Green Zones - Moreton Bay

[Lucky_Phill]

Yes Grant, Capfish....Infofish do great work and I for one advocate funding be channeled into these organizations, as they really get some great data.

Bill's evidence of the " flow on effect " in some green zones re:- Coral Trout, certainly makes interesting reading. As does his flawless predictions of Barramundi seasons catch rate expectations. Flood and Drought theory is NO theory here.

I also believe political motives abound when it comes to Green Zones and anything else related to attracting a vote or two.

Unfortunately, we ( State and Federal Government ) have been sitting on their collective hands for way too many years now............ our fishery is not in good health and we are doling nothing positive to help it.

They know what to do, but hard to motivate the unwilling..


LP

[Badone]

Whilst I don't doubt your experience in areas where you dive, such an individual experience can't be compared to the assessment done by the fisheries scientists. Management decisions require data, evidence and analysis collected through applying scientific and rigorous methodologies.

Couldn't agree more. Anecdotal evidence is just that. I guess I was putting my opinion forward not stating a fact but experience does form our opinions.
I don't have the answers but would hate to see our oceans turned into lifeless deserts as is seen overseas in some countries where there is virtually no restrictions on fishing. The only reason I can still catch a feed today within an hours boat ride from the 3rd biggest city in Australia is because of our fishing regulations. Conservation is a good thing and should be embraced but only if it is based on science.

[Lovey80]

Moonlighter thanks for your informed reply and you make a lot of good points.
No one was angrier than I when they closed off Flat Rock and Hendos on some pseudo excuse that they were protecting GNSs. The reality was they basically just gave those areas over to the scuba fraternity to use as their exclusive playground. I also attended all the EPA/ fisheries forums to try to see if the Zones were science based and sadly, in most peoples opinions ( including many leading CSIRO scientists ), they were not.
If not green zones then what? I have dived many green zones and they are covered with fish and many of the fish I see are mature breeding adults. Is the flow on effect negligible? You say yes but I am not so sure.
I have also speared and fished Brissie and the GBR from Bundy to Cooktown for about 30yrs now and the decline in fish populations that I have noticed is staggering. That is with ever tightening bag limits, size limits and spawning closures. The pros have taken their toll no doubt but so have the rec fishos to a large extent. The current system is not working. I don't have any solutions other than follow the science... do you?
I'm not sure you are suggesting we remove green zones but if you are surely a small positive effect is better than none?
Oh yeah and Lovely80 throwing rocks doesn't help the discussion much. If you added something to the discussion other than your sideline barracking maybe someone would listen.

Mate, not throwing rocks and my last comment saved me a heap of time essentially writing exactly the same thing as Moonlighter, though I am sure he did it more eloquently than I could have.

It's still important to point out though because you seemed to have missed it, Greenzones are NOT in place for fish stock preservation purposes. This was made very clear by the Bligh government when the MBMP zoning was announced because immediately all stake holders quickly identified that the stock assessments of the MBMP species showed that the stocks were stable. Words like "fear mongering" were used by Bligh to thwart any attempts to block the green zones based on stock science. The Green zones it was blatantly put were a tool to protect habitat and habitat alone.

Anecdotally I think there is a case for greenzones in coral reef fisheries as many of the species such as coral trout don't migrate like other species specific to rocky reef such as snapper. But then again, you're cutting off fishing in a specific area so that territorial fish like coral trout are left to grow large while the same amount of fishing effort is squeezed into a smaller space. So of course when on a dive of two comparable areas the green zone is going to look fantastic. Also from my diving experience, coral reef areas that hold large coral trout (as one example) have fewer fish for the same given area. It's like once a big dominant fish takes an area there are fewer smaller fish for a larger distance around where it lives. So I am yet to be sold on greenzones as a stock preservation measure for coral reefs when there are better alternatives IMO.

Areas like Moreton Bay don't have the same characteristics or species as coral reefs. Snapper for example will be found all over the bay and beyond and migrate in between these areas. So protecting one location from fishing isn't necessarily protecting the species for more than the period the fish are in that area.

I think this whole debacle could have been handled much better with options such as no anchor zones (yellow or purple??). If you are zoning to protect habitat then surely this achieves almost the same thing. Similarly there are areas within Moreton bay that were made green where almost no one would have a need to anchor to fish. Desert sandy bottoms that only really come alive when the pelagics move into the bay to feed on baitfish. How is trolling a lure or sight casting slugs into such an area going to protect the sandy bottom?

On top of that we should be looking to create as much habitat as is physically possible and is environmentally prudent. Artificial reef programmes should be constantly ongoing. Yet we have an EPA that was quite happy to lock up half the bay to protect habitat yet were quite happy to let developers bulldoze whole mangrove breeding areas just so the Brisbane airport expansion could have a shopping precinct that they didn't actually need.

Add to that on the fisheries side of things we have a SEVERE problem with fisheries data collection - especially on the Rec Angler side of the equation. We had some awesome recommendations from the recreational sector to install catch cards for Snapper anglers so that comprehensive data could be collected on the actual rec take but was rejected as too expensive (which was a load of shit).

All that gives a hint to governments on both sides of the blue/red divide that clearly shows that political will to have the best fishery possible is the last thing that they give a shit about.

[BigE]

It really is very easy to tell the difference between the science and the bullshit without getting all emotional about it if you just think for a bit.

There is obviously a point a which a fishery is not sustainable and it would be wise management to have a % of buffer (smarter minds than mine to decide the number) and at that point limits should be applied and enforced - There also would be a point that would indicate the fishery is doing well and with a similar % buffer it would be ok to relax said limits and allow more take.

So if you want to know if that warm feel in your pocket is science or just piss in your pocket - ask at what point would any prescribe limits be relaxed to allow more take ?? if there is no point that this can occur the the warm feeling in your pockets ain't good science my friends. not really that hard to work out if you think about it.if there are not two sides to the equation then it really is just piss and wind.

BigE