Quote:


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

Quote:


Wow, nine fish. Is that a majority yet?

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:
 

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

A non-zoning strategy performs better.

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

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

[436] Quote:


Then talk about it.

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

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

Quote:


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

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

Quote:


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

Your as subtle as a brick FD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


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