20-40% green zones

jockey · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:24 am Post subject:

I realise this is an old topic but I'd like to raise some new points, and take the discussion out of the TFP post.

The scientific community has long agreed that no-take zones improve fishing, biodiversity and stuff like that. Now they are getting towards an agreement on how much no take zones is best and it is looking like 20-40%.

Kerry · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:43 am Post subject:

Brian · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:46 am Post subject:

Jockey define 'long agreed'? Do you mean since our "worlds first marine national parks that we had to have" were rammed down our throats?

Define 'they'? Do you mean the greenies and their lackey scientist friends?

Define 20%/40%? Do you mean 20 for them 40 for us? I seriously doubt it.

And I seriously doubt that this will benefit rec anglers either!

Just how does a fish know it is in a marine national park anyway?

For the record, this is not a personal attack on you. But some people are still a little bit annoyed at being sold out by Bracksy and his tossers to the extreme greenies for a hand full of votes.

All the very best,

BT

[ This Message was edited by: Brian on 16-10-2004 08:47 ]

Gazza · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 8:52 am Post subject:

Hi Jock, still flogging your dead horse mate

Victorians are still waiting with 'baited' breath to see those 'spillover' marine parks in PPB to kick into life....

And then they will see for themselves ,won't they?

NO MORE lockouts ,till the 'scientists' are 'proven' correct or full of BS ....again!!

Keep floggin Jock

_________________

"Fishing for Recreation"

fishnet · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:36 am Post subject:

Hi Jockey,

We have sent you an email that requires your attention to your registered email address.

Thankyou.

Steve

_________________

Bazza20 · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:44 pm Post subject:

I am sure someone dredging the bottom of PPB for a couple of years will have an effect on biodiversity and stuff like that, why don't we hear anything about this from the greenies, is their somehting going on we should know about.

Instead of locking fisherman out of massive areas on dodgy paid scientific facts why dont you try to fix easy problems that we all agree on.

NORRI · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 5:00 pm Post subject:

October 13, 2004
Ted Forsgren (850) 224-3474

NEW RESEARCH REFUTES THEORIES AND CLAIMS THAT NO-FISHING ZONES REPLENISH FISHERIES IN ADJACENT AREAS
Recently published research from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) indicates that no-fishing zones (NFZs) are not the fisheries management tool that advocates claim.

“The claims of replenishment and other fisheries management benefits made by no-fishing zone advocates are clearly undermined by this research,” said CCA Florida Executive Director Ted Forsgren.” “The results refute the theory that NFZs are viable fisheries management tools. It is also very significant that the research was conducted at the no-fishing zone near the Kennedy Space Center, the same area that NFZ proponents have been using to claim that replenishment does occur.”

FWC researchers conducted a long term and comprehensive assessment of fish moving into and out of a no-fishing zone. Between 1990 and 1999 fish were tagged and their movements between an estuarine no-take zone and the surrounding waters were examined. The tagged species were redfish, black drum, sheepshead, common snook, spotted seatrout, bull shark and jack crevalle.

Some key statements and findings from the FWC research are as follows:

“Reserve areas that attract and retain exploitable individuals

from surrounding habitats at higher rates than they replenish

those habitats could be considered to be sinks in terms

of their ability to directly supplement adjacent fisheries

through spillover of exploitable sized individuals. Fish

emigration from reserve habitats and the replenishment

of nearby fisheries is a commonly predicted benefit

of harvest reserves (see reviews in Robert and

Polunin, 1991 and Rowley, 1994). However, there

are currently no studies that simultaneously

examine emigration and immigration relative to

estuarine reserves or that document the extent to

which reserve areas may also function to

withdraw individuals from surrounding fisheries.

Without assessment of net exchange, the interpretation

of reserve benefits with respect to replenishment

cannot be properly evaluated.”

“Recapture rates for sportfish species that migrated

across the NTZ [no-take zone] boundary suggested that more

individuals may move into the protected habitats

than move out. These data demonstrated that

although this estuarine no-take reserve can protect

species from fishing, it may also serve to extract

exploitable individuals from surrounding fisheries.”

“There were substantial differences in the migration

patterns of fish between the two areas. In the vicinity

of the NTZ, the relative potential for overall sportfish

migrations (primarily red drum and black drum,

which provided the greatest quantity of tag recovery

data) towards the NTZ from unprotected habitats

(52%) was greater than the potential from migrations

out of the NTZ (5%).

FWC staff further summarized the key issue of immigration versus replenishment for two important species by stating that “in the vicinity of the estuarine no-take zone at Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, the relative rate of immigration into the reserve by sportfish species was higher than the rate of emigration out of the reserve for both black drum (90% vs. 25 %) and red drum (27% vs. 3%).”

The marine protected area (MPA)/no-fishing zone debate is a huge issue in Florida where 29 MPA/no-fishing zones, ranging in size from hundreds of acres to several hundred square miles, have already been established. More are being proposed all the time. In 2001, the South Atlantic Federal Fishery Management Council released a “shopping list” of 42 new MPA/no-fishing zones from North Carolina to Florida. Nineteen of the zones were targeted for Florida’s East coast. The proposed list has since been reduced to four off of Florida. In addition, the Biscayne Natio

LIVIE · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:51 pm Post subject:

Can you be my Dad Kerry

Kerry · Posted: Sat Oct 16, 2004 7:26 pm Post subject:

Poor ol's jockey's gunna's have a bad hair day of that lot

but then FACTS isn't something jockey boy here is really up on

this character still lives in the land of make be-green

Cheers, Kerry.

[ This Message was edited by: Kerry on 16-10-2004 19:27 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Kerry on 16-10-2004 19:28 ]

bobj · Posted: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:07 am Post subject:

Mate!!!!
"Scientists" are asked "what is biodiversity?" and their reply is" er...er.. biodiversity is...er...biodiversity"

I've had many "discussions" with various "authorities" and they CANNOT explain the term.

_________________
Cheers, Bobj.

Fishing Party Member

Mackay, Qld.