Marine Park To Be Phased In

[BOB_SMITH]

Hi all

This is the latest announcement on Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park.

Should be enough to convince anybody about the political strategy>

http://forster.yourguide.com.au/home.asp?mast_id=45

Wouldn't want to many holiday fishing tourists P$%^%d off just before an election

Could be happening at Batemans also

Bob Smith

[BOB_SMITH]

It's here

Check the MPA website later today for details

www.mpa.nsw.gov.au

The Newcastle Herald has a front page summary

The green groups had a pre-release copy? WHY and they are unhappy> http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1811282.htm

Bob Smith

[BOB_SMITH]

News release issued to most NSW Media this morning from TFP>

The Fishing Party

A.B.N: 76 086 236 465

HEAD OFFICE (Federal, NSW State)

11Watts Close

SINGLETON HEIGHTS NSW 2330

Ph/fax 0265 560338 0432252789

Email: sinali@optusnet.com.au

www.thefishingparty.info

14-Dec-06

Port Stephens (Political) Marine Park Announced.

Sustainable recreational fishing, its associated tourism, businesses, sea change retirees and holiday makers are being unduly penalized in favor of green driven emotional rhetoric with these unnecessary Marine Park Empire announcements.

The green groups denounce the parks and zonings but offer no real local scientific evidence for the closures so it smacks of political pressure and political deals to a Labor party desperate for re-election in a state of disarray. Surely the fishing communities can see through this charade of over-use of the precautionary principal and the hypocrisy of an out of control Labor Government.

All the recreational community wanted to see in this whole Park process was the proof that sanctuary zones are really needed and that the marine species they target were in such a decline that lock up zones are the only way to resolve the problem if it existed. None of which can be explained by either the Labor Government, its Ministers or the demanding conservationists.

Robert Smith, The Fishing Party chairman stated that the fishing communities need to be aware that the fishing park zoning announcements whether they have 20%, 17% or any amount of sanctuaries are just the start of future massive lock out areas. It has to be remembered that no Marine Protected Area boundary has ever become smaller.

The Fishing Party supports and welcomes the NSW Coalition commitment of if they are elected at least the zoning boundaries will be rehashed in a more open and scientific based consultation program. There needs to be site specific reasons for any fishing ban to take place.

Further information contact Robert Smith:

Contact as above.

Press release from the MPA website >

Media release Thursday, 14 December 2006

Port Stephens – Great LakesMarine Park Zoning Plan out today

State Plan Priority E4: Better outcomes for native vegetation, biodiversity, land, rivers and coastal waterways

The final zone plan for the Port Stephens–Great Lakes Marine Park achieves a sensible and balanced outcome for the local community and the environment, Minister for Primary Industries, Ian Macdonald said today.

The Minister unveiled the long awaited plan at Port Stephens this morning.

Mr Macdonald said that under the zone plan:

Keen anglers will retain access to key parts of Broughton Island and Little beach, both popular spots with locals and visitors;

Commercial fishers can continue to harvest pippis off Yagon beach, with improved access to Smiths Lake that will ensure fresh quality local seafood is still available; and

The grey nurse shark will benefit with significantly increased protection at important aggregation sites such as The Pinnacle, Seal Rocks and Broughton Island.

“The plan will provide good environmental outcomes, while maintaining quality fishing and other recreational opportunities for all,” Mr Macdonald said.

“It’s important to remember that more than 80% of this park will remain open to recreational fishing once the zones come into effect next March. Park users will have the summer period to become familiar with the new zoning arrangements

Minister Macdonald said there had been an exhaustive consultation process which helped shaped the final zoning plan.

“This involved more than 130 stakeholder meetings during the last 12 months, most of those in Port Stephens, Seal Rocks and Forster,” the Minister said.

“Approximately 43,000 drafts of the zoning plan were sent out and over 4,300 submissions were received. It is pleasing to see the local community having such a strong input into the development of the park to help ensure there was a sensible outcome.”

Bruce Schumacher, the Chair of the Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing, said “he was very pleased that the Minister for Fisheries has listened to the concerns of anglers and has negotiated changes to the original draft plan that are far more acceptable to recreational fishers.”

Mr Macdonald said the Port Stephens area is well known for its beautiful waterways and coastal attractions.

“This area is home to some of the best recreational fishing on our coast, and has an extensive tourism industry based around its extensive estuaries and offshore islands,” he said.

“Recreational fishing brings in over $10 million a year to the area and Port Stephens is also home to the biggest game fishing tournament in Australia, one of the biggest in the world.

“The good news is these benefits will continue, as the Port Stephen-Great Lakes Marine Park will truly be a multi-use park.”

Minister for the Environment, Bob Debus said there are excellent tourism opportunities in the park with the dolphin watching industry one of the best on offer, and is worth more than $5 million each year.

“The Member for Port Stephens John Bartlett has also been a staunch campaigner for the marine park over many years and it’s pleasing to see his efforts come to fruition today,” Mr Debus said.

“Mr Bartlett should be commended for his efforts and I know the Labor Candidate for Port Stephens Mr Jim Arneman has also taken a very keen interest in the Park.

“In fact, I understand he met with Minister Macdonald’s office within days of becoming a new candidate to receive a detailed briefing on the consultation process.”

The Iemma Government has committed $10 million to buy out commercial fishing effort in the park to give effect to the zoning arrangements, with the buy outs expected to be finalised early next year.

The park will be reviewed in 5 years time, and the maps of the new zoning plan will be available today at the Marine Parks Authority website and local DPI and DEC offices in the coming weeks.

An extensive education program will be carried out with the community prior to the new zoning rules coming in to place in March 2007.

Media Contact: Jamie Gibson 0408 961 367

[Ross Hunter]

Bob,

It really peaves me that we have no say in this issue The labour Government are not listening I personally do not care about Marine Parks as long as we can fish in them.The shadow Minister Duncan Gay has assured me that a Liberal..coalition Government will review ALL Marine Parks and listen to the people who these reserves effect......mainly reco fishermen and holiday makers, tackle shops etc.....Imagine people who have been going to these places for generations for their three week fishing vacation with their families, there just not going to go there any more. So the way I see it is that every fisho who cares should think about their vote in March..They leave us with no other option. Your thoughts is there another option?

[pjbink]

The Coalition's review could take years, so in the meantime it would be business as usual!

[BOB_SMITH]

For those of you who think the Marine Parks are to be reviewed AFTER 5 years as the Minister has stated have been misled or the Minister has told you lies.

The Marine Park Act says different

The Act gives the Minister more power than God and he can change anything he likes whenever he likes if he has the MAJORITY in parliament.

This means that 17.5% Sanctuary zones (before the election) can be changed or increased to whatever the political advantage will bring

MARINE PARKS ACT 1997 - SECT 26A

Annual review of operational plan for marine park

26A Annual review of operational plan for marine park

(1) The advisory committee for a marine park may review the operational plan for the marine park every 12 months to determine whether or not the plan is effective and is being satisfactorily implemented.

(2) The advisory committee must forward a report on the outcome of the review to the relevant Ministers, the Authority and the Advisory Council as soon as practicable after its completion.

(3) The report is to include any recommendations of the advisory committee as to how the operational plan could be made more effective or could be better implemented

MARINE PARKS ACT 1997 - SECT 26B

Review of operational plan for marine park

26B Review of operational plan for marine park

(1) The Authority is to commence to conduct a review of the operational plan for each marine park before the expiration of the period of 5 years after the adoption of the operational plan.

(2) If the Authority considers that significant changes have been made to the zoning plan for a marine park (as referred to in section 16), the Authority is to commence to conduct a review of the operational plan for the marine park as soon as practicable after the making of the regulation containing those changes.

(3) The Authority is to cause public notice to be given of a proposed review under this section.

(4) The notice is:

(a) to invite submissions to be made within the period specified in the notice (being a period of not less than 3 months after the date of the notice), and

( to specify the address to which such submissions are to be forwarded.

(5) In conducting the review, the Authority is to consider any submissions made within the period specified for that purpose in the notice or such further period as the Authority allows.

(6) The Authority must forward a report on the outcome of the review to the relevant Ministers, the Advisory Council and the relevant advisory committee within 3 months after the expiration of the period allowed under this section for the making of submissions in respect of the review.

_________________

Bob Smith

[Ross Hunter]

Bob, What's the answer then, are we wasting our energy. I understood that if the Government changed a complete review of no fish zones would be undertaken..That's what is says in the National's leaflet.

Over to you... Ross

[BOB_SMITH]

Ross

The Coalition have promised that the zonings in ALL marine parks in NSW will be revised if they are elected.

I would feel pretty confident that a party that has been in the doghouse/doldrums for 12 years would want to stay elected if given the chance, they would also want to keep rec fishos on side. I also feel confident that rec FISHERMEN and TFP (if we get someone in the Upper House) would have major imput to that revision. There would be no deal with the greens that did not support rec fishing and boating access.

The legislation that existed prior to zonings was quite sufficient to have a well managed marine resource so that needs revisiting as a first priority.

Unfortunately it has developed into a political bunfight and state Labor (that is Iemma, Debus and Macdonald can take the blame) and unfortunately it has to be settled at the ballot box to make these arrogant bastards realise the importance of our fishing. There is no other way so lets just do it. You can kick my bum later.

Quotes like this worry me too when changes can be seen as election sweeteners>

"Bruce Schumacher, the Chair of the Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing, said “he was very pleased that the Minister for Fisheries has listened to the concerns of anglers and has negotiated changes to the original draft plan that are far more acceptable to recreational fishers.”

I sincerely hope that Bruce and any advisory member are TOTALLY pissed of at the whole MP deal, not that they would bite the hand that feeds them (well).

Bob Smith

Edited December 19, 2006 by BOB_SMITH

[BOB_SMITH]

This report from the Federal Minister makes a mockery of the MPA process too. The Marine Park Act allows for mining and gas etc if passed by parliament >

Marine protected areas allow for industry exploration: Campbell

The federal Environment Minister has moved to assure the resources industry the Government's long-term planning for its marine protected areas has room for exploration.

One area takes in the Western Australian south coastal waters off Esperance and Albany.

Senator Ian Campbell says the plan will help conserve important ocean life and give greater certainty for marine industries.

Earlier this year, an overseas company announced plans to explore the previously uncharted waters off Esperance and Albany for oil and gas.

Although the area falls within the earmarked marine conservation area, Mr Campbell says the waters are zoned multiple use which allows for exploration drilling.

Bob Smith

[Ross Hunter]

Bob

NSW fisheries made it mandatory that all charter boats had to fill in a log book on fish caught and released is this their scientific evidence? Any way they can whistle dixy to get another one off us. This is the truth that many of the senior excutives in Fisheries are against the No fish Zones No names and no pack drill.

I reckon the whole MPA issue is to get control of the land and the ocean around it. There will be no camping reserves no people other than the bushwalkers and then they'll see where else they can shut down.

We've got to somehow get rid of them or the future is bleakfor recreational fisherman. The next issue is the Feds are looking at the same deal I know one thing I definately want to get on the commitee on that one. This will be one out all out show... inc international longlining.

This is what annoys me On 2ky's Hi Tide Duffy a beaut bloke from the local Salamander Bay tackle shop said Quote.."Oh! well we'll still have some good areas to fish I guess but what annoys me is that the dolphin watchers are still harassing the dolphins, no change there I thought it would have been one out all out"

Maybe dolphin watching is too big an industry to be stopped in a marine Park........one out all out I say.

I am personally very dissapointed in Recfish it is not a good enough result ...The answer is We don't accept any of your "NO FISH ZONES...now PISS OFF" A very weak result from those lads in my opinion as they clap their hands to gether because they have had a win because a boat can troll in some areas, no not good enough Recfish I say.

I really don't think that the average rec Fisherman realises the ramifications and the long term effects of what's happening and generally takes it without a fight.........where's the Eurika Stockade men when we need them.

[namesay]

The answer is quite simple! Vote them out. No other arguement or reasoning will work as they do not understand fishing...FULL STOP.

Through my profession I have had dealings with the people in the NSW govt who MAKE the decisions ( not mentioniong any names but they really do have the power ) on the marine parks, its zoning and such and they have NO IDEA what fishing is all about!!!!! They have never wetted a line and don't understand what all the fuss that recfishers are throwing up.

Should take them out fishing so they can SEE for themselves what all this is about. From their view point, it is understandable that they want to preserve the biological diversity and they see the killing of ANY fish as thereatening that. Dolphin watching and diving are "green"activities, Killing fish is not.

Whether it is right or wrong, recfishing is seen as a "working man's"activity. Politically this is where the labour party has had its strong hold. SO they figure they won't lose any of their traditional seats while gaining the "trendy"voters who LIKE the idea of marine parks. This situation is not going to change no matter what scientific , economic, sociolgical evidence ... or anything else is presented. The only way is to vote liberal in the next election if we want to see the change in this attitude.

The pollies will wake up when their traditional labour seats go to the opposition because of this marine parks debate!!! Luckily or unluckily I live in a safe liberal seat both fed and state. Might have to talk to my local member...johnny H Cheers Kelvin

[pjbink]

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/burdens.pdf

The above is a link to a great paper which reviews marine park science. It shows what is wrong with a great deal of the so called science behind the push for more marine parks. Here are some exerpts:

We found that the number of empirical field studies has been climbing at a fairly consistent rate over the last ten years, but has recently been lagging behind the combined publication rate of reviews and theory (Fig. 1). Reading the latter papers, it is apparent that much of their raison d’être is advocacy for the establishment of marine reserves in parts of the world that lack them, rather than real attempts to contribute to the science of the field. The difference between science and advocacy in this field is becoming increasingly blurred (Polunin 2002), and we may soon be in the unusual situation of being faced with a greater number of reviews than there is reviewable material.

Furthermore, the proliferation of models and reviews has resulted in model assumptions evolving into accepted paradigms, a case of ‘What everybody says must be true’ (Simpson 1993).

Detection of recovery of fish density in marine reserves often suffers from lack of rigour in the design of field surveys (Hurlbert 1984; Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986; Underwood 1990, 1993). As Underwood (1990) pointed out, studies lacking replication cannot be logically interpreted. In the marine reserve context there are many reasons why researchers might have limits on their sampling designs. However, a critical evaluation of the experimental designs employed by many

published studies brought to light the following problems with replication and lack of control sites:

(1) insufficient sample replication (for example only one site sampled inside and outside a reserve, or no control sites sampled at all);

(2) spatial confounding (for example all control sites located only at one end of the reserve, so that comparisons are confounded by unknown location effects);

(3) lack of temporal replication (most studies consist of surveys done at only one time);

(4) lack of replication at the reserve level limiting the generality of results (although in many cases this reflects the number of reserves available); and

(5) non-random placement of reserves, i.e. often reserves are sited to include ‘special’ or unique features, which causes difficulties in selecting valid control sites (this is obviously no fault of the researchers).

How many studies unambiguously demonstrate significant within-reserve increases in the density of exploited species? Edgar and Barrett (1997) recognized that, with a sufficiently large sample size, a statistically significant difference between two sites (separated either spatially or temporally) can almost always be obtained due simply to true natural biological variability between the sites. That is, the null hypothesis of no difference between two biological entities is necessarily false. They therefore proposed a 100% increase in density as a minimum criterion for claiming the existence of a ‘reserve effect’. This type of approach is more generally known as bio-equivalence testing, in which an effect is not considered biologically significant unless it exceeds a pre-specified threshold (McBride 1999). If we use the 100% threshold, and ignore flaws in sampling design, then there were only a handful of instances where differences in density of individual species between reserve and fished areas can be regarded as biologically significant (Polunin & Roberts 1993; Francour 1994; Harmelin et al. 1995; Russ & Alcala 1996; Edgar & Barrett 1997, 1999; Willis et al. 2003). In many other cases, slight trends towards higher reserve densities were described, but these were of insufficient magnitude to confidently attribute them to reserve

effects, rather than real biological variability at the spatial or temporal level (Roberts & Polunin 1992; Chapman & Kramer 1999; Paddack & Estes 2000). If we consider only those studies that are replicated in both time and space, to our knowledge there are only a few that establish increases in excess of 100%: Ferreira and Russ (1995), Wantiez et al. (1997), Edgar and Barrett (1997, 1999), the long term studies of McClanahan (for example, McClanahan & Arthur 2001), and Willis et al. (2003).

[pjbink]

Bloody hell mr Billfisher ,I dont know about the others on this site but some of those words you are using in your posts are a bit hard for the average person to understand .How about keeping it simple so we can understand exactly what you are talking about.

Cheers Swordfisherman

I take your point, but it is a scientific paper and I wanted to keep it authentic. I highlighted the main points in bold to make it clearer. They have put some plain english versions of their comments in brackets also.

Our more learned members can look at the whole paper via the link. Now that really is a bit heavy going!