Recfish Auatralia - policy on no take zones

All,

It appears that Recfish Australia has adopted a stance on no take zones that is similar to ECOfishers (see below). Note that Recfish require scientific evidence not scientific opinion.

It should be noted that science is not the only consideration in the determination of MPA's. Social, economic and philosophical issues are all important.

Here is an extreme example to make a point:

"If the blue and gold bell frog was presumed extinct but subsequently discovered to have a viable population in Hyde Park in Sydney, would we allow science to prevail and lock everybody out? Of course not. We would search for another solution. If we couldn't find an alternative, I still doubt that we would give this area away to save a frog." Anon.

Evolution and extinction are natural processes just like birth and death. Even so, it is human nature to want things to stay the same but there is a limit to what we are prepared to pay for this.

Rod

Subject: Recfish Australia position on MPA's

Policy Statement

Recfish Australia?s position on marine protected areas is simple ? unless there is sound biological/ scientific evidence to indicate there is a need to lock out recreational fishing we do not support ?no take? MPAs.

Networks of marine protected areas aroundAustraliaare not the only way of preserving our aquatic ecosystems. It is not the panacea for Fisheries Ecological Sustainable Development processes, thus ensuring future generations enjoy what past generations have.

Without sound biological or scientific evidence proving the only way to save something is to lock it up there is no rationale for wholesale MPAs. Management solutions must be broader.

Declines in aquatic life may have nothing to do with activities in the area earmarked for protection. Often the problem lies outside the box drawn on the map. Off-stream pollution, habitat destruction and drainage of wetlands damage ecosystems, inshore & offshore.

The 1995 National Policy on Recreational Fishing called for: greater research; habitat work; and legislation to protect spawning/nurseries areas. NRSMPA is the legislation - all three are needed to achieve ESD in fisheries. We must address the cause not just treat the symptom.

The Jury is undecided on MPA successes due to negative side effects e.g. aggregation of effort exerts pressure in other areas. And ?paper parks? are not the answer ? we need resources assigned for management, community monitoring, enforcement, etc.

If an MPA is agreed it should not mean all fishing activity is excluded automatically. Recreational fishing behaviour can be modified to achieve outcomes; total exclusion is an absolute last resort.

The biggest mistake is not to consult at the start and throughout. This causes angst and doesn?t generate ownership. More effective programs will be achieved with the support of recreational fishers. Support cannot be expected in exchange for total exclusion.