Found this from the dark side

[billfisher]

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/marine-parks-fisheries-management-tool.html

Apparently marine parks are good for us anglers! Here are some 'highlights':

 As well as increasing total catches and guarding against stock collapses, marine parks are also useful as a tool for delivering fish to those who value them most. Land bound anglers (those without a boat) rarely catch a feed in Australia. They spend more money and time per fish caught than other fishermen and get more enjoyment out of each fish they catch. Likewise, even recreational fishermen with boats value each fish caught far more than the biggest taker of fish - commercial fishermen. Marine parks provide a way to deliver more fish to those who value them most and to save them the expense and effort of owning and maintaining a boat. They can also save fishermen the need to travel long distances to catch fish.

On the whole, the fishing community either supports marine parks or tolerates them because they acknowledge the need for them. After all, most Australian fishermen are the weekend warrior variety who are lucky not to have to stop in for fish and chips on the way home. But invariably there is a small band of fishermen who are completely opposed to marine parks, and they are often the most experienced and respected fishermen. They tend to act as though there is some kind of conspiracy against them, as that is the only readily available explanation for why all of their favourite spots have been placed off-limits. But the explanation is much simpler. What makes these the favourite spots for experienced fishermen is the same thing that makes them seem attractive for no take zones. That is, the presence of fish, which is at least in part due to some obstacle preventing most fishermen from accessing the spot.

It is true that these fishermen will have to make the most changes, but the interests of the vast majority of fishermen outweigh any inconvenience to them. It is a choice between placing the no take zones in an area that is inconvenient for far more fishermen, placing it in an area that is likely to remain barren even with protection (flat, sandy bottom) and choosing those areas that knowledgable fishermen have already discovered. In any case, the experienced fishermen are still well positioned to take advantage of the new opportunities that arise. The fishing spots are not taken, just moved, and the experienced fishermen will end up getting more benefit from the increased productivity than the amateurs.

[sandfly]

 so we fishers get the barren sandy bottom just because its more accessable. Barren to me neans without including fish.More green propagander.

[billfisher]

I liked this one:

"Land bound anglers (those without a boat) rarely catch a feed in Australia."

The ocean rocks (when fishable) are the surest place to get a feed of fish. I rarely miss out on a feed when beach fishing too. 

[Ken]

Note the coming soon topics
Global warming - for the sceptics
Marine Park suggestions for Noosa and Newcastle
Wildlife = food
Ethics and progressive movements

I wonder what will come out???

[sandfly]

Ken,
       this was presented at Cudgen Rugby League Club 10th or 17th of this month by a community group. Wasn't able to attend but reports are that presentation throws doubts on Global warming similar to those on grey nurse shark. Would be worth a visit when it hits your town

[enzo]

Hey billfisher,
Watch out for that site, it was started by the infamous Charlie of whom we all remember. Charlie is the bloke who comes on the sites and other fishing and diving forums asking stupid questions and backing up his arguments with obscure references from fish studies such as the north sea cod and saying "look it happened in the Arctic, maybe it will happen here". The bloke is a tool.
Enzo

[billfisher]

Well now he's calling me names. I'm a crank for going against the overwelming 'consensus' on marine parks. You'll get a laugh out of this:

http://www.rightsatwork.com.au:81/community/showthread.php?p=23821#post23821

[b]

Interesting stuff about minimum sizes eh?

[sandfly]

 Here's an interesting press release or parts thereof  reference Senator The Hon. ERIC Abetz
  "$600,000 to support recreational fishers.
    Recfish Australia, the peak body representing the interests of Australia's 3.5 million recreational anglers will be provided with up to $600,000 to provide a strong, unified voice on behalf of the recreational fishing community under a re-elected Coalition Government"
    How can this group say they represent recreational fishers when there are bodies , ACoRF for one who are government appointed? How much of this money are Recfish prepared to spend on the GNS fiasco in NSW and the 16 more sites the NCC want to create? Recreational fishers need a body like Recfish but they have to be without government appointed bodies and bought membership. Recfishers need recreational fishers representing them.
 

[sandfly]

  ICHTH,
           didn't bag Recfish. Even admitted we need them but in a different format without government appointed representatives. Sure most fishers would agree with me on this. ECOfishers treasurer must be asleep if he didn't see $$$$$$ here for the asking to improve fishers lot. Betcha he's agro over not thinking of this before you did!!! ANYWAY HE'S PROBABLY OUT FISHING WHILE WE WORK AND HASN'T SEEN THE MEDIA POSTING YET. LUCKY BLIGHTER.

[ICHTH]

yep Billfisher. this ozpolitic bloke obviously lives on another planet from the rest of us. he is way way out there. not in touch with reality or fishers or fishing. the heading about workrights at the top gives me some indication what planet he is sending his messages to earth from.

[billfisher]

Like the way he talks like he knows what anglers want even though he is not one himself and hasn't consulted them. No doubt he is trying to steal some of the uniformed Green vote. By the way there is a huge contradiction between the Green's support for rights at work and their job destroying policies.

[CEO]

                                                              CREDIBILITY CRISIS:  GREENS  ON  THE  NOSE.....WITH  VOTERS.
The Northern Star newspaper, has just completed a survey of voting trends for the Federal election, in the northern NSW seat of Page.
 Page, is part of the Northern Star's circulation area. The following quote is from the Northern Star article, (10/11/07) "Voters may be wildcard in Page," on page 6.
  "HOWEVER, THE REAL LOSERS IN THIS POLL IS THE GREENS, WHOSE PRIMARY VOTE HAS COLLAPSED FROM A RESPECTABLE 10.8% IN 2004, TO ONLY 4% IN THE NORTHERN STAR AND DAILY EXAMINER POLL." (2007)
                                           Even the Greens internal polling had the party's vote running at 6%.

  So you see, we can ake a difference. Science and facts will always beat misrepresentation, misinformation and emotional nonsense, in the eyes of the voters. And we can only make a difference IF the charlatans are exposed ...... in the media.  Maintain the rage.     CEO.

[CEO]

 The Green vote went backwards in the Federal electorate of Richmond..... and they aint happy. See, we can make a difference if you challenge and expose them.