Here are some examples of how the principles outlined in the article on marine parks as a fisheries management tool would apply in practice. As shown in the legend below, a thick green line indicates the No Take Zone (NTZ) boundary, with a thin green line showing which side is the NTZ. The red line along the shore indicates where shore based fishing is allowed.

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

Please limit this thread to comments on the suggestions and making new suggestions. There is a lot of general discussion of marine parks here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187314210

What a load of rubbish.


Taken from this absurb link:

"In addition to maximising the spillover benefit, they also deliver the resource to those who value it most - fishermen who don't normally catch much."

What a load of rubbish. Are you that uneducated on the subject that you think these options are truely viable.

SO what happends to your shore based fishing zone when all the available pressure is placed on these areas and there are no more fish left?

You need to go to university and learn some facts about aquatic resource managment.

SO what happends to your shore based fishing zone when all the available pressure is placed on these areas and there are no more fish left?

You seem to have misunderstood the suggestion. It is not about limiting people to shore based fishing. It is about the placement of the no take zones, which will only cover a fraction of the area available to boat based fishermen.

You seem to misundestand the concept of fishing pressure.

Becasue your a little slow ill tell you. Increase fishing pressure in one spot by restricting activity in another = overall increase in activity in a concentrated area.

Intersting that you actually endorse more fishing in an area that is essentially a nursery ground for most marine species. Furthermore these shore based spots are adjacent to heavily urbanised area probably already impacting the local fish and invertabret populations through pollution, runof and litter. All your zoning has done is place more pressure on these populations and habitats.

Freediver I strongly suggst a marine science course to assist your decision making process. It is quite odvious you need help.

Intersting that you actually endorse more fishing in an area that is essentially a nursery ground for most marine species.

No I don't.

All your zoning has done is place more pressure on these populations and habitats.

That's not 'all.'

Is that the best response you can make!!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


Ill give you another chance your forum buddies are thinking you cant defend your stupifying website.

More shore based fishing spots being opened up:

http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/recreational-fishers-win-right-to-take-from-protected-green-zones-the-marine-equivalent-of-a-national-park/story-fnii5v6w-1226842576341

Premier Campbell Newman said he wanted to rezone 100m at Scotts Point to allow recreational fishing. It would become a special management area.

Mr Dickson has also called on fishermen to identify other green zones that they would like to fish.

“If there’s an area near you with good public access to the shoreline, where recreational fishing would have minimal impact on the environment, I urge you to tell your local MP,” he said.

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2014 at 2:41pm:

More shore based fishing spots being opened up: http://www.news.com.au/national/queensland/recreational-fishers-win-right-to-take-from-protected-green-zones-the-marine-equivalent-of-a-national-park/story-fnii5v6w-1226842576341 Premier Campbell Newman said he wanted to rezone 100m at Scotts Point to allow recreational fishing. It would become a special management area. Mr Dickson has also called on fishermen to identify other green zones that they would like to fish. “If there’s an area near you with good public access to the shoreline, where recreational fishing would have minimal impact on the environment, I urge you to tell your local MP,” he said.

A bit ironic FD, seeing that the marine park bandwagon (ie people like you), got these spots banned in the first place.

Actually I have helped to prevent this sort of thing happening and have seen draft zoning plans altered to accommodate the interests of fishermen, after I sent in a specific written request for this to happen and encouraged others to do so.

It is getting a bit absurd when you feel compelled to blame me for something I have been campaigning against.

freediver wrote on Mar 5^th, 2014 at 9:31pm:

Actually I have helped to prevent this sort of thing happening and have seen draft zoning plans altered to accommodate the interests of fishermen, after I sent in a specific written request for this to happen and encouraged others to do so. It is getting a bit absurd when you feel compelled to blame me for something I have been campaigning against.

You have been campaigning for marine parks so you have been encouraging this sort of thing to happen.

Yes, you have been playing one group of fishermen against another with your zoning examples. For some reason if you are sufficiently motivated (or don't like crowds or have limited mobility) to invest in a boat, then your rights to fish are limited.

Quote:

You have been campaigning for marine parks so you have been encouraging this sort of thing to happen.

LOL. Impeccable logic, as always. I have been encouraging the very thing I was campaigning against.


Quote:

Yes, you have been playing one group of fishermen against another with your zoning examples. For some reason if you are sufficiently motivated (or don't like crowds or have limited mobility) to invest in a boat, then your rights to fish are limited.

No they are not. They are identical.

9712]
Quote:

You have been campaigning for marine parks so you have been encouraging this sort of thing to happen.

LOL. Impeccable logic, as always. I have been encouraging the very thing I was campaigning against.

Nothing wrong with my logic - if there was no proliferation of marine parks (which is what you want)there wouldn't be a problem with anglers losing their favourite spots - duh! Typical lefty-green projection on your part.


Quote:

Yes, you have been playing one group of fishermen against another with your zoning examples. For some reason if you are sufficiently motivated (or don't like crowds or have limited mobility) to invest in a boat, then your rights to fish are limited.

No they are not. They are identical.[/quote]

Then how do you explain all the NTZ's adjacent to the shore based spots in your zonings?

I don't need to explain anything. People's rights are identical, regardless of zone placement.

freediver wrote on Mar 8^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

I don't need to explain anything. People's rights are identical, regardless of zone placement.

Your whole policy was to favour shore based fishermen at the expense of boat fishermen - what have I missed?

You missed a lot of things. The meaning of "rights", for starters. You also seem completely confused about what I have actually been promoting, despite (oddly) also being familiar with the details. Either that, or you are not familiar with the concept of causality.

You missed a lot of things. The meaning of "rights", for starters.

Do you have the right to fish in a NTZ (hint: it stands for no take zone)?

You also seem completely confused about what I have actually been promoting,

Uhm, marine parks as the ideal fisheries management tool?

despite (oddly) also being familiar with the details.

The devil is in the detail, FD!

Either that, or you are not familiar with the concept of causality.

Well, make up your mind. Yes, it is probably true that your misguided ramblings have not actually caused anything to happen, but that is not my point.

Quote:

Do you have the right to fish in a NTZ (hint: it stands for no take zone)?

No. Neither does anyone else. Hence, my rights are the same as every other fisherman.


Quote:

Well, make up your mind. Yes, it is probably true that your misguided ramblings have not actually caused anything to happen, but that is not my point.

I know. Your "point" is that I have either caused, or at least promoted, the very thing that I have been campaigning against.

And apparently that two groups of people with identical rights have different rights.

[]
Quote:

Do you have the right to fish in a NTZ (hint: it stands for no take zone)?

No. Neither does anyone else. Hence, my rights are the same as every other fisherman.

No, in your plan shore based fishermen are not affected by NTZ, only boat fishermen are. How can you be so obtuse?


Quote:

Well, make up your mind. Yes, it is probably true that your misguided ramblings have not actually caused anything to happen, but that is not my point.

I know. Your "point" is that I have either caused, or at least promoted, the very thing that I have been campaigning against.

Unbelievable obtuse again. You have been promoting the concept of marine parks. And I have never seen any that don't take away spots of value to anglers (yes your examples included).

And apparently that two groups of people with identical rights have different rights.[/quote]

See my first point (are you really that thick)?

Quote:

No, in your plan shore based fishermen are not affected by NTZ, only boat fishermen are. How can you be so obtuse?

I am simply pointing out your error. Shifting the goal posts does not make me obtuse. It just makes you shifty.


Quote:

And I have never seen any that don't take away spots of value to anglers (yes your examples included).

Shifting the goal posts again eh?

8]
Quote:

No, in your plan shore based fishermen are not affected by NTZ, only boat fishermen are. How can you be so obtuse?

I am simply pointing out your error. Shifting the goal posts does not make me obtuse. It just makes you shifty.

No, I am merely elaborating the same point.


Quote:

And I have never seen any that don't take away spots of value to anglers (yes your examples included).

Shifting the goal posts again eh?

No just pointing out what should be obvious. Do you have an intention of saying anything sensible on this thread?