Archived page, Recfishwest letter to Editor:- Balance and credibility the key in marine planning
WA Fishing Industry Council letter to Editor:- Marine Science or Scientific Advocacy?

Letter to the Editor

Balance and credibility the key in marine planning

I would like to express my disappointment at the West Australian printing the overtly political and unsoundly based opinion of several scientists "Sound reasons for a northern marine park."

Not surprisingly, Professor Meeuwig does not declare that she is a spokesperson for the radical Pew Environmental Group. The Pew group is funded through the proceeds of oil exploitation and is using Australia to pursue a distinctly American agenda. Indeed the article makes this clear, twice pointing out that the real benefits are in sending a message to the rest of the world (ie Pew headquarters in the US).

What Professor Meeuwig and her cadre do not do, is ask what the risks are to humpback whales and the snubfin dolphin. They are clearly not from recreational or commercial fishing. Both groups have reasonably said that all existing activities should be assessed against the specific and identifiable risk to whales in a zoning plan; the real reason for immediate action in Camden Sound.

Instead, these advocates are pushing for massive additional sanctuaries for other reasons; reasons that deserve a carefully considered and objective assessment process.

For example, in a recent visit to the Florida Keys Marine Park, managers identified the two greatest risks to biodiversity as anchor damage and physical damage to corals by non-extractive divers. Neither of these activities is currently managed in our marine parks or is proposed to be managed in Camden Sound, but fishing is being vilified.

A recent study in the Great Barrier Reef by McCook et al, found higher abundances of fish in a number of instances in fished rather than unfished areas.

Recfishwest and the wider community is asking what is the driver for expensive and often inappropriate lines on the water, when other management strategies can deliver a better outcome?

The answer sadly is that Professor Meeuwig makes money by supporting green paint in Australia to better win long term results in the United States.

The recreational sector agrees that Camden Sound is an important place, but we are disgusted that green fundamentalists have used the need to protect whales as an excuse to ban fishing. Australians have always rejected fundamentalism in any form and it is essential that we have an informed and responsible debate on conservation in the entire Kimberley, rather than having the views of a small number of scientists with clearly vested interests pushing a foreign agenda.

Frank Prokop
Executive Director,
Recfishwest
PO Box 34 North Beach WA, Hillarys 0419 949118
23 March 2010

WAFIC letter:- Marine Science or Scientific Advocacy?

The Editor
West Australian Newspapers

Dear Sir,

Marine Science or Scientific Advocacy?

The feature article "Sound reasons for northern marine park" (The West Australian 23 March) puts the view from some marine scientists from research institutions in Western Australia that large marine sanctuaries in Camden Sound would deliver significant conservation and fisheries benefits.

Marine sanctuaries can deliver conservation and fisheries benefits but they will fail to do so unless they are carefully designed and with clear and measurable objectives. Vague statements that large marine sanctuaries are 'well received' internationally are not sufficient justification.

Marine sanctuaries can also impose significant costs on the community not only in the terms of the economic activities they displace but also in terms of management costs. They are indeed one only of a range of possible management tools to deliver conservation and fisheries benefits. Careful assessment is required of the impact of current activities in the area and the adoption of the best management tools from the perspective of the Western Australian community as a whole.

The article mentions that W.A. humpback whale populations are healthy but neglects to mention that they are estimated to be growing rapidly at around 10% each year - a rate estimated to be at or close to the biological limits for this species. On this basis, existing low level commercial fishing activities in Camden Sound are already consistent with a healthy whale population.

In our view, the article summarises the authors' advocacy approach to the issue. By engaging in direct advocacy which is not evidence based, these scientists effectively disqualify themselves in the role of assessing, in an objective, critical and sceptical manner, evidence for and against the adoption and design of the best possible management and conservation tools. The government and public of Western Australia which support these research institutions now need to look further afield for credible scientific advice.

Sound policy development requires all views to be tested against the evidence. Commercial fishing, pearling and recreational representative bodies have supported the creation of a Camden Sound marine park on the basis that there is a fair and credible assessment of their activities against the objectives of the proposed park. We note that the scientists involved are not calling for such a process to assess the evidence, but are making a direct political appeal to the State government.

Yours sincerely,

Guy Leyland
Principal Executive Officer
24 March 2010

Reprinted with permission of the author, Guy Leyland, Western Australian Fishing Industry Council Inc.

Letters published in The West Australian, Thursday 25 March, 2010



This page prepared on 25 March 2010.