GOVERNMENTS seem to be coming around to the idea that fishos should be “compensated” for loss of access due to marine park lock-outs and other enforced closures.
The announcement in Queensland of a major artificial reef in the Moreton Bay marine park (see news story HERE) is the most recent example of this sort of policy in action.
On face value, anglers are the only user group disadvantaged by marine park lock-out zones. Commercial fishermen are financially compensated if they get kicked out of an area. They mightn’t like it but at least they get some form of compensation. Other businesses (such as dive charters) actually stand to profit as they get what can be seen as “exclusive” access. But fishos just get shafted. We lose access and get nothing in return.
While Fisho advocates for sensible marine protection measures, we also understand that banning fishing in one area tends to increase pressure in other locations.
From an environmental perspective, this process of “displaced effort” doesn’t seem to make much sense.
So if we have to have no-fishing zones, why not restore some environmental and social balance by creating new habitats for fish and fishermen?
The idea of artificial reefs, FADs, C&R zones and rec-only fishing areas “offsetting” closures isn’t new. These ideas were mooted during the creation of the Jervis Bay Marine Park back in the late 1990s but unfortunately got short shrift due to the political climate of the time.
However, times and attitudes change and there certainly now seems to be room for this discussion to get more air time.
Right now seems a good time to start the debate.
In Fisho’s view, while it’s right and proper that we should carefully scruitinise any plans to impose fishing bans, and criticise moves that unjustly restrict legitimate and sustainable fishing activity, it’s equally right and proper that we support scientifically justified marine protection measures.
It’s fair to say that some of these measures will result in loss of access in some form or another.
Is it reasonable to expect government and society at large to understand that we are entitled to some form of “compensation” in return for accepting this loss of access?
If other user groups receive compensation or can be seen to be profiting from the marine protection process, surely it’s fair that anglers receive similar benefits?
For example, if we are banned from 20 per cent of a given area, shouldn’t we expect to have a similar area “enhanced” for our benefit?
It goes without saying that the science has to support the creation of any artifical reefs or rec-only areas designed as “offsets” to fishing bans or lock-outs. But if there are minimal risks – and you’d have to think that creating new habitat and/or reducing commercial extraction would have to be seen as environmental benefits – then surely the “offset” concept is something we should all support and encourage?
What do YOU think?
