Hawkesbury Bioregion Marine Park

[Guest Guest123456789]

Seriously these laws are something out of a totalitarian regime manifesto. I struggle to fathom it.

Last time I checked we won the war. Why are we being forced off our lands and waters? I think it’s because the areas we fish have a commercial value and increasingly in our society anything that can privatised to make a buck is. 

History has shown us if you give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile. If these lockouts go ahead soon the whole NSW coastline and inshore waters will be banned from everything (fishing, boating you name it) except to those commercial operators who will line the pockets of a few.

All we can do is vote shooters and fishers and be vocal in our opposition. Complain like hell to anyone who will listen and outline what it means for them, their kids and their grandkids.

[PaddyT]

Ok there is a bit happening on FB- there is a page called "Stop the Lockout"- join it. Here is a copy of the email i sent to my local member and to Niall Blair the Minister-can i ask everyone to cut and past and send to their local member and to Niall Blair as well. Tommorrow we hit Gladys

Dear Kevin, I am writing to express my dismay with the proposed recreational fishing lockouts in the newly proposed Hawkesbury Bioregion Marine Park. If this goes ahead the LNP will lose my vote and many like me. The level of outrage in the recreational Fishing community to these proosed lockouts is palpable and getting stronger every day. I look forward to your response

[wazatherfisherman]

On 8/20/2018 at 10:34 AM, PaddyT said:

Ok there is a bit happening on FB- there is a page called "Stop the Lockout"- join it. Here is a copy of the email i sent to my local member and to Niall Blair the Minister-can i ask everyone to cut and past and send to their local member and to Niall Blair as well. Tommorrow we hit Gladys

Dear Kevin, I am writing to express my dismay with the proposed recreational fishing lockouts in the newly proposed Hawkesbury Bioregion Marine Park. If this goes ahead the LNP will lose my vote and many like me. The level of outrage in the recreational Fishing community to these proosed lockouts is palpable and getting stronger every day. I look forward to your response

G'day Paddy wondered if you got a response from your local member yet/at all?

[Berleyguts]

I hope this is not too long a read for you but I just had to get my thoughts down in writing - I have been going through it in my head for so long!

I have done some number crunching on the marine park proposal, because I just had to confirm everything for myself. That's just the way I am!  I live in Port Stephens marine park and love it! I moved here 16 months ago but I knew what was available to fish when I moved here.  Sure, there are some areas I'd like to have a go at fishing in but for me, here, it is what it is (for now).  Still, as I have said elsewhere, I reckon the marine park proposal for the Hawkebury Shelf Marine Bio-Region is going to impact extremely heavily on recreational fishers in Sydney and surrounds, particlularly the landbased and kayak fishos.

Firstly, they talk about "25 sites". In reality, there are 31 - there are 7 Intertidal Protection Areas grouped as one to make the 25th site.

There is currently an area of 2,496 hectares currently under a management plan, 837 hectares of which are currently sanctuary zones or no-take equivalent, e.g. Ex-HMAS Adelaide; Bouddi NP; Cabbage Tree Bay; Towra Point; Shiprock.

The total area of the proposed marine park sites is 13,074 hectares - an increase of 423.86%.

The total area of proposed Sanctuary Zones is 4,827 hectares - an increase of 476.70%.  Add to this the three Conservation Zones (Forresters, Bronte-Coogee and Royal NP) and there is a total of 9,108 hectares where no recreational fishing will be permitted - an increase of 988.17%.

Of the total 13,074 hectares of the proposed marine park, 9,108 hectares will be Sanctuary Zones or Conservation Zones where no recreational fishing will be allowed, representing 69.66% of the total marine park area. Only 3,966 hectares (Special Purpose Zones), or 30.34% of the marine park area will be open to recreational fishing. Note that all of Chowder Bay, including the 1 hectare Special Purpose Zone will be off-limits to spear fishos and all of the Special Purpose Zones (3,966 hectares) will ban hand gathering including marine vegetation (sea lettuce etc.) for bait.

What I would really like to breakdown the numbers on, if it was possible, is on the length of shoreline, i.e. total length of shoreline in the marine park areas; total length closed to recreational fishers through sanctuary zones and conservation zones; total length of shoreline inaccessible to shore based fishers due to government lockouts, businesses, swimming pools, closed jetties and private landholders etc; total length of shoreline in the Sydney Harbour IPA that lies west of Sydney Harbour Bridge where we have been advised not to eat fish caught from there - and then break it down into how much of the shoreline we really have access to.

The only good thing I can see out of the marine park proposal is the zoning of the Offshore Artificial Reefs, which we paid for out of our recreational fishing fees!

The paper states that the number one priority in developing the proposal was "improving water quality and reducing litter".  It also goes on to define the process used in developing the discussion paper.  This process included:

"... using Marvan spatial planning software and relevant data layers to identify: ... current aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishing effort in the bio-region to attempt to avoid priority areas that are used by these activities and industries and thus reduce social and economic impacts..."

Somehow, I think they failed to meet the brief on this one and have not avoided priority areas.

If they could present sound scientific proof that a particular area or a particular species in an area is under threat from recreational fishers, then, fine, have the discussion on that.  We did this for groper and look how they came back!  We have supported raised minimum legal lengths on some species (kingfish, mulloway etc.) and also supported reduced bag limits on selected species over a certain length (flathead, tuna, etc.).

Fisherfolk are part of the solution!

[fragmeister]

Good work Baz.

For those who may have been turned off the STOP THE LOCKOUT Facebook page, it might be worth having another look.

There were a lot of hot-heads in the early day , still a little shell-shocked that were taking out their frustrations on the wrong people but that has died down now and people are generally a lot more respectful.

Cheers

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

[wazatherfisherman]

5 minutes ago, Berleyguts said:

I hope this is not too long a read for you but I just had to get my thoughts down in writing - I have been going through it in my head for so long!

I have done some number crunching on the marine park proposal, because I just had to confirm everything for myself. That's just the way I am!  I live in Port Stephens marine park and love it! I moved here 16 months ago but I knew what was available to fish when I moved here.  Sure, there are some areas I'd like to have a go at fishing in but for me, here, it is what it is (for now).  Still, as I have said elsewhere, I reckon the marine park proposal for the Hawkebury Shelf Marine Bio-Region is going to impact extremely heavily on recreational fishers in Sydney and surrounds, particlularly the landbased and kayak fishos.

Firstly, they talk about "25 sites". In reality, there are 31 - there are 7 Intertidal Protection Areas grouped as one to make the 25th site.

There is currently an area of 2,496 hectares currently under a management plan, 837 hectares of which are currently sanctuary zones or no-take equivalent, e.g. Ex-HMAS Adelaide; Bouddi NP; Cabbage Tree Bay; Towra Point; Shiprock.

The total area of the proposed marine park sites is 13,074 hectares - an increase of 423.86%.

The total area of proposed Sanctuary Zones is 4,827 hectares - an increase of 476.70%.  Add to this the three Conservation Zones (Forresters, Bronte-Coogee and Royal NP) and there is a total of 9,108 hectares where no recreational fishing will be permitted - an increase of 988.17%.

Of the total 13,074 hectares of the proposed marine park, 9,108 hectares will be Sanctuary Zones or Conservation Zones where no recreational fishing will be allowed, representing 69.66% of the total marine park area. Only 3,966 hectares (Special Purpose Zones), or 30.34% of the marine park area will be open to recreational fishing. Note that all of Chowder Bay, including the 1 hectare Special Purpose Zone will be off-limits to spear fishos and all of the Special Purpose Zones (3,966 hectares) will ban hand gathering including marine vegetation (sea lettuce etc.) for bait.

What I would really like to breakdown the numbers on, if it was possible, is on the length of shoreline, i.e. total length of shoreline in the marine park areas; total length closed to recreational fishers through sanctuary zones and conservation zones; total length of shoreline inaccessible to shore based fishers due to government lockouts, businesses, swimming pools, closed jetties and private landholders etc; total length of shoreline in the Sydney Harbour IPA that lies west of Sydney Harbour Bridge where we have been advised not to eat fish caught from there - and then break it down into how much of the shoreline we really have access to.

The only good thing I can see out of the marine park proposal is the zoning of the Offshore Artificial Reefs, which we paid for out of our recreational fishing fees!

The paper states that the number one priority in developing the proposal was "improving water quality and reducing litter".  It also goes on to define the process used in developing the discussion paper.  This process included:

"... using Marvan spatial planning software and relevant data layers to identify: ... current aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishing effort in the bio-region to attempt to avoid priority areas that are used by these activities and industries and thus reduce social and economic impacts..."

Somehow, I think they failed to meet the brief on this one and have not avoided priority areas.

If they could present sound scientific proof that a particular area or a particular species in an area is under threat from recreational fishers, then, fine, have the discussion on that.  We did this for groper and look how they came back!  We have supported raised minimum legal lengths on some species (kingfish, mulloway etc.) and also supported reduced bag limits on selected species over a certain length (flathead, tuna, etc.).

Fisherfolk are part of the solution!

DerekD and I have been working on our responses to the proposal and the point you raise in reference to 'actual' available accessible shoreline is high on both of our submissions. Considering all the points you have raised and also the consideration of the government warning of "unsafe to eat fish caught west of Sydney Harbour Bridge" which reduces greatly the 'actual available shoreline' even more. Add local government 'area closing/opening times' that are applied to both wharves(Cremorne Point for example) and waterside parkland(example Darling Point) not to mention the actual user hours (legally) of National Park lands and waterways and the remaining fishing area is minimised considerably. To that consideration needs to be given towards 'realistic user opportunities' eg shallows, bottom structure and actual fish residence. This is a part of my own response, after all if we aren't the "guardians" of our waterways, already licensed and governed by rules, who will be? 

[Berleyguts]

2 hours ago, fragmeister said:

Good work Baz.

For those who may have been turned off the STOP THE LOCKOUT Facebook page, it might be worth having another look.

There were a lot of hot-heads in the early day , still a little shell-shocked that were taking out their frustrations on the wrong people but that has died down now and people are generally a lot more respectful.

Cheers

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, Jim... I’ve remaimed on the FB page. There are still some hotheads but they are generally moderated somewhat now. They are still abusing politicians and park supporters on other sites, though. ? I’ve submitted basically the same post to the Stop The Lockout FB page, so after review, I’ll trust they’ll let it through.  The discussion paper is quite a read. If I get a chance, I’ll summarise it site by site because I still see people asking which areas are affected and claiming total lockouts, which is not true... but they are quite massive.

[damos]

I've had a look at the proposal and was wondering if anyone can clarify something for me. If a section of the proposal is set as a 'special purpose zone', wouldn't you still be able to fish the area?

[Jiggy]

I saw of the Sydney Harbour RFH facebook page that a marine scientist has admitted that no studies have been done on the proposed lockout areas. It would be too expensive to do these sort of studies. So this basis of the proposed lockouts is because we can or my kids drew a pretty picture on a map.

What a joke.

Cheers

Rob

 

[connico]

1 hour ago, damos said:

I've had a look at the proposal and was wondering if anyone can clarify something for me. If a section of the proposal is set as a 'special purpose zone', wouldn't you still be able to fish the area?

The blue special purpose zones are fish able.

[PaddyT]

Dont forget about the rally folks 27th September