It gets Hard

[PinHead]

Bloody hard to understand which way to turn in this Moreton Bay green zone proposals.

We all know that as soon as something is mentioned in the media, the AMCS always seem to have something to say.

We have the "expert advisory panel" that the Govt has appointed to make the submissions with "apparently" the interests of all stakeholders in mind.

This panel consists of:


Professor Paul Greenfield (Chair)
Dr Eva Abal
Dr Russ Babcock
Dr Rodrigo Bustamante
Associate Professor Rod Connolly
Geoff Dews
Dr Peter Isdale
Dr Sean Pascoe
Professor Hugh Possingham
Professor Russell Reichelt
Dr Jackie Robinson
Professor Helen Ross

Then we have the AMCS and their supporters:

http://www.savemoretonbay.org.au/main/prominent.php (http://www.savemoretonbay.org.au/main/prominent.php)

Have a look at some of the people on there:
A Sydney chef
Some US ecologist
A supposed rock star
Amongst others…

And there is this gem of a quote from their site:

“The effectiveness of Highly Protected Areas for enhancing fish stocks has already been proven in Moreton Bay. Recent studies by Dr Sue Pillians simply confirms what we know from 100 other studies from around the world. The fact is, if you don't kill fish there are more and they get bigger. Bigger fish have proportionately more babies. That is it!
A primary school student could work that out. If people are arguing we need to test these well known facts again then perhaps we should also check to see if the speed of light is the same in Moreton Bay as the rest of the world, or if gravity is still working tomorrow."
Someone should instruct some people that unless there is sufficient food for fish to grow to a large size then it will not happen..and that can relate to water quality and foreshore development (EPA concerns) and some fish also eat smaller fish…I would have thought a primary school child could have seen that.


I would suggest you read the list of members of the “expert advisory panel” and the AMCS supporters and make your own conclusions.

[Lucky_Phill]

Better still, google their pay cheques and find who they are funded by. :-X

The saveourbay.org.au association incorporated has come up with a great counter-proposal and will make it available very soon, once the bugs have been ironed out.

The fight for Moreton Bay will not stop at close of submissions on March 7, it has only just begun.>:(

Better still Greg, if you really want to know who are behind the scenes and funding these radical greenies... dig up

www.pewtrusts.org

Read it carefully and you will be amazed, but probably not surprised. 8-)

Back when David took on Goliath, that was an easy task... you could see your enemy....

Phill

[Poodroo]

Well based on what they are trying to preach I guess we should all preserve the fish stocks and just put an end to eating seafood. While we are at it I think it is cruel to slaughter cows and other livestock so if we simply stop eating them they will all get bigger and fatter and therefore produce more young. Oh and let's not forget those poor helpess defenceless chickens who get their heads ripped off and all their feathers plucked just so we humans can eat. We will all simply have to live by eating root vegetables unless they discover that even vegetables have feelings too and we can all either just starve to death or maybe die from methane gas polution because all the cows will overcome our planet once we stop eating them.::)

Poodroo

[PinHead]

read the web site and the panel members.

[Poodroo]

read the web site and the panel members.

I did that. It is laughable seeing as it consists of high profile rock singers and opera singers and professors from Germany and the USA. Are they planning some sort of concert for the Dugongs? Yup, they are sure to know what is best for Moreton Bay. ::) They are overqualified in fact. (Please note I am being sarcastic)

Poodroo

[Mod11]

OH boy. thanks for the link Phill.

Did a lot of reading and dredging. Below is my summary and story. Some facts are true and they are the financials of the trust.


Pew Prospectus 2007 75
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
2006
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION June 30, 2006
ASSETS
TOTAL ASSETS $5,124,260,119
LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS
TOTAL LIABILITIES $148,464,935
TOTAL NET ASSETS 4,975,795,184
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $5,124,260,119
STATEMENT OF ACTIVITY Year ended June 30, 2006
TEMPORARILY PERMANENTLY
UNRESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED TOTAL
REVENUES
Contributions $5,760,898 $41,757,186 $ — $47,518,084
Contract revenue 166,321 — — 166,321
Other income 12,504 — — 12,504
Investment income 8,280,520 — — 8,280,520
Distributions from supporting trusts 170,956,136 36,633,772 — 207,589,908
Changes in the fair value of the
beneficial interest in trusts — — 406,922,855 406,922,855
Net assets released from restrictions 58,294,825 (58,294,825) — —
TOTAL REVENUES 243,471,204 20,096,133 406,922,855 670,490,192
EXPENSES
Grants 147,026,736 — — 147,026,736
Program 38,395,957 — — 38,395,957
General and administration 10,795,737 — — 10,795,737
Fund-raising 1,051,158 — — 1,051,158
TOTAL EXPENSES 197,269,588 — — 197,269,588
CHANGES IN NET ASSETS 46,201,616 20,096,133 406,922,855 473,220,604
NET ASSETS - BEGINNING OF YEAR 7,970,015 44,139,440 4,450,465,125 4,502,574,580
NET ASSETS - END OF YEAR $54,171,631 $64,235,573 $4,857,387,980 $4,975,795,184
The financial information presents the consolidated information of the Trusts and The Pew Research Center, a wholly-owned subsidiary.
Audited financials are available upon request.

The Grants highlighted in bold are for groups such as AMCS, ACC, PETA, WWF and so on. All these funds are from an OIL COMPANY.

“ MY unofficial story…, I am an Oil Company making a squillion dollars a year and over time are seen to be a problem in the eyes of the world by way of pollution, so I set up a Trust to divert the eyes towards other imaginary problems, like overfishing. I have billions of dollars at my disposal and hire ( BUY ) scientists, Uni Graduates, Academics and the like to produce outcomes that suit my agenda. I am a successful environmental saviour and are loved by the unsuspecting and ignorant public. I fund other organizations to help divert attention from my polluting ways and these groups are also applauded by Joe Public for their efforts. I am a master of diversionary tactics in the even Governments are siding with me and throwing funds at me to continue in my deception “.



chilli

[billfisher]

Heres some more Chilli,

Pew, SeaWeb shrug off oil to target fishing
by Nils E. Stolpe

The Pew Charitable Trusts have spent tens of millions of dollars on fisheries and ocean issues and even more on the news media in recent years. This flood of money has had a significant impact both on fisheries policy and on how our industry is depicted in print and on the air. While a large part of the Pew focus is supposed to be representing and increasing the public's interest in fisheries and ocean issues, is it also shifting that interest?

One of the more active efforts to influence public opinion on fisheries is underwaterheaded by SeaWeb. On its web site, SeaWeb describes itself as a "project designed to raise awareness of the world ocean and the life within it." Its primary funder is the Pew Charitable Trusts. Early in its existence, SeaWeb commissioned a public opinion survey to determine which ocean issues would best "engage the public interest."

The introduction to the results of the survey, which was conducted for SeaWeb by the Mellman Group, stated "Americans believe the ocean's problems stem from many sources, but oil companies are seen as a prime culprit: In fact, 81% of Americans believe that oil spills are a very serious problem. This is followed by chemical runoff from large corporate farms (75% very serious), improperly treated water from towns near the coast (69%), contaminated seafood (65%), and trash, oil, and chemical runoff from streets (65%)." Overfishing evidently wasn't considered "a very serious problem" and was lumped in with "the loss of critical species" to make the cut as a "meaningful indicator" of trouble.

But in an article on the poll in SeaWeb's November 1996 monthly update, the only specific threat to the oceans mentioned was overfishing. Along with three paragraphs of vague generalities was this statement: "71% (of respondents) agree that overfishing is threatening the health and stability of the marine environment." Nothing about oil spills, runoff, contaminated seafood, or any of the other "problems" identified in the survey, only overfishing. Is this engaging or is it redirecting the public interest?

Funding, MPAs
It seems that an almost universal groundswell of support has developed spontaneously for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) as the solution to problems besetting our oceans and the creatures living in them. It seems as well that much of the focus of the MPA movement is protection from fishing. A widely circulated "scientific consensus statement" by the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis (NCEAS) at the University of California at Santa Barbara basically concludes that MPAs and Marine Reserves are one of greatest developments of civilization since sliced bread. The statement, it explained, was the result of a two-and-a-half year effort by an international team of scientists. That effort included a research review and a joint meeting by the NCEAS scientists and other researchers on marine reserves convened by the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS) in May of 1998. This sounds like the world of science at work the way it's supposed to work, with objective researchers reaching their own conclusions independently, then coming together behind a consensus position. But is it really?

COMPASS is funded by the Packard Foundation and SeaWeb is a COMPASS "partner." The chair of the COMPASS board of scientific experts received a Pew fellowship in 1992 and is also a member of the NCEAS international team of scientists that drafted the consensus statement. Six of the 15 scientists at the COMPASS meeting were Pew fellows, as were 25 of the 161 scientists who signed the statement. Marine reserves or MPAs were mentioned in the project descriptions, biographies, or bibliographies of 27 of the 58 Pew fellows named since 1996. One might easily conclude that they are strong supporters - if not promoters - of the concept. Few other researchers can maintain either the professional or public profiles that Pew fellows enjoy, thanks to the financial support - some $150,000 each - and connections the fellowships provide. (In addition to these Pew fellowships, the Pew Trusts and the Packard Foundation have spent more than $2 million in grants specifically promoting MPAs since 1998.)
But the Pew connections don't end there. In January of this year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) named the finalists for its MPA Advisory Committee. The 26-member committee includes representatives of a number of organizations funded by Pew and Packard, including:
• Environmental Defense - $3.4 million from Pew and $1.2 million from Packard in the last five years;
• Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) - $5.5 million from Pew;
• Center for Marine Conservation - $1.1 million from Pew, $1.6 million from Packard; and
• Conservation International - $400,000 from Packard.

A program officer from the Packard Foundation is also a MPA committee member, along with one commercial and one recreational fishing industry representative.
Groundswell? You bet. Spontaneous? Not hardly. Universal? How much of the universe can you influence with 10 or 20 million dollars, particularly the universe of marine and fisheries researchers, who have been dealing with declining research budgets for decades?

Putting it together
So back in 1996, the folks at SeaWeb commissioned a survey to help them get the public involved in the ocean. The introduction to the survey stated, "The poll is critically important to informing the campaign. The research has given us a strong sense of what will work to engage the public in this issue, but the public still requires educating before acknowledging a problem."
The report indicated that Americans would be most effectively engaged by focusing on their perceptions of what was contributing to the problems of the oceans - oil spills, chemical runoff from corporate farms, improperly treated wastewater, contaminated seafood, and non-point source pollution.

But were they given that opportunity? Not quite. Disregarding everything else, the Pew Ocean Update focused on overfishing. So did SeaWeb's programs.

Fishing - or overfishing - was accorded little attention in the public opinion survey relative to all the other threats. Yet today, fishing and aquaculture "problems" comprise at least half of SeaWeb's workload. Oil spills, which were identified as the number one problem in the poll and which seem to be going on at the same rate they were pre-Exxon Valdez, get virtually no attention at all.

It's obvious to anyone with any exposure to the print or broadcast media that the public's focus has shifted from "blame it all on the oil industry" to "blame it all on commercial fishing." Every major fishery is under stringent management and every fisherman is working with severe restrictions today, but that isn't enough for the organizations funded by Pew.

Perhaps more people should start asking "why?"

[dnej]

Debra Henry
Councillor Redland Shire Council

And how many litres of treated sewerage does this shire push into the bay every day?I wonder if she knows, now high the nutrient levels are ,in actual fact.
David

[PinHead]

my point is that there is one person listed on the AMCS site as a supporter and is also on the advisory panel..yet not one rec or pro fisho on the panel..amazing.

[billfisher]

Heres some more on Pew and MPA's:

In late 2006, "Fisheries Face Collapse by 2048!" was the headline read and heard around the world - at least in the world of Washington, DC. It just so happens that Congress was debating the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Act at that precise moment. The media stories sited a study led by Dr. Boris Worm of Dalhousie University.

Dr. Worm, a regular recipient of of funding from Pew Charitable Trusts, working with SeaWeb, a Pew-funded public research group that specializes in media campaigns, worked on the message and the timing to get as much media coverage as possible. They were successful. Big media loves a crisis, and when you have the money and the manpower its easy to plant a good fish tale.

Dr. Worm's article was quickly labeled by top fisheries scientists and managers for what it really was - a Pew advocacy piece like much of his prior work funded by Pew. The kicker at the end of the piece calling for "No-Fishing marine reserves" (MPA's) as the cure was the final giveaway, a goal high on the agenda of most Pew-funded organizations! Worm's work in the past had been branded "invalid", "misleading" and "undermining the the trust placed in science." As it turns out this was a textbook study in disseminating misinformation disguised as science to a willing media with the express purpose of influencing Congressional debate. Such scare tactics have become the darling of the radical environmental movement.

The media firestorm was part of a broader, coordinated attack that included misleading ad campaigns aimed at smearing key politicians facing reelection. The targeted Members of Congress just happened to be those involved in crafting scientifically sound legislation that also recognized the needs of recreational fishjermen and industry. This campaign was led by another Pew-funded environmental group, the Marine Fish Conservation Network.

The Pew Charitable Trusts is the 800 Pound Gorilla of ocean issues. Created with funding from the Sun Oil Company and sitting on a $4.1 billion war chest, it is an organization that refuses to let reality get in the way of their agenda. In public documents their self-mandated mission is to "save" the oceans. Pew claims that their primary purpose "is to make grants to other organizations as well as direct planning and conducting projects and initiatives that carry out the organizations religious, charitable, scientific, literary and educational purposes." This proves that Pew grant recipients are carrying out the ideas and motivations of Pew.

The impact of such tactics is changing the direction of fisheries policy. True management and conservation is gradually being replaced by a call to stop all fishing through the use of paid-for science funneled to the media through Pew-financed conduits, and touted by Pew-funded environmental orrganizations. Much of their agenda is anti-fishing, even on well-managed, rebuilt or rebuilding fish stocks, to the point of being little more than a cleverly disguised attack on the publics access to the oceans. That attack includes targeting recreational fishermen like us.

Pew is a major grant provider to universities and professors in the marine sciences and the major provider of funds to environmental grouips that push the party line. Those groups include -
The National Environmental Trust
Oceana
Earthjustice Legal Defense
The New England Aquarium
The Public Interest Research Group
National Audubon Society
National Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
Conservation Law Foundation
Marine Conservation Biology Institute
Marine Fish Conservation Network
Wildlife Conservation Society
Friends of the Earth
The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

Combined, these groups have received over $200 million dollars of Pew money and most have openly endorsed the implementation of of arbitrary no-fishing zones (MPA's) !

The Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership is the most worrisome. It is attempting to become an umbrella group for recreational sportsman's organizations and has attracted the participation of some well-known recreational fishing organizations with the lure of Pew money. And when the going got tough during the Magnuson reauthorization, these recreational fishing groups ended up on the same page as the Pew-funded groups.

This is what Congressman Pombo, chair of the House Resources Committee had to say recently. "Throughout the long process to reauthorize the Magnuson Act, the RFA was consistently at the table, insisting on sound conservation policies based on the most accurate science. The RFA's goal was clear: a sustainable fishery so that this generation of recreational fishermen and following generations would have fish to catch. Most of the others engaged in this debate had other agendas or were totally missing in action. At the end of the 109th Congress it was clear to me that the RFA was the only player left insisting on protecting the future of recreational fishing. I will always be grateful to the RFA and respect their tenacity during what proved to be a difficult reauthorization."

Since the implementation of the Sustainable Fisheries Act in 1996, the management of US fisheries, while far from perfect, has become a model for the rest of the world. Yet Pew continues to use scare tactics to drive its agenda domestically while the most egregious fisheries problems can be found abroad. PEW'S AGENDA MAY SOUND LAUDABLE BUT THE REALITY IS THAT THEIR GOAL IS TO STOP ALL FISHING. Pew used the money of its well-heeled donors like a school-yard bully during the Magnuson debate and attacked those who stood in their way. Pew has seriously damaged the the ability of recreational fishermen to do what we love to do - GO FISHING.

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks for that billfisher,

I remember reading that some time ago but could not find it again today. I need to make a folder / file.

The general public need to know, but then again we might need Michael Moore to do a doco/ movie about this. Conspiracy theory number 74.. !!!!!

Greg, I know the old saying about keeping your enemies close, but the AMCS are such a secretive group that they have only one objective and would not dare have discention in their ranks. I might email the ferets and ask why no rec or pro fishos on their advisory panel.. can't hurt ? !!!!;)

Phill

[daz apps]

>:( your not wrong !!!!!!!


do you have a supposed called map ,,,or know where its going to happen >:( >:( >:(

if you do could you please send me something :)

cheers daz apps

[countbaysea]

If you see the sponsors down the botom of their site you can see
"Tangalooma isl resort" "Go Dive" "Nautilus dive" Getaway tours" "Aquatec"
All these companies have boat props that can kill turtles, birds and Dugongs. Anchors that destroy the habbitats and oil from engins that polutes the bay.
F^*%%#G Hippocrates!
Hang on i think they make money out of the bay???
shane

PS Another thing is if you check under their Threats to Moreton Bay - and Solutions link. The only mention of Unsustainable Fishing Practices is prawn trawling. Not Rec Fishing.

They mention - Population pressure out of control
"South East Queensland is the fastest growing region in Australia. Over 2.7 million people already live here and another 50,000 people arrive every year (11)! An out of control population explosion means that Moreton Bay Marine Park is confronting pressure from booming coastal development, more pollution, more visitors, more tourism, more boat traffic, bigger boats and much more fishing."

All of which are caused by their sponsors the Tourist and dive operators.

[Sandman]

Jo Bragg Environmental Lawyer has not obviously been on the Brisbane River or out near the airport lately !!!! "Moreton Bay is a blue jewel teaming with life. I love the wader birds the quick glimpse of a dolphin, the quiet mangroves.
Treat this marine system with the same respect as our national parks and so fully protect at least 30% of the Marine Park.” Jo i think a few of these things may be missing , oh yeh that right the airport , lets sweep that one under the carpet!! Now how about some green zones over there, Mmm no better put another over there aswell we need to balance this out , oh sure take some of that sand after all we need to bring the tourists in !!! What a load of Bull