Forums | Login | New Posts | Gallery | My Profile | Inbox | Groups | Calendar | Members | Search | Register | Logout



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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Name
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 8 December 2004 10:37:37   
Luke Merrett

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Carnarvon, Western Australia
Status: offline
Hi angry fishos
I live in Carnarvon and often go on fishing hoildays along the coast between Carnarvon and Exmouth. What i want to ask is what the areas being protected are know as to locals, sitting down with our local rag(The Northern Guardian) it seems that the proposed area north of red bluff is what we call harpons and turtles a favorite fishing spot, and I will put my neck on the line and say that the area around Cape Farquhar is some of the best coast along this area. The extension of the existing protection zone around Pelican Point seems to extened north to the 14 mile. These are personal favourite spots for me and my family and the loss of such a stunning area is a tragedy. Another point is that it has been at least 3 to 4 years since we have seen a fisheries officer, this is simply because it is a huge area to police by increasing the area more fisheries officers are required, the outcome of this will proberly more less policed protection zones or increases in our taxes to fund it. not happy jan.
Luke

(in reply to Che Carson)
Post #: 76
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 8 December 2004 11:50:23   
Ian Stagles


Posts: 2234
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
Luke, the whole thing stinks. My suggestion to you, and any other like-minded voters in Carnarvon, is to make sure no ALP or Green candidates get votes come election day. That is the day of reckoning for what the Gallop government has forced on us at Ningaloo.

I can't wait to see what options other parties offer on their marine parks platforms for the forcoming election, because it will be a big issue and it should cost the government seats.

Stay angry Luke because the spots you like are being locked up if Honest Geoff gets back in.

Written for the Angry Anglers Party by Ian Stagles

_____________________________

Stages

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

(in reply to Luke Merrett)
Post #: 77
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 8 December 2004 12:45:05   
Paul Rebelo


Posts: 139
Joined: 26 March 2004
Status: offline
It's obvious that the reco's are being screwed and that there are some angry people about.
Reading through these posts it's easy to get caught up in all the commotion. When I get angry I'll
stop and think about the other side of the equation. In this case it was a bit thin, but what are you gonna do about it?

Some time ago I attended the "Save Ningaloo" march in Fremantle. Many of my friends where there, these are people that are pationate about fishing. That's why we where there. As you know alot of people attended these rallies and the government took notice and the rest is history.

If we orgainise such a rally for this cause I wonder how many people will attend. Organising a rally will be risky . If only a small number of people show up then your dead in the water. If you get an overwelming number of people then they'll take notice.

Will angler apathy prevail.

Do we have the balls to organise a rally or a protest of some sort????
Or is this just a minority group making a big fuss?

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 78
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 8 December 2004 17:03:19   
Ian Stagles


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

Some time ago I attended the "Save Ningaloo" march in Fremantle. Many of my friends where there, these are people that are pationate about fishing. That's why we where there. As you know alot of people attended these rallies and the government took notice and the rest is history.

We made the point to the Premier's department that lots of Save Ningaloo stickers were on 4WDs with rod racks on them - they chose to ignore that. Just vote Gallop 9 on election day.

_____________________________

Stages

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

(in reply to Paul Rebelo)
Post #: 79
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 8 December 2004 22:04:30   
Gerry Brunini


Posts: 1841
Joined: 26 February 2004
Status: offline
Heard an advert on 6pr on my way to work this afternoon.

I cant remember the exact wording but it seemed as though the message was that the closures are an absolute necessity. It would appear, so the advert says that the Whale Sharks are attracted to the reef, which in turn attracts tourists, who in turn spend
$ 12,000,000.

Maybe when I go on holiday and take my fishing gear, Im not a tourist, maybe I dont spend money ... sh#t maybe Im a fisherman

_____________________________

OFW 28

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 80
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 9 December 2004 8:28:52   
Ian Stagles


Posts: 2234
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
Using taxpayers money for a misinformation campaign - surely not Honest Geoff?

I can't wait to see the latest research from the Global Whale Shark Welfare Council, which I think will show conclusively that driving after whale sharks in big boats, and then having a dozen divers chase them for several kilometres reduces the breeding abilities of these iconic megafauna! What then CALM, ban whale shark chasing (previously called watching)?



_____________________________

Stages

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

(in reply to Gerry Brunini)
Post #: 81
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 9 December 2004 9:01:41   
Terry Fuller

 

Posts: 2432
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Hamersley, Western Australia
Status: offline
Oh Dear, oh Dear. Who's advising the Premier?

Who's writing the spin that he signs with his name? No one expects a busy Premier to read a 550 page report (that's what Departments are for), but......

Premier's media release 7 Dec 2004 at http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/media/media.nsf says:- (and the added bolding is mine - read later):-

"World study shows need for Ningaloo reef protection

A global study released today on the health of the world's reefs has backed up the State Government's decision to increase protection for Ningaloo Reef.

The report, Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2004, was launched in Washington DC yesterday and was endorsed by key organisations with expertise in coral reefs, including the United Nations Environment Program and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

Premier Geoff Gallop said the report painted a dire picture of coral reef health worldwide, finding that half the world's coral reefs were under threat of collapse.

"However, it finds that the prognosis for Australia over the next decade is good, as long as management plans continue to be strengthened through measures such as increased sanctuary zones ," Dr Gallop said.

"This is why we took the tough decision to increase sanctuary zones from 10 per cent to 34 per cent to protect the precious reef system at Ningaloo.

"It is also pleasing to see that the report's editor, Dr Clive Wilkinson of the Australian Institute of Marine Science, has identified our decision as helping to prevent Ningaloo Reef going the way of the declining reef systems identified in the report."

The Premier said the report was also a clear reminder that governments around the world needed to govern for the future to protect coral reefs before it was too late.

"However, Colin Barnett and his Liberal colleagues appear unable to grasp this simple concept and have not supported our plan," he said.

"Just like the issue of old growth forests, the Liberals again do not have the vision to protect our environment for future generations - but rather only make decisions for short-term gain.

"I believe we have made a sound decision which protects the interest of everyone in our community - protecting the reef, protecting the region's future tourism and maintaining good access for recreational anglers."

Under the State's Government's plan, recreational fishing will still be permitted along 70 per cent of the marine park's shoreline. Premier's office: 9222 9475 "

==== End of Media release.

The report is at http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004/ and is really worth looking through and reading, but it is huge at 550 pages and about 16 megabytes total downloads.

But when you try to find the parts referred to in the Premier's media release, there's a problem..... The words in the report don't seem to match the words in the media release....

The report abstract says:-

"Abstract:- The Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004 report documents how human activities continue to be the primary cause of the global coral reef crisis. The report details many new initiatives aimed at reversing this degradation such as by conserving the biodiversity, the economic value and beauty of coral reefs.

The report recognises that the major stresses to coral reefs are:
natural forces that they have coped with for millions of years;
direct human pressures, including sediment and nutrient pollution from the land,
over-exploitation and damaging fishing practices,
engineering modification of shorelines; and
the global threats of climate change causing coral bleaching, rising sea levels and potentially threatening the ability of corals to form skeletons in more acid waters.
If reefs are to survive as our natural heritage, we need to act locally to reduce direct human impacts and, globally, to combat greenhouse emissions."


Note the words "over-exploitation and damaging fishing practices". And yet the Fisheries Minister has been quoted as saying in Parliament "he is unaware of any research suggesting that recreational fishing is affecting biodiversity within the Ningaloo park" and the Department of Fisheries has said these large no take areas are not justified for fisheries management. See Thursday's 9 Dec article in the West Australian from the Research Director of the Department of Fisheries.

And the detailed assessment of WA's reefs and Ningaloo Reef in Volume 2, Page 308 says:-

"Western Australia (WA) has many coral reefs scattered along 3,000 km of coast with a wide
variety of reef types, predominantly fringing reefs (including Ningaloo, the world’s largest)
and patch reefs. Most of the reefs are remote from population centres, while some reefs are
also remote from land (e.g. over 300 km offshore). The majority of the reefs are near shore
in embayments or islands around the coast. The Houtman Abrolhos Islands form the most
southern reef system in the Indian Ocean. Western Australia is developing a system of marine
parks and reserves to incorporate the large number of reefs not currently within MPAs. Some
protection, however, is provided under a number of general Acts (i.e. State Fisheries Act,
Environmental Protection Act, Wildlife Conservation Act)."


Page 314 of the report says:-

"Western Australia. There is increasing effort to manage coral reefs within a system of parks and reserves. The
draft Ningaloo Reef Marine Park Management Plan (due for gazettal in late 2004 or early 2005)
proposes to increase the proportion of the reef that is highly protected to 28%. ..... While the area of reef
under management continues to expand, the parallel effort of coral reef monitoring has not
kept pace. The vast distances involved and remote and wild nature of reefs in WA is an obstacle
to increasing monitoring effort, thus the monitoring effort does not match the programs on
the GBR.

The status of WA reefs is variable, however the reefs are predominantly in good condition
and are exposed to fewer local impacts than other reefs around the world. WA has a very long
coastline and the inshore coastal areas north of Exmouth through to the Northern Territory
contain vast areas of coral reefs and coral communities. There are comparatively few river
systems draining into the reefs and minimal coastal development, thus declining water quality
is rarely an issue. Recent impacts were mainly climatic, e.g. coral bleaching and cyclones. Reefs
close to Indonesia (e.g. Scott and Ashmore Reefs) may suffer over-fishing, and ponding of coral
spawn has caused coral mortality on Ningaloo Reefs. Future threats to coral reefs of WA include
climate change and associated coral bleaching, and damage from cyclones."


and "Ningaloo Reef: This is the longest fringing reef in the world (280 km), with coral cover varying
widely along its length, although generally highest in the south. Bleaching, cyclones and
Drupella spp. have caused some coral mortality in recent years. Decomposing coral spawn has
caused coral death. There is minimal runoff from an arid coast and the reefs retain a capacity
to recover. The Ningaloo Reef Marine Park is managed by CALM and is being re-zoned. There
is a proposal to include 28% of the park (4000 sq km) as ‘no-take’ zones."


and on Page 316 "MASS CORAL MORTALITY INDUCED BY CORAL SPAWN ON NINGALOO REEF

Many coral species spawn simultaneously, within a few hours or a few days each year. This
maximises the chance of fertilisation and also reduces the loss to consumers. However,
the mass spawning event in April 2002 on the Ningaloo Reef resulted in major coral
mortality around Coral Bay. The spawning coincided with calm seas and light on-shore
winds, such that the floating slicks of eggs and spawn were not dispersed, but pushed
onshore by the winds and currents. The concentrated slicks of spawn up to 2.5 km long
rapidly depleted oxygen in the water due to their respiration and then decomposition of
the larvae.

This caused a mass mortality of corals, with a decrease in cover from 42.9%
before the spawning to 9.4% afterwards. In some places, there was total mortality of
the corals that had just spawned. The greatest mortality of up to 80% was in species of
Acropora (branch and table forms) close to shore and 30% further offshore. The oxygen
depletion also killed more than a million fish and many millions of invertebrates. There
have been 3 similar incidences of coral mortality in the past 25 years, where the spawning
corals resulted in the mass mortality of corals and other reef biota on the Ningaloo
reefs. Tim Grubba, Jennie Cary and Ben Fitzpatrick. Western Australian Department of
Conservation and Land Management, Ben Fitzpatrick benf@calm.wa.gov.au"


and on Page 324 "Similarly in Western Australia, reefs had been damaged by predator outbreaks during the 1980s (Drupella spp. at
Ningaloo Reef)"


.....NOTE THIS REPORT DOESN'T EVEN MENTION FISHING, LET ALONE OVERFISHING, AS ANY POTENTIAL THREAT TO NINGALOO.....

Looking at the status and threats listed for Ningaloo, there is NOTHING to suggest it is likely to go the way of other declining reef systems EXCEPT entirely natural things WHICH ARE NOT CONTROLLED BY NO TAKE ZONES.

I can't find anything which has specifically "identified the Gov't's decision as helping to prevent Ningaloo Reef going the way of the declining reef systems identified in the report" as claimed in the Premier's media release. The only support is general support for Marine Protected areas, and when you read about the real damage to reefs and fish stocks in some other parts of the world - no one would argue about the need for some large no take zones IN THOSE PLACES where they also need to put in some real effective FISHERIES MANAGEMENT as well.

Anyway.....

Manage fisheries by Fisheries Management, not by closing areas.

Recreational anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks.

Recreational anglers aren't opposed to sanctuary zones in the right places for the right reasons.

Recreational anglers want to protect the environment, but locking up large areas is not the only way to do this.

Recreational anglers want sustainable fishing and good fishing experiences.

Recreational anglers want to protect spawning fish stocks and spawning fish aggregations, but these don't need total closures all year long.

Recreational anglers want to protect nursery areas, but the Ningaloo Marine Park plan does not list any of these.

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

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

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

Marine Parks and Sanctuary zones by themselves are not SUFFICIENT to achieve these. That needs a region wide approach which the Government recognises and is working on but refuses to apply at Ningaloo.

The Gov't needs to reconsider the plans for the Ningaloo Marine Park and listen to recreational anglers who are only asking for a fair deal which recognises sustainable recreational fishing.

TerryF
=====

There WILL be more on this.....

===============

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 82
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 9 December 2004 15:24:20   
Terry Fuller

 

Posts: 2432
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Hamersley, Western Australia
Status: offline
Update to my earlier post number 71 "Is the Premier starting to distance the Government from the details of the decision, and put the reponsibility for this decision on to some other Authority?"

"Premier Geoff Gallop said yesterday that the Government's chief adviser on Ningaloo was the CALM-appointed Marine Parks Reserve Authority.
"I have made it clear, we are going to protect that reef and we are going to protect that park for the future," he said. "The Marine Parks Reserve Authority are our major adviser on that matter and we took their advice."


The report in the West Australian implies that the MPRA recommended increasing the no take area to 34% - an increase of 6% over what was put out for public comments, and the Gov't just took their advice.

Following is an e-mail received from someone who has spoken to Barry Wilson. These two interpretations do not align and one of them is not telling the whole story - which one is it?

Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 1:45 PM

"Spoke to Barry Wilson this morning, just thought I would see what he had to say about what has happened. He assured me that MPRA had nothing to do with the extra zones that were put in and said that he only realized that the Winderabandi sanctuary zone had been added as we were talking on the phone.

He also said that he knew the area of Janes Bay was very important for crayfishers and didn't want us to think it had been done on purpose. After telling me that he said that the area in question HAD been identified as one of a number of areas that may be suitable for a sz in the future. True or not that was his story."

====

TerryF
=====

There'll be more.....

(in reply to Terry Fuller)
Post #: 83
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 10 December 2004 7:09:27   
Ian Stagles


Posts: 2234
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
A further $11,000 has been spent in todays' West Australian trying to convince voters that locking up so many of the best fishing locations at Ningaloo is a great idea.

Happily there is a piece in the same paper that indicates that the Coalition will be looking to manage Ningaloo Marine Park differently. A ray of sunshine in an otherwise bleak Exmouth environment.



_____________________________

Stages

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

(in reply to Che Carson)
Post #: 84
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 10 December 2004 11:18:09   
Alan Zecchin


Posts: 1927
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Warnbro/Exmouth Western Australia
Status: offline
Heard this morning on 6pr , Paul Murray say some thing about a major announcement of new areas to be locked away from rec anglers . Said he had the relevant minister coming on to talk about it .

Unfortunately I had to turn the radio off before I heard the guts of it , anyone else hear it ?

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 85
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 10 December 2004 15:29:01   
Terry Fuller

 

Posts: 2432
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Hamersley, Western Australia
Status: offline
The full page advertisement by the Gov't in West Australian 10 Dec. at a cost to taxpayers of $11,000 says:-

"A global study, The Status of Coral Reefs in the World 2004, launched in Washington DC last Monday, paints a dire picture of the world's coral reefs, warning that half are under threat of collapse. However, it finds that Australia's coral reefs will be in good shape for the next decade as long as we continue to strengthen our management plans. That's why the WA Government is extending the Ningaloo Marine Park and increasing sanctuary zones to 34 per cent. It's a move backed by coral reef experts who see it as helping to maintain a healthy reef. The Government is committed to protecting the reef, protecting tourism and fishing for the future. Remember, from March 1, 2005, recreational fishing is still allowed in two thirds of the Ningaloo Marine Park, and along 70% of its shoreline."

Look at "it finds ... as long as we continue to strengthen our management plans" which implies the Status of Coral Reefs report says that some management plans for Ningaloo NEED to be strengthened.

The report does NOT find or identify any plans which it says are ACTUALLY NEEDED or it even RECOMMENDED at Ningaloo.

And even in general, non location specific Australia wide terms, what management plans does the report say need to be strengthened? Judge for yourself.... See if you can find them. See also post 82 above for assessment of the threats at Ningaloo. http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004/

Page 306 of the report:- (Abstract)

"In 2004: Raised sea surface temperatures due to global warming, and a predicted increase in the frequency and intensity of coral bleaching, and cyclones have emerged as major threats to coral reefs in the region. Australian coral reefs, however, remain in a relatively good state despite episodes of degradation. Management is seen as effective."

"Predictions for 2014: Efforts to strengthen the protection of reefs and reduce human impacts through MPAs, improved fisheries management and holistic catchment management are expected to continue. Provided these programs are adequately supported by education, research, monitoring, legislation and enforcement, the prognosis is good for reefs of Australia and PNG. Nevertheless there is strong potential for major damage from global climate change, which could cause fundamental shifts in coral communities away from dominance by hard corals. This is particularly true for many reefs in Australian waters that have been disturbed in the last decade, and are in the early stages of recovery."


Page 324 of the report, (the details) Included some Papua New Guinea comments - deleted and shown as .....

In 2004: Vigilance has become a key issue, as new and emerging threats to the long-term health of coral reefs in the region became apparent. In some areas, a combination of pressures has resulted in massive declines in coral cover on many reefs, including some in Australia. Raised sea surface temperatures from global warming resulted in increases in the frequency of coral bleaching, with mass bleaching events on the GBR and other reefs of Australia in 1998 and 2002. Bleaching emerged as the number one threat to coral reefs in the region. The bleaching coincided with a new outbreak of Crown of Thorns Starfish on the GBR, with accelerated coral loss. Impacts of cyclones were a factor on many reefs recently in Australia, and the threat of increases in coral diseases was recognised; disease was a relatively minor issue in 1994. Management of reefs is focused on the direct threats of water quality and over-exploitation, and the indirect global threats highlighted in Chapter 1. Nevertheless, Australian coral reefs are generally in a relatively good state, although some reefs, especially those close to land are degraded. Monitoring data is now available to inform managers that the reefs have strong recovery potential, provided there is enough time between disturbance events. The key issue remains the intensity and frequency of the disturbance events. Management authorities are implementing stronger zoning plans for many reefs in the Australian region to strengthen reef protection.

Predictions for 2014: The prognosis for the reefs of Australia .. over the next decade is good. This is provided that the strengthening of management plans continues and there is ongoing support for monitoring programs to judge the performance of these plans. .... There is a clear understanding by governments and stakeholders throughout the region of the value of conserving coral reef resources. This is stronger in Australia than PNG, but is developing there. This is reflected in continued efforts to conserve reefs and protect them from extractive industries and other human pressures in a bid to enhance their resilience. There is also clear recognition that direct human pressures are probably the major cause of damage to the environment that can be managed. Such human pressures can rapidly degrade or destroy the coral reefs, often through ignorance. The current strategy for Australian reefs is to minimise direct human threats of poor catchment management delivering poor water quality and over-exploitation of fisheries resources and associated fishing damage to the reefs, so that natural reef resilience is enhanced to cope with the pressures from global climate change and plagues of predators. It is predicted that reefs will recover from periodic stresses, provided that chronic disturbances are reduced. Monitoring is an essential component of an early detection system to enable managers to adjust acceptable use levels. Effective monitoring and management is in place in Australia .... Thus the outlook for Australian reefs is good....
.
However there is one major caveat. The threat of warming seas from global climate change is the major threat facing coral reefs. There is considerable current research in Australia on the threats posed by global climate change, and more needs to be done to determine whether corals will adapt to new temperature regimes. In the worst-case scenario, it is conceivable that some coral reefs will suffer major reversals over next decade, which will be exacerbated as many of these reefs are currently recovering from previous disturbances.

RECOMMENDATIONS The future for the reefs of Australia .. remains relatively bright. Except for the unknown extent of the effects of global climate change, the essential conservation values of these reefs may be reasonably expected to persist. This depends on successful mitigation of the effects of terrestrial runoff and reduction in fishing pressure (particularly on parts of the GBR). Already steps are being taken to address these issues and enhance the ability of reefs to withstand the threat of climate change.

Australia

Most Australian reefs are well protected against most anthropogenic pressures, both by law and by capacity to enforce those regulations. This situation needs to be maintained.

The development of networks of highly protected areas that preserve biodiversity will increase the resilience of reefs to cope with increasing pressures from factors such as climate change.
.
There are growing numbers of reefs under management plans, thus the implementation and maintenance of effective monitoring is essential to assess the effectiveness of these plans in an environment of changing human pressures and climate change.

The long-term effects of chronic pollution from river runoff and coastal activities are difficult to detect. However, it is clear that declining water quality constitutes a major threat to the GBR and the Reef Water Quality Protection Plan has been developed to address this issue. This needs to continue and be strengthened.

Chronic fishing pressures, both commercial and recreational, have the potential to alter the fish populations on coral reefs by selectively targeting key predator species, such as groupers and snappers. Such changes may have follow-on ecological impacts, and conflict with the values placed on such fishes by international tourists. Management attention is required to ensure the sustainability of Australia’s coral reef fisheries resources, and balance their use by different stakeholders.

The GBR is relatively well studied. The major pressures identified are fishing (trawling and line fishing), climate change and declining water quality, due to the development of agriculture in the catchments of rivers that flow into GBR waters. The major research programs investigating these impacts and coordinated by the Cooperative Research Centre for the GBR require ongoing sustainable funding as political and societal environments change. There are strong links between research and management that need to be maintained and included in future management plans.


==========

Apart from entirely natural things or human influences which it says (elswhere see post #82) don't exist at Ningaloo, the report talks about the potential impact of over fishing, and no one will argue that any potential overfishing must be managed.

But even the Environment Minister has admitted that Marine Parks and Sanctuary Zones are not the right tools for managing fisheries and fish catches. The Minister for Fisheries has stated in Parliament that "he is unaware of any research suggesting that recreational fishing is affecting biodiversity within the Park", and Dept of Fisheries Director of Research has warned that closed areas may backfire.

So at the very most, the report's recommendations could be seen as recommending a close watch on, research on, review of, and if needed, strengthening of FISHERIES MANAGEMENT. Yep, we agree, bring it on, and get the research data to show what the REAL situation is.

And if that means the rules, bag limits, etc for Ningaloo need to change (tighter, what other changes would you expect?) that means recreational anglers will have been hit with a double whammy double dipping.

Locked out by Marine parks no take zones which concentrate the fishing effort into smaller areas, and then tighter fisheries management to manage the catch so that the smaller areas left don't get overfished.

Who could possibly call that fair or scientific?

Anyway..... Manage fisheries by Fisheries Management, not by closing areas. Recreational anglers aren't opposed to Marine Parks, but... etc, etc

TerryF
=====

There'll be more.....

===============

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 86
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 10 December 2004 15:36:26   
Ian Stagles


Posts: 2234
Joined: 4 June 2003
From: Perth, Western Australia
Status: offline
Focussing all recreational fishing in the remaining areas will result in either very low (even down to zero) bag limits or even more closures.

I can't see the Gallop government changing their minds on any of this. In fact my bet is that Dr Gallop will just gazette these parks, to bring them into law, and then wait to see whether they get back in to government to deal with any disallowance motions or legal challenges.

Very un-Australian locking out responsible anglers on a wholesale basis Geoffrey - time for a change.

_____________________________

Stages

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

(in reply to Terry Fuller)
Post #: 87
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 10 December 2004 16:19:53   
Ron Campbell

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 5 December 2004
From: Exmouth W.A.
Status: offline
I think with an election around the corner both parties are keenly aware the Ningaloo debate is THE issue. We must stay focused, remain optimistic and keep our eye on the target. Remember Mr Gallop the old saying government doesn't get vote in, they get voted out.
Not listening to good advice is the quickest way out !

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 88
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's - 10 December 2004 17:09:49   
Dick Pasfield


Posts: 5953
Joined: 8 July 2003
From: Kununurra Western Australia
Status: offline
Your right Stages and even if Ministers who see the writing on the wall are tempted to break ranks on this one they wont be able to because for them the bigger issue is now personal survival by winning the election. If there's even a hint that they're not all singing from the same book the opposition could carve them up and who knows, the elction could be lost.

They have to concentrate on showing a strong and united front, but if they do lose you can bet that the Latham back stabbing will look like a kindy bithday party compared to the blood letting at the local level.

Personally I believe that there is more then one Minister more then a bit windy on this and never thought it'd be the brightest idea. Pity they don't have the influence others do.

Rec angler's only option now is to give leverage and support to the opposition's campain around this issue. Let's hope it's strong enough


Regards Dick





_____________________________

Facts are negotiable, perceptions are absolute rock solid.

(in reply to Ian Stagles)
Post #: 89
RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's over Ningaloo - 11 December 2004 12:20:40   
Terry Fuller

 

Posts: 2432
Joined: 5 June 2003
From: Hamersley, Western Australia
Status: offline
From the article by Rebecca Rose in the West Australian Saturday 11 Dec

State Gov't forced to defend its new fish plan. The State Government has defused one political time bomb but detonated another with plans for more restrictions in popular fishing areas off the coast.

Fisheries Minister Kim Chance said the draft proposal for the Dampier Archipelago was more in line with how the Fisheries Department wanted fishing managed than at Ningaloo. It also had more local involvement. "Having local public support for something means your hopes of obtaining compliance with the scheme are going to be much higher," he said.

Conservation Council spokesman Dennis Beros said the sanctuaries had been scaled back for political reasons.

"Independent scientists agree that marine biodiversity can only be managed with sizeable, representative, sanctuary zones," he said.


=====

Well, how much of that also applies at Ningaloo?

Scaled up for political purposes to attract the green vote.

A reminder, from the Minister for Fisheries no less, that Fisheries Dept doesn't agree with the plans for Ningaloo.

And the most questionable statement from the Conservation Council is:- "Independent scientists agree that marine biodiversity can only be managed with sizeable, representative, sanctuary zones,"

What EXACTLY do they mean by "manage"?

Depending on the answer, that MIGHT apply to areas where you have uncontrolled environmental and extreme human pressures, destructive fishing techniques like poison and explosives, and/or heavy overfishing due to wrong fisheries management or none at all. No one would argue that really strong actions are needed there.

But it DOES NOT apply to Ningaloo where NONE of these exist. See posts 82 and 86 above for assessment of the threats at Ningaloo from the latest Status of Coral Reefs in the World 2004 report at http://www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/scr2004/

Which independent scientists agree? Where is their research and data from properly conducted trials which shows that there are NO OTHER WAYs to manage biodiversity in Western Australia's reefs with the threats which have been identified for them?

TerryF
=====

There'll be more.....

(in reply to Dick Pasfield)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community] >> Fisheries Management and Environmental Issues >> RE: Gallop Screws Fisho's Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.172