MBAA Releases our Solution to the rezoning of Moreton Bay

[Blueroo]

I'm sure the AMCS will keep pushing for more closures no matter what happens.

The MBAA plan is a good compromise but will it be acceptable to the EPA.

Will the EPA even listen.

Stue

[Jeremy]

overall, looks very good to me. A realistic proposal that protects a fair %age of each of the different habitat types and keep the impact on fishoes to a minimum. Thanks and congrats to the MBAA people for putting this together and lets hope it gets fair consideration from the EPA.

Jeremy

[Gary Fooks]

Courier Mail By Peter Morley
November 26, 2007 11:00pm
COMMERCIAL and recreational fishers have proposed that 29 per cent of some Moreton Bay fishing habitats be locked up.
They have also suggested 18 per cent of seagrass areas be set aside to protect dugong and trawlers be banned from about a quarter of the bay.
The no-go areas, outlined in a document prepared for the Moreton Bay Access Alliance, are more extensive than the Environmental Protection Agency has foreshadowed.
The agency has not been specific but has set a minimum of 10 per cent green area in the bay marine park, which stretches 125km from Caloundra to the Gold Coast Seaway.
Some conservationists want half the bay, which covers 390,000ha and is Queensland's busiest seaway, closed off.
Fishing groups think the 10 per cent no-go target is too high.
The alliance, which is made up of amateur and professional fishers, representatives of the indigenous community, conservation movement and boating and seafood traders, said the plan would protect the bay while minimising impact on livelihoods and leisure.
Alliance chairman Bruce Alvey said there would be some job losses if the agency accepted his group's ideas as part of a review of the marine park.
"But that small amount of pain may be necessary to protect the bay for the future," he said.
It was in the best interests of fishers to see the bay protected, but zoning had to allow for continued use by recreational and commercial fishers.
Queensland's Moreton Bay Seafood Industry Association chairman Robert Brock said the proposal would allow access to highly productive fishing areas.
At the same time, it would offer protection to 18 per cent of seagrass habitat that supported dugongs and 29 per cent of riverine and estuarine habitat.
"That far exceeds the EPA's goal of 10 per cent protection for each habitat type," he said. "On top of this are existing fishing closures managed under fisheries legislation."
Daryl McPhee, of Queensland University, said the alliance proposal increased no-go zones from 0.5 per cent to 10 per cent.
"The habitats that have been allocated highest levels of protection under the industry proposal are important in that they support communities of protected species such as dugongs," Dr McPhee said.
Queensland Conservation Council spokesman Simon Baltais said the alliance approach had been a worthwhile process but "politics" had got in the way.
"If there had been more time we probably could have achieved 80 per cent agreement on matters," he said.

[Fafnir]

The difference between the GBRMP and Morton Bay is the greater population in SEQ. In theory, there should be more people up in arms if this report is not given fair hearing. Whilst AMCS and EPA might want to be sneaky, this is a fair and reasonable proposal which can now be fought for. Nobody expects them to just accept it, but if we all get behind this a get ready to fight hard based on this excellent study then we stand a better chance based on numbers than those in the North did.

[PADDLES]

That news story is gold. To have a conservation council spokesman say that the MBAA work was a "worthwhile process" and then blame "politics" from preventing an "80% agreement on matters" shows me how good this MBAA proposal really is, and how gobsmacked the QCC must be that the industry has come up with it. It must be heartening for all concerned with putting this proposal together, for comments like this to come from the QCC.

[MICHAELG]

I honestly dont know what to think about all this.
All I can see is people with small boats in particular are going to be the big loosers in all this, locking off inshore area;s , bays , rivers/creeks when it is their only options is ruff.

Im all for sustainabilty but it just doesnt seem balanced reco's are wearing the brunt of it all. I have no idea if some of the current commercial operations are in green zones ??. maybe somebody can explain it to me

Someone mentioned prawning around bramble bay- i love prawning and by the looks of things a few of my spots will be no go, but a magical line is drawn and a trawler can come thru on the other side of line (yes so can i but ithink she maybe a little to deep for cast net)- i bet i know where the trawlers will focusing their efforts.

I applaud the efforts of the MBAA and keep fighting for me please


Michael

[Greg P]

Gibbo - Col will have a solution for you to go further out but I can see your point regarding the rivers/inlets.

There are a few green zones that I would like to see trolling allowed in on the map as well.


I just have a sneaking suspicion that were are going to get a Xmas present from the Qld Gov and EPA just like the GNS zones - hope i am wrong but.

[MICHAELG]

Greg

im sure Col could come up with green zone friendly boat form me- 7.4m should cover it

Also I want it painted the same colour Green that will be on charts- stealth mode so they wont see me

gibbo

[flick]

Can somebody enlighten me on what the green zones are protecting "offshore nth stradbroke" and "offshore sth stradbroke".

Jim

Sorry, just found it on pg 70.

[Fafnir]

All I can see is people with small boats in particular are going to be the big loosers in all this, locking off inshore area;s , bays , rivers/creeks when it is their only options is ruff.

Given that this marine park review is done on a state level, and the state governments cover inshore waters, it seems like it's picking on the small boat owner more. Don't worry, now the Greens are in power (via the ALP who owe them big time), the offshore areas will soon cop a pounding.

Actually, from memory there is meant to be an offshore review coming up sometime in the next 18 months I thought. The libs WERE going to be pretty flexible with their offshore zones from my limited understanding, as a result of all the compensation they had to pay out up north. Can't see the Greens/ALP coalition doing fishermen any favours. Anyone know if/when this is meant to happen.

[Moonlighter]

Hi eveyone

Thanks for the positive feedback and the support for the work we've done.

Pretty well everyone has picked up on the fact that this is not a "no loss" solution, and we openly acknowledge that because nearly everywhere in the Bay (no, fully everywhere, actually!) is fished at some time or another by someone, this means that you can be sure that someone's favourite spot will be in one of the areas we've identified as possible green zones. So its great to see the spirit of cooperation and understanding that we got from people directly involved in the research is being picked up by you all as well.

What the article in today's paper highlighted is that with a cooperative effort and professional scientific assistance and advice, you can get a sensible outcome that reasonable people can then get behind and support.

I would point out again that although Sunfish people assisted with the workshops, Sunfish (and the Qld Conservation Council) declined to sign-off on our proposals. My understanding is that this is basically because Sunfish has adoped a position that there should be no more green zones at all, as is their perogative.

I have no more news on when the EPA Draft is being released, but I hope when it is released, that it is the joint product of EPA, DPI Fisheries and State Development, as was promised, in writing, to MBAA by Premier (then Deputy Premier) Anna Bligh. This is an important committment that we take very seriously.

Any questions, don't hesitate to ask or PM me, and if I can't answer I'll ask one of our scientists to assist.

Speaking of scientists, I'd like to really acknowledge the first rate work and enthusiasm put into this project, mostly without personal financial reward, by Dr Daryl McPhee of UQ, our project leader. You may not realise it but some of the work he's done for us as part of this research is quite ground breaking, and when the final full report (now nearing 300 pages!) is approved for release by FRDC we'll take the opportunity to highlight some of that.

Daryl took the opportunity to come fishing with the MBAA team a couple of weeks ago, and I can report that as well as being damn good on the theory, he's pretty sharp on the end of a fishing rod as well, nailing some very nice pearlies out from the Cape and taking home the "most improved angler" prize as well.

Thanks again for your support.

Grant

[Boblee]

Hope it goes really well for you blokes up there and commend you on your approach with using scientists and fair dinkum facts it really is the only way to present an argument, but does cost.
That said it certainly doesn't guarantee the right result, along the river Murray there is a similar grab going on by environmenmtal groups under the VEAC proposal and they (access allaince) have also used a similar approach along with 7000 petitions with I understand 99% against the proposal, fingers crossed.
A few years ago we also used the same scientific approach with duckand quail hunting in NSW and the recommendations by the Governments own panel recommended in our favour but the government still denied it.
We now have a better voice in Parliament and and are far more united so it will be interesting to see what happens next time.
It's sad that some will lose their favourite fishing spots but if it is genuinly deemed essential for future stocks that is what should happen although really have a problem understanding why rec fisho's are being restricted and proffessional harvests are still continuing even though also restricted.

[Moonlighter]

Hi again everyone

Just to clarify the MBAA’s approach and any misconceptions that the Courier-Mail article (posted earlier on this thread by Gary) may have created.

The MBAA stakeholder alternative map developed through the FRDC project, justifications and executive summary (from the full report) were released to the public on Monday and are now available for download from the Marine Queensland website.

This map has not changed since the last stakeholder mapping meeting on 25th October 2007.

The Courier-Mail wrote an article about the map in yesterday’s paper.

For all those who have supported the MBAA research project, keep in mind that nothing has changed, but that the journalist was reporting on EXISTING CLOSURES under fisheries legislation, along with MBAA’s proposed green zones.

For example, 26% of Moreton Bay Marine Park is already closed off to trawling (thus the reference to trawlers being banned in a quarter of the Bay).

The proposed green zones are in areas that fishermen felt would result in less “pain” and income lost than other areas of the Bay.

The proposed no-take areas are alternatives to EPA’s ‘areas of special interest’ map which proposed 35 areas for potential higher protection, totaling 18% of the Marine Park.

The MBAA proposal covers 10% of the Marine Park and offers areas that are ‘less important’ from a group perspective in order to save the most popular and economically important fishing spots.

The MBAA acknowledges that the approach was about saving the most popular and economically important fishing spots – which will minimize impacts on the majority, but there will still be pain felt by all users as a result of any increases to green zones, not to mention possible yellow or blues zones.

The group hopes that by finding a balance between conservation and recreational/commercial use, that it may prevent the EPA from deciding to put green zones in the most important and popular fishing spots – which would be far more devastating for South East Queensland.

(Please note that while Sunfish and Queensland Conservation Council representatives participated in the mapping process, their organizations have not formally signed off on this alternative zoning proposal.)

For more information, please contact MBAA at mbaa@biaq.com.au

Regards

Grant

[Blueroo]

H Grant,
I was wondering if the MBAA had a response to the EPA zoning.
Cheers
Stue

[Moonlighter]

MEDIA RELEASE Tuesday 4 December 2007

EPA tries to hoodwink Queenslanders!
“No justification for massive fishing closures” says MBAA

MBAA today said that the Qld Government agency which is actually responsible for fisheries management in Queensland, the Department of Primary Industries & Fisheries, officially rates Moreton Bay fisheries as managed sustainably for the future and with a highly precautionary approach.

MBAA spokesperson Bruce Alvey said “The EPA has gone well beyond its jurisdiction by attempting to justify the proposed fishing closures in the Bay by saying they are needed to protect fishing when DPI&F clearly says this is not the case. EPA is running a simplistic argument that’s all about trying to hoodwink Queenslanders, when their real job is to protect the Bay’s habitat from identified threats - such as pollutants from urban runoff and development.

The EPA should explain how these additional no-fishing zones will prevent further outbreaks of lyngbya (fire-weed), because lyngbya is a threat not only to the environment, but to sustainable fishing as well. This is where the futility of no-fishing zones become apparent when it comes to addressing the really important issues” he said.

Family fishing is already subject to a myriad of bag (in-possession) and size limits as well as weather and time constraints, and commercial fishing is already tightly controlled by DPI&F. Mr Alvey also commented that SE Queenslanders realise that the fresh, locally caught seafood they enjoy to eat and is so good for their health has to be caught by professional fishers who are committed to a sustainable, long term industry.

“This draft proposal, if adopted, would see the local commercial industry destroyed and Queenslanders know that this means a lack of fresh local seafood in the shops – something they are already very concerned about” he said. “More imported seafood will not make consumers happy – more imports will just put more pressure on interest rates – the last thing that families want”.

Mr Alvey confirmed that the Alliance supports protecting the Bay, stating that “the best way to achieve this and at the same time minimising the impact on the community would be for the EPA to adopt the results of the Alliance’s recently released scientific research project.

“The Alliance engaged a team of senior scientists to work with Bay stakeholders to develop a solution that meets the EPA’s conservation objectives and has far less impact on the fishing industry, family fishers and lovers of fresh local seafood” he said. “We question why the EPA would not want to adopt the Alliance’s proposal, which suggested closures totalling 10% in green zones, and which would allow the vast majority of funds earmarked for structural adjustment to be used on more productive initiatives”.

Contacts for more information: Bruce Alvey (07) 3271 2844; Kellie Williams 0409 594 487