Central Coast ECOfishers

[Ken]

Letter in The Sun Weekly and my response.

'I take exception to the letter from Megan Kessler, Nature Conservation Council of NSW titled ?Sanctuaries needed to save fish? in your 29th June 2006 edition.

Her first sentence, ?Anyone who goes fishing knows?.? is proven FALSE by the results coming out of the catch surveys from the Recreational Fishing Havens (RFHs) created from the recreational fishing licence funds ( reference pamphlet titled ?Lake Macquarie, Changes in the recreational fishery following the establishment of a Recreational Fishing Haven? produced by the NSW Department of Primary Industries ). This research proves that you don?t need to lock out recreational family fishers to allow fish stocks to increase/recover. Also she fails to realise the old saying that ?anglers catch fish, danglers don?t?, i.e. if you know what you?re doing you CAN usually catch fish anywhere; if you don?t you won?t irrespective of how many fish are around.

She also claims that the ?best science?? but if you check carefully you find there is NO science that says ?that up to half of all marine waters should be protected in marine sanctuaries?, merely ?opinions? and that is NOT science!!! Rather environmental practices covered under the NSW Protection of the Environment, Operations Act 1997 and a reduction of recognised unsustainable commercial practices will ensure the ability of families to catch fish when and WHERE they want to!!!

I quote from a report titled
No Take Marine Protected Areas (nMPAs) as a fishery management tool, a pragmatic perspective
A Report to the Fishamerica Foundation
By Robert L. Shipp, Ph.D.

Current plans or suggestions regarding closure of large areas are simply not scientifically supportable from a fishery management perspective.
such a closure would severely reduce harvest potentials, shift effort to other areas, and likely have a substantial negative economic impact on both the commercial and recreational fishing industries.

As can be seen There is no need to lock families out of fishing areas. If Megan Kessler wants to help BOTH fish stocks AND families she should support more recreational fishing havens as these are based on real fisherpersons with real fish, not opinions.

I close by quoting the statement by the NSW Fisheries chief scientist, Steve Keneally, who said on the ABC recently? ?No NSW fish stocks are under threat, nor in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and are constantly monitored by the Fisheries managers.?

Family lockouts are not needed to save fish, they are only designed to save NSW Labor through green preferences at the next election.

 I fish, I vote
Ken Bond
Umina Beach'

[ACTAngler]

Seems Ms Kessler did a bulk mailout, a similar sounding letter of hers was published in the Narooma news this week.

My response:

"To the editor,

Megan Kessler (letters 28 June) claims that ?anyone who goes fishing knows it is much harder to catch a fish than it once was?.  Megan, when was the last time YOU went fishing to enable you to have an informed opinion on the issue?  The ?best science available? you refer to is a consensus statement.  Consensus is NOT science.  NSW Department of Primary Industries scientists state that ?that no NSW stocks are under threat, nor in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and constantly monitored by the Fisheries managers?. THAT is science, not extreme green anti-fishing spin. 

Don?t worry though Megan, most recreational anglers can pick the spin from the truth.  Philip Creagh and Jack Dart (letters 28 June), keep the truth coming.  There is no science or sense in Marine Parks.  Locking families out of nature for the sake of Green preferences is not the answer."

[row]

The exact same letter appeared in the Newcastle Herald and the Port Stephens Examiner, If you have written what you think is a good letter, please send it to as many editors as you can, we are all in the same boat and the editors welcome a new name to the argument.

[BOB SMITH]

It's TWS Claire Dunn's turn this week.

Where's Lisa


Bob Smith

[Tarki]

                                     NCC's Latest Misinformation. (Megan Kessler)
 " ECOfishers recommends that the extreme Green anti-fishing personnel eat more fish. It's brain food! Then they woulld be able to distinguish fact from fiction!"   Use that in your letters to the editors.....it's imperative that we respond en-masse, to papers in which this nonsense was published. Remember the aim is to inform the public about the REAl situation. After all they are the one's who will be voting next year.  Additional points to consider.1) NCC is an extreme Green anti-fishing minority group. 2) It is funded with your taxes by the NSW Labor government! 3) If the fish aren't there, how can anyone catch them.? 4) Currently there are schools of Australian Salmon, hectares in size the length of the NSW coastline and for the first time in many years, they have arrived in Qld waters. 5) Leatherjackets are in plague proportions off-shore from Eden to Tweed Heads. Millions are dying of starvation at a juvenile stage. This is the fourth year in a row there has been a population explosion of Leatherjackets. 6) How does the NCC explain these "natural events?" 7) Quote Dr Steve Keneally, NSW Fisheries Chief scientist and say, "readers can choose whom they believe - the extreme Green NCC or the scientists!" Attack their credibility, BUT don't shoot the messanger! (We don't want them to stop writing!)  9) Highlight the NSW govt funded bit. It's very important that the punters know where their taxes go.   Tarki.

[Ken]

Further Sun Weekly letters and my response sent to the Editor today

The Editor
Re: Keith Whitefield, letter, Your Say Thursday, 27th July, 2006 titled ?Act Now to Save Fish?

I take issue with his statement that ?the only way to conserve fish stocks are marine parks and sanctuaries, ?..?

The Marine Parks that the NSW State Government is implementing here will, in no way assist, in achieving the saving of Canadian Cod or Patagonian toothfish as neither are present in NSW waters. The tiger Flathead he also mentions occupy a habitat in coastal depths of 50 to 300 metres according to my reference books whereas the sanctuaries the NSW State Government is approving are at/or close to shore mostly locking out ?mums, dads and kids? fishers, fixed income retiree fishers and the lower paid blue collar fishers.

I certainly support sustainable recreational fishing which is managed by NSW Fisheries (not the Marine Parks Authority) and support further Recreational Fishing Havens (ideally Brisbane Water) in which Fisheries surveys are demonstrating improved conservation of fish stocks in NSW waters.

I call for the monies that are being put into unneeded Marine Parks (except to buy green votes of latt? swilling vegetarian Sydneyites) to be put back into Health, Schools, Roads and Drinking Water for the Central Coast.

I also call for the NSW State Government to increase policing of environmental vandalism on land which will reduce the main causes of water quality impacts in estuaries and coastal waters, the main factor in biodiversity loss in NSW waters.

I fish, I vote

Ken Bond

Ps Some references from the World Wide Web into the habitats of the fish mentioned above by Keith Whitefield.
1. Toothfish
There are two species of Toothfish: the Antarctic Toothfish (Dissostichus mawsoni) and the Patagonian Toothfish (Dissostichus eleginoides). They are very similar in appearance and habits but the Antarctic Toothfish is found in the high latitude region close to the Antarctic continent whereas the Patagonian Toothfish is found in subantarctic waters on shelves around islands and submarine banks.
Toothfish are bottom-living, in depths of 300m to 2500m, but move off the bottom on occasion to feed.
2. Distribution -Tiger flathead are found from the NSW north coast south through to Portland in Victoria, including Bass Straight and Tasmania. This species is predominantly found offshore but tiger flathead also inhabit shallow coastal bays. Tiger flathead are more common south of Nowra.

3. Canadian Cod Range
Cod are known as groundfish since they live in the ocean's bottom layers. They occur on both sides of the North Atlantic. Off the North American portion, they range from Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, to the Hudson Strait, off western Greenland. Newfoundland - particularly off the Grand Banks - and Labrador have typically been home to the greatest abundance of the fish.

[row]

This is just another example of how misguided and off the mark the extreme green anti fishing mob are, they quote declining fisheries from deep sea fisheries, and apply them to inshore fisheries, these facts have absolutely no bearing on inshore fisheries, and they use these figures to beat us around the head that fish stocks are declining, if the real facts ever make light of day, then people will know that recreational fishers have extremely minimal impact on fish stocks, the problem is that rec. fishers are the easiest target for the extreme green anti fishing machine to target, but I think that they did not expect such a strong response from the 1,000,000+ anglers of NSW.
How many of you have ever caught a toothfish?
Get this argument into perspective, we are talking about, Snapper, Mulloway, Bream, Kingfish, Whiting, not some bullshit catch that we would never target in a million years, why can't the extreme green antifishing machine get this into its dumb head, we are not the problem , we are the solution.

[Ken]

The Editor Sun Weekly
Re: Keith Whitfield, letter, Your Say Thursday, 17th August, 2006 titled ?Communing with cod in sanctuaries?

Mr Whitfield has claimed in his letter that I ?spread a rather fishy tail of red herrings?. He then fails to further elaborate on what they are so I can only conclude that the only ?red herrings? he saw were those he mentioned while crying into his ?sardines and tomato sauce? caused by my comments on ?the sanctuaries the NSW State Government is approving are at/or close to shore mostly locking out ?mums, dads and kids? fishers, fixed income retiree fishers and the lower paid blue collar fishers?.

I challenge him to get factual and prove to your readers that I was incorrect in my statements otherwise his letters will, in future be tainted with the idea, they are irrelevant.

I fish, I vote

Ken Bond

[Ken]

Just a note to let readers know what is going on on the Central Coast (basically Gosford Wyong Council areas)
After a mass meeting in May, signed up members of Ecofishers have formed a Central Coast section of Ecofishers.
Initial Committee members were involved with starting issues rolling and presently are involved in incorporating the groups name and planning media campaigns while building our membership levels up. Action has also been taken to affiliate with the area's fishing clubs and seek links with 'Chambers of Commerce', Tourism peak bodies, Greens and local fishing Tackle and boat retailers.
We have titled the section "Central Coast Recreation Conservation Group (CCRCG) and Ecofishers" so as to broaden the prospective membership interest so as to provide to Government a 'one point of contact' for marine park discussions. This is intended to maintain a local Central Coast identity and prevent us being 'swamped' in the Sydney part of the Hawkesbury bioregion.
Main contacts for the "CCRCG & Ecofishers" are Lindsay [fishoz@dodo.com.au] Chairman and Ken [ kbon2017@bigpond.net.au] Secretary
If any Central Coast member hasn't put their name down with us could you let either Lindsay or myself know via the emails above.
Also if you can help in anyway with say, ideas for a campaign or writing letters/emails etc we will certainly appreciate it.
I fish, I vote
Ken
ps local 'greens' appear to disappear when asked to join in even though originally they wanted to prove how wrong our position was. maybe it has something to do with 'show us the facts'

[Tarki]

  GREAT  STUFF  GUYS!  But be sure to check under every rock. Those Greenies will be hiding from daylight (and reality, facts and figures) somewhere. Currently they are dazzled by the glare of SCIENCE!   Tarki.

[Ken]

Extract from letter received from Munmorah NPWS.
On the subject of night closure, we will be closing both entries into Munmorah very soon. Opening and closing times will be as follows;

September 30th to April 30th - 5:30am to 9:00pm
May 1st to September 29th? ? - 6:00am to 6:00pm
 
These times will be implemented from the 25th September.

So there goes another place where there was good night time fishing. probably the best on the coast. The next thing will be the Marine Parks will know about this and the area will be included in the Sanctuaries.

[Nete-Quette]

Manly Daily - Saturday 30th September 2006

"No" to marine park
Andrew Tillet
state parliament

Environment Minister Bob Debus has ruled out the creation of a Hawkesbury marine park.

Pittwater independent MP Alex McTaggart asked Mr Debus in State Parliament on Thursday about speculation a park was going to be created on the Hawkesbury Shelf.

But Mr Debus said that the "rumour mongering" was wrong.

He said the Hawkesbury's aquatic environment was already well protected by the existing 27 marine reserves.

"I can say quite clearly to the honourable member that the Government has no plans at all to create a marine park in the Hawkesbury bioregion," Mr Debus said.

"The reason is quite simple: there are already a great many aquatic and other marine reserves in this area?with that degree of marine protection it is obvious that there is already a high degree of conservation of the marine environment."

The marine parks issue has polarized coastal NSW communities, including the Central Coast and Port Stephens.

Fishing is banned or severely restricted in parts of marine parks, pleasing conservationists but angering commercial fishers and recreational anglers.

[Nete-Quette]

HAWKESBURY MARINE PARK
Page: 48

Mr ALEX McTAGGART: My question without notice is directed to the Minister for the Environment. Will the Minister advise the Pittwater community about the status of the proposed Hawkesbury marine park?

Mr BOB DEBUS: I thank the honourable member for his question. He cannot be blamed for asking it because there is a lot of rumour mongering up and down the coast of New South Wales, perpetrated by various groups, and supported by the Opposition in the vain hope that somehow they will be able to stir up widespread community opposition to marine parks. It is a most oddly paradoxical policy because these marine parks are very heavily supported by the great majority of people.

Be that as it may, and acknowledging the recent speculation and rumour mongering about the possibility of a new marine park in what is called the Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Bioregion, I can say quite clearly to the honourable member that the Government has no plans at all to create a marine park in the Hawkesbury bioregion. The reason is quite simple: there are already a great many aquatic and other marine reserves in this area. In fact, there are 27, and a lot of them were declared some time ago. There are also 9 inter-title areas within the bioregion that are now fully protected. With that degree of marine protection it is obvious that there is already a high degree of conservation of the marine environment in this area.

Questions without notice concluded.

[Nete-Quette]

The Letters Editor,
The Manly Daily,
26 Sydney Road,
Manly NSW 2095

Environment Minister Bob Debus claims that "the Government has no plans at all to create a marine park in the Hawkesbury bioregion" (MD 30th September 2006). What is not clearly stated is that there are no such plans in term of the current Government. Will Mr Debus make the same statement if Labor returns to Government following the elections due in March 2007?

Ministers Debus and Macdonald have often stated the fact that six marine parks were to be established along the NSW coast by 2006 was the result of an earlier Cabinet decision. Following the June 2001 mid-term environment statement Labor did announce there would be more marine parks. We now have marine parks in Lord Howe Island, Cape Byron, Solitary Islands, Port Stephens/Great Lakes, Jervis Bay and Batemans Bay. But one has to wonder why marine parks were not setup in the Hawkesbury and Twofold Bay bioregions, and why Bateman's Bay received two marine parks.

For the case of the Hawkesbury bioregion, Minister Debus claims that "there is already a high degree of conservation of the marine environment" with the existing 27 marine reserves. But, could it also be that there are 5 Labor held seats between the Shoalhaven and Cronulla, and Labor are concerned about potential voter backlash following on from the community anger where marine parks were located.

What of Two-fold Bay? Labor unexpectedly won the seat of Monaro in the 2002 elections, and Liberal won the normally Labor held seat of South Coast. Possibly more voter backlash if a marine park was sited in the Twofold Bay bioregion, as Labor would like to hold Monaro and win back South Coast.

If, as Minister Debus states, the aquatic and marine reserves already present in the Hawkesbury bioshelf provides a high degree of conservation of the marine environment, then why not use a similar model along the NSW coast rather than the sanctuary zones associated with marine parks, which are based on an extreme implementation of the precautionary principal rather than any scientific data.

And of the existing marine parks, how many contain Coalition held seats and how many have Labor seats? The coalition needs to gain 16 seats to win Government. If Labor loses 8 seats we may see independents having the balance of power. Couple this with a previous report in the national press (Sharri Markson 27th July 2006) that confidential Labor party notes show the NSW Greens negotiating preference deals with the ALP over policy issues that include marine parks, it seems the creation, siting and zoning of marine parks are based more on political expediency rather than the protection of the marine environment.

Yours sincerely
Phillip Ingram
President
Anglers Action Group

[Tarki]

                                                                 DEVIOUS  DEBUS  WITH  A  DUBIOUS  REPLY.
Phil, you've nailed it fairly and squarely!  An obvious "Dorothy Dix," question from the independent McTaggart. How would Debus have all those details at his finger-tips without prior notice? The worrying thing now is, that the "independent" McTaggart, is now in the pocket of the Labor Party, by way of a preference deal!  Politicians will do anything to get re-elected, to keep their snouts in the trough!   Tarki.