Sea Lions facing extinction due to shark fishery

Image courtesy of Dr Brad Page, SARDI Aquatic SciencesThe Conservation Council of South Australia (CCSA) is calling for the immediate end to the practice of gillnetting in Australian sea lion habitat. A small shark fishery targeting gummy sharks (sold as flake in fish and chip shops) is using gillnets, a type of net known to drown sea lions. CCSA is alarmed at the continuing risk to which sea lions are being exposed.

A 2010 report* calculated 374 sea lions are killed by the shark fishery every breeding season.
Sea lions are drowning in unsustainable numbers putting 40% of colonies at risk of extinction. The report by SARDI (South Australian Research and Development Institute) states bycatch of female Australian Sea Lions must be reduced to ‘zero or close to zero' to adequately protect the species over its entire habitat. The report found that additional losses of 1-2 female sea lions per year could result in up to 40% of colonies becoming extinct.

Read more...
 

National alliance launched to protect South Australia's marine life

Conservation Council SA, as a member of the historic South Australian Marine Conservation Alliance (SAMCA), today released a position statement to emphasise the pressing need for effective marine conservation in our waters.

Conservation Council SA has been working closely with the South Australian Marine Conservation Alliance and fully supports this position statement.

Read more...
 

Key Concerns about BP Oil Exploration in the Great Australian Bight (GAB)

What is at risk?
  • This area has the greatest diversity of marine life anywhere in the world, including the Great Barrier Reef. Less than 1% of the marine life in this area is protected from oil and gas operations, but up to 90% of the marine life is found nowhere else in the world.
  • The area is globally significant for sperm whales, blue whales, beaked whales and southern right whales, as well as great white sharks.
  • The seismic testing will take place directly over the Great Australian Bight Marine Park Benthic Protection Zone with the four oil exploration wells to be drilled in or adjacent to this zone. The area is also immediately south of the Marine Mammal Protection Zone well known as the place where southern right whales meet to breed and calve.
Read more...
 

Fisheries Prof claims - rejected!

At the Marine Park Local Advisory Groups Meeting (MPLAG) 3 DENR was asked to clarify some of the possible benefits of marine park sanctuary zones. In response, DENR compiled the fact sheet 'Science shows marine park benefits', which was distributed at Meeting 4.

Professor Robert Kearney, a fisheries scientist from the University of Canberra, developed an appraisal of the DENR fact sheet. His appraisal has been circulated to MPLAG Chairs.

The Minister's Scientific Working Group (SWG) has since provided advice to the Minister rebutting Prof. Kearney's arguments against the DENR fact sheet 'Science shows marine parks benefits'.

SCIENTIFIC WORKING GROUP
COMMUNIQUÉ - MEETING No. 40
8 March 2011

The Scientific Working Group (SWG) meeting held on 8 March 2010 assessed in detail Professor Robert Kearney's appraisal of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources paper "Science shows marine park benefits". SWG members comprehensively rejected Prof Kearney's critique of the DENR work for three key reasons: (a) its misleading perspective; (b) its errors of fact; (c) its reliance on outmoded thinking.

1. Misleading perspective

Prof Kearney consistently ignores the fact that the objective of South Australia's marine parks program is integrated biodiversity conservation, maintaining that fisheries management provides sufficient environmental protection. This is wrong in that fisheries are managed to maximise yield and not to conserve biodiversity.

2. Errors of fact , including:

(a) Prof Kearney argues that it is wrong to identify fishing as a threat to marine ecosystems and that to do so contradicts international and Australian norms.

This is incorrect: The United Nations, the Federal Government and The Australian Marine Sciences Association all identify fishing as a key threat.

(b) Prof Kearney states there is no evidence of the threats posed by fishing.

This is incorrect: This threat has been copiously identified in scientific literature. Furthermore, six of the 16 fisheries in South Australia are over-fished or depleted.

(c) Prof Kearney selectively quotes Buxton et al (2006) to support his argument, failing to note that Buxton did not prove their contentions (but rather provided predictions based on a model) and he ignores their conclusion that marine protected areas have "value for understanding the ecological effects of fishing thus leading to a greater fisheries resource security".

3. Outmoded thinking

Prof Kearney argues that fishing will promote biodiversity due to an increase in the disturbance regime and supports this claim with reference to the "intermediate disturbance hypothesis". This hypothesis was used 30 years ago to support claims that logging of native forests was a benefit. It fails for two reasons:

(a) it applies only to natural disturbance regimes, not to deliberate extractive activities such as fishing, and

(b) the objective of biodiversity conservation is to maintain biodiversity at a natural level, not to "maximise biodiversity" per se.

SWG members will soon provide the Minister with a detailed rebuttal of the paper.

Prof. Anthony Cheshire

Chair, Scientific Working Group for Marine Protected Areas and Marine Planning

 

 

Show your support for marine sanctuaries

Now is an urgent time in the campaign to establish marine sanctuary zones in South Australia.
more
 
  • «
  •  Start 
  •  Prev 
  •  1 
  •  2 
  •  3 
  •  4 
  •  5 
  •  6 
  •  Next 
  •  End 
  • »


Sponsors

ConservationSA thanks Internode for its generous support

sponsored-by-internode