Australia Plans More Protections For The Great Barrier Reef

[blue hula]

The data is contained in the inshore overview section under northern fisheries {which covers the GBR......

It does NOT cover the GBR. The inshore fishery extends to the western end of the lagoonal system of the GBR (i.e. the western boundary of the GBR) and focuses on rivers, estuaries and bays – NOT reef. Plus, none of the species listed as major catch are reef associated species. – see page 101 and table 1.11 http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/extra/pdf/fis ... erview.pdf

in it you wil notice that overall Total { for all species} harvest has increased since 1989.....even though the total boats have only increased about 15 percent.

This was attributed to an overall increase in crab catch – invertebrates often do well when fish abundance declines (e.g. the snow crab fishery in Newfoundland following decimation of the cod stocks)

A decrease in per boat catches of trout can be that the boat targeted other types of fish instead.and that demand for certain types of fish in 1989 fish may have changed and focused on other species {like shark} .....

Right – coral trout and emperors are HIGHLY preferred species but fishers decided to ignore them even in their abundance. Also, the underwater visual surveys they did showed DECLINES in real abundance …. So I don’t think this holds much water

Furthermore nowhere does report suggest that fish populations of any species other then the few targeted species are being effected by the fishing industry or that the current threats to the health of the coral and reef iteself will benifit from slight decreases in fishing pressure........

You’re correct Kalk – the Department of Fisheries, in their management reports on specific stocks does not discuss how changes in fishing pressure will affect habitats and other species. That’s because Fisheries Departments generally take a population based approach to the issue.

The evidence demonstrating that fishing affects habitats and other species is in the 9+ books and articles I’ve already cited which you haven’t looked at. Including references to evidence that crown of thorn outbreaks are less aggressive in areas with less fishing pressure.

The report does bring about the fact that the 1997 typhoon decreased the number of fish in the area and despite this natural depletion of fish stocks ......the fish populations rebounded and then recorded record total fish catches in 2000.....giving credence to the notion that water quality and environment play a far greater role in maintaining reef heath and fish stocks then do the removal a limited number of fish for food or pets. :wink:

No ones has said water quality isn’t important … but you have no basis for commenting on the relative importance of water quality and fishing on habitats, targeted fish or nontarget fish.

I thought you didn’t like “notions” – you certainly have slammed the notions of scientists.

Cheers, Blue hula

 

[Kalkbreath]

Everything your stating is disproven in a reef tank........There are no herbivors in many reef tanks. Hell there are not even that many herbivore fish in the Carribean? Name me some ? Then name any of those you listed that are fished ? Dont hand me that same crock that "even one fish removed from the reef upsets the intire ballance " There have never been more then a tiny number of herbivores removed from the Carribean.....and with the increased number of predators removed that would leave more herbivores not less..?

 

[mkirda]

Everything your stating is disproven in a reef tank........There are no herbivors in many reef tanks.

Sure there is. Need the species name? Homo sapiens. They typically act pretty much as a top-level herbivore when their tanks get overgrown...

Hell there are not even that many herbivore fish in the Carribean? Name me some ?

All herbivorous fish.

Then name any of those you listed that are fished ?

All of them.

If you think I am wrong, what exactly do you consider 'by-catch'?
And how do you think weirs, nets and fish traps are selective towards predators?

Nevermind. I know you haven't got an answer...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[blue hula]

Everything your stating is disproven in a reef tank........

Kalk, I don’t actually care two figs whether it works in a reef tank or not … a reef tank is an artificial environment. In research, looking at a reef tank is called an experiment. Most ecologists recognise that lab doesn’t necessarily translate to the real world and that you have to look at what happens on the reef… not in your piddly unreplicated tank.

There are no herbivors in many reef tanks.

Gee, guess no reefkeepers have any damsels or even a Nemo ?

Hell there are not even that many herbivore fish in the Carribean? Name me some ? Then name any of those you listed that are fished ? Dont hand me that same crock that "even one fish removed from the reef upsets the intire ballance "

Many of the parrotfish (family scaridae) eat algae and are heavily fished in places like Barbados and St Lucia ON THE REEF

Dont hand me that same crock that "even one fish removed from the reef upsets the intire ballance "

When have I or anyone else ever said that?

There have never been more then a tiny number of herbivores removed from the Carribean.....

And your source for this statement would be ???????????????????

 

[Kalkbreath]

Everything your stating is disproven in a reef tank........There are no herbivors in many reef tanks.

Sure there is. Need the species name? Homo sapiens. They typically act pretty much as a top-level herbivore when their tanks get overgrown...

When they get overgrown? I have never had one get overgrown. Many tanks are set up with no fish ,no herbivors {other then snails } and those tanks DO NOT become overgrown.....infact it is more often the tanks with fish that become overgrown...

If you think I am wrong, what exactly do you consider 'by-catch'?
And how do you think weirs, nets and fish traps are selective towards predators?

They are selective in that these fish do not follow the smell of bait. and These fish stay within the reef itself they do not fall victim to nets because they like the corals ,do not leave the reef itself. Not the caribbean tangs and blennies, your arguement would apply for the Indo Pacific .......But then again , were not you arguing that fishing in the Philippines has little effect? :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

la"]Kalk, I don’t actually care two figs whether it works in a reef tank or not … a reef tank is an artificial environment. In research, looking at a reef tank is called an experiment. Most ecologists recognise that lab doesn’t necessarily translate to the real world and that you have to look at what happens on the reef… not in your piddly unreplicated tank.

......................I will remember that when cyanide testing lab results are quoted by you and Peter! A reef aquarium is a perfect example of how green algae is NOT the natural colonizer of reef rock Pink algae is {coraline} The algae in a reef tank will absorb evey bit of amonnia and nitrite quickly. Many times the testing of aquarium water wil show little or no amonnia or nitrite despite having tremendous amounts of hair algae. This is because the algae is consumming it as fast as it is being introduced into the enviroment. The algae stops growing when the food supply is cut off. It is only when there is an increase in food source like a dead animal in the tank the a "bloom " in algae happens all of a sudden .....Out on the reefs in Florida, there have been several times in the last decade that sudden increases of algae have blanketed the reefs. Fish populations have remained steady before and after these blooms......Did the fish decide to stop eating the green stuff? Or was there a sudden increase in the food supply for the algae? Like a change in water currents?

] There have never been more then a tiny number of herbivores removed from the Carribean.....

And your source for this statement would be ???????????????????

The vast majority of herbivors in the caribbean are tiny blennies , snails and crustations......there are few native tangs and the parrot fish eat green incrusted coralrock ...not from between corals like a bristletooth .

 

[mkirda]

When they get overgrown? I have never had one get overgrown. Many tanks are set up with no fish ,no herbivors {other then snails } and those tanks DO NOT become overgrown.....infact it is more often the tanks with fish that become overgrown...

You realize that you are contradicting yourself, don't you? Snails are herbivores, at least the ones we typically keep in our tanks. You never clean your glass ever? No mechanical filtration? And how about all those newbies who post all about their tanks getting overgrown with cyano and hair algae? They are all posting lies to support my contention?

They are selective in that these fish do not follow the smell of bait. and These fish stay within the reef itself they do not fall victim to nets because they like the corals ,do not leave the reef itself. Not the caribbean tangs and blennies, your arguement would apply for the Indo Pacific .......

So all the weirs, nets and fish traps work differently in Jamaica than the Philippines? The fish are smarter in Jamaica? Is that the crux of your argument?

But then again , were not you arguing that fishing in the Philippines has little effect? :wink:

And the confusion sets in again. Where did I ever argue that?
Or are you going to ignore this like you did the last similar post where I challenged you to come up with examples of my posts or admit you were trying to put words into my mouth?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

Out on the reefs in Florida, there have been several times in the last decade that sudden increases of algae have blanketed the reefs. Fish populations have remained steady before and after these blooms......Did the fish decide to stop eating the green stuff? Or was there a sudden increase in the food supply for the algae? Like a change in water currents?

You really are stuck on this flawed reef ecology model, aren't you?

Again, IF excess nutrients are to blame for the pan-Carribean algal bloom, point to the source of these nutrients and the data showing how much they raised over how long of a period.

If you cannot show this, then explain why we should take your model seriously.

Reason, not faith.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

In the Caribbean, fish are not the keepers of the greens...........snails urchins and crabs are ..........There has never been a collection of these species in those waters..........Yet these animals have not been able to keep up with the work load ........There have been more event of disease in the last thirty years then the prior thirty........even though fishing intensities have decreased and hundreds of collection restriction have been enacted. Even the marine sanctuaries with zero collection and large fish populations ........still have an algae problem.........? Why.. There is more disease effecting the corals at Key West then the Dry tortuous......Why ? Does the African dust somehow land on Key west but not sixty miles to the south west?......{I sea this thread is the Australian fish regulations } Not the Jamaican one, but all these threads tie together }even the "George Bush wants to place CO2 in to the deep ocean" thread is connected to the fishing theme.............Yet there must be something new that is effecting the reefs today.......that was not doing so twenty years ago.............It is this Mystery that I feel is being overlooked .........New and greater fishing restrictions have seemed not to have had any effects on the health of coral anywhere world wide?......To praise new restrictionsas the CURE for ailing coral reefs is unfounded.

 

[Ad van Tage]

Australia life-line for Barrier Reef
Started December 3, 2003

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3286707.stm

I found this a very "telling" thread.
After John Brandt's information post, which he followed up throughout the thread with two more forwarded items, we see the following distribution:

## by
30 Kalkbreath
19 MKirda
11 Blue Hula
and one each for:
01 Cortez M.
01 Peter R.
01 Mat W.
01 FredFish


In the process we travelled, largely due to - no surprise here - Kalkbreath from the OZ Barrier Reef via Florida, and Kb's tanks to the Caribbean.


On that wild ride Peter R. pointed out in a singular post that there are still loose ends;

Kalk, I see that Blue Hula has effectively replied to your false assertions (there is no commercial fishing on the GBR). I agree with Mike Kirda that you continue to make false assertions even after they have been negated by those posting replies. For example, we had a long thread about the Frank Lallo mortality study, but you continue to attack it, after being corrected by Frank and myself. Likewise, you continue to argue that only a few hundred fish per kilometer square are removed from Philippine reefs by cyanide fishermen collecting marine fish for the aquarium trade. What about my reply that finally stopped you on the previous thread? By your own extrapolation using information I provided, you calculated that 80 million fish were killed to allow the export of 3 million fish per year from the Philippines. Where is your reply to that?

Peter Rubec

I'm not sure that this "all over the map" journey has really help Kalkbreath understand some of the basic issues.
But I surely would like to see an answer to the 80 million fish killed???
Could we have a reply on that??? [ On the right thread please;
we will then be able to pick up THAT thread where that was discussed... ]

Appreciate it,

So long.

 

[blue hula]

la"]Kalk, I don’t actually care two figs whether it works in a reef tank or not … a reef tank is an artificial environment. In research, looking at a reef tank is called an experiment. Most ecologists recognise that lab doesn’t necessarily translate to the real world and that you have to look at what happens on the reef… not in your piddly unreplicated tank.

......................I will remember that when cyanide testing lab results are quoted by you and Peter!

Kalk, you're yet again mixing apples and oranges ...

A cyanide test would be done on a fish. It would indicate whether or not the fish in question had been recently exposed to cyanide. It is a yes / no question (with some error / false positives). There is nothing to scale it up to ... the fish is the target of the question. In assessing ecosystem processes / impacts like the impacts of water quality and fishing on communities, while microcosm experiments can give you some idea ... there are processes that operate on a larger scale that need to be incorporated. How for instance, would you learn about the epidemiology of a viral outbreak that spread throughout the Caribbean knocking off sea urchins in your tank???? More basically, you don't have an entire florida (or Australian) community in your tank so it is at best a simple representation of the real world.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you still haven't provided any numbers or materials in support of your claims. You said to name one species of herbivorous fish - I named an entire family plus some others .... play fair and support your arguments

Blue hula

 

[mkirda]

Well, from now on, it will be:

30 Kalkbreath
0 MKirda

largely because

this "all over the map" journey has {not} really help{ed} Kalkbreath understand some of the basic issues.

I've concluded that it is like arguing with a 50 lb. bag of fertilizer.

As far as the 80 million fish, I think that this is from one of the worst case scenario statistics that Kalk used to illustrate his version of reality. He uses the extreme scenario numbers to help illustrate what he thinks is the ridiculousness of reform, not realizing that the number isn't as important as understanding that there are higher rates of mortality than are acceptable.
If 4 million fish are collected for 2 million in the stores, that is still too high IMO.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

la"]Kalk, I don’t actually care two figs whether it works in a reef tank or not … a reef tank is an artificial environment. In research, looking at a reef tank is called an experiment. Most ecologists recognise that lab doesn’t necessarily translate to the real world and that you have to look at what happens on the reef… not in your piddly unreplicated tank.

......................I will remember that when cyanide testing lab results are quoted by you and Peter!

Kalk, you're yet again mixing apples and oranges ...

A cyanide test would be done on a fish. It would indicate whether or not the fish in question had been recently exposed to cyanide. It is a yes / no question (with some error / false positives). There is nothing to scale it up to ... the fish is the target of the question. In assessing ecosystem processes / impacts like the impacts of water quality and fishing on communities, while microcosm experiments can give you some idea ... there are processes that operate on a larger scale that need to be incorporated. How for instance, would you learn about the epidemiology of a viral outbreak that spread throughout the Caribbean knocking off sea urchins in your tank???? More basically, you don't have an entire florida (or Australian) community in your tank so it is at best a simple representation of the real world.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your post because you still haven't provided any numbers or materials in support of your claims. You said to name one species of herbivorous fish - I named an entire family plus some others .... play fair and support your arguments

Blue hula

I am talking about the fact that no test has ever shown at what concentration fish can be collected alive and the coral harmed .{Aquarium collection with cyanide does not kill the live coral ,because the levels used are so low}It is the fish food industy that kills coral with cyanide}

 

[Anonymous]

I just read this entire thread, and I can only conclude one thing...

...the part of Kalkbreath is being played by Andy Serkis. Quite well, in fact.

Peace,

Chip

 

[hdtran]

Delurking...

I just read this entire thread, and I can only conclude one thing...

...the part of Kalkbreath is being played by Andy Serkis. Quite well, in fact.

Precious! ROTFLMAO!

Relurking...