# Good news for NSW fishers



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Here's some good news from the NSW political coal face. This is now becoming law.

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/mar ... ill-passed


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Occy - Your muesli munching, sandal wearing mates ensured that not one NSW Marine Park was placed in a Labor seat during the same statewide political blitzkrieg that railroaded 1.4 million voters who supported both our fundamental right to fish and our fundamental right to political transparency.

Prior to the election your muesli munching, sandal wearing mates ensured some NSW marine parks were zoned in such a way that they completely failed to encourage public opportunities for enjoyment, appreciation and understanding. That's one of the reasons a new administration was elected and one of the reasons why the taxpayers of NSW are spending money on a Moratorium as well as a full scientific audit right now.

After this audit is completed I'm hoping there'll be enough evidence stacked against those muesli munching, sandal wearing, Green appeasing bosses and managers of the NSW Marine Park Authority that they find themselves embroiled in a police investigation.

Occy - You are a kayak angler. I urge to to attempt to extract and keep for the table a snapper legally taken within Cape Byron Marine Park today on your kayak. I can 100% guarantee that any attempt you make will see you issued with a $500 on the spot fine and not a political leg to stand on. Please

Occy, tell me how the political marine parks process under the direction of your muesli munching, sandal wearing mates encouraged opportunities for recreational kayak anglers using Byron Marine Park to enjoy, understand and appreciate their NSW marine park?


----------



## Zed (Sep 18, 2006)

Good for you. We actually just had a similar court victory. Judge deemed the MPA's slated to be enforced on 01OCT11, were not above board. Shady railroading of laws w/o public comment. Although they said it was all public, several closed door meetings did take place, and the whole South Coast (California) process might be scrapped and re-worked. Some big $$$ contributors were dead-set on this going thru to its fullest. It was disgusting how the few public comment meetings went. Total rail-job! No science, just a knee-jerk closure under the guise of habitat protection.

And the fishermen rejoice.
http://www.oal.ca.gov/res/docs/pdf/disa ... appDec.pdf

Sorry for the thread-jack. Sometimes when it seems darkest, there's hope out there.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

We will still be up for a real shit fight at the end of it. 
Waverly and Woollahra councils are fighting for a no take zone from gordons bay to camp cove and now as expected someone is campaigning to have coogee and clovely included.
That sort of takes out pretty much 80% of the coastal fishing in the eastern suburbs. 
Last week I gave a radio interview and spoke in opposition to it for 2 articles. These people are happy to buy fish from the rape and pillage we call 'commercial fishing', they are happy to pump sewerage out to sea, they are happy to let storm water and rubbish wash into out coast but if they stick up a sign that says 'marine park' then they have done their job.
I have still never seen a fisheries officer in the whole area they are talking about and yet if you dog is off a lead 10 rangers are on you in a second, if the councils want to care about OUR coast then they could maybe put some funding into policing existing regulations. It is all such a political crock.

Sorry, I feel better now.


----------



## blackbandit (Aug 22, 2011)

Impressed with the restraint you have exhibited in not using more "colourful" language Kerry! ;-) :lol: :lol:

Rantmeter Score: 7/10

Mick


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

Fist pump time!

Occy, boooooo! 10/10 for fishers and shooters.


----------



## Wrassemagnet (Oct 17, 2007)

keza said:


> We will still be up for a real shit fight at the end of it.
> Waverly and Woollahra councils are fighting for a no take zone from gordons bay to camp cove and now as expected someone is campaigning to have coogee and clovely included.
> That sort of takes out pretty much 80% of the coastal fishing in the eastern suburbs.
> Last week I gave a radio interview and spoke in opposition to it for 2 articles. These people are happy to buy fish from the rape and pillage we call 'commercial fishing', they are happy to pump sewerage out to sea, they are happy to let storm water and rubbish wash into out coast but if they stick up a sign that says 'marine park' then they have done their job.
> ...


Good on you for doing the radio interviews Kerry. A moratorium is exactly what's needed to give time to gather evidence. It'll be good to get some real data to balance the debate which has been way too one-sided for a long time now. Hopefully there will be some real data in 5 years time to play with rather than the genitals that the Greens have been self stimulating to date. If the data is biased it will be obvious to any scientist based on analysing the design of the study and therefore will be unable to stand up to careful examination. If the data is 'good' and supports limiting recreational fishing access (which I very much doubt) then so be it but if the data is good and discredits limiting recreational fishing access then so be it as well! Fist pump time all right!


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Sh*t I nearly forgot... Where would we be without this:


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

A few points from the non-learned.

(1) Not all marine parks and 'no take' zones are bad for fishermen. Logic would dictate that having undisturbed areas should help fish populations which we benefit from.

(2) Revoking 'no take' zones without scientific evidence is worse than setting them up without scientific evidence, due to the precautionary principle.

(3) I live surrounded by marine parks of various forms. I still have lots of places to fish.

(4) Setting new marine parks without consultation is wrong, but I know some that were modified through consultation (e.g. Broughton Island).

(5) Placating to the Greens or the Shooters and Fishers is acceptible and called democracy. They have constituents that voted them in on principles they at least stick to.

One point from the learned.

(6) There has been more scientific study into sewage discharges in Sydney's oceans that show no harm than will ever be spent on justifying marine parks or revoking them.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

(7) Nuclear energy is a good clean source and has never harmed anybody.

The key factor here is who funds the research as it can be shaped to help any ones argument.

ps. I so love the smell of shit when I swim at the beach.

pps. I forgot to mention that dioxins have no ill effects on fish either so maybe we should just dump more of those and kill off the fisherman.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

A few more points for the non-learned:

* NSW Marine Parks are apparently reflected in the way they are managed and maintained. By all accounts Lord Howe is relatively well managed, Jarvis Bay is relatively well managed, Batemans is somewhat well managed, Port Stephens and Great Lakes are working on it, Solitary Islands is heavily skewed against fishing and Cape Byron Political Park is nothing more than a dirty little nobsling that waves its environmentally wrinkled penis in the face of every Australian who ever picked up a fishing rod.

* I live next to a political park and I have nowhere feasible to fish from a kayak for at least 8 months a year due to zonings, species bans and seasonal closures.

* After five years of lobbying government, attending bullshit inquiries and seeking amendments, I bought a stinkboat and a V8 motor car because there is nowhere feasible to fish from a kayak across the road or within thirty kilometres North or South of my home. To legally catch a snapper in my local area I am forced to emit 1.4 tonnes of carbon over 5 years and travel up to 180km per week. Is that what the people of NSW are supposed to call sustainability?

* Its pretty easy for people like Ado and Occy to pontificate with an almighty pen from within their glasshouses but until they experience the ultimate political insult of having 6000 local submissions completely ignored while the submissions of 325 radical environmentalists were totally embraced by good old Bob Debus and his best buddy Sir Lunch-a-lot this whole dirty little secret is a bit hard to swallow.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

kraley said:


> There is nothing in logic to suggest that removing apex predation actually improves populations of prey.


Are you suggesting that sx40's, Starlo and Bushy and Fluorocarbon have existed on an evolutionary timescale? I don't think we can be classed as an apex predator in the sense of a 'balanced ecosystem' anymore. Otherwise this would translate (admitedly on a far more exagerated svale) to trawling. Your example may provide a case for hand spearing without goggles, flippers, etc, but even this may be debatable. I agree that managed harvesting can be beneficial, but I would argue that in most ecosystems undeharvesting is less destructive than overharvesting because its reversible.



kraley said:


> So I would contest whether logic actually suggests what you are maintaining at all. There are plenty of game species that exist in superior numbers to their 'natural' state with vigourous management with the intent to provide recreations access to hunting - why not fish? What is your hypothesis?


Agreed, but failure has been more common than success.



kraley said:


> Ah, the old Vorsorgeprinzip - I understand its popularity - however I would maintain that an over-amplification of 'duty of care' also leads to a tightening on civil liberties, a reduction in innovation and would have prevented the adoption of lots of neat stuff that I currently enjoy and that are fundamental to our modern lifestyle - shit like medicine, transportation, space exploration, computers.


I don't follow this argument. The precautionary principle in not over-amplification of 'duty of care'. It merely states that an _irreversible_ risk of adverse environmental consequence should be avoided unless and untril the risk is known. My argument was that setting marine parks is reversible, the opposite _may_ not be. Both actions are morally flawed without social and scientific input.

I don't see how this extapolates to computers or medicine.



kraley said:


> there isn't any evidence that shows that recreational fishing has decimated ocean going fish stocks in all that time.


Big call. There was a discussion recently on the numbers of pipees at our beaches now when compared to when people were kids. If there is the decline that people seemed to think was thre case, then this was not likely to be due to commercial harvesting. There are a lot more people on Earth now (due to good things like technology and medicine and hygiene) than the 'natural' ecosystem ever envisaged. If the new 'natural' state is to have very few species left or for humanity limited by chronic starvation then I think we should (for our own sake) intervene before that time.



kraley said:


> if people are worried about fish stocks, they need to stop stuffing their faces with commercial catch.


Agreed wholeheartedly. I would think that recreational fishing would have a very small impact by comparison. I just don't think we can claim no impact.



spooled1 said:


> I live next to a political park and I have nowhere feasible to fish from a kayak for at least 8 months a year due to zonings, species bans and seasonal closures.


If that was the case for me I would undoubtadly feel very different and far more passionate about the subject. I can only argue from my world, accepting that others will argue from theirs. I should say that I have no issue with the marine parks that surround _me_.



spooled1 said:


> Its pretty easy for people like Ado and Occy to pontificate with an almighty pen from within their glasshouses


My house is fibro, though it does have glass doors.  . I don't think my right index finger is all that mighty and never wish my scrawled thoughts to be treated as any sort of lecture or learning experience. I don't intend to sway anyone, just put forward an argument.



keza said:


> ps. I so love the smell of shit when I swim at the beach.


It may smell like it, but it aint it (well not human anyway, unless from a board rider caught in a large close-out). If you swim on Sydney beaches then any contamination you smell or are infected by is almost certainly from the stormwater system (e.g. dog poo) and not from a sewage outfall. The harbour is a very different matter (sewer overflows during heavy rain), but is getting better.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

No you're wrong, when the winds blows from a certain direction you can smell it at both Bondi and Malabar.
If you want I can give you a call and you can come down and have a sniff.

Re your other comments, I agree about the bait collect from around the shore line (ie pipis), this is a very narrow strip and it can't support the amount of people that have access to it. 
Most of the fish we fish for are pelagic so this doesn't apply to the fishing before you try.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

keza said:


> No you're wrong, when the winds blows from a certain direction you can smell it at both Bondi and Malabar.


What you may therefore be smelling is the ventilation systems from the underground plants or sewer systems. These have scrubbers but they may not be entirely effective. My arument is that you are not smelling sewage from the water you are swimming in.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Ado said:


> If that was the case for me I would undoubtadly feel very different and far more passionate about the subject. I can only argue from my world, accepting that others will argue from theirs. I should say that I have no issue with the marine parks that surround _me_.


Ado, your answer also explains part of the reason why it took a change of Government to achieve both a Moratorium and the upcoming Scientific audit (where public submissions continue to be accepted until September 30)

So many NSW anglers are in your enviable position. Occasionally they go on holidays and before they know it they cop a $500 fine and realise that not only have their civil liberties been stripped away from them, they weren't even aware about the extent of the closures or the significance of the lockouts. Then, when they think they can dispute the $500 fine in court, they soon realise the the NSW MPA appointed lawyers have the executive power to enforce from the Marine Parks Act, Fisheries Management Act, National Parks and Wildlife Act, Protection of the Environment Operations Act and the Historic Shipwrecks Act to ensure your (and anyone elses) arse can be sent up the proverbial river.

Can a complacent NSW citizen please answer this question: What other NSW State Government Authorities can match or better the NSW Marine Park Authorities powers of enforcement and legislated ability to draw from SIX (6) NSW Government Acts in a single compliance dispute?

I would personally argue that this is another significant reason why a full scientific audit of the NSW MPA is desperately required and well overdue.

And who do we have to thank for this oversized clusterf*ck of political incomprehensibility? A bunch of muesli munching, sandal wearing... (Enough said)


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

spooled1 said:


> What other NSW State Government Authorities can match or better the NSW Marine Park Authorities powers of enforcement and legislated ability to draw from SIX (6) NSW Government Acts?


I would guess the NSW EPA is one (now Office of the Environment). They can draft regulation (law) without it going through parliament, then prosecute a _criminal_ conviction that is strict liability (i.e. there is no defence). You can get a $15,000 fine under clean waters, clean air, noise control, or POE act, plus a criminal conviction and have no defence. It could be argued that watering your lawn is in breach of the clean waters act (making you a criminal) as you are discharging a pollutant (e.g. chlorine) to waters (which includes land under which there is a water table) without lawful authority (you don't have an EPA licence).

There are many drachonian laws in this and many states. It relies on the authorities with these extraordinary powers to exercise them wisely. In fact it is beholdent upon them to do so. It goes with the territory. If you don't believe these powers are being exercised wisely then persue it through local members or representatives. These authorities are very much tightly controlled and influenced by the State government of the day.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

I'm actually surprised that the NSW EPA Act isn't contained within the MPA framework... Yet! (edit) Woops , sorry... wasn't the Protection of the Environment Operations Act already listed?

Aghhhh... Who cares!

Maybe they should all just run a competition to see how many Acts each others Authority can canvass as part of thier own Act and give a prize to the state winner.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

It's all about definitions Kraley. We can continue to argue within highly granular definitions and each claim our arguments to be 'correct' by redefining or fine tuning the defining. that serves litle purpose to either of us.

My point is that we have an impact on ecosystems by sport-fishing, and that impact is more likely to be negative than positive. I'm not saying we have or will cause mass extinctions (or any extinction) or we should stop doing what we do. I am saying that, from my personal experience, there is room for marine parks and no-take zones without appreciably affecting what I want to do. These areas may allow others to do what they want to do, or want to test, or even just want to feel. If this got to the point where I was unable to fish because someone else wanted to claim it _all_ for another purpose then I would be extremely unhappy. I can therefore understand others being unhappy if I wanted to claim it _all_ for fishing.

When I mentioned the precautionary principal it was within the context of the discussion at hand; how it is applied in the drafting of environmental regulations in NSW. I have some experience with this through my small part in renegotiation of the EPA licencing framework in the early 1990s, particularly in helping to set nutrient pollution reduction programmes for the Hawkesbury-Nepean. I was not attempting to be disingenuous and I don't know how it is applied by the 'radical environmental left'. The principal of _irreversible_ damage was very much paramount to the way it was applied then and I presume now. Damage in some form is treated as an unwanted but accepted byproduct living in the way that most of us want to live. No-one was expecting the H/N to be the pristine river it was before 1788, but no-one wants to accept it as toxicly eutrophied either.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

occy said:


> Now, as I said, my comments were not to be taken as a political rant


(everyone take a yawn of boredom) Paul, this will happen when you stop ranting.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

occy said:


> (you all know who I mean, and it's not Dru who is harmless most of the time. quote]
> 
> Damn - now I'm being mistaken for a Douglas Adans novel. :?
> 
> ...


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Paul , i would love to see an in depth scientific study of the effects of sanctuary zones , and the effects of both commercial fishing [ we know the results of that ] and sport fishing , and i would applaud the result no matter which way it went .But as the government of the day has indicated that this will happen, i dont see why you are suggesting that this wont happen , unless your comments are politically motivated , and after reading your posts several times , it seems this is the case


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

occy said:


> Does anyone actually have anything to say about the actual topic?


I thought we were. It may not be the topic you brought up Occy in your post, but it is the topic in the original post. It may be more generalised than you wish it to be, but I think it's still on topic.



occy said:


> Here's my view for what it's worth. I reckon it's a great idea, especially if it actually produces some scientific evidence supporting the concept. And if it doesn't I'll be even pleased, because that will mean things are going pretty well from an environmental perspective.


That seems pretty on-topic too. An opinion uncoloured by party political persuasion. Well done mate. I agree.



kraley said:


> You first said that marine parks were simply logical.


No I didn't. What I said was 'Logic would dictate that having undisturbed areas should help fish populations which we benefit from.' You are a persuasive arguer Kraley. You don't need to resort to miquoting to lend weight to your arguments. They are plenty weighty by themselves. ;-) . I never implied that all marine parks are good for us. I did imply that saying the opposite (all marine parks are bad for us) is also not true. There is lots of space in between those two poiints to work within.



kraley said:


> If you care about the environment and you are committed to logic, then the most common cause of the problem should be addressed first - not last.


I know we are men (well many of us unfortunates are), but we can occasionally muti-task. I don't see why we can't do things in parallel to speed up the process a bit. I couldn't agree more that the pareto benefit of eliminating commercial fishing from large areas is likely to have the greatest benefit, especially the less targetted and motre destructive version such as trawling (e.g sydney harbour). That's just another reason why I think marine parks (which are predominantly angler friendly but commercial no-go in my area) are a good thing (to me but obviously not the commercial fishos). The sanctuary zones are a considerably smaller subset that I can live with and I can see some benefit in. At least they are worth a try so some 'before and after' science can be conducted. Using your anology, it would be like saying we should ban air travel as the first step towards carbon reduction because of the pareto impact. I disagree, and consider tackling everything in parallel is a reasonable starting point. We can then tighten some areas and relax others as time (and information) goes by.



kraley said:


> Then you invoked a term (precautionary principle) to justify the changing of a status quo, but have backed away from its connotation, if not its denotation.


Again I did not invoke the term to justify changing of status quo. I'm sorry that I didn't use your definition of the precautionary principle (referencing a German Wikipedia in the process) because I knew of no other definition at the time that I used it. I pointed out my understanding of the definition as I have experienced in the setting of NSW environmental regulations. This is what I always meant. To quote the late Kerry Packer, 'you can either believe me or call me a liar'.

My intent always has been to say that there is a greater risk (percieved or real) of causing irriversible damage in removing marine parks than invoking them. For this reason the revoking of them should (according to NSW environmental law) only be done once the risks are known. According to law their should be greater rigour in removing them than creating them.



kraley said:


> The movement to ban fishing in the eastern suburbs isn't primarily an environmental concern, it is an elitist power grab - it has nothing to do with science - but they sure as hell will be invoking the precautionary principle, completely disingenuously.


I don't know the facts about the eastern suburbs of Sydney. You may well be right. If that's the case then the process is flawed. They may wish to invoke the precationary principle but my understanding is they won't succeed on those grounds because the precautionary principal in NSW regulations applies to change, not status quo.

I'm not denying that your local marine park may be bad. I'm asking that you don't deny the one's near me as being good without the equivalent scientific justication that you (quite rightly) demand.

Here's an interesting side note that some may want to look into for ammunition for your local cause. The eastern suburbs has two untreated near shore sewage outfalls at Vaucluse and Diamond Bay. Because there are no beaches nearby, there is limited impact to public health. Nevertheless, Sydney Water at great expense to the overall rating base of Sydney was planning on piping these archaic remnants of early sydney to Bondi for treatment at Bondi STP and release and disperion through the deep water ocean oufall off the coast. My undertsanding is that this was rejected by local residents during public submissions because they would prefer to have their poo untreated than have their lives disrupted by having local streets and parks dug up for the required pumping stations and pipelines.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

gra said:


> dru said:
> 
> 
> > The tough part comes when I am duty bound to support F+S in their hunting campaign.
> ...


Interesting question. I guess simply that I am not a hunter and have no intention of ever hunting, I'm not entirely comfortable with it, and would not really want to actively support it. [In my mind Gra repeats the question] "What's the difference?" Oh hell, nothing really.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Oh, and in response your love of Wikipedia Kraley I thought I should provide this quote. It is selective, so feel free to go here for the full (english) version.

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

_One of the primary foundations of the precautionary principle, and *globally accepted definitions*, results from the work of the Rio Conference, or "Earth Summit" in 1992. Principle #15 of the Rio Declaration notes:

"In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of serious or *irreversible* damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."[2]_

_An important element of the precautionary principle is that its most meaningful applications pertain to those that are potentially *irreversible*, for example where biodiversity may be reduced. _

Don't I get a link to a definition of a flawed argument?


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

dru said:


> gra said:
> 
> 
> > dru said:
> ...


x2 (sheepishly)

Especially whales. I don't want people to hunt whales or dolphins. Emotional response I know. It's just me being an elitist power grabber.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

kraley said:


> your statement leaves one with the impression that the implementation of a marine park will accomplish some (sadly, undefined) conservation goal, ipso facto. This is untrue.


That's true, or at least I think it could be concievably be true and is therefore worth a go to find out.



kraley said:


> I think this illustrates the crux of my disagreement with your premise. I am a civil libertarian. I view the taking away of a right (and despite evident protestations to the contrary, the ability to navigate public waters and fish is indeed a right that has been passed down for a long time) as a fundamentally problematic thing.


Also true. I don't believe we have an inate right to fish wherever we want to.



kraley said:


> Since the parks were created fairly recently without the benefit of using science to justify them, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with reverting the the historical status quo while real science is conducted.


I know the argument, I just don't think it applies under environmental law. The precautionary principle is meant to be applied in the absence of science. That is it's purpose. It has no relevance where science is not lacking. In both cases (invoking or revoking parks) science is lacking. The precautionary principle is however stronger in one direction than the other.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

dru said:


> gra said:
> 
> 
> > dru said:
> ...


I think there is a difference.
I kill fish, I don't like killing them but I do because I eat fish and I would feel hypocrite if I couldn't kill them.
I don't eat other meats because I aren't prepared to kill them.
I kill rats if they are destroying my guinea pig cage  
I would shoot feral animals that were killing off native species ie possums in NZ.

So it is a difficult question but I think it comes down to what you are prepared to do yourself and what you are prepared to support.
Reading that it probably makes no sense at all so maybe I should also repeat the question.
What's the difference?


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Your ethics seem sound to me Keza. MIne aren't, even to me. I don't like killing animals yet I am prepared to eat them. Worst of all, I am prepared to eat animals that have not had the best life possible (farmed rather than wild). I cannot reconcile my distaste for hunting, where at least the animal gets to lead the good life before being killed for food. It is entirely emotional, and I cannot justify it. It's still real though. I cannot argue that other's can't feel the same about fishing. I'm a hypocrite, so I can't expect them not to be. You have far more right to argue against marine sanctuaries than me or 'the elitists'.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

kraley said:


> Are you saying that you dont belive in the right to fish because you disagree with it, or you dont think it exists?


Both. I don't believe I have the right to do anything that could adversely affect an individual, society or the environment.
I don't have the right to do it, that doesn't mean I don't make use of the privalege.

I just looked up Public Trust Doctrine in wikipedia (all bow to wikipedia) and it seems to be relevant to the access to navigatable waterways not the use of them. Most of the legal applications seem to be in the States. I'm not sure of its relevance to the right to fish in Australia. We have size limits, bag limits, bans on taking certain species, seasonal bans on fishing in 'designated trout waters'. Are you saying these could all be challenged under some ancient Roman law, or is it only sanctuary zones in marine environments? Should those Dugong really be scared of Gra (and his QC)?


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

occy said:


> bazzoo said:
> 
> 
> > Paul , i would love to see an in depth scientific study of the effects of sanctuary zones , and the effects of both commercial fishing [ we know the results of that ] and sport fishing , and i would applaud the result no matter which way it went .But as the government of the day has indicated that this will happen, i dont see why you are suggesting that this wont happen , unless your comments are politically motivated , and after reading your posts several times , it seems this is the case
> ...


Yep , i guess thats a fair comment Occulator


----------



## Junglefisher (Jun 2, 2008)

So, to simplify if I may.
The people whose fishing is not being adversely affected by marine parks (in fact it may be improved) think they are OK, possibly even a good idea.
The people whose fishing is being negatively affected by marine parks don't like them, unless it can be proven they are helping overall fish stocks.
Yeah?


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

Junglefisher said:


> So, to simplify if I may.
> The people whose fishing is not being adversely affected by marine parks (in fact it may be improved) think they are OK, possibly even a good idea.
> The people whose fishing is being negatively affected by marine parks don't like them, unless it can be proven they are helping overall fish stocks.
> Yeah?


Yep. Pretty much. But where's the fun in a 4 line post that doesn't contain even one hyperlink to wikipedia.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

kraley said:


> But almost every action or inaction you undertake has possible negative repercussions to someone else. How do you navigate life if you don't have any rights which might not have an affect on others?


Morality.



kraley said:


> The navigable access was directly tied to fishing - and its a big part of the political tradition in the UK, Aus, as well as the U.S.Most of that is in that wiki article you mentioned, so I am a little unsure if you are being facetious or not when you tell me you don't understand it.


I just read it again and don't see the direct tie to fishing. Fishing is mentioned but there is nothing I see that says that Public Trust Doctrine states that we have the right to fish anywhere we want. It says it provides for access to fishing (with the necessary permits) and prevents private ownership of fish stocks in public areas, but I don't see the direct link that you state should be so clear to me. I realise I have the right to walk up any perennial river in Australia provided I stay within the banks. The same goes for walking below the high tide mark in marine environments. That doesn't mean I have the right to fish a trout stream out of season, or set a gill net.

If you believe this 'right' to be common law, then again I ask if you think this only applies to marine sanctuaries or all other fishing restrictions I mentioned earlier? Are you saying size limits, bag limits, no-take species and seasonal ban on trout streams are all illegal and open to challenge in court or otherwise immoral?


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

Here's some research Gra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

keza said:


> I think there is a difference.
> I kill fish, I don't like killing them but I do because I eat fish and I would feel hypocrite if I couldn't kill them.
> I don't eat other meats because I aren't prepared to kill them.
> I kill rats if they are destroying my guinea pig cage
> ...


I dont like killing fish either - especially if I manage to kill a bycatch that I wont eat. Major guilt trip. Happens rarely and i dont like it at all.

Yes you are right, I was having a brain-fart. So verbalise more effectively I have no problem slaying animals bred for food, nor do I have a problem with things like fois gras. I am also happy to eat animals that have been hunted (though on the basis that they are reasonably sustainable). I wont personally hunt for emotional reasons. Actually thinking about it, I wouldnt have a problem hunting birds (and eating). But maybe with bow and arrow or cross bow. I tried clay target shooting once - scared the life out of me.

And definitely with Ado on the whales thing. They are sustainable, they are being eaten when killed... and it is utterly unequivocably unacceptable. We should send our frigates down to chase whalers, not just Greenpeace.

Bit off target though - three cheers for fishers and hunters!


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

nezevic said:


> Here's some research Gra. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken


 :lol: :lol:


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Dru, have you tried eating clay pigeons ?

Gra, you are single handedly responsible for decimating the pig population, maybe you should move on to chickens.


----------



## bombora (Mar 8, 2006)

Ado wrote: ""There was a discussion recently on the numbers of pipees at our beaches now when compared to when people were kids. If there is the decline that people seemed to think was thre case, then this was not likely to be due to commercial harvesting.''

Mate "not likely due to commercial harvesting"??????? and "decline people SEEMED to think was the case''???????

Read the below and I wonder if you'd still hold that opnion:

""In 1984-85, about 50 tonnes of pipis were taken from NSW beaches by commercial fishers.
In 1999, on just one beach -- Stockton Beach near Newcastle -- 191.2 tonnes of the tiny bivalve were harvested, according to a study by the University of Wollongong and the NSW Fisheries Research Institute.
In 2001, 700 tonnes were harvested from NSW beaches. Since 2001, 4000 tonnes of pipis have been stripped from our beaches.
That's 4000 tonnes of a creature which individually weighs a few grams.
In 2009-10, just 14.2 tonnes of pipis were taken commercially, a sign that more than a decade of environmental idiocy had taken its toll.""


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I never even new they harvested them commercially


----------



## Guest (Sep 14, 2011)

bombora said:


> """"In 1984-85, about 50 tonnes of pipis were taken from NSW beaches by commercial fishers.
> In 1999, on just one beach -- Stockton Beach near Newcastle -- 191.2 tonnes of the tiny bivalve were harvested, according to a study by the University of Wollongong and the NSW Fisheries Research Institute.
> In 2001, 700 tonnes were harvested from NSW beaches. Since 2001, 4000 tonnes of pipis have been stripped from our beaches.
> That's 4000 tonnes of a creature which individually weighs a few grams.
> In 2009-10, just 14.2 tonnes of pipis were taken commercially, a sign that more than a decade of environmental idiocy had taken its toll.""


That's a hell of a lot of pipi twisting!


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

So a seasonal ban on fishing trout streams (i.e. this particular section of river is off limits) is illegal as it prohibits that activity. There are also plenty of lakes that are exclusively to be used by people who don't want to waterski, or drive powerboats faster than 4 knots. I don't see the difference. You say that fishing can be restricted by regulation, but not by regulation that prescribes a marine park. This one case is somehow different.

It may terrify you, but no; I don't believe I have any fundamental rights.

I accept my rights may be restricted by laws laid down from time to time by a properly elected government. My right is to elect that government, or another if I disagree with the restrictions. The only restriction to restricting my rights is if it is a breach of our constition, which a mojority of people in a majority of states may choose to change from time to time (more difficult hurdle). If our society (majority of people in a majority of states) decides to lay down a set of rights in our constitution (i.e. a bill of rights) then I will accept this unless or until they are changed by society. I do not believe I have any any rights that cannot be restricted by these processes if the society I live in wishes. I can complain and I can vote.

Within these legal restrictions I live my life by my own set of morals that guide me. These tend to keep me well away from the boundaries (laws) of society anyway, so most laws don't impact on me. If I lived my life being guided by laws alone then I think I would piss off many people along the way and my life would be less enjoyable as a result.

Democracy may be flawed but it is the best system we have.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

I'm with you Gra , i'm scared of chickens , and they know it the filthy little bastards ,as every time i'm near one , they chase me, bastards


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I reckon you have a point there Occy, I just can't for the life of me see what it is :lol:


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Today I covered 68km in my stinkboat because my local marine park does not allow me to take snapper from the nearshore reefs. Carbon was my friend again and carbon plus some unusually favorable wind conditions allowed me to legally extract a feed of seafood a very long way from shore on a small motor boat.


----------



## Ado (Mar 31, 2008)

The current regs certainly appear very unfair to you. I'd be up in arms too if it were me.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Awwwww Geee some of these threads get too complicated for me these days , i just like the simple funny ones without a hidden meaning, i guess i'm, getting too old and slow and dont care much anymore   :? :? :?


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

bazzoo said:


> Awwwww Geee some of these threads get too complicated for me these days , i just like the simple funny ones without a hidden meaning, i guess i'm, getting too old and slow and dont care much anymore   :? :? :?


I'll add some tigers for you shortly Bazz


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

Haha - a rollicking good read. Great to see a bit of passionate argument on the forum, sprinkled with some spicy "Ad Hominem Tu Quoque" (and chicken phobias).

Kraley, fascinated by the way you kept using links to a "fallacies" tutorial from that holocaust website, to have a crack at Occy's arguments. The whole thread is full of "illogical arguments" (and you'd be a main culprit) - but that is why it's an entertaining read. Do you reckon any of these were missed?

Appeal to Authority 
Appeal to Belief 
Appeal to Common Practice 
Appeal to Consequences of a Belief 
Appeal to Emotion 
Appeal to Fear 
Appeal to Popularity 
Appeal to Ridicule 
Appeal to Tradition 
Bandwagon 
Begging the Question 
Burden of Proof 
Circumstantial Ad Hominem 
Confusing Cause and Effect 
False Dilemma 
Hasty Generalization 
Personal Attack 
Red Herring 
Relativist Fallacy 
Straw Man

(Ado is the only one who had a go - he carefully constructed logical balanced points - and copped a few ad hominems for his troubles).

Junglefisher summed up the marine park debate pretty well:



> "So, to simplify if I may.
> The people whose fishing is not being adversely affected by marine parks (in fact it may be improved) think they are OK, possibly even a good idea.
> The people whose fishing is being negatively affected by marine parks don't like them, unless it can be unless it can be proven they are helping overall fish stocks.
> Yeah?


Yeah! (except maybe there's a third category - for the people who are hard-core Libertarianists)

As for the passing of the Marine Parks Moratorium Bill, it's a win win win for everyone.

1. The Shooters Party win, because they get to claim they do stuff for us "fishers" too. (It's not exactly a pythonesque "What have the Romans ever done for us" list of achievements when you read their website: 
http://www.shootersandfishers.org.au/achievements

2. The Libs win, because they managed to get their cap on public sector wage increases through the MLC (with Shooters Party Support), without actually giving anything up to them. The Ministers for Fisheries and Environment can decide to lift the moratorium whenever he likes, and the independent scientific panel currently reviewing parks and sanctuary zones is due to report by the end of the year;

3. Labour wins, because they get to bitch and moan about the Libs doing deals with minor parties to get legislation through, breaking their promises etc;

4. The muesli munching, sandal wearers win too, because they get a rallying point to rant against the government for trashing the environment without any scientific basis.

(My gripe: I can't take a feed of snapper from the nearshore reefs near me either, but nothing to do with marine parks. There's bugger all snapper there, the population was decimated years ago  Bring on the summer kings! :lol: )


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

MrX said:


> (My gripe: I can't take a feed of snapper from the nearshore reefs near me either, but nothing to do with marine parks. There's bugger all snapper there, the population was decimated years ago  Bring on the summer kings! :lol: )


I don't kniow what scientific journals you've been reading but the populations I'm familiar with have been recorded travelling upwards of 200km in a 90 day period and congregated in areas from 2-150m depending on currents, seasons, time of day and weather patterns. Sure there might be some resident fish that stick around after being well fed and fattenned up by tourist dive operators.

One very bizarre day about 6 weeks ago I was by myself 26km out to sea when I pulled up a 38cm squire in my stink boat at about 10am. In its guts I found a fresh, brand new 1/0 baited hook with a fresh bit of pillie still attached to the hook. Trailing from the eye of the hook was a 40mm length of 10lb mono.

Heresay...Unbelievably inexplicable... But you can bet your ass that only an idiot would bottom bash 26km out to sea with 10lb mono. My guess is that the school moved from an estuary or very close inshore reef, well out to sea, overnight.

If you've ever seen a silver snapper and sat it next to a red snapper, you'll see they both look pretty different.

I've actually got a hunch that the dark red ones are the outer zone long distance brood travellers and that they intermix with the more sedintary silver coastal species as well as the other long distance reds. At the same time the nearer shore red breeding silvers breed with other silvers to ensure the gene pool is never cross contaminated with too many Y chromosones because they've also rooted the reds. This theory explains why the whole snapper species has such a massive distribution across Australia with each school being vital to the next and such extremely high resilience.

Mr X - Please note that snapper are not listed by the NSW Fisheries Scientific Committee. In Cape Byron Marine Parks case, a marine park manager decided to impose a species ban without consulting the Government appointed Scientists of the NSW Fisheries Scientific Comittee who already deemed a NSW bag limit as being sufficient protection of that species called snapper in the state of NSW).


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

No worries Dan - I wasn't trying to make a scientific point about snapper movements. Just having a moan about general lack of snapper on the nearshore reefs off Sydney. Could only manage a couple of rat kings and a pike this morning.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Mr X - Some of my Sydney yak buddies catch heaps of reds year round. Lean times happen everywhere and mojo is everything. Today I was speaking to a buddy from the Gold Coast. He's on this forum and has had a non-stop year where every trip is a winner. You name it: Mackeral, Longtails, Big Jewies, Cobes, Snapper, Moses Perch, Jacks, GT's... The bloke can't do a thing wrong whether he's on a yak, landbased, on a boat or just munching on a muesli bar as he's walking on the beach in his sandals.


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> "Some of my Sydney yak buddies catch heaps of reds year round"


Always pleased to hear some of us are reguarly getting onto heaps of them. I still have a lot to learn.

Yep, there's some legendary yak fishos out there Dan. I enjoy reading about their fishing exploits (plus their eating habits and choice of footware ;-) )


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

bazzoo said:


> i would love to see an in depth scientific study of the effects of sanctuary zones


Here's one Baz. In this instance the scientists have stated that our local legal fishing hotspot is a hell of a lot more species rich than the sanctuary zone system that is 20 times bigger and lies just 300m away.

As you read the following, ask yourself this fundamental question: Why the hell is Middle Reef in need of Sanctuary Protection - What exactly are we trying to protect? So here we have a Habita Zoned System that's supposedly chocka block full of species diversity and a Sanctuary that's 20 times bigger with bugger all in it. Then ask, why are scientists attempting to build models on mixed bags of HPZ's and Sanctuaries across NSW when they should be streamlining interpark sanctauries as one model and cross referencing from interpark HPZ's as seperate comparitive model.

The idea of pulling a general use zone from Evans, a sanctuary from Port Stevens and a HPZ from Byron and deciding to compare them all at the same time without broad scale testing across multiple marine park mediums is just absurdly ridiculous in it's scientific efficacy.

A long-term program to monitor 
the health of nearshore reefs 
Regional evaluation and site selection 
Stephen D. A. Smith, Steven J. Dalton, 
Matthew A. Harrison and Thomas Bowling

http://www.ozcoasts.org.au/geom_geol/ns ... ssment.pdf

#1 - Scientific transects showed that debris load was less at Bait Reef (Habitat Protection Zone) than it was at Middle Reef (Sanctuary Zone)

#2 - Bait reef (HPZ) demonstrated higher mean species richness than (Sanctuary Zoned) Middle Reef

#3 - QUOTE (Page 21) "Bait Reef Byron Bay. This is the most suitable of the Byron Bay reefs for inclusion in the long- 
term program. Although it is more than 1 km from shore (1390 m), the only other option (Middle 
Reef) has limited habitat within the requisite depth-range and had very low diversity on two of the four 
transects. This extreme spatial patchiness imposes limitations on evaluations of temporal change. Bait 
Reef supported diverse communities and a low debris load and is a very suitable reference reef"


----------



## grinner (May 15, 2008)

the problem as i see it dan (and others caught in these sort of situations) is a microcosm of the problems i see in the way gubments run things.

now gubments exist to write laws and regulate and keep an eye on things , so society can function..fair enough.

so a bunch of wall st and london financial market dickheads STEAL not thousands, not millions, not billions but possible trillions of dollars. they do this by writing home loans to unemployed single mums and ex cons. they bundle them up and sell them to YOUR super fund and pocket MASSIVE bonuses (and i do mean massive) the same thing happen in every mature financial system on earth. trillions of dollars of total waste GONE. 
and what were our gubments doing while these guys fleeced and stole . they were totally NOT WATCHING. they were removing their regulators. they were letting these guys do WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANTED and then getting the middle classes to bail them out.

and instead of regulating what really needs to be regulated (and which only gubment can do) they were busy regulating a kayak fisherman off byron bay who wants to catch one snapper for tea. :lol: :lol: :lol:

the whole thing is so laughable ,

talk about a bunch of weak cowards who are only game to take on easy targets.

anyway dan, good that you can catch a feed , you wont starve when armageddon strikes (and that will be coming fairly soon).

cheers pete


----------



## MrX (Feb 7, 2008)

> "I'll appreciate links to the actual errors - if you don't mind. Happy to discuss"


Not sure if I really want to buy into that one, Ken. I think all of us are "guilty" of the logical errors in your "fallacies" tutorial (even Grinner ;-) ). No complaints from me though, all the more entertaining. And I don't think Occy really minds your repeated ad hominem attacks on him - all part of the friendly banter.



> "Its kind of funny - in the US civil libertarians (like me) are often put down for being hippies. We spend a lot of time and resources making sure poor people have access to lawyers - that communists can still teach at schools - shit like that. Plain old Libertarians are usually old rich guys that think they shouldn't pay any taxes. Totally different schools of thought. Which one did you mean to denigrate again?"


I'm not denigrating "libertarians". Good on them for having an opinion. For all I know, I might even be one. "A civil libertarian outlook is compatible with many other political philosophies, and civil libertarianism is found on both the right and left of modern politics..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism

You said:


> "I am a civil libertarian [Appeal to Consequences of a Belief]. I view the taking away of a right (and despite evident protestations to the contrary, the ability to navigate public waters [Red Herring] *and fish *is indeed a right that has been passed down for a long time [Appeal to Tradition]) as a fundamentally problematic thing. "


Does this mean that, as a faithful "civil libertarian" believer in your own fundamental right to fish, you have no choice - you have to oppose the government establishing marine parks? If so, that's fair enough - we are all entitled to have beliefs. But maybe that puts you in a third category?

Using Junglefisher's summary:
1. The people whose fishing is not being adversely affected by marine parks (in fact it may be improved) think they are OK, possibly even a good idea.
2. The people whose fishing is being negatively affected by marine parks don't like them, unless it can be proven they are helping overall fish stocks.
*3. The people who don't like marine parks, because they believe that they have a right to fish anywhere, it is a right that has been passed down for a long time and it should not be taken away, even if it can be proven they are helping overall fish stocks*

Would that be a fair summary?


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Funny you should mention that Grinner. I'm sure you'll be amazed by some of the social research I've been provided. Fancy a community attitudes study that led to the creation of a marine park that was designed and implemented by a couple of Southern Cross uni students who were part of the School of Environmental Science. I'm still trying to establish whether or not those students were IQCA (Interviewer Quality Control Australia) certified at the time they face to face interviewed a bunch of overseas and pensioner tourists on Little Watego's beach about the, yet to be zoned, brand spanking new, Cape Byron Marine Park that the people of NSW paid for in both money and trust.

How is this for a question: Q10. Cape Byron Marine Park will be zoned for three main levels of protection. The General 
Use Zone and the Habitat Protection Zone will both allow most activities including commercial 
and recreational fishing (as long as they are ecologically sustainable). On the other hand, 
Sanctuary Zones are "no-take" areas where fishing and collection will be prohibited. *Do you 
support* the establishment of sanctuary zones?

a: Yes maybe no don't know

Ask any certified and practicing member of the AMSRS thier professional interpretation of this particular social and market research question that was used to justify what would eventually become NSW largest percentage (27%) of sanctuary in any NSW marine park.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Baz me old mate - I've got an inspired scientific document called "A Rapid Asessment of Rocky Shore Biodiversity..."

Man oh man, this document has covered some ground in recent years. Imagine a 20 minute transect of a little area underneath Cape Byron lighthouse compared to a similar 20 minute sample at Broken Head. Well guess what! The 20 minute Broken Head sample found prolific aggregations of a bunch of stuff and for good old Cape Byron under the lighthouse, "Low" levels of biodiversity were sampled as a comparison. Guess what the poeple of NSW got as a result of this awesome and incredibly rigorous science? A sanctuary zone under the lighthouse AND one at Broken Head too...

Go figure!


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Imagine waking up in the morning in 2009 to discover the NSW MPA's intention to split the Marine Parks Act into two components as a streamlining tool. The plan was to amend The Marine Parks Act 1997 to encompass the adjoining Marine Parks Regulation 2009.

So you start reading all this politics and you get a little bit worried because you just took note of the extensive application of marine park ranger powers under this seemingly harmless piece of resource allocation. THEN you realise that the RIS (Regulatory Impact Statement) that forms the basis of the core framework of the new 2009 Regulation seems to have forgotten the legislative requirements of the NSW Subordinate Legislation Act, appeared to pay no attention to the NSW Better Regulations Principals in any way, shape or form and failed to conform to the NSW Privacy laws because it forgot to mention anything remotely related to a Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA) in the RIS.

Public submissions are called for, a few people voice a concern, then BINGO, in the blink of an eye the legislation is passed, rangers powers are absolute, the people of NSW have no privacy and the Privacy Commissioner... What Privacy Commisioner? Wooops - Too late now. Best to keep chomping on muesli bar and put some wear on those treads NSW coz you may have been victoriously railroaded.


----------



## bazzoo (Oct 17, 2006)

Occy , you were'nt proven wrong with the last State Government , as they went ahead and placated the Greens by making Sanctuary Zones ad hok without any scientific study or reason other than those reasons that were politically motivated . At least now we have been promised a study and in the meantime as a show of good faith some of the bans have been lifted until we can assess the whole situation. Makes more sense to me .

From my own personal point of view , i would like to see an in depth study of the effects of sport fishing on reef areas . A closed season on Snapper of approximately 3 months to correspond with their breeding season . For that matter a closed season on all fish except pelagics during that particular species breeding season . It works for Bass , and its only a short period where we cant fish for our favourite species .This would at least guarantee us at least a replenishment of any species to make up for any fish taken for the table , and i think if this were the case we would see a quick recovery of our fish stocks . As for Commercial fishing , i would like to see an area around our coast of approx 20 kms width that was free of commercial fishing , thus making the commercial boys fish out wider .


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I would like to see a survey on the effects on pelagic fish around the reef by commercial fishing. These fish are a vital part of the reef system and yet they are taken in vast numbers before they get to the reef.
In the interim before this is done how about we double the price of fish (except leather jackets) and half the allocated quota, the fisherman still get the same money.

Occy, politicians are all thieving scums who will do anything for a vote, unfortunately the vast majority of the general public only care about the amount of money in their wallets and don't give a toss about the environment (carbon tax being a case in point). A marine park ticks their little moral boxes and effects them in no way so win win. Upping the price of fish would cost them a bit more and make them think about eating it so that just wont do.


----------

