GBRMP,Take Over

[BladeRunner]

If you have a GRIPE about the zones in your area then lets start a special post. Lets call it GBRMP,Take Over. Who's first on the board. [smiley=bandana.gif]

[jockey]

There's none down here ;)

[Gazza]

On the GBR , as I'm not a 'local' , but from 'the' South ,I wouldn't have a clue of recognising any landmarks and distance on water or even a GPS set up with No Fish Zones programmed in or even be able to hire one.

So i'm just probably a tourist criminal, ah well, can't wait for that floating-fence idea to kick-in , or maybe real and adequate signage , to tell me where to go ;)

[Kerry]

.... or maybe real and adequate signage , to tell me where to go #;)

;D :D Know anybody with experience in adequate signage or maybe that should perhaps be "inadequate signage" in not what to do ;)

Cheers, Kerry.

[megafish71]

I'd just like to know how GBRMPA intend to fit the parking meters that will be required at Arlington reef & Sudbury reef off Cairns, as these are the only two close reefs off Cairns still in the blue zone. >:( >:(

[baldyhead]

The red circle is approx. area of operation out of Cairns.
The blue ones are the appox. new green and yellow zones. On a good day we will see at least 200 recreational boats sharing the blue and yellow zones with the entire commercial fishing fleet operating out of Cairns, ie trawlers, Mackerel fishers and live Trout and other species fishers. Oh what a web the GBRMPA has weaved.
GBRMPA has deliberatly done this to cause disharmony amongst all fishers in the Cairns region. GBRPMA has bowed to the " GAB's" and the Tourist (AMPTO- the mob who by their own submission dont believe that dumping tonnes of sewage daily onto the GREAT BARRIER REEF waters is a problem...check out my posting elsewhere on this forum ) Industry by making most of the areas that we fish into bloody green zones.
GBRMPA has also put the lives of boat owners and their familys at serious risk doing this as some fishers will be forced to travel further out to sea to get away from the trouble spots ( fishers everywhere) and the weather can turn seriously nasty in a very short time, making the return trip back to port dangerous.

[Kerry]

.... GBRPMA has bowed to the " GAB's" and the Tourist (AMPTO- the mob who by their own submission dont believe that dumping tonnes of sewage daily onto the GREAT BARRIER REEF waters is a problem...

Oh and don't forget TRRAC, interesting self indulgent concept these tourist organisations appear to have in which for some strange reason they think they're little angels and have this somehow strange inert impact on the reef. Don't mind digging up a bit of reef either, especially when it's dead and the only ones who access it is the same insert mob who supposedly don't impact on the reef, what a farce.

You know it's very quaint way some of these shows have in controlling bird population so they don't crap all over there little floating tourist castles, but of course only occurs after all the inert tourists are on their way home.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

What do you mean by area of operation? Don't people fish much closer to shore there? As far as rec fishers go, won't the two yellow zones make up for a lot of the green zone 'losses' (plus you've got the dreaded spillover effect), especially as the government is 'retiring' a lot of the pros as well?

[megafish71]

I wonder if anyone acutally knows how much sunscreen is washed of these tourists bodies each and every day. What impact could that have on the coral? not to mention the amount of times we see tourists stumbling around trying to stand on shallow areas of the reef. GBRMPA would have us believe that this causes no lasting damage to the reef. pppffffff yeh right.

[jockey]

There have been calls from within the tourist industry for studies into the effect of sunscreen. I know they tell people not to use sunscreen in the perched lakes on Fraser Island, as it gets concentrated there.

I've been out on the tourist boats. They tell you not to stand on the coral, and not to even go on the shallow bits in case you bump it. I never saw anyone stand up. You get yelled at just for swimming to far away.

[megafish71]

I understand that standing on the reef is discouraged by tour opperators, but I suggest someone have look at places like Green Island, Upolu Cay and Michaelmas Cay just to name a few. Can all tour opperators out there speak 20 odd languages required to explain this to all tourists. I think not.

[Kerry]

....but I suggest someone have look at places like Green Island, Upolu Cay and Michaelmas Cay just to name a few....

Green Island is an interesting example hey, which nobody appears to want to tackle, zoned in 1974, off limits to fishing since 1974, yes very tourist orientated and reef is dying, why, yes good question, why but nobody hears much mention about the Green Island doesn't exist dying reef, why? maybe doresn't fit the required PR mould.

Cheers, Kerry.

[BladeRunner]

baldyhead
you have reminded me of a movie called Perfect Storm [smiley=worried2.gif]
On ya
baldeRunner [smiley=bandana.gif]

[jockey]

Perhaps they should be forced to spread the impact a bit thinner rather than dumping thousands of tourists in the one little area. It would make it better for the tourists too. Think of how much $$$ the country is losing because all the foreigners think the whole reef is like that.

[kc]

You picked up a good point Kerry. Green Island has been affectively a green zone since 1974 yet it is going out the door backwards due to the very things that GBRMPA tell us are minimal impacts..ie tourism visitations and their asociated impacts. The big ticket issue on green was sewage...and lots of it. The Island management/owners also tried to change the nature of a coral atol, which is to regularly move. It placed a large rock/sandbag wall near the head of the jetty (didn't work, the restautant still fell ino the water). The other end of the island then started to shift and all the she oaks and coconuts fell in. The great new fence that national parks built to protect the vegetation also went, along with the vegetation. All the while raw sewage was pumped out across the flats, just near the jetty at a rate of 150,000 litres a day. What was coral beds became seagrass beds and stopped the movement of sand from South to North and the island started eroding and dying as a result. All the while it was a green zone. Hmmm!! Ban fishing and the reef will be saved??

I heard a great little grab on ABC yesterday that as a result of receiving 27 submissions from tourism operators GBRMPA is allowing a 30% increase in touist numbers to sites previuosly identified as requiring special protection by limitig numbers.

30% more reef tax $$$$$, don't worry that they ignored most of the 30,000 submissions from rec fishers.

KC

[Gazza]

Jock , you amaze me , you say spread the tourists but concentrate the RecFishos. ???
Arse about face mate..... 8)

Spread the Fishos, to reduce any hotspot fishing pressure ,and concentrate the tourists ,so they can all shit in onespot , and only destroy a tiny piece of REEF :'(

[jockey]

Doesn't the same argument apply to both Gazza?

[megafish71]

Gee think I opened a can of worms, ;D ;D ;D
got a few other issues to bring up in due time. Looking forward to hearing your one eyed opinion on those too Jockey Yeh right

[Gazza]

Doesn't the same argument apply to both Gazza?

Yes it does Jock ,I agree with you... [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

"Minimise the DAMAGE"

Tourists.....minimise their ever-increasing impact ,on REEF structure and untreated,raw sewage, diving in protected spawning areas even ,if necessary [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

RecFishos......minimise hotspots, remotely linked to overfishing by some dickwit, by bag,by minsize,by proven spawning habits, IF under proven threat. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

Comms......minimise export IF unsustainable for local markets, if necessary. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

p.s. interstate and international tourists don't vote here.....
RecFishos and Comms. do , about 500,000 core voters plus, who keep this mob in power.

They better start listening, as Panda and WWF are looking sillier everday , with their locked-up areas theory, and their arguments aren't holding up too well......and that is good [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[old_mate_china]

Pretty emotive stuff this :o ... good to see some robust thought and some naievity as well. :-/

I've worked with tour operators and protected areas for many years (not marine though), and the theory has always been to try and concentrate the areas of impact in order to sustain much larger areas and the microsystems / ecosystems that exist there... a fair enough point of view...it works for me on the land thats for sure.

However It looks to me like GBRMPA are not equally assessing and then differentiating the impacts created by the rec fisho's, commercial fishos and tourists alike. They have applied a "One set of rules for all "...this perception enhancer trying to make people believe they are unbias in their treatment of all !!!! Yeah right.

I reckon its just plain old planning (or planner) laziness and this is being backed up by political gutlessness (in not being willing to stand up and say well right fred is different from Bob and as a result he gets some extra priviledges). For christ sake fred cant even get out to the reef for over four months a year so shit he'd wanna be a pretty bad boy to deserve what he has recieved with all the green zone punishments.

I think herein lies the problem for many of us... ie. all fishos impacts are not the same and we should not be treated the same. GBRMPA and the politicians should have the balls to say "we stuffed up in the way we endorsed the commercial fish fleet (because we didnt really understand the resource), and as a result you will have a different set of rules than rec fishos......because know we actually understand some of your impacts better.

They should also however not put a blinker on for any of the tourism impacts either (given that they are the supposed lifeblood of the north after all ..cough,cough). My years with eco tour operators still leads me to believe that the "eco" stands for "economic" and not ecological , (for about 60% of those in the business) .....yes they do have better practices than mass tourism no doubt, but hey at the end of the day it is about $$ and they will take short cuts to save a few bucks..... On this one the pollies need to call the bluff of the influential few and stop listening to the trumped up quadruplified data being espoused.

Look I dont have the answers.. If I did I wouldnt be here beefing it out on a chat board, but I actually support some green zoning (less than currently applied but more yellow zoning) because it is a good thing for all of us at the end of the day ... it just should be backed up by some broader / comprehensive thought by the planners and some political gumption to tell it how it really is and should be . :-X :-X

[megafish71]

Yee Haa Giddy up China

[Jim_Tait]

China,
appreciate your more moderate position re recognition of need for some green zoning on the reef and more yellow zoining and respect your industry experience

Article below from Coiurier Mail underpins some of the rationale for closed green zones

Regards - Jim
Courier Mail News
Gropers aren't the only oldies having fun
Michael Madigan
13jul04

FISH on the Great Barrier Reef soon may live almost as long as the average human – and they won't be letting the autumn years slow down their sex lives.
Scientists yesterday revealed some reef fish could have a life span of 60 to 70 years.
They have found a coral trout which evaded dinner plates for 19 years and a red throat emperor thriving in his 25th year.
And rather than allowing age to slow down their reproductive capacity, mature-age fish are producing far stronger children than their youthful counterparts.
The revelations, made yesterday at the third International Symposium of Fish Otolith Research and Application in Townsville, are expected to impact heavily on how we manage fish stocks.
"From a fishery management perspective, it will become important for us preserve the older fish," conference chairman Gavin Begg said.
Dr Begg, of the CRC Reef Research Centre at James Cook University, said decade-old research on fish age in Queensland was producing amazing data.
Age is determined by examining the "otolith" – the ear bone used by fish for balance and orientation. The otolith lays downs rings, much as a tree does, and allows scientists to accurately determine birth dates.
It was previously believed the absence of significant change in sea temperature in the tropics would prevent accurate otolith assessments.
"We have found that is not the case, and we are now coming up with a lot of accurate information," Dr Begg said.
Even small cod, previously thought to live only a few years, are reaching 30 to 40.
With Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority green zones now banning fishing, it was possible some reef fish such as red bass would make 60 or 70.
Scientists working overseas have found deepwater fish living to 100 years and more.
And these older fish were found to be producing more eggs the older they got, Dr Begg said.
"With more spawning experience they tend to produce larva that is larger and stronger and has more chance of survival."

[kc]

Jim,

While the points raised are sound you also need to read between the lines a bit regarding this press article.

Lets look at a few points made....fish live 60 to 70 years...here you are talking about Red Bass. A no take species due to cigutera and now a banned species. "Small Cod"', this is a wire netting cod which only grows to a bit over 1kg and is not a recreational target (or commercial)....the words about the 19 year old trout and 25 year old Red Throut...note they used the word "he" . These are male fish. The biggest identified predator of juvenille trout are larger male fish.

Those fish which are the big breaders as females..barra, grouper are already well protected, those fish which have significant tourism value or have a breeding regime which makes them vunerable...Wrasse, barrmundi cod are zero take.

The overseas studies about older fish in deep water producing better lavea etc are just that overseas studies and a bit motherhood. It is a proven fact that deep water fish , like orange roughy live longer, grow slower and breed later than reef species. Recreational fihers do not target deep water species like Orange Roughy and reds etc ae not a true deepwater species as they move throughout the water column and grow quickly.
A coral trout grow to 30cm in 1 year, breeds at 35cm and changes sex to a male fish at around 4/5 years old.
It in essencse has 3 breeding seasons after reaching legal catch size before becoming a male fish.

Notice they never talked about the key target species..coral trout?? This is because the studies done show Coral trout numbers to be totally heathy, catch rates, both recreational and comercial having no apparent effect on stock levels and no evidence existing to support the need for a 30% lock-out.
The actual combined rec and commercial catch of trout on the GBR is about 2% of available biomas. Since the paper is quoting overseas studies, the internationally accepted standard for a sustainable fishery is in the order of 40% of available biomass, which is then replaced by annual spawning recruitment.

Now before you come charging back (or Jockey does) about "Posting the link..what evidence etc" The evidence of the 14 year study caried out by Dr Tony Ayling is sitting in a bottom draw of a GBRMPA filing cabinet. It has never been published even though it is widely regarded as the single most comprehensive study of a single reef fish stock ever carried out. I have a precis of the study if you would like to see it but it is too big to post here. It has never been published because it does not support the GBRMPA propogander about the reef being overfished. If you want to see the study or anyone does, send me a PM and I will happliy provide it.

I sent it and some other studies and research papers to Jockey last week and he has not yet responded or acknowledged reciept of them and yet he constantly harks about "show me the evidence".

A symposism, organised and funded by GBRMPA and their mates at Reef CRC and JCU, which just happens to occur 2 weeks after the rezoning, manages to issue a press release, using rubbery figures about overseas studies and warm and fuzzies about 70 year old red bass really should be no surprise to anyone. The entire marine research community is an amazingly tigh knit mob, all relying on research grants, handed out by GBRMPA. What better way to "up the budget" from the feds than to perpetuate the myth that the GBR is in dire straights and only they can fix it. More money, more rearch grants, more jobs for the boys and in 20 years time, when the reef is still in good shape, this will no doubt be more evidence of what a great job they have done. If the reef needs protection it should be with pink zones, if a particular fish stock needs protection then do it, with bag limits, reduced commercial catch quotas and closed spawning seasons (just like barra).....not just blanket bans at the expense of those who live here and those who live of our sport.

Regards

KC

[Jim_Tait]

KC,
I would be interested in reading the studies that show "Coral trout numbers to be totally healthy, catch rates, both recreational and commercial having no apparent effect on stock levels and no evidence existing to support the need for a 30% lock-out"

I will send you my postal address in a PM. I appreciate that you are well read on the topic and admit that I am a freshwater ecologist and not a marine one.

However, I have a large number of friends and colleagues that are (some of whom are keen rec fishers) whose knowledge and experience I respect and they are pretty well unanimous in their support for green zones and the beneficial role they can play in fishery management and marine conservation if appropriately selected.

Some of these guys have been involved in survey and monitoring work of targeted fish species (as part of the crown of thorns starfish studies) and they reported fairly appreciable differences in fish community and size make up in relation to fishing pressure. I also note that there are a host of other species besides coral trout i.e, Lutjanids for instance, that are long lived and targeted species. Look forward to receiving the literature and meanwhile will confer a bit more with some of my marine fish biologists colleagues for some more informed feed back.

Regards - Jim.

[NQCairns]

Sh#t great read KC [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[kc]

You should have the reports by now Jim. The result of a 14 year study and the single most comprehesive study of any single reef fish species ever undertaken. So why is it burried in the bottom of a filing cabinet at GBRMPA?? Because it does not help perpetuate the myth of desperate overfishing!!

Will be interested to hear your feedback on the papers.

Anyone else that wants them send me an email to kc@whitsunday.net.au......this is not secret mens business. The more people that read these reports the better.

Regards

KC