http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/coasttocoastproceedings/BOHM_Craig_paper.pdf

Quote:


Meanwhile, fishing pressure continues to increase for many reasons.

What this means is that continually stricter regulations will be necessary as more pressure is put on stocks. It means that the constant cries that our waters are underfished and need no further regulation are unfounded. It also means that the resilience of fish stocks will be put to the test and we risk more of the collapses seen overseas (and here already on several occasions). Catch limits, size limits, TACs etc become increasingly less effective as stocks come under more pressure because none of them can actually prevent overfishing of the remaining stock. If a fish stock collapses a bag limit or TAC is not going to protect the few that remain. Nor can these methods respond to the natural year to year variability in fish numbers and reproductive success. It gets even harder if you expect them to cope with unpredictable changes cascading up and down the food chain as we put more pressure on different trophic levels. Many even make the situation worse. You don't see farmers killing the big cows and returning the runts to the paddock as breeders for next year, but if you listen to the whingers apparently this sort of thing works just fine for our fish stocks and should be encouraged.

So, you get what happened with the snapper stocks in SE QLD. Improvements to sounder technology mean fishermen literally spend more time crusing round in their boats looking for them on the screen than with lines in the water - a reflection both of the improvements in the technology and the impact this has had on stocks. So we had to completely ban snapper fishing for six weeks. Expect more of the same.

What is needed is an inherently resilient method for managing fishing pressure and protecting remaining broodstock that becomes more effective rather than less effective as pressure on stocks increases or stocks drop for any reason.

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 9:48pm:


Didn't WA fisheries recently reduce the rec catch by 50% of snapper and duhfish etc by using traditional means?  

PS: good quality sounders have been around for 30 years or more and cruising around with the sounder on is not the most effective way of catching snapper.

What about the displaced commercial effort from the GBRMP? I have heard that is added pressure to snapper stocks in SE Qld.

Quote:


How so Jason? Does natural selection work backwards in WA?

Quote:


So you agree with me - What this means is that continually stricter regulations will be necessary... ?

Quote:


More people wanting to go fishing, and more economic pressure to catch fish, better technology and resources etc. Simple really. That's why we have more fishing regulations and less fish in the ocean than the aborigines did (yes, both at the same time).

Quote:


These are largely catch-up responses to dwindling catches and other restrictions. There is still over-capacity - more than enough to overharvest stocks if things start to go wrong. Cuts to number of boats are largely a political response to the historical mismanagement or changes to technology making fishing licences useless of unprofitable.

Quote:


In your fevered imagination and hypotheticals that have little connection to the real world they can. In reality, they don't.

Quote:


What is the difference? The theory of natural selection only applies to terrestrial mammals?

Quote:


PJ, I never claimed that it is impossible to manage fish stocks without marine parks. All new regulations are divisive, because some people are afraid of change. Our current fisheries management tools were also at one time divisive new suggestions that had all the fishermen whinging. That is not a rational argument against change.

Quote:


PJ, you are truly naive and out of touch with the realities of the fishing industry if you think they won't get tighter. It is inevitable.

Quote:


No you haven't. Can you offer some other explanation for why a complete ban was necessary.

Quote:


PJ, can you explain how this is relevant to what I posted?

Quote:


I must have missed that. Can you link me to where you explained how fish are magically protected from the effect of selective pressures?

Quote:


No it doesn't. That is just silly PJ. It is a logical fallacy. Saying that it is possible to have a decline in stocks that is not indicative of overfishing does not magically prove that all declines in stocks are healthy.

Quote:


Apparently not.

Quote:


No.

I did not imply the causation you did.

The number of overfished species is increasing.

Nothing wrong in general with a species being fully fished. It just contradicts the impression many have of underfishing. It also implies that restrictions will need to become tighter as fishing pressure increases - that is, a fully fished species is not far from being overfished. There is a great deal of uncertainty in fisheries management so it is hard to keep on the right side of that line.

Quote:


Well that's a relief. Thanks PJ.

Quote:


No PJ. That was Australia’s Bureau of Rural Sciences. Check the OP. It even has a link to where I copied it from.

Quote:


Plenty of reasons - like better technology, wealthier recreational fishermen with more time on their hands, higher prices for fish etc.

Perhaps you think that the trend has suddenly stopped? Or perhaps you are not aware of the trend that has been going on for centuries?

Quote:


No PJ, I merely copied and pasted it. I had no idea you would get so wound up about it.

Quote:


The dollar goes up and down. The trend in fish prices is up. Pinning your hopes on the Aussie dollar remaining high is pretty futile.

Looks like even the orange roughy is recovering! I suppose this also escaped FD's attention:

Orange Roughy fish on the rise
Posted September 07, 2011 12:03:01

Stocks of the protected Eastern Orange Roughy fish species are on the rise off the New South Wales far south coast.

A recent survey by the CSIRO has estimated the stock in the currently-closed eastern zone at nearly 50 000 tonnes.

The South East Trawl Fishing Association's Simon Boag says it is an increase of about 13 per cent in four years.

He says the Roughy was overfished, but the fishery is rebuilding.

"We would just see a sustainable catch of Orange Roughy as a small contribution to fish taken from Australian waters," he said.

"Provided you are only taking a small amount of fish that you take for ever and that's fine, slipping a relatively small commercial catch in there isn't an issue if it's done at sustainable levels."

For more, go to the South East News Blog.

Quote:


Sure. Are you suggesting this is something new? Just because the term was inveneted recently doesn't mean it didn't exist before.

Quote:


I said that it contradicts the claim of underfishing and also that traditional tools become less effective and harder to manage as pressure increases.

Quote:


It is basic economics PJ. The higher the price, the more incentive. You don't get people driving round catching a farmers cows or picking his lettuce. The absence of private ownership of fisheries makes them far more susceptible to the influence of market prices.

Quote:


So how do you interpret this PJ? That there is nothing wrong and there was no failure of fisheries management? Do you interpret that increasing prices and technological improvements are not increasing the pressure on stocks?

Quote:


I am not going to explain why I ignore such personal observations.

Quote:


I said it was economics. I did not say it was a free market. market prices have a significant impact on fishing pressure. Your orange roughy case is a great demonstration of that.

Quote:


I was referring to private ownership, not subsistence.

Quote:


Supply and demand.

Quote:


You have not actually provided that evidence.

Quote:


I did not say it was an over-riding factor. I should not have to quote again what I just posted. What I did say should be self evident.

Quote:


No PJ, I was referring to commercial fishermen.

Quote:


No.

Quote:


You should give the link.

Quote:


Likewise, I did not say it is not important. Why is it that just about every argument with you seems to involve and endless stream of your attempts to misrepresent what I say? Why can't you just quote me?

Quote:


The historical trend has always been towards fewer commercial fishermen catching more fish. This trend has not been associated with a decrease in pressure on fish stocks, but an increase. Both trends - fewer commercial fishermen and more pressure on stocks can ultimately be attributed to technological improvements. We see the same trend with farming and many other established industries.

Quote:


I would have to explain microeconomics to get this message across. But there is an answer far more fundamental than economics - Australians want to, and can afford to eat far more high quality seafood than our oceans can sustainably produce.

Quote:


PJ I do not know where you got those numbers from. Given your tendency to completely misunderstand these sorts of things I am hardly going to take your word for it. You often criticise me for ignoring things you say, but when I try to pay attention you just lead me on a wild goose chase trying to figure out what you have misunderstood. It is really quite simple - you just provide a link, a quote, and then your interpretation. Your 'interpretation' alone is pretty much useless, unless of course your goal is to mislead people and make it harder for anyone to expose you.

Quote:


We are fish are we? Well that explains Abbott, cold blooded and slippery, slimy. Explains his love of red herrings too. 

Lovely good kippers are, why aren't they made out of Australian Salmon? Or herring for that matter, I've made herring kippers in an old wine barrel and couldn't make enough.

http://culturalconcubine.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/kippers-large.jpg

For starters, it is more expensive.

Here's a reference from the ABC Science website:

Survival of the fishes

By Stephen Pincock
  Feed the world: It is estimated 110 million tonnes of seafood is eaten each year. (Source: istockphoto)
Related Stories
Video: Closing the Net (Landline) (Science Online Video)

Scientists, government bodies and environmentalists say that although Australia still has problems, it has come a long way in recent years in terms of fishing sustainability.

The job of managing fishing in Australian waters is split between the Federal and State governments. Broadly speaking, the states deal with fisheries up to three nautical miles from shore, where the bulk of the catch comes from. The Federal government handles the remainder of the fishing zone, which extends out to 200 nautical miles.
For most of our history, as Kearney says, sustainability was not exactly the top priority of those management schemes. "When I came back to Australia in 1986 and took the job as director of research for New South Wales Fisheries, it was New South Wales Government policy that it was impossible to over-exploit any species of fish and if you fished them down a bit, then people would just move on and fish the next species."

But the government, scientists, and the fishing industry say that things have improved in recent years. In 2005, for example, the Federal government announced a $220 million package that aimed to reduce overfishing through buying back fishing licences. Concern about overfishing was also a factor in the decision by governments to establish marine protected areas where fishing was banned.

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.

Kearney, on the other hand, believes marine protected areas do nothing to improve fishing sustainability, but he says a combination of tighter quotas and reducing fishing effort have made a difference."We realised that we had to cut back on the amount of fish being caught and killed and have done that," he says.
Fulton says that overfishing in Australia, particularly in the Commonwealth fisheries has "largely stopped"."The government said: 'Right we are going to reduce the pressure on the fish to let them recover to sustainable levels for the future'," she explains. "So we have a bad report card right now with regard to the health of the stock, but it is actually improving."

According to the Australian government's latest fishery status report the number of fish stocks that have been assessed as not overfished has more than doubled since 2004, and the number of stocks classified as not subject to overfishing has risen from 12 to 57 in that time.

The report currently classifies 13 of Australia's 98 fish stocks as being overfished (see list below), including three new additions: blue warehou, upper-slope gulper sharks and jackass morwong. Eight stocks are classified as being subject to overfishing.

[] Quote:


Because there are not enough fish to go around. It is not the cost of harvesting fish that is driving up the price, but the shortage of them.

But you just said the cost of producing aquaculture fish was a problem for them to replace/suppliment the wild harvest. 

Can you give a link to where you got those numbers from you posted earlier? [/quote]

See above.

Quote:


You are not making much sense PJ.

Quote:


I saw above. No link. Is it your default position now to copy and paste, or 'reinterpret' without giving any links?

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 9:53am:


Spoken like a true economist.

Grey wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 9:20pm:


In a good way?

date=1315742026]pjb05 wrote on Sep 11^th, 2011 at 9:31am:


The figures look to me as if random numbers are written on bits of paper then pulled out of a barrel. From 'Closing the Net'

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2010/s2925799.htm

Quote:


That appeared a frightening figure for Australia alone. But wait...wasn't I just told that 110 million tonnes of SEAFOOD is eaten worldwide? Then...

Australia has 1/30th of the World average fishing pressure.

Quote:


Now that says Australia's annual catch is under 52, THOUSAND tonnes. All bit sad on the cred side innit? Nevertheless...

Quote:


The IUCN has been stacked by greenies and marine park advocates. Also why should we follow their recommendations when we already are the World standard for sustainable fisheries.

I'm inclined to believe that. Because when not only proffessional but amateure fisherman are using military equipment to catch an already dwindling world wide stock of fish.

What is military style about amateur fishing? Even a lot of commerical methods such as longlining are realtively inefficient. PS our stocks aren't dwindling, didn't you read the article I put up?

When fishing has already caused collapses of stocks like North Sea cod, using primitive equpment by todays standards, it don't take Sherlock to predict the outcome .

As above.

I

Grey wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 7:40am:



Look a bit closer; the reference and author are in the top of the quote you put up.

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2011 at 10:20pm:


Sorry FD.

I think this discussion has been confused by the fact that there are so many different types of fish. Obviously marine parks will work very well for species that use certain reefs as nurseries and will not work at all for pelagic ... I had to check that Apparently Tuna Do have a breeding ground off the coast of java. I wonder if that's a marine park?

Anyway I think farmed fish is the answer for now.

Grey wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 3:30am:



Not neccessarily, if the fish are sedentary then you you not going to get much of a spillover effect. In addition the fishing pressure may well be displaced from the reserve so once again there are no favours done for the areas still open to fishing. No net fisheries or environmental gain results. You can even get adverse changes in species assemblages - as you alluded to different species can respond quite differently to a reserve.

freediver wrote on Sep 13^th, 2011 at 10:06pm:


Yes I think I'd agree with all of that. But then with regard to the latter point why not declare that all open sea outside of 'territorial waters' is a marine park? The whole subject of territorial waters needs tidying up and placed under an 'international law' with each country getting an equal sea border.

I'f that were the case then the situation would be more a kin to the position on land. Farms and ranges supplying the bulk of food from domestic and semi-domesticated animals , while wild species are left largely alone unless, like kangaroos, they stray too much onto farmed land.

I do think you're being a little over resistant to aquaculture. It'll be problematic, what isn't? But at the end of the day I think it still offers the best way of supplying fish without destroying the life of the oceans.

It is thus that the fish continue to dwindle.

Fact is it doesn't matter what plan is agreed, just that one is. If the world can agree on one plan it can move on and if the plan doesn't work they can modify it or try a new direction.

pjb05 wrote on Sep 14^th, 2011 at 4:44pm:


I disagree with that analysis completely.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/1370.0~2010~Chapter~...

Quote:


Yes I had considered posting that, but I didn't want to wind up PJ too much. It may also lead to a breakdown in international cooperation regarding catch quotas, but that may not matter if there is enough protection. Also, see PJs comments re hugging the coast - he kind of oversimiplifies it, but it is still a valid point.

Quote:


Yeah, good luck with that. Who should we give 90% of our water to?

Quote:


I'm not resistant at all. It was more what PJ was implying about wild catches that interested me.

Quote:


Does it naturally live there? Not all change need automatically be interpretted as bad PJ, especially if they are not a target species. In fact it is fairly obvious that many non-targetted species are going to decline in a no take zone. Just because they are cute and cuddly doesn't mean they deserve special consideration, otherwise people might mistake you for a tree hugging hippy.

Mainly I'm swayed by the anecdotal evidence of my own experience. I'm in no doubt that fish stocks have dropped since more recreational fisherman have taken to very well equipped boats, the ever increasing efficiency of method and technology by professionals and the evidence of talking to oldtimers.

Fine - think what you want. If a person has made up their mind to overfishing then nothing will change their minds!

There's a lot more people spear fishing species like blue groper

That's been banned for years!

and yes the bastard Japanese and they exist, so do the bastard Spanish and there's even poachers funded by outlaw motorcycle gangs.

OFF THE Coast of California there's the increasing presence of Humboldt squid which are filling the niches left by the disappearance of large predator fish. Europeasn fleets are plundering far and wide off African and asian coasts

Yawn - whats that go to do with Australia?

and we face the prospect of reefs like the Gtreat barrier dieing from global warming. Things aint apples I tell yer

And what will marine parks do about that?

http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_ocean_clear_cutting/?copy
In two days, UN policy-makers are meeting to review the impacts of this deadly practice. Pacific island nations are fighting to save the oceans and have appealed to Avaaz members to stand with them. This is our chance to win -- if enough of us speak out now, it will strengthen their hand against big fishing countries, and will embolden serious players like the US and Australia, who have already banned bottom-trawling in their waters, to push for protection everywhere.

Let's build an urgent call to stop the senseless destruction of our oceans -- and delegates will deliver our voices directly to the UN meeting. Sign now and help us reach half a million voices in the next 48 hours:


Massive fishing trawlers systematically move from one deep-sea ecosystem to another, crushing coral reefs, sucking up all living creatures and leaving vast deserts behind them that won’t regenerate for hundreds of years. In a single swoop, some boats are capable of clearing an area the size of 5000 football pitches. Canada, Russia and Spain lead the world in spreading this destruction throughout our most diverse and precious waters.

Already, major fishing nations have had 6 years to study the effects of bottom-trawling and move towards more sustainable practices. Most have failed to live up to their commitments to ocean protection and continue to direct huge subsidies -- over 162 million dollars a year -- to ocean clear-cuts.

Well sure, some people might like to 'sign' the petition. No harm in that is there?

pjb05 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2011 at 9:04pm:


'Australian fish', do they know? One big difference between land and water is the relatively 'all joined upness' of the water.'

Anyway the thread opened thus.

Quote:

pjb05 wrote on Sep 16^th, 2011 at 5:45pm:


'Australian fish', do they know? One big difference between land and water is the relatively 'all joined upness' of the water.'

We have a 200 nm EEZ. Very few of our fished species migrate outside that range.

Anyway the thread opened thus.

Quote:
[/quote]


One passing mention to World fisheries - which we don't have jurastiction over! [/quote]

Maybe no jurisdiction, but we can have a say, both as individuals and as a state.

[] Quote:


PJ, you expect as to take your personal experience as some kind of gospel truth, yet you reject any anecdotal evidence from others.

I have put up scientific as well as a small amount of anecdotal evidence. The latter comes from direct personal experience. I doubt if Grey has any direct experience to base his anecdotes nor you. Eg the hordes of rec fishermen in SE Qld pinging the depths for snapper with their unfair echo-sounders. Do you fish for snapper FD? Do you have a boat with ech-sounder? Quote:


Not everywhere.

Really? Where are you allowed to spear groper?

Quote:


You mean he was able to come up with one single example, which the anti marine park mob now attempt to make a ludicrous generalisation from?

Yes funny that seeing he was only looking at Tasmanian marine parks. I also recall puting up other papers which postulated such negative effects.

Quote:


Who does?

Other countries in their own EEZ's. In International waters it depends on agreements between countries via various fisheries commissions.

] Quote:


And you kept complaining that I did not 'respond' to your memories of a lot of fishing boats 30 years ago, as if it was some kind of compelling evidence.

It's a useful observation, and not just my own. I have heard other fishermen say exactly the same.

Quote:


It is nothing to do with fairness PJ. It is a simple (and to most people, obvious) point about the impact of technology.

Yes but you seem oblivious to the point that good sounders were around 30 years ago and that a sounder is not a huge advantage in catching them.

Quote:


I have speared snapper before, though I do not target them. I bought my first sounder very recently.

So you admit you have no direct experence to back up your anecdote?

Quote:


Well for starters there is QLD. Not that I have actually seen groper up there, but if you do see one you can spear it.

Don't you think that there is a chance that there is no spearfishing ban on blue groper in Qld because they are not found there?

Quote:


Yes PJ, a whole lot of postulating, and a single actual example. Sounds more like the execption that proves the rule to me.

Two examples counting the monk seal. And given that the benefits of marine parks are largely theoretical you point is rather ironic.

] Quote:


They were around, but were very expensive. There are much better ones out these days. Sounders and GPS do make a difference.

They weren't overly expensive and it would be rare to find a keen offshore angler who did not have one. They worked very well too. I should know I had an 1980's model Furuno for a long time. PS: has boating or the general cost of living gotten cheaper in the past 30 years? 

No idea what makes you think I am oblivious. Nothing in my argument rests on them being invented in the last five years. For someone so into 'anecdotal evidence' you forget inconventient facts like not being able to afford this stuff when it first came out.

See above. Also my point is that they don't enable you to catch drastically more fish. Eg the most efficent way to catch snapper is to anchor up and berely them - not to drive around pinging them with you new fangled echo sounder (maybe you have been looking at too many sounder ads).

Quote:


Which anecdote are you talking about? The anecdote that technology is having a big impact on fishing pressure?

Yep, specifically with regard to sounders and snapper.

Quote:


No PJ. The converse is true. There are very few there because you can spear them. At least, there are none in the easily accessible locations. Just over the border they are everywhere. There are so many that when you get used to spearing on the QLD side of the boarder then jump to the other side it is pretty difficult because they are everywhere and they distract you. There is a clear and sudden change at the border.

Maybe - but there natural range only includes southern Qld. In there stronghold of NSW spearfishing is banned (and in SA too).
PS: where are you trying to go with this given that you want to re-introduce spearfishing for groper!

Quote:


No PJ. You have a single example of a target species decreasing due to marine parks. You have found several 'articles' postulating their existence, so it is not like no-one has thought to check, though you do seem to think that because the title of the paper containing the only evidence had the word Tasmania in it they have only looked in Tasmania.

The paper was a review of Tasmainian marine parks!

For someone who complains about 'faith based' fisheries, it is kind of hypocritical to take these postulations seriously when they are not only almost purely theorietical, the evidence clearly points the other way.

The 'evidence' for marine parks for fisheries management is just as theoretical, as has been pointed out by many fisheries scientist.

The Monk Seal is not a target species. It has no relevance to the fisheries management debate. Like I said, it is expected that many non-target species will go down in numbers in a marine park. This tells you nothing at all about the impact on target species.

Yes but marine parks are largely justified/ promoted for conservation reasons.

Quote:


No PJ. Your postulations are theoretical. The scientific consensus is in favour of marine parks because of the evidence, not because of the theory.

Yes run back to your consensus device when your in trouble.

[] Quote:


Yes. How much did you pay for your first sounder?

It came with the boat (which was second hand).

Quote:


No PJ. Just talking to other fishermen who do it.

The can't be very good fishermen if they think that is the most effective way to catch snapper (not that you'd know).

Quote:


It should be fairly obvious - I want to reintroduce spearing of groper. Provided they get enough protection in marine parks of course. This is another species that would get an enourmouse benefit from marine parks. I think they get too much protection alerady in NSW. They are everywhere.

How would they benefit if they are thriving everywhere now? You plan would leave them depleted in most places and thriving in a few areas.

PS: Of what possible merit is there in spearing a slow moving, inquisitive fish like groper?

Quote:


And you interpretation was that you could only come up with one example because the paper that had the example ahd Tasmania in the title.

Who said that I have done a worldwide search? PS such a search would be hampered by the fact there have been very few rigorous studies done on marine parks.

Quote:


No it is not PJ. It is almost entirely based on real catches and real observations.

See above. Very few studies show the rigor to make such a conclusion. That statement just reflects your faith in a cause.

] Quote:


Spearfishermen would benefit, not the fish.

Didn't you say groper were another species that would benefit enormously from marine parks.

Quote:


Fortunately there are no fences in the ocean. Fish don't pay much attention to lines on maps.

And how does that sit with your assertion that groper are abundant in NSW and scarce in adjacent SE Qld and that this is due to the impact of spearfishing?

Quote:


So you can eat it. Catching fish is hardly a 'man vs beast' type activity.

If there is no sporting merit you might as well just buy the fish to eat.

Quote:


Read between the lines PJ. All those articles from 'academics' that you post postulating the theoretical possibility that target species might decline, and they can only come up with a single example. On the other hand, there is mountains of evidence of the increase in stocks of target species. Can you offer a rational interpretation of this?

They are also talking about adverse ecological and conservation effects. Also you are confusing some observed increases in fish numbers in a reserve to a fishery wide benefit.

Quote:


There have been plenty. I have referred you to very large books that list references on marine park research.

Yes there is a lot of literature, references and enthusiasm but very little rigorous empiracle science. Recall the 'Burdens of Proof' paper which highlighted this problem. It the time of writing they couldn't find one well designed before and after study assessing the effect of a marine park.

Blue groper can be speared in WA there's a bag limit of one per day.

Quote:

[] Quote:


Sure, in QLD. Given the absurdly restrictive limits on them already in NSW I doubt it would make much difference, though you probably would get a few more of the enourmous ones you see occasionally in the more remote areas.

Your still allowed to fish for them in NSW with a bag limit of 2 per day. As far as fishing is concerned you want to drastically increase restrictions with your NTZ's!

Quote:


The fishermen do pay attention. I'm sure there are a few speros that pick off the odd one near the border, but it is hardly an effective design.

The point is that it makes your suggestion of a spillover effect look like b/s.

Quote:


It is still fun. Obviously they would get difficult to spear pretty quickly. I'm not sure why you have some kind of problem with this. Picking mushrooms is hardly a sport either, but that is not a good reason to dismiss it.

Well to each his own - it seems a rather mindless activity to me. And more to the point hardly worth the big stick of marine parks just to cater for it.

Quote:


You should start a new thread on this.

It's been mentioned before. The monk seal would be an example of a negative conservation effect. Another paper suggested that if you were trying to keep the same yeild under a marine park regime you would have to step up ecologically damaging methods like trawling in the areas still opent to fishing.

Quote:


There is evidence of both. However, given your absurd speculation that there will be decreases we should start with the simple stuff.

The evidence of fishery wide benefits is thin and limited to poorly regulated areas where any fisheries management initiative would likely give a discernable improvement.

Quote:


Obviously they are not going to be well designed from a scientific perspective. Would you like to be treated like a guinea pig?

Then why claim scientific evidence? A consensus in fact?

pjb05 wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 6:24am:


Depends on your bias I guess. Obviously, (to me) if 'traditional' methods have been in use long enough to be called traditional and stocks keep on plunging,(along with the size of the fishing fleet), so that the traditional ploy has to be used more and more often in ever more draconian fashion, it's time to try something else. Which is what WA is doing in declaring more marine parks. 

freediver wrote on Sep 17^th, 2011 at 9:22pm:


Thats what your asking us to to in being ahead of the World in declaring marine parks.

[]No PJ. I am suggesting we go with the best available advice. A well designed experiment would involve repeatedly setting up marine parks that you fully expect to not work very well to prove to yourself (and the scientific community) that they do not work very well.

Is that what you want?

Thats what were getting! Ie the case of marine parks mushrooming all around Australia against the best advice of fisheries scientists. 

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 2:34pm:


Thats a brilliant retort - looks like you have put a lot of thought into that!

[] Quote:


Absolutely! Look you obviously make your plan, based on the best 'figuring' the evidence suggests. But at the end of the day, when you're dealing with complexity, there are more variables than you can poke a stick at. The adage is...

'When one thing doesn't work, try something else.' [/quote]

What isn't working Grey? The evidence is our fisheries management is working! As for the few remaining minor problems it's not likely that marine parks are the answer. You also seem oblivious to the fact that there is a considerable cost to marine parks. Your just ignoring all that and going straight to the 'solution'.

It's Leninistic - no different to saying capitalism had had problems so we need to go over to communism.

Well speaking of stupid crap you said this regarding marine parks and groper:

"Fortunately there are no fences in the ocean. Fish don't pay much attention to lines on maps".

Previously you said:

"No PJ. The converse is true. There are very few there because you can spear them. At least, there are none in the easily accessible locations. Just over the border they are everywhere. There are so many that when you get used to spearing on the QLD side of the boarder then jump to the other side it is pretty difficult because they are everywhere and they distract you. There is a clear and sudden change at the border".

Looks like someone can't even keep track of their stupid crap.

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 7:37pm:


No, you were alluding to a spillover effect. The comment was in reply to my point that with marine parks managing groper you will just wind up with healthy numbers in the park surrounded by depleted areas where spearfishing is allowed.

[When the reducing the size of the catch, both individuals and numbers, has gone on so long you call it 'traditional' and fishermen leave the industry in droves, how can you say, 'it's working'?

It's not a sign of failure that fishing is relatively unrestricted in the early stages and undergoes consolidation at a later stage. It's a normal, well understood progression. It's like a mining excercise to start with. A later consolidation does not say anything against the long term sustainability of the fishery.

On the other hand when you yourself say, " with marine parks managing groper you will just wind up with healthy numbers in the park". How can you say parks don't work? Clearly if numbers reach 'healthy' (ie optimum) levels in the park, some fish will leave for less crowded environments.

Wouldn't it be preferable to have healthy numbers everywhere? FD admitted that is the case in NSW. He also admitted there is no such spill over by saying they are depleted in Qld (in fact a clear distinction at the border). I can't say you have been paying much attention to what has been said here.

So what? Isn't that better than depleted numbers everywhere?

Don't be so obtuse FD - the NSW case shows all you need to do is ban spearfishing and commercial fishing for groper to have healthy numbers everywhere.

By the way PJ, the evidence is that you get more fish outside the park as well, not just inside.

Then why did you say there was a clear distiction at the border? 

PS: if displaced effort is a problem then why not just ban spearfishing for groper in Qld as well?

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 8:44pm:


It's not draconian when we are talking about a single species of conservation concern.

freediver wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 8:54pm:


They were nearly wiped out by spearfishing.