Fish stocks to collapse within 50 yrs

[RASA]

pjw200371

This is where the problem lies

The research in the Phillipines is biased and the APO Island experiment highlights why research is steered in certain directions, eg APO Island was an experiment within a 500 sm reef section that was previously dynamited and chemically poisoned with cyanide. When this is stopped and fish fed for the cameras/divers and the wonderful results shown as what can happen when 'FISHING IS STOPPED" is promoted, then this is all falsehoods. But it is jumped on by the green brigades and doomsayers as saving the planet.
The Phillipines has a 100 so -called MPA's with only 4 showing any result (one as above) so no wonder any budding marine science paper writers are treated sceptically. Most of the "overseas" papers can be questioned when compared to Australian conditions and site specifics and mostly always relate to commercial fishing studies and species.

To not question any of this or ask for relevant scientific proof is being negligent and we need to be comparing apples with apples.


Bob Smith

[billfisher]

Good post Bob, but I think it will be lost on pjw200371. It looks like anything he doesn't want to hear (ie questions the justification of marine parks) he just dismisses as "extreme right wing", "biased", "with an axe to grind" or as "cherrypicking".

I could also quote Richard Tilzey (honours Degree in Marine Science) or Robert Kearney (PhD,DSc and Professor of Fisheries) who have been highly critical of the Marine Park zoning and process in NSW.

He doesn't give Dr Starck much credit. He pioneered coral reef reseach and has many decades of experience. His views on the GBR marine studies are backed by the Governments own study, the Mapstone study conducted over 14 years and which found little benifit in the green zones.

[Genomic]

To be fair to pjw200371, I think that all he was saying is that you shouldn't use biased sources. I don't think the point would be lost on him, as Billfisher says, because his comments seem to agree with what RASA is saying! (he did mention bias in greenie sources too). And reading further, he did actually say we should as for scientific proof, again, just as RASA said. Maybe all you boys should stop arguing and look beyond the black and white, cause it seems you're agreeing with each oher more than not.

[billfisher]

Genomic,

I don't know if you realise that the link pjw posted contained the Phillipines coral reef study as evidence for the effectiveness of marine parks!

I would also still like to know why the views of Dr Starck and Peperell are biased and should be considered worthless as pjw suggests.

In his weasly way I think he is trying to say we should believe only the so called middle ground or consensus. But science is not about this. It is about the quality and relevance of the work which supports the conclusions.

[Genomic]

Ah, yes, I see. Now I know why RASA mentioned the Phillipines. Still though, reading back on his post, he said that the link he posted doesn't push one point of view or another. I'd like to hear from him whether he thinks the Phillipines paper means that we should have exclusion zones here.

I take his point about bias though. Many here are keen to bag greenies (and rightly so), but are eager to use biased sources from the other end. Doesn't seem right. I dunno if Dr Starck fits that category though, googling him seems to indicate he's O.K.

So again, I think you both make some good points. Good debate really, needs to be done. I have to say though, you shouldn't don't drag down the debate with comments like weasly and such.

[billfisher]

Well pjw already dragged it down by questioning the motives and integrity of Dr Stark and Dr Peperell. If he just challenged their views with some sort of relevant evidence then I would not have used the 'weasly' remark.

[Genomic]

Fair enough. But there's you earlier questioning the motives of those whose views are different to yours! (the bit about junior scientists going along with the EPA to furher their careers). You're both playing the same game it seems, and neither is willing to admit it. Thing is, you both clearly both have strong opinions on the subject - and you know what Dirty Harry says about opinions ;-)

[billfisher]

Genomic,

Yes, but if you look back a bit further you will find that I was responding to a post which said that our "top scientists" were saying we need marine parks. This is plainly not the case.

I would also point out the posts I made such as the lack of relevence of the 'fish stocks to collapse in 50 years' report and the Phillipines reef sanctuary zone to our waters, along with the Mapstone study of the GBR sanctuaries are sound facts and not 'opinion'.

[Shane_78]

[quote author=billfisher link=1162510548/45#48 date=1163717908]Genomic,

I would also still like to know why the views of Dr Starck and Peperell are biased and should be considered worthless as pjw suggests.

I have also read the views of Dr Starck and heard him speak on the radio and quite frankly I agree with pjw200371... I think his views are strongly right wing and have underlying bias. Just becasue Dr Starck has a Ph D doesn't make him an expert. His interests appear to favour fishing more and therefore I think it is obvious that he wants fishing to not be sustainable. Of course we all love fishing but we don't it to vanish. I think we should trust the actual scientists who have proven credibility. Scientists like Terry Hughes and Garry Russ at JCU have all done unbiased scientific research in the great barrier reef. We should trust the experts rather than the extremists.

[billfisher]

Shane 78,

How is feeding our population 'right wing'. Do you know some of the worst environmental damage has occured under leftist regimes?

If we don't utilise our fishery resource what do you propose to do to replace the food source?

If Dr Starck is so biased why are his views backed by the most comprehensive study done on GBR marine sanctuaries yet done, ie the Mapstone study.

You can't just say someone is 'biased' without anaysing and critiquing the substance of their arguments, not if you want to have any credibility yourself.

Also did you know our CSIRO reviewed all the available data on marine sanctuaries and found that as a fisheries management tool the benifits are theoretical and not proven in practice.

[PinHead]

what makes terry hughes and garry russ so almighty clever over dr. starck ??????

[billfisher]

Shane_78 thinks Dr Starck is not an expert! He has only studied coral reefs including the GBR for 5 decades. He even had his own research vessel and has thousands of hours diving time.

Shane why do you think he wants fishing to be unsustainable? If you listened to his radio interview he said that even a conservation organisation gives a figure of 4000 kg per square km per year as sustainable harvest for coral reefs. The GBR is being harvested at 9 kg per square km per year, ie its virtually unfished!

[billfisher]

I have looked up Gary Russ and Terry Hughes. 'Unbiased' and independant - I don't think so. They have a vested interest in problems and exaggerated threats to the Reef, which of course require more funding and research. Terry Hughes was made the head of an ARC centre of excellence for the study of sustainable managment of coral reef biodiversity. The centre recieved a funding of 40m dollars over five years from the Federal Gov.

Terry Hughes also recieves funding from the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority! He is hardly likely to be critical of them. From the GBRMPA website:

"Development of a partnership with Professor Terry Hughes of the Centre for Coral Reef Biodiversity to research reef resilience in the face of climate change, by means of an ARC Linkage funded research programme".

[billfisher]

Gary Russ was involved in a study of the effects of green zones on the GBR. After just 2 years an stunning increase in fish numbers in the green zones was announced. This was leap on by conservation groups and the GBRMPA as a vindication of the sanctuary zone concept:

EDEN MAGNET
Sanctuaries increase fish stocks: new findings
Thursday, 7 September 2006

Recent findings from the Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS) again show that fully protected marine sanctuaries within marine parks increase fish numbers, protect the environment and boost catches for commercial fishing.
"Teams from AIMS and James Cook University (JCU) have announced an increased abundance of marine life since sanctuary zones in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park were increased in 2004," said Paul Winn, Marine Sanctuaries Campaigner for the National Parks Association of NSW.

"Near-shore, mid and outer-shelf reefs were surveyed before and after sanctuary zoning.

"Offshore reefs were found to have a 50 per cent increase in important fish species such as the coral trout where sanctuaries were established, compared with matched reefs still open to fishing."


Meanwhile fringing reefs of the Whitsunday Islands found that in the last two years since reviewed zoning, fish species targeted by fisheries were almost 60 per cent more abundant where sanctuaries are now enforced, said Claire Dunn, Spokesperson for The Wilderness Society Newcastle.

AIMS Research Director Dr Peter Doherty stated that "the consistency of the differences between zones in all of the places that were examined last year leaves me in no doubt that this is a real result."

"These results highlight the importance of sanctuaries for fish stock replenishment," continued Megan Kessler, Fisheries and Marine Networker for the Nature Conservation Council of NSW.

"Large and well placed sanctuaries within the new Port Stephens - Great Lakes and Batemans Marine Parks are essential to help safeguard our marine life and ensure improved catches for fishers outside these fully protected waters."

Public comment on sanctuary zones within the Port Stephens - Great Lakes and Batemans Marine Parks is now being sought.

A response:

To the Editor,

One could be easily forgiven for believing that the science of no take zones is conclusive. ("Sanctuaries increase fish stocks" 7/9) #It was reported that "recent findings from the Australian Institute of Marine Science again show that fully protected marine sanctuaries within marine parks increase fish numbers, protect the environment and boost catches for commercial fishing."

The social engineers from The National Parks Association, Nature Conservation Council and the Wilderness Society had a field day. Suddenly findings involving one sedentary species on coral reefs were relevant to all fish on all reefs in a very different part of the world.

We decided to investigate. It turned out that their sweeping statements are derived from a number of less than rigorous snap shot studies that show an increase in coral trout numbers on closed inshore coral reefs in Queensland.

We also found that AIMS contributed to a federally produced resource management plan in 2004 called "Sustaining the Wet Tropics". Here we are presented with quite a different picture: "Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout."

Now we were totally confused, so we approached world renowned coral reef researcher, Walter Starck for an opinion. Dr Starck, who lives in Townsville, has been involved in over 1000 research dives from Cape York to Frazer Island. He did not mince words:

"The recent claims about the success of the GBR green zones is just another clear example of the kind of scientific misrepresentation that has become common in GBR environmental issues. The claim that the first good year for coral trout recruitment following the new closures is attributable to the closures is, if not dubious scientific judgement, deliberately misleading. #This is especially so in the absence of any assessment of fishing effort or catch. Those responsible should be required to explain why they are not either incompetent or guilty of scientific misconduct."So who should the community believe? We leave that to readers.

Rod Burston
Spokesman for the NSW Fishing Clubs Association






# #

[billfisher]

Here are the things that should be considered when doing a thorough scientific study on coral reef sanctuary zones.

The following is a quote from SUSTAINING THE WET TROPICS: A regional plan for natural resource management, Vol. 2A, Condition Report: Biodiversity Conservation, Rainforest CRC 2004 by Nigel Weston and Steve Goosem:

"Many species are long-lived and recruitment of new juveniles varies markedly from year to year. Thus, when a particular year has an unusually high recruitment event, that age-class can dominate the population. It is a feature of reef fish populations that they decline slowly over time, but increase rapidly after a good recruitment season. These slow declines and rapid increases are not synchronised between species because good recruitment seasons happen in different years for different species and may be widely separated.

Juvenile recruitment pulses (as described above) can also dramatically affect the stock size on both closed and open reefs.

Most studies comparing nominally closed reefs with those open to fishing have failed to find significant differences in total numbers of coral trout." "

A major problem with interpreting results from most studies that have compared open and closed reefs is that studies did not quantify the actual amount of fishing pressure on reefs.
Available catch, effort and catch per unit effort data are variable from year to year, but show no consistent trends at a regional scale."