Green Zones - Moreton Bay

[Snappas]

Just putting this out there guys........Queensland Govt. is carrying out surveys at Moreton Bay boat ramps recording local catches (number, species and size). Last time any surveys were done resulted in the introduction of more green zones so be prepared for an announcement of more bans in the name of environmental protection before the next election. They need the green vote!
Tell your local member that your vote counts.

Snappas.

[Badone]

If the science is good what is there to be prepared for? A more sustainable fishery perhaps?

[TheRealAndy]

They have been doing those surveys for a long time now. You can (or used to be able to) participate by donating frames, Its not being used for greenzones (and never was unfortunately) but rather for estimating biomass.

[Snappas]

Happy if that is the case Badone but would prefer specific timed closures (like Fraser Island) or revised size/bag limits as opposed to permanent closures. You can't have a sustainable fishery if there is nowhere to fish!

[Back In Black]

Happy if that is the case Badone but would prefer specific timed closures (like Fraser Island) or revised size/bag limits as opposed to permanent closures. You can't have a sustainable fishery if there is nowhere to fish!

Not so sure on that one. A member of our fishing club took some footage of Sunshine Reef off Noosa, a reef that is smashed constantly by anglers as its so accessible. The footage was great, showing great structure & plant life, but devoid of fish.

The comment was made at the meeting Sunshine Reef should be out of bounds for a couple of years or more to let it replenish. Some good fish are taken there, but it really seems to be more of a nursery, with literally hundreds of juvenile red emperor living there, but it is incredibly rare, & not in my memory, have legal ones been pulled.

They obviously grow there but move on, maybe going DI way?? Maybe giving it a long break would help replenish the other surrounding reefs??

No science in this comment, just my thoughts.

Tony

[Moonlighter]

Don't get sucked into thinking that Maine park green zones where fishing is prohibited are a tool for fisheries management.

They are not. They are enacted under Marine Parks legislation, not the Fisheries Act or equivalents. Their objectives are totally different. Fisheries objectives are broadly about making fishing sustainable over the long term and enabling a level of take that meets those objectives. Marine Parks are blunt instruments that simply ban activities without even an assessment of whether those activities are putting anything at risk.

Marine Parks are a tool for conservation, preservation and lockouts, and any benefits to fisheries management are incidental at best, especially in Australian waters where we have some of the best managed fisheries in the world, no thanks to green zones. Their alleged benefits to fishermen are touted by proponents purely to try to suck us into thinking that they will play a significant role in making our fishery sustainable.

So do not confuse the two regimes. We do not and have never needed marine park green zones to have well managed fisheries in this country.

Fisheries legislation has always included the power to close spawning areas and similar high value places to fishing (remember Coombabah Lakes on the Gold Coast or Swann Bay at Jumpinpin - both were fisheries reserves declared as no- fishing areas many, many years before anyone even thought of green zones.)

[Snappas]

Thanks Moonlighter for your rational and very informative comment and which I totally agree with. I also noted "Back in Black's" comment about Sunshine Reef (never fished there) and perhaps this is a case where a temporary closure by the Fisheries Dept. can allow successful rehabilitation of fish stocks, but certainly not declaring it part of a Marine Park which is never reopened to the public.
I am in favour of sustainable fishing as much as anyone else but a survey does not, in my opinion, provide any scientific evidence to warrant closures.
Happy fishing guys.

Snappas.

[Badone]

Snappas and Moolighter I guess we all want the same thing but everyone has their opinion as to how to achieve it. I am just saying if the science is good then we should all happily follow what it recommends. There are smart dudes out there who know way more than me about fish population management. I will trust their findings.

[Lovey80]

Badone what science are you referring to?

[TheRealAndy]

Snappas and Moolighter I guess we all want the same thing but everyone has their opinion as to how to achieve it. I am just saying if the science is good then we should all happily follow what it recommends. There are smart dudes out there who know way more than me about fish population management. I will trust their findings.

As several of us here have discovered in the past, when there is good evidence for seasonal closures, you get shot down by the rec community because apparently science is bullshit. We put up a fight over green zones because it was nothing to do with sustainable fishing but everything to do with gaining green votes, and in that case the science was bullshit. Its hard to argue the point when the politicians disregard everything that the scientists say...

The fisheries guys do a good job, they are interested in sustainable fisheries, and a lot of them are rec fisho's themselves.

[Badone]

Badone what science are you referring to?

I'm not referring to any particular science. I am saying if organisations such as CSIRO, AIMS, DPI and many Uni research depts recommend green zones/ closures/ bag limits whatever to preserve our fishery then we should be smart enough to trust their superior knowledge. Everyone has an opinion but opinions are just that.

[Moonlighter]

I'm not referring to any particular science. I am saying if organisations such as CSIRO, AIMS, DPI and many Uni research depts recommend green zones/ closures/ bag limits whatever to preserve our fishery then we should be smart enough to trust their superior knowledge. Everyone has an opinion but opinions are just that.

And that there demonstrates the problem: you are still mixing green zones in with legitimate fisheries management strategies such as seasonal closures and bag and size limits. Big mistake.

No fisheries management body/authority in Australia has asked for green zones and no practising fisheries management scientists do either.

Indeed, when the last review of snapper stocks in Queensland was being done, we specifically put the question to the scientists in Qld Fisheries about the Moreton Bay green zones and their impact on sustainability of that species, and they said it was so negligible that they wouldn't even include it in their assessment framework. Yet when those green zones were put in by the Marine Parks people, the EPA scientists touted the "significant benefits" expected to flow to the sustainability of all species in the Bay, including snapper.

That put the nail in the coffin as far as I am concerned.

The only Uni scientists who bang on about the incidental benefits to fishery sustainability of green zones are the conservation greenies.

Let me say it once again: green zones in the Australian context are not tools to achieve sustainable fisheries! They are purely tools of the conservation movements whose main agenda is to stop fishing altogether.

Badone, go and find the Marine Parks legislation and read the section that sets out the objectives of the Act. Come back and quote to us the sections that state that one of the objectives is to make fishing sustainable.

edit:
I should probably explain some background to my views on this issue, as they have not been formed over a beer or three, but were formed during the Moreton Bay Marine park rezoning several years ago.

I ended up as a recreational fishing representative on the State Governments consultative committee (a joke) and also as deputy Chair to Bruce Alvey on the Moteron Bay Access Alliance, who were the main group representing recreational and commercial fishing interests in that exercise. The Alliance engaged several senior, highly respected marine and fisheries scientists to advise us on the scientific aspects and to help counter the arguments off the AMCS and their cronies in the state EPA.

Badone, quite understandably you want to give the scientists credit for their knowledge. So do I, except I saw first hand the dodgy pseudo science that was put forward by the EPA and greens conservation groups and their paid scientists during the Bay rezoning. Now I'm not a marine scientists but I do have a Uni degree in business and I work daily with data and statistics and their analysis.

I read each of the main research papers the EPAs scientists were relying on to justify expanding the green zones, including going back to look at the raw data in the tables. What I found there in their own data was that the data didn't seem to me to support the conclusions being made in the research support.

So I referred it to our scientific team and one of the Professors called me back and said, mate, you are 100% right, their data doesn't show the changes that they are claiming. Not even close. The conclusion was that the research had set out to PROVE a particular hypothesis, rather than to TEST that hypothesis and see what the data said.

That is not a proper scientific approach.

Another watershed example was when we attended a meeting with the EPA scientists, the Ministers reps and our scientists where we were supposed to have serious scientific discussions and debate and to see if we couldn't reach an agreed position. Again, the EPA scientists talked with great certainty and confidence about their expectations and the benefits. But when our scientists started to probe them for the proof and started to question the assumptions that they had made, underneath all that confidence was no data or very little scientific evidence.

At at the end of that meeting I was taking our scientific team members back to the airport and they were just shaking their heads in disbelief at how the EPA scientists had completely closed their minds to any other views and would simply not listen to our consider any alternative approaches put to them by our team, all of whose were far more experienced and internationally recognised in both fisheries management and marine park planning.

[Lovey80]

^^^^^^^ that put it to bed right there.

[Badone]

Moonlighter thanks for your informed reply and you make a lot of good points.
No one was angrier than I when they closed off Flat Rock and Hendos on some pseudo excuse that they were protecting GNSs. The reality was they basically just gave those areas over to the scuba fraternity to use as their exclusive playground. I also attended all the EPA/ fisheries forums to try to see if the Zones were science based and sadly, in most peoples opinions ( including many leading CSIRO scientists ), they were not.
If not green zones then what? I have dived many green zones and they are covered with fish and many of the fish I see are mature breeding adults. Is the flow on effect negligible? You say yes but I am not so sure.
I have also speared and fished Brissie and the GBR from Bundy to Cooktown for about 30yrs now and the decline in fish populations that I have noticed is staggering. That is with ever tightening bag limits, size limits and spawning closures. The pros have taken their toll no doubt but so have the rec fishos to a large extent. The current system is not working. I don't have any solutions other than follow the science... do you?
I'm not sure you are suggesting we remove green zones but if you are surely a small positive effect is better than none?
Oh yeah and Lovely80 throwing rocks doesn't help the discussion much. If you added something to the discussion other than your sideline barracking maybe someone would listen.

[Moonlighter]

Fisheries do assessments on a regular basis of all the key species taken by recreational and professional fishers. This assessment is done within a framework approved by the federal environment and fisheries departments and results in a status being allocated to those species. In unfavourable assessment can mean no export approvals and other consequences.

That assessment of course greatly informs fisheries management decisions.

Whilst I don't doubt your experience in areas where you dive, such an individual experience can't be compared to the assessment done by the fisheries scientists. Management decisions require data, evidence and analysis collected through applying scientific and rigorous methodologies.

Indeed, recent surveys (supposedly done with scientific oversight) by dive groups in Sydney harbour found virtually no fish (recreationally target species) whatsoever in the harbour, yet anglers consistently catch good numbers of those species within the harbour and have evidence to back it up. So it seems that the diver's reported experience varies significantly from the reality. Not sure why that is, but there you go. Of course, those same groups are advocating for the harbour to be turned into one big green zone so I'm sure that wouldn't have influenced their research at all.

I'd also add that there is scientific evidence now from research done by Capfish in Rockhampton of the great effects of floods on offshore catch rates. It indicates strongly that the old saying of a drought in land equaling a drought in the sea actually stacks up. So the timing of data collection can significantly influence data models future projections.

[Lucky_Phill]

Yes Grant, Capfish....Infofish do great work and I for one advocate funding be channeled into these organizations, as they really get some great data.

Bill's evidence of the " flow on effect " in some green zones re:- Coral Trout, certainly makes interesting reading. As does his flawless predictions of Barramundi seasons catch rate expectations. Flood and Drought theory is NO theory here.

I also believe political motives abound when it comes to Green Zones and anything else related to attracting a vote or two.

Unfortunately, we ( State and Federal Government ) have been sitting on their collective hands for way too many years now............ our fishery is not in good health and we are doling nothing positive to help it.

They know what to do, but hard to motivate the unwilling.. :(


LP

[Badone]

Whilst I don't doubt your experience in areas where you dive, such an individual experience can't be compared to the assessment done by the fisheries scientists. Management decisions require data, evidence and analysis collected through applying scientific and rigorous methodologies.

Couldn't agree more. Anecdotal evidence is just that. I guess I was putting my opinion forward not stating a fact but experience does form our opinions.
I don't have the answers but would hate to see our oceans turned into lifeless deserts as is seen overseas in some countries where there is virtually no restrictions on fishing. The only reason I can still catch a feed today within an hours boat ride from the 3rd biggest city in Australia is because of our fishing regulations. Conservation is a good thing and should be embraced but only if it is based on science.

[Lovey80]

Moonlighter thanks for your informed reply and you make a lot of good points.
No one was angrier than I when they closed off Flat Rock and Hendos on some pseudo excuse that they were protecting GNSs. The reality was they basically just gave those areas over to the scuba fraternity to use as their exclusive playground. I also attended all the EPA/ fisheries forums to try to see if the Zones were science based and sadly, in most peoples opinions ( including many leading CSIRO scientists ), they were not.
If not green zones then what? I have dived many green zones and they are covered with fish and many of the fish I see are mature breeding adults. Is the flow on effect negligible? You say yes but I am not so sure.
I have also speared and fished Brissie and the GBR from Bundy to Cooktown for about 30yrs now and the decline in fish populations that I have noticed is staggering. That is with ever tightening bag limits, size limits and spawning closures. The pros have taken their toll no doubt but so have the rec fishos to a large extent. The current system is not working. I don't have any solutions other than follow the science... do you?
I'm not sure you are suggesting we remove green zones but if you are surely a small positive effect is better than none?
Oh yeah and Lovely80 throwing rocks doesn't help the discussion much. If you added something to the discussion other than your sideline barracking maybe someone would listen.

Mate, not throwing rocks and my last comment saved me a heap of time essentially writing exactly the same thing as Moonlighter, though I am sure he did it more eloquently than I could have.

It's still important to point out though because you seemed to have missed it, Greenzones are NOT in place for fish stock preservation purposes. This was made very clear by the Bligh government when the MBMP zoning was announced because immediately all stake holders quickly identified that the stock assessments of the MBMP species showed that the stocks were stable. Words like "fear mongering" were used by Bligh to thwart any attempts to block the green zones based on stock science. The Green zones it was blatantly put were a tool to protect habitat and habitat alone.

Anecdotally I think there is a case for greenzones in coral reef fisheries as many of the species such as coral trout don't migrate like other species specific to rocky reef such as snapper. But then again, you're cutting off fishing in a specific area so that territorial fish like coral trout are left to grow large while the same amount of fishing effort is squeezed into a smaller space. So of course when on a dive of two comparable areas the green zone is going to look fantastic. Also from my diving experience, coral reef areas that hold large coral trout (as one example) have fewer fish for the same given area. It's like once a big dominant fish takes an area there are fewer smaller fish for a larger distance around where it lives. So I am yet to be sold on greenzones as a stock preservation measure for coral reefs when there are better alternatives IMO.

Areas like Moreton Bay don't have the same characteristics or species as coral reefs. Snapper for example will be found all over the bay and beyond and migrate in between these areas. So protecting one location from fishing isn't necessarily protecting the species for more than the period the fish are in that area.

I think this whole debacle could have been handled much better with options such as no anchor zones (yellow or purple??). If you are zoning to protect habitat then surely this achieves almost the same thing. Similarly there are areas within Moreton bay that were made green where almost no one would have a need to anchor to fish. Desert sandy bottoms that only really come alive when the pelagics move into the bay to feed on baitfish. How is trolling a lure or sight casting slugs into such an area going to protect the sandy bottom?

On top of that we should be looking to create as much habitat as is physically possible and is environmentally prudent. Artificial reef programmes should be constantly ongoing. Yet we have an EPA that was quite happy to lock up half the bay to protect habitat yet were quite happy to let developers bulldoze whole mangrove breeding areas just so the Brisbane airport expansion could have a shopping precinct that they didn't actually need.

Add to that on the fisheries side of things we have a SEVERE problem with fisheries data collection - especially on the Rec Angler side of the equation. We had some awesome recommendations from the recreational sector to install catch cards for Snapper anglers so that comprehensive data could be collected on the actual rec take but was rejected as too expensive (which was a load of shit).

All that gives a hint to governments on both sides of the blue/red divide that clearly shows that political will to have the best fishery possible is the last thing that they give a shit about.

[BigE]

It really is very easy to tell the difference between the science and the bullshit without getting all emotional about it if you just think for a bit.

There is obviously a point a which a fishery is not sustainable and it would be wise management to have a % of buffer (smarter minds than mine to decide the number) and at that point limits should be applied and enforced - There also would be a point that would indicate the fishery is doing well and with a similar % buffer it would be ok to relax said limits and allow more take.

So if you want to know if that warm feel in your pocket is science or just piss in your pocket - ask at what point would any prescribe limits be relaxed to allow more take ?? if there is no point that this can occur the the warm feeling in your pockets ain't good science my friends. not really that hard to work out if you think about it.if there are not two sides to the equation then it really is just piss and wind.

BigE