Anyone across this that can brief us? it doesn't look promising, more red tape disadvantaging the general population to solve a problem that doesn't exist or is already 1000X better than it was in the past.
www.marine.nsw.gov.au/marine-estate-programs/hawkesbury-shelf-marine-assessment
Had a bloke at the pub tonight going on about it to me for an hour , to be honest I haven't had a chance to get across it yet but my main concern with anything like this is it's just more pointless red tape to deal with and the risk of certain groups getting to much traction and we start getting banned from anchoring in certain areas and looking at the map it has the potential to be a-lot of areas as the area in scope is from Wollongong to Port Stephens from the looks of it. Also things like this when they get out of control tend to increase compliance costs for marine businesses and drive up costs for us.
Feedback closes 27 Sep 2018
Nothing new here. This has been occurring regularly since 1990. Locally we have the Jervis Bay national park and that has seen changes on a regular basis. The national parks to the north are just a continuation of the process. There will be areas where you can not anchor or fish. The main problem that effects cruisers is if there are any slipways in the proposed areas they will get shut down or procedures so tedious that that they may as well close down.
I think the sailing community underestimates the impact of the proposed marine parks. North Harbour no anchoring zone is definitely a big loss for cruising yachties!
I strongly oppose the parks for a number of reasons but personally not being able to anchor at Q station or store beach is a real shame!
Select to expand quoteToyboata said..
I think the sailing community underestimates the impact of the proposed marine parks. North Harbour no anchoring zone is definitely a big loss for cruising yachties!
I strongly oppose the parks for a number of reasons but personally not being able to anchor at Q station or store beach is a real shame!
if you look closer, the "no anchoring" applies to seagrass areas only, which does not include Q Station or Store Beach:
www.marine.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/821345/Hawkesbury-site-North-Harbour.pdf
Ah I see, I just had a look at Figure 19. Proposed North Harbour site and then table 30. Looks like the existing no anchor zone will stay but won't be extended out into all of the spring cove sanctuary which is how I initially read the proposal.
www.marine.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/821345/Hawkesbury-site-North-Harbour.pdf
One thing I do find odd is that one part of the NSW government fights hard to preserve seagrass, so that fish stocks can recover. Another part of the same government tries to get more people out fishing for sport, often on stinkboats, which can't do a lot to help fish stocks.
There is a lot of good science on the need for no-take zones for fish to breed in. When you go north you can really tell the difference between the green zones and the general zones in the reef.
Fish are being hammered by an increasing population, better equipment, GPS, pollution and anchoring. I love cruising national parks like Broken Bay national park so it makes sense to include the national park ethos into the underwater realm as well.
That said, the science doesn't make sense for many green issues, like toilet discharge and even some seagrass issues. Belmont Bay in Lake Mac used to be sandy and clear if you talk to the old locals - families even used to play in the shallows. Now due to increased siltation and run-off from urbanisation the sand has been lost under a thin layer of silt and seagrass. To say that all seagrass is great is probably akin to saying that lantana is great for regenerating a minesite because it is a plant.
I think that we should be happy to have many places put aside where we can let the animals do what they want without us killing them. That is what a national park is usually about.
Sadly our Australian efforts are a drop in the ocean. "All seafood will run out in 2050, say scientists".
"The world's stocks of seafood will have collapsed by 2050 at present rates of destruction by fishing, scientists said yesterday. A four-year study of 7,800 marine species around the world's ecosystems has concluded that the long-term trend is clear and predictable"
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1533125/All-seafood-will-run-out-in-2050-say-scientists.html
Its easy to imagine why China has invaded the South China Sea, Maybe not be for oil. They can see whats coming.
