KC I don't think I've changed my views at all. I don't like the way the government implemented green zones on the GBR, nor do I like the position most rec fishios I know take on green zones. I think there should be 20-40% green zone coverage over the entire east coast. But this should be done from a fisheries management perspective, not for conservation alone. That means smaller green zones.

Also, I said I 'think' they migrate. You implied you were certain. I have been told there is some evidence to support my view. I'll chase it up for you. Not that it matters much anyway as we have the same position on how green zones should be set up for coral trout.

The broodstock don't have to always remain in the NTA to get a benefit for the fishery. Some individual fish will, as in the snapper example. Some fish may only spend half their time in NTA's. That means it will probably take twice as long to catch them. That's more than twice as many breeding seasons (the first few years of their life don't count). That's also why you need a network of green zones. A lot of the big fish that are still alive today are alive because they know how to avoid being caught, or their habits prevent them from being caught. With a good network of green zones, there will be a lot more of them.

Kev I am basing my case on 'hard science' and I have posted a few links with the evidence. If you have a specific question I can (hopefully) direct you straight to the relevant evidence to back up my case.