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

When minimum sizes and catch limits were first introduced, a small but vocal minoirty of fishermen complained bitterly about them. They demanded proof that they were necessary. They blamed problems on other types of fishermen. They claimed that it would destroy the enjoyment of fishing and that the complexities involved would force them to give up fishing. Then a curious thing happened. Despite being ignored in the political process, many of these fishermen came to accept the new regulations. But it didn't stop there. They went beyond acceptance to incorporating minimum sizes and catch limits as personal ethical or moral standards. They even went as far as to create a myth of scientific validity behind what are essentially arbitrary beureucratic choices. They told their children that throwing the little ones back is good because you get to catch the same fish when it is bigger. They repeated it so often that they began to believe the simiplistic slogans themselves and eventually stopped thinking about what it really meant.

Fast forward to today, and the same thing is happening again. The difference is that now we have the added argument that 'traditional' management tools, which have only been around a short time, are somehow ideal, from a scientific, moral and recreational perspective. The scientific validity is pure myth, as many of the current management practices have obvious flaws. The moral validity has no sound basis either. There is nothing inherently immoral about taking smaller fish. It is the total amount taken, and the collateral damage you do along the way that matters. It is sustainability that matters. The recreational perspective amounts to nothing more than old fishermen being stuck in their ways. Having a different minimum size for each species and a different bag limit for each species is far more complicated than a common no take zone for all species. Management tools that do not inconvenience fishermen at all until they take up boat fishing are obviously far simpler. There is no rational justification to burden future generations with unnecessarily complex legislation merely because current fishermen grew accustomed to them over a few decades and cannot get their head around new ideas.

So will marine parks also be accepted in the future? There tends to be a consistent pattern where new marine parks are introduced. At first there is always some opposition to them, but like other management tools fishermen come to accept and promote them.

What's the point of these minimum catch laws - there's no-one around to enforce them. Walk along a beach and you've got Asians and ethnics with bucketfuls of tiny little fish. Some fishermen might be a little conscientious about the size - but there are plenty that aren't and they get away with it.


Quote:

So will marine parks also be accepted in the future? There tends to be a consistent pattern where new marine parks are introduced. At first there is always some opposition to them, but like other management tools fishermen come to accept and promote them.

Obviously some do FD, but some couldn't care less what the place is supposed to be? We need more Inspectors and water police and heavier penalties for fisherman who flout our laws.

[quote]So will marine parks also be accepted in the future? There tends to be a consistent pattern where new marine parks are introduced. At first there is always some opposition to them, but like other management tools fishermen come to accept and promote them. [/quote]

Name one then. PS, you STILL haven't answered my question, where has an Australian marine park been demonstrated to be of benefit to fishermen?

Quote:

Walk along a beach and you've got Asians and ethnics with bucketfuls of tiny little fish.

I once saw an Asian bloke getting hassled for catching tiny fish. I went and checked his catch - it was all rabbitfish. Small, but perfectly legal, and a sustainable catch.

freediver wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 5:31pm:

Quote: Walk along a beach and you've got Asians and ethnics with bucketfuls of tiny little fish. I once saw an Asian bloke getting hassled for catching tiny fish. I went and checked his catch - it was all rabbitfish. Small, but perfectly legal, and a sustainable catch.

Yes - but if rabbitfish (whatever they are) are over fished when they're babies - won't that affect the numbers? There will be no adults left to breed. All these small fish would generally be different varieties anyway.

Rabbitfish do not get very big. Plus they are vegetarian (I think) so they are difficult to catch unless you are targetting them and they don't taste as good as more commonly targetted species. They are everywhere. It's like eating mice. Or rabbits.

His catch was very consistent. You would expect that given the bait he was using.

People just got upset because he was doing something different which they didn't understand.

mantra wrote on Jun 14^th, 2009 at 4:17pm:

What's the point of these minimum catch laws - there's no-one around to enforce them. Walk along a beach and you've got Asians and ethnics with bucketfuls of tiny little fish. Some fishermen might be a little conscientious about the size - but there are plenty that aren't and they get away with it. Quote: So will marine parks also be accepted in the future? There tends to be a consistent pattern where new marine parks are introduced. At first there is always some opposition to them, but like other management tools fishermen come to accept and promote them. Obviously some do FD, but some couldn't care less what the place is supposed to be? We need more Inspectors and water police and heavier penalties for fisherman who flout our laws.

Mantra, are you sure that people with bucketfuls of baby mullet weren't REAL Australians?
I mean you are not real fisher or hunter to know the difference.

tallowood wrote on Jan 1^st, 1970 at 10:20am:

Mantra, are you sure that people with bucketfuls of baby mullet weren't REAL Australians? I mean you are not real fisher or hunter to know the difference.

They didn't look like Australians Tallow and some of the groups I approached didn't sound like real Australians. Besides they threw the fish back in the water as I requested - a real Australian would have told me to get ......

When minimum sizes and catch limits were first introduced, a small but vocal minoirty of fishermen complained bitterly about them. They demanded proof that they were necessary. They blamed problems on other types of fishermen. They claimed that it would destroy the enjoyment of fishing and that the complexities involved would force them to give up fishing. Then a curious thing happened. Despite being ignored in the political process, many of these fishermen came to accept the new regulations. But it didn't stop there. They went beyond acceptance to incorporating minimum sizes and catch limits as personal ethical or moral standards. They even went as far as to create a myth of scientific validity behind what are essentially arbitrary beureucratic choices. They told their children that throwing the little ones back is good because you get to catch the same fish when it is bigger. They repeated it so often that they began to believe the simiplistic slogans themselves and eventually stopped thinking about what it really meant.

Yes that's a nice fairy story FD. I don't suppose you have any evidence of anglers opposing bag and size limits and the strawman arguments you have made up and atributed to them?

PS how can you possibly regard catch limits (ie bag limits) as a bad thing for the sake of sustainability.

Fast forward to today, and the same thing is happening again. The difference is that now we have the added argument that 'traditional' management tools, which have only been around a short time, are somehow ideal, from a scientific, moral and recreational perspective. The scientific validity is pure myth, as many of the current management practices have obvious flaws. The moral validity has no sound basis either. There is nothing inherently immoral about taking smaller fish. It is the total amount taken, and the collateral damage you do along the way that matters. It is sustainability that matters. The recreational perspective amounts to nothing more than old fishermen being stuck in their ways. Having a different minimum size for each species and a different bag limit for each species is far more complicated than a common no take zone for all species.

Marine parks have not lead to any winding back of existing management tools. In fact there have been a tightening of these restriction in addition to marine parks! Note that the NPA's 'Torn Blue Fringe' advocates large marine parks and at the same time a reduction of effort in the areas still open to fishing.

You also set up a strawman about minimum sizes being the be all of traditional techniques. As well as exaggerating the difficulties in complying with them. Don't you know that Fisheries put out free stickers and booklets outlining the regulations?

Also bag and size limits are not recent - they have been around for several decades. Bag limits are particularly useful in restricting the black market - they help prevent anglers from catching are marketable size catch of fish, ie reduce the finacial incentive.


Management tools that do not inconvenience fishermen at all until they take up boat fishing are obviously far simpler. There is no rational justification to burden future generations with unnecessarily complex legislation merely because current fishermen grew accustomed to them over a few decades and cannot get their head around new ideas.

So will marine parks also be accepted in the future? There tends to be a consistent pattern where new marine parks are introduced. At first there is always some opposition to them, but like other management tools fishermen come to accept and promote them.

So why can't you tell me which Australian marine parks have benefited fishermen? Actually most of them have been socio-economic disasters. Where have we ignorant fishermen seen the error of our ways and turned around to embrace them?

Quote:

They didn't look like Australians Tallow

What do Australians look like Mantra?

PJ:


Quote:

Yes that's a nice fairy story FD. I don't suppose you have any evidence of anglers opposing bag and size limits and the strawman arguments you have made up and atributed to them?

Just ask any of the people involved in establishing those new regulations. For them it's a severe case of deja vu.


Quote:

PS how can you possibly regard catch limits (ie bag limits) as a bad thing for the sake of sustainability.

They undermine a fishery's resilience, as per the other thread, but I wouldn't try to put things into such black and white terms.


Quote:

Marine parks have not lead to any winding back of existing management tools.

Would you mind explaining how that is relevant to the quote you placed it under?


Quote:

In fact there have been a tightening of these restriction in addition to marine parks!

It is important not to confuse the gross changes with the net impact of marine parks. Whatever fisheries management tools we employ, they will continue to get stricter as our ability and motivation to catch fish increases.


Quote:

You also set up a strawman about minimum sizes being the be all of traditional techniques.

How so?


Quote:

As well as exaggerating the difficulties in complying with them.

How so?


Quote:

Also bag and size limits are not recent - they have been around for several decades.

So you agree and disagree at the same time?


Quote:

Bag limits are particularly useful in restricting the black market

So the suppliers to the black market obey the rules?


Quote:

So why can't you tell me which Australian marine parks have benefited fishermen?

I believe we covered this in another thread.


Quote:

Actually most of them have been socio-economic disasters.

Only if you attribute the impact of concurrent changes to the impact of marine parks, which doesn't make sense.

PJ:


Quote:

Yes that's a nice fairy story FD. I don't suppose you have any evidence of anglers opposing bag and size limits and the strawman arguments you have made up and atributed to them?

Just ask any of the people involved in establishing those new regulations. For them it's a severe case of deja vu.

Well quote them then - like you demand I do. PS did fishermen form lobby group with 10's of thousands of members, form political parties or conduct mass rallies over bag and size limits? Because that is what they are doing over marine parks. Another glaring difference is that marine parks have not been initiated or called for by an fisheries department as bag and size limits were.


Quote:

PS how can you possibly regard catch limits (ie bag limits) as a bad thing for the sake of sustainability.

They undermine a fishery's resilience, as per the other thread, but I wouldn't try to put things into such black and white terms.

How is reducing the catch (bag limits) undermining a fisheries resilience?


Quote:

Marine parks have not lead to any winding back of existing management tools.

Would you mind explaining how that is relevant to the quote you placed it under?

You have implied (and said before) that marine parks are a substitute for other methods, ie they can be eliminated or would back. That is what you mean by bag and size limits being 'too complicated', do you not?



Quote:

In fact there have been a tightening of these restriction in addition to marine parks!

It is important not to confuse the gross changes with the net impact of marine parks. Whatever fisheries management tools we employ, they will continue to get stricter as our ability and motivation to catch fish increases.

But you say these restrictions can be relaxed as marine parks are so effective.


Quote:

You also set up a strawman about minimum sizes being the be all of traditional techniques.

How so?

It's self explanatory isn't it?


Quote:

As well as exaggerating the difficulties in complying with them.

How so?

Duh, I just pointed out that is not hard to comply to bag and size limits. So long as you can count and use a ruler it isn't hard to follow the rules. It's ridiculous to put these on the same level and marine parks and the loss of prime fishing spots - and the navigational difficulty of following lines draw on a map.


Quote:

Also bag and size limits are not recent - they have been around for several decades.

So you agree and disagree at the same time?

What are you talking about? Do you consider 3 decades recent?


Quote:

Bag limits are particularly useful in restricting the black market

So the suppliers to the black market obey the rules?

Duh. It's easier to catch them with a large quantity of fish rather than catching them red handed exchanging fish for cash - get it?


Quote:

So why can't you tell me which Australian marine parks have benefited fishermen?

I believe we covered this in another thread.

No, I believe you refused to answer it in other thread!


Quote:

Actually most of them have been socio-economic disasters.

Only if you attribute the impact of concurrent changes to the impact of marine parks, which doesn't make sense.

What concurrent changes would they be?

Quote:

How is reducing the catch (bag limits) undermining a fisheries resilience?

Like I said, it is explained in the other thread.


Quote:

You have implied (and said before) that marine parks are a substitute for other methods, ie they can be eliminated or would back. That is what you mean by bag and size limits being 'too complicated', do you not?

No. When I said they are complicated, I meant that they are complicated.


Quote:

But you say these restrictions can be relaxed as marine parks are so effective.

Sure. That is not contradicted by your observations. Like I said, don;t confuse the net impact with the gross change.


Quote:

It's self explanatory isn't it?

No. I did not set up a strawman about minimum sizes being the be all of traditional techniques. In fact I just added the section about maximum sizes and catch limits. See the other thread I just started.


Quote:

Duh, I just pointed out that is not hard to comply to bag and size limits.

No take zones can also be complied with. For the majority of fishermen it would be far easier, if they are set up right.


Quote:

Do you consider 3 decades recent?

As far as laws go, yes. Especially when we refer to those laws as 'traditional'.


Quote:

What concurrent changes would they be?

For example, the significant reductions in TAC on the GBR.

freediver wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 7:25pm:

Quote: They didn't look like Australians Tallow What do Australians look like Mantra?

I'm not sure anymore - I just take a wild guess.

]How is reducing the catch (bag limits) undermining a fisheries resilience?[/quote]

Like I said, it is explained in the other thread.

No you were talking about size limits there.


Quote:

You have implied (and said before) that marine parks are a substitute for other methods, ie they can be eliminated or would back. That is what you mean by bag and size limits being 'too complicated', do you not?

No. When I said they are complicated, I meant that they are complicated.

Maybe for you!


Quote:

But you say these restrictions can be relaxed as marine parks are so effective.

Sure. That is not contradicted by your observations. Like I said, don;t confuse the net impact with the gross change.

Even marine park advocates contradict it - when they say there should be coresponding reductions in effort outside a new marine park.


Quote:

It's self explanatory isn't it?

No. I did not set up a strawman about minimum sizes being the be all of traditional techniques. In fact I just added the section about maximum sizes and catch limits. See the other thread I just started.

'Just added' is the operative phrase!


Quote:

Duh, I just pointed out that is not hard to comply to bag and size limits.

No take zones can also be complied with. For the majority of fishermen it would be far easier, if they are set up right.

It's not easy at all - you have no comprehension of what's involved.


Quote:

Do you consider 3 decades recent?

As far as laws go, yes. Especially when we refer to those laws as 'traditional'.

They go back further than that. It's just most of the bag and size limits for anglers that date back that far.


Quote:

What concurrent changes would they be?

For example, the significant reductions in TAC on the GBR.

You have got to be kidding. The TAC changes weren't that large. Also they have nothing to do with recreational fishing and nothing like the socio economic fallout of the 33% green zones. Remember the government paid 300 million dollars compensation to shore based businesses affected by the GBRMP. They didn't try to blame this on the TAC changes as you have just done!

Quote:

No you were talking about size limits there.

You could have at least read the thread title:

Catch limits, maximum sizes and resilience


Quote:

Even marine park advocates contradict it - when they say there should be coresponding reductions in effort outside a new marine park.

I am a marine park advocate and I don't suggest that. How about you stop pretending every marine park advocate thinks the same thing? It would go a long way towards as sensible debate.


Quote:

'Just added' is the operative phrase!

It was always there in the introduction. I thought it needed expanding on, partly for your benefit.


Quote:

It's not easy at all - you have no comprehension of what's involved.

Yes I do. For shore based anglers, nothing at all is involved. I have also fished around them from boats and kayaks. It would really help if you stopped pretending that you are the only one who knows what it's like to go fishing.


Quote:

You have got to be kidding. The TAC changes weren't that large.

How big were they?


Quote:

Also they have nothing to do with recreational fishing and nothing like the socio economic fallout of the 33% green zones.

Exactly, so you can't attribute the reduction in catch to marine parks when it was clearly caused by an imposed reduction in TAC.

No you were talking about size limits there.[/quote]

You could have at least read the thread title:

Catch limits, maximum sizes and resilience

Yes and you haven't demonstated whats wrong with catch limits.


Quote:

Even marine park advocates contradict it - when they say there should be coresponding reductions in effort outside a new marine park.

I am a marine park advocate and I don't suggest that. How about you stop pretending every marine park advocate thinks the same thing? It would go a long way towards as sensible debate.

I'm pointing out that - not pretending. It goes to the basics of whether marine parks are the ideal fisheries management tool. If you have to lose grounds to green zones and reduce the effort outside of them it certainly doesn't look like they are much of a fisheries management tool. Are you saying those marine park advocates are wrong?


Quote:

'Just added' is the operative phrase!

It was always there in the introduction. I thought it needed expanding on, partly for your benefit.

You haven't really done that with regard to catch limits - just made a few vague and ubsustantiated claims.


Quote:

It's not easy at all - you have no comprehension of what's involved.

Yes I do. For shore based anglers, nothing at all is involved. I have also fished around them from boats and kayaks. It would really help if you stopped pretending that you are the only one who knows what it's like to go fishing.

So do you find bag and size limits hard to comply with?


Quote:

You have got to be kidding. The TAC changes weren't that large.

How big were they?

Don't you know? You just claimed they were responsible for the socio-economic fall out!


Quote:

Also they have nothing to do with recreational fishing and nothing like the socio economic fallout of the 33% green zones.

Exactly, so you can't attribute the reduction in catch to marine parks when it was clearly caused by an imposed reduction in TAC.

Duh, what about the $300m in compensation? Also I think you will find that the TAC was reduced before the green zones were expanded. If you theories are correct they should be increasing them now because marine parks will be making the fishery more productive!  The green zones hit recreational fishing hard and you can't muddle this with the commercial TAC issue.

Quote:

Yes and you haven't demonstated whats wrong with catch limits.

Yes I have PJ. But it's in the other thread. Do you need to provide a link for you?


Quote:

I'm pointing out that - not pretending.

So you claim to know what I think better than I do? I put it all there in black and white for you PJ. You only have to read it.


Quote:

If you have to lose grounds to green zones and reduce the effort outside of them

But you don't have to PJ.


Quote:

So do you find bag and size limits hard to comply with?

Size limits more than bag limits. To be honest I don't even know what most of the bag limits are. Only a few a likely to apply to me, at least when I'm not with someone who does know them.


Quote:

Duh, what about the $300m in compensation? Also I think you will find that the TAC was reduced before the green zones were expanded. If you theories are correct they should be increasing them now because marine parks will be making the fishery more productive!

PJ, you are confusing what is possible with what is actually done, and what should be done. Just because it is possible to increase catches with marine parks doesn;t mean that people will always use them to that effect. On the GBR the goal was, from the beginning, to reduce catches. The choices made reflect this.

mantra wrote on Jun 15^th, 2009 at 9:16pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 15th, 2009 at 7:25pm: Quote: They didn't look like Australians Tallow What do Australians look like Mantra? I'm not sure anymore - I just take a wild guess.

One thing is sure. Real Australians know that baby mullet is effective and legal bait and that they release them from a bucket when fishing is done.  :)

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 8:33pm:

Quote: [quote]Duh, what about the $300m in compensation? Also I think you will find that the TAC was reduced before the green zones were expanded. If you theories are correct they should be increasing them now because marine parks will be making the fishery more productive! PJ, you are confusing what is possible with what is actually done, and what should be done. Just because it is possible to increase catches with marine parks doesn;t mean that people will always use them to that effect. On the GBR the goal was, from the beginning, to reduce catches. The choices made reflect this.

Actually the goal was to get the Democrats to pass the GST and part of the deal for that was the GBRMP expansion. PS, are you saying Australian marine parks, including the GBRMP, is therefore misguided? You seem to be admitting that they are not for fisheries management but merely an anti-fishing measure.

Quote:

PS, are you saying Australian marine parks, including the GBRMP, is therefore misguided?

Like I said in the other thread, Australian marine parks fit into the guidelines I outlined for a fisheries management approach to varying extent. The GBR is probably at one end of that spectrum.


Quote:

You seem to be admitting that they are not for fisheries management but merely an anti-fishing measure.

The changes made on the GBR, most significantly the TAC reductions, were designed to reduce catches.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2009 at 8:56pm:

Quote: PS, are you saying Australian marine parks, including the GBRMP, is therefore misguided? Like I said in the other thread, Australian marine parks fit into the guidelines I outlined for a fisheries management approach to varying extent. The GBR is probably at one end of that spectrum. [quote]You seem to be admitting that they are not for fisheries management but merely an anti-fishing measure.

The changes made on the GBR, most significantly the TAC reductions, were designed to reduce catches. [/quote]

I thought your goal was to increase catches! Or is it just to support marine parks in all circumstances and for any motivation?

PS: if the TAC changes are so significant (though you still won't say what they were), why was it necessary to then have 33% green zones and so have to pay $300m in compensation? Why was it necessary to ban recreational fishing in 33% of the GBR?

Quote:

I thought your goal was to increase catches!

It is. What makes you think otherwise?


Quote:

PS: if the TAC changes are so significant (though you still won't say what they were), why was it necessary to then have 33% green zones and so have to pay $300m in compensation?

The compensation was not necessitated by the green zones alone. The green zones were put in for their conservation value.


Quote:

Why was it necessary to ban recreational fishing in 33% of the GBR?

I would say it was preferred, rather than necessary.

[/quote] I thought your goal was to increase catches![/quote]

It is. What makes you think otherwise?

You just said that the GBRMP was a conservation measure - not a fisheries management one. Ie the opposite of increasing catches.


Quote:

PS: if the TAC changes are so significant (though you still won't say what they were), why was it necessary to then have 33% green zones and so have to pay $300m in compensation?

The compensation was not necessitated by the green zones alone. The green zones were put in for their conservation value.

The $300m was a consequence of fall out resulting from the park.


Quote:

Why was it necessary to ban recreational fishing in 33% of the GBR?

I would say it was preferred, rather than necessary.[/quote]

Prefered by who, The Democrat leadership at the time, the WWF, a narrow green ideology?

Quote:

You just said that the GBRMP was a conservation measure - not a fisheries management one. Ie the opposite of increasing catches.

Yes I did. You seem a bit confused on this issue PJ. If you think I am claiming that all marine parks are effective fisheries managment tools regardless of how they are implimented, you should read my article again. It is all about this particular issue. A simple point of logic: neither the ability to impliment marine parks that are poorly designed from a fisheries management perspective, the mativation to do so, nor the fact that it can happen, is evidence that marine parks are not good fisheries management tools.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are opposites.


Quote:

The $300m was a consequence of fall out resulting from the park.

Sure, if you claim that everything else, like the TAC changes, were 'fallout', but you can't blame everthing on marine parks. Certain critics of marine parks for example claim that the GBR fisheries are underfished on a massice scale. If there were any truth to those claims, they would have been able to lock up the 33%, put a fence around it to stop any fish getting out, and still be able to increase the TAC, not decrease it.


Quote:

Prefered by who, The Democrat leadership at the time, the WWF, a narrow green ideology?

Yes, I would say that those people preferred it.

[/quote]
You just said that the GBRMP was a conservation measure - not a fisheries management one. Ie the opposite of increasing catches.[/quote]

Yes I did. You seem a bit confused on this issue PJ. If you think I am claiming that all marine parks are effective fisheries managment tools regardless of how they are implimented, you should read my article again. It is all about this particular issue. A simple point of logic: neither the ability to impliment marine parks that are poorly designed from a fisheries management perspective, the mativation to do so, nor the fact that it can happen, is evidence that marine parks are not good fisheries management tools.

The point is - and you are so obtuse about - we fishermen have to put up with marine parks that are useless from a fisheries management point of view.

PS - you still can't give an example of an Australian marine park which has shown actual fisheries management benefits.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are opposites.


Quote:

The $300m was a consequence of fall out resulting from the park.

Sure, if you claim that everything else, like the TAC changes, were 'fallout', but you can't blame everthing on marine parks. Certain critics of marine parks for example claim that the GBR fisheries are underfished on a massice scale. If there were any truth to those claims, they would have been able to lock up the 33%, put a fence around it to stop any fish getting out, and still be able to increase the TAC, not decrease it.

The GBR was (and is) massively underfished. As to your proposal it would make the powers that be look rather silly and wouldn't wash with their greenie mates. What's the point of locking up 33% and at the same time increasing the TAC's?


Quote:

Prefered by who, The Democrat leadership at the time, the WWF, a narrow green ideology?

Yes, I would say that those people preferred it.

Exactly. So why is it so hard to understand why fishermen are so wary about marine parks? Whatever dubious benefits for fishermen are completely negated by the fact that marine parks are now hijacked by political wheeling and dealing and a narrow green preservationist ideology.

PS do you know that Pew are agitating for a Coral Sea marine park, with of course massive green zones? Peter Garrett is taking the first step with a permit sytem for fishermen entering the area. What is your opinion of this?

Quote:

The point is - and you are so obtuse about - we fishermen have to put up with marine parks that are useless from a fisheries management point of view.

I am not obtuse to it. Like I keep pointing out, that is what my article is about.


Quote:

The GBR was (and is) massively underfished.

So you don't think that TAC reductions were justified? You think they could have had the marine parks and not changed the TACs and not reduced catch rates? In that case isn't it reasonable to put the blame solely on the TAC reductions and not the marine parks? After all, that would make sense, wouldn't it?


Quote:

As to your proposal it would make the powers that be look rather silly and wouldn't wash with their greenie mates. What's the point of locking up 33% and at the same time increasing the TAC's?

First off, the two issues can be treated separately. Second, I do not buy the argument that the GBR is massivley underfished. The analysis I have seen of this is childish in it's simplicity and flaws. Only an idiot would take it seriously. Of course, it may actually be underfished, but this claim has a serious credibility problem at the moment. Someone's been seeing too many golden dolphins in his dreams. Personally, I think a golden dugong would be a better marine version of the old cash cow, but it doesn't have the same ring to it.


Quote:

Exactly. So why is it so hard to understand why fishermen are so wary about marine parks?

I understand why they are wary. That is why I wrote the article as a way forward. Or at least, I understand this particular reason. Some of the other reasons involve some obscure psychological problems that still escape me.  


Quote:

PS do you know that Pew are agitating for a Coral Sea marine park, with of course massive green zones? Peter Garrett is taking the first step with a permit sytem for fishermen entering the area. What is your opinion of this?

I hate to sound like a politician, but I would obviously want to see the details before giving an opinion.

The point is - and you are so obtuse about - we fishermen have to put up with marine parks that are useless from a fisheries management point of view.[/quote]

I am not obtuse to it. Like I keep pointing out, that is what my article is about.

It seems unlikey that you marine park designs will benefit fishermen any more than the other green placebos in place.


Quote:

The GBR was (and is) massively underfished.

So you don't think that TAC reductions were justified? You think they could have had the marine parks and not changed the TACs and not reduced catch rates? In that case isn't it reasonable to put the blame solely on the TAC reductions and not the marine parks? After all, that would make sense, wouldn't it?

Stocks of the most heavily fished species - coral trout - were shown to be extemely robust before the TAC's were reduced. With 33% green zones of course the fishing pressure on the areas left open would be significantly increased due to the displaced fishing pressure, without any other changes such as TAC reductions. This just goes to show that the marine park is of no benefit from a fisheries management point of view.


Quote:

As to your proposal it would make the powers that be look rather silly and wouldn't wash with their greenie mates. What's the point of locking up 33% and at the same time increasing the TAC's?

First off, the two issues can be treated separately. Second, I do not buy the argument that the GBR is massivley underfished. The analysis I have seen of this is childish in it's simplicity and flaws. Only an idiot would take it seriously. Of course, it may actually be underfished, but this claim has a serious credibility problem at the moment. Someone's been seeing too many golden dolphins in his dreams. Personally, I think a golden dugong would be a better marine version of the old cash cow, but it doesn't have the same ring to it.

There you go projecting again. World like childish, simplicity, flaws and idiot describe you and your arguments rather well. Catch per square km is commonly used to describe fishing pressure on coral reefs. And the GBR is fished 100x less than what is regarded as sustainable. Of course you don't actually say what's wrong with this measure.


Quote:

Exactly. So why is it so hard to understand why fishermen are so wary about marine parks?

I understand why they are wary. That is why I wrote the article as a way forward. Or at least, I understand this particular reason. Some of the other reasons involve some obscure psychological problems that still escape me.  

Well you still seem to support any and every marine park. You don't give credence to any other management regime. As to you corncern about fishermen, well Chairman Mao said he cared about the peasants too.  

Quote:

It seems unlikey that you marine park designs will benefit fishermen any more than the other green placebos in place.

What do you base that on?


Quote:

This just goes to show that the marine park is of no benefit from a fisheries management point of view.

No it doesn't. It is a simplistic misrepresentation of the situation.


Quote:

There you go projecting again. World like childish, simplicity, flaws and idiot describe you and your arguments rather well. Catch per square km is commonly used to describe fishing pressure on coral reefs. And the GBR is fished 100x less than what is regarded as sustainable. Of course you don't actually say what's wrong with this measure.

Sure I do - different measurement techniques, different reefs, different sizes, different nutrient availabilities, different fish species, different trophic levels etc. They all add up to one thing - the 'analysis' is totally meaningless. This is not a well respected technique that has been developed and tested. He just grabbed a few numbers without any thought to what they actually represent, stuck them in an equation, and got an absurd answer.


Quote:

You don't give credence to any other management regime.

What sort of 'credence' should I give them? Should I refrain from pointing out their obvious flaws?

It seems unlikey that you marine park designs will benefit fishermen any more than the other green placebos in place.[/quote]

What do you base that on?

Well the papers I put up which looked at the Australian situation, eg Buxton and Kearney as well as other papers such as those by Parrish and Shipton which say there is unlikely to be any improvement in catches if a marine park network is imposed on a fishery already fished a maximum sustainable yield. Also if this is done significant problems will likely arise. Also the fact that you can't point to an Australian examples where marine parks have benefitted fisheries.


Quote:

This just goes to show that the marine park is of no benefit from a fisheries management point of view.

No it doesn't. It is a simplistic misrepresentation of the situation.

Well are you claiming that the GBRMP has had a benefit for the fishery?


Quote:

There you go projecting again. World like childish, simplicity, flaws and idiot describe you and your arguments rather well. Catch per square km is commonly used to describe fishing pressure on coral reefs. And the GBR is fished 100x less than what is regarded as sustainable. Of course you don't actually say what's wrong with this measure.

Sure I do - different measurement techniques, different reefs, different sizes, different nutrient availabilities, different fish species, different trophic levels etc. They all add up to one thing - the 'analysis' is totally meaningless. This is not a well respected technique that has been developed and tested. He just grabbed a few numbers without any thought to what they actually represent, stuck them in an equation, and got an absurd answer.

A nice array of smoke and mirrors there. Are you saying the GBR is dramatically less productive than other coral reefs? Actually the evidence is it's somewhat more productive than most. What are the measurement differences? Don't you remember I put up a paper regarding coral reef fisheries where they used the same method for comparing for fishing pressure? They also gave an analysis of the method and concluded it to be a useful measure.



Quote:

You don't give credence to any other management regime.

What sort of 'credence' should I give them? Should I refrain from pointing out their obvious flaws?

An honest appraisal would help. You blow flaws out of all proportion and won't admit marine parks have any.