Australian Politics Forum - Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49572 At my desk.	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #300 - Mar 9^th, 2009 at 1:20pm But I did respond. I responded by asking you your opinion about how marine parks compare with minimum sizes. To which you responded with a bunch of pissweak excuses about how you cannot possibly compare the two because there are other management tools also in use and it all gets too confusing for you.
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 #301 - Mar 10^th, 2009 at 3:36pm

freediver wrote on Mar 9^th, 2009 at 1:20pm:

But I did respond. I responded by asking you your opinion about how marine parks compare with minimum sizes. To which you responded with a bunch of pissweak excuses about how you cannot possibly compare the two because there are other management tools also in use and it all gets too confusing for you.

Yes you responded by going off on a completely different tangent - no doubt to confuse and obsfucate the issue. Now how many grey cells does it take to realise that minimum sizes do nothing about limiting the take of larger fish? Every other method does - but you want me to take these off the table.

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 #302 - Mar 10^th, 2009 at 3:45pm

You're not making any sense PJ. I don't want you to take anything off the table. I am asking you to give your opinion on the effectiveness marine parks vs minimum sizes. I am not asking you to compare them based on the assumption that they would be used in isolation. I have explained this to you countless times already. I'm not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.

You have no trouble at all criticising marine parks even though they would not be used in isolation. Yet for some reason this presents and insurmountable mental hurdle for you when it comes to other fisheries management tools. It seems to be nothing more than a pissweak excuse to avoid offering your opinion.

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 #303 - Mar 11^th, 2009 at 8:26am

You're not making any sense PJ. I don't want you to take anything off the table. I am asking you to give your opinion on the effectiveness marine parks vs minimum sizes. I am not asking you to compare them based on the assumption that they would be used in isolation. I have explained this to you countless times already. I'm not sure why you have such trouble understanding it.

Then go get an education FD. I'm the only one who has any scientific training so don't presume what I understand or not. Whenever I put minimum sizes in the context of other measures you say I am not answering the question. You have done this before. You will nag and nag that I should respond in the way you want to some illogical construct so you can then score a debating point with some pre-determined counter argument.

You have no trouble at all criticising marine parks even though they would not be used in isolation. Yet for some reason this presents and insurmountable mental hurdle for you when it comes to other fisheries management tools. It seems to be nothing more than a pissweak excuse to avoid offering your opinion.

I have covered this before. I'm am not claiming for legal sizes what you are for marine parks. You are claiming they they are the ideal fisheries management tool and superior to all other methods (which puts you way out on a limb). For debating purposes you want to single out minimum sizes because they do nothing to limit the take of larger fish (which is patently obvious). You are trying now to bog down any debate with this artificial construct.

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 #304 - Mar 11^th, 2009 at 9:36am

Quote:

I'm the only one who has any scientific training

Quote:

so don't presume what I understand or not

I can only go by what you say PJ.

Quote:

You will nag and nag that I should respond in the way you want

What I want is for you to give your opinion on minimum sizes in the same way you openly give your opinion on marine parks. I'm not telling you what your opinion should be.

Quote:

to some illogical construct so you can then score a debating point with some pre-determined counter argument

So you admit that you are refusing to give your opinion because it would work against you? How do you think it would work against you? Why are you so afraid to give your opinion?

Quote:

For debating purposes you want to single out minimum sizes because they do nothing to limit the take of larger fish

No PJ, that is not why. I am surprised you pulled this one out, as I have made it perfectly clear what I see wrong with minimum sizes. How about instead of trying to second guess why I want your opinion and trotting out an endless stream of pissweak excuses, you just give an honest answer.

Quote:

You are trying now to bog down any debate with this artificial construct.

You are the one who is bogging down the debate PJ. What you refuse to give your opinion on, and why you refuse to give your opinion, is actually far more interesting than what you want to give your opinion on. It is a very simple request. Anyone else would have simply given their opinion and moved on.

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 #305 - Mar 11^th, 2009 at 5:03pm

freediver wrote on Mar 11^th, 2009 at 9:36am:

[You are the one who is bogging down the debate PJ. What you refuse to give your opinion on, and why you refuse to give your opinion, is actually far more interesting than what you want to give your opinion on. It is a very simple request. Anyone else would have simply given their opinion and moved on.

I said they (minimum sizes) do nothing to protect large fish. 'Anyone else', I think would move on to the next logical point. Eg how much do you need to protect large fish, what are the population dynamics under fishing pressure and what is the best way to protect larger fish.

PS: legal sizes can be used to protect large fish in the form of maximum sizes or slot limits. They can be combined with bag limits, eg in NSW you can only keep one flathead over 70cm.

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 #306 - Mar 11^th, 2009 at 7:03pm

Quote:

I said they (minimum sizes) do nothing to protect large fish.

That is almost a definition of a minimum size PJ. It's like saying that marine parks only protect the fish that are inside the park.

Quote:

'Anyone else', I think would move on to the next logical point.

I don't think anyone else would mistake that for an opinion on their effectiveness as a fisheries management tool or a comaprison with the effectiveness of other tools.

Quote:

Eg how much do you need to protect large fish, what are the population dynamics under fishing pressure and what is the best way to protect larger fish.

Marine parks are the best way to protect larger fish.

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 #307 - Mar 11^th, 2009 at 7:19pm

Quote:

I said they (minimum sizes) do nothing to protect large fish.

That is almost a definition of a minimum size PJ. It's like saying that marine parks only protect the fish that are inside the park.

They are an adjunct to other methods. They do protect breeding stock to some extent as they are set so fish are allowed to breed at least once. PS why don't you just ask about legal sizes FD?

Quote:

'Anyone else', I think would move on to the next logical point.

I don't think anyone else would mistake that for an opinion on their effectiveness as a fisheries management tool or a comaprison with the effectiveness of other tools.

Why are you so silent on maximum sizes and slot limits?

Quote:

Eg how much do you need to protect large fish, what are the population dynamics under fishing pressure and what is the best way to protect larger fish.

Marine parks are the best way to protect larger fish.

Mindless slogan. And why did you ignore the other two questions?

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 #308 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 4:58pm Are you trying to say that minimum sizes are only a relatively minor fisheries management tool?
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:	Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool Reply #309 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:09pm freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 4:58pm: Are you trying to say that minimum sizes are only a relatively minor fisheries management tool? In the scheme of things, yes. And it's more than a bit tricky not to be talking about size limits. Now how about answering some of my questions?
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 #310 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:19pm Maximum sizes obviously don't have the detrimental impact that minimum sizes do, but they do have some practical limitations. A slot limit is merely a combination of both.
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 #311 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:25pm

freediver wrote on Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:19pm:

Maximum sizes obviously don't have the detrimental impact that minimum sizes do, but they do have some practical limitations. A slot limit is merely a combination of both.

Any significant fishing effort has an impact, but what else can we do? To not use a renwable resource merely puts pressure elsewhere on the environment. Minimum sizes as an adjunt to other methods aren't inherently more of an impact than other combinations of management tools, the problem is that you are not thinking holistically.

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 #312 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 5:28pm

Quote:

Minimum sizes as an adjunt to other methods aren't inherently more of an impact than other combinations of management tools

Yes they are. They are the worst option out of all that are currently used. Saying that they are used in combination with other methods doesn't really change this.

Quote:

To not use a renwable resource merely puts pressure elsewhere on the environment.

Who said anything about not using the resource?

Quote:

Any significant fishing effort has an impact, but what else can we do?

We can manage the effort better.

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 #313 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 7:23pm

Quote:

Minimum sizes as an adjunt to other methods aren't inherently more of an impact than other combinations of management tools

Yes they are. They are the worst option out of all that are currently used. Saying that they are used in combination with other methods doesn't really change this.

Of course it does - you just have trouble thinking holistically.

Quote:

To not use a renwable resource merely puts pressure elsewhere on the environment.

Who said anything about not using the resource?

All the green preservationists who are campaigning for marine parks (eg Pew, HCEC, NPA, WWF and so on). They don't like what we fishermen do and would like to lock up as much of the ocean as possible. You said yourself that the GBRMP was a conservation measure not a fisheries management measure.

Quote:

Any significant fishing effort has an impact, but what else can we do?

We can manage the effort better.

Simply saying marine parks are a better way doesn't prove anything. Your complete avoidance of all my questions doesn't do much to make your case either.

Back to top

IP Logged

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: Marine Parks as a Fisheries Management Tool
Reply #314 - Mar 12^th, 2009 at 7:48pm

pjb05 wrote on Mar 4^th, 2009 at 7:11am:

RecFisher wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2009 at 9:28pm:

Don't you get bored arguing with each other? Can't you see the pointlessness of it?

Not as pointless as your post RecFisher, and I think you have made this 'point' before. If you don't have anything of substance to add why don't you but out? I know we can't all be mental giants but some people enjoy the intellectual challenge of a debate and that is why forums like this exist.

PS: there will be other people reading this forum and if I change some peoples minds on marine reserves it's worth it. In any case the future of my sport is worth arguing about. People will have their sport serverly restricted or lose their jobs and businesses over this - so it's probably more important than a lot of other topics debated here. Even if FD doesn't debate properly his tepid arguments point out how weak the case is for marine parks in Australia.

If anyone else is reading this, they'll probably just think that it's just like 2 kids arguing pointlessly in the playground:

PJ: "Did"

FD: "Did not"

PJ: "Did"

FD: "Did not"

PJ: "Did"

FD: "Did not"

They'll probably just give up on the forum like I pretty much have. I might call back in a couple more weeks and this topic will be up to page 85 and you will still be arguing the same circular argument. Bit boring for me, good night.

Back to top

IP Logged