Artificial Reefs Consultation Meetings

[Nete-Quette]

NEWCASTLE
5:30pm Tuesday 25th November 2008
Newcastle Commercial Fishermans Cooperative Ltd.
97 Hannell Street, Wickham.

[Spiney]

The documents indicate three proposed Artificial reefs, Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. The following is from the RFSTEC meeting 26,22 May 2008."The expenditure committee supported funding of $961,000 in 2008/09, $933,000 in 2009/10, $949,000 in 2010/11 and $188,000 in 2011/12 for the Building artificial reefs in ocean waters program. Moved: Geoff Shelton. Seconded: Ann Garard. Carried."
An estimate would be a total cost of 4 Million Dollars from our licence fees for a project that may not work.
Who and when decided the location of the Artificial reefs? Three locations most remote from Marine Parks.
If there are any benefits from Artificial Reefs not many Fishers who own a boat worth less than $20,000 will be able to use them.
Why not locations close to or in existing marine parks to compensate Fishers that have already lost valuable reef fishing areas? Bizare isn't it? Spend millions closing down one area and spend a few more creating another!
Similar to marine parks  DPI  is expending a vast amount of money that could be used to address more important threats to fish stocks. The difference now is that it is directly Fishers money.
l

[Open Oyster]

    Spiney,
              This position has occurred because this government refuses to allow fishers  to represent fishers. Government appointments are not representation. What the fishing fraternity needs is a whole change of attitude in government. Anyway how long before artificial reefs are claimed by environmentalists. Ask some of the farmers who have planted forests and cannot harvest because of environmental restraints.

[maniak]

Hi Guys,
            Why are these reefs so exorbitantly expensive - Is it a venture from private contractors.
The decommissioning of ex navy vessels as wrecks would seem more viable from an economic point of view given they are stripped of copper aluminium etc which is sold as scrap to help fund the process. Has been undertaken in New Zealend and other places with huge success. Why is the DPI going down this track. A fraction of that money could purchase suitable vessels for scuttling. Also what benefit are these sites to the rest of the state. A massive proportion of license money being spent for the benefit of a small percentage of fishers.

[Malcolm Poole]

Maniak

I think you've gotten it wrong, I am involved with sinking the HMAS Adelaide on the Central Coast of NSW, to do all the work and cover all the costs to scuttle a ship that size will be around $4-5m, along side and drydock costs to strip and clean, environmental and coastal studies, find a site and final site investigations, project management, planning, consultation and final scuttling are just a few. 

As a dive only site which it may end up being, you have the ongoing costs for on water management like permits, complinace and maintenance of moorings and site management for its useful operation life and then fishers may get access once declared unsafe.

Check out its web site www.hmasadelaide.nsw.gov.au

Mal     

[Open Oyster]

          Why would divers get first use of any ship? After all most of the money would come from fishing licences. Seems like recreational fishers pay for everybody except themselves with this government.  Another way of pleasing the greens and the dive companies.

[maniak]

Mal,
       " I think youve gotten it wrong"
Maniak

[Spiney]

I understand the three artificial reefs planned are funded entirely from the fishing licence fee BUT any one can use them, Fishers both Rec and Commercial, Divers, Spear Fishers etc. I will bet the HMAS ADELAIDE reef paid for with tax payers money will be divers only. The dive company operating out of Terrigal will make more than enough money to pay for ongoing costs, if not then it will ask the State Government to chip in on the basis of the tourism potential as it has done to get the ship there in the first instance.

Once again there is discrimination to Fishers.

[ACTAngler]

Having just spent 2 weeks in the US with the person from DPI who was looking after artificial reefs and meeting with several people responsible for artificial reefs over there, I would have to agree with Mal.  These things don't come cheap, especially when you look at the size of the structures being proposed for these trials and the amount of research that has gone into their design and development.

[Open Oyster]

   If these artificial are funded by recreational fees why don't recreational fishers have more say in how they are created and where they are established. We shouldn't have government appointed bodies making these decisions for us.

[Spiney]

Especially if it is going to cost 4 million dollars.

I have also just returned from a trip where I saw an artificial reef, this one is off Waikiki Hawaii and is used as a tourist attraction. $70 gives you a 45 min dive in a submersible with port holes, a novelty for me as I spent some time working on Oberon Class Boats (no portholes)off the Australian/New Zealand coast in the 80's. There are several purpose built steel structures, a sunken navy ship and an aircraft. I was expecting the reef to be teeming with fish but I was sadly disappointed. A few trevally were the only fish over 25cms although there were a couple of hundred very small reef fish.

Surely if ACORF is spending this amount of money on single projects more consultation with Fishers is warranted. Below is the only mention I could find on DPI Fisheries website. I understand a lot of the $961,000 will go to planning and EIS.

Offshore Artificial Reefs (OARs)
Saltwater Trust Allocation
2008-09: $961,000

Aim
To build offshore artificial reefs to increase fish habitat and opportunities for high quality recreational fishing

Background
Following the successful deployment of a number of small artificial reefs in Lake Macquarie, Botany Bay and St Georges Basin, funded by the recreational fishing licence fees, the NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is investigating building offshore artificial reefs to increase fish habitat and opportunities for high quality recreational fishing. Many modern artificial reefs are built from steel and are known as design specific, being tailored to particular locations and target fish species. The structures are designed to deflect prevailing currents, creating up-wellings, complex water eddies and vortexes; perfect habitat for many demersal and pelagic fish species. An Environmental Assessment of the proposal is currently underway. Pending the results of this assessment DPI proposes to build three offshore artificial reefs, initially off Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. A scientific monitoring program will assess the suitability of reef design and their potential environmental impact.

[Open Oyster]

        I don't begrudge any recreational fisher any support they can get but once again these artificial reefs are earmarked for NSW, yes Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. What happened to the artificial reef for Byron Bay Marine Park? From what I can gather these artificial reefs are outside the range of the ordinary angler and are of no benefit to shore based anglers. Here again we have the scenario of recreational fishers taxes (the fishing licence is nothing more than a tax) being directed towards unproductive mismanagement.

[ACTAngler]

Any artificial structure being proposed for a Marine Park would be under MPA jurisdiction, not Fisheries.  Perhaps the hold up with the BBMP is there.

So you want artificail reefs within casting distance from the shore instead  .

[Malcolm Poole]

Hey Guys,

We all have our individual thoughts on many issues surrounding and effecting recreational fishing, here it is Artificial reefs.

Where they should or should not be, how much they should or should not cost, and who should or should not use them, pay for them or benefit from them, or do we need them or not need to create more fish habitat, if we do then where should they be and which fishing group be able to access them, and do they really work if so what fish types.

Just remember that Artificial Reefs in/offshore have been on the Saltwater Trust agenda for several years now (check out the meeting minutes) money and effort was already committed.

My point here is what are you offering as alternate projects or are your different options, or if so how and what would you change to do it better than what is happening now?

I do agree that Metro NSW tends to get the bulk of Trust Saltwater $'s however it is the testing ground for many projects and research as this is the infrastructure and knowledge hub, as you can see from the FAD & Mulloway projects they do spread once proven, I am positive that Artificial Reefs in/offshore will do the same. Korea and Japan have spent more than $750m US on reefs in the past 20 years so don't you think they work.

As for Byron Bay then Ken T has the current answer, with another to come in the near future.  As to who knows best on what and when it relates to Offshore Art Reefs, Open Oyster lay out your cards and experience you have, I know your licence funds have been used well to find out the information from around the world, the good/bad or specific and lessons learnt otherwise this project would not have gone ahead. On who gets to use sunken navy ships and how much to sink them, no Licence $?s have being used only Taxpayers as Spiney notes, as to fishing on them that problem exists from ourselves, we are to blame as we are not united or strong enough to dominate situations, which I hope is now changing.

Talk more soon I hope.

[ACTAngler]

My point here is what are you offering as alternate projects or are your different options, or if so how and what would you change to do it better than what is happening now?

That's the problem Mal.  Plenty of critics, not too many alternative solutions.