Moreton Bay Marine Park Survey

[rayke1938]

This is a link to the survey on the proposed marine park. I have just completed it and even included some areas that I may wish to fish in the future. Strangely enough there were no areas that I didnt like.

I think that as many people as possible should fill out the survey even if it only lets the government know how many voters they are dealing with.

The link to the actual survey is in the get involved paragraph

Cheers

Ray.
/>http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/marine_parks/moreton_bay_marine_park_zoning_plan_review/

Post edited by: rayke1938, at: 2007/08/25 10:19

[ellicat]

Good onya Ray. I hope everyone takes the time to do it.

I did it a while back. Again I might be being cynical, but I fish every one of the areas on the main map and then a lot of different areas inside those maps. The design of the survey seems to be made to wear you down.

[Schultzy]

Good work Ray!

We need to get 1600 members to give the EPA some feedback on this.

The entire spottie mackerel padock east of Mud is going to go as is all of that great water from the bar up to Day's Gutter, including the gutter.

All of my favourite shark drifting water for spot-tails and hammers is marked for exclusion too.

I'm beginning to think the EPA have been watching me and are closing ALL of the areas I fish most frequently.:S

Remember these closures are not being introduced by fisheries managers.

The EPA is driving them with the encouragement of minority hard core animal rights groups.

What a sad reflection of society that these radicals are happy to ban everything in which they don't participate.

[ellicat]

Schultzy, I'd appreciate the influence of your words to be added to my thread on the No-Go Zones.

Cheers

cut and paste this -

(http://www.australianfishing.com.au/index.php?

option=com_kunena&Itemid=237&func=view&id

=39822&catid=38)

[reelchippy]

rayke1938 wrote:

This is a link to the survey on the proposed marine park. I have just completed it and even included some areas that I may wish to fish in the future. Strangely enough there were no areas that I didnt like.

I think that as many people as possible should fill out the survey even if it only lets the government know how many voters they are dealing with.

The link to the actual survey is in the get involved paragraph

Cheers

Ray.
/>http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/marine_parks/moreton_bay_marine_park_zoning_plan_review/<br><br>Post edited by: rayke1938, at: 2007/08/25 10:19

Ray i have just put the link up at Ausfish this is one thing we can do from home cheers

Post edited by: reelchippy, at: 2007/08/25 11:19

[rayke1938]

Thanks mate the more the better seems that there is nothing preventing you from completeing it more than once . I wonder????????????? Its good enough for the polleys to get their staff to do it why cant we??????

Ray

Post edited by: rayke1938, at: 2007/08/25 11:37

[Feral]

Well filled it in, and just for stress relief, in the bit where you can indicate what you dont like about an area, I ticked \"Other\" and put in \"arseholes in EPA trying to ban fishing in area\" as my dislike!

[kriso]

i just put mine in selected the proposed no go zones and had very similar words as ferals for the dislikes!

[STU]

Lets stick it to them

[creature100]

Not too sure why we'd let fisheries managers guide decisions about sustainable fisheries given their appalling record worldwide....the re-zoning has nothing to do with hard-core animal rights activists and alot to do with sustainable fisheries...something i would of thought we as anglers were very interested in preserving. The EPA wants to exclude some areas of the Bay so fish stocks can improve and we and our kids can all catch more fish in the future....i mean really those nasty bastards!!!!

[ellicat]

creature, I think you need to do some more research on the issue here. Don't unquestioningly trust/believe what the media and advertisements report. The EPA cannot be taken serious on this issue - have a read of several threads here and then pop over to ausfish and go through the \"news\" section. Become informed and you may see things differently.

Did you know it's statistically proven that you have no chance of dieing in a car accident if you're completely naked. This is proven because in all reported fatalities all the victims were wearing clothes!

[creature100]

Thanks for the tip but i do consider myself to be informed. So what then are we as recreational fishers suggesting be done? i read alot of big bad scary stories about what all this means but what are we in favour of then?

[ellicat]

What we have from the EPA is a complete blinkered view of what is required for a sustainable fishery. For an example of this see Simon Baltais' response in the comments section of the online Courier Mail to Feral. His attitude speaks volumes.

There are many other options and combinations of options that should be considered.

Bag limits;

Size limits (min and max);

Closed seasons - fish;

Closed seasons - areas;

Mangrove management/protection;

Restocking;

Farming commercial species;

Addressing siltation.....the list goes on and as you are informed you could probably add to the list.

These are the things that I am in favour of. I'm not in favour of someone telling me I can no longer live in my home because trees will grow if I don't go there and everyone will breathe easier!!!!

In addition I can't recall any spokesperson saying they are doing this on scientific evidence. I can only recall hearing them mention taking advice from scientists.

A scientist once advised me not to get married - guess it wasn't his field though, or maybe that was just his personal opinion because he didn't like all the married people having a good time doing things he didn't.

The only science coming from the EPA is political science!

[ellicat]

It's kinda like the \"water crisis\".

When the pollies realised there was a problem - solution = displace people and build more dams.

Then some people thought things through and a great amount has been achieved by combining dams, use of tanks, changing bad habits and attitudes, reserve tanks in parks, recycling etc. There's more than one way to skin a cat.

As a funny aside - I saw a NO DAM sticker billposted on the back of a sign post a few months ago. Some witty person had written \"Water\" underneath, so it read No dam water. .

[rayke1938]

Creature the way see it if the recommendations were based on the results of genuine up to date research people would tend to accept them. But when Minister lindy nelson Carr says that the worldwide standard is a recommended 10% closure and then when challenged she says that there is no factual data to support this statement I lose all credibility in her statements.

Have a look at this thread on ausfish Maybe Another Angle To Explore-Flaws In Their Research??? in the fishing news posts.

We all want to see a sustainable fishery for the future but it has to be a fair dinkum effort not just a political payback for the allocation of preferences.

Unless they look at the whole picture and act on it nothing will be achieved.As I have stated in other posts where was the EPA when permission was granted to dredge the bay to extend the airport and square miles of mangroves were destroyed to extend the port?

Cheers

Ray

[MichaelJ]

there taking away all the places we catch fish lol and letting us fish the bad places were nothing lives lol

[Feral]

Until they start salt water stocking seriously, I will discount their ideas of sustainability as being of no substance. Its just an excuse for closures.

[Brian D]

hera here Feral - I completly agree for a change. Why not just restock the fish that the pros and socials take out. Dur.

And like elli say close the species for a season or 2.

[Schultzy]

Here are some FACTS for you to ponder.

The EPA aren't fisheries managers.

That job is the responsibility of the DPI.

[Ash]

I personally would like to see marine parks. That said, and ive said it before, id like to see them researched first to make sure that by closeing one area off, we donr over fish another. Maybe a rotating closed off area, close off one plave for 2-3years, then move it. that way all areas get the much needed rest. We do it with farms lands, so why not marine spacs. Also we have got to remember that most species do move about, and unless they build a fence around these protected areas, the fish will swim out of them.

I also like the idea of close species/areas. That would work well, especially if restocking was brought in.

[creature100]

some good points there i must admit. I just think that there may be some scare mongering on both sides of this issue. im not satisfied that the DPI has the best intentions when it comes to sustainability but whether or not the EPA do i dont know. Current practice with regards to commercial fishing such as prawning is in my opinion a major contributor to declines of recreationally important species in the bay. For every 1 tonne of saleable prawns caught between 5 & 10 tonnes of by-catch are returned dead back to the sea, among this by-catch are juveniles of the species we target!! If zoning can address this issue by restricting where and when this kind of fishing occurs then im all for it. While its true that fish move around, if we protect important habitat types, such as spawning grounds etc then wont the fish move out of these areas and into the areas we are allowed to fish? All habitat types can only support a limited no. of fish, so when this is reached the fish will seek new habitat and then we can catch them. As for re-stocking, it seems a bit of a last resort...why not look at ways to make natural populations sustainable? Re-stocking of dams is one thing but the ocean is completely different...the scale that re-stocking of the oceans would have to occur on makes this a fairly un-viable option and besides its kinda the opposite of sustainability. Closures have been successful in other parts of the world but there have been reports of other species suffering as a result of increased fishing pressure in areas outside the closure...all up whether or not the EPA is acting on the wishes of those outside the recreational fishing sector or atually seeking to make the Bay more productive for everyone only time will tell...but at least its being talked about right?

[rayke1938]

Good ballanced post.

Re restocking saltwater species it is already happening in NSW with apparent positive results.

The more people talk and think about this subject the bigger the chance that EPA and DPO will take notice and not ride roughshod which by a lot of reports they have done up north.

Ray

[ellicat]

I don't think that restocking should be a last resort. I don't think anything should be a last resort. Why not do it all now.

Closures have had an adverse effect on biodiversity in other areas of the world - where it ended up that dominant species prevailed and the rest severely diminished in numbers. This is one issue for Moreton Bay that needs to be carefully considered. It's different to the GBRMP where there is another great volume of reef only two metres away - the bay reefs are few and spread out.

Like you said - it's good the issue is being talked about, it'll be better if it's heard.

[Brian D]

Schultzy wrote:

Here are some FACTS for you to ponder.

The EPA aren't fisheries managers.

That job is the responsibility of the DPI.

Schultzy good point but I don't care who restocks - just get it started! What is wrong with a fishing license paid to DPI and fingerings being released.

THe EPA do not have the best interest of fisherpersons in mind. They have a primal need for warm and fuzzy feelings, so I suggest they go pee their pants somewhere else.

[mackmauler]

i dont think re stocking is the answer, i would argue there is no need to re stock anything as stocks are in good shape given the environment we have. could there be any effect on wild stock given a sudden influx of same gene fish, look what has happened in tassie and toowoomba say no more get my drift?

[ellicat]

Are you suggesting a double hookup on the one fish mack ? PMSL Two heads are better than one:P

[creature100]

are fish stocks in good shape?...some older anglers complain that it is getting harder and harder to pull a decent feed out of the bay at times....i have this trouble but i feel that has more to do with lack of fishing ability rather than any reflcetion on fish stocks!

[Feral]

Dunno that I am quite an old timer, but yes there is a significant decrease in fish. Wether its because they are more canny because of fishing pressure I dont know, but I suspect the huge loss of habitat has a lot to do with it.

[rayke1938]

creature100 wrote:

are fish stocks in good shape?...some older anglers complain that it is getting harder and harder to pull a decent feed out of the bay at times....i have this trouble but i feel that has more to do with lack of fishing ability rather than any reflcetion on fish stocks!

I do not agree that my fishing ability has declined with age rather I reckon the opposite has occured and even progressing from gut lines used on handlines and rangoon cane rods through nylon lines and fibre glass rods to all the good gear we have nowdays it is harder and harder to go out and catch a feed.

I realise that past practices have something to do with this but I no longer expect to go down the pin or the mouth of the river and catch 200 odd bream in a 6 hour session.

Bearing in mind in those days we were towed down the pin and let loose in row boats or rowed across the river from the old Quarenteen station and had never heard of fishfinders we did pretty well.

Species like threadies and jacks were very rarely landed as we simply did not have the gear to handle them.

Fishing like most other sports is a continual evolution but the thing that has not kept up with the development of modern living is the management of the environment and IMO this is the area that needs urgent attention and all areas have to be addressed including the impact of urban development, run off from both urban and agricultural areas and loss of wetlands,mosquito spraying and the list goes on.

I firmly believe that fish stocking is part of the answer to the problem as a very large proportion of the wetland/mangrove habitat has been destroyed and these areas are the breeding ground or food source

of many of our targeted species.

If the restocking is done in the correct manner there will not be a huge increase in the same gene fish as the breeding stock are replaced from the wild in a regular manner.

Ray

[Malcolm]

Loss of habitat is I think a huge issue.

I have an aerial photo/poster of Raby Bay as they were starting the development.

It's amazing what it looked like before and after.

And this is just one relitively small development.

[rayke1938]

In the early 50's we used to catch a train to Cleveland and walk through the mangroves with a sugar bag at high tide and spear muddies. We only used to take 6 as we didnt have a fridge only an ice box then.

Ray

[Malcolm]

Was there trains or trams in the 50's to Cleveland?

I Can only remember the new train line going in, say late 80's early 90's

Mal

[ellicat]

I think Ray was talking about a camel train Malcolm:P

[rayke1938]

Used to be steam train that terminated near the old fishmarket and jetty at Paxton Street.( near the Courthouse Reataurant )

Ray

[ellicat]

A reminder of where we are talking about -

The 36 areas.

1. Western Creek, northern end of Bribie Island

2. Tripcony Bight, Pumicestone Passage

3. Northern Wedge, Between Bribie Island and Moreton Island

4. Flinders Reef, 5.5km northwest of Moreton Island

5. Heath Island, northern tip of Moreton Island

6. Cape Moreton

7. Deep Offshore, East of Moreton Island on the park boundary

8. Deception Bay, adjacent to Beachmere

9. Cherub’s Cave/Henderson Rock, East of Moreton Island

10. Scarborough, between Castlereagh Point and Queens Beach

11. Hay’s Inlet, off Bramble Bay

12. Redcliffe Point, adjacent to urban Redcliffe

13. Deep Offshore (northern 29s)

14. Bramble Bay, adjacent to Shorncliffe

15. St Helena Island, between Green and Mud Island

16. Middle Moreton Bay, between Mud Island and Moreton Banks

17. Crab Island and the Blue Hole, Southwest side of Moreton Island

18. Mirrapool Islands, adjacent to the South Passage Bar

19. Moreton Deep Offshore, south east of Moreton Island

20. Moreton Banks, off southern Moreton Island

21. Flat Rock, off Point Lookout, North Stradbroke Island

22. Amity Banks, northern end of North Stradbroke Island

23. Myora/Wanga Wallen Banks, north of Dunwich on North Stradbroke Island

24. Peel Island, between Raby Bay and Dunwich

25. Cox Bank, south of Cleveland

26. Price Anchorage/ Pelican Banks, adjacent to Macleay Island

27. Pannikin Island, south Moreton Bay

28. Lamb Island, adjacent to Macleay Island

29. Willes Island, northern end of Canaipa Passage

30. Offshore North Stradbroke Island, parallel to middle of island

31. Cobby Cobby Island, off southern North Stradbroke Island

32. Swan Bay/Never Never Creek, off southern North Stradbroke Island

33.McCoy’s Creek, southern branch of the Pimpama River

34. Coombabah Lake, northwest of Southport

35. Offshore South Stradbroke Island, halfway along the island

36. Scotts Point, Woody Point

Tha attachment gives Sunfish's opinions on those areas. [file name=Sunfish_1.doc size=37888]http://www.australianfishing.com.au/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/Sunfish_1.doc[/file]

Sunfish_1.doc

[ellicat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKoRF6iXpLY

This seems to be an irrelevant link:blush: Still good for jimmybob to watch though;)

[ellicat]

Bump for chubbstar and Ash.

I did this one months before this thread was born. I regret it.

Let's face it - whether the DPI are the good guys or not, the stats they collect will be available to the bad guys who will no doubt skew the statistics to make ridiculous claims......while everyone who thinks limiting rec fishers is a good thing miss the more drastic effects that go ignored...

[tomca]

maybe the EPA just ban trawlers from these areas first, and see if there is an improvement on fish stocks before banning everyone. I think the dent we put into the bay is much smaller than the big guys:dry: