GREENZONES

[baldyhead]

How many of you will abide by the Confiscation ( made into a GREENZONE )of your favourite fishing spot that will be taken from you on July1st? I wonder.
The big end of town (Tourist Industry) are laughing all the way to their Overseas Banks.
When the Minister D Kemp and GBRMPA advised us to tell them where we fished and promised to exclude most of these areas from their Greenzones, they must have been laughing at all of us that took them at their word for being such BLOODY idiots !
Well they have made me into a criminal from july 1st.

[jockey]

What happens on July 1st? I've been told that most of the areas close to the towns only have about 20% green zone coverage.

[baldyhead]

Greenzones cover about 35% in the Cairns region. The areas that were accessable to the average 14 to 15 footer in good weather ie all of the rubble spots, wompy holes, reefs adjacent to the coast etc have been covered in bloody green. The seas rise to very rough very quickly in this area and a lot of boaties are going to be caught out in these seas because we are being forced to travel greater distances to get to reasonable reefs etc and as there is limited reefs to satisfy 600 rec fishers and 100 commercial fishers on a good week end we are definitely going to venture further out or become criminals.
Go to GBRMPA web site and see for yourself.
baldy

[Kerry]

What happens on July 1st? I've been told that most of the areas close to the towns only have about 20% green zone coverage.

July 1 :P now you just go back to sleep and if there's anything you really need to know, we'll call you, don't call us 8).

Cheers, Kerry.

[Gazza]

Jock ,it's extraterrestial Day ,little green men , everywhere ;D

[Dug]

I would personally love to see more greenzones if we lock up areas the fish have time and space to breed up then spill out into the general fishing area everyone wins it is a short term loss for long term gains we complain a bout commercial fishos taking every thing and having banns placing restrictions on them we need to take some responsibility too. they can lock up half my fishing spots if it means catching more fish in the rest.

[raefpud]

well said dug - GBRMPA CRC and AIMS dont just put up green zones for the hell of it, its usually the results of a lot of hard research. I strongly believe that these are preventative measures for a problem that is waiting to happen - its a necessary evil buddy designed to save fish stock and habitat for the benefit of everyone - - - - - - - - - I'd bet you would hate it aswell if they suddenly put Coral Trout on the protected list, but I 'm afraid it might be heading that way to - maybe not immediately but in the not too distant future. - You would be surprised on just how much impact recreational fisheries has on marine resources.

[Kerry]

Does appear some recreational fisho's have a lot of negative impact on themselves.

So in their own words if they want to do something useful then perhaps some should voluntarily stop fishing, you know do the right thing, practice what they preach.

Cheers, Kerry.

[kc]

Here we go again.....I guess for Dougs benifit, as he has not been part of past "discussions"..what is the point of having green zones if their very purpose (biodiversity protection NOT fisheries management) is not dealt with. Why just single out fishing and expect everything will now be rosy? Have you actually brought the con job being pulled by GBRMPA and the federal government?? All the avalable research does not support the GBRMPA and anti-fishing lobby position that fishing is unsustainable. No fishery in the world has every collapsed under line fishing pressure (the reef). With so many major challenges facing the government and reef managers we were just the easy targets and NOW they are spending an absolute fortune on propogander about how they have saved the reef!! F'%$@$ sake! But wait, there's more. Very soon (maybe even as soon as July 1st THIS %$#@ year) the state government will pass complimentary legislation covering the creeks, inlets and rivers running into the marine park. ie a creek running into a green zone...will also be a green zone..all the way up to its headwaters..plus beaches adjoining green zones.

What about anchor damage, tourist pontons, sewage outfalls, diver damage and the real sleeping giant.......the anti-fouling which washes off big boats EVERY time they go out.
If you or I went out to the reef in our tinnies and tipped a bucket of poison over the side we would (quiet rightly) be stung up by our toes and flogged!! Except of course, if you have a big tourist boat full of reef tax paying passengers.

Very few fishos are anti protection of the marine park. What we (collectively) have the shits with is being made scapegoats.
We are dissapointed with the "public consultation" sham and the lack of credible science to support GBRMPA's decicions. As for "fully protecting"" coral trout, READ the study data. MORE trout exist on fished reefs than unfished reefs. INSUFFICENT habitat is available each year on unfished reefs to absorb annual spawning recruitments!! IF you want LOTS of trout, reduce the big preditory males.

Recreational fishing is the next target of the pointy end of the green movement. If you doubt that comment visit www.peta.com
They got the duck hunters and fishos are next!

This whole "green zone" bullshit is all about the politicians pandering to the greens in the senate and almost NOTHING to do with protecting the GBR.

Regards

KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[baldyhead]

Dug & raefpud,
Both of you should give up fishing entirely to do your bit to satisfy your convictions.Maybe you both could take up golf for instance.
Read and take notice of what KC and Kerry had to say. I couldn't agree with KC more, well said KC.

Baldy

[coral_critter]

Kc, well said. The bureacrats are starting to be over run by greeny arseh*&^les who have one agenda only.

Remember the days when you could ride a bike and walk the streets safely. Get to the root of the problem, don't crcify the inocent!!!!!

[kc]

I have to add that one thing we are not is innocent.
We need regulations because without doubt in days gone rec fishos abused many of our fisheries. As did pros.
We have learnt!! We have accepted fisheries management practices, even though at first we didn't really like it.
Bag limits are now an accepted way of life, minimum/maximum sizes, closed spawning seasons and a greater acceptance of catch and release are all examples of rec anglers "cleaning up their act".

The big issue with the RAP is the fact we are being made scapegoats while the real issues are not being adressed.

For those involved with the debate, particularly those who strongly support the RAP closures I put to you the same question we put to GBRMPA as part of our detailed submission documents. The question, I might add, they refused to answer.

Q. With reference to the stated aim of biodiversity protection of the Great barrier Reef Marine Park, please list, in order of priority, which of these impacts has the greatest effects on reef ecology and biodiversity.

Comercial Otter Board/Beam Trawling
Mainland run-off
Sewage outfall. Mainland generated
Sewage outfall. Island generated
Commercial gill netting (In-shore)
Commerial long lining (off-shore)
Live Fish trade
Recreational Fishing
Sewage discharge. tourism vessels
Sunscreen pollution .tourism pontoons
Increased nitrate levels from bird dropping acummulation. Tourism pontoons
Artificial stimulation and changes to fish aggregation and feeding habits (tourism pontoons)
Anti-fouling run-off (large vessels)
General mainland& boat generated pollution
Climate change
Crown Of Thorns
Anchor damage. bareboat sailing fleet
Diver related damage
Endocrine disruptors on spawning aggregations (large sewage outfalls & large tourist boat direct sewage discharge points)
High intesity human impact on Island ecology (tourism)
Bilge water discharge from international shipping

Once you have sat and honestly assessed where you think the principle impacts and dangers occur, ask yourself a question.
Does RAP JUST stopping fishing, achieve GBRMPA's stated objective of biodiversity protection????? GBRMPA specifically told everyone this is about biodiversity protection NOT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT. That is a state job AND they are FINALLY doing a decent job.
Personally, I don't believe ANYONE can say, hand on heart, YES, RAP is the answer.
There are beter ways.

Regards

Kevin Collins
Chairman
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[cHiCo]

Greenzones cover about 35% in the Cairns region. The areas that were accessable to the average 14 to 15 footer in good weather ie all of the rubble spots, wompy holes, reefs adjacent to the coast etc have been covered in bloody green. The seas rise to very rough very quickly in this area and a lot of boaties are going to be caught out in these seas because we are being forced to travel greater distances to get to reasonable reefs etc and as there is limited reefs to satisfy 600 rec fishers and 100 commercial fishers on a good week end we are definitely going to venture further out or become criminals.
Go to GBRMPA web site and see for yourself.
baldy
Baldyhead is bloody right on this. Old man reckons nows the time to buy a boat as they are all gonna be going cheap.

[Gazza]

Greenzones go 'very wrong' Kevin , when in a few years they don't achieve any improvement , and instead of the 'lock-it-up' mob ,being correctly identified as BS artists , 'they' simply will accuse the gov't of the day of not 'doing enough' and it should therefore be raised to 50~80%.........before it's too late BS crap #>:(

[kc]

No auguments from me! The SSC that planned this stunt in the first place asked for 40% the WWF is after 50+ and a past chairman of the association of marine park tourism operators said it should be 90%.

These figures do not take into account the "complimentary legislation" premier Pete is planning to lock up the rivers, creeks and foreshore adjoining the GBR green zones.

Recreational fishing in the GBR is on the way out...unless we do something about it. Just whinging is not going to work!

Regards

KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[Gazza]

"Just whinging is not going to work!"
------------------------
Mate , I never whinge ,I just state the bleeding obvious ;)

Prem Pete was elected with an gaz-estimaate of say 500,000 core/primary RecFisho voters..........plain 'n simplistic.

He either maintains that core ,or encourages drifting to your goodselves , who have time to 'focus' on real sensible fishing realities.
Henry ain't stupid ,either, I hope.
JMHO

[Kerry]

.... Once you have sat and honestly assessed where you think the principle impacts and dangers occur ....

There would be some doubt that some could actually honestly assess the principle impacts, as really the answers wouldn't agree with the results "they want".

Cheers, Kerry.

[kc]

And here it has sat for a day & a half...the silence is deafening!!

KC

[jockey]

Dug & raefpud,
Both of you should give up fishing entirely to do your bit to satisfy your convictions.Maybe you both could take up golf for instance.
Read and take notice of what KC and Kerry had to say. I couldn't agree with KC more, well said KC.

Baldy
#



Baldy they are not saying people shouldn't fish, just that the fishery should be managed better. Just because someone is pro-marine parks doesn't make them anti-fishing.

July 1st is when the new zones come into force (thanks for the useful info guys :( )

What is AIMS?

KC, how do you know the SSC asked for 40%? I thought it was 20-40%. Did they really plan it? Also, weren't North Atlantic cod fished by line? I think also plaice or some other flatfish from the north western US coast collapsed under line fishing, but has made a recovery since. I think that marine parks are more about fisheries management than biodiversity protection.

Do you have any recent info on catch rates of coral trout? I think they have skyrocketed since 95 with the live export trade.

KC perhaps you could put forward an answer to your big question. Its not an easy one.

There is a lot of info on this at www.freediver.bravehost.com

[kc]

Hi Jockey,
From my readings I am of the understanding that Atlantic cod stocks did not suffer until the introduction of Purse Sceiners.
This is a fishery which had been fished for hundreds of years by line.

On the issue of the SSC, yes, they say

"protection of 20 -40% of any fished grounds, in no take areas offers some fisheries the opportunity for better management",

BUT they went on to say

"none of these recommendations are for "ideal" or "desired" amounts. Amounts required for full protection are likely to be greater than indicated by the biophysical operational principles".

On the issue of live trout trade, in loose terms the commercial trout fishery had been fairly steady at about 1500 tonnes per year. This was basically supplying a domestic market with limited or at best slow growth. The catch has risen with the export market to (latest figures I have seen) 2300 tonnes in 2001 and (I am lead to believe) in excess of 2700 tonnes for 2003. The Qld government is capping the trade, back to pre 1998 levels of about 1500 tonnes, which is the time when they issued investment warnings to commercial fishers NOT to invest in this fishery.

Then we go to THE question!!

The major reason we put this to GBRMPA is that they should have had the expertise and resources to answer it so plebbs like us could better understand the rational for the RAP zonings. I don't know the answer. I would very much like to! It would really help understanding. It appears, from the RAP outcome. That GBRMPA thinks all the other impacts(that they can control) have less impact than fishing (at all levels) because "we" are the ONLY ones effected by the green zones.

We also put to them a suggestion that "fishing" not all be put together in the one catagory. Surely the effect of trawl nets has a greater impact than line fishery, that nets have a greater impact than line fisheries......why not make some areas designated "catch & release"...but no!! After all, its not about fisheries management, that's a states job , GBRMPA just wanted biodiversity protection.

I could have a guess at various impacts, and I might add number 1 would be otter board and beam trawllers....something described by David Attenbough as "the single most destructive method of fishing ever devised by man".

Regards

KC

[Kerry]

Also, weren't North Atlantic cod fished by line? Were they #:-X how about you tell us #::) and while your looking how about you show where there has been a line fishery (suppose that answers your question doesn't it #:P) that has been overfished.

What is AIMS? "Australian Institute of Marine Science", "Australian Institute of Mine Surveyors", take your pick.

I think that marine parks are more about fisheries management than biodiversity protection.

Well that's not the same excuse the governemt has made, has it but at least that's one admission from you that actually makes sense. #


KC perhaps you could put forward an answer to your big question. Its not an easy one.

:D Not an easy one, no I guess that question of KC's as far as your concerned is red hot and smells from a thousand mile away.

Well it was predicted that some wouldn't and couldn't honestly answer that question, you know honestly answer KC's query. So Jockey would honesty not suit your purpose #;D or simply you can't you come to terms with the real facts #???

The query is not simply for KC to answer it's for the likes of you who continuously play duck in the pond where questions are actually put to them that obviously scares the hell of them, why Jockey? because the facts and actually appropraite answers don't suit your purpose.

Cheers, Kerry.
#

[jockey]

Kerry I certainly can't answer it because it is almost impossible too. We simply don't have enough understanding of all the impacts to start ranking them. On the subject of over fishing by line, you always seem to be under the misconception that absence of evidence means evidence of absence. You can't ask someone to give you an example of something then assume because they can't come up with one that it doesn't exist. But if you bothered to read my previous post, you would find an example.

I'd put coral bleaching at number one, followed by agricultural runoff.

[Kerry]

I'd put coral bleaching at number one, followed by agricultural runoff.

So why use the RAP as an excuse, which only targets fishing and basically does nothing for the reasoning of biodiversity protection.

Really I think you just answered the question [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] that the RAP is a pi.. poor excuse for fisheries management in the guise of so called biodiversity protection and the real issues, which the RAP completely fails to address.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Kerry, I agree that the marine parks are fisheries management disguised as biodiversity protection. That doesn't mean that they won't protect biodiversity though. It does mean that they are less effective at fisheries management.

[Kerry]

In other words what you mean is that the public has been deceived and dudded :o , which leaves that ago old question of why not simply call it fisheries management in the first place instead of crapping on about so called biodiversity protection, which it really doesn't address at all.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Because fishermen tend to oppose marine parks, especially as fisheries management tools, regardless of the benefit they would recieve from them. Rather than making them face facts, the powers that be prefer to take the easy way out and call them biodiversity protection so that they can just label any fishermen who complain 'anti green.'

[Kerry]

No the right thing to do it be truthfull in the first place instead of bullsh.... call it for what it is and stop trying to dud the people who don't know any better.

There is (and has been) absolutely no excuse for deceit #[smiley=thumbsdown.gif] and political green licking

Face facts? yeah sure wiseguy how about people knowing what the facts actually are, that would be a start.

Cheers, Kerry.

[mackmauler]

jockey, who told you that. ;D

[jockey]

It's all on FD's site. I posted a link earlier ;).

Yes Kerry it would be great if people would stop BS'ing and look at the facts. If people started focussing on getting a good deal rather than only focussing on trying to avoid the risk of getting a bad deal, then a lot more would get done because you wouldn't get so many people running round trying to stop other people from doing anything.

[Gazza]

Yes Jock ,I agree with you GREENZONES should be banned!!

I think that's what you said/meant/implied/suggested ::)

No more BS , I like that. ;D

[SNELLY]

If you beleive in this so caled "spill over" why don't we close 99.99% of the GBR then we will all be able to go to one spot and catch our bag limit in quick time because the fishing will be sooooo good.

NOT

If you beleive in spill over you must also beleive in the Tooth Fairy, Santa and the Easter bunny

my 2 bobs worth

[baldyhead]

Had an interesting meeting with Qld Boating and Fisheries today. GBRMPA has allocated $8.5 million over the next 3 years to QB&F for them to manage the enforcment of the greenzones. QB&F's budget for this year is $10 million.
I was informed that QB&F would employ 4 new patrol officers in Cairns and 1 each to the other areas. They would also purchase a few new vessels. They would also make use of aircraft survelliance and rely on aerial photos to successfully prosecute those caught fishing in the greenzones.
They spoke at length on Coral Trout and the rediculious size and species identification ie footballer trout come in many colours and their size limits are 50cm minimum and 80cm max.
All others are 38cm min and no max. They reckon that they are going to have a nightmare trying to enforce these regs.
They also stated that they tried to have the limit of 38cm raised to 45cm but Beattie & co wouldn't have a bar of that.
Pro fishers are being paid $32 per kilo for any trout under 1.5kg live, from the buyers and only $8 per kg for the rest.
That 1.5kg trout is 38 to 40cm.
If the size was raised to 45cm the BLOODY JAPS wouldn't want them.
There are some pro fishers who are offering recreational fishers up to $20 for any 38 to 40cm trout that they can deliver to the trout fishers dory on the reef. I was told that from a very reliable source.
Some unscrupulous pro fishers will fillet larger trout and combine the fillet with their mixed reef fillet so as to cheat the trout quota system.Apparantly this is a major problem to enforce.
I will advise after the next round of discussions.

[jockey]

Snelly I believe in spillover because it is real. This isn't some religious conviction. There is a stack of evidence to back it up. Entire fisheries have been rescued by spilloever.

Theoretical models predict that fishermen will get maximum benefit if 20-40% is turned into green zones. The evidence agrees with this. You get a small benefit for a small amount of coverage and a lot more if you get over 20% coverage. I don't think there are any networks with more than 40% coverage so you can't verify that upper limit. FD's site has links to the scientific papers that list all the evidence. You should check them out.

[Kerry]

Spillover is real, ah get real jockey not even the people trying to actually prove this have done so yet and you damwell know that so don't crap on with opinions that are just that opinions. What you believe actually falls a long way behind the facts and this has in fact been proved [smiley=2thumbsup.gif].

Theoretical models #:-X are nothing more than theory and as you haven't been able to produce the evidence in the past to support this then I doubt if things have changed.

You've been reading way too many press releases fom those who have had their slush funding slashed for all these theoretical theorists to continue with theory's that haven't been proved even with all the past $$'s thrown at them. Really time to stop the waste of tax payers $$'s.

As for scientific evidence #::) yes well what scientific evidence. So when are you actually going to open your eyes and realize the facts.

Cheers, Kerry.

[kc]

The "spillover hoax" has always been trotted out by GBRMPA when trying to con rec fishos into the benifits of RAP. From my readings it clearly works in some fisheries where there is habitat similarity at zoning boundaries. In the case of, lets call them reef fin fish, these are domicile to a particular reef and do not migrate. each year the reef system will absorb a certain portion of the spawning recuitment. If a reef is "full" ie near untouched and with a full fish stock, the recruitment each year is very very low as almost the entire recruitment is predated by larger fish. In a fished reef the recruitment is much higher as nature replaces what has been removed, by human impact, sharks or even a desease....sustainablity at work, naturally.

On an unfished reef system, each adult fish has its niche, it will not suddenly swim to another reef because the "kids" are making too much noise...it will eat the little buggers instead and the "kids" won't leave home either, because there won't actually be any.

The fishing party has, and will continue to push for "split reefs". This would allow an untouched population of adults in 1 half of the system and plenty of room in the suburbs for the kids....GBRMPA have ignore this push all along because they just don't want fishing...period. This is and never was about biodiversity protection OR fisheries management...This is the first step of a long term agenda to ban all fishing in all national parks..period!!

[jockey]

KC isn't the reason you want split reefs because of the spillover? It's not a hoax. Its just that fishermen excluded themselves from the negotiations over the GBR so the green zones we now have are actually designed to minimise spillover, not maximise it.

Don't you think it would ber better to push for 20-40% coverage of each reef 'system' (where the coral trout can easily move around), rather than half?

What is the party's policy on the 'open water' between the reefs?

Kerry yes spillover is real. That's not from press releases. It's from published scientific articles. It's from recorded catches. Its from fishermen catching more fish. Read about it.

[Kerry]

.... That's not from press releases. It's from published scientific articles. It's from recorded catches. Its from fishermen catching more fish. Read about it ....

yeah yeah yeah jockey, how many times do we have to listen to your constant unsubstantiated repetable dribble, and don't say read "that other site", now that is a hoax #;) hey :D

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

So you are refusing to inform yourself? You won't even look at the evidence?

[SNELLY]

KC is right as far as I'm concerned - The closed reefs will pick up but only to a point where the population can be sustained. There wont be any recruitment to other open areas.

I'm not against closures, particurlarly if they are rotated, but when you have large Blocks taken away you can see clearly that we are getting set up to lose a lot lot more.

[kc]

Sorry Jockey, I should have made myself clearer. Spillover is a hoax, relative to the reef systems. ie stocks DO NOT MIGRATE between reefs. We have, will and will continue to push for split reefs. The percentage is irrelavent...50/50 60/40 doesn't really matter.

We have a working model of a split reef down here...70% open 30% closed which has been heavily fished for many years and continues to fish well. It is the closest reef to Airlie. The "closed" section has a healthy stock of very large fish and the open reef has plenty of small to mid size fish at a density way above the closed section.I have seen and read enough to accept NTA (no Take areas) can work but nothing I have seen or read about reef fish gives me any indication that spillover will occure between reef systems. In fact the evidence is to the contrary.

As for open water..............pelagics travel too far too fast to benifit from NTA's.....unless specific spawning grounds can be identified and protected then NTA's for pelagics in open water are a waste of time. As to reef fish in open waters...there are none. Any congregations are on bottom formation which have a similar spawning recruitment system to reefs...the exception being red emporer which will benifit from NTA's.

As to inshore fisheries NTA's will benefit the fisheries because of habitat similarities at zoning boundaries....however. Our big beef with inshore fisheries are prawn fisheries/beam & otter trawl. If we did not have these destructive impacts we would not need NTA's in inshore waters in the first place because the other impacts are (relatively) so small the fishery would remain very healthy.

[kc]

& Jockey, I forgot to say!!

As for fishermen "excluding themselves from negotiations", I take great exception to that.

Of the 17,000 submissions to GBRMPA over 15,000 were from fishermen. We did not "exclude"ourselves.....we were just f@#$ ignored!!

A lot of us, myself included spent hours and hours on this...attended every meeting, public consulation phase, LMAC meeting and I even had private meetings with John Tanzer...............all a total waste of bloddy time.

WE DID NOT EXCLUDE OURSELVES!!

KC

[jockey]

I think that many fishermen excluded themselves by opposing marine parks completely. These fishermen would have been ignored, justifiably so. Fishermen such as yourself who promote marine parks as fisheries management tools are in the minority. There are also fishermen who are prepared to accept marine parks on conservation grounds, under various circumstances, but this does not help fishing much.

May I ask, KC, what your position was on marine parks when you were negotiating (before the plan was finalised)? Have your policies or your focus changed since then?

The percentage coverage does matter. Too much and you risk losing out via 'concentration of effort' which is also bad for the environment. Too little and you won't get all the potential benefit.

The benefit is not limited to fish that don't move. There should also be a benefit for pelagics. You just need larger green zones to get that benefit.

[SeaHunt]

I don't know why they are going to all the trouble to protect the GBR, I mean the whole thing will be 50 foot out of the water come the next ice age. ;D ;D

[Kerry]

jockey, are you actually sure you know what your talking about and actually recall what you've already said [smiley=confused.gif]. Your going around in a ever dwindling circle that eventually you'll disappear up your own proverbial.

Your really becoming an arguementative mindless little prick :-X but then you already know that, don't you ;D


Cheers, Kerry.

[kc]

Jockey, It would need to be a pretty bloody big green zone to protect a spanish, tuna or marlin which travels from tweed heads to cairns and back!! Like I said, unless you are protecting a recognised spawning aggregation then green zone on pelagics are a total waste of time.

next issue. The more than 1000 of "üs" who signed "our" submission, a submission endorsed by our local council as the official submission on behalf of this shire WHERE ignored. We did not outright oppose marine parks. We opposed green zones, feeling that they did not do enough nor offer the highest level of protection for areas of the reef NEEDING protection. We did oppose the (then 25%) grab!!
We asked for split reefs as a cornerstone of our submission...ignored!!
We asked for a yellow zone in the major mangrove habitat area, initally granted but then overturned and put back to an open slather blue zone as a direct result of ministerial intervention.

I don't quiet know how you can come up with such a broad brushed assumption that we excluded ourselves from the negotiations. During the process I got to see an awful lot of the submissions.....we are a pretty tight group in NQ and a lot of ideas and information sharing went on between groups and individuals. There were a lot of very good and constructive ideas put to GBRMPA by groups and individuals & those ideas were, in the vast majority of cases, totally ignored. Lots of us asked for split reefs...no. Lots of us asked for pink rather than green zones..no (no reef tax in a pink zone hey!)

Without getting quiet as blunt as Kerry I really get annoyed when you make such an ill-informed statement after the work I know went into MANY of the RAP submissions.

While no doubt my personal position has changed a bit as I have learnt more both my own position and the position of the fishing party remain pretty much the same. If you want to see the submission in all its 30 page detail send me your email adress.

We oppose the lockout
We oppose being made scapegoats
We think the public consulation phase was a sham

& Finally we think the only way to beat ém is join ém.

If we make enough noise at least come election time THEY will be scatching on OUR door looking for a preference deal.

Won't that be a bloody change!!

KC

[jockey]

KC many migratory species show some 'site fidelity.'

"For example, a fraction of the snappers around marine reserves in New Zealand show strong site fidelity and respond swiftly to protection, whereas the remainder make longer seasonal movements that take them into fishing grounds [9]. A similar pattern has been observed in at least five commercially important South African shorefish. For these species, , 67 – 93% of individuals were captured within 1 km of their original tagging site,whilst the rest moved greater distances of tens or even hundreds of kilometres [27]. "

But you are right on the tuna and marlin:

"Even highly migratory species, such as sharks, tuna and billfish, could benefit from reserves targeted to places where they are highly vulnerable, such as nursery grounds, spawning sites or aggregation sites such as seamounts [35]. "

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

I think that fish like trevally and cobia would benefit from a few larger green zones in more open waters. I've cought a lot of them, but I've never caught a marlin or big tuna.

Perhaps these forums give a false impression of the input recreational fishermen have on the political process. That is where I got the impression from that the majority of recreational fishermen oppose green zones regardless of the details. Maybe I am wrong on that one. But as you said, you were at the time opposed to a 25% grab, even though the best available scientific advice (I'm pretty sure it was available back then) said that fisheries would benefit from 20-40% coverage. I only just found that out myself. We (rec fishos) have always been behind the 8 ball. That is why we were ignored. I think the politicians did take notice of what you and your friends said, but they just dismissed it because it appeared to be based on ignorance. You are one of less than half a dozen recreational fishermen I know who pay any attention to the facts on green zones.

[jockey]

By the way KC, does the party have enough members yet to register for the election?

[PinHead]

"By the way KC, does the party have enough members yet to register for the election? "

Join the party and find out jockey. Who cares if they do or they don't or are you angling on another tangent to start another diatribe. KC is entitled to his personal opinions on here without being seen as always the Fishing Party man.

[kc]

With respect NZ Snapper & South African shorefish?? have bugger all to do with GBR species. Reef Fish, and lets even be more specific, Coral trout, Red Throat, Spangled Emp and Job Fish...........the target species DO NOT MIGRATE BETWEEN REEFS. No ifs buts or maybees. There will be NO SPILLOVER EFFECT Unless habitat similarity occurs ie same reef system!!(split reefs)

I AGREE it is certainly worth protecting spawning aggregations BUT GREEN ZONES DON'T WORK FOR TARGET PELAGIC SPECIES.

& Finally, YES we have plenty of paid members, are fully registered with the Australian Electoral Commission as an official political party & WILL STAND FOR 2 SENATE SEATS IN QUEENSLAND AT THE NEXT FEDERAL ELECTION.

We might not win a seat but you can bet your bloody life that we will attract enough of a vote to at least get the bastards begging for preferences....leverage is an amazing tool!

KC

[Kerry]

http://cqnet.com.au/~user/aitken/fileit.gif
Just got to wait now for one of jockey's mindless arogrant replies ::)

[Big_Kev]

RAFLMAO

[kc]

Hey Kerry, I got as nice chuckle at your graphics........who invents this stuff? Definately good for a laugh.

KC

[jockey]

I think that coral trout etc do migrate between reefs, but not very often. That is, there is enough migration for the different populations to interbreed, but probably not enough for significant spillover on the biomass level. What makes you think they don't migrate at all?

How do you know that green zones don't work for target pelagic species? Are you including trevally and cobia in that generalisation, or just the high profile species like tuna and billfish?

Also, you support split reefs on the GBR - does the party support the use of green zones as fisheries management tools south of the GBR? The greens are trying their hardest to get green zones all up and down the coast, in the name of conservation. They are getting a few in too. Is the party going to wait until there are green zones everywhere before they develop policies on how they should be used (ie changed) to suit fisheries management goals?

I used those examples because they were the only ones I could find that had been studied in a rigourous manner. You can't just rely on anecdotal evidence.

[SNELLY]

Jockey,

Whats the go now with spill over

"but probably not enough for significant spillover on the biomass level."

[jockey]

I meant that the spillover of coral trout from reefs that are completely closed (not split) will probably not be significant for fisheries management - ie you won't get a lot of fish leaving the green zone and getting caught.

If you meant in a more general sense, spillover has been shown to occur and you will catch more fish if there are some green zones around. Provided they are done properly of course.

[Gazza]

I meant that the spillover of coral trout from reefs that are completely closed (not split) will probably not be significant for fisheries management - ie you won't get a lot of fish leaving the green zone and getting caught.

If you meant in a more general sense, spillover has been shown to occur and you will catch more fish if there are some green zones around. Provided they are done properly of course.

Hey Jock , all your answers on "spillover" will be found here.....
[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[propdinger]

lmao@gazza

[jockey]

KC this is how rec fishermen excluded themselves from negotiations over green zones.

[kc]

But ya' got a' laugh!! By the way Jockey I noticed you have "opened the batting" for our side on the fishnet site!

Which in a way means you have taken some notice of the points raised and maybe changed your views on RAP to some degree.

I know you are prone to the occassional "wind up" but none the less. We all live and learn and if you have changed camps...welcome aboard.

Now back to your questions. You "think" some coral trout migrate between reefs. I "think" they don't. Wouldn't it be nice to "know". No evidence exists to support either position but the majority opinion of CRC researchers is that they don't..but again this is opinion based on observation of the teritorial habits of coral trout & lippers not hard core science.

In relation to pelagics....the supposed purpose of a green zone is to allow a domecile stock to live in a threat free environment, return biomass to unfished levels and then have spillover of spawning recruitment. It all hinges on the brood staock remaining in the NTA. Pelagics do not. Unless you identify a spawining aggregation site there is no benifit from open water green zones beacuse a fish protected in a green zone one day is in open slather water the next....makes bugger all sense to me!

Regards

KC

KC

[Big_Kev]

I think that coral trout etc do migrate between reefs, but not very often. That is, there is enough migration for the different populations to interbreed, but probably not enough for significant spillover on the biomass level.

You can't just rely on anecdotal evidence.

Jockey you have told KC that he cannot rely on anecdotal evidence yet you are basing your case on assumptions???

[jockey]

KC I don't think I've changed my views at all. I don't like the way the government implemented green zones on the GBR, nor do I like the position most rec fishios I know take on green zones. I think there should be 20-40% green zone coverage over the entire east coast. But this should be done from a fisheries management perspective, not for conservation alone. That means smaller green zones.

Also, I said I 'think' they migrate. You implied you were certain. I have been told there is some evidence to support my view. I'll chase it up for you. Not that it matters much anyway as we have the same position on how green zones should be set up for coral trout.

The broodstock don't have to always remain in the NTA to get a benefit for the fishery. Some individual fish will, as in the snapper example. Some fish may only spend half their time in NTA's. That means it will probably take twice as long to catch them. That's more than twice as many breeding seasons (the first few years of their life don't count). That's also why you need a network of green zones. A lot of the big fish that are still alive today are alive because they know how to avoid being caught, or their habits prevent them from being caught. With a good network of green zones, there will be a lot more of them.

Kev I am basing my case on 'hard science' and I have posted a few links with the evidence. If you have a specific question I can (hopefully) direct you straight to the relevant evidence to back up my case.