What are your views on proposed changes to South Australia’s marine parks?

We want to know your views on the proposed changes to the following South Australia’s marine parks:

  • Nuyts Archipelago Marine Park Management Plan
  • Neptune Islands Group (Ron and Valerie Taylor) Marine Park Management Plan
  • Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park Management Plan
  • Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park Management Plan
  • Upper South East Marine Park Management Plan
  • Encounter Marine Park Management Plan

To help inform your feedback, view each proposed plan amendments in the summary of changes tab

You can also look at the maps, draft management plan amendments and the impact statement report, available on the Marine Parks website.

Then have your say on any of the draft amendments by commenting below.

Leave a comment

Mick Smith

06 Jul 2020

I would like to see recreational angling allowed in all sanctuary zones. These zones are not heavily fished by rec fishermen (who already governed by strict size and bag limits) and so very little pressure is put on the environment from this group. The smaller regional towns close to these zones (or close to boat launching areas that enable access to these zones) also benefit from rec anglers who spend a fair bit of money on things like fuel, bait, accommodation etc etc. It’s as though the sanctuary zones have been created to distract us from the fact the oil companies are drilling, testing, exploring etc out in our oceans and they’re the ones who are likely to put our natural environment at risk. And a HUGE risk at that!
Give the people access!

GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE!

These days, more and more, it feels as though it’s Government of the people, by multi nationals, for multi nationals.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Denys Smith

06 Jul 2020

Denys Smith
06 Jul 2020

I have doubts about the wisdom of dramatically reducing Clinton wetlands reserve (Sanctuary zone 1 In upper Gulf St Vincent) before Windarra reef near Ardrossan and other artificial reefs to the South get up and running. Opening this area for commercial and recreational fishing seems destined to reduce stocks of fish now being targeted more heavily while the snapper ban is on. If whiting, gar and flathead breed in this area I am afraid that they will suffer the same fate as the snapper.

Are "no take" zones decreasing in total area or have they disappeared altogether?

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

William Brooker

06 Jul 2020

My concern is regarding the proposed changes to beach access for the area I know quite well, the Upper SE Marine Pk, the Coorong . The proposed change to allow access for shore based recreational line fishing would have to be vehicular access via Tea Tree Crossing.
The vulnerable Hooded Plover nest along this area and vehicles pose a great threat to any successful breeding by this species. Hooded Plover are known to nest any time from August to March and at present are protected from disturbance only from 24th October to 24 December (I believe these dates are still correct ) . What this and other beach nesting species need is further protection and not less. Therefore I believe that this proposed change not go ahead.

Jane Paterson > William Brooker

06 Jul 2020

Thanks for including this William. I am a monitor for the Endangered Hooded Plover (in the Seacliff area) which is endemic to Australia, only 5,000 left and disturbance is their biggest threat. The reason for this is the chicks from day 1 have to feed themselves and if their parents call to them to not move (they are master at camouflage) they stop feeding too many times they die. Also traffic damaging nest sites and smashing eggs.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > William Brooker

06 Jul 2020

Hi William,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and feedback. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey.
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

mary houlahan

05 Jul 2020

I am writing in relation to the proposed changes to the SA Marine Parks.
I have been reading the report by BDO EconSearch and the feedback on the Your Say website, and I must say I am concerned by proposed changes particularly to decreasing the size of the Neptune Islands and Western Kangaroo Island Marine Parks.
Despite the overall increase in area protected by Sanctuary Zones, the rationale for the reduced area changes seem heavily weighted to commercial fishing interests. The report indicates decreasing sanctuary zones will have negative impacts. For example, the impact report for reducing the sanctuary zone for North Neptune Islands states very clearly that this will "compromise the marine park system by reducing the protection for these remote offshore island habitats". It lists the significant negative impacts on the environmental value. The "offset" of the increase in commercial fishing is minor. 2 FTE jobs, minimal economic benefits, and negative impacts on the local tourist industry and the social value.
I understand the importance of supporting local businesses and industries particularly during these unprecedented difficult times, but I hold grave concerns that the proported benefits of fisheries employment do not justify the long term negative impacts on the environment.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > mary houlahan

06 Jul 2020

Hi Mary,
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey.
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Margaret Clark

03 Jul 2020

The small areas we have set aside as marine parks have been a bonus for protecting biodiversity as well as increasing marine life numbers. They have only been in place for around 6 years and the benefits are evident.
In my opinion it would be a retrograde step to allow commercial fishing in to these areas.
Perhaps recreational fishermen could be allowed to drift fish over the area? Considering the numbers of recreational fishermen this would boost local economies as visitors to those regions buy from shops, rent accommodation and/or eat at pubs.
The argument that commercial fishermen are doing it hard may be true. But getting more rock lobsters caught doesn’t necessarily help. It should be more about building local markets until the overseas market strengthens. For the commercial fisherman it’s about the market not the availability of the product.
If the areas are opened there will be short term profit for a large company that will not necessarily benefit the broader community.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Margaret Clark

06 Jul 2020

Hi Margaret,
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns and suggestions in regards to the proposed changes. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

June Nair

03 Jul 2020

Please increase or keep the status quo of the marine sanctuaries . 6 years is not enough to replenish the losses sustained earlier . I am sure with new technology & better boats fishermen will not lose their income . There are good ecological methods to manage fish farms so that food supply will not be short . With better boats fishermen could go farther to catch fish .

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > June Nair

06 Jul 2020

Hi June,
Thank you for your feedback. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Jane Paterson

03 Jul 2020

South Australia’s marine sanctuaries only make up 6% of our state waters. They have been in place for six years, protecting crucial feeding and breeding areas for our unique marine life – much of which is found nowhere else on Earth. Keeping our sanctuaries in place is a responsible and practical step to take as they act as an insurance policy for the health of South Australia’s oceans.

The South Australian network of sanctuaries is based on years of scientific assessment and community consultation. Any cut back in protection goes against the science, community support and puts tourism businesses and local communities at risk.

South Australians love their marine sanctuaries. Years of government polling shows that more than 90% of South Australians support their marine sanctuaries.

The Government’s own independent review found that:
- SA’s marine parks and sanctuaries are bringing many benefits to our marine life and regional communities;
- Rock lobsters have grown larger and are more abundant inside Kangaroo Island’s Cape du Couedic sanctuary zone since fishing was restricted;
- Sanctuary zones are critical and effective at protecting long-lived, site-attached vulnerable species;
- Offshore islands sanctuary zones are biodiversity hotspots and important science reference areas;
- Industries such as aquaculture and shipping have continued to operate unaffected by marine parks;
- The price of locally caught fish has remained stable, commercial fisheries have maintained their catch and value, and regional house prices have continued to increase; and
- Participation rates for recreational activities such as snorkelling, fishing and boating have remained stable.

I welcome the proposed increase in Sanctuary Zone coverage at Nuyts Reef and the new sanctuary zones off Pt Stanvac and Glenelg.

However, I strongly oppose any reductions or any other changes to any of the existing sanctuaries in the network, including the cutbacks proposed in the Review at the St Francis Isles, North Neptune Island, Cape du Couedic, and the Clinton Wetlands.

When the sanctuaries were created, substantial compensation was paid to commercial fishing operators to offset their reduction in access. Yet just over six years later, the Government proposes to allow these same operators back into these areas. For the Government to then give back commercial fishing access to these conservation areas created in the public interest with tax-payer funds is grossly irresponsible.

The wind-back of established conservation areas is a terrible precedent to create. It is contrary to protected area world’s best practice, and will pose a significant risk to South Australia’s global reputation, particularly with tourism markets, something which has never been more important to maintain, given the damage sustained by tourism businesses as a result of the recent bushfires and the Covid19 pandemic.

The South Australian Government has a responsibility to protect the marine life in state waters and must respect the evidence presented by its own review, science research and the communities’ views. All of South Australia’s existing marine sanctuaries should be retained – for our marine life, tourism businesses and regional communities.

Jane Preston
Concerned Citizen/Living Smarties Member and Co-founder/Who Speaks for the Trees with Conservation SA

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Jane Paterson

06 Jul 2020

Hi Jane,
Thank you for taking the time to provide feedback. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey.
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Julia Peacock

02 Jul 2020

The Nature Conservation Society of SA (NCSSA) does not support the reductions in sizes or ‘reshaping’ of the Sanctuary Zones as part of these proposed changes.

These marine parks are the result of 20 years of effort and are the realisation of a commitment that was made in 1992 by the South Australia Government to establishing a comprehensive, adequate and representative Marine Park network.

Sanctuary Zones provide essential protection within Marine Parks, and cover less than 6% of South Australia’s waters. Fishers directly affected by the establishment of these Sanctuary Zones have been compensated (https://www.pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/commercial_fishing/licensing_registration/catch_effort_reduction_program).

There is a legislated review of marine parks due in 2022, and there shouldn’t be any reductions in Sanctuary Zones prior to that process.

Julia Peacock, Nature Advocate, NCSSA

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Julia Peacock

06 Jul 2020

Hi Julia,
Thank you for your submission. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey.
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

mark nicholls

01 Jul 2020

we do not require anymore marine parks in Nuyts Archipelago area, we already have a massive marine park sanctuary
in the Great Aust.Bight. Commercial and amatuer fishing sector requires remaining areas for the future of the industries.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > mark nicholls

02 Jul 2020

Hi Mark,
Thank you for your feedback. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey or send an email to marineparks@sa.gov.au
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Jonas Woolford

30 Jun 2020

The proposed rezoning is a win for conservation, a win for tourism and a win for fishing.
Does everyone realise what is proposed actually INCREASES the marine park network (outer boundaries) by 98.2 km2 and within this INCREASES sanctuary zone area by 113.2 km2 and creates 3 new sanctuary zones?
Unfortunately the 'independent' Supplementary Report produced by Econsearch with a little help from the Department for Environment and Water makes it very difficult to work this out.
Coastal communities and business have been suffering since the implementation of marine parks back in 2014.
These changes will restore the balance for fishing and tourism and actually improve conservation.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Jonas Woolford

01 Jul 2020

Thank you Jonas for taking the time to provide your feedback. If you haven't already done so you can also provide further comment by completing the online survey on this website.

Kind Regards,
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Frances Goble

29 Jun 2020

The rock lobster and abalone industries have been badly impacted by COVID-19 because the market for their produce has been impacted by closure of international and local tourism and restaurants. Changes to the South Australia marine parks will not improve the markets for their produce.

The Marine Parks are long term sanctuaries providing critical protection to all kinds of marine life, most of which is found nowhere else on Earth. Maintaining current Marine sanctuaries will provide long term support and flexibility for the rock lobster and abalone industries.

If we want to support the rock lobster and abalone industries we need to maintain or increase the South Australian Marine Sanctuaries.

Jonas Woolford > Frances Goble

30 Jun 2020

Could you elaborate on 'long term support and flexibility' in the context you have used it for me please Frances?

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Frances Goble

01 Jul 2020

Hi Frances,

Thank you for your response. We appreciate the feedback and for taking the time to communicate your concerns. If you would like to provide further comment you can do so by completing the survey at the following link.
https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey

Kind regards
South Australian Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Emma Sandery

29 Jun 2020

Marine Parks are so important in so many ways - supporting the health of our oceans, supporting our fishing industry by providing the nurseries for our fish stocks, supporting SA to have beatiful coasts, oceans and marine life. We should be doing all we can to protect and enhance these marine sanctuaries. I am very upset to hear the proposal to reduce some of these areas and to once again allow fishing in these special places. Reading the impact report for sites that are proposed to have their sanctuaries reduced makes it clear that this decision doesn't make any sense. For example, the impact report for reducing the sanctuary zone for North neptune Islands states very clearly that this will "compormise the marine park system by preducing the protection for these remote offshore island habitats". It lists the significant negative impacts on the environmental value. The "offset" of the increse in commercial fishing is minor. 2 FTE jobs, minimal economic benefits, and negative impacts on the local tourism industry and the social value. WHY would you make a decision to reduce the sanctuary zone when the impact report spells out very clearly that this is not a good decision? Who is driving this and why are we prepared to risk the health of our oceans (on which we all depend) for a slight increase in short term fishing? A big NO from me.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Emma Sandery

29 Jun 2020

Hi Emma,

Thank you for your feedback and taking the time to join the online discussion about the proposed changes to SA Marine Parks. The aim of the review is to ensure that a sensible and successful balance is struck between economic development and environmental preservation. The government’s proposed amendments take into account the environmental, economic and social values of our marine environments and seeks to find a better balance between these values. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey or send an email to marineparks@sa.gov.au

Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Jonas Woolford > Emma Sandery

30 Jun 2020

The reduction in sanctuary area at the Neptunes by 25 km2 is offset by increasing it at the sanctuary area in the Nuyts Archipelago by 206 km2 Emma.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Jane Paterson

27 Jun 2020

I am strongly apposed to any reduction in sanctuaries. They help ensure we have fish for the future by protecting crucial feeding and breeding areas and they result in great fishing in marine parks outside the sanctuaries – a win win for conservation and recreation. I do not understand the desire to reduce these areas - It's very important to conserve them.

As the threats to our oceans increase, we need to maintain at least the status quo of sanctuaries and not decrease them. I am a monitor for the endangered hooded plover, involved in a local sustainability group in my local area to reduce single-use plastic and reduction of waste and also involved with the Who Speaks for the Trees action group with Conservation SA. With South Australia getting hotter and dryer the government should be pro-active in educating the community on the importance of sanctuaries, mature trees, nature etc. and not allowing more to be taken away. I'm incredulous at this proposal!

Jonas Woolford > Jane Paterson

30 Jun 2020

This proposal will INCREASE sanctuary zone area by 113 km2 and the marine park network by 98 km2. Isn't this a good outcome?

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Pip Rasenberg

27 Jun 2020

The USE Marine Park was established around 2012 and I was a member of the local action group. I believe we all worked extremely hard to get a balanced outcome for all participants, some of us wanted larger areas and some much smaller, in the end most were very happy with the outcome and to all intents we got on with our lives.
I am very disappointed that we look like fiddling at the edges and changing our protected areas. In regards to the USE Marine Park protected area I am strongly opposed to any changes and the reason for my opposition is the rare and endangered Hooded Plover is under significant pressure along the coast everywhere.
The beach is closed to all vehicles for a few months only north of Tea Tree Crossing but it should be extended for at least another month as fledglings are often sighted after it is opened. Their breeding season is from August through to late March early April, even now we are only giving them a small window of opportunity to be left undisturbed by human traffic. On top of that they have introduced foxes and cats to battle with let alone the trash left behind by some that effects many birds.
I would ask the question how much more do we need ? We can literally drive and fish from Tea Tree Crossing south all the way to Robe. I believe we have a good balance especially for us, the birds will always struggle and they have a right as well. We are one of the States where we have the great privilege of driving on beaches and often hear how important the Hooded Plover is , so no I do not support any further changes to our protected areas in our USE Marine Parks.

Jane Paterson > Pip Rasenberg

27 Jun 2020

Well said Pip I agree. I am a monitor for the endangered hooded plover (Seacliff and Marino area) and I don't want to see any further changes that reduces these valuable areas. We all have a duty of care to protect marine life and these wonderful sanctuaries. And the governments own review found that our marine parks and sanctuaries are bringing many benefits to our marine life and communities so why change it?

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Pip Rasenberg

29 Jun 2020

Hi Pip and Jane,

Thank you to you both for providing your responses. We appreciate the feedback and for taking the time to communicate your concerns. If you would like to provide further comment you can do so by completing the survey at the following link.
https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey
Kind Regards
South Australian Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Darryl Dyson

26 Jun 2020

The size of if the parks must not be reduced. We must conserve these breeding areas.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Darryl Dyson

29 Jun 2020

Hi Darryl,
Thank you for your feedback. Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey or send an email to marineparks@sa.gov.au
Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Jonas Woolford > Darryl Dyson

30 Jun 2020

This proposal will INCREASE the marine park network by 98 km2 and sanctuary zone area by 113 km2. Isn't this a good outcome?

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Graham Davies

21 Jun 2020

We needy to increase marine parks an sanctuaries.
I could write a lot, but Fraser Vickery has captured it all.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Graham Davies

22 Jun 2020

Hi Graham,

Thank you for your feedback and taking the time to join the online discussion about the proposed changes to SA Marine Parks.

Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey or send an email to marineparks@sa.gov.au

Kind Regards
SA Marine Parks

Jonas Woolford > Graham Davies

01 Jul 2020

I agree Graham and this is what the amendments are proposing.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Fraser Vickery

19 Jun 2020

Eco-Action, along with Conservation SA and the Wilderness Society, other environmental organisations and members of the community (including fishers) supported the establishment of Marine Parks with viable Sanctuary (no take) Zones. The Marine Parks Act was enacted in 2007, the Zoning Regulations in 2012 and the parks and Sanctuary Zones were established in 2012 and over the following years. The South Australian community worked assiduously in various ways from 2002 to have a suite of marine parks rolled out across SA however our focus, locally, has been on the Kangaroo Island marine parks. Members of Eco-Action served on the Local Advisory Group for many years and managed to get seven marine parks, with Sanctuary Zones established off the coast of Kangaroo Island. Most of those parks, by design, have connections to the terrestrial protected areas on Kangaroo Island and are also designed, as far as possible, to meet the international standard of protecting 20% of all marine ecosystems in Sanctuary Zones. Unfortunately, only 6% of our marine parks are protected within Sanctuary Zones. As part of the process and throughout the public debate the Government, conservation interests, the community and the fishing industry have benefited from the involvement and advice of some of South Australia's leading marine scientists. A Scientific Working Group made up of a number of South Australia's most respected marine scientists, has provided independent advice to the government on all matters of marine conservation initiatives, including marine parks.

Many members of the fishing fraternity including recreational and professional fishers agreed that a system of marine protected areas with Sanctuary Zones would benefit our unique marine environment and contribute to a sustainable fishing industry and actively supported the establishment of marine parks. RecFish SA supported the proposal. Since the establishment of Marine Parks in SA management plans have been rolled out and the benefits of the parks have become obvious. For example, it has been reported that Rock Lobster size and numbers around Cape Du Couedic on Kangaroo Island have increased. It should be noted that many commercial fishers have been compensated as holders of statutory authorisations; ‘If they believe a right granted by their authorisation is affected by the creation of a marine park zone or by a temporary prohibition or restriction of activities in a marine park’.

The community assumed that the marine park system was established and was working well and tensions built through the process had resided. Sadly this is not to be! The State Government while acknowledging that the scale fishery in SA is in dire straits with many key species under threat, is implementing a program to reduce effort in the fishery buying back approximately 100 licences at great cost to the State. About one-third of South Australia's 309 commercial scale fishing licences will be bought back at a cost of $20 million in an effort to bolster snapper, whiting and garfish stocks! At the same time the Government has announced that it will, while ignoring the BDO EconSearch investigation to assess the economic, social and environmental values of the current marine park sanctuary zones, modify (reduce) marine park Sanctuary Zones! With regard to Kangaroo Island, the Government proposes to reduce the Cape Du Couedic Sanctuary Zone within the Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park by two thirds!

The BDO Econsearch work commissioned by the Government in 2018 to undertake an independent, science-based review of our network of marine parks to ensure an appropriate balance between sustaining our economy, recreational opportunities and environmental preservation found that:

‘Modifying the activities or zoning arrangements in the focus SZs to allow fishing or other extractive activities inside a SZ (by changing to HPZ status) will significantly reduce the effectiveness of the Marine Park network at protecting and conserving marine biodiversity and habitats by:
• Directly impacting species captured by extractive use by their selective removal and potential negative impacts to their population structure and reproductive success
• Indirectly affecting species that are reliant on captured species for food, shelter or other services and directly impacting other species through disturbance.
• Compromising trophic relationships and food webs with flow on effects to ecosystem function and resilience.
• Increasing the risk of pollution and the spread of disease and marine pests.
• Reducing the effectiveness of the Government’s monitoring program which is currently based on SZ and the protection afforded by them.
• Altering the balance of habitats and features represented in the different zone types of the park network.
Changes to zoning will have an impact on how the marine park network satisfies the criteria for a “comprehensive, adequate and representative system of marine parks” by reducing the area of habitats and features which are afforded the highest level of biodiversity protection and conservation.’
The Government proposal will potentially have a huge long-term impact on the Kangaroo Island economy, an economy already heavily affected by the 2020 bushfires and the Covid 19 pandemic. We need to rebuild our ecotourism economy – to do this we need to maintain the health of our natural assets, including our marine environment.

As opposed to Sanctuary Zone reductions we would also like the Government to expand the Marine Park system around Kangaroo Island and to establish Sanctuary Zones in D’ Estrees Bay and Nepean Bay – as was originally proposed. The Seal Bay Sanctuary Zone should be extended to the East.

Fraser J Vickery
For: Kangaroo Island Eco-Action.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Fraser Vickery

19 Jun 2020

Thank you Fraser for your feedback. Your comments will be provided as a formal submission to the proposed changes to SA Marine Parks so thank you for taking the time to share your views. If you haven't already done so you can also provide further comment by completing the online survey on this website.

Kind Regards,
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Peter Pfennig

11 Jun 2020

I have just had another look at the Ecosearch report that underpins these changes. Why are changes to commercial fishing given financial quantification, but the financial contribution of recreational fishing, tourism and holiday and retirement living not quantified? The quality of our coastal ecosystems are key factors in the financial viability of many rural areas either indirectly or as direct scents for goods and services associated with recreational fishing visitation. The current financial disaster that these areas are living through shows this as the commercial fishers in these areas are still operating, but the main income for most country towns - visitation has dried up. Is not the report therefore biased towards commercial fishers?
The authors are well able to do this sort of analysis but presumably they were not scoped of funded to do this. Why? Quite uncomfortable with this actually.......

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Peter Pfennig

12 Jun 2020

Dear Peter,

Thank you for your feedback. The scope of the 2018 and 2020 reports by BDO EconSearch was to summarise the environmental, economic and social values of the marine park sanctuary zones and assess potential impacts on those values from changing some of the existing marine park management arrangements. Due to the nature of available data it is only possible to undertake a consistent economic quantification of change that may be directly related to a specific sanctuary zone for displaced catch/effort in the commercial fishing sector. Where specific economic data were available for non-commercial fishing values they have been presented (e.g. the economic value of shark cage diving at the Neptune Islands), but even in those instances it is not possible to meaningfully quantify the potential economic impact on those values from changing the existing arrangements.

Should you wish to provide further comment please feel free to complete the online survey: https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey or send an email to marineparks@sa.gov.au.

Kind Regard
SA Marine Parks

Peter Pfennig > Peter Pfennig

13 Jun 2020

Thank you for confirming what I understood to be the scope. I recognise that like for like data on the economics of recreational use and tourism is not as simple as accessing the easily obtained informAction that commercial fishers taxation and licensing returns. The information is however available and is possible to obtain, but it does require specific study. For example MacArthur, who did economic work for SA Gov in the commercial sector used the same commercial blocks to relate recreational value for the loss of sea grass in 2007 for SA Gov. Even as a start this would have been available to you. Her work could easily be extended for loss of area over any part of SA. Workers interstate have been doing valuations of coastal ecosystems for a few decades now, and regularly reporting it at conferences that SAGov employees have been attending. The work does require cost and effort to obtain, but no resources have been expended by SA Gov to do this work to allow a decent comparison between the economic, social and environmental values for SAs marine resources.
This brings me back to bias inherent in the scope.
The scope has called for particular information, but the cost of the report was kept low so the contractors had no way of providing like for like information in the report. In scoping, SA Gov could have reduced bias by choosing not to use information that was not common to all sectors, I.e. not include financials. I am guessing that there was no review of the scope for bias.
So yes, the report suffers from bias towards the commercial sector, not through any fault of the authors, but in the way that you scoped and funded the work.
I haven’t looked at most of the other areas, but the Clinton Park was a stand out to me. YP towns kept languishing in one of the most stunning parts of OZ. A unique ecosystem at the head of the GSV, extensive sea grass beds at the head of a reverse estuary that is a known juvenile recruitment area - all of that economic potential for tourism and growth of towns recommended to be traded off against a couple of FTE and some fish wholesale value? If you did the actual numbers and compared there would be no argument. How many future jobs in regional areas and economics of YP towns are being dumped to do this.
So yes, the report is biased towards commercial fishers at Top of GSV.If the other Parks are done in a similar way I am guessing they are biased too.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Peter Pfennig

15 Jun 2020

Thank you Peter for your feedback. Your comments will be provided as a formal submission to the proposed changes to SA Marine Parks so thank you for taking the time to share your views.

Kind Regards,
SA Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Peter Pfennig

11 Jun 2020

I do not support the reduction in the Sanctuary zone for the North of Gulf St Vincent. This is a unique and highly significant ecological zone and is important to fish stocks for the rest of GSV. Research in other Marine Parks has shown that sanctuary zones become source areas for commercial species in areas outside of them. Recreational fishers will therefore gain from the SZ remaining as it is and being able to fish close to land facilities. Commercial fishing, particularly netting should under no circumstances be allowed in this area. Garfish numbers are down in this region in any case, likely from overfishing. Please let this unique area recover and allow it to support productive recreational and commercial fishing throughout other parts of Gulf St Vincent.

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

wayne roy

10 Jun 2020

I am not in favour of making changes to marine parks for any commercial reasons. ie. not so commercial fisherman can use park areas. Sadly, the methods used by some not all, are destructive of habitat as well as taking non commercial stock.
Parks world wide are under threat for "commercial" reasons, such as fossil fuel searches and there is always "sound" reasons for altering parks - that arent.
We have NO IDEA of the effects on sea/ocean wild life as global heating increases. The loss of sea habitat like the giant kelp of The Tasmin Sea a case in point. This is just another attack on public spaces whereas all our pristine parks must be protected for all future SA residents [and the world] and the natural environments contained in parks.
Parks are for sharing. The more people on the planet all wanting resources, especially sea food, the strain on the world's seas and oceans and the more we are going to need safe places for sea animals and sea plants and life.
Recreation yes, commercial absolutely no.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > wayne roy

11 Jun 2020

Hi Wayne,
Thank you for your response. We appreciate the feedback and for taking the time to communicate your concerns. If you would like to provide further comment you can do so by completing the survey at the following link.
https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey

Kind regards
South Australian Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Ross Allen

10 Jun 2020

I would not support any changes to reduce the size of any sanctuary zone in any marine park. To use the Covid-19 as an excuse for these proposed changes is not acceptable. Surely the introduction of sanctuary zones in the first place was to provide reference areas to monitor changes over time and to allow for some recruitment of over exploited species. Sanctuary zones are needed now more than ever with obvious on-going declines in key recreational and commercially targeted species. It is inexcusable to place profit above long term sound management of our marine resources. Ross Allen

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Ross Allen

11 Jun 2020

Hi Ross,
Thank you for your response and expressing your concerns. We appreciate the feedback. If you would like to provide further comment you can do so by completing the survey at the following link.
https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey

Kind regards
South Australian Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

godfrey cody

10 Jun 2020

I think the changes are basically sound and will not adversely impact on the ecosystems. Allowing access to people to use the designated zones within reasonable and responsible limits is a common sense way of ensuring there is long term commitment to our marine parks. Getting the balance right is important and sometimes notions of locking away large marine areas without any access, especially access that will have very limited impact on the ecosystems, is not the way we should go. Obviously very sensitive areas must be protected and in most instances designating these areas as not suitable for public access is warranted. My only concern is that along with our current fish stock monitoring, we need to regularly review how our parks are functioning and make any adjustments are needed to protect them. Thankfully SA can hold its head high in terms of getting the balance about right with a generally very healthy marine envorinment.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > godfrey cody

11 Jun 2020

Hi Godfrey,
Thank you for your response, we appreciate the feedback. If you would like to provide further comment you can do so by completing the survey at the following link.
https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey

Kind regards
South Australian Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.

Andrea Szabo

05 Jun 2020

1. I support the Upper Gulf St Vincent Marine Park Management Plan.
2. I do not support the proposed changes to the North Neptune, Neptune Islands Group (Ron and Valerie Taylor) Marine Park
RAZ and the Cape du Couedic, Western Kangaroo Island Marine Park as it will seriously affect the marine life. Remember why the sanctuary zones were made so large in the first place was to protect marine life.
3. I support the creation of new sanctuary zone to encompass Glenelg shellfish reef, Encounter Marine Park.
4. I support the roposed amendments to Coorong Beach South, Upper South East Marine Park.
5. I support the planned opening up for recreational fishing for the above marine parks but I do NOT support the planned opening up for commercial fishing, except for the rock lobster and abalone industries which have been severely impacted by COVID-19.

Government Agency

SA Marine Parks > Andrea Szabo

06 Jun 2020

Hi Andrea,
Thank you for your response, we appreciate the feedback. If you would like to provide further comment you can do so by completing the survey at the following link.
https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/surveys/proposed-changes-to-sa-s-marine-parks-proposed-changes-to-marine-parks-survey

Kind regards
South Australian Marine Parks

Log in to reply

Log in now to comment

Don't have an account? Register here.