Here's another blow to the parkaholics - I hope you read this FD, you have gone rather quiet! Prof Bob Kearney has reviewed the NPA's 'Torn Blue Fringe' missive.


BOB KEARNEY
EMERITUS PROFESSOR OF FISHERIES
INSTITUTE OF APPLIED ECOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF CANBERRA, ACT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (AS PER THE CONTRACTUAL COMMITMENTS)


1. International, national and State commitments that should impact the wise management of the State's marine resource use and conservation (Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of this Review) have been used selectively or ignored in Winn's Report.


2. Specific commitments to the proper conservation of marine systems that have been ignored or misrepresented by Winn in the advocacy for more marine parks are detailed throughout this Review.


3. NSW is committed to the conservation of marine resources, including to the NRSMPA, but Winn's assertion that these commitments require, or even suggest that NSW needs more marine parks and greater restrictions on fishing within such parks, is in stark contrast to reality. The documents that describe the actual commitments by NSW to marine parks indicate that the activities that should be managed are those that have been identified to be threats, and area restriction should be assessed as the most cost-effective means of management of the threat before it is implemented.


4. Winn's overestimation and overstatement of the effects of fishing strongly suggest bias against fishing at the expense of balanced consideration of the conservation necessary for NSW marine systems (see discussion of Chapter 1.6). Imprecise, and biased, interpretations of the status of the exploited fish species in NSW in Winn's Report highlight, albeit inadvertently, data which actually show how extraordinarily resilient the fish species of NSW are to fishing.


5. More detailed analyses of the data Winn presents show that marine parks are extremely unlikely to be cost-effective tools for the management or conservation of the fish species in NSW (see particularly discussion of Chapter 1.6). Clear demonstration of the effectiveness of each and every existing park for providing protection against properly identified threats is necessary for existing parks and is essential before any consideration is given to advocacy for more parks.


6. A section of Winn's Report is entitled 'Economic Benefits of Sanctuary Zones', but it provides no data or examples of the costs of establishing and managing sanctuary zones. Cost-benefit analyses that should form the fundamental blocks on which to base a true assessment of economic benefits, are completely absent. The numerous claims of inadequate management of fishing by NSW DPI, e.g. "Fisheries management in NSW has largely failed' (page 103), are contrary to the evidence provided.



7. Winn's Report typifies the unjustified bias against fishing by many marine park advocates and how this bias can diminish commitment to properly identifying and addressing the threats to biodiversity and ecosystems. By failing to identify specific impacts it even diminishes commitment to identifying and assessing any problems that might result from some forms of fishing. Threats to coastal biodiversity, other than fishing, such as pollution and introduced species, are initially acknowledged by Winn but their management is either ignored or marginalized in the Report. For example, Winn acknowledges that pollution has been the major contributor in the loss of half of the State's seagrasses, yet what he proposes is to have more fishing closures. It appears that a preoccupation with restricting fishing has over-ridden consideration of the real threats by Winn and by the NSW Marine Parks Authority. Winn's Report draws attention to the failure by the Government to meet its commitments to proper marine conservation, particularly in estuaries.


8. Winn's claim that marine parks in NSW will provide resilience against the negative effects of climate change is not supported by any credible evidence. In fact, based on the information given by Winn, it is difficult to imagine a management system that offers less protection against climate change than marine parks as they are managed in NSW. Furthermore, as the current parks are acknowledged by their managers (Marine Parks Authority 2008) to not address the key known threats, such as pollution in its many forms and introduced species, it is absolutely wishful (possibly the result of biased advocacy?) to assert that marine parks in NSW offer effective resilience against the major threats that may be exacerbated by climate change.



In conclusion, The Torn Blue Fringe (Winn 2008) is written from the perspective of an advocate for more marine parks and as such it misrepresents or selectively ignores much of the scientific and policy literature on the needs for marine conservation and marine parks in NSW. By so doing it actually draws attention to the failure by the NSW Marine Parks Authority to cost-effectively addresses the properly identified threats. The overestimation of the impacts of fishing and the associated advocacy for further restriction on fishing appears to have been used to create a distraction from identifying and managing the real threats to NSW marine ecosystems, fisheries resources and biodiversity.

[]Even marine parks advocates in their more honest moments say that fishermen are unlikely to benifit. [/quote]

Can you give some examples?

I can recall several. If you were well read on the subject you surely would have come across some. I don't have time to chase them up right now.  

pjb05 wrote on May 23^rd, 2009 at 1:19pm:


You are confusing restoring the natural balance with upsetting it. Marine parks do not upset the natural balance. They increase biodiversity within and outside the boundaries. This is the most well documented impact of marine parks. Also, your logic is flawed, yet again. If the predator responds less to marine parks than the prey, then the prey numbers will increase, not decrease.

Yes, yes I had a few beers that night. So if the prey nos increase then its still upsetting the balance. These unatural changes have been observed as a result of marine parks in Tasmania, as covered in Prof Colin Buxton's article which I have put up twice on this site (sounds like your selective amnesia is at work again). PS what do you mean by 'yet again'? Your claiming false victories FD.

As to the so called 'well documented' impacts of marine parks, most of these come from heavily fished/ depleted areas with little or inneffective fisheries management. What you miss is the fact that in these cases almost any fisheries management initative would give an impressive improvement.  

pjb05 wrote on May 23^rd, 2009 at 1:19pm:


Where marine parks have been applied to trawl based fisheries, trawl catches have increased, without any increase in trawl effort. Parrish' analysis is extremely narrow minded to the point that it is meaningless. What sense does it make to consider the ecological impact of marine aprks while ignoring the impact within the marine park?

See above. Also Parrish is considering the whole fishery. You are making claims for increased productivity over the whole fishery are you not?

pjb05 wrote on May 23^rd, 2009 at 1:19pm:


How do you rate the proscriptiveness of various management tools? Is a management tool considered less proscriptive if you are more familiar and compfortable with it?

Non marine park methods don't severly impede the ability of anglers to go fishing. Why is it so hard for you to understand that picking the eye teeth out of the best fishing spots seriously degrades the enjoyment of the sport (along with the difficulty of compliance and heavy fines). Other methods are also fairer (apply equally to everyone).   

freediver wrote on May 26^th, 2009 at 10:21pm:


The point is that not all marine park changes are good, nor is it proven or even likely that they are the best way to manage fisheries according to Prof Colin Buxton's report on marine parks in Tasmania:

http://eprints.utas.edu.au/1644/1/FRDC_Final_Report_Internet.pdf

Firstly, because of the dynamics of growth and recruitment, there was a time lag before any positive effects of an MPA became apparent. The effects of large MPAs (affecting > 5% catch) tended to only become apparent after several years and the effects of small
MPAs (affecting < 0.5% catch) would be hard to detect. Secondly, in an exploited population, introducing an MPA was equivalent to increasing the Total Allowable Catch or the effort outside the reserve. Introducing an MPA without reducing catch was likely to have negative effects upon most fisheries where adult movement was limited
in extent, leading to reductions in total stock size and egg production. The effects would be least in lightly depleted stocks where total biomass was high relative to an unfished state. Thirdly, the impact of introducing an MPA would depend on the biology of the
species concerned and the state of depletion of the stock. If the stock was already in a highly depleted state, an MPA could hasten fishery collapse. On the other hand, if a stock had already collapsed then a reserve could provide some benefit in terms of protecting mature biomass and egg production. Finally, given the assumptions of the generalized model, it appeared that it would be better to improve current management controls, in particular the match between size limits and the growth characteristics, rather than introduce large MPAs to improve the fishery.

In the Tasmanian lobster and abalone fisheries where catch and effort are effectively limited, it was concluded that the introduction of MPAs as a fisheries management tool would be inferior to present management options. Indeed, if introduced without reducing catch or effort by amounts equivalent to that in the prospective closed area, closed areas were a risky strategy that could lead to a degradation of the fishery (this appears to be a general conclusion for species with low movement rates).

Furthermore, if a fishery is being managed in accordance with ESD principles, which by definition means that the ecosystem in which it operates is not threatened by the fishery or fishing practices, then fishing should not be a key threatening process. It follows from this argument that true ESD fisheries management offers a potentially
better outcome than no-take MPAs for biodiversity conservation.

PJ, you seem to be having difficulty comprehending the debate. First and foremost, you are confusing the theoretical possibility of the existence of negative impacts of marine parks with actual evidence of their existence. No-one denies the questions that need to be answered. Your argument, and the evidence you present, reflects where this debate was maybe thirty years ago. Since then, marine biologists have moved on to considering the actual evidence. The statement of scientific consensus is based on actual observations, including cath rates. Given that the debate has moved on so far, this theorising you are doing is pretty much worthless.

Quote:


Duh.

Quote:


That's funny. The people who actually look have no trouble at all seeing them. I guess you have to look rather than sitting in an office theorising about it.

Quote:


Luckily, fish can move.

Quote:


Duh.

Quote:


Duh.

Quote:


So basically, this guy sits in an office and theorises an outcome that is the opposite of the reality. Why do you take him seriously? Surely it is what actually happens that matters. You keep going on about the reality, but this is pure fantasy.

Quote:


Well that's a fascinating insight into the assumptions of the model. PJ, can you find a sentence starting with 'Given the reality of the situation', or 'given the evidence available'? Because that is why the scientific community bases it's support for marine parks on.

Quote:


PJ, do you realise that this is merely a definition?

Quote:


This does not make sense PJ. For starters, 'true ESD management' may well include marine parks. Furthermore, it is again only addressing a theoretical 'true ESD management'. It is a definitional identity that does not reflect reality - which is what marine parks do.

Quote:


Then quote the bit that actually supports the claim you make. You appear to think that quoting one questionable diatribe that got published somewhere justifies making up anything you want and pretending you have evidence for it.

Quote:


Didn't you just say you posted the evidence in this thread?

Quote:


Didn't you just come up with the excuse that they are hard to track down? You have gone to great lengths to accumulate a large amount of worthless 'evidence'. This is not the same thing as providing evidence to support the claims that I question you on. Attempting to back up some of your claims does mean that you can justifiably claim to have provided evidence to support everything you make up.

Quote:


I have given some examples attached to my article. There is considerable variation among actual marine parks in terms of how well they meet the interests of fishermen. I think it is usally pretty obvious whether planners have made effort to maximise the benefit to fishermen.

Quote:


News flash PJ: most fishermen do fish from the shore. None of my proposals would actually force fishermen to fish from the shore. It is you who has no understanding of fishing if you believe that to be the case.

Quote:


If you actually look at the proposals you will see that I have targetted easily accessable, safe areas. There is nothing to stop people fishing from a boat if it gets too crowded. You need to actually look at the proposals PJ. You seem to be making a lot of strange assumptions about them.

Quote:


PJ, do you realise that this is merely a definition?

They just said it was a definition.

Quote:


This does not make sense PJ. For starters, 'true ESD management' may well include marine parks. Furthermore, it is again only addressing a theoretical 'true ESD management'. It is a definitional identity that does not reflect reality - which is what marine parks do.

But it doesn't need to include marine parks - that's the point they are making.

Quote:


Then quote the bit that actually supports the claim you make. You appear to think that quoting one questionable diatribe that got published somewhere justifies making up anything you want and pretending you have evidence for it.

Pot-kettle-black. Since when papers by several Professors of Fisheries 'questional diatribe'. You are seriously delusional.

Quote:


Didn't you just say you posted the evidence in this thread?

Yes I have posted evidence from senior fisheries scientists with no axe to grind, ie are impartial on the matter of marine reserves. It's just some of the statements from marine park proponents which are hard to track down (letters to the Editor etc) - get it?

Quote:


Didn't you just come up with the excuse that they are hard to track down? You have gone to great lengths to accumulate a large amount of worthless 'evidence'. This is not the same thing as providing evidence to support the claims that I question you on. Attempting to back up some of your claims does mean that you can justifiably claim to have provided evidence to support everything you make up.

See a above - you are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Quote:


I have given some examples attached to my article. There is considerable variation among actual marine parks in terms of how well they meet the interests of fishermen. I think it is usally pretty obvious whether planners have made effort to maximise the benefit to fishermen.

Your marine park examples are theoretical ones hence with no proven benefits (not surprising seeing they don't exist). What about our existing marine parks? Which ones have benefited fishermen?

Quote:


News flash PJ: most fishermen do fish from the shore. None of my proposals would actually force fishermen to fish from the shore. It is you who has no understanding of fishing if you believe that to be the case.

Duh FD, you want to encourage fishing from the shore and discourage fishing from a boat do you not? How will that not lead to overcrowding.

Quote:


If you actually look at the proposals you will see that I have targetted easily accessable, safe areas. There is nothing to stop people fishing from a boat if it gets too crowded. You need to actually look at the proposals PJ. You seem to be making a lot of strange assumptions about them.

I know these areas. Some of them are ocean rocks - hardly safe or accessable. Others are river breakwalls with very strong tidal flow and hence difficult to fish from the shore.  And yes there is something to stop people fishing from a boat - namely your no boat fishing zones. Also you reserve areas are very small and most of our inshore fish are very mobile. It is highly unlikely that shore based fishermen will benefit from them.

] Quote:


I hate to break it to you PJ, but it is already decided. Have you noticed all the new marine parks around the place? Now it's really just a question of how they are implimented. that is another goal of my article - to communicate to fishermen how to maximise the benfit to themselves, rather than just sticking their head in the sand, then complaining afterwards that they got a raw deal.

These marine parks have come about as the result of politics (ie your world), not sound science. And I have news for you  - this isn't China or Cuba. Political decisions are still the subject of debate! The GBRMP came about as a result of a cynical deal between the Coalition and the Democrats to get the GST passed. Various state marine parks are the result of preference deals with the Greens by weak Labor governments. You might also note that the NSW Opposition promises to scrap two marine parks and review others with a favourable view towards angling.  



Quote:


The statement of scientific consensus on marine parks and marine protected areas is a real statement, signed by lots of real scientists. If you could appreciate the difficulty in getting academics to agree on something, you would gain some appreciation for the strength of the evidence behind the statement.

We have covered this before. Around 160 signed - hardly an overwhelming number. Around half of those who composed the statement are Pew fellows who receive generous financial support.

Quote:


So why are you coming back to the pointless theorising about what might happen? That doesn't sound like the actions of a man who thinks the evidence is on his side.

Didn't you read what I just said? They loooked at existing marine parks - your the one engaged in pointless theorising.



Quote:


Yes I do. Hmm, maybe we do need to cover the theory a bit more before moving on to the evidence.

I the last statement you called Prof Colin Buxton's observations and conclusions 'pointless theorising' and now you run back to your unproven theories! You keep forgetting that the ground inside the reserves are lost to fishermen and that any spillover is extremely unlikely to make up for them as these papers explain.

Quote:


Because it is stating the obvious PJ. Read what it actually says. It is obvious and banal. I have no idea why you thought it meant something.

It's a non technical summary so it makes some basic statements. Plus I wasn't going to chop bits out of the paragraph.

Quote:


But I don't say that PJ, and I do take those basics into account. maybe you should read the article again, as you seem to have missed the point. I provide some detail on the issue of size.

I think you find you did. You have been pushing your simple mantra all along.

Quote:


Do you understand the evidence?

Obviously more than you do. Have you even read the report?

Quote:


They were making a point about a theoretical possibility of the existence of a perfect management system. I prefer to deal with the reality.

They are giving their professional opinion of the best way forward. How is that not dealing with reality?  

Quote:


So you can't back up your claim at all then? If I recall correctly, you did not say 'I read once from a marine park supporter who thought marine aprks were bad for fishing'. You made a very general sounding claim and now you can;t find a single example to back it up.

This is what you posted PJ:

Quote:


You cannot back it up can you? You were just making it up. Even if what you say about a missing letter to the editor were true, that would hardly justify the generalisation about marine park advocates to a rational person. This debate would not drag on and on if you didn't keep pulling out these absurd claims.

Making it up was I? I expect an apology FD! Now I have a memory like an elephant. If you go back over the letters to the Editor of Fishing Word Magazine a couple of years back you will find a letter from and Environment Scientist/ student and marine park advocate who said that the jury is out as to whether fishermen will benefit from a spillover effect, but marine parks should go ahead anyway on conservation grounds. A marine park manager in NSW in a public meeting of several hundred people said that he did not endorse a spillover effect leading to better fishing. Professor Ray Hilborn said that maybe we should lock up large portions of the ocean - but lets not pretend they will benefit fishermen.    

Quote:


That's because the role of science is to advise on the implications of your actions. It has no place in telling people what they should do. People have this silly notion of science giving them all the answers, but science only answers scientific questions. It is not substitute for politics or for thinking for yourself.

Quote:


Gee, thanks for letting me know PJ. I was confused about what we were doing here. I thought we were just playing state the obvious.

Quote:
 

Can you link me to a statement of their policy on this?

Quote:


That's funny. Last time it was all of them. When you say half, how many do you actually mean? 3?

Quote:


Are you suggesting that the evidence supports your claim that marine aprks are harmful? Did you bother to check the evidence? Everytime I have seen evidence presented by anti-marine park agitators it turns out to be complete BS. The closest thing I have seen was a study where the evidence against marine parks was based on only a couple of tagged and recaught fish.

Quote:
.

Yes, it sounds very heavy on baseless theorising and very light on actual evidence.

Quote:


Quote me.

Quote:


LOL, now you expect me to go trawling through a bunch of magazines searching for your evidence? That's not how it works PJ. I have seen how prone you are to the power of suggestion. Most likely it doesn't exist.

Quote:


See what I mean? From that statement you went on to claim:

Quote:


And you based this on one single letter to the editor in a fishing magazine that you can barely even remember? Perhaps you should check to see whether your only example even went as far as to say that fishermen are unlikely to benefit. I doubt it. Do you see why I don't take your word for it on any of these issues?

Quote:


What did he actually say PJ? What did the student actually say?

Quote:


Just about all of them have PJ. Hence the consensus statement. Do you want me to link you to a map or something?

Quote:


PJ, overcrowding will only get worse if people start catching more fish. This is a good thing.

Quote:


No you won't PJ. Don't be silly.

Quote:


I did not ignore it. I pointed out that your claim is wrong. If there is a specific spot you think is dangerous, point it out. No-one is going to be forced to fish from dangerous locations.

Quote:


PJ, this is a strawman argument. I have pointed out your error many times before, so I'm not sure why you keep repeating it. No-one is suggesting that marine parks replace all other management tools, or even a single one. Nor has this happened anywhere in the world. Let's stick to reality OK?

Quote:
Around half of those who composed the statement are Pew fellows who recieve generous financial support.

That's funny. Last time it was all of them. When you say half, how many do you actually mean? 3?

6 of the 15 composers of the statement were Pew Fellows. When did I ever say all of them? Furthermore 25 of the 161 signatories were also Pew Fellows. Do you really think this a just a coincidence?