split from thread about overfishing: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1170314149/0

---

Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

---

UQ Marine Science Colloquium - Marine Protected Areas & Coral Reef Ecosystem Resilience

http://www.uq.edu.au/events/event_view.php?event_id=3435

Prof. Peter J. Mumby
University of Exeter
United Kingdom

Coral reef managers face the challenge of addressing global disturbance at local scales, raising the question ‘How effective are management tools at mitigating climate disturbance’? The talk begins by using a combination of empirical studies and ecological models to quantify the resilience of coral reefs explicitly. I then examine how policy interventions such as marine reserves, fisheries management, reductions in nutrient run-off and the preservation of mangroves will influence resilience. Lastly, I describe how models can be used to identify specific targets for the restoration of ecosystem processes.

Peter Mumby is interested in spatial aspects of reef ecology. A key focus of this research is how to make use of reef habitat maps made using satellite or airborne images and photographs. Habitat maps provide information on the connectivity of ecosystems (e.g. which reefs are nearest nursery grounds for grouper), the functions of reefs (why are some reefs only found in sheltered areas?) and patterns of biodiversity (why are some parts of the reef always richer in species than others?). Many of these issues are pertinent to the design of marine protected area (MPA) networks and the Habitat Working Group is investigating how habitat maps of The Bahamas help inform improved designs of MPAs. In particular, how do the placement of MPAs influence the amount of essential fish habitat and overall species diversity protected?

URL: http://www.cms.uq.edu.au/seminars/p.mumby.pdf

---

Popular fishing spot saved from EPA ban

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Popular-fishing-spot-saved-from-EPA-ban/2007/08/21/1187462241713.html

A popular fishing spot north of Brisbane has been saved from a fishing ban after Premier Peter Beattie learned it was included in a wide-ranging environmental protection plan.

Redcliffe jetty, a location favoured by families and weekend anglers, will not be included in the so-called "green zones" currently being considered by Queensland's Environmental Protection Agency.

The zones are designed to protect a range of habitats and species in Moreton Bay Marine Park.

A draft plan is expected to be released for comment at the end of the year, and finalised in the second half of 2008.

---

My suggestion for a green zone around the footbridge over the mouth of the Pine River (red line indicates rec fishing only zone for pedestrian bridge):

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/photos/pine-river-thumbnail.jpg

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-park-examples.html

Just got this interesting media release in an email:

It's a subject of minor interest to Queensland's well-heeled city-set. But even politicians were startled and inspired by the small, nuggetty man in joggers and t-shirt who spoke at the State Library of Queensland last week.

Last Friday night, acclaimed Western Australian author Tim Winton held a hushed gathering of over 200 ocean wardens, art aficionados and Queensland politicians, spellbound.

Patron of the Australian Marine Conservation Society, Tim was asked to speak at their inaugural art auction. In his speach, Winton fearlessly weighed in on a tide of controversy, tackling well-known Queensland "cultural inertia" and partisan fishing industry notions, with particular regard to Moreton Bay zoning issues that in the last few weeks have sparked fierce debate.

Winton said much public comment had been mischievous.

"The widely held concept of 'no fishing' or 'no go zones' in Moreton Bay is an irrational meltdown, a strange conspiracy conceived by hard core extremists with endless demands."

"The Beattie government must stiffen its resolve against those who don't necessarily represent everyone's interests. This is not about the end of fishing [on Moreton Bay]. It is about logic. Only the pressure of logic can prevail against rank paranoia."

Winton was self-deprecating and refreshingly honest.

"I'm not on a sentimental mission. I've killed many marine species and I'm hard-wired to hunting and gathering. But I'm not a complete idiot,"he said.

"I read like anyone else, I have my eyes open like anyone else. And I have witnessed the steady decline of iconic [marine] species."

"90 per cent of big predatory fish are gone in the world's oceans. And industrial fleets are grinding away at the remainder".

Winton was baffled by Queensland fishing attitudes.

"This is a wealthy, stylish, enlightened state. I am puzzled by the local problems."

"What is it about fish that makes them shoot-able," he said.

"Why do conservationists become extremists while irresponsible, old vested interests are routine? That does not bring about mature debate, but it is depressingly familiar."

Beattie government state parliamentary secretary for the environment Michael Choi attended the Marine Art Auction. He said it was critical to resolve issues surrounding the Park's future.

"This event highlights the urgency to ensure the survival of a Queensland icon. The government is concerned about protecting the Bay. However, there are conflicting demands for use of Moreton Bay, and they need to be considered," he said.

Member for Indooroopilly and parliamentary secretary to the minister for communities Ronan Lee MP who also attended, did not mince words.

"We fish it, we kill it, we eat it, or we are sensible. This matter must be resolved fairly. There is no choice. We are exploiting a resource with no thought to consequence," he said.

Queensland Conservation Council secretary Simon Baltais said it was surprising how many Queenslanders had not visited Moreton Bay.

"So many people have not been to Moreton Bay. There are coral reefs and bottle-nosed dolphins, there is an amazing array of sea creatures. It"s different every day. Economically and socially it's worth billions," he said.

"But there are dangers. We could be loving it to death."

Ends

Contact: CRaig Bohm 0427 133 481 or 07 3393 5811

Quote:

Strict no-fishing zones could soon be introduced along the NSW coast as part of a desperate bid to protect the dwindling numbers of grey nurse sharks.

Dwindling numbers my arse, Sanctuary zones are a political tool and would do more good if "realistic" research was done, and followed up on. How does fishing bans save GNS, it is not like there is a major problem with fishermen hooking up or spearing GNS.
Sanctuary Zones and Marine Parks are necessary and important, but so is recreational fishing to millions of peoples lifestyles. The current method  of "researching" to find the most popular fishing spots and then turning them into MPA's will do more to ensure that rec fishers will not support them, than they will  to save fish stocks.

http://www.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=53667

Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism
The Honourable Lindy Nelson-Carr
Sunday, August 26, 2007

Minister: No ban on rec fishing from jetties, rock walls, marinas or popular fishing spots

Environment Minister Lindy Nelson-Carr has given an assurance that recreational fishers will always have access to Moreton Bay’s most popular fishing spots as a result of the Moreton Bay Marine Park zoning review.

“Today I am setting the record straight,” Ms Nelson-Carr said.

“We want people to fish Moreton Bay forever. People will always be able to wet a line from jetties, rock walls, marinas and other popular spots including an overwhelming majority of beaches that fringe the Bay.”

The Minister said she was increasingly concerned by the level of misinformation being spread about the review.

“By and large most people have approached this very important issue in a sensible and productive way,” Ms Nelson-Carr said.

“Some of the best feedback from more than 4000 responses to our on-line surveys so far has come from recreational fishers who have asked that their favourite fishing spots be kept open.

“The top spots they identified included the Hutchison Shoals, Smith Rock, Brennan Shoals, Roberts Shoals, Point Lookout, 35 Fathom Reef, Tangalooma Wrecks, Jumpinpin and Crusoe Island.

“And these locations will always be open to recreational fishers.

“Our review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park is about making better opportunities for all bay users.

“Fishing on Moreton Bay is a great part of our lifestyle and we want to keep it that way forever.”

Ms Nelson-Carr said Moreton Bay was a complex marine environment with dolphins, turtles, dugong, sharks, migrating whales and 750 species of fish.

“It also has an amazing variety of habitats including coral reefs, kelp forests and seagrass beds. These habitats and species, and the way they interact make Moreton Bay one of the richest marine ecosystems in Australia - an area famous for its biodiversity,” Ms Nelson-Carr said.

“This is about having a healthy bay, a healthy marine environment and fair access.

“The review will ensure that Moreton Bay remains a place where the people of southeast Queensland continue to have a healthy lifestyle to enjoy for ever.

“It’s about mums and dads being able to take their children and grandchildren fishing on the bay the way their parents and grandparents did.

“We are listening to the views of all bay users – recreational and commercial fishing interests, conservationists and the tourism industry.”

Ms Nelson-Carr said the independent scientific Expert Advisory Panel recommended that, in line with the internationally accepted scientific advice, a minimum10 percent of each of the 16 habitat types within the marine park should be protected.

“Exactly where those areas will be is yet to be decided but they will not be the beaches, jetties, piers and the areas where most people most love to fish,” Ms Nelson-Carr said.

“We are consulting widely. So far we have held 10 information sessions and had displays at every boat and fishing show in the south east corner since February. There have been extensive mail outs and meetings with stakeholders including businesses, bait and tackle shops, fishing clubs, seafood industry, tourism bodies, conservation groups, boating, diving and recreation groups and commercial fishers.

“We are also having input from the Moreton Bay Access Alliance who represent the peak fishing bodies. The Alliance is undertaking their own study and we eagerly await their submission.

“This consultation has been thorough and extensive and is ongoing. I strongly urge everyone to have their say and provide feedback on the Moreton Bay Marine Park Zoning Plan Review on the web at www.epa.qld.gov.au.”

Media Contact: Karla Steen 3336 8004 or 0417 603 409

---

Sharks in Coral Sea need protection: WWF

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sharks-in-Coral-Sea-need-protection-WWF/2007/09/17/1189881383578.html

Reef sharks could be wiped out in the Coral Sea unless Australia declares it a Marine Protected Area, conservation group WWF said.

Dr Llewelyn said the total value of Coral Sea tourism, including dive sites such Osprey Reef, was around $11.2 million annually.

So it made good economic sense for the federal government to protect the 780,000 square kilometres of the Coral Sea under Australia's exclusive economic zone (EEZ), she said.

But The Coral Sea would not be declared a fishing no-go area, he said.

It could be managed in the same sustainable way as the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, where fishing was allowed in some zones along with tourism activities.

The Role Of Marine Reserves As Fisheries Management Tools
A selection of recent published opinions from marine fisheries managers, scientists and conservationists.
Bureau of Rural Sciences, Australia

This extensive government review is bulging with the opinions of managers, scientists and conservationists all toeing the government line but the Executive Director of the BRS, Peter Ward, said this in the “forward” of the report:


“Despite a lot of enthusiasm about the establishment of marine protected areas, there has been little empirical work undertaken to evaluate their worth in achieving conservation objectives, and less on their effects on adjacent fish stocks.”

Freediver,  this "Charlie", is not your Adrenaline twin is he  ;) ;D

No idea who it is. It's not me.

University of Canberra, Professor Bob Kearney has slammed the manufacturing of the scientific sham that was used to force that which should never have been.  Lecturing the Australian Society for fish Biology at Canberra on the 12th September 2007 he cited Bateman’s Bay Marine Park, exposing the false reasons they claimed, and have now locked up.

Bob Kearney, BSc (Hons), PhD, DSc, is Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra. He is currently Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the World Fish Centre, a member of the Research Committees of the Australia & Pacific Science Foundation and the Pacific Biological Foundation, and a member of the Threatened Species Scientific Committee of the Commonwealth Department of Environment and Heritage. He is the author of 150 scientific and technical papers and the recipient of more than $20 million in research grants.

Kearney Says: "The documentation relating to the creation of the Batemans Marine Park is perhaps best described as very poorly disguised advocacy marketed to the unsuspecting public as science. This is a sham. So much so that not only does it totally discredit the Batemans Marine Park but it calls into question the credibility of the Marine Parks Authority and the justification of other Marine PArks along NSW coastline"

Link please? I saw it a while back and it looked like some kind of joke. Now the link to the paper at the Uni of Canberra isn't working.

BTW, why would the University of Canberra be involved in marine science?

The extremist conservation movement are desperate to deceive the public over the Marine Parks (MPA) issue because they know they have no science behind them.

The first involves the complete misuse of a UN report on international fisheries. Although already well known the UN reported that some fish stocks in the deep ocean areas have been over-fished by the large ocean based commercial fishing industry (esp Orange Roughy, Gemfish, Patagonian Toothfish and Southern Bluefin Tuna). HOWEVER the proposed MPAs only extend to the 3 nautical mile limit and will have NO EFFECT whatsoever on any over-fished species in the deep oceans off the east coast of Australia and the NCC know this.

The second involves an NCC concocted "report" called: Empty Oceans, Empty Nets. This report has been condemned not only by the NSW Fisheries but also by the by the Minister in charge of the MPAs himself! NSW Fisheries have officially responded by issuing a statement:

“that no NSW stocks are under threat, nor in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and constantly monitored by the Fisheries managers.”

The extremist conservation movement are desperate to deceive the public over the Marine Parks (MPA) issue because they know they have no science behind them.  

I think it's the other way round. The scientific consensus backs up the pro marine park side. And it's not just the extremist consercationists. There are plenty of fishermen too who have seen the benefits first hand. It's a very small minority of fishermen who completely oppose marine parks. They are the only ones who are desperate.

HOWEVER the proposed MPAs only extend to the 3 nautical mile limit

Would you mind letting everyone know what you are talking about? There are plenty of proposals floating around atm.

Any idea on why I can't access that report via the University Of Canberra any more?

Maybe you aren't aware, but there is far more to marine park science than those two reports you mentioned. If someone has given you the imrpession that that is the extent of it, or even that they are significant contributions, then they have grossly mislead you.

At a meeting at Port Stephens on Tuesday March 14 the truth about Marine Parks finally came out. A senior Marine Parks Authority (MPA) representative let two cats out of the Government bag.

The first was that the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover" which the extremist Green groups like the NCC and Wilderness Society have been promoting. Read that again: in front of nearly 1000 witnesses the MPA refused to support for the "spillover effect"!

The second, and to my mind the more stunning admission, was the complete lack of science for Marine Park sanctuary zones. When challenged to produce one skerrick of scientific evidence the representative recounted how they did or did not see fish when they went swimming! I kid you not, this was the sum total of the scientific evidence presented to the 1000 people at Neslon's Bay Bowling Club to support sanctuary zones!

The first was that the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover"

Could you provide more details, like a direct quote? Or at least a name? I am keen to know exactly what he meant as there are a number of ways to interpret this. I am not a big fan of Chinese whispers.

If you want the scientific evidence, shouldn't you be asking scientists, not public servants?

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 4:13pm:

The first was that the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover" Could you provide more details, like a direct quote? Or at least a name? I am keen to know exactly what he meant as there are a number of ways to interpret this. I am not a big fan of Chinese whispers. If you want the scientific evidence, shouldn't you be asking scientists, not public servants?

Heres a scientist opinion

Professor Kearney examined the zoning of beach areas as Sanctuary zones and is scathing in his assessment of the Science paper. The Science paper suggests that for beach fish species, "to effectively provide protection, whole beaches need to be included in single sanctuaries, due to movement along the beach". When the two supporting papers were examined by Professor Kearney he stated that "the logical conclusion from the two papers referenced is that there is no conservation benefit at all from closing sandy beaches as the fish are migratory and not responsive to this type of area management (sanctuary zones)." He concludes "Claiming '"protection"' of ocean beaches by implementing a fishing closure as detailed in the Batemans Marine Park documentation is a total misrepresentation of reality"

The Science paper claims that the main threats to the Batemans Marine Park in terms of biodiversity protection and conservation are "Coastal development, pollution, increased nutrient levels (sewerage and agricultural) and turbidity from urban and industrial discharges that result in the decline of seagrass habitats." Yet none of these threats have been addressed or discussed in the Science paper. Indeed the six sewerage outfalls within the Batemans Marine Park are still pumping away. Of the Marine Park Authority's perceived threats, fishing is the sole one targeted.

Just out of interest, are you capable of carrying out a conversation that continues for more than one post?

Who were you referring to as a "A senior Marine Parks Authority (MPA) representative"? What did they actually say?

What happened to the Uni of Canberra link for the supposed 'paper'. What 'Science' paper are you talking about?

And why do you keep starting new threads on this? Is one not enough?

Recently a report titled ‘Empty Oceans, Empty Nets’ on the state of NSW fisheries produced by Paul Winn, from the Nature Conservation Council, formed the basis of claims by various green groups of declining fish stocks.

At the time the claims by the NCC were widely parroted in the media, especially by the ABC and SMH. Despite widespread criticism of the report including solid catch evidence to the contrary and even the senior scientist of the NSW Fisheries flatly denying the reports conclusions, the media continued to echo the Green's claims about "collapsing fisheries".

Well now the "report" has been slammed by the some of the foremost fisheries experts in the world from the University of British Columbia. Their comments speak for themselves:

“The report lacks both consistency and rigour, analytical methods are not clearly described, fisheries science is not appropriately applied and there is a failure to comprehend the management systems and responsibilities in Australian fisheries. In summary, the published report is so seriously flawed that it should not be used or quoted”.

“The report is poorly formulated, and provides no evidence to support it’s claims, at best is liable to provide an incomplete picture of the status of the fishery and, at worst, serves to perpetrate confusion and misinformation."

The Australian public deserves to be properly informed on the issue of marine conservation ..... Care needs to be taken that the genuine concerns for sustainability are not obscured by value-laden rhetoric masquerading as science”.

”We recommend that the Pew Charitable Trust withdraw this report from any further mailings and publish a statement recognising the ill informed and misleading nature of the arguments presented within the report”.

NSW Fisheries have officially responded by issuing a statement:  

“that no NSW stocks are under threat, nor in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and constantly monitored by the Fisheries managers.”

http://www.fisheries.ubc.ca/publications/working/2006/2006-16.pdf

http://www.thefishingparty.info/uploads/emptyoceansemptynetsfinal%5B1%5D.pdf

Do you mind if I move this to the technical board?

yes

Talking about the Science Paper  entitled “A review of benefits of Marine Protected Areas
and related zoning considerations” (Marine Parks Authority New South Wales undated).

The Science Paper’s introduction to the “Threats to marine environments” states, “This
document highlights some of the key threats to some marine species and their habitats
and examines key benefits of marine protected areas in addressing these threats.” Five
key activities, presumably these threats, are then listed: “coastal development, pollution,
agriculture, recreational and commercial fishing, and introduced marine pests”. It is
noteworthy that fishing is fourth on a list of five key threats. Then, dealing specifically
with New South Wales, the Science Paper states, “approximately 60% of coastal
wetlands lost or degraded over the last 200 years” and “Increased nutrient levels and turbidity from urban and industrial discharges and catchment usage are the key causes of increased turbidity and nutrient levels that often result in a decline of seagrass habitats and diversity of species in soft-sediment areas”. Here I am not trying to draw attention to
the repetition, but rather to note that this pivotal listing of key and direct threats to coastal
environments, which are reported to have resulted in serious damage to 60% of wetlands,
does not include fishing. The Science Paper does, however, subsequently state that, “The
overall pressures include some fishing activities”. The only specific fishing activity
mentioned in the Science Paper is demersal trawling, which is, in this region, an offshore
activity. Not a single estuarine or beach fishing activity is identified as being responsible
for the identified declines, or even as being a threat.

Continued

Of even greater significance to the issue of the relevance of the two cited South African
papers to assessment of possible benefits to the Batemans area from the closure of surfzone
beaches is the following quote from Bennett and Attwood (1991), “Only 2 of the 10
species examined in this study, Argyrosomus hololepidotus and Pomatomus saltatrix, are
highly migratory and neither demonstrated any benefits from protection in the reserve”.
The last two species names may have been familiar to many of you. Argyrosomus
hololepidotus, actually shares the same species name as our mulloway, and Pomatomus
saltatrix is the same species as, or an extremely close relative of, our tailor (FishBase
04/2007). Curiously, as it is based on the same data as the 1991 paper, the 1993 Bennett
and Attwood paper adds a third species, Umbrina canariensis, to this group and states,
“The catch rates of the same three species…did not increase following the proclamation
of the marine reserve, because they are migratory”. Why was this key information not
mentioned in the ‘Science Paper’ presented as a basis for a marine park in the Batemans
region, where migratory species dominate? The primary target species on ocean beaches
in the Batemans Marine Park, Australian salmon, bream, flathead, mullet, mulloway,
tailor and whiting are migratory, even if not all equally so. Incidentally, these same
migratory species are dominant in the estuaries of the Batemans region.

Therefore, the logical conclusion, relevant to the Batemans Marine Park....is that the closure of ocean beaches as
included in the Batemans Marine Park will have absolutely no demonstrable benefit, even for the CPUE, let alone the
numbers, of the important species on the ocean beaches in the region.

Fisheries biologists in Atlantic Canada have long opposed the use of what are now termed MPAs in fisheries management. This has not been because closed areas were thought to be harmful. Rather, the principal problem in most marine fisheries management (particularly groundfish management) was, is and will remain the need to limit fishing mortality -- which is synonymous with limiting effective fishing effort. Closures can alter where fishing effort occurs but, with mobile resource species, MPAs can never limit mortality -- the fleet simply catches the fish outside the closed area, albeit at greater fishing cost.

Canada now has long, and not unsuccessful, experience of effort limitation in most of their fisheries. (It has not been limited to a sufficiently low level but that is a separate problem of political will.) This has taught scientisit, while such limitation remains the primary concern, alone it is not sufficient for effective management. MPAs must never be allowed to be treated as an alternative to real and effective limitations on fishing mortality.

I spliced the three threads you just started. Please do not start multiple threads on the one topic.

Fisheries biologists in Atlantic Canada have long opposed the use of what are now termed MPAs

Can you back this claim up?

the fleet simply catches the fish outside the closed area

Not all of them. That's the point, and the reason why MPA's are so successful.

freediver wrote on Aug 12^th, 2007 at 10:41am:

Sharks in hot water over fin soup http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Sharks-in-hot-water-over-fin-soup/2007/08/12/1186857317612.html The lucrative shark-fin market is threatening already endangered shark species along the NSW coast, a Fairfax newspaper has reported. The popularity of the Asian delicacy shark-fin soup has lead to a dramatic increase in fishing for sharks. The National Parks Association insists something must be done to stem these shark culls, which are endangering the grey nurse and great white shark populations. "They are catching an awful lot of sharks and it is completely unsustainable," program manager Nicky Hammond told the paper.

Ironically Nicky says that NPA has evidence of fishers capturing white shark and grey nurse yet where is the posecution -where is the police and fisheries compliance brief following up on these accusations? Where is the record of the court case? Fact is this was another sham article based on false evidence by National Parks Association. If it wasnt than there would be a prosecution or some record of a court case. But no there isnt and so again NPA is the policeman, judge and jury without any real evidence.

NPA are odviosuly on the pulse of fisheries conservation thats why they call fishing practises 'Culls'

Shark fin is probably one of the most heavily policed fisheries items for sale. Identification of the two species fins described by NPA (that being white shark and grey nurse)  is so easily made (both from colour shape and DNA sampling) that fishers would be literally putting the noose around their own heads.

If it wasnt than there would be a prosecution or some record of a court case.

Obviously you need more than just evidence that it is happening in order to get a successfull prosecution. For starters, you need evidence on who was responsible.

Yes your right ....the same type of evidence needed befor you can right an article making an statment regarding someones actions.


Are you going to move this too. Now that youve been shown to support the position of a liar.

lol

Mind explaining what you are referring to with the comment below? Sorry if I sound like a borken record, but you are making a lot of statements that don't make a lot of sense, then ignoring requests for clarification.

befor you can right an article making an statment regarding someones actions

LOL  :D

Every statement Ive made can be supported by relevant information. I recall on another forum some similar issues. As you have suggested befor isnt it your responsibility to find the relevant details.

I will ensure that all other forum members see the topics Ive posted. You cannot bury my threads when they are ligitement topics.

If you had any understanding of free speech you would move them back so they can be properly commented on. The fact that you wont testifies to this sites lack of understanding the meaning of freedom of speech and your inability to argue effectively on the topics raised by members of the public.

Your a sham.

Every statement Ive made can be supported by relevant information.

Then do it.

If you had any understanding of free speech you would move them back so they can be properly commented on.

I don't think spamming a forum with multiple threads on the same topic is what free speech is all about. I am not censoring you. I am just stopping you from monopolising a public forum. I think you would have trouble finding any forum that would let you get away with what you tried here. How about you stop whinging and get on with trying to back up those absurd claims?

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 3:08pm:

The extremist conservation movement are desperate to deceive the public over the Marine Parks (MPA) issue because they know they have no science behind them.   I think it's the other way round. The scientific consensus backs up the pro marine park side. And it's not just the extremist consercationists. There are plenty of fishermen too who have seen the benefits first hand. It's a very small minority of fishermen who completely oppose marine parks. They are the only ones who are desperate. HOWEVER the proposed MPAs only extend to the 3 nautical mile limit Would you mind letting everyone know what you are talking about? There are plenty of proposals floating around atm. Any idea on why I can't access that report via the University Of Canberra any more? Maybe you aren't aware, but there is far more to marine park science than those two reports you mentioned. If someone has given you the imrpession that that is the extent of it, or even that they are significant contributions, then they have grossly mislead you.

Scientific consensus = oxymoron
Precautionary principle= easily hijacked notion due to its extremely loosely defined criteria

Coupled with vocal minority groups= Not a great foundation for deciding policy on public access to our resources

:-/

freediver wrote on Oct 8^th, 2007 at 4:13pm:

The first was that the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover" Could you provide more details, like a direct quote? Or at least a name? I am keen to know exactly what he meant as there are a number of ways to interpret this. If you want the scientific evidence, shouldn't you be asking scientists, not public servants?

I think what he ment was the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover". Unless your looking for a way not to understand the english language you cant misinterpret this. Unless you need to in order to support a false arguement.

I think what he ment was the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover".

I would prefer to start with what he actually said. 'Not supporting it' could mean any number of things. Taken at face value it is either meaningless, or means that they do not like the idea of fishermen benefitting. It could just mean that they do not need to use it to justify marine parks. On the other hand he could have said something completely different. It is easy to misunderstand someone, especially a public servant that wants it that way.

Have you figured out yet whether the Uni of Canberra 'paper' was a hoax?

freediver wrote on Oct 9^th, 2007 at 12:47pm:

I think what he ment was the MPA does not support the principle of "spillover". Have you figured out yet whether the Uni of Canberra 'paper' was a hoax?

It's also available here for the non-believers (remove the spaces, obviously):

www . recfish . com . au/hot_topics/pdf/Bob%20Kearney%20paper%20Sept%202007.pdf

Thanks for the link.

Is it supposed to have some kind of scientific or academic credibility? It looks to me like a long winded rant that someone attempted to make appear to be a scientific paper - but unfortunately they ahd never read a scientific paper before.

Also, I noticed that article about the animal welfare bill and Andrew Bartlett. I saw senator Bartlett speak on the weekend at a climate change forum. Someone brought up the issue of animal welfare. He indicated support for veganism as a way to reduce emissions, but cautioned people that they must let others choose how to reduce emissions and not force any particular solution on them. He linked it to the issue of politicians like him incurring massive emissions by flying round the country to speak to people about climate change.

Really,

What are your qualifications in fisheries science Freediver? Here are Kearney's:

Professor Bob Kearney has a Phd in Fisheries Science, a Doctor of Science (DSc.) in Fisheries Science and has been made a member of the Order of Australia (AM) for his contribution to Fisheries Research and sustainable fishing.  He has also been a member of the Australian Biodiversity Advisory Committee.  

Prof. Kearney's paper is a critique of the Science that the Marine Parks Authority used to design the Sanctuary zones within NSW Marine Parks.  This is presented on the MPA website.  

Ie it is a scientific review. All the arguments are logical and coherent. It is fully referenced. A 'rant' it is not.

What are your qualifications in fisheries science Freediver?

My case doesn't rest on my own qualifications. I prefer to rest it on the scientific consensus.

Why isn't this paper on the Uni of Canberra website? If he has these qualifications and did in fact write the paper, why was he only able to get it published on a minor political website?

Ie it is a scientific review.

No it isn't. It is a rant. I read a few pages into it and he still hadn't gotten to the point. It looks nothing like a paper written for a scientific audience. It also doesn't really review anything, except the author's opinions.

All the arguments are logical and coherent.

Perhaps you could summarise them then.

BTW, take a closer look at his views. He supports the use of marine parks as fisheries management tools:

http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/cgi-bin/biblio_short.cgi?target=kearney

Baelde, P., Kearney, R. E. and McPhee, D. (2001). A Coordinated commercial fishing industry approach to the use of marine protected areas. Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, 197pp.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=2791

His current research projects include modelling Australia’s fisheries production and consumption to 2050 and beyond, reducing conflict between recreational and commercial fishers, and developing realistic approaches to the use of marine protected areas for conservation and fisheries management purposes.

And in the recfish paper that supposedly opposes the use of marine parks:

Worldwide there has been much debate on MPAs, with an emerging consensus that under the right conditions well designed MPAs can be effective tools for conserving biodiversity and assisting with fisheries management, particularly for relatively sedentary species and stable habitats, such as are often associated with rocky reefs.

Is this really the best ciriticism of marine parks you can come up with?

Internet links break down all the time freediver. It was on the Canberra Uni website for a while. In any case Prof Keaney has put his name to it and his credentials are impeccable. The fact that he is not against marine parks in principle just makes his criticism of the Batemans Bay marine parks all the more daming. It also by inference casts doubt on your own proposals.  

Also science is not about consensus - especially one as weak as being claimed about marine parks. It is about the quality of the hypothesis and how it is supported by natural observations. The greatest scientists in history were we one who smashed the consensus of the day!

Seeing you can't be bothered reading the paper here are some salient points:

On referring to the list of REAL problems associated with near shore Marine environment (pollution, nutrient levels, industrial discharge)  "this pivotal listing of key and direct threats to coastal environments which are reported to have resulted in serious damage to 60% of wetlands... does not include fishing" (Page 3 Para. 1)

"Not a single estuarine or beach fishing activity is identified as being responsible for the identified declines, or even as being a threat" (same page and para)

Page 4 and 5 destroy the MPA justification for "beach sanctuary zones)

"The closure of ocean beaches, as included in the Batemans Marine Park, will have absolutely no demonstrable benefit .. (for) the important species on the ocean beaches in the region" (Page 5 Para 4)

On the Leigh Marine Reserve (NZ) the paper by Babcock is misquoted.  "Thus the Science paper presents an exaggeration by approximately one hundred fold" (Page 8 Para 2).  This is a gross misrepresentation by the MPA of the science.  

"Fisheries data, that has been available since the early 1990s, show that a closure of all areas inside 3 nautical miles of the NSW Copast to all fish trawling would benefit many fisheries, particularly the fish trawling industry itself" (Page 10 Para 2)

"for if there is a greater crime in Science than manufacturing "results", it is doing so and then attributing these "results" to somebody else" (Page 12 Para 3)  This is the most powerful statement in the paper in my opinion.

"As there is merit in the introductory statement on the MPA website that '"Internationally there is support for well designed MPAs"'. The key words here are "well designed" and "protected". (Page 13 Para 5)

Page 14, Para 2 is a highly significant summation

"Why the MPA has been allowed to introduce and then administer measures which are solely fisheries management  when NSW has another body, Department of Primary Industries, with the legislated responsibility for fisheries management, is another matter"

"The documentation relating to the creation of the Batemans Marine Park is perhaps best described as very poorly disguised advocacy marketed to the unsuspecting public as science.  This is a sham.  So much so that only does it discredit the Batemans Marine Park, but calls into question the credibility of the Marine Parks Authority and the justification of all existing and proposed marine parks in New South Wales"  (Page 15 Para 3)

"Not only is it extremely unlikely that there will be any demonstrable benefit to recreational fisheries, certainly not on ocean beaches or in estuaries, but the case for having future beneficial area management will be seriously weakened by the experience of these closures failing to deliver" (Page 16 Para 2)



 

You know on closer inspection, I agree with a lot of those statements. Yet both he and I support the use of marine parks as fisheries management tools. Makes you think, doesn't it?

I just split this thread from the more general one on overfishing. I thought it would be better to have a separate thread for this issue now there is some interest in it.

Yes but the crucial point is well designed MPA's. You can play all the sophist games you want but he has clearly demonstrated that the Batemans Bay marine park is not well designed - and by inference most other MPA's in Australia.

Moved your post into this thread. You must have posted just as I was splitting the topic into two threads.

---

I am not playing sophist games. I have been championing the same idea:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

I don't think your proposal fits into the category of well designed MPA's either Freediver. A lot of Prof. Keaney's comments apply to you proposal. Ie advocacy rather than scientific justification. Exaggerating potential MPA benifits. No assessment which shows that the target fish are actually overfished. No account given to the fact that most target fish are highly migratory (in NSW at least). No evidence that recreation fishing has been responsible for declines. Ignoring of other threatening factors such as pollution and degradation.

Ie advocacy rather than scientific justification.

The statement of scientific consensus is sufficient scientific justification.

Exaggerating potential MPA benifits.

For example?

No assessment which shows that the target fish are actually overfished.

Not necessary.

No account given to the fact that most target fish are highly migratory (in NSW at least).

What are 'the' target fish?

No evidence that recreation fishing has been responsible for declines.

Not necessary. Marine parks are not specific to one part of the fishery.

Ignoring of other threatening factors such as pollution and degradation.

Given that the benefits of marine parks are highly localised, it is hard to take things like pollution and degradation into account in their design, especially when you design them from a fisheries management perspective. Pollution is best managed at the source, not with marine parks.

The statement of scientific consensus is sufficient scientific justification.


Nowhere near sufficent. Many of the scientists who complied the statement and those of the 161 who signed it are fellows of the Pew Charitable Trust, an environmental NGO with an agenda which is bascially anti-fishing. Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each - and connections the fellowships provide. (In addition to these Pew fellowships, the Pew Trusts and the Packard Foundation have spent more than $2 million in grants specifically promoting MPAs since 1998.) A few million dollars can buy quite a lot in the fund starved field of marine science.

Also you assume 'one size fits all' for marine reserves, when really any reserve should stand or fall on its own merits.

Reviewers and very senior fisheries scientists have pointed out that a lot of the published material on MPA's lacks rigour. Many papers have been published in Journals like Science or Nature which should never have passed peer review. A lot of researchers have crossed the line and merely become advocates for MPA's where they don't exist. According to peer review scientist and Professor of fisheries Ray Hilborn critical peer review has been replaced by faith-based support for ideas and too many scientists have become advocates.

Many of the scientists who complied the statement and those of the 161 who signed it are fellows of the Pew Charitable Trust

How many?

Also you assume 'one size fits all' for marine reserves

No I don't. I just don't expect the scientific community to provide the level of detail demanded by the anti marin park mob.

Reviewers and very senior fisheries scientists have pointed out that a lot of the published material on MPA's lacks rigour.

Not to the same extent that the criticisms of marine parks lack rigour. And so what? This sounds like another strawman.

Does Ray Hilborn oppose marine parks?

What are your views on marine parks? Under what conditions would you support them?

[Exaggerating potential MPA benifits.

For example?

Claiming that better fishing will result. Talking of a scientific consensus at to the benifits of MPA's when in fact their benifits compared to other managments methods are nowhere near conclusive/

No assessment which shows that the target fish are actually overfished.

Not necessary.

The lighter the fishing pressure the less any reserve effect will be. Given light fishing pressure then theoverall fishing pressure will be greater when the park is established as it will be crowded into a smaller area. Poorer fishing will result. If there is no problem to start with it will merely divert resources from real problems. It will lose the goodwill of the public and bring will bring science and conservation into disrepute. It ignores the holistic nature of the environment. Every resource you over protect or lock up merely puts pressure on other parts of the environment.

No account given to the fact that most target fish are highly migratory (in NSW at least).

What are 'the' target fish?

Fish of interest commercially and to anglers. All the pelagic fish like salmon, tailor, tunas, marlin, mackeral, dolphin fish etc. Others such as snapper, mulloway, bream, whiting, luderick also undertake migrations. Their larvae is also pelagic floating large distances on currents.

No evidence that recreation fishing has been responsible for declines.

Not necessary. Marine parks are not specific to one part of the fishery.

See above. If there is no problem then you are just promoting over mangement for no benifit.

Ignoring of other threatening factors such as pollution and degradation.

Given that the benefits of marine parks are highly localised, it is hard to take things like pollution and degradation into account in their design, especially when you design them from a fisheries management perspective. Pollution is best managed at the source, not with marine parks.

Kearney's point was that Batemans Bay MPA's 'science' paper outlines that pollution and degradation are a threat and then admit that overfishing is not a problem in the area. But all the park does is find ways to restrict fishing. Doesn't sound like effective management to me.

Claiming that better fishing will result.

That's what the scientific consensus says. It's hardly an exageration.

Talking of a scientific consensus at to the benifits of MPA's when in fact their benifits compared to other managments methods are nowhere near conclusive

You mean like the fact that they don't create selective pressures for slow growing fish? Do you think this is some kind of exception to the theory of natural selection? The benefits over other management techniques are implicit in the statement of consensus. It is obviously not referring to a comparison with no management.

The lighter the fishing pressure the less any reserve effect will be.

Sure, you get less benefit, but you don't get zero benefit. However, given that just about all of our fisheries require some kind of cap on catches, this is a bit of a moot point.

Fish of interest commercially and to anglers. All the pelagic fish like salmon, tailor, tunas, marlin, mackeral, dolphin fish etc. Others such as snapper, mulloway, bream, whiting, luderick also undertake migrations. Their larvae is also pelagic floating large distances on currents.

Are the larvae fished? The fact that a species undertakes migrations does not mean it won't get any protection. Fish like yellowtail kingfish hang around certain areas. Obviously the fish has to move around occasionally to get any spillover.

See above. If there is no problem then you are just promoting over mangement for no benifit

This kind of misses the point. Looking at individual species may have merit, but expecting justification for marine parks based on the impact of one particular user group does not. It's like saying group A only chops down half the forest and group B only chops down half the forest, so nothing needs to be done because they each leave half the forest in tact. If there is a justification for special treatment, you just put in rec fishing only zones and design the no takes zones to create rec only zones by proxy.

Kearney's point was that Batemans Bay MPA's 'science' paper outlines that pollution and degradation are a threat and then admit that overfishing is not a problem in the area.

Would you mind quoting the statements in the 'science' paper that this claim is based on?

But all the park does is find ways to restrict fishing. Doesn't sound like effective management to me.

This supports the fisheries management approach to marine parks. However, marine parks will still make an ecosystem more resilient to other threats. So long as they are not used as an excuse to ignore the other threats, there is no problem with this.

And in the recfish paper that supposedly opposes the use of marine parks:

Worldwide there has been much debate on MPAs, with an emerging consensus that under the right conditions well designed MPAs can be effective tools for conserving biodiversity and assisting with fisheries management, particularly for relatively sedentary species and stable habitats, such as are often associated with rocky reefs.

Is this really the best ciriticism of marine parks you can come up with?  

Nice try freediver, but I think you should have looked at Recfish's position a bit more. Ie such as this statement from them. Also its worth noting in the tiny quote you put up all they say is that they do not opose the general principle of MPAs. If they did then no doubt they would immediately be labelled as extremists by people like you. Also Recfish members are government appointed - not elected representatives of anglers. They recieve many perks such as travel, postions on committees etc. This doesn't leave them inclined to 'rock the boat' as it were.

Policy Statement

Recfish Australias position on marine protected areas is simple unless there is sound biological/ scientific evidence to indicate there is a need to lock out recreational fishing we do not support no take MPAs.

Networks of marine protected areas around Australia are not the only way of preserving our aquatic ecosystems. It is not the panacea for Fisheries Ecological Sustainable Development processes, thus ensuring future generations enjoy what past generations have.

Without sound biological or scientific evidence proving the only way to save something is to lock it up there is no rationale for wholesale MPAs. Management solutions must be broader.

Declines in aquatic life may have nothing to do with activities in the area earmarked for protection. Often the problem lies outside the box drawn on the map. Off-stream pollution, habitat destruction and drainage of wetlands damage ecosystems, inshore & offshore.

The 1995 National Policy on Recreational Fishing called for: greater research; habitat work; and legislation to protect spawning/nurseries areas. NRSMPA is the legislation - all three are needed to achieve ESD in fisheries. We must address the cause not just treat the symptom.

The Jury is undecided on MPA successes due to negative side effects e.g. aggregation of effort exerts pressure in other areas. And paper parks are not the answer we need resources assigned for management, community monitoring, enforcement, etc.

If an MPA is agreed it should not mean all fishing activity is excluded automatically. Recreational fishing behaviour can be modified to achieve outcomes; total exclusion is an absolute last resort.

The biggest mistake is not to consult at the start and throughout. This causes angst and doesnt generate ownership. More effective programs will be achieved with the support of recreational fishers. Support cannot be expected in exchange for total exclusion.

Nice try freediver, but I think you should have looked at Recfish's position a bit more.

I meant the Kearney paper hosted on the recfish site. The position of recfish is inconsequential.

If they did then no doubt they would immediately be labelled as extremists by people like you.

Are you suggesting they are misrepresenting their own views?

Without sound biological or scientific evidence proving the only way to save something is to lock it up there is no rationale for wholesale MPAs.

Now that's just absurd. You could put any management tool in instead of MPAs. There is no rationale for demanding that MPAs only be used if they are the only option. It is meaningless garbage like this that makes the stance of recfish inconsequential.

The Jury is undecided on MPA successes due to negative side effects e.g. aggregation of effort exerts pressure in other areas

I don't think so. The scientific consensus is that there is enough evidence to justify immediate and broad use of no take zones.

If an MPA is agreed it should not mean all fishing activity is excluded automatically.

If you don't exclude all extractive activities, what you have is a resource allocation tool. There is nothing wrong with that, but you need no take zones as well.

Support cannot be expected in exchange for total exclusion.

No one is suggesting total exclusion. Only from some areas. If you are suggesting that fishermen will not accept any no take zones, you are mistaken.

Hey freediver

Isnt it fun that all your mates on the oz politic forum can see what a fool youve been making of yourself on other forums.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good arguement hey?

I especially like how you sugested that Professor KEarney hasnt had much experience writing scientific papers.

Your a Joke!! The guy has over 120 publications to his name in a subject you quite odviously struggle with.

Keep up the effort PJ I like your style ;)

Freediver Please keep up your efforts to make me laugh - from time to time even a king needs a joker to laugh at.

Thanks again.

[I meant the Kearney paper hosted on the recfish site. The position of recfish is inconsequential.

No wonder people say inside every Green is a little dictator. Recfish is the peak body of a major stakeholder - anglers. You can't just dismiss their position as inconsequential.

Are you suggesting they are misrepresenting their own views?

Try to keep up freediver. You just pointed out that the slightly supportive remarks of the general principle of MPA's came from Prof. Kearney not Recfish.

Without sound biological or scientific evidence proving the only way to save something is to lock it up there is no rationale for wholesale MPAs.

Now that's just absurd. You could put any management tool in instead of MPAs. There is no rationale for demanding that MPAs only be used if they are the only option. It is meaningless garbage like this that makes the stance of recfish inconsequential.

Thats the meanlingless garbage that is being rolled out right now. Wholesale MPA's with blanket no take zone of at least 20%. And you support them - just wanted to add MPA's in the areas that have been missed.


[I don't think so. The scientific consensus is that there is enough evidence to justify immediate and broad use of no take zones.

I have covered this before. You are just reciting a mantra.

No one is suggesting total exclusion. Only from some areas. If you are suggesting that fishermen will not accept any no take zones, you are mistaken.

They are refering to the no-take so called sanctuary zones. the 'some areas' are usually half to 3/4 of the spots of value to anglers in the MPA's being declared. They are only accepted in the face of big fines and mandatory criminal convictions.

I especially like how you sugested that Professor KEarney hasnt had much experience writing scientific papers.

Your a Joke!! The guy has over 120 publications to his name in a subject you quite odviously struggle with.


Actually Charlie, freediver even suggested the paper was a hoax. Even though the Professor presented the paper in person at a conference at Canberra Uni!

FD is trying to start a political party based on stealing some of the ill informed 'green' votes so it's no surprise that casting 'nasturtiums' is part and parcel for the course  ;D

Although I will say that I agree with marine parks in some instances, but certainly not in a wholesale approach.

For instance, in WA we have a problem with iconic demersal species being over fished in the metro area. Figures from the commercial catch show such gross exploitation of these species with increasing catch figures over the past 5-10 years above and beyond what is considered the total exploitable catch that the govt has decided to make the whole of the metro area a recreational zone by banning commercial fishers.

This still doesn't fix the problem of ever increasing recreational fishers that Creel surveys show take a similar proportion and I am sure hard measures are going to be coming in the future for rec fishers. I am just glad to see that it is fisheries who are taking the bull by the horns rather than resting on their laurels and letting conservationists dictate the terms of access.

Here's analysis of how the so called scientific consensus on marine parks came about:

It seems that an almost universal groundswell of support has developed spontaneously for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as the solution to problems besetting our oceans and the creatures living in them. It seems as well that much of the focus of the MPA movement is protection from fishing. A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread. The statement, it explained, was the result of a two-and-a-half year effort by an international team of scientists. That effort included a research review and a joint meeting by the NCEAS scientists and other researchers on marine reserves convened by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) in May of 1998. This sounds like the world of science at work the way it's supposed to work, with objective researchers reaching their own conclusions independently, then coming together behind a consensus position. But is it really?
COMPASS is funded by the Packard Foundation and SeaWeb is a COMPASS "partner." The chair of the COMPASS board of scientific experts received a Pew fellowship in 1992 and is also a member of the NCEAS international team of scientists that drafted the consensus statement. Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement. Marine reserves or MPAs were mentioned in the project descriptions, biographies, or bibliographies of 27 of the 58 Pew fellows named since 1996. One might easily conclude that they are strong supporters - if not promoters - of the concept. Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each - and connections the fellowships provide. (In addition to these Pew fellowships, the Pew Trusts and the Packard Foundation have spent more than $2 million in grants specifically promoting MPAs since 1998.)
But the Pew connections don't end there. In January of this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) named the finalists for its MPA Advisory Committee. The 26-member committee includes representatives of a number of organizations funded by Pew and Packard, including:
• Environmental Defense - $3.4 million from Pew and $1.2 million from Packard in the last five years;
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $5.5 million from Pew;
• Center for Marine Conservation - $1.1 million from Pew, $1.6 million from Packard; and
• Conservation International - $400,000 from Packard.
A program officer from the Packard Foundation is also a MPA committee member, along with one commercial and one recreational fishing industry representative.
Groundswell? You bet. Spontaneous? Not hardly. Universal? How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?
   

I especially like how you sugested that Professor KEarney hasnt had much experience writing scientific papers.

The problem was that a transcript of a speech was being passed of as a scientific paper. I should have re-read it, but the link I had wasn't working. I guess it was a lack of experience some had with reading scientific papers. It still strikes me as odd that the transcript was removed from the University website. Perhaps Professor Kearney thought better of it.

You can't just dismiss their position as inconsequential.

I didn't. I gave some examples as to why. As you pointed out, they supposedly represent recreational anglers, yet they are controlled by the government. It looks to me like something that was set up so that the people who could not be pleased no matter what you do still think the government is listening to them.

Try to keep up freediver. You just pointed out that the slightly supportive remarks of the general principle of MPA's came from Prof. Kearney not Recfish.

This is the statement I was responding to:

If they did then no doubt they would immediately be labelled as extremists by people like you.

You appear to have assumed I was referring to the wrong 'they' then criticised me for getting them mixed up. The question still stands, in the exact same formk I originally posed it:

Are you suggesting they are misrepresenting their own views?

Thats the meanlingless garbage that is being rolled out right now. Wholesale MPA's with blanket no take zone of at least 20%.

Actually that isn't meaningless garbage. It's not even close to the vaccuous stuff in recfish's policies. There is a lot of research going on into what % coverage gives the best outcome for fishermen. At the moment it likes like 20-40%.

I have covered this before. You are just reciting a mantra.

It is a scientific consensus. Not a mantra.

the 'some areas' are usually half to 3/4 of the spots of value to anglers in the MPA's being declared

The emerging trend is to lock up 0% of the spots of value to the majority of anglers.

It seems that an almost universal groundswell of support has developed spontaneously

Who wrote that pjb? Of course it would appear spontaneous to someone who wasn't paying attention previously or who can't be bothered looking into the history.

A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread.

Strawman.

Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement.

That still leaves 136 scientists you need to find an excuse to ignore. Are any of the 15 counted in the 25?

How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?

You can't buy off every scientist. Academics are tricky like that. If they wanted lots of money, they wouldn't be academics in the first place. You still have to face up to your peers, such as Professor Kearney (who like those Pew fellows has MPA's mentioned on his bio). Yet even Professor Kearney supports marine parks as fisheries management tools. Is professor Kearney being paid off by Pew as well?

---

Perhaps it's time for this argument to get a bit less vague. Who here is completely opposed to marine parks? Those who aren't, how about instead of criticising the work of other scientists and fisheries managers, you come up with a better suggestion.

A better suggestion would be relatively narrow 'corridors' as NTZ's that stretch out to to the 200nm limit which would encompass all aspects of the biodiversity within the system. After all, isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise?

This wouldn't have the exclusionary impact that seems to happen to users of specific geographical area (rather than just picking and choosing and subsequently locking fishermen out of the most productive reef)

The problem was that a transcript of a speech was being passed of as a scientific paper. I should have re-read it, but the link I had wasn't working. I guess it was a lack of experience some had with reading scientific papers. It still strikes me as odd that the transcript was removed from the University website. Perhaps Professor Kearney thought better of it.

Now you really clutching at straws. Scientific papers are presented at conferences all the time. The paper has been widely circulated. Kearney even sent a copy to the Premier.

You can't just dismiss their position as inconsequential.

I didn't. I gave some examples as to why. As you pointed out, they supposedly represent recreational anglers, yet they are controlled by the government. It looks to me like something that was set up so that the people who could not be pleased no matter what you do still think the government is listening to them.

They were your words freediver. Yes RECFISH are government appointed as are state bodies like the ACoF. Not suprisingly they are disinclind to rock the boat. They have been criticised by anglers as being too acquiencent of marine parks. Some less than kind descriptions of them include "government lap dogs", "Labor's fun parlour" and a "cliquey club".

Try to keep up freediver. You just pointed out that the slightly supportive remarks of the general principle of MPA's came from Prof. Kearney not Recfish.

This is the statement I was responding to:

Are you suggesting they are misrepresenting their own views?

I can't read their minds freediver - I can only go by their statements and actions.

Thats the meanlingless garbage that is being rolled out right now. Wholesale MPA's with blanket no take zone of at least 20%.

Actually that isn't meaningless garbage. It's not even close to the vaccuous stuff in recfish's policies. There is a lot of research going on into what % coverage gives the best outcome for fishermen. At the moment it likes like 20-40%.

I have covered this before. You are just reciting a mantra.

It is a scientific consensus. Not a mantra.

No its a mantra. The idea of a scientific consensus on the subject is a con. Its an appeal to authority tactic beloved by Green activists.  

the 'some areas' are usually half to 3/4 of the spots of value to anglers in the MPA's being declared

The emerging trend is to lock up 0% of the spots of value to the majority of anglers.

Yes but you don't want to remove any of the existing zoning do you. Why is that? The 0% of the spots of value to the majority of anglers you refer to are the landbased easily accessed spots favoured by casual fisherment. These spots are not generally very productive. Also not everyone wants to fish off wharves with schoolkids and pensioners!

[A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread.

Strawman.

No the so called consensus statement is at the core of your case - you talk about it all the time.

Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement.

That still leaves 136 scientists you need to find an excuse to ignore. Are any of the 15 counted in the 25?

Yes and thousands didn't sign it at all.

You can't buy off every scientist. Academics are tricky like that. If they wanted lots of money, they wouldn't be academics in the first place. You still have to face up to your peers, such as Professor Kearney (who like those Pew fellows has MPA's mentioned on his bio). Yet even Professor Kearney supports marine parks as fisheries management tools. Is professor Kearney being paid off by Pew as well?

Your just trying to cloud the issue by simplifying it in to pro marine park/ anti marine park. In your desperation you have called Kearney's paper a hoax a joke and not scientific and then you say he is pro marine park anyway! From his paper you can see that he does not support blanket closures or marine parks as a cure all fisheries mamagment tool.

---

Perhaps it's time for this argument to get a bit less vague. Who here is completely opposed to marine parks? Those who aren't, how about instead of criticising the work of other scientists and fisheries managers, you come up with a better suggestion.[/quote]

No doubt we need area managment, though this is not the same as marine parks. Eg rec havens near capital cities and in sensitve environments like coastal lakes and estuaries. These reduce conflict between pro and rec sectors, provide enhanced rec fishing and are a boost for the environment. Area ban on trawling should be made in regions where there are a lot of juvenile fish and to protect delicate habitats. Also a ban around river mouths during times of high discharge.

The effects of angling on fish stock are fairly dilute. It is best managed by bag, size, gear and possesion limits. If some areas are  vulnerable then tighter limits for such areas might be a good idea rather than one size fits all. If some stocks are of particularly of concern or are vulnerable during a breeding season then a closed season would be more acceptable.

Scientific papers are presented at conferences all the time. The paper has been widely circulated.

PJ, the scientific papers presented at conferences are one thing, the speech is another. They are not the same thing. The transcript is not a 'scientific paper'.

I can't read their minds freediver - I can only go by their statements and actions.

It sounded like you were suggesting they are misrepresenting their own views. I only bring this up because it sounds like an excuse for not accepting the obvious - that they disagree with you.

The idea of a scientific consensus on the subject is a con. Its an appeal to authority tactic beloved by Green activists.

Sometimes an appeal to authority has merit.

Yes but you don't want to remove any of the existing zoning do you. Why is that?

I am happy to remove the existing zoning and replace it with something more appropriate. The example I gave for Port Stephens does this:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-park-examples.html

These spots are not generally very productive. Also not everyone wants to fish off wharves with schoolkids and pensioners!

Unfortunately many do not have a choice. Putting a green zone around them will make them more productive. Also, boat fishermen will never be forced to fish from the shore. It's just about getting them a little bit further away from the easily accessible shore based spots.

No the so called consensus statement is at the core of your case - you talk about it all the time.

No idea what you are talking about. Maybe this will help:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

Yes and thousands didn't sign it at all.

True, but they didn't contradict it either. That statement of consensus is a pretty big call. It's like standing up in a crowded, rowdy bar and saying you could beat anyone there in a fight. If no-one disagrees with you, it's probably true.

Your just trying to cloud the issue by simplifying it in to pro marine park/ anti marine park.

Actually no. I'm trying to get people to be more specific about what they would and would not support. Hence my request for 'better suggestions.' From your suggestion it sounds like you are completely opposed to permanent no take zones. You suggest other management tools are better, even though they have clear and significant flaws that no take zones correct.

From his paper you can see that he does not support blanket closures or marine parks as a cure all fisheries mamagment tool.

I wouldn't put it that way either.

A better suggestion would be relatively narrow 'corridors' as NTZ's that stretch out to to the 200nm limit which would encompass all aspects of the biodiversity within the system. After all, isn't that the whole purpose of the exercise?

This is a good starting point. Would you want to ban shore based fishing and enclosed waters as part of this? Also, as you go further out, the fish you target tend to move much further. So the appropriate spacing for marine parks close to shore would be smaller than the ones 200 miles out. It's the same with fishermen - one who travels 200 miles out is far more capable of getting around a large park than the one in a small tinnie - even worse if he can't get offshore at all. He can also do it with far less impact on his fuel consumption.

True, but they didn't contradict it either. That statement of consensus is a pretty big call. It's like standing up in a crowded, rowdy bar and saying you could beat anyone there in a fight. If no-one disagrees with you, it's probably true.

Plenty are contradicting it, or at least the way it is being bandied around! Ray Hillborn, Bob Kearney, Walter Starck, the Burdens of Proof paper, Julian Peperell to name just a few.

Bob Kearney did not contradict it. Neither did the Burdens of Proof paper. You are confusing disagreement on the 'cutting edge' of science with disagreement on the fundamentals. This confusion has been skillfully promoted by the anti marie park movement.

I said including the way it is being bandied around, ie  to justify every half-baked, uneccessary and unscientific marine park in Australia.

Also you just said you wanted to be less vague. If you make it general enough its almost impoosible for anyone to be against marine parks in principle. Its the specifics I and a lot of others have a problem with.

I said including the way it is being bandied around

Well that's a strawman isn't it. Or at least a moot point. Note that the consensus does call for their immediate and broad use.

If you make it general enough its almost impoosible for anyone to be against marine parks in principle.

I often come across people who say they are not opposed on principle. yet it is almost impossible to get them to support any proposal or make one themselves.

I put up my proposals for area management freediver and you ignored them. Anything else you don't like hearing if you don't ignore you reply 'strawman'.

You seem to have deliberately misinterpretted the question. The consensus calls for the use of no take zones. Rec only zones and temporary closures are not the same thing and do not achieve the same outcome. You couched your complete opposition to no take zones as a 'better suggestion.' It was just another excuse.

Also, I did not ignore you. Rather, you ignored my response. I'll repeat it for you:

You suggest other management tools are better, even though they have clear and significant flaws that no take zones correct.

No my suggestions achieve a better outcome. They are a form of area managment just like marine parks but they protect the fishery without the negative socio-economic effects of total lockouts. They are better accepted by communities so compliance is higher. Being targeted and evidence based they have more positive effects on fish stocks for less community hardship.

They are a good idea, but they are not an alternative to no take zones because they don't do the same thing. No take zones do not have 'negative socio economic consequences' if done well. This is just a furphy made up by the anti marine park movement after realising they are unable to get decent scientific criticism of the idea or to show it reduced catches.

It's like saying we should have speed limits instead of seat belts. Both are a good idea, but to suggest that one is an alternative to the other is just silly.

pjb05 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2007 at 9:39am:

Also Recfish members are government appointed.

No they are not!  The membership criteria of Recfish is in their Constitution:


Quote:

5 MEMBERSHIP a) The members of the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc. shall be: (i) one State or Territory body from each State or Territory; (ii) any national recreational fishing organisation; (iii) any industry supplier or any other organisation satisfying the requirements of Full or Associate Member; (iv) any company, corporation, unincorporated body or individual admitted by the Executive as an Affiliate pursuant to Clause 2(f). b) All applications for membership shall be in writing on the prescribed form accompanied by the required information and admission to membership shall be decided by a majority of not less than seventy-five per cent of the voting delegates present at a general meeting.

Quote:

k) The Chief Executive Officer shall be a paid person appointed by and responsible to the Board for management of activities in the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Confederation Inc. business plan or other duties as defined in their contract of employment;

Quote:

9 DELEGATES AND VOTING a) Each Full Member and Associate Member will appoint, annually in writing, two delegates to represent it on the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc. b) Each Full Member delegate is entitled to one vote at general meetings.

Thanks for clearing that up.

But the operative phrase is "if done well". The Earsnt and Young socio-economic report predicts a halving in the number of visits from anglers in the NSW coastal towns which host marine parks. The federal government is paying 200m dollars to shore based businesses in compensation for the effects of the GBRMP (still heading northwards). Claims of positive economic effects from marine park lobbies have been shown to be a gross misrepresentation.  

The Earsnt and Young socio-economic report predicts a halving in the number of visits from anglers in the NSW coastal towns which host marine parks.

Could you provide a link or reference please? What did it assume? I've actually travelled to a NSW coastal town to check out the spearing beside a marine park.

The federal government is paying 200m dollars to shore based businesses in compensation for the effects of the GBRMP (still heading northwards).

How much has actually been paid out? As far as I can tell, they put the money aside to reassure people, but that doesn't mean they were expecting to hand it out.

Claims of positive economic effects from marine park lobbies have been shown to be a gross misrepresentation.

What claims? I haven't seen any such claims. It's the anti marine park lobby that uses this scare tactic. The pro marine park lobby has the advantage of being able to focus on the more direct and measurable effects.

RecFisher wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:53am:

pjb05 wrote on Oct 12th, 2007 at 9:39am: Also Recfish members are government appointed. No they are not!  The membership criteria of Recfish is in their Constitution: Quote: 5 MEMBERSHIP a) The members of the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc. shall be: (i) one State or Territory body from each State or Territory; (ii) any national recreational fishing organisation; (iii) any industry supplier or any other organisation satisfying the requirements of Full or Associate Member; (iv) any company, corporation, unincorporated body or individual admitted by the Executive as an Affiliate pursuant to Clause 2(f). b) All applications for membership shall be in writing on the prescribed form accompanied by the required information and admission to membership shall be decided by a majority of not less than seventy-five per cent of the voting delegates present at a general meeting. [quote]k) The Chief Executive Officer shall be a paid person appointed by and responsible to the Board for management of activities in the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Confederation Inc. business plan or other duties as defined in their contract of employment;

Quote:

9 DELEGATES AND VOTING a) Each Full Member and Associate Member will appoint, annually in writing, two delegates to represent it on the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc. b) Each Full Member delegate is entitled to one vote at general meetings.

[/quote]

Still not a democratic representative body for anglers. The head of Recfish is appointed by the minister, so I was told. They are also government funded.   Many angling and industry groups want nothing to do with the body.  

Would you mind posting that here?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192410766/0

[quote author=freediver link=1187314210/60#71 date=1192410379]The Earsnt and Young socio-economic report predicts a halving in the number of visits from anglers in the NSW coastal towns which host marine parks.

Could you provide a link or reference please? What did it assume? I've actually travelled to a NSW coastal town to check out the spearing beside a marine park.

I'll put up a link when I get time. Its on Walter Starcks Golden Dolphin website.

The federal government is paying 200m dollars to shore based businesses in compensation for the effects of the GBRMP (still heading northwards).

How much has actually been paid out? As far as I can tell, they put the money aside to reassure people, but that doesn't mean they were expecting to hand it out.

200m is what has been paid out to date. The GBRMPA said only 3 or 4 million would be needed when the 33% green zones were proposed!

Claims of positive economic effects from marine park lobbies have been shown to be a gross misrepresentation.

What claims? I haven't seen any such claims. It's the anti marine park lobby that uses this scare tactic. The pro marine park lobby has the advantage of being able to focus on the more direct and measurable effects.

They contibuted a 20% increase in business in Coffs Harbour to the marine park. They implied this was over a year when in fact it was over 5 years. A 4% p.a. growth is hardly startling and given it is a popular sea change destination so it is misleading to attribute this to the park. They quoted overwhelming positive responses from businesses even though on 15 actually responded positively. The green zones at this stage were only around 12% of the a park and in areas not overly popular with anglers.

pjb05 wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:10am:

Still not a democratic representative body for anglers. The head of Recfish is appointed by the minister, so I was told. They are also government funded.   Many angling and industry groups want nothing to do with the body.

So what's your alternative for a National representative body?  

I think ACoRF and the set-up in NSW needs sorting out first.  Trouble is, there's too many different groups fighting each other and bad mouting each other for anything useful to happen.  And we wonder why the greenies get their way on Marine Parks!  Rec anglers couldn't organise a root in a brothel.

Recfish: http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192410766/0

freediver wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:13am:

Would you mind posting that here? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192410766/0

It's directly relevant to this topic, clearing up inaccuracies in people's claims.  I thought you'd appreciate that concept.

I think it's a bit more important than just a tangent to the marine park debate, but if you want to see it that way fine.

Agreed.  I'd like to hear people's opinions on it.  People complain that they aren't represented, then complain about the groups representing them, then complain about trying to raise money to represent them.  It's no wonder rec is in the state it is in.

Happy to have a separate debate as well.

from pjb:

Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each

Bob kearney manages over $20million in research grants.

Is this the same Bob Kearney who you said couldnt write a scientific paper?

Intersting that hes got that amount of money.

Furthermore you will put Bobs comments up about consensus but not about how poorly he described the planning and implementation of your precious marine park?

Just another example to other fourm members that you pick and choose you google searches to suit yourself even if the source ultimatley disagrees with you. Where is your link to his scathing attack on the imlementation to the SOuth Coast Marine Park.

You dont have the guts to do this because your are corrupted with biased opinions yet no real education on the subject......I know Iknow you dont need this because You believe (woopdy do) in the consensus.

Is this the same Bob Kearney who you said couldnt write a scientific paper?

I didn't say that.

Furthermore you will put Bobs comments up about consensus but not about how poorly he described the planning and implementation of your precious marine park?

I don't own any parks.

Forum memebers these are types of response freediver puts up when hes been nailed with facts hes feable littlebrain cant handle.

Isnt this fun. :D

Here's a letter from another senior fisheries biologist. Lets see how freediver attempts to discredit him! Richard Tilzey is a recently retired fisheries scientist with Bureau of Resource Sciences (Commonwealth).

This letter, published in Narooma News "Letters to the Editor" October 10, 2007.

"Marine Park a Mess"

Dr Fleming’s article in last week’s Narooma Times is another example of NSW government bureaucratic spin-doctoring. As a correspondent who earlier commented on the lack of scientific rationale with the site selection and creation of the Batemans Marine Park (BMP), Professor Kearney’s scathing and informed criticism of the NSW government’s marine park program came as no surprise to me. Let’s cut to the core of the debate and not nibble around the edges of scientific rationale. From the start of the NSW marine park process, politics have driven the agenda and common sense has been left behind. Earlier deals between Carr’s Labour Government and the Green Party for preference votes have created a marine park juggernaut that rolls on regardless of mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness, inequality and adverse socio-economic impacts. The current government, if you can call it that, chooses to ignore these issues.

Professor Kearney highlighted the fact that fishing activity was unfairly targeted as the major threat to marine habitat and other, more detrimental, environmental threats were ignored during the site selection process. This illogic still persists. Fishers are the ‘evil ones’ despite no corroborating evidence, other than bottom trawling is a habitat damaging and non-selective fishing method. A well researched fact. The only merit with the BMP is that it has banned trawling within its boundaries. It should also be noted that the initial zoning for the BMP permitted trawling over much of its area, illustrating the lack of logic in the park’s conception and planning. From a fish conservation viewpoint, the other no-fishing ‘sanctuary zones’ are a joke. They represent a 20% spatial grab-bag to placate the ‘greens’ and will do little, if anything, to conserve fish stocks.

This political agenda has disadvantaged local residents, be they fishers or traders, and will continue to do so unless the lack of common sense in the BMP zoning is driven home to the bureaucrats and politicians responsible for creating the mess. If we don’t do this, worse may come. For example, there is an ongoing push by the NSW Nature Conservation Council to ban baited line fishing within a one kilometre zone around Montague Island because of the so-called endangered status of the eastern grey nurse shark population. As a fisheries scientist, it behoves me to say that the current (low) population estimate of grey nurse off eastern Australia is based on a very dodgy study full of assumptions. There is no hard evidence that such a closure would improve the grey nurse shark population. Recreational fishing is an important component of the south coast tourism industry and these no-take zones are having, and will continue to have, an adverse impact on tourism revenue. They also severely disadvantage local fishers adjacent to them.

As a final point to illustrate the absence of scientific logic, the political wheeling and dealings behind the BMP zonings and the horse-trading and collusion between the government departments responsible for this morass; How come Narooma fishers have lost about 20% of Wagonga to no-take zones whereas Tuross Lakes remain untouched? This is purely because the latter is a NSW DPI designated ‘Recreational Fishing Haven’. Minister McDonald must have stuck it up Debus on that particular night. Ministers Koperburg and McDonald, please try and sort this mess out.

Richard Tilzey

Professor Kearney highlighted the fact that fishing activity was unfairly targeted as the major threat to marine habitat and other, more detrimental, environmental threats were ignored during the site selection process.

That's just absurd. Of course fishing is going to be targetted in marine park decisions. Marine parks are a fisheries management tool. Does he expect them to solve global warming as well?

Do any of these people with specific criticisms of Batemens have their own alternative proposals, or do they just criticise what others have come up with?

Marine parks are a fisheries management tool.

A tool that has yet to have it's use justified

From the NCEAS consensus: Existing scientific information justifies the immediate application of fully protected marine reserves as a central management tool.

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 11:19am:

Marine parks are a fisheries management tool.

Funny, the former NSW Environment Minister and indeed the MPA itself were adament that Marine Parks were for "protecting biodiversity", not for fisheries management.  Are you confusing MArine Parks with No Take Zones?


freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 11:19am:

Does he expect them to solve global warming as well?

No, but the NPA, NCC and Wilderness Society think Marine Parks will help marine ecosystems "to better cope with climate change".  I'd like to see their research on that.


freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 11:19am:

Do any of these people with specific criticisms of Batemens have their own alternative proposals, or do they just criticise what others have come up with?

Like Kearney and Tilzey, I just want no take zones based on relevant, local science, with each zone justified in terms of specific risks/threats being identified.  Any reasonable recreational angler would support such zonings.  There is little support for the current zonings based on the process used to set them up.

Funny, the former NSW Environment Minister and indeed the MPA itself were adament that Marine Parks were for "protecting biodiversity", not for fisheries management.  Are you confusing MArine Parks with No Take Zones?

It applies to both. They both manage fishing effort, and pretty much nothing else. Biodiversity protection is secondary and occurs through fisheries management.

No, but the NPA, NCC and Wilderness Society think Marine Parks will help marine ecosystems "to better cope with climate change".

This is actually true, but again it's only a secondary effect.

with each zone justified in terms of specific risks/threats being identified

Never going to happen, except as a dodgy way to fob people off. For starters, as Kearney pointed out species specific conservation is not the way to go.

Concensus ≠ justification

Consensus = opinion

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 11:49am:

with each zone justified in terms of specific risks/threats being identified Never going to happen, except as a dodgy way to fob people off. For starters, as Kearney pointed out species specific conservation is not the way to go.

Then they can't be justified at all in my opinion.  If you can't cay exactly what each no take zone is there to protect and exactly what you are protecting it from, then they are a sham and the whole argument for them falls in a heap.

Finish this one IQ: Scientific Consensus = ?

If you can't cay exactly what each no take zone is there to protect and exactly what you are protecting it from, then they are a sham and the whole argument for them falls in a heap.

Not really. What the scientific consensus effectively says is that marine parks are justified regardless of how you choose specific sites. In other words, site selection is fairly arbitrary. It is the combined properties of the entire network of NTZ's that matter, but there is an infinite number of ways to satisfy bthose requirements with various sites. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't put some thought into site selection, just that the scientific community cannot yet offer a lot of guidance. That's the point of my marine park article and the examples given. There are a lot of very reasonable ways to select no take zones that don't need scientific input, but which will satisfy the requirements of the scientific community.

The GBRMPA handed over site selection to scientists. Not because the scientists had sound reasons for choosing particular sites, but because the decision was too complex and the scientists had the tools to deal with the complexity and arbitrariness. Plus the bureaucrats had to keep the detailed decisions at arms length. What the scientists had to do was come up with reasonable measures on which to judge a network of marine parks (not individual NTZ's - it was how they combined that mattered), then put a few random 'first guesses' into a computer, let the computer manipulate it using the measures given to select the best outcomes. Then they handed a few different options (each one being a complete zoning scheme) to the bureaucrats and let them choose.

Scientific Consensus = still an opinion

seeing as we are playing word games, how about this?

Scientific Consensus = informed opinion

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 2:17pm:

seeing as we are playing word games, how about this? Scientific Consensus = informed opinion

Ill formed or informed, it is an opinion nonetheless and quite meaningless

Should we flip a coin instead?

Heads

The reason for calling into question the consensus is that you use it like the circular reasoning of bible scholars to prove that Moses parted the sea.

Just because someone 'said' no matter how informed they are, does not necessarily make it so.

How about heads I win, tails you lose?

freediver wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 2:37pm:

How about heads I win, tails you lose?

That's your mantra on here, glad you have confirmed it.

IQ how is their reasoning circular? That would involve claiming that the parting of the sea somehow validates the Bible. I've never heard that argument.

Just because someone 'said' no matter how informed they are, does not necessarily make it so.

In this case, it does make it the best available advice. What else is there to go by?

IQ how is their reasoning circular?

I never said their reasoning was circular

In this case, it does make it the best available advice.

Sometimes the best available advice isn't really good enough to warrant the measures currently adopted

I never said their reasoning was circular

Yes you did: "like the circular reasoning of bible scholars"

Sometimes the best available advice isn't really good enough to warrant the measures currently adopted

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by "the measures currently adopted"? The best available advice is that marine parks are justified. Not only is it the best available advice, it is based on a scientific consensus. There are few management decisions that are as easy as that one.

I'll spell it out for you

Your reasoning is circular as you justify your stance by always coming full circle back to the consensus. A consensus IMO does not deserve the weight given to it.

By the measures currently adopted, I am referring to the current process under taken to set up marine parks or specifically NTZ where there is no quantifiable threat

Your reasoning is circular as you justify your stance by always coming full circle back to the consensus.

No I don't. My stance goes way beyond what is covered by the consensus and I explain the reasoning for it here.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

Furthermore basing a stance on a scientific consensus would only be circular reasoning if the consensus was based on your stance.

I am referring to the current process under taken

Oh. I thought when you said "the measures currently adopted" you were referring to the results, not the process. Obviously science is not going to justify the political process to make decisions that are arbitrary from a scientific perspective.

where there is no quantifiable threat

What would satisfy you as a quantifiable threat? Would you expect a head count of the number of fish or something? Fisheries management is characterised by the difficulty in quantifying threats, but you have to make do with the information you have. There's no point sticking your head in the sand and refusing to do anything until the outcomes are 100% certain. All that would give is 100% certainty of failure.

Michael Crichton a scientist and famous author. Here is what he says about scientific consensus:

“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

Consensus is the business of politics.

Requoted for the audacity of MPA proponents


Just to clarify, I have no issue with creation of MPA's/ NTZ for tackling specified threats to biodiversity.

Love your work, pjb  ;) ;D


IQSRLOW wrote on Oct 19^th, 2007 at 11:40pm:

Just to clarify, I have no issue with creation of MPA's/ NTZ for tackling specified threats to biodiversity.

Me either, if they are put in place to mitigate a specified threat, designed with proper consultation of all interested parties and have measurable outcomes by which their sucess (or otherwise) can be judged.