Food for thought

[4liters]

Saw this on The Conversation today
https://theconversation.com/most-recrea ... pqN6Y3EA8o

More than 70% of recreational fishers support no-take marine sanctuaries according to our research, published recently in Marine Policy.

This study contradicts the popular perception that fishers are against establishing no-take marine reserves to protect marine life. In fact, the vast majority of fishers we surveyed agreed that no-take sanctuaries improve marine environmental values, and do not impair their fishing.


No-take marine sanctuaries, which ban taking or disturbing any marine life, are widely recognised as vital for conservation. However, recent media coverage and policy decisions in Australia suggest recreational fishers are opposed to no-take sanctuary zones created within marine parks.

This perceived opposition has been reinforced by recreational fishing interest groups who aim to represent fishers’ opinions in policy decisions. However, it was unclear whether the opinions expressed by these groups matches those of fishers on-the-ground in established marine parks.

To answer this, we visited ten state-managed marine parks across Western Australia, South Australia, Queensland and New South Wales. We spoke to 778 fishers at boat ramps that were launching or retrieving their boats to investigate their attitudes towards no-take sanctuary zones.

Our findings debunk the myth that recreational fishers oppose marine sanctuaries. We found 72% of active recreational fishers in established marine parks (more than 10 years old) support their no-take marine sanctuaries. Only 9% were opposed, and the remainder were neutral.

We also found that support rapidly increases (and opposition rapidly decreases) after no-take marine sanctuaries are established, suggesting that once fishers have a chance to experience sanctuaries, they come to support them.


Recreational fishers support for marine sanctuaries increases with marine park age.


Fishers in established marine parks were also overwhelmingly positive towards marine sanctuaries. Most thought no-take marine sanctuaries benefited the marine environment (78%) and have no negative impacts on their fishing (73%).

We argue that recreational fishers, much like other Australians, support no-take marine sanctuaries because of the perceived environmental benefits they provide. This is perhaps not surprising, considering that appreciating nature is one of the primary reasons many people go fishing in the first place.


In the past opposition from recreational fishing groups has been cited in the decision to scrap proposed no-take sanctuaries around Sydney, to open up established no-take sanctuaries to fishing and to reduce sanctuaries within the Australia Marine Parks (formerly the Commonwealth Marine Reserve network).

Our findings suggest that these policy decisions do not reflect the beliefs of the wider recreational fishing community, but instead represent the loud voices of a minority.

We suggest that recreational fishing groups and policy makers should survey grass roots recreational fishing communities (and other people who use marine parks) to gauge the true level of support for no-take marine sanctuaries, before any decisions are made.

Despite what headlines may say, no-take marine sanctuaries are unlikely to face long lasting opposition from recreational fishers. Instead, our research suggests no-take marine sanctuaries provide a win-win: protecting marine life whilst fostering long term support within the recreational fishing community.

[rb85]

Don't think we need these in Victoria the fishing seems to be improving every year.

[hornet]

Just in Victoria not parks Australia wide.

https://parkweb.vic.gov.au/explore/find ... cted-areas

[Bugatti]

Saw this on The Conversation today

More than 70% of recreational fishers support no-take marine sanctuaries according to our research, published recently in Marine Policy.


Despite what headlines may say, no-take marine sanctuaries are unlikely to face long lasting opposition from recreational fishers. Instead, our research suggests no-take marine sanctuaries provide a win-win: protecting marine life whilst fostering long term support within the recreational fishing community.

I would say most sensible recreational fishers realise that Marine Sanctuaries are a positive part of managing a Fishery.

But yet again, the recreational fisher is being vilified as the evil thorn in managing a Fishery. I am not totally up to speed with Victorian Fisheries Management but , , , ,

Don't think we need these in Victoria the fishing seems to be improving every year.

But , , , , from what I understand the VFA is managing your Fishery as an overall picture, which includes factoring in the Professional Fishing component. With "buy back" schemes, tighter fishing rules for all components of the Fishery, restocking programmes etc etc. You Victorians may not realise that you guys have the best fishing in Australia. In the "best fishing", I mean a diverse range of species (including freshwater), well numbered, easily accessible to most fishers and a higher productive outcome for attempts than any other state.

Here in South Australia, we have had a variety of fishing closures, no take zones, closed seasons, exclusion zones and Marine Sanctuaries. BUT some of our Fisheries are still near collapse and some just getting worse, even with forever tightening rules for the recreational fishers. So we are not opposed to Marine Sanctuaries as part of an overall fisheries management program. But here they pamper/accommodate the Pros who do 10 times more damage than all the recreational fishers.

Shed light on what the Pros REALLY do, and not the same spin and rhetoric of praising the professional fishers and condemning the recreational fisher.

So, yes Marine Sanctuaries are good, but not an answer to bad Fisheries Management, especially when the professional fishers are immune.

Regards, Bugatti

[Sebb]

So, yes Marine Sanctuaries are good, but not an answer to bad Fisheries Management

I like this Bugatti, it's true.
My mate recently worked in NSW as a contractor for couple months and when he's back, he said Vic fisheries seems doing a lot and the fishing is good (and getting better and better).
Fisheries management is important.

[saph]

But , , , , from what I understand the VFA is managing your Fishery as an overall picture, which includes factoring in the Professional Fishing component. With "buy back" schemes, tighter fishing rules for all components of the Fishery, restocking programmes etc etc. You Victorians may not realise that you guys have the best fishing in Australia. In the "best fishing", I mean a diverse range of species (including freshwater), well numbered, easily accessible to most fishers and a higher productive outcome for attempts than any other state.

Here in South Australia, we have had a variety of fishing closures, no take zones, closed seasons, exclusion zones and Marine Sanctuaries. BUT some of our Fisheries are still near collapse and some just getting worse, even with forever tightening rules for the recreational fishers. So we are not opposed to Marine Sanctuaries as part of an overall fisheries management program. But here they pamper/accommodate the Pros who do 10 times more damage than all the recreational fishers.

Shed light on what the Pros REALLY do, and not the same spin and rhetoric of praising the professional fishers and condemning the recreational fisher.

So, yes Marine Sanctuaries are good, but not an answer to bad Fisheries Management, especially when the professional fishers are immune.

i aggree with this but its basicly the same in queensland with it all and its basicly screwed. you never even see fisherys officers past their office where i am and dispite reporting both under size fish taking and white spot (please dont use super market prawns) they do nothing not even drive the 20 minutes to get the bait sample for possible white spot.

[cobby]

It depends on how the survey question was worded as to how skewed the data is. I've had a similar survey with a similar open ended question where it was implied that recreational fishers still had access to c&r fish within no take zones, yet when actually looking at the information in full it showed there was zero access for any form of fishing. We're talking closing fishing to ALL estuaries in the state including Westernport and PPB...

[cheaterparts]

It depends on how the survey question was worded as to how skewed the data is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xC2bNpXdAo

[frozenpod]

It depends on how the survey question was worded as to how skewed the data is.

Yes exactly.

What were the questions asked and in what order?

For example an survey last year used by pro marine parks group asked rec fisho was something along the lines of do you want to protect the marine environment.
99% said yes.

They then claimed result was used as rec fisho want no fishing zones.

Yet when fishing groups ran a poll to an honest question the result was 99% no.

[frozenpod]

Here in South Australia, we have had a variety of fishing closures, no take zones, closed seasons, exclusion zones and Marine Sanctuaries. BUT some of our Fisheries are still near collapse and some just getting worse, even with forever tightening rules for the recreational fishers.

Which fisheries are still near collapse in SA?