Marine Parks

[Tarki]

 Check out the new GREY NURSE SHARK 1500m CRITICAL HABITAT ZONES "hit list," where ALL forms of fishing will be banned forever.

ECOfishers will fight them on the beaches, we will fight them on the water and most of all we will fight them at the ballot box in March 2007! It's your fight too. Won't you join us for "Freedom to Fish?" or are you all going to play bowls?    Don't ever underestimate the power of a small group of people to change the world.  C'mon, be part of that change.      Tarki.

[Tarki]

 HYPOCRISY with a capital H.
Don't for one minute think that marine parks are for protecting the biodiversity.The Cape Byron Political Park, which is to be the model for all others in the state, protects all sharks and rays in all Habitat Protection Zones. These are the areas where recreational fishing is permitted. Recreational fishers don't target sharks and rays anyway. But about 50% of the political park is classified as General Use Zone, and more than 1 nautical mile offshore, and all sand, it is only of general use to the ocean prawn trawlers. A significant part of their nightly catch is sharks and rays! And no sharks and rays are not protected out there! How hypocritical, yet how typical. One only has to have a quick look at the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 2004, for the Ocean Trawl Fishery, to see that 5 species of sharks and 2 species of mollusc are at high risk of overfishing by ocean trawlers. Not to mention the hundreds of stingrays each boat drags up and the crew "spike" and flip over the side nightly. What total hypocrisy! Why have the extreme Green anti fishing lobby gone totally silent about that fact? They're hypocrites too!           Tarki.

[Oly]

In response to a section in plfishfingers response

Yes spearfishers targeted GNS.  However there is enormous amounts of evidence that suggest commercial fishing and rec fishing impacted on GNS well before spearfishers ever came on the scene.  Zane Grey dedicated an entire chapter in one of his books on fishing for GNS at batemans bay- and encouraged all game fishers to target them there "as a great gamefish"

There re documented reports in regards to Botany bay- where the street lights were fuelled by oil from GNS, and reprots of a single fisher catching 9 GNS all 9 ft long.  Commercial fisheries in Newcastle targeted GNS specifically for the liver during the early 1900's.
Commercial fishing had  afar greater impact years before spearifshing ever came on the scene. A good friend of mine, Mel brown spoke to a weigh master at port stephens who used to officiate in the game tournaments from years gone past. He (the weigh master) commented that he had weighed in numerous GNS over the years by shark fishers.

I am not saying the a few spearfishers did not have an impact. Don't get me wrong- they did. The thing that really goes against the current spearfisher is that this is all videoed, unlike fishing pressure prior to this period, as the technology really wasn't there to capture the action, so to speak.  GNS would have been protected in the 70's except that lifesavers and game fishers pushed against this- as the shark was still a perceived man eater. please remember the spearfisher of today is very different from the likes of Ben Cropp and val Taylor who were into shark killing/videoing for a monetary return.

I will also add the GNS are well on the way to return- there re thousands of them now- not hundreds. Spearfishers and lino's can all attest to this.  Pro fishers at crowdy head cant night fish offshore for Jew now due to GNS eating them out of house and home. GNS are being sighted at Middle Head, Sydney harbour by spearos.  Dozens are seen daily at the Banks and shallows off the south coast, NSW.  A secret spot at JB in 15ft of water has anywhere up to a dozen to be seen any day during summer- the luderick fishermen would not even know they were beneath their floats and cabbage weed baits. But they are there, and definitely not in sanctuary areas.

At the end of the day both spearfishers and rec/commercial fishers have impacted on GNS.

What really irritates me is the push by NCC and other green groups to exclude fishers- both line and spear from GNS habitat areas- claiming the precautionary principle- yet not look at other groups that obviously impact.

Let me give you an example. Prior to Christmas, I attended a talk by the NCC to a bunch of spearos and line fishers at south Sydney fishing club.  The NCC agreed that magic point- one of the so called critical habitat sites- had been adversely impacted by scuba divers, however there was no need to ban scuba diving out of all GNS habitat areas as this was an unusual case.

I argued that that being the case- the precautionary principle must be immediately invoked and all scuba activities immediately banned until the full impact is realised and acted upon.  On no no said the NCC- this is just an aberration.

I would suggest that this has more to do with not wanting to hurt their supporter base than really supporting their own ideollogy.

Seems to me to be hypocritical.

The NCC also stated that they would not care if there were 10,000 GNS- they were more interested in gaining sanctuary areas of between 20 and 50% for all waters- both state and federal. they also commented quite publically that they don't care who is hurt economically or socially in trying to achieve this.

I also got onto a rep on 2KY from the NPA just before Xmas and he admitted to supporting the NCC push for 20 to 50% of all waters to be sanctuary areas.

I would suggest to all- that given the federal government won a WWC award for the GBRMP zoning of 33% sanctuary areas that this is what the state government will push for.  After all don't you too want to be an award winner.??


Oly

 

[Tarki]

TO ALL MARINE CONSERVATIONISTS;
  Folks, you are going to hear more babble from the extreme Greens about Dr Bill Gladstone's Bouddi Marine Protected Area Study. (Newcastle University) I'm familiar with Bill's study so I offer these personal scientific opinions. Feel free to use them and quote them.
Bouddi Marine Protected Area is a temperate water protected area 40 km north of Sydney. Gladstone's study was undertaken 28 years AFTER fishing was excluded. There are no BEFORE studies. Gladstone himself says, "In the absence of 'before' data, inferences (untested hypotheses) about the reserves effectiveness can only be drawn following several periods of data collection through time at sites within and without the reserve." And that has not been done.
Further, since there was only one sampling period, Gladstone cautions, "So results need to be considered cautiously."  So what can we glean from Gladstone's/Bouddi study that has any relevance to anywhere else? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Scientists don't compare apples and oranges.      Tarki. (Marine Conservationist)

[Pi]

Hi,

Below is an email sent around to AAG members in 2001 by former President Dave Harrigan. It concerns an article written by the SMH environmental correspondent in November 2001 entitled "Where the ones that got away are hiding: in the Bouddi marine haven" - which refers to Bill Gladstones research at the marine extension of the Bouddi National Park.

Dave had also contacted Bill Gladstone, who acknowledged the limitations of of his study - those that Tarki mentioned above.

Since then, we have mentioned the fallacies brought on by the NCC when referring to this Bouddi study in several articles in our newsletters. And there are other issues I pointed out in a reply to Rod Burston's post "This is the sort of guff we have to deal with".

Phil

From Dave Harrigan:

Gentlemen,
If you haven't already seen it, there is an article in today's (28th November) Sydney Morning Herald about Bouddi Marine Extension. (If you're looking on the SMH web site, it's in the text index titled "Where the ones that got away are all hiding: in the Bouddi marine haven").

The story tells how a scientific team from the University of Newcastle has done a 2-month survey at Bouddi and found that the 30-year ban on fishing has had a 'profound impacct on fish stocks, resulting in more species, larger fish and huge populations compared with nearby areas'. It claims that the population of blackfish in the protected area is 12 per 125 square metres, compared to 1 per square metre in unprotected areas.

How they can draw these conclusions when there was no 'before' survey done in 1971 when Bouddi was created, is a mystery to me. But it's pretty obvious what's going on here. In the debate about Marine Parks, Bouddi has been an Achilles heel for the conservation groups, so this survey is their response. It doesn't matter if it's scientifically unsound, as long as the media laps it up.

I suggest we try to get a copy of this survey and critically analyse it. If it turns out to be unsound, we should say so. Otherwise, green groups will beat us around the head with it at every opportunity.

I've sent a letter into the Herald (copy enclosed). Whether they'll print it, I don't know but the more they receive, the better, so anyone else who wants to send a letter in should feel free.

Regards,
David Harrigan

Letter to Herald:

Letters to the Editor
Sydney Morning Herald
GPO Box 3771
SYDNEY  NSW   2001

Dear Sir,

University of Newcastle scientists believe that the 30 year fishing ban at Bouddi has had a profound impact on fish stocks (?Where the ones that got away are hiding?, SMH 28/11/01). This is curious, because no surveys were undertaken taken before Bouddi sanctuary was created. For all we know, its fish populations might have been larger in 1971. Having ignored the area for 30 years, it?s a bit late for scientists to be drawing such conclusions.

Bouddi?s reported population density of 12 blackfish per 125 square metres is nothing special. Blackfish and other non-resident fish move from place to place and travel seasonally, so a survey done over a mere two months is questionable. Vastly greater population densities often occur in well-fished locations in Sydney?s suburbs. And if, as suggested, sanctuaries such as Bouddi help ?seed? adjacent areas with fish, it has escaped the notice of fishermen in the adjacent Broken Bay area.

This story coincides with a political push by certain groups to exclude amateur and commercial fishermen from the coast, using the mechanism of marine sanctuaries. Propaganda is rife but objective, relevant facts are scarce. It is a pity your writer did not look at both sides of the issue.

Yours faithfully,

[Tarki]

MARINE  PARK  ECONOMICS:  (Quote this)
Recreational fishers in NSW spend at least $554 per angler per annum on going fishing. Approximately 26% of the northern rivers population are recreational fishers. Yet "a mere 8% of NSW recreational fishers go fishing specifically to harvest fish for food." (National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey.  7/2003)  Others just love being there, being outdoors, and having fun with the family.
 Lots of recreational fishers catch their families fresh fish. It is cheap, readily available and easily accessible. It is a valuable source of protein, rich in Omega 3 essential oils for local battlers and fishing families.
  Now the Marine Park Authority intends to restrict that access.  WHY?  WHY?  WHY?

[Tarki]

MARINE  PARKS  DEFINITION;  BIOLOGICAL  DIVERSITY:

Biological diversity means the diversity of life and is made up of the following three components;

a) genetic diversity - the variety of genes (or units of heredity) in any population,

b) species diversity - the variety of species,

c) ecosystem diversity - the variety of communities of ecosystems.

                    ( Refr.  Marine Parks Act 1997  No 64.)            Tarki.

[Tarki]

Hey. Where is the info I posted here about biodiversity? Bloody technology. I'll try again.
The MARINE PARKS ACT 1997 No 64, defines biological biodiversity as "the diversity of life" and is made up of the following three components;
   a)  genetic diversity - the variety of genes (or units of heredity) in any population.
   
   b)  species diversity - the variety of species.

   c)  ecosystem diversity - the variety of communities of ecosystems.
                                                                                                 Tarki.

[Tarki]

                             MULTIPLE  USE  PARKS  THEY  AINT!

The political spin from the politicans and the hype from the extreme Greens would have us believe these parks are "multiple use parks and what is the community complaining about?"
 Nothing could be further from the truth. The reality is that far from being multiple use parks, once they are zoned they are severely restricted access and use parks.
 Some of the general restrictions are:
  No domestic animals.

  No commercial activities within the park except with the permission of the Marine Park Authority and that may not be forthcoming. If it does, it comes at a price, an annual fee that goes up every year.

  No organized sporting, educational or recreational activities, except with the permission of the MPA. (That includes fishing outings)  And again that may not be forthcoming, even at a price. Bureaucrats determine who does what, when, how and where in your marine park. (Anyone would think they owned it, instead of simply managing it for the people of this state!)

  No camping or residing in the marine park.

  You can be directed by a marine park ranger to leave a marine park, if he/she thinks you are causing annoyance or inconvenience. And if you fail to comply, you can be removed altogether with any vehicle,vessel, animal or other property.

Now that doesn't sound like multiple use to me. Does it to you?     
                                                                                                  Tarki.

[Tarki]

                                    HABITAT  PROTECTION  ZONES.

If habitat is deserving of protection, then logically, it goes into a habitat protection zone. These zones are Marine Park Authority inventions. So then why do they need sanctuary zones that exclude all forms of fishing? Beats me. And I've asked that question several times but still haven't had an answer.
 Now they can have habitat protection zones (HPZ) with all sorts of variations, eg no spearfishing;  no bait collection;  no anchoring;  no bottom fishing (ie without a sinker; pelagic fishing only) etc, etc.  But do you think they will have a sanctuary zone that permits lure fishing only, or fly fishing only, or catch and release, or pelagic fishing only?  No way in the world.
 And the MPA still says Marine Parks are to protect the biodiversity. From what they aren't quite sure, but the answer to the how question, is by locking it up in sanctuary zones and throwing away the key.  Sanctuary zones are forever.......and they don't ever get any smaller!
How then does the MPA justify giving about 50% of the Cape Byron Political Park to offshore prawn trawlers, by way of a General Use Zone, which is all sand and which they plough up every night, and restrict offshore recreational line fishers to 0.3% of the political park for only four(4) months every year? Worse still, they have nowhere else to fish in the park, for the other eight ( months of the year. If that is "protecting the biodiversity," then I'm an alien!      Tarki.

[BOB SMITH]

Phil

Here is a copy of that Letter in the SMH that Dave replied to about Bouddi. It was tabled in the discussions in 2001 when the Fisheries Management Act was amended.


An article written by James Woodfood in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 November stated:

For nearly three decades the ocean off Bouddi National Park on the Central Coast, has been one of the few places in the state spared from commercial and recreational fishing, a marine haven whose biodiversity has stunned scientists.

The blanket ban on fishing in the 287-hectare Bouddi Marine Extension has had a profound impact on fish stocks, resulting in more species, larger fish and huge populations compared with nearby areas, a scientific study has revealed.

The research was carried out by the head of the School of Science and Technology at the University of Newcastle, William Gladstone, comparing Bouddi to two areas subjected to heavy fishing ?

Bouddi, which was gazetted in 1971, boasted 63 per cent greater species richness and up to 1340 per cent greater numbers of fish. Dr Gladstone found that the most common fish in the Marine Park also turned out to be those much liked by anglers, such as blackfish.

Red morwong and blackfish were significantly larger in the reserve than in non-protected areas ?

"In the protected area you are likely to see about 12 blackfish per 125 metres," Dr Gladstone said. "In the protected areas it's about one. Bouddi is probably pretty close to what an unfished area would have looked like." ?

Dr Gladstone said he also supported having more areas where fishing was banned. Such marine reserves helped "seed" adjacent areas.


Bob Smith

[Rod Burston]

Ray Hilborn, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, says:

"It is being argued that reserves will protect both biodiversity and increase fish yields," said Hilborn.  "But the scientific data used to support these claims have internal biases.  First, the protected areas used in the research were almost certainly selected for protection because of their higher productivity" - thus making comparisons with outside areas unfair - "and, second, the effort that was excluded from the protected areas would have been redirected to the unprotected areas."

Gladstone can't be stupid, he must have known this!!!

Rod Burston
 

[Tarki]

                                   BATEMANS  BAY  ECOFISHERS  MEETING.....No standing room at all !!!!

Struth. I was one of the lucky ones of the 668 concerned citizens who turned out to the packed house to actually get a seat! Boy, what a meeting. Interesting, informative, entertaining, factual,and right from the heart of people who have had actual first hand experience in dealing with the Marine Park Authority, their bureaucratic processes, (hype and spin) and their various committees.  The key note speaker had this to say about the Marine Park Authority, (and he should know) quote, "The community was conned, decieved and lied to by the Marine Park Authority. That is one of the reasons why they will not support the Cape Byron Political Park." Cop that!  He did not mince words, no bullshit, straight from the shoulder factual stuff, that had everybody eager for more, even after an hour.
 I especially enjoyed (and appreciated) how he corrected and put in their place, the two regional NPWS managers, with pure marine science. It was beautiful to watch. Another quote, "My National Parks and Wildlife friends here on my right, (Dianne and Tim) are terrestrial ecologists and while they might know how many freckles there are on a kola bears nose they couldn't tell the difference between a whiting and a wobbegong!"  And how true he made it seem, not once, but repeatedly during his presentation all night. It was beautiful! Loads of information with a killer touch of humour.
I enjoyed it so much I went down on to Narooma the following night, where only one of the area managers from NPWS turned up. No wonder. And he got a follow up lesson in marine science. God knows he needed it too.
If anyone wants to hear the real story, and the scientific side of marine parks, I suggest you get in touch with the CEO of Ecofishers, Rod Burston, and book his speakers for the real story. I can't recommend it highly enough.  An outstanding contribution to the cause fellas. Extremely well done.                                            Tarki.

[Tarki]

                             STATUS  OF  FISH  STOCKS.     (NSW  FISHERIES)

"Catch data suggests that most estuarine finfish stocks have been stable since the 1950's and catch rate data for the last decade support this conclusion.
Scientific studies (before and after) done in what is now the Cape Byron Political Park, confirm this.  In 1993 N. James, (NSW Fisheries) found the catch per unit effort (CPUE), for recreational fishers, was 1.287 fish per angler per hour. In 2003, N. Rae, (SCU) found the CPUE for the same area, was 1.194 fish per angler per hour.
One female snapper (Chrysophrys auratus) 55cm long (sexually mature) will lay 6.1 million eggs each year, every year."

 So where is the perceived decline in inshore fish stocks pedalled by the extreme Greens? Again their emotional rhetoric is not supported by scientific facts!

Thank goodness for ECOfishers. Some sane, sensible, scientific fishers who are putting some balance back into the marine park debate. The debate has been hijacked for years by the extreme Green lobby.  At long last, we have a progressive Green fishing group, which  relies on fact rather than fiction to counter the doom and gloom of the regressive extreme Greens, who don't even fish.   So come on fisher folk, support your ECOfisher organization. They are supporting you!  For it may be the last chance you get.         Tarki.

[Tarki]

        ECONOMICS  and  EXPENDITURE    RECREATIONAL FISHERS.

Recreational fishers in NSW directly expend $554 million per annum.  Breakdown.  Vehicle and Travel;  $118 million per annum.  Accommodation; $54 million per annum.  Fishing Gear;  $46 million per annum.  Bait and Ice;  $12 million per annum.
 That equates to $554 per fisher per annum.
 The most heavily fished areas of NSW are Sydney metropolitan areas and the Hunter region. So if the concept of marine parks, "is to protect the biodiversity," wouldn't you think that the two most heavily fished areas of NSW would qualify for a marine park? But no, they don't. Science seemingly, and environmental and common sense reasons at least, would dictate that these dreaded marine parks be sited in the most heavily fished areas of the state.  OK fishers, can you see how you are being conned by political hype and spin?  Don't be treated like a second class citizen.  Join Ecofishers. Join the campaign to wrest back your traditional and cultural rights. We are saying to the politicans, "enough is enough!"  We pay a recreational licence fee which gives us a feeling of ownership of the resource, which we treasure and value, but you are locking us out of the very areas where we can catch fish! Politicans are unable to demonstrate any valid scientific, envvironmental, social , economic or even cultural reason for doing so. Colonial Australians have cultural and heritage rights too. I'm standing up for mine. But you will need to stand up for yours. So join Ecofishers. I did.  United we stand. Divided we get shafted, again and again and again.                           Tarki.