Group Formation to start the fight

[blue_mako]

A mate of mine who trawls the dive site for divers sent me this post which is typical of what they are on about, one out all out is the only way to go, they have been scaring the grey nurse sharks for far to long.

"Posted - 22 October 2008 : 09:50:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Shadowkiller,

I read those comments from the good Dr in an e-mail forwarded to me about a year ago by maybe Jobubble or one of the other people involved in representing divers in the re-zoning. It was pretty hilarious, his take on things was that divers pretty much do as much damage to the bay as fishos.

As we both know about the only thing that divers do to damage the environment is droping the pick. Every boat I've ever dived off in Australia is very conscious of the environment and drums it into people in the dive brief.

However, having grown up with fishos my whole life and being someone who still drops a line in myself I can't say the same about them.

This Dr maintained that the species of fish they target in Moreton Bay are very sustainable. I don't know why he would say that when anyone you has fished in Moreton Bay for last 30 years knows that catching a feed of fish was once a given but it is now very rare. If you jump on any of the fishing web sites like Ausfish all those guys really struggle to catch fish in the bay these days. Yet some people still think no action is need? "

[countbaysea]

Last year I was told of guys diving the Brisbane wreck (greenzone) and finding big kingfish. They would then fish handlines inconspicuously and catch 20kg kingies because they were the only ones there. Like anything there are di^%heads that ruin it for everyone.

Quote from above
“I don't know why he would say that when anyone you has fished in Moreton Bay for last 30 years knows that catching a feed of fish was once a given but it is now very rare. If you jump on any of the fishing web sites like Ausfish all those guys really struggle to catch fish in the bay these days. Yet some people still think no action is need? "

Food for thought.

If it is true that the saying "10% of fisherman catch 90% of the fish" this means that the other 90% of rec fisherman are not catching a lot of fish. Therefore is it true to say that a big % of that 90% would welcome the rrff changes and green zones as a measure of them being able to finally catch fish?

A lot of my friends said a long time ago that the bay is fished out until I showed them techniques and locations that would help them find more fish. It took me 2 years of persistence and research to help me. Now they catch fish and join the push for no zones and proper science/data behind bag limits and size limits.

On ausfish I see the a lot of the same names catching great fish and the same names fighting the cause for the greenzones (is this the 10% ?).

On the polls on another thread it shows 34% either accept the changes or welcome the changes. Does that mean that they are the ones not catching Fish? Do they need “Headucating”? If those 34 or 90% of fishermen that are not finding fish tell there friends that greenzones are good and they tell there friends so on so on.. We are in real trouble of fighting this.
I hope this makes sense as it has been a long day.

Shane

[Lucky_Phill]

Simply Shane, we are not against Green Zones. In fact, we want Green Zones.

Placed in areas that they are required , for the right reasons and monitored proficiently is the best line. Nothing more, nothing less.


Phill
.
.
.
.
.
.

[castlemaine]

Last year I was told of guys diving the Brisbane wreck (greenzone) and finding big kingfish. They would then fish handlines inconspicuously and catch 20kg kingies because they were the only ones there. Like anything there are di^%heads that ruin it for everyone.

Quote from above
“I don't know why he would say that when anyone you has fished in Moreton Bay for last 30 years knows that catching a feed of fish was once a given but it is now very rare. If you jump on any of the fishing web sites like Ausfish all those guys really struggle to catch fish in the bay these days. Yet some people still think no action is need? "

Food for thought.

If it is true that the saying "10% of fisherman catch 90% of the fish" this means that the other 90% of rec fisherman are not catching a lot of fish. Therefore is it true to say that a big % of that 90% would welcome the rrff changes and green zones as a measure of them being able to finally catch fish?

A lot of my friends said a long time ago that the bay is fished out until I showed them techniques and locations that would help them find more fish. It took me 2 years of persistence and research to help me. Now they catch fish and join the push for no zones and proper science/data behind bag limits and size limits.

On ausfish I see the a lot of the same names catching great fish and the same names fighting the cause for the greenzones (is this the 10% ?).

On the polls on another thread it shows 34% either accept the changes or welcome the changes. Does that mean that they are the ones not catching Fish? Do they need “Headucating”? If those 34 or 90% of fishermen that are not finding fish tell there friends that greenzones are good and they tell there friends so on so on.. We are in real trouble of fighting this.
I hope this makes sense as it has been a long day.

Shane

Long day or not ... a very good and clever thought, Shane.
Cheers

[countbaysea]

Hi phill
I agree that greenzones placed in the right spawning area that is protecting a species, based on scientific evidence are good. Or go slow zones that everyone has to abide by and not just the ones paying the government fee. What i probably meant to say is that the greenzones that epa has placed purely for a numbers make up and has nothing to do with science, or the ones that should of been olive zones, there the ones we should be fighting for.
I fish north swains and a few older fishermen agree that some Green zones have boosted resident species in some parts for trout and emporer. Moreton bay has a different model for species unlike any in the world. So more scientific reports are needed before they please the greens.
ta
shane

[oldboot]

So just so we can all get on the same page and sing the same song.

"WE" are in favour of green and other conservation zones and activity restrictions..... providing they are wisely selected and bounded and that selction is bassed on good scientific, socual and economic research.
However
"WE" are concerned that the science and the reasons behind these zonings are inadequate and not properly considered at this time.
further
"WE" believe there should be ongoing direct monitoring of fish stocks, usage and the environment in those zones and adjacent areas

Is this the song.

cheers

[Jeremy]

So just so we can all get on the same page and sing the same song.

"WE" are in favour of green and other conservation zones and activity restrictions..... providing they are wisely selected and bounded and that selction is bassed on good scientific, socual and economic research.
However
"WE" are concerned that the science and the reasons behind these zonings are inadequate and not properly considered at this time.
further
"WE" believe there should be ongoing direct monitoring of fish stocks, usage and the environment in those zones and adjacent areas

Is this the song.

cheers

Very good, just a couple of amendments tho. But this is exactly the sort of things that need to be discussed.
1. "WE" are in favour of green and other conservation zones and activity restrictions..... providing they are wisely selected and bounded and that selction is bassed on good scientific, socual and economic research. as you put it
2. "WE" are concerned that the new zonings determined by the EPA are not based on science at all, but rather politics. Many are in the wrong places and will not be effective in what they set out to achieve. Many simply prohibit fishing when it is the job of the DPI&F to regulate fisheries. very similar to what you wrote
3. "WE" believe there should be ongoing direct monitoring of fish stocks, usage and the environment in those zones and adjacent areas as you put it
4. "WE" believe that the new zonings will be inneffective without corresponding restrictions to pollution, dredging, mangrove destruction, coastal landfill, etc. additional
5. (one more) ONE OUT, ALL OUT for green zones. additional

Jeremy

[FNQCairns]

So just so we can all get on the same page and sing the same song.

"WE" are in favour of green and other conservation zones and activity restrictions..... providing they are wisely selected and bounded and that selction is bassed on good scientific, socual and economic research.
However
"WE" are concerned that the science and the reasons behind these zonings are inadequate and not properly considered at this time.
further
"WE" believe there should be ongoing direct monitoring of fish stocks, usage and the environment in those zones and adjacent areas

Is this the song.

cheers

IMO structure and terminology REALLY matters, stating in any sentence that 'we' are in favour of green zones or any actively perused under law restraint of freedom in activity is counter productive at all levels.

One of the big mistakes made by the defence during made during the GBR lockout zones.

IMO Never Never state to be in agreement with the zones, state to be in total opposition full stop! but with fair and reasonable TARGETED conditions attached, always after the TOTAL OPPOSITION statement. The fight is not a friendly around the BBQ discussion, you blokes are dealing with peopl who couldn't care less at any level that does not suit their personal ideology and career advancement opportunity's.

Very hard to give a group credence that is first looking down shuffling its feet then dares to look a person in the eye when more than half way through the statement.

THE most important thing a group can do is have 30? written 'statements of position' all written in such a way that they demand to be taken seriously FIRST then the reasoning as to why, to never waver from these in discussion or on paper, at the BBQ or talking to the Fam etc etc if that person a part of the group.

The last federal government, they ran the country for 12 years with just 10 sentences repeated over and over again with never much more than a single word change to denote the industry/point they were making.

Statements like these below are either simply ignored by all and/or empower those who shouldn't be:

We are all for higher fuel prices just so long as the price can be supported by the company's.

We are all for higher personal taxation as long as the federal gov can prove it's sloppy over expenditure on personal interest campaigns.

We are all for pulling down the local jetty as long as the authority can show a person can still cast a line from a nearby shore.

Of coarse this needs to come from the executive and will help forever sort the men from the boys by just their openly expressed lingo ie veiled but tear-down opinions and support.


cheers fnq

Disclaimer: I point the entirety of my post at no individual poster, certainly not Oldboot, who's quote I used to highlight my post - sorry.

[CreelReaper]

Maybe we should start a poll on the above 2 mentioned thought patterns to determine everybody's thoughts. I think this sounds just about right. Oldboot and Jeremy I think between the 2 of you it's just about perfect. Maybe it needs to be a little more expansive on item 4 though.....maybe illustrating where in particular it can be fixed.

Shane

[Mike Delisser]

Very good, just a couple of amendments tho. But this is exactly the sort of things that need to be discussed.
1. "WE" are in favour of green and other conservation zones and activity restrictions..... providing they are wisely selected and bounded and that selction is bassed on good scientific, socual and economic research. as you put it
2. "WE" are concerned that the new zonings determined by the EPA are not based on science at all, but rather politics. Many are in the wrong places and will not be effective in what they set out to achieve. Many simply prohibit fishing when it is the job of the DPI&F to regulate fisheries. very similar to what you wrote
3. "WE" believe there should be ongoing direct monitoring of fish stocks, usage and the environment in those zones and adjacent areas as you put it
4. "WE" believe that the new zonings will be inneffective without corresponding restrictions to pollution, dredging, mangrove destruction, coastal landfill, etc. additional
5. (one more) ONE OUT, ALL OUT for green zones. additional

Jeremy

I agree with what you've said (1 to 4) Jeramey but I'd think long and hard about point 5.
IMO I think the gov will counter that with "extraction activities are the most harmfull and therefore only those practices are banned", and I think the average punter will believe that.
To me it indicates that we think we will not win and we want others to feel our pain.
And lastly I think it makes the anglers look like vengeful sooks and that's exactly the sort of image we don't want if we are to rally support from the wider nonfishing public.
Cheers
Mike

[Jeremy]

all constructive input is welcome, no probs at all.

Mike, conside this. The EPA has given approval for something like 60 million tonnes of sand to be dredged from Moreton Bay for construction of the new runway and other construction activities. It would be naive in the extreeme to think that this sand will not come from green zones, as sand is fluid and moves around the bay. If they want to ban only extractive activities, where do they stand on this?

I agree we do not want to look like sooks or vengeful. I think we need to be concerned with the future of the bay as much as anyone else is. Green zones, placed in the wrong areas - which many of them are - are just pretty packaging to sell the Blight governments green credentials for preferences. Conservation measures need to be done properly and take account of all threats to marine life and biodiversity.

There is anecdotal evidence that divers disrupt GNS habitats and force them to move away to escape the intrusion. Would be interesting to know if there is any scientific data on this. Then again, the data on the GNS counts came from divers so can't expect too much there

[lampuki]

What about salt water fish stocking programes.....if the fish stock are truley in danger, would this not be a logical argument?

[Lucky_Phill]

lampuki,

Wild stocking has been put to the scientist involved. Although he did not rule it out all together, it would be an expensive exercise and the survival rate not very good. He leans towards Snapper farming as a way to cut out the commercial catch. There are issues with this as well.

here's an example... if the DPI&F produced 1 million fingerlings and had only a 5% survival rate, that's 50,000 fish grown to legal size. If the survival rate is only 1%, that is 10,000 fish.... Now if the DPI&F produced 10 million fingerlings....... are you getting the picture ? This is all conjecture of course as there is no real data on a wild stocked Snapper, but imagine 100,000 extra legal size Snapper in the Moreton Bay Marine park every year....!!

If we could draw conclusions, it would appear that " Wild Stocking " is viable but expensive. Then again, the recreational fishing input into Moreton Bay is in the millions of dollars anyway, so spending a couple of Mill on fingerlings is a sound investment....IMO !!!

A ' tagging ' program could be utilised as was done with the Whiting released into the Maroochy River a while ago. The tagging consisted of a ' dye ' ( not in the true sense ) that attached itself to a gene or similar, so that when a fish frame is returned to the Southern Fisheries it can be traced and valuable information gathered in relation to growth rates etc.

These Snapper fingerlings can be raised in the Bribie Aquaculture Centre.

Farming Snapper is still on the cards, but is proving a hard sell. The ' not in my back yard ' attitude is prevelant. If they get the science and logistics right, it has merit.

ON the other hand, if trawling up millions of juvenile squire ( snapper ) every year and killing them was stopped, there would appear to be no need to adapt wild stocking, reduce bag limits, have seasonal closures, increase size limits or snapper farming............................. IMO....only.


stay tuned.................
.
.
.
.
.
.

[FNQCairns]

lampuki,

Wild stocking has been put to the scientist involved. Although he did not rule it out all together, it would be an expensive exercise and the survival rate not very good. He leans towards Snapper farming as a way to cut out the commercial catch. There are issues with this as well.

here's an example... if the DPI&F produced 1 million fingerlings and had only a 5% survival rate, that's 50,000 fish grown to legal size. If the survival rate is only 1%, that is 10,000 fish.... Now if the DPI&F produced 10 million fingerlings....... are you getting the picture ? This is all conjecture of course as there is no real data on a wild stocked Snapper, but imagine 100,000 extra legal size Snapper in the Moreton Bay Marine park every year....!!

If we could draw conclusions, it would appear that " Wild Stocking " is viable but expensive. Then again, the recreational fishing input into Moreton Bay is in the millions of dollars anyway, so spending a couple of Mill on fingerlings is a sound investment....IMO !!!

A ' tagging ' program could be utilised as was done with the Whiting released into the Maroochy River a while ago. The tagging consisted of a ' dye ' ( not in the true sense ) that attached itself to a gene or similar, so that when a fish frame is returned to the Southern Fisheries it can be traced and valuable information gathered in relation to growth rates etc.

These Snapper fingerlings can be raised in the Bribie Aquaculture Centre.

Farming Snapper is still on the cards, but is proving a hard sell. The ' not in my back yard ' attitude is prevelant. If they get the science and logistics right, it has merit.

ON the other hand, if trawling up millions of juvenile squire ( snapper ) every year and killing them was stopped, there would appear to be no need to adapt wild stocking, reduce bag limits, have seasonal closures, increase size limits or snapper farming............................. IMO....only.


stay tuned.................
.
.
.
.
.
.

Absolutely! but not that there is a need now in evidence.

Still almost forever it's all been about rec fisherman being the pattsy for the commercial sector, aided and abetted by government muscle.

cheers fnq

[oldboot]

There are a couple of fundamental approach issues here.

Firstly one of the big problems we have is trying to address to many issues at one time and in one statement.
This is also apparant at the various fish issue and many other meetings I have been to or worked at....... people have difficulty staying on subject and the whole thing gets messy and the message can not be clearly heard above the noise of side issues to use the terms of my business..... there is s signal to noise problem and we need to address this.

That is specifficlay why i did not include polution and development...... that is a different issue and a seperate campaign.

Another issue is the level of aggression in the message....... this is why I think there needs to be different groups with different voice styles.

Both the government and the green side play with different voice styles.

I personaly prefeer a moderate vioce style because I can express it better.......I seek to fly closer to the prevailing wind than directly into it.

Others may better express the situation going at it head on...... there needs to be a total oposition eliment in our ranks to balance the total closure eliment from the opposing view......it needs to be strong and forthright but not come from the same people as the more moderate views.

In the end it will be the moderate view that will get the ear of the majority public and sufficeint science will be found to support a moderate view.

bit a maderate view will not get sufficient attenton on its own.

How mant green issues would have got up without the radical stunts...... but think how many of the radical stunts have achieved a change on their own.

Remember the battery chicken and vivasection protests of the sixties & seventies.........wild blaitantly illegal actions.... they drew attention but achieved little on their own...... in recent years it has been the quiet talkers, the moderates who have taken the issue and achieved wide spread change.
Consider jamie olivers recent TV programe on the subject........

just some thaughts