Westport - Artificial Reef Survey for Cockburn Sound
Submitted by Ush on Tue, 2025-09-09 16:32
Gday all,
Westport have put out a survey to gauge interest and thoughts on an artificlal reef for the Sound. See link below:
https://westport.wa.gov.au/about/
I am all for providing new habitats and fishing oppurtunities for those who frequent the Sound - however not at the expense of destroying what we have existing. Over the years we have bent over backwards in adjusting to the ever changing bag limits and open seasons for Pink Snapper in the Sound - and for good reason - all for it to be potentially done in vain with this new Kwinana Port.
Am I the only one who interprets this as a way to appease us fishos as they anticipate the damage that will be done?
Have your say.
Cheers
____________________________________________________________________________
Got keen?
Livewire
Posts: 322
Date Joined: 25/11/16
This is a double bluff by
This is a double bluff by Westport, we want help build you some new artificial reefs, because when we dredge the sound we're going to destroy the environment you have now!! Unfortunately they are running a misinformation campaign, the sound provides a protected and relatively safe place for everyone to use. We have protected the fisherie the best we can. Once Westport go ahead it'll be destroyed and push people out of the protected waters. Not getting my vote.
Livewire
Posts: 322
Date Joined: 25/11/16
This is a double bluff by
This is a double bluff by Westport, we want help build you some new artificial reefs, because when we dredge the sound we're going to destroy the environment you have now!! Unfortunately they are running a misinformation campaign, the sound provides a protected and relatively safe place for everyone to use. We have protected the fisherie the best we can. Once Westport go ahead it'll be destroyed and push people out of the protected waters. Not getting my vote.
Lefty 44
Posts: 176
Date Joined: 04/12/17
Westport
Anything coming from them shall be concidered lies.
The people who run Westport are highly invested in its outcome especially financially.
It's as corrupt as it gets.
Mark_M
Posts: 210
Date Joined: 10/04/15
Survey link here
https://westport.wa.gov.au/engagement/fishing-and-recreation/
One can also register to be part of the consultaion 'hub', although this Govt's definition of consultation is very different from mine
The Govt is funding the Western Australian Marine Science Institution (WAMSI is UWA based) to conduct the research for many projects related to Westport.
It has already reported on "community values" and "non-fishing activities", the rec-fishing project has yet to be released, so I presume this survey will inform that report.
Note that WAMSI reports are being used by Govt for plans in Shark Bay & Exmouth!
WAMSI science reports related to Westport are here:
https://westport.wa.gov.au/content/science-reports/?page=1
Interestingly, the Community Values report (Oct '24) notes that penguins and dolphins (85%) are more important to making the area a 'pleasant place' and 'recreational satisfaction' than any other flora or fauna, including fish.
This report is based on less than 1500 respondents; the overall proportion agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statement (that it was important that marine flora and fauna in Cockburn Sound were around for future generations) was highest for penguins, dolphins and fish (97%).
Key conclusions: 66 pages here, happy reading
"...analysis indicates that overall environmental quality in Cockburn Sound is important
for a large majority of respondents..." Golly, that is a surprise!
"...revealed that the average Perth household is willing to pay to achieve better outcomes for Cockburn Sound’s marine flora and fauna,
with ‘per unit’ values derived for seagrass, artificial reefs, bottlenose dolphins, little penguins and species of Syngnathidae (sea horses etc)..." NOT fish!
Willing to pay question talked about $50-$100 per year/per household.
and lastly, this delightfully Orwellian strategy from the Westport Environmental, Social and Governance Action Plan.
"..Develop a plan for social values management..."
davewillo
Posts: 2640
Date Joined: 08/09/16
Although I haven't even been
Although I haven't even been in the Sound for quite a few years, I still value it for those who use it, and for the greater environmental good. I would be happy to pay for that but I wonder how many non-fishing/boating types that live way north of the Sound would be as willing to pay.
IMO this is just a smokescreen as suggested above to hide the sins of those who will benefit the most. Say yes and it's a vote for them to bugger up what is there and MAYBE put in something artificial. Say no and it's a vote for them to bugger up the Sound and do nothing in return. As Jackfrost once said, "it's a choice between a shit sandwich and a toasted shit sandwich".
PGFC member and lure tragic
Reefsta
Posts: 374
Date Joined: 03/08/19
Ports needed but problematic
Ports generally not the best for marine life, so negative effects of further development could be wide ranging, with the Sound being an essential sheltered nusery area. A quick Google AI summary about ports says;
Marine ports are generally unhealthy environments for marine life due to pollution from shipping and industrial activities, habitat destruction, physical disturbances, and the introduction of invasive species. These combined stressors include contaminated wastewater, heavy metals, oil, and excessive noise, which negatively affect water quality, disrupt ecosystems, and pose severe health risks to marine organisms