I think i can guess.

I can't understand why i can't get anyone to say what they think is fair for marine parks? Does anyone want them at all on here or is it just lets fish till we run out? The oceans are all of ours resources  so why just sit back and let Commercial fishermen, Mining and oil and greedy anglers take it all until its all gone?

Not wanting a argument just wanting a discussion or a insight into peoples opinions are that's all.

One of my biggest bug bears is poaching. Commercials who take too much, illegal fisherman or rec anglers who take over their limit. I would like to see better support from the government and people being properly charged. I think this a big whole that needs closing but i also support areas of total protection.

if you knew where most of those submissions came from you would be flabbergasted.......... think somewhere in the middle of europe,pushed on by pew groups.

Squidvisous i was at the meeting. I know were the submissions came from. I did educate myself in the matter and because i'm pro Marine parks im labeled a greenie. Is that fair.

Howard there was a agreement made by all world nations to have marine parks established by 2012 and that's why the government is moving. the world economy has suggested at least 20% should be put forward as the ocean is in serous decline world wide. I thinks something like 45% of all marine life is already depleted and they are saying we don't have much longer to react.

Lets be honest any fisherman will admit that we have less fish today than ever before. This situation is not going to get any better unless we do something about it NOW. One of the unique parts if our coastline is many of our fish are very slow aging in relation to other parts of the world.

I totally agree about people who push a agenda just to make themselves feel good. Many of those people are greenies. Sadly nowadays many organisations are all about making money and push unsupported data to help raise awareness for there cause and therefor more money.

Do you really think Rod P that the Federal government are better equipped to manage our fish stocks than the state government can  I strongly disagree with you and totally agree with the comments that Colin Barnett made recently that State waters should extend out to 10 nautical miles offshore for better fish management and there is certainly a lot of scientific evidence that marine parks are not a good management tool for fish stocks because of spill-over and that is what my main opposition is to the "Commonwealth" marine parks plan is.  Just by reading the Feds. Marine Parks plan I doubt very much that a lot of research has been done in the Southwest and they are generalising on what is happening in other parts of the world, as you mentioned, which in my opinion is not the way our fishery should be managed. Just reverse the situation around and if the worlds fisheries were in a very healthy state and ours wasn't would you then be reluctant to take action using the rest of the world as an example. Don't think so.Then on the other hand if you're suggesting that in some way the fish habitat and bio-diversity has been compromised in the Southwest by fishing and in particular Recreational fishing let's see the evidence which hasn't been produced as yet so we can judge for our-selves which is again a completely different issue.

SO you don't think that we can over fish our current stocks by doing nothing?

That's my point. I haven't missed anything really. I believe the current suggestions have been selected by our federal Government with very little research at all. Maybe other than if we lock out these areas we can still continue to sell the oil rights.

I don't want to see oil rigs in precious areas, i don't want them drag netting the trench and other deep waters and i do believe that we are over fishing our waters. Why do people now travel to two rocks to fish? Because there was less fishing pressure and so they spread out after over fishing our local area. I'd suggest the two rocks area is now suffering and so people are now traveling to Jurien bay and further up we go. In twenty years were will we be able to travel to if we do nothing? The population is growing so that means more and more impact on our oceans..

What other measures can we take. No one wants bag limits decreased anymore. 

Or we all put our heads in the sand and when there  is no stocks left at all then what? Who will we complain to? 

There has been much more going on than many realise... when was the last time you saw a boat laying 5 to 10k's of shark net between hillarys and rottnest?  5-6 years ago there were 16 of them running the metro coast and a decade before that even more...

you cannot change the daily bag limits and after 12 months say htey are or are not working.. these things take time... it is reassuring that the current data is trending in favour of our current regulations... if this is the case and the powers that be keep on top of it, why do we need marine parks at all. if the current situation sees a slow but gradual increase in stocks then we are in a truly sustainable environment looking after the current the future and cleaning up from the past...

there have been many changes since the last analysys of what research data is available, so much of what is talked about from 2006 -2008 studies etc and much before that is now almost irrelevant for the future and is now merely a research control point. 2 years of serious research is now required to analise and report on the next control point, and so on so we ensure we not only sustain our fishing but improve it... building a marine park is not going to save the world, it will provide a new master control point.

and please stop bagging the commericial fisherman, if it wasn't for them joe blogs would not be able to get a feed of fish from the supermarket, they have a right to earn a living just like the rest of you. and before you say they can catch there own from the beach when was the last time you slaughterd a caow or packed your own home grown peas into a freezer bag.. i thought not.

just a thought. greeenies are good to listen to they do occassionaly have some good ideas, they should never be relied upon. don't always believe what the science reports it may not always be as it seems, after all, many scientists would not have a job if there was no global warming, or if the environment was not on the brink of iminant colapse. the more dire the situation the more they get paid the valuable they become and the more of them are needed...

I whole heartedly back up everything you have written above, and is exactly as I would have written.

I have seen it from all sides I reckon after 25 years at sea.

Add also-RodP, who is dragnetting the trench?

Requests are in at the moment to the Government wanting to restart drag netting the Trench.

My point is this, why not protect some of our state for future? So you're all saying fishing in Perth is improving? We have seen some big changes lately but with a increasing population do you really think the stock will be able to keep up? Let alone improve?

I spoke with a guy this morning, a very good angler and he was telling me of a new honey spot he found. Best i've seen for years he says, guess where he was fishing Lancelin. Metro guys are heading further and further a field why? Because local fishing is decreasing. 

Blue juice all i ever hear is how people go fishing on charters and they don't catch alot of fish. Why is that? Because if there's lots of fish surely a professional charter operator should be able to guarantee a good catch especially if there's lots of fish around.

I was reading the state mining (government) website the other day and the areas of proposed mining/oil rigs will astound many people. Maybe we should be grateful that there coming as at least then anglers will be also locked out (fishing around rigs is a big no no).

Oh and Howard i don't miss judge anything, what facts am i disregarding . I simply asked why not support some level of protection, in fact if you read the Recfish west submission they supported most of the current proposal except for a few boundary changes.

I asked for peoples ideas on why we think its okay to just take everything for ourselves and leave nothing for our children.

I don't consider myself a greenie as much as i'm sure you don't see yourself a redneck but whats wrong with asking a question and a debate about the benifits? I Heard many great wa Anglers supporting Marine parks. Hell i even just listened to Scott Coglan saying they are a good thing so are they all that bad?

We don't own this planet, we only have it on loan from our children and we should pass it on at least how we found it.

Smash (I have seen it from all sides I reckon after 25 years at sea.")

So in your opinion we have no worry with fish stocks being reduced in areas like Perth waters?

Do you not see any reason to support more changes as our polulation grows and more and more, whilst people start fishing with better and better gear?

Serous question.. 

Okay i have asked for the details your requesting as i am also just finding my way through all of this. As i said i think it better to research things myself and trust me i have read a hell of lot in the last few weeks.

My understanding was 5 miles from a rig but that was just my own info from what i through it was. Cool if you can fish with in 500 meters of a oil rig than i stand corrected.

I'm all for locking up a area but as the experts (like Scott Choglan, Rec fishwest and others)have said is it needs to be the right area. The map's i saw showed mostly oil/mining areas not being affected and that is what scares me. I have also asked for a copy of that literature and maps to show.

SO there's no evidence showing too much fishing pressure? So what info is our fisheries working on?

I read these forums all the time. People are fishing more and more a field because our metro area is in trouble. Simple. I don't need a scientist to tell me that. A guy through yesterday was complaining about a charter he took out of Darwin. He said it was SH-t to say the least. He talked with others who went on different charters up there and they all said the same thing. With 10 charter boats the area is just fished out. Now i've never fished there so i'm only working on info supplied to me first hand. Apparently the charters are having to go further and further out to try and catch fish. Why is that? Surely the fish in close are just smarter or maybe it could be fishing pressure? How will that area be in ten or twenty years. Once again i'm not a scientist but i think i can see the writing on the wall. How many other areas all up and down our coast is this effecting? 

I've been told alot of things so far and all of it i have asked for proof as well. For instance i was told that Tim Nickol is in the oil companies pocket, apparently the evidence is just everywhere. But i can't find any of that.

My first point and the main one that has been missed all along is that why not lock up some areas as a safety net? Are you so sure that out local Fisher's guys have all the answers and if they prove to get it wrong then what? After its too late it is too late.

So would we better not instead of sticking our heads in the sand (which seems to be the answer as per the quantity of replies) stepping up and suggesting better alternate areas that will actually work.

You forget this will hurt my business. But i can at least see that a barren life less coast would hurt it even more in the long run. 

I have no idea what your business is sorry?

Believe it or not oil rigs, having worked in very close proximity to many prominent oil rigs in both Bass Strait and North West Shelf-and I can asure you that is where the fish ARE, and dolphins, whales, whale sharks, mantas etc.

Of course that doesnt mean at all that its a reason to put them everywhere.

You seem to be ignoring several points raised repeatedly though

1/ Big changes have already been made, not only in the metro area but most of the southern region.

-At risk of sounding like a parrot they are;

-no commercial fishing in Metro area,

-removal of most of the FBL that were floating around,

-no amateur fishing from commercial vessels,

-demersal closure period,

-restricted bag limits,

-RFBL,

-more santuary areas (Rottnest, Jurien, Abrolhos)

-Baldy closure at Abrolhos

No-one, especially the greenies has any evidence or especially proof that these measures are either not working or insufficient, as these studies havent been done and even if they were, no matter what the outcome there are groups not interested unless it says what they want. (both sides of course)

Darwin AFAIK has NONE of these measures that I know of-so how can you compare it?

Rod P i fully understand your concerns... I want lots of fish and beautiful clean air for my great children and theres.. but you need to open your eyes... its all about facys and figures that can be made to show what they want.

I do not disagree that the fishing is worse now than in the 70's much worse.. however many changes have been made. since the 2006 study enourmous changes have been made bag limits 8 to 2 cat one fish and a 2 month closure(though personally i don't believe the closure is or will achieve anything) massive cuts to not only the commercial fleets but enourmous cuts to the allowed  quota of catch for them and the number of days they work etc. shark fishing gone totally from the metro area (i would also like to remind all that it was the local shark industry that brought the plight of declining fish stock to deaf ears some 15-16 years ago)

now rod about facts and figures... fact - an industry estimated its by-catch at 1500 ton a year (demersal being put back dead, something was done about this and the 1500 ton a year was saved - yet this was not included in the facts and figures in any study released in 2008, 2009, 2010... we got a ban to save 500 ton a year but they missed 1500 ton a year because that is what was wanted.

there is no money in safety and things being OK ... only in fear doom and destruction, when was the last time you bought a paper to read about the good samaritan helping old people or anything good, when was the last time you had a massive conversation about the good things in life in general with your friends  its all about doom and gloom...

why do they only talk about global warming over the last 100 - 120 years when man kind flourished for decades on the planet with temperatures far warmer than we have now for centurys in the bronze age period and the medieval periods. and that CO2 levels have existed higher on this planet while temperatures have been lower and i could go on.

if science only looks at the negative they will only find the negative, we only seek what we look for, we will never find it if we don't look.

if fish stocks prove to be healthy  and improvingand man kind is not the cause of global warming  - how many people will not have a job?

now before you label me a heratic because I believe different from you, ask the question why do the marine parks ban the commercial and recreational not the oil and gas. why such vast tracks of the great australian bight not lancelin which you tell me should be protected and jurien bay so we don't stuff them up too,  if you can see it why can't they.

rod the marine parks are not about the fish, there is no science in the selection just location types... in many of the locations they would have trouble telling you 15% of the species of fish

rod - people need causes to feel useful, once the public belive even a portion of extreme views, the extremist is no longer extreme and now must be more so... why does the co founder of green piece bel;ieve what is going on now is all wrong and that things have gone too far and are getting out of hand.

I guess I question the purpose of these Marine Sanctuaries being so large and how they have come to that decision, nearly from Canarvon to Adelaide. 

For example. Lets anaylse the foreward for the purpose of this Marine area.

"In parts of the south-west, almost 90 per cent of the marine species are not found anywhere else in the world. A third of the world’s whale and dolphin species are found in the region."

We don't hunt whales and dolphins anymore, the Japanese do but this is still in Australia's territorial waters so they can't hunt them in this zone anyway.  There may be some by-catch from fish trawlers and the like, but that number is likely to be significantly less than the recruitment rate and is probably significantly less than the damage ocean pollution causes.

These sanctuaries won't impact whales, turtles or dolphins.  They won't stop mining (Shell have just been approved in the Ningaloo Marine Park, 50km from the reef, now a World heritage listed area)  The only thing it is going to stop is fishing, sure it is a depletive activity, but the fisheries department do its best to manage it and that is who it should be left too, not the federal government which is lent on my left wing power brokers.

"We know that Australia’s oceans are a direct link for trade with the world. Our commercial and recreational fishing and energy sectors help to drive economic and social prosperity in communities throughout the nation.
But we also know that Australians need their oceans to be healthy if they are going to provide us with fish to eat, a place to fish, sustainable tourism opportunities and a place for families enjoy for generations to come."

What tourism opportunities do these fish provide?  It's the fact people can go and catch them which provides that tourism, people can't necessarily go and see them because they are in water over 10m deep so the tourism opportunity that presents is relatively small.  Its nice for the conservation council to show a photo of the Coral Bay spangled emperor in 2 foot of water, but that is not a result of sanctuary zones, its a result of people hand feeding them over the years in Bills bay and now it is being portrayed by the Conservation Council as the success of Sanctuaries.  (Having said that, it is great that those one's can't be caught, but locking up the entire area would kill Coral Bay as it has been primarily a fishing town)

Not all fisherman do have good intentions - but that is what the fisheries department is for, a commercial operator gets caught doing the wrong thing and they can lose their license and their livelihood.  Most of them don't take that risk because it's the only thing they know, but they aren't out there deliberately killing dolphins and whales, the things which drive eco-tourism.  Fishing is heavily regulated at the present and is the heaviest its ever been and in my opinion the fisheries department are well in tune with whats going on, I'd go as far as saying as definitely more than a conservation group which is 'selecting' 'independent' science, some of which is funded by the PEW group with serious agendas.....

The thing which angers me so much is seeing emails from the Conservation Council with photo's of a dolphin in it or some whales to make everyone feel all cuddly feely and sign things away without consideration of the bigger picture.

I have no problems with marine sanctuaries and think they are the way forward, but by simply blanketing a whole area and saying, lets make Australia the worlds largest marine sanctuary, is crazy talk in my thinking.  If they used science and rational thinking and placed these marine sanctuaries in specific areas which allowed for balance then things may be different.  I'm not arguing against marine sanctuaries, I'm arguing against the process which has been used in deciding this one and how it is being placed with little fore-thought to people's (fisherman's) livelihoods.  All it will do is make a hole in the market for fish, which will be filled by another country causing economic loss to Australian family and industry (see MP foreward again)  Having worked in aquaculture for a while as well, it is still going to be a fair while before we can rely on cultured fish to replace the demand for wild stocks, which is unfortunate, but the way it goes.  That's not to say we should rape our ocean's bare until that time, but with careful management plans that cater for the environmental wellbeing of our oceans whilst maintaining support for our fisherman and their families, then maybe we can come to some middle ground that looks after everyone rather than going to the ridiculous levels this current plan has IMO.

Good post Adam, agree with most of it.

The two main problems I see with fishing here are:

1. Fisheries are seriously underfunded and can't police the regulations properly.

2. Not enough people take personal reponsibilty and respect the regulations. I've seen this happen countless times and you only need to read this site to stories of this at regular intervals. A fair proportion of rec fishos are everyone's worst enemy.

Just another point. Bluejuice - I would refrain from commenting climate change as you clearly know nothing about the subject, which you have proved with the scientist's are making this up'' line, a favourite of the petro-chemical companies.

Last point, it's quite laughable that people use the greenies stereotype on here for anyone that cares about the environment.

rod p i do not agree with your comment about darwin being fished out i was there 6 months ago and it was the best fishing i have ever done,even better than skarks bay so i dont know who you spoke to or what charter they went on, i went on 3 different charters and they all produce great fishing,dont believe everything you read!

Smash - no humour and no stereotype either. I simply quoted him and commented on the lack of accuracy and knowledge in his posts about climate change.

As far as your comments go on fisheries and policing, I think you're taking what i have said to the extreme. It is a fact that fisheries are underfunded and under staffed for the job in hand, ask Adam, I remember posts from him on the amount of officers covering a huge stretch of coastline. I'm not even going to pretend to know the figures he quoted, but it didn't look great and it's not much better in the metro area either.

Don't get me wrong, I dont want the Gestapo at every boat ramp and rock wall, but at the moment you won't get checked much, but it would be good to be in a position in the future where someone thinks twice about doing the wrong thing as there is a reasonable to good chance they'll be checked.

This also needs to be combined with bigger, clearer info and sings at boat ramps and rock walls explaining the rules properly and a much higher level of education on the subject, so there can be no excuses.

Science wise, again, I'm not up with the last scientific research, but looking from one side of the fence we need to look at the impact of the new closures etc, but the other side of the fence are saying that it might be too late if we wait. It's difficult to call and I'm no expert on the matter.

As for worrying about the greenie thing, I don't. People need to realise that someone who cares about the environment aren't 'tree hugging', dole bludging hippies. That is as offensive as all of the uk rioters being labelled as dole scrounging benefit cheats and it's wrong.

What my original post was that the proposal put up by the Fed Government is really not going to do any good. IMHO and in Save our Marine Life's from my understanding.

What i said is that it doesn't hurt to educate yourself. I have read all the facts and reports. My point again is that these people want protection for our coast and they are not happy with the governments current proposal at all. BECAUSE IT HAS MISSED THE KEY AREAS OF PROTECTION AND IT HAS LEFT OTHER AREAS OPEN SLATHER FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY. 

I've said it in caps because i was at the meeting and they do not support mining/oil/gas. I challenge anyone else on here who claims to have the facts regarding the 41000 plus submissions sent in and the meeting to confirm they were there???? Was anyone ??

They did not even suggest areas or the amount of areas to be locked up. They simply said to the government do better. 

I know all about the changes of late. I am in the marine industry for those of you who don't know, i own a boat yard. But do we really think the changes are going to be enough.. Blue juice you seem to think they will be. I simply don't. I think we need to do better. I don't want to have to Lancelin to catch fish. I want to be able to catch fish in the Perth metro area.

Adam has just said he supports Marine parks. So many of our esteemed fisher folk all agree so can they really be that bad. Yes if they are in the wrong spot, if they are a ruse just to satisfy greenies and yes if they don't stop oil/mining.  

One of the biggest changes i have seen is reports from the Three Kings area in NZ. Marine sanctury has produced what is some of the worlds best fisheries. It took 14 years plus but who would like that of our coast...

If anyone is interested i have a copy of the submission that Save Our Marine Life Submited. Let me know and i'll copy and past.

One last point i'm not saying i agree with everything they have said or will say. I'm throwing my weight in behind Marine Parks becuse i think it makes good sense.  

There was alot from overseas Reefmonkey. Possibly more than local. But i look at it this way. We now live in a world economy. 

I will also concur that i am also guilty of submitting and protesting issues overseas.

I don't support the killing of dolphins in Japan so i let them know. I don't support the cutting down of timber and jungles that house Orangutan's for palm oil crops so i let them know. I don't support the mindless killing of whales in the Faroes for sport and tradition, killing of seals in Canada and Namibia, over exploitation and illegal fisheries on Tuna of the coast of Libya, hunting of Wolves in Alaska, farming of bears for Biyle. Everywhere you turn these days you will see our planet being exploited beyond what i think is fair and reasonable. I also don't agree with people being killed whist the rest of the world stands by(ie i support our armed forces helping out and forcing our will and principals on others). So i put my will onto other countries that possibly say my views are not warrented as im not a local.

So i guess the rest of the world agrees that we should do something to support WA. If i enter into there politics then i guess i have to accept them and there opinions.

I guess its like us having a say on the Great Barrier reef. We are also not locals so were is the line drawn. Should only the people of Exmouth vote on Ningaloo or all of WA, Australia or is it a world heritage issue?

I consider myself a citizen of the world that's all. I eat meat, i fish, i have no issue with live animal exports i burn fuel at an alarming rate so I'm no greenine, just thought the topic of marine parks is well worth a debate on a fishing forum..  Pros and cons and best location and the size's.

Sorry one last point i'm sure that the government would take into consideration were the submissions came from.

Howard i don't know were you get your info. As for sea lion population what does that have to do with marine parks or even this debate. If you want to start a thread about greenies and how dumb some of them are i will be happy to post up some really funny ones for you. Just because a few are over the top doesn't diminish the message. Some anglers are redneck rapists (of the ocean) and yet I'm not tarring you the same, as your a fishermen.

I'd like to see the link your referring to. We actually have a real situation now that seals and sea lion populations are swelling in many areas, causing problems to other sea life. For example in SA they are now killing of all the penguin populations. Why are seals now a problem, over fishing for sharks has meant less pressure on seals so the ecosystem is now out of balance and we now need to either cull seals or sterilize them or something, no one yet has s good answer. So were you get your info from I'd like to know. Please put up a link.

Continuing trying to debate this i would think the government would see overseas submissions as a wake up call. They will be now thinking "Hey we have international pressure to get this right" . Honestly i don't think from what I've read the government have taken any of Rec fisherman's needs into consideration. I believe they have gone for areas that they think will slip through with little resistance and no ramifications for there mining leases.

So my Submission asked them to do a better job, to re consider the areas. To show some form of science as to why the areas they have chosen and why they have ignored important areas of obvious protection that area of higher value that will be more helpful in the long run for our fisheries..

One quick question for rod after reading through this whole thread.

"BECAUSE IT HAS MISSED THE KEY AREAS OF PROTECTION AND IT HAS LEFT OTHER AREAS OPEN SLATHER FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY."

Can you highlight these key areas of protection and the areas of open slather for oil and gas please?

You missed Shark Bay or at least from Cape Peron through to Cape Cuvier.

At this moment they are doing an aerial geophysical survey from about 5 miles inland through to 5nm west of Dorre, and Bernier islands searching for any magnetic anomalies that may produce fault lines showing where oil/ gas or other minerals could be located. This survey is funded directly by the federal government.

Seems that a lot of false figures get thrown around in some peoples aim to get their point across, like 15 shark netters working in the metro waters, to my knowledge there was no more than 4 at that time, Smythie, from Freo, Greeny from Two Rocks, Scimone from Bunbury who had metro units and one other who I think was also from Freo.

Carnarvonite i was simply quoting the areas that were highlighted in the latest southwest submission. Shark bay is a great example of what can happen. How is fishing changing for Pink Snapper up that way since the area was protected. I consistently hear about good things happening for Pink Snapper. Maybe in a few more years we will see them spreading out into other areas and fishing improving.

As for miss quotes from both sides to support your argument. I agree totally and i guess that what id like to see, some better supported arguments with facts to back them up. I read a blog the other day that was talking about 45% of our coast is now sold or under lease agreement for mining. Still yet to get that fact but that is frightening to me if true.

it wasnt about the fishing, about the money!!!! the areas down south are going to be drilled, now i,m seeing the bigger picture, no fishing because we are MINING, wtf

Im getting a little confused by your posts now.

Fishing and Oil and Gas-they might be two things you and others) are against but why do you link them together? Oil and Gas doesnt equal no fish? Of course a spill can cause enormous damage but really, they are rare in a large scale destructive scenario?

Also-you want to catch fish in the Perth metro area (certainly up to recent com and rec changes the most heavily targetted stocks in WA), but you dont believe the recent changes will have any effect-so what do you want introduced that will still allow you to fish? The only change now could be either 1 fish or no fish? Or is the NIMBY rules? Stop everyone AROUND where you fish so there is some spill over in your region?

Have you tried as I suggested seeing if the opposite side of the discussion will allow any debate on their sites? This will tell you at least who is prepared to debate it and who "already has their mind made up"?

Smash i'm not opposed to fishing. I don't even see how you got that. What the post started about was the marine parks proposal. The link between oil and gas/mining and fishing and marine parks is simple. I'll spell it out.

IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE MARINE PARKS PROPOSED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE IN THE AREAS THAT THEY ARE BECUASE IT BEST SERVES THE GOVRENMENT AND NO PROSPOSED OIL/GAS OR MINING WILL BE EFFECTED.

SO THERE FOR, I THINK THAT THEY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE RIGHT PLACE TO PUT THE PARKS.

THAT IS THE SAME OPINION THAT I GOT FROM THE "SAVE OUR MARINE LIFE" GROUP...

Sorry to SHOUT it but i think it important. As for oil spills and how rare they are, who knows, i think we'll all be fu-ked if we have a major spill of our local coast to be honest. Up north at least there is a bit more infrastructure to deal with one. This isn't really my argument though.

We do need oil and gas i have no issue with mining. I have a huge issue with this government trying to sell us crap packed as roses and that's what this proposal did. IMHO 

Sorry i also missed your other point Smash. I do actually believe the changes made by our state fisheries will make a big difference to our local catches. I fully support them. I even talk to enough people and i believe significant changes are already starting to show some promising signs. However with a ever growing population and newer technologies, bigger boats, people now heading further and further out how long will we it be until rec fish pressure will start to claw back stocks again? 

A question for you is do you think the current solution will be good enough? for the next 10 years? or next 50 years?

I have just chased up the info i wanted to show and hopefully soon will have it.