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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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.

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?

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 ???

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'.

[ 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:


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:


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:


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:


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:


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.

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.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 4:52pm:


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.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 5:18pm:


The earlier thread, you know the one with the obnoxious title.

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?

How about you start with what you think is the most outragous lie from the article? Honestly, I won't ask you to rank all the lies in terms of their degree of lyingness.

pjb05 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2012 at 5:51pm:


I was pointing out the lies in your article regarding the Coalitions Audit - how is that 'changing the topic'? If anyone changed the topic it was you.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 8:26am:


Which article - the one on the Coalitions audit or the one on 'simpler rules'? I have done it for both.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 8:46am:


What do you think all those comments in italics are about?

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 8:51am:


Everything in italics points to an outright lie on your part. Now will you drop this inane line of questioning?

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 9:36am:


Easy, you are lying when you imply that the father and son will catch more bream off the breakwall as a result of your zoning or that they will in any way  benefit from your zoning.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2012 at 2:07pm:


No discernable spillover effect (as I have explained), overcrowding of already overcrowded landbased spots, and they might also own a boat or aspire to own one, or occasional go out on charter or hire boats.

1330836099]The article explained two mechanisms through which the fisherman in question may benefit.

Your explanations are not credible.

Why would the spots become more crowded if there is no discernable benefit? Are boat fishermen going to start abandoning their boats because they can't anchor up and fish in front of the most easily accessible shore based fishing spots?

Your whole premise to to discourage boat fishing and encourage fishing off the shore. Or maybe the boat fishermen will give up fishing all together if there are enough of your no go zones.

Most easily accesible shore based fishing spots are not overcrowded at all. The vast majority are empty because there are only a few undersize fish to be caught. [/quote]

A lot of them are shoulder to shoulder on the weekend near our cities. You can't even get near the water unless you get there ridiculously early. Eg the Kiama Blowhole and many of the rock platforms around Sydney.

PS: why do you think there are only a few undersized fish to be caught in these locations?

1330838503]Can you explain how disagreeing with me on these points means I must be telling 'outright lies'? Are you really so sure that you are right and that you have already convinced me that you can think of no other explanation for why I have not changed my mind, other than that I am lying?

What else can I say when I have presented ample and compelling evidence and you don't counter it except by repeating your lies.

Quote:


No it isn't. The premise is to get boat fishermen to not anchor up and fish in front of these locations - that is, the premise is to get them to fish elsewhere, not to stop them using the boat.

It's still a discouragement, having to fish somewhwere less safe, stick to a hard to comply with zoning.

Quote:


Can I suggest you start with what I actually posted? It is kind of hypocritical of you to accuse me of lying when you start to make stuff up every time you fail to win an argument rationally.

It's actually happening with existing marine parks, anglers avoid areas with them or the participation rate declines.

Quote:


You appear to be confusing the easily accessible shore based fishing spots with the few that are still productive (relatively speaking - not that I think the Sydney rock shelves are very productive).

Ingnorance - the Sydney rocks are very productive, what makes you think otherwise?

There are a lot more that would not even occur to you to mention because you would not think of fishing there and hardly anyone does fish there, but they would be more productive under the proposals I put forward. [/quote]

Have you thought there might be a reason why they are not productive, eg lack of natural fish holding features, food sources etc? With no large spillover effect how on earth will they become more productive?

PS: you haven't though about catchability either.

Thanks for your help PJ. I have removed the reference to fisheries management authorities and added the following paragraph below principle 3:

An additional mechanism also helps improve catches for shore based fishermen. By fishing adjacent to an area that is unfished, marine parks can improve the catchability of those fish that do spill over, as they are less likely to learn to avoid being caught. There are at least four separate mechanisms through which shore based fishermen will benefit from a fisheries management approach to marine parks: the spillover effect, which increases total catches, directing the benefits of spillover to shore based anglers, direct transfer of the resource from boat based to shore based fishermen (even if you exclude the benefits from the spillover effect), and increasing the catchability for shore based fishermen (and boat fishermen).

Quote:


It reduces the need for a boat and helps out those fishermen who simply cannot afford one, or do not go fishing often enough to justify the expense.

Quote:


If fisheries management has inherent problems with resilience then this will partly make up for it. I have seen heavily fished areas where there are plenty of bream around but they do not go near most baits. They also tend to all be undersize so obviously someone is getting a few.

However, it would be better to have a system that is inherently resilient but where the fish don't learn to avoid capture. Otherwise you risk the situation where there are plenty of fish around but none bite, even though it would not undermine stocks if they were captured. The worst possible outcome would be a river full of dwarf bream that don't take bait and never reach minimum size.

Quote:


I think it has come up before. I just didn't think of it when putting the article together. Again, thanks for reminding me. This is one clear advantage of my proposals, as it is the fish in the most easily accessible locations that are most likely to learn to avoid being caught.

PJ, do you agree with this principle: where no take zones are implimented, they should avoid restricting land based fishing?

Do you agree with it?

So you think shore based fishing spots should be included in NTZs?

Hmm good question: Land based fishing in No Take Zones. Usually I wouldn't think it too much of an impact, even catching 150kg Marlin off Point Perpendicular at Jervis Bay.
But.
If you go to many beaches nowadays and other hot 'shore fishing' spots. Most guys, especially on the beaches, have anything up to x10 Rods going each.

Yeah - I don't like saying it. But the guys with heaps of rods tend to be , um ...Asian.

I agree PJ. But you have to see it to believe it.
I mostly see it at Stockton Beach up north as they plant em deep in the sand, and catch the salmon run.
Not every guy had x10 but one guy did. Every guy definately had more than x3 rods.
I see this more often these past 10 years. Fishermen with more than a few rods. I can only guess they are catching for restaurants and such is the common case in NZ.
I think down south a number of Aboriginals were doing such for a Restaurant and got busted last year.

I've always liked the Father & Son sitting on the wharf having a fish, but as always - people take a mile off that metre given.
...just like the Fishing Industry does.

300 - 500m worth of beach Don't make me laugh.
You must be crap because they just need a metre between each rod.

Quote:


I am not asking you whether you support NTZs. Would you have as much trouble answering the question if I was asking whether your favourite fishing spot should be excluded from NTZs?

Yes I do? Do you? Can you explain how the question is loaded? If you explain perhaps I can rephrase the question so it is harder for you to give such silly excuses for not answering.

For someone with so much to say about these principles you are remarkably coy when it comes to giving your own opinion.

That is not what a loaded question is. The reason your answer may support my agenda is because we may actually agree on certain issues and if you admit that it would be harder for you to misrepresent the contents of this particular article. I am saying that I do not think you believe what you have written here yourself, which is why you are now unable to answer such a simple question.

A loaded question involves an assumption that you cannot directly answer the question without supporting. For example:

Why are you such an idiot?

is a loaded question because you cannot give a direct answer without implying that you are an idiot. Of course, it does not take a great mental leap to be able to respond to the question without making that implication.

So lets try this again. I will include two questions this time so it is even more obvious that the question is not loaded:

Do you think shore based fishing spots should be excluded from no take zones?

Do you think your favourite fishing spot should be excluded from no take zones?

If it was a choice between your 'pedantic' PJ, even if right to some degree
...and 'common sense'.
I know which one I would be agreeing with.

Quote:


Can you explain how it is possible to contradict a question?

Quote:


No PJ. It is saying that it is not a loaded question. Remember, the term loaded has a meaning, beyond you being unable to give a straight answer.

Quote:


Quote me.

Quote:


It would be a little strange for you to argue against these principles for so many pages then when I turn around and ask what you think to suddenly pretend you have no opinion.

Is this what you are saying - that you do not really oppose them?

Quote:


NO it is not PJ - any more than asking you whether vanilla or chocalate is better is a false dichotomy. It is all in your imagination.

Quote:


OK I'll rephrase the question for you so that you do not get so confused by the possibilities:

PJ, if you had the opportunity to exclude your favourite fishing spots from a NTZ, would you refuse the opportunity on the grounds that it is a loaded question?

Quote:


What premise? It is all your imagination.

Quote:


That does not make it loaded. It just makes you silly.

Quote:


OK then PJ, if it was actually happening, what would your response be? What about the situations where it has happened elsewhere and shore based fishing has beene excluded or included? Are you allowed to have an opinion on that, or would that be a loaded opinion?

Quote:


It is not just a flat denial. I explained to you the real meaning of a loaded question. Just because it makes you look silly does not mean it's loaded.

Quote:


Does this mean you are allowed to have an opinion on this aspect? Do you support it or oppose it? Or would that be a loaded opinion?

Quote:
.

Can you make a distinction between them?

Quote:


Is this 'effacacy' measured in terms of environmental outcomes or more direct outcomes for fishermen? Do your views on 'effacacy' ever translate into support or opposition, or would that again be a loaded opinion?

Quote:


You mean this one?

Quote:


It is not just a flat denial. I explained to you the real meaning of a loaded question. Just because it makes you look silly does not mean it's loaded.

Do you think you look less silly getting into a disagreement over what a loaded question or a flat denail is, or more silly?

Quote:


Between my approach and the other one, in refence to this from you:  Quote:


Do you think forgetting what you are talking about makes you look less silly, or more? Are these also loaded questions?

Quote:


You define a loaded question as one that makes you look silly. Hence your opinions are also loaded. Unless of course you want to switch to the real meaning of a loaded question, but that would make your frantic backpedalling over the last few pages look even more absurd.

Quote:


Because it combines something you support in principle with something you oppose in principle? Or would that be a loaded way of explaining it?

Quote:


Can you explain how having fishermen lined up in front of a marine park, looking straight at it and trying to catch fish from it, is an 'out of sight, out of mind' approach?

Do you think it is a bad thing to 'not upset the punters'?

Quote:


Most of them tend to leave land based fishing spots open. You even alluded to this.

Quote:


Can you elaborate? Does this mean it is good to deliberatly 'upset the punters' in some situations?

So are you going to allow yourself to have an opinion or just waffle on indefinitely?

Quote:


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

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?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


It's what this thread is about PJ.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 12^th, 2012 at 8:34pm:


They have increased other regulations adjacent to marine parks to counter the displaced fishing effort from the NTZ's eg on the southern GBR closed seasons for reef fish.

Quote:


If they are implimented properly, this situation will not change for the majority of fishermen. However, to claim that this is the extent of the complexity of fisheries regulations is absurd.

Quote:


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


Quote:


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

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:


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?

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

Quote:


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

Quote:


So first it was a loaded question, now it is a false dichotomy? Are you suggesting that no take zones are imaginary?

Quote:


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

Quote:


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

Quote:


Is this is a good thing or a bad thing PJ? Or is it merely something that a case could be made for and/or against without actually taking a stand?

Quote:


Is the question of whether shore based fishing spots should be included irrelevant?

Quote:


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?

Quote:


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

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?

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.

Quote:


After 6 pages I think something a bit more substantial than 'a reasonable argument can be made' is in order. For example, would you agree with such an argument? Is the 'reasonable argument' the one that I have made, or something different?

Quote:


Not sure why. It is not what I posted.

Quote:


PJ, the only thing it 'depicts' is what it actually says. The rest is your imagination.

Quote:


I am sure you consider your points to be substantive, but that is not the same thing as answering the question that was put to you - do you support the principle of excluding shore based spots from NTZs? No amount of pertinent point making can make up for you inability to give a straight answer to such a simple question.

Quote:


Do you think the question of excluding shore based fishing spots is irrelevant?

Quote:


OK PJ I will go over it bit by bit for you.

You said this:

Quote:


Then I said this:

Quote:


Then you said this:

Quote:


If my article asserts that such fishing spots should be left open, then there is nothing more I can add. For you to insist that my 'plan' is the opposite of what my article states is absurd.

Quote:


So the fact that so many people want to fish from these locations means it is irrelevant whether they are banned from doing so?

Do you only care about yourself?

Quote:


Those maps are still there and have not changed since I first put them up. Most are in enclosed waters. Feel free to suggest any improvements. Just because it is close to the shore does not mean it is a particularly safe spot for boats.

Quote:


There is no contradiction because it does not actually say that boat fishing will be allowed near the shore. It syas that boat fishing spots that are protected from the prevailing winds etc should be left open. This does not apply for the vast majority of the shoreline. Where it does it is simple to accomodate.

[

] Quote:


I am having trouble figuring out what your point is. Are you trying to say that easily accessible shore based fishing spots are difficult to access, or that they are irrelevant because they are not many of them?

I merely pointed out they are prone to overcrowding because they are limited in number.

Quote:


I have not come accross any other boat fishos who argue that shore based fishermen don't count because they don't try hard enough. Some may think that, but they would be too smart to actually say it.

Don't project you own faults on to me. Remember your the only one deciding who can fish where.

Quote:


Not in my experience. I often take my fishing kayak through the surf. It would be hard to imagine any enclosed waters coming close. Quote:


There often shallow so the wind can whip up steep waves. These waters can be more dangerous than the ocean.

And if you have a boat you have the entire shoreline available to you and would usually choose a spot that is not as heavily fished by shore based anglers.

Then why do we need your micro management?

Quote:


No I don't. That is a stupid conclusion to draw. [/quote]

You want to limit where you can use the boat.

[] Quote:


And we have come full circle, back to the original idiotic statement that started this:

Quote:


Can you explain (without going off on a tangent about why they are popular) how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs? Is it back to the argument that it is irrelevant because the people don't matter because you have no respect for them as fishermen?

Your hare-brained scheme is about having the whole design of NTZ's to favour landbased fishing, not quite the same as what you have just depicted. On top of that you haven't demonstrated any likelyhood they will benefit.   

Quote:
.

You are the one who argued that these fishermen don't count.

No thats what you have attributed to me. I don't want to stop them fishing.

Quote:


Only in very large bays - in which case there would be plenty of other boat fishing spots around.

Quote:


Why do you keep using the term need? Are you suggesting that the selection of specific locations for NTZs is the sort of micromanagement we should not even bother with and we should leave it up to the vagaries of bureacracy instead? We do not 'need' good management that takes the interests of fishermen into account, but it is a lot better than what you appear to propose.

How would you know what our interests are given that your not a fisherman (ie angler)?

Quote:


This has no impact at all on the ability of a boat to move. If anything it would encourage boaties to take more advantage of the mobility by not anchoring up in front of the boat ramp if there is a bunch of people shore fishing there.

They tend to give shore anglers a wide berth anyway without your silly rules.

[link=1330690120/101#101 date=1332323169]PJ you still haven't been able to explain what this comment means:

Quote:


Can you explain how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs?

I don't want to make them NTZ's. PS: 'overcrowded' is not synonomous with 'popular'.
Quote:


Are you denying that they would benefit from not having their fishing spots banned?

I don't want to ban them. What sort of twisted logic is that?

Quote:


You really don't mind making it up as you go along do you?

You have never given any idication you are an angler or that you have an more than a superficial knowledge of the sport.

Quote:


So why complain so much about them? If boat fishermen tend to avoid these spots anyway, doesn't that make them ideal locations for a fishing ban?

I was responding to your point about boat fishermen stopping to fish right next to the boat ramp. You plan involves far more than that.

] Quote:


You have a knack for appearing to have no clue what the question is PJ.

This is what I actually asked, in response to your claim that they are less relevant:

Can you explain how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs?

How many times do I have to ask the same question before you can give a straight answer? This entire thread has been nothing but an elaborate game of backpedalling by you on every issue.

It takes a special type of moron to persist with these sort of rhetorical devices. The thread was about marine parks giving simpler rules for fishermen as well as other benefits. You are the one who came up with the diversion of obvious rhetorical devices.

Quote:


In this context it means the same thing. Having lots of people in the one spots means both that it is overcroded and that it is popular. Try arguing your way out of this one.

It's quite simple; if the spots are limited in number and space it doesn't take many fishermen to overcrowd them does it? Try arguing out of that!

Quote:


Again PJ, you appear to have forgotten what we were actually talking about. The question was specifically about whether they would benefit, in response to you bringing this up. Were you asking me to prove something that you already agree with, or do you actually think these fishermen would see no benefit in having their spots kept out of NTZs?

You really thought about that! You proposal is merely about keeping the status quo, there is therefore no direct benefit or detriment.

Quote:


It is a set of principles, not a plan and does not have any scope at all.

At some point it has to become specific.

PS: have you forgotten that you drew up maps?