I hate to see all the land clearing, and big shiny houses being built on the coast...probably no one lives in them for most of the time...but that is a different topic...

Couple of points to kick it off...

I was disappointed to see that in nearly all of the sanctuary zones that abut the land, a Shore-based Activities zone (in other words, an exclusion that allows fishing) exists, that buffers the shore by 200m. Thus allowing fishing and I think (havent got the plan in front of me) also abalone collection, maybe spearfishing(?) too...
This is effectively saying that the inshore areas arent of high enough conservation value to protect as no-take zones...well some areas are, but the effect is to further fragment the no-take zones.

For example, there are two different options at Cape Naturaliste, one has a sanctuary zone extending from the land, offshore. The other option has the same offshore extent, but excludes the area from land to 200m offshore, to allow fishing etc. The compromise is to keep a similar area adjacent to this one, from land to 200m offshore as a separate sanctuary zone, thus preserving the total area set aside as no-take. So one option has one sanctuary zone that encompasses offshore and inshore habitats, and the other option has two SZs spatially separated, one offshore and one inshore.

One part of the idea of no-takes is to make them as large and complete as possible, encompassing a range of environments, to preserve the link between them...but this option fragments them further. I would definitely be submitting that the one larger zone is the better option. If an area is going to be set aside as no-take, ie if we are having to sacrifice fishing in an area, it should be the area that will most effectively contribute to conservation.

People will argue that fishing from shore has bugger-all impact on the environment anyway, you are limited to walking along the shore etc etc. But I wonder where you are most likely to catch, for example, a mulloway - offshore (yeah i know it can be done) or in the surf zone? A silver bream? Tailor? Salmon?

Another thing people will say is that these no-takes arent going to have an effect on fish conservation, as the areas are not know spawning grounds etc etc, and/or the fish are pelagic or migratory anyway. I agree with this entirely, but the point is not that it will conserve the fish, the point is that it will serve to conserve the ecosystem. In no-take areas, fish/crayfish etc sizes and/either/or abundances are *likely* to be bigger/more than outside them. For example we hear that something like 5 times as many crays were found in Rotto SZs than outside them. OK, now this is probably not going to make a big difference to crayfish conservation in the big scheme of things - they spawn and migrate elsewhere. But in these areas there are 5 times as many crays eating cray food, and there are 5 times as many crays available to be eaten by things that eat them. Thus contributing to the overall health of this particular area that is to be conserved. This same logic can be applied to pretty much every target species we go for. Higher predators like sharks and bigger pelagics, etc, keep numbers of prey species under control - there are many examples where a higher-order predator is removed from an area and the prey species numbers explode, and severely impact the ecosystem, for example if they are herbivorous they can eat out all the algae/coral/seagrass.

What do you think?

Ewan

Here's a lot more background reading for you, Ewan, to help you understand how/why those proposed Capes zones are what they are, who was involved, etc.

How the Indicative Management Plan was developed see http://www.naturebase.net/national_parks/marine/capes/developed.html

Community Advisory Committee members - see http://www.naturebase.net/national_parks/marine/capes/adv_committee.html

There were (at least) 7 meetings of that Community Advisory Committee. Many went over two days. Agendas, minutes, outcomes, maps, recommendations etc are on the DEC (CALM) website at http://www.naturebase.net/national_parks/marine/capes/meetings/index.html Yes, you'll find my name listed as an observer in a lot of those meetings.

Sector Reference groups were involved as observers and/or gave some comments progressively - see http://www.naturebase.net/national_parks/marine/capes/srg.html . Those included Conservation groups as listed.

During this period, DEC also undertook a broader community consultation program that included distribution of information such as the "Celebrating the Waters of the Capes" magazine, presentations to Government committees, community and industry groups, and media articles. Community meetings were also held in Busselton, Dunsborough, Cowaramup, Margaret River, Karridale and Augusta on zoning proposals developed by the advisory committee. The goals of this program were to raise community awareness through education, encourage community discussion of the proposals, and facilitate input into the Advisory Committee deliberations. This broader consultation resulted in the Advisory Committee receiving more than 250 submissions.

After all that, the Community Advisory Committee recommendations, in the form of a draft indicative management plan, went to the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority and then to the Environment Minister and Government as reported in http://www.naturebase.net/national_parks/marine/capes/developed.html

Government Consideration of the proposal:- The MPRA considered the advice from the Advisory Committee and the views of key stakeholders and community groups and, in September 2004, provided a report to the Minister for the Environment, which recommended some minor changes to the proposed zoning scheme.

The Minister for the Environment ... approval was given subsequent to further modifications to the proposed zoning scheme to ensure consistency with existing Fisheries regulations, make the zoning scheme easier for users to understand and to ensure consistency with other marine conservation reserves in the State.

And to quote from the draft, page 27:- "7.1.3 Limitations of the zoning scheme."

"The proposed zoning scheme considers the ecological and social values of the proposed marine park and the pressures on these values. The proposed zoning scheme, while recognising the importance of the marine ecology of the area, was developed through an iterative community consultative process, which attempted to strike a balance between existing uses and conservation of the flora and fauna of the proposed marine park. As a result, some sanctuary zones in the proposed marine park have smaller sizes and less buffering from adjacent extractive activities than would be optimal."

That's the zoning version which the Government has put out for public comment. And that zoning scheme provides for shore based fishing in lots of areas, for the very good reason that is where the various Advisory Committee, MPRA and Government process assessed the balance was between conservation and existing uses.

The Cape Naturaliste option as recommended by the advisory committee proposed the landward boundary of the proposed sanctuary zone would be 300m (not 200m) offshore of the western side of Cape Naturaliste to provide for areas important for recreational fishing, particularly as a safe anchorage during the strong easterly / south easterly winds of summer, and commercial abalone fishing.

Just as the many surfing special purpose zones in the Park are there to protect surfers from the entanglement danger from rock lobster pots and floats and large boats maneuvering in the surf zones to drop and collect pots, the Cape Naturaliste zone near the shore recognised that many recreational boats are forced to wait in this area until the winds drop enough to let them get back to the Dunsborough/Busselton launching ramps.

An equivalent area of shoreline was proposed for a sanctuary zone to balance this "missing" part. Again - that's the Advisory Committee's judgement of the balance between existing uses and conservation.

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......

I think this proposal is reasonably fair and balanced when you consider the community as part of the ecosystem rather than an outsider.

You advocate that 200m buffer zones that allow shore fishing are too much of a concession on the principle that it doesn't fit your vision of a marine park???

"ie if we are having to sacrifice fishing in an area, it should be the area that will most effectively contribute to conservation."

This proposal IMHO meets those requirements

Who do you work for Ewan?

I am quite happy with what I have read and think that a 200m buffer zone is fair to recs and is balanced with conservation.

Thanks again for the info links Terry.

I understand that the community has been consulted, and I understand that the options/boundaries etc that are in the plan are the ones that the Advisory Commitees/working groups/sector interest groups/etc have agreed to. That is why they are in the draft plan, this is the process.
So we have x number of stakeholders and interest groups involved in sitting down and discussing the plan and negotiating the boundaries. OK good, that makes it as equitable as possible for us people - the social-economic side of the process. I agree with you Scaly, it seems like a reasonably fair and balanced plan in terms of managing human usage conflicts etc...My first thought when i saw the plan was that it was cool that i will be able to fish pretty much anywhere, and in all the places i would normally fish when i go down there. Then i looked at it from a long-term conservation point of view and noted the lack of shoreline protection in comparison to protection for offshore areas. And I noted that it was due mainly to accomodate fishing from shore.

So what about the environment we are sitting down to discuss? How is it represented on these commitees? By The Government/DEC? The Government is elected by the same people sitting on the commitees, so how can it be the champion of the seas?, and the DEC is directed by the government to accomodate all of the negotiations etc - it cant act in the best interests of the environment alone, almost by definition. Conservationists? very much out-numbered/out-muscled/out-moneyed, methinks.

Boundaries are drawn where the various zones should be, and then they are changed as per the wishes of the stakeholder groups? Commercial fishing, recfishing, other industry etc etc whittle down the areas until, as Terry quoted from the draft plan, they are smaller than they should be, to do the thing they are supposed to do!! So what is the point? I am complaining about all sides of this negotiation, from the various lobby groups who i think miss the point of marine parks and no-takes completely, to the DEC and government who fold to the various pressures. The goal is supposed to be to work for the best interest of the long-term preservation of the environment, not to appease the various people who will lose money from it or some percieved amenity. If a no-take zone needs to be huge to preserve habitats/fish/etc, then it should be huge. If it is sub-optimal, then all the people who miss out on money or the fun of fishing it etc, are missing out for no reason! If it were large enough or cover the appropriate areas, then we would miss out on money or fishing there, but at least we would know that it is for a good reason, one which will maintain our money flow, or fishing amenity, in the long-term!! What is the point of putting pressure on making these areas smaller so as to accomodate socio-economic arguments, and then say that they are no good anyway because they are too small? Can anyone else see the ridiculousness of this?

We are no longer a part of the ecosystem Scaly, we have far surpassed that by being able to use machines and other technology to help us catch the fish. How long have you been fishing here? I assume a while. So dont you see the overall depletion of our fish and everything else stocks? One way to ensure they can at least be maintained at current levels is to protect some habitats and the fish etc within them as no-take. In conjunction with overall fishery management, as advocated by Recfishwest. If you were to assess old-timers reports of what they used to catch and the gear they used and compared it with what we catch now and how we do it I would guess that our fishing quality, and therefore fish stock health must be 80% lower than it used to be. Bugger it - 90%. (In populated or visited areas of course). Not many other species within an ecosystem, except for introduced pests, have that kind of impact.

Scaly - I assume from your question about where I work that you think my opinions might be driven by where i work or what i do? I'm not going to put that on a web forum mate, but I have no problem talking to you about what I do in the pub. Rest assured that what I do or where I work does not define me or govern my opinions that I post here, besides, I only work for 40 hours a week, and it aint my life.

I guess your question was asking why I feel the need to 'rant', as you have previously described my posts? Since I was about 10 I could see what was happening to our fish stocks, when Dad got a bigger boat so he could keep catching good fish, as we had to go further offshore. I could see other holiday fishing spots we would go to like Quobba getting absolutely thrashed by fishers. No s***, we used to put requests in to Dad for what kind of fish we wanted to eat that night, and more often than not he could accomodate. Not anymore. Dont even go there anymore - fishing is too disappointing compared to how it was only 10-20 years ago. Multiple crews of 2-10 people would go up there with freezers full of meat and beer, and come back to Perth with them full of fish. I am sure we all have similar memories/experiences. As a 10 year old, I could see the impact we have on the oceans, and I wanted to study them so maybe when I grew up I could help. So all my life I wanted to study marine biology, eventually did, alas now dont work as one, but I guess that is where i get these crazy notions about conservation at the expense of fishing 'amenity'. It is a combination of observing the depletion first-hand, and studying how it all works. And knowing that as a fisher, I contribute alot to the problem! Not that I actually seem to be able to catch that many fish :-). I'm usually still tying my knots or fiddling with a camera or something while the rest of the boat is pulling them in.

The VAST majority of the capes area is able to be fished from shore in this plan. Even if the shore-based activity zones were not there, and the sanctuary zones all extended all the way to shore for their full extent, STILL the VAST majority of the shoreline would be open to fishing. By eye it looks like 90% or so...was it absolutely necessary to excise so much inshore area from the sanctuary zones? Surely 90-odd% of the coast is enough? Perhaps a couple of smaller key fishing spots could be excluded, rather than whole spans of coast?

Other points about the draft plan:
I liked that some consideration of the maintenance of the coastal landscape was made - but i cant imagine multi-million dollar land developments being slowed by a DEC management plan.

I wonder what impact heavy usage by surfers would have when we walk over the same bits of reef every day, in some places there might be 100 feet treading across a reef in a day...I couldnt find any real recognition of this in the plan, but I think there should be, especially in cases like the Yallingup lagoon sanctuary zone. It might be interesting to see what overall impacts intense surfing use of a reef might have on the biota there...

Ewan

Look, a part of what I post is playing devils advocate a bit...my opinions arent quite as extreme as they probably sound, in this thread and on others...this plan looks pretty reasonable to me, I still dont think enough area is put away for SZs but what can you do...if a government slapped them down where they wanted to and with the size they want, alot of people would be unhappy or have their livelihoods cancelled, the govt would no doubt be voted out quick sticks, and then we are back to square one.

Community consultation is vital to making it work, but it should be a priority to make sure that socio-economic concerns dont outweigh environmental ones so much. Take a look at the individual SZs that border the coast, then look at the overview map to get a visualisation of how much coast/inshore is set aside as no-take - it is puny, you pretty much cant even see it on the map, compared to other areas/habitats. Yet I think it is still very important. Perhaps I am alone in my opinion but there it is. This area is growing in population and visitation so fast, within the span of this management plan we will see alot more use of the area, therefore alot more pressure, from fishing and non-fishing uses, and most of it from shore. Other usages have impacts, such as surfers trampling etc (I dont really think this would be a major issue, but a sanctuary zone should be a sanctuary zone - i agree!), but fishing is a direct, substantial impact.

Fishing might not have as big an impact as other land management issues like you guys have mentioned, especially in rivers and estuaries, I agree, but it does have a very large, focussed impact, and we should not deny or talk down its importance. For example, I dont think we can blame a decline in dhufish catches in Geographe bay or between the Capes on surrounding land use. No doubt it has an indirect impact but I think you could more effectively correlate patterns in dhufish numbers with the advent of the GPS, echo sounder or the creation of a boat ramp in the study area, for example.

I really didnt mean to imply that committee members were against conservation or worked actively to reduce sanctuary zone sizes or whatever...though I can understand that you could infer that from what I've written...no doubt everyone who gives up their time (and it must be alot of time) to be on the committees and be actively involved is committed to seeing the best outcome from the process, and they deserve recognition for that.

And I dont think the Govt stacks the committees against sanctuary zones etc either...
And I dont think that commercial and recfishing lobbyists are fundamentally rabid anti-sanctuary zonists or anything either! commercial fishermen have their livelihoods to maintain (though I dont think that should extend to owning multiple boats and million-dollar empires etc...) and recfishers want to fish still, naturally enough.

But it looks like the negotiation process is kind of open-ended - different user groups negotiate where boundaries will affect them the least, whilst bearing in mind that they need to be there to achieve the conservation goals - there is an inherent conflict of interest, not the least financial (for recfishing as well!! I note that the fishing tackle industry and charter boat operator industry are represented in RecFishWest!!! I can easily imagine a Wangler story about lots of mackeral caught off the Rotto West End might spur sales in lures and tackle!! But if they were sanctuary zones...) there that needs some kind of limit...for eg perhaps there should be something like a rigid base guideline, something like "X% of all major habitats in the area *will* be protected as no-take, and they should be as continuous as possible, so on and so on, now go away and negotiate the actual boundaries, keeping this in mind" - something like that...which in this case might have ended up with more of the inshore areas protected, relative to other areas...do you know what I mean?

I guess there are two extremes, one where no community feedback is sought or listened to, which would end up with the best outcome for conservation if that is what the govt was aiming for, if for argument's sake we dont factor in non-compliance or voter backlash. The other is with extensive community consultation, taking everyones concerns and modifying boundaries exactly as per the community's wishes - I think that as we are changing our attitudes towards conservation there will still be sanctuary zones, but they would almost certainly be far smaller, and smaller than they need to be, as by DEC's own admission seems to be the case in this proposal, as Terry quoted above. For example, the Injidup Sanctuary zone has the shoreward 200m excluded, stated as mainly to allow abalone fishing - but the whole beach is also included in this - no abs there. What I am really advocating is just *more* recognition that in some or many cases we will have to concede that we just cant fish in this or that place we love to, in the interests of preserving it. So that in the community consultation part of the process, less demands are made of the environment. Look around the state and assess where you are prevented from fishing. Not much is there? Of course this philosophy would have to apply to commerical fishing and other uses - I am well aware that the drawing of boundaries is more of a political process than a scientific one - this is what I am complaining about...the politicization of it all. The marine environment cant vote.

I think (and I think recfishwest does too) that a better compromise is needed, based on scientific advice that this area and that area definitely need to be no-take, and for the rest, well, we just need to ensure that the minimum area that the scientists believe to be required is maintained, and as continuously as possible to maintain the links between habitat types and biophysical features. But at the same time we need to be careful that we dont get full of ourselves and our state of scientific knowledge, recognise that we know next to nothing, and act conservatively, especially in the face of all the other non-fishing pressures on the marine environment. Which are only going to increase. We shouldnt go back to arguments like poor science or whatever, just so to be able to fish in a particular place. The places we want to fish are almost always going to match up with high conservation value areas.

I dont know what has happened in all of the meetings etc, but on the face of the planned boundaries, it looks like there is *almost* an automatic concession that the shoreline should be available for extractive activities - I think that we should be careful of this direction. Perhaps the Govt 'learnt' from the Ningaloo process, but what has it 'learnt', and is it something that makes marine parks more or less effective at conservation?

Scaly, my POV/agenda comes from my personal experiences. I agree that the bad old days are fading, not yet completely gone, but there is a new bad - population growth and technological advance. And these things can only be regulated by government. Did you hear lately that the Fisheries dept got an award for the management of Shark Bay snapper!! what a joke!! First they let it get so over-exploited there were genuine fears it couldnt bounce back, then they put in heavy, highly reactive restrictions, preventing alot of people from catching them, and this is good management? HA!

Terry - I know the management plan isnt going to influence surrounding land use very much if at all. Its not going to be able to control terrestrial impacts alone. I was talking mostly about the visual amenity...like i said i doubt that land developments are going to be stopped by a couple of lines in a management plan!! But at least its in there, likewise a recognition of terrestrial impacts on the marine environment.

Im not going to be able to post much more over the next few weeks - but thanks for the discussion, and info! Does RecFishWest have a submission for this one, or can we find out what might be in it?

Ewan

Thankyou for sharing your opinions and information, I find them as a great alternative perspective to form an own opinion. The same goes for Terry. I had little idea about the capes really and find myself a fair bit more knowledgable from your discussions.

Cheers,
Adam

"I dont know what has happened in all of the meetings etc, but on the face of the planned boundaries, it looks like there is *almost* an automatic concession that the shoreline should be available for extractive activities - I think that we should be careful of this direction."

I think this is the direction we need to be heading if marine parks are going to be embraced by the public- and they need to be embraced if they are going to be respected and work. The alternative is a conservationists dream but one which won't achieve the stated goals of a marine park because of a lack of respect(what were the goals again ;P)

Which would you rather Ewan, a marine park that suits you but underperforms or one that suits the majority of West Aussies, is respected and achieves the desired result?

"and we should not deny or talk down its importance."
Nor should we give weight where it is not due- i.e shore based fishing

That is a good point Scaly, marine parks are for everyone etc and they need to be embraced - like we have lamented on other parts of this website, there are bugger all officers out there to force compliance, so marine reserves will work better if people embrace them etc etc, and they aid in managing human usage for eg the surfing zones keeping boats and surfers seperate.

But I think that, historically, us humans have not demonstrated a very even-minded approach when it comes to the use (abuse) of our natural environment. We tend to be rather selfish, to say it in a nice way, and I think we still are. Times are changing but we have a long way to go, and potentially not a long time to get there. Gotta think past our own wants (most of these negotiations are about wants, not needs) and consider what once was, is now and could be in the future. Once we could fill our 12ft rowboat dinghies with fish, now we have 25 footers with twin outboards and GPS and sounders and catch two fish and be stoked, what do we want for the future? I still believe a marine park that focuses on protecting the marine environment, perhaps over our own interests, IS the best one for not only west australians, but the whole globe. Cast your mind back - did your parents ever say "you might feel like it now, but you will thank me when you are older"? Did that ever come true? There are many global examples of where this has been the case with no-take zone establishment.

There is nowhere else on the planet like this coast - and you could say that about any coast really, but with the Leeuwin current and all, this is especially true here. All of it is coming under great pressure and all of it should be conserved - whilst of course allowing us to use it still!!

You really think that shore-based fishing has little impact? Just in the capes region, or everywhere? Perhaps in spatial extent, this is true, but then shoreline habitats only have a limited spatial extent themselves, so proportionally the impact might be just as great? Shore based fishing also focusses effort on one small area - the distance you can cast, and from certain features like beaches or good fishing rocks, so I think this might increase relative impacts there. Steep Point, Quobba, two examples close to my heart where bottom fishing off the cliffs has been smashed. Yeah you still get them, but its nothing like I remember, and I'm only a young tacker. This saddens me so Fing much - my children wont get the wonderful experiences I did. At least lots of these coasts are inaccessible and therefore protected already. Not so the capes region.

Ewan

Recfishwest's DRAFT submission on the Indicative Management Plan for the Proposed Geographe Bay/Leeuwin-Naturaliste/Hardy Inlet Marine Park is on the RFW website at http://www.recfishwest.org.au/SubCapesDraftForCommentDec2006.htm

Please email any comments/suggestions about the draft to Mark Pagano at as soon as possible.

It is very important for all recreational fishermen to have a say about these proposals. If you like them, don't like them, are prepared to live with them, or whatever, please say so in a submission to

Plan Coordinator
Capes Marine Park Indicative Management Plan
Department of Environment and Conservation
First Floor, 47 Henry Street
FREMANTLE WA 6160

Silence may not necessarily be taken as an OK for the current proposals, and you can be sure that there are other organisations who may be asking for changes and those will likely be to the disadvantage of recreational anglers.

These RFW comments are a package, to be read in full, not individual sentence by individual sentence or paragraph by paragraph.

Please look at the big picture, and note the level of RFW support for the proposed zones.

TerryF
=====

Beavering away in the background......

Submitted an online form a while ago, but also sent RFW an email regarding the draft submission and cc'd DEC and the Minister. It will be needed to combat extreme views.