not been allowed to fish for them for 20 years or so, because the crays just happen to prefer to live there? Are you seriously - in public, and in writing, trying to tell me that the fact that recs and commercial fishos haven't caught them over decades of fishing elsewhere, might not have something to do with it? Are you seriously unaware of the fact that this is just an indicator - if the populations of this species are back to something like un-fished 'normal', that the inline effects on the prey items they eat, and on the predators of them will also be healthier? And you guys are the experts/leaders of the WA recreational community?

Why would I join RFW or run in annual elections when you all clearly have a viewpoint, contrary to the best available information as advised by our leading scientists and scientific bodies on the vitally important topic of sanctuary zones? In other words - ideologically driven. Why accept seasonal bans but not spatial bans? What is the difference? When we have twice as many people living here, fishing with technology that lets you map the seafloor - how will bag limits help? Tell me - how?

Despite growing numbers of studies in a variety of habitats and socio-economic settings (the number of studies are growing and still in infancy because SZs have only been around for a maximum of 20 years worldwide - compare with the life cycle of fish such as dhuies and coral trout who are old - a spanish flag is something like 40 years old when it is 30 cm long!) that demonstrate the efficacy of sanctuary zones in enhancing ecological integrity (the ability to withstand change e.g. climate change, cyclonic destruction, pollution pressures) and other beneficial effects, the viewpoint of RFW hasn't changed.

Paul H - how could there be any research on the efficacy of sanctuary zones on King George Whiting when there are no sanctuary zones in the places they are found? How? So we rely on scientific advice that interprets the results from elsewhere.

Of course it is complex - so more research is needed. Alas the Govt does bugger all, the fishing groups don't have enough $ to do it, so it is up to scientists to get whatever funding they can to do it. In steps a green group with coin and you all throw down the hate. Never mind the fact that Pew doesn't say shit about our state of affairs - they give money to homegrown Western Australian groups like the Conservation Council to fund them to do it.

Here is a paper that discusses the complexity, including the rigidity of views on both sides of the fence. It is an excellent read and sums up many of you opposer's views as well, but puts it all into the context of Marine Protected Areas and no-takes zones, the fishery objectives and all of the other objectives. READ IT! It sums up the conflicts and their bases very well. It also sums up the benefits of MPAs for objectives other than fishing.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aqc.583/abstract

Here is a quote from it that is so exemplary of one possibly future we could have:

"MPA fisheries reserves introduced in New Zealand in 1977 faced vehement public opposition. However, 10 years later, 78% of the fishermen interviewed favoured designation of additional reserves (Ballantine (1989) in Bohnsack, 1992). A survey of community reactions toward MPAs in New Zealand suggests that community involvement, along with information dissemination, communication and compromise, are the primary strategies for reducing inter-group conflict in the MPA planning process."

 I should've mentioned...you can't get that whole paper from that link i provided.

Type Dangerous targets? Unresolved issues and ideological clashes around marine protected areas

into Google Scholar and it gives you a link to download a PDF.

Ewen: You all quote these various (anonymous) scientific studies that show no need for sanctuary zones

Why on earth would anyone do a study into not implementing a sanctuary zone?

When you already have a fast stead culture that protects and increases the jobs of the very people themseleves who write the white papers anyrate? 

Hows this, we should ban all fishing, top to bottom, then we need no longer research scientists and all the beauracratic chairty causes that ride the back of the whole "save my charity, tax free, pay me lots, cause"

No fishing licences and tax revenue from the billion dollar recreational fishing industry to fund that same research.

All Australians can simply fly to say; Bali, New Zealand, [insert holiday destination here] and spend your tax dollar funding there.  Im sure those places are ready to happily take all your research funding quick smart.

I know longer visit Rottnest to fish; maybe thats why they are spending millions of taxpayer funds advertising people to go there.  Get a grip.

If you kill recreational fishing; you will kill the associated fishing tax revenue for research.  30% is going to do that.  70% of fish live in that 30%.  Have you a white paper to state population local?

In fact, with the federal proposal we may as well shut down FRDCs research, and all the other research.  With the above stated fishing regulations combined with Julias ban humans policy, problem solved.  You dont need to research anymore. Why would you?

"Paul H - how could there be any research on the efficacy of sanctuary zones on King George Whiting when there are no sanctuary zones in the places they are found? How? So we rely on scientific advice that interprets the results from elsewhere".

I was more questioning how research on other fishes such as Coral Trout (which have an entirley different population makeup and breeding cycle be compared to the King George) be relevant to the benefits of a no take zones in a fishery which is almost exclusively 90% a king goerge fishery.  It was a comment on the blanket approach being made rather than looking into different areas and preserving the fisheries and marine enviorment with a more targeted approach for the areas concerned.

MPA fisheries reserves introduced in New Zealand in 1977 faced vehement public opposition. However, 10 years later, 78% of the fishermen interviewed favoured designation of additional reserves (Ballantine (1989) in Bohnsack, 1992). A survey of community reactions toward MPAs in New Zealand suggests that community involvement, along with information dissemination, communication and compromise, are the primary strategies for reducing inter-group conflict in the MPA planning process."

Your quote does not reflect the diference between a marine park and a NO TAKE OR SANCTUARY ZONE which are totally different as far as public use goes. As I have said before I have no problem with a marine park for the whole of SA's waters if you were still allowed to fish in them under nessecary relevant rules and regulations (there may some exceptions which may require no take zone which I accept.  We have had some no take zones in SA for a while (Port Noarlunga Reef and Aldinga Marine Parks for example) which no one has a problem with.  I accept there may be some other instances where a no take zone is required - again it is the broad based blanket approach that the only way forward is to dot them all around the state I am opposed to...

"Of course it is complex - so more research is needed. Alas the Govt does bugger all, the fishing groups don't have enough $ to do it, so it is up to scientists to get whatever funding they can to do it. In steps a green group with coin and you all throw down the hate. Never mind the fact that Pew doesn't say shit about our state of affairs - they give money to homegrown Western Australian groups like the Conservation Council to fund them to do it".

I'm not sure about this but is your point that the only research is funded by PEW and other enviormental groups........if so why shouldn't rec fishers be concerned.

No hate from me at least Ewen I value seeing the other side of the argument and your input even if I don't agree with it all.....

Cheers

Paul - the relevance between different fisheries is this: it is not actually about the fishery - it is about the ecosystem. Any ecosystem that has been under fishing pressure for X years has altered populations and age structures of the key fished species, which has flow-on effects. Google 'Urchin barrens" for a classic text-book example of how overfishing a key predator like snapper allows the populations of sea urchins to boom - they eat all the kelp which provided habitat for lobster, and now they have only sea urchins and nothing else. They put an SZ in, manually clear out the urchins until the kelp grows back, and voila - ecosystem functions again. There are thoughts that things like Crown of Thorns and Drupella infestations have similar origins. As well as run-off effects, pollution and lots of other complex lifecycle stuff.

Yes, yes - I know we don't have urchin barrens here. It was an example. We do have Drupella, and we do have an over-exploited and under-understood demersal scale fishery.

It is always the case with marine science, due to the cost and complexity of the work involved, that we simply do not understand the effects of our fishing until they become so noticeable that stocks collapse, etc. THE ONLY way to be able to study it effectively is to have representative areas scattered across the coast that are large enough to show us what an un-fished population looks like. When you have most of the population living on the coast and able to access it to fish, you have conflicts with existing users. This doesn't negate the simple fact that we need no-take zones in places that some of us fish. Preferably, they can be located where people fish less, but where in WA for example would you do that in the Leeuwin-Naturaliste Bioregion from Two Rocks to Cape Leeuwin or wherever it is...? What would RecFishWest's option be? No no-take zones? If not - where would you put them?

Those NZ MPAs were no-take zones. Amongst other things, they discovered within them that, contrary to the best available information before having them in place, they found that snapper did not migrate the way we think they do. There is a study I have seen that I don't have time right now to find you, where they were closely tagged and monitored - the big old snapper spent something extraordinary like 70% of their time on the one patch of reef. Like people always comment here - the wisdom before there was SZs in place was that "what is the point - they all move around anyway". Not so. (in this case)

Hezzy - I agree with you and with RFWs (on-paper) point of view that SZs are one tool that needs to be used with many. So why does the press release that is the subject of this thread state basically the opposite? It says that there is not sufficient scientific advice to justify them - this is what outrages me. It is either deliberate lies, or simple ignorance on behalf of whoever wrote the press release. And you guys are the leadership. So many fishos out there take your opinions as gospel and you say the tripe that is in that Media Release.

Green conspiracies.

Biased scientists.

No data on temperate fisheries in supposedly well-managed fisheries.

All garbage - I've given you but two examples of research, there are many many more. And all of these are opinions that polarise the debate rather than work constructively to a common goal based on the best available scientific information. Which is for a sustainable marine environment 20-40% depending on the environment in question needs to be placed in sanctuary zones. Where we put them in a way that minimises impact on existing and future uses is then the negotiation - NOT whether we need them all not. That has already been answered.

I don't understand - you guys must know some old-timers? How do you think our fishing experience compares with theirs? As a 30 year old I am PISSED OFF that I don't get the same fishing that my father did. And for crying out loud - what he got was but a shadow of what was before. Thankyou traditional fishery management - you've done a great job. (sarcasm emoticon). In my lifetime of fishing I have experienced the decline. Oh, so it's all fixed now is it? bollocks. The regulatory changes lag at least a decade behind the triggers for action. That is 10 more years for people to over-fish species that mature at 5 years of age or thereabouts.

As I said - I have fished in places on the coast that I won't name that are absolutely mind-blowing. Because they haven't been fished. If there were some areas like this (ie unfished, and enforced) in places that have since been pillaged, like the Dampier and Exmouth type places, we would know what they should look like, and can measure and monitor.

I saw a PowerPoint presentation by the head of the dept of Fisheries, saying that he doesn't believe in monitoring. Can you believe that? Their opinion was that we will know something is wrong when we start catching less fish. Wow.

We are debating this in the context of fishery management. There are many many more reasons to have sanctuary zones in place. SZs are not the answer to fishery management - there are an essential tool amongst many. But they are an answer to dive tourism, scientific research, and fisheries research and biodiversity conservation. They are an insurance against our ignorance, which we should accept. We will never understand the marine environment as well as we do the terrestrial one. In the same way that we have lots of representative National Park, we need lots of representative NO-TAKE marine reserves.

Paul H - I know there is no hate mate, and none from me back at you(se) either. Most people don't get information via scientific channels, and we certainly don't get that from the rec fishing leadership. Nor do we get it from the Government - which usually dishes out spin. It is a continual frustration to me. The green groups also tend not to target the education of fishos - they also polarise the issue by going for the green ideal.

And yes - RFW do a great job in negotiating many other areas of our world. On this topic however; they fail us, and fall into political mode. I don't question you gentlemen's well-intentioned sacrifices to the cause, just your direction. My fishing/diving future relies on large, no-take zones, as stated by our leading scientific bodies.

For all your acknowledgements of the use of SZs - reading through the posts above and through the media reports you put out, one does not get the impression that you think SZs are required.

30% will destroy communities? Man, I'd love to own the fishing tackle and fuel outlet shops in Exmouth! I'd love to own the many fishing-friendly accomodation options there! I don't think the Exmouth economy is floundering after Ningaloo had 30% no-take zones established, saltatrix.

not if you had only one fishing tackle shop in Exmouth right now and not a group like Hal has to support it.

They pretty much had a bad year this time round with the weather etc.

Who can afford to go to exmouth more than once a year these days??? Even just taking up a family of four once a year and staying at the Light House has become a costly thing and then you gamble with the weather gods. Last time we went up we stayed for 9 days and got two fishing days of calm seas and weather, the rest was blown out to buggery.

Trouble is true conservation is about balance, not Green political points and thats what it's come down to these days. Bobs got Julia by the short and curlies and she will give him areas in lib strong holds to lock up.... watch this space... 

if you really want to lower the pressure of fishing on areas, then open more ramps in good stocked areas and close off heavy fished areas for half the year. Not just lock people out and not give them alternatives.

Seabird and Lancelin could do with good public sealed ramps, as a good example

other things that can work is Gary Lilleys idea or was it' Wallies, can't remember, but one of them had a rolling no take zone that would cut off sections from the coastline out to say 100miles out and let that zone rest for a few years and then move the zone on to the next sector.

Google "Zone 5 with gary and wallies" name, they wrote some good stuff a few years back, pity most was ignored. For all our diference, I resepected that they had thought out solutions with alternatives given for people. Not just lock up and leave.

Ewan

 Media is all spin mate –sorry if the RFW media release go your goat

The line “only 1% of our coast line is protected” buffs me up red and angry

Equally alarmist statements maybe???     trouble is only one is a lie......and thats the 1% arguement.

Facts are the media statement was about “anti-fishing” groups hijacking the planning process.

happy to be proven wrong and their views are balanced and considered

Anyway it’s all about the fish

PS ...What do you think of wilderness conservation areas as proposed by RFW mate.....would they offer the level of protection to areas like the Kimberley’s which would satisfy ecological management out comes?

 Tony - really? the answer is to open up more of the coast? Dude... 

No.

Salmo - the problem is one of education and information. When the fishing public see their leadership espouse absolute tripe like that Press Release...well... what hope do we have of having an informed, sensible debate? Do the green groups really rely on information from tropical ecosystems in non-developed countries? No. Neither should you.

Try this on for size: peer-reviewed science, based on the best, most modern techniques, not supported by any green groups, located in a temperate, metropolitan area in "the best managed fishery in the world". Some of our region's best scientists involved. Not involved with any green groups. Not involved with the Dept of Fisheries. Completely independant, based on observations and scientific methodology.

Scale fish.

The ones we want to catch. Glaucosoma hebraicum is Dhufish. Epinephelides armatus  is Black-arse cod. I'll let you figure out the rest.

Google this:

"Density and size of reef fishes in and around a temperate marine reserve"

Abstract. The effects of marine reserve protection on the density, size, biomass, sex-ratio and overall assemblage structure of reef fishes were investigated at Kingston Reef Sanctuary, Rottnest Island, Western Australia. Significant trends in response to reserve protection were found for two species of top predators and several serially protogynous labrid species. The relative density and biomass of the heavily targeted Glaucosoma hebraicum was 10 and five times greater within the sanctuary respectively. Similarly, the biomass of the serranid, Epinephelides armatus, was 3.2 times greater in the sanctuary, although this difference was owing to a greater mean length not relative density. The male : female sex ratio for the labrid, Ophthalmolepis lineolatus, was significantly different between sanctuary and non-sanctuary sites, with the density of male O. lineolatus significantly greater within the sanctuary. Rottnest Island waters are largely restricted to recreational fishing, therefore these results suggest that a range of fish species around Rottnest Island are affected by recreational fishing, and that these effects are found in taxa beyond the primary target species. The patterns in the effects on bycatch species suggest that fishing-related mortality may be exerting a greater control on these populations than that exerted by natural predation. 

?????????????????????????????????????????????????

Your comments please? Recreational, commercial, whatever. Sanctuary Zones banned fishing there. The results speak for themselves. Will you tell me about some green conspiracy?? Will you tell me that the fish just prefer to live there?

Come on guys, get with the latest program. Get up to date with the science, both here and abroad. It is all relevant, wherever it is conducted. We live on one planet.

RecFishWest - you have the capacity to lead on this topic. You have a prime opportunity right now to represent not the fishers of today, but also the fishers of tomorrow. Will you? Will you open your eyes to new stuff?? You should note on these discussions that all the people posting here *against* SZs are RFW people, with the exception of Meersey and Paul H. All the rest of us posting in defence of SZs - we fish. We are WA recreational fishers. We are not in RecFishWest. How representative do you feel, backing up each other's viewpoint? Or are we all just ignorant, and you have all the answers? Alas, for you, the science has the answers.

Please...I want to back you up, I want a strong RecFishing lobby group that is well informed.

So far you are failing us.

 Wilderness Fishing:

It cannot and should not replace sanctuary zones. If it doesnt replace sanctuary zones I think they are a fantastic idea. We still need sanctuary zones to measure against. How will we know the impact of "Wilderness Fishing" if we don't have sanctuary zones to measure against??

So - in compliment to SZs - I think Wilderness Fishing zones are great and should comprise many more places than just the remote Kimberley.

if CCWA came and talked maybe some middle ground could be found....find a balance

see what you can do....

get a federal green member there too

where is jessica???????????