As a recreational fisher who enjoys a bit of line fishing and diving for a few crays and generally enjoys exploring our underwater world I find it disgraceful the way the State Government has handled the whole affair.  Coming out making statements like “is that it would not agree to recommendations that would adversely affect fishers” before the final report was released is outrageous, and has immediately wasted nearly three years of effort put in by the RPDC and others involved.  Whilst I agree Tasmania’s wild fisheries are relatively well managed, there is no denying the harmful impact fishing has on the diversity and abundance of marine life on our inshore rocky reefs.

The MPA’s proposed in the RPDC’s final recommendation report will have very little impact on the commercial and recreational fishers and is a small price to pay for the preservation of some examples of the unique biodiversity found in the Bruny Bioregion and protect them from the impacts of fishing for future generations to enjoy.

Fishing today has very little impact on marine life, it is well managed and fishermen handle everything live so fish that cant be sold go back live. The nets they use are very light so it breaks if it gets stuck and your stupid seals can swim straight through them with out geting stuck. When these over educated stop all of us little guys from erning a dollar you might relise where the money comes from but i doubt it.

Semaj’s comments ring true with my own thoughts on this issue.  The fact some strong research and policy has been developed for this region only to be sabotaged on a political whim is disgraceful and shows the shallow understanding “our” minister has in regards to his portfolio. 
Now a personal gripe - Recreational Gills nets… why are they still legal?  where is the “sport” in their use? To respond to B.C., seals can look after them selves, it is indiscriminate threat these pieces of trash (particularly rogue and forgotten gill nets) present to many other parts of the marine ecosystem (from birds to bottom feeders) that I object to. 
Bring the sport back to recreational fishing - line, spear and hands only, no cheating - that means no air for “hunting” Abs, Crays and scallops - get out there and earn your catch and stop being so bloody lazy.

One would have to be rather naive to believe that fishing has very little impact on marine life.  Take rock lobster fishing a relatively well managed fishery, but the removal of large lobsters from the east coast and throw in climate change, and we now have an outbreak sea of urchins removing all invertebrate life from the reef and creating vast barren areas, which are slowly making their way down the coast. That’s just one example of many.

This is just another sad example of how our system of government is fundamentaly flawed (short sighted decisions based on making sure you get re-elected).
Mr Lewies decision is not based on what is right/wrong or good/bad, its about how many voters may not like the introduction of any no take or restricted zones.  The increase in the number of recreational fishers over the years (stats from his own department re: boat and fishing licensing)tells him how many votes are at stake. 
I’ve witnessed Ministers making decisons on human safety based on ‘votes’ not evidence (e.g. scientific, expert claims). 

Given that we cant change the system of governence our only hope (for any issue) is for voters to make more informed decisions. In this case at least look at what is proposed.

Ive checked the proposaal quickly and the maps show clearly illustrate that most fisherman will not be affected.

Ive also seen firsthand what happens when a fishery is left un-regulated. In Europe, ive witnessed the size of fish in markets getting smaller over a period of years and also through diving and talking to dive businesses found that there are virtually no fish above 40m.

I have also studied and experienced the benefits from having some areas set aside essentially for safety/breeding. Once populations reach the areas carrying capacity they overflow into unproted areas. 

This means more fish.

My guess is Mr Lewie is counting on most people being apathetic and not bothering to open the doc.

My call is give us the hot spots to create more fish. 

M

until you go out with a commercial fisherman and see it with your own eyes you need to keep your opinion to your self.
i thinks its rather nieve of you to assume that there is a conciderable amount of damage done to our sea bottom If you can hook a banded mowong your a better fisherman than me. If you can spear one and keep it live with no marks then you should get a fishing licence.
and responding to the comment about the gill nets i have been a net fishermen for a few years now and the sea life that has been harmed or killed in my gear has been minimal.
And on another note. i would like to know your definition of lazy! i guess its not sitting on your over grown backside holding on to a 2.5 kg fishing rod because that can be HARD WORK!. why dont you try pulling a 17ft, 1500kg boat in 20kts of wind for four kilometres by hand per day when you’ve done that let me know because i think you will change your mind on the definition of LAZY!

I dont comment on someone else’s livelyhood so stay out of mine.

As a guy who enjoys a bit of rec fishing, kayaking and snorkelling, I want to experience abundance in our inshore zones. Every single fishery and marine ecosystem in Australia now displays signs of human impact. There is no doubt that the increase in the number of recreational fishers over the years to current levels is having an impact on the diversity and abundance of marine life on our inshore rocky reefs.
The MPA’s proposed in the RPDC’s final recommendation report is a critical investment in the sustainability of our inshore marine areas. There may be some reduction in area accessible to fishers but as has been demonstrated not only in New Zealand, some Pacific islands, Canada but also in NSW around the Solitary Islands off Coffs Harbour, there tends to be an increase in catch per unit effort and average size in fish caught in areas adjacent to protected zones. The caveat here is, as long as MPA’s do not lock up all the reefs- there is little overflow to barren sandy areas but there is, to nearby reefs and weed beds.  When you look at the maps of the recommended no-take zones, it is obvious that the RPDC has adopted a minimalist approach, by protecting small representative habitats, hopefully not too small.
This is a win win situation and not a win lose as David Llewellyn appears to believe. In truth, the government will be adversely affecting fishers if they do not implement a strategy designed to provide protected sources of marine regeneration. Its all about being able to catch something both now and in the future.
I believe, if there is any opposition to this proposal, it will stem from emotive reaction which must be addressed but not appeased. The science, the stats, the facts should drive the final legislation.
I must be a dreamer, I forgot this is Tasmania.
Greg McDonald

B.C I have spent many hundreds of days at sea on commercial fishing boats, ranging from 15m cray boats to 85m factory trawlers, and witnessed first hand the decline and destruction of the orange roughy fishery, and as a diver have witnessed the decline in fish species such as bastard trumpeter, striped trumpeter, boarfish and many more, and have observed first hand the impacts of fishing.  I think I am more than qualified to comment on this issue, as is anyone with a genuine interest in marine environment.

The RPDC clearly demonstrated that the proposed marine reserves in their final recommendation report will have a minimal impact on commercial and recreational fishers.

semaj please tell me how cray boats do damage. i’ve worked on quite a few right around tassie now every ones quoted the fishing areas are as good as they were 20 years ago. trawlers yes i can see where your coming from especially se trawl licences which entitles them to trawl close in around se tasmania. As for me i am a commercial fisher in the proposed bio region we are already restricted in the amount of net we can run the traps/pots we can use, we pay big money to buy these licences plus extra money each year to keep them, we are not in the buisness to apply bad fishing practices, most of the net in the water is light gear for targeting bandad morwong or big mesh stuff targeting blue warho never no small fish caught. for all you pepole behind it it must be nice sitting in your offices on big money or doing nothing living of our money as for me i fish every day to pay a morgage and to put fish in shops which im sure you dont mind buying.

As a commercial and recreational Fisherman I also want an abundance of marine life in Shore. Fact is there is if MPA no fishing Zones are implemented it will make other areas unsustainable due to increased fishing pressure on other smaller Areas. this means I’m (along with every one else I suspect) going to work harder in other areas Basically it defeats it;s own purpose. Stupid. Tasmanian fishing industries are Possible some of the best managed in the world and a lot of them seem to be getting better except may be scale fish. but With the way seal numbers are increasing that is Hardly surprising. all these do gooders need to wake up and look at the big picture

my father has been net fishing for 30 years and i for 15 and have found that the scale fish are better then what they where 30 years ago since the trawlers have stoped comming inshore probably the ones you worked on semaj!
Maybe you should stop diving with your eyes shut And work out the diffrence between trawling and net fishing. If you are going to close commercial net fishing then close trawling too.[ohh i forgot theres alot more money in trawling is’nt there! so we might as well just stop the little guy again!)

Tasmania’s land-based protected areas are just that - protected.  You can’t take a gun in and shoot the animals, nor can you take machinery in to plough the ground up.  Surely we can have a few marine-based protected areas where the equivalent activities are also banned, for the benefit of the nature that lives there as well as the many people who appreciate that nature?  What’s the difference?

terramaris why should i have to relocate myself and family of the penisula to be able to keep fishing mabey if you pay of my morgage and give me enough money to live on to im 60 (32years away) i might be right untill then i shall keep fishing the waters net/trapping arond the bio region area wiht no great impact as fishing is all i know

e-fishn-c raises an important point about compensation.  I haven’t seen this covered in the media.  With the Regional Forest Agreement, there was a fund for helping the industry in transition to relying on a smaller resource in recognition of the cost of ‘locking up’ some forest for conservation.  I believe there is something similar in the legislation for marine protected areas but it’s no surprise the government isn’t keen on spreading the word about its existence.

I appreciate that compensation probably isn’t what every fisherman wants, but there may be others out there who would stand to benefit from this.

Concratulations to the State Government, the one and only thing they have ever got right. At least they respect the rights of the recreational and professional fishermen.
The problem with the RPDC report is that it was totally bias to the Diving community and the Conservation movement.
There is absolutely no evidence what so ever that supports that recreational or professional fishing practices are causing any damage to the marine ecosystem that is part of the nominated MPA’s listed in the RPDC report.
The spotted hand fish, Ralphs bay once again!!!
The report is heavily biased to the local diving fraternity whom have a dream to create a coastline for their own personal use!!!!
A marine national park that would line their pockets in the $$millions (lets see the diving businesses putting some money back into local economy, ramps and marine infrustructure) (I would like to see that ?)
The very people that are causing damage in these supposed sensitive marine area’s are the divers. Most days every couple of hours, 12 or more of them speed in their high powered crafts right in close to the coastline to their diving haunts without any respect to the marine life or the reported sensitive coastline.
Once in the water, the overseas and mainland divers pick and shove at the marine life and structures with out any respect. The damage would be immense..
At least the fishermen treat the coastline with respect.
The RPDC report failed again with in its own requirements in regards to attaining a true balanced response from all areas including the amateur fishing and recreational fishing clubs. Where in the report did they contact the major game fishing clubs in the Bruny Bio Region to discuss the “facts"…
Congratulations State Government- Pass
RPDC - Failure

good coment martin also i would like to add the 3 to 4 eco tour boats running around down here all with 3 @#!!ing big outboards on them i would like there fuel they use in a month because i rekon it would do me for a year eco freindly i wonder???????

In response to Martin, how much of the coast do recreational fishers want??  The RPDC proposed 3% of the Bruny Bioregion as marine protected areas in it’s final report of which 1% was proposed as no take, a minuscule 1%!!!  Bugger all. 

It’s only divers that know the true state of our marine environment, with bastard trumpeter and stripey trumpeter numbers at all time lows in the south east a bit protection from gill netting will do these species a world of good as well as many other reef species, these are “the facts”. Where is one of the few places you can see good healthy schools of bastard trumpeter? The Tinder Box MPA.  Maybe one of the reasons the RPDC took note of divers was because they see what happens below the waves.  Maybe you need to pull your head out from the sand and have a look beneath the waves.

Hi Semaj, could you please show me your facts on Basterd Trumpeter because i must have imagined the two bins that i caught today i think your so called facts are actualy fiction i dont blame you for getting a little confused between the two so you should put your head back in the sand and Maybe leave it there. do you dive off the shelf were the stipey trumpeter are? if so that would explain alot a lack of oxygen does do strange things to a person.

hi semaj, I am against the rpdc for the fact that i am married to a fisherman, i worry every day about the safty of my husband as well as our friends that share the love of the water they go out alone every day to try and earn money that is needed to house and feed there families. as any experienced fishermen knows the sea is a unpredictable thing and by inforceing the RPDC they will be forcing the fishermen to enter into deeper and more unpredictable water.
are the goverment going to compasate the cost of my children losing ther father i dont think so.

If this does go ahead we will have lost everything that two generations of my husbands family have worked hard to get there is no compensation despite what the goverment say the same thing happend in Port Davey and i believe the fisherman there are still waiting for there payout that they were promised nearly 7 years ago

semaj your comments on barstard trumpeter and stripey trumpeter are a little off the mark.Being a trap fisher in the south east i see good schools of basterds and sightings of juvinille stripeys are on the up. but i am not a diver how do i see these things? We us a thing called a viewer which we use to place our traps(with little impact on the habbitat) to catch fish . Understand this semaj that there people out there in the scalefish industry that go out target a species which already protected by things called size limits,closed seasons and do it with little or no dead bycatch. the only other species i catch i use to feed my household. And the comment about diver only knowing the true marine enviroment is a load of S!@t, the way seals are now(numbers of )do you really think when a fish sees somthing big a black in the water it is going to hang around? i dont think so! divers only see minimal of what is really there. And Question for you when was the last time you saw a seal in the mpa at tinderbox! a while i reckon because hes next door getting fat on all those salom , so be careful of what areas you compare

semaj Mate I’m a pro diver and Cray fisherman who works the bruny area quite a lot. Trumpter Bio mass is as healthy as ever now I would know this as in your words I have my head out of the sand and looked beneath the waves for upto 9 hours a day at times mate you are a little confused about Stripey and Bastard trumpter stocks have you dived at bruny more than once

As a professional diver for over 7 years and my father with 44 years diving under his belt we both believe that fish stocks are increasing. Over the past few years the number of bastard trumpeter schools of jevenile fish and mature fish are increasing. Borefish numbers are great. Just the other day i had a school of 40+ stripey trumpeter swimming around me. The end of the day quota systems, size limits and bag limits seem to be doing the job. I will admit there are alot more recreational fishers on the water but just what they catch and how much i’m not sure. Abalone in the south east have never been better than in the last few years with some big weights being caught by many divers,some over a 1000kg for the day.I also do a lot of cray diving and have seen great numbers of crays and plenty of jevenile one’s also. As for the comment about catching all your abs, crays and scallops without the aid of air, Having to duck dive all the time up and down is a dangerous practice with hyperventilation and shallow water blackout having the potential to kill. Might work alright in the bath tub but different story in 20 meters. I agree with the taking of fish to be sporting but no need for a superman badge on your wetsuit.

John, the point of using snorkel only for recreational dive catch is that it forms a natural deep water reserve with respect to the recreational fishes.  Deep water reserves have been shown to do wonders for further ensuring sustainable harvest in both the commercial and recreational sectors in other regions around the world.  Our World leading Commercial fisheries for Ab and Southern Rock Lobster are well managed and accountable, but recreational catch is a much less certain situation from a management perspective.  For example New Zealand, NSW and Northern California have successfully implemented a “No Air” approach to the management of recreational catch of abalone and lobster, with increases in some species that were one the edge of extinction.  Flip! You might even get fitter while doing it! Might even convince a few people to stop lighting up the lung lollies!
To respond to the comment of the danger of deaths when freediving - I cannot find any statistics that support your comment in regards to the “danger” of snorkelling.  I would expect that the numbers of deaths and injury from snorkeling in no way approach the numbers of people injured or killed in air diving accidents (even professional deep freediving - where divers are diving to in excess of 100m! - record less deaths than SCUBA or hooka).  No need to be a superman to get a sustainable catch of seafood for your table - both my 11 year old goddaughter and 63 year old Uncle can do it with no worries!  And given the low level of policing in recreational dive catch, which allows the few rouges that catch over their bag limit, spoil it for the rest of us - removing air from the equation will help to maintain the precautionary management of this world renowned resource we are lucky to have! As an aside for those that really want to educate themselves in regard to the importance of SR Lobster in our ecosystem, there is a great body of work completed by the TAFI/UTAS Marine Labs at Taroona that supports world opinion on key role these animals play in the maintenance of Kelp based ecosystems (which provide habitat to both Stripey and Bastard Trumpeter) and the prevention of extinction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_extinction

Jim, only a few years ago a snorkler drowned at blacmans bay from hyperventilation related problems. Accidents can happen in any form of diving, both a scuba diver and hookah diver have drowned in recent years but I believe snorkeling is the most dangerous of the three methods. In a perfect world there would be no problems but things go wrong all the time. The average recreational diver i believe would struggle on a snorkel. Judging by the amount of diving gear i find every year on the bottom expecially lead belts i’d say things go wrong quite often. Free divers that dive to 100m depths are exceptional athletes and it is a very dangerous pastime. It’s that dangerous that they don’t put the records in the guinness world record book. If a law of no air was brought in i would be buying alot of body bags because their are plenty of people that underestimate the ocean.

John, I think you are scaremongering and pushing the “dangers” of snorkeling a little far based solely on your own beliefs and agenda. Both approaches have the inherent danger associated with sea-based activities.  The instinctive reflexes of human preservation limit the accidents in snorkeling to freak occurrences while hooka and SCUBA include these factors and the additive danger of gear malfunction and the use of pressurised air at depth.  This forum is about protection of a marine reserve and, without doubt, a limitation on the use of air diving to collect marine species would be a firm and effective way to do this, as indicated in other temperate marine systems around the world.

seems to me that most of the information i have read on here seem to be more fiction than actual fact so i thought that i would throw in a few actual facts
Fishing is one of the oldest profesions on earth.
people have been net fishing for over 200 years.
in the bruny bio region people have been fishing for at least 100 years which catches 70% of tasmanias total catch.since the live banded morwong fishing started in 1991 the comercial fishing has been well managed and fisheries research actualy started looking at the scalefish industry before then very little research was done because there was no money involved.
for example orange roughy was over before it was researched thats why that industry is no longer viable. whyever trawlers are ripping up the bottom and taking every thing out wide (inc places they should’nt be) which include some breeding grounds its pointless having a marine protected area especialy a place where so many people make a living from and only take size fish.
it might not be millions of dollars but it gets us by unless all you Environmentalists are going to support every fisherman and there families you put out of work. you need to stay out of it untill you have a decent argument . just remember tourism is only around untill the next Terrorist attack or people run out of money.

Whew!  These arguments are certainly getting pretty heated.

It’s a pity the State govt. never went ahead with the priority recommendation of the Tas Marine Protected Areas Strategy 2001, to “Develop an education & community awareness program to promote the role and benefits of establishing Marine Protected Areas”.  This should have come before conducting a $500 000 Inquiry in a community which maybe wasn’t ready for it.

Personally, I thought the RPDC Inquiry process was great - in-depth studies led to the release of the Background Report in June 2006, then there was time for everyone to read it, write submissions and make presentations at the Hearings. 

Then the Interim Report came out in March 07, showing all the areas that met the Identification Criteria, and explaining the process so far.  All the first lot of submissions were up on the website for all to see.  Then everyone who was interested could make their submission on the Interim Report, and speak at the Hearings.

Then the Draft Recommendations Report came out in August 07.  Again, submissions, hearings, and everuthing up on the website.

It wasn’t all light reading, but the maps & illustrations were clear, and what else can the RPDC do to get the message out, if the govt. won’t fund the community education/awareness program?

The fishermen should be pretty happy with what happened next - the state govt. leaned hard on the RPDC, so 69% of the recommended area was slashed in the Final Recommendations that just came out, in Feb 08.

How many of these fishermen had their lives destroyed by the creation of the Maria Island marine reserve?  My impression is that most Tasmanians are pretty proud of it, and I bet a few people fish very happily around the edges. 

Interesting too, that the Maria Is reserve has had such a big crayfish increase since it became no-take (isn’t it a 10x increase in cray biomass? with really big monster crays, like you won’t see in too many other places?) & it doesn’t seem to have too many urchin problems, either.  Useful for scientific study, but you can’t just have the one area to study.

Didn’t the New Zealand fishermen freak out pretty strongly when their world-leading marine reserve network started to get up?  And haven’t some of the NZ fishermen who objected strongly become some of the most passionate supporters of the no-take reserves, since they actually experienced living and fishing with them?

And isn’t it about half of 1% of the Bruny Bioregion that the RPDC is recommending for no-take MPAs?  If that will be the end of the line for any Tassie fishermen, I’d certainly support compensation, but I’m still looking forward to buying and eating Tassie fish, so thanks for all your efforts, guys!  (o;

Well said Annie D, the reaction by commercial and recreation fishers has been a total over reaction. To claim that the proposed reserves (totalling 3% of the bioregion) will cause sea safety concerns (I already travel further afield than the proposed MPA’s) ruin business, impact on tourism, property values, and economy of the Tasman peninsular is just ill-conceived, unfounded and nothing but scare mongering. 

I would suggest those who doubt my claims about the state of finfish stocks do your selves a favour and grab a copy of TAFI’s annual scalefish stock assessment report (it available on the web at: http://www.utas.edu.au/tafi/PDF_files/FF_FAR_2006_Final_cover.pdf ).  The assessment report hi-lights a number of species such as banded morwong, the trumpeters, warehou as being in decline, overfished or locally depleted pretty damming stuff.  Scalefish species will benefit greatly from protection in MPA’s.

Thanks Coastview for hosting this debate. It is amazing how it started as a rational comment on the RPDC recommendations and was then hyjacked by the fishermen for the fishermen. I wonder if most fishers reaslise that netting fish selects out most of the big fish so that the average size of fish slowly decreases. Marine Parks provide a refuge where fish can grow big, and hopefully stop the average decline in size; big fish lay more eggs than small fish. A healthy population is one that includes all ages and sizes, not just those under the legal limit.
The sea and coastal water are for everyone; surely it is reasonable for fishers give up a very small percentage (1%) for other uses.

I think it’s time we went back to the fact that the RPDC was recommending marine protected areas to help protect Bruny’s extraordinary marine life.  There’s more to marine life than commercial fish, however important such species may be to individual fishers.  The sea isn’t there just to be fished, and society should do more than pander to the interests of fishers.  We should also aim to look after the rest of the marine environment and all the other species that live there, more than 99% of which are not fish.  Marine protected areas would do the same for marine life as terrestrial protected areas do for land life.  How many people would argue for abolishing ‘no-take’ zones in our terrestrial protected areas?  They’d be rightly ridiculed.

Well said Annie,
Good to see a rational comment based in fact.

I personally think that to suggest that protecting 3% of the Bruny Bioregion will ruin comercial fishers livelyhoods is ridiculous. If the industry is that close to the edge, then there is already somthing majorly wrong with the way that it is run.

Also it is worth noting as the RPDC Final recomendations state

“This unique system of MPAs was not recommended just to help ecological sustainability and protect biodiversity. It was also recommended as a potential asset to the well-being of Tasmanian society: providing for the aesthetic, recreation, tourism and knowledge building needs of our community and our visitors. The system of MPAs fulfils our obligations for protecting our marine natural heritage and provides opportunities and benefits for future generations.”

Ie. the proposed protected areas are designed to protect biodiversity NOT biomass, and protect in perpetuity other non-comercial marine values.
I presume that the Fishing Industry controls and quotas that PJ, JB and others refer to takes care of maintaning the biomass of commercial species.

If the seas are apparently over-run with bastard trumpeter, morwong, boarfish, crayfish etc, (apparently by the million, the fishermen would have us believe), then how is it that as a diver, I’ll see the odd one in Waterfall Bay, Fortescue, The Lanterns, Deep Glen Bay, Crescent Bay, Blackmans Bay and all those other places I dive on the Peninsula, yet on a dive in either of the current MPAs I visit at Tinderbox and Governor Island (Bicheno) I will see literally dozens on every dive I do, more in those two small areas in one dive than in all the other dives I do on the Peninsula put together?

Tinderbox is particularly instructive as Bastard trumpeter, boarfish, magpie perch and crayfish (big crayfish) are to be seen all round; yet on a second dive on the same day at Fossil Cove, or Fishermans Haul, I’ll again see very few.

Now if the fish reckon I’m a seal and so stay away, then they’re certainly exhibiting some interesting behaviour because their counterparts in the Reserves appear to have no such concerns. Actually the obvious answer to that is they don’t think I’m a seal and that comment is a lot of rubbish.

Secondly, damage by divers to the marine environment? Yes, it can happen with newbies and poor buoyancy control but again, take a trip to Bicheno, dive in the Marine Reserve and try to find the damage by divers there and that is one of the most intensively dived spots in the State, answer is that it’s insignificant, because I haven’t seen any.

The other thing which is insignificant in Reserves is damage by urchins, I dived the Marine Reserve in Bicheno last week, where I had to push the fish out of the way to photograph the crayfish and the crayfish out of the way to photograph the soft corals and zooantids on the rock overhangs and during that whole dive, I only saw one long spined sea urchin, hanging on onto a steep wall, out of reach of the crays.

That same weekend, I dived at Binalong Bay. I saw a single crayfish in two dives (Skeleton Rock and Roundhill Point) and hundreds of urchins and huge areas of bare rock. The weekend before that, I dived Fortescue Bay and saw no crayfish, one or two bastard trumpeter, quite a few wrasse, no boarfish and no banded morwong but what I did see were a number of small urchin barrens, which had noticeably increased in both size number since diving in there 12 months before and also in size.

This in one of the last Giant Kelp forests in the East of Tasmania and it looks like the writing is on the wall or it.

Go figure.

The comment in the Minister’s “personal” letter I received was to the effect that the Living Marine Resources Act provides ample protection to fish stocks, well perhaps so, perhaps not (TAFI don’t seem to think so) but this isn’t just about fish stocks is it? It’s about the whole damned ecosystem. It’s a little like saying that the Forest Practices Act works well to ensure orderly mnanagement & exploitation of timber protects eagles and giant freshwater crayfish or orchids, or whatever. Well it doesn’t do this and the LMRA does not provide any kind of habitat or ecosystem protection either, it simply oversees the removal of important predators and keystone species like crayfish whose presence ensures the health of the reef ecosystem as a whole.

And to the professional fishermen, no one denies that you blokes work hard and do a hazardous job, far from it, I lived on the East Coasdt for 10 yrs and appreciate this but at the same time, you aren’t the only ones with an interest in the marine environment and lets face it, you haven’t always been it’s greatest custodians either - I well remember looking at heaps of Orange Roughie washed ashore at Bicheno, thrown overboard because the boats were dasngerously overloaded, or the mountains of stinking and toxic decomposing orange roughie dumped in St Helens tip because they caught so much that they couldn’t give it away, so much so that it was all the Council there could do to find room for them.

And where’s the Orange Roughie fishery now? And why did they have to ban squid fishing in the breeding season in Great Oyster Bay? Because professional fishermen deliberately target\ted them when they were assembled there in great shoals for breeding - what stunning forethought! Extreme examples I know but fellers, you haven’t always been angels.

As regards divers taking crayfish, I agree, there are those who abuse the system and take more than they should, or who bend the possession limits (10 for me, 10 for the wife, 10 each for the kids....) but there are plenty of amateur cray guys who do the same thing and I don’t condone either, as far as I’m concerned, they are all tarred with the same brush and if caught, should face the high jump.

Honestly, if you blokes did actually dive in areas like St Helens Island, Doughboy Reef, Bay of Fires and could see the urchin barrens that stretch on and on and on, with no crays, no abs, just wall to wall urchins, where 10 yrs ago there’d been some urchins but still plenty of other life; and then dive Schouten Island and Maria Island and see the barrens starting to form, much like they looked in the North East 10 years ago, you’d be very very worried.

Getting back to the specifics, I can’t believe the propaganda and complete misinformation being spread around over this whole issue. You are looking at the RPDC recommending protection for 1% of the coastal waters in the Bruny Bioregion.

1%!!!

Yours Disbelievingly

Richard M.

Richard TAfI put those crays there they translocate them

P.J, I think you have your wires crossed the abundant rock lobsters in the established marine reserves is a result of the population rebuilding once they were declared a marine reserve and fishing banned. Believe it or not no lobster have been translocated into those areas, just goes to show how a population can rebound once fishing is stopped.

Very Interesting Comments.
After reading most of the comments it really annoys me that the pro MPA movement always go back to the “its only 1%” that is to be protected.
Rubbish.
If your looking at the Tasman Peninsula area as far as game fishing and stripey trumpeters stocks. Its more like 70% of the “likely take zone” that is being targeted.
The Game Fishing movement have recorded where tuna species have been taken over recent years and they are predominatly in the area’s wanted as MPA’s.
As an amateur fisherman, the only area I can catch Stripey Trumpeter is predominatly and only in the area where the RPDC wish to have a MPA.
So in this case tof he area wanted for Protection This represents 100% of the area that is required by “most” amateur fisherman in South East Tasmania.
So, the 1% is absolute bullxxxx as far as I am concerned.
It would be interesting if the RPDC recommended that the new MPA’s hold a NO DIVE restriction as well.
That would be interesting!.

Recreation Fishing in Tasmania holds no risk what so ever to any fish stocks and the sooner the cranky anti everything movement realise this the better.

richard it was some long term squid fishers that approached the goverment manage the fishery and as far as the orange roughie i think you would find that was a commonwelth fishery and i wounder how many state fishers where apart of that fisherys demise??????? to tar everyone with the same brush is a little unreasonable!

‘No dive’ in an MPA sounds about as sensible as ‘No bushwalking’ in a land-based National Park to me.

Why do people who want to kill marine life think those of us who enjoy looking at it, photographing it and showing it to our kids and visitors are ‘anti-everything’?  Pretty rude, you’d have to say.

I suppose they think tourism operators who spend years building up businesses to show these wonders to their clients are ‘anti-everything’ too.

We’re not saying the fishers are ‘anti-everything’.  They just like catching fish.  Fair enough.  The sea’s pretty big.  There’s room for different ways of enjoying it.  I like eating fish.

Do they think people should be able to go shooting in on-land National Parks?  If not, why not - like, what’s the difference?

Do they really think Maria Is and Tinderbox should be “it” - like, those are the ONLY protected areas we need, and the entire Bruny Bioregion should be open slather apart from two specks - and they’d be big enough to do thorough research on all the changes going on in the ocean, without having the human fishing impacts in the picture as well?

Sounds a bit like protecting a few hundred acres of the Serengeti, letting the shooters into the rest and see what happens to the lions and zebras and all the African wildlife.

as a tasmaian fisher i can understand that people want to see mpas on one hand but on the other do people realise that the fishers have worked very hard with the goverment agencies to create a sustainable fishing industy .as annie d states in her comment the maria and tinderbox mpas being small specks ,well how about spreading those specks about i am sure that there is plenty of wounders of marine life around tassie not only in the south east that needs protection or is the rpdc willing to sacrifice the safety of a few . With the goings on in the north of the with a certain mill one has to wounder wheather they are going to lock away a big part of the s/e just in case the s#@!t hits the fan in the north!

There is no doubt that most frequent fishers have an extraordinary abundance of knowledge when it comes to fish and the marine environment, and that the majority of them are passionate about ensuring it is managed sustainably. BUT Marine Protected Areas are researched implemented to protect our marine wildlife and the range of marine ecosystems that exist in a region, in as near to a natural state as possible. It’s about protecting biodiversity, not managing resources! The internationally accepted way to protect marine biodiversity is to use MPAs. International standards of protection recommend 30% full protection in EVERY habitat type in EVERY bioregion. The RPDC proposes only 1% of the bioregion is fully protected, and this doesnt even include every habitat. It’s certainly a very conservative proposal, so if we can’t support this proposal our marine biodiversity isn’t going to have much hope in the face of increasing fishing pressure, climate change and coastal development.

I think that the government is not governing for a sustainable future. I think Marine Protected Areas are proven to benifit fisheries as well as sustaining the biodiversity of an area.  Why are we Governed by ignorant self serving idiots than by science and sustainability?

Hello everyone,
I’ve had a look at all those comments rapidly, and the conclusion is clear. The further establishment of Marine Protected Areas in Australia is fundamental in order to enable a m