date=1316689922] 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.

I thought as much - the consensus statement. Don't you realise by now how pathetic and inept it is to fall back to that every time your in trouble?

Quote:


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

Spearing under a marine park regime.

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.

The operative word is are. That was your theme at the start of this thread - which I have debunked. Your so called repeated failures lack relevance due to time or they have occured in other countries. In the worse cases the fisheries biologists weren't listened to. The fact that we are getting better at managing our fisheries can't be used as a criticism. Your argument is like saying capitalism has problems so we must switch to communism - it's Leninistic.

Quote:


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

The problem is with the method - it's too effective.

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.

So where are all the spillover fish hiding FD?

Quote:


Nor is a marine park.

Other methods don't seriously damage our ability to go fishing like marine parks do. Eg sport fishermen benefit greatly from tight bag and size limits.

] Quote:


As I pointed out (and you seem to have conveniently ignored), it is a common theme in marine park research. I point it out to you because it is a good place to start if you want to find out where the scientific community stands.

It's a 'theme' with very little empirical data - as it has been said a case of putting the cart before the horse. If anything has been ignored is my look into the consensus statement and the relevation that many of the signatories have links to the Pew Charitable Trust.

Quote:


I believe you posted a few numbers contradicting mine and I asked you several times where you got them from, but you failed. That is not debaunking anything PJ. That is making stuff up.

I did tell you where I got them from. I reminded you several times. It says something about your mentality that you persist with this line of argument.

Quote:


Not true. Taking time into account, you will realise that they are becoming more frequent, not less frequent. We do not need a new stock collapse every morning for the issue to still be relevant.

There becoming less frequent. The number of overfished species in Australia has declined. There is also ample evidence of rebounding stocks - even with the slow growing orange roughy.

Quote:


But it is the fisheries biologists who are now saying we need marine parks. It is you who picks and chooses the one or two 'biologists' who agree with you over the hundreds that don't. It is you who claims that traditional tools would work fine if we listened to the biologists, but the biologists are saying the opposite.

Rubbish. Why don't you name a few? Which fisheries department did our marine parks originate (hint - none)?

Quote:


My argument is not like that at all PJ.

It comes from the same motivation - to use minor problems as an excuse to interfer with peoples lives. There are other similarities, the vilification of opponents, sticking to a doctrine regardless of the evidence.   

Quote:


And you accuse me of being lenninistic. Too often I hear wannabe fisheries managers with their head stuck in the past focussing on the method rather than the quantity taken. It is especially absurd with the pro sector, where we have ten fishermen doing the job that one could do.

If a method is too effective then the siplest and most effective way is to ban it. Do you think we should bring back kingfish traps?

Quote:


In people's freezer. This is the point you don't seem to get. Spillover means people actually catching fish.

There should be some evidence in the wild numbers. Looks like you are making things up as you go along.

Quote:


It is all in your head PJ.

So am I imagining the eye teeth picked out of the best fishing spots in these parks? The massive fines? It's patently obvious you know nothing about angling (you see quite unsympathetic to it), so how would you know?

/120#123 date=1316826553] Quote:


Wrong PJ. The theme is the empirical data. They find the same thing over and over again. It is not 'postulations' like from the people you like to quote. There are very thick books that list the evidence. For the one single example you could find, there is an entire field of research showing that the opposite is almost always the case.

Rubbish - all the reviews and citations lead back to very little empirical evidence. It's a case of 'what is said must be true'.

That is why it is so absurd when you try to scratch together support from your argument citing individual researchers and studies.

Some of them are reviews which have looked at the whole body of research.

Quote:


So post the link if you have nothing to hide. I am not sure why this is always such a drama for you.

I haven't 'hidden' anything. Are you telling me you can't find the ABC science website? The figues are also quoted in Dr Julian Peperells's recent column in Modern Fishing. I told you there was a technical problem in posting the link.

Quote:


LOL.

Is that all you can come up with?

Quote:


For starters, there is a long list of them on the consensus statement that you are already aware of - hence your juvenile attempts to discredit them.

When we went through this before you couldn't name one who was a fisheries biologist.

Quote:


Surely it is the facts that matter?

Quote:


Like you trying to make something out of the fact that some of the signatories recieve funds from pew? While totally missing the point?

Quite a few receive Pew funding. Its a valid point.

Quote:


Simplicity should not be the primary goal of fisheries management.

I said simple and effective.

Quote:


I think that for whatever commercial take is allowed, it should be up to the fishermen what method to use. Kingfish traps are a great method with little bycatch, no bait, no hooking mortality etc. It is the amount taken that fisheries managers should be controlling. They should not be trying to 'Lenninise' the industry by making the methods less efficient so it takes more people to do it.

It didn't work well when they were allowed. And look at the situation now. Your arguing in the face of results.

Quote:


Their probably is, but your claims that the evidence is somehow contained in the obsrvations I posted just shows you wouldn't evden know where to start looking,.

You said there was a sudden and sharp distinction at the border. Are you now saying you were just tlaking bs?

Quote:


No idea. I have heard this claim over and over again in many contexts. I have never seen it verified in any way. The interactions I have had have been the exact opposite - I pointed out a favourite spot in a proposed no take zone and they moved the no take zone for me.

The fact is even very strict bag and size limits are less of an impost - they are even a positive for angling.

date=1316833010] Quote:


Have you borrowed that book I recommended? It lists the actual empirical evidence. It is a rather large book, but it is a good place to start. It is better than confusing what you find on anti marine park websites for mainstream marine biology.

Where am I going to borrow it from? What do you think it proves?

Quote:


I find that hard to believe. The book I mentioned only managed a brief outline of the more improtant studies. Your 'review' sounds more like extremely selective picking and choosing, with reporting targetted at people who don't know enough to tell the difference.

What about 'Burdens of Proof'? It did a comprehensive review, as did the CSIRO division of Rural Sciences. Have you accounted for the fishing pressure, if you haven't then your the one picking and chosing.

Quote:


I am telling you that I can't find the numbers you posted. It really is quite simple PJ. I shouldn't have to make a big deal about you posting a link to where you get your numbers from. If you wanted people to take you seriously, you would have done it when you first posted the numbers.

I got the numbers from the ABC science article and from the Modern Fishing article. You got yours from an equivalent source. All are quoting ABARE. Is there one standard for you and another for me?  

Quote:


They are all genuine marine biologists, unlike your 'academics', half of whom made up their credentials.

You mean there actually ecologist and not fisheries scientists. The former, it has been observed, have no scepticism on marine parks. PS: who has made up their credentials?

Quote:


By that logic we should ban fishing entirely. It is the most simple and most effective. Do you see now how absurd your argument is?

How is banning fishing entirely effective? I am talking about effective sustainable use. If a method is not overly efficient then that is a good thing - it tends to be self limiting and helps keep the fishery sustainable. Your the one being absurd.

Quote:


No PJ, I am arguing against juvenile oversimiplification. It is not the method that causes overfishing, it is the amount taken.

You like projecting your own flaws back onto me.

Quote:


No PJ. I am saying you are incapable of putting this into context and interpretting it correctly.

You haven't given an indication of any expertise in the subject.

127 date=1316851966] Quote:


A library? That's where I got my copy.

Duh, which library?

Quote:


It proves that your claims about there only being a handful of studies providing genuine evidence of the impact of marine parks are bogus.

And you would know if the studies are rigorous?

Quote:


No it didn't.

How do you know that?

Quote:


What did they conclude? And what is a rural sciences division going to get out of research into marine parks?

That the benifits of marine parks as the main fisheries management tool are theoretical and not proven.

Quote:


This is another great example of your complete ignorance of what is going on in the field. Why anyone who is even half aware of what is going on would consider asking this is beyond reason.

If you don't account for fishing pressure then you are engaging in charletonism (of course in your case I knew that already).

Quote:


LOL. And a modern fishing article. No wonder you were trying to hide where you got the numbers from.

It was written by Dr Julian Peperell - one of our most experienced and respect fisheries biologists!

One last time for PJ, please provide the link. If you can't do that, why bother with your stupid responses? What do you think it proves if you can't back up your claims?

Are you really that much of a moron? I said it was a technical problem. Are you incapable of doing a google or looking up the ABC science website? If you google 'survival of the fishes' the article should be the first hit!

Quote:


PJ the exact same question applies to your postion.

Quote:


Do you think it would be a good thing for fisheries managers to force pro fishermen to use inferior techniques to catch fish that cost a lot more and reduce the profit from a fishery rather than simply controlling the total catch?

Only in some cases where a particular method is overly effective. The only reason I can see that you cant comprehend this is your itchy trigger finger regarding groper.

[quote author=freediver link=1307447292/120#127
Quote:


No it didn't.

[/quote]

Here's what they did. How can you say it's not comprehensive? How many papers are reviewed in the unamed book of yours?

"Here, we critically examine the literature from 1990–2001 to determine (1) the relative effort put into empirical and theoretical approaches to predict reserve effects, and (2) the quality of empirical evidence available to support theoretical predictions. It is not the purpose of this article to single out particular studies for criticism
(although this is sometimes inevitable to provide examples), nor to draw conclusions concerning the efficacy of marine reserves.
Our purpose is to examine the science, rather than politics, of the field of ‘marine reserves’. We examined the relevant peer-reviewed primary literature from 1990–2001 by searching the Current
Contents and Science Citation Index (ISI) databases using the keywords ‘marine reserve’ found anywhere in a paper. Also included were papers that were not in the search databases but were
cited in papers that were (these included refereed proceedings of symposia, but excluded book chapters and unpublished reports). Only studies that directly investigated the effects of reserves
were included. Many articles that explored specific biological issues mentioned marine reserves incidentally in the discussion. These were removed from the analysis, as were those concerned
solely with policy, management or advocacy. The remaining papers (n
205) were classified into three groups, namely empirical (presenting field data from existing reserves), theoretical (conceptual
or numerical modelling studies) and review (including notes and ideas papers based on other literature).

No PJ. I just gave up asking you for a link to where you got those numbers from. It seems that ignoring you is the best way to get you to debate like an adult after all.

pjb05 wrote on Sep 25^th, 2011 at 7:49am:


Made pretty much the same points I have made here and elsewhere that you have trouble with, eg:

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


What exactly did you hope to prove with the link? Were you hoping people would pay more attention to the one scientist who disagrees than the 900?

Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Quote:


Is this what you are referring to when you say when can trust scientists to manage stocks well with traditional tools even though the scientists themselves say otherwise?

No PJ. I just gave up asking you for a link to where you got those numbers from. It seems that ignoring you is the best way to get you to debate like an adult after all.

There was nothing ever stopping you looking up the article. PS, what mental deficiency stops you understanding there was a technical reason for not providing the link?

In Depth › Science Features
Survival of the fishes

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/09/09/3003951.htm

Made pretty much the same points I have made here and elsewhere that you have trouble with, eg:


Yes funny that - you make the exact same points as the anti-fishing mafia.

]At the same time, advances in fishing technology, from enormous factory boats to 'fish attracting devices' and global positioning systems, allowed fishers to catch more fish, more efficiently.

How many enormous factory boats are in Australian waters? In fact they not large boats at all. What do you mean by fish attracting devices? Your technology argument was further negated by your ham- fisted depiction of rec fisherment searching for snapper in SE Qld with their 'high tech' depth sounders. Also you want to bring back an overly efficient method in the case of groper.  


Despite this diversity, most of Australia's waters are relatively low in nutrients, meaning there are actually fewer fish there than in other countries. Reflecting this, our overall fish catch ranks just 46th in the world.

This is often repeated, but when you look at the actual empirical evidence we are about average in primary productivity for warm temperate seas.

Concern about overfishing was also a factor in the decision by governments to establish marine protected areas where fishing was banned.

Most of these parks and their implimentation show an anti-fishing bias. Indeed the independent scientific review into NSW marine parks pointed to the poor scholarship in the MPA's science paper.  

Both marine parks and well-managed fisheries are essential to ensure sustainable fish stocks, say the Australian Marine Sciences Association, a group of 900 Australian marine scientists.

What exactly did you hope to prove with the link? Were you hoping people would pay more attention to the one scientist who disagrees than the 900?

I have quoted more than one scientist, as does that article. As for AMSA you have quoted a spokesman for the group, not 900 scientists. Even then the group is made up not of practicing fisheries scientist but includes students, ecologists etc.

There are also a large number of stocks that are classified as uncertain.

"The high proportion of stocks that remain classified as uncertain (approximately 42 per cent for overfished status and 32 per cent for overfishing status) is a continuing cause for concern and highlights the importance of applying the precautionary approach in fisheries management," the report states.

"There are still overfished stocks in every state, and in the Commonwealth fisheries almost one in five stocks is overfished or subject to overfishing. There are still fisheries that throw back more dead catch than they keep, and there are is still significant fishing pressure on species for which we have no stock assessments."

But he also notes that our fisheries suffer from large volumes of marine life caught but discarded, especially in the prawn fisheries, and considerable unreported fishing.

Is this what you are referring to when you say when can trust scientists to manage stocks well with traditional tools even though the scientists themselves say otherwise?

A few minor problems does not mean they are not managed well, nor that we should hand over their management to the anti-fishing mafia. PS: I think you will also find that many of these problems have already been adressed.