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

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.

[
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?

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


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.

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


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.

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?

PJ:

Quote:


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:


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:


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:


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:

How so?

It's self explanatory isn't it?

Quote:


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:


So you agree and disagree at the same time?

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

Quote:


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:


I believe we covered this in another thread.

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

Quote:


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?

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


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

Quote:


You could have at least read the thread title:

Catch limits, maximum sizes and resilience

Quote:


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:


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

Quote:


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:


How big were they?

Quote:


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