Over fished or over regulated? - ABC program

[charleville]

Today, I listened to a podcast of a recent ABC Radio National "Counterpoint" program which featured an interview with Don Burke (the gardening expert and Chair, Australian Environment Foundation) and Dr Walter Starck (Marine biologist based in Townsville).

This was a stunning interview as both of these people agree that fishing is over-regulated in Australia, eg neither of them condone the Barrier Reef Marine park 30% ban on fishing.

It is worth either a listen or a read of the transcript available at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoin...6/1732277.htm#


Some snippets from the transcript to encourage you to read/listen to the program...

Michael Duffy: I suspect most of our listeners would consider that Australia's fisheries are in a case of almost terminal decline. Would that be right?

Walter Starck: It's just exactly the opposite. We have the least fisheries in the world. Australia has the third largest exclusive economic zone in the world and it comprises about 6% of the global total and it produces about two-tenths of 1% of the fish catch. In fact, New Zealand has over twice the fishery catch of Australia and we're on a par with countries like Poland and Finland and Greece, countries like that catch about the same as Australia does. Countries like Thailand and Vietnam are catching anywhere from 15 to 20 times more than Australia. Our fisheries are largely untouched, with a few exceptions.


Walter Starck: A few years back there was a large, long-term survey done by the fisheries department in NSW on the Murray Basin, and they spent several years and made thousands of samples. During this they only took a very small number of Murray cod, I think it was half a dozen or a dozen or something, and they concluded that the Murray cod was virtually extinct in the areas in which they had surveyed. During that same period of time the recreational fishermen in the same general regions of the river took over 200,000 Murray cod, most of which were released because they were under size or whatever, but the recreational people got 200,000 while the biologists got half a dozen. So that's how far out of balance some of these things can be.


Don Burke: Well, it's certainly true in the fish one. Firstly, just let me say I support Walter in what he's saying there.

[jim_farrell]

For those interested in the above link, the fisheries part starts 5 minutes into the program and goes for about ten minutes.
The following link is interesting also. This could be the leg up that we need.
kc can you get somebody to this conference.

http://www.aefweb.info/media778.html

[fishingjew]

Very interesting specially about the murry cod and how they can get it so wrong .When are they going to wake up to themselves and start listening to the real people who know whats going on instead of the lock,em up mentality

[kc]

TFPQ needs a rep at this conference. Reading about AEF is like a breath of fresh air.

On it

KC

[charleville]

TFPQ needs a rep at this conference. Reading about AEF is like a breath of fresh air.

The message that Don Burke gives in the interview is that he and others are starting a new environmentalist body and that the agenda for that body will be set at this conference. Given his public stature, it is reasonable that such a body will get entry to some useful board rooms, ministerial offices etc.

Accordingly, as flick says, this could be the leg-up needed.

I am reminded of one of the "Principles of War" studied at every military college in the world ( to be found at http://www.pvv.ntnu.no/~madsb/home/w...principles.php ) and especially the third Principle as listed by the US Army Field Manual...

Mass the effects of overwhelming combat power at the decisive place and time.

Synchronizing all the elements of combat power where they will have decisive effect on an enemy force in a short period of time is to achieve mass. To mass is to hit the enemy with a closed fist, not poke at him with fingers of an open hand. Mass must also be sustained so the effects have staying power. Thus, mass seeks to smash the enemy, not sting him. This results from the proper combination of combat power with the proper application of other principles of war. Massing effects, rather than concentrating forces, can enable numerically inferior forces to achieve decisive results, while limiting exposure to enemy rife. ...

Given that, perhaps it would be useful to not be outnumbered by other strong-minded people. That means that it would be good to have multiple fishing lobbyists, eg Fishing Party, Sunfish, various fishing clubs attend and participate in this conference. That is, I think that multiple attendances from recognizable groups associated with rec fishers should attend.


Accordingly, it is useful to implement at least one of the other Principles of War...

Unity of Command
For every objective, seek unity of command and unity of effort.

I suspect that unity of command in this regards means that it would be useful to align all the fishing lobby ( maybe even rec and professional, plus the Moreton Bay Alliance) to agree in advance on the objective to be consistently sought at the conference and for all "delegates" to stay "on message" all though the conference.

That means that the various parties need to caucus before the conference which occurs on Saturday week.

[megafish71]

Just goes to prove that rec fishos are better at fishing than those scientists. LOL

Ron

[T1]

Just goes to prove that rec fishos are better at fishing than those scientists. LOL

Ron

[Adamy]

That means that the various parties need to caucus before the conference which occurs on Saturday week.

Totally agree with you there Bruce! I think the problem is that every head of each organisation wants to be the chief. How do you propose they can pull their collective heads in and unite under one banner?

That was what the MBAA was supposed to be all about - but I heard sunfish pulled out because the group was getting too 'political' or rather they were taking a 'political' approach to the problem... by trying to target the political leaders and get agreements from them. There are also groups like sunfish who obtain their funding from government sources - so cant really bite the hand that feeds them - what can we/they do about these types of organisations? Leave them in or out? Also the MBAA professes to be non politically aligned - so how can TFPQ have a seat at this table? - should we/they form another new supranational group which overseas all? But who will decide who will be the head? Who represents the greatest constituency or the greatest economical contributor to society?

Just questions that need answering I think before something like that can be successful - is a week long enough to have these questions answered? Just some food for thought...

[jim_farrell]

Adam, on the surface an organization like AEF appears to be what we need to unite behind. I have felt through this whole debate that the main obstacle we would always have to overcome is that as fisherman we are perceived as takers from the enviroment. The same as loggers and shooters. It doesn't matter what you do, some part of the community will see us in a negative light. As Steve mentioned, XXXX ads don't help and any other ad that steriotypes us that way. I also believe that photos holding a big fish covered in blood is bad advertising.

A body that has conservation or enviroment in its title, but at the same time represents our way of thinking should be our goal. Obviously we should remain guarded as we have been burnt before, but representation in the Moreton bay review should be our number one abjective. Possibly a public figure such as Don Burke or someone as reputable as Dr Walter Stark are the public face we have been looking for. Neither are connected with rec fishing.
That would leave kc and TFPQ to be the political representation and the AEF the science and respected personality representation.

I think this is the most exciting news we have had since the implementation of GBRMP.
Jim

[Adamy]

Hi Jim, After having gone through both the article and the AEF website, I totally agree with you and I think the clue to overcoming the initial problems I have observed is like you said uniting BEHIND a body such as AEF. Of course each body that unites will seek to have their input into the processes but if we can support a body such as this, as it presents a rationally based approach to environmental management - then I think we shall at last have a voice within the conservation circles.

Also I believe that Don Burke pointed out some relevant facts about some of these "conservation and animal liberation type groups", that they actually kill a fair percentage of the animals they are supposed to be saving. I also caught a bit of a show called "Bull$hit" last night which exposed the P.E.T.A. group for killing quite a large percentage of the very animals they were protesting liberation for. These groups should be exposed for what they really are and what their true agenda is - which has very little do do with saving animals, and much more to do with foistering their own fanatical vegan lifestyle on an unwilling population.

Thats why rational organsiations such as AEF may be the answer to the problems we are currently facing. I know we should be wary, but it does fill me with some hope - that a conservation group may be able to help protect our lifestyle through rational solutions and not emotive hype.

Adam

[charleville]

Totally agree with you there Bruce! I think the problem is that every head of each organisation wants to be the chief. How do you propose they can pull their collective heads in and unite under one banner?

Adamy - I have been mulling over an answer all day to your better-than-average question.

My answer is simply that some bastard who can string two sentences together with logic and facts rather than street emotion simply has to take the lead and engage the leaders of the major factions on a personal off-the-record basis.

It has never ceased to bring wonderment to my eyes when I as a corporate manager have engaged union leaders in private and reached some very good outcomes by sharing understandings of the unmentionable issues whereas when such discussions are held in front of any sort of an audience of any size whatsoever, all sorts of posturings and agendas come into play, and often from both sides.

Lest I get myself a reputation for looking at world strategists too much in discussing these issues, there is no doubt that the greatest leaders in history have been the ones who have been able to align warring factions into a coherent alliance. Ho Chi Minh did it with seven tribes in Vietnam extremely successfully and defeated the world's superpower within our living memory, whilst keeping VietNam's traditional enemy/invader, China, at bay.

As needed, a facilitator can add a degree of independence in leading discussions but that is simply in the details of the mechanics of the coming together to flesh out details of the shared position to which everone needs to stay "on message" about.

The fact remains that there is an opening here for one of the leaders of the relevant groups to start the ball rolling by engaging the others.

[Adamy]

My answer is simply that some bastard who can string two sentences together with logic and facts rather than street emotion simply has to take the lead and engage the leaders of the major factions on a personal off-the-record basis.

I'm some bastard who can string two words together Buts thats also the problem - I'm just some bastard

Totally with you there Bruce.... It should be someone who is prepared to put aside personal agendas for the sake of the betterment of the constituency as a whole. The problem is where to find someone like that!!! The last one they found... ended up getting hung on a cross

[kc]

I take a view that AEF is a breath of fresh air and just what is needed at present.

This is a major piece in the puzzle and something that has been needed for years.

An environmental research group which sees use of the resources as part of the process, rather than protection of the environment as its ONLY goal.

Just like the Marine Park act itself which "Encourages reasonable and sustainable use".

TFPQ is likewise, part of the puzzle. Regardless of the common sense approaches this organisation articulates, if there is no political back-up, nothing happens.

TFPQ will be (some of) the political back-up and we will be attending this conference.

Headed by Don Burke, attended and supported by Walter Strack and other rational people of science. This HAS to be a good start.

KC

[nonibbles]

go get 'em!

[nonibbles]

go get 'em!