WeFish

Marine Parks editorial

What we all need to understand about this marine park issue more than anything else, is not all marine parks are equal, the model being introduced in Australia is known as the CAR model of marine parks, this model is not about trying to protect a vulnerable species, be it a species that is targeted or not targeted by anglers. In theory it is about removing all man made impacts in selected areas so this area can be in a better position to handle other threats we cannot control, like global warming, coral bleaching and so on, and the area can better look after itself. CAR stands for Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative, the idea is to select areas that are in pristine condition, each area representing a healthy example of what that type of area should look like, and be of an adequate size that if something should happen to all the other areas this one will be large enough to be almost self-sustaining, it’s like an insurance policy for the future.

This model was chosen not because it offers the best protection for our marine environment but simply because it is the hardest to oppose and can be introduced all across the country at one time, if they were introducing specifically designed marine parks to look after individual species then any opposition can concentrate on that one area and make it difficult to introduce, by having this one system fits all areas approach the opposition is divided among all the different types of areas and locations.

I see a few problems with this model, for one it makes a general assumption that if we remove man made impacts in an area , every species in that locked up area will benefit, according to the most recent scientific data the species that are most at risk in Australia are the small species that live in close to shore, and not the species anglers target, in fact these usually smaller species that are at most risk generally make up the prey species of the fish anglers target, so in simple terms it’s not the fish we target that are in danger but there food, by locking up areas to fishing we are only increasing the pressure on these very species that we should be looking after most, if we lose the food for the species we target then no amount of protection, bag limits, size limits or anything else will save the fish we target. There are a number of reasons these small prey species are at risk, they live close to shore so they are greatly affected by what we do on land, things like pollution run off and modifying the way this run off enters our marine environment is not only affecting these small prey species directly but also having a huge impact on the habitat they rely on,  as the majority of these small prey species spend most of their lives on the one patch of reef or seagrass they don’t have the advantage that most of the species we target have in being able to move not only in and out of these areas but also the ability to relocate to a different area if they need to.


The CAR model of marine parks is great for areas in the world were that have poor fishing management, unstable governments, and nothing else can be done, fortunate in Australia we have the political will the means and some of the best fishery management practices in the world, this CAR model is far from adequate here, we should be setting an example for the rest of the world, currently in Australia we have 1/3 of the world’s marine parks in our waters already, that’s right 1/3! We have been seen as a soft target by some overseas groups and they have attempted to exert there financial and political will on us even more, on things they would not even dream of doing in their own oceans.

This push for these marine parks has been dishonest to say the least, reading comments from the groups advocating for these marine parks they all agree that fishing is a very minor activity in these areas, even all the governments statements since the release of the draft proposal have stated that these parks will not affect anglers because anglers don’t go there, now if this was correct, then what man made impacts have they removed from these areas, to call them fully protected, they can’t have it both ways they have either displaced fishing or they are not doing anything to protect these areas that they now call fully protected.  Recently it has been announced that a USA Tuna purse-seine fleet has payed USD$630 million dollars to catch in excess of 4 times Australia’s total fish production in the same areas Australian fishers will be banned from, if these marine parks go ahead.

Our criteria of success in marine conservation needs to change from how much area we have locked away to how the individual species are actually doing, we need to move from this approach, of this is what we have left  and  lets protect it, to this is what we need now, this is what we predict we will need in the future and what do we need to do to ensure we have the numbers so there is enough fish for everyone in the future, and the only way this can be achieved is that we start from the beginning of the food chain, any increases in the start of the marine food chain should see a direct increase in all the species up that food chain. Records from scientific groups have shown that with the global increase in both the terrestrial and marine protection areas there has been no slowdown in the species lose, in fact if you look at the graph it appears that as the protection areas have grown over the years so has the amount of species lost.

What has happened in other countries is that these groups that want to stop us fishing have used recreational anglers to attack commercial fishers, once they have effectively restricted commercial fishing they then turn their attention to the now easy target, the recreational anglers, we cannot allow this to happen here, the more united we are the greater our chance of success will be, we must all understand that to have a united front we need to make compromises and work together for the common goal. Commercial fishing in Australia has the lowest carbon and water foot print, has the least environmental damage, and is totally sustainable, no other mass food source in Australia even comes close, if terrestrial farmers had to abide by the same regulations that commercial fishing does they simply would not be able to operate.

We as recreational anglers should be out raged with this marine park plan, not because we are being locked out, but because this will offer no protection and is misleading the public that it will.

Daniel Stanilovic