Reef Fishing Regulations - Great Stuff

[macdwp01]

I just want to get peoples opinions on the reef fishing zones and various other regulations (ie bag limits, 9 day closures) that were brought in half way through this year. They have now been active for a while and i was wondering your thoughts on them. Personally, i think it is the best thing that has been done to the reef for many years. This should provide quality fish for many years now, i think the zoning is great and i know some people highly dislike the new zones but they will provide grounds for fish to breed etc. Overall, we have to look after the reef and stop over-fishing. 3 cheers for the gbrmpa and the dpi and the qld government. They took a controversial stand but it was the right one.Some people have been taken out of the pro fishing industry on the reef but the reef is bigger than the man. Hopefuly these people will be adeqautely compensated. Thoughts

[kc]

Hi Mac,

Rather than re-invent the wheel, backtrack through a stack of old and very long threads on this issue if you want to get a handle on the general sentiment. Happy viewing !!

Regards

KC

[bugman]

Hey Mac,

First post - where you from and what's your fishing background. You're obviously further north than some of us? Friendly place this.

Bugman

[agnes_jack]

Mac
You don't work for GBRMPA or the DPI do you?
Or a PETA member perhaps?

# # # # # # # # # #Regards, Tony ???

[zedjack33]

Mac

I can confirm that getting frames for your crab pots from the loacl seafood shop is bloody hard when the closures are on :-/. If the do have em they like to hand em out ot the pros to keep them going. Got caught with this the other week. I know now for next time to keep a stash for such an event nect time ;)

Anway, not sure is the short answer, too early, alot of the local are pi$$ed off about it.

Cheers Zedjack33 [smiley=jester.gif] [smiley=jester.gif] [smiley=jester.gif]
PS. Nice and idepth for your first post ???

[Derek Bullock]

Welcome to Ausfish Mac.

Like KC said, we have debated this quite a bit so if you look back through the posts you will pick up a lot on it.

Don't know that I want to revisit it at the moment. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Cheers.


Derek

[kc]

Good call Derek,

Too close to the time of peace & good will. Enjoy the site Mac, it is great communication and learning tool....and I'm kind of curiuos. Where do you live (& no I'm not going to send you a letter bomb).

Cheers all

KC

[NQCairns]

Sorry to read the ignorance in your post Mac, might I suggest the new book by Michael Crichton, State of Fear.
This may open your eyes but only if your mind is open, best of luck and consider the tenents of critical thinking.nq

[megafish71]

Im with you NQ and would also like to know where you from Mac. It seems that most people that are happy with the new regs are people who's lifestyle or earnings have not been affected by their introduction, there for IMHO should not be commenting.

Ron

[macdwp01]

Im with you NQ and would also like to know where you from Mac. It seems that most people that are happy with the new regs are people who's lifestyle or earnings have not been affected by their introduction, there for IMHO should not be commenting.

Ron
Mate, i will comment because i fish the reef as well as other people that use this site. The fact of the matter is the well being of the reef comes first. Now i fully understand that a majority of commerical operators have been put out of business by these new laws and I firmly believe these people have to be adequately compensated. Not just offered 2 grand and told to go away. We have to make sure these people are well compensated that is a priority. I think the new zoning and other laws (ie 9 day closures) were needed and the reef will no doubt benefit from these. We need to make sure we have fish for the future and also we have to make sure that we reach a equilibrium in terms of fish being taken off the reef and new fish from spawning to at the very least sustain stocks and maybe even increase them. Remember you can only fish if there are fish to catch. Cheers and Merry Christmas.

[NQCairns]

Hi Mac, this site is a recreational fishing site and I am sure that 99.9% of of all fishing related comments here relate only to Recreational fishing unless highlighted otherwise.
I am also sure that the majority here would also agree with you in the whole when related to commercial fishing.
Recreational fisherman got well and trully shafted for no added/needed reef protection.
I do conceed that rec fishing was less than 1% down the road toward unsustainable practices on the GBR using the toughest model available. I am sure that in the next 50 - 100 years when this number doubles or tripples someone would recognise that fact and increase reef management for 2 or 3 years to slide the number back to virtually unmeasurable again as a whole, with the support of the most passionate conservationists the GBR will ever know - recreational fisherman.

The RAP reef plan as it stands against recfisherman is simply the most blatant radical environmentalism seen in this country to date, regardless of laws passed and retoric sprouted while deals were done.nq

[luigi]

Spot on NQ.

Mac, I really don't think your posts on this subject are worth commenting on. So I won't!!!!!!

[fishsmith]

Mac, I believe your posts are worth comment as there has been no real debate between rec fisherman on the pro's of this legislation. There is a lot of us out there that do welcome protection measures introduced on the reef that in my veiw will lead to sustainabe fish stocks for our kids to enjoy.

[macdwp01]

Spot on NQ.

Mac, I really don't think your posts on this subject are worth commenting on. #So I won't!!!!!!

Why not, i hope you wouldn't be the first person to complain when there are no fish left on the reef to catch, it's just my opinion, i don't want to get into a slanging match. I won't be posting in this thread anymore if people are going to come in and degrade me or my opinions.

[kc]

Hi Mac,

Don't be put off by the debate. Ausfish is a great site and most of the chat is usually very freindly helpful and often a good laugh. It is just a pity that your first post has hit probabaly the rawest nerve in the whole of North Queensland.

You may well "fish the reef" but where do you live?? This is always at issue when anyone posts in support of the zonings. a bit of the old NIMBY syndrome.

Back in the other threads you will see lots of information about the zoning. Some for, some against and within that a lot of reference to the actual science, the political reasons behind the zoning, information about trout densities, breeding patterns...really good stuff from which you can gleen a lot of useful information. Once you have spent an hour or 2 (& yes, that is how many times this issue has been debated) reading/sorting through the comments, you can state your opinion from a well informed position.

The problem with this debate is when you say "this is what I think", without doing your homework first, it gets up the nose of those who have put hours of work into researching their own position.

A typical example is a thead in support of the GBR zoning maps and zoning plan by a well respected member, who, at the end of the day, lived in Brisbane & had not actually seen a map or zoning plan. Once the issue was posted, debated and examples demonstrated about how difficult and complex the maps were, this poster did some digging and actually modified his position, conceeding the maps were in fact pretty hard going.

Anyhow Mac, don't lose faith in the site, its just that you came in late, and hit a very raw nerve...then never answered the question about where you live....its only a little thing but it was important.

Have good Chrissy, go catch a few fish (for me) because i'm too bloody busy. Hands up who thinks opening a new restaurant in the middle of christmas is a good idea...NOT!!!

Regards

KC

[agnes_jack]

G'day Mac
This is a real contentious issue that you have brought up in your first post, and no worries I can see where you are coming from. If I believed what I was told by GBRMPA and the DPI, I would agree with your comments whole heartedly. As far as rec fishos go, the spawning closures do nothing whatso ever in my opinion.
We are already governed on the amount of fish we can have in possesion, so how can we load up and do mass damage during the spawn. These spawning closures are hurting hundreds of buissneses along the coast of the barrier reef, these buisneses have no course of compensation for thier losses. Most tackle shops etc are down by 40+% on turnover for the last two and a half months. This is now filtering thru other buisnesses such as accomodation, fuel suppliers, food outlets, restaurants, and many others. I believe that the figures that have been usedby GBRMPA to compare the value of tourism against the value of rec fishing, are GROSSLY inacurate. When these figures were caculated, they decided that if you went on a reef tour you got a tick in the tourism only box, if you stayed at an accomodation house you got a tick in the tourism only box, if you did virtually any form of tour, orvisited any attraction along the barrier reef coast, you got a tick in the tourism only box. This is all well and good until you realize that for many, many families thier main reason for visiting qld was because dad and the boys want to go fishing, and while they are there for thier fishing, they
go on tours etc. Fact remains that if they couldn't go fishing that family would not be there! A gross misuse of figures to manipulate the opinion on the value of fishing versus tourism.
One thing that has been brought to my attention that highlights the inacuracy of the science that has been used to determine the need for spawning closures, is that the trout spawned early this year and the closures missed the spawn! If that is correct (and that has come from some pro trout fishos) then a stack of buisnesses are down 40% at the busiest time of the year, for no reason other than to give a bunch of burocrats a pat on the back!!!
The decision on where green zones were placed was based on percentages closed, rather than the demonstrated need for protection of given areas. An example of this is where they placed a green zone on a beach south of agnes, when asked what on this surf beach was it supposed to protect, they gave me 2 reasons both being
totally non existant. To explain further, this particular area is basically a surf beach, there are some rock formations along the shoreline, but basically it is a typical surf beach. The bioregions they state are not existant in that area. When I put that to gbrmpa, they agreed but said that they had to get a certain percentage in green zones, and that was the last bit of coast left so it is green! No concern for the effect it would have on users or wether or not there was anything that needed protection.
I could write a book on the subject. but my fingers are cramping!
When you come up this way after Chrissy, I will show you some paperwork to give you a better idea what I am talking about, if you are interested.

Hope this gives you a little insight into this highly indepth issue.
I look forward to meeting you! regards, Tony ;)

[megafish71]

Mac, you assume that when I commented about income being affected by the new regs that I only ment commerical fishos, that was not the case and as Tony has pointed out it goes a lot deeper than that. As for the 9 day closures these have little or no impact on the commercial fishos, most coral trout fisho's have or almost had reached there quotas by the first closure this year. The closures have mainly effected the rec fishos and those that earn a living suppling rec fishos with tackle, accomodation, fuel, boats & motors and other accessories. This market alone supports alot of people in Queensland. Personally since October I have only used my boat three times, mainly due to the fact that the calm conditions with light NE winds occurs traditionally around the new moon at this time of the year. In previous years would have done atleast 12 trips over the three months. At approx cost of around $200 a trip thats about $2400. This year only did one fishing trip with a spend of about $200 and two snorkling trips with the family at a cost of about $60 (fuel only) as nothing else was required. That means I have not spent the extra $2100 that would have usually been spent. I am only one person that hasn't spent extra on fishing this year. The figures quoted from tackle shops up this way indicate that there must be hundreds of people also not spending money on there fishing at this time of the year.

Ron

[nisrol]

seeing as have not had my boat to go fishing in places that i would be able to catch YES CATCH instead of spending money on bait to feed the fishies and the crabs has cost me more that a trip out in the boat to actually land any fish .
now having said this my feelings are :
GIVE A MAN A FISH AND HE EATS FOR A DAY ,
here's a new one
GIVE A MAN A TRAWLER , TEACH HIM TO FISH THEN HE'S RICHER THAT ALL OF US

well that's my thoughts anyhow as i am out in my boat maybe 3 times a year

cheers and still fixin them b*%ch of an boat andy

[macdwp01]

Mac, you assume that when I commented about income being affected by the new regs that I only ment commerical fishos, that was not the case and as Tony has pointed out it goes a lot deeper than that. As for the 9 day closures these have little or no impact on the commercial fishos, most coral trout fisho's have or almost had reached there quotas by the first closure this year. The closures have mainly effected the rec fishos and those that earn a living suppling rec fishos with tackle, accomodation, fuel, boats & motors and other accessories. This market alone supports alot of people in Queensland. Personally since October I have only used my boat three times, mainly due to the fact that the calm conditions with light NE winds occurs traditionally around the new moon at this time of the year. In previous years would have done atleast 12 trips over the three months. At approx cost of around $200 a trip thats about $2400. This year only did one fishing trip with a spend of about $200 and two snorkling trips with the family at a cost of about $60 (fuel only) as nothing else was required. That means I have not spent the extra $2100 that would have usually been spent. I am only one person that hasn't spent extra on fishing this year. The figures quoted from tackle shops up this way indicate that there must be hundreds of people also not spending money on there fishing at this time of the year.

Ron
Mate, i totally acknowledge that and i 100% agree with it. But my point is that the reef needs to be protected. Whether these mean more green zones or whatever. The reef needs to be protected. With these current laws i think the reef will be protected from over-fishing and we will hopefully have a system where more fish are coming into the system from spawning than those that are leaving the system. THis will mean fish for the future and we will all be able to catch quality fish.

[kc]

Here we go a-bloody-gain!! READ the posts..LOOK at the studies...DON'T make uninformed posts..it ANNOYS the hell out of people and will start another S^%$ fight.

The reef was already the most highly regulated, best managed reef on earth. The total combined catch of all fish species in the GBR by rec and commercial is 17kg per square kilometer per year The AVERAGE for Indo-pacfic reef is 7900 kg(NOT A MISPRINT) per square kilometer per year. The catch is less than 3% of biomass annually. The fishery is capable of producing 25 to 30% annually as a "totally sustainable" fishery.

Mac is is great to look after the reef. We live here, we love it and we want it protected too...but it already was. Lets ban tourism on the moon.....same thing!! Fix a problem which does not exist in the first place...and then tell everyone its working because look...you can still catch fish in 10 years time.

Commercial quotas, bag limits and the effects of time, weather and distance was already enough...they did not have to do us over trying to buy green votes.

Do we have to do this bloody debate all over again...it's too close to Christmas

KC

[macdwp01]

Here we go a-bloody-gain!! #READ the posts..LOOK at the studies...DON'T make uninformed posts..it ANNOYS the hell out of people and will start another S^%$ fight.

The reef was already the most highly regulated, best managed reef on earth. The total combined catch of all fish species in the GBR by rec and commercial is 17kg per square kilometer per year The AVERAGE for Indo-pacfic reef is 7900 kg(NOT A MISPRINT) per square kilometer per year. The catch is less than 3% of biomass annually. The fishery is capable of producing 25 to 30% annually as a "totally sustainable" fishery.

Mac is is great to look after the reef. We live here, we love it and we want it protected too...but it already was. Lets ban tourism on the moon.....same thing!! #Fix a problem which does not exist in the first place...and then tell everyone its working because look...you can still catch fish in 10 years time.

Commercial quotas, bag limits and the effects of time, weather and distance was already enough...they did not have to do us over trying to buy green votes.

Do we have to do this bloody debate all over again...it's too close to Christmas

KC
Lets just agree to disagree

[agnes_jack]

Well
at least one fisherman believes the propaganda put out by GBRMPA!

Regards, Tony ;D ;D ;D ;D

[NQCairns]

and.... KCs numbers are TOTAL catch :o :o :o - now lets ponder what the rec only portion of that was per year per sq km #:o :o :o and what effect it would have on the entire reef in a week or even a days time after the entire rec fisho's yearly portion was removed on the same day. Think about it. NIL! .nq

[macdwp01]

and.... KCs numbers are TOTAL catch :o :o :o - now lets ponder what the rec only portion of that was per year per sq km #:o :o :o and what effect it would have on the entire reef in a weeks time even if all of the rec fish portion was removed on the same day. Think about it. NIL! .nq
Mate lets just close this thread, i regret opening this topic because i didn't know how angry it will make people and i can understand why some people will get angry when this certain topic is discussed. We all have different opinions and we have to respect that. My opinion is the new zoning laws and closures etc will benefit the reef in the short term and long term and they were required.

[NQCairns]

But Mac, WHY do you have your opinion? If you can explain it so that it makes sense now given what you have allready read, I will gladly change my belief and defend your interpretation on the zoning and dpi.nq

[macdwp01]

But Mac, WHY do you have your opinion? If you can explain it so that it makes sense now given what you have allready read, I will gladly change my belief and defend your interpretation on the zoning and dpi.nq
Mate all im saying is that the reef needs protection. I think we have the right balance now. Now can you please state your opinion about the laws as im yet to hear it, instead or i hear is how dumb and ignorant i am.

[Derek Bullock]

:-X :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X ;)

[NQCairns]

Mac, I recon sunbakeing for 6 hours every day of a persons life is a great idea!
Ill give my reasoning on this claim if you give me yours on RAP and DPI? Cause buggered if I can work out why WITH REASON it is protecting the reef any further than before it was introduced, no none not even the authorities can give us how it does :o or how it would before the RAP (remember this is a rec fish site!!)Unless ridding the poor aesthetic of a fish being caught by dad and his kid protects the reef somehow is the best I can come up with or have heard so far. anyway fair is fair - you first.nq

[megafish71]

Mac, There is a few people who have given their opinions on what they think about the new regs and why. Just as you asked when starting this tread. Not once have you given any of your reasons for your opinion on the topic. But choose to be argumentative towards others whos opinion differs to yours, also you have not once answered the question of where do you live, no we don't want your street address just a general location. I live in Cairns and as KC stated earlier another member of this site who didn't live in an area affected by the new regs also thought they are the best thing that could have happened for the reef. So we are just trying to quantify what impact these regs have had on your general part of the country you live in.

Cheers Ron

[nonibbles]

Another thread hints at the Gladstone area, Ron.

[fishsmith]

:-X :-X :-X MERRY CHRISTMAS...................

[macdwp01]

Mac, There is a few people who have given their opinions on what they think about the new regs and why. Just as you asked when starting this tread. Not once have you given any of your reasons for your opinion on the topic. But choose to be argumentative towards others whos opinion differs to yours, also you have not once answered the question of where do you live, no we don't want your street address just a general location. I live in Cairns and as KC stated earlier another member of this site who didn't live in an area affected by the new regs also thought they are the best thing that could have happened for the reef. So we are just trying to quantify what impact these regs have had on your general part of the country you live in.

Cheers Ron
Mate i live in the central queensland gladstone area and yes we do have green zones that were fishable before the new zoning came in. i just think the zoning laws provide a more stable base for the reef as a whole and as a result, we should hopefully have a quality supply of fish on the reef for many years to come. Before the new zones were introduced i seriously doubted whether that would be the case. Yes, i have seen the 14 year in the making report from that doctor regarding trout numbers but i am etremely scpetical of the accuracy of such a report and the many variables within it. I think everyone would agree that the reef as a whole does not fish now as it did 15-20 years ago. Hopefully, with these new zones the reef will improve in terms of quanity of fish but with such any major law change we will not know how successful it is until many years later. That's just my opinion mate i find it extremely hard to believe the government would introduce these new laws without hard evidence and figures and not, as some suggest, to please green groups and the like. Especially when fishing and tourism is a major factor for queensland's but obviously the pros of this new law outweighed the negatives of lesss money coming through the system thorugh fishing the reef and as a result, the government felt it was necessary to provide stocks for the future.

[nulla]

macdwp01

Have you given any thought to the fact that the extra closures (green zones) may actually mean that the reef fishing will get worse?? This can come about due to the concentration of effort. The same number of people fishing in a smaller area.

For the fishing to improve you have to be a believer in the 'spill-over' affect. Coral Trout for one do not move between reefs. Do larvae disperse widely - not sure. Do bigger coral trout (and other species) produce more larvae - Not always, as trout and others become male as they age (unlike barra) and don't produce any eggs. Large trout are the dominant predator of small trout.

As for 9 day spawning closures - too bad they didn't spawn during the closures. There are commercial line fisheries that have been proven sustainable over decades that are basically built on targetting spawning aggreagations.

A lot of what is being done with closures is 'simplistic solutions based on dodgy and misleading information to address complex problems'

I hope you are right in that the fishing will get better as a result of all these measures, but I don't think it will.

That's my two bobs worth.

Have a Merry Christmas and a healthy and happy New Year

Nulla

[Richo1]

I'm all for it Macdwp01, it is about time more was done to protect fish stocks. Have worked and explored reefs from Lady Musgrave north to cape york in both diving and fishing activities, and have seen a dramatic decline in fish stocks over the last 20years. Gets nasty when a pro fisher and a dive operater have to fight over 1 reef just to see a few decent fish. It's time that people saw the big picture and thought of the future. Having 20 percent of the reef protected from fishing is not that bad! I would be happy if 50 percent of it was protected. After all it is around 2500km long!
Cheers Richo

[agnes_jack]

20% is not that bad.
But they have put 33% in Green zones.

Tony ::)

[Richo1]

Thanks Tony, guess i should brush up a bit on it all. ;) Like Dereck said , a lot has been said already. Good thing about this site is a least people with different opinions and experience can share their views and hopefully we will be all better off.
Cheers
Richo

[NQCairns]

??? ???100% was protected with recfishing before RAP anyway! and what has profisherman and dive operators got to do with Recreational fishing and their shafting within the RAP and DPI con jobs. If we aare picking apples then why talk oranges ::)nq

[agnes_jack]

Richo and Mac
I must be missing something here. Can either of you guys tell me what the green zones do to protect the REEF? In my opinion the fishing regs, have limited the overfishing from rec fisho's (and they could in some cases be tightened a little more)
So what does a green zone actually do, to "protect" the reef?

Regards, Tony ??? ??? ???

[Kerry]

So what does a green zone actually do, to "protect" the reef?

Yes I do believe that's asking for some actual facts :o instead of the typical rhetoric that many appear to be simply repeating.

So I'm all ears, if anybody actually have some facts that answers the question ;D.

Cheers, Kerry.

[agnes_jack]

Yeah
I wonder if anyone actually knows! ;D ;D ;D

Tony

[Derek Bullock]

Hmmmmmmmmm.

Lets forget the almighty dollar for a moment and philosophise. [smiley=beatnik.gif]

Will green zones improve the quality of the reef and increase the numbers of fish overall in the long term? Thats a theory. [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Or ........ will green zones cause increased fishing pressure in other areas of the reef and cause more harm in the long term? Thats another theory.[smiley=thumbsdown.gif]

The six million dollar question, what. ??? ??? ??? ???

Is there a scholar [smiley=scholar.gif] [smiley=book2.gif] in our midst who can answer that?

Or ...... is everybody really just guessing.

Or .............. will we ever really know.

I'm with Kerry, start posting some hard facts because there certainly aren't to many coming forward.


Derek

[NQCairns]

Kerry, Got me stuffed ???

[Kerry]

It's got a lot of people stuffed as if there were any facts and anybody actually knew then one would imagine they would be making lots and lots and lots of noise about it.

So does anybody hear any noise ;D

Cheers, Kerry.

[Derek Bullock]

;) #Come on guys dont be shy. Ausfish has a very large server and can cope with ALL THE FACTS. # ::) ::) ::) ::)

;) Some of you may even get to the magical 1000 post mark by posting ALL THE FACTS. ::) ::) ::) ::)


Derek

[Derek Bullock]

;) Maybe some one has some good scientific evidence on the facts.

Here is a definition, not mine, of what scientific evidence can be:

Scientific evidence is information that has been developed through a process known as the "scientific method" -- meaning that the information is considered valid because it has been tested and shown to accurately describe what it purports to describe. Typically, scientific evidence has been published in journals, tested by other scientists and generally accepted as valid within the relevant scientific community.


Derek

[Gazza]

Hmmmmmmmmm.
Lets forget the almighty dollar for a moment and philosophise. #[smiley=beatnik.gif]
Will green zones improve the quality of the reef and increase the numbers of fish overall in the long term? Thats a theory. #[smiley=thumbsup.gif]
Or ........ will green zones cause increased fishing pressure in other areas of the reef and cause more harm in the long term? Thats another theory.[smiley=thumbsdown.gif]

The six million dollar question, what. #??? ??? ??? ???

Is there a scholar [smiley=scholar.gif] [smiley=book2.gif] in our midst who can answer that?

Or ...... is everybody really just guessing.

Or .............. will we ever really know.

I'm with Kerry, start posting some hard facts because there certainly aren't to many coming forward.


Derek
This is the "most recent" FACTS as i read them........ [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] [smiley=book2.gif]

October 13, 2004
Ted Forsgren (850) 224-3474

NEW RESEARCH REFUTES THEORIES AND CLAIMS THAT NO-FISHING ZONES REPLENISH FISHERIES IN ADJACENT AREAS

Recently published research from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) indicates that no-fishing zones (NFZs) are not the fisheries management tool that advocates claim.

“The claims of replenishment and other fisheries management benefits made by no-fishing zone advocates are clearly undermined by this research,” said CCA Florida Executive Director Ted Forsgren.” “The results refute the theory that NFZs are viable fisheries management tools. It is also very significant that the research was conducted at the no-fishing zone near the Kennedy Space Center, the same area that NFZ proponents have been using to claim that replenishment does occur.”

FWC researchers conducted a long term and comprehensive assessment of fish moving into and out of a no-fishing zone. Between 1990 and 1999 fish were tagged and their movements between an estuarine no-take zone and the surrounding waters were examined. The tagged species were redfish, black drum, sheepshead, common snook, spotted seatrout, bull shark and jack crevalle.

Some key statements and findings from the FWC research are as follows:

“Reserve areas that attract and retain exploitable individuals
from surrounding habitats at higher rates than they replenish
those habitats could be considered to be sinks in terms
of their ability to directly supplement adjacent fisheries
through spillover of exploitable sized individuals. Fish
emigration from reserve habitats and the replenishment
of nearby fisheries is a commonly predicted benefit
of harvest reserves (see reviews in Robert and
Polunin, 1991 and Rowley, 1994). However, there
are currently no studies that simultaneously
examine emigration and immigration relative to
estuarine reserves or that document the extent to
which reserve areas may also function to
withdraw individuals from surrounding fisheries.
Without assessment of net exchange, the interpretation
of reserve benefits with respect to replenishment
cannot be properly evaluated.”


“Recapture rates for sportfish species that migrated
across the NTZ [no-take zone] boundary suggested that more individuals may move into the protected habitats
than move out. These data demonstrated that
although this estuarine no-take reserve can protect
species from fishing, it may also serve to extract
exploitable individuals from surrounding fisheries.”

“There were substantial differences in the migration
patterns of fish between the two areas. In the vicinity
of the NTZ, the relative potential for overall sportfish
migrations (primarily red drum and black drum,
which provided the greatest quantity of tag recovery
data) towards the NTZ from unprotected habitats
(52%) was greater than the potential from migrations
out of the NTZ (5%).


FWC staff further summarized the key issue of immigration versus replenishment for two important species by stating that “in the vicinity of the estuarine no-take zone at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, the relative rate of immigration into the reserve by sportfish species was higher than the rate of emigration out of the reserve for both black drum (90% vs. 25 %) and red drum (27% vs. 3%).”

The marine protected area (MPA)/no-fishing zone debate is a huge issue in Florida where 29 MPA/no-fishing zones, ranging in size from hundreds of acres to several hundred square miles, have already been established. More are being proposed all the time. In 2001, the South Atlantic Federal Fishery Management Council released a “shopping list” of 42 new MPA/no-fishing zones from North Carolina to Florida. Nineteen of the zones were targeted for Florida’s East coast. The proposed list has since been reduced to four off of Florida. In addition, the Biscayne National Park is currently developing a general management plan which will almost certainly include recommendations and options for no-take/no-fishing zones.

Throughout the debate CCA Florida has stated that there are far better management measures available to restore and manage saltwater fisheries. Such measures include spawning and other season closures, daily and season take limits, and size limits.

“These are proven measures which have restored and protected redfish, snook, sea trout, and other fisheries in Florida,” said Michael Kennedy, CCA Florida Chairman. “No-fishing zones should be the last course of action, not the first. There is no reason to go to the extreme of prohibiting all fishing.”

CCA Florida predicts this new research will have a major impact on the no-fishing zone issue and reinforce the need to remain focused on proven conservation measures to protect and restore fisheries.

“This no-fishing zone did the exact opposite of what proponents have been claiming,” said Forsgren. “Instead of replenishing adjacent areas, the zone pulled substantially higher numbers of fish from adjacent waters into the no-take zone.”

“30”


Research Title/Availability


“Multidirectional movements of sportfish species between an estuarine no-take zone and surrounding waters of the Indian River Lagoon, Florida,” by D.M. Tremain, C.W. Harnden and D.H. Adams, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, 2004.


Published in the Fishery Bulletin, Volume 102, Number 3, July, 2004.

Amy Harllee, Executive Assistant
CCA Florida
905 E. Park Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32301
(850)224-3474
info@ccaflorida.org

[agnes_jack]

I guess it must be all theory?
I'm so glad they are not ruining our hobbies, our lifestyles, our family outings, or our incomes, based purely on an attempt to raise votes by conning people into believing
that changing a color on a map will protect it?
Take into account that if the DPI are worth thier pay check, then those new bag and size limits should be worked out so that the fishery side of things are set at a sustainable level, then what is left that a green zone would achieve ?
Got me STUFFED! From a rec fishermans point of view, the whole system would work better if the green zones were yellow.


Regards, Tony ::) ::) ::) ;D

[Richo1]

Unfortunately, I think people like ourselves on this website are a small minority of people who do care about what happens to our recreational resource and fish it accordingly.Trends are slowly changing and a lot more people are fishing for sport not just to 'catch and kill'. However, their are still lots of recreational fishos out there who don't know the rules, don't care and will take everything they can. These people far out number the few like us.

With regard to 'will the new closures etc., work' I have no scientific evidence or proof just my opinion. But what other options are their? We can't rely on the good nature of fishos all over the country to do the right thing as it will never happen. If we sit back and wait for a system that all parties agree on, it too will never happen. Then one day we won't be able to catch a fish and everyone will point the finger and again blame everybody else.
How will the green zones work? Good question, it will only work if someone is out there to police it! On the reef and at the boat ramps..
Regards Richo :)

[Kerry]

....still lots of recreational fishos out there who don't know the rules, don't care and will take everything they can. These people far out number the few like us....

Does appear an overly broad brush and based on what evidence? does sound rather negative.

Really the whole thing with this zoning is that fact that the zones were declared based on untruths and public deception and certainly not facts. The great "weight of scientific evidence" which was allegedly used to justify these zones simply doesn't exist and statements/comments like yours above only go to highlight much of the rubbish that has gone into the zoning justification.


Cheers, Kerry.

[NQCairns]

Richo maybye it just me but over 30 years of weting a line I had hundreds of fishing buddies and trips I have not once witnessed any great flouting of the law like you mentioned above, I have heard about it and read about it. So I need to take your word that 2+ out of 3 fishing trips ends with bad such bad behaviour and 98% of my trips were internet technology free! I have seen undersized fish being taken for bait when in a corner etc and quite a few honest mistakes. Given that commercial fishing is the only fishing that has a real impact (freshwater excluded) it really is a bit rich these greenzone lockouts on recfisherman.
Society has laws for a reason as I understand it it is so that those that within the law do not suffer or be impacted because of a bad minority. This is not the case with rec fishing it seems! The majority suffer because of a hypothetical minority.nq

PS My personal take on the zones is leave them there and keep them green but allow Recfishing for it will not impact upon them in any way biodiversity or otherwise, why exclude a #father and his kid from fishing based only on extremist bright green dogma, how anyone can defend it amazes me and it will forever I think. there is no more protection now than before from recfishing probably less.

[kc]

The problem with trotting out a study from Florida is that it is just that, a study from Florida. The combined commercial and recreational catch on the GBR is roughly the same as the combined commercial and recreational catch in the Florida Quays.....so you perhaps can draw some comparison...trouble is the total area of this fishery, is 1/10th of 1% of the area of the GBR, In other words the fishery is 1000 times more intense per area than the GBR. Digest that 1000 times more. Comparing figures on this fishery and the need for NTA is not really relavent because this is a fishery under seriuos pressure which really needed better management.

Our Barra fishery was clearly under pressure years ago and I don't think you will find many people who oppose the seasonal closures there. They have been great and this was a fishery under pressure, plenty of evidence to support that and no auguments needed.

NTA can and do work on fisheries under pressure...no doubt. But sufficient sceintific evidence exists within the works of Mapston, Ayling and the Reef CRC papers to demonstrate that the reef fishery is NOT under pressure. One of these reports, & it is published in another thread somewhere, said. (or words to the effect)..even in the most extreme cause of maximum pressure retricted to the smallest possible area, the species was robust enough to remain sustainable. The real issue with trout, according to Ayling, is the isue of catchablity, not sustainablity...they wise up, just like sooties do in Dams.

Dr Starck has many times put forward the augument of available habitat for spawning recruitment. In other words the trout populations are so robust that baby trout are eaten by bigger trout as a way of maintaining a stable adult population and many many more trout would grow to maturity if more trout were actually caught.

This augument seems to be supported by both Ayling & Mapston which clearly demonstrates more trout on fished reef than unfished reefs, but, of a smaller average size. In other words, fished reefs are having a much higher spawning recruitment each year than unfished reefs, in many cases more than double.

To a large part the TFPQ policy on zonings is based around split reefs in consideration of this issue. Also as Nulla pointed out, trout do not migrate between reefs and their will be no spillover as a result of green zones, just a stable population of big trout in a green zone which predate on any juvenielle trout and ensure a very low spawning recruitment, on that reef.

The studies Derek has posted about Florida is about fish which move freely and spillover in this case is absloutely provable and benificial, but these were fisheries in trouble.

No where, at any time, by any person has evidence been submitted to say the GBR fishery is even remotely in trouble.
Plenty of people prepared to say...I recon...or I think...but this issue to just too emotive to throw in a handgrenade without having some evidence to back it up....it just pisses off too many people.

There is however, one lovely quotable quote, from our recently sacked Minister for The Environment Dr Kemp, who said (words to the effect)...."Ending overfishing on the reef will help the reef withstand the effects of global warming and the efefcts of souil washing down the rivers during floods"

So guys, somewhere out there is a soil eating refrigerator fish.....wonder what they taste like??


This is a debate which I guess will never go away and the best we can do is try to sort through the BS, try not to express opinions without doing some homework first and at the end of the day try to compare apples to apples if we are going to post any sceince to support whatever position we are taking.

This issue has, unfortunately been all consuming for many, effected the livelihoods of many small business operators and is turning people away from the sport in Droves throughout NQ. This may well be the agenda in the first place. De-popularise the sport of recreational fishing......it is clearly on the agenda of the ultra greens and they have there grubby fingers throught the halls of power.

The simple fact is...someone, anyone, show us evidence to support a position that the GBR fishery is under threat from overfishing and I will gladly pull my head in and go play golf.

Merry Christmas all
KC

[NQCairns]

He He.... All hail GBRMPA saving the soil eating refrigerator fish. ;D ;D ;D

[nonibbles]

Ah, refridgerator fish! The only fish that you eat the guts and leave the body. The best thing is if you leave them where they are the guts grow back!

[megafish71]

This issue has, unfortunately been all consuming for many, effected the livelihoods of many small business operators and is turning people away from the sport in Droves throughout NQ. This may well be the agenda in the first place. De-popularise the sport of recreational fishing......it is clearly on the agenda of the ultra greens and they have there grubby fingers throught the halls of power.

Merry Christmas all
KC

Unfortunate but it is working. Ran into a mate yesterday who has traded in his reef boat on a ski boat because he can't be bothered with trying to keep up with all the continually changing regs, in his words; The Government is making it to hard to do something he enjoys, so he will do something else he and his family can enjoy with out the brain strain of ensuring he is not doing the wrong thing in the wrong area or at the wrong time.
So there is another rec fisho that has had enough of the BS from GBRMPA and DPI. I only hope that not too many do the same.

Ron

[Richo1]

Fair go nq, I never said 2-3 trips ended in bad behaviour. Most fishos out of Cairns on a week-end would be lucky to catch their quota., You can't tell me that the reefs out there haven't copped a flogging over the years.
It was a broad brush I admit, my evidence is of being out their seeing it happen, I've worked on the reef mostly from Cairns for 15 years, and a recreational fisho on it for 20.
Couldn't agree more about commercial fishing having a greater impact. 6 tonnes of fillets are exported from Cairns per day in peak periods! Tour/dive operaters have a major impact as well! Take a snorkel on the western side of Norman Rf nq, then try the SE corner and you will see the impact! But that is another topic!
Nq I can understand why you are so passionate, you did get the short end of the straw out from Cairns!
Richo

[Derek Bullock]

Oi KC. #I didnt post that bit about Florida and to me that is what it is. Has nothing to do with our Great Barrier Reef.

I noticed also KC that of the stuff you posted, it all appears to me to be all in relation to coral trout.

I understood that the reason for the protection of the reef and the green zones was to protect the whole marine habitat of the reef. #I am sure coral trout are only a small proportion of that.


Derek

[NQCairns]

"However, their are still lots of recreational fishos out there who don't know the rules, don't care and will take everything they can. These people far out number the few like us."

Fair enough Richo, I typed those numb on the above quote, just the way I read it.

In 2 years of living in FNQ I have visited the reef 5 times, I hope this number improves at a later date but the real reason I am pissed is for all those little people and their familys (past, present and future rec fisho's) Totally appauled at what has been achieved with RAP, for what end and for every Aussie out there. Even if I was never to fish again my statements, sentiments and reasoning would be no different.
Any reefs that cop a flogging needs proactive management, simple really, but 99.5% of the reefs reefs ;D dont cop a flogging, why is an effective 70% of the rec fishable area lockout zones on the GBR?. They needed a fire cracker but detonated a nuclear bomb. nq

[Richo1]

I'm back in Brisse for now, drop a line in at Finn Reef for me sometime, thats if you can still fish it!
Merry Christmas and tight lines! ;) :)

[kc]

Hi Derek.

You are dead right. RAP was supposedly about Biodiverstity protection NOT fish management...that is a state job. Yet the ONLY THING effected by RAP is fishing. No other activity is impacted by RAP...this would seem to suggest that the ONLY thing having any effect on Biodiversity...is fishing???

Below is an extract from the reasons GBRMPA published as the biodiversity issues justifying RAP..Have a read. Then make a mental note as to which of these dot points is effected by Recreational fishing.
You list in various publications reasons for green zone protection levels, a dot point list of reasons for protection of biodiversity. This paste was part of our original RAP submission and I don't have time to clean it up but you will get the gist.

They are as follows

· Six of the worlds seven species of marine turtles all of which are listed as threatened. (Very minimal if any affect by rec fishing, some boat strike potential which will continue to exist in green zones, effected by gill nets)
· One of the worlds most important dugong populations (not affected by rec fishing,very limited boat strike potential which will continue to exist in green zones, effected by gill netting and devastating impact on seagrass beds caused by trawl netting)
· More than 30 species of animals (not affected by rec fishing, some effect by commercial day trip operators & campers which will continue to exist in green zones)
· 2200 species of native plants (25% of Queenslands total native plant species) (not affected by rec fishing some effect by commercial day trip operators and campers which will continue in green zone)
· Over 1500 varieties of fish (limited impact by rec fishing with only approx 15 species; i.e. 1% of actual species regularly targeted)
· Over 1500 species of molluscs (limited affect on one variety, oysters and this strictly controlled)
· Over one third of the worlds soft coral and sea pen species (not affected by rec fishing, limited effect by divers and snorkelers will continue in green zone)
· Over 200 species of birds and one of Australia’s most significant seabird rookeries (not affected by rec fishing, some effect by commercial day trip operaors and campers will continue in green zone)
· Approximately 2900 coral reefs built from 360 species of hard corals (minimal affect by rec fishing/anchors, major impoact in some areas by commercial boat anchors and chains, major impact in some areas by divers and snorkelers wioll continue in green zone)
· 800 species of sea stars which is 13% of the worlds total (not affected by rec fishing)
· Over 3000 square kilometres of mangroves including 54% of the worlds mangrove diversity (not affected by rec fishing)
· Breeding humpback and other whale species. (Not affected by rec fishing)

Of these 10 vital reasons and examples of biodiversity only 1% of available species of one single dot point is affected by recreational fishing. That is impact on a small number of fish species and we continue our position that this is totally sustainable.
Why, when recreational fishing has a very limited impact on one single sector of the biodiversity portfolio is it being excluded from up to 25%, an amount of up to 90,000 square kilometres of the park?

As to why I only post numbers, statistics etc on Trout is that first and foremost they are the only fish which have compreshensive studies done on them and second they are the manin target species for both recreational and commercial. A lipnus test so to speak for the entire issue.

Regards

KC

[fishsmith]

Keep up the debate fella's I've enjoyed what I have read so far..Some good comments on both sides of the fence..One thing is for sure ,no matter which way you look at it us rec fisho's are committed on one thing a "sustainable fish population for or kids and our kids, kids well into the future".

"Remember there is no shortcut to a place worth going.."


Merry Christmas Smithy... ;)