Page 3 of 15 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 215

Thread: Re: For Moreton Bay Users

  1. #31

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    The temptation to address the last couple first is almost overwhelming but no,
    – staying in sequence, Grant comes next (possibly the most challenging)

    “a spillover effect (and a benefit to fisheries) was concluded to have occurred (by the researcher), but was not empirically demonstrated by the research.”
    But apparently has not been negated by any other research either ?


    To this lay person, if the catch rate for both fish and crabs was significantly greater in the Green Zone,
    this would suggest to me that there were significantly more of the buggers in there than outside the zone ?
    NOW, if both fish and crabs were also larger, one would think that between their greater numbers and their greater age,
    it would follow that more fish will spawn more young - and older/larger fish (or crabs) will have spawned more times-
    hence a fairly obvious positive impact on numbers.
    1000 million Indians will produce more offspring than 20 million Aussies – particularly if the Indians all bred 10 times and the Aussies only five !

    SO, we then have to address whether all these additional young will be confined by the imaginary fence around the Green Zones
    or whether they will venture outside it – and continue to breed !
    To me it is also obvious that they do actually MOVE.
    (In a previous program, flathead tagged at the northern end of Moreton were subsequently captured in Pumicestone Passage and even further north).
    Even in Dr Pillans’ study, fish were recaptured 10+ kilometres away.

    Preferably without aggression, I welcome feedback which demonstrates where I might be in error.

  2. #32

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Most studies on marine reserves lack rigor Tripcony. For instance studies of increased fish numbers in a reserve do not usually take in to account the following:

    Burdens of evidence and the benefits of marine reserves:
    putting Descartes before des horse?


    "Detection of recovery of fish density in marine reserves often suffers from lack of rigour in the design of field surveys (Hurlbert 1984; Stewart-Oaten
    et al. 1986; Underwood 1990, 1993). As Underwood (1990) pointed out, studies lacking replication cannot be logically interpreted. In the marine reserve context there are many reasons why researchers might have limits on their
    sampling designs. However, a critical evaluation of the experimental designs employed by many published studies brought to light the following problems with replication and lack of control sites:

    (1) insufficient sample replication (for example only one site sampled inside and outside a reserve, or no control sites sampled at all);
    (2) spatial confounding (for example all control sites located only at one end of the reserve, so that comparisons are confounded by unknown location effects);
    (3) lack of temporal replication (most studies consist of surveys done at only one time);
    (4) lack of replication at the reserve level limiting the generality of results (although in many cases this reflects the number of reserves available); and
    (5) non-random placement of reserves, i.e. often reserves are sited to include ‘special’ or unique features, which causes difficulties in selecting valid control sites (this is obviously no fault of the researchers).
    To date, there are no well-designed studies that avoid the above problems as well as possessing a time series of ‘before’ and ‘after’ data. However, some might be used as examples of attempts to fulfil good design criteria (Table 1). In addition, the power to detect effects can be affected by the choice of sampling method (Willis et al. 2000), especially when the target species are large carnivores that can exhibit fishing-related behavioural plasticity between sites (Cole 1994; Jennings & Polunin 1995; Kulbicki 1998)

    Your description of the spillover effect is also addressed by this paper:

    Furthermore, the proliferation of models and reviews has resulted in model
    assumptions evolving into accepted paradigms, a case of ‘What everybody says must be true’ (Simpson 1993).
    The speculative conclusion that marine reserves will be effective management tools can be obtained from simple behavioural and demographic assumptions. These include:
    (1) Where movement range of individuals is small relative to the size of the reserve, those individuals are spatially isolated from fishing mortality, and density within the reserve will be higher than in comparable fished areas.
    (2) Elevated densities within the reserve will result in net emigration of biomass from the reserve to fished areas, either by random diffusion (Beverton & Holt 1957) or density-dependent processes (specifically ‘spillover’) (Kramer & Chapman 1999).
    (3) Unfished populations of fishes are composed of relatively larger individuals, which have greater fecundity, and hence reserves will act as more productive sources of gametes than comparable fished areas.

    The magnitude of the effect may also be speculated on in some cases. For example, if adult fish are sedentary then it could be postulated that density in reserves will increase to carrying capacity (see Hastings & Botsford 1999).
    While such speculations are intuitive, they often appear in the literature as logically true assertions.
    However, these deceptively reasonable speculations are each dependent on underlying assumptions about behaviour, ecology and the fishery. It is logically true that preventing fishing in particular areas will eliminate direct fishing mortality and stop the destruction of habitat caused by contact fishing gears (Collie et al. 2000). However, it is imprudent to make untested assertions about the primary consequences of reserve protection on fish population dynamics, and then to extrapolate those effects to fishery-level predictions. Typical predictions of fishery enhancement could be invalidated for a number of reasons, including displaced fishing effort around the reserve
    boundary (Parrish 1999), recruitment limitation (Doherty & Fowler 1994), self-recruitment rather than larval export (Leis 2002), irreversible changes in species assemblages, and any number of unknown causes due to the underlying complexity of the ecosystem. Without empirical substantiation, predictions of fishery enhancement are deductions based on circumstantial evidence and ancillary information. Furthermore, even if model assumptions are logically correct, it is not sufficient to test only for the existence of reserve effects. Of real relevance is the magnitude of an effect and the certainty (or lack thereof ) that surrounds estimates of it.



    Last edited by billfisher; 22-02-2008 at 06:36 PM.

  3. #33

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony. I will simplify this as best i can.

    1. Can you name 10 species targeted by rec fisho's in the bay.
    2. Can you show evidence that any of these species are in decline in the bay.
    3. Can you show which of these species will breed live and breed only in the proposed green zones.
    4. Can you show how a green zone is better management than size and bag limits.
    5. Can you show that rec fishermen have the biggest impact on bay fish stocks, as against destruction of mangrove nurseries, water pollution and dredging.

    Jim

  4. #34

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    It gets hard not to be aggressive when continually listening to the maligned green discussions in all this.

    How can I put it simply that even a pre schooler can understand?? I will try.

    Now picture this. You have a green zone with no fish being taken from the area..what happens..they grow bigger..they eat more..then the natural food supply is eaten..what to eat now? how about some smaller fish...then there are very few smaller fish in the green zone...then the big ones die from old age and what do you have...bugger all fish in the green zone.

    OR...they eat all the food and have to move on.

    OR...natural migratory instincts take over and they move on.

    OR...the water gets polluted because the EPA is not doing their job in improving water quality.

    OR...some bugger rips the hell out of the area for a development.

    OR..some dive or tourist boat rips the hell out of the bottom structure and wrecks what is supposed to be protected.

    I could go on ad infinitum ..AND..you do not need a Uni degree to realise all the above BUT..it appears obvious that those with Uni degrees cannot understand it...certainly adds to the scenario of professinal students..might be good at reciting from a book but bugger all common sense..and the number of people that believe their rhetoric certainly shows how dumb some members of the public actually can be. If the boot fits Tripcony then put the bugger on.

  5. #35

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Whilst I would prefer to keep my responses in sequence, the post above BEGS for an instant reaction - in case anyone giving it a cursory glance thinks it might actually be reasonable.

    " and what do you have...bugger all fish in the green zone.
    OR...they eat all the food and have to move on.
    OR...natural migratory instincts take over and they move on."

    YEAH SURE - that's why the STUDIES have consistently established that whether netting or line fishing, they get 3 -7 times MORE fish in a Green Zone than outside it (depending on species).


    " OR...the water gets polluted because the EPA is not doing their job in improving water quality.
    OR...some bugger rips the hell out of the area for a development.
    OR..some dive or tourist boat rips the hell out of the bottom structure and wrecks what is supposed to be protected."
    YEP - couldn't agree more. Water quality is an issue. Does that mean we shouldn't address this issue as well ?
    In a Green Zone, the sort of development or Tourist Operation you suggest would be short lived.
    Whilst enforcement/compliance is is certainly in need of additional resources, I know for a fact that the current Tripcony habitat is fairly well policed with aerial suveillance as well as bodies in boats and even armed land-based operations !
    The sort of projects you are suggesting would be nipped in the bud in an eyeblink !

  6. #36

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by flick View Post
    Tripcony. I will simplify this as best i can.

    1. Can you name 10 species targeted by rec fisho's in the bay.
    2. Can you show evidence that any of these species are in decline in the bay.
    3. Can you show which of these species will breed live and breed only in the proposed green zones.
    4. Can you show how a green zone is better management than size and bag limits.
    5. Can you show that rec fishermen have the biggest impact on bay fish stocks, as against destruction of mangrove nurseries, water pollution and dredging.

    Jim
    Jim. I accept that I'm guilty of the NIMBY Syndrome - Not In My BackYard.
    I said from the outset that my sole interest (and a tad of local knowledge ?) is in Pumicestone Passage.
    I do not profess broad expertise regarding the whole of Moreton Bay.
    Have not fished OUTSIDE the passage for probably twenty years !

    SO, with that in mind........
    (1) Bream, whiting (rarely - whiting are BAIT in my view), FLATHEAD and tailor in season - with occasional flukes of grassy sweetlip, grunter 'bream', trevally, cod and the like. But not targeted
    (2) Not in the BAY (read comment above) but my own catch rates have most certainly diminished in recent years and EVERY local oldtimer that I know says the same.
    (3) NOBODY said they would breed ONLY in the Green Zones - but certainly the evidence seems to indicate (by catch rates) that they breed more PROLIFICALLY in Green Zones.
    (4) NO - never made that claim. But a combination of BOTH must have benefit one would think.
    (5) NO - but IN PUMICESTONE PASSAGE, mangrove destruction and dredging are not problems and I agree that water quality should be constantly addressed AS WELL !
    Last edited by Tripcony; 22-02-2008 at 06:40 AM.

  7. #37

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Bill. What can I say about your unsourced cut-and-paste?
    'Gobbledegook" springs to mind but I wouldn't be that unkind.
    What are "gametes" ?

    The whole article seems to ignore the FACT that in Dr Spillans study, catch rates and average sizes were SIGNIFICANTLY higher inside the habitat than in very comparable nearby areas.

  8. #38

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I think I am next in line. Can hardly wait Tripcony.

    Jeremy

  9. #39

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Im sorry that the Burdens of Proof paper used too many big words for you Tripcony. Unsourced? Well I put up the title and it is fully referenced. It was published in: Environmental Conservation 30 (2): 97–103 2003 Foundation for Environmental Conservation.

    Here's a link:
    http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/cons/burdens.pdf





  10. #40

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony if you had actually took in what the Burdens of Proof paper said, an increase inside a green zone is not proof of fishery wide benifits. Remember that grounds inside a green zone are lost forever. The spillover effect is just a theory and it can be invalidated by a variety of phenomena such as displaced fishing effort, changes in predator/ prey relationships in the reserve etc.

    It sounds like a statement of belief that you called Dr Spillans findings of increased fish numbers a FACT. From what I have heard the work falls into most of the flaws in reserve studies which Burdens of Proof points out. Eg lack of temporal replication, proper control sites, non random placement etc.

    PS gametes are sex cells eg sperm and ova.

  11. #41

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    .....Unless a study is peer reviewed and published, then it is not real science.
    This was a flawed study.............

    The problem with green zones all the way across the passage from the mainland to Bribie is for anglers travelling up or down the passage and who have to pass through the green zones.
    They will have to de-rig all their lines and rish prosecution for the catch in their possession as they travel through the green zone.
    The channel should be exclused from the green zone.

    Jeremy
    A doctoral thesis is not successful unless it is reviewed by others - by those more senior and more qualified in the specific field - who must be convinced that the methodology and the conclusions have merit.
    In view of which you are entitled do say "IN MY OPINION this was a flawed study" but no more than that.

    The bold type bit is typical of the scaremongering falsehoods that make this whole debate so difficult. If the anti-zoning forces could only just be honest !



    IN AN EMAIL TO ME -
    1)In a green zone, people can anchor, transit, swim, camp overnight on a boat, have fresh fish on board the boat and have fishing gear on their boat. They just can’t use their fishing apparatus.
    2)The Queensland Government has no intention of allowing commercial fishing activities back within the current DPI&F Fisheries closures that apply to the Pumicestone Passage. The misinformation that is currently being spread relates to the complementary approach we are using in the Moreton Bay Marine Park to ensure “Yellow Zones” in all Queensland Marine National Parks have the same Entry and Use Provisions. This complementary approach will mean visiting anglers to Queensland will not be faced with a range of different entry and use provisions if they visit more than one national park in Queensland. The Moreton Bay Marine Park zoning plan will also not replace other fisheries legislation in relation to closures to spear fishing, beam trawling, stout whiting fishing etc etc
    3)In a yellow zone, anglers can have as many rods and lines on their boat as they can carry. They can only use one line at a time with one hook and the current level of crabbing apparatus allowed under fisheries legislation.

    I have attached a link to the Frequently Asked Question sheet that we distributed during the public display meetings for your information. There are details about fishing in yellow zones in the sheet

    http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p02057aa.pdf/Moreton_Bay_Marine_Park_Zoning_Plan_review_Frequen tly_asked_questions.pdf

    JIM HIGGS BSc MSc
    Principal Planning Officer
    Marine Planning
    Strategy and Policy Division
    Environmental Protection Agency


    Further - it is spelt out perfectly clearly in the EPA's readily available FAQ leaflet AND on their Website.


    Hope the wait was worth it Jeremy ?
    Last edited by Tripcony; 22-02-2008 at 08:11 AM.

  12. #42

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users
    Whilst I would prefer to keep my responses in sequence, the post above BEGS for an instant reaction - in case anyone giving it a cursory glance thinks it might actually be reasonable.

    " and what do you have...bugger all fish in the green zone.
    OR...they eat all the food and have to move on.
    OR...natural migratory instincts take over and they move on."

    YEAH SURE - that's why the STUDIES have consistently established that whether netting or line fishing, they get 3 -7 times MORE fish in a Green Zone than outside it (depending on species).


    " OR...the water gets polluted because the EPA is not doing their job in improving water quality.
    OR...some bugger rips the hell out of the area for a development.
    OR..some dive or tourist boat rips the hell out of the bottom structure and wrecks what is supposed to be protected."
    YEP - couldn't agree more. Water quality is an issue. Does that mean we shouldn't address this issue as well ?
    We should were it an issue. But given that recreational fishing is sustainable, then there is no issue that requires people to be locked out. Certainly no issue that cannot be resolved by size and bag limits, and where necessary closed seasons.

    I appreciate your point about people saying their catch rates are down on what they were in years gone by. Although I take most of what old whinging codgers say with a grain of salt. But it makes sense that catch rates would be down, given the higher population in SEQ, more people owning boats, fish finders, GPS etc all making the fishing activity considerably easier than in days gone by, but catching less fish does not make the activity unsustainable.

    When the green zones come in, that is just one less place that people can fish, meaning that more fishing effort will be squeezed into smaller areas. Sorry Tripcony, I can't see this leading to an improvement in your catch rates.

    PS no need to reply to this out of sequence.

  13. #43

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I am afraid not Tripcony. You left quite a bit out of your reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    Since you have done the search, can you please cite all Australian peer reviewed papers which favour the marine protection area approach. Unless a study is peer reviewed and published, then it is not real science. Lets see how many are left now eh!
    And the answer is?

    Unfortunately, a successful thesis does not count as a publsihed, peer reviewed study. 'Buddies' can be selected as reviewers. I am askking how many Australian studies have been published in quality peer reviewed journals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    This was a flawed study. There were not sufficient controls to determine whether the effects were due to the protection zone or due to local environmental effects which were not adequately controlled for. ie how can you tell whether it was due to the area which is protected or the protection itself?
    Billfisher has already expanded on this point quite significantly. It is quite clear and simple that it is a flawed study without adequate controls.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeremy View Post
    The problem with green zones all the way across the passage from the mainland to Bribie is for anglers travelling up or down the passage and who have to pass through the green zones. They will have to de-rig all their lines and rish prosecution for the catch in their possession as they travel through the green zone. The channel should be exclused from the green zone.
    I am the first to admit that I do not know everything, but I am extreemely sceptical that travelling through a green zone with fishing lines and a catch will not end up with an on-the-spot fine or prosecution, with the burden of proof on the angler to prove that they did not catch them in the green zone. I read the FAQ which was interesting, but all just PR IMHO.

    I do know for a fact that you are only allowed one rod and reel to be rigged when travelling in a yellow zone, as for instance on the beach at Frazer.

    Still waiting for an adequate response to your claims Tripcony.....

    Jeremy
    Last edited by Jeremy; 22-02-2008 at 03:03 PM.
    "The underlying spirit of angling is that the skill of the angler is pitted against the instinct and strength of the fish and the latter is entitled to an even chance for it's life."
    (Quotation from the rules of the Tuna Club Avalon, Santa Catalina, U.S.A.)

    Apathy is the enemy

  14. #44

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony. I have decided that you are either a part of a group pushing for closures, or just don't want to see the truth.

    Proposed green zone MNP32 is an area running from the beach to a couple of kilometers off shore from south stradbroke island. This area is targeted by rec fishermen for at best, 2 months a year. Targeted species are predominently mackeral. These fish are by no means under threat. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Since the banning of ring netting, this fishery has improved every season. Even if mackeral was an endangered species, closing this area would not influence their population one iota.

    This zone alone is reason for the whole epa map to be scrapped. It proves that it is nothing to do with protection or preservation. It proves that the map is based purely on where fish are caught, as against where they breed or fragile ecosystems.

    Your quote stating that you can still access these areas for every other purpose other than fishing is yet another nail you place in your own coffin. Without fishing, there is no reason to be in some of these zones. Once they are zoned, they are lost forever. They aren't swimming areas, not camping areas, and boats don,t stop, drop anchor and take in the view. There are great places throughout the bay that are much more suitable for all these purposes.

    You are talking about locking the general public out of a public area forever. I would've thought that there would have to be some sort of dire threat to humanity or the creatures in this area before big brother says you can't do that anymore. At least, some sort of evidence that they are needed in each specific area should be produced, or at least what problem they are addressing. There is not one scrap of evidence to support anything on the map other than turtle and dugong areas. Are we to believe that they are under more threat of being struck from a fishing boat than a dive, ferry, police, tourist or commercial vessel.

    On the point that you catch less fish than you have in the past. Without any proof, i would venture to say that more fish were taken from this fishery 20 years ago by less fishermen that fish it today. Gone are the days of taking home a garbage bin full of bream or snapper. In fact, i would say with the increase of minimum size and tighter bag limits and also the increase of catch and release, there are less fish kept today per fishermen than 20 years ago.

    To finish, seeing as you are such a staunch supporter, all i ask of you is evidence that the following species are currently unsustainable in the MBMP and that they will definately increase their population.
    Bream, whiting, flathead, mangrove jack, cod, trevally, tailor, salmon, snapper, sweetlip, tusk fish, cobia, mackeral, tuna, jewfish, crabs and prawns.

    Until that evidence can be produced. The fishing public should not be locked out of an area for ever.

    Jim

  15. #45

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    Jim. I accept that I'm guilty of the NIMBY Syndrome - Not In My BackYard.
    I said from the outset that my sole interest (and a tad of local knowledge ?) is in Pumicestone Passage.
    I do not profess broad expertise regarding the whole of Moreton Bay.
    Have not fished OUTSIDE the passage for probably twenty years !

    SO, with that in mind........
    (1) Bream, whiting (rarely - whiting are BAIT in my view), FLATHEAD and tailor in season - with occasional flukes of grassy sweetlip, grunter 'bream', trevally, cod and the like. But not targeted
    (2) Not in the BAY (read comment above) but my own catch rates have most certainly diminished in recent years and EVERY local oldtimer that I know says the same.
    (3) NOBODY said they would breed ONLY in the Green Zones - but certainly the evidence seems to indicate (by catch rates) that they breed more PROLIFICALLY in Green Zones.
    (4) NO - never made that claim. But a combination of BOTH must have benefit one would think.
    (5) NO - but IN PUMICESTONE PASSAGE, mangrove destruction and dredging are not problems and I agree that water quality should be constantly addressed AS WELL !
    I guess those old timers are the ones that sit there during daylight hours and as soon as the sun looks like going down they head off home..I love that because by about 7pm in winter I am usually alone in the Passage...and that is when the fish start..winter before last..30 bream before midnight on one occassion..40 before 2am on 2 occassions...there are plenty of them there...maybe the old timers prefer the lounge chair once it gets a little cool and then sit and whine that there are no fish.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us