Hypothetical Closure Plan

[gif]

Someone asked me this question today - as I don’t know the Bay I thought I would ask here.


What the greens get all fussed about is dugong. They classify any dead animal - subsequently hit by a boat as a boat kill, and this is 4 to 6 a year. That sounds bad - but the dugong must be sustainable After all traditional hunters kill 1293 a year (FIRDC data, also 3,000 turtle)


So - Hypothetically, what would you feel if they closed down all the 'Go Slow " areas in the Bay and turned them into a no go zone. Like completely out of bounds?

What would you think about that? and why don’t we do it ASAP - maybe December 1, because its just the stroke of a pen - it doesn't need any public consultation.

Do you think that would satisfy the greenies? or will they never be happy until they have 100% and world vegetarianism?

Gary

[seatime]

Gary

Don't think it would work, dugong, from my experience migrate around the bay between different sea grass areas. Closing one isolated area won't stop the dugong moving around, they'll have to fence them in to do that.
Don't quote me, though I believe there is at least 15 'traditional' permits to take protected species such as dugong in Moreton Bay, and I don't think 'traditional' methods are always used.
rgds

[Gazza]

Hi Gaz ,
Mate RULE #1 , I don't really care "what would satisfy the Greenies" , as they don't think logically imo, only in how much area is off-limits to RecFishos >:(

Initially ,look at the areas that are go-SLOW n-o-w .......
significant and whiting/flattie grounds ,as well.
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/media/parks_and_forests/marine_parks/go_slow_map_Mar06.pdf

also , refer to this "quote" from
http://www.deh.gov.au/water/wetlands/ramsar/report8-comp/objective5c.htm

As management issues become critical they are given priority in enforcement. For example, boat speed in Turtle and Dugong habitat has been identified as crucial to reducing injuries to these animals and rangers have concentrated on enforcing 'go slow' areas. Decreases in boat speed in these areas have been observed. However the zoning plan has not been in place long enough for changes in visitor behaviour and ecological responses to be assessed and the zoning reviewed.
With 6 or so...each year....dying?? by accident or old-age??

I would accept "enforcement" of the go-SLOW area(s) ,and further signage to point out to the avg. boatie ,at the ramps, WHERE the go-SLOW areas actually are [smiley=guardian.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]

[Jeremy]

I don’t know the Bay


Good start Gary



What would you think about that? and why don’t we do it ASAP - maybe December 1, because its just the stroke of a pen - it doesn't need any public consultation.


The hell it doesn't need any consultation. Try doing that without any consultation of recs, pros, greenies, etc. We aren't the only ones who use the bay.

Why are you trying to get in early before the Moreton Bay review even starts? You want to give the greenies a head start.

No I don't like the idea Gary!

Jeremy

[Dodgy_Back]

I feel by offering a "no go zone" would be admitting that we damage the environment and would only fuel the Greens for future closures.

Mick

[fish2eat]

I don't want to give them anything....BUT

WAKE UP to the facts of politics boys.......

1. Labour governments WILL give some ground to greens

2. Keep in control of the process by conceding something we need the least, otherwise the best bits will go.

[seatime]

Beattie and Labor constantly remind us the MB Marine Park revue process hasn't started yet. So there aren't going to be any concessions yet either.

It's a big NO to comprimises until rec fishos are included in the revue, when that starts.

Please don't prempt anything yet.

rgds

[seatime]

An old saying comes to mind Gary,

You can't run with the fox AND hunt with the hounds!

[Derek_Bullock]

Beattie and Labor constantly remind us the MB Marine Park revue process hasn't started yet. So there aren't going to be any concessions yet either.

It's a big NO to comprimises until rec fishos are included in the revue, when that starts.

Please don't prempt anything yet.

rgds

This is what everyone thought about Hervey Bay and the Sandy Straits. Sure we were consulted, everyone put in submissions, public meetings were held but what was the result ....................... The Great Sandy Marine Park with FISHING BANS, FISHING RESTRICTIONS AND HUGE GO SLOW ZONES.

I dont think this is hypothetical at all .................... it's real. Check out what they did at http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/projects/park/index.cgi?parkid=247


Derek

[Gorilla_in_Manila]

Gary,
Not so hypothetical, methinks.

Been thinking where to put this up; been wanting to give a bit of a heads up. Seems the relevant topic has come up.

Been reading the various threads (here in the news section) in the lead up to the election. Seems to me that some people think there isn't any science done already to suport the closure of MB.

Anyone that thinks that those that wish to close off off MB don't have any scientific material to justify it yet, are WRONG.

Met a young lady (daughter of a good mate) in Manila, Philippines where I'm currently residing, earlier this year. Turns out she is currently living back in Nrthn NSW (near my home town) and has just completed her studies in marine science. Just so happens, she did her final paper on Dugongs in Pumicstone passage.

Had a bit of a chat to her about what she found from the studies and the subject has since come up second hand in discussions with my mate.

Naturally enough, when I talked to her, she was a bit wary of telling me too much especially after I declared my interest in fishing and my feelings on the recent closure of fishing areas in the GBR and Byron Marine Park. :P

Now let me clearly state that she is a very nice person and has no interest whatsoever in closing off areas to fishos. But as I said to her at the time, it's not going to be what her interests are, its going to be what the interests of the people using her study for their own agenda, is what worries me. :-?

Anyway, she was quite surprised to find a sudden flurry of interest in her studies and that, not only did she pass her course with flying colours, various bodies in SE Qld all started calling and asking her to come up and give talks on the subject. Apparently there was very little ever done on the subject before. Even had job offers (I believe; not sure who from, but you could hazard a guess) which I believe she declined, wanting to continue the surfing lifestyle south of the border. (smart lady ;))

Now I haven't read her paper, but I can't imagine anyone writing about dugongs without the subject of getting hit by boats and suggesting measures to prevent it. And if you wanted to pass your studies with a greeny inclined lecturer having the last say on fail or pass, err well .... you get the picture.

From the discussions I did have, I believe the only recommendations made was to enforce or enlarge go slow zones, but as I said, haven't actually seen the material.

BUT!!!!!!
Is it just a coincidence that the green comments that have come out recently have quoted exact numbers of dugong (and turtle) mortality?

Is it just a coincidence that Boyle, Beattie et al have recently come out and categorically stated that the review of MB will be "based on science"?

I'm guessing some interested parties have seen this and other studies already.


Sooo my friends, be aware that there is science out there already, and I'm guessing its in the hands of people interested in closing down MB.
I would also strongly suspect that, if you asked the greens for the source of the statistics they recently quoted on dugong mortality, they will have some research in hand (but probably won't show it to you until they get their closures).

Now, what are the chances that I sitting overseas, can bump into someone who is from outside QLD, and who has just completed some marine science studies on the MB area. Very small I should think.

Makes you wonder just how much other material is out there getting done at the moment or already in the hands of of those that wish to close areas off for fishing. Also have a think about the types of people who request these sort of studies (and possibly pay for them) and what they would want the results of the studies to show.

Will the great people fighting for keeping the bay open have a similar stack of scientific evidence ready to show when the subject finally comes to head? Hope so, but if if you don't, it would be a really good idea to get some fast (if possible). Or at least, try to get your hands on the stuff the other side is using so you can be prepared to make sure they are using the whole document in their arguements, or be ready to knock holes in it.

Cheers
Jeff

[Aquila]

Hey, fellas,
Are we talking fishing in Morton Bay now & in the future or are we talking about taking the last of an over depleted stock so that it will take years for any recovery, whilst the average chap can’t catch a thing?

As a farmer who went crayfishing during that season at Port McDonald, SA, Fifty years ago I had some insight into the effects of overfishing when the crays got smaller & smaller, fewer & fewer & all the fish that fed on the crays just disappeared…. mulloway, your jewfish, in particular. The result was a strict limit on catch & longer closed seasons organised by the crayboats themselves & which they themselves policed.

In 2000 I was down there & was told the crays were coming back & so were the mulloway. One big problem though, the younger chaps who weren’t there during the shortage of crays think they can go catch as many as they like now & can’t understand that there is a limit to how fast they can build up again.

I now travel up North to do my fishing , as for years now the fishing in the bay has, as any regular fisherman knows, been getting worse & worse every year.
As with the crays, there is no easy remedy. The only way out so we have fish again in the future is to go a bit easier on them now till stocks build up again.

This just isn’t happening with the present system so some very sensible & far sighted people have suggested more stringent rules & larger breeding grounds.

What about leaving a well stocked & vibrant bay for our kids instead of a desert?

Aquila

[Et_the_et]

Hey Aquila, I dont believe you've fished "the bay" lately. Over the past 8 months (since last Xmas) I have had some of the best fishing of my life - and all in good ol' Moreton bay. I have had the absolute best sessions with spotty mackeral and long tail tuna, snapper, tailor and winter whiting - that I have ever had! I dont know whether it has been just lucky or what, but fishing has been great whenever I have had a chance to get out.
Outside the bay however was a different and sad story (thanks to the buraeucrats). I used to fish around Flat Rock regualrly as well as Boat Rock and the Group. Over the past couple of years I have found that the previously very productive Boat Rock and the Group are stuffed. Why? Because of the absolutley stupid Grey Nurse Zone around Flat Rock. Fishing has been concentrated around smaller areas and hence severely degraded. This is exactly what will happen in the bay if fishing is restricted in some areas and allowed in others. JUST BLOODY LEAVE THINGS AS ATHEY ARE. THE BAG LIMITS AND MIN SIZES ARE DOING THE JOB. Stopping mackeral netting in the bay has seen massive numbers of spotties returning to the bay. My son and I caught our bag limit of 10 and released approx another 30! while trying to hook tuna. The winter whiting we got a month or so ago were the biggest I have ever seen in th bay.

[Dodgy_Back]

Aquila,

Prove that we are taking the last of an over depleted stock out of Morton Bay !!

And don't quote any crap from other areas !!

I have not heard anyone say that the bay is running out of fish or it's a struggle to get a fish out in the bay.

I like others don't believe you are a fisho.

So put up or SHUT UP .

Kind regards

Mick

[billfisher]

Aquila thinks not only can he compare different locations fifty years apart, but also that he can compare crays to fish!

His post is full of emotive rhetoric and very short on facts, just what we are used to hearing from the green anti fishing machine.

[petelaska]

I've got to agree et the et. I am taking my 15 year old son to many of the reef areas around Redcliffe that I used to fish as a lad 30 years ago. We are catching more fish now and also more variety than when I was young. We also practice more catch & release. I feel that if these so called greenies got of their asses and out of their beds and went out fishing at dawn & dusk they too might catch a few fish, rather than stating in their posts that there are no fish in the bay
Pete

[Adamy]

This just isn’t happening with the present system so some very sensible & far sighted people have suggested more stringent rules & larger breeding grounds.

What about leaving a well stocked & vibrant bay for our kids instead of a desert?

Aquila


I could be wrong... BUT.... I think the greens are trying to infiltrate our ranks... Check it out - almost everyday there is a record number of "guests" on the site.... WHY?? we are being monitored and the greens try these useless ploys to try and turn us against each other and try and introduce some of their "wisdom"... when will they wake up??

[PinHead]

no concessions of any kind and no closures of any kind..concede absolutely nothing

[Adamy]

no concessions of any kind and no closures of any kind..concede absolutely nothing

Here Here!!! or is it hear hear or here hear or Here Hear (I can never tell the difference) ;)

Give an inch - take a mile (or in the GSS case - 25 miles - of fishable coastline)

[imported_admin]

I don’t know the Bay


Good start Gary



What would you think about that? # and why don’t we do it ASAP # - maybe December 1, because its just the stroke of a pen #- it doesn't need any public consultation.


The hell it doesn't need any consultation. Try doing that without any consultation of recs, pros, greenies, etc. We aren't the only ones who use the bay.

Why are you trying to get in early before the Moreton Bay review even starts? You want to give the greenies a head start.

No I don't like the idea Gary!

Jeremy




Jeremy

This could easily happen with the stroke of a pen by someone in the EPA without any consultation.

For example, say someone in the EPA could pick December 1st and sign a document and the go slow zones would be NO GO zones. And there would be nothing we could do abaout it.

Scary thought, but it could happen.

No one is trying to get in early, except maybe the EPA.

[seatime]

Beattie and Labor constantly remind us the MB Marine Park revue process hasn't started yet. So there aren't going to be any concessions yet either.

It's a big NO to comprimises until rec fishos are included in the revue, when that starts.

Please don't prempt anything yet.

rgds

This is what everyone thought about Hervey Bay and the Sandy Straits. #Sure we were consulted, everyone put in submissions, public meetings were held but what was the result ....................... The Great Sandy Marine Park with FISHING BANS, FISHING RESTRICTIONS AND HUGE GO SLOW ZONES.

I dont think this is hypothetical at all .................... it's real. #Check out what they did at http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/projects/park/index.cgi?parkid=247


Derek

Derek, the question was: what do we think about satisfying the greens by changing the go-slow zones to no-go zones ASAP?.

If the question was: is this hypothetical?
then yes I'd agree, it's not so hypothetical, but that wasn't the question.

And yes, that's what everyone thought before about the zoning, and they were wrong. That's why there needs to be a different approach now.

rgds

[seatime]

In the go-slow zone that exists now Nth of Peel Island, a number of pro crabbers and netters operate, there are commercial oyster leases in the Reef Hole, Dialba and Palmers Passages, and an indigenous bech der mere (? spelling) extraction business.

What happens to them if it's made a No-Go Zone, will they be locked-out, or allowed to continue?

[gif]

No go would mean a complete lock out.

Given the Qld Govt's past approach it would likely mean $0 compensation, unlike when that take your house for a freeway.

Gary

[fish2eat]

I think Gelsce and Pinhead are well meaning but totally naive of the political process.

If you don't understand the political process you will get screwed by it.

THESE ARE THE FACTS !!!!!

the deals WILL be done before the "review" is undertaken, and the "review" report will be drafted to reflect the outcome that they decided upon......you may think I'm a cynical old bastard, but I know how it works.

[PinHead]

I think Gelsce and Pinhead are well meaning but totally naive of the political process.

If you don't understand the political process you will get screwed by it.

THESE ARE THE FACTS !!!!!

the deals WILL be done before the "review" is undertaken, and the "review" report will be drafted to reflect the outcome that they decided upon......you may think I'm a cynical old bastard, but I know how it works.

I grew up with the political process gelsec..I could tell you a few things that would make your hair curl...I know the deals will be done...but do you know who they will be done by ????

[DR]

i know little of the political process except that it is usually all over by the time they announce they are going to do something..i don't know about the go slow to no go zones..
but, i think the wrong thing to do is point blank refuse to give anything. I think some kind of management package should come from the fishers side, even if it only includes the useless barren areas of the bay that don't hold fish. i don't disagree with closing areas during the breeding seasons, so long as they are reopened.
then the negotiation starts.
the greens will want everything that is good & offer us crap, so we offer them crap & go from there.
there has to be a perceived give & take.
being totally bloody minded will get knowhere except keep on portraying fishers as rednecks..

management not closures..

[PinHead]

DR..we already have a managment plan..it is called size and bag limits..alter the minimum size of some fishes eg bream to 25 but as for closures..no, no and no.

[gif]

DR

I hear what you say. But that means that all they have to do is ask regularly and given an infinite time they will have 99.999%

Asking therefore pre supposes that any should be given. Its a perfect strategy irrespective of teh validity fo the claim.

Gary

PS give me some money

[seatime]

I think Gelsce and Pinhead are well meaning but totally naive of the political process.

If you don't understand the political process you will get screwed by it.

THESE ARE THE FACTS !!!!!

the deals WILL be done before the "review" is undertaken, and the "review" report will be drafted to reflect the outcome that they decided upon......you may think I'm a cynical old bastard, but I know how it works.

probably right on both counts about me, but appreciate that some Q's may be Dorothy Dixs' and an attempt to stimulate debate.
i have a fair idea of what's happening in my backyard and I don't like to meekly stand by and accept it.
there's a very good chance the go-slow zones will be green by xmas, doesn't mean we still can't throw up some opposing arguments.

regards