Artificial Reefs Cionsultation Meeting

[Nete-Quette]

ARTIFICIAL REEF MEETING ? SYDNEY 28.11.08

NSW DPI Fisheries and Cardno Ecology Lab (the consultants), hosted a meeting of representatives of commercial and recreational fishers at the Sydney Fish Marketing Authority on the evening of 28th November, 2008. The meeting was to discuss the proposed recreational fisher funded Artificial Reef fields off Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong. (That?s NSW isn?t it?)

NSW Fisheries was represented by Messrs Bryan Van der Walt and Heath Follp, while Marcus Lincoln-Smith and Kate Reeds represented the consultants who are preparing the Preliminary Environmental Assessment for the three sites. (Recreational fishers will remember Marcus Lincoln-Smith for the sterling job he did on our behalf at the Grey Nurse Shark Administrative Appeals Tribunal case in 2007.) A representative from DECC was also in attendance.

The consultants have 35 weeks in which to complete their report for public comment.

The Artificial Reef units are of octagonal steel design, They are 11m long by 11m wide and 13.6m high. Each unit has a dry weight mass of 35.3 tonnes, with an internal volume of 826 cubic metres. A single structure is called an ?artificial reef?. Two structures in tandem are called a ?reef set?, and, more than 2 is known as a ?reef group?

Each artificial reef is based upon the highly successful Korean design, which is used by commercial fishers to attract Mulloway, Snapper and Kingfish, etc.

The proposed Sydney site is in 35m of water about 1km off The Gap near the Dunbar Reef. Shipping authorities require 20m draught above the reefs for coastal shipping.

Sydney commercial trawlermen are opposed to the proposed Newcastle site, so further negotiations are required there.

The first metropolitan unit will be operational by the end of 2009.

Issues for recreational fishers to consider:

ECOfishers raised (on your behalf), the following issues as items to be addressed by NSW Fisheries and the Consultants in their report for public comment.

ECOfishers believes recreational fisher funded artificial reefs should be:
1.   Commercial Scuba Diver free zones;
2.   Commercial fishing free zones;
3.   Charter fishing boat free zones;
4.   Anchoring free zones ? drift fishing only;
5.   Artificial reefs should be sited in a north-south alignment (with the current) in a zig-zag, to provide a long drift-fishing zone.

Your comments and suggestions are invited.

Ken Thurlow CEO

[CEO]

 Seems we were right on the knocker with this one too, on your behalf. We've had nothing but bountiful praise for your ECOfishers ideas and suggestions, concerning the establishment and management, of recreational fishers offshore artificial reefs. Thank you all for your comments and suggestions. They are in the process of being processed - if you get my drift!

[ACTAngler]

I don't agree with number 3. 

Why should those recreational fishers who are not fortunate enough to be able to afford their own boat be denied fishing these artificial reefs on a charter boat?  They pay exactly the same license fees that boat owners do.

[Spiney]

I don't agree with the concept, we are paying 4 million dollars from our licence fee money for a project that may not work and if it does only fishers that can afford an offshore vessel will benefit. The money could be better used addressing the real problems threatening our fish stocks.
I can't see the logic, Sydney Offshore Fishers will be denied areas in the Hawkesbury Shelf Park and will need to fish elsewhere on an artificial reef they help pay for and maintain?

[maniak]

Seems the mentality of keep everyone else away its ours is a LITTLE hypocritical

[CEO]

  The logic put forward by the state's ECOfishers was that charter vessels, being larger vessels, are able to access the wider grounds and traditional offshore spots and in most weathers. Inshore Artificial Reefs, (1km off The Gap) are more accessible to smaller offshore recreational vessels. Accessibility and availability are a major criteria for offshore recreational ECOfishers.
  The real threats threatening fish stocks is a core government responsibility. Not just my views - but the views of overwhelming numbers of ECOfishers.
  Habitat loss and deterioration is seen as a key threatening process to fish stocks. Habitat replacement / enhancement is seen as a scientific and justifable way to improve fish stocks. Bigger, healthier and better habitat results in a bigger, healthier and better fishery! Artificial reefs are designed to do just that. These Korean based systems will work, of that we have no doubt. And in the north of the state they will also be Mackerel magnets, in addition to the traditional species of Mulloway, Snapper, and Kingfish etc. Offshore recreational fishers are excited about the prospects - especially those who have been zoned out of traditional fishing grounds by unnecessary, unjustified and unscientific political park zonings.
  Of course, if you don't agree with Artificial Reefs, don't use them. Simple as that!
  The only scuba diving permitted on these structures will be maintenance and research dives, approved by the local recreational fishing fraternity. ECOfishers has already locked that one up too. The bubble brigade simply aren't welcome.

[ACTAngler]

ALL diving on these artificail reefs shoud be banned purely for safety reasons.  They have more than enough fishing-free zones already in Marine Parks.

If the commercial fishers want to fish artificial reefs, they should pay for their own.  You can bet if they did, recreational anglers wouldn't be allowed to use them!

Also, if habitat restoration is a "core government responsibility", why isn't it funded out of Departmental revenue?

[CEO]

  Simple. If we waited for Labor to do it, it simply wouldn't get done. That is why this government dips greedily into our recreational licence funds for some core government responsibilities. Really your questions ought be rightfully addressed to Schumacher the government appointed chair of the ministers ACoRF. This issue wrankles regularly with a lot of the states recreational fishers. That's why ECOfishers is arguing for changes, right across the board - democratic and representative changes! Good luck with your enquiries!

[Spiney]

Of course, if you don't agree with Artificial Reefs, don't use them. Simple as that!

How many members of Eco Fishers don't agree with marine parks but still use them?

I don't own a boat, I don't live in Sydney,Woolongong or Newcastle and it looks like I can't fish an artificial reef in a charter boat.

ECO fishers must have done more research into the project than Cardno Ecology Lab, the guys who will get most of our 4 Million dollars as this is what they state.

The benefit of artificial reefs on fish stocks will likely depend on the management objectives of their
use. Although artificial reefs may have the potential to increase a fishers
catch, management strategies have been implemented by all Australian state
fisheries agencies to regulate the impact of fishing. These regulations can be
varied to prevent overfishing and to ensure that targeted species are not taken
before they are sexually mature. However, the impact of artificial reefs on fish
stocks requires further scientific study.

However, there has been considerable debate over the effectiveness of artificial reefs to
produce more fish, rather than just attracting existing fish to a new location.
This has become known as the ?attraction-production question?. Attraction is
simply defined as the net movement of individuals (e.g. fish) from natural to
artificial habitats; whereas a simplified definition of production is the change in
biomass over time.
fishing
I don't disagree with artificial reefs, I just think they are not an economical proposition.

[CEO]

Of course Spiney, if you don't agree with artificial reefs don't use them! Simple as that!

[Open Oyster]

   I believe the cost factor for artificial reefs need examining. Surely that  money could be more beneficially spent on the real problems. eg pollution of our waterways. Breeding programs for stock release etc. However I can't see this being given priority at the moment with the creations of MP a priority. Creating fishing havens for recreational fishers such as artificial reefs gives recreational fishers some of their licence tax back.

[CEO]

  You are right Spiney. ECOfishers is briefing Cardno Ecology Lab on the project.

[CEO]

  Recreational fishers from across the state have indicated they want more fish, more opportunities to harvest them and more access to them. This was a feature and theme  of the presentation ECOfishers was invited to make, at the annual conference of the Australian Society for Fish Biology which had international participants, recently.
   Artificial reefs are just one effective way, of addressing this need, of the state's recreational fishers.
 

[Spiney]

If Eco Fishers and ACORF believe it's an effective way for Fishers to want more fish,harvest them and access them then I must be wrong because between them they represent the bulk of NSW fishers. My contribution to the 4 million is only $70 or so every three years so I won't loose any sleep over it. I look forward to the day the nesting boxes produce the goods.

[CEO]

   ..............and a belated response from our metropolitan members, which is very sound and totally justified. They want ECOfishers to include, "Recreational fisher funded offshore artificial reef fields, to be excluded by regularion, from any zoning in any proposed government marine park." So that has been included too.
         Suddenly, government marine parks have become very, very significant to our metropolitan colleagues - and not for the reasons the government and greenies think!