Reef Fish rise in Green Zones

[charleville]

From today's Courier-Mail...

Reef fish rise in green zones
By Brendan O'Malley
August 23, 2006 12:00am

THE number of fish in protected zones on the Great Barrier Reef has increased by more than half only two years after the zones were declared.

Surveys of inshore and offshore reefs showed numbers of popular angling species such as coral trout and stripey sea perch were up 50 to 55 per cent.

The surprisingly quick recovery from fishing showed the no-take "green" zones were a runaway success, James Cook University professor Garry Russ said.

He said more studies would start soon into whether the extra fish were spilling into nearby unprotected areas, benefiting anglers.

Green zones were introduced in July 2004 and now cover a third of the Great Barrier Reef.

"I was surprised by how quickly this has happened. I expected it would take a bit longer," Professor Russ said.

"There are a few ideas about the cause. The most likely one is the fishing mortality has dropped, but it is also possible bigger fish are coming up from the deep now there is less disturbance or we could coincidentally have had a very good recruitment year for young fish in 2004."

The JCU surveyed fish and coral populations on fringing reefs of the Whitsunday Islands.

Researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, meanwhile, surveyed 26 offshore reefs between Cairns and Gladstone which were closed to fishing and 25 where fishing was still allowed.

AIMS research director Peter Doherty said he was excited to see such clear results so soon.

"The extent of the difference is quite surprising at this early stage, but the consistency of the differences between zones in all of the places that were examined last year leaves me in no doubt that this is a real result," Dr Doherty said.

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority chairwoman Virginia Chadwick said the results were very encouraging.

"This is positive news for both the tourism and fishing industries," she said. "This monitoring has shown the importance of green zones and why they are vital to the future of the Reef."

[jeffo]

sounds good...i have always been all for green zones, provided they are done sensibly and enough good fishing ground is left for anlgers to venture to.

wonder what would happen to reef fish numbers if they zoned part of the banks.

[megafish71]

GBRMPA must believe that all us fishermen, (pro and rec) are complete idiots to believe that the fish stocks have returned in those kind of numbers in such a short period of time. All I see out of that report is some more self-funded justification for something that wasn't required in the first place. GBRMPA never used any scientific evidence to implement the representive areas program to start with, so why should we believe this crap now.

Ron

[jim_farrell]

Sorry to the believers,but ron is right. The following is what the 'science' stated prior to the zoning.
"It is important to note the status of coral trout populations in areas open to fishing remain relatively robust under all the stratagies we consider"
"Density on these 3 reefs has fluctuated over the years but has shown no downward trend as might be expected if coral trout were being consistantly overfished"
In Cairns section, counts were made on twelve reefs in 1983 (Ayling & Ayling 1986) and again in 1991(Mapstone & Ayling unpublished data). Common coral trout density increased over this period"

The biggest issue in moreton bay is that as with GSS the state government wants the zoning to follow the same structure as the GBRMP as it is easier to implement. The difference is, 95% of targeted fish in the bay are seasonal and follow water currents.
For example, if a green zone was placed around mud island you wouldn't see bigger numbers of snapper because at the end of winter, they follow the cooler water south. This style of zoning in theory makes sense on the Reef as there are targeted species that become a permanent part of a reef system like cod and to a degree trout.

For someone to use figures compiled over a two year period to claim that closures have worked are kidding themselves. There are so many influences on fish populations other than fishing. You would need to compare population numbers for upward of ten years with the reef being fished. Then ten years with it not being fished.
Even the drought will effect population numbers. Some will increase and some will decrease. A political based report could then state that the closures have caused the increase and overfishing in the near vicinity has caused a decrease in other species.
Jim

[jim_farrell]

This is very cynical but is it any wonder a study would be published with this outcome two weeks before an election!!!!!!
This is what infuriates me, I hate being treated like an idiot by people I pay to run this state. Unfortunately the average non fisher will believe this report. An informed column refuting this study needs to be published to level the playing field.
Jim

[Hornblower]

With you 100% Jim, but I think they are targeting the once a year fishos who aren't members of this site and fall for this garbage. Let's face it, the "once a yearers" make up the vast masses of our numbers, all we can do is encourage those we know as "once a yearers" to take an interest in this website and educate themselves. ;) ;)

[fishingjew]

Could see this one being waved by a few green hands Have known about this one for last for a few days been waiting for it to surface
the survey was done on 12 reefs in the Swains sector of the Great Barrier Reef
closed to fishing open to fishing

wade. #25 # # chinaman. 33
Jenkins. 32 # small lagoon. 38
22-084. 22 # 21-550. 40
21-558. 53 # #eastcay. 62
21-296.41 # #21-302.25
21-278 .25 # 21-245.58

Highlighted are the number of manta tows over the reefs the open ones got more scrutiny with the exception of 21-296 being bigger and more surrounded with closer reefs than 21-302 yes i think the same about time the government woke up to itself we are not idiots we know why the zones where put in place votes pandering to the greens for their preferences not sustainable fishing. KC has Prof Starks reply to this and I say we will be hearing of it soon hate to be in his shoes at the moment with his work load.I will put up a few reports of open reefs for comparison these are open to fishing in the swains sector.

TURNER CAY REEF
Intensive Surveys: Trends in fish abundances
Large mobile fish species numbers were either fairly stable or tended to increase in abundance between 1993 and 2005, even though hard coral cover had considerably declined since 2001. In 2005, numbers of the families Acanthuridae, Labridae and the commercially important coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus, were the highest yet recorded. Numbers of three coral-associated butterflyfishes, Chaetodon rainfordi, C. melannotus and C. trifascialis, decreased substantially after 2002 when the large outbreak of crown-of-thorns starfish reduced live coral cover. By 2005, numbers of C. rainfordi, and C. melannotus had recovered to previous levels. Numbers of damselfish taxa tended to be stable or had declined during the study period. Abundance patterns for Pomacentrus spp. followed the abundant P. lepidogenys. Numbers of P. wardi and P. coelestis were also relatively low in 2005 after significant declines. In 2005, abundances of a number of other taxa, including the genus Chromis, Neopomacentrus azysron, Neoglyphidodon melas and Chrysiptera rex, were around the lowest yet recorded. We suspect that successful recruitment events for small, site-attached damselfishes may occur sporadically in this region.
HORSESHOE REEF
Intensive Surveys: Trends in fish abundances
The decline in coral cover since 1997 has almost certainly affected some fish taxa, yet numbers of many taxa appear to be varying independently of the major coral declines. Two coral-associated species from family Chaetodontidae, Chaetodon rainfordi and C. plebeius, have decreased in abundance, however Chaetodon numbers had increased in 2005 even though coral cover was still low. Numbers of Labridae have increased over the 12 years of surveys. Numbers of Lutjanus carponotatus and the commercially important common coral trout, Plectropomus leopardus increased from the13 year lows in 2003. The damselfish, Pomacentrus moluccensis was initially abundant but had declined to very low numbers in 2005; this species lives among the small branching corals that were most affected during the crown-of-thorns starfish outbreak. Numbers of another previously abundant Pomacentrus species, P. lepidogenys were also at a 13 year low in 2005. In stark contrast, P. wardi numbers had increased to a 13 year high in 2005. A number of Chromis species, previously present in low numbers have not been recorded since 2003.

[Sportfish_5]

Maybe someone is chasing more research funding from those who support the theory.

[Jeremy]

I would like to now how the survey of numbers was done? I have heard that after a period of no fishing, the trout and others lose their inhibitions towards baited hooks and are much easier to catch. So was it line fishing, nets, or just a visual count by divers?

Jeremy

[billfisher]

We hear the same rubbish here in NSW about marine park 'successes'. There were claims of red mowong increasing in numbers in the Jervis Bay sanctuaries. In an acticle published in a major daily paper it was stated that this was evidence that the exclusion of anglers was working and that the red mowong was a major recreational target. They even claimed the aquatic vegation was changing due to the removal of anglers!

The facts are that red mowong migrate from region to region so sometimes they are in good numbers and sometimes they are absent. Also these fish are vegetarian and it is extremely rare for anglers to catch them!

There is a new breed of political 'scientist' emerging these days. Marine parks are a growth industry for them, providing a source of funding and jobs. They look for anything that points to the successes of these parks and ignore anything that doesn't.

[madmix]

James Cook University has no credibility as an independant
scientific researcher.

Sorry to any academics, but I am reminded of a university students
studies into underage drinking and juvenile crime. After analysis
of figures she had obtained, did not provide any dramatic support
for her theory, she simply requested further figures with the legal
drinking age changed from 18 - 21.
Her final report failed to specify any age limit, and demonstrated
that underage drinking and juvenile crime was in epidemic proportions.

So how trusworthy are our researchers, especially when it comes
to matters of funding.

cheers Mick

[fishingjew]

I like this one

Researchers from the Australian Institute of Marine Science, meanwhile, surveyed 26 offshore reefs between Cairns and Gladstone which were closed to fishing and 25 where fishing was still allowed.

So out of 51 surveyed

Detailed surveys for benthic organisms, visual census of fishes and surveys for agents of coral mortality (SCUBA search) were completed on twelve reefs in the Swains sector. These were the first intensive surveys conducted specifically to provide a baseline for selected pairs of reefs to assess the effects of the new zoning plan

[nonibbles]

Dear GBRMPA please provide me with a trip to the reef every couple of years to actually see for myself. #You can say all you like and those who don't put their head below the water are fooled into believing you because they think you have credibility. #The only reason the fish numbers may have doubled is that the smoke has cleared enough for them to be duplicated in the mirrors. #(and you only state coral trout because that's the only preceding studies that you quoted thus probably the only ones you have any prior numbers on - did the complete demolition of the live coral trout industry, and the livelihoods that went with it, also have something to do with it?) I noticed you've said nothing about any relative decline in unzoned/lesser protected areas was this even looked at? #Are we to believe that it is solely the green zones that are responsible? #Amazing how when you leave a plot of land alone the grass grows back.
It wasn't the green zones that we disliked or their increase. #It was the crap that GBRMPA still try to brainwash the casual observer with that annoys us. #Oh and also the deception involved in the whole RAP process that is now being held up as a success (as a precedent) by the ultra greens in their bid to lock everything away just in case...

[madmix]

well put nonibbles

[kc]

I wish I had the time to deal in detail with this RUBBISH but others have already covered it well.

What joy....they said it would take 5 to 7 years to see and impact and by amazing coincidence it only takes 2 and bugger me if it is not 2 weeks before an election. Pete & the greens must be just delighted.

This is the same mob of *(&%^(^ who said it would only cost the taxpayer $1.5M (& now is costing US $200M)

It's already been said here and the facts tabled but this really is the bottom of the credibility barrel. Appaulling.

KC

[troy]

GBRMPA must believe that all us fishermen, (pro and rec) are complete idiots to believe that the fish stocks have returned in those kind of numbers in such a short period of time. All I see out of that report is some more self-funded justification for something that wasn't required in the first place. GBRMPA never used any scientific evidence to implement the representive areas program to start with, so why should we believe this crap now.

Ron
Total agreement Ron heard the report on the radio and it is all crap.
Troy