Reply With Quotethey printed the same $hit about three years ago how do they prove it . just another load of crap to shove down peoples throats and this study will be quoted as gospel in the future
Stuie
Some food for thought and no doubt ammo for those that want to close down our fishing grounds......
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/bre...-1225833130590
FISH stocks, sharks and dugongs have benefited greatly from protected marine reserves established on the Great Barrier Reef five years ago, a new study shows.
The research found rapid increases in fish and some shark populations inside marine reserves that prohibit fishing.
It also found no-fishing zones were located in areas that threatened species such as dugongs and marine turtles frequent and helped eliminate hazards such as fishing nets.
The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences.
Lead author Dr Laurence McCook says the number of coral trout doubled in some reserves within two years of banning fishing.
He says red throat empire and red empire numbers were also up.
"The resounding pattern overall is there are more and bigger fish in the protected areas than the fished areas," said Dr McCook, from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies.
Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"Bigger fish have more babies and they produce more off-spring.
"The increased reproduction is almost spilling over to the fished areas."
The study found larger, more mobile species, such as sharks, have been slower to recover but grey reef sharks were 30 times more abundant in protected reefs compared with fished reefs.
Dr McCook said there were also increases in white-tipped and black-tipped shark populations.
He said reserves benefit the overall health and resilience of marine ecosystems.
"Outbreaks of coral-eating, crown-of-thorns starfish are less frequent on no-take reefs, which consequently have a higher abundance of healthy corals after outbreaks," Dr McCook said.
The team says there is concern of poaching taking place in some no-take zones.
Dr Josh Cinner, of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies, says reserves worked best when there has been a formal consultation processes about the rules, and locals were included in monitoring the reserve.
He said ongoing training to educate locals in the science and policy behind reserves also helped.
"Park agencies need to foster conditions that enable people to work together to protect their local environment voluntarily, rather than focusing purely on regulations and patrols," he said.
they printed the same $hit about three years ago how do they prove it . just another load of crap to shove down peoples throats and this study will be quoted as gospel in the future
Stuie
IF IT CAN'T EAT A WHOLE PILLY I DON'T WANT IT
"Bigger fish have more babies and they produce more off-spring."
Yes - the longer they are in the cycle, the more they can reproduce. However with the increase in predators around these areas due to the increase in food, how many actually survive?
"The increased reproduction is almost spilling over to the fished areas."
ALMOST spilling over does not prove spill over theory at all. It's like saying I almost caught a black marlin when I was fishing for whiting in Nerang River!
"The study found larger, more mobile species, such as sharks, have been slower to recover but grey reef sharks were 30 times more abundant in protected reefs compared with fished reefs."
Of course there will be more sharks there. If they are making their prey larger then they will frequent these areas more. That is common sense.
Cheers,
Chris
You are absolutely correct, but I have a feeling we will see more articles like this appearing in our newspapers to prop up our governments green decisions.....Originally Posted by STUIE63
What I found strange was that 1. I found it in a Victorian newspaper when I would think it more applicable to Queenslanders and 2. I couldn't find any accessable access to the figures they are quoting, we just have to take their word for it or so it would seem.
Bill.
Chris, how do we get copies of these studies??? Call me a skeptic but I find it hard to trust the word of our media or scientists anymore. Do Eco ever get their hands on these things or is it restricted to believers........
Bill.
This is such infuriating crap. Amost (said almost) makes me want to get back on the horse.
Business at present requires that a fly pretty much every week between Hamilton Island and Cairns, over the reef. Today was nice, calm seas, blue sky most of the way, beautiful view of reef after reef. The only thing missing was.....BOATS. No one out there. By contrast I got to go Snapper fishing on Port Phillip Bay just before the cup and as far as the you could see, in ever direction was thousands and thousands of boats.
The GBR is the most underfished, under-exploited and under used fishery, probably on the bloody planet and for these overeducated morons to try to sprout this continued progaganda is just appaulling.
The worst of it is the media just lap it up.
KC
Hi Bill,
We do have the assistance of a marine scientist or two that obtain copies of these reports for us and provide a bit of a synopsis so we know what they are saying. Without the help of these unsung hero's, it would be almost impossible to get our hands on them either 1) without a fight or 2) without paying exorbitant fees.
We are trying to get out hands on this document but it looks to have hit the press before the scientific community but that is yet to be confirmed.
Cheers,
Chris
surely it does not take a scientist to work out one simple thing...that a reef will reach saturation point..ie. where there is not enough food to support the population that wants to live there . Then what? They move..therefore that reef will only support a maximum number of fish etc..it cannot get any bigger. Or..if the fish are not migratory they die of starvation.
WOW..and some stupid bugger gets a degree and everyone is expected to bow down at his/her feet and shower them with accolades...because they have stated the obvious.
This happens all to often these days. The whole idea of scientific principle or method is to publish scientific results to be critiqued and refined or even dismissed by peers. However these days, all to often, the press gets hold of a paper and publishes as gospel.
The other thing we see these days is the government employed scientist publish a paper to cabinet, which is unavailable to the general public (even via FOI), used as a scientic basis for creating a green zone.
None of it is science.
This is why I promote Bill Sawynok's work so much. He is paid via governement more often than not, but every single bit of his data is available for review by fellow scientists and rec fisho's alike.
The problem is we just dont know if thats the case. It may well be that the fish do breed and move out, however I have seen a lot of published data that does not support this theory.
I can get a degree tomorrow and say that there is more fish in a green zone than there was before it was a green zone, its not rocket science. What I can't do is go out and definitivley say that having a green zone on a particular reef in the Great Barrier Reef makes the whole reef sustainable.
The real issue is how do they count the fish to get accurate fish counts to make that statement?
Well according to the scientists themselves they cant, as they hide in the coral... well this report was buried,,,
"Overfishing and evolution
Fish fear their census-takers
Using snorkelers and SCUBA divers is not the best way to monitor fish populations, if we want to know the evolutionary effects of overfishing.
The fish population in coral reef areas is often assessed by snorkelers or SCUBA divers, but new research shows that these methods may misrepresent the number of fish.
A study from the University of Victoria shows that fish avoid the divers and snorkelers who try to count them. Not all types of fish are equally frightened by the divers, and Faculty of 1000 member Helen Yap, who recommended the study, explains that therefore "such methods may not provide an accurate picture of the actual diversity and abundance of fish communities."
Counting coral reef fish informs researchers about local ecological changes. However, accurate monitoring of fish populations in other parts of the ocean is also necessary. This is because overfishing has long-term, 'evolutionary' effects on fish population and breeding rates.
This was addressed by John Pandolfi in a recent article in Faculty of 1000 Reports. Accurate assessment of changes to fish populations depends on being able to count them. Pandolfi emphasized that fish populations must be monitored over several generations, saying "While the field is exciting and changing almost daily, we still have very little information of how species are affected by fisheries-induced evolution, and the extent to which various traits are vulnerable."
Sort of says it all, how do they count the fish?.. not rocket science,... accurate assessment of changes to fish populations depends on being able to count them...haven't we been saying this all along?
mike
Tangles KFC
Thats called common sense, nothing to do with science it seems
Tangles KFC
"The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the US National Academy of Sciences."
Why is this "Study" of "Our" Reef, in a "US" Journal, what country did the Study?
Rob T
This is slightly off topic....but did anyone else see the doco last night on abc australian story "Something In the water"?
Run off is such a major factor in marine health.
Did not see the doco, but your comment has me thinking, why hasn't anyone done some water sampling around the bay and had the test results published???
Surely the costs can't be that great that no one will do it. Or has it been done allready and I'm yet to hear of it ?
Bill.
Posting Permissions
