Hi Smee,
Any part of fishing apparatus in the water is all they need to prove,
they dont even have to prove you had a hook or any intent.
Furthermore they dont even have to provide proof that you were
actually inside a green zone, if they say you are in a green zone
you have no come back, even if you were really just oputside.
cheers Mick
Thats just not Australian but what is these days more beurocratic bullshirt i suppose its the same as speeding if they say you were speeding you were speeding and theyve proven that radars can be wrong . anyway enough of that what can we do about it.
regards smee
I was brought up believing that in a court of law the burden of proof is to prove guilt not innocence. The reverse is only true in official inquiries (guilt is assumed to have been proven or accepted). So many things have changed in my short lifetime. I hope our basic principles of democracy survive.
bloody fascists
Any fishing is good fishing(should probably say Any fishing is...probably going to be illegal soon)
From Dr Walter Starck, here's what people are facing heavy fines and criminal convictions for:
The Great Barrier Reef is the largest contiguous area of coral reefs in the world. . It is also among the most pristine of reefs areas. Distance, weather and a relatively small population mean most of the GBR is rarely even visited . Of the 2900 reefs in the complex only a few dozen are regularly used for tourism and the total annual fish harvest per Km² is less than 1% of what reefs elsewhere commonly sustain.
The Barrier Reef is a beloved national icon but very few persons are truly familiar with it. Most Australians have never seen it and of those who have, the overwhelming majority have only paid a brief visit to the readily accessible tourist destinations. Even among those charged with “managing” the reef, few have actual experience of it amounting to more than a few weeks at a few locations.
Scientific understanding of reefs is also only patchy and highly specialized. Only a literal handful of persons have the scientific background, plus widespread and long term experience necessary to make reasonable judgments of reef conditions. Even then assessment is difficult due to the highly variable nature of reef communities. What is often seen as evidence of human detriment is either a natural condition of reefs in a particular situation or the result of natural events such as storms, floods, and population fluctuations of various organisms that appear unnatural to those of limited experience.
Over the past four decades hardly a year has passed without some dire threat to the GBR being declared. Crown of thorns starfish, overfishing, tourism, anchor damage, pesticides, fertilizer, cattle, cane, oil shale, coastal development, roads, marinas, shipping, global warming and sundry other menaces have been repeatedly declared and “experts” trotted out to support them. None of these things have been dealt with in any effective manner yet the reef remains much as it has always been. Credibility however, never seems wanting for the another threat nor more experts to offer opinions.
Those who regularly use the reef suspect from their own direct experience most of this is b.s. but they have little voice or credibility as experts. Recreational fishermen. commercial fishermen, divers, spearfishermen, and tourist operators each know they do little damage themselves but all have been guilty of pointing a finger at the others. Everyone too likes to talk about the good old days when the water was always crystal clear and fish so thick you could walk on them. Never mind that catch statistics don’t show this, it’s the good stuff we remember. It’s also always good for old timers to have something over newcomers.
The academic community is little better. For a start they need to stay on the good side of the establishment to get grants and permits. Then too grants to study threatening problems are much more likely to receive funding than are investigations of a more esoteric nature. What starts as speculation ends up having to be defended . From there it’s easy to begin firmly believing what started as only possibility. Beyond this, science also has its fads and fashions with ideas becoming widely accepted at one point only to be later revised or discarded. Reef studies are no exception.
Meanwhile GBRMPA has flourished. With a broad mandate to protect a national icon., no real threats to it, and almost universal ignorance of the reef or of any actual results of their management they have had a free hand to imagine threats, create regulations and declare successes. In reality almost all of their generous budget is spent on maintaining and promoting themselves plus covering the deficit of their aquarium and theater complex. Only about 10% of their budget goes to research and surveys to produce the real information necessary to make competent decisions regarding the reef. Even this is contracted out and results ignored if they do not support the established agenda.
In short they have been operating in a climate of ignorance employing hypothetical solutions to problems that exist only in the imagination. In truth if GBRMPA never existed at all the situation on the reef would be little different. The only real world result of all this has been to create an ever increasing morass of regulations, permits and fees. With broad power, little oversight or accountability, a healthy budget, idyllic working conditions and no duty other than a self defined agenda it’s a bureaucrats dream..
We need better than this. The GBR is indeed a national treasure. GBRMPA needs to become a hands-on manager focusing on identifying and dealing with real problems. Extensive time on the reef should be part of the job. Research and surveys aimed at providing the basic knowledge necessary to competent management should be a core activity not just an optional add-on. Most importantly the results of such work should be applied wherever it leads not just when it suits what has already been decided.
The current RAP plan should be put on hold. No clearly identified problem is addressed by it. The results of existing green zones have not been properly evaluated, no evidence of overfishing has been offered, no reduction in biodiversity has been observed or is even suspected. The surveys necessary to establish truly representative areas have not been conducted. The results of the large scale effects of fishing survey that has been underway for several years are not yet available. There is no crisis demanding immediate attention. Getting it right is important. Ramming through an ill founded program on a massive scale with no urgent necessity is not the kind of management the GBR needs.
The effect of closed zones needs to be monitored and evaluated on an experimental basis before applying it large scale. The current plan will concentrate fishing pressure by about one-third as much again in the areas left open. It amounts to wholesale environmental meddling for no good reason and with no idea of what the effect will be or even a plan in place to monitor it. Calling this a precautionary measure defies common sense. It is indeed just the opposite.
The ongoing zoning, reviewing and re-zoning of the entire reef has become a major never ending activity of GBRMPA. It is also is a classic example of bureaucracy at work. A zoning department was created to do a job but when the job was done instead of it being
scaled back it began a long term review. Now it’s a re-zoning, Next there will be another review.
The entire organization needs a shake up. It should be made to become reef oriented, not just another group of office workers. Competent management requires first hand knowledge and experience of the business at hand. An injection of broad knowledge and experience of reefs into high level management is sorely required. The focus on permits and zoning should be de-emphasized. Surveys, monitoring and research deserve much greater emphasis. Decisions should be based on what is actually happening on the reef not theories, fads and opinions. Intervention and regulation should be applied only where a demonstrated need exists and results should be monitored and evaluated. It is time too that provision was made to seek oversight and advice from reef users and researchers with genuine relevant knowledge and experience.
A major function of the aquarium should be as a research facility. This would not preclude the current public viewing function but that alone can simply not justify its ongoing existence. Not only could it become a valuable tool for research the research could in turn greatly enhance its interest to visitors.
GBRMPA needs restructuring to serve the reef, reef users and the regional economy not just itself. It can become a real asset or it can be just another obstacle to our use and enjoyment of the reef. It’s up to us.
hope this works,
link is to a paper written by dr starck
http://ipa.org.au/files/IPABackgrounder17-1.pdf
sams_fish
Does anybody really think we can take 100 times more fish from the GBR?
Walter Starck reminds me of the last few medical doctors that refused to believe smoking caused cancer,they used to get quoted a lot...by cigarette manufacturers.
Agree with need to change back from conviction to fines, except for the deliberate green zone fishers. Many groups have brought this up with GBRMPA and I'm hopeful it will change.
Grahams,
It sounds like you have been listening to the smug Bureaucrat in charge of the GBRMPA. Thats exactly what he said of Dr Starck!
Also Dr Starck has never advocated increasing the fishing pressure by 100X. He merely stated that at a harvest of 9 kg per square km per year it is fished nearly 100X less than what coral reefs sustain overseas. Also he has pointed out that a conservation organisation quotes a rate of 4000kg per year as sustainable.
Another of his points is that 90% of the Reef is virtually a green zone anyway. People rarely visit most of it due to the long distance it is offshore, the sparse population and the frequent bad weather.
Billfisher,
I have personally fished our part of the GBR for the last 40yrs and I can certainly confirm that there has been degradation of fish stocks over that time, sure we still catch plenty of fish, but try fishing where you did 40yrs ago, how you did forty years ago, with the technology you did forty years ago, on that basis the fishery has degraded very markedly. See if you can find some of the really old blokes who visited the reef in the 50's and 60's and listen to their stories.
I don't believe the fish stocks are close to collapse, but given the number of fisherman, the improvements in boats, motors, sounders, GPS, braid etc, I support reasonable bag limits, size limits and green zones. I also think that recreational fishers, like me, have to accept that they do have an impact, as does pro fishing. The total catch from each sector is pretty similar, but very hard to accurately measure.
As for virtual green zones, I doubt there is any reef bigger than a shopping trolley that hasn't been fished if it's within 40nm of the boat ramp, thats probably a bit silly, as we can't presume we know every inch of the seabed.Historically our area was heavily trawled and every hook up has found it's way onto somebody's GPS list. Across the Capricorn Channel between The Cap Bunkers and the Swains there is some lightly fished deep reef, but not much of this is left pristine, then you hit the Swains which in spite of it's massive size still shows plenty of fishing impact.
I won't be sucked into quoting info not relevent to the GBR, I'll make up my own mind based on all the relevant info I can find, particularly my own experiences.
The big challenges are not about allocation of the resource, they're about the health of the whole thing, some things we can do, some we can't.
I think rec fishing and management in general is improving and there's lots of evidence of responsible use, in fact I'm very positive about the future, I just get a bit frustrated when a lot of very well meaning passionate people keep quoting dodgy figures. Maybe they're right and I'm wrong (has happened before), but it just plain doesn't fit with what I have experienced.
To answer Smee. At the boat show I asked 3 fisheries officers if I could anchor up and sleep through the night in the no fishing zone at Peel ( out of the wind ). They all said yes as it was only fishing that was barred. I then said what if I'm sleeping but I have rods onboard and some fish I caught elsewhere in the eskey, one said it was ok, one said he would book me and one said he didn't know.
M62, through the ads shown here in NQ they said it was alright to have fish in the esky and rods onboard whilst being in a green zone.
It was a boat show 3 years ago.
A major announcement will be made by Government on this issue on Thursday 14th December, at which time I will post full background details. This has been an open sore for 2 years!
KC
Hi guys. Quote from Madmix "Furthermore they dont even have to provide proof that you were
actually inside a green zone, if they say you are in a green zone
you have no come back, even if you were really just oputside. "
Guys, what if my snail trail on my chart plotter shows i was not in the green zone and have the proof to defend my self. Would this evidence stand up. If they cant (and dont have to) prove i was inside the zone, and i can prove i wasnt in it, That should blow them out of the water.
Woodsy.
Woodsy there has been a lot of bluff & bluster in regards green zone breeches.
The authorities have "managed" to convince people that it is better to plead guilty and cop the fine/conviction than "fight it" and maybe have the full weight of the law (& $75,000 fine) decent on them like a ton of bricks.
HOWEVER when you call their bluff and produce evidence to support a "not guilty" plee (as we did in Cairns) they drop the case!!
TFPQ stands with you.....innocent till proven guilty....not the reverse.
KC
I bet Fred does not have rego number on the side of his boat anymore!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote