Marine Parks

[mickmeg37]

It makes me sad when I hear experienced fishermen and marine biologists say that there is nothing wrong with fish stocks. Over 40 years of professional and amateur fishing I have watched a steady decline in fish numbers to the point where I've got to say "well it's good to be out here anyway, even if I don't catch much."

I can't see how anyone who has been fishing for more than a few years can say that things are alright and nothing needs to be done.

It takes a lot more effort to put a legal sized snapper on the plate. Jewies are rare. Flathead that used to be in plague proportion have shrunk in size and number. The huge schools of stripies and mack tuna have disappeared. You have to go to the shelf if you want a chance of catching a yellowfin. And the list just goes on. Sure, if you put the effort in you are eventually going to come across one of those days when anything with a scale wants to leap into the boat. But they're getting further and further apart.

I don't consider myself a greenie. I just want to be a able to go fishing in ten years time and still be able to put a feed of fish on the table, and for my grandkids to be able to do the same.

Marine parks aren't the perfect solution to conserving fish stocks, but I can't think of an alternative. Neither can anyone else by the sound of all the media devoted to the subject. If someone does, let's hear about it!

[pjbink]

There is plenty of evidence NSW fish stock have stabilised or are on the way up. Some people are fond of gloom and doom. You are implying there is no management of fishing and that no restrictions have been put in place. A lot of commercial effort was removed in the mid 1990's. Commercial fishing has been banned in 30 NSW estuaries.

I don't know if you have been out fishing lately but flathead have been in plauge proportions and in good sizes just off Sydney. We got 18 in a couple of hours the other weekend and its been like that for many months.

I'm surprised you think jewies are rare. What about the excelllent run of them in Sydney Harbour over the past few years. I never used to hear about jewies in the harbour back in the 'good old day'. The have been turning up everywhere too, off the beaches, offshore reefs and in Botany Bay. The water quality of our estuaries has improved markedly with tighter regualtions and now that sewerage is not being dumped in them.

Yellowfin numbers? Well there are still plenty around but just not inshore. The Commonwealth fleet (mainly longliners) is being halved from 1200 to 600 boats. Yellowfin are very fast growing so we can look forward to an improvement in our stocks.

The way marine parks are going you won't have to worry about catching anything because you will be banned from fishing the productive spots. As a fisheries management tool they are more just a theory. The spillover of fish and larvae from the protected area is never likely to make up for the lost grounds. Its far more effective to manage to whole fishery as well as being more equitable.

[pjbink]

I dont know if you are still out there mickmeg37, but I suggest you have a look at this report from the University of British Columbia:

Misguided Claims of Overfishing in New South Wales:

Comment on "Empty Oceans Empty Nets. An evaluation

of NSW fisheries catch statistics from 1940 to 2000"

http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/w...006/2006-16.pdf

Here are a few quotes:

A recent report characterises New South Wales fisheries as seriously mismanaged and unsustainable. While there have undoubtedly been declines in some fish populations in New South Wales, we are unable to substantiate these claims since the report lacks both consistency and rigour, analytical methods are

not clearly described, fisheries science is not appropriately applied, and there is a failure to comprehend the management systems and responsibilities in Australian fisheries. In summary, the published report is so seriously flawed that it should not be used or quoted.

Reduction in catches after the initial phase of a fishery is an inevitable part of fishery development and provides no evidence whatsoever as to the sustainability of a fishery.

The fisheries of NSW underwent several periods of expansion during the last century, including rapid expansion onto the continental slope in the mid-1970s (Tilzey and Rowling 2001). During periods of expansion, both the weight of landings and the number of species reported is expected to increase. As previously discussed, some drop in landings after the initial development of new fisheries is then expected. Since the mid-1990s, much of the capacity of the fishing fleets of NSW has been reduced. The combination of these effects could at least partly explain the observed decline in landings since 1990. There is simply not enough information contained in catch data alone to support the list of claims given in the report.

There have been major changes to the ways in which fisheries in NSW have been managed over the past decade, many of these to address concerns about continued sustainability of the state’s marine resources. There have been two major government buy-outs of commercial fishing licenses (both acknowledged in the HCEC report), the most recent in concert with the closure of 30 estuarine areas to commercial fishing. Management Advisory Committees (MACs), made up of a broad range of representative stakeholders are now a feature of all the fisheries of NSW. Data quality issues are gradually being addressed and practical methods to assess the complex fisheries in NSW are being developed (e.g., Scandol 2004).

NSW DPI has also entered into collaborative partnership with two major institutions (Fisheries Centre, University of British Columbia; and the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation) to help clarify the issues of ecosystem-based fisheries management through data analysis and computer simulation. Both of these projects involve bringing together all available data for the fisheries of NSW so that questions about sustainability and ecosystem-based fisheries management can be addressed in a rigorous and defensible way.

We would argue that NSW DPI has made efforts to address these types of problems (overfishing) and is at least moving in the right direction towards greater sustainability of its fisheries. Fisheries are managed by input controls that include a highly regulated licensing system; small-scale area closures to protect specific spawning stocks; gear restrictions; and substantial reduction in capacity. Management advisory committees meet regularly to discuss and address issues within each fishery. NSW DPI employs a public consultation process whenever major decisions are made (e.g., placement of the Recreational Fishing Havens). Considerable efforts have been made to improve access to fisheries dependent data to inform decisions.

Marine protected areas are widely cited as a precautionary management method to buffer against the effects of fishing (e.g., Allison et al. 1998). Their efficacy will be determined by a wide range of localised factors, particularly the degree to which fish move and the spatial structure of fished populations. Marine protected areas will also be more effective if they have the support of local communities (Hilborn 2004). Blanket recommendations for the necessary area to be protected are therefore meaningless. The size and location of spatial closures should be determined on a case-by-case basis if costly, unpopular and ineffective protected areas are to be avoided.

Edited January 13, 2007 by billfisher

[Guest danielinbyron]

The bottom line to this report is that the Marine Parks are being politically driven and not scientifically driven and therefore may not be a solution at all... The thing that seems so injust is that the most effective reduction to the overfishing problem has been the buyouts funded primarily by recreational fisherman .. And lets not understimate the cultural shift in thinking that is spawned from sites like this one .. that encourage environemental responsability, care ,catch and release and other up to date practices .

By spending huge sums of money, most of it selling this unpopular, unpoliceable and perhaps ineffective park. What resources have been lost in truly addressing problems , such as our ability to encourage our overseas neighbours to keep there end of agreements ,weed bed , estuary care , perhaps even more artificial reef systems? Not to mention the need for unbiased long term scientific research.

[Guest danielinbyron]

ps i just got a report that a bruns local was fined $500 for traveling through a marine park on his kayak with his tackle terminated ... no line in the water . Stuff that , thats just plain wrong.

[Ross Hunter]

It is a fact that our oceans are overfished Be it deep water trawl, long lining, trapping or purse siening . There are fish that no longer exist and there will be more, but never place any blame on any one other than the State and Federal governments for allowing it to happen.

The poor old rec angler couldn't wipe out species while there bum points to the ground.

Marine Parks do nothing to prolong the inshore species Salmon, blackfish, bream, longtails, bonito, striped tuna and tailor are all migratory species They don't live in an area they just pass through. How many times do you go fishing and bag out?

This is not a greeny do gooder show it is a bunch of scheming politicians using a preplanned attack on the the percentage preferences to win an election No thoughts at all for the NSW fisho who pays for the right to fish Let's get rid of the drones I say . Do it at the elections If you care do not vote labour

[njsconst]

It is a fact that our oceans are overfished Be it deep water trawl, long lining, trapping or purse siening . There are fish that no longer exist and there will be more, but never place any blame on any one other than the State and Federal governments for allowing it to happen.

The poor old rec angler couldn't wipe out species while there bum points to the ground.

Marine Parks do nothing to prolong the inshore species Salmon, blackfish, bream, longtails, bonito, striped tuna and tailor are all migratory species They don't live in an area they just pass through. How many times do you go fishing and bag out?

This is not a greeny do gooder show it is a bunch of scheming politicians using a preplanned attack on the the percentage preferences to win an election No thoughts at all for the NSW fisho who pays for the right to fish Let's get rid of the drones I say . Do it at the elections If you care do not vote labour

Well said Ross!

I agree 100%

[pjbink]

No species of fish has ever been wiped out by overfishing Ross. They just become no longer viable as a commercial target. They also generally recover very quickly when commercial fishing is wound back (often after just 2 or 3 years). Eg look at the increase in salmon nos after the south coast canneries were closed, increase in kingfish nos after the floating traps were banned, excellent spotted mackeral seasons after ring netting was restricted in SE Queensland. Also there is the increase in fish nos in the recreational fishing havens.

In the present environment it would be in our interests to recognise efforts towards sustainability such as these, and the many other efforts being made. Exaggerated claims of overfishing give the greenies and marine park advocates ammunition for their draconian restrictions.

Edited January 17, 2007 by billfisher

[Guest madsmc]

Good to see a few people cottoning on to what is actually happening with the Marine Park BS in NSW. We, as recreational anglers, are being shafted by a State government that cares not for the lifestyle we lead, and the sport we love. Their only concern is to gain the support of the Green sector that will keep them in power.

Great work guys, and keep up the good fight. Hopefully we will see a good outcome after March 07, and the prime fishing spots will still be available for all to enjoy.

Shane

[Ross Hunter]

Billfisher,

Maybe you haven't been around long enough or maybe you read too much crap...I don't know...I have been priveledged to have experienced kingfish before trapping and been personally responsible with others in the banning of kingfish traps To see the pole boats work a patch of ripplers of southern bluefin before purse seining , watching the Ajax out of Greenwell Point poll them all day or orange roughy before the assault on St Hellens sea mount or perhaps the demise of the gemfish by deep water trawl. (just about to be placed on the endangered species list)

These kingfish have never returned to the their status in the 60's (we would re anchor to get away from them)The kings were treated as vermin back then (see my story in FISHING STORIES and HINTS on my web site www.gamefishingcharters.com.au)they were that thick you could walk on them... Now they are 60 cm fleas They were all but wiped out by the trapping. Who allowed it, State Fisheries! Southern Bluefin could be put on the endangered species list now. Who allowed that, Federal fisheries...My argument is that this is where the problem is OUR OCEANIC SPECIES UNDER THREAT.....NOT in the first three mile of our coastline.These fish are now under world quota....and disappearing before our very eyes with the Port Lincon Fleet purse seining the crap out of the juveniles (20kg fish) (They don' t breed untill they are 40 kg) fattening them up and then exporting thousands of tonnes of them overseas per annum.......All these species are under threat and have been for years So much so that many long liners will not pre buy Bluefin quotas any more.If that's not dissapearing before my eyes then I'll walk bare arse down Bourke St.

The species you mention are all pretty much coastal fish and certainly I agree that they are in good fettle another reason why we do not need lock out zones.

They are all migratory species and pretty much coastal they roam from reef to reef bait scool to bait school.

Closing off a small section of coast line will do nothing to help as the fish will have twice was much pressure at the next fishing zone. I have been a fisherman all my life and that is now along time I love my job and would like to think that over those 55 years I have noticed changes. I do consider I know what I am talking about in certain facets of the ocean and her piscatorial inhabidents, with out being a no it all. You see there is nothing better than accumulated knowledge I think it's called experience.It is a much better learning curve than reading some crap report from a bunch of university drop outs who wanted to become a marine bioligist but didn't like the smell of fish.

Sanctuary Zones will do nothing for fish stocks as they only go 3 mile to sea and the fish you mention do not live in one place, they migrate. That's why you don't catch spottys and spanish all year round. However as a youngster I can recall catching a boat load of them at SW Rocks on a short trace a set of gangs tied to a milk bottle.That was before monofilament nets......I personally do not care about marine Parks it is No fish zones that I am so cranky about... If the greens want to control massive areas of Qld and NSW coastlines then so be it, after all why should we have a say in things we only live here?

This bullshit about saving fish for your kids is not going to happen because of sanctuary "no fish zones' IT JUST MEANS THAT THESE FUTURE GENERATION AUSTRALIANS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO EXPERIECE THE WONDERFUL TIME MY SONS AND DAUGHTER HAVE HAD AT PRETTY BEACH CATCHING SALMON,BREAM,KINGFISH ,TAILOR AND LONGTAILS OFF THE SHORELINE.......SOON TO BECOME A SANCTUARY ZONE.....Read my report on (wwww.gamefishingcharters.com.au in Fishing stories and Hints)If you really want to have an assurety of fish longevity then let's ban recreational fishing for a decade or so...that may have some effect.

You see you cannot rely on overseas reports from countries with masive populations and atotally different bio diversity and compare them to Australian waters That's what these wankers have done .Give the recreational angler scientific proof that lock out zones will be a benifit on the longevity of fish stocks and we have a valid reason for Sanctuary Zones These idiots have not given us that...but have dictated to us in a manner that reminds me of some iron curtain country totally un Australian....get rid of them and their sanctuary zones I say.

[pjbink]

Well that my point Ross, the fish you mentioned as being overfished are the exception not the rule. Our inshore stocks are in quite good shape. The gemfish, orange ruffy southern bluefin are all deep water species which have suffered because they are slow growing and fishing fleets have got too big. That why the Commonwealth Fleet is being halved from 1200 to 600 boats. Also the Commonwealth has set up a fisheries research centre in conjuction with industry to try to keep the industry viable in the face of ever increasing sustainability restrictions and cut backs. They are looking at reducing waste, finding uses for bycatch and looking aquaculture of salwater species in brackish inland waters.

No doubt that there are less kingfish (and other inshore species) around now than in the 1960's. Thats the price we pay for being able to buy local seafood in the shops, having coastal developements and the doubling of the human population. That doesn't mean however that the stocks are in terminal decline or being harvested unsustainably, or that fish aren't reasonable plentiful. According the UBC's report is normal for stocks to be fished down in a new fishery but it absolutely no indication as to the sustainability of the fishery. As larger fish are caught there is reduced predation of juvenile fish. If it wasn't for this population change we would be fished out very quickly indeed.

I have been fishing for 35 years, mainly out of Sydney. I don't know if you fish inshore much these days Ross, but I have noticed improvements in the last ten years or so. In Botany Bay, Sydney Harbour and Pittwater there have been excellent runs of kingfish in the last few years. They might be rats to you at 3-5 kg but they are quite a thrill for estuary fishermen. As to the big fellows its not fair to say they have been wiped out. All my big kingfish (up to 13 kg) have been caught off the rocks in Sydney in the last 20 years. I have hooked some that must have been a lot bigger but they are unlandable at that size off the rocks!

[Ross Hunter]

Billfisher,

Good points you have made and I agree that kingfish are on the return, but they still have along way to go. The ceasation of haul netting in those areas can only help the cause and we are seeing a return of stocks and that is most exciting..My fight over the past 10 years has been our oceanic fish stocks, they are in major decline and need less pressure from the ozzie and international longliners . The federal govs. buy out and allocation of 220 million will help by reducing the number of long liners by approx 120 vessels as some want to stay in, believing that with less boats the yield will be better..However it is the International fleet that is far bigger and much more efficient. These oceanic species that are caught by longlining and purse seining have nothing to do with sanctuary zones and Marine Parks what so ever That was the point I was trying to make.

The inshore fishery is in great shape in my opinion The species that live in these waters could never be effected by rec fisherman under current bag limits and it is a misguided fisherman who thinks that "no fish zones" will do any thing to preserve fish stocks. I don't have a problem with Marine Parks and the buy out of commercial netters,trappers in those areas...HOWEVER I HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM WITH A GOVERNMENT THAT INTRODUCES A NO FISH ZONE WITHOUT PROPER RESEARCH...........IT IS A BROWN NOSE TO THE GREENS TO BUY VOTES.....REC FISHOS DID NOT GET A LOOK IN........SO I SAY DO NOT VOTE FOR THEM.

[pjbink]

Ross,

International longliners are no longer able to operate in our waters. The trouble with southern bluefin is that they are found in international waters as well and suffer considerable pressure from foreign fishing fleets. Is it not the case that our marlin and tuna stocks stick mainly inside our territorial waters? There seem to be plenty of marlin still around, but yellowfin tuna have become less common and have largely stopped turning up in our inshore waters. There are still some good catches made out at the shelf and beyond. Do you think they will make a comeback now that 120 longliners are gone? Unlike southern bluefin, yellowfin are extremely fast growing and have a life cycle of only 7 years, which gives some cause for optimism.

PS I was drifting for flathead in Botany Bay last monday morning and hooked a kingfish, it gave me quite a workout on 8lb line. The were boiling up all around the boat for a couple of hours (most distracting). I haven't seen them like that before in large nos well inside the bay and away from any structure. Last autum I saw a sea turtle at the Moons near Lurgano on the Georges River. I have seen dolphins near Captain Cooks bridge in the last couple of years. Its good to see nature fighting back so close to home.

Edited January 18, 2007 by billfisher

[mickmeg37]

Perhaps you could tell me what's bullshit about trying to make sure there's enough fish to go around for our kids and grandkids. You're saying we'll never wipe out a species, they just become commercially unviable. Why wait till that happens? At the heart of what you're saying is a denial that there is nothing wrong with inshore stocks. Every collapsed fishery has at one stage or another been considered an infinite resource until it caves in.

The same species targetted by pros are targetted pretty relentlessly by amateurs as well. Most of them travel with the seasons or follow food, water temps etc. Lockouts are one place where they won't have any pressure put on numbers. It's a small thing but at least it's something.

Other restrictions such as the halt of netting in large areas of mangroves and enclosed waters can only be a good thing. Lake Macquarie has shown that.

Everyone who goes fishing has an impact, no matter how small it is.

[pjbink]

Perhaps you could tell me what's bullshit about trying to make sure there's enough fish to go around for our kids and grandkids. You're saying we'll never wipe out a species, they just become commercially unviable. Why wait till that happens? At the heart of what you're saying is a denial that there is nothing wrong with inshore stocks. Every collapsed fishery has at one stage or another been considered an infinite resource until it caves in.

The same species targetted by pros are targetted pretty relentlessly by amateurs as well. Most of them travel with the seasons or follow food, water temps etc. Lockouts are one place where they won't have any pressure put on numbers. It's a small thing but at least it's something.

Other restrictions such as the halt of netting in large areas of mangroves and enclosed waters can only be a good thing. Lake Macquarie has shown that.

Everyone who goes fishing has an impact, no matter how small it is.

Were not wiping out our inshore fish and they are not in danger of collapse. If you think that you know more than state fisheries, and the state and federal environment departments and the University of British Columbia, who say our fish stocks are stable. Commerical fishing is tightly regulated and has been reduced considerably since the 1990's in NSW. The collapsed fisheries were you refer to were fished intensively for maximum sustainable yield, based on population studies or there were too many fishermen from different jurastrictions after them (international waters). Our recent fisheries managment has been one of continual cutbacks in fishing effort and application of the precautionary principle.

You say:

"Everyone who goes fishing has an impact, no matter how small it is."

Whats wrong with that? Every living creature has some impact. By over protecting one part of the environment (fisheries, marine park lockouts) you are just shifting the impact to other parts of the environment. Even when the are problems marine parks aren't the best solution. The protection they give to mobile species is small. They aren't equitable as they just allocate the resource away from people who live near the park to those away from it. On the other hand traditional restrictions across the whole fishery give quicker benifits, better fishing (productive grounds aren't lost for ever) and avoid the huge local impact a marine park has on communities affected.

Edited January 22, 2007 by billfisher

[pjbink]

The Pew Charitable Trust is a well funded US conservation organisation which has put fishing between its sights. It was behind the 'Empty Nets - Empty Oceans' missive on NSW fisheries. It appears that there is a connection between this organisations money and the consensus statement on marine parks. This statement signed by 161 marine scientists in 1997 is considered the 'father' of marine parks and is often cited by greenies and fellow travellers as conclusive proof of the benifits of marine parks. It also has shown how Pew has taken the publics focus away from pollution and degradation towards overfishing as the main problem facing our marine environment:

Pew, SeaWeb shrug off oil to target fishing

by Nils E. Stolpe

The Pew Charitable Trusts have spent tens of millions of dollars on fisheries and ocean issues and even more on the news media in recent years. This flood of money has had a significant impact both on fisheries policy and on how our industry is depicted in print and on the air. While a large part of the Pew focus is supposed to be representing and increasing the public's interest in fisheries and ocean issues, is it also shifting that interest?

One of the more active efforts to influence public opinion on fisheries is underwaterheaded by SeaWeb. On its web site, SeaWeb describes itself as a "project designed to raise awareness of the world ocean and the life within it." Its primary funder is the Pew Charitable Trusts. Early in its existence, SeaWeb commissioned a public opinion survey to determine which ocean issues would best "engage the public interest."

The introduction to the results of the survey, which was conducted for SeaWeb by the Mellman Group, stated "Americans believe the ocean's problems stem from many sources, but oil companies are seen as a prime culprit: In fact, 81% of Americans believe that oil spills are a very serious problem. This is followed by chemical runoff from large corporate farms (75% very serious), improperly treated water from towns near the coast (69%), contaminated seafood (65%), and trash, oil, and chemical runoff from streets (65%)." Overfishing evidently wasn't considered "a very serious problem" and was lumped in with "the loss of critical species" to make the cut as a "meaningful indicator" of trouble.

But in an article on the poll in SeaWeb's November 1996 monthly update, the only specific threat to the oceans mentioned was overfishing. Along with three paragraphs of vague generalities was this statement: "71% (of respondents) agree that overfishing is threatening the health and stability of the marine environment." Nothing about oil spills, runoff, contaminated seafood, or any of the other "problems" identified in the survey, only overfishing. Is this engaging or is it redirecting the public interest?

Funding, MPAs

It seems that an almost universal groundswell of support has developed spontaneously for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as the solution to problems besetting our oceans and the creatures living in them. It seems as well that much of the focus of the MPA movement is protection from fishing. A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread. The statement, it explained, was the result of a two-and-a-half year effort by an international team of scientists. That effort included a research review and a joint meeting by the NCEAS scientists and other researchers on marine reserves convened by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) in May of 1998. This sounds like the world of science at work the way it's supposed to work, with objective researchers reaching their own conclusions independently, then coming together behind a consensus position. But is it really?

COMPASS is funded by the Packard Foundation and SeaWeb is a COMPASS "partner." The chair of the COMPASS board of scientific experts received a Pew fellowship in 1992 and is also a member of the NCEAS international team of scientists that drafted the consensus statement. Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement. Marine reserves or MPAs were mentioned in the project descriptions, biographies, or bibliographies of 27 of the 58 Pew fellows named since 1996. One might easily conclude that they are strong supporters - if not promoters - of the concept. Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each - and connections the fellowships provide. (In addition to these Pew fellowships, the Pew Trusts and the Packard Foundation have spent more than $2 million in grants specifically promoting MPAs since 1998.)

But the Pew connections don't end there. In January of this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) named the finalists for its MPA Advisory Committee. The 26-member committee includes representatives of a number of organizations funded by Pew and Packard, including:

• Environmental Defense - $3.4 million from Pew and $1.2 million from Packard in the last five years;

• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $5.5 million from Pew;

• Center for Marine Conservation - $1.1 million from Pew, $1.6 million from Packard; and

• Conservation International - $400,000 from Packard.

A program officer from the Packard Foundation is also a MPA committee member, along with one commercial and one recreational fishing industry representative.

Groundswell? You bet. Spontaneous? Not hardly. Universal? How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?

Putting it together

So back in 1996, the folks at SeaWeb commissioned a survey to help them get the public involved in the ocean. The introduction to the survey stated, "The poll is critically important to informing the campaign. The research has given us a strong sense of what will work to engage the public in this issue, but the public still requires educating before acknowledging a problem."

The report indicated that Americans would be most effectively engaged by focusing on their perceptions of what was contributing to the problems of the oceans - oil spills, chemical runoff from corporate farms, improperly treated wastewater, contaminated seafood, and non-point source pollution.

But were they given that opportunity? Not quite. Disregarding everything else, the Pew Ocean Update focused on overfishing. So did SeaWeb's programs.

Fishing - or overfishing - was accorded little attention in the public opinion survey relative to all the other threats. Yet today, fishing and aquaculture "problems" comprise at least half of SeaWeb's workload. Oil spills, which were identified as the number one problem in the poll and which seem to be going on at the same rate they were pre-Exxon Valdez, get virtually no attention at all.

It's obvious to anyone with any exposure to the print or broadcast media that the public's focus has shifted from "blame it all on the oil industry" to "blame it all on commercial fishing." Every major fishery is under stringent management and every fisherman is working with severe restrictions today, but that isn't enough for the organizations funded by Pew.

Perhaps more people should start asking "why?"

Edited April 30, 2007 by billfisher

[Ross Hunter]

I guess we can blame polution, overfishing by commercials and recreational anglers a like. I refer to the old AFA days where tailor were caught by the box trailer full at comps and Ben Cropp made movies of underwatering the dangerous man eating grey nurse sharks doing us a favour by ridding us of these killers. Ah! how that's changed.

The way I see it we are the feral animals of the world when it comes to the demise of fish stocks.

We cut down mangroves for river front developments, we spill oil from tankers, we pour tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, we introduce carp to our inland waterways, we have never learned from the demise of fishstocks in other countries Eg the cod fishing in the Atlantic and the broadbill fisheries of New Foundland or the bluefin fishery in the Mediteranean and the way they are purse seining bluefin in South Australia we will go down the same road, but you must realise that is is amost lucrative market and the bluefin fishermen pays lots of taxes and are listed the richest famillies in Australia.

The problem is most complex, but the good thing that has come from the past decade is that the young generation of fishermen do care, they would not wander off with a box trailer of fish they are amost conservation minded lot and that is really good.

It has historically been the demand world wide for fish that has driven the stocks to near exctinction in other countries and also greed and the dollar.

We need to spend billions internationally on scientific research to help evaluate sustainabillity for the future. If it was the land in drought all kinds of assistances are on offer but because it's the ocean The out of sight out of mind mentallity prevails.

What annoys me about the Marine Parks is that a lock out of recos. is not going to make a rats arse difference in fish stocks and it annoys me that fisherman were treated with distain by the NSW government and Fisheries alike. In my opinion without the brown nose to the green factor they would not have won the election.

I am all for reduction of pressure on fish stocks but shutting recreational anglers under to days bag limits, out of a small area will do bugger all to achieve that result.

These coastal species are migratory and will be under twice the pressure when they move around the corner.

So come on NSW labour government spend a billion or so, employ some scientists, give us a ten year study on our coastlines and tell us we're wrong, if you really care that much about it or is it that you are hand in hand with the greens now and you've won the elections...job done.........bugger the recreational fisho.

[pjbink]

In all this marine park mania only one study (done by the Commonwealth gov.), did a environmental risk assessment on recreational fishing. It found anglers have a negligable effect on fish stocks and biodiversity and should be allowed to continue in Commonwealth marine parks!

[pjbink]

Here is a piece from a US site which sheds some light on their activities Pew Charitable Trust. This group was behind the hopelessly flawed Empty Nets - Empty Oceans missive on NSW fisheries. It shows how they operate, first create an sense of crisis about overfishing and then offer a simple solution in marine parks:

In late 2006, "Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!" was the headline read and heard around the world - at least in the world of Washington, DC. It just so happens that Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act at that precise moment. The media stories sited a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University.

Dr. Worm, a regular recipient of of funding from Pew Charitable Trusts, working with SeaWeb, a Pew-funded public research group that specializes in media campaigns, worked on the message and the timing to get as much media coverage as possible. They were successful. Big media loves a crisis, and when you have the money and the manpower its easy to plant a good fish tale.

Dr. Worm's article was quickly labeled by top fisheries scientists and managers for what it really was - a Pew advocacy piece like much of his prior work funded by Pew. The kicker at the end of the piece calling for "No-Fishing marine reserves" (MPA's) as the cure was the final giveaway, a goal high on the agenda of most Pew-funded organizations! Worm's work in the past had been branded "invalid", "misleading" and "undermining the the trust placed in science." As it turns out this was a textbook study in disseminating misinformation disguised as science to a willing media with the express purpose of influencing Congressional debate. Such scare tactics have become the darling of the radical environmental movement.

The media firestorm was part of a broader, coordinated attack that included misleading ad campaigns aimed at smearing key politicians facing reelection. The targeted Members of Congress just happened to be those involved in crafting scientifically sound legislation that also recognized the needs of recreational fishjermen and industry. This campaign was led by another Pew-funded environmental group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800 Pound Gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to "save" the oceans. Pew claims that their primary purpose "is to make grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carry out the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes." This proves that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew.

The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental orrganizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well-managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the publics access to the oceans. That attack includes targeting recreational fishermen like us.

Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental grouips that push the party line. Those groups include -

The National Environmental Trust

Oceana

Earthjustice Legal Defense

The New England Aquarium

The Public Interest Research Group

National Audubon Society

National Resources Defense Council

Sierra Club

Conservation Law Foundation

Marine Conservation Biology Institute

Marine Fish Conservation Network

Wildlife Conservation Society

Friends of the Earth

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Combined, these groups have received over $200 million dollars of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of of arbitrary no-fishing zones (MPA's) !

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is the most worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for recreational sportsman's organizations and has attracted the participation of some well-known recreational fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson reauthorization, these recreational fishing groups ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.

This is what Congressman Pombo, chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. "Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act, the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. The RFA's goal was clear: a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the others engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to the RFA and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization."

Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, the management of US fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious fisheries problems can be found abroad. PEW'S AGENDA MAY SOUND LAUDABLE BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THEIR GOAL IS TO STOP ALL FISHING. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the Magnuson debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do - GO FISHING.