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



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.

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


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

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.

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)



 

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.

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

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.