one thing that gets me is there seems to be alot we are being told by you Andy, but none of this stuff is written in stone that i know of ie: (without directly quoting you..)

-the more remote areas that are currently under less pressure and use will be more targeted for sanctuary zones. thats great news if its the case, but how can we take your word for it, is that in the legislation? not having a go at yourself, but how can you yourself even be sure that this is the case and that further down the track you too dont get bent over by the powers that be? Im sure you gather by now that our fear is that the most WIDELY used areas will be those that are shut off. :-\,

CAN YOU PROMISE US that the most popular fishing spots wont be those targeted?- where is it WRITTEN?



-the other one is the percentages of the sanctuary areas in the whole parks- 10,13, 15 %? what would really reassure us (to some degree) is a direct promise BEFORE management plans are released that say NO MORE THAN 15% OF ANY MPA WILL BE SANCTUARY ZONE (AND SAY 5% RESTRICTED ACCESS ZONE). A set threshold limit would reassure us greatly at this point. Our fear on this is again that we will be screwed and this could escalate from 15 to 20,30, 50%??? who knows as its not WRITTEN IN STONE (as far as i know)

CAN YOU PROMISE US that no more than 20% will be sanctuary/ restricted zones- where is it WRITTEN?


I sincerely hope you can point us to documentation that contradicts my fears as that would be great!

Thanks Andy, your time and efforts are appreciated

PS by "WRITTEN" i obviously do NOT mean on this forum, i mean something like LEGISLATION

Vanders,

Very good points.

Perhaps if DEH could provide us with information on each of the more popular rec fishing areas in SA, and tell us which locations in those areas will definitely remain open to fishing after Marine Parks are instituted, the current unease will disappear.

We could then freely discuss any SA Marine Park subject knowing that our traditional interests have already been addressed.

DEH, in previous posts on this forum you have been able to make commitments that fishing will continue to be allowed in a couple of locations. Can the department create a more complete public list using the same logic as was used for the decision in those locations?

regards,
RJ

if its anything like the other states, get the vasoline ready and bend over....

I know a fair chunk of Moreton Bay has been closed off to all types of fishing.,including some of the most productive areas :thumb: :censored:

The following is an excerpt from Hansard, The Hon. J.W. WEATHERILL (Minister for Environment and Conservation), from Parliament, February 5th, 2009

"The first thing is that no activity is actually affected by last Thursday's proclamation and it will not be until the management plans which will be developed over the next two years or so are in place. Even then, aquaculture, commercial and recreational fishing will still be able to go ahead.
Of course, the majority of each marine park, including jetties, boat ramps and popular beaches will be available for recreational and commercial fishing and other sustainable activities. It will only be those small zones in each marine park (which will be developed as part of the consultation with the community over the next two years) where fishing will not be allowed."


Vanders, I will work on getting you some more information, there are some policy commitments that have been made made about maintaining recreational fishing spots and using examples like salmon spots at Browns, Almonta, Sheringa, Lock's Well, Camel, Convention, Waitpinga,...etc and other spots like, Greenly, Coffin Bay, Cape Elizabeth, Murray Mouth...etc. Those details are not in legislation and would never be, the commitment is to minimising impact on current users and recognising important rec fishing spots is part of that.

If you have an area of a particular habitat, say a huge area of seagrass, and if it is all ecologically similar there are very compelling reasons why you would lean towards putting the sanctuary zone in the least used part of that area. It minimises impact on users AND the least used part is actually probably in better shape anyway (as it is least used). That is win/win.
Of course it is not always as easy as a single great area of seagrass and it might be clear that some areas are better ecologically than others, BUT, nontheless, the design process will use communuity principles as well as scientific.

I myself have used the 13% percent figure over and over as an example from the Encounter MP. I will find out about some sort of statement in that regard.

But I would remind you that nothing is written in stone ever by anyone, is it? Change is inherent in everything. Would a policy written in stone about the River Murray 25 years ago be appropriate today? Would a bag limit set in stone 25 years ago still be appropriate? It is written into the legislation that marine parks must be evaluated at least every ten years. Why? Because it is the expectation that the future will not be exactly the same as today.

16% of Moreton Bay is in "green zones" (marine national park).

As I said,a fair chunk!Just had a look at the zoning map.

Thanks mate, that is partly my point, that no matter what you say, we as rec fishers still fear for the worst because you cant actually promise anything! i trust that YOU believe what is said, and your very hard job is trying to convince us the same :

lets just hope that you are right ;D

BTW- even 13% is still a fair chunk of area to cut off from fishing really! in reality there is probably a good 13% of the state that would be very remote and not commonly used for fishing, mainly due to remoteness/access, but its hard to see that these are the only areas that will be cut-off... :-\, especially when trying to take in every sort of habitat.

It would only be 13% if the States waters were 100% marine park. The example I used was about 13% of the parks in sanctuary zones which may be 46% of the States waters = around 6%.

I suspect that the Honourable Member didn't really mean what he promised in Parliament (unless he has been misquoted):-

"Of course, the majority of each marine park, including jetties, boat ramps and popular beaches will be available for recreational and commercial fishing and other sustainable activities. It will only be those small zones in each marine park (which will be developed as part of the consultation with the community over the next two years) where fishing will not be allowed."

Hard to imagine that commercial fishing will be allowed at popular beaches, jetties and boat ramps. Is this a promise?

Regards,
RJ

Apologies to Vanders. Since your question is much the same as my previous, DEH might be able to answer us both at the same time?

DEH,

There is an existing list of 669 popular SA recreational fishing sites that were known to the Government during the design phase of the parks. (Pescatore and Ellis 1998, and other sources)

Of these 669 popular recreational fishing sites, 284 (or more than one third) are to be located within Marine Park boundaries.

Can DEH please tell us at which of the 284 known popular recreational fishing sites located within the Park boundaries we will still be permitted to fish?

DEH have made promises (presumably cast in stone) to the Commercial and Aquaculture fisheries about the areas that will be impacted based on research undertaken during the design phase of the Marine Parks. How has this been done before the location/size of zones has even been established?

Why are recreational fishers being treated differently. Why are we being kept in the dark?

Regards,
RJ

Having fished Moreton Bay for over 25 years I can say that there is only about 30% of the Bay worth fishing in.
And look at that..
All the closures are in these areas.
You do the maths. More like 50% greenie zones.

Dont even listen to the pollies.
It will all be decided by the SA equivalent of our EPA and their greenie masters.

This is what we have to do to get any recognition.
http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=145282


Rod.

DEH, i have a small boat and fish the few estuary systems we have in SA, we release 99% of the fish we catch and have been fishing these creeks for years, my boat is set up for inshore fishing and if these sorts of places were closed i would have to think about selling it as it is no good for going out to sea most days of the year

i have read and heard lots of stuff on this subject, but all of it sounds like propaganda to me, even the ads on the radio are trying to push the governments, "No Everything is Cool" type thing, reminds me of a dictatorship country back in the war telling a certain group of its inhabitants to come on a great holiday with them, we're move you to better pastures, look what happened there, they got burnt! and i feel thats whats happening to us now, we're led down a garden path being told alls sweet then all of a sudden it's all too late

when the wind is blowing these small estuaries are the only place i can get out to and i love fishing them along with the many others i see when we are out fishing

so straight answer here please, just a yes or no, none of this crap talk trying to wing ya way out of the direct question and don't give us the ol "Thats not been decided yet" as the people of South Australia are not that stupid, if the government thinks we are, guess they will learn we are not at the next election

will the:
1) Pt Gawler Creek be closed
2) Pt Davis creek be closed
3) Price creek be closed
4) any of the creeks from St Kilda back to garden Island be closed
5) any creeks in the Pt Pirie area to be closed
6) any areas of the Coorong be closed

so can you honestly answer this one or are you going to continue to just be another tool of the government and spout more shit to try and convince us of what the people who pay you to tell us what, they want us to hear?

cheers chuck

Chuck,

I'm sure that DEH will answer your questions, but I'd like to provide you with another view of the situation.

According to the DEH documents, there are 111 estuaries in the State and 80 (72%) of these estuary mouths are included within the proposed Marine Parks boundaries. Some of these estuaries are also protected upstream from the mouth.

I keep banging away at this. Once the Marine Park boundaries have been passed into law (in a couple of weeks time) sanctuary zones can be introduced, changed or moved within the Park boundaries at the Minister's discretion. No voting.

There is a significant green organisation who has the stated goal to introduce large sanctuary zones within all SA Marine Parks. In the future, the green push will only need to influence the Minister for this to happen. No voting.

The green push are already represented by their own campaign manager on the SA Marine Parks Council. It is possible that there are members of this same green organisation within the staff of Govt departments who are responsible for making zone recommendations to both the council and the Minister.

We should be doing all we can to minimise the size of these Marine Parks, and keep them away from recreational fishing sites.

Unless we manage to generate as much political push as the greenies, park boundaries are the only way we can prevent future increases to sanctuary zoning in recreational fishing sites.

Regards,
RJ

Public protest where and when? North tce?