Marine Sancturaries

[Schadenfreude]

Slightly off topic - but could it be that our governments clearly just don't give a shit?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8377950

Queensland's Liberal National Party (LNP) is considering overturning the protection of some areas in the state's most pristine marine zones if it forms government.

Minutes from a LNP meeting outlining a plan to allow amateur fishing in so-called green zones were accidentally sent to a journalist on Monday.

 

[barbarian]

Surely amatuer fishing could not do that much damage? As long as you have size and bag limits the fish stocks should be left relatively unharmed.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Surely amatuer fishing could not do that much damage? As long as you have size and bag limits the fish stocks should be left relatively unharmed.

Reserves are what increases the numbers of fish everywhere. Size limits don't really protect fish - you pull a fish up, it's going to die from barra trauma - but you have throw it back anyway.

Raping the breeding grounds and safe habitats is how you wipe out species.

Why do we have national parks and forests on land?

 

[barbarian]

Raping the breeding grounds and safe habitats is how you wipe out species.

Woah up, let's not get too carried away.

The leaked memo said they were considering overturning some protected areas. So we don't know how many or which ones specifically. We do know they aren't doing away with the concept of marine parks though.

And since when does amatuer fishing 'wipe out species'? Because that is what you are alleging. I realise it does impact on fish stocks, but not that much. As long as these things are monitored closely (which they have been in the past) then I see no problem in allowing amatuer fishermen into some park areas, providing their are adequate fish stocks and regulation to prevent them from being pillaged.

 

[Schadenfreude]

OK - maybe too colourful language.

But yes - amatuer fishing does have a heavy impact.

http://ccwa.org.au/blogs/does-recreational-fishing-impact-fish-stocks-and-environment

Edit: But yes this is off topic - I thought the relevance to this thread was that the government doesn't give a shit about the environment when there's money or votes in it.

 

[Ruggo]

Green zones also compact fishing pressures rather than disperse them over a wider area. This isn't a one size fits all matter either and is dependant on previous fisheries management policies. Lack of management may have had more impact than amature fishing itself.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Green zones also compact fishing pressures rather than disperse them over a wider area. This isn't a one size fits all matter either and is dependant on previous fisheries management policies. Lack of management may have had more impact than amature fishing itself.

I'd like to see something that backs up those views - to me they look like PR FUD.

 

[Ruggo]

No worries.

Put it this way. I am in a part of the country that is undersiege by green groups over the marine park issue although both sides of politics when in government have been nothing but proactive in fisheries research, policy and legislation. We have a sustainable fishery that is soundly managed through regulation that is constantly evolving with demands on the resource. It isn't a one size fits all issue and green groups fail to acknowledge this. The other issue that has a bearing on the dispersion of fishing pressures in Territory waters is native title and traditional owners also aren't very happy about green groups attempting to dictate on how best to manage their resources either.

A favourite word that green groups love to use is Wilderness. It doesn't exist by it's own definition according to the Oxford dictionary. It doesn't even acknowledge the existance of indiginous populations.

an uncultivated, uninhabited, and inhospitable region.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/wilderness

 

[Karl]

I did some Marine Science as a youngster and its always been a big interest of mine. My belief is that Recreational and Amateur fishing has a much bigger impact than anyone wants to admit, particularly in more recent times where the intensity and numbers of fisho's has increased significantly in key areas. And it's not just about the fish. There is not insignificant ancilliary damage no-one wants to talk about too like the damage to other wildlife from the discarded fishing line and the rubbish so many yobs toss over the side and enviromental and habitat damage from careless behaviour as well as inevitable conduct associated with fishing. Too many recreational fishermen in Australia seem to think its their God-given right to fish everywhere they want, whenever they want and pretty much catch any amount of whatever they want. But it's not PC to criticise these people because the view is that the bad ones are a small minority (which i don't believe) or that they are simple, salt of the earth types who just want to enjoy the traditional right to catch their own meal from natures pantry. They get pretty shirty when you exclude them from a spot where they used to fish as a kid or where they have had past success getting full kreel. I hope the LNP won't go down this path to win a few votes. There's plenty of places to fish.

 

[Ruggo]

In relation to QLD, my understanding is the fishery is suffering badly from the run off from the floods. What is proposed sounds like a cheap political stunt at best.

I agree with you Karl as fishermen can be a filthy bunch but that is also an insult to the rec fishos that are responsible and considerate to the environment around us. The dickhead brigade anger the shit out of us as well as we don't like being tarnished by their habits either.

I don't support green zones in NT waters because we have the luxury of learning from others mistakes and we are taking those learnings forward. (sorry for the Deans speak)

 

[Moses]

Size limits don't really protect fish - you pull a fish up, it's going to die from barra trauma - but you have throw it back anyway.

Not true for several reasons. Barotrauma only occurs when reefing a fish up from the depths. Many fishing styles only target fish on the surface (trolling, popping) so it's not even a possibility. Fish caught at depth and retrieved at a reasonable pace will adapt to the pressure and not suffer barotrauma. Fish that do suffer barotrauma can be safely released with a release weight.

I'd like to see something that backs up those views - to me they look like PR FUD.

I'd like to see a pelagic fish that respects lines like these on a map and doesn't cross from sanctuary to fishing zone.

 

[Schadenfreude]

Yeah. Green zones aren't for pelagics are they?

But you know that.

Edit: and I've seen it when fishing in less than 10m of water, which isn't really "the depths". Plus, no-one pulls them up slowly in case a shark grabs them on the way up.

 

[Moses]

I've seen it when fishing in less than 10m of water, which isn't really "the depths". Plus, no-one pulls them up slowly in case a shark grabs them on the way up.

So you fish, and in an aggressive manner that puts fish at risk? I'm struggling to get your angle here.

These fish that get baro in 10m of water (never seen it myself, guess I don't catch enough fish or don't smash 'em into the boat quick enough), 100% of them die? I can't imagine it would be severe baro (ie guts on the outside), more an enlarged stomach visible down the throat. Any comments on release weights to reduce the casualty rate?

I'm not opposed to all "green zones", rather I'd argue these zones should be justified by scientific merit, and reviewed regularly. Just because an area once justified locking up doesn't mean it will always. Changing the landscape changes the landscape.

 

[Ruggo]

Yeah. Green zones aren't for pelagics are they?

But you know that.

Edit: and I've seen it when fishing in less than 10m of water, which isn't really "the depths". Plus, no-one pulls them up slowly in case a shark grabs them on the way up.

It happens yes. Most fishos I know will stop reef fishing after taking what they tend to consume for the sole reasons you say and will move onto differnt styles of fishing. Givern the healthy state of our fishery and easy access to the grounds, it is normally below the legislated bag limits anyway.

This is the NT Fisheries dept 2009 report on recriational fishing in the NT.
http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Content/File/p/Fish_Rep/FR104_Recreational_Fishing.pdf

 

[Schadenfreude]

I'm just watching David Attenborough: "Death of the Oceans?"

Pretty scary stuff - and seems well reasoned to me.

 

[Karl]

I'm just watching David Attenborough: "Death of the Oceans?"

Pretty scary stuff - and seems well reasoned to me.

Scary hey? I hope to hell it's all way over-stated. Our seas fished clean by 2050; all coral poised to die from ocean acidification unless the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is drastically reduced; all whale conversations eventually drowned out by our increasingly noisy shipping, dolphins going deaf etc The comparison of fish catches in waters off Massachusetts today with those of yesteryear. 70,000 metric tonnes in the year 1871, using sails and hand lines; 4,000 metric tonnes today, with all the might of mechanised fishing brought to bear. And the Co2/acidification issue - they made it sound like it's pretty much too late already.

I don't think we realise just how much we're ripping out of the Oceans everyday, or how much crap is flowing into them.

 

[Ruggo]

If we are talking on a global scale Karl, I agree. We need to seriously look at feeding the global population under the weight of exponential growth. We are digressing away from the pressures of amature fishing though when we start talking of this.

 

[Karl]

If we are talking on a global scale Karl, I agree. We need to seriously look at feeding the global population under the weight of exponential growth. We are digressing away from the pressures of amature fishing though when we start talking of this.

Yes, we are. The thing about Amateur fishing is that it concentrates mainly on areas that are accessible by light runabouts or from the shore, so it isn't diluted over the vastness of the Oceans. And in those recreationally utilised areas, only certain spots present themselves as "high value" due to habitat characteristics, tidal flows, etc. A lot of the fish that hang out in these places - for them a particular area is "home". They aren't migratory as such like Salmon or certain pelagic species like Tuna. For example - Whiting, when they mature, move from their shallow near shore habitats to deeper offshore waters (20 to 35 m deep) but usually within 20 km of the shore. Thats where they spawn. If you fish the crap out of them inshore in their nice little homes they never get offshore to spawn, which is bad. Brim like estuarine areas to live in and then spawn in surf zones pretty close to their homes. They don't go far at all. They are impacted much as the whiting are by heavy recreational fishing. Boats churning up seagrass beds with props and anchors and increasing turbudity is pretty bad for them too.

 

[Ruggo]

Yes I can see the issue in what you are saying and I see it as a significant problem along the heavily pressured eastern seaboard and marine sancturies are very applicable but as I say it is not a one size fits all issue we are dealing with. I also see the establishment of marine sancturies on the eastern seaboard as reactive policy and not proactive policy. It is a situation the northern coast does not face and a lot of the siege mentality against green groups up this way is generated by the lack of a consultive approach. The Blue Mud Bay native title decision handed down by the High Court has also slashed alot of amature fishing pressures by restricting access to huge pars of the NT coastline.

 

[Karl]

I thought that recreational fishermen could still access these areas and it was the commercial fisho's that needed Aboriginal Land Council permission now?