116
A.J. Underwood . M.G. Chapman
animals (which are treated as an exploitable resource by the same agency that is commissioned to protect them). Similar criticisms can be applied to the imposition of size
limits, with the added concern that allowing removal of larger animals may indeed
remove those members of the population that are most fecund and may therefore contribute disproportionately to future generations.
Because of difficulties with such regulations therefore, in 1994 the New South Wales
government responded to public and scientific concern about intertidal foraging by
declaring a number of Intertidal Protected Areas on the coast around Sydney, New South
Wales. Shores around Sydney are particularly impacted by foraging because of a large
urban population, although these activities are widespread around the southern coast
of Australia (Kingsford et al. 1991). Intertidal Protected Areas (IPAs) were selected according to a number of criteria (among others, scientific value, relative inaccessibility,
the. degree of concern by residents and local government) and they were interspersed
among unprotected areas, thus allowing most users of the coast access to some shores
for their continued plundering. There was to be no collection of intertidal organisms
in IPAs, although anglers could still fish on condition that they used purchased bait.
The original plan of management included declaration of IPAs, appropriate signs informing the public of the regulations, imposition of the regulations by Fisheries inspectors and local government rangers, a programme of public education and subsequent "monitoring" of the effectiveness of the regulations. Unfortunately, only the first
two of these were dealt with satisfactorily - IPAs were declared and some signs were
(eventually) provided, although it was up to local government to decide where to place
these signs and how many to erect. Adequate resources were not allocated to either the
policing of the regulations or the programme of public education, the latter of which
was largely left up to local community groups to organize.
The original plan also included promises of funds for a scientific assessment of this
method of protecting intertidal organisms before deciding whether to extend IPAs
further along the coast. This experiment (closure of areas to foraging) had very specific hypotheses and should therefore have been relatively straight-forward. One would
predict, after declaration of IPAs, an increase in abundances of targeted species (crabs,
large whelks, sea urchins) in IPAs relative to abundances prior to the declaration and relative to abundances in unprotected areas (where foraging continued) (Underwood 1993b).
Similarly, because foragers frequently target larger animals, one would predict an increase in the average size (or an increase in the abundance of the larger size class) of
targeted species in IPAs relative to such measures prior to the declaration and relative
to such measures in unprotected areas (Underwood 1993b). Finally, because it is known
that certain large species may have large effects on the rest of the assemblage (e.g. by
creating bare space; Stimson 1973), one can predict that the assemblage in IPAs may
change over a period of time after declaration in a different manner to such temporal
changes on unprotected shores.
Therefore, this managerial decision gave rise to clear predictions which could be
and should have been tested by an appropriate sampling programme, as was required
in the original plan of management. This was not done by the regulatory agency in
question, who have nonetheless a policy to extend IPAs further afield. The Institute of
Marine Ecology (University of Sydney) applied for and received competitive funding
from the Federal government to test, over a period of three years, the above predictions in three IPAs around Sydney. Changes in. abundances and size-structures of tar-
A.J. Underwood . M.G. Chapman
animals (which are treated as an exploitable resource by the same agency that is commissioned to protect them). Similar criticisms can be applied to the imposition of size
limits, with the added concern that allowing removal of larger animals may indeed
remove those members of the population that are most fecund and may therefore contribute disproportionately to future generations.
Because of difficulties with such regulations therefore, in 1994 the New South Wales
government responded to public and scientific concern about intertidal foraging by
declaring a number of Intertidal Protected Areas on the coast around Sydney, New South
Wales. Shores around Sydney are particularly impacted by foraging because of a large
urban population, although these activities are widespread around the southern coast
of Australia (Kingsford et al. 1991). Intertidal Protected Areas (IPAs) were selected according to a number of criteria (among others, scientific value, relative inaccessibility,
the. degree of concern by residents and local government) and they were interspersed
among unprotected areas, thus allowing most users of the coast access to some shores
for their continued plundering. There was to be no collection of intertidal organisms
in IPAs, although anglers could still fish on condition that they used purchased bait.
The original plan of management included declaration of IPAs, appropriate signs informing the public of the regulations, imposition of the regulations by Fisheries inspectors and local government rangers, a programme of public education and subsequent "monitoring" of the effectiveness of the regulations. Unfortunately, only the first
two of these were dealt with satisfactorily - IPAs were declared and some signs were
(eventually) provided, although it was up to local government to decide where to place
these signs and how many to erect. Adequate resources were not allocated to either the
policing of the regulations or the programme of public education, the latter of which
was largely left up to local community groups to organize.
The original plan also included promises of funds for a scientific assessment of this
method of protecting intertidal organisms before deciding whether to extend IPAs
further along the coast. This experiment (closure of areas to foraging) had very specific hypotheses and should therefore have been relatively straight-forward. One would
predict, after declaration of IPAs, an increase in abundances of targeted species (crabs,
large whelks, sea urchins) in IPAs relative to abundances prior to the declaration and relative to abundances in unprotected areas (where foraging continued) (Underwood 1993b).
Similarly, because foragers frequently target larger animals, one would predict an increase in the average size (or an increase in the abundance of the larger size class) of
targeted species in IPAs relative to such measures prior to the declaration and relative
to such measures in unprotected areas (Underwood 1993b). Finally, because it is known
that certain large species may have large effects on the rest of the assemblage (e.g. by
creating bare space; Stimson 1973), one can predict that the assemblage in IPAs may
change over a period of time after declaration in a different manner to such temporal
changes on unprotected shores.
Therefore, this managerial decision gave rise to clear predictions which could be
and should have been tested by an appropriate sampling programme, as was required
in the original plan of management. This was not done by the regulatory agency in
question, who have nonetheless a policy to extend IPAs further afield. The Institute of
Marine Ecology (University of Sydney) applied for and received competitive funding
from the Federal government to test, over a period of three years, the above predictions in three IPAs around Sydney. Changes in. abundances and size-structures of tar-