RFAs safe from Sanctuary Zoning

[ACTAngler]

This was posted on another fishing forum.? I haven't been able to find a source copy to confirm.

MEDIA RELEASE Friday, March 31, 2006

Minister excludes Recreational Fishing Havens from Sanctuary Zones

Marine Park sanctuary zones will not be created in existing Recreational Fishing Havens without the full agreement of local recreational fishers, Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald said today.

The Minister said any Recreational Fishing Havens in areas that will be covered by the new marine park at Bateman?s Bay would be exempt from becoming sanctuary zones.

?Recreational fishers brought out these areas several years ago in good faith ? it would be unfair to suddenly create sanctuary zones in these recreational havens,? Minister Macdonald said.

?Rumours that sanctuary zones will be created in existing havens on the South Coast like Tuross Lake are false.

?The only way Recreational Fishing Havens will be changed is if local recreational fishers request it.?

The Minister said the consultation process is continuing for both new marine parks.

?The draft zone plan for the Great Lakes ? Port Stephens Marine Park will go on display in a few weeks,? he said.

?The consultation process is also well underway for the proposed Bateman?s Bay Marine Park.

?The Government is working with the local community to develop a plan that will enhance fish stocks in both regions while protecting the bio-diversity of these important areas.?

There are 30 recreational fishing havens along the NSW Coast.

Recreational Fishing Havens are protected from commercial fishing ? no trawling, no mesh nets and no haul nets are allowed.

Media Release: Jason Bartlett, 0403 454 543

[Rod Burston]

There is no doubt in my mind that recreational fishers will request a sanctuary zone in their RFA.

Just ask Bruce!!!

[BOB SMITH]

My how things change

At the Fishing Conference held at Parliament House on Monday the 27th March the acting Director of Fisheries, Anthony Hurst stated, when asked this same question, "that if biodiversity was assessed and found to be important enough to be included in protected areas in already declared havens then that would have to be considered as part of the Marine Park zonings". I am sure that is on record if the day was recorded.
Now to prove this media release, we can expect the Minister (s) to rip the Lake Macquarie Aquatic Reserve pages out of the Hawkesbury Shelf Bio-region assessment in full public view at one of the boat ramps in front of the TV cameras.

My question now is "Why is the biodiversity in Recreational Fishing Havens any different or not as IMPORTANT to what's in the boundaries of Marine Parks. Why doesn't recreational fishers have any say in what biodiversity NEEDS protecting or not protecting in Marine Parks?? Spin, Spin, Spin

Bob Smith

[Tarki]

Quick, locals quick. Jump on this one by way of letter to the editor etc (Port Stephens & Batemans Bay)  Ask the Minister, publicly, to explain HOW a draft zoning plan will "enhance fish stocks in both regions?" (It is pure political spin. It must be answered. Otherwise the community start to believe it!)
  As for Aquatic Reserves within marine parks, the Aquatic Reserve ceases to exist, as soon as the marine park is zoned. Marine park regulations are much moe stringent than Aquatic Reserve rules and regs. As for RFH's being exempt from zoning as sanctuary zone, I wouldn't believe a word of it. Just look at Macdonalds track record. Why do you think he is known as Pinocchio? Marine parks have nothing to do with what recreational fishers want. Its an auction with the extreme Greens about how much they can get locked up. They start at 50% and if you don't fight like hell, in the media and at Advisory Committee level, that's what you'll get.  Tarki.