Rezoning: University of Queensland appeals for less scaremongering about Bay

[Shane Boese]

Rezoning: University of Queensland appeals for less scaremongering about Bay Environment Written by University of Queensland Press Release Monday, 24 September 2007 UQ marine experts want more scientific analysis included in the rezoning of the Moreton Bay Marine Park and less politics and scaremongering.

Public input is being sought now on the rezoning of the Park which could change how people access and use the Bay.

Less than one percent of the Bay is currently within a protected green zone but there has been strong opposition to further protection.

UQ ecology and mathematics Professor Hugh Possingham, a Fellow of the Australian Academy of science and member of the Park's Independent Expert Scientific Panel, said the Queensland Government needed to stick to the principles determined by the science panel.

"It is important that the areas chosen for protection are based on sound scientific principles and relevant socioeconomic data," Professor Possingham said.

"The panel has advised the Environment Minister that most of the international scientific literature points to protecting between 20-40 percent of all marine systems in no-take areas.

"The expert panel developed guiding principles for the review and the State Government must ensure they use these principles to rezone our Bay."

Professor Possingham's research group designed the "Marxan" computer program which designed Great Barrier Reef Marine Park protection areas. The package is the most widely used reserve design software in the world, now used in more than 70 countries.

UQ Moreton Bay Research Station research and education manager Dr Kathy Townsend, a rezoning Stakeholder Advisory Group member and expert on many aspects of the Park, said only 0.5 percent of the Park was fully protected.

"Stakeholders have been fully engaged by the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] throughout the review process," Dr Townsend said.

"However, I fear that objective science may be disregarded as pressure on the EPA and Environment Minister from interest groups increases.

"I call on the Environment Minister, Lindy Nelson-Carr to involve her scientific advisors more fully," Dr Townsend said.

"All the stakeholders despite their backgrounds, have one common goal: to maintain the health of Moreton Bay.

"Science cannot, and should not, play a backseat in a process as critical as this."

Dr Townsend oversees many scientific investigations about the health and diversity of Moreton Bay each year at her research labs on North Stradbroke Island.

[FNQCairns]

What a crock that press release is, international standards have nothing to do with local needs, never have - exactly the same ideology as on the GBR green zones, nothing has changed.
It's so easy to push people around to appease the wider international watermellons, those that inflicted us with the GBR were even awarded for it. No respect today when green peer glory and gravy train funding is up for grabs.

When are we going to see a goverment with the balls to do the right thing by the people AND the marine environment!!!!


cheersfnq

[Blueroo]

"It is important that the areas chosen for protection are based on sound scientific principles and relevant socioeconomic data," Professor Possingham said.

"The panel has advised the Environment Minister that most of the international scientific literature points to protecting between 20-40 percent of all marine systems in no-take areas.

What International scientific literature points to an actual percentage of 20-40 percent.
The above is a blanket statement with no proof of support.

How can the Environment Minister be correctly advised when the scientists advising are using brochures from overseas and not true scienctific principles.
Hmmm, I think they are being chosen more by non democratic political principle.

There are so many holes in the green argument.

The UQ news release is just rubbish.

Cheers
Stue

[Gary Fooks]

Kevin Collins is travelling at the moment. This is what he sent for the Bay Journal.

No doubt it's election time and no doubt, even though the Bay is a State Government issue, it will still feature in the Federal race as a regional issue of significant importance.

The many and varied environmental lobby groups are ramping up their calls for up to 40% of the Bay to be no go zones, often on the back of the very type of environmental scaremongering they accuse other lobby groups, such as fishing of doing.

As with any extremist view, be it religious, environmental or otherwise, the more extreme and passionate the position, the less notice of any other opinion is taken. Perhaps, we, the outdoor recreation lobby are guilty of the same level of intolerance for external views, particularly those which would have our parks, turned into zoos.

I would have expected, given the educated elite are intent on making rules which effect so many users of the Bay, they might at least have their facts straight.

Lindsay Nelson-Carr is not the Environment Minister so any calls for her to get involved is fruitless.
- Dr Townsend would be better off calling on the current Minister Mr McNamara to involve the "scientific advisors more fully".

I admire people who want to see the Bay protected and available for reasonable and sustainable use. It is part of why so many people in the SE corner own boats. To trumpet, as they did on the Great Barrier Reef, that Green Zones "fully protect" the Bay is an absolute lie. They just stop fishing.

They do NOTHING to protect the bay from run-off, foreshore development, sewage outfalls, engine emissions, and other impacts. They just stop people fishing and destroy what is one of Australia's great family friendly activities. In the north, after the Great Barrier Reef was rezoned, people just stopped fishing.

If this is the point of the exercise, why not just be honest enough to say so rather than go through the charade of biodiversity protection?

Kevin Collins
Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party

[PADDLES]

i believe kc has hit the nail on the head.

[rando]

To the best of my memory the 20-40% figure was introduced first overseas ( as a precautionary measure) as the scientists could not estimate the appropriate level of protection to achieve their goals( too many variables).
I am sorry I cant quote where I read this , but I think It was information Kingtin uncovered in a previous thread, possibly to do with trawling .
Therefore the so called "science" is a best guess.
rando

[Shane Boese]

Moreton Bay is our backyard and for many of us it is more than just a recreational playground or a pretty picture to look at. Moreton Bay is an integral part of a large majority of our lifestyles – whether it be recreational fishing, time spent with the family outdoors or commercial interests. Moreton Bay is an integral part of the fabric of our society, economics, family, health and wellbeing. The prospect of unnecessary exclusion under scientific pretext of protection is a very real fear within the community.

So far community consultation for the general public has been limited to an online survey. Once the draft plan is released what can the general public expect by way of community consultation – another electronic survey? Or will EPA actually start talking to the people? Has anything been learned by government through the Great Barrier Reef exercise and the economic and social fallout from that process? It is now 3 years later and the Federal Government is still cleaning up.

If the Review process was working properly, why change Ministers just before the due release of the Draft Management Plan? Why have Federal Ministers been so outspoken on current information available on the Moreton Bay Review? If Moreton Bay is such a fragile environment, why has the EPA approved the pumping of tons of sand from Middle Banks for the Airport development? Are fishermen and recreational users of the Bay being seen as “soft targets” in a far bigger game of political chess?

Dr Townsend from the University of Queensland appeals for less scaremongering about the bay. I am not an academic or career politician, I am a local businessman, resident and responsible user of Moreton Bay and I do fear for our future as the limited information that has been available has been far from reassuring.

Regards
Shane Boese

[bondy99]

This is maybe off topic but this is my two bobs worth.

The other aspect I think too is that some of these scientists are not a fisher person and perhaps never held a handline or fishing rod. People are people. Are these the same scientists that say crocodiles are not to be culled when they walk in the parks of Gordonvale in Cairns? Crocodiles may have their place but shit, they need to be culled back to what they were in 1945. I can assure you no one has contacted me about making a direct comment on the moreton bay rezone.

I'm a stakeholder too, its called a member of the general public If a rezone is to happen then get it right the first time and consult everyone, not just a single delegated person or delegated spokesperson of an organisation or government entity that is only 1 person. The entire population of Qld and who uses Moreton Bay would be in their hundreds of thousands, then out of those hundreds of thousands a consenus can be drawn and be more democratic than say a group of people (say 8 people) that suppose to represent the moreton bay stakeholders.

As I said, this is my two bobs worth and my logic, others may agree or disagree, thats what its all about, healthy discussion and debate and the right to respect other people's viewpoint. Maybe I should be a politician......A chinese saying.......Man is a fool to be governed by politics, but, twice a fool not to become a politician....

[Shane_78]

The entire population of Qld and who uses Moreton Bay would be in their hundreds of thousands, then out of those hundreds of thousands a consenus can be drawn and be more democratic than say a group of people (say 8 people) that suppose to represent the moreton bay stakeholders.

Yeah I agree with you though there was an AC Nielson poll taken at the very start of this process and 96% of the public in SE QLD wanted more protection in Moreton Bay.... but as most of them are probably not users does their vote count...? WHo should be surveyed? And if the majority of people don't use the Bay should they be included in the process?

[galiath]

After a lot of reading and considerable amount of lurking on this site. I as a person that enjoys my fishing feel the frustration that is shared throughout this site.

I am for one try and take a broader view. I am like the rest of (it seems) frustrated by the appearance of hypocrisy that different sectors of the community exhibit in their fight for their perception on the way things should be done.

Being a nsw resident, who often travels to Brisbane and Queensland about once a month and in the long term will most likely make the shift (OH NO not another one )(I used to live their but the chase of money drew me to nsw more important things than money now)

I for one don't want to see Queensland loose some of the qualties that make it perfect one day beautiful the next. One of the those things is the access to quality good fishing. I have only just begun to search out the waters around Moreton bay and have found it productive and for a bay that is apart of the infill process generally very clean. (subjective i know) I think we all as fisherman feel frustrated that issues to do with runoff, land degradation etc that affect the water ways that we fish in frustrate us that why are we the only ones being asked to give up something.

I think about how i do not feel safe to eat the bream that I may choose to target in sydney harbour due to the dioxins. I also choose not to share to too many that I may be targeting bream for sport as we all know too well the backlash that may bring from sectors of our communities.

So when i hear about how as fisherman we are being "closed out" from ground that we all know often hold congregations of fish with the vast majority of the oceans/sea being somewhat desert in terms of live. It pains me that we have all these laws that prohibit the development of artificial reefs which would go a long way to help us law abiding citizens feel that our part in the community is valued.

I think about the well published and issues with the GBR and on a recent trip to the outer reef out of cairns and those behemoths of floating pontoons secured to the reef by those huge chains and how they destroy so much of the habit underneath and they cast a huge shadow across the reef. This must have an impact but is considered environmentally acceptable tourism. I remember talking to a fishing charter boat captain about the lock outs in the Gbr and how that scientifically their were some spots which he wanted no people to access as they were important to the breeding cycle for the fish but when one of these pontoons was put in the mount it has seen a decrease in fish count around this particular site as scientifically it was shown that the shadow cast by the pontoon affected the food supply of types of algae on the reef that these fish eat. No wonder when we see such in my opinion vandalism on a grand scale we think about how little damage that you and i are causing in terms of our fishing. It makes my blood boil. So when we are reasonable people continually bent over and shoved by a red hot poker we very quickly become uncomfortable with the whole idea and process.

So while I am one just speaking about the problem it is something that i appreciate that what goes on here as i for one am always thinking about ways to help provide solutions to the issues to provide protection to what really is a fundamental right of all human is to have access to a food supply. I just find the whole thing disingenuous from the green prospect that often print out so much literature on "recycled" paper to fight for their cause. So how do we fight it. We have to learn that ultimately everything is about money even in the green world and we have to learn to follow the money trail. Find out where money that we pay for things goes into supporting the green movement that go against our ideals and our agendas. This is the tactic that the green movement has been doing for years. Its ultimately about choice, hurt the people that are making these decisions where it hurts most in the hip pocket. This is also how you can affect politicians as well. Don't support their fund raising to get back into office if they appose your beliefs. Play the game by their rules and use those rules against them always and always try and argue from the point of the most high moral ground. Something which i have been impressed by in a few other threads.

And hopefully we will succeed. Anyway this soap box is getting a bit weak from all those white ants eating my box.