Fish stocks to collapse within 50 yrs

[Blackened]

G'day
Just a point of interest....

Just listening to the radio here and on the news it said we may not be able to eat any commercially caught seafood in about 40 years.

They said according to a study, the commercial industry will collapse in about 40 years because of mis management, overfishing and everything else.

I know the reco's view on trawlers and commercial fishing in general but wouldn't it be interesting, especially for the wider community.

What are your bets..... is this a possibility?

Dave

[jim_farrell]

I know a couple of prawn and scallop guys, and the biggest threat is competition with cheap overseas product and fuel prices. Running costs have skyrocketed in the last couple of years, but retailers aren't paying them anymore for their product.

No business can absorb 30-40% cost increase with no increase in revenue.

Not a nice thought that we may only be able to buy asian prawns in the not so distant future.

Jim

Jim

[bidkev]

<snip>
Not a nice thought that we may only be able to buy asian prawns in the not so distant future.

Jim

Jim

You won't even be able to buy them Jim. The Aussie report was taken from a world-wide study which stated that *ALL* commercial fisheries will be barren within 40 to 50 yrs. I heard it this morning on the world (BBC) news.

Off Topic but for those interested there is a programme on SBS on Sundays at 6.00 pm called Thalassa (Which I think, translates as "the sea") It is a sister programme to global village and is very interesting as it is mainly about fishing communities or people making their living from the seas. Last week it was about the Newfoundland halibut fishery. These guys fish only by long-lining and considering some of the halibut are pushing 100 kilos it was fascnating to see how they are brought on board with only a couple of guys wielding gaffs. The lines can be 10 km long and those guys must be buggered by the time they are pulled in :o

Anyway, I digress...........the fishery has been managed so well via quotas, lower size limits and closed seasons, that they are now catching more fish than they were at it's peak 70 yrs ago. Something nice to hear considering all the doom and gloom we are subjected to nowadays :D

kev

[were-trout]

here's a link to the story

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1780209.htm

[Duyz72]

Thankfully it is a lot easier to allow the ocean to self-regenerate (being just so darn populous) than it is to regenerate the clear stripped land we once had as fertile bushland which is now salt encrusted useless land or eroded desert.

Kingtin - that story is a perfect example of managing an industry, not just enforce restrictions on a resource.

[pjw200371]

"An international team of scientists says global fish stocks may be wiped out within 50 years if ocean species continue to be lost at their present rate.

The research, published in the journal Science, says if nothing is done to reverse the trend, the world's fisheries will be empty by 2048.

One of the scientists who carried out the research, Dr Boris Worm, says more action is needed to save fish stocks.
"For our own sake and for the sake of fishing communities, for the whole culture that's involved with this, we need to conserve these extremely valuable resources and do that soon and we know how to do that," he said.

"People are taking the right steps in the right directions, that just needs to be done on a much grander scale."
Dramatic decline

In an analysis of scientific data going back to the 1960s and historical records over 1,000 years, the researchers found that marine biodiversity - the variety of ocean fish, shellfish, birds, plants and micro-organisms - has declined dramatically, with 29 per cent of species already in collapse.

Extending this pattern into the future, the scientists calculated that by 2048 all species would be in collapse, which the researchers defined as having catches decline 90 per cent from the maximum catch.

This applies to all species, from mussels and clams to tuna and swordfish, said Dr Worm, lead author of the study.

Ocean mammals, including seals, killer whales and dolphins, are also affected.

"Whether we looked at tide pools or studies over the entire world's ocean, we saw the same picture emerging," he said in a statement.

"In losing species we lose the productivity and stability of entire ecosystems. I was shocked and disturbed by how consistent these trends are - beyond anything we suspected."

When ocean species collapse, it makes the ocean itself weaker and less able to recover from shocks like global climate change, he said.

The decline in marine biodiversity is largely due to over-fishing and destruction of habitat, he said in a telephone interview from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia.
Exploitation

He likened a diverse ocean environment to a diversified investment portfolio.

With lots of different species in the oceans, just as with lots of different kinds of investments, "You spread the risk around," he said.

"In the ocean ecosystem, we're losing a lot of the species in our stock portfolio, and by that we're losing productivity and stability. By losing stability, we're losing the ability of the system to self-repair."

"This research shows we'll have few viable fisheries by 2050," Andrew Sugden, international managing editor of Science, told reporters at a telephone news briefing. "This work also shows that it's not too late to act."

To help depleted areas rebuild, marine-life reserves and no-fishing zones need to be set up, Mr Worm and other authors of the study said. This has proven effective in places including the Georges Bank off the US Atlantic coast, he said.

With marine reserves in place, fishing near the reserves can improve as much as four-fold, he said.

Beyond the economic benefits to coastal communities where fishing is a critical industry, there are environmental benefits to rebuilding marine biodiversity, the scientists said.

Depleted coastal ecosystems are vulnerable to invasive species, disease outbreaks, coastal flooding and noxious algae blooms, they reported.

Certain kinds of aquaculture, like the traditional Chinese cultivation of carp using vegetable waste, can also be beneficial, according to the scientists. However, farms that aim to raise carnivorous fish are less effective."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1780209.htm

I feel all recreational fishermen should be in favour of reasonable (up to 30%) exclusion zones in areas like Moreton Bay and GBR. Even at 30%, there is still 70% fishable area (which, let's face it, is still heaps of room) with the added benefits of increasing fish stocks. It's really a win-win for recreational fishermen and we all should support such measures. Hell, if the above article is even remotely likely we *need* to support such measures.

[staddie_local]

i know some netters that they are getting so low on fish that, they are nettinf small dart and needless fish on the beaches.

[billfisher]

pjw,

What has a report from the northern hemisphere got to do with Australia? We have the lightest fished waters in the world. We have 1/30th the fishing pressure of the world average. The USA has 20 times the fishing pressure we do and they regard this as sustainable. NZ has twice the fishery we have. We a currently reducing our commercial fishing pressure through the buyout of licences eg the Commonwealth fleet is being halved from 1200 to 600 vessels. The GBR green zones were not needed due to the extremely light fishing pressure. The reef was being harvested at the rate of 9kg per square km per year, about 1% of what is regarded as sustainable for reefs overseas.

Furthermore the study is specifically related to the raping and pillaging conducted by International fishing fleets in completely unmanaged international waters where stocks of Gemfish, Orange Roughies, Toothfish, Tuna and other bill fish have been severely depleted by completely unregulated fishing practices. This is in contrast to our own strictly managed fisheries which control fishing areas, catch sizes and practices and include continuous monitoring of fish stocks.
Our own inshore fish species are in no danger or under no threat whatsoever using NSW chief fisheries scientist's own words:

"no NSW inshore fish species are in danger or under threat and all stocks are being managed sustainably".

Boris Worm the author has also said that international authorities need to ban fishing in ecologically valuable sites. But he was NOT referring to inshore waters or recreational fishing because he also said immediately following this (and which was not reported) was:

"We need protected areas in the open ocean," he said. "The open ocean is still open access."

And he has further qualified this with the following comment about what he is referring to when he wrote about:

"the roving banditry of commercial fishing fleets, which rely on modern technology to just fish a population to collapse and then move onto the next target. This is not to say all commercial fishermen are irresponsible: many care about sustaining their livelihoods over the long term."

Locking away huge areas of our inshore waters from all fishing is a purile philoliosphy. Our lightly fish waters do not require such an extremely blunt and harsh tool.

[pjw200371]

"What has a report from the northern hemisphere got to do with Australia? We have the lightest fished waters in the world. We have 1/30th the fishing pressure of the world average.... The reef was being harvested at the rate of 9kg per square km per year, about 1% of what is regarded as sustainable for reefs overseas.

Have you got references for these figures? I'm not doubting you, i'd just like to read some of the research as it interests me. At any rate, the seas around Australia are far less productive than those of South America or the northern hemsphere. It's believed iron is the limiting nutrient here (and there have been suggestions to improve productivity by seeding the EAC and other areas with iron).

"Locking away huge areas from all fishing is a purile philoliosphy. Our lightly fish waters do not require such an extremely blunt and harsh tool.""

'Huge area' is a relative concept. If we lock up, say, 20% of Moreton bay we still have 4/5 to fish in. If 20% is a huge area, then we still have 4 times that huge area to fish in. Is having the vast majority available to us not enough? Surely wanting to have it *all* is a peurile philosophy as well.

Productivity and fishing pressures aside, the oceans perhaps should to have some completely protected 'wild areas' as exist on land. Nothing wrong with that, and plenty of room for both recreation, commercial and conservation, I feel.

[threadfin_jim]

I recently attended a local meeting about the inshore finfish management plan..lots of people with lots of ideas...unfortunately a few hardened recs would like to see the commercial fleet outlawed altogether...i disagree...we have to have a balance for all of the community...what does everyone else think??

[JasonT]

It's a big sea, and I find it hard to believe that rec and commercial fishers can't exist together.

The key to making this work is good management, the lack of which IMO is one of the major contributers to the problems we see today.

As a salt water rec fisher I would happily pay a similar levy to what is paid for permits to fish impoundments, providing the revenue was used to improve the fisheries only.

Throwing money at the problem won't solve it however. We all need to do our part by abiding by regulations and making every effort to ensure fish we release have the best chance of survival.

A few other fisho's on this site collect rubbish from where they fish and in general try to leave the area better than when they found it.

If everyone was doing similar in both adopting enviro friendly fishing measures as much as possible, and cleaning up the areas they fish, I think the outlook would be a bit more optimistic!

My 2 cents!

JT

[billfisher]

"At any rate, the seas around Australia are far less productive than those of South America or the northern hemsphere. It's believed iron is the limiting nutrient here (and there have been suggestions to improve productivity by seeding the EAC and other areas with iron). "

This not true. We are about average in productivity for warm temperate and tropical areas. There are a few areas of super productivity due to the upwelling of nutrients which we do not match.

The figures of relative fishing pressure are readily available from government figures. I got them from some of Dr Walter Starcks articles. Also note that we have a population of only 20 million, one of the largest economic exclusion zones and we import 70% of our seafood! Also that we now have 30% of the worlds marine parks.

You say that 20 or 30% no-take zones are not an excessive burden. Well it is if you happen to live in one of these areas. Also given that they are usually designed to ban fishing in areas of value for anglers, eg inshore reefs. In the Byron Bay MP 30% SZ's means that 98% of the accessible inshore reefs are locked away! The 70% left open is mainly unproductive sandy stretches. 70% of nothing is still nothing.

[Derek_Bullock]

Here we go again ................ back to the 30% closure debate. This all reminds me of a story I used to read to my kids when they were little.

It was Henney Penny the chicken who was always crying ............. the sky's falling down, the sky's falling down.


Derek

[were-trout]

this'll make you laugh - or cry

news.com is running an opinion piece inferring that the problem is down to rec fishos and their use of cheap echo locators.

http://blogs.news.com.au/news/news/index.php/news/comments/high_tech_overfishing

The piece says that rec fishing catches have gone through the roof ... but when I've talked to old-timers who used to fish the bay most of them have said the catches are nothing compared to what they were

and we all know rec fishermen are to blame for the collapse of the north sea cod fishery, sailfish in the atlantic, hammering the orange roughy to the brink of extinction, etc etc

what a joke :(

on a brighter note the original report acknolwedges that there has to be a balance and that putting conservation measures in place will also help fishing communities survive. can't fish for what's not there

[_Dan_]

I know this will sound uneducated and simple, but why dont they invest money into international fisheries patrols for oceans. They have the satelites for it and they can track illegal or unregsitered boats anywhere?

All vessls caught should be towed back to closest mainland and criminals detained and prosecuted under international laws.. Boats sunk owners jailed and associates tracked and their assets seized. After a while people will soon get the message.

Sustainable fishing is going on around the world but alot of our neighbours couldnt spell it let alone understand the meaning.

Possible but probably not plausible....

Cheers

Dan

[pjw200371]

"This not true. We are about average in productivity for warm temperate and tropical areas."

Which are less productive than cold water areas. We're a victim of geography, but we need to realise it is a factor and we don't have the same productivity as many other places in the world.

"The figures of relative fishing pressure are readily available from government figures. I got them from some of Dr Walter Starcks articles."

Thanks, I'll look him up.

"You say that 20 or 30% no-take zones are not an excessive burden. Well it is if you happen to live in one of these areas."

And if you're completely non-mobile I presume. But point taken. We should endeavour to place exclusion zones directly next to land-based national parks where possible. This is certainly possible in Moreton Bay.

"Also given that they are usually designed to ban fishing in areas of value for anglers, eg inshore reefs. In the Byron Bay MP 30% SZ's means that 98% of the accessible inshore reefs are locked away! The 70% left open is mainly unproductive sandy stretches. 70% of nothing is still nothing."

I stayed in Byron this year, and went diving at Julien Rocks. It was spectacular, teeming with life. Huge schools of golden trevally and other species circled the dive anchor as we rose/descended. Blue grouper followed us around along the sea bed. Part of me was drooling and wishing to drop a line, and another part was marvelling at the absolute splendour and the sheer volume of fish life. If the price I have to pay to preserve a magnificent area like is go down the road a few k's to fish (I actually went doen to Ballina and caught heaps), then I'm prepared to pay it. Maybe some of the locals don't like it, and I can appreciate their point of view, but you simply can't please all the people all the time.

[rando]

Farmers have to plant what they harvest.
Foresters have to replant what they cut down.
Miners have to rehabilitate what they dig up.

Why is there no effort to actively replenish fish stocks?????
regardless of who harvests them(recs or pros).!!!!

[jim_farrell]

I saw the halibut program as well kev. For those who didn't. they take the ear bone from every fish caught and from it, they can tell the fishes age. This has been going on since 1914. They have yearly catch records for almost 100 years. Depending on numbers, the boats are told how much they are allowed to harvest.

Now that is management.

Whilst ever we have governments that can't see past the next election we will be in trouble. I don't think rec licences fix anything until the government is serious about finding out fish populations and take percentages.

Jim

[threadfin_jim]

I agree flick..at this meting the dpi guys put up stastics about the numbers of fish that get caught..they explained the comm stats were acurate ,,apparently from logbooks?? but rec catches were based on phone polls etc...until we get accurate fish populations how are we to manage this resource??

[Poodroo]

Not sure what is a scarier thought. No commercial fishing in Australia in 40 years or me being an 83 year fisherman. :-/ ;D I think at that stage I will be having my seafood in puried form only. :D :D

Poodroo

[tunaman]

Poodroo! The good thing about eating fish, is that you just need gums. ;D



signed tunaman

[RASA]

Here is the link to the actual news release which relates to more than just fish create the problems

It's always amazing how they deliberately not print all the story. More research coming up but see this for starters >

http://www.fmap.ca//ramweb/media/biodiversity_loss/WormEtAlSciencePR.pdf


Here is the heading from Science if anybody is a member to get a copy

ECOLOGY:
Global Loss of Biodiversity Harming Ocean Bounty
Erik Stokstad
If a new analysis of marine ecosystems data is correct, commercial fish and seafood species may all crash by 2048. (Read more.)





Bob Smith

[PinHead]

"In an analysis of scientific data going back to the 1960s and historical records over 1,000 years, the researchers found that marine biodiversity - the variety of ocean fish, shellfish, birds, plants and micro-organisms - has declined dramatically, with 29 per cent of species already in collapse.

Extending this pattern into the future, the scientists calculated that by 2048 all species would be in collapse, which the researchers defined as having catches decline 90 per cent from the maximum catch."

The records from 1000 years ago are based on what accuracy...I don't think they had the resources back then to even get close to what would be classed as scientific. 1000 years ago…1006..we had not even had the Invasion of Normandy, the signing of the Magna Carta, discovery of the Americas or Australasia etc etc etc

Then they extended this pattern....once again it appears to be guesswork.

How can he make this assumption when he is supposedly involved in a marine census project…one would have thought that the census would come prior to making predictions of what the census will be in the future. http://fmap.dal.ca/project.php

It appears to me that the world media thrives on doom and gloom.

When I was a kid, the media was constantly on about the Cold War...how any day there was going to be a nuclear war against those nasty "red" people...reds under the bed etc.

Then we had some quiet times...and then...out with the "green" bandwagon...and on and on it goes..every report preaching doom and gloom..sorry people, but this blcck duck isn't buying it...I am not living to live in doom and gloom..I am here to live…and bloody well live I will.

[billfisher]

Heres some more info:

1. It is a story rehashed from "Letters to Nature" Myers and Worm, May 2003 "Nature" , and expanded on in other Journals.
2. The authors, Ransom Myers and Boris Worm, specifically refers to commercial fishing in International waters, which is completely unregulated.
3. The authors, in the article, stated "We need protected areas in the open ocean"
4. The authors specifically stated that "Most fisheries within sovereign countrie's EEZs (generally 200nm.) are well managed"
5. The Australian and NSW Fisheries are the most regulated in the World.
6. Australia has 30% of the entire marine parks of the World.

[rtranter]

Me thinks, Poodroo and Tunaman be peas in a pod. ;D ;D ;D
But on a more serious note. :-?
Down here in Gods own State , NSW, ;D ;D the Charter Fisherpeople, or part there of, actually record the catch on there boat for Fisheries. As A Fishing Club Committee person, NSW Fisheries have asked that our Club Record all fish caught in the Orara River during our outings (we don't have comps). This would help them monitor Bass numbers and even Eastern Cod numbers (if we ever catch any) and as such work out the type of figures you're talking about be it only for Bass/Eastern Cod/Catfish within our Fresh water system. Maybe we should record our catches and have these figures past on to the relevant DPI/Fisheries, at least then we would know that they have the correct figures as we do :) and that any tom foolery with such figures could be questioned with back up? ;)
Just a short story in the life of brian, sorry Rob.
Regards
Rob 8-)

[billfisher]

Which are less productive than cold water areas. We're a victim of geography, but we need to realise it is a factor and we don't have the same productivity as many other places in the world. We have similar productivity to the majority of regions. Many such regions support far greater fisheries than ours, eg NZ with twice our fishery, coral reefs with 100 times the fishery of the GBR

""You say that 20 or 30% no-take zones are not an excessive burden. Well it is if you happen to live in one of these areas."

"I stayed in Byron this year, and went diving at Julien Rocks. It was spectacular, teeming with life. Huge schools of golden trevally and other species circled the dive anchor as we rose/descended. Blue grouper followed us around along the sea bed. Part of me was drooling and wishing to drop a line, and another part was marvelling at the absolute splendour and the sheer volume of fish life. If the price I have to pay to preserve a magnificent area like is go down the road a few k's to fish (I actually went doen to Ballina and caught heaps), then I'm prepared to pay it. Maybe some of the locals don't like it, and I can appreciate their point of view, but you simply can't please all the people all the time.
How do you know the abundance of life is the result of the marine park and in particular the banning of angling? No proper studies have been done on marine parks in NSW. In lightly fished regions the sanctuaries are not likely to result in much benefit. Eg in the case of the GBR the effect of no take zones was studied for 14 years (Mapstone Study). The researchers found no significant difference in fish numbers between the open and closed areas. The most productive region was the most heavily fished one of all!
Also do you realise that in NSW most targeted species are highly mobile and their larvae is pelagic and can float on the current for a 100kms or more. The benifit such species get from a sanctuary is therefore limited.
Finally in the Byron Bay Marine Park non compliance is rife. The locals still fish the sanctuary areas because they have nowhere else to fish!

[madmix]

Maybe I'm just cynical, but I have a feeling a new
group of JCU freshmen have been put amongst us.
Perhaps they should have the decency to read some of the
archived posts first.

cheers Mick

[wayneoro]

why are people with secret agenders allowed to come on site post there crap and then never heard of again >:( thankfully we've got members like billfisher to deal with it

[Genomic]

I reckon it as a good discussion, both billfisher, pjw200371 and just about everyone else made some good points. I even read the links with interest (I think these are very important issues). In fact, almost all the posts were useful except that last one. I'm fairly new here myself, and I've found you to be a friendly bunch of blokes (and blokettes), but slagging off someone for having a different (but apparently not totally unreasonable) position from yours gives me pause. Claiming 'crap' and 'secret agendas' isn't very helpful.

[RASA]

Here is a media release from Minister Abetz>

The Australian Government categorically rejects claim made by northern hemisphere scientists led by Canada’s Dalhousie University that Australia’s fisheries are “set to collapse.”

“The reality is Australia is a world leader in fisheries and oceans management”, Fisheries Minister Senator Eric Abetz said today.

“While we obviously welcome any serious scientific contribution, instead of trying to tar us all with the same brush, these scientists should instead be singling Australia out as an example to the world of how to ensure fisheries sustainability.”

For example:

Under the Direction issued by the Federal Fisheries Minister, currently being implemented by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, Australia has a comprehensive plan to ensure the sustainability of Commonwealth fish stocks for generations to come;


Of the world’s area of marine protected areas, some one third is in Australian waters;
Australia is a leading member of several Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMOs), including leading landmark reforms at the recent 13th annual meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna;


The Howard Government is amongst the leading nations in the world in the fight against illegal fishing, both in our own backyard and on the high seas;
“Frankly, we get a bit annoyed at northern hemisphere scientists, whose fisheries management often leaves a lot to be desired, making sensationalist predictions about the state of Australian fisheries from half a world away.”

“In reality, Australia’s record at oceans management is up there with the best and credit should be given where it’s due”.



Further inquiries:
Senator Abetz’s office: Brad Stansfield 0419 884 666



Bob Smith

[RASA]

Courier Mail also gives some insights link > http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,20697374-3102,00.html

Extract

"Although the research did not focus on Australian waters, environmentalists feared the same impacts were already showing up here.

Australian Conservation Foundation marine campaigner Chris Smyth said Federal Government data showed the number of overfished species had jumped from three to 17 since 1996.

Most of those species were found in southeastern waters, but recent efforts to protect fisheries on the Great Barrier Reef were threatened by global warming.

Mr Smyth said the network of marine-protected areas emerging in Australia, such as the Great Barrier Reef green zones, were inadequate and an Oceans Act was needed to replace the mishmash.

However Fisheries Minister Eric Abetz claimed local fisheries were the best managed in the world and attacked the report for "tarring Australia with the same brush" as other countries.

Australian Institute of Marine Science team leader David Williams also believed Queensland's fisheries were well-managed and said there was no evidence any species were overfished now or likely to become so in future.

"The only exception would be sharks, especially in the Gulf of Carpentaria where illegal fishing is a problem," he said.

Department of Primary Industries spokeswoman Brigid Kerrigan said Queensland fish stocks were considered to be in good shape "overall".


Bob Smith

[Scalem]

Has anyone else seen the recent media reports? One that said we will be fishless by the year 2048? Is over fishing and envionmental imact really that bad?

The 2nd that I saw was a prediction that prawns will be scarce over Christmas period, driving prices up, and less quality. The opinion given was not necessarily the one I am likely to believe, which may not be driven by fact. I don't know, but what study promotes the theory that bountiful prawn harvest is driven by the amount of fresh driven out of rivers because of rain??

I am getting more concerned,and am willing to play my part in conservation of fish stocks, but I know that it is becoming more serious.

Your comments??

Scalem

[billfisher]

Scalem,

Why don't you read through this thread, you will find that the topic has been well covered.

[mod5]

In Scalems defence his comments are from a new thread he started in General Chat and I attached it here. ;)

[saurian]

Oh well , looks like i only get 50 yrs of ever reducing bag limits to fillit.

[mowerman]

I would like to know how the AMCS can come up with " Fish stocks have increased in the areas of the Great Barrier Reef that were closed to fishing"
This was stated on the ABC radio after the mian report went to air.


Now...If an area is closed to fishing, where are they getting their figures from. Supposedly not from any fishing people because it is now illegal.

I know....They whack on their snorkel and flippers and go and count the pretty little fishies for an hour.

YEAH RIGHT>

[billfisher]

They did a dodgy 'scientific' study. Dr Walter Starck, a renown coral reef expert, said the researchers reponsible should be asked to explain why the should not be found guilty of incompetence or scientific fraud.

[rtranter]

Which are less productive than cold water areas. We're a victim of geography, but we need to realise it is a factor and we don't have the same productivity as many other places in the world. We have similar productivity to the majority of regions. Many such regions support far greater fisheries than ours, eg NZ with twice our fishery, coral reefs with 100 times the fishery of the GBR

""You say that 20 or 30% no-take zones are not an excessive burden. Well it is if you happen to live in one of these areas."

"I stayed in Byron this year, and went diving at Julien Rocks. It was spectacular, teeming with life. Huge schools of golden trevally and other species circled the dive anchor as we rose/descended. Blue grouper followed us around along the sea bed. Part of me was drooling and wishing to drop a line, and another part was marvelling at the absolute splendour and the sheer volume of fish life. If the price I have to pay to preserve a magnificent area like is go down the road a few k's to fish (I actually went doen to Ballina and caught heaps), then I'm prepared to pay it. Maybe some of the locals don't like it, and I can appreciate their point of view, but you simply can't please all the people all the time.
How do you know the abundance of life is the result of the marine park and in particular the banning of angling? No proper studies have been done on marine parks in NSW. In lightly fished regions the sanctuaries are not likely to result in much benefit. Eg in the case of the GBR the effect of no take zones was studied for 14 years (Mapstone Study). The researchers found no significant difference in fish numbers between the open and closed areas. The most productive region was the most heavily fished one of all!
Also do you realise that in NSW most targeted species are highly mobile and their larvae is pelagic and can float on the current for a 100kms or more. The benifit such species get from a sanctuary is therefore limited.
Finally in the Byron Bay Marine Park non compliance is rife. The locals still fish the sanctuary areas because they have nowhere else to fish!




Still can't work this quote thingy.
Anyway I didn't think that Byron/Balina hadit's fish park in place yet, and even if it has it hasn't been there for welve months so how can the fish numbers have increased so rapidly.
I have no objection to preserving fish stocks or any other stocks for that matter for the future, But I do have problems with how they are policed and run. I haven't noticed any hidden agenda or otherwise, just comments from members of A fishing chat site. Perhaps there are hidden agendas and perhaps not. I would like to know what JCU means.
I do know, only from fisher folk, that the marine park on the Clarence/CoffsCoast hasn't increased the number of fish caught by the recreational fisherfolk. It has according to the majority that I have spoken to, decreased, since the introduction of the Marine Park.
regards
Rob 8-)

[bidkev]

[quote author=billfisher link=1162510548/15#25 date=1162555111]

<snip>
Still can't work this quote thingy.

<snip>

Rob 8-)


Rob, click on quote in the post you are replying to and the full post will appear in your reply box. Making sure that the author and the word "quote" is not deleted, you can then delete what is irrelevant to you and just leave in the bits that you wish to reply to, also making sure that the word quote is left at the end when you delete. You then reply under the word "quote" which should be left in it's brackets.

Hope this makes sense :-/ :-/ ;D

kev

[Matt_Campbell]

<snip>
Not a nice thought that we may only be able to buy asian prawns in the not so distant future.

Jim

Jim

You won't even be able to buy them Jim. The Aussie report was taken from a world-wide study which stated that *ALL* commercial fisheries will be barren within 40 to 50 yrs. I heard it this morning on the world (BBC) news.

Off Topic but for those interested there is a programme on SBS on Sundays at 6.00 pm called Thalassa (Which I think, translates as "the sea") It is a sister programme to global village and is very interesting as it is mainly about fishing communities or people making their living from the seas. Last week it was about the Newfoundland halibut fishery. These guys fish only by long-lining and considering some of the halibut are pushing 100 kilos it was fascnating to see how they are brought on board with only a couple of guys wielding gaffs. The lines can be 10 km long and those guys must be buggered by the time they are pulled in :o

Anyway, I digress...........the fishery has been managed so well via quotas, lower size limits and closed seasons, that they are now catching more fish than they were at it's peak 70 yrs ago. Something nice to hear considering all the doom and gloom we are subjected to nowadays :D

kev


Most if not all asian prawns are produced via aquaculture. This one of the biggest problems for local fishers as the price has been driven down by all the competing product.

[Shane_78]

A few people have talked about "big sea" and the ocean being so "darn populous" surely we know by now that there is a limit to everything in the ocean? I love going out in moreton Bay and throwing out a line with my old man and it scares the shit out of me that I won't be able to do this with my children one day. If top scientists recommend marine parks as the way to go then surely that is the way to go? As long as I can still fish somewhere in the bay I'd be prepared to sacrifice my favourite spot if it means there will be fish in the future.

[bidkev]

<snip>

If top scientists recommend marine parks as the way to go then surely that is the way to go? As long as I can still fish somewhere in the bay I'd be prepared to sacrifice my favourite spot if it means there will be fish in the future.

Just what is a "top scientist"? Whilst researching BRD's in a previous thread I posted that a lot of research is built on previous flawed research. The myth perpetuates.

Scientists need funding....ask yourself just who funds them? You? Me? In the long run, yes, but it is likely that their funding comes from instutions who have politics at the top of their agenda. Most of the research is anecdotal and as such, is open to suspicion. There is practically no Australian research on mortality of fish that have escaped via BRD's. This is research that can be quantified (yet not funded) as opposed to most research of declining fish stocks or fish captures that are based on anecdotal evidence which is funded.

Trust not, and follow ye not blindly, as someone once said of science...........I think it may have been me ;D ;D

kev

[billfisher]

The "top scientists" are the ones more likely to speak out against the wild claims that Australian fish stocks are in terminal decline and that marine parks are the only way to fix them. Eg the likes of Dr Walter Starck, Dr Julian Peperell and others. These scientists have the experience to see through these myths and the independence to be able to speak out.

Its the junior scientists that are less likely to speak out against the marine park machine as they have their careers ahead of them and most research is government funded. Marine parks are a growth industry for them.

[yakka]

saw in the last week on one of the news programmes that trawler that has basically ended the fish in the north hemsphere and is moving to the south pacific. It looked as though it was the size of the Queen Mary, it was huge and capable of pulling out millions of tons of fish.
it makes our attempts to protect fish stocks quite laughable when no one can stop this from happening. the person being interviewed likened it more to mining than fishing, that when it had dug up until nothing was left, it packed up and moved somewhere else.
they should sink it.
regards chris 8-)

[pjw200371]

"Eg the likes of Dr Walter Starck, Dr Julian Peperell and others."

Yes, I read papers by Dr Starck from your links. Most of his stuff seems to be hosted on extreme right-wing anti greenie sites. Nothing wrong with that per se, but unlikely to provide a balanced viewpoint. Most reputable scientific information I've read seems to disagree as much with both Dr Starck, et al, as well as those in the far left. As one would expect, when it comes to extreme views, the truth is usually in the middle.

Just as I would not use data found on a Greenpeace or WWF site (for fear of bias), so I would not expect others to use info from sites/people on the other end of the political spectrum. Both have an axe to grind, and both are biased. Perhaps the quoted scientists can show plenty of credentials/experience, yet there are comparable scientists in Greenpeace and WWF who have just as good a resume as Dr Starck or Dr Peperell, yet their conclusions on the same subjects are quite different.

My point is: if we cherry pick we can find scientific data to support almost any viewpoint.

Try an unbiased, current site (I notice most of Dr Starck's work is several decades old)

The The Australian Research Council National Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies may be an excellent place to start. They have done research on marine exclusion zones, and don't push one point of view or another. Just good solid research.

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/pub-scientific.html

I'm sure my comments may raise a few hackles from a few people, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable here or asking too much for people not to cherry pick or used biased sources.

[RASA]

pjw200371

This is where the problem lies

The research in the Phillipines is biased and the APO Island experiment highlights why research is steered in certain directions, eg APO Island was an experiment within a 500 sm reef section that was previously dynamited and chemically poisoned with cyanide. When this is stopped and fish fed for the cameras/divers and the wonderful results shown as what can happen when 'FISHING IS STOPPED" is promoted, then this is all falsehoods. But it is jumped on by the green brigades and doomsayers as saving the planet.
The Phillipines has a 100 so -called MPA's with only 4 showing any result (one as above) so no wonder any budding marine science paper writers are treated sceptically. Most of the "overseas" papers can be questioned when compared to Australian conditions and site specifics and mostly always relate to commercial fishing studies and species.

To not question any of this or ask for relevant scientific proof is being negligent and we need to be comparing apples with apples.


Bob Smith

[billfisher]

Good post Bob, but I think it will be lost on pjw200371. It looks like anything he doesn't want to hear (ie questions the justification of marine parks) he just dismisses as "extreme right wing", "biased", "with an axe to grind" or as "cherrypicking".

I could also quote Richard Tilzey (honours Degree in Marine Science) or Robert Kearney (PhD,DSc and Professor of Fisheries) who have been highly critical of the Marine Park zoning and process in NSW.

He doesn't give Dr Starck much credit. He pioneered coral reef reseach and has many decades of experience. His views on the GBR marine studies are backed by the Governments own study, the Mapstone study conducted over 14 years and which found little benifit in the green zones.

[Genomic]

To be fair to pjw200371, I think that all he was saying is that you shouldn't use biased sources. I don't think the point would be lost on him, as Billfisher says, because his comments seem to agree with what RASA is saying! (he did mention bias in greenie sources too). And reading further, he did actually say we should as for scientific proof, again, just as RASA said. Maybe all you boys should stop arguing and look beyond the black and white, cause it seems you're agreeing with each oher more than not.

[billfisher]

Genomic,

I don't know if you realise that the link pjw posted contained the Phillipines coral reef study as evidence for the effectiveness of marine parks!

I would also still like to know why the views of Dr Starck and Peperell are biased and should be considered worthless as pjw suggests.

In his weasly way I think he is trying to say we should believe only the so called middle ground or consensus. But science is not about this. It is about the quality and relevance of the work which supports the conclusions.

[Genomic]

Ah, yes, I see. Now I know why RASA mentioned the Phillipines. Still though, reading back on his post, he said that the link he posted doesn't push one point of view or another. I'd like to hear from him whether he thinks the Phillipines paper means that we should have exclusion zones here.

I take his point about bias though. Many here are keen to bag greenies (and rightly so), but are eager to use biased sources from the other end. Doesn't seem right. I dunno if Dr Starck fits that category though, googling him seems to indicate he's O.K.

So again, I think you both make some good points. Good debate really, needs to be done. I have to say though, you shouldn't don't drag down the debate with comments like weasly and such.

[billfisher]

Well pjw already dragged it down by questioning the motives and integrity of Dr Stark and Dr Peperell. If he just challenged their views with some sort of relevant evidence then I would not have used the 'weasly' remark.

[Genomic]

Fair enough. But there's you earlier questioning the motives of those whose views are different to yours! (the bit about junior scientists going along with the EPA to furher their careers). You're both playing the same game it seems, and neither is willing to admit it. Thing is, you both clearly both have strong opinions on the subject - and you know what Dirty Harry says about opinions ;-)

[billfisher]

Genomic,

Yes, but if you look back a bit further you will find that I was responding to a post which said that our "top scientists" were saying we need marine parks. This is plainly not the case.

I would also point out the posts I made such as the lack of relevence of the 'fish stocks to collapse in 50 years' report and the Phillipines reef sanctuary zone to our waters, along with the Mapstone study of the GBR sanctuaries are sound facts and not 'opinion'.

[Shane_78]

[quote author=billfisher link=1162510548/45#48 date=1163717908]Genomic,

I would also still like to know why the views of Dr Starck and Peperell are biased and should be considered worthless as pjw suggests.

I have also read the views of Dr Starck and heard him speak on the radio and quite frankly I agree with pjw200371... I think his views are strongly right wing and have underlying bias. Just becasue Dr Starck has a Ph D doesn't make him an expert. His interests appear to favour fishing more and therefore I think it is obvious that he wants fishing to not be sustainable. Of course we all love fishing but we don't it to vanish. I think we should trust the actual scientists who have proven credibility. Scientists like Terry Hughes and Garry Russ at JCU have all done unbiased scientific research in the great barrier reef. We should trust the experts rather than the extremists.

[billfisher]

Shane 78,

How is feeding our population 'right wing'. Do you know some of the worst environmental damage has occured under leftist regimes?

If we don't utilise our fishery resource what do you propose to do to replace the food source?

If Dr Starck is so biased why are his views backed by the most comprehensive study done on GBR marine sanctuaries yet done, ie the Mapstone study.

You can't just say someone is 'biased' without anaysing and critiquing the substance of their arguments, not if you want to have any credibility yourself.

Also did you know our CSIRO reviewed all the available data on marine sanctuaries and found that as a fisheries management tool the benifits are theoretical and not proven in practice.

[PinHead]

what makes terry hughes and garry russ so almighty clever over dr. starck ??????

[billfisher]

Shane_78 thinks Dr Starck is not an expert! He has only studied coral reefs including the GBR for 5 decades. He even had his own research vessel and has thousands of hours diving time.

Shane why do you think he wants fishing to be unsustainable? If you listened to his radio interview he said that even a conservation organisation gives a figure of 4000 kg per square km per year as sustainable harvest for coral reefs. The GBR is being harvested at 9 kg per square km per year, ie its virtually unfished!

[billfisher]

I have looked up Gary Russ and Terry Hughes. 'Unbiased' and independant - I don't think so. They have a vested interest in problems and exaggerated threats to the Reef, which of course require more funding and research. Terry Hughes was made the head of an ARC centre of excellence for the study of sustainable managment of coral reef biodiversity. The centre recieved a funding of 40m dollars over five years from the Federal Gov.

Terry Hughes also recieves funding from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority! He is hardly likely to be critical of them. From the GBRMPA website:

"Development of a partnership with Professor Terry Hughes of the Centre for Coral Reef Biodiversity to research reef resilience in the face of climate change, by means of an ARC Linkage funded research programme".

[billfisher]

Gary Russ was involved in a study of the effects of green zones on the GBR. After just 2 years an stunning increase in fish numbers in the green zones was announced. This was leap on by conservation groups and the GBRMPA as a vindication of the sanctuary zone concept:

EDEN MAGNET
Sanctuaries increase fish stocks: new findings
Thursday, 7 September 2006

Recent findings from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) again show that fully protected marine sanctuaries within marine parks increase fish numbers, protect the environment and boost catches for commercial fishing.
"Teams from AIMS and James Cook University (JCU) have announced an increased abundance of marine life since sanctuary zones in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were increased in 2004," said Paul Winn, Marine Sanctuaries Campaigner for the National Parks Association of NSW.

"Near-shore, mid and outer-shelf reefs were surveyed before and after sanctuary zoning.

"Offshore reefs were found to have a 50 per cent increase in important fish species such as the coral trout where sanctuaries were established, compared with matched reefs still open to fishing."


Meanwhile fringing reefs of the Whitsunday Islands found that in the last two years since reviewed zoning, fish species targeted by fisheries were almost 60 per cent more abundant where sanctuaries are now enforced, said Claire Dunn, Spokesperson for The Wilderness Society Newcastle.

AIMS Research Director Dr Peter Doherty stated that "the consistency of the differences between zones in all of the places that were examined last year leaves me in no doubt that this is a real result."

"These results highlight the importance of sanctuaries for fish stock replenishment," continued Megan Kessler, Fisheries and Marine Networker for the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

"Large and well placed sanctuaries within the new Port Stephens - Great Lakes and Batemans Marine Parks are essential to help safeguard our marine life and ensure improved catches for fishers outside these fully protected waters."

Public comment on sanctuary zones within the Port Stephens - Great Lakes and Batemans Marine Parks is now being sought.

A response:

To the Editor,

One could be easily forgiven for believing that the science of no take zones is conclusive. ("Sanctuaries increase fish stocks" 7/9) It was reported that "recent findings from the Australian Institute of Marine Science again show that fully protected marine sanctuaries within marine parks increase fish numbers, protect the environment and boost catches for commercial fishing."

The social engineers from The National Parks Association, Nature Conservation Council and the Wilderness Society had a field day. Suddenly findings involving one sedentary species on coral reefs were relevant to all fish on all reefs in a very different part of the world.

We decided to investigate. It turned out that their sweeping statements are derived from a number of less than rigorous snap shot studies that show an increase in coral trout numbers on closed inshore coral reefs in Queensland.

We also found that AIMS contributed to a federally produced resource management plan in 2004 called "Sustaining the Wet Tropics". Here we are presented with quite a different picture: "Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout."

Now we were totally confused, so we approached world renowned coral reef researcher, Walter Starck for an opinion. Dr Starck, who lives in Townsville, has been involved in over 1000 research dives from Cape York to Frazer Island. He did not mince words:

"The recent claims about the success of the GBR green zones is just another clear example of the kind of scientific misrepresentation that has become common in GBR environmental issues. The claim that the first good year for coral trout recruitment following the new closures is attributable to the closures is, if not dubious scientific judgement, deliberately misleading. This is especially so in the absence of any assessment of fishing effort or catch. Those responsible should be required to explain why they are not either incompetent or guilty of scientific misconduct."So who should the community believe? We leave that to readers.

Rod Burston
Spokesman for the NSW Fishing Clubs Association

[billfisher]

Here are the things that should be considered when doing a thorough scientific study on coral reef sanctuary zones.

The following is a quote from SUSTAINING THE WET TROPICS: A regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 2A, Condition Report: Biodiversity Conservation, Rainforest CRC 2004 by Nigel Weston and Steve Goosem:

"Many species are long-lived and recruitment of new juveniles varies markedly from year to year. Thus, when a particular year has an unusually high recruitment event, that age-class can dominate the population. It is a feature of reef fish populations that they decline slowly over time, but increase rapidly after a good recruitment season. These slow declines and rapid increases are not synchronised between species because good recruitment seasons happen in different years for different species and may be widely separated.

Juvenile recruitment pulses (as described above) can also dramatically affect the stock size on both closed and open reefs.

Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout." "

A major problem with interpreting results from most studies that have compared open and closed reefs is that studies did not quantify the actual amount of fishing pressure on reefs.
Available catch, effort and catch per unit effort data are variable from year to year, but show no consistent trends at a regional scale."

[pjw200371]

GM, nuclear power, climate change, and just about every environmental issue under the sun have strong pro and anti cheer squads.

I even read an article recently suggesting the march of cane toads across NT may be beneficial.

Now if you were pro cane toad you'd use this research to boost your case, and ignore other research, done by other equally talented people that indicate they are an environmental catastrophe.

Sorry to bang on about this, but it's an important point and appears to have been missed.

Again two scientists can have x years in the field, written hundreds of papers, but still have completely opposing viewpoints. So quoting their individual, albeit perhaps extensive experience and knowledge is pointless.

Dr Starck, Dr Peperell, et al are featured prominantly on right-wing web sites, radio shows, etc. Other scientists who strongly support exclusion zones are featured prominantly on left-wing web sites, radio shows, etc. Both have many years experience in the field, both have flaws in their research, if you choose to examine it in detail (no research is unflawed, environmental science being worse than most fields). I choose to view both extremes with skepticsm.

Having said all that: I have read Dr Starck's paper on the GBR exclusion zones, and I actually agree with much of what he says. Basically he is saying that the anthropogenic pressures on the GBR (fishing, tourism, etc) are comparitively small. This is true. However, we were originally talking about Moreton Bay. In a sense Dr Starck's arguments could even be used to support exclusion zones in Moreton Bay, given that fishing, urban and tourism pressures are orders of magnitude higher in Moreton Bay. Someone mentioned the that using a Philippines study on an Australian issue (which I didn't actually do, but anyway) is like comparing apples and oranges, Well comparing GBR to Moreton Bay is like grapes and watermelons.

Anyhow, this is the last I'll say on the subject. I've tried to be polite so far and expect the same courtesy. I may have questioned the motives of Dr Starck, Dr Peperell et al, but this is no cause for offense: they're scientists and are quite used to criticism. If they are personal friends of yours, Billfisher, I apologise, but only on those grounds.

It's clear to me some people's minds are set, and will only recognise research that supports their view. Debate is therefore pointless. For myself, I'm open to debate (the fact that I agree with much of what Dr Starck has to say regarding the GBR should indicate this) and willingly read and assimilate papers from *both sides* of the debate, or better yet, unbiased sources. There's the key, I think. It's not about 'middle ground' or 'consensus', more about unbiased views.

One thing is for sure; more research is needed. Baseline data and before/after surveys would be good, though I suspect what the data may indicate (I could be wrong , if so I'll gladly accept it) moreover I suspect if the results oppose their point of view, they will be automatically rejected by the usual suspects.

[billfisher]

Again two scientists can have x years in the field, written hundreds of papers, but still have completely opposing viewpoints. So quoting their individual, albeit perhaps extensive experience and knowledge is pointless. Not really pointless. What you have to do is separate fact from opinion. Some scientists have strong preservationist beliefs and are so likely to advocate marine parks. Others are not likely to displease their funders. Its not pointless to look at all the arguments and research and assess the relevance, how rigorous they are and whether they are supported by other studies. Anglers have a lot of solid science on their side in their case against large scale closures.

Dr Starck, Dr Peperell, et al are featured prominantly on right-wing web sites, radio shows, etc. Other scientists who strongly support exclusion zones are featured prominantly on left-wing web sites, radio shows, etc. Both have many years experience in the field, both have flaws in their research, if you choose to examine it in detail (no research is unflawed, environmental science being worse than most fields). I choose to view both extremes with skepticsm.This sounds like you are politicising science - a dangerous thing to do and only clouds the issues. Anyway I have heard Dr Starck on ABC radio. The ABC is often accused of left wing bias or as being the publicity arm of the greenies! Another flaw in your analysis is that the GBRMP was introduced by the Howard Coalition government.

Having said all that: I have read Dr Starck's paper on the GBR exclusion zones, and I actually agree with much of what he says. Basically he is saying that the anthropogenic pressures on the GBR (fishing, tourism, etc) are comparitively small. This is true. However, we were originally talking about Moreton Bay. In a sense Dr Starck's arguments could even be used to support exclusion zones in Moreton Bay, given that fishing, urban and tourism pressures are orders of magnitude higher in Moreton Bay. Someone mentioned the that using a Philippines study on an Australian issue (which I didn't actually do, but anyway) is like comparing apples and oranges, Well comparing GBR to Moreton Bay is like grapes and watermelons.
Regarding Moreton Bay being near an urban area it is not exactly pristine whether it is made a marine park or not. Being near Brisbane it obviously an important recreational area and popular with anglers. How much sense does it make to heavily restrict angling. Here in NSW it is encouraged in such areas. Estuaries such as Botany Bay and Lake Macquarie have been declared recreational only. An angling license has paid for the buy out of professionals, fish stocking and improvements such as artificial reefs. These area have become even more popular with anglers (fishing up 20%). Has all this adversly affected fish stocks? DPI surveys show that anglers catch rates for popular species in Lakes Tuross and Macquarie have gone up 100-300% and average sizes are well up too.

[grahams]

Gary Russ and Terry Hughes versus Walter Starck.....Sounds like Australia playing Iceland at Cricket. We could also throw in Peter Doherty, Ian Poiner and Russell Reichelt in the middle order, and pad up a few community groups like reefcheck and Capreef as tailenders. Not all the team have the same view, but there's a hell of lot of information, monitoring and research to develop an informed opinion. Walter Starck is highly quoted because he is one of the few scientific voices in agreement with what one stakeholder group want to hear. Walter clearly believes his point of view, it just doesn't agree with the majority of scientific research, and before you call me green I'm a long term recreational fisher in the GBR.

[billfisher]

Grahams,

I don't know if you realise that the effect of greens zones on the GBR was studied for 14 years (the Mapstone Study). It was cited by the Park advocates as evidence for for benifits of green zones before they were expanded to 33%. Unfortunately the report was witheld from publication. Now that it has come to light it can be seen that a lot of its finding actually contradict the case for large green zones.

Here are some of the comments of Dr Ayling who has also made in depth studies of the reef. I suggests, Grahams, that you might be better off brushing up on your fishing teqhniques than claiming that the fish stocks have 'degraded'!

WHERE ARE ALL THE CORAL TROUT?

Or are coral trout numbers on the GBR being reduced by current levels of fishing?

Notes prepared by Dr. Tony Ayling, a private marine biological consultant not affiliated with any Government Department.

Over the past 14 years we have made extensive underwater surveys of coral trout numbers on several hundred reefs along the entire length of the Great Barrier Reef. This has included repeat surveys on some reefs over a period of more than 10 years to get some idea of the long term changes that have been taking place. We have also made counts on many of the protected reefs in the Marine Park to see if protecting them from fishing has made any difference to coral trout numbers.

We will look first at the effect of protection on coral trout numbers:

In 1986, we counted coral trout numbers on 12 reefs in the Capricorn-Bunker Group off Gladstone. Six of these reefs had been closed to fishing for an average of about 5 years, while the other six were open to fishing. Average coral trout density on the protected reefs was 57 per hectare (an hectare in an area of 100 x 100 metres), compared with 49 per hectare on the fished reefs. Although there appear to be about 15% fewer coral trout on the fished reefs, by using statistical techniques we can show that this difference is not significant as it may just have been due to the variability in the counts.

In 1991 we counted fish on a large number of reefs in the Cairns Section of the Marine Park (Dunk Island up to Lizard Island). Of these reefs, 29 were open to fishing and 18 had been closed to fishing for 7 years. Average coral trout density on the protected reefs was 33.9 fish per hectare compared to 34.6 per hectare on the fished reefs. Basically, coral trout numbers were the same on both groups of reefs.

In 1992 we made another set of counts in the Cairns Section, using five different closed reefs and five fished reefs. Once again there was no difference between the two groups of reefs, with 28.4 fish per hectare on the protected reefs and 27.8 on the fished reefs.

From these figures it is obvious that coral trout numbers have not increased on reefs that have been closed to fishing. What does this mean? There can be three different interpretations:

1. Coral trout may move around a lot between reefs, and so any extra fish on the protected reefs quickly move onto nearby open reefs and average out the numbers. However, tagging and movement studies show that while a very few coral trout do in fact move from one reef to another most of them stay on the same reef, and even on the same place of the same reef.

2. Closed reefs are not protected from fishing. It may be that fishermen are ignoring reef zoning and that enforcement levels are not high enough to prevent this happening. Recent analysis of vessel sightings by coast watch has indicated that there is probably a lot of fishing on reefs that are supposedly closed.

3. The current level of fishing on the GBR has no effect on coral trout numbers.

It is probably a combination of low effect of fishing on coral trout numbers, and illegal fishing on closed reefs, that is responsible for the lack of difference in coral trout numbers we have shown between closed and fished reefs.

If surveys on closed and fished reefs are not giving us a good idea of what is going on with coral trout numbers, perhaps the long-term counts we have done can give us a better picture.

We have counts from three reefs off Townsville (John Brewer, Lodestone and Davies) over the period from 1983 to 1994. These reefs are close to the coast and are fished by both recreational and commercial fishermen. In 1983 the average density of coral trout on these reefs was 34 per hectare, in 1989 it was 34.3 and in 1994 it was 66 per hectare.

In the Cairns Section we have counts from some reefs in 1983 and again in 1991. In 1983average density of coral trout was 22.5 per hectare and this had increased to 31.7 by 1991.

Off the Whitsundays, on the three reefs Hook, Line and Hardy, mean density of coral trout was 57 per hectare in 1984,84 in 1988 and 124 in 1994.

All these figures suggest that far from decreasing in numbers that has been a marked increase in the numbers of coral trout on the GBR over the past 10 years.

So why is it that a lot of fishermen are always talking about the good old days? Why is it that the general consensus is that there has been a drop in catch rates of coral trout over the past few decades? This apparent contradiction can be resolved if we separate catchability from numbers. Poor catches do not mean that the fish are not there, just that they are not taking the bait. Reported catch rates by commercial fishermen from experimental fishing done for scientists on protected reefs are three to four times those from fished reefs, in spite of the similar densities we have mentioned above. This indicates that naïve populations of coral trout, ie those that are not often fished, are far more catchable that exploited populations. Similar results were reported from Heron Island where catch rates were much higher on protected parts of the reef than in fished parts, but no significant density differences between the two areas could be found. It is often reported by fishermen that catches are good after a long spell of bad weather when fishing activities are restricted; the fish have become more naïve and more catchable.

Another way of looking at the effect of fishing on coral trout is to use the count figures we have from along the GBR to get some idea of the total number of trout out there, and compare this to the number taken by fishermen. The Marine Park Authority has listed about 2,500 reefs on the GBR but our counts on charts and maps of the reef area indicate that there are about 1,200 major reefs. Measurements from these maps show that the average major reef has about 500 hectares of reef slope where coral trout are common, and about 2,500 hectares of reef flat and lagoon where coral trout are not very common. Our density figures indicate that the average density of coral trout on the reef slope is about 50 per hectare, compared with about 10 per hectare in the lagoon and reef flat. Length estimations show that an average of half of these are over 38 cm long and able to be taken by fishermen. From these figures we can calculate that there are about 30 million adult coral trout on the GBR.

These figures do not include inter-reef numbers of coral trout. There are large areas of broken ground between the true reefs that also support coral trout, and the true figure may be twice or more the 30 million we have calculated.

The Marine Park Authority and DPI have made recent estimates of the total annual catch of coral trout from the GBR of about 2 million kilograms, including both the recreational and commercial catch. Given the average size of coral trout this equates to about 3 million fish or only about 10% of the available stock.

We have also made counts of young coral trout on the reefs we have surveyed. By young coral trout I mean those that have resulted from the spawning season in the previous year. These figures show that an average of about 20% of the total coral trout on any reef are these young of the year (often called juveniles). Thus the annual input of young coral trout is equivalent to about 40% of the available stock, far higher than the annual catch of 10% of available stock.

In addition coral trout grow rapidly, the fastest growing individuals reach 30 cm long in about 12 months and most individuals are over 38 cm at the end of two years.

These figures are all rather approximate but they are based on actual records and probably give a good indication of what is happening in the fishery. On this basis it seems unlikely that the present exploitation levels of coral trout on the GBR are any threat to coral trout numbers. On the contrary is seems possible that numbers will increase, as some of our counts are already indicating.

Just remember: the number of fish that are caught does not relate to the number of fish that are there, but to how easy they are to catch."

[billfisher]

Faith-based science' and all that fish

By Jim Meek

ONE OF the world's leading fisheries scientists is taking on Dalhousie University's Boris Worm – the superstar ecologist who suggested last month that the world's major fish stocks could collapse by 2048.

Ray Hilborn told me that Worm and his co-authors erred in their Science article by using fish catches as an indicator of resource collapse. "… The idea of using catch data to reflect trends in stock abundance is terribly flawed."

A professor of fisheries management at the University of Washington in Seattle, Hilborn is the lead author of several research papers – including one written under the magisterial title "State of the World's Fisheries."

Hilborn zeroes in on a recovering stock, Georges Bank haddock, to make his point that you can't use catch records to determine species health. Worm's data would show this stock has "collapsed" because of low catches. But Hilborn says Georges Bank haddock is now at the "highest level of abundance in 40 years."

Then why are catches still so low? Hilborn says U.S. regulators continue to curtail the fishing effort in the area, "having learned their lesson from 30 years ago when catches were 10 times higher" and stocks collapsed.

Hilborn and a colleague also tested's Worm's data on fish species off California. "I extracted from the same database the fish stocks off of California. About one-third (120 stocks) were 'collapsed' by Worm's definition," he said. In fact, only a "handful" of those 120 stocks are in trouble.

Hilborn is not alone in his concern about what he has called "faith-based" ecological science. One Canadian scientist told me Worm's dire prophecy was "spurious" and "without merit" because it was based on fish catches, not fish biomass. (I did interview Worm this week, and will describe his views in this space on Dec. 14.)

The Worm-Hilborn story is now part of a simmering debate within the scientific community about the alleged decline of effective "peer review" in several articles published by the journals Science and Nature. Hilborn wrote in one publication that the "peer review process has 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."

Let's face it: The collapse of world fisheries is big news – significant enough to capture the attention of The Economist, and to grab front-page headlines in The New York Times and The Washington Post. This has in turn pushed the recent, failed effort to ban trawling on the high seas.

But what if the doomsday prophets have been exaggerating since around 1993, when – according to Hilborn – peer review started taking second place to sensationalism? Steve Ralston, a senior fishery biologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), recently told a California newspaper that this issue is being driven by "enviro-sensationalism" and "an increasing 'Chicken Little' response."

[billfisher]

(Continued).

Hilborn turns the volume down on the debate, usefully, in the paper "Moving to sustainability by learning from successful fisheries," which will be published by the Swedish journal Ambio. The paper tilts away from gloom and toward optimism, noting, for instance, that well-managed stocks sometimes recover – including Pacific sardines, the "icon of 1950s collapses." In addition, fish stocks offshore affluent nations, including the United States, New Zealand and Australia, are doing relatively well.
Fishers in many poorer nations, by contrast, are overfishing as a function of that very poverty. The best remedy for this "Malthusian overfishing" may be reducing poverty and providing economic alternatives, Hilborn suggests.

He also makes an argument that amounts to heresy in some environmental circles: Trawling is justified in some areas and may even have a beneficial effect on target species (notably shrimp). Hilborn, then, doesn't endorse a United Nations ban on high seas trawling.

Instead, he suggests a UN treaty that would model high seas fisheries management on successful national fisheries. Allowable harvests would be set by independent scientists. Fleets would pay fees for access, perhaps through competitive bidding. If fees don't cover management and research costs, fisheries would be closed. And any effort would be subject to 100 per cent satellite tracking and 100 per cent observer coverage.

Easier said than done, of course.

But modelling high seas harvests on successful national fisheries seems sensible to many observers – and far sounder than a blanket ban on a single gear type. The idea, after all, is to sustain a resource AND an industry.

( jmeek@herald.ca)

Jim Meek is a freelance writer in Halifax. He also works for Bristol Communications as editor of The Inside Out Report, a quarterly journal based on public opinion research.