response from the opposition

[bigbrian47]

Be wary of fishers’ claims


JOHN JEAYES
17 Aug, 2010 08:32 AM
I HAVE recently written on the need for marine parks and the storm of letters from the ECOfishers group has been illuminating, as it has displayed the full gamut of tactics and inaccurate claims made by that group.
Rhett Smyth of ECOfishers NSW (The Argus, August 6) sent me “back to the drawing board” to ponder whether Peter Garrett’s creation of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone would result in our fishing zones becoming open slather for the Chinese when the federal government, having used those fishing grounds as collateral, was unable to pay back the stimulus loans.
Well, I pondered that for about five minutes and reread it a couple of times in pure disbelief that ECOfishers could use my praise of the Howard government and Peter Garrett’s plan for a network of marine parks to preserve our fish resources to mount such a ridiculous fear campaign.
So I rang Peter Garrett’s office and read the claim to a staffer who cracked up laughing while I was reading it. I was transferred then to Ben Pratt, an adviser to Peter Garrett while they were in Western Australia at the time.
Ben told me: “The federal government is continuing a process commenced by the Howard government to establish a series of Marine Parks in Commonwealth waters.
“The outcome will be based on best available science and developed in consultation with key stakeholders.
“Our priority is to minimise impact on existing users while at the same time ensuring environmental protection.
“The suggestion of any ulterior motive is absurd.”
This claim is typical of the exaggeration and fear-mongering the ECOfishers will go to to attack anyone writing a contrary opinion.
Mr Smyth also wrote that what I had “neglected” to tell you was that “most” areas where marine parks have been successful had previously suffered exploitation by methods involving cyanide and blasting, and so of course marine park protections in those areas worked well.
He is trying to say the evidence is not valid when talking about our waters.
However, the assertion that “most” areas where marine parks were successful had previously been blasted and poisoned is simply not true.
Mr Smyth also criticises my citing the 245 scientists from 35 countries who confirmed their support for the creation of large-scale ocean marine parks as the best way to help fish stocks recover and restore ecosystems (Pew Environment Group, Global Legacy report) and claims there is no consensus, just opinion, and that those opposing marine sanctuaries can provide a list just as long with an opposing view. Well, let’s see it then.
Leter writer Peter Hemmings pointed to the review of the Role of Marine Reserves as a Fisheries Management Tool by the Bureau of Rural Sciences and the CSIRO.
This review considers sanctuaries are not enough on their own to conserve fish stocks as a management tool.
That is not disputed but the review actually points out that, “Sanctuaries help to make fisheries management more precautionary and contribute to reg- ional conservation goals.
“Sanctuaries assist with biodiversity conservation by providing refugia for many species and reducing impacts of fishing on habitats.”
Nowhere in the review does it say sanctuaries do not work to improve marine biodiversity.
In fact we would all be relieved to see one, just one, peer reviewed scientific paper which states categorically that marine park sanctuaries do not work.
There may be one somewhere in the world, not just NSW, but I can’t find it.
Chris Wallis also wrote to advise me that when I had written of the threatened black cod surviving at Solitary Island Marine Park and Fish Rock I had made a mistake because Fish Rock is not a sanctuary zone.
I did not say it was.
Fish Rock is in fact zoned ‘critical grey nurse habitat’ and yes, you can fish there all the time.
I know. I have dived it and seen the sharks with hooks protruding from mouths and gills. I have also swum beside and marvelled at the beautiful black cod.
Mr Wallis also advises that “ECOfishers was not formed to save the planet. ECOfishers has one mission and that is to stop unnecessary lockouts of recreational fishing”.
One cannot help wondering then why the greenwash in the name.
Ian McCarthy of South West Rocks wrote that the National Parks Association and their fellow green travellers, if they get their way, will have us all trying to survive on warrugal greens and lentil burgers.
Mr McCarthy notes the decreasing commercial fishing activity at SWR and predicts a threat to commercial fishermen and associated businesses.
These claims of financial disaster for coastal towns are bandied about all the time by marine park opponents who refuse to recognise the reports coming from the tourism industry at Bateman’s Bay on the South Coast of NSW.
In a report in February this year, the Marine Parks Authority said it was very pleased with feedback it was receiving from visitors and representatives of the local tourism industry about this year’s summer holiday period in the Eurobodalla Shire and the Batemans Marine Park.
In the report, National Parks Far South Coast regional manager Tim Shepherd said: “We are hearing the message loud and clear virtually every day - ‘it’s been an excellent season.”
The Narooma News editorial on January 6 declared: “... Narooma swells with visitors. The boat ramps and beaches have never been busier.”
John Sloan, in a letter to the editor on the same, page said “it is wonderful to see so many happy fishermen in Narooma for the holidays … the kingfish have been terrific … Ocean Hut has sold something approaching 2000 licences this week alone”.
In the same paper a week later under the headline ‘Billion dollar summer’ it reads … “If it’s not the best season we’ve had it’s certainly up there and this has all occurred at the tail end of the greatest financial crisis since the Depression”.
Mr Shepherd said “the Batemans Marine Park is thriving and so is the local tourism industry. This is fantastic.
“We know for a fact following an AC Nielson survey in 2007 that 95 per cent of those surveyed were either strongly supportive or saw some value in a marine park compared to only 2 per cent who were strongly opposed.
“I think the time has come where even some of the naysayers accept the Batemans Marine Park is a good thing for the community and for fishing.”
If fishers are in favour of marine parks where they are operating, I believe the public need to be wary of the ECOfishers claim to be ‘The Voice of NSW Recreational Fishers’.

[PhilIN]

Greetings All

The bottom part of that opinion piece, on the Batemans Marine Park, was announced by Tim Shepherd (Manager of NPWS in SE NSW). This was my reply in a 'Letter to the Editor'. I(n Narooma the local media is mainly 'Green' it is very hard to get much realistic traction here using Kearney, Diggles, Landos or McPhee.

Where was this opinion piece published BigBrian??

'Letter to the Editor'

Tim Shepherd, director National Parks & Wildlife announced with great fanfare (Narooma News Feb 17th P4.) that the “fishing’s never been better”. He then breathlessly claims that it is all due to the Batemans Marine Park. Hogwash Mr. Shepherd!!

Mr. Shepherd goes on to use all the devices that the extreme green conservationists have used for years such as misquoting, selectively quoting and just downright lying.

He claims that Jon Sloan’s letter of 6th January was evidence of how busy it was, saying that “2,000 (fishing) licences were sold in the Christmas week alone … “ What he forgot to mention was that the Jon’s letter was about the lack of fish cleaning tables in Narooma, not extolling the numbers of licences sold. Does Mr. Shepherd know the licence sales figures for the past 5 years .. has it improved??

Mr. Shepherd goes on to claim that a 2007 AC Nielsen survey showed 95% of those surveyed supported the Batemans Marine Park, an astonishingly high percentage which, when checked, reveals that the correct figure is between 69% and 75%. I accuse Mr. Shepherd of not making a simple error, but of lying to try and hoodwink the non-fishing general public.

The reasons the fishing has improved include the Department of Fisheries initiative to remove the trawlers from the Batemans Marine Park and the buyout of commercial fishers, which incidentally means that our tourist guests were paying up to $40/kg for flathead this year. However it is most probably due to the cyclical nature of fishing .. some years are good, others not so good. Fishermen understand this, those that don’t fish don’t understand it.

Mr. Shepherd is on a mission to convince us the Batemans Marine Park, which has as its SOLE objective to ban fishing, is absolutely wonderful for the Eurobodalla. Unfortunately for him the 20% of NSW residents who fish have woken up to this and a sleeping giant has been aroused up and down the whole of NSW. If he wants to do some meaningful surveys could I suggest he does one at the next Narooma fishing multi club fishing competition … ask the hundred or so fishers, the majority of the users of any NSW Marine Park, what they think. NSW Marine Parks merely ban recreational and commercial fishing, they have NO effect on the REAL causes of damage to the Marine environment and biodiversity, such as pollution, both chemical and sediment and agricultural run-off.

[bigbrian47]

in the MCLEAY ARGUS kempsey paper
cheers brian

[Ben D]

Be wary of fishers’ claims

JOHN JEAYES
Nowhere in the review does it say sanctuaries do not work to improve marine biodiversity.
In fact we would all be relieved to see one, just one, peer reviewed scientific paper which states categorically that marine park sanctuaries do not work.
There may be one somewhere in the world, not just NSW, but I can’t find it.

Let me help you there. Obviously you have not looked very hard.

Coral decline threatens fish biodiversity in marine reserves

Geoffrey P. Jones*, Mark I. McCormick, Maya Srinivasan, and Janelle V. Eagle

School of Marine Biology and Aquaculture, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia

PNAS vol 101. No. 21. p 8251- 8253.

The worldwide decline in coral cover has serious implications for the health of coral reefs. But what is the future of reef fish assemblages? Marine reserves can protect fish from exploitation, but do they protect fish biodiversity in degrading environments? The answer appears to be no, as indicated by our 8-year study in
Papua New Guinea. A devastating decline in coral cover caused a parallel decline in fish biodiversity, both in marine reserves and in areas open to fishing. Over 75% of reef fish species declined in abundance, and 50% declined to less than half of their original numbers. The greater the dependence species have on living coral as juvenile recruitment sites, the greater the observed decline in abundance. Several rare coral-specialists became locally extinct. We suggest that fish biodiversity is threatened wherever permanent reef degradation occurs and warn that marine reserves will not always be sufficient to ensure their survival."

Just in case you missed it. Several fish extinctions and large biodiversity declines documented in a green zone in PNG. Conclusion: Green zones do not protect biodiversity in degrading environments. How many of our inshore environments are NOT degrading ? What are the real threats to biodiversity in our coastal environments and how can they be managed/reversed ? Will green zones protect the corals and coral associated reef fishes in Moreton Bay and marine ecosystems in other areas affected by poor water quality due to urban and agricultural development ?

[Ben D]

whoops, I accidently found another one.

http://www.amsa.asn.au/conference/amsa2003_brisbane/AMSA2003_abstracts.pdf

Land based factors associated with blooms of the cyanobacteria Lyngbya majuscula in Moreton Bay, Queensland
Albert, Simon1*, O’Neil, Judith1, Waite, David2, Lukondeh, Tredwell2, Rose,
Andrew2, O’Sullivan, Cherie1 & Salmon, Tim3
1Marine Botany Group, Centre for Marine Studies, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland,
4072.
2Centre for Water and Waste Technology, University of New South Wales. 3School of Microbiology,
University of New South Wales
Email: s.albert@uq.edu.au

Over the past ten years, nuisance blooms of the toxic cyanobacteria Lyngbya majuscula have been increasing in frequency and severity in Moreton Bay, Queensland. Blooms occur in shallow marine and estuarine environments attached to benthic substrates, such as seagrass. There are many human and ecological health issues associated with large (kms2) blooms of L. majuscula. A substantial research effort is underway to elucidate both causes and impacts. As a nitrogen fixing cyanobacterium, L. majuscula productivity is stimulated by both phosphorus and iron. This study aims to determine potential sources of these elements which contribute to L. majuscula proliferation. High levels of organic carbon in catchments surrounding bloom sites provide both a source and transport mechanism for bioavailable iron to enter the marine environment. The supply of bioavailable iron to the bloom site increases significantly during high rainfall events, and may play a role in bloom stimulation and maintenance. A significant proportion (36%) of the catchment is a managed pine plantation, during plantation clearfelling large amounts of organic
material enters the system. Soluble organic material from these pine plantations significantly stimulates the photosynthetic capacity of L. majuscula during laboratory trials. Parallel studies have also shown organics derived from pine plantations form soluble iron complexes far more rapidly than other natural organics. Trials are currently underway to assess potential plantation management options to reduce the loads of organic carbon into the estuarine and marine environment, and thus help mitigate the impacts of L. majuscula blooms.

No talk of green zones stopping that. Did I mention that Lyngbya is toxic and kills seagrasses, and other small fish foods that live in the sediments ?