GREENS candidate for Moreton says you don’t have to live by the ocean to care about marine parks and the future of Australia’s beautiful marine flora and fauna.
According to Greens Candidate for Moreton, Elissa Jenkins, Abbott’s announcement in Mackay that a Coalition Government would freeze the gazetting of new marine parks around the country is appalling, populist politics that shows he has no real understanding of the issues at stake with marine sanctuaries.
“I cannot believe Abbott made this announcement while campaigning in the central Queensland coastal city of Mackay,†said Ms Jenkins.
“It insults the voters of Mackay and the voters of Moreton in one fell swoop.
“This initiative – or lack thereof – takes marine protection and conservation back decades.
“Ironically, Abbott’s rationale that marine parks threaten the livelihood of fishing industries and the tourism industries is flawed beyond belief.
“Anyone’s who’s seen the animated children’s film Happy Feet would know that overfishing is the biggest threat facing our fishing and tourism industries – not sanctuaries.
“If Tony Abbott had the best interests of the fishing industry and recreational fishers at heart he’d realise that Australia’s oceans are under protected and under threat.
“Action is needed now to put these industries on a sustainable footing.
“I love fishing as much as the next person and enjoy recreational fishing with my Dad, but marine sanctuaries play a key role in ensuring our fish stocks can replenish.
“Recent research on the Great Barrier Reef has shown that fish populations have doubled in sanctuary zones, playing a key role in replenishing adjoining populations on the reef.
“If Abbott keeps bowing down to special interest groups rather than the Australian people and announcing backward thinking, out-of-touch policies like this, he will see unhappy Liberal feet Voting 1 Greens this election – wherever they live,†said Ms Jenkins.
Ha ha, this is the funniest thing I have ever read! Let me requote:
“Anyone’s who’s seen the animated children’s film Happy Feet would know that overfishing is the biggest threat facing our fishing and tourism industries – not sanctuaries”
Yup, a kiddie flick! Perhaps some real science here would be more appropriate. Then again, greens only care about the visible issues, not the real issues.
Hi Andy,
Yes I thought it was pretty funny and witty too – obviously for different reasons – but thanks anyway.
The scientific and economic arguments for establishing marine sanctuaries are strong. They have clear benefits for marine life, fisheries and coastal communities. For example, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park brings in over $5 billion a year to the Australian economy through tourism and fisheries.
According to the reputable Australian Marine Conservation Society, Australia has stewardship over one of the largest maritime zones of any nation on Earth. Our marine area is almost twice the size of the Australian continent and plays host to some of the richest marine wildlife on the planet. With this importance comes responsibility. However, less than 5% of Australia’s seas are protected from oil and gas development, fishing and other human impacts.
Given Essential Research polling for the ‘Save Our Marine Life’ initiative last week found 81% of West Australian voters supported increasing protection of the 1.4 million square kilometre south west region from 1% to between 30 and 60%, I am confident Queensland and Moreton voters feel the same way.
I am proud of supporting AMCS’s call to action and The Greens forward-thinking policy on marine parks – and proud to bring this to the electors of Moreton as a stance.
Kind regards,
Elissa.
I don’t think it’s that funny Andy. You must have a pretty boring sense of humour
Quote “I don’t think it’s that funny Andy. You must have a pretty boring sense of humour”.
I’m afraid I must have the same “boring sense of humour”. I nearly wet myself after reading that “Happy Feet” was the appropriate basis for people to make an objective interpretation of the varous threats facing our aquatic environment. I would suggest that runoff and polution are a much more significant threat to these regions than recreational anglers and the tourist industry would be gaining very little from the current zoning.
Fisheries management and environmental protection decisions should be made on the basis os sound scientific facts and not on what you are told in an animated flick like Happy Feet
Hi all,
I’m getting a few enquiries on this same vein via phone and email, so please let me set the record straight.
The reference to Happy Feet is one I made in the spirit of good humour, directed at the Coalition’s policy announcement.
It seems that it has caused offense to some members of the community who are (some using their own tools of humour and wit) interpeting it as though I use children’s films as a font of all knowledge and that I am somehow belittling the area of scientific marine research. Please know it wasn’t my intention for it to belittle a reasoned and reasonable policy position.
The Greens policy is based on a scientific evidence based framework. However, we also believe that the application of the precautionary principle is fundamental to sustainable management of marine, coastal and estuarine ecosystems.
We believe that ecosystems-based management is the most sustainable and appropriate model for the management of Australia’s marine territories and we also believe that the health of Australia’s fishing industries is dependent on adequate conservation and sustainable management measures that ensure the replenishment of fishing stocks.
If elected I would work alongside the community to ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% ‘no take’ areas per bioregion by 2012.
I am grateful to have received comment and commentry from members of the public on this issue. I believe robust debate is essential for the functioning of a healthy democracy and I hope that – from this point – readers will respect that the film reference was a source of humour, not fact.
Happy to receive further comments regarding issues of substance.
Regards,
Elissa.
Eli
Passing by the ‘Happy Feet’ reference, I am interested in your comments on Greens zones and their effectiveness as a protection of marine life.
My understanding is that the largest detriments to the sustainability of marine life and ecosystems is the destruction of the nursery zones (ie the mangrove system and the quality of the water within these systems). Why has the Green party focused on the implimentation of green zones as the solution but taken a much softer approach to the elimination of pollution into the river and creek system via urban runoff in highly populated area and by mining. Also the allowance of mangrove destruction for urban development. Surely these have to be the primary target. What is the plans for re establishment of mangrove systems in areas where significant destruction has occurred, especially around high urban population?
I must to admit that I am not against green zones that are well targeted. I particularly like closures that are based on solid, peer reviewed science that target specific species at specific times (ie spawning times or areas). I have yet to see this robust scientific targeting in the application the current green zone proposals (ie the one proposed off Fraser Island). Perhaps you can reference some of this for me and others (please, no children’s movies). What evidence is there that the area is being unsustainably fished? What species are these new green zones trying to protect? When is the critical times to protect them? Why are the current regulations for fishery managment (ie size and bag limits) not adequate or working and should they be abandoned if green zones are implimented? Is there any consideration that areas are protected from over fishing due to natural controls (prevailing weather, bars, distance from launch areas, etc) What peer reviewed, scientific evidence is there to suggest that a 30% green zone is needed.
I eagerly await your reply and thank you for the opportunity to understand the Green party’s policies, it’s background to it’s policies and their plans for the future.
Steve
Regardless of where you live in Australia, or the world, you should support more marine sanctuaries.
I do not fish, or eat fish, but if people want to do some fishing for personal or small levels of consumption I do not judge that.
Ms Jenkins’ reference to ‘Happy Feet’ is spot on. She is not asking us to accept a children’s film as scientific evidence; she is pointing to the level of Tony Abbott’s foolishness, and having a bit of fun. Even kids can see that indiscriminate trawling the oceans, polluting everything in sight is stupid – not only for the animals, but for humans.
Or perhaps we should just give our oceans to BP, and would like a disaster the scale of the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Australia?
More marine sanctuaries, and protection of our precious oceans should be applauded, not denigrated.
Then you still might be able to take your kids fishing in 20 years time.
Hi Neil,
Guess you must have the same sense of humour then. As you can see from what Elissa has said The Greens have a sound policy in this area. It is clear from what she has said that she was using the movie to illustrate a point – not as the basis for policy.
Dan
elissa, i fish a lot and i’m reasonably green in my ideas but the main problem in my observation is habitat degradation. the state of the waterways, mangroves,yabby banks has deteriorated very badly.
i release 90 % of what i catch but i also would be fairly certain that fish caught by recreational fishermen do far less damage then fish brought at shops which were probably caught by trawlers which caught an emormous ammount of by catch as well.
Quote: Then you still might be able to take your kids fishing in 20 years time.
Where exactly do people think they will be able to fish 20 years in to the future. Think about it, you want to close off up to 60% of the waterways to fishing. That leaves 40% of what we have now. To me this is going to condense the fishing pressure on the areas we have left to us. Add in some population growth over the next 20 years and the chance of ever catching a fish with a grand child of mine will be gone.
Want to know the best way to reduce fishing pressure? Get rid of your cats or at least stop feeding them canned fish. They don’t catch it in the wild and don’t need it to survive. Think of the millions of tonnes of fish that would still be swimming the oceans if it wasn’t stuffed in to cans to feed cats.
I didn’t notice where the answer to this question was “What is the plans for re establishment of mangrove systems in areas where significant destruction has occurred, especially around high urban population?”
Perhaps you could clarify that?
Well written response Steve Smith and 1 I would like to hear or rather see the answers.
Nicola, How does closing fishing down to all types have anything to do with BP? Were they fishing when they caused an oil leak?
Perhaps some people should take the emotion out of the argument and get some cold hard facts.
Farming, the destruction of mangroves and urban development do more harm than any fishing industry.
And these people get a vote…….
Hi all,
I will respond, no worries at all. I will approve these comments as they come and respond in due course.
Some of these questions are excellent, particularly those regarding looking after our waterways and mangrove systems.
Please note I will not approve racially-slurred comments.
Elissa.
Questions:
1:What are the benifits of marine parks if we cant use them?
2:What restocking programs do the greens have planned?
3:Why is it the only places you seem intent on protecting are the ones get enjoyment from?
There is far more intelligent and scientific ways to sustain an industry than adopting the greens policy of simply closing it, imagine if the greens implied their same logic on the beef industry, the sheep industry or the fruit and veg industry for that matter, because of they amount of natural habitiat they require and the effect on the environment,lets protect our land by simply closing 60% of it off, we would all starve.
The greens are just taking the easy, lazy and uneducated way out with this approach!
Let me guess, if you get control and close everything, then we will have to pay to use it right? Just like we do with “our” national parks. Money solves everything…….fishing tax? Now wouldnt that be a good little money spinner for you!
I am not sure about how fish use closed areas to protect themselves from people. Do they know that a sanctury is exactley that? or do you think they know? Your party wants 30% of Australias waters closed to recreational fishing. Do you think that the Industry you seek to destroy will tolerate that?
My final question to you is ” How much money has the PEW Foundation contributed to the Greens or other fringe groups in Australia that belong to your Church?
I think that is integral to any discussion about marine reserves to understand the objectives behind their establishment, whether it be fisheries management, ecological, or social. Otherwise, we are not all operating in the same frame.
Closures of spawning areas/restricted fishing times are all effective management tools for fisheries/species specific objectives, but have little impact in building the resilience of the ecosystem.
There is overwhelming evidence from around the world, in tropical and temperate ecosystems, that marine reserves, more than any other management tool are known to increase abundance and diversity of marine life. They are a means of protecting the integrity of the ecosystem including processes that we don’t yet fully understand, as well as building resilience.
Marine parks need to be used in conjunction with management tools. There is not one single answer. Just as our assault on the environment comes in many forms, so must our protection of it.
Many international meetings on conservation and biodiversity have used 20-30% as recommended by the world’s leading scientists as a standard. It is agreed that to meet all fishery and conservation goals, networks of fully protected reserves should cover 20% or more of all biogeographic regions and habitats. This is the minimum recommended by scientists. The World Parks Congress agreed to 20-30% marine protection by 2012.
Globally, 0.36% of the ocean is fully protected. This is entirely inadequate given our reliance on the health of the ocean.
I have fished all my life and it is one of the reasons I became a biologist. It is naive to think that we can continue without adequate protection of our ocean.
Anyone who thought that the Greens were off with the pixies and living in fantasy land has just had their views confirmed. She doesn’t have much of a command of the Englesh language either. The phrase is “In one fell swoop” Not one foul swoop.
Spare me.
Eli, Nicola and others
No one is disputing that there is a need for some sanctuary zones – true sanctuaries that keep everyone out including divers and other non fishing users. Scientists that want to conduct research would have to apply for permits to get into these sanctuaries.
its fine if that is what was being proposed but its not. What is proposed is a ban on Australian families that choose to engage in a healthy outdoors pastime that is an integral part of Australian culture.
In Australia, the debate is not rational and is not based on fact. It suits the anti-fishing movement to paint all fishing the same and demonise all fishers – recreational and professional based on overseas documentaries.
Lets use Australian figures, lets really look at recreational fishing activites and if they do indeed impact on marine habitats. Recreational fishers are not the enemy here and in fact are some of the biggest allies – all 3.5 million of us.
Its not the outcome that concerns, its the process to date and how the views, knowledge and experience of the recreational fishing community is so easily dismissed by the anti-fishing movement.
Lets stop the antagonism, the fake polls and the rhetoric. Lets have a Royal Commission into the Marine Bioregional Planning Process and lets cut to the real issues causing the alleged decline in marine ecosystems.
Elissa, as a note of advice – it would pay to read a bit more widely about the impacts on the marine environment and not refer to websites published by anti-fishing extremists.
I see that you (Eli) have still not replied to questions raised above.
In you post above you stated that you will approve comments – does this mean that you need to consult the party before answering the questions or you do not have the answers?
Dear readers,
Please refer to my post at https://www.elissa.info/political/blog/?p=297
Kind regards,
Elissa.
Olivia,
In regards to your first statement:
A protected area is defined by the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas (IUCN, 1994) as:
An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection and maintenance of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means.
In practice, protected areas are managed for a wide variety of purposes which may include:
· scientific research,
· wilderness protection,
· preservation of species and ecosystems,
· maintenance of environmental services,
· protection of specific natural and cultural features,
· tourism and recreation,
· education,
· sustainable use of resources from natural ecosystems, and
· maintenance of cultural and traditional attributes.
The IUCN definition is rather more precise with respect to what is protected than that used in the Convention on Biological Diversity:
A geographically defined area which is designated or regulated and managed to achieve specific conservation objectives.
http://sea.unep-wcmc.org/protected_areas/archive/albany.pdf
Those who fish recreationally will continue to be able to do so. In fact, aside from enhancing biological and species diversity, ensuring fish stocks are maintained is the rationale behind this policy.
Sorry I haven’t heard of PEW, so I can’t help answer your question. Please feel free to contact The Greens state campaign office for information regarding our donors. I wouldn’t have a clue.
Elissa.
Two short comments. I can’t believe that a Greens candidate has not heard of PEW. Surely you would check out an organisation before responding. can you explain the “precautionary principle” you mention? You can’t shut down the world ‘just in case’.
I agree with Len, Neil, Grant and others here. I feel strongly that a Department like DPI&F must manage the fishery and let the EPA ( now DERM ) manage the environment.
For irrefutable facts pertaining to Green zones and fish stocks, simply contact info-fish in CQ. Try Dr Walter Starke or Bob Kearney for that matter… the Federal and State governments do not have in their possession any peer reviewed science that supports what is proposed.
Recreational anglers are one of the most conservation minded groups in Australia and are screaming out to any political party that will address the real issue of water quality. The perceived issue of over fishing is berley to the media, the real issues are habitat destruction, heavy metal runoff, agriculture practices and pollution.
Elissa, I also found it funny you mentioned the AMCS as ” reputable “. We need to talk about what they put on their website and portray it as fact. The AMCS, PEW and the like simply play on the emotions of the good folk of Australia and will never come near to telling them the truth.
I wish you well in your political endeavors, but really must ask you to talk to the people that really matter in any policy that the Greens endorse and the people that matter are the ones directly affected.
Regards
Elissa while I am sure you are full of good intent and maybe even believe what you say your position has a fundamental flaw. Locking up 30% of our oceans is locking up a resource that can feed thecountryd. An absolutely renewable resource. Unlike mining, where you dig it up once and sell it once, fishing, well managed fishing, can be forever. Marine zoning is the last resort of failed management, not a resort of first choice. Fisheries can and are managed with catch quotas, bag limits, slot sizes and closed spawning seasons. Specific fisheries can be micro managed to ensure sustainablity and shouldn’t this be what the greens are about. Sustainablity!
A fishery, any fishery can be treated like any reneable resource, and again “renewables” is a catch cry of your organisation. Just like mowing the grass. You mow it, you catch fish, they grow back. Again like plantation forests. Poison the lawn and it is gone forever, burn down the forests and they are gone but manage a fishery, use best science to determine sustainablity and you can continue to use a resource, any resource, for the good of humanity. Take for example the fishery on the Great barrier reef. Before the marine park zoning, best science put the combined commercial and recreational fishery at approx 3% of avaiable biomass. For every 100 fish, we took 3 and the remaining 97 had to produce just 3 offspring each year to replicate the biomass. In fact the real evidence tells us if in fact we too 5 or 10, all the way up to 20 it in fact triggers a more aggresive spawning recruitment and the harder a fishery is fished (to a limit) the better the fishery actually produces (in terms of spawning recuitment).
Personally I would much rather see the greens working on stopping the “poison” to enhance Australias ability to manitian a sustainable way of feeding our population into the future. Focus on run off, foreshore degradation and science based sustainable fisheries management programs. By just shutting areas off forever you are denying our country the right to feed itself with no justifiable benefit. Manage fisheries, don’t lock them up. A fish that dies of old age is a waste and the best way of maximising the breeding dynamic of any fishery is to fish it. Plenty of science supports this. The 30% marine protected area proposal is based on overseas studies on drastically overfished fisheries and has little or nothing to do with Australia. Show some fresh ideas and leadership, rather than just parrot on with PEW or AMCS propogander.
If the greens want to be the party of sustainability then this should be about food sources as well as wind farms.
Phill Kliese and Kevin,
you said that perfectly. It is exactly what Australia needs to hear and also needs to be an issue come this election. I fear your very sound words will fall on deaf ears here. A much better solution is available for fisheries management but it is a solution that doesn’t comply with the extreme Idealism of the Greens Party. I sincerely hope these 30% zones are squashed because you know that 30 will become 40 and so on.
Well I hope the greens do a better study than they did when they shut down Flat rock off nth Stradbroke Is. Two dives by a fresh out of uni student, was the base of the study. The greens won’t get my vote.
So you want a minimum of 30% Australia’s waters turned into marine parks.
With a bit of smart zoning that could mean that approximately 98% of people that currently fish and live in the most populated areas might have to travel hundreds of kilometers to do so if the Greens have their way.
What a wonderful country we have when a political party can come and take away the basic rights of the people they are supposed to be looking after.
Dear Readers,
The view I hold is based on peer reviewed scientific articles that highlight a consensus position that marine parks improve fisheries production through improved recruitment and protection of breeding habitats.
This list I post is to a list of 250 peer reviewed articles on the role that marine protected areas can play in conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainability of fish stocks.
I believe future generations of Australian should be able to enjoy eating fish and fishing. Creating more marine parks is vital to achieving this.
http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/pdf/MPA-literature-listing.pdf
To quote from the introductory paragraph
“Over the last two decades, scientists from all over the world have evaluated the role that marine protected areas can play in conservation of marine biodiversity and sustainability of fish stocks. The 250 peer reviewed manuscripts below represents a proportion of the total number of scientific studies carried out on marine protected areas and include studies published in the world’s leading scientific journals, such as
Science and Nature. This immense scientific literature forms the basis of Australian, American and European Consensus statements signed by hundreds of marine scientists on the importance of marine protected areas as one tool to ensure long-term conservation of marine biodiversity. This literature also provided the scientific basis on which NSW Marine Parks were designed. Opinions of individuals either for
or against marine protected areas should give consideration to this entire body of research. Heavy reliance on a single manuscript will undoubtedly lead to a biased interpretation of the evidence.”