The Science of Marine Parks

[fishingjew]

Another good read about the science of marine parks.


http://www.trac.org.au/cgi-bin/test?page=/myths/marine_park_science.htm

[Matt_F]

Hey fishingjew,

I'm unable to access any trac.org web pages. Is some sort of password needed? Seems a bit strange. I am real keen to have a read.

Matt.

[Jeremy]

here is the test (hope this works). There are some hyperlinks that probably won't work from here. Thanks for posting this fishingjew.


The Science of Marine Parks
Over the years, we have been told that coral-eating starfish, oil pollution, over-fishing, fertilizer runoff, silt, agrichemicals, sewerage, anchor damage, people walking on the reef, ship groundings and global warming were each imminent threats to the Great Barrier Reef. As we all now know the Great Barrier Reef is alive and thriving and recent research shows it has survived warming periods in the past and will in the future, whether that is by geographical adaptation or biological. During the last global ice age the GBR was a dry dusty coastal plain where aboriginals hunted kangaroos: that is the history of our earth: destruction and renewal!
The main claim behind Marine Parks is to protect our fish stocks. Walter Starck, a pioneer in the scientific investigation of coral reefs and the father of Marine Biology looks at the evidence behind these claims and finds that the reality is much different. Read it <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/Stark1.pdf) but the quote which should tag you is:
“No evidence was found that fishing had any detrimental effect on biodiversity, or on the ecological integrity of the broader reef community.”
These and the other scare campaigns have more to do with politics than they do science. The problem we have here, as we do with almost all environmental issues, is one of "consensus science". The scientist, author and film maker Michael Crichton explains consensus science well:
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”
Most of the so called "research" that is relied upon to support Marine Parks in NSW has never passed the fundamental criteria for real science which involves submission to a recognised internationally peer reviewed journal and to stand the test of inspection, criticism and reproducibility.
The Role Of Marine Reserves As Fisheries Management Tools
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are portions of the marine environment in some or all human activity is banned. Often these are proposed as a safeguard against collapse of fishstocks, although there are numerous other suggested purposes for their establishment. “No take zones in MPAs" (nMPAs) are those from which no harvest is allowed. Other areas include those where certain types of harvest are prohibited, which are reserved for certain user groups, or which are protected from other human activities such as drilling or dredging.
A selection of recent published opinions about these issues from marine fisheries managers, scientists and conservationists is <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/RoleReview.pdf) and <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/Shipp.pdf) but a quote from Shipp sums it up succinctly:
"Current plans or suggestions regarding closure of large areas of the US mainland continental shelf to harvest are simply not scientifically supportable from a fishery management perspective.
The suggestion, for example, that as much as 40 % of the Southern California shelf should be designated an nMPA (no take zone) is totally without merit from a fishery harvest perspective.
Though there may be other aesthetic benefits, such a closure would severely reduce harvest potentials, shift effort to other areas, and likely have a substantial negative economic impact on both the commercial and recreational fishing industries."
In other words "aesthetic" is the only benefit of the cultural and economic devastation of whole communities along the coast. This is supported by the sub committee on Oceans And Fisheries from the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation after an extensive review of fishing practices: “.... The New England Fisheries Management Committee has concluded that the impact of recreational fishing in managed closed areas has no impact of the recovery of over fished fish stocks.”
The Protectionist Approach: The Proposed Solution to a Non Existent Problem
Part 1: Is There a Problem with Fish Stocks?


In the current circumstances of the protected marine areas we are told continually that fish stocks are becoming depleted but saying this does not make it true. There are three areas of ocean which we need to consider:
1: International Waters: These waters are generally considered to be over-fished. This is especially true for some deep water demersal fish such as Orange Roughy, Gemfish and Patagonian Toothfish and for some pelagic species, for example Southern Bluefin Tuna have been considered over-fished for years. However these areas are effectively completely unmanaged by any state or Commonwealth and will not be affected by the Marine Parks (MP).

2: Commonwealth Waters: These fisheries also include the demersal species (Orange Roughy, Gemfish and Patagonian Toothfish) and the pelagics (Southern Bluefin Tuna). However despite an annual reduction in quotas (which may make it uneconomical for some), some over- fishing has probably continued, with many commercial fishers simply ignoring the quotas. Again these areas are not managed or affected by NSW MPs.

3: Inland Waters in NSW up to 3nm from shore: These waters are managed by NSW Fisheries and are the site of the MPs. Within the inshore areas controlled by NSW there is not a single piece of scientific evidence which suggests that any fish stock is either over-fished, depleted or threatened, in fact the opposite is true! Every single piece of evidence we have both from government, science and from commercial and recreational fish catch records indicate that the current take is entirely sustainable!
So to use fish stocks as a basis for banning recreational fishing in MPs is a blatant lie!
Part 2: An Alleged Solution


The proposed method should at least have some fundamental evidence of success. The evidence with regard to MP is absolutely crystal clear from some of the worlds most prestigious marine scientists, the leading marine research institutes (including our own CSIRO) and indeed NSW Fisheries: there is a complete lack of evidence that marine protected areas have any benefit at all with regard to recreational fishing. Further the concept of "spillover" is not only scientifically unsustainable it is provably wrong for the simple fact that most fish are migratory: fish do not stay in the same place and “spillover” into adjacent areas, they migrate up and down the NSW coast.
The report THE ROLE OF MARINE RESERVES AS FISHERIES MANAGEMENT TOOLS says quite clearly <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/PC12787-BRS-REVIEW.pdf), a small quote to wet your appetite:
“Despite a lot of enthusiasm about the establishment of marine protected areas, there has been little empirical work undertaken to evaluate their worth in achieving conservation objectives, and less on their effects on adjacent fish stocks.”
In summary the fact that some extremist Green organisations allege there is a problem with fish stocks does not make it fact, indeed all the scientific evidence indicates that there are no current threats to inshore fish stocks. Even if there were such a problem the proposed method of marine protected areas is both scientifically and logically invalid.

So Are Marine Protected Areas a Fisheries Panacea?
Chronic failures in unmanaged marine fisheries management have led some to suggest that marine protected areas are the solution to achieve sustainable fisheries. While such systems may work for certain habitat specific and non-mobile species, their utility for highly mobile stocks (the majority of fish!) is obviously flawed.
Often the debate among proponents and critics of MPAs is confused by a lack of appreciation of the goals and objectives of such systems. The current consideration of MPAs as the basis of future fisheries management is a symptom and not the singular solution to the problem of inappropriate implementation of fishing effort controls. The latter will provide greater overall conservation benefits if properly applied.
Any future use of MPAs as an effective tool to achieve sustainable fisheries management in temperate systems should be treated as a large-scale, rigorously designed experiment to ensure that the outcome of using MPAs is interpreted correctly and not discredited for false reasons.
One of the most exhaustive studies yet “Are Marine Protected Areas a Red Herring or a Fisheries Panacea? “ Contribution No. 11271 of the Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. Michel J. Kaiser School of Ocean Sciences, University of Wales-Bangor, Menai Bridge, Anglesey, LL59 5AB, United Kingdom, *Marine Policy Center, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute, Woods Hole, MA02543, USA reports on the science and effectiveness of MPs <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/Kaiser1.pdf). A few quotes however are appropriate:
On the negative aspects of MPAs:
“Worse still, MPAs have the potential to displace current fishing activities and thereby cause wider ecological damage to previously undisturbed and perhaps unknown critical seabed habitats”
On the effectiveness of reserves for mobile species:
“While such systems (marine protected areas) work for certain habitat specific and non-mobile species, their utility for highly mobile stocks is questionable.”
Traditional fisheries management is better, if you take care:
“The current consideration of MPAs as the basis of future fisheries management is a symptom and not the singular solution to the problem of inappropriate implementation of fishing effort controls. The latter (the traditional fisheries management approach) will provide greater overall conservation benefits if properly applied.”
And then the real cruncher which says is all: lets disrupt millions of people's culture, recreation, business and livelihoods as a "experiment":
“Any future use of MPAs as an effective tool to achieve sustainable fisheries management in temperate systems should be treated as a large-scale, rigorously designed experiment to ensure that the outcome of using MPAs is interpreted correctly and not discredited for false reasons.”
Measuring The Effects Of Marine Reserves On Fisheries: The Dilemmas Of Experimental Programs
In theory, no-take marine reserves hold benefits for nearby fisheries: the reserves allow target species to grow older and larger, produce more young, and ultimately replenish fished areas with larvae and/or adults. While evidence of benefits to fisheries has appeared in scientific literature, some researchers argue that most science on reserves has not involved sufficiently rigorous experimental design, including the use of control sites. As a result, they say, there is an urgent need for experimental programs to clarify the fisheries benefits - and costs, for that matter - of marine reserves. See <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/MPA-News.pdf) for a review of this issue in the MPA News. However even within the article they they continue to cast doubt on their own methods:
Ray Hilborn, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, says:
"It is being argued that reserves will protect both biodiversity and increase fish yields. But the scientific data used to support these claims have internal biases. First, the protected areas used in the research were almost certainly selected for protection because of their higher productivity" - thus making comparisons with outside areas unfair - and - second, the effort that was excluded from the protected areas would have been redirected to the unprotected areas."
First the admission we have no science:
"We should be embarking on an experimental program to determine whether MPAs have fisheries benefits or not,"
Then the admission that it is gut feeling:
"My gut feeling is that, for biodiversity reasons, we should probably go ahead and lock up a good portion of the sea, but not pretend like it'll benefit fishermen."
Wendy Craik, Chair of the Board of Directors for the Australian Fisheries Management Authority and former executive director of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority admits to a lack of any convincing evidence about MPAs:
"I think managers should say that they are looking at marine reserves as options. Without empirical evidence to say that reserves would enhance fisheries, to say otherwise would be courageous."
Neville Barrett, Marine Research Laboratories, Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania confirms what we have known all along: traditional methods work best for us in our waters:
"There is a reasonable argument that perhaps, in countries capable of doing so, fisheries and their impacts are best managed by appropriate conventional strategies such as input and output controls, gear restrictions, etc., and if provided with sufficient information these fisheries could be optimized without closed areas"
An Example Submission On Behalf Of Sunfish NQ (Branch) Inc
The following submission was made on behalf of Sunfish NQ (Branch) Inc in respect of the Draft Zoning Plans proposed to be implemented under the Representative Areas Program by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (herein "GBRMPA"). It is well worth a read <<here>> (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/Sunfish1.pdf)
http://www.trac.org.au/images/spacer.gif

[flathead_fred]

That was a great little read there. Thanks for that Jeremy. The most important thing to note is that quote "My gut feeling is that, for biodiversity reasons, we should probably go ahead and lock up a good portion of the sea, but not pretend like it'll benefit fishermen." The science which I am aware of that adresses the issues of where MPA'S should go and how big etc. is all based on which habitat mosaics support the highest biodiveristy and the importance of preserving these areas(for ecosystem services and stuff like that). Whatever you read about improving fisheries is obviously crap (like Jeremy's post reveals) especially in a sub-tropical embayment like Moreton Bay with highly mobile fauna, not sedentary species like on reefs with small home ranges. I'm currently doing some research on the link between habitat mosaics (and their loss and degradation) and commercial catch from the past 30 years (I'll post later in the year with an update) . Theres some big holes in what has been done (and many scientists admit it) and it seems like they'll go ahead and make some changes to the current zoning plan without waiting for the research. Shame really.

Mike

[fishingjew]

Specific Address to the NPA’s Marine Park Article
In the following I have included the Question and Answer from the NPA and then included my
reply in bold.
1. Are marine parks multiple use?
NPA: Yes. In NSW marine parks are zoned areas in which all activities, aside from mining,
can continue. They are created for long-term conservation of the area while taking into
account its economic. social and cultural needs. Zonings within the park vary from waters in
which commercial and recreational fishing can occur to those where fishing is restricted but
where diving, boating and snorkelling can continue. Such `marine sanctuaries' enable marine
life to live and breed in peace, replenishing depleting fish stocks.
Dr Jon: No. Marine parks are not based on good basic science or community desire but
rather are a manifestation of an ideological viewpoint of man's place in nature. The
concept of enabling marine life to "live and breed in peace" is both a lie and completely
unnatural.
It is a lie because all fish live in an “instantaneous death by predation” environment,
there is no such thing as "living and breeding in peace" because there is always a
predator waiting around the next rock to eat them!
It is completely unnatural because man has hunted and fished every single continent
on this earth and fishing for food is an integral and natural part of the environment.
Let's not mince words here, fishing is not “RESTRICTED” as the NPA so gently puts it
is simply “BANNED”!
Finally there is no need for "replenishing depleted fish stocks" for the simple fact that
fish stocks are not depleted and the current highly regulated inshore commercial and
recreational fishing strategy appears to be completely sustainable.
2. Are marine parks seeking to lock fishers out?
NPA: No. Fishing can occur through much of marine park waters. Zoning within the marine
park will allocate fishing activity to certain areas but the aim of the park is not to disrupt
fishing. Public consultation will help identify the most effective way of balancing the needs of
conservation and Fishers.
Dr Jon: Yes. As any fisherman is well aware fish do spread equally in the underwater
area rather they congregate in and around reefs, sandbanks, holes, weed banks or
some other structure which provides cover, camouflage and/or food.
In all the current marine parks the zoning has been specifically targeted to ban fishing
in and around these underwater structures, in effect making fishing in the remaining
areas a useless exercise. The Minister has specifically stated that “this is the model
that will be used for all future marine parks.”
The concept of public consultation is a joke! In the case of the Cape Byron Marine
park approximately 6352 submissions were received, over 6000 of those (95%)
opposed the suggested the zoning plan. In other words there was complete, absolute
and total community opposition. However not only did the NSW government
completely ignore the community they actually INCREASED the no take areas! So
much for "balancing" the needs of conservation and fishers.
3. So marine parks are not all no take areas?



NPA: No .Some confusion stems from the 'marine national park' system in Victoria which are
the equivalent to NSW marine no-take' sanctuary areas. Marine parks in NSW are multiple
use where there are'no-take' areas but various fishing practices can occur in all other areas of
the park.
Dr Jon: Yes and No. Marine parks are not ALL no take areas but ALL the key fish
aggregation areas are included in the no take zones which means that although fishing
is banned in approximately 30% of the park area it is effectively banned in 100%
because there are simply no fish in the remaining areas. In the case of the CBMP the
only areas left open to fishers are the Marine equivalents of deserts where there is little
or no marine life.
To deliberately try to deceive the fishing community about no take areas is indicative
of the ideologically driven agenda.
4. Do marine parks have `no go' waters?
NPA: No. People can access all waters in NSW marine parks.
Dr Jon: Whilst it is true that to date there are no 'no-go' areas this is not to say they will
not happen in the future. However some of the restrictions placed upon people
and/or boats entering these areas effectively create no-go areas now. For instance in
many areas of the marine park you are not allowed to take fishing gear, use sinkers
and you may not drop anchor (take note Scuba Divers!). Commercial whale watching
and diving will also be banned and there will be severe speed restrictions.
Just as in the land-based case where we have Wilderness areas where people are
effectively excluded from it is just a matter of time before we also have the marine
versions of wilderness where ALL water craft are excluded. I can see it now:
“surfboards look like large predators and disturb the ‘baby’ fish from playing in
peace.”
5. Will marine parks restrict beach access?
NPA: No. Public access to beaches will not be affected. Marine parks start at the high-tide
mark.
Dr Jon: While the MPs extend up to the high tide mark the adjoining landbased
National Parks (NP) have been extended down to the low water mark. So while
water based access will be restricted by the MPs land based access to beaches will be
restricted by the National Parks and Wildlife Service by closing all trails and tracks
behind the beaches requiring that any fishermen walk several kilometres to access the
beach!
I hope no one will be fooled by this very obvious attempt to deceive people: a
combination of water based MP bans and land based NP bans will effectively end
beach access for large areas of the NSW coast.
6 . Will the whole of the Manning Shelf Bioregion be a marine park?
NPA: No. The whole Bioregion (Stockton to Nambucca Heads) is up for assessment but the
proposed marine park is likely to lie between Forster and Port Stephens.
7. Why do we think the marine park will be in this location?
NPA: The Minister for Fisheries and the Minister for the Environment have indicated to the
National Parks Association that the park is most likely be in the Port Stephens and Great
Lakes area. stretching from Port Stephens to Forster and incorporating Wallis Lake.


Dr Jon: The declared Marine Park between Port Stephens and Forster is only stage 1.
No National Park or Wilderness area has ever been made smaller, they have only ever
been increased in size and access has only become more limited and restricted! Only a
fool would begin to believe that this will not be the case with the marine protected
areas as well.
As one of the most senior powerbrokers in the ALP told me "this is all about
preferences for 2007 election and unless you want to lose the whole lot we need to
have something by way of preferences to offer for 2011"!
8. Will marine parks wreck tourism in the area?
NPA: No. Coastal communities receive a boost following the creation of a Marine Park. Coffs
Harbour Council has seen significant benefits to the tourism industry flowing from the Solitary
Islands Marine Park'.
Dr Jon: For anyone to suggest that they will ban fishing in approximately 30% of the
total area (effectively 100% of the useful fishing area) and not have a serious effect on
the $1 billion fishing industry is ludicrous!
The creation of the Coffs Harbour Marine Park is a very poor example for two reasons:
1: The Coffs marine park consists of only a few hectares in which fishing is banned
and the bulk of the productive fishing grounds have been left open. This is not the
case with future Marine Parks as the Minister has made very clear.
2: The report which alleged some benefit to the Coffs area took no account of the fact
that the increase in tourism and other income was due to the booming sea change
economy and attributed almost all of the increase to the creation of the marine park.
Apart from some basic economic fundamentals being flawed the study is simply
logically flawed because no extra activities would have attracted people to the area, in
other words there is no reason why people would have visited the area after the
declaration of a few hectares of marine park when they would not have done so before.
The effect of the Cape Byron Marine Park is already being felt with significant
cancellations at many caravan parks and motels!
9. What science is this park based upon?
NPA: The assessment examines the range of biodiversity in the Manning Shelf Bioregion.
The area between Stockton Beach and Wallis Lake has been identified as having outstanding
natural features.
Dr Jon: Did the NPA actually answer the question: what science is this park based on?
How is it possible that this area between Stockton Beach and Wallis Lake has been
identified as having "outstanding natural features" worthy of such protection and yet it
has been fished for well over 150 years without affecting its "outstanding natural
features" or its "pristine values”.
The reason they have not answered the question here about science is simply that
there is no science to support the concept of banning recreational fishing!
10. 1 heard that sanctuaries hadn't been proven to be effective?
NPA: Numerous studies from around the world have shown the benefits of marine
sanctuaries for increaing fish stocks and conserving biodiversity. Much evidence in marine
sanctuaries is not documented. Statistical information on this increase is hard to come across.


Again simply stating that numerous studies from around the world have shown the
benefits of marine sanctuaries does not make it true! If you go to my web site
www.trac.org.au/myths/marine_park_science.htm (http://www.trac.org.au/myths/marine_park_science.htm) you can assess for yourself the science
of marine parks. It is almost non-existent! This of course presupposes that we need to
increase fish stocks!
11. Aren't restrictions to fishing activity an erosion of our rights to enjoy our oceans?
NPA: Much like we can't conduct extractive practices anywhere we want on land, there is a
need to manage our marine world so that fish stocks can replenish and our fishing activities
can continue.
Dr Jon: The implication that our fish stocks are in danger or need replenishing is not
supported by any science or anecdotal evidence. Stating this lie over and over again
does not make it true!
Whilst I agree that unregulated large commercial trawling can deplete fish stocks the
simple fact is that hook and line fishing for food has never been a threat, is not a threat
now and never will be a threat to fish stocks. Consequently there is no supportable
justification for banning recreational fishing. The right to fish for food was the instant
cause of the defeat of King John at the Battle of Runnymede and the creation of the
Westminster system of government; it has been a core part of our society for 1,000
years!
12. But won't fishers just move to the sanctuaries' surrounding areas depleting the stocks
here?
NPA: Fish stocks within sanctuaries have been shown to increase to such a level that they
spread into surrounding areas through a 'spillover effect'. This means that there are more fish
for the fishers to catch in the areas surrounding fully protected waters.
Dr Jon: Firstly fish do not spread equally over any particular marine area and the
suggestion that they do shows either a complete ignorance of the NPA in marine
science or is evidence of a deliberate attempt to deceive.
Fish congregate in specific environments which correspond to their requirements for
geological structures for protection and/or food: they will not inhabit areas which do
not have the correct environment. It is obvious that this concept of "spillover", which
is not only scientifically unsupportable, is obviously a constructed fabrication intended
to deceive the general public into supporting marine parks.
The only “spillover effect” is the spillover of Green preferences to keep the ALP in
government at the 2007 election!
13. Are conservation groups anti-fishing and believe fishers to be environmentally unaware?
NPA: No, NPA is not against fishing. We recognize this as an important part of Australian life
and its economy. Creating marine protected areas will allow commercial and recreational
fishing to continue but also enable fish stocks to recover ensuring we safeguard these
valuable industries. We recognize knowledge and environmental awareness of many fishers
and see the creation of this marine park as an opportunity for fishers to help them preserve it
.
Dr Jon: In the good old Australian vernacular, what a load of tripe! Like all the other
extremist environmental organisations the NPA along with its comrades the Nature
Conservation Council and the Wilderness Society are hell bent on an ideological
agenda to remove humans from interacting with the environment wherever possible.
They will do “whatever it takes” in order to achieve this ideological goal.


Unfortunately many people in the general community have been conned into
supporting the Greens who use (or should I say misuse) the conservation movement to
support a whole raft of radical ideologies. In return for logistical and other support
the extremist conservation movement utilises the Greens political power in sleazy
backroom election preference deals with the ALP to pursue this ideological agenda
that human beings are neither are part of the natural environment nor worthy or
capable of managing it properly.

Prof Jon Jenkins MLC
Parliament House
Macquarie Street Sydney NSW 2000