Fishing relief for Barrier Reef

[kc]

This is a bit like live chat. Kerry makes a really good point. No evidence actually exists to support the proposition that recreational fishing is having an unsustainable impact on the biodiversity of the reef. If it did exist it would have been run up the flag pole with flashing lights and skyrockets. Since the poo started hitting the fan over this the pollies have been desperate for something to prove their posistion. Instead we get this bombardment of motherhood advertising about the GBR being ünder Pressure""we have caused it and only we can fix it" "The GBR needs your help" and so on and so forth....Makes me angry every time I hear one of those adds.

The clear facts are that the major pressures being placed on the reef, and undoubtedly there are some, are brought about by big ticket issues like climate change, mainland run off, pollution, COT and SOME commercial pressures (particularly prawn trawling). The flashpoint is that rec fishos are the easy target and then Kemp has the audacity to try to sell this to the rest of the country that "he" is the hero who is saving the GBR.

genarlly in a court of law we would need to be proven guilty before we got our punishment. In other words trot out the evidence which shows our guilt. In this case however we seem to be trying to prove we are not guilty yet are coping the penalty anyway. Kerry has a very valid point. For those who defend the GBR closures shouldnt it fall to you to show some evidence to support these closures rather than the other way around. "we" don't have the $$ and the vast number of study and research facilities available to GBRMPA yet "we" are having to defend ourselves against evidence which does not appear to exist??

KC

[nonibbles]

Dr Walter Stark's article int the January sunfish magazine comparing environmentalism & conservatism is very interesting reading. #It outlines the differing attitudes of each and how they use these charactaristics to push their particular cause.
He then uses his comparison when reflecting upon the current reef management argument. #There is a graph on there comparing annual fish haul against reef area. #The GBR hardly rates a speck against the scale used (if I remember correctly its per sq km) compared to other reefs worldwide. #Hardly overfished! #Its important to note that these are not comparisons of exceptional seasons these are consistent catch rates per annum. #Unfortunately it only shows the haulage it doesn't show the comparitive quality of reef or haulage per reef species.
I know I'm not saying anything different here just indicating another source of Dr Stark's very useful input.

The only way I can see the restriction of fishing fixing the problems of agricultural runnoff is that there would be less fish emulsion available for the farming industry to fertilise with. I don't see how this will change how the water carries their dirt and other sediments into the sea.

And I don't see why I should lose the ability to make the choice of having that handful of days between work and weather to go fishing taken away from me.
Freedom my red round behind!
I just wish I had the money and enough friends to flood the courts with breach hearings when these policies of over regulation become enforceable. But of course we wouldn't do that because its our families who will suffer for it. Lets not have to say fishing USED TO BE fun. Support the fishing party.

[NQCairns]

Well said Nonibbles, can you or someone scan that graph and post it. cheers.nq

[nonibbles]

heres the main one (not sure how long they will last re: copyright on images. Best get the magazine from sunfish NQ)

[nonibbles]

another comparison from same article. #Note these are commercial catches only.

[bugman]

Gentlemen,

I am really liking this debate - but I just want to throw an opinion out there and see how you deal with it.

1) A lot of the commercial fishing pressure on the reef in now capped throough TAC (total allowable catch) or quotas. A lot of the main species anyway - I know there's also many that aren't but in theory for something like coral trout the pros can only catch a certain amount and will be regulated from here to eternity.

2) Do we all agree that the pressure from recreational fishermen is expedential overall. (I'm talking the next 100 years). Unregulated access to new fishermen - new technology for greater and easier access - increased demand as the sport becomes more popular - no overall take limit only possession limits.

Given these two current scenarios would you agree that control of the commercial sector could be possible but control of the rec sector is impossible.

How would you address it?

Bugman

[Gazza]

Mate ,I'd say to everyone that they should keep fishing until one of the many 'studies' shows up as 'species endangered by RecFishos'.
Don't hold your breathe exponentially.....

Until then ,it just the sameo sameo ,sky is falling claims.
Can't wait for those MP/NFZ's to kick-in with the goodies........fish everywhere !!
Until then......

[Kerry]

Bugman, it's obvious that some rec's see themselves as little angels and have the "more for me" syndrome. There's probably (were there probably used to be) some pro's who had a similar outlook but these have many controlling factors that increase with the rising of each day.

As for this overfishing slant there's probably also fairies at the bottom of the garden but some simply are unable to address and call it exactly as it is.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Its amazing what happens when you back up your claims with a bit of evidence.

[BurdekinBob]

Fools like Jockey who believe that global warming, coral bleaching bullshit must have either fairies in their garden or bats in the belfrey or probably both!!!
None of this global warming crap has been proved yet, and probably never will.
I heard an ABC radio programme recently, where the guest speaker was saying that we are just coming out of a "mini ice age from the 18th century".
That really doesn't sound any sillier than the latest idiot generated rubbish that comes from a bloody computer model. you know what they say about computers, "shit in; shit out"
As for farm run-off doing any damage, thats another myth perpetuated by the greenies. So far all tests that I have seen have failed to prove anything in this regard, and the canefarmers organisation have spent squillions trying to get the facts to either prove or dis-prove the theory.
I have given the example of Old Reef out from the Burdekin before on this site, but obviously some people are pretty selective about what they read, and even more selective about who/what they quote.
The facts are, that when in flood the Burdekin discharges more water out to sea than any other river in Queensland. In full flood the fresh water extends for about forty miles out to sea, spilling on to Old Reef, which is in pristine condition, in spite of the fact that it is the closest reef to the fishermen from the Burdekin district, and as such is fished heavily and yet still produces good catches of reef species, and big reds in the deep water off the edges.
I have yet to go out and fail to catch all of the fish I want at Old Reef.
Somebody mentioned improved technology as being an advantage to the fisher, it may well be, but first you need good weather to get out there, and we don't get much of that on a regular basis.
I agree that trout grow bigger, but in fewer numbers on the closed reefs. The best bait for a BIG coral trout is still a small live trout. Because of the extremely strong territorial habits of trout, all smaller fish are at risk.
Also because of their territorial nature there will never be any spill-over effect of coral trout, as claimed by the "experts" at the GBRMPA.
The only "endangered species" in danger of extinction is fishermen, if the mobs like the WWF get their way, and we all know what their agenda is.
I have said it before, and I'll say it again..... ALL fishermen need to unite on this issue if we want to maintain our lifestyle and the freedom to go fishing when we want to, (weather permitting).
I know that some of you can relate some bad experiences with some pro fishers, but those blokes are the ones that the other pro's don't like either.
Not all pro fishermen are bad, and not all rec fishermen are angels, so we just have to make the best of a bad situation, and deal with it the best way that you can.
I have had my say now, so I'll get down from the soap-box.
Bob


The big coral bommies at that reef is where the AIMS team took a lot of the core samples which they have used to measure the size of past weather events and wet seasons, and have aquired a host of other weather data from the same samples.

[jockey]

Bob, I concede that there is no proven relationaship between human pollution, global warming and coral bleaching. However there is enough evidence to make it almost certain and it would be foolish to ignore the threat until we have undeniable proof. The complex nature of atmospheric dynamics means that that proof will never come.

The territorial nature of coral trout does not mean that there will be no spillover. The extent of the spillover will of course depend on things like the size of the green zone.

Please don't launch into a personal attack on me or anyone else because we interpret what we see differently to you.

[Kerry]

That's exactly right. NO proven relationship between much of the preached mumbo jumbo waffle that some continue to push as a justification.

But if it's foolish to ignore the threat until we have undeniable proof then why is that some can't explain why if it's that important and of such an unknown quantity that areas are closed to ALL activities or are some quite adept at being accepting of double standards.

So if the proof will never come then what's the basis for closures in the first place.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

"So if the proof will never come then what's the basis for closures in the first place."

Common sense. The precautionary principle.

"That's exactly right. NO proven relationship between much of the preached mumbo jumbo waffle that some continue to push as a justification."

Are you saying that there is a proven relationaship between human pollution, global warming and coral bleaching? If not, what are you saying?

I've got no idea what you mean in the other paragraph.

[Kerry]

"So if the proof will never come then what's the basis for closures in the first place."

Common sense. The precautionary principle.

Precautionary? So if that's the case then why not close areas to EVERYBODY. DO you understand what EVERYBODY means especially as it's precautionary and nobody todate apparently knows the reasons for anything that is if there are in fact anything to be reasoned about.

"That's exactly right. NO proven relationship between #much of the preached mumbo jumbo waffle that some continue to push as a justification."

Are you saying that there is a proven relationaship between human pollution, global warming and coral bleaching? If not, what are you saying?

What am I saying So where's the proven relationship between fishing, global warming and coral bleaching. Being precautionary as you "claim" then surely if one unknown goes the other unknowns must go also.

See you lot are a mob of double standard hyprocritical morons with a do as we say not as we do attitude. Understand that now [smiley=clown.gif]

CHeers, Kerry.

[kc]

I guess where Kerry is coming from is prety well the same as we have been saying (in perhaps less "descriptive" terms) from day one. The position being put forward by GBRMPA and its propogander machine of variuos green alliances is indefensable. How can they on one hand say that they want to preserve biodiversity and on the other just remove 1 single impact. We have said from day 1 that we would take the high moral ground AND environmentally most appropriate position. IF the park needs protection, increase the level of pink zones.

Of course the tourism industry, the home invaders (divers) and other user groups (most of whom pay reef tax) wouldn't have a bar of that. RAP is a PR stunt. Always was, always will be. It was all about Kemp and his band of jolly green followers being able to stand on their soap box and tell the masses what a great job they are doing protecting the great barrier reef.

I defy anyone to show how green zones will be better than pink zones. Our position (basically one out all out) was, is and will always be the stand offering the highest level of environmental protection for the GBR.....they just don't get reef tax out of rec fishos so don't really give a %$#@ what we think.

The policy now adopted by The Fishing Party will stand up to any attack by any hostile organisation. If any of them were seriuos about biodiversity protection they would have no choice but to agree with the stand we have taken....thing is, deep down..they are not about biodiversity protection at all...they are just anti-fishing!!
Make I fish & I Vote...finally, actually mean something.

Kevin Collins
The Fishing Party (Qld)