WeFish

Dodgy science "Marine park success increases stocks in nearby fishing zones"

"THE first conclusive evidence that no-fishing zones in marine parks increase fish in neighbouring areas has been revealed by Australian scientists.

One of the main concerns of recreational and commercial fishers has been the lack of formal proof that no-take zones in marine parks have an effect beyond their borders.

"Using DNA fingerprinting technology, we now can clearly show that the benefits of (marine parks) spread beyond reserve boundaries, providing a baby bonus to fisheries," said Professor Geoff Jones of ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) and James Cook University, who led the study presented yesterday at the International Coral Reef Symposium in Cairns.

In the ground-breaking study, scientists tracked the dispersal pathways of juvenile coral trout and stripey snapper larvae from marine park protection zones in the Keppel Island group on the Great Barrier Reef.

They found that 65 per cent settled in nearby areas that are open to fishing.

Most of the baby fish settled within 1km-5km of the reserves but a significant proportion dispersed 10km or more.

The study found that the six marine reserves, which cover 28 per cent of the total reef area of the Keppels, had generated 50 per cent of the juvenile fish found both inside and outside of the no-fishing reserves.

"This means there would have been a lot less fish if the no-take areas weren't there," said Leanne Fernandes, a leading advocate of no-take zones"

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/marine-park-success-increases-stocks-in-nearby-fishing-zones/story-fndo317g-1226424833329


This doesn’t show an increase at all, what was the recruitment before the park was introduced?

This study makes misleading claims, you don’t need be a brain surgeon to understand if you remove fishing in an area it will hold a greater number and larger size of targeted species, by creating a protection area the areas around it, if the same amount of people fish for the same amount of time, will see an increased pressure on the targeted species, thus a marine park creates a situation where we have increased the size and numbers in one area and decreased them in all the other areas, so you don’t need fingerprinting DNA technology to tell you that the area with the increased amount of fish will be responsible for great recruitment. What this study claims and fails to prove, has this resulted in a net benefit? If the recruitment is the same but has merely been redistributed, what we have now done is concentrated the spawning into a concentrated area, leaving the species vulnerable should something happen to this protected area.

It also fails to look at the prey species in this protected area, I bet if they use their fingerprint DNA technology on the prey of the fish anglers target you will see the opposite that the majority of their recruitment comes from outside the protected areas, not from the protected area that now holds a larger number of the predator species, they also fail to clarify how these protection areas now holding a larger amount of the species we target is effecting the total biodiversity of the area.