No, to use your misguided logic in these cases we should ban landbased fishing to help the unsuccessful boat fishermen!

There is no sense in discriminating between boat anglers and landbased anglers

I suspect you are seeing the idea s putting one group of people against another. That is not the case. It is the same group of people. It's just about making it easier for them. I know you were joking about banning land based angling, but your whole argument sounds just like that joke.

Marine parks in Australia tend to close off fishing spots merely because they are good fishing spots.

This strategy would do the opposite, because easily accesible shore based spots tend to be the most overfished.

These spots aren't naturally very productive in any case.

Do you mean inherently (due to some natural pre-existing feature), or because they are overfished?

Anglers would be better served by other policies

They are not mutually exclusive. You have missed the point of the question. I said let's separate it from the decision of whether to have NTZ's at all. So think of it as a hypothetical -  if you had to choose a site, would you ban land based angling and would you move boaters away from or towards land based anglers. The point of the hypothetical is to get across that there is no logical criticism of the site selection strategy. You are clutching at straws for something to criticise because you don't like marine parks and are afraid of an idea that would work well.

its unlikey such a policy would have any effect other than discouraging angling in general

Now you have missed the point completely. Who said anything about discouraging angling in general? It's about encouraging it.

Who said anything about closing the best spots? This strategy would generally choose the most heavily fished spots - not because they are inherently more productive, but because they are the easiest to access.

The former of course. The fact that they are popular with casual anglers is not proof that they are suffering from overfishing. You base your whole policy on the fact that they don't catch much - then go on to say these areas are overfished! You completely ignore the issue of catchability. Ie that fish in these areas wise up to the unsophisticated methods of the anglers who fish there.

It is a strong indication that the cause of lower fish numbers is overfishing. Perhaps this is more obvious to spearfishermen because they see the variation in fish population density. The further you get from the easily accessible spots, the more fish there are. It is a far stronger predictor than things like structure etc. You put it down to catchability, but only because you hope that is the cause because you can't see for yourself. Even if catchability is the cause, that is not an argument against marine parks or this particular strategy, as NTZ's will increase catchability as well as fish numbers.

You are just playing games now

No I'm not. Hypothetical questions are invaluable when you come across people who can't seem to differentiate two separate issues. The fact that you are not prepared to answer the hypothetical just proves my point - your whole criticism of the strategy put forward has nothing at all to do with the strategy in question. You made up completely bogus criticisms of the shroe based fishing zones based on your opposition to marine parks in general. It is the fault of people like you that we have such poorly designed networks of marine parks. Even when asked which options you would prefer, you can only answer 'none of the above' then complain when the very worst option is inevitably chosen. You can't get everything your own way so you cut off your nose to spite your face. Even if you are right about marine parks in general, your approach is still irrational.

You are denying fishermen access to the sea

This is just absurd pj. I am doing nothing of the sort. You accuse me of double speak while sprouting these meaningless slogans.

When I point out the light fishing pressure or the fact that many species are in fact already easier to catch off the shore you just respond that the benifit of your policy will just be smaller.

You claimed the fishing pressure was light. I don't have to accept your claim. I have discussed it in several threads. There is no need to have the same discussion over and over again just because you can't move forward with that aprticular debate. For starters, if the waters are lightly fished, that would be a good reason to increase TAC's for pro fishermen... Please start a separate thread on this.

The former of course. The fact that they are popular with casual anglers is not proof that they are suffering from overfishing. You base your whole policy on the fact that they don't catch much - then go on to say these areas are overfished! You completely ignore the issue of catchability. Ie that fish in these areas wise up to the unsophisticated methods of the anglers who fish there.

It is a strong indication that the cause of lower fish numbers is overfishing. Perhaps this is more obvious to spearfishermen because they see the variation in fish population density. The further you get from the easily accessible spots, the more fish there are. It is a far stronger predictor than things like structure etc. You put it down to catchability, but only because you hope that is the cause because you can't see for yourself. Even if catchability is the cause, that is not an argument against marine parks or this particular strategy, as NTZ's will increase catchability as well as fish numbers.

Only from your position of ignorance. A lot of these landbased spots are in shallow water. Fish are adverse to strong sunlight. Tourists like fishing in broad daylight. Its not surprising they don't catch much and its not proof of overfishing. Now take the ocean rocks. Fish like luderick, groper and drummer are common CLOSE TO THE SHORE and thin out or become absent the further you get away, yet another hole in your half - baked theory.

I have seen catchability myself. Some spots such as wharves with good structure and shade have hoards of good sized bream and luderick in clear view. Yet they are almost impossible to catch in broad daylight. Studies on coral trout have shown then 4 times easier to catch in unfished areas compared to fished areas even though their densities are the same.

PS: why would marine parks increas catchability?

You are just playing games now

No I'm not. Hypothetical questions are invaluable when you come across people who can't seem to differentiate two separate issues. The fact that you are not prepared to answer the hypothetical just proves my point - your whole criticism of the strategy put forward has nothing at all to do with the strategy in question. You made up completely bogus criticisms of the shroe based fishing zones based on your opposition to marine parks in general. It is the fault of people like you that we have such poorly designed networks of marine parks. Even when asked which options you would prefer, you can only answer 'none of the above' then complain when the very worst option is inevitably chosen. You can't get everything your own way so you cut off your nose to spite your face. Even if you are right about marine parks in general, your approach is still irrational.

The name for that is blackmail. I have heard this before from marine park activists. Ie if anglers don't go along with the process then they will get even worse outcomes.

Now, actually I did answer you question - you just didn't like the answer. I said you might as well toss a coin. They are both bad options. If a gun was put to my head actually I would say ban the landbased areas and let the boat fishermen have access - at least in the estuarine areas. Going by your examples the shore based areas aren't particulary good or easy to fish spots and so that would be the lower harm option for the point of view of fishing opportunities. 

You are denying fishermen access to the sea

This is just absurd pj. I am doing nothing of the sort. You accuse me of double speak while sprouting these meaningless slogans.

NTZ or green zone = no fishing. It seems pretty straightforward to me. Then there's the difficulty in complying. If you don't have a GPS chartplotter with a map inlay of the green zones it is all to easy to stray into them. The fines are massive and there is a likelyhood of a criminal conviction. You'd be better off being caught speeding through a school zone. Why is that?

When I point out the light fishing pressure or the fact that many species are in fact already easier to catch off the shore you just respond that the benifit of your policy will just be smaller.

You claimed the fishing pressure was light. I don't have to accept your claim. I have discussed it in several threads. There is no need to have the same discussion over and over again just because you can't move forward with that aprticular debate. For starters, if the waters are lightly fished, that would be a good reason to increase TAC's for pro fishermen... Please start a separate thread on this.

You haven't denied that a lot of inshore fish are only lightly or moderately fished and virtually none are overfished.  Whether we increase the TAC's is a question of balance between the seafood supply to the public and other considerations. We have a fairly 'green' and precautionary approach to our fisheries and it has been decided to give recreational fishermen more of a say in fisheries management. That means leaving enough biomass in the ocean to enable stocks to remain healthy and sustainable , ecosystems to function and  quality angling. This has included recreational fishing havens and stocking in areas popular with anglers.

A lot of these landbased spots are in shallow water.

Duh. So are the NTZ zones adjoining them.

Isn't you policy to leave these spots open?

Fish are adverse to strong sunlight.

LOL. And a banana in your boat is bad luck hey?

You wouldn't say that if you had any knowledge of angling. The fact is that if you rock up to an shallow water estuary land based spot in broad daylight and plenty of water traffic you probably won't catch much. This what tourists do. It is not a sign of overfishing  - just fish behaviour. 

Fish like luderick, groper and drummer are common CLOSE TO THE SHORE and thin out or become absent the further you get away, yet another hole in your half - baked theory.

This is not a hole. You get shoreline away from easily accessible spots. There are far more luderick there.

Luderick are in healthly numbers in all locations suitable to them. Commercial fishermen mainly catch them on their spawning migrations. Are you trying to say that pressure from anglers is leading to local depletions? 

The name for that is blackmail. I have heard this before from marine park activists. Ie if anglers don't go along with the process then they will get even worse outcomes.  

It's called dealing with reality PJ. Try it sometime.

Anglers have tried going along with the marine park process. Additional closures have been put in over and above what was floated during the 'consultation' process. On the GBR anglers were asked to identify their favourite fishing spots so that they would be left open. When the park was established they were found to be green zones!

Now, actually I did answer you question - you just didn't like the answer.

So you really don't see a difference between shifting boat fishermen closer to or further away from land based fishermen? That's odd, to say the least.

Your the odd one FD. With no qualifications in fisheries science and no understanding of recreational fishing you still think your right all the time. Your not benfiting either group. 

If a gun was put to my head actually I would say ban the landbased areas and let the boat fishermen have access

Now that is really strange.

Well the parks are rammed down our throats and the penalties for non compliance are totally out of proportion, so the gun to the head analogy is not really all that strange.


Going by your examples the shore based areas aren't particulary good or easy to fish spots and so that would be the lower harm option for the point of view of fishing opportunities.

You are confusing whether they are productive because of overfishing or because of some inherent factor. It is because they are overfished. You're preferred option would work from a conservation perspective, but only because it maximised inconvenience to fishermen. That is, you would get the least conservation and fisheries management benefits for the most disruption to recreational anglers. You would increase the need to get a boat to catch a feed, while not increasing the amount caught compared to other strategies.

No I have demonstated it is not because they are overfished. How am I causing the most disruption to recreational fishing when I favour no NTZ's? Your haven't demonstrated that removing boat based anglers will make it easier for shore based ones. The benfit is in your head. You even pointed out that they are often one in the same people. And look at some of your examples. You want to encourage people to fish of breakwalls such as the Gold Coast Seaway and in Lake Macquarie. These are difficult to access with boulders to clamber over. They are only fishable a couple of hours a day due to the raging current.


NTZ or green zone = no fishing. It seems pretty straightforward to me.

A NTZ zone does not deny fishermen access to the sea, only to a small section. It is a meaningless slogan.

No they deny large sections of the worthwhile spots. Most marine parks take away at least 50% of the inshore reef. Some over 70%

You haven't denied that a lot of inshore fish are only lightly or moderately fished and virtually none are overfished.

I can't get you to explain what you mean or respond to criticism of the statement beyond sprouting meaningless slogans. Like I said, start a new thread on the 'lightly fished' issue. Don't expect me to repeat the same dead end conversation with you in every single thread.

Its not meaningless its goes to the core of the argument. You have just said the problem is overfishing when patently it isn't. I have offered evidence and all your have offered is a bland assertion.  Now your trying to censor me.

So you still think fish are adverse to sunlight hey? It's amazing what people can come up with to explain the behaviour of animals they cannot see.

You can see them from the shore in many cases. Though usually if you can see them you can't catch them. The daylight/ shallow water/ low catches link is one of the most basic rules of angling. Dawn and dusk are the prime fishing times in deeper water they bite longer.  


Anglers have tried going along with the marine park process.

Such as me for example. I found them quite accomodating. Of course, if you reject the choices they give you, it makes their job easy because they don't have to pay any attention to what you say. Which makes your job easier to because you can accuse them of ignoring you. It's easier for everyone I guess. We get marine parks and you get something to complain about.

If your an angler then I'm a monkeys uncle. If they give you the choices then there not really choices are they. They have in some cases made extra closures which were never prosposed during the 'consultation'.

On the GBR anglers were asked to identify their favourite fishing spots so that they would be left open. When the park was established they were found to be green zones!

Sure, believe the fishing party propaganda. Mt experience has been the exact opposite. I just think that they, like you, cannot tell the difference between getting everything their way and compromise. Or perhaps you think there are big areas of ocean where no-one ever fishes that they should ahve protected.

There are stat decs to that effect.

Your haven't demonstrated that removing boat based anglers will make it easier for shore based ones.

I feel no need to. Your objection to this point is totally absurd. It is an attempt to reject everything about marine parks without any thought whatsoever - putting ideology before reality.

Pot kettle black. If you don't feel the need to justify your policy then what else is left but ideology.

Most marine parks take away at least 50% of the inshore reef. Some over 70%

For example? You know if you define it correctly you could say 100%.

Cairns lost about 70% of its reefs. Byron Bay 98%, Port Stevens 50%, based on reasonable measures and not any manipulation of the figures.

Seriously- you are full of sh!t FD when it comes to defending NTZ. It might be part of your very shaky parliamentarian platform, but your arguments wouldn't stand a chance.

With every argument, you get more ridiculous

Enjoy your chance to strive to out perform Peter Garret...my goldfish could do a better job

So you don't think moving boat fishermen away would benefit shore based fishermen either?