Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Marine parks next wave of water wars (Read 7168 times)
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #30 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 11:13am
 
[93835583] Quote:
So you don't deny my point?


I think you are making a logical fallacy.

No you are. You are saying traditional management techniques = overfishing, stock collapses etc merely because the were the techniques available when these mistakes happened. Logic would say the collapsed happened because traditional techniques weren't properly applied. In some cases fisheries scientist weren't listen to or there were juristictional problems preventing regualtions being put into effect. Also there is the fact that we are getting better at using tradition techniques. Your argument is like saying we shouldn't use nuclear power because accidents made 30 or so years ago. 


Quote:
Can you give at least a short reply instead of making me look up links.


Traditional fisheries management techniques fail fishermen in two ways. They fail by allowing fisheries to collapse despite the best efforts of fisheries managers. They also fail in that they force fisheries managers to set extremely conservative restrictions on both recreational and commercial fishermen in order to overcome the flaws inherent to the techniques that are currently used. Marine parks can help to overcome both of these problems, allowing for an increase in catch rates and a more sustainable fishery. If implemented with the active cooperation of fishermen, they can also make enforcement simpler, reduce the cost to fishermen of catching a fish and make fishing more convenient.

You just claiming all things for marine parks. The real world experience in the Australian case is actually quite the opposite to your snake oil claims.

Quote:
Duh, any significant fishing effort will mean there are less fish around than if there is no fishing effort. In other words the only way they had to go was down. It is not neccessarliy a sign of failure that a fishery will expand in the early stages and then consolidate at a lower level.


But that is not what happened, is it? What I asked was whether you could give an explanation of why they were previously lower than now.

That descibes what happened.

Quote:
It sounds like you are confused about what you want ie sustainable fishing or the preservationist anti-use philosophy.
 

It sounds like you have a reading comprehension problem.


Actually I have been tested and found to be in the top 2% of the population in verbal reasoning and comprehension.

Quote:
Now you invoking the Precautionary Principle. You could just as logically apply that to marine parks because we don't know what effects they might have on an unprecedented scale.


There is both real world evidence and a lot of common sense supporting the view that marine parks make fisheries more resilient.

Where is it then? And I don't mean in areas where fisheries management was previously non existant or the so called consensus statement.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #31 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 11:20am
 
I think the concept of 'why' we are starting to implement Parks, Sanctuaries and Zones in the first place ..now, kinda answers the whole problem.

I don't think 40% is a 'sustainable' equation ...its still in the negative.

Kiribati is experiencing an 'explosion' of Aquatic Life due to its lack of Fishing ...its almost as if all Aquatic Life is congregating around their islands for safety.

If we have to fish beyond the 50% mark, then our 'population' ...our 'over-population' is unsustainable.
Knowing that the Australian population is sustainable ...its the greed for foriegn demand - especially from over-populated nations like the irresponsibly Chinese/Indian/Mexico nations that drain our  long term future.
We should be able to fish of at least a 75% growth rate of Aquatic Life and still reap a profit from the 'quality' of 'wild catch' rather than bland grain fed 'Pen produce'.
I honestly think the Nipponese will find themselves relying upon Pen Produce with nothing more than Jellyfish growing in their seas, as their Fishing future.
Hopefully the United Nations will start granting 'land-locked' nations the right over International Waters so as not to be greedily exploited by Nipponese and Spanish Fisheries.
The fact that such nations, any nation is allowed to Fish beyond its Zone is completely irresponsible.
Nations such as Nippon and Spain have no concept of producing 'long-term'  quality and produce in their own seas and yet they take advantage of gullible and weak situations ...so much for Zen Gardens  Roll Eyes

Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25202
I like fish
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #32 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 1:03pm
 
Quote:
Your argument is like saying we shouldn't use nuclear power because accidents made 30 or so years ago.  


But they were made right up until now, and there is nothing to suggest they won;t continue.

Quote:
In some cases fisheries scientist weren't listen


Right now the fisheries scientists are saying we need marine parks. But you think that is a giant conspiracy. You can't have it both ways PJ. On the one hand you insist that fisheries scientists know what they are doing and can somehow magically prevent future stock collapses with current techniques, even though they never could in the past and are making no such claims now. On the other hand there is more agreement among fisheries scientists on the need for marine parks than on any other management change in the past, but you dismiss that because of a handful of scientists who can't even construct a logical argument. By cherry picking the one or two scientists who agree with you, you are committing the exact same mistake that you blame for past stock collapses.

Quote:
But that is not what happened, is it? What I asked was whether you could give an explanation of why they were previously lower than now.

That descibes what happened.


No PJ. I asked why they were lower in the past than they are now. You explained that is makes sense for the stocks to have been higher in the past and that this is not necessarily an indication of poor management.

Quote:
Actually I have been tested and found to be in the top 2% of the population in verbal reasoning and comprehension.


Grin

Quote:
Where is it then? And I don't mean in areas where fisheries management was previously non existant or the so called consensus statement.


There are entire books full of it. I have given you plenty of references before. You claimed that it did not count if you had to go to a library rather than downloading a convenient soundbite off the internet.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #33 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 3:32pm
 
[] Quote:
Your argument is like saying we shouldn't use nuclear power because accidents made 30 or so years ago.  


But they were made right up until now, and there is nothing to suggest they won;t continue.

And so will traditional fisheries management techniques - so what's wrong with the analogy?

Quote:
In some cases fisheries scientist weren't listen


Right now the fisheries scientists are saying we need marine parks. But you think that is a giant conspiracy.

There not - where did you get that idea? Why don't you name some Australian fisheries scientists who say marine parks are the ideal management tool?

Regarding scientists not being listened to isn't it true that they warned the government of Peru that the anchovies were being overfished but they didn't want to give up the revinue so the stocks were fished to collapse. Is that the fault of tradition management techniques or the fact that there were not applied?


You can't have it both ways PJ. On the one hand you insist that fisheries scientists know what they are doing and can somehow magically prevent future stock collapses with current techniques, even though they never could in the past and are making no such claims now.

Your making magical claims about marine parks. And
What do you mean never could? There are plenty of sustainable fisheries that don't rely on marine parks.



On the other hand there is more agreement among fisheries scientists on the need for marine parks than on any other management change in the past, but you dismiss that because of a handful of scientists who can't even construct a logical argument. By cherry picking the one or two scientists who agree with you, you are committing the exact same mistake that you blame for past stock collapses.

You know very well I have quoted more than one or two scientists, dozens would be closer. I don't think you are in any position to describe them as being illogical, or claim they are a minority. It's just a crude device of yours to create a 'bandwagon effect'.

Quote:
But that is not what happened, is it? What I asked was whether you could give an explanation of why they were previously lower than now.

That descibes what happened.


No PJ. I asked why they were lower in the past than they are now. You explained that is makes sense for the stocks to have been higher in the past and that this is not necessarily an indication of poor management.

Because there is less fishing effort now, obviously.

Quote:
Where is it then? And I don't mean in areas where fisheries management was previously non existant or the so called consensus statement.


There are entire books full of it. I have given you plenty of references before. You claimed that it did not count if you had to go to a library rather than downloading a convenient soundbite off the internet.

Your full of it. I made so such claim.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25202
I like fish
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #34 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 3:36pm
 
pjb05 wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 3:32pm:
[] Quote:
Your argument is like saying we shouldn't use nuclear power because accidents made 30 or so years ago. 


But they were made right up until now, and there is nothing to suggest they won;t continue.

And so will traditional fisheries management techniques - so what's wrong with the analogy?


Seems fine now. I thought you were implying that traditional fisheries management tools would prevent stock collapses from now on.

Quote:
You know very well I have quoted more than one or two scientists, dozens would be closer.


The majority of which, by your own admission, support the need for marine parks.

Quote:
Because there is less fishing effort now, obviously.


So are they being mismanaged now, or previously?
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #35 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 3:48pm
 
freediver wrote on Jan 1st, 2011 at 3:36pm:
[quote author=pjb05 link=1293248496/30#33 date=1293859927][] [quote]Your argument is like saying we shouldn't use nuclear power because accidents made 30 or so years ago.  


But they were made right up until now, and there is nothing to suggest they won;t continue.

And so will traditional fisheries management techniques - so what's wrong with the analogy?

Seems fine now. I thought you were implying that traditional fisheries management tools would prevent stock collapses from now on.

You can't gaurantee marine parks won't have adverse effects either.

Quote:
You know very well I have quoted more than one or two scientists, dozens would be closer.


The majority of which, by your own admission, support the need for marine parks.

I didn't admit that. In fact I would say that the majority of fisheries scientists would back my position.

Quote:
Because there is less fishing effort now, obviously.


So are they being mismanaged now, or previously?

Neither. If the previous effort was continued then there might have been a problem - but it wasn't.

PS: If you want to talk about mismanagement need I remind you about the GBRMPA?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #36 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 10:01pm
 
Hmmm?

Planet has heaps of Fish.
Humans start fishing as if the fish will be endless
...or so thats what Jesus told em Roll Eyes

Fish stocks run low, to even 10%.
Fishing Industry says below 50% is sustainable and provides adequate recovery.
Scientists say that Regions left for a while with no fishing won't guarrantee growth and proliferation of fish (again?).

...me thinks Scientists are pretty stoopid.
And regardless of books published, many are like Compo Doctors who write that your crushed hand is just a scratch and you are able to continue work as a typist. Depends who you get your money from  Wink
Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25202
I like fish
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #37 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 10:10pm
 
Quote:
You can't gaurantee marine parks won't have adverse effects either.


And your point is? Seems like you enjoy shifting the goal posts around. You think it is a good idea to stick with traditional tools (despite the proven and guaranteed adverse effects) because they have not sent a species extinct yet, but we should only go with something better if there is a guarantee of no adverse effects.

Quote:
In fact I would say that the majority of fisheries scientists would back my position.


Then why is it that I can count on my fingers the number of scientists you have found who even come close to agreeing with you, while there are plenty of consensus statements with very long lists of scientists who support marine parks?

from some of your own recent posts:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694/25#25

Quote:
The Narooma protest came as more than 100 environmental scientists urged the coalition to re-think its plan and return bipartisan support for the reserves, arguing the science behind them was watertight.


http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1273919941/25#25

Quote:
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.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 1st, 2011 at 10:23pm by freediver »  

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #38 - Jan 1st, 2011 at 10:22pm
 
All in all, I think Australian Fisheries (upon all levels) will eventually get it right and probably come forth as the best in the world, well - I hope so. I would feel kinda proud.

Just a thought = Why not make '10 year No Take Zones' in rotations?
Just like Farmers do with paddocks.
Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #39 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 5:56am
 
[] Quote:
You can't gaurantee marine parks won't have adverse effects either.


And your point is? Seems like you enjoy shifting the goal posts around. You think it is a good idea to stick with traditional tools (despite the proven and guaranteed adverse effects) because they have not sent a species extinct yet, but we should only go with something better if there is a guarantee of no adverse effects.

Just pointing out the flaw in precautionary priniciple argument. There are also proven adverse effects with marine parks. 

Quote:
In fact I would say that the majority of fisheries scientists would back my position.


Then why is it that I can count on my fingers the number of scientists you have found who even come close to agreeing with you, while there are plenty of consensus statements with very long lists of scientists who support marine parks?

By and large the signatories of your consensus statement aren't Fisheries Scientists. 

from some of your own recent posts:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694/25#25

Quote:
The Narooma protest came as more than 100 environmental scientists urged the coalition to re-think its plan and return bipartisan support for the reserves, arguing the science behind them was watertight.


Once again why don't you think before you post: "environmental scientists" - not fisheries scientists. 

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1273919941/25#25

[quote]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.

Now you geting very silly. I also explained that hardly anyone is against marine parks in prinicple. We have had small reserves for years. What I and others have questioned was the need for large networks of marine parks as the main fisheries management tool.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25202
I like fish
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #40 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 8:29am
 
Quote:
Just pointing out the flaw in precautionary priniciple argument. There are also proven adverse effects with marine parks.


Transfer of effort, if that is what you are referring to, is not a proven 'flaw'. It is purely theoretical, and all the evidence points against it being a problem.

Quote:
By and large the signatories of your consensus statement aren't Fisheries Scientists.


At the time it was first published, it was "signed by 161 leading marine scientists and experts on marine reserves. Signatories all hold Ph.D. degrees and are employed by academic instutions." There have been more signatories since, and more consensus statements in support of marine parks.

Quote:
What I and others have questioned was the need for large networks of marine parks as the main fisheries management tool.


So what do you mean by 'main'? I have pointed out to you plenty of times that no-one is proposing the abandonment of traditional tools.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1330
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #41 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 9:42am
 
] Quote:
Just pointing out the flaw in precautionary priniciple argument. There are also proven adverse effects with marine parks.


Transfer of effort, if that is what you are referring to, is not a proven 'flaw'. It is purely theoretical, and all the evidence points against it being a problem.

No more theoretical than the so called benefits, plus there are many other problems, socio-economic, adverse changes in species assemblages, for instance.  

Quote:
By and large the signatories of your consensus statement aren't Fisheries Scientists.


At the time it was first published, it was "signed by 161 leading marine scientists and experts on marine reserves. Signatories all hold Ph.D. degrees and are employed by academic instutions." There have been more signatories since, and more consensus statements in support of marine parks.

And how many were fisheries scientists?

Quote:
What I and others have questioned was the need for large networks of marine parks as the main fisheries management tool.


So what do you mean by 'main'? I have pointed out to you plenty of times that no-one is proposing the abandonment of traditional tools.

Come off it - your promoting marine parks as the ideal fisheries management tool. It's a question of scale. I'm against 20-30% of our waters being sanctuary zones. If you want a few areas for divers to look at fish or a few of unique consevation merit as green zones then that's OK by me. But that is not what your advocating is it?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #42 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 10:26am
 
I'm sure I didn't come out all guns blazing on this subject - I think I would have been pulverised by the pair of you.

Quote:
Come off it - your promoting marine parks as the ideal fisheries management tool. It's a question of scale. I'm against 20-30% of our waters being sanctuary zones. If you want a few areas for divers to look at fish or a few of unique consevation merit as green zones then that's OK by me. But that is not what your advocating is it?

Why do you keep thinking that anything less than 50% for areas set out for the wellbeing (recouperation/rejuvenation and survival) of Aquatic Life is ideal?
Is the Australian Fisheries so inept that they can't make a profit from just 45% (let alone your 20-30%) of NSW 'Shelf' waters?

...as far as I know - Santuaries, Parks and Zones is as good as we have got it (especially when they symbolise what was once successful 'naturally' before the exploitation by the Fishing/Trawling Fleets that plagued the seas like rabbits to a good crop) ...so far.
Properly designed 'Artificial Reefs' (and I will be getting more involved), not the dumped Ex-Naval Ships for Diver Recreation (which I was banned off DiveOz Forum for my stance against such beyond 'real' Artificial Reefs for Fish - not Divers) - should eventually come into place and action ...especially when more Scientists use their heads in partnership with Artists and Researchers.
My mate has excess tonnes of quality stone slabs ready for use as make-shift Artificial Reefs done in the style used by Scientists upon a David Attenborough doco. (will try to find the peice - it was aired 2 months ago.). We just don't have the means of getting it all into the appropriate areas - when chosen.

Its all about 'progression' - better Sanctuaries, Parks, Zones, Artificial Reefs, and other stuff ...along with better Fishing techniques, attitudes and conservatism. All for the long term ...haul.
Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 25202
I like fish
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #43 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 10:34am
 
PJ, your transfer of effort 'flaw' is not just theoretical, it is complete BS. The benefits of marine parks, both inside and outside the no take zones, are not theoretical. They are well established with hard evidence.
Back to top
 

Honest criticism is hard to take, particularly from a relative, a friend, an acquaintance, or a stranger - Franklin P. Jones
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Jasignature
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 3925
Scam Syd-i-knee
Gender: male
Re:  Marine parks next wave of water wars
Reply #44 - Jan 2nd, 2011 at 10:50am
 
Yeah - give me the 'practical' over the 'theoretical' any day.
Goat Island (world's first) and the Poor Knights Islands make a motsa for both Tourism and Fishing.

...next the Five Islands of Port Kembla/Wollongong ? Wink
Back to top
 

U.nited&&F.ederation of&&O.ceania&&...for all Austr-Aliens
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print