Australian Politics Forum - Marine parks and shore based anglers

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #15 - Jul 2^nd, 2009 at 7:53pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #16 - Jul 2^nd, 2009 at 9:50pm

[] 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #17 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 9:50am

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #18 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 12:00pm

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!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #19 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 12:24pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #20 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 2:23pm

[] 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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #21 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 2:42pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #22 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 3:04pm

] 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #23 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 3:34pm

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?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #24 - Jul 5^th, 2009 at 7:51pm

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?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #25 - Jul 5^th, 2009 at 9:51pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #26 - Jul 6^th, 2009 at 8:04am

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?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 6^th, 2009 at 8:15am by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #27 - Jul 6^th, 2009 at 7:27pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #28 - Jul 6^th, 2009 at 9:20pm

[] 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.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51108
At my desk.

Re: Marine parks and shore based anglers
Reply #29 - Jul 6^th, 2009 at 9:39pm

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.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged