I was referring to snapper as quoted in this report, https://www.fish.gov.au/report/230-Snapper-2018
I don't have access to the raw data but it just appears to me that there is a missing segment of recruitable snapper, in between legal breeding juvenilles and larger adults.
I also found this report from the mid 1990's https://www.frdc.com.au/Archived-Rep...93-074-DLD.PDF which I found rather interesting in that there is many references to lack of data. Deja Vu.
I also did find a report quoting similar to "the spawning biomass can only increase in size with younger juveniles coming of sexual maturity age, the older fish cannot simply increase in number for obvious reasons but can only spawn to eventually create larvae." but didn't save the link and I am struggling to get any bandwidth here to look it up (school holidays and the tourists have flocked with crap internet service). This was in relation to snapper but this did not necessarily apply to all other species.
Dropped my popcorn.
Nope, marine parks are not one the biggest issues, the sustainability of the fishery is. Compliance is another. Loss of Habitat. Over Fishing and so much more. Marine Parks are a management tool, one of many.
There is no apathy from me. All I see here are opinions tentatively supported by various reports, papers, studies and that depends on who reads what and how it is interpreted.
The topic was about Poachers..... now it is about who can post the most " evidence " in relation to Marine Parks and their affects or otherwise.
We all know a couple of things.
1... Marine Parks ( Green Zones ) are good for the fishery contained within them.
2.. There is some evidence of the " spill-over " effect.
3.. Certain Marine Parks were legislated to appease a certain group of voters
4.. Butter on popcorn is good
LP
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here
Dude is totally trolling
tenor.jpg
I didn't say marine parks were the only issue. As to sustainability just about all the problems have been addressed or are being addressed. Especially on the GBR. And you can't really say that marine parks are a fisheries management tool. Fisheries managers already have the power for spatial closures. Eg some states have area bans on trawling larger than any of the marine parks they host. And marine parks weren't initiated by any fisheries departments.
As to your other points. Yes my posts are slightly off topic - so what? It is still a topic worthy of discussion.
"1... Marine Parks ( Green Zones ) are good for the fishery contained within them".
Irrelevant from a fisheries management perspective as those grounds are lost to fishermen. It's only relevant if they increase the yield in a cost effective way. Even from an ecological perspective there are better ways - see my link 'how ecosystems can keep their fish and we can eat them to'.
"2.. There is some evidence of the " spill-over " effect".
Well there is very little evidence where effective fisheries management is in place - see my other references.
"3.. Certain Marine Parks were legislated to appease a certain group of voters".
The GBR one was part of a deal with the Democrats to get the GST passed. This also rather contradicts your point about them being about fisheries management.
Ok, I having a Cider chaser with my popcorn now.... Noel, want to join me ?
LP
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here