Narooma Port Committee
Chairman: Dr. Philip Creagh BVSc. 4476 3604
Secretary: Mr. John Moore
PO Box 596
Narooma, NSW, 2546
Batemans Marine Park - Email Group Newsletter # 22. April 10th, 2007 - Post Election Issues
1. Grey Nurse Shark numbers have been queried. Potential for Scientific fraud. (SEE BELOW)
2. Nature Conservation Council goes to Administrative Appeals Tribunal in an attempt to effectively close down the NSW Ocean Trap and Line commercial fishery. (SEE BELOW)
3. Manager of Batemans Marine Park makes an interesting comment. (SEE BELOW)
4. Koperberg is new Minister for Environment (and other departments) replacing the unlamented Debus.
5. Marine Parks Authority, and ALL aquatic reserves, transferred from Premier?s/Fisheries Department/Conservation Department to Department of Environment of Conservation.
1. Grey Nurse Shark numbers have been queried. Potential for Scientific fraud.
Channel 9, Sunday program on March 23, 2007 broadcast a show that was extremely critical of the claimed number of Grey Nurse Sharks in NSW waters. This followed on from Prof. Jon Jenkins obtaining material from the NSW Fisheries Minister (MacDonald) through the NSW Parliament just prior to the election.
The video of the show is available here:
http://ninemsn.video.msn.com/v/en-au/v.htm?f=39&g=3771c83e-f950-4876-ba5d-ade43ee7bb78&p=aunews_ausunday&t=s29&mediaid=77683 It is important to remember that ALL the material that is related to a SCIENTIFIC count of the GNS in NSW waters relates to ONE set of data that was collected and written into a paper by Otway and Burke (2004) ?Mark recapture population estimate and movements of GNS. This is a NSW Fisheries report, and is NOT subject to the normal rigour of an article produced for a peer reviewed journal.
However the numbers of sharks calculated in this paper WERE used in a peer reviewed journal article by Otway, Bradshaw and Harcourt (2004) titled ?Estimating the rate of quasi extinction of the Australian GNS population using ....? This was published in Biological Conservation 119:341-350.
In material supplied it appears there are very significant anomalies that were either NOT addressed in the original count, or fraudulently ignored.
In brief the count of GNS occurred like this:
24 GNS were tagged prior to June 2003
Over a 2 week period in June 2003 a survey was conducted between Eden and Bundaberg.
Results:
19 of the 24 tagged GNS seen in a total of 313 GNS sighted.
19 of the 24 tagged fish seen = 79%.
If we saw a total of 313 GNS then we saw 79% of the total sharks. So that means 100% = 396 sharks between Bundaberg and Eden. This is overly simplistic, but gives an idea of the way the calculation was done.
However a few ?flies in the ointment? have been revealed:
Counting. The survey used scuba divers and freedivers (generally spearfishermen). I will NOT go into the politics of scuba divers Versus freedivers and rec fishermen.
HOWEVER the breakup of the figures (not publicly known) show that 18 of the tags were seen by Scuba divers, who sighted 137 GNS in total.
The Freedivers saw 176 GNS and ONLY SIGHTED one tag. Those numbers SHOULD have sent alarm bells instantly ringing.
The tagged sharks seen in the JUNE 2003 survey was the sole source of data used in the article. HOWEVER there WAS another survey done. This has never been acknowledged by NSW Dept. of Fisheries.
It has been subsequently revealed that a second survey was done in August 2003. This was NOT supported by the Freedivers(??) The results of this show 162 GNS seen by Scuba divers at 27 sites. NO TAGS seen. NO tags seen is a catastrophic result in this sort of survey.
Possible Explanations:
* Scuba divers accidentally or maliciously noted more tagged sharks.
* All the tagged sharks had died (not realistic)
The factors that can make the data worthless are:
* The integrity of the ?counters?. This issue is serious and needs to be addressed.
* The death of tagged sharks. If 10% of the stagged sharks died ?post tagging? this would have dramatic effects on the statistical analysis. This is the reason the same survey cannot be done in June 2007 ... how many tagged GNS have died since 2003??.
* Similarly the fact that 80% of the tagged sharks were ?sighted? in the June 2003 survey has far too high a probability factor built in??
Conclusion:
Until these issues have been addressed then the calculation of the number of GNS and the subsequent listing by the NSW Fisheries scientific committee has to be questioned.
NSW Fisheries have embarked on an expensive breeding program with the Melbourne Aquarium. Trying to breed a species up from a low genetic base, and with a number of 300 to 500, the East Cast population of the GNS IS genetically doomed ... a hybridized sport would be the end result of any breeding program. It would ?look? like a GNS but that is all. One has to ask .. is it worthwhile to spend unlimited sums of money and scientific time on a theoretical exercise?
2. Nature Conservation Council goes to Administrative Appeals Tribunal in an attempt to effectively close down the NSW Ocean Trap and Line commercial fishery.
The NCC is going to mount a case in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) to stop Ocean Trap and Line Fishing(OTLF) in NSW. This will have profound implications for ALL fishermen in NSW.
They are having ANOTHER crack at a 1500m exclusion zone around ALL aggregation sites, not just the 16 Critical habitat sites.
The NCC site is available here :http://www.nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1784&Itemid=601
It is interesting that they are mounting the case to the Commonwealth Minister for Environment and Heritage (Turnbull) as his signature is required on an annual basis in order to sell fish overseas, ie the Export business. The reasoning for this goes back to Australia being a signatory to the World Trade Organization (WTO) trade in wildlife.
Commercial fishing is, in fact, regulated by the Commonwealth Department of Environment (as Fish are regarded as ?wildlife?) Turnbull has the authority to deny the ?tick? to the NSW OTLF fishery. It would be interesting to know how much of NSW OTLF is exported ... I would have thought a minimal amount .. so why doesn?t the NSW Minister (McDonald) tell the Commonwealth Minister (Turnbull) to go jump? If McDonald said that to Turnbull then the Feds would find another way to put the screws on NSW, ie. Denying funding for, probably, a totally different area such as Roads, or Hospitals etc. Funding and politics is extremely complex.
The NCC claims it needs donations to proceed however they have the services of the Environmental Defender?s Office (EDO), and even the services of a Senior Counsel(SC), the State version of a QC. This is disgraceful.
In reality there are significant public funds being diverted from schools hospitals and services for NSW to fund vexatious legal cases in the AAT. If the case goes against them in the AAT, the next port of call is the Supreme Court, after that the High Court.
They have 1 expert witness, and his affidavit, and the questions asked by the NCC and EDO, should be read ... carefully.
Note this person, Dr. Victor Peddemors PhD is a visiting research fellow at the Graduate School of the Environment, Macquarie University, Sydney.
His email address is
vpeddemors@bio.mq.edu.au. Phone is (02) 9968 2256, Mobile 0411 537268. It would be interesting to know his opinion of Otway?s work in the ?Mark recapture? paper. Given the revelations about the counting method.
Another statement (an opinion) is given by Peter Hitchins, from the South West Rocks Dive Centre. If ever there was a case of vested interest then this is one. Interesting that he shows a photo of a shark with kyphosis. Naturally this shark has a name ... ?Quassimotto?. It would be interesting to know whether this shark should be destroyed, or this genetic trait allowed to be passed on??
3. Manager of Batemans Marine Park makes an interesting comment.
This is part of a letter sent to the Narooma Sporting and Services Fishing Club. It contains many inaccuracies, and assumptions that cannot be validated, however the highlighted part has been queried, both to Kelly (Manager of BMP) and Muldoon (EO of the MPA) with NO response
?As you are probably aware, fishing, bait collecting and associated activities, undertaken by ever increasing numbers of people with ever increasing efficiency cannot be sustained indefinitely without refuge areas being provided. Very few people question the need for some protection, but there?s no shortage of arguments concerning the best locations for protection. The problem faced by planners is that there is not a single area of the coast that is not someone?s favourite fishing spot.
I realise that the sanctuary zone in this part of the coast is different from the arrangement presented in the draft. The idea of a draft plan is to stimulate informed discussion toward improved zoning. In many cases, draft zoning proposals require only minor modifications in light of new information. In the far south of the park, the zoning proposed in the draft required significant change to accomodate new information from marine ecologists, the commercial fishing sector, Aboriginal people and others. Here again planners face a dilemma. If the final plan is not significantly different from the draft they are accused of running a pre-determined agenda. If the final plan is significantly different from the draft they are accused of poor consultation.?
