Reply With QuoteNo. Its a copyrighted document.Originally Posted by billfisher
Brenden
I was simply following the standard set by you in earlier posts. In my defence, at least I read the report before making comment.
The Robbins et al. research used the method recommended by Standard Operating Procedure No 3 for Visual Census Surveys. The SOP was authored by Halford and Thompson and was informed by the Mapstone and Ayling (1993) report on optimum methods for visual estimation of abundance of reef organisisms. We can debate this further but the use of a standard method allows comparison to other reseach on an apples to apples basis.
Brenden
No. Its a copyrighted document.
Brenden
The Robbins et al. research reports on real world observations so I don't get the point.
Brenden
The use of computers for modelling represents an advance in the scientific method, its not a fad. Maybe Dr Starck cannot keep up. I have no trouble understanding the model used by Robbins et al and my acceptance of the results have nothing to do with faith.
Transparency? Its all there to read and review and check independantly. Where is the lack of transparancy?
Brenden
Billfisher,
Is this just more evidence that you happily post with out checking any facts? "I saw it in the SMH" is not good enough when you denigrate the work of professional people. I don't know if the reseach was good or bad but to suggest it's credibility is dependant on funding source is just silly. You say that the Murry Cod data would have come from the NSWDPI - well, did it or didn't it? I'd like to check some of the assertions you make but I now find that yet again you don't know what you are talking about.
I figure Dr Starck could be a great souce of information to help site members makes sense of the overall picture of the reef and management of the reef but you do not present him in a good light at all. Has he done any research of his own to put up against stuff such as that produced by Robbins? I'd be happy to check it out and draw my own conclusions.
Brenden
sorry double post again
I was simply following the standard set by you in earlier posts. #In my defence, at least I read the report before making comment.
No, we stated up front we had only read the summary/ abstract. Plus my comments also refered to the coral trout green zone study whuch Dr Starck HAD read in full. One paper in any case is not the be all and end all on the subject of coral reef sharks. There is nothing wrong with me putting up some of Dr Starcks experience on the subject. His comments on the difficulty of dive counts in reliably estimating sharks no was particulary relevant. # #
The Robbins et al. research used the method recommended by Standard Operating Procedure No 3 for Visual Census Surveys. #The SOP was authored by Halford and Thompson and was informed by the Mapstone and Ayling (1993) report on optimum methods for visual estimation of abundance of reef organisisms. #We can debate this further but the use of a standard method allows comparison to other reseach on an apples to apples basis.
What does that actually mean? Was not the Mapstone Ayling study looking at coral trout and red throat emperor? Dive counts work well with these species but as Dr Starck pointed out are flawed with respect to counting reef sharks.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Billfisher,
Is this just more evidence that you happily post with out checking any facts? #"I saw it in the SMH" is not good enough when you denigrate the work of professional people. #I don't know if the reseach was good or bad but to suggest it's credibility is dependant on funding source is just silly. #You say that the Murry Cod data would have come from the NSWDPI - well, did it or didn't it? #I'd like to check some of the assertions you make but I now find that yet again you don't know what you are talking about.
Brenden[/quote]
If its good enough for the Jervis Bay study findings to be put a in Sydney paper with 100s of 1000s of readers it is good enough for me to comment on this forum. Just the fact that the public is presented with this information means it should be open to criticism. If I don't know what I am talking about tell me if red mowong are a "popular recreational fishing species" or not. Also whether a few snapshot studies on a species which is mobile are proof that a sanctuary is increasing their numbers.
The DPI minister didn't mention the study when asked for the scientific justification of marine parks, all he could offer was the study of a Coral Reef marine sanctuary in the Bahamas!
Regarding the murray cod example as I said it is a quote from Dr Starck. Are you suggesting he made it up? Would you like me to get more detail?
[quote author=Chaz link=1165273768/30#33 date=1166550831Transparency? #Its all there to read and review and check independantly. #Where is the lack of transparancy?
Brenden[/quote]
Well for a start I still can't get a copy of the report. How did the "copyright" stop you from getting a copy?
Regarding computer modeling I thought it was very clear what Dr Starck was saying. Its based on assumptions and adjustments which are not usually open to scruitiny. Then there the question of the relevence and robustness of the original data. Eg the "Fish stock to Collapse in 50 years" report with is reliance on catches to estimate the abundance of fish (refer to the critique I put up).
It might be worthwhile editing this post now Billfisher. #It's been established that you had not read the report when you posted and the comment does not contribute to your credibility. #The comment on the "unique" estimates stands out as a silly thing to say.
Brenden[/quote]
Now Brenden it was I who established that I had only read the summary (same for Dr Starck). Also the word "unique" in reference to the sampling technique comes from the report summary itself!
The problem is some people here (only a minority, I think) are religiously against exclusion zones. I made a prediction in the other thread that even if any new research indicated the beneficial nature of exclusion zones in any way it would be dismisses out of hand by said minority. That's particularly why I was so flabbergasted at the response here - it was so obviously an automatic dismissal (with a bit of denigration of the researchers involved thrown in). Also, there was a detailed discussion about bias in the other thread, and to see here such a clear example of that, directly after that discussion, I could only really shake my head in disbelief.
I'm glad you pursued the issue, Chaz, I hadn't the stomach for it. Not because I didn't feel an injustice was being done, or because the issue wan't important (it was, and it is), but because the few opposed to them are fanatically so, and are almost incapable of even entertaining another point of view. Reminds me of a quote from Eric Hoffer: "A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical believer is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self."
I'd like to say for the record that I am a keen angler, and I know that a lot of people involved in exclusion zone research are as well, and many (most?) of them recognise that there may be inherent benefits, for both fishermen and the environment. It's not greenies, hippies, or anti-fishing types only that can see the potential benefits.
However, I'm not a fanatic. If proper and repeated research shows that there are no benefits to exclusion zones (ecologically and for we fishermen) I'd gladly accept this. I've seen some research that indicates that exclusion zones on the GBR are not as beneficial as initially thought, and I accept this. However even these studies show them to have some benefit. Further, exclusion zones on the NSW coastline and Moreton Bay are a very separate issue, with far greater anthropogenic pressures than in the GBR. As I've said before, I'd like to see more studies done.
Well pjw, Im sorry that with one remark I gave you an excuse to dismiss out of hand everything I have said, but I'll get over it. Now it was you who said that the 'fish stocks to collapse in 50 years report' was a good reason to ban recreational fishing over a large area of Moreton Bay. Also your one and only dive in the Byron Bay Marine Park was evidence to the effectiveness of the sanctuary zone there.
Chaz has become fond of harping away about how he has read the reef shark report and I haven't, but this is wearing a bit thin seeing he won't send me a copy or even say how he got hold of it. I did manage to find a more detailed summary though.
If you take their finding to be true then according to this summary the Green Zones DO NOT protect the reef sharks as they fare little better here than than in the fished zones. The only areas with healthy nos of sharks are in the pink zones. These comprise of only 1% of the reef and they ban humans from entering. So imagine that to protect the reef sharks by way of sanctuaries it would appear you have to ban humans from the reef altogether! Perhaps then traditional management techniques over the whole fishery might give better protection and less socio-economic damage? Ie protected status, education programmes etc.
Now given that the nos. are so much higher in the pink zones (no human presence), it does give some plausibility to Dr Starks remarks regarding shark behaviour and dive counts. #
You asked for some evidence that exclusion zones don't work. Well its hard to prove a negative. But on the other hand there is not any clear evidence that they do work in well managed fisheries either:
From the CSIRO division of rural sciences:
"Their potential fisheries benefits are theoretical and have not been demonstrated in practice.”
Also:
No Take Marine Protected Areas (nMPAs) as a fishery management tool, a pragmatic perspective
A Report to the FishAmerica Foundation
By Robert L. Shipp, Ph.D.
Executive Summary
Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) are portions of the marine environment which are protected from some or all human activity. Often these are proposed as a safeguard against collapse of fish stocks, although there are numerous other suggested purposes for their establishment. “No take” MPAs (hereafter referenced as nMPAs) are those from which no harvest is allowed. Other types include those where certain types of harvest are prohibited, which are reserved for certain user groups, or which are protected from other human activities such as drilling or dredging.
Establishment of nMPAs may have numerous beneficial purposes. However, as a tool for fisheries management, where optimal and/or maximum sustainable yield is the objective, nMPAs are generally not as effective as traditional management measures, and are not appropriate for the vast majority of marine species. This is because most marine species are far too mobile to remain within an nMPA and/or are not overfished. For those few species that could receive benefit, creation of nMPAs would have an adverse effect on optimal management of sympatric forms.
Eight percent of US fish stocks of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are reported to be experiencing overfishing. The finfish stocks included in this number are primarily pelagic or highly mobile species, movement patterns that don’t lend themselves to benefit from nMPAs. Thus a very small percentage, something less than 2 %, depending on mobility potentials, is likely to benefit from creation of these no-take zones. However, many of these species have come under management within the last decade, employing more traditional fishery management measures, and are experiencing recovery.
MPAs (both “no take” and other types) can serve a positive function as a management tool in protecting breeding aggregations, in helping recovery of severely overfished and unmanaged insular fish populations with little connectivity to adjacent stocks, and in protecting critical habitat which can be damaged by certain fishing methods.
PJW,
Note that they are talking about commercial fishing. Angling has the least impact of all fishing methods. There are already spatial restriction on commercial fishing. In NSW trawling is banned in sensitive areas including waters deeper than 1000m. Commercial fishing is banned in 30 of the States estuaries. Australia has the lightest fished waters in the world (1/30th of world average). Also note that the USA has 20 times the fishing pressure of Australia. Despite this we will soon have 30% of the World's marine parks.
Now who is being fanatical?
Billfisher says that if its in the paper then that is good enough for him. I suggest this is a really good example of how her/his posts hurt the interests of the site members. Consider this scenario: the regulators call for submissions on increasing the coverage/size of No-go zones. One submission points to several published, peeer-reviewed articles that have found that No-go zones have healthy fish populations compared to No-take and fished zones and says we need more No-go zones. In contrast, Billfisher delivers a rant about junk-science, biased findings, and tops it off by disclosing his source of infomation is a press release and a newspaper story and that he has never read the actual research. So now the regulators have to balance the very credible findings of the research against the dribble (sorry about the judgemental word but I cannot think of anything better) offered by Billfisher. And the result is???????? I'll bet there would not be more sites accessible for fishing.
There is a lot of research out there. Some good and a lot, bad. The buzzword in regulator circles is evidence-based practice. If the collective members of this site want continued access to the resources, we can contribute by finding the bad research and emphasising the good. The denigration of research by those whose only knowledge of the topic is a press release diminishes the credibility of all of us.
Brenden
pjw,
I suspect the message will be lost on those to who it is directed.
Yes, this it the research I'd like to make sense of. #Exclusion zones as a set-and-forget strategy seem to have only limited benefit. #Closed seasons to coincide with spawning events and rolling closures to allow recovery make sense intuitively but lack research support. #I do a lot of fishing in put and take impoundments and those kinds of fisheries are showing that such a system works. #well. #Maybe, in the future, we will see popular species stocked on the close reefs/fisheries as a management and access technique. #The research article at the focus of this thread is particularly important give the argument that the sharks may be a keystone species. #But, yes, I agree that much more research is needed.
Brenden
Billfisher says that if its in the paper then that is good enough for him. #I suggest this is a really good example of how her/his posts hurt the interests of the site members. #Consider this scenario: the regulators call for submissions on increasing the coverage/size of No-go zones. #One submission points to several published, peeer-reviewed articles that have found that No-go zones have healthy fish populations compared to No-take and fished zones and says we need more No-go zones. #In contrast, Billfisher delivers a rant about junk-science, biased findings, and tops it off by disclosing his source of infomation is a press release and a newspaper story and that he has never read the actual research.
Bias is not a figment of my imagination. The GBRMPA has a track record of ignoring or supressing research that does not suit it. All research in marine parks require a permit from the relevant MPA. Most of the research is funded by the MPAs.
#So now the regulators have to balance the very credible findings of the research against the dribble (sorry about the judgemental word but I cannot think of anything better) offered by Billfisher. #And the result is???????? #I'll bet there would not be more sites accessible for fishing.
Brenden, the last time I checked this was I fishing chat site - not a submission to a Marine Park Authority. Now I have put up plenty of credible scientific reviews and studies and you just ignore them or when pressed reply "not helpful". Some of this refer to the GBR and are at odds with some of the JCU findings. Every time you post all you do is harp on about how I have not read the coral reef shark study so I can't comment. I will remind you again that I have asked repeatedly that you send me a copy or at least say how you have come by the copy. All you seem to wish to do is carry on with the same sophist arguments. Same goes for for the SMH article. Now in this case the reason I don't need to read the research is that I don't disagree with it. I don't doubt that the was an increase in red mowong nos. What I questioned was that the species was a "popular recreational fishing target" and that the increase in nos after just 2 years was due to the removal of angling. #
There is a lot of research out there. #Some good and a lot, bad. #The buzzword in regulator circles is evidence-based practice. #If the collective members of this site want continued access to the resources, we can contribute by finding the bad research and emphasising the good. #The denigration of research by those whose only knowledge of the topic is a press release diminishes the credibility of all of us.
It would have taken less effort to just send me the coral reef shark study.
Posting Permissions