Another Letter to Ms Carmel Tebbutt

Ms Carmel Tebbutt,
Level 30,
Governor Macquarie Tower,
1 Farrer Place,
SYDNEY NSW 2000
15/05/2009
Dear Ms Tebbutt,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding issues raised by a report produced by the non-government organisation the National Parks Association, which is currently being reviewed by government with a view to implement some or possibly all of its findings in the form of a series of Marine Parks incorporating ?no take? zones in the Camden Haven area of the mid-north coast of NSW.

I, like all recreational fishers, have a great regard for the aquatic environment in this region and uppermost in my mind is the need to manage our fisheries resources sustainably so as to ensure the future generations have the same opportunities to enjoy this relaxing pastime and benefit from the end result in the form of some fresh fish to take home for the family. However the proposed closures within marine parks seem to me to be a blunt management instrument with a wide range of guaranteed negative outcomes and quite dubious science supporting them. As a graduate holding a Bachelor of Applied Science in Resource Management I have a sound background in the techniques used to assess marine ecosystems and feel that little or no hard data is given in the NPA document (The Torn Blue Fringe) to support any of its conclusions. Also the jury is out regarding the effectiveness on fish resources of other closures already enacted in NSW. Not uncertain however is the significant losses in tourism and other related businesses (tackle, bait, boating etc) in those regions.

Given the proven negative outcomes of other NSW closures, especially economically, in these hard economic times it seems foolhardy at best to proceed with these proposed closures until further data is gathered about the current catch rates and the potential for a range of other, less antagonistic management practices to be implemented. This could be done without alienating fishing groups like Ecofishers which have been and will continue to be essential to gather and freely provide vital information about catch rates, tagging recaptures and the like to your department.
It has been mentioned in both the NPA document and by your office in defence of previous closures that only a small area of any marine park would be designated as a ?no take? zone and therefore the impacts on recreational fishers would be minimal however this is quite misleading. In any national park, be it marine or terrestrial there are areas of greater population density than others, locking these areas out has a far greater impact than a restriction of activities over the whole area and is a lot more difficult to police.

This raises another interesting point regarding the cost effectiveness of closures versus other management strategies. What is the cost of establishing, signing, providing educational and interpretive material and effectively policing ?no take? zones in large, sparsely populated areas? The resources required to enforce closures kilometres offshore in relatively sparsely populated areas like the Camden Haven would be large, especially if trying to manage antagonised and actively disobedient groups of fishers alienated by poorly researched and unconsulted blanket closures. If the enforcement is ineffective so is this management strategy whereas using strategies that are favoured by groups like Ecofishers ensures compliance is far better and less enforcement is required.

I would prefer my recreational fishing licence funds to be spent on researching more effective management strategies like bag, size and hook number limits as well as seasonal closures. All of these measures would be actively supported (as they have in the past) by groups like Ecofishers and would require far less draconian enforcement to be effective.

In closing I?d like to reinforce the potential positives that could arise from a process like this. I was a little startled to attend meetings of Ecofishers where I was expecting 200 - 300 people and be confronted by well over 1000 in one small coastal village alone. This means a great focussed target audience in what is normally a fairly disparate group of people. The potential exists to create a co-operative management structure here at the Camden Haven where fisheries Scientists, the DPI and recreational fishers can all work together to create and implement researched, effective management plans which could then be applied to other areas and integrated far more effectively than the current, draconian marine park/closure strategy. All the policy of closure has done is to create a division between the regulators and the fisherfolk which immediately makes any policy far harder to enforce and far more often breached, not an outcome anyone wants. I therefore implore you to seriously consider a change in strategy moving forward and assure you that I, Ecofishers management and all its members would be fully supportive and highly appreciative of the opportunity to jointly manage our precious resource for the future.

Yours Sincerely,
Mark Winser,
Ecofisher