hey guys

most of us are well tuned in to supporting local tackle shops and better off for it.

here's a brief but powerful presentation on the REAL big boys...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1et_HBmLYw

pity its such an uneven playing field, but only with awareness can we begin to remedy the situation.

do what you can, if you can.

tight lines.

Bullbars could be banned under changes to the national road safety rules currently being considered by the Federal Government.

The Government has invited public comment on proposed changes to the design rules for cars.

Aimed at improving safety for pedestrians, the changes include the mandatory redesign of cars from 2012-13 and could see bullbars being outlawed.

The executive director of the Australian Automotive Aftermarket Association says there have been similar changes to road rules in Europe.

Stuart Charity says the changes will effectively eliminate bullbars on the grounds they are a danger to pedestrians.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/01/25/3120821.htm

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/wa/8478225/move-to-limit-rotto-beach-access/

quote:"
The Rottnest Island Authority will restrict access to three smaller bays and push for a greater spread of visitors throughout the year to reduce pressure on the island, following a report on visitor capacity.

On the eve of today's launch to celebrate 100 years of tourism on Rottnest next year, authority chairman Laurie O'Meara yesterday revealed that it would move to restrict access to Little Salmon Bay, Little Armstrong Bay and Little Parakeet Bay."

this is a huge worry to me as they some of the best beach / bay areas to moor up in over the holidays.

I see Rotto becoming more and more restricted to the boating and fishing public of WA and more tourist / day traveler / ferry focused and with the new hotel being still very smoke & mirrors on how they going to cattery for the locals.

We could not get a mooring this year for Christmas and will have to anchor up in one of those three bays highlighted for closure!

low-oxygen 'dead zones' are getting bigger and more numerous it seems...

between this kind of news, deforestation, agricultural damage, over-fishing, plastic pollution in the ocean...the next 100 years will be something to see methinks...I'll only get another 50 if I'm lucky, but my (future) kids will be right in the thick of it all..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/30/3080628.htm

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/tuna_at_risk_2/?fp

http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/special-features/sustainable-seafood-guide-to-preserve-fish-species/story-e6frg19l-1225958442124

quote"

SEAFOOD lovers should avoid dhufish, cod and groper, and choose whiting, calamari and herring instead, scientists say.

A new guide listing the species of fish that diners should buy to help save the world's seafood stocks urges people to swap popular choices such as shark, commercial scallops, snapper and some tuna for bream, flathead and mussels.

The 2010 Australian Sustainable Seafood Guide, produced by the Australian Marine Conservation Society, analysed data from more than 300 government and peer-reviewed scientific studies and rates seafood according to its sea-to-plate journey.

"

finally they begin to see the light, should we be pushing endangered species in our Restaurants??

old hobby horse of mine that had come up again!

But in 90% of restaurants and fish mongers, they will be pushing Dhuie, Pink Snapper and other high profile endangered fish as per usual!

I agree that we should be encouraging more usage of sustainable species for our fish food needs.

I'd like to see some form of legislation in the food marketing sector to ensure we get a more even spread of fish being processed and utilised in our food markets and restaurants.

JMO

NEWS RELEASE FROM THE AUSTRALIAN CONSERVATION COUNCIL TODAY

Scientific basis to protect SW oceans
Date: 11-Nov-2010

A new science-based blueprint for the country’s south-west oceans developed by the University of Queensland represents a historic opportunity for Australia to become a world leader in marine conservation, an alliance of environment groups said today.

The Save Our Marine Life alliance of 11 leading environment groups said the blueprint will provide the federal government with the information it needs to make accurate decisions about establishing a network of marine sanctuaries in Australia’s South West Marine Region (Commonwealth waters offshore from Kangaroo Island to Geraldton) later this year.

After gathering the best available scientific data and applying world-leading marine protected area (MPA) design principles, the scientists found 50% of the south-west region would need to be protected in a network of marine sanctuaries if marine life was to remain healthy. Currently, less than 1% of the south west region is protected from threats such as over fishing and oil spills.

Professor Hugh Possingham and his team from the University of Queensland found a high level of protection is necessary to protect unique marine life and it can be achieved at minimum cost to other users.

Released today by the University of Queensland, the blueprint – called Systematic Conservation Planning – A Network of Marine Sanctuaries for the South West Marine Region – details for the first time a scientifically-based road map to safeguard marine life and protect economic and social interests.

The University of Queensland also today released a consensus statement of 44 of Australia’s leading marine and social scientists in support of marine protection.

The 44 scientists developed the ‘Scientific Principles for Design of Marine Protected Areas in Australia’, which provides peer-level guidance on the selection, design, and implementation of marine protected areas.

“The scientific evidence in support of a network of large marine sanctuaries in the south west is compelling,” said Dr Gilly Llewellyn from WWF Australia.

“The University of Queensland’s blueprint for Australia’s south-west oceans shows us that we can protect our unique marine life and ensure that we can continue to fish and benefit economically from our oceans,” said Chris Smyth from the Australian Conservation Foundation.

There is a far greater level of unique marine life found in the south west than on the Great Barrier Reef.

“The federal government now has the scientific evidence it needs to confidently make important decisions about the future health of the oceans and marine life in Australia’s south west,” said Tim Nicol from the Conservation Council of WA.

AN oil company has a licence to drill off Rottnest Island - and exploration could go ahead within six months.

Melbourne-based Nexus Energy holds an exploration permit covering almost 2000sqkm from Rottnest to Quinns Rocks in Perth's north, Federal Resources Minister Martin Ferguson confirmed this week.

At its closest point, the lease is just 10km from Rottnest Island and 10km from Perth's northern beaches, including Scarborough, North Beach and Hillarys.

The area could hold as much as 200 million barrels of oil, according to the company.

And Nexus Energy managing director Richard Cottee said if exploration went ahead, the drill rig would be clearly visible from Rottnest and Perth beaches.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/rottnest-oil-well-plan-sparks-pollution-fears/story-e6frg2qc-1225948763880

Kimberley Wilderness Parks

Premier Colin Barnett and Environment Minister Donna Faragher have announced four new marine parks, a new national park and additional conservation reserves will be part of the new Kimberley Wilderness Parks. The Kimberley Wilderness Parks will include Western Australia’s largest interconnected system of marine and terrestrial reserves, covering more than 3.5 million hectares of one of the last great wilderness areas in the world. These initiatives, which will cover an area half the size of Tasmania, are a key component of the State Government’s Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy. The initiative will also deliver a ’landscape‘ approach to conservation through voluntary partnerships, to tackle threats that occur across tenures, particularly bushfire, feral animals and weeds. Marine initiatives The four new marine parks at Camden Sound, North Kimberley, Roebuck Bay and Eighty Mile Beach will nearly treble the total area of marine parks and reserves in WA coastal waters. This will boost the area of marine parks and reserves in WA coastal waters from 1.5 million to 4.1 million hectares - an increase from 12 per cent to 30 per cent. The Kimberley Wilderness Parks will include wilderness fishing zones, which will allow recreational fishing for immediate consumption, to maintain the world class fishing experience of the region. The parks will also include sanctuary zones, which will exclude recreational and commercial fishing and other extractive activities, to protect the highly significant marine habitats. Traditional owners and other groups will be consulted over coming months and indicative management plans will be prepared for each marine park and released for public comment. The first of these, for the proposed Camden Sound Marine Park, is available now.

Terrestrial initiatives Kimberley Wilderness Parks will also:

•upgrade the spectacular Prince Regent Nature Reserve, which contains half of the known bird and animal species in the Kimberley, to a class A national park

•create a conservation reserve corridor reaching across the remote north Kimberley linking Prince Regent National Park and Drysdale River National Park through voluntary partnerships

•protect the Kimberley's most environmentally significant islands as parks through partnerships with traditional owners. Joint management with traditional owners and other groups will be central to the creation and future of the new conservation reserves.

As part of its commitment to preserving the unique biodiversity of the marine and terrestrial areas within the Kimberley Wilderness Parks, the State Government will make an initial investment of $10 million over four years to facilitate partnerships, where appropriate, with traditional owners, pastoralists, conservation groups and other land managers. These voluntary partnerships will deliver a 'landscape‘ approach to conservation that will reach beyond park borders to protect the region's biodiversity against threats, particularly fire, feral animals and weeds. The Kimberley Wilderness Parks and joint management of the new marine and terrestrial parks will create significant opportunities for local Aboriginal people to be employed working on country. The Government will also invest $2.7 million in nature-based tourism to improve visitor facilities in Kimberley parks. The Government will release more initiatives over coming months following further discussions with traditional owners, landholders and the community

Media Statements

• Kimberley Wilderness Parks - Hon Colin Barnett MLA and Hon Donna Faragher MLC
• Plan released for Camden Sound - Hon Donna Faragher MLC

 Kimberley Wilderness Parks advertisement (857.96 kB) 
Background to Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy

Anyone else seen this load of c**k? Feel free to drill a few holes in it, and remember to submit your comments online both here AND at the website mentioned at the end of the page. You can read a little more about it here too; WAD.

Have your say on the Busselton Jetty

Anna Micha from The Busselton Jetty has provided the following information.

As you may be aware, the Busselton Jetty is nearing the end of a 27 million dollar restoration project.

The Busselton Jetty is important to many user groups; swimmers, walkers, historians, divers, fishers, snorkelers, photographers and families. With such a diverse array of user groups, it is important to create safe and equitable areas along the jetty to ensure all users can enjoy our jetty.

It is also important to remember The Busselton Jetty is home to a unique marine ecosystem. There are 300 known species found in the area and the influence of the Leeuwin Current brings a variety of corals and tropical species to the Geographe Bay regions and beneath the jetty.

Although the Busselton Jetty is included in the proposed Capes Marine Park, the Marine Park status has yet to be implemented and the Busselton Jetty currently has no fishing restrictions except for the 50m exclusion zone protecting the Underwater Observatory.

The 60metre end section of the 1841m jetty structure (section 10) located north of the Underwater Observatory has been closed to public access since a significant fire in 1999. Now that restoration of the Jetty will reopen this area to public access, the Busselton Shire has a difficult decision to make; should section 10 be open to fishing or should that 60m section be open to the public but closed to fishing? It is important to remember that fishing will be allowed for the entire length of the jetty up to the Underwater Observatory - about 1.7 kilometres of fishing platform with special bays and three purpose built fish cleaning stations implemented along the structure.

Here are a few things to consider when looking at the impact of fishing access to section 10;

· By opening the end of the jetty to fishing, other user groups will be disadvantaged- divers and fishing lines and hooks don’t always mix! Approximately 5000 divers visit the jetty each year and many consider the jetty to be one of the best shore dives in Australia.

· Fishing pressure will affect the marine life which surrounds the UWO (annual visitation approx. 70,000).

· Increased rubbish around the Observatory- daily rubbish collection and surveys indicate 40% of all the rubbish collected from the jetty can be directly contributed to fishing (Tangoroa Blue reported findings in a pdf available from Anna, contact details below).

· Four consecutive years of fish species surveys conducted from the UWO would be interrupted by the introduction of fishing.

· Fishing on section 10 will bring out security concerns. A static guard stationed at the Observatory costs approximately 150k per year and damage to the Observatory due to vandalism can significantly interrupt trading.

· The already implemented section 43 no fishing zone which currently protects the observatory from fishing ( a 50m exclusion zone) will have no physical barrier preventing people from fishing. Ensuring public compliance of the Section 43 area will be very difficult, if not impossible for the local Department of Fisheries staff.

· Discarded bait increases the presence of blowies and interrupts the species diversity at the UWO.

· The Underwater Observatory is a world class attraction with strong Eco Tourism foundations

· Fishing gear tends to spread out over the end of the jetty preventing walker’s access to the end of the jetty.

· There is minimal depth difference between the fishing and non- fishing zones and all the same fish can be caught along the length of the jetty, there will be no disadvantage to fishers in terms of access to successful fishing grounds.

There is a strong voice for fishing access to section 10 but the loudest voice doesn’t always represent the majority of the population so we encourage you to consider the impacts of fishing in section 10 on ALL of the users of the jetty and take the time to write a quick paragraph outlining what action you would like the Busselton Shire to take.

The Busselton Shire is calling for submissions regarding the following proposal;

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 SHIRE OF BUSSELTON PROPOSED AMENDMENT LOCAL LAWS Notice is hereby given under section 3.12(3) that the Shire of Busselton a proposal to make the following Amendment to Local Law: Shire of Busselton Use of a Public Jetty Amendment Local Law 2010: Purpose: To protect the marine environment in the vicinity of the Busselton Jetty Underwater Observatory. Effect: To prohibit fishing from the section of the Busselton Jetty north of the security gate or signage approximately 50m south of the Underwater Observatory. Copies of the Amendment Local Law may be inspected and a copy obtained at the Shire Office, Southern Drive, Busselton between the hours of 8.30am and 4.30pm Monday to Friday and at any public library within the Shire of Busselton during normal opening hours. Submissions about the Amendment local law will be received by the Chief Executive Officer, Southern Drive, Busselton until no later than Wednesday, 3 November 2010. Mike Archer Chief Executive Officer

If you would like to email a comment please log on to;

http://www.busselton.wa.gov.au/node/4419

For further information please contact Anna Micha of The Busselton Jetty on 9754 0902 or email on // ' ); document.write( addy23098 ); document.write( '<\/a>' ); // ]]> uwo@busseltonjetty.com.au // ' ); // ]]> This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it // ' ); // ]]>

A detailed plan of the restored jetty is available from Anna. It is important to remember that the area in question is the last 60metres of section 10.

Hi everyone,

not too sure on wether or not this is possible?

just recently purchased a 3 year old quintrex with a 40hp four stoke on the back (Honda BF40). It doesn't currently have an hours meter fitted but i was wondering if it is at all possible?

I know they fit hours meters to pretty much all of the new EFI motors but not sure if you can fit one to a carby (3 carbies) engine?

anyone else done this or know if it can be done?

any guage recommendations?

many thanks

Scano

Just thought I would vent my frustration and advise all . The local council who rip off the fishos that use the Leauwin boat ramp at East Freo.

What fisho or anyone for that matter takes $12.00 worth of change with them to park up their boat for 4 hours or more.

24/7  , $3.00 p/hour or $12.00 for for 4-24 hours.

Get real councillors this is out of control, If my memory fails me it was only $8.00 for 24 hours back in June 2010.

cheers coley.

a good article in todays Perth Now by Scott and Jamie,
well done guys on a good write up and fair report on the facts.

http://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/tighter-bag-limits-for-finfish-on-the-cards/story-e6frg3sl-1225931670326
http://www.perthnow.com.au/lifestyle/anglers-outraged-by-demersal-bag-limits/story-e6frg3sl-1225901527262

It shows more and more for the need for compulsory log books for all anglers, be they boat or shore.

Labor.

There you go peoples. It has all been decided now. Windsor and Oakshott sided with Labor forming a Labor minority government.

Finally decided and over (well, still needs to be official perhaps?). But now approximately half of the population will be annoyed, but isnt that the same as any election? Being a minority win though, there should be some interesting consequences that will 'lessen the blow' for any liberal supporters though. Not so easy to pass stuff when you dont have majority, plus the whole shakeup thing.

Well, whatever it means, if you havent allready read it, you now know who won.

(Keep it civil and short on any replies - we all know how these threads can turn out :p )

Recfishwest DRAFT Submission to the Integrated Fisheries Allocation Advisory Committee (IFAAC) - Fisheries Management Paper 237 - Draft Allocation Report West Coast Demersal Scalefish

Recfishwest has developed its submission based on issues and concerns raised at the series of public consultation meetings held last month. A MS Word version is available at http://www.recfishwest.org.au/Submissions.htm#Latest

RFW are keen to receive any feedback you may have on this submission.

PO Box 34,
North Beach,
Western Australia, 6920
Tel (08) 9246 3366
Fax (08) 9246 5955
email

RFW would also urge recreational fishers to put forward their own submission to this important document.  Please feel free to utilise any components of Recfishwest's submission in developing your own personal submission. Submissions to IFAAC close Thursday 30 September 2010.

================

DRAFT version 1, 30 August 2010.

Integrated Fisheries Allocation Committee
Locked Bag 39
Cloisters Square Post Office
PERTH WA 6850

Dear Mr Longson,

Recfishwest Submission to the Integrated Fisheries Allocation Advisory Committee (IFAAC) - Fisheries Management Paper 237 - Draft Allocation Report West Coast Demersal Scalefish.

RECFISHWEST POSITION

Recfishwest does not support an Integrated Fisheries Management (IFM) allocation for the whole suite of west coast demersal scalefish species (48 species) as described in Fisheries Management Paper 237.  Nevertheless, Recfishwest believes IFM can become a functional framework for management in this fishery and recommends IFAAC consider applying in the first instance an allocation for key individual species such as dhufish.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the integrated fisheries management draft allocation report for West Coast Demersal Scalefish.

Recfishwest has undertaken extensive consultation with the recreational fishing community around this issue.  As part of this consultation a number of concerns have been indentified around the suitability of IFM for this fishery as proposed in the draft allocation report (FMP 237).  Recfishwest has developed this submission after considering the many current and future challenges facing the West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery.

The West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery is an extremely important and highly valued fishery to the recreational sector.  This importance has been highlighted by the unprecedented numbers of the recreational fishing community attending the public consultation meetings detailing IFAAC's draft recommendations for allocating this resource. 

Strong sentiment reflected at these public meetings has highlighted that the recreational sector is currently very sensitive to further decisions being made regarding the future management of this fishery.  The recreational sector is anxiously awaiting research advice to determine if the introduction of reduced bag limits and the implementation of a closed season have achieved the required 50 percent reduction.  Until the effect of recent management changes can be quantified, support from the recreational fishing sector towards further management reform will be difficult to bring together.

Recfishwest believes that a decision of allocation in this fishery should not be rushed and would strongly urge that IFAAC consider a staged approach to implementing IFM in this complex fishery.

Given the importance of West Coast Demersal Scalefish to the recreational sector, Recfishwest believes that it is essential that the guiding principles which underpin IFM are closely adhered to in developing allocations.  Recfishwest has made numerous submissions on these principles over the last nine years and must continue to stress two key facts.

Firstly, all fisheries resources in Western Australia are common property.  They are owned by the entire community and administered through legislation by the Department of Fisheries which is required to ensure that there is an optimum community return from the available resource.

While this seems an obvious point, the needs of the community are, and must be, the key driver for determining the allocation.  In the case of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery, any allocation must reflect the highly participative recreational components of the fishery in preference to a relatively small commercial fishery.  For instance, the large proportion of the 70 000 Recreational Fishing from a Boat licence holders fish for species which constitute this fishery compared to only 41 'wetline' vessels in the second half of 2007/08.

Secondly, Recfishwest insists that an allowance for a degree of natural community growth be accommodated within the allocation process.  Failure to provide any accommodation for this natural growth automatically disadvantages the wider community and specifically the recreational fishing sector.

Recfishwest is concerned about the high level of biological, social and economic uncertainty still associated with the West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery and the risk this presents in allocating the shares proposed in FMP 237.  A biological, social or economic risk assessment was not undertaken in the resource report (FMP 247).  Such an assessment should form the basis for determining future management.

Recfishwest believes that certain aspects of IFM and the allocation process (detailed below) are seriously flawed and must be addressed before moving towards IFM of any individual species from this fishery.  These aspects are critical to the successful implementation and ongoing administration of integrated fisheries management.

Catch data

Recfishwest shares frustrations with the IFAAC over delays in more recent Department of Fisheries recreational catch estimates being made available to assist in the allocations process.  If these delays continue into the future, it is unlikely that the Department will have the capacity to collect timely enough data with the level of accuracy needed to manage this suite of these species within the proposed IFM framework.  For example, the recreational sector is currently waiting on 2007/08, 2008/09 and 2009/10 creel survey data.  Furthermore, past creel surveys have been shown to be inaccurate such as demonstrated by adjustments made to the 2005/06 survey by the IFAAC based on the review of Steffe (IFAAC's Recommendation 9) and in the case of the recent Peel-Harvey crab estimates.  Timely and accurate recreational catch data will imperative to the future success of this IFM in this fishery.

Recfishwest has consistently supported Recommendation 2 of the Toohey Report (FMP 165) which states "The development and funding of a comprehensive research and monitoring program encompassing all user groups is essential to provide the necessary information for sustainability and allocation issues to be addressed under an integrated framework.".

Capping the total recreational catch requires extremely concise estimates of the recreational catch.  This information must be cost effective and provided in a timely manner.  It must also include the catch distributions within the recreational sector so that explicit management which provides the correct response in catch controls can be delivered. The catch data must be close to 'real time'.

Recfishwest believes that it will be extremely difficult to achieve such a framework which encompasses all species within the West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery.  However, we believe that frameworks such as these can be developed and implemented for the most important species in this fishery, such as dhufish.

Recfishwest is reluctant to commit to the introduction of new management measures without adequate resources and funding to suitability monitor annual catches.  We believe a failure to deliver this will even further exacerbate conflict and community concerns about the entire management process.

Allocation and Reallocation

Recfishwest believes that management measures should accommodate the growth in recreational fishing participation.  We insist that the natural growth in the recreational sector must be accepted and included in the decision making process for this fishery.
Capping the recreational sector allocation at current, or, historical catch levels automatically forces intra-sectoral resource sharing issues to emerge.  Recreational fishers must compete amongst themselves for a smaller portion of the catch simply because there is natural population growth.  Those who wish to access their share of the common property resource should not be disadvantaged by having to compete against other recreational fishers, particularly given the spatial constraints regarding access in the West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery.

Recfishwest believes that the combination of multiple species spread over a large geographical area will be highly problematic for the IFM process if the Department of Fisheries were to proceed with allocating the fishery as a whole.  We believe that it will be almost impossible to effectively manage all species under a single harvest level given the highly variable nature of the fishery throughout the West Coast Bioregion.  Factors such as species recruitment, species distribution, species abundance and the commercial and recreational catch distributions often exhibit substantial variations between Kalbarri (26°30'S) and Augusta (115°30'E).  Further variation will likely occur through time as the economic and social values of the resource change.

On the contrary, dhufish exhibits much less variability across its distribution than the combined West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery of which 48 species are proposed to be monitored for management purposes.  Undertaking IFM on an individual species basis will therefore have much less complexities in terms of management.  For example, within the West Coast Bioregion, a single species will display similar biological traits, such as growth, reproduction and habitat preference.  Perhaps more importantly, a single species will, within each fishing sector, have a similar value (social and economic) and similar fishery drivers and motives for participation.

Recfishwest is concerned that mechanisms for reallocation of resource share in the future remain unclear, although it appears that a market based approach will eventually prevail.  For this reason Recfishwest see value in applying IFM to commodity type fisheries such as rock lobster and abalone where the major aim of recreational participation is to maximise catch.  In single species fisheries such as these the value of a harvest unit is relatively simple to determine based on 'free market' principles. 

This procedure is greatly complicated in a multi-species fishery in which the 'market value' varies considerably between individual species and, in which, the major driver of recreational participation is not necessarily to maximise catches of these species equally.  Consequently, the value of a transferable harvest unit in this multi-species fishery will be considerably difficult to determine.  For example, in order to increase its catch of pink snapper will the recreational sector have to buy units based on dhufish prices? 

The effectiveness of reallocation of multi-species catch shares between sectors will be uncertain as each sectors utilise this resource in different proportions often at different times and different locations.  Furthermore, harvest unit reallocation might deliver detrimental consequences as catch is transferred between areas due to the largely variance in spatial fishing activity between sectors. 

Recfishwest believes that that dhufish does indeed share many traits with the commodity type fisheries of rock lobster and abalone and would therefore make a suitable candidate for reallocation using a market based approach.  However, Recfishwest remains cautious to committing to the implementation of IFM on any of these important demersal species until the mechanisms of reallocating shares have been clarified.

Social and economic value

Although social and economic values have been considered in the allocation process, they have not been given any weight when determining allocations between sectors utilising this fishery.  Recfishwest acknowledges that these values are very difficult to quantify and only limited information is currently available.  Nonetheless, Recfishwest believes that social and economic considerations are extremely important and the allocation process must endeavour to reflect these values.  The social importance of the West Coast Demersal Scalefish fishery is widely recognised and is highlighted in the Department's Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management framework (EBFM) in which the risk of social impacts from management changes in this fishery was deemed to be severe.

Social values and changes in recreational fisher behaviour are very difficult to predict.  This complication could be somewhat addressed by managing individual species which have high values and developing systems to predict/monitor how these change over time to ensure allocations maximise benefit to the community.  Recfishwest would like to reiterate that we recognise the many difficulties in determining these values based on the limited information currently available.  Given the importance of this fishery to the recreational sector, Recfishwest does not believe that an IFM allocation can be made until more accurate estimates of respective social and economic value can be resolved.

Comments on the allocation process described in FMP 237

If a single species such as dhufish is allocated by IFAAC in the future, the following points should be addressed if considering allocations based on the 2005/06 catch data:

"    It is not apparent how much of the commercial 2005/06 catch was taken by boats that were not allocated participation in the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Managed Fishery.  A total of 1250 boats had the capacity to 'wetline' in 2005/06 and 239 reported catch.  However, 61 currently have this entitlement in the managed fishery.  Recfishwest believes that a large number of boats which added to the commercial catch of 2005/06 were excluded from the fishery in 2007.  IFAAC must investigate how much catch these boat contributed to the total commercial catch and subtract that amount for the purposes of allocation.

"    Recfishwest believes that the commercial catch taken in 2005/06 from the metropolitan zone of 119.5 t should be given greater significance in the allocation process.  Many members of the community believe that the Minister at the time made an explicit allocation decision granting this fishing zone to the recreational sector only.  As such, we believe that this catch, or the catch of any individual species within it, should be added to the recreational catch when calculating allocations.

"    Recfishwest welcomes the IFAAC's proposed adjustments to the 2005/06 creel survey data based on the review of Dr Aldo Steffe.  However, the phone diary estimates (Appendix 2, FMP247) suggest that catches of the key indicator species were approximately 30 % greater than those estimated in the creel survey (FRR 177).  Hence, in contrast to the IFAAC, we deem it more appropriate to allocate a further 30% (rather than 20%) to that reported by the creel survey in order to account for underestimates.  In addition, Recfishwest agrees that it is appropriate to allocate a further five per cent to account for lack of diving data as proposed by IFAAC.  We therefore believe that for allocation purposes the recreational catch should be considered to be 35% greater than catches reported in the creel surveys (FRR 175 and 177).

"    The 2005/06 season was the fifth consecutive year that the commercial 'wetline' fleet were catching above the proposed target range of the fishery.  The target catch of this fishery was set at 558 - 798 tonnes in 1999/00.  Recfishwest has concerns that the IFAAC has made allocations to the commercial sector based on catch levels exceeding the acceptable limit.  Catches of all 3 indicator species (dhufish at 181 t, pink snapper at 278 t and baldchin groper at 34 t) exceeded their target catch ranges in 2005/06.

"    Recfishwest believes that the IFAAC should not make allocation recommendations for any species taken in the Western Deepwater Trawl Fishery as is the case in the draft allocation report.  This is a commonwealth managed fishery which operates outside of the 200m isobath.  The management of this fishery is outside the jurisdiction of the Department.  The scalefish catch of this fishery is highly variable, for instance in 2005/06 this fishery caught 5.04t of scalefish, in 2004/05 the catch was 67 t of scalefish (mixed spp.) and in 2001/01 it was 243 t.  In addition to being outside of the control of the Department, the Commonwealth does not release detailed catch information for this fishery.  Some of the species likely to be targeted by this fishery such as Ruby Snapper and Tangs Snapper feature on the demersal scalefish list (i.e. closure list of 48 species).

Recfishwest is very cautious about entering into large-scale management reform in such an important fishery given such a high level of uncertainty provided by the Department.  The risk for the recreational sector is far too high to endorse the proposed allocation of shares in this fishery at the current time.  Many recreational fishers do not wish to see a system implemented which institutionalises historical discrepancies and for which they have to pay to regain a fair share of the resource.

Recfishwest has some concerns about the Department's commitment to the IFM process given recent restrictions in recreational rock lobster management that overlooked some of the guiding principles of IFM.  The credibility and success of this initiative clearly rests with the Department of Fisheries to demonstrate that community benefit can be realised through this process.

Recfishwest commends the IFAAC for the time and effort which it has put into this difficult task.  Recfishwest has presented its views on a sectoral basis, representing what it sees as the interests of the significant recreational fishing sector.

Recfishwest is keen to discuss our proposed position with IFAAC in further detail.  We look forward to meeting with the allocation committee once they have received and considered submissions on the draft allocation report.

Thank you for your consideration of our submission.  Further information can be obtained from our office on 9246 3366.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Matthews
Chairman
Recfishwest
============


ATTACHMENT 1

Recfishwest would like to propose a workable and equitable solution to the difficult task confronting the IFAAC.  Recfishwest would like the IFAAC to consider making an allocation for dhufish based on the calculation below. 

Recfishwest proposed dhufish allocation.



186 tonnes dhufish recreational creel survey
186 tonnes plus 3.5 tonnes for Abrolhos = 189.5 tonnes
189.5 tonnes plus 66.3 tonnes (35% of recreational creel plus Abrolhos) = 255.8
255.8 tonnes plus 20.1 tonnes (charter catch) = 275.9
275.9 tonnes plus 43.1 tonnes (metro dhufish commercial catch) = 319

Allowable harvest level for the recreational sector with 50% reduction = 159.5 tonnes

==========
End of DRAFT version 1, 30 August 2010.

Here's a question for you, how many of you guys will still do your trips north if the possession limits for the north were halved as well as your catch limit, some thing along the lines of what you Perth guys have now?

One can only assume seeing as a quarter of the state has been already changed it won't be long before they change the rest of it.  So will you give it a miss or do the fillets not matter?

Coalition’s Real Action Plan for Fisheries The Coalition has today unveiled its real action plan to support Australia's commercial and recreational fishing sectors. The real action plan recognises the important role fishing plays to hundreds of coastal and river communities in bringing enjoyment to millions of Australians and to the national economy. A Coalition Government will give greater representation to the fishing sector, increased investment in promoting our sustainable seafood industry, provide more funding for fisheries research and commit to resourcing the fight against illegal foreign fishing. And we will bring the balance back to Labor's flawed marine park planning process. We will suspend the process, allow for it to be restructured and increase consultation with the fishing sector. Labor has forgotten Australia's recreational and commercial fishing sectors. Labor has taken for granted the massive social, economic and environmental benefits that fishing has to our nation. The commercial fishing sector has a value of more than $2.1 billion, making it the sixth largest primary producing sector. In addition, it is estimated that 3.5 million Australians participate in recreational fishing, contributing well over $3 billion a year to the economy." The Coalition will: 1. Appoint a Minister with direct responsibility for Fisheries The Coalition will re-establish separate ministerial responsibilities for fisheries, giving greater focus and representation for Australia’s commercial and recreational fishing sectors. 2. Assist the fisheries industry to adapt to climate change The Coalition will provide $5 million to assess the potential impact of changing ocean environments on the sustainability of fisheries and help individual businesses respond to this challenge. 3. Increase research and development for the fishing sector The Coalition will increase matching contribution of $1 for every $1 raised by industry to $1.25. It will also fund grants of up to $50,000 for specialised research, mentoring or further study for scientists concerned with the fisheries sector. 4. Establish an Aquaculture Industry Development Fund This $10 million fund will invest in industry or sector-wide projects that support the sustainable growth of aquaculture in Australia. 5. Promote a sustainable Australian seafood industry The Coalition will provide $3 million to industry bodies to promote sustainable Australian seafood. 6. Consider the Hawke Review of the EPBC Act with specific focus on fisheries and sea issues The Coalition will review the EPBC Act ensuring its suitability for marine issues. 7. Assist commercial and recreational organisations play a role in developing national maritime safety standards The Coalition will provide up to $100,000 to assist relevant commercial and recreational organisations meet the costs of active participation in these deliberations. 8. Promote the environmental, health and social benefits of recreational fishing The Coalition will provide $1.2 million for grants of up to $20,000 to recreational fishing clubs and organisations to promote the benefits of recreational fishing. 9. Conduct recreational fishing surveys every five years The Coalition will collect data on the social and economic impact of recreational fishing as well as obtain catch data to help assess stock levels. 10. Form a Recreational Fishing Ministerial Advisory Council The Coalition will form an Advisory Council comprising the Minister for Fisheries and the Minister for the Environment along with representatives of the recreational fishing sector. 11. Support a national peak body for recreational fishing and its participation in national consultations on the establishment of marine parks The Coalition will provide $500,000 to a national peak body for recreational fishing and investigate longer term funding options. 12. Immediately put on hold the Marine Bioregional Planning process to allow for its restructure The Coalition will immediately restructure the process to address concerns over Labor’s mismanagement of declaring Marine Protected Areas. 13. Provide a fair and balanced Displaced Effort Policy The Coalition will place responsibility for the displacement policy with a Ministerial panel jointly chaired by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and Arts. 14. Base Marine Protected Areas on science The Coalition will require peer reviewed scientific evidence of threats to marine biodiversity be made available to all stakeholders, including affected communities and industries, before any decision is made on future Marine Protected Areas (particularly any no-take zone). 15. Establish sensible and balanced Marine Park boundaries and develop management plans in consultation with industry The Coalition will consult closely with those people and industries that use the marine environment, including the recreational and commercial fishing sectors, to determine Marine Protected Area management plans in accordance with relevant legislation and other regulatory frameworks. 16. Commit to fighting illegal foreign fishing The Coalition is committed to maintaining all resources currently devoted to patrolling Australia’s fishing zones .................. From a very good source that has posted it on another site, but good news and a bit of logic finaly coming through.

Just got sent this... only one journo's opinion, but a pretty strong one!

· Andrew Bolt

· From: Herald Sun

· July 21, 2010 12:00AM

ONE election result is already clear - and makes this debate about Tony Abbott's "secret" plans even more brainless.

Wake up, people. The Greens will have the balance of power in the Senate.

Labor sealed that deal when it agreed this week to swap preferences with a party that its wiser heads know would devastate the economy if it could.

That's politics, I guess. Winning is all, and to hell with the national interest.

But how grotesquely irresponsible.

Labor is helping into power a party that demands we scrap our power stations and close industries that earn us at least $60 billion a year.

Oh, and it wants us all to have more holidays, because hard work and making money really sucks.

12% of Australians think this isthe party for them, and even Labor now says it's the best of the rest. Yes, that really is how infantile our society, and our politics especially, has become.

But Labor, whose primary vote has been unusually low, says this only because it badly needs Greens preferences to tip it over the line.

In exchange, it's agreed to help the Greens save its own five Senate seats - and to probably win a couple more.

It was already virtually inevitable Labor would win back some Senate seats from the Coalition, which overachieved in 2004, the Mark Latham election.

But this deal also kisses goodbye to Victoria's Family First Senator, Steve Fielding, who lucked his seat in 2004 when Labor absentmindedly preferenced him but will lose it now Labor is steering its second votes to the Greens instead.

That will be all it takes. After this election, no Government will be able to pass a law against the Opposition's objection without the support of the Greens, and Greens alone.

Never before has this party had so much power - and so much opportunity to finally inflict on us some of the policies that so many innocent voters have treated as a just-dreaming position statement, rather than a deliberate manifesto for the de-industrialisation of our economy and the tribalising of our society.

This now is the real issue: how much of our future did Labor sell off just to get these Greens' preferences?

Never mind this week's faked scare campaign about what workplace laws Opposition leader Abbott might secretly plan. The hapless schmuck couldn't get them through a Greens-Labor Senate even if he wanted to.

No, what really needs debate is what the Greens might now demand from a Gillard government in exchange for its vote. And that, in turn, needs journalists especially to at last take seriously this party's policies.

The truth is that the Greens' manifesto has not been written down just for a joke or some mood music. It is the serious work of the serious ideological warriors hiding behind Bob Brown's amiable front.

Vote Greens in this election and you won't get cuddlier koalas, bigger hugs and cleaner rivers.

In fact, you'll be voting to "transition from coal exports", which means ending a trade worth $55 billion a year .

You'll be voting to "end .. the mining and export of uranium", worth another $900 billion a year.

You'll be demanding farmers "remove as far as possible" all genetically modified crops, which includes GM cotton worth about $1.3 billion a year.

You'll be voting to close down many other businesses and industries, including the export of woodchips from old-growth forests, certain kinds of fishing, oil and mineral exploration in parks or wildernesses, and new coal mines of any kind.

You'll even be voting to close the Lucas Heights nuclear facility, even though it actually produces treatments for cancer.

In fact, you'll be voting for policies deliberately intended to make us poorer. Less industrialised. Or as the Greens' policy puts it, for a "reduction of Australia's use of natural resources to a level that is sustainable and socially just". Whatever that formula means.

Maybe you think it won't matter if a few industries get shut, as long as the rest make up for this loss of 6 per cent of our national income each year. Maybe you really are that stupid.

But you haven't heard the rest of the Greens' policies yet, have you?

YOU see, the Greens also plan to shut the coal-fired power stations that produce 80 per cent of the electricity used to run our homes, factories, offices, hospitals, shops, traffic lights and airports.

They not only "oppose the establishment of new coal-fired power stations" - claiming they make the planet dangerously hot - but intend to ban new coal supplies for those we already have.

What's more, they'll hit our power stations with a new carbon tax to make wicked electricity too expensive for you.

Do you have any idea how many businesses would be driven broke by this green frolic? How many hundreds of thousands of jobs would be lost?

Already Labor's threat to bring in emissions trading some time after 2012 has caused power station operators to cancel half the $18 billion they'd planned a year ago to spend on maintaining the ones they had or building the new power stations we'll need as we grow bigger and richer. Power shortages now seem certain.

But if you think the Greens must surely have alternative power sources in mind to make up for the 80 per cent they'll switch off, you're dreaming.

The Greens want to keep Labor's ban on nuclear power, the most likely alternative and greenest source of base-load power. They even want to scrap government-financed research into carbon capture and storage, which is Labor's one hope of making coal-fired stations still greenhouse-friendly.

Sure, the Greens do promise to somehow get 30 per cent of our electricity from "renewable" sources within just 10 years, but there's a small problem. Correction, huge one.

We've only managed to lift our renewable energy to 6 per cent after all these years of subsidies, and three quarters of that is from hydro-electricity. But guess which party bans any more of these river-killing dams?

So consider. If the Greens get their avowed way, we'll have huge industries banned, businesses driven broke and power prices driven through the roof, with not enough electricity for what industries will be left.

So with our income slashed to ribbons, what do the Greens propose? Not deep cuts in every government program, but a spending spree to make Kevin Rudd seem a miser.

It's free money for everyone. If you vote for the Greens, you're voting for an extra week of holidays for all, "mandated shorter standard working hours", more pay to women workers, higher pay for casuals, and better weekly benefits to students and artists.

More pay for less work, at the mere stroke of a green pen. Isn't this a darling way to reorganise the economy? What could possibly go wrong?

Too spendthrift, you complain?

Wise up, friend. The Greens have barely started.

They promise to lift foreign aid to "a minimum of 0.7 per cent of GDP by 2010", which means an instant rise in handouts of $4 billion a year.

Another $2 billion a year will go to scrap tertiary fees and forgiving all HECS debts. Billions more will go on putting train lines underground and subsidising "green" power.

On and on the spending spirals, as if the Greens are the party for spoiled children using daddy's credit card, with not the slightest giddy thought of how it's all going to be paid for.

Oh, excuse me - the Greens do lazily assume that the bill will be covered by hiking corporate taxes, hitting the richer 5 per cent of us with wealth taxes, and slugging air travellers.

Show us your costings, Bob. Wouldn't come within a bull's roar.

I'd be amazed if after a year of two of this that anyone would want to come to a country that by then would be a smoking hole in the ground.

Yet the Greens plan to do their airy best to attract more beggars to their new nation of freeloaders.

Any "asylum seeker" making it here by boat would be freed into the community within 14 days, security checks permitting, and rewarded with instant benefits, medical services and school for the children. These tempting goodies will be offered to "environmental refugees", too.

Guess to the nearest 10,000 how many people from Third World countries will want to cash in? Guess how many more billions this will cost, and what fresh tensions we'll import?

By then, though, we'll have more of our own ethnic tensions than ever, as the Greens divide us into tribes, squabbling over precedent and spoils.

Aborigines will be written into the constitution as having "prior occupation and sovereignty" over this shared land, and will be allowed to "reclaim language, heritage and cultural practices". Like payback?

The more newly arrived will win the right to have government programs "implemented in languages other than English", and to have their "cultural and linguistic diversity ... respected". Like shariah law?

AS for our defence ties with the United States, well, phooey to those white capitalist imperialists.

The Greens want to close the joint bases here, pull out of the US missile defence program and end the ANZUS treaty. Naturally, many counter-terrorism laws will also be "reformed". Which means weakened.

There's not much point in going on, picking out the economic idiocy and social lunacy of a manifesto that would leave us poorer, more divided and more defenceless. The laughing stock of Asia.

It's all so crazy that you may dismiss it as the idle dreams of homoeopaths in tofu sandals. But a new, militant industrial agenda is also buried in this New Age madness, signalling the arrival in Bob Brown's party of "watermelon Greens" - green outside and red in, and meaning business big time.

These, like lead NSW candidate Lee Rhiannon, seem Greens more of convenience than faith, using this doctors' wives party to smuggle in the kind of hard-Left politics that would scare off the voters if they saw it coming under a hammer and sickle.

But be clear: vote for their Greens and you're voting for a return of union muscle of the most bullying kind.

Secret ballots for industrial action would be abolished. Unions would have a formal right to strike, and their victims less right to sue for damages.

Union bosses would have more power to barge into your workplace, and to dragoon workers into "industry wide agreements that are union negotiated".

This is what a vote for the Greens really means. And it's this party of vandals, tribalists and closet totalitarians that shameless Labor now helps to such threatening influence.

SENATOR THE HON RICHARD COLBECK

Shadow Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries & Forestry

M E D I A R E L E A S E 16 August 2010

Labor's Tony Burke runs scared from national fishing conference

Federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke has demonstrated Labor's failure to support the recreational fishing sector by refusing to turn up to a national fishing conference over the weekend.

Coalition spokesperson for Fisheries Senator Richard Colbeck who stepped in for the Minister at the Australian Fishing Tackle Conference on the Gold Coast said Labor had completely forgotten the recreational fishing sector. "The Australian Fishing Tackle Association is to be congratulated for their impressive national conference and efforts to promote the benefits of recreational fishing," Senator Colbeck said. "Despite this Minister Burke was a no-show. It shows the lack of regard Labor has for recreational fishers and fishing tackle businesses. "This follows the failure by Minister Burke to turn up to his own Ministerial roundtable for recreational fishing in Canberra just a few weeks ago instead sending along Departmental officials. "Over the past three years Labor has displayed a complete lack of communication, a complete lack of consultation and a complete lack of consideration for recreational fishers. "When is Mr Burke going to realise he is the Minister for Fisheries not the Minister against Fisheries?"

Senator Colbeck said over the past three years, Labor has:

· Stripped the national peak body, Recfish of its funding

· Banned the fishing of mako and porbeagle sharks and then back-flipped following a national grassroots political campaign by recreational fishers;

· Banned the fishing of thresher sharks

· Threatened massive new no-take marine parks around Australia; and

· Allowed fringe environmental groups to unilaterally influence policy;

Senator Colbeck said the recreational fishing sector and its many millions of participants can be assured they will be genuinely listened to by a Coalition Government. "Tony Abbott has already released our marine parks policy which will see recreational fishers given a much greater say in the establishment of any marine parks. Further initiatives will be released shortly," Senator Colbeck said. "The Coalition will give recreational fishing the respect and recognition it fully deserves as a contributor to the environment, to healthy lifestyles and to the nation's economy. "The Coalition recognises the strength and importance of recreational fishing around Australia with more than 3.5 million Australians dropping a line every year. "The Coalition understands the economic importance of recreational fishing. The thousands of businesses including charter operators, bait & tackle stores, outboard engine stores, boat dealers and many others in fishing communities are critical to our national economy worth billions of dollars and employing thousands of Australians."

Greens Leader Bob Brown’s announcement today that he would seek a 100% ban on fishing across nearly one million square kilometres of the Coral Sea was another warning bell for the future of recreational and commercial fishing right around Australia, Senator Ron Boswell said today.

Senator Boswell said Mr Brown had previously announced that the Greens would seek fishing bans across at least 30% of the vast network of marine reserves now being planned around the country.

Carefully chosen closures on anything like that scale would be sufficient to virtually end commercial fishing in Australian waters, and drastically reduce recreational fishing opportunities.

Senator Boswell said the potential for the Greens to achieve a major part of their goals was high if Labor won the federal election on August 21.

“The preference deal recently done between Labor and the Greens virtually assures the Greens the balance of power in the Senate from mid next year,” Senator Boswell said.

“The preference deal was cemented after Environment Minister Peter Garrett went angling for Green preferences using fishermen as bait. He has been pandering to extreme Green sentiment on marine issues, especially in relation to the Coral Sea, for over a year.”

Mr Garrett has conceded that two environmental groups – the U.S. based PEW Foundation and the Australian Conservation Foundation – were the only stakeholders consulted last year before Mr Garrett provided the entire Coral Sea with interim protection using the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Ocean acidification was the only threat that he specifically identified to justify use of the Act’s interim protection regime. This year he declared the entire zone an area of great interest for longer term protection.

“The Green groups that back the Greens party have now got everything they wanted from Peter Garrett on the Coral Sea, and they will now no doubt seek big closures across the entire marine park network.”

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has unveiled a Coalition Marine Protected Areas policy that would call a halt to Labor’s processes in order to reinstate wider stakeholder consultation and to ensure science based decisions in the development of marine reserves.

ENDS

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/barramundi-caught-in-sydney-harbour

G'Day Crew,

Just a headsup about a WA chap and his wife who are running in the Federal Election for a seat in the senate.

Here's the message he posted on www.australianhunting.net.

Quote
"For those shooters (and fishermen) in Western Australia, my wife and I will be standing for the Senate on behalf of the Shooters & Fishers Party at the forthcoming Federal election. I ask that on the day you cast your Senate vote for the SFP above the line. It’s time that firearm owners in WA made their feelings known and help prevent The Greens from making up anymore ground. It’ll be the first time you’ll have an opportunity to place your vote with an organisation who’s goal is to look after your interests.

Regards
Paul Peake"

End Quote

At this stage I am unsure on his preferences.

Regards John

From a couple of forum threads here on Fishwrecked...it's clear that people are concerned about sanctuary zones.

Tony Abbott has said they will halt and restructure the marine planning process. Australia is under international obligations to implement marine protected areas, which must include no-take (sanctuary zones). In reality, there is nothing different in the Coalitions approach as far as you can tell from the lack of detail, to what is already occurring. Except that he reckons that sanctuary zones hurt fishing communities and industry.

The facts do not support this. They just don't. Practically all of the available research shows long-term benefits to fishing communities as a result of the implementation of sanctuary zones in areas that were previously exploited. Short-term reductions in catches as a result of excluding people from areas end up increasing over time, to be better than before the reserve was put in place. Fish grow more, and bigger, and migrate out of the protected areas where they are caught. Being bigger, they are more valuable to both rec and commercial fishers.

Our fisheries are already over-exploited, as shown by the Department of Fisheries. Our 'world-class management' has seen the commercial collapse, or near-collapse of Shark Bay snapper, Cockburn Sound crab, metro demersals, Swan River fisheries, Peel-Harvey Fisheries, Western Rock Lobster...it goes on.

Our recreational harvest is now under threat from major fishing regulation changes, which are a reaction to our historical over-exploitation of the resource. If more dramatic action is taken, we won't be able to catch them not because of regulations, but because they won't be there. The Department of Fisheries says this - not me, not the green groups.

Marine Sanctuaries are a vital, essential part of the solution, as rec fishers - if you read the evidence (NOT the media releases!!), I believe it is in our interest to lobby and vote for MORE.

Before deciding if you are for or against a halt in marine planning, or marine parks in general, have a read of this:

http://www.ffc.org.au/WA_marine_parks_recreational_fishing_home.html

it is worth taking the time to read through it all and thinking about it all.

20 July 2010

On 20 January 2010, Lend Lease announced that it was selected by the Western Australian Government as preferred proponent for the A$400 million first stage of the 710 hectare Alkimos Community development. Lend Lease today announced that its subsidiary, Delfin Lend Lease, has now signed the Development Agreement with LandCorp.

The push to increase the number and size of marine parks in Australia is continuing.

Here is a well organised response to one proposed around Coffs Harbour from the point of view of people who want to continue to recreationally fish, boat and dive in the area.

www.savesol.com

I've done my bit for them and sent in a submission.

guys some info below , this is pretty important so have look at the guts of this , and get active
 
one  point of note here is the IFAAC have made their draft , allocation recomendations , based on history .............effectivly means the one time rec fishers , needed high catch figures to gain a higher portion of the resource .....we dont have them  as we dont have an accurate means [ imo ]  of knowing the total catch ...however the commercial catch from the metro in 05/06 was removed from the figures for the commercials  ........the more people get to a meeting or have some input the better imho , as this is the only way we can improve the percentages for recs

hezzy
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Fisheries recently released of a draft report on allocation of West Coast demersal fish species for the commercial and recreational sectors.  This allocation has been developed under the State Government’s Integrated Fisheries Management policy.
 
The independent Integrated Fisheries Allocation Advisory Committee (IFAAC) has considered what proportion of the harvest should be allocated to the commercial, recreational and customary fishing sectors.  These allocations will underpin the future management of the demersal scalefish resource on the West Coast.  Consequently, Recfishwest and IFAAC will be holding public meetings to provide information to the recreational fishing sector about these developments.  These meetings present an opportunity for our sector to provide feedback to IFAAC before the process in finalised.
 
WAFIC will be facilitating similar meetings for the commercial sector. Recfishwest will be facilitating the meetings as part of our agreement with government to co-ordinate regional input into management decisions. These meetings are IFAAC meetings to present their recommendations for allocation that will ultimately be incorporated into recreational fisheries management in the West Coast bioregion. The meetings will be Chaired by, and discussion co-ordinated by Recfishwest. Recfishwest and all members of the community have the right to express their views on the proposal. Recfishwest recognises that some elements of the proposal will be controversial and complex.  We ask that you, and all interested parties come to the meetings to hear details of the proposals and ask your questions in a manner that allows the issues to be explored.
 
Please find the attached Department of Fisheries media releases for more information. 
 
WESTCOASTDEMERSAL SCALEFISH PUBLIC CONSULTATION MEETINGS
RECREATIONAL SECTOR  JULY – AUGUST 2010
 
Geraldton 21 July                 6.30pm – 8.30pm       
                                                Casa Blanca Dance Centre
                                                230 Eighth Street
                                                Wonthella
 
Fremantle 28 July                 6.30pm – 8:30pm
                                                Fremantle Sailing Club
                                                Marine Terrace, Fremantle
 
Mandurah 29 July                 6:30pm – 8:30pm
                                                RAAFA Estate Meadow Springs
                                                41 Portrush Parade, Meadow Springs
 
Busselton 4 August              6:30pm – 8:30pm
                                                Royal Palms Hotel
                                                2 Albert Street, Busselton      
 
Bunbury 5 August                6:30pm – 8.30pm
                                                The Sanctuary Golf Club (Tel: 9725 2777)
                                                Lot 100 Old Coast Road
                                                Pelican Point, Bunbury
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
IFAAC’s draft Allocation Report on the West Coast Demersal Scalefish Resource (FMP 237) can be downloaded here:
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/mp/mp237/index.php?0706
 
Any questions regarding these meetings can be directed to Andrew Rowland at Recfishwest on 9246 3366 or andrew@recfishwest.org.au 
 
 
 

Victoria’s largest native fish hatchery is now under construction at Snobs Creek.

Minister Responsible for Fisheries Joe Helper said the work would see an upgrade of new and existing facilities and development of new capacity at the site resulting in an increased capacity for the breeding of native species, including Murray cod, golden perch and the endangered Macquarie perch and trout cod.

“The Brumby Labor Government is taking action to enhance recreational fishing opportunities for all Victorians,” Mr Helper said.

“This will be the biggest upgrade at Snobs Creek since native fish were first produced in the 1980’s.

“This $1.3 million investment will significantly boost native fish numbers and the reliability of supply, to deliver on the Government’s commitment to increase fish stocking by 30 per cent over four years.

“It is expected the new facility will be fully operational by the start of the native fish breeding season in spring this year and there will be no disruption to current fish production.”

Mr Helper said the upgrade would involve several new brood fish ponds to accommodate larger mature Murray cod and golden perch.

“Four new plankton ponds are also under construction which will be used to rear the native fish larvae until they reach ‘fingerling’ size and are released into Victorian waters,” he said.

“To complete the upgrade, a refurbishment of existing native fish production infrastructure including pumps, pipes, recirculation systems, troughs and tanks are also part of this project.”

Member for Seymour Ben Hardman said the development of the new facility would provide more than 50 jobs during the construction phase and in future fish production.

“The construction of the site is further evidence of the Brumby Labor Government’s commitment to support communities through rural and regional Victoria,” Mr Hardman said.

“Snobs Creek has long been synonymous with fish breeding; this investment continues that association.”

Fisheries Victoria Executive Director Anthony Hurst said the new technology and improved fish production facilities would provide a more secure supply of golden perch, Murray cod and other native species for stocking into Victoria’s lakes and rivers.

The Snobs Creek site, including the Freshwater Discovery Centre, will be temporarily closed to the public for the duration of works for health and safety reasons.

Portfolio: Environment

Environment Minister Donna Faragher today announced funding of $1.15million for 18 priority projects that aimed to protect and rehabilitate the Swan and Canning rivers foreshore.

Mrs Faragher said the projects included erosion control, revegetation, weed control, river wall repair and the preparation of foreshore management plans.

The funding was part of the Swan River Trust’s (SRT) Riverbank grants scheme.

“These projects are an example of the State Government working closely with local government, along with environmental and foreshore protection groups, to ensure our rivers and shorelines are preserved for generations to come,” the Minister said.

“Foreshore protection and rehabilitation is integral to the trust’s work and Riverbank funding will boost the capacity of land managers to significantly improve shoreline condition.”

Mrs Faragher announced the new funding at John Tonkin Park, in East Fremantle, where a $27,000 Riverbank project to improve foreshore access for local residents had recently been completed.

The Minister said the joint SRT and Town of East Fremantle project included the installation of coir logs and fencing to protect the pathway and shoreline from erosion, and the revegetation with native sedges along John Tonkin Park.

“Before work began, the foreshore was being eroded and pathways were in danger of collapse,” she said.

“This project has dramatically improved public safety and the appearance of the area, as well as increased habitat through revegetation.”

Mrs Faragher said several parking bays which were being undercut by erosion were also removed and the land regraded and revegetated. Sand was also added to the foreshore to slow erosion and protect nearby trees.

Town of East Fremantle chief executive officer Stuart Wearne said the project was an excellent example of the positive benefits which could be achieved by partnering the SRT’s technical knowledge in river issues with the town’s design and implementation expertise.

The SRT and the Town of East Fremantle will now work to develop a long-term solution of erosion towards the Leeuwin boat ramp. The town secured $33,250 for this project in this year’s grants. Other recipients include:

· City of South Perth - $195,000: Restoration of a 400m section of river-wall south of Canning Bridge

· City of Swan - $173,500: Foreshore stabilisation and revegetation, Swan Riverside Regional Park

· Town of Mosman Park - $150,000: Groyne construction and beach renourishment, Mosman Beach

· City of Bayswater - $123,062: Construction of a revetment wall to prevent further erosion, Bath Street Jetty.

· City of Nedlands - $85,580: Stage Three of the Point Resolution restoration project, including bank stabilisation works and revegetation and erosion control works at Waratah Place

· City of Belmont - $70,306: Implementation of Section 4 of the Garvey Park foreshore restoration project

· Town of Bassendean- $61,000: Foreshore stabilisation and revegetation of Success Hill, Bassendean

· City of Bayswater - $42,400: Section Four of the Tranby foreshore restoration project, including creation of fishing nodes and removal of building rubble

· Department of Environment and Conservation - $40,360: Ecological restoration and installation of roosts, Alfred Cove

· City of Armadale - $37,920: Revegetation and weed control along the Canning River, Armadale

· City of Gosnells - $34,940: Revegetation and weed control along the Canning River, Gosnells

· Burswood Park Board - $28,000: Preparation of the Burswood Park Foreshore Management Plan

· City of South Perth - $27,000: Shore stabilisation, revegetation, weed control and fencing of Milyu Nature Reserve

· City of Fremantle- $16,800: Revegetation, weed control, rabbit control and supplementary plant watering, North Fremantle foreshore

· City of South Perth - $13,371: Preparation of a foreshore erosion control and revegetation plan for Salter Point Lagoon

· City of Canning - $11,014: Revegetation and foreshore protection, Halophila Bay, Rossmoyne

·City of South Perth - $10,334: Maintenance of Cloisters Reserve, South Perth.

The Hon Peter Garrett AM MP
Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts
Nomination of Ningaloo Reef for the World Heritage List; Gillard Government
Transcript
Interview with Rachel Fountain
Mornings
ABC North West WA
1 July 2010

FOUNTAIN: Well, let's look at Ningaloo for a moment. It's an incredible natural asset, so would a World Heritage Listing be a good thing for the region? We've heard so much debate, plenty of voices. There've been concerns and some support out there, plus a lot of worry about just what a listing might mean.

Mostly, I guess the people of the Ningaloo region and the land along that coast there have questions. Federal Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts, Peter Garrett, is here to hopefully answer a few of those. Greetings, Minister.

GARRETT: Hi, Rachel.

FOUNTAIN: I guess the best thing to do for a start is to put a few of the local concerns to you. We're aware that some people, and it does appear to be a minority thus far, support the nomination, but these are some of the questions we've been asked time and time again.

I'll just play you a quick grab of those if that's okay?

GARRETT: Yeah, sure.

[Excerpt]

GRAB 1: Well, I think the impacts - what I've seen and I've travelled a little bit to a few World Heritage areas - and I think it's like putting up a big neon sign for people to come.

And we welcome people coming, but whether we can manage large numbers right now, is quite another question and I think there needs to be some guidelines in place for the management and there has to be more people on the ground to manage it. And I think the only way we can do that is to look at what's really affecting the Ningaloo Marine Park and the fish stocks is critical.

You know, we would like to think that when something as important as this to the state of Western Australia is being pursued, that people would actually come on the ground and see what they're talking about, what it's all about and bring some of the high officials from Canberra to do that.

And also from UNESCO, from the World Heritage people, bring some of that crowd over and have a proper meeting with the people on the ground who manage it every day of the year.

GRAB 2: I would have to say that the consultation has been extremely poor and that our knowledge of what it might mean to our marine-based businesses is very poor as well, because of a lack of consultation.

[End of excerpt]

FOUNTAIN: I guess the most obvious question that arises here, Minister, is how will you help the community to manage the area so that the human traffic that a World Heritage Listing brings doesn't destroy that very pristine environment that it's supposed to recognise and to protect?

GARRETT: Yeah, look, it's a good question, Rachel, and I think the answer is that having World Heritage Listing does mean that you'll get clear management guidelines for the area and that's entirely appropriate and as it should be.

And I guess the overall template for me in relation to this debate is to recognise that World Heritage Listing is an identification of values that are considered outstanding. It is the case that those values will most likely attract more tourism, but you're already getting increased interest and tourism activity happening up and down the West Australian coast.

So World Heritage Listing will effectively provide the opportunity for clear guidelines and clear management. And on the question of officials having a look or people coming to see it, I've been to Ningaloo. Commonwealth and state officials have been on a number of occasions, including since December 2007. Many meetings have been held in relation to the issue.

In relation to the lady's comment about World Heritage officials themselves, from the IUCN, coming and visiting, they will be visiting Australia later and coming to Ningaloo. I certainly do recommend that they take the opportunity to meet with the community, if that's possible. They'll certainly be visiting. There's no question that they wouldn't.

And finally on consultation, there has been a fairly significant amount of consultation and it's typical in different places that the consultation that takes place isn't considered satisfactory. But that's sometimes because there are other people putting views about what World Heritage does and doesn't mean.

FOUNTAIN: Just on that point, I'm sorry to interrupt. The community doesn't feel that there's been enough consultation, but the consultation that there has been has surely thrown up the issue that the majority of the community who we've spoken to and canvassed and who call in constantly, don't want a World Heritage Listing.

GARRETT: Well, I think that there's an issue - a more important issue here and that's having accurate and correctly factual information in the debate. And I know that you spoke to the Opposition spokesman Mr Hunt the other day, who's completely wrong about World Heritage and National Heritage Listing.

He doesn't understand it and is saying things which are clearly factually incorrect and I think frankly just muddying the debate in an extremely poor fashion. So when you've got, you know, politicians or other people sort of making comments which are either inflammatory or incorrect…

FOUNTAIN: Minister, I'm sorry to interrupt, but you're not really answering the question.

GARRETT: Well, I make the point to you that you've had Mr Hunt on the radio and writing to me as saying that it's potentially an illegal listing, that there are issues around people that are holding partial leases that shouldn't be included in the listing and the like and completely misunderstanding that there is no impact upon existing leases at all. That this is a…

FOUNTAIN: But haven't you just said that the management, there will be stringent guidelines for the management of the area?

GARRETT: Well that guidelines for managing the area in terms of people who come to the area. That's not about managing the existing activities that are underway. This - both National Heritage Listing and World Heritage Listing - does not affect existing partial activities. It does not affect existing mining activities, it does not affect existing tourism activities.

FOUNTAIN: But they're all tied up together, for instance, on those pastoral leases, people come and do wilderness fishing and I understand, actually, that it will impact that amount of time people can stay there. So there will be - these pastoralists have been managing the area for decades, now it will affect their management of the area.

GARRETT: Well, Rachel, again, I don't think that's exactly accurate. It's really important to understand that existing activities won't be affected. They continue under the existing WA laws and the local government laws.

And it's the same in other World Heritage areas around Australia. I mean, this is a nomination that was supported by the West Australian Government and I was pleased, by the way, for that support. And I think it's going to…

FOUNTAIN: Minister, I'm sorry to interrupt. We are just about to run up onto the news, but we'll have more from you just after this very quick bulletin.

GARRETT: No worries.

INTERVIEW INTERRUPTED FOR NEWS BULLETIN

FOUNTAIN: 27 to 11, Rachel with you this morning on ABC North West. Minister Peter Garrett is my guest this morning. Good morning again, Minister.

GARRETT: Morning, Rachel.

FOUNTAIN: We were getting a bit mired in the debate there. I guess the simple question that we need a simple answer to is, how will these new management procedures change? What will be the differences? People have felt that there's a lack of consultation in the sense that they don't know what World Heritage will mean for them.

GARRETT: Yeah look, I think the key thing in this debate is to separate out the claims which are made which are incorrect from what actually World Heritage will mean and then look at what likely steps will be taken down the track.

So let's just deal with the claims that are made and settle those first.

FOUNTAIN: Fine.

GARRETT: For example, there's no secret plan for a buffer zone. There's no activities that would be banned outright because of Heritage Listing. Existing activities won't be affected.

FOUNTAIN: As in fish catch limits and wilderness camping?

GARRETT: Well, fish catch limits are an issue for the West Australian Government. They're not a World Heritage issue at all. World Heritage Listing is about the outstanding values of a particular location and the only time where you have a decision about that is if there is a proposal for a very large scale development, for example, that may have an impact on those World Heritage values.

Now in that case, if that were to happen, it is something that would be considered by a Minister. But, you know, fishing, camping, people exercising their dogs, snorkelling, diving, hiking, you know, enjoying the area, they're all low scale, low impact activities that won't likely have an impact on the Heritage values of the area.

FOUNTAIN: I've actually heard, though, Minister, that wilderness camping will be affected. These regions along the coast there, particularly the ones managed by the pastoral stations, or ones where families go to camp for say months at a time. It's a long held tradition and we've heard that there'll be a limit placed on the amount of time that people can spend wilderness camping in those regions.

GARRETT: Well, I don't know who you've heard that from or what that's in relation to, but I can say very clearly that existing WA laws in relation to camping permits and numbers of people and fish catchers and all of those sorts of matters that people have raised clearly with you on the radio, are matters that go to the WA existing legal framework.

What's really critical to understand here is that World Heritage Listing hasn't had any effect on most of the developments that have taken place in Shark Bay. Even in the past where we've had applications for developments and they include things like expanding a resort, you know, flood management works, expansion of pearl farm, et cetera, et cetera.

Most of those would not have even come to the Federal Minister because the test for me under my legislation or anyone who has my job, he or she, is whether or not any activity will have a significant impact on World Heritage values.

So it's really important to recognise that. It's important to know that activities that are going on now and will go on in the future, they'll still be managed under the existing legal framework.

FOUNTAIN: I might just play you for a moment, Minister, a couple of opinions on - one from the Carnarvon Shire President about what he's observed in Shark Bay and one from a current councillor on Shark Bay on that issue.

GRAB 1: If it's such a good idea, I suppose we need someone to give us an example, a specific example of the benefits because we live right next door to Shark Bay and anecdotally and visually, the benefits there seem to be fairly limited. But we'll just wait until someone can convince us that it's a good idea before we embrace it totally.

GRAB 2: Well, there are obviously areas of the coastline where you cannot camp and you cannot - with that goes fishing and barbecuing, et cetera. So, you know, they - so their crowd have to apply certain stringent rules and it's a two-edged sword.

In the one breath, they want it back to nature and all the little creatures flourish and survive, but by the same token, the conservation must expect a traffic of people to come to see it. It helps keep the kitty solvent.

So you've got to - in the one breath, stuff that's threatened and the other breath, a well meaning - I don't think it's very practical, frankly, a lot of it.

FOUNTAIN: That was Tim Hargreaves at the end there, Minister. He's one of the current councillors in Shark Bay and the canvassing of opinions that we had there in Shark Bay was that it has provided an extra level of red tape to a lot of developments.

GARRETT: Yes, but you know, we've got world heritage properties right around Australia and the economic benefits that are generated by world heritage visitation and world heritage properties is quite clear.

I mean even in Shark Bay we've had additional funding for projects to help the environment for short-term…

FOUNTAIN: How much funding?

GARRETT: I think over half a million dollars from the Jobs Fund for projects.

FOUNTAIN: Not a huge amount when you consider the cost of development in Western Australia though.

GARRETT: Oh well, I mean let's not be too cavalier about it, but I think the point is that you were asking me whether there'd been any funds that came as a result of the world heritage listing and I'm now telling you that there are, there has been some; over a quarter of a million under Caring for our Country to help with feral animal control.

But I guess the bigger issue here is a pretty straightforward one, Rachel, and it's this: these areas are going to be increasingly sought after by tourists because they are beautiful, because they have got high natural values and the like and there will always be a tension between local communities and others who basically want to be able to keep it as it is and who are concerned with the sort of, the increasing demands and the increasing numbers of people coming into the area.

I very much understand that, but those issues are ones that need to be properly regulated and managed through local governments, through state governments, through the existing regulations.

What World Heritage listing does do though, which I think's really important, is it provides an extra level of protection over and above that that's already in place under state laws only in as much as, if there is going to be a significant development which is going to significantly impact on values, then it needs to be assessed.

It doesn't mean it doesn't happen, it just means it needs to be assessed.

FOUNTAIN: How does that differ from the protection that National Heritage would give it?

GARRETT: Well, under the EPBC Act, it means that the Environment Minister can look at whether the values that are identified, say in World Heritage listing or national listing, but in this case World Heritage listing, are going to be significantly impacted upon.

Let me give you one quick example for your listeners.

Bondi Beach in Sydney has national heritage listing. Now that listing hasn't changed a single squiz of activity that goes on down at Bondi Beach.

FOUNTAIN: When did it get the listing, Minister?

GARRETT: The listing was done 18 months or so ago. The precise date, I won't give you a…

FOUNTAIN: So a long time after the area had been developed though?

GARRETT: Yeah, but here's the point: it's the values that are identified at Bondi Beach, just like the values at Ningaloo, but the important part - now Ningaloo, it's the values of the fringing reef and the karst and sort of the geography of that area that are considered really important and of world heritage value.

In Bondi Beach where its National Heritage Listing, it was the arc of the beach, it was the surf club, it was the streetscapes and the like.

Now activity goes on there as it has in the past. It's only if someone popped up and said we want to stick up a 60 foot skyscraper in the middle of Bondi Beach, we want to knock over the surf club and the row of shops and houses down the front in order to do that, then you would say, well hang on a minute, that's probably going to have a significant impact on those national values that have been listed.

The same applies here, at Ningaloo. It's only where you've got an activity that's likely to significantly impact upon the values that are there.

Now I would say to the community is this, that whether it's Peter Garrett or Donna Faragher or whether it's another minister sitting in this role at state and federal level, that is a better thing for this area to have; potential protection in the event that something comes along which provides significant impact on the values that everybody cherishes, everybody loves, those who live there and those that have been identified as being of universal value.

FOUNTAIN: Mr Garrett, if we can just move on from the reasoning behind it for a moment, and I know you have been patient with us today, I've got a couple of quick questions from the community that they wanted to pose to you. Do you have a couple of minutes for that?

GARRETT: Yes, sure.

FOUNTAIN: This is from Barry Sullivan. He's from the Exmouth Chamber of Commerce and he says in the World Heritage Convention, this is paragraph 123, it states that 'participation of the local people in the nomination process is essential to enable them to have a shared responsibility with the state party in the maintenance of the property' et cetera, et cetera.

It basically goes on to suggest that the local community's support is a vital element.

Given the obvious community angst in this case, and the incredible show of concern at Tuesday's meeting, do you think you've failed to get that support?

GARRETT: No, I don't. I mean there have been consultations underway since December 2007. I've got a list of the various meetings that have been held here, the letters that went out to all the leaseholders and also the fact that I went to Exmouth myself, met the Shire Council, Chamber of Commerce and others with David Templeman.

There was a significant period of consultation with the government in terms of delivering the boundary.

Now I had meetings with people who put it to me that World Heritage Listing would mean, for example, that they couldn't do this or they couldn't do that and we provided the information back to them to provide clarity for that issue. My hope is that so long as we don't have people like Mr Hunt and others muddying the waters, people will understand the genuine benefits that world heritage can bring to the community.

The community will have the opportunity to put their views as well to the IUCN and I really encourage that. I recommend that the IUCN meets with the communities to enable that to happen.

FOUNTAIN: You have got a bit off track though because what I'm saying is consultation doesn't equal support and according to this Convention it seems that support is what's necessary.

I will just be very quick and I'll move on, Minister. Ronnie Fleay, the Exmouth Shire President, she says in view of the national heritage listing and the imminent World Heritage listing, will the Federal Government commit to fund the Ningaloo Research Centre which is, in a sense, an interface between the scientific goings on and the public. It's a project for the future protection of the Ningaloo region.

Her question brings us to an interesting point which is, will the Federal Government be putting more money towards this than they put towards Shark Bay?

GARRETT: Well obviously I'm not going to commit to a funding prior to a nomination proceeding through the IUCN on the basis of what's been put to me over the phone.

FOUNTAIN: Can you give us some indication though?

GARRETT: Well, what I would say is that because the benefits that come to regional economies and state economies from World Heritage listing in other parts of the country and the obvious example we have here is the wet tropics and the Daintree Rainforest and the Great Barrier Reef in Far North Queensland.

There are a range of benefits and there are a range of additional programs that come in to provide support of one kind or another and that happens at the state and at the commonwealth level.

I guess, just very quickly, Rachel, I say this. There was a lot of opposition to World Heritage listing of the wet tropics rainforest, a lot of opposition from a range of groups, local businesses, local councils, politicians on the coalition side, Aboriginal people and others.

The majority of people now see it as definitely being a positive. It's brought positive benefits for the region, both economically and socially and both governments, in fact governments at all levels, do inevitably provide additional levels of support and programs because of what World Heritage brings.

Now I'm not going to start promising things over the phone to you until this process is concluded. What I can say is that I'm really confident that a World Heritage listing when it happens, does provide overall benefit. When that takes place then governments will respond.

FOUNTAIN: We've heard there's no buffer zone and I'm sure that's a relief for a lot of people who are listening.

We've got a question from Theresa in Exmouth. She says, and just very quickly, we've been told World Heritage will not affect any existing business prior to lodgement.

Her concerns about the eight oil and/or gas rigs sitting just outside that Ningaloo marine park boundary, visible from shore, and they could make a serious, if not total devastation to the reef if there were to be an oil spill like that in the Gulf of Mexico, even a smaller one like Montara.

So will those companies and their future developments be reassessed after World Heritage nomination, because it seems like that's a bigger risk than even tourism and local impact on the area?

GARRETT: Well look it's a really good question and it's something which the government federally is looking at very closely anyway. We've got a Commission of Inquiry into the Montara accident. It's the only one we've had of its kind offshore but we don't want to see any more again.

We'll bring forward a whole series of additional measures which we think are necessary, once we've seen what the commission recommends.

It won't be specifically under the World Heritage issue that these issues are regulated. It'll be specifically through the Minister for Resources and myself if it's in Commonwealth waters. If it's in state waters it'll be up to the West Australian minister.

But I guess the shorthand is this, we will need to set the bar as high as it needs to be in terms of environmental standards for things like offshore oil exploration and drilling. We'll do that. It's only if there's any proposed development that's likely to have a significant impact on the values, the World Heritage values, that it then gets considered by the Federal Government.

What happens then, of course, is you take advice. You listen to community, you take advice from scientists and experts and other agencies that are involved and it's only on that basis that you ultimately make a decision.

FOUNTAIN: Minister Peter Garrett, thanks for your time and your patience this morning. I hope this is the beginning of an open dialogue about the issue?

GARRETT: Look, thanks Rachel. I know that you've tried to get us on a bit early and we had a fair bit on. I've just been back from Morocco and the International Whaling Commission, but I'm really happy to come on and talk about it because I think there's a bit of misunderstanding around it.

If we can help clear that up so that people have got a good idea about World Heritage, I'll be a happy man.

Mon 12 July, 2010 Fisheries Minister Norman Moore has moved to resolve a long-standing conflict between recreational and commercial fishers in the State’s South-West.

The Minister has put in place new management arrangements for commercial beach seine fishing for fish species other than salmon. It follows management arrangements for commercial salmon fishing in the South-West that were introduced in July 2009, when a closure was introduced for Geographe Bay. Mr Moore said from next Tuesday commercial beach seine fishing would be prohibited between Port Geographe (at Busselton) and Black Point (east of Augusta).

Some commercial beach seine fishers would be allowed to continue to fish between Port Geographe and Tim’s Thicket (south of Mandurah). “It is important to address resource-sharing issues between commercial and recreational fishers,” the Minister said.

“In this case, I have taken into account the unique values of the Geographe Bay and Capes region as important recreational areas. “However, in removing access to these traditional fishing areas for commercial licence-holders, who have mainly targeted baitfish, we need to ensure the fishers are appropriately compensated.

“The 11 commercial beach seine operators affected by the new management arrangements will be offered compensation.” Mr Moore said he had decided to allow continued access to Flinders Bay near Augusta for one commercial fisher, who uses a haul net there on an infrequent basis to target whiting and mullet as part of his estuarine fishing operation in Hardy Inlet.

“There is minimal user conflict in this area and a strong demand for fresh fish in the local retail market, so it is reasonable to allow this sole operator to continue beach seine fishing in Flinders Bay for the time being,” he said. Minister's office - 9422 3000