Quote:


That's funny. Before you were explaining how you couldn't be expected to remember it. So what did the student actually say?

Quote:


It's pretty naive to assume it is not there because a guy who sent a letter to the editor of a fishing mag thought the jury was still out. Plus there's the fact that you appear to have misinterpretted it.

Quote:


No it is not. It is substituting what was actually written for your own little fairytale version.

Quote:


Is Ray a marine park advocate?

Quote:


Only 25 eh? Sounds like a conspiracy to me.... You are clutching at straws with that line of argument.

Quote:


There is plenty to back it up.

Quote:


In other words, you reject the vast majority of scientists because you don't want to accept the science, then accept the minority view without turning a critical eye on it.

Quote:


Like I said, quote me. You have a habit of misunderstanding what other people post. I am not gioing to try and guess which bit you misunderstood. That is why quoting people is so handy. Instead of spending five pages asking you about it, we could clear up your confusion in a post or two. You seem to cltuch onto your confusions like your life depends on them.

Quote:


Before I get onto this, can I just confirm your implication that you accept that the evidence from around the world supports marine parks?

Quote:


You're the one who seemed to think that overcrowding was a forgone conlusion. Now that I point out that it is a good thing, you aren;t so sure about it are you?

Quote:
 

No. There are plenty of places to fish adjacent to the shore in that example. I don't think there are any boat ramps within the no take zone, so no fishermen would be forced to travel further away. I'm not sure why you get hung up on this anwyay. The distace across the no take zone is small compared to the distance I used to travel up and down the coast in that area to get to good spots. The marine park is also adjacent to one of the most heavily fished stretches of coastline, due to the high population within walking distance.

Quote:


OK, there are some headlands included in that area. I always thought of them as pretty tame, but I guess it depends on the conditions. In any case, shore based fishermen are not restricted to the rocks. There is a significant stretch of easily accessible coastline, including beaches. There is nothing about the proposal that encourages people to target the dangerous locations. I don't think it is necessary to ban rock fishing in those locations, or to try to move the no take zones away from the shore so they are not adjacent to any rocks. I am sure the rock fishermen would appreciate being able to fish on the edge of a marine park. I am certainly not going to tell them that they cannot get as much benefit from marine parks because I disapprove of their choices.

Quote:


Close, but not quite. What I say in no way implies that marine parks should be used in isolation. This is why I encourage you to quote people PJ. You have a habit of misunderstanding them. Even when it comes to my own writing, I don't think it is fair for me to have to go and find it to figure out what you misunderstood. There have been a few people tell you that you are wasting your time in this thread and that it just keeps going on and on and getting nowhere. Most of this time wasting is down to you misunderstanding what you read, then posting your own version here, and expecting everyone to simply take your word for it, despite the consistency with which you get it wrong.

[quote]And they represent a radical and costly impact on the resource stakeholders

True, there is a lot of whinging, but I don't see them as any worse than other management tools. It's just down to the fact that people are accustomed to some management tools and not others

[ Quote:


Only 25 eh? Sounds like a conspiracy to me.... You are clutching at straws with that line of argument.

Yes 25 of only 161 signatories, and nearly half the actual composers. That's a heavily stacked group. And thats without going further into the background of the signatories. I wonder how many are actual fisheries biologists with real world knowledge of fisheries?

PS - you whine about so called misquoting when you do it all the time - where have I said that ALL of the signatories or ALL of the composers were Pew fellows?

Quote:


There is plenty to back it up.

Quote:


In other words, you reject the vast majority of scientists because you don't want to accept the science, then accept the minority view without turning a critical eye on it.

You have no evidence that the 'vast majority' of scientists support you claims. Anyway science is judged of the quality of the theories and how well they match the observation of nature - not some sort of post office method relying on the weight of papers!

Quote:


Like I said, quote me. You have a habit of misunderstanding what other people post. I am not gioing to try and guess which bit you misunderstood. That is why quoting people is so handy. Instead of spending five pages asking you about it, we could clear up your confusion in a post or two. You seem to cltuch onto your confusions like your life depends on them.

You should know your own article. If you not happy with me refering to it why don't you just tell me? You have just had this same argument with Grendel where you have taken the other side of this!

Quote:


Before I get onto this, can I just confirm your implication that you accept that the evidence from around the world supports marine parks?

I didn't say that at all! You delusionally try to twist everthing into you faith based mantra.

Quote:


You're the one who seemed to think that overcrowding was a forgone conlusion. Now that I point out that it is a good thing, you aren;t so sure about it are you?

Well either fishing pressure is displaced - hence more crowding in the areas not grabbed as green zones - or people give up fishing! Crowding does distract from the enjoyment of the sport - especially when shore based. In any case for a number of reasons your claims of better catches are highly dubious, yet you treat them as they are an actual fact.

Even if you take your dubious claims as true - all you are offering for fishermen is a zero sum game. Your restricting boat based fishermen to favour shore based fishermen - an entirely pointless exercise. Why on earth do you think you are doing fishermen any good in doing this?

Getting back to the scientific literature here's some more on the subject of marine parks for fisheries management. From a sumission regarding NZ marine parks:

Literature reviews
We draw your attention to a recent study undertaken by the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences and CSIRO 2 . The authors of this study undertook an extensive review of the international scientific literature on the effectiveness of marine reserves for fisheries management purposes. The review focuses on the effectiveness of marine sanctuaries/no-take areas that have been established specifically for fisheries management purposes, documenting potential and realised benefits for fisheries.


The authors note that there are few well documented examples of no-take reserves being used as part of fisheries management. While there is reasonable evidence of benefits inside reserves (eg., increase in fish abundance) in the literature, there is virtually no empirical evidence for the key benefits outside reserves (spillover, larval export, stability of fisheries production). Further, the majority of studies into fish abundance concentrate on large coral reef predatory fish, which are the most targeted species in tropical fisheries and the most severely affected by fishing (because of their slow growth rate, low reproductive rate and territorial behaviour). Much less is known about the effect of marine reserves on other ecosystems (e.g. continental shelf, open oceans).


The study referred to above also notes that experiences of tangible fisheries benefits outside marine reserves are often limited to either the recovery of highly depleted stocks or to subsistence-scale tropical reef fisheries under little formal management. There is little documented evidence that no-take reserves improve fisheries yield in fisheries already under tight management controls such as those imposed by New Zealand’s Quota Management System. The study also notes that marine reserves have the potential to significantly reduce net benefits for commercial fisheries and concludes that “there are no well-documented examples where marine fishery sanctuaries have been shown to provide and maintain net economic benefits for previously existing fisheries” (Ward et al. 2001 [2]). This is an increasing concern if large reserves in both inshore and offshore areas are to be created.


The authors conclude that it is difficult to assess whether no-take marine reserves are useful tools for fisheries management because there are few such reserves worldwide. At present, much of the evidence of fisheries benefits that is used to promote marine reserves for fisheries management purposes is largely theoretical and circumstantial.

As Holland (2002) notes, there are serious limitations to our ability to address these issues with empirical research. Doing so rigorously would require a number of replications over long periods with comparisons to controls, and even then might only provide conclusions valid for very specific sets of circumstances. The full impacts of reserves can take many years to be realised and will be confounded by environmental and
regulatory changes.


Modelling studies provide an alternative approach to evaluate basic questions about how reserves of various designs in various environments might affect fisheries. Several published modelling studies of marine reserves and closed areas for fisheries suggest that a correctly sized marine reserve may increase yields in fisheries that are subject to growth or recruitment overfishing, but that little if any yield increases can be achieved in fisheries where effort is already at the level that produces maximum sustainable yield or maximum yield per recruit (e.g., Beverton and Holt 1957, Guénette and Pitcher 1999, Hannesson 1998 and 2002, Hastings and Botsford 1999, Holland and Brazee 1996, Nowlis and Roberts 1999, Polacheck 1990, Rodwell et al. 2002, Sanchirico and Wilen 1998, 1999 and 2002, Smith and Wilen 2003).

PJ, I checked out the Buxton paper here:

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

It makes the same point I do about the importance of marine park size, albeit indirectly. I also noticed that he talked about the comparing the exclusive use of marine parks with combinations of other methods. I guess that is where you got that crazy idea from. It seems like a strange comparison to make, but I guess the limitations of his model necessitiated a very simple comparison. Apart from that, it appears to make a lot of assumptions, and contrary to what you and Bob Kearney appear to claim, did not actually measure the impact on catches. I also found it interesting that despite being critical of them, the author still supports them.

He also makes this claim:

Quote:


Yet increases in biomass outside of marine park boundaries have also been clearly demonstrated.

Quote:


Are they marine park advocates? Remember, this is the absurd claim I pulled you up on:

Quote:


Are you saying that all the scientists you try to use to back your case up all support marine parks?

Quote:


You are stretching an extremely long bow here. You are going from a single marine park advocate, of unknown origin, not making a positive claim to suggesting that marine park advocates in general would makle a negative claim if they were honest. I am just pointing out your tendency to make absurd claims in the apparent belief that you have evidence to back them up.

Quote:


Sure I do. With minimal effort I can dig up a statement signed by over a hundred of them. You have to scratch around to find the odd individual, and you don't seem to have any actual evidence that marine parks are actually harmful as you claim. Fisheries managers have not been somehow tricked into thinking the scientific community backs marine parks.

Quote:


I am more than happy for you to refer to it. That is why I keep telling you to quote me rather than putting words in my mouth. A vague reference to something you probably misunderstood is not useful. That is what I have the problem with.

Quote:


I'm just interested in why you would ask for specifically Australian evidence. I have lost count of the number of times I have heard a fishermen ask for evidence, then complain that the evidence wasn't from Australia, or wasn't from NSW, or wasn't from Nelson Bay, or wasn't from his particular favourite fishing spot. It's just a silly game of shifting the goal posts. Also, it seemed a strange request from someone who also seems to think the evidence from overseas is in their favour.

Quote:


None of my proposals ban fishing from easily accessible shore based fishing spots, so they are not going to get more crowded that way. They will also improve fishing for boat fishermen as well. The only way it could make the shore based spots more crowded is if fishing significantly improves there, and fewer people feel the need to get a boat to catch a feed. This is a good thing. They are not prevented from obtaining or using a boat, it's just that their choices improve.

Quote:


So get a boat then, if that's how you feel. I'm not sure what is so difficult with this concept. No-one is out to force you to fish from the shore. Not me anyway.

Quote:


You seem to have no idea what I am claiming then. Which is why I suggest you quote me, rather than putting words into my mouth.

Quote:


Even if that were the extent of it, it is not pointless.

Quote:


So Bob Kearney is a marine park advocate as well now?

Quote:


You forgot the link again PJ.

] Quote:


There is that point about reserve size again PJ. It seems to keep popping up, even in the references you give. But you knew that my article deals with this issue specifically, didn't you?

Quote:


I believe that may answer some of your other questions. Just stating the obvious here of course. It is the same reason why it is so hard to get close to the maximum sustainable yield with traditional methods.

No actually it's the reason it is hard to claim reserve benifits with any certainty.

Quote:


There is that same point about reserve size again for you PJ. You should read that paragraph carefully, and try to point out to me the situations where it says that marine parks will reduce yield. It basically says there are big benefits from marine parks compared to bad management, and small benefits compared to theoretically perfect management with other tools.

Duh FD. If a stock is growth overfished then by definition any significant restriction of the fishing effort will give a better yield. It doesn't say at all there are 'big benifits' resulting from marine park management. Your interpretation is at odds with their conclusion that traditional methods, properly applied, are the best way forward. 

Quote:


Actually, if you follow the discussion back, you will see it was a follow on from your claim about what marine park advocates 'would say if they were being honest'.

Quote:


PJ, you seem to view the world with rose tinted glasses. You have an unfortunate tendency to interpret any ambiguity as being a statement in direct support of you. That quote does not say that they will be harmful to fishermen. Furthermore, in response to the question it raises, what threats to marine biodiversity do you think marine parks directly address? Is it runoff? Pollution? Climate change? Or is it fishing?

You still haven't been able to quote the student. And the scientists from whose statements you infer your generalised claim made specific statements about marine parks that were poorly implemented from a fisheries management perspective. If an advocate of minimum sizes were to say something obvious, like poorly chosen minimum sizes will reduce total yields, would you go on to infer generally that advocates of minimum sizes will, if honest, admit that they are harmful to a fishery? Or would that be a completely inappropriate conclusion to draw?

Quote:


'Threatens' biodiversity is not really the correct phrase. Fishing does tend to reduce biodiversity significantly. The increase in biodiversity from marine parks is not assumed, but is well documented from observation. You seem to keep switching between arguing only on the issue of fishery benefit, to arguing on the issue of biodiversity benefit.

Quote:


Actually it doesn't contradict that claim either. The guy is just expressing a different view on their purpose, which does not necessarily imply a different view of their outcome. Why would you use a claim that is clearly false, or at best misleading, to back up your argument?

Quote:


OK then, what you claim the student said did not back up your original claim either. What the student actually said is likely to be even further from your misrepresentation.

Quote:


Some are. That is the point of my article PJ.

Quote:


Some are, to varying degrees. The important differences are that I propose keeping the no take zone as small as possible, while still being functional, excluding land based anglers from restrictions, and placing marine parks in the most heavily fished areas and/or adjacent to convenient land based fishing spots. It is usually fairly obvious from the map to what extent planners have adopted these guidelines.