SUBMISSION FOR GREY NURSE SHARK IN NSW

Prelude:

The controversy over the protection of GNS (grey nurse sharks) has reached the point of hysteria amongst the conservation and the radical green groups. Capping this is the pressure from the diving fraternity, with the issue of both recreational / commercial fishing and spear fishing highlighted as the cause of the decline of the specie.

The Fishing Party questions both this radical line of thinking and also what the real motives are behind the push to ban all types of fishing in certain areas (areas that just happen to be world-wide advertised scuba diving sites and at present havent succumbed to being declared marine parks).

Information from a number of spear fishers (freedive) suggest that the GNS is fairly numerous at a large number of other sites that are not recognised eco-tour diving sites, which makes any survey number results suspect to being manipulated or misleading. This might also be an indication that scuba diver activity could have scared the sharks away to other quieter sites.

Conflicting sightings of the species, with numbers ranging from reported thousand(s) down to the purposely-understated three hundred, highlights inconsistent scientific data used as evidence of the cause of decline.

There is no doubt that fishing methods in the past have reduced the GNS numbers. Records show the slaughter of early spear fishing days and displays of GNS as trophies for the line fishers/hunters. That does not happen now. The decline has been highlighted and with the current species restrictions and the over-reactive fishing restrictions at nominated sights, this will remain an activity of the past.

The discussion paper being circulated is a directed and orchestrated document, even though the options and headings are said not to be an exhaustive list. There are more far reaching problems and causes relating to the decline in shark numbers (and all marine creatures) than what this paper directs the participants thoughts to concentrate on. In other words, a typical bureaucratically perceived outcome would follow, with grandeur accolades from Macquarie St on the decoyed result!

Questions not addressed:

• Why is there never any mention of the quantity of pups seen?
• Have autopsies ever declare the age of GNS?
• Are the GNS endocrine systems autopsied for disruptors?
• Is there something wrong with reproductive organs of this slow growing/mating/breeding specie?
• Is there an evolution taking place with GNS?
• How do GNS react with the chemicals, hormones and toxins being discharged into the oceans through outfalls, sewer discharges, runoffs and flooding? GNS would certainly feed on the fish attracted to these sites, especially the dead ones.
• Is this concoction of gender benders altering the sex of GNS and marine life in general? The shark surveys never mention how many sharks in the count, their gender or ratio.

The alleged sightings of eight sharks with hooks attached does not offer much scientific proof of extinction, especially when beach protection nets would kill many thousands and more would die of old age.

No scientific evidence has been offered to substantiate that death by hooks is the main reason of shark decline, but this seems to be the easiest excuse to lock fishers out.

Fishermen have available to them a simple device consisting of a plastic pipe with a groove in place to go over the fishing line, down to the hook and, with a simple push, release gut hooked fish. This needs to be further pursued and investigated if the hooks are proven to be a problem.

It has been stated previously that hooks are quickly broken down by powerful digestive juices in released fish, so the question now is "Why are hooks being highlighted as a major death cause?"

Fishery managers actively promote catch and release, with gut hooked fish released by snipping the line close to the jaw. Is this practice now under question or threat?

GNS wander the oceans. It is improper to suggest that they are only accidentally hooked in or near aggregation sites; they just dont dart from one aggregation site to another, although some movement might occur at mating time. They range from patrolling and feeding along beaches and headlands and resting in gutters and crevices, to being caught out wide by long-line fishers, so every piece of water is a potential strike zone with certain types of presented baits. Entire reef systems house GNS at some time or another. Fishers need not be the named and blamed as the threatening cause in every situation, but are portrayed as such in the regulations set to please the conservationists and the radical greens.

COMMENTS ON THE SPECIFIC HEADINGS AS LISTED.

1)      Critical Habitat and Buffer Zone provisions:

The mapping and identification of these zones is nothing short of a weak attempt to frighten fishers away from the area totally.

Being on the water in a boat distorts distances and boundaries. There are no buoyed or flagged areas to stipulate where zones start or finish. This could be construed as a deliberate deterrent management process or a financial compliance collection tool.

Signage is disgraceful. GPS waypoints are given, but the mistakes that could befall an angler in being compliant are numerous. Over zealous compliance officers make headlines out of gung-ho convictions, resulting in unnecessary and expensive court appearances.

Remedy if these zones are to continue:

Zones to be flagged with FADS and identified for anglers only - NO DIVING WITHIN 100 METRES

2)      Feeding Grounds:

This is impossible to determine as any large bait presented in the feeding zone at night in any ocean water has the potential to be taken by a shark. Large fixed dead baits would be the number one attraction.

Remedy in buffer zone;

Educate fishers and promote that they not use large dead baits at night, whether anchored or not, close to nominated sites.

3)      Hook and Bait Fishing:

The current hook and bait fishing restrictions are over-reactive and are an insult to responsible fishers. The regulations have been written with ulterior motives in mind, probably to create a no-take zone by sympathy and stealth.

The regulations should reflect the ideal that only methods that impact on the GNS be restricted. These current regulations only make the fisher the threatened specie, not the shark. Fishers that anchor up in the washes and fish for luderick, rock-blackfish, tailor, bream, snapper or baitfish with small baits, either floating or sinking, do not impact on the GNS as portrayed by the conservationists and the radicals, especially during daylight hours.

Even the idea of depleting the shark food chain is not justifiable as a lockout reason. Large dead bait presented either from an anchored or drifting boat down in the bottom zones would surely be the preferred attraction to the GNS or Black Cod, but the regulations dont reflect this.

Black Cod must be released wherever they are caught, so for some time now fishers have not been taking Black Cod.

Remedy:

Re-write the regulations so that only the methods of fishing that are most likely to attract GNS are implemented and not target either the fishers rights or fishing methods that do not threaten the GNS or Black Cod.

4)      Trolling and Drifting:

Surface trolling should have no impact on the GNS at all, as the majority of this activity only occurs during daylight.

Deep trolling with big baits through the GNS aggregation zone might attract a strike, but would be highly unlikely if fishers were specifically targeting mackerel and zones were adequately marked for easy identification.

Drifting is primarily restricted to daylight hours also and the only reason a GNS would be attracted would be the size of the dead bait. Drifting on calm days where not much movement takes place would create more of a chance for a strike. Anglers do not deliberately target GNS these days and any GNS accidentally hooked under law is to be released.

If stainless steel hooks were totally banned surely other hooks would not create much of a problem especially if they were barbless.

Remedy:

Limit hook selection to the use of non-stainless steel/non-ganged hooks (possibly barbless) for trolling/drifting in buffer zones.

5)      Spear fishing:

Spear fishing is a controlled method of fishing where, after suitable education on identification, there is no excuse of accidentally spearing a GNS. The restrictions already in place for spear fishing are adequate.

The self-imposed depth sanctuary that free divers are governed by should be mandatory when spear fishing. The free-diver spear fishing organizations are strict in their activities and are continually looking at ways to enjoy their sport without attracting unwarranted attention or criticism from conservationists and radicals. This activity is probably one of the most responsible ways of taking fish.

Remedy:

Continue to restrict spear fishing to free diving activities.

6)      Commercial Net Fishing:

If there is scientific (not emotional) evidence of commercial net trawling or purse seine netting taking GNS or decimating the bait schools in these buffer zones then action should be taken.

Remedy:

Either restrict commercial activities to daylight hours or the commercial fishers should be encouraged to hand line only with the appropriate methods and controls.

7)      Scuba Diving: 

Evidence has emerged that scuba diving is not the friendly activity that the so-called conservationists and green radicals portray it to be!

The ecologies of underwater caves are deteriorating from excessive diver activity and the more this activity accelerates the sooner dead zones will appear. The problem here is that for all the rules and regulations applying to this activity, there is no form of compliance or check on regulatory control.

This self-compliance is unenforceable and laughable and is discriminative with bias against fishers.

When the main activity group associated with wanting sole access conducts surveys, then results are suspect to manipulation. Not only do fishers and spear fishers see this as a threat, they observe that the financial gains associated with this activity over-ride and dictate decision-making.

The discussion paper also reflects the image that wherever fishers gather in numbers there used to be GNS, but not now. The idea that these spots are also frequented by hoards of eco-tourists donning wetsuits and tanks is not discussed in the same manner! Does the continued invasion of divers exhausting air bubbles frighten the GNS and disrupt its lifestyle?

Remedy:

Make the shark aggregation sites free-diving sites only, with no air tanks or supplied air systems allowed.

8)  Night Fishing:

GNS are known to be more active at night, so the possibility of a strike from a feeding shark is more likely. As trolling and drifting would be more concentrated during the daylight, only bottom rigged large baits would be likely to attract GNS after dark.

Remedy:

Fishers could be restricted to using small live/dead baits on single non-stainless hooks after sunset, with the appropriate de-hooker on board in case a shark is accidentally snared and brought to the boat.

Night fishing from a boat or the shore for luderick, rock-blackfish, tailor, bream, snapper or baitfish with floating small baits should be encouraged, not banned, as no impact on GNS results from this activity.

9)      Beach Protection Government Funded Nets:

     There is a clear indication that Government funded beach protection nets are killers of GNS.

Why is this not listed in the discussion paper, supported with figures of the number of sharks and other species killed by this process?

Why does this not attract the same importance as targeting fishers?

Is the Government game enough to tackle this issue?

 Remedy:

Include all processes that threaten GNS.

SUMMARY:

The attempt by conservationists and the radical green movement, and supported (or is it directed?) by the eco-dive industry, to force fishers out of prime fishing areas will not be accepted.

There is support for combined access to these sites with minimal restrictions, but if fishers are to be banned from accessing these prime sites, then a total activity ban should be placed on each site for a period of five years and monitored.

That means no diving and no fishing.

If in five years no improvement takes place, reopen these sites to one and all.

(Information compiled by Robert Smith on behalf of The Fishing Party from comments fielded from groups and individuals throughout NSW and QLD.)