Reef Check Dive - Flinders Reef QLD - 15th September

[Mantra]

Hey all!

Reef check Australia are doing a fundraising dive on the 15th of this month. It is a double dive at Flinder's reef, using Nautilus' supercat vessel, with the opportunity to see the reef check monitoring team doing a health survey of the reef. As well as this, QLD museum photographer Gary Cranitch will give an educational talk about the reef and be giving photography advice. Gary is responsible for many of the shots in the museum's excellent Wild Guide to Moreton Bay books. It's a good cause. This is part of this month's underwater festival. Alyssa and I will be along for this one, so please say g'day if you are interested in taking it too!A Snapshot of Moreton Bay

 

[ozzydamo]

Hey all!

Reef check Australia are doing a fundraising dive on the 15th of this month. It is a double dive at Flinder's reef, using Nautilus' supercat vessel, with the opportunity to see the reef check monitoring team doing a health survey of the reef. As well as this, QLD museum photographer Gary Cranitch will give an educational talk about the reef and be giving photography advice. Gary is responsible for many of the shots in the museum's excellent Wild Guide to Moreton Bay books. It's a good cause. This is part of this month's underwater festival. Alyssa and I will be along for this one, so please say g'day if you are interested in taking it too!A Snapshot of Moreton Bay

Hi Mantra,
Diving Australia - Dive Courses and Equipment - Nautilus Scuba Centre, Brisbane
Almost sounds like a gov or uni run thingy?

Reef Check Australia is a not-for-profit environmental organisation that engages the Australian community in coral reef conservation at a unique level. We are part of a global network of volunteers who regularly monitor and report on reef health, bringing Citizen Science to environmental issues.
1) community education, to raise awareness of the key issues, and

2) scientific research, to collect data that contributes to solutions.


Maybe they might talk about a particular licensed marine collector's exemption to take live coral from the flinder's reef "No-take" green zone of MBMP, or the lack of enforcement/convictions on poachers by MBMP of the green zones themselves.
http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/document.../marine-aquarium-_coral-fishery-Guide-QLD.pdf
"Key management arrangements
QPIF has a number of regulations in place for the QCF under the Fisheries Regulation 2008, the Policy for the management of the coral fishery and licence conditions, including: 1. catch quota of 200 tonnes (t) per year, of which • 6 0 t is the limit for ‘specialty corals’ • 1 40 t is the limit for ‘other corals’, including live rock, coral rubble and ornamental corals 2. capped number of licences (currently 59) 3. limits of one boat and a limit of divers (currently under review) operating under a licence at a time 4. gear restrictions • c ollection by hand or with non-mechanical, hand-held instruments only • scuba and hookah (commercial fishery only) 5. area restrictions • collection limited to waters between latitudes 10˚41' S and 24˚30' S, except for two small collection areas south of latitude 24˚30' S, which can each be accessed only by one or two licences"

Love to see what "data" is collected- wonder if they'll drop anchor there?
Seeing its a no anchoring zone as well!(maybe they have a "exemption")

"To protect corals from anchor
damage, there are three no anchoring
areas in the marine park where
anchoring is not allowed. These
areas are at Flat Rock, Flinders Reef
and Myora Reef. A two hour time
limit applies to the existing public
moorings on the north-western side
of Flinders Reef."
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02669aa.pdf

Everywhere you look there's a vested "partner" helping gather data for the "Honorable" government public service heads, getting exemptions for all kinds of things- bit like Japanese whaling really!

Maybe you can raise some of these questions?

 

[Mantra]

Hey OD!

You know as much as I do looks like. I just thought with the education and photography stuff it looked like a good bonus experience on a great local site.

Reef check seem to me to be providing really valuable monitoring as to the state and health of the reef - I don't think they have anything to do with enforcing Marine park policy, just observing, monitoring and recording the health of our local reefs in a rigorous and scientific way, which I'm sure you agree (I know you love this site) is a worthy activity. And you are right in that it looks to me like they work closely with UQ, the museum, and other reputable local partners. I think the data collected is along the lines of species counts within grids they set up. I guess I will know a lot more after the day

I would be shocked if anything other than safe public moorings were used for the dive! I certainly don't see them dropping anchor over the reef - any reason to believe otherwise?

Im interested in what you say about "about a particular licensed marine collector's exemption to take live coral from the flinder's reef "No-take" green zone". This is of course a completely separate issue and has nothing to do with reef check, I imagine. But it's something I would like to be better educated about. Care to name names? I can see why an exemption might be made for a university or similar - is this a commercial enterprise you are talking about?

Thanks!

 

[ozzydamo]

Talk about anchoring with scuba cat first!

 

[Mantra]

OD, you are being cryptic, and I don't have the inclination to try and decode what you are implying. Are you flat out saying that this vessel anchors on the reef in a damaging way, and what is your evidence? I feel you are doing a public good by bringing such stuff up, but to do it in such a roundabout way undermines your point. Anyway, I've emailed them for confirmation that they don't anchor on the reef or damage it. If you'd speak plainly on the issue I'd appreciate it and am more than willing to listen with an open mind. I absolutely respect your wealth of local diving knowledge and admire your concern and care for the reef. I should think you and reefcheck are natural allies in this respect. But you're dodging my other questions too.

 

[ozzydamo]

OD, you are being cryptic, and I don't have the inclination to try and decode what you are implying. Are you flat out saying that this vessel anchors on the reef in a damaging way, and what is your evidence? I feel you are doing a public good by bringing such stuff up, but to do it in such a roundabout way undermines your point. Anyway, I've emailed them for confirmation that they don't anchor on the reef or damage it. If you'd speak plainly on the issue I'd appreciate it and am more than willing to listen with an open mind. I absolutely respect your wealth of local diving knowledge and admire your concern and care for the reef. I should think you and reefcheck are natural allies in this respect. But you're dodging my other questions too.

Bezuidenhouds-
Salty Pets, Sumner Park - Local Business | Facebook

Cryptic? Jack no, Ill get a photo of their "pick" position and gps marks for you; please give me some time for this. "The Law is no anchoring at all!!!!!!"
They had an amnesty due to bs mooring changes, requiring money from tax payers which was BS they put down the same rigging, nepotism the QLD public service - spank their filthy corrupt ar$es Campbell, SACKEM!!!!!!

A commercial operation should pay for their mooring and access to this public own area!!!!!!!

Reef check seems to me to be some entrepreneurial way of making a fun income, its impact on change seems impartial at best.

What we need is a lobby/activist group as hardcore as the Blackfish here in Australia, not some commercial marketeers....but in saying that anyone increasing conscientiousness for the marine habitat in our local is better then whats been going on to date!

Me, I put the genosphere and habitat first, if that denied to the site... my own access, so be it! but really we need the thieves gone first, before we can even gather reasonable accurate data- I have a plan!

Any local science people please I can facilitate access if your can show me you have a clue on how we can increase effort and funding legitimately so we leave a legacy for our children that is better then whats been going "down".

The love is saved for my scaled, little friends that have knowone batting for them seriously- being a joiner/chippy I want to see result in the flesh!!!!! #1 not just chittalk!

 

[Mantra]

Hey OD!

Huge day at work today. Sorry to get back to you just now.

So, the folks at Nautilus got back to me today, and their version of events aligns with yours. Here is a (slightly) edited version of their reply to me:

"The moorings were removed without our notification by DERM about 12 months
ago - we had continual contact with them about doing this and demanded they
be put back - it took nearly 12 months - funding I am sure - to get them replaced.

They knew we still had to operate out there and when we asked them what we
were supposed to do - they said "anchor!' All boats had to do this with the knowledge of DERM
until the moorings were reinstated.

The moorings have been back for a couple of months - AND WE ALWAYS USE
THEM!!"

So basically, what both of you are saying lines up. DERM removed the old moorings, and while they were down, the commercial operators taking divers to the reef were anchoring on the reef. I trust what you say about having evidence of that. That seems a pretty bad situation to me. It seems like a really bad move on the part of DERM, and I'm left wondering why the commercial operators didn't anchor off the reef or where the old moorings were or whatnot. I take it from what you are saying that there was damaged caused? I also agree with you that the commercial operators should pay for access to the moorings. Does this not happen now? I guess if I had to point fingers, it would be at DERM - and I'd be inclined to suspect incompetence rather than corruption - but doubtless the situation is more complex. I can see that Nautilus and others need to make money - but I would hope a dive operator would be as committed to preservation as most divers would be. Apparently it's not clear cut here.

I'm going to have to disagree with what you say about reefcheck for now. I know a couple of the people involved, and they are legit, serious researchers. The fact that UQ and the museum are onboard pretty much legitimizes them to me. I work at a university, and we are held very publicly accountable. I will, however, be sure to report back with my honest thoughts after learning more. I'm genuinely open minded about your critique.

Anything else you feel I should be mulling over?

 

[ozzydamo]

Hey OD!

Huge day at work today. Sorry to get back to you just now.

So, the folks at Nautilus got back to me today, and their version of events aligns with yours. Here is a (slightly) edited version of their reply to me:

"The moorings were removed without our notification by DERM about 12 months
ago - we had continual contact with them about doing this and demanded they
be put back - it took nearly 12 months - funding I am sure - to get them replaced.

They knew we still had to operate out there and when we asked them what we
were supposed to do - they said "anchor!' All boats had to do this with the knowledge of DERM
until the moorings were reinstated.

The moorings have been back for a couple of months - AND WE ALWAYS USE
THEM!!"

So basically, what both of you are saying lines up. DERM removed the old moorings, and while they were down, the commercial operators taking divers to the reef were anchoring on the reef. I trust what you say about having evidence of that. That seems a pretty bad situation to me. It seems like a really bad move on the part of DERM, and I'm left wondering why the commercial operators didn't anchor off the reef or where the old moorings were or whatnot. I take it from what you are saying that there was damaged caused? I also agree with you that the commercial operators should pay for access to the moorings. Does this not happen now? I guess if I had to point fingers, it would be at DERM - and I'd be inclined to suspect incompetence rather than corruption - but doubtless the situation is more complex. I can see that Nautilus and others need to make money - but I would hope a dive operator would be as committed to preservation as most divers would be. Apparently it's not clear cut here.

I'm going to have to disagree with what you say about reefcheck for now. I know a couple of the people involved, and they are legit, serious researchers. The fact that UQ and the museum are onboard pretty much legitimizes them to me. I work at a university, and we are held very publicly accountable. I will, however, be sure to report back with my honest thoughts after learning more. I'm genuinely open minded about your critique.

Anything else you feel I should be mulling over?

SO THEY CONFIRMED TO YOU THEY HAVE DROPPED ANCHOR ON THE REEF? BUT, I am still in doubt, wel feck me! THE SAME UNIT THAT RIPPED THE TOP OFF THE HUSTLER!

LOOK i HAVE BEEN A LOCAL ENTITY THERE FLINDERS REEF FOR OVER 19 YEARS, but how long have you had interest there? you advocate uni-dive wtf do they do or care? in there lovely lill tax payer subsidized rib?
look like bunch of trouts in saltwater really...

look just make sure you watch your pc and dont get bent, becuz really your dont have clue.......................................................................................................................
out of interest what do you do for a living? mate?

 

[Mantra]

Woah.

 

[ferris213]

I pulled the below quote from Dive-oz.

Here is the official response from the Ranger in Charge of Marine Parks Operations - Moreton Bay

Dear Mr. Parker

In recognition of the increasing demand for public moorings in Flinders Reef no anchoring area, the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service (QPWS) arranged for the construction, installation and load testing of eleven new moorings at the site. Unfortunately, the contractor failed to supply a successful load test following installation. Moorings are load tested and assigned a class (A, B, C or D) that determines the size of vessel that can safely tie up to the mooring under certain operating conditions. It is essential therefore that the mooring loads are assessed correctly. Flinders Reef is located in exposed offshore waters and a mooring failure could lead to a significant marine incident. As a consequence, in the interest of public safety, the mooring tackle was removed last year while alternative arrangements were made to have the moorings re-tested.

Prolonged rough sea conditions have hindered the new contractors ability to load test the moorings, however, I am advised that recent advice from the contractor indicates that tackle can be re-instated for Class A and B moorings. These moorings will facilitate access for most vessels and QPWS intends to connect this tackle to the mooring blocks as soon as weather and sea conditions are suitable. Load testing by the contractors will be undertaken as soon as physically possible.

If you have any further concerns please dont hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards,
Jody

They have had a few discussions about the moorings. I think I remember reading that the original ones either weren't tested at all, or had failed recent load testing and were therefore removed. It seems that one of the operators did place some new moorings, but DERM removed them fairly quickly because they were 'unofficial' and were also not rated. Jason form Dive Dive Dive was involved I think so a call to him would probably give a clearer idea of what went on.