Pollution and nutrient run-off have been with us since the days of first settlement. Embarrassing to contemplate and expensive to remedy.
Industrialized fish harvesting has depleted fish stocks world wide, yet we are obliged to make trade agreements with nations who would harvest fish from our waters with little restraint.
More recently, the introduction of exotic species has created environmental disasters that have no remedy.
Latest of all, a new threat has come on the scene, possibly the greatest threat of all: That is the threat created by the introduction of Marine Parks, Why?
When you have Marine Parks, those other threats may be ignored, and the huge amount of money that would have to be set aside to remedy those other threats can be spent in more visible and fashionable ways.
Geoff,
Marine parks have had their watchdogs removed, the anglers. A point obviously not lost on the Govt., hence their call to divers to start playing the same role.
The trouble is, it could be 20 to 30 years before the error of their ways becomes noticeable. We already know about scientific studies that tell us what the Govt. wants us to know.
Which group has been primarily responsible for abalone and rock lobster poaching? Recreational fishermen? I think not.
Which group has been primarily responsible for blowing up historic shiprecks for valuables? Recreational fishermen? I think not.
Which group has been primarily responsible for decimating sedentary species like blue groper on the east coast, to the extent bans were placed on certain activities? Recreational fishermen? I think not.
Which group have been allocated responsibility to watch over our marine environment? Recreational fishermen? I think not.
And that, Geoff, is exactly the reason why I'm now totally opposed to recreational fishing bans in marine parks. If recreational fishing wasn't banned in NMPs, however, I'd support them.
I'm interested to find out if you would also support the establishment of NMPs if this was the case.
I would support small sanctuary areas where genuine scientific monitoring would be required, and the results of that monitoring be made available for public scrutiny.
Of course these areas would not only be out of bounds to recreational fishermen, they would be out of bounds to everybody else as well, simply because any presence or alien activity will have some impact.
I can see absolutely no sense in setting aside areas where nothing specific has been nominated for protection, where people can't go fishing, where no benchmarks for scientific monitoring have ever been set, and - in all probablity - where no genuine scientific monitoring will ever take place.
Also, when you have marine parks, it is a ready made excuse to postpone, or to sideline, any attempt at addressing the very real problems faced by the marine environment.
Its really an honour to have such experienced people like you talk to us and point out such excellent points and I am sure lots of people will agree with me.
All times are GMT + 10 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
