Poachers

[roz]

No I didn't do an actual survey - but the comparative numbers were obvious ….. rather than spotting the odd trout , red throat , GT , Maori Wrasse etc - there were many . We snorkelled maybe a dozen locations not in a marine park ….. & it was chalk and cheese.
My faith exists because of what I have seen & experienced and from what divers have told me .

Chris

totally agree!!!

[roz]

Because your not actually making a coherent argument. You are dismissing anecdotal evidence whilst using it yourself, throwing up straw men and dismissing other opinions simply because you don't agree.

Matt

Well put Mat. I agree with you.
cheers r.

[billfisher]

Well put Mat. I agree with you.
cheers r.

How do you both work that out when everything I have said has been supported by scientific references - which you have both studiously ignored? When I reminded Mat of this I only got a wall of silence in reply. You are both just projecting your own ineptitude back on to me.

[billfisher]

Hey guys. Lets take a step back and apply the RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX to this argument.

Assume the following scenario:

++ we assume: greenzones work and we do something about expanding them = more fish
+- we assume: green zones work and we dont do something about expanding protecting them for argument sake lets remove them = less fish
-+ we assume: green zones dont work and we do something about expanding them = same fish
-- we assume: green zones dont work and we remove them = less fish

No take a look at your assumptions. I cant see any reason apart from personal gain not to expand them.

You decided that at the outset. Your convoluted 'logic' is just an exercise in achieving the desired outcome. Eg you make no mention of the cost of marine parks - your only measure is 'more fish'. So why not just ban fishing altogether? There will be more fish with 100% green zones.

Also why no mention of other alternatives? Why doesn't better/ more restrictive fisheries management rate a mention? Such measures have very little cost and have the advantage of protecting the whole of the ocean and not just the area in green zones. This article suggest that very idea for the GBR, ie small green zones and tightening fisheries restrictions (and they wouldn't have to be tightened all that much):

https://theconversation.com/how-ecos...them-too-29977

[billfisher]

The only people who argue against marine parks are vested interest groups & those that don't want to lose their access to fishing grounds …. nothing more .

If you look deeply into the studies that have been done , there are very few globally that get the nod of approval …… on either side of the debate - there just hasn't been enough work done over a long enough period or over many different locations to say categorically that marine parks work or not …….. just bits and pieces .

The more you read the more you realise that this is the case .


Chris

Your first sentence is contradicted by the second one. Ie if the evidence for green zones as a fisheries management tool is so sketchy then a sensible person is quite entitled to question the concept and consider other options. Eg why not build on what's working and improve fisheries management given that there is very little cost to adjusting bag limits, quotas etc?

Also contrary to your suggestion green zones have been studied extensively for many years on the GBR.

[Dignity]

There is a lot of toing and froing going on here, now I might be dumb but so far I haven't seen any scientific evidence in any of these arguments.

Do I agree with the concept of Marine Parks, yes; do I agree with the concept of fisheries management, yes; but in both cases if the methodology used in creating the parks and management policies are flawed and/or more likely not policed then we will always have this toing and froing and no agreement.

Other impacts that I've noticed (going off topic a little but in line with it anyway).

On the Sunshine Coast large ships are now allowed to anchor much further south than previously and in quite a few cases I've gone to spots where there were a couple of reefs (some isolated) and there's a tanker or container ship anchored there, not good for the reef.

Councils have this habit of allowing developers to remove mangroves and the developer is supposed to plant a few trees elsewhere, or as happened at Sunshine Plaza where the original extension was clearly stated that the mangroves would NOT be removed but once under way the developers applied for and received an exemption. It will take many years for the new mangroves to establish and there is no requirement for the developer to continue to look after them for any reasonable length of time.

I look forward to more toing and froing.

[billfisher]

So another poster intent on ignoring my links/ references.

[Dignity]

Oh I read them, lots if "our studys", "observations show"

[billfisher]

Oh I read them, lots if "our studys", "observations show"

Well if you have read them do you have any actual insights or is sarcasm just the extent of it? You bemoaned the so called lack of science in these post then you turn around and mock it!

[Dignity]

Well if you have read them do you have any actual insights or is sarcasm just the extent of it? You bemoaned the so called lack of science in these post then you turn around and mock it!

billfisher, I appreciate we all have different views and I apologise if you believe that I have ironically mocked you or tried to convey contempt but all I offered was my own opinion on the discussion and added 2 further items. I do believe though that this thread has been hijacked from what was originally intended and will let it rest there.

[shortthenlong]

How do you both work that out when everything I have said has been supported by scientific references - which you have both studiously ignored? When I reminded Mat of this I only got a wall of silence in reply. You are both just projecting your own ineptitude back on to me.

Oh precious feeling a bit unloved, sorry for the slow response I have better thinks to do than whip myself into a frothy mess over the opinion of other people on the internet but since you seem to want everyone to pile on here we go.

What anecdotal evidence on my part?

The Conversation website you have repeatedly quoted is a news site containing opinion pieces. Yes the contributors have healthy academic records and yes they are interesting but the aren't scientific papers

Or so called strawman's for that matter? Please elaborate.

So the OP asked if fine handed out in the linked article were an effective deterrent you responded:

Does it really matter if the fish were caught in a green zone, so long as they were obeying bag and size limits, closed seasons etc?

to which I responded

Yes, yes it does
Matt

Do you know why? It's doubtful that marine parks do much when there is effective fisheries management in place.

This is the beginning of you building a straw-man. The up to this point the discussion was about deterrent but now you are making it about marine parks and their effectiveness in fisheries management

I have in fact offered scientific references which you have chosen to ignore.

See above re:The Conversation

And Finally

Actually this doesn't prove 'green zones work'. For a start there is no evidence of a shortage of the fish larva on the GBR. For proof fish no's have actually been boosted due to spill over you have to look at catch data and this work hasn't been done. And in the 2012 Harrison paper it refers to discounts effects like displaced fishing pressure and site selection bias yet these are recognised as being present in the very areas studied in the scientific literature. Prof Colin Buxton took them to task on all of these points in the comments section. The authors seemed to back down from claims of a benefit to fisheries.

it is interesting your go to scientist is Professor Colin - you are aware he is considered a go to for right wing government and pro-commercial fishing interests? In the interest of clarity I am aware of all his letters to members of the senate regarding such scurrilous suggestions.

Cheers Matt

PS If I don't respond in a timely manner rest assured I have definitely found something better to do.

[chris69]

Well the green zone on the wild banks out from Bribie island doesn't do anything for the area, it was barren before it was made a green zone and its barren many years after so there's one green zone that never has and never will be a benefit to the area in fish replenishment, theres good and bad in these green zones as well as in the management of them too.

[billfisher]

Oh precious feeling a bit unloved, sorry for the slow response I have better thinks to do than whip myself into a frothy mess over the opinion of other people on the internet but since you seem to want everyone to pile on here we go.



The Conversation website you have repeatedly quoted is a news site containing opinion pieces. Yes the contributors have healthy academic records and yes they are interesting but the aren't scientific papers



So the OP asked if fine handed out in the linked article were an effective deterrent you responded:



to which I responded





This is the beginning of you building a straw-man. The up to this point the discussion was about deterrent but now you are making it about marine parks and their effectiveness in fisheries management




See above re:The Conversation

And Finally


it is interesting your go to scientist is Professor Colin - you are aware he is considered a go to for right wing government and pro-commercial fishing interests? In the interest of clarity I am aware of all his letters to members of the senate regarding such scurrilous suggestions.

Cheers Matt

PS If I don't respond in a timely manner rest assured I have definitely found something better to do.

I know the Conversation website is 'not a scientific paper' - it is a site for academics to describe their work and make it more accessible. It includes links to scientific papers for inquiring minds. What's wrong that - do you think they will misquote their own research?

You don't seem to know what a strawman is either. What you are accusing me of is merely going off topic or diverting the thread. A strawman is making up an argument and wrongly attributing it to someone else.

As to Prof Colin Buxton you have ignored his substantive arguments and went for the ad hom attack (now that's scurrilous). Even the authors of the 2012 Harrison paper seemed back down from claims of a benefit to fisheries in his exchange with them. You didn't mention as the go to man for right wing government he headed up he government Commonwealth Marine Park zoning review so he is not actually totally adverse to the concept.

See what I mean by your ineptitude?

[shortthenlong]

A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man"

Effectiveness of fine as deterrent was the argument presented. Effectiveness of green zones is the argument you are having.

I was intentionally being scurrilous about Prof Buxton

You fervent opposition to zoning in marine parks seems to stop you from engaging in discussion and you resort to calling people with a different opinion names.

Matt

[billfisher]

"Effectiveness of fine as deterrent was the argument presented. Effectiveness of green zones is the argument you are having".

If you want to be really pedantic then guilty as charged. But that's not a strawman as you tried to make out. Also it's a bit late to whine about being 'off topic' when you have taken the same topic around the block 3 times with rhetorical arguments.

"I was intentionally being scurrilous about Prof Buxton"

Why is that? Why ignore his substantive arguments or is that all subservient to your political/ World view?

"You fervent opposition to zoning in marine parks seems to stop you from engaging in discussion and you resort to calling people with a different opinion names".

Projection - that's what you are doing. You have offered nothing but ad homs/ rhetorical tricks.