With this consultation only open for another two hours, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many thousands of South Australians who have taken the trouble to write to me over the last month about this issue. It has given me great encouragement to see so many people taking a stand in favour of protecting our marine environment. I was part of the debate in State Parliament back in 2007 and again when changes were made in 2010. This year, I'll again be supporting conservation over exploitation. It is actually the most "conservative" thing we can do. It also applies the precautionary principle. Having worked in conservation for 30 years, I have come to see that decisions made to protect and conserve are rarely regretted by future generations. Our great great grandchildren's main complaint will be that we didn't do enough, not that we were foolish to conserve what little we did. I want to see more Sanctuary Zones, not less. The science was sound when the Marine Parks Act was first passed and it has only firmed up since then. With climate change and other pressures on marine life, the only responsible thing to do is to ensure that we protect the marine environment as best we can for both its own sake and the sake of future generations, including fishers.
Mark Parnell MLC, Greens SA

I agree with David Hall on this flawed science, there is no overflow of fish in the Rapid Head marine park. Having fished this area for 30 years all its done has put a concentration of boats and effort on either side. I see numerous recreational fishers constantly fishing within this park and most claim they don't know of its existence or where the boundaries are supposed to be. I can see no reason why drift fishing can not be reintroduced as this park was made to protect seagrasses and granite boulders. If there was no anchoring allowed, there would be no disruption to the natural habitat.
I feel keeping this park as a no take zone is biased as the sole traders received no compensation for the loss of 2 miles of squid grounds, when the area was only fished by handling, no anchoring and for 4 months of the year maximum.

Both the “new” SA marine parks and the embedded sanctuary zones are not science based and are based on flawed ideological logic; naturally they have provided zero protection to anything at great long term social and economic cost. There are many serious and ongoing threats to the living marine environment including pollution, introduced species, climate change and inappropriate coastal development but these parks and sanctuary zones do absolutely nothing to address these threats. What was needed was a gradual expansion of the 19 sensible and science based aquatic reserves implemented through the Fisheries Act not this damaging nonsense brought in by environment department bureaucrats. Having bigger and more fish swimming around in sanctuary zones (a natural result for territorial fish) is NOT evidence of success; unless it brings in greater revenue from diving tourism etc it is simply evidence of wasted production.

Do we know the total area of sanctuary zones and how that will change if planned changes go ahead? I know this can be distorted by enlarging sanctuaries in remote areas, but as a recreational fisherman I would like to know the total area changes for Gulf St Vincent and Spencer gulf please.

I am against any changes that reduce the size or protection of Marine Parks and Sanctuaries. I am also appalled that the State Govt has allowed harvest of our world-renowned Giant Cuttlefish population in Upper Spencer Gulf - only a few years ago there was a drastic decline in their numbers and with the increase in sea temperatures with global warming, they are going to be more threatened in the future. There should be no take of this amazing species.

For respondents who wish make a submission to SA Marine Park Review, here is a link:
https://supporter.wilderness.org.au/emailviewonwebpage.aspx?erid=c80332fd-5110-435a-958f-4e2cbf409c52&trid=c80332fd-5110-435a-958f-4e2cbf409c52

The inclusion of recreational beach fishing at salt creek is a win for recreational fishing. I will be investing in fishing there sustainably again especially if the service station reopens. The expansion of the outer boundaries is the prelude to more sanctuary zones over time and should be rejected by public fishos. The inclusion of areas out west like the cannon reefs are unnecessary with regards to banning sportsfishing. The Liberals promised a threats based review and public fishing is no threat to these areas. Any expansion of outer boundaries and sanctuaries which include public fishing bans are a broken promise by the Liberals. The main species targeted by public fishos vary naturally across entire bioregions fished or unfished from year to year, they do not care for lines on maps. Species specific management is more effective and maintains our local economy with regards to public fishing. Zones specific to some demersal species like abalone and lobster have some merit for commercial harvest.

The protection of the marine biodiversity afforded by the current sanctuary zones is already a compromise. To reduce protection further removes the objective of sustainable fisheries in the State. Ideally we need more protection not less. The submission from the Nature Conservation Society provides the argument for retention of the current zones elegantly and succinctly.

The protection of the marine biodiversity afforded by the current sanctuary zones is already a compromise and insufficient. To reduce protection further makes a mockery of any argument for sustainable fisheries in the State. We need more protection not less. The submission from the Nature Conservation Society provides the argument for retention of the current zones elegantly and succinctly.

As a fisher and marine recreator I oppose the suggested changes to the zoning and/or extent of South Australia’s marine park network. While snorkelling and sailing in some of these sanctuary zones, I have seen firsthand the benefits that they provide in terms of fish recruitment and marine health. Scientific evidence now backs this. South Australia’s marine environments are recognised as a global biodiversity hotspot and need to be protected.

It was a bitter and divisive battle within the SA community to realise this vision; albeit it much watered-down version. The wounds have healed, but the scars remain for many. These proposed changes open a Pandora’s Box of woe. It was a mistake to revisit this issue.

Kathleen Patitsas, artist, teacher, historian
I am also opposed to any reduction of the marine park sanctuary zones, which contribute to thriving ocean, immeasurable beauty and associated joy, delight and tourism dollars. please respect all life!

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Marine Parks. I am opposed to any decrease in size of the sanctuary zones, which are already very restricted.  The creation of these zones was backed up by scientific data and has already paid off.  It would be ridiculous to reduce them for reasons already mentioned by others in this discussion. The issues are science and survival.

In addition, western Kangaroo Island is the hotspot of biodiversity for SA.  Reducing terrestrial or marine protected areas in our biodiversity hotspot for the benefit of a few private individuals would have detrimental impacts on the public, sustainable fishing, as well as ecotourism and biodiversity values.  It would also affect negatively the chance of Kangaroo Island to be listed as a World Heritage Area in the future.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 .

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!