http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/WA's_big_blue_backyard_4-pager.pdf
And then full reporft
http://www.acfonline.org.au/uploads/res/WA's_big_blue_backyard_full_report.pdf
(Colin 1 - Co-founding member of the prestigious Colin Club)

These are available without needing to register and login



Media Release: Major new collaboration formed to secure future of WA’s marine life  http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/file.php?file=/ournews.html



The full "Big Blue Backyard" report is on http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/file.php?file=/findoutmore.html



Marine Planning has been going on for the Commonwealth South West Marine bioregion http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/index.html and the Commonwealth North West area http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/north-west/index.html have been going on for quite a while, and Recfishwest and Recfish Australia has been involved, but this is taking FOREVER to get to the details.



There'll be more...



TerryF

=====

Beavering away in the background.......

This happened in NSW and extensive areas were closed to rec fishing to protect endangered species. There was a massive band of anglers trying to lobby this over there and it made little difference, because the majority of scientific research was carried out by and for greenies. There was no real angling body with the funds or resources to carry out this and find out the facts for themselves.IMO it is an extreme and lazy idea by people who have no conclusive evidence that this will help fish stocks replenish. You would think that they would take smaller steps to start off with(angler education, increase in fisheries numbers) than going to the extreme and making dicks of themselves.

The northern territorys fishery and governing body is something that other state fisheries could learn alot from.  Obviously run by fishermen, for fishermen.

Marine sanctuaries arent all about fish stocks, barneyboy, though the arguments tend to get shifted that way.

When we catch fish, numbers of fish, which is what we do and what we aim to do as fishers (rec and comm), we are changing the ecological balance of that particular area. Fish eat other things, and when there are less fish, there is less predation of those other things, and they breed more, etc, etc, which can have adverse effects on the habitats which support it all...there are numerous examples of this in the research around the world.

Marine sanctuaries arent part of a conspiracy to eradicate fishers, they are to ensure there are at least some places out there that are allowed to do their own thing without being peppered with hooks and lines and nets and spears. As TerryF has mentioned in another post, this is just part of what is required, land management also has huge influence on what goes on in the ocean, as does groundwater flows, anchoring, etc, etc.

Fisheries departments are not supposed to be run 'by fishermen for fishermen' - a sure fire way to destroy the fishery. They are supposed to be run for the sustenance of the fish and therefore the fishery. Ask a fisheries department how many fish are out there - and they wont know. Ask them how many are caught and they can tell you to the nearest ton. A very worrying state of affairs - you dont/wont see many fisheries that are on the up, all are under increasing pressures. Marine sanctuaries are one sure-fire way to ensure that at least some areas are left to do their own thing, and to serve as reference areas for the places we are allowed to fish etc.

Cheers,

Ewan

Proud contributor to Fishwrecked-Reeltime

http://fishwrecked-reeltime.com/

Valid points some of those. You cant tell me that the NT fishery has been destroyed though. The majority of us as fishermen, women, do care about the direction that our fisheries/ecosystems are taking. It is in my own interest to do this. Be it releasing undersized or unwanted fish in the right way, not littering, ect.

What Iam saying is that anyone who uses the ocean in one way or another should have a say in what is happening. Not just turned a blind eye on and doing it anyway. It should be a joint thing. There are alot of factors that need to be taken into consideration. I just wish it would be considered!!!!!

Consultation is vital, absolutely.

These recent papers/reports etc, the Big Blue Backyard stuff is all about raising awareness and putting these things on the public and political agenda, the same way that Recfishwest and WAFIC put out statements and papers and things to raise issues they want to get across - all of these strategies are important to get into the politicians heads, so emotive language is used, statistics and figures are stretched to their fullest extent, and then eventually a political action results (maybe!!).

We have to start to look at the ocean the same way we have at the land - look at the amount of land set aside as National Park, where we cant take dogs, clear trees, collect plants or animals or rocks, and special focus is put on these areas for fire management, weeds, pests, disease and human impacts - all in the name of biodiversity conservation, which underpins having healthy fisheries in the marine world.

This has never happened in 99% of WAs marine waters. Even inside marine parks people can fish or collect as they normally would everywhere except in the special zones. Only 1% of WA state waters has this level of protection - I dont know the figures for comparison, but if you look at a map, there is a s***load more on land!!!

And yet there is more fishing pressure, pollution pressure, land use and coastal development pressure, ports, aquaculture, etc, etc than ever before - now is the time we need to think conservatively, come up with some ideal solutions and then work collaboratively to implement them - which is the consultation you speak of. But at the end of the day, we are severely lacking in Marine Protected Areas, and fishos need to have a say in where they go. This is because fishos know all the hotspots, breeding spots, threatened areas, important fishing/access areas, etc, etc - all vital information for the mix.

It is a different question to fishery management, it is about biodiversity management - ie everything that is and isnt fish. You can measure how many fish are out there, make a catch quota and say you are managing a fishery - but still have no idea what happens to the rest of the food chain. Marine parks are put in to look at the whole aspect, whilst the fishery is looked after by fishery regulations. They should be complementary, but are not the same thing.

I wonder how the 3% budget cuts help the departments responsible to engage more with the public, do more research, buy more boats, employ more fisheries and research scientists, etc, etc to be able to make better decisions based on better information?? I think they need for more money, not less.

I dont know much about the NT fishery, except that I certainly got into plenty of barra the only time i've been there!! BUT there was illegal netting of the rivers happening, which locals said was killing everything in the tributaries they did it in. I suspect that the NT probably has an awful lot of inaccessible coast, with a very small population also, making it less at risk?? 

Cheers,

Ewan

Proud contributor to Fishwrecked-Reeltime:

http://fishwrecked-reeltime.com/