pjbink Posted September 14, 2006 Share Posted September 14, 2006 (edited) Here is part of a radio forum (transcript available from the ABC website) which aired on the Counterpoint show. It included some comments on the state of our fisheries from the prominent marine biologist Dr Walter Starck: Michael Duffy: I suspect most of our listeners would consider that Australia's fisheries are in a case of almost terminal decline. Would that be right? Walter Starck: "It's just exactly the opposite. We have the least fisheries in the world. Australia has the third largest exclusive economic zone in the world and it comprises about 6% of the global total and it produces about two-tenths of 1% of the fish catch. In fact, New Zealand has over twice the fishery catch of Australia and we're on a par with countries like Poland and Finland and Greece, countries like that catch about the same as Australia does. Countries like Thailand and Vietnam are catching anywhere from 15 to 20 times more than Australia. Our fisheries are largely untouched, with a few exceptions. There are some things that are particularly vulnerable; school sharks and orange roughie being two examples that have very slow growth rates and low reproductive rates and they tend to get over-fished. But much of our area is not fished at all, while we're in the process right now of halving our commercially licensed Commonwealth fleet from 1,200 to 600 vessels. Last year there were reported sightings of 13,000 illegal fishing vessels in the northern waters of Australia, and they're not coming down here to sunbathe, they're coming down here because we've got an untouched resource that we're not using. So the situation is so far from any reality. We're importing...70% of the seafood consumed in Australia now is imported. It cost $1.8 billion a year in imports, and the CSIRO estimates that it's going to increase by about 400% over the present level over the next decade and a half. All of that comes from areas that are far more heavily impacted than our own and it all has to be paid for by other economic activity here with its own attendant impacts." This does put some of the doom and gloom assessments of the greens into perspective doesn't it! Edited September 15, 2006 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Rock Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Fascinating. I'm interested in how much the lack of fishing infrastructure throughout Australia's vast coastline impacts the concentration of commercial fishing - I'm guessing there's not much point in setting up a commercial fishing fleet in a great fishing spot if you can't get the fish to market for a couple of days. Why is Sydney so overfished? Surely a big part of it is that it's the easiest port from which to fish if you want to get your catch to the co-op fresh and with a minimum of transport costs. Why base your operation out of Eden if you can do it from Sydney? If Fisheries were serious about finding commerical fishing solutions for this country then surely a positive step would be to invest in some kind of transport infrastructure that would help regional fishermen compete with the fellas in town. If we remove the incentive for commercial operators to concentrate themselves around Australia's big port/harbour citys then one would think that the 'balance' would be significantly restored. It seems crazy that we have a country with vast tracts of unfished coastline, all of which could sustain commercial fishing if people actually set up there, whilst simultaneously having massive commercial overfishing around the major cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) Fascinating. Why is Sydney so overfished? Surely a big part of it is that it's the easiest port from which to fish if you want to get your catch to the co-op fresh and with a minimum of transport costs. Why base your operation out of Eden if you can do it from Sydney? I think you will find that most of the fish that go through the Sydney fish markets are not caught locally. In 3 of the 4 major estuaries commercial fishing is banned. The local commercial fleet is quite small with the SFM having a fleet of just 17 vessels. Most of the fish comes from regional areas, interstate or from overseas. I travel for my fishing quite a bit (eg to the mid-north coast and Darwin) and I don't find Sydney to be overfished from my experience. I always seem to get a good feed from Botany Bay or from my outside trips. A lot the fish we get are migratory too. They travel 100's of kms in the East Australian Ocean Current, which means constant replenishment of the stocks off Sydney. Edited September 15, 2006 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Rock Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 Okay - so if Sydney isn't overfished commercially, then it's unlikely that anywhere in Australia would qualify as such. Does this mean that the position being adopted is that there is scope for increased commercial fishing in and around Sydney (and I suppose the rest of the country)? Becasue if that is the position then I wouldn't support it. I admit that my opinion is completely self-motivated and based solely on the health of Sydney's (and Australia's) recreational fisheries - quite frankly I would ban ALL commercial fishing in and around Sydney if I was made supreme ruler of everyone (a position I have applied for but so far been unsuccessful in obtaining) - but then that's the nature of my particular recreational fishing beast. I've gotta say that my position on the marine parks remains a sceptical one. On the one hand I do support access for recreational fishos to their desired fishing locations, but on the other hand I feel mighty uncomfortable about travelling alongside the commerical fishos on this issue. It is one thing to protest the marine parks. It is another thing to realise that the bloke next to you at the rally is the same guy who nets Pittwater 4 times a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 I'd rather fish alongside sustainable commercial fishing that not be allowed to fish at all (ie marine park closures). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veck Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 You have be careful interpreting this type of information, even scientists and other so called professional receive funding / money for there research from sectors that want to influence public opinion, for there own gain. Many of the large species of fish are migratory, and even if they are protected in Aust that’s not stoping our Asian neighbours drift netting. In any case I don’t need an expert to tell me things are ok, I am in my late thirties and I have seen huge changes since I was a teenager fishing the Hawkesbury, Botany and other local waterways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Rock Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 I agree Veck I'm a very long way from being convinced that the pro's use of Pittwater/the Hawkesbury is in any way 'sustainable'. I'd hate to think that my protest action was even partly responsible for giving these guys free reign to continue to plunder these waterways. Billfisher - I'm very sympathetic to your views on the marine parks however I'm embarrassed to admit that until the recreational protest movement separates itself from the commercial fishermen I'll be very reluctant to get involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightweight Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 until the recreational protest movement separates itself from the commercial fishermen I'll be very reluctant to get involved. Spot on ! I also find it pretty hard to believe that we can keep dragging nets across the bottom of ANYWHERE and not expect the stocks to decline. I am sorry but a vast majority of commercial fisherman do not give a stuff about the environment, and are only in it for the life of themselves.... and maybe their children. If the practises that are standards now, continue on, There will be nothing in a few generations, and that is a VERY scary thought. LW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest madsmc Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 When I first started looking into the Marine Park problem, and became involve with the $%^&* group, I too had some difficulty with the links to commercial fishing. But, at the end of the day, the Marine Park sanctuary zones do not discriminate between rec anglers and commercial fishers, it's one out, all out. Sanctuary zone means no fishing of any kind, whether it is commercial or recreational. Even though I don't like commercial fishing in it's current form, I think it would be nieve to think that it will ever disappear completely. Everyday punters are entitled to go and buy a feed of fresh seafood, and we all buy prepackaged baits at some point in our fishing activities. All of that comes from commercial fishing. I'm certainly not advocating their practises, and I think there is plenty of work to be done to make commercial fishing sustainable over the long term, but Marine Parks aren't the answer. Changes to the laws that govern the allowable numbers of commercial fishermen and the fishing techniques that they are able to use is what is required. There has been some evidence of commercial fishermen in some areas accepting license buyouts because they can't see a way to make a living with the new restrictions, and that is a good thing. However, even if all of the commercial fisherman in NSW accept buyout offers and it leaves just us rec anglers, the 20% sanctuary zones still apply, despite the lack of scientific evidence that rec anglers are having an unsustainable impact on the marine environment. Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 You have be careful interpreting this type of information, even scientists and other so called professional receive funding / money for there research from sectors that want to influence public opinion, for there own gain. Many of the large species of fish are migratory, and even if they are protected in Aust that’s not stoping our Asian neighbours drift netting. In any case I don’t need an expert to tell me things are ok, I am in my late thirties and I have seen huge changes since I was a teenager fishing the Hawkesbury, Botany and other local waterways. Walter Starck is a US scientist who has retired in Australia. He has no connection with any government agency. All his figures on catch rates and fish imports etc are a matter of public record. I don't know why you would doubt them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jewhunter Posted September 15, 2006 Share Posted September 15, 2006 When I first started looking into the Marine Park problem, and became involve with the $%^&* group, I too had some difficulty with the links to commercial fishing. But, at the end of the day, the Marine Park sanctuary zones do not discriminate between rec anglers and commercial fishers, it's one out, all out. Sanctuary zone means no fishing of any kind, whether it is commercial or recreational. Even though I don't like commercial fishing in it's current form, I think it would be nieve to think that it will ever disappear completely. Everyday punters are entitled to go and buy a feed of fresh seafood, and we all buy prepackaged baits at some point in our fishing activities. All of that comes from commercial fishing. I'm certainly not advocating their practises, and I think there is plenty of work to be done to make commercial fishing sustainable over the long term, but Marine Parks aren't the answer. Changes to the laws that govern the allowable numbers of commercial fishermen and the fishing techniques that they are able to use is what is required. There has been some evidence of commercial fishermen in some areas accepting license buyouts because they can't see a way to make a living with the new restrictions, and that is a good thing. However, even if all of the commercial fisherman in NSW accept buyout offers and it leaves just us rec anglers, the 20% sanctuary zones still apply, despite the lack of scientific evidence that rec anglers are having an unsustainable impact on the marine environment. Shane Very sensible comments Shane & some good info there. I couldn't agree more. Cheers, Grant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 15, 2006 Author Share Posted September 15, 2006 (edited) I agree Veck I'm a very long way from being convinced that the pro's use of Pittwater/the Hawkesbury is in any way 'sustainable'. I'd hate to think that my protest action was even partly responsible for giving these guys free reign to continue to plunder these waterways. Billfisher - I'm very sympathetic to your views on the marine parks however I'm embarrassed to admit that until the recreational protest movement separates itself from the commercial fishermen I'll be very reluctant to get involved. Well don't complain when you are locked out of 50% or more of your spots and the remainder are subject to a 'review' in five years time (ie just before the next round of preference deals with the Greens). This is whats happening up and down the coast right now. A free reign to plunder? I don't think so. The number of commercial licences is controlled by the government. There are quotas and other controls such as gear restrictions. All commercial operations must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement. As to local fishing in Sydney, well I have had thirty years experience. Some of my best seasons in recent years in Botany Bay were before the pros were bought out. Also I think a lot of the 'fishing is not what it used to be' perception comes from how quickly fish become educated to our methods. I get my best catches in our hard fished waters mid week when there is less traffic on the water. This also evident when the kingfish invade Botany Bay each summer. Early in the season they will hit anything: lures, dead baits. Later in the season only the best presented livebaits will get hit. Studies have shown fish are four times easier to catch when they haven't seen a bait for a while. Just because you can't catch a fish doesn't mean they are not there. Another point with marine parks is that they will quite likely lead to heavier fishing pressure in the areas left open, ie the displaced effort. Coupled with the loss of productive grounds the end result is poorer performance of the fishery. Queensland Fisheries have commented on this in their survey of the SE Qld rocky reef fishery. It is feeling the extra pressure from the commercial fisherman displaced by the GBR Marine Park. Edited September 15, 2006 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danielinbyron Posted September 16, 2006 Share Posted September 16, 2006 Well don't complain when you are locked out of 50% or more of your spots and the remainder are subject to a 'review' in five years time (ie just before the next round of preference deals with the Greens). This is whats happening up and down the coast right now. A free reign to plunder? I don't think so. The number of commercial licences is controlled by the government. There are quotas and other controls such as gear restrictions. All commercial operations must undergo an Environmental Impact Statement. As to local fishing in Sydney, well I have had thirty years experience. Some of my best seasons in recent years in Botany Bay were before the pros were bought out. Also I think a lot of the 'fishing is not what it used to be' perception comes from how quickly fish become educated to our methods. I get my best catches in our hard fished waters mid week when there is less traffic on the water. This also evident when the kingfish invade Botany Bay each summer. Early in the season they will hit anything: lures, dead baits. Later in the season only the best presented livebaits will get hit. Studies have shown fish are four times easier to catch when they haven't seen a bait for a while. Just because you can't catch a fish doesn't mean they are not there. Another point with marine parks is that they will quite likely lead to heavier fishing pressure in the areas left open, ie the displaced effort. Coupled with the loss of productive grounds the end result is poorer performance of the fishery. Queensland Fisheries have commented on this in their survey of the SE Qld rocky reef fishery. It is feeling the extra pressure from the commercial fisherman displaced by the GBR Marine Park. There have been some interesting points in raised here and what i love about this sight is that i still get a sense of commeradery from posts even when poeple agree to disagree..I think to be truly open minded human nature is that the pro fishing figures are as corrupt as the books they kept when selling black..{and got caught out on when they had to sell} which is no more corrupt then the process of the greens and the political agendas that formed the marine parks. I was following the thread of a story about a guy from up here who was flying Tuna out of Ballina via the co-op maybe fifteen years ago doing his best to research better fishing and transport practises that would amount to more money for less fish... He would catch one or two fish .. call ahead and have them there in Japan at market asap. I am tempted to follow up the story again and maybe record an interview,.. He went as far as flying with the fish to see why some fish were getting allot more money than others.. Lets not forget allot of prime Japanese market fish went into cat food tins at Eden.. Heres a fact : dead fish don't breed.. It doesn't matter where there killed and who by .... There dead they will have no babies and the babies they didn't have won't have any either.. I think fisherman forget this.. wether they're pros or not... we just become used to the idea of killing a fish ... we call euphomistically call it catching a fish... or the catch...I am trying to be more aware as should we all through the processes of the evolution of modern fishing and fishing practices, of my impact and the impact of others on the fishing environement.... Beyond the letter of the law i can only adjust my own behaviour and encourage poeple to embrace the digital age snap a shot and let the bloody soapy go. I've heard it said that the closing of the canneries at eden had zero impact on stock as the new cannery was opened in Thailand using the same fish further up the blue water current.. WE NEED TO EAT FISH SO WHY NOT FARM..well Dr David Suzuki .. says that to rape a third world ecology of all its small fish to dry and transport to a place that has been stocked with a foreign fish such as in Tasmania.. Is killing two ecologies with one small profit.. The fish that fertilised the market economy of the estuary town poor enough to sell it cheaply enough to be viable... And when the fish get out in the waterways in tasmania{already happened} they will kill every living thing to feed before they die of starvation.So in theory fish farming is great .. In practice right now its devastating.. As in fishing i think anything worth doing is worth doing badly to start... That is to say although i'm not to impressed with some of the more ludricous aspects of the Marine Parks .. I have to concede that in theory a governing body can work, and i'm afraid to say I think its needed. Take the banning of King Fish traps for instance..No traps, more Kingfish ..who'd a thunk it. Posative impact on fishing stocks by new regulations and co-operation from fishers. I don't think there is less fish then there were in the past ... I know there is... And i only have to look at the water which i do almost daily, to see that.. But as they are there own second biggest preditor ... once it becomes economically no longer viable to kill them on mass for a profit ....even with all our new fab gadgets..cos lets face it we've become fairly proficient at it.....My hope is . They will come back. In the meantime . I'll think about it before i take it home.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johblow Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) Come on guys the bloke didnt even answer the question he was asked. He bypassed it totally and answered a different question and blurted out a bugger load of statistics in the process to try and confuse us... My family comes from the Clarence River and we have a family friend who is an ex-pro fisho. The Clarence is shot - just look into the local rags articles. A few years back the start of the prawn season yielded one prawn!!! I recon even most of the pros in areas like that will tell you that its tough going... And if you want to look at statistics, just have a look out how many pros have gone bankrupt over the last while, before the big buy-outs - the good Dr can shove that one up his #$%& LATE ADDITION: BTW, im not a fan of the total bans of all fishing in areas. Recreational fishos take so little of what is around and do stuff all harm to young fish, and habitats - i cant see the justification for it. Id like to see some balance. Extremism gives me the $%# Edited September 19, 2006 by johblow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted September 19, 2006 Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) 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. Edited September 19, 2006 by Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted September 19, 2006 Author Share Posted September 19, 2006 (edited) I recon even most of the pros in areas like that will tell you that its tough going... And if you want to look at statistics, just have a look out how many pros have gone bankrupt over the last while, before the big buy-outs - the good Dr can shove that one up his #$%& I saw a piece on the Gulf of Carpentaria prawn fishery on Countrywide yesterday. Yes the prawn trawlers are doing it tough even there. Not because they can't catch prawns but because they aren't competitive on price with all the cheap imports from Asia, what with the high cost of diesel and the scarcity of labour. Are you saying the fishing is poor on the Clarence? Wasn't Yamba - Iluka on the Steve Starling's top ten list of NSW's best angling destinations. The reports in the fishing press don't paint a gloomy picture what with jewies on lures in the river, good size and numbers of bream and flathead, longtails and spaniards of the breakwalls etc. I haven't made it that far north in my fishing trips but I have fished South West Rocks on and off for 20 years and haven't noticed any decline. The fishing is extemely good, especially offshore. The only thing likely to stuff this up is the declaration of a marine park. Edited September 19, 2006 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johblow Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Are you saying the fishing is poor on the Clarence? Wasn't Yamba - Iluka on the Steve Starling's top ten list of NSW's best angling destinations. The reports in the fishing press don't paint a gloomy picture what with jewies on lures in the river, good size and numbers of bream and flathead, longtails and spaniards of the breakwalls etc. Like i said, i have a heap of family up there, and they all fish. Enough said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 Ahh the beast rears its ugly head once again.. ( pro fishing i mean ) This has to be a very hot topic cause most of these threads have it in thier somewhere. Hopefully it will continue regardless of which way the thread goes. The situation as i see it is : The greens are pushing for strict park zoning claiming fish stocks are dwindling, biodivirersity is under threat etc, lock em all out ! Of course this will mean a huge loss of fishing ground for us rec fisho's. No good So rec fishing groups are saying fish stocks are fine and the park zoning is a joke and is illconceived. Pro groups are asking where the hell are we going to fish - these parks will kill us too ! The kicker is that a lot of re fishos are saying, yes there is less fish - but its the pro's fault and if we get them out there is no need for parks ! Oh what a tangled web we weave.... You have to weigh it all up all face the REALITY of what will happen and take the most appropriate course of action. The reality is we have to live with commercial fishing so fighting this is a waste of time for now, we are better served to have the licencing modified to reduce the impacts rather than an all out NO PRO'S attack. The government controls this. The reality is marine parks is some form or another are coming and we are better served to fight the ZONING rather than the parks themselves. The government controls this too. My opinion is that the ZONING is by far and way the most significant problem and worrying about the pros at this time is a total and utter waste not to mention totally counterproductive. The zoning is still the most important and realistic thing that can be changed and must be dealt with first. I am now unphased by the pro's and will focus my energy on the park issue until it is solved. When that is done I will push for a reduction in pro licencing to better improve rec fishing. I have 'benched' my concerns about the pro's for now and think everyone should do the same until we can secure our fishing grounds. Staying out of the fight because of an association with the pro's is something i had considered but have since looked at the big picture and decided that it is better to focus on the main problem and get involved. I dont doubt many are standing back because they believe the pros have caused the problem in the first place, but please accept the situation as it stands, and support the fight to block this ZONING. Groups like $%^&* who i openly questioned about their association with the pro's have proven to me beyond a shadow of doubt that they too dissapprove of many pro practices and licencing issues and would love to see a reduction to a more sustainable level, but have also accepted for now they are fighting a common problem. Theres nothing wrong with pro fishing as long as its sustainable and low impact. Remember that the current government are pro sanctuary zone, they are also the ones who control how many pro licences are out there and have the power ( but wont ) to fix it. - They MUST GO ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest johblow Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 The reality is we have to live with commercial fishing so fighting this is a waste of time for now, we are better served to have the licencing modified to reduce the impacts rather than an all out NO PRO'S attack. The government controls this. Hey man, i only skimmed your post cause it was rather long, but i agree with what you are saying here - we need balance. I would be a hypocrite to argue that the pros should be banned, because i buy seafood on occassions. So i think the balanced dis-passionate approach is the best one. As you say the pros are here to stay because of us - we are the demand for their product. The issue of whether there are less fish now than there once was is another issue, but one that needs to be dealt with nonetheless. We can all remember the tobacco companies claiming that there is no scientific link between smoking and lung cancer, no? Well, its possible to say the same about fish stocks, because its hard to collect data and formal historical data doesnt seem to be around. IE most of the evidence is anecdotal, just like the smoking vs lung cancer thing. Well, i dont buy the story that fish stocks are not down on what they were. In reality science and clever arguing can be used to prove/disprove anything in a fraudulant way. Look, i am happy with the way things are at the moment - i am lucky that i can collect fresh bait and usually catch fish. I just want a sustainable balance, and i thing extreme arguments from both sides are distractive and destructive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mondo Rock Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Grantm If your analysis is correct - and from what I can see it certainly seems like a valid summary - then we need to accept the marine parks are going to happen. OK, fair call. As such, and as you have pointed out, the real bone of contention should therefore become the zoning within those marine parks. My understanding is that the zones are roughly divided as follows: Sanctuary Zones: No fishing at all Habitat Protection zones: recreational fishing (with limited commercial activity); a General Use zones: no fishing restrictions So shouldn't we, as recreational fishermen, simply be lobbying for a reduction in the size of sanctuary zones in favor of Habitat Protection zones? This would keep the more damaging activities of the pros out of these areas but allow us back in. We could also lobby to restrict the pro activities allowed within Habitat Protection zones even further than the current rules propose, thus creating an incentive to expand the Habitat Protection zones at the expense of Sanctuary zones. To be honest I think that siding the pros on this might actually limit our ability to effectively negotiate a better outcome for recreational fishermen, particularly since expanded Habitat Protection zones would be a good outcome for us but less so for them. Edited September 20, 2006 by Mondo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grantm Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 So shouldn't we, as recreational fishermen, simply be lobbying for a reduction in the size of sanctuary zones in favor of Habitat Protection zones? This would keep the more damaging activities of the pros out of these areas but allow us back in. Well i think that is the whole issue. It is the proccess used to crerate these zones that had infuriated everyone. Ib be happy with with HPZ all over the place as it is, cause it doesnt cut out rec fisho's. Im certainly not going to fight for the removal of those or fight to protect the pro's. BUT... Im also not going to do nothing just because the pro's are fighting the same sort of issues or spark up anymore about the affect they have. I just want to see the removal of SZ's, and if certain groups are fighting that battle, ie $%^&* then i'll support them regardless whether they are working with the commercial blokes or not. They are certainly not trying to rid the parks of HPZ's for the pro's sake. The Frost proposal which is a rec fisho's alternative to the park zoning is full of HPZ which allows for rec fishing only. Nothing wrong with that ! Support the groups that oppose SZ's and that also support sustainable use fishing be it commercial or recreational. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danielinbyron Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 (edited) Ahh the beast rears its ugly head once again.. ( pro fishing i mean ) This has to be a very hot topic cause most of these threads have it in thier somewhere. Hopefully it will continue regardless of which way the thread goes. The situation as i see it is : The greens are pushing for strict park zoning claiming fish stocks are dwindling, biodivirersity is under threat etc, lock em all out ! Of course this will mean a huge loss of fishing ground for us rec fisho's. No good So rec fishing groups are saying fish stocks are fine and the park zoning is a joke and is illconceived. Pro groups are asking where the hell are we going to fish - these parks will kill us too ! The kicker is that a lot of re fishos are saying, yes there is less fish - but its the pro's fault and if we get them out there is no need for parks ! Oh what a tangled web we weave.... You have to weigh it all up all face the REALITY of what will happen and take the most appropriate course of action. The reality is we have to live with commercial fishing so fighting this is a waste of time for now, we are better served to have the licencing modified to reduce the impacts rather than an all out NO PRO'S attack. The government controls this. The reality is marine parks is some form or another are coming and we are better served to fight the ZONING rather than the parks themselves. The government controls this too. My opinion is that the ZONING is by far and way the most significant problem and worrying about the pros at this time is a total and utter waste not to mention totally counterproductive. The zoning is still the most important and realistic thing that can be changed and must be dealt with first. I am now unphased by the pro's and will focus my energy on the park issue until it is solved. When that is done I will push for a reduction in pro licencing to better improve rec fishing. I have 'benched' my concerns about the pro's for now and think everyone should do the same until we can secure our fishing grounds. Staying out of the fight because of an association with the pro's is something i had considered but have since looked at the big picture and decided that it is better to focus on the main problem and get involved. I dont doubt many are standing back because they believe the pros have caused the problem in the first place, but please accept the situation as it stands, and support the fight to block this ZONING. Groups like $%^&* who i openly questioned about their association with the pro's have proven to me beyond a shadow of doubt that they too dissapprove of many pro practices and licencing issues and would love to see a reduction to a more sustainable level, but have also accepted for now they are fighting a common problem. Theres nothing wrong with pro fishing as long as its sustainable and low impact. Remember that the current government are pro sanctuary zone, they are also the ones who control how many pro licences are out there and have the power ( but wont ) to fix it. - They MUST GO ! Although i can see your point mate ... If your asking me to vote liberal .. NOT WITH A BLOW TORCH TO MY FEET AND MY HEAD IN A VICE>..However a simple enquiry into the implimentation of the marine park zones would show that those responsible didn't fullfill there obligations in consultation, communications and transparency in the process of implimenting the parks..The dereliction of there duties should suffice to see them stould down..Havingsaid that , I wouldn't want the job. Edited September 20, 2006 by danielinbyron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest danielinbyron Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 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. mate i'm glad to hear that ...re bag limits...I just think it needs to be said not just done quietly by individuals....i apologise if my text sounded condascending..that was not my intention. .and no mate i know i'm the only one who imposes greater restrictions than legally required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda Posted September 20, 2006 Share Posted September 20, 2006 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now