Professor Kearney seminar on NSW Marine Parks .. a report

[PhilIN]

Greetings All ... Much of Professor Kearney's paper has relevance for Moreton Bay MP.

On Thursday 31st October 2008, I attended Professor Kearney’s speech at the NSW Fisheries Research centre, Cronulla. This is my account of the seminar.

The seminar started at 4pm. There were between 50 and 60 attendees. Most were DPI Fisheries staff, about 10 or so Rec anglers, including a few luminaries and holders of prominent positions. Jack Tait drove from Batemans Bay just for the seminar and drove home that night. A significant number of MPA staff, including Brendan Kelaher, Manager of the Batemans Marine Park, plus a senior Policy adviser to DECC on MPAs. Also there appeared to be a few Green conservationists. I was told there were a few scuba divers as well.

Bob is a very good speaker, with a slightly pugnacious delivery style on this subject, which sounded good to my ears .. perhaps not to the MPA however.

The speech was exactly as delivered, with the attached document (14 pages), and should be carefully read. After he finished speaking there was a Q & A session.

Dr Kelaher asked Bob if it was true that the reason he was opposed to the Batemans Marine Park was because he had lost his favourite jewfish fishing spot. Bob replied “that he was unimpressed with the inference and for the benefit of Dr Kelaher, and anybody else who wished to think that was important he had never fished in the area now covered in the Batemans Marine Park, for jewfish or anything else.”

The issue here is not so much that Bob took exception to the suggestion that a self-interest such as this would bias his approach to the science of this public policy issue, but rather Dr Kelaher's inference that anybody who had a particular interest in any part of the Park, for example an angler who wished to fish in a certain spot they may have fished in for years, would be a biased commentator on the subject.

This is just yet another example of the vilification of fishers by the Marine Parks Authority that Bob describes in his seminar. There is no doubt the staff of the Marine Parks Authority and the Nature Conservation Council, National Parks Association and the Wilderness Society have an anti-fishing bias that is projected with considerable zealotry.

By making this statement Dr Kelaher confirmed that he holds the view that anybody who fishes would not be capable of unbiased comment, and really should not be allowed to defend their opposition to the loss of their favourite fishing spot.

In reality the supporters of marine parks cannot counter Professor Kearney's science, so they revert to personal attacks and innuendo as a way of manufacturing reasons why he should not be listened to. These actions also confirm that the so called 'consultation' by the Marine Parks Authority does not extend to listening to, let alone taking notice of, anybody who has a real interest in the park that is contrary to the closing of huge areas to fishing. Clearly to the Authority the science is irrelevant.
Next Dr. Kelaher stated that he had been misquoted in the Sydney Morning Herald piece on BMP, which Bob mentioned in his speech (page 12). He claimed the quote that Bob mentioned on Page 12 of his speech should have been “What we know is that Biodiversity will NOT increase in sanctuary zones”.

To my ears Dr. Kelaher’s correction absolutely begged the question .. “Why would the SMH print his true statement, when it sound so profoundly incorrect when talking about a warm and fuzzy thing like a Marine Park?” Also the cynicism of Minister Firth in the “Northern Star” newspaper stating how good Marine Parks would be to “preserve (the) recreational fisher’s future” being printed shortly after the Richmond River fish kill.

A question from the DECC rep was rather obscure, suggesting that MPAs were only “one tool in the toolbox”, and he went off at a tangent discussing his own question before Bob could get to it. He did say one thing which was outlandish in that anchoring is banned in Sanctuary Zones as well as fishing, shell collecting etc. He was picked up on anchoring and was surprised that it was not .. certainly in Batemans Marine Park. It is quite OK to drag your anchor all the way across a seagrass Sanctuary Zone, but put a hooked line in the water .. $550, thank you very much!
Bob tried to answer this question by giving the analogy that the MPAs were rather like a screwdriver trying to cut down a tree, which was nice and succinct.

There was about 1 hours Q&A’s, however two questions bothered me. One was a female, who knew her stuff on Underwood’s paper (page 6 & 7), was quite aggressive when stating that it would cost a fortune to individually work out which areas were safe to trawl, rather than adopting the “thousands of papers” vilifying trawling as the status quo and accepting that. Bob answered this question very carefully and made the valid point that Underwood’s paper was specifically on NSW, specifically on a sand substrate (not rocky reef), specifically was on the Clarence River, and specifically on Prawn trawling, whereas all her data was from overseas and on different substrates.

Bob claimed the Marine Parks Authority was trying to get all rec. fishers on side by claiming “Trawling is bad and we are good”. The claimed improvements in Batemans MP, because NSW Trawling has been removed, would also have been substantially helped by the $250mill Commonwealth buyout of Commonwealth waters (>3nm) as well. After the meeting I heard her accusing Bob of “not allowing the people adjacent to Batemans Marine Park to enjoy their Marine Park” .. she was really quite aggressive. (anyone know her, could I get her name please)

Another was from a fellow with a white T shirt and cap (anyone know him, could I get his name please) who claimed the truth behind the massive size of tarpon in the “spillover” from Merritt Island (Cape Canaveral) Refuge (Callum Roberts, U of York) was proof that MPAs worked. Bob explained the answer, however it was fairly complex and he did not understand it ... I do not think he was a scientist.

Summarizing the seminar and Prof. Kearney’s paper

1. Bob has loaded the bullets, somebody has to have the financial backing to fire them ... could I suggest a legal opinion on zoning within Marine Parks, from an SC or QC. This MUST be done. Estuaries and Beach sanctuary zones MUST be fought. The VERY strong point that Bob makes is that Rec and Commercial fishers have been banned from 20-25% of Estuaries and Beaches, for absolutely NO demonstrable gain, either practically or even theoretically. This has cost recreational anglers millions of dollars, with NO compensation. This has cost NSW seafood industries millions of dollars, with a pittance compensation. This has cost the NSW public much less access to fresh NSW fish.

2. Rec fishermen HAVE to work together with Commercial fishermen. He made the interesting point that if, hypothetically, all commercial fishers disappeared and ALL our fish was imported, the move by the Greens and Conservationists to ban fishing ALTOGETHER would be made a lot easier. Who would take sympathy on a SPORT that kills defenceless fish?? As it stands now NSW IMPORTS about 90% of all its fish .. interstate and O’seas.

3. Marine Parks are no more than fisheries allocation exercises that will NEVER protect biodiversity. This is particularly so in beaches and estuaries. The only thing banned in MPAs is fishing

4. The Marine Parks Authority by deliberately deleting the data and documentation relating to ocean beaches from their paper on “Benefits of MPAs 2008” have committed scientific fraud. As far as I am concerned this is the worst sin in science, and I will be working over the next few months to work out who did this.

5. Bob Kearney makes, and has always made the point that well designed marine parks are a necessity for Australia. Not simply as a requirement for Comprehensive, Representative and Adequate areas set aside, but as useful tools in the protection of marine biodiversity.

6. Legal opinions need to be sought on a variety of issues. We have several “expert witnesses” who are absolutely disillusioned with the MPA and, dare I say it, the majority of DPI (Fisheries). This is for the near future, and should be organized by national fishing bodies.

Philip Creagh

[nigelr]

Thanks very much for your efforts in making this information available, PhilIn.
Extremely interesting, to put it mildly.
Cheers.

[Lucky_Phill]

I have just finished reading the 14 page report. There are some very interesting comments and facts.

The overwhelming evidence suggests that the MPA's ( Marine Park's ) are nothing more than propaganda supported by smoke and mirrors used by the Government to satisfy the public perception that fishing is bad and the Government are doing something to protect the Aquatic Environment .

The truth, as we all know, is that MPA's do NOT address the Real Threats to our aquatic environments.

Thanks again, worth a read.



Phill
.
.
.
.
.

[yellowbeard]

Great work in posting this.
It's what we, who live within the ridiculous MPA boundaries, have always suspected. But who will now stand up to these MPA fraudsters who are blockading traditional fishing areas, and who plan to go further?

[FNQCairns]

He is a braver man that I or so many, more power to him, never cease's to amaze me how easily a person when given a regulatory position a little power and a 'religion' to adhere to will work to undermine all people in their personal pursuit of fulfillment.

It goes to show just how cloistered those in MPAs and DPIs are, nothing of views contrasted makes it past their firewall of ignorance.

Still totally amazed that the good Prof was given an audience to speak to the church leaders, designers and managers.

cheers fnq