http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/jbmp-zoning-plan-review.html

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/simp-zoning-plan-review.html

Anyone care to take a stab at how much the Sanctuary Zones will increase by?

Wha happened?  I thought there were replies in this topic.

The server crashed and we lost a few posts. Sorry about that. I still might be able to get them back.

Have you made a submission yet Recfisher? Do you have any suggestions for modifications? I will probably have a look at it this weekend.

Submissions due June 2.

I think I'll make a submission about shore based fishing spots. They don't seem to have made any effort to leave them open. Are there any that are particularly important? Do you fish in that area?

---

Jervis Bay:

Marine Park maps etc:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/jbmp.html

Review info:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/jbmp-zoning-plan-review.html

Map of zones:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/JBMP-zoning-plan-user-guide-Part-B.pdf

Map of habitat types:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/review/JBMP-habitat-map.pdf

---

Solitary Islands:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/simp.html

Zoning Map pdf:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/SIMP-Zoning-Summary-Maps.pdf

Interactive Map:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/simp-map-01.html

review info:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/simp-zoning-plan-review.html

If you knew anything about recreational fishing FD you would know that landbased spots in and around Jervis Bay are iconic to anglers. They are the birthplace of landbased gamefishing. A couple of ledges inside Jervis Bay are the few places in the world where you have a good chance of catching a marlin off the shore.

Silly me, I thought baiting a hook was the first thing you learnt, but no, it's where to catch marlin from the shore.

freediver wrote on May 21^st, 2008 at 9:54pm:

Silly me, I thought baiting a hook was the first thing you learnt, but no, it's where to catch marlin from the shore.

Yes you are rather silly - proposing wide ranging and severe restrictions on a sport you have a superficial knowledge of.  

No, I haven't yet.  I'm still trying to find any relevant research from both parks so I can make a more informed decision.  Evidence is thin on the ground...

I'm with PJ.  You can't really call yourself a fisherman if you don't know about JB's land based game fishing history.  It's a shame that what the Marine Park hasn't taken away, the Defence Department has.  Unlikely that any of it will ever be given back.

Oops. Fixed it.

So PJ, are you going to tell us what the important land based spots are, or is being able to bignote yourself more important than actually making them available?

freediver wrote on May 22^nd, 2008 at 11:57am:

So PJ, are you going to tell us what the important land based spots are, or is being able to bignote yourself more important than actually making them available?

Why should I assist such an avowed advocate of marine parks as yourself? Do your own research (if its not too much effort).

Actually, I don't think I'll bother. There's no point trying to help people who don't want to be helped. The locals are obviously happy with the site selection process, otherwise I would have had at least one useful response on one of the forums I posted this on.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 4:32pm:

Actually, I don't think I'll bother. There's no point trying to help people who don't want to be helped. The locals are obviously happy with the site selection process, otherwise I would have had at least one useful response on one of the forums I posted this on.

I don't think we need your sort of help. There was nothing wrong with the fishing in JB before the park was declared and no evidence that the park has improved the fishing. So why should the locals be "happy"? Why don't you ask the retired police officer who now has a criminal conviction for accidently fishing in one of the poorly marked green zones how happy he is?

I'm not after whingers, I'm after practical suggestions. If you won't accept help from a fellow fishermen just because he doesn't share your political views down to the line then don't expect to be able to get anything useful done.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 5:07pm:

I'm not after whingers, I'm after practical suggestions. If you won't accept help from a fellow fishermen just because he doesn't share your political views down to the line then don't expect to be able to get anything useful done.

Pot-kettle-black! In past I have put up suggestions for area management and you just ignored them because they didn't fit your mantra of large green zones. This is the hallmark of an ideologue. Anything outside the narrow ideology gets rejected out of hand.

"No changes to any Sanctuary Zones until they are proven necessary".  

"Sanctuary Zoning based on Risk Assessments, identification of real (not perceived or potential) threats, and sound scientific evidence".

Are they practical suggestions?

PJ, I do not have a 'mantra' of large green zones. Quite the opposite actually.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#fisheries-management-approach

Recfisher, that is closer to the mark, though I am surprised to see you opposed to a reduction in sanctuary zones. The whole risk assessment thing kind of misses the point with how marine parks are justified, though it does point to a representative areas program. Your distinction between a real and a percieved or potential threat is meaningless.

I was more after practical suggestions for changes to the Jervis Bay MP, so I wouldn't include trying to come up with a process from scratch and telling them how to do their job as a practical suggestion.

I think it is important to consider convenience to fishermen in addition to the science, especially where the science does not give the sort of detailed advice that is needed here.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 7:11pm:

PJ, I do not have a 'mantra' of large green zones. Quite the opposite actually. http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#fisheries-management-approach

You have mantra of promoting marine parks as an 'ideal fisheries management tool'. You have even suggested winding back other measures such a size limits, spearfishing ban on groper etc in favour of marine parks. Even if some of your examples show small no take zones this could be merely because the areas you show are also small. As you said yourself:

"Finally, if your goal is to maximise sustainable yield then a network of smaller, more numerous marine parks is more suitable".

Ie, a lot of small areas adds up to a large area!

A mantra is just one way of describing the position of marine park advocates. It has also be called faith based fisheries or a community of belief.

No, it is science based. It is the anti marine park lobbyists who are faith based ideologues, trying to distort the science to fit their agenda.

There are very good reasons for limiting the use of minimum sizes as a fisheries management tool. They are a really dumb idea that the fishing community has become accustomed to and even incorporated into some kind of moral code. For the less mobile species, there will be less need for them once there is a network of marine parks.

freediver wrote on May 25^th, 2008 at 9:08pm:

No, it is science based. It is the anti marine park lobbyists who are faith based ideologues, trying to distort the science to fit their agenda. There are very good reasons for limiting the use of minimum sizes as a fisheries management tool. They are a really dumb idea that the fishing community has become accustomed to and even incorporated into some kind of moral code. For the less mobile species, there will be less need for them once there is a network of marine parks.

You like using the name of science but don't like its methods. If you are right in asserting our marine parks are science based why then have you been unable to demonstrate it in all the debates on this forum? All you have demonstated is a scant knowledge of our fisheries and ludicrous personal attacks on the likes of Profs Kearney and Hilborn.

Eg with you critism of legal minimum sizes I take it you haven't heard of the slot limits we have on some species. And what about the fact that juvenile classes actually benifit from larger fish being caught through less predation and less competion for food? For less mobile species such as groper if you just rely on marine parks you may well end up with healthly populations in the NTZ's and depleted ones elsewhere. In contrast the spearfishing ban and the 2 per day bag limit for anglers tackled the overfishing of groper problem head on. You have admitted that groper numbers are now healthy everywhere in NSW, but still see fot to oppose a successful poilicy because it doesn't fit your marine park mantra.

Of course I've heard of slot limits. Half of a slot limit is a minimum size, which is a dumb idea.

And what about the fact that juvenile classes actually benifit from larger fish being caught through less predation and less competion for food?

Well that's great if you want to breed lots of slow growing 'juveniles' that produce lots more slow growing fish.

For less mobile species such as groper if you just rely on marine parks you may well end up with healthly populations in the NTZ's and depleted ones elsewhere.

Yes, that is the intention. For the most heavily targetted species, we would go from depleted populations everywhere to having a lot of healthy populations. For species like groper that are overprotected, we will be able to catch more of them and relax the rules without putting them at risk of overharvest.

Surely you'r not in favour of using inferior tools and resorting to overprotection of many species to compensate?

Of course I've heard of slot limits. Half of a slot limit is a minimum size, which is a dumb idea.

Duh FD, the idea of fisheries is to catch fish of a marketable size. This means catching adult fish and lettling to juveniles grow to adults.

And what about the fact that juvenile classes actually benifit from larger fish being caught through less predation and less competion for food?

Well that's great if you want to breed lots of slow growing 'juveniles' that produce lots more slow growing fish.

Real world evidence shows that fish actually grow faster (as I described) under fishing pressure. The genetic changes you talk about are theoretical and not likely to occur unless the fishing pressure is very heavy (which is not desirable in any case).

For less mobile species such as groper if you just rely on marine parks you may well end up with healthly populations in the NTZ's and depleted ones elsewhere.

Yes, that is the intention. For the most heavily targetted species, we would go from depleted populations everywhere to having a lot of healthy populations. For species like groper that are overprotected, we will be able to catch more of them and relax the rules without putting them at risk of overharvest.

Surely you'r not in favour of using inferior tools and resorting to overprotection of many species to compensate?

So leaving groper as an angling only species makes them overprotected and your answer is to ban angling for them in NTZ's! You have also avoided my question - as spearfishing for them has been proven to be unsustainable why won't you policy just lead to depleted areas outside the NTZ's!

NB which Australian fish populations are'depleted everywhere'?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192441509/105#112

BUMP - submissions due today

The forms are pdf that you are supposed to fill in, then fax, mail or scan and email back. This is a pain in the arse. I asked for an electronic version earlier today, but I'm not holding my breath, so I'll probably just email in a text response. The only mandatory information is your postcode.

If there are any shore based spots you would like to see opened up, this is your last chance to ask for help from other respondants. I'll probably just send a short note with some general comments.

EDIT - the JBMP people just got back to me. They sent me another pdf file, 'as requested'  >:( ::)

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/simp-zoning-plan-review.html

Solitary Islands Marine Park – Zoning Plan Review
Next stage

Minister for Climate Change and the Environment, Frank Sartor and Minister for Primary Industries, Steve Whan today, 19 April 2010, announced the next stage of the Solitary Islands Marine Park Zoning Plan review.

“The Government plans to improve the management of existing marine parks rather than establish new ones,” Mr Sartor said.

Based on the review process, adjustments to the park’s zoning plan have been drafted, which will now be referred to the Solitary Islands Marine Park Advisory Committee, and then go on public exhibition for three months before any final decisions are made.

Public exhibition of the proposed zoning changes will commence during May 2010. Notice of the exhibition period will be given in local and statewide newspapers and the information package will be uploaded to this website.

To be directly notified of the release of the information package please send an email to solitary.islands@mpa.nsw.gov.au including ‘distribution list’ in the subject line.

Media Release – NSW Government Takes Community Advice on Solitary Islands Marine Park.
Background – The Review process

The current zoning plan for Solitary Islands Marine Park commenced in 2002 and has been reviewed in accordance with the Marine Parks Act 1997.

The review process determined whether the plan remained appropriate for meeting the objects of the Marine Parks Act which are to conserve biodiversity, and provide opportunities for ecologically sustainable use, public appreciation, enjoyment and understanding.

The following information package was produced to the support the review process.

....

Submissions

Thank you for your submissions and involvement in the review process.
Information days held during consultation

Venue

Park Beach Plaza, outside Woolworths, Park Beach Road, Coffs Harbour

Park Beach Plaza, outside Woolworths, Park Beach Road, Coffs Harbour

Park Beach Plaza, outside Woolworths, Park Beach Road, Coffs Harbour

Wooli Community Hall, Main Street, Wooli

Yamba Shopping Fair, Treelands Drive, Yamba

Grafton Shopping World, Fitzroy Street, Grafton

Emerald Beach Fair, Emerald Beach Reserve, Emerald beach

The review report and a summary of consultation and submissions were provided to the Solitary Islands Marine Park Advisory Committee for comment. The review report, summary of consultation and submissions, and comments from the advisory committee, were provided by the Marine Parks Authority to the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment and the Minister for Primary Industries for consideration.
Solitary Islands Marine Reserve (Commonwealth Waters) Review

The Australian Government Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts is reviewing the management plan for the Solitary Islands Marine Reserve which is adjacent to the Solitary Islands Marine Park. Further information.
Further information

If you require further information please contact the Environment Line on 1300 361 967

---

From an email:

Greater protection for Solitary Islands marine life
Dear ,

With the vital support of people like you and after many years of hard work from the Nature Conservation Council, we're finally on the verge of stronger protection for the magnificent creatures that call the Solitary Islands Marine Park home. Thank you for making this possible.

NSW Environment Minister Frank Sartor recently released recommendations for Solitary Islands Marine Park that included increasing the sanctuary zones in the park from 12 per cent up to 20 per cent.

Expanded no-take areas would give sea turtles like our little friend above, threatened grey nurses and the more than 550 species of marine creatures found in the marine park a better chance of survival. Sanctuary zones are wonderful havens where they can potentially rest and reproduce in safety.

The expanded sanctuary zones at Solitary Islands would be a welcome step in the right direction from the NSW government and one we expect will be made official following a three-month public consultation.

However, the Nature Conservation Council recognises there's still work to be done ...

We need to achieve even greater conservation of marine life through the expansion of sanctuary zones at Jervis Bay, the creation of a Sydney Marine Park and the introduction of further marine parks off our coast.

We're also eagerly awaiting the release of the export accreditation for the NSW Ocean Trap and Line Fishery in the next couple of weeks. We're concerned conditions may allow shark fishing above historical catch levels, something that could be disasterous for threatened species of sharks off our coast.

Check out www.nccnsw.org.au or @ourlastsharks for the latest developments.

Thanks again for making a difference on marine parks and your ongoing support of our marine campaigns.

Ben Birt


Ben Birt
Marine Campaigner


Nature Conservation Council of NSW
Ph. 02 9516 1488  ncc@nccnsw.org.au

Draft plan out for comment:

http://mpa.nsw.gov.au/simp-draft-zoning-plan.html