# Marine Parks - Have they worked... or not



## ArWeTherYet (Mar 25, 2007)

We have had for a long time now, small fish sanctuaries in estuary systems where fish are left alone to breed with out the worry of human predators. These are based on good science and seem to work, or at least help. With the "Greens" no fish zones, it seems to be more about percentages and what looks good on paper than actually helping fish stocks. 
Around Redcliffe the various zones seem to have just bunched up the fisherpeople in whats left. Especially the prawn trawlers as its taken away a large amount of area they use to trawl. As prawn trawlers drag the bottom they don't leave much behind, so now places that were hit infrequently are being decimated by the trawlers as they try and make a buck. They did have a license buy back that was mainly used by people who weren't using the license any way and the guys who were still trawling couldn't afford to sell up. Basically we had a decrease in areas to fish, but no decrease in the amount of fishing. 
I'm happy to have no fish zones, bag limits, size restrictions and even closed seasons if its based on good science, but will fight against closures for the sake of closures and I deeply believe the Greens ultimately want to stop rec fishing (or make it so damn hard that most will give up).
Interestingly the local fisheries have only identified one species of fish in immediate danger of being over fished and that's Snapper. Greens zones wont help them as they migrate around and don't stay in one place long. They will be decreasing the take amount and also probably bringing in closed seasons to try and help boost there numbers. Unfortunately the word is commercial fishermen will be exempt :twisted: .......would cost the already broke state government too much to buy them out.


----------



## Squidder (Sep 2, 2005)

At the first major AKFF gathering (at Barlings Beach in 2007), the three best snapper taken for the trip (and many other good fish) were caught in an area which is now a marine park and closed to fishing.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

It doesn't impact my fishing areas here in Sydney, but in Brisbane it was irritating that island fishing (from Brisbane River Mouth/Boat Passage/Wello/Manly) was pretty much constrained to Green Island which surely is more heavily fished because of it. St Helena is a no go zone. The next available is Mudd Island which is a good spot, but you have to be a dedicated yakker for it. It is something like a 30+ km return paddle.

Sure you can head further south for islands, but my closest spots were from White Island boat ramp.

Not related to yakking (yet, I'll get my yak there one day), the Southern Barrier Reef allows camping on Eliot (Bunker Group), Mast Head (Capricornia) and Norwest (Capricoria). Fishing at all three is reported as nothing like it used to be, all due to the concentration of fishing. Those reports from family and friends who I know have been fishing there for 30 odd years. The fishers blame the spear fisho's. So the trick is to get to reefs that are too deep for the average Snorkler (such as Douglas shoals which has become an oil tanker chicane). This doesnt effect the charter vessles or those with expensive boats making day trips. But if you are on a budget and do it by family camping (with a 12' tinnie or yak), the fishing is reported to be a dog.

I dont get some of the take limits and sizes either. Mahi Mahi min size grew recently by four or eight inches. But they are reported to grow at 4 inches a fortnight. If so, wtf?

In northern Moreton bay there is a large triangle from Bribie across the shallows to Moreton. Fishing wise it's a dead zone. It's also often way choppy breaking swell due to the shallows. Not a fishing area at all. But it is a green zone. Fine if we are ticking boxes and pretending we have a certain area of Green Zone. But seriously, what does it achieve? That's not science (or at least doesnt appear to be.)

Flinders Reef off north Moreton was a good spot - a little like Long Reef in concept but more remote. Was it a necessary green zone? It was hardly under any significant fishing pressure. You'd think the charter vessles would have hit it hard but it never seemed to be the case. I dont mind though, we have some wins and some losses, if this is good for the fish, fine by me.

I take my hat off to those of you yakking the pumicestone. The green and yellow zones are a convoluted spiraling work of abstract art. If you try to stay 500m clear (like we normally do to avoid overzealous officers) there's little fishing left. It's nutty and should be rationalised. Let alone the required rod two-step, two lines in, NO one, OK three now... NONE. Forget paddling, this is a very busy drift.

I did like the fin fish seasonal bans across the Barrier marine park. So OK for a while you have to make do with trolling only - a month each year. But it seemed good practice to me. Now it's not the fault of the marine life that they spawn etc during Chrstmas holidays. BUT, the pollies seem to remove the ban each time we fishers complain. No sense or science behind it at all.

Dru


----------



## Southerly (Apr 20, 2007)

Banning netting in Sydney Harbour has worked a treat, banning spearfishing and limiting line catch saved eastern blue groper, banning kingy traps have helped the kings. So yes conservation efforts are good and can work. The jury is still out on sancturies for Grey Nurse etc. Agree that marine park rationalisation would be a good idea though that could go either way.


----------



## craig450 (May 11, 2007)

I support the idea of marine parks, but in my opinion the Batemans marine park needs a complete overhaul.
For example, commercial fishing in the Clyde river, which is a huge estuary has been banned, But the Moruya river which compared to the Clyde is small, still allows all forms of commercial and rec. fishing except for one small area called Malabar creek which has been locked up for both commercial and rec. fishing.
Im not at all complaining that commercial fishing in the Clyde has been banned, the fishing has been getting better and better each year since this happened, which proves to me, its the pro fisho's doing a majority of the damage by removing large numbers of fish and bait out of the system, not us.
Another thing that bothers me, is if fish stocks are getting so low that they need to start locking us out of waterways, why have they not revised the bag limits for a start, here in NSW we are still allowed to take 20 bream, 20 whiting, 10 snapper which is a joke, who needs to take 20 fish home with them?
I also think that the landbased fisho's have been hit hard, a lot of the rock platforms that often fished well have been locked up, which has now forced people to all hit the remaining ones that are not in the zones which has increased the fishing pressure of those we can still fish. Not so bad for boaters or yakkers, we can launch just about anywhere and fish the headlands and reefs you cant get to on foot so at least we have options.
So i support the idea, but not the way its been done here.


----------



## windknot (Nov 15, 2009)

While I support marine national parks to a degree, I find the Greens (and Labour's too) policy of a 30% nationwide cover of marine national parks a bit akin to crushing a flea with a sledgehammer. Surely, they should explore other venues before going to this ridiculous degree of protectionism, venues such as banning commercial fishermen from many areas, buying out commercial fishing licences, strict bag and size limits, and even seasons on certain species. Recreational fishermen don't make a huge impact on the ecology when compared to the pros.

Have they worked or not?? Well, nobody really knows for certain as there hasn't been an Australian specific scientific study on that subject at all, to my knowledge (and I have searched thoroughly). The Greens have based all of their scientific knowledge on some studies that were done in both Canadia and the Phillipines. I find this totally absurd. The Greens are intent on wrecking all fishing on the basis that it is unstainable and this is simply not the case at all. Australia's fisheries just need to be managed properly.

My other big complaint about the proposed (and many existing) marine parks is that they're located in places that are obviously designed simply to thwart fishermen. Many parks have been placed in areas of little importance when it comes to fish breeding, etc, and this is where they should mostly be, in my opinion.

There's little doubt that marine national parks work to some extent, but they shouldn't be seen as the one and only tool of fish management.

Mick


----------



## Ranger (May 31, 2008)

windknot said:


> While I support marine national parks to a degree, I find the Greens (and Labour's too) policy of a 30% nationwide cover of marine national parks a bit akin to crushing a flea with a sledgehammer. Surely, they should explore other venues before going to this ridiculas degree of protectionism........
> 
> The Greens are intent on wrecking all fishing on the basis that it is unstainable and this is simply not the case at all. Australia's fisheries just need to be managed properly.


They use the banner of the "precautionary approach" to justify this, which really means that they don't actually HAVE to prove anything. The parks have merely been instituted as a "precaution" to prevent future possible damage!

Here in SA this is what has angered our local fishermen. 46% of all our state waters are unmapped and NO-ONE knows what is actually there, yet using this "precautionary approach" much of this unmapped and unknown environment is now listed to be classified as a series of 19 marine parks statewide!

In my own simple view, even though in essence I agree with the idea of marine parks, this method being used to implement them is completely unacceptable to me! As an unorganised and apathetic bunch though, us recreational fishermen are a pushover................we always have been, and we always will be!


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

Many holiday destinations have MP zonings and hence I dont bother visiting them as much as I used to

Jervis Bay
Batemans Bay
Byron Bay
Seal Rocks
Port Stephens

To be honest with you none were ever that great as fishing spots - but I could pull out a fish or two and eat them on my holidays - which is of course a great pleasure to do when on holiday..........


----------



## windknot (Nov 15, 2009)

occy said:


> Whilst not wishing to hijack someone elses thread could I be so bold as to suggest that in the absence of any science supporting the opposite view, the question we should really be contemplating is simple. Can anyone prove Marine parks don't work?


I believe that everyone would agree that marine parks would have to work to some degree, but I don't believe that's the question we should be asking. We are not the ones who wish to implement a 30% coverage of marine national parks. It is not us who wish to change the status quo. It is up to the polititions who wish to implement this policy to provide us with relevant Australian scientific studies that say that they're the BEST method of controlling the future of Australia's fish populations. We don't have to prove a thing.

Mick


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

Go Ken, I'm with you. Precautionary Principal applies though.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Windknot , your absolutely right mate , its not up to us to prove that exclusion zones dont work , as we are all for the status quo, so the ball is in the other court and its up top the boofheaded boffins to prove to us that they are saving the fish population from extinction . Logic dictates that to preserve the marine enviroment they should be buying back commercial licences and enforcing policed bag limits on remaining commercial fishos and amatures


----------



## yankatthebay (Dec 14, 2007)

I am not sure why anyone is trying to make any decisions about whether they have worked or not. Changes in fish stocks will take decades to measure, there will be changes in levels for reasons outside of commercial fishing no doubt also. So even if we stopped all fishing in the marine park areas (which seems not to apply for some commercial guys for some reason) it will still take many years before any real proof one way or the other is known.

If there is a chance that it helps fish stocks, then I am all for it. But keep it at the current levels. If they are expanded the way the greens seem to want, it will be impossible to fish (legally) anywhere that is generally accessible. If by keeping marine parks, we have to increase the number and size of them - then I reject them as being a good idea. Keep them small, monitor them properly and measure the results over a longer period of time (and most of all, keep the commercial guys out of them while this happens).


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Occy , there is no point trying to debate with you ,as you have one view and one view only , and that vision has nothing to do with logic or common sense or for that matter anything that may advance the cause of kayak fishing , i just cant understand why you are on here, as your views are so diametrically opposed to those of kayak fishing .


----------



## HBK (Jun 3, 2007)

Im with yo


----------



## Alster99 (Nov 20, 2008)

occy said:


> Windknots views are understandable, and whilst i don't want to denigrate them I honestly think I should point out that nothing would ever have been done in this country if we all blindly supported the status quo.


Occy, I know you are all for "moving forward", but have you stopped to think that some things possibly shouldn't change? Changes are not always for the better. If I can use an example that would appeal to you, "Work choices". They were a change from the norm and they didn't work. I am sure you didn't support them? It seems you are blindly supporting this idea based on which side of politics support/suggest it.

The debate is still open on whether marine parks do have a significant impact so why not wait until that data is available before implementing more? (Especially in such a broad brushed way).

As has already been suggested here, better fisheries management (ie. smaller bag limits, increased fisheries patrols, commercial buy-backs) is worth trying first rather than denying people access to their local fishing grounds.

Surely locking up more fishing grounds has to be the last resort?


----------



## windknot (Nov 15, 2009)

occy, you have every right to your views, even if the rest of us can't understand them or agree with them.

One of my closest friends is a member of the Greens party and we have long debates over these very same subjects. We always end the debate with a feeling of good will. He will always be my friend even if he has somehow been brainwashed by his 'comrades'.

Let's just agree to disagree on this issue. The election is over and done with now. We have voted and the results can't be changed. Let's just let it go .....

Mick


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Ive been locked out of my favorite fishing areas that I fished since i was a kid. Ive seen no better catches here because of the introduction of marine parks. Blind freddy could see these are just for political gains. Logic says that if you cant fish an area there will be more fish. Who cares if there is more fish if you cant go fishing anyway. What do greenies do anyway, sit on the headland or beach and look at the fish ?


----------



## Davey G (Jan 15, 2006)

theres been debate that certain political parties want 30% of Australian waters put aside for Marine Parks. I have no problem with that, but I do have an issue with where these proposed Marine Parks are currently located and where future parks are proposed as many of these are in/near towns that rely heavily on fishing for local tourism/economy to survive and prosper (Port Stephens, Batemans Bay are classic examples of these).

I would estimate that 99% of Australian waters are already 'psuedo' marine parks as we have 18,000 km of coastline and our economic zone extends 200 km out to sea. To think that tiny marine parks are going to make a scrap of difference to the bigger picture is ridiculous.

Sure, the government has a duty to preserve pristine marine areas wherever possible, but it needs to balance this with exisiting use rights and demand from Australian citizens. there are plenty of areas which deserve Marine protection, but the decision makers need to realise that there is a huge volume of ocean out there. In a nutshell, don't create giant no fishing areas in populated areas just to spite people who want to get out and enjoy the outdoors.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Occy, i will reiterate my suggestions for better preservation of fish stocks in Australia and they are based on sound common sense and logic , and mate i have already put them down on paper on this thread twice , but at the risk of being repitious .If the government of the day does a buyback of a lot of the commercial fishing licences , this will ensure that tons and tons of fish a lot undersized wont be dumped from the commercial outlets , so here we have less fish being taken and wasted because the supply is greater than the demand. Secondly , put bag limits on commercial and amateur anglers and police this at popular landing spots by employing more inspectors and thus providing jobs for Australians. And so we have the happy situation whereby less fish are taken , the commercial guys who are ethical earn a better living , the amateur anglers are policed to ensure they are not breaching bag limits and in this way make them more concious of fish preservation . In this way sections of coast arnt locked up , and the population of our fishy friends grows accordingly .

So there you are Occy , a positive suggestion based not on political views but on economic logic , and i didnt and havnt called you one bad name or trodden on your political toes


----------



## justcrusin (Oct 1, 2006)

I'm Not sure about marine parks as such, but one of my local waterways, Lake Macquarie has had commercial fishing banned for several years now. Back then squire in the lake was a norm as too bream and flatties and choppers.

Now the varitey is much larger, Snapper to 2kg that i know off, salmon, kingfish and jewfish all becoming plentiful. I dont beleive in marine parks as such but tighter regulations need to be enforced and more alternative commercial fishing methods.

Look at mmore fish farms, less trawling.

No Anchor zones, but have areas of public moorings for weekend boaters so weed beds are left in place

Commercial fishing allowed in lakes but line only just with different bag limits - size limits remain the same.

Cheers Dave


----------



## Davey G (Jan 15, 2006)

Botany Bay is the same as above - since commercial fishing has stopped the bay is now a great fishery. I don't think anyone has a problem with reducing commercial fishing (except the commercial licencees!)

I think that the Marine Parks in question are the ones which lock all fishermen (including recreational anglers like us) out of our local spots. This is where common sense needs to prevail, as most recreational anglers would be lucky to catch dinner let alone their bag limit.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Davey is 100% right , Botany bay has recovered significently since the commercial buy backs and also naturally the Georges River and Cooks river, where it is now possible for me or anyone wanting to do so can fish for that 6 or 8 kg Jewfish , which with the forethought and help of fisheries now once more frequent the area. AND , recreational fishing has done nothing to damage this situation , in fact the Jewfish that were bred and placed in there by fisheries were put there with the assistance of our fishing licence money . A case of Government and anglers working together, which is far better than blindly closing off zones at the whim of a political party


----------



## loosealliance (Mar 15, 2010)

I think Marine parks work, i've never seen any evidence to the contrary, only anecdotal evidence, which is nearly always influenced by the persons opinion. I don't mind being 'locked out' of some areas....whatever that is supposed to mean, are you talking about the navy areas in Jervis where no one can enter without permission? or the areas that are actually no take zones? always makes me laugh when people say we are being locked out of every where. I think that's a slight exaggeration to say the least. here is a link to a map of the jervis bay MP, only the pink areas are areas i cant fish in. http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/jbmp-map-01.html

One of the main arguments used against them is that many fish are migratory and swim in and out of the Marine parks ......doesn't that argument just mean that we can still catch them outside the no take zones anyway?

Again, the argument that Rec fishers have no where near the take of commercial fishers is a little simplistic....
"Comparisons between the recreational and commercial catches in NSW indicated that the fisheries were geographically distinct. Species
forming the bulk of the commercial catch were generally taken from coastal or offshore waters, while the major portion of the recreational catch was taken from estuarine waters. Both groups of fishers harvested about 200 species of fish, but the total recreational catch was about 30% of the total commercial
catch. About 6 of the prominent species harvested by both fishing groups were taken in greater numbers by recreational fishers".(Survey of Recreational Fishing in
New South Wales 2001 DPI). so the commercial sector took around 24millon kgs and the Rec sector about 7m kgs, sounds like a huge difference when you look at it that way but the vast majority of the commercial Kgs are made up of a few species that rec fishers targer ie whiting , salmon, bonito, prawns (around 6m kgs) and a mix of species not often targeted by rec fishers (around 12m kgs), for many fish, ie Bream and flathead the rec take was double that of the commercial sector and for jewfish three times the commercial sectors take, many other species are around the same as the commercial take . This was all in data from 2001 so its getting a bit old but it does show that for many species the recreational take has been just as important impact as pro fleet and the number of recreational fishers is only going to increase.

Id imagine though that you'd piss off less people by buying out commercial licenses ( not to mention trawlers etc have a greater impact on the bottom and more by catch) .

Reduced bag limits and size limit changes suggested by someone seem like a good idea to me, i will say though that it still seems funny that for years and years it was a free for all, and now we think we are getting cracked down on,we are prepared to change our ways...but only how we want to change our ways. a bit like the banks charging crazy fees and then when threatened with regulation come up with just enough measures to stave off the compulsory regulation of fees but still get away with excessive fees ( just not so excessive).

having said all that.....setting a 30% target for marine park coverage, does some odd. where does this number even come from?
A lot of the MP zones are to complicated. A lot of micro management of MP issues needs to be more flexible i.e making the one safe rock platform a no take zone when the next one over would be just as effective and then not being able to change it easily when the problem becomes obvious is a little stupid.

some of what ive said is no doubt a bit controversial but that shouldn't be to bad in a thread of ''braining washing' counter claims :lol:


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

"I don't mind being 'locked out' of some areas....whatever that is supposed to mean, are you talking about the navy areas in Jervis where no one can enter without permission? or the areas that are actually no take zones? always makes me laugh when people say we are being locked out of every where. I think that's a slight exaggeration to say the least. here is a link to a map of the jervis bay MP, only the pink areas are areas i cant fish in. http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/jbmp-map-01.html"

Yup the pink bits take up quite a bit of the bay - especially where some of the holiday places are ie Husskison and the place that you might drive to further south ie in the national park there, some of the few places where you could safely LBG from rock platforms ie the Tubes / The Docks etc It seems that these places in pink correspond to all the places that people WANTED to fish at when visiting the area. Is that a the reason or is it based on the science of the ecology of the area.


----------



## loosealliance (Mar 15, 2010)

what i was trying to point out is that when people say they are locked out of jervis bay they really mean locked out of 20% of jervis bay at most ,of course some of the areas are going to be where people want to fish, there would be no point otherwise.

but you are right about some specific spots, spots like the tubes etc seems like it just means people will get boats so they can get to the fish further out, I haven't seen any evidence in regards to the tubes that says it should be zoned no take and it was a very popular spot, so id be inclined to let it be open access. Having said that there may be a reason im unaware of.


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

i have just read all the coments made and view this topic with both enthusiasm and disbelief.

for all of u that dont fish or know Sydney as a fishery .in the last ten or so years, we the rec fishermen are the ones who have raised moneys through licencing have bourght back all the commercial fishing licences in the area [ parramatta river .. the harbour .. botany bay ... ect ] NOT THE GREENS OR GREEN GROUPS .

[the hawksbury river still allows comercial fishing and as a result the river does not fish anywere close to these other waterways .]

in the last ten years this whole area has gone ahead in leaps and bounds as far as fish populations are concerned . Huge schools of salmon ...tailor ..kingfish arrive every year and are getting bigger in both size and population .big travelly ..bream ..flathead .. whiting ,sharks ....[ run ] lol ,are also now QUITE COMMON .we have whales that now come into the harbour .again this is not because of the green groups it is because of us ..... the rec fisho,s .

do marine parks work ....... well yes they probably do BUT do u need to lock out rec fishos from areas? well i have yet to see a scientific paper that proves that rec fishing is catastrophic to fish populations .

a brain dead moaron can surely see there is a major diference between rec fisho,s and a commercial fisho,s when it come down to fish kills .

the proof is in the SUSTAINABLE fishery that is the SYDNEY area .

i feel that we as a group should all join the green,s so we can determine .. ingauge , debate ,and more importantly HAVE A SAY in the policy making of these extreme green terorist .

i really do fear for our sport

craig


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

For Loose Alliance - I'm thinking way more than the 20 % and in fact its more like 70% of areas that have reasonable access by road and a short walk - alot of the other spots you'd have to get through dense bush etc What pisses me is there is so much inaccessable coastline but it seems that people are forbidden to fish where access is easier - and for me thats wrong. So the only people that get to fish are those with boats and the extremists that trek in and climb down cliffs - that sucks.

If you visit Husky as your holiday destination - then really you can only fish the creek at the front of the town. An area of Vincentia point and then the Commomwealth waters near the boat ramp........ thats why I rarely bother going down there anymore. I cant stay on Beach rd and walk the ten yards I used to plop a rod in the sand and pull in a few whiting or tailor. Fantastic if it means that by people not fishing the spot will radically change and improve the fishery there - but I really dont think it will. I think its the most obvious form of tokenism going - I know lets put an end to seeing people pulling fish in off the beach by banning it on the beach.


----------



## loosealliance (Mar 15, 2010)

craig51063 said:


> i have just read all the coments made and view this topic with both enthusiasm and disbelief.





> for all of u that dont fish or know Sydney as a fishery .in the last ten or so years, we the rec fishermen are the ones who have raised moneys through licencing have bourght back all the commercial fishing licences in the area [ parramatta river .. the harbour .. botany bay ... ect ] NOT THE GREENS OR GREEN GROUPS .


I agree that the buy backs have had a major impact, I think reduced pollution levels also have to and decreased commercial use of the harbour and probably the introduction of marine parks . and I seem to remember a hell of a stink kicked up when licenses were introduced ( but now we can take the credit?), in part it was the 'green terrorists' that called for their introduction.



> do marine parks work ....... well yes they probably do BUT do u need to lock out rec fishos from areas? well i have yet to see a scientific paper that proves that rec fishing is catastrophic to fish populations .


I haven't seen any papers that say that commercial buy backs are the sole reason that these fish are coming back either, which doesn't mean its not true but you cant argue for that sort of proof when you yourself cant meet the same standards.



> a brain dead moaron can surely see there is a major diference between rec fisho,s and a commercial fisho,s when it come down to fish kills .


A 'brain dead moron' can surely see that there is a difference between the death of our sport and the introduction of some Marine parks, and even though you say it so eloquently , we aren't really being 'locked out' . maybe I should join the fishing party and point that out, now that we are somehow talking about political parties.


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

The reason that Sydney Harbour has regenerated is that the kingfish traps were banned and that the dioxin scare forced the commercial netters to stop working in the harbour. Craig McGill a legend of a fishing guide on the harbour who probably fishes it most days says that last year was the best year ever.

So surely this success story is born out of banning unsustainable fishing practices - ie the traps - banning the netting of the harbour. I believe that anit fowl paint has also been banned too. Theres been no marine park, just bag limits and sizes and licences.

So a great example of how to look after a fishery, forgetting the industrial toxins sitting in the sediment :shock:


----------



## loosealliance (Mar 15, 2010)

wopfish said:


> For Loose Alliance - I'm thinking way more than the 20 % and in fact its more like 70% of areas that have reasonable access by road and a short walk - alot of the other spots you'd have to get through dense bush etc What pisses me is there is so much inaccessable coastline but it seems that people are forbidden to fish where access is easier - and for me thats wrong. So the only people that get to fish are those with boats and the extremists that trek in and climb down cliffs - that sucks.
> 
> If you visit Husky as your holiday destination - then really you can only fish the creek at the front of the town. An area of Vincentia point and then the Commomwealth waters near the boat ramp........ thats why I rarely bother going down there anymore. I cant stay on Beach rd and walk the ten yards I used to plop a rod in the sand and pull in a few whiting or tailor. Fantastic if it means that by people not fishing the spot will radically change and improve the fishery there - but I really dont think it will. I think its the most obvious form of tokenism going - I know lets put an end to seeing people pulling fish in off the beach by banning it on the beach.


I'm not really sure about that, maybe they thought they should have it right in town for the 'tourism' look. you can still fish callala beach,callala bay, collingwood beach and im pretty sure from the shore only along hyams but your right, it is more of a trek.

if it was me deciding on the original fishing zones i wouldn't have bothered including the huski no take zone, as its right on the main population centre of the bay and it just seems like it would be bound to be controversial and that would out weigh the benefits, although in a yak, it doesnt matter so much.

i have to say a fair few of the zoning decisions could have been better thought out or at least better explained to the public if there is a really good reason for areas such as the huski one.


----------



## tomsie (Jul 25, 2008)

blah blah blah "I think marine parks work so show me proof that they don't" == "I belive in the tooth fairy so show me proof that it doesn't exist"

Sorry lads (and ladies) but it falls on those who make the clam to provide the evidence. You want to tell me the world is round? Go sail around it and PROVE it to me...


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

loosealliance . 

if its not the banning of commercial fishing that is causeing the fish populations in sydney to get bigger and bigger every year ... then what is it ?

i also remember doing a survey about 15 years ago when the then government was asking us rec fishos ..Do we want fishing licences blah blah blah .. with moneys raised to go back to the fishery .we all thought [ well i did ] that it was a good thing and obviously it has been prooved so .

there surely is a better answer than to simply lock us out . no keep zones .... reduced size limits ..... fishing seasons should be on the table as well .

in the national parks u can still walk in pristene wilderness area,s because they installed elevated or suspended walkways ....... imagine the uproar if they simply shut these places down and didnt let anyone in .

same thing

next thing there going to try and tell us is that there is only 500 grey nurse sharks up the entier east coast of australia .

craig


----------



## Alster99 (Nov 20, 2008)

occy said:


> craig51063 said:
> 
> 
> > next thing there going to try and tell us is that there is only 500 grey nurse sharks up the entier east coast of australia .craig
> ...


This is the type of comment Mr Bob "90%" Brown has been making but in the opposite direction. I believe it was something along the lines of 90% of the great fishes are gone? Rash statement Mr Brown... He also stated (from memory) that something like only 40% of all snapper remained??? He mustn't have been in Melbourne last season. The people in the know were saying it was one of the best seasons ever (and they have been getting better year after year after the scallop dredgers were banned in the bay.


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

occy said:


> craig51063 said:
> 
> 
> > next thing there going to try and tell us is that there is only 500 grey nurse sharks up the entier east coast of australia .craig
> ...


occy we are on the same boat BUT these people only accept data they they want to use .they completly ignore other data that states otherwise .they do not even accept that these fish [grey nurse ] migrate into deep off shore waters were they are NOT counted or even recognised .

i believe they did a tagging process and then a year later they did a count of the tagged greys they saw .quick calculation and they came up with the figue of 500 sharks .
then a year later they did another count with the help of charter divers ,of the tags and they counted a far larger amount meanning that there where more fish around than they first thourght BUT because they didnt like these figues they where not accepted into the aquation ............. http://www.auf-spearfishing.com.au/ looked at google and found this .these guys alone have counted 1361 greys .

there was a 60 minutes report that stated the same thing and they wouldnt answer why they didnt use the new data .

yes i belive we should not fish for the grey nurse and they should be protected .but dont feed me with the rubbish that there numbers are so low that they will become extinct off our shores.

MANY dive groups know of reefs [ according to 60 minutes and mates ] where these sharks are and they have not told the authorities for fair of loosing there dive site

like this 




craig


----------



## Breambo (Apr 19, 2006)

Well up here the marine park and protection of white sharks led to the decimation of nurse sharks because the whites ate them all. The most flawed argument is that these idiots claim they can count actually count fish and shark stocks. Bwaahahahahhahah.


----------



## loosealliance (Mar 15, 2010)

craig51063 said:


> loosealliance .
> 
> if its not the banning of commercial fishing that is causeing the fish populations in sydney to get bigger and bigger every year ... then what is it ?
> 
> ...


I think you missed my point on that one. I meant there was a combination of factors and pointing out that rec fishers had no a lot to do with it. need i point out that the areas in the Marine parks that are 'no take' dont mean you cant go in there, you just cant fish in them. so your comparison with national parks isn't really valid.
anyway having re read what i wrote earlier , i think i came across as having a go at you , i just like having the yack on the issue and seeing what people have to say , cause i know there will be various opinions.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

occy said:


> bazzoo said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...


 :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: Occy ,i dont believe you , you are the rabid political animal on this forum , i have openly said in many of these political dissetations of yours [ which i hate ] that i am a swinging voter and have voted for Labor at times and have even voted Green on one occasion. And in any future election i will vote for the party that i think will do the best for my country .Mate , you are the one on here that is driven by one political bent , and you know it old mate


----------



## Marineside (May 8, 2009)

craig450 said:


> I support the idea of marine parks, but in my opinion the Batemans marine park needs a complete overhaul.
> For example, commercial fishing in the Clyde river, which is a huge estuary has been banned, But the Moruya river which compared to the Clyde is small, still allows all forms of commercial and rec. fishing except for one small area called Malabar creek which has been locked up for both commercial and rec.


This has perplexed me & i can only come up with one conclusion, when the Batemans Marine park was instigated we were asked in this area where we most used the waterways both for fishing & recreation, most came up with the reason of them wanting to know this so they don't cut us out of the areas we most frequent, "WRONG" a large amount of the areas that were submitted are now a no go zone Except for Moruya river, excluding Malabar creek (which is a no go zone) Malabar creek was a favorite Black fishing spot. 
Im geussing why Moruya river was left out of being declared a Habitat protection zone is because not enough people included it in the begining & it was then used as "collateral damage", now the river is netted regularly as there are limited areas for the pro's to net now, i cannot see anyone making a living from it, just maybe grog money.
Im with Craig450 Batemans Marine park doe's need an overhaul, & if you in other areas where a marine park is being contemplated be carefull how you choose your words when asked your opinions by the officals. :?


----------



## Wattie (Apr 30, 2007)

This is a good discussion.

I can't stand commercial fishing. Living here in Esperance a lot of the fancy houses in the best parts of town are owned by some commercial fishermen. Along side these people are ex farmers.

The difference between the two is the fact that the farmer has to breed their stock, look after them, feed them ready for harvest.

If they are crop farmers, they also have to plant the seed, hope like hell it rains at the right time, harvest the crop etc&#8230;

The commercial fisherman goes out and rapes the living crap out of the ocean without putting anything back. They are the bastards that are killing our stocks&#8230;not us.

The answer is simple, ban commercial fishing! ;-)


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

loosealiance

all good mate ... i sometimes come across like that myself .

craig


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

my personal solution would be to try and have local communities who have a vested interest in looking after the fishery make decisions re bags, sizes, closures, zones etc.

i dont know if i have told this story but years ago i took a daughter of a friend out on the boat. she was studying environmental studies and is now a planning officer with the dept of environment for the sunshine coast and probably making decisions on these very matters,

whilst walking the sandbanks we came across an army of soldier crabs . she was quite apprehensive and wanted to know if they would attack us!!!!

really should such people be making these decisions.

me thinks not.

as i understand it , the average greenie is inner urban and probably has a hatred for the outdoors, quite a paradox.

there are some wise cookies on this forum. if someone like red or sunshiner or dodge was elected to zone our local fishery, i would be happy to live with whatever they decided.
i am not happy to abide by the decisions of people i consider quite ignorant of whats actually happening.

but then again, it is the nature of the beast that government regulators are not going to hand these decisions over to the community.
their cushy jobs depend on creating a problem and then pretending to solve it.

obviously , if there is no crisis, they get the axe.

sort of makes me wonder about the climate debate (on which i must admit my ignorance).

my grandpa built his own little concrete ramp near the mouth of the moololoah river. i can say for sure , looking at this ramp, that ocean levels have not risen 1 cm in the last 40 years.

now with all those V8s pumping out carbon for 40 yrs, surely there should have been some effect by now if the ice caps really are melting.

please , i am not saying it isnt true, but all the dudes on the government payroll running this carbon tax and roof insulation and solar whatever are not going to shoot their careers and livelihood in the foot and say "sorry we arent sure"

me detects some self interest at work here.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

I support Australian Industry - including our commercial fisheries. I'm happy to eat commercial fish, but prefer my own catch. I prefer commercially caught wild fish to farm fish - they taste better. Where possible I avoid imported fish.

Appropriate rules and restricitions are still required for all fishing. Where I jump in is the need to test those rules for effectiveness, and adjust them to suit the environment (bloody rules should WORK after all) and open up to fishing (both rec and commercial) where this is appropriate.

There are two detailed observations in this thread that wake me up; and they dont necessarily support each other:
1/ Commercial bans in Sydney have worked, it is notable where these bans are not in place;
2/ Kraley's observation that the rules DONT always work - specifically for "roaming" species.

Everyone concerned on this thread should get active with conservation groups that are actively supporting fish habitats. [Note to self, walk the talk.]


----------



## robsea (Apr 7, 2010)

An interesting thread folks.

My limited experience with my local lake indicates that commercial fishing bans improve the quality of the recreational catch over time. 
But on the matter of banning commercial fishing from Sydney Harbour....wasn't the reason for the ban to do with dioxin levels found in fish and prawns? If interested check out the following link

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/20 ... 553938.htm

With this in mind C&R sounds like the go for these waters.

Botany Bay is under threat from groundwater seepage of toxic plumes from the former ICI/Oracle sites to the west. It too has a commercial ban on fishing according to posts in this thread.

Perhaps there are some marine biologist-CSIRO types lurking in our community who may be able to steer interested people to some scientific evidence on the matter in question. But as said previously, a marine park does not necessarily equal a complete no take zone. It will mean however that 'life as we knew it' will change. And no doubt some pain for a hoped for long term gain.

The key phrase seems to be "a sustainable future". The creation of marine parks no doubt is linked to this. There will be impacts on recreational and commercial fisher people alike. But it is a responsibilty of the decision makers to provide the evidence.

Rob


----------



## wopfish (Dec 4, 2006)

All good points Dru, but I particularly liked the one about the improvement in recreational fishing since commercial fishing was banned in Sydney Harbour. Now I know some are going to poo poo me here, but bear with me a minute if you will. I can't help thinking that in a way we have turned Sydney Harbour into the perfect marine park. Disagree? That's OK, but if you are in the least bit intrigued by the notion read on and see why I say that.

I'm sure there will be a myriad scientific studies on this, but I suspect that whilst much of the improvement is directly attributable to the lessening of the commercial take, it is but one of the factors at play here. Better management of the land and water in and around the harbour, as well as controls on pollution and waste, improved conservation and regeneration practices for such things as our mangrove forests, has also had a huge impact. The incredible increase in our native rock oyster population is witness to that.

And dare I suggest the lessening of the recreational fishing activity on the harbour, which affects not only the catch, but by definition the impact the activity has on the environment (less boats, anchors, discarded fishing lines, hooks, sinkers, plastic bags etc), as well as a reduction in the mortality rate of the creatures that live there, is important as well. Whether that's because less fish (and other creatures like small bait fish, prawns, crabs, squid etc) are being taken and killed, or the increase in catch and release practices (health concerns work wonders here), it matters not.

Through a combination of all these things we have greatly reduced the negative impact man has on the harbour. Think about it. No more nets ripping the life out of the harbour bed and killing anything and everything that gets in it's way, no more anti fouling paint killing sea grasses, weeds and crustaceans, reduced pollution and run off means the rubbish and oil and petrol from our streets doesn't flow into our waterways like it used to. This means there is a marked reduction in the kill rate of the plants and creatures that live in and around our beautiful harbour. The whole system quickly springs back to life and regenerates so quickly it's a bloomin miracle, that's what it is.

So whether by design or accident, and against the wishes of some I might add, we have effectively created one of the best recreational fishing precincts on the entire east coast. What's not to like about conservation and sustainability in that context.

The two main reasons why fishing has improved in the harbour is

A Commercial Fish traps banned

B Commercial netting / harvesting banned due to high levels of toxins in the fish

So basically you have three issues there that relate to industrial environmental damage and two of commercial fishing practices.


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

i would just ike to add to wopfish ,s last comment if i may .

this was all achieved with rec fishing still happening in and around the sydney waterways .

so why stop us rec fishos from fishing ?

craig


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

kraley said:


> craig51063 said:
> 
> 
> > so why stop us rec fishos from fishing ?
> ...


YEP
craig


----------



## robsea (Apr 7, 2010)

Love your comments Kraley!

'Hunters' ....in plastic yaks...with carbon fibre rods and reels, braided line and chemically sharpened hooks..... :lol: ...good one!

I'm not knocking the technology...nor the spirit/sentiment...only the exaggerated (or is that an extrapolated metaphor)...oh.... did i forget to mention micro sonar fish finders!? Try 'hunting' in self made yaks, with bone or wood or shell-crafted, hand-made hooks and line from hair, fur and bark...relying on ancestral knowledge and using spider web and shellfish for bait then I will call you a hunter. Perhaps a spear?

At best we are 21st Century recreational fisher-persons... that's ok. We value the environment. We mostly respect habitat and seek improvement. We may also like the challenge of catching our own food. However, for some target species we may be part of the problem and are most definitely a stakeholder in any solution.

Rob


----------



## robsea (Apr 7, 2010)

Hi Kraley

I don't feel that i denigrate the pursuit. I too use Fireline and most of the current technology which i mentioned. I just don't hunt from need but rather for other reasons. Recreation, a challenge/thrill, zen ....and yeah, it does keep me in touch with that ancestral desire to hunt. I, like you no doubt, enjoy the pursuit which is why i am a member of this forum but more importantly engage in an activity for which i do have a passion. I also enjoy eating what i catch. Enjoy!

Rob


----------



## troutfisher (Jan 25, 2009)

Sportsfishermen in Tasmania had an issue in relation to mako shark fishing. In other parts of earth mako sharks are scare, that is not the case in Australian waters; yet, there was a ban on mako shark fishing for awhile. After much political lobbying the ban has been lifted and sense has prevailed.

Fishing for Australian salmon has improved at Port Sorell since commercial fishing has been all but banned; there is only one commercial licence for netting allowed and in use at present. Reports from old timers indicate that the fishing has improved. Catch and release fishing is encouraged and there are size and number limits set. The limit is set on the number caught and those that might be in the angler's freezer. 
Fishermen are beginning to catch kingfish and snapper in Tasmanian waters unheard of in the past.

Keith


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

No offense to anyone, but there seems to be a general lack of scientific principle and understanding in this thread, and similar threads on other forums.

Logic does not make science. Science makes logic. Data and its interpretation is what matters in ecology. To say that marine parks will work, you need to compare 2 VERY VERY similar places (or maybe the exact same place that has changed over time) and collect data. Then you must analyse the data and show that it is probable that the difference was due to the marine parks and not due to chance. The probability that the difference was due to marine parks MUST be above 95% or else it is deemed chance.

Some science (ecology...and climate "science" especially) can be heavily influenced by personal opinion. This can be done by specifically wording the study aims and method, and even in its discussion/analysis. Even should the science be sound and unbiased, the person who collaborates the study findings and forwards them to the politicians can easily twist the study findings. At the end, this mainly comes down to the politicians who will probably ignore the science unless its what they want to read.

Science is also influenced by politics. Scientists will sometimes slant their studies so that they can get more funding. Why would politicians increase funding to scientists that find that their policies are full of crap? Make politicians happy, and you will get more grants and more opportunities. Write articles on "popular" science and your chance of getting published increases GREATLY.

I personally believe that other, more important things are being ignored by politicians such as pollution. I believe that recreational fishermen have a minimal impact on fish stocks, especially with current law. Even current law can be seen as excessive, as one phd student I talked to recently said "90% of fish do not survive to legal size".

In the end, I think real science has no real influence on the result. It ends up being up to the politicians to do what the people want. The politicians do what will get them the most votes (what the people want). The people want what they think is the right thing. What they think is the right thing is based on their understanding (or lack thereof) of science. Science studies what the people want. Science finds what people want them to find. The politicians find out what the people want and say that they will do what they want, and then fund the scientists more to find more of the same thing. Thus, politics sometimes determine the outcome beforehand. Climate change is a perfect example.


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

Both good points but if u get 2 different science reports ,done by 2 opposeing teams u will get 2 different results saying 2 different things .Bassically backing the agenda of who employed them to do the reports in the first place .

craig

oh and with the muloway slaughter they didnt mention all the salmon that WAS dumped on the beach afterwards ................................ these arsewipes should face charges from the rcpca .


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

occy said:


> FiftyCal said:
> 
> 
> > No offense to anyone, but there seems to be a general lack of scientific principle and understanding in this thread, and similar threads on other forums.Logic does not make science. Science makes logic. Data and its interpretation is what matters in ecology. To say that marine parks will work, you need to compare 2 VERY VERY similar places (or maybe the exact same place that has changed over time) and collect data. Then you must analyse the data and show that it is probable that the difference was due to the marine parks and not due to chance. The probability that the difference was due to marine parks MUST be above 95% or else it is deemed chance. Some science (ecology...and climate "science" especially) can be heavily influenced by personal opinion. This can be done by specifically wording the study aims and method, and even in its discussion/analysis. Even should the science be sound and unbiased, the person who collaborates the study findings and forwards them to the politicians can easily twist the study findings. At the end, this mainly comes down to the politicians who will probably ignore the science unless its what they want to read.Science is also influenced by politics. Scientists will sometimes slant their studies so that they can get more funding. Why would politicians increase funding to scientists that find that their policies are full of crap? Make politicians happy, and you will get more grants and more opportunities. Write articles on "popular" science and your chance of getting published increases GREATLY.I personally believe that other, more important things are being ignored by politicians such as pollution. I believe that recreational fishermen have a minimal impact on fish stocks, especially with current law. Even current law can be seen as excessive, as one phd student I talked to recently said "90% of fish do not survive to legal size".In the end, I think real science has no real influence on the result. It ends up being up to the politicians to do what the people want. The politicians do what will get them the most votes (what the people want). The people want what they think is the right thing. What they think is the right thing is based on their understanding (or lack thereof) of science. Science studies what the people want. Science finds what people want them to find. The politicians find out what the people want and say that they will do what they want, and then fund the scientists more to find more of the same thing. Thus, politics sometimes determine the outcome beforehand. Climate change is a perfect example.
> ...


Unfortunately, science is not about proving things. Its about being good enough of an explanation until it is proven wrong. Therefore for science to work, there has to be people trying to see flaws in their argument. Unfortunately as far as the public is concerned, they will only believe what they want to hear, nomatter how much science there is to oppose the argument. For example, there is so incredibly much information indicating that climate change is not primarily propagated by man and that most of the climate change "scientists" are extremely biased, but the public ignores it entirely. The climate change lobby has even changed their tune a few times.

I have honestly lost so much confidence in academics that its not funny. Ive seen so much personal bias twisting and turning studies. Ive seen lecturers insert their own personal bias into subjects so that their students take on their biases as fact. Ive seen absolute MORONS get phds.


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

Unfortunately, scientists that hold opposing views are sometimes afraid to publish their viewpoint, since they risk their reputation and their career. Should they publish their opposing viewpoint, they would be slaughtered by the sheer volume of opposition, and their paper criticised and ridiculed. That is assuming they can even publish their paper, since journals are known to only publish papers that they think will be popular. I guarantee you will not hear of many blatantly opposing viewpoints, since the reliability of the papers will be torn to shreds, even if they are scientifically reliable. Its hard to prove the reliability when there is maybe a handful of experts in the field. Should there be 6 experts, and 1 had an opposing viewpoint, the other 5 can completely annihilate his credibility without anyone else knowing any better. Times are very different from the founding fathers of science, where even if they had opposing views, they could still record or publish their papers due to the small science community. Even Darwin was ridiculed by the science elite, and even his theories are still being debated today. Like any community, even here, nomatter how right you are, you will be shouted down and ridiculed by those that hold the popular opinion.

In sciences like ecology and climate "science", it is very easy to set your own parameters and ask carefully worded questions. For example, climate "scientists" used to ask us "Is the earth warming?" and would give us information to say yes. Now, they have been caught out, because the earth has in some periods cooled, which is why you dont refer to it all as "Global Warming". They have also been caught out again, because climate change is a natural phenomena. Now they say that climate change is primarily caused by man. In both sciences, you are trying to predict what will happen in the future based on circumstantial evidence. Can you say for sure that Sydney Harbour marine life will flourish if it was made into a marine park? No.

Of both sciences, ecology is much much more reputable than climate "science". Climate science is so fouled by politics that it has become pathetic. There is so much adjustment and tweaking of results and their interpretation that its pulling science as a whole down. Climate science refuses to acknowledge history that goes back millions and millions of years, and instead base their whole science on "what ifs" and circumstantial evidence. Even other sciences ridicule climate science, as their own disciplines oppose what the climate scientists are spouting off. Besides, climate change is just another environment fad that society is going through. There have been ozone layer fads (OMG BAN THE CFCs), global cooling, global warming, and now "climate change". We are coming out of an ice age. I would be worried if the earth wasnt warming up. Anyway, enough about climate change or else this will all be derailed hard.

My major is microbiology, with biological sciences being my minor (easy filler). It shocks me how imprecise and easily manipulatable ecology is. Most people think of science as being definite, eg mix chemical A with chemical B and you get chemical C. Ecology is based on probability. Data is run through equations and then if the probability that the result was <5% by chance, then they deem it close enough and it applies. The aims of studies can be carefully worded so that the conclusions will achieve the desired result. The people doing studies on marine parks can easily input their own bias and only submit papers that indicate what they want the powers to be to hear.


----------



## craig51063 (May 30, 2008)

"and while ur at it how about a study that proves a marine sanctuary in sydney harbour wouldnt work too "

sorry occy but why is a marine sanctuary needed in sydney harbour ?

craig


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

The destruction of one's reputation is a big thing in science. It pretty much ensures that your career as an academic is over. You will never get a paper taken seriously again, if you are even able to get a paper published. You will lose grants, and your position within academic institutions will be jeopardised. You are basically putting your entire career on the line. This is a big deal of anyone, moreso for academics, who have put around 10yrs of their life just to get a phd, and even longer to become a professor.

I am not suprised that 99.9% of climate change scientists are in agreement, considering to disagree is pretty much saying that their whole science is wrong. They may as well ask doctors if they think modern medicine works. Same applies to ecology. Scientists have to justify their existence: if their science does not provide results then they will get no funding. They will only get funding if they continue to show that there is something to study. If climate change scientists announce there is no climate change, then their whole science is nullified and they will lose all their funding. Similarly, ecologists have to keep on announcing that we are screwing up the biodiversity etc so that they can keep getting grants to show how much we are screwing the biodiversity, and how we can fix the biodiversity. If they say "everything is great!" then the only gig they can get is monitoring current biodiversity and the occasional prevention study. That is why you get such vested interests to maintain the funding and interest in their own sciences.

As for climate change, I still have seen no data that shows man is the main cause of climate change. I have seen plenty of data that shows that climate change is a natural phenomenon. One interesting thing that is neglected by the media is that the Mt St Helens volcanic eruption released more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than every car ever made.

In the aim of education, here is a little graph showing changes in temperature and sea level over the last 60 million years or so. Keep in mind that 60m years isnt THAT long. Dinosaurs had already died out.


----------



## Alster99 (Nov 20, 2008)

Well said Fiftycal.


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

50 cal
in agreement with you.

quite right that very little pure science is practiced nowdays.

you get funding to satisfy your masters and they arent going to invest in results that hurt them

the csiro is now asked to "help" business . 
there should still be a place for the nutty professor to head off whereever he feels like it but modern government and corporate greed wont buy that arguement.

quite right too that a lot of medical research is CRAP.
also if 20 studies are done into say a link between breast implants and breast cancer, odds are a couple will show a link, just by random chance. easy for 60 minutes to publicize just those studies.

re climate change.

interesting that the qld government is bragging about being the biggest hauler of coal in the world at a time they want to tax the stuff.
follow the money trail and you'll see where all this is heading.
tax the miners (supertax them), tax the freight, tax the consumers
more government grandiose plans.

if climate change is going to occur, dont think the government will find a solution.
theyre too focused on pork barrelling.

the term "sustainable development" is one of the craziest terms ive ever heard.

population and consumption will continue to rise.
wars will be fought for natural resources and water
the rich will exploit the poor
the strong will exploit the weak.

it's not likely to change because of some pretence of political correctness.
just look at the venom and hatred spewed forth in our "political buildings' no political correctness on the floors of parliament.

join steven colbert in his march to

"keep fear alive'

interesting times ahead but my advice....disengage from the arguement, go fishing, watch the footy, play poker and blow a big raspberry to the phoneys running the show.

also dig a bunker and stockpile weapons and tinned food.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

My experience of science is through studying science at uni (finished microbiology aspect and about to finish biological sciences aspect). I did it part time and took a year off, so some of my friends are doing phds or honours or masters. Some of these same people and their friends are so incredibly stupid that its not funny. I even had a phd student argue with me, saying that seals on an underwater camera should not be lubricated (I was saying they should be...even the manual said they should be). I have listened to dozens of lecturers and read hundreds (maybe thousands) of scientific journal articles. More importantly, my experience in both a results based science (microbiology) and an interpretation based science (biologicial sciences) shows me just how easily opinion can influence results, and how the wording of studies can achieve the desired result even before the study is conducted. That is how I form my views of science.

I have found that in microbiology, there is much less debate among academics. In biologicial sciences, there is one hell of alot of bitching among academics. Lecturers will openly insult other academics in their lectures and ridicule their opinions. This is because the results are completely based on the interpretation of the results, allowing opinion to influence the interpretation greatly. People reach foregone conclusions, then twist their interpretation of the results to match their premade conclusions. I know how easy it is to do this, because I have done it myself. Many results are analysed based entirely on probability. It is not definite. Many studies that supposedly rely on random sampling instead use selective sampling. I can prove to you with a report comparing a marine park vs an area that isnt a marine park and "randomly" sample areas of barren rock in the marine park, and "randomly" sample areas of populated rock in the non marine park and conclude that non marine parks are more beneficial towards life on rocky shores. Will you be able to disprove me? No. You do not know where I sampled other than the general area and that it was "random".

The vast majority of people do not have a clue about scientific process, so simply take their word as fact. They have not read the reports. They do not know the evidence that supports or contradict. They do not know how outside influences can influence the outcome of the study. Science is not as unbiased and simplistic as many think it is.

If you really want to see how easily data can be manipulated, with the manipulation making people absorb the hype, just watch "The Inconvenient Truth". Al Gore uses a graph showing how increased carbon dioxide levels result in increased global temperatures. He points to an area where high CO2 levels is seemingly soon followed by a increase in global T. The audience will see that and panic, thinking that we will soon be doomed since our CO2 levels are high. Al Gore fails to mention that each mm on that graph is a few hundred thousand years. This is all irrelevant anyway, since that graph was wrong, and 99% of scientists say that global warming leads to increased CO2 levels.

By all means, continue to listen to the climate scientists and ignore the geologists, physicists, biologists, etc.

In the end, its all opinion. I have presented mine thoroughly. You can choose not to believe it, but its all based on my own experiences with science.

School me on fishing from kayaks (thats why im here). Dont try and school me on science  :lol: .


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

Hahaha, I classify some sections of science alongside religion and politics. Nomatter how much or little people know, EVERYONE has an opinion and you can go on and on and on and on about it with no resolution or agreement.

Apparently some of the big conferences end up becoming like the parliament - people taking sides and yelling at each other. I personally enjoy stirring up debate in labs. On a recent ecology field trip, I pretty much argued the opposing points for the heck of it (I used reason and evidence to back myself up, which frustrated people like hell), and ranted about how its pointless identifying insects by physical inspection when we could just sequence their DNA and leave interpretation out of it. The course convenor and some of the staff had a great time watching me piss off the MASSIVELY left wingers. They didn't stop me because I was backing up my points pretty well. During breaks, I liked to stir them up about the election and boat people :lol: :lol:


----------



## theclick (Jun 25, 2007)

<Song ends> Security check in section C. Security check in section C. <Song begins>

Are the massive 'left wingers' gullible?


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

Gullible enough to fall for my stirring up.

Not gullible enough to make up stuff on the spot to convince them with  . They know I am conservative so they take everything I say with a mountain of salt. Even if I say fact they think I am lieing!


----------



## FiftyCal (Sep 1, 2010)

Ive done a quick browse of journal articles on marine parks, via google scholar.

The majority of studies are in places where commercial and recreational fishing are very different to here. Many studies are based on marine parks in Tanzania, where fishing with dynamite is practiced. Even then, one article has found "the total fish landed decreased by 35% and the catch per unit effort decreased toward the end of the study period".

I have found a study of a marine park in WA that tries to consider the impact of recreational fishermen only, and even then their procedure is questionable. They measured fish by putting a bag of bait in front of an underwater camera for 30mins, then estimating the size. 30mins is a very short amount of time, and as we all would know, different baits often attract different fish in different quantities. They did not state what bait was being used, nor the locations or depths or any other variables. Significantly, they said this "Three-factor ANOVA highlighted significantly greater biomass, size, and abundance of legal-sized lethrinids (the most targeted family in the region) in sanctuary zones, but *no differences in other families/genera*."


----------



## scorpio (Dec 15, 2009)

Buy the netters out. Stop the grey nomads filling their freezers to take back home. More sensible size and bag limits and let all kayakers fish in marine parks practicing catch and release, or one only bag limit for each species. Also no crossover state lines for pro fishos.


----------



## loosealliance (Mar 15, 2010)

FiftyCal said:


> Hahaha, I classify some sections of science alongside religion and politics. Nomatter how much or little people know, EVERYONE has an opinion and you can go on and on and on and on about it with no resolution or agreement.
> 
> Apparently some of the big conferences end up becoming like the parliament - people taking sides and yelling at each other. I personally enjoy stirring up debate in labs. On a recent ecology field trip, I pretty much argued the opposing points for the heck of it (I used reason and evidence to back myself up, which frustrated people like hell), and ranted about how its pointless identifying insects by physical inspection when we could just sequence their DNA and leave interpretation out of it. The course convenor and some of the staff had a great time watching me piss off the MASSIVELY left wingers. They didn't stop me because I was backing up my points pretty well.  During breaks, I liked to stir them up about the election and boat people :lol: :lol:


Interesting to note though that there are a number of species that using genetics alone would be classified as the same species, but in the field they don't breed together or often morphologically different and so would be classed as different species. Leaving interpretation out of it would probably end up giving you the wrong answer. although I guess the definition of species is rather blurry in many cases anyway.


----------



## perk (Jul 29, 2010)

I was watching the ABC last night and they had some stuff on the marine parks and there effect on commercial fishing. It was very interesting. Not that i am a hge fan of the commercial fishery but it's still good to hear other peoples point of view.

I was just posting to see if anyone feels the same way as i do about this. I am all for protecting what fish stocks we have so to some extent if marine parks are going to achieve this then good on them. I am not for extending them though, and would rather have seen the government invest in restocking research and innovations where we would see fish reintroduced back into pressured waters instead of these waters closed off completely. There are obviously plenty of economic benefits for investing in restocking of proposed marine parks, i will be honest i don't know the environmental impact but i imagine like all things there would be some. I think it's worth looking into though, and sorry if this has already been posted 6 pages of arguing was a bit much for me this morning.


----------

