[Coral-List] more articles
douglasfennertassi at gmail.com
Fri Feb 13 22:26:37 EST 2015
I agree that it is easy to forget these things. Indeed, the term "MPA"
really only refers in most instances to a fisheries closure, and there are
a myriad of other things that damage reefs, like sediment, nutrients,
global warming, acidification, the list is long and nearly endless. I once
saw an article entitled something like "MPA's are not a panacea." Indeed
they are not, they are just one tool in a toolbox. If I remember, the GBR
marine park was originally set up to protect the reefs from oil drilling
and mining limestone, or some such, and did not include no-take areas.
Some of the big impacts to the GBR if I remember are crown-of-thorns,
sediment, nutrients, and cyclones. The line fishery for coral cod is
probably one of the smaller impacts. The shrimp trawling is likely very
damaging to gorgonian and sponge communities between the reefs on sandy
bottoms. Shrimp trawling has one of the highest ratios of bycatch I know
of, most of what comes up in the net is not shrimp. I'm not up on current
equipment, "turtle exclusion devices" were very successful at excluding
turtles, I don't know if they can exclude other bycatch. But the problem
is that trawls are dragged along the bottom and destroy most of what is in
their path, and these sandy areas where the shrimp live have quite a bit of
life. They don't trawl where there are coral reefs, reefs would rip the
trawls up. But GBRMPA made the decision that they wanted to protect
representative samples of all the different habitats in the park. They
took copious input from the public including fishers, huge numbers of
comments, and chose areas to minimize problems for fishers. That's my
understanding, and I haven't been watching it closely so I may be behind
On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 2:35 AM, Magnus Johnson <m.johnson at hull.ac.uk> wrote:
> Thanks for posting these Doug,
> One of the issues, which is a general one in fisheries, is that stronger
> "protection" for the GBR ("protection" because MPAs don't do anything to
> protect reefs from mine waste, agricultural run off etc) doesn't stop
> people eating fish and if you can't buy local fish you import from areas
> where protection is less stringent, damaging their habitats rather than
> your own. I think one of the justifications for the expansion of the GBR
> was that it would enhance fisheries
> "The actual commercial fishery catch data from the GBR region show that as
> a result of the RAP closures, there was an initial reduction in commercial
> catches of approximately 26% (only slightly less than the extra 28.4% of
> the area that was closed) and that catch data for 7 years after the closure
> showed no evidence of a recovery (Fletcher et al., in press). Clearly, the
> scientific advice to governments by BRS, and as interpreted in the RIS,
> that was to the fore in justifying increased fishing closures,
> over-optimistically projected the outcome from the closures."
> Kearney B, Farebrother G (2014) Inadequate Evaluation and Management of
> Threats in Australia's Marine Parks , Including the Great Barrier Reef ,
> Misdirect Marine Conservation. Adv Mar Biol 69:252-280
> Cheers, Magnus
> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29705818 (article about coal
> exports from Australia)
> (article from 2006 which points out that Australia is importing most of its
> seafood despite having a huge EEZ)
> another popular article:
> Cautionary fish tale from Australia's Great Barrier Reef marine reserve.
> It contains a link to the original article, which is not open-access, but
> the abstract is open-access. The web page gives the email address of the
> first author.
> original article:
> Fletcher, et al. 2015. Large-scale expansion of no-take closures within
> the Great Barrier Reef has not enhanced fishery production. Ecological
> (My understanding is that the expansion of no-take areas in the GBR was
> not done to try to enhance fishery production, but rather for conservation
> purposes. Further, the income to Australia from tourism to the GBR is far
> larger than income from fisheries on the GBR. The article reports that the
> loss of fishery income which the closure produced was more than expected.
> If I got it right, Australia pays compensation to fishers that lost
> income. The larger loss of fishery income is thought to be because the
> fish and prawns were not overfished before closure.)
> To view the terms under which this email is
> distributed, please go to
> Coral-List mailing list
> Coral-List at coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Contractor with Ocean Associates, Inc.
PO Box 7390
Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799 USA
phone 1 684 622-7084
"belief in climate change is optional, participation is not."
belief in evolution is optional, use of antibiotics that bacteria have not
evolved resistance to is recommended.
In the past, putting fluoride in the city water was said by some to be a
communist plot, but today it is in most city water and helps reduce the
number of tooth cavities.
A survey of the U.S. public and scientists found that 86% of scientists say
children should get immunized, while 68% of the public agrees. 87% of
scientists say humans are the primary cause of global warming, but just 50%
of the public agrees. 98% of scientists say humans have evolved, but only
65% of the public agrees.
More information about the Coral-List