Just thought I'd post some info for those interested in the Marine Parks/Sanctuary Zones debate.

In the upcoming election you now have a way of expressing your diapproval of this debacle by voting in the upperhouse/legislative council for
INDEPENDENT SA FISHING & LIFESTYLE
Below is their announcement & manifesto/press release re. marine parks/ sanctuary zones

PRESS ANNOUNCEMENT:

Hi,
I would like to announce that the INDEPENDENT SA FISHING & LIFESTYLE group will be standing two candidates, Neil Armstrong and Paul Tippins, for the Legislative Council in the upcoming election.

As a group we are standing on behalf of all fishers, commercial, recreational & charter plus aquaculture, divers, marine & tackle businesses and the many other people who feel disenfranchised by their impending potential loss of lifestyle/livelihoods due to the introduction of these new MPA's/Marine Parks and their yet to be declared minefield of sanctuary "LOCKOUT" zones.

We are not entering the political arena to polish any egos, but as and on behalf of all South Australians who have, we believe, not been told the whole truth regarding this legislation. We believe that the state government has deliberately and cunningly withheld the disclosure of the proposed sanctuary zones until after the election in an attempt to avoid a massive voter backlash. They think that by declaring these sanctuary zones after the election that fishers’ anger and memories will fade before the next election
“They have another think coming."

Attached is a press release or moreover a manifesto, stating our views.

Please feel free to contact me if you require any further information,

Regards, Neil Armstrong,
INDEPENDENT SA FISHING & LIFESTYLE candidate

PRESS RELEASE/MANIFESTO:

“New Marine Parks a cruel hoax”
The soon to be proclaimed “minefield” of sanctuary “lockout” zones in the new Marine Parks, will be a “cancer” on our coast and are likely to be “terminal” for many businesses, livelihoods and lifestyles. They are nothing but a disgusting waste of taxpayers’ money and a “cruel hoax” being played on all South Australians, believes Neil Armstrong, INDEPENDENT SA FISHING & LIFESTYLE Legislative Council candidate.
Why?
Based on hard to find “unbiased” marine scientific comment, plus my own research, it is my firm belief that:
1/.Marine Parks/sanctuary zones do nothing to prevent, polluted stormwater run-off, hyper-salinity from desalination plants, storms, oil spills, climate change, other pollution, or ship groundings. Their “primary effect is to prohibit fishing and aquaculture” which in SA is the main economic use of our marine biodiversity/resource, and which is at a level that is far below the sustainable limit in most areas.
2/. Up to 6,000 jobs and over $1000 million in the fishing, boating & associated industries are being put at risk by the introduction of these new marine parks. (Grow Boating Australia, report 09/07)

3/. Based on the Pirsa SA Recreational Fishing Survey 2007-08 (released Dec 2009) versus 2000-01.

a/. Participation rates for recreational fishing have decreased 7% (from 23% to 16%), mainly in the younger age groups.

b/. With the exception of 2 species (snapper & blue swimmer crabs) there are less fish of all other targeted species being taken

c/. More fish are being returned to the water than ever before

4/. Land based pollution is responsible for most of the damage done to our marine biodiversity, not fishers.

5/. No fish has ever been exterminated by line fishing in SA.

6/. For all practical purposes 90% of our SA coastal waters are already a green zone.

7/. The introduction in our state’s waters of potentially 200+ unmarked/invisible sanctuary “lockout” zones will probably discourage many people from fishing, particularly in light of the heavy fines that will be imposed on them for straying into one

8/. Our present marine management regime and system of aquatic reserves is currently and has always been more than adequate in dealing with fishing practices and our marine biodiversity

9/. The State Labor Government has a credibility problem on marine environmental issues. Hyper-salinity from the desalination plant at Port Stanvac, a couple of kilometres from a proposed marine park, will probably destroy the well known adjacent squid/calamari breeding area, and hyper-salinity from the desalination plant under consideration at Point Lowly near Whyalla will most likely destroy the giant cuttlefish population in that area also. “Talk about hypocrisy and environmental vandalism!”

10/. The real environmentalists are Fishers, the ones who believe in bag limits, catch limits, possession limits, size limits, closed seasons, protected species and “relevant” aquatic reserves etc. They are the ones with a vested interest in a sustainable environment/biodiversity. One which their children can continue to enjoy and responsibly interact with.
11/. Fundamentalist, radical green lobby groups staffed by naive, immature and the difficult to employ, with their senseless, lock it up at all costs mentality are the ones driving this legislation. They think they have the right to destroy our lifestyle/livelihoods.
12/. Many of our politicians don’t give a sh?t about our environment, only their political survival. This pathetic legislation stems from “Little Johnnie” giving into those fundamentalist, radical greens over a decade ago (re NRSMPA’s) in order to obtain green preferences at election time and the scenario still hasn’t changed.

IN SUMMARY I believe these marine parks are only about politics, preferences, lobby groups, staying in power at all costs, wasting millions of dollars in tax payer’s money and “government spin”, not about your State or Federal Government giving a tinker’s damn about the environment. That’s why they won’t disclose the multitude of sanctuary “lockout” zone locations before the election! It is about time that some of our gutless, patronising, self serving, ego polishing, politicians considered our regional economies plus the livelihoods and lifestyles of ordinary South Australians, instead of pandering to the self proclaimed fundamentalist messiahs of conservation, the radical bright green, know it all, minority in our society.
Written and authorised by Neil Armstrong, INDEPENDENT SA FISHING & LIFESTYLE Legislative Council candidate,
“LIGHT GREEN not BRIGHT GREEN”

Sounds ok Neil, but I have a few questions:-

1. Aren't you far too late to make any difference to the outcome? What do you propose to do to change this process now that it has proceeded so far?

2. "Single issue" parties are sometimes used as a smoke screen to cover political agendas in other areas. What about your party?

3. Do you have a policy on two items of significant interest to me:-

a. Remediation of the Metro marine environment
b. Resolution of the Caulerpa Taxifolia infestation.

Regards,
RJ

I think no matter what fellow fisherman this current goverment has to go!!!!!!

Hi some quick responses to your questions.

1.it's never too late. legislation can be altered/repealed if their is enough political will. that political will, can come from a govt. seeing that their are enough people prepared to give their vote to some body who can sit at the table and discuss preferences. this is how this green inspired legislation came about.

1.no smoke screen. i am a second generation proud south aussie who is sick of over government and radical lobby groups running my life and ruining my lifestyle. i have realised that the only way to stop the rot is to get political. it's all about votes, they are political tender and this legislation is purely political.

a.metro marine environment can be hopefully recovered by slowing the flow of polluted stormwater rushing into our gulfs (wetland filters), moving desal plants to an area than has a strong enough tidal flow to mix the hyper-saline water and redirecting sewer outfall discharge to vineyards, woodlots, ovals/sporting complexes etc.

b.this issue needs more scientific research and needs the govt. to be more proactive. I'm sorry I don't have a good enough knowledge of caulerpa taxifolia, to offer an informed opinion

Thanks.

I completely agree that the democratic process is capable of causing change to happen. A bit more detail on the alternatives/preferences (to the current Marine Parks) that you plan to propose would be helpful.

Runoff is definitely a major contributor to the degradation of metro waters, and needs to be fixed for a range of very valid reasons. It has also been proposed as the major (and only) item that DEH has declared as being in need of attention. Since the Metro waters have been classed as "severely degraded" and the problem too hard for any further action by DEH, my question is - What does your party propose to do about it?

Is it worth considering the longer term view? In a few years time, the cost of travelling to other locations in SA to go fishing will become prohibitive. At that time, rec fishing pressure on the Metro waters will increase. Pristine remote Marine Parks will not provide the answer.

The Caulerpa Taxifolia infestation of the Port River system has been "in work" for many years now (6 years from memory), and is the reason that we are still prohibited from anchoring in the Port river and environs. It's time that there was a resolution - perhaps by having some political weight applied. Will it be your party that provides it?

Regards,

Conservation starts at storm water run of. The government cant even fix this destruction to sea life and they expect me to believe that they have our best interests at heart with these marine parks .As far as im concerned we are being duped.Its alot cheaper and easier to draw lines on a map which gives the wider community a sense that they are doing something to conserve than to deal with storm water i guess.No offence to you personally Andy.

hey im a fisho have been since i was a teenager im 25 an in that bracket of younger fishos i believe the decrease of fishos in my age group is to do with the lack of good metro fishing an the cost of travelling just to get a fish people my age dont want to wiat or go 3 or 4 times before they get a fish me personally could sit there for a week i voted for your party at the election was wondering how you went did you get into parliment an if so when will your points be put forward in parliment i believe that a marine park is not a awnser anwas wondering wat your view on a permit system is i do believe that some marine parks would be good if they were in breading zones and at breeding times like the snapper ban i know that the impact of no fish zones would be a finacial burn on certian areas of the industry but ultimatley its all about a sustianable future as for pollution thats a battle of mass proportion (david v goliath)and unless the world changes the way we live what can you do look at the gulf of mexico at the moment an the blame game that has errupted from that disaster (i no longer stop at bp servos) good to see there is a person who is prepared to stand up an have a voice in state parliment just hope that this is not a smoke screen for some other politacly motivated issue as is the case in polotics
cheers matt


p.s not a go at you dude just poloticians are not the most trust worthy people

Tony abbott has announced that if ellected he will get rid of these bullshit marine parks!!! so i urge everyone with any interest in marine activities be it commercial or recreational to vote liberal and help save our coastal communities that rely so much on this resource.

NZRL82 wrote:
Tony abbott has announced that if ellected he will get rid of these bullshit marine parks!!!
That's NOT exactly what he said!

Coalition govt would freeze marine parks
Updated: 13:20, Tuesday July 27, 2010

A coalition government would freeze the gazetting of new marine parks around the country, Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has announced.

Mr Abbott made the announcement while campaigning in the central Queensland coastal city of Mackay - where he filleted a giant barramundi at the local fishworks - on Tuesday.

The federal government's process of planning for new parks would be put on hold, and the whole process restructured, he said.

'Man and nature have to live together,' Mr Abbott told reporters.

'It's very important that we don't do anything as a government that unreasonably threatens the livelihood of fishing industries and the tourism industries upon which so much of Australia depends.'

Mr Abbott acknowledged the process of gazetting new marine parks had started under the previous Howard government.

But the process now needed more consultation built into it than existed currently under Labor.

Marine protection areas prohibit various activities in order to protect the environment and some of them have 'no-take zones' for fishing.

Now how much faith do ya put in any of his election promises?

As well as saying he'd put a freeze on gazetting NEW parks, in the same context he's said the process needs more consultation built into it.

So are they actually gonna be frozen, or is more consultation gonna take place before instituting them?

Existing parks around the country will also still remain!

I have little faith in broken promises, lies, hidden agendas/policies, backflips and spin as we have been seeing from both sides!

You may be right about what Tony Abott will or wont do ,but atleast he seems to be aware of our concerns.We dont even get that much from the other side.Another Question is the preferential treatment that divers get like when it comes to artificial reefs,When they scuttle ships for this recreation which i have no objection to,its called an artificial reef that will attract all kinds of fish but when making one for fishing its pollution.Im not for every body going out and dumping what they like but why dont they scuttle ships or boats for our use aswell?

A tough time ahead for all fishermen.

The election result will give us a much increased Green presence in the political process - nine Green Senators and significant influence in (what looks to be) a hung parliament by a single Green MP. This will have significant impact on future Government decisions, and based on the Greens published policies, the size of no-take zones in our MPA's will inevitably become a serious issue.

Quote:

Measures

The Australian Greens will:

20. ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% ‘no take’ areas per bioregion by 2012.

unquote:

Whether 10%, 30% or even 100% of MPA's should be zoned as no-take seems to be a decision based on the Green's culture rather than any supporting science. In essence, the "precautionary principle" seems to be used to justify any such proposal by the Greens. I have no idea what they mean by "...per bioregion..."

We have a vested interest in the future of fishing, and it's hard to see how we could support any proposal that does not include a valid reason. It should concern all of us that we now face years of pressure by Green groups who are intent on limiting our access to our own country.

During the debate/discussion about MPA boundaries on this forum I was very concerned that the huge size of the MPA's would allow ever larger no-take zones to be established within each MPA in the future. This now seems about to become reality.

Will the Zones that are currently being developed by DEH in consultation with stakeholders be replaced with blanket 30% no-take zone in every MPA in our state? It's not clear where these no-take Zones will be located within each MPA - and in the absence of supporting science it will be an interesting decision. How these huge areas will be managed/policed is unclear.

No point in replaying the election or finger pointing - it's a done deal and without any significant political clout we seem to be screwed.

What is the best way forward for fisho's - any ideas?

Cheers,

RJ5023 wrote:
I have no idea what they mean by "...per bioregion..."

The underwater area is divided into different "habitat" examples known as bioregions. Here in SA the entire coast has been divided into 8 different areas which are meant to be indicative of 8 different types of habitat:

1. Eucla
Shallow offshore gradient. Microtidal ~ 0.8 to 1.2 m tidal range. Open, moderate energy, west facing coastline. High Nullarbor tertiary limestone cliffs, Pleistocene dune rock headlands and reefs, Holocene beaches and dune barriers. Warm temperate water influenced by periodic intrusion of the Leeuwin current.

2. Murat
Shallow offshore gradient. Moderate to low energy coastline. Microtidal ~ 0.8 to 1.2 m range. Crenulate bays due to Precambrian crystalline rock headlands usually with a dune rock capping. Pleistocene dune rock cliffs, reefs and headlands. Holocene beaches, dunes and estuarine deposits including intertidal and supratidal flats. Offshore islands and seamounts. Warm temperate waters. Leeuwin current.

3. Eyre
Shallow to moderate offshore gradients. Moderate to high energy coastline. Pleistocene dune rock cliffs, headlands and shore platforms. Microtidal ~ 0.8 to 1.2 m range. Holocene dune barriers, beaches and lagoon deposits. Precambrian metasediment cliffs. Cainozoic colluvial and fluvial sediments. Cool temperate water subject to nutrient rich upwellings.

4. Spencer Gulf
Inverse estuary. Shallow offshore gradients. Low to moderate energy shorelines. Microtidal ~1.8 m range. Precambrian crystalline rock headlands forming embayments. Cainozoic outwash sediments forming low cliffs. Holocene beaches, dunes and estuarine deposits. Warm temperate waters.

5. North Spencer Gulf
Inverse estuary with minimal land water input. Shallow offshore gradients. Low energy shorelines. Micro to mesotidal ~1.8 to 3.6 m range. Precambrian metasediment shore platforms. Holocene sandflats, beach ridges, recurved spits, and extensive intertidal and supratidal flats. Warm temperate waters with a subtropical biotic element.

6. Gulf St Vincent
Inverse estuary. Shallow offshore gradients. Low to moderate energy coastline. Micro to mesotidal ~1.2 to 3.3 m range. Precambrian metasediment and Tertiary cliffs. Holocene beaches, sandflats, dunes, beach ridges, estuarine deposits, extensive intertidal and supratidal flats. Warm temperate waters.

7. Coorong
Offshore gradient decreases from steep to flat resulting in a gradational coastline change from high to low energy. Microtidal ~ 0.8 to 1.2 m range. Precambrian crystalline rock and metasediment headlands and cliffs. Pleistocene dune rock cliffs, headlands, shore platforms and reefs. Holocene pocket beaches and an extensive beach-dune barrier lagoon complex. Cool temperate waters.

8. Otway
Very steep to moderate offshore gradients. High wave energy. Currents generally slow, but moderately strong through entrance to Bass Strait. Cold temperate waters subject to nutrient rich upwellings.

Have a look at page 6 for the map: www.environment.sa.gov.au/marineparks/pd...ndary_principles.pdf

Thanks Ranger,

All that reading did you a lot of good!

What these bioregions will mean in the context of the Greens mission is a question still to be decided I guess.

Cheers,

Don`t know how many here have seen this - given that the good `ol Precautionary Principle is the first one listed under the Marine Parks Design Guidelines, things could get interesting. Note the last few lines particularly;

Planned marine parks necessary: scientists
Source: Stateline South Australia
Published: Friday, August 6, 2010 9:20 AEST
Expires: Thursday, November 4, 2010 9:20 AEST

A group of researchers are studying fish off the northern coast of Kangaroo Island in a bid to make 19 planned South Australian marine parks effective.

IAN HENSCHKE, PRESENTER: Back to South Australia now for another political story that's been bubbling away for quite a while.

The announcement of 19 state marine parks has angered many in the fishing community but scientists say they're vital to protect endangered fish and conserve our biodiversity.

As the Government and the fishing industry negotiate over what restrictions will be enforced inside the parks a group of researchers is trying to understand exactly what the fish do and where they go so the new parks will be effective.

Patrick Emmett has more.

PATRICK EMMETT, REPORTER: It looks like a scene from an exotic northern reef, and it is, but we're off the northern coast of Kangaroo Island not Queensland and the divers here aren't relaxing taking in the scenery, they're hard at work hunting down something called the western blue groper.

SIMON BRYARS, MARINE ECOLOGIST: He's a pretty charismatic sort of a fish. Big fleshy lips and big eyes, a bit like a sort of a Labrador underwater. It's an inquisitive fish, quite friendly and docile and always happy to come up and see you when you're down there diving.

PATRICK EMMETT: And it probably just as well they're friendly because the gropers can grow up to 1.7 metres long and they live for 70 years. They're also pretty friendly amongst themselves.

The males can have a harem of two to three females and can change sex.

SIMON BRYARS: They tend to have a social group. There will be one dominant male with two or three females and we think what happens is if the big male is removed from the population the next biggest female will then turn into a male.

PATRICK EMMETT: Simon Bryars is a marine ecologist from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and he's part of a team looking for the groper and this fish, the harlequin.

They've been diving for them on reefs off Kangaroo Island and when they catch their prey it's not the dinner table where they end up but the operating table.

The fish are given a bit of anaesthetic, sliced open and a small radio transmitter is inserted into their body. They're then stitched up and released.

A series of small receivers placed across the ocean floor then tracks their movement. The receivers are later collected and the data is downloaded on to laptops.

15 of the gropers were track would the devices day and night for 15 months.

SIMON BRYARS: This is the entire data set from the groper tracking study.

PATRICK EMMETT: What they found is the gropers spend most of their days in a very small area around their reefs and at night they retreat into a cave for a sleep.

SIMON BRYARS: Gropers have probably been hanging around the same area for decades and decades and just having a pretty cruisy sort of lifestyle down there.

PATRICK EMMETT: The team has just finished tracking the groper and is and now following the harlequin.

SIMON BRYARS: In the first day after we've tagged the fish we were getting detections already so that was a good sign that the fish had at least survived the first few days after the surgical procedure.

PATRICK EMMETT: But while the fish the scientists are studying might lead relaxed lives, the research is for a much more controversial subject, the State's new marine parks.

ABC NEWS REPORTER, JULY 2009: As far as battle grounds go it's one of the more spectacular.

The outer boundaries of 19 marine parks have been finalised and cover 44 per cent of South Australian waters.

PATRICK EMMETT: The announcement of 19 marine parks has upset many of the state's fishermen who fear they'll lose access to valuable fishing grounds.

While the outer limits of the parks have been decided, they're now negotiating with the Government over where they can fish inside the parks.

PETER OWENS, WILDERNESS SOCIETY, JULY 2009: The outer boundaries are a significant first step but the plans will determine where the sanctuary zones go and they are ultimately the real marine protected areas.

NEIL MACDONALD, WILDCATCH FISHERIES SA, JULY 2009: That process we've just been through I guess is the end of phase one from our perspective.

PATRICK EMMETT: The information Simon Bryars and his team are finding is part of that process.

They're helping to decide where zones and sanctuaries' will be set.

SIMON BRYARS: It's about working out the home range size of the fish. What we want to do is ensure that the sanctuary zone size of a marine park will be big enough to encompass the entire home range of the fish.

We don't want a situation where you've got a fish that's moving in and outside of a sanctuary zone boundary where it might be vulnerable to fishing on the outside of the boundary.

PATRICK EMMETT: Simon Bryars says that's important because even though gropers have been protected since the '70s, if they're accidentally caught by fishermen and thrown back, they still often end up dying because of the trauma.

The scientists say there are concerns about the numbers of both species of fish so getting the research right is vital for their future.

While we`re at it, herewith the excerpt from the design principles I alluded to above;



5.1. Primary biophysical design principles

Principle Number One: The Precautionary or Anticipatory Approach

The Marine Parks Act 2007 defines the precautionary principle as:

‘if there are threats of serious or irreversible harm to the marine environment, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent harm’.

For the purposes of marine parks design, the precautionary approach should be applied to avert known risks of harm and/or potential harm to the marine environment. An additional component of the precautionary approach is that unknown risks may also exist and that reasonable scientific hypotheses should support decision making to anticipate, plan for and subsequently adapt to previously unforeseen risks to biodiversity conservation. An example of how the precautionary approach may be applied is the inclusion of unmapped areas within marine parks now, rather than waiting until habitat mapping programs can reveal more information about the areas of uncertainty.