MBAA Second Proposal

[ellicat]

Just finished having a read.

It's not what some are praying for but it's still an improvement on the EPA proposal by a country mile.

In the end it is probably the best "we" can hope for.

Well worth a read. (Especially for Adventure Angler Nelson maybe)

You can get to it by clicking here -

http://www.marineqld.com.au/DIVISIONS/MBAA/tabid/158/Default.aspx

and then clicking on the bit that says -

"MBAA’s Moreton Bay Research Report – Our Alternative Zoning Plan" Part 2

To go straight to the 47 page pdf click here

http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/08120/467459/FRDC+Report+Part+2+v6.pdf

[obone]

Need a close up, but I’m pretty sure my main area of interest is still green. Can’t always please everyone but it’s a shame as far as I’m concerned.

Joel

[Bommie]

read the bit about mud is. and the epa and inshore habitats and seagrass

[ellicat]

It's laughable hey ?:laugh: :laugh:

That alone is enough for the EPA to lose all credibility.....(if they ever had any)

[ellicat]

obone wrote:

Need a close up, but I’m pretty sure my main area of interest is still green. Can’t always please everyone but it’s a shame as far as I’m concerned.

Joel

Yep. I agree.

[Ash]

Too many words and the maps not clear enough! Damn it!

From the map provided, does the zones effect my camping and fishing on yellow patch, Moreton isl?

[ellicat]

Ash, See Page 17 for commentary on Heath Island. The area on the other side of the headland also sucks.

Remember this is the MBAA's proposal/submission, not the EPA's plan (which is far worse)

[Dan23]

2 Questions from me cause I'm too lazy to look into the whole things....

On Page 47 there's a map what do all the colour keys really mean? Like where it says "No Take" does that mean I can still fish there just catch and release?

Also are all the spots around Shorncliffe and Nudgee Creek these Green and Yellow Zones? It is very hard to tell.

I really wouldn't care if they made these zones Yellow which from what I understand is One hook one line? Am I way off??

[ellicat]

:laugh:

No take means no fishing...nada, zilch, leave your gear at home. This is the worst zone - the dreaded "Green Zone"

A clearer picture of the EPA's plan (which the MBAA is suggesting be changed) can be seen on their map here -

http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/media/parks_and_forests/marine_parks/mbmp/draft_zoning_plan_1.pdf

See page 22 of the MBAA submission for their thoughts on Bramble Bay which includes Nundah and Nudgee.

Whatever you do though Dan. Make sure when you're fishing this area you don't target the Eastern Curlew!! FFS:S

The whole EPA document can be found by following the links from here -

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

For a laugh, compare the bibliography of the EPA document to that of the MBAA. I wonder whose info I would rely on :whistle:

[ellicat]

If you zoom in to 2400% (on the EPA plan) you will see the green goes quite a way up Nundah Creek (which I think is Schultz (?))

[Dan23]

Thanks for that Ellicat. Looks like I'll have to move as the only decent spot to fish in Brissie will be gone. I think Nundah creek is actually the South arm of Cabbage tree but I could be wrong.

It's so dumb, I've been fishing Nudgee Creek heaps lately but never kept a single fish from there.

[ellicat]

Dan, That's why this is so infuriating to so many of us. It's an attack on rec fishos that in the DPI&F's own words "have a benign effect".

But the DPI&F are only the expert fisheries managers, so what would they know :whistle:

[Dan23]

Just the fact the green zones say No Take instead of no fishing shows a lack of understanding of many fishing practices. As if we only fish to take all the fish we can.

[ellicat]

Yep.

DPI research says over 50% of rec catch is released.

[ellicat]

Here's a link to the MBAA website

http://www.marineqld.com.au/DIVISIONS/MBAA/tabid/158/Default.aspx

and here's a link to another site with links to a great

deal of good facts

http://www.saveourbay.org.au/default.htm

[Ash]

ellicat wrote:

Ash, See Page 17 for commentary on Heath Island. The area on the other side of the headland also sucks.

Remember this is the MBAA's proposal/submission, not the EPA's plan (which is far worse)

Mate, that is a joke! What exaclty are they trying to get out of zoning that area? Wont be touch beaches, jetties etc my but! :angry:

Theres gonna be alot of places that will bare the brunt of this financially, alot of businesses will suffer!

[Dan23]

Zoning is pretty dumb.

Another example of Greenies or Beaurocrats gone mad is that The Brunswick River mouth is the only area that is heavily fished in that system but they made all the back waters that are only really accesible by a kayak the green zones and left the heavily fished area alone.

Just like Nudgee Creek, I've hardly seen anyone fish around the mouth there. I know there's some bird habitat there but it is not on the sand flats but rather up in the mangroves where no one would ever fish.

Why don't they just follow some of the NSW ideas and maybe look at banning cast and drag nets and introducing a fishing liscence to fund fish restocking programs and initiatives to clean up our waterways.

Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb Dumb

[Ash]

I agree with you there Dan. I wouldnt mind seeing a fishing licence brought in like nsw. Just as long as the money went towards improving and sustaining fishing.

Be good to see salt water stocking introduced

[Terry H]

Yay for those dark blue and yellow zones. By all means, shower the bay and estuaries in those.

The locations of some green zones are a bit odd, but oh well, I might have fished one once, so as they stand they don't really affect me. That's my self-centered view.

I'd much rather see different measures in place for the sustainability of our fisheries instead of green zones. These ideas have already been thrown around on this board, that of tighter bag limits, fees etc so I wont go into them again.

[obone]

Did the EPA seriously admit that recreational fishing has benign effects elli? That’s outrageous if they said that and then are imposing this plan.

And yeh Dan I certainly feel your pain, one of the places that I fish that is going green, I have in total kept ONE fish from there!

Joel

[ellicat]

No, the EPA didn't say that. The fishery managers (i.e the DPI&F) said it.

The EPA are the environmental protection authority. They are blaming the fishos for their own failure in protecting the environment from all the baddies that do have an adverse effect on the bay.

Fello-fishers not caring about this because it doesn't effect them now is a bit short-sighted IMO. It's like saying turn off the water supply to my house, I'm not thirsty today:S Then when you're thirsty tomorrow you'll have to go to the neighbours place for a drink.

[Terry H]

ellicat wrote:

Fello-fishers not caring about this because it doesn't effect them now is a bit short-sighted IMO. It's like saying turn off the water supply to my house, I'm not thirsty today:S Then when you're thirsty tomorrow you'll have to go to the neighbours place for a drink.

Not quite. It's like saying my next door neighbours house gets their water turned off. I don't fish these locations. To say that they'd have to be a spot I would have to: had fished them in the past, and plan to go fishing there in the future. The locations are not a concern to me. Yes, quite ignorant and self-centered. No where have I said that EPAs overall plan has no effect to me, just the current placing of the green zones.

That said, I think some placements like Nundah Creek are whacked. Why two creeks but not others? Yes, if you look closely Nudgee creek has some green spots in it on EPAs original DRAFT.

MBAA's propsal on the other hand eradicates some of the more obscure placements of Marine Parks. For example, Nudgee and Nundah Creeks are no longer green zones. MBAA also appeared to have a serious look at the impact of not only the green zones but the yellow (conservation park) and dark blue zones. This is why they've proposed reduced green zones in a number of areas. Just to note, no where in the report does MBAA call it a national park or a place that cannot be fished from, merely a "no-take" zone.

I'll be honest I have no problem with MBAA's second proposal.

Edit: Now, I don't know if it has been mentioned, but EPA apparently have plans to make some artificial reefs as a result of the reduced fishing area through these green zones. When that happens, where they place them and how good they will be are unknown. That's another concern that MBAA touched on.

[ellicat]

Terry, I'm just sitting here nodding in agreement.

My analogy is probably not a good one, but you get my drift. I couldn't be bothered with the longer one I thought of.:laugh:

Anyway, It'll be a dead horse we're flogging if the current ALP/Greens coalition's sitting members don't feel a lot more pressure before the next state election. With the bias press against us it's a steep uphill battle.

[Terry H]

I know it might not be that great of a thing to look at considering it's only a small cross-section of the fishing community but the Suntag data showed that some of these green zones aren't even fished that much. I would think it's only a small section of the overall area that is drafted as a green zone that would affect anglers, in which the MBAA has proposed reductions in the amount of area being green zoned.

I would like to see MBAA's current proposal being put in place rather than the EPAs.

Just remember it was a draft from the EPA, and a pretty shoddy looking one at that. I mean there's moree than one section that has ground labeled as a Marine Park.

[ellicat]

The whole of Moreton Bay is already a Marine Park.

As far as the fish take goes - have a look at page 21 of the submission.

The MBAA proposal is better....It's still not what a lot would prefer. And even using their own information in their submission a lot of the green zoning in the MBAA proposal is unnecessary.

I believe the best we can expect is somewhere inbetween these two proposals. The worst is that the Greenies will get 30% lockout which is what Macnamara was sprouting was the most supported outcome based on weight of submissions received before the 7th March cutoff.