[] Quote:


Sounds like an ancient Chinese proverb. Certainly not like someone who is not afraid to voice their opinions.

Some things (such as fisheries management) are best left to the experts and professionals coupled with consultation with stakeholders. Governments do this all the time. On the other hand a lowest common denominator approach is fraught with danger and the potential for abuse.

Should easily accessible land based fishing spots be excluded from NTZs? Note that this is not a question about the 'effacacy', the real reason for doing so, or whether it has actually happened. I am asking you your opinion on the idea. Do you allow yourself to have one?

So you are asking for a yes/ no answer? Why is that so important for you?

Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen

I am not going to argue about this but as a statment of fact the claim in this title is absolute rubbish.

The pre park situation was that you could basically go and fish where you like.

Now it is very confusing and impossible to just go to an unknow location to fish without some extensive research to identify which areas you can use.

All the previous rules on fish size and numbers still exist - nothing was made easier at all.

THe claim is carp.

] Quote:


I agree that you should play no part in the decision making process.

Why is that? I am a stakeholder am I not? Do you think you should play a part when all you can do is tell lies? I know far more about fisheries than you FD and am far less biased.

Quote:


Yes/no will do if your position is that simple, but you are welcome to qualify it however you want.

I can't really answer because you don't say where the actual NTZ's will be. It's all very well to say the landbased areas be left open but the end result may well be unacceptable when the NTZ's are factored in. In other words it doesn't mean much on it's own.

This line of questioning is remarkably similar to what happens when the marine park bandwagon rolls into town. The actual zoning is left vague and reassurances are given that favourite fishing spots will not be included, there will be more fish to catch from spillover etc. This is done to make it hard to oppose the concept. When the zoning is implemented the reality is sadly rather different.   

Quote:


It's what this thread is about PJ.

No it isn't it started off as marine parks will make for simpler rules for fishermen and will benefit them in other ways as well. You got into trouble justifying this statement and resorted to rhetorical devices.

[] Quote:


If they are implimented properly, this situation will not change for the majority of fishermen.

So the majority does not include people who own a boat or fish out of someone elses? Also is the inference then that our marine parks have not been implemented properly?

However, to claim that this is the extent of the complexity of fisheries regulations is absurd.

That's not what was suggested.

Quote:


Hence my suggestion that they be approached from a fisheries management perspective.

Your original post says they were implemented by our fisheries management authorities.


Quote:


Would it make a difference to whether you would support keeping the land based spots open? Or are you just making stuff up?

I'd keep all spots open to recreational fishing. Is that clear enough?

Quote:


One of the ways to ensure that marine parks mean simpler rules for fishermen is to leave open the easily accessible shore based fishing spots. Do you support this principle? Do you see in the opening post where this is the first principle I put forward? Why are you so afraid to give your opinion on it? Why do you think I ought to argue with you about these principles when you appear to support them but won't admit it? [/quote]

They are already open to fishing - at least where marine parks don't exist.

[] Quote:


You still appear incapable of making the mental leap of separating this priniple from your stance on marine parks in general.

Suppose you did not have a choice about the use of no take zones. I believe you even admitted to supporting them in some circumstances. It is easy enough to exclude accessible land based fishing spots from them. Would you support that?

It's called a false dichotomy FD, why are you incapable of making the mental leap to understand that?

Should land based spots take priority over spots that can only be accessed by boat?

You can make a reasonable case for that. Then again you can make a case for safe easily accessable boat fishing spots to have a priority too. These will be NTZ's under your plan.

Quote:


And in almost all cases, they are open to fishing where marine parks do exist.

Rubbish. There are plenty of such spots in NTZ's. In NSW people have bought houses next to a  beach so they can walk down to fish off the beach, only to have them declared NTZ's!

[link=1330690120/84#84 date=1332031176] Quote:


So first it was a loaded question, now it is a false dichotomy?

There are similarities, you could use both terms to describe the same phrase.

Are you suggesting that no take zones are imaginary?

I'm suggesting there not inevitable.

Quote:


Spoken like a true politician. Does this mean you support it? Or do you reject reasonable arguments if it involves loaded dichotomies?

The argument is about whether marine parks make for simpler rules for fishermen and better fishing.

Quote:


No they won't. If you actually read the article you will see it states the opposite.

No, you just made the bland assertion they won't. In fact the whole premise of you policy is based on banning boat fishing close to land - as can be seen by the maps you put up.

]

Do I need to start a new thread to ask the same question that I have been trying to get a straight answer on for 5 pages? would you duck and weave like you have been here?

I have answered it - if you don't like the answer too bad. PS: you have largely ignored my own, more pertinent questions. Talk about a double standard.


PJ, the article is not a prediction of what will happen. It is a suggestion of what should happen. [/quote]

So there is no field evidence of marine parks being the ideal fisheries management tool or that fishermen will benefit?

Your perfectly happy to point out failures in traditional fisheries management, no matter how lacking in relevance due to time, or that they are from other countries or that the fisheries scientists weren't actually listented to. Your just a one eyed advocate who knows little about the subject matter.

[link=1330690120/88#88 date=1332111503] Quote:


You have given tons of excuses for not answering it, and 'suggested' what an answer might be, but have not actually answered the question. Does suggesting that a reasonable argument could be made in favour of the principle mean you actually support it? Or does it just mean you reject it in the face of reason?

So you are asking for a yes/ no answer. Why is that?

Quote:


Wrong PJ. I was merely pointing out for your benefit what the article was about. Please try to read what I actually post, not what you want to see.

Sure sounded like it. It at least represents a double standard, ie with regards to your depiction of the record of traditional fisheries management.