Meeting re: Coral Sea Closure

[TimiBoy]

What is the Convention Oz signed up to to protect a certain amount of Marine Habitat?

What percentage does it state has to be protected?

What percentage has been protected?

Andy, I agree, but could our position be "We support the creation of the Marine Park, pending the commissioning and completion of studies regarding the harm done by Recreational Fishing". Not much different to where we stand now, but if we could enter the debate from a conciliatory standpoint, it might be a better start...

We also need to understand it within the context of the questions I've asked above. I bet Creelreaper knows the answers!

Cheers,

Tim

[dazza]

hi all,
having read the report there dosen't seem to be much focus on rec fishing, they seem to say bugger all happens there so lets not worry them

how much noise has the commercial sector been making?? i haven't seen anything, but that dosen't mean much. the way they have interpreted the numbers, they demonstrate declining catch rates etc.

pretty impressive list of authors.

there was no real indication of boundaries in the document that i could see, did it stop around 1770 or does it go lower, how close to the coastline does it come, especially the southern end. i can see this heading towards land then linking up with central qld, fraser, sunshine coast. hey presto- marine park down the entire east coast. (federal govt of both persasions have talked about this for years, looks like it is starting to happen)

i recon this will go through, garrett wants to appease his green mates and keep them sweet, what better way than to link this up with the gbr and form one of the worlds biggest marine park, should be worth a bit in the senate

i don't know enough about rec fishing in that area to form an opinion one way or another, hopefully some answers to tims post will help clarify

i think we need to be careful as rec fishers not to be seen to oppose every "conservation" method currently employed by govt. i can see how the lay person may start to think rec fisho's are against anything that protects the waterways. remembering the only thing they hear is the bullshit baltis and his mates go on about. in saying that i have been vocal in my local area re the moreton bay rezoning.

essentially what has happened here is the pell foundation have written their policy for them, even told the govt which act's things fit into and what changes need to be made to make it happen.
a very good lesson in that.

tim,
as i remember we are bound to a few conventions that require the gov't to do certain things to "protect" the oceans. i think derek had a list of them ages ago, sorry i can't find them, someone may be able to clarify.

will be very interesting to see how this develops
cheers
dazza

[TheRealAndy]

hi all,
having read the report there dosen't seem to be much focus on rec fishing, they seem to say bugger all happens there so lets not worry them

how much noise has the commercial sector been making?? i haven't seen anything, but that dosen't mean much. the way they have interpreted the numbers, they demonstrate declining catch rates etc.

pretty impressive list of authors.

there was no real indication of boundaries in the document that i could see, did it stop around 1770 or does it go lower, how close to the coastline does it come, especially the southern end. i can see this heading towards land then linking up with central qld, fraser, sunshine coast. hey presto- marine park down the entire east coast. (federal govt of both persasions have talked about this for years, looks like it is starting to happen)

i recon this will go through, garrett wants to appease his green mates and keep them sweet, what better way than to link this up with the gbr and form one of the worlds biggest marine park, should be worth a bit in the senate

i don't know enough about rec fishing in that area to form an opinion one way or another, hopefully some answers to tims post will help clarify

i think we need to be careful as rec fishers not to be seen to oppose every "conservation" method currently employed by govt. i can see how the lay person may start to think rec fisho's are against anything that protects the waterways. remembering the only thing they hear is the bullshit baltis and his mates go on about. in saying that i have been vocal in my local area re the moreton bay rezoning.

essentially what has happened here is the pell foundation have written their policy for them, even told the govt which act's things fit into and what changes need to be made to make it happen.
a very good lesson in that.

tim,
as i remember we are bound to a few conventions that require the gov't to do certain things to "protect" the oceans. i think derek had a list of them ages ago, sorry i can't find them, someone may be able to clarify.

will be very interesting to see how this develops
cheers
dazza

I personally have no problem with conservation, so long as there is actaully a proven benefit. Until such time as the govenrment can actually prove that there is a significant outcome from closures then they need to be questioned. Currently what you have is some greenies who actually have no idea, and no credible evidence to support there claims. Take a look at the NSW issue with grey nurse sharks. The greenies reckon less than 500 hundred, yet photo evidence to the courts clearly show more. I am not for a second saying we dont have to protect what we have left, but lets be sensible about. Currently it has very little to do with the environment and all to do with votes. One only has to take a look at the destruction of the queensland coast to see this. Take a look at airlie beach for example...

Anyway, I am hoping to be at this meeting.

[Jackinthebox]

I think the guys from Nomad Sportsfishing charters would be spewing if they knew about this, these are the areas that they and other long range remote mothership operators work in. I'm pretty sure Carpentaria Seafaris also work out in the coral sea on long range trips at certain times of the year as well.

You know, the places where they catch 60kg GTs and you need to take a rubbish bin full of lures to feed the wahoo & doggies

Mick

[wokii1]

Don't shoot me down I'm not a greenie but... From what i've read they arn't really saying lets protect this species or that species coz there rare and they live in this area are they?... Arn't they sayin lets protect a whole area that not many people go to or could get to? A bit like a national park wouldn't it? You could go there and look but thats it?

[oldboot]

If you don't think thay would go ahead with this.....they have just put three rivrs in the north into their "wild rivers" programe.
There atre a number of aboriginal groups in the north that are now looking down the barrel of permanent destitution because of it.

Remember the Greenies do not seem to need any sort of good quality science to jsutify anything. Much of what they say and are capable of justifying at great length are seen thu the eye of an alternative reality that they live in.
In their view people and the economy are not important.

Of course they ( various ) will be saying very few people go there. What they real mean is that the vast majority of the general public don't go there.
There fore there wont be a voter backlash.

We live in a time when "protect" is a hot word and the desire for "protection" is very high in the minds of the general public.

Unfortunately "they" are all big on "protecting" almost anything but they are very small on the "from what" and to "what end" and totaly ignorant of the consequences.
As for unbiased and objective science.......forget it.....not wanted... not relivant.

yes there is most definitely an all east coast marine park agenda. and this is a very big slice of the salami.

how do we fight this?

I think the only way is votes that is all the polies understand.

sorry that is all I have for now.

cheers

[dazza]

Remember the Greenies do not seem to need any sort of good quality science to jsutify anything. Much of what they say and are capable of justifying at great length are seen thu the eye of an alternative reality that they live in.
In their view people and the economy are not important.

Of course they ( various ) will be saying very few people go there. What they real mean is that the vast majority of the general public don't go there.
There fore there wont be a voter backlash.

We live in a time when "protect" is a hot word and the desire for "protection" is very high in the minds of the general public.

Unfortunately "they" are all big on "protecting" almost anything but they are very small on the "from what" and to "what end" and totaly ignorant of the consequences.
As for unbiased and objective science.......forget it.....not wanted... not relivant.

yes there is most definitely an all east coast marine park agenda. and this is a very big slice of the salami.

how do we fight this?

I think the only way is votes that is all the polies understand.

sorry that is all I have for now.

cheers

couldn't agree more,
looking at the document this is based on,
a bit of "science" and a few figures, but there was a theme of it is not used by many, a long way offshore, impacts will be minimal to industry, next to gbr, it has to be good and look what the rest of the world will think

they way i saw it
is a very organised green group has given the federal govt an opportunity for a big leg up in the green cred on a worldwide stage looks great in the media

will fisho's ever get themselves organised or funded to this level- not in my lifetime

cheers

[Chris@RedlandBay]

...most of there info has come from 17 year old jcu uni students...

I think some serious questions have to be asked of the lecturers of this university if this is the case. I smell a political agenda being pushed.

[Scott nthQld]

Chris, its true, I have mates studying Marine Science at JCU, their first year, when they were still 17 they were told to go out and get this result for the GBR, if they didn't get the result their lecturer told them, they were failed.

Its not the students pushing the agenda (in most cases) but the Faculty of JCU, as most of the faculty are members of the various green groups.

If you remember a couple of years ago, JCU, teamed up with AIMS to see how the current GBR was going. I know for a fact, and have access to original documentation that these were the results the Uni and AIMS wanted and a pass grade was only possible if these were attained. Anyway, those students who had gotten used to the idea of their teachers telling them the results of any research on their assessment papers passed with flying colours, and an entire class in their 1st year was failed because their results were contradicting to what the Assessment said they should be. If I remeber the rsults correctly, one class surveyed a number of reefs zoned green and yellow and also unzoned reefs. The 'green' reefs for this group showed massive increases in fish numbers, yellow reefs showed a limited increase, and unzoned were 'found' to have dramatic declines. All these students were given high grades

A second group 'found' that there had been moderate increases across the board, they were all given passing grades

the 3rd group, who happened to be all first year students found that the green zones had little or no benefit, with some green reefs even declining in fish numbers, therefore not the result AIMS, JCU or their supporting green groups wanted, all of these students were failed for this assessment.

When we've got shit like this happening you can hardly wonder why we are sceptical, everything these 'legitimate research' mobs do is politically driven in one way or another, that is they want to make sure they keep getting their funding, and that means getting the results the groups funding them wants.


Back to the submission, the submission clearly states that there is little to no fishing pressure in the coral sea, outside of the GBR.

Do we remember the 2 special words which were passed through parliarment last year regarding Marine zoning?

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Thats all they need, they need no science, no consultation, nothing. As Graham said, the Govt borrowing all this money comes at a price, given the Govt has no wealth, the environment goes up for collateral. The precautionary Principle just gave them the means to do what they like, when they like.

As for another's question, yes it is true that very little rec fishing goes on outside the reef, but a select few are lucky enough to own and run a few very large Gameboats right up and down the coast, these are the people that go out that wide in search of monster marlin, oceanic sharks etc for game fishing. again, boats of this nature also represent millions and millions of dollars to the Qld economy every summer, with many thousands of international fishing enthusiats all come to Cairns, all cashed up to try and catch a Giant Black MArlin, some of these vessels are making upwards of $5000 a day. If the oral sea is closed thats a lot of coin to lose, plus what the tourist would spend in Cairns, plus the jobs that go with them.

It was not long ago that our State Govt were saying that jobs are the most important thing during this current economic climate, after all thats what they were elected on. So, what is our State Govt going to do about this? They've promised to create new jobs and protect existing ones, yet it hasn't been 2 months since they were elected and they've already broken their promise.

[Platax]

[quote=Scott nthQld;1001490] I know for a fact, and have access to original documentation that these were the results the Uni and AIMS wanted and a pass grade was only possible if these were attained.

Scott,

if this is true, its a really serious issue. Can you post these documents on the site for everyone to see? Failing that, what courses and lecturers were involved?

CHeers,

PT