14 New Marine Parks by March

[gif]

Marine initiatives to sustain environment and industry

The Australian Government today released detailed proposals for the creation of an extensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in the oceans off south-eastern Australia that again confirms Australia as a world leader in marine environment conservation.
Development of the South-east MPA network is being integrated with the Securing our Fishing Future package jointly announced by the Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Ian Macdonald, and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell.
The 14 candidate MPAs cover more than 170,000 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters off Tasmania, Victoria, southern New South Wales and eastern South Australia. The boundaries and zoning of these MPAs announced today will now be subject to consultations in January and February, then finalised in March 2006.
Senator Campbell said the launch of the network followed extensive scientific research and consultations over a number of years, including with the commercial fishing industry the oil and gas industry and the conservation movement.
“Science tells us this is a remarkable region in environmental terms, with about 80 per cent of species in this region found nowhere else on the planet and these MPAs will protect representative samples of the ecosystems in which these creatures live,” Senator Campbell said.
He said 40% of the proposed network would be highly protected, with another 40% protected in areas where no commercial fishing will be allowed.
The Government also today announced further details of the major fisheries management reforms being implemented as part of the $220 million Securing our Fishing Future package to ensure the sustainability of Commonwealth managed fisheries and to secure the fishing industry’s future.
Senator Macdonald said he had directed the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to implement a range of new measures to address overfishing and to prevent overfishing in future.
“The Government has made it clear that it wants an acceleration of plans for the prevention of overfishing, the rebuilding of fish stocks and management of the environmental impacts of fishing,” Senator Macdonald said.
Senator Macdonald said the moves were necessary following significant concerns within Government and the industry about the poor state of Commonwealth fish stocks and the future sustainability and profitability of the industry.
The Ministers said it was essential that the details of both the proposed MPA network and the new fisheries management regime were available to fishermen so they had the full picture of their future operating environment.
“Having this information at their disposal will enable fishermen to make informed decisions about whether they want to continue in the fishing industry or take advantage of the Australian Government’s generous adjustment package to exit the industry through the concession buy-out.”
The Ministers said combining the adjustment processes for improved fisheries management and MPAs would provide greater certainty for fishermen by ensuring industry was subject to one adjustment process, not two.
For more information visit www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/index.html
DAFF05/M - C391/05 14 December 2005
Senator Macdonald’s office David Crisafulli 0400 144 483
Senator Campbell’s office Renae Stoikos 0418 568 434

[gif]

PROPOSED MARINE PROTECTED AREA NETWORK FOR SOUTH-EAST REGION ANNOUNCED
The Australian Government today released proposals for an extensive network of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) covering 171,000 square kilometres of Commonwealth waters in the South-east Marine Region off Tasmania, Victoria, eastern South Australia and far southern New South Wales.

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, said the South-east MPA network was the first representative network of deep water MPAs in the world and highlighted Australia’s international leadership in marine environment protection.

“The proposed MPA network covers an area two and half time the size of Tasmania and fourth fifths the size of Victoria,” Senator Campbell said. “It will build on the Howard Government’s already substantial record of establishing MPAs, such as those in the Great Australian Bight, Macquarie Island, Lord Howe Island, and the Tasmanian Seamounts.”
The proposed MPA network will now be subject to public consultation, with the Australian Government planning to have the final MPA boundaries settled by the end of March 2006 and formally declared under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act by the end of 2006.

“We have proposed a comprehensive MPA network offering substantial protection to the unique marine environment of the South-east, much of which is largely unexplored and doubtless harbours many unknown species,” Senator Campbell said.
He said creation of the South-east MPA network was the first step in establishing the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas in Commonwealth waters and would build on the state MPAs in the inshore and island waters of the region.

“The Australian Government is pushing ahead with its plan to have established a comprehensive network of MPAs around Australia by 2012 as one of the key outcomes of the regional marine planning process.

“The South-east MPAs will protect many significant features including undersea mountains and canyon systems which are known to have high biodiversity values.”
Senator Campbell said the Government had been working with key stakeholder groups for the past three years to develop the South-east MPA network in 11 broad areas of interest using agreed criteria and the best available scientific information.
Each of these 11 areas has been captured in the proposed MPA network.
“The proposed MPA network includes a mix of highly protected and multiple use areas,” Senator Campbell said.

He said the Australian Government had accelerated the South-east MPA process so that it could be integrated with the $220 million Securing Our Fishing Future package announced late last month.

“The Securing Our Fishing Future package will address the major problems of overfishing in Commonwealth managed fisheries and substantially reduce the industry to a scale that is ecologically sustainable and profitable for those who remain,” he said.
“We have committed $150 million to buy out fishermen in target fisheries around Australia as part of the fisheries reforms and in the South-east the buy out will also cover Commonwealth and state licensed fishermen impacted by the creation of MPAs.”
Senator Campbell said the finalisation of the MPA network was brought forward to the end of March 2006 so that fishermen impacted by the MPAs would be able to participate in the buyout.

“The details of the MPAs, together with information about the future management arrangements that will operate in the South-east fisheries, will ensure that fishermen are able to make informed decisions about whether to exit or stay in the industry,” he said.
He said the adjustment package included assistance not just for fishermen, but also for businesses and communities impacted by the fisheries management changes and the creation of MPAs in the South-east.

The South-east Marine Region encompasses 1.2 million square kilometres of Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, stretching from Kangaroo Island off South Australia around Tasmania and up to Eden in New South Wales.

For details on the release of candidate Marine Protected Areas in the South-east Marine Region, go to http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/index.html
Media Contact: Renae Stoikos 02 6277 7640 or 0418 568 434

[dasher]

Gary,

I have to admit mate, I am really starting to lose the spark. I sit here and read a report like that and not one fisho has bothered to even thank you for posting it. What !!!!! 40 hits, and we are talking 14 MP's. I have made the decision I will fight on until the next election and if these lazy buggas won't get off their collective bums and show a bit of fight, I think I will be concentrating on golf or lawnbowls. I will happily continue to work my bum off for TFPQ until then. If all these reef fishos are fair dinkum they would be jumping up and down furious with the closures already. Bloody hell, $22 for 3 years, most of those guys would drink or smoke more than that on an overnighter. The way things are going you will only be able to fish sand flat deserts and that's exactly what the greens want. Your choice guys as I said I'm in till the next election and unless fishos stand up and be counted, well then I am prepared to give up and give Australia to the greenies.

[Derek_Bullock]

Well said Daryl.

Did you check out the ECOfishers site.

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/yabb2/YaBB.cgi?num=1134540344/0

Derek

[rando]

Daryl
From my point of view these changes are what we've all #been saying must happen .
Namely a reduction in fishing effort particularly from the commercial sector.
Now before you all start screaming "Thin edge of the wedge" and other types of conspiracy rhetoric , the simple fact of the matter is this; there is to much pressure on the various fisheries, and in particular these deep water fisheries: #the product of which have been shown to be slow growing species and it is probably the right thing to do to protect them.
The article state 40% of these areas closed to all commercial fisheries. I think thats a good thing , is'nt it??
Yes there is a risk our fishing may be restricted in the future, but thats better than having no fish to catch.
25 years ago I had the opportunity to snorkel on the remote south coast of Crete in the Mediteranian. The people there fish with dynamite, I saw this with my own eyes. I snorkelled around a reefy headland for three days and saw NO FISH.
My point is I want my children & grand children to have an opportunity to catch a fish,,, an event that is only possable if there are fish to catch.
In my opinion we cant complain about the excess of the pros and also complain when something is being done to rectify the situation.
I fully appreciate Daryl that you are making efforts to improve things for us fishermen, and, this is not an attack on you or your efforts and I congratulate you for them
my 2 cents FWIW
rando

[gif]

Rando has a point my friends

There is a lot more detail to understand and I put up teh post FYI - I have not had a chance to study all the detail.


This IS just phase 2 - there is more to come. And thats from the Ministers mouth in Canberra October 2004. these marine protected areas are planned for all around Australia. The Gulf and Cape York was to be the next one. but plans changed.

[revs57]

Hi Gary,

Thanks for your report...its getting tougher isn't it...the balance between preserving our fish stocks for the future and reasonable access to persue our sport and love for fishing, boating and the great outdoors.

Dasher, we need politically motivated people like yourself to moderate the tree huggers, and Rando we need people who have a mind for the reasonable balance of protecting our future so our kids can take stock.

It bothers me that there seems to be little public consultation with these things and the pollies in their ivory towers who really have no clue, base decisions on "research" that is usually loaded...like the gambling issue funded by Aristocrat...and then most of us find out way after the legislation has been passed...Many of us choose ignorance cause it seems too hard to have a meaningful voice and be taken seriously or we just don't know where to start

Personally, I reckon its a joke that there have been so many closurers of accessible fishing grounds on the basis of protecting the Grey Nurse...no one I know has ever caught one or seen one caught...

It will be interesting to see if the fin fish closures make an impact on the DPI & Fisheries next environmental impact survey.

The hard thing is to work out what really is the best course of action as there is a sense of inevitibility about it all [smiley=end.gif]....

Thoughtfully

Rhys

[Dignity]

Phase 1 was bad enough - used to fish up north a couple of times a year and the only way in was to slog it out in a 4wd, funny thing is that where we fished we would never see another boat yet they turned the area green. Have no problems with closing hard hit areas or especially areas that will probably be open to development as can be seen by some big profile developers getting permits to knock down mangroves and build marinas to chase the almighty $. If common sense was applied I say go for it but in most cases it is pure lip service.

Sam

[juicyfruit]

Gary

"I sit here and read a report like that and not one fisho has bothered to even thank you for posting it."

I am guilty of reading and not thanking.....so Thank you.

Bare with me while i learn more about 'the politics' this topic before i pass comment.

Dasher, please don't stop the fight, just give me, anothers perhaps like me, time to catch up and find a voice.

Juicy

[theoldlegend]

Part quote from Juicy: "Bare with me ......................... "

Now that's an invite if ever I heard one!!

TOL

[theoldlegend]

I'm struggling to come to grips with the politics of all this stuff. There's another thread in this section that talks about future closures in Moreton Bay. Why??

So it looks like we're dealing with both the State and Federal Governments on this. So what's in it for both governments? Good exposure in the media? Under the table agreements with the tree huggers in order to get their preferences at the next elections? Are the bureaucrats feeding the pollies data simply to push their own agendas?

What gets up my nose are these Indonesian fishermen who probably do more damage in just a couple of trips than what a fleet of rec fishers could ever do, yet the Feds simply don't appear to have the resources to stop them. Every now and then we hear about a seizure, but how many don't we hear about? When a seizure is made, the softly softly approach seems to be taken and these people are back in our waters before we know it.

It appears the Feds are talking buying back licences. Will it be a fiasco like what is happening in NSW where we are buying back licences with our annual licence fees??

So what's the go here? I must admit I want to have an input, but I simply don't know how to do it.

TOL

[jaybee]

Here is an extract from a meeting I and a couple of others who had a meeting with my local member in Parliament 28/09/2002 over the tailor RIS.

# Desley Scott is very strong towards the sustainability of our future fishing, being a keen amateur herself. She does not like net fishing as it indiscriminately takes other species not targeted. She is dead against using fish for fertilizer and pet food unless its scraps from cleaning. #She even raised the point about government indiscriminate development along the foreshores causing a decline in fish and pollution. With the complete ban on netting the pilchards up north she asked who was going to supply the bait, so she is looking for an impact study to set a tonnage. She is all for complete banning of netting all species not just tailor on Frazer. (Her words were, who is going to come up from NSW if they can’t get a bite let alone a fish) Don't know if we will get a complete ban but she looking into that or only allowing certain beaches to be netted at certain times of the year. We discussed an increase in size limit of all species and a lower bag limit of all species for all involved in fishing. We all agreed if you can catch 5 large snapper it is better then 10 smaller snapper etc. She is all in favour of closing Moreton to all commercial operators or rezoning and closing areas to commercial operators when certain species are known to spawn in that area. She is in favour of more marine parks, but I think it was Brian Harvey or Vern said we need to be careful here or we will be like Eskimos trying to fish in the one hole in the ice.

Here is a site also worth looking at http://www.deh.gov.au/epbc/about/index.html i beleive both state and Federal Gov need to put a submission to EPBC over any changes. and from what i here this does not happen as it should.
cheers
Joe.

[gif]

TOL

An explanation?

If you were an economist I would say look at Hotelling Game Theory

If a historian look at PM Hawk. After Labor had been in the wilderness for many years he won the election, then took the Labor party further Right – leaving lefties unhappy but leaving Liberal nowhere to go.


So what has emerged in politics since then? There is a new front. A new dimension the old one is labour vs capital ( Labor vs Liberal / Nats) The New dimension is Green vs ???? ( Us TFP )

And the Greens have 4 senators

So both Labor and Liberal have adopted Green politics to get back the voters that have gone toward the Greens. Just like Hawk moved right the Libs have moved Greener

Democrats have adopted green politics too, to hold some votes – but have lost their way looking for a “brand” or for what they stand for. Even so, for the moment they are also green/ anti fishing party who want to be seen doing something.


So it’s been 50+ years since DDT but the Green movement has become mainstream.


If this sounds like a big chess game - well it is in a way. And I have attempted to bring it down to its basics for this post. No intention of insulting anyone or talk down - just trying to abbreviate,

Both Liberal and Labor see a huge green vote. But to be fair we have all become greener - eg not throwing rubbish out the car window.

At the extreme of green politics they give human rights to animals– that’s incredibly dangerous in ways that maybe you can imagine.


The Answer? I truly believe that the Greens were 100 times more effective when they actually had members in parliament and a serious political party. Look at the long history for your evidence.

The answer therefore is to jump in now with a fishing or similar political party - to pull the tide back the other way. Now because we don’t have 40 years to get our Act together - as you can plainly see.

Gary


I am not saying this because I am a fan of TFPQ - I am saying this because my understanding and serious study of the situation has drawn me to this conclusion.

[Jeremy]

Daryl
From my point of view these changes are what we've all #been saying must happen .
Namely a reduction in fishing effort particularly from the commercial sector.
Now before you all start screaming "Thin edge of the wedge" and other types of conspiracy rhetoric , the simple fact of the matter is this; there is to much pressure on the various fisheries, and in particular these deep water fisheries: #the product of which have been shown to be slow growing species and it is probably the right thing to do to protect them.
The article state 40% of these areas closed to all commercial fisheries. I think thats a good thing , is'nt it??
Yes there is a risk our fishing may be restricted in the future, but thats better than having no fish to catch.
25 years ago I had the opportunity to snorkel on the remote south coast of Crete in the Mediteranian. The people there fish with dynamite, I saw this with my own eyes. I snorkelled around a reefy headland for three days and saw NO FISH.
My point is I want my children & grand children to have an opportunity to catch a fish,,, an event that is only possable if there are fish to catch.
In my opinion we cant complain about the excess of the pros and also complain when something is being done to rectify the situation.
I fully appreciate Daryl that you are making efforts to improve things for us fishermen, and, this is not an attack on you or your efforts and I congratulate you for them
my 2 cents FWIW
rando

Rando,

if conserving fish stocks was the name of the game, then why don't we see a ban a beam trawling estuaries and long lining, two of the most destructive and indiscriminate forms of commercial fishing? Why - because of the politics. The outcry from the commercial sector if this was done would be significant.Much easier to make these huge coastal marine parks and be seen to by the community to be green, regardless of the huge impact it has on us rec fishoes, most of whom only take a small amount of fish each time we go out. To counter this style of politics, we have to become much more active and organised in our opposition.

Jeremy

[bugman]

Gents,

The first thing everyone has to come to grips with is a very simple point.

1) There is ALWAYS going to be a commercial fishing industry - ALWAYS.

Even in countries where fish stocks have been decimated there is still a commercial industry - allbeit small. People that want trawlers and longliners banned need to come up with a another way of supplying fish, prawns, crustaceans etc to millions of people around the world.

Last time I looked people hadn't given up eating fish species and if looking at world data trends is anything to go by more tonnes of fish products are consumed on an increasing basis every year. The pressing need is to make all those industries more ecological sustainable.

So what's the anwser? I don't think anyone has got it - it's as simple as that.

What the State and Fed Governments are trying to do - in my opinion too slow at the moment - is balance a viable commercial sector that is sustainable for the future - with an ever increasing and better equiped recreational sector - and a strong push from pure environmentalists who want straight preservation.

I'm keen to get a new job - but I don't want that one !!!!

There's now doubt in the last 10 years the wheel has slowing turned and the government is recognising that past commercial activities are not sustainable and are adressing many issues at both fed and state level. These include the number of licenses, habitat and quotas size, limits etc.

So they're starting to move - but my beef is that many of the changes are based on info from 3-5 years ago and by the time it takes the process to be worked through the departments and then the political process - the measures put in place aren't enough to fix the issues drawn to attention.

A lot of recos aren't going to like my ideas on certain things but I've strongly pushed for higher size limits, smaller bag limits on species that require it, and for protection of areas that are known has critical habitit and spawning agregation sites. That the areas most of us catch fish at during certain times of the year. But if we're serious about thinking not just for next year but for 20-40 years then these are the measures required.

I'm also in favour of making tailor a recreational species and closing down targeting of the tailor by pros. But that is purely a heart decision. If you look at the industry with your head you realise that beach netting is actually one of the cleanest commercial operational activities around. Their bycatch is close to zero and it's a very very tighly controlled industry. Why should we close it down when these guys are probably fishing better than most others in the commercial sector.

Anyway I'll stop raving now and finish with just one final comment.

I urge people to be open minded about the fishing sector - on all sides. Understanding and information goes a long way to making the correct decisions.

Brett

[rando]

Jeremy
Something being done somewhere is better than nothing done anywhere.If you want to see the areas of concern to you adressed, then start lobbying your politicians (federal & state) for change. I totally agree with your concerns by the way, but you only get change by becoming part of the process.
cheers
rando

[kc]

Having come in late after a couple of days away and trying to digest varied opinions it is important to place on record the TFPQ position on this new round of closures.

1. It reeks of the same lack of science behind the GBR closures...all about politics and little to do with fact.

2. Thinking anglers applaud efforts to preserve fish stocks.....where they are in trouble....but if a particular fishery is being used sustainabley...to whit spawning recruitment replacing harvest each year, does it need further protection?

3. Absolute agreement on inshore trawl. The most destructive method of commercial fishing there is and should be banned.........the problem is Government does not have the ticker and blanket bans all fishing, including rec fishing so it is not seen to discriminate between commercial and rec.

4.Closed seasons work....when a fishery needs protection, such as the barra fishery 15 years ago.

5. While there is absolutely no doubt some commercial fisheryes are prone to overfishing, Tuna, Orange Roughy, gem fish are there any fisheries under too much pressure from recreational fishing?? If so what are they and can closed seasons rather than blanket fishing bans fix the problem?

6. The entire commercial and recreational catch of all Australian fisheries IS LESS than the catfish fishery (BASA or Pacific Dory) in the meekong delta 1 million tonnes a year. Is overfishing a myth perpetuated by the anti-fishing lobby? In all the retoric of every EPA type announcement they talk about "preventing overfishing", never once (to my knowledge) have they ever come out and said xyz fishery is overfished! We have a relatively tiny population and an already well managed (in the main) fishery...tinkering with the edges is fine but do we need wholesale lockouts? Is it really in that bad a shape?

As with the GBR "thing" we would really like to know how banning recreational fishing, from what will eventually be 30% of the entire country will really benifit the future of the countries "biodiversity"...because we already know how it will ruin the small businesses of many Australian families and we also know that what is currently an iconic family activity will slowly fade away..........I personally was really looking forward to a retirement of fishing, and more importantly fishing with my kids and grandkids........the whole process of fishing bans and the PR campaign that goes with them makes recreational fishing less and less a social acceptable pastime...........& kids just don't wnat to fish anymore....very sad!


Anyhow, its not all doom and gloom....we are now in the "main game" and fighting well above our weight. I personally am a bit like Dasher...I have 1 more election in me and we better make it a bloody good one, because if TFPQ drops the ball...then pity help the future.

Regards

KC

[Derek_Bullock]

Quote from KC

Anyhow, its not all doom and gloom....we are now in the "main game" and fighting well above our weight. I personally am a bit like Dasher...I have 1 more election in me and we better make it a bloody good one, because if TFPQ drops the ball...then pity help the future.

Hey Kev

I recall a few things you once said to me about this very thing and the toll it has taken on you personallly. #As you know I am not a Fishing Party member and unlikely to ever be but I believe that it will be a sad day if you pull the pin. #You bring a lot of common sense to an organisation that has the potential to be overrun by radicals with the wrong outlook if they were given the chance.

Hold in there mate.

Quote from Dasher

Your choice guys as I said I'm in till the next election and unless fishos stand up and be counted, well then I am prepared to give up and give Australia to the greenies

Daryl

Same goes for you to mate. #I know you have been a tireless worker for the Hervey Bay area.

The boys in NSW (ECOfishers) are just getting going down here and I am sure support is on its way.

Cheers guys


Derek

[dasher]

Thanks Derek, your support is greatly appreciated mate.

I'm not ready to lay down yet though, we have a lot of work to do before the next election. I'm confident we will have a good showing, but without funds for promotion it is going to be very hard. Hopefully we will have the support required before the next election and then rec fishos will finally get a say in their future.

For those that are on the fence and a bit hesitant to join a political party, just send a donation to TFPQ to help us to get out to all fishos not just on the web.

[Derek_Bullock]

Good onya Daryl

[rando]

Daryl/KC.
Please post an address where donations can be sent.
rando

[kc]

Donations can be sent to...The fishing party (Qld) PO Box 1311 Airlie Beach Qld 4802....all donations are acknowledged with an official party reciept.........we are NOT going down the Pauline Hansen path

Regards

KC