Loading

The government last month unveiled plans for a Sydney marine park providing varying levels of protection to 25 biodiverse sites scattered between Newcastle and Wollongong, including several within Sydney Harbour.

The proposal drew criticism from environmentalists who said the proposal would leave less than 5 per cent - or 9100 hectares - of the region known as the Hawkesbury Shelf within a sanctuary or conservation zone.

They also highlight a 2013-14 government fishing report that found 14 million organisms were extracted from coastal waters a year, with about half discarded or thrown back. Recreational catches also exceeded commercial landings for five of 10 popular species, such as 71 per cent of the total harvest of dusky flathead and 63 per cent for mulloway.

Green groups also commissioned a ReachTEL poll of 2600 that found as many as 90 per cent of respondents in four coastal electorates supported a marine park even though as many as a third of those surveyed self-identified as fishers.

One spur for the polling was a concern the government would buckle under pressure from radio shock jocks and ditch the entire proposal. A Facebook site - STOP THE LOCKOUT! - counts almost 40,000 followers.

Niall Blair, the fisheries minister, dismissed such speculation, saying the public could give feedback up to September 27, and there had already been "thousands of submissions".

"It's really important to carry through with the consultation," he told Fairfax Media. "Everyone gets an ample opportunity to have their view raised and considered by the government."

Mr Blair said it was "the exact opposite to the process used for something like the greyhounds", referring to the abrupt decision by then Premier Mike Baird to ban the industry over animal cruelty - only to reverse the decision months later.

'No evidence'

Oliver Brown, an archaeologist who describes himself as "an erstwhile Greens voter", said there's little evidence to support the plan's proposal to restrict fishing and seaweed foraging along the popular Bronte-Coogee strip.

"[It]removes entirely reasonable and customary rights of recreational and subsistence fishers without appropriate scientific, socially equitable or ethical justification", he wrote in a submission.

"The operational bluntness of the current proposal cannot lead to anything other than justifiable resistance in the lead-up, protest and civil disobedience at implementation and an ongoing adversarial relationship between fishers and government until such time as it is repealed," he wrote.

Paul Jensen, a Clovelly resident who has fished for half a century along the coast, said the idea of a marine park "was a fantastic thing but it's gone too far".

While he supports no-take protection of places such as Gordons Bay, it made no sense to bar fishing from at Shark Point or Henry Head.

I dive to catch my meal - nothing goes to waste,

Spear fisher Lara Puckeridge

Both sites were beside deep waters, with schools of passing fish such as salmon or kingfish. "There's no way it will hurt the population of fish because they are moving through," Mr Jensen said.

Mr Jensen and the Puckeridges say the government should give priority to other measures if they were serious about marine protection, such as curbing pollution or employing more inspectors to enforce existing bag limits on what people can take.

"In the 10 years I've been diving, I've never been checked," Ms Puckeridge said. "A lot of people do abuse it."