Reply With QuotePjw and Brenden,
Seeing your so fond of quotes I have this one for you from the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
sophist, n. Ancient greek paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric; captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler.
Problem is the report is correct in so much as the conclusions stated were the results of the experiment. It may well be junk science as sooooo much of the industry funded/partially funded science is today.
If we had an independent governing body which pooled all research directed industry funds and allocated these funds without bias we would have a quality system. Trouble is industry would back away from funding as the results would no longer equal good business practices.
It is an amazing conclusion though that need not peer review but replication .....INDEPENDENT REPLICATION.....some how I dont think we will ever see that happen.
The political bias in these studys can be large, we are extremely lucky drug company's don't want recreational fishers off the reef!!!!!
A crooked system makes for crooked science. Just as we saw ALL the way through RAP.
cheers fnq
Pjw and Brenden,
Seeing your so fond of quotes I have this one for you from the Concise Oxford Dictionary:
sophist, n. Ancient greek paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric; captious or fallacious reasoner, quibbler.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/burdens.pdf
The above is a link to a paper that assess the trends in marine reserve science. Here are some exerpts which suggest we should be sceptical about some of this research:
We found that the number of empirical field studies has been climbing at a fairly consistent rate over the last ten years, but has recently been lagging behind the combined publication rate of reviews and theory (Fig. 1). Reading the latter papers, it is apparent that much of their raison d’être is advocacy for the establishment of marine reserves in parts of the world that lack them, rather than real attempts to contribute to the science of the field. The difference between science and advocacy in this field is becoming increasingly blurred (Polunin 2002), and we may soon be in the unusual situation of being faced with a greater number of reviews than there is reviewable material.
Furthermore, the proliferation of models and reviews has resulted in model assumptions evolving into accepted paradigms, a case of ‘What everybody says must be true’ (Simpson 1993).
Detection of recovery of fish density in marine reserves often suffers from lack of rigour in the design of field surveys (Hurlbert 1984; Stewart-Oaten et al. 1986; Underwood 1990, 1993). As Underwood (1990) pointed out, studies lacking replication cannot be logically interpreted. In the marine reserve context there are many reasons why researchers might have limits on their sampling designs. However, a critical evaluation of the experimental designs employed by many
published studies brought to light the following problems with replication and lack of control sites:
(1) insufficient sample replication (for example only one site sampled inside and outside a reserve, or no control sites sampled at all);
(2) spatial confounding (for example all control sites located only at one end of the reserve, so that comparisons are confounded by unknown location effects);
(3) lack of temporal replication (most studies consist of surveys done at only one time);
(4) lack of replication at the reserve level limiting the generality of results (although in many cases this reflects the number of reserves available); and
(5) non-random placement of reserves, i.e. often reserves are sited to include ‘special’ or unique features, which causes difficulties in selecting valid control sites (this is obviously no fault of the researchers).
How many studies unambiguously demonstrate significant within-reserve increases in the density of exploited species? Edgar and Barrett (1997) recognized that, with a sufficiently large sample size, a statistically significant difference between two sites (separated either spatially or temporally) can almost always be obtained due simply to true natural biological variability between the sites. That is, the null hypothesis of no difference between two biological entities is necessarily false. They therefore proposed a 100% increase in density as a minimum criterion for claiming the existence of a ‘reserve effect’. This type of approach is more generally known as bio-equivalence testing, in which an effect is not considered biologically significant unless it exceeds a pre-specified threshold (McBride 1999). If we use the 100% threshold, and ignore flaws in sampling design, then there were only a handful of instances where differences in density of individual species between reserve and fished areas can be regarded as biologically significant (Polunin & Roberts 1993; Francour 1994; Harmelin et al. 1995; Russ & Alcala 1996; Edgar & Barrett 1997, 1999; Willis et al. 2003). In many other cases, slight trends towards higher reserve densities were described, but these were of insufficient magnitude to confidently attribute them to reserve
effects, rather than real biological variability at the spatial or temporal level (Roberts & Polunin 1992; Chapman & Kramer 1999; Paddack & Estes 2000). If we consider only those studies that are replicated in both time and space, to our knowledge there are only a few that establish increases in excess of 100%: Ferreira and Russ (1995), Wantiez et al. (1997), Edgar and Barrett (1997, 1999), the long term studies of McClanahan (for example, McClanahan & Arthur 2001), and Willis et al. (2003).
More on the reef shark study.
The "SOP No3 - #Visual Census Surveys" which Brenden informed us was used in the study in question is a visual method based on scuba divers obsevation. #This method was commented on in: "BAITED UNDERWATER VIDEO FOR ASSESSING REEF FISH POPULATIONS IN MARINE RESERVES".Tim Langlois et al.
Here some of what they had to say:
"The most common observational method for studying shallow (< 20 m) reef fish is an underwater visual survey (UVS) made by scuba divers. Studies have summarized the advantages and disadvantages of this method (e.g. Harmelin et al. 1985; Samoilys 1997; Bortone et al. 2000) and it has been noted that certain commonly fished species are not recorded well by divers. This is because fished species tend to be behaviourally adaptable, which means they may rapidly alter their response to divers (Kulbicki 1998). Such problems can cause severe bias in studies using diver surveys. To counter the biases introduced by changes in fish behaviour, remote (surface-based) observational methods such as baited remote underwater video (BRUV) can be useful".
"A combination of survey techniques, including remote baited video and UVS, would be advisable to include both behaviourally adaptable predatory species and fished species that do not respond to bait".
Of course this is very similar to what Dr Starck said. This report doesn't specifically mention sharks but they would definitely be in the category of #'behaviourally adaptable predatory species'.
Yes, this it the research I'd like to make sense of. #Exclusion zones as a set-and-forget strategy seem to have only limited benefit. #Closed seasons to coincide with spawning events and rolling closures to allow recovery make sense intuitively but lack research support. #I do a lot of fishing in put and take impoundments and those kinds of fisheries are showing that such a system works. #well. #Maybe, in the future, we will see popular species stocked on the close reefs/fisheries as a management and access technique. #The research article at the focus of this thread is particularly important give the argument that the sharks may be a keystone species. #But, yes, I agree that much more research is needed.
You miss a huge point in that marine parks are going ahead in NSW WITHOUT research. There have been next to no studies done on them in NSW. Soon 30% of state controlled waters will soon be marine parks. #Percentage of areas to be sanctuaries (all fishing banned) are decided in advance (usually 20%). No submission to reduce sanctuary areas will be considered. No proposal for rolling closures will be considered. You quibble about what I haven't read while all that is going on.
Impoundments are put and take because the fish in them cannot breed naturally. To suggest we should stock ocean waters is rather silly. There is no popular species of inshore fish that is recruitment overfished in NSW and I'm sure QLD is the same. Saltwater stocking can be useful in lakes and estuaries near where there is a large human population in order to provide an enhanced angling experience. It makes no economic sense to do it for commercial fishing. In NSW Lake Macquarie and Botany Bay are being stocked with mulloway fingerlings, funded by the recreational fishing licence. By the way the conservation groups campaigning heavily for marine parks (eg the NCC) oppose all fish stocking, including that of native fish.
With regards to angling their policy (NCC) is for a bag limit of one fish per day and substantial licence fees. Of course to further their anti-fishing agenda they want a network marine parks with 20% (some spokesmen have been heard to push for 50%) of all NSW waters to be sanctuary zones . The Greens Party wants 30%.
By the way I'm glad that you agree that exclusion zones have limited benifit. #
The GBR has in fact been extensively studied particularly with regard to popular fishing species such as coral trout. From Dr Starck in:
GBR Science Summary, No. 1 Overview of the GBR situation and background of the author.
Summary
The extensive long term and still ongoing underwater surveys of coral trout populations on the GBR by Dr. Ayling are perhaps the most comprehensive population data for any reef fishes anywhere in the world. This remarkable body of work has been funded by GBRMPA for almost two decades at very substantial cost. That the results have never been published or even mentioned by GBRMPA is even more remarkable.
These results irrefutably show that coral trout are abundant everywhere and there is no significant difference between the most frequently fished reefs near population centres and remote rarely visited ones nor between reefs open to fishing and those closed to it. These surveys clearly indicate that our most heavily fished species is in fact being only lightly harvested. They also strongly infer that no environmental benefits should be expected from the recently increased restrictions on fishing.
Most disturbing of all, the existence of this exceptional body of knowledge and its total disregard by GBRMPA raises serious questions about the factual basis, scientific quality, and indeed even the integrity with which GBRMPA’s management of the reef is being conducted.
If Chaz is still out there here are some more details on the murray cod studies he requested:
The Status, Importance and Future of Australian Fisheries
Walter A. Starck
The Murray cod is another “threatened” species. A widely cited NSW Fisheries survey in 1995-96 reported that: “A telling indication of the condition of rivers in the Murray region was the fact that, despite intensive fishing with the most efficient types of sampling gear for a total of 220 person-days over a two-year period in twenty randomly chosen Murray-region sites, not a single Murray cod or freshwater catfish was caught.” The Murray cod commercial fishery was closed in 2001. The Recreational Fishing Survey estimated that during the survey period recreational fishers caught 483,284 Murray cod of which 374,932 were released and 108,352 weighing 144,222 Kg were kept. As is so often the case the claims and concerns of devout environmentalists and even fishery biologists bear no relation to real world evidence. The astounding disparity between the catch of the biologists and that of the recreational anglers underscores the problem faced in biologists having sole responsibility for management of a fishery.
I've read most of this thread with interest. It raises the point that science alone cannot effect change. It needs community support.
Have a look at CapReef.
This is community based monitoring post RAP and was initiated by a group of locals who were involved in RAP and saw the need to get involved in the data collection so that the next round of Management changes is based at least in part on information that the community will believe. CapReef is reviewed by scientists and has links to Government, it does not lobby or make managment recommendations.
Our local community involvement in RAP produced a range of changes that were well received by most stakeholders. There is broad support for the rezoning and receational fishers and marine businesses are doing very well.
Based on my personal experiences, GBR has changed a lot in the last 40 years and is not lightly fished. It faces some major challenges in the next 50 years, and I hope to be involved in some minor way to improve its chances...and still enjoy catching some nice fish.
Grahams,
So I take it you have some association with the GBRMPA. Do you think that recreational fishers and marine businesses in your area are doing well because of the park or despite of it?
I would have thought that the fact that the compensation bill is heading towards 200 million dollars is hardly an indication that the GBRMP is good for coastal businesses. Or that 40% of people in the Cairns area gave up fishing since the green zones were expanded shows that they are hardly well recieved by anglers.
Billfisher,
I was invloved in RAP with the local LMAC and worked with a range of local stakeholders to get a commonsense approach to the rezoning.
It's all good in our area of central queensland.I don't know of any business locally looking for compensation. this is probably a result of the local community working with GBRMPA to achieve their target zoning while minimising the effect on all the stakeholders. In fact contrary to popular sentiment I see the recent zoning as establishing a certainty for the future. Before the rezoning I was pessimistic about the future of a number of key species including red jew (large mouth nannygai). DPI&F reducing bag limits and increasing size limits also assisted, as did banning small mackerel netting.
I am now confident that our area will continue to fish well at reasonably sustainable levels.
I have a charterboat on order, so I am putting my money where my mouth is.
I can't speak for Cairns, but the people I talk to in that area believe the mood of many businesses will change once compensation is no longer on offer. I have had a look at new boat registrations in QLD and by shire. there was a slight dip BEFORE the introduction of the rezoning, (which is understandable) but this has now disappeared and there is no dip or downward trend.
I think the lesson to be learned is that the outcome of contentious issues like this can be influenced by local groups getting together and trying to work up a reasonable consensus.
I think the controls imposed by GBRMPA and DPIF have given me confidence about the future of recreational fishing. We should always be vigilant against emotive sensationalist, populist lobby groups, (even rec fishing ones) but the way to defuse these is to ensure the majority of common sense stakeholders are well informed and involved in the monitoring and management of the GBR.
I have no view on the reef shark issue, as I am not up to speed with reports, however it must be very difficult to accurately monitor stock levels. CapReef is accessing the wealth of knowledge from recreational fishers. If you have a look at Info-fish.net.au we have posted data from the Yaralla deep sea fishing club which have records back into the 70's. We now also have more than 1500 boat ramp surveys of recreational catches from our area. We are getting about a 2% knockback when we approach people at the boat ramps.If they were pissed off with the zoning and bag limit changes I doubt we would get such co-operation. Being a local non-government organisation also helps.
We don't attempt to draw any conclusions from this data as it's prone to numerous variables. We hope over time, perhaps 5 years, we will have a good data set for researchers to test their hypotheses as well as create a good baseline to asses any trends, all within the community domain.
There is no doubt that RAP produced a wide range of outcomes along the GBR ranging from strong support to outright hostility. I don't believe the variation in result was anything to do with variations within the GBRMPA process. I believe the differences were due to the linkages to stakeholders and the relative strength and organisation (or disorganistion) of the various groups.
Bundaberg was a classic case. They still hate RAP, yet have a look at the GBRMPA Review where the reefs off Bundaberg were used as an example of how the draft plan was modified based on public submissions. I think the stakeholder groups didn't get their act together in time and GBRMPA rsponded to what they had, which may not have reflected the majority view. Hard to blame them for the result.
Anyway, good to see people interested enough to get involved. In the long run this is exactly what'sneeded to bring together science, community and government.
Billfisher,
I was invloved in RAP with the local LMAC and worked with a range of local stakeholders to get a commonsense approach to the rezoning.
It's all good in our area of central queensland.I don't know of any business locally looking for compensation. this is probably a result of the local community working with GBRMPA to achieve their target zoning while minimising the effect on all the stakeholders. In fact contrary to popular sentiment I see the recent zoning as establishing a certainty for the future. Before the rezoning I was pessimistic about the future of a number of key species including red jew (large mouth nannygai). DPI&F reducing bag limits and increasing size limits also assisted, as did banning small mackerel netting.
I am now confident that our area will continue to fish well at reasonably sustainable levels.
I have a charterboat on order, so I am putting my money where my mouth is.
I can't speak for Cairns, but the people I talk to in that area believe the mood of many businesses will change once compensation is no longer on offer. I have had a look at new boat registrations in QLD and by shire. there was a slight dip BEFORE the introduction of the rezoning, (which is understandable) but this has now disappeared and there is no dip or downward trend.
I think the lesson to be learned is that the outcome of contentious issues like this can be influenced by local groups getting together and trying to work up a reasonable consensus.
I think the controls imposed by GBRMPA and DPIF have given me confidence about the future of recreational fishing. We should always be vigilant against emotive sensationalist, populist lobby groups, (even rec fishing ones) but the way to defuse these is to ensure the majority of common sense stakeholders are well informed and involved in the monitoring and management of the GBR.
I have no view on the reef shark issue, as I am not up to speed with reports, however it must be very difficult to accurately monitor stock levels. CapReef is accessing the wealth of knowledge from recreational fishers. If you have a look at Info-fish.net.au we have posted data from the Yaralla deep sea fishing club which have records back into the 70's. We now also have more than 1500 boat ramp surveys of recreational catches from our area. We are getting about a 2% knockback when we approach people at the boat ramps.If they were pissed off with the zoning and bag limit changes I doubt we would get such co-operation. Being a local non-government organisation also helps.
We don't attempt to draw any conclusions from this data as it's prone to numerous variables. We hope over time, perhaps 5 years, we will have a good data set for researchers to test their hypotheses as well as create a good baseline to asses any trends, all within the community domain.
There is no doubt that RAP produced a wide range of outcomes along the GBR ranging from strong support to outright hostility. I don't believe the variation in result was anything to do with variations within the GBRMPA process. I believe the differences were due to the linkages to stakeholders and the relative strength and organisation (or disorganistion) of the various groups.
Bundaberg was a classic case. They still hate RAP, yet have a look at the GBRMPA Review where the reefs off Bundaberg were used as an example of how the draft plan was modified based on public submissions. I think the stakeholder groups didn't get their act together in time and GBRMPA rsponded to what they had, which may not have reflected the majority view. Hard to blame them for the result.
Anyway, good to see people interested enough to get involved. In the long run this is exactly what'sneeded to bring together science, community and government.
Sorry about the double post, not very good at this
Grahams,
Thank for filling me in with what is happening in your area. A scientific review is coming up on the reef shark paper which started this thread. I will put it up when I get it. I have the paper in question. As I had gathered the study is based on dive counts with no effort to standardise the survey with other methods such as remote video cameras. With sharks this method is likely to lead to severe bias in the the counts.
Do you know of any anglers keeping or killing reef sharks in your area? I would have thought this to be unlikely given that there are so many more desirable reef fish to target.
Billfisher,
Not much of a shark fishery up this way. They net a few shark"barrels" inshore.
Personally, I haven't noticed any reduction in reef shark numbers.
Dr Starck ha reviewed the paper in question. It can be found on his website:
http://www.goldendolphin.com/
I will put up a few excerpts, but I would first like to say to Brenden and pjw (if they are still looking at this site), somehow 'I told you so' doesn't quite cut it!
Are GBR Shark Populations Really Collapsing?Walter StarckA recent publication by Robbins et al. (2006) purports to have found a widespread and dramatic decline in shark populations on the Great Barrier Reef due to fishing mortality. This report has attracted considerable media attention and seems likely to become the basis for further restrictions on reef activities. There are, however, a number of serious doubts regarding the methods and conclusions of this study.
At first glance these findings, though alarming, would seemingly appear well founded. However, there are a number of important reasons to seriously question them. In the first instance is the irrefutable fact that the GBR is subject to only very low fishing pressure. The small population of the region, distances of reefs from population centres and prevailing weather conditions, plus stringent restrictions on fishing result in a total harvest of less than 1% of that widely accepted as sustainable for coral reef fisheries (Starck 2005). There is also no dedicated shark fishery on the GBR and the subject species are only taken incidental to fishing for other fishes. In addition most sharks that are so caught are simply released.
At first glance these findings, though alarming, would seemingly appear well founded. However, there are a number of important reasons to seriously question them. In the first instance is the irrefutable fact that the GBR is subject to only very low fishing pressure. The small population of the region, distances of reefs from population centres and prevailing weather conditions, plus stringent restrictions on fishing result in a total harvest of less than 1% of that widely accepted as sustainable for coral reef fisheries (Starck 2005). There is also no dedicated shark fishery on the GBR and the subject species are only taken incidental to fishing for other fishes. In addition most sharks that are so caught are simply released.
No boats over vast areas is not difficult to verify and it does not require sophisticated analysis to determine that no boats means no fishing. Government in fact possesses detailed long term information on the presence and distribution of boats on the GBR in the form of daily Coast watch reports. The reality of a very low level of any human activity over most of the GBR can be easily and accurately verified.
The extensive Effect of Line Fishing survey (Mapstone et al. 2004) found that even for the most heavily targeted species there was little or no significant difference in numbers between reefs open to fishing or closed to it on other reefs in the same study areas as the shark study. This was interpreted as indicating a low level of fishing pressure.
Populations of grey and whitetip reef sharks have remained robust in many Indo-Pacific island areas despite subsistence fishing at a much higher level than that to which the GBR is subjected. The Cocos Keeling Is. where this study found healthy shark populations comparable to the no entry zones on the GBR is a case in point. Although the study cited the Cocos reefs as being "pristine" and "under minimal exploitation" it is in fact subject to considerably more intense fishing pressure than is either of the two GBR areas surveyed. In the Cocos Is. there is a resident population of almost 600 persons for whom fishing is the main source of animal protein. A recent fisheries management paper for the Cocos Is. (Anon. 2005) states that "…evidence suggests that finfish stocks in the lagoon have been depleted." It also listed sharks as high value food species.
A further difficulty with the study findings arises from the geographic distribution of survey sites. Grey reef sharks in particular are far more abundant on the outer barrier reefs where both of the no entry reefs are situated. Conversely only 5 of the other categories of reef were on the outer barrier while 11 were mid-shelf reefs where they are less common and 3 were around the shore of a moderately large continental island (Lizard I.) a habitat where both species are naturally even less abundant.
To compound the uncertainty only aggregate data for all surveys for each reef category is presented and no information is provided as to where on a reef the actual surveys were made. This can be critically important as actual abundance of sharks can vary greatly between different reef situations. Generally the outer edge of an outer barrier reef has much higher population density of both species than does the inside edge of the same reef and abundance in passes at the end of reefs can be highly variable.
Finally and most important of all is that the survey method used is inappropriate for these species. Grey reef sharks in particular are highly opportunistic roving predators. On reefs where divers have previously been rare or absent they are initially attracted to the appearance of a diver or divers and come in to investigate. It is not unusual to be able to see a half dozen or more at one time under such conditions and they may even approach as close as two to three meters. If repeated dives are made fewer are seen and they approach less closely. After a few days diving only scattered individuals are seen.
In areas subject to occasional or frequent diving not many sharks are normally seen and most of those sighted do not come within the 10 M radius required to be counted by the survey method described in the study. Seeing few or even none however, does not mean that they are not present. Their acoustical and visual senses permit them to be aware of a diver well beyond our limit of visibility. Spear a struggling fish and often several will quickly appear, especially if one is on the outside edge of an outer barrier reef. On a number of occasions I have used marlin carcasses to attract sharks when anchored inside various reefs on the outer barrier. These included two of the reefs in this study. On most occasions sharks began to appear in numbers within a half-hour or less of putting out the bait. As there was only little current the scent could only have attracted them from an area of a few Ha. down current by the time a dozen or more would be present. Grey reef sharks were always attracted first and in largest numbers although in normal diving on the same reefs only occasional scattered individuals would be seen.
Assessing the populations of reef sharks is difficult and visual counts along a 10m radius of a transect swum by a diver is subject to a large upward bias where resident sharks are unused to divers and are actually attracted to investigate an unfamiliar stimulus. Conversely they have a tendency to avoid or at least not approach to within 10m where they are familiar with divers. Aerial surveys by helicopter in calm weather would yield more reliable results. Use of a standardized baiting method to attract sharks would also help to provide a better comparison between areas, even though density per ha. estimates would not be possible.
The impoverishment of reef sharks alleged by Robbins et al. (2006) is an especially serious claim in that it implies the effective or even actual extinction of the major apex reef predators of the reef community. If the findings and recommendations of this study are correct the only effective protection would require either the banning of all fishing or a major expansion of no entry zones to cover much of the entire GBR as well as acceptance of a significant ecological degradation of the remaining open areas. Before such action is contemplated, COMMA confirmation of the reality of the threat is warranted. The aerial and baiting surveys that I suggest above would provide quick and powerful confirmation or refutation of the order of magnitude differences in abundance claimed between no entry and other areas. Such a reality check is strongly needed.
Posting Permissions