GBRMPA Draft Zone Plan August 2003

Submissions are due Monday 4th August 2003. Our club's submission is based upon the following arguements.

Background

We believe very strongly in supporting efforts to maintain the bio-diversity and future well being of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. Unfortunately we don’t believe that the Representative Areas Program (RAP), by itself, is an effective tool for managing the marine park. While the major effects of marine degradation are inadequately addressed, this plan is seen as little more than window-dressing, an initiative that will make the politicians look good to the majority of Australians who haven’t been explained the intricate issues involved in managing the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. There is little evidence being presented (lots of supposition) to show that fishing is causing so many problems in the park that an intricate management plan, such as the RAP, needs to be instigated.

Until the broader issues such as Coral Bleaching (Ozone Layer depletion), Crown of Thorns Starfish, Land Run-off (Urban and Rural), Silting/Water Turbidity (dredging of harbours and shipping channels, reclaiming Riparian Zones {natural vegetation along waterways that has the effect of filtering run-off water before it enters the system}) and shipping movements (thousands) through the Marine Park are brought under control, stopping a few people from fishing will have a miniscule effect.

Habitat

Balgal Beach and at most other areas along the coast from Townsville to Ingham are almost devoid of marine life. These beaches were once home to vast swarms of soldier crabs, marine worms and yabbies and were, in turn, covered in holes left by stingrays looking for a feed. The large numbers of soldier crabs haven’t been seen for 15 years or more, while marine worms and yabbies are non-existent. Similarly, huge schools of garfish used to inhabit Halifax Bay. These no longer exist. Hardiheads (small baitfish) were seen ‘showering’ the beaches of the inshore islands regularly but again there have only been spasmodic sightings in the last 10 years. As anglers, we have no interest in these species, other than taking a few for bait. The population of these beach communities is so small (3000 along 100 km of beach) that we could never destroy these quantities of marine life. We have reefs that are accessible by foot from the beach that are now nothing more than slimy rocks. Schools of bait are infrequent visitors and catch rates from the beaches have dropped significantly, all in the last 8–15 years. As anglers, we haven’t been responsible for this level of degradation of the habitat but unfortunately we are now going to be ‘managed’ out of our fishing grounds. One of the problems that we can see is the increased level of siltation that has entered the system in the past 20-30 years. What effect is this having, how did it get there and are there other causes for the degradation?

Management

The management of the proposed plan is seen to be an area that poses many problems. The number, shape and area covered prohibit the effective management of the marine park. Authorities must be hoping that by declaring an area ‘Green’ that fishing activities will not occur there. While responsible fishers will adhere to the rules, others will not. By excluding the fishing fraternity from such vast areas, there will no longer be the reporting of illegal activities that are occurring in our waters (drug trafficking, international poaching of fish, fishing in closed waters, over-fishing, etc).

We have not been given any indication of increased levels of management being put in place to cope. In the past, more than 70% of reports of illegal activities in Australia’s coastal waters come from fishing people. That’s a lot of ‘management’ to cover. Most recreational fishers have small boats (under 5 metres in length) and as such only access inshore waters (5-10 nm off the coast). We will now need to have GPS/Chartplotter technology installed at, in many cases, more than the boats are worth, so that we can identify where the boundaries of the various zones exist. At the existing level of zoning, it is easy to avoid closed areas by not fishing anywhere near them. Under the new scheme we will have to travel across these zones. This is an unreasonable cost to impose on people for participating in a leisure activity.

Summary

We would like to have the opportunity to view the final submission before it is put to parliament. We have grave concerns for a process that is being presented without significant levels of valid scientific support and with minimal regard for strong anecdotal evidence. Despite many question and answer sessions and information sessions delivered by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA), there has been little notice taken of repeated claims of people living in the affected areas. Some of these people have fifty years of information that can be accessed but it is not wanted. We would like the following questions answered:

Why are vast areas of the ‘outer reef’ being closed to fishing? These areas are in pristine condition!
Why are fishing people being ‘managed’ in areas where we have had minimal impact on fishing stocks?
Extractive rates of 17kg fish per square kilometer of Marine Park per year are hardly unsustainable.
Conclusions/Recommendations
1.
We are strongly committed to supporting manageable and relevant programs that will promote sustainability of the marine park’s biodiversity and fish stocks.
2.
We do not believe the current ‘green zone’ system will protect the marine park, for the many reasons outlined so far (destruction from oil tanker spills, ballast water, silting, poaching, ‘crown of thorn’ starfish – the "too hard basket" list goes on.
3.
We recommend further investigation of the Kyoto agreement and subscription to this, and other agreements to do with greenhouse gases and ozone layer depletion.
4.
Federal and State governments should be supporting efforts to manage and correct the issues that will cause catastrophic damage to our reef and coastline, as outlined in the opening paragraphs.
5.
We would like the proponents of any future management programs to provide suitable evidence for their implementation.
6.
An education program to create awareness, and funding to provide solutions, in regard to issues such as land run-off, nutrient use, riparian zones, etc. These are seen as Urban as well as Rural issues.
7.
Seek funding to support scientific studies into the fishery industry (Habitat, bioregions, stocks, etc).
8.
Seek funding to support scientific studies to evaluate the problems associated with all the issues raised so far.
9.
Policing of the marine park currently is and will be, in our opinion, inadequate and needs to be addressed.
10.
The cost associated with ensuring compliance in regard to navigating the zones is considered to be cost prohibitive to the average fisherperson.
11.
There is widespread agreement (Commercial Fishers and Scientists) that a closure on the reef, to correspond with the Coral Trout spawning times, would fix any perceived problems with the reef fishery. The closure should be for a week either side of the full moon for three months each year (October, November and December).
12.
It is imperative that we have access to the final submission before it becomes legislation.

Balgal Beach Boating & Leisure Club

GBRMPA Draft Zoning August 2003

GBRMPA Draft Zone Plan August 2003

Background

Habitat

Management

Summary

Conclusions/Recommendations

Main Menu

Documents

Sponsors

1.	We are strongly committed to supporting manageable and relevant programs that will promote sustainability of the marine park’s biodiversity and fish stocks.
2.	We do not believe the current ‘green zone’ system will protect the marine park, for the many reasons outlined so far (destruction from oil tanker spills, ballast water, silting, poaching, ‘crown of thorn’ starfish – the "too hard basket" list goes on.
3.	We recommend further investigation of the Kyoto agreement and subscription to this, and other agreements to do with greenhouse gases and ozone layer depletion.
4.	Federal and State governments should be supporting efforts to manage and correct the issues that will cause catastrophic damage to our reef and coastline, as outlined in the opening paragraphs.
5.	We would like the proponents of any future management programs to provide suitable evidence for their implementation.
6.	An education program to create awareness, and funding to provide solutions, in regard to issues such as land run-off, nutrient use, riparian zones, etc. These are seen as Urban as well as Rural issues.
7.	Seek funding to support scientific studies into the fishery industry (Habitat, bioregions, stocks, etc).
8.	Seek funding to support scientific studies to evaluate the problems associated with all the issues raised so far.
9.	Policing of the marine park currently is and will be, in our opinion, inadequate and needs to be addressed.
10.	The cost associated with ensuring compliance in regard to navigating the zones is considered to be cost prohibitive to the average fisherperson.
11.	There is widespread agreement (Commercial Fishers and Scientists) that a closure on the reef, to correspond with the Coral Trout spawning times, would fix any perceived problems with the reef fishery. The closure should be for a week either side of the full moon for three months each year (October, November and December).
12.	It is imperative that we have access to the final submission before it becomes legislation.