tallowood wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 9:17am:



What's that got to do with it? It was your (unrealisic) measure of overfishing.

PS, with your use of silly semantics I supect you are FD posting under a different name.

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 1:49pm:


Do you realise youa re actually contradicting the earlier statement?

What earlier statement? It's happening already. Almost every NSW marine Park has a minimum 20% no fishing zones. The proposal is for 20% NTZ's (sometimes 30% depending which of these fringe dwellers you listen to).

Quote:


How is that fraud?

Impling we will get the same benifits here. No weight given to the level of local fishing pressure, or the migratory habits of the common species. No distinction between different types of fishing esp rec vs commercial.

Quote:


Actually it's much ahrder to manage that way, and you end up catching fewer fish.

More magical thinking. The spillover from a marine park will never make up for the lost grounds. The most logical conclusion is that marine parks will result in poorer fishing. More so if current traditional methods are working.  PS, are you now saying the object of fisheries management is to catch the maximum amount of fish?

Quote:


Now who's getting paranoid? Why is it so hard toa ccept that fishermen support marine parks?

They don't. There are already howls of protest regarding one for Sydney. They only got as far as they have in NSW because they are in regional areas which host coalition seats and therefore have caused minimal electoral damage to the government. I don't think the people lumbered with large fines/ criminal convictions for understandable navigation mistakes are too thrilled with then either.

What earlier statement? [/quote]

Are you trying to make this tedious?

pjb05 wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 7:34am:


Do you see the contradiction, or do you want me to point it out for you?

Why don't you?

Quote:


That is not fraud.

To cherry pick results them apply them to another fishery and apply them to recreational fishing is scientific fraud.

Quote:


Not according to the scientific consensus.

The consensus statement is more a political manifesto than a work of science. Serious reviews such as 'Burdens of Proof' put your magical thinking into doubt.  

Quote:


Wrong. Logic dictates that it would depend on spillover, which makes it an issue of evidence, and the evidence is firnly in favour of marine parks. There are not 'degrees of logic'. It is nonsensical to claim something is 'most logical'.

OK then; most demonstated by the evidence (I thought it's logical to look at evidence than blindly parrot consensus statements). PS where is the evidence of success of NSW marine parks, bearing in mind that some have been in place for 15 years?

Quote:


What do you mean 'now'? That's pretty much what I have been saying all along - maximum sustainable catch. You just don't seem to pay much attention to what is actually said. [/quote]

Well I thought that marine parks are suppost to provide a buffer against overfishing. Doesn't that imply fishing at less than the maximum sustainable yeild? Also you claim as a benifit you will have more large fish in reserves when it is well know you will get more yeild if the average size is fished down somewhat (recruits benifit from less predation and less competition for food and so grow faster). Also the groups pushing for these parks are constantly talking about preserving 'fragile' marine ecosystems. Ie a preservationist philosophy at odds with maximum sustainable use.

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 3:05pm:


Basically, the whinging about 'singling out' recreational fishermen is unwarranted, and based on a foolish assumption about considering each impact in isolation rather than as part of a whole.

Tizley did consider the angling impact - his point is that it is relatively benign. Excluding it in 20-30% of a marine park therefore constitutes 'singling out'.  

Quote:


The only people cherry picking the results are the anti marine aprk cracnks.

That juvenile ad hominen belongs in a play pen. I have shown how that the use of that research is fraudulently being applied to our situation and you have just thrown the same accusation back. I'll ask you again, what is the evidence of benifits from the existing NSW marine parks?

Quote:


It is still a statement of scientific consensus, even if it did have political motivations. The knowledge of the scientific community doesn't somehow become irrelevant just because it has practical applications that some people don't like.

Nice try that doesn't wash. Anyone who questions the manifesto, no matter how well credentialed is immediatley labelled by you as a crank, dinosaur quack etc. The manifesto does not speak for the scientific community as a whole as you have tried to imply.  

Quote:


They do that too.

Quote:


Not necessarily. With marine parks you can have higher yields and a more sustainable fishery.

Thats just magical thinking. There is a fine line between maximum sustainable yield and overfishing. Assessments of the total stock aren't alway reliable or even available. To keep the fishey sustainable you have to limit the ability of fisherment to catch fish and in a lot of cases this can't reliably done by quotas or TAC's. All marine parks are is form of input reduction by area management. It is usually far more effective, equitable and less costly to have input reductions by other methods such as restricted commercial licenses, closed seasons, gear restrictions and bag & sizes limits for anglers.

Quote:


That's right. You can have both larger fish in the reserve and the take of more smaller fish outside the reserve. While the approach of taking more smaller fish has obvious potential for increasing yield, it would be difficult or impossible to impliment sustainably without marine parks.

Why. The countries with the most sustainable fisheries got there with relying on marine parks but with the other methods I outlined.

Quote:


Sure, the ones who don't care about fishing do. If they are the only ones supporting marine parks, then that will be the only approach taken in implementing marine parks, and fishermen will get a worse deal as a result.

[quote]Ie a preservationist philosophy at odds with maximum sustainable use [quote]

The great thing about marine parks is that those two philosophies no longer have to be at odds. Obviously the two approaches would have subtle impacts on the size and distribution of NTZs, but the tradeoff is limited and both will end up benefitting, just to slightly different extents.

More magical thinking. Your trying to have it every which way. You ignore the huge cost of these closures. People will lose their jobs and business. The GBRMPA said that compensation for shore based businesses will cost about 2 to 3 million. It has now run to 300 million!The NSW government is not bothering with such compensation. Angling is the biggest form of domestic tourism. It put 100's of millions into regional communites which don't have many other forms of income. The Earnst & Young socio-economic study showed that anglers would halve their visits to areas which hosted a marine park.    

[ Quote:


Under current management practices it is. It is very difficult to walk that line. Marine parks make it a whole lot easier.

Quote:


Yet that is what current practices rely on. Whereas with marine park there is far less need to rely on having lots of information.

Quote:


You sound like you support marine aprks now.

[/quote]

Duh FD, talk about a strawman.  NSW fisheres are mainly run by input reductions and I don't mean in the form of marine parks. If you had a basic knowledge of our fishery you would know that. I have even explained it to you several times. There are only 1200 (and still falling) commercial fishermen left (down 80% from the 1990's). There are non-marine park forms of area management. There are season closures, gear restrictions and so on.   

Quote:


...that happen to work really well. As opposed to other methods that are 'merely' some other form of input reduction that isn't as effective.

If you call 'working really well' dividing communities, giving law abiding citizens criminal convictions, sending people broke, putting in place a system for bureacratic empire building with ever increasing restrictions on a healthy sport, giving a ratbag fringe a cause, yes marine parks work really well! 

Quote:


It is not more effective. It is far less effective. That's what the consensus statement is all about. You keep throwing the term 'equity' around, but as far as I can tell it is based on nothing more than your perception of marine aprks as unfair.

Whats equitable about closures merely for the sake of meeting some quota for representative areas. Here's some examples: people have bought houses on the south coast with the idea of fishing off the ocean beach in front of the house. Now they can't becausre it is a santuary zone. In Byron Bay nearly all the inshore reef is a sanctuary zone. Yet other towns up and down the coast have no restrictions on where you can fish. Where's the equtity in that? 

Quote:


Did they also have higher yields because of it? I am not saying you cannot ahve a sustaianble fishery without MP's. It's just that it costs you far more in terms of loss of productivity.

If you have a higher yield then there will be less biomass in the ocean. There is no way around this and nothing magical about marine parks.

Quote:


I am succeeding. Marine parks allow that, because they are a far more effective management tool. You can have higher yields and a more sustainable fishery.

See above - that statement doesn't make sense. And why are marine parks better than other input reductions?

Quote:
   

You mean they assumed it.

No they did a survey of intentions. Also surveys of actual fishing participation show that anglers tend to give up the sport in areas hosting a marine park (Qld government survey in Cairns showed a 40 % drop).

freediver wrote on Dec 7^th, 2008 at 4:38pm:



Are you really that thick? You have just erroneously said that our fishery is run by TACs and quotas. I pointed out that it is in fact run by input reductions. The main one being reducing the number of commercial fishermen as well as other methods such as where and how they can fish. This is all part of Dept of Fisheries initiatives with nothing to do with marine parks. Get it now ?

Quote:


Not necessarily. With better management tools such as marine parks, it is possible to have consistent higher catchs and higher stocks. That's how they work.

Quote:


Why is it that every study done after a marine parks is put in paints it in a very postivie light, yet we always get these 'the sky is going to fall' reports before they go in?