From the marine park thread:

tallowood wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 10:48pm:


freediver wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 10:55pm:


tallowood wrote on Dec 5^th, 2008 at 11:14pm:


Tallow there are two problems with this approach. Ideally, individual NTZ's should be fairly small. They would cease to be NTZ's if unpowered boats were allowed in. Also, at least some should be adjacent to the shore so that shore based fishermen get the maximum benefit. Avoiding any impact on users of unpowered boats would mean shifting them away from the shore. Rather than trying to completely avoid an impact on users of unpowered boats, we should instead focus on ensuring that the NTZ is not so large that they cannot easily access a fishable zone. That is, we should have a network of smaller NTZs, where the users of unpowered boats have to fish around them, just like the users of powered boats.

Here are some examples I drew up:

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

Basically, you cannot cater for unpowered boats to an unlimited extent. The main reason is that the scale of the NTZs is too small. The other reason is that you want to put them close to shore for the benefit of shore bound anglers. Unpowered boats can access almost all of the enclosed waters and go a fair way offshore.

Take a look at the examples and see what I mean. Would you consider those to cater for unpowered boats appropriately? If not, try coming up with better alternatives.

RecFisher wrote on Dec 10^th, 2008 at 9:52pm:


They create waves and cause shore erosion. They leak oil and fuel in water. They run over each other and kayaks bringing death and destruction.

tallowood wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 6:27am:


The ulterior motive surfaces...

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 9:28pm:


No, I just don't want to kill idiots in stinking boats just because they are idiots and are easy kill. I prefer to damage their motors instead, which is easy to do too.