# PETITION - Restore Rec' Fishing in Aus' MPA's



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

PETITION - RESTORE RECREATIONAL FISHING ACCESS IN AUSTRALIAN MPA's! The Australian Gov't has requested public input IN ADDITION to their current NSW MPA Access & Headland Surveys.

To make input quick & easy *(30 sec's) - SIGN HERE:* http://outdoor-alliance.org/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=1&reset=1

*Petition Background Info: *http://outdoor-alliance.org/articles/action/petition-australia

Anti-fishing groups had over 8,600 signatures (including 1,500 foreigners) & most supported increasing the size & scope of MPA fishing closures! PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION WHETHER YOU LIVE IN AUSTRALIA OR NOT! (We are into 3 figures in the first week, but have a long way to go...)

Recreational fishers fully support MPA's, as it is in our long-term interest to ensure sustainable and diverse marine environments, BUT these areas have to be based on sound science.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

Leftieant, We are just an independent group of people from around the world that love to fish & are motivated to protect our fishing rights. Here is our Mission Statement: http://outdoor-alliance.org/content/about-us

Here is one of our founding members & advisory team from Australia, whose work you may know of: http://outdoor-alliance.org/articles/inspired









Protecting Our Fishing Rights - Together
http://www.Outdoor-Alliance.org


----------



## Scott (Aug 29, 2005)

mingle said:


> I don't mind wetting a line, but I also think the fish need a break once in a while.
> 
> If you look at the area of the inshore marine parks / reserves in comparison the total coastal
> area of Australia, it's bugger all... A lot of them are far offshore, beyond the reach of most
> ...


Yes, i couldn't agree more


----------



## cheaterparts (Jul 3, 2010)

mingle said:


> . A lot of them are far offshore, beyond the reach of most
> rec fishos anyway...
> 
> Mike.


come on Mike just set sail on that long hobie trawller and you'll be there in no time


----------



## OldDood (Nov 6, 2008)

I can still catch as many fish as I want (and then some) with my reasonably low tech approach.  
Why would I be concerned with MPA's that mostly affect recreational stink boat owners and pros? That leaves more fish for me and everybody else.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

Thanks for the responses! Good to see some opinions. I grew up creek fishing, love to fly fish for trout (from my kayak) & spearfish quite a bit these days. I am a 'foreigner' that has lived in Aus' & was lucky enough to fish my way from Bermagui to Cairns - AWESOME country - you are so lucky! I'd love to see the W. side one day...

Ant, we want all fishermen to sign - 'foreigners' too. Strangely enough, foreign anti-fishing organizations (ie: P E W) initiated some of Australia's MPA's - http://outdoor-alliance.org/articles/conservation/global

Here is an excerpt from some political MPA correspondence showing ~1,500 foreign signatures supporting anti-fishing:









If all fishermen were apathetic & it was left to the motivated anti's, fishing would soon become a priviledge & not a right. (ie: in Europe, most land & inland waters are privately owned, with few public land access rights & most people have to pay for access fish & hunt!)

I know it's mostly in good humour to bitch about big boats, spearos, etc., but all fishermen need to put aside their differences & work together to protect the way of life that we cherish. (or we will lose it to those united against us - http://outdoor-alliance.org/articles/rights/positive

I understand your views about the MPA's, but it is truly about the PRINCIPAL. To protect the future of fishing, we need to get TOGETHER to get the message to the policy makers that MPA's & ALL fisheries regulations need to based on sound science, not politics driven by emotional whims. The government has requested input & are willing to listen now.


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

mingle said:


> I don't mind wetting a line, but I also think the fish need a break once in a while.
> 
> If you look at the area of the inshore marine parks / reserves in comparison the total coastal
> area of Australia, it's bugger all... A lot of them are far offshore, beyond the reach of most
> ...


OK, what if...


> CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
> ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
> 
> Section 25. The people shall have the right to fish upon and from
> ...


Given that no one can "own" a beach, all coastal areas are public in California, thus an MPA in unconstitutional.


----------



## intrepid (Oct 23, 2012)

taking a few quotes from your webpage linked here:



steepNdeep said:


> *Petition Background Info: *http://outdoor-alliance.org/articles/action/petition-australia


_"However, the recent change in Government_ "

what change is this refering to? the new prime minister?

and

_However, the recent change in Government & an Independent Scientific Audit of MPA's has forced the government to review them & they have declared a temporary amnesty in some MPA's while they gather public input on restoring recreational fishing access! _

and i have checked the http://www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves/index.html marine reserves Government site, but cant find the call for public submissions?

can you provide more info?


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Science-backed peer reviewed closures are one thing, but closing areas that are not "threatened" just because there must surely be less fish because there's always fishermen there is another. Our CA closures had absolutely no science, and was not at all about fish. It was about habitat (edit speaking of habitat urban outflow was not even addressed, and MPAs back right up to, but leave out, some of the most poopoo polluted beaches in CA), so they closed chunks of water off that actually had habitat, leaving vast areas of sand claiming this:


mingle said:


> If you look at the area of the inshore marine parks / reserves in comparison the total coastal area of Australia, it's bugger all...


Sure there are vast miles of open area, but the closures are (were) the areas where people fish (or had reasonable access to fish) because there is structure there. And now, the areas that are left are fished harder. From someone that has been on the water on the front lines for decades --where the plastic meets the water so to speak-- the areas were healthy and sustaining. Is it also a coincidence that the closures in California are smack out front of high dollar ocean front real estate? No. If it were up to them all fishing would be outlawed. No question.

Work size and bag limits reasonably, and scientifically, and enforce them. Don't make new laws and closures and leave the wealthy landowners to police it. Which has/is happening.


----------



## intrepid (Oct 23, 2012)

Zed said:


> Don't make new laws and closures and leave the wealthy landowners to police it. Which has/is happening.


is this happening in Australia???


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

The trouble is that as long as it is somewhere else then it seems okay but that somewhere else may be someones local spot.
I'm all for marine parks but the restrictions need to vary form no anchoring, to no bait, no commercial, no spear fishing, not just a blanket lock out.
If it was a marine park in Sydney I would be protesting.


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

intrepid said:


> Zed said:
> 
> 
> > Don't make new laws and closures and leave the wealthy landowners to police it. Which has/is happening.
> ...


I hope not. Sorry, I meant in California, (La Jolla, Laguna Beach and Malibu) it is. And to top it off, there is a provision in the law to be able to travel through MPAs even with rods and with bagged fish, just no fishing inside. That means launching in a MPA is legal as long as you don't fish w/in it. But with the over zealous volunteers calling the wardens you are guilty until proven innocent. And that's against the US constitution, but it's happening.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

It's nice to see what a forward thinking, responsible and ethical bunch AKFFers are.


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

^I always have been. I judge myself at a much higher standard. I know my personal t ake v c&r is not questionable. I know fish identities and size limits to a T. I resent being told that I'm the problem from someone that doesnt know how many fish are really there as much as they dont know how many ass hairs they have when its right in front of their face.


----------



## OldDood (Nov 6, 2008)

> If all fishermen were apathetic & it was left to the motivated anti's, fishing would soon become a priviledge & not a right. (ie: in Europe, most land & inland waters are privately owned, with few public land access rights & most people have to pay for access fish & hunt!)


Strangely enough I do not think it is my "right" to go fishing but is actually a "priviledge"
I treat it as a priviledge and try not to degrade the fisheries for future generations to enjoy.

I would much rather underfish an area than overfish it and run the risk of depleting the stocks forever.
If we inadvertantly set aside more areas as sanctuaries than is actually required by science then the worst that can happen is that our fish stocks will increase.
We will be able to correct this very good situation later on by decreasing the size of the MPA's. That sounds like an easy fix to me.
Trying to fix the reverse case when we discover that we have depleted our breeding fish stocks below a replacement level is pretty much impossible.
Once the fish are gone they are gone for good!

On a side note - some countries think it is their "RIGHT" to bare arms! Scares the shit out of me!
Mr Shopkeeper, can I have a thermo-nuclear device please for my personal protection? Surely it is my right to bare arms. :lol:
What was the only country to actually drop a nuke on some other country in anger?


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I'm happy to sign anything to reduce commercial fishing.


----------



## avayak (May 23, 2007)

intrepid said:


> taking a few quotes from your webpage linked here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dave,
He may be referring to the NSW state government although it is hardly new.
They are calling for input into MPA's see here http://akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=62213


----------



## intrepid (Oct 23, 2012)

thanks Gary!

i much prefer to make my own submissions to government rather than just give my personal details away to some random organisation for inclusion in an ill-presented petition...


----------



## OldDood (Nov 6, 2008)

@Kraley
So far the marine parks in SA that everybody was getting excited about has not restricted my kayak fishing at all.  
There are a few pros and power boaties that have had their wings clipped a bit but not that seriously.
As I said previously, I can still catch a good feed of fish regardless of the marine parks, so I have nothing to whinge about so far.
Nobody has taken away my "right" to catch fish so nothing to get excited about there either.
I am also not going to buy into some conspiracy theory that some evil greeny is trying to take away my fun.
I would rather err on the side of caution just in case the "science" behind sustainable catches is not quite correct.
It has been shown in the past that what was good science in the past has proved to be very wrong.
I am sure that we do not have a complete understanding on what factors are involved in a healthy eco system so lets be careful.
I am quite happy to let you make any decision to sign a petition if you like, you could be completely correct in all your assumptions.
I am just stating my opinions on the matter but opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one. 
Although some are probably much bigger than others. :lol:

P.S. I am not sure why you thought that I was only targeting recreational fisherman, cos I was talking about fishing generally.


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

OldDood said:


> On a side note - some countries think it is their "RIGHT" to bare arms! Scares the shit out of me!
> Mr Shopkeeper, can I have a thermo-nuclear device please for my personal protection? Surely it is my right to bare arms. :lol:
> What was the only country to actually drop a nuke on some other country in anger?


Wow.
oldood, I view this as personal and off topic in a healthy debate about fishing rights. And since we aren't in some pub and I can't pop you one in the kisser for it, I'll just say that if said country hadn't stepped in and fought side by side with you Aussies in those hell-hole S Pacific islands, you would be speaking Japanese, olddood-san!

I went to school to be a scientist. I did fish studies during and after school. I went to the public comment meetings on the MPA's, which by the way were held at odd times mid-week where public comment was severely restricted. It was a railroad-job. The agenda was there, and we as fishermen were evil in the eyes of the majority. It was a sad view of democracy. If gov can take away some piddly right to fish w/o batting an eye, where does it stop? I don't think anyone on this board thinks there should be no regulation of fishing. But if no one fights, then everything gets taken away.


> C'est la vie.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

double post


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

Zed said:


> Science-backed peer reviewed closures are one thing, but closing areas that are not "threatened" just because there must surely be less fish because there's always fishermen there is another. Our CA closures had absolutely no science, and was not at all about fish. It was about habitat (edit speaking of habitat urban outflow was not even addressed, and MPAs back right up to, but leave out, some of the most poopoo polluted beaches in CA), so they closed chunks of water off that actually had habitat, leaving vast areas of sand claiming this.


I agree Zed - we got hammered in California on the 2012 MPA's & the policy was purely an emotionally based political campaign with no scientific backing. The Cali' fisheries are doing great & are the healthiest that they have been in 30 years! Look at the WSB population for example (the American 'Jewfish"). They are back in record numbers & size - with fish over 60 lbs (30 kg's) being caught regularly. The MPA's devastated recreational fishing opportunities in S. Cali' & the trend is continuing around the world...

In S. NSW, I spoke with committee members that explained that there was a political target - X % of coastline that they wanted in MPA's, whether it was needed or not. He said that some areas were ridiculous to include in a biology-based MPA, as it was just barren sand, but the politicians wanted the area to acheive their political goals.

Australia is in a great position right now with the political changes happening, to have their MPA's reviewed & changed to be more science-based. The new ministers realize there were some errors in the MPA process & are listening to suggestions from rec' fishers NOW. 8)


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Again being there on the front lines I've seen the comeback before the MPA's. The ban on commercial inshore gill netting, fish trapping and mouse trapping has been a boon to the inshore ecology, and wsb, halibut and sheephead numbers have bounced back well before the MPA's.

Another plus, the bluefin tuna ranchers off Mexico now have a quota in place, and offshore rec fishing for bluefin is approaching historic numbers.
Just a little regulation of commercial take goes a long ways for better recreational fishing. Rec fishing can't compare to a super-seiner wrapping the whole school.


----------



## OldDood (Nov 6, 2008)

@Zed


> Wow.
> oldood, I view this as personal and off topic in a healthy debate about fishing rights. And since we aren't in some pub and I can't pop you one in the kisser for it, I'll just say that if said country hadn't stepped in and fought side by side with you Aussies in those hell-hole S Pacific islands, you would be speaking Japanese, olddood-san!


I thought you would get quite excited about that.  Not sure why you would take it personally, I am pretty sure you did not make the decision yourself. Wanting to pop me in the kisser is a bit of an over reaction? :lol: 
I was explaining that just because you have a "Right" to do something and it is in the constitution does not automatically mean it is a good thing.
We really did appreciate your help, but it would have been nice if you joined us in 1939 and then it would not have developed into such a debacle.

@Kraley
Our fisheries in SA have been very well managed generally and it is quite easy to catch fish here if you know what your doing.
When the Marine Parks were first raised here we all had our say and came up with a good compromise which kept everybody happy.
As far as the commercial catches are concerned, PIRSA seemed to have done a good job and are keeping a close eye on the pros.
In my opinion the fish stocks now have improved considerably since the 1970's when they where being overfished.
I have no reason to believe that the fisheries here are being managed poorly, perhaps in other states you have not done such a good job?


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

intrepid said:


> taking a few quotes from your webpage.
> 
> _"However, the recent change in Government_ " what change is this refering to? the new prime minister?
> 
> ...


Dave, The changes refer to the obvious ones - The PM & the newly appointed ministers, including Environment Minister Mark Butler and Fisheries Minister Joel Fitzgibbon. With change comes opportunity for a fresh perspective. New ministers are more willing to listen as they formulate their policies. Also with the upcoming election, they are gauging the numbers on key issues such as recreational fishing, so this is a prime opportunity to be heard.

I have an email from another minister, that outlines, that the NSW & National Gov't has vowed to undertake a 6 month review of recreational fishing access & "To complement the online survey, targeted interviews are also being conducted by scientists including award winning researcher Michelle Voyer, to gather additional information on social and economic values associated with beaches and headlands."

They are clearly seeking input & the Petition is a simplified way to get a strong message to them with minimal effort by the fishermen.

I have found an amusing trend on most forums. There is usually a silent majority that support the Petition & a few fishermen that vocally oppose it. We appreciate all opinions & discussion, as it allows us to review & hone our policies. The anti's take an extreme position in that they want to BAN ALL FISHING, which forces us to take a strong stance & hopefully we will settle on some middle ground...


----------



## OldDood (Nov 6, 2008)

kraley said:


> OldDood said:
> 
> 
> > We really did appreciate your help, but it would have been nice if you joined us in 1939 and then it would not have developed into such a debacle.
> ...


Wow Kraley, your ability to make one and one add up to three is impressive! 
Is that why you belong to team bamboozle?
You are a funny guy and I appreciate your humour. :lol: 
You would make a great politician. :lol: 
I would not get into a american-aussie WWII thread. The yanks seem to have very little sense of humour and bite far too easily.  
They do not seem to understand the aussie tradition of "Taking the PIss". :lol: ;-)


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2013)




----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

Thx. Steve, The premise of that video is that they support MPA's for "FISHERIES IN PERIL".

We suport MPA's for fisheries that are proven to be in peril, based on solid science, as well. HOWEVER, the Independent Scientific Audit of MPA's in NSW report that the fishery is currently "well managed" & the California fisheries are in the best shape that they have been in 40 years with 'jewfish' populations approaching record size & numbers.

Despite this, the anti's misinformed the public that the fisheries were "in peril" & they needed MPA's to save them. Their premise was based on their own propoganda. This is why the Petition STATES:

*We call for an immediate scientific review of how access to MPA's are determined & each fishing closure should be supported by scientific data.

Making the MPA process more transparent will enable all Australians to know that the proposed MPA's are based on sound science, and are good public policy.*

http://outdoor-alliance.org/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=1&reset=1









_Protecting Our Fishing Rights - Together_
http://www.Outdoor-Alliance.org


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Not a single marine verterbrate has been fished to extinction in the Australian Marine Estate but there have been 54 terrestrial extinctions (Dep't SEWPaC, 2009).

Of the 108 assessed seafood stocks in NSW, 6 currently are subject to MANDATORY recovery plans. They are Jackass Morwong and Gemfish (Commonwealth managed) Eastern Seagar, Black Lip abalone, mulloway and grey Morwong (NSW Managed). These statistics prompted the NSW Marine Park Audit to declare: "there is clear evidence that most of the assessed fisheries are being well managed." (Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in NSW, 2012).

Just 3 weeks ago, Professor Colin Buxton (Google him) made this video about Marine Parks and explains how large Sanctuaries do not address the REAL THREATS: http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/vid ... rine-parks

And also recently, this episode of Landline stated on numerous occasions that Australian fisheries are SUSTAINABLE and among the BEST in the world: http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#/series/2293598


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

kraley said:


> When was the last time you ordered fish at a restaurant? Did you think about where/how it came from?


Every single time, and I order The fish or something else on the basis of the answer. To be fair though, I'm mostly thinking about taste.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

steepNdeep said:


> Thx. Steve, The premise of that video is that they support MPA's for "FISHERIES IN PERIL".
> 
> We suport MPA's for fisheries that are proven to be in peril, based on solid science, as well. HOWEVER, the Independent Scientific Audit of MPA's in NSW report that the fishery is currently "well managed" & the California fisheries are in the best shape that they have been in 40 years with 'jewfish' populations approaching record size & numbers.
> 
> ...


http://nccnsw.org.au/node/1958






http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reserves-helping/story-fn3dxiwe-1226683204005


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

SteveR said:


> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...reserves-helping/story-fn3dxiwe-1226683204005


PLEASE... Australia has banned the vast majority of destructive fishing practices, some of which still occur in countries such as Fiji


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

There's no doubt humanity knocked back the numbers but for those who have done the sums, the poor blighters are there own worst enemy when it comes to having a root.

Here in Byron Bay we've got a creature called a Mitchells rainforest snail - It's only useful when a halfwit anti-fishing ecologist needs to make a point. At the last fish kill, I saw a dozen of them float upside down and nobody gave a damn.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

kraley said:


> dru said:
> 
> 
> > kraley said:
> ...


I mostly am looking for flavour. Mostly the fish I'm offered in Sydney is farm bred. You would have experienced the same? I don't like the flavour of fresh water farm fish. Salt water is better but better again if the farm is placed somewhere that makes them swim.

The farm systems, fresh or salt, make a huge difference.

I am rarely offered wild fish. Mostly for flavour wild should be good, the query then runs to fresh v fozen, refrozen how many times (denial is normal). I have rarely have the chance or this conversation to get to method of capture. And rarely has wild been better than well handled farm fish.

Ken, you posed a question, just answering. I don't understand anyone concerned NOT asking.

Btw, a restaurant who knows the answers to these questions is just begging for you to ask. The others... I order beef.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

kraley said:


> http://nccnsw.org.au/node/1958


Much bigger donate button than any science to be found there - what specifically do you find entrancing about their position?
[/quote]

Nothing entrancing at all. 
Three separate links to be read as a whole.

Grey Nurse numbers low; the cause was people acting in ignorance; MPAs are contributing to recovery. I am no expert and don't know the expertise of those who wrote the articles however, I suspect they are right.


----------



## Guest (Aug 11, 2013)

kraley said:


> Three seperate links - but none of them say anything substntive. What parts of them do you agree with?


Covered before.



kraley said:


> We dont really know how many grey nurses are out there - and noone here would have had anything to do with their supposed demise. They were a favouite target of spearfishermen - but not kayak fishers. Why ban us from catching kingfish to 'save' them?


The thread is about recreational fishing in MPAs, not banning us from catching Kingfish.



kraley said:


> And which mpa in australia do you think has led to a recovery in grey nurse shark populations again?


I could equally ask you the reverse. I'm no expert and suspect you are the same. However you did say 'think' so I'll say, "all of them that include grey nurse sharks in the area" ;-)



kraley said:


> more importantly - when was the last time you bought commercial seafood - truthfully? How much do you care abought commercial tactics and quotas?


The thread is about recreational fishing in MPAs.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

spooled1 said:


> Not a single marine verterbrate has been fished to extinction in the Australian Marine Estate but there have been 54 terrestrial extinctions (Dep't SEWPaC, 2009).
> 
> These statistics prompted the NSW Marine Park Audit to declare: "there is clear evidence that most of the assessed fisheries are being well managed." (Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in NSW, 2012).
> 
> ...


Great info Dan! I will repost those links on the website.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

SteveR said:


> Grey Nurse numbers low; the cause was people acting in ignorance; MPAs are contributing to recovery. I am no expert and don't know the expertise of those who wrote the articles however, I suspect they are right.


I would wager that FISHING REGULATIONS protecting grey nurse sharks DO MUCH MORE for their recovery than any MPA.

In most cases, simple fishing regulations can be utilized to better manage any conservation concerns. A good illustration of the success of this management method is the case of the blue groper in NSW. Their pop' decline was observed by spearo's who recognized their susceptibility to overfishing & suggested a self-imposed ban. Their numbers have recovered & they are in plague proportions in some areas now!

Here is a grey nurse photo that I took ~ P. Stephens. They are cool creatures:











SteveR said:


> The thread is about recreational fishing in MPAs, not banning us from catching Kingfish.


This thread is about protecting fishing rights. An MPA does ban us from catching Kingfish in those areas. If there is a more balanced approach that BOTH addresses any conservation concerns AND allows recreational fishing opportunities, why wouldn't you support it, Steve?









_Protecting Our Fishing Rights - Together_
http://www.Outdoor-Alliance.org


----------



## BIGKEV (Aug 18, 2007)

I would prefer recreational fishing zones where line fishing is the only allowable form of fishing rather than complete lock outs of entire areas. Increases in size limits and decreases in bag limits to protect vulnerable species would also be welcomed provided they were backed by some form of research/science. Seasonal closures such as those for river bass and Fraser tailor are also significant IMO as they protect breeding species and can only serve to improve fecundity and help sustain stocks for future generations. Professional fishing should be reduced to the same methods as recreational anglers and beach seine and gill netting for fin fish species abolished.

Closing areas to fishing is a lazy option and will only appease a small vocal minority. There is so much more that can and should be done to manage fisheries better in this country.

Kev


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Just like anyone, I suppose, I read a lot, enjoy a lot of it, and some of it makes me angry. I decide not to comment a lot, and some makes me angry enough to comment on it. Whatever makes it through our own individual mental sieve.

I was angry about the process of the MLPA and MPAs in 2012, and had to personally change how and where I fished, so it affected me as a yaker in SoCal. It pissed me off, getting into this all over again combined with an Olddood being flippant around something that pissed me off.

So to combat any anger I want to say something good about the system as bad as it went. It could have been worse, not for the hard fought battle by the few that gave up a lot to do it --not just because I was one of them, ha. There was negotiation. The maps were far worse in the beginning. Then, there were subsequent options. There was a better option for us and there was a far worse option. They "gave" us middleground. All that could have been a snowjob, and the goal was met anyway, but it could have been worse and I have adapted.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

If you're gonna quote me make sure you add the bit about the 108 assessed species. I also want to make it clear that the Marine Parks Audit made thier determinations based on 9 Terms of Reference over 20 months.

The Audit also concluded: "There are few studies that have demonstrated conclusively that fisheries adjacent to sanctuaries benefit from spillover" AND "Modelling of the spillover benefit has shown that a fisheries benefit should arise only if the resource has been overfished." AND "The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover." AND FINALLY: ..."...it is the view of the Audit Panel that the spillover argument is a sterile one that should be abandoned."

While regular punters speculate, improving fisheries are NOT the primary function of sanctuary zonings. Sanctuaries are supposed to achieve specific outcomes such as:

• Habitat refuges for vulnerable or threatened species (ie. GNS)
• Scientific Reference sites
• Life History stages
• Cultural sites and Eco-Tourism

Sanctuary Zonings are supposed to be risk based models but in NSW, the anti-fishing extremists linked notions of 'spillover' (i.e. improving fisheries), into zoning plans. As a result, ordinary fishing families were slugged with massive lockouts where at Marine Parks like Cape Byron, up to 98.9% of our local nearshore reef systems were banned through the combination of species bans, temporal HPZ closures PLUS sanctuaries themselves. All without risk assessments that addressed, "Primary, Secondary or Subsidiary criteria such as the effects of tourism and fishing OR Biological, economic and social justifications.

With all this in mind, the Grey Nurse migrates to a single and very small Cape Byron habitat that was legislated as a refuge (a 200m Aquatic Reserve) long before the Marine Park ever stole its 170 years of local nearshore fishing history. At the same time, the NSW mortality of the GNS in 2002 was 12 and in the years from 2002 until 2011 exactly the same annual mortality rate existed - Still 12 per year even though vast tracts of adjoining reef systems in NSW have been locked up to fishing through the delivery of Sanctuary Zones. If the mortality rate hasn't changed, what benefit have all these extra closures really done for the GNS? In NSW the GNS boundaries are a muddle of inconsistency. In some areas the boundaries vary from 200m to 500m to 1000m and 1500m+ even though the same sharks with a consistent mortality rate of 12 per year only inhabit tiny areas (usually less than 50m) when they meet and aggregate in numbers at selected sites for those couple of important months a year.

The GNS is a perfect example of Sanctuary Zone failure in NSW where the perceived risk, is totally disproportionate to the actual threats. One reef neighbouring a GNS Critical Habitat at Cape Byron is closed for 8 months a year even though the GNS are only present for up to 3 months at the actual habitat site which is nearly 1km away. Zero GNS have been recorded to take a trolled lure but all forms of fishing are banned on this reef - Why?

Risk needs to be proportionate to threat.

Sanctuary zones are valuable but only if they are representative of the actual function. At Barwon Heads in Victoria there is a 17Ha Sanctuary - It works because it fulfils a representative criteria and boasts a size that is truly managable and proportionate. That's a far cry from the 6105 Hectares of Sanctuary at Cape Byron Marine Park that is also coupled with species bans AND an 8 month seasonal closure within a HPZ.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Sorry.... I got sidetracked... The original post was about Beaches and Rocky Headlands in the Marine Parks of NSW and why the NSW Marine Estate Management Authority is reviewing Beaches and Rocky Headland Sanctuary Zones.

This direct excerpt from Submission S177 to the NSW Marine Parks Audit may be quite illumninating and could help explain why the Minister stated, "Information was truly lacking" when she declared the 6 month Beaches and Rocky Headland amnesty:

"Two studies by Bennett & Attwood, cited by the MPA in their so called "Science Papers," were deliberately and totally misrepresented. These studies were used by the MPA as justification for locking-up large expanses of ocean beaches.

The Bennett & Attwood studies referred to were focussed upon fishing technique and the statistical indicator of fish abundance called "catch per unit effort." (CPUE) They also attempted to assess the effectiveness of closing areas where "the shore is a mixture of sandy beach and rock platform," not an open sandy beach as stated by the MPA!

Further, Bennett & Attwood studied ten (10) fish species not six (6) as stated by the MPA in their so called "Science Paper." And of the MPA's misrepresented six species, the two most prominent, (90% of their samples) are totally reef dependent sedentary species, not found in an open sandy beach habitat!

Of the remaining four (4) species, (of the MPA's six) even one more specimen is described by scientists as being a sedentary reef dwelling specimen, not normally found along open sandy beaches! And two of the remaining species (of the studied ten) have habitats listed as rocky shores!

So, only one of the six species "selected" by the MPA, dwells in a habitat described as "over sandy beaches." Therefore the results from only one (1) of the six (6) "selected " by the MPA is truly relevant to the evaluation of the effects of total fishing closures on sandy beach areas such as would be consistent with "fished beaches."

Further, only two of the ten (10) species examined in this study are highly migratory (Mulloway and Tailor,) and neither demonstrated any benefit from protection in the 46km long De Hoop sanctuary zone! All NSW recreational targeted species are migratory. They've got tails. They swim!

Why was this key and crucial information, deliberately omitted from the MPA's so called "Science Paper?" These deliberate omissions clearly constitute fraud!

Eventually and responding to further embarrassment from the fishing and scientific communities, the flawed and fraudulent document was removed and replaced with a new one. Prof. Kearney says of the new one, "Unfortunately, while numerous of the more blatant untruths have been corrected, the new version is still fatally flawed by the same bias and misrepresentation that dominated the earlier report. Arguably the new version is worse. The misrepresentation continues and now the authors cannot claim they did not know the problems.""


----------



## BIGKEV (Aug 18, 2007)

spooled1 said:


> Of the 108 assessed seafood stocks in NSW, 6 currently are subject to MANDATORY recovery plans. They are Jackass Morwong and Gemfish (Commonwealth managed) Eastern Seagar, Black Lip abalone, *mulloway *and grey Morwong (NSW Managed). These statistics prompted the NSW Marine Park Audit to declare: "there is clear evidence that most of the assessed fisheries are being well managed." (Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in NSW, 2012).


This is disappointing Dan, how can they say this when Mulloway are still commercially netted when at their most vulnerable in NSW, i.e. when in spawning aggregations. The sheer fact that they will close areas off for the remaining Mulloway to aggregate during the year and then smash them when they move into an estuary to school and spawn means that the NSW govt managed 'Mandatory Recovery Plan' is a bit of a joke.

Also of note is the fact that one of the mulloway's major food sources (mullet) is also netted while schooling to spawn, the real tragedy of this is the main use for these fish is the roe (eggs) which is sent overseas and the rest of the fish is more or less processed as bait for the recreational bait fishers with a small percentage going to market as 'sea run' mullet for the very few who eat it. What's the point of implementing a recovery plan for a species and continually removing their food?


----------



## BIGKEV (Aug 18, 2007)

spooled1 said:


> The Bennett & Attwood studies referred to were focussed upon fishing technique and the statistical indicator of fish abundance called "catch per unit effort." (CPUE)


Hey Dan,

I've only recently heard about the CPUE data but I believe this to be a fundamentally flawed system of recording data also. I'm not sure if you've heard of a bloke called 
Lindsay Dines, but he is from Teewah on the Cooloola coast in QLD is another man that has dedicated a huge amount of his own time an money into trying to reform fisheries management of QLD beaches. If you're not familiar with his work and studies then I would suggest you do a bit of research on him and what he has to say, I'm not sure if you're an 'Ausfish' forum member, but he has posted a lot of 'in depth' info on there over recent years that is well worth the read. He may just also be able to provide you with further info in your ongoing battle with NSW authorities in your area.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

As you know BigKev this is NSW and policy moves at a snails pace unless it's agenda driven. In September 2012 the DPI went into recreational consultation with the 'Have your say on Mulloway" proposals.

Meanwhile the professional sector have been having their own recovery discussions: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets ... y-2013.pdf

Who knows how long this sort of stuff sits on backburner as pre-planning plans for plans. If our local Marine Park is any example, 7 years of unjustified restrictions are meaningless to those who sit in an office and write the rules.


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

We may need this more than ever now...



And from "The Australian"


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

> "Indicative Potential" "Based on proposals by Environmental groups"


I'm pretty sure J K Rowling had better factual support for Harry Potter.

What is with all the scare mongering, is it because on a whole fisherman are seen to be pretty thick and can be herded into the polling booth ?


----------



## Guest (Aug 12, 2013)

Zed said:


> I was angry about the process of the MLPA and MPAs in 2012, and had to personally change how and where I fished


I'd be angry if one of my favourite fishing holes was closed to amateur fishing, as well. Especially as I expect only about ten more years of the style of fishing I enjoy, subject to surviving the role of Devil's Advocate for MPAs :twisted: ... Actually, my objection is more about being unhappy with the petition than it is support for MPAs. I simply don't know enough about any measured success or failure of MPAs to categorically state whether they are good or bad and suggest most of us have a similar level of knowledge.




> Two thirds of the reserves are zoned to allow recreational fishing. A large majority of the highly protected areas are remote from access points such as boat ramps or far offshore. Under the Commonwealth marine reserves network, some 96 per cent of all waters within 100 km of the shore (excluding the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park) are open to recreational fishing.



Above quote is linked to source web page.

It would be impossible to proclaim MPAs without putting someone's nose out of joint. My nearest MPA closes out the pros. You could say I am advantaged by MPAs and you would probably be right. However, people who've lived here far longer than me and who are not pro fishos, say fish numbers (generally) aren't what they used to be despite the MPA. One guy I spoke with - a person with a major vested interest in the viability of amateur fishing - blames my favourite sport fish (Australian Salmon), saying the ban of Pro fishing for these caused an increase in their numbers and they are causing the problem. I don't consider myself a great fisherman but catch Salmon in numbers, which tends to support the theory. However, the problem of fish population is complex. If Salmon are the problem then you need to ask why are they in numbers large enough to cause the problem? Was it the ban on Pro fishing for Salmon? Is it the reduction of their natural predators? Is it a combination of the two or something else entirely? I don't know. The Austalian fishery is complex. MPAs may or may not be fixing problems. I doubt MPAs alone could fix everything. However, I doubt area set aside for sea life to exist without interference from humans would exacerbate a decline in numbers of some species and it can be said MPAs provide some respite to fish from the pressures of fishing.

Like most others, I would like to see more protection for spawning activity, less habitat destruction and less by-catch by commercial fishing but, that's not what the thread is about. The OP asks us to sign a petition. I can't sign it as it is now written. I agree with most of it but there are some parts I am unhappy with. Cutting it down piece-by-piece



> MPA & FISHERIES MANAGEMENT SHOULD BE BASED ON SCIENCE, NOT POLITICS!


How could any rational person disagree with that?



> Since recreational fishing is a legal use in MPA's & fishing is currently well managed & sustainable in NSW; we call on you to restore recreational fishing access in MPA's.


Without the science? How, for example, is NSW relevant to an MPA on the Barrier Reef?



> Accordingly, recreational fishing access should also be restored in MPA's in all areas of Australia that it is sustainable & an acceptable use.


I agree noting, 'sustainable & an acceptable use' but subject to 'science, not politics'.



> We call for an immediate scientific review of how access to MPA's are determined & each fishing closure should be supported by scientific data.


Agreed ... but the petition calls for amateur fishing to be restored because of a statement that fishing is well managed and sustainable in NSW, not 'based on current science' relevant to each MPA.



> Making the MPA process more transparent will enable all Australians to know that the proposed MPA's are based on sound science, and are good public policy.


Thoroughly agree.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

keza said:


> > "Indicative Potential" "Based on proposals by Environmental groups"
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure J K Rowling had better factual support for Harry Potter.
> ...


Exactly. Plenty of politics being played on both sides of the argument. All I'm seeing is skewed scientific cherry-picking, speculation and irrational fear.

Of course Marine Parks should exist in some form, and that form should be based on the science.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

punchanello said:


> Exactly. Plenty of politics being played on both sides of the argument. All I'm seeing is skewed scientific cherry-picking, speculation and irrational fear.


When you've had your local fishery robbed to the point that you are forced to travel 3nm into Commonwealth waters to catch a snapper as a direct result of anti-fishing politics, irrational fear might seem a lot more rational.

If you wrote a submission to counteract the above map in 2012 and later discovered that 2 x NSW Marine Park employees wrote thier own formal submissions seeking lockouts that abutted Cape Byron and extended 200 nautical miles seaward without disclosing their professional role or inside knowledge of the Marine Parks system, I guarantee that you'd have some cherry picking to do based on the staff you've speculated about.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

This forum has been a great discussion & I've learned from it. I'd like to talk to you spooled.
I wish we had as much input reviewing the Petition wording. Steve, I will clarify the wording when I get back. Im on the road today. Thx. boys!


----------



## intrepid (Oct 23, 2012)

spooled1 said:


> If you wrote a submission to counteract the above map in 2012 and later discovered that 2 x NSW Marine Park employees wrote thier own formal submissions seeking lockouts that abutted Cape Byron and extended 200 nautical miles seaward without disclosing their professional role or inside knowledge of the Marine Parks system


perhaps contact the NSW Ombudsman? this might be something they can look at?

http://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/complaints/m ... bout-to-us


----------



## Shufoy (May 28, 2008)

spooled1 said:


> punchanello said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. Plenty of politics being played on both sides of the argument. All I'm seeing is skewed scientific cherry-picking, speculation and irrational fear.
> ...


So true, or in the case of WA, you could potentially lose the Abrolhas Islands, anywhere in the Margaret River area, The Montebello's, Dirk Hartog Island and areas around Steep Point, all the accessible ground between Perth and Geraldton just off the coast, or the entire west side of the Exmouth Cape... All amazing yakking country, and for the boat fisherman, these and the locked out areas in the far north would be devastating.

Not really prepared to take a gamble that this is all skewed scientific cherry-picking, speculation and irrational fear. All these areas are places i've grown up fishing, and would love to be able to fish with my daughter, as i did with my father.


----------



## BIGKEV (Aug 18, 2007)

Shufoy said:


> When you've had your local fishery robbed to the point that you are forced to travel 3nm into Commonwealth waters to catch a snapper as a direct result of anti-fishing politics, irrational fear might seem a lot more rational.


So true, or in the case of WA, you could potentially lose the Abrolhas Islands, anywhere in the Margaret River area, The Montebello's, Dirk Hartog Island and areas around Steep Point, all the accessible ground between Perth and Geraldton just off the coast, or the entire west side of the Exmouth Cape... All amazing yakking country, and for the boat fisherman, these and the locked out areas in the far north would be devastating.

Not really prepared to take a gamble that this is all skewed scientific cherry-picking, speculation and irrational fear. All these areas are places i've grown up fishing, and would love to be able to fish with my daughter, as i did with my father.[/quote]

We need a like button for individual posts. The one above gets a 'LIKE' from me.

Without sounding rude Punchy, I'm not sure you understand the effect of having an area completely excluded to you after being able to fish there you're whole life. Then when you ask why, nobody can give you a logical scientific based answer except for the fact a certain percentage of water must be made into a green zone and this is it. It would be easy to accept if there was some decent reasoning behind these decisions, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be.

Kev


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

BIGKEV said:


> It would be easy to accept if there was some decent reasoning behind these decisions, but at the moment there doesn't seem to be.
> 
> Kev


I disagree, there are compelling reasons for lock-outs. I don't pretend to understand the scientific basis for where these zones are located if there are any and I don't doubt that the consultations that have occurred are a inadequate at best. Generally speaking, though, allowing sanctuary zones for aquatic species is good resource management.

I'm not including you in this statement Kev, but to some people it wouldn't how much evidence there was to support a no-fish zone in a particular area they would oppose it on principle. This is what makes me skeptical about the wholesale rejection of the benefits of lock-outs by individuals and some prominent (surprise surprise) fishing tackle funded lobby groups.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

The thing is that there are a lot of steps that can be taken before a total lock out is needed.
No bait collecting around the rocks, no anchoring, protected breeding periods, no treble hooks, no bait, etc etc etc. 
What seems to happen is that they lock out the rec fisherman and then increase quotas for commercial fisherman.
Rec fisherman need to wise up to the fact that we are on opposite sides of the fence to commercial guys. This is where the best conservation of fish stocks can be made.
Netting breeding fish, trawling and destroying the seabed, etc etc. If you look at the way we rape our oceans on a commercial level, how can we possibly think that protecting a small reef area from rec fishers will make the slightest difference.

Fish is too cheap in shops, double the price and halve the quota. The ocean is not a bottomless bag of fishy treats.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

keza said:


> What seems to happen is that they lock out the rec fisherman and then increase quotas for commercial fisherman.
> Rec fisherman need to wise up to the fact that we are on opposite sides of the fence to commercial guys. This is where the best conservation of fish stocks can be made.
> Netting breeding fish, trawling and destroying the seabed, etc etc. If you look at the way we rape our oceans on a commercial level, how can we possibly think that protecting a small reef area from rec fishers will make the slightest difference.


x 2


----------



## BIGKEV (Aug 18, 2007)

Hey Punchy, agree with your points for the most part, but actual 'lock outs', 'marine parks', 'green zones' of whatever the local authorities choose to call them seem to be designed to appease certain groups who are calling for larger areas than what are currently being given to them. Often these closures seem to be to gain votes and havd little to do with the fish or the area involved.

Where as actual fishing closures such as Fraser Island tailor closures, barramundi closed season or riverine bass closure seem to be more about actually protecting the fish themselves. These are much easier to abide by and the 'thinking' angler will never complain.

100% correct in your assessment of some of the hicks that wield fishing rods though, times seem to have left some of them behind.

Kev


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

keza said:


> The thing is that there are a lot of steps that can be taken before a total lock out is needed.
> No bait collecting around the rocks, no anchoring, protected breeding periods, no treble hooks, no bait, etc etc etc.
> What seems to happen is that they lock out the rec fisherman and then increase quotas for commercial fisherman.
> Rec fisherman need to wise up to the fact that we are on opposite sides of the fence to commercial guys. This is where the best conservation of fish stocks can be made.
> ...


Key, I understand where you are coming from. Personally though, I'd like to see lock out zones carefully selected spread right around the coast. Lets say a total of 1% of the coastline (I don't have anything else to lean on here). BUT I want to see and understand the logic behind what is going on.

At the moment I see little logic, twisted or skewed science, and a lot of politics.

But I'm happy with the concept of lock outs.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Surely we could start with areas that are inaccessible and not the spots that are part of the reason people live there.
I still think it's a waste of time until something is done about the commercial rape that takes place now.


----------



## paulb (Nov 12, 2006)

100% agree with Keza and Kraley - the bigger picture is the harvesting that the very large vessels undertake. Saw a show on SBS about commercial fishing in the Indian Ocean and the practice of transshipment at sea and comments from the local fisherman of large international trawlers being seen close in to local waters at night.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/video/421929 ... =theFilter

I've heard the same story from local fisherman in the northern Vanuatu region, where they frequently see international trawlers coming into local waters at night. The local fisherman are afraid to approach these vessels as the trawlers " become aggressive" and apparently the trawlers know when the sole coast guard boat is working the southern islands and therefore safe for them to trawl the north. It's like stealing candy from a baby, as the populations of these islands are very small and very poor - out of sight and out of mind to the rest of the world.

Ps - if anyone watches the video, see if they can spot Keza's uncle......


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

We have clarified the petition wording to include the following:

_MPA fishing closures should also be audited in other areas of Australia. Each recreational fishing closure should be supported by scientific data that justifies the closure. We call for a scientific audit of how MPA recreational fishing closures are determined.

Making the MPA process more transparent will enable all Australians to know that the proposed MPA's are based on sound science, and are good public policy._

Thanks for all of your input! It's great to see people care with passionalte discussion & signatures! http://outdoor-alliance.org/civicrm/petition/sign?sid=1&reset=1









Protecting Our Fishing Rights - Together
http://www.Outdoor-Alliance.org


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2013)

Thumbs up on the revised wording.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

Thx. Steve! Does that mean that u will sign it now? ;-)


----------



## Guest (Aug 17, 2013)

It means I'm far happier with the words but still need to read a little more to figure out whether there's any clash between my ideas of long-term conservation and Outdoor Alliance's politics. I urge others to listed to John Featherstone's passionate speech, which does a lot to help make up my mind.


----------



## steepNdeep (Aug 3, 2013)

Well, I'll call that progress! lol

Thx. - John really inspired me to get involved with Australia's cause & I chatted with him yesterday about it. He is on the NSW Recreational Fishing Trust Saltwater Expenditure Committee (RFTSEC) & does some great work.

You should also talk to Steve B. at your next kayak race. He was heavily involved in the MPA process in Eurobodalla & can tell you first hand of the anti & politician's agenda that they faced trying to protect rec' fishing rights (ie: make X % of the coast into an MPA, WHETHER IT NEEDS IT OR NOT so that POLITICAL targets could be acheived).


----------



## Jeffen (Jan 18, 2011)

SteveR said:


> It means I'm far happier with the words but still need to read a little more to figure out whether there's any clash between my ideas of long-term conservation and Outdoor Alliance's politics. I urge others to listed to John Featherstone's passionate speech, which does a lot to help make up my mind.


Watching that video is 16 minutes well spent.


----------

