Dark Nurse Shark Regulatory Impact Statement draft Public Benefit Test

Presentation Transcript

Dark Nurse Shark Regulatory Impact Statement draft Public Benefit Test October 2003

Proposal One - Section 8.1 List the dim attendant shark as an imperiled ensured species Listing in Nature Conservation Act 1992 Development of a preservation plan to additionally secure the species

Proposal Two – Section 8.2 Amendments to fisheries enactment for angling limitations Total yearly conclusion to all types of angling inside characterized arranges (see guide) of Wolf Rock Total yearly conclusion inside characterized directions of Flat Rock, Henderson Rock, China Wall, Cherub's Cave and Gotham City for all types of angling other than: Spanner crabbing (subject to a few confinements) Aquarium gathering (subject to a few confinements)

Proposal Three – Section 8.3 Amendments to marine parks enactment for jumping confinements Wolf Rock is the main site not inside a marine stop - Implementation of plunging limitations through a proposed zoning arrangement within a reasonable time-frame. Jumpers must not : plunge in the vicinity of 6pm and 6am touch or bolster dark medical attendant sharks, or meddle with their common conduct pursue, pester or interfere with the swimming examples of dim attendant sharks piece give in doorways or canals, or capture dim medical caretaker sharks make a plunge bunches totalling more than ten jumpers, or Use mechanical or electro-acoustic contraption including, yet not constrained to, bikes, horns and shark repulsing gadgets

Proposal Three (Cont)– Section 8.3 Amendments to marine parks enactment for plunging limitations Tourist program administrators with plunging as an action on their Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) allow and jump clubs must : convey a jump preparation to all jumpers before entering the water, specifying the controls for plunging with dim medical attendant sharks show the directions for plunging with dim medical caretaker sharks in a noticeable position in plunge shops that work or advance plunging trips inside the Moreton Bay Marine Park, and on board jump vessels

Wolf Rock (Double Island Point) Henderson Rock (Moreton Island) Cherubs Cave (Moreton Island) China Wall (Moreton Island) Gotham City (Moreton Is) Flat Rock (North Stradbroke Island) 

RIS Impact

Impact of Diver Support

Responding to the RIS The reaction shape must be in their grasp by 5pm on the seventeenth of November Just under one month to get entries in! www.dpi.qld.gov.au/additional/pdf/fishweb/GNS_response.pdf www.dpi.qld.gov.au/additional/pdf/fishweb/GNS_RISonly.pdf Use the Response shape from the DPI site Suggested reaction

Question 1 Do you bolster or not bolster Proposal One (see segment 8.1 in RIS/PBT)? Full Support - Studies say as meager as 300 to 500 people left and that certainly warrants a jeopardized posting under the Nature Conservation Act 1992

Question 2 Do you bolster or not bolster the advancement of a preservation anticipate the animal types (see area 8.1 in RIS/PBT)? Full Support - Protective measures are certainly required . On the off chance that nothing is done to secure the dark attendant sharks, they may be wiped out in the middle of 7 and 40 years

Question 3a Indicate whether you bolster or don't bolster an entire of year or a regular conclusion to limit FISHING impacts on dim medical caretaker sharks (see areas 7.2 and 7.3 in RIS/PBT)? Full Support for yearly angling conclusion – Hook and line angling is the best danger to the survival of the dark medical attendant sharks 30% of watched sharks have snares in their mouth, 80% of autopsied sharks have snares in their throat or stomach snares and the subsequent diseases and septicaemia are by a long shot the fundamental purposes behind unnatural dim attendant sharks passings Fishing inside these locales undermines the survival of the dim medical attendant sharks and all types of snare and line angling must be expelled

Question 3b Do you bolster or not bolster the idea of having a yearly or regular conclusion to limit DIVING impacts on dim attendant sharks (see areas 7.2 and 7.3 in RIS/PBT)? No Support for yearly or occasional plunging terminations – Diving is not viewed as a key effect to the dim medical attendant sharks , especially when jumpers are overseen suitably Over the most recent three years, the jumping group has been exceptionally strong in receiving and submitting to the intentional GNS jumping set of accepted rules additionally in rounding out reviews for the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services There is no logical confirmation to recommend that jumpers holding fast to the implicit rules have more than an insignificant effect on the dim medical attendant sharks Divers are a vital wellspring of data about dim attendant sharks numbers and relocation

Question 4 If you bolster region terminations, do you bolster or not bolster the greater part of the separations proposed in the guide beneath? Bolster 1.2 km, however 1.5 km would be better as a round zone with separation communicated in nautical miles – Recent reviews in both Queensland (Flat Rock) and New South Wales (Fish Rock) have plainly exhibited that the dim medical caretaker sharks do really fly out up to 1.2km from the site and all through the water section to scavenge A 200m security zone + 800m cushion zone (as executed in New South Wales) is absolutely ineffectual

Question 5 If you don't bolster the proposed removes in the guide yet do bolster having a range conclusion, demonstrate which remove you would bolster? Bolster 1.5 km in a perfect world, as a round zone with separation communicated in nautical miles – Boundary modification that are not seen as hindering to the dim medical caretaker sharks, however would limit budgetary hardship on some partner gatherings ought to be made conceivable A square conclusion zone is more hard to recognize on a GPS so thought ought to be given to roundabout conclusion zones Distances ought to be communicated as nautical miles as this is the standard unit of measure for sculling

Question 6 Do you bolster or not bolster Proposal Two (see segment 8.2 the RIS/PBT)? Full Support – Hook and line angling is the best risk to the survival of the dim medical attendant sharks Fishing inside these locales undermines the survival of the dark attendant sharks and all types of snare and line angling must be expelled Practices with no exhibited unfriendly effects on the dim medical caretaker sharks could in any case be permitted to limit money related hardship for expert anglers and fish gatherers

Question 7 Do not answer in the event that you communicated full support being referred to 6

Question 8 Do you bolster or not bolster Proposal Three (see segment 8.3 the RIS/PBT)? Bolster however with the recommended corrections – The particular limitations expressed for jump administrators and plunge clubs ought to be stretched out to all jumpers , including those jumping from private vessels The plunge gather point of confinement ought to be raised to 12 . A breaking point of 12 depends on the normal limit with regards to a standard day watercraft jump operation Permanent mooring ought to be considered on intensely used plunge locales, for example, Flat Rock in order to dispense with stay and bind effects to the reef yet this likewise could be utilized to manage the quantity of vessels permitted to utilize the site anytime. The quantity of moorings ought to be corresponding to the genuine utilization of the site Over the most recent three years, the jumping group has been exceptionally strong in embracing and complying with the deliberate GNS plunging set of accepted rules . Execution of the proposed enactment formalizes the current intentional nearby plunging hones in limiting effects to the dark attendant sharks

Question 9 Do not answer on the off chance that you communicated full support being referred to 8

Question 10 Should the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) offer thought to topping the quantities of jumpers in the water at any one time as well as any one day to limit unsettling influence to the sharks (see segment 8.3 of the RIS/PBT)? Yes if sponsored by logical confirmation – Considerations ought to be in accordance with logical proof that expansive gatherings of jumpers really affect the dim medical attendant sharks

Question 11 Should the EPA offer thought to denying jumper access to territories amid periods when sharks are at high danger of unsettling influence (see segment 8.3 of the RIS/PBT)? Yes if sponsored by logical confirmation – Considerations ought to be in accordance with logical proof of the effect of jumpers amid these circumstances

General Comments The Department of Primary Industries and the Environmental Protection Agency have made an extraordinary showing with regards to in figuring a viable arrangement of defensive measures , upheld by logical proof , for the assurance of the dark medical attendant sharks in Queensland The insurance of the dim medical caretaker sharks is long past due and something must be done well now to keep this species from getting to be distinctly terminated It is awesome to see the Queensland Government quick to make the best choice for the dim medical caretaker sharks and promising to execute these measures before the finish of the year

What do we have to do? Submit the same number of reactions Support for the RIS according to proposed reaction Write you possess reaction Write or converse with your neighborhood State Member? Keep in touch with the Premier?

Your Questions