A perspective on the Barrier Reef. video

[Lucky_Phill]

First part of video is 24 minutes, and the 2nd part 11. 35 minutes worth investing in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej46dlLxUe8&nohtml5=False

LP

[enjoyfishing]

Extremely good viewing which I would agree with about 98% of. It also reminded my of the bloke who wrote the global warming report to the UN also wrote the global freezing report to the UN a number of years earlier. The greens undoubtedly do have some good points but they also have as many bad

[enjoyfishing]

Just a note 0n the 2% I don't agree with.
1. I don't find aquaculture a very sustainable thing really, when the fish meal has to come from the ocean and a lot of that is also produced in Thialand. They do not use other products dew to the fear of mad cows disease.
2. We do know over fishing impacts fish and one species is always going to be targeted more than another due to quality and sale value. You don't have to look very hard to find examples of this, the kingfish traps down south for example.
Other than that the environmental science seems pretty good

[cuzzamundi]

I found this really interesting. Thanks for posting.

I do wonder, though, why he seems so eager to not only relay facts, but have them all pretty much contravene the other side of politics (environmentalists). Is there the possibility of a vested interest, or do you think he really is just stating facts that he's found, independently, and has therefore become aware of just how ludicrous the others' findings are? I'm genuinely curious, as although it seems heavily against the enviro movement, it's definitely believable, especially in light of a lot of the pseudo science that's applied to other areas (AGW Movement etc).

Cuzza

[Moonlighter]

Good listening.

I am not at all surprised at the examples Walter gave of the selective use of data and plainly unsupportable conclusions being made on the basis of dodgy research reports.

When the Moreton Bay marine park rezoning was on a few years ago, i was heavily involved from a rec fishing perspective.

There was one key research paper that purported to show the benefits of green zones (marine national parks - no fishing allowed) and it focussed on data on mud crabs gathered from some of the original existing green zones near the southern Bay islands.

I got given a copy of the original paper that included the raw research data tables. Now, im not a marine scientist but I am a uni business graduate and i work with data and statistics just about daily, so i know what good data looks like and how to interpret it. I read the executive summary of the report and the conclusions, then dug deeper and looked at the survey data tables. To me, it just didn't seem that the data supported the conclusions being drawn, which were essentially that it proved that there were more and particularly bigger mud crabs in the green zone than outside it.

My reading of the data was that there was insufficient change in the data (sizes of the crabs) to make any such conclusions, that the changes were not statistically significant, and that the conclusions drawn in favour of the hypothesis that the green zones would hold more and bigger mud crabs were therefore insupportable. The changes were within what i thought the likely natural variations might be expected to be.

So I spoke to one of our senior marine scientists, a recognised expert in this field and who had referred me to the report in the first place, and expressed my views. His reply: "I thought you would pick that up. You are absolutely correct!"

And this was a peer reviewed paper that formed a central part of the Government and their green scientists argument for locking up more areas in green zones.

A heathy dose of skepticism with anything those greenies put forward is a very good idea.

[Lucky_Phill]

As Moonlighter eluded to ... a lot of us have been involved in Govt committees, working groups etc over the years in regard to Green Zones, Bag & Size Limits, Closed seasons, TAC's and Arti Reefs.

As a layman I found it difficult to swallow some of the jargon being promoted. I did however, have a lot of time for " Anecdotal evidence " from very experienced fishers both rec and pro.

Having an agenda is definitely taken into consideration when I listen to educators / lecturers and speakers.

The vast majority of the general public are spoon fed information, based on an agenda. That information, while being accurate, mostly does not cover all bases and I will say could be Bias. ( agenda ).

The person Moonlighter talks about in relation to Mud Crabs and the resultant data is commonly refered to as " Dr Obvious ". a play on Captain Obvious. :)

As I said, I think Walter glossed over the details a bit due to time limitations and possibly the audience. Were he addressing a science based gathering, he may have been a little more forthcoming and it would have been expected.

On his take about fishing, the issue I see is the area he proclaimed to be fishable... really is not. The vast majority of Rec and pro fishing is done in what I will call " inshore waters ", that is waters accessible by the standard boat... we'll say up to 100k's out, and further for pro boats. The area adjacent to major populated towns and cities are hit hard and there is not doubt the bio-mass ( I actually hate that word due to no one being about to tell the original bio-mass stats ) is declining. This is the area of focus for most of us and should be for the Govt. That matter is for another forum.

The great barrier reef is literally just over 10,000 years old and has been the subject to many influences from cyclones to coral bleaching... you know.... the standard climate change where climate changes... it's a cyclic thing.

Walter tells us that 99% of the reef is untouched and in part I agree, but the parts we do touch via fishing and tourism are impacted negatively and a shift in specific reef destinations are warranted.. IMO.

cheers LP

[chris69]

Yer saw something on tv the other night on lizard island big problem on the northen point of the island with bleaching but not were else on the island that did not make any sence to me.

[Lovey80]

ched and in part I agree, but the parts we do touch via fishing and tourism are impacted negatively and a shift in specific reef destinations are warranted.. IMO.

When it comes to coral reef (not to be widlely used for all types of reef), I think green zones can be beneficial for the exact reason you state there. But i think that they should be rotated to give heavily fished areas a spell. If you were to cut a certain reef area up into 3 areas and have it so two of the three were fish able with one a greenzone for a year with it rotating around so that each area got 2 years on and one year off from fishing then I think greenzone should be of benefit.