Re-Open Point Addis to Rec Angler's.

[4liters]

Would people going to the beach to swim surf ect have the same impact on the birds?

Also what is so special about this place that is should be open to rec fishing?

I'm not sure, but I guess people walking to the rock ledge to fish might do more damage than people on the beach itself because the rocks would be where the birds nest.

It sounds like one purpose of the parks to protect these areas in the most natural state possible to use them as reference points for other parts of the state so any removal of fish would run counter to that aim.

I still don't get the angst over the parks, a whopping 5% of the state is part of a marine park which isn't much given the number of other stakeholders who are in favour of seeing parts of the state receive protection.

Well lets hope they target coronet bay and any parts that you might fish and maybe you would change your mind. you don't get it or you refuse to listen, we went to the rallies and wrote to the Govt. of the time, there was never any mention of birds or dolphins or whatever else they tried to get us to believe, I told you it was about saving money on not employing more fisheries officers, the marine parks where just a way to save cash, at least when you were allowed to fish it the area was maintained but now it's a brothel, either you are trying to bait people or you are just plain stupid, WE WERE THERE at the time, so maybe worry about your own areas ans leave ours alone so we can fight the good fight

If there is evidence that Coronet Bay or any of the places I fish was an important area to protect I would happily see it become a park. Why? Because I understand that we can only catch fish at a rate that they are replenished or we'll destroy the fisheries, and from my reading of the scientific research, marine parks (along with bag limits, closed seasons and commercial quotas) are one way of ensuring that. Me and my hobby have to coexist with the ecosystem that supports it and the broader community, and if that means I can't fish some of the areas I would like to then so be it.

"5% of the state is part of a marine parks" Yes but the 5% are the easy to get to places with in a 2 hr drive from Melbourne.

Victoria occupies 2512 km of coastline. The south east corner of the continent between latitudes 34 and 39 south and longitudes 141 and 150 east. It covers 227 600 km2 – about the same area as England, Wales and Scotland; three-fifths of Japan and slightly larger than the US State of Utah.

So why target the the most commonly fished areas near Melbourne ? don't fish breed anywhere else ?

2512 km of coastline and they single out places that have been fished since Victoria was discovered ?

Where are the archives from the decision making to target these areas ? where is the science / survey results ?

There are no records and until there is I'm not convinced, my best catches were from Addis for years before the closure, the fishing never declined ever...

One of the links I posted earlier was from the ECC which decided on the areas to protect, they outlined their reasons for protecting those places which included scientific studies and the results of community consultation.

The areas close to Melbourne are the ones most heavily fished so I guess it makes sense that there be a concentration of parks in the area to preserve some of PPB and WPB marine habitats from fishing, however close to half of them are quite some distance from the city so I'd say your claim that they've targeted the commonly fished areas close to Melbourne doesn't stack up.



All I hear from a lot of people is tinfoil hat stuff about the real reason for marine parks is to save money, or that the science was flawed but no one has put forward a shred of evidence to back that up.

[cobby]

Would people going to the beach to swim surf ect have the same impact on the birds?

Also what is so special about this place that is should be open to rec fishing?

I'm not sure, but I guess people walking to the rock ledge to fish might do more damage than people on the beach itself because the rocks would be where the birds nest.

It sounds like one purpose of the parks to protect these areas in the most natural state possible to use them as reference points for other parts of the state so any removal of fish would run counter to that aim.

I still don't get the angst over the parks, a whopping 5% of the state is part of a marine park which isn't much given the number of other stakeholders who are in favour of seeing parts of the state receive protection.

Well lets hope they target coronet bay and any parts that you might fish and maybe you would change your mind. you don't get it or you refuse to listen, we went to the rallies and wrote to the Govt. of the time, there was never any mention of birds or dolphins or whatever else they tried to get us to believe, I told you it was about saving money on not employing more fisheries officers, the marine parks where just a way to save cash, at least when you were allowed to fish it the area was maintained but now it's a brothel, either you are trying to bait people or you are just plain stupid, WE WERE THERE at the time, so maybe worry about your own areas ans leave ours alone so we can fight the good fight

If there is evidence that Coronet Bay or any of the places I fish was an important area to protect I would happily see it become a park. Why? Because I understand that we can only catch fish at a rate that they are replenished or we'll destroy the fisheries, and from my reading of the scientific research, marine parks (along with bag limits, closed seasons and commercial quotas) are one way of ensuring that. Me and my hobby have to coexist with the ecosystem that supports it and the broader community, and if that means I can't fish some of the areas I would like to then so be it.

"5% of the state is part of a marine parks" Yes but the 5% are the easy to get to places with in a 2 hr drive from Melbourne.

Victoria occupies 2512 km of coastline. The south east corner of the continent between latitudes 34 and 39 south and longitudes 141 and 150 east. It covers 227 600 km2 – about the same area as England, Wales and Scotland; three-fifths of Japan and slightly larger than the US State of Utah.

So why target the the most commonly fished areas near Melbourne ? don't fish breed anywhere else ?

2512 km of coastline and they single out places that have been fished since Victoria was discovered ?

Where are the archives from the decision making to target these areas ? where is the science / survey results ?

There are no records and until there is I'm not convinced, my best catches were from Addis for years before the closure, the fishing never declined ever...

One of the links I posted earlier was from the ECC which decided on the areas to protect, they outlined their reasons for protecting those places which included scientific studies and the results of community consultation.

The areas close to Melbourne are the ones most heavily fished so I guess it makes sense that there be a concentration of parks in the area to preserve some of PPB and WPB marine habitats from fishing, however close to half of them are quite some distance from the city so I'd say your claim that they've targeted the commonly fished areas close to Melbourne doesn't stack up.



All I hear from a lot of people is tinfoil hat stuff about the real reason for marine parks is to save money, or that the science was flawed but no one has put forward a shred of evidence to back that up.

At the time it was all completely random. In the case of Westernport, they used commercial catch data and an increased presence of fisheries officers conducting surveys and closed areas where data 'indicated' increased amount of juvenile fish of varying species (particularly with that off the north of French Island) compared to other regions of the bay. Mushroom reef was closed only because it's easy access, there's nothing special about it compared to other reefs/outcrops in the region.

What's done was done and there's no way it'll ever change due to the increased 'green' society

[Fishsniper]

All I hear from a lot of people is tinfoil hat stuff about the real reason for marine parks is to save money, or that the science was flawed but no one has put forward a shred of evidence to back that up.

All I can say is that if you knew anything about fishing Victoria's Rocky coastline, you would know that the quality of fishing is completely dependant on how close the warm currents come to shore in any given year, thats the only thing that determines good captures form bad catches in any given year for rock fishing, so don't even worry about Pt. Addis coz nothing will change, as I said I just want to see better facilities for fishing in this state from all the money we spend, go to Queensland and see how they don't pay launching fees and dont have fishing licenses and how well there boat ramps and piers are maintianed, thats what I call your license fees at work

[hornet]

Sometimes the evidence that you so forcible seek isn't available as you may like it because you are not taking into account people motives and agenda.

You are right Raulfc7 ! Myself and others having actively gone through it at the time do remember it was all about "people motives and agenda"

Others here disputing the reasons why it came about should have gone through it, their prospective on this subject would be totally different..

Anyway I'm done on this subject it's going in circles, as they say "walk a mile in my shoes"

[Fish-Hunter]

fishing Pt Addis was one of the best locations to fish .The science used to create marine parks at the time was to ask local fisherman where we fished and the best spots land based anglers and boating so alot of "science "gathered camefrom fisherman , stating the best spots, so they closed the best spots we fished ...now you see more dog poo than anything .open it up to rec fishing allowing the taking of fish ,squid etc only ,NO crayfish,crabs or shell fish etc I live locally and lost a large area to 2 marine sancturies with no basis to reasons why .Ther is still NO reason to close as the species of fish we catch in this location move on to all areas

+ 3 :thumbsup: :cheers:

[Marlinman]

I used to fish this beach religiously before the sudden closure. Funny how the people who are so passionate and upset about its closure are the people who have actually had the privilege of fishing it. It's not as simple as driving 20mins down the road to fish a similar location, this beach was in a league of its own as far as water depth, fishability, access and species on offer.

I can't put forward any shred of evidence of why the science forcing its closure is flawed, reason being I can't find any scientific evidence of why it was closed in the first place..............

I'm all for conservation and believe anglers are great at looking after what they have, however when your favourite spot is taken away from you without sufficient consultation or transparent reasoning it does get your blood boiling, us anglers are a passionate lot!

Cheers

[Fish-Hunter]

I'm all for conservation and believe anglers are great at looking after what they have, however when your favourite spot is taken away from you without sufficient consultation or transparent reasoning it does get your blood boiling, us anglers are a passionate lot!

Cheers

+1 :thumbsup:

[VooDoo]

It's good to be nostalgic about the good old times but what has done is done - Time moves forward and not back.

DougieK is taking the right approach IMHO. The only way we "may have a slim chance" of having Pt. Addis re opened back to recreational fishermen is to have very concrete evidence to back up our argument. It is a long shot but "you will never know if you never go!"

Personally I think it will forever be a Marine Park - Politically suicidal otherwise. Would much prefer we concentrate our efforts to lobby getting governments of all levels to provide better water access for all recreational fishermen and fisherwomen in the form of upgrade and maintenance of existing ramps and piers and if they are truly looking after us lot - build more ramps and piers where needed.

[trueee]

Dear Dougie , first of all I ask this question Does anybody think they do damage to the environment when they go fishing?


Doug
Your correct in what is stated except it is how the info is gathered and presented
Albortross in our area never land on land or come closer than a couple of k's fact their nest habitats is actually thousands of k's aways or at least hundreds
Other birds which many are seasonal travel from all parts of the world and nothing significant different to any part of our coast line
95 % of marine life in Bass Strait doesn't exist anywhere else in the world so is special along our whole coastline so any observation made by parks can also apply to all areas of coastline along the great ocean road
Parks tend to lock us out ,(humans ) because that's how to manage all of the facilities unfortunately they don't bother to kill or rid the foxes that wipe out wildlife for its pleasure and there are hundreds that are killing along our beaches
National parks allow feral fish to swim our rivers and lakes yes I refer to trout but this fish was introduced and of course the fox was also
Parks do a fair job but let's look at the science that is mentioned it is based on observation it is also presumption because of some wildlife is spotted "nearby such as whales Dolphins ,seals and not a permanent territory of a species as they move imf you like pelagic or Roam for a feed similar to kangaroos
Special consideration to Point Addis for its natural beauty of erosion fishing can co exist in national parks as it does in other areas like Wilson's promontory
I would allow the front beach at Point Addis from "pixy caves" to red rocks open to the capture of whiting ,snapper, gummy shark flathead malloway ,King fish tuna squid courage and no other species and also boating covering the same area
It also gives parks and the Cairo the chance to experiment to create some science from the variables to how to manage marine life and effects on the whole of our beaches in existence
The trail walk and access to the beach for fishing inside the bay prohibited (even though it was my favorite spot ) I compromise
Why because I have a belief that most rec fishos are very environmental conscious especially with locations they love
I also believe a camping area although only small be available somewhere in the reserve and not be free
This can also be researched as to the prescience and after science research into how these marine parks are set up for the future I am confident that fishing will be allowed and controlled the same as they do in other areas if it was the case
Parks has to change the lockout mentality to national parks better management of facilities needed
I am a user of national parks and believe we need to build the science On fishing and our parks as to all types of impacts as we need to leave this place better than we found it so our kids have the adventures we did




"

[Rod Bender]

Lots of stuff here to read (and I don't have the time)! I do not like commenting when I haven't read all the comments and do not totally understand the situation, however, the one thing that did strike me when I read the initial post before I headed off to Bonnie Doon (where I had no net internet access) was the following. It seems strange that many of us bag netters and yet want marine parks to be reopened for rec fishing. It seems to be double standards...or that is how it appears to me. That's all I got!
cheers
Jim