Sanctuary Zones

[hayden_229]

what can u do in a sanctuary zone

[Captin]

Look but don't touch!

[pjbink]

Look but don't touch!

You can't even do that in some marine parks. Eg on the GBR just having an echo sounder or fishing gear in a green zone is now an offence. The GBRMPA had the law changed after a fisherman had the temerity to plead not guilty to one of their prosecutions.

Edited May 3, 2010 by billfisher

[Stealthmission]

All for the benefit of the recretional fisher!

I know that at Cabbage Tree Bay in Manly, after only 3 years the No-Take Aquatic Reserve showed a similar number of species but up to 3 times the number of fish than the control sites of South Head and Barrenjoey. This was calculated over numerous seasons and years using robust science. Fishing is areas adjacent to suck restricted zones will ceratinly improve as a result of the no-fishing zone itself!

Stealth

[pjbink]

All for the benefit of the recretional fisher!

I know that at Cabbage Tree Bay in Manly, after only 3 years the No-Take Aquatic Reserve showed a similar number of species but up to 3 times the number of fish than the control sites of South Head and Barrenjoey. This was calculated over numerous seasons and years using robust science. Fishing is areas adjacent to suck restricted zones will ceratinly improve as a result of the no-fishing zone itself!

Stealth

Do you have a reference to that study Stealthmission? And what does 'up to' actually mean. The results seem unlikely given the short time period and the small size of the marine reserve. As in the other post I put similar claims have been made of stunning success of green zones of the GBR. When you look at the results only one of the reserves showed a doubling of fish nos and the rest of the work and other longer studies actually contradicted the claims.

Edited May 3, 2010 by billfisher

[pjbink]

I can't seem to find any reference to any such study. As to adjacent areas anglers might be locked out of them also rather than benefiting from some 'spill over effect'!

Anglers prepare to fight fishing ban proposal

newsLocal News10 Dec 08 @ 04:44pm by JOHN MORCOMBE

Long Reef is a well-known snapper-producing area. Picture: ANNIKA ENDERBORG.

RECREATIONAL anglers are seething about a proposal that would shut them out of some of the peninsula’s best fishing spots and several local angling groups will meet at Dee Why tonight to discuss their response.

The National Parks Association has proposed the creation of a Sydney Marine Park, stretching from the Illawarra to the Central Coast and out to three nautical miles.

The NPA said it wants to ban mining in the whole park and also wants aquatic reserves created off Long Reef, Bangalley Head at North Avalon and Palm Beach.

It said the reserves will preserve the habitat of the endangered Grey Nurse Sharks of which, it said, there are only 500 left on the east coast.

But Manly Council has backed the new Sydney Marine Park proposal. A majority of councillors said the bulk of the marine park will be multi-use, or allow recreational fishing, while parts will be designated sanctuary areas, banning all fishing activities. Manly already has one such area, the Cabbage Tree Bay reserve. At Monday night’s council meeting, six out of 10 councillors backed the park plan and a possible increase in the number of sanctuaries in the area.

But Anglers Action Group president Phil Ingram said an academic has already photo-identified at least 1000 Grey Nurse Sharks - and is still counting.

He points to a statement by Sydney Institute of Marine Science Scientific Committee professor David Booth, who said “there appears to be a lot of charlatans in this debate”.

Mr Ingram said the “debate over marine parks should be ruled by science, rather than ambit claims”.

“The NPA is just a lobby group and their proposal is just an ambit claim,” he said.

“It will be up to the State Government to examine the proposal and make a decision.

“But a lot of criticism of recreational fishing is not based on scientific data, nor of any defined threats or any other ameliorating plans. “North Avalon is the only land-based game-fishing spot on the peninsula and Long Reef is a well-known snapper-producing area.”

The local angling groups will meet in the Dee Why Bowling Club in Fisher Rd North, Dee Why at 7.30pm tonight.

[Stealthmission]

Do you have a reference to that study Stealthmission? And what does 'up to" actually mean. The results seem unlikely given the short time period and the small size of the marine reserve. As in the other post I put similar claims have been made of stunning success of green zones of the GBR. When you look at the results only one of the reserves showed a doubling of fish nos and the rest of the work and other longer studies actually contradicted the claims.

Contact Manly Council or NSW Department of Environment, Climate CHange & Water who will be able to source a copy for you. There would likely be one in the Manly Environment Centre too. Basically the survey was undertaken by the state govt to ascertain the benefits of the sanctuary zone, by independent marine ecologists.

Council has elected to monitor the Bay's recovery over time due to the little information available on the effectiveness of Aquatic Reserves in protecting aquatic ecosystems, habitats and species. The surveys and analysis will also contribute to broader scientific discussions regarding the effectiveness of such reserves. The general aim of the surveys is to assess the effectiveness of the Aquatic Reserve's designation. This can not be achieved through one year of sampling, it is recommended that the surveys of both the Aquatic Reserve and selected control sites be extended.

Results from the initial years of surveying are highly encouraging and suggest that CabbageTreeBay:

· has a diversity of habitat

· contains relatively high numbers of fish that would otherwise be subjected to harvesting; and

· has a good larval supply of fishes.

These are all important attributes for the selection and maintenance of an Aquatic Reserve.

The benefits of sanctuaries are well known. Protection of the environment means trades offs for society. Deal with it.

[pjbink]

Contact Manly Council or NSW Department of Environment, Climate CHange & Water who will be able to source a copy for you. There would likely be one in the Manly Environment Centre too. Basically the survey was undertaken by the state govt to ascertain the benefits of the sanctuary zone, by independent marine ecologists.

Council has elected to monitor the Bay's recovery over time due to the little information available on the effectiveness of Aquatic Reserves in protecting aquatic ecosystems, habitats and species. The surveys and analysis will also contribute to broader scientific discussions regarding the effectiveness of such reserves. The general aim of the surveys is to assess the effectiveness of the Aquatic Reserve's designation. This can not be achieved through one year of sampling, it is recommended that the surveys of both the Aquatic Reserve and selected control sites be extended.

Results from the initial years of surveying are highly encouraging and suggest that CabbageTreeBay:

· has a diversity of habitat

· contains relatively high numbers of fish that would otherwise be subjected to harvesting; and

· has a good larval supply of fishes.

These are all important attributes for the selection and maintenance of an Aquatic Reserve.

The benefits of sanctuaries are well known. Protection of the environment means trades offs for society. Deal with it.

Yes but I would like to know what I am dealing with first. There is no mention of it on the government websites I looked at. What is the title and who are the authors? Has it been published anywhere?

As to the quotes you put up there is no mention of tripling of fish numbers and this seems unlikely after three years in a very small reserve. In fact the quotes are just generalisations with no information as to the effectiveness of the reserve. As to the 'well known benefits of sanctuary zones' most of these come from heavily fished overseas areas where other forms of management are non existant or inadequate and so any management initiative would likely give positive results. Your quotes in fact imply that there were good nos of fish in the reserve area before the sanctuary was declared. Also as the recent claims regarding the GBR green zones there is a credibility problem with research on this issue and it would seem that many scientists have crossed the line to advocacy.

Edited May 3, 2010 by billfisher

[Stealthmission]

Yes but I would like to know what I am dealing with first. There is no mention of it on the government websites I looked at. What is the title and who are the authors? Has it been published anywhere?

As to the quotes you put up there is no mention of tripling of fish numbers and this seems unlikely after three years in a very small reserve. In fact the quotes are just generalisations with no information as to the effectiveness of the reserve. As to the 'well known benefits of sanctuary zones' most of these come from heavily fished overseas areas where other forms of management are non existant or inadequate and so any management initiative would likely give positive results. Your quotes in fact imply that there were good nos of fish in the reserve area before the sanctuary was declared. Also as the recent claims regarding the GBR green zones there is a credibility problem with research on this issue and it would seem that many scientists have crossed the line to advocacy.

As I said, you can contact either Manly Council or DECCW for a copy of the report. The authors were The Ecology Lab who are based in Brookvale and are a highly regarded research group. The title was something along the lines of Assessing the abundance and distribution of fish and fish habitat in Cabbage Tree Bay Aquatic Reserve.

Basically, sruveys were undertaken over two years and this is intended to happen on year 5 as well. As such it has been supporrted by the recently released draft CTB Aquatic Reserve Management Plan.

[hayden_229]

so can i be fined for being in a Sanctuary Zone on my kayak with a rod but not fishing

[pjbink]

As I said, you can contact either Manly Council or DECCW for a copy of the report. The authors were The Ecology Lab who are based in Brookvale and are a highly regarded research group. The title was something along the lines of Assessing the abundance and distribution of fish and fish habitat in Cabbage Tree Bay Aquatic Reserve.

Basically, sruveys were undertaken over two years and this is intended to happen on year 5 as well. As such it has been supporrted by the recently released draft CTB Aquatic Reserve Management Plan.

I'll do that. But in the meantime (as you seem to have the report), which fish species tripled in numbers after two years? Do the authors regard this as indicative of a reserve effect or just a natural fluctuation? How many other species showed increases? Why would such an increase be attributed to to a reserve effect when the reserve is so tiny and the study has only been going on for two years?

PS: What studies have been done that find such large increases in other NSW marine parks? Given that they are much larger and longer established why is it that only marginal changes been found?

Edited May 4, 2010 by billfisher

[davebrewer]

Why would Cabbage Tree Bay be validly comparable to South Head or Barrenjoey?Never mind Billfisher,we can rest assured that the unassailable scientific integrity typical of previous marine "sanctuary" lobbying no doubt applies here.Deal with it.

Cheers,

Dave.

[pjbink]

Why would Cabbage Tree Bay be validly comparable to South Head or Barrenjoey?Never mind Billfisher,we can rest assured that the unassailable scientific integrity typical of previous marine "sanctuary" lobbying no doubt applies here.Deal with it.

Cheers,

Dave.

Your not perhaps being a tiny bit facetious there Dave?

[Stealthmission]

I'll do that. But in the meantime (as you seem to have the report), which fish species tripled in numbers after two years? Do the authors regard this as indicative of a reserve effect or just a natural fluctuation? How many other species showed increases? Why would such an increase be attributed to to a reserve effect when the reserve is so tiny and the study has only been going on for two years?

PS: What studies have been done that find such large increases in other NSW marine parks? Given that they are much larger and longer established why is it that only marginal changes been found?

I don't have a copy but did see one back when it was done in about 2005... they compared it to South Head and Barrenjoey as they presented similar habitat types... Barrenjoey being a marine reserve which allows fishing. Species which grew in abundance were bream and luderick..

IN saying that, the rangers are very conscious of the illegal fishing activity (as are the locals) and are vigilant in catching offernders!.

[pjbink]

I don't have a copy but did see one back when it was done in about 2005... they compared it to South Head and Barrenjoey as they presented similar habitat types... Barrenjoey being a marine reserve which allows fishing. Species which grew in abundance were bream and luderick..

IN saying that, the rangers are very conscious of the illegal fishing activity (as are the locals) and are vigilant in catching offernders!.

Yes but the question is are the so called increases due to the reserve or just a natural fluctuation. The former is highly unlikely. For a start bream and luderick are not overfished after 2 years it is improbable for such slow growing fish to triple in numbers. Bear in mind that they form schools and move from place to place, so local abundances can vary widely due to natural migrations. Thier larvae is highly mobile too. On top of that the reserve is quite small.

PS: Why is it that larger and longer established marine reserves in NSW only shown marginal changes?

Edited May 6, 2010 by billfisher

[pjbink]

Further to the tripling of fish nos in the Manly reserve this quote from Walters Starcks critique (regarding the doubling of fish nos in the GBR reserves) is of some relevance:

"Babcock et al., 2010 (in another study published in PNAS on the same day as McCook et al.) also examined the ecological effects of marine protected areas. However, this report is much more widely based geographically and longer term. Although the observed effects were generally positive, they were decidedly less large, rapid, extensive, and uniformly positive than those reported for the GBR. All of them also involved areas subject to much greater fishing pressure than the GBR.

One might reasonably expect that increased protection for the least impacted areas would result in a less marked beneficial effect rather than the much more widespread rapid and dramatic benefits claimed by McCook et al. For example, Babcock et al., “…found that the time to initial detection of direct effects on target species … was 5.13 ± 1.9 years….”

Note that this was the time to initial detection, not the even longer time required to reach a doubling of population. When compared to the much greater effects claimed for the GBR over two years, the latter do indeed appear to be “extraordinary”."

[Basil D]

I can't seem to find any reference to any such study. As to adjacent areas anglers might be locked out of them also rather than benefiting from some 'spill over effect'!

Anglers prepare to fight fishing ban proposal

newsLocal News10 Dec 08 @ 04:44pm by JOHN MORCOMBE

Long Reef is a well-known snapper-producing area. Picture: ANNIKA ENDERBORG.

RECREATIONAL anglers are seething about a proposal that would shut them out of some of the peninsula’s best fishing spots and several local angling groups will meet at Dee Why tonight to discuss their response.

The National Parks Association has proposed the creation of a Sydney Marine Park, stretching from the Illawarra to the Central Coast and out to three nautical miles.

The NPA said it wants to ban mining in the whole park and also wants aquatic reserves created off Long Reef, Bangalley Head at North Avalon and Palm Beach.

It said the reserves will preserve the habitat of the endangered Grey Nurse Sharks of which, it said, there are only 500 left on the east coast.

But Manly Council has backed the new Sydney Marine Park proposal. A majority of councillors said the bulk of the marine park will be multi-use, or allow recreational fishing, while parts will be designated sanctuary areas, banning all fishing activities. Manly already has one such area, the Cabbage Tree Bay reserve. At Monday night’s council meeting, six out of 10 councillors backed the park plan and a possible increase in the number of sanctuaries in the area.

But Anglers Action Group president Phil Ingram said an academic has already photo-identified at least 1000 Grey Nurse Sharks - and is still counting.

He points to a statement by Sydney Institute of Marine Science Scientific Committee professor David Booth, who said “there appears to be a lot of charlatans in this debate”.

Mr Ingram said the “debate over marine parks should be ruled by science, rather than ambit claims”.

“The NPA is just a lobby group and their proposal is just an ambit claim,” he said.

“It will be up to the State Government to examine the proposal and make a decision.

“But a lot of criticism of recreational fishing is not based on scientific data, nor of any defined threats or any other ameliorating plans. “North Avalon is the only land-based game-fishing spot on the peninsula and Long Reef is a well-known snapper-producing area.”

The local angling groups will meet in the Dee Why Bowling Club in Fisher Rd North, Dee Why at 7.30pm tonight.

no please no