Meeting with Debus (or "How to waste $100 and 6 hours of your life")

[ACTAngler]

I'll tell you how.? Just drive 2 hours from Canberra to Moruya to attend an invitation-only meeting with Minister Bob Debus, sit there and listen to him NOT answer questions, trot out the same bull$hit that we've all heard before and basically tell recreational anglers that we don't have a say in anything to do with the Marine Park, then turn around and drive home again.

I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE? ? Highlights (lowlights?) of the meeting were:

• Minister Debus not even knowing how many Marine Parks were in NSW.? He had to be corrected by Cameron Westaway when he said Batemans was the 5th (THERE IS 6, BOB)
• Debus telling us that fish stocks are falling everywhere and we have to preserve the environment for the future.? I pointed out that NSW Fisheries don't seem to think stocks are in trouble.
• Debus admitting that Socio-economic report was flawed, and that the full impacts could not be estimated until the zoning was known (WHY THE HELL DID THEY WASTE TAXPAYER MONEY WITH THE REPORT THEN???)
• Debus failing to commit to compensation for land based businesses if their claims of minimal impacts are wrong (It was pointed out that estimates of up to $200 million for GBRMP were needed.? WHAT IF YOUR REPORTS ARE WRONG, BOB???)
• Debus failing to commit to doing another economic report once zoning plan is released (don't worry, someone WILL)
• Being told that the fate of Rec Fishing Havens are effectively in the hands of the Advisory Committee.? No, those that paid for a license to create the havens WILL NOT have a say
• Nobody from the Government or MPA being able to say if permits will be transferrable if a charter operator sells their business (A REAL WORRY, HOW IS THIS TREATED IN EXISTING PARKS???)

Congratulations and thanks to Jack Tait and the Coastal Rights Association for organising the 150-200 protesters out the front.

Thanks to Andrew Constance for adressing the protesters and committing to chairing a public meeting once the Draft Zoning Plan is released (a couple of weeks away apparently).

Thanks for NOTHING Bob!? I've got half a mind to send you my fuel bill for wasting my time...

[catbalou]

Thanks for coming down Shane, your presence was very much appreciated and helped with the numbers. We consider the protest a success, hope your caught it on the ABC News tonight (Sun) Mr Devious wouldn't come out and address the large crowd when asked to by Andrew Constance, even though he says he is talking to and listening to the Fishers of Eurobodalla, even though he admitted the Socio-Economic Study was flawed, he's not concerned on the effects on business in this area. Myself and our mascot Jess (our Kelpie) who loves to go to the beach, couldn't even get into the meeting to ask questions, Jess had a few concerns on beach access for dogs as well. We congratulate you on your assistance as well as everyone who cared enough to attend the protest.
Well done everyone, more protests are planned for the near future.
Catbalou

[Rod Burston]

Good footage on ABC TV. It showed that the community is being shafted and is angry.
Debus showed himself up as a snake oil salesman and is clearly out of touch with environmental issues and the people.
Well done.

[ACTAngler]

Here's another ball-tearer:

Debus said, with great fanfare mind you, that they had a report saying fish stocks increased in 2005 in SIMP after Sanctuary Zones got bigger there.? He specifically said that snapper were bigger and there were more of them in 2005.? Someone pointed out that snapper were currently booming down the South Coast as well.? The reply - "that's just a seasonal fluctuation"? .

Well, I've had a quick read of the "preliminary article" that we were provided, and guess what?? The results look suspiciously seasonal to me too?

 - For snapper, stocks remain fairly constant for 2002, 2003, 2004, with a sudden spike in 2005 (seasonal?)

 - For bream, the "mean density" appears to fall fron 2002-2004 before spiking again in 2005 (seasonal?)

 - The "spillover effect" SIMPLY HASN'T HAPPENED for red morwong.? Numbers in Santuary zones apparently increased, but adjacent and outside there was sweet bugger-all impact.

Some quotes from the report:

 - on the increase in red morwong:? "Unfortunately, there was no 'before' data to provide a definitive conclusion that these differences were due to sanctuary zoning, and significant variation was due to the aggregation behaviour of red morwong".

 - on snapper:? "It is early days in the monitoring program, but IF (emphasis added) there is a sanctuary zone influence to this response, or a subsequent benefit within sanctuary zones, then surveys over the the next few years should help confirm this".

 - on bream:? "Bream, which are popularly fished, were consistently in greater densities at some sites that were not in sanctuary zones for the first few years... and indicates that these sites may be more suitable for, or preferred by, bream than the sanctuary zone sites"? EVEN THE FISH DON'T WANT TO USE THE NESTING BOXES!!!

 - on bream again:? "Other benefits of the zones were less equivocal during the 3 years since rezoning... but this may change in time".

 - discussion on overall report:? "However, different sites within the sanctuary zones are responding differently and a consistent response cannot be assumed"

 - another great comment on increase in snapper numbers:? "There are a number of possible reasons for this increase, including:

• nattural variation in recruitment &/or migration with a good year of recruitment and/or survivorship in about 2002 and a good year for migration to these reefs in 2005
• increase in minimum size (28cm to 30cm) in 2001
• sanctuary zone effects - the majority of snapper caught in this area are 3 to 4 years old (Ferrell & Sumpton) and it is now 3 years after the current plan came into force
• no trawling (in Habitat Protection Zone) in shallow inshore waters <20m deep in SIMP where young recruits may be caught as by-catch
• buy-out of key fish trappers from SIMP in 2002
• other ecological and biophysical reasons"

So there you have it folks.? Another "scientific report" the MPA and Government will use to prove the benefits of marine parks and sanctuary zones, which, in my opinion, does anything but prove that.? You can bet your life this report will be pushed heavily in the media.? The extreme greens will love it.?

I'll leave these with you to draw your own conclusions.? I have the report scanned if anyone wants a copy to read.? As Tarki says, "over to you".