Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan review launched

[Mozza]

Give me break guys - you all sound like the world is out to get you. There is only so much good fishable space and all of that is someone else's best spot. Yes, of the publicity sounds skewed. If everything was okay do you think there'd be a review? Zoning plans (nature conservation) is seen by many Scientists as critical to the survival of us Humans. You know, the whole ecosystem, biodiversity B.S. I'm really not that smart but I'd like to think that my kids will be able to enjoy the same variety of recreation that I do. I should note here that without law enforcment things wll continue to go downhill.

I live in the north and have had the fortune of seeing the bigger picture. Literally (I make maps for a living). Yep, there are lots of beaches and inner reefs within cooee of the main urban areas that are now green but, there's truckloads more in the harder to get places.

It is extremely hard to see thru the political smokescreen nowadays wether it's green, left, right, Bob Katter red etc. And how the hell do we know wether there's good Science in these programmes or not? Lucky for me my favourite spots are either blue-zoned or yellow-zoned. So, I guess in some ways I should shut the trap and fish on. But, I can't because there was some excellent Science that went into the re-zoning just as there will be some excellent Science that will be used to review/develop the zoning for the Bay.

Despite what particular smoke came your way during the rezoning (GBR) it was the Scientists and Mapmakers (not 'greenies', many of them fishos), coming in weekends scratching their heads trying not to take too many "favourite spots" away (that would have been politicial suicide).

There is little point in assuming sabotage - get to the meetings if you can, get hold of the Science if you can. Good onya FISHINGJEW for posting the details and links.

Mozza

[flick]

Unfortunately Mozza there is just as much science that refutes the zoning of the GBR as practical. I don't like making a statement like that without having the info on hand to back it up, but it has been posted in old threads across the last couple of years in the news section. Especially leading up to the last election.

I can understand zoning of the bay to protect sea grass areas for dugongs and turtles, however, I don't understand zoning to protect fish stocks. The biggest threat to them is polution firstly and secondly, by a minority that flaunt current bag and size laws. Particularly at the bottom of the food chain with crustaceans molluscs and prawns.

Unfortunately the largest wealth of science, knowledge and facts regarding the bay are the people who fish it and have done for years. These same people cannot trust the government therefor won't share their knowledge. And who can blame them

Decisions regarding fishing should be in the hands of people with fishing experience.

The government loves to pay consultants millions of dollars to assist with all types of legislation. Where are the fishing consultants when fisheries get zoned.

Jim

[ash_is_me]

I am going to agree with Mozza on this one. You guys really are a negative and pessimistic lot aren't you? You cannot see outside of "yourselves". There are many other people who use the bay for activities other than fishing and are they all crying hardship and foul play?

I think the picture is that this action is due a bigger detriment being the persons who have a flagrant disrespect for nature and the natural environment. They are the ones who could care less if their kids or future generations get to enjoy doing what we all enjoy doing now. If they close down areas for re-generation, so what, is there nowhere else to fish or enjoy yourself?

Fair enough I can see the down side to it for the commercial fishers that base their family's wellbeing on being able to fish the bay, but for all of us who do it for recreation maybe could try the old art of finding a new hunting ground instead.

Plus there has been no mention of any closures yet, maybe Beattie will be out of the job by the time they get close to it.

But in the meantime lets all get fired up and blow our sense of logic through high blood pressure, I am sure that will fix it!

[seatime]

I am going to agree with Mozza on this one. You guys really are a negative and pessimistic lot aren't you? You cannot see outside of "yourselves". There are many other people who use the bay for activities other than fishing and are they all crying hardship and foul play?

They will be crying soon enough. Reading the reports, 84% of dugong mortalities were caused by human activities, that's all activities that humans are a part of.
These figures will be used to exclude all humans, not only fisher humans!! So those many other people (humans) who use the bay for activities other than fishing, as you quoted, will be shut-out of protected areas too!!

Organisations like TFP and MBAA are campaigning for all users of the bay, not only fisherfolk. Have a read of all posts and related press releases, and you may get a better appreciation of the issues.
The existing go-slow zones are working to limit boat strikes, anyway, boat strikes aren't the major cause of mortalities, but they do make great photo evidence. It's easier to blame fisher's, than address the real issues of water quality, urban and industrial development, and related pollution problems.

There are many better informed people than me, hopefully they will also reply to this post.

[ash_is_me]

Seeing as though the conservation proposals of the government to attempt preservation of marine ecosystems is inappropriate to all and sundry what is the solution? I can't find anything from the TFP and MBAA for their solution to the problem. I am keen to find out more but where does one look?

So far I can only make the assumption that all the TFP and MBAA are doing is to fight against anything anyone proposes, not put forward another solution to help the process. Reading other posts here all I can see is the in-fighting of the TFPQ.

I am not a greenie or conservationist but I would like my children to appreciate our natural marine beauty without the rubbish that the ignorant leave behind or the deaths caused by the foolish way a few drive on the bay all at the detrimental cost to the wildlife. So until I see some factual evidence that the zones "are" not "maybe" expanding then I will support the people trying o find a way to preserve our marine life..

[Mozza]

Flick,

Thats a well thought out response and I can see your point. 'They' said golbal warming wasn't happening either, 'they' said cigarettes weren't bad for you, 'they' are saying whales should be hunted again because they're eating all the krill - there's always a counterpoint to the argument. You might agree with some, I might disagree with some. Thats what makes this forum so cool.

I think its been said that inertia is harder to counter than gravity and its perhaps easier to believe Scientific argument that supports the way things are - even little Jonny H. got sucked in with the 'greenhouse effect'. Most don't like change which is why Scientists go to great lengths to provide information to support change. The least we can do is to try ignore the smoke screens and look long and hard at the Science.

Totally agree with you on the population issue and the fact that huge dollars has to be thrown at law enforcement to ensure that even the current rules are applied.

Yes, there is plenty of knowledge and information within the fishing community but, its not Science. Science infers a process of information gathering, fact collecting, literature review, analysis and results that are based on scientific processes. Unfortunately, the only way the wealth of information stored within the heads of every person that uses the bay, can be used is if they share it. Don't just share it with the current Gov. scientists, share with guys that are leaning toward status quo - bad Science is usually not published, good Science is. My advice:share the info, go find the Science and pass it on.

Mozza

[Mozza]

Guys,

Want to hear a read a classic smoke-screen? The Amazon: you know how they say it provides 2 thirds the worlds oxygen? I listened to David Attenborough on Plant Earth (Sunday night ABC) talking about ocean-going blue-green algae - it provides 70% (I can't remember exactly) of the worlds oxygen. I think someone has deliberately knocked out the word: 'land-based'.

As a qualified geologist - and I'm happy to believe the well-received theories on world oxygenation around a couple of hundred million years ago (when 90% of the world's iron (oxide) deposits were deposited) that point to the evolution of blue-green algae (and diatoms I think) as the primal source of oxygen in our atmosphere. The geological record is reasonably clear that before the iron (oxide) ore deposits of the Hammersleys (Tom Price etc) were laid down, the atmosphere was oxygen-poor. The iron ore deposits around the world were all laid down at around the same geological time because they require oxygen. Cool, huh?

There's a good counterpoint to a generally accepted fact. The question is tho' does that make it any better?

Mozza

[flick]

Mozza, as far as zoning for the bay goes, we only have gbrmp and gssmp to use as a yardstick. How the government has handled both of these is logically how we would expect the bay to be handled.
All literature,(including that of GBRMPA) state that the zoning has not increased coral trout numbers. Not only that but they also state that numbers were not in a decline prior to the zoning. This would lead any normal person to the conclusion that these zones are unneccesary.

Here is a link that explains my point of view
http://www.goldendolphin.com/eco/Wal...(NatObs69).pdf

Call me cynical, but the groups that provide the science for this zoning receive most of their funding from government grants. Applying for a grant stating that "the bay is an enviromental disaster", is more likely to receive funding than, "we believe the bay is currently in good condition and well managed."

By no means am I saying that the bay is fine, all I am saying is that a balanced view was not taken on the reef, nor the straights. These areas now have regulations and zoning in place that appear to not have any benificial effect on their ecosystems.
I am not against zoning, or regulation. I am against both if balanced science is not used for there implamentation. History shows that once legislation is in place, it is very hard to change it back. I also feel that zoning is a way of saying "we don't believe bag and size limits are working."

I would rather see heavier policing of the current laws, than concerntrating fishing pressure in limited areas through zoning.

Jim

[seatime]

Seeing as though the conservation proposals of the government to attempt preservation of marine ecosystems is inappropriate to all and sundry what is the solution? I can't find anything from the TFP and MBAA for their solution to the problem. I am keen to find out more but where does one look?
You appear to have a very one sided view. There aren't any conservation proposals from the government yet. That's the whole point of having a review.
The solutions put forward by TFP & MBAA is for some real scientific evidence, and a balanced consultative approach, involving ALL users, to any rezoning of MB. I also support zoning and sustainable activities, provided it based on the aforementioned criteria, not the raving of Leftist Green groups out for political favours. There has been plenty of info published by TFP & MBAA, just have a look.

So far I can only make the assumption that all the TFP and MBAA are doing is to fight against anything anyone proposes, not put forward another solution to help the process. Reading other posts here all I can see is the in-fighting of the TFPQ.
Fight against anything anyone proposes, what are you talking about?, on what evidence are you basing that statement? I'm happy to debate with you, but please substantiate your comments.

I am not a greenie or conservationist but I would like my children to appreciate our natural marine beauty without the rubbish that the ignorant leave behind or the deaths caused by the foolish way a few drive on the bay all at the detrimental cost to the wildlife. So until I see some factual evidence that the zones "are" not "maybe" expanding then I will support the people trying o find a way to preserve our marine life..

Would you enjoy taking your children to a zoo to appreciate our natural marine beauty. Because that's what groups like the AMCS want, many areas locked up to protect it. We'll end up with a user-pays arrangement, guided tours conducted onboard unpowered vessels.
Go ahead and support these people trying to preserve our marine life, and if they bargain a political decision that doesn't allow access for your children, you won't be left wondering why.

I'm also a conservationist, I wish to see a level playing field when it comes to the review process, not a deal for Green Senate seats in the upcoming fed election.

[fishingjew]

Brisbane is about to witness first hand the power, organisational skills and media clout of the well-oiled green machine. WWF will wade in soon, along with AMCS (who have already started).

If this was not so seriuos it would be laughable. I am trying to find out who is on the expert panel in respect of recreational fishing.

More to follow. This will be a hot ticket for at least 6 months.

KC

From WWF http://www.wwf.org.au/publications/p...-australia.pdf

[Mozza]

I'm calling for expressions of interest to start up a new organisation.

It'll be the WFF - the World Fishing Fund.

I just can't help myself...

Mozza

[kc]

Ash is me takes the view that TFP has put forward no positive solutions and that is fair comment. We have become increasingly reactionary, which is to be expected. Kick a dog in the nuts a dozen times and it might snarl a bit too.

If you would like to see some of the "positive" work we have, and continue to do, I will send you our original submisions on the GBR rezoning and the GSS rezoning.
Just email me on kc@whitsunday.net.au

TFPQ believes in responsible marine park management. We also believe that "lock-outs" are the last resort of failing management.

There are lots of ways to "skin a cat (fish)"....TFPQ believes that bag limits, commercial catch quotas, closed seasons and slot sizing are all ways fishing impacts can be managed and a fishery can continue to be SUSTAINABLE...we also think transit corridors and go slow zones can preserve marine animals.

This whole, process appears to be politically motivated, not out of what's best for the bay and the people who live here, but what's best for the Government and the political deals they do to stay in power.

Once again I am happy to provide ash is me with the political "makings" of the GBR rezoning.......all about politics and absolutely bugger all to do with the reef.

Sorry of I'm having a grumpy day....maybe I need a bex and a good lie down.

The dribble on the ABC news tonight about the "surprise, surprise no coral bleaching this year" really got up my nose.



KC

[fishingjew]

The general approach is to seek large MPAs of a category that allows for these important economic activities, subject to the requirements of the management plan for the reserve. The Australian government will adjust zoning and management arrangements over time through the statutory review of management plans as additional information becomes available.
In this way, areas may be reassigned over time from multiple use to highly protected zones. One example of this is if either geoscientific evidence shows the area is non-prospective for oil and gas development or if oil and gas development opportunities have been exhausted.
A marine bioregional plan will focus on meeting the Australian government’s environmental protection and biodiversity conservation responsibilities in Commonwealth waters, which are waters generally between three and 200 nautical miles from the coast.

Just as well we have no gas or oil in moreton bay or the greens would not stand a chance
http://www.pesa.com.au/publications/...news_8607.html

[fishingjew]

Zoning: Access Alliance gives process a big tick Written by Bruce Alvey, Chair of Moreton Bay Access Alliance Monday, 05 March 2007

Bruce Alvey, chairman of the MBAA is an important stakeholder in th recreational fishing industry with a factory turning out fishing gear. He told the BayJournal this morning that jobs were at stake so the group would fight indiscriminate closure.

The Moreton Bay Access Alliance commended the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) approach to the review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan outlined by Environment Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr. Chair of the Alliance, Bruce Alvey, said that it is essential that key stakeholder groups be included in the process leading up to EPA formulating recommendations on what the zoning plan should look like.
We feel confident that the EPA are genuinely including stakeholders in the review process, rather than simply consulting with them once draft recommendations are released.
At our recent meeting with the Minister and senior EPA officials, we confirmed our support for this inclusive approach. We also agreed that any research commissioned independently in the future by our Alliance would be a valuable input to the review and by sharing information between EPA and our researchers, would help to ensure that all facts, perspectives, and alternatives are thoroughly canvassed and considered in the review process.

We are pleased that the EPA has no pre-determined zones and will be working from a blank sheet of paper.

We are pleased that the EPA has no pre-determined zones and will be working from a blank sheet of paper.
Members of the Alliance are committed to contributing industry and community knowledge and data to the EPA to ensure the Agency has full information available to assist them to make appropriate recommendations to the Government.

After all, our members' lifestyles and businesses directly depend on the Bay and we, more than any other group, are 100% committed to looking after its health so it can be enjoyed by our children and families in the future.
The review of the zoning plan is a landmark opportunity for all to work together to put a management plan in place that will protect the Bay and its marine life for years to come. We believe that win-win solutions for the environment, industry and the community can be achieved, and we commend the Minister for recognizing that a highly inclusive approach will be required to achieve such a result.
Special note
All statements and information about MBAA activities are authorized by our Chair or Deputy Chair, with media releases issued through the BIAQ offices. No political parties, MP's or individuals have been authorized to make statements on our behalf.

[fishingjew]

Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism
The Honourable Lindy Nelson-Carr

Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Qs and As on Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan

Locals wanting to learn more about the Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan Review will have an opportunity at eight public displays being held at locations around the south east corner this month.
Environment Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr said the displays were a great chance for anyone with an interest in the MoretonBayMarinePark to view the display and speak to EPA staff.
“The displays include maps, the current zoning plan, habitats in the MarinePark and a range of information sheets.
“Display sessions will be held over three hours and people can come along at any time during the session.
“A team of staff will be on hand to explain the review process and provide specific information on the type of information being collected for the review, who’s involved in the process, how people can contribute, or about the uses, values and history of the MarinePark.”
Ms Nelson-Carr said the sessions were an ideal opportunity for people to understand what the review means and how they could become involved.
“We want to ensure the marine park is there for future generations to enjoy.
“Our first priority is to gather scientific, social and economic data to get a full picture of what activities and natural values are important in the marine park.
“We are also obtaining advice from an expert advisory panel, chaired by Professor Paul Greenfield (AO) of the University of Queensland, as well as from a stakeholder reference group, and we are holding individual meetings with marine park users,” Ms Nelson Carr said.
“After collecting and analysing this information and advice, the EPA will be recommending what a zoning plan should look like. It will then be available for public comment for at least two months, and community engagement will continue.”
More information on the Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan Review is available at www.epa.qld.gov.au.
The schedule of community display days is:
StradbrokeIsland
Point Lookout Community Hall
East Coast Road,
Point Lookout
3.30pm—6.30pm
Monday 12 March 2007
BrisbaneCity
Jagera Arts Centre
121 Cordelia Street,
SouthBrisbane
3.30pm—6.30pm
Wednesday 14 March 2007
Cleveland
ClevelandStateHigh School
44 Smith Street,
Cleveland
6.00pm—8.30pm
Thursday 15 March 2007
Kawana
Lake Kawana Community Centre Hall
3 Sportsmans Parade,
Bokarina
3.30pm—6.30pm
Monday 19 March 2007
Redcliffe
Woody Point Memorial Hall
Cnr Oxley Avenue & Hornibrook Esplanade
3.30pm—6.30pm
Tuesday 20 March 2007
Manly
Manly Lota RSL Sub Branch
184 Melville Terrace,
Manly
3.30pm—6.30pm
Wednesday 21 March 2007
Southport
Southport Community Centre
Lawson Street,
Southport
3.30pm—6.30pm
Thursday 22 March 2007
BribieIsland
Caboolture Shire Community Arts Centre
Sunderland Drive,
BanksiaBeach
3.30pm—6.30pm
Tuesday 27 March 2007

Media contact: Karla Steen on 3336 8004 or Andie Gatti on 3336 8002