Reply With QuoteA genuine researcher - like Pillans
I do have to ask...who is granted permission to net or line fish in a green zone ?????Originally Posted by Tripcony
A genuine researcher - like Pillans
That was the answer I was waiting for..have you read her paper? Totally inconclusive as to anything.
She used seine net, line fishign and crab pots at similar tides and moon phases to supposedly get her results. Nowhere is it mentioned in her paper that she carried out the same research OUTSIDE a green zone at the same time as inside the green zone.
an excerpt from her paper:
"
Data were collected from two existing no-take marine reserves within the Moreton Bay Marine Park during summer (January – February) and winter (July – August) of 2002. The Willes Island and Tripcony Bight reserves were established in 1997 and are relatively small reserves, being 1.9km2 and 5.7km2 respectively (Fig. 1). For each reserve site two comparable unprotected (‘control’) sites were chosen and surveyed. "
She surveyed reserve areas of a total of 7.6 sq. km...the Moreton Bay Marine Park has a total area of 3400 sq km...therefore she surveyed an area of approx .22%..now I doubt that would rate in any form of research .
Complete waste of taxpayers money in caryying out this so called research..the results cannot possibly be indicative of the total Moreton Bay Marine Park.
On another post I included a brief critical review of a key aspect of the work of Sue Pillans. Rather than repeating that here, following is an analysis of the environmental values assigned by EPA to Tripcony's Bight.
"Using the accepted definition of nursery areas provided by Dahlgren et al. (2006, p. 291) we find that while juvenile fish and invertebrates do occur in Tripcony Bight, they also occur in every other location that has been sampled on the western side of Moreton Bay. Available information does not support the idea that Tripcony Bight is any more or less important as a nursery ground than any other vegetated habitat in western Moreton Bay.
A specific identified environmental value of Tripcony Bight was a nursery area for juvenile elasmobranchs (sharks and rays). However, applying the definition of a shark nursery area developed by Heupel et al. (2007) to the data collected in the area by Pillans (2006) does not support this assigned environmental value.
The value attributed to the area as an important dugong habitat is also contradictory to aerial survey studies of the dugong distribution within Pumicestone Passage. Lanyon (2005) found dugong to be concentrated on the southern section of the Passage and identified four hot spot areas, none of which are included Tripcony Bight. The seagrass areas in Tripcony Bight consist of mostly Z. capricorni (Hyland et al., 1989), the seagrass species least preferred by dugongs (Lanyon, 2003). Brand-Gardner et al. (1999) found green turtles selectively feed on H. ovalis consequently the Tripcony Bight MNP, with Z. capricorni seagrass beds, is also unlikely to protect important feeding areas forgreen turtles".
Daryl
I don't know whether the two comparable unprotected sites for each Green Zone were surveyed at the same time or not. Do you ?
"Nowhere is it mentioned.... " does not mean they were NOT surveyed simultaneously.
In any case, I wonder how much difference it really makes,
PROVIDED THAT the comparisons were made within a specific, very limited, time frame and "at similar tides and moon phases ".
Remembering too, that each Green Zone was compared with TWO outside sites (which were presumably averaged)
As BILLFISHER said previously -
" Most studies on marine reserves lack rigor ...... "
EXCEPT those which produce results which you blokes like, it seems.
Those studies, of course, are perfectly rigorous and authoritative !
I daresay that if we ascertain the identity of the more senior academic(s) who approved Pillans thesis,
their qualifications and credibility will also be maligned ?
And gee, we better attack those who saw fit to appoint them as well ......
Sounds like a very desperate snake chasing its own tail.
Last edited by Tripcony; 25-02-2008 at 10:25 AM.
Actually, a quite meaningful statistical sampling.
Potentially deadly drugs are approved for 21 million Australians on the basis of testing by a thousand or less people - often only a few hundred.
TV advertising rates are based on surveys of 600 homes in Queensland and proportionate numbers in the other states.
If identical patterns were demonstrated at Willlis Island and Tripcony Bight - a bloody long way apart - when compared in each case with TWO external, similar locations - within the same general time frame at similar phases of the moon and tide.........
AND the outcomes are accepted by the majority of experts in the field.......
I respectfully suggest that it is not good enough to summarily dismiss the findings because you don't like them.
One would have to demonstrate very clearly - with superior research techniques - that the results were WRONG.
Last edited by Tripcony; 25-02-2008 at 10:45 AM.
You continue to ignore my request to back up this statement with facts.
How many of these studies are peer reviewed Australian studies, published in reputable journals?
I think you are either out of your depth and haven't got the balls to admit it, or you are just a fraud plant from the EPA.
Jeremy
"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
Apologies for the repost but I think it remains relevant.
"Of particular importance in the context of the current rezoning of the MBMP is the work of Pillans (2006), if for no other reason than it was undertaken in Moreton Bay and claims to provide evidence of a spillover effect. This study provides little empirical evidence of a benefit to fisheries from MPAs. Pillans (op cit.) focussed on three key species, mud crabs, yellowfin bream and dusky flathead. She identified that only 1% of mud crabs tagged in the Willes Island Reserve and 4% tagged at the Tripcony Bight Reserve were recaptured outside the reserves. Thus evidence of a spillover effect for this species is not evident. Further, she correctly identified that due to the offshore spawning migration of the females, the potential for female mud crabs in the reserves to seed adjacent fishing grounds would be low. With respect to the yellowfin bream and dusky flathead, Pillans (op cit p.84) identified that “due to limited tagging data (i.e. low recaptures) we could not strengthen the ‘spillover’ case for the marine reserves in Moreton Bay”. Despite this lack of empirical evidence for the spillover effect, Pillans (op cit, p.177) went on to conclude that: “Benefits of reserve protection for A. australis and P. fuscus were also found to extend beyond reserve boundaries through the process of ‘spillover’ (i.e. cross-boundary movement”. Pillans‟ conclusion is simply not supported from the empirical data collected."
Daryl
Below is a very brief section from my book on Fisheries Management in Australia (Federation Press) which was released last month which may be of interest to viewers of this thread..................................
It may be intuitively appealing to think that if an area is closed to fishing then there will be more fish and this will benefit fishers. The most frequently cited mechanism for a fisheries benefit from establishing an MPA is the spillover effect whereby emigration from the no-take area replenishes nearby fisheries (e.g. Russ and Alcala, 1996; Russ et al., 2004). Yet this assertion is frequently made on its intuitive appeal rather than empirical evidence.
The numbers of studies (particularly review articles) that advocate MPAs almost outnumber those that have empirically assessed their benefits (Willis et al., 2003). Many of these studies have assessed the benefits of MPAs while failing to address, or in many instances even consider, the costs. Further, empirical results from studies in one region or from a small number of species (e.g. site attached reef fish such as serranid rock cods) are frequently used to justify the notion that MPAs „work for all habitats and species.
While it is necessary to utilise the best available information in order to make management decisions on MPAs, information should be critically reviewed for its relevance to the location in question (the nature and intensity of human impacts in the location), and the habitats and species that occur in the location of the MPA. Duncan (2003) identifies the problems that are associated with simply transposing scientific results from one location to another location without appropriate critical analysis.
The value of MPAs for fisheries management is indeed a highly contentious issue among researchers (Roberts et al., 2001; Tupper, 2002; Helvey, 2004; Buxton et al., 2005; Jones, 2006). There is a growing body of literature which is questioning the much early claims of widespread benefit of MPAs for fisheries and fisheries management. This body of literature does not dismiss outright that MPAs can "work", rather it suggests more careful consideration of planning, design, and management of MPAs; the inclusion of economic, social and cultural considerations; and the treatment of MPAs as another management tool rather than a religious doctrine (Hannesson, 2002;Tupper and Rudd, 2002; Agardy et al., 2003; Smith and Wilen, 2003; Hilborn et al., 2004; Baelde, 2005; Sanchirico, 2005; Cook and Heinan, 2005).
The effectiveness of MPAs for fisheries management is influenced by the fisheries management regime in place in the region or area of interest as well as the migratory behaviour of the species. Where little or no fisheries management has been or is in place and stocks are already highly depleted, the benefits of MPAs are considered higher than in areas where traditional approaches to fisheries management exist and are adequately enforced (Ward et al., 2001; Tupper, 2002; Hilborn et al., 2004, 2006).
Daryl
If you feel the need to scream and shout Jeremy, it would suggest that you may be bereft of reasoned, rational alternatives.
" You continue to ignore my request to back up this statement with facts."
" 99% of the scientific stuff I can lay my hands on....... "
is different from claiming that 99% of all scientific data supports one view or another. I never claimed that.
It very simply means what it says - "that I can lay my hands on".
Now, as you have no way of knowing what access I might or might not have to information,
you cannot contend that my statement is wrong.
Apart from which, might I suggest that to to obssess about that particular statement instead of, say, responding to the thoughts above - is ....... unfortunate.
" How many of these studies are peer reviewed Australian studies, published in reputable journals?"
Absolutely no idea, mate.I'mno academic. I'm a passionate recreational angler genuinely trying to get my head around all this.
Best I can do is to read reports LIKE Spillans (AND OTHERS) and see if it seems to make sense.
Whilst I agree that publication in "reputable" journals stimulates discussion and raises alternative views - it does not, in itself, guarantee that any proposition is sound.
Why only "Ausralian" studies Jeremy ?
Not by any chance afraid that casting the net a bit wider might provide some stuff you'd prefer not to know ?
Now, the "fraud plant" suggestion says more about you than about me, sunshine.
I became interested in this initially because people like you were scaremongering the masses with untruths like
" anglers travelling up or down the passage and who have to pass through the green zones.... will have to de-rig all their lines and risk prosecution..."
and the local "Save our Passage" bunch STILL claiming that the proposed changes will re-open the Passage to professional fishing,
that people will not be able to anchor, swim, camp or do anything but traverse the zone
and so on and so on .............
Mate, I could be dead WRONG about all this.
But if so, at least I am not deliberately lying to people and sucking money from pensioners and the like based on those lies.
Sounds like a lot of lies going on there Tripcony, if what you say is true from the Save Our Passage mob. But I actually don't mind the idea of fighting fire with fire. AMCS are deceptive in many of their press releases from what I have read.
The problem with non-peer reviewed work is that you can choose to have it reviewed by someone you know already believes in the basic conclusion you have come up with. For example, a report about global warming being reviewed by a senior scientist who has already written papers on the effects of global warming. Peer reviewed papers open them up to scientists who possibly disagree with the concept who then try and find fault with the research. Does not mean that they will find fault, if the research is indeed well researched. But allowing peer review does add more credibility don't you think?
And on the point about "Best I can do is to read reports LIKE Spillans (AND OTHERS) and see if it seems to make sense". I think you need to try and find some of the research that opposes these views if you want a balanced point of view. Daryl McPhee has been kind enough to share some of his thoughts/research on the subject with us here, but he also quotes a number of other research papers that might give the other side of the story.
But the bottom line to me is still that recreational fishing is sustainable in the bay (and passage) so why does there need to be green zones? Which as I pointed out in another post, only punish recreational anglers. Keeping in mind as Daryl pointed out, the reason for green zones in the first place was to protect overfished waters in other parts of the world where no other form of fisheries management was in place. We have a well functioning fisheries management program here, so why the need for green zones?
That's right, "no other form of Fisheries management in place" also includes reefs that have been dynamited to rubble, every living thing on the reef poisoned, or serious commercial coral collection stripping the intertidal areas clean.
And we know what sort of countries allow this stuff to go on, it sure as hell isn't ours!
These are the areas that can benefit from MPA lockouts if the authorities are too useless to actually manage the area and the people who use it.
Check out my boat for sale in the classifieds
- 469 Stacer open Seahorse/Nomad
- 50hp 4 stroke tiller Mercury
- Heaps of extras, in top condition
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Tripcony, you seem to be a great advocate of green zones with access to much research. What I've read so far in this thread is not very convincing at all, if research exists that proves the benefit of green zones then I'm yet to see it. Perhaps you may have better luck by putting forward something that better demonstrates the long term beneficial results.
Myself I have found nothing anywhere that suggests they are more than a politically motivated move to apease the radicals. Maybe I'm wrong and just havn't seen the right stuff yet, perhaps you can point me in the right direction.
Bill.
Answer to that question is: No I don't know if they were surveyed at the same time...and if it was peer reviewed then I am sure someone would have asked that question..i would have thought she might have clarified same in her paper.
Now I have to ask one thing..Was Ms Pillans paper unbiased or was the task at hand to make sure that it conincided with what the "expert advisory panel" were pushing. Why not get an EPA employee to do the srudy..no drama then is there.
Now..my next question Tripcony is this: Where did the Greens preferences go in the last elections? Correct answer: ALP.
and now we all have to suffer the payback...THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SAVING ENVIRONMENTS...IT IS ALL ABOUT PAYING BACK THE GREENS FOR PREFERENCES...therefore we have to endure lies, lies and more lies and so called research that is nothing more than a pack of lies and crap.
So tell me who is sucking money from the pensioners? That can onl;y be the ALP also as they are in power yet you support their inane drivel as to closures.
There is the problem we are facing..gullible people who get some stupid warm and fuzzy feeling because they think something is happening to the environment..well it ain't and you dumb buggers have been sucked in Tripcony.
If you think I am mad about thisd then change that to furious..i am sick and tired of all this drivel supposedly being science when it is nothing but political games for preferences.
I want to take my son and daughter fishing in the Bay..and also my 2 grandkids without being told my some Uni twit where I can and cannot go. For those with young kids..just buy them playstations..teach them which takeaway foods will make them obese faster..forget outdoor activities..some idiots are supporting other idiots on promoting the stopping of these...and even others are helping them promote it....and 20 or 30 years down the track they will all wonder why the youth have no idea about anything outdoors.
"who approved Pillans theseis" you ask..does the name Possingham ring a bell or fit in anywhere in all this??
Maybe so, but it is a line of reasoning you made up Tripcony, so who is chasing whos tail?
PS have you read all of the 'Burdens of Proof' paper yet? Its pretty daming of your 99% claim about marine parks being the greatest gift ever to civilization!
Posting Permissions
