PDA

View Full Version : grey nurse shark



opimax
05-01-2004, 05:37 AM
giday all
just back from hols did`nt listen to news only weather that was only bad news i could handle. just wondering if anything happened on the dreaded closers, while on r&r. thanks lee

Blue_Jean
05-01-2004, 09:20 AM
Lee,
Check out the DPI web site at http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/14132.html

The RIS seems to have been rushed through and the fishing public ignored, as usual.
It seems that the government has forgotten the old saying "WE FISH and WE VOTE".
Cheers Stu.
??? ??? :-[

opimax
05-01-2004, 03:23 PM
thanks stu
will look at website. lee

imported_admin
06-01-2004, 11:06 AM
Sadly this seems to be another knee jerk reaction from the government.

No scientific data or research and yet they still close the area down.

Seems strange that you are not allowed to fish in the area, not even troll, but 100 + divers a day can go down there and chase the sharks out of the caves so they can have a look. If they are worried about the numbers and want them to breed why are divers allowed to be down there disturbing them.

It would appear to me that if they waited for the sharks to become an ENDANGERED species, which may or maynot happen, it would be an EPA issue not a fisheries issue.

As I see it the EPA do not have the resources, boats, man power, etc, to manage such a species, location or laws in this area so the goverment rushes through this change in the fisheries law so that Fisheries look after it instead of the EPA.

jockey
06-01-2004, 12:51 PM
It would appear to me that if they waited for the sharks to become an ENDANGERED species


I hope you weren't implying that this would have been a better outcome?

Blue_Jean
06-01-2004, 02:56 PM
There are certainly better ways to handle the so called plight of the grey nurse than closures.
Such methods as actually carrying out some scientific research to determine the most effective course of action and locations would do for starters.
I feel the government would be better off bringing fisher-persons into the fold a bit rather then alienating us by imposing unfair closures. Correct and fair consultation (you cant tell me they read all the RIS results from the public in that short a time) with interested groups, clubs and the like would produce a better outcome.
Most of us are just as conservation minded as the so called “greenies” and would most likely be able to assist the relevant authority with locations etc but after the way this has been handled who would be game to mention seeing a grey nurse shark and giving away the location.
Cheers Stu :o :( :o

imported_admin
06-01-2004, 03:29 PM
Jockey

The sentence was as follows, as stated in context of the full post.


It would appear to me that if they waited for the sharks to become an ENDANGERED species, which may or maynot happen, it would be an EPA issue not a fisheries issue.


I haven't seen or heard of any sceintific data that would suggest that they will become ENDANGERED, especially not from recreational fishing. I wouldn't like to see any species become endangered or extinct. Maybe if the government spent some time and resources into investigating it properly they will not get that way. If they introduce laws in a knee jerk reaction like this I can't see any real benefit to the sharks, just benefit to the government saving a lot of money by not having it become an EPA issue.

opimax
06-01-2004, 03:53 PM
giday steve
i to think its a knee-jerk action, at least they left s/temp & hutchies out of closers( for now at least). i to think if there that concerned about there welfare it should be off limits to divers as well. i still hav`t heard of anyone catching a shark on a trolled lure. thanks for info lee

Sportfish_5
06-01-2004, 04:33 PM
I hope this so called consultation process that took place is not a sign of things to come in regards to closing other areas off for whatever reason.

In relation to the diving still being allowed during daylight hours with little regulation I did notice that one of the diving websites was actively campaigning to have the Grey Nurse Areas closed (see link). Maybe I am cynical but I wonder if their involvment had a few promises attached ?????

http://www.diveoz.com.au/gns/gns-qld.asp

jockey
07-01-2004, 11:21 AM
I think they've spent about half a million dollars studying them on the east coast. Ask David Harasti for more details. As with most conservation measures, the politics need to preceed the science to a certain extent as you will never know everything. Look up the 'precautionary principle.' Bottom line is its a lot easier and cheaper to pass a few laws than get all the info immediately. You guys make it sound like this is a bad thing. Remember this is your tax money they are spending.

I think the the dive groups are being a bit one eyed about it by trying to ban all fishing methods including those that obviously have no impact while at the same time sending out heaps of tourists. They have even started silly rumours about spearos shooting sharks after the spearos got involved in studying them. No doubt it will come back and bite them in the arse again.

Stu - you don't have to give away the location. Talk to the people collecting the info or your nearest club and they should be able to sort something out.

opimax
07-01-2004, 03:08 PM
giday jockey
this is a very bad thing where will it end the people that make this laws have no idea whats going on in the real world. grey nurse shark protection is a lot of bull shit. lee

bugman
08-01-2004, 03:39 AM
The banning of all fishing in the GNS zones came down to enforcement not scientific reasons.
Everyone knew it would be commonsense to allow trolling in the zones - especially with an artificial lure - but - from a fisheries perspective it's now much easier to enforce.

Line in water - BADDY
No lines in water - GOODY

It's as simple as that.

While I don't agree with it I can see their reasoning.

Bugman

Blue_Jean
08-01-2004, 05:05 AM
Whats the reasoning behind allowing diving in these areas. Is it because the dive industry lobbies politicians more effectively than the recreational/charter industry. I cant see any sense in banning fishing and then allowing the posibility of divers pestering the heck out of these supposedly endangered creatures. It seems like they are setting up diver only recreational areas.
I agree with Lee he has hit the nail right on the head. It is a load of crap.
Now they have these areas as no go zones for fishing what is next. Where will it all end. ???
Cheers Stu.

jockey
08-01-2004, 05:19 AM
Bugman I must admit I hadn't considered that aspect. Wouldn't it be just as easy from an enforcement perspective to go by whether you are anchored?

Some of the bubblys involved will readily admit that other fishing groups were poorly represented at the meetings and acknowledge that we got a bod deal.

bugman
08-01-2004, 05:36 AM
Probably not jockey, drift fishing would be allowed if this were the case.

I agree that fishos were underepresentated in the group but I also know there was a pretty big split in the diving groups as well. There was actually a fare representation of divers that wanted the areas off limits to divers as well. Another section didn't mind trolling.

I think government/scientists made a decision which they think would be in the best interests of the sharks longterm and also allow a very small local industry to continue unhindered. Very much a dollars/sense decision.

Bluey - I have no doubt it will end with hardly any fish left in the ocean but luckilly I won't be arround for that. Shame for my grandchildren's children though. I've never seen a GNS shark on a dive - other than at underwater world - but I agree that a pack of divers would have an affect on the GNS habits. A Mustard 8o connected to 100lb trace would probably have more of an affect don't you think.

Bugman

mackmauler
08-01-2004, 12:20 PM
Stu - you don't have to give away the location. Talk to the people collecting the info or your nearest club and they should be able to sort something out.

Jockey, you mean "sort" as in sort out which spots to close next >:(

Are you one of the rec fishers who have caught a grey nurse shark jockey?

damons33
08-01-2004, 12:35 PM
i think they should of been more area specific as the sharks aren't all the way around the these areas they occupy a definite area (at flatty they hang in the ditch SS/E of the bommie! most sharking due to trolled fish hookups where whaler or reef sharks, the nurse is lower in the water column and is afraid of other shark species especially tiger sharks! nurse sharks are basically noctural feeders that fossic the reef ledges. their is still a heap of em in south afrika so i don't think they will become extinct!).
so i can't see the point of banning fishing at the back of flaty etc etc as its not going to hurt or change the affect desired!
not so "happy" damo'

jockey
08-01-2004, 12:46 PM
MM I have never caught a GNS. I heard that one ended up in the shops recently.

re sort: the basic idea is you or your club renames the spots site 1, site 2 etc. Only your club knows the actual sites and the authorities only know the region. They get less info from you, but it is still useful. I personally don't see the point as the more they know the sooner they will come off the endangered list (or if they really are in trouble then I guess we will have to accept more closures). But if it makes the difference between getting the info in or not then it is good.

Sportfish_5
08-01-2004, 02:05 PM
I have no problem with protecting any endangered species if it is based on facts. To me the worrying thing out of all this is how much more effective the "Greenies or whatever you want to call them" are at lobbying the Government to get their way than all of the fishing parties combined (recreational, professional fishos and charter operators). I dont think we have seen the last of these closures. I bet it wont be long till they start screaming about the Gotham City area in Hutchinson's Shoal again as per their initial proposal.

Duncs
08-01-2004, 02:13 PM
I've just been reading through a document titled 'Summary of Southeast Queensland Grey Nurse Shark Data for 2002 and 2003' . You can get it from Dr Simon Stirrat at the EPA Threatened Species and Ecosystems Unit (07) 3225 1295. I got hold of it a couple of months ago, with the intention of writing a very detailed reply condeming the RIS and proposed closures. After having a good read through and attending one of the public meetings, I have to say they did the right thing. From looking at the research a few things are known.

1. there are about 300-500 left in Australia. Even if there are actually double this number left, they would still be on the endangered species list.

2.They are very, very slow breeders

3. the loss of just a few more sharks can have a big impact on the survival of the species

4. the sharks aggregate around particular sites.

5. A high percentage of sharks have hooks in them - both pro and amateur. Just because people aren't landing GNS doesn't mean they aren't hooking them.

6. like most creatures in the ocean, there is not much known about them.

For once the precautionary principle has been applied and the obvious steps have been taken with regards to fishing in the areas where they congregate. The no fishing zone is 1200m because radio tracked sharks travelled up to 1200m away from their aggregation sites while feeding.
A lot more research needs to be done but that doesn't excuse doing nothing now. It makes no sense to wait until there are none left to prove that that they really were endangered.
Overall I think that this situation can be used to amateur fishos advantage in the long run. We need to push our politicians to take the same precautionary approach with inshore netting, trawling, longline tuna fishing and coastal overdevelopment. I'm sure the fishing and environment would undergo a huge improvement with even small advances in these areas, making the GNS bans seem completely insignificant.
One other positive side effect from the no fishing zones is that these areas will rapidly populate with fish that then need to move elsewhere in order to find food. A restocking zone if you like. Apparently works very well in NZ with their snapper and crayfish stocks.

BTW I own a tackle store on Moreton Bay so I stand to lose as much as most from this, but I honestly believe that to have healthy sustainable fishing means you need to start with a healthy environment.

Cheers

Duncan

bugman
09-01-2004, 06:19 AM
Congratulations Duncan,

It is refreshing to see people reasearching a topic in depth in order to better understand the actions taken by Government in this case.

It's a shame more people aren't willing to expand their knowledge base in order to gain a more reasoned opinion of a topic. Those people may or may not change their mind after research but at least they will have more facts when entering into debates on the subject rather than parroting the same and often incorrect line. That is not a personal reference to anyone of this thread.

If an argument has one frame of black and one frame of white at each of the spectrum it has an infinite number of grey frames in the middle.

Bugman

Jeremy
09-01-2004, 06:44 AM
I don't agree with you Duncan. I read all the material which came with the submission form for the GNS front to back. There is barely any SCIENTIFIC data on the GNS, most of what they claim to know comes from Divers. The 1.2 km zone is simply a convenient point. The sharks move around alot further than that, and they are only aroud Flat Rock and Wolf Rock at certain times of the year to breed.

If they were serious about protecting the sharks, they would stop drum lining on the beaces and long lining in the oceans. They catch ALOT more sharks than rec. fishoes. They would also have stopped diving around these places.

No. These bans are much more about greenies reducing rec. fishing than protecting the GNS. The Beattie Govt is simply buying green votes for the election this year, and consequently all rec (and commercial) fishoes are getting buggered in the process.

Jeremy

imported_admin
09-01-2004, 06:54 AM
Jeremy, well said. I think the point that has been lost in all this is the lack of "SCIENTIFIC data most of what they claim to know comes from Divers"

It seems to be another case of the Rec/Commercial fisherman being screwed for the sake of political gain due to forth coming elections.

jockey
09-01-2004, 07:17 AM
I read all the material which came with the submission form for the GNS front to back. There is barely any SCIENTIFIC data on the GNS, most of what they claim to know comes from Divers.

Surely you don't expect them to include all the research in the mailout? How hard have you tried to look for this 'scientific stuff.'

Jeremy
09-01-2004, 07:26 AM
Jockey,

that is precisely my point. It doesn't exist! There is very little scientific data. Most of what is quoted in the RIS is just anecdotal evidence from divers. Can I make it any clearer?

Jeremy

jockey
09-01-2004, 07:29 AM
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but how do you know it doesn't exist if all you read was the mailout? Are you aware of the tracking studies? The information doesn't have to be collected by 'academics' to be useful. There's nothing wrong with data collected by regular scuba divers and snorkellers, so long as they keep in mind the skewed sampling method.

Jeremy
09-01-2004, 07:41 AM
Jockey,

good point. Couple of further things. Whatever scientific data is out there may not be easy to find. But I would have thought the the DPI would have included all relevant material in the RIS. It doesn't take up much space to quote the relevant data and the name of the study. The RIS was a pretty comprehensive document which should have been properly researched, so any scientific data which existed should have been in it. And that is the point - there wasn't much.


But I guess in general, they must be a difficult species to study - how do you estimate how many there are when they only know of a few places where they are found. Anecdotal evidence from the dive community is OK, but I think most rec or commercial anglers would treat it with suspicion in light of these areas being closed to fishoes not divers and the fact that divers were responsible for their near extinction in the first place.

Jeremy

jockey
09-01-2004, 08:21 AM
I don't have a copy of the RIS so I can't check for myself. So basically you are saying that the 'bibliography' at the back is pretty short? Here's another possible explanation: the dpi is collecting the data itself (I mean sightings by scuba divers and spearfishermen, nettings, hookups from fishermen), but they haven't yet published a summary of the results. If it's not published then it can't be referenced properly - it's just a heap of numbers in someone's computer. This doesn't mean that they are ignoring it. I would assume the same people putting the data together would have a lot of input on the decision making process. They probably got a lot of advice from the NSW people, who are in the same boat.

Kerry
09-01-2004, 09:07 AM
Decisions made yet lacking of any real scientific evidence or justification really is nothing new. Really one would think that any gov department who has to sell this type of decision would want to have ALL the information out front for all to see.

But like in many past instances even several years after the events/closures that "said scientific evidence" is still yet to surface and anybody with half an inkling would really have to ask if it ever existed in the first place. Really the answer after several years is plainly obvious, even to the faithfull followers who believe this stuff might exist in some dim dark back room.

But if that's the decision and if it's as important as the decisions makers apparently make it, then it's really a case of one out all out, really fail to see how the divers see themselves a cut above everyone else.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
09-01-2004, 10:19 AM
Decisions made yet lacking of any real scientific evidence or justification really is nothing new.

This seems to be a recurring misunderstanding:

1) Science cannot justify these decisions. They are justified by our values ie we value biodiversity, we value the grey nurse shark. That is why we are protecting them. Science can only give us guidance on how to do it. If you do not value the GNS in the first place then no amount of evidence will prove to you that the closures are necessary.

2) There is no such thing as 'scientific evidence.' There is no special stamp that the scientists have for labelling information as scientific or just some regular person's observations.

3) There have been plenty of observations made on the GNS. You may interpret these observations differently from those in power, but to claim they don't exist is absurd.

bugman
09-01-2004, 10:40 AM
Jeremy,

You're right - not all the information about Grey Nurse Sharks came out in the RIS - if it had, many would have been complaining about the waste of taxpayers money in mailing out volumes of papers. I think commonsense prevailed in the summary that was attached.

If you want some more info try here:

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/species/sharks/greynurse/index.html

If you're unhappy with that, why don't you contact one of the people who has been contributing to the research in NSW in recent years. I'm sure he would be keen to answer your questions if you want to find out more.

http://www.daveharasti.com

I understand your point of view and your argument but comments like - "If they were serious about protecting the sharks, they would stop drum lining on the beaces and long lining in the oceans. They catch ALOT more sharks than rec. fishoes." - don't help your cause.

If you had read the information about GNS you would understand about the animals habitat. Longliners are only allowed to work in the 80m+ contour line and GNS don't seem to live there.

Kerry - I agree with you in this case regarding the decision that was made in lieu of having all the scientific data. However I think erring on the side of caution regarding the extinction of a species may have been a good thing rather than a bad thing. Probably better to act sooner rather than later. If it's found later that they're not under threat then maybe we can have those fishing areas openned back to us. I have extreme doubts about that however.

I must admit I'm a bit of a hypocrite on this issue. I argued for troll fishing in the designated areas - and if not - a total ban for all rec users. The decision now allows me to still scuba in those areas if I so wish. I'm sure I'll be taking up that option in the future.

Bugman

Duncs
09-01-2004, 11:47 AM
Heres a reference for anyone to chase up:
Pollard, D.A., Lincoln Smith, M.P., and Smith, A.K. 1996. "The Biology and Conservation Status of the Grey Nurse Shark (Carcarius Taurus Rafinesque 1810) in NSW Australia". Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 6:1-20
Try any uni library in the journal section.

Also the summary of shark data listed in my previous post.

For more references have a look at Section 20 of the RIS. You wont find much Science in the RIS because thats not its job. It exists to inform people of changes to the methods used to manage a species or ecosystem. Different management options are presented along with discussion of the impacts that those changes will have.

It would be good for the GNS to have drum lining and beach meshing banned but the vast majority of the community sees the lives of beach goers as more important.
As for longlining, I think it is a federal govt issue (I could be wrong there). The current federal govt doesn't care about sharks, tuna, marlin or anything else as long as they get the licence fees and tax dollars. It would be the best thing that could ever happen to gamefishing on the east coast if longlining could be banned on the basis that it was endangering the GNS.

The old argument that there isn't enough research, is exactly the argument that commercial fishers use to prevent reforms to their own industry- Tailor, Spotty Mackeral, Orange Roughy, Southern Bluefin Tuna, yellowtail kings are just a few examples. The orange roughy was a relatively recent 'discovery', by the time the research was done, there was no fishery left - a classic example of where the precautionary principle should have been applied but wasn't.

As for divers, its been 20 odd years since its been legal to spear one. They may have been responsible for its initial decline, but Im not sure how punishing them now will bring back the sharks. Perhaps their presence alone is enough to stress them out, but I don't know enough about that side of things.

Cheers

Duncan

Kerry
10-01-2004, 09:17 AM
Bugman, For sure if erring on the side of caution and acting sooner than later is the go then fine as hindsight is such a wonderfull but useless thing.

But acting on the information basically provided by parties who deem themselves to be exempt, basically because they say so then that doesn't really fit erring on the side of caution.

My decision #;D if erring on the side of caution, 100% all out until there is better conclusive information one way or another.

Cheers, Kerry.
#

bugman
13-01-2004, 07:38 AM
I really don't want to keep this thread going but I'll have one last say anyway.

Kerry, I agree with you - one out all out.

However.

Look at it from the government or fisheries perspective. The people that did all the hard work in gaining research on the GNS were rec scuba divers who gathered data in their own time and for free.

If the Government bans them - then they've got to fund their own research people to go and dive the areas on a regualr basis.

Under the current new GNS regs, all the Government's data gathering is done for them. Probably not ethical but if you look at it from their point of view you can understand why they did it.

Brett