Scientific Evidence for Green Zones

[Shane_78]

I thought I would post this. Make of it what you will but there is a lot of banter about their being no scientific evedence for marine reserves. I'm a fisho. I do love it and I came to ausfish website as a newby at the start of this process cos I was worried about what was going on. A lot of people are very vocal and aggressive about it and no offense but it can be very off putting. So since then I've been doing me own reserach and I don't think the GReen Zones are going to be as bad as everyone says.
I know from this I"ll get called a greenie and slammed but thats my opinion and its a free country. Here is a link to the science taht no one says exists for those that are interested.
http://www.piscoweb.org/outreach/pubs/reserves

[croangler]

shane, i am up for protection of marine wildlife too, and i do work as an environmental planner.

but i do believe that the green zones are taking nearly all of the fishable areas in the Moreton Bay. They are extending the peel island zone, and taking the St helena island. What will happen is that boats will congregate in areas like mud and Green Island and those areas will be virtual deserts.

however, i am up for creation of artificial reefs throught moreton bay. i think Harry Atkinson is a success, even though it is a carpark on good days.

my personal view is when enough artificial reefs are created inside moreton bay, not too many people would use the traditional areas. fishermen will be more spread out. but that will take time.

so my view is that the green zones need to be scaled down and only increased to what they curently plan when enough artificial reefs are created.

minimum 5 across the moreton bay

[megalongzilli]

Shane_78,

Great to see somebody offering up an alternative opinion, keep up the good work. The science speaks for itself and as a result I feel that Green Zones in Moreton Bay will be a good thing as long as they are implemented and managed correctly. With an estimated 60,000 people migrating to SEQ every year for the next 20 years, sitting back and doing nothing would be grossly negligent.

[Tangles]

No offence taken at all Shane,

Moreton Bay is in Australia and Ill think you'll find that all that is asked is that scientific evidence that directly relates to Moreton Bay be put forward. Considering we are talking about a specific location with specific features, issues and needs, I think we deserve better than being fed privately funded obscure overseas studies.

Maybe i must be missing something, where are your the scientific facts on Moreton Bay, as I last heard the DPI recently thought the fishing population was healthy.

The greens base there submissions on adopting the Cars principle and adopting the overseas generated computer modelling program MARXAN to generate green zones.

I think the Bay and its users deserve better than feeding into MARXAN a set of questionable bio-diversity facts ( ie where people fish) together with socio-economic data and bingo, you have your Green Zones without ever having to put a boat in the water. Sounds like an episode of Yes Minister to me.

Shane, sadly what is lacking is the science, the real science and facts. Why do the Greens and EPA chose to ignore the local science actually on the Bay and rather choose to rely and adopt a set of overseas principles and computer modelling program to define the green zones? why, well thats there agenda.

The powers behind the AMCS dont care about the bay, its about gaining and using political power to drive an agenda and the history of their founding is in animal liberation. General joe public who does care about the health of the Bay will be spoon feed very basic political messages based on heartfelt emotive facts, like its only 30% surely thats not to much. How is that based on facts?

And I bet touching on Croangler, they want people to congregate around Mud, guarantee you it will be headline news months after the new Green Zones go in, headline will be Overfishing creates marine desert etc and theyll use that to illustrate the point and the fishos will get squeezed again.

Shane I just want the facts, not political agendas. The striking thing is about it all, why is it pollution gets ignored? why does the destruction of mangroves and creeks get ignored by the Greens? they know about it, why is the target fishing, well its about a line, a hook and a fish on the end of it,, or maybe im too cynical.

Im off the soapbox.

mike



Also I

[tunaticer]

I agree with croangler,
The way to make a fishery more sustainable is to extend its environment the same way we humans extend ours with new estates. Create an estate and watch the people fill it up in a very short time. Its the same with a fishery, by expanding its boundaries the fish will breed faster to utilise that free home space we create for them. An overly concentrated population in any localised area will see reproduction rates lower to a more sustainable level. Anybody that has ever bred aquarium fish will know the values of "room to breed" concepts.

If the EPA and the fisheries would develop a guideline and a "package" to cover the red tape and liscencing and design and approval locations for artificial reefs to be installed by any groups meeting the criteria we would have dozens of new reefs within 5 years all becoming productive in thier own right. As it stands now it is nearly impossible to get permission to create a new reef system due to nobody working together between the govt bodies. Fees and costs of components for the reefs make it prohibitive.

There are litterally hundreds of items around that would very easily meet criteria as reef building components yet the powers that be are not interested in making this avenue available.

Jack.

[3rd degree]

Thanks for the link Shane.

I have had a brief read through the site, and appreciate the fact that someone has gone to a lot of effort over the years to arrive at the conclusions outlined within.

What we have on our doorstep is a waterway that IMHO should not be compared to any other around the world.

As Aigutso points out the DPI (the department charged with Managing the fishery) have completed their own investigations and conclude that the fishery we know as the Bay is in quite healthy condition.

Do you know if the areas in which the reasearch was completed in the states was ever managed properly as a fishery or if it was just a case of open slather?

After travelling around the world and doing a alot of fishing in differennt locations, I have seen an awful lot of fisheries that have needed the implementation of green zones as the waterways there have not been properly managed and further they have been raped and piliged.

Without a doubt the common factor in all of these locations is pollution.

Given the existing restrictions, bag and size limits in place around Moreton Bay and along our Coastline, I don't think we need to implement further green zones at this time. Sure keep an eye on things on a regularly basis as the DPI does, but the implementation of green zones in a waterway deemed to be healthy by the Department charged with the management, smacks of some other agenda.

The only real issue affecting our bay at this time is pollution levels.

Regards


Jim

[manchild]

Shane ,we already got a goverment agency that monitors the bay on the daily basis -DPI.They say everything is ok as far as fish and fishing.How the hell the EPA came into this is still a mistery to me.?.They are scientist too and they are involved with the bay for years.Back to you.
George

[mowerman]

Shane ,we already got a goverment agency that monitors the bay on the daily basis -DPI.They say everything is ok as far as fish and fishing.How the hell the EPA came into this is still a mistery to me.?.They are scientist too and they are involved with the bay for years.Back to you.
George


I had a chat with a good friend of mine last week about the same subject Manchild.
He is fairly high up in a state gov department.

The current labor gov sees the DPI as PRIMARY industries and therefore a vehicle for the National party. Also being Primary they only control the commercial aspects.
Recreational users came under the control of the EPA.

And the DPI budget has been cut by approx 2/3 under this state gov.

Rod.

[PinHead]

shane..if you have listened to the premier and the EPA Minister, they love using that word unique when discussing Moreton Bay. Unique means one off...different to all others...therefore research for anywhere else means diddly squat. At the last rally I asked the following question from the EPA bloke that was there. "Where is the qualitative and quantitative research regarding Moreton Bay"
I did not get an answer...therefore i will ask you the same question. Until there is a definitive answer to that question, I am totally opposed to any form of closures.

[billfisher]

I had a chat with a good friend of mine last week about the same subject Manchild.
He is fairly high up in a state gov department.

The current labor gov sees the DPI as PRIMARY industries and therefore a vehicle for the National party. Also being Primary they only control the commercial aspects.
Recreational users came under the control of the EPA.

And the DPI budget has been cut by approx 2/3 under this state gov.

Rod.

Primary industries are important to our economy and physical wellbeing - to say they are just a 'vehicle for the National Party' is rather silly. Recreational fishing comes under DPI control in all states as far as I know. Marine Parks are a different matter - that where the EPA has juristiction in Qld. In NSW they have been handed to National Parks and Wildlife.

[PinHead]

Mike...remember that in the EPA proposal. Mud island is designated as spoil grounds..dumping area for the dredges.

[Chris Ryan]

That's true Pinhead - and there will be exclusion zones around dredges whilst they dump their silt into the centre of the Bay.

I also see the 5 extra desal plants I mentioned at the last rally morphed into "portable" desal plants. How does one make a portable plant considering the input required to the water grid, plus the fluoride now needed for the water? Seems I was pretty close to the mark.

Chris

[Wahoo]

Shane
green zones work and work well
unlike most PPL that sit in front of the pewter and read this and read that about green zones, i have done a great share of diving in green zones and like i said they work,

Daz

[PinHead]

Shane
green zones work and work well
unlike most PPL that sit in front of the pewter and read this and read that about green zones, i have done a great share of diving in green zones and like i said they work,

Daz


they work at doing what?

[Lovey80]

Shane
green zones work and work well
unlike most PPL that sit in front of the pewter and read this and read that about green zones, i have done a great share of diving in green zones and like i said they work,

Daz

From a diving point of view im sure they do work. That doesnt mean the fishing will get any better for the poor buggers that have been shut out. It's not like the bay is fishable every where as has been said umpteen thousand times already, there is a limmited amount of these area's that hold fish and the greens/EPA want 95% of it. THAT is greedy!!! Creating Artificial reefs is the best solution for all.

Cheers Chris

P.S. If I was Premier, Fisheries dept would get a 5 fold increase in funding to actually police the current regs that are working any way.

[billfisher]

Yes Wahoo, they 'work' if you want our marine resources to be private dive sites. As a fisheries management tool or the as the most equitable and effective way of managing the resource for ALL stakeholders they leave a lot to be desired.

[PinHead]

Therein lies the stupidity of the green zones...they are supposedly to protect the environment..not so much the fish but the different types of bottom structure..eg bioturbated sand, bioturbated mud and coral etc. With the proposed green zones there will be no commercial fishing allowed..hence no nets dragging along the bottom..okay that will ptortect the bottom . Then no rec fishing either..no crab pots on the bottom and no hooks and sinkers etc bottom bashing ( I am not sure how much damage some hooks will do.) This will also protect the bottom and the creatures living in it. BUT WAIT..along comes a dive boat.. down goes the anchor and rips hell out of the bottom..the divers can disturb the bottom also. Add some tourist boats doing similar and what protectin is there? NONE.
If anyone can honestly believe these proposed green zones with the set up they are using can protect anything, it is beyond my comprehension.

If you are going to have real green zones, then absolutely no one goes there..no ferries..no tourist boats..nothing to pass through them except research vessels..other than that complete no go zones...and they would not have the guts to try that one.

[Tangles]

If anyone can honestly believe these proposed green zones with the set up they are using can protect anything, it is beyond my comprehension.

If you are going to have real green zones, then absolutely no one goes there..no ferries..no tourist boats..nothing to pass through them except research vessels..other than that complete no go zones...and they would not have the guts to try that one.

Totally agree Greg, currently with the proposals rec craft can still blast through green zones which dont have a go slow zone, makes no sense especially with their media catch cry to protect the dugongs and turtles from boat strikes. Taking their logic to the extreme, boats with fisherman in it hit dugongs, boats with eco-tourists and divers dont. Chris Ryan posted a thread on the divers not so long ago, was an interesting read.

Just nonsense

mike

[Wahoo]

BUT WAIT..along comes a dive boat.. down goes the anchor and rips hell out of the bottom..


Bawhahahaha, this is what i mean, you really have no idea::)
maybe you read this somewhere on the nett::)::)

[Tangles]

Wahoo, how about instead of saying Bawhahahaha which helps no-one, how about you let us know why we have no idea? no offence mate but Im interested in knowing why a dive boat does less damage than a rec fisho in a green zone when it comes to anchoring?

mike

[Wahoo]

Wahoo, how about instead of saying Bawhahahaha which helps no-one, how about you let us know why we have no idea? no offence mate but Im interested in knowing why a dive boat does less damage than a rec fisho in a green zone when it comes to anchoring?

mike

non taken Mike
the dive boats up here have there own mooring set up, just off the reef, only 20 or so meters away, no anchor is used, just tied up to the bouy

[PinHead]

non taken Mike
the dive boats up here have there own mooring set up, just off the reef, only 20 or so meters away, no anchor is used, just tied up to the bouy

and the buoy is connected to ??? wouldn't be something on the bottom would it?

There are none of these in Moreton bay so not applicable here.

As I said previously, we are not just talking about coral..bioturbated mud and sand to name 2..perhaps someone else should do some reading instead of trying to make out they know everything about other areas.

[disorderly]

If you are going to have real green zones, then absolutely no one goes there..no ferries..no tourist boats..nothing to pass through them except research vessels..other than that complete no go zones...and they would not have the guts to try that one.
Sorry to inform you ,pinhead, but "they" do have the" guts to try that one" .http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/../yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/wink.gif
The next step up from a green zone is a PINK zone,which is effectively a no-go zone for all(and permits are required for researchers to enter).
Already implemented in certain area's up this way and I can see no reason why they will not become more widespread.
Like Wahoo ,I like the idea of green zones as they stand at present, however, my concern is as pressure from environmentalists becomes more intense what's to stop some yellow zones from turning green and some green from turning pink and maybe more of and bigger green zones....
We all know what a slimy game politics can be and common sense doesn't always prevail in the face of hidden political agenda's .http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/../yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/angry.gif

However green zones are coming to Moreton bay and will be there to stay.
Better to face that fact , get over it and present realistic views which give concessions to both fisherman and conservationists alike..

Scott

[Lovey80]

Pinhead you are making far too much sense for the pollies to understand mate. :)Your reasoning didn't mention the word "preference deal" once? That is all that our state government is concerned about. If we actually had the power to take your stance and come close to a win then I'm sure thats what would happen as i would absolutly love that outcome but it's not going to happen and thats why I am begrudgingly behind the MBAA.

Cheers Chris

[Chris Ryan]

Hey Chris,

I like the idea; so why don't we take them (the Govt) on like you suggest?? We have 2 years and I am up for it.........anyone else?? Worry about branding & flavouring later but if you and anyone else wants to do this across the state - let's have a go!

Cheers,
Chris

[Lovey80]

OK Ryno there's you me and Pinhead and 95% of fisho's out there wishing that we could have the outcome Pinhead is refering to.....how do we go about this? The only way i see us winning this fight is with the major support of someone/group that hold a crap load of power to hold the QLD Labour Gov't at ransom over the issue. Labour winning the Federal election was a disaster for our cause.. So who could be brought onside that holds more power with the QLD Labour gov't than the greens? I am not seeing a solution just yet but am open to idea's

Cheers Chris

[mod5]

Interesting comment.

Labour winning the Federal election was a disaster for our cause..Don't ever forget that it was John Howard and the Coalition who introduced the Green Zones to the Great Barrier Reef, not Labour.

The issue of Green Zones world wide, supported by the United Nations and the worlds conservationists, is far bigger than individual political parties. The following Organisations are major impactors on Australia's obligations under signed International Agreements:
The United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity
The Bonn Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance
The South Pacific Convention on Conservation of NatureAdditionally all States in Australia are required to meet their obligations and the aims of the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas agreed to under the Australian Inter-Government Agreement on the Environment 1992. (Wasn't Labour in power then in Canberra)

All there is hope of doing for both rec and commercial fishers is working together to try and minimize the impact Green Zones will have on us. I see one Organisation (Moreton Bay Access Alliance) at least trying to do that.

Folks, we will in no way stop Green Zones completely.

[billfisher]

Yes, but the UN convention only recommends a mild form of protection - our governments have chosen an extreme interpretation, even though we have the least fished waters in the world by a huge margin. The UN only recommended that reserves should protect from high impact activities and that low impact ones could continue (eg this could mean angling). Also we have broken UN conventions in the past - eg Labor did when they brought in mandatory detention of asylum seekers.

[mod5]

You can argue and disagree as much as you like however at the end of the day Moreton Bay is going to have between 10% and 15% Green Zones. More likely closer to 15%.

It's where they are and how they impact on us that needs to be determined.

[billfisher]

That may be if Labor is in power for ever. However I don't think that this is likely. Isn't the Coalition in favour of leaving fisheries management to the DPI?

[Chris Ryan]

Hey Chris,

Two things win elections over anything else, people & money. I agree with your points and am to open to ideas too. I have a few which I'll discuss after this and the Fin Fish review are done and dusted but it can be done. The greens have done it over 25 years, they have come from a whinging whining smelly hippy treehugging dole bludger view from the public, to one where the public think they are the saviours of the world. In fact, the green are nothing but a power hungry small bunch of egotists, no different to any other party. It is just their ideology has become mainstream because the public fear the sky is falling and they are the saviors. We just need the story, the funds and the folk to make up something similar and away we go.


Mod5 - that may well be the case, but I will be damned I will let it happen without some serious noise and continual pointing out of their flaws, the use of foreign data for a local issue, their sheer disrespect for the public as they will happily rape the Bay for the Brisbane Airport Corporation but screw over a family of 4 catching a Sunday dinner all in the name of "protection of biodiversity" because some idiot singed some UN based resolution. Last I looked Aussie waters were the most productive, sustainable and clean waters in the world - WE ARE THE FRIGGIN STANDARD!!!!!!!! Yet we have to sign up to crap legislative guidelines which is aimed at Europe, Sth America and Asia. WTF is wrong with this picture????? It may happen Mod5, but on my watch I will fight with all I have to stop the pain this will cause and promote someone that has the balls to reverse it............thus my question before, who is with Lovey80, Pinhead and myself in taking up this fight??

Soapbox breaking now.
Chris

[PinHead]

The United Nations..now there is an organisation..a shining light of the protector of humanity and the environment...yeah right...complete waste of time that mob.

[billfisher]

This article puts the 'oh, but we must obey the UN convention' argument in perspective:

A thorough risk analysis seems a logical step in determining whether fishing should be banned marine parks by application of the precautionary principle.

After 12 months of searching, I have only been able to unearth one Commonwealth risk analysis. There seems to be no analysis of risk associated with the application of the precautionary principle in NSW marine parks.

A risk analysis has been performed on all fishing methods for the Commonwealth's SE marine parks affecting Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania.

The analysis found that recreational fishing has an incidental consequence in 4 of the 19 categories considered and is of no consequence in the rest. Categories consisted of hard and soft bottom in a range of depths (including those found in state waters) and special categories for seals, whales, dolphins, birds and turtles.

The main consequence was anchoring and hooking the bottom where potential damage was considered as having "negligible impact on or loss of habitat".

After factoring in a "likelihood rating", the overall risk rating was found to be low in the four categories (fishing and anchoring on reef in varying depths) and non existent in 15 others.

The report goes on to say: "A low risk rating indicates that the interaction has an acceptable risk to the MPA conservation value/s and is likely to be permitted within a multiple use MPA based upon conservation values alone."

Read the full report here: http://www.ecofishers.com/pdf/Final-FRA-TWG-Wrkshp-Rprt-28Oct05.pdf (http://www.ecofishers.com/pdf/Final-FRA-TWG-Wrkshp-Rprt-28Oct05.pdf)

This is our case to date:

* Article 10(c) of the UN convention on the protection of biodiversity requires all Australian governments to protect and encourage customary fishing providing it is sustainable and compatible protecting biodiversity.

* All Australians have a common law right to fish in all tidal waters as recognised in the objects of NSW Fisheries Management Act (1994). This right has it's origins in the Magna Charta. (Recreational fishing is certainly "customary".)

* The NSW Government has declared that all NSW fish stocks are managed sustainably. These claims are supported by the University of British Columbia which reviews management practices in NSW and has one of the most highly regarded fisheries management schools in the world.

* Federal Government risk analysis shows that recreational fishing has no, or negligible, impact on all habitat categories.

* Extensive government funded scientific research shows line fishing has a negligible impact on biodiversity, at least for our most fragile tropical reef systems.

* All species of birds, mammals and sharks, that are exposed to negligible risk from recreational fishing, are already protected by statute.

* Recreational fishing is highly regulated and compliance is extraordinarily high as a result of widespread community support.

So why is recreational fishing banned anywhere in any Australian marine park? Satisfying a rabid ideology in order to attract green preferences is simply not good enough.

[Chris Ryan]

Amen to that billfisher.

[Matt_Campbell]

Its the same with a fishery, by expanding its boundaries the fish will breed faster to utilise that free home space we create for them. An overly concentrated population in any localised area will see reproduction rates lower to a more sustainable level.

Can you please explain this??

[Shane_78]

Interesting debate that has arisen.

1) I don't think Moreton Bay is unique. If you read the link I posted Green zones work in both temperete and tropical areas. Our fisheries may be sustainable now but I don't think Green Zones should be a last minute desicion implemented only when things turn to shit. People like my dad and others his age say that fish numbers are less than what they used to catch so why wait until it gets worse?
2) A study has been done in Moreton Bay and showed positive benefits.
3) The science is obviously there so why are we continuing to question the benefits?
4) I don't think Green Zones are the answer to everything but I don't think they are a negetive thing either. I think with proper fisheries control they are worth us having to make a few sacrifices

I await the insults :)

[Chris Ryan]

People like my dad and others his age say that fish numbers are less than what they used to catch so why wait until it gets worse?


Shane_78, wondering if the lack of bag limits, lack of control over catching techniques (i.e. ring netting) could possibly have any influence over this comment? Since we have had these limits introduced, the fishery has balanced itself to its sustainable levels.

[Scott nthQld]

Just as a reference point, I have 3 problems with the GBR zoning.

Problem 1 is the fact that instead of providing any 'scientific' research to the public so they could make their own mind up, the EPA just come out and said we have done the research and this is the only way to save the GBR. Yet this so called research still isn't available to Joe Public, as it was never published, and any scientist worth their salt will tell you, if it ain't published, it don't mean jack. The only 'research' they did was to get local fisho's to tell them where they fish, and what they catch there, and low and behold, nearly every spot (especially reefs, relatively close) was named as 'an area of interest', it wasn't until when it was brought for 'public' discussion that they decided to make the yellow zones (ie no commercial fishing, just one rod, one hook per person), just to make it look like the fisho's 'won' something they already had the right to use, the public ate this up like a fat kid eats cake. As far as the public know, that was the only real research they did, and they didn't do it out in the open either, there were a lot of reports of EPA reps, posing as newcomers, asking questions at the local tackle shops to get their information, as well as using the DPI to do the phone survey's, with no mention that the information would be going to the EPA, hance why, every chance I go, I told people in the SE not to participate in these survey's. So all their research was just pure speculation, whilst plucking at the heartstings of the nation after all, if we don't stop Scott and his family going out to the reef once or twice a year and bringing home 20 fish, how will the reef survive?

Problem 2 is the fact that when the green zones were brought in, we were 'promised' that there would be a 'spill over effect', where once a reef would become over populated, the fish would find another one to settle, the specific example they used was the coral trout. They have since released the fact that coral trout DO NOT move from reef to reef, when an area becomes over populated, as they do not travel in open water. Another fact about coral trout is that, yes, the bigger they are, the more offspring they produce, but their favourite food is....coral trout (small, but legal, coral trout are the best live bait for big coral trout I have been told) and as a result of this, the larger fish on the reef, eat their smaller counter parts because the smaller counterparts will not move, therfore nullifying any so-called 'spill over'.

Problem 3 is the fact that now everyone is screaming global warming is killing the reef, and a new propsed solution by the green groups? Yep, you guessed it, lets stop fishing!! Now tell me, if the ZGlobal Warming crap is true, how exactly will fishing kill the reef, if don't forget, the green groups have already stated the cause of the dying reef is global warming, and how will stopping fishing help it survive?

It seems to me that the EPA have followed the same route in closing moreton bay, presenting misleading information, lulling the public into ignorance, and painting the rec fisho out their with their kids as monsters. And these people say they love all earth's creatures. When they are asked the question of where is all this scientific research, they either don't answer, or say, don't worry about it, its there, we've done it, but you can't see it. It also appears, they have lost the battle with the state govt about the over development of the SE, and can no longer do anything about the pollution (in their eyes) entering the bay, so they will do the next best hing (to them) and target the people that are seen using the bay, taking the bay's living resources and make out that we are the enemy. never mind the dredging, silt dumping, chemical disposal and everything else that goes into the bay, lets just concentrate on what comes out, and make a childs first fish make him or her look like a monster that doesn't care about the ecosystem (not that many little kids do, they've got other important things to worry about, like do they still have bait on their hook every 5 seconds).

[billfisher]

Interesting debate that has arisen.

1) I don't think Moreton Bay is unique. If you read the link I posted Green zones work in both temperete and tropical areas. Our fisheries may be sustainable now but I don't think Green Zones should be a last minute desicion implemented only when things turn to shit. People like my dad and others his age say that fish numbers are less than what they used to catch so why wait until it gets worse?
2) A study has been done in Moreton Bay and showed positive benefits.
3) The science is obviously there so why are we continuing to question the benefits?
4) I don't think Green Zones are the answer to everything but I don't think they are a negetive thing either. I think with proper fisheries control they are worth us having to make a few sacrifices

I await the insults :)

I don't think you have much understanding of fisheries Shane. Yes, there may be less fish around than your dad's day. No small part of this is due to urbanisation and its associated pollution and reclaimation of mangroves and other habitat. Most of us like living in cities and having jobs so this to some extent is tough luck. Green zones will do nothing about this.

Also any substantial fishing effort will lead to a reduction in fish stocks. This does not mean they are in terminal decline as you imply. The population dynamics mean that under fishing pressure recruits benifit from less predation from larger fish and less competition for food. Maximum sustainable yeild for marine fish is usually attained when 30 - 40 % of the stock is left compared to the unfished state. They can be harvested at this level indefinitely. Also it is well known that fish wise up to angling methods and therefore our catches aren't always a good guide to abundance.

Finally we are talking about fish - not whales or tigers. They are extremely fecund and most are fast growing. There is not much risk winding back fishing effort if signs of overfishing appear. We can certainly do better than seriously damaging our ability to go fishing by locking up productive grounds forever.

[billfisher]

Also Shane, could you define what you mean by "green zones work". Ie what benifits are you saying we will get!

[Lovey80]

Shane_78, there is a reason people like your Dad and others his age say that fish numbers are less these days........ THEY OVER FISHED THE CRAP OUT OF OUR FISHERIES!!!!!!! It is because of THAT generation that we now have size and bag limmits. In my fishing life time alone (15 years) IMHO fishing has become much better and continues to improve.

If Lovey80 was dictator of QLD instead of dictator Bligh, the only area's that would change would get a zone that would be complete no go zones(Dark Blue zone i think) and only in absolute critical area's. Then with the money I save by not having to fund the EPA maritime officers etc. The money would go to fisheries until there was enough officers on the water that it becomes not worth the risk to abuse size and bag limmits. Also the extra money could be given to fisheries to fund ACTUAL research on fisheries management.


Cheers Chris

[croangler]

i am a fisherman, and an environmentally conceous one. In honest opinion, green zones are needed. there are to many people congregating on fishing areas and literally creating fishing deserts. but by creating green zones in specific locations where fish can thrive, then atleast we can have a continuing suply of fish (like a nursery). "biger fish make more eggs than smaller fish of the same species"

what i mean, we can have inside Moreton Bay areas that are protected and help in increasing fish populations.

however, the EPA has done a really bad job in demonstrating why the green zones are needed. when i read the draft plan i get the feeling that a graduate student in environmental science has writen it with no research whatsoever.

i am really up for artificial reefs though, i think it is a good idea and more of them should be created inside moreton bay in a way that almost creates an artificial reef corridor inside the moreton bay. what that will do is create small islands of artificial reefs that are about 1km apart that will allow fish to freely swim between each area.

the only problem is that it will take time.

so please dont dwell on the politics, green zones were comming regardles who is in power. Lets put our heads together to write good sensible submissions to the EPA on what we believe is reasonable and what we want in return.

my opinion

Regards

[Chris Ryan]

croangler,

what is reasonable is to get the Department wanting to introduce these things to use data sourced, researched, documented and found in Moreton Bay. Not the international study from here, or the results from there. Moreton they keep saying (as what Pinhead says) is referenced as unique so many times by the Government that we can hardly use data sourced from elsewhere for somewhere that is so UNIQUE. That to me is what is reasonable.

Chris

[PinHead]

i am a fisherman, and an environmentally conceous one. In honest opinion, green zones are needed. there are to many people congregating on fishing areas and literally creating fishing deserts. but by creating green zones in specific locations where fish can thrive, then atleast we can have a continuing suply of fish (like a nursery). "biger fish make more eggs than smaller fish of the same species"

what i mean, we can have inside Moreton Bay areas that are protected and help in increasing fish populations.

however, the EPA has done a really bad job in demonstrating why the green zones are needed. when i read the draft plan i get the feeling that a graduate student in environmental science has writen it with no research whatsoever.

i am really up for artificial reefs though, i think it is a good idea and more of them should be created inside moreton bay in a way that almost creates an artificial reef corridor inside the moreton bay. what that will do is create small islands of artificial reefs that are about 1km apart that will allow fish to freely swim between each area.

the only problem is that it will take time.

so please dont dwell on the politics, green zones were comming regardles who is in power. Lets put our heads together to write good sensible submissions to the EPA on what we believe is reasonable and what we want in return.

my opinion

Regards

where are the fishing deserts you mention?

Do larger fish actually create more eggs? If so, what percentage of all those eggs are fertilised and hatch and reach maturity as opposed to those of smaller fish...opens another can of worms.

[billfisher]

What is your evidence for fishermen causing "fishing deserts" in the Bay, croangler? How is crowding all the rec fishing into a smaller area (ie outside the green zones), going to benifit the fishery?

[Lovey80]

i am a fisherman, and an environmentally conceous one. In honest opinion, green zones are needed. there are to many people congregating on fishing areas and literally creating fishing deserts. but by creating green zones in specific locations where fish can thrive, then atleast we can have a continuing suply of fish (like a nursery). "biger fish make more eggs than smaller fish of the same species"

my opinion

Regards

I agree that there are a lot of people congregating in specific area's (on weekends and public holidays only) There is a reason for that mate. There isnt a hell of a lot of area that is worthwhile fishing. Well not a lot compared to the total area of Moreton bay. The bay is a lot different to the GBR. And hence why it is unique. The problem with the EPA is that they want almost all these area's. Where are we suppose to fish then? We will be imeadiately fishing in desserts.

As far as Fisheries are concerned we infact are not making the productive area's in to deserts at all. If this were the case then size and bag limmits would be altered. If the case was that drastic there is no reason DPI fisheries couldn't make specific Size and Bag limmits for the bay itself.

Just something for you to think about.

Cheers Chris

[Lovey80]

i
i am really up for artificial reefs though, i think it is a good idea and more of them should be created inside moreton bay in a way that almost creates an artificial reef corridor inside the moreton bay. what that will do is create small islands of artificial reefs that are about 1km apart that will allow fish to freely swim between each area.

Regards

Just one more thing Croangler. If and when the EPA do screw us over you can bet your bottom dollar there will be a crap load of Artificial reefs around. They just wont be public knowledge for some time.;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)


Cheers Chris

[Scott nthQld]

Forcing people out of one area, will put more pressure on another, reducing the fish stocks there, while the other area becomes so overcrowded with large fish, that any spawning will be only to produce fodder for the older, bigger specimens, hence having no spillover effect the EPA claims will happen.

I agree the GBR is completely different to Moreton Bay, and every other eco system in the world, my gripe is, the EPA states Moreton Bay is unique, but still apply models designed for other regions, in other areas of the world, not other areas of Australia, even though each region is different from the rest, why are they all subject to the same criteria to 'save' the fishery? Also, how could the Green zones be labelled a 'fishery' if no fishing is permitted?

And all this 'research' the EPA boasts about, where is it? How can the public make an informed decision on whether the proposed action is appropriate or not? like I said before, until the 'research' is produced to a public forum and is subjected for review by proper scientists (not undergraduates, doing extra-curricular work) that work in the same field, it doesn't mean anything, otherwise, I could do up a report myself on the GBR showing it has fully recovered and then some and claim it to be true, and not show anyone so it can be disproven, and by the EPA's logic, that would be a means to have green zones lifted. I know that this situation isn't logical, but why should our standards of research be any different from their's?

[Poodroo]

Moreton Bay is such a vast area of water we all have our so-called spot X's out there and they are so spread out there is no way we will find one another's secret locations in a million years. If they start introducing green zones we are going to be given less area to work with and that is going to be detrimental to the areas not marked as green zones. Just leave us fishing folk alone and work on the pollution. Also in the argument of anchors that damage reefs just bear in mind that a large percentage of modern day fishos now fish with plastics and use Minn Kotas and drift techniques. All fish that are under sized are always mouth hooked with jigheads so minimal damage ensures fish are released with maximum survival chances. Most fisher people out there are more environmentally aware than we are given credit for.

Poodroo

[croangler]

Hello gents,

I agree with you Chris Ryan

There is scientific evidence that bigger fish of the same species create more eggs than smaller fish of the same species. Do some research and you will see, I studied it in University few years back.

I never indicated that crowding recreational fishing in smaller areas is going to benefit the fishery. I actually think the total opposite. I think that crowding will create detrimental effects of fish stocks. And that’s what I mean about creating fishing deserts. And that’s what I mean about creating artificial reefs throught the bay. I think it will reduce crowding in any particular area.

Lets face it green zones are coming and there is nothing we can do about it, whether we like or not. Fishing stocks need to be regulated. Green zones are present all over Australia and all over the world. And our EPA is not going to back down from the green zones. I know some people will get the S*its with me for saying this.;D

If it was up to me, I would not have green zones at all, I would ban fishing in certain areas (eg peel) for few months a year (around spawning times), I would restrict bag limits of fish taken, eg increase legal bream to 25cm (apparently they grow really slow), restrict commercial fishing in Moreton bay, and I would create more artificial reefs throughout the bay. I think that would do a better job in protecting fish than the proposed green zones.:)

What we need to do is band together, and create a plan of attack that will be loud enough that the EPA will need to listen. What I mean is that all of us write submissions that have similar main points, and when we have thousands of submissions that are saying the same thing, I am sure they will listen.

We can start by listing our 5 main concerns regarding the Proposed Moreton Bay Zoning Plan and also list 5 solutions that we believe that will be better suited.

Concerns
Solutions

[croangler]

What I find a joke, is that the EPA cannot justify with scientific evidence the need for green zones and why it is necessary to remove recreational fishing from these zones.

And why the expansion of the port of Brisbane and the Brisbane Airport are not such a problem for the EPA. Are they seriously thinking that recreational fishing is worse than the Expansions of the Brisbane Airport and the Port of Brisbane. I just read the Port of Brisbane Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Expansion of the port to its current state, and they said that at a local level the environmental effects are significant, however at a state level the effects are minor. Please pay attention to the choice of words here, whenever they say that there are some environmental effects, straight away they say that they are minor compared to the state level…….what a joke.

That’s what happens when you are a big guy (port and Airport) you can do anything. To get that approved they did not need an EIS, they did it for show. They can do anything they want. They can dredge all the sand from Moreton bay they like, they can block creeks, they can do whatever they want and in all honesty they are unstoppable. All EPA will do is guide them to dredge sand away from “environmentally significant areas” what a joke.

A recreational fisherman in his tinny has no rights and will not be heard. Just because the EPA cannot control the BIG BOYS, they will do their best to control the Little boys (Recreational Fishermen) You will see

I had to get that out of my system

I feel better now

[Chris Ryan]

croangler, your last post is the best thus far and the basis of the boat rally. One rule for all, not one for them seperate you those over there and screw the fisherman!!

[Mike Delisser]

Gday Billfisher
From your post
"* All Australians have a common law right to fish in all tidal waters as recognised in the objects of NSW Fisheries Management Act (1994). This right has it's origins in the Magna Charta. (Recreational fishing is certainly "customary".)"
Can you explain this as I don't understand?
Sir Joh handed over tidal waters at Sanctuary Cove through an act of state parliament (Sanctuary Cove Resort Act 1985), and what about Swan Bay, HMAS Brisbane dive site, Rickett's point in Vic and several areas off Rottnest Island WA, all off limits to fishing through acts of various State Parliaments.
Mike

[billfisher]

M62, obviously marine parks and the examples you have quoted overule the right to fish any tidal waters. Thats why they had to bring in acts to do so. The point is that that the right to do so is traditional and that regulated angling has a negligable effect on fish stcks and biodiversity.

[Jeremy]

i am a fisherman, and an environmentally conceous one. In honest opinion, green zones are needed. there are to many people congregating on fishing areas and literally creating fishing deserts. but by creating green zones in specific locations where fish can thrive, then atleast we can have a continuing suply of fish (like a nursery). "biger fish make more eggs than smaller fish of the same species"

what i mean, we can have inside Moreton Bay areas that are protected and help in increasing fish populations.

(and)

i am really up for artificial reefs though, i think it is a good idea and more of them should be created inside moreton bay in a way that almost creates an artificial reef corridor inside the moreton bay. what that will do is create small islands of artificial reefs that are about 1km apart that will allow fish to freely swim between each area.


It is clear that some individuals have a very poor understanding of the science involved in these green zones. You have obviously just come down in the last shower of rain and have NO IDEA of the recent history here. Virtually ALL fish species in Moreton Bay are migratory and all have pelagic larvae. The idea of a sanctuary where fish can live and breed happily is completely false.

1. the DPI&F set bag and size limits which are currenty doing the job of creating a sustainable fishery.
2. The marine protected areas (green zones) are NOT a fisheries management tool. Bag and size limits are. The EPA is responsible for protecting the environment, and this could have been done with mininal or no impact on the fishery.
3. fish stocks will never be restored to the levels of 100 years ago. Pollution, overdevelopment, and destruction of mangrove habital where juveniles live and breed will ensure that.
4. green zones will create displaced fishing effort. ie more people trying to fish in the same spots.
5. if you think science is behind this, do some research on the Grey Nurse Shark protection areas in SEQ. A very rough count of the sharks by the very people (divers) who drove them to the brink of extinction and who now have the tourist dollar leads to them being placed on the endangered list. Breeding areas are set aside to protect the 'few' remaining GNS. No fishing zones for 1.2 km, then extended to 1.5 km around these sites. Trolling for pelagic species - spaniards and wahoo - banned and WHY? Ever catch a GNS on a Halco::)
6. There are numerous other examples - if you have been following the implementation of the green zones - of heavy handedness and injustice. Byron Bay, Port Stephens, Jervis Bay, Bundaberg, GBR etc etc. It is not just a coincidence that the Marine Protected Areas (green zones) take away many of the best fishing spots.
7. just because you can't catch jack doesn't mean there are no fish. Just means they are smarter than you;D ;D

Finally re the artificial reefs, they are a great idea in theory, but the standards required by the EPA to actually create an artificial reef are so high as to be prohibitive. You can't use tyres, you can't use concrete. Unless these standards are relaxed (are you kidding:o ) they will never happen.

The next review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park is now scheduled for 5 years, rather than the ten years until this review. The same calls will be coming from the lunatic greens for 'more protection' for Moreton Bay, and we will lose another 20-30% of the bay to green zones.

This is simply a green grab for Moreton Bay is return for preferences by the Labour Government. We have to make a stand on this and do everything we can to stop it happening or we will continue to lose fishing spots bit by bit.

done

Jeremy

[croangler]

Jeremy, I am glad that you “do” have an idea of what is going on inside Moreton Bay. And I am glad that you have spent some time to do some research too, and you obviously must have a marine science degree with such vast knowledge of fish migration patterns, fish breeding patterns, fish spawning inside Moreton Bay, fish stocks management, and research on the Grey Nurse Shark protection areas in SEQ.

I must admit I am not “that” knowledgeable when it comes to the abovementioned things. But I try.;D

Interesting read from you Jeremy, but you have not shown a one single solution to the Moreton Bay Marine Park Draft Zoning Plan, not one alternative…nothing. All you are doing is identify the problems, anyone can do that, I can do that too. Try making a solution. What is your solution to the current issues? What do you propose? Do you have an alternative? Do you have a plan of attack? Ill leave that up to you.

If you think that scrapping the Moreton Bay Draft Zoning Plan altogether is what should be done, then fine. At least that’s a solution. But for some reason I don’t think that’s going to happen.

You obviously are an intelligent human being to understand that the Moreton Bay Draft Zoning Plan is not going to go away. The EPA is accepting submissions up to 5pm on the 7th of March. I sugesst people go to the next rally and let their voice be heard.

If you read my last post yesterday 10:23 AM, I would hope you know what my feeling is towards the draft zoning plan.

[PinHead]

Jeremy, I am glad that you “do” have an idea of what is going on inside Moreton Bay. And I am glad that you have spent some time to do some research too, and you obviously must have a marine science degree with such vast knowledge of fish migration patterns, fish breeding patterns, fish spawning inside Moreton Bay, fish stocks management, andresearch on the Grey Nurse Shark protection areas in SEQ.

I must admit I am not “that” knowledgeable when it comes to the abovementioned things. But I try.;D

Interesting read from you Jeremy, but you have not shown a one single solution to the Moreton Bay Marine Park Draft Zoning Plan, not one alternative…nothing. All you are doing is identify the problems, anyone can do that, I can do that too. Try making a solution. What is your solution to the current issues? What do you propose? Do you have an alternative? Do you have a plan of attack? Ill leave that up to you.

If you think that scrapping the Moreton Bay Draft Zoning Plan altogether is what should be done, then fine. At least that’s a solution. But for some reason I don’t think that’s going to happen.

You obviously are an intelligent human being to understand that the Moreton Bay Draft Zoning Plan is not going to go away. The EPA is accepting submissions up to 5pm on the 7th of March. I sugesst people go to the next rally and let their voice be heard.

If you read my last postyesterday 10:23 AM, I would hope you know what my feeling is towards the draft zoning plan.

I will give you my solution.no closures at all..better policing of bag and size limits to keep fish stocks sustainable. Gte the EPA to do what they are supposed to be doing..fixing up water quality issues in the rivers...protect the foreshores etc.

[Chris Ryan]

Can I add to that Pinhead PROPER funding of the DPI&F and a full audit of where moneys are spent in relation to the MBMP?!!

I am sure a WHOLE FRIGGIN BUILDING FULL OF TREE/SEAGRASS HUGGERS in Ann St is costing a lot more to run than the two piddly floors DPI has.........

Its typical, the ideologists have the power and money and the poor bastards that enforce it have little to nothing. I have heard that Fisheries have a fuel budget, if they use their fuel before the fiscal quarter is done, they can't go out. They have to wait until the next one to get the fuel. Now, if this is true and this is acceptable to the goddamning Government, then I all of a sudden have a budget on money for fines, registration, levies, etc. You will have to wait there Captn Bligh..........not quite the next fiscal quarter.

Actually Pinhead I am liking your idea of the backlogging the courts more and more the closer we get to this rediculous conclusion.

[Poodroo]

We seem to live in a world where it is accepted that change is accepted as a way to grow and prosper. Yet as we watch technology improve everything around us and all the things that we take for granted day by day the world still increases to decline in quality eg: Pollution, green house gases, ozone depletion, etc etc etc. The one thing that is certain is that it isn't the animals that are destroying our planet, it is the most so called clever animal of all... humans. Once again it is pollution that is the world's biggest problem and pollution that needs to be addressed by all. Our Moreton Bay is a thing of beauty and something we need to keep for all future generations to enjoy as much as we have. Who will the greens and the government blame for its demise once they stop us from fishing in it and it still suffers an ill fate? We all know that green zones will not solve the problem. Policing reasonable bag limits is the way to go.

Poodroo

[manchild]

Well ,they have to statisfy mum and dad greens who eat everything that trendy.Green is the new black and thtas it.Most of this people think nature is the park under they highrises and dont care to find out whats happening in the bay ,where they never been.Instead they believe what they fed because its presented in a fashion that makes it cool.I talk to a lot of different people,being a tradie and when i tell them the facts they are really surprised.They think we are a bunch of yobos in blue singlets that kill everything that moves in the bay area.How do you change that?I wish i know the answer mate.
George

[Chris Ryan]

money to pay for advertising in mainstream media = peoples perception. Simple equation except the money part is $100's of thousands needed and we can't raise that. Well we could if people & business associated to the Bay gave for advertising like this but most are small business and even the smallest change to their income hurts so it has to be corporate, but they mainly want to stay apolitical.

Wish I knew the answer to that one.

[billfisher]

This is the latest AUSTRALIAN research on AUSTRALIAN marine reserves completed by the premier federal AUSTRALIAN research body Fisheries Research and Development Corporation.
Check it out!!!!


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u114/spearo_16/marineparks.jpg

[Moonlighter]

Prof Colin Buxton is one of Australia's foremost experts on marine parks, and this was one of the reasons MBAA asked him to join our research team to develop our alternative proposals for Moreton Bay.

He will be in Brisbane on 6/7 Feb for MBAA to meet with EPA and their scientists in relation to their draft zoning plan for the Bay. Lets hope Colin can help us to get them to see sense.

Grant

[mik01]

this is exactly what is needed - cold hard facts, and real studies to combat the greenie emotional 'save the planet' rubbish
I just hope that his ideas, while not 'romantic' enough for the general public, are taken seriously by the powers that be and action is taken accordingly.