Prev
Next

No-go fishing zones, bait for amateur anglers

Lainie Anderson

by Lainie Anderson

20 Mar 05:45am

Must Reads

The Punch is moving house - this is a caption

The Punch is moving house

385

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this? - this is a caption

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

122

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming” - this is a caption

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

251

Filed under: Environment, Fishining, South Australia, Sustainable Stocks, Waterways

23 comments

What do you call a fishing town with no fishing? Dead.

Clearly these guys found a spot to fish outside one of South Australia's 140 proposed no-go zones .

So you’d hope the South Australian government is genuine about wanting frank feedback on its idea of introducing 140 no-fishing zones along our coastline next year.

Some of my most enduring childhood memories involve tinnie boats and tangled lines. A day in the dinghy wasn’t just fun, it was an exercise in patience and perseverance, a bonding experience of family against fish, and on good days it was a few free meals for the freezer.

Like the vast majority of the state’s 236,000 amateur fishermen and women, I support sustainable fish stocks.

We adhere to bag and size limits knowing that these measures increase the chances of that delicious tap-tap-tap on the line next time around.

I’m not adverse to 19 marine parks accounting for 44 per cent of South Australian waters from the middle of next year, nor am I opposed to thoroughly-researched no-go fishing zones to protect marine biodiversity.

But I just can’t understand why 140 proposed fishing exclusion zones (24 per cent of SA’s coastline including popular spots around Robe, Middleton, Aldinga Beach, Hardwicke Bay, KI and Ceduna) have been thrown out for community feedback with all the grace of a hand grenade.

Are these exclusion zones government policy? No, they’re a “starting point for discussion – NOT a target”.

Are these exclusion zones aimed at replenishing fish stocks? No, that’s NOT the job of the Department of Environment and Heritage, which is in charge of this process. Fish maintenance is the job of the Primary Industries Department, PIRSA.

So what are they for? According to the DEH, they’re to protect marine biodiversity from pressures such as “population growth, climate change, pollution and demand for resources”. 

Just how you’re going to diminish the effects of climate change by preventing a few people from fishing off a beach is beyond me. (And curiously, the heavily-populated, voter-centric areas of metro Adelaide are spared.) 

What’s more certain is that regional coastal communities will be affected. Amateur anglers say it will decimate an industry that injects $1 million into the economy daily.

The SA Sea Rescue Squadron says no-fishing zones will force fishers out to sea and put them at “very grave” risk of injury or death.

Eighteen no-go zones have been proposed for Yorke Peninsula alone, where 43 per cent of domestic tourists visit specifically for fishing and 40 per cent of properties are holiday homes.

No-go fishing areas will be avoided, other spots will be over-fished. Everyone will be peeved and ultimately discouraged. And country businesses will bear the cost.

The government needs to be clear. If fish stocks are low, tell us which ones. If marine habitats are suffering, tell us where. And if there truly is a scientific argument against low-impact recreational fishing in certain areas, explain it.

If we are to blame, let’s consider some alternative options. Reduce bag limits, increase the size at which certain fish can be caught, introduce a minimal yearly fishing fee to fund stock replenishment and enforcement officers (in all my years of fishing I’ve never encountered one).

Where the environment is precious or stressed, limit commercial fishing that harms the sea floor or perhaps change the mesh size of nets to ensure greater selectivity.

So where are we at? Well, we’re at a point of angst, anger and confusion over proposed “scenarios” that can only be averted if the community demonstrates sufficient angst, anger and confusion.

Not surprisingly, we’ve got an abundance of all three.

By claiming these no-go zones are a “starting point” for discussion, the government is all but admitting they need to be changed. And they want feedback.

So give it to them: go online to www.marineparks.sa.gov.au, check out the impact in your favourite areas and express your opinions. If you think the whole thing stinks like three-day old fish, say so.

Most commented

23 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • acotrel says:

      05:54am | 20/03/11

      I’ve found this fantastic bait!  You just need to remember not to hang on too long after lighting the wick!

      Reply

    • David of the Grand Academy of Adelagado. says:

      07:43am | 20/03/11

      Excellent article Lainie. You’ve summed it up beautifully. DENR has no science to support such an extensive ban. They will point you to hundreds of reports but none are specifically about the impact of recreational fishing. (They all concern the impact of commercial fishing). The recreational fishing catch in open waters is minimal, but contributes massively to economic health in country towns.

      Reply

    • I Hate Greens says:

      09:00am | 20/03/11

      This is just like the failed attempt to ban Mako fishing here because they are endangered in the Mediterranean. The powers that be want to do the same as their Euro cohorts regardless of Australia’s needs. The public consultation has been a joke from the start, barley enough that would listen to no one and just enough to say they consulted. They asked fisho’s for input on the areas they fished then zoned the areas mentioned because the so called science doesn’t know where fish are. This whole thing is like a huge frustrating joke. To think I used to support the Greens, they are like terrorist who have infiltrated the Govt these days.

      Reply

    • the pieman says:

      09:12am | 20/03/11

      Yes its the same old Green bullshit - kill off the preople(genocide) make life as miserable as we can for them as we do it.
      Shut down our food bowl-the Murray Darling Basin, close all the timber industries, close all the power stations, make more National parks to lock the people out, ban their 4x4s, stop the aboriginals from getting ahead with wild river legislation, gift the very soverienty of our country to the UN thru World heritage orders.
      And now they have the gaul to try and lock away our fishing and recreation.
      I hope all you toerags that are into this theivery will choke on your inported fish and chips as there will be no other available when you get your ignorant way.
      Call yourselves Aussies- i would p…s on you if my kidneys caught fire.
      Yes i think it way past time that the marxist and pro one world govt people were outed all thru this suicidal world.
      http://www.cecaust.com.au/

      Reply

    • Pieman is a river in Tassie says:

      03:02pm | 20/03/11

      No way pieman did the greens kill of all the preople (genocide)?
      So that’s why I haven’t seen preople since I was child.
      Perhaps they were inported as a precursor to the fish and chips you speak of. in preparation for the suicidal world order.

    • KD says:

      09:19am | 20/03/11

      Well done Lainie. DENR if full of ideology and empty of relevant science. For the Greens to have their moment in the Sun and minimise compensation to the Commercial Fleet (work that one out ???), rec anglers become the fall guy. Minister Ciaca needs to talk to the people who have been stone-walled by DENR and then maybe he will realise this “stinks like three-day old fish”.

      Reply

    • Debra says:

      10:24am | 20/03/11

      The eggheads in DENR have spent too much time studying in Canberra and doing their research on the Great Barrier Reef. SA is not Queensland. The water here is most often cold and rough. The economic loss caused by a rec fishing ban will not be replaced by money from hordes of tourists in glass bottom boats. We don’t have coral reefs, warm water and tropical fish down here. This ban will cause maximum pain for minimum gain.

      Reply

    • stephen says:

      11:57am | 20/03/11

      Let’m catch sharks, you know, the one’s that eating all our wonkie-boarders.
      And if the Fisherman get bored, they can be netted up to patrol the Alpine regions so none of those nasty cows can destroy pristine wilderness.
      (Cows can do so much damage to grass and bushes, but 4 wheel drives don’t).
      And I’ve been to those pristine wildernesses and no-one’s there. That’s right, no-one’s there to sniff the air and enjoy the pristine widernessses that all the land-owners have been regulating for the past 5 generations so’s we can enjoy the pristineness with tourist buses, bloody prados and stoopid helicopter tours which scares the be-Jesus out of anything with blood, (and other things that shoudn’t be there, e.g.Greenies.)

      Reply

    • CJ Morgan says:

      01:30pm | 20/03/11

      Yeah, well I’m a keen angler and I support no-fishing zones.  Over the 50 years or so that I’ve been fishing in salt and fresh water all around Australia, fish I catch have been getting steadily smaller and scarcer, and the waters they live in have been steadily deteriorating in both the quality of water and the diversity of aquatic life it contains.

      Fish need safe havens from humans.  While many fishers do the right thing, obey the rules and clean up after themselves, there are far too many who ignore size and bag limits, and leave a trail of stubbies, tinnies, plastic bags, tangled line etc wherever they go.

      The only way to protect fish from such environmental vandals is to declare certain areas off-limits to them.  That way there may still be fish for my grandchildren to catch, and for theirs after them.  Anybody who denies the sorry state of our waterways and fisheries is either ignorant or deliberately untruthful.

      Finally, not all Greens are anti-fishing by any means.  I’m both a Greens member and a conservationist, and I’m actively involved in my local fishing and restocking club.

      Reply

    • Debra says:

      10:44am | 21/03/11

      CJ, these proposed no-take zones are not being located in the heavily fished areas near Adelaide where fish stocks need protecting. They are being located around country towns where the recreational catch is minimal but the social impact will be significant. The water around our southern coast is often rough. Apart from the Christmas holiday season theres barely a recreational boat to be seen in many of these zones. They are not heavily fished but they safe, familiar waters when required.

      Anyway DENR categorically state this is NOT about protecting fish stocks, its about protecting these ‘pristine habitats’. So how does that make sense? If these areas are still considered ‘pristine’ after 150 years of recreational fishing,  exactly what new threat are DENR now concerned about?

      Besides, recreational fishing activity has dropped 42% in the last 10 years, so any perceived threat from recreational fishing is a diminishing one.

    • Stop fishing now says:

      01:31pm | 20/03/11

      Fish are not a renewable or replenishable source. We can only take out, we can’t put in.

      Studies suggest that the world fishing stock will collapse around 2048 at current usage.

      When that happens, Lainie, remember:

      1: You played a big part in that destruction.

      2. You can’t claim ignorance, because you were warned.

      Reply

    • Erick says:

      01:43pm | 20/03/11

      “Fish are not a renewable or replenishable source.”

      You’re trolling, right?

      If not, you aren’t helping the green movement with such an ignorant comment.

    • neil says:

      09:57am | 21/03/11

      Your total ignorance is obvious. Fish are a renewable resource ( they breed) if proper management regimes are in place.
      World fishing stock will collapse around 2048 - what utter rubbish to compare third world countries’ fishing practices with our state’s world acclaimed best practice fishing management regimes, currently administered by PIRSA. You are totally uninformed and naive.

    • Charlie the Tuna says:

      08:45pm | 21/03/11

      “fish are renewable”
      Again the deniers are out in full force.

      If you think fish are a renewable resource, you should go have a talk with the blue-fin tuna community.

      Nearing Extinction - The species in the greatest danger of slipping into extinction is the Western North Atlantic population (stock) of bluefin tuna.  Thanks to 4 decades of overfishing, it has been driven to just 3% of its 1960 or pre-long-lining abundance - a decline of 97%

      Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

    • Wade Macdonald says:

      01:40pm | 20/03/11

      Top article Lainie…....Paul Caica said we need no take zones to protect the marine habitat, not because of the fish we extract from the ocean. In a three hour meeting recreational anglers and SARFAC had with the DENR they said we cause no irreversible destruction of the marine habitat but the fish we extract is the problem. How can we accept no take zones when no one knows why recreational angling is a threat? The 900 ANSA scientists who are looking for accolades for being responsible for implementing ‘world class sanctuaries’ may be able to answer that question one thinks?????

      Reply

    • Wade Macdonald says:

      01:52pm | 20/03/11

      Stop fishing now says:01:31pm | 20/03/11

      Fish are not a renewable or replenishable source. We can only take out, we can’t put in.
      Studies suggest that the world fishing stock will collapse around 2048 at current usage.

      Lainie is talking about recreational angling not commercial! Ever heard of restocking? Artifical reefs that promote fish reproduction? Don’t believe the faith based fisheries that these so called scientists and conservation groups advocate for political gain/accolades…...both recreational and commercial catch rates are decreasing in SA from less fishing effort not due to dwindling fish stocks but the conservationists twist the data to suit thier own political agenda.

      Reply

    • JC says:

      02:38pm | 20/03/11

      I think you are missing the point a bit, I disagree entirely with the analysis that marine parks will hurt regional economies - they will actually have the opposite effect. Marine parks should not force fishers further offshore. They should actually allow recovery of inshore stocks and mean that anglers have to travel less far to good fishing in nearby waters. There are some zoning mistakes in the current proposal and recreational fishing access can and should be maintained.
      WANT TO READ MORE? Google “marine parks are we missing the point”

      Reply

    • KD says:

      03:57pm | 20/03/11

      Well JC this is the Holy Ghost, why not try NSW Marine Parks where concentrating fishing effort is destroying fish stocks. DENR has stated they have no clue if and when the mythical ‘Spill Over Effect’ would occur outside a Marine Park Sancturary Zone. So much for your Green Science..

    • Debra says:

      05:01pm | 20/03/11

      I’m all ears JC. Please explain how this ban is going to be an economic windfall to the township of, say, Robe. Can you see hundreds of little icebergers snorkelling out through the rough cold waves in their new double thickness wetsuits to catch a glimpse of a puffer fish gliding over a sandy bottom? Maybe art galleries will pop up all over the place because the caravan park crowd has got nothing else to do. Maybe push-bike sales will boom after the petrol station goes bust. Maybe EPIRB sales will skyrocket as the locals are forced out into rougher, more dangerous water. Yeah I can just see it all now. It’ll be the Cairns of the south.

      If you really believe that, hop in now and buy up some real estate in the main street. You’ll make a killing.

      Reply

    • the pieman says:

      05:04pm | 20/03/11

      @jc your very young right! its not all your fault.

      Didnt your daddy explain to you the danger in opening an uneducated mouth.

      Reply

    • Malleeringneck says:

      05:42pm | 20/03/11

      If the desalinisation plant ever gets going, it will kill of more fish than this ridiculous Labor/communist plan will save.

      Reply

    • sam says:

      08:12pm | 20/03/11

      you know why they want to do this is so in years to come when the fish stocks get back up they can sell a licences to the Japanese so the can come over and rape the fish stocks

      Reply

    • Ian says:

      11:37am | 22/03/11

      Have a look at figure 25 in this report and it will show you why marine parks and the proposed sanctuary zones are where they are going to be. Nothing to do with saving fish or habitat, its about not paying compensation to the commercial sector. no where else to put them?
      heres the link if you want to have a look.
      cheers http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/12684/sa_prawn_trawl_submis..

 
Sorry, comments are now closed for this article.

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

by The Punch Team

385

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

by Hannah Harborow

122

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

by Sarrah Le Marquand

251

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more

28 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free News.com.au newsletter