It seems that many fisheries management plans are developed on the information gathered over the last 50 years.

Now we have people saying that to get a better idea of what "normal" would be, that the scientists need to go back further, and a recent UK study seems to back up that school of thought.

Now most people would consider trawling as an incredibly destructive and stupid way to farm our seas, and if there is a counter argument which would contradict that, I have not heard it.

The saving grace for australian fisheries may have been our isolation, and relatively small population, so for that at least we can be grateful.

Anyway, back to the subject of our comparison between catch sizes of modern fisheries to those of over 100 years ago, a recent study found that they landed four times more fish into the UK in the 1880's than they do today, and they also concluded modern trawlers have to cover 17 times the ground, to make the same catch as their predecessors, which means something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.

So if anyone is against marine parks in aussie waters, then perhaps they should look more closely at what has happened in the Northern Hemisphere, and decide if it is better to act now, or just hope it all works itself out.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/05/100504113117.htm

mozzaok wrote on May 15^th, 2010 at 8:39pm:


Your making a few big leaps of faith Mozzak. Ie you point to fisheries problems in the Northern hemisphere with it's large populations  and multi jurastictions in the case of Europe, imply they these problems will inevitably happen here and that marine parks are the only way to fix/ prevent them. Actually the countries that have done the best in making their fisheries sustainable (Australia included) didn't use marine parks as the main management method. Australia with the 3rd largest EEZ in the world imports 70% of it's seafood. NSW imports 91%! If you try to keep up the same puny yield with a network a marine parks in place you may well have to step up ecologically damaging practices like trawling in the open areas to make up for the grounds lost to reserves. Ie yould could end up causing the problem you are trying to prevent!   

It probably does have "greenie" links to it, which would cause many to question the objectivity of those involved, but the data at least gives us reason to pause, and wonder how many, and what influences, led to such a massive decline.

Now I won't pretend to know the rights and wrongs of the marine parks idea, and as someone who is possibly the world's worst fisherman, I have no great personal interest in it.
As an old surfer, who only fished because his mates did, to fill in time when the wind was not blowing offshore, my personal experience is limited, but I have lived in a few towns that supported commercial fisheries, and had several mates involved in that industry, my personal view is that recreational fishermen do very little harm.
Commercial fisheries on the other hand, could never be trusted to self regulate, because their only interest is self interest, and their perspective is always, 'short term'.

Illegal poaching is also a problem, especially from asian and middle eastern people who bring their greedy destructive attitude toward all resources, and think nothing of taking any fish, of any size, at any time, if they can make five cents off it.

So we have to address commercial fishing, both the legal, and illegal versions, because it is the commercial fisheries doing the damage at sea, as it is the commercial activities on land that are polluting our waters.

Self regulation, as we saw from the financial sector, and everywhere it is ever used, simply means no regulation, and that is something we cannot allow.

mozzaok wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 11:04am:



The report uses catches only as a guide to abundance and this should be treated with care. If not restricted and now rebuilt fisheries could be shown to be in a state of collapse too because the catches are down. This was the problem with the Boris Worm - 'no fish by 2050 report'. The study you posted tries to account for effort and efficiency of fishing methods but I wonder how accurate this is. They don't seem to have cross checked with other methods to test the accuaracy of their methodology. In fact they make a big deal out of their findings being far gloomier than any others.

mozzaok wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 12:17pm:


No fish species has ever been wiped out by fishing and they have amazing ability to recovery in numbers when fishing is wound back - often it only takes five years and less often ten. As to 'most ocean experts' I think it is more the case of one report widely quoted in the media, ie the Pew recipient Boris Worm's report which claimed all the World's fisheries will be wiped out by 2050. As I mentioned earlier his methodology was highly suspect, using as he did catches as a guide to abundance. Prof Ray Hilborn, peer review scientist with the University of Washington, described it as "The most absurd claim ever to appear in a journal regarding fisheries. This will be completely accepted by the ecological community - they have no scepticism."

He also pointed out that the countries that have done well in making their fisheries sustainable (Iceland, Australia, USA and NZ), did not use marine parks as the main management method.


mozzaok wrote on May 17^th, 2010 at 12:17pm:



As to other problems such as pollution you have to tackle them head on. Merely banning fishing is not appropriate or effective. As to global warming/ ocean acidification it is not clear as to whether these will actually be a net negative for fisheries. There are in fact signs that a lot of species would benefit, ie productivity will rise. Ie it will be more of a case of winners and some losers.

PJ:

Quote:


1/20th of what?

1/20th of the World average fishing pressure.

Quote:


I suspect this would have more to do with more economic allocation of resources rather than managing the catch. You don't need a big fleet to catch the fish.

It has reduced the catch, like the reduction in NSW fishermen has. Of course this is not directly proportional to the reduction in boats and fishermen.

Quote:


Many have been sent to 'commercial extinction', and the recovery of some of these is amazing only for it's unexpected slowness or absence. Extinction is kind of a low bar to set as a measure of the success of fisheries management.

The point is that the worst case is not usually that bad. PS how many is 'some' for unexpected slowness or absence?

Quote:


Are you serious PJ? There is a constant stream of reports about this issue.

Yes and a lot of reports are from the same source, ie Boris Worm.

Quote:


Can you explain what you mean by the term 'peer review scientist'?

One who reviews the work of other scientists. I could pull up his bio up but you will tell it's all fake because he has put something on the net, no doubt.

Quote:


Did he also point out the the countries that failed also did not use marine parks as the main method - in fact no countries did, because it has only been adopted fairly recently?

Big deal. Any management is better than none or weak management, even marine parks. Another point is that if they don't have the will to implement effective fisheries management are they going to have the will to implement massive marine parks?

Did he also explain that it tends to be the more historically successful countries that are now using marine parks mroe widely? [/quote]

Yes but in this case they are a political phenomenon. The whole point of his article is that there is no need to rush into marine parks when other methods are successful.

[] Quote:


Did this happen in the absence of a reduction in the TAC?

In the case of NSW yes. Ie it was more the form of an input reduction, that is reducing the ability of fisherment to catch fish.

Quote:


Isn't the worst case by definition the worst case, hence it is that bad?

If it's reversible then it's not that bad.

Quote:


Aren't all career academic scientists of that type?

Not all of them are Professors as he is.

Quote:


You should have a look at it PJ. The contrast with certain other bios will be Starck. I am sure he provides ample info to enable people to check his achievements. And probably a lot less fluff too.

I don't think he has his own website - the form of the bio could vary quite a bit depending on where it is posted/ who wrote it.

Quote:


You are the one who brought it up PJ. It is a totally moot point. You should think about what you are saying before posting it. That other countries have had both success and abject failure of fisheries management without marine parks is neither a positive or negative for marine parks, but merely a reflection of their short history.

Duh. Marine parks are being promoted as the only or ideal way to fix overfishing problems so my field evidence is a valid point.

Quote:


When has the management of communal resources ever been an apolitical phenomenon? [/quote]

Traditional methods in the countries mentioned have been far more apolitcal than marine parks in the same countries. Ie the former was mainly left to professional fisheries scientists and managers in consultation with stakeholders. And not an iron triangles of marine park bureaucrats, green activists and politicians.  

Well seeing that both FD and PJ are passionate about our oceans, and both seem keen on protecting them, you will probably find these TED talks interesting.
http://www.ted.com/talks/jeremy_jackson.html

This one from ecologist Jeremy Jackson is pretty gloomy, but has some particularly interesting images of "tourist fisherman" catch photos, from the same area in the 1950's, where huge fish were almost always caught, to the tiny, by comparison, sizes of the fish caught today.
He also speaks of the massive Cod catches from the past, which virtually destroyed the whole Cod fishery.


http://www.ted.com/talks/sylvia_earle_s_ted_prize_wish_to_protect_our_oceans.htm...
Secondly, another TED talk, this one from Sylvia Earle, with an impassioned plea for the world to recognise the importance of ocean bio-diversity, and to create marine parks, of the magnitude of between 10% to 30% of the ocean, to try and give the ocean a chance to heal itself, as the fraction of 1% currently protected, will not be nearly enough to do the job.
Sure these are a bit airy fairy to most people, but if you really listen to what they have to say, they do not make outlandish claims for political goals, they just care deeply about humanity, and recognise that humans cannot survive, without healthy oceans.
Sylvia Earle used the analogy of an astronaut getting to know, understand, and appreciate his life support systems, as being his most critical task, and suggests we must do the same, by recognising the importance of a healthy ocean for a healthy planet, or as she says, "No Blue=No Green".


Quote:


I like that idea, I think that land based fishermen are not the bad guys in this scenario, and they actually provide a great many financial benefits for many communities, as well as being a wholesome, active recreation that has many benefits for the individuals involved.
As Sylvia Earle pointed out, 90% of the world's populations of 'Large Fish', have been wiped out over the last 50 to 100 years, and we know that it is not land based recreational fisherman that have caused that decline.

Quote:


I wish it were that simple FD, but I fear that you give more credit to people than they deserve. The fishery that I am most familiar with, was one where all the commercial fishermen were licensed, and had to commit to size restrictions, and seasons, but the simple fact is that it is their living, and if they can make more, by taking more, they will.
Tomorrow is somebody else's problem.
I watched catch sizes decline, average fish sizes drop, and greater effort go in to catch more of what was left, all by people who payed very big money for their licenses.
In fact, if anything the buying of licenses just seemed to provide them with a belief that the ocean owed them, and they were gonna do whatever they could to collect on that debt.

There was huge concern when the Marine Parks issue was first raised, and the opposition from the local fishermen was both strident, and unanimous.
They managed to get the boundaries reduced, to exclude most of their traditional fishing area, apart from a small section near the twelve apostles. Two spots popular with surf fisherman were also excluded in the park, to allow continued recreational fishing from the beaches with the easiest access.

The spread of the Abalone Virus along the coast here, has seen abalone fishermen calling for a total ban of any recreational activities along this coast, once more highlighting that the local fishermen have only one interest, and that is self interest.

Time and time again, commercial fisheries show no interest in any conservation plans, except to oppose them, until it becomes a matter of self interest.
Of course that leaves the average joe with the choice of supporting some pin headed bureaucrats, that may mean well, but who usually do not know their arse from a hole in the ground, or supporting local fishermen whose whole history shows nothing but a repeated pattern of neglect and greed.

It would be nice to see a third option, do you guys have any suggestions?