Gday Wade, as it happens, no-take zones work to improve fish catches in areas adjacent to the no-take zones.

A new NOAA research report finds that both fish populations and commercial and recreational anglers have benefited from "no-take" protections in the Tortugas Ecological Reserve in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.

The report, "An Integrated Biogeographic Assessment of Reef Fish Populations and Fisheries in Dry Tortugas: Effects of No-take Reserves," evaluates how the 151-square nautical mile Tortugas Ecological Reserve affects the living marine resources of the region and the people whose livelihoods are connected to them.

http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/ecosystems/coralreef/TortugasAssessmentReport_final.pdf

Similar results from the GBR were published in PNAS in 2009: Cook et al, "Adaptive management of the Great Barrier Reef: A globally significant demonstration of the benefits of networks of marine reserves" www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0909335107

These articles clearly show that my comment to this page "Extending GBRMP boundaries is a feel-good exercise ..." is greatly mistaken. That said, I stand by the remainder of my comment about the GBR's dependency on onshore environmental conditions.

David,

I have no problem with MPA's that respect local stakeholder imput when implemented and are based on sound science not political grandstanding/vote grabbing or partial science funded by ENGO's, such as the models seen at both state and Federal levels in this country. Australia already past the UN's guidelines on areas closed to fishing prior to the recent state and federal MPA campaigns of the last few years.

If you seek to take me on over the ins and outs of MPA's you will have to do better.

NOAA have partial views on MPA's, are connected to PEW environmental group.

The head at NOAA is PEW fellow Jane Lubchenco and we all know about the ignorant actions of PEW on said topic.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/fishing/x1896341757/NOAA-puts-allies-from-Pew-on-council

Many other conservation groups have witnessed the actions of PEW's undemocratic global agenda on MPA's....

Quote....The Pew Environment Group (Pew) launched an arrogant and culturally insensitive environmental campaign in the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI) during late 2007.

http://www.marianasconservation.org/2008campaign.htm

As for Cook et al....is that the same paper that was investigated by PNAS after complaints from other scientists about unobstanciated claims? Just asking?

http://www.bairdmaritime.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7624:jcu-remains-silent-on-reefgate-allegations&catid=99:walter-starcks-blog&Itemid=123

Thanks to the reference to Wally Starck.

I once heard him on ABC Counterpoint, arguing that Australian fisheries were under-utilised and overgoverned because the permitted intensity of fishing effort is far less than in Indonesia!

The Good News, Wade, is that you are welcome to go fish in Indonesian waters at any time.

There is some truth in Starck's point. However using McCook et al as advocacy with authors recipients of PEW grants etc is worse.

Not quite is bad as the Boris Worm PEW funded report but a close second.

To close off natural reef systems and seagrass meadows that are biodiversity hotspots, then claim the sanctuary is the reason for increased biomass against adjacent sandy bottom barren wastelands is hyperbowl.

These areas already contained higher levels of biomass and spillover of fish into adjacent areas would of been happening well before lines were drawn on some map.

Any change in sanctuary biomass would be predominently caused by favourable conditions seen across intire ecosystems. Focusing on this zone and that is okay for highly demersal species such as coral trout but for almost everything pelagic or semi pelagic it sanctuaries are a waste of time.

These species move with tides. moon phases, water temps, climate change etc and so does egg larvae.

In well managed fisheries sancutaries have there place but they are not the panecea they are promoted by ENGO's and not needed on such scales as seen in OZ.

There might have been some truth in Starck's point, IF Australian fisheries weren't experiencing degradation due to polluted runoff from Australian, IF Australian fisheries aren't at risk from climate change.

Further, the point has been made in the discussion in these pages around super-trawler Margiris that Australian fisheries are often not even exploited to the full extent of Australian quotas. even relative to Australian-set quotas.

For Starck to then claim that those quotas are too restrictive seems a little wide of the mark.

Could it be that Starck's agenda has little to do with fish, much to do with an ideological campaign against oversight and regulation?
You'd almost begin to imagine that The Australian Environment Foundation might be associated with the Institute of Public Affairs.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3458728.htm
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation
http://yes2renewables.org/category/australian-environment-foundation/

David,

Focus on Starck if you like but it matters not to me. The only reason I linked his article in was to show that MPA's are a social science that has largely been politically driven by PEW's arrogant global legacy agenda.

Dr Ben Diggles, Prof. Ray Hilborne, E.Prof. Bob Kearney and Prof. Colin Buxton plus many more fisheries scientists are all well aware of the facts I speak of here.

Conservation and exclusion are too seperate issues and largely discriminantry when they focus only on 'extractive use' while ignoring ingressive detrimental pollutants, pests and the BS activity called 'eco' tourism.

A human footprint is a human footprint not some benign eco footprint. Sanctuary zones are promoted for urinating mass swimmers saturated in suncream, inexperienced divers and snorkellers who trample coral reefs because they cant maintain buoyancy, all well known detrimental human activities but rec fishing is considered a 'non' tourist' activity that is banned in those areas?

Marine parks good for tourism but tourism not good for marine parks....ban all activities or ban none...don't discriminate! This increase in shipping is just another form not being adressed fairly.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01724.x/abstract;jsessionid=BCD929344FBF3F1A87667324EC52FAE3.d03t01

If you were a fishing stakeholder who fished sustainably in the Kimberly and the following happened to you, how would you feel David????

Quote....'Today, Environment Minister Bill Marmion added to the announcement by revealing he had officially gazetted another marine conservation area off 80 Mile Beach between Broome and Port Hedland. However, both the commercial and recreational fishing sectors confirmed they had not been told about the Horizontal Falls park plan before Mr Barnett unveiled it.'

Gazetted without local stakeholder's knowledge.

How would I feel about it? That's social science.

How do the fish feel about it? That's irrelevant, it's what the fish are OBSERVED to respond to no-take zones. That's fish-counting marine biology, not social science.

You'll recall earlier in this thread I clearly stated that pollution via runoff is a large problem, which governments prefer to not address. Instead, they "pick the low-hanging fruit" of establishing marine parks. We are in loud agreement, I think, that just setting up marine parks is inadequate without addressing terrestrial runoff.

Where we differ, I suggest, is that I accept that marine parks are of SOME benefit, whereas you would take issue with that. In support of your position, you would need to show that marine biology is just a social science. It appears to me that the Australian Environment Foundation seeks to thus besmirch any and all politically inconvenient reality such as marine biology.

No David,

I take issue not with MPA's or the benefits they sometimes provide but the advocacy of MPA's based on unobstanciated, promotion of the science. This is where our conversation began.

You see, I understand the truth behind the hubris....

Read this from NOAA

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/02/130204184627.htm

Sounds fantastic doesn't it...but what does the history of that article say?

Quote...."The report's analysis of long-term socioeconomic and scientific information found that after the ecological reserve was designated in 2001:

Overfished species such as black and red grouper, yellowtail and mutton snapper increased in presence, abundance and size inside the reserve and throughout the region;"

So the area including the demersal species mentioned was overfished/depleted prior to the park eh...?

Then it says....
"Annual gatherings of spawning mutton snapper, once thought to be wiped out from overfishing, began to reform inside the Reserve;
Commercial catches of reef fish in the region increased, and continue to do so;"and
No financial losses were experienced by regional commercial or recreational fishers;"

Again, the area was overfished to buggery then closed to fishing and demersal fish biomass increased...no brainer there!

But of course there is no financial loss because the area had no fish there to begin with no?

Next it states....
Key West commercial fishery landings had an estimated value of $56 million in 2011, up from $40 million in 2001,

Again, of course it has because the stock was depleted but is the sanctuary the reason? You see I understand that this advocacy tries to pin the benefits on sanctuaries but intentionally misses out the fisheries management changes including quota limits being introduced and many other factors that have increased the stocks.

The scientific and financial benefits are not truthfully placed on reality but loaded towards unobstanciated sanctuary zone science.

This is the social science used to discriminate the low hanging fruit as you called it. In a well managed fishery as opposed to depleted ones the benefits are even more minimal....but you would never know it given the rubbish advocated here in OZ.

Thanks Wade, let me get this right:

NOAA claims that establishing no-take zones has improved fish abundance OUTSIDE the no-take zones, for which they have before-after comparisons. Sounds pretty clear,and straightforward to me.

You note, on the other hand, that the report neglects the effect of changes to quota limits over the same period; to which quota limit changes do you refer?

If there were no quota limit changes, then logic tells us that the yield improvements can only be due to establishment of the Marine Reserve.

David,

This area has undergone massive fisheries management changes along the same time frame as the implementation of the MPA. It had to, it was fished out...the only direction for stocks to go was up and the sanctuary alone would of contributed little on its own to this rise.

Management changes included, quota adjustments, trap fishing gear amendments, long line reductions, trawl reductions, roller rig trawl modifications, bag limits and a plethora of other regs for both recreational and commercial fishers.

Why do you not research the facts yourself before believing in NOAA's attempt to distort the facts?

Spillover is species specific and has not been obstanciated in the far majority of Australia's no take zones because we either haven't done the science or it simply hasn't happened where we have.

Lobster and coral trout are two species which have been known to increase in some zones. Offshore reef sanctuaries are under different detrimental stresses to inshore/coastal sanctuaries and comparisons for spillover cannot be compared/used as blanket advocacy for evidence.

NSW sanctuary zones went from 22,000 Sq hectares to 72,000 hectares in 10 years and the displaced fishing effort saw many demersal species stocks nose dive. In 2011, 18% of NSW commercial fishers caught no demersal fish.

Did the spillover save them...no....but the displaced fishing effort caused by the sanctuary inceases was part of the problem not the solution.

Sanctuary zones are a massive cost on the tax paying public for little benefit in a well managed fishery. In SA in 2010, despite the fact no science was conducted in the 19 aquatic reserves already closed to fishing to proove spilllover existed...PEW and other ENGO's pushed for another 180 plus zones across 19 MPA's.

That isn't science that is an attempt at wholesale exclusion of sustainable stakeholders without local evidence.

Managing an area and locking it up and leaving it for hate agendas and vote grabbing is not science.

Thanks for clarifying that, Wade. There are some good points.

What you're pointing out is, a fishery suddenly has X% excised through establishment of a no-take zone, and total fishing effort remains unchanged, then intensity of fishing effort is increased by a factor of 100/(100-X) in the remainder of the fishing range, is that correct?

In that case, of course it's going to be several years before fish in the no-take zone increase in size sufficiently to produce sufficiently large numbers of young for fish take over the remaining available area of fishery to be restored.

Stands to reason that, if you want overall productivity to improve, then as well as establishing permanent no-take zones, you have to give the remainder of the fishery a bit of a rest for a while. Some might think of this as social science, but I think of it as applied mathematics.

Quote...Some might think of this as social science, but I think of it as applied mathematics.

Fair point there David. The social side is the loading of benefits to the sanctuary while ignoring other management or natural ecosystem changes, such as what scientists call 'class years'. These ocurr when favourable natural conditions align and result in unusally high catch rates for some targeted species. A good outlier in statistics if you understand bell charts is perhaps a useful analogy?

Quote....In that case, of course it's going to be several years before fish in the no-take zone increase in size sufficiently to produce sufficiently large numbers of young for fish take over the remaining available area of fishery to be restored.

That is not quite right hollistically speaking as many species breed best while young or at middle stages in size. I guess just like humans, we are not as fertile at old age and/or obese!

Within any space of ocean there is only a certain amount of available food sources and this also limits the potential of sanctuary benefits.

This is a good little abstract below on densitiy dependent body growth factors that many models ignore when promoting 'bigger fish' in sanctuaries....in fact when biomass increases occur they can produce more smaller fish.
Density-dependent body growth reduces the potential of marine reserves to enhance yields
Summary 1. Some models of marine no-take reserves predict that reserves can enhance fishery yield. However, empirical evidence of this remains inconclusive. One reason for this may be the disregard for density-dependent body growth in most models. Density-dependent body growth links the number and size of individuals, and thus could influence the biomass of fishery yield. 2. We developed an age- and size-structured model of an exploited population and analysed the effect of implementing a no-take reserve of varying size. 3. Protecting part of a population from exploitation in a no-take reserve results in a rapid build-up of biomass inside the reserve because of increased survival. However, when body growth is density-dependent it also results in reduced length at a given age within the no-take reserve because of crowding effects. This prediction is backed up by empirical observations. 4. If there is export of individuals (here larvae) from the no-take reserve, length at a given age will also decrease in the fished part of the population outside the reserve. An increase in the number of exploitable individuals thus results in decreased individual body mass. The positive effect of larval drift on fished population size and catch numbers will therefore rarely translate into an increase in equilibrium yield biomass. 5. Synthesis and applications . When body growth is density-dependent, implementation of no-take reserves affects the body size of both protected and exploitable individuals. Although reserves can have several benefits besides increasing yields, our study shows that, if density-dependent somatic effects are important, a general increase in yield bio- mass cannot be expected. In populations with density-dependent body growth, reserves are more likely to decrease yield biomass unless the population is severely overexploited. Analyses of the efficiency of marine reserves as a means of enhancing the yield of fish- eries need to account for ecological processes, and density-dependent body growth is likely to be key.

Thanks Wade, so Gardmark et al (Density-dependent body growth reduces the potential of marine reserves to enhance yields, J Applies Ecology (2006) v43(1) 61-69) found that within sanctuaries, there is an eventual levelling-out of fish numbers and size.

No surprises there, it's called carrying capacity, it applies to all ecosystems. Doesn't disprove my point, which is that when you've all but denuded a fishery (the opposite of the near-restoration which Gardmark et al are considering), no-take zones are necessary for at least some replenishment.

I'm intrigued by the comment about old fish being less fertile - my understanding is that because fishing has depleted so may stocks of larger hence older fish, that the oversize limit is rarely seen. In particular I'm intrigued by the remark about obesity in fisheries - I'd expected that obesity to be restricted to humans and sometimes our domesticated animals.

You might also be interested in Morgan, M. J. 2008. Integrating reproductive biology into scientific advice for fisheries management. J. Northw. Atl. Fish. Sci., 41: 37–51. doi:10.2960/J.v41.m615, free download from
http://journal.nafo.int/41/morgan/4-morgan.pdf

Ha...yes, obese isn't probably the best term, how about lethargic?

Even fish slow down at old age. Some of the old snapper I have landed were not the best from a purely sportsfishing perspective despite their size.

Snapper in SA are considered broodstock between around 40-100cm after that their migratory habits change. Even though they still breed these old snapper become more demersal and tend not to migrate out to deeper waters with their younger bretheren.

Even to this day with acoustic tagging programs we still know little about their movements during the cooler months when they head out deeper.