RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Community] >> Fisheries Management and Environmental Issues >> RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Name

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 4 December 2004 16:41:11

Greg Dale

Posts: 113
Joined: 2 December 2004
From: Perth
Status: offline

that should be third ever post by the way. I'm having a dyslexic day.

(in reply to Greg Dale)

Post #: 46

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 4 December 2004 17:23:28

Jim Singleton

Posts: 2044
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: WA
Status: offline

quote:

I'm not saying the fishing ban couldn't be better implemented - there doesn't seem to be any reason for stopping people trolling up mackies and other pelagics. But setting aside 34% as an insurance policy seems reasonable to me

Greg, the argument isn't against no-fishing sanctuary zones! Most recreational anglers support the concept as well as other conservation measures. Check the recfishwest website

The sore point is the manner in which Gallop and his co-horts have gone about this 'park extension process', based on the whims of 'independent' advisers!

The Government has not only ignored the advice of recreational anglers, business entities and local government bodies, but also the
Fisheries Department, The Minister for Fisheries and the MLA for that
electorate! How stupid can a Government get?

Moreso, the 34% of Park now set aside is 1% more than Queensland and smacks of .......'anything you can do, I can do better!'

The Fisheries Department pointed out that there is no rationale for closing some of the areas that Gallop has decided to close so what is the real motive behind the move besides committing political suicide? Pacifying the green voters at the expense of recreational anglers?

< Message edited by Jim Singleton -- 4 December 2004 18:42:19 >

_____________________________

Jimbo

(in reply to Brad Edwards)

Post #: 47

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 4 December 2004 18:09:31

Hal Harvey

Posts: 2076
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

I posted this elsewhere, so I'm just repeating it here because it needs to be said:

Anglers need to see the bigger picture here. Forget about Ningaloo for the time being. Location is irrelevant.

The Gallop government was faced with a choice: exclude recreational anglers from a sizeable chunk of popular fishing area for no reason, or put the green minority offside. That was the choice, and there were no alternatives.

Anybody with a sense of fairness could not bring themselves to do the wrong thing by those who don't deserve it, but Gallop did. For that reason he deserves to be unseated.

I'll say location is irrelevant, but let's just step forward six months. The saveswanriver.org want a big proportion (it could be 95%) of the Swan River made into a sanctuary zone. This will remove anglers from the Swan. Their science is unfounded, and their reasoning baseless. Anglers are shown to not pose a risk and Fisheries say there is no good reason for the sanctuary. But Gallop still does it. Well why not? It was done before, up at Ningaloo. They got away with that.

Don't be misled into thinking this is about Ningaloo. What's happened so far is not pro-Ningaloo, it's anti-fishing (quoting Mike Roennfeldt in today's West Australian - well put).

It's up to you whether you let them get away with it.

_____________________________

Bluewater Tackle World : Real tackle stores

Just so you know: owner of Bluewater stores in Perth, and husband of Liza Harvey, Liberal MLA for Scarborough.

(in reply to Jim Singleton)

Post #: 48

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 4 December 2004 18:44:32

Doug Shiner

Posts: 3483
Joined: 14 May 2004
From: Kununurra WA
Status: offline

From my point of view, the question on election day is, how do I convince the armchair conservationists who populate airconditioned houses, cars, offices & shops, and like to keep the environment at arms length, that the truth is other than the government & greens would have them believe. Many of the armchair greenies I know will believe any conservation message anyone tells them, and they are sufficiently comfortable & well off that the loss of anglers rights would be no loss to them.

I also know many thinking conservationists who feel that the whole conservation argument lacks any balance, and that more input from anglers & others who are interested in access, is required before any decision process can begin. One fella I speak to sees no harm in sustainable/managed fishing in these conservation areas, and that it would be good for local economies for anglers to continue to catch & release. In contrast, his wife is a rabid armchair greenie and wont hear of it, no amount of reasoning will budge her. It appears to me as though it is somewhat to do with keeping up appearances, ie, even if the fishing is sustainable, it will look like we arent being green enough, so ban the lot of them, then we can tell the world how environmentally conscious we are.

This isnt the entire argument by any means, but it is some of what I have gleaned by listening to people in the workplace and in the shops.
I will admit some prejudice against the "green" types, as you can tell, but it is also true to say I am in favour of well considered conservation measures, would that I could find some from this government.

I think that unless we can sway the majority our way slightly, we may be sunk by the majority of people who dont fish or care to have much to do with our great West Aussie Outdoors, except to chain themselves to trees at taxpayers expense.

Perhaps I am unduly pessimistic.

Doug

_____________________________

Political Correctness (def.) - a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

(in reply to Hal Harvey)

Post #: 49

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 4 December 2004 18:51:57

Greg Dale

Posts: 113
Joined: 2 December 2004
From: Perth
Status: offline

I hear what you are saying Hal & JIm, and agree the Ningaloo decision may contain an element of political opportunism. I agree it is hard to give detailed consideration to 5000 submissions in less than a week. But lets face it, both sides of politics, at state and federal level, are continually jumping on populist bandwagons to try and get votes - look at the recent federal campaign. That's not a good thing, but I can't see it changing in the near future. I don't see what you can do but look at the merits of each individual decision, back it if you agree with it, and lobby against it if you don't.

My personal perspective is that, for the reasons in my above post, the Ningaloo decision is not all bad. But if someone tried to close 95% of the Swan River to rec fishing, I can assure you I would be fighting it tooth and nail.

Cheers
Greg

(in reply to Hal Harvey)

Post #: 50

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 4 December 2004 21:15:25

Terry Fuller

Posts: 2432
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Hamersley, Western Australia
Status: online

quote:

I can recall reading about studies showing when predators high in the food chain are removed en masse (think spanglies) things like urchins, starfish and marine snails increase in number and can disrupt the ecosystem causing coral to die and be replaced by algae.

Greg.

That's just one of the "part truths" and misrepresentations being used - and it is not as simple as that.

Extract from Mark Westera's thesis http://www.chs.ecu.edu.au/org/sons/students/postgrad_students/documents/m_westera_thesis_jun-04.pdf

It's 127 pages, it's a thesis, so there is a lot of detail, and it is VERY complex. It's findings are often quoted as THE justification for closing extra areas at Ningaloo.

However here's the abstract. I have highlighted some bits which are very important - these are his words, his analysis of his research and his data...

Some observations, like there are more fish of some species in sanctuary zones than outside them, are motherhood obvious and it would be a real worry if it wasn't true.

Thesis is titled:- "The effect of recreational fishing on targeted fishes and trophic structure, in a coral reef marine park.

Abstract:- Recreational line fishing is highly targeted at predatory fishes, making them vulnerable to
overfishing. These same fishes play a role in trophic structure by regulating prey species.
Despite increasing numbers of fishers, few studies have investigated the potential effects of
recreational fishing on fish populations and subsequent trophic effects. This project
investigated whether there were differences in fishes and benthos between unfished and
recreationally fished areas, and whether the removal of targeted fishes influenced trophic
structure. The study was conducted at the Ningaloo Marine Park, Western Australia, which
had Sanctuary (no-take) and Recreation (recreationally fished) Zones. Data were collected
from three regions (Mandu, Osprey and Maud) and replicated over time. Fish assemblages,
benthos and trophic interactions were compared between zones at each region.

At Ningaloo the lethrinids (emperors) are a top-order predatory fish and the preferred target
of recreational anglers. The algal-grazing urchin Echinometra mathaei comprised 51% of
macroinvertebrate abundances and was heavily preyed upon by lethrinids, being recorded in
50% of the guts of sampled fish.

In all regions, Sanctuary Zones had a greater biomass of lethrinids than Recreation Zones,
but there were no differences in non-targeted fishes between zones. Despite the consistent
effect on lethrinids, there were inconsistencies among regions in the predator-prey
relationships. At Mandu, Echinometra mathaei abundances were inversely related to
lethrinid biomass, suggesting a strong predator-prey interaction. In the Recreation Zone, the
abundances of E. mathaei were four times greater, and macro-algal cover was half, that of
the Sanctuary Zone. Furthermore, algal composition differed between zones, and this was
driven by fucoid brown algae, which dominated the diets of E. mathaei. This was
interpreted as evidence of a trophic cascade resulting from the removal of lethrinids at the
Recreation Zone.

At Maud, different results were recorded. Abundances of Echinometra mathaei and
lethrinids were both higher in the Sanctuary Zone, than the adjacent Recreation Zone.
E. mathaei reside in the crevices of rock, dead coral or Echinopora coral, which provided
refuge from predation and this habitat was more available in the Sanctuary Zone. It is
suggested that the availability of this habitat confounded the effects of predation. Macroalgal
cover was lower in the Sanctuary Zone indicating a grazing effect from E. mathaei. At
Osprey there was higher cover of E. mathaei habitat in the Sanctuary than the Recreation
Zone. However, there were no differences in macro-algal cover, which was consistent with a
lack of difference in E. mathaei abundances. The effect of E. mathaei grazing was unlikely
to have been confounded by fishes that graze macro-algae, as they did not differ between
zones at any region.

These results indicate that recreational fishing reduced fish populations below that of
adjacent protected areas at Ningaloo Marine Park, and in one region this resulted in a trophic
cascade. This may be the first study that has recorded evidence of a trophic cascade where
recreational line fishing is the only means of extraction. However, the results also show that
this is not a consistent response to reduced fishing pressure; in other regions, changes in
predatory fish abundance did not result in differences in the abundances of their prey,
suggesting no trophic cascade. The studies have contributed towards an understanding of
fish-habitat interactions and provide a baseline for future monitoring of the Ningaloo Marine
Park. They also have important implications for marine park managers in terms of defining
their expectations when implementing Sanctuary Zones. The results also show that
Sanctuary Zones have the potential to be effective tools for fisheries management."

Page 98 of CHAPTER 5 - CONCLUSION, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH says "The effect of
predators on prey observed at Mandu was not consistent across all regions. At
Maud, high abundances of Echinometra mathaei prevailed in the Sanctuary Zone despite the
higher biomass and size of predatory fishes than in the Recreation Zone. At Maud, the
Sanctuary Zone was characterised by the cover of dead coral, rock and Echinopora corals that
provided refuge for E. mathaei. It is likely that this difference in habitat availability mediated
the effects of higher predation in the Sanctuary Zone. At the Osprey region there were no
significant differences between zones in E. mathaei abundances despite potentially higher
predation from lethrinids in the Sanctuary Zone, possibly because of a greater availability of
refuges in the Sanctuary Zone."

Some comments on research from one research group's submission were:- It should also be noted that localised fish feeding in sanctuary zones may result in artificially high numbers of fish, leading to inaccuracies when comparing sanctuary and general/recreational zones; examples include Coral Bay and Mandu. Again, this highlights the lack of baseline information for the Ningaloo MP."

Mandu is the area used to justify expansions of the no take zones based on Westera's comments on the effect of removing predators such as spangled emperor.

The statement "The results also show that Sanctuary Zones have the potential to be effective tools for fisheries management." needs a read of Chapter 5 - CONCLUSION, MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH to be put into context.

CHAPTERs 5 and 6 are well worth a read coz they show what's missing in the knowledge about Ningaloo, and the challenges facing the researchers, even if they get enough money. Also note the number of times "may", "might" "possible" "potential" and other similar qualifying words are used.

Rec anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks.

Rec anglers aren't opposed to sanctuary zones.

Rec anglers want sustainable fishing and good fishing experiences.

Rec anglers want to protect spawning stocks and spawning aggregations (evidence - rec anglers actions on Cockburn Sound Pink Snapper) but these don't necessarily need total closures all year long.

Rec anglers want to protect nursery areas. (But where are they along the Ningaloo Marine Park?) What's the impact of proposed salt works and prawn trawlers in Exmouth Gulf and fish trawlers north/east up the coast?

Marine Parks and Sanctuary zones aren't the only way to achieve these.

Rec anglers don't want to be the only group which has any restrictions applied.

Marine Parks and Sanctuary zones limited to State waters 3 nautical miles from the coast by themselves are not SUFFICIENT to achieve these. That needs a region wide approach.

Marine Parks and Sanctuary zones are NOT the right way to do Fisheries Management.

If the reality is that too many fish are being caught (BIG IF) then give us the data and all thinking Rec anglers will support changes which will really fix that problem.

Closing areas to fishing without managing the fishing pressure WILL lead to more pressure on the areas which stay open and can lead to collapse of the fishery DESPITE the sanctuary zones. Then in ten years there'll be a call to close off even more areas, and more areas lost to rec anglers.....

TerryF
=====

There'll be more.....

(in reply to Greg Dale)

Post #: 51

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 5 December 2004 4:22:23

Ken Lindsay

Posts: 688
Joined: 17 September 2003
From: Sarajevo
Status: offline

Did this academic spend anytime providing analysis of the different areas he researched, eg Maud is mostly sand floor not reef? Can someone tell me whether that might lead to more of particular species? Many of us have also been to Uni, (this is a joke fellas before I'm strung up ie education is gained largely thru experience) Fluvial geomorphology has an enormous impact on the survival of Ningaloo as a reef, let alone a sanctuary and just looking at fish species without regard to habitat is pointless. Upshot, there are no, or insufficient, reliable studies on which to base a decision such as that taken by Gallop.

_____________________________

It was the Law of the Sea, they said. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top.
Hunter S. Thompson

(in reply to Terry Fuller)

Post #: 52

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 5 December 2004 8:26:23

Wayne Barber

Posts: 429
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Exmouth, Western Australia
Status: offline

Ron Campbell, a member of the local advisory committee has quit in protest to Gallop's methods. He is not however just leaving at that. Copies of his resignation has been sent to journo's and pollies across the board. Hopefully Liam Bartlett will see fit to interveiw Ron and give him a chance to air his greivances. Ron is mostly pro sanctuaries but has worked extremely hard to acheive a balanced result. He's spitting chips about the extra 6%.

To be kicked in the guts after all the hard work is not on.

Fred Reibling MUST go independent to push his point.

Gallop's understanding of the word 'independant' is ' those that will say what I want them to say'. Any thinking voter will surely see that a poly that is prepared to doctor recomendations and research to acheive his own goals in one feild ( ie fishing) will not be bothered to do the same in others ( health, education etc). Gallop has to go.

(in reply to Ken Lindsay)

Post #: 53

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 5 December 2004 9:25:51

Ian Stagles

Posts: 2234
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

Ningaloo is just the line in the sand, with further marine parks to follow should the Gallop government be re-elected.

Capes to Capes, Rowley Shoals, Monte Bellos, Dampier and CALM want another in the Broome area too. All with bigger and bigger no-fishing zones - and as Hal has pointed out previously, that's what "sanctuary zones" are, as fishing is the only prohibited activity.

This is an attack on the very basic rights of anglers and now the news media is starting to find out the true facts behind the gloss that Dr Gallop trys to put things will come to light that puts a question mark over the democratic process.

I wrote a personal plea to Dr Gallop, about six months ago, forshadowing all this grief and I offered my time to help him resolve his looming dilema. His Parliamentary Secretary wrote back and said "thanks for bringing your concerns to the government's attention". Or, in other words, **** off!

If the Gallop government wanted parks with appropriate sanctuary zones, for clearly defined purposes, he could have had them - he just had to talk to recreational fishing interests. But they didn't because they thought they didn't need to ask, they could just take - wrong.

_____________________________

Stages

Apathy steals more fish from recreational anglers than any other cause....

(in reply to Wayne Barber)

Post #: 54

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 6 December 2004 8:57:39

Russell Dawson

Posts: 20
Joined: 29 November 2004
From: Broome
Status: offline

If anyone wants confirmation that Ningaloo is going to be a very serious election issue for the Gallop Govt, read Sat's West Australian. The top of the front page highlights the coverage. There are 3 separate pieces on the issue and from a range of opinions, Gallop cops a hell of a blasting.
As Stages has suggested in earlier replys, "Stay angry till election day"
I spent ten years in the 80's & 90's playing the recreational fishing politics game and saw a few good wins when people got if their butts and made the right noises.
NEVER THINK THAT THE GOVT ISN'T BEATABLE...............
In the mid 80's 400 people at a meeting in Bunbury howled down the Fisheries for their plan to reduce the recreational Rock Lobster bag limit................it worked. Things have changed a lot since then and the Fisheries consultative process is now quite effective. It's just a pity that Mr Gallop didn't listen to them on this issue.
Remember, stay angry. (Before and after Christmas of course, you can have a few days off then)

_____________________________

Regards Russell

(in reply to Ian Stagles)

Post #: 55

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 6 December 2004 9:45:32

Michael Constantine

Posts: 2305
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

SO ARE MY EARS DECIEVING ME OR DID I HEAR A RADIO ADD FOR SAVE NINGALOO REEF FROM FISHING THIS MORNING?????

authorised by the state government?????????????????
so i indirectly pay to stop me fishing the reef

mr. horsehead- gallop
FIND A CLIFF OR A GUN MAN
THERE IS EASIER WAYS TO COMMIT POLITICAL SUISIDE THAN WHAT YOU ARE DOING NOW!

_____________________________

http://www.propellers.com.au

(in reply to Russell Dawson)

Post #: 56

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 6 December 2004 11:11:19

Ian Fowler

Posts: 2015
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: 202,303,101....next?
Status: offline

(in reply to Michael Constantine)

Post #: 57

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 6 December 2004 13:45:35

Ron Campbell

Posts: 21
Joined: 5 December 2004
From: Exmouth W.A.
Status: offline

I thought it was time to get some balance and perspective into your forum and clear up some of the BS that has been written in the media about the much-maligned Coral Coast Parks Advisory Committee. I’m not sitting anymore, I resigned last Friday I had been a member since its inception. The committee was formed in 2003 to serve as a community based, non-representative management advisory committee to provide advice to CALM and the MPRA on the development of the draft plan. The version released to the wider public of W.A. was not the first; our committee and local CALM representatives requested a pre-release for the Exmouth community and key stakeholders so the people we thought most effected would be able to have a better chance of getting a final version that came closer to meeting their expectations and the needs of the environment. Submissions to that early version closed with over 150 received including the recommendations made by our committee and our local CALM department. The release of the final draft in August drew a palpable response from our local community and from members of our committee, which resulted in one member’s resignation.

I felt at that time, recommendations for change to the plan from our committee meetings, and views expressed by the community had not been fully considered by the MPRA. I discussed my dissatisfaction with some of these outcomes with the chair of the committee and wish to join my fellow committee member and resign. In the face of the consternation expressed directly to me by locals, I decided to stay on.

I’d like to say at this point I supported most of the sanctuary changes to the marine park, In particular, some additions in the northern section of the park, I think it’s taking a narrow view to believe that sanctuary protection is only there to stop the take of fish for consumption. The Lighthouse Bay zone is a good example; small sections of reef within that area are fished and dived consistently during the season, without sanctuary protection both these activities are unsustainable. The former for obvious reasons and diving due to anchor damage, with sanctuary protection, and a well designed mooring system the reef and fish flourish.

Reading through your forums looking at all the comments for a variety of topics and found a posting Id like to share from Mick Barson responding to a request for boat purchase suggestions he said “ Inshore fishing is certainly not as good as it once was, you just have to look at the charters going further offshore to catch the larger fish but it can be just as much fun using lighter gear in close, I think if we all bought boats just to catch a feed it would be cheaper to go to the fish markets.” I think that comment pretty well sums up the state of play here, particularly in the 65 kilometres of coast from Tantabiddi to Bundegi that has traditionally and I think will continue to bear the brunt of fishing pressure. Tourist’s numbers have increased by a hefty 10% for each of the past three years and that trend is expected to continue, a recent survey conducted by the Exmouth Chamber of Commerce tells us most visitors are coming to the area to fish. In light of these surveys and undeniable anecdotal evidence some added protection particularly along this section of coast I believe was warranted.

Throughout the last 14 months our committee debated and scrutinized at length, each of the 22 proposed changes/extensions to the reserve system. We examined all the pros and cons environmentally, socially, and practically. These areas were nominated for inclusion into the draft because of some outstanding feature/environmental value setting them apart from the rest of the reef. This process coupled with research from Westera on sanctuary zones and the findings from a forum in Queensland into coral reef systems, underpinned to the public the value of change and the validity of their selection.

Checking page 7 of the final draft release in the proposed outcomes of the plan point 2 states: “increases the current sanctuary zones from 10% to 28% of the total area of the state waters of the park and extension”

What happened how did we end up with a plan increased to 34%? None of the areas in the 6% increase have been put to any test or consultative process. Obviously they were not considered environmentally significant to be included in the original plan, so how can these changes be even remotely credible or democratic?

Check page 7 of the final draft release point 3 states: “an expanded program of research, monitoring, education and public involvement “
What kind of autocratic BS is this? This government has sold out our committee, the locals and the public of Western Australia. This is the thin edge of the wedge, all West Australians whether they agree or not with this plan have to sit up and take notice of a government willing to attack a democratic process for their own gain. Without the tiniest shred of deliberation and the stroke of a pen they have taken away a huge chuck of our lifestyle, if we as a community accept these changes where will it end? There is an election just around the corner so they are accountable, but only if we act now.

The Greens leader Robin Chapple seems happy with the result, does that means he accepts change at any cost? Are you willing to give your preferences to a Gallop Labour government prepared to cheat the public of their democratic rights?

The member for Burrup Fred Riebling has said he will quit the labour party and become an independent if the government doesn’t listen to his constituents; unless I’m mistaken they are not listening so what is the next step Fred?

Lastly, NONE of the reporters or individuals that have slammed our committee actually sat in on any/all of the countless meetings held over the last 14 months many held over 2 days, nor did they have the opportunity to listen to and question key stakeholders from a multitude of interests. They were not privy to the vigorous and lengthy debate that went on scrutinizing EVERYTHING about each of the areas selected for change. So to those individuals making assumptions about the shared ideal’s of our committee like “ selected green advisors” and “extremists and zealots”. There is an old saying, unless you have walked a mile in my shoes mate, pull your heads in!

GET INVOLVED, Thanks to Western Angler for the opportunity to be heard.

(in reply to Ian Stagles)

Post #: 58

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 6 December 2004 14:42:15

Ian Stagles

Posts: 2234
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline

Thank you for taking the time to post and add further clarity to the debate which now rages on Ningaloo Ron.

I may well have slightly (only slightly) different views to you on where sanctuary zones should go, but we certainly agree on the lack of process that has dogged the Ningaloo Marine Park Plan.

Recreational interests were very dissappointed that recreational fishing interests were not represented on the Coral Coast Advisory Committee, but we maintained our faith in the "process" for as long as we could. But we were ostensibly ignored which is abhorrent given our ongoing interest in sound eco-system management.

It also surprises me that your committee was discussing fish stocks as the Minister for the Environment has acknowledged to me in writing that she was not managing fish stocks, given that this is the role of the Minister for Fisheries. Her role, she advised, was to manage biodiversity upon which recreational anglers have not impacted.

Sure there are less bigger fish, that's common sense, but we can't wipe fish stocks out unless we are targetting areas such as spawning stocks because we have minimum size limits. If the Department of Fisheries wanted to create observation areas with big fish they would employ a slot limit with bigger fish being returned to the water. Identify the outcome and manage accordingly - I hope CALM are reading this!

A recreational group, that I was part of, that met with the Department of Premier and Cabinet also included significant sanctuary zones but in fact offered a higher level of protection for fish stocks utilizing lower bag limits in a Wilderness Zone within the park - this was rejected.

We have always been prepared to accept responsible closures to fishing once evidence is provided as to the objectives of this step, and indeed recreational anglers have been at the forefront of fishing closures in recent years. However, the marine park planning approach we have always supported is that set out in 1998 by the Australian & New Zealand Environment & Conservation Council, and we cannot believe that with a National Oceans Policy and Bioregional Marine Planning coming down from the Commonwealth level, WA has persisted with marine management at a micro level.

To remove an access right some evidence should be provided to justify such a move - to provide no information is not acceptable as it simply constitutes a resource reallocation in my book.

Early consultation with stakeholders would have averted much of the angst and anger that we now have, but I for one now have a total distrust of this government's marine park planning process. All they had to do was ask and they would have got a community based outcome instead of a fight.

I should add that the Minister for Environment has previously indicated in writing that CALM is not managing fish stocks at Ningaloo, as this is the jurisdiction of the Fisheries Minister whose agency did not support the multiple sanctuary zone approach for this task. It surprises me that debate on fish stocks should have been entertained by CALM or your committee without expert information on the subject.

The sad thing is that the proposals for Rowley Shoals and Monte Bellos are even worse than Ningaloo from an anglers perspective. I know these are remote and probably will not enrage as many anglers as Ningaloo, but fishing closures in the Cape to Cape marine park will guarentee the vast majority of the remaining anglers are upset.

_____________________________

Stages

Apathy steals more fish from recreational anglers than any other cause....

(in reply to Ron Campbell)

Post #: 59

RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 6 December 2004 15:14:02

Terry Fuller

Posts: 2432
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Hamersley, Western Australia
Status: online

Just a quick update to show just how dirty the Green groups are prepared to go.

As recently as a few months ago the greens were assuring us that the process was fundamentally flawed and could not be supported. Now they are calling in all the green troops to undermine Recfishwest - see the email copied below.

You wanted a strong lobby group so now is the time to stand up and be counted.

A few facts:

Recfishwest is not opposed to sanctuary zones, but we don't like them all being put in the best fishing spots. We promoted several HUNDRED kilometres of sanctuary zones at Zuydorpt which would provide enormous egg production benefits along the West coast which would be a wonderful legacy to leave our grandchildren and we have supported similar massive marine parks in the Kimberleys and east of Esperance. We wanted the Rowleys to become a no takeaway area that would have had an enormous benefit and be cheap to police.

Don't forget that we have been very supportive of reducing bag limits as well - we care about the aquatic environment and want it to be sustainable, we just don't want it all to go to the snorkellers or to allow harrassment of whale sharks and manta rays by people who don't realise that these animlas may not want divers in their faces.

Recfishwest has done more for the conservation of the marine environment and maintenance of fishing quality than the green groups. Where were they with the Lefroy pipeline or getting a fish kill protocol or in proposing total protection for sawfish and even barramundi cod? Where were they with the proactive development of Cockburn Sound snapper or where is their support for the wilderness fishing areas that will deliver much better biodiversity outcomes at a much less cost? Who was it that kept the trees in Harvey Weir for marron habitat or tried to save Culham Inlet?

Where is the recognition that sanctuary zones can collpse fisheries if you put 100% of the effort into 66% of the area and the spillover benefits (which are highly variable from species to species) are not large?

Why haven't the Greens worked with us on slot limits and maximum sizes (such has been in place for years with cods and which we have been trying for a long time to get lowered)?

Why have the Greens who were a few months ago pledging their opposition to the Ningaloo process now become the Premier's best friends?

And most importantly why are the Greens lobbying directly against Recfishwest and not raising their (shared) concerns about anchor damage and jetski usage in all sanctuary zones, preferring to gloss over these issues to get 34% as sanctuary zone?

How nice that the Save Ningaloo group use a clownfish, made famous by the American media, as their special species - what are the threats to clownfish from recreational fishing and if few or (correctly) none, why is it that fishing is the only activity to suffer from the Ningaloo extensions?

Please let all your friends know that the Greens are now actively campaigning against recreational fishing interests - see copy of email below.

Frank Prokop, Recfishwest

===============
From: leemcintosh [mailto:leemcintosh@bigpond.com]
Sent: Tuesday, 30 November 2004 8:31 AM
Subject: Ningaloo accomplishment
Congratulations to all of you who have contributed so much to the campaign to protect Ningaloo.

The WA Government announced on the weekend that its new management plan for Ningaloo Reef would include 34% sanctaury zones and a big boost to management dollars for the region. It's a major win for marine conservation in WA!

BUT .. they are taking it a bit rough in the media from the Recfishwest lobby group

AND .. we'd hate to see the Govt. backdown ..

SO .. we have put a letter of support and congrats to the Premier on the the www.saveningaloo.org website (click the clownfish) for you to send ..

please do .. and please (it's all about networks) let others know that this landmark decision should be recognised, and encourage them to do likewise ..

congrats

=========

Sender's name and phone number was attached - if you want it PM me.

=====

The greens letter puts words in recreational anglers mouths... The letter to the Premier includes "I believe the majority of recreational fishers understand that Ningaloo needs reasonable levels of protection, and will support this move."

Let them know, Yes we DO support reasonable levels of protection, but we do NOT support this move.

TerryF
=====

There'll be more.....

(in reply to Ian Stagles)

Post #: 60