Science behind the proposed closures

[kc]

Hi Mike,

Nice to have you aboard. You seem like a reasonable bloke and I would ask your opinion on a few issues.

There is a general view that scientists are becoming a bit like professional witnesses, for sale to the highest bidder and in most cases, the bidder is GBRMPA, Reef CRC or AIMS....with the training ground very much JCU. For every "witness"
The pro closure lobby can trot out, so to can the anti-closure side. How can "we" determine who is being honest?

Take for example your quoted Proff Russ, this would be the same guy who connected the dots between the reef in the Philippines and the GBR in an article in NQ Fish and Boat when he said ". “Industrial-scale vessels plunder all of the living resources off reefs using armies of fishers and gleaners”. “Reef bombing and muroami harvesters”

This piece is really scrapping the bottom of the barrel, even for GBRMPA and their cohorts at Reef CRC. The Howard Government will long be remembered as the Government of “truth overboard”. The immigration Department, the Defence Department and the Environment Department (GBRMPA) are all tarred with the same brush. Do whatever it takes to maintain power. Do whatever it takes to grow your bureaucracy. Do whatever it takes to grow your budget (GBRMPA now employ MORE staff than during RAP). This is Chicken Little gone mad. The sky is falling save the reef, the sky is falling, water quality, the sky is falling overfishing, the sky is falling, coral bleaching, the sky is falling, SEND MORE MONEY.


Your comments on Coral trout breeding patterns seems at odds with reports I have seen which says large trouts are male. Have we got this wrong?

Your comments on movement of trout seems at odds with the tag returns from the Sudbury Reef tagging program which showed all trout to be domicile. Comments please.

In regards larval distribution we have the Reef CRC report, goggins and Green et al telling us that "Coral Trout Larvae are able to swim at high speeds for long periods, they can escape ocean currents and stay close to where they were born", yet this "research" was changed by the GBRMPA to read "Coral Trout larvae are able to swim actively in search of a reef on which to settle"

Any wonder we find it difficult to trust these people.

We have seen the reef CRC tec report 52 and we have seen the Ayling/Mapstone 14 year studies into trout populations. We know the numbers. How can a population, which is at 97% of virgin biomass increase by 60% ?????????? This seems absurd. Are Dr Ayling figures wrong?? Or, as we suspect, did the miraculous "research", which just happened to coincidentally get released 2 weeks before an election, have political motivators?

You can then maybe comment on what has been a cornerstone of this organisations agenda.

We think MPA's are a last resort in a failing fishery. Other control methods such as bag limits, slot sizes, closed seasons and commercial TAC's should be used BEFORE MPA's are even considered and the role of fisheries management is to determine sustainable harvest and manage the fishery within the framework of sustainability

The oft quoted "precautionary principle" is new age jargon for what we used to call "Common sense" and bugger all of that is applied by the science community these days (a statement, not a question).


Anyhow Mike, I would like to engage you in this debate. Knowledge is power. I have always tried to learn as much as I can about the issue and make time to read and research the papers available on the subject. If you can shed some more light on the whole MPA debate it would be welcome. You might cop the occasional spray from a few of the guys but they are just sick of being made the scapegoats for a Government more intent on green preferences and staying in power than actually doing anything meaningful in regards fisheries management


Regards

KC

[madmix]

Hi Mike,

Perhaps you could do me a favour and ask your lecturers
a question for me.

Take a closed area approximately 7.5km x 20km, with basically
a flat sandy bottom, add one 40 ft yacht as structure/shelter. Now
calculate at what time next century the spillover effect will allow me
to fish outside the zone and actually have a chance of catching
something other than grinner.

Cheers Mick

To the regulars I don't have exact zone size at hand, therefore approx.
Have posted exact size before and am sure someone will remember and
wish to jump up and down

[Gazza]

Hi Mike , like the "structure" of ya posts mate

Q. Can you explain , greenie?? reasoning ,as to why bag & size limits are unacceptable to manage any biomass AND area?? ...please.

e.g. Barra/Potato cod , Qld grouper ......simple logic , baglimit NIL , ya catch ONE ,ya let-it-go !!

I would also suggest , persons like the GBRMPA/JCU?/etc. are inept & failures.....recently!!

Point 1: economically estimated a <$2M payout req'd ,it "seems" is inaccurate by a factor >50 times
Q. why is it so?

Point 2: May i suggest the recent 60% "growth" in area X , is...in fact.... a further admission ,of how "WRONG" they were 2years ago ,by under-estimating the "REAL" biomass at that time.

Q. WHY would they get-it-so-wrong 2 years ago ,was there an agenda, to err on the minimalistic interpretation of data??

Point 3: MORETON BAY!!! >
I note a recent article in the paper , about an ocean turtle, full of plastic ,being "hit" in the bay....
"Due to a gutful of plastic m-a-k-i-n-g it float near the surface"
(plastic may have even come from as far away as SE Asia ,as reported in the article)

Q. May i suggest that "sick turtles" may? by being crook ,slow to move ,or even an accident waiting to happen ,particularly...at night??

(An autopsy/study should be carried out ,on all turtle fatalities ,to determine healthy/sick status ,to gain real data)

p.s. Every success ,in your studies/learning

Regards
Gazza

[GBC]

G'day Mike,

Any time you wish to take the time to write posts like these, I'll take the time to read them - well done.

Flack will come as it always does - but eh that's fishing.

C.J.

[flathead_fred]

To kc,
As an example, of your professional witnesses, Hugh Possingham at UQ recently received a grant from the Government (upwards of $250 000) to remain at the university and conduct his research, rather than travel abroad or whatever he wished to do. Why would the government want him so dearly to stay in Queensland? His research entails spatial modelling of marine reserves among other things, and will be a major player in the rezoning of Moreton Bay. I respect him as a scientist, he is a world leader in spatial ecology, but is he completely immune to the governments influence? It’s a shame really how science and politics can be so tightly related, one is suppose to be based on hard factual evidence, while the other seems to be a web of deceit.

I agree with your next comment on sensationalism. It is used in research proposals to appeal to those in government who are often not willing to hand over funds, so that the concerned researchers can pursue their little “pet projects”. Gary Russ was probably talking about the 10 000 infringements (we were told this figure at UQ was an estimate) that supposedly occur from illegal fishing vessels from out neighbours in the north. Just as a side note, Gary Russ helped to establish community-based management in the Philippines over a period of 20+ years, whereby the locals were enlisted with the protection of their own sanctuaries, only open to subsistence fishing. I saw photos of locals sitting outside huts on the beaches holding rather large rifles to ward of the “industrial” fishing fleets from Manila. This was there own choice, they approached people like Gary with their problems and they came to this result. Not very applicable in this circumstance, but encouraging none the less to think how powerful people as a collective can be.

Large coral trout, and all species from the Grouper family (I think) switch to males around a certain age. Therein lie the fatal assumptions of theories that I detailed before. Maybe they hope that subtle shifts in the age distribution curve between maturation and gender switching will result in a larger spawning biomass. What about tother species? Coral trout is one of the major targets of the hook and line fishery on the GBR, yet these assumptions about increased spawning biomass do not apply to them.

On the movements of Coral Trout, it seems they do not appear to move across open sea floor to get to adjacent reefs. They will only move large distances when there is sufficient benthic complexity (bommies etc) to warrant their safe passage. But this may not be necessarily accurate for all species, and in the absence of definitive research these assumptions cannot be supported. That leads me to Madmix’s point about the scale and spatial context of which the MPA’s are designed. I’m no expert on this, this requires seriously complex maths and models which I have never been a fan of. Without connectivity between habitats and an approach which considers the mosaics of the seascape, they cannot simply box up what they think is important with arbitrary boundaries. If this is the case, then yes, the science is ignored and we should all fear a Bay characterized by a grid of green zones that would be nigh on impossible to navigate

Issues with larval transport are VERY uncertain. Most likely that research was simply testing the swimming capabilities of larvae in different conditions in the LAB, not in the field, and I am very sceptical of any ecological research that is conducting in LAB conditions. Recently, there have been studies that use chemical tagging (emersion of the developing eggs in a chemical bath which they can detect long enough until recruitment) to test how many return to the same reef from which they originated. This has not been completed, but preliminary results indicate that reef species may have very sophisticated means of larval retention. Larval settlement is even more of a mystery, and the chemical, physical and biological cues that induce settlement are poorly understood. It may be sounds, chemical signals from the organism on the reef, turbulence, all of which are being tested.

Any estimates on populations have many inherent assumptions, and I cannot confidently say there are anywhere near accurate. They are based on century old techniques, and often rely on the industry catch rates to work backwards to what they thought was a “virgin” population. It is far to expensive to conduct surveys large enough in scale to deal with a system such as the GBR, so they relied on often inaccurate commercial and recreational catch data. Is this wise? The cod fishery collapsed because they simply over-estimated the population size and continued to take quotas that were grossly inflated for any sustainable harvest to take place. Scientists don’t know how many fish are out there, they just have estimates which if flawed, can have immense repercussions.

I’m really sorry for the length of these posts, these questions need answers that are sufficiently detailed.

Once again I really appreciate to educated input, I can learn a lot from you fellow ausfishers.

Mike

[lefty_green]

Geez Mike you must be regretting your decision to speak up and put forward some senisble well researched ideas in this forum.

Alot of people on Ausfish seem to think that they are getting a bad deal because they feel that Rec fishers have no impact on fish stocks or the environment in general. This is absolute crap.

A prominent member on this site said that rec fishers have NO impact on turtle or dugong mortality. What rubbish. Bait bags are the cause of a significant number of turtle mortalities in Moreton Bay, not to mention boat strikes. Further what about turtle deaths caused by incidental capture in crab pots. And before everyone starts shouting that commercial fishers are responsible for most of the turtle deaths due to the above causes, the fact remains that rec fishers do cause turtle deaths in Moreton Bay.

As for the argument that rec fishers do not contribute to overfishing and that commercial fishers are responsible for the decline in fish numbers in the Bay is an example of rec fishers being either ignorant or naive. It is true that commercial fishing does have an adverse impact on fish stocks (eg SBT), but dont for a second think that rec fishing doesn't also contribute to declines. Have a look at the numbers of fishers these days. There are thousands of people every day applying pressure to fish stocks in Queensland.

Think about this. Why is the fishing so much better in northern areas compared to areas adjacent to major population centres? Less people, less pollution, less pressure on stocks???

No-one knows how much effort is applied to fish stocks from angling. Its impossible to estimate. But next time you are at a boat ramp on a weekend count the numbers of trailers and mulitply that by the number of ramps - thats alot of rec fishing effort. Now double that to account for the land-based anglers. That probably still underestimates aactual numbers of people going fishing.

I look forward to discussing these issues and more.

[Jeremy]

I have never denied that rec fishoes may cause some boat strikes on turtles or dugongs, some people are careless with their rubbish. There is no question that rec fishoes do have some effect on fish stocks, some species more than others.

However, I have not yet seen a single effective arguement as to:
1. which (demersal) species are under threat and need the protection of no take MPAs
2. that the current bag and size limits in place by the DPI&F and not effective in sustainably managing the fish stocks
3. the no take MPAs would result in a better fishery

Mike and lefty, keep ducking and weaving the hard questions. You are doing your cause are great service

Jeremy

[billfisher]

Impossible to measure the amateur fishing effort? Rubbish. NSW fisheries did it through catch inspections and other surveys. They found than on average the states anglers take home one fish per month. There are numerous studies that show angling has minimal impact on fish stocks and biodiversity, including those done by the Qld governments own scientists.

An anecdotal supposed decline in fish stocks or a few turtle or dugong deaths is not sufficient reason for wholesale closures. In the case of fish stocks what matters is that the the take is sustainable and there is sufficient breeding stock left to replenish the population. This best done by managing quotas, bag limits etc. There is no evidence that the fisheries of Moereton Bay are not managed sustainably. In the case of turtle or dugong deaths you minimise them through education and sensible restrictions. Plenty of people die on our roads, are you calling for the banning of cars?

[Luvinit]

Firstly, Great to see so many people entering into the debate. Lefty_Green welcome to the site and please keep posting.
I for one am keen for much wider consultation. And Flathead_Fred, I also would like to see much more scientific measures applied to the issue.

Secondly, I dont think anyone would deny that no-take MPAs can be an effective tool in managing fish stocks (or biomass, whatever term you prefer)

Thirdly, there are a whole host of other tools that also can be used to MANAGE fish stocks (bag/size limits etc)

The Key point here is that FISHOs are NOT environmental vandals who want to strip fish every location. They want to carefully, scientifically and sustainably MANAGE the fishery for all to enjoy.

If you want to point to the very few who throw bait bags overboard, I would suggest that there are extreme ends on every bell curve and the dope smoking, theiving, dole cheating 'greens' out the back of Nimbin are not justification for the 50% closure of all Social Security offices either (perhaps we should specifically target the ones around known 'greenie' hangouts?)

I think I speak for the vast majority of fisho's when I say that all we want is genuine scientific management for long-term sustainable USE.
NOT wholesale closures on the back of some idealogue's scare campaign.

I would have to say that the ANECDOTAL evidence I see at present points to the fact that the new bag/size limits for snapper ARE working and that I suspect an increase in the size limit for Bream would be a good thing, and before some raving greenie gets a hold of my comment and misquotes me, what I am saying is I would very much like to see some genuine research done on this area.

BTW Flathead_Fred what comment can you make on the report of 60% increases in GBR green zones with respect to control for the experiment. ie when I did scientific research at Uni, we had to provide evidence of control of other factors. What I am referring to here is, was the survey conducted at the same time of year? same time of day? by the same method? has a similar increase occurred on unprotected reefs due to 'a good year', what other factors were measured, examined as potential influences on the results?
I admit that I havent seen the actual report, just the snippets in the media, but for a start I think I remember the 60% as being a rounded up 55% (rounded to the nearest 10%) but simply by refering to percent implies that it is to the nearest 1/100th. a simple trick for statisticians to play.

I checked some details on the AMCS website and their spokesman had made several press releases over the past few months referring to the number of dugongs killed each year. The first stated 200 turtles and 8 dugong killed on average each year and cited an unnamed govt report. The next stated 200 turtles and 15 dugong killed each year by human activities. So not only is he expanding the statistics, he is now blaming a specific cause for the statistic and he is conveniently leaving off the 'on average' tag which makes it appear like a definite killing not a variable statistic. This is a clear example of the deliberate misuse of what may have started out as a genuine scientific report, in order to generate emotive public reaction.

What we want is FACTUAL scientific management not emotive headline grabbing hyperbole aimed at acheiving some idealogical cause.

[flathead_fred]

I am in no way associated with lefty, nor do i agree with the attack on rereational fisherman on a recreational fishing website. To Jeremy, MPAs are not put in place to protect specific species, they are implemented to preserve represenative habitats that may otherwise be degraded beyond repair if left open to all forms of extraction. They are not in place to protect a population of snapper or jew or coral trout, well not from my understanding. The current bag and size limits need to continually evolve to cope with increasing fishing pressure. There have been many ausfishers that have suggested decreasing bag limits and increasing minimun legal sizes for various species. I do not claim to have the answers, im just trying to add what little knowledge i have to this issue, so that myself and others are better informed to formulate our own thoughts. MPAs have not been proven to improve fisheries, other than one example i know of in the Phillipines, where they are experiencing far greater catch rates in areas open to fishing directly adjacent to closed areas. But this does take time. Once again i stress that what i have said in previous posts is the justification that many managers use when suggesting MPAs. I do not agree with it all, but this is what is driving them towards the future plans for Moreton Bay.

Thanks,
Mike

[flathead_fred]

Sorry Luvinit, we must have posted at the same time. Well the study i did at Orpheus was conducted over 5 days, with 6 dives a day (3 in the green, 3 in the blue). We simply used timed transects, there was about 8 groups of 3 students, and counted and estimated the size of the fish present 3 metres either side of our transect. Another way the come up with these figures is Mark-recapture, where they literally capture coral trout, mark their caudal peduncle (just before the tail fin) with a number, then release them. They then return to count the number of marked and unmarked fish and estimate population size in this way using a simple equation. I dont know where they got 60% from, but these methods are probably replicated across a number of reefs, on a number of days to get a picture of the GBR as a whole, but honestly, to release figures like that and be confident of them is VERY dangerous. You all can see the flaws with this including human error, seasonal flucuations, irregular recruitment rates etc. Many factors cannot be controlled in the marine environment, thats why we know so little about it, its damn hard to design viable experiments.

Mike

[Fisher_Boats]

10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish.

Green Lefty......... it's our lifestyle,livelyhoods and past times ..... go and debate with someone that wants to listen to your crap.
How many of TFP'S policies have you actually read?
We'll take the battle up with others.

Col

[Glind]

To Lefty Green (and others of the same ilk),
Has anyone ever thought that water quality issues has any effect on turtles, dugongs, fish etc.
Don't blame the fisho's for everything.
Take a look at run off, the crap pouring out of the Brisbane River, acid sulphate soils from development..........and the list goes on.
If the water is in an almost pristine condition, everything will thrive. If the water quality is horrible, nothing will live in it. Take a look at a clean fish tank and then a filthy one. It's not rocket science.
Don't take the blame all you rec and pro fisho's out there, stand up and be counted.
Tim

[kc]

Hi Mike,

Nice to have someone who is both a fisho and a marine science student and I look forward to more from you.

To bullet point your comments in a form us simple fishos can understand I take it you mean.

1. Coral Trout are domercile and do not migrate between reefs. Hence no spillover.

2. The research of Goggins and Green suggesting trout larvae do not leave their home reef is inconclusive.

3. Prof. Russ's comments about Phillipine reefs should never have been taken in the context of GBR reefs and either he, or the journo who connected those dots has not been truthful.

4. Science and politics have become "as one" due to the Governments control of the grants programs and it is no longer possible for scientists "on the payroll" to be totally unbiaised.

5.In regards the available spawning biomass of trout (the only fish we know much about) the estimates by Ayling/Mapstone at 2 to 3 Million Tonnes seems to add up. These have been confirmed by other marine researchers and based on actual fish counts per area and extrapileted over the whole of reef area. We know the commercial & rec catch combined is just under 6,000 tonnes so we are talking 3% max per year here. Still don't understand how 97% can grow by 60%.
Also the Ayling figures which showed a much higher density of trout on fished reefs. This whole thing smells a bit fishy

So keep up the informative posts Mike. My synopsis may be a bit simplistic but most readers here want to "cut to the chase". It is nice to have a budding marine scientist, not yet on the grants gravey train, who can give his honest opinions.

Regards

KC

[markpeta]

Lefty Green,

What are us fisherman to do now sit at home eat lentils,smoke weed and sing Kum-Bye-Yah.
Here is a site that might listen to your dribble http://www.peta.org/.