Australian Politics Forum - Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #225 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:26pm

Heres some more:

Fishing Crisis
Broadcast: 21/04/2006

Reporter: KATE SCANLAN

Print Email
LISA BACKHOUSE: The commercial fishing industry says it’s never recovered from being locked out of large parts of the Great Barrier Reef marine park. The federal government's so-called green zones were aimed at protecting the reef but at what cost? Academics accuse the government of grossly miscalculating the impact. Sources say compensation costs could be ten times more, than the original estimates. Kate Scanlan reports.

GREG RADLEY, COMMERCIAL FISHERMAN: I know of people who have basically lost their business. They've been forced to leave the industry.

DARYL MCPHEE, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND: Increase in suicide rate, increase in domestic violence, all of these negative social impacts that arise from dislocating families who have only known one thing and that's fishing.

KATE SCANLAN: It was supposed to be a fail-safe way to protect the world's largest heritage area and tropical marine reserve. The Federal Government's Representative Areas Program effectively locked up a third of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park making it a no-go zone for commercial and recreational fishermen. It was billed as a way to safeguard the hundreds of species of coral, sharks and birds, dugongs and fish. But the so-called green zones have come at a cost to Queensland communities who make their living from fishing a cost far greater than anticipated.

GREG RADLEY: Green zones have had an enormous effect on my business.

KATE SCANLAN: Greg Radley owns two prawn trawlers, which operate out of Townsville. When the green zones were introduced he lost a quarter of his traditional fishing area.

GREG RADLEY: Well it means that I have to fish in areas that I’m not familiar with. It means that I have to travel further, I have to use more fuel, um and the knowledge that fisherman gain after years of operating to become experts at what they do, a lot of that knowledge is lost.

KATE SCANLAN: The federal government knew the rezoning would take a toll on the commercial industry, which is worth an estimated $285-million to the state's economy.

SENATOR IAN CAMPBELL, FEDERAL ENVIRONMENT MINISTER: It's been very controversial. It’s caused a lot of heartache and headache for a lot of the stakeholders up there. We’re trying to get a really good environmental outcome for the reef. It will have the highest level of protection it's ever had.

KATE SCANLAN: Now there are accusations the government underestimated the cost of protecting the reef.

DR DARYL MCPHEE, UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND: The real cost in economic terms hundreds of millions of dollars. The real cost in social terms unquantifiable. The marine park was designed by computers.

KATE SCANLAN: Daryl McPhee from the University of Queensland's environmental management centre has been studying the effects of the rezoning. Along the way, he's met people hard hit by the changes.

DARYL MCPHEE: I've had the task of talking commercial fishermen out of suicide when I've been doing my studies because they're that stressed, they are that concerned, they have nowhere else to turn.

KATE SCANLAN: He says the financial impact on fishermen and local businesses should have been obvious to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, which was advising the government. At the time, Queensland Uni predicted the total economic cost would be around $38-million. Dr McPhee says the Marine Park Authority placed the cost somewhere between $500-thousand and $2.6 million.

DARYL MCPHEE: How did they get it so wrong? That is a question I’ve pondered long and hard. Is it incompetence, was it malicious. It’s very difficult to answer. I think the bottom line is they really focused on selling their representative areas program. Selling the good bits of it rather than who was paying the cost.

KATE SCANLAN: The Federal Government has already paid more than $50 million in grants to local businesses and the compensation costs are fast approaching the $100-million mark with many more submissions waiting to be assessed.

SENATOR IAN CAMPBELL: I don't think it's fair to say that back then we assumed it would get up towards $100-million but we wanted to just treat people individually on a fair basis. Now, whether that cost 50-million, 80-million 100-million it's not something that we needed to focus on at that time.

KATE SCANLAN: Paul Farmer owns a seafood processing plant in Gladstone.

PAUL FARMER, URANGAN FISHERIES: The industry pretty well has been decimated. On the ground we've noticed a significant deterioration of product that was getting landed after the representative areas program came into effect.

KATE SCANLAN: A government-commissioned report politely described the impact of the changes on businesses in Gladstone as "considerable". The future of Paul Farmer's business now hinges on how much compensation he'll get.

PAUL FARMER: So the pie's only so big and with the loss of product there's no way for the processors in the area to replace that lost product. So basically we're now all in a conundrum, whether we continue with our businesses in the port or we rationalise it away.

KATE SCANLAN: It's not only fishermen who are weighing up their options.

GREG RADLEY: It's the local refrigeration mechanic, the electrician, the electronics technician, the hydraulic man. I mean the flow on effects to the community are enormous.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #226 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:27pm

Little corner fish and chip shops that can no longer source good quality Queensland seafood because the guy bought it off for the last ten years has been forced out of business.

KATE SCANLAN: The government says it's committed to fairly compensating those affected.

GREG RADLEY: I mean there's plenty of politicians around putting plenty of spin on the compensation package saying oh we've spent $54-million. Well let me tell those politicians that I haven't seen a cent of it. And I can name hundreds of fishermen who haven't seen a cent either.

KATE SCANLAN: And there's some who doubt the government would have gone ahead with the rezoning if it knew what the real costs were.

PAUL FARMER: I have a sneaking suspicion that if they knew it was going to cost them upwards of $200-million which I suspect it will by the time all the restructuring applications have been processed. I think they certainly may have baulked at it.

KATE SCANLAN: Nevertheless, there's a clear lesson to be learned.

DARYL MCPHEE: This particular scheme has been signed off to roll out throughout Australia. So we need to learn from what GBRMPA (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority) did wrong so other areas Victoria, New South Wales, Tasmania, Western Australia, Northern Territory are not affected in the same way. They don't have to put up with the same rubbish Queensland has.

GREG RADLEY: It's not just hard faced fishermen who are feeling the impacts of this. I mean it’s their families; it's the entire community that has based its income around the fishing industry.

SENATOR IAN CAMPBELL: We're putting in place a comprehensive environmental package to protect the reef. It’s an expensive business but it's an incredibly worthwhile asset to be investing taxpayer’s money in.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49572 At my desk.	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #227 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:35pm Have you changed your mind about recreational fishermen being singled out now? Or are all fishermen being singled out collectively?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #228 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:46pm

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 7:35pm:

Have you changed your mind about recreational fishermen being singled out now? Or are all fishermen being singled out collectively?

Why should I? I see you are at your silly semantic games again. 'Singled out' was a figure of speech Richard Tizley used. In the case of the GBR both rec and pro fishermen get equally harsh treatment with both being excluded in the 33% green zones. So in that respect neither group is singled out with respect to each other. Tizley's use of the term referred to the depiction of recreational fishing as a threat to biodiversity in NSW and he made the case that this depiction is erronious - so in constitutes a 'singling out' or in other words unfair treatment. Get it now?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49572
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #229 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 8:03pm

You brought in Richard Tizley as some kind of authority. Yet what he posted is no different from the incoherent drivel you could find on any fishing chat site. It seems his entire argument was nothing more than a collection of 'figures of speech' and that any part of his argument disappears as soon as you try to look at it. Now I get why you thought I was using greedy reductionism - because I put an unreasonable standard to your argument - that it must be made up of components that make sense, rather than meaningless figures of speech.

Quote:

So in that respect neither group is singled out with respect to each other.

As opposed to all the other green zones? The same thing applies everywhere. Rec fishermen are not singled out. They get favourable treatment.

Quote:

Tizley's use of the term referred to the depiction of recreational fishing as a threat to biodiversity in NSW

You mean the imaginary depiction? The one that only exists in the fevered minds of the "OMG they're all out to get us" brigade.

Quote:

he made the case that this depiction is erronious

Perhaps next time you do a copy and paste dump you could find someone who addresses the real issue, not someone who makes up their own issues because they can't deal with the real ones.

Quote:

so in constitutes a 'singling out' or in other words unfair treatment. Get it now?

So he singled himself out then wrote a letter to the editor to complain about it?

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6048	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #230 - Dec 8^th, 2008 at 9:21pm Do NTZ apply to aborigines as well?
Back to top	ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #231 - Dec 9^th, 2008 at 2:32pm

freediver wrote on Dec 8^th, 2008 at 8:03pm:

You brought in Richard Tizley as some kind of authority. Yet what he posted is no different from the incoherent drivel you could find on any fishing chat site. It seems his entire argument was nothing more than a collection of 'figures of speech' and that any part of his argument disappears as soon as you try to look at it. Now I get why you thought I was using greedy reductionism - because I put an unreasonable standard to your argument - that it must be made up of components that make sense, rather than meaningless figures of speech.

[quote]So in that respect neither group is singled out with respect to each other.

As opposed to all the other green zones? The same thing applies everywhere. Rec fishermen are not singled out. They get favourable treatment.

So what about all the green zones on ocean beaches and rocks which are predominantly the domain of recreational fishing? There there are the cases of green zones in estuaries which have been closed to commercial fishing for years. Are you saying that is not singling out rec fishing?

Quote:

Tizley's use of the term referred to the depiction of recreational fishing as a threat to biodiversity in NSW

You mean the imaginary depiction? The one that only exists in the fevered minds of the "OMG they're all out to get us" brigade.

If you bothered actually following the issue you would know that the act of parliament in NSW for marine parks states they are to 'preserve biodiversity'. That is what relavent ministers have said they are for, along with the various MPA's.

Quote:

he made the case that this depiction is erronious

Perhaps next time you do a copy and paste dump you could find someone who addresses the real issue, not someone who makes up their own issues because they can't deal with the real ones.

See above.

Quote:

so in constitutes a 'singling out' or in other words unfair treatment. Get it now?

So he singled himself out then wrote a letter to the editor to complain about it?

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49572
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #232 - Dec 9^th, 2008 at 3:38pm

Quote:

So what about all the green zones on ocean beaches and rocks which are predominantly the domain of recreational fishing?

Most of the ones I have seen specifically allow fishing from the beaches and rocks. This is also the case with my suggestions. Obviously a marine park that is poorly designed from a rec fishing perspective will be poorly designed from a rec fishing perspective, but that's a strawman.

Quote:

If you bothered actually following the issue you would know that the act of parliament in NSW for marine parks states they are to 'preserve biodiversity'.

That doesn't support or justify his silly claims about rec fishermen being singled out as a threat.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #233 - Dec 9^th, 2008 at 4:03pm

Quote:

So what about all the green zones on ocean beaches and rocks which are predominantly the domain of recreational fishing?

Most of the ones I have seen specifically allow fishing from the beaches and rocks. This is also the case with my suggestions. Obviously a marine park that is poorly designed from a rec fishing perspective will be poorly designed from a rec fishing perspective, but that's a strawman.

Really, a strawman? I told you that's whats happening. Do you think I made it up? I suppose you can tell me that there aren't rocks and beaches closed in NSW marine parks or that the Wagonga River estuary doesn't really have green zones, depite commercial fishing being banned for decades?

Quote:

If you bothered actually following the issue you would know that the act of parliament in NSW for marine parks states they are to 'preserve biodiversity'.

That doesn't support or justify his silly claims about rec fishermen being singled out as a threat.

Marine parks are being declared to preserve biodiversity. Rec fishermen are banned in 20% or more of their area. It doesn't take a leap of logic does it to conclude that rec fishing is being percieved as a threat to biodiversity?

Back to top

IP Logged

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #234 - Dec 10^th, 2008 at 10:29pm

Here I was, sitting at home bored, when I thought "i know, I'll go and check in on Ozpolitic". Thanks again guys, your circular arguments have provided me with some great entertainment yet again.

I think I have worked out what NPA stands for - "No People Allowed".

Here is the opinion of the Recreational Fishing Alliance on the NPA proposal. So much for FD's "recreatioanl anglers support Marine Parks" claim.

PRESS RELEASE – 7 th December 2008 (for immediate use)

New Marine Parks threaten average Australians

“The Sydney Marine Park proposed by the National Parks Association (NPA), is a typical example of a minority group, holding the silent majority to ransom,” said Malcolm Poole of the Recreational Fishing Alliance (RFA). “The attitude of such groups these days is to shut everyone out, lock it up and throw away the key,” he said.

If the coastal area from Avoca to Wollongong and Sydney Harbour is declared a Marine Park with zones that ban fishing, then many Sydney-siders who love spending a day on the water with their kids catching a few fish will be greatly disadvantaged. Those people who wish to go fishing will have to travel further a field, leading to more risk with their families safety, not to mention the added green-house impacts. This is also relevant to the other areas the NPA has identified along the NSW coast.

This NSW Labor Government has a history of ‘wheeling & dealing’ in votes by listening to some minority groups and disregarding the wishes of the majority of voters. It is these actions that have seen so many political changes in recent years, and The Premier, Nathan Rees needs to sit up and take notice.

Anglers have always been regarded as true conservationists when it comes to the aquatic environment. Before the birth of any green groups, all fishers were lobbying for responsible fishing rules and changes to some unsustainable fishing practices. Since 2001 some $80 million worth of fishing licence funds have been used to assist NSW Fisheries management, provide research, restore fish habitat, fix pollution problems, remove weirs and fish barriers and provide a greater education and fishing awareness than any government agency in Australia. The best we can see from other so called conservation groups is blanket closures to vast areas where average Australians are excluded.

“The evidence to date is quite clear,” said Mr. Poole, “Sydney Harbour is in very good health considering it is surrounded by so many millions of people. Marine parks will do nothing to enhance this situation. The biggest danger to Sydney Harbour is from pollution and bad decisions, be it leaching dioxins or dumped rubbish carried in storm water runoff.

The NPA would be better served if they joined the RFA in demanding the NSW Government provide solutions”, he said. The NPA has been silent on the Desalination and Port Expansion issues in neighbouring Botany Bay which Mr. Poole goes on to say “ is quite ironic, here we have environmental vandalism at its worst, yet this is when we need the green groups to help us. In fact recreational anglers have been left high and dry by Green Groups as they battle the NSW Government on these issues.”

The Alliance believes that Government and independent surveys must be completed identifying all marine habitats, prior to any proposed park being declared in an area. This then needs to be supported with thorough research, establishing a baseline for each particular habitat. Once completed open stakeholder consultation must be conducted, identifying any problem areas and seeking outcomes for improved management or protection. Other studies, monitoring and modelling will be required on the socio – economic issues, the impacts of effort shift, and potential compensation associated with any proposals before the implementation of proposed zoning or management plans.

The RFA is calling for an immediate moratorium on the expansion, alteration or creation of any marine parks until suitable research can identify if there is a real need to exclude the public or certain groups from any parts of the marine environment.

Contact: secretary@rfansw.com.au
Website: www.rfansw.com.au

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49572 At my desk.	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #235 - Dec 11^th, 2008 at 10:57am The RFA only represents a minority fringe of recreational fishermen.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #236 - Dec 11^th, 2008 at 7:46pm freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 10:57am: The RFA only represents a minority fringe of recreational fishermen. Is that right, FD? How many members do you think the RFA represents? Who represents the majority of anglers in NSW (and you can't say ACoRF).
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 11^th, 2008 at 7:58pm by RecFisher » IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49572 At my desk.	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #237 - Dec 11^th, 2008 at 9:27pm Nobody represents them. For some reason they prefer to think for themselves.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #238 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 12:30am RecFisher wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 7:46pm: How many members do you think the RFA represents? Repeated for the selectively deaf. I'll even start you off: ANSA NSW - 1,200 NSW CFA - 4,500 NSW FCA - AUF - Direct membership -
Back to top	« Last Edit: Dec 12^th, 2008 at 6:18am by RecFisher » IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #239 - Dec 12^th, 2008 at 4:25am freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 9:27pm: Nobody represents them. For some reason they prefer to think for themselves. Yes, thinking for themselves as opposed to reciting mantras.
Back to top	IP Logged