OPINION: Coral Sea plan is "sensible and acceptable"

A CANADIAN bureaucrat once said to me "if you panic too early, you run the risk of having to panic twice".

Through the sometimes panicky debate around the Pew proposals for total closure of the Coral Sea to all forms of fishing, I've always considered that political realities would be as important as environmental imperatives, under either the previous minister Peter Garrett or the current Tony Burke.

Think how many lives and jobs along the Queensland coast are linked with or depend on recreational fishing. Think about the electorates they span and how they could affect the outcome of future elections. Think about anglers from all over Australia who visit the area to fish, support the local economies ... and go back home to vote in their own electorates. I'm sure political advisers from the major parties are well aware of these issues.
Having said that, sensible protective measures for special areas and species are propositions that responsible anglers generally support, particularly if they're backed by some evidence as opposed to unsupported, emotional assertions.

So at first pass the proposals released by Minister Burke look like they should be both sensible and acceptable to a majority of recreational fishing and environmental group stakeholders. Rec fishing is permitted in all zones other than Marine National Park Zone and there are C&R limitations in the relatively small Habitat Protection Zones. Damaging forms of commercial fishing are pretty well excluded from all zones, other than pelagic longlining in the Multiple Use Zone.

All Australian anglers should take a look at this draft. If it seems sensible, let the Minister know that, either directly or as part of the consultative process. Numbers matter in this game and you can bet that the forces of Pew will be lining up to criticise the proposals for not going far enough.

John Newbery is Environment Editor for Fishing World