[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.

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.

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 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!

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?
    

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)

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.