Something Fishy!

August 16th, 2010

I received this comment posted below after some personal email activity.  Fishing is a good topic to generate comment it seems and certainly gets the blood boiling in some people. I decided to pop the comment under this post as I thought the topic worthy of a separate thread to the general news of my last post.

So to fishing. I strongly, firmly and entirely believe that there is room in our oceans and freshwater ways for fishing. I believe that the oceans (and rivers and streams etc) can’t produce more than a certain finite number of fish as the size and conditions of the oceans/waterways limits the ability to produce an increasing number of fish by natural means.

I believe that the human population is growing rapidly and also our ability to catch fish has become more sophisticated so we are much more efficient hunters. That means we now can catch much more fish than in the past. And by the past I mean as recently ago as my own childhood.

As a result of these two points I believe that some areas of our oceans and rivers and waterways should be protected and kept free of fishing. All other areas free for fishing, should be monitored to ensure that fish numbers stay viable. Any areas chosen to be set aside as no fish zones should be selected as a result of good scientific evidence based research. I have no idea how many or big or small these areas should be but they need to be located with the intent to preserve fish and natural ocean or marine habitat. Benthic etc.

I believe if we treat our waterways like our land and have National Parks in the sea (Marine Parks) this will be a good thing for the future health of our planet and be of benefit to those generations that will come after us. How these are selected and managed however is important.

I don’t believe all modern/recent decisions in relation to our waterways are sensible and that some rules and regulations that have evolved over time are faulty in application and enforcement.

I also don’t believe any political party has the totally right formula finalised in relation to protecting our natural environment while preserving our economy and caring for a country that welcomes a free thinking, democratic abiding and humane way of life. So next Saturday I will be voting for the person or party that demonstrates the best overall attempt at doing just that and I won’t be making my decision on one issue or on scare tactic type advertising. After listening to the Family First candidate however I can assure everyone FF will be way down the bottom of my ballot paper!

So over to you and the great fishing debate. Cheers, Sue

6 Responses to “Something Fishy!”

  1. Sue Brookson 16 Aug 2010 at 4:59 pm

    Copied from the previous post by me to this new post as I think it may draw a separate discussion. Hope this is OK with you Randal?

    Re Fishing Zones
    Unfortunately Sue has not stated the truth here.

    I do not comment on blogs as a rule, but I do feel obliged to correct intentional misinformation when it involves myself.

    The emails started from a circulated email that discussed voting for a party that put a moratorium on implementation of Green zones until genuine consultation with stakeholders was conducted and based on good science, not based on lobbying from foreign multinational radical lobby groups and poor science.

    Sue’s inbox lit up because of her objection to people who agreed that decisions SHOULD be based on good science and consultation. It did not light up, as Sue stated above, because people wanted to vote for a party that promised no Green Zones. This was pointed out to Sue at the time. Sue has chosen to ignore that and again imply that Anglers are totally against Marine Parks.

    Sue did not just make “a comment” but made a number of accusations about Sunfish [and recreational fishers in general] and when corrected made no attempt to apologize.

    Sue chose to ignored any science or data that conflicted with her opinion. She referred to the term “Precautionary Principle” but used it inappropriately and apparently without knowledge of its true meaning. Sue refused to acknowledge that her interpretation was wrong.

    Sue made a number of comments stating that she would still want large areas closed off to everybody even when good science showed no threats.

    The point was made that Marine Parks are about protecting areas from serious threats not managing fisheries. Recreational fishing has been recognized as posing minimal to no threat to the important ecological values in the Fraser Area for Further Assessment. Yet Sue, and people like Sue, want to see recreational fishing shut down in these areas without the Marine Park legislation addressing the real threats to the marine ecology.

    Sue continues to raise the conflict issues of recreational vs commercial fishing as if this somehow supports her argument for closures.The point was also made to Sue that debate should be focused on the type of fishing apparatus used and not the user.

    If you want to manage marine parks, manage marine parks. If you want to manage fisheries then manage fisheries. But don’t make the mistake of thinking that stopping fishing is all that it takes to manage a marine park.

    I am not sure about the relevance of 18 boats and 13 years ago that Sue refers to. Over 20 years ago I was in one boat in a group of over 100 boats in front of where Sue lives now. Winter whiting are still plentiful.

    I have also asked Sue to call a public forum in her role as Councillor with the Environment portfolio to discuss issues relating to marine parks and closures as well as to discuss the possibility of a recreational fishing licence. I look forward to that forum.

    Regards
    Randal McLellan

  2. Sue Brookson 16 Aug 2010 at 5:08 pm

    My response..
    I don’t agree with Randal’s interpretation of my comments in general. I certainly don’t want LARGE areas of the ocean closed off to fishing and have never ever said this. If my words have somehow implied that I believe this, then I apologise for my poor grammar and use of English!
    I do want science based facts to steer any decisions that restrict fishing and believe that SOME areas of our ocean should be closed to fishing. Just like some areas of our land are closed to farming and hunting!
    I simply want nature to have some space to herself and not have the human animal totally over run the entire planet. I love the wild places. Cheers, Sue

  3. Paulon 16 Aug 2010 at 7:04 pm

    It’s not just about winter whiting and how plentiful they are either Randal. There are places where we should not drop anchor let alone fish. Just as there are places where fishing should be permitted year round. Decisions MUST be based on good science and accurate research. Unfortunately, ANY comment, research or decision on fishing in draws misinterpretations and emotive comments.
    This is the time for cool heads and future visions. Randal, you are in the unique position of being a conduit that can enable rational discussion of the issues. You are also in a position where one wrong move can solidify opinion one way or the other. Be careful my friend, you have a lot riding on your shoulders.
    Paul

  4. Matt Murphyon 17 Aug 2010 at 7:30 am

    Years ago I was a ‘deckie’ on trawlers in the NPF (Northern Prawn Fisheries) Region. That particular region has a closure of about four months each year between December and March, by memory. Each year we would line up at the ‘starting line’ at Cape Tribulation, do our 8 months work and come home. Each year we would have a great catch, better than most down south of the NPF area. I can’t comment on what it is like now but one area of discussion that was bantered around between fishermen up there on more than one occasion was the subject of ‘Rolling Closures’.

    How about closing off areas in batches for period of time of three or four months? Look at the breeding patterns of endemic species and close areas during breeding times? I’m no expert but it’s an idea.

    Another area is investing in business that is looking to the region to start fish farming. I remember the case of that fellow on the news recently, and I’m not commenting too far as there are always two sides to a story. But maybe council should look at promoting the establishment of this industry in the region. If we could build a local aquaculture industry that is commercially viable, more companies would look at the region to set up.

    Just a though.

    Oh, and to follow up on your post in regards to roadside burning and around houses, etc. I did state that burning off does not save houses, as proven in the Black Saturday Fires. The vegetation only re grows. The removal of vegetation, and property protection measures such as wild fire safe housing design, bunkers, and fire proof sprinkler systems, are what saved houses during that tragic fire. The phrase ‘Hazard Reduction Burning’ is almost a misnomer after what happened. My point was more along the lines of vegetation regeneration. You only have to look at areas of development where natural pockets of trees have been left to make the developers/council look like they are doing the right thing. Go back to these areas 10-15 years later and have a look at the trees. There is a good chance they are infested with parasites and disease and will have to be cut down anyway.

    Regards, and keep up the thought provoking posts Cr. Brooks.

    Matt Murphy

  5. Sadmanon 19 Aug 2010 at 11:42 am

    I find the comments by Randal and others curious to say the least.

    Sue is partly correct, we are far more efficient at catching fish. At the very recent Seafood Festival there was a display of photos of the past (recent past),
    showing large fish and large catches. You don’t see them here any more, perhaps Randal can tell us why?

    They used to pull Murray cod of three and four hundred pounds, sadly not any more, again perhaps Randal can tell us why?

    As to the “science”, for every “expert” who tells you the current rate of fishing is sustainable, I’ll find you an “expert” who will tell you it isn’t.

    For get the “experts” and trust your eyes, it is getting harder to catch good fish, not just here but world wide.

    Sadman

  6. Sue Brookson 20 Aug 2010 at 10:03 am

    It seem that Sunfish promotes no expansion ever of green zones and is using scare tactics to try and influence voters.
    I make my voting judgements based on evidence and by comparing policies so I look to more than just one issue. I’m also well aware of the need to separate State from Federal issues politically.
    I’ll stick to ‘apolitical’ organisations that roll up their sleeves and actually work to try and make my planet a better one rather than simply promotiong themselves and their wants rather than our needs.
    I am sure that there are many rec fishers that want to see their grandchildren enjoy fishing as much as they do. I trust that they will see beyond the spin and the scare tactics and vote accordingly based on a full range of policies.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply