Why is it of conservation concern?

So they 'were' of conservation concern. Do you think they still are?

Quote:


I'm paying attention enough to know that your taking the Blue Groper as synonymous with fish when it suits and as gropers when it isn't. Gropers are a very specialised species that are never found in very large numbers, so it makes sense that the effect of spillover from marine parks is minimal.

I also note that you make no allowance for the economic benefit of marine parks from a tourism industry point of view. While it's difficult to quantify the economic benefit of a single tourst attraction an indication can be taken from the willingness of government to spend 30 million on the redevelopment of Busselton Jetty which has no value as a jetty per se. Its value is as the anchor and shade for coral and fish at a latitude that is unusual.
http://www.busseltonjetty.net/Jetty-History.aspx

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 8:37pm:


It is a progression you had great difficulty coming to terms with earlier in the thread.

You had great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that it says nothing against the long term sustainability of the fishery.

date=1316516763] Quote:


It is total fishing effort, not any individual component, that threatens a species. I don't know whether it was pro fishermen or spearos that did most of the damage, but that is kind of irrelevant. Once they recieve significant protection in marine parks, there is no need at all for the bans.

Every numbnut with a speargun was shooting them FD. They were never a signifcant commercial species. How dumb is it it to repeatthe same mistake just because the regulations are working?

Quote:


Obviously if a species is genuinely endangered, then you should not catch it. However, the opposite is true with blue groper.

Only because the regulations are working.

Quote:


Blue gropers are. There are large numbers of them up and down the entire NSW coast.

Quote:


Wrong PJ. Obviously if you use the entire state of NSW as your example then spillover is going to be small, but the size of actual no take zones in NSW would give significant spillover of blue groper. Sedentary for a fish does not mean it sits on the couch all day. They can and do move considerable distances when motivated.

If there is a spillover effect from an area as large as NSW do you really think that there will be one under your plan? How many and how big are your NTZ's going to be? Are they going to apply to all species or just groper? Have you concocted this policy just so you can get your thrills spearing groper?

Quote:


But it would not be the same mistake if you waited until they are sufficently protected in no take zones.

Quote:


They are currently over protected to an absurd level. Do you really think that counts as 'working'. You have an entirely different set of goal posts for traditional fisheries management tools vs marine parks. You would accept anythinhg from over-protecting to the point a species became so common it got in the way while spearfishing, to underprotection to the brink of extinction, provided the species eventually recovered.

Quote:


I assume you meant 'no spillover'. I did not say there is no spillover PJ. This is your misunderstanding of what I posted. I have corrected you sevel times, but for some reason it is not sinking in.

Quote:


The typical size currently used in NSW would do. I think it would be reasonable to allow spearing of groper once more than 5% of their habitat recieved genuine protection, but I would feel more comfortable with 10 to 20%.

Quote:


Yes the NTZ would apply to all species. No it is not focussed on groper in any way. It is just a good example of a species for which traditional restrictions could be relaxed. It is probably the best example, given the degree of overprotection they currently recieve.

Quote:


I have already pointed out to you several times that the actual observations are of increased numbers both inside and out of the no take zone. So yes I think this is a good idea.

Quote:


It is absurd because the species is far too over protected. I am not referring to how much it impacts people, but am judging it on it's own merits. An absurd law does not magically become less absurd because you can work around it and it only affects a few poeple.

Quote:


You defend it constantly, on the grounds that the spoecies in question recovered some time after collapsing. You even bring up examples of stocks collapsing as evidence that traditional techniques work.

Quote:


You sound like the hippies I talk to on other forums. Does it really bother you that I enjoy what I do?

Quote:
 

Yes it does. It is the change in population density that causes spillover.

Quote:


Here you go again, claiming mismanagement is actually good management because it lies somewhere between a stock going extinct and a complete ban on a common species.

Quote:


Observations of marine parks. I think there is something about it in the consensus statement. It is a recurring theme in marine park research. In any case, the idea that marine parks cause problems through displacement if effort is wrong.

Quote:


No PJ, I am using the numbers to justify a return to spearing.

Quote:


You contradict yourself again PJ. Why do I need to prove that our stocks are mismanaged, unless you deny it? How can you deny they are mismanaged while acknowleding the repeated failures? These collapses are not the only way that fisheries management can fail, just the most obvious one.

Quote:


Wrong PJ. Sustainability is all about how many are taken, not how exciting it is to take them,

Quote:


Not true. I have not quantified the 'sharpness' in any manner, and even if I had it could not support your argument. You have your logic all backwards.

Quote:


Nor is a marine park.