Grey Nurse discussion paper misses the mark, says industry

by Jeni Bone on 6 Jul 2011 The NSW DPI has invited public submissions on the issues raised in the discussion paper and on future management arrangements for the protection and recovery of grey nurse sharks in NSW.

John Dunphy of Dunphy Sports, importer of Shimano fishing tackle and supplier to over 1000 retailers, is on the board of AFTA, and member of the Boating Fishing Council. He states categorically that 'this document lacks objectivity, and contains some unsubstantiated assertions'.

'For example, that hook and line fishing has been identified as the major threat to the species survival is unreferenced, and is expected to be taken at face value,' he says.

'We have been saying for years, if you’re serious about protecting the grey nurse shark, you need to be investigating the threats to the species. The commercial drop line fishing for wobbegong is inadvertently impacting the grey nurse shark population. We have asked the Minister and the previous Minister to stop this. There is not much money in it. But they ignore real scientific method and just react to the pressure of the Greens and conservation groups.'

John continues: 'For 25 years, they have been using the same strategy and we say ‘if it doesn’t work, something else needs to be done’. Our industry is annoyed with the document that has been put out because it’s the same old, same old and there’s no solution, no fresh approach. You have to look at all of the commercial methods used by commercial and recreational fishing and find which ones maim and harm, then stop those. This is typical of the government when it wants to put a new marine park in place! Find scientists to agree with a position, then bring in the marine park, despite no valid scientific approach or evidence.'

What is required, says John, is 'measurable criteria so outcomes can be judged'.

'Decide which fish you want to protect. Then let’s do it for five years and then measure the results. That’s science. The way the government operates now is just bowing to the Greens and paying scientists who are friendly to their cause for advocacy.'

In his response to the discussion paper, John says 'the presumption that all hooking is accidental demonstrates the author's deliberate unwillingness to address the impacts of the targeted commercial hook and line fishery for sharks conducted in inshore waters'.

'The assertion that proposals to mitigate fishing impacts on greater shark are perceived as a threat to access by commercial and recreational fishers is wrong. The threat to access is only of concern when inappropriate measures such as complete area closures to fishing are introduced, rather than reasonable and appropriate measures such as gear and bait restrictions based on sound scientific research.


'The assertion that significant progress has been made in the commercial fishing sector is not substantiated. The claim that new rules for commercial fishing prohibiting bait fishing at grey nurse shark critical habitat sites is adequate belies the fact that targeted inshore commercial fishing for sharks will impact grey nurse sharks during their migrations.

'Commercial shark fisherman are the only group with a motive to kill grey nurse sharks as they will readily take baits set for wobbegongs and other sharks, and predate sharks and fish already hooked. Note that wobbegongs are protected from recreational fishing. There is no mention of the impacts of targeted commercial fisheries such as the rock lobster fishery in waters frequented by grey nurse sharks. The trophic impacts of removal of key prey species, and consequent impacts on predators such as octopus are not mentioned.'

The impact of scuba divers on grey nurse sharks is not adequately addressed either, according to John and the industry bodies he represents.

'The reference provided to substantiate the lack of impact is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper, rather it is an internal report (grey literature). As the interaction, or lack of same, between scuba divers and grey nurse sharks is fundamental to the census methodology underpinning the estimates of population size and the need for further conservation measures, the evidence must be based on sound, peer-reviewed science.

'From the information presented the current conservation status is unclear, although anecdotal reports suggest the population has increased since the mid-1980s. Yet, the paper argues for further measures to be taken to increase the population. There is no information presented at the population is in decline.

'It would appear that after almost 25 years the protection from fishing, implementation of critical habitats and the rollout of sanctuary zones that more needs to be done.

'One can only conclude that these measures have not achieved the desired objectives. If it is accepted that a grey nurse shark stocks are in decline, and no evidence is presented to support this, then it must be concluded that current protective measures have failed. Clearly, the exclusion of recreational fishing from aggregation zones has been ineffective. If grey nurse shark populations are in decline, then the underlying causes had not been addressed by the changes to recreational fishing.

'There is no reason to believe that extending these measures will do any better. The assumption that recreational fishing is the cause of the decline in grey nurse sharks has resulted in a failure to address the real causes of the decline.

'It could be argued that those responsible for the conservation of the sharks have shown a consistent and unprofessional bias against recreational fishing. This is not surprising considering the unhealthy nexus between the commercial scuba-diving industry who are competing with recreational fishers for access, and those vested with the management of the sharks.

'The quality of research underpinning the status of, and management response to these sharks is woeful. It's obvious that the process of identification of critical habitat sites has been capricious at best, or based on a poor understanding of the behaviour of the sharks. The identification of sites such as Bass Point as critical to the survival of the species has been shown to be wrong. The discovery of new aggregations on the North Coast demonstrates either a flawed scientific process, or more likely the establishment of a new scuba diving business in the area seeking exclusive access.'

Summing up his petition against the government’s discussion paper, John deems it reflective of 'a history of sloppy research, and biased conservation management favouring one user group, scuba divers, over recreational fishers'.
'This prejudice has meant the underlying causes for possible changes in grey nurse shark numbers have not been properly researched. The long-term impact of scuba-diving on grey nurse sharks must be investigated through the rolling closure of aggregation sites as controls, and non-invasive comparison with actively dived locations and published in the peer reviewed literature. The impact of commercial fishing on grey nurse shark prey, and predators such as other sharks must be properly researched. It is clear that simply expanding the restrictions on recreational fishing will not work.

'Only by sound research will real underlying drivers for population change in grey nurse sharks be determined. The dogged commitment to a 'more of the same' solution as the only option suggested demonstrates the need to rethink the management of grey nurse sharks in New South Wales.'

More at http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/species-protection/conservation/what-current/critically/grey-nurse-shark/gns-review