Quote:


The anti marine park lobby goes to great lengths to create the impression of unanimity among fishermen, but it is not there. It's just that marine parks are going in fairly rapidly, so those who support them feel no need to speak up, and those who oppose them do.

What is the feeling towards the marine parks in your area now? How long have they been in?

Quote:


Commercial fishermen have very little political clout. The number of people in the industry is slowly going down.

Politicians seem to make good use of public feedback periods. One of the changes I was promoting a few years ago on the basis of convenience for fishermen got made. The problem with fishing is the level of secrecy involved. Everyone has their own favourite spots and no-one actually knows how many fish are caught from where.

] Quote:


The anti marine park lobby goes to great lengths to create the impression of unanimity among fishermen, but it is not there. It's just that marine parks are going in fairly rapidly, so those who support them feel no need to speak up, and those who oppose them do.

What is the 'anti-marine park lobby FD? I have never come across that monolthic entity. Its just your attempt at labelling the oppostion.

What is the feeling towards the marine parks in your area now? How long have they been in?

Quote:


Another attempt at labelling here, ie 'pin headed bureaucrats' and fishermen with a 'greed and neglect ' attitude. No mention of the proffessional fisheries scientist who manage our fisheries or the fact that the fishing effort has been would back substantial by the same scientists and managers.

Commercial fishermen have very little political clout. The number of people in the industry is slowly going down.

Politicians seem to make good use of public feedback periods. One of the changes I was promoting a few years ago on the basis of convenience for fishermen got made. The problem with fishing is the level of secrecy involved. Everyone has their own favourite spots and no-one actually knows how many fish are caught from where.

Rubbish, the feedback (with a few exceptions) has been a sham. The level of green zones has been predetermined (usually 20% in NSW). Sometimes additional area is added in the face of oppostion (eg Byron Bay) or spots are closed to fishing merely because they are popular fishing spots (GBR).  

[]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.

Fewer larger fish (within limits) has nothing to do with the long term sustanability of a fishery. As larger fish are caught smaller fish benifit through less competion for food and less predation. In fact maximum sustainable yield is reached when the breeding stock is fished down to 30-40% of the unfished population.

He also speaks of the massive Cod catches from the past, which virtually destroyed the whole Cod fishery.

Is that murray cod? More likely the cause of their decline is degradation of their environment, not fishing. Also note that commercial fishing for them is now banned.  


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.

There are other ways of protecting it besides locking it up.  

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.

So why target recreation boat fishermen? They have to abide by the same bag and size limits. What about all the jobs in the boating industry?

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.

The 90% figure is another Boris Worm effort and has been disputed by fisheries scientists.

[
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.

For now. Wait for the next review where there will inevitably be moves to expand the green zones.

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.

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

The status quo (ie without marine parks) is not too bad. Ie with the least fished waters in the World and a lot of stocks on the way due to reductions in the fishing effort.

PJ:

Quote:


I didn't describe it as a monolithic entity.

Quote:


Do you think I am being unfair by labelling them as being opposed to marine parks?

You denigrate the opposition by labelling them as a lobby group rather than something grassroots. Similarly you talk about them acting on some sort of single planned strategy.  

Quote:


That doesn't mean the feedback is a sham. There is a lot more to it than the % coverage.

It means the % coverage is predetermined. And yes there is a lot more - it gets worse.

Quote:


You should start a new thread on that topic. I have never seen any evidence for this.

You have seen it here on this forum. At your insistance I put up quite a lot of evidence for it. You just denied it with your usual nit-picking.  

Quote:


How sure are you? Try to find one that is written by him where he wasn't restricted in what he could include.

I may not have been written by him and I'm sure there are plenty that don't list all his papers.

Quote:


Do you include me in that?

I think you have a blind faith in them. Either that or you have taken a politcal position on them and won't back down. Your lack of consideration of conflicting evidence and denigration of opponents are examples of this.

Quote:


Can you give more info on this please? I would expect it to very greatly with species and to also depend on how broad (ascros species and up and down the food chain).

I have put this up before. Wiki has a good explanation.

Quote:


I don't think it distinguishes recreational and commercial fishermen.

Quote:


Shouldn't it be about what is better?

I think you (and others with like minds) want change for the sake of change.

] Quote:


So you want me to call them the anti marine park grass root?

The phrase has certain connetations, largely negative. No doubt thats why you made it up.   

Quote:


I have seen anecdotal evidence, which in this instance is pretty much worthless.

Oh really. Yesterday you couldn't even remember that I had put any evidence up. You say it's anecdotal, but your the one who didn't think circumstantial evidence is worth anything. I don't think you have much credibility on what constutes the worth of evidence. 

Quote:


Your claim was that they view them from an ethics point of view. Do you include me in that? [/quote]

A lot of people don't like the idea of fishing - thats why they are very keen on marine parks, that's one version of ethical thinking. You have said more than once anglers have an irrational attachment to size limits (ie ehtics), well that could be said of your attachment to marine parks. 

] Quote:


So I can't call the anti marine park lobby a lobby. Nor can I call them a grass root. What term would be politically correct enough for you that I could use it without implying anything about them?

Another problem with your label (ie aside from the 'lobby' term), is that by and large they aren't even anti-marine park. They are just concered with particual marine park processes and outcomes.

Can I call them a golden triangle, after the way they try so desperately to put pressure on government institutions and scientists?
Quote:


Lets take a look at the evidence then. I realise of course that you have made the claim before. But your 'evidence' amounted to nothing more than the fact that other lobbyists had also made the same claim. You have an odd habit of confusing an accusation from a fellow lobbyist for evidence that the accusation is true.

There not lobbyists. There are individual fishermen from widely different parts of Australia with direct experience of the process. They have signed statutory declarations to that effect. Do you know you can be sent to prison for making misleading statutory declarations? Also the actual zonings are a matter of public record and these support the claim. Senator Boswell also made similar claims in Parliament. Are you saying he misled Parliament?

Quote:


Rationality is about logic, not ethics.

A lot of your arguments are so inept they are self negating. Eg you are now saying that statements from fishermen about zoning are worthless because they are 'anti-marine park lobbyists'. There is a strong tendency to treat fisherment this way by marine park proponents. If having a personal stake in this issue disqualifies your argument from being considered, then the same applies to your side of the argument. A lot of marine park proponents have a huge (often undeclared) personal interest in promoting marine parks.

Furthermore you spent pages whining that only direct evidence is 'real'. Well a sworn statement from a direct participant is direct evidence. It's like eyewitness testimony in court. You cannot just dismiss it as 'anecdotal'.   

Here is an interesting way to make fishers think long term:

Fisheries: Catch Shares Improve Consistency, Not Health, of Fisheries

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091222105314.htm

ScienceDaily (Jan. 11, 2010) — Catch share programs result in more consistent and predictable fisheries but do not necessarily improve ecological conditions, according to a new study published online the week of December 22 by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Employed by nations around the world, catch shares -- a management system that divides up and allocates percentages, or shares, of the total allowable catch to individual fishermen or fishing groups -- have generated controversy as to whether they lead to better environmental stewardship than other fishery management options. The study, funded by the Lenfest Ocean Program, concludes that these programs help to eliminate erratic swings in fishing rates, catch landings and fish population sizes, among other factors, but may not necessarily lead to larger fish populations. This research is the most in-depth and comprehensive study of the ecological impacts of catch share programs in North America.

Publication of this research coincides with the public-comment period for the U. S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) draft catch share policy, which evaluates catch share programs under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the nation's primary fisheries law. NOAA's draft policy "encourages the consideration and adoption of catch shares wherever appropriate in fishery management and ecosystem plans and amendments and will support the design, implementation, and monitoring of catch share programs."

"Many proponents of catch share programs presume that they improve the health of fisheries, but our research indicates a much different expectation: They work very well to avoid erratic swings. They generally do not lead to more fish to catch," said author Dr. Tim Essington of the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle, Washington. "Catch shares are one potential method for improving fisheries management, but we shouldn't expect these programs to be a panacea."

Participants in a catch share program may fish for their shares of the fishery at their discretion until their quotas are filled. This management method is often contrasted with a "race-for-fish" management option, where fishermen compete with others in the fishery during a set time frame.

The increase in predictability found to accompany catch share programs may result from greater incentives for fishermen to comply with rules and regulations. The study's findings also suggest that catch share fisheries may have lower rates of discarded fish.

Essington studied 15 catch share programs in the United States and Canada and looked at a range of measurements for each fishery, including population status, catch landings and fishing rate. He compared fisheries with catch shares to fisheries without them and also evaluated fisheries before and after the implementation of a catch share program. The research analyzed both the average value and the year-to-year variability of the measurements.

Essington cited a need to assess a larger number of fisheries globally.

"We have sufficient data to quantitatively evaluate many pros and cons of catch share programs, but as of now we still don't know how much they help to end overfishing," said Essington. "Analysis of a larger set of catch share programs could also help identify fishery and program-design characteristics that make these programs more effective in achieving better ecological outcomes."

The Lenfest Ocean Program supports scientific research aimed at forging solutions to the challenges facing the global marine environment.