Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12
Send Topic Print
Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen (Read 17959 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Mar 2nd, 2012 at 10:08pm
 
Here is that article I promised you PJ:

Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-simpler-rules.html

Marine Parks, properly implemented from a fisheries management perspective, can reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen. They can make fishing cheaper, simpler, more accessible and more rewarding.

In response to the rapid rise in the use of marine parks by fisheries management authorities, the anti marine park lobby has been frantically trying to establish several new principles, mostly through repetition. These principles go along the lines that marine parks should only be used a last resort due to the impost on fishermen, that marine parks should only be used where necessary (I have never seen an explanation of 'necessary' in this context and can only conclude that it is deliberately left without meaning), or that marine parks should only be justified in terms of their environmental or biodiversity benefits.

This article justifies the rejection of all of these principles, mostly through stating the obvious, then goes into some more subtle principles of marine park design through which the benefit to fishermen can be maximised. It then explains some of the incentives that a vocal minority of fishermen have for misleading the public about marine parks, misleading the public about the views of fishermen, and for making fishing less accessible to the average recreational fisherman.

Let's start by stating the obvious. Most recreational fishermen do not own a boat. If you can design regulations that do not impact on those fishermen without a boat, the regulation will not affect the majority of fishermen. If those regulations allow for the simplification or elimination of other rules designed to limit catches, then the overall regulatory burden is reduced. This is the basis of the first principle of marine park design for fisheries management:

Quote:
1) Design marine parks so that they have little or no impact on fishermen with limited resources.


A simpler statement that almost completely captures this principle is: Do not ban shore based fishing in accessible locations.

The added burden on fishermen with a boat can be reduced by using no take zones with straight edges and clearly marking the corners with buoys. This is usually possible in all but the far offshore zones in deep water. Fishermen in such situations almost universally use a GPS, which is quite cheap these days. Not all boats are created equal, and the principle can also be applied to those areas that offer some protection to smaller boats from the prevailing winds or that are otherwise valuable to boat fishermen, even if they are slightly less productive. Similar principles can also be applied to kayak fishermen and spearfishermen. The ocean is a blank slate and there is enormous flexibility in designing marine parks. For example spearfishermen are strongly limited by visibility, currents, seafloor structure, depth, swell, boat traffic and other dangers. Many of these parameters vary consistently between locations, thus making it possible to choose locations that minimise the impact on spearfishing. The burden of a well implemented system can also be offset if other rules can be relaxed or eliminated. For example, it is much easier to remember to stay outside of your local marine parks than to remember a different size and bag limit for every single species you might catch.

Thus marine parks can make the rules simpler for fishermen. They can also make fishing more accessible and more productive. To explain this, we again start by stating the obvious: as our fisheries have become more heavily exploited, fishermen have gone to far greater lengths to get 'off the beaten track' in pursuit of exciting fishing opportunities. Over recent decades it has also been well established by hard evidence that the spillover effect from no take zones is heavily concentrated around the edge of the no take zone. That is, the benefit to fishermen is heavily localised. This allows fisheries managers to direct at least some of the benefit from marine parks to land based anglers. This is the basis for the second principle of marine park design for fisheries management:

Quote:
2) Place no take zones adjacent to easily accessible shore based fishing locations.


This does not mean that these shores based fishing spots will become as productive as remote areas that fishermen spend a lot of time and expense to reach. However it will go some way to tipping the balance in favour of the shore based angler who has no four wheel drive, but who wants to drive down to the local breakwall and catch a bream with his son.

By reducing the need to buy a boat and/or a four wheel drive, or to travel long distances to reach more remote areas, marine parks can make fishing cheaper and more accessible. As well as directing the spillover benefit to shore based anglers, marine parks can push those who do choose to use their boat to spend an extra five minutes travelling further, so that the fish adjacent to the most easily accessed spots are left for the fishermen without a boat. That is, the scheme has an added benefit by transferring the resource to land based anglers (in addition to the spillover effect). This is the basis of the third principle of marine park design for fisheries management:

Quote:
3) Try to keep boat based fishermen out of the immediate vicinity of the most easily accessed locations for shore based fishermen.


Obviously these principles would backfire if taken to the extreme of forcing all fishermen to fish from the shore. There are natural limits to how much additional benefits can be achieved through these principles. Thus a fourth principle is added for balance:

Quote:
4) The added travel time or expense created for boat fishermen should not be significant compared to how much effort they typically go to.


A fifth principle helps to reinforce this balance and is also a well-established principle for maximising the spillover effect (rather than say, biodiversity or conservation goals):

Quote:
5) No take zones should be small.


This last principle is limited only by practical limitations on size, for example due to difficulties associated with enforcement and by the ability of fishermen to cast or drift baits or attract fish with burley.

Fishing lobbies do themselves a great disservice by demanding that marine parks be justified based only on goals of biodiversity and conservation, because this would mean that no take zones will be much larger and the spillover benefits to fishermen will not be as great. It would mean that the above principles are ignored.

Applying these principles to the design of marine parks will make fishing simpler, cheaper and more accessible for the majority of recreational fishermen. For the remaining minority, it will have little impact as these fishermen tend to have the resources to travel wherever they need to in order to catch fish, including to those zone boundaries that do not happen to be on the shore.

These principles will also make fishing more rewarding for most anglers, as it can deliver more fish to those fishermen with fewer resources at their disposal. There is a strong scientific consensus that marine parks benefit fishermen in general through the spillover effect. These principles help to deliver as much of that benefit as possible to shore based anglers.

Much of the anti marine park rhetoric is the typical hubris you expect in response to change (and was seen in past responses to the now 'accepted' management strategies the lobby is now defending as the only options we should use). However, the most experienced anglers may feel threatened by the concept of levelling the playing field, even if it is only to a small extent. They may feel that they have a genuine self interest in opposing marine parks and the principles outlined here, even though all fishermen will benefit. They may take pride in their ability to catch fish where others find it difficult, and value this source of pride more than the simple joy of catching a fish. Boat retailers have an obvious financial interest in making it hard to catch fish without a boat, and have significant power over the editorial staff of fishing publications in which they advertise. Whether or not the threat to their income is real, the perception of a threat or risk has been enough to motivate many of them to great efforts. This goes some way to explaining the desperation seen in the anti marine park lobby and the efforts of a small but vocal minority to falsely claim to represent the majority of fishermen. There have been both subtle and overt attempts, using every method imaginable, to silence recreational fishermen who speak up in support of marine parks and to demand the appearance of a unified recreational fishing lobby. It is these very attempts that have caused the issue to become so divisive among recreational fishermen.

Examples of how these principles might be implemented are shown here.

This article explains the scientific consensus behind marine parks and the concept of minimising the size of no take zones to benefit fishermen. It explains the advantages of marine parks over other management tools in terms of resilience and sustainability, and the fundamental flaws that make effective fisheries management so difficulty with traditional tools such as size and catch limits.
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #1 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 9:54am
 
Nice one FD. You have just repeated you original article which I already debunked. It's full of the same distortions and outright lies which I have pointed out in detail - and zombie like you have risen with them again.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #2 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 11:34am
 
It must be very frustrating for you, having debunked everything about marine parks, but you cannot convince anyone and we keep getting more of them anyway. Does it ever make you doubt yourself?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #3 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 12:44pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 11:34am:
It must be very frustrating for you, having debunked everything about marine parks, but you cannot convince anyone and we keep getting more of them anyway. Does it ever make you doubt yourself?


Yawn, bandwagon effect device. Why do you think the Coalition set up the Audit Panel if there wasn't considerable disquiet about NSW marine parks? Are you still trying to make out they are recommending more marine parks?

PS: how come no other country has gone in for marine parks the extent we have?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
It_is_the_Darkness
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #4 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 1:07pm
 
The Coral Sea is about to be made a Marine Park, etc.
Mind you - is there much Fishing out that way anyway? I doubt it.

If Fishing is 'sustainable' why the need to disengage Marine Parks, etc and allow the recommencement of Fishing there?

If there was less Fishing territory but more Fish due to more Reserves, etc - wouldn't this make sense over Fishing over large expanses of territory for fewer fish ??? Huh

I can understand Americans making big mistakes as they never had Australia around to learn from a precedence so to speak.
But Australia should know better and understand that Prevention is better than a Cure. We do not have to ruin our resources first to understand why the 'problem is'.

Back to top
 

SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #5 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 2:03pm
 
Quote:
wouldn't this make sense over Fishing over large expanses of territory for fewer fish ???


Making sense is not a criteria the anti marine park lobby looks for.

Quote:
It's full of the same distortions and outright lies


Can you point out any specific lies in the article I posted, or can you only keep this up while you sticking to vague generalisations? Perhaps you have a vague generalisation that kinda sorta contradicts something general I have said if you look at it the right way?

Quote:
PS: how come no other country has gone in for marine parks the extent we have?


Do you realise the GBR is no longer the biggest marine park in the world?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #6 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 3:43pm
 
[ that article I promised you PJ:

Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-simpler-rules.html

OK, I'll debunk it one more time.

Marine Parks, properly implemented from a fisheries management perspective, can reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen. They can make fishing cheaper, simpler, more accessible and more rewarding.

Actually there has been no decrease in regulatory burden adjacent to our marine parks. In places like the GBR it has increased to deal with displaced fishing effort.

In response to the rapid rise in the use of marine parks by fisheries management authorities,

That's a lie. Australian marine parks have never been implemented by or originated from our fisheries management authorities.

the anti marine park lobby

Rhetorical device - legitmate grassroots concern from anglers and informed opposition from our fisheries scientists is portrayed as some sort of eccentric fringe group.

has been frantically trying to establish several new principles, mostly through repetition.

Projection. FD repeates over and over his mantras and avoids any logical debate.

These principles go along the lines that marine parks should only be used a last resort due to the impost on fishermen, that marine parks should only be used where necessary (I have never seen an explanation of 'necessary' in this context and can only conclude that it is deliberately left without meaning), or that marine parks should only be justified in terms of their environmental or biodiversity benefits.

Strawman - there is a lot of compelling evidence behind looking at other methods first.

This article justifies the rejection of all of these principles, mostly through stating the obvious,

Ha, it must be wonderful 'just knowing' everything!

then goes into some more subtle principles of marine park design through which the benefit to fishermen can be maximised. It then explains some of the incentives that a vocal minority of fishermen have for misleading the public about marine parks, misleading the public about the views of fishermen, and for making fishing less accessible to the average recreational fisherman.

Let's start by stating the obvious. Most recreational fishermen do not own a boat.

FD has identified a target audience those who fish only a couple of times a year, with little at stake in the marine park debate and with poor fishing skills likely to be gullible enough to believe his B\S.

If you can design regulations that do not impact on those fishermen without a boat, the regulation will not affect the majority of fishermen. If those regulations allow for the simplification or elimination of other rules designed to limit catches, then the overall regulatory burden is reduced.

Not likely given the actual history of our marine parks.

This is the basis of the first principle of marine park design for fisheries management:

Quote:
1) Design marine parks so that they have little or no impact on fishermen with limited resources.


A simpler statement that almost completely captures this principle is: Do not ban shore based fishing in accessible locations.

Big deal. Don't you realise that such spots are often few and far between and already prone to overcrowding.

The added burden on fishermen with a boat can be reduced by using no take zones with straight edges and clearly marking the corners with buoys.
This is usually possible in all but the far offshore zones in deep water. Fishermen in such situations almost universally use a GPS, which is quite cheap these days.

A GPS is not of much use in this case unless it is a chart plotter with a map insert showing the marine park zones. Most boats don't have a chart plotter type and these are quite exspensive.

Not all boats are created equal, and the principle can also be applied to those areas that offer some protection to smaller boats from the prevailing winds or that are otherwise valuable to boat fishermen, even if they are slightly less productive. Similar principles can also be applied to kayak fishermen and spearfishermen. The ocean is a blank slate and there is enormous flexibility in designing marine parks. For example spearfishermen are strongly limited by visibility, currents, seafloor structure, depth, swell, boat traffic and other dangers. Many of these parameters vary consistently between locations, thus making it possible to choose locations that minimise the impact on spearfishing. The burden of a well implemented system can also be offset if other rules can be relaxed or eliminated. For example, it is much easier to remember to stay outside of your local marine parks than to remember a different size and bag limit for every single species you might catch.

It's not a matter of remenbering it's knowing where you are (easier said than done).It's more likely that other regualtions will have to be increased.

Thus marine parks can make the rules simpler for fishermen. They can also make fishing more accessible and more productive. To explain this, we again start by stating the obvious: as our fisheries have become more heavily exploited, fishermen have gone to far greater lengths to get 'off the beaten track' in pursuit of exciting fishing opportunities.

A lot of fishing effort has been reduced eg since the mid 1990's in NSW waters. There is exciting fishing within sight of the Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

Over recent decades it has also been well established by hard evidence that the spillover effect from no take zones is heavily concentrated around the edge of the no take zone.

The Audit Panel discounted any large spillover from NSW marine parks. Also you are confusing fishermen getting close to the grounds they have been displced from with evdence of a spillover effect.

That is, the benefit to fishermen is heavily localised. This allows fisheries managers to direct at least some of the benefit from marine parks to land based anglers. This is the basis for the second principle of marine park design for fisheries management:

Quote:
2) Place no take zones adjacent to easily accessible shore based fishing locations.


Highly unlikely that there will better fishing off the shore as a result.

This does not mean that these shores based fishing spots will become as productive as remote areas that fishermen spend a lot of time and expense to reach. However it will go some way to tipping the balance in favour of the shore based angler who has no four wheel drive, but who wants to drive down to the local breakwall and catch a bream with his son.

Duh, bream are naturally found in areas close to shore and not any distance offshore. PS if you are so keen on helping the poor little guy have you thought about the people with limited mobility unable to clamber over rocks, breakwall and beaches?


By reducing the need to buy a boat and/or a four wheel drive, or to travel long distances to reach more remote areas, marine parks can make fishing cheaper and more accessible.

It's personal choice as to what you spend. And the money spent has little correlation with the amount of fish landed.

As well as directing the spillover benefit to shore based anglers,

The spillover effect has already been discounted - why do you, zombie like, keep repeating it?

marine parks can push those who do choose to use their boat to spend an extra five minutes travelling further, so that the fish adjacent to the most easily accessed spots are left for the fishermen without a boat. That is, the scheme has an added benefit by transferring the resource to land based anglers (in addition to the spillover effect). This is the basis of the third principle of marine park design for fisheries management:

Quote:
3) Try to keep boat based fishermen out of the immediate vicinity of the most easily accessed locations for shore based fishermen.


This raises some serious safety riks for small boats. Eg sometimes it is neccessary to fish near the shore to get a lee effect from the wind.

Obviously these principles would backfire if taken to the extreme of forcing all fishermen to fish from the shore. There are natural limits to how much additional benefits can be achieved through these principles. Thus a fourth principle is added for balance:

Quote:
4) The added travel time or expense created for boat fishermen should not be significant compared to how much effort they typically go to.


If there is a strong offshore wind and you can't fish close to the shore then you trip is ruined or you have to take a risk by fishing out wider outside your no fishing zone.

A fifth principle helps to reinforce this balance and is also a well-established principle for maximising the spillover effect (rather than say, biodiversity or conservation goals):

What spillover effect?

Quote:
5) No take zones should be small.


This last principle is limited only by practical limitations on size, for example due to difficulties associated with enforcement and by the ability of fishermen to cast or drift baits or attract fish with burley.

Any (that's an if) spillover would then be correspondingly smaller. Or do you mean lot's of small zones - which is not simple at al.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 3rd, 2012 at 3:50pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #7 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 4:52pm
 
Quote:
It's full of the same distortions and outright lies


Am I correct that the only 'outright lie' you identified was whether marine parks are implimented by fisheries management authorities?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sir Bobby
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 47417
Melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #8 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm
 
Hi FD,
Did you see the 1970's series by Jacques Cousteau on TV?

He said that we need to preserve out fisheries because it is a vital food source.
He showed examples of the Mediterranean Sea  that were already wiped out in 1973.

Anyway - one of the best TV series ever made.
Back to top
 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Carl Sagan   रति
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #9 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:14pm
 
I think I might have seen that one. Do you remember what it was called?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #10 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:17pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 4:52pm:
Quote:
It's full of the same distortions and outright lies


Am I correct that the only 'outright lie' you identified was whether marine parks are implimented by fisheries management authorities?


I think all of it could be termed lies FD. Especially as I have pointed out the errors before and you have just repeated them.

Oh then there's your 3 whoppers earlier in this thread.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #11 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:18pm
 
Quote:
Oh then there's your 3 whoppers earlier in this thread.


Are you confused again about what thread this is?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #12 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:24pm
 
freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:18pm:
Quote:
Oh then there's your 3 whoppers earlier in this thread.


Are you confused again about what thread this is?


The earlier thread, you know the one with the obnoxious title.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 38126
I like fish
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #13 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:30pm
 
Funny, you were trying to change the topic in that thread too. Anyway, let'as get back to all these lies you think my article is 'full of'

Quote:
It's full of the same distortions and outright lies


Other than whether fisheries management authorities set up marine parks, are all of these lies of the 'vague' kind' where you cannot actually quote anything specific that you think is untrue nor explain why it is a lie? Am I lying because you have told me I am wrong about everything before but you failed to convince me? Can you think of no other explanation for why I am not convinced other than that I must now be lying about what I think?

Quote:
I think all of it could be termed lies FD


Is this your way of saying 'not an actual lie'?
Back to top
 

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man - George Bernard Shaw
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1333
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #14 - Mar 3rd, 2012 at 5:42pm
 

Fishing lobbies do themselves a great disservice by demanding that marine parks be justified based only on goals of biodiversity and conservation, because this would mean that no take zones will be much larger and the spillover benefits to fishermen will not be as great. It would mean that the above principles are ignored.

They know that there are better tools for fisheries management and that they are working well in Australia.

Applying these principles to the design of marine parks will make fishing simpler, cheaper and more accessible for the majority of recreational fishermen. For the remaining minority, it will have little impact as these fishermen tend to have the resources to travel wherever they need to in order to catch fish, including to those zone boundaries that do not happen to be on the shore.

You go fishing to relax, not to keep looking over your shoulder and worring if you are sticking to a hard to comply zoning.

These principles will also make fishing more rewarding for most anglers, as it can deliver more fish to those fishermen with fewer resources at their disposal.

There is a strong scientific consensus that marine parks benefit fishermen in general through the spillover effect. These principles help to deliver as much of that benefit as possible to shore based anglers.

Quoting an overseas consensus of dubious origins and saying it proves your own zoning will work is pretty scurrilous.

Much of the anti marine park rhetoric is the typical hubris you expect in response to change (and was seen in past responses to the now 'accepted' management strategies the lobby is now defending as the only options we should use). However, the most experienced anglers may feel threatened by the concept of levelling the playing field, even if it is only to a small extent.

You keep saying other now accepted methods were opposed but I can't recall it and I have been on the scene a long time. Often they were lobbied for by anglers.

They may feel that they have a genuine self interest in opposing marine parks and the principles outlined here, even though all fishermen will benefit. They may take pride in their ability to catch fish where others find it difficult, and value this source of pride more than the simple joy of catching a fish. Boat retailers have an obvious financial interest in making it hard to catch fish without a boat, and have significant power over the editorial staff of fishing publications in which they advertise. Whether or not the threat to their income is real, the perception of a threat or risk has been enough to motivate many of them to great efforts. This goes some way to explaining the desperation seen in the anti marine park lobby and the efforts of a small but vocal minority to falsely claim to represent the majority of fishermen. There have been both subtle and overt attempts, using every method imaginable, to silence recreational fishermen who speak up in support of marine parks and to demand the appearance of a unified recreational fishing lobby. It is these very attempts that have caused the issue to become so divisive among recreational fishermen.

So the divisiveness is all the fault of anglers and not the actual parks themselves?

Examples of how these principles might be implemented are shown here.

This article explains the scientific consensus behind marine parks and the concept of minimising the size of no take zones to benefit fishermen. It explains the advantages of marine parks over other management tools in terms of resilience and sustainability, and the fundamental flaws that make effective fisheries management so difficulty with traditional tools such as size and catch limits.

What, your discredited genetic changes from fishing theory?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 ... 12
Send Topic Print