This issue has come up a few times in the marine park debate. PJ seems to object to my idea of trying to give as much benefit to shore based anglers from marine parks as possible.

Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat?

Furthermore, should areas adjacent to accessible shore based fishing spots be specifically targetted for no take zones (with the exception of shore based fishing) so as to give maximum benefit to shore based anglers?

freediver wrote on Jun 9^th, 2009 at 7:28pm:

This issue has come up a few times in the marine park debate. PJ seems to object to my idea of trying to give as much benefit to shore based anglers from marine parks as possible. Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat? Furthermore, should areas adjacent to accessible shore based fishing spots be specifically targetted for no take zones (with the exception of shore based fishing) so as to give maximum benefit to shore based anglers?

I have covered many of the problems with this design. One point with the ocean facing shore spots FD hasn't thought of is that shore anglers and nearby boat anglers aren't even fishing for the same fish species a lot of the time! So apart from the dubious merits of punishing one group of anglers to favour another there cosiderable doubt that shore based anglers will even benefit. On top of that there is no evidence that our inshore stocks are actually overfished - despite FD claiming that shore based anglers rarely catch a fish in Australia.

FD also hasn't thought of the fact that boat anglers need to fish close to shore on windy days so as to get a lee effect. In winter time on the east coast strong westerly winds are common. Just to give an example for the last six weeks I have been watching the weather forecasts for a moderation in the westerly winds and seas. There were only 2 good days for which it as worth heading out (which coincided with the weekend). Even then the westerly was quite fresh and it was only safe and comfortable to fish within a km or so from the shore. Now imagine if I these ground were in one of FD's marine parks. Effectively I have spent a considerable sum on an outside fishing boat which I now have limited use for for a significant part of the year!

PJ, I noticed you didn't actually answer any of the questions I raised in the opening post. I won't repost them for you, as I assume you are capable of scrolling back up. Do you think it is somehow fair to deliberately take away fishing spots from those fishermen who are already the most restricted, in order to appease those fishermen with the greatest freedom and greatest access? Wouldn't that be just greedy?


Quote:

One point with the ocean facing shore spots FD hasn't thought of is that shore anglers and nearby boat anglers aren't even fishing for the same fish species a lot of the time! So apart from the dubious merits of punishing one group of anglers to favour another there cosiderable doubt that shore based anglers will even benefit.

Why is there doubt? As you so adequately point out, there will not just be more of the same species of fish, but shore based anglers will be better able to effectively target more species. You also seem to think that being dragged up the shore is the only way fish will leave the marine park. It isn't. Even if no fish from a given species were caught from the shore, the marine park would still be perfectly functional in the traditonal sense for that species. You appear to confuse maximising the benefit to shore based anglers with denying any benefit to boat based anglers.


Quote:

FD also hasn't thought of the fact that boat anglers need to fish close to shore on windy days so as to get a lee effect.

What makes you think that? No-one is suggesting we lock up the entire coastline. In fact, for beach/headland systems, my strategy would leave open those stretches of coast that are most productive for boat based fishermen and only take the least productive spots along the shore.


Quote:

Now imagine if I these ground were in one of FD's marine parks. Effectively I have spent a considerable sum on an outside fishing boat which I now have limited use for for a significant part of the year!

If you are smart enough to get a boat offshore, you are smart enough to realise that the vast majority of the coastline is not a marine park.

PJ, I noticed you didn't actually answer any of the questions I raised in the opening post. I won't repost them for you, as I assume you are capable of scrolling back up. Do you think it is somehow fair to deliberately take away fishing spots from those fishermen who are already the most restricted, in order to appease those fishermen with the greatest freedom and greatest access? Wouldn't that be just greedy?

They are loaded questions. You start with the premise that marine parks with angling bans are a given and the only debate is how the bans are distributed. You have completely ignored the question of whether any such bans are neccessary. Note the United States bans angling in only 1% of it's marine parks.

Note too that you are in no postition to impliment your policy. NSW marine parks in fact do ban angling from shore locations such as rocks and beaches.  


Quote:

One point with the ocean facing shore spots FD hasn't thought of is that shore anglers and nearby boat anglers aren't even fishing for the same fish species a lot of the time! So apart from the dubious merits of punishing one group of anglers to favour another there cosiderable doubt that shore based anglers will even benefit.

Why is there doubt? As you so adequately point out, there will not just be more of the same species of fish, but shore based anglers will be better able to effectively target more species. You also seem to think that being dragged up the shore is the only way fish will leave the marine park. It isn't. Even if no fish from a given species were caught from the shore, the marine park would still be perfectly functional in the traditonal sense for that species. You appear to confuse maximising the benefit to shore based anglers with denying any benefit to boat based anglers.

Haven't you said that shore based anglers will be catching more as a result of your marine parks? How are shore hugging fish like tailor, whiting, blackfish, groper, drummer etc going to see and increase in numbers if they are not caught often by boat anglers and/ or recieve little commercial attention?


Quote:

FD also hasn't thought of the fact that boat anglers need to fish close to shore on windy days so as to get a lee effect.

What makes you think that? No-one is suggesting we lock up the entire coastline. In fact, for beach/headland systems, my strategy would leave open those stretches of coast that are most productive for boat based fishermen and only take the least productive spots along the shore.

And you would know which are the most productive boat spots?


Quote:

Now imagine if I these ground were in one of FD's marine parks. Effectively I have spent a considerable sum on an outside fishing boat which I now have limited use for for a significant part of the year!

If you are smart enough to get a boat offshore, you are smart enough to realise that the vast majority of the coastline is not a marine park.[/quote]

Yes and too bad if you live in an area which hosts a marine park. You can very well say most of the ocean is still open but do you really expect them to drive to the next port for a mornings fish?

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

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-park-examples.html

Nice attempt at avoiding the question Grendel. You are nearly as good as Abu. How about instead of waisting everyone's time with pissweak excuses, you just do your best to actually answer them?

Do you think it is somehow fair to deliberately take away fishing spots from those fishermen who are already the most restricted, in order to appease those fishermen with the greatest freedom and greatest access? Wouldn't that be just greedy?

Here's another unloaded question for you:

Should marine parks move boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?


Quote:

They are loaded questions.

How are they loaded Grendel?


Quote:

You start with the premise that marine parks with angling bans are a given

No I don't Grendel. Although to suggest that marine parks are not a given kind of denies reality. If someone asks you wheter you rpefer meat pie to apple pie, you don't have to be having pie for dinner in order to answer the question. It is not a loaded question.


Quote:

and the only debate is how the bans are distributed

Again Grendel, this is not a premise of the question. Having a debate about the best way to distribute marine parks does not mean it is the only debate to be had.


Quote:

You have completely ignored the question of whether any such bans are neccessary.

No I haven't Grendel. You must have an extremely short memory, because I have been having that exact debate with you for months now. You do remember that, don't you? Perhaps this explains why that debate seemed so repetitive.


Quote:

Note too that you are in no postition to impliment your policy.

;D ;D ;D You're saying I'm not the PM? Any other great insights?


Quote:

How are shore hugging fish like tailor, whiting, blackfish, groper, drummer etc going to see and increase in numbers if they are not caught often by boat anglers and/ or recieve little commercial attention?

They won't if boat based fishermen don't often catch them, but then preventing boat based fishermen from catching them represents little loss to them. However, I have targetted and caught plenty of whiting from boats near shore based fishing spots, so that one at least does not belong in your list.

You often seem to switch between arguing that it is bad because it will prevent boat based fishermen from catching the fish, to saying it is bad because it won't do so.


Quote:

Yes and too bad if you live in an area which hosts a marine park.

Grendel, you act as through you are 3 inches high and that getting to the other side of these marine parks is some massive adventure for you. It isn't.


Quote:

You can very well say most of the ocean is still open but do you really expect them to drive to the next port for a mornings fish?

No. What on earth makes you think that? I posted a heap of suggestions so that people would not be confused into thinking this. Would you like me to link you to them again, or do you know where they are?

Nice attempt at avoiding the question Grendel. You are nearly as good as Abu. How about instead of waisting everyone's time with pissweak excuses, you just do your best to actually answer them?

Your losing the plot FD. My name is pjb05. I don't think Grendel has ever posted on any marine park thread! Regarding ignoring question, I have raised several in 4 other threads and you haven't responded to any of them.

Do you think it is somehow fair to deliberately take away fishing spots from those fishermen who are already the most restricted, in order to appease those fishermen with the greatest freedom and greatest access? Wouldn't that be just greedy?

You know very well I am proposing no or very limited angling bans. In any case you justification on equity grounds is flawed. Yes people with large boats can get outside your green zones with not too much trouble, but what about small boats with limited seaworthiness? Your signifcantly limiting their access!

Here's another unloaded question for you:

Should marine parks move boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?

See above. You have just come up with a different way of asking the same loaded question.


Quote:

They are loaded questions.

How are they loaded Grendel?

I have explained how.


Quote:

You start with the premise that marine parks with angling bans are a given

No I don't Grendel. Although to suggest that marine parks are not a given kind of denies reality. If someone asks you wheter you rpefer meat pie to apple pie, you don't have to be having pie for dinner in order to answer the question. It is not a loaded question.

I said marine parks with large no angling areas (green zones). The US only bans angling in 1% of it's marine parks - so who is denying reality?


Quote:

and the only debate is how the bans are distributed

Again Grendel, this is not a premise of the question. Having a debate about the best way to distribute marine parks does not mean it is the only debate to be had.

Yes and my response is to not have large angling bans in marine parks!


Quote:

You have completely ignored the question of whether any such bans are neccessary.

No I haven't Grendel. You must have an extremely short memory, because I have been having that exact debate with you for months now. You do remember that, don't you? Perhaps this explains why that debate seemed so repetitive.

Well your the one who can't remember my name! And duh, your avoiding this question of whether angling bans are even needed in this thread, ie by use of the loaded question you keep repeating.


Quote:

Note too that you are in no postition to impliment your policy.

;D ;D ;D You're saying I'm not the PM? Any other great insights?

Any debate on marine parks must pay attention to what is actually happening.


Quote:

How are shore hugging fish like tailor, whiting, blackfish, groper, drummer etc going to see and increase in numbers if they are not caught often by boat anglers and/ or recieve little commercial attention?

They won't if boat based fishermen don't often catch them, but then preventing boat based fishermen from catching them represents little loss to them. However, I have targetted and caught plenty of whiting from boats near shore based fishing spots, so that one at least does not belong in your list.

I'm aware whiting are caught from boats in estuaries, but not from boats in the ocean, whereas they are caught off ocean beaches.

PS: Your first point is illogical. Yes boat fishermen won't miss catching fish they don't already, but they will miss the safe leeward grounds and the fish they do catch there. Also if they don't catch certain fish popular with shore based fishermen then it can hardly be expected that banning boat based fishermen will increase their nos.

You often seem to switch between arguing that it is bad because it will prevent boat based fishermen from catching the fish, to saying it is bad because it won't do so.

See above.


Quote:

Yes and too bad if you live in an area which hosts a marine park.

Grendel, you act as through you are 3 inches high and that getting to the other side of these marine parks is some massive adventure for you. It isn't.

Have you ever been out at sea in a small boat when it's windy?

Ask the fishermen at Byron Bay where they lost nearly all their inshore reefs. Also ask them on the southern GBR where towns like Cairns lost 75% of their accessible reef.


Quote:

You can very well say most of the ocean is still open but do you really expect them to drive to the next port for a mornings fish?

No. What on earth makes you think that? I posted a heap of suggestions so that people would not be confused into thinking this. Would you like me to link you to them again, or do you know where they are?

Yes I know where they are. One of them is actually a recreational fishing haven (which just shows how much you have thought about this)! Before I answer further are you marine parks limited to just these 'examples'? Advocate and much of the literature you quote calls for 20% or more green zones. Do you think that this will have a trivial effect on angler's access?

More avoiding the question PJ. They are not loaded. You posted an aweful lot of criticism of this specific strategy on the other thread. Why are you suddenly avoiding the topic?

Do you think it is somehow fair to deliberately take away fishing spots from those fishermen who are already the most restricted, in order to appease those fishermen with the greatest freedom and greatest access? Wouldn't that be just greedy?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?


Quote:

Yes people with large boats can get outside your green zones with not too much trouble, but what about small boats with limited seaworthiness?

Yes PJ, even they can get around them, quite easily. Unless of course you are 3 inches tall and paddling around on an old thong.


Quote:

See above. You have just come up with a different way of asking the same loaded question.

Like I said, they are not loaded. Nor is it the same question. If you bothered to actually read them before making up silly excuses for not answering them, you would realise that one question is specifically about restrictions to shore based fishing and the other is specifically about restrictions to boat based fishing.


Quote:

I said marine parks with large no angling areas (green zones). The US only bans angling in 1% of it's marine parks - so who is denying reality?

So this is why you are suddenly unable to answer questions about a topic you were recently so vocal on?


Quote:

your avoiding this question of whether angling bans are even needed in this thread

Of course I am PJ. This thread is about a different topic - one that you have suddenly gone all shy over.


Quote:

Also if they don't catch certain fish popular with shore based fishermen then it can hardly be expected that banning boat based fishermen will increase their nos.

PJ, a lot of those fish are popular with shore based anglers precisely because boat based fishermen cannot catch them easily. It is the fish that the boat based fishermen do catch that will create the greatest benefit to shore based anglers. It is not a sensible criticism that boat fishermen do not catch some types of fish, because it represents no loss to them. Nor is it a sensible criticism that they do catch some types of fish. Simply switching back and forth repeatedly between the two criticisms doesn't make them any more sensible.


Quote:

Have you ever been out at sea in a small boat when it's windy?

Yes, plenty of times.


Quote:

Before I answer further are you marine parks limited to just these 'examples'?

PJ. I am not suggesting that the only marine parks in the world should be a few on the east coast of Australia that I picked. Nor am I suggesting that I own marine parks. I realise this is a silly answer, but the question was a bit silly too. Let me know if I misunderstood it. Also, are you saying that you will answer questions now, instead of offering silly excuses about 'loaded' questions?


Quote:

Yes I know where they are.

So why the silly question about driving to the next port?

I realise it may seem odd to people that I started this thread apparently in response to PJ, who now seems extremely reluctant to criticise my strategy of maximising the benefit to shore based anglers. He did actually try to argue that it is a bad idea to benefit shore based fishermen. Here are a few comments he posted in the marine parks thread.

I especially like the bit where he criticises my suggestions because the reserves are so small.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192441509/345


Quote:

You examples show you don't understand fishing at all - nor the impact of your MP design. You would have us fishing off the shore - where spots are already limited and prone to crowding or access is difficult or they are hard/ dangerous to fish!

Quote:

How often have you fished off the shore FD? I don't find it hard to catch a fish this way. Overcrowding is the main obstacle - which you will make worse.

Quote:

You will have to go further out to sea - too bad if you boat is small. Your claims of benefits are unproven and highly unlikely. More likely is that your proposal will degrade the overall angling experience. You have also avoided my point that a lot of the shore based spots in your examples are difficult and or dangerous to fish.

Quote:

Duh FD, you want to encourage fishing from the shore and discourage fishing from a boat do you not? How will that not lead to overcrowding.

Quote:

I know these areas. Some of them are ocean rocks - hardly safe or accessable. Others are river breakwalls with very strong tidal flow and hence difficult to fish from the shore.  And yes there is something to stop people fishing from a boat - namely your no boat fishing zones. Also you reserve areas are very small and most of our inshore fish are very mobile. It is highly unlikely that shore based fishermen will benefit from them

Quote:

What's fair about some communities losing most of their fishing spots and others being able to fish where they please?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192441509/360


Quote:

You will have to go further out to sea

Quote:

What about the Newcastle example - you want to encourage people to fish off the ocean rocks. What about all you fishing allowed zones consisting of river breakwalls with very strong tidal flow (and difficult access for people with limited mobility)

.


Quote:

Well either fishing pressure is displaced - hence more crowding in the areas not grabbed as green zones - or people give up fishing! Crowding does distract from the enjoyment of the sport - especially when shore based. In any case for a number of reasons your claims of better catches are highly dubious, yet you treat them as they are an actual fact.

Quote:

Even if you take your dubious claims as true - all you are offering for fishermen is a zero sum game. Your restricting boat based fishermen to favour shore based fishermen - an entirely pointless exercise. Why on earth do you think you are doing fishermen any good in doing this?

More avoiding the question PJ. They are not loaded. You posted an aweful lot of criticism of this specific strategy on the other thread. Why are you suddenly avoiding the topic?

Offering only two possible alternatves is loaded. It is like a tricky lawyer's ploy. Of course your whining about supposed non replies from me this is more projection on your part. There are four threads where I have raised a lot of question and you haven't even replied. In the last post I asked are your marine parks are limited to your examples and what level of green zones will you be aiming for (eg 20%) and you haven't answered.    


Do you think it is somehow fair to deliberately take away fishing spots from those fishermen who are already the most restricted, in order to appease those fishermen with the greatest freedom and greatest access? Wouldn't that be just greedy?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?

Now try to pay attention this time. You have narrowed this down to two alternatives. This gives three possible answers; one alternative or the other or neither. Are you following so far? Now here's my answer in my last post:

"In any case you justification on equity grounds is flawed. Yes people with large boats can get outside your green zones with not too much trouble, but what about small boats with limited seaworthiness? Your signifcantly limiting their access!"

You may count that as a 'neither'.




Quote:

Yes people with large boats can get outside your green zones with not too much trouble, but what about small boats with limited seaworthiness?

Yes PJ, even they can get around them, quite easily. Unless of course you are 3 inches tall and paddling around on an old thong.

So how far would you want to be offshore in a 25 knot westerly wind in say a 14 ft tinnie?


Quote:

See above. You have just come up with a different way of asking the same loaded question.

Like I said, they are not loaded. Nor is it the same question. If you bothered to actually read them before making up silly excuses for not answering them, you would realise that one question is specifically about restrictions to shore based fishing and the other is specifically about restrictions to boat based fishing.

See above.


Quote:

I said marine parks with large no angling areas (green zones). The US only bans angling in 1% of it's marine parks - so who is denying reality?

So this is why you are suddenly unable to answer questions about a topic you were recently so vocal on?

It's not my fault you don't like my answers.


Quote:

your avoiding this question of whether angling bans are even needed in this thread

Of course I am PJ. This thread is about a different topic - one that you have suddenly gone all shy over.

No, you just say it's a 'different topic' - this line of yours is just a clumsy rhetorical trick. In any case I have answered within the narrow confines you have set.


Quote:

Also if they don't catch certain fish popular with shore based fishermen then it can hardly be expected that banning boat based fishermen will increase their nos.

PJ, a lot of those fish are popular with shore based anglers precisely because boat based fishermen cannot catch them easily. It is the fish that the boat based fishermen do catch that will create the greatest benefit to shore based anglers. It is not a sensible criticism that boat fishermen do not catch some types of fish, because it represents no loss to them. Nor is it a sensible criticism that they do catch some types of fish. Simply switching back and forth repeatedly between the two criticisms doesn't make them any more sensible.

Sorry, I can't make anything of that incomprehensible jibberish.


Quote:

Have you ever been out at sea in a small boat when it's windy?

Yes, plenty of times.

So how far would you want to be out in a 25 plus knot wind?


Quote:

Before I answer further are you marine parks limited to just these 'examples'?

PJ. I am not suggesting that the only marine parks in the world should be a few on the east coast of Australia that I picked. Nor am I suggesting that I own marine parks. I realise this is a silly answer, but the question was a bit silly too. Let me know if I misunderstood it. Also, are you saying that you will answer questions now, instead of offering silly excuses about 'loaded' questions?

If were talking about angler's access then the extent of your (and other) marine parks would be helpful to know.


Quote:

Yes I know where they are.

So why the silly question about driving to the next port?

Why is it silly if you won't reveal the extent of your marine parks?

Quote:

Offering only two possible alternatves is loaded.

No it isn't PJ. Do you even know what a loaded question means? I gave a simple explanation of why it wasn't a loaded question. Did you miss that? Simply repeating that it is a loaded question isn't going to overcome the obvious fact that it isn't.


Quote:

In the last post I asked are your marine parks are limited to your examples and what level of green zones will you be aiming for (eg 20%) and you haven't answered.

 

I did answer your previous question PJ. Did you have trouble understanding?


Quote:

You have narrowed this down to two alternatives. This gives three possible answers; one alternative or the other or neither. Are you following so far?

Are you now saying that you are incapable of choosing between the two alternatives? You seemed highly critical of this particular strategy in the other thread and had no trouble giving your opinion of it. Are you now saying that your criticism was not actually directed at the specific strategy? All those times you said it was 'worse' you were not actually comparing it to anything?


Quote:

So how far would you want to be offshore in a 25 knot westerly wind in say a 14 ft tinnie?

PJ you seem to have trouble comprehending this simple point - the strategy would not prevent boat fishermen from fishing adjacent to the shore. In fact, it deliberately leaves open those areas that are nopt already heavily fished by shore based anglers.


Quote:

No, you just say it's a 'different topic'

But it is a different topic PJ. See the thread title if you are confused about what the topic is. You have this strange idea that we have to have the exact same discussion in every single thread. Why is that?


Quote:

this line of yours is just a clumsy rhetorical trick

It is not a 'trick' PJ, it is called sticking to the topic.


Quote:

Why is it silly if you won't reveal the extent of your marine parks?

Because the strategy is independent of the extent of coverage of the marine parks. If your answer is somehow dependent on the extent of coverage, you are welcome to explain in your answer.

[/quote]Offering only two possible alternatves is loaded.[/quote]

No it isn't PJ. Do you even know what a loaded question means? I gave a simple explanation of why it wasn't a loaded question. Did you miss that? Simply repeating that it is a loaded question isn't going to overcome the obvious fact that it isn't.

If it wasn't loaded then you would accept me favouring neither alternative (ie no angling bans) as an answer.  


Quote:

In the last post I asked are your marine parks are limited to your examples and what level of green zones will you be aiming for (eg 20%) and you haven't answered.

 

I did answer your previous question PJ. Did you have trouble understanding?

I understand you just danced around the question and offered no specifics.


Quote:

You have narrowed this down to two alternatives. This gives three possible answers; one alternative or the other or neither. Are you following so far?

Are you now saying that you are incapable of choosing between the two alternatives? You seemed highly critical of this particular strategy in the other thread and had no trouble giving your opinion of it. Are you now saying that your criticism was not actually directed at the specific strategy? All those times you said it was 'worse' you were not actually comparing it to anything?

Duh, I was comparing it to no significant angling bans, ie either boat or landbased. You have tried to make the debate into a choice between boat based fishermen and landbased fishermen. Of course this is just a rhetorical construct to get around the debate which is if such marine parks are needed.    


Quote:

So how far would you want to be offshore in a 25 knot westerly wind in say a 14 ft tinnie?

PJ you seem to have trouble comprehending this simple point - the strategy would not prevent boat fishermen from fishing adjacent to the shore. In fact, it deliberately leaves open those areas that are nopt already heavily fished by shore based anglers.

This is not clear from your examples, especially since you won't define the extent of your marine parks. Yes they can fish close to the shore outside your marine parks - but you won't say what the extent of your marine parks will be.


Quote:

No, you just say it's a 'different topic'

But it is a different topic PJ. See the thread title if you are confused about what the topic is. You have this strange idea that we have to have the exact same discussion in every single thread. Why is that?

You seem to have given up on the other threads.


Quote:

this line of yours is just a clumsy rhetorical trick

It is not a 'trick' PJ, it is called sticking to the topic.

The so called 'topic' is the rhetorical trick.


Quote:

Why is it silly if you won't reveal the extent of your marine parks?

Because the strategy is independent of the extent of coverage of the marine parks. If your answer is somehow dependent on the extent of coverage, you are welcome to explain in your answer.

Nonsense. I have explained the drawbacks. The greater the extent of your parks the greater these drawbacks will be.

Quote:

Sorry, I can't make anything of that incomprehensible jibberish.

PJ, given that this is the principle mechanism for benefit to land based anglers, perhaps you should make the effort to understand it. Basically, instead of shore based fishermen being largely limited to those species that are difficult for boat fishermen to target, they would have a decent chance at a much larger variety of species.


Quote:

If it wasn't loaded then you would accept me favouring neither alternative (ie no angling bans) as an answer.

Sure, I can accept you being unable to tell the difference. Or at least, I can accept your claim that you are unable to. I don't think that is true of course, but there's not much point arguing that out.


Quote:

I understand you just danced around the question and offered no specifics.

Perhaps you should ask again then. If it's the question I am thinking of, it seemed rather silly.


Quote:

You have tried to make the debate into a choice between boat based fishermen and landbased fishermen.

Not exactly PJ. There will still be both shore and boat based fishing either way, and the extent to which each are taken up won;t change much. The question largely boils down to whether marine parks should 'tend to' separate the two groups or push them together onto the same spots. I am surprised you are unable to tell any difference between these two outcomes.


Quote:

Of course this is just a rhetorical construct to get around the debate which is if such marine parks are needed.

   

No it isn't. I have spents dozens of pages, many of them highly repetitive, debating that topic with you. I have made no attempt to avoid it. In fact, I only started this thread because you started to post some very strange criticisms of my strategy in the other thread.


Quote:

The so called 'topic' is the rhetorical trick.

PJ have you now taken to disagreeing with me on what the topic of this thread is?


Quote:

Nonsense. I have explained the drawbacks. The greater the extent of your parks the greater these drawbacks will be.

PJ, you posted this in response to me claiming that it is independent of the extent of coverage, said that was nonsense, then went on to explain that your view would not change with the extent of coverage. You seem to be disagreeing and agreeing with me at the same time. Like I said, if your view on this particular strategy depends on the extent of coverage, please explain why. Otherwise, why keep insisting that you know the extent of coverage before answering? It sounds like another pissweak excuse for avoiding the question.

[]
Quote:

Sorry, I can't make anything of that incomprehensible jibberish.

PJ, given that this is the principle mechanism for benefit to land based anglers, perhaps you should make the effort to understand it. Basically, instead of shore based fishermen being largely limited to those species that are difficult for boat fishermen to target, they would have a decent chance at a much larger variety of species.

Then your principle is flawed. A large part of their catch consists of species that are difficult to catch for boat fishermen merely because they have easier access to them. Most boat fishermen are adverse to parking their boat a few meters from the ocean beaches and rocks! As to species caught by both boat and shore fishermen there is no evidence they are overfished.  


Quote:

If it wasn't loaded then you would accept me favouring neither alternative (ie no angling bans) as an answer.

Sure, I can accept you being unable to tell the difference. Or at least, I can accept your claim that you are unable to. I don't think that is true of course, but there's not much point arguing that out.

Or it's just that you can't justify your policy.


Quote:

I understand you just danced around the question and offered no specifics.

Perhaps you should ask again then. If it's the question I am thinking of, it seemed rather silly.

Yes, more tap dancing again.


Quote:

You have tried to make the debate into a choice between boat based fishermen and landbased fishermen.

Not exactly PJ. There will still be both shore and boat based fishing either way, and the extent to which each are taken up won;t change much. The question largely boils down to whether marine parks should 'tend to' separate the two groups or push them together onto the same spots. I am surprised you are unable to tell any difference between these two outcomes.

These outcomes exist solely within your head. You have a scant knowledge of our fishery, no scientific training, can't even specify the extent of your parks and have made no consultation with the stakeholders which will have to put up with this policy.  


Quote:

Of course this is just a rhetorical construct to get around the debate which is if such marine parks are needed.

   

No it isn't. I have spents dozens of pages, many of them highly repetitive, debating that topic with you. I have made no attempt to avoid it. In fact, I only started this thread because you started to post some very strange criticisms of my strategy in the other thread.

Your avoiding them now. I have raised quite a few points and put up evdence which contadicts your spurious claims and you have not responded.


Quote:

The so called 'topic' is the rhetorical trick.

PJ have you now taken to disagreeing with me on what the topic of this thread is?

Duh, I know what the topic is and it is a loaded question/ rhetorical trick.


Quote:

Nonsense. I have explained the drawbacks. The greater the extent of your parks the greater these drawbacks will be.

PJ, you posted this in response to me claiming that it is independent of the extent of coverage, said that was nonsense, then went on to explain that your view would not change with the extent of coverage. You seem to be disagreeing and agreeing with me at the same time.

Duh, I said the extent of the drawbacks will be proprtional to the extent of the parks.

Like I said, if your view on this particular strategy depends on the extent of coverage, please explain why. Otherwise, why keep insisting that you know the extent of coverage before answering? It sounds like another pissweak excuse for avoiding the question.

More projection on your part. And you have the hide to complain about repetition. Why don't you tell me the extent of these parks and then I can give a better answer?

PJ, you seem to be totally confused about what I am actually asking here. Try reading the questions again. They are nothing to do with the extent of the benefits. We have been going at this for a whole page now and I am still trying to get you to comprehend the question. Surely it is not that difficult for you.


Quote:

Then your principle is flawed. A large part of their catch consists of species that are difficult to catch for boat fishermen merely because they have easier access to them. Most boat fishermen are adverse to parking their boat a few meters from the ocean beaches and rocks!

You have got it backwards PJ. I was not talking about species that are difficult to catch from a boat. I was talking about species that are easy to catch from a boat.


Quote:

Or it's just that you can't justify your policy.

Yes I can. That's what the article is about. the fact that you are so unwilling to criticise the strategy specifically is a good sign.


Quote:

Yes, more tap dancing again.

PJ, I answered your question. You were unhappy with the answer, but won;t say why. It is your problem, not mine. I am not a mind reader.


Quote:

These outcomes exist solely within your head. You have a scant knowledge of our fishery, no scientific training, can't even specify the extent of your parks and have made no consultation with the stakeholders which will have to put up with this policy.

 

Wrong on every point PJ.


Quote:

Your avoiding them now. I have raised quite a few points and put up evdence which contadicts your spurious claims and you have not responded.

I'm sure if there is anything new or interesting I will respond.


Quote:

Duh, I said the extent of the drawbacks will be proprtional to the extent of the parks.

Hence the extent of the marine parks would not change your answer to the question actually asked. I am not asking about the extent of the benefit. I am asking which strategy is better. It will still be better whether the benefits are halved or doubled. This is a farily simple logical point so I'm not sure why you are so hung up on it.


Quote:

Why don't you tell me the extent of these parks and then I can give a better answer?

I have already explained this countless times PJ. I can't put it any simpler for you. If you can't get your head around this simple point, try making up two reasonable numbers, composing an answer based on each, then see for yourself how your two responses are actually the same.

Quote:

Then your principle is flawed. A large part of their catch consists of species that are difficult to catch for boat fishermen merely because they have easier access to them. Most boat fishermen are adverse to parking their boat a few meters from the ocean beaches and rocks!

You have got it backwards PJ. I was not talking about species that are difficult to catch from a boat. I was talking about species that are easy to catch from a boat.

Yes and a lot species easy to catch from a boat aren't common off the rocks a beaches, so just like the shore hugging species there is little to be gained by your sort of area management. My point about the fish mentioned being common close to the shore and often not targetted commercially goes against your claims - there will be little benefit to be had from your zoning.


Quote:

Or it's just that you can't justify your policy.

Yes I can. That's what the article is about. the fact that you are so unwilling to criticise the strategy specifically is a good sign.

I have spent pages criticising it!


Quote:

Yes, more tap dancing again.

PJ, I answered your question. You were unhappy with the answer, but won;t say why. It is your problem, not mine. I am not a mind reader.

Well let me put it this way, you said I must be 3 inches high not to get around you marine parks yet you won't say what the extent of your marine parks are, eg give me a state wide % of zones.  


Quote:

These outcomes exist solely within your head. You have a scant knowledge of our fishery, no scientific training, can't even specify the extent of your parks and have made no consultation with the stakeholders which will have to put up with this policy.

 

Wrong on every point PJ.

This should be good,

What about all the errors and falsehoods I have pointed out in the recent threads?

So what are your scientific qualifications?

You still won't tell me the extent of your proposed parks!

What consultation have you actually carried out?




Quote:

Your avoiding them now. I have raised quite a few points and put up evdence which contradicts your spurious claims and you have not responded.

I'm sure if there is anything new or interesting I will respond.

You your saying your not interested?


Quote:

Duh, I said the extent of the drawbacks will be proprtional to the extent of the parks.

Hence the extent of the marine parks would not change your answer to the question actually asked. I am not asking about the extent of the benefit. I am asking which strategy is better. It will still be better whether the benefits are halved or doubled. This is a farily simple logical point so I'm not sure why you are so hung up on it.

The status quo would be better if you just want to stick to discussing the areas in your examples.

Quote:

Yes and a lot species easy to catch from a boat aren't common off the rocks a beaches, so just like the shore hugging species there is little to be gained by your sort of area management. My point about the fish mentioned being common close to the shore and often not targetted commercially goes against your claims - there will be little benefit to be had from your zoning.

The fact that some species won't play much of a role doesn't mean that none will. A lot of those species that you wouldn't normally bother targetting from the rocks or beach at the moment will become a lot more attractive targets if you are effectively fishing into a marine park. Just about every species commonly caught from a boat can be caught from the shore under the right circumstances. You should know that. Plus there are plenty of species, such as Mulloway, that are targetted and caught from the shore, just not very often. And as I pointed out before, for species that the shore based fishermen don;t catch, the marine park will act the same way for boat fishermen as a typical marine park not adjacent to the shore.


Quote:

I have spent pages criticising it!

You have spent pages criticising marine parks in general. You have spent more effort trying to justify not criticising this specific strategy as you have actually criticising it.


Quote:

Well let me put it this way, you said I must be 3 inches high not to get around you marine parks yet you won't say what the extent of your marine parks are, eg give me a state wide % of zones.

 

I see. The size of the marine parks should be roughly as indicated in the examples given. To maximise the benefit to fishermen, they should be as small as possible and I think that is a good philosophy to adopt. In fact using the shore as a boundary allows you to have the smallest possible effective size, as the shore represents a much clearer boundary than one on the surface of the water. So if it is the ability to cross an individual no take zone, rather than the percentage coverage, that is your concern, then my strategy represents the best option for you. However, please note that my original point still stands - you could apply this strategy regardless of the size of each park, and the arguments for or against this specific strategy would not change.


Quote:

What about all the errors and falsehoods I have pointed out in the recent threads?

I will respond to them in the appropriate thread, if I haven't already. Obviously I can't respond here, as you have not said what they are and they probably don't belong in this topic. Be patient. You know I have been going at this for years now and am not about to stop.


Quote:

So what are your scientific qualifications?

Sorry I will not answer this question. I do not engage in argumentum ad hominem and have not used my qualifications to back my argument. My arguments rest on their own merits.


Quote:

You still won't tell me the extent of your proposed parks!

Hopefully I have explained this. If you need clarification, please first clarify whether you are talking about total percentage coverage or the distribution (ie individual aprk size).


Quote:

What consultation have you actually carried out?

I have talked to many fishermen about this.

[]
Quote:

Yes and a lot species easy to catch from a boat aren't common off the rocks a beaches, so just like the shore hugging species there is little to be gained by your sort of area management. My point about the fish mentioned being common close to the shore and often not targetted commercially goes against your claims - there will be little benefit to be had from your zoning.

The fact that some species won't play much of a role doesn't mean that none will.

I never said that none will. The fact that a lot don't undermines you policy.

A lot of those species that you wouldn't normally bother targetting from the rocks or beach at the moment will become a lot more attractive targets if you are effectively fishing into a marine park.

Not if their natural range doesn't put them within the reach of rock or beach anglers.

Just about every species commonly caught from a boat can be caught from the shore under the right circumstances. You should know that.

Not true. What about the offshore flathead species such as sand and tiger flathead. Then there's the reef fish such as mowong, pigfish, nannygai.

Plus there are plenty of species, such as Mulloway, that are targetted and caught from the shore, just not very often.

Mulloway are a common target from the shore! Especially rocks, beches and river breakwalls. In supposedly overfished Sydney I caught a mulloway on a lure last week, shore based,  5 min from my house in the western suburbs! You say you want to favour anglers in urban areas, well there is more than one way to skin a cat. That fish was caught in the Georges river which is part of a recreational fishing haven. Also the river is stocked with mulloway with funding from the rec fishing licence.  

And as I pointed out before, for species that the shore based fishermen don;t catch, the marine park will act the same way for boat fishermen as a typical marine park not adjacent to the shore.

As I have pointed out in the other threads marine parks aren't likely to be the most cost effective way of managing the fishery.  


Quote:

I have spent pages criticising it!

You have spent pages criticising marine parks in general. You have spent more effort trying to justify not criticising this specific strategy as you have actually criticising it.

Come off it, I have made numerous objections.


Quote:

Well let me put it this way, you said I must be 3 inches high not to get around you marine parks yet you won't say what the extent of your marine parks are, eg give me a state wide % of zones.

 

I see. The size of the marine parks should be roughly as indicated in the examples given. To maximise the benefit to fishermen, they should be as small as possible and I think that is a good philosophy to adopt. In fact using the shore as a boundary allows you to have the smallest possible effective size, as the shore represents a much clearer boundary than one on the surface of the water. So if it is the ability to cross an individual no take zone, rather than the percentage coverage, that is your concern, then my strategy represents the best option for you. However, please note that my original point still stands - you could apply this strategy regardless of the size of each park, and the arguments for or against this specific strategy would not change.

Yes but that still leaves the question as to how many of these parks will there be and what area will they take in.

Note that we have seen this before. When the marine park juggernought rolls into town the actual size of the green zones is kept vague and assurances are given about your favourite fishing spots. This makes it hard to object to the concept. Of course the reality is rather different once the zones are drawn up. Then once in place no green zone ever gets smaller. The displaced fishing effort is often used as excuse to expand the green zones!


Quote:

What about all the errors and falsehoods I have pointed out in the recent threads?

Quote:

So what are your scientific qualifications?

Sorry I will not answer this question. I do not engage in argumentum ad hominem and have not used my qualifications to back my argument. My arguments rest on their own merits.

Well you have resorted to argumentum ad hominem more than once. Didn't you call Prof Ray Hilborn a dinosaur who has been rejected by his peers?


Quote:

You still won't tell me the extent of your proposed parks!

Hopefully I have explained this. If you need clarification, please first clarify whether you are talking about total percentage coverage or the distribution (ie individual aprk size).

Both would be useful.


Quote:

What consultation have you actually carried out?

I have talked to many fishermen about this.

Really. How did you go about this. Have you tried raising the idea on any fishing chat sites, had meetings with fishing clubs or peak angling bodies? How about town hall style meeting in the areas affected?

Quote:

I never said that none will. The fact that a lot don't undermines you policy.

The vast majority do.


Quote:

Then there's the reef fish such as mowong, pigfish, nannygai

.

No idea what type of mowong you are talking about, but there are plenty of reef fish near the shore, including a few mowong, and there would be plenty more if there was a marine park there.


Quote:

As I have pointed out in the other threads marine parks aren't likely to be the most cost effective way of managing the fishery.

 

That isn't what this thread is about PJ. You are the one saying that the fact that some species avoid the shore undermines my strategy. But your criticism boils down to the same old criticism about marine parks in general, not about this particular strategy. Shore based fishermen won't be catching orange roughy regardless of the strategy used to select marine parks, so the fact that this strategy does not overcome that problem is pretty much irrelevant.

In case you have forgotten again what I am asking here:

Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?


Quote:

Yes but that still leaves the question as to how many of these parks will there be and what area will they take in.

There will still be plenty of questions left over after you have plucked up the courage to answer this one. That isn't an excuse for not answering. Or are you still claiming that you cannot answer this question until you have all the answers?

Quote:

I never said that none will. The fact that a lot don't undermines you policy.

The vast majority do.

Well if you look at my list it is doubtful that any sort of majority will.


Quote:

Then there's the reef fish such as mowong, pigfish, nannygai

.

No idea what type of mowong you are talking about, but there are plenty of reef fish near the shore, including a few mowong, and there would be plenty more if there was a marine park there.

I was refering to blue mowong. There are rarely found within casting distance of the shore. Red mowong are often given as an example of a fish species showing an increased no in green zones in NSW marine parks (actually they are the only documented species). What the greenies don't realise they are an extremely rare catch for anglers despite being quite abundant (must be due to their feeding habits).


Quote:

As I have pointed out in the other threads marine parks aren't likely to be the most cost effective way of managing the fishery.

 

That isn't what this thread is about PJ. You are the one saying that the fact that some species avoid the shore undermines my strategy. But your criticism boils down to the same old criticism about marine parks in general, not about this particular strategy. Shore based fishermen won't be catching orange roughy regardless of the strategy used to select marine parks, so the fact that this strategy does not overcome that problem is pretty much irrelevant.

I didn't mention orange roughy, you did. As far as I know NO anglers catch them. What I did mention was a fairly substantial list where this claim is a applicable. Also this argument is independant of general criticisms of marine parks and goes to the nature of your specific zoning strategy.  

In case you have forgotten again what I am asking here:

Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?

Your thought control methods don't work on me. I have already answered this question, it's just that you don't like the answer.

PS the second question is loaded with a lot of unsustantiated claims. Eg why would depriving boat fishermen of close to shore spots not create more crowding elsewhere? They are going to be displaced somewhere. Then there is the biggest assumption - that the fishery will actually be more productive because of this zoning!


Quote:

Yes but that still leaves the question as to how many of these parks will there be and what area will they take in.

There will still be plenty of questions left over after you have plucked up the courage to answer this one. That isn't an excuse for not answering. Or are you still claiming that you cannot answer this question until you have all the answers?

Neither plan is attractive. Both are based on the presumption that we actually need angling bans. On top of that you won't specify the extent of the parks so your asking that I sign a blank cheque!  

Quote:

Well if you look at my list it is doubtful that any sort of majority will.

So, you think that your list covers the majority of target species?


Quote:

Also this argument is independant of general criticisms of marine parks and goes to the nature of your specific zoning strategy.

 

Does it? Can you explain how your criticism does not apply to alternative strategies? This strategy gives the best possible outcome for shore based anglers, yet you seem to think it is somehow valid to criticise it for not giving them something that no other strategy does either. You might as well criticise it because shore based anglers won't be catching meat pies.


Quote:

Eg why would depriving boat fishermen of close to shore spots not create more crowding elsewhere? They are going to be displaced somewhere.

It would create less crowding compared to other strategies because there won't be shore based fishermen there, or at least, not as many. Again, you are reverting to your standard criticisms of marine parks in general, that you could make against any strategy. Any strategy for selecting no take zones is going to displace fishermen. The question is about whether boat fishermen should be displaced towards or away from shore based anglers. BTW, the strategy is not about depriving boat fishermen of spots that are close to the shore, but about spots that are close to the most easily accessible shore based fishing spots.


Quote:

On top of that you won't specify the extent of the parks so your asking that I sign a blank cheque!

 

But I did. I said they should be as small as practically possible. Nor am I asking you sign a blank check. You have this absurd notion that any indication of preference will be wrongly interpretted as complete support for marine parks. I realise you have an unfortunate habit of unreasoanble generalisations regarding what other people say, but you needn't assume others will do the same. There is nothing at all in this question about the extent of marine parks or what percentage coverage it involves, so your demand simply makes no sense. It is not a trick question PJ. It is a very simple question about the preferred strategy for selecting marine parks, not whether you support marine parks in general, and not what extent of marine aprks you support. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and reassure you that it is OK to answer it.

[]
Quote:

Well if you look at my list it is doubtful that any sort of majority will.

So, you think that your list covers the majority of target species?

It seems likely for the ocean examples.


Quote:

Also this argument is independant of general criticisms of marine parks and goes to the nature of your specific zoning strategy.

 

Does it? Can you explain how your criticism does not apply to alternative strategies? This strategy gives the best possible outcome for shore based anglers, yet you seem to think it is somehow valid to criticise it for not giving them something that no other strategy does either. You might as well criticise it because shore based anglers won't be catching meat pies.

This criticism doesn't apply to the status quo. Ie managing the whole fishery with restrited professional licence, bag limits, quotas etc. As to rec havens the pros are bought out from these areas so displaced fishing shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure what you mean my the meat pies reference, but if you mean that quite a few fish being mainly the domain of land based fishers then this goes to the effacy of your plan.  


Quote:

Eg why would depriving boat fishermen of close to shore spots not create more crowding elsewhere? They are going to be displaced somewhere.

It would create less crowding compared to other strategies because there won't be shore based fishermen there, or at least, not as many.

But it won't be a problem with a non-marine park strategy.



Again, you are reverting to your standard criticisms of marine parks in general, that you could make against any strategy. Any strategy for selecting no take zones is going to displace fishermen. The question is about whether boat fishermen should be displaced towards or away from shore based anglers.

What about the question wether NTZ's are even neccessary?

BTW, the strategy is not about depriving boat fishermen of spots that are close to the shore, but about spots that are close to the most easily accessible shore based fishing spots.

Your examples don't reflect that. They are rather arbitrary lines drawn on a map.


Quote:

On top of that you won't specify the extent of the parks so your asking that I sign a blank cheque!

 

But I did. I said they should be as small as practically possible.

That is not specifying anything.

Nor am I asking you sign a blank check. You have this absurd notion that any indication of preference will be wrongly interpretted as complete support for marine parks.

Most of your writings reflect just that. Isn't your mantra that marine parks are the ideal fisheries management tool?

I realise you have an unfortunate habit of unreasoanble generalisations regarding what other people say, but you needn't assume others will do the same. There is nothing at all in this question about the extent of marine parks or what percentage coverage it involves, so your demand simply makes no sense.

Just because it is not in the question doesn't mean I can't raise it.

It is not a trick question PJ. It is a very simple question about the preferred strategy for selecting marine parks, not whether you support marine parks in general, and not what extent of marine aprks you support. I shouldn't have to hold your hand and reassure you that it is OK to answer it.

Yes and I said neither strategy is preferable. PS your stinking attitude is not going to change my mind. Is that simple enough for you?  

Quote:

This criticism doesn't apply to the status quo.

The status quo includes marine parks PJ, and they do vary quite considerably in the extent to which they reflect this strategy. The question is not about other fisheries management tools. Here is it again in case you have forgotten:

Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?


Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean my the meat pies reference, but if you mean that quite a few fish being mainly the domain of land based fishers then this goes to the effacy of your plan.

No PJ that is not what I meant. I thought I put it quite simply.


Quote:

What about the question wether NTZ's are even neccessary?

That is a different question PJ. Do try to remember this time.


Quote:

Your examples don't reflect that. They are rather arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

Can you suggest ones that would reflect the strategy better? Given that you don't seem to understand the strategy yet, I am surprised that you think you can.


Quote:

PS your stinking attitude is not going to change my mind. Is that simple enough for you?

I am not trying to change your mind PJ. Your non-answer, deflections and excuses indicates to me that you don't seem to have made up your mind yet.

]
Quote:

This criticism doesn't apply to the status quo.

The status quo includes marine parks PJ, and they do vary quite considerably in the extent to which they reflect this strategy.

Duh, they don't exist as the status quo in your examples.

The question is not about other fisheries management tools. Here is it again in case you have forgotten:

Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?

Duh, how can I forget, you have been cutting and pasting it onto every post.


Quote:

I'm not sure what you mean my the meat pies reference, but if you mean that quite a few fish being mainly the domain of land based fishers then this goes to the effacy of your plan.

I think your a bt bit simple. That's the closest meaning I could interpret.

No PJ that is not what I meant. I thought I put it quite simply.


Quote:

What about the question wether NTZ's are even neccessary?

That is a different question PJ. Do try to remember this time.

You remind me of the hologram in 'i robot' - sorry I can't answer that question, my responses are limited.


Quote:

Your examples don't reflect that. They are rather arbitrary lines drawn on a map.

Can you suggest ones that would reflect the strategy better? Given that you don't seem to understand the strategy yet, I am surprised that you think you can.

I wouldn't even try to pointlessly zone up these areas.



Quote:

PS your stinking attitude is not going to change my mind. Is that simple enough for you?

I am not trying to change your mind PJ. Your non-answer, deflections and excuses indicates to me that you don't seem to have made up your mind yet.

Yes you are rather fond of projecting you faults onto others.

Quote:

Duh, they don't exist as the status quo in your examples.

PJ, the examples are not of the status quo, but of a particular strategy. That's the point of giving an example. You posted earlier:


Quote:

Also this argument is independant of general criticisms of marine parks and goes to the nature of your specific zoning strategy.

Yet your criticisms were general. You seem to think that because other strategies don't even attempt to address this issue that the criticism does not apply to them. It does - and more so. If your criticism were genuinely specific to this strategy, it would allow you to give a real answer to the question, instead of critising the strategy on a measure for which it outperforms all other strategies. The fact that shore based fishing zones won't enable shore based fishermen to easily catch every sinlge species does not count against the strategy in any rational sense, as no other strategy does that either. The benfits of this particular strategy are not dependent on shore based fishermen being able to catch every single species. You are judging the different options by different standards.


Quote:

Duh, how can I forget, you have been cutting and pasting it onto every post.

That's because you keep forgetting.


Quote:

I wouldn't even try to pointlessly zone up these areas.

So you think my examples don't reflect the strategy, but you can't come up with better examples?

Quote:

Also this argument is independant of general criticisms of marine parks and goes to the nature of your specific zoning strategy.

Yet your criticisms were general. You seem to think that because other strategies don't even attempt to address this issue that the criticism does not apply to them.

What issue is that? A few landbased tourists/ casual anglers not catching many fish?

It does - and more so. If your criticism were genuinely specific to this strategy, it would allow you to give a real answer to the question, instead of critising the strategy on a measure for which it outperforms all other strategies. The fact that shore based fishing zones won't enable shore based fishermen to easily catch every sinlge species does not count against the strategy in any rational sense, as no other strategy does that either.

Well there are quite a few species you zoning won't have much effect on. Your plan just creates more problems for anglers than it has any hope of offering benifits.

The benfits of this particular strategy are not dependent on shore based fishermen being able to catch every single species. You are judging the different options by different standards.


See above.


Quote:

Duh, how can I forget, you have been cutting and pasting it onto every post.

That's because you keep forgetting.

Your thought control methods don't work on me, remember.


Quote:

I wouldn't even try to pointlessly zone up these areas.

So you think my examples don't reflect the strategy, but you can't come up with better examples?

What about my recreational fishing haven examples?

Quote:

What issue is that? A few landbased tourists/ casual anglers not catching many fish?

Sorry, I forgot to remind you in my last post. I hope you agree that this is not a trivial issue.

Do you think accessible shore based fishing spots should be excluded from marine parks, where possible? That is, should shore based fishing be specifically allowed, regardless of what you can do from a boat?

Should marine parks displace boat based fishermen towards shore based fishing spots to make them more crowded, or away from shore based fishing spots so both groups are in less crowded, more productive spots?


Quote:

Well there are quite a few species you zoning won't have much effect on. Your plan just creates more problems for anglers than it has any hope of offering benifits.

Is that another general criticism that has nothing to do with this specific strategy?


Quote:

Your thought control methods don't work on me, remember.

You think I'm doing some kind of voodoo thought control? I'm just asking a simple question. There is nothing special about sticking to the topic. I'm not sure how fruitful your 'none of the above' responses have been in practice, but I have seen changes made to marine parks in response to specific suggestions made by fishermen including myself. I have seen such response actually be of benefit to the fishing community.


Quote:

What about my recreational fishing haven examples?

they are very nice, but they don't answer the question about where no take zones should be placed. In fact, shore based fishing zones become recreational fishing zones in practice. You don't see many pros fishing from the shore in the most easily accessible spots.

If you want to, you can start a thread about the wonders of rec fishing havens. Then you could change the topic to your hearts content and I won't even mention it.

Quote:

Well there are quite a few species you zoning won't have much effect on. Your plan just creates more problems for anglers than it has any hope of offering benifits.

Is that another general criticism that has nothing to do with this specific strategy?

It has quite a bit do do with this - I have pointed out a very significant number of species which can't possibly respond to your zoning strategy.


Quote:

Your thought control methods don't work on me, remember.

You think I'm doing some kind of voodoo thought control? I'm just asking a simple question. There is nothing special about sticking to the topic. I'm not sure how fruitful your 'none of the above' responses have been in practice, but I have seen changes made to marine parks in response to specific suggestions made by fishermen including myself. I have seen such response actually be of benefit to the fishing community.

Where for example? In a lot of cases sumissions from fishermen have been used against them. Ie when they identify fishing spots of value to them, lo and behold they end up as green zones! PS: 'none of the above' has worked quite well for US, NT and Tasmanian marine parks were angling is allowed in nearly all their areas.

PS: have you read George Orwell's 1984? The totalitarian regime was all about thought control. They came up will a new language called Newspeak in which the variety of words was greatly reduced. The idea was if you limit the language then you limit the capacity for thought.


Quote:

What about my recreational fishing haven examples?

they are very nice, but they don't answer the question about where no take zones should be placed. In fact, shore based fishing zones become recreational fishing zones in practice. You don't see many pros fishing from the shore in the most easily accessible spots.

Yes and you don't answer the question whether NTZ's are even needed. That's why you have abandoned the other threads and started this one with your 'my responses are limited' approach. It's censorship.

The shore based fishing zones aren't recreational fishing havens in any practical sense because boat angling is banned nearby. NB pro's do fish off the shore - haven't you heard of beach hauling?  

If you want to, you can start a thread about the wonders of rec fishing havens. Then you could change the topic to your hearts content and I won't even mention it.

Will you answer it or ignore it like all the others?

Quote:

It has quite a bit do do with this - I have pointed out a very significant number of species which can't possibly respond to your zoning strategy.

By a significant numbe, do you mean 3?

They won't 'respond' to any other zoning strategy, hence it is a general criticism. My strategy actually outperforms all others on this measure. You keep making the same claim, I point the same thing out to you, you ignore it and make the same claim again. Why is it so hard for you to follow through?


Quote:

Where for example?

I think the last one I sent in a submission for was Nelson Bay. I only suggested one or two changes. The most important one they followed through on. I made a very specific suggestion and they did exactly what I asked. It wasn't about shore based fishing, but it was about convenience to anglers.


Quote:

Yes and you don't answer the question whether NTZ's are even needed.

That's because it is a different topic. I wouldn't want to distract you given the difficulty you are having with the current topic. If you recall, there are lots of other threads where I have discussed that issue in great detail. I am not about to give up on the marine park debate. I have explained this to you a number of times in this thread already. You must have forgotten.


Quote:

Will you answer it or ignore it like all the others?

It depends how interesting the topic is PJ. Don't be shy. There is no need to feel embarrassed if no-one responds.

[]
Quote:

It has quite a bit do do with this - I have pointed out a very significant number of species which can't possibly respond to your zoning strategy.

By a significant numbe, do you mean 3?

Where did you get 3 from? First there is the shore hugging ones like drummer, tailor, blackfish, groper, whiting. Then there's the more boat specific species such as sand flathead, nannygai, pigfish and morwong. That makes 9! You could also add more species which are only lightly or moderately fished and so will also have limited response to the area management you propose.  

They won't 'respond' to any other zoning strategy, hence it is a general criticism. My strategy actually outperforms all others on this measure. You keep making the same claim, I point the same thing out to you, you ignore it and make the same claim again. Why is it so hard for you to follow through?

Duh, Why does there have to be a zoning strategy? You have just made the case that zoning strategies have their limits compared to other methods! Yes you keep making the claim, but that's all it is. You have nothing to back it up.  


Quote:

Where for example?

I think the last one I sent in a submission for was Nelson Bay. I only suggested one or two changes. The most important one they followed through on. I made a very specific suggestion and they did exactly what I asked. It wasn't about shore based fishing, but it was about convenience to anglers.

Well what was the suggestion? It must have been a very minor one as the Port Stevens MP was a very poor outcome for anglers with many popular and accessible spots gone to green zones. What about the GBR where the MPA went deliberately out of their way to take away popular fishing spots?


Quote:

Yes and you don't answer the question whether NTZ's are even needed.

That's because it is a different topic. I wouldn't want to distract you given the difficulty you are having with the current topic. If you recall, there are lots of other threads where I have discussed that issue in great detail. I am not about to give up on the marine park debate. I have explained this to you a number of times in this thread already. You must have forgotten.

I have shown that I have a far greater knowledge of the issue and our fisheries in general, so don't talk to me like I am a wayward child. You can't just keep bleating 'different topic' and say your contributing to the debate!


Quote:

Will you answer it or ignore it like all the others?

It depends how interesting the topic is PJ. Don't be shy. There is no need to feel embarrassed if no-one responds.

You can answer it here. You have degenerated into chopping out arkward questions on top of ignoring the other threads.

Quote:

Where did you get 3 from? First there is the shore hugging ones like drummer, tailor, blackfish, groper, whiting.

But they can respond. Plenty of whiting for example are caught from boats.


Quote:

That makes 9!

Wow, nine fish. Is that a majority yet?


Quote:

Duh, Why does there have to be a zoning strategy?

To choose where the marine parks go. You just finished complaining about the selection of locations for marine parks, yet here you are pretending it doesn't matter. No wonder you complain about the selection process so much. You pretend it doesn't matter and refuse to contibute, then afterwards complain about the outcome.


Quote:

You have just made the case that zoning strategies have their limits compared to other methods! Yes you keep making the claim, but that's all it is. You have nothing to back it up.

 

How about the fact that you cannot come up with an alternative that performs better on this measure?


Quote:

I have shown that I have a far greater knowledge of the issue and our fisheries in general

You have shown that you can hardly understand the question, let alone come up with a sensible answer.


Quote:

You can't just keep bleating 'different topic' and say your contributing to the debate!

I am not saying that it is contributing to thsoe debates. I contribute to them on the relevant threads. I don;t see any value in repeating the same discussion in every single thread and I cannot figure out why you are so keen to.


Quote:

You can answer it here.

It would be possible, but I am not going to. You have enough trouble coping with one topic at a time. I don't want to confuse you.

Quote:

Where did you get 3 from? First there is the shore hugging ones like drummer, tailor, blackfish, groper, whiting.

But they can respond. Plenty of whiting for example are caught from boats.


Quote:

That makes 9!

Wow, nine fish. Is that a majority yet?

Could be if you talk about a weighted number, ie how popular they are with anglers. Those species mentioned are a large part of the rock and beach fishermen's catch. And the list is by no means conclusive,
you could add salmon and some tuna such as longtail tuna. Also bream are a more common catch for shore based fishermen than boat based ones in the ocean areas.


Quote:

Duh, Why does there have to be a zoning strategy?

To choose where the marine parks go. You just finished complaining about the selection of locations for marine parks, yet here you are pretending it doesn't matter. No wonder you complain about the selection process so much. You pretend it doesn't matter and refuse to contibute, then afterwards complain about the outcome.

I have said twice, and there are stat decs to prove it, that angler's submissions have been used against them. Also in the case of NSW marine parks the powers that be want 'representative areas' of each habitat type for their precious green zones. That's why there are ocean beached closed to all fishing for no likely fisheries benefit. PS so much for favouring shore based fishermen.


Quote:

You have just made the case that zoning strategies have their limits compared to other methods! Yes you keep making the claim, but that's all it is. You have nothing to back it up.

 

How about the fact that you cannot come up with an alternative that performs better on this measure?

A non-zoning strategy performs better.


Quote:

I have shown that I have a far greater knowledge of the issue and our fisheries in general

You have shown that you can hardly understand the question, let alone come up with a sensible answer.

Your in no postion to talk down to me like that.


Quote:

You can't just keep bleating 'different topic' and say your contributing to the debate!

I am not saying that it is contributing to thsoe debates. I contribute to them on the relevant threads. I don;t see any value in repeating the same discussion in every single thread and I cannot figure out why you are so keen to.

You were throroughly nailed on several issues so you droped the threads hoping they will go away. Eg you were wrong about Australia being oblidged under international obligations to have marine parks in the form and extent we do, you were wrong in questioning whether the GBR is fished well under sustainable limits and you were wrong in questioning that Australia has the least fished waters in the World by a big margin.


Quote:

You can answer it here.

It would be possible, but I am not going to. You have enough trouble coping with one topic at a time. I don't want to confuse you.

More projection on your part. I have no problems handling several topics at once. You have problems answering them.

Quote:

Could be if you talk about a weighted number, ie how popular they are with anglers.

Then talk about it.


Quote:

Those species mentioned are a large part of the rock and beach fishermen's catch.

Like I already pointed out, that's because the boat fishermen don't target them as much. If there were more species that the boat fishermen didn't target, the shore fishermen would have far more success with those extra species. You are yet to respond to this point. You seem to be having great difficulty understanding the mechanism here. You seem to be trying to divide fish into two groups - those species that shore based fishermen already target and that boat fishermen don't bother much with, and those species that shore based fishermen would not be able to target regardless. You keep switching madly between the two groups of fish so when you switch back you can pretend the response I gave last time doesn't exist. You even do it for species like bream while admitting they are targetted by both groups. It's a pretty silly argument, which gets even sillier when you try to count them for me and start including fish that are obviously caught by both groups before you can get to double digits.

You also keep ignoring the point that even for those species for which shore based fishermen won't benefit much, this strategy does not end up worse than other strategies. At worst, it ends up being the same. How about instead of repeating your silly argument, you try to respond to these points?


Quote:

I have said twice, and there are stat decs to prove it, that angler's submissions have been used against them.

I have never seen one of these alleged stat decs. They are like an urban myth. Even if they did exist, I can't see how they would prove anything. If you come accross one, it would be a great topic for a enw thread. My experience has always been positive.


Quote:

A non-zoning strategy performs better.

How does it deleiver more fish to shroe based anglers? It could only possibly delier less.


Quote:

More projection on your part. I have no problems handling several topics at once.

How about you start with one then? You continue ignore several points that are actually relevant to this issue while trying desperately to change the topic. Even Abu never gave me this much difficulty in getting someone to respond to the topic at hand. Usually starting a dedicated thread is enough of a hint, but it was too subtle for you and you thought I was playing some mind control trick on you. If you really could handle this topic you wouldn't keep coming up with this endless stream of immature diversions. You wouldn't keep pretending that you don't understand the point of sticking to the topic.

[436]
Quote:

Could be if you talk about a weighted number, ie how popular they are with anglers.

Then talk about it.

But that's 'off topic' isn't it!

It's self expalanatory I would have thought. The species mentioned are significant to anglers. If you are comparing lists then weight must be given to how popular they are. I could have include rock cale or mado but it would have been misleading to do so.


Quote:

Those species mentioned are a large part of the rock and beach fishermen's catch.

Like I already pointed out, that's because the boat fishermen don't target them as much. If there were more species that the boat fishermen didn't target, the shore fishermen would have far more success with those extra species. You are yet to respond to this point.

Yes, I have and you keep ignoring it. It's to do with their natural ranges. Some species prefer to hug the shore and others prefer deep water (in the ocean areas). I know you think marine parks have magical properties but your policy won't change thier natural ranges.

Where there is competiton from both types of fishermen for the same species you policy won't make much difference if they are not overfished to start with or they are highly mobile (which is the case for a lot of species).

You seem to be having great difficulty understanding the mechanism here. You seem to be trying to divide fish into two groups - those species that shore based fishermen already target and that boat fishermen don't bother much with, and those species that shore based fishermen would not be able to target regardless. You keep switching madly between the two groups of fish so when you switch back you can pretend the response I gave last time doesn't exist. You even do it for species like bream while admitting they are targetted by both groups. It's a pretty silly argument, which gets even sillier when you try to count them for me and start including fish that are obviously caught by both groups before you can get to double digits.

Double digits is more than the three you claimed, plus you have omitted the fish that are the domain of boat fishermen and the weighting that should be given to very popular species. PS: do you think bream are a big part of an offshore fisherman's catch or they are more common in the landbased rock and beach fisherman's catch?

You also keep ignoring the point that even for those species for which shore based fishermen won't benefit much, this strategy does not end up worse than other strategies. At worst, it ends up being the same. How about instead of repeating your silly argument, you try to respond to these points?

I have, but you ignore any strategy  that doesn't include marine parks with NTZ's. Why is that? Do you just enjoy interfering in peoples lives and generally jerking them around?


Quote:

I have said twice, and there are stat decs to prove it, that angler's submissions have been used against them. If you think the experience has always been positive then for a start you are not an angler. Also I have asked for an example were Aust marine parks have benefited fishermen and you have not been able to provide one.

I have never seen one of these alleged stat decs. They are like an urban myth. Even if they did exist, I can't see how they would prove anything. If you come accross one, it would be a great topic for a enw thread. My experience has always been positive.

Have you tried to get hold of them? What's the point of me finding them if you say they won't prove anything?

PS I'd like to hear about the postive result for anglers. I keep asking for examples and you won't provide any.


Quote:

A non-zoning strategy performs better.

How does it deleiver more fish to shroe based anglers? It could only possibly delier less.

Big deal. There is usually more fish inside a NTZ, that doesn't mean it's the most effective way of managing the fishery.


Quote:

More projection on your part. I have no problems handling several topics at once.

How about you start with one then? You continue ignore several points that are actually relevant to this issue while trying desperately to change the topic. Even Abu never gave me this much difficulty in getting someone to respond to the topic at hand. Usually starting a dedicated thread is enough of a hint, but it was too subtle for you and you thought I was playing some mind control trick on you. If you really could handle this topic you wouldn't keep coming up with this endless stream of immature diversions. You wouldn't keep pretending that you don't understand the point of sticking to the topic.

Your as subtle as a brick FD.

PJ I cannot tell whether you fail to respond to these points because you cannot understand them or because you agree that they highlight a genuine benefit to shore based anglers. Can you at least indicate whether you understand them?

a) The benefits of this strategy to shore based anglers are not dependent on a benefit for every species.

b) On a species by species basis, those species for which there is a benefit to shore based anglers represent an improvement of this strategy over other strategies for selecting marine parks.

c) On a species by species basis, those species for which there is not a benefit to shore based anglers do not represent poor performance of this strategy compared to other strategies for marine park selection - they represent equal performance.

d) On a species by species basis, this strategy results in equal or better performance than other strategies, in terms of benefit to shore based anglers. It never results in worse performance.

e) The vast majority of species for which boat fishermen are affected by this strategy will result in a benefit to shore based anglers, because the marine park is close to the shore. If a species cannot be caught by shore based anglers, it is unlikely that boat fishermen will be targetting them adjacent to the shore.

f) If a species is only targetted by shore based fishermen, then preventing boat fishermen from catching them represents no loss to either boat or shore based fishermen.

g) If a species is only targetted by boat based fishermen, then the performance of this strategy (for the single species) is (at worst) equal to others for selecting marine parks, not worse. The impact of the marine park on both boat and shore based fishermen would be the same or better than if it were not adjacent to an accessible shore based fishing spot.

PJ I cannot tell whether you fail to respond to these points because you cannot understand them or because you agree that they highlight a genuine benefit to shore based anglers. Can you at least indicate whether you understand them?

a) The benefits of this strategy to shore based anglers are not dependent on a benefit for every species.

A significant no of species, due to their range and habits won't have any chance of responding to this zoning. This therefore puts a significant hole in your strategy!

b) On a species by species basis, those species for which there is a benefit to shore based anglers represent an improvement of this strategy over other strategies for selecting marine parks.

Of course there is more benifit for shore based anglers over other zonings - they are not losing any fishing spots! PS: why are boat fishermen left out of the equation?

c) On a species by species basis, those species for which there is not a benefit to shore based anglers do not represent poor performance of this strategy compared to other strategies for marine park selection - they represent equal performance.

Yes, but only if you consider burdensome restriction on boat fishermen for what you admit is no benefit as 'performance'.

d) On a species by species basis, this strategy results in equal or better performance than other strategies, in terms of benefit to shore based anglers. It never results in worse performance.

They could be worse off due to overcrowding. In other cases it depends which hat they are wearing. A lot of shore based fishermen also own boats. In any case 'no benefit' is hardly something to crow about.

e) The vast majority of species for which boat fishermen are affected by this strategy will result in a benefit to shore based anglers, because the marine park is close to the shore. If a species cannot be caught by shore based anglers, it is unlikely that boat fishermen will be targetting them adjacent to the shore.

I have given a sustantial list of species for whch this is not the case (unless you want to anchor your boat next to a wash zone or can cast 500+ meters from the shore)!  

f) If a species is only targetted by shore based fishermen, then preventing boat fishermen from catching them represents no loss to either boat or shore based fishermen.

Duh, boat fishermen are losing a significant area. Looking at your examples, though there is no scale it would appear you no fishing zones extend well over a km offshore.

g) If a species is only targetted by boat based fishermen, then the performance of this strategy (for the single species) is (at worst) equal to others for selecting marine parks, not worse. The impact of the marine park on both boat and shore based fishermen would be the same or better than if it were not adjacent to an accessible shore based fishing spot.

Well the impact is greater if you have a small boat as you will lose access to the safer close to shore spots.


You have carfully crafted these questions to avoid the really pertinent points, ie

Is there likely to be a cost effective benefit from this zoning given:

- A lot of species won't respond due to their natural ranges and habits.

- Most of them are highly mobile and the NTZ's are small.

- Few could be considered as overfished. Indeed many that are most available to shore based fishermen are only lightly fished, so there is no problem to begin with.

- There is already a fisheries allocation mechanism to favour anglers near urban areas in the form of recreational fishing havens.  

I'll take that as a 'no' then.

Quote:

They could be worse off due to overcrowding.

I notice you haven't been using this argument here, despite it being the main criticism you posted before I started the new thread. Is this a general criticism of marine parks, or is it specific to this strategy? If so, how?


Quote:

Of course there is more benifit for shore based anglers over other zonings

Thanks for actually saying it then. I know it seems obvious, but it was hard to tell from your postings whether you got this one.


Quote:

PS: why are boat fishermen left out of the equation?

A no take zone that allows fishing from boats would be pretty pointless.


Quote:

In any case 'no benefit' is hardly something to crow about.

'at worst, no benefit, on a species by species basis' was the actual point. The same goes for your comment: "for what you admit is no benefit as 'performance'"


Quote:

I have given a sustantial list of species for whch this is not the case

But a lot of fish on that list were wrong, either because both groups do target them, or because boat fishermen do not target them adjeacent to the shore. Nor is your list substantial. Nor does a list indicate that this isn't the case. The claim you were actually responding to was a reference to a majorty, not all species. You cannot judge such a claim against a single example, or even a few.


Quote:

Duh, boat fishermen are losing a significant area.

The pont was obviously referring to a specieis by species basis. If you want to get pedantic about it, it makes no reference to loss of area and applies whether area is lost or not.


Quote:

You have carfully crafted these questions to avoid the really pertinent points, ie Is there likely to be a cost effective benefit from this zoning given: - A lot of species won't respond due to their natural ranges and habits.

I did not craft it to avoid this issue. It addresses this issue directly, starting from the first point.

]
Quote:

They could be worse off due to overcrowding.

I notice you haven't been using this argument here, despite it being the main criticism you posted before I started the new thread. Is this a general criticism of marine parks, or is it specific to this strategy? If so, how?

Duh, they tend to displace effort to other locations.


Quote:

Of course there is more benifit for shore based anglers over other zonings

Thanks for actually saying it then. I know it seems obvious, but it was hard to tell from your postings whether you got this one.

Yes and I notice you went to the trouble of chopping out the next bit where I said they benifit by not losing any fishing spots!


Quote:

PS: why are boat fishermen left out of the equation?

A no take zone that allows fishing from boats would be pretty pointless.

My point was they are part of the equation because they are affected by the zoning.


Quote:

In any case 'no benefit' is hardly something to crow about.

'at worst, no benefit, on a species by species basis' was the actual point. The same goes for your comment: "for what you admit is no benefit as 'performance'"

Yes and on a species by species basis 'no benefit' is nothing to crow about.


Quote:

I have given a sustantial list of species for whch this is not the case

But a lot of fish on that list were wrong, either because both groups do target them, or because boat fishermen do not target them adjeacent to the shore. Nor is your list substantial.

They weren't wrong. I asked you specifically about the bream example (which you hauled me up on) and you haven't answered. In 25 years of offshore fishing I have never caught a bream from a boat. I have caught plenty off the ocean rocks and beaches.

Nor does a list indicate that this isn't the case. The claim you were actually responding to was a reference to a majorty, not all species. You cannot judge such a claim against a single example, or even a few.

More than a few were offered and these species are quite popular too. You seem intent on splitting hairs/ playing semantics about whether they are a majority or not. I's not like 51% I win, 49% you do.


Quote:

Duh, boat fishermen are losing a significant area.

The pont was obviously referring to a specieis by species basis. If you want to get pedantic about it, it makes no reference to loss of area and applies whether area is lost or not.

If they are losing area they are tangibly affected.


Quote:

You have carfully crafted these questions to avoid the really pertinent points, ie Is there likely to be a cost effective benefit from this zoning given: - A lot of species won't respond due to their natural ranges and habits.

I did not craft it to avoid this issue. It addresses this issue directly, starting from the first point.

Then why did you just  chop all the other points out of my quote, plus avoid answering them?

Quote:

I asked you specifically about the bream example (which you hauled me up on) and you haven't answered.

Sorry, I must have missed that. They are caught by both boat and shore based fishermen.


Quote:

In 25 years of offshore fishing I have never caught a bream from a boat.

Don't worry PJ, maybe next time. How many bream have you caught from boats inshore?


Quote:

More than a few were offered and these species are quite popular too. You seem intent on splitting hairs/ playing semantics about whether they are a majority or not.

Splitting hairs? You haven't even hit double digits yet, and already are including species like bream. There is no hair splitting necessary.


Quote:

Then why did you just  chop all the other points out of my quote

So you wouldn;t get confused about which point I was responding to.

Quote:

I asked you specifically about the bream example (which you hauled me up on) and you haven't answered.

Sorry, I must have missed that. They are caught by both boat and shore based fishermen.


Quote:

In 25 years of offshore fishing I have never caught a bream from a boat.

Don't worry PJ, maybe next time. How many bream have you caught from boats inshore?

Duh, were talking about your ocean examples. I'm not likely to catch one unless I park my boat in the wash zone.


Quote:

More than a few were offered and these species are quite popular too. You seem intent on splitting hairs/ playing semantics about whether they are a majority or not.

Splitting hairs? You haven't even hit double digits yet, and already are including species like bream. There is no hair splitting necessary.

Bream fit the argument quite well. Plus you keep omitting the predominantly boat caught species. Add them and were well over double digits.


Quote:

Then why did you just  chop all the other points out of my quote

So you wouldn;t get confused about which point I was responding to.

My point is that you won't respond to them.