Fishing closures

[Kerry]

Where did Sunfish say anything about this so called bonaza? I thought you'd been informing yourself

But yes things were counted and very very carefully as justification of these closures (read green zones) have so far not been proved in any measurable way. Even the researchers will admit they have no substantive evidence.

Opportunity? again you need to inform yourself as you really have no dam idea what your on about here, at all.

I am perfectly happy to discuss the claims that you have made

So start discussing the claims made, the facts that reports that didn't fit the mould have not been made available? the fact that parliament got involved in the research due to community concerns over Ethics and Manipulative Research? the fact that green zones don't hold the breeding stock? the fact that reports show no significant statistical difference in fish populations between the supposedly heavily fished reefs and remote and rarely visited reefs or on protected reefs where fishing is prohibited? the fact that researchers actually agree that the reef closures to fishing did not have a strong effect on the age structures of coral trout and the large cohort was a natural phenomenon, not one caused by GBRMPA's zoning plan (based on a CRC Reef Research study)? where's the scientific evidence of overfishing? where has line fishing severely depleting a fishery? where is the survey data that actually supports zoning? and the hollow myth pushed by the tourist industry that “tourism has no effect on the reef” yet the tourist areas are obviously in the worst state of repair as now they want to dig the reef up, what a crock.

You've got some informing to do and then there's still more

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

I didn't say that sunfish said anything about a bonanza.

Who counted what? I'd like to see the numbers.

How can you 'prove' justification as you put it? I mentioned earlier that green zones are justified by our values not by any scientific evidence.

If there are any reports that have been hidden because they didn't fit the mould please give me the details.

Green zones don't hold breeding stock? That's not a fact. I've never heard such rubbish.

Please tell me about these reports looking at the statistics on fish populations.

Do you really need scientific evidence of overfishing?

I am getting sick of hearing references to reports that say this or that but not being able to even know the name of the report. It sounds to me like someone is trying to hide them.

[Kerry]

Who counted what? I'd like to see the numbers.

If your really that interested (and that's doubtfull) then go ask GBRPMA or CRC Reef Research for them, they have the numbers.

How can you 'prove' justification as you put it? I mentioned earlier that green zones are justified by our values not by any scientific evidence.

So why can't the minister and the government actually call it as it is then, why BS about #"The weight of scientific evidence indicates this is not enough." (Minitser for Ebvironment, Press release June 2, 2003) when there actually isn't any substantial evidence and some of what does exist is not publically available. So if it's based on values then fine why BS about scientific evidence

If there are any reports that have been hidden because they didn't fit the mould please give me the details.

Again if your that interested then go ask GBRMPA for them, you won't get them but then they won't deny they don't exist either. #

Green zones don't hold breeding stock? That's not a fact. I've never heard such rubbish.

Then show us the scientific study that actually verifies that, rubbish, everything is rubbish without some evidence.

Please tell me about these reports looking at the statistics on fish populations.

Lots of reports go for your life

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/

but don't forget the ones that count

http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/whe...ef_studies.htm

Do you really need scientific evidence of overfishing?

Well you need something otherwise making a decision and then saying it's based on scientific evidence when there actually isn't any is rather misleading, don't you think?

If that's the case then why didn't they simply come out and say, Hey people we don't have the facts but we're going to do this anyway. Be honest why BS, tell it as it is not some fairy tale.

I am getting sick of hearing references to reports that say this or that but not being able to even know the name of the report. It sounds to me like someone is trying to hide them

Hey I think your catching on, "trying to hide them" now that's what this gentleman reckoned http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/whe...ef_studies.htm and you know something I reckon he might know a little bit more about things than you ever will or will ever want to.


Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

The scientists advise on how to achieve predetermined goals. You need to do more = that is not enough. They don't justify the actions, but they are involved.

So you want me to ask GBRMPA for unspecified reports that they don't deny the existence of but they won't give me anyway for unspecified reasons. All I'd get is blank looks.

re breeding stock - I've seen it myself.

Thanks for those links Kerry I'll check them out.

re evidence of overfishing - look at historical catch vs effort from pro fishing logs or rec angling competitions. I didn't think there was any argument about overfishing. Do you think our fisheries could handle more pressure without big problems arising?

[Gazza]

Jock, point 1. answer 'Kerrys' question(s) as best you can , from the evidence/informed opinion you have at your?? ??? disposal

2. Name the 'local lib dude' on Sunday......that's a hard one ,I know
3. what species do RecFishos "threaten" or "extinguish" ,your choice

Read BELOW...
4. give me a greenie forum link i.e. chatboard site ,that I may offer an opinion or 3 , outnumbered is my problem ,not yours
Read ABOVE...

C'mon Jock or any 'minders' , help us to "be evidenced? ,or better informed"

one way trafffic is a joke,Jock.......get it

[Kerry]

The scientists advise on how to achieve predetermined goals.

Yes I believe that's called an "agenda"

You need to do more = that is not enough. They don't justify the actions, but they are involved.

Involved # yes I belive the parliament called that involvement "Ethics of Manipulative Research". Your really dodging this ethics question, aren't you #

So you want me to ask GBRMPA for unspecified reports that they don't deny the existence of but they won't give me anyway for unspecified reasons. All I'd get is blank looks.

Well there's some people who actually have some background in this regard so if your so sure the the reports don't exist, then prove it.

re breeding stock - I've seen it myself.

little kinky #

re evidence of overfishing - look at historical catch vs effort from pro fishing logs or rec angling competitions.

Name of report, author etc and link so I can do what you suggest.

However a conclusion from the research While larger fishes tend to be more abundant on unfished reefs, there is no indication from various monitoring programs of any large-scale significant declines in targeted species. and just for your benefit monitoring: Routine counting, testing or measuring of environmental factors or organisms to determine their status or condition. Oh by the way that's a GBRMPA conclusion.

I didn't think there was any argument about overfishing.

No there's really no argument about over fishing as there's no evidence suggest/support there is any.
If you have a report then by all means, name of report, author and link if you would be so kind.

Do you think our fisheries could handle more pressure without big problems arising?

Which specific fisheries might they be?

Still you haven't touched on this misconception that the tourist industry is green and clean, yet after much self portrayed propaganda #that “tourism has no effect on the reef” we now have a situation of the tourist industry wanting federal and state permits to actually "dig up the reef" and even worse in an actual no fishing zone and totally due to tourist influence. There's probably stronger more meaninful words, but double standards is about the only concenus any rational thinking person could conclude on this one, wouldn't you agree #???

Cheers, Kerry.

[BurdekinBob]

The DPI's recreational estimate (which I believe is exagerated), and the commercial catch (verified by log books), equals 17 kg of fish per hectare per year, from the GBR. These figures are from Dr. Starks report.....I would hardly think that an overfishing situation exists with those numbers!
Kerry, with regard to the inshore closures, GBRMPA are going to close a large area of Bowling Green Bay, which has produced the equivalent of about $500,000 worth of mud crabs and Barra for over fifty years, year in, year out. If there was a problem with recruitment of those species in that area, I'd like to know where it is.
However the GBRMPA told us when questioned about the BGB closure, that it was being closed because it is "iconic to the green movement", and that they don't need to produce any scientific evidence to close anything..... they can just do it!!!
Ever heard such bull dust?
Bob

[Kerry]

Yes Bob, Cape Bowling Green closures have all the hall marks of typical pandering to the greens, especialy as even Cabinet were not impressed with the absolute lacking of evidence, now that really highlights GBRMPA's scientific lacking.

Really the tax payer is being rorted, funding research for an outcome that can not be proven then tossing all those $$'s out the window and doing it anyway, just to please some green.

I believe I saw somewhere that cabinet had called for an inquiry into some of GBRMPA's activities? An independent inquiry and not another internal GBRMPA self audit.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Kerry this is the first I've heard about the state govt discussing the ethics of manipulative research. The issue comes up occasionally in scientific circles though. Doing the wrong thing is a good way to end a scientific career/reputation. I'm not dodging the question, I just don't know a lot about it.

I agree that the tourist industry is not harmless. It's not 'extractive' but it does do damage. I've spoken to tourist operators who complain loudly about it. They can see their future going down the drain too. But this is a fishing website so I won't go into it unless you think the tourist industry is a serious threat to the fishery.

"Well there's some people who actually have some background in this regard so if your so sure the the reports don't exist, then prove it."

This is getting a bit rediculous. You want me to prove that some reports don't exist. Reports that you keep referring to but which you won't even name. That's not how it works Kerry. You said the reports were covered up. You name them. Simple as that. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

I will keep an eye out for a report on overfishing. I expect there won't be many from Australia, even fewer from QLD and fewer still from the north of the state.

Do you accept that there is a global trend towards overfishing? If not I can show that easily. If you think that more local fisheries are not under pressure then let me know which ones (eg Australia in general, QLD in general, FNQ or specific species). I suspect that we both know very little about this which is why neither of us can be specific.

I think that stuff in italics is a quote from somewhere. Please reference it properly. If it is a conclusion from a study then I would be interested, but if its just something you heard down at the pub (ie some fool's conclusion after hearing about the research) then I won't bother.

Bob: it is the trends in catch vs effort that matter, not the actual catch rate. A catch rate by itself says absolutely nothing about the sustainabilit of the fishery. 50 years of a consistent catch rate shows that the fishery is sutainable (provided effort hasn't gone up lately). However as you indicated that was nothing to do with the closures. Remember we have to share the ocean with everyone, even the tree hugging hippies.

[jockey]

No I will not name the tourist operators. I will not name that politician. Get over it.

Digging up coral isn't a typical part of a tourist operation and I hope it doesn't go ahead. BTW the coral would just be moved to another part of the reef, not taken home.

What's with the personal insults Gazza? I hope I'm not debating with primary school children.

[Kerry]

Manipualtive Research isn't something new and the GBR is probably a good example as results are very hard to determine adequately and many of the researchers in many reports went to much trouble to explain that their reports were lacking "completeness" (for want of a better word).

But no it wasn't the state but federal government that got concerned about ethics

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publicati...ws/news92.html

The tourist industry has to get over this "we are insert" type of head in the sand attitude and actually realize as you suggested that they also have to share the ocean with everyone, including tree hugging hippies but when the tourist industry uses the tree huggers for specific gains for their own interests then one has to ask some questions.

It is totally hyprocritical to make a statement like “tourism has no effect on the reef” and then turn around and expect to dig the place up 'cause they have totally stuffed it, what am absolutely ridiculous statement. So people are going to come all this way from overseas to see the GBR and actually see something that's not natural, 'cause touristse before them stuffed it, what a joke. When will some of these organisations actually tell it exactly like it is, instead of conning people.

.... You want me to prove that some reports don't exist. Reports that you keep referring to but which you won't even name. That's not how it works Kerry. You said the reports were covered up. You name them. Simple as that. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

No this gentleman http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/whe...ef_studies.htm made those claims and I'm saying that he's in a fairly good position to know, wouldn't you think. And when GBRMPA were asked why they didn't use this gentleman's studies over some 40-50 years, the comment was they were too old. Well bugga me wouldn't that be exactly the type of research we should be looking at not what's changed since last week but since the middle of last century, but no the findings apparently went against the reasons for zoning. Ignoring all the facts is not what one would call good research, would you?

The global trend to overfishing? well that can depend, here we are concerned with the state of the GBR with respect to fishing and type of fishing that is carried out in this area.

The only comparison GBRMPA used was the state of the north seas cod fishery and whatever that fishery has in comparison to the GBR fisheries is totally beyond me, comparison there simply isn't any.

As for knowing the state of the fishery, no we don't and neither does GBRMPA, or anybody else for that matter, they simply don't have the data and obtaining that data is quite a problem and they dam well know that. Many of the reports have centred on Trout but just about all the other GBR fish that live at depths beyond what researchers can adequately survey, they have very little knowledge about. #

As for pub talk, yeah right #

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/i...ish_frame.html

Digging up coral isn't a typical part of a tourist operation

No and neither is the way birds are controlled on some of the pontoons and neither is wanting to build multi storey floating islands that will shadow/kill the reef but this “tourism has no effect on the reef” has always had an arogrant ring to it.

Cheers, Kerry.

[redfoot]

if you ask me...lol
all of moreton bay,tin can& hervey, most rivers & creeks should be closed to ALL fishing
for a short period(indeterminate)
why not give the fish a chance to regenerate

[Helpinfish]

Here are some small reasons why you may want to protect Bowling green Bay:
- Bowling green Bay is a listed RAMSAR site (meaning it is an internationally significant wetland)
-Bowling Green Bay contains DPA ‘A’ and ‘B’ Zones
- contains substantial seagrass beds which are important habitats for dugong, green turtles, juvenile fish and crustaceans.
-adjacent to the nationally significant Burdekin-Townsville Coastal Aggregation Wetlands and Bowling Green Bay National Park.
-is an important area for dugong and turtle foraging, populations of the Indo-pacific humpback and Irrawaddy dolphins
- Sand Island is a know grunter aggregation site

Also Kerry have you actually read GBRMPA's latest Scientific reasearch policy and do you understand it. If you did you would see it is actually quite regulated, for example for any reasearch to occur in a green zone other than obsevatory, the reasearcher must prove that that reasearch can not occur in any other zone and does not go against the values of that zone.

[Helpinfish]

And Kerry,

You do understand that the green zones process is about protecting biodiversity and biodiversity does not just mean the fish, it means all of the marine environment.

[BurdekinBob]

Helpinfish, yes BGB is a dugong protection zone, and in the 8 years that it has been, there has been 1 dugong killed because of a pro net. The reason being that the pro's know where the dugong graze etc, and don't net that area. The one that died was out of his usual area, and was too big for the fisherman to handle, so the poor bugger drowned before he could get him out.
The effort hasn't gone up over time, in fact it has gone down; with less pros using less nets because of the dugong zoning. the wetlands you spoke about, are the very reason for the sustainability of the area.
The majority of local fishos, pros included, wanted the sand island closed because it is a grunter agg site, but if you know the bay, then you will realise that the sand island and the surrounding area can be protected without impacting on the rest of the bay.
As for irriwaddy dolphins, they have been seen only once by people that are in that end of the bay almost every day. Humpback whales have NEVER been sighted in that close to the green zone..... they'd run the risk of running aground on the mud flat, which extends a long way into the bay.
Turtles are seen everywhere up here, not only in that area of BGB.
When you look at the green zone in the bay rationally, there is no logical reason for this particular closure..... and we were told that there is no science for that closure, just that its "iconic for the green movement". Thats just not good enough!
Why are minority groups like the bloody greens running this country? When did they get elected? Its time our bloody politicians got a bit of backbone and told them, and all of the other bleeding hearts where to go!
Bob