https://eatlas.org.au/data/uuid/ab57...b-cabf8fe29724
Here is some empirical data. Some Ausfish members even helped collect data.
Matt
No I didn't do an actual survey - but the comparative numbers were obvious ….. rather than spotting the odd trout , red throat , GT , Maori Wrasse etc - there were many . We snorkelled maybe a dozen locations not in a marine park ….. & it was chalk and cheese.Originally Posted by billfisher
My faith exists because of what I have seen & experienced and from what divers have told me .
Chris
Give a man a fish & he will eat for a day !
Teach him how to fish
& he will sit in a boat - & drink beer all day!
TEAM MOJIKO
The evidence I provided was not anecdotal but first hand, also backed up with statistics, if I can still contact Jock I will ask for those details. Further, empirical .... only based on observation, more theoretical???
My opinion is based on twenty years of fishing an area prior to the introduction of a green zone and what I experienced a few years later. That view is also shared by friends of mine who dive around these areas, seeing first hand an increase in marine species, excluding some pelagic fish. We only get spotted & spanish in the warmer months. Again, definitely NOT anecdotal.
GO THE CRUISER UTES!
....OH WHAT A FEELING!
It definitely is anecdotal. Eg if you instead look at actual fisheries data catches went down by about the same proportion as the area of green zones on the GBR. Kearney and Gardner wrote a paper on it. The marine park authority said before hand that they would go up enough to justify the cost and it's generous budget. Looks like their propaganda is still working.
What do you think is proves with regard to fish numbers?
So like I said you plucked the 10 fold figure out of the air. Also divers are know for their anti fishing militancy.
Strangely enough there is a couple of green zones near me that I dive now and then, and I can tell you there is a lot more quality fish in the green zone than well away from it, don't quite understand why, it's almost like the fish know it's safe, kind of like a bird in a cage, or dog in the back yard maybe? not trying to be a greenie or suggest anything like that, it's just an observation.
But the argument is whether they boost overall fish nos. For that to happen then there has to be an overall increase in fish nos due to spillover. A difference in fish nos, ie more fish in green zones is by itself not enough. It must also be considered that these green zones are often chosen because they are more productive and that fishing effort tends to get displaced into the fished areas.
So it's 'empirical and backed by statistics', but you don't have the details? Also you might want to consider that there has been a reduction in commercial fishing on the GBR over the same period (licence buyouts). So if you are catching more fish then it's likely that fisheries management is doing the lifting.
Not saying I disagree, I am just saying how I see it in "real life" there is a couple of no take zones, and that includes everything, shells oysters everything, it's one of the few places you will see big Snapper almost every time you dive, I don't profess to know why, but it's fact, you can dive on similar reef reasonably close by, and see none, just dumb luck? I don't know, maybe they have always been there?
Hey mate, your empirical evidence is not a scientific paper peer reviewed... so it is infact, little more than random opinion on the net.
Any article can be skewed to a point- we have economists and statisticians that are often paid by industry to suit their needs.
The only true way to present evidence would be to find a scientific paper that is peer reviewed.
What would I know though- I only did scientific research and a thesis....
Again, do not be sucked into green zones as some kind of fisheries management tool IN AUSTRALIA.
They are not.
Look at the legislation they are created under and there is nothing in there about fisheries management.
Fisheries management is about managing the fishery resources to get an ongoing sustainable yield out of it.
Green zones and marine parks here in Aus are purely about lockups and green conservation. They have even adopted the RAP (representative areas program) approach here in Aus, where they simply lock up X% of different types of habitat/bottom types and nursery grounds or fisheries benefits do not come into the equation at all. Thats why we get x% of muddy bottom, x% of reefs, x% of sandy surf zone etc locked into green zones.
Any incidental benefit to fisheries has to be offset against the loss of access to fishing areas. And to date, those incidental benefits are small and do not justify the loss of access to vast areas.
If the fisheries managers thought that there would be benefits to fisheries management objectives by closing an area to fishing either temporarily (eg spawning season) or longer term, then they ALREADY HAVE THAT POWER under the fisheries management legislation.
Its been used here in Qld on a few occasions for many years - eg Swan Bay at Jumpinpin is one example of a spawning/juvenile area thats been protected under these fisheries management provisions, for as long as I can remember. They are now doing that as a temporary closure for snapper and pearlies in Qld waters.
So do not get sucked in yet again by greenies telling you about the benefits to fisheries. In fact as soon as you get a greeny telling you that, then you know straight away you are being fed BS and lies in an effort to mislead you into thinking that they are doing this to help fish sustainability - its got absolutely nothing do with that.
We went thru all of this more than 10 years ago with the Moreton Bay Marine Park rezoning, and I was closely involved in the process representing recreational anglers. First hand and up front we saw the greeny agenda and they were so bold they didnt even try to hide it - we were told to our faces that they just want 30-50% closures and would not stop till they got it. End of story.
All the stuff about fisheries benefits was purely to suck in the gullible and uninformed and to make it sound good in the press.
Note to self: Don't argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience....
Plenty of rec fishers are all for green zones as well.
Also in the latest working groups the commercial sector asked for a complete ban on snapper fishing until stocks were replenished. So we have many shades of green.
If you are taking about Qld snapper I don't think a complete ban was ever on the table or needed. The paper I saw thought they could build them up to 60% of the unfished biomass in just 5 years with the sort of reductions in effort announced. PS there are millions of anglers - so what if some of them support green zones?
There are millions of anglers - so what if some of them don't support green zones
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
