Jock , you amaze me , you say spread the tourists but concentrate the RecFishos. ???
Arse about face mate..... 8)
Spread the Fishos, to reduce any hotspot fishing pressure ,and concentrate the tourists ,so they can all shit in onespot , and only destroy a tiny piece of REEF
Doesn't the same argument apply to both Gazza?
Gee think I opened a can of worms,
got a few other issues to bring up in due time. Looking forward to hearing your one eyed opinion on those too Jockey Yeh right
Make something Idiot proof and they make better Idiots
Yes it does Jock ,I agree with you... [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]Originally Posted by jockey
"Minimise the DAMAGE"
Tourists.....minimise their ever-increasing impact ,on REEF structure and untreated,raw sewage, diving in protected spawning areas even ,if necessary [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
RecFishos......minimise hotspots, remotely linked to overfishing by some dickwit, by bag,by minsize,by proven spawning habits, IF under proven threat. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
Comms......minimise export IF unsustainable for local markets, if necessary. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
p.s. interstate and international tourists don't vote here.....
RecFishos and Comms. do , about 500,000 core voters plus, who keep this mob in power.
They better start listening, as Panda and WWF are looking sillier everday , with their locked-up areas theory, and their arguments aren't holding up too well......and that is good [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
Pretty emotive stuff this... good to see some robust thought and some naievity as well.
I've worked with tour operators and protected areas for many years (not marine though), and the theory has always been to try and concentrate the areas of impact in order to sustain much larger areas and the microsystems / ecosystems that exist there... a fair enough point of view...it works for me on the land thats for sure.
However It looks to me like GBRMPA are not equally assessing and then differentiating the impacts created by the rec fisho's, commercial fishos and tourists alike. They have applied a "One set of rules for all "...this perception enhancer trying to make people believe they are unbias in their treatment of all !!!! Yeah right.
I reckon its just plain old planning (or planner) laziness and this is being backed up by political gutlessness (in not being willing to stand up and say well right fred is different from Bob and as a result he gets some extra priviledges). For christ sake fred cant even get out to the reef for over four months a year so shit he'd wanna be a pretty bad boy to deserve what he has recieved with all the green zone punishments.
I think herein lies the problem for many of us... ie. all fishos impacts are not the same and we should not be treated the same. GBRMPA and the politicians should have the balls to say "we stuffed up in the way we endorsed the commercial fish fleet (because we didnt really understand the resource), and as a result you will have a different set of rules than rec fishos......because know we actually understand some of your impacts better.
They should also however not put a blinker on for any of the tourism impacts either (given that they are the supposed lifeblood of the north after all ..cough,cough). My years with eco tour operators still leads me to believe that the "eco" stands for "economic" and not ecological , (for about 60% of those in the business) .....yes they do have better practices than mass tourism no doubt, but hey at the end of the day it is about $$ and they will take short cuts to save a few bucks..... On this one the pollies need to call the bluff of the influential few and stop listening to the trumped up quadruplified data being espoused.
Look I dont have the answers.. If I did I wouldnt be here beefing it out on a chat board, but I actually support some green zoning (less than currently applied but more yellow zoning) because it is a good thing for all of us at the end of the day ... it just should be backed up by some broader / comprehensive thought by the planners and some political gumption to tell it how it really is and should be .
Yee Haa Giddy up China
Make something Idiot proof and they make better Idiots
China,
appreciate your more moderate position re recognition of need for some green zoning on the reef and more yellow zoining and respect your industry experience
Article below from Coiurier Mail underpins some of the rationale for closed green zones
Regards - Jim
Courier Mail News
Gropers aren't the only oldies having fun
Michael Madigan
13jul04
FISH on the Great Barrier Reef soon may live almost as long as the average human – and they won't be letting the autumn years slow down their sex lives.
Scientists yesterday revealed some reef fish could have a life span of 60 to 70 years.
They have found a coral trout which evaded dinner plates for 19 years and a red throat emperor thriving in his 25th year.
And rather than allowing age to slow down their reproductive capacity, mature-age fish are producing far stronger children than their youthful counterparts.
The revelations, made yesterday at the third International Symposium of Fish Otolith Research and Application in Townsville, are expected to impact heavily on how we manage fish stocks.
"From a fishery management perspective, it will become important for us preserve the older fish," conference chairman Gavin Begg said.
Dr Begg, of the CRC Reef Research Centre at James Cook University, said decade-old research on fish age in Queensland was producing amazing data.
Age is determined by examining the "otolith" – the ear bone used by fish for balance and orientation. The otolith lays downs rings, much as a tree does, and allows scientists to accurately determine birth dates.
It was previously believed the absence of significant change in sea temperature in the tropics would prevent accurate otolith assessments.
"We have found that is not the case, and we are now coming up with a lot of accurate information," Dr Begg said.
Even small cod, previously thought to live only a few years, are reaching 30 to 40.
With Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority green zones now banning fishing, it was possible some reef fish such as red bass would make 60 or 70.
Scientists working overseas have found deepwater fish living to 100 years and more.
And these older fish were found to be producing more eggs the older they got, Dr Begg said.
"With more spawning experience they tend to produce larva that is larger and stronger and has more chance of survival."
'Stick to fishing instead of fighting' - JC
Jim,
While the points raised are sound you also need to read between the lines a bit regarding this press article.
Lets look at a few points made....fish live 60 to 70 years...here you are talking about Red Bass. A no take species due to cigutera and now a banned species. "Small Cod"', this is a wire netting cod which only grows to a bit over 1kg and is not a recreational target (or commercial)....the words about the 19 year old trout and 25 year old Red Throut...note they used the word "he" . These are male fish. The biggest identified predator of juvenille trout are larger male fish.
Those fish which are the big breaders as females..barra, grouper are already well protected, those fish which have significant tourism value or have a breeding regime which makes them vunerable...Wrasse, barrmundi cod are zero take.
The overseas studies about older fish in deep water producing better lavea etc are just that overseas studies and a bit motherhood. It is a proven fact that deep water fish , like orange roughy live longer, grow slower and breed later than reef species. Recreational fihers do not target deep water species like Orange Roughy and reds etc ae not a true deepwater species as they move throughout the water column and grow quickly.
A coral trout grow to 30cm in 1 year, breeds at 35cm and changes sex to a male fish at around 4/5 years old.
It in essencse has 3 breeding seasons after reaching legal catch size before becoming a male fish.
Notice they never talked about the key target species..coral trout?? This is because the studies done show Coral trout numbers to be totally heathy, catch rates, both recreational and comercial having no apparent effect on stock levels and no evidence existing to support the need for a 30% lock-out.
The actual combined rec and commercial catch of trout on the GBR is about 2% of available biomas. Since the paper is quoting overseas studies, the internationally accepted standard for a sustainable fishery is in the order of 40% of available biomass, which is then replaced by annual spawning recruitment.
Now before you come charging back (or Jockey does) about "Posting the link..what evidence etc" The evidence of the 14 year study caried out by Dr Tony Ayling is sitting in a bottom draw of a GBRMPA filing cabinet. It has never been published even though it is widely regarded as the single most comprehensive study of a single reef fish stock ever carried out. I have a precis of the study if you would like to see it but it is too big to post here. It has never been published because it does not support the GBRMPA propogander about the reef being overfished. If you want to see the study or anyone does, send me a PM and I will happliy provide it.
I sent it and some other studies and research papers to Jockey last week and he has not yet responded or acknowledged reciept of them and yet he constantly harks about "show me the evidence".
A symposism, organised and funded by GBRMPA and their mates at Reef CRC and JCU, which just happens to occur 2 weeks after the rezoning, manages to issue a press release, using rubbery figures about overseas studies and warm and fuzzies about 70 year old red bass really should be no surprise to anyone. The entire marine research community is an amazingly tigh knit mob, all relying on research grants, handed out by GBRMPA. What better way to "up the budget" from the feds than to perpetuate the myth that the GBR is in dire straights and only they can fix it. More money, more rearch grants, more jobs for the boys and in 20 years time, when the reef is still in good shape, this will no doubt be more evidence of what a great job they have done. If the reef needs protection it should be with pink zones, if a particular fish stock needs protection then do it, with bag limits, reduced commercial catch quotas and closed spawning seasons (just like barra).....not just blanket bans at the expense of those who live here and those who live of our sport.
Regards
KC
KC,
I would be interested in reading the studies that show "Coral trout numbers to be totally healthy, catch rates, both recreational and commercial having no apparent effect on stock levels and no evidence existing to support the need for a 30% lock-out"
I will send you my postal address in a PM. I appreciate that you are well read on the topic and admit that I am a freshwater ecologist and not a marine one.
However, I have a large number of friends and colleagues that are (some of whom are keen rec fishers) whose knowledge and experience I respect and they are pretty well unanimous in their support for green zones and the beneficial role they can play in fishery management and marine conservation if appropriately selected.
Some of these guys have been involved in survey and monitoring work of targeted fish species (as part of the crown of thorns starfish studies) and they reported fairly appreciable differences in fish community and size make up in relation to fishing pressure. I also note that there are a host of other species besides coral trout i.e, Lutjanids for instance, that are long lived and targeted species. Look forward to receiving the literature and meanwhile will confer a bit more with some of my marine fish biologists colleagues for some more informed feed back.
Regards - Jim.
'Stick to fishing instead of fighting' - JC
Sh#t great read KC [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
You should have the reports by now Jim. The result of a 14 year study and the single most comprehesive study of any single reef fish species ever undertaken. So why is it burried in the bottom of a filing cabinet at GBRMPA?? Because it does not help perpetuate the myth of desperate overfishing!!
Will be interested to hear your feedback on the papers.
Anyone else that wants them send me an email to kc@whitsunday.net.au......this is not secret mens business. The more people that read these reports the better.
Regards
KC
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote