Marine parks are an ideal fisheries management tool. There is a strong scientific consensus that they increase biodiversity, increase the number of fish from species targeted by fishermen, guard against the shortcomings of other management tools and guard against the risk of fishery collapse. While most fisheries management tools become less useful as a fishery starts to collapse, marine parks become more useful. For example, quotas, total allowable catches for commercial fishermen and bag limits for recreational fishermen may work well while fish stocks are at healthy levels, but as soon as fish stocks start to decline they offer no protection because they no longer limit catches.

In addition to the claims of increased productivity, experience has shown that protected spots recover very quickly and experience a rapid increase in fish numbers in the first year or two. The only exception to this is where stocks have collapsed completely. There is also a growing consensus that areas close to no take zones receive most of the benefit from the spillover effect.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

Please limit this thread to comments and discussion on the article. There is a lot of general discussion of marine parks here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1187314210

Sounds expensive.

merou wrote on Oct 16^th, 2007 at 4:31pm:


But that's what we were told by the MPA would happen in Bateman's Bay.  Were we being conned?

they just smoke their pot and think if a "scientist" looking bloke with some letters after his name says that fish will spillover into the sand patches

I've seen some very decent fish I usually associate with reef on what is almost bare sand in protected areas. Even areas that are poor structurally can hold a lot of fish when sufficiently protected.

As far as I know the scientific community is pushing for equal coverage of all area types, presumably including sand.

How much more 'inherently productive' is reef compared to a sandy bottom or open water?

although you might see fish in these areas there is going to be no "population" to protect

You sure about that? What about flathead? I've seen some very barren reef areas too. Even in apparently barren areas you get lots of little bits like rocks, coffee rock, logs, washing machines etc that resemble reef that often have fish hanging around. I think the main difference is that the species involved generally move around a lot further. So you would go for fewer, larger no take zones.

Also, if they are so barren, then the loss to fishermen is equally minimal. The stakes are far lower, but the same principle applies.

freediver wrote on Oct 17^th, 2007 at 4:10pm:


I think your clutching at straws there FD. I once saw a motorbike frame on the top of a bommie, but I wouldn't go diving on bommies looking for a motorbike.
Quote:

So are you saying that, rather than head to the reef, "if there are "fish" hanging around, it would justify spending the money on fuel and equipement, and planning a day with your family or mates to go fishing on a washing machine and some coffee rock"?
I don't just shoot "fish" for the hell of it, if I was to hunt for my target species on sand I would get one ...............once or twice a year, hardly worth it really.
You can claim the MPA's are equal in the amount of bare sandy areas as they are in reefy fishy areas, but honestly, you know full well it is not true.

http://news.smh.com.au/kiribati-creates-huge-marine-reserve/20080214-1sb1.html

The Pacific island nation of Kiribati has created the world's largest protected marine reserve, conservation groups say.

They describe it as a California-sized wilderness, brimming with reefs, fish and birds.

The Phoenix Islands Protected Area, covering 410,500 square kilometres, is one of the planet's last intact coral archipelagos and is threatened by over-fishing and climate change, the groups say.

It lies near the equator about half way between Fiji and Hawaii.

The protected zone is more than double the area Kiribati originally pledged to protect at a UN biodiversity conference in Brazil in 2006.

"The new boundary includes extensive seamount and deep-sea habitat, tuna spawning grounds and as yet unsurveyed submerged reef systems," said Greg Stone, the aquarium's vice-president of global marine programs.

Kiribati says it needs more money to pay for surveillance against illegal fishing as well as develop a trust fund, possibly as large as $US100 million ($A111.6 million), to pay for running costs and compensate the government for lost income from commercial fishing licences.

"A major part of the operational cost is the surveillance and we have a patrol boat donated by Australia," Tebwe Ietaake, secretary of Kiribati's environment ministry, told Reuters.

"We are also looking at the cooperation of Australia and New Zealand in aerial surveillance flights over the region," he said.

He said the government would still allow subsistence fishing by local fishing communities.

The expanded Phoenix islands reserve is closely matched in size to the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in Hawaii, the single largest conservation area under the US flag, covering 357,000 square kilometres of the Pacific Ocean.

Australia's Great Barrier Reef Marine Park covers about 345,000 square kilometres, and extends more than 2,300km along the Queensland coast.

In my opinion any zones should be relatively narrow strips that stretch out to the 200nm EEZ

The size of the zone must take into consideration the movement of the common target species and the methods used. This would mean that you get smaller more numerous NTZ's close to shore and fewer larger ones offshore. The strip thing could work, if some of them ended closer to shore and some became wider.

They protect biodiversity by protecting the target species. It's not hijacking, it's how they work. They are a fisheries management tool. The manage fishing. Biodiversity protection is secondary and results from this.

The strip method you described would not give easier compliance because two different navigation methods tend to be used for near and off shore. Close to shore, most fishermen navigate by landmarks and many don't even have GPS. So being able to identify the boundary from landmarks is more important. Offshore it makes more sense to use simple shapes like rectangles aligned with the grid. Close to shore a 3nm may be too big which may reduce spillover. Far offshore a 3nm wide zone may become meaningless, especially if pelagics are the primary targetted species.

They are not designed to protect individual species.

That does not mean that they are not a fisheries management tool.

When was the last time you saw a sanctuary zone implemented by fisheries?

I prefer not to let bureaucratic allotment of authority to dictate my view of reality. Marine parks control fishing effort. Therefor they are a fisheries management tool. Any conservation benefit occurs because of the management of fishing effort.

Rubbish- land marks can still be used and with greater ease and accuracy than triangulation methods.

Who said anything about triangulation?

Please explain???

The larger the marine park, the closer you get to a 'virgin' ecosystem in the centre. The smaller the marine park, the stronger the spillover effect - provided it still gives some real protection. The more mobile the target species, the larger they should be. This does not mean that you design the marine parks for a single species, just that you should try to take the most important species (froma  fisheries management perspective) into account.

Then your view of reality will always be skewed

The whole 'conservation tool' thing is just the path of least resistance. It's not the reason for marine parks, just the reason given to the people who oppose them.

Do you understand the concept of navigation from landmarks?

Sure, but you don't use triangulation when you're out fishing in a boat.

A larger NTZ would in effect cause stronger spillover, albeit it would take a longer time to spool up so to speak...

On a per unit area basis, smaller marine parks will give a stronger spillover effect.

So you agree then with detractors that the reasons given for the introduction of them are nothing but a lie, yet because you agree with the underlying stealth then the lie is justified...how interesting

Yes and no. I don't think the lie is justified. I think we are getting poorly designed marine parks as a result of that lie. It is also not necessarily a lie. Marine parks do protect biodiversity. It's just that they do this by managing fishing effort. Saying that they protect biodiversity instead of saying they managing fishing effort is not a lie. It isn't even an omission, because it is obvious how they work. Or at least, it should be. Many people probably do promote marine parks with only conservation in mind. To them, the fact that it is a fisheries management tool and the subtleties of the two different approaches don't really matter. A bureaucrat has a choice between saying 'conservation' and 'management' and will simply say whatever keeps him in a job. The only people I really blame are the fishermen who refuse to see them as fisheries management tools and who refuse to interact with fisheries managers in a way that gets the best outcome for fishermen, rather than an outcome that achieves the same level of conservation but causes unnecessary difficulty for fishermen. I blame the boat fishermen who want only to maintain their lead in the 'arms race' without considering what is best for the fishing community as a whole. 

You obviously have never fished or navigated from a boat.

OK then, please enlighten us how you use triangulation from a boat.

No they won't

Yes they will. They have a higher ratio of circumference to area. To demonstrate, let's take this to the extreme. Imagine that the 20% was a single circular block somewhere on earth covering 20% of the water. There would be plenty of fish in it, and plenty of fish on the boundary. However, that bounty at the boundary would not make up for that vast area of not take zone. The net spillover would be negative. If you broke it into two 10% blocks, fishermen would be much better off. If you kept breaking it down further, you would eventually get positive spillover. As you approach the other extreme, you would get maximum spillover, but little biodiversity increase.

As you go to the the other extreme there are two main issues stopping you from going too small. One is practical enforcement issues. The other is that for small NTZ's, the boundary effects reduce the 'effective area of protection'. This includes things like the natural movement of fish over small time periods, their tendency to follow a burly trail out of the NTZ, casting into the NTZ etc. If the 'effective area' is zero then you really are just transferring effort. Some of the NTZ proposals for small rivers with shore fishing zones on both sides (I'm not sure if there are any like this in the proposals I have put up) would be more about trasnferring effort than spillover, however there would still be some buildup of fish that are protected by various structures that make them difficult to get at from the shore.

Do marine parks really protect biodiversity? A lot of marine species aren't even fished for. They do nothing about the bigger threat of pollution and degradation which attacts the ecosystem at its very base. Most fished species are migrant, so a marine reserve doesn't really protect these. Isn't biodiversity about sustainable populations of all species? Therefore this doesn't require that these have to be pristine or unexploited. Marine parks don't do any favours for areas outside the park with their tendency to displace fishing effort.

Yes they are.

No they are not, at least not in any capacity except tokenism

It's about improving the lot of fishermen.

It's about displacement of effort

They don't teach triangulation. They may teach something else.

And again, I contend you have no idea regarding marine navigation. If you use the bearings of any two fixed landmarks to navigate, that is triangulation

No they are not, at least not in any capacity except tokenism

What are you responding to IQ? I did a word search for the italicised text and didn't find it on this page.

Why do you think you speak for the angling community when you haven't even picked up a rod in the past 10 years, FD?

That's not what I said pj. Read it again.

You distinction between boat and land based anglers is a totally arbitrary one which makes no sense at all.

I don't make any distinction. They are often the same people. Reducing the need to purchase or use a boat to catch a feed does make sense.

Its highly unlikely that banning the former will benifit the latter.

Who said anything about a ban?

By trying to discourage boating in favour of shore fishing may even do shore based anglers harm due to overcrowding of limited spots.

That doesn't make sense. More people would only fish from the shore if it became better. The proposals I put forward will only make a limited difference to boat fishermen. It doesn't make sense to oppose the improvement of shore based fishing just in case too many people take it up.

Duh, you calling for no take zones - ie zones that ban fishing.

Fishing is only banned within the zone. Referring to it as a ban on fishing is just silly. It is either lazy or misleading.

Ie more people will be fishing off the shore.

Yes, but not because of any real discouragement to fishing from a boat. Rather, because shore based fishing would be better. If the spots do become more popular because the fishing improves, this is a good thing. You try to create the impression it is a bad thing, just because there would be more people. You are clutching at straws for something to criticise.

Quote:


Simply not true. Very ignorant actually.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2008 at 10:10pm:


A lot of people buy boats to get away from the crowds you have to put up with when fishing off the shore. Another flaw in the 'arms race' theory you dreamed up is that not everyone has the physical fitness to access productive landbased spots. Eg to clamber over rocks or trudge up and down beaches. Rock fishing is the most dangerous sport in Australian with scores of fatalities.

The benifits to fishing of your policy exist only in your head. If my mention of the overcrowding issue is 'clutching at straws', why is it that you have not even adressed or the other objections I have made in recent posts?

I can guarantee you that if people could catch as many fish from the shore as they could from a boat, there would be far fewer boats on the water. To suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

You cannot make that guarantee. To even suggest this is a not only a denial of reality but of human nature as well- people don't purchase boats because it makes it easier to catch a fish. Your argument is ridiculous.

So why do people buy fishing boats? To go water skiing?

In some cases, yes- most boat owners use their boats as multi-purpose platforms

I'll state it once again- people do not buy boats because it makes it easier to catch a fish. People will still purchase boats and fish from them no matter how good the fishing is from shore.

It is a silly assumption to think otherwise

I'll state it once again- people do not buy boats because it makes it easier to catch a fish. People will still purchase boats and fish from them no matter how good the fishing is from shore.

Technically I agree with this. There are many reasons and a few use their boats for more than one purpose and could justify owning the boat based on more than one use (a small minority of course). It is not my intention to prevent people doing so nor do I think it would be possible. However, to equate this with improved shore fishing not reducing the need for a boat is wrong. To the extent you are correct, you are completely missing the point. The majority of fishing boats are bought for fishing by owners who wouldn't bother buying a boat if it wasn't for fishing and the improved chances of catching a feed they get with a boat.

Please don't insult other members IQ.

You appear to be trying to divide fishermen into two groups - those that will only fish from the shore due to the type of fish they target and those who will only fish from a boat due to the type of fish they target. The fact is, most fish species can be caught from both a boat and from the shore, especially if the boat fishermen targetting them are close enough to the shore to be affected by the proposal. The proposals I made will not stop people from catching those species that are genuine exceptions. A no boat fishing zone halfway up an estuarine river will not slow down a makeral fishermen. It will impact on on a boat fishermen who is targetting the same species sought by those fishing from the nearby shore, as is typically the case.

Remember that the NTZ will only divert a small fraction of spillover from boat fishermen to shore based fishermen. The majority of the spillover is still going to go to other boat fishermen, so it is not a disaster if the shore based fishermen will be unable to target them. The difference between my proposal and the more arbitrary strategy usually adopted is that as much of the benefit as possible goes to shore based fishermen, but there will always be an advantage to fishing from a boat.

it's a simple fact that some species reside in a specific benthos.

Which is a moot point from the perspective of this debate. As I already pointed out, only fish that live near the shore are going to be affected by the proposed shore based fishing zones. If a fish can only be targetted from the shore, why is it a problem if you can't target them from a boat? If they can only be targetted from a boat, then the spillover will only go to boat fishermen and the NTZ will still be just as effective as those designed from a more arbitrary strategy.

Rubbish

Assuming we are talking about species that can be caught and are targetted, most can be caught from both the shore and from a boat. Part of your confusion may stem from the fact that the 'arms race' has made it pointless to target many species from the shore.

Perhaps you should take another loo at the examples:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-park-examples.html

IQ, you are bringing up a technically correct point that the benefit will not be universal. Not all species will be targetted from the shore even with the proposals in place. They won't butter your toast either or save the whales. But that doesn't make them a bad idea. The proposals will benefit shore based anglers, even if they don't start catching orange roughy. Just because I say it will benefit shore based angler without pointing out the obvious - that the effect will be far stronger for some species than for others, does not make me wrong. It just makes your point moot.

My point is not moot because of the very generalised net you cast on your idea that all species of shore catch will improve with shore only fishing areas

I'm not sure why you are having such trouble understanding this. I said no such thing. I just went to some length to explain that the effect will be species dependent.

Perhaps you would like to come up with an example species that is already targetted by shore based anglers and for which this proposal could not benefit shore based anglers.

I will ban you if you keep that up bk.

freediver wrote on Feb 20^th, 2008 at 6:48pm:


I can. Plenty are only lightly or moderately fished and virtually none are overfished. How about groper, salmon, drummer and luderick? They are common close to shore and only receive light fishing pressure.

Any benifit from FD's policy is likely to be negligable and would not outweigh the loss of freedom to boat angers. Please don't ignore me once again FD.

This proposal only, or your generalised assumption that this will work in other places too?

The strategy in general, but if you have an example specific to the examples I put up that would be better.

YF Whiting for one are more effectively targeted from shore than from a boat- banning boat anglers from an area where they are targeting deep water species such as mulloway/kingfish will not provide any benefit for shore anglers.

You can catch mulloway and kingfish from the shore, especially in places where boat fishermen targetting them are close enough to the shore to be effected. This is especially true for mulloway.

I can. Plenty are only lightly or moderately fished and virtually none are overfished. How about groper, salmon, drummer and luderick? They are common close to shore and only receive light fishing pressure.

That doesn't mean there would be no benefit, that means there would be less benefit. They are fished heavily enough to make them relatively difficult to catch from the popular shore based spots.

Because you are missing the point. Even if a species is easier to catch from the shore, that doesn't mean there would be no benefit, just less. Furthermore, preventing boat fishermen from catching represents an equally limited loss in this case, so there is still a net benefit.

Some questions from earlier in this thread you seem to have missed:

PJ, you seem a bit upset about the strategy of selecting sites to protect land based anglers. You seem to dislike my motives, but I can't see how you could rationally oppose the outcome. So lets separate the selection process from the decision of whether to protect any sites or how much to protect. 

Do you think it would be reasonable to close of 20% of accessible land based spots if 20% of each habitat type is closed off? That is, do you think it is unreasonable to try to avoid closing land based spots? 

Do you think it is unreasonable to place a NTZ near an easily accessible land based fishing spot so that shore based anglers get the most benefit from it? If boat fishermen are going to be from from one spot to another, doesn't it make sense to move them away from land based anglers rather than towards them?

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?

Do you also think fish are scared of sunlight and that mulloway are deepwater fish?

freediver wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 10:33am:


What are the peak times to catch a fish off the shore FD? Is it broad daylight or dawn and dusk? Note that I have 35 years of fishing experience and it is possible that I might know a bit more about the subject than you.

Who said mulloway are a deepwater fish? I didn't. And what are the chances of catching a mulloway in broad daylight and in shallow water (apart from flood conditions)?

IQSRLOW wrote on Feb 24^th, 2008 at 11:32am:


Yes well just about everything is more complicated than FD's understanding IQ. I took up a similar theme with the case of groper, drummer and luderick which hug the shoreline.

In the case of mulloway your right that they tend to frequent the deep holes in the estuary system. They will venture into the shallows though, but only in periods of low light. FD will take that to mean they are overfished because tourists can't catch them when they rock up at 8:00am.

I think he will ban anything IQ, just for the sake of interfering with peoples lives or stealing enough of the uniformed Green vote to get electoral funding.

Note that I have 35 years of fishing experience and it is possible that I might know a bit more about the subject than you.

It's amazing how some people can spend all that time above the water and never stick their head under to see what's actually down there. I guess that's where all the superstition comes from. Do get off your high horse PJ and stop trying to tell me how much more you know about fishing.

your policy is about angling FD - and you know little about it.  


And what are the chances of catching a mulloway in broad daylight and in shallow water (apart from flood conditions)?

All of the mulloway I caught were from shallow water in broad daylight. With one of them the water was so shallow I could have stood up. I guess 35 years sitting on top of the water doesn't tell you everything hey PJ?

Oh really? Did you catch them by hook and line or spear them laying in a gutter near the ocean rocks. I suspect the latter in which case my point is not contradicted.  Have you ever caught a mulloway by hook and line FD?


In the case of mulloway your right that they tend to frequent the deep holes in the estuary system. They will venture into the shallows though, but only in periods of low light.

So shore based fishermen won't be able to catch them because they are only there at dusk and dawn? Tell me again how this is a valid criticism of shore fishing zones.

Duh, the whole premise of your policy is that shore based anglers don't catch much and the reason is overfishing. The fact that casual anglers can't be bothered getting out of bed early or aren't switched on enough to use effective techniques is lost on you.

I think he will ban anything IQ, just for the sake of interfering with peoples lives or stealing enough of the uniformed Green vote to get electoral funding.

So in the complete absence of a rational basis for your objection you resort to making things up.

Duh, your trying to form a green political party aren't you? You have a vested interest in climbing on the marine park bandwagon or any other green issue.

Oh, so now it's relevant again. Tell me, are shore based anglers incapable of casting into the deep?

WTF? How long is a piece of string...- how far offshore are the deeper channels in your examples FD- casting distance?

It's relevant in the context of your silly examples of banning boat fishing. If we weren't discussing silly ideas, then it would be irrelevant

how far offshore are the deeper channels in your examples FD- casting distance?

yes

Most casual anglers fish off the shore. To buy a boat means you have a signficant comitment to the sport, otherwise you wouldn't go to the expense and trouble.

What's this about expense and trouble? Why would you go to expense and trouble when you can catch just as many fish from the shore? Do you like the idea of fishermen having to prove their committment with the expense and trouble before being able to catch as many fish? Or do you think fishermen just buy a boat to prove they are committed?

I believe I have already addressed that point several times IQ.

Aren't bag limits more about punishing the succesful than this idea? This idea rewards skilled shore based anglers.

I find it hard to believe that you think that bag limits are more of an impost than no fishing zones.

Luckily that's not what i said.

You came up with vacuous emotional arguments like that marine parks are about punishing successful fishermen. I just wanted to point out that if any management tool is about punishing the succesful, it is bag limits. It's not really a big deal, as none of the tools are really about punishment, except to those who think everyone is out to get them.

Your distinction beween boat and landabased anglers is a totally artificial one.

So what? How does it differ from gear restrictions or other management tool? This seems like a totally meaningless statement. It is the only management tool designed to actually increase convenience for fishermen.

Duh, there totally different. The former don't restrict where you can fish or detract in any serious way from enjoyment of the sport.

Often they are one in the same people.

As I have had to point out countless times already. So what if some fishermen use boats some of the time? It will still make shore based fishing more productive and reduce the need for a boat.

No you just make fishing less worthwhile. The benfifts only exist in your head.

There are no major obstacles to people fishing in an estuary from a boat.

Getting your hands on a boat is the biggest obstacle. It is not insignificant, however you go about it, both in terms of financial and time costs. To suggest it isn't a major obstacle is just absurd.

Duh, as I pointed out (and you deleted from the quote) you don't have to BUY a boat. You can hire one or go out with a boat owning friends, as a lot of people do, and with minimal financial and time costs.

In contrast good landbased spots in estuaries are limited due to private property, mangroves, mudflats, bushland and so on.

Again, so what? This policy would apply to the accessible land based spots, not to the inaccessible ones. Is there a point to this comment? Next you'll be pointing out that the sky is blue.

Duh again. The accessible spots are few. Those which are productive fishing spots are fewer. They are already prone to overcrowding and you want to make them more so. You want to take away the best options and leave us with fewer options.

You and IQ have argued both ways on just about every single point you make. They shouldn't be NTZs because they are the best spots. They won't make any difference because they are the worst spots. It will be a huge impostion on boat fishermen. No boat fishermen fish there anyway. etc etc

FFS- talk about a strawman 

Losing the argument hey FD?

Do you agree that these spots would tend to be the worst ones

Nope- I agree that both of them are as bad as each other from a conservation of biodiversity POV which, after all is the sole reason for their implementation. Which, should they have to happen because of some idiot signing the IUCN agreement, it is why I proposed the corridors as a way of indiscriminate selection with the most benefit for the whole marine biosphere.

Are you interested at all in the value of potential NTZs as fishing spots and the 'loss' or inconvenience to fishermen. 

I don't believe they have much potential at all as fishing spots.

Do you think your corridors idea is better than the shore based fish zone strategy? Do you just like it because it avoids tough decisions on where to put the NTZs?

I like it because it does what NTZ's were designed to do in the first place

No

Speaking of poorly designed marine parks recently Dr Robert Kearney,  Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra, wrote to the Premier about the marine park following a series of exchanges between the Minister and members of the far South Coast community. Dr Kearney wrote:

On October, 2007, I wrote, to you concerning the deception of the people of New South Wales by the process used by your Government to justify the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park. The reply I received on your behalf did not address the fundamental issues raised in my letter. It merely stated that my approach would be brought to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It did, however, assure me that my comments would receive close attention.

To date I have received no response from any of the Ministers referred to in Mr Cameron's letter (who wrote on behalf of the Premier?) and so have no direct indication of what attention they may have given to my comments.

In the light of a copy of a letter of 18/12/07 to Mr Jack Tate from Minister Firth forwarded to me by Mr Tait, I am writing to enquire as to the exact nature of the "close attention" given to my comments.

In her letter to Mr Tait, Minister Firth refers to me and to my paper, a copy of which was attached to my letter to you of October 3. The Minister makes the totally unsubstantiated statement that there are many scientists who disagree with my views as expressed in that paper. She goes on to imply that I am opposed to the wise use of marine protected areas. These assertions are, unfortunately, in keeping with the consistently deceptive conduct by officers of your administration that has characterised the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park.

For a Minister to make an authoritative statement that many scientists disagree with my views she should have received testimonies from many suitably qualified and experienced scientists. I would have thought that I, or at least the recipient of the Minister's statement, in this case Mr Tait, would have been advised of the exact sources and given details of these testimonies before a Minister of your Government used the authority of her position to assert to third parties that I was in error.

In accordance with established scientific practice my paper was peer reviewed before presentation. It was also given and discussed, as an invited key contribution, to approximately 70 scientists at the Australian Society of Fish Biology's conference on area management for aquatic resources. The overwhelming response to my paper at that conference and since, by appropriately qualified scientists, has confirmed the validity of my assessments. These scientists include many of Australia's most relevant and appropriately qualified people, including numerous of the most appropriate in your Government, the senior fisheries scientists such as the Chief Scientist, in the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.

A second particularly disturbing aspect of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait is that her assertion that there are many who disagree with my views is followed by deliberately misleading use of the statement, "world-wide scientific support for marine protected areas". The unambiguous inference is that I am again wrong and acting contrary to worldwide consensus in that my paper is opposed to the use of marine protected areas. This inference grossly misrepresents the truth.

My paper frequently acknowledges the benefits that may come from well designed and managed marine protected areas. It even gives examples where well designed area management of aquatic systems may work in New South Wales. What my paper does uncover is orchestrated bias and abuse of the accepted principles of science, and of the use of science for management, in the Marine Parks Authority's Science Paper and other documents used to justify the creation of the Batemans Marine Park. As such, it provides a damning assessment of the administration of one of your Government's agencies.

My paper demonstrates that the Batemans Marine Park is so badly conceived and designed that it will not bring the possible benefits on which international support for marine protection is based. Put simply, the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. It fails to provide the protection of biodiversity, and individual species, conservationists and fisheries managers expect in a marine protected area. No significant protection is given against even the key threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority. Even its sanctuary zones are nothing more than fisheries allocation mechanisms, and extremely poorly designed ones at that. No amount of wishful reference by the Minister, or the Marine Parks Authority, to the benefits that might have flowed had the Park been well designed, will change the fact that it is not.

The remainder of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait repeats the misinformation on the management of marine ecosystems contained in much of the Marine Parks Authority's documentation The Minister repeatedly misrepresents the intentions and possible benefits of well designed marine protection in an apparent attempt to cover-up the gross deficiencies with the justification for, and design of, the Batemans Marine Park. In reality this park does not comply with even the Marine Parks Authority's own design requirements,

You don't by any chance have the 'exchanges' that lead up to this, do you?

The response from

1.  Professor Kearney in Narooma News, 10th October 2007 .. "Letters to the Editor". 

2.  Mr. Richard Tilzey, formerly of the Bureau of Resource Sciences as a Fisheries research Scientist in Narooma News "Letters to Editor" 10th October 2007

1.  "Response to Dr. Fleming's comments" ... by Professor Kearney, Narooma News, October 10

There is scientific consensus that well designed and managed marine protected areas can have benefits for the conservation of biodiversity and for assisting with fisheries management. The accepted essentials are to have well designed area management that protects the ecosystems or species therein from real threats. Dr Fleming?s imprecise generalisation on the benefits of marine protection misrepresents the true consensus. His imprecision when considering marine parks and marine protected areas is damning: the two are not synonymous. Consensus on the value of marine protected areas is of little relevance to the current specific debate as the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. Correct interpretation of the scientific documentation provided by the Marine Parks Authority shows that the Park does not protect either ecosystems or species from even the threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority.

The Batemans Marine Park is nothing more that a very poorly designed fisheries allocation mechanism, even in the sanctuary zones, particularly in estuaries and on ocean beaches. The two Ministers responsible for the declaration of the Park acknowledged in their joint media release of July 14, 2007 that even the sanctuary zones were directed only at fisheries. They stated ?People can generally continue to do what they?ve always done within the sanctuary zones except commercial and recreational fishing?.

It is probable that the ?entrenched opponents of marine parks in NSW?, with whom Dr Fleming is clearly not impressed, are justifiably entrenched opponents of marine parks as implemented in NSW, and not opponents of properly designed and managed marine protected areas. Any conservationist with a genuine interest in the protection of the marine ecosystems of NSW should remain an opponent of marine parks that cost millions of dollars for no clearly defined potential benefits.

Dr Fleming's statement that my paper "seems to be raising issues with the planning principles for marine parks rather than the science of marine parks" is yet another staggering example of the Marine Parks Authority's misinterpretation of the literature. Twelve of the first thirteen pages of my sixteen page paper are devoted entirely to science. They deal paragraph by paragraph with the bias and abuse of science depicted in the Science Paper of the Marine Parks Authority. The bulk of my paper does not deal specifically with planning principles, however, I do point out the essential need, when planning marine protection, to first identify "what it is that is being protected and what it is that it is being protected from". Then what should follow is logical explanation of how the proposed management measures will provide the necessary protection, and why these measures represent the most efficient way of doing so. Not one of these fundamental steps has been addressed in the Science Paper or other documents provided for the Batemans Marine Park.

The remainder of the long final paragraph in Dr Fleming's response to my paper refers inconsistently and imprecisely with the needs and benefits of managing ecosystems and species. He implies, incorrectly, that I have somehow advocated species specific management. It is in fact the Marine Park Authority's own Science Paper that gives undue weight to individual species. For example, three of the four sections in that paper that deal with the benefits of marine protected areas use examples of individual species in an attempt to justify the Batemans Park. It is significant that the one section in that paper that deals specifically with ecosystems, "Sanctuaries lead to improvements in ecosystems and habitats" exaggerates the information that is actually given in the scientific literature by a factor of 100 in a scurrilous attempt to misrepresent the potential benefits of more parks in New South Wales.

Seems PJ got a bit caught out in the Jervis Bay thread and isntead of putting forward any practical suggestions decided to restart this debate from the very beginning:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1207213095/21#21

Duh FD, the idea of fisheries is to catch fish of a marketable size.

Are whiting marketable? What about sardines and anchovies? I've even eaten whitebait in a restaurant before.

Real world evidence shows that fish actually grow faster (as I described) under fishing pressure.

That's got nothing do with it. I'm not suggesting we get rid of fishing pressure. This is about minimum sizes.

The genetic changes you talk about are theoretical

What utter BS. You can't seriously think that natural selection doesn't apply to fish. Common sense would lead you to take the threat seriously. Only naive hope would leaqd someone to think it isn't happening.

So leaving groper as an angling only species makes them overprotected and your answer is to ban angling for them in NTZ's!

I think a bag limit of two is a bit overprotective as well, but I would remove the spearing ban first, then see what happens.

You have also avoided my question - as spearfishing for them has been proven to be unsustainable

Again, you miss the point entirely. I would only suggest you remove the spearing ban after a network of marine parks is set up. Obviously that would make a huge difference.

why won't you policy just lead to depleted areas outside the NTZ's!

Not sure if I understood this correctly, but it won't matter if the stocks are a bit depleted outside the NTZ boundaries.

From the NSW Jervis Bay MP site. I have copies if these get removed from the site. A review of marine park literature:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/MPA-literature-listing.pdf

A review of the benefits:

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/A-review-of-benefits-MPAs.pdf

Some extracts from the second. Much more detail is given in the document.

The primary criteria identified throughout much of the world for establishing Marine Parks are that they contain a comprehensive, adequate and representative sample of marine biological diversity. In the Australian and NSW context, “comprehensiveness” refers to the extent to which the full range of ecosystems and habitats within and across all NSW bioregions are included in the parks; “adequacy” is the capability of the areas to maintain biodiversity and ecological processes into the future; and “representativeness” is the extent to which the parks reflect the full range of biological diversity. These broad ecological criteria were examined in the bioregional assessments in NSW that resulted in the identification of specific areas with important biodiversity values.

In recent decades, concerns over the cumulative impacts of human activities resulting in declines in the ecological condition of marine ecosystems, and sizes and abundances of many species, have led to the use of marine protected areas as a management tool for conserving biodiversity in most of the world’s oceans.

Benefits cited in scientific studies that may result from the implementation of marine protected areas like marine parks and their sanctuary zones include:
• increases in the abundance, biomass, diversity and productivity of many organisms;
• reductions in the loss of threatened and vulnerable species;
• helping ecosystems recover from natural and human impacts;
• increased protection of important species and habitats;
• the provision of reference sites for the evaluation of threats to biodiversity; and
• improved engagement and education of the community concerning issues of marine conservation.

The likelihood of significant and measurable improvements in the health of marine ecosystems through the implementation of a marine protected area, however, is strongly related to the following criteria:
• adequate knowledge about the contained biodiversity;
• assessment of the vulnerability of the biodiversity and threatening processes;
• consideration of the location and extent of zone types in relation to the distribution of habitats, ecological processes and management practicality; and
• the capacity to reduce the level of impacting activities.

Given that many activities have direct and indirect impacts on species and habitats, managing or eliminating those activities is an effective way of reducing those impacts on the marine ecosystem, and contributing to the long-term ecological viability of marine ecosystems. Zoning arrangements within multiple-use marine parks such as those set up in NSW attempt to reduce the impacts on marine ecosystems by protecting a proportion of all habitats and their associated species from removal, destructive activities and a range of threatening processes. In terms of indirect impacts such as pollution and siltation, a range of catchment management programs are progressively being implemented to address these issues. The protection of species and their habitat can result in benefits to a range of species and habitats, some of which are documented below.

From fishing and fisheries, a JCU publication. See the last page of edition 31:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/cffr/

Or the direct link:

http://www.jcu.edu.au/ees/idc/groups/public/documents/research_units/jcudev_018188.pdf

Of particular interest to me was the discussion of the role that green zones can play in the management of fish like coral trout, which change sex from female to male as they age. They also eat their own young. Intuitively, this would suggest they are more resilient, as taking the large males gives you more females. So you may think that this fishery would get the least benefit from marine parks and that standard management tools alone will ensure sustainability.

Green Zones and Fish Stocks

What does the ELF Experiment show?

By Annabel Jones and Bruce Mapstone

The Queensland reef line fishery presents a unique challenge for managers because of the multi-species, multi-sectorial nature of the fishery, as well as complex ecological, economic and social factors that affect it. The effects of reef line fishing on targeted species and other reef species on the GBR have been poorly understood. Understanding the distribution, intensity, and effects of reef line fishing is essential for successful management of both fishing and other recreational and commercial activities in the GBR region, as well as for conservation of the GBR ecosystem. The Effects of Line Fishing Experiment was conceived with the aim to provide some information to fill this information gap.

The ELF Experiment was (and still is), a world-first in respect to its size (spread over 1500 km of the GBR), its duration (over 10 years of sampling) and design (at the scale of entire reefs). The experiment has generated an unprecedented body of information relevant to users of the GBR Marine Park. This information has already been included in two major management plans affecting the reef line fishery and the GBR Marine Park.

The ELF Experiment has allowed us to investigate some of the primary impacts of fishing on targeted fish stocks and to measure some of the secondary impacts on other components of the GBR ecosystem. The design of the experiment allowed for monitoring of reef fish stocks prior to and after opening and closing several reefs to fishing. These reefs are situated in four areas between Lizard Island in the north and the Swains in the south.

Surveys of areas that had been open and closed to fishing for over a decade showed that the two main target species of the fishery, common coral trout and red throat emperor, were significantly more abundant, larger and older in areas closed to fishing (zoned Marine National Park) than in adjacent open areas (General Use) although the degree of difference varied from near-zero around Lizard Island to several-fold in the southern regions of the GBR.

The patterns in apparent ‘effectiveness‛ of closed areas to protect fish stocks closely match patterns in the amount of fishing effort and catch, indicating that these patterns are probably more likely due to historical fishing levels rather than infringements in the closed areas. That is, the lack of contrast between open and closed areas in the Lizard Region probably arises because the open areas are lightly fished, whereas the strong contrasts in the other regions arises because of relatively heavy fishing in the open areas in those regions.

Indirect effects of line fishing on by-catch and non-harvest fish such as bombie cod, banana fish and stripey bass were less conspicuous. Whilst some differences existed between open and closed reefs in abundances of the prey of targeted species, these patterns varied. In some situations the patterns in abundance suggested that removal of a key predator such as coral trout by fishing might have allowed populations of some prey to flourish on fished reefs, but the evidence was neither uniform nor convincing.

The research did find some interesting results that could have implications for future management decisions. For example, fishing significantly affected the sexual characteristics of common coral trout populations. Coral trout are one of many fish species that change sex during their life. Results from the ELF Experiment suggest that fishing pressure reduced the size of female coral trout, reduced the average age of males and reduced the size of fish undergoing sex change. With biological research indicating that it is the larger females that provide a significant proportion of the reproductive output of a variety of fish species, it may be that large females are very important to the long term sustainability of fish stocks. If this is the case for coral trout, then it is important that enough large females are maintained in populations.

The ELF Surveys indicated that there were similar total numbers of fish species present on open and closed reefs. Therefore, line fishing on the Great Barrier Reef does not appear to reduce biodiversity of fished areas.

Closure of reefs to fishing for 5 years as part of the ELF Experiment resulted in increased abundance of coral trout and red throat emperor on these reefs. However, the rate of recovery tended to be influenced by the amount of time the reefs had been opened to fishing previously. This indicates that fishing has long-term effects on fish stocks, potentially through changes in size and age stuctures of the stocks that remained on these reefs.

Quote:

Moreton Bay rezoning to hit families, say fishermen

Poor families, hahahaha.