PDA

View Full Version : Local Council Wants Green Zone ratified & MBMP extended



Chris Ryan
16-02-2008, 06:32 AM
For those of you living up this way, I STRONGLY recommend you seek out your council representatives and give them a gob full!. With the local elections coming along, tell them they lose your vote and find a rep and a Mayor that is supportive. The is the best way to teach them a lesson - Vote the Bastards Out.

Chris



Moreton Bay Marine Park draft zoning plan

10:42a.m. 15 February 2008

Caloundra City Council will seek an extension of the current boundaries of the Moreton Bay Marine Park as well as support the creation of a new green zone to protect Westaways Creek as part of a review of the Draft Zoning Plan.

Caloundra City Mayor Don Aldous said Council will prepare a submission as part of the current consultation of the Moreton Bay Marine Park Draft Zoning Plan to ensure the sustainability and health of one of the region’s most ecologically significant areas.

The Moreton Bay Marine Park stretches 125km from Caloundra to the Gold Coast, and includes that section of coastline from Caloundra Head in the north to Tripcony Bight in the south, including both the northern end of Pumicestone Passage and Bribie Island.

Cr Aldous said Council’s submission will seek to not only extend the current boundaries from Caloundra Head to Moffat Headland, but also ensure Council retains existing use rights including dredging, beach protection and drainage works, construction and maintenance of public facilities and emergency works adjacent to Kings Beach, Bulcock Beach and Golden Beach through to Bells Creek.

“Council will also address other issues such as ensuring compliance and policing of personal watercraft, and a recommendation to ensure the adequate protection of the shorebird habitat in the Passage,” Cr Aldous said.

“Council supports the review process and the intent to protect and manage the environmental, social and economic values of the Marine Park, as well as its sustainable use and enjoyment for present and future generations

Lucky_Phill
16-02-2008, 07:47 AM
They want a green zone and STILL want to dredge it ?????

I like the part

" but also ensure Council retains existing use rights including dredging, beach protection and drainage works, construction and maintenance of public facilities and emergency works adjacent to Kings Beach, Bulcock Beach and Golden Beach through to Bells Creek. "

Yep, lock everyone out EXCEPT ourselves.

Do they know they can protect the area WITHOUT green zoning it ?

Phill

Fafnir
16-02-2008, 08:12 AM
social and economic values of the Marine Park

This is the part that really got me. What social and economic value? How many people in Caloundra go fishing? What is the social benefit to those people? What is the economic value to local tackle stores, boat yards, service stations etc that sell bait? How many people holidaying in the area like to wet a line?

This guy needs to be told loud and clear!

Martijnf
16-02-2008, 09:23 AM
They want a green zone and STILL want to dredge it ?????

I like the part

" but also ensure Council retains existing use rights including dredging, beach protection and drainage works, construction and maintenance of public facilities and emergency works adjacent to Kings Beach, Bulcock Beach and Golden Beach through to Bells Creek. "



lol yeah mate, that was my first thought as well.

I reckon the bloke who wrote this should go run for president in the States, he'd have a real good chance of getting the job!

mod5
16-02-2008, 09:57 AM
WRONG

There is nothing in there that suggests any more Green Zones.

They are saying that they support the proposed Westaways Creek Green Zone and also want the boundary of the Moreton Bay Marine Park extended up to Moffat Headland.

They also want to ensure they retain their current rights including dredging, beach protection and drainage works, construction and maintenance of public facilities and emergency works adjacent to Kings Beach, Bulcock Beach and Golden Beach through to Bells Creek.

Read it properly

Mod11
16-02-2008, 10:43 AM
I read it.... AND READ IT AGAIN....

WRONG

There is nothing in there that suggests any more Green Zones.


" Caloundra City Council will seek an extension of the current boundaries of the Moreton Bay Marine Park as well as support the creation of a new green zone to protect Westaways Creek as part of a review of the Draft Zoning Plan. "


THERE ARE NO CURRENT GREEN ZONES IN WESTAWAYS CREEK. The current boundaries is the most important wording in this statement.

Sorry Mod5, bit me thinks you have it wrong, or is it just a matter of interpretation ?

Note.. I do not disagree with the proposed green zoning of Westaways creek. Looks to be a prime nursery habitat.

chilli

mod5
16-02-2008, 10:50 AM
I read it.... AND READ IT AGAIN....

WRONG

There is nothing in there that suggests any more Green Zones.


" Caloundra City Council will seek an extension of the current boundaries of the Moreton Bay Marine Park as well as support the creation of a new green zone to protect Westaways Creek as part of a review of the Draft Zoning Plan. "


THERE ARE NO CURRENT GREEN ZONES IN WESTAWAYS CREEK. The current boundaries is the most important wording in this statement.

Sorry Mod5, bit me thinks you have it wrong, or is it just a matter of interpretation ?

chilli

Check the Draft Zoning Plan and you will find it at page 87. It's titled MNPO1 - Westaways Creek

I said they are supporting the proposed Westaways Creek Green Zone

Edit ...... I see you added the following after my response


Note.. I do not disagree with the proposed green zoning of Westaways creek. Looks to be a prime nursery habitat.

Chris Ryan
16-02-2008, 11:57 AM
So Mod5.....wording of the story verbatim says as you put it WRONG.

However, with ZERO zoning currently and it only mentioned in a draft and the Mayor calling for this to be ratified is asking for more green zones (none plus 1 is more). Also asking for the Park to be extended further means more areas that can be closed off if extended and considered in these submissions.

Interesting though that the Caloundra Mayor wants it extended, pushing submissions to get it on the agenda and ratification of westaways creek to be closed, yet as I just read, that he is not running when then local government elections come through as they are being merged into the Sunshine Coast Regional Council.


Nice legacy Don. Top Job shaft your locals and then bugger off. Just Great.

mod5
16-02-2008, 12:25 PM
So Mod5.....wording of the story verbatim says as you put it WRONG.

However, with ZERO zoning currently and it only mentioned in a draft and the Mayor calling for this to be ratified is asking for more green zones (none plus 1 is more). Also asking for the Park to be extended further means more areas that can be closed off if extended and considered in these submissions.

Interesting though that the Caloundra Mayor wants it extended, pushing submissions to get it on the agenda and ratification of westaways creek to be closed, yet as I just read, that he is not running when then local government elections come through as they are being merged into the Sunshine Coast Regional Council.


Nice legacy Don. Top Job shaft your locals and then bugger off. Just Great.

Your emphasis of the word MORE in the heading. The story has no indication of MORE zoning other than what is already proposed.

Maybe your heading should have been Local Council Wants Green Zone or Local Council Supports Green Zone

Mod11
16-02-2008, 10:36 PM
NO Mod5, I edited my post at 10.47.. a good 3 minutes before your response went up.

chilli

mod5
16-02-2008, 10:43 PM
NO Mod5, I edited my post at 10.47.. a good 3 minutes before your response went up.

chilli

Yep you edited your original post and put that in there while I was typing. You original post is the quote in my post.

Tripcony
19-02-2008, 10:57 AM
Fascinating little exercise in semantics.

But getting back to the Mayor's comments -
maybe I'm missing something but what harm would arise from including the area up to Moffat as part of the Marine Park
PROVIDING it is not designated as a Green Zone
which obviously is not intended ?

That said, the Mayor's proposal seems fairly meaningless
UNLESS he nominates what zoning he seeks for this extension.

Derek Bullock
20-02-2008, 01:29 PM
15 January 2008
Conservationists commend Caloundra City Council over Moreton Bay Protection Support

This release available here (http://www.savemoretonbay.org.au/media/2008/080215_moreton_bay_marine_park.pdf) in pdf (51kb)
The Australian Marine Conservation Society today commended the Caloundra City Council for supporting increased protection of Moreton Bay Marine Park as part of the Queensland Government’s current review of the Park’s zoning plan.
The Council today announced that it supports the QLD Government’s proposal to protect Westerway’s Creek in the upper reaches of Pumistone Passage as a Marine National Park.
Craig Bohm, Campaigns Director with Australian Marine Conservation Society said “It is commendable that Caloundra City Council has indicated support for more Marine National Parks (green zones) to be established. The council obviously sees that Marine National Parks benefits our local communities”.
The Council has also committed to supporting better protection of Moreton Bay’s shorebird roosting and feeding sites, which are being degraded at an alarming rate due to human impacts such as cars on beaches, boat traffic, pollution and coastal development.
Bohm continued “Shorebirds helped give Moreton Bay its international status as a RAMSAR listed wetland of special importance to the world’s migratory shorebirds. We welcome council’s commitment to helping protect shorebird roosting and feeding sites wherever they are found.”
Most interesting, is the Council’s call to the QLD Government, asking them to extend the northern boundary of Moreton Bay Marine Park even further north to include Moffats Head.
Bohm concluded, “The Caloundra Council recognizes that marine protection is good for business in Caloundra. Wherever marine parks are found, tourism flourishes and local economies benefit. Caloundra’s stance represents the new wave of thinking in south east Queensland– caring for our seas and marine life is good for business.”
ENDS
Media contact: Craig Bohm: 0427 133 481

PinHead
20-02-2008, 03:06 PM
amazing these people...I do not recall Mr Bohm whinging when the council turned the wetlands on the western side of Caloundra into industrial estates. I did not hear Mr Bohm whinging when the council approved all the foreshore development and high rise approvals at Golden beach, Bulcock Beach and Kings Beach. I did not notice Mr Bohm whinging when the canal estates were being developed.
I did not notice Mr Bohm stating that the council still wants dredging rights and rights to carry out drainage works.

As a matter of fact, I do not think Mr Bohm thinks before opening his mouth but that is to be expected of a radical greenie.

Fafnir
20-02-2008, 03:56 PM
Nothing but a low life piece of filth.


Wherever marine parks are found, tourism flourishes and local economies benefit

Has this been proven? I thought there had been some studies that indicated otherwise.

Tripcony
21-02-2008, 07:27 AM
Nothing but a low life piece of filth.

Has this been proven? I thought there had been some studies that indicated otherwise.

" Nothing but a low life piece of filth."
However passionate we may feel about this issue,disgusting comments like this do the cause no service !

" I thought there had been some studies that indicated otherwise "
FINE. Produce one.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park sure seems to attract tourists and a related flourishing economy.

billfisher
21-02-2008, 08:14 AM
The park doesn't attract tourists tripcony, the Reef and the resorts do. If the GBR marine park didn't exist then there is little doubt the reef would be in just as good shape given the already light fishing pressure.

Fafnir
21-02-2008, 08:22 AM
" Nothing but a low life piece of filth."
However passionate we may feel about this issue,disgusting comments like this do the cause no service !

Calling is as I see it.


" I thought there had been some studies that indicated otherwise "
FINE. Produce one.
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park sure seems to attract tourists and a related flourishing economy.

I asked a question. I asked if it had been proven, and that I 'thought' that some studies had been done that proved otherwise. Obviously I cannot produce any if I have to ask the question. Try READING the post before responding. And as Billfisher quite rightly points out, the GBR is not an example of a marine park resulting in MORE tourists than would otherwise have been the case.

Seriously, don't you get sick of being proven wrong time and time again?

Tripcony
21-02-2008, 08:49 AM
Love the way you both presuppose an answer to the very question we're all on about.
You are ASSUMING ( without producing any evidence ) that the zonings and other protections afforded the GBR have had nil impact.

If professional fishing were permitted willy-nilly anywhere on the reef,
if people could remove coral or anything else they felt like in any quantity,
if all the other no-no's imposed by the Marine Park status did not exist,

how long do you reckon it would take before there would be sufficient deterioration to impact on the tourist industry ?

Not too bloody long, I reckon.

Fafnir
21-02-2008, 12:18 PM
Have you read Walter Starks articles re:GBR?

Also you are talking about Professional Fishing, Coral Removal etc. None of that has anything to do with me as a rec angler.

Tripcony I should point out that I was initially, whilst not in favour of green zones, not against them. I foolishly believed that they were important and offered some long term benefits. But I have seen nothing that proves that, and closing areas because they 'might' not be sustainable at some stage in the FUTURE, is ridiculous.

The problems in Moreton Bay are pollution and siltation. Recreational fishing is having next to no impact on the bay currently, and it's unlikely it ever will. You can't win the 'Let's embrace green zones with open arms' argument, because they are only intended to stop recreational anglers from fishing. They offer NO other benefit, as commercial fishing would be stopped by putting in place yellow zones, not green.

billfisher
21-02-2008, 05:37 PM
Love the way you both presuppose an answer to the very question we're all on about.
You are ASSUMING ( without producing any evidence ) that the zonings and other protections afforded the GBR have had nil impact.

If professional fishing were permitted willy-nilly anywhere on the reef,
if people could remove coral or anything else they felt like in any quantity,
if all the other no-no's imposed by the Marine Park status did not exist,

how long do you reckon it would take before there would be sufficient deterioration to impact on the tourist industry ?

Not too bloody long, I reckon.

Come off it Tripcony, I already said (and can prove) the the commercial fishing pressure on the Reef was light (under DPI regs) before the green zones were expanded to 33%. It was already illegal to remove coral etc under EPA rules. Your propostition is patently false.

I can also put up rigorous studies that were conducted by the GBRMPA (Mapstone/ Ayling study) that green zones had little effect on fish numbers within green zones - let alone any spillover or fishery wide benifit.

Tripcony
22-02-2008, 04:53 AM
None of that has anything to do with me as a rec angler.

... I was initially, whilst not in favour of green zones, not against them.

The problems in Moreton Bay are pollution and siltation. Recreational fishing is having next to no impact on the bay .... You can't win the 'Let's embrace green zones with open arms' argument, because they are only intended to stop recreational anglers from fishing.

" Wherever marine parks are found, tourism flourishes and local economies benefit"
The GBR was raised in the context of your above comment.

On first hearing about it, I was violently opposed to the zonings. I immediately whipped off an Email to Craig Bohm (whose name I plucked from some newspaper article) warning him that I was going to wage war !
But not wanting to go into battle poorly armed, I then started to read and collate information .
And I changed tack.

Now you buggers are making me question that decision again.
I must be a bloody jellyfish .
But I'm still leaning to the "they mightn't do much good (certainly SOME) but I can't see them doing much harm" position.

As for the "intended to stop recreational anglers" crud,
I'm sorry mate but that is pure paranoia.
Even if the EPA AND all those 'experts' are wrong, I still believe they are well meaning and not malicious.

supa29
22-02-2008, 11:12 PM
amazing these people...I do not recall Mr Bohm whinging when the council turned the wetlands on the western side of Caloundra into industrial estates. I did not hear Mr Bohm whinging when the council approved all the foreshore development and high rise approvals at Golden beach, Bulcock Beach and Kings Beach. I did not notice Mr Bohm whinging when the canal estates were being developed.
I did not notice Mr Bohm stating that the council still wants dredging rights and rights to carry out drainage works.

As a matter of fact, I do not think Mr Bohm thinks before opening his mouth but that is to be expected of a radical greenie.

mate i coulnt agree more, i haved lived on sunny coast for 20 yrs and dont know any tourists that have come here for bird watcing, people come to the coast for some good fishing, this council have passed projects that have more damaging impact on the enviroment ie. pelician waters canals and golf coarse, all with run off going into the passage. i think it comes down to money talks and bullsh** walks, the extension of the park up to moffat heads has no benifit to any thing or anyone bcause only the common seagull is the only bird that i see there. but it is one of the best if not the best land based open ocean fishing spots anywhere. on ly way to beat this is to vote right :rifle: adding to the pollution problem i know of a 50000 litre over flow tank that is situated under the carpark at kingsbeach that acts as an overflow for the local sewerage and stormwater, this goes directly into the ocean 300 metres out from kings, i know this because i was there when it went in, and not many people know and i am sure it has more of an effect than rec fishing has on fish stocks.

Jono_SS
23-02-2008, 06:20 PM
I wonder if the AMCS would have been as supportive if the article had been worded a little differently, though giving the same overall message...For example something along the lines of ...

"Caloundra City Council will seek an extension of the current boundaries of the Moreton Bay Marine Park, but they don't want any green zones in the extended area so they can continue existing activities. However, for 1 reason or another, they support the proposed new green zone to protect Westaways Creek"

note: I'd say some of the other types of zones (conservation? habitat protection?) might also affect the ability to dredge/protect beaches/etc...

Fafnir
23-02-2008, 08:37 PM
As for the "intended to stop recreational anglers" crud,
I'm sorry mate but that is pure paranoia.


I realise it does sound like some twisted conspiracy theory, but consider this ... What activity does a green zone restrict that is not restricted in a yellow zone?

Green zones do not protect habitats, because you can still anchor in them and still drive your boat through the majority of them at full speed. They are not No Go Zones, they are simply No Take Zones. Yellow zones stop commercial fishing, the next highest zone is green, the only difference? Recreational anglers cannot fish or crab in a green zone.

Now given that the green zone does nothing to stop pollution, siltation or the supposed effects of global warming, and clearly it does not stop dugong/turtle strikes, or damage to bottom structure, nor does it stop people diving and therefore putting cameras and flashes in the faces of the local marine residents, nor does it stop divers touching things (they can't TAKE things, but they can still TOUCH things while they are down there), then green zones are clearly not there to protect the environment. The only things they stop are recreational fishing activities.

The whole green zone issue would be more palatable if they were full exclusion zones, where the only people allowed to enter them would be qualified scientists, for the purpose of scientific research. But whilst they insist on allowing all other activities with the exception of fishing, then green zones are obviously only intended to stop recreational anglers. Proving my original comment.

Am I still paranoid?

PS: If you want to join me in a paranoid state, google PETA and have a read, particularly look for the site PETA KILLS ANIMALS. How deep would one have to dig to find links, financial or otherwise, between PETA and the AMCS I wonder?

PinHead
23-02-2008, 09:06 PM
" Wherever marine parks are found, tourism flourishes and local economies benefit"
The GBR was raised in the context of your above comment.

On first hearing about it, I was violently opposed to the zonings. I immediately whipped off an Email to Craig Bohm (whose name I plucked from some newspaper article) warning him that I was going to wage war !
But not wanting to go into battle poorly armed, I then started to read and collate information .
And I changed tack.

Now you buggers are making me question that decision again.
I must be a bloody jellyfish .
But I'm still leaning to the "they mightn't do much good (certainly SOME) but I can't see them doing much harm" position.

As for the "intended to stop recreational anglers" crud,
I'm sorry mate but that is pure paranoia.
Even if the EPA AND all those 'experts' are wrong, I still believe they are well meaning and not malicious.

green zones only stop commercial and recreational fishos..so that is not parnoia or crud..that is reality..every other tom dick and harry and go in these zones and destroy them but a fishing line is not permitted.

If you believe the EPA are well meaning and not malicious..good for you..but i will tell you what they are..arrogant and aloof..AND...indebted to the Greens for election deals that have been done.

No one had to be an "expert" on their panel..just be able to read research from overseas..that is all they did as they did none here.