Maritime expert and oyster farmer quit, another sacked from Batemans Marine Park Advisory Committee

Disgraceful.
I visited Freshwater Bay this weekend for the first time in 18 months after spending years and years enjoying it for it’s natural beauty, swimming, boating, skurfing, snorkelling, sailing, being a part of the wooden boat festival and so much more so – only to discover that since the change in marine park there is now a broad scale oyster lease across the most part of the bay, making it practically no longer navigable, less beautiful and basically primarily a commercial enterprise. I don’t expect to ever see another seal enjoying the bay, boat stopping for a picnic, or person swimming across the beautiful water. I am most significantly saddened that after the passing of the original oyster farmer who held the lease that used to mark the shallows of Freshwater bay, who removed his lease in the interests of recovering the bay and campaigned for it to stay that way, a new oyster farm has been build with three times the area of the original one and a much greater impact.

How sad.

Australia tops the charts with regard to species extinction and here again we see those in power making decisions that increase our footprint and further diminish biodiversity, totally disregarding the expertise and knowledge of those attempting to bring logic and sanity to the negotiating table. Recently published studies confirm that many Australian ecosystems are in big trouble, yet our policy makers persist with an attitude and mandate for “business as usual” at any cost. When you are not mindful and fully aware of your place in the natural world , choose to ignore the research and are motivated by greed and lust for power, then nothing is sacred, worth protecting.

Conservative politicians used to warn against “ extreme green” policies and candidates. What a joke given the mess we now find ourselves in. What we are now confronted with i.e. degradation and collapse of ecosystems, climate change, revering GDP – the almighty dollar above all else, are all byproducts of years of mismanagement underpinned by “ extreme brown” politics disguised as something legitimate. If and when voters take the trouble to get fully and accurately informed, going to the polling booth with a focus on the “big picture”, rather than petty issues, then maybe we can see some positive change before it’s too late.

Thank you Ms. Stevenson for your response, however I’m unsure why you need be aggressive about this discussion. You may not be aware that Veterinary Science is one of the professions that requires post graduate studies to remain registered to practice. Until I retired I attended generally one major international conference per year and several smaller ones, since I retired I have maintained that interest. A significant component of my post grad studies were in fisheries science, relating to sustainable fisheries production. There is considerable cross-over between the two disciplines of fisheries and production animal science.

I note you have performed biodiversity assessments and have made presentations to Eurobodalla Shire Council several times in the last couple of years you have resided here. Surely in this field there can be a wide disparity in views?

There are many, many science papers presenting arguments both for and against ‘no take zones’, both in the international and Australian literature. I firmly believe it is important to really apply critical thinking principles and argue the points made, rather than disparage the authors.

I support the position of Professor Buxton (UTAS, Tas. Aquaculture and Fisheries), Emeritus Professor Bob Kearney DSc, AM (Professor of Fisheries, Uni of Canberra ), as well as the work of Professor Daryl McPhee, Dr. Caleb Gardner and Dr Matt Landos amongst a few. As ‘no take zones’ are purely spatial fisheries management tools I believe it’s important to have fishery scientist’s views front and centre.

However notwithstanding that if you believe that sanctuary zones will be the saviour of fisheries, then you should read the NSW Marine Estate Management Act (2014) and the associated Marine Estate management strategy, 2018 – 2028. The important thing to consider is the identified threats from the statewide threat and risk assessment and the associated five step process to identify and address the threats.

Thankfully you make the point that the challenges are climate change, pollution and invasive marine species. Yet instead of addressing these issues, we should be closing off areas to fishing? Why fishing? – It is the only identified threat that has been seriously addressed in the past 25 years.

Below for your interest of readers are some dot points that are relevant to this discussion:
• Commercial and recreational fishing is managed by NSW Dept. of Primary Industries (Fisheries). Regularly a ‘Status of NSW Fisheries’ report is published. Over the last 30 years a remarkable transformation has taken place in NSW Fisheries, such that today no fish stocks, except for two, are considered ‘overfished’. Management steps are being taken to correct these two species.
• This success is NEVER lauded in the media due to the relentless ‘doom and gloom and catastrophe’ media output by eNGOs. This is what is reported.
• The objective of the NSW Marine Estate Management ACT (2014) is to conserve marine biodiversity in all its forms. (NOT to ban fishing)
• ‘No take zones’, as fishery management tools, will NOT improve fish stocks in anything but heavily degraded fisheries. The NSW marine estate is NOT a degraded fishery.
• Logically there WILL be more of a fishery targeted species in a ‘no take’ zone. However ONLY if that species is sedentary or shows site specificity (ie. Abalone or snapper). Certainly not in mobile or pelagic species. Ie. Flathead, kingfish and tuna spp.
• In NSW waters there is an increase in some species in ‘no take’ zones. However this increase has never been demonstrated to be significantly greater than surrounding waters.
• The downside of ‘no take zones’ is that they increase the fishing pressure in the surrounding waters – OR the fishery production declines by the amount that is protected. For example the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park had its no take zones increased by 30% in 2004 – ‘To protect and enhance the reef’. By 2020 UNESCO was threatening to take it off its list as a site of significance. The reason? – marine scientist from James Cook Uni and Uni of Qld had completely disregarded the pollution that was damaging the reef and were blinded by the supposed ‘benefit’ of no take zones. The result – the federal government removed funding from these Universities in 2019, much to the chagrin of eNGOs.
• Local eNGOs do NOT believe pollution is an issue in our area.
o In Sydney harbour NO commercial fishing is permitted. Recreationally caught fish west of the Harbour Bridge should NOT be eaten. Fish caught east of the Bridge should be eaten in strict moderation. According to the eNGOs – This pollution, that the east Australian current carries down to our coast, a week or so after Sydney, has somehow disappeared?
o All the inlets on the coast ban the harvesting of oysters after significant rain events. For instance after >25ml of rain in 24 hours, Wagonga Inlet is stopped for three days. And so on.
o All this is to protect human health – what is it doing to marine biodiversity, particularly fish eggs? The eNGOs do not seem to mind.
• There is negligible research done in NSW on the effects of pollution (direct stressors as well as endocrine stressors) on fish eggs, larvae and juvenile fish. As well there is NO research on the effects of pollution on marine biodiversity. This is mainly due to some marine scientists blinded by the ‘benefits’ of no take zones. However this is slowly turning around as some research is now taking place.

In response to Mr Creagh, who purports to have done numerous studies in marine science over the last 25 years, I was unable to locate any peer-reviewed studies authored by him in any of the marine science research databases I searched. It also appears that he only reads authors such as Colin Buxton and Robert Kearney who support his position and are well known critics of marine sanctuaries with links to commercial and/or recreational fishing organisations.
The paper by John Turnbull et. al that Mr Creagh mentions appeared in Conservation Biology https://conbio.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/cobi.13677 which is a highly regarded, peer-reviewed scientific journal. Dr John Turnbull is in fact a post doctoral fellow (not a mere PhD candidate) at the University of NSW and the paper is co-authored by Emma Johnston, Professor and Dean of Science at UNSW. Mr Creagh only quotes Colin Buxton’s critique of this very comprehensive paper, not the key findings, which are:
1. Fully protected areas (such as sanctuary zones) within marine protected areas (such as Batemans Bay Marine Park) have well-documented outcomes, including increased fish diversity and biomass which improves over time, as well as fewer invasive species such as urchins. They are well understood, supported and valued by the public. However, these no-take zones constitute only a small proportion (<20%) of these marine protected areas.
2. The effectiveness of partially protected areas (such as areas where various forms of fishing are allowed) is more doubtful. The fish diversity and biomass was little better than unprotected or open areas. While they constitute the largest part of the marine protected area, they were poorly understood by the public and there was an associated issue with non-compliance combined with little formal enforcement activity.
3. Most importantly they believe conservation outcomes can be improved by upgrading partially protected areas to higher levels of protection, including conversion to fully protected areas.
They recommend that at a time when we are facing increasing challenges from climate change, pollution and invasive marine species etc. we should be aiming for more fully protected areas, not less! I wonder if Mr Constance has read their paper, Mr Creagh certainly hasnt.

To Ms Stevenson and other people on this site interested in marine conservation. Ms Stevenson you don’t have any idea of the studies I have done in marine science over the past 25 years so I will provide an article from a marine Phd candidate and a comment from a Professor of fisheries. If you only read and digest papers that support a position than that is the antithesis of science. There are many peer-reviewed papers that dispel the notion of ‘no take zones’ in well managed fisheries.

‘No Take zones’, such as Cabbage Tree Bay in Manly should be provided for the social benefit of snorkelers and scuba divers. That is a social benefit, not a fishery management tool.

A paper was published in ‘the Conversation’ an online scientific blog https://theconversation.com/75-of-australias-marine-protected-areas-are-given-only-partial-protection-heres-why-thats-a-problem-149452 The lead author was John Turnbull.
A criticism of this article is in the comments section of this article from Professor Colin Buxton, Emeritus Professor, Fisheries Aquaculture and Coasts Centre IMAS, University of Tasmania

“Readers should be clear about one thing – Australia prides itself in having one of the largest marine reserve networks in the world, designed to conserve biodiversity through the management of human activities according to internationally accepted IUCN guidelines.

Locking fisheries out of 30% of the ocean serves only to stress the remaining 70%. Seafood is a critically important food source and sustainable fisheries can and should be perfectly consistent with the conservation objectives of Australia’s reserve network.

One should also be aware that no-take marine protected areas are not ‘fully protected’ as the authors would like you to believe. They prevent fishing and other extractive uses but do little to prevent other more pervasive threats to marine biodiversity such as climate change, plastic and other sources of pollution, introduced marine pests and sedimentation.

‘We found partially protected areas had no more fish, invertebrates or algae than unprotected areas’. But your study in fact found that open areas had more fish that the partially protected areas (Appendix S6). One has to ask whether these areas were inherently different and whether the conclusions you draw are valid?

‘Fully protected areas, by comparison had 30% more fish species’. Is this a typo? I couldn’t find this in the published article and would be very surprised indeed if this were the case.

‘On the other hand, fully protected areas were attractive to locals and visitors for their abundant wildlife and level of protection. They had twice as many divers and more than three times as many snorkelers compared to unprotected areas’. Is that anything remarkable. They are national parks. Are you advocating more no-take areas for biodiversity conservation or for tourism?

Your study also found general public to be confused about the protected status of our marine environment. I’m not surprised.

One has to look no further than the health of the Great Barrier Reef which has declined from ‘significant concern’ to ‘critical’, this despite the fact that it has for some time had 30% ‘fully protected’ green zones.

As long as MPA ideologists continue to perpetuate the myth of fully protected areas the public will remain confused about the level of protection of their marine environment.”

The science behind Marine Sanctuaries is proven, both here in Australia and overseas. As a biologist, I have read and understand the peer-reviewed scientific papers that support the establishment of sanctuaries to protect a range of marine species and their habitats. Recreational fishers such as Mr Creagh and Mr Clark and politicians such as Mr Constance are uninformed and have a clear agenda of supporting a well-funded and noisy lobby group that wants unfettered access to our coastal waters no matter what the consequences are for our marine biodiversity and our future fish stocks. Mr Creagh should be removed from the Advisory board to be replaced with a marine scientist and the sooner Mr Constance quits politics (as he indicated he would after the bushfires)the better.

It is time to step in on behalf of all ocean life. There are enough problems for all sea life without fishermen making things worse. We cannot go on with the old practices of just take take take. It is urgent that all of us start cutting our luxury consuming habits back.

I was never contacted by Ms. Sparks for my comment.

A disappointing story that only tells half the truth. Mr. Thorne’s THREE emails (not one) sent to the whole committee were defamatory.

The committee was given a different reason for Mr. Coxon’s resignation, and Mr Constable’s resignation also included a significant sentence, not reported.

I always thought that ‘About Regional’ was one of the higher quality on-line news source, not inclined to agree now.

We’ve destroyed the land and mismanage the river systems. Now let’s ensure the oceans are choked. With the amount of fish caught by the commercial industry, there is absolutely NO need to encourage taking even more and more out of the sea! When will people stop being selfish and think they are entitled to destroy this planet on the basis of “entertainment”. NOT survival, but sheer selfish entitlement 😡

Doesn’t look like any consultation has occured , apalling situation.