Well, it passed...

[mkirda]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3566901.stm

 

[MaryHM]

Well, well, well...the WWF "hailed the plan" as a "dramatic improvement". Isn't this the same organization that backs the MAC??? (short answer= YES). Hmmm- let's put one and one together- the WWF hails plans that ban fishing and they back the MAC....

 

[Anonymous]

Fishing relief for Barrier Reef
Australia's parliament has passed a law, to come into force in July, which will make the Great Barrier Reef the world's largest protected reef system.
The law will ban fishing in one third of the World Heritage Site's 345,000 sq km area, and leave tourism as the only permitted industry.

The ban comes in response to concerns that overfishing is depleting the reef's rich marine life.

The reef is home to sharks, turtles and numerous brightly coloured fish.


This is going to mean bigger fish for tourists to come and see
David Kemp
Australian environment minister
Federal Environment Minister David Kemp said ending overfishing would make the coral reef more able to withstand other damaging influences, such as global warming and soil swept down rivers after heavy rain.

"It is a quite remarkable advance in protecting the reef against all the pressures to which it's subject," he said.

"This is going to mean more fish on the Barrier Reef, healthier corals - it's going to mean bigger fish for tourists to come and see."



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 will also be tougher limits on the movement of shipping in the area off Australia's north-east coast.
Mr Kemp said anyone caught breaching the regulations would face heavy penalties.

Compensation

WWF Australia has hailed the plan, which was submitted to parliament last December, as a "dramatic improvement".


But environmental groups urged the government to police the new zones properly to ensure fishing vessels do not encroach into protected areas.
The commercial fishing industry has warned that the plan - which is has been fighting for the past four years - could devastate some operators and the small communities that rely on them.

The government has said assistance will be given to fishermen, including the buying-out of licences and redirecting them into other careers.

"We haven't specified any particular sum of money, but we intend that this shall be dealt with in a very fair way," he said.

There are other factors that damage the reef - chemical run-offs from cattle grazing, sugarcane growing and urban development.

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

It is Australia's number one tourist destination, attracting a million visitors a year.

Story from BBC NEWS:

how will this affect other reefs fishing pressures, both food, and MO?

or the other areas of the barrier, for that matter?

 

[MaryHM]

The funny thing about this as far as the MO industry goes is that the organization that heads up the Great Barrier Reef declared that the MO industry is sustainable and actually collects under the quotas they currently have. I can't remember all of the details, but I helped with a campaign a few years back when the government was trying to ban MO fishing. It failed then- guess they finally got it through.

Vitz- I guess it all depends on how much comes out of there right now. I don't have any stats on food fish/MO fish collection there.

 

[Anonymous]

part of me expects jb to post this news blurb in a cryptic allusion that this is the beginning of the shut down on the MO biz



(now where's that deleted post of his?) :lol:

 

[mkirda]

part of me expects jb to post this news blurb in a cryptic allusion that this is the beginning of the shut down on the MO biz

(now where's that deleted post of his?) :lol:

Why bring John into this? I was the one who posted the article link, Vitz.

Besides, what is wrong with being pro-fishing and pro-MPA?
When the scientific studies all point to MPAs increasing the fish numbers, you can stand to still have fishing pressure.

And, to paraphrase Tina Turner... What's MAC got to do with it? The article didn't mention them at all. Is it wrong for the WWF to be pro-MPA and pro-sustainable fishing?

In my opinion, creating an MPA of 1/3rd of the GBR is a GOOD THING.
It will be of little use though if they do not do something to cut down on the effluent from sugar cane farming and cattle raising. Or cut CO2 emissions.

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[MaryHM]

I didn't say MAC had anything to do with it. I pointed out that the WWF backed the ban (even though the Great Barrier Reef Authority (or whatever they're called) deemed the MO industry sustainable and under quota and that the same WWF backs MAC. Hard to feel comfy about an organization that is fighting to ban your industry in one of the most well managed reefs in the world- a reef management system that many other countries look up to and model like legislation after. There is actually history to this Mike that went on before you were involved. Conversations at the MAC wholesaler meeting in LA about why the Australian WWF was backing a ban. This was all a couple of years ago- it's just interesting to see it come to fruition.

 

[Kalkbreath]

This plan will increase fishing pressure on the other two thirds remaing reefs by 33% ........ It will be amusing to see if fish stocks remain the same in both portions of the park. tourism will increase and so will agriculture on the land. the two greatest threats to the reef. {Runnoff}:wink: Keep in mind that in Hawaii the fish stocks decreased and Algea increrased when fishing was banned in most Kona area MPAs [More large groupers = less small reef fish} Groupers and sharks do not help the health of coral reefs as much as herbivors and small reef fish . Normally in nature the number of large predatory reef fish is held in check by top predators like seals dolphin and such . Man has been fulfilling this role as top level predator with fishing pressures. There are not enough of the usual top level predators remaining to keep predators levels in check. Kinda like wild dear populations in the USA. LOTS OF SKINNY GROUPERS COMMING SOON......

 

[mkirda]

Keep in mind that in Hawaii the fish stocks decreased and Algea increrased when fishing was banned in most Kona area MPAs [More large groupers = less small reef fish}

Citation, please.

 

[Anonymous]

part of me expects jb to post this news blurb in a cryptic allusion that this is the beginning of the shut down on the MO biz

(now where's that deleted post of his?) :lol:

Why bring John into this? I was the one who posted the article link, Vitz.

it was just a barb at jb, and had nothing to do w/you posting the article :wink: (must stop barbing, must stop barbing )

Besides, what is wrong with being pro-fishing and pro-MPA?

i don't think either is wrong, if both are done properly

When the scientific studies all point to MPAs increasing the fish numbers, you can stand to still have fishing pressure.

some contend that increasing fish counts actually lead to greater fishing pressure-it was the subject of a mini debate on coral-list re: artificial reefs, as you prob'ly know-(not sayin i agree or disagree)

And, to paraphrase Tina Turner... What's MAC got to do with it? The article didn't mention them at all. Is it wrong for the WWF to be pro-MPA and pro-sustainable fishing?

i don't know that the wwf is pro both, or that they understand fully the relationship between the 2

In my opinion, creating an MPA of 1/3rd of the GBR is a GOOD THING.
It will be of little use though if they do not do something to cut down on the effluent from sugar cane farming and cattle raising. Or cut CO2 emissions.

have they done the research to determine which area of the gbr is most in need of an mpa? or are they just pickin a spot that's most convenient?

Regards.
Mike Kirda

 

[naesco]

It is a good thing but perhaps ornamental fishing would have been allowed had the industry satisfied the Govenment that the reefs were being looked after.

Expect the same laws to be passed soon in the Philippines and Indonesia before industry totally destroys the reefs there.

 

[Kalkbreath]

It is a good thing but perhaps ornamental fishing would have been allowed had the industry satisfied the Govenment that the reefs were being looked after.

Expect the same laws to be passed soon in the Philippines and Indonesia before industry totally destroys the reefs there.

The same law as the new Australian ban ? In PI?.... only banning one-third of the reefs in PI would push the other two-thirds of the reefs to the point of death by over fishing? 90 million people are fed by the fish from these islands. You would be dooming millions of Philippines and hundreds of reefs to death. As for GBR ......Only 175,000 fish are collected per year from all of Australia only 100,000 fish from the GBR. MO collection is tiny and only about ten fish species are taken in number. Tell me again what effects MO collection has had on Australia?

 

[Kalkbreath]

Keep in mind that in Hawaii the fish stocks decreased and Algea increrased when fishing was banned in most Kona area MPAs [More large groupers = less small reef fish}

Citation, please.

I will look for the artical ........it was in a publication from US. Fish and Wildlife..........I talked at length with Danna Riddle about the issue a few years ago......perhaps you can contact him . I am interested in any current follow up studies?

 

[clarionreef]

So the cleanest collectors in the world will now be banned?
Sure, that makes sense.
It happens more than you think. The issue isn't with countries with a few dozen collectors and triple the number of bureaucrats and biologists to 'look after them', the issue is with the other end of the spectrum.
Lumping food fish w/ aquarium fish collecting was also cute. It gave the impression that more than .2 % of the fishes taken were aquarium fish.
So there will be "bigger" fish now to look at he said. Interesting point.
Anyway... this is why a couple of Australians have already set up shop in Cebu, Philippines. Now the Aussies, who know better and could have all their guys trained as a matter of simple business practice will be on trial to see if they do in fact take the high road. They could positively infect the region with a proper net collecting methodology and eclipse a decade of NGO work in a single year.
Or, they could just plug into the existing system and loot the place for their buyers in China and Oz. They already grab off a huge chunk of the tiny trickle of MAC fish for export to China. This has futher excaberated the "all dressed up w/ no place to go" syndrome that MAC has fallen into. You know the' all smoke and no fish...er...fire'... dog and pony show.
Alas, a budget in search of a project. Amazing story actually.
Most people of substance spend a lifetime looking for funding and here we have a funding STILL in search of substance.
Perhaps the Aussies will show the way and save the day.
For me, they are on trial. I hope they behave in the Philippines the way they were compelled to in Australia.
Steve

 

[naesco]

""For me, they are on trial. I hope they behave in the Philippines the way they were compelled to in Australia""
posts Steve.

And I think they will Steve.
Aussies have an understanding of the environment, respect for their host nations natural resources, pride in ensuring they are responsible ambassadors of their own country and most importantly are not bound by dated political dogma.

They can be all of the above and make money too.

Both the Philippinos and Indonesians immediately recognize that and that is why the really good fish go to them for distribution to their customers. The rest continue to be bought up by the tonnes to US importers.
They, The Aussies, will not be knowingly part of the cyanide cartel and are respected for their position.

 

[MaryHM]

It is a good thing but perhaps ornamental fishing would have been allowed had the industry satisfied the Govenment that the reefs were being looked after.

Do you ever state a fact, Wayne, or do you just pull comments from thin air and post them as such? The Great Barrier Reef Authority deemed that the marine ornamental industry was sustainable and actually collected UNDER the quotas that were set. This was when there was talk of a coral ban in Australia. This was a couple of years ago, so I'm vague on the exact details, but there is a guy with the nickname of DBW that knows quite a bit about this. Maybe someone can find him and get his comments on this. There used to be an Oz Reef discussion board, but it's now defunct.

 

[MaryHM]

Both the Philippinos and Indonesians immediately recognize that and that is why the really good fish go to them for distribution to their customers. The rest continue to be bought up by the tonnes to US importers.

Wayne, I realize that answering questions is not your strongpoint, but give this one a whirl please.

Are you saying that the Philippines and Indonesia send all of their good fish (I assume you mean net caught) to Australia?? If you are saying this, please explain how you know this to be true. If you're not saying this, please clarify.

 

[Anonymous]

It is a good thing but perhaps ornamental fishing would have been allowed had the industry satisfied the Govenment that the reefs were being looked after.

Do you ever state a fact, Wayne, or do you just pull comments from thin air and post them as such? The Great Barrier Reef Authority deemed that the marine ornamental industry was sustainable and actually collected UNDER the quotas that were set. This was when there was talk of a coral ban in Australia. This was a couple of years ago, so I'm vague on the exact details, but there is a guy with the nickname of DBW that knows quite a bit about this. Maybe someone can find him and get his comments on this. There used to be an Oz Reef discussion board, but it's now defunct.

Nahh just a kalk that can spell and knows proper grammar.

 

[naesco]

Both the Philippinos and Indonesians immediately recognize that and that is why the really good fish go to them for distribution to their customers. The rest continue to be bought up by the tonnes to US importers.

Wayne, I realize that answering questions is not your strongpoint, but give this one a whirl please.

Are you saying that the Philippines and Indonesia send all of their good fish (I assume you mean net caught) to Australia?? If you are saying this, please explain how you know this to be true. If you're not saying this, please clarify.

No, the Aussies buy them for export to China.
I read it recently on this forum that a poster complained that all the good fish (net caught) are going to China.
Do I know this to be fact. No.
Do I believe it to be true, yes for the the reasons posted.

I see the Kings are out of the playoffs.

I had read several years ago about how the Australians were handling their problems. Today, they should be applauded for taking the extra step and setting aside a part of their reefs.
IMO, there is no doubt that the Philippines and Indonesia will follow. Whether it can be policed is another issue.

 

[clarionreef]

Wayne,
The scant variety of certified fish that were available to mix in w/ the regular fish supply to deodorize the scant few certified dealers is less so now. This is becaise the new Aussies in Cebu intercept the few certified fish and mix them w/ the other 95% uncertified fish and ship them the China where they could care less how they were caught.
They were able to get the supply because the divers bring it to them rather then sell them to the MAC certified exporter in Manila.
That exporter lost out over pennies difference in the price. The divers never get the extra money promised by MAC so they go around to someone else who will pay. Promising what they cannot deliver was a common trick to get divers to listen to MAC. When the extra money is not forthcoming...things fall apart ...predictably.
Imagine, MAC is even trying this trick in Hawai now and I just spoke with one who just had to call after the last meeting w/ MAC people. They found it hilarious that MAC city guys would attempt to explain better collecting and handling to them.
They are so silly that they even told these long term professional dealers that the MAC certification would win them higher prices in the marketplace.
The long running supply and demand... good season bad season saturation of the market w/ yellow tangs... and the marketing direct to retailers...ruining the price structure and value of the fish exerts far, far more influence on the fish prices then any MAC sticker. The shippers already know this all too well. To hear MAC amatuers try and explain things was just too funny for them. It appears the retreat from the "difficult to work" Asia...to Fiji and Hawaii will just be a retreat to Fiji.
Look for 'value added' :roll: lemonpeels to flood the market in the future. ...Nahh...Not really...their prices will be determined by a market oblivious to irrelevant sticker fabrication organizations. They will be netcaught as before and as good as before.
Aussies buy and sell cyanide fish to China and the Australian market as readily as the next exporter I'm afraid. The few MAC certified clownfish and mandarins from Buhol are mixed with fishes of greater interest and demand and marketed freely.
The Aussie do things right and pure...because they're Aussies is a ridiculous notion that doesn't hold water.
The Aussie dealers/exporters are not the aussie collectors who do collect right. Hawaiians collect w/ nets but American and Canadian importers still deal cyanide fish every chance they can to get the variety. Wheres the implied cultural-moral imperative at work here?
The question for MAC seriously is..."Wheres the value-added, enhanced demand for certified product?" Sure there IS NO PRODUCT TO SPEAK OF...but you guys already know that this notion is a mis-fire going nowhere. You even are losing your tiny supply to a few interlopers in Cebu that were able to intercept it for pennies! Talk about building a house on a foundation os sand!
Certified, bonafide and verified netcaught fish would still be a hard sell if you had full variety and excellent quality! Do you know so little of the trade that you don't know this???
I wish we could have a debate @ MACNA as has been talked about lately. Ruining the reform tide w/ this multi-year diversion has cost another million coral heads to die easily.
You don't get forever to build carreers on correcting a cancer...or do you?


Steve