One of the significant issues that has emerged from the Qld and NSW Marine Park experience is that of Marine Park boundary and Zone GPS mapping.

DEH, Is a process in place to provide GPS coordinates to the manufacturers of GPS mapping software so that we will be able to update our GPS units to reflect any changes to Zones within the Marine Parks, and to define the boundaries of the parks themselves?

This would need to be done in a timely manner by all parties (DEH, manufacturers and users) to prevent users being subject to criminal charges for fishing in any changed or new zones.

Is there any defence that could be used against a criminal charge caused by inadvertently fishing in a newly changed zone? I'd guess that if updated GPS data were available and the user had simply failed to install it then the user would be fined.
- but what if there was no updated software, or no notification that it was available?

An entry in the Government gazette or Notice to Mariners may not be adequate for most fishers.

regards,
RJ

One of the most worrying things for me about the zoning issue and how big the sanctuary zones are actually going to be, is that there are organisations out there
( for example: The Wilderness Society ) That are cashed up and well equipped scientifically and politically to push their issues and point of views forward. Even to the point of playing a pivotal role in pushing legislation through ( ie Marine Parks Act) . You only need to go on their website to see their view of multi use marine park zoning.

To quote a few lines from their site

"The Wilderness Society will ensure that large strictly protected sanctuary areas are part of the multiple use park system.".

What can we do as group to ensure a fair zonning and management plan is implemented, when we are up against organisations such as this?.

In my opinion the sanctuary & restricted access zones will be larger than what we have been lead to believe.

I too believe the zoning has already been decided and is being held back to avoid public scrutiny.

How much time will there actually be to comment on the zoning?.

And how can I put in a submission that has technical merit ( which is all deh will consider ). I don't think " but I have been fishing there for years with my family" will cut the mustard.


Jeff

RJ, yep we will be working to get that out in a timely manner to GPS software/charts etc.
Remember, the Act also requires a warning for a first offence of rec fishing in a sanctuary zone.

DEH,

In about 5 weeks time the boundaries will be established. When can we expect to see Marine Park boundaries included in GPS mapping software. Will it be 2 months from now?

Later on, when the Zones are created/changed/moved we will be subject to criminal charges if we mistakenly fish in a sanctuary zone twice. Or even if we carry rigged fishing lines into a sanctuary zone twice. (based on the existing NSW rules)

How will everyone know where these changed zones are when they're out on the water if the changes are not made to GPS software at the same time that they become law?

Surely, we need to have a very efficient process in place to make sure that Zone information is available to users at the time that it becomes law.

I am asking - what is that system, how will it work? You have responded "...we will be working to get that out in ....".

The boundaries will be set in 5 weeks time.

What is the DEH plan to have GPS mapping available?

regards,
RJ

And let's not forget cost! Are these gonna be free or heavily subsidised, and will they be subject to goods and services tax?

I'm sure there isn't a plan to subsidise this (although hopefully I'm wrong). Gps mapping cards such as navionics etc are from around $350 for the small ones, to $500ish for the large ones.

We've just been forced to outlay for new EPIRBS without a subsidy as the system has been changed, now I guess we'll have to buy new mapping cards without a subsidy as the system has been changed.

Maybe a one-off payment to start with, just as long as the boundaries/zones don't start changing, and we really have no guarantee on that either! And I'll bet we ARE paying a GST on the cards too as it's for "recreational" purposes which as we know are subject to GST.

Boundaries will not be put onto GPS as there is no point. No rules or regulations, no change of use, no point in putting them on GPS.
At implementation of zoning there will be need to include those boundaries and that will be done. The legislation enshrines the first warning for fishing in a sanctuary zone. I would think repeat offenders should be subject to compliance wouldn't you?

Since this is the case, it raises (again) the question that has been asked many times already. Why are these large Marine Park boundaries needed?

At this stage in the development of SA Marine Parks, we are being asked to provide input to the Govt. about the location of the boundaries of these parks - but not whether we agree with the concept in the first place. We do need/want Marine Parks, everyone agrees. We are discussing how they should be established.

What makes me uneasy is the size of these parks, because it's very difficult accept the need to have large areas marked out as marine parks with no obvious purpose - at the moment.

I'm sure that everyone regards this public consultation as an excellent opportunity to be heard, and I personally feel that you are providing a very valuable public service.



Absolutely - that didn't need to be asked. Multiple offenders should be prosecuted and maybe even first time offenders as well, depending on the circumstances. But - they need to have information available so that they are aware they are offending.

If the offender can't easily work out where the zones are, it should be expected that a first warning would very likely to be followed by a prosecution. Unless the fisher chucked it all in and took up farnarkling instead.

regards,
RJ

G'day RJ, I hear ya but I think I've covered most points before.

Outer boundaries are a heads up. They are working in that regard.

We are not presuming we have all the details to locate zones without some more community involvement.

We are bound by the legislation. During the development of the legislation stakeholders (predominantly industry) requested that this phased approach be used. We must have two comment periods with information gathering in between. Those same stakeholders also requested that a complete statewide network be developed simultaneously to avoid more parks coming in over a number of years.

To meet some of the biophysical goals we can have LESS sanctuary zone if they are embedded and supported by habitat protection zones. If you were to design a sanctuary only zone you would end up with larger and more numerous sanctuary zones, to meet objectives like minimum distances between parks etc. You sound really interested so please read the tech report on our website.

Victoria is the exception not the rule. A multi-use zoned approach is defined in our legislation as we are seeking to conserve AND minmise impact on users. That is why all States and the Commonwealth and many other countries use multi-use zoning. I know you can't see anything but fishing but other zones like habitat protections have benefits that are important, especially on non fishing activities like construction, mining, aquaculture.

Also remember this is for the future. Even if parks accomodate ALL current uses at it's current level that is a result. Why? Because if activities arise in the future that we never foresaw, or if population increase led to huge increases in some activities we have a framework of marine parks in place to help us manage that. We are being proactive not reactive. We are not going to wait until it is stuffed and then try and fix it. Cheaper, smarter, better for the future to act now.

I'm at Brighton in the Community Centre today till 7pm if anyone wants to drop by. Cheers,

DEH,

The plan to disseminate Zone mapping information in SA needs to be much more efficient than Qld's. The new zoning for Moreton Bay will come into effect in 11 days time and will be enforced from that date. The new map:
https://www.epa.qld.gov.au/register/p02687aa.pdf

The users in Qld seem to be having a tough time tracking the boundaries of the zones and are using their own initiative to map them. www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?t=144460

Perhaps they will be warned for a first violation, but the number and complexity of the zones look as if it might be difficult to avoid a second violation (for example, refer to Zone 1 in the map).

Do you know if this "first violation" rule applies to each zone? Or does it apply to all zones. That is - a first violation in any zone will count as a first violation for every protected zone in the State?

Regards,
RJ

RJ, here is the text from the Act:
17—Zones
(1)
Subject to this Act, a person must not contravene a provision of the regulations
prohibiting or restricting activities within a zone of a marine park.
Maximum penalty: $100 000 or imprisonment for 2 years.
(2)
If the circumstances of an alleged offence against subsection (1) are constituted by a person undertaking recreational fishing by use of a hand line or rod and line, a prosecution cannot be commenced against the person unless the person had previously been given a warning in the prescribed manner and form by an authorised officer and, in allegedly committing the offence, acted in contravention of that warning.
(3)
For the purposes of subsection (2), a certificate executed by an authorised officer certifying as to the giving of a warning specified in the certificate constitutes proof of the matters so certified in the absence of proof to the contrary.
(4)
Subsection (2) does not apply if it is alleged that the offence was committed in a
restricted access zone.
(5)
In this section, hand line, recreational fishing and rod and line have the same
respective meanings as in the Fisheries Management Act 2007.

My read of that is that is it is a warning for the first offense (not the first offence in each individual zone in the State).

A couple of points.

subsection (4) of Section 17 says to me that the warning does not apply if the offence was committed in a restricted zone. Are sanctuary zones restricted access? Oh...and you'd better not be using crab nets, crab rakes or anything else other than rod or handline. Not as clear cut as they would have us believe.

Last I heard a GPS/Chartplotter is not compulsory equipment on a vessel. What good are GPS coordinates to the significant number who don't carry one.

a restricted access zone would be a very small area and would be surrounded by a sanctuary zone. the warning is meant to allow for honest mistakes around sanctuary zone edges. the thinking is that you will have crossed a sanctuary zone and gone further into a restricted access zone, and that is less likely to be accidental. in the Encounter draft plan, restricted access zones made up less than 0.1% of the park area. very small areas if at all.

most folks know where they are on the water, they visit favourite spots, use landmarks, use depths, use GPS, there aren't many folks who have no idea hwere they are. we'll work to make it as simple as possible but it is hard to draw lines on the sea as you have pointed out.

and:-

Posted by: DEH Marine Parks
Posted on: February 17, 2009, 01:09

My read of that is that is it is a warning for the first offense (not the first offence in each individual zone in the State).

DEH,

Something is very wrong here. If someone accidentally drifts into a sanctuary zone when fishing off Noarlunga and gets a warning, and then 12 months (or however many years) later does a similar thing off Streaky Bay they will be heavily fined and given a criminal conviction?

The penalties for getting it wrong (twice) are not appropriate to the severity of the law that has been broken. I have serious reservations about how we will all be able to keep track of the zones, especially when they are changed or moved.

There will be a large number of sanctuary zones scattered throughout the 19 very large Marine Parks. The existing Encounter MP has 16, so if we assume that each park will contain 10 sanctuary zones (no one knows yet, so pick a number), that means that there will be something like 200 sanctuary zones across the state.

Based on what has happened in the eastern states, the mapping of these zones will be published in some form and it will be up to the user to ensure that their own reference information is accurate when they are out on the water.

Whether that reference is a paper chart, line of sight, GPS using waypoints or full blown GPS mapping, the problem of ensuring that we are all (regulators and users) using the same information is going to be huge.

The chance of a boat moving into a sanctuary zone (by dragging an anchor, pushed by wind and tide or whatever) while fishing will exist - particulary at night or in poor visibility.

It is not justice if a fisher can cop a heavy fine and a criminal record for having the same thing happen twice in 2 years - or 5 years. If the zone maps the fisher is using are out of date or inaccurate despite his/her best efforts this would be a complete miscarriage of justice.

Everyone who travels with their boat to other locations in the State to fish will need to have accurate and current maps for sanctuary zones in their target area.

That's a lot of information to keep up to date. We need the Govt. to provide it to us efficiently and cost effectively. There should also be clemency provisions and reasonable amnesty periods whenever a new zone is established or an existing zone changed. Perhaps udated zone/park mapping information should be sent out to every registered boat owner in the State whenever it occurs?

This is a Marine Park management issue that will exist whatever the final shape of the parks and zones. It should already have been considered and resolved during the past 10 or so years.

This is an expansion of the questions that I have asked previously in this thread. Will I have to keep asking?

Has a plan been established manage the distribution of Marine Park zone information to us?

What are the details please.

Regards,
RJ

penalties and regulations have not been determined. they have to be before zoning arrangements are discussed.

it will mean more zones to contend with but it is not something new is it? you have been fishing around aquatic reserves for decades, without all the benefits of current technology. the same tools that people use now to increase their fishing efficiency will likely be the same tools they use to avoid sanctuary zones. I'll see if there is anything else I can find out about this issue.

DEH,

The number of areas that we have needed to avoid in the past has been tiny compared to all the zones that are coming. We will need cost effective mapping available to all boaters in a timely manner.

What is the DEH plan to accomplish this?

regards,
RJ