Australia Plans More Protections For The Great Barrier Reef

[John_Brandt]

Australia life-line for Barrier Reef


December 3, 2003

The Australian Government has submitted a plan to parliament to make the Great Barrier Reef the most protected coral reef system in the world.

It wants to increase so-called green zones, where commercial and recreational fishing is banned, from 4.5% of the 2,000-kilometre (1,200-mile) reef to 33%.

The Reef is one of Australia's greatest icons


The plan, which is expected to be approved by parliament and come into force by the middle of next year, would create the world's largest network of protected marine areas.

GREAT BARRIER REEF:
* More than 2,000 km long
* Home to 1,500 types of fish
* Only living thing the naked eye can see from space


There are concerns that over-fishing has depleted the reef of marine life, threatening its delicate eco-balance.

WWF Australia hailed the plan as a breakthrough.

"It's groundbreaking, it's visionary," Imogen Zethoven, Great Barrier Reef Campaign Manager, told BBC News Online.

"There is no other network on Earth of a similar scale. It doesn't mean that the plan is perfect, but it does mean there's a dramatic improvement," she said.

"What we sought to do is provide a level of protection that assures that biodiversity will be protected while minimising the impact on users," Environment Minister David Kemp told BBC News Online.

Coral welfare

There are other factors that damage the reef - global warming, which is believed to be to blame for coral bleaching, and chemical run-offs from cattle grazing, sugarcane growing and urban development.

Ms Zethoven said that restricting fishing around the reef would help mitigate the effects of global warming and pollution.

It is teeming with marine life


"It you maintain an ecosystem... with an abundance of life, it has a greater chance of recovering," she said.

The government has also finalised a water quality protection plan, which seeks to regulate land management to reduce pollution from agriculture and horticulture.

Ms Zethoven said the administration now needed to address greenhouse emissions, which should be cut "dramatically and urgently".

Prime Minister John Howard last year refused to sign the Kyoto protocol on climate control.

The Great Barrier Reef, situated off Queensland state in Australia's northeast, injects an estimated A$1.5bn ($975m) into the economy each year through tourism and fishing.

Companies and individuals caught breaching green zone rules will face heavy fines.

The commercial fishing industry has warned the plan could devastate fishing firms and small communities.

Mr Kemp said the government was in consultation with the community to formulate "appropriate adjustment assistance", which could include buying out licenses and helping people into other careers.

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

 

[mkirda]

See also:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/a ... index.html

MAC should take some lessons from them and incorporate the no-take zones into their standards.

"Australia has unveiled plans to declare one third of the Great Barrier Reef a no-fishing zone..."

Pretty impressive!

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

See also:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/a ... index.html

MAC should take some lessons from them and incorporate the no-take zones into their standards.

"Australia has unveiled plans to declare one third of the Great Barrier Reef a no-fishing zone..."

Pretty impressive!

Regards.
Mike Kirda

Dont forget that when these food fish companies look for new incomes and turn to the only other industries in the region.......Agriculture and cattle farming .......The reefs will decline at an even faster pace..............with all the thousands of kilometers of newly plowed under land and clear cut forrests........ :wink:

 

[mkirda]

Dont forget that when these food fish companies look for new incomes and turn to the only other industries in the region.......Agriculture and cattle farming .......The reefs will decline at an even faster pace..............with all the thousands of kilometers of newly plowed under land and clear cut forrests........ :wink:

Duh! Why didn't I think of that!
I forgot that there are no industries in Australia other than fishing, agriculture and clear-cutting all those desert forests... They sure can't get jobs in other industries, maybe we should just let them into America for free.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

The owners of the foodfishing companies.....live in the area.......They own the land........they are not going to abandon their lands and move to Sidney and open retail stores........Agriculture people usually stay in agriculture.....{they dont become dentists} .....there is only one other major industry in the whole Country{cattle and crops.....} These two activities are also the only reason the reefs are having a decline....... food fishing in the Great Barrier reef does not include reef fish .....so what impact will limiting the tiny amount of fishing that does take place? This is a fine example of political fluff........instead of attempting to tackle the real issue{runoff} Agriculture .....which is Australia's largest {60%}souce of export revenue......they AGAIN sacrifice the health of the reefs and offer a sacrificial lamb ......to the "caring" fools and sophomores

 

[Anonymous]

"These two activities are also the only reason the reefs are having a decline....... food fishing in the Great Barrier reef does not include reef fish ."

Great point, Kalk.

Keep up the good work buddy.

 

[mkirda]

The owners of the foodfishing companies.....live in the area.......They own the land

The owners of foodfishing companies own the land?

{shaking my head}
That's just silly.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

.... food fishing in the Great Barrier reef does not include reef fish .....so what impact will limiting the tiny amount of fishing that does take place?

Well, according the news article, they seem to think so.

"The commercial fishing industry has warned the plan could devastate fishing firms and small communities. "

If they don't fish within the reef area, what would be the point of issuing such a warning? It would make absolutely no sense- Instead, they would embrace it for the propaganda value because it would not effect them.

Seems to me that the simplest explanation is that they don't like being limited in the areas that they can fish, and that no-takes zones within the reefs are going to crimp their style.
Occam's Razor to the rescue yet again...

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Then tell me what species of REEF FISH are collected commercially for food fish in Australia ?.......Yes, 175 ,000 hobby fish were exported from the intire Country....last year..But . Do you really think collecting one fish per square mile will somehow harm the live coral?.........Do you still think they eat or fish for butterfly fish and tangs in Australia.?{I can hear the charter boat captain ....."drop um down tourists, theres a huge school of scribble Angels just under the boat..........." ..........You are suggesting that the reefs in Florida are green and dying because of sport fishing ? There is no correlation between grouper and snapper removal and the health of the reefs..........in fact , where groupers are collected. there is actually more reef fish and more diversity........because there are less fish being eaten by the groupers......{Kona coast study2001} The large companies which operate fishing and charter fishing in the area are local families, they will turn to land based agriculture{ Like 90% of the area} and this will mean more farm land development and cattle land ...........just what the reefs need........

 

[mkirda]

Then tell me what species of REEF FISH are collected commercially for food fish in Australia ?

No, you tell me why they are complaining about being banned from fishing on the reefs, Kalk.

Why would they possibly complain if your premise is true?
There is no possible reason on God's green Earth theywould complain if they didn't fish there. It would be like telling farmers- Hey, guys- Guess what? You can't farm on this asphalt over here! No, really???

Hint: Bottom structures (i.e. Reefs) attract fish. Food or otherwise.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Then tell me what species of REEF FISH are collected commercially for food fish in Australia ?

No, you tell me why they are complaining about being banned from fishing on the reefs, Kalk.

Why would they possibly complain if your premise is true?



Regards.
Mike Kirda

BECAUSE JUST LIKE ME THEY REALIZE HOW SILLY THIS BAN IS!.......Ill change the wording......what fish are collected in the Great barrier reef that have any effect on the health of the reef? The sport fishermen and charter captans which are complaining that this ban is silly .......know full and well that reef fish are not collected or fished by them ...........Its a feel good measure that has no basis in science.....They are complaining that people like you cant explain how the ban will help the current problems facing the REEF :wink:

 

[mkirda]

BECAUSE JUST LIKE ME THEY REALIZE HOW SILLY THIS BAN IS!.......Ill change the wording......what fish are collected in the Great barrier reef that have any effect on the health of the reef? The sport fishermen and charter captans which are complaining that this ban is silly .......know full and well that reef fish are not collected or fished by them ...........Its a feel good measure that has no basis in science.....They are complaining that people like you cant explain how the ban will help the current problems facing the REEF :wink:

Kalk,

Man, glad I wasn't drinking milk as I read that one as it would have sprayed all over my keyboard...

If you cannot distinguish between reality and fantasy, truth and untruth, fact and fiction, on your own, I don't know what to say anymore.
Honestly, at this point, I pity you.

Every effectively managed MPA has improved the health of the reef.
This is real science and has a basis in reality.
If they are managed appropriately,MPAs are not a feel-good measure, but a profoundly effective tool.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

So you still cant actually explain how it will help the Great Barrier reef? Just more chuckles? If you cant explain how fishing is currently harming the Great Barrier reef....or how sport fishing is killing the coral ......then Im sure its beyond the scope of your milk through the nose mindset to comprehend how runoff associated with the worlds largest cattle producing nation has continually remained un obstructed in its quest to increase production and how run off from cattle lands is the ONLY documented threat to the reef........Trying to compare MPA policing of Philippine blastfishing and poison collection to sport fishing in Australia is pretty silly ..........I will ask the question again ...... . explain how game fish removal from the reefs negatively effects the health oF the reef? This time stop eating long enough to reply.......if you can {explain that is } : :wink:

 

[Kalkbreath]

The Fla. Keys were much more healthy before the marine sanctuaries were set up there in the sunshine state.......does this mean Sanctuaries actually harm the reefs? No ,It means it useless to designate sewage run of areas "sanctuaries" and hope that the mer words will change the effects human or cattle feces has on living coral.........The words have magically had an effect on you ......so who knows maybe the coral will be fooled as well?

 

[mkirda]

So you still cant actually explain how it will help the Great Barrier reef? Just more chuckles? If you cant explain how fishing is currently harming the Great Barrier reef....or how sport fishing is killing the coral ......then Im sure its beyond the scope of your milk through the nose mindset to comprehend how runoff associated with the worlds largest cattle producing nation has continually remained un obstructed in its quest to increase production and how run off from cattle lands is the ONLY documented threat to the reef........Trying to compare MPA policing of Philippine blastfishing and poison collection to sport fishing in Australia is pretty silly ..........I will ask the question again ...... . explain how game fish removal from the reefs negatively effects the health oF the reef? This time stop eating long enough to reply.......if you can {explain that is } : :wink:

Kalk,

Sure I can explain, but it would be lost on you.

You are mixing and confusing two entirely separate issues: eutrophication and fishing pressure.

Your concerns regarding eutrophication are entirely correct, but this is tangential to fishing pressures. If Australia wants to eliminate all fishing in 1/3rd of the GBR, more power to them. Decreased pressure will lead to more fish in the surrounding areas and within the MPA. It will also lead to less physical stress to the reef due to fishing tackle, nets, oil/gas spillage, garbage and human waste.

Later.
Mike Kirda

 

[mkirda]

The Fla. Keys were much more healthy before the marine sanctuaries were set up there in the sunshine state.......does this mean Sanctuaries actually harm the reefs? No ,It means it useless to designate sewage run of areas "sanctuaries" and hope that the mer words will change the effects human or cattle feces has on living coral.........The words have magically had an effect on you .

Kalk,

No, I actually understand the difference between an effectively managed MPA and an ineffectively managed one. Site it improperly, it will be absolutely worthless. Do not think me confused or fooled by such chicanery.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Still cant support your position with facts or data ......I see?Reef fish are not collected anywhere other then the Philippines in any nubers{even there its only a few hundred fish per kilometer square per year :roll: ...............municipal fishing does not have an effect on the reefs in Australia...No study has ever supported this notion .....only the limited population of the targeted grouper and snapper and sport fishing ........In theory, yes removing all the fish would have a negative impact on the reef.........but with average fish populations between 10,000 and one million fish per kilometer square......a few grouper are not going to be missed.........The idea that little every bit helps is silly .......lets end diving and snorkeling on the reefs,,becuase it disturbs the fish and interferes with breeding.and courting .......why not ban even looking at the reefs? its not helpfull to the reefs to have people staring at it........Lastly, lets ban even thinking about the reefs......thinking about the reefs just leads to ideas about exploiting them ......."Feel good "measures are silly ...........NOT one government has ever attempted to adress the only documented man made reef killer ........" sewage. and run off."............... yet people like you keep applauding them for their mindless efforts at placating the reeformers.......

 

[mkirda]

Still cant support your position with facts or data ......I see?

No, Kalkbreath, I can.

I just understand that it isn't worth the time it would take to do so.

Any time I have cited anything, have you ever pulled it and read it?
When you were on your "cyanide doesn't kill corals" kick, I offered both privately and publicly to send you documentation that shows that, in fact, it does. I spent a couple of hours of my time pulling it together, thinking at the time that you were just misinformed and that had you the pertinant information at your fingertips, you might gain some knowledge and understanding.

Since that time, I have come to realize that you are not interested in facts or figures or anything that will conflict with your opinion. You believe in your own opinion regardless of how ungrounded it is in reality.

I have realized that I cannot fight against an opinion that amounts to religious faith. Nor can I discuss anything coherently with you when you keep changing the subject from fishing pressure to eutrophication to whatever the rest of them were.

I should leave you with a Frank Lallo quote, but I won't.
He had you figured out way before I did.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[Kalkbreath]

Once again all talk without the least bit of data or math or any real SCIENCE....... Frank was full of it and I was not the only one to expose it......... "Not all levels of cyanide kills corals" is not the same as" cyanide does not kill corals".....Even pure fresh water kills corals...You change the context to avoid having to explain yourself........With hobby cyanide fishing , You offered no data that showed it was possible to kill corals in a control tank .....without killing the fish inside the control tank............and thats how are hobby fish are collected out on the reef ALIVE. Fish are what validate the test. If you have such a test then I would love to see it .........other wise any tests showing how cyanide kills corals is avoiding the plane truth that it doesnt always kill the fish .....Back to this topic........ You keep supporting the idea that sport fishing is harming the Great barrier reef? Yet neither you or the authors of the article have suggested how food and sport fishing effects the health of the coral .........And it seem We all know why now....

 

[mkirda]

Once again all talk without the least bit of data or math or any real SCIENCE....... Frank was full of it and I was not the only one to expose it......... "Not all levels of cyanide kills corals" is not the same as" cyanide does not kill corals".....Even pure fresh water kills corals...You change the context to avoid having to explain yourself........With hobby cyanide fishing , You offered no data that showed it was possible to kill corals in a control tank .....without killing the fish inside the control tank............and thats how are hobby fish are collected out on the reef ALIVE. Fish are what validate the test. If you have such a test then I would love to see it .........other wise any tests showing how cyanide kills corals is avoiding the plane truth that it doesnt always kill the fish .....Back to this topic........ You keep supporting the idea that sport fishing is harming the Great barrier reef? Yet neither you or the authors of the article have suggested how food and sport fishing effects the health of the coral .........And it seem We all know why now....

Kalk,

Let's go back for a second here.

What is this about?

Australia wants to increase the areas under protection in the GBR.

I applauded that.

You then wanted me to explain why MPAs are a good thing.
I did not author the article. I am not employed by the fishery companies that are complaining. I offered my opinion that they are unhappy due to the fact that they fish in the reef and would be effected by the MPA. My reason was that this is the simplest explanation to explain it.

You disagree, claiming that their motivation for complaining about the MPA is because they think it is a waste, that it is at most a feel-good measure.

You have a different opinion than mine as to the reason why. You offer no rational reason why your opinion is more likely to be the correct one. Rather, you offer these stream of consciousness posts that seem to tap straight into your id.

You offered no evidence that you contacted a commercial fishery company in Australia to elicite their opinion on how or why this would effect them.

Instead, you attack me, change the subject rapidly and repeatedly, then you want me to provide you with data to either support or disprove your argument? Uh, huh. Like I'm going to bother doing your work for you.

Then, when I call you on this point, you can claim a hollow victory.

I especially love the way you change the subject again... When did I ever say anything about sport fishing? Hint: I didn't. :roll:

The fish in the coral control experiment one: Jeez, I had forgotten about that one... Peter, you ought tell Cervino about that one and see if he laughs or gets pissed off... Gotta hand it to you, Kalk... You don't understand experiment methodology and you don't care. I see now that sending you the journal articles on cyanide killing corals would have been a waste of my time.

You oughta go back and read some of Frank's responses to you.
You exposed nothing at this point- If you think you nailed a home run or something, sorry but you struck out at every at bat while Frank nailed many a home run in his replies to you. :wink:

Getting back to the beginning, Kalk, If you think I am so wrong in applauding Australia's move to increase the areas protected in the GBR, show me why.

Regards.
Mike Kirda