Do your bit crew and get in their and at least support Paul by leaving a comment. Emails of support or ringing the talk back line on his program would be better!
Lets face it people, if we don't start standing up for ourselves we will all be soon selling our boatsand fishing gear and taking up lawn bowls.
Does anyone know if there is a partition or something started up that we could put our names onto, I know they are having a rally in Darwin this weekend.
They have made up bumper stickers " I Float and I Vote". It is sponsored by the NT Newspaper and others and they are sending it out with paper.
If not maybe it is something that we could do through this site???
What else are the Labor/Greens going to stuff up? They have made so many decisions on different things that don't have the the backing of the general public, and none of the decisions benefit Joe Blow down the street. The government should be listening to the people who pays the taxes not what the greens want. There is only one way to fix this, and that is don't vote Labor, greens or independants, as they haven't done any good either, at the next election.
-How is PEW or Save our Marine Life influencing the govt? How do they seem to have such clout?
-What are the proposed new sanctuaries and are they only talking about commercial or recfishing?
This part:
Victoria's Auditor-General questioned the effectiveness of sanctuary zones, reporting they had "uncertain benefits". A Department of Environment and Conservation audit of Jurien Bay Marine Park showed that despite 24 per cent being closed to line fishing there were no clear benefits after 10 years. of lock up.
-How is PEW or Save our Marine Life influencing the govt? How do they seem to have such clout?
This one is easy - one of the main "research" papers the goverment is getting its information from in support of marine parks and sanctuary zones is from the Ecology Dept of the University of Queensland at first glance this seems innocent enough however when reading the uni's research paper it lists its funding as coming from PEW. This raises questions about the paper being impartial (or not). The Queensland uni is not the only such research institute being funded by PEW or other green groups. PEW and green groups are pouring millions into such funding around the world. Put bluntly the research is skewed towards the results the green groups including PEW want.
Combine this with a hung goverment which labour then needed to side with the greens (Federal party) to form goverment and then appease them for helping them to get in by agreeing to certian concessions and wala the marine park network around australia is brought in depsite the fact that having a sanctuary zone banning fishing is going to do stuff all for the marine ecosystem anyway - but hey the goverment looks like they care for the enviorment and the greens are happy bed partners.
The fact is the real threat to our marine eco system is from runoff from the land and introduced species - banning fishing from certain areas will do nothing about either of these but hey doing anything about the real problem is, lets face it "in the too hard basket"
Unfortunately when they (PEW and other green orginisations) do the surveys for public opinion they ask something like "do you think we should have marine parks and sanctuary zones to help protect whales dolphins turtles and seals (insert picture of sad looking seal here) of course 99% say yes that sounds good. What they do not ask it what is your opinion on banning fishing from certain areas and do your actually think this will do anything to protect whales, dolphins, turtles and seals (insert picture of happy looking seal next to a man fishing with seal being in no danger here). They then go and tell everyone including the goverment that the public (apart from a few disgruntled seal killing fishermen) is in support of marine parks and sanctuary zones. The goverment unfortunately listens because support = votes
What are the proposed new sanctuaries and are they only talking about commercial or recfishing?
The Sanctuary zones propose to ban all fishing or taking of any marine organism from within its boundries i.e no fishing either Commercial or Recreational full stop.
Hope that helped
Cheers Paul
PS - that in fact is the short version (apologies)
-How is PEW or Save our Marine Life influencing the govt? How do they seem to have such clout?
This one is easy - one of the main "research" papers the goverment is getting its information from in support of marine parks and sanctuary zones is from the Ecology Dept of the University of Queensland at first glance this seems innocent enough however when reading the uni's research paper it lists its funding as coming from PEW. This raises questions about the paper being impartial (or not).
Paul were did you find the above info regarding who paid for the funding of this research paper? Sorry just want some sort of proof to back up that statement.
I always read stuff on line and when i asked questions the answer is always the same. Just google it but normally there version of the truth never can be found.
“The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland (2009) Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement.”
“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”
Further down in the report under acknowledgements we find this statement is funded by..........
Acknowledgements
“Funding support
This work has been supported by the Pew Environment Group (Wild Australia Project) and
by the institutions hosting individual researchers named above”.
Thanks Paul. I had a quick flick through and i now see you've highlighted the same point i did. That this paper was worked on by more than 40 independent scientists. To say that they came up with the end result only because Pew "Helped" fund the project is a bit of a stretch.
I will have to sit and read the whole thing when i get a second but my understanding is it only talks about what benefits, how to set up and how to manage and check/test areas.
I guess my point is everyone is just fighting each other. the fisherman are attacking the so called hippie green movement. I think we should put our hands up and proactive in the development of marine parks. Wouldn't that be better than nothing.
This government is not about protecting anything. they are all about tax and by raising more money to pay for they bad money management.
It's been a while since I read it and whilst its one of the papers/research being used its not the only one. I see your point about the 40 independent scientists but you should also note the paper was moderated (edited) by the ecology centre as well so I can only guess what bits they left out. PEW have provided a fair bit of funding to both the Ecology centre at the QLD uni and other institutions/unis as well so I have to wonder at the extent of moderation done an how much they feel they need to protect their funding.
After all I would imagine PEW and other enviormental groups would pull funding in an eyeblink if they started producing research which opposed thier goals and PEW in particular are known for being extremist in thier actions at times.
In regards to the PEW and enviourmental groups providing the funding in many instances its probably not that suprising given our goverment is not providing much and I can't think of many other places they would be able to get funding from (apart from Commercially which would also be biased).
I'm a little confused. If Frank is now against the Marine Park idea why did the Recfishwest submission agree to the zones. Bar moving a few boarders down near windy harbour? I read the Submission by Recfishwest and to be honest i feel they sold us out by agreeing with them.
I know i will be unpopular but i think the article is not correct and is flaming a fire that is not burning in saying the Save our marine life were all supportive for the proposed marine park ideas. In fact 46000 submissions said they weren't. What they did actually say is we support marine parks but only with better Science to back up were they should be placed to have the greatest impact. Not put here there and everywhere just to avoid mining and oil leases as it seems this is how the areas were first thought out.. As i said it will be unpopular but it would seem i was the only one on here that went to one of there meetings. ( I went so that i could make a informed decisions about something that is important to me both personally and commercially)
Basically, any time the government or its bodies want to make things happen, they get people in to do surveys and ask questions which are going to benefit their wants by as Paul said, they manipulate the question get the answer that they want. Our government and every other one in this world are only after two things. money and votes. Money to line their pockets and votes to get them back in again so they can line their pockets even more!!!
Bah, what's the bet Paul has a vested interest too. This is his 3rd article about the subject.
I still think Sanctuaries are good ideas, just not at a huge scale at first. Maybe paul should also talk about the successful New Zealand examples. Eg Goat Island etc if he doesn't want to come across as biased as the rest.
I still don't understand how other fisherman can really believe that rec fishing has no discernable impact on a marine ecosystem. We should definately have areas of no take, not only for the overflow benefits but it would also give us a great base comparison to make management decisions in other areas.
Championruby - I love to fish so yes I guess that makes me biased - given your on this site I'm guessing you fish too.- Everyone fisherman or not have some sort of impact - put a boat on the water and your having an impact by adding pollution from motors etc (even if very minimal). Flush a toilet well guess where some of it (treated or not) ends up. That being said no one has yet shown me any unbiased science that a sanctuary zone that ONLY BANS FISHING is going to have any real effect on preserving our marine ecosystems. Banning fishing may have a small benefit - it may also just push the effort to other surrounding areas putting them under more pressure. As you will see below my opposition is not nessecarily only about the fact they are going to ban fishing in certian zones but where they are going to put them. Not only this but here in SA we have the state goverment putting in Sanc. Zones at the same time the feds are doing the same - this amounts to a very large chunck of SA waters being lumped under a no fishing area. Fair Go!!
We should definately have areas of no take, not only for the overflow benefits but it would also give us a great base comparison to make management decisions in other areas.
This is my main gripe about this whole issue
1. -
One thing I do know is that runoff from the land and introduced species does a hell of a lot more damage to our ecosystem that rec fishing does - If you only ban fishing from a sanctuary zone and do nothing about these influences it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise you will not have an untouched system to base any management descisions on anyway. They are making these decisions to apease poeple that they care about the enviorment without making any real effort - lets face it tackling runoff and introduced species is in the too hard basket.
2. -
Where I do a lot of my fishing on the west coast of SA there have put the sanctuary zones right where we told them we did most of our fishing (we got well and truely sucked in in providing them with the info (sorry consultation)didn't we). These areas are generally near towns etc which rely heavily on fishing tourism - further more there are large areas along this section of coast which are both away from towns and due to the shere rugged nature and inaccessability of the coast very rarely fished. Now if the clowns in charge put a few sanctuary zones in these areas where no one fishes there would not be half the opposition we have against them because they would not affect our ability to fish where we fish now or where we can fish easily. Now if the clowns were really after an untouched area "AS A GREAT BASE COMPARISON TO MAKE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS wouldn't you think they would propose to put the zones in areas which are naturally largely untouched already WHY NOT??.
PS how many of these greenie clowns have shells or coral in thier loungeroom/houses to make them feel they are closer to nature, how many of them have thought about where these shells and coral came from and what effect they themselves have had on the marine ecosystem by purchasing them - (Adam is there a prize for quote of the week??).
PS only three articles, hell I thought I was more passionate about the issue than that.....
Just for the record I am a rec fisher only and have no commercial interest in fishing, Hell I don't even buy fish though I may eat a prawn cocktail at Xmas- (I don't eat prawns at other times of the year as I belive the practice of prawn trawlling is too destructive and don't belive in supporting this industry as a result - my view only - the wife loves her prawns but I can't convince her to leave them alone).
I take home fish to eat however love the sport fishing aspect more than I like eating fish - I only eat (apart from the chrisse prawns) what I catch myself and never order fish in a restaurant - they are not what I consider fresh compared to what I catch. As a result I often find myself releasing fish I either don't want to eat or when I have enough.
Hey I guess I'm a greenie clown and a (average) fisherman in one. I've done a degree in marine science also, so have some knowledge of the issue. Marine research is notoriously unpredictable and often finds it hard to find statistically significant results.
On your points
1. No arguement from me RE - runoff and habitat destruction, however it's too late to save habitat that has been developed and built over. Marine environments do have ecosystems that are non reliant on estuaries and are hence less effected by run off. These are more suitable for base line measurements. Also, even if a sanctuary zone ecosystem is affected by run off and is not a true baseline (eg before Human interactions), it still can show the impacts of fishing compared to areas next to it that are equally effected by runoff but are still fished upon.
2. I have read some of your posts regarding the location of the SA zones and it does sound like a cock-up and you guys involved got jipped. But the main benefit of a sanctuary zone isnt for measurement but conservation of biodiversity, I was just mentioning it as an added benefit. Anyhoo, why would they put santuary zones where no one fishes? Defeats the purpose of a no take zone if there is no fishing there in the first place.
I understand your concerns regarding the widespread introduction of sanctuaries in Australia, and would support the rollout of a few areas at a time over say a 10 year period to make sure it is having the desired effect .
By the way the Paul I was reffering to was the author of the newspaper article, not yourself . I think the count for yourself is more like 30 than 3...
Anyway hope it all works out for the best in your area.
Sorry if you thought otherwise but the greenie clown comment was a general one and in no way directed at yourself (or anyone else on this site for that matter).
2. I have read some of your posts regarding the location of the SA zones and it does sound like a cock-up and you guys involved got jipped. But the main benefit of a sanctuary zone isnt for measurement but conservation of biodiversity, I was just mentioning it as an added benefit. Anyhoo, why would they put santuary zones where no one fishes? Defeats the purpose of a no take zone if there is no fishing there in the first place.
The measurement benefit is always brought up (and not only by you) as one of the reasons we need sanctuary zone hence my comments on the hypocrisy of their current locations. And no I don't think this would defeat the purpose as fishing areas will expand as boats get bigger and better and technology also improves so I think it would be ensuring they are protected for the future without putting noses out of joint. Just my thoughts. I have never seen a scientist conducting a study on the west coast of SA or measuring anything and don't expect to either (Sanctuary zone or no sanctuary zone). Then again in all the fishing I have done there I have only seen fisheries there once too.
Also, even if a sanctuary zone ecosystem is affected by run off and is not a true baseline (eg before Human interactions), it still can show the impacts of fishing compared to areas next to it that are equally effected by runoff but are still fished upon.
Whilst natural runoff does have an effect it is natural and thus a natural part of the system. The "bad" runoff is bad due to containing man made contaminants (given your studies you probably know this) These are not only from built up areas but also from farm fertilisers and chemicals etc. I know what you are reffering to above and see you point however I have always questioned how much study are they actually going to do use these areas for vs how much are they just to apease people / certain groups that they are doing something for the enviorment when in actual fact they are doing very little (Given the real threats are still being ignored).
The zones the SA state goverment is bring in is being done by the dept for the enviorment when they have nothing to do with fisheries in this state (go figure) PIRSA are the goverment dept here is SA which covers fisheries and they themselves have suggested the zones will do little (by the main they have been relatively quiet on the issue due to not wanting/being able to critizise thier bosses). PIRSA's latest document on the state of fisheries in SA actually said no species in SA is currently under threat and the current regulations are actually working and some fishes have actually increased in number. We currently have no possesion limit in SA on any species just bag and boat limits. PIRSA are currently implimenting possesion limits to start in 2012 which most fishermen here support and have in fact been calling for for some time to stop a small minority stocking up on huge numbers of fish (that being said these persons are already breaking the law as they are in possension of what is deemed a commercial quantity and do not hold commercail licences anyway so that points to a lack of policing rather than gaps in the laws).
PS 30 articles - no way - 30 posts - underquoted..
Goat Island is a relatively small sanctuary (compared with the proposals) and in an area that is both highly productive and heavily fished, both commercially and rec.
Personally Id think it hard to compare to WA's situation both ecologically and results-wise?
Everyone is always going to be all for SOME sanctuary zones. Let's face it, if they were strategically placed base on REAL research then results would be more eye catching. A friend from up north who used to run a charter business told me a great story once.
Researches approached him and ask if he would take them out to do a fishstocks survey in the area. The day they went out they gave him specific coordinates of where they wanted to study. His reply was "I can tell you right now that ground is shit there are no fish there" only to be told plain and simple "we don't care that's where we want to go"
Now the only people that know whether that story has any merit or not unfortunately are the skipper and the researchers and of course if push came to shove peoples salaries would hold higher values in their minds and not the truth. If the researchers were to run testing programs that involved the public and proper studies in proper areas then I believe there would be less resistance on the whole issue. Hell if they did that Genesis would be more than happy to supply a vessel!!
Nobody wants to see our ocean ecosystems die out (or our land ones for that matter) but the future is, and always should be, in the hands of the people and not some piece of paper!
Nauti Buoy
Posts: 595
Date Joined: 20/04/09
Good article
At least the West can see the big picture. Pity Julia is in bed with the greens!
chris raff
Posts: 3257
Date Joined: 09/02/10
Caught some of Paul Murrays interview
last week ...apparently theres also some highly influential and financial peoples ( Holmes a court etc ) pushing for this to happen...
“Intelligence is like a four-wheel drive. It only allows you to get stuck in more remote places.”
big john
Posts: 8766
Date Joined: 20/07/06
Good article
Do your bit crew and get in their and at least support Paul by leaving a comment. Emails of support or ringing the talk back line on his program would be better!
WA based manufacturer and supplier of premium leadhead jigs, fligs, bucktail jigs, 'bulletproof' soft plastic jig heads and XOS bullet jig heads.
Jigs available online in my web store!
Alanby
Posts: 49
Date Joined: 14/10/11
It was an excellent
It was an excellent article.
Lets face it people, if we don't start standing up for ourselves we will all be soon selling our boatsand fishing gear and taking up lawn bowls.
Does anyone know if there is a partition or something started up that we could put our names onto, I know they are having a rally in Darwin this weekend.
They have made up bumper stickers " I Float and I Vote". It is sponsored by the NT Newspaper and others and they are sending it out with paper.
If not maybe it is something that we could do through this site???
whipasswaverunner
Posts: 181
Date Joined: 25/09/09
I'm so PI55ED off
What else are the Labor/Greens going to stuff up? They have made so many decisions on different things that don't have the the backing of the general public, and none of the decisions benefit Joe Blow down the street. The government should be listening to the people who pays the taxes not what the greens want. There is only one way to fix this, and that is don't vote Labor, greens or independants, as they haven't done any good either, at the next election.
knigit
Posts: 115
Date Joined: 19/12/10
Few questions: -How is PEW
Few questions:
-How is PEW or Save our Marine Life influencing the govt? How do they seem to have such clout?
-What are the proposed new sanctuaries and are they only talking about commercial or recfishing?
This part:
Victoria's Auditor-General questioned the effectiveness of sanctuary zones, reporting they had "uncertain benefits". A Department of Environment and Conservation audit of Jurien Bay Marine Park showed that despite 24 per cent being closed to line fishing there were no clear benefits after 10 years. of lock up.
- Doesn't make sense to me.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
-How is PEW or Save our
-How is PEW or Save our Marine Life influencing the govt? How do they seem to have such clout?
This one is easy - one of the main "research" papers the goverment is getting its information from in support of marine parks and sanctuary zones is from the Ecology Dept of the University of Queensland at first glance this seems innocent enough however when reading the uni's research paper it lists its funding as coming from PEW. This raises questions about the paper being impartial (or not). The Queensland uni is not the only such research institute being funded by PEW or other green groups. PEW and green groups are pouring millions into such funding around the world. Put bluntly the research is skewed towards the results the green groups including PEW want.
Combine this with a hung goverment which labour then needed to side with the greens (Federal party) to form goverment and then appease them for helping them to get in by agreeing to certian concessions and wala the marine park network around australia is brought in depsite the fact that having a sanctuary zone banning fishing is going to do stuff all for the marine ecosystem anyway - but hey the goverment looks like they care for the enviorment and the greens are happy bed partners.
The fact is the real threat to our marine eco system is from runoff from the land and introduced species - banning fishing from certain areas will do nothing about either of these but hey doing anything about the real problem is, lets face it "in the too hard basket"
Unfortunately when they (PEW and other green orginisations) do the surveys for public opinion they ask something like "do you think we should have marine parks and sanctuary zones to help protect whales dolphins turtles and seals (insert picture of sad looking seal here) of course 99% say yes that sounds good. What they do not ask it what is your opinion on banning fishing from certain areas and do your actually think this will do anything to protect whales, dolphins, turtles and seals (insert picture of happy looking seal next to a man fishing with seal being in no danger here). They then go and tell everyone including the goverment that the public (apart from a few disgruntled seal killing fishermen) is in support of marine parks and sanctuary zones. The goverment unfortunately listens because support = votes
What are the proposed new sanctuaries and are they only talking about commercial or recfishing?
The Sanctuary zones propose to ban all fishing or taking of any marine organism from within its boundries i.e no fishing either Commercial or Recreational full stop.
Hope that helped
Cheers Paul
PS - that in fact is the short version (apologies)
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Rod P
Posts: 725
Date Joined: 20/05/08
-How is PEW or Save our
-How is PEW or Save our Marine Life influencing the govt? How do they seem to have such clout?
This one is easy - one of the main "research" papers the goverment is getting its information from in support of marine parks and sanctuary zones is from the Ecology Dept of the University of Queensland at first glance this seems innocent enough however when reading the uni's research paper it lists its funding as coming from PEW. This raises questions about the paper being impartial (or not).
Paul were did you find the above info regarding who paid for the funding of this research paper? Sorry just want some sort of proof to back up that statement.
I always read stuff on line and when i asked questions the answer is always the same. Just google it but normally there version of the truth never can be found.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
Heres a direct link - hope
Heres a direct link - hope that helps
The following excerpts are taken from the Ecology Centre at the University Of Queensland (link below)
http://www.ecology.uq.edu.au/docs/Scientific_Principles_MPAs_c6.pdf
“The Ecology Centre, The University of Queensland (2009) Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia: A Guidance Statement.”
“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”
Further down in the report under acknowledgements we find this statement is funded by..........
Acknowledgements
“Funding support
This work has been supported by the Pew Environment Group (Wild Australia Project) and
by the institutions hosting individual researchers named above”.
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Rod P
Posts: 725
Date Joined: 20/05/08
Thanks Paul. I had a quick
Thanks Paul. I had a quick flick through and i now see you've highlighted the same point i did. That this paper was worked on by more than 40 independent scientists. To say that they came up with the end result only because Pew "Helped" fund the project is a bit of a stretch.
I will have to sit and read the whole thing when i get a second but my understanding is it only talks about what benefits, how to set up and how to manage and check/test areas.
I guess my point is everyone is just fighting each other. the fisherman are attacking the so called hippie green movement. I think we should put our hands up and proactive in the development of marine parks. Wouldn't that be better than nothing.
This government is not about protecting anything. they are all about tax and by raising more money to pay for they bad money management.
Thanks again for the reaidng.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
No problem Rod,It's been a
No problem Rod,
It's been a while since I read it and whilst its one of the papers/research being used its not the only one. I see your point about the 40 independent scientists but you should also note the paper was moderated (edited) by the ecology centre as well so I can only guess what bits they left out. PEW have provided a fair bit of funding to both the Ecology centre at the QLD uni and other institutions/unis as well so I have to wonder at the extent of moderation done an how much they feel they need to protect their funding.
After all I would imagine PEW and other enviormental groups would pull funding in an eyeblink if they started producing research which opposed thier goals and PEW in particular are known for being extremist in thier actions at times.
In regards to the PEW and enviourmental groups providing the funding in many instances its probably not that suprising given our goverment is not providing much and I can't think of many other places they would be able to get funding from (apart from Commercially which would also be biased).
Cheers
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Rod P
Posts: 725
Date Joined: 20/05/08
I'm a little confused. If
I'm a little confused. If Frank is now against the Marine Park idea why did the Recfishwest submission agree to the zones. Bar moving a few boarders down near windy harbour? I read the Submission by Recfishwest and to be honest i feel they sold us out by agreeing with them.
I know i will be unpopular but i think the article is not correct and is flaming a fire that is not burning in saying the Save our marine life were all supportive for the proposed marine park ideas. In fact 46000 submissions said they weren't. What they did actually say is we support marine parks but only with better Science to back up were they should be placed to have the greatest impact. Not put here there and everywhere just to avoid mining and oil leases as it seems this is how the areas were first thought out.. As i said it will be unpopular but it would seem i was the only one on here that went to one of there meetings. ( I went so that i could make a informed decisions about something that is important to me both personally and commercially)
davidbland50
Posts: 392
Date Joined: 24/07/11
It is all a lot of crock
Basically, any time the government or its bodies want to make things happen, they get people in to do surveys and ask questions which are going to benefit their wants by as Paul said, they manipulate the question get the answer that they want. Our government and every other one in this world are only after two things. money and votes. Money to line their pockets and votes to get them back in again so they can line their pockets even more!!!
No I am not cynical, either.
Wherever you go, there you are
championruby
Posts: 459
Date Joined: 20/01/11
Bah, what's the bet Paul has
Bah, what's the bet Paul has a vested interest too. This is his 3rd article about the subject.
I still think Sanctuaries are good ideas, just not at a huge scale at first. Maybe paul should also talk about the successful New Zealand examples. Eg Goat Island etc if he doesn't want to come across as biased as the rest.
I still don't understand how other fisherman can really believe that rec fishing has no discernable impact on a marine ecosystem. We should definately have areas of no take, not only for the overflow benefits but it would also give us a great base comparison to make management decisions in other areas.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
Championruby - I love to fish
Championruby - I love to fish so yes I guess that makes me biased - given your on this site I'm guessing you fish too.- Everyone fisherman or not have some sort of impact - put a boat on the water and your having an impact by adding pollution from motors etc (even if very minimal). Flush a toilet well guess where some of it (treated or not) ends up. That being said no one has yet shown me any unbiased science that a sanctuary zone that ONLY BANS FISHING is going to have any real effect on preserving our marine ecosystems. Banning fishing may have a small benefit - it may also just push the effort to other surrounding areas putting them under more pressure. As you will see below my opposition is not nessecarily only about the fact they are going to ban fishing in certian zones but where they are going to put them. Not only this but here in SA we have the state goverment putting in Sanc. Zones at the same time the feds are doing the same - this amounts to a very large chunck of SA waters being lumped under a no fishing area. Fair Go!!
We should definately have areas of no take, not only for the overflow benefits but it would also give us a great base comparison to make management decisions in other areas.
This is my main gripe about this whole issue
1. -
One thing I do know is that runoff from the land and introduced species does a hell of a lot more damage to our ecosystem that rec fishing does - If you only ban fishing from a sanctuary zone and do nothing about these influences it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realise you will not have an untouched system to base any management descisions on anyway. They are making these decisions to apease poeple that they care about the enviorment without making any real effort - lets face it tackling runoff and introduced species is in the too hard basket.
2. -
Where I do a lot of my fishing on the west coast of SA there have put the sanctuary zones right where we told them we did most of our fishing (we got well and truely sucked in in providing them with the info (sorry consultation)didn't we). These areas are generally near towns etc which rely heavily on fishing tourism - further more there are large areas along this section of coast which are both away from towns and due to the shere rugged nature and inaccessability of the coast very rarely fished. Now if the clowns in charge put a few sanctuary zones in these areas where no one fishes there would not be half the opposition we have against them because they would not affect our ability to fish where we fish now or where we can fish easily. Now if the clowns were really after an untouched area "AS A GREAT BASE COMPARISON TO MAKE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS wouldn't you think they would propose to put the zones in areas which are naturally largely untouched already WHY NOT??.
PS how many of these greenie clowns have shells or coral in thier loungeroom/houses to make them feel they are closer to nature, how many of them have thought about where these shells and coral came from and what effect they themselves have had on the marine ecosystem by purchasing them - (Adam is there a prize for quote of the week??).
PS only three articles, hell I thought I was more passionate about the issue than that.....
Cheers
Paul
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
Just for the record I am a
Just for the record I am a rec fisher only and have no commercial interest in fishing, Hell I don't even buy fish though I may eat a prawn cocktail at Xmas- (I don't eat prawns at other times of the year as I belive the practice of prawn trawlling is too destructive and don't belive in supporting this industry as a result - my view only - the wife loves her prawns but I can't convince her to leave them alone).
I take home fish to eat however love the sport fishing aspect more than I like eating fish - I only eat (apart from the chrisse prawns) what I catch myself and never order fish in a restaurant - they are not what I consider fresh compared to what I catch. As a result I often find myself releasing fish I either don't want to eat or when I have enough.
Just so everyone is aware of "my interests"
Cheers
Paul
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
championruby
Posts: 459
Date Joined: 20/01/11
Hey I guess I'm a greenie
Hey I guess I'm a greenie clown and a (average) fisherman in one. I've done a degree in marine science also, so have some knowledge of the issue. Marine research is notoriously unpredictable and often finds it hard to find statistically significant results.
On your points
1. No arguement from me RE - runoff and habitat destruction, however it's too late to save habitat that has been developed and built over. Marine environments do have ecosystems that are non reliant on estuaries and are hence less effected by run off. These are more suitable for base line measurements. Also, even if a sanctuary zone ecosystem is affected by run off and is not a true baseline (eg before Human interactions), it still can show the impacts of fishing compared to areas next to it that are equally effected by runoff but are still fished upon.
2. I have read some of your posts regarding the location of the SA zones and it does sound like a cock-up and you guys involved got jipped. But the main benefit of a sanctuary zone isnt for measurement but conservation of biodiversity, I was just mentioning it as an added benefit. Anyhoo, why would they put santuary zones where no one fishes? Defeats the purpose of a no take zone if there is no fishing there in the first place.
I understand your concerns regarding the widespread introduction of sanctuaries in Australia, and would support the rollout of a few areas at a time over say a 10 year period to make sure it is having the desired effect .
By the way the Paul I was reffering to was the author of the newspaper article, not yourself . I think the count for yourself is more like 30 than 3...
Anyway hope it all works out for the best in your area.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
Sorry if you thought
Sorry if you thought otherwise but the greenie clown comment was a general one and in no way directed at yourself (or anyone else on this site for that matter).
2. I have read some of your posts regarding the location of the SA zones and it does sound like a cock-up and you guys involved got jipped. But the main benefit of a sanctuary zone isnt for measurement but conservation of biodiversity, I was just mentioning it as an added benefit. Anyhoo, why would they put santuary zones where no one fishes? Defeats the purpose of a no take zone if there is no fishing there in the first place.
The measurement benefit is always brought up (and not only by you) as one of the reasons we need sanctuary zone hence my comments on the hypocrisy of their current locations. And no I don't think this would defeat the purpose as fishing areas will expand as boats get bigger and better and technology also improves so I think it would be ensuring they are protected for the future without putting noses out of joint. Just my thoughts. I have never seen a scientist conducting a study on the west coast of SA or measuring anything and don't expect to either (Sanctuary zone or no sanctuary zone). Then again in all the fishing I have done there I have only seen fisheries there once too.
Also, even if a sanctuary zone ecosystem is affected by run off and is not a true baseline (eg before Human interactions), it still can show the impacts of fishing compared to areas next to it that are equally effected by runoff but are still fished upon.
Whilst natural runoff does have an effect it is natural and thus a natural part of the system. The "bad" runoff is bad due to containing man made contaminants (given your studies you probably know this) These are not only from built up areas but also from farm fertilisers and chemicals etc. I know what you are reffering to above and see you point however I have always questioned how much study are they actually going to do use these areas for vs how much are they just to apease people / certain groups that they are doing something for the enviorment when in actual fact they are doing very little (Given the real threats are still being ignored).
The zones the SA state goverment is bring in is being done by the dept for the enviorment when they have nothing to do with fisheries in this state (go figure) PIRSA are the goverment dept here is SA which covers fisheries and they themselves have suggested the zones will do little (by the main they have been relatively quiet on the issue due to not wanting/being able to critizise thier bosses). PIRSA's latest document on the state of fisheries in SA actually said no species in SA is currently under threat and the current regulations are actually working and some fishes have actually increased in number. We currently have no possesion limit in SA on any species just bag and boat limits. PIRSA are currently implimenting possesion limits to start in 2012 which most fishermen here support and have in fact been calling for for some time to stop a small minority stocking up on huge numbers of fish (that being said these persons are already breaking the law as they are in possension of what is deemed a commercial quantity and do not hold commercail licences anyway so that points to a lack of policing rather than gaps in the laws).
PS 30 articles - no way - 30 posts - underquoted..
cheers
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
championruby
Posts: 459
Date Joined: 20/01/11
No offense taken even if it
No offense taken even if it was aimed at me. Need thick skin around most fisherman if you support "green" causes.
Paul H
Posts: 2104
Date Joined: 18/01/07
You should try living with my
You should try living with my wife!! Sorry Honey!! Glad she doesn't read my posts!!
Youtube Channel - FishOnLine Productions
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbUVNa-ViyGm_FTDSv4Nqzg/videos
smash
Posts: 434
Date Joined: 01/12/10
Goat Island
Goat Island is a relatively small sanctuary (compared with the proposals) and in an area that is both highly productive and heavily fished, both commercially and rec.
Personally Id think it hard to compare to WA's situation both ecologically and results-wise?
GenesisCraft
Posts: 27
Date Joined: 03/08/11
Definately Suss!!
Everyone is always going to be all for SOME sanctuary zones. Let's face it, if they were strategically placed base on REAL research then results would be more eye catching. A friend from up north who used to run a charter business told me a great story once.
Researches approached him and ask if he would take them out to do a fishstocks survey in the area. The day they went out they gave him specific coordinates of where they wanted to study. His reply was "I can tell you right now that ground is shit there are no fish there" only to be told plain and simple "we don't care that's where we want to go"
Now the only people that know whether that story has any merit or not unfortunately are the skipper and the researchers and of course if push came to shove peoples salaries would hold higher values in their minds and not the truth. If the researchers were to run testing programs that involved the public and proper studies in proper areas then I believe there would be less resistance on the whole issue. Hell if they did that Genesis would be more than happy to supply a vessel!!
Nobody wants to see our ocean ecosystems die out (or our land ones for that matter) but the future is, and always should be, in the hands of the people and not some piece of paper!
Genesis Craft Management
dirtball
Posts: 49
Date Joined: 26/02/11
As soon as I read the name
As soon as I read the name Gillard, I switched off.
The wranger needs to go.
harro
Posts: 1959
Date Joined: 07/02/08
Hm
Lol
:::: Bass Hunter ::::