VRFish backs Victorian Government push on southern bluefin tuna

VRFish, Victoria’s recreational fishing peak body, has echoed calls to the Commonwealth Government for assurance that the recreational fishing community be guaranteed long term access to the southern bluefin tuna fishery in the south west.

‘It’s extremely heartening that the Victorian Coalition Government recognises the importance of this fishery,’ said Christopher Collins, Executive Officer of VRFish. ‘It gives recreational fishers some surety that the Government recognises our valuable contribution to the economies of regional communities such as Portland as we enjoy our pursuit.’

The southern bluefin tuna fishery is extremely popular with recreational fishers, many of whom spend considerable time and money in the south west of the state. ‘Almost every Monday over the past few months, VRFish has received emails from our members, with photos and reports from a fantastic weekend chasing the bluefin,’ said Mr Collins. ‘We applaud Minister Walsh in his endeavour to ensure that this can continue through allowing full access to this magnificent fishery on behalf of Victoria’s recreational fishers.’

‘VRFish commends the great work conducted by Fisheries Victoria which quantifies the popularity of this fishery,’ said Mr Collins.
‘It’s particularly pleasing to witness such strong commitment to a fishery and a community that means so much to the many hundreds of thousands of Victorians that enjoy recreational fishing.’


http://vrfish.com.au/wp-content/uploads/120628-Southern-Bluefin-Tuna1.pdf

THE US-based anti-fishing organisation Pew has admitted it pressured the Australian Government to lock anglers out of vast areas of the Coral Sea but would not take the same action in American waters because it would harm the US economy and disadvantage local fishermen.

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/pew-admits-it-targeted-australia-for-lockouts-left-us-alone

We Fish Media release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

29^th June 2012

Victorian recreational tuna fishery is under Threat from the Federal Gillard Government!

“The Commonwealth government has been formally asked by the Victoria Coalition government to give assurances that recreational fishing for Southern Bluefin Tuna will be allowed going forward but the request has either fallen on deaf ears or more concerning, is being totally ignored” said Dale McClelland campaign coordinator for WE FISH

“The Federal Minister responsible for Fisheries Senator Ludwig is saying nothing and with the Gillard Government’s track record of unjustified fishing lock-outs while paying total lip service to recreational fishing this continuation of Gillard government policy is very worrying.

“The detrimental impact of stopping recreational tuna fishing in Victoria, to the south west regional economy in particular and the recreational boat manufacturing and retail fishing industry sectors would be catastrophic.

“The current marine policy environment under the Federal government is anti-recreational fishing and is being formulated by fringe environmental groups from within the very offices of our elected representatives. Now it seems that the Gillard government wants to ban the recreational take of Southern Bluefin Tuna. WE FISH will fight to the death on this issue.

“WE FISH applaud the hard work by Victorian Fisheries Minister Peter Walsh and his Parliamentary Secretary Dr Bill Sykes. Their unflinching support of recreational fishing is an assurance and more importantly, WE FISH offers 100% support to the Victorian Coalition government’s endeavours in making sure that the recreational tuna fishery and all Victorian recreational fisheries are to remain.

“This battle starts now and I can personally guarantee all parties taking up this cause the support of EVERY recreational fisher man, woman and child in this state” said Dale McClelland.

Media Contact:

Dale McClelland

0400 902 492
we_fish@hotmail.com

Rex Hunt Keep Australia Fishing

Victoria seeks assurances on southern bluefin tuna

Wednesday, 27 June 2012

From the Minister for Agriculture and Food Security

The Victorian Coalition Government is seeking assurance that the valuable southwest Victorian southern bluefin tuna angling sector will be guaranteed long term access to the fishery.
Agriculture and Food Security Minister Peter Walsh today said southern bluefin tuna was an important fishery for recreational anglers in Victoria who were entitled to an ongoing share along with the commercial sector.
"The southern bluefin tuna fishery is a significant resource for recreational fishers, charter operators and tourism operators in southwest Victoria while also supporting an important commercial fishery based in Port Lincoln in South Australia," Mr Walsh said.
"We are seeking assurances from the Commonwealth Government that fair consideration will be given to both the recreational and commercial sectors in future decision making about access to the southern bluefin tuna resource."


http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/media-centre/media-releases/4303-victoria-seeks-assurances-on-southern-bluefin-tuna-.html

DPI Exucutive Summary

Fisheries Victoria initiated this study, following consultation with the Victorian recreational fishing community, to provide the first quantified estimate of the recreational daytime trailer-boat catch of Southern Bluefin Tuna (SBT) off the south west Victorian coast.



http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/about-fisheries/publications-and-resources/fisheries-reports/your-licence-fees-at-work-reports/2012/quantifying-the-recreational-catch-of-southern-bluefin-tuna

FV Margiris (super trawler) raised in parliament

Monday, 25 June 2012




Mr WILKIE (Denison) (14:24): My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what on earth were regulators thinking when they gave approval for the world's second-biggest trawler, the 142 metre Margiris, to operate around Tasmania? Will you review that decision with a view to revoking it or at least put in place safeguards to protect Australia's best fisheries by ensuring that the super trawler's massive quota is broken down into smaller limits for specific areas?

Ms GILLARD (Lalor—Prime Minister) (14:25): I thank the member for Denison for his question. I know that he is seriously concerned about this matter. I can assure the member for Denison that, contrary to a report in the Daily Telegraph on 7 June, no application has been granted for the vessel he refers to. I believe that the member for Denison's concerns were probably triggered by that report or by follow-up media occasioned by that report. There has been no application to the Australian Fisheries Management Authority by the vessel which the member for Denison refers to and which is a large, mid-water-trawl factory vessel—and the member for Denison is concerned about its size. No application has been made in respect of that vessel to the relevant independent authority, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

I can also assure the member for Denison and the House in general that, if such an application were to be made, it would be subject to all of the normal considerations that the Australian Fisheries Management Authority goes through. These include catch limits—and the member for Denison's question refers, effectively, to catch limits. They can include requirements to have observers on the vessel who monitor fishing activities. They can also include issues about the kind of equipment used, including technology which, for example, can detect the presence of seals. So, should an application be made, each of these issues would be the subject of consideration. Other requirements can also be engaged in and considered by the relevant authority, including logbook reporting, satellite vessel-monitoring systems, mandatory reporting of any interactions with protected species and the like.

I can assure the member for Denison that what determines the size of any taking of fish is not the size of the vessel—and he has referred to a large vessel—but the constraints that are put on it by the relevant independent authority, who would work through the issues should an application be made.



Recreational fisherman and fishing journalist, Marty Ellul, explained how the ship will harm both the local tuna population and economy.



http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2012/06/19/3528816.htm?site=southwestvic




The extraction of over 17 thousand baitfish off the coast of Portland will have a small impact, if any, on the broader eco-system according to CEO of Australian Fisheries Management Authority James Findlay.


http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2012/06/20/3529352.htm

31 May 2012
AFMA is aware that an Australian company has proposed the use of a large vessel in the Commonwealth Small Pelagic Fishery, however to date AFMA has not received any application for this vessel to operate in the fishery.


http://www.afma.gov.au/2012/05/super-trawler-fears-unfounded/

Vessel details and current live location 

http://www.marinetraffic.com/ais/default.aspx?mmsi=277330000&centerx=4.5803&centery=52.46147&zoom=10&type_color=2



A search for the FV Margiris, on the Equasis (Database containing safety-related information on the world's merchant fleet from both public and private sources) using both name and IMO number. No record, so ownership, Insurers, etc, survey status cannot be checked



Seafish Tasmania

http://www.seafish.com.au/_content/assets.htm

ANGLERS release almost a quarter of the southern bluefin tuna caught off south-west Victoria, according to new research into the huge recreational fishing boom.

http://www.standard.net.au/news/local/news/general/tuna-in-abundance-off-southwest-study-finds/2594763.aspx

Half page add in The Australain 22/06/2012

As you can imagine it takes some time to find and put together this information on this blog so if people that are interested follow the blog and either share the link or the information around, so I don’t have to keep posting, up dates everywhere it would  be a big help.

What is the answer if Marine Parks are not (opinion piece)


People often ask what a better solution if marine parks are not the answer, well we need to change on how we view this issue as well as our response, currently the criteria for success in conservation is how much area we have locked up, this needs to change to a fundamental evaluation on the actual health and numbers of the species, the very ones we are trying to protect, no point having a marine park if there is nothing left living in it. The other thing we desperately need to change is this idea that” this is what we have left” let’s divided it up between the users and locks up a percentage as an insurance policy as such and hope that works. That is a great system in countries where they haven’t got the financial means, political will, poor or no fisheries management as well as all the other problems. In Australia we couldn’t be further from that, what we should be doing in Australia and setting an example to the world is estimate not only what we take out of the system today, but envisage what we are likely to be taking out of the system in the future, then start making changes to ensure that in future there is enough fish for everyone. To do this we must turn our conservation approach on its arse, instead of concentrating on the end of the food chain we need to turn our attention the beginning of the food chain, it the species we target have nothing to eat then you can protect them as much as you like but they will still disappear. The majority of the start of the food chain is greatly affected by what we do on land, this is for a number of reasons first they are usually located in the close to shore reefs, and second most of these species will not leave this reef for almost their entire life.

As an example out of all the ecosystems we have the one that has suffered the most is the saltmarsh, seagrass mangrove system it has been far greatly affected then our coral reefs, although going by some of our environmental groups you would not now this, in Western Port Victoria this habitat is now believed to be at below 10% of its original biomass. But how does this affect us, well the very species we target either use this area as a spawning or nursery ground, the ones that don’t only enter our bays to feed on the species that do. The four species the Philip Island Penguins eat depend on this very area.

An increase in this area should result in a direct increase in the numbers and health of the species we target, could you imagine a 10 or 20 fold increases in species we target?

What do we need to do? Well as anglers we need to gain not only control over the science but the funding for this science so we are the ones calling the shots of what it looks at and why, we need to unite not just recreational anglers but with the commercial sector as well, understanding that we will all have to compromise and toe the line just as our opposition is doing. We need to stop being on the defensive with every issue and start being proactive in fighting for our rights.

If like where I am the weather is wet, windy and cold for you, spend some time looking at this video below, it tells the story in simple terms of what the problem is, and don’t forget there are ten year old marine parks in Westernport Victoria.

As you can imagine it takes some time to find and put together this information on this blog so if people that are interested follow the blog and either share the link or the information around, so I don’t have to keep posting up dates everywhere it would  be a big help.

 

More about the CAR system of marine parks.

The Strategic Plan describes the three principles, also referred to as the CAR principles, as

follows:



Comprehensiveness: The NRSMPA will include the full range of ecosystems recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion.

Adequacy: The NRSMPA will have the required level of reservation to ensure the ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities.

Representativeness: Those marine areas that are selected for inclusion in MPAs should reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the marine ecosystems from which they derive. (Source: ANZECC TFMPA 1999, pp 15-16)

Comprehensiveness

 Adequacy

 

Representativeness

MPAs - A useless solution to a non-problem
by Walter Starck PhD


Australia: MPAs (marine protected areas) are an ill-considered and expensive idea that address no demonstrated problem. Bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny while permitting a single minister to exercise personal discretion in implementing a vast, costly, unneeded network of them is gross misgovernance.
The claim that international treaty obligations require establishment of the planned MPAs is untrue. Pandering for Green votes is the only real purpose.
The UN Convention on Biological Diversity deals primarily with sustainable development and the agricultural and bio-medical uses of natural resources. It imposes no demand for MPAs or obligation for any specific conservation measures. However, Article 10 (c) of this convention does require signatories to, “…protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements....” “Customary” and “traditional” in this context is not limited to indigenous peoples. Under this convention the obligation to protect and encourage the customary use of recreational and commercial fishing by non-indigenous Australians is in no way distinct from the obligation to protect such use by indigenous Australians.
The Global Representative System of Marine Protected Areas is an initiative of the World Conservation Union (IUCN). The IUCN is an NGO based in Switzerland. Their stated mission is to: “influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and ecologically sustainable”. One of their objectives is the establishment of a global representative system of MPAs. An objective by an NGO creates no obligation under international law or treaty. It should also be noted that even the IUCN has explicitly recognised that trivial increases in environmental protection should not be pursued using highly restrictive and economically expensive measures.
The Law of the Sea Treaty, under which we claim exclusive economic zone (EEZ) rights to the areas outside 12 nautical miles from land, provides that exclusive rights to resources depends on utilisation. Provision is made that other nations may petition for access to unutilised resources. Huge MPA areas combined with a fisheries harvest rate at 1/30 of the global average and excessive demand for seafood imports set the stage for a successful future petition by Asian nations for access to our vast unutilised EEZ areas.
Australia already has about 25 percent of total global MPA area. The Coral Sea and other planned expansions will then comprise about 50 percent of the global total. Biodiversity protection obligations are already over-fulfilled.
MPAs in Australia are not really about preserving marine biodiversity at all. There is no known instance of any marine species in Australia that has been lost through human impacts and none that are now threatened by fishing.

Continue reading   

VEAC investigation into Victoria’s existing marine parks submission closes Monday 25^th June

The notice of investigation was published on Monday 23 April 2012.  Submissions are now invited until Monday 25 June 2012.

The Minister for Environment and Climate Change has requested the Victorian Environmental Assessment Council (VEAC) to investigate the outcomes of the establishment of Victoria's existing marine protected areas.  The Terms of Reference are available here. The Marine Investigation will include three public submission periods with a final report provided to the Minister by February 2014.

The first submission period closes on Monday 25 June 2012.  The submissions will assist in developing the discussion paper which will be released for public comment later this year.

The map of the investigation area can be downloaded here.

Terms of Reference76KB

Notice of Investigation96KB

http://www.veac.vic.gov.au/investigation/marine-investigation

Opinion piece on the super trawler and the petition going around

On the issue of a foreign company having access to our fishing grounds I am dead against, but we need to be careful that we get the facts, and even more carful on what we sign, it just might come back to bite us. if the issue of over fishing is of concern then the recent increase of the quota of the very species this trawler will target, only a few weeks ago from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes should be the concern, and we need to get accurate information on the status of that fishery, I would rather local Aussie commercial fishers fish this quota then a large foreign company.

But one issue that this does raise however is that currently local trawlers in the area have a limited range as they have to return to port to process fish while they are fresh, a bigger factory ship like this one could effectively fish a much wider range for the same quota, now this can be good and bad, if properly regulated if could in fact ease the threat of local depletion, but the by catch issue is one that needs to be addressed. I am undecided on the issue of over exploitation as yet.

A particular petition is being run by Rebecca Hubbard, Marine Coordinator of Environment Tasmania. Who also is calling for larger marine parks throughout Australia than the ones released just the other day.

Petition link
http://www.communityrun.org/petitions/stop-giant-fishing-trawler-in-tasmania

Call for larger marine parks link
http://www.et.org.au/news/2012/marin...ania-must-step

So be very careful of what you signing, if in the future they try to shut us or the commercial fishers down in that area, and use the excuse of over exploitation of the species, then how can you argue against it if you signed a petition that says the very same thing.

This issue has the danger of putting a wedge between recreational anglers and commercial fishers, which is exactly what these green groups want, If we are divided then we are both a much easier target.

More information on the quota increase from the meeting minutes of the South East Management Advisory Committee (South East MAC)as well as some of their concerns with the super trawler by some members, also on this blog update is a reference and link to shipping bills just passed to allow for a ship like this to employ foreign workers, at world pay rates if 2 senior Aussie staff are employed. on the South East Management Avisory Committee(south east MAC) blog post on Monday 26th March on this page.

The  PEW  story          

by Jack Holmes

This is the story of how a handful of scientists set out from Oregon with an unshakable belief that they knew what was best for the rest of us. They ended up conquering the world (or at least the watery portions of it) and got rich along the way, while the fishermen and their families only worked harder and got poorer. When their scientific dogma connected with nearly unlimited resources, the earth quaked and the resulting tidal wave swept aside all the usual checks and balances. It carried along the media, the politicians, the government agencies and the non-governmental organizations with such force that seemingly no one could stand against the tide.

http://www.fishtopsailbeach.com/wordpress/?p=16

South EastManagement Advisory Committee

(South East MAC)

Monday 26^th March 2012


The MAC noted that SPF RAG recommendation to increase the Jack Mackerel (east) RBC from 5,000 tonnes to 10,600 tonnes was subject to conditional support from the RAG’s conservation member and the RAG’s recreational member.  The AFMA paper before the MAC and submissions from RAG members indicated that the RAG meeting record was in dispute in relation to the way this conditional support was recorded.

The MAC established that the application of the meta-rule to increase the RBC was consistent with the SPF Harvest Strategy and noted that Seafish Tasmania Pty Ltd had submitted a research plan in line with the requirements for the Tier 2 meta-rule. The MAC welcomed input from Mr Geen during the discussion (mostly background) and noted that he, in keeping with a prior commitment to the Chair, did not contribute to the forming of the TAC recommendation for Jack Mackerel (east).

Some members of the MAC noted concerns about the effect of the increase in the TAC in relation to heightened risks of localised depletion, trophic impacts and by extension possible impacts on other users of the resource. The MAC’s understanding was that, while the RAG members who opposed the increase were concerned about short term impacts, their main concerns were:

  

     that the current Harvest Strategy wasn’t sufficiently tight regarding the obligation on industry to conduct additional Daily Egg Production Method (DEPM) surveys and to collect additional biological data;

  

     that greater specificity was needed in relation to decision rules in relation to outcomes of DEPM surveys; and

   

      that greater specificity was also needed in regard to gathering and assessing information to detect evidence of localised depletion and trophic impacts and trigger management responses.

 

Some members of the MAC also noted concerns in relation to the proposed introduction of a factory freezer vessel.  The MAC resolved that this was outside the scope of the advice being requested but was prepared to provide advice if and when asked.

The Committee was cognisant that its role did not extend to reopening RAG discussions but, noting concerns raised in relation to the RAG process, attempted to work through the concerns that had been raised in the context of AFMA’s legislative objectives. These are addressed under a series of sub-headings.

Localised Depletion

A number of South East MAC members expressed concern over localised depletion and noted that this could have ecological impacts but also impact on the ability of other sectors to effectively access the resource (state fisheries, recreational fishers chasing bait) and indirectly on the game fishing and charter sectors by reducing the amount of baitfish available to tunas and marlins etc.

The MAC accepted advice from the scientific invited participant that commercial fishing operations were likely to cause localised depletion in most fisheries. The scientific participant added that given the mobile nature of small pelagic species any localised reductions in abundance were likely to be less persistent in comparison to more sedentary species. The MAC noted that most Harvest Strategies for Commonwealth fisheries did not take into account localised depletion.

The MAC noted industry experience that fishing for small pelagic species to date had been largely confined to waters near processing facilities which had the potential to lead to large catches from a relatively small area. By comparison a freezer vessel could range more widely as the challenge of refrigerating catch promptly is mainly a matter of onboard management. The Committee noted that for conventional vessels the product quality is influenced by the distance operations are from port and consequently the time required to steam to a processing facility and unload the catch.

The MAC was comfortable supporting the proposed TAC with respect to risks of localised depletion given the species is pelagic coupled with the low exploitation rate and scientific advice that the increase did not represent a long term risk to the broader stock or to specific areas in the fishery.

Some members of the MAC indicated concern about the potential for localised depletion given that some stocks were shared with the states and the recreational sector and that it could also exacerbate any food chain issues for ecologically related species.

The Committee supported relaying these concerns to the Commission and suggests that the pending review of the SPF Harvest Strategy will provide an opportunity to consider the incorporation of monitoring mechanisms to deliver information which could meaningfully assess any implications to the stock arising from any localised depletion detected. This might also be augmented with decision rules to activate management responses.

The MAC welcomed industry preparedness to take on these concerns and work with AFMA to develop strategies to mitigate against any concentration of fishing effort that might give rise to significant localised depletion.  

Trophic impacts

The MAC accepted advice from the SPF RAG Chair that the Tier 2 exploitation rate (and associated RBCs) were highly precautionary with respect to trophic impacts. The MAC also noted that the SPF Harvest Strategy Settings were conservative with respect to the findings of an independent review into the impacts of fishing low forage fish species on marine ecosystems¹.

The Committee recognised that concerns about trophic impacts were intertwined with localised depletion because the traditional Jack Mackerel fishery was prosecuted in waters where significant numbers of seabirds and marine mammals forage including, at times, animals from breeding colonies and rookeries.

Some members of the Committee also supported relaying concerns over trophic impacts to the Commission and suggested that AFMA again use the review of the SPF Harvest Strategy and research plan to improve the SPF’s ability to inform and respond to the possibility of significant trophic impacts. 

Relevance of factory freezer vessels to TACs

The MAC noted some concerns raised in relation to the proposed TAC for Jack Mackerel (east) suggested that a ‘super trawler’ might also have differential impacts on the stock and ecosystem.

The MAC endorsed a view expressed by the GAB invited participant that (in a ITQ fishery) the setting of TACs should be a completely separate issue from a vessel approval processes and that TACs should be based on the best available stock assessment/scientific information considered in terms of the relevant harvest strategy.

In this context, the MAC agreed the potential for a freezer vessel to enter the fishery would require a separate process for consultation and engagement with stakeholders.  The GAB invited participant sought clarification that any operation to mid-water trawl in the GABTF must be accompanied by the historical and existing requirement that a GABTF Boat SFR must also be assigned to the operation, to avoid any redistribution of wealth issues.

The MAC supported this view noting that in a generic context processing at sea was considered to be the most economically efficient way of utilising quota for small pelagic fish species. Members also noted advice from industry that these vessels generally deployed similar sized trawl gear to large wet boats and their ability to fish was moderated by their processing capacity. Members recalled earlier advice that suggested freezer vessels would be able to range more widely than the large wet boat mid-water trawlers previously deployed in the fishery and that as a consequence the likelihood of localised depletion might be reduced.

The MAC considered that based on the information available that factory vessel operations would not generate any differential impacts above that of wet boats taking similar catches.

The MAC was comfortable that AFMA had the tools and experience to successfully to manage processing at sea in the SPF.

www.afma.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Chairs_Summary_South_East_MAC_Teleconference_SPF_TACs_26_March_2012.doc

"However Australian unions are supporting the trawler because the majority of crew will be from Tasmania and the Federal Government says vigorous checks will be applied to its catch rates." 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/federal-government-allows-massive-super-trawler-to-fish-in-australian-waters/story-e6frf00i-1226387965265

The House of Reps has just passed a swag of shipping reform acts. If this mega-trawler is registered on the Australian second register, provided they employ 2 senior Australian officers, the rest of the crew can be from a other nations and be paid at comparable world rates, the latest published ITF figures are about US$ 400 a month, US$3.75 an hour for overtime and 2 days leave for each month served. So there will be virtually NO Australian employment on this ship. as the ship is a floating fish processing factory, there will be nothing processed on our shores either.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/maritime/shipping_reform/files/Shipping_Registration_Amendment_AISR

National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas explained

The model of marine parks selected is called the CAR principle of marine parks, 

Comprehensiveness: The NRSMPA will include the full range of ecosystems

recognised at an appropriate scale within and across each bioregion.

Adequacy: The NRSMPA will have the required level of reservation to ensure the

ecological viability and integrity of populations, species and communities.

Representativeness: Those marine areas that are selected for inclusion in MPAs

should reasonably reflect the biotic diversity of the marine ecosystems from which they

derive.

The principle of this model is to select areas that represent a full range of healthy ecosystems of an appropriate size and lock them up for the future, with the hope that by removing the threats you can control (fishing, oil/gas, shipping, pollution), the area will be in a better position to look after itself in the future from the threats we can control (global warming)

This model was chosen not because it is the best model to provide a safe guard to our ocean habitats but because it was the one that would have had the best chance of winning over the public and the hardest for opponents to fight, I have some highlight from the document that spells out the Victorian CAR model implementation over ten years ago, I encourage anyone interested to read the full document (down load link below) if for nothing else than to see a formula that has worked and will work again, we as anglers need to adopt this  type of approach if we are to have any chance.



The long and winding road: The development of a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of highly protected marine protected areas in Victoria, Australia

This paper written in 2006 for the Victorian National Parks Association describes and discusses the factors that contributed to the establishment of the Victorian system and the relevance of these factors to other jurisdictions.

“There are clear benefits for pursuing an ‘‘all or none’’ strategy for creating a CAR system of MPAs. Of the many attempts made in Victoria to obtain a highly protected MPA system it was the most comprehensive and most ambitious that proved successful, i.e. One which was for all ‘‘no-take’’ reserves and was for an entire suite, or system, of MPAs in one declaration.

The previous modest attempts at gaining one MPA ‘‘here’’ and a little later another MPA ‘‘there’’ meant that each and every proposal was weakened (either by a decrease in the degree of protection, or a decrease in area) before declaration. Historically the area by area (incremental) approach meant that there was little statewide support for a localised proposal but those opposed to MPA declaration were able to focus all their statewide and local resources to oppose each proposed MPA in turn, i.e. each proposal was ‘‘picked off’’ and weakened. By proposing an entire suite of MPAs simultaneously statewide support was garnered for the MPAs but the opposition now had to work against a whole range of proposals simultaneously. The better organised state-based conservation organisation were able to carry a central campaign direct to the parliament, politicians and decision makers based in the capital city , Melbourne, where over 75% of the state populations lives. Conversely the ‘anti’ campaign became fragmented when confronted with 24 MPA ‘‘battlefronts’’ simultaneously.
Also the argument of the ‘‘thin end of the wedge’’ was not as easy to carry in a CAR system proposal. Whilst when a single reserve was proposed in a local area opponents could argue that their favourite fishing spot was to be removed and the MPA was to cover say 15–20% of their local area—hence making ‘‘scare’’ tactics easier—it was impossible to argue that a reserve system that covered 5% of the sate (and no piers, jetties or heavily frequented beach fishing locations) leaving 95% of coastal waters available for fishing was a threat to the existence of recreational and commercial fishing. A 5% reservation could not be portrayed ‘‘as locking up the state’s waters’’.

“So whilst sustainable fisheries is one desirable objective for establishing MPAs it is certainly not the only reason and is usually not even the primary reason.”

“finally in organising a MPA breakfast of key decision makers in Melbourne lent a strong credibility to the CAR proposal.”


“During the debate a series of international scientists and experts were sponsored to visit Victoria in support of MPAs, most notably Dr Sylvia Earle (USA), Prof. David Bellamy (UK) and Dr. Bill Ballantine (New Zealand). These people briefed Cabinet Ministers and also addressed public meetings/small gatherings and received considerable media coverage. This seemed to set a global context to the debate.”

“some of the techniques adopted by proponents were: regular meetings to update politicians and the media on progress, the use of local as well as statewide groups in lobbying local politicians as well as Ministers and opposition spokespeople, respectively, telephone calls from local constituents to their local members of parliament across the State and the use of email campaigns to politicians at a time when this method had been little used in the past. The ‘media-savvy’ of key individuals was crucial for success of the campaign by proponents”

“Proponents developed a range of individuals and groups to ‘‘champion’’ the proposed CAR MPA system. These ranged from international experts (see above) to key scientists and academics in Victoria and significant bureaucrats and agencies. This meant that the message the public received about MPAs came from different people from different backgrounds and hence raised the probability of the community hearing the message from someone they admired or trusted. The term ‘‘trusted messengers’’ was used to describe these individuals.”

“A key element of the proponents’ campaign, particular from the MCCN was to support the actual campaign for a CAR MPA system with a more general consciousness-raising education programme. This educational programme did not carry advocacy messages but rather raised people’s awareness of the beauty, splendour and uniqueness of the southern temperate marine environment of Victoria. There were a suite of colour marine posters produced on off shore habitats with familiar names intertwined e.g. Kelp Forests, Sponge Gardens, Seagrass Meadows (author’s emphasis) and a series of posters on local habitats and charismatic fauna (e.g. Sea Dragons, Seals, Dolphins, Blue Whales)

“Focus groups were used to guide the development of these media messages, packages and the terminology used in the discussions. For example the use of the term ‘no-take’ instead of ‘‘highly protected MPAs’’, the use of ‘national park’ for large MPAs and the ditching of painful and unhelpful discussion on the differences between marine reserves, marine parks, MPAs, marine sanctuaries, fisheries reserves, etc.”

http://wefishaustralia.blogspot.com.au/2013/04/normal-0-false-false-false-en-au-x-none.html

Most anglers are responsible and would have no problem with a closed season or a marine park to protect a vulnerable species, if it was shown that it would help. But the CAR model will not do this, if you stop people fishing in an area then it is obvious that that area will hold a greater number of the species anglers usually target, but is this necessarily good for the biodiversity of the area, according to recent studies the species that are at greatest risk are the very prey of the species we target, having a larger amount of predators in the area will just place them under more stress. These prey species are under threat not because of what we do on our water but what we do on land, and as they usually live on reefs located close to shore and over their life don’t move very far from this area they are greatly affected by this.

If the same people fish for the same amount of time, then the areas we are allowed to fish will have the opposite effect resulting in a decrease in the number of species we target.

We need to start by protecting the start of the food chain not the end of it if we are to improve the health of our marine environment, we need a change of thinking of the criteria of success for conservation from how much area we have locked up to how the actual species we are trying to protect are doing.

How a marine park is threatening abalone

Here is a scientific report looking at the Maria Island reserve in Tasmania, they tried to show that an increase number of lobsters resulted in a decrease number of the sea urchin showing a healthier ecosystem, but what they also found was that there was a huge decrease in the abalone numbers as well, to the point that they are now worried about its numbers. This shows that while removing fishing will see an increased numbers of the targeted species, and let’s face it we don’t need a report to tell us that, but it will also have an effect on the prey of the targeted species, some species may benefit while others will suffer. It just happens that most of the species that have been shown to be in serious danger are the very prey of the species we target, and if they disappear then no matter how many lines they draw on the map it will be all over.


“Changes within the remote Maria Island MPA(the largest) relative to references sites have increased in the abundance of lobster and susceptible fish (Latridopsis frosteri), increase in the mean size of rock lobster and a decrease in the abundance of prey species such as urchins and abalone

At Maria Island there was also a 30% decline in the abundance of common urchins within the reserve, which may be the first Tasmanian evidence of  cascading ecosystem effect related to protection from fishing, Abalone numbers were also observed to decline sharply in the period sampled. This change was interesting in that one possible explanation was an inverse relationship between predators (lobsters) and the prey (abalone). If shown to be correct this finding is likely to have significant consequences for the integrated, ecosystem based management of these two “species.

http://www.imas.utas.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/68576/FRDC_Final_Report.pdf

Contacting Senators and Members

 

http://aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Guidelines_for_Contacting_Senators_and_Members

A public consultation period of 60 days will begin in a few weeks and this will be our final chance!

With some of the information below you should be able to write a compelling letter in no time at all, Post a letter and not an email, and keep it short and to the point.

Environment Minister Tony Burke just announced Australia’s world’s largest network of marine parks.

"Australia will create the world's largest network of marine parks as the world "turns a corner" on ocean protection, Environment Minister Tony Burke has announced.

The network, announced this morning, is made up of five main zones in offshore waters surrounding every state and territory.
 But the Government will have to pay up to $100 million in compensation to commercial fishers who will be locked out of some of the new marine parks."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-14/burke-announces-marine-parks-reserve/4069532

24 Oct 2011

"TONY Burke seemed quite surprised when I asked him if he was going to bow to Pew's demands and ban fishing in the Coral Sea. "No, of course not," he replied. "Why would I do that?"

These are the words Aussie fishos have been waiting to hear. The fact that the federal Environment Minister has categorically refused Pew's calls for a massive no-take marine park in the Coral Sea, east of the North Queensland coast, is a clear sign that the Government is taking a level headed approach to marine protection."

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/comment-win-for-fishos-as-pew-loses-battle-for-coral-sea

This morning the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, the Hon. Tony Burke, released the final Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposals for the South-west, North-west, North, Coral Sea and Temperate East Marine Regions.

The final marine reserves network proposals reflects revisions made as a result of the recent public consultation process conducted in each marine region and the assessment of potential socio-economic impacts undertaken in parallel with the public consultation.

In the coming weeks, the Director of National Parks will release a public notice inviting comment on the proposed proclamation of the final Commonwealth marine reserves. Once the notice has been published in the Commonwealth Government Gazette, the public will have 60 days to provide comment to the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities.

Information on the final Commonwealth Marine Reserves Network proposal can be found at www.environment.gov.au/marinereserves

A public consultation period of 60 days will begin in a few weeks and this will be our final chance!

Catch Share Quotas

 

Similar measures are on the cards for individual rec’s too, with the Future Fisheries Strategy: Proposals for Reform.

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/about-fisheries/strategy-and-policy/future-fisheries-strategy-proposals-for-reform-paper/future-fisheries-strategy-proposals-for-reform

Effectively this if it goes ahead will give the recreational sector including the charter industry a quota for each and every species we target, effectively putting a price on it, we will be not only competing with the commercial sector for these quotas but environmental NGOs, as these quotas would be able to be bought and sold to the highest bidder, in fact this was talked about with the anti-whaling groups.

“Introducing tradable quotas for catching whales could reduce the number of the marine mammals killed each year, researchers have suggested. Writing in the journal Nature, US academics said a market of quotas that could be bought and sold would allow environmental groups to "purchase whales" to save them and let whalers profit from the animals without killing them.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/jan/11/whale-tradable-quotas

Currently the environmental NGOs spend a fortune on advocating for marine parks and fishing closures, they could do this at a fraction of the price by simply buying up recreational anglers quotas.

Environment Minister Tony Burke's upcoming announcement of a national network of Commonwealth marine parks has been described by environmentalists as a chance for the government to leave a legacy as significant as the protection of the Great Barrier Reef or Kakadu.

The documents show a huge protected area in the Coral Sea off Queensland, stretching all the way along the state's coastline and a long way out to sea.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-06-11/government-planning-huge-marine-park-expansion/4063294

Yet this very government has not only allowed opening up Commonwealth waters to oil and gas exploration, but allowed a MASSIVE foreign super trawler  the second largest commercial fishing vessel in the world, will be allowed by the federal government to fish in Australian waters for the favourite food of bluefin tuna and albatross and a myriad of other marine life.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/lifestyle/federal-government-allows-massive-super-trawler-to-fish-in-australian-waters/story-e6frf00i-1226387965265

This clearly shows that the government is just pandering to the Greens and the environmental NGOs in there anti fishing policy.

"However Australian unions are supporting the trawler because the majority of crew will be from Tasmania and the Federal Government says vigorous checks will be applied to its catch rates." 

The House of Reps has just passed a swag of shipping reform acts. If this mega-trawler is registered on the Australian second register, provided they employ 2 senior Australian officers, the rest of the crew can be from a other nations and be paid at comparable world rates, the latest published ITF figures are about US$ 400 a month, US$3.75 an hour for overtime and 2 days leave for each month served. So there will be virtually NO Australian employment on this ship. as the ship is a floating fish processing factory, there will be nothing processed on our shores either.

http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/maritime/shipping_reform/files/Shipping_Registration_Amendment_AISR

What have we achieved in the Coral sea, what is it that we have protected from what?

Pew's Coral Sea Campaign director Imogen Zethoven 30th Sep 2009

What do mean by "fully protected"?

"No fishing, no oil and gas exploration - extractive activities would be prohibited. But of course COMMERCIAL SHIPPING would be permitted as well as tourism, yachting, and NAVAL ACTIVITIES. "


Cairns and Far North Environment Centre marine campaigner Steve Ryan said

"A lot of these areas are beyond the continental shelf so most people don’t visit these remote reef system"

Pew's Coral Sea Campaign director Imogen Zethoven 30th Sep 2009

“In the Coral Sea there is actually VERY LITTLE recreational fishing and what we're finding is that the level of pushback (by Australian anglers) is disproportionate to the actual level of fishing that occurs there”

“And in fact when fishermen realise that the area we are proposing is very far offshore and they NEVER GO THERE then it's not an issue for them. So we are talking about a very SMALL impact and a very large community benefit that would last forever.”

Professors Terry Hughes, director of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies
February 25, 2012

“At the moment there's almost no recreational fishing taking place within the Coral Sea, so we think it's not a good idea to encourage the development of widespread recreational fishing that's based on catch and release technologies.”

So they all agree that fishing in the Coral Sea is a very minor activity, and a scientist claiming to want to stop tag and release fishing, tag and release fishing is a scientific recognised method in gaining valuable information on marine species, most of what we know today about the marine species is only available to us because of catch and release fishing, be it from recreational anglers or specific scientific research, what does Professors Terry Hughes, suggest that we lock up the area and forget about it like we have done in Victoria?
What are the threats to the area?
Recently we have had 2 ships with engine troubles, that if not for pure luck would have run aground on this precious area, vessels MV Vega Fynen on the 26th October 2011 and ID Integrity on 20th May 2011, have we all forgotten how close we came last April when the Shen Neng ran aground on the GBR causing widespread damage to the reef.

http://asopa.typepad.com/asopa_people/2011/10/hmas-broome-averts-maritime-disaster-in-coral-sea.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-19/stricken-ship-narrowly-misses-reef/4021460

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-04-13/reef-damage-from-carrier-stretches-3km/393854


Then we have the advocates poster child the whale.

( Frantzis 1998; Jepson et al. 2003). The International Whaling Commission’s Scientific Committee noted “there is now compelling evidence implicating military sonar as a direct impact on beaked whales in particular”(IWC 2004). Even a U.S. Navy-commissioned report stated that “the evidence of sonar causation [of whale beachings] is, in our opinion, completely convincing.” (Levine et al. 2004) Often whales show bleeding around their brain, in their ears, in other structures to do with hearing, and in other organs of their body (e.g. NOAA and U.S. Navy 2001; Fernandez et al. 2005). Mass strandings of certain types of whale increased dramatically after 1961 when more powerful naval sonars began to be used (Friedman 1989).

One scientist reported that 1/3 of all stranded cetaceans they necropsies had some form of auditory damage

Research shows that whales avoid sounds with a source level of about 120 dB (Richardson et al., 1995, Green et al., 1998) There are sound sources in the ocean that produce noise levels much higher than 120 dB:

1) Air guns used for oil exploration & geophysical research (216-230 dB)
2) Underwater construction
3) Explosives
4) Military sonars
5) Large ships
6) Acoustic harassment devices

These very loud underwater sounds may cause various adverse effects on marine mammals including:

1) Masking social communications used to find mates or identify predators
2) Temporary and permanent hearing loss or impairment
3) Displacement from preferred habitat
4) Disruption of feeding, breeding, nursing and communication
5) Stranding’s
6) Death and serious injury from haemorrhaging and tissue trauma

Public and scientific concern about underwater noise pollution has grown over the last decade after a series of mass mortalities of cetaceans associated with the use of mid-frequency active sonar in coastal areas.

The British Defence Research Agency reports that fish exposed to Low Frequency Active Sonar above 160 dB suffered:

1) Internal injuries
2) Eye haemorrhaging
3) Auditory damage
4) Fifty-seven precent of brown trout died after exposure to levels above 170 dB.
Here is what the WWF has to say on shipping and whales.
“Ship strikes are to blame for 90% of North Atlantic right whale deaths for which the cause is known (excluding deaths from natural causes such as old age). However, they are only one of the whale species directly threatened by shipping”

Recreational fishing not only doesn’t target Whales but doesn’t target its food source either. One species that recreational anglers do target is the Black Marlin, With the help of recreational anglers, scientist have confirmed with DNA testing that the Black Marlin the spawn in the Coral Sea are a separate group to the Black marlin of other areas, so the claim that Black Marlin numbers are declining globally is irrelevant, our Black Marlin don’t breed with other Black Marlin from areas like the Indian Ocean or South China Sea.

"Between October and December, game boats criss‐cross the reef front in hope of hooking a giant black marlin. These can reach 700 kg in weight and achieve speeds near 130 km/h, making them one of the ocean's most prized game fish. Although the game boats have killed many black marlins in the past, today’s recreational fishing ethics result in the release of the vast majority of the fish they catch. In fact, the scientists took advantage of this catch‐and‐release practice to assist their research."

“The habitat inside the GBR may hold the key. Juvenile black marlin can be found inside the GBR lagoon year round, indicating that it is a prime nursery area,” the researchers say.

“The lagoon likely has just the right combination of water temperature and prey availability to optimize the survival of the young marlin. Marlin are voracious predators right from hatching, and the ample supply of spawning coral reef fishes provides a rich diet of tiny fish for the marlin to eat,” Dr Domeier adds.

http://www.protectourcoralsea.org.au/media/transfer/doc/mcsi_marlin_gbr_13mar12.pdf


"Intense wet-season rainfall in January 2005 caused rivers in the Mackay–Whitsunday region of Queensland, Australia, to produce large discharges to the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) lagoon. The regional land use is dominated by sugarcane cultivation, beef grazing and urban uses. The high nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) fluxes from these land uses via river runoff produced a massive phytoplankton bloom in the GBR lagoon, which, after 9 days, had spread 150 km offshore."

"In high flow events, most of the rivers of north-eastern Queensland flow fresh to the mouth and estuarine processes take place on the continental shelf rather than in a traditional estuary (Devlin and Brodie 2005)"

http://www-public.jcu.edu.au/public/groups/everyone/documents/journal_article/jcuprd1_059685.pdf

The PEWs submission to the Coral Sea as well as all the Australian environmental NGOs submissions not ONE of them mentioned any other threat besides fishing and oil and gas exploration, not one of them even hinted at these other major threats to the area, yet they are up in arms at the port expansion in QLD, claiming that the increased shipping will threaten the area. This entire Coral Sea campaign has been nothing but an elaborate anti-fishing campaign and your government has participated in attacking Australian anglers.

 

NGO submissions

 

PEW http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0370pewenvironmentgroup.pdf

ACF  http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0140australianconservationfoundation.pdf

AMCS www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0196australianmarineconservationsociety01.doc

CAFNEC http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0338cairnsandfarnorthenvironmentcentre.pdf

Humane Society International  http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0141humanesocietyinternational.pdf

Some dive groups 

 

PADI  http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0346professionalassociationofdivinginstructors.pdf

Mike Ball Dive Expeditions  http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/coralsea/consultation/submissions/pubs/0364mikeballdiveexpeditions01.pdf

Just one example of many of the dive groups using a chained wheelie bin filled with tuna carcases to attract sharks, this practise is banned almost everywhere else in the world, as it has been shown to modify shark behaviour and introduce a unusual large amount of predators to the area.