Can you justify your assumption that it is impossible to improve on current catch rates sustainably?

Quote:


They were compensation for a number of changes, not just marine parks. The marine parks on the GBR were not designed to improve fishing.

Quote:


It is also well known that this can be affected by management methods.

Quote:


Except of course for the ones that signed the cosnensus statement.

It seems to me that you are assuming that traditional methods are the best way to go, merely because they are the traditional methods. You are confusing the current understanding of population dynamics under those management regimes with endoresement of those regimes as giving the best results.

Quote:


You keep insisting this, but the evidence clearly contradicts you. You have no justification for what is no more than an assumption.

Quote:


Both. Technically the MSY isn't actually the maximum if you aren't employing the best management tools, but there is no theoretical limit to this, plus it adds unreasonable complexity to the concept, so management regime is usually taken as a fixed parameter in considering MSY.

Quote:


They all work in relevant fields. This was not a call for anyone with letters after their name to sign a political statement.

Quote:


That was based on practical experience, not theory. The theory did not predict improved yields. It was observed.

Quote:


You mean putting up with people who whinge about it constantly? The same thing happens every time a new fisheries management tool is introduced. Almost identical complaints were made when TACS, minimum sizes, bag limits etc were introduced. All management tools have socio economic costs and those from marine parks are not any different. It is the fact that it is new that makes people complain, not anything fundamentally different.

Quote:


No-one is rushing, but the evidence justifies their implimentation.

Quote:


If we did that none of the so-called 'evidence' you rpesented would make it in. If you had real evidence you wouldn't bother with crap like what you posted from Richard Tilzey, which is purely political and doesn't even make sense when you think about it.

It is not a political manifesto. It is a statement of scientific consensus.

[quote author=tallowood link=1192441509/210#216
You are paranoid. Guys who can't catch fish on line in waters that they claimed to be not overfished are wankers and to call them authorities is plain stupid.


[/quote]

No, there called poor fishermen. Even our most heavily populated city fishes well. It is not difficult at all to catch a feed in Sydney with some basic level of fishing skill.

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


Both. Technically the MSY isn't actually the maximum if you aren't employing the best management tools, but there is no theoretical limit to this, plus it adds unreasonable complexity to the concept, so management regime is usually taken as a fixed parameter in considering MSY.

Of cousre there is a limit - the ability of fish to reproduce.

Quote:


They all work in relevant fields. This was not a call for anyone with letters after their name to sign a political statement.

You will find that most of them were ecologists. They tend to have a different view of the World which is not consistent with sustainable use of natural resources. Many of them also recieve generous financial support from the ant-fishing Pew Charitable Trust.

Quote:


That was based on practical experience, not theory. The theory did not predict improved yields. It was observed.

You really struggle with this subject FD? Plently of reserve studies show no such thing. Plenty more lack sufficient rigor to prove any fishery wide benifits. Results quoted like know-nothings such as Clover Moore are from heavily fished/ depleted fisheries and cannot be applied to our waters.

Quote:


You mean putting up with people who whinge about it constantly? The same thing happens every time a new fisheries management tool is introduced. Almost identical complaints were made when TACS, minimum sizes, bag limits etc were introduced. All management tools have socio economic costs and those from marine parks are not any different. It is the fact that it is new that makes people complain, not anything fundamentally different.

Yes people do tend to whinge about little inconveniences like going broke. Bear in mind these were sustainable fisheries which were shut down on the GBR. Also on the contrary minimum sizes and bags limits are well recieved by anglers and compliance is high. Many anglers in fact have their own voluntary limits which are far tighter than those proscribed. These limits do not significantly degrade the marine experience - locking people out does (why are you so obtuse)?

Also you haven't offered any evidence that any of the 300m was allocated to non GBRPMA matters. Please don't ignore this request for something to back this claim.

Quote:


No-one is rushing, but the evidence justifies their implimentation.

With 33% of the World's marine parks no other country has gone in for them the way we have - I'd call that rushing.

Quote:


If we did that none of the so-called 'evidence' you rpesented would make it in. If you had real evidence you wouldn't bother with crap like what you posted from Richard Tilzey, which is purely political and doesn't even make sense when you think about it.

It was a letter to a newspaper editor. I have also put up peer reviewed papers which have resulted in similar vitriol and personal attacks from you. In fact the further you are shown to be out of you depth the more you turn up the vitriol.

Quote:


The vast majority show that reserves are beneficial. Hence the scientific consensus. It is based on the weight of evidence, not cherry picking results as the anti-MP lobby does. It is not a conspiracy funded by an 'anti-fishing' organistaion. That lie was just made up because the anti-MP lobby couldn't come up with a rational response. They had to explain away their inept arguments by pretending everyone was out to get them.

Quote:


I also pointed out the obvious logical errors and the silly assumptions they made. You seem to ignore that bit. I guess it doesn't fit in with the 'they're all out to get us' conspiracy theory.

He's a reference to the fall out from the GBRMPA. Now FD I will ask you again - where is your evidence that not all the compensation was realated to the park?


Second Reading Speech - Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008

Senator BOSWELL (Queensland) (12.32 pm)—I did speak for about two minutes on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 on the last sitting day. I want to recap what I said about this particular bill. Some time ago, we were asked to pass a bill that would allow for 70 zones to be designated as representative areas. These were called the RAP zones and they were to allow for biodiversity. That bill caused a fair amount of debate and during that time GBRMPA came to the parliament and asked senators and members to pass the legislation because they wanted 25 per cent of the reef for their representative area zones.

They visited my office and at that stage I suggested that there was enough reef out there for the representative area zones and they did not have to put them in areas where people fished either commercially or as amateurs. I was told, ‘Yes, that’s a very good idea, Senator Boswell, we’ll certainly take note of that.’ Of course, when the maps came out anything other than that had happened. We found fishing areas that were used for brood prawns, commercial fishing and amateur fishing were all excluded and put in the green zones. It was a terrible bill to have passed.

GBRMPA asked for 25 per cent and ended up taking about 33 per cent. The consequence was that as a government we had to pay out $255 million to compensate fishermen, net makers, outboard motor suppliers, fishing tackle suppliers and fishing processors. When GBRMPA came to the government they said, ‘There’ll be a cost to this piece of legislation. It will be between $1 million and $2.5 million.’ After paying out $255 million—and still people are not completely happy—we found out the cost of this legislation. Apart from the huge cost—the huge human cost of people going bankrupt, losing their businesses, homes and marriages—we also found that a number of people, I think about 324, were caught fishing in a green zone and received criminal convictions. These were people who went out in their little tinnies with 10 horsepower motors without GPSs and found they had fished in a green zone. They did not understand it; they did not have the knowledge about where the green zones were and they received a huge fine, I think, of around $2,000. As if that were not bad enough, those people picked up a criminal conviction for taking their grandsons out in a tinnie and ending up in a green zone because they did not have a GPS or did not know how to use one or did not have maps. One would have thought that a warning would be sufficient and a fine but, no, these people were given criminal convictions. That has an impact on them when they want to go overseas and cannot get a visa, or get some insurance or take out a bank loan; they have a criminal record and all the stigma that that carries. That was totally unfair. It was not what the previous government intended.