CHAPTER 6 • Coastal Environmental Management in Southeast Australia: The Roles of Ecology
115
ration are frequently driven by society, politicians or planners with little or no knowledge of current ecological theory. Predictions from the proposed management are usually not clearly stated and, all too often, there is inadequate thought of the appropriate
spatial and temporal experimental design needed to test these predictions. With the
increasing need to restore damaged habitats as more and more natural areas are lost,
it is essential that society, managers and scientists collaborate to put relevant, up-todate science into projects involving restoration of habitat.
6.3.4
Marine Reserves and Intertidal Foraging for Bait and Food
Foraging for food and bait on intertidal shores is not new - it has been going on for
thousa.'1ds of years (Spjeldnaes and Hemmingsmoen 1963; Sullivan 1987). What is new
is the intensity of foraging in areas of dense human settlement (Kingsford et al. 1991),
which has caused widespread and persistent changes to intertidal assemblages (Lasiak
1991; Moreno et al. 1984). Scientific (Kingsford et al. 1991) and public concern about the
long-term impact of foraging has led to a number of managerial decisions, e.g. introduction of closed seasons (Siegfried et al. 1985), bag or size-limits on the species most
heavily targeted (Underwood 1993b) and closure of some areas to collection (Castilla
and Bustamante 1989). These managerial decisions are all scientific experiments, but
they are seldom assessed as such. For example, they usually start with observations
about human behaviour and perceived changes in densities, size-structures, etc. of intertidal organisms. These changes are explained by the model that they are due to foraging by people, with the hypothesis that reductions in foraging would change the densities or size-structure of the intertidal populations in certain predictable ways (Castilla
and Duran 1985). Hence, the experiment - changes to the regulations to limit foraging.
In many situations, this is then the end of it. There is no scientific evaluation of the
experiment (managerial practice) to assess its value. For example, if taking particular
species is limited to those above a certain size (e.g. Henry 1984), one can predict few
animals oflarge size in heavily impacted areas, more animals oflarge size in unimpacted
or lightly impacted areas and similar numbers of animals of smaller size in each type
of area. One can also m!lke very specific predictions about changes in size-structures
of populations after the imposition of the size limits. Despite the relatively straightforward nature of such large-scale experiments, there have been few studies of the effects
of such regulations that have incorporated clear hypotheses and appropriate sampling
with control locations (Lasiak 1993), especially in Australia (but see Keough et al.1993).
Regulations regarding bag and size limits have been in force in New South Wales,
Australia, for many years (Henry 1984). These regulations are not, however, particularly useful in conservation of intertidal animals. Bag limits generally have no scientific basis - they must depend on how many people forage, how many animals each
person takes on average and the extent and rate of removal that a particular species
can tolerate before it can no longer persist. Although there is some information about
rates of removal (Kingsford et al. 1991), there is no ecological data on the latter for most,
if not all, species that are targeted. In addition, such regulations are frequently ignored
(Chapman and Underwood 1997b), in part because it is not possible for regulatory
agencies to clearly identify the effects of alternative managerial practices on intertidal
populations and, in part, because there is no clear, ethic of conservation of intertidal
115
ration are frequently driven by society, politicians or planners with little or no knowledge of current ecological theory. Predictions from the proposed management are usually not clearly stated and, all too often, there is inadequate thought of the appropriate
spatial and temporal experimental design needed to test these predictions. With the
increasing need to restore damaged habitats as more and more natural areas are lost,
it is essential that society, managers and scientists collaborate to put relevant, up-todate science into projects involving restoration of habitat.
6.3.4
Marine Reserves and Intertidal Foraging for Bait and Food
Foraging for food and bait on intertidal shores is not new - it has been going on for
thousa.'1ds of years (Spjeldnaes and Hemmingsmoen 1963; Sullivan 1987). What is new
is the intensity of foraging in areas of dense human settlement (Kingsford et al. 1991),
which has caused widespread and persistent changes to intertidal assemblages (Lasiak
1991; Moreno et al. 1984). Scientific (Kingsford et al. 1991) and public concern about the
long-term impact of foraging has led to a number of managerial decisions, e.g. introduction of closed seasons (Siegfried et al. 1985), bag or size-limits on the species most
heavily targeted (Underwood 1993b) and closure of some areas to collection (Castilla
and Bustamante 1989). These managerial decisions are all scientific experiments, but
they are seldom assessed as such. For example, they usually start with observations
about human behaviour and perceived changes in densities, size-structures, etc. of intertidal organisms. These changes are explained by the model that they are due to foraging by people, with the hypothesis that reductions in foraging would change the densities or size-structure of the intertidal populations in certain predictable ways (Castilla
and Duran 1985). Hence, the experiment - changes to the regulations to limit foraging.
In many situations, this is then the end of it. There is no scientific evaluation of the
experiment (managerial practice) to assess its value. For example, if taking particular
species is limited to those above a certain size (e.g. Henry 1984), one can predict few
animals oflarge size in heavily impacted areas, more animals oflarge size in unimpacted
or lightly impacted areas and similar numbers of animals of smaller size in each type
of area. One can also m!lke very specific predictions about changes in size-structures
of populations after the imposition of the size limits. Despite the relatively straightforward nature of such large-scale experiments, there have been few studies of the effects
of such regulations that have incorporated clear hypotheses and appropriate sampling
with control locations (Lasiak 1993), especially in Australia (but see Keough et al.1993).
Regulations regarding bag and size limits have been in force in New South Wales,
Australia, for many years (Henry 1984). These regulations are not, however, particularly useful in conservation of intertidal animals. Bag limits generally have no scientific basis - they must depend on how many people forage, how many animals each
person takes on average and the extent and rate of removal that a particular species
can tolerate before it can no longer persist. Although there is some information about
rates of removal (Kingsford et al. 1991), there is no ecological data on the latter for most,
if not all, species that are targeted. In addition, such regulations are frequently ignored
(Chapman and Underwood 1997b), in part because it is not possible for regulatory
agencies to clearly identify the effects of alternative managerial practices on intertidal
populations and, in part, because there is no clear, ethic of conservation of intertidal