Scientific Evidence for Green Zones

[Chris Ryan]

Hey Chris,

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


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

Soapbox breaking now.
Chris

[PinHead]

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

[billfisher]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is our case to date:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Chris Ryan]

Amen to that billfisher.

[Matt_Campbell]

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

Can you please explain this??

[Shane_78]

Interesting debate that has arisen.

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

I await the insults

[Chris Ryan]

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

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

[Scott nthQld]

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

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

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

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

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

[billfisher]

Interesting debate that has arisen.

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

I await the insults

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

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

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

[billfisher]

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

[Lovey80]

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

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


Cheers Chris

[croangler]

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

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

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

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

the only problem is that it will take time.

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

my opinion

Regards

[Chris Ryan]

croangler,

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

Chris

[PinHead]

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

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

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

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

the only problem is that it will take time.

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

my opinion

Regards

where are the fishing deserts you mention?

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

[billfisher]

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