Australian Politics Forum - Sydney Harbour productivity

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49920
At my desk.

Sydney Harbour productivity
Jun 21^st, 2013 at 8:18am

PJ, can you please explain how these survey results are a measure of the productivity of Sydney Harbour?

pjb05 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 6:55pm:

I think they would increase productivity. If you look at natural areas some are more productive than others. Actually there was a NSW fisheries manager on TV the other night talking about areas they have surveyed and one of the most productive areas they have found was Sydney Harbour!

PS: weren't you saying something about Sydney being the most overfished areas in Australia and crying out for marine parks?

pjb05 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

Sydney Harbour has some major problems with pollution. I think there are limitations on pro fishing because of this, as well as advice on restricting consumption of fish from certain areas for recreational fishermen. Obviously that makes it easier to catch fish. The effect is similar to that of a marine park, though you are still faced with the question of would you eat them.

Nice try but the show was a re-run. They were talking about commercial fishing still being in operation in Sydney Harbour. Also they were talking about the 'recent' banning of kingfish traps - which occured in the 1990's.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 8:52pm:

freediver wrote on Jun 19^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

I apologise PJ. It was wrong of me to doubt your interpretation of your recollection of something you heard a bureaucrat say on TV the other night.

It's not hard to verify FD. How about this for starters:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/archive/news-releases/fishing-and-aquaculture/2008/sydney-harbour-thumbs-up

Sydney Harbour gets thumbs up from fishersSydney fishers have overwhelming declared Sydney Harbour as a great spot to fish, in one of the largest field-based recreational fishing surveys in Australia, Minister for Primary Industries Ian Macdonald said today.

Sydney fishers have overwhelming declared Sydney Harbour as a great spot to fish, in one of the largest field-based recreational fishing surveys in Australia, Minister for Primary Industries Ian Macdonald said today.

Mr Macdonald said the survey was part of a $2.2 million, two-year survey of NSW major recreational fisheries in the Greater Sydney Region.

"Results from the first stage of this research is great news for fishers - more than 70 per cent of fishers rated the Sydney Harbour fishery as good to very good with respect to the number, size and variety of fish available," Mr Macdonald said.

"Only 11 per cent of fishers considered it poor, which proves the vast majority of fishers value Sydney Harbour as a quality recreational fishing spot.

"More than 406 angling parties - representing 838 anglers - were involved in the Sydney Harbour surveys with around 70 per cent being shore-based and 30 per cent boat-based.

Minister Macdonald said Sydney Harbour is the oldest and most loved fishery in Australia.

"Importantly, this survey shows us that we are providing quality fishing areas for recreational fishers and ensuring sustainable fishing well into the future," he said.

"Anglers are catching a range of fish including snapper, yellowtail scad, yellowfin bream, yellowtail kingfish, tailor, dusky flathead, squid, sand whiting and silver sweep.

"It’s great to see that Sydney’s recreational fishers are catching a wide variety of fish, and are happy with the diversity and size.

"Staff are also surveying more than 25,000 fishing parties from across the Greater Sydney Region as part of the two-year project including the Hawkesbury River estuary, Port Hacking estuary, Norah Head, Terrigal, Long Reef, Bellambi, Port Kembla and Shellharbour.

"Survey staff are out on boats, at fishing spots and boat ramps interviewing fisherman about recreational fishing in the area. They are spending time finding out from recreational fishers about the time they spend fishing, what they catch and their views on the quality of the fishery."

The survey is jointly funded by NSW DPI and the Recreational Fishing Trust.

More information
Greater Sydney Recreational Fishing Survey

Contact: Jason Bartlett,

Phone: 0438 209 28

Media contact: Jason Bartlett, 0438 209 28

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #1 - Jun 21^st, 2013 at 8:55pm Obvious isn't it? They have been measuring anglers satifaction/ rating of areas as well as their catch rates.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49920 At my desk.	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #2 - Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 9:39am How were they measuring catch rates?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #3 - Jun 22^nd, 2013 at 11:27am

There is no way that 'Catch Rate' in Sydney Harbour could be better than the North and South Coasts of NSW. NO WAY!
(...let alone in quality Tongue

)

Jervis Bay would strip Syd Harb in ratio and success rate AND quality!
Batemans Bay has been Commercially stripped bare and off Bermagui - mostly Leatherjacket bombardments. Roll Eyes

Maybe you are basing this upon the 'amount' of Fishermen there - pulling up lil' Nursery size mercury ridden (yep - still got mercury levels in the Harbour) fish?
Sounds like a Promo-Scam akin to Seasports (Diving Shop) in Jervis Bay paying all the Mags to advert him as #1 in OZ while it went under from his heroine use and lil' blonde-peroxide gold-diggers he was bangin'. Roll Eyes

Back to top

SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.

IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #4 - Jun 28^th, 2013 at 7:25pm pjb05 wrote on Jun 21^st, 2013 at 8:55pm: Obvious isn't it? They have been measuring anglers satifaction/ rating of areas as well as their catch rates. Through their questionaires, obviously.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49920 At my desk.	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #5 - Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:16pm So what was the catch rate?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #6 - Jun 29^th, 2013 at 10:44am freediver wrote on Jun 28^th, 2013 at 9:16pm: So what was the catch rate? Favourable compared to other locations in NSW - you will have to delve into the report for details.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49920 At my desk.	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #7 - Jun 29^th, 2013 at 11:04am You expect me to go looking for something I do not believe exists?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #8 - Jun 29^th, 2013 at 11:12am freediver wrote on Jun 29^th, 2013 at 11:04am: You expect me to go looking for something I do not believe exists? The article is on the official DPI website and has the scientist's name and phone number, so what is more likely - it doesn't exist or FD is a moron?
Back to top	IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #9 - Jun 29^th, 2013 at 11:30am Furthermore how is it that your implausible/ un-referenced assertions are supposed to be taken as gospel?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49920
At my desk.

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #10 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 9:50am

I have no doubt the paper exists, though finding it is not as easy as you make out. The things you claim are in there do not exist. Consider the following points:

1) If you want to gauge fishermen's opinion of an area, asking those fishermen who are fishing there is going to demonstrate nothing but the principle of selection bias. This is great for political spin, but is pretty much worthless from a scientific perspective, or as a measure of the productivity of the area. Think about it. Are any of those fishermen going to say that the place they are fishing is their least favourite spot?

2) The fact that the fish in the area are toxic, many people refuse outright to eat them, the government warns people to limit their intake, and the area has a much higher proportion of catch and release, makes it very difficult to rationally compare the productivity of the area with other areas. A survey of opinion is pretty much useless in that regard, and you are reading into it things that are simply not there. Concluding from such a survey that a toxic bay is a "great spot to fish" is pure spin intended for the gullible, and it is ironic that someone who often paints himself as a skeptic of government policy would fall for something so simple.

What other government departments have to say about Ian Macdonald's "great spot to fish":

http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/consumers/keeping-food-safe/special-care-foods/sydney-harbour-seafood/#.Uc93sGdr-bE

Quote:

All commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour has been halted due to elevated levels of dioxins detected in some fish and seafood. The area affected includes all of Port Jackson and it's tributaries.

This is an extension of the December 2005 temporary ban on commercial catches of prawns and of other previous restrictions on fishing in certain areas such as Homebush Bay.

Recreational fishing is not closed but eating of Harbour fish should be limited (see How much can I eat?). Fish can be caught and released.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:13am by freediver »

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #11 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 10:37am

date=1372549817]I have no doubt the paper exists, though finding it is not as easy as you make out. The things you claim are in there do not exist. Consider the following points:

1) If you want to gauge fishermen's opinion of an area, asking those fishermen who are fishing there is going to demonstrate nothing but the principle of selection bias. This is great for political spin, but is pretty much worthless from a scientific perspective, or as a measure of the productivity of the area.
Think about it. Are any of those fishermen going to say that the place they are fishing is their least favourite spot?

When they survey other areas they are asking the fishermen that are fishing there - so there is no selection bias. The salient point is that Sydney Harbour rates highly compared to other areas (also well know anecdotally in angling circles, including my own experience).

They also have a more empirical measures when they survey what the fishermen are catching and how long it took them to catch them.

2) The fact that the fish in the area are toxic, many people refuse outright to eat them, the government warns people to limit their intake, and the area has a much higher proportion of catch and release, makes it very difficult to rationally compare the productivity of the area with other areas. A survey of opinion is pretty much useless in that regard, and you are reading into it things that are simply not there.

We already covered this - the ban didn't come into effect until 2006 and that's when the survey started. Ie no time for an increase in fish numbers.

Concluding from such a survey that a toxic bay is a "great spot to fish" is pure spin intended for the gullible, and it is ironic that someone who often paints himself as a skeptic of government policy would fall for something so simple.

You keep using the word spin to describe and empiricle survey when your ignorant, unreferenced remarks are somehow gospel.

What other government departments have to say about Ian Macdonald's "great spot to fish":

http://www.foodauthority.nsw.gov.au/consumers/keeping-food-safe/special-care-foods/sydney-harbour-seafood/#.Uc93sGdr-bE

Quote:

All commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour has been halted due to elevated levels of dioxins detected in some fish and seafood. The area affected includes all of Port Jackson and it's tributaries.

This is an extension of the December 2005 temporary ban on commercial catches of prawns and of other previous restrictions on fishing in certain areas such as Homebush Bay.

Recreational fishing is not closed but eating of Harbour fish should be limited (see How much can I eat?). Fish can be caught and released.

Yes we know all that but what has this got to do with the productivity of fishing near our large cities/ need for marine parks?

PS: Other areas of Sydney also fish well eg offshore, Botany Bay, Port Hacking etc. Youe pollution red herring hardly applies here.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49920
At my desk.

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #12 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:01am

Quote:

When they survey other areas they are asking the fishermen that are fishing there - so there is no selection bias. The salient point is that Sydney Harbour rates highly compared to other areas (also well know anecdotally in angling circles, including my own experience).

What is the comparison?

Quote:

They also have a more empirical measures when they survey what the fishermen are catching and how long it took them to catch them.

Are you able to find them?

Quote:

We already covered this - the ban didn't come into effect until 2006 and that's when the survey started. Ie no time for an increase in fish numbers

Are you saying the public were unaware of pollution problems before then? Are you suggesting that banning commercial fishing would not have an immediate effect on recreational fishing?

Quote:

You keep using the word spin to describe and empiricle survey when your ignorant, unreferenced remarks are somehow gospel

No PJ, I use the word spin to describe what the politicians said. You seem to be having trouble telling the difference between the spin and the actual results. You make a habit of this.

Quote:

Yes we know all that but what has this got to do with the productivity of fishing near our large cities/ need for marine parks?

What it means is that it will be easier to catch fish, but you probably wouldn't want to eat them. It says pretty much nothing about the overall productivity of the area.

Quote:

PS: Other areas of Sydney also fish well eg offshore, Botany Bay, Port Hacking etc. Youe pollution red herring hardly applies here.

Why not? Because toxic fish don't move around? And what is your point? You originally brought up this issue when I suggested fishermen might prefer to go offshore than fish the harbour.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Big Dave

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2164
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #13 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:16am

The pollution in Sydney Harbour is determined by how close you are to open ocean, tidal flow and industry, housing etc. Everything between the Harbour Bridge and the heads is clean ( in times of limited rain)Harbour Bridge to Gladesville Bridge is medium. Everything from Gladesville to Parramatta I wouldn't eat anything. There's certainly alot of fish in there. Plenty of Pelagics- Kings, Bonito, Salmon, Frigates at times. Jewies, Snapper (squire), Tailor. Loads of bread and butter fish- Flathead etc .Leatherjackets. They are the most common thing from Gladesville up. Loads of yellowtail in there. That's why the pelagics are in there. It's an amazing fishery, that's for sure.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 109557 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #14 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:16am I wouldn't eat fish from Sydney harbor - it could be full of poisons - lead for one. Maybe someone could provide a whole list of different poisons & toxins that the fish could contain?
Back to top	IP Logged