PHP Warning: Use of undefined constant VBA_SCRIPT - assumed 'VBA_SCRIPT' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in ..../includes/functions_navigation.php(802) : eval()'d code on line 1 Courier-Mail Article 26 August
From today's Courier Mail, Saturday 26 August 2006 ...
Anglers on the hook
Brendan O'Malley
August 26, 2006 12:00am
NO-fishing zones in Moreton Bay need to be expanded 20 times just to meet the lowest international standards for protecting marine areas, a University of Queensland expert says.
Only 0.5 per cent of the Bay was fully protected, UQ ecology centre director Hugh Possingham said.
Professor Possingham, who was instrumental in outlawing fishing across a third of the Great Barrier Reef, said it was difficult to say what minimum area was needed.
However the International Conservation Union, the world's peak environment body, had set a target of at least 10 per cent for all land and sea habitats.
"Another benchmark is the regional forestry agreement which aimed to protect 15 per cent of every forest type along the east coast of Australia, including southeast Queensland," he said.
"The important thing is to make sure you cover all the diversity that's there.
"It's no good just looking after the iconic areas like coral reefs, seagrass beds and grey nurse shark habitat."
Premier Peter Beattie was last week forced to deny speculation his Government would ban recreational fishing in the Bay. The fears were sparked by the looming 10-year review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park, which must be completed by September next year. "This process will not start until next year, and there will be wide consultation with all stakeholders – recreational and commercial fishers, conservation groups, the tourism industry and the wider community," Environment Minister Desley Boyle said.
"Our review will be open and transparent and based on science."
However the Australian Marine Conservation Society said the Great Barrier Reef model, which set aside 33.4 per cent of the Reef under no-fishing zones, should be considered.
"Unfortunately, the bay is under threat from too many competing interests and impacts," spokesman Craig Bohm said.
"On average 200 turtles and 15 dugongs die each year in Moreton Bay from human activities. Increasing population pressure, the drought and pollution are also taking their toll."
Mr Bohm said Institute of Marine Science and James Cook University surveys found fish numbers had jumped up to 55 per cent just two years after expanded no-fishing zones were declared on the Reef.
"The fully protected green (no fishing) zones are clearly working on the Great Barrier Reef and can also offer Moreton Bay great benefits to its marine life and its productivity," he said.
That artical has quotes from two universities, an international conservation body and the AMCS. They are all stating there must be closures. however, none of these groups to my knowledge have set foot in the bay or done any research.
The general public will read that today and 80% will by the end of the artical believe that closures are in the best interest of the bay.
It would appear that the majority of people on Ausfish are against closures, or at least want 'proof' they are necessary. We are a very small group compared to the influence that that one artical can have on the public.
Every time we fish we are collecting research. Whether it is fish numbers, size or as silent does, autopsies. We have diaries that go back years. We know how the moon and tide can effect catch rates. We spend more time in these areas than any uni or conservation group will ever spend there. This review is to be completed by September next year and hasn't started yet. How much unbiased data can be tabled in such a short time.
I believe we should call ourselves research analists not fishermen. We should also start a body called the Moreton Bay Marine Park Conservation Society. That way we could get quotes and articals in the paper.
This is a little light hearted, but I do believe we would have a stronger voice if we were represented by a 'conservation' group.
Hi all
was just about to place this on the board once again Beatties tells lies for those that are standing up for this Government
Premier Peter Beattie was last week forced to deny speculation his Government would ban recreational fishing in the Bay.
maybe time to stand back and have a rethink this is only one matter that the lies have been told there are many more issues that have come out lately and Qld is falling behind
as for the idiots trying to banned fishing they would never really no as they do not step in places to have a good look the same with the governments they sit in there fat office taking tax payers dollars but most would never know a real life of spending time with families and friends.
Cheers
Steve
Time for Beattie to go and send the greenies where they belong
Showing the greenies where to go will only occur if fishing gets what they calll "political legitimacy"
what that means is that The Fishing Party has toi get as many, or preferably more first votes than the Greens.
So If you cant vote then volunteer to work on the booth and ask for votes. Brisbane ( Cleveland) Townsvill and Cairns need more workers for Saturday 9th
You do NOT have to be in that electorate. Just able to get there.
Volunteeer a few hours and we can turn teh tide against the bias. Sit on your but becuase " i dont want to get involved" then you get what you deserve ( Golf clubs)
I wish I had more time to really broadside this > > >
Putting "Prof. Possingham" in charge of zoning Moreton Bay is like putting a pisspot in charge of a rum factory
Following is a letter received today from Prof Walter Starck.
KC.
Hi Walter
Wayne asked me to forward this on to you from page 31 of today's Courier
Mail - he would like to use it in the campaign, and thinks it might be
useful next Thursday with Bob Baldwin? He wonders whether you could let him
have your comments.
Thanks
Sally
My Comments in Red. Walter
From today's Courier Mail, Saturday 26 August 2006 ...
Anglers on the hook
Brendan O'Malley
August 26, 2006 12:00am
NO-fishing zones in Moreton Bay need to be expanded 20 times just to meet
the lowest international standards for protecting marine areas, a University
of Queensland expert says.
This is an unsubstantiated assertion. There are no "lowest international standards for protecting marine areas".
Only 0.5 per cent of the Bay was fully protected, UQ ecology centre director
Hugh Possingham said.
An irrelevant statement. Protected from what? MPAs do not protect against storms, pollution, global warming and sundry other threats both real and imaginary. On the other hand existing regulations do protect against various human impacts. A threat must first be identified before an appropriate remedy can be determined.
Professor Possingham, who was instrumental in outlawing fishing across a
third of the Great Barrier Reef, said it was difficult to say what minimum
area was needed.
Contributing to a giant ####-up and being unable to estimate what would be a sufficient measure in this instance hardy seems to be a source of good advice.
However the International Conservation Union, the world's peak environment
body, had set a target of at least 10 per cent for all land and sea
habitats.
"Another benchmark is the regional forestry agreement which aimed to protect
15 per cent of every forest type along the east coast of Australia,
including southeast Queensland," he said.
Targets and benchmarks are meaningless unless supported by sound evidence of need and effectiveness.
"The important thing is to make sure you cover all the diversity that's
there.
"It's no good just looking after the iconic areas like coral reefs, seagrass
beds and grey nurse shark habitat."
Where is the evidence for a threat to diversity? Not a single Australian marine species has been lost through human activity.
Premier Peter Beattie was last week forced to deny speculation his
Government would ban recreational fishing in the Bay. The fears were sparked
by the looming 10-year review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park, which must be
completed by September next year. "This process will not start until next
year, and there will be wide consultation with all stakeholders –
recreational and commercial fishers, conservation groups, the tourism
industry and the wider community," Environment Minister Desley Boyle said..
"Our review will be open and transparent and based on science."
However the Australian Marine Conservation Society said the Great Barrier
Reef model, which set aside 33.4 per cent of the Reef under no-fishing
zones, should be considered.
The GBR model has been a socio-economic disaster with no environmental benefit. It is an example of what should be avoided not something to be repeated.
"Unfortunately, the bay is under threat from too many competing interests
and impacts," spokesman Craig Bohm said.
"On average 200 turtles and 15 dugongs die each year in Moreton Bay from
human activities. Increasing population pressure, the drought and pollution
are also taking their toll."
How sound are these dugong and turtle mortality's? How are natural mortality's distinguished from ones attributed to human activities.? Why is a relative handful of accidental mortality's of such concern when it amounts to only 1% of the deliberate slaughter of these animals that is permitted for indigenous recreation? How does declaring an MPA prevent dought or pollution?
Mr Bohm said Institute of Marine Science and James Cook University surveys
found fish numbers had jumped up to 55 per cent just two years after
expanded no-fishing zones were declared on the Reef.
"The fully protected green (no fishing) zones are clearly working on the
Great Barrier Reef and can also offer Moreton Bay great benefits to its
marine life and its productivity," he said.
These claims are conflicted by both the much longer term ELF and coral trout surveys funded by GBRMPA which found much smaller differences between open and closed reefs and only then in a few heavily fished areas. They are however consistent with naturally occurring fluctuations between different reefs and over periods of a few years. In view of our knowledge of such natural variability and the extremely low level of actual fishing pressure that existed before the closures the claiming of a 55% increase due to expanded no-fishing zones is at best poor science. At worst it raises a serious question of deliberate misinformation.
As usual in these matters no evidence of need or efficacy is presented but rather a concoction of unsubstantiated assertions, misrepresented research, platitudes, techno-gibberish, and outright falsehoods.
Read with interest all of your comments and think they are all valid except for one. Mark, unless you are employed by Peter BEATTIE in the premier's department, I would think your job might be safe. Conditions of course are another thing, but that is a federal issue, not a state one.
KC, great post from Professor Walter Starck, mate. He makes some great points and is obviously a man of knowledge who looks for evidence in what the BS claim makers are saying - evidence which I might add which is more endangered in its existence then the supposed fish in Moreton Bay those claims are aiming at.
Charleville and Col, you both make excellent points as well and they are obviously well though out. Something that has been briefly touched on is that it won't matter how many % of the Bay is closed to us, if those desalination plants go ahead in the Moreton Bay area, and they plan to dispose of the excess salt in the bay, nothing, not even the bloody sea lice will survive > > >
You made the point about how Beattup has said that all stakeholders will be consulted and then the decision will be "Based on science". It's a bit like saying, "We will give you a fair trial followed by a first class Hangin'"
Further, I wonder if any of those scientific experts will come from Queensland, the "Smart State" or whether they will come from James Cook University.
The trouble with alot of those scientific opinions is, it is a bit like Doctors opinions in a court of law, you can shop around for the opinion that you want and suits your purpose.
As for Poofessor Possingham, those sort of academics - the ones who are obiviously touting for the job of doing the review for Beattup, in my experience of those types, no matter how many initials they have after their surnames and no matter how they rearrange them, they always come back to spell idiot
Keep up the good fight fellas, oh and Flick (Jim) the rest of us would prefer to be Analysts, not Analists!!!!! Sorry mate, I had to chuckle and it was too good to let go - feel free to have a jab at me about my atrocious spelling anytime mate - no offence.
Till next Post, Cheers
Horny
Live every day as if it's your last - for one day you're sure to be right!
Hi pitsta
Mark the IR laws where from Federal not state to different department >
You are entitled to your opinnion
I'm looking at overall from the fishing >, Health system >, Water infrastructure >, State Roads >,
If this was a Federal election then i would be looking at the I.R laws along with a wide range of other infrastructures to go with it not based on just one item alone
Anyway good debates are always healthy this is what makes the world go round and we are all different
This to is what makes life enjoyable if we where all the same it would be a very boring world
Reply With Quote
We have diaries that go back years. We know how the moon and tide can effect catch rates. We spend more time in these areas than any uni or conservation group will ever spend there. This review is to be completed by September next year and hasn't started yet. How much unbiased data can be tabled in such a short time.
>
