From the front page of yesterdays's Australian. It is interesting to read about the WA lobster fishery reducing by more than a half, with further declines predicted, even though it is held up of an example of what can be done with highly intensive management using traditional fisheries management ools.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/
marine-parks-next-wave-of-water-wars/story-fn59niix-1225975659238

BEYOND the crystal ocean surrounding the Abrolhos Islands off the West Australian coast, a storm is brewing for the federal government.

The controversy could rival the water wars over the Murray-Darling Basin.

Environment Minister Tony Burke has missed Labor's self-imposed deadline of the end of the year to announce the boundaries of a network of marine sanctuaries in commonwealth waters stretching from Kangaroo Island off the coast of South Australia to the Abrolhos north of Perth.

For several weeks, Mr Burke has been holding roundtable discussions with commercial and recreational fishing representatives and environmental groups, as well as shipping and tourism operators, in a bid to finalise the draft South West Plan, which green groups hope will become the template for marine reserves around the nation.

West Australian tourism operator Rod Wilson, of Sea Lion Charters, says marine health has improved enormously since the creation of a state sanctuary at Green Head, a fishing village about three hours drive north of Perth where he has run charters for more than a decade.

Mr Wilson, who collects data on the sea lion population as part of his licence to take snorkellers to the area, says their numbers have almost doubled since cray fishing was restricted.

The groups claim experience from existing sanctuaries shows exclusion zones lead to more fish in the surrounding waters.

This means some of the best fishing spots of the future are likely to be on the edge of the marine sanctuaries.

Tony Abbott campaigned against marine parks before the August federal election.

Abrolhos Island fishing charter operator Jay Cox said he had witnessed a massive decline in fish stocks over the past 35 years, and things were getting worse.

"I think it will be good for fishing if there are more sanctuaries," Mr Cox said.

---

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/
marine-parks-spark-sea-wars/story-e6frg8y6-1225975517144

AFTER a 14-hour overnight shift pulling up lobster pots in rough seas about 40km off the West Australian coast, the crew of the trawler Night Stalker has had a welcome reminder of the good times that once made the rock lobster business the millionaire factory of the sea

For an industry that used to be Australia's biggest fishery but has shrunk by half, there are bigger uncertainties at play.

After the southwest, the commonwealth is due to announce the proposed zones for the north of WA, northern Australia and the northeast, taking in Cape York and meeting up with the southeast zone established by the Howard government. Environmental groups have made no secret of the fact they will want to revisit the southeast reserve, claiming it does not reduce fishing and provides little protection.

If there is unity, it is that all three groups, the government, the fishers and the environmentalists, recognise fish stocks are declining and agree that anything that increases the number of fish in the ocean is a worthwhile aim.

The push to create sanctuaries in which healthy fish stocks can breed up and spill over into surrounding areas has broad agreement.

Kane Moyle, spokesman for state-funded recreational fishing organisation Recfishwest, says there has been little consultation with recreational fishermen.

Moyle claims fishing is already managed through the states and a lot of what is being proposed is simply another tool for fisheries management.

Whatever the facts, the commercial sector knows it will carry the burden of any new regulations.

"But if they came out and said they are going to do something about the recreational sector it wouldn't get past the first base politically. It's a big deal what we are facing and I think they are targeting the wrong people."

But after a decade of turmoil in the crayfish business, Night Stalker skipper Bruce Cockman is resigned to more change.

The WA rock lobster industry used to be Australia's biggest fishery, which at its height was worth more than $400 million a year.

Today, the annual rock lobster catch is worth less than half that amount and all indications from the puerulus count -- the monitoring of juveniles, which gives a three-year leading indicator of what to expect -- are there are several lean years ahead.

Perth businessman and former Perth stock exchange chairman John Poynton says the science is compelling that if you set aside parks for fish stocks to breed up things will improve.

But after witnessing a "massive decline" in fish stocks in the past 35 years, Cox says he would be happy to see something like the Great Barrier Reef marine parks system that provides sanctuaries for fish to breed up and migrate out.

Biologist and conservationist Wendy Payne says the global view is that Australia is trying to act while we still have a fishery to protect. "The fishing industry is changing due to the environment and it is important that industry does change before we have a repeat of the [Atlantic] cod disaster, where fish stock collapsed.

Interesting FD.

Upon the east coast, its still unofficial - but there is talk of making the entire NSW (starting with the south) Coast a Sanctuary.
Ironically, it is the Australian Commercial Fishing Industry that seems to be the major player behind this Conservational manouver.
The gist is that with the ACFI making a strict NO TAKE ZONE from 1km to 20 km out to sea (usually off the shelf) - they are achieving two things: knocking out their chief competitor - the Recreational Fishing Industry and providing a sanctuary for the fish to recouperate and proliferate to become 'spillover' beyond the 20km zone. This is due that most Recreational Fishermen can't afford to go beyond 20kms and they can't really ban Father's and their kids fishing from shore so thats where the 1km comes into play (might be reduced in future to 200metres?).
This goes with the fact that many Restaurants are buying fish from Recreational Fishermen 'under the table' and not from Commercial Fishermen.

Having scuba dived the Poor Knights Islands which are strict NO TAKE ZONE, the size and proliferation, let alone the vibrancy of aquatic life is astounding ...and once the Fishermen got used to the idea of reaping more and bigger fish from 'spillover' from the zones - they were very happy.
Having dived all along the southern NSW coast - nothing much to see in the way of 'big' fish, let alone 'mass schools' of fish ...all gone.

I think the level of 'enforcement' along the NSW coast has to be looked into a lot more - go to Stockton Beach and you see one guy working x20 rods off the beach ...and there are a lot of these guys doing such.
If I had a dollar for every guy I've heard brag how they don't pay for licences (they just run or high-tail it) and take whatever they want without any trouble.
So I think its easy to make Sanctuaries - but its another thing to make 'effective enforcement'. Recreational Fisherman DILLIGAF the whole situation, so I kinda see the Commercial point of view as the more responsible, besides protecting their own future.


Palau has a big international Sanctuary ...but the country can't afford to 'enforce' it, beyond one donated boat from Australia. Hence why x40 Phillipino and other country boats continue to fish in its 'sanctuary' waters.

Well I guess I know a lot of things you don't know Pj. - sorry to say.

Its 'collective knowledge' that I'm good at.
Although I didn't go to University to become a Dux like my older sister,
I wagged school a lot and researched in libraries around Sydney from an age (from Primary) well before most go to Uni to learn how to research and I used to jigg school a lot to follow-thru with my favourite subject "School Excursions" - because lets face it, its the only time everyone at school seemed to be happy ...especially when school was in the midst of that hole known as Mt Druitt.

So my opinions are based upon facts that I've come to know and I for one am not afraid to be wrong as I find on these Forums from time to time. I ain't no Billy Goat Gruff who can't "cross a bridge and get over it".

My opinion is just an opinion, point of view, etc. I'm not here to argue pedantic points - I'm just here to have my say and to read what many others have to say.
If I say that I've been threatened with violence by Recreational Fisherman down the Sapphire Coast after emerging from a Scuba Dive because of so-called "Sanctuary" rumors and such, knowing full well it comes from the Commercial quater ...and if this is from the Commercial quater in an 'unofficial' way - then it is due mostly I guess from the 'desire' of the Commercial Fishermen themselves and nothing is in 'official' documentation because lets face it - such documentation is usually many months behind the times. Having spoken to Commercial Fishermen down the Sapphire and even in the Gong, they "quietly" admit that there is "talk" about such and they say so with some willing acceptance of the end results.
I kinda thought this has been known for years now - as I have known?

Kinda makes sense though - such a Sanctuary and I can see the Commercial tactic.
I suggest YOU look into Goat Island and the Poor Knights Islands NO TAKE ZONES yourself for the endless facts about the beneficial effects.

...I would have thought this would be common sense in an era upon this planet where Fishing results are just 4% take with superior technology over the Fishermen of 100 years ago having a tonnage take of 96% more with less technologically advanced gear.

Don't get me wrong PJ.
I ain't like 'that' at all ...except for the long hair
I firmly believe in Australian 'fishing'.
Sure there are a lot of Scuba Divers in an unholy alliance with the Greens, but as you've notice last election - there are a lot of other people too.
I don't believe in dumping ex-naval ships for falsified 'artificial reefs' when really they are just recreational dive sites ...I've been banned from DiveOz numerously for this stance.
I do believe in NO TAKE ZONES that compliment 'Fishing Zones' - for a No Take Zone provides a "motel" if you like for the fish to get it on in the name of proliferation ...something which is sadly missing around the Australian coast. To break it down a level, why fish a Bommie where the Fish find safety to breed, when you can fish a bit further away and collect the 'spillover'. If the 'spillover' is just x50% of what can be taken if the Bommie was fished also - then so be it, at least the law of nature is running the show and not financial greed and short-term stupidity to exhaust very long-term resources.
Like I said - I believe in Fishing, but if areas need to be cordened off for periods of 25 years plus for the greater good (because, specifically, the last 100 years) - then so be it for the long term profit.
I believe the Australian Fishing Industry is one of this nations best attributes unlike any other region of the world.

As for my 'opinion', well I'm not getting paid to write what I write here, so an opinion suffices quite adequately until such time.
a 'FACT' can be from word of mouth, wether you believe not or otherwise. I put forth whatever can be of value here upon the Forum.
Well written documentation would be better, but I go with what I've got.
I could be mean and say "At least I'm out there" amongst the forefront of whats coming up ahead for the country. ...to be put in writing a year after its decided.

I can see the sense of the Australian Commercial Fishery and its tactic 'if' it is indeed the 'official' case. Such a -1 to 20km NO TAKE ZONE would create a 'Barrier' (like a Great Barrier Reef? ) along the NSW Coast that would give AQUATIC LIFE, let alone FISH STOCKS a "respite" to recouperate. I mean, who wants the costly "aquafarmed" and bland tasting grain fed fish compared to the vibrant wild stuff?
Dare I say, via my opinion, that this will be the future of Nipponese Fisheries. 

I see some major changes for Australian Fishing, especially when the rest of the world is looking in this direction for leadership
...but i'm sure you knew that.

Stagnant waters.
Comfort zones.
"If it ain't broke don't fix it" says the drunk patriotic Aussie until he asks you for some 'change' because he's discovered he's 'broke'.  
...from pissing it up against the UK Prison wall because he didn't know what to do with the 'Freedom' the USA gave him.

I'm not dishing the current methods at all, I'm quite pleased with the way things are going.
But I will never stop the 'advance' of Australia's fair by denying a better future.

What has the Australian Fishing Industry done about "Artificial Reefs" to benefit the Aquatic Life recently? Or do you think a bunch of Dive Shops and VARS Divers dumping ex-naval ships under the insincere words of "artificial reef" for the real reason of Recreational Dive Site is doing the job effectively?
Maybe everyone should throw in some stolen cars, shopping trolleys and those giant barges of rubbish from the USA and Nippon? afterall, VARS's motto is "Trash for Treasure" ...rubbish for cash, rather than the wellbeing of our Aquatic population and quality.

Not only is Aquatic Life being exploited beyond the magic 50% mark of recouperation back towards its original level before the advent of mass fishing, there are no efforts made to actually help proliferate both in size and number, Aquatic Life.
Maybe you think blande tasting, grain-fed Aquaculture pens is the 'technologically advanced' superior method by 'civilised' people who are so 'un-natural' in their thinking.

Don't you think that Fish find 'survival' underwater tough as it is ...now they are being decimated by more efficient means although their numbers aren't even close to what they were 200 years ago.

I think a NO TAKE ZONE along the NSW Coast is a great 'Safety Zone' where Aquatic Life can find some 'RESPITE' if not some 'rumpy-pumpy' in peace.

...whats the matter with such a NO TAKE ZONE as proposed from some sectors of the Commercial Fishing fraternity? Can't Fishermen, let alone the Fishing Industry cope with such a challenge?
Would life be too tough to make such 'long term' changes?

I don't mean to be too testy, but Artificial Reefs are a pretty close subject to me.

Quote:

So $$$ before Aquatic Life ...nice
Save the Fishermans 'job'. Well I say stuff them. If its a 'job' they are worried about - then they can go work in Conservation, just like the National Parks got the USA outta trouble in the Great Depression.
Thats like putting Prisoners' "well-being" by Human Rights before the well-being of the innocent population at risk. Bring back Capital Punishment before these killers are released again because of 'Human Rights'. 
Change for the sake of change? More like doing a NSW version of the Great Barrier Reef for the sake of the Aquatic Life ...I mean, you do have their "well-being" as a priority don't you Or are we suffering a Fishing Industry like Land Farmers who pump litres of insecticides and other chemical sprays upon their lands until it becomes 'sterile' and they then need a 'relief package' as a $$ bail-out. Tell me the Fishing Industry isn't that pathetic?

Quote:

This is good. I didn't know this. Will follow more into this.


Quote:

I may have done "Maths in Space" and still count on my fingers occassionally, but I'm pretty sure thats still an ever-decreasing 'sustainability' excuse. Kinda sounds backwards.
I would have thought 51% would be a more 'common-sense' percentage ...at least you know your crop is still growing.
That extra 1% past the half-way mark can make a big difference.

Quote:

Its a Cop-out for the failings that preceded its introduction. The Aqua-culture 'Pens' don't give 'respite' to the NSW Coast. They merely make more money for more people in the Fishing Indsutry who can't afford to compete for what little is left out there. They are cashing in on whatever they can get by selling inferior quality food that only makes it to the shelves of Woolworths and Coles rather than top Restaurants ...well, we can only hope so. Well I hope you enjoy your 'genetic-engineered' seedless Watermelon. Besides the taste being somewhat 'zilch', taking the seeds away takes the fun away too.

Quote:

Its one thing to  'conquer' the Animal kingdom as we rise up from our past in the 'survival of the fitest' rule ...but its another thing to annihilate, obliterate and destroy due to our inability to control our fears and show some restraint with all this new found Freedom of ruling the world. Where is the 'discipline'?

Quote:

So the Fishing Industry is man/tough enough to harvest the crop unrestrained and with (short term) ignorance for 100 years ...but can't cope  with the idea of going without for a minimum of 50 years for any long term gain of allowing the crop to regenerate. It must be frustrating for Farmers to sow seed when Harvesting Machines are going mad all over the property digging whatever they can up before the seeds get a chance to bloom.
I'm pretty sure the NSW Fishery will survive, if not streamline and perfect its ways under such 'constructive' adversity (most due to their own doing). I don't think the Commercial Fisherman care about their chief competitor - Recreational Fishing, goes without more than they do. The 1km Fishing Zone is ample room for Recreational ...and I'm sure Commercial Fishing can cope with anything beyond 20kms ...or at least "Shelf Life". Survival of the Fitess - Fishing style you could say.

Something needs to be continually done and this NO TAKE ZONE along the NSW Coast (much like the Barrier Reef) is the best I've heard in ages. If you have anything better that can proliferate Aquatic Life (in size as well) ?

I think the concept of marine parks is a good thing which can work and should be supported.

The unfair and dishonest manner in which they were implimented in NSW was a disgrace.

How on Earth is the GBRMP and it's supposed effect on tourism of any relevance to propsed NSW marine parks and their effects on fishing?

PS:There is no evidence the GBRMP has benefited tourism either! Only a proportion of tourist actually dive on the reef and only a handful of reefs are regularly visited by tourist. If you must have NTZ's so that tourists have a lot of fish to look at you would only need a few, not 30% of the reef.

[] Quote:


Don't be silly PJ. We have been over this enough times for you to know this is not true.

Who is being silly? I have put up numerous papers from very experienced and highly credentialed fisheries scientists who have said the same.NB I said benefit, not effect.

Quote:


LOL PJ, and you have the gall to accuse others of making stuff up]

Anecdotaly there is plenty of evidence of improvements in numbers of fish like salmon, spotted mackeral and kingfish for instance since the mid 1990's. Yo cannot deny that much of the commercial effort was removed in the 1990's and this corresponded with the catch rate being halved. At the same time the CPU of the remaining fishermen increased, pointing to a greater abundance. Your smug, lazy one line rebutals don't prove anything.    

Quote:

Well I always thought that the Australian Commercial Fishing Industry, especially in South Australia, was one of our most productive and powerful industries ...a lot of millionaires at Port Lincoln, etc. But I might be wrong.
The Fuel Factor was always on my mind in consideration of this 19km wide and very very long NO TAKE ZONE ...especially with Fuel prices set to rise, if not rocket. Maybe they didn't take this into consideration?
Maybe they take 'alternative' power methods into consideration ...although I doubt it?

Quote:

Sorry PJ, but I don't always bat to the balls bowled by Scientists and Researchers, as many times they are completely 'wrong' ...pending the price paid. Like I said - Scientists forever plugged only x50 Grey Nurse Sharks for over a decade based upon 'Research' and this became common knowledge to the general public until a lot of Spearos came forth upon a Current Affairs program and proved 'visually' that there were way more GNSharks out there. So I tend to believe the people 'actually in the thick of it' rather than just scientific papers.

Quote:


Whatever it takes I guess: Marine Parks for Aquatic rejuvenation and Dive tourism or a restructure of Fishing practices and quotas.
Either way, something has to be done.
...I'm pretty sure the immense Hawaiin Islands Sanctuary Zone is making a difference. Probably the one admirable thing George Bush did.

I'm not against Fishing, in fact I wish Australian Fishing was much better. But I don't need to be a Conservationist to realise that things aren't as they should be. I'm just as tough with Conservationists - they should be implementing more into the Aquatic World besides just saying "No" to Fishing.
At the moment, Sanctuaries, Parks and No Take Zones are an immediate and effective 'Respite', let alone saving grace for some really special underwater environments.
But I expect Conservationists, even Scientists who think they know everything except the ability to think for themselves, to start designing and making effective Artificial Reefs that stimulate Aquatic growth x3 as fast as what a natural Bommie can do. We need to have these Artificial Reefs, not just small ones, in place so as to provide adequate Fishing Stocks for the future of this country. Fishing 'jobs' are not an issue considering many 'conservationists' volunteer their efforts much like many other people in this country - so the Fishermen should just HTFU !

Quote:


So I was right about you setting the bar that low? So long as they don't go extinct then the fisheries management have done their job?

Quote:


And that is about the extent of the effectiveness of traditional fisheries management tools. So I was right, you really are setting the bar that low?

Quote:


There are plenty of other species that have experienced or are currently experiencing a collapse that can be attributed to the shortcomings of tradtional fisheries management tools. I just thought it was ironic that you used one of them as an example to show how great those management techniques are. You brought it up PJ, so don't blame me for pointing out the irony.

Quote:


Duh. No countries did, until very recently. Hence your ability to comprehend the term 'traditional fisheries management tools.'

Quote:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#failur...

Quote:


Can you tell me why they were down?

Quote:


No, but we won't know what errors we are currently making until they become apparent. Obviously if we knew about all of them at the time we wouldn't make them.

Quote:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#failur...

Quote:


Duh. No countries did, until very recently. Hence your ability to comprehend the term 'traditional fisheries management tools.'

So you don't deny my point?

Quote:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#failur...

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

Quote:


Can you tell me why they were down?

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

Quote:


No, but we won't know what errors we are currently making until they become apparent. Obviously if we knew about all of them at the time we wouldn't make them.

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.

Quote:


http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html#failur... [/quote]

Why all the links?

[93835583] Quote:


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:


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:


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 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:


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.

Quote:


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

Quote:


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:


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:




Quote:


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.

pjb05 wrote on Jan 1^st, 2011 at 3:32pm:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


So are they being mismanaged now, or previously?

Hmmm?

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

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 

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.

Quote:


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:


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:


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.

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:

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.

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 ?

I have produced several consensus statements signed by many marine scientists. I have referenced entire books full of hard evidence on the practical benefits.

You respond with 'scientists' like Walter Starck who seems to do little more than sell home made DVDs on his home made website and make up grandiose claims about his achievements, none of which can actually be verified.

Sticking your head in the sand won't help you PJ. Marine Parks are being established all around the country. Whatever valid points you may have get completely lost in the nonsense you carry on with. All you achieve is to remove yourself completely from the political process by making it impossible for anyone to take you seriously.

Quote:


Look around PJ. It has already been decided that we are getting marine parks. However, that is not the purpose of the consensus statement. It was designed to shut down attempts to misrepresent the views of the scientific community, such as your claim that the majority of scientists involved in fisheries management support your views.

Quote:


Here is one of them:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1228717032/10#10

Quote:


This is the thread where I asked you to verify some of Walter's grandiose claims about himself. As I recall, you were unable to. This is highly unusual (to say the least) for a genuine scientist. Surely you can appreciate the harm it does to your credibility when I can count on my fingers the number of 'scientists' who even come close to agreeing with you, and some of them turn out to be frauds. Then you turn around and say the majority agree with you.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1272776383/17#17

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.