It's time for us fishers to organise a national day of protest across Australia not just for the lock outs that have hit us in every state but the whole argument the Greens have been using is horribly flawed and doesn't help world fish stocks that would most probably be decimated in those countries that are not as heavily regulated as our fisheries are here in Australia and they will rape the oceans to meet the shortfall in the availability of fish for sale in the local shops. While the big 3 will only sell fish from sustainable fisheries there is no doubt smaller retail outlets will capitalise on selling a cheaper product to the public. The whole Greens argument is fish stocks around the world are in decline and this decision by Tony Burke and the Federal Labor Government doesn't help save fish at the global level.Exactly the opposite.  

From “The Decline of Big Green, Part One Shaky Foundations: Toxic Sources, Tainted Money” by Jeffrey St. Clair:

    Philanthropy and its purposes haven’t changed much since Rockefeller millions were dispensed to winch the family name out of the mud, particularly after the Ludlow massacre when Rockefeller minions broke a strike by spraying with oil and then igniting tents filled with women and children.

    …Nearly a century later, the environmental movement, supposedly big oil’s implacable foe, found itself on the receiving end of about $50 million a year from three oil conglomerates, operating through front groups politely described as private foundations. [2]

    …In 1948 the family set up the Pew Charitable Trust, based in Philadelphia, with an endowment totalling nearly $4 billion in the year 2000. [3] …The utility of buying the loyalty of liberals impressed itself on the family rather late, in the 1980s. But since then they have more than made up for lost time. By the beginning of the second Clinton term, the Pew Charitable Trusts represented one of the largest donors to the environmental movement, with about $250 million a year invested. [4] …Pew rarely went it alone. It preferred to work in coalitions with those other foundations, which meant almost no radical opposition to their cautious environmental policies can get any money. [5]

    …But this did not tell the full story of coercion through money. One of the conditions attached to the receipt of Pew grant money was that attention be focused on government actions. Corporate wrongdoers were not to be pursued. With Pew money rolling their way, the environmental opposition became muted, judicious and finally disappeared. As long-time New Mexico environmentalist Sam Hitt put it: “Pew comes into a region like a Death Star, creating organizations that are all hype and no substance, run by those whose primary aim is merely to maintain access to foundation funding.”

    Meanwhile, the endowed money held by these trusts was carefully invested in the very corporations that a vigorous environmental movement would be adamantly opposing. An examination of Pew’s portfolio in 1995 revealed that its money was invested in timber firms, mining companies, oil companies, arms manufacturers and chemical companies. The annual yield from these investments far exceeded the dispensations to environmental groups. [6]

http://thewrongkindofgreen.wordpress.com/2011/09/26/unravelling-the-deception-of-a-false-movement/

not sure if its been posted yet?]

this is the online petition fromNomad sportsfishing charters in North QLD ABOUT THE REEFS in the new zones.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fnomadsportfishing.com.au%2Fwordpress%2Fsustainable-recreational-fishing%2F&h=FAQF5PmrdAQEFECvMkqP8eM36J9sPCiiaCElIIGwPfoRw0Q

Need something similar that pertains to both metro and northern wa zones....

Does anyone know if this is true? I was going the web and stumbled across this article, and thought I would ask the question.. (Doooma)

Julia in Deeper Shit than Craig

Thomson is involved in rorting $500,000 from the HSU.

Gillard is involved in rorting $1 million from the AWU.

To date, no attempt has been made by either union to recover one cent.

As a backbencher, Thomson had no clout with media.

As Prime Minister, Gillard used her clout to kill the story... and this is how she did it:

Bruce Wilson was an AWU heavy and Gillard’s boyfriend at the time. He had been threatening developers in a thinly disguised, mob-style protection racket: Industrial peace for payment... up to $50,000 at a time.

The payments went straight to accounts Gillard had arranged while she was still working for the Left wing law firm, Slater & Gordon.

Gillard was into the scam up to her elbows and, as she was screwing Wilson at the time, pillow talk wasn’t confined to her other sexual exploits including married father, and current, Trade Minister Craig Emerson and now Gold Coast spiv Tim Mathieson who departed the Coast leaving multiple unpaid debts.

Her part in the scam was rewarded with $50,000 of renovations to her house and a $25,000 account at a top fashion house (although one could be forgiven for thinking she never used it.)

The story broke and Gillard went into frenzied damage control.

When the dust settled, Gillard was still PM but ground-breaking journalists were sacked, News Ltd CEO, John Hartigan, resigned. Both Fairfax and News Ltd immediately spiked the story and pulled broadcasts, Andrew Bolt threatened to resign, Laurie Oakes was told, “Don’t even think about it!” Blogs disappeared in a cloud of dust. Radio jocks were instructed to drop it.

ABC and ‘The Australian’ journalist, Glenn Milne, had spent months carefully documenting Gillard’s devastating involvement. His story had been legalled and it ran in ‘The Australian’ on Monday, August 1st 2011. It was immediately pulled after one phone call from Gillard.

Slavish supporter of Gillard, the ABC, promptly sacked Milne.

Gillard continued a barrage of phone calls to the then CEO of News Ltd, John Hartigan and there was a meeting arranged at the offices of News Ltd. What exactly was said at that meeting may never be known but it certainly didn’t resemble what Gillard said it was about.

The Leveson Hacking Inquiry was threatening to engulf Australia’s media and Gillard saw her opportunity. She used Bob Brown as a verbal battering ram to threaten Fairfax and Murdoch with an “inquiry”. Gillard herself publicly entered the fray with her now famous utterance: “There are questions that need to be answered.” That statement was carefully crafted to put the fear of God into the media. After much questioning she has refused to say what those questions might be.

A Leveson-style inquiry here would mutilate the very core of Australia’s media and their executives as it has, and is still doing, in the UK.

Fairfax and Murdoch executives, to put it bluntly, were shitting themselves. Their indecent grappling for a piece of an ever-decreasing circulation market-share would have opened an ugly can of worms. A can I will let sit for another time.

So, this squalid deal was done but the sordid tale still bubbles below the surface. It reaches to the very heart of the Labor movement. We are witnessing only the tip of unions’ mob-like protection rackets and their corrupt manipulation of our Parliaments.

This shameful story will eventually be told in full colour. It will be a long and agonising read.

But, in the interim, today’s fetid political power holds sway.

The feds have screwed Australian anglers over again with green zones announced in both Geograph Bay and the Rottnest Trench.  Yet its ok to have Dutch super trawlers suck up every living thing they can find in our waters.

For all the platitudes and all the assurances, we we lied to.  NEVER trust a politician.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/13943229/fishing-banned-under-extensive-marine-plan/

No science, just political debts paid as a price to govern.  Surely the worse government this country has ever seen.

When are anglers going to kick up and flex a bit of mussle over this constant errossion of our rights and way of life.

If the f@#king greenies get their way, we will all be living under a tree one day eating leaves.

They totally sh1t me to tears.

The new Resources Sector Jobs Board goes live today to help Australians make the most of employment opportunities in the mining boom, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Bill Shorten, the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Bowen, and the Minister for Employment Participation, Kate Ellis, announced today.

The Jobs Board is part of the Australian JobSearch website and would allow people to apply for resource sector jobs, including those covered by Enterprise Migration Agreements (EMAs).

The Gillard Government is committed to ensuring Australian job seekers from all parts of the country have every opportunity to find work in the resources sector.

We are committed to putting Australian jobs first.

The EMA program provides for overseas workers to fill skills shortages on mega resource projects, and the Jobs Board will be an important part of identifying those shortages.

Companies and contractors recruiting overseas workers through EMAs will be required to use the Jobs Board to demonstrate that suitably qualified Australians are given the first opportunity to apply for available jobs.

The Government will take into account the use of the Jobs Board when assessing EMA applications, including the number and skills of Australian job seekers registered with the board.

This Government understands resources companies’ concerns that they may not be able to meet demand on all projects without using some temporary overseas workers.

The Roy Hill project, the first EMA holder, will be required to use the Jobs Board to recruit workers when they commence construction of the mine.

As announced, these agreements will include commitments in relation to the use of the Jobs Board and project-specific training commitments for Australians, which will be monitored by DIAC in consultation with other government agencies.

We don’t want to miss out on these mega projects and the new jobs they create, but we are also determined to spread the benefits of the mining boom. Ensuring Australians are given first crack at resources jobs is a major part of that commitment.

The Government recognises the constructive collaboration of industry in setting up the Jobs Board and notes available positions have already been provided for interested applicants to check.

The board will also display related vacancies sourced by employment services providers, including Job Services Australia (JSA) providers.

The Jobs Board complements other programs and services, including relocation assistance, already available through JSA to help Australians into work.

The free service provides practical features for job seekers and employers including:
•Workforce and recruitment advice;
•Information on government services available;
•The ability to track applications online; and
•A registration function allowing job seekers to record their qualifications and skills that can be searched by employers through the site.

The Resources Sector Jobs Board is available at www.jobsearch.gov.au/resourcesectorjobs and is supported by a Job Seeker Hotline (13 62 68), Employer Hotline (13 17 15) and email enquiries (jobsearch@deewr.gov.au).

What do you guys reckon??

Finally a politician that CAN organise a root in a brothel !!!!

AND also humble enough to NOT take the credit for someone elses work!!!   lol

SEA CHANGE...TIM WINTON’S VIEW FROM THE DEEP
The unsupportable case for a Coral Sea Marine Park ‘no-take’ zone.

Accomplished author and Western Australian resident Tim Winton has written a ‘personal and evocative essay’, Sea Change, in Good Weekend  magazine on April 14th ‘for all Australians who want a better future for our common underwater heritage’ according to WWF who have posted the article on their website.

Winton is a patron of the Australian Marine Conservation Society and undoubtedly loves the sea.

The article, while rich in personal experiences with the sea, is devoid of evidence that would support a case for massive new Marine Protected Areas, which the federal environment minister Tony Burke is currently considering and being urged along by Winton.

By choosing to take a public position on an important environmental issue it is incumbent on Winton (or anybody else) to state their case using evidence if we are to encourage evidence-based environmental policy.  The article reflects none of this, but falls back on appealing to emotions and a ‘rose-tinted’ view of the past.  One can only assume this is because the author could not muster enough facts to support his case.

The current marine protection juggernaut for Australian waters driven by international green group The Pew Foundation seeks to convince Tony Burke that a million square kilometres of the Coral Sea adjoining the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park should be reserved as a 'no-take' sanctuary , banning all fishing, to protect ‘fragile’ marine species and ecosystems.  Australian waters already account for a quarter of global marine protected areas with these proposals set to take that to about half of the total global protected area.  Half, by one country.

It is difficult to decipher what the actual threats are to this ‘pristine marine environment’, to use green group’s description of the Coral Sea.

Climate change and ocean acidification, even if demonstrated as a threat will not be mitigated by a marine park.  Nor will a marine park in Australian waters mitigate over-exploitation of Asian fisheries to satisfy Australian consumers because of fisheries regulation and restriction that has strangled the life from our once thriving fishing industry – another example of Western consumers transferring their environmental impact to somewhere else.

Exploitive fishing by other countries in Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone, which extends to 200 nautical miles  offshore, is already banned.  Harvesting by Australian commercial and recreational fishermen is already strictly controlled with a harvest rate that is amongst the lowest of any maritime nation, even though we have the third largest EEZ in the world.

Despite the fact that well managed reefs can sustain an average harvest of 15,000Kg/Km2/yr, the average harvest rate for the Great Barrier Reef is 9 Kg/Km2/yr.  This is much more than 1000 times below the recognised sustainable harvest!

The imagined threats to this ‘pristine marine environment’ that will only supposedly be curtailed by the imposition of a ‘no-take’ zone surely cannot encompass marine species, as none are threatened with extinction by commercial fishing in Australian waters.  No loss of marine biodiversity from fishing has been documented in Australia.  Declaring large marine parks with no-take zones will change none of this except banning the existing meagre harvest.

If the underwater marine landscape, marine species in general and fish in particular, will in reality not be afforded any improvement in ‘protection’ as they are already in pristine condition – What is the yet to be demonstrated justification for large new protected areas?

A hallmark of environmental campaigners seeking to impose their values on society to ward off some imagined future threat is a scant evidential foundation for the claims made, which is overshadowed by appeals to people’s emotions.

Winton writes “It’s no longer controversial to say the world’s oceans are in peril; it’s been the consensus view amongst scientists for a long time. Many great fisheries have collapsed. Ninety percent of the biggest pelagic fishes are gone. Coral reefs are in strife. Land-clearing and rapid coastal development have put insupportable pressures on many marine ecosystems.”

None of this applicable to the Coral Sea.  Declaring a marine park in the Coral Sea will not prevent adverse impacts happening elsewhere in the globe.  Far better to campaign where the real impacts are being felt.

Winton confuses local scarcity with abundance in general “In the 90s I got used to diving longer and deeper to find abalone where, not long before, getting my quota had been easy work. Prize species of fish became locally scarce, and all around me boats got bigger as recreational fishers ventured further and further out to sea to catch a feed. You didn’t need to be any sort of boffin to know something was wrong; every time you donned a mask and fins the evidence was right in front of your face: there it was - more and more of less.”  It is hardly surprising that popular coastal fishing spots with many decades of locally intense fishing will have less abundance than previously, this however does not equate to a national paucity of fish stocks.  Australian commercial fisherman can fill their annual quotas in just several trips per year with one of the best harvesting rates per unit of effort in the world.  The data supporting this assertion dramatically undermines the furphy of low productivity Australian waters promulgated by green group campaigns.

“There will however be commercial casualties in this process and it’s vital that affected fishing operators are bought out on just terms with dignity.”  This seemingly benign and well-meaning statement glosses over fundamental environmental and economic realities.  The same statement has been used to close off most of the native forestry industry, another vital primary industry strangled by ‘green tape’.

Australian forestry management is recognised as world’s best practice and supplies products society demands, but has been over the last four decades incrementally denied access to over 90% of Australian forests and cannot supply domestic demand.

Australian consumers ‘plunder’ the exploited fisheries that Winton alludes to as the Australian fishing industry cannot provide a meaningful catch because of the restrictions that Winton urges Tony Burke to impose!  The same is already occurring with timber; despite one of the world’s largest and best managed forest resources we have a $2.3 billion deficit per annum in timber products and increase the pressure on clear-felling of Asian rainforests to meet our needs.

Australian government fisheries managers state they implement the ‘best’ fisheries management in the world, again for a resource that society demands.  Yet Winton and others say we should use taxpayer funds to close these activities, extinguish jobs in regional areas and then impose extra environmental demands for these natural resources on overseas jurisdictions that do not require the environmental standards demanded in Australia.  This argument cannot be supported environmentally, economically or on a moral basis.

Winton’s love for the sea and the desire to protect it is admirable, but his efforts would be even more admirable if they were evidential.  Furthermore, his efforts would produce the environmental outcome he seeks with a more holistic view.

Global marine protection needs to be holistic by the very nature of global oceans and many migratory species.
Winton should advocate for increased harvesting of Australian seafood, within sustainable limits, that is currently conducted under strict conditions to protect the global marine environment.  To ignore Australian consumers increasing impact on overseas fisheries while campaigning for vast increases in Australian marine protected areas is environmentally counter-productive.

Australia’s $1.7 billion seafood import bill is a result of incremental application of ‘green tape’ from previous environmental campaigns and restriction on the commercial fishing industry over the last four decades with continued decline in harvest.  All of our imports come from fisheries with minimal or non-existent protection, much more heavily exploited than Australia’s.  Also, the CSIRO forecasts our seafood consumption will increase by 400% in the next 15 years and this can only be met by those exploited fisheries.

Over recent years about 70% of the seafood consumed in Australia is imported. Thailand supplies 25% of our imports from an EEZ that is 5% the size of Australia’s from a wild caught catch that is 11 times greater than the total Australian catch.  Australian fishermen annually harvest much less than 1000 tonnes of yellowfin tuna from the Coral Sea while in the adjoining waters PNG licenses Asian fishermen to harvest 750,000 tonnes of which we then import $165 million as canned tuna.  We protect our fish for Asian fishermen to catch and sell back to us.

It would be far more environmentally beneficial for Australian fishermen to be allowed to catch the maximum sustainable yield in the Coral Sea and the Pew Foundation to campaign for PNG to reduce their catch to sustainable levels.

Further restrictions on Australian fisheries harvest will only add to the existing environmental impacts that campaigners bemoan.

Seafood harvesting is the most environmentally friendly form of food production with none of the impacts of terrestrial livestock or cropping production.  For this reason alone we should be encouraging sustainable harvesting of seafood from regulated waters and there are none more regulated than Australian marine waters.

“It’s not a matter of fisheries management; it’s about the preservation of ecosystems.”  Surely Winton meant conservation of ecosystems, not preservation?  Conservation means embracing the World Conservation Union (IUCN) 'wise-use' of natural resources; preservation means ‘hands off’.  The world’s hungry and poor may not be too keen on a ‘hands off’ policy with regards to a protein rich renewable natural resource with low environmental impact, particularly when that ‘hands off’[no-take] policy places greater pressure on their own food supply.

Is this nit-picking on Winton’s words?  Did he write what he meant?  He is after all a professional wordsmith, so one assumes he chose his words carefully.

This is the problem with advocating for environmental protection, someone might believe what you meant or you thought you meant.  Apart from that, it is all about fisheries management.

Australian commercial fishing has nearly been managed into extinction despite one of the largest and most productive fisheries in the world.  The number of fishing boats operating out of Cairns alone has dropped from over 500 in the 1970’s to a few dozen.

Winton’s view is single dimensional.  He fails to mention the need to manage sustainably to feed a growing global population; fails to mention any food not produced by fishing must come from the land and come with a greater environmental impact, fails to mention the environmental effect Australian consumers have on overseas fisheries.

Every resource we lock up puts more pressure on others and makes balance more difficult. An unnecessary restriction in one place becomes an increased impact somewhere else.  This is the consequence of what he and others are advocating by seeking further unwarranted regulation on the most regulated fishery in the world.

It is a parochial view that ignores the impacts on the global marine environment and the pressing need to produce food more efficiently with less environmental impact.

Instead of adopting the no compromise position of imposing a ‘no-take’ zone over a million square kilometres of ocean, thereby denying forever Australian and world access to a renewable food source, we could consider the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organisation’s vision for fisheries utilisation “A world in which responsible and sustainable use of fisheries and aquaculture resources makes an appreciable contribution to human well-being, food security and poverty alleviation.”

We do after all have the most regulated fisheries in the world; it should not be beyond the wit of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to manage it sustainably without it being locked up.

Max Rheese is executive director of the Australian Environment Foundation

The butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker. What do they know about marine science? Stuff all!
And yet author Tim Winton, TV chef and wife of rich ex-basketball player Anna Gare, and high-profile garbo Ian Kiernan are holding a sundowner at Parliament House in Canberra tonight to address politicians on the wonderful world of marine parks.
Apparently they will be given a "taste" of the joys it will bring.

They are calling it the Seachange Sundowner.
These people are on the front foot now...will fishos respond?

There is a concerted effort by the United Nations and our own federal government, to cut off recreational and commercial fisherman from sea fisheries around Australia. The mechanism for excluding fisherman, as well as other critical commercial enterprises (gas, oil and other natural resources), is the legislative creation of marine parks, justified under a cloak of green rhetoric.

Marine Parks are essentially the marine equivalent of terrestrial national parks, meaning areas where government legislation prohibits various types of human activity and sometimes all human activity. They are a manifestation of environmentalist ideology, which proclaims that humans must be incrementally cut-off from natural resources.

Serious efforts to thrust the marine-specific environmentalist agenda upon nation states can be traced back to the League of Nations Conference for the Codification of International Law which took place from the 13th of March to the 12th of April in 1930. At that conference, international maritime law was on the agenda and although there was a failure to reach agreement, one of the items on the agenda was ‘conservation of living resources’, despite the lack of scientific evidence suggesting any shortage. [1]

After the Second World War there were heightened efforts to formally codify a law of the sea. On the 24th of February 1958, the First United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea began in Geneva, Switzerland. It was attended by Representatives of 86 countries, including Australia. The official purpose is to bring into existence a new code resting not on informal custom (as it has been historically), but on binding treaty.

Read more >> http://www.la.org.au/opinion/110910/globalist-marine-park-agenda

Map of new proposed marine parks:

http://www.busseltonmail.com.au/files/23/77/50/000507723/marineparkmap.pdf

Just would throw it out there to anyone in the know, with reference to the above map, just say I went down to Injidup I can still wet a line and fish from shore, as the green is not connected to the land, where as if I went to Cape Naturaliste and legged it to the tip of the cape I couldn't as the green "appears" to be connected to the mainland?

It also appears to me that special shore based activities are depicted in blue near the green sanctuary zones and here you are allowed to fish etc (landbased), so are you allowed/permitted to rec fish in other areas where there is no blue between the green sanctuary zones that don't meet the land?

To me I hope that you can, as most of these zones that are green and close top the shore are almost the only places land based guys can go down here, minus quite a few areas that remain not talked about  The other thing that has the brain ticking over is Bill Marmion's Quote:

“The bits of the coastline that aren’t in that 93 per cent – you really wouldn’t want to go there anyway,” Mr Marmion said.

Map looks a little dodgy imo and not to clear, and just a little confused and need some clarification.

Anyway story here:

http://www.busseltonmail.com.au/news/local/news/general/capes-marine-park-announced-in-yallingup/2504133.aspx?storypage=1

In todays West Australian the Premier Colin Barnett and Environment Minister Bill Marmion announce the Capes to Capes Marine  Park in the Southwest of the state and on the information supplied in the article without any maps provided i can only think of one thing to say and that is you stupid old fools and you have become muppets for the greenies. You've both reached your used by date and deserve a spot on the opposition benches which I'm more than happy to help you achieve.

See attached

Win a $200 fishing tackle voucher by taking part in the Department of Fisheries Send Us Your Skeletons survey

If you are a recreational fisher and you take part in the Department of Fisheries Send Us Your Skeletons (SUYS) survey you could win $200 worth of BCF tackle vouchers.

The Department is currently considering expanding its SUYS program - which encourages fishos to donate their filleted fish frames for research. They want to find out about what you know and think about SUYS and what makes you choose to donate or not donate your frames. As a small token of their thanks, if you complete this survey [link to http://sgiz.mobi/s3/Send-us-your-skeletons] and give your email address, you will go into a draw for a $200 BCF fishing tackle voucher.

For more information on the SUYS initiative, including the great fishing prizes you can win if you donate your frames, visit www.fish.wa.gov.au/frames 

Thank you and good luck! 

www.shootersandfishers.org.au

Hey crew, if you've had a gutful of ever increasing fishing restrictions, reduced 4wd access or your a law abiding firearm owner who wants to keep more than 3 guns in the safe, AND you really want to have a say in saying enough is enough then the SFP could be for you.

The party needs 500 members to register as a political party and run candidates at the next state election. Membership is only $30 per year, see the above website for details if your keen.

Membership has gone from 0 to nearly 100 in the past week, and that is from limited spreading of the word. Be great to get some of WA's 600,000 rec fishers on board. Yes, I am a member.

 Hi Guys,
 
The Government has released the Submissions sent to SEWPAC on the south west:
 
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/consultation/submissions/index.html
 
Mellissa Parks (Freo Labour MP) – advocating for the exclusion of rec fishing in the trench.  The SCUBA divers working on getting exclusive access in areas of metro waters.(link :http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/south-west/consultation/submissions/pubs/0097wascubadivingindustry.pdf )
 
For some reason the RFW submission is not posted up. something to follow up...
 
Also see the report on the overview of submission received during the comment period for the south-west commonwealth process.
Some interesting figures, particularly when you remove the conservation sectors campaign numbers.  Both the commercial and recreational fishing sectors provided more submissions than the conservation sector in this regard.
 
See Page 3:  “When campaign submissions are excluded, the community sector represented the largest number of submissions, followed by the commercial fishing sector and the recreational fishing boating and leisure sector.”
 
The documents can be found here:
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mbp/index.html

Just heard on ABC news comments from Tim Nicol regarding  Commonwealth Marine Parks in the Southwest of the State and the ammount of submissions the minister received and of the 40,OOO plus received 38OOO wanted greater protection. What really gets my blood pumping is the bias reporting from the  ABC news department. No imput from the fishing community whether rec.- Com. and the fact that a lot of statements made by the Cons. Coun. are porky pies tugging at peoples heart strings. The question I keep asking is why this clown keeps getting the oxygen to make these statements? Surely no one believes what is said by the Cons. Counc. anymore or are people that stupid.

I couldnt find the paper itself but it certainly looks like it raises some interesting points about the state of Australian Fisheries and the influence of environmental organisations. Professor Ray Hilborn is out here on behalf of the Sydney Fish Market so read into that what you will.

On 29 February, Professor Ray Hilborn and Dr Bob Kearney (AM) released a paper titled, “Australian seafood consumers misled by prophets of doom and gloom”. Professor Hilborn is an authority on the management of aquatic ecosystems and the status and sustainability of the world’s fisheries. He is the author of four books and 255 scientific papers. His contribution to science has been recognized by many awards.

Dr Kearney (AM) is the Emeritus Professor in Fisheries Management at the University of Canberra. He has authored 150 scientific papers and is the Chairman of the Research Committees of the Hermon Slade Foundation and the Australia Pacific Science Foundation. His contribution to fisheries science has been recognised in his membership of the Order of Australia.

Their paper concludes that “According to the list of threatened species under the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act Australia already has 27 species of land mammals, 23 birds and four frog extinctions but not a single extinction of a species of marine fish. Furthermore that there have been some serious problems with overfishing around the world, and some of them are continuing”. “But the global picture provides three fundamental messages; the problems are not universal, they are not uniformly distributed and the overly pessimistic view is simply not relevant to Australia”. Furthermore the paper states that 85 per cent of Australian species are not in an overfished state. "This rapid recovery of the status of Australia’s exploited fish stocks highlights the fundamental effectiveness of traditional fisheries management compared to attempts to recover terrestrial systems that have been impacted by urban development, mining or agriculture."

http://fis.com/fis/worldnews/search_brief.asp?l=e&id=50348&ndb=1

Professor Ray Hilborn and Dr Bob Kearney have released a paper titled, ‘Australian seafood consumers misled by prophets of doom and gloom’.

Their paper concludes that the Commonwealth Environment Protection and Biodiversity (EPBC) Act’s list of threatened species does not include any marine fish species, and that although overfishing is a serious problem around the world, 85% of Australian species are not in an overfished state.

-

With regard to certification schemes and what seafood Australians should buy the paper states that, “the process of certification and periodic review of each individual fishery and/or species is not necessary in a country like Australia that has collectively well managed, sustainable fisheries.”

It says that most of the guides to which fish Australians should and should not eat list many species for which assessments are given that are highly questionable, at best. It continues to say that there are 16 or more different organisations in Australia that produce guides of various forms that are intended to influence public opinion, but, “There are no standards or government regulation of the efficacy of these guides.”

The question then is why does Australia understate the sustainability of its fisheries? In a press conference at Sydney Fish Market Professor Hilborn said, “Australia is subject to a relentless anti-fishing campaign that is causing doom and gloom myths from misrepresentations of overseas examples of inadequate fisheries management. I believe NGOs need the public to believe fisheries are in poor shape to boost their fundraising”.

Tom Bibby, Chairman of the South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association (SETFIA), explains, “Today’s report is conformation of what we have known for many years. The truth is finally coming out and the tide is turning. Buying sustainable fish is as simple as buying Australian fish. The Australian Government must take note and act now to ensure consumers understand how sustainable Australian fish is.”

http://www.worldfishing.net/news101/australian-fish-is-sustainable-fish

www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/fill-the-freezer-fishing-trips-are-gone/story-e6frg3sl-1226277644893

so the proposed mangles bay marina enviromental review has been given to the public to review but who is in favour and who would rather see it stay how it is??

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/cedar-woods-releases-public-environmental-review-for-500-pen-mangles-bay-marina/story-e6frg2ru-1226270119619

here is the link to the review

http://manglesbaymarina.com.au/public-environmental-review

http://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Results.aspx?ItemID=147818

Wed 01 February, 2012

Portfolio: Mines and Petroleum, Fisheries, Electoral Affairs

 Dear Supporter,

The fight to save critical South West marine life hotspots like the Abrolhos Islands, Perth Canyon and Geographe Bay has been long and hard.

With your help the Conservation Council of WA has finally brought the Federal Government to the brink of creating one of the best networks of marine sanctuaries in the world right in our own backyard. All of our sources now say that the government will be making a final decision soon.

But now the fishing industry is fighting back. Last week we learnt that hired corporate lobbyists are in Canberra meeting with our Members of Parliament to prevent the declaration of sanctuaries. The fishing industry wants to make sure that they’re the only voice in your MP’s ear when they’re making the final decision.

We cannot let them win. We need to let our MPs know that the community is behind marine sanctuaries and we want them to finish the job.

Your input was essential in getting us this far. In the recent consultation period an Australian record of more than 38,000 submissions went to Canberra calling for more protection. Now, with the end in sight, we need your help.

Today, at the first chance you get, make one call to your local MP’s office and leave a message. Let them know you support marine sanctuaries. This will get the message through to the Environment Minister Tony Burke and tip the decision over the line.

Your local Member of Parliament isn’t a member of the Labor Party. Since it’s most effective if the Environment Minister hears from MPs in his own party, we ask that you call Senator Chris Evans instead. As a Senator and Cabinet Minister he represents all Western Australians. His phone number is 9481 4844.

Leaving a message is simple. Just ring up and tell the person who answers the phone you’d like to leave a message, tell them that you support marine sanctuaries and explain why.
 
If you wanted to send an even more powerful and convincing message, you can deliver your message in person by requesting a meeting when you call.

You don’t need facts and figures, but if you want some help with what to say you might like to try:

1. You support sanctuaries and you're a constituent. Tell them why you and your friends/family support sanctuaries!
2. In the recent public consultation period a new record for public interest in a conservation issue in Australia was set when close to 40,000 people wrote to the Government supporting marine sanctuaries.
3. Less than 1% of Australia's South West is protected but up to 90% of its marine life is unique - a far greater level than is found even on the Great Barrier Reef.
4. At the 2010 election, the Government promised to protect South West marine life in a network of marine sanctuaries.
5. Two of only three feeding areas in Australia for the rare and endangered Blue Whale are in the South West - the Perth Canyon and near Kangaroo Island in SA.
6. There are 10 iconic feeding and breeding areas for marine life in the South West. Protection in all hotspots will be a win-win for conservation, the economy and for fishing.
7. An independent economic study by the Allen Consulting Group found sanctuaries would boost tourism revenue by 20% - this is a value injection for the regional economy.
8. More and bigger fish are found on the edges of sanctuaries - experienced fishers know this.

Here in WA we have some of the most unique marine life in the world, yet still less than 1% of our waters are protected.       

Our MPs are our elected representatives. Your call will ensure the voice of the community will be louder and clearer than any others and that our precious whales, turtles, fur seals and other marine life are protected for all time. For more information, including the numbers of other MPs you can call, visit www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/talk-to-your-mp

Yours,

Piers Verstegen
Director, Conservation Council of WA

CCWA

Telephone: (08) 9420 7266

City West Lotteries House 2 Delhi Street
West Perth, WA 6005
Australia

Contact Us

Might be of interest... 

Tuesday 22 Nov 2011 7:30pm SBSONE

http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/davidattenboroughdeathoftheoceans/about/synopsis

PLASTIC bait bands, used to secure cartons of bulk bait, have been banned by the Department of Fisheries.

Uncut bands pose a deadly threat to marine life who become entangled in the plastic washed, dumped or blown overboard.

Department of Fisheries’ Senior Management Officer Graeme Baudains said anyone caught with the bands on recreational or commercial fishing vessels in WA waters would be hit with a $2000 fine.

“Sea lions, seals and sharks are particularly susceptible to injury or death through entanglement in uncut plastic straps,” Mr Baudains said.

“Cut and uncut bait bands also contribute to plastic debris washed up on shorelines.”

Mr Baudains said the regulations allowed for some tightly managed exceptions for carrier boats and tender dinghies operating in the West Coast Rock Lobster Fishery and rock lobster vessels transporting bait from carrier boats to their home islands in the Abrolhos.

See below...the large green area is the proposed sanctuary zone in Geo Bay. It's about as big as the metro area. The area to be closed off is also where the artificial reefs to enhance angling were set to go, so that plan could be scuttled as well if this goes through.

Saturday I posted a comment on the ABC radio fishing site, basically supporting what RECFISH West had been saying about Fisheries allowing an easing of regs re; rocklobster sizes for the forthcoming season. I pointed out that nothing was being given to recfishers at all as the previous requirements to open up the size of the escape openings in pots negitated allowing crays to be taken with a size  (min) of 76mm all season any cray of that size can quite easily get out of a pot with 55mm escape openings.

I also stated that I felt it was a return to the bad old days of allowing pros to keep the by-catch of prize demersal fish for self consumption as this will in all likely lead to the sly selling of some of this catch at pubs etc, as was happening previously.

Bottom line my comments were removed from the site as quick as a flash. Now if there is a section for comments on a general fishing web page surely  all comments that are not abusive or slanderous or of offensive language should be put up for all to voice pros and cons, or has free speech all but gone. 

shame ABC shame shame.

Rec fishing representatives were yesterday shown a proposal from the diving community (40,000 strong) seeking a rectangular sanctuary zone running from North Beach north for (what those shown estimated at) 20-30km. Taking in all the reefs, islands, etc.
This would stretch from just offshore all the way out to a line that is roughly directly north of Rottnest's West End.
The Federal Government wanted the thoughts of rec anglers on this.
I am not aware of rec anglers asking for anyone to be excluded access from anywhere in this current marine park process...good to see some groups are so self interested that they are willing to throw others under the bus for their own desires.
Thoughts?

PS - The meeting also confirmed that the Federal Government is still looking to shut down huge chunks of Geographe Bay, having a couple of weeks ago backed away from the idea.

A quote from the man pushing marine parks, and offering his "insight" and "expertise" to Government.

This from Professor Hugh Possingham from Queensland, during a Q and A in South Australian parliament.
He is the man who Pew paid enormous sums of money to perform a scientific analysis of our South-West, recommending 30-50% be locked up in marine parks. (Funny how they got the answer they wanted)
Hugh is a terrestrial bird ecologist who applied land-based park modelling to marine parks. (Can't imagine how they could be much different? eek)

"Basically, I have no pecuniary interest in this issue and, as I pointed out, I swim very badly. If I had to swim 100 metres to save my life, I would be dead, and I really dislike the sea enormously."

He has no real life experience on the water. I actually know of one marine biologist who has offered to take him out to show him the problems in the Moreton Bay Marine Park, but Hugh says he is too busy to spend five hours on a boat.

Good grief.

Four Corners - http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2011/11/03/3355047.htm

By Marian Wilkinson and Clay Hichens

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the great natural wonders of the world. Thirty years ago, Australia willingly made the Reef a World Heritage Area. That listing was intended to protect the Reef. Any changes to its management, or developments that might affect it, should be notified in advance to the World Heritage Committee.

In this report, Marian Wilkinson travels to Queensland to assess claims that at least six major port developments - either being planned or currently underway - could potentially put the Reef in jeopardy and destroy industries, like fishing, that rely on their proximity to it.

Coal seam gas is a massive undertaking. It's estimated there are now close to 4,000 wells in Queensland. That number will grow tenfold over the next 20 years. The plan is to take a lot of that gas to Curtis Island, off Gladstone in the World Heritage Area, where it will be processed and exported.

To service the huge liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers and expand its coal loading capacity, Gladstone Ports Corporation is now undertaking the biggest dredging operation ever attempted inshore from the Great Barrier Reef.

Part of the spoil dredged up will be taken out to sea to a dump site within one kilometre of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

Reporter Marian Wilkinson examines why the Federal Government did not tell the World Heritage Committee in advance about the planned port expansion, given the potential to impact on the World Heritage Area.

She also investigates what impact the dredging will have on marine life around Gladstone Harbour and how it might affect the Reef. She speaks to local fishermen who believe the dredging is responsible for a startling outbreak of fish disease in the Harbour waters. And she questions Government officials who say the water is fine and the disease is a result of natural causes.

The southern end of the Great Barrier Reef is just one area feeling the pressure. Hay Point, near Mackay, is in line for a massive port expansion that will see another dredging and dumping operation that could affect the Reef. Port Alma, at the mouth of the Fitzroy River near Great Keppel Island, is also looking to expand and Bathurst Bay, north of Cooktown, could be the site for a big new coal loading facility in the pristine waters of the Northern Reef.

Experts warn this expansion will lead to a substantial increase in shipping through the Reef, increasing the possibility of groundings and oil spills in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

'Great Barrier Grief', presented by Kerry O'Brien, goes to air on Monday 7th November at 8.30pm on ABC1. It is repeated on Tuesday 8th November at 11.35pm. It can also be seen on ABC News 24 at 8.00pm Saturdays, on ABC iview or abc.net.au/4corners.