Hawkesbury Shelf Marine Park

[bluecod]

Read it and weep [is the writing on the wall ??]

Full report can be found at :

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/Hawkesbury%20Shelf%20Bioregional%20Assessment.pdf

Extract from the conclusion

This project provides the basic information and methods to systematically identify areas with important biodiversity values and to help plan a system of marine protected areas in the Hawkesbury Shelf bioregion. Because of the scope of this task, and the need for consistent
information across areas as large as whole bioregions, approximate surrogates for biodiversity and other criteria have been used. However, even at the broad scale of this study, a number of patterns were evident.
There are currently no marine parks in the bioregion, but there are ten aquatic reserves protecting significant areas of mangrove, saltmarsh, seagrass and ocean embayment in Botany Bay, drowned river valley in North Sydney Harbour and areas of mostly rocky shore and inshore reef along the Sydney coastline. However, fishing is allowed in all but 3 of these aquatic reserves.

Marine protected areas in national parks and nature reserves protect significant areas of several ecosystems and habitats. These include mangroves, saltmarshes, rocky shores and reefs, and intermittent, barrier and drowned river valley estuaries. Only a small area of these habitats, in the marine section of Bouddi National Park, has direct protection for fish and invertebrates from fishing.

[MarkD]

George,

Are they saying that because there are MP's elsewhere i.e. Botany and Nth Harbour there should also be in the Hawksbury?

Sounds ominous....

[bluecod]

Mark,

Not just the Hawkesbury - the've defined the Hawkesbury Shelf as lying between the Hunter River and Wollongong and then further subdivided it into two parts - north and south - with Sydney Harbour the dividing line.

They then examine the nature and extent of significant biodiversity habitat and investigate the level of protection currently given to it and an indication of protection required for "sustainability" - be it either natural or political sustainability is anyone's guess.

The studies are a precursor to the establishment of a full-blown Marine Park as has been imposed in the Byron Bay/Lennox Head area.

What this means to Mr Public is there are likely to be substantial NO RECREATIONAL fishing zones along this section of coastline and estuarine areas.

What alarms me are the statements indicating the level of overall protection from fishing is low [3%]. I read this as them saying "3% doesn't match our quota of 25%??? so we are going to put restrictions in place no matter what". It is possible that commercial fishing will be allowed to continue whereas recreational fishing will be banned.

[MarkD]

It is possible that commercial fishing will be allowed to continue whereas recreational fishing will be banned.

The lack of logic here is astounding. I assume the next we will hear of it is when it becomes law?

[Jimbo]

I can understand the mentality of these pollies???

Rec fishing creates more revenue for the state that the pro sector ever will yet in our biggest city they want to enforce restrictions? Doesn't make sense?

[bluecod]

Rec fishing creates more revenue for the state that the pro sector ever will yet in our biggest city they want to enforce restrictions? Doesn't make sense?

Jimbo - it makes perfectly good sense if you are a politicial. It goes something like this

Labour are scared of losing the next state election and it really is only a two party race with quite a few undecided or swinging votes going to the greenies. If Labour can soften the greenies up by creating more Marine Parks then obviously, party room deals having been done, labour will get the greenie preferences - and it could make all the difference in a few marginal seats - sometimes elections are only won by a coupe of seats.

By the way the Stockton/Manning Marine Park was declared on 1 December 2005 and encompasses all of Port Stephens, Broughton Island, Seal Rocks and futher - no zones have been declared - yet!

[plfishfingers]

Hi Guys
Yes it all sucks.
The government cant fix the simple problems of commercial overfishing they would rather gain votes by using our sport as a bargaining tool.
The issue of defunct licenses still being purchased by fishos wanting to get back into the industry is still unsolved.
The great new idea of protecting the offshore fishing by throwing 200 million dollars at operators to get out. Most will get out but whos out there to see that all is being followed and protecting their 200 million dollar investment.
Are these fishos going to buy inshore licenses with their new found wealth and place even more pressure on the close in species?
This government that is aligning themselves with THE GREENIES should be run out of town. They take our money, tax the crap out of everything and then make us pay for a license so we can enjoy a past time that has been done by our family for the last 5 generations.
Everyone should be worried about the 3% factor. These statements are usually made by air head pollies that spend most of the time with their heads up their bosses arse and are usually the above public question or explaination. These guys just tell you the way its going to be and thats it.
Just look at what they did to Port Phillip Bay.
They told everyone that only 5% of the bay would be no fishing zones. They just didnt tell anyone that the 5% they were taking were 90% of the popular and productive reefs.
The same thing will happen here. Areas under the 3% will no doubt be a lot of the most productive spots like Flint & Steel, Barrenjoey Head, Juno Point and any other reefs that you know of. As mentioned the mangroves will be protected as will weedy areas. 3% of The Hawkesbury is a hell of a lot of water to loose fishing rights on.
We all need to stand up as one and the time is now.
Sorry for such a negative letter with no real answers but am willing to listen to any sensible ideas to wake the pollies up.
All the best
Peter

[Grantm]

gday fingers,

I dont think your negative, its just stating the truth. We all need to be aware of the potential disaster this may be. I wish more people would take an interest.

Dont have any answers either mate, other than i wish all the rec groups would get together and form a stronger alliance.

[bluecod]

We all need to stand up as one and the time is now.
Peter

Too right Pete - ECOFishers are trying to achieve exactly that - do some research on them and if you agree with their principles, advise all your clients, that if they want to continue fishing as they now know it, they should support them.

[bluecod]

Grant and Pete,

A bit of a discussion with the CEO of ECOFishers, Rod Burston, has uncovered they have a website currently under construction - first page outlines their reason for existence.

http://www.ecofishers.com

[Grantm]

Thanks Bluecod,

That probably makes the most sense so far that ive seen. Yet to see a better approach, i hope they can make some headway.

[jonjenkins]

Fishers,

Its good to see that people are finally starting to understand what is happening. What has been said in this topic is absolutely true!

Byron Bay has lost almost all its useful fishing grounds, leaving only the "barren sandy deserts" for fishers. This was against all the current marine science. The "advisory" committee was stacked so they always won the and voted against the 6352 local submissions. As they have seen in Byron and Port Stephens/Hawkes Nest they combine National Park/Nature Reserve closures to ban access to the beaches and then ban fishing in the accessible parts. This is the model for all MPs!

This has nothing to do with science and nothing to do with fish stocks and everything about Green preferences for the 2007 election.

If fishing is worth fighting for then now is the time! Join ECOFishers or your local NSWFCA fishing club to find out what you can do to help.