Marine Park announcement !!! Dec 2013.

[Lucky_Phill]

It is a complicated issue.

1. Fish have a use by date ( life expectancy ) and with good management can be harvested sustainably.

2. Somethings certainly need to be done and to that end, good reserach is needed to establish the best way forward.

3. Simply creating no take zones willy nilly is not good science and not good fishery management. This type of hap-hazard legislation is laughed at by other nations and will see Australia riden rough shot over by the ever increasing demand for our seafoods, by those countries most in need.

4. All science for fisheries use the Bio-Mass of a species as an indicator of health of that specific species. The Bio-Mass is used in modelling for management, legislation etc. This data is also used for both recreational and commercial fisheries. Bio-Mass also has it's detractors due to many unknowns, such as critial and virgin bio-mass specifics.

5. One of the major contributors to marine species endangerment, is the Extreme Green Movement, who have no scrupples in exploiting the vunerability of the uneducated minds of a generation. There are way too many examples of these people producing propagander based on myths and rumours. The best possible outcome we can hope for is to have good science advise the fishing community on the best way forward, not for the people, but for the fishery. If the fishery is healthy and sustainable, then the rec and pro fishers will continue to do what they do, knowing there will be a future for their kids and their kids.

6. All debates on our fishery, should really be based on facts. Facts do not mean, instances and circumstances from other countries as Australia is unique and should be afforded the respect of it's uniqueness ( is that a word ? ) by both conservationists and scientists, as well as all stakeholders utilising the OEZ.

7. I believe a lot of people have reservations about the sustainability of our oceans ( OEZ ) using the inshore situation as a guide. Two completely different entities, two different problems and definately two different management systems.

manta man, you say something needs to be done and I think most agree on that statement, so may I ask what you know that needs to be done and why ? Let's remember we need to discuss this using facts, otherwise it just boils down to personal opinions based on myths, rumours or outside influences and solves no problems, percieved or otherwise.


cheers LP

[Moonlighter]

Well said Phill.

The uneducated and uninformed can easily be sucked into thinking that marine parks are the panacea to all ills in the ocean, when in fact they clearly are not.

They do not address the biggest threats in most areas, which are not fishing activities, but are things like water quality, pollution, rubbish finding its way into waterways, poor farming practices, introduced species and the pressures of urban environment.

I am also amazed at how many people continue to fall for the BS put about by the extreme greenies that we Australian fishers should be happy about more no fishing zones because they make our fisheries more sustainable. What rubbish!

If that was the case, then our marine parks would be designed, managed and operated by the Government departments that are actually responsible for fisheries management, wouldn't they! But they aren't, are they! They are done by the National Parks or Environment Departments, and they rarely if ever take any notice of the Fisheries managers in their own governments.

I have asked marine parks proponents on many occasions how they take into account the existing fisheries management regimes before declaring new no-fishing zones in marine parks Never got a straight, sensible answer to that question yet. So as a result we have a lack of integration between different legislation and end up with unnecessary over regulation and more restrictions than are justified.

i have also asked them to show me where and how they did the risk assessment of each specific type of fishing activity (eg line fishing, trolling, lure casting being 3 different types of fishing activity) and how they arrived at the determination that each of those types of fishing posed an unacceptable risk to the values they were trying to protect in each zone.

You guessed it, no risk assessment, or at best a cursory one, was ever done, and key users certainly not consulted or engaged properly in doing that assessment. This flies in the face of the relevant international conventions that underpin marine parks worldwide.

Multi-use marine parks have a definite place in Australia. But to be effective, the restrictions in various zones need to clearly address well defined threats. In simple terms, they need to be very clear about what the problem/s are that the marine park is going to address, and then make sure that the measures that they put in place actually address those problems, and avoid targeting anything else.

And when it comes to fishing sustainability, before they do any fishing restrictions as part of a marine park regime, they need to ask the fisheries management experts if there are better ways of achieving the same sustainability outcome using other means.

If they do that, they will get a lot more support from well informed fishers around Australia.

[manta man]

OK Lucky Phil fully understand.
So on that note, i wish A Merry Xmas to all and their Families and a Happy New Year Safe Travels. Chow for Now

[pontiph02]

Lucky_Phill and Moonlighter, it seems that you're waiting for an unrealistic amount of knowledge and organisation to be in place before action is taken to address problems of overfishing. One of the most important components of the philosophy of conservation is the precautionary principle. This argues that when the consequences of a potentially harmful action on the environment are unknown, it's best not to take this action. Of course, at it's logical extreme this principle means that you don't do anything at all, ever, but in a more pragmatic sense, it would argue that it's better to protect too much than too little.

Certainly there's no reason to ban mackerel or tuna fishing in a green zone, since those fish were probably off Gladstone a fortnight ago, but it may be necessary in the name of pragmatism to protect reef fish to ban all fishing. If the consequence is more fish in the long run, then I think as people who interact with the marine ecosystem on a regular basis we should be glad that something flawed is being done, rather than nothing while we wait for perfection.

[Lovey80]

Listen to Johnny come lately. Readers of this site and anyone that has had any involvement with green zone legislation is well aware of the precautionary principle. It's scientific speak for "we haven't done our homework and to appease the green lobby, in contrast to ANY evidence a species is in danger, we're going to lock you out".

Pontiph, can you lead us to any links or papers that show any evidence of "overfishing" in the proposed coral sea protection area? I'm not aware of any are you? Or is there just an assumption that we are overfishing everywhere and you want to use the precautionary principle to lock people out of a sustainably fished area.

We have two government jurisdictions that deal with our marine environment. One consists of fisheries management (DPI-F) and the other is for habitat protection (EPA). DPI do all the research (or regulate it through uni's) on fisheries sustainability. No one at the EPA would know their head from their ass when it comes to that.

If EPA needs to create a specific zone to ensure the habitats are protected from a specific type of fishing because that type is actually putting it at risk then fine. Ie you may have fragile or at threat sea grasses or corals in a specific area that could have further damage from anchoring. In such a case a purple? Zone can be created so that no anchoring is allowed but still allows trolling lures through it.

Locking people out of whole areas of ocean is not the answer to sustainable fisheries management. But that is exactly what the EPA does! They can't be bothered or funded, not is it their duty to regulate sustainable fishing. So they send the alarm bells ringing. Get some mathematicians to keep working computer models with "Shit" information until the get the lock out answer they wanted from the start.

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks pontiph02.

I understand the " Precautionary Principle " and to some extent agree with it.

I think that most people that are more than interested in the marine environment also understand that the " Precautionary Principle " was never , ever enacted on developments on land that we now know to have devastating effects on the marine environment. Agricultural and Construction efforts have gone unchecked for more than my lifetime, yet those entities are seen to be at the cause of certain problems in our waterways.

The issue seems to be that the regulators want to put a band-aid on the waterways and ignore the problem. The old ....fix the symptoms but ignore the illness.

This term you used.... overfishing .... can never be used in respect of Australias OEZ waters. Certainly I agree we have issues to deal with for our inshore fishery. Heavily populated areas are being hit hard and I tend to agree that the immediately located fishery is not what I experienced as a youngin. Does this mean the fishery is in trouble ? Not sure. This is another subject for another time.

I also think we are missing the point of the zonings.

The Federal and State Governments have the laws to back them and the power to issue more quota and licences as they see fit. With this in mind, why would one slap zonings in waters for the hell of it ? Votes ! Maybe I am cynical, but the proposed Zonings, IMO, were nothing more than a carrot to the Green Movement, which by the way, I have no specific issues with and support the majority of causes. I also believe recreational fishers are very conservation minded, to the extent we have been " taking one for the team " for many many years. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the instigators of close to shore marine environment problems.

I believe that even if the science tells us we need certain zonings and to large extents, then we , as rec fishers would be satisfied with that. The precautionary principle is fine and dandy, but why is it NOT applied to all stakeholders ? Why lock out a rec fisher from an area and let the agricultural industry continue to spew chemicals into the waterways ? Why allow dredging in harbours along our coast and dump the shit within the bounds of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ? I will enlighten you....... $'s........... simple. Despite recreational fishing in Queensland dropping about 1 billion dollars into the economy each year, we are treated like the sediment from a harbour dredging barge........ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I have seen NOTHING over the last 10 – 20 years or more that attempts to heal the marine environment of our inshore waters. I will say the MBMP Artificial reef program is a great start. Slapping Rec fishers with size and bag limits is NOT the answer, because we are talking about the whole marine environment, not just the fishery.


I asked manta man for his ideas or tactics and was sincere in my questions. I think the more people that offer ideas etc , the better. What this does is encourage discussion which in turn educates us.

In regard to your last sentence, pontiph02, I can only reply with... " why attempt to fix something that is not broken ? ". And, I don't believe for one minute that any of us are expecting perfection. Thanks for you input, thus far.



Cheers LP

[Moonlighter]

There is some misunderstanding about the precautionary principle and its application in Australia. It is quite often quoted by the extreme greenies for justifying their demands, but again, it is easily misconstrued and misrepresented by people seeking to avoid real scrutiny of their proposals.

Here is what it really means:

The most important Australian court case so far, due to its exceptionally detailed consideration of the precautionary principle, is Telstra Corporation Limited v Hornsby Shire Council. The case was heard in the New South Wales Land and Environment Court under Justice CJ Preston (24 April 2006).


The Principle was summarised by reference to the NSW Protection of the Environment Administration Act 1991, which itself provides a good definition of the principle:

"If there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reasoning for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation. In the application of the principle… decisions should be guided by: (i) careful evaluation to avoid, wherever practicable, serious or irreversible damage to the environment; and (ii) an assessment of risk-weighted consequence of various options".


The most significant points of Justice Preston's decision are the following findings:


The principle and accompanying need to take precautionary measures is "triggered" when two prior conditions exist:

1. a threat of serious or irreversible damage, and

2. scientific uncertainty as to the extent of possible damage.


Once both are satisfied, "a proportionate precautionary measure may be taken to avert the anticipated threat of environmental damage, but it should be proportionate."


The threat of serious or irreversible damage should invoke consideration of five factors: the scale of threat (local, regional etc.); the perceived value of the threatened environment; whether the possible impacts are manageable; the level of public concern, and whether there is a rational or scientific basis for the concern.


The consideration of the level of scientific uncertainty should involve factors which may include: what would constitute sufficient evidence; the level and kind of uncertainty; and the potential to reduce uncertainty.


The principle shifts the burden of proof. If the principle applies, the burden shifts: "a decision maker must assume the threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage is… a reality [and] the burden of showing this threat… is negligible reverts to the proponent…"


The precautionary principle invokes preventative action: "the principle permits the taking of preventative measures without having to wait until the reality and seriousness of the threat become fully known".


“The principle should not be used to try to avoid all risks."


The precautionary measures appropriate will depend on the combined effect of "the degree of seriousness and irreversibility of the threat and the degree of uncertainty… the more significant and uncertain the threat, the greater…the precaution required". “…measures should be adopted… proportionate to the potential threats".

if you consider the above definition and key points raised by this recognized and authoritative case, there was never any justification for applying the precautionary principle in relation to any marine parks in Australia.

[manta man]

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the instigators of close to shore marine environment problems.
Why allow dredging in harbours along our coast and dump the shit within the bounds of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park ? I will enlighten you....... $'s........... simple.

Yep got a Bullseye mate. $$$$$$$$ AND more dollars. Just look what they were going to do up Nth when those massive toxic holding tanks were going to overflow from floods (Courtesy of Mr Palmer) just dump it in the ocean mate. (Should have been better Preventive Plans in Place) Even though floods of that magnitude are a rare event

Recreational Fishers plough a 1 billion into the economy each year, we are treated like the sediment from a harbour dredging barge........ !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting little story about Rec Fishos in NSW earlier in the week in the Sydney Telegragh (Estimated amount 18.3 Billion) ploughed into the economy each year

I have seen NOTHING over the last 10 – 20 years or more that attempts to heal the marine environment of our inshore waters.

I think Companies or Individuals should be held more accountable for what happens with destruction of the enviroment and the their surrounding areas.

I think the more people that offer ideas etc , the better. What this does is encourage discussion which in turn educates us.

MMM maybe i should have put it that way.lol

[Bobpen]

800 berth marina proposed in intertidal at Toondah Harbour. Who needs protection for fish stocks?
Lets just cut out the red tape and all the other legislation that people are using to protect the fish stocks.
http://www.baysidebulletin.com.au/story/2017300/marina-plan-for-cleveland-revamp/?cs=213