Rec Fishers Face High Tide in Marine Park Debate

[Gad]

Taken from Fishing World Email newsletter Monday 7-5-12

07 May 2012

By Allan Hansard

AS the federal Government's Marine Park Planning process reaches the high tide mark, the end result of this lengthy and controversial process will see an unprecedented area of Australia's coastline set aside for marine reserve protection.

The process has been characterised by the usual media hype with the positions of the large multinational environmental groups (ENGOs) crashing against those of Australia's commercial fishing industry. The voice missing from the debate is that of the largest stakeholder – Australia's recreational fishing community.

There are about five million recreational fishers in Australia, generating an estimated $10 billion a year throughout rural and coastal regional Australia. It's not widely known but the economic input of anglers far exceeds the value of the nation's commercial fishing sector.

Australia's recreational fishers are passionate and have in the past reflected this passion at the ballot box in order to protect their rights. They have a vested interest in good conservation management and know and understand the marine environment.

For decades recreational fishing clubs and organisations have initiated community-based restoration of habitats. Working with regulatory bodies, their environmental footprint is minimised through adaptive management policies, such as catch & release, bag restrictions, seasonal closures and size limits. Australian anglers long ago recognised that healthy habitats result in healthy fish stocks for future generations.

In relation to marine reserves, the position of the recreational fishing community is a simple one – "don't lock us out". However, anglers aren't inflexible or unnecessarily obdurate in this regard. If there are sound scientific reasons to regulate recreational fishing in a particular area, then they will actively support government actions to better protect valuable habitat and fish stocks. After all, it's in their interest to do so.

Looking at the maps of the proposed federal marine reserves, it is striking that thousands of square kilometres of no-fishing "green zones" are being proposed in the Coral Sea and south-west WA. These green areas on the maps are "lock out" zones for recreational fishing and, if implemented, will mean access to these areas is lost forever.

The science as to why recreational fishing should be "locked out" of these massive tracts of coastline has not yet been presented. Nor have the economic and social implications for rural and regional Australia.

It has been argued that anglers should agree to these plans as the "green zones" are generally located out-to-sea or in remote locations and as a result will have little effect on the average recreational fisher. However, accepting this logic would also see us accept the logic that "locking out" recreational fishers from marine reserves without the necessary scientific justification is acceptable.

We know that the ENGO juggernaut is well funded and politically strong. It can sway government decisions. Much like a multinational company in the pursuit of key performance indicators (KPIs), it is insatiable in pursuit of its area-based targets, which unfortunately aren't always focused on good environmental outcomes.

In this case, the international ENGOs want to maximise "green zone" KPIs in Australian waters at any cost. If their targets aren't met this time, they will be back with far larger claims affecting recreational fishers in a far more substantive way. This sort of "corporate takeover" style operation is the way the international ENGO juggernaut operates.

As a result, recreational fishers have two options: (1) accept a plan that locks them out of vast areas of ocean without question or (2) oppose the concept of indiscriminate lock-outs and request sound scientific, economic and social justification behind all marine reserve decisions made.

While it is true that much of what the Government is planning is likely to have little impact on most Aussie anglers, the risks of saying "yes" to this decision without sound environmental, economic and social justification is unacceptably high. We know what the Government is proposing, though substantial in terms of "green zones", is short of what the ENGOs want. So they will be back for more, and this may make the current process short-lived and fundamentally tokenistic. The precedent set would also strengthen the "lock out" argument, not only for other federal marine reserves but for state-managed inshore zones.

This brings us back to the earlier stated position. The only way these plans should be accepted by Australia's five million recreational fishers - and the only way the Government can achieve a long lasting, durable and effective agreement - is to have marine park decisions underpinned by sound environmental, economic and social justification. Surely this is the basis of good public policy anyway? And surely it is a better approach than unquestionably agreeing to the corporate style objectives of the international ENGO conglomerate?

Many regard recreational fishers as the "bushwalkers of the sea", leaving a minimal footprint on Australia's marine environment. And let's not forget the positives angling offers in regards to strengthening regional economies and offering young people the chance to experience a natural and outdoor lifestyle.

Locking anglers out of marine reserves is akin to locking bushwalkers out of terrestrial national parks. It should only be done if there are sound scientific reasons to do so. We deserve to be shown the reasons.

Allan Hansard is the CEO of the Australian Fishing Trade Association.

[Gad]

Taken from Fishing Worlds Thurs. 10-5-12 Email Newsletter

10 May 2012

By Fisho staff writers

We're at the pointy end of Marine Parks now, fellas!

IN the May edition of the respected US magazine Sport Fishing, Editor-in-Chief Doug Olander takes Pew to task over its ongoing efforts to close Australia's Coral Sea to all fishing.

Olander, a strong advocate for anglers' rights in the US, has railed against the agendas of richly funded organisations such as Pew. Via a long and friendly association with Fisho, he's been keeping a close eye on Pew's anti-fishing campaign in our waters. Not surprisingly, he's of the opinion that what happens Down Under could well have ramifications in his backyard in the northern hemisphere...

In his current editorial, Olander writes: "I feel it's important that enthusiasts of this sport recognize the peril that some environmental nongovernmental organizations like Pew might pose. That seems even more likely if Pew's preposterous campaign to close the Coral Sea should come to pass. Buoyed on that success, Pew is likely to go looking for new target areas — and if the Coral Sea, why not the Gulf of Mexico?"

"One reason why not: The Gulf of Mexico has as much need for a closure as the Coral Sea has — and that's absolutely no need at all."

Read Doug Olander's editorial in the follow on post.

The concerns of Olander and his colleagues in the US come at an interesting stage in the Australian Government's plans for marine parks. Fisho understands that intensive meetings were staged in the past week between Environment Minister Tony Burke and angling representatives. We've heard from various sources who attended these meetings, which took place around the country, that the Government is focusing its lock-out attentions on the Coral Sea and the south-west of WA. Interestingly, these are the two areas highlighted, a couple of years back, by Pew's Imogen Zethoven as being of prime "conservation" interest.

We understand that it's likely that the final plans for the federal parks will be announced within the next month, probably by the end of June at the latest. As the deadline draws near, the enviros are lobbying hard – yesterday they organised a self-proclaimed reformed "redneck" fisherman, the acclaimed novelist Tim Winton, to inform parliamentarians in Canberra that after a lifetime spent as a keen angler he's now learnt the errors of his ways. Instead of preaching the positive benefits of angling, Winton now spouts the anti-fishing line propagated by Pew and is actively urging the Government to create a system of marine parks around the country.

Take a listen to Winton's comments here: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2012/s3499267.htm

In a recent article in the Good Weekend magazine, the WA-based writer of award-winning novels such as Cloudstreet and Dirt Music, which is set at a fishing camp in the Kimberley, said that Australian anglers were widely supportive of marine parks. With all due respect, we think Tim is using a fair slab of poetic licence in regards to that claim ...

While there's no doubt that Winton has done some great and necessary environmental work – he campaigned hard, for instance, to stop inappropriate developments at Ningaloo Reef – it's hard to see why he supports and even advocates indiscriminate bans on recreational fishing, an activity he says is part of his life.

It would be different if Pew and other anti-fishing groups had worked with anglers in regards to coming up with balanced and reasonable plans for marine protection. But they haven't. Throughout this entire process Pew has campaigned for total fishing bans – no compromise, no negotiations, no discussion.

How do you expect us to deal with this sort of totalitarian viewpoint, Tim? If we oppose the anti-fishing agenda your new buddies are pushing, you've basically said we're all "rednecks". If we do give an inch, the Pew juggernaut takes a mile in return. We're caught in some terrible Dostoyevskian quandary here, Tim! Help us out, mate!

All this follows the publication in our Monday e-newsletter of an opinion piece by Australian Fishing Trade Association CEO Allan Hansard, who's been spearheading the campaign against indiscriminate lockouts. Hansard, an experienced campaigner and lobbyist without whom we'd no doubt be completely screwed, highlighted in his piece the fact that there is currently no science supporting any bans on recreational fishing and also warned that any large scale closures introduced by the Government set a "precedent" that will no doubt be used by green extremists in future no-fishing campaigns.

The take-home message here is that we're at the pointy end of things now, fellas. What Minister Burke decides over the next few weeks is set to dictate what we as anglers can and can't do, both now and well into the future. Let's hope Burke isn't a fan of Tim Winton novels!

[Gad]

Re: the above post.. Doug Olander's editorial in full

Gulf of Mexico: Closed to All Fishing

Doug Olander's

New federal legislation will close the entire Gulfof Mexico within the United States’ exclusive

economic zone (out to 200 miles) to all fishing forfive years, if approved. Senate Bill 4086, labeled the

Gulf Preservation Act, will create the world’s largestmarine protected area, forbidding all extractive

uses, including any recreational fishing from boats or shore.

A spokesman for the Pew Environment Groupsays, “This level of protection for the magnificentGulf of Mexico will ensure the health of its resources for generations to come.†The Pew Charitable Trusts helped orchestrate the law, with a campaign based closely on its ongoing Australian “Global Ocean Legacy†efforts to have the entire Coral Sea closed to all fishing.

The bill, at press time, was in the Commerce Committee, with 42 co-sponsors signed on and more endorsements expected. If passed, the last day anglers could fish in the Gulf of Mexico would be Dec. 31, 2012. Language in the law provides for consideration of reopening specific, limited areas to extractive uses after 2017.

Do I have your attention now? I certainly hope so, because while the above is fiction, it might not be so far removed from some future reality.

Despite seeming to rely on scare tactics — something I’m not fond of — I feel it’s important that enthusiasts of this sport recognize the peril that some environmental nongovernmental organizations like Pew might pose.

That seems even more likely if Pew’s preposterous campaign to close the Coral Sea

should come to pass. Buoyed on that success, Pew is likely to go looking for new target areas — and if the Coral Sea, why not the Gulf of Mexico?

One reason why not: The Gulf of Mexico has as much need for a closure as the Coral Sea has — and that’s absolutely no need at all.

The forces determined to close the Coral Sea to fishing have consistently misled the Australian public with misinformation, denying just how successful the country’s fishery management has — demonstrably — been, and how sustainable the country’s fisheries are.

That’s the conclusion offered by Dr. Ray Hilborn of the University of Washington and Dr. Bob Kearney of the University of Canberra in a recent paper titled “Australian Seafood Consumers Misled by Prophets of Gloom and Doom.â€

Hilborn, an internationally recognized expert on global fish stocks, maintains that with such thriving fisheries, vast MPAs are simply neither justified nor justifiable.

“When you’re not overfishing, marine parks simply reduce the amount of fish yield you can get by locking up areas,†Hilborn said in an ABC (Australia) interview. One result: Seafood that could be produced in Australia is replaced with imports from areas with fisheries managed much less responsibly.

Another result, of course, is closing down a large part of the country’s important recreational-fishing industry while depriving great numbers of residents and visitors the chance to enjoy their sport.

In fact, much of the Coral Sea is already tightly managed, with large areas already off-limits to fishing.

Hilborn also points out that besides offering “protection†for fish stocks needing no additional

protection (i.e., already well managed), a huge MPA like the Coral Sea — or the Gulf of Mexico — will do

nothing to mitigate the effects of pollution (would a Gulf closure have stopped oil from spreading there?), coastal development or the introduction of exotic species, all problems in Australia.

In other words, why even consider such huge MPAs? Much of the answer, Hilborn suggests, rests in “NGOs and others who benefit from projecting apprehension†by falsely claiming gloom and doom for well-managed, healthy fisheries, and then working to “protect†resources by closing off all public access to them.

Australia’s recreational-angling community continues its struggle against a very powerful and determined Pew to keep the Coral Sea open.

Meanwhile, expect our vigilance as anglers and our ability to act as a cohesive force to be increasingly tested in this country, particularly if Pew wins in Australia.

[Damien2Rad]

Tim Winton can be added to the list of "People I used to Respect"