Yoda

You might try the DPI Fisheries website, there is a lot of info there. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries

Hey Daniel, I applaud your efforts to encourage others to fish responsibly, I have seen too many times people at the local ramp cleaning illegal fish, and I have made my feelings clear to the fishers involved, and in the process made myself vulnerable to angry illegal fishers, the last time it was 6 illegal fishers to 1 angry local, I had to make a hasty retreat, but at least I made my message clear and I embarrassed them in front of some other onlookers who did not realise that this bunch of men who were not locals were cleaning a lot of illegal fish, It makes me very angry to be cast into the same basket as such people whom I do not think should be given the title of recreational fishers, I feel that they should have the title of dickheads.

I think the original intent of this post has been lost somewhere along the way, if we are going to make claims of overfishing by any groups of fishers we have to have credible reference to support these claims, otherwise we can put ourselves into the same category as the greenies who claim that we are the cause of fisheries decline without any evidence to support these claims, we do, as recreational fishers, have scientific proof to deny the greenies claims of denuded inshore reefs where there is nothing more than sea urchins, quote: *"many near shore reef systems in NSW have been denuded of almost all life except sea urchins" (Paul Winn, National Parks Association, Newcastle Herald 160906). Do you believe that? Daniel, do you really think that you are the first fisher to self impose bag and size limits, I've been doing this for 40 years, as I'm sure a lot of members on this site probably have as well, it is nothing new, on the contrary, I think it is probably a very common sentiment among the majority of anglers, it is an insult to responsible anglers the claims being made by the extreme green anti-fishing machine from the NPA that we are a bunch of environmental rapists who have no regard for the resource, bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!! I, and you, would ostracise any fisher who abuses or endangers the fishery, do you not agree? *this is the kind of rubbish you can expect to appear in the Daily Telegraph and the SMH when the Hawkesbury Bioregion is declared after the election in March 2007, and remember that the SMH is very much more green biased.

there is pretty well good bream around these areas at this time of year, boondabah (middle) island fishes well on the western side as it is a broken reef patch with deep holes, but the current rages north and south of it as it is a bottleneck for the tide, you can fish the deep holes on the slack tides but it is usually best in the western lee out of the tide anyway, if you are staying at Hawks Nest it is probably a good idea to try around the Bridge and around Corrie, You might like to try Hawks Nest Beach for Salmon & Tailor or bream, or venture up to the Gibber, try Jimmies beach in the evening for bream, if you have a decent boat then you should try around the islands for snapper. Good luck mate, let us know how you go. Go see the guys at Hawks nest tackle, they'll give you the good oil.

Yes mate, I've lived and fished here since I was 6, that's about 40 years, Anna Bay is tops for beach and Rock fishing, call in and see the guys at Anna Bay Bottlo/Bait for the lowdown, there's lots of good beach/rock options around Anna Bay, but if the weather's up then you may have to head into Nelson Bay where you can hire boats, if you want to see some seasoned blackfisherman in action then head to the Breakwater in the Bay at the top or bottom of the tide. Hope you enjoy your holiday and catch a few.

I am not a commercial fisher, the Fact of the matter is that the commercial fishers have been required to produce an Environmental Impact Statement to continue their fishing practices, and via these EIS have proven to be ecologically sustainable, now you may not agree with this, but it is the case, I cannot just come out and say that these EIS are wrong, so for me to say that the Pros are the root of all evil makes me no different to the greenies who are saying that rec fishers are killing off fish stocks, I would say that if you feel that the pros are having a negative impact in a particular area that you know of then you need to take the matter up with your local member and talk facts not just rhetoric like the greenies do, any particular group cannot just be seen to be saying that the commercial sector is doing damage without proving it, to do so would make us hypocrites. Also there have been attempts by those opposing our opposition to unscientifically implemented sanctuary zones to divide and conquer (wedge politics). We will not go for that. All responsible and fair recreational fisherman should support the concept that any form of fishing which is not proven to be sustainable should be curtailed, If you feel there are some forms of fishing which are not sustainable then by all means do your best to get it curtailed, but it needs to done scientifically, not emotionally.

Oyster racks to the west of Corrie, Rocks to the North. West of Boondaba (middle) Island is a popular spot.

There are restrictions as to where you can take the hire boats - not anywhere near the heads, I don't know about Boabs, I've not seen any, try anchoring near the oyster racks around soldiers pt for healthy bream, deep water west of middle island for bream as well, maybe an early jew, the weather usually restricts you to the sth side of the bay in a small boat this time of year, if the weather allows you could head over to Corrie Island for bream, whiting and maybe some flathead. Salmon, tailor, bream off the beaches at the moment, or try the ocean rocks for pigs and bream, the breakwall in the bay is firing for luderick now, and good catches of bream as well, you should be able to get weed from steadies tackle shop in the bay. Enjoy your holiday in gods country, while you still can.

Any scientist who can prove the benefits of closures of fishing areas conclusively is going to get some serious brownie points, in other words some serious funding, so it is in their best interest to produce the results which are in the advancement of the MPA, so in my opinion there is a swathe of junior scientists out there who are trying to prove the benefits of no take zones, and any report that they can edit to their advantage they are going to pursue. Really, if a young scientist were to say, well, hang on I do not really agree, I think that the fish stocks are OK, well that brilliant junior scientist would be next to Lazy Larry in the dole queue the next day. My argument is that there must be at least 1000's of sanctuary zones worldwide now and the most conclusive evidence that they work is limited to a few reports, 1 quotes Blackfish on the south coast, highly dubious due to the nature of blackfish schooling habits, another quotes Jackass Morwong, now any fisherman knows that this species is not a fish which will take a hooked bait, and they are not palatable anyway, another quotes a remote reef in the Phillipines which was previously fished with dynamite and the only species mentioned was one Chiccilid species, and now comes the report from the Australian Institute of Marine Science which I dealt with in my previous post, any fisho will attest to the dynamic nature of fish populations, I am surprised that the greenies are not attributing the current explosion in Leatherjacket and Salmon populations on the east coast to sanctuary zones. Sweep, you can quote some more if you like and I will attempt to get the real information on them as well, but you can see what I am getting at.

There has been some articles in the media recently regarding a press release from the Australian Institute of Marine Science regarding Coral Trout and Stripey Perch on the Great Barrier Reef, $%^&* has been in contact with Walter Starck, who is a World renowned coral reef researcher and has more than 15 years experience on the Great Barrier Reef. Walter Starck has provided $%^&* with this reference: The following is a quote from SUSTAINING THE WET TROPICS: A regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 2A, Condition Report: Biodiversity Conservation, Rainforest CRC 2004 by Nigel Weston and Steve Goosem: "Many species are long-lived and recruitment of new juveniles varies markedly from year to year. Thus, when a particular year has an unusually high recruitment event, that age-class can dominate the population. It is a feature of reef fish populations that they decline slowly over time, but increase rapidly after a good recruitment season. These slow declines and rapid increases are not synchronised between species because good recruitment seasons happen in different years for different species and may be widely separated. Juvenile recruitment pulses (as described above) can also dramatically affect the stock size on both closed and open reefs. Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout." "A major problem with interpreting results from most studies that have compared open and closed reefs is that studies did not quantify the actual amount of fishing pressure on reefs. Available catch, effort and catch per unit effort data are variable from year to year, but show no consistent trends at a regional scale." Starck has also provided the following remarks: "The claim that the first good year for coral trout recruitment following the new closures is attributable to the closures is, if not dubious scientific judgement, deliberately misleading. This is especially so in the absence of any assessment of fishing effort or catch. Those responsible should be required to explain why they are not either incompetent or guilty of scientific misconduct."

Well, wow, It seems that your ever present feeling of superiority seems to have taken a blow, why should we not be cutting and pasting the opinions of world experts in the field, this is not a thesis, it is a public argument, any resource to reinforce that argument is fair and right and should be used to it's full extent to expose the truth, or is truth secondary in this theatre, I would rather be right and of lesser intellect than be wrong and trying to lord my opinion by using my misguided feelings of superiority. Our few supporters within the ranks of the Marine Science field who do not feel that thay have to tow the popular line as they have already proven their expertise are the very few real truthsayers that exist in this field as they have no need to produce misinformation to advance their careers and we will use this minimal but honest scientific resource to its full extent.

I buy a few new fishings magazines every month and read them in bed before I go to sleep, most other nights I read old issues of the same magazines, every now and then I come across some articles which trigger feelings of deja-vu, take this extract from an article in Modern Fishing October 2001 in relation to the expansion of Sanctuary zones in the SIMP: "As an example of the MPA's arrogance, they recently called for public comment on proposed changes to the park. The process is laughingly referred to as "Community Consultation". Well ,the public commented all right, but it became obvious that their input was completely ignored when the Draft Zoning Plan recently came to light. And how do we know the public was railroaded? Well, the hard working Coff's region Anglers Action Group accessed the public comment papers through the FOI act. After analysis it was revealed that only 9% of submissions endorsed the proposed changes, 8% were unclear on their direction and a staggering 83% of submissions rejected any changes to the status quo. Community Consultation my rear end! The MPA totally disregarded the public's opinions" Sound familiar. Seems the MPA's interpretation of "Consultation" is a little bit different to everone else. The methodology has been the same regarding consultation ever since, Just look what they did after "consultation" at Byron Bay. It's time for the public to stand up for themselves. Or this is just going to go on and on and on and eventually fisherfolk will be extinct.

World renown coral reef researcher, Walter Starck has provided $%^&* with this reference: The following is a quote from SUSTAINING THE WET TROPICS: A regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 2A, Condition Report: Biodiversity Conservation, Rainforest CRC 2004 by Nigel Weston and Steve Goosem: "Many species are long-lived and recruitment of new juveniles varies markedly from year to year. Thus, when a particular year has an unusually high recruitment event, that age-class can dominate the population. It is a feature of reef fish populations that they decline slowly over time, but increase rapidly after a good recruitment season. These slow declines and rapid increases are not synchronised between species because good recruitment seasons happen in different years for different species and may be widely separated. Juvenile recruitment pulses (as described above) can also dramatically affect the stock size on both closed and open reefs. Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout." "A major problem with interpreting results from most studies that have compared open and closed reefs is that studies did not quantify the actual amount of fishing pressure on reefs. Available catch, effort and catch per unit effort data are variable from year to year, but show no consistent trends at a regional scale." Starck has also provided the following remarks: "The claim that the first good year for coral trout recruitment following the new closures is attributable to the closures is, if not dubious scientific judgement, deliberately misleading. This is especially so in the absence of any assessment of fishing effort or catch. Those responsible should be required to explain why they are not either incompetent or guilty of scientific misconduct."

I've used this quote to show that future investigations of NTZs in areas which have had no "before" studies done will have inherent biases, and would not give an accurate evaluation of the success of NTZs, My interpretation Hillborn's comments is; well there is no real proof that NTZs work but we should do it anyway and not say that it will be good for fish stocks. Isn't that exactly what many proponents are spruiking, that it will lead to increases in fish stocks. I see no benefit in squashing fishers into smaller areas, this can only increase pressure in those areas and ultimately lead to calls for these areas to be protected as well.

Finally, a consensus, yes, that is exactly the case, I'm sure that the concept of MPAs is broadly supported by all, the aspects of opposition are related to the zonings, no take zones in particular. Opposition to stocking waterways with fingerlings is one, there are many more. But there is comments from NSW DPI fisheries scientists that "no rec. targetted species is in decline or under threat and fisheries are being sustainably managed". The CSIRO states: “the benefits of sanctuary zones are theoretical and have not been demonstrated in practice”. The effect of closed areas needs to be monitored and evaluated on an experimental basis before even considering their broad scale application. Quote: Ray Hillborn, fisheries biologist, University of Washington, "It is being argued that reserves will protect both biodiversity and increase fish yields, but 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 redircted to the unprotected areas. Together these factors frustrate attempts to measure the effects of the closures. In short, most studies have no rigorous control sites – that is, fished sites that are otherwise equivalent to closed areas – against which to evaluate reserves. My gut feeling is that we should probably go ahead and lock up a good portion of the sea, but not pretend like it will benefit fisherman." Sorry to infer you are lying, I should say I do not agree with your opinion, the way I see it is a lot of the things you say seem to be the same stuff we are hearing from the extreme green anti fishing machine, with no proof of benefit, just the same rhetoric. Many rec fishers feel that the consultation process was used to reveal all the best fish agregation sites to include them in NTZs, Port Stephens Marine Park has 1468ha of Intermediate reef habitat (20-60m,) 708ha or 48% of of that is earmarked for NTZs This is a gross overrepresentation and also happens to be the the habitat favoured by rec fishers. The Byron Bay NTZs engulf the entire inshore reefs. While there exists a determined politically powerful anti fishing oriented lobby group, there is a very real need for a just as determined opposing power to try to keep them in check, I think that if these groups had their way there would be no recreational fishing at all.

The marine park idea is not opposed by the majority of fishers, now please listen, the marine park concept is not opposed by anybody that I know, including $%^&*, the problem is the zoning plans within marine parks, Sweep, see www.$%^&*.com . The zoning is based on an agreement between the labor govt and the greens, that's it, that's the reason for the min 20%, I have met with Max Haste, the MPA Manager at Port Stephens and he has said to me and all the others present at that meeting that you can move the pink bits around the map as much as you want but there is no way that the no take zoning will go below 20%, I have also met with the minister Mr Ian Macdonald and he has specifically said to me that there is nothing you can do to change the plans, well I disagree, I think that the traditional guardians of the marine environment who are recreational fisherman are the only people with the necessary experience to say which fisheries are in danger and what needs to be done about it, do you think we are a bunch of fools who do not care about the future of a culture we hold so dearly, I hear some greenies saying "yes", and to them I say go and bury your head in another issue or overdose on mungbeans, because you have no idea what you are talking about, I have recently been reviewing my fishing magazine collection due to the surge of green intellect in local papers recently and going back as far a 1997 have seen efforts by greenies to undermine the real efforts of conservational fisherman, and have also seen the very real efforts of rec fishos to conserve and preserve fish stocks, C&R, environets, voluntary bag limits by fishing clubs, widespread acceptance of fishing licence fees, RFH's, etc, etc, etc. The creed that if you tell the same lie long enough and loud enough that people will believe it is just not true, please provide some real proof, and do not quote some obscure study from the Phillipines or Atlantic Cod or Gemfish. Something which relates to NSW >3 miles. Please.

How's things going up there Les, it may give us a measure on how it will go down here, please keep us informed.

It was a great meeting, Geoff's speech was sensational, music to my ears was Duncan Gay's comment that on day 1 of gaining office all zoning plans will be scrapped. It became apparent at the end of the meeting that there was a lot of people there who were representing other groups as they were asking the information table for multiple copies of leaflets and forms to take back to their clubs (if anyone knows somebody from the Sydney Flyrodders Club, can they be asked to get in touch with me and I will send down more submission forms for them). We got a lot of new $%^&* memberships and TShirts were sold out. NBN News covered it as well. People came from as far away as Lane Cove. Thanks to Duncan Gay, Robyn Parker, Craig Baumann, Geoff, Ted and Froggy. And may thanks to the people who took the time on a beatiful sunny sunday to attend and support the cause.

Hey Grant, can you post the link to this website, I am aware of a group of environmentalists who are promoting themselves as a rec. fishing group.