Fishing to be banned in 25% of Coastal Waters

[Vern_Veitch]

Yep, you all read it right. GBRMPA is on the road with its Representative Areas Program and is aiming to close 25% of all waters within the Great Barrier Reef. This means 25% of seagrass beds, coastal headlands and beaches - not just reef.
Do you want 25% of your favourite fishing areas closed and the recreational and commercial fishers who are removed to be squeezed into where you presently fish?
It is OK though as we will all be able to go and swim in the closed areas and @#$% all over anything that happens to be there. I wonder what the businesses who rely on us going there to fish will do for a crust.
If you don't live in the GBR just think about how you would feel if 25% of your local area was closed to fishing and nothing else.
Want to know more? Ring 1800 990 177 or visit their web site at www.gbrmpa.gov.au and look under hot topics.
Vern

[spinna]

I hear ya vern
The same thing is about to happen down south nere nowra >:( in a place called jervis bay some of the best land base game fishing in the world and some of the best rock platforms you would ever fish. And now parks and wildlife are trying to close about 25% of it to rec fishos and the parts they would like to close of are the best parts . But its ok as you say as the divers get it all #??? # # well all i can say is it SUCKS :'(

[budge]

Mate its called conservation. The reefs getting to be in a bad way and if they dont do any thing now theres not going to be anything left. I dont think a ban on fishing is where they should be starting though. The government needs to do something about the things that are really harming the reefs

[Kerry]

Lotta questions about what's really going on here >:(

Cheers, Kerry.

[jaybee]

Well when I went for a meeting with my local member she suggested doing the same with Moreton Bay and i quoted someones words "Do You Want Us All To Be Fishing Around A Hole In the Ice Like the Eskimos" its time for everyone to start writing their local mps. don't be fogged off by being told its been passed on to the approprate minister, demand a interview with them. They are paid by us to represent us. Do a dirty letter to the premier direct like I did and if you would like a copy of what I sent to him message me and I will send you a copy..Mr Beattie espouses us as the SMART STATE ..throw it back in his face..he is our paid represenative. so to speak
cheers.

[jaybee]

Now on a lighter note. If i went up north to the GBR it would be a fishing exercise not to get sunburnt..do you think I would seriously spend dollars to go somewhere where I couldnt fish..NSW looks better and better every day to spend my tourist dollar..so much for us being the SMART STATE :P
cheers.

[Simon]

Personally, I don't think they are going far enough. If everybody fished responsibly this sort of thing wouldn't be neccessary. If everyone had minimal impact on the environment that they fish in, ie take out what they take in and not bulldose the vegetation etc. around the area they fish in this sort of thing wouldn't be neccessary. Its a pity its not 100% of all the more fragile marine environments and introduce huge buffer zones in the remaining nursery areas. I'd like to see no collection/fishing zones put into large sections of every estuary and river in the state. With time this 25% type issue wouldn't be an issue as the fish stocks would be healthy enough that you could catch a feed in the accessible areas regardless. We are now paying for the rape and pillage of the environment for the past 100 years. Don't blame anybody but your grandparents, their parents and their parents parents

Hopefully we can save whats left

This issue is far more complex and covers more than just us poor fisherman both rec and com. and the immediate fishing economy. 25% of the GBR is still SFA when you look at the remaining sea and land masses left for us to fish in. But what the hell lets not worry about about what fish we leave for our kids and their kids just as long as we can fish in that favourite spot cause thats were I've always fished and always filled my freezers.

Moreton Bay and its tributaries needs more of this sort of management instead of the very lax restrictions currently in force.

got your blood boiling yet

relax take the top off a stubbie sit back put pen to paper write to your local member or make a phone call and say how you don't care about fishing for the future and don't think you should have to give up anything to help your environment. After all why should we concentrate our impact on specific areas and hope that other areas can regenerate when we can continue to rape the whole GBR.

give up a little now to gain a whole lot more later.

[webby]

The quality of our river,estuary and marine systems is under
threat from irrigation, drainage, nutrients, pesticides and
sediments entering these sytems from farms, mines,forstery
and urban centres.
Irrigation is reducing flows to our rivers systems to such an
extent that our rivers stop flowing. Inappropriate drainage
in areas containing acid sulfate soils is directly causing
masses of fish and other quatic life forms to die.
Nutrients entering our aquatic systems in the form of
fertilisers, detergents and sewage are killing native aquatic
plants and causing algal blooms. Topsoil is being lost from
loands at a phenomenal rate. This topsoil enters our river
systems as sediment, where it chokes out vital fish habitats
the barrier reef is slowly being drown in sediment.
Widespread clearing of riparian vegatation has exacerbated
these problems and causd increased stream bank erosion.
It has also directly removed habitat for our fish species.
Riparian vegetation is still being cleared illegally and other
unsustainable practices are always under way. We need
to keep an eyeout for any vegetationclearing activies and
report accordindly.
There are 5 million recreational fishers in aust, with these
sorts of numbers, we should be a very powerful group
however, it seems that many of us are too busy catching
fish to have any significant input into conserving our fish
stocks and their habitats.
In fact most recreational fishers know more about the
environmental issues than they seem to think.
The problem is that you ask them "What they have done
about addressing these issues?" about which they are
often very passionate, the answer is usually "Nothing".
We need to get out of the rut of whingeing about our problem
and address the real issues.
We also need to shift the focus of our actions away from
"bashing"commerical fishers, they are highly visible and,
as such, provide an easy scapegoat for our problems.
We need to work together with commerical fishers on the
big issues of fisheries resources sustainablity, thereby
increasing the quality of recreational fishing for all of us.
It all goes back to the old saying "United we stand,
Divided we fall".
regards

[Vern_Veitch]

Webby,
You make some very good points that I fully agree with. This plan does nothing to protect the reef from it's single bniggest identified and stated threat - land based degredation. In fact it does not even protect areas from other on-site impacts.
Simon,
How will this be enforced and who will pay. Why are they still going to allow tourist pontoons in green areas, and scientists to go in and "sample"? What about all the other impacts such as anchor damage, endocrine disruptors, interference with spawning aggregations and all the land based stuff that Webby talked about?
And what about the transfer of effort from those closed areas into the remaining open areas. Many of the fish do not migrate a lot, some of them not at all. So what happens when you squeeze 100% of the effort into 75% of the area? This does not make for better fishing for our children. While we continue to bulldoze trees along our creek lines and drain our wetlands so that rich people have nice views and can live close to the sea or so that some farmer can make more money out of growing crops or cattle on what was once a fish nursery, and then we blame fishing pressure for the massive loss of survival of our juvenile fish which almost no fisher ever catches is very simplistic.
The ultimate extension of this type of closure is that we will be like eskimos around a hole in the ice, packed shoulder to shoulder waiting for a chance of a stray fish to swim into the destruction zone. We will need to book months ahead and recreational fishing will end up an elitist activity that our kids cannot afford to participate in.
The first step to healthy fisheries is healthy habitat for every part of their life cycle and stopping fishing does nothing to address that. Unfortunately, no level of government is effectively addressing that issue either. You seem to know aq lot about the GBR catchment so perhaps you are aware that there is not a single contiguous riparian strip from the coast to the rainforest on wet tropics flood plains between south of Mackay and at least as far as the Daintree. Not is their 1 unimpacted wetland.
Stopping fishing in all coastal water will do zip to fix up the fish breeding areas. If you are really worried about having fish for our children - as I am - then get on the soap box to try to stop and reverse the habitat destruction of the juvenile breeding areas.
Vern

[Volvo]

:)Mate how does that tune go??" ya took the words right outa my mouth" Lol.
Well said vern:)
And whats more my parents or their Parent s OR their grandparents had nuthin ta do wih it LOl and no way am i gunna say "Sorry" on their behalf either :).
Cheers

[fishy_phil]

its the same at my local area the solitary islands MPA wants to close not just 25%...NO they want 33% eventually.
just pointing something out mr beatie needs to tell everyone else the gbr is under the greatest threat because of many factors: yes one is fishing but it pales to insignificance to nutrient runnoff from agricultural landuses. the damage by this runoff has increased the levels of N and P in the water around the GBR causing algal outbreaks and explosions of the CoT starfish. if Mr beatie wants to fix the reef start with the practices which do the most damage.
just stating what scientists have been studying for the past 25 years,to protect the reef eradicate the cause not the group that take it on the chin us fishos(no offence mean't).


phil
p.s.every local business that losses money from this new scheme should sue for loss of income, it'll make the government think twice WHEN they want to close more. because this hits 'em were it hurts IN THEIR BACK POCKET!

[webby]

What sort of system do we have when developers can
directly put money into the campaign coffers of our local
governments???. Is this not asking for bias in local gov't
planning and environment decisions???. We must apply
pressure to put a stop to corporate funding of local
council representatives.
By becoming involved in local council management, rec
fishers can have direct input into decisons that directly
effect their fishing experiences. Some of the local
gov't groups we can apply pressure to relates to catchment
management, esturaine management and coastal
foreshore management. Contact your shire council
to find out just where and how you can get involved in your
shire. As shire councils should be inforced to update
their management plans regularly. By apply pressure to
our local authority hopefully it will apply pressure up the chain
to state and federal.

[Vern_Veitch]

Don't sit back and leave this issue to someone else. If GBRMPA and the greenies get their way this time, fishing in remaining open areas will probably decline to the point where NQ will not be a fishing holiday destination because you will need a survey degree to navigate through all the closed areas to find somewhere that it is still legal to fish.
Get in now and have you say or forever hold your tongue.
We are not talkking about a small area here. We are talking about 25% of the North Queensland coastline from Bundaberg to Cape York. WIth 2000 km of coast, that means about 500 km will be closed to fishing.
When you come up to the tropical north for a fish, where do you want to wet a line.
Get in now and have your say before it is too late.
Vern #http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm14.gif http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm10.gifhttp://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm3.gifhttp://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm14.gif http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm3.gif http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm3.gif http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm3.gif

[Simon]

Vern,

You are absolutly right, much of what I said is essentially poppy cock restricting access and or activities in many cases is not the answer.This is essentially a feeble attempt at trying to fix a symptom and doesn't address the problem and as has been stated in previous posts the degradation going on in the catchment area is the primary cause to much of the degradation currently being identified within the GBR. I dare say and maybe you can clarify this for us, in actual fact if you look at the total percentage of the exclusion/restriction areas that are in the immediately accessible water to most fishers it would actually exceed the stated 25% (as most of the GBR is only accessible to a few due to the enormous area of water).

I won't continue on with much more other than to expand on a few previously mentioned things. The ultimate control in setting things back on track on a political level has nothing to do with the state and commonwealth powers. essentially the State and C'wealth have been charged with managing the symptoms whilst the local councils have the power to mangeing the actual problems unfortunately most are un aware of this or don't have the monetary ability and or willingness to do so. state and C'wealth also own and provide many of the tools with which the local councils could utilise to make all this happen. And as stated before the real power actually lies with the she'll be right mate some-one else will look after it public, thats us.

Cheers

Simon.

[Smithy]

Vern,

Is this a state issue or a federal issue seeing as GBRMPA is involved?

[Simon_Goldsmith]

Vern and fellow paticipants,........I'm playing the devils advocate. Now i have a few questions.

Do you believe that recreational fisherman do have an impact on the resources with the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park?

And if so what steps should be taken to address them, now regardless of how this compares to other user groups isn't the question. All i ask is do rec fisherman have and impact and what steps can be made to elleviate or reduce it if it concerns?

Most #knowledgable people will agree that one of the great impacts to the region does not come directly from the use of the resources in the region but from land use practices from the adjacent land.

Increased sedimentation has significant impacts on the biotic and abiotic resources. Now farming pratices namely cane and banana are two of the most know causes of the sedimentation.

The question is guys, how do you beleive we can reduce the soil that flows down the rivers and the chemicals such as nitrogen and phosophorus that accompanies it?

Also how do we overcome the resitence of groups such as the Canegrowers body to beleive or except the impacts of their own practices?


Environmental managment involves or more to the point functions around an idea known as the 'Big Picture', it involves many spheres or layers. The management environment, the physical environment, the operation of society, politics, the law, and management context.

The point i'm trying to make is that the process is incredibly complex it's not just as simple as species A is under threat we stop use B. Good environmental management #must include all of these previuosly mentioned layers in the process.

When the area in question is the Great Barrier Reef Region which is one of the most biologicaly diverse and rich regions in the world (hence it makes it more urgent to use sustainably) the task becomes that more complex.

Now this isn't an excuse i just believe that resources users need a bit of insight into the managment process and for what it's worth i think they are doing a less than ordinary job, and if they got the funding and support that matches the urgency of the problem we might start getting somewhere.

Broadly we know the main causes and effects that have the greatest impacts on the region, the difficultly can be the execution of the steps and measures to eleviate these impacts. We need to hasten the speed which this occurs when.

Many resource users though would dispute the legitimacy of the impacts their practice may have, and believe that nothing change untill concrete proof is produced.

These guys obviously haven't heard of the 'Precautionary Principle" or if they have fail to beleive in it.

Regards

Simon.

[Vern_Veitch]

Simon,
the simple answeris yes, recreqational fishers do have an impact, especially in inshore areas close to the major population centres. We have some controls but they probably need tweaking - things like bag and size limits. THe hard part is seperating the impact of rec fishing from commercial and all the habitat impacts we have all put up on this page and many more.
For example, I read a report recently that proved that juvenile snapper show stong avoidance behaviour to even mild drops in water pH. This probably means that they will not go into areas that they once used as nursery areas. This research was done in NSW but in the case of Acid Sulfate Soils, the Queensland Government is in denial and have done no research of which I am aware on the behaviour of juvenile species that inhabit inshore waters in NQ despite the acknowledgement that Qld has about 3 times the area of ASS and some areas have chronic acid run-off problems. Makes your eyes water not to mention all the other impacts.
One thing we do know is that according to the "State of the Environment Report" produced by the state in 1999, we have lost 80% of our coastal wetlands and many of those that remain are npt in real good shape. That is probably a comparable impact to destroying 80% of the grazing land for the cattle industry.
Then of course, we have the nutrient run-off problem, pesticides and herbicides and the physical impact of loss of the start of the fish food chain which starts with native plants.
I'm sounding a bit like David Suzuki but we really are in bad shape and everyone thinks it is pristine for those who walk around with their eyes closed and hope that it will magically go away if we stop fishing.
We know the answers to this but the biggest problem to overcome is that most sinister of all human characteristics - greed. Everyone wants more money by either clearing more critical habitat for some unsustainable crop or to be compensated for not being allowed to screw up the environment for future generations.
But we need to get back to the focus of this topic - closing off 25% of the GBR to recreational fishing.
How will concentrating all the pressure into a smaller area protect biodiversity as a whole in the GBR? Are we simply making the remaining open areas sacraficial to protect those that are closed? Or am I being cynical when I say that this is simply a re-allocation of a publicly owned resource over to the tourist industry?
More to follow on this topic but make sure you all phone up GBRMPA and get your maps and questionaires. And say no to any more green zones.
In my mind there is a need for no anchoring zones (trolling and drift fishing only). There may be an argument for yellow (1 line per person only), dark blue (no trawl) or even a small representation of pink (No Go for anyone) - but no more green.
Vern

[Kerry]

Or am I being cynical when I say that this is simply a re-allocation of a publicly owned resource over to the tourist industry?


No, I don't believe that's cynical at all and one should be particularily vary of what appears to be really driving this issue and not get blinded by an apparent well laid smoke screen by those who appear to have the most to gain.

Not so long ago GBRMPA apparently tried to "claytons" zone the Potato cod hole near Lizard island. The application failed (and so it should have) but there appeared certain "interests" and apparent GBRMPA allies who would have benefited (to the detriment of the general public) from this re-zoning. Maybe a case of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours type of thing.

Certainly don't loose sight of this behind the scenes "tourist" industry as far as GBRMPA is concerned.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Simon_Goldsmith]

Thanks for replying Vern, i suppose you did answer my first question at least.

The point I'm trying to make, and you mentioned an individual who is a prime example of it. That we constantly hear about the problems that exist, and i am in no way denying there existence, but we fall into the trap of continually focusing on the problems and not equalling presenting solutions to the situation.

If people constantly hear dome and gloom it can have a detremental effect on their desire or belief that
the situation can be reversed.

You know the old adage can't see the forest for the trees, and also sticking your head in the sand because it all
seems to much.

Someone needs to show them the way and give them the solutions and i think many sectors fail to do that.

Ask most of the guys at a boat ramp the way out when it comes to most of the problems we've addressed in this subject, and i'm sure most would be half pressed to know the way.

Regards

Simon.

[Vern_Veitch]

Simon,
the answer to the habitat problems on land is really pretty simple - restore some wetlands, put some of the trees on the smaller creeks back in place and pull the farming back. There is some good work being done in some areas including the cattle indutry which has improved its stock management and fenced off a lot of the creek lines in the Burdekin catchment and in the cane industry with some farmers planting trees along riparian areas and putting in some wetlands that have some fishery values.
In the Burdekin, a major project funded by QDPI and local industry and council has seen one creek being progressively cleared of invasive weeds from top to bottom. Not quite there yet but it is progressing. Water quality has improved significantly and fish species went from 3 to 17 in about 3 months.
But we are talking about small pilot projects and we really need for this to be done at a catchment scale if our fisheries are to return to their former health.
If you have any ideas how we get more people involved and where we get additional funding from then let me know but I have tried most of them and it is bloody hard work with little thanks and no pay.
To get back to the RAP which wants to concentrate us all into 75% of the remaining area - perhaps this is where we should put our effort and let the areas protected from fishing fend for themselves. I have always been told that charity begins at home so there is no benefit in organising restoration projects in catchments that we cannot fish in.
Food for thought.
Vern

[Simon_Goldsmith]

That's the best form of attack Vern, look after our little corner of the world.

Keep up the good fight Vern

Regards

Simon.

[filkore]

http://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm44.gifhttp://www.ausfish.com.au/chat/images/smilies/cwm23.gif[/img]Quite often it is the smaller fishermen like ourselves that cope the rot the the commercial fishermen do to the fish stocks.

A fair go for recreational fishermen please.

[Vern_Veitch]

We need everyone to help on this one filkore. Tha means you and all of your mates.
Ring GBRMPA like I said in the first posting and get the relevent forms and maps. Fill them in and send them back.
Vern

[Kerry]

This has nothing to do with the differences between commercial or recreational fishers and in this case there is absolutely no difference between the parties.

NO go fishing areas are just that no go to EVERYBODY, regardless.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Vern_Veitch]

I agree with you Kerry. THis has got nothing to do with resource allocation between sectors and if anything, will increase the conflict by putting more fishers into a smaller area.
There are some serious questions about whether there is any benefit to fish stocks from this proposal. Time for everyone to get there replies in before August 7 rolls up too quickly.
Vern

[jaybee]

Hi Vern well I got a reply from somone well known the other day and his reply was
angler apathy...the bastards will sit back while someone else does the workwont mention any names but what he said is 100% right. We can whinge all we like in here or to each other but until people take 5 mins to write a letter or fill a form in its a waste of time. .. but thats my personal opinion

[mick]

this ban will allow more acurate studies of the effects of shore line degredation. if stocks in the areas that fall under the ban continue to deplete, an accusing finger will not be able to be pointed at rec/com fishers. it will serve to bring the culprats into the spot light and force the hand of the gov to apply sticter restrictions, regarding landbased problems

i think the benifits outway the draw backs

[mick]

on the other hand if stocks booooom in the area, it will bring us into the spot light. and we will be forced to further restrict our catches + the 25% will be increased. which would be damaging to the careers of some ausfish members. either way we wont know until we try.

this will either clear our name or prove us guilty.

it time to stand up and be counted

how do those cows manage to stay in complete synchronicity, its hypnotic

[Vern_Veitch]

Good point Mick. I get nothing out of it other than the enjoyment of fishing but for those that do, who is going to pay for their loss of income?
We see farmers compensated for not clearing their land, fuel subsidies, buyouts for commercial fishers to reduce their impact.
Well now it is crunch time for some of the caravan park, tackle and boat shop, corner store people that rely on you and I going to their part of the world to have a fish.
Don't know about you but I won't be going there if I can't fish.
Vern

[Vern_Veitch]

You blokes got pretty geed up about the tailor issue yet it seems you are going to sleep on this. Be aware that the Queensland Government is presently "reviewing" restrictions in it's National Parks so this will not be just about North Queensland. There is a good chance that the whole coastline will be effected. Sit back and do nothing and you will get cut out of 25% of the coast north of Bundaberg and who knows how much south of there.
Rin GBRMPA on 47500700 during working hours and get some forms. You can bet the greenies will be running a campaign.
Vern

[dazza]

Rang up today. The paperwork is in the mail. If we don't get off of our bums and have a say we only have ourselves to balme. I think we will have to get used to standing up and having our say. As the old saying goes "it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil"
Lets get this wheel screaming
Cheers
Dazza

[Maxg]

Well 25% of the coastal waters are probably unfishable anyway, in all states. The trick is to agree to their proposal providing they chop the inaccessible areas. You might lose some good stuuf, but the bad stuff will still be there, and you will not fish it anyway.
Max

[Vern_Veitch]

Maxg,
The proposal is to close 25% of each marine habitat type. In the case of a strip that runs for about 500 Km of coast from south of Mackay to North of Port Douglas, the scientific review committee have proposed that sections of coast 10 km wide be closed each 70 to 80 Kms. Sit down with a map and figure it out. Where will they do this without squeezing existing fishing effort into the remaining open areas? It is not possible.
What might be possible is to have about 5% maximum totally closed to everything (pink zone) and to pick areas wher access is presently non-existant.
Sunfish supports a small representation of each bioregion being genuinely protected - we cannot support the biggest user group being excluded from 25% of the total area and do not believe that this will protect these areas from even their on-site impacts anyway.
GBRMPA are missing a genuine opportunity to get a representation of highly protected areas put aside and instead have opted for a huge land grab that will miss the mark they are trying to achieve.
Vern

[Finnie]

Hi Guys,

I get as incenced as the next bloke when it looks like I am going to lose a good fishing spot due to the changing restrictions. However, for a different point of view I was recently over in Spain and spent some time on the Mediterranean coast.

Some of the conversations I had with the locals at different times really opened my eyes. When asked what the fishing was like, the general response was to look at the floor, toe the dirt around a bit and say "we are very angry". It seems that the Mediterranean is pretty much a 'flogged fishery' because they never managed to get their acts together soon enough. To emphasise the point further, a young boy near where I was staying in Mazzerron caught 2 smallish fish similar to our bream and became an immediate fishing legend amongst the locals. I saw planty of other people fishing, but no-one catching anything.

After returning to Australia and getting back into the great fishing we have all along our coastline I realised how fantastic our fishery is on a world scale, and that perhaps we are still in a developmental stage where with some smart moves we can keep it for the future. Now, if this means I have to be responsible and stick to the bag limits (which I never seem to get to anyway!), stay over (or under) the size restrictions, and even walk away from some of my fishing areas that are sensitive to impact and play an important ecological role......then I'll do it.

I understand what you are all saying, that we should be getting onto our local MP's and making sure we don't get a raw deal out of this, and I agree. But perhaps we should emphasise the point that it isn't that we don't want to see restricted areas, but that we will be happy to abide by a well planned, well researched, fair Marine Park and that if we are going to 'lose' 25%, we want to see the greatest utility come from that 25%. Lets also show our intelligence and environmental awareness as a group by making a point about taking an 'holistic' view and trying to minimise other impacts due to pollution, overfishing (both recreational and commercial), and degradation resulting from poor land management practices. Let's not fall into the trap of being indignant over every change that is thrown our way......even when they might be good ones. The fishing's good, lets be smart about it and keep it that way.

Cheers,
Finnie

[Amberjack]

Finnie

Well said!!!!!!

As a boat owner and (poor) fisherman, I am happy to give up a little for a large return.

However, the powers that be also need to look inland to the developed urban areas and agriculture usage if they are serious.

Just the same, somethings got to give first, so be it if it is us. Better us than that beautiful environment out off the beach.

AJ

[Vern_Veitch]

Problem is that many will believe that nothing more needs to be done after cutting us out. Is recreational fishing unsustainable? That question needs to be answered.
There are many other activities that are clearly not sustainable but in areas where recreational fishing is the only fishing allowed, fish stocks seem healthy. So why are we being targetted - because we are disorganised and seen as an easy target.
If we do not use this opportunity to force management decisions in other areas, then we will be the target next time, and the time after that, and the time after that.
The reason that the Mediteranina is fished out is not due to line fishing by recreational anglers - it is pollution and industrial fishing. But those industries are organised and protected.
Sit back and do nothing and the next generation will be flying kites, or sitting in front of computer screens reading about what it was once like.
Vern

[Finnie]

Hi Vern,

I agree with you totally: responsible recreational fishing should have a minimal impact on fish stocks as a whole. Especially if the catch limits that are set for us are correct and adhered to. However, this still doesn't address the issue of genuinely sensitive areas, such as fish nursery grounds, that may need to be completely protected as 'no take zones'.....even if it is only during critical times of the year. Remember that bag limits and size restrictions are all very good, but if you have a breeding population of fish that congregate in a particular area and every man and his dog turns up and wants his bag limit......there can still be a significant impact on the fishery. These are the sorts of cases where we should fully endorse 'no take zones'.

However, throwing a number like 25% up in the air and closing 10km of coastline out of every 80km as I read earlier in this discussion seems a bit random to me. Hopefully, the 25% isn't a set number to keep the "general" population happy. As I said in the previous posting, what we need to do is to turn around as a group and say "sure, 25% sounds great, but where are you putting it and why do you think that is an important place?".

More generally, I believe that as the people that get out there and know what is going on we are in a strong position to create a fishery management plan now that works for us in the future. The Mediterranean is a flogged fishery because of poor management all across the board. So lets show that as a group we aren't entirely concerned with what we might lose in terms of fishing areas, but what we might gain by making recommendations on reducing land-based impacts, minimising our own impact on the environment, and creating a sustainable fishery that we can enjoy in the future.

On that note, I've made the call, have the maps and info coming, and will make a submission on the rezoning issue (an hopefully other important ones) before the date of closing. Lets hope everyone here does the same.

Cheers,
Finnie

[Vern_Veitch]

Finnie,
Sunfishhas tried to convince GBRMPA that we need to look at all zoning. We have come out and supported total no-go areas on the basis that you have outlined. Perhaps as much as 5% of each habitat type should be no-go as even anchoring or swimming might be enough to threaten some areas.
Some may not understand but there is scientific evidence that even a swimmer in the water in the wrong place at the wrong time can stop a spawning aggregation of some species.
Sunfish has supported spawning closures, reduced bag and size limits and othe fishery management initiatives where there is sound scientific evidence that it is necessary. We have a 3 month closure for barra during their breeding season and we recently supported a bag limit on tailor although were strongly dissappointed that commercial targeting of the species was allowed to continue.
Sunfish have been more vocal than most about the land based issues that are killing our breeding and nursery grounds for many species.
The RAP does nothing to address many of these issues. It only stops one activity. Already there is nearly 25% of reef areas closed and it has not slowed down the live fish trade.
Closing 25% might protect the closed areas but it will concentrate pressure into the remaining open areas and in a very short time see even more conflict between commercial and recreational fishers.
A land grab is not the answer to protecting our fish stocks or biodiversity across the board. Green areas will not stop overfishing in other areas of the GBR. Only sound fishery management can do that.
Vern

[Finnie]

Hi Vern,

Can you send me some information on SunFish.....web sites, policy documents, etc. etc.

Sounds like you guys are doing an excellent job up there, and I'd be interested to get some more info.

If you need to mail me something, let me know and I'll bang my contact details up to you.

Cheers,
Finnie

[Vern_Veitch]

The Sunfish web site is www.sunfishqueensland.org and my email is vernv@beyond.net.au
Let me know if you need more info.
The local branch in Townsville has got together with tackle and boat shops and the local council and is having a big rally on this issue on Thursday night. I will post a report after the event.
Vern

[Vern_Veitch]

Over 500 people attended a public meeting in Townsville last night to hear more about the RAP.
Ordinary turnup considering that there are over 8000 boats under 8 metres registered in the region. Typical rec fisher apathy.
The main outcome of the meeting is that GBRMPA will consider all suggestions for rezoning - not just green. Yellow zoning has significant benefits for recreational fishers unless you are a spear fisher. If you want to put down recreational only areas then do it. They are obliged by law to consider all responses.
The other outcome was to encourage everyone to submit a response.
So anyone reading this who has not done so, ring GBRMPA on 1800 990 177 and get your info package.
We only have to 7 August so do it now.
Vern