PDA

View Full Version : green zones as management tools



jockey
18-06-2004, 12:11 PM
Should there be greater use of green zones as fisheries management tools south of the Great Barrier Reef?

General information on the benefits to fishing from green zones

http://www.nceas.ucsb.edu/Consensus/

Examples of fisheries that have been rescued or improved by green zones (plus one that wasn't)

http://www.panda.org/downloads/marine/benefitsbeyondbound2003.pdf

Guidelines on how green zones should be used for fisheries management

http://www.freediver.bravehost.com


Mods: I noticed that you don't have to log in to vote. Why is this? Wouldn't it be better to make sure there is one vote per person?

mackmauler
18-06-2004, 12:17 PM
vote NO to green zones ::)

Kerry
18-06-2004, 01:38 PM
NO, that is NO, N, O, NO simply any other response will require an explanation that not even the powers to be can provide so how can anybody vote any other way as there's no evidence to support any other response.

Down with green zones [smiley=thumbsdown.gif], down with Jockey [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] down with wacks like freediver [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] simply waste of space [smiley=sick2.gif]

Cheers, Kerry.

Barrymundi
18-06-2004, 01:48 PM
Where do you fish Jockey ?

Any post with the mention of "freediver" losses interest with me straight away

dasher
18-06-2004, 03:33 PM
Hey Jock does this sound familiar ???


"OK take two.
David Kemp and GBRMPA lied about the justification for the marine parks and tried to pass fisheries management advice off as conservation advice. The end result is that we now have 1/3 of the reef covered by green zones that are designed to minimise spillover, not maximise it. "
Uuuhhmmm how'd u vote mate. ??? ??? ??? ::) ::)

Kerry
18-06-2004, 03:56 PM
How did he vote ??? well obviously in the affirmative, who else would be that stupid :-X

And as for where he fishes, well in the not all that distant future someone ;D might just post all of jockey's contradictory comments/statements, which even old jockey won't even be able to explain and why might one ask ;) well that's because ol' jockey here is a absolute fraud and BS artist and will be guilty as charged with fraud, impersonation and deception.

Like what other ###### would actually post links to panda on a fishing site. About time this ######## gets some just deserts 8)

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
18-06-2004, 03:56 PM
I voted yes. I can't figure out why people are so afraid of green zones. They benefit fishing. You catch more fish. I would gladly give up some of my fishing spots if it meant you could actuallly catch something in the others.

The green zones on the GBR are not designed as fisheries management tools and probably won't benefit fishing much. If we had pushed for (or allowed) green zones as fisheries management tools we wouldn't be in the situation we are currently in. We forced their hand. They (the govt, WWF) aren't out to screw us. Everyone wants the same the same thing - more fish. We are just too busy looking for enemies to realise the opportunity we missed, and are going to miss elsewhere.

dasher
18-06-2004, 04:01 PM
Hey Jock does this sound familiar ???


"OK take two.
David Kemp and GBRMPA lied about the justification for the marine parks and tried to pass fisheries management advice off as conservation advice. The end result is that we now have 1/3 of the reef covered by green zones that are designed to minimise spillover, not maximise it. "
Uuuhhmmm how'd u vote mate. ??? ??? ??? ::) ::)

jockey
18-06-2004, 04:06 PM
Kerry that document is just hosted by the WWF. Like if Ausfish hosted a fishing party document or some scientific papers that contained useful information. It has plenty of links to other published papers. In fact that's basically what it is - a summary of all the evidence on the effect of green zones on fishing.

I invite you to post any apparently contradictary comments I have made. I will gladly explain what I mean and if I can't then I guess you'll have me. Go for it!

jockey
18-06-2004, 04:09 PM
And in case anyone hadn't noticed yet, the fishing party supports the use of green zones as fisheries management tools on the GBR.

Barrymundi
18-06-2004, 04:26 PM
Hi Jockey,

If the Fishing Party supports Green Zones, what the stuff has that got to do with anything.

Last time I checked they were not in power ? We did have a Political party once called One Nation ;D

I could be wrong, but last time I checked I am not a memeber of the Fishing Party, or Sunfish who claim to represent the angler.

Once again, where do you fish ?

Al

jockey
18-06-2004, 04:49 PM
I fish in SEQ, where i want the green zones introduced.

The fishing party has a lot to do with it because they claim to represent recreational anglers and as far as I can tell everyone here trusts Kevin Collins to act in our best interest. If you have an issue with the fishing party's policies I suggest you raise them (as I have done). I expect them to gain a lot of power. I am not a member either (yet) but I will vote for them.

Barrymundi
18-06-2004, 05:04 PM
Thanks Jockey,

I was concerned you may have been up my way.

I have no issue with any political party democratically voted in to represent me.

I dont know who Kevin Collins is and I have not read any of the Fishing Party information.

kc
18-06-2004, 09:24 PM
NO IT DOES NOT!!!!! The green zones on the GBR ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FISHING PARTY. We do have a plan which seeks to minimize the impacts of what we have already had shoved down our necks while still allowing some compromise BUT THE FISHING PARTY DOES NOT SUPPORT THE GREEN ZONES ON THE GBR.

Regards

Kevin Collins
Chairman
The Fishing Party (Qld)

Barrymundi
19-06-2004, 02:28 AM
Thanks Kevin, I viewed your website and could not see where Jockey was getting his information from.

Typical misquote to discredit.

Al

jockey
19-06-2004, 08:39 AM
KC I didn't say you supported the current green zones on the GBR.

Locking up huge areas that completely enclose entire reefs probably won't help. The green zones on the GBR are not designed as fisheries management tools. That is not what I am talking about. The green zones on the GBR are what you get when you, for some strange reason, refuse to allow fisheries to use green zones as management tools.

Perhaps I need to make this distinction a bit clearer. Green zones designed as fisheries management tools are smaller and will give a lot more spillover. An example is the split reefs that KC was saying he supported. They are a green zone designed as a fisheries managment tool. They improve the fishing. KC even said so himself. He said the split reef they used to have near him supported more fishing and more catch than the entire reef would have on its own.

Al, where do you fish?

Barrymundi
19-06-2004, 11:33 AM
Mate,
I fish in the Green Zone area behind Magnetic Island - Townsville

Al

jockey
19-06-2004, 11:42 AM
Do you think that if rec fishos had campaigned for split reefs up there ten years ago you'd be a lot better off today?

kc
19-06-2004, 11:56 AM
Jockey, despite being an augumentative pain in the arse sometimes, not unlike myself, you have grossly misinterpreted our position on GBR green zones. I find this surprising because you usually read the detail and understand it pretty well.

Our position on the gbr is as follows.

1. We don not believe the science supports the need for green zones on the GBR.
2. If science can demonstrate areas which require protection then we support a pink zone for that area. 1 out all out.
3. Given we believe to totally oppose green zones and RAP is an unwinnable war we have developed a policy for split reefs which will close the weather side of reefs, leave the lee sides open and allow any additional spawning recruitment sufficent habitat. This position is supported by the evidence of coral trout populations undertaken over many years by a range of Reef CRC studies.
4.We are totally opposed to open water green zones. These are a useless PR stunt.
5.We believe any appraisal of the various impacts on fish stocks by recreational fishers alone does not support the introduction of any green zones and that other, far more seriuos impacts should be addressed long before green zones are needed or considered.

This remains the official position of the fishing party (Qld) to green zones.

Regards

KC

Barrymundi
19-06-2004, 12:06 PM
sorry ? whats a split reef?

jockey
19-06-2004, 12:36 PM
A split reef is one where about half the reef is a green (no-take) zone.

KC, from point 5, do you think that we should solve global warming and stop runoff problems before we turn to green zones? Sorry about misinterpreting you. I honestly thought you thought that split reefs were a great idea, not just the lesser of two evils.

This is from FD's site: In the best case scenarios, coral cover is likely to decrease to less than 5% on most GBR reefs by 2050.

So far the GBR has fared better than other reefs, even though it has been exposed to the same level of global warming. This is probably because there is less fishing pressure and less pollution. The government is trying to reduce the runoff as well. I'm not sure about proving that protection is needed from a conservation perspective, but it seems pretty obvious. There is however, plenty of evidence showing that green zones are good for fishing. Do you simply not believe all this evidence? You mentioned some of the evidence from Reef CRC studies, how can you ignore all the other evidence?

You cannot totally oppose green zones at the same time as asking for more split reefs.

kc
19-06-2004, 01:11 PM
You kind of answered your own question. Yes we oppose green zones, yes we think that in an unwinnable war we would compromise and accept the lesser of 2 evils & we have been down the road..you & I, too many times to go over again the numbers re fished and unfished reefs, stocking densities, impacts on trout numbers by predation, spawning recruitment levels on fished and unfished reefs, insufficent habitat etc etc etc etc adnausium and I really want to agree to disagree before I get RSI from 2 finger typing.

& Finally yes we think other impacts, particularly relating to some forms of commercial fishing & some pollution issues should be looked at and acted on long before green zones become or are even thought to be nessessary.

KC

Kerry
19-06-2004, 01:12 PM
So what's FD credentials, just another mouth full of sh.. without any credibility either [smiley=clown.gif]

Of all the scientific mumbo gumbo and crap you go on about then put forward a FD statement, you are an absolute joke.

Fd wouldn't know jack from sh..

Cheers, Kerry.

kc
19-06-2004, 06:03 PM
Without putting Kerrys elloquent turn of phrase to it, I have to agree.

The whole "global warming" thing is really a bit over the top. Coral on the GBR and extending into the coral sea, currently lives, grows and multiplies in temperature ranges from up to 33 degrees max in the coral sea in summer down to 25 degrees max in an around Hervey bay with a mean average max in the middle at about the Whitsundays of 29 degrees max in summer. IF & this is a very big capital I & F average sea temperatures rise by say 2 degrees over the next 50 years....relative to coral growth....so what!! It is already proven a very apaptable species able to withstand wide variations in sea temperatures...ah, but coral bleaching I hear you thinking>>>>this is coral ADAPTING to changing conditions, expelling one "set" of algea ready to take on another more suitable one and is not a New Phenomoneum (I'm sure I stuffed up that spelling...Hey Ausfish..how about a spell check??) Bleached coral is not dying coral...it is coral "not hapy with the boarders" and changing tenants and has been going on, in varying degrees for as long as we have been looking!

The doomsday mobs who are constantly predicting the world is coming to an end are really just that....doomsday.

There is a great old poem called "we'll all be ruined said Hannrahan", if you want I will dig it up. It is really so typical of those who seek to profit and build a reputation on the back of predicting doom and gloom at every corner.

I have no doubt that the population of the world is stuffing things up & that the planet needs a radical rethink about its future priorities in relation to how we manage the environment.
That being the case I also think Australia is one of the shining lights on a world wide basis but the green movement here, as is evidenced in its impact on fisheries policy is totally over the top. It just needs balance and at present the scales are tipped way too far to the left.

KC

jockey
20-06-2004, 10:22 AM
Bleached coral is dead coral. Dying is not a way of adapting. If the temperature drops soon enough the boarders return, but if they don't after a few days it all dies. Just because the coral up North can handle 33C water doesn't mean the coral in Hervey Bay can. I know your thinking 'well, we'll just wait for the Northern coral to move south'. That may happen one day, but it is too slow. In the meantime we will have dead coral covered by algae. The thing about global warming is that we are seeing rapid temperature changes that would normally take thousands of years happen in less than a century. A lot of species will simply go extinct instead of adapting or moving quick enough. Coral has not shown itself to be adaptable, it has shown itself to be very fragile. It will not take on a new set of boarders if it is covered in algae. What you are saying is no different from someone saying that a rainforest adapt to changed climatic conditions by turning into a desert.

There is already sufficient scientific evidence to show that the green zones on the GBR were necessary for conservation. I don't think there was anything to indicate that green zones designed for fisheries management (including split reefs) wouldn't be good enough.

But what I don't get is this: there is enough evidence to show that fishing benefits from green zones that you really can't dispute it. Why is the fishing party opposing something that is good for fishing. I'm talking about split reefs (which when it all boils down you don't want anyway) and smaller green zones here, not what we currently have on the GBR. If green zones help fishing so much why aren't you pushing for more green zones further south? Do you simply not believe all the evidence in their favour? You have not been over this before. This is the the bigger issue, not the greenie doomsday stuff. Green zones can benefit fishing, yet so many fishermen oppose them. Why?

Kerry FD has no credentials, except that he is just telling the truth and is backing up what he says. That is more than I can say about most people here.

kc
20-06-2004, 10:38 AM
The last major bleaching event (2002) resulted in no long term mortality of coral...it is corals reaction to a sudden change in sea temperature. It did not die. There have be little or so significant coral bleaching events in 03 or 04.

Our position on green zones generally, as I am sure we have discussed, is that a green zone is a bandaid, put in place because we have allowed other far more damaging practices, such as inshore beam & otter board trawlling, to take such a toll that a lock up becomes nessesary.

It is my understanding, from discussions with NSW, that fish stocks in estuaries which close to commercial fishing but allow rec fishing to continue, have shown remarkable improvements WITHOUT any green zones. This is the basis for our position.

I am not disputing that in some instances, locking up an area increases fish stocks in that area..it clearly does, but just stopping damaging practices, while allowing reasonable use to continue also increases fish stocks. This is the rational behind our general opposition to green zones. They are a bandaid which disadvantage a large number of users and there are oher ways to improve the health of a fishery while still allowing rec fishing. This includes closed seasons, main max sizes, bag limits, even catch and release fisheries.
It is our opinion that green zones are the last resort, not the first one!!

Jockey I hope this clears up our stance a bit for you.

Regards

KC

jockey
20-06-2004, 11:37 AM
Thanks KC, that clears it up a lot. But my point is that even with RFO's and better control of the pro sector, green zones will improve things even more. Furthermore, they can be designed so they aren't an unfair restriction on recreational fishers. The only reason to say they should only be a last resort is if they are bad for a certain user group, but they are good for all users. It's great to have an estuary to yourself that can handle the fishing pressure for the moment. But if you add a green zone there will be even more fish. The fish you catch will be larger. More people will take up fishing because you can catch fish from the shore without special knowledge or skills. Also, ten years down the track when it looks like the current measures aren't enough, you will have a safety net in place so we don't have entire fisheries collapsing because the managers didn't know enough about what was going on or politics prevented action from being taken fast enough. This is what happened overseas and its not too far off here.

A lot of the opposition to marine parks is because the greens keep proposing ones that completely ignore our interests. But we shouldn't respond by completely opposing them, rather we should put something forward that benefits us more. If we don't propose any, then the proposals from the greens will be the only ones the government considers. The government wants green credentials and will get them with our without us.

jockey
20-06-2004, 11:55 AM
Plus I think it is already necessary. Just compare the fishing along most of the shoreline here in SEQ with the boat fishing and the fishing from Fraser island or Straddie. The spots that are easy to get to are pretty much deserts. The spots that are hard to get to are teeming with fish, although that may not last much more than ten years with the number of people making a greater effort to ge there. There is a huge potential for improving the fishing from shore. The benefits from green zones tend to be very localised. So a green zone just offshore from a popular spot would improve the fishing there.

Barrymundi
20-06-2004, 12:03 PM
Thanks for the Split Reef info,

Just checking, alot of the green and yellow zones are not actullay on the REEF, but are part of the MARINE PARK. The shoal behind Magnetic Island that will be closed is HUGE, but no coral reef. I think sometimes the Southern readers assume REEF CLOSURES means the Coral Area only, We should clarify that it is actually the Marine park Areas that are closing, check the maps and see how much actual Reef there really is that is closing.

Al

Kerry
20-06-2004, 01:03 PM
Al, actually the majority of green zones aren't within cooee of a reef, either near a reef let alone over a reef.

The southern readers have been competely duded by BS, lies and deceit but what really else does one expect, actual facts :-X now that would be the day.

As for SEQ? well the issue there is the people, people and more people, yes your everyday person who believes all the peddled BS but right now are out madly watering their precious bit of grass.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
20-06-2004, 02:15 PM
Interesting point Al. We can't really tell from down here whether they have gone out of their way to make things harder or easier for fishermen. Do you think 1/3 of the good reef for coral trout is in green zones?

Barrymundi
21-06-2004, 05:00 AM
Not sure on the slant of your question.

Coral Trout is one species that attracts a lot of attention, but really is not a huge capture with recreational anglers. I mean we catch them but it would be low down the list on species extracted. One reason is they actually normally live on the REEF. The Zones are 1/3 of the MARINE PARK not 1/3 of the REEF
Lets’ talk about some bread and butter fish from the shoals - Nannygai (new combined bag limit of 9- reduced from 30 each), Red Emperor, Red Throat, Grassies, Mackerel, Gold Spot, Cobia.......... The main area for these species out from Townsville is basically 90% closed and not one bit of it is the REEF... The REEF is like 40NM away from the Ramp.

Answers to questions relating to one species can be twisted around and misused.

Mate I am no analytical genius who can present a good written statement like some people. All I know is the majority of Australians and the rest of the world has been convinced the 1/3 Closure is for the REEF not the MARINE PARK and recreational anglers are killers and destroyers who go out to the REEF and break huge bits of coral off, kill all the fish and discard our line over the side to kill turtles.

Just have a look at the bag limit reductions we have recently incurred. Now the Zone changes…

Southern Queensland fishing is stuffed…. Fix up that end. Would closing Morton Bay improve the fish stocks ?
Considering you still pump toxic waste into the bay, huge amounts of silt flows into the bay, you restrict the fresh water flow into the bay by damming the creeks, you allow ships to dump ballast into the bay, you pump sewage into the bay, you continue to built on the coast destroying natural habitat. Where there is a swamp, build a housing estate. The list could go on it if really had any idea what I was talking about.

Point is, closing an area to fishing is a warm and fuzzy feel good wank which is easy to sell. The majority of people in Australia don’t fish or read Ausfish. They not passionate about fishing like us and could not really care if the GBRMPA closes of 1/3 of the Marine park.

Politicians work the numbers for the votes. The majority of Australians have been convinced the Closure is for the REEF not the Marine Park and it must be good, just watch the TV advertising.

Al

MTpockets
21-06-2004, 06:24 AM
Mate I am no analytical genius who can present a good written statement like some people

I dunno, sounds like a pretty good attempt to me. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
Well said, and totally agree.
cheers
Les

Kerry
21-06-2004, 06:42 AM
Al, you tell it how it is and most who actually know the issues would have to agree with that. The interesting figure would be how much green zone is "actually" reef. Some around here are probably 80-100km long (I'll measure things properly after) and as for actual reef, what reef?

However for the others (no names mentioned) they really couldn't give a rats about the facts or anything in between, or even close to the facts they are nothing more than green grabing arrogrant pricks who obviously from their comments really don;'t have a clue what they are on about.

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry
21-06-2004, 07:19 AM
Oh my #[smiley=blush.gif] not normally known to be wrong #:o #;D, 80-100km NO it's 142km and this is just what's on 1 map sheet and actually extends onto the next sheet for another 52 km, all up 194km and being on average 30km wide, just for this PART (yes it extends in another 3 directions) covers more than 5 thousand square kilometres . Reef no real reef in any of this but bits and pieces of patchy rubble and fern sometimes the size of a house (that's a little house), in all if there was 1% that even resembled reef that might even be over stating things.

Too be able to drag some people by the bal... from rubble patch to rubble patch would give some the ultimate pleasure and would make the comment about a long time between drinks pale by comparison. A long way between drinks would be an absolute understatement.

Honestly when one starts looking closely at precisely the country that is greened, where it is and what it is all this talk about protecting the reef etc etc etc is absolute BS. It is nothing more than meeting some apparent pre-conceived agenda without any deliberations to exactly why.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
21-06-2004, 09:23 AM
Al I was under the impression that coral trout were important to rec fishos. All the criticisms of the closures have focuessed on this one species. And yes you do put up a good argument.

About Moreton Bay - closing part of it would improve fish stocks. Bringing up pollution etc really just confuses the issue. Unless the pollution is so bad that no fish can live there then green zones will work. No-one is saying we should use green zones instead of combatting pollution. No-one is saying tha targetting pollution should be a last resort after all other options have been exhausted because it may harm the economy, or some individuals. But fishermen still say we shouldn't have green zones even though they improve the fishing. No-one has given me a reasonable explanation for this.

Also, green zones are not easy to sell. The fact is, everyone benefits from them. It is only the difficulty in selling them that stops us from having more of them. I can't think of any other idea that benefits all users of a resource like this. It is not just a warm and fuzzy. There is plent of hard evidence supporting the benefit.

About the reef vs the shoals, there wasn't any slant on my question about whether 1/3 of the reef has been protected. I would be interested to know. I don't think you can get that sort of information from a map easily.

Kerry I would be happy for someone to drag me round and show me all these reefs. Do you think they targeted the wrong areas?

PinHead
22-06-2004, 02:23 PM
Kerry said: "Too be able to drag some people by the bal..."

Jockey said: " Kerry I would be happy for someone to drag me round and show me all these reefs."

I am not sure if jockey knows what that "bal..." means.

ba229
22-06-2004, 03:35 PM
LOL

Thats very funny

Very funny indeed

;D

Still laughing :)

jockey
23-06-2004, 02:41 PM
I choose to ignore the more offensive parts of Kerry's posts. He can't seem to help himself. But if someone wants to give me an all expenses paid trip round the reef I would gladly oblige. I'm sure it would give me a better understanding of the issues affecting recreational fishermen.

Why so few votes?

"The last major bleaching event (2002) resulted in no long term mortality of coral...it is corals reaction to a sudden change in sea temperature. It did not die. There have be little or so significant coral bleaching events in 03 or 04. "

Kevin, this quote comes from Freediver's site, which he got from a WWF brochure, which they got from somewhere else:

"The first mass bleaching event on the GBR occurred in 1998, with the worst event in 2002. 60-95% of reefs were partly bleached. On 5% of reefs, 60-95% of the coral is dead."

I'm pretty sure dead means permanent mortality. Maybe the spawn will settle again and reinhabit the frame, but I doubt it. I think the coral structure weakens when the polyps die. Plus algae might grow on it, which makes it hard for them to settle. I'll try to find out whether the coral is still dead.

ba229
23-06-2004, 02:52 PM
I have read and followed this post but have not and will not vote because I live in NSW.

I don't think my opinion should be forced onto others for them to live it while i feel no consequencesfrom my beliefs.

Sure the GBR needs to be protected but it is far from my right to say how that should be done.

Just my opinion.

ba229
23-06-2004, 02:53 PM
By the way, having not voted I can't see the results.

What are they at the moment?

Kerry
23-06-2004, 03:01 PM
I choose to ignore the more offensive parts of Kerry's posts. He can't seem to help himself. But if someone wants to give me an all expenses paid trip round the reef I would gladly oblige. I'm sure it would give me a better understanding of the issues affecting recreational fishermen.

Don't flatter yourself AH, there's more important people who deserve that "pleasure" more than you, as really nobody would want to waste their time with you as your nothing but an irrelevant irritation in all respects and nothing of importance that will ever have any bearing on any decisions, what so ever.

But in case you can actually understand what people are really trying to tell you one could get draged by the bal.... for days and not see anything that even resembled a reef and not even leave a green zone.

But then not sure if you really understand what a reef is? obviously not.

Cheers, Kerry.
#

jockey
24-06-2004, 08:58 AM
I have been up there and seen them Kerry. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

ba229 this is about south of the GBR (the poll that is). I intended to include the entire east coast. So far 2 yes 13 no 2 maybe.

jockey
24-06-2004, 02:16 PM
KC a while ago I said I would get back to you on whether coral trout larvae can swim between the reefs. I haven't found anything definitive yet, but this seems to indicate that they would (hope its the right species):

In situ swimming and settlement behaviour of larvae of an Indo-Pacific coral-reef fish, the coral trout Plectropomus leopardus (Pisces : Serranidae)
Leis JM, Carson-Ewart BM
MARINE BIOLOGY
134 (1): 51-64 JUN 1999

Document type: Article Language: English Cited References: 45 Times Cited: 19 Explanation

Abstract:
Late larvae of the serranid coral trout Plectropomus leopardus (Lacepede), captured in light traps, were released during the day both in open water and adjacent to two reefs, and their behaviour was observed by divers at Lizard Island, northern Great Barrier Reef. Coral trout larvae (n = 110) were present in light-trap catches from 18 November to 3 December 1997, including new moon (30 November). The swimming speed of larvae in open water or when swimming away from reefs was significantly greater (mean 17.9 cm s(-1)) than the speed of larvae swimming towards or over reefs (mean 7.2 cm s(-1)). Near reefs, larvae swam at average depths of 2.7 to 4.2 m, avoiding 0 to 2 m. In open water, swimming depth varied with location: larvae >1 km east of Lizard Island swam steeply downward to >20 m in 2 to 4 min; larvae >1 km west oscillated between 2.6 and 13 m; larvae 100 to 200 m east of Lizard Island oscillated between 0.8 and 15 m. Nearly all larvae swam directionally in open water and near reefs. In open water, the average swimming direction of all larvae was towards the island, and 80% (4 of 5) swam directionally (p < 0.05, Rayleigh's test). Larvae swam directionally over the reef while looking for settlement sites. The frequency of behaviours by larvae differed between two reefs of different exposure and morphology. Depending on site, 26 to 32% of larvae released adjacent to reefs swam to open water: of these, some initially swam towards or over the reef before swimming offshore. In some cases, offshore-swimming seemed to be due to the presence of predators, but usually no obvious cause was observed. Depending on the reef, 49 to 64% of the larvae settled. Non-predatory reef residents aggressively approached 19% of settlers. Between 5 and 17% of the larvae were eaten while approaching the reef or attempting to settle, primarily by lizardfishes but also by wrasses, groupers and snappers. A higher percentage of larvae settled in the second week of our study than in the first. Average time to settlement was short (138 s +/- 33 SE), but some larvae took up to 15 min to settle. Average settlement depth was 7.5 to 9.9 m, and differed between locations. No settlement took place on reef flats or at depths <4.2 m. Larvae did not appear to be selective about settlement substrate, but settled most frequently on live and dead hard coral. Late-stage larvae of coral trout are capable swimmers with considerable control over speed, depth and direction. Habitat selection, avoidance of predators and settlement seem to rely on vision.

baldyhead
24-06-2004, 06:25 PM
Hey Jocky, why don't you own up to the fact that this is your site ?

I would like to devote more time to this site and host it on a .com.au URL without the popup ads. If you would like to sponsor this site, please contact me (contactfreediver@fastmail.com.au). ;D

Jim_Tait
24-06-2004, 06:27 PM
Good on ya Jockey
for sticking you head out and going for it despite the ignorant masses!!
Of course green zones are a useful management tool for fisheries. While I think GBRMPA could of run their consultation process better (for sure) fullpower to them for achieving what they did. All the talk about whether the green zones cover 'reef' or not just highlights peoples lack of understanding about the reef ecosystem which includes all habitat types and their need for representative protection from extractive activities - not only the 'reef' bits!!

While all the recs are winging about the green zones - what about the yellow zones which are rec only and exclude commecial fishing? Not too mkany singing their praises which are many and will contribute to an outstanding rec barra fishery in several coastal areas.

I do hope that now that GBRMPA have pulled off their 'represenative areas program' we can get down to teh business of confronting the other more significant threats to the reef i.e. climate change and catchment land use practices and discharges - bit more tricky than drawing lines on a map but unless we do the reef will be crap within decades anyway - despite its 'protected status' (still doesn't undermine teh need for tghe RAP as well).

WShile we're at it I think we need a system of representative aquatic protected areas across the full spectrum of Australia's freshwater ecosystems as well. We have National parks to help conserve terrestrial biodiversity so why not also for rivers and wetlands? Protection would not need to be total exclusion of fishing in all instances but there is definately a case for fishing noi go areas as well - I personally would be prepared to give up some of my spots to a protected area if there are tangible biodiversity conservation and/or fishery managemennt outcomes!!

Go the greenies!! If we dont progress biodiversity conservation on all fronts the life support systems of this planet are going to be stuffed (sooner than you think)- If you dont belive it, do yourself a favour and become more informed.

Also if practicing conservationist (ie fishers) dont get into the conservation debate it will be the urbane animal libbers and emotive rhetoric mob that dominate to the detriment of benifical outcomes.

Regards and tight lines Jim

PS If any one wants to drag me around by the Bal... feel free to front up and have a go but I might just return the jesture! :-*

Kerry
25-06-2004, 04:04 AM
:D ah the jim and jock show, one more to form a crowd ;)

doh ::) business of confronting the other more significant threats to the reef

gee [smiley=hammer.gif] thought the MORE SIGNIFICANT THREATS would have been the first to fix, wouldn't one think ??? but of course why start with the real issues lets make a big noise about nothing then still do nothing about the real issues.

Only one thing being "pulled off" with respect RAP ;D


Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
25-06-2004, 09:29 AM
Actually Kerry you'd fix the easiest things first. That way you get more for your effort. They are dealing with runoff but this will obviously take longer. As Jim said its not as easy as drawing lines on a map. But yeah ratifying Kyoto would be even easier.

While overfishing is probably not the most significant threat to biodiversity it is the most significant threat to fish stocks.

Kerry
25-06-2004, 11:23 AM
While overfishing is probably not the most significant threat to biodiversity it is the most significant threat to fish stocks.

Really another OPINION, which is what that obviously is, simply can't be anything else otherwise you know something that everybody else doesn't and somehow I doubt that, so word YOUR opinions accordingly and not as to attempt a statement of fact, facts you don't have either #;D

Actually if there was any credibility one would actually try and fix the REAL issues first.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
25-06-2004, 01:11 PM
It's pretty obvious Kerry. Every historical case I know of where a fishery has collapsed has been clearly (with hindsight) caused by mismanagement leading to overfishing.

Kerry
25-06-2004, 01:38 PM
It's pretty obvious Kerry. Every historical case I know of where a fishery has collapsed has been clearly (with hindsight) caused by mismanagement leading to overfishing.

Every historical case hey jock ::) well if my memory serves me right you've been previously asked on several occasions to provide these historical cases, now wait for it :D where a line fishery, yes jock a line fishery which is what a reef fishery is (doh says jock :-X) has collapsed due to overfishing.

So what makes me think that having failed several times previously to show these historical cases your going to be any different now :P remember it's a line fishery jock, a reef line fishery ;D

But freel free to try ;D but just make sure your calling a spade a spade otherwise in your double double speak speak you basically come to the discussion with jack ... schitt :D

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
25-06-2004, 01:45 PM
I did give an example Kerry (a line fihsery not a reef fishery though). You just ignored it. Suggest you go back and check.

Aren't the tuna and billfish caught on lines too? I know they haven't collapsed yet, but they are in a poor way.

Kerry
25-06-2004, 03:22 PM
I did give an example Kerry (a line fihsery not a reef fishery though). You just ignored it. Suggest you go back and check.

Aren't the tuna and billfish caught on lines too? I know they haven't collapsed yet, but they are in a poor way.

Are you completely stupid or just don't want to face the facts, the real facts, the real people who RAP is directed towards, don't you understand what a line reef fishery is, like this is the Great barrier REEF and recreational fishers the last time I looked weren't into long lining or anything else remotely akin to your garbage claims.

For .... sake jockey face reality instead of your pathetic irrelevant garbage excuses. You have no flaming idea absolutely nothing and all comes from somebody who had absolutely no idea that any green zones had ever been re-opened, get real. #

Cheers, Kerry.

baldyhead
25-06-2004, 04:09 PM
BLOODY HELL ! the jockstrap has a "GAB" as an Ally.
Will this ill informed garbage ever stop.
It would be great if the jock took his "GAB" m8 to his own freediver site and annoyed the shit out of themselves and do us all a favour ! ;D ;D ;D

dasher
25-06-2004, 04:28 PM
Hey Jocka old cobba, reckon I've mentioned this b4 but just like repeating myself (not unlike you hey hahahaha) This is a direct copy of a post u put on another site and seems to me that it is direct opposition to what u are saying here. ??? ??? ??? Or am I rong buddy. ;DOK

"take two.

David Kemp and GBRMPA lied about the justification for the marine parks and tried to pass fisheries management advice off as conservation advice. The end result is that we now have 1/3 of the reef covered by green zones that are designed to minimise spillover, not maximise it. "

Maybe I'm missing something ??? ??? ??? By the way what the hell encouraged your mum to christen you jockey. ??? ??? ::)

Maybe I should post the subject title????

jockey
26-06-2004, 07:57 AM
What makes you think my mum Christened me jockey dasher?

I posted that on Fishnet and sportsfish. Check the sportsfish thread (in the soapbox) for the answer to your question. I'm pretty sure I've answered it a couple of times here too.

baldyhead he is not my m8 I don't know him there is no conspiracy get over it

Kerry what are you talking about? Do you want to wait till we have proof that we have completely destroyed a fishery on the GBR before we take any action? The last figures I saw indicated that coral trout were fished at about twice the sustainable rate. I've also been told that they are slow growing - which means if they do crash it will take a long time to recover. I think the original question did not mention reef fisheries. I found a line fishery example so you restricted it to reef line fisheries. Suppose I found a reef line fishery example, would you then want a GBR line fishery example? And suppose I found one, would you then want me to prove that you personally destroyed a fishery before there are any more restrictions place on you? Use your common sense.

kc
26-06-2004, 10:49 AM
Jockey.....your doing it again!! No more, "I saw", "I heard" , "I think" please. We are too far down the track on too many arguments for this now.

Here is the latest research data.

Authors of this paper are research sceintists
Mapstone, Davies, Little, Punt, Smith, Pantus, Lou, Williams, Jones , Ayling, Russ & McDonald.

& I quote

"It is important to understand the status of Coral trout populations in areas open to fishing remain relatively robust under all the strategies we considered. For example, even under the most "adverse" senario of maximum effort constrained to the smallest fishable area, spawning biomass (in the open areas) remained above 50% of virgin spawning biomass and biomass available for harvest (ie above the legal size limit) remained above 30% of virgin available biomass. These statistics generally would be considered acceptable for a harvest stock. In large part, this is likely to be the consequence of the biologically precautionary minimum legal size limit on harvest of common coral trout, which ensures thst most fish can spawn in at least one year before reaching harvestable size.

Most people don't have a problem with good robust debate, particularly argumentive bastards like me but it only inflames matters when you ignore the available evidence and use I think, I read,I heard.

The bottom line with trout is that, even in the most adverse senario of maximum effort in minimum area the coral trout is in no danger of being fished out so don't go down that road. It is plain silly!!

KC

jockey
26-06-2004, 11:59 AM
Sorry KC I get a bit lazy. Here is the info on coral trout (from you-know-where):

In 1995, 2582 tonnes of coral trout were caught. In 2001, 4830 tonnes were caught. Managers, stakeholders and researchers have agreed that the fishery was fully exploited at 1996 levels.

Obviously the catch rates would have declined before the fish stocks were imperilled. But there are plenty of other species on the GBR that we aren't watching as closely.

Thanks for the information.

kc
26-06-2004, 12:13 PM
Hi Jockey,

Those figures are way different to the CHRIS web site for the DPI figures which were steady at 1500 tonnes pre live trout trade (1995) and up to 2700 in 02. I have never seen any comment that the fishery was fully exploited, not even a suggestion. Where did you read these figures? I would like to have a look and see who is the author. It flies in the face of all the research data published by the reef CRC and its research team, which, from my readings, are the real deal as far as scientific credibility is concerned. The latest paper, Techical report number 52 seems very up to date (2003/4)

KC

jockey
26-06-2004, 12:27 PM
It's from "Securing Australia's Great Barrier Reef" from the WWF. I copied and pasted it from FD's website, in the archive. I'm not sure where they got it from (try asking Imogen Zethoven). I think it includes estimates of recreational catch.

kc
26-06-2004, 01:27 PM
In other words propogander which flies in the face of scientific evidence........why am I surprised

KC

Kerry
26-06-2004, 01:38 PM
It's from "Securing Australia's Great Barrier Reef" from the WWF. I copied and pasted it from FD's website, in the archive. I'm not sure where they got it from (try asking Imogen Zethoven). I think it includes estimates of recreational catch.

ah bloody hell are you a complete F... wit or what, you miserable grubby little WWF ar..

oh what a bloody ridiculous comment quoting the bloody WWF and someone who got up on national TV and stated that 100% of the GBR was their real intent.

for fu.. sake jockey go wash your mouth out #[smiley=clown.gif] get a life you miserable grubby little pro WWF hyprocrite

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
26-06-2004, 01:42 PM
Most of their stuff has scientific references. Until you find out where they got it from then you don't really know do you?

Kerry I find your posts crude and not in the spirit of this website.

Kerry
26-06-2004, 01:56 PM
Most of their stuff has scientific references. Until you find out where they got it from then you don't really know do you?

Kerry I find your posts crude and not in the spirit of this website.

What "the weight of scientific evidence" well put it up and if you can't then simply shutup, everybody is starting to get a gutfull of your insolent arogrant crap.

You have absolutely no idea, you talk about scientific references that you can't produce, bloody hell not even the power to be can produce that, so what fat chance is there of expecting you to.

As for "spirit" some very carefull consideration should really be given to your little green sharade.

Cheers, Kerry.

nonibbles
26-06-2004, 04:57 PM
I know this isn't likely but...
I'm just sitting back here pretending that Kerry & Jockey are actually the same person with a split personality...anyone seen Identity? ;)

Kerry
26-06-2004, 05:06 PM
I know this isn't likely but...
I'm just sitting back here pretending that Kerry & Jockey are actually the same person with a split personality...anyone seen Identity? ;)

Not bloody likely, like exactly what is it your on [smiley=beadyeyes.gif] #??? #::)

Tell you what you want identity I can give you identity but somehow I can't see you getting jocks identity, not in a million years, he wouldn't have the guts and then you'd want a stat dec in duplicate otherwise it would just be like the rest of his crap, not worth the paper it was printed on #[smiley=wiseguy.gif].

Next .....

Cheers, Kerry.

nonibbles
26-06-2004, 05:10 PM
Wow that was quick. #I was talking about the film "Identity"
By the way, isn't a jockey one who gets on a creature's back and rides it round and round in circles just for sport all the while flogging it as much as possible?

Kerry
26-06-2004, 05:22 PM
Don't forget "jockey" is also something man wear #;D, you know "The next best thing to getting naked"

baby jockey [smiley=stunned.gif]
http://www.jockey.com/Ad/baby_homepage.jpg?CEVT={T=CAMP,CI=144,PG=16,EVT=DO WNLOAD}

jockey
27-06-2004, 07:26 AM
Kerry its not my responsibility to chase up everything for you. All you have to do is ask (the right person) if you want to know. Now that I've seen your definition of a man I understand where you are coming from.

jockey
27-06-2004, 01:06 PM
OK here it is. The coral trout catch numbers come from the Queensland Department of Primary Industries, October 2002, Coral Reef Fin Fish Fishery Consultation Pasper, Queensland government.

Kerry
27-06-2004, 01:36 PM
Hey DH, you got something to put forward and back up your petty claims then go for it, we're waiting ::) but at least come up with something that is credible and not some lame brain WWF pathetic crap.

Come on jockey pull the rabbit out of the hat and produce some Scientific Evidence WITH Weight, that is Scientific Evidence WITh Weight, got that jockey Scientific evidence WITH weight.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
10-07-2004, 08:30 AM
did you read my post or not Kerry?

Kerry
10-07-2004, 12:02 PM
Come jockey get with, put those little pinkies in the hat and pull some magic for you really need some magic here, so in with the pinkies or you a little touchy about what might happen to those little pinkies of yours :P

You need some facts jockey, less talk, more facts, less talk, more credibility so time to put up or shutup and go crawl back under your rock along with your twin wack FD ;D

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
10-07-2004, 12:07 PM
The facts are in the very first post of this thread Kerry.

Kerry
10-07-2004, 12:13 PM
you calling FD and panda and those other miserable morons, facts ah come on you petty little miserable hyprocrite

jockey
10-07-2004, 12:25 PM
No Kerry not them either. Try the first two links. Don't despair, your getting closer!

propdinger
10-07-2004, 12:38 PM
ding ding in the red corner we have.................lol

Kerry
10-07-2004, 01:41 PM
No Kerry not them either. Try the first two links. Don't despair, your getting closer!

What part of PANDA and the OTHER morons is it you do not understand, they are the first 2 links and as stated both nothing but garbage, including FD garbage.

The facts don't exist in any part of any of your threads, be they the first, the last or any others that your imagination takes a fluffy too.

What part of FACTS don't you understand?

rickraider
10-07-2004, 04:10 PM
kerry you so like a grumpy smartass.i have read your posts with intrest for quite a while and with no scientific evidence i think you should look at the brighter side of life and try to say something postive .try to live without the facts .smartass

PinHead
10-07-2004, 05:32 PM
it is okay Rickraider..I am quite certain that Kerry and Jockey are one and the same...just the schizophrenia kinda gets them off side with each other.

Kerry
11-07-2004, 05:41 AM
.... with no scientific evidence i think you should look at the brighter side of life and try to say something postive.

.... try to live without the facts ....

Live without the facts, that's so very true, nobody has any other choice, do they ;D with no scientific evidence you said it. So you got anything that supports BS or just accept the peddled garbage intended for the ignorant uninformed masses ???

Pinhead, you actually got that half right, jockey is a ring in, an alias, a sock puppet and a troll and not even the 2 of him make a whole, or should that be a "hole"

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
12-07-2004, 04:03 PM
Kerry the first link has nothing to do with FD or WWF. The second is hosted by the WWF, but that's all. It's a scientific article that has been published elsewhere. If you bothered to check it out you would realise that. Why are you so afraid to read it?

Jim_Tait
12-07-2004, 05:55 PM
Kerry,
sarcasim is the lowest form of wit, your continued need to resort to personal character attacks and speels that dwell on sarcastic fevour exposes you for what you are... I won't bother telling you because then I'd be partcipating in the personal character assassination.

With regards to your disdain for WWF and conservation bodies generally...mate you've got a long way to go before your contributions toward anything useful would match one iota of what the panda organisation has achieved internationally (and I'm not saying they havn't made a mistake or two along the way) so measure up before you mouth off.

baldyhead
12-07-2004, 07:17 PM
Hey Jockstrap is this you re-incarnated as Jim_Tait, bloody sounds like it

Kerry
13-07-2004, 04:17 AM
Well quite frankly Jim you can shove the likes of those groups where they fit the best but you, you are welcome to what ever opinion you want and so am I regardless if you like it or not.

The likes of the WWF lost all credibility (if they ever had any) when they came out on national TV and stated they 100% closure of the GBR was the only remedy. Honestly can you believe anybody would be that stupid or would that be selectively stupid.

So do you have any facts to support all this crap or do you just believe all the BS these groups sprout forth?

And if you don't want to participate then good, will this be the last comment from you or will you not be able to resist to defend the irrationals of groups like this.

Geez one only has to look at the way some of the higher profile identities do the good old 2 step shuffle in mid stride to see how important any of their comments or actions "have" been.

Really when organisations like some of your prized do gooders start sprouting off and running campaigns like their famous milk debacle then honestly they have absolutely no credibility what so ever.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
13-07-2004, 06:52 AM
It's funny how anyone who supports me even in the most oblique way is accused of being me. I gues its all part of the conspiracy theory.

Was it WWF that said we should lock up 100%?