# Snippets of the Greens Policy



## BIG1

Snippets from their launch in the Sun Herald

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/spe...-1225899498096

THE Australian Greens, the party almost certain to hold the deciding vote in Federal Parliament next year, have vowed to turn one third of Australia's territorial waters into marine park where fishing would be banned. 
The policy will be one of the central planks of the Greens campaign launch in Canberra, which will also feature a call to end native forest logging in Australia in a bid to ignite a forestry debate in the federal election 
In an exclusive interview, Greens leader Bob Brown, 65, denied he was retiring and vowed to stay in politics while his party had the balance of power in the Senate. 
"It's not coming for a long time," Senator Brown said. 
He said middle and rural Australia were ready to support the Greens. 
"We've been around a long time and I come from a bush background. I understand where these folk are coming from," he said. 
"Above all, they want to know their children are going to have a safe country to live in. 
"The Greens more than either of the other parties offer that."The *marine park policy would turn a minimum of 30 per cent of Australian waters into reserves with no fishing *and no exploration or drilling for oil or gas."Australia needs a much greater area of our precious oceans protected through marine reserves," Senator Brown said."Currently in Australia less than 5 per cent of our ocean waters are protected in marine reserves."The Greens will also push for a high-speed rail link between Sydney and Melbourne, releasing a Galaxy poll today showing that three in four Australians support the idea. The Greens industrial relations policy will focus on giving carers the right to request flexible working hours under Fair Work Australia.Senator Brown said the Green agenda to move to renewable energy, protect coastlines and tax the mining industry would be of benefit to all Australians.He said the party would work co-operatively with whoever won the federal election and he had met both Prime Minister Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott prior to the campaign to tell them that.One thing the Greens rejected last time around was Labor's emissions trading scheme. Senator Brown was scathing about the lack of talent in Ms Gillard's Cabinet on climate change."There's more nous about climate change in the average primary school in this country than there is in the Cabinet," he said.


----------



## Evoids

I actually caught a bit of this in the sunday mail and wanted to post it up. Studying my last 6 months of geology and being an avid fisherman this is all bad news for me. The greens wont be getting my vote this year or ever again if they keep it up.


----------



## theclick

I am a regular greens voter and I will vote for them again.

I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.


----------



## shappy

i agree with you andy about protecting our fish stocks, but do you think sustainable fishing is the approuch?


----------



## blueyak

theclick said:


> I am a regular greens voter and I will vote for them again.
> 
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.


What will you think if they close off the closest 50km of coastline to where you live? Imagine having to travel over an hour to get on the water only to get there and find the only area you are allowed to fish is also COINCEDENTLY the only stretch of coast without fish holding structure.


----------



## spooled1

If we take recreational anglers out of the entire commonwealth fishing debate (at least for a minute) and just look at the raw figures, this is where Australias problems begin and end.

The core issue we face as citizens revolves around whether or not we agree with the way we are being fed, the food we choose to buy and what seafood products we choose to allow to leave this country as exports.

SEAFOOD EXPORTS:
$1.4bn - Wild seafood Exports (Mainly Rock Lobster, Abalone, Tuna and Prawns which account for 86% of our total seafood exports)
$800m - Aquaculture

SEAFOOD IMPORTS:
$1.05bn (Mainly frozen processed fish fillet and cooked prawns)

"Australia has the world's third largest fishing zone covering 11 million square kilometres and extending up to 200 nautical miles out to sea. Despite this impressive size, Australian waters tend not to be as productive as those in many regions, and Australia only ranks 52nd in the world in terms of volume of fish landed". Source: http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/seafoodindustry.html

If our volume is so low, my question is this: Why are we exporting so much when we can afford to match it in imports? Surely we should work to satisfy the needs of our own population with our own product in the first instance, and export the sustainable remainder???

Seafood is Australia's largest food import group and IMPORTS make up 30% of Australias total seafood consumption. Seafood IMPORTS are estimated to rise to 52.6% by 2015. Thailand, Vietnam and China are our top 3 seafood import suppliers.

By the end of the import/ export cycle we may be netting a $500m profit but we are fundamentally losing through the export of our premium product to #1 Hong Kong and #2 Japan. Meanwhile importation of aquacultured, preservative and hormone enriched crap that has been cooked and breadcrumbed into a handy single serve meal is freighted to Australia because we are too freaking lazy to do it ourselves.

Sources: http://www.ausfoodnews.com.au/2010/05/1 ... -food.html
http://www.dfat.gov.au/facts/seafoodindustry.html


----------



## theclick

blueyak said:


> theclick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a regular greens voter and I will vote for them again.
> 
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.
> 
> 
> 
> What will you think if they close off the closest 50km of coastline to where you live? Imagine having to travel over an hour to get on the water only to get there and find the only area you are allowed to fish is also COINCEDENTLY the only stretch of coast without fish holding structure.
Click to expand...

I already have to drive 50km to a spot where I can fish without fear of crocs - It aint as bad as you think.

Secondly, there is no inference that large, 50km stretches of water will be blocked off. Additionally, going by the history of green zones, they are generally not the inshore areas accessible by kayaks, but rather the reef areas further afield where catches are usually more unreasonable (see:slaughter).

green zones generally represent a contiguous set of places that cover the widest cross-section of habitats. So for example, 30% of rock structure is knocked off, 30% of sand banks are knocked off, 30% of beaches are knocked off. This allows for breeding areas and habitat zones where fish arent at risk of being targeted, but still usually provides a good range of areas accessible to the standard fisherman.

And yes, I do agree that sustainable fishing is the way to go. However, good luck reducing the commercial catch through legislation without causing an outright stink. The better way to do it is to make it across the board, that way people do not seem to be singled out. I would much prefer a licence buy back scheme, and tighter regulation on commercial and recreational catches, but unfortunately in this political landscape...it just aint gunna happen (because it is directly attributable to $$$$$$)

And Spooled1, exportation of our national goods and resources really PISSES me off. Here we are letting foreign companies come in, mine or fish our resources, sell them off, put little back into community (other than some employment), get the stuff processed over seas and then sell it back to us. Not only is it wasteful, but its also pushing our economy to become reliant on it....then what happens when it runs out or demand falls....


----------



## BIG1

theclick said:


> I am a regular greens voter and I will vote for them again.
> 
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.


I have voted for the Greens in the past, but NOT again until they are prepared to talk sensibly to fishing groups and not with this condescending superiority. Lets face it Australia is a big place about 70% or more of it waters are not fished. It is only near the large cities and some of the ports that there is pressure. However when the fishing organisations tried to approach the Greens with a consensus plan that included, smaller bag limits, closed seasons, no bottom fishing etc... (see recfish website) they were not interested in compromise and because they hold the balance of power they are not interested in speaking with us. Further there recommended parks are near boat ramps and population effectively making that 30% considerably more. I am going to be radical this time and vote Shooters and fishers in the hope of dialogue and good policy instead of having the finger pointed at me that I am a bad person because I choose to spend time with my son over a fishing pole.


----------



## Scott

theclick said:


> I am a regular greens voter and I will vote for them again.
> 
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.


Well said mate. The greens have the balance of power down here in Tassie and still can't get recreational gill netting stopped and this is with a large percentage of the recreational anglers in agreement with them. I believe it would be political death for someone to try and wake the sleeping giant which are the recreational anglers of Australia. Now i have gone and done something I said I never would, discuss politics or religion I'll go back to my box now


----------



## scater

I will never base my vote on the possible impact on my recreation, that would be the height of selfishness. I'll be voting green *again* this time around. Furthermore people need to understand that the Green policy is what would happen if they were in power, not a likely proposition. It's what they'll ask for, not what they'll get. The preference deal between Labour and the greens has been around for quite a while now yet many of the marine closures we've seen so far came in under the Howard government. So how about everyone settles down a bit?


----------



## BIG1

scater said:


> I will never base my vote on the possible impact on my recreation, that would be the height of selfishness. I'll be voting green *again* this time around. Furthermore people need to understand that the Green policy is what would happen if they were in power, not a likely proposition. It's what they'll ask for, not what they'll get. The preference deal between Labour and the greens has been around for quite a while now yet many of the marine closures we've seen so far came in under the Howard government. So how about everyone settles down a bit?


I'm sorry if i didn't make myself clear, the whole marine park fiasco of a "*MINIMUM 30% closure*" proposed by the greens is only one issue of the issues i have concerns about, but this is a fishing forum so that is the point highlighted. i also disagree that it is selfish to make representations on what some people see is a way of life, an escape fom the rat race, a time to bond with family and friends. The fishing apathy has gone on for too long and all we want is a say. I suspect many fisherman are greener than the greens without their fanaticism and most that i speak with are in favour of properly consulted marine parks, but you have to be in the game to play, it is no use screaming from the sideline. And this is an opportunity to be in the game.

Having said that it is everyones right to vote as they see fit and everyones point of view should be respected that is the greatness of our democracy. Personally I think the greens have a checks and balance view on the government and in the past the democrats were the checks and balances on the greens, now that the democrats have gone i want to give a fishers party the checks and balances on the greens.

Cheers

BIG


----------



## sitonit

Greens will not get my vote this time I am unwilling to give up my way of life without some postive proof that recreational fishing is to blame for fish stock depreciation, I struggle to believe that recreational fishing impacts to any great degree on fish stocks, poor water quality, loss of habitat due to river developments and commercial fishing would have the largest impact by far. 
Another point is the benefit to the economy of recreational fishing in things like boats fuel servicing fishing tackle bait food and drink bought during trips etc etc etc, add up these and see what you are actually paying for each kilo of fish you take home compare this to commercial fishing.
Our political system is seriously flawed when minor parties can hold the party who gets the most votes to ransom.
I am not anti pro fishing i just know I am not the cause of the problem if they can prove it exists.
Just remember the Labour Party are in bed with the greens voting for labour will ensure these ridiculous laws are passed


----------



## wopfish

Australia - massive continent with massive coastline and fishery !

Population small in comparison

Affect on fish stocks from recreational fishing - I PRESUME VERY NEGLIGIBLE

IN place recreational licnenses - with bag limits and sizes - under policed by authorities.

Damage from environmental run off - I presume significant in parts.

Affect on fish stocks from commercial fishing - possibly significant - but bag limits and sizes in places.

Does locked out fishing areas mean in future they will be re opened ? I doubt it.

Some people dont like fishing - lets face up to it - but lets be aware that the reasons why areas are being locked up is its down to that- and nothing else. Which is farked as mankind should function within nature and not be excluded from nature. Sustainable fishing should be a right.


----------



## spooled1

This report by the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy (CCLP) outlines exactly what the enviro academics in Canberra are proposing. For the future of fishing in all forms in much of Australia, this is seriously scary stuff and the title alone, "The Displaced Activities Analysis" has enough clues to tell you that at best, Australian fishers are academically perceived as, collateral damage:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mb ... alysis.pdf

In a nutshell our appointed National Professors of environmental law want:

- CLOSURE of or SEVERELY RESTRICTED fishing access to 56% of our coastal waters.

- NO COMPENSATION to employees of commercial fishing operations or land based marine industries. Workers who lose jobs as a consequence of the closures can go on the dole - or seek unpaid re-training in some other field!

- NO automatic compensation for businesses sent bust by the closures.


----------



## BIGKEV

theclick said:


> I already have to drive 50km to a spot where I can fish without fear of crocs - It aint as bad as you think.
> 
> Secondly, there is no inference that large, 50km stretches of water will be blocked off. Additionally, going by the history of green zones, they are generally not the inshore areas accessible by kayaks, but rather the reef areas further afield where catches are usually more unreasonable (see:slaughter).
> 
> green zones generally represent a contiguous set of places that cover the widest cross-section of habitats. So for example, 30% of rock structure is knocked off, 30% of sand banks are knocked off, 30% of beaches are knocked off. This allows for breeding areas and habitat zones where fish arent at risk of being targeted, but still usually provides a good range of areas accessible to the standard fisherman.


Cmon Andy, you didn't always live in an area where you had to drive 50km to go fishing. There is now plenty of Green Zone around your old stomping grounds in Moreton Bay which has cut out plenty of family fishing locations and easily accessible yakking spots. You have seen the Moreton Bay Marine Park zoning map haven't you?

Closing areas is not the answer, especially when it is based on guesses about area mass , 30% here 30% there is outright bull shit, sugar coated, legislated and presented to the green lobby groups to ensure their preferences for the next election. Where is the research and hard science to show that this is going to work? I don't this will work but I'm pretty sure it will make the Greens feel better about the situation and I can see that you do. Simple fact: Fish don't eat when they don't want to, whether the area is a Green Zone or not, another fact: Not all 365 days of the year are fishable due to weather restricitons. Another fact: 90% of fishermen catch sweet FA, not because of over fishing but because of simple incompetence.

Seasonal closures based on credible research are a bit more realistic and in theory should be more effective. eg: The Tailor breeding zones between Indian Head and Waddy Point on Fraser Island which are closed to all forms of fishing from August to September each year, unfortunately this means absolutely nothing when they are netted by the tonne all the way along the east coast. Wiping out entire schools of roed up fish travelling to a location to spawn in a single net shot just cannot be sustainable.

Where is the mention of pollutant run off, loss of mangrove habitat (nurseries) etc? Why are these groups so motivated to close others out? It is like a game of possesion with little kids pulling at things and screaming "mine, mine, mine!". Aren't we now as adults supposed to be beyond that behaviour and able to share these areas?



Scott said:


> I believe it would be political death for someone to try and wake the sleeping giant which are the recreational anglers of Australia.


 Don't be surprised when you see it happen Scott. Although the recreational anglers of Australia are a huge group, they are traditionally a lazy bunch and an easy target.

No political group inclined towards this form of legislation will receive my vote, I'm not a lazy voter and will mark all my preference boxes in accordance with my own views.

Kev


----------



## ArWeTherYet

I don't know it seems everyone that has posted against the green zones are using good logic while the ones that are for the greens policy seem to be using blind faith........maybe Grinners right :? :lol:

Any way I've only caught 3 Snapper this year above 60cm's so I'm blaming the new bloody green zones and I'm half tempted to go fishing in one cause I reckon that's where there hiding out........who said fish are stupid. :twisted:


----------



## theclick

BIGKEV said:


> Cmon Andy, you didn't always live in an area where you had to drive 50km to go fishing. There is now plenty of Green Zone around your old stomping grounds in Moreton Bay which has cut out plenty of family fishing locations and easily accessible yakking spots. You have seen the Moreton Bay Marine Park zoning map haven't you?


Correct, I didn't always have to drive 50km. What I was saying is that I do now, and that it aint as bad as you think (you do tend to make sacrifices for things you enjoy). I could also go 4wding in the local park, but I don't because I know its destructive and prohibited, so I drive further afield and deal with it.



BIGKEV said:


> Closing areas is not the answer, especially when it is based on guesses about area mass , 30% here 30% there is outright bull shit, sugar coated, legislated and presented to the green lobby groups to ensure their preferences for the next election. Where is the research and hard science to show that this is going to work? I don't this will work but I'm pretty sure it will make the Greens feel better about the situation and I can see that you do. Simple fact: Fish don't eat when they don't want to, whether the area is a Green Zone or not, another fact: Not all 365 days of the year are fishable due to weather restricitons. Another fact: 90% of fishermen catch sweet FA, not because of over fishing but because of simple incompetence.


I agree that the 30% is completely made up and not based on any science - though I'd suggest it would be extremely difficult to find some piece of research anywhere that suggests a number which isn't contradicted by something else. That is how academia works, and unfortunately an incorrect reasons as to why some people ignore it. As I see it, it still allows you access to 70% of areas, and considering the pure bulk of our coastline, the old saying "2 outa 3 aint bad" applies. I do remember reading a number of academic articles on the effectiveness of no-fishing zones. Unfortunately, since I have graduated, I no longer have access to the journals, and thus cannot reproduce them. However, as a *general* overview of some of the benefits and negatives of no fishing zones, the following (p84) may be an interesting read: http://books.google.com.au/books?id=iNS ... es&f=false

Unfortunately alot of people are quick to point out there is no proof to support no fishing zones, however.. people tend to not want to see what doesn't support their opinions (an intrinsic part of the human paradigm). Either way, there are a number of peer-reviewed studies which outline key benefits of no fishing areas.

As for the bay green zones, 90% of it doesn't effect kayakers (my key interest). Of those that do, there are many viable alternatives in close proximity. They also do not block off large chunks of areas, rather they just pick places here and there which will not only protect species and ecosystems, but are additionally closely located to viable alternatives where the fishing will benefit from the near by protected fishing grounds.



BIGKEV said:


> Seasonal closures based on credible research are a bit more realistic and in theory should be more effective. eg: The Tailor breeding zones between Indian Head and Waddy Point on Fraser Island which are closed to all forms of fishing from August to September each year, unfortunately this means absolutely nothing when they are netted by the tonne all the way along the east coast. Wiping out entire schools of roed up fish travelling to a location to spawn in a single net shot just cannot be sustainable.


Agreed. I would much prefer seasonal closures, but in theory, they would more profoundly effect the prospects of your regular recreational angler who likes targeting jacks in summer and tailor in winter. Close those times off and what do you have? Honestly, I agree that we very much overexploit our natural fish stocks through netting and commercial ventures, but again, the political reality of directly removing people's jobs isnt attractive to a conservative electorate.



BIGKEV said:


> Where is the mention of pollutant run off, loss of mangrove habitat (nurseries) etc? Why are these groups so motivated to close others out? It is like a game of possesion with little kids pulling at things and screaming "mine, mine, mine!". Aren't we now as adults supposed to be beyond that behaviour and able to share these areas?


It is shameful that these things arent policed as stringently as they should be. Again, I agree, and I do wish more severe restrictions were placed on the economic development of sensitive coastal areas. It is something which should definitely be addressed, but they are not mutually exclusive, as fishing is part of an overall need for change. However, just because some approaches arent being actioned, doesn't mean that others should be knocked back. It is the same as the climate change debate - no one is willing to move until everyone else does. It ultimately achieves nothing and is a selfish approach to environmental protection.

Unfortunately we are not getting the main course at the moment, but we are getting a bite of the entrée, and I aint gunna say no whilst its on offer. I think we generally have the same opinions and are all interested in protecting our environment. But the key is that we can't wait for definitive proof, and whole-of-government consensus, because respectively, it will never exist, and it will never happen.

/end rant


----------



## theclick

ArWeTherYet said:


> I don't know it seems everyone that has posted against the green zones are using good logic while the ones that are for the greens policy seem to be using blind faith........maybe Grinners right :? :lol:
> 
> Any way I've only caught 3 Snapper this year above 60cm's so I'm blaming the new bloody green zones and I'm half tempted to go fishing in one cause I reckon that's where there hiding out........who said fish are stupid. :twisted:


I disagree. The ones that are against the green zones are just as guilty as anyone else. Apathy and a lack of research does not justify the claim of 'no-proof'. In fact, you could argue the opposite. The people who implement and study these things do it as their profession and are intrinsically the experts on these subjects. Those who immediately refute the policies and studies of professionals and academics largely justify it with 'blind faith' that the bureaucrats are wrong, and that their divine experience is worth more than the 10 years a professor spent studying and pumping money into PHD research as part of their life-long expertise.


----------



## BIG1

Hi The Click

You seem like a nice guy and your replies remind me of a government manager I knew that was asked to cut his budget by 10% to which he did, then they asked him to cut his budget again, this was more difficult but he managed it, no thank you it was his job and he thought it was the right thing to do. By this time a third memo went out and they asked him to cut the budget again. At this point he finally did a bit of checking and realised he was the only person addressing the memo and losing staff and resources and only question why when it was too late.

As you correctly said true, good fisherman are conservation minded and do the right thing. So the good people always compromise and miss out while others work the system. When I was younger road fishing trips ruled, but now with kids i don't have the time to travel kms away why should i if I am responsible and that responsibility is recognised. All I think is common sense is sadly lacking, good genuine people with good input are ignored and then we are told tow the line or else. I am probably a little older than you but for me to look at myself and say I stood up for what I believed is important and it is this election I think we have the most to benefit by giving everyone a wake up call that we will not just be dictated too as sheep.

Sorry there is my rant.

Cheers

BIG


----------



## theclick

kraley said:


> theclick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ArWeTherYet said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it seems everyone that has posted against the green zones are using good logic while the ones that are for the greens policy seem to be using blind faith........maybe Grinners right :? :lol:
> 
> Any way I've only caught 3 Snapper this year above 60cm's so I'm blaming the new bloody green zones and I'm half tempted to go fishing in one cause I reckon that's where there hiding out........who said fish are stupid. :twisted:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. The ones that are against the green zones are just as guilty as anyone else. Apathy and a lack of research does not justify the claim of 'no-proof'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When one wants to change the status quo, the burden of proof falls upon the changer, not the those who one is affecting.
> 
> ...and lack of research does indeed signify no-proof. What else could it possibly signify?
Click to expand...

The burden of proof only works if people are willing to listen to it. When people are completely unwilling to accept the proof they are offered, and then claim that there is none, then ofcourse they will never reconsider their argument. Additionally, I agree that there is a lack of transparency in the decision making processes and the research used to support them. However, it does not mean that the correct decision making processes and research do not exist. It is more a failure of democratic government rather than a failure expertise or research. I spose I run on the assumption that the people who do the micro work on these policies are the ones with the degrees and expertise on them. Ya gotta give them the benefit of the doubt (although it is often swung by incorrect and reactive politics)

As an example, there is another thread floating around at the moment where a study into fish stocks has been presented, and in turn questioned by a member here. I am not denying them of their opinions, which they are more than welcome to have. However, here we have probably one of the most comprehensive and most well funded studies into fish stocks around, and the possible causes of their decline, and all that was taken out of it by the members was how they are criticising recreational fishermen and the method of calculation. No mention of the key, researched problem.

I like a debate sometimes  Lets keep this one clean.


----------



## theclick

BIG1 said:


> Hi The Click
> 
> You seem like a nice guy and your replies remind me of a government manager I knew that was asked to cut his budget by 10% to which he did, then they asked him to cut his budget again, this was more difficult but he managed it, no thank you it was his job and he thought it was the right thing to do. By this time a third memo went out and they asked him to cut the budget again. At this point he finally did a bit of checking and realised he was the only person addressing the memo and losing staff and resources and only question why when it was too late.
> 
> As you correctly said true, good fisherman are conservation minded and do the right thing. So the good people always compromise and miss out while others work the system. When I was younger road fishing trips ruled, but now with kids i don't have the time to travel kms away why should i if I am responsible and that responsibility is recognised. All I think is common sense is sadly lacking, good genuine people with good input are ignored and then we are told tow the line or else. I am probably a little older than you but for me to look at myself and say I stood up for what I believed is important and it is this election I think we have the most to benefit by giving everyone a wake up call that we will not just be dictated too as sheep.
> 
> Sorry there is my rant.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> BIG


Sounds like some managers I know  And you are right, there is definitely a need for skepticism and criticism of the accepted norm. However, it can get to a point where it is overly destructive. I would argue that the inference that green zones arent effective is the norm, and the manager is the person here who keeps listening to the collective public opinion until its too late, and the fisheries stocks are much too depreciated.

With regards to the good guys missing out, and the others working the system. Again, I agree (and there is no harm in agreeing in debates where points are common). You could however argue that green zones are a good approach to this very problem, as they do not discriminate, and are more easily policed. Again, I agree, good people are ignored. The democratic processes in this country are not as desired, and the answer usually lays somewhere in the middle. However, it does work to an extent, as very seldom are electoral promises completely enacted due to political and public pressure. Whilst it is 30% which is proposed, the likelihood is that it will only be 15-10% which is actually enacted. As far as I am concerned, something is better than nothing.


----------



## BIGKEV

theclick said:


> It is more a failure of democratic government rather than a failure expertise or research. I spose I run on the assumption that the people who do the micro work on these policies are the ones with the degrees and expertise on them. Ya gotta give them the benefit of the doubt (although it is often swung by incorrect and reactive politics)


Sorry Andy, must disagree here mate, you know what 'assuming' will do don't you? It will make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'!  . Governments are traditionally fickle and love to show that they have spent the taxpayers money wisely. If there was any supporting evidence for their Green Zones then they would be parading it around and showing it off like a dirty old tabby cat with half eaten kingfisher....it was simply done to please an active political movement, the old squeaky wheel gets the grease again. The silent majority of recreational fishers just bent over and let it happen. Well, it's coming again folks, sooner than you all think, time to close your eyes and brace yourself. :shock:

Kev


----------



## theclick

BIGKEV said:


> theclick said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more a failure of democratic government rather than a failure expertise or research. I spose I run on the assumption that the people who do the micro work on these policies are the ones with the degrees and expertise on them. Ya gotta give them the benefit of the doubt (although it is often swung by incorrect and reactive politics)
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Andy, must disagree here mate, you know what 'assuming' will do don't you? It will make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'!  . Governments are traditionally fickle and love to show that they have spent the taxpayers money wisely. If there was any supporting evidence for their Green Zones then they would be parading it around and showing it off like a dirty old tabby cat with half eaten kingfisher....it was simply done to please an active political movement, the old squeaky wheel gets the grease again. The silent majority of recreational fishers just bent over and let it happen. Well, it's coming again folks, sooner than you all think, time to close your eyes and brace yourself. :shock:
> 
> Kev
Click to expand...

Funny that a response to an assumption was a paragraph of assumptions  Unfortunately ya can't escape them and we live our lives by them - accepted. The answer lays somewhere in the middle.


----------



## theclick

kraley said:


> theclick said:
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof only works if people are willing to listen to it. When people are completely unwilling to accept the proof they are offered, and then claim that there is none, then ofcourse they will never reconsider their argument.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you originally said - but okey dokey. Where is this proof again? I'm pretty sure that if most people I knew saw something even somewhat reasonable that suggested that my pathetic take of 5 or 6 kilos a year had an impact on the health of fish stocks - they would be pretty reasonable about restricting access.
> I'm just (very honestly) unaware of this proof and suspect of a group of people that seem to be hellbent on restricting me from that activity. You can't (honestly, again) be surprised that this is a reaction here, can you?
Click to expand...

Quote triangles are getting really difficult to use 

Fair call, and no I am not surprised, and I never suggested I was. What I am offering is an alternative position to the norm, which is constructive in a place like this, yeah?

Further, if you read a number of my other posts you will find that I continually state that the truth is somewhere in between. My comments on the burden of proof is purely a reply to your comment on it (which I now cant remember . I have stated that there are both benefits and downfalls of the approach, however there is certainly research (of which I have stated that I can no longer access) which suggests that there are benefits to no fishing zones. Whilst 99% of people are very reasonable on the topic and do believe there will be benefits (however, they disagree with the freedom restriction it places on them), I have stumbled across some in the past who will blatantly state that they do not work at all. That particular statement related to Grinner's post in another topic (and reference to a recent abc RN topic) which stated that often when people are approached with a fact that is against their standpoint, it actually drives them deeper into their current belief. It applies to me also.



> Additionally, I agree that there is a lack of transparency in the decision making processes and the research used to support them. However, it does not mean that the correct decision making processes and research do not exist. It is more a failure of democratic government rather than a failure expertise or research. I spose I run on the assumption that the people who do the micro work on these policies are the ones with the degrees and expertise on them. Ya gotta give them the benefit of the doubt (although it is often swung by incorrect and reactive politics)





kraley said:


> I agree that science is a plus - but I don't think that I am willing to hand a tiny group of scientists the key to policy decisions just based on my respect for their degree. And I have seen what Green policies have wrought in other countries that they hold sway in - with ridiculous anthropomorphic assertions that have become law. If you want to disavow australian Green party members from their european breathren, fine. But do it or I'll point you to the ridiculous policies that have been implemented in their name in other supposedly rational places.


I suppose my support for such policy is related to the notion behind the idea, and the fact that it may actually get something moving. I have stated that I am skeptical that the policy would be fully realised (and for many reasons that is a good idea), but again, I would rather vote for a generally right idea, than vote for a political party who have no policy on something I believe is critical.

I think it the modern day it would be very difficult to find any political party who's decisions and policies are sway purely by scientific fact, and not voter opinion. Again, bringing climate change into the realm, for a while there we had two parties with completely opposing positions when presented with the same research. The reality is that there is no right answer, but we can only vote for those whom we believe have got it least wrong.

As for failures in some of the Green's other policies - I agree. However, there are other policies of the two major political parties which have been tested and I believe are also failures. So you take what you can get.



kraley said:


> And if they can't articulate it in a way that resonates with a layman's reasoning - I would suggest that they aren't that great a group of scientists.


 Agreed. However, it doesn't intrinsically make their work wrong, but it does make their PR wrong. I consider the lack of transparency and understandability to be more the fault of our governments pushing the policy to the public, rather than the organisations researching it.



> I like a debate sometimes  Lets keep this one clean.





kraley said:


> If you have an issue with anyone's post, there are plenty of censors around here to complain to.
> 
> If you want a free pass just because you believe in something passionately, that ain't how it usually works....


Never said I had a problem, did I? (It actually reads that we shall 'keep this one clean' - as in continuation of cleanliness) I was merely cautious of how these sort of topic with passion can end up, and hoping that it continue on the way it is - generally respectfully, as you as a moderator would understand. Perhaps you need to innocuous statements such as that a little more dispassionately.


----------



## wopfish

You can see why I kept my comments in point form  

In conclusion I dont think the facts overall stack up against recreational fishing - but I do agree in a sustainable fishery based truths not moral based science


----------



## BIG1

theclick said:


> BIG1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi The Click
> 
> You seem like a nice guy and your replies remind me of a government manager I knew that was asked to cut his budget by 10% to which he did, then they asked him to cut his budget again, this was more difficult but he managed it, no thank you it was his job and he thought it was the right thing to do. By this time a third memo went out and they asked him to cut the budget again. At this point he finally did a bit of checking and realised he was the only person addressing the memo and losing staff and resources and only question why when it was too late.
> 
> As you correctly said true, good fisherman are conservation minded and do the right thing. So the good people always compromise and miss out while others work the system. When I was younger road fishing trips ruled, but now with kids i don't have the time to travel kms away why should i if I am responsible and that responsibility is recognised. All I think is common sense is sadly lacking, good genuine people with good input are ignored and then we are told tow the line or else. I am probably a little older than you but for me to look at myself and say I stood up for what I believed is important and it is this election I think we have the most to benefit by giving everyone a wake up call that we will not just be dictated too as sheep.
> 
> Sorry there is my rant.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> BIG
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like some managers I know  And you are right, there is definitely a need for skepticism and criticism of the accepted norm. However, it can get to a point where it is overly destructive. I would argue that the inference that green zones arent effective is the norm, and the manager is the person here who keeps listening to the collective public opinion until its too late, and the fisheries stocks are much too depreciated.
> 
> With regards to the good guys missing out, and the others working the system. Again, I agree (and there is no harm in agreeing in debates where points are common). You could however argue that green zones are a good approach to this very problem, as they do not discriminate, and are more easily policed. Again, I agree, good people are ignored. The democratic processes in this country are not as desired, and the answer usually lays somewhere in the middle. However, it does work to an extent, as very seldom are electoral promises completely enacted due to political and public pressure. Whilst it is 30% which is proposed, the likelihood is that it will only be 15-10% which is actually enacted. As far as I am concerned, something is better than nothing.
Click to expand...

Lets agree to disagree, This will be the first election I don't vote green because I believe enough is enough.


----------



## ArWeTherYet

Come on Andy, you only support the greens to impress the chicks......what about us blokes who are married and aren't getting any, what are we suppose to do? You expect me to drive my gas guzzling 4x4 50 km's to do the only thing left in life I enjoy.......thanks mate :twisted:


----------



## actionsurf

I've supported the greens for many years, am a big fan of nature and love fishing. Not this time. 

The greens have gotten too big for their boots. Labour have buddied up for their preferences and if re-elected, are committed to expanding the green zones to 30% of our coastline. It's part of the preference deal. The last green zone introductions were based on a unilateral decision without consultation or hard evidence, for the same reason, and this will be another. I have no doubt about that. That will include the irreversible loss of many great fishing areas all over Australia, including major areas of northern QLD and even places like Fraser Island. That'd be great. You can go to Fraser, but dont fish anywhere for the first 70kms of the eastern beach.

I attended the rally at Clontarf on Sunday, listened to the speakers and have done my research. The coalition have stated there will be a moratorium on all current greenzones and no further expansion if they are elected...until proper and full research has been conducted and ALL parties have been consulted, including us, the recreational fisherman.

So this time I will be voting for the coalition, nominating the 'Australian Fishing and Lifestyle party' as #1 on my senate sheet and the Greens firmly _LAST_. They need to know that we, the humble recreational fishermen, are not going to be messed with like this. It's a huge part of our lifestyle and it's our _right_ to fish. If just 20% of fisherman in this country vote like me, 'the sleeping giant' will have woken and spoken very loudly. If we don't act now, I fear it will be too late.


----------



## johnschr

> theclick wrote:
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.


Dream on! :shock: the real agenda here is to ban recreational fishing outright as a "blood sport". They see our sport in the same light as duck shooting and hunting. http://www.leerhiannon.org.au/.Their manifesto was expressed in the NPA document "Torn Blue Fringe". Make no mistake, recreational fishing is under threat. I am nearly 70 years old. I may be able to fish out my life but I don't think this will be possible for my grandsons. Only fishos united can stop this. It's up to all of us. 
John


----------



## spooled1

I sent this email to the member for Richmond on Saturday - Still waiting on a reply:

_Hi there Minister,

I'm a recreational angler. Given the timing of this upcoming election I'm really trying to figure out where the various parties stand on marine parks, seafood imports and recreational fishing in general.

Because of this proposed new Commonwealth Bioregion plus the NSW Governments Cape Byron Marine Park that was zoned to defy, obstruct and ignore the needs of recreational anglers, I'm a little nervous about voting for anyone intent on pushing an agenda that fails to demonstrate the true meaning of community consultation, accountable transparency and rigorous science.

During political cycles I'm a voter who changes my vote based on the best outcomes for me as a human being. Right now there is nothing healthier than the fresh fish and seafood I extract from the ocean that is close to my doorstep. Even though some Australians have a mandate for Marine Parks and antibiotic filled catfish that was harvested from an aquaculture farm in Thailand, North Coast snapper doesn't come with the associated food miles, the long list of preservatives or the tons of greenhouse gasses generated through cheap imports.

Anyway, I'm not here to preach about Malasian Squid rings loaded with #621 tenderiser or glow in the dark Vannemai prawns thanks to unstandardised artificial colors. I'd just like a response from your party so I can make the right vote that best favors the needs of me as an Australian recreational angler who is surrounded by unworkable and badly managed Marine Parks._


----------



## sago

Thanks guys for showing a diverse view of opinions re Greens Policy. I found it very enlightening, nevertheless I just don't trust the current govt one bit, the greens have some great policies, but get overcome with extremists at times, it seems to attract those tree hugging types...Well I'm not here to debate either plus or minus on this discussion but just like to point out that I am one of those 90% who dont catch fish, due most likely as pointed out to my incompetence as you so aptly put it..lol.. But as a parting comment I will use my democratic right to vote for whom I wish, and may we be able to take our kids fishing in the future..Yes this is only the beginning , "dont you worry about that"..!!!!


----------



## BIG1

Guys just so you know the regions were are talkin about and this is only the east coast look at this link, you will be astounded at the areas proposed. Look closely at the town that it begins and where it will end, shaded in BLUE. And the proposed no take is from between a *minimum* 30% upto I have seen documents from the greens asking for 100%. That is why I am changing my vote away from the greens in this election.

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mb ... fs-afa.pdf


----------



## scater

johnschr said:


> theclick wrote:
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on! :shock: the real agenda here is to ban recreational fishing outright as a "blood sport". They see our sport in the same light as duck shooting and hunting. http://www.leerhiannon.org.au/.Their manifesto was expressed in the NPA document "Torn Blue Fringe". Make no mistake, recreational fishing is under threat. I am nearly 70 years old. I may be able to fish out my life but I don't think this will be possible for my grandsons. Only fishos united can stop this. It's up to all of us.
> John
Click to expand...

Heya pal. I had a look at this site but couldn't find any reference to fishing. So I did a site search. The word fishing appears 7 times on the site total with none of these relating to the banning of fishing or the issues of marine sanctuaries. Strange, no? I thought I'd give it a chance though and looked up the Torn Blue Fringe document you lauded as an anti-fishing Mein Kampf. Imagine my surprise when on the 3rd page I found this statement:


> However, no-one is suggesting that marine sanctuaries could ever entirely replace sound sustainable management of fisheries. No-one is suggesting that fishing cease altogether.


I must say, I'm a little confused.


----------



## cruiser

scater said:


> However, no-one is suggesting that marine sanctuaries could ever entirely replace sound sustainable management of fisheries. No-one is suggesting that fishing cease altogether


 Are they talking about rec fishing or commercial fishing or all of the above


----------



## scater

All


----------



## BIG1

*What do the Green supporters on this site think about this report? talk about laying the platform for a HUGE CLOSURE ZONE. And by the way the authors have close ties to the Green Party.

This report by the ANU Centre for Climate Law and Policy (CCLP) outlines exactly what the enviro academics in Canberra are proposing. For the future of fishing in all forms in much of Australia, this is seriously scary stuff and the title alone, "The Displaced Activities Analysis" has enough clues to tell you that at best, Australian fishers are academically perceived as, collateral damage:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mb ... alysis.pdf

In a nutshell our appointed National Professors of environmental law want:*

- CLOSURE of or SEVERELY RESTRICTED fishing access to 56% of our coastal waters.

- NO COMPENSATION to employees of commercial fishing operations or land based marine industries. Workers who lose jobs as a consequence of the closures can go on the dole - or seek unpaid re-training in some other field!

- NO automatic compensation for businesses sent bust by the closures.


----------



## john316

the total inability of recreational fishermen to work together as an entity basically ensures that we will lose the war and that the speed with which we begin to loose our favorite fishing grounds is going to increase dramatically. The state and federal pollies are leap-frogging each other with their closures/proposed closures and doing it in such a way as to be able to blame each other.

Oh no Mr. fishing person.. it wasn't me... it was them

I have jumped to conclusions before and been ridiculed for believing the "facts" told to me and so I have sat on my hands and shut up, but we are rapidly approaching a stage where the only way we will be able to make our point will be through mass civil disobedience. But that won't work either as the fractured nature of the various fishing voices has proved a history unwillingness to work together.

I have always loved the outdoors and tried very hard to never leave any place I visit worse off than I found it. I have cleaned up after others, I have fished for the future and set my own bag and size limits but right about now I almost have a fatalistic urge to go out and get what I can while I can because it won't be there much longer. And all because every time there is a question raised about our future as fishermen we begin to argue and fight among ourselves. Our inability to stand together almost guarantees us the right to lay down our rods and walk away from our preferred lifestyle with a shake of our head and a tear in our eye.

alas

John


----------



## actionsurf

Well said John.

Fisho's need to unite against the greens this election...or recreational fisherman we are doomed.


----------



## scater

BIG1 said:


> CLOSURE of or SEVERELY RESTRICTED fishing access to 56% of our coastal waters.


Can you clarify where this number came from because I searched your linked document and it sure aint in there. On a whim I also decided to search your post history mate and guess what? All 15 posts related to political issues! Funny also that you initiated all 3 threads you've posted in. They are: Garret sell out to Yank greens, Marlin and Tuna ban possibly as early as Sep 2010 & Snippets of the Greens Policy. Perhaps you'd like to post on a topic such as, oh I don't know kayak fishing? Or maybe you could throw a picture of you and your Viking Tempo 2 up to prove you're not just here to bag the greens? I wonder if you're also on other fishing forums peddling this garbage?


----------



## RedPhoenix

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

QlpoOTFBWSZTWXzIIcMAAB1bgAAQUYH/8pAKP+f/oCAAhCKntGlDaMiYjJp5T9JPQajQapk0ZA0ABoDQDTRvcQy1hKRqxrnHSf6Xtef3Hy+AnVe6sEijQkpN1xlQCKIzFHVGVmZG02kzWO/Zi2X2XW9IKU8NtxjzDa2p4ktwYYEL91HkLeVghpkKTJAEB1pmQURcUqDDDwLnDPjviojJUum0DQk6CFp/F3JFOFCQfMghww==


----------



## scater

RedPhoenix said:


> scater said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you're also on other fishing forums
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.fishnet.com.au/forums/viewto ... 3c501d1807
> 
> Red.
Click to expand...

Haha big surprise, cheers Red.


----------



## scater

I did a search of his posts on Fishnet and same story, all concerned politics. I wonder if this is Godwyn Grech's new job?


----------



## spooled1

scater said:


> I wonder if you're also on other fishing forums peddling this garbage?


Settle down Scater. I don't know Big1 but the garbage you believe he is pedaling might not be garbage to other people. On 22 July at the Ocean Shores Tavern a bunch of Pollies plyed thier wares in front of a bunch of fisho's who have already been royally SHAFTED by a NSW State Marine Park that is commonly perceived as a GREEN Vote buying stunt. What resulted were more NSW embarressments called Cape Byron Marine Park and SIMP.

Brisbane had a convoy the other day and the people of Northern NSW and Ocean Shores continue their ongoing fisheries debates to seek answers related to a new Commonwealth park that is earmarked for their same doorstep. Rec anglers are atempting to have discussions with pollies and nut out a deal. Some parties do not want to make deals with anglers. I've sent emails to the GREENS and LABOR with questions - None of them have responded so I can only assume they don't want my vote. This coupled with adedemic reports I've posted here suggest rec anglers are collateral damage, a nuisance and nothing else.

You have no right to belittle his political view, muckrake him or question his comments. He has one stance, you have another irrespective of where, how or why he chooses to post. As for him owning a kayak - That's his business.


----------



## Davey G

scater said:


> I did a search of his posts on Fishnet and same story, all concerned politics. I wonder if this is Godwyn Grech's new job?


his username is BIG1. Maybe its Kim Beazley?


----------



## scater

spooled1 said:


> scater said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder if you're also on other fishing forums peddling this garbage?
> 
> 
> 
> Settle down Scater. I don't know Big1 but the garbage you believe he is pedaling might not be garbage to other people. On 22 July at the Ocean Shores Tavern a bunch of Pollies plyed thier wares in front of a bunch of fisho's who have already been royally SHAFTED by a NSW State Marine Park that is commonly perceived as a GREEN Vote buying stunt. What resulted were more NSW embarressments called Cape Byron Marine Park and SIMP.
> 
> Brisbane had a convoy the other day and the people of Northern NSW and Ocean Shores continue their ongoing fisheries debates to seek answers related to a new Commonwealth park that is earmarked for their same doorstep. Rec anglers are atempting to have discussions with pollies and nut out a deal. Some parties do not want to make deals with anglers. I've sent emails to the GREENS and LABOR with questions - None of them have responded so I can only assume they don't want my vote. This coupled with adedemic reports I've posted here suggest rec anglers are collateral damage, a nuisance and nothing else.
> 
> You have no right to belittle his political view, muckrake him or question his comments. He has one stance, you have another irrespective of where, how or why he chooses to post. As for him owning a kayak - That's his business.
Click to expand...

I get the impression that owning a kayak is the least of his business, particularly on this forum. It strikes me as strange that an election is called and suddenly this bloke is posting nothing but vehement (and dubious) anti-green sentiments on this and at least one other fishing forum. So pardon me champ but I think I have every right to question his comments. I have no problem whatsoever with political debate between members of _this community_.


----------



## bazzoo

Gee i'm going to have to chastise the nubiles , they didnt show me what Big 1 said when he did a bad , or maybe he didnt do a bad , its just that politics is such a sensitive subject to discuss on a forum , your bound to upset someone no matter what side of the fence your on . Now back to these bloody wanten Nubiles , i'm going to make them all work back tonight to catch up and whats more they'll work with their cloths on this time , enough of the frivolity its back to business girls


----------



## theclick

ArWeTherYet said:


> Come on Andy, you only support the greens to impress the chicks......what about us blokes who are married and aren't getting any, what are we suppose to do? You expect me to drive my gas guzzling 4x4 50 km's to do the only thing left in life I enjoy.......thanks mate :twisted:


Nothing like hairy arm pitted mole green hippy chicks :S Thats what I'm in it for 8) Mate, you got a prime location that I doubt will ever get knocked off. Plus, you complain about only catching 3 60cm snapper... try living at the southern bay


----------



## MrX

I agree with Spooled - I think you are being a bit hard on Big. If he says he is not a political hack trolling the forum, but simply a Greens voter so upset by the policies Bob Brown is now pursuing that he is "changing my vote away from the greens in this election", and he is genuinely a keen yak fisho with a viking tempo, then we should take him on face value. If he can establish that "I have seen documents from the greens asking for 100%.", then he's making a legitimate point - and we should all be worried. ;-)

I have struggled to wade through the misinformation and half truths flying around on this emotive topic. As some members have already mentioned - it's damned hard to find the facts on this issue. Does setting up marine parks conserve and protect our fisheries for the future? Or would the health of our fish stocks be better off without Marine Parks (as some argue).

People post links to "prove" their arguments or facts, but if you go to the trouble of reading the links, they often have no relationship to the point they are trying to make. As Kraley says: "Where is this proof again?"

I see there is a plug for the Greens website on the banner to page 1 of this thread. The published "principles", "goals" and "measures" on the marine environment all look pretty reasonable to me (as a recreational yak angler, with a environmental interest).

Big, you say you were a Greens voter in earlier elections - which policies changed to upset you into changing your vote? Or have you changed your vote because the Greens have a hidden agenda not published on their website?

http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/marine-and-coastal-areas



> The Greens Marine & Coastal Areas Policy:
> 
> *Principles*
> 
> The Australian Greens believe that:
> 1. a cooperative national approach to coastal management is required to deliver clean and healthy environments, integrated ecosystems and sustainable coastal communities.
> 2. the application of the precautionary principle is fundamental to sustainable management of marine, coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
> 3. fisheries must be managed as a part of a broader ecosystem which meets the needs of natural predators as well as humans.
> 4. the native title claims to sea country by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples must be acknowledged, including their right to sustainably access customary fishing grounds.
> 5. the health of Australia's estuarine, coastal and marine environment is dependent on land management that recognises the interconnectedness of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
> 6. ecosystems-based management is the most sustainable and appropriate model for the management of Australia's marine territories.
> *7. the health of Australia's fishing industries is dependent on adequate conservation and sustainable management measures that ensure the replenishment of fishing stocks.*
> 8. sea level rise, ocean warming, acidification, and increased severity and frequency of storms as a result of climate change pose grave threats to marine and coastal ecosystems.
> 
> *Goals*
> 
> The Australian Greens want:
> *9. a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) system of marine reserves in both Commonwealth and state and territory waters, to adequately conserve and protect Australia's unique marine, coastal and estuarine biodiversity.
> 10. statutory ecosystems-based regional marine planning that enables the full range of uses and impacts to be identified and managed, and allocates resources across and within marine industry sectors.
> 11. a reduction in fishery by-catch and habitat damage from both commercial and recreational fishing and other marine activities, and the conservation of key target species.
> 12. a strengthened cooperative national approach to the identification, containment and eradication of introduced marine pests.
> 13. implementation by all levels of government of the National Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management. *
> 14.protection of the habitat of all marine mammals.
> 15. a global ban on commercial and so-called scientific take or other killing of all whales and other cetaceans, except for sustainable indigenous subsistence hunting.
> 
> *Measures*
> 
> The Australian Greens will:
> *16. introduce an Oceans Act that coordinates sustainability of ocean uses through a statutory National Oceans Authority, reporting to the parliament, and enforcing ecosystem-based regional management plans and targets.*
> 17. as part of the Oceans Act, legally define Australia's exclusive economic zone as extending only to the internationally recognised 200 mile limit from the coastline, not the undersea continental shelf.
> 18. introduce new laws to address the full range of threats to marine mammals, protect animals from harm, and to conserve species.
> 19. in cooperation with the states and territories, review all offshore constitutional settlements to ensure consistent regulation across state and Commonwealth marine boundaries, and assess the need for a single National Oceans Authority administrative area for Australia's marine territory.
> *20. ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% 'no take' areas per bioregion by 2012.*
> 21. expand the Indigenous Protected Areas Program to include marine based proclamations and management and develop programs for using traditional marine law and customary tenure systems for ecologically sustainable marine management.
> 22. fund the next regional marine planning process with a requirement for its completion around Australia within 10 years.
> 23. require States to implement regional marine planning processes in State waters that complement national Regional Marine Plans.
> 24. introduce random mandatory vessel monitoring systems in Australian waters and increase mandatory observer coverage to at least 50% of all commercial vessels.
> 25. phase out the entry into Australian waters of all single skin tankers.
> 26. create a register of unsafe or inappropriate vessels (identified by flags, owners, charterers and survey societies) and prohibit these from entering Australian waters.
> 27. appropriately resource the monitoring and evaluation of the state of Australia's marine and coastal resources.
> 28. establish trilateral agreements and adequately resource the implementation of the National Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
> 29. work with the states & territories to reduce land-based sources of marine pollution, including pollution from diffuse urban and agricultural sources.
> 30. introduce national standards for the ecological health of beaches and coastal lagoons.
> 31. strengthen the management of introduced marine pests, and investigate the most effective means by which to prevent their introduction by international shipping.
> 32. support all appropriate sanctuaries and measures to protect marine mammals from hunting, except for sustainable indigenous subsistence hunting.
> 33. reaffirm support for a comprehensive international ban on commercial whaling, the abolition of so called 'scientific' whaling, and an international ban on the sale of whale meat and by-products.
> 34. restrict the use of seismic devices and other technologies that cause ecological harm, particularly to marine mammals.
> 35. restrict the testing of military and naval explosive devices in the oceans to minimise the impacts on marine and coastal ecosystems.
> 36. eliminate harmful and toxic waste dumping into Australian waters.


----------



## john316

I believed a rabid greenie (they are not all rabid - I know that) when he told me "they" had the policies to stop me fishing... In that belief I made an incorrect statement in a previous debate and scater had a fair crack at me so I just shut up. Like most kayakers I am concerned about the environment and consider myself to be a conservationist but I am not impressed with the Greens as a political party and recognize that FROM MY PERSPECTIVE many of their policies would ruin Australia.

After Port Arthur I quietly gave up my gun license and hunting rifles but I'm not prepared to disappear quietly into the night when it comes to fishing. If Big has done a bad and broken the rules that is not acceptable but I have had to put up with being abused by another member for making a silly mistake and that is also not acceptable.

I firmly believe that we are under threat and that we have something to fear from the green "extreemists" even if not from all those who vote green. That is my choice and my right. Though I am convinced we need to get prepared for the fight of our lives I hope against hope that I am wrong.

One of the poles in this argument is foolish because it is wrong - I would like it to be me but I think that time will show that we were unwilling to stand together and because of that we will have lost our rights, our sport and the opportunity to be a part of the environment in which we now live.

just a bit player in life

John


----------



## Dodge

john316 said:


> Like most kayakers I am concerned about the environment and consider myself to be a conservationist


John I am sure you have hit the nail on the head with the line quoted above.

Also feel you are right in thinking its the extremists of any colour of politics we have to watch for, and carefully weigh up our voting options at the ballot box.

When voting I always ignore the 'how to vote cards' and cast my preferences in a manner that reflect my thoughts on the rights and wrongs of the various arguments presented before voting....although it takes longer, voting on all boxes gives more chance to reflect your views I reckon.

Thinking carefully thought can make a difference, an example being in the last federal Qld senate counting, the preferences of the Fishing Party were largely responsible for the failure of the Green candidate to take the final Senate vacancy even though the Fishing Party itself was eliminated a few from the end of the count.

As an aside, and of interest in that count there were 2 fishing groups standing, and in the final count the Fishing and Shooting Party were eliminated from the count much earlier then the Fishing Party, and seems many reacted to the guns involvement even though they were similar in fishing ideas.


----------



## bazzoo

If we all voted on the facts and ideals put before us in one particular election regardless of Party Politics we would be much better off , when i say that i mean that i will vote for the party that i feel will do my country the most good and send us on the way to being the prosperous nation we deserve to be. I agree with Richo here and i also do the same and sure it takes longer to vote , but at least your voting with your mind and not blindly following one party or the other . A Union Delegate friend of mind says it truly," we get the government we deserve", a bit hard i know , but when a large percentage of the population take the lazy way out due to extreme apathy , i think he may be right


----------



## scater

john316, I don't remember abusing you and I hope it was inadvertent or unintentional but regardless, I'm sincerely sorry for any offense caused. I'll be the first to admit that I can have a bit of a short fuse about matters such as these.


----------



## Shorty

Had a quick skim( this thread) but have not read it full,,i will never vote for the Greens again as long as my bum points towards the ground,,heres a link i just come across,,

http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/bl ... ralia.aspx

Greens want to ban fishing around Australia 
Posted on 04 Aug 2010 by Pete Watman in Fishing

"Greens vow to turn Australia's territorial waters into marine park"

Simon Kearney, Sunday Herald Sun, August 01, 2010 12:00AM

It's down in black and white - The Greens want to lock you out of a your own country. You'll do you fishing in supermarket and it sounds like you'll do as your damn well told. The article goes on to report:

"THE Australian Greens, the party almost certain to hold the deciding vote in Federal Parliament next year, have vowed to turn one third of Australia's territorial waters into marine park where fishing would be banned."

This policy would make a minimum of 30 per cent of Australian waters into reserves with no fishing and no exploration or drilling for oil or gas.

Whether we fish with a line or spear, we all want to protect our fisheries so we can enjoy them sustainably into the future, with catch limits based on science. But we still want to fish!

The Greens have done some positive things in the past, but this is the moment when ordinary Australians will see that The Greens have ceased to represent anyone but themselves.

This policy is so arbitrary and so ill-founded you almost have to think it's deliberately provocative. The more sinister possibility is that this is what happens when politicians get a whiff of power. Or rather, holding the balance of power and therefore the major parties and you and I to ransom.

Don't believe it? Can't believe it? Read the full horror story here:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/specia ... 5899498096

You better believe it and do something to stop it, or sell your boat, your tackle and dive gear. Write to your local Member and local papers and stop this. Vote SFP on August 21.


----------



## keza

A few quick notes after reading the thread.

1. Just because it's in a news paper doesn't make it true.
A lot of these papers have their own agenda and lie through their teeth.

2. I wish they would make a distinction between rec and pro fishers.
I would support most of what they want in regards to pro fishers. These guys are out of control.
Every time I see or talk to pro fishers, my blood starts to boil. Rape and pillage.

3. I think Big1 is probably a pro fisher.
The week point in the Greens and other politicians argument, it that they don't differentiate between rec and pro. I think the pros (who seem more organised) have used this to wind up the rec fisherman and use their numbers to support their fight.

_spoken by Keza, who knows nothing about what he is talking about and didn't have the time to research and clarify his information.
All information supplied is based on a hunch and a gut feeling. Sydney.
_


----------



## BIG1

Hi All

It is good that there has been some spirited debate and peoples views have been exchanged. I make no apologies for spreading the word in this election. I have sat on my hands too many times and my frustration and passion are driving me to get the Government and green policy information out for debate. From where I sit I have great concerns about the way we are headed without a representative voice and it is this reasoning that I am stating my case. I hope I am wrong and we are not rail roaded or dictated too without proper consultation, I am also happy to hear logical views opposing my thought so that I can reflect and possibly see a better point of view. I have stated I am a swing voter and believe what you like, in the past I have voted green. And for the record I am not a member of any political party, not now, I don't think ever. BUT I am entitled to my view as is everyone else on this site. I apologise to those that have been offended by my comments, their tenor were to be more of an informative rather than a derogative nature.

I also will cop that I should post more on my fishing trips, I accept that as fair and reasonable criticism, too which I will rectify.

Finally in my communication with the moderator I stated this would be my last post on this thread. But I will leave you all with one thought "Prevention is better than Cure" it is important that fisherman don't carry on after the event as we always seem to do.

and for you Kezza, I am DEFINITELY NOT a pro fisherman, If I am not mistaken we met at our daughters camp a few months ago looking out over longy, you spoke about the kingies you get there and I showed you some photos on my phone, in particular night fly fishing for jewies.

Cheers

Big


----------



## MrX

Ha ha Kerry - love your disclaimer!



> "Just because it's in a news paper doesn't make it true."


The blog on the Shooter's Party website is true. (Well, based on truth).
Measure No 20 in the the Greens Marine & Coastal Areas Policy:


> "20. ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% 'no take' areas per bioregion by 2012."


Arguably, this is not inconsistent with the Shooters Party policy:
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/resources/documents/Policy Statement - The Shooters' Party.pdf



> "The Party supports Marine Conservation, but does not support the creation of Marine Protected Areas unless they are based on sound scientific study."


I find it pretty hard to disagree with either party's marine policy - if new Marine Protected Areas are based on sound scientific study, we can all have a big group Shooter/Greenie hug.

Richo, you make a valid point about senate votes. They are bloody confusing.



> "Thinking carefully thought can make a difference, an example being in the last federal Qld senate counting, the preferences of the Fishing Party were largely responsible for the failure of the Green candidate to take the final Senate vacancy even though the Fishing Party itself was eliminated a few from the end of the count."


Where do the Fishing and Shooters Parties direct their preferences? And which party took that final seat Queensland seat with the help of those preferences? (Not being argumentive - just interested in how it works).


----------



## efc

conservations starts and ends with the individual! I like a feed of fish just as much as anyone on here but I will never freeze more then a nights meal because I feel its a waste. You don't have to vote for the greens to make a difference in fact voting for the green will make things worse! [Mod Edit]. There are bigger problems then just a couple of green zones!


----------



## MrX

Big Fella wrote:


> "Finally in my communication with the moderator I stated this would be my last post on this thread."


For what it's worth Big, I reckon you should keep posting your views on this forum - as you say, you are entitled to your view as is everyone else on this site. You will probably get a more of a spirited debate here than on other fishing forums - I think kayak fisho's in general are probably a bit "greener" than the stink boaters.

And if you have seen documents from the Greens asking for 100% fishing bans, that scarey for all of us.


----------



## MrX

Ouch! Does a vote for the Shooters and Fishers party really go to Freddy Nile and One Nation?

https://www.belowtheline.org.au/nsw/group_o.html
1	Shooters And Fishers (O1)
2	Shooters And Fishers (O2)
3	Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) (Z1)
4	Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) (Z2)
5	Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group) (Z3)
6	Nationals (AA3)
7	Liberal (AA4)
8	Nationals (AA5)
9	Liberal (AA6)
10	Liberal (AA1)
11	Liberal (AA2)
12	Family First (V1)
13	Family First (V2)
14	One Nation (AC1)
15	One Nation (AC2)
.....................
79	The Greens (AD6)	
80	The Greens (AD5)	
81	The Greens (AD4)	
82	The Greens (AD3)	
83	The Greens (AD2)	
84	The Greens (AD1)


----------



## Cuda

Good call Leftie ;-) That's just what I'm doing now - checking out what the people standing for election in the house of reps in Durack are all about (especially where their preferences are going).
I have voted for the ALP for all my life, but they ain't getting my vote this time with this Greens policy hanging over our heads :twisted: 
It's the shooters & fishers party for me in the senate too!
Like others have said in this thread - fishing (responsibly) is a right that we all have and it's time we let these people know this!!


----------



## bazzoo

Ant , thanks for that below the line thing , very interesting and will save me a lot of twiddling at the ballot box , i have voted Greens before , but no more , they have declared themselves the enemy of even a conservative fisherman like me who takes no fish home but still enjoys the feel of a fish on the line , its our right


----------



## Rodman

MrX said:


> Ouch! Does a vote for the Shooters and Fishers party really go to Freddy Nile and One Nation?


Yes and no. Preferences of an eliminated candidate are distributed to the remaining candidates. It really comes down to which candidates are eliminated last as to where the preferences will go. Last election (NSW), the Shooters preferences went first to Fred Nile, then when they were eliminated they went to Lib. Depends who has more at the end of the count. Check the 2007 count for an example of how it works.

http://www.abc.net.au/elections/federal ... ts/senate/

Far too complicated for the average punter.

You know the worst thing that's going to happen in Victoria is that all the dorkwads that vote above the line for the Australian Sex Party (tee hee, snicker, snicker :roll: ) is that all their preferences are going to go to the Greens. Almost a shoe in in this state.


----------



## Dodge

MrX said:


> Where do the Fishing and Shooters Parties direct their preferences? And which party took that final seat Queensland seat with the help of those preferences? (Not being argumentive - just interested in how it works).


Last time in Qld each of the Fishing groups directed there preferences differently, with the shooter group being after concessions that the straight fishing group were not interested in gaining

Senate is resolved by quotas [only a rocket scientist understands how it works] and am fairly sure the last quota was filled by a National and wasn't known for a couple of weeks but was a toss up between him or the Green in the end ....because one of my secondary preferences had been for the Fishing Party I followed the count to see what happened and was an eye opener as it all unfolded and the different groups were eliminated from the count ...can be easily followed on the AEC website when the counting starts if you are interested MrX


----------



## keza

BIG1 said:


> and for you Kezza, I am DEFINITELY NOT a pro fisherman, If I am not mistaken we met at our daughters camp a few months ago looking out over longy, you spoke about the kingies you get there and I showed you some photos on my phone, in particular night fly fishing for jewies.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Big


Big, that is a classic and exactly why I attached the disclaimer to the bottom of my post.  
Anyway, looking at the shots of the fish you showed me, you looked like a bit of a pro to me. :lol:

ps. when I talk about pros, I should probably of said commercial guys.
I'm not including charters, just the guys that fill the markets with undersized fish and make most of their living under the disguise of 'bycatch'.


----------



## Shorty

I think the 30% is just a starting point and a lot of these type of folks don't want fishing at all,,its a barbaric practise and fish feel pain etc.

Mind you i can't see them doing well at the polls with 3 millon or whatever fishos and hunters out to stop their little game :twisted:


----------



## MrX

Thanks Richo - interesting to hear how it works for someone who has actually followed through with it.



> Rodman wrote:
> "You know the worst thing that's going to happen in Victoria is that all the dorkwads that vote above the line for the Australian Sex Party (tee hee, snicker, snicker ) is that all their preferences are going to go to the Greens. Almost a shoe in in this state."


A good illustration. But it also means that that all the "dorkwads" that vote above the line for the Shooting and Fishing Party in NSW will be quietly giving their preferences to Fed Nile. A wonder if that will give Fred enough preference votes to get the quota (like Family First did). If Fred gets eliminated, that other "redhead" (Pauline) will get the benefit of the those preferences. Makes you think about it.

A well argued post Occy - keep you head down mate, you have just raised the temperature. It's not just the "God given rights to do whatever we want wherever we want" or "not in my back yard" issue. There is no shortage of people who *do* seriously suggests that marine parks won't help improve the marine environment. :roll:

I have never considered voting for the Greens before, but after reading their published policy on marine conservation, and weighing up the other arguments on this thread, I don't have a problem with it. Cleaning up the marine environment with scientifically based marine parks would suite me fine. If I was a single issue voter, focussed solely on my yak fishing hobby, I wouldn't hesitate the back them.


----------



## Cuda

Hi Mr X, let me start by saying that I admit that I'm no rocket scientist, but I'm somewhat confused by your last comments re voting for the greenies if you were a single issue voter :? 
What if the 30% "MINIMUM" of coastline they want turned into marine parks was the whole eastern seaboard? Would you mind not being able to fish anywhere along that coastline ever again?
That will be fine by us fishos over here in the west, as long as you easterners stay on your side of the border :lol: :lol: :lol: 
I think Kraley makes a very valid point too - fish just don't sit in one little area for their whole lives - they do move around (although some demersals are somewhat localised) so marine parks are not the "best" way to preserve fish stocks IMHO and we need to be gathering the best possible scientific evidence for preserving our marine life and to ensure an equitable balance can be achieved for rec and pro fishos alike.
It is time for rec fishos and pros (collectively some of who are rather unscrupulous in how much they take out of the water) to stop being apathetic about their rights and *responsibilities *and to take the lead and not be led by the out of touch pollies, academics and tree hugging greenies I say :twisted:


----------



## MrX

> Cuda wrote:
> "I'm somewhat confused by your last comments re voting for the greenies if you were a single issue voter What if the 30% "MINIMUM" of coastline they want turned into marine parks was the whole eastern seaboard? Would you mind not being able to fish anywhere along that coastline ever again?"


Sorry for the confusion Cuda - I was trying to keep it short. I'd better clarify. No, I wouldn't be happy if the 30% minimum of coastline was the whole eastern seaboard of Australia, preventing me from fishing anywhere along that coastline ever again. If I believed the Greens (or any other mainstream party) was advocating that policy, I'd be frightened too - and I would jump on the angry angler bandwagon. Trouble is, I don't believe that kind of line. I think it is part of a mischievous political scare campaign.

One of things that intrigues me about the marine park debate is that most of the public arguments seem to come from the extremes. One extreme view is that support for marine parks only comes from "these type of folks don't want fishing at all". I disagree with that. I am comfortable (1) supporting marine parks (provided they are scientifically based, and not based on extremist ideology) and (2) fishing from my yak. I think there is room for both. And the benefits from the marine parks and sanctuaries might even compliment my own fishing enjoyment.

As for "single-issue" voting for Greens in the senate, I read their entire Marine & Coastal Areas Policy (quoted it in full on page 4). http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/marine-and-coastal-areas. 
The target of a "minimum of 30% 'no take' areas per bioregion" (referred to in the Shooters Party scare campaign) is point 26 of the 36 point policy.
I have no problem with that policy.

I agree with your/Kraley's point that the vast majority of fish use these things called fins and tails, and they can move around the ocean. I just hope the marine scientist factor that in when working on marine park and sanctuary boundaries.

Did you see the photos/video of Paulo frolicking with the kingies in the Lord How Island marine sanctuary? I'm no marine biologist, and that fishy behaviour was way outside my comprehension.


----------



## john316

When the NSW Labor Gov"t brought in the Batemans Bay Marine Park the Minister who came to address the "people" told the assembly that the recreational fishermen could go take a running jump for all he cared... (may not be the exact words used but the message was pretty clear). We were given the opportunity to fill in questionnaires regarding the places we fished and when the no fish zones were released guess where they were... in all the best and favorite places. And then people wonder why I no longer trust politicians...

Once again... stick together now to fight for our sport/recreation or don't complain when its gone

John


----------



## grinner

some interesting ideas and a confusing issue which cant really be simplified.

my main reason for being highly suspicious of most green voters (and indeed most do gooders) is they always want someone else to do the hard yards.

fact....the green voters in australia (so i am lead to believe )are on average the most affluent section of society.
interesting that the poorest section by income are the national party constituency(the environmentally destructive , water using farmers who feed the green families   )

fact.....one of the reasons the mining tax was watered down was because so many of these "affluent"green voters were worried about their super balances being affected by mining company profit reductions.

i dont know if marine parks are a good idea (they probably are) but i dont want hypocrites telling me what i can and cannot do.
i ride a motorbike to work , even when its cold(and its bloody freezing in brisbane in winter), catch my own fish, have chooks and grow veges, and take the kayak instead of the boat.

if a bunch of latte drinking, inner city, pasty skinned, marshmallows want to order me around, they better get in line (cause everyones always ordering me around , haha).
i know i love the environment, they (the greens) like most groups that want power , just want to put their nose in your business and their hands in your pocket.well i say NO. let us form the brown party with a giant turd as our flag.

surely green groups must recognise their philosophy is schizophrenic.they are human but see humans as the enemy. can they not drive their prius's to sydney heads.

if a subsistence farmer in the amazon or new guinea forms a political party, i will support him.
but most green voters...get your own affairs in order first...sell your house and car, move to a commune and learn to live off the land (but not in a marine park or i'll fine ya)


----------



## Cuda

That's a very good post and "angle" of thought Grinner that sums up the greens very well IMHO - Grinner for PM I say  
The Brown Party sounds like a damn good idea and flag is sheer genius :lol:


----------



## MrX

> "let us form the brown party with a giant turd as our flag"


Nice one Grinner - I reckon you should do it, mate!

If you think marine parks are probably a good idea, you support the mining tax, ride a motorbike to work (even when its cold), catch your own fish, have chooks and grow veges, and take the kayak instead of the boat, then you sound like a bit of a "greeny" yourself!

You could pinch most of the policies from The Greens, call them your own, put up a big banner at the top:

No latte drinking, inner city, pasty skinned, marshmallows;
No prius drivers;
No affluent section of society; and
No hypocrites telling us what we can and cannot do.

Your beer-drinking, pro-freedom, pro-fishing, pro-environment party could decimate Bob Brown's latte-supping party in the senate! Grinner and his giant turd for Canberra!!!


----------



## MrX

You raise an interesting argument there Kraley. I didn't realise there anyone was genuinely running the argument that there was scientific evidence to support the proposition that the marine parks do *not* improve the marine environment. I thought the main opposition to our marine parks and sanctuaries was based on the less scientific "God given rights" or "not in my back yard" arguments.

I thought it would be pretty self-evident that Marine parks and sanctuaries benefit our marine environment. Proponents of the parks argue that they can generate more fish, larger fish, more productive populations, conserve biodiversity and make populations more resilient. If true, that would improve our fishing in the area due to reduced commercial effort, and the spillover from the sanctuary zones. Have I been hookwinked?

If you are interested in what the objectives of the marine parks are, and the science behind them, the NSW Marine Parks Authority might be a good place to start:
http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/research.html

I have no issues with your views on reducing the commercial catch. Banning of kingfish trapping a few years ago is paying dividends for us yak-fishos around Sydney now. Personally, if they banned those commercial fishos from Longy, I would be happy to pay more for kingfish at the fish markets. (But I understand not everyone shares my view on these things).


----------



## RedPhoenix

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

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


----------



## bazzoo

This whole thing could be solved by limiting the numbers of commercial licences available and buy back of the rest , when i look in a fish shop it makes me very angry as the amount of by catch there and also the excessive amounts of fish that i know wont be sold and will be just dumped , link this to bag limits which are policed at most big ramps and our fish stocks will recover naturally and Dad can go fishing with the kids again where he wants and our fish stocks will be guaranteed for a long long time , without the interferance of Government boffins , i hate Government Interferance , in anything , and so am opposed to fish sanctuary Zones which do absolutely nothing to preserve our fishery


----------



## spooled1

john316 said:


> We were given the opportunity to fill in questionnaires regarding the places we fished and when the no fish zones were released guess where they were... in all the best and favorite places.


This same exact thing that happened at Cape Byron Marine Park and SIMP. Right now the public servants from Canberra are making the similar requests about the Tweed Moreton Bio-region.

We trusted them once and got TOTALLY screwed. On June 15 at the Recreational Fishing Inquiry at Grafton, I sat down in front of seven politicians and told them exactly WHY I am legally unable to extract seafood from my kayak within CBMP for at least 8 months a year. For 30 minutes I was also questioned by each member of parliament present and asked to somehow validate the benefits of this style of outdoor recreation.

WHY the hell should anglers like me be placed in a position where we are compelled to attend parliamentary inquiries in the hope we MAY possibly gain access to areas and/or species fully awarded to other anglers within the same marine park?

Our Australian Marine Park Management model is a freakin' mess. If they can't even get the States right, what hope has any stakeholder got for equity?


----------



## MrX

> "Gosh - thanks for the link - but as usual those documents contain a whole lotta hope and no real data. So that we are clear, I am well aware of what these parks purport to accomplish. However, the truth of what they do actually achieve is a bit more elusive."


No worries, Kraley - always happy to help. And nothing wrong with a bit of healthy scepticism about what those marine biologist are purporting! The NSW Marine Parks Authority seems to be well aware of the need to convince the sceptics of the benefits. If you are right (and the scientists are wrong), and our marine parks in fact do absolutely nothing to preserve our fisheries, then we should all be out there campaigning to shut them down. I'm not convinced - it sounds a bit counter-intuitive - but I have an open mind about it. Do you have any links to any scientifically based material demonstrating that they are misguided about accomplishing the intended benifits of the parks?

What did you think of the links that Red provided?

I feel for you Dan - not only did they whack a marine park in your back yard, but it seems our State Government is making a mess of it (as they do with everything else). Well done for spending the time to try to improve it for all of us - using the official channels and sensible arguments.


----------



## actionsurf

MrX said:


> Proponents of the parks argue that they can generate more fish, larger fish, more productive populations, conserve biodiversity and make populations more resilient.


That'd be nice if they could prove it. And it would also mean that there'll be some damn nice fish for us to look at/ take photo's of or buy at the fish market.. because we won't be able to fish for them soon. A MINIMUM 30% means just that. At least 30% ...for NOW. And specifically in key recreational fishing areas. If you remove 100% of every popular recreational fishing spot around our coast, that'll be less than 5% of the coastal area. It's not just the percentage, it's the focus point. To stop people fishing.

I say much more could be achieved if they concentrate on preventing developmental run off and pollution which has been PROVEN to have killed off sea grasses, marshlands, mangrove areas and other breeding habitats. Fix that first, then I'll listen to the scientific arguments against Joe fisherman catching a few fish in his favorite spot.

And fish do move around, even snapper. They move many miles from reef to reef and don't stay in one area.

Fair dinkum, some of you guys are living in denial if you think there's no long-term green agenda to stop our 'blood sport'. JMHO

Cheers
Hally


----------



## feel the sting

I've also fairly quickly skimmed over most of this topic. But there was some great, well thought out posts.

We talk about scientific credible research on whether marine parks work. And I admit this has to be the basis for the decision making.

Anecdotally. A mate of mine did a one day fish count on a reef on the Great barrier reef. That included an area of a full sanctuary zone. He said it was amazing in the difference in size and numbers of fish within the sanctuary zone, especially in the recreationally popular fish such as coral trout. Initially he was a sanctuary zone sceptic but this opened his eyes.

So what can be made of this. We are talking about a one day fish count by a non scientific person. And maybe, species of fish in tropical reefs are more location centric. But my mate still goes on about the massive difference in fish life.

Myself I can't vote for the greens because of their labor preferencing and some of their other crazy policies.

But as another member has said "we will get the government we deserve". The people of australia will have given them a mandate to implement the policies they are espousing, by voting them in.


----------



## keza

Here is a link to a marine park in NZ that was set up in 1977.
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/res/gi/index.htm

I haven't had a good chance to read it yet but I have dived there  
The fisherman I new around the area said that their fishing had improved with the park being there.
My believe was that that it gave the marine life a safe area to bread and grow. This then overflows in to the surrounding area as the fish grow and leave.

I have nothing against marine parks, i think they are a good idea. 30% is just ridiculous.
I think There need to be different levels of restrictions and that existing laws need to be enforced.
Commercial fishing, is the big problem for me. The methods that are used and the loopholes in the law that are exploited need to be fixed.
There is not point in having a marine park and everything outside it is a desert.

Some more remote areas could be total no fish zones but areas that are already popular with fisherman may just need some tighter policing and more environmentally friendly techniques enforced.
I think restrictions on type of hooks and line could be looked at, along with other impact caused by fish escaping.
I would love to see some research on how fish survive with hooks in them, how long it takes for hooks to come out, can fish remove barbless hooks easier, are trebles deadly to fish, how long different line types take to break down etc etc etc.

I would definitely be influenced by this type of research and be prepared to change the way I fish to help maintain a healthier fish stock.
But I don't think we are the problem.
Yesterday at the wharf an old guy who could barely move around, proudly showed me a bucket of undersized trevally. :shock: 
What could I say ?
I beat him up and through him in the water obviously and used that as an example to the other people fishing on the wharf.
This is what I think our fishing licence money should go towards.
People that leave hooks, bait, plastic bags, pieces of foam they sat on, take undersized fish, exceed limits, and generally destroy the environment, should be herded up, cut into bite size pieces and feed back to the fish.
If they say they don't understand english, that's ok, they won't understand what is about to happen to them either then.

Weapons. that what we need, fisheries officers should have guns!
Maybe by buying a fishing licence you are sworn in to uphold the law and you also get to carry a gun (and wear a badge).
Sorry mate, citizens arrest, you're burley.


----------



## actionsurf

"Sorry mate, citizens arrest, you're burley."

LOL


----------



## MrX

> Action surf wrote
> "That'd be nice if they could prove it. And it would also mean that there'll be some damn nice fish for us to look at/ take photo's of or buy at the fish market.. because we won't be able to fish for them soon. A MINIMUM 30% means just that. At least 30% ...for NOW. And specifically in key recreational fishing areas. If you remove 100% of every popular recreational fishing spot around our coast, that'll be less than 5% of the coastal area. It's not just the percentage, it's the focus point. To stop people fishing."


I dunno, Acton. I'm not convinced that the marine biologist would have any problems proving that Marine Parks benefit our marine environment - including fishing. If you read those links to the MPA site (and other links on this topic), the boffins seem to be highly conscious of the cynicism, and are trying to do something about it. I don't believe they are motivated solely by some sort of secret conspiracy to stop us fishing.



> "I say much more could be achieved if they concentrate on preventing developmental run off and pollution which has been PROVEN to have killed off sea grasses, marshlands, mangrove areas and other breeding habitats. Fix that first, then I'll listen to the scientific arguments against Joe fisherman catching a few fish in his favorite spot."


I don't think the biologists (or even the Greens) argue that we can fix the ongoing destruction of our fisheries by focusing solely on just *one* aspect - like creating and managing (science based) marine parks. Or solely on cleaning up pollutants from the land. Or solely on regulating commercial fishos. The focus seems to be a bit broader than that.

You (and others on here) might find you have more in agreement with the "Greens" policy on protecting your fishery than you realised (even while objecting to the "30% target" - which I agree would be very hard to justify scientifically or politically).

Try these other "snippets" from the Greens Marine & Coastal Areas Policy:



> Principles
> 
> The Australian Greens believe that:
> 1. a cooperative national approach to coastal management is required to deliver clean and healthy environments, integrated ecosystems and sustainable coastal communities.
> 2. the application of the precautionary principle is fundamental to sustainable management of marine, coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
> 3. fisheries must be managed as a part of a broader ecosystem which meets the needs of natural predators as well as humans.
> 5. the health of Australia's estuarine, coastal and marine environment is dependent on land management that recognises the interconnectedness of terrestrial and marine ecosystems.
> 6. ecosystems-based management is the most sustainable and appropriate model for the management of Australia's marine territories.
> 7. the health of Australia's fishing industries is dependent on adequate conservation and sustainable management measures that ensure the replenishment of fishing stocks.
> 
> Goals
> 
> The Australian Greens want:
> 9. a Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative (CAR) system of marine reserves in both Commonwealth and state and territory waters, to adequately conserve and protect Australia's unique marine, coastal and estuarine biodiversity.
> 10. statutory ecosystems-based regional marine planning that enables the full range of uses and impacts to be identified and managed, and allocates resources across and within marine industry sectors.
> 11. a reduction in fishery by-catch and habitat damage from both commercial and recreational fishing and other marine activities, and the conservation of key target species.
> 12. a strengthened cooperative national approach to the identification, containment and eradication of introduced marine pests.
> 13. implementation by all levels of government of the National Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
> 
> Measures
> 
> The Australian Greens will:
> 16. introduce an Oceans Act that coordinates sustainability of ocean uses through a statutory National Oceans Authority, reporting to the parliament, and enforcing ecosystem-based regional management plans and targets.
> 22. fund the next regional marine planning process with a requirement for its completion around Australia within 10 years.
> 23. require States to implement regional marine planning processes in State waters that complement national Regional Marine Plans.
> 24. introduce random mandatory vessel monitoring systems in Australian waters and increase mandatory observer coverage to at least 50% of all commercial vessels.
> 25. phase out the entry into Australian waters of all single skin tankers.
> 26. create a register of unsafe or inappropriate vessels (identified by flags, owners, charterers and survey societies) and prohibit these from entering Australian waters.
> 27. appropriately resource the monitoring and evaluation of the state of Australia's marine and coastal resources.
> 28. establish trilateral agreements and adequately resource the implementation of the National Framework for Integrated Coastal Zone Management.
> *29. work with the states & territories to reduce land-based sources of marine pollution, including pollution from diffuse urban and agricultural sources.*
> 30. introduce national standards for the ecological health of beaches and coastal lagoons.
> 31. strengthen the management of introduced marine pests, and investigate the most effective means by which to prevent their introduction by international shipping.
> *36. eliminate harmful and toxic waste dumping into Australian waters.*


What do you think?


----------



## wopfish

I think Australian coastal waters should be one big marine park - when I say this I mean that the ecology must be respected by industry and fisheries, recreational included. So punishing industry for releasing toxins into the ocean, restricting commercial fishing to quotas and size and bag limits for reco fisher people.

Oh but dont we have/do this already !!!!!! So are we saying that this hasnt been working because of........................ maybe failure to police these restrictions ............

So maybe we are in a situation whereby - Oh we cant be bothered to check out the old guy on the jetty with a bucket of undersized trevally - or we cant be bothered to find out where the fishmongers sourced their undersized bream from, or its hard to work out who let aload of fertilser into the river that ends up in the ocean !

So why not just lock up a big portion of the waters and keep everyone out - or actually why dont we just stop the most obvious of fishing practices ie the old boys beach fishing, or the asian migrants fishing off the gettys or the crazy dudes rock hopping.

I wouldnt mind betting as well that some of this has to do with the deaths of people getting washed in off the rocks,

Whats interesting is that I havent heard one person on hear - say f*ck it I want to catch and eat and kill as much fish and seafood as I can and stock up my freezer and feed my family and stuff everyone else - every persons voice Ive heard starts off with their concerns over a sustainable fishery and being sensitive to it.

I just think that 30% lock out is the thin end of the wedge and it will end up getting bigger. Like Ive said many times before many of my holiday destinations have been totally stuffed up because of MP zonings, Jervis Bay, Seal Rocks, Byron to name a few.

No doubt Sydney Harbour will be up next... then I might as well f'*ck off and migrate again to some where else.................


----------



## MrX

Nice one, Woppy!



> "....then I might as well f'*ck off and migrate again to some where else................."


Where would you take your yak to, mate? Maybe back to Europe, to get amongst the carp and winter cod run? Or NZ - plenty of bruising big kings, and no need for a visa. But (as Kerry pointed out) the bro's have been plonking marine parks all over the joint since the 70's, so maybe further out into the pacific? Cook Islands for some yak GTs? Do they have marine parks over there?


----------



## keza

There are none in the Med.
That goes for marine parks and fish


----------



## wopfish

Absolutely the south pacific - some where peacefull - with torquise lagoons. A place where people were once head hunters but now look to the bible - a place wild but friendly.

Its interesting but I dont think this kind of shite would go down in the US - I was under the impression that Australia had that sense of frontierism. That its wildness was there for you to explore and indulge in as long as you kept by the rules - respected the environment - took what you needed for a feed. Surely its big enough and the population small enough. You'd swear by some of the actions and fears that we were living in Singapore  

Alaska ! Maybe there - not many blue lagoons though


----------



## spooled1

Control the food, control the people.


----------



## Cuda

Be interesting to see how the greens would fund the "adequate resourcing" to police their marine parks, boat checks etc. What's the bet that we fishos will be hit with hefty fishing licence fees to fish what remaining waters the greens decide to not make marine parks. 8)


----------



## Jenko

I find it interesting that all the areas that the Greens want to turn into Marine Parks, are areas that are prime fishing spots, *not one location* is along a cliff lined rugged bit of coast. Some of the areas pinpointed in Victoria are Mallacoota, Lakes Entrance, Bemm River etc...take away fishing from these small towns would be the end for those communities. Why would you go to any of these places if you can't fish?.... there's nothing else there.


----------



## MrX

Hey Jenko, I have been trying to find out what areas my own State Government is seriously considering turning into Marine parks, but the solid info is pretty scarce. One of the main complaints is lack of info/consultation, leading to confusion and misinformation campaigns.

Where did you find the location of the Green's proposed Marine Parks? Is it available for scrutiny on the web?


----------



## spooled1

Jenko said:


> Why would you go to any of these places if you can't fish?.... there's nothing else there.


I'm sure those little towns will all have great fish and chip shops where you can buy flourescent prawns that were raised on goldfish food in a pond in Vietnam. Why not try the frozen Basser that were harvested as catfish from the Mekong Delta two years ago. In these small towns, Aussies can order a handful of squid rings trawled from the Chinese harbor and tenderised in a dusting of flavor enhancer #621. To finish off this meal, we can delight in the imported crabsticks that don't even contain seafood and ask ourselves how this madness was ever allowed to happen.


----------



## RedPhoenix

Unfortunately, due to the change in ownership of this web site and the lack of response by the owners to my requests to remove my email address from all administrative-level notifications and functionality, I have decided to remove my posts on AKFF. Thank you for the great times, the fantastic learning experiences and the many many fish. If you are desperate for the old content of this particular post, it is available below base64 encoded and bzip2 compressed.

Red.

----

QlpoOTFBWSZTWYE5P8YAADDfgAAQUGWAEhwiFgo/7/+wMAETaIiE09QG1NNADQA0ANVPyYp6JNDQyaMQ9RpoaBqeUxKnhTyemqY0gGgYajDgYMr8lmMGwGmIzgMgUPF00TtUH9hVJ4s7K9RyNYbQ1IU6aEeAQRsS6uVuuuSHnCdDEOhC0iHIsYtzgfe1puspuWB6LPaJOTJ7ImhoTPrymiA1Omr7dkwvnFBAcjKz1xB3UkcES3TCIbyrV9QYGGQCXlsPwFfiQ5BScE6oRN7G2ZI4HIBhdzru19L247/O+ZJSBHkXUgwWgy0m2MXXjNt4pcIrdaVow59a1DoI+AUj25NbGO+7ECueEm700omKyghISCpghsGiZicrF+LuSKcKEhAnJ/jA


----------



## Jenko

MrX said:



> Hey Jenko, I have been trying to find out what areas my own State Government is seriously considering turning into Marine parks, but the solid info is pretty scarce. One of the main complaints is lack of info/consultation, leading to confusion and misinformation campaigns.
> 
> Where did you find the location of the Green's proposed Marine Parks? Is it available for scrutiny on the web?


G'day X, There was a write up in a few of the local papers and the Herald Sun with maps of the proposed park areas for Victoria and every one of these are in PRIME fishing areas.

Here's a link to where the Greens done their research :shock: http://greens.org.au/content/unhappy-fe ... -mr-abbott


----------



## MrX

Thanks Jenko - interesting stuff!

Presume Elissa Jenkin's (the Greens candidate for Moreton Qld) isn't related ;-) . Hope her marine park research wasn't limited watching Happy Feet (a kids cartoon!) :lol:

I had a look at her blog
http://greens.org.au/content/response-questions-re-marine-parks-0

Worth reading if you have been following this thread.

She says she kayaks, and she loves fishing. Then she has a moan about a misinformation campaign where dodgy maps were published, alleging that they showed the areas that the Greens want to turn into Marine Parks.



> "An online fishing group is currently publishing a map of proposed 'no take' zones featuring a disclaimer regarding its accuracy. Well the good news for fishers is that the map is, in fact, inaccurate. From what I can tell by looking at it, it looks like it might be a map that identifies areas for further assessment or areas of great biological importance."


I wonder if a similar thing happened in the Herald Sun in Victoria? :?


----------



## actionsurf

Jenko said:


> I find it interesting that all the areas that the Greens want to turn into Marine Parks, are areas that are prime fishing spots, *not one location* is along a cliff lined rugged bit of coast. Some of the areas pinpointed in Victoria are Mallacoota, Lakes Entrance, Bemm River etc...take away fishing from these small towns would be the end for those communities. Why would you go to any of these places if you can't fish?.... there's nothing else there.


That sums it right up. Good stuff Jenko.

The way to beat this is to remember that 95% of Australians are either current fishers or have fished sometime in their life. We need to let other fishers know what is going on here. And show them how to stop it. Here's how I reckon.

This once, we need to teach the greens a lesson. I have voted for them every year they have existed....until now. They have gotten WAY too big for their boots now and are invading my space....Bob Brown detests all hunting/fishing activities and has stated it openly. Not once, but many times. Because of the power greenies/he now pulls with preferences to labor (without which Labor would be no chance of power), there is an open ticket for Bobby boy. He's on a promise. That ticket is ...ban hunting and fishing. Blood sports. You owe me Julia. Then I'll move on to my next target.

If you want to stop where this is going, simply vote liberal this time. To make sure of it, vote above the line on the senate ticket, place a *1* in the ' Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party'. That automatically places the greens last on the senate ticket. Most other votes help them, especially informals (otherwise known as mistakes), where people try to be selective and stuff up. Quite common. If 10% of australia's fishers do this, it's problem solved. Greens in their place.


----------



## Rodman

Where is the 'accurate' map? Do I need to rent Happy Feet?


----------



## actionsurf

*Fishing World

COMMENT: Show us the science, Senator Brown

10 Aug 2010*

_By Jim Harnwell, Editor, Fishing World_

"Senator Brown and his media advisors need to be taken to task for the use of discredited and inaccurate information as a sound grab for the mainstream media. At best it smacks of political opportunism, at worst it shows a disregard for the truth.

Senator Brown seems to have put his honesty in further doubt when he claimed that snapper had also declined by 90 per cent. There's no evidence at all to indicate that any Australian snapper stocks have fallen by anything close to that figure. Where did Senator Brown get his information to make such a statement?

Data published by Queensland Fisheries indicates that snapper populations in SE Queensland are estimated to have reached a trigger point of less than 40 per cent of the virgin biomass. This means more focused management arrangements will be needed. Fair enough. I'm sure Queensland Fisheries has the job in hand. But this scientific data doesn't support Senator Brown's claims for 30 per cent of Australia's coast to be closed to fishing.

So where does Senator Brown get off in claiming that 90 per cent of snapper have been fished out?

Senator Brown's wildly exaggerated claims in this regard should be seen as nothing more than inaccurate political bullets being used as ammo in the Greens' current election campaign to ban Australian anglers from wetting a line.

By embarking on this sort of campaign tactic, Senator Brown seems to be indicating that he has no issue with using dodgy data in an attempt to win votes. His sensationalist claim that "we've lost 90 per cent of snapper stocks" shows that he's even prepared to lie in order to achieve his political goals.

Senator Brown should immediately apologise to the Australian public for making these spurious and unsubstantiated claims.

We'll keep you updated on this issue." :shock:


----------



## MrX

Found the Herald Sun Article:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/tackle-the-call-to-ban-our-anglers/story-e6frfhqf-1225894752132

It is based on a report released last month by The Victorian National Parks Association - a fringe (?) greens pressure group.



> "Where is the 'accurate' map? Do I need to rent Happy Feet?"


Couldn't find a Greens map in the Herald Sun, Rodman. Rent Happy Feet - maybe it's there if you play it backwards? Let us know how you go.

You will find the VNPA map that caused the commotion in here:
http://vnpa.org.au/admin/library/attachments/PDFs/Reports/VNPANCRSummary-web3.pdf


----------



## grinner

fascinating as always,
saw a copy of the magna carta at expo 88 in brisbane. i think king john had written that fishing was a right but that people should not venture beyond the horizon for fear of falling off the end of the world.

interesting that the first convict to escape from sydney cove was an entrusted fisherman who left with some famous woman 
(who later became a celebrity in england) i have forgotten her name but she received a royal pardon after escaping from batavia and again from capetown.

if anyone knows her name, would love a reminder.

the basic problem would seem to be that the science is incredibly difficult , if not impossible to do.
how many snapper are there off the coast of australia.
god knows.
if rec blokes are continuing to bag out , my feeling is , this is due to the sounders and gps they now have.
i would be surprised if they could bag out in a boat with no techno assistance.


----------



## wopfish

grinner said:


> if rec blokes are continuing to bag out , my feeling is , this is due to the sounders and gps they now have.
> i would be surprised if they could bag out in a boat with no techno assistance.


Reduce the bag limits - non ?

Thats my beef with the whole situation - most mum and dad fisher folk dont bag out - they drop a line in and hope for the best - strewth Ive never bagged out in all my days of !

The other thing missing in this equation is the education factor of dealing with the critters we eat. Imagine a world where children think that all meat / sea food / animal products come soley from the supermarket shelf and is wrapped in plastic.

Fishing sustainably is an education in respect for the creatures we eat. Didnt anyone see - "kill it, cook it, eat it" It was a docco series on how animals are slaughtered - they built a studio around a slaughterhouse with big perspex screens so people could watch the process, a butcher would then prep the joints etc and a chef would cook it and feed it to the audience. There were some wide ranging reactions - from my point of view the one that stuck out in my mind was how humane and strict the process was and the fact that people that respected the process walked away with the feeling that they would still eat meat - but less of it and hold it and hold meat in a much higher regard. They realised what went in to the killing of the animal and the preperation - as opposed to a commodity bought with a thousand other offerings in a super market.


----------



## cruiser

grinner said:


> f anyone knows her name, would love a reminder


Eliza Frazer maybe


----------



## grinner

HAY CRUISER.

no, eliza, after whom fraser island is named was shipwrecked on fraser with 8 other men i believe.
they were enslaved by the local aborigines , who on both fraser and bribie were very aggressive and cannabalistic at the time.
a couple of the men escaped and made it to brisbane and a large search and rescue mission was mounted. i forget the details, i think she made it out, i believe her husband was roasted on the fire as was another man who was caught whilst escaping.

fascinating story.

i think the girl i'm thinking of was molly someone. they sailed the whole east coast of oz and thru the torres straight to java(batavia)in a whaleboat were taken prisoner and shipped to capetown and then she escaped to england. they took the sydney cove fisherman with them and he kept them quite well fed.
she assumed hero status back in england and was pardoned.

also, a little known fact is that after the american war of independance. many american sailors were imprisoned as convicts and an american warship mounted a recue operation at freemantle where there was a mass break out.

just goggled it mary bryant was her name, highwaywoman :lol: :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Bryant


----------



## spooled1

I find Queensland snapper quite interesting because SEQ is the northern extent of their east coast distribution. Then if we geographically compare this short stretch of Queensland to the massive benthic habitats of NSW and Victoria, the preferred QLD snapper habitats are a fraction of the size of what we generally find further south. Just look at a map of Coolongatta to Hervey Bay, it's mainly sandy beaches, muddy beaches, sand islands, the odd rocky outcrop and a couple of large estuaries. In contrast a map that stretches from Tweed Heads to Portland, Victoria offers spectacular coastal diversity of hard substrate materials that includes small and large bays, massive cliffs, river outflows, huge estuaries, rocky islands and islets and every imaginable habitat our snapper love.

In a nutshell, Queensland has very limited true snapper habitat compared to its southern neighbors and after 200 years, that stock (that just happens to be at the very top end of the species distribution zone) has finally been overfished to 40%. All evidence suggests that Queensland snapper can be properly managed by Qld Fisheries and re-regulated to encourage ongoing extractive sustainability without creating MPA's.

In areas like NSW with its massive snapper supporting benthic habitats that cover a 1500km coastal fringe and extend 50km seaward, it's not surprising they're still not listed as an "overfished" species in NSW.


----------



## MrX

I'm with you Kraley - I fully support putting a limit the commercial take, and providing more funding for the enforcement of bag limits. Bugger it, let's reduce the bag limits as well - I'm prepared to bear the sacrafice personally, and release my 4th (and 5th) legal king each trip!



> "I didn't 'misquote' anything - and you know it. I merely went a-searching on a list of links that Mr- X directed me to for any real results of current marine parks improving fish stocks. I clearly indicated where I was quoting form the source, and then I added my own comment below taht.
> 
> *Try to win your argument, but don't impugn me while doing it, please*."


Ha ha - nice one Ken. Nothing worse than being unfairly impugned! :lol:

But you did seem to be suggesting that the scientific papers you were quoting from supported your assertion that: "Basically, there has been no measurable change in fish populations there after the implementation of the large no take zones - *and no real hope of seeing any in fish species*".

Occy might have a valid point? 

Anyway, I guess we can agree with the MPA biologists' assessments: (a) that more time is required to properly determine the significance of the trends they found in their studies of our recently established NSW marine parks; and (b) that 7-10 years is probably a more appropriate timeframe for reporting on the performance of the zoning plan.

So that means we have to look overseas for hard evidence to assess their "theories" on the long-term benefits to the marine environment. And to refute (or prove) your earlier assertions that there isn't any evidence that creating a marine park does anything for the long term health of fish stocks because fish use those things called fins and tails to move themselves thru water, not remaining stationary within the boundaries of marine parks&#8230;

What did you think of the links Red put up examining the "benefits beyond boundaries" in the more established marine parks in other countries?


----------



## ArWeTherYet

spooled1 said:


> I find Queensland snapper quite interesting because SEQ is the northern extent of their east coast distribution. Then if we geographically compare this short stretch of Queensland to the massive benthic habitats of NSW and Victoria, the preferred QLD snapper habitats are a fraction of the size of what we generally find further south ...................


Not so Dan there are extensive reefs from north of Stradbroke through to Noosa. Equal to, if not better than further south. No we don't have much in the way of rocky headlands (compared to further south), but once you get off shore there are plenty of Snapper grounds.I have mates who regularly bag out on 5kg+ Snapper in the off shore grounds. Moreton Bay is more of a nursery and juvenile Snapper (Squire) are abundant.
I agree with you on fisheries doing a better job. If they were still calling the shots then the next step would have been closed seasons for Snapper so they could be left to breed. Instead of stupid green zones that just make everyone fight for whats left.


----------



## mal.com

spooled1 said:


> In areas like NSW with its massive snapper supporting benthic habitats that cover a 1500km coastal fringe and extend 50km seaward, it's not surprising they're still not listed as an "overfished" species in NSW.


Hi all this is Australias problem, we dont have vast relative shallow areas that support large fish populations. The NSW coastal continental shelf is very narrow, it is a skinny little strip compared to some countrys. Snapper frinstance live generally inside the ~100m depth contour, which in NSW is bugga all. And the deeper water species have less water to frolic in. Geologically and with plate tectonics, Australia is not in a good area for sustaining large populations of fish. Fifty million years ago it may have been better.

Australia is too far north for sub antarctic upwellings of nutrient rich waters, and the East Coast is fed by nutrient depleted tropical waters, which combined with bugga all shallow waters means, there is stuff all real estate for most of the fish, we and most danglers go after, and little oceanic nutrients for limited stock of fish anyhow.

Sophisticated sounders and gps will only compound the problem, and if we want any fish for our children & grand children catch minimisation by all sectors is needed now.

The problem is that we are in the middle of a world wide mass extinction, of not only just fish but all animals, except mina birds and humans, and few people are prepared to notice.

Among my careers I was a commercial fisherman, if anyone thinks that human populations are not stuffing fish populations, think again, during my life along the East Coast of Australia I have seen snapper, blue fin tuna, orange roughy, abalone, east coast lobsters, gem fish, yellow fin tuna and many others, all decimated by over fishing from their previous levels. While commercial fishing in the past was the chief over achiever, the equation has changed recently as there are stuff all commercial fisherpeople left.

Only a growing navy of very well equipped amateurs.

cheers
mal de mer


----------



## MrX

> "the more likely explanation is that you sent me a bunch of links that have no actual evidence (as I requested), I wasted my time reading them (unlike our friend occy), and found no actual evidence of what I had requested.
> And I challenge you to find anything in those links that does anything more than twaddle on about what the parks WILL do - you knew it when you posted it, but now you and your grizzled party hack friend are saddened by this realization."


You are mistaken, Ken. I said in my post:
"If you are interested in what the objectives of the marine parks are, and the science behind them, the NSW Marine Parks Authority might be a good place to start:
http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/research.htm

I didn't make any claims about "actual evidence". I accept it's too early for that (at least here in NSW). That said, there was definitely no suggestion from those scientists that there was "no real hope of seeing any improvement in fish species". I have an open mind about. And I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on the links Red put up examining the "benefits beyond boundaries" in the more established marine parks in other countries. I promise mate, I'm a good listener.



> "Again - you seem to be a bit confused as to the difference between a hypothesis and evidence."


Mate, I can see why thought I was confused about the difference between "hypothesis" (the objectives of the parks and the science behind them) and "evidence" (the quantifiable results I the marine parks to date). I hope I have cleared that bit up for you.



> "You are the one that thinks some new activity (marine parks with extended recreational no-take zones) will improve fish stocks in a meaningful way. I would think that logic would dictate that you would provide evidence to bolster this assertion. I merely observe that there is:
> a)scant evidence of this, and
> b) lots of evidence that stoopid fat consumers stuffing their faces with cheap seafood (and those that profit from supplying them) might be the real cause of fishing pressure.
> I suggest that controlling (b) sounds a lot better to me than hysterically implementing (a)"


Funny how these misunderstandings can develop. I thought your logic was based on the presumption that marine biologists hadn't factored in the fact that fish have fins and can swim away? If that's not the sole basis of your argument, I'm happy to let it go.

Besides, I'm with you mate. I am opposed to hysterically implementing anything (including marine parks), and supportive of better regulation of commercial fishing, bag limits etc.

But I am not convinced by the (sometimes) hysterical opposition to marine parks. My point is, most of the arguments against them are not scientific - they are by are based on the "God given rights" or "not in my back yard" line. Not you though - you say there is no evidence they benefit the marine environment. Just trying to figure out it is another ideologically driven viewpoint, or you genuinely believe there is some evidence out there that the biologist "boffins" have no idea - and marine parks are superfluous.


----------



## actionsurf

This months Fishing monthly magazine, page 28 in an article by Keith Hall, sums it up pretty well I think.

I couldn't find it online, so I'll quote it;

*FED UP WITH FEDERAL*
"The upcoming federal election is the most important election in Australian history to set the tone for future No fishing zones in Australia. Please, in this federal election make your continued access to fishing grounds your number one reason for deciding who to vote for!

*Why is your vote so important?* Currently greens are claiming 12-16% odf the primary vote. Because of the current Government's dependence on Green preferences to hold power, any decision made on fishing closures will be made to keep 12-16% of voters happy - all of whom probably don't fish.

The 80% of us who do enjoy fishing, eat fish, or earn a living from the marine industry will be easily overlooked. Therefore, it is possible that 80% of people will be forced to abide by the views of 12% of Australians. Doesn't sound fair does it?

*What does 'voting for fishing' look like?* It means _not_ voting for Peter Garrett or anyone who supports his radical stance for huge No fishing zones around Australia. It means _not_ voting for anyone who claims that 'Marine Protected Areas' are the only tool that will protect fish stocks. It means _not_ voting for any party which is relying on Greens preferences to get elected. "

A bit simplistic, but it'll do me. Spread the word ;-)

PS. Here's a more specific link from another fishing site on how to vote to protect our rights;
http://edm.gragroup.com.au/T/ViewEmail/ ... 400EDACAB4

Cheers
Hally


----------



## grinner

kraley said:


> mal.com said:
> 
> 
> 
> While commercial fishing in the past was the chief over achiever, the equation has changed recently as there are stuff all commercial fisherpeople left.
> 
> Only a growing navy of very well equipped amateurs.
> 
> 
> 
> Well..... Here it is from the afma.gov site itself. Australia harvests 2.1 BILLION dollars of seafood a year, and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australians consuming around 16kg of fish and seafood per person each year, purchased from fish markets, supermarkets and food outlets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is - every person in this country consumes about 4 times what I reasonably take from a kayak, and they just stroll down to the fishmarket or supermarket for it.
> 
> Are you seriously maintaining that recreational fishers take the majority of seafood from Australian waters?
> 
> Not true.
Click to expand...

this arguement needs a little tidying up ken.
first your quoting in dollars, then in kg.
naughty.

secondly, they stroll down to the supermarket and buy it but you will need to find the source

ie a lot would be imported, or farmed prawns or (in my case) sardines from europe, or that orange cod from norway.

i cant see who wrote about the relative lack of nutrients in aussie waters (they are right)but i saw a doco on this which suggested you could harvest 40 kg from the irrawaddy delta for every 1 kg you can harvest from aussie waters before affecting sustainability.

but, i still feel, the research to actually measure fish stocks is nearly impossible to do.
we cant even count our fire ants and we had 10,000 people looking for them for 4 years . and fish have many more hidey holes than ants.
maybe some sort of scanner which can differentiate fish and sit on the ocean floor (mite be possible)

saw a doco on salmon in america and theya re light years ahead with individual barcodes being placed in every fingerling and then adult fish rescanned.
you are even supposed to send them over to the original owners if you recapture.

i applied to tag fish but you actually have to buy all the gear yourself which seemed a little stoooopid.

also , re marine parks, ken is dead right, fish move around A LOT. a tagged sweetlip on the gold coast was caught off noosa 1 week later. in and out of green zones all the way.


----------



## MrX

A good illustration of what we are talking about here, Action. Is it true? Or is Hally just trying to frighten you, by shouting things like "It means not voting for anyone who claims that 'Marine Protected Areas' are the *only* tool that will protect fish stocks.?"

I'm not sure. I have suspicions about anyone who trys to tell me how to vote - particulary the "single issue" radicals.


----------



## spooled1

In response to Mal.Com, even though there may be plenty of merit in what you say, I make this statement:

*If the NSW Fisheries Scientfic Committee has not declared our NSW Snapper populations to be vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered or presumed extinct, why should the anglers of NSW be punished with marine park lockouts and species bans like those that are happening RIGHT NOW at Cape Byron Marine Park?*

The Fisheries Scientific Committe is supposed to be the peak NSW body that measures, dictates and acts upon the aquatic threat to marine life. Meanwhile, political parties like the Greens and government departments like the MPA seem to have selective hearing and happily bundle Snapper into the same protection category as the Grey Nurse Shark irrespective of the findings of the State appointed experts.


----------



## blueyak

Seems there are 2 types of people here,

Those that have already been adversley affected by marine parks,

and

those yet to be affected by marine parks.

If you haven't yet been affected by marine parks, have a think about the people who have. Some places with marine parks may well have areas that you can fish but trying to make sense of what you can and can't do in some areas can be really hard.


----------



## bazzoo

It seems apparent that a lot of us see that fish stocks are being threatened adversly , largely by overfishing by commercial operators , as i said in an earlier post on here , there is a solution in buying back a considerable amount of Commercial licences and by policed bag limits on amatures at boat ramps . However i believe there should also be a scientific study which pin pointed the breeding habits and breeding areas and more importantly times of breeding of such fish as Snapper and Kingfish and flathead , our normal take fish . With this information it is a simple matter to say put snapper off the catch list in the months of say between may and august [ example only ], to allow these fish to breed successfully and let the young fingerlings have a chance to get established . By doing this , you have a two pronged attack in that the fish are protected during breeding season and you make anglers aware of the importance of such fish to our economy and to the angler . I quote as an example , Bass in NSW , there is an off season and this makes the angler aware that these fish are valuable so much so that very few anglers take bass to eat now . Simplisyic approach , but isnt simple often the best


----------



## actionsurf

Seems to me we're all in agreeance here.  On most things.

Turned into a bit of a pissing contest for some though.

We all agree our fisheries and other parts of our environment need protecting.....I think.
We all agree something needs to be done about our diminishing fish stocks for now and the future.
We all agree that there are many issues to be considered and action needs to be taken.

We disagree on the real value of hypotheses & scientific evidence regarding the value of Marine parks. We also don't agree on how we can best deal with the above points that we do agree on. Maybe Marine Parks are the answer, but I and many others aren't convinced yet. So what's the rush?

In this topic alone bag limits have been bought up. Restricted seasons and size limit reviews likewise, along with environmental runoff management, commercial fishing restrictions and fishing practises (gill nets, etc.). Many other inventive ways of dealing with this have all been mentioned by some smart people, who love this lifestyle.

So why can't we all agree to put a stop to what is rampantly happening now before it is too late. And it will be too late on the 22nd of August. Think about this guys. With proper consultation involving all parties I'm sure the right answer is around the corner. At the moment we are looking at a shotgun decision based on an irreversible whim of Bob Brown's and some other cafe latte drinking, manbag carrying bunch of prima-donas who don't love fishing or understand it like we do. Phew!

Think I'll have a cafe latte now :lol:

Cheers 
Hally


----------



## wopfish

I think we should have marine parks that allow recreational fishing and no commercial fishing - but with a no anchor policy ! That would basically keep most people happy I think. With very limited dent in the fishing stocks but most rec fishermen get to still have a go. Rock fishos / beach fishos / yakkers / boat fishermen too but drifting - so would limit a reef getting hammered with a sounder and loads of burley etc


----------



## actionsurf

wopfish said:


> I think we should have marine parks that allow recreational fishing and no commercial fishing - but with a no anchor policy ! That would basically keep most people happy I think. With very limited dent in the fishing stocks but most rec fishermen get to still have a go. Rock fishos / beach fishos / yakkers / boat fishermen too but drifting - so would limit a reef getting hammered with a sounder and loads of burley etc


I agree with this type thinking. We could have a blue zone. Some may go for maroon.  But I reckon half way between a green and a yellow - blue. This would be OK for rec/amateur fisherman but not for commercial harvesting. It would need some real due process, co-operation between many vested parties and quantifiable outcomes/objectives. I'm even OK with some conditions like number of rods, reduced bag limits in that area, lure only, barbless hooks, no anchor.... whatever! Just let me be allowed to relax and fish.

Those grey areas on the map at the moment really scare me and could go blue real easy IMO. OK Bob?


----------



## wopfish

Another quick beef - the fisheries ie NSW fisheries - the one we pay our licencing to - shouldnt they be looking after our interests, considering weve had to pay for lincences, abide by length and bag limits. Help them do their bloody surveys/research for them, with questionairs and tagging programes !!!!

They should be jumping in and saying weve got our research - these people are abiding by the law and sticking to quotas, kingfish stocks are really improving since the commercial traps have been stopped - Sydney harbour has been firing since the ban on commercial fishing there....... yeah lets make more places like this and watch the stocks improve !!!

Because there has been a big overhaul of fisheries in NSW in the last ten years - it probably needed it - so things should be better - in fact around they harbour the guides say they have dramatically improved. But maybe thats the real deal is that :mrgreen: green observers see people taking a feed and then want to stick their noses in and have a good stir with the sh*t stick !!!!!


----------



## MrX

A bit too much "greenie" (without a capital "G") stuff on here since I last looked. Baz, Action, Woppie - what's goin on?

A simple "no anchoring" in marine parks policy might be the answer?

Hey ***, this is what they do with our fishing licence fees in NSW. (bastards?)
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees



> Blueyak wrote:
> "Seems there are 2 types of people here,
> 1. Those that have already been adversley affected by marine parks,
> and
> 2. those yet to be affected by marine parks.
> If you haven't yet been affected by marine parks, have a think about the people who have. Some places with marine parks may well have areas that you can fish but trying to make sense of what you can and can't do in some areas can be really hard."


You are right Blueyak - for us rec yak fishos, it's bloody hard to make sense of them. The marine parks and conservation areas around Sydney are pretty easy to negotiate, but I have found the bigger ones around Port Stephens and Seal Rocks a bit more complicated (in some areas only the commercial guys are banned but line fishing is permitted, some areas only permit bait collecting, in some areas anchoring is banned, other areas prawn trawlers are banned, in some spots no fishing at all is permitted&#8230. I understand the (State) the marine parks near Coffs and Byron can be difficult to abide by without a GPS.

Of the fishos on the forum, Dan (Spooled1) is probably one of the better placed to explain how to best to negotiate our Marine Parks, and still catch the odd fish. ;-)



> Kraley wrote:
> 
> "What did you think of the links Red put up examining the "benefits beyond boundaries" in the more established marine parks in other countries?"
> 
> Haven't checked it out - but will give you a full report tomorrow, ok? Will you do me a deal? Will you actually consider what I am saying if I do? There is a lot of case study in europe of what the greens want to really do with fishing and why they want to stop it. Will you review the swedish example and give me your thoughts?


Sure will, Ken. Specially if your Swedish example includes photos/video. How's it coming along?


----------



## Ralphy

I have an in-law that is a greens MP. Enough reason for me never to vote for them. Always complaining about stuff but never has any workable solutions.

I believe far greater damage is done to the marine environment by damming rivers and agricultural run off than could ever be inflicted by recreational fisherman. It's these activities that seem to cause the most damage to the estuaries and inshore 'nursery' areas. 
If marine parks are put in place, I would like to see the fishing restrictions in said areas changed, maybe reduced bag limits or even catch and release in certain areas. Or size/anchoring limitations put on boats in certain fragile areas. As long as the rules are tailored to suit each individual area and not just a blanket ban on a third of our coastline. At least that way we could still get out for a fish.

And as noted before about Sydney harbour and the Kingy traps, it's amazing how quickly and effectively mother nature can bounce back from copping a flogging. I think some people fail to see just how resilient she can be.

Sorry for wasting your time, just my 2 cents.


----------



## Junglefisher

actionsurf said:


> wopfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should have marine parks that allow recreational fishing and no commercial fishing - but with a no anchor policy ! That would basically keep most people happy I think. With very limited dent in the fishing stocks but most rec fishermen get to still have a go. Rock fishos / beach fishos / yakkers / boat fishermen too but drifting - so would limit a reef getting hammered with a sounder and loads of burley etc
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this type thinking. We could have a blue zone. Some may go for maroon.  But I reckon half way between a green and a yellow - blue. This would be OK for rec/amateur fisherman but not for commercial harvesting. It would need some real due process, co-operation between many vested parties and quantifiable outcomes/objectives. I'm even OK with some conditions like number of rods, reduced bag limits in that area, lure only, barbless hooks, no anchor.... whatever! Just let me be allowed to relax and fish.
> 
> Those grey areas on the map at the moment really scare me and could go blue real easy IMO. OK Bob?
Click to expand...

Look up the GBRMPA zoning maps. Plenty of diferent zones there. Green yellow, light blue, dark blue, orange, pink......


----------



## actionsurf

MrX said:


> Just trying to figure out it is another ideologically driven viewpoint, or you genuinely believe there is some evidence out there that the biologist "boffins" have no idea - and marine parks are superfluous.
Click to expand...

Mate. These 'boffins' may well be geniuses and may have everything worked out for us and maybe we should just let them do what they like. But I don't trust them to do that. Not one little bit. These same boffins said the Titanic couldn't sink, Chernobyl couldn't happen, British Petroleum knows how to handle oil, etc. etc. etc.. The same boffins allow Japan to slaughter whales under the guise of 'scientific research. You see, the boffins are often wrong and very adaptable when it suits them. So I'm going to do everything in my power to see that the Greens and their research teams don't get ultimate power to determine my fishing choices.

This topic is not about who can win an argument with reference points and statistical data or who comes across as the most measured, intelligent poster on this forum. Congrats by the way, you're doing a fine job if that's what you're after.

It's about this;

I and the MAJORITY of recreational fisherman don't like this 'fishing police' position the greens have adopted. We don't like being TOLD what is going to happen with us if Labor get power through their preferences. And we wont down the track without proper consultation and quantifiable, measurable yardsticks and a long term plan. I haven't seen you present anything solid or quantifiable as evidence or otherwise. Neither have the greens. All I've seen is that they intend to shut down fishing wherever and whenever they can. 30% IMMEDIATELY (up from 5%), then they'll go from there. *They've stated it. It's fact.* In fact, it's the only fact on the table. I say we should slow the greens down now before it is too late.

People can offer the 'voice of reason' argument all they like, but what about acknowledging the GENUINE fears for our fishing future. You seem to be saying..."Oh let's just trust them because they know what they're doing". Apathy that's called. Some people might call it naivity.

I for one am not going to accept a MINIMUM of 30% MPA's, including ALL my favorite fishing spots and I WILL vote to stop it and try to inform those that may not be aware of what is proposed.

I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny some time back. I found he couldn't be trusted.


----------



## actionsurf

Occy, you wrote"So, in my opinion if you don't accept the science (such as it is), do something about it. Disprove it, discredit the experts, join a political party, write to your local member, sign a petition. Anything other than incessantly spruiking this moronic "I'm not going to accept this because I don't like it" mantra. _As long as your arse points to the ground you will never win an argument with that sort of attitude._ So to get you started here's a reasonable way (if you like that sort of thing) to get involved http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/sav ... e-now-live"

We'll see champ. ;-)

You also wrote earlier in one of your many responses to a topic that you certainly aren't biased in....."Some like groper and snapper actually spend all their lives on the one reef. If fish didn't live or congregate in well defined areas the commercial fishos would be out of a job. "

I like that quote. Very funny. :lol:


----------



## wopfish

Rec fisherfolk are really the most lowest impact of the whole equation - easy targets for people that dont want people to fish for pleasure - in some eyes its ok to harvest the ocean commercially at all cost because its business BIG business - but do we now draw a line in the sand and say yup all fishing is good - or some fishing is good. We need to have tighter controls on the way commercials harvest - drag nets for scallops and prawns that destroy the sea bed and effect the whole ecosystem..... OMG imagine the damage that one of those boats does in a day compared to a rec fisherman !!!!

We need Soylent Green :mrgreen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edQNjJZF ... re=related


----------



## wopfish

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTjQO163 ... re=related


----------



## MrX

Occy, your mate writes very well! And he sounds like a prime contender for membership of Grinner's "Brown Turd Party" - adopting the entire the Greens Marine & Coastal Areas Policy (except snippet 20), and no latte suppers!

Have to question though: is he is a victim of the current scare campaign about the benefits (or otherwise) of the sanctuary zones? If the Zones have in fact "been established WITH NO SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH" (as he no doubt genuinely believes), then he makes a valid point. That is the "fact" we questioning here. Besides, the Zones were not set up by "the Greens" - they were established by successive State coalition and labour govts. The Greens don't have any representation in the state legislature here in NSW (and no Federal senators from NSW either). Their Federal marine & coastal areas policy is hardly any more a threat to him (or any of us) than Freddy Nile's, or Pauline Hanson's.

Actonsurf wrote:


> "Mate. These 'boffins' may well be geniuses and may have everything worked out for us and maybe we should just let them do what they like. But I don't trust them to do that. Not one little bit. These same boffins said the Titanic couldn't sink, Chernobyl couldn't happen, British Petroleum knows how to handle oil, etc. etc. etc.. &#8230;..People can offer the 'voice of reason' argument all they like, but what about acknowledging the GENUINE fears for our fishing future. You seem to be saying..."Oh let's just trust them because they know what they're doing". Apathy that's called. Some people might call it naivity&#8230;..I for one am not going to accept a MINIMUM of 30% MPA's, including ALL my favorite fishing spots and I WILL vote to stop it and try to inform those that may not be aware of what is proposed&#8230;&#8230;I stopped believing in the Easter Bunny some time back. I found he couldn't be trusted."


No worries Hally, you believe what you want to believe, mate. I am the first to acknowledge that your fears of Marine Parks are genuine. But as you know, I am not convinced Sanctuary Zones are the threat some claim them to be. Shit, for all I know, they might even help preserve our fisheries for future generations. :?

Ken - well done for going to the trouble of reading the reports. I bet you were the only one. ;-)

Sorry, but I don't agree that your quote is a "big disclaimer that sits on page one of the report". It is a box with an acknowledgment that there is currently a vigorous debate over the quality of reserves research. The report goes on to say: "However, our confidence that reserves work increases with consistent, repeated demonstrations that uphold predictions about their effects&#8230;"
Read it again:
http://assets.panda.org/downloads/benefitsbeyondbound2003.pdf
It looks like a pretty balanced report to me. What does the politics of the World Wildlife Fund have to do with it?



> "The second link RP put up does address the issue of non-sedentary fish population effect of zones, but its problematic for the no-take fans - because it backs up my assertion that most of australia's sportfish species won't benefit from the no-take zones:
> http://www.cefas.co.uk/publications/mis ... zones.aspx
> Looking again to the North Sea&#8230;.."


If you are going to quote from the paper, it only fair you include the next paragraph:


> "&#8230;&#8230;Moving on from fisheries management and the revision of the CFP then, there is little doubt that no-take zones will have other potentially important roles in marine environmental management. They are, for example, one of the most effective ways of protecting vulnerable habitats, such as marl beds, from the effects of fishing disturbance.
> No-take zones could also be used to protect species of conservation concern, such as the common skate, from fishing. In this case the success or failure of the no-take zone would depend on the biology of the species to be conserved and whether or not the no-take zone could reduce the rate they were killed by fishing."


These boffins don't have any doubt that no-take zones have potentially important roles in marine environmental management. Sound reasonable to me.



> "I'll put it to you again - commercial harvest leads to declining fish populations."


And I will agree with you again. Let's hug.



> "Rec fishermen are completely unproven to be a signficant part of the pressure."


Mabe in some areas, but this is the bit that I think you are overplaying. Completely unproven? I suspect rec fishing does constitute a significant part of the pressure on our fish stocks - for some species, in some areas.



> "Why the focus on the lockout? We know there is one sure way to increase fish species biomass - reduce commercial take. Why not try THAT before you lock me out (especially since locking me out seems to not work unless I fish for coral reef species?"


Don't look at me - I'm not "focussing on the lockout"! On the contrary, I am questioning the hysterical focus on "the lockout"!

As Big said in the title to his thread: no-take zones are just a "snippet" of the Greens Marine & Coastal Areas Policy.


----------



## wopfish

They should have marine parks but let rec fisherfolk fish in them for gawds sake !

DONT LOCK PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY AND WATERS.


----------



## keza

I don't think there is any doubt that we need some form of marine parks but frankly, this is like saying 'there is to be no more speeding in your car'. Tell us what that means exactly.
No going over 100 k, 50 k, 20 k or 1 k.
If they don't indicate what they are talking about then people will presume the worst.

They just go about it all the wrong way. They need to say 30% marine parks may include up to 5% not rec fishing zones and 80% no commercial.
These people seem to have no public management skills.

Here a couple of hot tips for them to start looking at:
re commercial fisherman
They need to fix the bycatch loophole.
Stop collecting fish whilst they are breeding (mullet).
Adhere to the size restrictions rec anglers do.
No dragging the bottom and wiping out habitat.
No indiscriminate killing (gill nets)


----------



## spooled1

Occy - The Devils advocate here:

#1 - The NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee haven't yet listed any commonly targetted sea-food species as vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, presumed extinct or extinct so exactly where is the fundamental need for added sustainability via the creation of all these NSW marine parks? Who exactly are we supposed to believe?

#2 - Yes it it claimed that 80% of marine parks are still open to fishing. And of that 80%, 99% of the fishable area consists of massive tracts of sandy oceanic desert. To make matters worse, fishers are not permitted to create artificial reefs in these Marine Park deserts that have been allocated to fishing. In addition, some of these legally fishable areas also contain species bans that do not reflect the final determinations of the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee. So what the MPA's have effectively done, is said: Go ahead and fish to your hearts content but you're not allowed to take what's seasonally available. I call it the Claytons Sanctuary Zone.

The issue is not parks per se, it's the management of parks and whether those managers can be trusted to deliver parks that meet the need of the stakeholders while ensuring balance. This is the great Australian Marine Park failure. I've maintained the same mindset throughout: Before we go off and create more half arsed MPA's lets get the existing ones right so we have solid foundations to work with.


----------



## fongss

theclick said:


> I am a regular greens voter and I will vote for them again.
> 
> I have absolutely no issue with that policy. Sure, some fishing grounds will be lost, but in the interests of protecting fish stocks, I am happy to take that hit. If it means I can't fish in spot X so I can actually catch fish at spot Y in the future, I am happy man.


i agree with what you say

but

some impact needs be measured in effects on tourism and boat sales right down to bait and tackle shops

a lot small coastal towns rely heavily on tourism

and alot people go on hoildays too fish ;-)

thats my concern, also...despite pollticians imaginations....fish swim

so marine parks aren't totally the answer imo 

p.s thu i'll still most likly vote green again, maybe


----------



## fongss

wopfish said:


> They should have marine parks but let rec fisherfolk fish in them for gawds sake !
> 
> DONT LOCK PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY AND WATERS.


well they have a marine park offshore margret river, w.a, no one can fish in but the greens and labor will now allow off shore drilling in...like the type set up that devested the gulf mexico with the worst oil diaster of all time

funny that hey :shock: :? yet they say there trying protect the environment

go figure :twisted:


----------



## blueyak

spooled1 said:


> Before we go off and create more half arsed MPA's lets get the existing ones right so we have solid foundations to work with.


Well said Dan.


----------



## actionsurf

occy said:


> Folks,
> 
> A quick comment if I may. :shock: An article in the SMH today (page 6) covers a recent letter sent by 124 lading marine scientists to Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard. They call for continued introduction of marine conservation areas, and say there is no ambiguity about the science of marine parks and their effectiveness. "It is a bit like climate change - there is 99.9% agreement between scientists, which almost never happens" is a quote from the Director of the University of queensland's Ecology Centre Professor Hugh Possingham.
> 
> They back this up by saying that long established scientific evidence shows marine parks help commercial and recreational fishing by securing fish populations in the long term, and go on to say there is a wealth of data showing conservation zones increase stocks of marine life and boost bidervisity. They state that recent suggestions to the contrary are false.
> 
> Interestingly they also quote the Nature Conservation Council of NSW, which has apparently said 80% of NSW Marine Parks are still open to recreational fishing, which if true is something I didn't know. Now I know that probably won't be enough for those of you who have consistently been sceptics, but from where I'm sitting it looks like game set and match in the debate to me.
> 
> Not that it will stop the political games being played by certain people. If you want proof of that just take a look at the photo of Abbott pretending to be fishing on page 1 of that same paper. But then again nothing surprises me these days with this bloke. ;-)





occy said:


> It is my firm belief that many of the ardent opponents of conservation measures (and it doesn't seem to matter which ones) have been duped, and they are in my humble opinion misguided in their beliefs to say the least. As for this rubbish about the Magna Carta, oppressive government interference, the right to bear arms, and hunt and fish wherever you want, all I have to say is please spare me.


Shall we all hug trees now. Ooohhhmmmm :roll:

Nice try.

You've already stated you don't eat your own caught fish. You buy from the market...apparently. You've also said that Sydney Harbour and it's fish stink (maybe that's not quite what you said, but let's call it implied). I haven't been on this forum long, and could well be banned soon if I'm not careful as I'm very passionate about this subject, so excuse my ignorance if I'm out of place with a couple of questions here.

Do you fish? Where ? Are you involved with the Greens in any way ?

Your views on global warming are yours. Good on ya. So are your views on what the greens are about to do to all the fisho's in this country if given a chance. I don't think you will _really_ care after they've done it either. But I do care. It's important to me and lots of others. These bastard politicians are encroaching on our rights...again. And it's time to stop them.

I won't be voting Green this time, if ever again. They're poison for people that enjoy fishing. And I and my family and my friends and millions of other people in Australia really do enjoy fishing and eating what we catch occasionally. How dare some white collar ******* tell me how to live life.

Sorry about that. We can get all intellectual if you like, but this debate isn't about that to me. ;-)


----------



## MrX

I read the Herald today too, Occy. Interesting article on this topic - worth a link:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/coalition-angles-for-the-fishermens-vote-20100817-128j5.html



> Spooled1 wrote:
> "The issue is not parks per se, it's the management of parks and whether those managers can be trusted to deliver parks that meet the need of the stakeholders while ensuring balance. This is the great Australian Marine Park failure. I've maintained the same mindset throughout: Before we go off and create more half arsed MPA's lets get the existing ones right so we have solid foundations to work with."


Well said, Dan - I agree the debate should not be about marine parks per se. I reckon they are a "no-brainer".

The debate should be about ensuring they achieve what they are meant to do: - protect our fisheries from exploitation; help commercial and recreational fishing by securing fish population numbers in the long term; so us decent, ordinary, working Australians can eat fresh seafood, and go down to the sea and fish. And so our kids can eat and catch fish too. And their kids. I am prepared to put up with the minor inconvenience of the "no-take" zones, if that is what it costs.

But that debate appears to have been hijacked by a rowdy minority of self-interested players - arguing either (a) uncompromising opposition to marine parks in principal (not in my back yard, God given right to fish, marine parks are useless, we are not part of the problem etc); or (b) arbitrary targets (like 30%).

The loudest advocates for closing down marine parks (or not creating new ones) are the Commercial fisherman. They claim the marine parks destroy their livelihoods. Do they have a point? I don't agree with those who have argued on here that they will just go somewhere else and catch the same amount of fish. I think Marine Parks might be genuinlely devastating for them, and if so, they are entitled to be upset about them. Check out this guy (link from the Shooting & Fishing Party website):





While we are playing Devil's Advocate:

1. Do we really want to wait until our commonly targeted sea-food species are declared vulnerable, (or endangered, critically endangered, presumed extinct or extinct) before we do anything about conserving them for our kids to eat and catch (and their kids)?

2. Is 99% of the 80% of marine parks that is still open to fishing really just "massive tracts of sandy oceanic desert"? That leaves less than 1% worth fishing in. Is it true?


----------



## MrX

Hally, that's a ripper post, mate! But I don't think it's a "class war". I think we fishos are all on the same side here. We want to be able fish.

The Greens Party hasn't set up any marine parks. They can't - they are just a relatively minor protest party. The Commonwealth marine conservation areas were set up by the federal Coalition govts, and the State marine parks were established (in the main) by State Labour gov'ts. (Back when you used to vote for the tree huggers ;-) )


----------



## spooled1

MrX said:


> 1. Do we really want to wait until our commonly targeted sea-food species are declared vulnerable, (or endangered, critically endangered, presumed extinct or extinct) before we do anything about conserving them for our kids to eat and catch (and their kids)?
> 
> 2. Is 99% of the 80% of marine parks that is still open to fishing really just "massive tracts of sandy oceanic desert"? That leaves less than 1% worth fishing in. Is it true?


Response to:

1. - One of the responsibilities of state and/or country office is to ensure the most advanced minds are looking after the best interests of the people and/or country. The scientists on this particular committee have been employed by the people of NSW because they have the skills and capabilities to fulfill this civic responsibility. Ultimately these scientists make state descisions based on the material they are employed to be intimately familiar with. Surely these scientists have read, heard and seen much of the same stuff as the other scientists. If a brand new category declaration of "Pre-vulnerable" is required, surely that committee would be the most qualified to make that determination.

2. - I'm not an area mathemetician and I may have overstepped a mathematical mark by an easy percentile. Feel free to open up the zoning plan of Cape Byron Marine Park for instance and add the blue zones, the yellow zones and the cross hatched yellow zones and then overlay that straight on top of some MPA sourced habitat mapping. You don't need to be an Einstein to notice, sand, sand and lots of sand.

While on the subject of lazy percentiles, the NSW Marine Parks Authority were pretty quick to grab thier lazy percentile of hard reef when they asked recreational and commercial fishers to willingly volunteer thier best fishing spots with the expectation that they would be FAIRLY RECOGNISED as part of the planning process.... That's the management NSW fishers got from these political park processes.


----------



## MrX

Dan, I'm interested in your views, because you know more about marine park than most, and (unlike the rest of us), you actively get out there do something about them

#1. You "answered" that one like one of our beloved politicians. Not sure if we need a committee to declare a new category. I just don't believe anyone is worried that snapper are vulnerable or endangered (not even the "greenies") - must be billions of 'em out there in the ocean (although not many big nobbies left around Sydney nowdays). No matter what we do, I can't see us completely wiping them out. The "devil" was just wondering what you were getting at when you said:


> "The NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee haven't yet listed any commonly targetted sea-food species as vulnerable, endangered, critically endangered, presumed extinct or extinct so exactly where is the fundamental need for added sustainability via the creation of all these NSW marine parks?"


Were you suggesting we should wait until snapper are declared vulnerable or endangered (like, say grey nurse sharks) before we do anything about conserving them in some areas for the future?

2# I see what you mean. I have never fished in the Cape Byron Marine Park. There are a hell-of-a-lot of "pink bits" in there. http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/CBMP-user-guide-map.pdf


----------



## Cuda

Looks like the Australian tackle industry (who would have a lot to lose if recreational fishing was further restricted than it is now) have finally got off their hands and have waded into the argument as per this link from a WA fishing site - http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/v ... poll-looms

Things are starting to heat up in the kitchen :twisted:


----------



## actionsurf

MrX said:


> Hally, that's a ripper post, mate! But I don't think it's a "class war". I think we fishos are all on the same side here. We want to be able fish.
> 
> *The Greens Party hasn't set up any marine parks. They can't - they are just a relatively minor protest party.* The Commonwealth marine conservation areas were set up by the federal Coalition govts, and the State marine parks were established (in the main) by State Labour gov'ts. (Back when you used to vote for the tree huggers ;-) )


You keep kidding yourself mate. It's called balance of power in the Senate and preference deals, but I think you already know that ;-)


----------



## actionsurf

occy said:


> Well done guys, you know who you are. I'm not so impressed with the "I'm not going to take any more of this big bad interventionist government" crap though. Thankfully it's proponents seem to have dropped off in both numbers and intensity a little (maybe we are getting through to them :roll: ), because it was starting to sound a bit like a bloody broken record quite frankly.


Speaking of crap. See above.

I haven't seen too much drop off mate. Many poople avoid politics. You're outnumbered in my conservative estimate by about 8-1. It's just the volume of rubbish you and your mate expel that has you thinking you're dominating the discussion, but you're not. If there is a drop off from protestors it's because they realise this forum has greenies like yourself and MrX and I suspect, an administrator or two, acting in naive defence of the limp wristed Tasmanian's ridiculous, over regulated and under researched fishing policy.

Find a tree. Go hug it. That's better.


----------



## cheaterparts

http://www.2gb.com/index2.php?option=co ... ew&id=6823

cheater


----------



## spooled1

MrX said:


> Were you suggesting we should wait until snapper are declared vulnerable or endangered (like, say grey nurse sharks) before we do anything about conserving them in some areas for the future?


If I was to suggest anything, I'd be speaking as a lay person with an opinion. As far as I can tell, a core function of this assigned Committee categorically answers your specific question without any requirement for my opinion: http://www.fsc.nsw.gov.au/



> _The Fisheries Scientific Committee is an independent body established under Part 7A of the Fisheries Management Act 1994. The main functions of the Committee are related to:
> 
> • the listing of species, populations, ecological communities and key threatening processes in the schedules of the Fisheries Management Act 1994;
> • advising the Minister on the identification of critical habitat;
> • reviewing draft joint management agreements and the performance of parties under the agreements;
> •Advising the Director-General on the exercise of I&I NSW functions under threatened species legislation of the Fisheries Management Act 1994; and
> •Advising the Minister and the Natural Resources Commission on matters relating to the conservation of threatened species, populations or ecological communities.
> 
> The Committee consists of seven scientists, with expertise in the biology of fish, aquatic invertebrates and marine vegetation; population dynamics, aquatic ecology and genetics of small populations._


----------



## MrX

I'm listening, Hally.



> "You keep kidding yourself mate. It's called balance of power in the Senate and preference deals, but I think you already know that"


Yes, I know that. But what are you so frightened of?

OK, so "worst case" scenario, the Greens ride labor preferences to win the last NSW Senate seat (from Labor), and end up with the balance of power in the Senate. (& possibly one seat (Melbourne) in the House of Reps)
What effect do you think that would have on your God given right to fish?


----------



## ArWeTherYet

My personal experience with green zones around Redcliffe is all they have done is bunch up the fishermen. Especially the commercial prawn trawlers. They have stopped the trawlers from trawling much of Bramble Bay and Deception Bay so they have been hitting Redcliffe a lot harder than before. Unfortunately where they have been hitting Redcliffe is the same grounds we catch Snapper. There has been as many as 8 trawlers in one spot, coming in very close. I was getting PM's from other members asking me to join them in writing letters, even a text message while another mate was out there fishing asking me to ring fisheries to cause there was a trawler in the no netting zone and fisheries where just fogging him off. Basically the trawlers have wrecked much of Queensbeach by trawling up the gravel patches where the Snapper use to feed. Cant blame the trawlers too much, as now they haven't got much else to fish. There was a buy back of commercial licenses when the green zones were first implemented, but it was only the people who weren't using there licenses that took advantage of it :roll: . The other couldn't afford to sell there licenses, what else were they going to do.

In my opinion, all the green zones have done is bunch up the fishermen to fish whats left, which does more harm than good. The DPI have only identified one fish species in QLD under threat of over fishing...Snapper http://www.vision6.com.au/em/message/em ... 52&u=13082 and are in the process of bringing in new restrictions to maintain the fish stock .....as they always have done......hopefully this will be done scientifically to benefit both rec and commercial fisheries.

Lock outs don't work. Good science will. In my opinion Greens just want to demonize fishing to stop it completely. If they were so concerned about wildlife why aren't they active in the culling of feral pests in the bush like cats, dogs, horses, pigs etc...?


----------



## actionsurf

Seems to me that a sleeping giant has awaken. And he's very angry.

http://www.nbntv.com.au/index.php/2010/ ... at-greens/

For a good overview of what real people are thinking, read the comments section.


----------



## actionsurf

MrX said:


> I'm listening, Hally.
> 
> Yes, I know that. But what are you so frightened of?
> 
> This.
> 
> 28/07/10 Source : Sportsfish Australia ,www.lovefishing.com
> 
> "The Greens have played their hand and stated that they intend to turn an absolute minimum of 30% of Australian commonwealth waters into marine parks. This is on top of extensive existing and proposed state-based marine parks. Considering that marine parks are revised every 5-10 years and more or larger Sanctuary Zones are created each revision, then it is feasible that within a short period of time we could be banned from fishing virtually all of our favourite areas if The Greens secure the balance of power in the Australian Senate.
> 
> *It is important that anglers are aware that The Australian Labor Party has prostituted itself to The Greens by agreeing to a preference deal with them. As we know The Greens are hell bent on locking Australians out of marine and terrestrial areas and virtually banning the many outdoor pastimes that make us Australian!*
> 
> Any vote for The Australian Labor Party or any party offering preferences to The Greens will put your treasured pastime of fishing at risk!"


----------



## keza

As a small aside note, I notice it come up every now and then that we can't lock out the commercial guys because they wont have a job.
Well that doesn't really cut it for me.
There are many many industries that become defunct due to advancement in technology, deplenished resources etc etc.

Should I still be buying vinyl records just to keep people in work ?


----------



## sbd

occy said:


> It's no secret that badly managed or excessive commercial fishing are hugely destructive to marine environments, and dare I say it the same applies to recreational fishing.


Yep, I find the giant trawl net that I regularly drag behind the yak leaves a massive trail of destruction. Fortunately the toxic garbage slick & swathe of dead undersize fish with a chaser of crude oil from the bow dispenser that I simultaneously deposit disguises the ugly scar that my efforts produce.

I'm still trying to work out the best method to get the pesticides, fertilizer & other urban detritus off the yak & into the water most effectively - any suggestions?


----------



## bazzoo

occy said:


> I'm truly impressed with some of the arguments/discussion presented above, and not just the so called "Intellectual" ones (certainly not mine), or those that agree with my stance on this issue. Well done guys, you know who you are. I'm not so impressed with the "I'm not going to take any more of this big bad interventionist government" crap though. Thankfully it's proponents seem to have dropped off in both numbers and intensity a little (maybe we are getting through to them :roll: ), because it was starting to sound a bit like a bloody broken record quite frankly.


Occy , i hope your not deluding yourself that you have swayed the masses , nothing could be further from the truth ,its just that the majority of us find your arguments so biased to one side that its not worth arguing with you ,as you apparently are incapable of seeing another point of view , also the constant harranging about your beloved Labour and Green brothers begins to wear very thin . I wonder what your doing on a kayaking fishing forum Occy when your views are so contrary to our own . You used to be a very amusing guy who always brought a smile to my face , and i really did enjoy your posts of the past . But it seems those times are now gone , because theres nothing more boring than politics


----------



## cheaterparts

sbd said:


> I'm still trying to work out the best method to get the pesticides, fertilizer & other urban detritus off the yak & into the water most effectively - any suggestions?


upgrade to a PA and buy a shovel - just a thought

cheater


----------



## johnny

been busy..
when i lived in northern rivers region,it was sad to see marine parks like solitary islands slapped right in the best fishing spot...and bad men and responsible men thrown out of work....n good pros ram bad cheat pros etc...

...saw mass protests by amateurs n locals at Byron Bay ignored by pollies..

and hear pro-fishoes blame amateurs for fishing stock collapses in newcastle...

and commercial fishermen try to blame amateurs[note the cry from the sydney fish market]

commercial bycatch[pro tells me-10 kilos of baby fish die for a kilo of christmas prawns],nets,debris,scraping the floor..seen pro fishoes trapping illegal areas too...the clarence is stripped ...netters at me in my kayak at yamba

..and note the media highlight line or hooks entangled in sharks,turtles etc etc..scientist hype..biodiversity in sydney sea dragon hype..n pros working the gulf up north to w.a. desolate areas[yep even wrecking there]....

my city bushwalking ponce-cyclist eco-warrior mate wants no fishoes as who cares about them..no one fishes..and they are eco-vandals..go green cause we know in our battery chicken cage of city high life n luxury..all those country ******* hillbillies don't know/don't matter....very frustrating and distasteful

anyhow,my opinion is less netting,fewer professionals[bugger money on studies/crapola- use the licence money to buy em out] n more monitoring of them[ some cheat cause it's money].. and there is something anti-democratic and non-consultative about marine parks......


----------



## Scruffy

I definitely will not be voting for the Greens.If they get their way with the marine parks we might as well sell our kayaks as fishing around the Newcastle area will be a thing of the past.I will be voting for the fishing and shooters party in the senate.


----------



## MrX

OK Dan, not sure exactly what your point is, but speaking as a lay person with an opinion: I don't think the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee listing our commonly targeted sea-food species as vulnerable should be a pre-requisite to the creation and maintenance of marine parks. I think the objective should be the long term sustainability of our fisheries - not just for us (or for endangered gn sharks), but for future generations to enjoy fishing too. If effectively run marine parks are not part of the solution, I will join the call for them to be abolished.



> Action wrote:
> "I haven't seen too much drop off mate. Many poople avoid politics. You're outnumbered in my conservative estimate by about 8-1"


I agree with that comment, Hally. Maybe it's even worse than that, say 10-1. I'd guess it would be 100-1 on a stink-boat or commercial fisho forum. But I'm not a "greenie" - I'm a beer swilling, 4WD driving, rec fisho - and I have never voted Greens in my life (not a "single-issue" voter). Just trying to combine an interest in fishing now, with an interest in conserving our fisheries for the future.

I understand your fears, and I sympathise with them. And I agree that there is a big mob of very angry fishermen out there. I am just trying to figure out if these fears are rationally founded, or just the result of the current political scare campaign, cynically designed to influence your voting. And we were making some progress up until your last couple of posts.

I think we agree that in the "worst case" scenario, the Greens could win the last NSW Senate seat (from Labour), and end up with the balance of power in the Senate. (& possibly one seat (Melbourne) in the House of Reps).

So how do we get to the terrifying concept: *"it is feasible that within a short period of time we could be banned from fishing virtually all of our favourite areas if The Greens secure the balance of power in the Australian Senate."*??

This is the "logic" gap that I can't reconcile.

The "balance of power in the Australian Senate" doesn't allow the Greens to implement any policies of their own. They are just a protest party. The Coalition or Labour will have legislative power - depending who wins the most seats in the house of reps. And even then, they will only have power to legislate in Commonwealth waters - at least 3 nautical miles offshore. The Feds have absolutely *no* power over State waters (including State marine conservation areas).

So how could your "God given right to fish" be impacted by a few Greens voters in this Federal election?

Kerry:
"As a small aside note, I notice it come up every now and then that we can't lock out the commercial guys because they won't have a job."

I think I'm the only one who raised it, and I agree with you Kerry. I just think the commercial guys have a right to state their case, given that effective marine parks will put some out of work. I agree that thier loss may be a necessary cost of protecting our fisheries for the future. Sure, those individuals will bear a bigger burden than the (relatively minor) inconvenience conservation areas cause to us rec fishos. But as Dave and AWTY highlighted so eloquently, they are a bigger part of the problem, so they should bear a bigger burden. Pay them out.


----------



## MrX

> Ken wrote:
> "There isn't any logic gap in predicting that the greens have gained a deal over this important part of their platform when they negotiated there preference with labor. "


I'd call that an idealogical "leap of faith", rather than a leap of the "logic gap". Labor's preference deal with the Greens is plain old fashioned self interest: You preference us ahead of the Coalition in the House of Reps, we will preference you ahead of the Coalition in the Senate. I can't see any evidence that marine parks are considered an "important part" of either Party's platform. The only media coverage on marine parks seems to be on the Coalition's targeted (and highly effective) scare campaign.



> "And others that have experienced current parks have indeed seen the most productive and accessible areas placed into no take zones so there is every reason to suspect that will happen in the future as well."


No argument from me about the State marine parks - the no-take zones are inconvenient for us (question of balancing the interest of stakeholders). But this is a *Federal *election. Hence the logic gap.


----------



## Guest

MrX said:


> OK Dan, not sure exactly what your point is, but speaking as a lay person with an opinion: I don't think the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee listing our commonly targeted sea-food species as vulnerable should be a pre-requisite to the creation and maintenance of marine parks. I think the objective should be the long term sustainability of our fisheries - not just for us (or for endangered gn sharks), but for future generations to enjoy fishing too. If effectively run marine parks are not part of the solution, I will join the call for them to be abolished.
> 
> Future genertations are here now i am 17 i get no say in this ellection i llive in Northern rivers and am refuced the chance to go and fish protected shelterd waters
> instead confining me to estuaries or an Open Beach. So instead of being able to go for a fish in the bay after work I work in byron bay do split shifts get 5-6hour breaks
> i get to go for a surf or a walk along our atrocious walk ways. Since 15 i have been open water diver geting out once a month at least to julians rocks my head chef has been diving
> the rocks for 30 years and have noticed little to no improvement tell the truth always been fish full. Why all the time Windara banks ( home of endangered grey nurese ) has Shark drum lines set up around and near and has a steady flow of trawlers hitting it. I know this isnt all to do with the greens but hey i cant Vote and need to vent my anger and feel as
> I AM MISSING OUT ON A RIGHT !!!!!
> 
> -stupid kid.


----------



## actionsurf

MrX said:


> Ken wrote:
> "There isn't any logic gap in predicting that the greens have gained a deal over this important part of their platform when they negotiated there preference with labor. "
> 
> 
> 
> I'd call that an idealogical "leap of faith", rather than a leap of the "logic gap". Labor's preference deal with the Greens is plain old fashioned self interest: You preference us ahead of the Coalition in the House of Reps, we will preference you ahead of the Coalition in the Senate. I can't see any evidence that marine parks are considered an "important part" of either Party's platform. The only media coverage on marine parks seems to be on the Coalition's targeted (and highly effective) scare campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "And others that have experienced current parks have indeed seen the most productive and accessible areas placed into no take zones so there is every reason to suspect that will happen in the future as well."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No argument from me about the State marine parks - the no-take zones are inconvenient for us (question of balancing the interest of stakeholders). But this is a *Federal *election. *Hence the logic gap*.
Click to expand...

The only logic gap is the one in your head bucko. Don't put yourself forward as some political expert when you are JUST a labor voter. And an ill informed one.

He who owns the balance of power in the senate dictates bills of governance that get passed or don't. The senate decides those mate. That means if "I scratch your fiery crutch pin nose, can you make sure I'm allowed to bend over every fisherman in this country and serve my pillow biting justice on them. Blood sport merchants, all of those fishing/hunting types."

These State marine authorities are Green subsets and have been from the outset. All given credence by different governments that sucked the Greens doodles at differing times. The reason NSW and QLD are rampantly shutting down our fishing areas now is because they are Labor governments, beholding to our shirt lifting head of the Greens.

Wake up mate. You may be a greenie, but we're not. And you are correct about one thing and one thing only.....we outnumber you tree huggers 10-1. Hopefully, we'll show that this Saturday and sort the greenie turds out. Once and for all.

I really admire your courage though. This is a FISHING website.....that's what the first F stands for in AKFF. I have another F for the greens and labor. It ends in "off".

Stand up fisho's ! Teach these greenie shitbags a lesson.

Written and authorised by Hally.


----------



## MrX

> "For my argument to be viewed as having a logical dissonance - federal policiticians would have to be seen as having no role whatsoever in the formation of fishing policy or the creation of marine parks. While current marine parks have indeed been state implemented (and might indeed continue to be so), its completely untrue that the federal government has no say or role. "


Noty exactly, Ken - it's simply a question of jurisdiction, and the way our Constitution operates with division of power between the Commonwealth & the States. They can't pick and choose.

The Federal pollies have a say in Federal waters - they have set up marine conservation reserves in their area of jurisdiction - outside the 3 nautical miles. The Coral Sea Marine Conservation area is the most well known. The Commonwealth parks don't really affect us yak fishos, or us dads who want to take our kids for a fish. (They do inconvenience the off-shore stink-boaters and commercial guys though.)

The States have jurisdiction over our inshore waters out to the 3 nautical mile zone. The Feds don't have the power to legislate in these waters. The State & Commonwealth often argue constitutional points ( like Denis Denuto in The Castle).



> "Its also a bit of stretch to imagine that there is no horse trading for preferences beyond 'you choose mine, I'll choose yours' as you maintain. Deals are cut all the time in politics. It is not x-files to think that this agenda will be empowered by helping the greens to succeed in the senate. "


OK - horse trading goes on. But you don't think a political party hack might be a stretching his imagination when he tells you:
*"it is feasible that within a short period of time we could be banned from fishing virtually all of our favourite areas if The Greens secure the balance of power in the Australian Senate."*??
Is it genuine political scare campaign?

When the politicians know that Commonwealth doesn't even have the power to ban fishing inside the 3nm zone?



> "Logical arguments follow rules - they don't inform truth or likelihood outside of following the rules of logic. That is, very untrue things can seem very logical, depending on how a syllogism is set up.
> A:All dogs quack
> B:Spot is a dog
> so Spot quacks is perfectly logical, but untrue.
> So, if you want to syllogistic-ally illustrate a problem in logic - identify where people are violating the rules of logic in their arguments. Good arguments do need to follow logic, but logic isn't sufficient - there needs to be assertions that are valid."


OK, thanks.



> "If you simply don't agree with others (informed or uninformed) opinions - go ahead. But its facetious for you to imply that those that disagree with you are stupid or just victims. They often are just starting with different premise than you."


I appreciate the moderating advice Ken. I didn't mean to cause offence, or imply that those who disagree with me are stupid - particularly when I haven't yet made up my own mind. Like you ;-) , I am careful to avoid gratuitous personal attacks. (Do you think I might have upset actionsurf?  )

Just testing the arguments on a volatile issue.


----------



## MrX

> "I really, really care about the potential loss of something I truly value. If you want to search my posts, I predicted this stuff about 4 years ago. I saddens me to no end. I grew up hunting and fishing and truly expect to lose the privilege to do that well before I can get the opportunity to teach my daughter how great it is."


OK mate - genuine apologies, I wasn't trying to upset you.

As I have said here, many times, I also want to be able to fish. The only real point of difference between our positions is: I am also concerned about protecting our marine environment *for the future* - so my son can catch fish, and his kids and so on. I am prepared to take some pain now, if that is what is necessary - even if it means the inconvenience of (scientifically supportable) marine conservation areas.

In my view, the marine park fiasco over the last few years has been due to poor management by our State Governments, rather than bad policy.

I think the marine issue is being cynically manipulated by some politicians to win a few votes from the disgruntled.

I realise it's an unpopular position to take, and its upsets some, but I just don't believe marine parks are the biggest threat to our fishing - in the long term.

Let's agree to disagree.

(PS: I see you edited your last post just before I replied)


----------



## blueyak

If marine parks were managed or even created fairly I may have a different opinion of them than i currently have. 
below is a link to the map of batemans bay marine park.

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/bmp-zoning-map.pdf

I would love to know the thinking behind this;
Lets look at Coila lake compared to Tuross Lake. 
These 2 systems are literally a few hundred meters apart.

Coila Lake has a santuary zone at the top of the lake (to protect fish stocks one would assume?????) yet the rest of the lake is open to commercial fishing and they fish the crap out of it because they can't fish tuross. I cant understand how a santuary zone will help a lake that is open to commercial fishing. The fish that do reside in the uppper reaches do move down to spawn at certain times of the year where they become vulnerable to commercial fishing.

Tuross on the other hand is a rec fishing haven and has zero santuary zones. Surely if either system was a good candidate for a santuary zone it would be the one that doesn't get raped by the pro's.

I have no problem with a LIMITED AMOUNT OF WELL MANAGED MARINE PARKS but from what i've seen so far the ones we have are a mess. Why get more?


----------



## Rodman

Geez there's a lot of quoting going on in here. Might have a crack myself.



occy said:


> ...and go on to say there is a wealth of data showing conservation zones increase stocks of marine life and boost biodiversity...


This one really gets me. Are they actually suggesting that there is data to show that the introduction of the artificial construct of a conservation zone like a marine park has improved biodiversity? What new species were created, I'd love to know. And what test was applied to link the newly created species to the introduction of the marine park? Wow, if this is all true, I'm going to declare my back yard a sanctuary. All I need now are some good Latin words for the new garden snail I'm going to name.

Fishing cures cancer! Check it out: http://www.fishconnect.com.au. Note that this statement is as false as the quote above, but at least this one has a chance.

Meanwhile, some of the marine parks in PPB are a great benefit to Victorian snapper fisho's. They tell fisherman exactly where they are likely to catch fish, and document the boundaries of these areas, just outside of which they can anchor their boats and catch the fish as they move in and out of their "sanctuary".

All for reducing both commercial and recreational limits to ensure sustainability, but against this "sea kittens" garbage.


----------



## BIG1

I have been following this thread closely and bit my lip on numerous occassions,

I thought this report from an Australian Marine biologist up in QLD may be useful in this debate

http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/pdf/digsfish.pdf


----------



## cruiser

BIG1 said:


> http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/pdf/digsfish.pdf


Pure gold


----------



## Dodge

Related to this thread is an interesting check list on Recfish re the election

http://www.recfish.com.au/


----------



## theclick

BIG1 said:


> I have been following this thread closely and bit my lip on numerous occassions,
> 
> I thought this report from an Australian Marine biologist up in QLD may be useful in this debate
> 
> http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/pdf/digsfish.pdf


'Digsfish' have commercial interests in recreational fishing as the creators of biodegradable fishing line and administers of standards for fishing tournaments. One could also argue that it would be in their interests to depose green zones if they would in turn strengthen wild fish stock sustainability, as their key market is aquaculture.

Although, I do completely agree with his points regarding water quality - it does not diminish green zones as an option.

Also, that guy if he actually has a degree and a completely unqualified PhD, needs to learn how to use postnominals.


----------



## spooled1

theclick said:


> Also, that guy if he actually has a degree and a completely unqualified PhD


Holy cow dude - Have a bit of respect.. At the very least try Googling for 5 seconds (like I just did) before you start cracking quips. Here's a snippet of his CV:

_Sept. 1996 - Sept. 1997
Manager, Recreational Fisheries, Primary Industries South Australia, Fisheries Department, Adelaide, South Australia. http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/sector7.shtml

Job description: I was responsible for the preparation and formulation of fisheries resource management policies and options for ecologically sustainable development of recreational fishing opportunities in South Australia. I was required to attend national recreational fisheries management meetings and co-ordinate my work with other State fisheries managers. I also produced discussion papers on the management, development and funding of recreational fishing in South Australia; established a consultative process between government and the recreational fishing sector; managed a recreational fishing fund; and reported to the Director of Fisheries and the Minister for Primary Industries on issues related to recreational fishing legislation.

Jan. 1993-Sept. 1996
Ph.D candidate, Department of Parasitology, The University of Queensland.
http://www.uq.edu.au/departments/index. ... nu=2&ID=87
Studies of the biology, ecology, taxonomy and control of Cryptocaryon irritans (Ciliata), the cause of whitespot disease in cultured marine fishes.

Job description: I was responsible for production of a PhD dissertation on the biology and control of C. irritans, an important pathogen of marine fish. The project required extensive fieldwork utilising linefishing, anaesthetics, cast nets, drag nets, and inshore trawlers for collecting various species of fish and shellfish from sites in impoundments, enclosed ponds, estuarine, coastal bar and coral reef environments in Queensland. Laboratory skills required included molecular biology (sequencing, PCR), electron microscopy (SEM, TEM), microscopy, and parasitological dissection. Awarded Doctor of Philosophy 25/2/97.

Jan. 1992-Dec. 1992
Honours candidate, Department of Parasitology, The University of Queensland.
http://www.uq.edu.au/departments/index. ... nu=2&ID=87 
Studies of the development and chemotherapy of Polylabroides multispinosus (Monogenea), a gill parasite of cultured Yellowfin Bream, Acanthopagrus australis.

Job description: I was responsible for production of an Honours dissertation on the development and chemotherapy of P. multispinosus, an monogenean parasite of bream. The project required fieldwork and collaboration with the Port of Brisbane Authority and Seaworld on the Gold Coast, where sea cage experiments were carried out. Laboratory skills required included microscopy and parasitological dissection. First class honours awarded 18/12/92.

B. Sc. (1991).
University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. http://www.uq.edu.au/
Majors in Zoology, Environmental Science, Marine Biology, Aquaculture and Parasitology. Final year grade point average 6.1 (out of 7). Awarded Bachelor of Science 17/12/91._


----------



## theclick

spooled1 said:


> theclick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, that guy if he actually has a degree and a completely unqualified PhD
> 
> 
> 
> Holy cow dude - Have a bit of respect.. At the very least try Googling for 5 seconds (like I just did) before you start cracking quips. Here's a snippet of his CV:
> 
> _Sept. 1996 - Sept. 1997
> Manager, Recreational Fisheries, Primary Industries South Australia, Fisheries Department, Adelaide, South Australia. http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/sector7.shtml
> 
> Job description: I was responsible for the preparation and formulation of fisheries resource management policies and options for ecologically sustainable development of recreational fishing opportunities in South Australia. I was required to attend national recreational fisheries management meetings and co-ordinate my work with other State fisheries managers. I also produced discussion papers on the management, development and funding of recreational fishing in South Australia; established a consultative process between government and the recreational fishing sector; managed a recreational fishing fund; and reported to the Director of Fisheries and the Minister for Primary Industries on issues related to recreational fishing legislation.
> 
> Jan. 1993-Sept. 1996
> Ph.D candidate, Department of Parasitology, The University of Queensland.
> http://www.uq.edu.au/departments/index. ... nu=2&ID=87
> Studies of the biology, ecology, taxonomy and control of Cryptocaryon irritans (Ciliata), the cause of whitespot disease in cultured marine fishes.
> 
> Job description: I was responsible for production of a PhD dissertation on the biology and control of C. irritans, an important pathogen of marine fish. The project required extensive fieldwork utilising linefishing, anaesthetics, cast nets, drag nets, and inshore trawlers for collecting various species of fish and shellfish from sites in impoundments, enclosed ponds, estuarine, coastal bar and coral reef environments in Queensland. Laboratory skills required included molecular biology (sequencing, PCR), electron microscopy (SEM, TEM), microscopy, and parasitological dissection. Awarded Doctor of Philosophy 25/2/97.
> 
> Jan. 1992-Dec. 1992
> Honours candidate, Department of Parasitology, The University of Queensland.
> http://www.uq.edu.au/departments/index. ... nu=2&ID=87
> Studies of the development and chemotherapy of Polylabroides multispinosus (Monogenea), a gill parasite of cultured Yellowfin Bream, Acanthopagrus australis.
> 
> Job description: I was responsible for production of an Honours dissertation on the development and chemotherapy of P. multispinosus, an monogenean parasite of bream. The project required fieldwork and collaboration with the Port of Brisbane Authority and Seaworld on the Gold Coast, where sea cage experiments were carried out. Laboratory skills required included microscopy and parasitological dissection. First class honours awarded 18/12/92.
> 
> B. Sc. (1991).
> University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. http://www.uq.edu.au/
> Majors in Zoology, Environmental Science, Marine Biology, Aquaculture and Parasitology. Final year grade point average 6.1 (out of 7). Awarded Bachelor of Science 17/12/91._
Click to expand...

Was just having a crack using far out conspiracies and unwarranted suspicion of ulterior motives like everyone else in this thread has been about the green  Seriously, just having a play.


----------



## MrX

Dan's right. He's a fair dinkum Marine Biologist, and you'd be a tough marker to disagree with what he says, too:



> "Calls for blanket fishing area closures of 30%-50%-90% are barking up the wrong tree, and also tend to ignore the huge socio-economic ramifications. The way forward is to fix the real habitat and water quality problems, especially where they occur in our inshore nurseries."


Interesting article on the prawns, too. What happened to the rest of it?



> Actionsurf wrote:
> "The only logic gap is the one in your head bucko. Don't put yourself forward as some political expert when you are JUST a labor voter. And an ill informed one. ....Wake up mate. You may be a greenie, but we're not. And you are correct about one thing and one thing only.....we outnumber you tree huggers 10-1. Hopefully, we'll show that this Saturday and sort the greenie turds out. Once and for all........I really admire your courage though. This is a FISHING website.....that's what the first F stands for in AKFF. I have another F for the greens and labor. It ends in "off".....Stand up fisho's ! Teach these greenie shitbags a lesson."


Ouch! Now I know how Brent Staker felt when your cousin had his "brain snap", Hally!



> "He who owns the balance of power in the senate dictates bills of governance that get passed or don't. The senate decides those mate. "


True. The Senate has the capacity to block legislation initiated by the government in the House of Reps. So if the Greens do get the balance of power tomorrow, they will get significantly more power in our Federal Parliament, and it is possible they will influence decisions on recreational fishing in Australia.

But only in *Commonwealth* waters - the area of Australian jurisdiction that starts outside state/Northern Territory waters (3 nautical miles from the coast) and extends to the outer limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone some 200 nautical miles from the shore. The marine parks at Byron Bay, Morton Bay, Nelson Bay etc were set up, and (miss)managed by our State Govts.

I appreciate this is not the place to debate the Constitution, and you might agree with Ken that this is just a "quaint view of Federalism in Australia". Fact is, the Feds simply don't have the power to legislate in State waters. It's the law.

Just pointing it out to help those who are genuinely worried about our fishing rights, to help you sleep better tonight. ;-)

(And if you are interested, this what our Commonwealth Labor Gov't is doing *outside* the 3nm zone.
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/about/index.html

Let's see what happens. Hope to get out for a fish tomorrow.

(PS: No affiliation with any party. How can you tell when a politician is lying to you? His/her lips move)


----------



## MrX

> A new green zone can't be legistlated in the federal parliament - this much of your statement is true.


I agree Ken, and pleased to see you are now acknowledging it. I was just trying give those give those that didn't know, and were worried about it, a cheerful thought to sleep on before the Federal election. They won't hear it from the Shooting Party.



> Policy and funding dictate everything else. Why does the federal government have an acquaculture policy if it can't do anything in territorial waters? Why does it have agricultural runoff policies?


As I said, this is not the place to educate the forum about our Constitution. We are talking about marine parks, and impacts on fishing. The Commonwealth has a heap of other powers, but like Denis ("The Castle"), I'm crap at roman numerals. You aree drawing a long bow on the extent of the Federal Greens influence on State marine parks now. Dr Spock might start to question the logic.



> Its not helpful to be insincere about it - and everyone IS INDEED about to find what happens to them when the green-controlled labor government pays its debt after tomorrow


I agree it's not helpful to be insincere. Your point?

I also think it's unhelpful to launch gratuitous personal attacks on those you disagree with. Better to engage them, see where they coming from, and try to understand their point view. What do you think?


----------



## garyp

kraley said:


> Its not helpful to be insincere about it - and everyone IS INDEED about to find what happens to them when the green-controlled labor government pays its debt after tomorrow


Say it ain't so Kraley. Say it ain't so. I still hold out hope that common sense can prevail over spin.


----------



## theclick

> I also think it's unhelpful to launch gratuitous personal attacks on those you disagree with. Better to engage them, see where they coming from, and try to understand their point view. What do you think?


Agreed. It is always the same style. Disagree to atleast 3 statement then launch a personal attack on the last reply. It is quite silly.


----------



## Ozzybass

Sorry, I crossed "the line".


----------



## MrX

Oops! You got me on the Spock bit. :lol:



> "You have been toying with everyone here in a completely condescending way since your first post."


No Ken, not from my first post, and not with "everyone here". Only couple, at most. But Hally's a big bad boy, and I think he enjoyed having a punching bag. There's no-one to run the other side of his arguement on the stink-boat forums, and Shooting Party websites.

I may have been guilty of being a tiny bit condescending towards you, but I think your smug "on-line persona" was up for the "pissing contest". No complaints from me - the forum needs "characters" like you and Hally. Hope you meet you on the water one day.

Cheers,
DrX


----------



## BIG1

A final point to consider for those that think this policy doesn't effect state waters, please refer to point 23 of the Greens policy on marine + coastal

http://greens.org.au/policies/enviro...-coastal-areas

20. ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% 'no take' areas per bioregion by 2012.

22. fund the next regional marine planning process with a requirement for its completion around Australia within 10 years.

*23. require States to implement regional marine planning processes in State waters that complement national Regional Marine Plans.*


----------



## actionsurf

A final comment from me on this topic. I'm fishing in the morning on my yak in paradise, then casting my vote. I hope I will be able to fish there again after this election. If labor get in, I doubt that will stay the case for long. It has always and will always produce quality fish because we, the locals, look after it and respect it. We watch how the numbers get better and better every year. It is prime green zone land and earmarked for closure.

To those I've offended, I would like to apologise. That doesn't mean I have done, but I would like to, if you look logically at it.

Let the nation speak and it's people's ignorance hopefully not cost us again.


----------



## theclick

kraley said:


> theclick said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I also think it's unhelpful to launch gratuitous personal attacks on those you disagree with. Better to engage them, see where they coming from, and try to understand their point view. What do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. It is always the same style. Disagree to atleast 3 statement then launch a personal attack on the last reply. It is quite silly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> hey! Mr. 'Evidence is for Losers' is back.
> 
> Where have you been since page 3????????
Click to expand...

I stopped posting because you stopped posting - at the time (you cannot resist the urge for too long, right?). Its a bit of fun revving you up, and I do have a life outside of this forum, so I dont really have the time to go replying to ever piece of banter that pops up in this thread. I am just having some fun just as you are (surely no one gets that riled up about something on a forum).


----------



## theclick

Lapse said:


> Standing in line waiting to vote now
> 
> Anyone else find it hypocritical the greens trying to shove their propaganda in our faces???
> 
> Senate choices will be hard.


I find it funny that the greens often use no-recycled paper to do so. Thats a bit hypocritical.


----------



## Scott

I worked in the tackle trade for many years. One of the things that would constantly amaze me is the holier than thou attitude of particularly the older recreational fisherman. Rarely a day went past without a comment along the lines of "I used to be able to catch a hundred tailor a day before the pros cleaned them out". Sure the pros have a lot to answer for and their by catch is criminal (i have also worked on prawn trawlers out of Brunswick heads) but we do also take our share especially when our numbers are taken into consideration. Did i vote green today i certainly did and I am proud of doing so.


----------



## MrX

> 'I'm fishing in the morning on my yak in paradise &#8230;. It has always and will always produce quality fish because we, the locals, look after it and respect it. We watch how the numbers get better and better every year.'


You are indeed a lucky man, Hally! Not too many spots like that left around my part of the world. The old timers reminisce about them from the "goods old days", but the locals (and the pros, and the pullution) hammered them long ago. My tip: keep your location a secret.

And yes, let the nation speak and it's people's ignorance hopefully not cost us again.
;-)


----------



## theclick

Scott said:


> Did i vote green today i certainly did and I am proud of doing so.


Thats two of us mate.


----------



## garyp

Scott said:


> Did i vote green today i certainly did and I am proud of doing so.


You spelt "green" wrong


----------



## ArWeTherYet

I certainly wont be voting for the Greens. I don't want people who have no interest in rec fishing making decisions on where and when I can fish. I have no problem with conservation that will actually benefit fisheries, but I'm not in favor of lock outs for the sake of lockouts.
Politicians cant be trusted, most wouldn't even know how to tie a hook. Regardless of the outcome I'll be writing to the local members urging them to listen to recreational fishing organizations.
If you like the idea of green zones so much then move to Byron Bay and try fishing in the 2 allotted postage stamp sized fishing zones, but hey don't go now, cause you can only fish there between December and April :roll:.


----------



## bazzoo

or the corollary of which is the sanctuary zones are located at section of reef that contain their food , its a pretty weak old argument mate


----------



## MrX

Shite, it's pandemonium outside those polling booths!

I like fishing, so maybe the Shooters and Fishers Party? The tattooed bloke in the blue singlet with the M16 draped over his shoulder gave me a leaflet, but I'm a lover not a fighter, and "right to bear arms" didn't sway me. Besides, the "Fishers" policies seemed to be aimed at helping commercial industry, rather than conserving stocks for the recreational angler, so not for me.

Was tempted by naked Swedish babe from "The Sex Party" (not getting enough of that!), but was unconvinced by her rec fishing policies. The rubber lure I found in her sample bag me didn't even have hooks on it. The only references I could find on her campaign leaflet were a warning not to drink water because fish fornicate in it, and some fine print on the smell (Or was that Freddy Nile's party?)

The Australian Greens? I asked lovely old lady about the Greens marine parks policy, and what they was going to do about the mismanagement at Cape Byron. She told me her party couldn't do anything about marine parks inside the 3 nm zone, as they are a State issue. But she promised if I voted for them she would shout me a free café latte. :?

Too lazy to go below the line, so ended up putting a big No1 above the line, next to The Brown Turd Party. I was impressed by their policies on the economy, health and education. Probably have to wait a few days before we find out if I helped our Grinner get the balance of power.


----------



## actionsurf

occy said:


> Just came back from a few days in Port Stephen, and couldn't help but notice how much area there is up there still left for fishing.


If you actually did some fishing you might find out for yourself, instead of listening to rubbish (or making it up I suspect)and quoting 'hearsay' as usual. Talk about broken record.

And "X', I'll bet you had the latte mate. ;-) Did she show you her husband's man bag ? When she was talking to you, did she look at you funny, like "I can see 3nm straight through this bloke's ears....what a tosser".

Cheers
Hally


----------



## garyp

actionsurf said:


> A final comment from me on this topic..


Clearly not


----------



## MrX

> Hally wrote:
> And "X', I'll bet you had the latte mate. Did she show you her husband's man bag ? When she was talking to you, did she look at you funny, like "I can see 3nm straight through this bloke's ears....what a tosser".


Ha ha. No mate, your mum is a lovely lady. She politely asked me to promise to stop teasing you. I agreed, and she shouted me a short black. eace:


----------



## Cuda

Did I hear it correctly - we have the first Greenie elected to the lower house now :shock: 
Not a good thing folks :twisted:


----------



## garyp

Yup, Green candidate is in The House.

Not only that, Barnaby Joyce is on the warpath on Channel Nine. I think he is not far off challenging Wayne Swan to a boxing match a la Shannon Nole

Labour 66
COA 63
GRN 1
Other 3

It's going to the wire...


----------



## Cuda

And they have 9 in the senate too :shock: :shock: :twisted: :twisted: 
In a hung parliament situation how much of a say will the greens have????


----------



## garyp

Gillard has wasted no time at all in sucking up to the independents. Vomit


----------



## MrX

Nice one Paddy :lol: . I hear Bob Katter and the boys picked up a few of those knee pads as well!

A well hung parliament in the House of Reps. What a disaster for governance! I reckon "snippet 20" of the Greens platform is the least of our worries.



> "Suffice it to say that everyone here who has been poopooing the impact that green platform will have on actual governance will soon get a first hand understanding of how it works in europe......"


You seem to know a lot about how "it" works in Europe, Ken. I'm interested. Care to elaborate on the impact the green platform will have on actual governance of our kayak fishing here in Oz?


----------



## paffoh




----------



## actionsurf

Garyp, it was my final comment prior to voting commencing. You may well want me to go away, but bad luck pal. So brace yourself.

Well, the nation has spoken and told Labor what it thinks. The ignorant people voted Green, because they're too stupid to understand the other options, and they don't have a strong Democratic party as an option any more. The Greens are getting protest votes from voters who don't like Tony's ears or Julia's hair...or nose....or voice. But the beautiful part is, most of those morons took their vote away from Labor, so I am a happy man.

The Greens have fought a great tactical battle by preying on the average voter's lack of political nouse. But the Greens have shot themselves in the foot by aligning themselves so closely to Labor. Now they will pay for that decision. Numbers in the Senate mean nothing without a majority government on side.

*Without a majority Labor government, the Greens will be a toothless wonder and won't be able to invoke their fishing policy. *

You can be asured that the greenies will get no Coalition support either in the Senate or the House of Reps. Big ears Tony doesn't like Gay marriages or gays even and especially our gay Greens leader who pointed his preferences elsewhere.....so how's Bobby Boy gunna swing this one. Good luck dufus. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Thanks Green voters. You got rid a majority Labor government. Beautiful. 

Once again. Thank you. You know who you are..... ;-)


----------



## actionsurf

DiggerRob said:


> If the LNP are able to form government after this I wonder how long she of the "dyed hair" will last? Any bets? Who will be next, will Bill Shorten step up to the plate? Perhaps Julia will also relieve a midnight knock on the door like Kevie did........that would be justice I say!
> 
> Digger


Bob Hawke


----------



## CeltA

actionsurf said:


> Garyp, it was my final comment prior to voting commencing. You may well want me to go away, but bad luck pal. So brace yourself.
> 
> Well, the nation has spoken and told Labor what it thinks. The ignorant people voted Green, because they're too stupid to understand the other options, and they don't have a strong Democratic party as an option any more. The Greens are getting protest votes from voters who don't like Tony's ears or Julia's hair...or nose....or voice. But the beautiful part is, most of those morons took their vote away from Labor, so I am a happy man.
> 
> The Greens have fought a great tactical battle by preying on the average voter's lack of political nouse. But the Greens have shot themselves in the foot by aligning themselves so closely to Labor. Now they will pay for that decision. Numbers in the Senate mean nothing without a majority government on side.
> 
> *Without a majority Labor government, the Greens will be a toothless wonder and won't be able to invoke their fishing policy. *
> 
> You can be asured that the greenies will get no Coalition support either in the Senate or the House of Reps. Big ears Tony doesn't like Gay marriages or gays even and especially our gay Greens leader who pointed his preferences elsewhere.....so how's Bobby Boy gunna swing this one. Good luck dufus. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
> 
> Thanks Green voters. You got rid a majority Labor government. Beautiful.
> 
> Once again. Thank you. You know who you are..... ;-)


ditto!
If they ever get their stupid fishing exclusion parks in & it effects me, i would like to see them try & stop me. I fish very irregularly, & mainly c&r, so if they want to try tell me to stop its not going to look pretty, their face that is, i have a right to fish wherever\whenever i like, so f#$% them. These peasants who try to stop us, if we all disprove\disregard\ignore this crap then how are they going to police it, it would become a war, we need to defend our\our childrens rights for evermore.


----------



## garyp

actionsurf said:


> Garyp, it was my final comment prior to voting commencing


Please accept my apologies, clearly I failed to read the fine print.


----------



## MrX

> Actionsurf wrote:
> "You may well want me to go away, but bad luck pal. So brace yourself."


I don't think anyone wants you to go away, Hally. We're a tolerant bunch on here. And you are a classic, mate!



> "Without a majority Labor government, the Greens will be a toothless wonder and won't be able to invoke their fishing policy.... Thanks Green voters. You got rid a majority Labor government. Beautiful. "


I sort of agree with you there. It's pretty ironic, isn't it. But I still reckon your mum will still be happy with the result - she told me over a coffee that she had absolutely no interest in invoking any fishing policies that would impact on her pride and joy. She would have looked after you. Be nice to her. (Oh, almost forgot. She asked me to remind you to take your pills in the right order).

And Kraley, looks like you got your worst nightmare for the State's marine parks (Greens with the balance of power in the senate), and I got mine for good governance (hung parlailent in the Reps).

Ready, let's sing it together:

_Some things in life are bad
They can really make you mad
Other things just make you swear and curse.
When you're chewing on life's gristle
Don't grumble, give a whistle
And this'll help things turn out for the best...

And...always look on the bright side of life... 
Always look on the light side of life...

If life seems jolly rotten
There's something you've forgotten
And that's to laugh and smile and dance and sing.
When you're feeling in the dumps
Don't be silly chumps
Just purse your lips and whistle - that's the thing.

And...always look on the bright side of life... 
Always look on the light side of life...

Life's a piece of shit
When you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true.
You'll see it's all a show
Keep 'em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you._


----------



## MrX

> Plenty of examples of neutered conservative parties taht have sold out fisherfolk for the political equivalent of 2 six packs and a carton of smokes all over europe.


Is that why Gatesey can't catch a decent fish in Europe? Damn those Greens, for wrecking it for the fisher folk of the Czech Republic (and the Medteranean)! :lol:


----------



## actionsurf

kraley said:


> It was a perfect storm - by coming so close to taking power (but failing to achieve a mandate) - the liberals have inadvertently handed more power to the greens.


I don't know how you work that out.

I can't wait to watch Brown assume the position. :lol:


----------



## Ralphy

> That's all from Green agenda's that have been won thru small party coercion of weak parliamentary systems.
> 
> Interesting coments. To date I wouldn't have said the Greens (or any other small party's for that matter) have had all that much influence on anything much so far. Of course that is now more likely to change, no matter which party forms government.
> 
> And whilst our parliamentary system is not perfect I would have thought these confusing results suggest we have a fairly strong system. Do you really think it's all that weak, or was that just a throw away line.


I think Kraley was referring to European parliamentary systems.


----------



## ArWeTherYet

Both of the major parties will be on a knife edge, especially the one that can form government. Personally I would rather be in with the opposition and maintain as much pressure on the government as possible. Who ever can hold it together till the next election will win government out right. This will also polarize the Greens, people will see exactly what they stand for, as mentioned, a lot of people voted for the Greens, much the way you use to vote for the Demarcates, but while the Dems were pretty much benign the Greens are a lot more pro active. Bob Brown is fairly moderate compared to some in the party and small parties tend to self implode once they get into power.............Interesting times......time to write some letters to the local member about better outcomes for fisherpeople.


----------



## actionsurf

To me this is the _best possible outcome_ from this election for fishers. The Greens were always going to get an increased presence in both houses, but without a labor majority that increase is harmless to fishers for now. Any other scenario, except for a majority Coalition win, was a nightmare for recreational fisherman and the fishing industry, not to mention most coastal towns. Threat averted IMO ....for now.

Now all concerned parties can get down to working out how best to protect our fisheries and the future. Sensible decisions can be made. The other option was being dictated to by one fringe, with probably irreversible results. Fisherman are the farmers of the sea and the farmer knows best how to keep his land producing. The greens have achieved some good things in the past but like I said in a very early post, the have gotten way too big for their boots. I wouldn't mind betting that some of those coastal QLD and NSW seats that the libs. won back were _very_ heavily affected by the fishing vote. I hope the greens learn from that.

Talks need to start now before this possibility arises again.


----------



## bazzoo

Just heard on the news that the pendulum may have swung back to the lib-nats, as Anthony Albanesy may have lost his safe seat for the labour party to the Greens , and i think that may give the libs a majority , small though it may be , but they will rely heavily on the 3 Queensland independants who are all ex Nats . However the fly in the ointment is that idiot Barnaby Joyce , Hogans Ghost what a buffoon , i'm surprised his nickname isnt " Lucky " as hes dead set lucky someone hasnt flattened him as yet ., never mind , theres still time


----------



## MrX

> "You should maybe ask Gatesy how difficult it is to go fishing over there. Then ask someone in Germany. Or Sweden. Or Switzerland. No catch and release (hurts the sea puppies). License fees that are unreal. Completely restricted access. That's all from Green agenda's that have been won thru small party coercion of weak parliamentary systems."


You are right about Switzerland, Ken. You needed a license to fart over there long before the "green agenda" (whatever that is :? )! Tell Gatesy not to bother dropping a line, the greens took it a bit further, and banned the entire fugging ocean! Awesome place for skiing though, and the lakes are pretty to look at.

The carp fishing in Germany is not too bad (even if highly regulated under "the greens agenda"). But there are better things to do in the middle of Europe (like drinking beer):
http://berlin.angloinfo.com/information/32/fishing.asp

Tell Gatesey to get his arse over to a well governed country like Sweden for a fish!
http://www.gofishn.com/content/sweden
"Licenses and Regulations
All waters in Sweden are private and may be administered by the owner or a fishing club. Every angler needs a license to fish in all lakes and rivers, except for the four biggest lakes (Vänern, Vättern, Hjälmaren, and Storsjön), where it is free to fish with a rod and reel. Private water may be accessed for a fee, which is nominal in most cases. Salmon rivers are the exception. Fishing from or along the coast is also free. Some areas and/or species may be protected, however. In some places, restrictions pertaining to a minimum size for certain species, angling methods, or seasons may apply. Anglers should check the regulations, which are printed (in Swedish) on the back of licenses. Licenses are obtainable at tourist centers, tackle shops, and guest houses."

But I don't think your rail against the "green agenda" in Sweden (or over here in Oz ) is really just about our "right to fish" (and fair enough, too ;-) ).



> "I was indeed talking about parliamentary systems that have had to deal with coalition building regularly. They tend to exist in a permanent state of hung parliament. Italy, for instance has had dozens of goverments in the last several years because the parties are not strong. Germany regulary has some crazy wackjob party or the other dictating its agenda to the weaker main parties. Israel regulary sees orthodox conservative small parties forming governments with the progressives (because the progressives aren't strong enough to form governmetn without their participation). Its messy.
> Australia and Canada are regarded as strong systems because they tend to have sucessful parties that aren't too beholden to small special interests.
> Australia joined a club last night - and not a good one if you don't like seeing minority opinions having huge influence on the majority."


Well said, and 100% agreement from me! This result in the House of Reps is a catastrophe for good governance.


----------



## garyp

actionsurf said:


> Fisherman are the farmers of the sea and the farmer knows best how to keep his land producing


Action, right up until that line, I thought what you were saying had merit and was a sound argument.

I cant agree with the above line though. Fishing has got about as much to do with farming as killing Rhinos does with running the local RSPCA. If fishermen know best how to keep their land producing then how do we explain the fishtraps that very nearly wiped out the Kingfish population altogether?

Please don't get me wrong, I am not for the Greens or the idea of 30% of our coastline being dedicated Green Zones. I am however very much for regulation of size limits and bag limits, which only really make any sense if the Commercial industry is properly regulated.

Without regulation our fish stocks will suffer the same fate as those of their European cousins.


----------



## grinner

yeeeehaaaa

bob katters gunna get on telly, 
he's the sort of bloke makes me proud to be a queenslander. and that voice, i may be applying for one of bob browns gay marriage licences . i always thought bob should run a phone sex line.

wonder what they'll do with kevvy.
send him to antarctica to do a penguin count  

you gotta admire tony, even though he is a nutbag. how he's managed to wreck kev and julia in such a short period of time. and that pulling an all nighter was a masterstroke.
made him look like superman and got him a lot of the clubbing vote.

maybe we'll have to decide the winner by a penalty shoot out.


----------



## actionsurf

garyp said:


> actionsurf said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fisherman are the farmers of the sea and the farmer knows best how to keep his land producing
> 
> 
> 
> Action, right up until that line, I thought what you were saying had merit and was a sound argument.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. I got a bit carried away there.  Got all sanctimonious.

And I agree with you and have always said we need regulations. I am a recreational fisherman who has fished all over NSW and QLD over five decades. If I target a species I get them. I most often release everything, unless there is a particular fish I want to eat. It shits me when I see other recreational fisherman take everything they catch. But I don't worry, because these type of people don't usually catch much and don't have a clue. We need regulations. Enforceable ones, consistent ones and smart ones. Not just MPA's and 'no fish' zones everywhere. A lot more needs to be taken into account. Like pollution/developmental run off, commercial takes and nets in particular, bag limits, breeding zone seasonal restrictions and size limits. We also need to take into account the impact that restrictions cause to those that make a living from the industry and the coastal communities/towns/cities that are nearly totally dependent on fishing and tourism. Then we can start talking MPA's.

I think we're whistling the same tune. ;-)


----------



## ArWeTherYet

kraley said:


> Australia joined a club last night - and not a good one if you don't like seeing minority opinions having huge influence on the majority.


Lets just hope they don't bring in proportional voting, or else it will be like this forever. :roll:


----------



## garyp

actionsurf said:


> I think we're whistling the same tune


It sure sounds the same! 

Interestingly, seeing as small coastal communities have been mentioned, when a new Minister for Environment was installed in South Africa about ten years ago, all 4WD activity on beaches was banned. This had the almost instant consequence to many small coastal towns that many fishermen / divers stopped coming to these towns as in many of them you could only access the good fishing spots by driving along the beach for miles.

One of the towns I fished at almost every year on family holidays was called St Lucia. I don't know what it's ultimate fate has been, but a single year after the ban was brought in that place was a ghost town, with many locals having to move away after the tourists stopped coming.

Could that happen here? I don't know, but it interesting to reflect on what has happened elsewhere.


----------



## MrX

> Actionsurf wrote:
> "And I agree with you and have always said we need regulations......We need regulations. Enforceable ones, consistent ones and smart ones. Not *just* MPA's and 'no fish' zones everywhere. A lot more needs to be taken into account. Like pollution/developmental run off, commercial takes and nets in particular, bag limits, breeding zone seasonal restrictions and size limits. We also need to take into account the impact that restrictions cause to those that make a living from the industry and the coastal communities/towns/cities that are nearly totally dependent on fishing and tourism."


I don't know if your mum helped you out with that one Hally, but it's a pretty good summation. You are welcome to the next Brown Turd meeting.


----------



## fongss

i'm just saying this is worth a read

http://www.macleayargus.com.au/news/loc ... 14941.aspx

it's a hot topic back home ;-)

basicly, if it means more fish in the future for my kids

yeah....i'll sux it up and live with it :?


----------



## actionsurf

Edit - foot removed from mouth


----------



## BIG1

Jouralists summary of what has happened to the fishing debate

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... 13hef.html


----------



## MrX

A good balanced summary of your topic, Big.



> "At the extremes of this argument,
> (a) some fishers reject *any* blame for overfishing,
> (b) while animal activists are opposing cruelty to sentient creatures.
> But the main game focuses on a national set of marine reserves that until now had bipartisan, if tediously slow, support."


The angry knuckleads in camp (a) accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being an extreme greenie treehuggers from camp (b). 
While the fanatic animal-activists from camp (b) accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being a selfish knucklehead from camp (a).

Both extremist engage in wild passionate arguments, beating up their straw-man opponents.

The mainstream debate about marine parks/conservation areas takes place between those two extremes.

Where does that leave us recreational fishos who want to fish now, but subscribe to the view that we should take steps to conserve our fisheries for future fishos as well, even if it involves the establishment of well managed and scientifically supportable marine parks/conservation areas? We get attacked from both sides.


----------



## keza

I can't believe we have to chose between nutters that say no more fishing and even worse nutters that say, go for it, clean the place out, there isn't a problem and by the way global warming is a myth.

Maybe we (recreational fisherman) should take a positive approach (unlike the rest of Australia) and start putting notes together for how we believe our fish stocks can be improved and maintained.
As I have said before the commercial guys wouldn't like my proposals but what they do at the moment is unsustainable. It isn't farming, it's rape and pillage.
If they are prepared to put money into marine parks, then they should be prepared to put money into policing existing legislation and educating people.

I saw an old guy at the wharf yesterday who had an undersized trev in his bucket.
He asked me if I new what kind of fish it was :shock: plenty of room for education there.
How about a fish ID chart and measure on each of these wharfs.

Occy.
Port Stephens (inside the bay) is one of the deadest pieces of water I have ever fished.
The commercial guys drag the bay in front of the holiday makers and feed all the undersized fish to the pelicans and cormorants. The net I saw them empty, they killed about 500 fish and keep about 20.
I wonder how many marine parks it would take to keep pace with these two guys alone.


----------



## BIG1

keza said:


> Maybe we (recreational fisherman) should take a positive approach (unlike the rest of Australia) and start putting notes together for how we believe our fish stocks can be improved and maintained.


Keza you may be surprised to learn that recfish NSW has a marine park propsal on its website. I think it needs a little polish but they have been advocating marine parks for quite some time. Problem is that they cannot communicate this to the majority of rec fisherman. I have some friends in it and my only criticism is that they MUST bring out a marine park policy for debate, get as many rec guys views on it as possible then get it drafted with legal advice. I suspect the diggles model would be a good start. He advocates marine parks and "control" lock out zones (not this min 30% rubbish) and goes on about water quality sustaining eggs and larvae. I think if we could couple this with size increases to effect additional breeding cycles, closed breeding seasons, reduced quantities, absolute boat limits, no kill comps, no anchor zones, I suspect we could bring the greens, govt and the majority of rec fishos with us, rather than a logging head approach.

And mate haven't you heard it is now "Climate change" get with the times :lol:


----------



## MrX

I agree with you, Big! (except for your bit about Keza not knowing about climate change).

Recfish's MPA policy is worth a read. It looks like they lifted it strait from the Brown Turd Party's website.

http://www.recfish.com.au/docs/policy/Recfish Australia MPA Policy 21 September 2007.pdf



> "Problem is that they cannot communicate this to the majority of rec fisherman."


I think they should promote it, to take the oxygen from the extremist boofheads/tree-huggers. There should be no stigma in supporting the sensible the middle ground.


----------



## actionsurf

The recfish proposal is a step in the right direction. It offers some intelligent alternatives to fishing oblivion. But it is not the holy grail.

Let's face it. Commercial fisherman are never going to agree to anything that removes productive ground from their radar. The problem is that families have been built around fishing to extremes, the goal being to catch every target fish possible, everywhere possible. Juvenile by-catch (which tend to be the struggling species) have been treated as nuisance value and terminated.

There are too many commercial fishing boats. In every region. The only answer is to pay out those that want to be paid out. And there's plenty. Trouble is they are being offered bugger all to go away. If your life depended upon the income you'd gotten used to, you'd be reluctant to accept shite too.

*Recreational fisho's are no danger to fish stocks *. Today's recreational fisherman is all about catch & release & care. Comps now are moving to catch/photo/release. It won't be long before that's manditory. Game fishing has led the way for years. Remember the photo's of the hung Marlin and Sharks? *What else do they want us to do?* Rec fisho standards have changed considerably over the past 20 years. Dickhead rec. fisho's never, ever catch anything of note anyway and keep everything they catch which is stuff all. They set the reputation we get lumbered with and they couldn't catch a feed to save their life.

Cheers
Hally


----------



## BIG1

actionsurf said:


> The recfish proposal is a step in the right direction. It offers some intelligent alternatives to fishing oblivion. But it is not the holy grail.
> 
> _Agreed it does need debate and polish, and remeber they only represent recreational fisherman_
> 
> Let's face it. Commercial fisherman are never going to agree to anything that removes productive ground from their radar. The problem is that families have been built around fishing to extremes, the goal being to catch every target fish possible, everywhere possible. Juvenile by-catch (which tend to be the struggling species) have been treated as nuisance value and terminated.
> 
> There are too many commercial fishing boats. In every region. The only answer is to pay out those that want to be paid out. And there's plenty. Trouble is they are being offered bugger all to go away. If your life depended upon the income you'd gotten used to, you'd be reluctant to accept shite too.
> 
> _I'm all for paying them really good money, offers they can't refuse. Only problem is what will happen to the fish mongers, fish markets and the cost of fish when they all go?_
> 
> *Recreational fisho's are no danger to fish stocks *. Today's recreational fisherman is all about catch & release & care. Comps now are moving to catch/photo/release. It won't be long before that's manditory. Game fishing has led the way for years. Remember the photo's of the hung Marlin and Sharks? *What else do they want us to do?* Rec fisho standards have changed considerably over the past 20 years. Dickhead rec. fisho's never, ever catch anything of note anyway and keep everything they catch which is stuff all. They set the reputation we get lumbered with and they couldn't catch a feed to save their life.
> 
> _Agreed, this is the stigma we have to get rid of._
> 
> Cheers
> Hally


----------



## MrX

No doubt commercial fishing and pollution are by far the greatest threats to our fisheries.

Andrew Darby wrote:


> "(a) some fishers reject *any* blame for overfishing,"


Actionsurf wrote:


> "Recreational fisho's are *no* danger to fish stocks"


You and I are no danger to fish stocks, Hally. Neither is Kraley. But I suspect more than a few of the other 3 million or so rec fishers are not angels like us, and have a detrimental impact on our fish stocks. Like the heros who took these photos (possibly legally, and hopefully just before they ate them):
http://www.akff.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=41206

The good guys like us don't need laws and regulations to make us behave. We have to suffer the (minor) inconvenience of bureaucracy, because of the dickheads who don't respect the marine environment.

Recfish policy statement:


> "Unity - a unified approach (national, state and local) and will assist recreational fishers to present well researched, credible alternatives to Government that meet the objectives of MPAs but minimise the impacts on recreational fishers".


----------



## actionsurf

We can all find photo's of fish caught in numbers. So what. I'll bet that first photo was the catch from a charter boat that had 20 fisherman on board. 2 each average They'll go out once a year if a lifetime. The second was whiting...again probably from a group of people, as above. You just about need that many for a decent feed for 4 people anyway...and whiting are not under any threat from what I can see. They're everywhere. Like Mullet....and they get the shit farmed out of them by the pro's. It would be nice to think kayak fisho's could get a special exemption, but that won't happen because pollies are too stupid and everything needs to be black or white....and green is worse.


----------



## johnny

high tide of green influence may be this term once everyone discerns them n their policies more closely than feelgood quips...

remember gimme a boy femodemocrats...stott destroyer doc martin lesbionic abortion feministi....who?

saw in sydney..no such thing as clean coal'-vote greens....wonder if they ran that line in newcastle/hunter ..


----------



## ArWeTherYet

Yeah Johnny. I think Bob Brown has managed to keep the Greens fairly conservative over the years, don't know how long he can hold the more radical ones back. Once people realize there policies are going to hurt there hip pocket and affect there freedom, they wont be so happy. On a side note I'm a bit disappointed Bob has left his partner out for the most. If he's there he is usually in the back ground, could at least hold his hand, maybe a congratulatory kiss, could even slip the tongue in, that would be good for the cameras. :shock: :lol:


----------



## MrX

OK Hally, you've made your point (and mine ;-) ). You are a proud member of "camp (a)".


----------



## Baitman

Its not ALL about the fish!

An interesting analysis of the Greens policies from the esteemed Lowy Foundation.
http://www.lowyinterpreter.org/?d=D - Greens foreign policy


----------



## actionsurf

Just stumbled across this old thread :lol:

How's them greens and labor looking now ?

Sorry, couldn't help myself......


----------



## keza

actionsurf said:


> Just stumbled across this old thread :lol:
> 
> How's them greens and labor looking now ?
> 
> Sorry, couldn't help myself......


I don't like them but they are looking better by the day  
Sorry, I couldn't help yourself.


----------

