A view from a respected fisheries scientist (Professor Bob Kearney) who questions the benefit of Sanctuary zones and banning rec fishing from them.  It is interesting that he comments that something as invasive of eustuary trawling for pranws has been found to have little overall impact on Biodiversity when compared to other impacts such and rural and urban runoff and natural floods etc.  He states if nature can cope with a the impact of a flood it is able to cope with the impacts of Trawling - interesting considering trawling is one of the most destructive fishing methods we can use.  The question then should be asked of how much impact is recreational line fishing having on the enviorment and why can't it be control with measures other than sanctuary zones.  He goes as far as suggesting rec fishers are just an easy target and santuary zones ignore the real threat of run off, etc 

He writes as follows

The system of marine parks in NSW is, in reality, little more than badly designed relocation of fishing effort and/or reallocation of fish resources at considerable expense to tax payers. The public has been hoodwinked into believing that it represents an appropriate series of areas that is actually being protected. It creates the illusion that effective action is being taken to address our rapidly deteriorating coastal ecosystems. In doing so it misdirects public support for conservation of marine systems. It is part of the creation by Government of an appearance of being green without actually confronting the real issues. It appears to be an attempt to mask the Government’s failure to address the real threats to our coastal ecosystems as caused primarily by direct and indirect impacts of development, agriculture, urban sprawl, the aquarium industry, shipping and infrastructure projects.

In concluding, I would like to be a little more specific in identifying the type of misinformation and poor science that continue to underpin the Marine Parks Authority’s hoodwinking of the public. Continued deliberate confusion of terms such as reserve systems, marine parks, fishing closures, sanctuary zones and protected areas is used to imply protection of areas that are not protected and to mask an apparent refusal by Government to respond to the real threats to our continually deteriorating aquatic ecosystems.

For example, the Conclusion to the latest version of the paper on the benefits of marine protected areas (Marine Parks Authority 2008) begins, ‘Overall, there is considerable scientific information that indicates that the designation of zones in marine parks that provide protection from impacting activities is an important tool in the long-term conservation and management of marine biological diversity and ecological processes.’ To the uncritical or uninformed this sounds wonderful. And it is claimed to be science, and we all know science is impartial! Why would the average citizen go to the expense of having an appropriately qualified scientist question it? But it is the sleight-of-hand that is the real issue. The designation of zones is in itself of no direct value: it is the provision of protection from the real impacting activities that can be of conservation or management benefit. As I have pointed out above, the current system of marine parks in NSW is not even based on true identification of the real impacting activities, let alone the provision of protection, cost-effective or otherwise, from these activities. The Marine Parks Authority itself states that no attempt is being made to provide protection against the threats, pollution, disease or invasive species (Marine Parks Authority 2008), which are the primary causes of most of our biodiversity losses. If the Marine Parks Authority is aware that there is benefit when you ‘provide protection against impacting activities’ why does it ban fishing and not address the real impacting activities?"

"It is indeed interesting to look at the most recent scientific assessment of the effects of trawling in NSW. One of Australia’s leading quantitative marine scientists, Professor Tony Underwood, in 2007 completed a study on the effects of trawling on estuarine ecosystems in the NSW estuary which has approximately half of the total NSW estuarine trawling effort, the Clarence River (Underwood 2007). Professor Underwood concluded that even after exhaustive efforts, the analyses failed to find any impacts at all on benthic biota due to trawling. That is, trawling has no detectable impact on the biodiversity that would be expected to bear the brunt of its damage. Thus, significant damage, if there is any, to biodiversity from trawling in the Clarence River would be restricted to the impacts on target and by-catch species. The abundance of the target species, the school prawn (Metapenaeus macleayi), is influenced by rainfall more than by the fishery, and the current assessment is that catches are variable but stable (Scandol et 2008). By-catch in this fishery has been extremely thoroughly researched and found not to be a significant conservation issue or threat to biodiversity (for discussion see Broadhurst et al 2008). It must be concluded that trawling in the Clarence River is, surprisingly to most, including the fishermen themselves (Underwood 2007), a remarkably environmentally benign, sustainable activity with no demonstrated impact on biodiversity and little, if any, lasting impact on the ecosystem. Incidentally, it produces superb fresh prawns for the people of NSW, and considerable socio-economic benefits to the local community.

Mindful of history I am concerned that my comments, this time on the effects of fishing in estuaries in NSW, may be taken out of context, or distorted. Therefore, to minimize ambiguity, I will elaborate. The fact that the fisheries and ecosystems in NSW do not show obvious effects from fishing is not because fishing in this State has been, and continues to be, extremely well managed: (I remain particularly critical of the management of recreational fisheries in NSW). It is more a result of the biology of the species, their ecology and the nature of their habitats. The wide distribution of the species, their migratory tendencies, their diverse spawning areas and relatively short life spans, the variable habitats they occupy, coupled with the episodic and repeated dramatic modification of estuarine ecosystems in times of flood, appear to provide them with an effective immunity to serious overfishing. It is not as though overfishing has not been attempted! Similar, apparently innate, or perhaps evolved, ability to deal with gross episodic changes resulting from floods appears to protect associated benthic communities from significant collateral damage from fishing. Underwood concluded that the effects of floods in the Clarence River on benthic biota were so much greater than the effects of trawling that, ‘It is unrealistic, in the light of this type of capacity to cope with disturbances (from flooding), that the fauna would be much affected by the smaller disturbances due to trawling’ (Underwood 2007). The ecosystems themselves may be expected to be impacted in the short-term to some degree by fishing but this impact is slight and is completely overshadowed by the effects of flooding. Almost certainly, the impacts of the other more chronic threats to our estuaries, particularly pollution in its many forms, as discussed above, also greatly overshadow the effects of fishing.

Based on the available science, including Underwood’s exhaustive analyses, it can be concluded that in the one estuary in NSW that has been best studied even the most demonized form of fishing has little, if any, detectable impact on benthic biodiversity. The work of Broadhurst and others (for references see Broadhurst et al 2008) also demonstrates that by-catch in this trawl fishery can be managed to inconsequential levels. Thus there is currently no significant environmental benefit from restricting the trawl fishery in the Clarence River. The similarity between other estuaries and their trawl fisheries, and the Clarence River fishery, provides strong evidence that problems that may be identified with trawling in other NSW estuaries could be relatively easily managed within each fishery. Trawling, as currently carried out and managed in NSW estuaries, is not a significant threat to biodiversity or ecosystems. As no data whatsoever are provided by the Marine Parks Authority to indicate that any other form of fishing has greater impact than trawling, or even specific impacts that require managing, in estuaries at least, the Marine Parks Authority provides no justification for restrictions on any form of fishing in estuarine marine parks in NSW. If there are problems due to fishing in estuaries then have them identified and then properly qualified experts can consider what management measures are necessary. In the absence of identification of real threats from fishing, restrictions on fishing in estuarine marine parks in this State must be accepted for what they really are; poorly conceived and badly designed resource allocation mechanisms for no identified conservation benefit. They unjustifiably and mistakenly demonize fishing and do not address the real threats. They do nothing more than hoodwink the public into mistakenly believing that a representative selection of estuarine habitats is being protected.

From his letter "Science and Marine Parks in New South Wales: the hoodwinking continues.   (October 30/2008)

Bob Kearney, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries, University of Canberra

Cheers Paul

Balance is the key.

We all want balance. Good fisheries management that ensures healthy fish stocks for generations. Marine parks and sanctuary zones are one part of that. They are not the only answer, as the Chicken Little brigade keeps ramming down our throats.

Thanks for pointing out to me that fish are not kangaroos Ewan. I was not aware of that. Point clearly missed there.

And you know full well there are genuine scientific papers, and respected scientists, questioning the value of marine parks.

Jones et al, 2004, said habitat degradation was the main issue for marine biodiversity. It says marine reserves do not appear to protect fish biodiversity.

Maynard et al, 2009, said damage caused by anchors was more devastating than the effects of overfishing.

Nardi et al, 2004, said studies in the Abrolhos showed not all species responded well to sanctuary zones.

Marriott et al, 2010, which refers to the Ningaloo area you hold up time and again as absolute proof of marine parks working, said that spangled emperor were perfoming better in traditionally managed areas south of Ningaloo better than in the sanctuary zones of the Ningaloo area.

Hardiman and Burgin, 2010, said introduced pests were the greatest risk to marine fauna. No mention of how marine parks will stop them.

And Professor Kearney, as quoted above, seems unconvinced.

Jervis Bay marine park is not working, hasn't stopped fish kills caused by toxic algae. http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/toxic-algae-blamed-for-jb-fish-kill

Similar story in Alaska, where marine parks haven't worked.

http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/recovery/status_herring.cfm

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/65/1/44.abstract

Finally, this from Paige et al, 2009. Influence of marine reserves on coral disease prevalence.

"We found little evidence that MPAs enhance the health of acroporid and poritid assemblages in Palau. We also found no differences in the prevalence of bleaching and signs of other factors that compromise coral health in poritid and acroporid corals between MPAs and non-protected reefs. Results of this study therefore partially corroborate those of previous studies, which found that the prevalence of GAs on Kenyan reefs in the western Indo-Pacific (McClanahan et al. 2008) and the prevalence of several diseases on Little Cayman Island in the Caribbean (Coelho & Manfrino 2007) were not reduced inside MPAs. In fact, the prevalence of SEB was 2-fold higher within MPAs than on non- protected reefs in Palau.When protected and non-protected reef pairs were analysed individually, in some cases, measures of coral health were significantly worse inside the studied MPAs."

PS - do you know what was served for dinner at the Marine Futures/PEW gathering a couple of years ago? Dhufish. Seriously.

Touche!!!!

Scottywiper - can you explain where in the Marriot 2010 paper it says that emperors were 'performing better' outside of no-take areas? The Marriot 2010 paper that I've read didn't sample inside sanctuary zones. Perhaps we are looking at different papers? The one I refer to studied the population structures and compared them between North and South Gascoyne areas. No sampling in sanctuary zones.

My points on Ningaloo have never been on their effectiveness, they have always been saying that having 30% of a large iconic fishing area in no-take zones, doesn't hurt the fishery, and doesnt hurt the local economy. Have you seen house prices in Exmouth? Have you seen how many people go fishing there? Seems fine to me - no economic catastrophe like persons such as yourself focus on. No loss of fishing amenity. It's all good. And there are larger NW snapper living in the waters there now. Excellent.

What do you mean marine parks haven't 'worked'? There are many many many examples of the effectiveness of no-take MPAs to fish biomass and biodiverstiy conservation.

We can go paper for paper if you like. I have a paper from Westera et al 2003 here that shows clearly that there are bigger/more spangos in sanctuary zones in Ningaloo. This report specifically set out to investigate this. Here's a little snippet

 Given the inconsistency in benthic cover, the similarity of rugosity between zones, the consistently greater biomass of lethrinids in sanctuaries, and the abundance of large lethrinids in sanctuaries, the cessation of fishing in sanctuary zones appears responsible for observed differences in the populations of these fish. These results demonstrate that recreational fishing pressure may be sufficient to deplete fish populations below that of adjacent protected areas.

Google this to find it: Westera M, Lavery P, Hyndes G (2003)  Differences in recreationally targeted fishes between protected and fished areas of a coral reef marine park. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 

Peer-reviewed science, done right here in WA, on a key recreational species.

I'm not across the NSW Marine Parks issues. There is no doubt that MPAs have political value, and political motivations. That's is what politicians do. I want them based on the science, which has at it's core a majority view that we need large, no-take zones to ensure species and biodiversity protection in the long term. The peer-reviewed results in NZ, Great Barrier Reef, Ningaloo and Rottnest speak for themselves. Bigger fish, more of them. That means better breeding stock resources, which will equate to more fish for us to catch.

Scotty - those papers don't question the value of marine parks, they highlight the FACT that marine parks - specifically marine no-take areas - are one of many essential tools. We need them as part of the integrated package.

AN OPEN QUESTION TO YE ALL NAYSAYERS

Does the Western Australian Department of Fisheries say that introduced pest, pollution or boat anchoring are the cause of the problems in the WA demersal fishery?

Biggles - I believe West Coast's initial problem was you calling me a green stooge. Me - an engaged, active recreational fisherman with a view different to your own, calling out our leading representative body for setting an inflammatory and divisive campaign against what the best scientific information tells us will help our recreational fishing experience. You - deeply involved in the tackle industry.

Business as normal - ie use the same fishery management tools that have led us to this point, where the number 1 reduction in recreational fishing experience is the lack of fish - will hurt us more in the long term, than adjusting in a similar way to what communities in QLD, and Exmouth have done. Both have sustainable fishing tackle industries, charter industries and both attract big tourism $$ for their fishing and other marine experiences, enhanced by the presence of a large marine park.

You guys are the people (metophorically) who said stopping logging and putting in national parks would destroy SW communities, and would do nothing for species conservation. There is absolutely no net difference between the two examples.

The value of science is it's openness to different results. Not different OPINIONS (such as Bob Kearney's opinion piece above). But different results and conclusions - which do exist in the scientific literature. The balance of scientific knowledge on the subject points to the essential and urgent need for a world-wide system of large no-take zones. This is a fact.

Ewan.

That is my point, we can go paper for paper. The general public comment of the pro-marine park crew is that the evidence is irrefutable. You yourself say "it is a fact" just a few lines after admitting we can go paper for paper. Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.

Therefore, in light of contrasting research, I suggest we tread lightly rather than risking massive social and economic impacts based on the evidence presented by just one side of the debate.

As people on share forums say - DYOR people!

It's also convenient to ignore Kearney, McPhee, Diggles, etc, because it doesn't suit your argument.

I will give Ben Diggles, a far smarter man than me, his say in the submission to the feds on this topic. He goes into much more detail in the paper...including attacking the scientific authenticity of the PEW-funded research calling for 50% closures...here is the link http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/ec_ctte/bioregional_plans/submissions.htm

"Australia has achieved substantial marine environmental conservation to date via inclusion of
10% of its EEZ in MPAs. Together with fisheries management arrangements throughout the
EEZ that effectively meet ICUN Categories IV, V, VI, this means that Australia is likely to have
already fulfilled its international marine conservation obligations under the Jakarta Mandate.
Yet the scale of the marine bioregional planning process that is currently underway in Australia
is unparalleled in any other maritime nation, with the country at the threshold of greatly
exceeding its international obligations for marine conservation over the next 2 years.
It is important for the Federal Government to get the process and balance right in order to avoid
unnecessary hardship for Australias commercial and recreational fishing industries. The
confidence of fishing stakeholders and fishing, tourism and marine related industries in the
planning process has been eroded and their uncertainty increased through misinformation spread
by environmental NGOs and some Governments. Displaced activities advice appears to suggest
that rights held by fishing and tourism industry stakeholders can be extinguished by the crown
without any compensation whatsoever, which has also increased uncertainty substantially.
Calls by environmental NGOs and some scientists for large “no –take” sanctuaries are based
mainly on philosophical grounds, rather than science. MPAs are no panacea, and indeed in
Australia they have been demonstrably incapable of protecting biodiversity, especially in areas
where environmental degradation is occurring. There is scientific justification for establishment
of small “no-take” marine sanctuary areas (ICUN Category Ia, Ib) inside larger multiple use
MPAs where they have clear, measurable objectives that relate to achievable benefits for
research, tourism, biodiversity and other ‘no-take’ outcomes (which can also include some forms
of recreational fishing). There is, however, no scientific justification supporting large no-take
MPAs where they are advocated as a precaution against hypothetical ‘bad practices’ in the
management of fisheries.
Marine conservation in a developed country like Australia with strong governance and largely
effective fisheries management means “all or nothing” management arrangements that call for
large “no-take” sanctuary zones are simply not necessary. Indeed, the bigger the no-take zones,
the bigger the problems that will come with them. This is why a moderate science-based
approach to establishment of the NRSMPA is required. A pragmatic approach to MPAs that
maximizes stakeholder involvement during the NRSMPA process and embraces adaptive and/or
co-management arrangements after zoning is completed (including transparent regulation of
research activities), will be the one most likely to ultimately achieve conservation objectives.
Even then, significant resources will be required to administer the new MPAs or else they will
fail to meet their objectives. The Government must be careful not to bite off more of the EEZ
than it can chew. Given the fact that Australias international obligations for marine protection
are largely fulfilled by its existing MPA network, 9 years ahead of the new international target,
there is no need to rush the remaining NRSMPA assessment process. Given the uncertainties
and national interest in this process, it seems logical to add some additional checks and balances
into it, to make sure its done right. This could be assisted by making bioregional plans
disallowable instruments for the purposes of section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901."

from Ewan >> 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. <<

Oh dear Ewan, you've had a lot to say and a lot more to quote but when it comes down to it, your science is your emotions. But seeing as you asked: I'm (just) old enough to be your father, and I've fished the area off - let's say City Beach to Rottnest to Mindarie - for about 40 years now. Every year, all year, consistently. That would be as intensely-fished an area as exists in WA, I would think; maybe Cockburn Sound and the Swan River would top it, but it's up there. My considered opinion is that the summer of 2010-2011 has seen the best fishing in that area that I have experienced in all my years.

But obviously I wouldn't be considered an old-timer. However I don't think you would argue with that status for my father, who is 90 years young and keeps a boat in Hillaries Boat Harbour. He has fished that same area, and the associated beaches, since 1932 approximately, and is of the opinion that for most species, it's easier to catch a bunch now than it was in the '40s and '50s. To his mind salmon has been the only consistent exception, and that is more likely due to commercial activity in South Australia (read pilchards) than anything on the west coast. As a pointer, he holds (and will always hold) the 'Singles' record for the biggest bag ever weighed in at a MAAC competition - from back in the days when they held biggest bag competitions, and there were no Fisheries bag limits. Back in the "12 jewfish" days you were talking about; and he says fishing out here is better now than it was then.

You asked. Sorry, but I think the only thing you really got right in your quote above was "I don't understand", which is probably because you're still young and foolish. I'm not as young and not as foolish, that's all.

By the way, I'd leave out the references to how great things are in Exmouth thanks to blah blah. I owned the tackle & dive business in Exmouth that was in the thick of it, and I actually do know and understand what went on there in the period you're talking about. I can state all the facts, and they wouldn't support what you're trying to have people believe. Best to stick to what you know.

Oh and I had to have a laugh at the incongruity between two quotes: >>You guys are the people (metophorically) who said stopping logging and putting in national parks would destroy SW communities, and would do nothing for species conservation. There is absolutely no net difference between the two examples.<< and >>Yes Scottywiper - they did used to catch dhufish from rowboats - doesn't this concern you? Fish are not kangaroos - ridiculous comparison.<< ... both from Ewan. Apparently terrestrial vs marine comparisons only apply when they support your argument. What a surprise.

Just so you know Ewan, in the days before outboard motors, all jewies caught from boats were caught from rowboats or sailboats. That doesn't actually mean anything. I used to do all my boat fishing from a rowboat. It is irrelevant.

Tell you what, what this discussion really needs to make it believable is an example of Pew-funded 'research' that doesn't support their anti-angler position. That oughtta do it. I'll leave that one with you for a while, I expect.

The statement by Jessica that that Sanctuary zones work in other parts of the world therefore they will work here is not science. 

It is bad bad bad science.  Speculation from someone who should know better.

It's easier to catch a bunch of dhufish now than 60 years ago?. Ha. Well, good on him. Might I assume he is using a colour echo sounder and a GPS now? Perhaps his boat is a little larger too? Maybe he is a better fisherman now.

Perhaps he is an outlier because it seems quite tremendously at odds with the opinion of the Department of Fisheries? Though they do mention that the current pulse of fish are from a particularly good recruitment period about 10 years ago. Age/size structure indicate that following that pulse, there has been poor recruitment since. So the next 10 years will perhaps be a little different. Forgive me if those figures are not 100% accurate, I am hungover and can't be bothered checking the exact ones. But the gist is accurate I think.

So Hal, is the Bluewater and other shops in Exmouth at risk of going out of business as a result of there being 30% no-take zones in the region? For the past whatever it is, 10-20 years? As a result of the marine park. Not rising fuel and other costs - I want to know, if, in your opinion as a tackle shop owner, the marine park has resulted in catastrophically less business? I say catastrophically because these are the kinds of terms used by the anti-sanctuary side.

Scotty - "I suggest we tread lightly rather than risking massive social and economic impacts based on the evidence presented by just one side of the debate." Can you please show us some evidence from around the world where there have been "massive social and economic impacts" from sanctuary zones? You guys like to talk this up - but the reality seems, from the research (which admittedly is in it's infancy), to be different. In fact the impact on rec fishing is largely reported as being negligible after the initial furore dies down, with added benefits to other industries such as dive tourism = net benefit to the area. Massive social and economic impacts in the fisheries context comes from collapse of fisheries, or dramatic regulatory change (i.e. closures or restrictions like we've seen in the crayfishing industry) in the face of impending collapse. Not from the establishment of no-take zones.

OK Hal, well I guess the Australian Marine Science Association must be a collection of 900 emotional, oil-funded green conspiratorial, communist marine scientific researchers then? My views are based on what they say on the subject.

https://www.amsa.asn.au/PDF-files/Submissions/AMSA_MPA_2008_Statement.pdf

I should mention that I think the role of fishers and particularly experienced ones such as yourself and your father should be a fundamental one through a proper consultation process, and information gathering process. I see a great potential for the marriage of rec/pro fisher experience with the science, but this is currently not happening, which is a shame because it would not only potentially result in more findings, but people such as yourselves would likely understand the science more, and have greater acceptance it's findings.

The best results come from proper consultation. Which we tend not to get. Which tends to enhance the polarisation of the debate a la the media statements, etc.

You guys talk up Pew Pew Pew Pew Pew Pew Pew Pew Pew Pew. So - which research is this then?

Hows about research coming outo of CSIRO? WA Marine Science Institute? Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority? Are these of no value to you?

In 15 years, there'll likely be ~15,000 - 20,000 more trailer boats registered in WA. http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/mediafiles/mar_cf_prbfs_summary.pdf

Hal - are you seriously trying to tell me that the difference between fishing from a rowboat and fishing from a modern boat is irrelevant in this debate? I can only assume you made a bit of a mistake with that comment. Ludicrous. And you call me foolish. Tell me, Hal, why anyone should need to travel, say, across to the Muiron Islands and beyond, to catch a feed of large fish in a place like Exmouth? Could it be, possibly, a case of serial depletion? Repeat for the Dampier Archipelago, Perth, Bunbury, Carnarvon. The south coast has probably been somewhat protected by low populations and harsh weather.

Again, I need to make sure this is clear. Marine Parks, with no-take zones in them, are considered an essential tool for conserving biodiversity, which then has added benefits for fisheries management. These benefits can be different depending on the no-take zones in question. Some can aid in the protection of breeding grounds or other critical habitat. Others will provide a benchmark against which scientists can measure the effects of fishing outside the zones, and can measure the impacts of things like climate change. Yet others can be all about resource-sharing. For example, we tend to assume that all the fish in the sea belong to fishers, but there are a significant section of the community who would like their 'share' of the fish to remain in a habitat as un-affected by humans as possible.

So: no-take zones are not a panacea for the ills (yes, Hal, the ills) of our current fish stock situation. They are an essential part of the solution. Their primary purpose is to conserve biodiversity. That is the assemblage of species, their relative abundances, and their ecological interactions. This then has considerable benefits to target fish stocks, for example in the maintenance of a population of large breeders. But most importantly, it provides a control to measure against. Here in WA, we have no idea what an un-fished population is supposed to look like.

Scotty - your list of papers there supports all of this. I am not ignoring them. There are ongoing problems with people slating no-take zones as saviours of the fish, when they are in fact just one part of the package. Most of your papers are discussing along this line. Kearney for example. No-takes are excellent insurance packages, monitoring tools and can (depending on their objectives) basically function as aquaculture breeding projects in situ.

I'm still wondering what your thing about the Marriot paper is (re: my Q to you in the previous posts). I've heard you quote it a couple of times now. If we are going paper for paper (OK we'd rather not, but it's hard to resist when you've got a particularly pertinent one!) then we need to make sure we are quoting them accurately! I would hate for any misinformation to be spread by our rec fishing leaders. See the original thread topic, and subsequent admissions that some (to me, much) of the commentary and media work is deliberately sensationalist in order to catch the media interest.

 saltatrix - can you explain why they wouldn't 'work' here? What does 'work' mean? And also why it wouldn't apply here?

Ewen "OK Hal, well I guess the Australian Marine Science Association must be a collection of 900 emotional, oil-funded green conspiratorial, communist marine scientific researchers then? My views are based on what they say on the subject".

Ewen your wording not mine but  - I can't say for sure but given the current and past president of the AMSA is linked to research funded by PEW the answer is possibly is a yes, I thought we had covered this before - see a reprint of my previous post below. 

"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.

P.S. What exactly is 'peer reviewed' science and exactly who is reviewing it -  i.e. another scientist with the same views who receives funding from the same or other enviormental groups.  Prof. Kearny is well respected and he came forth stating the research is biased and not exactly based on science as you keep suggesting.

Cheers Paul

To quote Prof Kearney himself -

Note his stated "significant concerns" regarding press releases on marine parks from the AMSA and abuse of science by the Marine Parks Authority  It also seems senior scientists from the NSW DPI also agreed with Kearney...........

"Science and MarineParks in New South Wales: the hoodwinking continues.   (October 30/2008)

Bob Kearney, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries, University of Canberra

Background.

A reviewer of the first draft of this talk commented that I had unearthed seriously poor governance of marine parks in NSW. But why expose this in a public seminar? Why not take the matter up directly with the Government? Answering these questions unfortunately requires more detail on my personal activities in relation to this issue than I would normally consider appropriate. However, the questions do require answers.

Even though my submission to the Marine Parks Authority during the consultation period for the zoning arrangements of the BatemansMarinePark outlined many serious problems with the proposed arrangements for that park, no response from the Marine Parks Authority was forthcoming. Under Freedom of Information it was ascertained that senior fisheries scientists of NSW DPI agreed with my concerns. I subsequently learnt that the Marine Parks Authority had discussed my submission with senior scientists of NSW DPI and these scientists had given strong support for my position. Even after my September 2007 presentation to the Australian Society for Fish Biology (Kearney 2007), which detailed systematic abuse of the available science by the Marine Parks Authority, there was still no direct comment from the Authority, or anybody else in Government. No action appeared to be taken on my comments, except that they seem to have influenced the withdrawal from its website of the Authority’s paper on the benefits of marine protected areas. Letters to the NSW Government, including three to the Premier of the time, seeking action or at least consultation, provoked nothing more than acknowledgement of receipt of most of those letters, and assurances that my concerns would be brought to the attention of the relevant ministers. Early this year there was considerable debate of my paper, and me, in Parliament, under Parliamentary privilege, but still no open scientific debate.

My continuing concerns over the failure of marine parks in this State to deliver true protection of our coastal ecosystems and associated biodiversity against the real threats, and the ongoing distortion of science by the Marine Parks Authority and some of its supporters, compelled me to continue my efforts. In, I think, April I was informed by reliable sources that there was to be an independent review of the science underlying marine parks in NSW and that I was specifically to be invited to present to the responsible independent committee. Finally progress. There was at last going to be some debate of the Marine Parks Authority’s science and its use. As this independent committee was to be chaired by a prominent member of the Australian Marine Science Association this also created the opportunity to debate my significant concerns with the May 2008 press release on marine parks from that Association. So I held my comments on the continuing abuse of science by the Marine Parks Authority for consideration by the independent scientific committee. The then Minister for Conservation and Climate Change, the Hon Verity Firth, on July 16, 2008, confirmed in a letter to the Member for East Hills, that the independent review would take place and that I would be invited to contribute.

About six weeks ago I was advised that this external review was unlikely to go ahead. Its cancellation was confirmed to me last week by a person who had agreed to be a member of the independent committee. Today’s seminar is part of my attempt to open up the science of marine parks in NSW, and related management action, to considered scrutiny."

Cheers Paul

 totally agree with you tony,we have a lot of inaccesible coast,where the pros with long range tanks etc can acees very easy,not for the average amateur fisherman,and weather plays a big part

Article from Todays Sunday Mail - looks like we are finally making some progress here in SA.  I also note SA Fisheries recently gave a briefing (last sentence) that no fish stocks are currently at risk in SA.

Shame Mr Caica does not look like he will attend the meeting. That being said he attended a meeting a week ago regarding putting water meters on the dams of farmers and copped a pasting so maybe doesn't want to repeat the exercise.

Cheers

"THE SA Government is considering a backflip on its controversial no-fishing zones in marine parks.

Growing community opposition is set to see a significant reduction in the size and number of proposed no-fishing sanctuary zones, as early as next month.

Government sources have told the Sunday Mail  the number of coastal areas to be covered by the sanctuary zones could be halved, with Yorke Peninsula to gain the most. The Government is creating the no-fishing zones under a commitment made by Australia to the United Nations to build a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in 2012.

The initial proposal was to create more than 140 no-fishing sanctuary zones in the 19 marine parks - with no-fishing areas taking up 10 per cent of the state's waters.

The Sunday Mail  understands the Government - in response to widespread opposition from fishers, businesses and tourist operators - is looking at reducing the sanctuary zones to cover instead about 5 per cent of state waters. The Government is also actively considering:

ALLOWING licensed fishing within SA Water reservoirs.

CREATING artificial reefs in non-marine park areas to grow fish populations.

It is also understood that Government Budget cuts have forced the Environment and Heritage Department to shelve a $20 million-plus plan to purchase commercial fishing licenses and buy out some seafood catch quotas. Environment Minister Paul Caica said the Government issued the sanctuary zoning guidelines and a series of zoning maps late last year to help people "understand how a marine park zoning scheme may look".

"The scenarios were always meant to be only a starting point and we did this with the full expectation that significant changes would be proposed once communities saw these maps," he said.

"I expect the draft zones that will be developed in this round of meetings will be different to the examples provided."

A public meeting about the zones will be held at 7pm on Tuesday at Burnside Town Hall with the minister saying he was "undecided" if he would attend. The Environment Department could not confirm if any of its staff would go.

Opposition leader Isobel Redmond said Mr Caica "must make himself available" to the meeting, which will include guest speakers from the SA Recreational Fishing Advisory Council, the Real Estate Institute of SA, and food and tourism industry representatives.

Ms Redmond said: "This is another example of Labor's announce and defend approach to policy development."

The Liberals will highlight to the meeting information provided in a recent MPs' briefing by the Fisheries Department that no fish stocks were currently at risk".

Seeing as you have given me a courteous reply Ewan, I'll fill in some of the gaps, but I'll say from the outset that I won't spend as much time on this as you. I reckon I know exactly why you argue as you do, although you may not have recognised it yourself yet.

>>is the Bluewater and other shops in Exmouth at risk of going out of business as a result of there being 30% no-take zones in the region? For the past whatever it is, 10-20 years?<< ... Crikey, didn’t I just suggest that if you don’t know what you’re talking about, it’s unwise to try to use it in your argument?

The expanded Ningaloo Marine Park came into effect in 2005 (six years ago), with 36% angler exclusion zones. Since then a third of the tackle businesses in Exmouth have folded, a third of the fuel outlets in town have folded, and more than a third of the dive & charter businesses in town have folded. I tried to get a more exact proportion of the dive businesses, as I know it’s higher, and was told “ring (name excluded) – he’s been doing it for long enough and he’s just about broke”. I didn’t ring him as I felt that was pointed enough.

Now you are on record here as saying >>Man, I'd love to own the fishing tackle and fuel outlet shops in Exmouth!<< - best you specify exactly which of the above the would love to own, and then perhaps you can take over their debts.

OK, cut to the chase. Ewan says >>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.<< ... Now this, I can believe absolutely. I can even relate to it, but at a point in our histories Ewan, our parallel paths diverged. Some readers should file the following away for future reference, because the following is the true story of why there is this screaming demand for no-take areas now.

My best subjects at school were higher maths, physics, chem. And art. I was (and am) passionately interested in the marine world, and I was in a position to participate in the knowledge pool. So thirty years ago, there I was at uni studying marine biology, all I wanted to do, but I was gradually becoming aware that there was remarkably little future in it. It took me a while to recognise, but some massive proportion of qualified marine biologists were not employed in their field. Our postie had graduated from Townsville Uni as a marine biologist. One of the cops at Scarborough Police Station was a marine biologist. I was studying and working three other jobs as well, and I had better career prospects in any of the other three jobs. So I stopped, and left (it wasn’t that easy, but that’s the short story).

My problem was, I lacked imagination. Less than a generation after I bailed, marine biologists with far more imagination than I were creating industries for themselves that had them paid far better, and be more consistently employed, than anything that had ever occurred to me. Of course there would always have been the problem that I wouldn’t lie if I could, so I could never with any conscience have campaigned relentlessly for needless research and funding just to create an exceedingly well-paid job for myself. Nowadays there are marine biologists in Australia who work with budgets in the multi millions, and are paid better than the prime minister. And it’s been entirely generated from within, with assistance from people who hate anglers.

When the question/observation is made >>What does an un-fished fish population look like, and what does that ecosystem look like, compared to a fished area?" ESSENTIAL knowledge that we just don't have in WA.<< , just look a little further here people: who will do this research? (marine biologists); who will pay these people? (taxpayers, the bottomless pool); how many researchers will it take? (the more no-take zones there are, the more marine biologists will be required, and the more they can charge as their services become more in demand); how often will it need to be done? (the more often the better); who will determine how often is best? (marine biologists); when will it be OK to stop? (never, obviously). So these no-take zones that (some) marine biologists tell us with fervour are ESSENTIAL, are within short time a multi-million dollar industry employing... marine biologists. With no possibility of ever ending. How could I have not seen that 30 years ago.

The guru of such creativity in WA is Jessica Meeuwig, and I am already on record as acknowledging her brilliance in marketing (although I may have called it other things at the time). I’ll quote myself here, from June 2008:

It would be so much more honest of people like Jessica Meeuwig if they stated their vested interest too. I see Jessica Meeuwig and think, ‘there’s a woman who makes a helluva lot more out of recreational anglers than I ever will’. She lives, thrives and survives on fear-mongering government-funded entities into believing that it’s either marine parks, or apocalypse now. Since moving to Australia, she’s been fed by, first, CALM (“Marine Planner ~ proposed Capes Marine Reserve”) – yes, she’s the one who wanted to ban anglers everywhere from the Cape to Cape stretch and Hardy Inlet. She was actually telling us we needed massive closed areas within weeks of her arrival into the State. Impressive.

Don’t get me wrong, the woman is impressive in many ways. She speaks English with an inoffensive accent, and has a humble grasp of Dutch, French of course being originally Canadian, and some bits & pieces of other languages. She’s a hard worker, a highly competent diver, very literate and convincing, and is widely travelled (one claim to fame is that she can say “I love you” in 11 languages; no doubt useful for a widely-travelled woman).

It’s only that she fronts up as a ‘scientific expert’ (which she is) without qualifying her response with ‘whose perfect Australia would be very close to 100% marine parks’ (which it would be). She’s not a total loony – she will catch and eat a fish, or eat a fish somebody else has caught, although it may depend on the company she’s in. She simply looks at the three Es and recognises that Australians don’t need to go fishing for economic reasons (I’m an exception, but then I don’t count) or ethical (social) reasons (the latter we anglers would dispute, but that’s just us)… so that just leaves environmental… and what could be better than an environment without human influence?

After CALM it was UWA as a paid Research Fellow, participating in such things as the Central West Coast Marine Biodiversity & Conservation Program ($345,000), being Project Manager for the Marine Futures Project ($4.2million), being Regional Officer for the National Oceans Office (funded by the Federal Government)… the research grants for the underwater video stuff in 2008 alone total over $1.5million. There’s also the $900,000 that WAMSI is handing over this year to fund the ‘Assessment of Marine Communities and the Impact of Anthropogenic Influences’. She’s a major player in all of it.

And she’s only been in WA for six years.

(then I wrote some other stuff, and finished off with a reference to some sea kitten footage that she had got on to TV that week)...

I couldn’t help but watch her on that program and think of her telling people in a Capes marine park meeting that they wouldn’t be able to be in a marine park with fishing gear aboard the boat – that was reported on Fishwrecked in 2006; by one of the people whose advice she should have been listening to. “Although she has no training or knowledge in CALM Act legislation specifically with regard to enforcement - she was happy to answer that particular "Question" at the Busselton Capes Marine Park meeting - in the basic terms I outlined above, much to the shock horror and absolute amazement of everyone present!

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

I quote her opinion: “I believe that all fisheries scientists / managers / policy boffins should be required to read Dr. Seuss's seminal fisheries treatise One fish, two fish, red fish, blue fish. The message being you need to know how many of which kinds are out there.” Yes, that would solve everything. And things would be so much easier if humans didn’t interfere.

And another quote: “I am unaware of any theories of sustainable fisheries as fisheries are simply human activities that are managed either well, less well or downright badly. Thus I don't have a theory of sustainable fisheries. Some might actually argue that sustainable fisheries is a myth or an oxymoron rather than a theory given that 75% of the world's exploited fish populations are in fact overexploited or in decline (www.fao.org).”

Not only that, exploited fish populations are real good business. For her. If she wasn’t so single-minded about marine parks, we’d probably get along well.

None of us should ever be in any doubt that Jessica Meeuwig could have written the end result of her research, as far as the urgency about “saving the fish” goes, without ever having left her office.

**

I could write a lot more on the subject, but that’s enough. I chose my path because I’m pretty fond of integrity Ewan, and you have begun to choose yours.

Let us know about which of those Exmouth businesses you want now, and perhaps you could come up with the answer to my last footnote, which I’ll post again at the end. You know, Pew aren’t necessarily evil – it could really just be the people who convince Pew that they should be paid by that organisation. Because it’s ESSENTIAL.

Tell you what, what this discussion really needs to make it believable is an example of Pew-funded 'research' that doesn't support their anti-angler position. That oughtta do it. I'll leave that one with you for a while, I expect.

 Hal like your work, i have seen through my wanderings all sorts of statements and activities linked to "sustainable" activities, i remember the threat of the crown of thorns to the GBR, have seen the commercialisation of the mud crab industry in the NT, the closure of some of the rivers to commercial barra fishing in the NT. The closure of the rivers to commercial barra fishing showed remarkable success, the commercialisation of the mud crab industry in a large part brought out activities (seen through my own eyes) that were reprehensible nets strung across entire creeks to gather "bait" for crab pots. Crown of thorns well the threat of climate change or recreational fisherman have replaced that one. The real threat of fertiliser runoff goes about quitely spoken off now and then because you really don't want to go up against the sugar lobby and the amount of jobs and money that brings in.

The ban on commercial fishing has only just occurred here why are we not waiting to assess what effect that is going to have instead i sense a mad rush to close off areas, could it be get in now before people start to see recovery in any off the demersal species in case they will not support no take zones?

I agree that fish stocks are under pressure it is only common sense more people fishing than before more accurate technology, but banning them from doing that activity is not going to happen not by any govt that would like to be elected. So what do we do how about increasing the habitat area for marine life. The creation of artifical reef systems not on a piece meal basis but a concentrated effort to enlarge areas that target species will inhabit.

lovely response hal ...

it encapsulates much of the logic behind the ''we must have large sanctuary zones mentality '' being thrust upon the general public at every media oppurtunity

 however there is also a co logic /chess game if you will ..  behind their insistence i believe that needs mentioning from time to time   even though most know it    ...that is the bigger players/stakeholders  , namely mining/gas exploration  among others will have easier door opening for them to get access even into marine parks  if their are  large sanctuary areas set aside already ....the trade off is already nearly complete ............hence the strange bedfellows from what seems opposing idealogys at play

sacrifice rec fishers & our access  .......rec fishers ...even enmasse  have less rights for compensation or litigation ....in the political game staging that is going on here imo

the media & politics of it between the big players & gov hoodwinks the general public  into believing all is safe and protected on the marine front ,  with large areas safely secured as marine park and sanctuary zones   ...surely the marine enviroment will be  safe to have a little drilling and exploration go ahead ..all the impact studys will confirm it as low risk to proceed ...... low and behold they find some deposit or untapped resource   that  we need for  jobs and an economy boost right ??  ..gov is stuck between a yes and developement in a marine park etc ...or say no and possibly pay compensation /litigation ..loss of the potential dollars  

developement goes ahead  thus they deliver a  win /win for the strange bedfellows ......

rec fishers = o

all just my cynical opinion of course  

hezzy