Fish stocks to collapse within 50 yrs

[RASA]

Courier Mail also gives some insights link > http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...4-3102,00.html

Extract

"Although the research did not focus on Australian waters, environmentalists feared the same impacts were already showing up here.

Australian Conservation Foundation marine campaigner Chris Smyth said Federal Government data showed the number of overfished species had jumped from three to 17 since 1996.

Most of those species were found in southeastern waters, but recent efforts to protect fisheries on the Great Barrier Reef were threatened by global warming.

Mr Smyth said the network of marine-protected areas emerging in Australia, such as the Great Barrier Reef green zones, were inadequate and an Oceans Act was needed to replace the mishmash.

However Fisheries Minister Eric Abetz claimed local fisheries were the best managed in the world and attacked the report for "tarring Australia with the same brush" as other countries.

Australian Institute of Marine Science team leader David Williams also believed Queensland's fisheries were well-managed and said there was no evidence any species were overfished now or likely to become so in future.

"The only exception would be sharks, especially in the Gulf of Carpentaria where illegal fishing is a problem," he said.

Department of Primary Industries spokeswoman Brigid Kerrigan said Queensland fish stocks were considered to be in good shape "overall".


Bob Smith

[Scalem]

Has anyone else seen the recent media reports? One that said we will be fishless by the year 2048? Is over fishing and envionmental imact really that bad?

The 2nd that I saw was a prediction that prawns will be scarce over Christmas period, driving prices up, and less quality. The opinion given was not necessarily the one I am likely to believe, which may not be driven by fact. I don't know, but what study promotes the theory that bountiful prawn harvest is driven by the amount of fresh driven out of rivers because of rain??

I am getting more concerned,and am willing to play my part in conservation of fish stocks, but I know that it is becoming more serious.

Your comments??

Scalem

[billfisher]

Scalem,

Why don't you read through this thread, you will find that the topic has been well covered.

[mod5]

In Scalems defence his comments are from a new thread he started in General Chat and I attached it here.

[saurian]

Oh well , looks like i only get 50 yrs of ever reducing bag limits to fillit.

[mowerman]

I would like to know how the AMCS can come up with " Fish stocks have increased in the areas of the Great Barrier Reef that were closed to fishing"
This was stated on the ABC radio after the mian report went to air.


Now...If an area is closed to fishing, where are they getting their figures from. Supposedly not from any fishing people because it is now illegal.

I know....They whack on their snorkel and flippers and go and count the pretty little fishies for an hour.

YEAH RIGHT>

[billfisher]

They did a dodgy 'scientific' study. Dr Walter Starck, a renown coral reef expert, said the researchers reponsible should be asked to explain why the should not be found guilty of incompetence or scientific fraud.

[rtranter]

Which are less productive than cold water areas. We're a victim of geography, but we need to realise it is a factor and we don't have the same productivity as many other places in the world. We have similar productivity to the majority of regions. Many such regions support far greater fisheries than ours, eg NZ with twice our fishery, coral reefs with 100 times the fishery of the GBR

""You say that 20 or 30% no-take zones are not an excessive burden. Well it is if you happen to live in one of these areas."

"I stayed in Byron this year, and went diving at Julien Rocks. It was spectacular, teeming with life. Huge schools of golden trevally and other species circled the dive anchor as we rose/descended. Blue grouper followed us around along the sea bed. Part of me was drooling and wishing to drop a line, and another part was marvelling at the absolute splendour and the sheer volume of fish life. If the price I have to pay to preserve a magnificent area like is go down the road a few k's to fish (I actually went doen to Ballina and caught heaps), then I'm prepared to pay it. Maybe some of the locals don't like it, and I can appreciate their point of view, but you simply can't please all the people all the time.
How do you know the abundance of life is the result of the marine park and in particular the banning of angling? No proper studies have been done on marine parks in NSW. In lightly fished regions the sanctuaries are not likely to result in much benefit. Eg in the case of the GBR the effect of no take zones was studied for 14 years (Mapstone Study). The researchers found no significant difference in fish numbers between the open and closed areas. The most productive region was the most heavily fished one of all!
Also do you realise that in NSW most targeted species are highly mobile and their larvae is pelagic and can float on the current for a 100kms or more. The benifit such species get from a sanctuary is therefore limited.
Finally in the Byron Bay Marine Park non compliance is rife. The locals still fish the sanctuary areas because they have nowhere else to fish!

Still can't work this quote thingy.
Anyway I didn't think that Byron/Balina hadit's fish park in place yet, and even if it has it hasn't been there for welve months so how can the fish numbers have increased so rapidly.
I have no objection to preserving fish stocks or any other stocks for that matter for the future, But I do have problems with how they are policed and run. I haven't noticed any hidden agenda or otherwise, just comments from members of A fishing chat site. Perhaps there are hidden agendas and perhaps not. I would like to know what JCU means.
I do know, only from fisher folk, that the marine park on the Clarence/CoffsCoast hasn't increased the number of fish caught by the recreational fisherfolk. It has according to the majority that I have spoken to, decreased, since the introduction of the Marine Park.
regards
Rob

[bidkev]

[quote author=billfisher link=1162510548/15#25 date=1162555111]

<snip>
Still can't work this quote thingy.

<snip>

Rob

Rob, click on quote in the post you are replying to and the full post will appear in your reply box. Making sure that the author and the word "quote" is not deleted, you can then delete what is irrelevant to you and just leave in the bits that you wish to reply to, also making sure that the word quote is left at the end when you delete. You then reply under the word "quote" which should be left in it's brackets.

Hope this makes sense

kev

[Matt_Campbell]

[quote author=flick link=1162501043/0#1 date=1162505339]
<snip>
Not a nice thought that we may only be able to buy asian prawns in the not so distant future.

Jim

Jim

You won't even be able to buy them Jim. The Aussie report was taken from a world-wide study which stated that *ALL* commercial fisheries will be barren within 40 to 50 yrs. I heard it this morning on the world (BBC) news.

Off Topic but for those interested there is a programme on SBS on Sundays at 6.00 pm called Thalassa (Which I think, translates as "the sea") It is a sister programme to global village and is very interesting as it is mainly about fishing communities or people making their living from the seas. Last week it was about the Newfoundland halibut fishery. These guys fish only by long-lining and considering some of the halibut are pushing 100 kilos it was fascnating to see how they are brought on board with only a couple of guys wielding gaffs. The lines can be 10 km long and those guys must be buggered by the time they are pulled in

Anyway, I digress...........the fishery has been managed so well via quotas, lower size limits and closed seasons, that they are now catching more fish than they were at it's peak 70 yrs ago. Something nice to hear considering all the doom and gloom we are subjected to nowadays

kev
[/quote]

Most if not all asian prawns are produced via aquaculture. This one of the biggest problems for local fishers as the price has been driven down by all the competing product.

[Shane_78]

A few people have talked about "big sea" and the ocean being so "darn populous" surely we know by now that there is a limit to everything in the ocean? I love going out in moreton Bay and throwing out a line with my old man and it scares the shit out of me that I won't be able to do this with my children one day. If top scientists recommend marine parks as the way to go then surely that is the way to go? As long as I can still fish somewhere in the bay I'd be prepared to sacrifice my favourite spot if it means there will be fish in the future.

[bidkev]

<snip>

If top scientists recommend marine parks as the way to go then surely that is the way to go? As long as I can still fish somewhere in the bay I'd be prepared to sacrifice my favourite spot if it means there will be fish in the future.

Just what is a "top scientist"? Whilst researching BRD's in a previous thread I posted that a lot of research is built on previous flawed research. The myth perpetuates.

Scientists need funding....ask yourself just who funds them? You? Me? In the long run, yes, but it is likely that their funding comes from instutions who have politics at the top of their agenda. Most of the research is anecdotal and as such, is open to suspicion. There is practically no Australian research on mortality of fish that have escaped via BRD's. This is research that can be quantified (yet not funded) as opposed to most research of declining fish stocks or fish captures that are based on anecdotal evidence which is funded.

Trust not, and follow ye not blindly, as someone once said of science...........I think it may have been me

kev

[billfisher]

The "top scientists" are the ones more likely to speak out against the wild claims that Australian fish stocks are in terminal decline and that marine parks are the only way to fix them. Eg the likes of Dr Walter Starck, Dr Julian Peperell and others. These scientists have the experience to see through these myths and the independence to be able to speak out.

Its the junior scientists that are less likely to speak out against the marine park machine as they have their careers ahead of them and most research is government funded. Marine parks are a growth industry for them.

[yakka]

saw in the last week on one of the news programmes that trawler that has basically ended the fish in the north hemsphere and is moving to the south pacific. It looked as though it was the size of the Queen Mary, it was huge and capable of pulling out millions of tons of fish.
it makes our attempts to protect fish stocks quite laughable when no one can stop this from happening. the person being interviewed likened it more to mining than fishing, that when it had dug up until nothing was left, it packed up and moved somewhere else.
they should sink it.
regards chris

[pjw200371]

"Eg the likes of Dr Walter Starck, Dr Julian Peperell and others."

Yes, I read papers by Dr Starck from your links. Most of his stuff seems to be hosted on extreme right-wing anti greenie sites. Nothing wrong with that per se, but unlikely to provide a balanced viewpoint. Most reputable scientific information I've read seems to disagree as much with both Dr Starck, et al, as well as those in the far left. As one would expect, when it comes to extreme views, the truth is usually in the middle.

Just as I would not use data found on a Greenpeace or WWF site (for fear of bias), so I would not expect others to use info from sites/people on the other end of the political spectrum. Both have an axe to grind, and both are biased. Perhaps the quoted scientists can show plenty of credentials/experience, yet there are comparable scientists in Greenpeace and WWF who have just as good a resume as Dr Starck or Dr Peperell, yet their conclusions on the same subjects are quite different.

My point is: if we cherry pick we can find scientific data to support almost any viewpoint.

Try an unbiased, current site (I notice most of Dr Starck's work is several decades old)

The The Australian Research Council National Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies may be an excellent place to start. They have done research on marine exclusion zones, and don't push one point of view or another. Just good solid research.

http://www.coralcoe.org.au/pub-scientific.html

I'm sure my comments may raise a few hackles from a few people, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable here or asking too much for people not to cherry pick or used biased sources.