pjbink Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) For Sydney fishos who have been complacent about marine parks - well, I'll let this speak for itself! Fishers angry over marine park proposal PRINT FRIENDLY EMAIL STORY PM - Wednesday, 19 December , 2007 18:29:00 Reporter: Simon Santow BRENDAN TREMBATH: For many people, throwing a line in the water in the hope of catching a fish is one of life's simple pleasures. But over the years, increasing regulation has taken a toll on both recreational and commercial anglers. Now they're up in arms in New South Wales over a proposal to triple the area where fishing is either restricted or banned altogether. The idea has come from the National Parks Association which says overfishing and the threat of global warming requires drastic action be taken as soon as possible. Simon Santow has our report. SIMON SANTOW: Ask fishing groups about what's important to them and they'll tell you sustainability. Conservationists say much the same thing. But there's no agreement on how to go about safeguarding fish stocks and how to go about protecting the marine environment. Paul Winn is with the National Parks Association in New South Wales. He's written a report which shows the waters off that State are at greatest risk from the effects of imminent global warming. PAUL WINN: Our fisheries are in real trouble. We have been overfishing it for far too long but also it is a consequence of the current regime. The east Australian current brings warm water down from the tropics and it meets with southern waters that come up from the Tasman Sea so south-east marine biodiversity is pretty well endemic to south-east Australia. Between 65 and 95 per cent of the species in the south-east of Australia are endemic, living nowhere else in the world, and those warmer tropical species are going to basically invade those colder water species as temperatures increase. SIMON SANTOW: Bob Smith is a fishing enthusiast and President of the Fishing Clubs Association. BOB SMITH: There is nothing wrong with the fishing in New South Wales or even on the New South Wales' coast. Fisheries will tell you that. It is very sustainable. There might be a couple of species that have been overfished by commercial fishing but as far as the recreational fishing industry goes, there is no species on the east coast of New South Wales that is under threat of extinction or past the level of sustainability. You only just have to look at all the reports that come in each week from fishing shows, fishing magazines that continue and catch, you know, even by commercial fishes has been at a sustainable level now that the commercial industry has been reduced dramatically. SIMON SANTOW: Paul Winn's report says global warming could lead to the overall commercial catch dropping by a third. And he warns storm surges and wave activity is going to play havoc with seabeds and other marine species already damaged by overfishing in New South Wales. PAUL WINN: What National Parks Association is saying is that these are the impacts. There is an emerging consensus around the world that marine or all eco-systems that are degraded are likely to be significantly more affected by climate change than those that are intact. We are have a significantly degraded marine environment in New South Wales and unless we start building resistance into that, resilience into that eco-system we are going to see far greater impact on our biodiversity than we are elsewhere. SIMON SANTOW: His solution is to triple the area protected by marine sanctuaries to cover at least 20 per cent of the State's waters. With that would come severe restrictions on fishing, and for the first time the bans would take in heavily populated Sydney. PAUL WINN: We would like to see a marine park off the city of Sydney which includes the major estuaries from the Hawkesbury down to Botany Bay, including the Royal National Park. We, obviously within that marine park there would be a lot of scope for fishing, both commercial and recreation. What we could do then is define an area we could look more closely at, identify the areas that need to be protected and make them sanctuary zones where fishing is excluded. SIMON SANTOW: But of the areas that are currently available for both commercial and recreational fishing, what percentage would fishing be banned in? PAUL WINN: Well, we are advocating that 33 per cent of all our marine parks be no-take marine sanctuaries. SIMON SANTOW: Recreational fishers say the proposal is over the top. BOB SMITH: Could you just imagine the economic damage that it would do the tourism, to the fishing industry, you know, to the tackle industry, to the holiday units, to all facets of whatever revolves around access to the resource and to the water? And the best example I can give you is in Queensland where they locked up 30 per cent of the Barrier Reef, the initial response was that they were going to allow about $2.5 million to $4 million for compensation to offset, you know, for locking up the areas. That bill now is in the vicinity of $222 million. Somebody made a huge mistake when they thought that locking up a few areas was just going to stop a few fishermen from going fishing. SIMON SANTOW: And Bob Smith has this warning. BOB SMITH: We've put up with all these little changes over the years you know. I mean, the New South Wales Government has been good at this. They just do a little bit at a time. I could nearly guarantee you that if fishing was stopped off Sydney there would be a huge massive protest and this would probably be the straw that broke the camel's back and unite all the fishing community together, whether they are commercial, recreational or just fish eaters. I believe that they would all be united. BRENDAN TREMBATH: Bob Smith, President of the Fishing Clubs Association of New South Wales ending Simon Santow's report. Edited December 20, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizzytaylor Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Beat me to it ross, Full report and audio here. http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2123300.htm Dont think it will just go away guys, too many people thought that would be the case with Byron, JB and Port Stephens. Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizzytaylor Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) Just browsing through the report and here are a few snippets of real concern. http://www.marine.org.au/NSW%20MARINE%20RE...T%201_FINAL.pdf Marine Parks are required to be established within the NSW section of both the Hawkesbury Sand Twofold Shelf Marine Bioregions to meet stated NSW Government commitments to a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine parks. Recommendations Recommendation 1: That the NSW Government implement its policy on a comprehensive adequate and representative of marine protected areas by agreeing to establish 10% of all comprehensively mapped NSW marine habitats and ecosystems in marine sanctuaries by 2011 and 20% by 2020 Recommendation 2: That the NSW Government undertake a review of the Marine Parks Act and Regulations that includes, as its core term of reference, the fulfilment by the existing Marine Parks and Zoning Plans of the conservation objectives set by the Act and Regulations. Recommendation 3: That a new section 6a be inserted into the Marine Parks Act that allows the Governor to declare marine park zoning plans. Recommendation 4: That section 8 of the Marine Parks Act be amended to read “A declaration of a marine park and zoning plan must not be revoked except by an Act of Parliament” as per s 37 of the National Parks and Wildlife Act. Recommendation 5:That the objects for zones in Part 2 of the Marine Park Regulations be set out in the Marine Parks Act and all zonings of Marine Parks be standardised accordingly. Recommendation 6: That the NSW Government establishes at least 33% of all existing marine parks and future marine parks as sanctuary zones. Recommendation 7:That the NSW Government legislate to remove all commercial fishing from habitat protection zones in NSW marine parks by 2011 Recommendation 8: That the NSW Government legislates to prohibit anchoring over seagrass beds and reef habitats in sanctuary and habitat protection zones in NSW marine parks by 2011. Recommendation 9: That the NSW Government legislate to prohibit bottom trawling within all general use zones and thus all marine parks by 2011. . Recommendation 10: That section 30C( of the National Parks and Wildlife Act 1974 be repealed by 2011. Recommendation 11: That all marine and estuary components of reserves under the National Parks and Wildlife Act be established as IUCN Category Ia Aquatic Reserves by 2011. Recommendation 12: That all marine and estuary boundaries of National Parks and Wildlife Act reserves be extended to include the intertidal zone and an additional 10 metres seaward of the mean low water mark by 2011. Recommendation 13: That DPI Fisheries undertake a comprehensive education campaign to inform the community of the benefits and whereabouts of intertidal protected areas. Recommendation 14: That all the 69 rock platforms recommended for protection by TEC in 1995 be established as intertidal protected areas by 2011. Recommendation 15: That an area of at least 1500m radius surrounding all NSW aggregation sites identified as critical for the survival of grey nurse sharks in eastern Australia by the Commonwealth Recovery Plan for the Grey Nurse Shark in Australia be established as no-take aquatic reserves by 2008. Edited December 20, 2007 by squizzytaylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boban Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 I actually look forward to the planned Sydney Marine Parks. It will finally get all the lazy arse, couldn't be stuffed fisherman to finally do something because it is in their backyard, not somewhere they holiday. When it becomes a vote winner, then you will get an opposing policy from the Liberals, unless of course, Labor realises that it could lose the next election over it. Yep, bring it on greenies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizzytaylor Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 (edited) I actually look forward to the planned Sydney Marine Parks. It will finally get all the lazy arse, couldn't be stuffed fisherman to finally do something because it is in their backyard, not somewhere they holiday. When it becomes a vote winner, then you will get an opposing policy from the Liberals, unless of course, Labor realises that it could lose the next election over it. Yep, bring it on greenies. I hope they do get off thier butts this time boban, it was really demotivating last time round with the Port Stephens park to get numbers of around 50 people turning up to protests, info nights etc. The bottom line is guys if ya dont act, ya cant bitch when it happens. As they say "apathy is the enemy". GT Edited December 20, 2007 by squizzytaylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilm Posted December 20, 2007 Share Posted December 20, 2007 Once again the greenies lose the plot. There's no flipping point having a marine park if everything is screwed by global warming!!!! Another non-scientifically proven, emotionally charged statement by the greens. The worrying thing is that the State Gov't are buying this cr@p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) If anyone thinks that marine parks are not little more than a cleverly designed way to restrict the public's access to our oceans then I would like to see them to deny it now. All our fisheries are operating under tight constraints. The number of commercial fishermen in NSW waters has been drastically cut - from over 7000 in the 1990's to 1300 (and still falling), now. Bag and size limits have been further limited for anglers and compliance is high. All this is never enough for the greenies though. Edited December 21, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizzytaylor Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 The number of commercial fishermen in NSW waters has been drastically cut - from over 7000 in the 1990's to 1300 (and still falling), now. Herein lies one of the greatest green lies Ross, The greens use reported catch figures from the commercial guys themselves to warrant the overfishing myths and never once in any of thier reports will you find reference to the fact that the commercial fishing fleet itself has been reduced by over 80% in the last 20 years. GT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 Herein lies one of the greatest green lies Ross, The greens use reported catch figures from the commercial guys themselves to warrant the overfishing myths and never once in any of thier reports will you find reference to the fact that the commercial fishing fleet itself has been reduced by over 80% in the last 20 years. GT All they do is lie squizzy - when you catch them lying they just lie again! PS I'm not Ross. Ross Hunter posts under his own name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
squizzytaylor Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Sorry mate, the name does it! GT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snag Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 Im sure most people know that this has been happening both south and north of sydney for the last few years now, they just wanted to wait till the election was over before hitting the bigger parts of sydney. Id be getting use to the name santury park and no-go zones in the near future guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neilm Posted December 21, 2007 Share Posted December 21, 2007 When you read the detail of their report, you'll see lots of statements like: "it is generally accepted" and other such nonsense. Then I checked out some of the references of their cornerstone ideology - and the documentation is being produced by themselves! So much for independent. Anyone know who the author Paul Winn is? I noticed that he does not appear to append details of his qualifications after his name which seems unusual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 21, 2007 Author Share Posted December 21, 2007 (edited) When you read the detail of their report, you'll see lots of statements like: "it is generally accepted" and other such nonsense. Then I checked out some of the references of their cornerstone ideology - and the documentation is being produced by themselves! So much for independent. Anyone know who the author Paul Winn is? I noticed that he does not appear to append details of his qualifications after his name which seems unusual. Paul Winn is the marine sanctuaries campaigner with the National Parks Association and the Hunter Community Environment Centre. He is also on the Port Stephens Great Lakes Marine Park Advisory Committee. It is likely that he wrote the hugely flawed and anonomous "Empty Nets - Empty Oceans" report on NSW fisheries. If he has any formal qualifications in marine science then he is keeping quiet about them. Edited December 22, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 (edited) When you read the detail of their report, you'll see lots of statements like: "it is generally accepted" and other such nonsense. Then I checked out some of the references of their cornerstone ideology - and the documentation is being produced by themselves! So much for independent. A lot that goes on these days - even the the major scientific journals: Faith-based Fisheries Ray Hilborn Hilborn is the Richard C. and Lois M. Worthington Professor of Fisheries Management at the School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle. He can be contacted at rayh@u.washington.edu. The scientific community gave a collective sigh of relief just before Christmas 2005 when Judge John E. Jones III ruled that intelligent design is not a scientific theory and cannot be taught alongside evolution as an alternative scientific hypothesis. There is no better way to unite any group of fractious scientists than to bring up creationism and intelligent design as alternative scientific hypotheses—scientists know that these faith-based ideas are not scientific and have no place in a scientific course. The court’s ruling is a triumph for the scientific method of hypotheses being confronted by data and a setback for those with a political agenda masquerading as science. However, before we congratulate ourselves too much for the triumph of the scientific method over belief, I suggest the fisheries community needs to look at itself and question whether there is not a within our own field a strong movement of faithbased acceptance of ideas, and a search for data that support these ideas, rather than critical and skeptical analysis of the evidence. This faith-based fisheries movement has emerged in the last decade, and it threatens the very heart of the scientific process—peer review and publication in the top journals. Two journals with the highest profile, Science and Nature, clearly publish articles on fisheries not for their scientific merit, but for their publicity value. Beginning in at least 1993 with an article I co-authored (Ludwig et al. 1993), Science and Nature have published a long string of papers on the decline and collapse of fisheries that have attracted considerable public attention, and occasionally gaining coverage in the New York Times and the Washington Post. I assert that the peer review process has now totally failed and many of these papers are being published only because the editors and selected reviewers believe in the message, or because of their potential newsworthiness. As examples, let me choose papers by well-established professionals who have long records of significant work beyond the papers discussed below and I emphasize the problem is with the peer review and editorial editorial system, not the authors of the papers. Casey and Myers’ paper on barndoor skate (Casey and Myers 1998) argued that these skates were headed towards extinction. Analysis by others more familiar with the data showed that the survey data came from areas that are not the core of the range of the species (Kulka et al. 2002), and subsequent evaluation of the status of barndoor skate in New England by the National Marine Fisheries Service concluded they were not overfished (Boelke et al. 2005), hardly headed towards extinction. A review by the Canadian Department of Fisheries and Oceans removed barndoor skates from a list of species that are threatened or endangered. The original paper has not been withdrawn and continues to frequently cited as an example of near extinction of marine species. Myers and Worm published a paper in Nature (Myers and Worm 2003) which made the front page of major national newspapers, purporting to show that large pelagic fish stocks around the world had declined rapidly and by the 1980s were at less than 10% of their historic abundance. Widely cited in the scientific and popular literature, this paper raised a furor among many scientists specializing in pelagic fisheries who knew the same data, knew it was being misinterpreted, and knew there was a large body of other data that contradicted Myers and Worm’s results. At least three independent critiques of the paper subsequently have been published: Walters (2003), Hampton et al. (2005), and Polacheck (2006). The critics are not the “old guard defending their turf,” because it is not as if no one had noticed that the catch-per-unit effort data Myers and Worm used had declined. Rather these critics have themselves long been arguing that some of these fisheries are now depleted and overfished. What they criticized was Myers and Worm’s analysis, their highly selective use of data, and specific conclusions about the extent and timing of depletion of these stocks, not their concern about overexploitation. Conover and Munch (2002) published a highly cited paper in Science showing experimental evidence that size-selective fishing could induce growth changes in fish stocks and suggested this was a mechanism that could lead to collapse of fish stocks. The article never looked at actual fisheries data to ask if the laboratory selection regime imposed resembled what happens in fisheries, nor did they look at the vast body of fisheries data which shows that fish more commonly grow faster, not slower, when fishing pressure is high. A paper in Science (Roberts et al. 2001) purported to show an example of how a marine protected area (MPA) increased yields outside the protected area, when in fact the abundance of fish outside the protected area increased within one year of the establishment of the MPA. Any competent peer reviewer would have seen the flaw in this logic—the theory of MPA impacts on adjoining areas requires at least a generation for abundance to build inside reserves and recruitment to spill out (Hilborn 2002). The displacement of fishing effort from inside to outside the reserve should initially cause abundance outside to decrease, so the increasing abundance outside the reserve after MPA establishment must have been due to an uncontrolled effect. These four examples illustrate a failure of the peer review system and lack of the basic skepticism needed in science, and are unfortunately but a few of the many papers now appearing with similar sensational but unsubstantiated headlines. Edited December 22, 2007 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 Faith-based Fisheries, cont. The people who knew the data used in the Casey and Myers paper and the Myers and Worm paper clearly were not involved in the review process, or the editors chose to ignore their opinions. The complete absence of skepticism by the reviewers of the Roberts paper is a concern. The Conover and Munch paper demonstrated that growth is a heritable trait, but failed to demonstrate anything about how commercial fisheries operate. It did pose a testable hypothesis, but the paper did not include the real fisheries data to see if there was support for the hypothesis. A community of belief has arisen whose credo has become “fisheries management has failed, we need to abandon the old approaches and use marine protected areas and ecosystem-based management.” I fear that this belief has shaded the peer review process so badly that almost any paper showing a significant decline in fish abundance or benefits of marine protected areas has a high probability of getting favorable reviews in some journals regardless of the quality of the analysis. Critical peer review has been replaced by faith-based support for ideas and too many scientists have become advocates. An advocate knows the answer and looks for evidence to support it; a scientist asks nature how much support there is for competing hypotheses. Much of the problem lies in the kind of journals Science and Nature have become: commercial enterprises covering a broad range of scientific issues. In a spoof of a Science article published on the New York Times web site, one of the fictitious authors is quoted as saying “journal editors favor bold claims, because these attract press attention and help recruit further bold papers, which in turn is a tonic for circulation and advertising” (www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/science/17f rau.html?ex=1295154000&en=9ca2921bc 88fe0e3&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&e mc=rss). Given the high prestige of Science and Nature and the impact publication in these journals has on promotion and grants, one cannot blame authors for making bold claims. Perhaps those of us in fisheries should simply not give articles in these journals the prestige they now enjoy. Because of their general coverage, Science and Nature must have problems identifying appropriate reviewers for an individual paper. While there is no easy solution to this, a good step would be for journals to publish the names of reviewers who recommend publication. That would at least make it clear if these journals are relying on a small group of like-minded reviewers who have little expertise relevant to technical papers. Finally, the fact that discredited papers continue to be widely cited is aggravated by the fact the rebuttals frequently are not published by the original journal and may appear in gray literature or technical journals. The high-profile journals need to be especially sensitive to critiques of articles they have published and to formally withdraw discredited papers. Although the scientific community was unanimous in its condemnation of faithbased teachings in evolution, we need to also reject agenda-driven, faith-based publication in fisheries and revive the peer review and publication process within our own community. Let’s go back to testable hypotheses and evidence, and make sure that the peer reviewers know the data and the problem, and are not chosen because of their faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yeeros Posted December 22, 2007 Share Posted December 22, 2007 I voted for the sporting shooters and they got 2 seats and they will fight against this stupidity. I tell you what though i have my own personal line in the sand and if they take any of 3 rock ledges away from me i have decided that i will fish any ledge i want and if i need to go to court over it i will, this really gets under my skin, really really badly. Hell i have obided by all the fisheries laws all my life, i have seen an inspector once in 10 years and i reckon they will go too far if they impose what they want to do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 I voted for the sporting shooters and they got 2 seats and they will fight against this stupidity. I tell you what though i have my own personal line in the sand and if they take any of 3 rock ledges away from me i have decided that i will fish any ledge i want and if i need to go to court over it i will, this really gets under my skin, really really badly. Hell i have obided by all the fisheries laws all my life, i have seen an inspector once in 10 years and i reckon they will go too far if they impose what they want to do! NSW Labor Caucus met earlier this month - word is that marine parks were on the agenda. I understand your sentiments Yerros. I just wrote a letter to my State MP. I suggested that if they go ahead with this policy they will have trouble getting funds raised through the fishing license. Note that Winn mentioned Botany Bay for closures - a rec haven funded by the fishing license! Also I suggested it might be a good idea to build bigger jails to lock people like me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 22, 2007 Author Share Posted December 22, 2007 Herein lies one of the greatest green lies Ross, The greens use reported catch figures from the commercial guys themselves to warrant the overfishing myths and never once in any of thier reports will you find reference to the fact that the commercial fishing fleet itself has been reduced by over 80% in the last 20 years. GT That and the change in reporting practices which saw some catch statistics removed from NSW data and reported in the Commonwealth data can explain the sharp drop in landings in the 1990's. The greenies in the Empty Nets - Empty Oceans report tried to say this decline in landings was evidence of a collapsing fishery. This was pure chareletonism. They didn't mention that commercial catch per unit effort has actually been rising in recent years. A rising CPU points to more abundance - not a decline in fish stocks. The Empty Nets report recieved wide publicity in the greenie's publicity arms, ie the ABC and the SMH! The reports validity was never questioned by these oultlets. It recieved a scathing review from the University of British Columbia who recommended that the report should be withdrawn from circulation and a retraction be published. Notice that the greens are now trying a different tack in the form of the global warming hysteria. No doubt to soften the gullible public up for more closures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockHoppin Posted December 23, 2007 Share Posted December 23, 2007 I tell you what though i have my own personal line in the sand and if they take any of 3 rock ledges away from me i have decided that i will fish any ledge i want and if i need to go to court over it i will, this really gets under my skin, really really badly. Im with you mate..i cant see myself hanging up my fishing rods if they succeed in pulling this rubbish over us...there is no bloody way I'll stop fishing and i dont know how the hell they think they will police this. This will piss even the most calm of us off and it will no doubt get ugly. I havnt seen one inspector in 14 years of rock fishing...they wont have the resources to successfully implement this but i'll be very surprised if it gets through.. Cant believe the stupidity of the #$*&$# greens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris 55 Posted December 24, 2007 Share Posted December 24, 2007 Jeez that didn't take long, but was only to be expected once Kev was in and the Greens would get their trade off wish I could get that quick a payoff from my investments Remember it's cheaper to legislate than it is to educate Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted December 24, 2007 Author Share Posted December 24, 2007 $%^&* have waded in: NATIONAL PARKS ASSOCIATION CRIES WOLF AGAIN. $%^&*, the state's peak conservation fishing organization, scoffs at the latest claims, by the NPA, for more massive marine parks. (Push for expanded marine parks. NS 21/12/07) NSW Fisheries Chief Scientist, recently announced, No NSW recreationally targeted fish are under threat or in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and are constantly monitored by the fisheries managers. Incredibly, a terrestrial ecologist, from the extreme green National Parks Association, now claims, nine (9) NSW species are seriously overfished! And 50% of our offshore reefs have been denuded of all life. Radical claims indeed and without any supportive scientific evidence whatsoever. Fishers are aware that four (4) species of NSW fish were growth overfished. This is an economic issue, not a biological one. That situation was simply rectified, by increasing the legal length and lowering the bag limit on those species. Nor has the NPA been able to explain, the population explosion in Leatherjackets and Australian Salmon numbers. These species have been in plague proportions for years. So much so that billions of juvenile Leatherjackets perish every year, simply because there isn't sufficient food, to sustain their mass. With another radical claim, the NPA is demanding more massive marine parks, in NSW. They are relying upon the 1998 suggestion from overseas scientists, that up to 20% of the marine environment be protected from over exploitation. Clearly, NSW stocks are not overexploited! Even the United Nations Charter on Biological Diversity, has not adopted specific targets for marine protected areas. And the Commonwealth Department of Environment policy says, since the objective of setting up marine protected areas, is to protect a representative sample of biodiversity, there may be no need to prohibit extractive activities that are well managed and do not affect that biodiversity. NSW recreational fisheries are well managed and no stocks are under threat or in imminent danger of collapse. Hence, the outrageous claims by the NPA cannot be justified. The NPA continue to use recreational fishers, Catch Per Unit Effort, as an indicator of fish stock abundance. It is not! It is merely an indicator of localised and relative fish stock abundance, not of the entire biomass! Unfortunately, NSW marine parks ignore the real threats to the marine environment. They are, pollution, siltation, coastal development and loss of wetlands etc. NSW marine parks simply lock these problems in and lock the community out! World renown marine scientist and fisheries biologist, Australia?s Emeritus Professor Bob Kearney PhD, DSc, AM, has already condemned NSW marine parks, describing them as, a sham. And the documentation relating to them, as very poorly disguised advocacy, marketed to the unsuspecting public as science. This, says Emeritus Professor Kearney, calls into question, the credibility of the NSW Marine Park Authority and the justification of all existing and proposed marine parks in NSW. This has always been the view of informed NSW recreational fishers! The Marine Park Authority has been unable to clearly identify just what it is they seek to protect and exactly what it is being protected from. Recreational fishing has minimal impact on the marine biodiversity. Despite this overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, the NPA continue to demand more and larger government marine parks. They also cite the predicted impacts of climate change as a reason. So they simplistically propose to ban recreational fishing! Closing huge areas to fishing simply forces fishers and other uses of the marine environment, to travel significantly further. This uses more fossil fuels, producing more green-house gasses, that contribute to climate change. So there is no science or logic or sense, in their solution at all. It is laughable. Realistically, their claims are not credible. It is just another case of the NPA, crying wolf, again! The NPA plan to release yet another statement, early next year. $%^&* considers 1st April 2008, would be a most appropriate date. Ken Thurlow CEO $%^&* NSW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 Heres an interesting study: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelican Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 "I havnt seen one inspector in 14 years of rock fishing...they wont have the resources to successfully implement this but i'll be very surprised if it gets through.." With new laws they will find new funding - amazing they can find it when they have total closure but not to protect it under the current rules. The dumber the law the easier it gets through as no one believes it could ever happen. Just think of the words Desal plant when you think something dumb won't get up and happen My only thought is to let a couple of Govt or semi govt departments fight it out and then with dry powder focus on the one left standing. The 2 semi govt departments to be affected are Maritime and NPWS. Both are trying to create empires and hence be funded accordingly. NPWS wants to do it by creating more new parks that come with specific funding and maritime is trying to do it by gradually making you pay for everything at a ever increasing rate as they gain new responsibilities for harbour security and foreshore. Fisheries - well there will be no need for them soon by the look of this apart from stocking a lake or 2 and checking your fishtank. Boat manufacturers , outboard suppliers, fishing tackle and marinas will all lose significantly and many of these have structured organisation that should be starting this fight on boat owners and fishos behalf. Conclusion tell maritime how much it is going to lose in Lic , rego and mooring income if fishing is put out of reach of boat owners with small boats. Tell the marine and tackle industry the income they will lose and how fast it will disappear . Be nice if there was some factual science done to actually resolve what is happening with the resource rather than these silly turf wars. I hate the politics with no science Pel PS - Time to start saving for the big big boat that can do a quick weekend run outside to international waters to have a fish. PSS- New Tax - tax at $10 a word for every word from politicians wages and then mayby they wouldn't waste so many on schemes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjbink Posted January 26, 2008 Author Share Posted January 26, 2008 (edited) All the NSW marine parks have full time rangers and patrol boats with radar. In Port Stevens they have the locals cowered with jackboot tactics. Several boats have been boarded at sea and licences demanded. For fishing in a so called sanctuary zone you face a $500 on the spot fine or you can take your chances in court. To show the contempt with which we are held if you are caught a second time it automatically goes to court and you face a $110,000 fine and or jail. Edited January 26, 2008 by billfisher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lasty Posted January 26, 2008 Share Posted January 26, 2008 Who is this National Parks Association? They have nothing to do with the NSW Government or the National Parks and Wildlife Service. I think they could well be another looney greeny mob who have given themselves an official sounding name so that people think they have some authority. 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