Quote:


Yes I have PJ. But it's in the other thread. Do you need to provide a link for you?

Quote:


So you claim to know what I think better than I do? I put it all there in black and white for you PJ. You only have to read it.

Quote:


But you don't have to PJ.

Quote:


Size limits more than bag limits. To be honest I don't even know what most of the bag limits are. Only a few a likely to apply to me, at least when I'm not with someone who does know them.

Quote:


PJ, you are confusing what is possible with what is actually done, and what should be done. Just because it is possible to increase catches with marine parks doesn;t mean that people will always use them to that effect. On the GBR the goal was, from the beginning, to reduce catches. The choices made reflect this.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 8:33pm:


Actually the goal was to get the Democrats to pass the GST and part of the deal for that was the GBRMP expansion. PS, are you saying Australian marine parks, including the GBRMP, is therefore misguided? You seem to be admitting that they are not for fisheries management but merely an anti-fishing measure.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2009 at 8:56pm:


I thought your goal was to increase catches! Or is it just to support marine parks in all circumstances and for any motivation?

PS: if the TAC changes are so significant (though you still won't say what they were), why was it necessary to then have 33% green zones and so have to pay $300m in compensation? Why was it necessary to ban recreational fishing in 33% of the GBR?

[/quote] I thought your goal was to increase catches! [/quote]

It is. What makes you think otherwise?

You just said that the GBRMP was a conservation measure - not a fisheries management one. Ie the opposite of increasing catches.

Quote:


The compensation was not necessitated by the green zones alone. The green zones were put in for their conservation value.

The $300m was a consequence of fall out resulting from the park.

Quote:


I would say it was preferred, rather than necessary. [/quote]

Prefered by who, The Democrat leadership at the time, the WWF, a narrow green ideology?

[/quote]
You just said that the GBRMP was a conservation measure - not a fisheries management one. Ie the opposite of increasing catches. [/quote]

Yes I did. You seem a bit confused on this issue PJ. If you think I am claiming that all marine parks are effective fisheries managment tools regardless of how they are implimented, you should read my article again. It is all about this particular issue. A simple point of logic: neither the ability to impliment marine parks that are poorly designed from a fisheries management perspective, the mativation to do so, nor the fact that it can happen, is evidence that marine parks are not good fisheries management tools.

The point is - and you are so obtuse about - we fishermen have to put up with marine parks that are useless from a fisheries management point of view.

PS - you still can't give an example of an Australian marine park which has shown actual fisheries management benefits.

Also, I wouldn't go so far as to say they are opposites.

Quote:


Sure, if you claim that everything else, like the TAC changes, were 'fallout', but you can't blame everthing on marine parks. Certain critics of marine parks for example claim that the GBR fisheries are underfished on a massice scale. If there were any truth to those claims, they would have been able to lock up the 33%, put a fence around it to stop any fish getting out, and still be able to increase the TAC, not decrease it.

The GBR was (and is) massively underfished. As to your proposal it would make the powers that be look rather silly and wouldn't wash with their greenie mates. What's the point of locking up 33% and at the same time increasing the TAC's?

Quote:


Yes, I would say that those people preferred it.

Exactly. So why is it so hard to understand why fishermen are so wary about marine parks? Whatever dubious benefits for fishermen are completely negated by the fact that marine parks are now hijacked by political wheeling and dealing and a narrow green preservationist ideology.

PS do you know that Pew are agitating for a Coral Sea marine park, with of course massive green zones? Peter Garrett is taking the first step with a permit sytem for fishermen entering the area. What is your opinion of this?

The point is - and you are so obtuse about - we fishermen have to put up with marine parks that are useless from a fisheries management point of view. [/quote]

I am not obtuse to it. Like I keep pointing out, that is what my article is about.

It seems unlikey that you marine park designs will benefit fishermen any more than the other green placebos in place.

Quote:


So you don't think that TAC reductions were justified? You think they could have had the marine parks and not changed the TACs and not reduced catch rates? In that case isn't it reasonable to put the blame solely on the TAC reductions and not the marine parks? After all, that would make sense, wouldn't it?

Stocks of the most heavily fished species - coral trout - were shown to be extemely robust before the TAC's were reduced. With 33% green zones of course the fishing pressure on the areas left open would be significantly increased due to the displaced fishing pressure, without any other changes such as TAC reductions. This just goes to show that the marine park is of no benefit from a fisheries management point of view.

Quote:


First off, the two issues can be treated separately. Second, I do not buy the argument that the GBR is massivley underfished. The analysis I have seen of this is childish in it's simplicity and flaws. Only an idiot would take it seriously. Of course, it may actually be underfished, but this claim has a serious credibility problem at the moment. Someone's been seeing too many golden dolphins in his dreams. Personally, I think a golden dugong would be a better marine version of the old cash cow, but it doesn't have the same ring to it.

There you go projecting again. World like childish, simplicity, flaws and idiot describe you and your arguments rather well. Catch per square km is commonly used to describe fishing pressure on coral reefs. And the GBR is fished 100x less than what is regarded as sustainable. Of course you don't actually say what's wrong with this measure.

Quote:


I understand why they are wary. That is why I wrote the article as a way forward. Or at least, I understand this particular reason. Some of the other reasons involve some obscure psychological problems that still escape me. 

Well you still seem to support any and every marine park. You don't give credence to any other management regime. As to you corncern about fishermen, well Chairman Mao said he cared about the peasants too. 

It seems unlikey that you marine park designs will benefit fishermen any more than the other green placebos in place. [/quote]

What do you base that on?

Well the papers I put up which looked at the Australian situation, eg Buxton and Kearney as well as other papers such as those by Parrish and Shipton which say there is unlikely to be any improvement in catches if a marine park network is imposed on a fishery already fished a maximum sustainable yield. Also if this is done significant problems will likely arise. Also the fact that you can't point to an Australian examples where marine parks have benefitted fisheries.

Quote:


No it doesn't. It is a simplistic misrepresentation of the situation.

Well are you claiming that the GBRMP has had a benefit for the fishery?

Quote:


Sure I do - different measurement techniques, different reefs, different sizes, different nutrient availabilities, different fish species, different trophic levels etc. They all add up to one thing - the 'analysis' is totally meaningless. This is not a well respected technique that has been developed and tested. He just grabbed a few numbers without any thought to what they actually represent, stuck them in an equation, and got an absurd answer.

A nice array of smoke and mirrors there. Are you saying the GBR is dramatically less productive than other coral reefs? Actually the evidence is it's somewhat more productive than most. What are the measurement differences? Don't you remember I put up a paper regarding coral reef fisheries where they used the same method for comparing for fishing pressure? They also gave an analysis of the method and concluded it to be a useful measure.


Quote:


What sort of 'credence' should I give them? Should I refrain from pointing out their obvious flaws?

An honest appraisal would help. You blow flaws out of all proportion and won't admit marine parks have any.