Backyard Aquaponics
http://byap.backyardmagazines.com/forum/

Marine Protected Areas
http://byap.backyardmagazines.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=9540		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  freoboy [ Apr 23rd, '11, 10:52 ]
Post subject:  Marine Protected Areas
Now this is a huge pasison of mine, indeed my honours project it around the design of MPAs. I heard this ( http://www.abc.net.au/rn/saturdayextra/ ... 198314.htm ) on the radio this morning and it seemed like an absolute joke. Robert Kearney prattling on about the science behind marine reseves not being conclusive and definate, and claiming that the public is being 'brainwashed' by scientists to impliment reserves! Im sorry, but i can assure you that MPAs do work, and are scientifically proven to do so, not only in AUS, but also around the world.

I also dodnt like how they painted Hugh Possingham in this. Hugh is the developer of MARXAn, a conservation planning program (which most of my research is based around) that minimises the impact of MPAs on industry (especially fishing!) yet they never touched on this, but instead focused upon Kearneys views.

I thought ABC radio was unbiased, but it seems that we cannot have a decent fair debate anymore. Sure there will always be science to disprove anything (including global warmign) however when the overwhelming scientific concensus is that MPAs work, or Climate change is happenign, dont you think its time to sit up and listen???

ok rant over, does anyone else have an opinion?
Author:  arbe [ Apr 23rd, '11, 12:41 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
ABC Radio unbiased? Pfft.

How many times have I heard the Host disconnect or talk over someone when they don't agree with them....
Author:  bythebrook [ Apr 23rd, '11, 19:58 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
THe ABC is required to be "balanced." In practice, this means that they will usually have two interviewees with different opinions on the same subject. It doesn't matter what the subject is, so in theory, if one person wanted to say that the world is round, another "expert" is entitled to the same airtime to say the earth is flat.
It's a real problem when a highly regarded scientist with the weight of scientific data is given the same time as a non-scientist who has no evidence to back up their position. It doesn't help when many people don't have the scientific and mathematical background necessary to understand the arguments.
AGW is the obvious example, but there are many more in ABC land. I assume FB has just found another. Technically science can't "prove" the sun will rise tomorrow morning, but the evidence strongly suggests it.
I assume the marine parks are to prevent overfishing. Is he saying parks don't work or that they aren't needed? Or is it the usual delaying tactics until no solution is possible?
Author:  freoboy [ Apr 23rd, '11, 20:32 ]
Post subject:  Marine Protected Areas
The fisheries guy is saying that fishing is a non issue that doesn't need to be regulated....
Author:  ScottieM [ Apr 23rd, '11, 20:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
In a way I think Marine Parks are a bandaid for a broken arm and a way to only police the honest part of the population. There is not enough fisheries officers now to protect the currently protected areas. If these marine parks are implemented there best not be a sudden increase in fisheries officers. Because in my opinion that will be nothing more than revenue raising and nothing to do with protecting future stocks. I fish at least once a week and have for years. Ive been stopped by a genuine fisheries officer twice. If they were serious about overfishing and things like that, they would have increased the number of these officers.

Recreational fishing is not the problem. Commercial Fisheries are. You will find the new generation of recreational fishermen have a more conservationist attitude than the previous generations.

If they are implemented I hope they look into artificial reefs to keep a recreational fishery available so I can enjoy one of my favorite past times. The government is already taking steps to limit those fishing in the form of licensing which in my opinion should have been done years ago.

Overall I am not opposed to Marine Parks but I am also yet to be convinced they are the right way to go. Im all for fishing for the future and practice catch and release fishing 95% of the time, I only ever take a feed and the rest goes back. I would hate to see tourism lost in some of our sports fishing destinations as a direct result of this aswell.
Author:  ScottieM [ Apr 23rd, '11, 20:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
D D Double post.
Author:  freoboy [ Apr 23rd, '11, 21:01 ]
Post subject:  Marine Protected Areas
Scotty you are not the problem :) it is commercial fishing that is by and large depleting our oceans of fish.

Artificial reefs - by the time the reef is established and there us a viable fish population for fishing you and I will be long dead. It has been tried here for western rock lobster off of geraldton.

MPAs will increase fish stock, and are proven beyond doubt to time and time again. Increased rec. and comm. catch around MPAs is commonly recorded, conservation scientists refer to it as the edge effect.

I agree that a MPA is pointless unless it is properly policed, unfortunately this is not often possible without increased officers. However often our current MPAs are under policed, so this needs to be addressed
Author:  freoboy [ Apr 23rd, '11, 21:02 ]
Post subject:  Marine Protected Areas
I also believe we need upper and lower length limits on fish catch. Large individuals spawn up to 100x more babies than small adults
Author:  phivtoosyx [ Apr 24th, '11, 07:27 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
It doesn't matter which side the science on. It only matters which side the money is on.
Author:  earthbound [ Apr 24th, '11, 10:52 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
freoboy wrote:
I also believe we need upper and lower length limits on fish catch. Large individuals spawn up to 100x more babies than small adults


Yes, personallly I have never understood the legal size limit. Take all the big breeders, but whatever you do, don't take the smaller fast growing ones that aren't anywhere near breeding age..

As a person who fishes recreationaly on a weekly basis, I have no problem at all with protected areas. Man, just try and go out net fishing with a throw net and see the restrictions you get on that.. Extra marine protected areas? Bring it on....
Author:  RupertofOZ [ Apr 24th, '11, 19:44 ]
Post subject:  Re: Marine Protected Areas
Yep, I've no problem with marine areas either... and yep, a max size to protect brood stock should be applied....

It's not the recreational fisher that impacts on the big stock... most rec fishers don't catch bugger all.... and the more dedicated and successful fishermen are usually more likely to be into catch & release... and/or have some awareness...

On the other end of the scale... are the commercial fishermen... that get paid by weight.... and thus are more likely to target and keep the big brood stock...
Author:  freoboy [ Apr 24th, '11, 19:49 ]
Post subject:  Marine Protected Areas
And further commercial fishing practices such as bottom trawling remove all substrate aswell, so the area becomes inhabitable. Practice such as purse seine netting remove entire populations off fish in one trip, if this was a terrestrial animal (ie birds) these practices would have been banned years ago, but the out if site out of mind mentality seems to be rife in commercial fishing
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC + 8 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/