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

yes

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.

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.

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.

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

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?