This is the sort of guff we have to deal with

[Rod Burston]

This is the sort of guff we have to deal with.
Stay tuned to see how ECOfishers deals with this sort of nonsense supplied for public consumption by the National Parks Association..
Read on.
Rod Burston
   

"Marine Parks do make a difference" Narooma News
Thursday, 22 December 2005

The importance of marine parks to the protection of declining fish stocks and marine life has been well established by scientific research, the President of the Far South Coast branch of the National Parks Association, Mr Dane Wimbush, said today.

Mr Wimbush was replying to comments in the Narooma News, December 14, 2005 by the Chairman of the Narooma Port Committee who suggested that NPA had not looked at the facts of the Leigh Marine Reserve, 80kms North of Auckland.

"The summary of the report on Leigh Marine Park to the Department of Conservation undertaken by Shears and Babcock makes it clear that considerable changes have resulted from the declaration of the marine park," Mr Wimbush said.

"For example, the researchers measured a large decrease in 'rock-flat habitats' created by sea urchins (the so-called urchin barrens) within the reserve while outside the reserve there was no change.

"The only possible explanation for this difference is what the authors refer to as predators having ?a strong top-down impact on community structure, through their predation on Evechinus (the urchin)'. The main predators of sea urchins are large fish and lobsters, which are at higher density in the reserve than outside it.

"A talk by Dr Callum Roberts on the ABC Science Show on March 10, 2005 gave three examples of the effectiveness of Marine Sanctuaries, including the Leigh Marine Reserve. This is part of what he said:

?...once fishing was excluded, they (the researchers) found that dramatic changes, unexpected changes, occurred. They found a very rapid increase in the abundance and weight of the exploited species and as one example, 20 years on from the creation of the Leigh Marine Reserve, the density of an exploited schnapper, a kind of fish, inside the reserve was 40 times higher than the density in the adjacent fished areas.'

"Dr Roberts goes on to describe a parallel increase in lobsters and says: ?this has not gone unnoticed by the fishers. They now ring the Leigh Marine Reserve with their traps, benefiting from spill over of animals across the reserve boundaries'.

"In a debate over Victoria's Marine Parks on ABC's Earthbeat on 15/09/01, Associate Professor John Sherwood, Victorian President of the Australian Marine Science Association, made this comment:

?...experience in New Zealand shows that they (recreational anglers) have a much greater chance of collecting a trophy-sized fish around the boundaries of the reserves and ... many of the fishers, both commercial and recreational, are almost embarrassed by the objections they made to the creation of marine reserves. They now support them strongly.'

"The State of Environment Australia 2001 Report states in the Marine and Coastal Management section:

?The Tasmanian Government declared the Maria Island Nature Reserve in 1991... A scientific monitoring program has been undertaken for this and other reserves (Edgar and Barrett 1999), entailing sampling from a number of sites both inside and outside the reserves immediately before declaration and then annually for 5 years.

?After six years of protection in the Maria Island Marine Nature Reserve, the number of fish species has increased by 5%, while it fell by 23% in unprotected areas...The numbers of large fish have increased by over 240% in the reserve. Rock lobster abundance and size also increased.'

"A few minutes searching on the net came up with these examples, I am sure there are many more," Mr Wimbush added.

[Pi]

Hmmm, one classic situation often referred to the NPA is the work done on blackfish at the Bouddi Marine Park by Newcsatle University - they claim the research indicates a 1200% increase in blackifish numbers compared with surrounding areas. What they don't tell you is:

- the Boudii site was sampled when blackfish aggregate - other sites at other times.
- the Bouddi site has always been renowned as an area with far higher blackfish numbers than surrounding areas.
- there was never any "before" study done on the Bouddi before it was a marine park and after.

This highlights some drawbacks in evaluating the effectiveness of marine parks to fisheries, with many fisheries managers and marine biologists are now expressing skepticism of the claims of the benefits of marine reserves to fisheries. They state that there are actually few studies that have addressed the issue adequately. They say it is too difficult to create a closure that would boost more than one or two fish species at a time because of the varying dispersal patterns of various fish species, and one size of a marine reserve won't be suitable for all species.

They also recognize difficulties in measuring the effects of marine reserves on fisheries and fish yields of adjoining areas, and there are two reasons for this dilemma. Firstly, there are no rigorous control sites, or sites which allows fishing that are in all other aspects equivalent to closed areas. This is necessary for the evaluation into the effectiveness of the closures. Secondly are the natural biases in the methodology. The exclusion areas that are selected for protection are, either by accident or design, those that tend to have higher fish populations than surrounding sites, and when comparisons are made with outside areas a bias is inherently present.

There is also the drawback that most research programs on the benefits of marine reserves are setup after the site has already been designated, rather than being part of the site's planning process. This makes the selection of adequate control sites difficult.



As to urchin barrens in the marine parks in New Zealand. Other researchers have this to say (and similar skeptisism surrounds the lobster and snapper comments)...

"Our main findings relating to urchin barrens:

urchin barren zones are found only on exposed coasts
urchin barren zones do not occur in shallow water
barrens do not need to have urchins
barrens are first caused by large storms, then maintained by grazers (urchin, Cooks turban snail, paua)
Our studies of the marine ecology in Niue confirms this hypothesis as hurricanes create very deep barrens only on one side of the island (2004, 2005).
there are more kelp grazers than thought, including planktivorous fish. Also confirmed in Niue.
the disappearance of the urchin barrens at Leigh is caused by the mass dieoff of the kelp forest.
It is important to distinguish barren patches caused by urchin grazing from the contiguous barren habitat zones. Even where no barren zones are expected, one may find an occasional barren patch.
An important result of our survey was the measured habitat zoning/exposure map which is representative of north facing exposed to sheltered rocky shore on the east coast of the North Island. "

And of kelp die-offs in the Goat Island marine reserve:
"Immediately after the mass die-off of the kelp forest inside the Goat Island marine reserve, we undertook a survey of the extent of the damage. We were there when dense plankton blooms covered the area between October and December 1992. We warned the scientists that the kelp would not be able to survive. Before Christmas 1992 we observed that all the kelp had already died, and again we warned the scientists of this. In the first week of 1993 cyclone Oli just finished it off. Not a trace was found of the entire kelp forest's canopy deeper than 16m. Only the stalks stood as evidence that a forest was once there. Again the scientists were informed, but nobody could take a look because of the summer holidays. Only after these holidays, did scientists discover that the kelp forest had indeed disappeared.
 

Scientists were confused finding kelp death both in the shallows and deeper than 15m but not in between. They could not conceive that the one had been caused by wave damage whereas the other was caused by lack of light. As a result they went about their investigations in a less than thorough way. They did not recognise the importance of such a major experiment conducted by nature and the possible lessons that could be learnt from it, and its possible ramifications. This spurred us to do an extensive survey to establish the precise areas affected and what other lessons could be learnt. It taught us much about the ecology of the sea coast, particularly that of kelp and urchins."


Phil

[Rod Burston]

Phil, I have sent your comments to Narooma.
Thanks
Rod

[Rod Burston]

NAROOMA NEWS

Letters to the editor
Thursday, 29 December 2005
Establishing the facts on marine parks:

Mr Dane Wimbush, speaking on behalf of the far south coast branch of the National Parks Association (Narooma News, Wednesday, December 21), claimed that what he presented was proof that marine parks do make a difference to fish stocks.

As a veterinary scientist, the burden of proof has to be better than transcripts from radio programs.

The scientific training and experience I have had over nearly 40 years says that anecdotal evidence, and hearsay, is best left to charlatans.

How many people would believe that programs such as 60 Minutes would present a totally unbiased and evidential summary of a very complex situation inside 10 minutes?

Some facts about Leigh Marine reserve, which the radical green groups love to hold up as their shining example:

? It is 80kms North of Auckland on the East Coast.

? It is 5kms long and extends 800m out to sea.

? Its area is 400 hectares.

I visited this area in 1999 and heard that it was used extensively by the schools from Auckland (because of its proximity) for snorkelling and introductory scuba diving.

Fish were encouraged to the area by hand feeding to enhance the "diving experience". I find nothing wrong with this. New Zealanders are a funny lot.

However I call the green groups, such as the Nature Conservation Council (NCC), National Parks Association (NPA) and the Wilderness Society "radical green groups", as they are willing to distort, manipulate, misquote or selectively quote any article they find to get the desired "sound bite".

I probably also left out lie, as well.

I believe a far greater burden of proof applies to a marine park and the zoning within that park, than these radical green groups are prepared to bring to the table.

Using the Leigh Marine reserve analogy, the NPA would like to see the equivalent of 100 Leigh Marine reserves in the Batemans Marine Park.

In New Zealand in a similar length of coastline (110kms) they have two.

In 2001 the CSIRO reviewed all the scientific literature regarding the effectiveness of marine sanctuaries and concluded that the "review clearly shows that potential fisheries benefits are theoretical and have not been demonstrated in practice".

State Minister for Primary Industries Ian McDonald believes that "NSW marine parks are declared under the principal objective of biodiversity conservation. Marine parks in NSW are not declared as a fisheries management tool".

The radical green groups do not care about the economic effect on regional communities such as Narooma and Batemans Bay.

They have a protectionist zeal and anti-fishing goal at the forefront of all their philosophies.

I challenge the NPA and Mr. Wimbush to show their real agenda concerning Montague Island and its surrounds.

Philip Creagh, Narooma Port Committee Chairman

[Rod Burston]

NAROOMA NEWS

Letters to the editor
Thursday, 29 December 2005

Park zonings go against our wishes

For nearly 50 years I have spent weekends and holidays at our family beach house at North Durras and during that time many things have changed.

Those changes all pale into insignificance compared to what is about to happen with the imposition of a marine park on the area to pay for Green preference votes for Labor in Sydney.

I now live in Byron Shire where a marine park has recently been forced on us.

After an extended, farcical community consultation rort, the zoning lock-out restrictions have just been made law.

They go against the wishes of nearly all of the people who took the time and trouble to understand the issues and write submissions based on proper science, traditional community uses, economic effects on the community and the devastating affects the lockouts will have on families treasured lifestyles.

Of 6325 submissions on the zonings , over 6000 were against the radical Green Lockout model proposed.

That is 99.7% against and totally ignored!

The zonings were finally anounced at a private party held by Minister For Kicking Us Out of The Environment Bbob Devious for the Greens and will become Law on April Fool's Day.

And the new zonings steal most of the remaining pitifully small areas of productive fishing country that the people were going to be allowed to fish in under the rejected proposals.

Fishing is now prohibited on virtually all offshore reefs, nearly all of the rocky headlands and over half the accessible beaches and estuaries.

This is all about to happen to you, the people of the south coast.

If you let it.

I grew up fishing in Durras Lake and around Point Upright but when my son and his future family visit this will be against the law!

This from a party that was formed to look after the rights of the workers and whose recently departed leader is now being paid a fortune by a major government contractor.

There is an election coming. Make sure you vote wisely and tell all your city friends and relatives that they can no longer enjoy the freedoms they were used to when they come to visit either.

Ian Cameron, Bangalow

[Rod Burston]

To The Editor,

Dane Winbush of the National Parks Association cites two small snapshot studies and an ABC transcript that he trawled off the internet to defend the effectiveness of Sanctuary zones in marine parks. (Narooma News 22-12-05).? He selectively chooses ?research? that appears to support his cause. This process is known as ?cherry picking? and is not science.

If? Winbush had trawled the net for more than ?a few minutes? he would have also discovered that W J Ballantine (et al), who were responsible for the earlier Leigh Marine Reserve findings to which he refers, have subsequently admitted ?using marine protected areas as a fisheries enhancement objective is now questionable?.

A 2003 study from Leigh Marine Laboratory [NZ] confirms, ?Without empirical substantiation, predictions of fishery enhancement are deductions based on circumstantial evidence and ancillary information. We cannot predict what the effects of marine reserves might be.?

Researchers at CSIRO put in a much greater effort that Winbush when they participated in a world wide literature review on the effectiveness of sanctuary zones in 2001. They found that the claimed benefits were mostly theoretical and that there was very little evidence to back up the theories. Their findings have been confirmed by other reputable research organisations around the world and reflected by a recent US Government inquiry that found that the theoretical benefits of sanctuary zones were not worth the social dislocation that they caused.

Extensive Queensland Government research over a twenty year period (Ayling et al) shows that sanctuary zones did not enhance the abundance of the popular and heavily fished coral trout on the Great Barrier Reef. It was also shown that trout reacted to fishing pressure by becoming cagey and are harder to catch. Ayling deduced that reduced ?catchability? in heavily line fished areas is nature?s way of conserving stocks. He showed that complaints made by fishers about declining stocks were not supported by the facts as established by underwater population surveys.

Another large scale, long term, Queensland Government funded study (Mapstone et al 2004) found that there was no evidence that line fishing had any detrimental effect on biodiversity, or on the ecological integrity of the broader reef community. There doesn?t seem to be a case for sanctuary zones in protecting biodiversity against line fishing either!

World renown marine researcher, Walter Starck, assesses these Queensland studies and other threats to the Barrier Reef at: http://ipa.org.au/files/IPABackgrounder17-1.pdf . It makes a fascinating read in light of the con job being sold to us by the NSW State Government and the extreme green movement.

All these findings seem to make sense too. Despite cries from extremists that the oceans are dying, there has never been one single species of marine fish or invertebrate that has become extinct because of the actions of humans!

Closer to home, NSW Fisheries says local stocks are not "overfished", let alone threatened, in the State controlled section of the Bateman?s Shelf Bioregion. There is no research that shows that biodiversity is under any sort of threat in this near pristine area and there has been no work done either locally or anywhere else that shows recreational line fishing threatens biodiversity.

All of this prompts some other very important questions.

If kicking people out from the environment is such a significant conservation measure then why hasn?t the NSW State Government presented a properly constructed scientific argument supporting their position?

Why does the Government stand back and leave this responsibility to an inept extreme green movement?

And why does the Government routinely fail to enter the marine park debate and deal with the numerous scientific and social issues raised by the public?

The answer is becoming abundantly clear. They simply don?t have a case.

Rod Burston
ECOfishers
?Conservation with a difference. We make people part of the solution?