A coalition of green groups has strongly criticised an independent report by a leading Australian marine scientist which discredits information being used to justify the push by the American-based Pew group to create a vast no-fishing zone in the Coral Sea.
The attack comes as federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett again hinted that he was not in favour of banning fishing in the Coral Sea, an outcome that will likely anger green activists desperate to restrict access to 1 million square kilometres of Australian waters.
And in a further blow to the anti-fishing lobby, the federal Opposition has blasted the actions of "fringe environmental groups" in attempting to influence the Government.
The Australian Marine Conservation Society (AMCS) yesterday said green groups "were responding to an unsubstantiated attack on the science underpinning the declaration of the area as a Conservation Zone by Minister Peter Garrett. The unfounded criticism comes in an industry report prepared by Dr Ben Diggles, a consultant who has worked for one of the charter fishing businesses that operates in the Coral Sea".
Diggles, an independent scientist and researcher who has been Fishing World's Marine Biology Editor for more than 10 years, refutes the AMCS claims.
"My review simply summarised for laypeople such as Marine Queensland the scientific credibility of the papers cited by (the Environment Department) as underpinning their declaration of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone," Diggles said.
"I found that (the Department) had ready access to high quality science produced by Australian researchers, but by their own admittance, they chose to hang their hat on rather dubious science generated by overseas research groups, and even worse, a sensationalist press release produced by an environmental group."
Various anti-fishing organisation, led by the US-funded Pew Environment Group, have been trying to pressure Peter Garrett to completely ban all fishing in the Coral Sea.
In a recent interview with Fishing World editor Jim Harnwell, Garrett said he wanted to reach a "balance point" between conservation and well-managed recreational fishing.
A spokesman for the Minister today backed up those statements, telling Fisho that "any decisions to establish marine reserves in Commonwealth waters in the region will not simply be a blanket ban on fishing, either recreationally or commercially. There will be some areas identified for high levels of protection, others areas will be made multiple use and allow for continued access for activities such as fishing."
Diggles today denied the claim that he worked as a consultant for a charter operation.
"I must address inaccurate claims by the AMCS that I have worked for one of the charter operations in the Coral Sea. The truth is I have advised Nomad Sportfishing charters on various scientific matters relating to design of research programs they have been trying to develop to increase knowledge of the movements of several key sportfish species in the Coral Sea region. I have not been paid one cent for this advice. This is another prime example of the willingness of these conservation groups to play fast and loose with the facts."
Conservation groups say they are united in their call for the Coral Sea to be included in a marine park. "The Coral Sea is of great historic importance as it was the site of the most important naval battle ever engaged in by Australia" said Toby Hutcheon of the Queensland Conservation Council.
This unity is not evident in comments by leading green group the WWF which has criticised the hard-line Pew push to completely close off the Coral Sea as "ridiculous" and "unhelpful".
Don Jones, the CEO of Marine Queensland, the peak industry organisation representing recreational boating and fishing in that state which commissioned the report, said he was not surprised by the vociferous response to the Diggles paper.
"The key issue from our perspective is not a debate about protection - we agree that protection is essential. Our argument is that the measures put in place need to be sophisticated to address the multiple use conflicts that arise. There are many examples of sophisticated management measures around the world. Unfortunately here in Australia, the protection tool kit only seems to have one tool in it - lock it up and lock people out."
RecFish Australia CEO Len Olyott said green groups should respect differing scientific opinions.
"I believe that there is an issue with (these groups) labeling this critique [by Dr Ben Diggles] as an attack. All scientific work is subject to peer review and I would imagine that scientists would welcome such review. The fact is that the media statements and campaigns led by Pew Environment Group and the AMCS have very little base in reality and, until now, they have been getting away with it."
"I invite any one from this Alliance to meet with RecFish and other peak bodies. Let’s have a serious conversation about marine conservation. Surprisingly our common ground is a lot more extensive than our points of difference."
Ben Diggles echoes this moderate and balanced view.
"I have no personal objections to development of a marine park in the Coral Sea," Diggles told Fisho today.
"However, as a scientist, I cannot support extreme positions that call for a million square kilometre fishing closure when 60 per cent of the reef area in the region has already been closed to all extractive activities for over 25 years, and these closures have been demonstrated not to protect these reefs from the real threats to their existence.
"As anyone who read my report will know, it was far from unsubstantiated, instead it drew heavily from directly relevant studies from the region and simply presented the facts."
Meanwhile, the Opposition fisheries spokesman Senator Richard Colbeck called into question the data used by the anti-fishing groups to support their case to close off the Coral Sea and criticised Peter Garrett for not consulting with fishermen before he declared the Coral Sea Conservation Zone.
"(The Coral Sea conservation zone) was a fanciful and extreme proposal put to (Peter Garrett) by a fringe environmental group that he seemingly accepted without questioning the impact upon recreational and commercial fishers,” Senator Colbeck told Fisho today.
“Unfortunately, as demonstrated in recent revelations in the climate change debate, it is possible to manipulate scientific data to make it appear to represent a certain point of view.
“These recent events reinforce the absolute necessity for genuine consultation when making such important decisions.
“The Federal Coalition has been critical of the Rudd Government and Minister Garrett in particular for making decisions based on the representations of fringe environmental groups and without genuine consultation with all stakeholders.
“The examples of this practice unfortunately continue to accumulate."
Dr Ben Diggles' full report on the science behind the Coral Sea Conservation Zone can be read here: Marine QLD report
• Bream off the top!
• Jewies - lures or bait?
• How to fish dams
• Cool new lures!
• 42p Boat Fishing mag
reader comments
In writing about conservation groups you need to distinguish between them and The Greens, which is a political party with a raft of policies covering Environment, Agriculture & Natural Resources [including fisheries], Climate Change and Energy, Care for People, Human Rights & Democracy, Media, Arts & Science, and a Sustainable Economy. For the facts on The Greens' policy on fisheries go to http://greens.org.au/policies/agriculture-natural-resources/natural-resources. Too many people badmouth the party's policy without having read it. The Greens are NOT about banning fishing. Indeed, I attended the Tin Can Bay Forum on the industry in April and I wrote to Don Jones, sending him a copy of the policy and suggesting that there was little significant different between what he has been saying about fisheries and The Greens policy Jim McDonald, Greens Candidate, Wide Bay electorate
Jim McDonald on 04-Jun-10 05:45 PM
The Battle of the Coral Sea took place almost entirely outside the area of the proposed MPA. Falsely using such a momentous sacrifice as cheap political propaganda is like pissing on the graves of those who died. The lies of the Greens in this regard are beyond despicable. They deserve the contempt of everyone with any appreciation of the freedom we enjoy.
Walter Starck on 10-Apr-10 10:12 AM
No hurry Steve, Bugatti Reef is within the GBRMP and so not within the area of the proposed for protection Coral Sea marine park. Good hunting.
other Steve, Cairns on 16-Mar-10 12:09 PM
Sue, The first thing asked of Pew in the various meetings we have had with them was a compromise. Their position was 100% closure and they have not budged from that. See Fisho's earlier articles for details http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/pew-won-t-budge-on-coral-sea , and Jims appraisal of the situation http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/opinion-no-compromise If Pew could compromise their extreme philosophy and work with us, I'm sure both sectors would find plenty in common. But they have stuck to the extreme view for reasons only known to themselves, and Australian anglers should not be forced to accept their environmental extremism just because Pew thinks it is right.
Ben Diggles on 06-Mar-10 11:01 AM
The PEW argument that the Coral Sea should be locked up as a non- fishing heritage Zone out of respect for the Australian lives lost in the 2nd World War naval battles is beyond belief. The well documented Coral Sea battles were confined to a small part of the 1 million sq kms area they are seeking to close. If there was any logic in the argument every major ocean and sea way in the World should be closed to fishing out of respect for the tens of thousands of lives lost in hundreds of epic sea battles during both the First and Second World Wars. What a joke. It reaks of the US body's preference for classic US marketing "Spin" distortion to sell a propaganda package which lacks hard scientific support. On the issue of protecting the fishing biodiversity of the region, it is an unrefutable fact that the vast majority of fish in the Coral Sea are Pelagics. They dont live there they migrate through the area following their food source. The amount of fish consumed by pelagics in Coral Sea would probably be several thousand fold the recreational catch. Perhaps they should ban pelagics from the Coral Sea or advocate their slaughter to protect the bait fish that actually habitate the region. Notwithstanding this there is limited scope to monitor the sustainability of fishing in Coral Sea. There is no empirical evidence to suggest that fish stocks are on the decline. In fact the main source of data is obtained from the commercial take and the tag & Release programs conducted by recreational fishing. Commercial fishing in the Coral Sea is relatively light due to its remoteness, and there is no evidence of stock depletion from over-fishing. Recreational activity for pelagics in the Coral Sea is over 90% Tag & Release and provides no threat to fish stocks. The Tag & Release programs are essential to the ongoing scientific analysis of fish stocks and overall sustainability of all pelagic species passing through the region - particularly marlin. By closing the Coral Sea to recreational fishing would remove the only serious scientific research program which monitors fish stocks and their sustainability in the region. Hardly a smart move! The final straw would be the impact on the struggling boating, tackle, Marina and charter industries from Fraser Island to Lizard Island. The destruction of these businesses and their supporting infrastructure and impact on the Northern Queensland economy would not be insignificant One can only hope that common sense will prevail in this ridiculous proposal. We cannot be complacent. Congratulations to Fishing World for stoking the fire. Maintain your rage!
Reub Hayes on 05-Mar-10 12:09 PM
One can't help feeling compromise on both sides would be better. However this country in it's politics & conservation seems completely incapable of bi-partisan support. Work together? As if! The answer must lie somewhere in the middle and neither the fishing lobby nor the conservtion groups want to budge from their pedestals and come to a compromise everyone can live with. Frankly, I feel both sides are equally to blame. Perhaps history is the only way we'll every find out 'who was really right'. Of course, by then - any action will be too late. C'est la vie!
Sue , Sydney on 05-Mar-10 11:34 AM
Well done Ben and Jim for successfully shouldering the burden of responding to the scare-mongering tactics of the few that wish to change the lives of the many. While the fight isn't over yet by a long stretch, its good to see you guys shorten them up markedly. Let's now see now how well the fringe-dwellers can play off the back foot. Cheers & thanks for your ongoing efforts. Pete ><>
Peter Zeroni on 05-Mar-10 07:35 AM
Love your work, Dr Ben. It would appear PEW doesn't recognise the raw data when it's not accompanied by their spin! I'm off tomorrow with Nomad to fish Bugatti Reef for a week, as I figured it'd be too late if KRudd & Garrett get re- elected. Then they'll consider they have a mandate to follow thru with their anti- fishing plans!
Steve, Cairns on 05-Mar-10 12:08 AM
tell a friend
Hi, we welcome your comments.
You may comment as many times as you like. We approve and edit comments at our discretion. Do not send us comments that are:
By commenting you agree to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy. If you wish to alert us about a comment, contact us.
Thank you and happy commenting!
add a comment