Fisho's.

After a couple of months of discussion and research the time has come to make submissions to the Government about the proposed Marine Park boundaries for SA.

The close off date for submissions is close of business on
27th March 2009.

The following is a copy of the submission that I have made. I have published it here for you to use as you see fit, and in the hope that it might help you to prepare your own submission. If you are unsure about anything - just ask.

I strongly believe that we should all take this this opportunity to tell the Government how we feel about this issue.

If you remain silent, you must accept whatever happens.

To make your submission, go to www.envapps.sa.gov.au/opinio6/s?s=582

Regards,
RJ

My submission to DEH.

Note the DEH survey form layout (attached). They don't make it easy!

I support the establishment of Marine Parks in South Australia. As a keen recreational fisherman I do my best to preserve our marine environment and take responsibility for my actions.

I do NOT support the approach taken by the Department for Environment and Heritage to establish Marine Parks in our state.

1. It is not reasonable for the Department to seek acceptance of Marine Park boundaries that achieve nothing by themselves, and then to design protected zones within those park boundaries. This approach means that each park boundary will be larger than is required.

2. Protected zones information has not been made available even though it is an essential consideration when determining marine park boundaries.

3. There is no Marine Park proposed for the most heavily used part of our waters – the metropolitan coastline. This seems to be an admission by the Department that the primary goal of Marine Parks is to control rather than to preserve and restore.

4. I cannot agree that we need 19 Marine Parks covering 46% of our coastal waters. Despite the information contained in the Technical report and references, the need for these large parks is not clear to a non-professional. The Department should produce a simplified justification, and provide support as needed for the more complex technical aspects. A map of each park which displays the hotspots, zones and other protection targets along with a simplified description would be very useful.

5. The management and enforcement of laws within these parks is not defined. Who will manage, who will enforce, who will pay? The concept of Community management has not been proven.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention RJ, and thank you for the time, effort and thought you have provided on this issue. I'm sure your input into marine parks has helped many others to consider carefully their own standpoint, and I too would encourage everyone to take the next few days in constructing their own submission.

Remember, DEH has called for our input, and whether we support or oppose, we should all take the opportunity to have our say.

I too have composed my own short submission! In fact, I too will post mine here, as it may help some to compose their own submission.

Mine does NOT address the boundaries based on technical merit as advised, as I feel I cannot currently comply with that request, based on a lack of information.

Mine goes like this:
As a passionate recreational angler, I have been following the marine park introduction process for some years now, and have watched on as the model for the Encounter Marine Park was released, legislation was tabled and passed, and the introduction process began. I have read background reports, examined raw data, and I have listened to input and concerns from usergroups who will be affected by marine parks.

During my involvement with recreational angling as a pastime, I have joined many recreational fishing websites, researched our marine environment, organised fishing tournaments, submitted articles to magazines, and I am currently involved as a staff member of a South Australian recreational fishing website.

Due to this activity, I have the chance to network with large numbers of recreational anglers, and I have witnessed their objections to the process of marine park institution.

I too am disappointed with the process, as I find it creates undue difficulty for those of us who utilise the marine environment to provide any worthwhile input.

To explain myself:
When the model for the Encounter Marine Park was released, we saw a complete picture of a marine park. The boundary, the individual zones and the size of the zones, which gave us an indication as to what effect this park would have on those who utilise the area, what areas were important for conservation, and what impact this marine park would have on much of the community .

We could take into account how the park would affect businesses who rely on this area for their livelihood, usergroups who utilise the area, the effect on the local economy, and how effective the park would be at conserving what we consider valuable habitat.

However, due to the institution process for the 19 marine parks, whereby only boundaries were to be released, followed by consultation, then zoning, we found that this valuable complete picture was no longer available for our perusal.

We had difficulty providing worthwhile input as we could only see large areas “boundaries” which provide little useable information as to the effects (socio-economic and conservation) I have already described.

I understand that this “introductory process” has been determined by recent legislation set down for marine parks, but I have also seen the frustration and distrust this legislated process has created within the greater community.

Due to this introductory process, I find that I am unable to comment favourably on the marine park boundaries.

It does not provide me enough information to make an informed or logical decision, as I would only be commenting on 19 large areas of the unknown.

I can only look at the outer boundaries as a framework for an unknown picture, and to comment on the unknown would be irresponsible of me.

In essence, like many others in our community, I believe conservation to be a very important issue, and one which demands our attention. I support a system of protection for valuable habitat, endangered species, threatened wildlife and conservation of our marine environment, but due to the method of introduction, I feel support for the process utilised in introducing this system is badly lacking, and does not allow for informed or educated decisions at this stage.

Due to this lack of information, I now find that I look at the outer boundaries as simply vast areas of our coastal/marine habitat which do NOT need to be declared as parks or conserved.

I oppose the suggested boundaries as unnecessarily large, as they currently provide possibilites for nearly half of state waters to be exclusion zones for many who rely on the waters for their livelihood and recreational activities.

I feel these boundaries as they currently stand could ultimately be responsible for a downfall in the economic and social standards of our state and our greater community.

I will join with other concerned and worried citizens to fight against this “introductory” process and push for a more transparent method of introduction, which enables me to provide informed, educated and worthwhile input into a functional system of conservation for our marine environment.

I would ask that you acknowledge receipt of this letter, and I welcome any input you could provide as to my current views and input on this situation.

Sincerely


If you have a submission of your own, feel free to post it here to help others, but I would ask that you don't make derogatory comments as to the contents of submissions from others, as we are all entitled to our own individual viewpoints, and we will all say our piece in our own words and the manner we deem fit.

Remember, you now have less than 7 days to lodge your submission, so if you intend to get one off, start work on it promptly. The more input they receive the more weight our thoughts carry.

I encourage everyone who wishes to have a say to make a submission. Do not however cut and paste someone elses letter. It isn't a numbers game but in the summary of submission reports etc petitions and form letters are treated diferently. Put your own thoughts in your own words, focus on boundaries, suggested changes to those boundaries. This consultation is not about process it is about boundaries. Thanks.

Thanks Andy!


Boundaries are part of the process, and if the official submission form is the only option, I've been wasting my time, because the process is WHY I cannot accept the boundaries. How can I officially state this?

If our submissions come in the form of a written letter, instead of utilising the "official" submissions method, is there a way you could help us to have them accepted in this form?

DEH,

It certainly can be about process - if that's what we choose.

We are free citizens - not employees of the Department for Environment and Heritage.

They will have their chance to put chains around us soon.

But not yet!

Regards,
RJ

Letter is fine. Just note that it is a submission, make sure your contact details are included etc. There is the online version you can use too.

You can say that Ranger as you are saying you don't support the boundaries because of the process. Any specifics you have would also be valuable as this is about the boundaries not if we will have marine parks or not. There will be boundaries, what do you think they should look like? We are receiving many specific submissions about moving a boundary here or there. Do you have anything to add in that regard?