Bream Fishing Banned in Blackwood River!!!

Found this today which might just be the governements way of ending netting (and all recreational fishing) in the Hardy Inlet!

Note well that it mentions the Hardy Inlet specifically!!!!!!

By definition within CALM's Marine Parks legislation "Fishing" is described as an extractive activity which is necessarily deleterious to the resource therebye BANNED (This includes all catch and release forms of fishing - including bream comps)

New south-west marine park
The process to establish a marine conservation reserve in the South-West is under way, with the appointment of a community-based advisory committee to develop the proposal.

Environment Minister Judy Edwards today announced the members of the new advisory committee she had formed to examine the creation of a new marine conservation reserve in the waters of the Geographe Bay-Leeuwin Naturaliste-Hardy Inlet area.

The members are: Bob McKay (chair); Terry Adams; Wayne Baddock; Ross Bromell; Ken Colbung; Gary Kendrick; Peter Macdonald; Steve Mitchell; Renee Mouritz; Carolyn Narkle; Graeme Walker; Ray Walker; and Peter Warrilow.

Dr Edwards said the formation of the community-based advisory committee was a crucial step in the State Government's commitment to protect the unique environment for future generations - as well as create a world-class marine conservation reserve system.

"The Geographe Bay-Leeuwin Naturaliste-Hardy Inlet area is one of the State's conservation treasures," she said.

"Its marine plants and animals are of considerable significance, including an unusual array of both tropical and temperate species.

"It is also of great cultural and spiritual significance to the region's Aboriginal communities, who have occupied the area for at least 40,000 years and for whom the ocean and its inhabitants are prominent features of the Dreaming.

"The area is of major significance for commercial fishing and the tourism industry and is highly valued by people from a wide area for activities such as surfing, diving, fishing, boating and nature appreciation."

Dr Edwards said balancing conservation, commercial, cultural and recreation values would be the priority for the advisory committee in developing a proposal for a multiple-use marine conservation reserve.

"The committee will consider a range of issues concerning the creation of reserves such as appropriate boundaries, objectives, and management strategies to ensure the sustainable use of the area," she said.

"In conjunction with the committee, the Department of Conservation and Land Management will undertake a broad community consultation program to ensure the public has opportunities to provide input."

Dr Edwards said members of the committee had been selected from nominations from the local community and stakeholders.

"The advisory committee members have been chosen for their expertise, knowledge and interest in the area rather than on the basis of representing a specific sector," she said.

"They bring a balanced and broad range of experience in conservation, commercial and recreational fishing, Aboriginal interests, tourism, water activities and marine science to the planning table.

"Preference has been given to local, rather than Perth-based nominees, to facilitate local community involvement and to bring important local knowledge of the area's values and uses to the planning process.

"State-wide stakeholders and Government agencies will also be able to participate in the planning process through attending committee meetings and submissions to the committee."

Source: Media release by Minister for the Environment [1 August 2003]


Dunno - about any of YOU stakeholders - but I can tell you for a fact that as a STAKEHOLDER with charter licenses covering the proposed Marine Parks area's, I certainly wasn't "invited" to have any input into this draft management plan process or to be a member of any committeee's such as the Minister has announced (who are in the main scuba people).

What About You Ira - did you get an invite to participate?????

OR

Are we expected to try and put a STOP to this crap after the fix is already in and it's a done deal, between a few people with vested interests behind closed doors with a wink and a nod as is the case with the Blackwood's water being pumped to Perth (see my "draining the Blackwood" string on this board!)

There are EVIL anti fishing forces afoot dear people, these PETA types have infiltrated the conservation movements (and departments) and are out to kill off fishing in all it's guises forever.

Either put a stop to it bye derailing it NOW before it gets a foothold - or like a virus - it will spread until theres no where else left to catch a fish, photograph it and let it go, for THAT is the ultimate aim of these PETA types.

AND dont think it stops at the Hardy Inlet - CALM already have such draft management plans being created for the Broke Inlet AND the Walpole Nornalup that you all rave on about so much.

Get active people and start the emails to ministers and the press (Liam Bartlett?)

Cheers!

[Bear]

Trouty,
Do we have more info on the people who have been elected to the committee. Maybe we should be getting into their ear as well.

Scary times ahead.

[Angry]

>>>>>"In conjunction with the committee, the Department of Conservation and Land Management will undertake a broad community consultation program to ensure the public has opportunities to provide input."<<<<<

"Broad community consultaion" my arse. Poli's through this line in everywhere, usually after the decision is made.

[Geoff R]

Short of sitting on top of a hill and pink misting somebody, or taking to them with a sawn off baseball bat I feel like banging my head against a brick wall.
If they take away "Down South" from us I reckon I'll give up fishing, this business and many others will go down the gurgler because of it. What are these F&%$en Dickheads Thinking
Someone put me out of my misery Please
Geoff P

[MATTY]

i suppose this is the best way that the gov. could solve this little problem about netting,couldn't afford to upset the pro lobby or have a fishing voter backlash.this marine conservation park thing is gathering momentum not just here but all over australia,the
QLD proposal for the barrier reef is a real sh@t fight.
i dont know if any of you saw the 9 news the other day about rec fishing but the gist of the story was that rec fishing as it is now is unsustainable.there are articles and news items in a lot of different publications here and overseas attacking rec fishing.
someone or organization have an agenda here and its very worrisome.
by the way frank prokop was on the abc radio monday arvo only caught the last few seconds,anyone got any info on this ??

[Bear]

Did you guys read Frank's column in FWA?

Worth a read.

[Evileye]

thes people are absolute arseholes, they dont know what they are doing at all, just put one of you guys up and youll sort it out quick smart, we non parliament employed people must be the only ones who know what were doing! this sucks.:mad:

Evileye

[Angry]

I saw that burst on rec fishing, and I saw there ideas to fix it was make more restrictive rules (which I am not against if they are for valid reasons). But as usual they seam to miss the freaking point. There is no point making tougher rules, if your not enforcing the rules that are currently in place.

Seems that everthing time I get passionate about a past time it gets legislated it into oblivian.

I keep feeling like we're treated like extremists, and all I want is to able to fish with my kids.

At this rate we will be limited to fishing on Playstation,

Now I'm ANGRY;)

[Richo]

Once again the Gov`t has handpicked its own Advisory Committe, and will then pay them DohDohDohDohloads to justify the Govt`s actions and get the results they want, not what we want.

And if Catch and Release cannot be desribed as environmentally friendly then what is.??

QUOTE "The Geographe Bay-Leeuwin Naturaliste-Hardy Inlet area is one of the State's conservation treasures" QUOTE

So lets get this straight, we are going to turn it into a Marine Park sort of thing and then destroy the f&%#@n place by raping its water stocks. Is this going to be the same sort of committee, just there for show, and to bullDohDohDohDoh the public into thinking our opinions are being considered, when a decision has already being made.

Most disappointing Trouty. Far from impressed. Where to from here. More letters etc, anything will be better than nothing.

cheers

[MATTY]

haven't read the column in DohDohDoh yet bear,but have read cribbies column in DohDohDohDohDohDohDoh,well worth a read,some interesting comments to say the least.
will read DohDohDoh when i get home,this whole thing is starting to give me the DohDohDohDohs (i'm a bit slow i know but..)

I only know the dude Wayne Baddock, whose on the committee.

He teaches my sons class in Busselton (Marine & outdoors education) @ Busselton High school.

Basically in my estimation he's likely been 'selected' because he's a scuba diver who will no doubt go along with CALMS desire to lock the whole fricken place up forever (so only scuba divers can access it)...

That said, he's a hell of a nice guy - and it wouldn't hurt for anglers to bend his ear so he KNOWS what our desires are as regards the continuation of catch & release rights.

I think the two WALKER bros are basically recreational anglers thru n thru so again they should be awared of what we anglers want.

In the interim I'm doing my best to get selected as a "sector advisory committee" member to have input on the drafts once the core group have their say and before thre drafts go to public consulatation.

Cheers

[Richo]

Trouty,

Is there an address where Committee members can be sent our concerns in writing??

Pink Mist sounds by far the best option!:D
Nah seriously, our govt is f@#$%^d.
How does catch and release fishing hurt an environment.
Has anyone put the idea forward to them that Catch and Release anglers can be used to help studies. We can help find out stock numbers, where the fish are holding (movements, etc)...if they cant see us as a helpful tool...they are in need of a punch in the nuts!

Dave

[dan_WA]

Old CALM seem to have a bit too much arrogance in their tones lately !, I guess it's the same everywhere (NPWS in NSW isn't much better). Their intentions of just "locking away" huge areas seems to be gathering momentum in many fields.
Sure the south west is unique in it's ecosystems' composition
THAT'S WHY WE GO THERE FOR GODS SAKE !!!
Locking away large areas that may be inaccessible (could) be a good idea, but when the area they are considering is smack bang in one of the states meccas for fishing, surfing, 4wd, scuba etc..... well that's just ludicrous !

Hey I know, lets all go down ti timezone and play the fishing game there !

It really get your bain ticking the more you think of it. All the govt. authorities are claiming doom and gloom about "youth today". Hell they should be getting fully behing such responsible, and environmental awareness-creating sports such as fishing. Get them out from in front of the TV - isn't that the best way to promote conservation ? - show people what they risk losing !!!

Obviously you can ring Wayne Baddock via the Busselton high school - I don't seem to have his mobile number here in front of me ( I have it somewhere, can't find it) but no doubt the Busso high School will give it to you!.

08 97 549333

Probably best to ring him outside school hours?....(lest he be distracted from teaching my young bloke!)

You'd think the ministers media release would have included contact numbers for her appointed committee - if she wanted the public to tallk to these folks wouldn't you?

Then again, - this is the same environment minister who gave us pipelines down the middle of the Lefroy brook - and Fish deaths in the Swan River, so MAYBE it's NOT so surprising it's all done in such a way as to keep the public from having any say at all - which is what they would want. :mad:

You know - talking to these public servants, in the last hour or so - they all get highly indignant, about any suggestion that the public consultation process is fundamentally flawed, and that the outcome is already a done deal - like it's some sort of personal "slight" ontheir individual integrity, as an officer of whichever department...

BUT,

When you see the way the West Coast Fishing review was written with regard to the "double blind" multiple choice questions, as regards the continuation of recreational netting in the Hardy Inlet, is it any wonder we have little "faith" in the process at all?

Same with the Yarragadee groundwater pumping - no faith left at all - the public consultation process is ongoing while the pipe tendershave already been called and some 150 holes already drilled.

This Govt simply HAVE no credibility...is what it amounts to at the end of the day...people are seeing thru this sham that passes for "public consultation".

In the best traditions of the "Yes Minister" political satire series on TV, (where you never call an enquiry into something unless you've already put in the fix to pre determine the outcome) THIS is the apparent methodology bye which this govt seems to work here in WA...when it comes to managing our natural resources.

What we think, want or say doesn't seem to mattter ONE IOTA to these cretins...

THIS is the manner bye which, MINORITYS (the PETA / scuba diving types) TAKE Control of the process...and TAKE AWAY our rights as anglers thru nefarious actions and surreptitious methods designed at the outset to achieve a pre determined outcome, and to THWART any attempts to change that pre determined outcome.

I STILL maintain my position that ANGLERS need to form a "Riverkeepers" organisation to 'wrest back control' of our riverine estuarine ecosystems so that we and our kids can stand a chance of enjoying their values in perpetuity to provide the enjoyment of catch & release angling.

Cheers

[MATTY]

trouty (or anyone who knows)
interesting you mentioned the lefroy pipeline,that has been removed hasn't it.a lot of hoo haa was raised over that.do you know by whom and what methods where used to get a result in regard to that issue ?

[Bream Master]

Ross Bromell is the head of the Busselton Jetty Committee and one of the people pushing for no fishing off the jetty end.

Warren.

Heres ONE contact within CALM involved in the Marine parks planning process. Guys name is Andrew Hill,

Haven't spoken to him...YET!!!

andrewhi@calm.wa.gov.au

Another for the parks of the Leeuwin Naturalist (read Hardy Inlet/ Blackwood River) is Burke Stephens

BurkeS@calm.wa.gov.au

Again haven't spoken to him yet either.

Another is Terese Dimascia, who I HAVE spoken too:-

TereseD@calm.wa.gov.au

Terese is involved with terestrial national parks moreso than marine parks.

The Planner for the Walpole Nornalup (and likely broke Inlet as well) is Dave Holly 08 9336 0121

You'd think there would be just ONE head Honcho in CALM you could speak too to get this crap sorted but there isn't, which is likely why you can't get anything done and they ALL say "it's not actually my area" etc etc

I have my doubts they have even half a clue what it is they are doing frankly and after speaking with some of them that hasn't changed all that much (so far).

Matty, with regard to the Lefroy issue - Yes I do have a few ideas who and how it got sorted...as I was involved along with Frank Prokop and Ian Stagles and a few others besodes like Mike Roenfeldt etc etc.

Anyway - the reason that got "fixed" so easy and quick was due to the photo's of the ruddy great pipe down the middle of the stream that appeared in the West Australian and on the internet etc etc.

I was interviewed on TV for the Golden West coverage as was I think Ian Stagles for Perth TV etc etc..

Basically - we had the support of the "shock value" of those photo's to support our case and get the Govt onto the back foot at the get go.

How do we do that with an issue like these insidious marine parks spreading like a plague of crown of thorn starfish?

There are no Gory Photo's like the Ones Kurt Blankesbye was thoughtfull enough to take and release for widespread use of the Lefroy Pipeline issue.

If we had photo's of a dead baby fur seal or something else as "emotive" to spoon feed the public - THEN we ought be able to do something.

Do you think if all those tonnes & tonnes of dead swan river fish had been dumped onto the steps of parliament & photographed for the front page of the West Australian every day for MONTHS, that the govt would be ignoring the issue like they are at the moment and it would have gone away like it has?

No - this Blackwood River campaign with the netting, waterpunmping and Marine parks etc NEEDS a media photo opportunity...and if NATRE doesn't GIVE us one first - like dead fish etc - then I guess its up to ANGLERS like us to, "CREATE the campaign with a series of ROLLING Photo opportunities of ANGRY ANGLERS...

That might be with Blockades of fishmongers selling bream fillets bye breamers with vehicles and boats, it might be followed up bye a procession of bream boats down the Blackwood with Banners - "hands off our water, river and fish"...

It really depends on whether the anglers really care r not - whether they want to DO something about the issue or NOT...

At the end of the day - it IS in anglers hands what eventually transpires.

If they don't take up that challenge the PETA types in CALM and their scuba divin bum chums on all the committees, WILL made damn sure that we LOSE the battle for all time.

That much is guaranteed.

Cheers!

How convenient - the spin doctors are selling this already...

This is me typing out the article with my phat phingers so forgive the typos errors

Busselton Margaret River Times, Thursday August 7 2003
By Virginia Egerton-Warburton.

Push For Marine Park.

Photo (5 men)
Committee Chairman Bob McKay with members Steve Mitchell, Ross Bromell, Peter McDonald and Wayne Baddock.

Enthusiastic members of a newly formed advisory committee are keen to get on with the task of creating a Marine Park in Geograph bay and beyween the capes.

But none of them expect it to be easy.

Committee Chairman Bob McKay said there were many different stakeholders who would want their interests looked after.

"We have got to balance up the competing interests and make sure everyone gets a fair piece, including the fish" he said.

The committee is yet to get their terms of reference, and has yet to meet.

Members of the committee include Terry Adams, Wayne Baddock, Ross bromell, Ken Colbung, Gary Kendrick, Peter Macdonald, Steve Mitchell Renee Mouritz, Carolyn Narkle, Graemem Walker, Ray Walker, and Peter Warrilow.

Vasse MLA Bernie Masters welcomed the committee's formation but criticised the appointment of Ross Bromell, claiming it is a political appointment.

"His background in Marine Issues is very limited" he ssaid.

"There is no doubt in my mind that he;s been appointed merely to maintain his public profile so he can run as a labor candidate at the next state or federal election.

Mr Brommell said he did not feel he needed to defend his appointment to the committee.

"People that live here know that I have enough credentials he said. "I would say i was selected in spite of my political background not because of it".



Points that immediately struck me.

1. Pretty quick reporting - no doubt a suitably written media release was already written for release when the appointments were made yesterday, and getting the spin doctors work into print ASAP is all part of priming the public to swallow this well disguised live bait - "hook line and sinker" as they say.

2. The fellows in the photo all represent the anti fishing brigade IMHO.

The two Fishing reps - the Walker brothers were absent from the photo.

Is this bye deliberate design - is this so the public who are pro recreational fishing won't recognise the two angling reps to be able to approach them and make their views known?

3. This group don't have any terms of reference yet - so one is left wondering how the selection criteria was drawn up????

4. Without any terms of reference, how can the groups chairman state what the groups agenda is?. to whit:-

We have got to balance up the competing interests and make sure everyone gets a fair piece, including the fish" he said

It seems to me that this is just another "done deal" bye the WA Labor Govt & their green friends and now we have to go thru the motions of pretending to have public consultation process...when it's clearly evident even those selected have their own agenda's BEFORE they have any terms of reference.

What a farce is all I can say...

Mark my words - we will be LOSING a LOT more than JUST the Hardy inlet bream Fishery with this little deal...and we will be losing it to the very Jetty tourism operators like Ross Brommell, who wants No fishing from the enmd of the Busselton jetty as well as all the scuba divers who already have the swan dive wreck etc...

They want the WHOLE CAPES REGION, lock stock and barrel.

If you surf, windsurf, dive etc you'll be Ok - if you fish - your outta here...

Someone should start finding some FEDERAL LIBERAL PARTY support to get a few court injinctions to STOP, these charades deals being done by Labor in WA - it's JUST LIKE WA Inc ALL over again...

Cheers!

Never one to just sit bye and cop crap without at least makin a noise... I decided to make a call or two and send an email as well.

Dr Jessica Meeuwig,

Marine Planner ~ proposed Capes Marine Reserve
Marine Conservation Branch
Department of Conservation and Land Management

Sub: Proposed Capes Marine Conservation Reserve.

Ref: Our recent Telephone conversation of August 6Th 2003.

Dear Doctor Meeuwig (Jessica).

Thanks you indeed for the recent phone call referred to above with regard to the Marine Conservation reserves proposed for the Capes region.

As you are now aware since we spoke - I first became aware of these proposed reserves (and thence other reserves proposed for the southcoast at Broke Inlet and Walpole Nornalup Inlets) after the release of media articles announcing the appoinment of ther Capes community consultative committee in The Busselton Margaret River Times & Western Australian newspapers this week just gone.

As a stakeholder with commercial charter fishing licenses for all of these zones (as well as The Gascoigne region) I have to register in writing my absolute DISGUST that neither myself nor apparently any other Charter Operators licensed by the Fisheries Department of Western Australia to operate within the areas covered bye these proposed marine reserves have been advised of the proposals nor invited to comment or be part of ANY of the committees involved in the consultative process.

Is it any wonder anglers have grave concernes over CALM's abailities to manage our marine reserves and parks when neither CALM nor the Fisheries department can be bothered involving any of the stateholders in their planning process?.

The makeup of the committee for the Capes proposed parks is already drawing considerable public criticism in the media and within angling ranks for the fact that it appears to largely political appointments and to harbour individuals with interests which might be classed as diametrically opposed to those of recreational anglers (e.g. Scuba Divers/ Tourist Operatprs of Underwater Observatory who are "on the public record as proposing "no fishing Zones for large area's of the Busselton Jetty).

We as anglers and fishing charter operators are rightfully, I believe, very sceptical of CALMS abilities in the area's of marine management frankly and in fact I myself believe them to be bordering on inept in the extreme given the very poor results achieved in the disastrous Jurien Bay Marine Conservation Park and Reserves not to mention the difficulties in the recent Burrup Peninsular marine parks planning process.

It appears that CALM considers ALL fishing bye definition to be extractive and therefore deleterious to the resource and to be banned anywhere within WA's extensive waters it can get away with, and in order to achieve these ends appoints people to it's committee's to make sure anglers views and opinions are not considered at all in the drafts process.

I'm indeed very cynical of the public consultation process within WA State Govt agencies and view it with extreme sceptisicism (and can back up those reasons with good examples I might add).

I believe that CALM has an obligaton to contact and advise stakeholders such as myself of the intention to develop marine parks proposals that will result in loss of access to area's I currenty enjoy legal access too well before the point of appointing public consultation comittees and issueing press releases. Indeed - I intend if necessary to seek legal redress in the form of compensation if necessary for any LOSS of future earnings that might result from loss of such existing access rights that might ensue from this crazy ocean grab that CALM has embarked upon when you and I both know they largely have neither the expertise or funds to manage these vast areas.

That the Fisheries Department seemingly sits idley bye whilst this ocean grab talkes place, personally astounds me.

That CALM doesn't include any Zero retention / Nil Bag limit zones within it's Marine Parks/Conservations reserves estate where catch and release angling can take place is proof positive that CALM as a marine manager is well behind worlds best practice in terms of balancing out the needs of all user groups.

CALM as a manager of the Marine resource within angling ranks is viewed as a largely 'scuba diving apologist organisation', with little regard for any other user groups.

Anglers who have evolved to catch & release angling methods are probably the group who most closely PRACTICE the CALM oft espoused Conservation ethos of "Leave only footprints - take only photographs" and yet the Marine Parks are largely highly discriminatory toward this user group (and the charter guides who currently service them).

This is MOST short sighted, in that it denies a potentially large revenue source for the parks management, whilst allowing many other similarly benign acticities like glass bottom boat cruises, sail and surfcat hire, jet skis et al which due to poor definitions within the CALM legislation are seemingly deemed to be 'non injurious'.

I seriously want to see these issues addressed urgently please and whilst I certainly enjoyed your phone call - I require for records purposes to receive a written response to these matters please.

As this is an issue of GREAT IMPORT to recreational anglers and something about which the angling community is currently VERY interested, I advise in advance that it is my intention to publish within various public bulletin board forums of the internet and angling press your responses...so please bear this in mind in composing your response, especially as regards any standard email headers or footers denying such permission - this IS an issue of IMMENSE PUBLIC concern and I will be publishing with or without response and with or without permission to do so in the PUBLIC INTEREST should such response be forthcomming or not as the case may be.

I look forward to your considered response with regard to the issues raised...and specifically what steps you intend to take to ensure that Licensed Commercial Charter Fishing Operators views and opinions are included within the draft management planning process for firstly the CAPES Marine Parks BUT ALSO for the Broke Inlet and Walpole / Nornalup inlets at the outset, and not left until the final draft plan is put to the public for comments.

I am of the opinion at this juncture, (Given my past length of service for CALM) that your verbally expressed personal guarantee that the public consultation process would be fair, open and above board and that anglers and my own concerns would recieve due consideration in the development of the draft management plan process, was sincere and given with a great deal of personal conviction and am inclinedd to take you at your word.

However - given CALMS past abysmal record in this area of Marine Parks public consultation process - I'm afraid I have to ask for that guarantee for that committment in writing please. (Just in case that within the CALM environment of political manipuulation and intervention - your promise might later prove niaive as I suspect from my own not inconsiderable experience with the organisation).

Yous Sincerely

Shann Low

Blackwood Fly Fishing Charters Nannup
Licensed Fisheries Dept Charter Guide Lic 80 & 194 (South Coast, West
Coast & Gascoyne regions)
16ft Barra Punt SPV Surveyed Passenger Vessel "Steelhead Maru"
Qualified Coxswain, Full Public Liability Ins.
As Seen on Bushy N Starlo's "Hooked on Adventures" TV Show
Freshwater Trout, Estuary Bream and Saltwater Salmon Fly Fishing Safari's
on Blackwood and Donelly Rivers and South Coast beaches, Saltwater Fly
Fishing packages to Shark Bay & Abrolhos Islands.
Ph/Fax A/h 08 97 561207
Ph Bus Hrs 08 97 561365
Sat Mob 0404 271 203
http://www.compwest.net.au/~troutman
Fisheries, Forestry and Environmental Consultant.
Freelance Fishing Journalist.

Part 11 follows!

So far responses have been:-

From: Meeuwig, Jessica
To: Shann Low
Sent: Wednesday, August 13, 2003 12:41 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed marine conservation reserve in the Capes


Dear Mr. Low,

Thank you for your email following our conversation of last week. You have raised a number of important points for response. To ensure that I answer as comprehensively as possible, I'll need a bit of time to cross check our files and chase up the required information (e.g. on current policy). Please bear with me and I'll have a response to you within 10 days (23rd August).

Best wishes,
Jessica

As well, so far, some support has been forthcomming from both Frank Prokop recfishwest and Andrew Cribbe Fisheries WA

Hi Shann

Recfishwest is likely to take CALM to the EEO coordinator for the state with a complaint that they have clearly discriminated against Recfishwest on the basis of place of residence.

Make no mistake - CALM are the enemy of recreational fishing. Watch what happens on the 31st when they launch the Jurien "Rock lobster theme" Park!

Cheers
Frank

and

Thank you Shann

Our views also

Fisheries is far from sitting "idly" by - but the debate is within Government
and doesn't get public exposure.

A few thoughts :

A complete review of "new horizons" and the marine parks planning program is
overdue - (Recfishwest has made this case to Govt).

Cape to Cape and others to be put on hold until this occurs.

Question the need for large fishing closures in the WA context - given that
Fisheries are moving to an ecologically sustanable development framework -
which includes biodiversity conservation as well as sustainable fishing.

Recreational fishing has never in any context been responsible for the
extinction of aquatic species and less than 100 out of 2-3,000 species of
fish are taken by recreational fishers.

CALMs lacks resources and expertise in marine management - and is trying to
apply terrestrial conservation models to the marine environment.

"no take away" or "low take" zones as an alternative to complete shut outs -
ie win-win for angling and conservation.

A small fact not cited in the usual guff from CALM is that even under current
plans they intend to include 2,000,000 ha or 30% of State waters in marine
parks. These areas overlay the areas of highest recreational use. Each marine
park will have 25-50% of its area closed to fishing.

You may want to discuss this with Frank Prokop - they are already going in to
bat

Andrew Cribb

The question remains tho - will anyone actually take out any court injunctions to stop all this vast oceanic grab madness before it gets out of hand?

I sure hops so, IMHO it appears tome that SOMEONE needs to put the CALM ocean grab genie back init;s bottle with cork firmly in place before this malevolent spirit wreaks havoc all over the state unchecked.

Cheers!

[jimi]

Good work Trouty. The thing that amazes me the most is that you actually got a response back from a government department (ie. Jessica at CALM) that was not a standard form letter :D

Well done.

Cheers
James.

PS. You really gotta learn how to spell 'by' (it's not 'bye') :D ;)

Spell checkers are for sissys! :D

Anyone wants to tell Dr Jessica what THEY think could do worse than to email her!

JessicaM@calm.wa.gov.au

She is a VERY nice Canadian lass - who has worked all over the place in the Philipines (on moon cycles effects on fishermens byecatch of seahorses), Vietnam, Britisch Columbia and Quebec...

Whilst apparently not a LOT of her work experience is on marine parks creation and planning / management...she DOES have a doctorate, earned for her thesis on Temperate Estiuarine ecosystems or somesuch.

I think it's absolutely CRITICAL that she learns early in her 2 year contract here, that to try and implement ANYTHING that threatens anglers traditional access to water & fish resources without the support of the angling sector is going to be a Very Tough battle from the outset...so she is under no illusions for the rest of the task she has at hand.

Make no mistake - while Dr Jessica is a VERY nice lady to talk to and write to - CALM the organisation she works for are our mortal sworn enemys and without a LARGE change of corpoate thinking within the CALM organisation with regard to recreational angling and it's effect upon the resource - likely always will be!

Cheers (er bye!) ;)

Which some of you MAY wish to include within your submissions/emails which as yet I havent transmitted to CALM...for them to address. (just cut n paste into your emails where you agreewith the point!)

1. Exisiting Falilities & Access / Safety concernes.

Recreational anglers and boaters have funded a series of boat launch facilities within this state thru boat and trailer licensing fees that many of the proposed marine parks will seek to "take away from us" by declaring them to be Marine Parks and hence closed to recreational angling.

A) Inequity - the funds for the facilities were provided bye rec anglers & boaters and CALM has no right to arbitrarily assume defacto conrtrol/ownership over such facilities bye altering the land tenure to national park or marine park so they can CHARGE us $ for continued USE of the facilities we already PAID to provide, whilst atthe same time restricting our use of the water & fish resources these facilities service

B)There are PUBLIC "safety at sea" issues associated with locking up areas with easy safe day small boat travel from existing and future planned boat launch facilities.

As examples - the "totally closed to fishing biological study reference reserves" that CALM seeks - SHOULD be located NOT CLOSER THAN 15 Nautical Miles from existing boat ramps and probably no closer than 30 miles.

It is a fact that Both Fisheries and CALM have well funded & under utilised multi million $ research vessels staffed bye qualified Master mariners capable of extended oceanic trips with air conditioned live aboard comfort for the staff in total safety in all but the most extreme weather conditions anywhere in this vast state.

Recreational anglers and boaters in the mian DON'T Have such vessels available to them and as a result are restricted largely thru safety concerns and vessel fuel range to easy day travel distances from exisiting ramps, marina's & safe anchorages.

To arbitrarily locate total fishing excusion zones WITHIN the safe day trip distances for small craft from such launch/mooring facilities is indeed basically FORCING small craft owners to travel vast distances to access legally productive fishable water, and in the event of fatalities that will inevitably result, a CORONER could find CALM culpable in being the cause of such unnecessary marine fatalities bye virtue of locking users OUT of closer safer waters arbitrarily.

As a "guide" to whats considered a "SAFE travel distance" for small craft on daytrips basis - the Dept Transport Marine authorities limit PAYING PASSENGER Vessels BELOW 7.5 meters to no more than 5 N Miles from shore / safe anchorage, and PAYING PASSENGER VESSELS 7.5 meters & above with a MINIMUM coxswains quaified skipper to 15 N Miles latterally in either direction and oceanward 15 Nmiles from such safe anchorage.

For these reasosn there should simply BE NO MARINE PARK VESTINGS THAT EXCLUDE RECREATIOANAL ANGLING within at LEAST 15 nautical miles of ANY public boat launch/mooring/marina facility, or safe anchorage and this INCLUDES all inlets, Estuaries and Rivers / other inland water bodies, where typically mariners & recreational anglers might seek shelter from adverse weather/seastate conditions.

Such areas LOST to recreational Anglers & boaters bye virtue of declaration of Marine Parks vesting that precludes either recreational boating or recreational fishing, COULD reasonably be legally compensable in the event a CLASS ACTION SUIT is brought bye recreational angling bodies agaisnt the marine Parks vestement managing Authority CALM.

3. Rotation of reserves.

CALM is very keen to "lock up vast areas" for their percieved passive use scuba diving chums exclusive use. (Scuba divers boats anchors bugger coral just like rec anglers anchors do!

Recreational anglers would actually like to see MORE reserves within some marine parks that excluded recreational angling, BUT not on a permanent basis. It is believed that a large % of the reserves should be locked up and then reopened for brief periods with attendant biological abundance studies carried out for varying length "rotational closures", in order to ascertain the REAL: effects of recreational angling as against those deleterious effects CALM claim without proof.

For example - the effects of recreational angling COULD be gauged against the Totally closed benchmarking study/research reserves if varying length rotational closures of reserves were trialled.

Suggested closure reopening periods could VARY in response to research results obtaned over time but as a minimum shold perhaps START at closed for 5 years open for 2 years etc....with longer closings and shorter closings and breif popenings and longer opening trialled as well and researc conducted to find the optimium

4. Pelagic species transiting marine parks.

Pelagics which choose to transit marine parks should be legitimate recreational angler targets within those parks bye methids such as "trolling". The parks themseves largely protect only demersal species (sedentary reef dwellers) NOT the pelagics which pass thru from time ot time in migrations and in response to varying ocean currents.

Some pelagics in some areas could be subject to zero retention / zero bag limit (i.e. strictly CATCH & RELEASE) whilst others should be allowed to be harvested - perhaps with special reduced bag limits to limit impact.

The FACT is, these pelagics are offered little if any real protection bye the marine park vesting and are targetted to end up on a commercial tuna longline anyway in most instances within a day or even hours of having migrtated thru such marine parks. They shouldn't be denied to recreational anglers, seeking sport thru catch & release angling methods or some limited retention for food policys in some instances.

Anglers trolling for such Pelagic species SHOULDN'T be altering course with large trolled lure arrays aft of the vessel to avoid imaginary marine park lines drawn in the ocean designed solely to preserve & protect demersal species.

Theres enough "meat" above for one or two of you to break up and include within your emails to the CALM manager of the Parks process Dr Jessica...

Get into it fellow anglers before it's too late.

Don't be shy to post up MORE ideas to be included within such emails.

Also don't be shy to post any responses you get here so we can gauge what impact (if any) we may be having upon the draft management planning process.

Cheers!

maybe worthy of mention

The largest survey of recreational anglers ever undertaken in Australia has found the hobby injects $1.86 billion into Australia's economy each year.

The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey looked at the fishing patterns of 29,837 households, and has determined about one-in-five people are now classed as recreational anglers, having wet a line at least once during the 12-month period.

CALM is effectively closing the door on a share of that vast pool of funding for it's Marine Parks management budget bye slamming the door in the face of recreational anglers with it's CURRENT Marine Parks vesting process, which largely ignores recreational anglers.

Cheers!

Please bear with me and I'll have a response to you within 10 days (23rd August).

Best wishes,
Jessica

Despite all the pleasant talk, and personal assurances, the fact that as yet at the 24th August 2003, no reponse from the good doctor Jessica Meeuwig has been forthcomming....would tend to suggest that this organisation and the people purporting to represent it & hence our Goverment - CAN'T be trusted, to live up to their own promises, period.

Assurances, the sacrosanct nature of a persons word and personal guarantees mean nothing to these people....and THIS is but one of the mechanisms bye which these people mean to usurp our waters...and the fishstocks they contain (Deception & Lies).

You would think a highly paid Doctor, who represents our elected officials in her official capacity - could abide bye her own deadlines and at least provide a considered response in a timely fashion - remembering, I set no timeline - she herself gave the period within which a response would be provided.

How can anglers therefore have ANY confidence...that any of the personal guarantees that the process would be "fair / open & above board" be given any credence???.

It is blatantly obvious that they intend to STEAL from anglers the current legal access to the resource that they currently enjoy - thru direct LIES!

If having 'involvement' in the process means we will be lied to and ignored - what possible HOPE is there - that our concerns with regard to the formation of the proposed marine park, will be given ANY consideration whatsoever in the development of the planning process at all???.

The answer is NONE - and obviously this person isn't FIT for the community trust invested in her by virtue of her highly paid public prominence role that CALM and our governmnet have entrusted her with on our behalfs.

Has there been any "subtle" attempt to "buy me off / shut me up" in the interviening 10 days from the CALM department??????

You be the judge!!!!!


neilta@calm.wa.gov.au
Friday, August 22, 2003 12:50 PM
troutman@compwest.net.au
Marine conservation process for the Capes Area

Shan, Hello and its been a while............can you give me a buzz to
discuss ways the Dept, can use your knowledge in the above planning exercise please Neil Taylor

I think this "feeler" email sent to see if I could be 'bought off' in some way....is ample evidence of official corruption within the department and our government, sad (though not at all unexpected by me) as it is to see!!!.

(Remember - my email header above contains the text, that I am a Fisheries, Forestry and Environmental consultant...ergo - are they offering "paid work?"). 20 pieces of Silver for my soul?

These are the mechanisms and levels to which these people will stoop in order to get their collective way....for their marine park!

It's the manner in which all "appointments" to committeee positions etc are dealt with 'behind closed doors', secret deals done with a wink and a nod in my experience working at CALM for 8 years.

Sadly for them, I CAN'T BE BOUGHT thank you very much CALM...

They ought know that - the last time they tried this sort of crap with me - two CALM officers went to Jail for official corruption based on my testimony against them at the supreme court during the WA Inc era.

IS it necessary that I arrange for questions to be asked in parliament?

CALM are "fools in the extreme" to think I won't send yet more of there poeple the same way if they persevere in this vein! (3 year & 18 month sentences last time if my memory serves!)

This NEEDS to be a public, open and accountable process. The anglers of Western Australia deserve nothing less & will settle for nothing less. CALM have badly miscalculated on this occasion is my best guess.

WHY would they NEED these massive marine and terrestrial parks proposed for such vast area's of this state?????????

Is there LARGE sums of MONEY involved here????????????

You can BET your sweet bippy that there ARE!!! IMHO

As a result of the massive reductions of the Logging Quota's announed and implemented bye Galllops Labor Govt, CALM's royalties cofferes (Read the Sate Governments consolidated revenues funds), have been severely depleted to the tune of approximately some $10 Million a year AT LEAST bye my rough best guess estimation (Remembering I developed CALMS budgets for 8 years so was in a position to have a pretty good guesstimate).

CALM are aiming to usurp all the revenues opportunities present within these terrestrial and marine parks, from the private operators who currently utilise them, under licensure from Fisheries department or local governement or other NGO instrumentalities.

This will mean - the funds from such operators as the rental houseboats operator in Walpole Nornalup estuaries / inlets - and charter operators / whale watchers out of Augusta, hire boat operators - launch ramp parking fees etc etc etc - will ALL become unwitting "CASH COWS" for CALM who are currently bereft of funds.

This marine and land grab has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with marine or terrestrial conservation - CALM have neither the manpower, expertise NOR the funds to manage the VAST estates they already posess let alone those they now seek in addition.

CALM currently manages MORE REAL ESTATE in Western Australia (Terrestrial and Marine) than the combined size of MANY SMALL COUNTRES IN EUROPE!!!!!

They do this with a staff of less than 1000 people and a budget of less than $50 million a year??????????????????????? Lets get real - those countries in Eurpoe couldn't manage that with such scant resources...so WHAT CHANCE that CALM can????

They can't LOOK AFTER what they already have....with the fiscal or manpowerr resources they already have - so WHY do they want yet MORE tenure ownership of land and sea??????????

For the revenues potential they currently contain is the answer...

Land or coean that is NOT WELL MANAGED does it more HARM from an ecological standpoint than leaving it in thehafds of the people already managing it.

If you don't believe this - go take a look in ANY of CALMS national parks around the state, and ispect the rampant spread of feral weeds (incuding declared weeds like Blackberry on their plantation estates!) not to mention feral animals like foxes and rabbits.

CALM have been silently going around asessing the revenues being earned by private operators, and the public users of resources like boat ramps, hire boats, caravan parks, whale watch charters, fishing Charters etc etc etc....and PLANNING how to get their hands on all that CASH............

The only answer is to OWN the land or sea resource that those revenues are generated from...

THIS ALONE is the reason CALM has embarked upon the greatest LAND and OCEAN grab in the worlds hostory since the English empire excercised it's military might over so much of the world in the 17th century.

MAKE no mistake - CALM are out to STEAL money, from ANYONE they can get if from......and they are prepared to stoop to ANY LENGTHS to achieve those ends!

Will the anmglers of Western Australia stand idly by and let this happen????????/

Will they give up the RIGHTS to fish and recreate on this nations beaches & waters for free - a lifestyle that so many of our young men layed down their lives fighting to preserve from other potential usurpers in World Wars 1, 11, Korea, Vietnam, and so on?...

As a West Australian - I sincerely hope not. CALM And the people who work for it are clearly the enemy of the recreational angler as Recfishwest have rightly claimed!

Down with the brown shirts!

Cheers!

[Angry]

I think your'e missing the point Trouty.

We all know that handing land over to CALM instantly creates a living paradise that will carry on in jubilant splendour for eternity. Where all creatures can exist in enviromental harmony. Where natures treasures are preserved, away from the prying eyes of rampant Homosapians who only wish to plunder and destroy (and who then cant refute any CALM claims)

All very TIC of course. I think the valium/port is kicking in.

Bring the Lying Flockers down!

[Quietachiever]

C@nts And Lazy Mongrels (CALM) Its not just the inlets guys they have now posted national parks signs from walpole to denmark now restricting any access into what has always been crownland,problem is? it`s only been proposed a wilderness it hasn`t been designated yet!!!!did I write c@nts,sorry!! I meant Controlfreaks And Lazy Mongrels:mad:

CALM land vestings from crown land to other tenures (National park, Wilderness park, conservation reserve, state forest etc etc etc) were ALL altered as a result of the historic high court MABO ruling.

All crown land is open to public use for any purpose, AND claimable just like crown leashold grazing land is, bye land rights claimants.

They (CALM / State Government) moved to get rid of ALL crown land vestings so as to avoid losing it to lands rights claims subsequent to the MABO decision.

They even sold off the pine plantations down our way because these were old farms which had been bought back in the late 1950's when seasonal milking was phased out and milk quota's introduced & planted to pines. These farms had "freehold" land title deeds held "fee simple in the name of the executive director" but were managed as "State Forest" (and so marked on CALM maps).

CALM and the State government were dead scared the Mabo decision could set the stage for a legal precedent, where if those lands were claimed under native title act on the basis that they were managed as state forest - it would set a "legal precedent" where any successful land rights claim, could then lead to no "titled" freehold land being safe from claim...including your domestic urban house and 1/4 acre block!!!!!!!.

The blocks sold were "auctioned off" in Perth and sold with a "profit appendre" which is a legal document attached to the title deed ensuring CALM the right to complete growing out and managing the trees on the new owners land!

Once the crop matures & is "harvested" the land reverts to freehold title by the new owner, the profit appendre over the title expiring as it were.

The owners got royalties on the growth of the trees from the time they bought the blocks..

Imagine that - you buy a block of state forest (which just happens to have a freehold title deed) and CALM gives you enough money each year to PAY THE LOAN you took out to buy it from the trees growing on it!!!!!!!!

How many of you good folks - the citizens of WA got offered these plum 160 acre riverside with views of the Blackwood valley real estate lands in the heart of the southwest being effectively given away.???????????

Anyone cared to dig would likely find it was ALL sold off to relatives & friends of serving CALM senior management at the time!!!

A very hush hush little "sweetheart deal"....carried out bye with a wink and a nod by your friendly real estate agent round the corner from CALM head office in CRAWLEY...

I bet no one else saw the for sale auction adverts & signs for this plum land...most of it went for less than $1000/acre when real estate values here for such prime land are in the 10 - 20 K per acre range...

Some people "in the know" stood to make some VERY tidy profits ...if you ask me...including the capital appreciation on what was obviously a secret sale at WELL below market value to a few people in the know.

Course - having worked inside the organisation and seen the corruption first hand, I know where a LOT of the skeletons are buried! ;)

IMHO - the CALM department aren't FIT to manage our lands and waters estates. Pity I didn't send a few more of them down for a stretch if you ask me - the whole barrrels rotten from top to bottom.

Cheers!

Well - a belated reply at last...lacking in detail - but a reply non th less.

Dear Mr. Low,

I was very disappointed to receive your email of 24 August 2003.

As an individual who has worked for Government, I am sure that you are familiar with the processes involved in responding to a member of the public. Your initial email raised a host of points, some of which reflect a range of jurisdictional and policy issues. It was thus essential that senior staff in the Department have an opportunity to review the response I drafted. The response has taken somewhat longer than I envisioned, a delay that indicates the respect we accord your concerns rather than a lack of personal integrity on my part.

In the meantime, I followed up on my verbal assurances to you with respect to the opportunities for involvement in the planning process. Specifically, I requested Neil Taylor to contact you and invite you to participate in the planning process via a sector reference group. The personal contact was made because you had made it clear that you had not seen any of the previous advertisements in the media (press releases were in 5 regional newspapers and the West Australian) and I wished to facilitate your involvement.

I am now unsure how you would like to be involved given that you perceive the very mechanism for participation as an attempt to buy you off. I am also disturbed by your suggestion that participants in sector reference groups, and indeed the Advisory Committee, are little more than Departmental mouthpieces. Such an outlook implies a lack of personal integrity in these individuals and this is simply not the case.

Establishing marine conservation reserves is a complex process in which feelings can run high. Marine planning is a social process, supported by the best available technical information, in which a wide range of interests and views must be balanced and accommodated while ensuring the conservation of our marine values. Many of us do feel passionately about these issues. I am sorry that you hold such a negative view of the marine conservation reserve system in Western Australia. However, as the planning process is strengthened by ensuring that a broad range of views are considered, I would appreciate it if you could confirm whether or not you wish to be involved in a sector reference group. I continue to welcome your input.

Sincerely,

Jessica Meeuwig

Dr. Jessica Meeuwig
Marine Planner ~ proposed Capes Marine Reserve
Marine Conservation Branch
Department of Conservation and Land Management

So - how does one respond to that???

I have an idea! ;)

Cheers!

Part 1

if this ellicits any further response from the good Doctor Meeuwig.

Dear Doctor Meeuwig,(Jessica)

Thank you for you late response. (copy below)

I'm afraid I have little sympathy for your dissapointment - as it is of your own making thru a failure to communicate & abide by your own deadlines. If you can't meet your committments, then simply let me known ahead of time to avoid the unpleasantness and strong feelings these issues evoke ...or expect to cop flak.

This is a an issue of immense PUBLIC interest to the Angling Public of WA, who are following along closely the current developments. I simply won't accept tardiness in dealing with this issue.

I indicated to Neil, my willingness to assist CALM in any way I could in my reply to him of 22 August 2003 - to whit [quote]I'd be more than happy to help out in any way I can...

In the event of no further communication from he or you - then I'm at no other option but to form my own opinions and allow the angling public following this issue to do likewise.

As to the composition of your committee - I can only reiterate my previous position and state that I still maintain it, - that the PUBLIC are publicly expressing some "scepticism" in the methods of appointment of same and that political intereference is present. This fact is a matter of the public record, whether you like it or not.

.quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Busselton Margaret River Times, Thursday August 7 2003
By Virginia Egerton-Warburton.

Push For Marine Park.

Photo (5 men)
Committee Chairman Bob McKay with members Steve Mitchell, Ross Bromell, Peter McDonald and Wayne Baddock.

Enthusiastic members of a newly formed advisory committee are keen to get on with the task of creating a Marine Park in Geograph bay and beyween the capes.

But none of them expect it to be easy.

Committee Chairman Bob McKay said there were many different stakeholders who would want their interests looked after.

"We have got to balance up the competing interests and make sure everyone gets a fair piece, including the fish" he said.

The committee is yet to get their terms of reference, and has yet to meet.

Members of the committee include Terry Adams, Wayne Baddock, Ross bromell, Ken Colbung, Gary Kendrick, Peter Macdonald, Steve Mitchell Renee Mouritz, Carolyn Narkle, Graemem Walker, Ray Walker, and Peter Warrilow.

Vasse MLA Bernie Masters welcomed the committee's formation but criticised the appointment of Ross Bromell, claiming it is a political appointment.

"His background in Marine Issues is very limited" he ssaid.

"There is no doubt in my mind that he;s been appointed merely to maintain his public profile so he can run as a labor candidate at the next state or federal election.

Mr Brommell said he did not feel he needed to defend his appointment to the committee.

"People that live here know that I have enough credentials he said. "I would say i was selected in spite of my political background not because of it".



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am not alone in my public suspicions about CALM's motives in the appointments it makes to it's committees.

I note with some interest that similar misgivings are now being expressed by Anglers in Walpole regarding the comittee appointments for the Walpole / Nornalup Marine parks, according to telephone calls I've been fielding in recent days...not to mention postings made bye affected individuals from the region to internet fishing public bulletin boards on this issue.

It appears there is a CONSISTENT practice of some apparently nefarious activities by CALM with regard to it's committee appointments - sufficient that I believe it may well require parliamentary intervention to ensure a thoroughly transparent process for such appointments. This is an issue I intend to pursue with my local member for parlaiment as I (along with a great many recreational anglers) are far from satisfied with the current situation in this regard.

I note with interest, that a great many of the issues I raised (such as compensation for loss of legal commercial accesss currently enjoyed) have not been adressed at all in your response. One suspects thats slipped into the 'too hard basket', however you can be assured that if it isnt adressed to my satisfaction, i'll have my local member of parliament drag it back OUT of the 'too hard basket" and allow the Minister to deal with it on the floor of parliament since it affects others of his local constituents besides 'just me'...

The effect of me writing to you Dr Meeuwig is to afford you the opportunity to deal with these issues 'in house' BEFORE I deem it necessary to turn up the heat in the media and in the Parliament...

If you choose not to communicate - and ignore me - rest assured..I WILL make this VERY difficult for all involved - if necessary I WILL seek court injunctions to STOP the current marine parks planning process in it's tracks.

I'd prefer to be 'involved' in the planning process to ensure that it works out best for all involved, including the environment and it's fishstocks - which should be the focus of ALL of our collective efforts.

As it is - I DON'T believe the existing social process in it's current form is at all conducive to that end..in fact I still maintain that it's been deliberately 'engineered' to achieve a predetermined 'desired' outcome for minority groups....with CALM's future revenue streams the most important factor being considered well above the needs of the environment and community.

My sceticism with regard to this governments public consultation process is well founded...

Bye way of example, I note with some interest that the Waters and Rivers Commisssions website for the current Yarragadee aquifier pumping proposal planned for Nannup (which bye the way will effect future water flow regimes into your Blackwood river / Hardy inlet and the proposed marine park), ...has a 'link" for providing public comment for the duration of the public comments period - that hasn't worked so far for a whole 4 weeks of the 6 weeks public comment period despite them being notified about it in writing by me, the day the public comments period opened!!!

Pretty good way to stifle the existing strong public dissent..and just ONE example of why I have such a jaundiced view of the goverments public comments process. I won't bore you with details of the Water Authoruty having called tenders for supply of pipe despite the public comments period not having closed etc......

Basically Dr Jessica, I expect public servants to be -pretty hopeless in their dealings with constituents, it's a fairly consistent pattern I find, in dealing with the public service generally. Few have yet to dissapoint me in that respect - who knows - given time you just might make the grade to one of the few, as it is, however your starting out well behind the 8 ball, but perhaps you'll surprise me yet!

As regards what 'contribution' I might make to the planning process....these were a FEW of the issues I'd like to have seen raised within the planning process.

1. Exisiting Facilities & Access / Safety concerns.

Recreational anglers and boaters have funded a series of boat launch facilities within this state thru boat and trailer licensing fees that many of the proposed marine parks will seek to "take away from us" by declaring them to be Marine Parks and hence closed to recreational angling.

A) Inequity - the funds for the facilities were provided bye rec anglers & boaters and CALM has no right to arbitrarily assume defacto control/ownership over such facilities bye altering the land tenure to national park or marine park so they can CHARGE us ongong $ for continued USE of the facilities we already PAID to provide, whilst at the same time restricting our use of the water & fish resources these facilities service

B)There are PUBLIC "safety at sea" issues associated with locking up areas with easy safe day small boat travel from existing and future planned boat launch facilities.

As examples - the "totally closed to fishing biological study reference reserves" that CALM seeks - SHOULD be located NOT CLOSER THAN 15 Nautical Miles from existing boat ramps and probably no closer than 30 miles.

It is a fact that Both Fisheries and CALM have well funded & under utilised multi million $ research vessels staffed bye well qualified Master mariners capable of extended oceanic trips with air conditioned live aboard comfort for the staff in total safety in all but the most extreme weather conditions anywhere in this vast state.

Recreational anglers and boaters in the main DON'T have such vessels available to them and as a result are restricted largely thru safety concerns and vessel fuel range to easy day travel distances from exisiting ramps, marina's & safe anchorages.

To arbitrarily locate total fishing excusion zones WITHIN the safe day trip distances for small craft from such launch/mooring facilities is indeed basically FORCING small craft owners to travel vast distances to access legally productive fishable water, and in the event of fatalities that will inevitably result, a CORONER could find CALM culpable in being the cause of such unnecessary marine fatalities bye virtue of locking users OUT of closer safer waters arbitrarily.

As a "guide" to whats considered a "SAFE travel distance" for small craft on daytrips basis - the Dept Transport Marine authorities limit PAYING PASSENGER Vessels BELOW 7.5 meters to no more than 5 N Miles from shore / safe anchorage, and PAYING PASSENGER VESSELS 7.5 meters & above with a MINIMUM coxswains qualified skipper to 15 N Miles latterally in either direction and oceanward 15 Nmiles from such safe anchorage.

cont below

For these reasons there should simply BE NO MARINE PARK VESTINGS THAT EXCLUDE RECREATIOANAL ANGLING within at LEAST 15 nautical miles of ANY public boat launch/mooring/marina facility, or safe anchorage and this INCLUDES all inlets, Estuaries and Rivers / other inland water bodies, where typically mariners & recreational anglers might seek shelter from adverse weather/seastate conditions.

Such areas LOST to recreational Anglers & boaters bye virtue of declaration of Marine Parks vesting that precludes either recreational boating or recreational fishing, COULD reasonably be legally compensable in the event a CLASS ACTION SUIT is brought bye recreational angling bodies agaisnt the marine Parks vestement managing Authority CALM.

2. Rotation of reserves.

CALM is very keen to "lock up vast areas" for their percieved passive use scuba diving chums exclusive use. (Scuba divers boats anchors bugger coral just like rec anglers anchors do)!

Recreational anglers would actually like to see MORE reserves within some marine parks that excluded recreational angling, BUT not on a permanent basis. It is believed that a large % of the reserves should be locked up and then reopened for brief periods with attendant biological abundance studies carried out for varying length "rotational closures", in order to ascertain the REAL effects of recreational angling as against those deleterious effects CALM claim without scientific proof.

For example - the effects of recreational angling COULD be gauged against the Totally closed benchmarking study/research reserves if varying length rotational closures of reserves were trialled.

Suggested closure re-opening periods could VARY in response to research results obtained over time but as a minimum should perhaps START at closed for 5 years open for 2 years etc....with longer closings and shorter closings and brief openings and longer openings trialled as well and research conducted to find the optimium rotational open closed lengths of time.

3. Pelagic species transiting marine parks.

Pelagics which choose to transit marine parks should be legitimate recreational angler targets within those parks bye methids such as "trolling". The parks themseves largely protect only demersal species (sedentary reef dwellers) NOT the pelagics which pass thru from time to time in migrations and in response to varying ocean currents such as the Leeuwin which maybe onshore one year and well offshore the next.

Some pelagics in some areas could be subject to zero retention / zero bag limit (i.e. strictly CATCH & RELEASE) whilst others should be allowed to be harvested - perhaps with special reduced bag limits to limit impact.

The FACT is, these pelagics are offered little if any real protection bye the marine park vesting and are targetted to end up on a commercial tuna longline anyway in most instances within a day or even hours of having migrated thru such marine parks. They shouldn't be denied to recreational anglers, seeking sport thru catch & release angling methods or some limited retention for food policys in some instances.

Anglers trolling for such Pelagic species SHOULDN'T be altering course with large trolled lure arrays aft of the vessel to avoid imaginary marine park lines drawn in the ocean designed solely to preserve & protect demersal species.

4. quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The largest survey of recreational anglers ever undertaken in Australia has found the hobby injects $1.86 billion into Australia's economy each year.

The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey looked at the fishing patterns of 29,837 households, and has determined about one-in-five people are now classed as recreational anglers, having wet a line at least once during the 12-month period.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


CALM is effectively closing the door on a share of that vast pool of funding for it's Marine Parks management budget bye slamming the door in the face of recreational anglers with it's CURRENT Marine Parks vesting process, which largely ignores recreational anglers particularly those who practise angling methods with little or less impacts than other seemingly benign activities who WILL be afforded access..

These are a FEW of the issues I would bring to the table if involved in the planning process Dr Meeuwig, however I think it's important to realise that OTHER anglers would bring their own issues, which may be different to mine or in fact diametrically opoosed to some of mine...and the current committee process needs to addresss these differences even within the angling community.

Basically it ISN'T Just good enough to have ONE passive angler on a committee and assume that to be "fair representation" of angling concerns. There are many varied forms of recreational angling practiced in WA bye fully 50% of the population of this state who fish recreationally a least ONCE a year according to the statistics, from netting to bait fishing, trollers and even those who catch and release everything. If the committees arent 50% representative of the anglers interests - in common with the proportion of the WA public who ARE the recreational anglers of this state - then the appointments to the committee's are ALWAYS going to draw the ire of anglers. Such a LARGE body of the public WILL NOT be marginalised in the planning process bye minority groups with vested interests in the outcomes of the marine parks planning process who CALM seem to like to pander too...at least not without a fight they won't.

In addition there are an array of commercial operators within the tourism sector (like myself) whose livelihoods are threatened bye this the loss of access proposed bye this current flawed planning process.

The Committee system so far totally denies us any participation and as a group - we are quite certain that this is bye deliberate design bye CALM in that they hope to snare a share of our future revenues, and as a result have a direct vested fiscal interest in denying us involvement in the planning process in case that funding srtream doesn't eventuate as a result!!!.

Such people would include other charter operators in Augusta - hire boat operators, house boat hire services in Walpole etc, ALL OF WHOM as a group currently have had NO representation within the existing comittee structures whatsoever.

As a result these commercial operators are presently planning a meeeting for a class action suit against CALM for all potential future revenuye losses and investigating ways to gain a court injunction to STOP this current planning process in it's tracks because it ISN'T sufficiently representative of our interests and we suspect (with some justification) that to be deliberately so.

Unless CALM moves urgently to address these inequities Dr Jessica Meeuwig, you can rest assured that I will do all in my power to thwart this current process. It is IMHO fundamentally flawed at the outset and prejudicial to recreational anglers and those commercial operators who service their needs.

In the event that CALM wishes to publicly acknowledge the failings in committee appointments & take immediate steps to seriously reddress these shortcommings in the existing committees structure (and here I include those committee's for Walpole Nornalup and Broke inlets as well as the Capes region), then I'm reasonably confident that the recreational anglers - and those commercial operators like myself who service their needs, would happily work with CALM to achieve a desirable outcome for all invloved including the marine ecosystems and their fishstocks...which is a desireable outcome we all wish for.

I hope you can address the above issues raised in an now urgent manner, before "other planned events" overtake CALMS ability to further manage this existing process altogether.

I will take any further failure to communicate, from you, as an acceptance that henceforth this planning process will of necessity adopt an "adversarial nature" and proceed accordingly.

Again the ball now rests squarely in your court, Dr Meeuwig, I'd strongly suggest you don't fumble it this time.

Your sincerely,

Shann Low

Blackwood Fly Fishing Charters Nannup
Licensed Fisheries Dept Charter Guide Lic 80 & 194 (South Coast, West
Coast & Gascoyne regions)
16ft Barra Punt SPV Surveyed Passenger Vessel "Steelhead Maru"
Qualified Coxswain, Full Public Liability Ins.
As Seen on Bushy N Starlo's "Hooked on Adventures" TV Show
Freshwater Trout, Estuary Bream and Saltwater Salmon Fly Fishing Safari's
on Blackwood and Donelly Rivers and South Coast beaches, Saltwater Fly
Fishing packages to Shark Bay & Abrolhos Islands.
Ph/Fax A/h 08 97 561207
Ph Bus Hrs 08 97 561365
Sat Mob 0404 271 203
http://www.compwest.net.au/~troutman
Fisheries, Forestry and Environmental Consultant.
Freelance Fishing Journalist.[/quote]

Of course - non of you should be shy from making known your own opinions on what should occurr with marine parks planning process, as i'm sure you won't all agree with my own particular position.. and i'd heartilly encourage you all to send your own thoughts on the issue to the good doctor..so that she gets a better idea of what anglers would like to see...

You can all email her direct with your own thoughts.

JessicaM@calm.wa.gov.au

Cheers!

[TheJigJedi]

Do you guys remember the big debarcal over woodchipping/foresting in the old growth forrests down south a few years ago? The huge anti-logging and pro-logging rallies in the city streets? Forest workers vs Conservationists?

Anyone remember what the government did?

Basically they said, ok, we'll set aside 'this' region for conservation, and we'll set aside 'this' region for logging. Result? some 800 forestry workers laied off, thousands of conservationists pissed off. Yet, the government said that their decision "...was a success because both parties disagreed with the outcome."

Thats how the government usually works. They can't make everyone happy all the time, so most of the time they have to make everyone unhappy. This way, they're making pro-anglers and recreational anglers unhappy together. Another success!

Personally, I regard conservation and preservation of biodiversity and integrity as being more important than fishing any day. But thats just me...fishing's not my life.

On a side note, before everyone goes jumping at the governments throat and voting for the other side...without mentioning 'his' name, if the guy who'll become minister for the environment if the opposition win the next election gets the folder...then we may as well give up all catch and release fishing and all sustainable/conservation activites cos this guy is a real KNOB!

Leave Judy in there, she might not be doing the best job, but its MUCH better than what Mr. 'X' will do.

Shane "the tree guy" Healey.

[TheJigJedi]

TROUTY....if you reply to the above post, don't do it in the form of an essay cos I wont read it...life's too short.

Shane "1000 words = too many, just draw a picture" Healey.

and flip straight to the comics!:D

Sheesh, either ya wanna know or you don't...read what you will or won't - it's a matter of public interest some besides you may or may not want to know all the ins and outs..if for no other reason than to help them with their own emails to CALM.

While I agree that conservation should be the overall aim - it's how we achieve that which is at issue..

The most important thing is we ALL have our input - so hit the email key Shane and tell the good doc what YOU think and want - bream fishing in the Blackwood and Walpole Nornalup or not - which is it?

Cheers!

[TheJigJedi]

I don't have an e-mail key. :p

Shane "logs into yahoo mail" Healey.

having your 2 bobs worth, then don't come wingeing when your locked out of the blackwood, broke inlet, and walpole / nornalup inlets is all I can say.....

Thankfully not everyones sitting on their hands...when it comes to CALM's marine parks grabs...

Hello all

I would like to invite you to attend a media conference to be held at:
Main Conference Room at City West Lotteries House, 2 Delhi Street West Perth.

10am Sunday 31st August.

The Conservation Council and Recfishwest will jointly outline the basis for their strong objection to the Jurien Bay Marine Park.

It is important for recreational fishers to attend this conference to demonstrate their concern over the current marine park planning process.

I will be sending out the draft media release tomorrow but please note that it is STRICTLY EMBARGOED (not to be released or debated) until 10 am on Sunday.

An RSVP is not necessary.

Cheers

Frank Prokop

Executive Director

Recfishwest

Good on you Frank - it's good to see someone besides just me taking CALM to task...for ignoring recreational anglers in their marine parks planning process..

Cheers!

[Damien]

Attention all fisherfolk, take a tip from the guys at Busselton who have started a web site called geobay.com which will be up and running in the next couple of days. They are fighting the fisheries and the government, to stop professionally crabbing in the bay.
They have Liam Bartlett on side, they have had meetings with Minister Kim Chance etc, they have got together a great bunch of highly passionate people. Who will you will hear alot off in the next couple of months. The gloves are off and people power will win. So maybe we should all be one group and join forces to have our say.

we need to start NoBlackwoodNetting/MarineParks.com and join with geobay.com to get a bigger angler base...although I would have thought there were enough potential supporters on this and wanglers bulletin board?.

Who knows - these aren't totally black n white / clearcut issues - I mean we still allow recreational neting in the Blackwood and we allow recreational crabbing in Geobay - but we think pro netting in the Blackwood & Pro Crabbing in Geobay should cease?..

Isn't that a little hypocrtitical in both instances?..

It;s supposed to be about 'protection of the resource'...and equitable resource sharing, and i think the majority of the dissagreements between rec and pro alike is really about the equitable sharing bit.

I'm not totally against Marine parks - by and large I think they will be necessary to preserve marine habitats and fishstocks - from the effects of global warming as well as the demands upon those resources of mankind (be he recreational or pro)..

What worriess me most about these marine parks is the arbitrary manner in which they are being created to benefit a few minority groups with a vested interest (divers) - AND the way they are discriminatory against rec anglers, in thier CURRENT form.

1. Protection of the resource...

2. Equitable resource sharing

These should be the cornerstones of the position/policy we adopt & pursue.

If the social management aspect of marine parks creation adequately addressed the aspect of "equitable" a little better - i believe we would NOT be seeing the backlash against them that we currently are..

A LOT of this stems from "POOR DEFINITIONS" within the CALM Manrine Parks Act, where "fishing" (which is a very broad term encompassing a multitude of sins) is considered basically an extractive process to be banned within all marine parks...

This is a fundamental flaw in the planning process...

Fishing...is a very broad term covering a multitude of recreational and professional angling regimens from netting, bait fishing, trolling, lure chucking, fly fishing, catch and release and so on...

To just label ALL FISHING as extractive and therefore deleterious to the resource is plain unfare to anglers of ALL persuasions .

What could MORE represent CALMS oft espoused conservation ethos of "take only photographs / leave only footprints" than a couple walking a beach with a light spin rod and lures or a fly rid and flys - catching, photographing and releasing a few fish as they stroll along?.

This is whats FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG with CALMS marine Parks planning process...

It fails to adequately account for the various aspects of angling and the myriad of angling groups who practise different aspects of the passtime...

Until it does take account of these nuances, and the groups who practice the various different forms in the planning and implementation phase - I'm afraid the marine conservation movement will fail to garner the necessary support from the recreational angling community as a whole.

CALM have an opportunity to get this right..........if they choose listen.

Otherwise - it needs to be a bunfight which would be a pity, since at the end of the day the PRIMARY consideration of both CALM & recreational anglers, should be number 1 - preservation of the resource for future generations.

Lets hope some common sense prevails...common sense ios NOT such a common commodity these days.

Cheers!

[jimi]

I finally got off my arse and sent a letter to Jessica at CALM in along the lines of and, in support of, what Trouty has been saying. Whatever small difference it may make, it feels good to have had some input. :D

I suggest everyone follow Troutys lead and have their say. Let them know we won't roll over and accept their closures. Just don't make it too agressive or full personal attacks.

Cheers
James

Good on you for having a say.

Hopefully some others might do likewise?

I'd be keen to hear "other" suggestions for how Marine parks might be 'improved' from anglers point of view...

If we have to have them - then at least have them in a form we can live with...is how I look at it...

Rob maddaffris made a cuople of excellent points elsewhere, about the downstream revenues impacts things like marine Parks closures might have on say tackle shops in the southwest (Busselton & Albany).

Will these business be compensated By CALM for the downturns in their business if vast areas are locked up in marine parks?...

Same thing with Fishkills - like the one in the Swan river?...Can Perths tackle shops launch a class action suit against Swan River Trust / State Government for the loss of tackle sales as a result of closing the river during the last big fish kill?

Some would suggest they stioood a VERY good chance of being successful ha they pursuied such course of action over the last fishkill.

Is this what it takes to start to make these govt agencies "accountable" to the public for the manner in which they choose to manage our resources on our behalfs?

I don't think ANYONE wants to have to do so - but how else can we get any sort of response out of these agencies - other than them all duckin and diving for cover?..

I hope a few more of you will give these issues some serious thought and maybe post up a few suggestions of ways marine Parks planning could be improved..- assuming you HAD to have a Marine Park in your favourite waterhole for bream...how the heck would you want it to be structured so it had the least impact upon your enjoyment of the sport while at the same time - it allowed for the preservation of the resource for future genertations to similarly enjoy?

Keen to hear ALL suggestions FOR or AGAINST - they are all valid so lets hear em!

Cheers!

[jimi]

If we are going to have to have a marine park at Walpole and the Blackwood (and it looks like we are). Things I would like to see as part of the rules include:

- Ban on all netting commercial and recreational.
- Establish zero-retention zones where catch and release only fishing is allowed.
- Have spawning season total closures like for snapper in Cockburn Sound.
- Perhaps have rotational closed areas like trouty suggested. ie. close some area for a few years, then reopen and move the closed area on a bit to another section of estuary.

Since the areas are not closed systems, if they are going to lock them away from people, they need to lock them away from polluting runoff as well, otherwise things won't improve.
That means:
- Ban on access to riverbanks by cattle and other stock animals that cause damage.
- Monitoring and control of nutrient inflow into protected areas.

Cheers
James.

[Richo]

They`re a coming Trouty.

Ive been printing every single post you have done recently, so Ive got plenty of info to pick from when penning my letters tonight, and there`ll be a few of them as well.

cheers

[Quietachiever]

I suppose I have to ask the obvious.What do you think a CALM officer can do to me if he catch`s me & my young bloke doing a spot of lure fishing on the obove mentioned rivers & inlets?Just for aguement sake,sieze my boat?fishing gear etc?slap a fine me?I really do think from previous experience there is sweet F.A. that an officer can do especially if ignored!but dont get me wrong I think what your doing is necessary for anyone who wishes to enjoy these places without confrontation with some officer.;)

[Richo]

Good point Jamie,

I have read somewhere else (can`t recall where) that they really can`t do a hell of a lot to you.

Cheers

[TheJigJedi]

didn't ya hear trouty? I want to be locked out of those places. I said i was all for the marine parks. meaning i wouldnt be crying to you when they lock me out. the government's supposed to be representing the people, and I dunno, but I reckon most people would love a marine park.

Shane "waits for someone to waste 15 minutes of their life researching some figures to suggest otherwise which I wont even read" Healey.

a legitimate position to hold Jedi, and i'm sure you won't be alone.

Cheers!

[Craig_S]

Trouty & Jiggy, it is indeed a hugely interesting position.

I know we (or at least some of us Jiggy) would like to retain some form of fishing access to those areas, but what if we cant?

What if someone in a position of power rules that there is no way those areas will be ecologically sustainable if angler access is continued and that person has some sound reasoning to support the decision? I'm sure you, me and Trouty would agree that the survival of the area should be a first priority.

But then how would you enforce it and to what degree would you go?

No anglers - probably without question

No divers - anchor damage etc

No motor traffic at all

An general exclusion area around the water, say no farming within 5ks.?

A whole different can of worms opens up and it would interesting to see what extents they would go to.

May shift considerably by Monday if this is anything to go bye.

Hello all

Further to my advice of yesterday, please find attached the Recfishwest media release on the Jurien Bay Marine park. The Conservation Council wil lalso be putting out a similar release. Recfishwest and Conservation Council have agred on the wording of the two releases. Please note that it is strictly embargoed until 0 am on Sunday. Please respect this media embargo.

I would like to invite you to attend the media conference to be held at:
Main Conference Room at City West Lotteries House, 2 Delhi Street West Perth.

10am Sunday 31st August.

The Conservation Council and Recfishwest will jointly outline the basis for their strong objection to the Jurien Bay Marine Park.

It is important for recreational fishers to attend this conference to demonstrate their concern over the current marine park planning process.

I will be sending out the draft media release tomorrow but please note that it is STRICTLY EMBARGOED (not to be released or debated) until 10 am on Sunday.

An RSVP is not necessary.

Cheers

Frank Prokop

Executive Director

Recfishwest

Why not go along and show some solidarity with Frank and Recfishwest / Conservation council?.. couldn't do any harm.

There have been replys forth comming from CALM tonight, that I wan't to digest first and discuss with others before I reply and post here - they arrived pretty late - obviously the good doctor is burning the midnight oil.

Interesting days ahead - lets see what the next few days brings before getting too carried away - bye all means keep posting up issues - Craiges ones for example are "excellent"...to say the least...

I'd add another:-

"Lack of a 'whole of governement' Approach"

This extract from one of tonights emails bye me sort of sums it up

"I have the Water Authority wanting to pump the bloody Blackwood river dry with their Yarragadee aquifier Planning process now threateneing some 153 giglitres of extraction
of Blackwood R springfeed water annually, at a time when we are losing freshwater habitat in the Blackwood capable of supporting Marron and freshwater endemic fishes and macroinvertebrates at a rate of 1.5 - 2.0 kilometers a year.

Then theres the Fisheries Department allowing professional Fishers to Net the guts out of the river they've licensed me to
run charter fishing tours on (a great "conservation message" to be sending to visiting international anglers) at the same time Federal Govt funds are being used to restock the bloody river.

And Then along comes CALM wanting to Lock the same river up and kick every b@stard out altogether!

Is it any wonder anglers are fed up?, Govt hasn't a bloody clue what it wants to do with the Blackwood?..kill it off with salt, pump it dry, net all the fish (or restock them or both at the same time) or lock it all up as a marine park.

What a bunch of silly twats frankly, neither the left hand or the right hand knows what each other is doing and it's just not good enough.

Lets see what the next couple days bring.

Cheers!

[Matt Ireland]

Hey all

I am studying honours in marine science at the moment and i have to do a literature review as part of it. Im going to be doing it on Marine Protected Areas and Fisheries. If anyone is interested you can probably have a read when youre finished, give you an idea of the science behind marine portected areas and also hopefully some evidence of how well (or otherwise) they have worked around the world

Thanks
Matt

I'd be most keen to read what you come up with.

I've read a bit of anectdotal stuff mainly from the US, (Florida) about the success or otherwise of marine parks...

Whilst the emprical evidence is strongly in favor of Marine Parks in as far as increasing the biomass of demersals within the park boundarys - the interesting thing to come out of the studies has been fairly consistent results indicating that such areas do NOT become vast reservoirs of overflow "surplus" demersals that move out and repopulate nearbye areas that have been under strong fishing pressure.

Whilst limited overflow does happen - it's no where NEAR the amount we are told bye some rabid environmentalists who happily use it to try and "sell" the idea of a park to anglers on the basis that the overflow from the park will keep their faviourite fishing areas permanently stocked with bountiful fish resources.

Basically it just doesn't happen...the Marine Park stocks recover quickly...but largely they simply don't move with overpopulation pressure to re-colonise areas outside the parks....to any statistically significant level.

Why that is, is subject to debate and further research...some suggest predation during the migrations..demersals NOT being good at traversing open water without becoming lunch - or the amount of angling pressures adjacent to the parks accounting for the overflow - or whether the ecosystems within the parks just reach a "balanced" status and populations plateau...

The point I guess - is that MARINE parks, simply AREN'T the Fish Bonanza panacea for anglers, that many within marine conservation would have us believe while they are locking up our favourite fishing holes.

I have a contact in Florida whos a Marine Biologist of some repute who could probably point you in the right direction of some related research if you want Matt - just email me and I'll give you his contact and an intro....

Best of luck with the thesis - I'm keen to read what you write even if a draft could land attached to an email some time..

Cheers!

[Matt Ireland]

Hey

Yeah, I agree with what you say in that marine parks definitely do increase the abundance of demersal fish within the park and your points about lack of overflow of demersals into adjacent areas I would say are valid. Another point to consider in the lack of overflow though is that demersal fih would generally have at least some degree of site attachment ie. they have a home range in a particular habitat which they dont move out of. This would mean that generally there populations would increase until they were at the carrying capacity of the ecosystem. This is where you may start to see fish migrating in search of food. Whether or not the research you spoke of had given sufficient time for fish populations to reach the ecological carrying capacity or not I guess is one reason why overflow of demersals may not have been seen.

I wonder what the effects in terms of overflow of fish into local areas would be if you looked at fish populations in areas adjacent to the park in the much longer term. Maybe a longer time would give the fish populations in the park time to reach carrying capacity and so at this point competition would start to force fish to migrate to get the resources they need to survive.

Also in the longer term, the greater populations of fish within the reserve may increase the larval supply to areas around the reserve. In this case you may not start to see results until much further down the track, after populations in the park had time to reach sexual maturity, breed and then time for their larvae to settle outside the park and reach a harvestable size.

Anyway thats just some of my thoughts. I just thought I would mention another idea I came up to as an idea to manage protected areas (this is coming from the point of view of someone who is both a scientist and an angler).

Basically, I was thinking that in this age of catch and release fishing why should we have to have Marine protected areas that are completely locked away from recreational fishing when we could have catch and release only zones. However, I just dont think this would work as this would be almost impossible to enforce ie. in a sanctuary zone if you see someone fishing there you just get the boat rego and they are busted (Ive done a bit of work in a Marine Park Office and I know this is how they do it, they will get a radio call from a boat whos seen someone in a particular sanctuary zone, and then they will just drive out and check it out from the shore with binoculars and if they decide to, they take the boats rego number and it goes from there). If its a catch and release zone, you actually have to go out and check their boat and since a lot of people would be likely to make use of the catch and release zone you would really have to check all the boats to know if people were actually only catch and releasing.

Anyway, that was the problem I saw and I was thinking about solutions and this is what I came up with. You have areas which are sanctuary zones ie. noone can fish their, however, you have fishing guides who are licenced to fish catch and release only within the sanctuary zones. So, you can actually fish within the sanctuaries but only if you are with one of the licenced guides. I reckon this would be a good idea for a number of reasons.

First, It actually creates an industry because these areas will have fantastic fishing and people will want to fish there. Hopefully, the numbers of guides would go up (since people cant fish if they're not with a guide) and consequently prices should go down (by competition) so that it is not too expensive to pay for a days fishing. This would have benefits for unemployment, tourism etc.

Second, commercial fishers who have their licences bought back could switch over to this new sustainable industry and use the skills they have spent their lives acquiring.

Third, because these people are relying on having their licence for a livelihood they would not be likely to try and dodge the catch and release rules. The licence system would make it much easier to enforce the catch and release zone as well because the marine parks management body would know exactly who was fishing there and would be able to keep track of them to make sure they were following the rules.

Anyway thats an idea I came up with when I was thinking about how to have Marine protected areas and still allow sustainable rec fishing

Thanks
Matt

Theres some good idea's in there, of course I'd add rotated zones as well - some closed for lengthy periods then re-opened for brief catch & release fishing periods, then closed to recover etc.

These C&R zones probably wouldn't be workable in say areas further north - pretty hard to release a demersal that the other half is still inside a noah who ate it on the way to the boat...

That said it likely would work OK down south - or in estuaries etc...

Enforcement just means someone has to do the job, can't bust anyone without the "evidence" i.e. boarding their boat and seizing the fish...so "pproesecution bye binoculars just isn't workable - it takes a physical presence to secure a conviction (witnes statements, photographs, the physical evidence - statements of evidence etc...

90% of the reason CALM wants a marine park is so some scuba diving employee, can get a free boat and 4wd and spend his latter years being paid to recreate within his own private diving reserve....thats basically their "motivation"..at the end of the day...not so much preservation of the environment although thats how it is dressed up, to sell it to the public.

Difficulties arise with 'enforcing' C&R zones, eg - i go to a catch and eat zone and gather my daily bag limit on ice slurry in the cooler, then inoder to have a little "better fishing" I stop bye a C&R zone on the way back to the ramp & have some fun...

If I was seen thru binos in the C&R zone and I'm stopped at the ramp - can I be busted because I have a cooler ful of the legal limit of fish?.....

This is why a bust can only happen on the spot - with a GPS co ord, and a physical presence...you would NEED photographic evidence of the perp pulling fish over the side and placing them in a icebox while anchored up in a C & R zone, as well - you'd need corroborative eviodence - witness statement etc etc - ..

All the same - we shouldn't just give up on C & R zones because it's "tough to enforce" - too bad - It;s a job and if it's a tough one well bully boo - get someone who doesn't mind tough work for the job....

The current marine parks planning process is a shambles....

Seeing the media embargoe is now over...this was Recfishwests media release this morning...

MEDIA STATEMENT

EMBARGOED UNTIL 10AM Sunday 31 August

Anglers and Conservation Groups Reject Jurien Bay Marine Park

Western Australia’s peak recreational fishing and conservation bodies have categorically rejected the Indicative Management Plan for the Jurien Bay Marine Park. Recfishwest and the Conservation Council have joined together in slamming the Jurien Park and seeking reform of the current process for implementing a marine reserve system.

Recfishwest feels cheated by a process which appeared to value the needs of the rock lobster industry over those of other users and the environment.

Executive Director of Recfishwest, Frank Prokop said “CALM had been highly critical of the Fisheries Department’s management for the Abrolhos Island and said that they would be more even handed with their own reserves. Instead CALM have put forward a plan which is much more biased in favour of one sector.”

Recfishwest is particularly disgusted that the Jurien Park does not contain a single recreational zone yet has around 20% of the area which effectively allows only the harvest of Western rock lobsters by commercial fishermen.

“Although recreational fishers can use the zones as well, they are so far from facilities that they are effectively special commercial rock lobster sanctuaries.” Mr Prokop said.

Conservation Council coordinator Rachel Siewert said that conservation needs had been ignored as well. “Only 3% of the Park area, little of which has special representative significance and which happens to be of no-use to the rock lobster fishery, is fully protected. This is a classic paper park, a confidence trick, and a will be a waste of scarce conservation and fisheries management resources”.

Both groups believe that CALM has not negotiated in good faith in the Jurien process that was flawed from the beginning.

Both Recfishwest and the Conservation Council are highly sceptical about the current process being able to deliver real results for the environment or the community. What is needed is an integrated marine natural resource management (NRM) framework, a multiple-use plan over all State waters and within that, a comprehensive, adequate and representative system of “no-take” areas.

These fully protected marine reserves would have explicit functions with respect to biodiversity conservation, scientific reference and fisheries management within each bio-specific area plan”.

Mr Prokop said that it was time to look at implementing larger protected areas in more remote and pristine areas rather than always looking to stop recreational fishing in higher use areas such as at Jurien, Dampier Archipelago or the Cape to Cape region.

ENDS

Media Contacts:

Frank Prokop, Executive Director, Recfishwest 9387 7864, 0419 949 118
Rachel Siewert, Coordinator, Conservation Council 041 991 4424

Joint press conference to be held in Main Conference Room at City West Lotteries House, 2 Delhi Street West Perth.
10am Sunday 31st August.

So - what do we think of that?

A marine park where you can't fish - but the Cray fishers can bombard all the corals with lobster traps hundreds of times a day?.....where we can't catch a feed but the pro's can?...

Remember that these clowns pay no royalties or resource rents either for theor crays and now they have used the maribne parks process to get 'Pro Lobster fishing sanctuaries!!!!!!!".

Only those wascally fellows like Guy Leyland at WAFIC could have pulled off a 'coup' like this...

It's made a "mockery" of the Marine Parks planning process...and as a result CALM have lost all credibility in Marine parks management IMHO.

I cal on the Minsietr for Environment Judy Edwards to show some common sense and to remove CALM who are after all a LAND management agency, from the Marine Management process all together.

It's clearly time management of our Marine resources reverted wholly to Fisheries department of WA or at the very least - to an Agency set up specifically for such a purpose.

Clearly CALM are WELL OUTSIDE their area of expertise when it comes to Marine Mnagament that MEETS COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS and the govenrments legislated responsibility to preserve our resources for the enjoyment of future generations.

Clearly this state Gallup Government are in the Pocket of the Professional Lobster Fishers - and can HAVE no credibility while they continue to allow such blatant mis management of our marine resources.

If Minsiter for Environment Judy Edwards CAN'T sort out this marine management mess - then she should stand down from her miniserial portfolio.

Cheers!

Statement Released: 31-Aug-2003
Portfolio: Environment, Fisheries, Premier

Jurien Bay Marine Park - a jewel on the Turquoise Coast

Western Australia's newest marine park was officially celebrated today with the dedication of the Jurien Bay Marine Park.

The new park, that encompasses the waters of the Turquoise Coast for 100km between Wedge Island and Green Head, is the first marine park declared in Western Australia since 1990.

Premier Geoff Gallop today said the creation of the park was the first step in meeting the Government's commitment to create five new marine parks by 2005.

"The Government is committed to protecting our environment for future generations - both on the land and off the coast - and the Jurien Bay Marine Park is a key part of our plan to establish a comprehensive marine reserve network around the State," Dr Gallop said.

"We have some 13,500km of coastline but relatively little of our marine area is actively managed for conservation.

"That is why the State Government is committed to sustainable marine management that establishes a truly representative marine conservation network, while balancing the recreational needs of the community and opportunities for marine-based industries."

The Government's ambitious marine park program includes new reserves in the Pilbara, in the waters off the Leeuwin-Naturaliste coastline from Geographe Bay to Hardy Inlet and in the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets on the State's south coast, as well as extensions to the Ningaloo Marine Park.

Dr Gallop said the creation of the Jurien Bay Marine Park, together with associated features such as Nambung National Park and its internationally-renowned Pinnacles, the Lesueur National Park, with its incredibly rich plant diversity and the offshore islands, meant the central coast would have a range of attractions that could deliver greater economic and social benefits for the region.

Environment Minister Judy Edwards said the waters of the new park were a treasure trove of marine biodiversity. The islands provided important habitat for sea lions and seabirds, while the waters represented a transition zone between the tropical north and temperate south.

"The limestone reefs are a diver's delight with their grottos and caves and a range of colourful sponges while the extensive seagrass meadows provide shelter and habitat for a wide variety of marine life," Dr Edwards said.

The Minister said the State Government was providing an additional $430,000 for marine conservation initiatives for Jurien Bay and Ningaloo marine parks this year and a further $2.36million over the following three years.

Dr Edwards and Fisheries Minister Kim Chance said the State Government was very aware that some recreational fishing and voluntary conservation movement interests had reservations concerning the management zones in the new park.

The Ministers announced three specific initiatives to address the concerns that had been raised by the Conservation Council and Recfishwest.

"First, a working group is being set up to consider the proposal for a recreation zone off the Jurien townsite," they said.

"This working group will provide advice on potential sites for a recreation zone.

"The working group will include people with backgrounds in the Jurien community, recreational and commercial fishing and conservation interests. The group will be required to report to the Environment Minister, through the Marine Parks and Reserves Authority, by March next year.

"The second initiative involves a program of research and monitoring of the ecological impacts of rock lobster fishing in the Marine Park.

"This program will be overseen by a steering committee that will include senior scientific staff from relevant agencies, as well as representatives of commercial and recreational fishing groups, the voluntary conservation movement and local government.

"When the research results are available, they will be used to assist in a review of the park's zoning scheme. The review will occur through the management planning process, with full public consultation.

"Thirdly, the Department of Conservation and Land Management will be offering funding for a doctoral research project through a Western Australian university to address the design and effectiveness of sanctuary zones in the State's marine parks and reserves."

Dr Edwards said a community-based advisory committee also would be formed to ensure that the local community could actively participate in the management of the park.

Premier's office 9222 9475
Minister Edwards' office 9220 5050
Minister Chance's office 9213 6700

Seems like all things with this arrogant Labor party - the decisions already been made and were are getting a marine park in the Hardy Inlet and Walpole Nornalup whether we want one or not!!!!!

So much for the public consultation / participation proceess - a FARCE just as I've claimed all along!!!!


The Government's ambitious marine park program includes new reserves in the Pilbara, in the waters off the Leeuwin-Naturaliste coastline from Geographe Bay to Hardy Inlet and in the Walpole and Nornalup Inlets on the State's south coast

See that people - the decisions already made....your getting the parks whether YOU want them or not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Geoff Gallups magnanimously decided on YOUR behalfs - that Fishing is to cease altogether from Busselton to Augusta including the Hardy inlet as well as Walpole Nornalup!!!!!!!!! due to HIS percieved political need to create PARKS whether or not you agree.

Same way he's decided to pump the Blackwood dry before the next election for POLITICAL reasons to stave off water rations before next election and to hell with the environment or what you or I want.

I think it's well past TIME anglers atarted to make it CLEAR to these idiots - we just wont stand for the way this ARROGANT government makes deciusions WITHOUT due process & public consultation.

I think we NEED to gain a GUARANTEE from the opposition that THEY if elected will REPEAL tyhis Marine Parks legislation and re open our waters to recreational angling.

This needs to be come a HOT election issue and a VOTE LOSER for the arrogant Gallup and his ministers who like to Ride roughshod over the wishes ot eh people who recreate in these areas.

MY suggestion is that you RING and email these ministers an TELL them how you feel about it all...

Write letters to editors...get on radio talkback programs with Liam and anyone lese who will allow you airtime...

Start making noises people - this just ISN'T good enough.

Cheers!

[Richo]

One voice is not enough guys, (although Trouties is loud and clear) lets get off our arses and lend some support, start writing more and more letters, ring everyone you can and let them know what ya think.

Trouties given us a plethora of information, lets use it and voice our opinions. When our voices become a whisper they`ll take what they want, and screw us into next century. "LETS NOT LET THIS HAPPEN"


cheers