Quote:


Could you please quote their references to how marine parks threaten biodiversity.

Quote:


Quote again what you think the student said. Then quote your own interpretation of it. They are not the same claim. You always seem to interpret a failure to directly contradict you as a statement in support of you. What you claim the student said does not mean that fishermen are unlikely to benefit. Given your inability to interpret your own version of the students claims, I can hardly expect you to have correctly interpretted what he actually wrote.
Quote:


I don't need one to justify marine parks. They are an improved fisheries management tool, regardless of the extent of the failures of traditional management tools. Underfishing as a result of traditional management tools also a reasonable justification.

] Quote:


Could you please quote their references to how marine parks threaten biodiversity.

They are already up with full references. PS what they said was that fishing doesn't necessarily reduce biodiversity nor are marine parks the best way to promote biodiversity.

Quote:


Quote again what you think the student said. Then quote your own interpretation of it. They are not the same claim. You always seem to interpret a failure to directly contradict you as a statement in support of you. What you claim the student said does not mean that fishermen are unlikely to benefit. Given your inability to interpret your own version of the students claims, I can hardly expect you to have correctly interpretted what he actually wrote.

I have put up six quotes and was thinking of the last two from the University scientists. Why must you always harp on about the student's letter?
Quote:


I don't need one to justify marine parks. They are an improved fisheries management tool, regardless of the extent of the failures of traditional management tools. Underfishing as a result of traditional management tools also a reasonable justification.

You can't have it both ways. You were just talking about building resilience. If a stock is underfshed then it has more resilience does it not? Also you attitude defies commonsense as well as Commonwealth legislation on environmental management which states that a management regime must be targetted at an identified threat, must be proportional to the threat at must be the most cost effective solution.

freediver wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 7:31pm:


What a brilliant retort! You must have put some effort into that!

Here Prof Keaney outlines how NSW marine parks contravene environmental legislation as well as commonsense: 

3.      The process of creation of marine parks in NSW contravened the State’s national, and Australia’s international, commitments to first identify threats to marine environments and then to base management on addressing these threats (EPBC Act, Commonwealth of Australia 1999).

4.      The current process deliberately avoids meeting the State’s commitments to ensure that management measures are proportional to the magnitude of the threat (Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia 1992). The declaration by the Marine Parks Authority that current parks are designed not to address the key threats, such as pollution and introduced species, which are acknowledged by the same agency to be the key threats, is proof of avoidance of responsibility (mismanagement?).

5.      No data at all are given to enable assessment of the cost-effectiveness of marine parks and yet NSW is committed to ensuring that the management of marine parks is cost-effective (Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment, Commonwealth of Australia 1992). All that is acknowledged is that tens of millions of dollars have already been spent, for no demonstrated benefit.

6.      Current marine parks in NSW are nothing more than restrictions on fishing, apparently base on a flawed preconception that fishing is the primary problem. Yet no evidence is given that fishing represents a threat to the species being fished or to the areas that have been closed to fishing in marine parks. To the contrary, the public is continually being given misinformation that nurtures the incorrect assertion that the fisheries of NSW are overexploited and that marine parks represent the solution. The underlying philosophy that the fisheries of NSW have been overfished and marine parks are necessary to protect fish and aquatic environments for future generations is fundamentally fallacious. In reality the fish of NSW are extraordinarily resilient to commercial fishing at even greater levels than currently operate in NSW. There are no targeted fish species assessed to be seriously overfished (to the extent that the species is in need of conservation) in the fisheries of NSW. For those species that are growth overfished (an economic issue and not a conservation one), or even if they are recruitment-overfished, marine parks do not represent appropriate or effective management.

Quote:


There you go - underfishing. With marine parks, you will be able to argue in favour of reducing the extent of underfishing, because it will no longer be as necessary.

Duh, the large green zones are not underfished, they are not fished at all! Plus they are being promoted because our fish stocks are supposedly overfished. Your claiming magical properties for marine parks with nothing to back it up. You still won't say which Australian marine parks have improved fisheries management. All your claims are faith based.

PS a lot of our fish stocks are not fished fully commercially because it was decided to give recreational fishing more of a say. Are you saying now we should increase commercial fishing and rec fishermen will just have to lump it? Plus you babble on about biodiversity and how fishing reduces it. You now condradict yourself by saying underfishing is a bad thing!  


The rest of Prof Kearney's claims merely demonstrate his inability to comprehend the political responsiblities of our government.

You mean pander to green preferences in order to cling to power.

Quote:


Please quote me where I said they had magical properties.

Duh (again) you didn't literally 'say' the had magical properties, what you said can be construed as magical thinking - see the other thread.

Quote:


No.

But you just said you want to eliminate what you termed as 'underfishing' in NSW. That means increasing fishing does it not?

Quote:
 

That does not contradict the adverse impact of fishing on biodiversity.

Fishing is still going to go on under a marine park regime. You are saying you want bigger catches to boot!

Quote:


No, I mean he completely misunderstood the political responsiblities of our government.

Yes you keep using that phrase - what do you actually mean by "political responsibilities"?

Quote:


Yes I do. What is your point?

It's incosistent with your other claims re biodiversity, resilience etc.

Quote:


He seemed to think that responsibilities imposed on a government to counter threats to biodivirsity was intended to limit the government to acting on clearly defined threats. He mistook a minimum duty of care for a limitation on care.

Your talking about two different things. The legislation on environmental managment is clearly contrevened by NSW marine parks. Reagarding biodiversity I take it you mean the UN convention we have signed for it. Well, it only stipulates a mild precautionary priniciple regarding marine parks, ie traditional and low impact activities may continue. This could (and should) include recreational fishing. Note US marine parks allow rec fishing in the vast majority of their area.    

From the catch limits thread:

pjb05 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 8:33am:


Do you think that Australian fish are somehow different?

No, our fishery is. It is the most regulated and hence lightly fished in the World by a huge margin. 

Quote:


You are the one who goes on about proof, not me. I use them as justification. I use them as the basis for sound management practices.

They are poor justification indeed. Charletonism would be a better term.

Quote:


Sure they are working, but so what? I am not promoting marine parks on the basis that they don't work, but on the basis that they can be improved upon. You seem to keep getting hung up on this issue.

Most of you claims are completely counter to the available evidence.

Quote:


Yes. Now what statement of mine would you like me to reference?

From the minimum sizes thread:

pjb05 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 12:59pm:


I wouldn't call them opposing ideals. I would call them competing goals, or tradeoffs. Like I said (in another thread a few days ago I think), marine parks allow you to improve on both measures at once. However, I do not focus on the 'preservationist' argument to promote my approach to marine parks as my approach seeks to maximise the benefit to fishermen. Plus, the conservation benefit is usually obvious and unquestioned. However, that doesn't mean that I won't respond to your claims that marine parks are harmful from an environmental perspective. I suspect that is where your confusion arises.

Once again your claims are contrary to the best available evidence regarding Australian fisheries.

pjb05 wrote on Jun 20^th, 2009 at 5:47pm:


Underfishing remember? It is the inevbitable result of trying to manage a fishery sustainably with inferior tools.

You are just trying to obfuscate the issue. The less fishing then the more biomass is left in the ocean. The more biomass then tends to mean more biodiversity, more resilience, better recreational fishing, better CPU for fishermen etc. It's a question of balance. 

Quote:


Bob Kearney obviously has serious difficulties understanding the political aspects. If Prof Buxton made any such generalistations about marine parks, they were totally unjustified.

Yes it must be wonderful 'just knowing' everything.

freediver wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 5:52pm:


Comparison with fishery production of some other countries is  revealing..

Fishery Production in Metric Tonnes for 2003

Nation    Aquaculture   Wild Caught
Australia  38,559        219,473
Vietnam  937,502       1,666,886
Malaysia 167,160       1,287,084
Thailand 772,970       2,817,482
Mexico   73,675         1,450,000
Bangladesh 856,956  1,141,241
Philippines 459,615    2,169,164
Burma    257,083       1,349,169
U.S.A.   544,329        4,938,956

Source: Fisheries of the United States - 2004. NOAA Fisheries
Online at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/fus/fus04/

All these nations except the U.S. have only a fraction of the EEZ area of Australia and are producing over 5 times or more wild caught harvest than Australia in addition to as much as 25 times greater aquaculture production. In the U.S. the relatively small sub-tropical Gulf coast region alone produces over three times the total commercial catch as all of Australia while the Florida Keys with about 1% the reef area of the GBR sustainably supports a larger catch than the entire GBR.

2. The Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas is an imitative of The World Conservation Union (IUCN). The IUCN is an NGO based in Switzerland. Their stated mission is to: "influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable". One of their objectives is the establishment of a global representative system of MPAs. An objective by an NGO creates no obligation under international law or treaty. It should also be noted that even the IUCN has explicitly recognised that trivial increases in environmental protection should not be pursued using highly restrictive and economically expensive measures.

3. The Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment is an agreement between different levels of government in Australia to provide a mechanism by which to facilitate:
• a cooperative national approach to the environment;
• a better definition of the roles of the respective governments;• a reduction in the number of disputes between the Commonwealth and the States and Territories on environment issues;
• greater certainty of Government and business decision making;
• and better environment protection;
This agreement is relevant to establishment of MPAs only in respect to administrative procedure. It has nothing to do with an obligation to create them.

4. The National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development calls for, “'using, conserving and enhancing the community's resources so that ecological processes, on which life depends, are maintained, and the total quality of life, now and in the future, can be increased.” This strategy clearly has nothing to do with international obligations.
5. The National Strategy for the Conservation of Australia's Biological Diversity “...acknowledges the core objectives of the National Strategy for Ecologically Sustainable Development:
• to enhance individual and community wellbeing and welfare by following a path of economic development that safeguards the welfare of future generations;
• to provide for equity within and between generations;
• to protect biological diversity and maintain essential ecological processes and life-support systems.”