Why not build more FADs in Moreton Bay

[seatime]

Hi All

With all the current debate about sustainable fishing practices and proposed clousures in Moreton Bay, could we have more Artifical Reefs and F.A.Ds introduced into the bay?

Would a couple more strategically placed FADs ease pressure on existing fish stocks?
would they help spread the boats out a bit more?

Any suggestions on preferred sites for reef or FAD?

How should the EPA be approached for such a venture?

Who would pay for the construction?
What's the best, cleanest medium to use?

Is it too 'common sense' to construct artificial habitats to boost populations.
Does it fit into the government's grand plan for Moreton Bay.

Instead of closing areas, why not open new areas.

Just a thought.

regards
Steve

[Blackened]

G'day Steve
I like your idea of making new areas, instead of creating closures or higher pressure on others, which tends to be the case.

I have no idea what would be the nest medium.... but concrete does come to mind. As does a few derelict ships you see getting around.

Someone else may know who would be the person to get in contact with, maybe this is a thing for webby to look into with his newly found role with the epa.

Dave

[BrandonH]

I like the idea!!
There may be a few new ones popping up around the palce if they close down half of moreton bay anyways ::)

I think we should be focusing on stopping the clousures first b4 thinking about what we are going to do if they bring out this F@#$$% closure...

Cheers
Brandon...

[seatime]

Hi guys

I was thinking of long term options, and it may help to take something to the negotiating table.

The biggest hurdle would probably be the EPA, then would come the cost.
In consideration of the growing population in the SE, and the boom in boat registrations, which increases the pressure on existing stocks, it's time to plan ahead. Keep it sustainable for the projected increase in fishers.

Tourism would also benefit, eco tours etc, more calm water dive sites, that sort of thing.
Maybe even in the future, an aquaculture setup that compliments a FAD, and vice-verse.

regards
Steve.

[NeilD]

There is a lot of debate about FADS and artificial reefs. Many believe that they do little to increase biomass or improve the fishery as a whole but tend to concentrate existing stock where it is easier to extract. This may not be the best option in the long run.

Neil

[Heno]

managed to find this application form..... quite alot to it with inspection of proposed material / management plans / transport of materials / construction plans and an environmental impact study
http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/pollution/dumping/pubs/artreef.doc

[seatime]

There is a lot of debate about FADS and artificial reefs. Many believe that they do little to increase biomass or improve the fishery as a whole but tend to concentrate existing stock where it is easier to extract. #This may not be the best option in the long run.

Neil

Neil, more debate is needed imo, more research and more data. A lot of the past and present debate is ideologically based. Where's the data to disprove the theory, or otherwise. I believe that the problems with a lot of the marine biomass debates is a lack of actual concrete evidence, there's too much anecdotal evidence used to support arguments, and too much conjecture.

Looking at the existing artifical reefs in MB, they seem to work OK. I have no evidence to support my argument, but am hoping others can add informed opinions.
These reefs were established in predominantly sandy areas, and have attracted reef fish varieties to them. It may concentrate the fish in one area, but it's reef fish concentrated in a sandy environment.

Clean rock would be acceptable, but expensive.
20 metre depths would offer protection for bait, and the areas off Shark Spit at Moreton Is look idea.
Some floating FADs on the East and West of Moreton and in the Rainbow may also work.

Food for thought and debate anyway.

regards
Steve

[Hornblower]

Be interesting to see what would occur with further Bay closures, whether artificial reefs like Harry's would be out of bounds. The greens would probably have some sort of fantasy objections to make about any further artificial reefs or FADs.

Be interesting to see the results of any studies done on the topic of whether it increases fish stocks or just redistributes the existing stocks. I would hazard a guess and say that if you increase the baitfish, coral, sea vegetation stocks, then the other fish stocks would naturally increase as well. Only a guess though.

Cheers ;) ;) ;) ;)

[stevedemon]

Hi all a good debate here
i am origanily from Sydney 21yrs ago use to fish Pittwater to the Hawsbury river up to the central coast and Sydney Habour the powers to be use to place rocks to make the reefs in some of the locations it took 12 mths and there was and increase in fish in those areas

in some areas around australia they have also used tyres for reef and the same thing and increase in fish stocks so making artifical reefs have been proven to increase stocks though out australia and the world for that matter

but it all depends of the money involved to place these reefs and whether they are willing to spend it

if you look at all the man made rivers in S/E Qld alone how long does it take for fish stock to increase in these systems

Cheers ;D ;D
Steve 8-) 8-)

[webby]

Cannot see the reason why more arti's would do any harm.
if you look at the area from tanga's across to the measured mile and a little futher south, there are a #few isolated structures mostly man made and a few isolated patch of rubble mounds that over the past few years are starting to hold good bait and are producing some really good fish.
And most are in 18m+ and in fairly strong tidal flow areas.
So even if one or two were places between Mud and the Sandhills, where not much else exists and has good tidal movement and major current lines, they would certainly start their own eco sytems like others have done, and its all about eco systems that draw/attract amd start the food change.
Whether the powers that be would consider, is yet to be asked.
The only problem/protest and objections would come from the trawl guys that work these areas.
regards

[theoldlegend]

Seems like quite a good idea. It's a turn around from what others will recommend in 2007; that is, lets close areas off to fishing.

If FADS can be shown to improve fish stocks, then I think that some debate should be put forward. Some tough talking will probably be needed to convince the powers that be with the money to invest in them.


TOL

[charleville]

Seems like quite a good idea. #It's a turn around from what others will recommend in 2007; that is, lets close areas off to fishing.

If FADS can be shown to improve fish stocks, then I think that some debate should be put forward. #Some tough talking will probably be needed to convince the powers that be with the money to invest in them.


I agree. In fact I would think that it might even be a vote winner.

[jim_farrell]

Fads shouldn't be a problem. Very little cost and no more intrusive than a channel marker. As for artificial reefs, having seen all the old buildings torn down around the gabba in the last 5 years, that is a lot of concrete and brick just going into landfill. It would obviously be more costly to barge it out there than dump it, but it would be more productive than landfill.
Jim

[hussy]

whats a fad ? hubby

[Slider]

Currently it's soft plastics ;D

Fish Aggregation Device or Fish Attractant Device as it commonly termed.

Lindsay

[charleville]

but it would be more productive than landfill.


Excellent thinking....and afterall, the cement in the concrete probably started life as coral at Mud Island anyway so this is the most naturalest of recycling proposals so who could possibly object to that?! :)

[Slider]

Think there may be issues with lime in the crete but not my field.

[Rainbowrunner]

I reckon a nice reef a few sunken barges and stuff like curtain has, about 5miles off redcliffe would be perfect.