Question:
The
Minister's statement claimed that there would be consultation with
stakeholders regarding this proposal. Who do Fisheries consider the
'stakeholders' to be? Do they not consider clubs and independent divers to
have any stake in this? If not, why not? To date that consultation seems to
have been very limited ie commercial operators. SCAN finds this interesting
considering commercial operators have quite specific interests. Considering
SCAN represents the full spectrum of divers from student divers (at
Universities) to very experienced divers, why has it not been approached.
What legitimacy is Fisheries going to accept /place on concerns raised by
SCAN?
Answer:
The
initial consultation was undertaken with industry as they were seen as
bearing the administrative burden of fee collection. It is recognised (by
Fisheries) that business replies do factor into their replies their
commercial interests.
The
views of true users is taken into account which places SCAN as a valuable
contact point for Fisheries.
Due
to the low number of individuals who respond to any public discussion paper,
those responses received are
taken notice of, and given extra weight as they represent a larger number of
individuals who, for whatever reason, did not respond.
The
process currently underway is preliminary to the release of a discussion
paper. The input received will be incorporated, so that points in the
discussion paper have some “value” and acceptance by the dive community.
The
Minister is committed to improving/increasing protection for the GNS,
however, the trap and line industry is in financial difficulties at present
and they are sizeable users of the aggregation sites and recreational
fishers are up in arms about being excluded.
When
assessing any threatened species recovery plan, the Minister has to look at
the socio-economic impact. Therefore, the decision on the recovery plan will
be based on more factors than just the evidence-based information provided
from Fisheries and other sources.
Ministers
are influenced by well organised lobby groups, therefore, my advice would be
for SCAN to get a higher profile and I recommend a meeting with the
Minister.
At
a recent meeting with dive industry representatives, I mentioned that SCAN
would be a useful group to voice the views of divers.
Question:
So
what about other sites where GNS gather? We could dive them and not pay a
fee.
Answer:
The
spear fishermen claim knowledge of other sites. Fisheries are aware of these
other sites, however the number of GNS at them is not significant. The main
sites are the listed ones, well except for Bass Point, which is a low volume
site!
Question:
When
will the recommendations from the 2003 report be implemented?
Answer:
There
are a number of critical things happening in the commercial sphere of the
fishing industry, like export approvals to be signed off for some of the
fishing industry, EIS species impact statements, and the like. The GNS
recovery plan is “attached” to these issues, so it will need to be
“worked through” sooner rather than later, maybe by December?
Question:
What
history in the marine environment does the artificial embryo plan have?
Answer:
Yes,
it is “out there” stuff. Of sharks born in captivity, only 2 have
survived in Australia and only 7 worldwide.
Question:
So
what is the recovery plan?
Answer:
The
fee is only a small part. Recreational fishing, charter fishing, and the
trap and line fishing industries took a significant blow with the
declaration of the 10 aggregation sites. They are urging the government to
wait until the effects of the current initiatives are quantified, i.e.
updates on populations and the likely extinction date.
All
Fisheries can do is put forward advice to the Minister. Such advice will be
looked at in context with other information presented by the Recreational
Fishing Group, the trap and line industry, SCUBA divers, etc.
That is how it works.
Question:
Information
was provided to Fisheries back in 2002 (by a SCAN member club) regarding the
“overloading” of Magic Point by commercial operators. Why have they not
done anything about it?
Answer:
Hmmm.
Question:
In
light of last question, what about restricting access to the aggregation
sites to commercial dive operators?
Answer:
Commercial
operators have told us they don’t want exclusive access. They have
directed us to speak to the independent clubs and SCAN.
Question:
Clubs
don’t just dive aggregation sites, we know the sites well, like commercial
operators. However, there is a big difference between us and commercial
operators. Our divers return time and time again, so it is easier to get
them to follow the code of conduct. The day-tripper element of commercial
boats means they have paid to see GNS and will seek to fulfil that desire.
They would be less inclined to follow the protocols!
Answer:
Yes,
there is some validity in that.
Question:
What
about the “spill over effect” of sanctuary zones?
The benefits to fishers are well known from the New Zealand
experience!
Answer:
There
is not a lot of solid data to actually prove that to be the case.
Question:
How
much does it cost to pay for/buy a sanctuary zone??
Answer:
Couldn't
quantify.
SUMMARY:
·
Diver
impacts are known to be negligible
·
50%
of GNS deaths are fishing
related.
·
DPI
have proposed to implement a fee system through the recreational dive
industry
·
That
will allow funding of some research into reintroduction of the species
through acceleration of the fertility rate, more monitoring etc
·
DPI
are not making any clear statements about the outcome measures for the
recovery program; they have neither good baseline data nor tracking nor
targets in success domains such as
o
GNS
population estimates
o
GNS
morbidity and mortality rates
o
GNS
fertility rates
·
DPI’s
total budget for this (in NSW) is approximately $300,000 (sourced from NSW
Govt program expenditure). But they want to spend more in the future.
·
Although
protection zones are a demonstrably successful protection measure (from
studies in several parts of the world) NSW DPI are choosing instead to focus
on a small research program into an unproven strategy i.e. embryo breeding,
with further monitoring on impacts of divers, whilst providing no tangible
action regarding the protection of the GNS.
·
Although
Divers and the Diving Industry have a negligible impact on GNS, that is
where the DPI is focussing its attention. This is because there is a
potential to generate revenue for the aforementioned research programs and
possibly to reduce the Government’s outlay of $300,000 in this area.
·
Fisheries have
drastically over estimated diver numbers in GNS areas. Therefore
funds will be less.
·
The
administration costs to collect the funds could well make the net funds
negligible.
·
The
Recreational Fishing trust funds are not to be spent on endangered species
(apart from brochures for ID assistance). Such activity, they say, is
a Government responsibility. They do not wish to fund work which will
confirm a lock out situation for them. Therefore they direct funds in other
directions which much better suit their interests.
·
Non-extractive
users are to pay with regard to GNS recovery, whilst extractive users i.e.
those who have the most significant negative impact, do not have a
hand in funding this work
·
This
is a political process and we need to make our voice heard by the Minister
and the wider public or suffer the consequences.
·
Where proper control
of diver numbers has occurred, this has meant no impact on sharks from
divers. (i.e. Fish Rock, Big Seal etc.)
Where proper control of diver
numbers has NOT occurred (Magic Point) this has meant major impact on sharks
from divers. Only Magic Point needs action about divers and this applies
almost solely to charter operators.
·
A copy of the 2003 report
regarding the overloading at Magic Point, was supplied to Bill Talbot at the
conclusion of the meeting.
·
Fisheries’ job is to manage the fish for the table
industry. Bob stated that the fishing industry typically fishes a species
down to 10-15 % of original biomass. This is not acceptable.
·
Fisheries
recognise that assistance supplied via labour and equipment from divers and
the dive industry has amounted to a significant amount i.e. a couple of
million dollars. This contribution has been an invaluable part of GNS
research. Industry has contributed in diver impact but has also helped
research.
·
It
follows that a fee on divers to fund any research is proposed purely because
the department manages those areas and because they have already taxed the
only other group under their control (ie. recreational fishermen) in the
form of a "Fishing Licence".
·
If
the object of your activity is to go fishing and the licence to do so is
called a "Fishing Licence", the government should be honest with
the public and call the proposed fee on those who wish to look at Grey Nurse
Sharks a "Looking Fee".
·
Following
on from this they could introduce a swimming fee in designated places.
Similarly the same for surfers, kayakers, wind surfers etc.
·
Remember
this fee is site specific! A very interesting legal precedent!
·
SCAN
must make our selves more visible.
·
It
is also timely to write letters to your local member,
the new Premier, Minister for Primary Industries.
just click on their name to obtain more contact
information
