tfic_drft_mllca_prt_dvy_area_pln_sub.htm  

12 September 2002

Introduction:
The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council (TFIC) is the peak representative body for the commercial fishing industry in Tasmania. The fishing industry has a significant history in the Port Davey and Bathurst Harbour area that dates back over a century or more. This submission for theDraft Melaleuca - Port Davey Area Plan 2002 is made in representation of those fishing industry interests.

Draft Plan Section Numbers:
The tips for representation via submission at the front of the Draft Plan are helpful, however the recommendation that representations use the section numbers in the plan creates some confusion, as they only appear in the Table of Contents.

Fishing industry recognition within the Draft Plan:
The Draft Plan appears at first reading to be relatively well researched both from an historical point of view and from an ecological management perspective. However, the immediate impression seems to be that the plan does not accurately reflect either the importance or even the real activity of the fishing industry in this area. Neither does it give any real recognition to the long history that connects the many members of this important industry to the region.

It is an easily substantiated fact that many fishermen have worked the Port Davey area for over a century, with a responsible custodial role developing over time into a strong culture within those members of the industry who frequent the region. Many of the fishermen who still work there have done so for decades and have a very strong sense of belonging in the area.

Fishing Industry History:
This fishing activity is as historically significant as the whaling, mining and pining industries, all of which gain a mention (3.7: Pages 32 and 33). As such, the fishing industry continues to have strong links to the place. As stated, the history of the fishing industry dates back a century or more. This is clearly illustrated in Harry O'May's book 'Shipwrecks in Tasmanian Waters'.

On November 5 1904 the barque Brier Holme was wrecked on a reef approximately 20 kilometres north of Port Davey. The sole survivor (Oscar Larsen) was washed ashore and his subsequent survival was due to fishermen working at Port Davey. This is demonstrably a century of activity by the industry in this region.

(Further reference: http://www.onthetide.com/code/index.php3?action=story&n=99999&id=85)

Clyde Clayton:
Table 3 (page 36) should reflect the fact that Clyde Clayton was a fisherman. He built his house and other buildings where he did because of his work/livelihood as a fisherman. Many fishermen have been actively involved in voluntary activity cleaning up rubbish from other visitors and detritus that washes ashore. Some have (at their own cost) put a great deal of energy into restoring or maintaining infrastructure there such as Clayton's house. This is a building that has great significance to the fishing community.

It is a pity that little of this type of activity is commented on within the Draft Plan. The anecdotal comment from some of these older fishermen can give a very clear picture of the history of the region as well as good comment on the frequency and severity of storm events that can be ferocious in the area. These men should be consulted on some of the marine environment issues.

3.4 Port Davey - Bathurst Harbour Marine Ecosystem:
The statements within the Draft Plan (3.4.3) regarding the importance of the maintenance of the halocline are clear. It is worthy of comment here that the statement made (concerning vessels within the Bathurst Channel) 'boating needs to be strictly controlled' (page 18) gives no indication of which boats, or what type of boating needs this control.

Fishing vessels in the area are very conscious of the state of the ecosystem in the waterways. The fact that these waterways can still be described in terms that reflect their excellent state shows that decades of responsible activity on the part of various fishing vessels and others has had little or no impact. As a rule it is totally impractical to anchor in the channel (4.4.2).

Propeller and wake wash from slow moving fishing vessels is minimal. The proposal to bring substantially larger cruise boats into the region, (especially into the channel) would indicate that a more thorough ongoing research is required, with perhaps more detail as to which boats need to be strictly controlled.

Due to the nature and logistics of the vessel activity in the Bathurst Channel, it would perhaps be more appropriate to have guidelines for this area that are outcome based rather than prescriptive. This allows the boating fraternity to be aware of any issues that need to be addressed without the need for ongoing impractical and expensive enforcement.

One reason for this is that when extremely strong weather conditions force boats into the channel, the skippers can make a value-judgement of the action needed to ensure the safety of the vessel without having to take into account prescriptive regulations that may impinge indiscriminately.

3.9: Introduced Pests and Diseases
The introduction of exotic organisms into the Port Davey region is always an ongoing threat. Commercial fishermen are very conscious of the damage that an introduced marine pest such as the Pacific seastar or the New Zealand screw shell can cause. The potential for an event such as this becomes more likely when international cruise ships enter the port.

Those fishermen spoken to for input into this submission showed a keen awareness of the danger of introducing an exotic organism into the region and exercise the appropriate caution needed to prevent such an occurrence.

It is a well-documented fact that some exotic marine organisms are transported on the hull, not only in ballast water. With international vessels entering the region, and given the right conditions (temperature, salinity, fertility stage etc), the probability of such an event occurring is unfortunately increased.

The Policies and Actions recommendation that visiting sea vessels are prohibited from discharging ballast and waste is good. There should also be some attention paid to auxiliary engines on these larger vessels. When they run an auxiliary engine in a port and restart it elsewhere, the cooling water within the engine has the potential to be a vehicle for larvae and could possibly introduce an unwanted organism. Running the engine at sea to flush it would be a good protocol to have in place.

The potential remains for external hull infestation posing a threat. Perhaps some further research into this would be advantageous.

3.10.1: Streambank Erosion and Monitoring:
It is noted with interest that there may be an application of further speed limits in specific regions for motor vessels. This may be appropriate to some of the narrower waterways (some rarely accessed by fishing vessels) but the questions arise as to policing and the accuracy of the estimates of vessel speeds should they be enforced.

Anecdotal comment from fishermen would indicate that with larger vessels, a speed limit may be useful. However, smaller vessels at semi-planing speeds such as five knots become 'displacement' style hulls. This creates a significant wake and wash. When the same small vessels travel at a speed that allows them to plane over the surface of the water, there is significantly less wake and subsequent wash. This could make speed limits counter productive and in fact exacerbate the situation.

The comment on page 47 that 'enforcement is needed' needs to be quantified with 'how'. Outcome based guidelines may well be more appropriate in this situation.

3.11.2: Water Quality:
At present the water quality shows '…no evidence of human bacterial contamination of surveyed water bodies…' (page 50). This is an excellent state of affairs, and one that is a benchmark to be maintained.

The threat of a major pollution event in the region will become more real as more vessels frequent the area. The introduction of large cruise vessels to the area is admirable from an economic point of view for Tasmania, but they also increase the possibility of a pollution event occurring. Prescriptive guidelines for these types of vessel may be appropriate.

Fishermen and amateur vessel operators have used these waters for decades. If there were a problem from the disposal of human faecal waste from boats in the region, the testing describing the water quality should have detected any adverse effect from the practice.

Any prohibition of commercial and recreational vessels disposing of human faecal waste in the region will be impossible to enforce, especially in times of inclement weather. It would be appropriate for there to be outcome-based guidelines established for this practice, rather than prescriptive unenforceable regulations.

3.11.4: Waste:
Production of waste is a fact of human life and activity. Education aimed at addressing the cause of this waste is the most effective way of reducing or eliminating it completely.

To this end, it is reassuring to discuss this subject with fishermen who are proud of the fact that not only do they bring everything back to port, they also bring back other rubbish that is in the region as well.

This culture has spread among those who frequent the region and is now a documented fact. (See http://www.tfic.com.au/marine_debris.html).

We would point out that under the Tasmanian Pollution of Waters by Oil or Noxious Substances Act 1987 it is illegal for fishermen to dispose of plastics etc at sea within 3 nautical miles. There is a responsible attitude becoming more manifested through the industry as time passes, with fishermen in the Port Davey region demonstrating a sound responsible regard for the environment.

The 'Policies and Actions' on page 53 recommend the establishment of '… a clean-up programme for the removal of marine debris from coastal sites.'

We would point out that numerous fishermen have donated time and effort, not to mention money toward doing just this. It has been documented in the media. Recognition of this activity for use as an exemplar within the Draft Plan would be appropriate. This is a philosophy and behaviour that could be utilised (via a cooperative initiative) for further activity from the wider community who frequent the area.

4.3: Information, Interpretation and Education:
TFIC would agree with the comment on page 60 where it says that 'Information, interpretation and education are critical to the delivery of quality experiences, as well as fostering an appreciation of, and caring attitude towards the area'. It is a little surprising that the list on page 61 manages to ignore the commercial fishing history completely.

The Draft Plan continues to discuss Clayton's house and the information about the marine ecosystems. Why is the valuable history of this man (still alive and alert) and his work in the region largely ignored? Surely an interpretive information system should address the entire history holistically, not just using Clayton's house for selective information.

Some of the anecdotal history of the area is approaching the limit of living memory and should be recorded, preserved and disseminated before it is lost forever.

4.5: Facilities and Services:
Page 69 (Wilderness Zone) refers to a 'small covered shelter' at Bond Bay. It discusses briefly the history of the construction materials and the fact that fishermen use it for fresh water collection and shelter.

The 'Policies and Actions' suggests that "In accordance with the WHAMP, 1999, the Bond Bay structure will be assessed in consultation with the fishing industry and allowed to decay or (be) removed unless it is of sufficient heritage, recreational or management importance to outweigh its value on wilderness values."

Let it be clearly understood that the fishing industry opposes any thought of allowing this facility to decay or be removed. It has been there for many years, built on a previous house site and has significant value to those who use it. Seasonal and weather variations in the area mean that a structure such as this is not just a handy convenience occasionally, but very practical and of significance.

The recommendation should perhaps read "To be adequately maintained for continued use by the fishing industry members who use it".

Members of the fishing industry have shown their commitment to the area and the value of some of the structures by putting a significant effort into not only repairing Claytons house, but removing over a tonne of rubbish when the task was completed. The same can happen to the structure at Bond Bay.

It is interesting to note that there is no equality in the recommendations for both this camp and the Forest Lagoon campsite. In this instance there are some recommendations that appear to be encouraging the continued use of Forest Lagoon site as a temporary (semi-permanent) campsite. It has a limited history (20 years?) while the Bond Bay site dates back to the 1950's. This uneven-handed type of management is (as perceived by members of the fishing industry) seen as trying to address the needs of one user group while ignoring another.

Bond Bay is further mentioned on page 71. Here the 'Old Claytons house' is also discussed. It should be noted that this structure was built here because of its value for Clyde Clayton's activity as a fisherman. It is a sheltered area and has significance to the fishing industry members who have used it for years, and who maintain it for continued use. Rubbish is regularly removed by those who visit the site.

Claytons House: (Claytons Corner)
The comment on page 73 has created alarm. It states here that "Clayton's house may have potential as a walkers hut".

Further comment on page 80 refers to "…overcrowding…, loss of vegetable cover, firewood collection…" at Melaleuca.

Page 85 discusses "(once a track is constructed from Claytons). One can see clearly that there is a shortsighted effort being made here to simply spread the problem of the visitors (overcrowding the facilities) at Melaleuca on to Claytons instead of fixing the problem where it is.

Page 83 quotes 71% of people surveyed wanting the area to stay exactly as it is. Claytons is only reached by boat and should stay that way. Construction of walking access to the house is inappropriate.

Fishermen have spent significant time and money to repair and improve this place, as well as to remove rubbish. It has been a part of the fishing industry culture down there for decades. The recommendation that it also be used for a walkers hut is not appreciated by those industry members who have had such an active involvement over such a long time.

It is strongly recommended that the problem of overcrowding at the airport be fixed at the airport rather than creating new problems elsewhere.

Page 77: Preferred boat anchorages: Waterfall Bay.

• "The use of anchors in the vicinity of the Waterfall Bay freshwater collection point (waterfall) will be discouraged…"
• "Boats are to use the anchor point at Waterfall Bay to tie up when collecting freshwater from the waterfall."
These are excellent guidelines, especially for those wanting to collect water, although it is only possible to tie one boat to the anchor point at a time.

However, the practicality of enforcing Waterfall Bay as a 'no anchor' zone may be a problem. There have been instances when the weather in the region has been so stormy and the wind of such velocity that the only sheltered anchorage was at Waterfall Bay.

With winds at 80+ knots (and the waves in the exposed bays so big that to remain away from the shelter of Waterfall Bay would be suicidal) there have been occasions when the fishing vessels working the region have had no choice but to anchor there. This is not a regular event, but it does happen.

Safety at sea is paramount. There is also the responsibility of a skipper for the welfare of his/her crew to be considered. At some point (during severe adverse conditions) decisions must be made to ensure the safety of the crew and the vessel. There are some weather conditions that render most of the entire region dangerous. To make it illegal to anchor in the only sheltered position available will seriously compromise 'Duty of Care' issues and lead to liability/probable court action should there be an incident.

TFIC vigorously opposes any attempt to make the anchoring of vessels at Waterfall Bay illegal. We propose instead that prescriptive guidelines be made in consultation with those fishing industry members who access the area, building into the guidelines an understanding that anchoring there is to be actively discouraged unless there are no other safe anchorages.

Page 77: Professional anchorages:
Map 5 (referred to on page 77) shows some of the anchorages that are used by the fishing industry. It is important to point out here that there appears to be some misapprehension in the Draft Plan as to why fishermen access the Port Davey area.

5.3.1: Commercial Fishing (Page 89) suggests that fishermen only go to Port Davey in bad weather. This is misleading, as the area has been actively fished for decades, showing good sustainability and ample proof that the fishing effort is not excessive. There are some fishermen who only work here.

During the time that the vessels are in the area, they will shelter overnight in the most appropriate anchorages, dependent on wave direction, wind direction, and also very importantly, where there fresh water is. As most boats have a 'wet well' (where a part of the hull is open to the seawater to keep the lobsters alive) or pump the water through lobster holding tanks, it is imperative that the water available to the captured lobster be fresh seawater, not fresh water.

Because the fresh water above the halocline will move from one side of Port Davey to the other (dependent on wave and wind action), it is not unusual for a boat to also move from one side to the other to avoid the fresh water (even several times in a night) if the conditions dictate this.

The anchorages on the northern side of Port Davey are very important. Vital in fact, especially as conditions can change in the region very quickly. It is felt that any restrictions to vessels wishing to anchor in these regions of Port Davey would be counter-productive and lead to unnecessary conflict.

In addition to this, there are one or two other sites that need to be added to this map, namely:

• Between Kathleen Island and the coast
• In Southerly Bight (between Knapp Point and Hilliard Head
• Inside of Breaksea Islands
• North of Whalers (midway to Earles Point)
At this point it is worth pointing out that Figure 1 on page 116 seems to be indicating that the seaward side of Breaksea Islands is not 'maximally exposed' to wave action. Given the right conditions, waves break right over Breaksea Islands. That is pretty 'maximum exposure'.

Conclusion:
It is a positive step to develop a partnership approach to this plan and the management of the area. The Tasmanian Fishing Industry Council would be pleased to have an active and continued involvement in this process, especially with the marine environment issues and areas/structures of significance to the industry and its members.