Science behind the proposed closures

[littlejim]

Lefty-green's comments are representative of what I think produces the Marine Parks. 'there are thousands...' if you take it at face value you can't help agreeing. I used to.
On our recent rip to the US we were at the coast on the west side of Florida, down to Key West, then up the East Coast from Key West to Boston. The number of recreational boats was mind boggling. There were plenty of fish and plenty of fishermen. There was also a lot of reef.

If you apply LG's logic the number of US fishermen, outnumbering the number of Aussie fishermen by several orders of magnitude, (add more noughts at the end), should have resulted in there being b*gger all fish in the US, but in fact there are still plenty.

If you want to work it out properly you don't count the number of boat trailers parked at the ramp and make a WAG, you measure the the number of fish caught. At a place like Jervis Bay the numbers of fishermen aren't huge, some like me catch b*gger all on some trips, and only go out about a dozen times a year. Others go squidding not fishing. The rock spots hold about three or four people at a time and take an hour to walk to. How many fish can you cart out for an hour of walking that begins with a trip up a twenty foot cliff? despite this most of the JB southern rock spots are now marine park plus large areas of sheer cliff.

It should be possible to work out how many fish recreational fishermen actually take, and I imagine, how many fish there are beforehand, (the bird experts seem to be able to do it).

When I see pictures of trawler loads of fish, including their dead by-catch, I just can't see that fishos like me, multiplied by the number of Aussie boats, could possibly have anything like the same effect on fish numbers. I also find it hard to believe that the closed off areas at JB like Brook's Rock, are breeding grounds for Trevally, Tuna, Flathead, Kingfish etc. etc. I can believe that a few artificial reefs around the place might provide some breeding grounds for young fish. But I'm not an expert, I just wish some expert would give it a go and see what happens instead of closing more and more of the coastline off based on the premise that those 'thousands' of boats must be destroying the fish stocks.

I'll get out of your way now.

[FNQCairns]

MMmmmm, so what level of protection would "the scientific community" propose on a reef that after 200years of plundering is currently being raped to the tune of 17kg/km2 when the unsustainable level is understood to be around 7000kg/km2? No this reef does actually exist in the doom and gloom, funding only for a predetermined outcome world of today.

Fair dinkum us Aussies are taken as dopes!!

Maths is not my strong point, seems we had better start pro-acting now because in 411.76 times 200 years (82.35 thousand years time!)we might have to start thinking seriously about some form of lock-out protection on this reef (sic) (chuck) (spew). Sunspot induced global warming, natural macro trends in the global heat budget and future comet collisions excluded.

cheers fnq

[Fisher_Boats]

Littlejim......don't get out of the way mate

[lefty_green]

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.

I am in no way associated with lefty, nor do i agree with the attack on rereational fisherman on a recreational fishing website.

Fred
I have made no attack on rec fishers with my comments. I simply stated that it is ridiculous to say rec fishing has NO impact on fish stocks or that rec fishers DO NOT contribute to turtle and dugong mortalities.

Tim N
Its difficult to blame environmental conditions on turtle or dugong deaths when there are massive propellor cuts in the stranded animals.

Littlejim
I said that rec fishers contribute to declining fish stocks not destoying fish stocks.

Snappercoffin
Great name. Sends a really positive message. If its legal its in the esky. Man, unbelievable.

Col
10% of fishers may very well catch 90% of fish. My point is that the numbers of recfishers has increased significantly in the last few years. This must have an impact.

It may be hard to believe that I am a rec fisher and have been for 20 years. I dont want to see wholesale closures either. However, when we as rec fishers make ridiculous statements such as rec fishers dont kill turtles or rec fishers dont contribute to declines in fish stocks, we are just as bad as the greenies making ridiculous statements saying rec fishers are responsible for ALL turtle deaths and ALL declines in fish stocks.

It is impossible to measure rec fishing effort. BUT everyone has to admit that effort has increased in the last few years. I'm tired of people saying the pros are solely responsible for declining fish stocks - rec fishers catch more whiting, bream, tailor, snapper, etc than pros. Habitat degradation is another problem that needs to be addressed - it must contribute to declining fish stocks and turtle/dugong mortalities.

Pro fishers pay a licence. The cost of this licence has recently increased by up to 5000% in some cases. They pay to fish. We as rec fishers dont. Why? And before people jump on me regarding PPV, that is a pittance. That might pay for boating patrol and thats it. Bring on a rec licence. That would give rec fishers a louder voice surely. With these funds it would be so much easier to answer the questions that need answering. In my mind, rec fishers will be largely ignored until a rec licence, and the money it generates, is tabled in parliament.

The green movement is massive and gaining momentum. They generate votes for politicians. The only thing better than votes is money. As Col said 10% of fishermen catch 90% of the fish. Unfortunately its these 10% that are the most passionate about their fishing. The other 90% of fishers dont care, they go fishing not to catch fish but to enjoy the experience. No environment no experience - they vote green/labour. They dont realise that rec fishers and environmentalists are opposites at election time. Once again a rec licence could fund education.

[Fisher_Boats]

Lefty
Don't you think that maybe water taxis ,people just driving around ect may hit turtles and dugongs as well.
Don't you think that bag limits that are in place may also be working and the extra people that are going fishing really aren't knocking it around.
Most "passionate" fisho's are bagging out on snapper in the first hour or so of fishing..does this not say something about fish stocks??
Wholesale closures are not the answer...it is not fair to the end user that respects the water and what is in it and has paid the $$$ to do it.
I have brought my lads up fishing and taught them right from wrong and to see this taken away from them is not on. We pick up plastic, we release fish, we are not greedy but love eating fish.
Read tfp's policy it might enlighten you a bit more as to what we are about ..but don't think that closing us out is an answer.
Forget the licenses..
So it's ok for netters to net fish in yellow zones and reco's only allowed to have one rod and one hook rigged up at any one time...that's just bs & not fair on the end user either im

Col

PS I think snappercoffin may be in the 90% side

[billfisher]

Here is some relevant information from researhers regarding the AIMS study being widely touted as showing a 50% increase in trout nos in the green zones after just 2 years.

Populations of reef fish tend to delcine slowly and recruitment of new individual varies from year to year. When there is a good rcruitment year then the numbers get a big boost and that age class tends to dominate. These recruitment pulses can dramatically affect the fish numbers on both open and closed reefs.

Also from renown coral reef expert Dr Walter Starck:

The claim that the first good year for coral trout numbers 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 incompetant or guilty of scientific misconduct.

[FNQCairns]

I will say it - rec fishing has no honestly measurable impact on saltwater fish stocks!

With just a modicum of ecological understanding/study/knowledge this is so apparent it is shocking.
Now to qualify somewhat, yes every fish in it's particular minute that lands in a boat is an impact ,although time qualifies all. Over the next minute/hour/day/week that incredibly minor impact is well and truly nullified, the effort required to impact a reef above it's natural mortality rate from all natural process over say a 6 month period is something that us rec fisho's would need many many extra tools like spears, dynamite, nets to achieve and not without a hell of a lot of effort, if at all possible under bag limit's and without commercial help.

Rec fishing overall is akin to taking 20 plants of grass from a healthy football field yes it impacts as it is done but try and find the next day where you got the grass from, then try in a weeks time the field is dynamic and easily copes with such a small scale take, natural attrition from internal predators/grazers/disease/environment pales the 20 plant harvest into absolute insignificance.

It's a dam scary eat or be eaten world under the water. Even if I rec fished every hour, day and night of my life till the day I died I couldn't equal a take worthy of one second of natural processes on the reef, a second after i died the reef as a whole never even knew I was even there.

Now take a broad shovel and harvest 20 shovel loads of grass, aka commercial net fishers chain and netting an area. Why we as rec fisherman are scapegoats for the commercial sector still amazes me.

Anyone know just how many (by number)and much fish (by weight)just one spanish macerel consumes to reach just 15kg in weight? What about just one large 100kg cod, just 1 black tip reef shark. The list is endless and for us to compete and impact as rec-fisho's is just a laughable propsition, principles of ecology should be taught in all schools IMO.

drivel over

cheers fnq

[Gazza]

the "lock-it-up" mentality doesn't factor-in , recent and future Bag & Size limits

e.g. IMAGINE IF......
50% was locked-up ,as the "SOLUTION" to increase Flatheads stocks in SEQ

instead of....
the sensible & generally supported approach ,by RecFishos of an INCREASED minsize , DECREASED maxsize , and a REDUCED baglimit

in the future ,I can see a valid case for a 35~75cm min-max, as they are no longer threatened , and demonstrated self-sustaining biomass

Bream , Tailor , Whiting? will also 'probably' > have a minor increase in minsize , Snapper maybe a 'local' issue on the GC for a bag reduction , BUT if deemed 'proven without bias''.....so-be-it!!

TURTLES!!...if the go-slow areas, is not slow enough, change the regs to go SLOWER!!!

No off-limit areas needed....simple

[Luvinit]

Am I missing something here. Apparently one of the higher causes of mortality of Turtles and Dugong is propeller strikes??? (It seems that's what your saying above, particularly Lefty_Green)
So explain to me how banning fishing will fix that problem, yet I hear no calls for banning boating in the bay.
Am I to deduce that it is only fishing boat propellers that perpetrate this deed???? Cruising boats do not???? So if I was to leave my rods at home and take my family for a cruise I would suddenly become safe for all those turtles and dugong???? the Turtle and Dugong issue is 100% an attempt by the raving greens to try to emotionalise the issue with the general public.
How many turtles choke on bait bags as opposed to shopping bags or other forms of plastic bags washed down storm water drains.
Whats been the effect of the go-slow areas? Have they worked?
Don't get me wrong I am not ambivalent to the plight of turtles and dugong but to start dragging this into the fishing closures issue is just headline grabbing BS.


I am dubious that rec fishing has any SIGNIFICANT impact on fish stocks. Commercial fishing may well due to their far greater capacity.
Still rather than rely on my gut instinct I am happy for some REAL and UNBIASSED scientific effort to assess the impact of both rec and commercial fishing.
(If I have to pay a levy to help fund this study I am happy to, but I want the safeguards to ensure its unbiassed probity to be fully and openly disclosed first)

Assuming the findings show that rec fishing has some very minor impact and commercial fishing has some significant impact (Note I said significant not unmanageable) the next step is to determine what the MINIMUM management requirements are.
I would bet my left one that size limits would actually suffice, but a reasonable bag limit is OK with me.
Obviously management of the commercial industry is appropriate to ensure those whose $$ signs blur their vision.

So rather than flying off the handle seeking immediate closures, why doesn't some-one research to see
a. if there really is a problem
b. if a problem exists, what is the real cause
c. what is the minimum needed to mitigate that cause.

Calls for immediate wholesale closures are the equivalent of calling for capital punishment when we are not even sure if there has been a crime, let alone who is guilty. The principles of innocent until proven guilty and commensurate puishment should be applied here as they are in the legal system.

Of course all of the above would be lost on an idealogue Greenie, and would be ignored by a politician whose only motivation is to get re-elected. It seems this issue has now reached the point of having bugger all to do with science and management and is purely and simply a political football.

[seatime]

Luvinit

M8 you've pined the donkey's tail spot on.

Let's hope the voters are educated on the whole story, not just the fashionable Green tinged version of the facts.

You are positively correct on this issue being politically motivated.

Those ideologists you refer to, wish to build monuments to themselves and leave what they think is a legacy with their name attached.
It looks wonderful in their bio's and raises their standing internationally.
Researching the actual causes and finding a solution won't get them nearly as many accolades as implementing a MPA.

[FNQCairns]

luvinit for what it's worth I agree with every word and well said, just for the record state fishery's rec fisho regs and commonwealth/state marine park lockout zones - all zones actually, never ever had anything to do with science it was simply politics and resource control (hate giving away a resource to the public). The pollies by following their own narrow minded best self interest they aligned to walk over every Australian with the greens at the helm.

Today thanks to the fishing party it may well be a 'football', hopefully if we all vote with our fishing brains over the next 5years it will be 'science' and every single Australian will benefit, even every individual green.

One day we will see this entir arena MANAGED, has not happened yet but hopefull it will happen.

cheers fnq

[jim_farrell]

Mike, I am enjoying your input.
The picture that I am getting, from you is that no science exists that can actually prove a closure is beneficial to the complete system. Inclusive of the surrounding area. Is this true or just my interpretation of your points?

There are a few seperate issues that are being addressed here. The GBRMP closures, GSS closures and the upcoming study of Moreton Bay.
The one we currently have interest in is Moreton Bay. Not that it is more important than the others, just that it has the study coming up.

I am no marine biologist but bear with me. Obviously the ecosystem of the bay is very different to the GBR, both in structure and species. Is there any scientific way to conclusively measure the impact of fishing in the bay on targeted species. The problem is that the government will ask for scientific studies to decide on what action to take if any, and most of us question if this is possible. If it is not, the studies will be a biased result leaning towards the personal view of the people conducting the study.

I am only guessing here, but I presume that 90% of the fish taken from the bay (recreational), would come from areas that cover less than 5% of the bay. Again I am only guessing at these figures, and welcome a more qualified view from anybody. Therefor, a closure of any kind to this 5%, I would believe could have a very negative effect on the remainder of the targeted areas.
Do you have a point of view on Moreton bay?
Do any studies exist on the type of fish that inhabit the Bay or this type of fishery.
Jim

[Glind]

Lefty Green,
The wildlife (fish, turtles, sea birds, dolphins etc) killed through plastic bags and other contaminants in Moreton Bay should be more of a concern than any other issue.
What about rising levels of heavy metals in all marine species too?
Some propeller injuries must surely be attributed to container ships, vehicluar ferries, water taxis etc. These are large vessels incapable of dodging any object in the ocean. Should these be banned too?
It is too easy to point the finger at rec fishos and that is what you agenda seems to be.
But back to water quality.
I have 2 associates who have been working the Bay for over 50 years combined and they cannot believe the loss of sea grass beds north of the Brisbane River. These sea grass beds are the nursery for many marine species and sea grass just so happens to be a popular food for turtles.
Essentially, the predominant south to north currents we experience in this part of the world, combined with the reduced quality of water coming from creeks and rivers such as the Brisbane River, has contributed to these losses.
This loss of habitat has put the squeeze on marine stocks in a huge way.
The rec fisho has had nothing to do with this loss, or this water contamination issue, so stop blaming the recs for everything.
Look outside the square and don't believe all the green propoganda that is being touted.
Tim

[seatime]

Tim

I know what you mean about the destruction of weed beds at the river mouth, I believe much of the damage was caused with the Port of Brisbane constructing the Fisherman Islands complex. This area is and has been a nursery for turtles, dugong and grey nurse sharks, to name a few.

Also when the Greenies put around photos of dead turtles or dugong with propeller cuts across their backs, count the cuts. If there are multiple cuts close together, it's been caused by a displacement vessel, if there are 1 or 2 cuts spaced well apart, it's caused by a planing vessel.
Planing vessels actually hit very few turtles or dugong, and most rec fishos operate planing vessels.

I'd like to know if there is any data available on the success, or otherwise, of the existing Protection Zone on the Nth and West of Peel Island. Here's a No-Go zone, surely studies have been done by Fisheries to determine if that particular MPA has worked or not. Wouldn't it be a litmus test for the other areas, where's the evidence it works in Moreton Bay.

regards
Steve.

[markpeta]

Lefty


Col

PS I think snappercoffin may be in the 90% side

Col,

You should know it would be more like 0.00003% .

Mark