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?

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:


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:


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:


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.

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:

How are they loaded Grendel?

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


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:


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?

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 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:


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:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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:


Yes, plenty of times.

Quote:


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:


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

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 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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


Yes, plenty of times.

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

Quote:


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:


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. [/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:
 

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:


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:


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:


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:


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

The so called 'topic' is the rhetorical trick.

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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:
   

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:


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:


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?

Quote:


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:


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:


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:
 

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:


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

You your saying your not interested?

Quote:


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.