Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print
Marine parks 'good for fishermen too' (Read 5501 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Jul 11th, 2012 at 10:19pm
 
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/marine-parks-good-for-fishermen-too/story-e6freono-1226422771232

New research into the effects of "no take" zones suggests the federal government's marine park network could benefit rather than harm the fishing industry.

RESEARCH undertaken by James Cook University tropical biology expert Geoff Jones has found that coral trout numbers within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park's green zones were greatly increased.

The study, which used genetic testing to track intergenerational fish movements, also found that nearby fishing areas also experienced increased numbers of trout.

Professor Jones said the research showed the conservation zones, established in 2004, had not only maintained but had greatly increased the number of coral trout in the surveyed region.

"We found a lot of coral trout within the Great Keppel Island area, and of course a lot more were turning up within the blue (fishing) zones," he told AAP.

"So the idea that reserves are good for conservation as well as for the fishing industry has been supported."

The federal government has proposed the creation of 44 new marine parks around the Australian coastline, creating one of the largest reserve networks in the world.

Prof Jones said the success of these networks would quickly become apparent.

"The thing I like about reserves is that they do things where you can see the immediate benefits," he said.

"Within one or two years, you'll see an increase in fish stocks. It has a positive effect straight away."

Prof Jones presented his findings to the International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns on Tuesday.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #1 - Jul 12th, 2012 at 8:47pm
 
Do you actually believe this story FD? Ie given the cherry picking and unrestrained positive spin we have already seen regarding green zones on the GBR.

Also what do you think of the merits of applying such 'evidence' to vastly different fisheries and environments which the Federal system of marine reserves represents?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #2 - Jul 12th, 2012 at 9:37pm
 
Quote:
Do you actually believe this story FD?


Seems plausible to me, and mirrors results from everywhere else.

Quote:
Also what do you think of the merits of applying such 'evidence' to vastly different fisheries and environments which the Federal system of marine reserves represents?


If it were up to me I would be setting them up closer to home, in the most heavily fished areas. I guess they are going with the path of least resistance.

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #3 - Jul 13th, 2012 at 7:22pm
 
[] Quote:
Do you actually believe this story FD?


Seems plausible to me, and mirrors results from everywhere else.

Like where? The Cook et al paper? Cherry picking one result? Is that what you mean by mirroring? And what about the claim of positive results after one or two years? Talk about putting the cart before the horse when the parks have not even been finalised!

Quote:
Also what do you think of the merits of applying such 'evidence' to vastly different fisheries and environments which the Federal system of marine reserves represents?


If it were up to me I would be setting them up closer to home, in the most heavily fished areas. I guess they are going with the path of least resistance.

So you admit marine parks are unpopular?

[/quote]
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 13th, 2012 at 7:29pm by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #4 - Jul 14th, 2012 at 9:13am
 
Quote:
Like where? The Cook et al paper? Cherry picking one result? Is that what you mean by mirroring? And what about the claim of positive results after one or two years? Talk about putting the cart before the horse when the parks have not even been finalised!


There is a ten + year old book outlining the evidence on marine parks that I have referenced here a few times. Even back then it was a long list, and it has grown substantially since then. I am pretty sure that rapid results are also the norm.

Quote:
So you admit marine parks are unpopular?


Don't worry PJ, I am not trying to deny your existence. I admit there is some resistance to them. Even if 95% of the population is behind something, politicians will still try to avoid making an enemy of the other 5%. Many of the people involved seem to fear for their safety. I have even had a few academics who, after I told them I promote marine parks among fishermen, there first response was "you'll get yourself shot" or similar. But as far as change goes, what we are seeing is one of the most rapid changes in history. Fear is inevitable in that context. That both parties are still moving forward with more marine parks is testament to how popular they are, even among fishermen. There may be some wisdom in the path of least resistance. I am hardly a political strategist myself.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #5 - Jul 14th, 2012 at 4:41pm
 
190] Quote:
Like where? The Cook et al paper? Cherry picking one result? Is that what you mean by mirroring? And what about the claim of positive results after one or two years? Talk about putting the cart before the horse when the parks have not even been finalised!


There is a ten + year old book outlining the evidence on marine parks that I have referenced here a few times. Even back then it was a long list, and it has grown substantially since then. I am pretty sure that rapid results are also the norm.

"pretty sure" eh? Why about the ample evidence I have presented here. Are you a moron or just a liar?

PS: Don't you know it's recommended to wait at least five years before drawing any conclusions about a marine reserve effect, not one or two years and certainly not when the ink isn't even dry on the marine park zoning!


Quote:
So you admit marine parks are unpopular?


Don't worry PJ, I am not trying to deny your existence. I admit there is some resistance to them. Even if 95% of the population is behind something, politicians will still try to avoid making an enemy of the other 5%. Many of the people involved seem to fear for their safety. I have even had a few academics who, after I told them I promote marine parks among fishermen, there first response was "you'll get yourself shot" or similar.

Sounds like a redneck slur that says more about the person who said it (or you if you just dreamed it up).

But as far as change goes, what we are seeing is one of the most rapid changes in history.

No other country is taking up marine parks to the extent we are.

Fear is inevitable in that context. That both parties are still moving forward with more marine parks is testament to how popular they are, even among fishermen.

Really, the why is the Coalition opposing Labor's marine parks?

There may be some wisdom in the path of least resistance. I am hardly a political strategist myself. [/quote]

So how likely is the zoning to have a scientific basis if that's how it was arrived at?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #6 - Jul 14th, 2012 at 6:37pm
 
Quote:
"pretty sure" eh? Why about the ample evidence I have presented here. Are you a moron or just a liar?


I could count the bits of genuine evidence you have presented on my fingers.

Quote:
PS: Don't you know it's recommended to wait at least five years before drawing any conclusions about a marine reserve effect, not one or two years and certainly not when the ink isn't even dry on the marine park zoning!


Are you still talking about the GBR? How old is the current zoning regime?

Quote:
Sounds like a redneck slur that says more about the person who said it (or you if you just dreamed it up).


No PJ, in the incident I recall most clearly, he was genuinely concerned for my safety. Perhaps he thought I was turning up those those anti marine park rallies where you get dozens of journalists turning up in the hope that one of the three fishermen there will throw a punch.

Quote:
No other country is taking up marine parks to the extent we are.


What about the US? We are playing leapfrog with them to be the biggest.

Quote:
Really, the why is the Coalition opposing Labor's marine parks?


I go by what they actually do, not what they say. Their latest 'review' in NSW left every possible option open.

Quote:
So how likely is the zoning to have a scientific basis if that's how it was arrived at?


The science studies the outcomes, not the political process. The zone selection process is always going to be a political one. It would be unethical to make the selection from a purely scientific basis.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #7 - Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:12am
 
quote]"pretty sure" eh? Why about the ample evidence I have presented here. Are you a moron or just a liar? [/quote]

I could count the bits of genuine evidence you have presented on my fingers.

First there was nothing and now this - you like making thing up as you go along.

Quote:
PS: Don't you know it's recommended to wait at least five years before drawing any conclusions about a marine reserve effect, not one or two years and certainly not when the ink isn't even dry on the marine park zoning!


Are you still talking about the GBR? How old is the current zoning regime?

Did  you read you own quote? I was refering to this:

Prof Jones said the success of these networks would quickly become apparent.

"The thing I like about reserves is that they do things where you can see the immediate benefits," he said.

"Within one or two years, you'll see an increase in fish stocks. It has a positive effect straight away."


Quote:
Sounds like a redneck slur that says more about the person who said it (or you if you just dreamed it up).


No PJ, in the incident I recall most clearly, he was genuinely concerned for my safety. Perhaps he thought I was turning up those those anti marine park rallies where you get dozens of journalists turning up in the hope that one of the three fishermen there will throw a punch.

But it wasn't ancident was it? In fact I have never heard of such incidents on the part of fishermen.

Quote:
No other country is taking up marine parks to the extent we are.


What about the US? We are playing leapfrog with them to be the biggest.

Rubbish. Why is Pew campainging for a Coral Sea with strick green zones and not for the Gulf of Mexico for instance? They seem quite supportive of recreation fishing in the latter. The must think we are gullible enough.

Quote:
Really, the why is the Coalition opposing Labor's marine parks?


I go by what they actually do, not what they say. Their latest 'review' in NSW left every possible option open.

Hardly the same as planning for more marine parks - liar.

Quote:
So how likely is the zoning to have a scientific basis if that's how it was arrived at?


The science studies the outcomes, not the political process.

Duh, I'm talking about the zoning not the outcomes.

The zone selection process is always going to be a political one. It would be unethical to make the selection from a purely scientific basis.

And a bunch of politicians drawing line on maps and affecting peoples lives is ethical?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aquascoot
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 32657
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #8 - Jul 15th, 2012 at 4:10pm
 
interesting concept,  ban australians from fishing the coral sea but let new guinea, new caledonia ,etc fish their part of it.  hope the fish can read the lines on the maps the pollies have drawn.  then buy the fish back from overseas fishermen (who also keep the shark fins)   not real bright.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #9 - Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:03pm
 
Welcome to OzPolitic Aquascoot. There are some interesting suggestions floating around for no take zones in international waters that are surrounded by national waters, particularly around pacific islands. What do you think of that idea?

Quote:
But it wasn't ancident was it? In fact I have never heard of such incidents on the part of fishermen.


Thinly veiled threats of violence from the anti marine park lobby are pretty well known. I have no idea whether any of them have followed through with it. It's a shame because it means so many fishermen are left out of the debate. The academics, public servants and politicians involved tend to just ignore them rather than engage them in dicussion. We all end up getting tarred with the same brush.

Quote:
Rubbish.


Apparently the marine park around Hawaii was the biggest in the world when they put it in.

Quote:
Hardly the same as planning for more marine parks - liar.


Like I said I go by what they actually do, not what they say they will do. I think it has been a long time since we have had a coalition government that has not put in more marine parks.

Quote:
And a bunch of politicians drawing line on maps and affecting peoples lives is ethical?


It is politics. I don't consider it unethical.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 57063
Here
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #10 - Jul 15th, 2012 at 8:12pm
 
Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'

It's a lot more relaxing with no pesky fish to bother you.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #11 - Jul 16th, 2012 at 5:08pm
 
link=1342009185/9#9 date=1342346607] Quote:
But it wasn't ancident was it? In fact I have never heard of such incidents on the part of fishermen.


Thinly veiled threats of violence from the anti marine park lobby are pretty well known. I have no idea whether any of them have followed through with it. It's a shame because it means so many fishermen are left out of the debate. The academics, public servants and politicians involved tend to just ignore them rather than engage them in dicussion. We all end up getting tarred with the same brush.

How come I have never heard of them?

Quote:
Rubbish.


Apparently the marine park around Hawaii was the biggest in the world when they put it in.

So what. You said Aust and the US were leap frogging each other in establishing marine parks. Picking out one park doesn't prove this (especially given the US has the largest EEZ in the World.

Quote:
Hardly the same as planning for more marine parks - liar.


Like I said I go by what they actually do, not what they say they will do. I think it has been a long time since we have had a coalition government that has not put in more marine parks.

You are good at being tricky aren't you? What you previously said was that the Coalition was going ahead with more marine parks. This whole argument is in any case a rhetorical device, ie an appeal the the bandwagon effect.

Quote:
And a bunch of politicians drawing line on maps and affecting peoples lives is ethical?


It is politics. I don't consider it unethical. [/quote]

That says a lot about your mentality. Doesn't it matter to you wether it is a good policy or not?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #12 - Jul 16th, 2012 at 5:15pm
 
Try explaining this away FD:


Marine Parks Are Fishy--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


by Ray Hilborn

In "Conservation in the Anthropocene," Peter Kareiva, Robert Lalasz, and Michelle Marvier argue that conservation needs to move beyond parks and protected areas. They stress that ecosystems are generally resilient to perturbation, and rather than being irreparably damaged by the slightest anthropogenic impact, ecosystems can both support biodiversity and produce sustainable goods and services. While their arguments and examples are drawn from terrestrial ecosystems, much of their article is relevant to marine ecosystems, my field of study.

Marine ecosystems are the new frontier for conservation. And much of the funding for new scientific work has been directed towards the establishment of protected areas. It's important to note that while marine and terrestrial ecosystems share much in common, there are differences. One fundamental difference is the nature of human use. In terrestrial ecosystems, a dominant form of use is agriculture, which essentially rips out native ecosystems and replaces them with exotic species: crops, tree plantations, or grasses for grazing. Agriculture makes no pretense about preserving natural ecosystems.

In contrast, in marine ecosystems, we attempt to sustainably harvest the natural ecosystem. We leave the lower trophic levels -- primary producers and most of their consumers -- untouched, and exploit only the higher trophic levels. This has profound consequences. It means that even if the dreams of protecting 10 percent of the world's ocean, as set out in the 1992 Convention on Biodiversity, were to come true, most marine biodiversity will remain outside the boundaries. The struggle to maintain biodiversity is in the total anthropocene ocean; it will never be achieved through protected areas.

The marine conservation movement has been slow to grasp this. Similarly, it has failed to see that closing areas to fishing does not eliminate fishing pressure, it simply moves it. When an area is closed, fishing efforts concentrate outside protected areas. Consequently, simple comparisons of abundance inside and outside of reserves as a measure of "success" are meaningless. The salient question to ask is what happens to the total abundance.

One study sought to answer this question by tracking trends in abundance inside and outside of a set of reserves established in the California Channel Islands.1 Of the species targeted by commercial and recreational fishing, abundance went up inside reserves and down on the outside. Since 80 percent of the habitat is outside of the reserves, the data suggest that the total abundance of the targeted fish species actually declined. The gains inside were more than offset by the decreases on the outside.

In the case of the Channel Islands reserves, the creation of a protected area had a negative impact on abundance. In many other cases, protected areas have little to no impact. Two of the most heralded successes of the marine conservation movement have been the establishment of large protected areas in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, and the western Pacific US territories. If the measure of success is the amount of area proclaimed as protected, these are significant achievements. But if the objective is effective protection against real threats, the achievement is less because there was little, if any, human impact in those areas before protection.

There are many threats to marine ecosystems, including oil spills, exotic species, runoff from terrestrial sources, illegal fishing, excessive legal fishing, ocean acidification, and global warming. The marine parks movement does not recognize that most "protected areas" only "protect" from legal fishing, and not much else. Advocates argue that unfished ecosystems are more resilient to environmental perturbations such as exotic species, yet the same argument, if valid, must apply to areas outside of reserves. Since fishing pressure has been redirected to unprotected areas, those ecosystems ought to be more vulnerable to the same perturbation.

Kareiva et al. argue that the new conservation "requires conservation to embrace marginalized and demonized groups," and perhaps no group has been so demonized by the environmental movement as fishermen. Terms like "roving bandits" and "rapers and pillagers" permeate the public discussion. But luckily this is changing. The new marine conservation movement recognizes that conserving biodiversity requires more than merely controlling fishing. Progressive NGOs are working with fishing groups rather than demonizing them, a transformation that has entered into in marine conservation debates that attempt to find new solutions to the environmental impacts of fishing.

Kareiva et al. close by stating, "Protecting biodiversity for its own sake has not worked. Protecting nature that is dynamic and resilient, that is in our midst rather than far away, and that sustains human communities -- these are the ways forward now." This is as true in the marine world as in the terrestrial. There is certainly a role for protected areas. But the bulk of marine biodiversity will always be in the dynamic areas outside of them, areas that must be sustainably managed as we go forward.

Ray Hilborn is a professor in the school of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington.

1. Hamilton, S. L., J. E. Caselle, D. P. Malone, and M. H. Carr. 2010. "Incorporating biogeography into evaluation of the Channel Islands marine reserve network." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908091107.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
aquascoot
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 32657
Gender: male
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #13 - Jul 16th, 2012 at 6:45pm
 
yes they are a good idea in my opinion.  plenty more dollars in tourism and guided fishing than just commercial fishing.  but  the commercial blokes have been paid out, relocated, paid out , relocated.  it appears to have little long term planning.

also , despite what the greens think, tuna doesnt grow in a can.
however, i still think this resource is better utilised as a catch and release with permits recreational fishery.

in the same way the franklin river probably earns plenty of tourist dollars , lets use our fishery to get rich asians americans and europeans out here fishing and paying a motza for the priveledge. much like the aboriginal barra camps in the NT which provide  employment , skills and meaningful jobs.  more money in sports fishing than in canning the stuff for the nations cats.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine parks 'good for fishermen too'
Reply #14 - Jul 17th, 2012 at 10:03pm
 
Quote:
How come I have never heard of them?


Perhaps you are the sort of person they smile and nod politely for. Perhaps it just comes with the territory. I don't usually make a fuss about it, and if I did it would not be on an internet forum. Perhaps I should.

Quote:
So what. You said Aust and the US were leap frogging each other in establishing marine parks. Picking out one park doesn't prove this


It does if that one park is bigger in area than all Australian marine parks combined. The changes introduced by the coalition to the GBR made all the previous changes here look fairly trivial, and the Hawaiian one was even bigger. Now we are outdoing them again.

Quote:
What you previously said was that the Coalition was going ahead with more marine parks.


I have no doubt that they will. For all the spin that came out of it, the recent NSW committee report certainly left that option open. It even recommended it. But for the moment we can only go by their history.

Quote:
Try explaining this away FD:


In almost all cases the population of target species increases both inside and outside the NTZ boundaries. Perhaps that is why he could only give one example. What exactly is it that you think requires an explanation? I am not the one pretending that academics are coerced into towing the line. They are free to make themselves look as silly as they want, as Ray so conveniently demonstrates.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 
Send Topic Print