Reply With QuoteBy the way KC, does the party have enough members yet to register for the election?
KC many migratory species show some 'site fidelity.'
"For example, a fraction of the snappers around marine reserves in New Zealand show strong site fidelity and respond swiftly to protection, whereas the remainder make longer seasonal movements that take them into fishing grounds [9]. A similar pattern has been observed in at least five commercially important South African shorefish. For these species, , 67 – 93% of individuals were captured within 1 km of their original tagging site,whilst the rest moved greater distances of tens or even hundreds of kilometres [27]. "
But you are right on the tuna and marlin:
"Even highly migratory species, such as sharks, tuna and billfish, could benefit from reserves targeted to places where they are highly vulnerable, such as nursery grounds, spawning sites or aggregation sites such as seamounts [35]. "
quotes from http://www.panda.org/downloads/marin...dbound2003.pdf
I think that fish like trevally and cobia would benefit from a few larger green zones in more open waters. I've cought a lot of them, but I've never caught a marlin or big tuna.
Perhaps these forums give a false impression of the input recreational fishermen have on the political process. That is where I got the impression from that the majority of recreational fishermen oppose green zones regardless of the details. Maybe I am wrong on that one. But as you said, you were at the time opposed to a 25% grab, even though the best available scientific advice (I'm pretty sure it was available back then) said that fisheries would benefit from 20-40% coverage. I only just found that out myself. We (rec fishos) have always been behind the 8 ball. That is why we were ignored. I think the politicians did take notice of what you and your friends said, but they just dismissed it because it appeared to be based on ignorance. You are one of less than half a dozen recreational fishermen I know who pay any attention to the facts on green zones.
By the way KC, does the party have enough members yet to register for the election?
"By the way KC, does the party have enough members yet to register for the election? "
Join the party and find out jockey. Who cares if they do or they don't or are you angling on another tangent to start another diatribe. KC is entitled to his personal opinions on here without being seen as always the Fishing Party man.
With respect NZ Snapper & South African shorefish?? have bugger all to do with GBR species. Reef Fish, and lets even be more specific, Coral trout, Red Throat, Spangled Emp and Job Fish...........the target species DO NOT MIGRATE BETWEEN REEFS. No ifs buts or maybees. There will be NO SPILLOVER EFFECT Unless habitat similarity occurs ie same reef system!!(split reefs)
I AGREE it is certainly worth protecting spawning aggregations BUT GREEN ZONES DON'T WORK FOR TARGET PELAGIC SPECIES.
& Finally, YES we have plenty of paid members, are fully registered with the Australian Electoral Commission as an official political party & WILL STAND FOR 2 SENATE SEATS IN QUEENSLAND AT THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION.
We might not win a seat but you can bet your bloody life that we will attract enough of a vote to at least get the bastards begging for preferences....leverage is an amazing tool!
KC
Just got to wait now for one of jockey's mindless arogrant replies
RAFLMAO
Hey Kerry, I got as nice chuckle at your graphics........who invents this stuff? Definately good for a laugh.
KC
I think that coral trout etc do migrate between reefs, but not very often. That is, there is enough migration for the different populations to interbreed, but probably not enough for significant spillover on the biomass level. What makes you think they don't migrate at all?
How do you know that green zones don't work for target pelagic species? Are you including trevally and cobia in that generalisation, or just the high profile species like tuna and billfish?
Also, you support split reefs on the GBR - does the party support the use of green zones as fisheries management tools south of the GBR? The greens are trying their hardest to get green zones all up and down the coast, in the name of conservation. They are getting a few in too. Is the party going to wait until there are green zones everywhere before they develop policies on how they should be used (ie changed) to suit fisheries management goals?
I used those examples because they were the only ones I could find that had been studied in a rigourous manner. You can't just rely on anecdotal evidence.
Jockey,
Whats the go now with spill over
"but probably not enough for significant spillover on the biomass level."
I meant that the spillover of coral trout from reefs that are completely closed (not split) will probably not be significant for fisheries management - ie you won't get a lot of fish leaving the green zone and getting caught.
If you meant in a more general sense, spillover has been shown to occur and you will catch more fish if there are some green zones around. Provided they are done properly of course.
Hey Jock , all your answers on "spillover" will be found here.....Originally Posted by jockey
[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
lmao@gazza
KC this is how rec fishermen excluded themselves from negotiations over green zones.
But ya' got a' laugh!! By the way Jockey I noticed you have "opened the batting" for our side on the fishnet site!
Which in a way means you have taken some notice of the points raised and maybe changed your views on RAP to some degree.
I know you are prone to the occassional "wind up" but none the less. We all live and learn and if you have changed camps...welcome aboard.
Now back to your questions. You "think" some coral trout migrate between reefs. I "think" they don't. Wouldn't it be nice to "know". No evidence exists to support either position but the majority opinion of CRC researchers is that they don't..but again this is opinion based on observation of the teritorial habits of coral trout & lippers not hard core science.
In relation to pelagics....the supposed purpose of a green zone is to allow a domecile stock to live in a threat free environment, return biomass to unfished levels and then have spillover of spawning recruitment. It all hinges on the brood staock remaining in the NTA. Pelagics do not. Unless you identify a spawining aggregation site there is no benifit from open water green zones beacuse a fish protected in a green zone one day is in open slather water the next....makes bugger all sense to me!
Regards
KC
KC
Jockey you have told KC that he cannot rely on anecdotal evidence yet you are basing your case on assumptions???
Posting Permissions
