Fishing closures [Archive] - Ausfish fishing Australia, Australian Angling Forums

Helpinfish

05-02-2004, 09:04 PM

Did you actually read what Jockey said krazyfisher?? It should not be up to jockey to prove that the report that contradicts the green zone doesnt exist, it should be up to kerry to prove that the report does exist and provide the proof so people can make up their own mind. I'll be first to say the report kerry is refering to probably does exist, as there are plenty of reports that oppose the idea that green zones work, but there is also overwhelming numbers of reports (some are listed on the GBRMPA, CRC websites etc) that support the idea of green zones or protected/restricted areas work. The important thing to note from the reports are: is the green zone being used as a fishery management tool or as marine sanctury for the marine environment i.e like a national park on land. As this will have a major impact on wether the report supports or opposes green zones.

An interesting article can be found at http://www.oceanconservancy.org/dynamic/learn/publications/blueplanet/fall02/feature1.htm

in particular read the section called Where Are They Now?

Kerry

06-02-2004, 03:30 AM

Well helpinfish sounds like you and jockey should get your heads together #:-X and do what ever it is you type of people like to do #[smiley=speechless.gif].

You might also declare your sockpuppet status #;)

Lets hope your not one who makes noise just for the sake of making noise and ask stupid questions that 6 graders even know the answer to or could find in a flash.

Not a lot of noise is made re these reports 'cause they simply don't support (or in fact deny) the crap you lot want to go on about.

Actually one doesn't have to listen to jockey for long to know what's going on so bang your heads together if that's possible #;D

Don't like some report findings then that tuff as facts must really get up the noses of some people who don't like facts and can't handle the facts, which doesn't fit with "their" perpective.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

06-02-2004, 03:35 AM

Kerry I'm sure if you really believed what you are saying you would want to back it up. As it is all you are doing is preventing informed debate. ("I know something you don't know"). You have typed a lot in this thread - why is the name/date/authors too much for you?

Kerry

06-02-2004, 03:53 AM

Yeah right Jockey, the folder is a old shitty brown manilla one with the title Newsletters 1991 -1997 and that's exactly what's in in newsletters, CRC newsletters, GBRMPA newsletters, sunfish news all types of news and all types of letters. Some are private letters that would really get up your nose #;D

There you go I'll hold it up to the screen for you #:P oh for crying out loud your a pedantic waster. Like you were the one making a big noise about being in the know and yet you persisted with that crap about "tell me who the minister for the environment is".

Like if you don't know or have the ability to even find that that then really what hope is there [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]. #

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

06-02-2004, 04:17 AM

The name of that report please Kerry (if you have it)?

Hi Helpinfish, nice to meet you, my name is jockey.

jockey

06-02-2004, 08:27 AM

Oops sorry Kerry I missed that post of yours where you first mentioned newsletters. I was talking about the 'CRC report'

"Dunno I've got an old CRC report... "

Could you please give me the name of the CRC report you were referring to, and the authors and date. A CRC report is not a newsletter as far as I know. I think CRC stands for Cooperative Research Centre but I don't know which one. There are plenty of them.

As for the minister for fisheries, you had made a series of claims, none of which you backed up in any way, so I started to suspect you didn't even know who the minister was that you were rubbishing. I still suspect you don't. Just like I suspect you don't have any CRC report. Can you blame me?

Basically what I'm asking for Kerry is for you to back up what you are saying rather than making vague statements against whoever it is you don't like.

Helpinfish

06-02-2004, 08:39 AM

Hi Kerry and Jockey,
I would have got back earlier, but the idea of fresh fish for breakfest was too strong.
I can't believe we are still in the debate of do these reports really exist. Of course they do, there are plenty reports out there that support and oppose the idea of green zones.However it would be nice if people provide links to reports they talk about for everyone to read(Only if possible). The point I was trying to make is that people should read pass the inital this report opposes/supports green zones, and try to understand why i.e is it because it was used as fishery management tool or as a marine sanctuary with fishery benifits.

And if there is going to be some discussion of the idea of green zones, can we get past this newsletter problem (and personal attacks) and start providing people with information (with links so people can read them).

jockey

06-02-2004, 08:39 AM

There's something funny going on with the posts here.

I'm with you helpinfish, but so far I haven't come accross any reports that conclude that green zones are bad (for whatever reason). Which is why I'm keen to follow this one up.

Helpinfish

06-02-2004, 08:58 AM

Hi Jockey,

There are reports out there that oppose ideas such as green zones (in fact there is one on the nth QLD sunfish website). However, as with the one on the sunfish website, these reports generally (not always) refer to greens zones as a fishery management tool, and in particular these reports generally only look at the short term (1-5yrs) benifits of them. These reports don't say green zones are bad, what they generally say is that green zones do not provide the short term benifts that will improve a fishery. However when you look at reports that look at the long term benifits, the results generally change.

mackmauler

06-02-2004, 09:07 AM

great jockey and helpinfish, after my life time if what you say is true there will be an improvement ::) bloody lot of good that is (to me anyway) ;D

Kerry

06-02-2004, 09:19 AM

Ok ideas on how to provide a link to manilla folder ::) get real you pair, or one or whatever it is ;) one would presume there might still be something out there somewhere but as I don't have it and you lot are too lazy to look then don't winge about it, do some looking instead.

But in the meantime we might sit back and let you two ??? talk between yourself.

jockey you split hairs all you like and instead of wasting your time suspecting things that don't exist actually put forward some facts of your own. First you have to actually put something forward before discussion can take place.

And as for you helpingfish, your as bad as jockey, the 2 step shuffle and all that. So how about first introducing yourself as jockey's last "dropin" dropped out after only 1 post ::) So what's your interest, fishing/boating/greenie/sockpuppet or what? and where about do you persue these activities.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

06-02-2004, 11:07 AM

Kery I never asked for a link to your manilla folder. I just want the name/date/authors of that CRC report you said you have. If you don't have it then just say so and I'll stop asking for it, but the more you try to back track the more I want to know what you are talking about.

Lay off the personal attacks too.

I don't need to put forward anything facts myself. I am perfectly happy to discuss the claims that you have made. That's all we need for a discussion, provided you are willing to at least try to back up what you say.

krazyfisher

06-02-2004, 11:26 AM

I would also like to say that I never said that green zones are bad just that they did not produce the results that some people wanted to see

Helpinfish

06-02-2004, 11:26 AM

agnes_jack

06-02-2004, 11:55 AM

Kerry

06-02-2004, 12:03 PM

I don't need to put forward anything facts myself

Don't you now, and no you certainly haven't come up with any facts have you so then maybe you could start with that sunfish site of your "mates" helpinfish ;D. And where did you say you curently were Jockey ;D

http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/where_are_the_reef_studies.htm

Yes indeedy, where in fact are the reef studies and even more damming is why haven't they been published?

http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/press_release_11.htm

And again mention of why haven't these reports been published, Why indeed, could it be that these reports don't suit the purpose.

Then of course there was this media release and I do realize your not quite sure what media releases are either. Funny I didn't see your comments anywhere in this post :-X what lost for words, don't like the facts or simply just a stirrer ???

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=10753828 75

But fancy allowing the degaded "tourist" reef to be dug up that's been totally closed to fishing for the purposes of reparing it, now that reeks of double standards and actually goes against all that hairy fairy talk about greening the reef.

Oh then there was that little controversial issue that ended up in parliament re Ethics of Manipulative Research in the Great Barrier Reef world heritage area. Now fancy anybody thinking some would stoop so low as to manipulate the research, shock horror :o

Now feel perfectly happy to discuss these claims all you like (now lets see what you give the most attention to ;D) and don't forget your now here (by your own reckoning mind you) to actually discuss, yes actually discuss and where you don't agree then you'll need some good supporting reasons, why not?.

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry

06-02-2004, 12:12 PM

Back to the subject at hand,
I was told that one of the reefs out here off agnes (I think it was Bolt reef) was declared a green zone for a number of years. Once it was re-opened the fishing was apparently fantastic. This only lasted a very short period of time though, as it was absolutly hammered by recs and pros alike. One would have to assume that the only benefits of this area being a green zone occured while it was a green zone, and that it had very little benefit once re-opened. Whilst it was a gz the fish in the area would have been able to congregate and breed and the benefits of that breeding would be an overflow to other surrounding areas. That sort of benefit would be very hard to quantify, but in my opinion there is very little to be gained by re-opening a green zone.
Please note; the above info is hear-say only and based on my opinion and I have absolutely no evidence to support that opinion

Tony, I believe many have similar opinions but actually proving this is something that simply hasn't been achieved as yet and this is where the researchers say, these are the benefits but no we can't prove a thing.

Fish also aren't that stupid and so much activity after a lengthy closure will very quickly wise up (probably in the first day or 2) the fish and become fish again instead of swimming around in a green gold fish bowl.

The benefits of green zones really haven't been establsihed as yet and many reports appear to acknowledge this fact in some way. #

Cheers, Kerry.

Gazza

06-02-2004, 12:17 PM

Well Kerry,
I'm not trying to get personal, I'm trying to provide an opportunity for people to learn, as knowledge is everything these days.

If you like to know Kerry, I live in Nth Qld and love my fishing. But I'm currently down on the sunshine coast to visit some of my family, and when I take my nephew fishing

I find it dissapointing that he doesn't have the chance to catch qualitity fish like we do up north.

Which I think we all need to do something about, as I'm sure none of us want to see the fishing of nth qld drop to se qld standards.

Geez mate ,that's a real dilemma to have ? ,like everywhere should be the same as everywhere else ::) , like 'tourism differentation' would be up the spout ::) ,and we'd be all the poorer :'( :'( :'( , as all the queenslanders would go to NSW to catch something different ::) ??? , bugga me and crikey to boot. ;)

Mate ,what does you and your 'nephew' normally catch ? ,that is so important to catch in Noosa(specifically?)

Mate ,Marlin /Sailfish plenty of, 200klms south of Noosa in the GC area i.e. same as Cairns?

Mate ,probably what i'm saying , is that , i want you to understand , seriously, we wouldn't want crocs/stonefish/sea wasp/box jelly/naked men in the same numbers down here as , up there.

Naked women ,yeah fair enough , i'll buy an rfl ....NOT!!

p.s. do you know jock ,or just met on these boards recently ??? , do you know his nephew ???

BTW ,read the 'Fishing Reports' forum , it's all Q'ld , and awesome [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

agnes_jack

06-02-2004, 12:17 PM

[smiley=freak.gif]

Helpinfish

06-02-2004, 01:10 PM

Can't you guys have a chat topic without going personal. I thought the idea was to provide an opportunity for people to become informed of the issue. At least it seems some people can stay to the subject.

Kerry,

those links you provided (or should I say I provided you) are just press releases, of which one in particular trys to compare fishing to farming. You can't do that as, not all of the reef is fished, so to say that an average of 7700 Kg per Km² of fish is caught , gives the wrong impression. You will find that 1 Km² may produce 15000kg and while another may only produce 2500kg. As it all depends on the type of environment, hence why most of us now have gps marks for where we catch our best fish. as we all know some areas fish good and some areas seem to have no fish.

but I'm getting of the topic here, are you going to lay off the personal attacks and actually try to provided an informed debate for everyone, or continue hide by these personal attacks.

Gazza

06-02-2004, 01:33 PM

... now i belive the worst rapest of the ocance aren't so much the pros but us rec fishermen!
you have what a dozern pros go out every couple of day but compaire that to the rec side with 100+ each day.....

Mate , the RecFishos are abiding by baglimits ,the Pro's are catching to their Quotas/Tac ,and generally asking for 'more' , or correct me if I'm wrong

luv , to hear about it [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

Gazza

06-02-2004, 01:46 PM

Ya see ,Helpinfish, it all comes down to consistency to debate your ideals ,doesn't it.......read on..
----------------------------------------
Helpinfish: 3.26p.m.

"I live in Nth Qld and love my fishing. But I'm currently down on the sunshine coast to visit some of my family, and when I take my nephew fishing I find it dissapointing that he doesn't have the chance to catch qualitity fish like we do up north.
----------------------------------------------

Helpinfish: 5.09p.m.
You will find that 1 Km² may produce 15000kg and while another may only produce 2500kg. As it all depends on the type of environment....

--------------------------------------------
p.s. Agnes ,i agree [smiley=freak.gif]

Regards
Gazza

jeffo

06-02-2004, 01:50 PM

bring on the closures, the more the merrier ;D

Gazza

06-02-2004, 01:53 PM

poo-stirrer ;D

Gazza

06-02-2004, 02:19 PM

Mate ,i'm sorry ,but i disagree....
1. 300 crabs & 70L of prawns , is not a normal RECFISHO practice , but that of a shamatuer selling to somebody else ,who's BUYING ,o.k.?
2. was the buyer nailed?
3. RecFishos ,via bag reductions and general size increases ,are damaging less thru the ACTIONS of the Majority.
4. I do have concerns that Pro's maybe,probably not, but maybe ,exporting 70cms PLUS flatties over the border ,Jennies over the border.

Mate , I reject the extreme tag on the examples you gave , as that is not normal , NOR legal ,never was ,never should be.....

JMHO
Gazza
p.s. betcha my other left-one ,that they both had a valid RFL ??? ???

p.p.s. Go figure ,eh? ,it's called transfer of the resource to make $$$$ ,and nothing to do with "closures" or care of any fishstocks.

Kerry

06-02-2004, 04:32 PM

Can't you guys have a chat topic without going personal. #I thought the idea was to provide an opportunity for people to become informed of the issue. #At least it seems some people can stay to the subject. #

Kerry,

those links you provided (or should I say I provided you)

So why didn't you provide those links then #???, if you knew they were there? 'cause as you say "the idea was to provide an opportunity for people to become informed of the issue"

So why didn't you actually inform people of the issue (yourself) or is it that perhaps the links aren't to your liking?

So how about it, are you going to respond and be informative or not? and simply duck and dive.

The questions are before you so do you have a response or not?

are just press releases, of which one in particular trys to compare fishing to farming. You can't do that as, not all of the reef is fished

So what's the issue with being a press release, typical poor excuse, it's information, information you can debate, if you #really want, maybe you don't/can't/won't #:-X

but I'm getting of the topic here, are you going to lay off the personal attacks and actually try to provided an informed debate for everyone, or continue hide by these personal attacks.

So you have some links, the information has been put before you and some questions and now your front and centre in the informed debate stakes, so save the excuses, just get on with the answers .

Cheers, Kerry.

BurdekinBob

07-02-2004, 03:30 AM

Kerry, I'm with you on the re-opened green zones. The expected bonanza didn't happen. The opening day of those reefs received a lot of publicity in the NQ papers at the time, but they did not fish any better than nearby reefs that had never been closed.
The average coral trout was bigger than you usually catch, but all of the big ones are male fish, and don't breed so the expected spill-over effect didn't occur.
As some of you probably know, all juvenile coral trout are female and change to male later in life, and trout being territorial,will eat anything that comes into their area, including small trout. In fact the best bait for a big trout, if thats what you want, is a small live coral trout.
If you blokes want info about whether or not we NEED green zones, log onto the NQ Sunfish site and read articles by Dr. Walter Stark, he has probably done more research into coral reefs than any one else, about 50 years worth.
When we asked the GBRMPA if they used any of his studies, they said they had not, as he hadn't done any recently. His research does not show what they wanted joe public to see, as it directly opposes the bullshit that they are feeding to the gullible, like helpinfish and jockey.
One of the main reasons why we opposed green zones so vigorously up here,is because we are being forced to travel further for a feed, which adds to both the cost and to the danger, as most rec fishos are small boat people, eg 4/6 metres.
As well as some of our close reefs, they are also taking our best spanish mackerel grounds of us, in the name of bio-diversity. More bullshit!!! Most mackerel fishermen, pro or rec have no effect at all on so-called bio-diversity in these areas, you usually don't even drop the anchor, so you can't damage the seabed.
It has recently come to light that some tourist mobs have acquired permits to trans-locate live coral from healthy reefs to the areas of their tourist operation, because the corals in their areas have died from the tourist activities.
How's that for a double standard?
Bob

Kerry

07-02-2004, 04:06 AM

Bob, those links to Dr Walter Starks comments were put up but it appears the gullible have now gone MIA :-X.

It would also appear that any research that didn't fit the mould was bushed so no wonder when researchers get desperate for what they "need" that Parliament gets involved in the debate re the Ethics of Manipulative Research?

As for the juvenile trout, the female bit doesn't get a lot of mention as that also goes against some of the claims.

As for this coral permit digup issue the widely used “tourism has no effect on the reef” comment in all the zoning debate certainly does have a very hollow and hyprocritical ring to it, doesn't it?

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

07-02-2004, 04:56 AM

no not MIA just informing myself

me gullible? I'm the one that was asking for the evidence.

Gazza

07-02-2004, 06:17 AM

yeah ,yeah ......evidence as in a "local Lib dude" n-a-m-e...yeah,yeah

Jock ,Greenies and "green zones" , guilty as charged!!!!

Kerry

07-02-2004, 07:23 AM

So now you've "informed yourself", and lets face it for someone who "wasn't aware they had opened any" certainly needs some informing. Now are you here to continue waffling around in pathetic circles or actually going to start and discuss the claims made. Evidence? since when has evidence meant anything to you [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]

Show time jockey ;)

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

07-02-2004, 08:06 AM

I was wondering, did sunfish or anyone else make any attempt to record how many fish were caught in the green zones after they were opened? If not they missed a valuable opportunity that may not arise again. Were fishermen misled by anyone (eg the greens or politicians) into thinking the one off bonanza would be bigger than it was? So far it sounds to me like a child crying on their birthday because the cake wasn't as big as they had imagined and they didn't get all the toys they wanted. Also, if sunfish opposes green zones and wants them reopened, why are they generating so much bad publicity over such a trivial issue? Forgive me if the answers are in those links as I haven't read them all yet.

Kerry

07-02-2004, 09:07 AM

Where did Sunfish say anything about this so called bonaza? I thought you'd been informing yourself :-X

But yes things were counted and very very carefully as justification of these closures (read green zones) have so far not been proved in any measurable way. Even the researchers will admit they have no substantive evidence.

Opportunity? again you need to inform yourself as you really have no dam idea what your on about here, at all.

I am perfectly happy to discuss the claims that you have made

So start discussing the claims made, the facts that reports that didn't fit the mould have not been made available? the fact that parliament got involved in the research due to community concerns over Ethics and Manipulative Research? the fact that green zones don't hold the breeding stock? the fact that reports show no significant statistical difference in fish populations between the supposedly heavily fished reefs and remote and rarely visited reefs or on protected reefs where fishing is prohibited? the fact that researchers actually agree that the reef closures to fishing did not have a strong effect on the age structures of coral trout and the large cohort was a natural phenomenon, not one caused by GBRMPA's zoning plan (based on a CRC Reef Research study)? where's the scientific evidence of overfishing? where has line fishing severely depleting a fishery? where is the survey data that actually supports zoning? and the hollow myth pushed by the tourist industry that “tourism has no effect on the reef” yet the tourist areas are obviously in the worst state of repair as now they want to dig the reef up, what a crock.

You've got some informing to do and then there's still more ;D

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

07-02-2004, 10:32 AM

I didn't say that sunfish said anything about a bonanza.

Who counted what? I'd like to see the numbers.

How can you 'prove' justification as you put it? I mentioned earlier that green zones are justified by our values not by any scientific evidence.

If there are any reports that have been hidden because they didn't fit the mould please give me the details.

Green zones don't hold breeding stock? That's not a fact. I've never heard such rubbish.

Please tell me about these reports looking at the statistics on fish populations.

Do you really need scientific evidence of overfishing?

I am getting sick of hearing references to reports that say this or that but not being able to even know the name of the report. It sounds to me like someone is trying to hide them.

Kerry

07-02-2004, 12:31 PM

Who counted what? I'd like to see the numbers.

If your really that interested (and that's doubtfull) then go ask GBRPMA or CRC Reef Research for them, they have the numbers.

How can you 'prove' justification as you put it? I mentioned earlier that green zones are justified by our values not by any scientific evidence.

So why can't the minister and the government actually call it as it is then, why BS about #"The weight of scientific evidence indicates this is not enough." (Minitser for Ebvironment, Press release June 2, 2003) when there actually isn't any substantial evidence and some of what does exist is not publically available. So if it's based on values then fine why BS about scientific evidence

If there are any reports that have been hidden because they didn't fit the mould please give me the details.

Again if your that interested then go ask GBRMPA for them, you won't get them but then they won't deny they don't exist either. #

Green zones don't hold breeding stock? That's not a fact. I've never heard such rubbish.

Then show us the scientific study that actually verifies that, rubbish, everything is rubbish without some evidence.

Please tell me about these reports looking at the statistics on fish populations. Lots of reports go for your life

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/techreport/

but don't forget the ones that count

http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/where_are_the_reef_studies.htm

Do you really need scientific evidence of overfishing?

Well you need something otherwise making a decision and then saying it's based on scientific evidence when there actually isn't any is rather misleading, don't you think?

If that's the case then why didn't they simply come out and say, Hey people we don't have the facts but we're going to do this anyway. Be honest why BS, tell it as it is not some fairy tale.

I am getting sick of hearing references to reports that say this or that but not being able to even know the name of the report. It sounds to me like someone is trying to hide them

Hey I think your catching on, "trying to hide them" now that's what this gentleman reckoned http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/where_are_the_reef_studies.htm and you know something I reckon he might know a little bit more about things than you ever will or will ever want to.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

07-02-2004, 02:30 PM

The scientists advise on how to achieve predetermined goals. You need to do more = that is not enough. They don't justify the actions, but they are involved.

So you want me to ask GBRMPA for unspecified reports that they don't deny the existence of but they won't give me anyway for unspecified reasons. All I'd get is blank looks.

re breeding stock - I've seen it myself.

Thanks for those links Kerry I'll check them out.

re evidence of overfishing - look at historical catch vs effort from pro fishing logs or rec angling competitions. I didn't think there was any argument about overfishing. Do you think our fisheries could handle more pressure without big problems arising?

Gazza

07-02-2004, 02:37 PM

Jock, point 1. answer 'Kerrys' question(s) as best you can , from the evidence/informed opinion you have at your?? ??? disposal

2. Name the 'local lib dude' on Sunday......that's a hard one ,I know ::)
3. what species do RecFishos "threaten" or "extinguish" ,your choice

Read BELOW...
4. give me a greenie forum link i.e. chatboard site ,that I may offer an opinion or 3 , outnumbered is my problem ,not yours ;D
Read ABOVE...

C'mon Jock or any 'minders' , help us to "be evidenced? ,or better informed"

one way trafffic is a joke,Jock.......get it ;)

Kerry

07-02-2004, 06:15 PM

The scientists advise on how to achieve predetermined goals. Yes I believe that's called an "agenda"

You need to do more = that is not enough. They don't justify the actions, but they are involved. Involved #;D yes I belive the parliament called that involvement "Ethics of Manipulative Research". Your really dodging this ethics question, aren't you #;D

So you want me to ask GBRMPA for unspecified reports that they don't deny the existence of but they won't give me anyway for unspecified reasons. All I'd get is blank looks. Well there's some people who actually have some background in this regard so if your so sure the the reports don't exist, then prove it.

re breeding stock - I've seen it myself. little kinky #:D

re evidence of overfishing - look at historical catch vs effort from pro fishing logs or rec angling competitions.
Name of report, author etc and link so I can do what you suggest.

However a conclusion from the research While larger fishes tend to be more abundant on unfished reefs, there is no indication from various monitoring programs of any large-scale significant declines in targeted species. and just for your benefit monitoring: Routine counting, testing or measuring of environmental factors or organisms to determine their status or condition. Oh by the way that's a GBRMPA conclusion.

I didn't think there was any argument about overfishing. No there's really no argument about over fishing as there's no evidence suggest/support there is any.
If you have a report then by all means, name of report, author and link if you would be so kind.

Do you think our fisheries could handle more pressure without big problems arising? Which specific fisheries might they be?

Still you haven't touched on this misconception that the tourist industry is green and clean, yet after much self portrayed propaganda #that “tourism has no effect on the reef” we now have a situation of the tourist industry wanting federal and state permits to actually "dig up the reef" and even worse in an actual no fishing zone and totally due to tourist influence. There's probably stronger more meaninful words, but double standards is about the only concenus any rational thinking person could conclude on this one, wouldn't you agree #???

Cheers, Kerry.

BurdekinBob

08-02-2004, 12:02 AM

The DPI's recreational estimate (which I believe is exagerated), and the commercial catch (verified by log books), equals 17 kg of fish per hectare per year, from the GBR. These figures are from Dr. Starks report.....I would hardly think that an overfishing situation exists with those numbers!
Kerry, with regard to the inshore closures, GBRMPA are going to close a large area of Bowling Green Bay, which has produced the equivalent of about $500,000 worth of mud crabs and Barra for over fifty years, year in, year out. If there was a problem with recruitment of those species in that area, I'd like to know where it is.
However the GBRMPA told us when questioned about the BGB closure, that it was being closed because it is "iconic to the green movement", and that they don't need to produce any scientific evidence to close anything..... they can just do it!!!
Ever heard such bull dust?
Bob

Kerry

08-02-2004, 05:19 AM

Yes Bob, Cape Bowling Green closures have all the hall marks of typical pandering to the greens, especialy as even Cabinet were not impressed with the absolute lacking of evidence, now that really highlights GBRMPA's scientific lacking.

Really the tax payer is being rorted, funding research for an outcome that can not be proven then tossing all those $$'s out the window and doing it anyway, just to please some green.

I believe I saw somewhere that cabinet had called for an inquiry into some of GBRMPA's activities? An independent inquiry and not another internal GBRMPA self audit.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

08-02-2004, 10:43 AM

Kerry this is the first I've heard about the state govt discussing the ethics of manipulative research. The issue comes up occasionally in scientific circles though. Doing the wrong thing is a good way to end a scientific career/reputation. I'm not dodging the question, I just don't know a lot about it.

I agree that the tourist industry is not harmless. It's not 'extractive' but it does do damage. I've spoken to tourist operators who complain loudly about it. They can see their future going down the drain too. But this is a fishing website so I won't go into it unless you think the tourist industry is a serious threat to the fishery.

"Well there's some people who actually have some background in this regard so if your so sure the the reports don't exist, then prove it."

This is getting a bit rediculous. You want me to prove that some reports don't exist. Reports that you keep referring to but which you won't even name. That's not how it works Kerry. You said the reports were covered up. You name them. Simple as that. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

I will keep an eye out for a report on overfishing. I expect there won't be many from Australia, even fewer from QLD and fewer still from the north of the state.

Do you accept that there is a global trend towards overfishing? If not I can show that easily. If you think that more local fisheries are not under pressure then let me know which ones (eg Australia in general, QLD in general, FNQ or specific species). I suspect that we both know very little about this which is why neither of us can be specific.

I think that stuff in italics is a quote from somewhere. Please reference it properly. If it is a conclusion from a study then I would be interested, but if its just something you heard down at the pub (ie some fool's conclusion after hearing about the research) then I won't bother.

Bob: it is the trends in catch vs effort that matter, not the actual catch rate. A catch rate by itself says absolutely nothing about the sustainabilit of the fishery. 50 years of a consistent catch rate shows that the fishery is sutainable (provided effort hasn't gone up lately). However as you indicated that was nothing to do with the closures. Remember we have to share the ocean with everyone, even the tree hugging hippies.

jockey

08-02-2004, 11:14 AM

No I will not name the tourist operators. I will not name that politician. Get over it.

Digging up coral isn't a typical part of a tourist operation and I hope it doesn't go ahead. BTW the coral would just be moved to another part of the reef, not taken home.

What's with the personal insults Gazza? I hope I'm not debating with primary school children.

Kerry

08-02-2004, 01:04 PM

Manipualtive Research isn't something new and the GBR is probably a good example as results are very hard to determine adequately and many of the researchers in many reports went to much trouble to explain that their reports were lacking "completeness" (for want of a better word).

But no it wasn't the state but federal government that got concerned about ethics

http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/news/news92.html

The tourist industry has to get over this "we are insert" type of head in the sand attitude and actually realize as you suggested that they also have to share the ocean with everyone, including tree hugging hippies but when the tourist industry uses the tree huggers for specific gains for their own interests then one has to ask some questions.

It is totally hyprocritical to make a statement like “tourism has no effect on the reef” and then turn around and expect to dig the place up 'cause they have totally stuffed it, what am absolutely ridiculous statement. So people are going to come all this way from overseas to see the GBR and actually see something that's not natural, 'cause touristse before them stuffed it, what a joke. When will some of these organisations actually tell it exactly like it is, instead of conning people.

.... You want me to prove that some reports don't exist. Reports that you keep referring to but which you won't even name. That's not how it works Kerry. You said the reports were covered up. You name them. Simple as that. Otherwise we will get nowhere.

No this gentleman http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/where_are_the_reef_studies.htm made those claims and I'm saying that he's in a fairly good position to know, wouldn't you think. And when GBRMPA were asked why they didn't use this gentleman's studies over some 40-50 years, the comment was they were too old. Well bugga me wouldn't that be exactly the type of research we should be looking at not what's changed since last week but since the middle of last century, but no the findings apparently went against the reasons for zoning. Ignoring all the facts is not what one would call good research, would you?

The global trend to overfishing? well that can depend, here we are concerned with the state of the GBR with respect to fishing and type of fishing that is carried out in this area.

The only comparison GBRMPA used was the state of the north seas cod fishery and whatever that fishery has in comparison to the GBR fisheries is totally beyond me, comparison there simply isn't any.

As for knowing the state of the fishery, no we don't and neither does GBRMPA, or anybody else for that matter, they simply don't have the data and obtaining that data is quite a problem and they dam well know that. Many of the reports have centred on Trout but just about all the other GBR fish that live at depths beyond what researchers can adequately survey, they have very little knowledge about. #

As for pub talk, yeah right #::)

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/info_services/publications/sotr/1998/fish_frame.html

Digging up coral isn't a typical part of a tourist operation No and neither is the way birds are controlled on some of the pontoons and neither is wanting to build multi storey floating islands that will shadow/kill the reef but this “tourism has no effect on the reef” has always had an arogrant ring to it.

Cheers, Kerry.

redfoot

08-02-2004, 03:00 PM

if you ask me...lol
all of moreton bay,tin can& hervey, most rivers & creeks should be closed to ALL fishing
for a short period(indeterminate)
why not give the fish a chance to regenerate

Helpinfish

08-02-2004, 10:39 PM

Here are some small reasons why you may want to protect Bowling green Bay:
- Bowling green Bay is a listed RAMSAR site (meaning it is an internationally significant wetland)
-Bowling Green Bay contains DPA ‘A’ and ‘B’ Zones
- contains substantial seagrass beds which are important habitats for dugong, green turtles, juvenile fish and crustaceans.
-adjacent to the nationally significant Burdekin-Townsville Coastal Aggregation Wetlands and Bowling Green Bay National Park.
-is an important area for dugong and turtle foraging, populations of the Indo-pacific humpback and Irrawaddy dolphins
- Sand Island is a know grunter aggregation site

Also Kerry have you actually read GBRMPA's latest Scientific reasearch policy and do you understand it. If you did you would see it is actually quite regulated, for example for any reasearch to occur in a green zone other than obsevatory, the reasearcher must prove that that reasearch can not occur in any other zone and does not go against the values of that zone.

Helpinfish

08-02-2004, 10:44 PM

And Kerry,

You do understand that the green zones process is about protecting biodiversity and biodiversity does not just mean the fish, it means all of the marine environment.

BurdekinBob

09-02-2004, 04:56 AM

Helpinfish, yes BGB is a dugong protection zone, and in the 8 years that it has been, there has been 1 dugong killed because of a pro net. The reason being that the pro's know where the dugong graze etc, and don't net that area. The one that died was out of his usual area, and was too big for the fisherman to handle, so the poor bugger drowned before he could get him out.
The effort hasn't gone up over time, in fact it has gone down; with less pros using less nets because of the dugong zoning. the wetlands you spoke about, are the very reason for the sustainability of the area.
The majority of local fishos, pros included, wanted the sand island closed because it is a grunter agg site, but if you know the bay, then you will realise that the sand island and the surrounding area can be protected without impacting on the rest of the bay.
As for irriwaddy dolphins, they have been seen only once by people that are in that end of the bay almost every day. Humpback whales have NEVER been sighted in that close to the green zone..... they'd run the risk of running aground on the mud flat, which extends a long way into the bay.
Turtles are seen everywhere up here, not only in that area of BGB.
When you look at the green zone in the bay rationally, there is no logical reason for this particular closure..... and we were told that there is no science for that closure, just that its "iconic for the green movement". Thats just not good enough!
Why are minority groups like the bloody greens running this country? When did they get elected? Its time our bloody politicians got a bit of backbone and told them, and all of the other bleeding hearts where to go!
Bob

Kerry

09-02-2004, 06:34 AM

- Bowling green Bay is a listed RAMSAR site (meaning it is an internationally significant wetland)

Bowling Green “Bay” is not a listed RAMSAR site, it is the “Wetlands” of Bowling Green Bay National Park and these already protected in the national park.

-Bowling Green Bay #contains DPA ‘A’ and ‘B’ zones So “contains DPA ‘A’ and ‘B’ zones”, yeah you don’t say, but if your going to make a half cocked big sounding claim then maybe you’ll want to expand what ‘A’ and ‘B’ zones are, otherwise big sounding claims are just a waste of space. #

- contains substantial seagrass beds which are important habitats for dugong, green turtles, juvenile fish and crustaceans.

So you might like to explain why how say something like a line mackerel fishery would affect the seagrass beds. Lets face it there’s other much more significant seagrass beds and dugong habitat that don’t have this “iconic” green mentality.

-adjacent to the nationally significant Burdekin-Townsville Coastal Aggregation Wetlands and Bowling Green Bay National Park.

So maybe you’d like to explain exactly how green zoning the waters of Bowling green bay is providing protection for this coastal aggregation area and the connection this closure has with protection of the Great Barrier Reef. Now GBRMPA hasn’t been able to do this so one might imagine cabinet might be interested in your theory also, and theory is obviously all it can be. Really you need to get your head around the facts (or in this regard the lack of facts) as statements like # “GBRMPA #has proven this by stating that Bowling Green Bay “is Iconic” by appeasing the “Green Movement” and not using any science.” #

-is an important area for dugong and turtle foraging, populations of the Indo-pacific humpback and Irrawaddy dolphins again doesn’t require a green zone for any of these reasons as there’s other far more important areas, which aren’t green either. Maybe you need to understand exactly what a green zone is.

But then the greens really delight in exaggerating some claims and specifically target people who wouldn't know facts from fiction when it comes to whales, turtles, dugong, dolphins and all the rest of the warm and fuzzy crap they go on with. #

But basically all your rhetoric can be found here, http://www.reefed.edu.au/rap/tw/mnp_19_91.html and here
http://www.reefed.edu.au/rap/tw/cp_19_207.html and as far a rhetoric goes is nothing new and as cabinet as mentioned, aren't impressed with rhetoric either. Have you got anything to support the claims or is green pandering the only one as some have alsready admitted.

You do understand that the green zones process is about protecting biodiversity and biodiversity does not just mean the fish, it means all of the marine environment.

If biodiversity was in need of protection and by the way no threat to reef biodiversity that this type of zoning would address has been indicated or is even suspected. The only significant activity that zoning does is to prohibit fishing and this certainly isn’t “all of the marine environment”, not by #a long shot as some #“tourism has no effect on the reef” type propaganda highlights.

Green zones are nothing more than “undeniable discrimination cloaked in an elaborate eco-scientific charade”

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

10-02-2004, 04:16 AM

Helpinfish I would also like to know why they like to put marine green zones next to terrestrial national parks.

Kerry that link on ethics just shows that the CRC is willing to publicly acknowledge the potential for unethical research and publicly explain how they intend to deal with it. Do you think their controls are inadequate or do you just feel threatened by the potential for unethical behaviour? If a scientific report acknowledges its own incompleteness then that shows a high standard of ethics, not a low standard.

As for fishing and biodiversity - extensive extractive activities will obviously have an impact on biodiversity. When you target one species, you don't just affect its numbers, you affect all the species in the food web. The degree of effect may vary and the degree of localisation, but the effect is still there. I'm pretty sure this is primary school biology.

Which brings me to Gazza. Are you saying that you are a primary school student?

""It is totally hyprocritical to make a statement like “tourism has no effect on the reef” ""

Kerry, who said that tourism has no effect on the reef? I doubt a politician would and I've never heard a tourist operator say that. Maybe I missed something. Is there a group around trying to say that tourism has no effect or is this just something you once heard?

Also Kerry if we can't be sure of the state of the fishery isn't it best to be cautious rather than blindly following the ill fated path of most of the rest of the world's fisheries?

If you want to minimise the environmental impact of say a pontoon, shouldn't you try to minimise the interaction between wildlife and the pontoon rather than encouraging it?

And Kerry as for that 'expert' with the report on sunfish, you have so far given the impression that you knew what you are talking about and that you had reports backing up your claims. Now we find out you are just repeating what you read on the website of a lobby group. Perhaps if you had acknowledged this from the beginning we could have skipped the first five pages of this thread.

BTW good to finally see some useful information coming into the debate!

BurdekinBob

10-02-2004, 07:34 PM

Jockey, if Dr. Walter Stark's 50 years of coral reef studies don't qualify him as an expert, then its probable that there are NO experts in this field....
Bob

jockey

11-02-2004, 06:34 AM

No problem Bob, I didn't mean to imply he wasn't, I just hadn't checked yet.

jockey

11-02-2004, 09:25 AM

Kerry

11-02-2004, 06:34 PM

Kerry that link on ethics just shows that the CRC is willing to publicly acknowledge the potential for unethical research and publicly explain how they intend to deal with it. Do you think their controls are inadequate or do you just feel threatened by the potential for unethical behaviour? If a scientific report acknowledges its own incompleteness then that shows a high standard of ethics, not a low standard. Who mentioned unethical behaviour or is this something you’ve interpreted all by yourself. Firstly you have to understand what manipulative research is, what ethics are and what incomplete reports are and from that little spiel above you don’t, you have absolutely no idea.

As for fishing and biodiversity - extensive extractive activities will obviously have an impact on biodiversity. When you target one species, you don't just affect its numbers, you affect all the species in the food web. The degree of effect may vary and the degree of localisation, but the effect is still there. I'm pretty sure this is primary school biology.

“Extensive extractive activities” so where is this data that supports your interpretation of “extensive” as one would imagine that even in primary school biology one would have understood that one requires data to support one’s hypotheses. The researchers that are desperate to actually fuse this link can’t at this stage so I don’t see how you can make irrational comments about extensive anything.

So digging up the reef (reef destroyed by tourist activities) in your words is biodiversity immune in your views.

will obviously have an impact on biodiversity Will it now? who says and where it is said? by the way (In case of your selective deafness) no threat to reef biodiversity that this type of zoning would address has been indicated or is even suspected. But if what you say can be substantiated then feel free to substantiate your statement.

Kerry, who said that tourism has no effect on the reef? I doubt a politician would and I've never heard a tourist operator say that. Maybe I missed something. Is there a group around trying to say that tourism has no effect or is this just something you once heard? So you’ve never heard a tourist operator say that? What is that supposed to mean something.
Who said it? Well one would have thought it’s fairly obvious in that link who said it #[smiley=dunce.gif]. The person who wrote that press release #[smiley=uhoh.gif] but hey, do you really want me to point out the obvious.

Also Kerry if we can't be sure of the state of the fishery isn't it best to be cautious rather than blindly following the ill fated path of most of the rest of the world's fisheries? So which of these "world’s fisheries" are you comparing to the GBR fishery where recreational line fisherman have been descriminated againsy without providing the data/facts to support this descrimination.

So based on your “can’t be sure of the state” thinking, then that should apply to all reef activities, don’t you think? Even the tourist activities have to be suspect based on that comment as really one can’t be sure what affect they are causing, but then they only want to dig the reef up ‘cause they’ve stuffed it.

If you want to minimise the environmental impact of say a pontoon, shouldn't you try to minimise the interaction between wildlife and the pontoon rather than encouraging it? So who’s encouraging the wildlife? You really need to get your head around exactly what this one is all about, but one other way would be to eliminate the pontoon.

Now that ‘expert’ on sunfish was a product of your “mate” helpingfish, who accidently tripped up and missed a perfect opportunity to post something that was useful, but of course didn't (how convienient #::)). Now lets just say your a little confused (as usual) with who was actually doing/saying what at the time? You have a question for that “expert” or something that “expert” said then I suggest you actually take that it up with them directly but somehow I can’t see that happening. But just in case you think you have what it takes then here’s the guy to contact

http://www.goldendolphin.com/wstarck.htm

Jockey, now all we need is for you to actually start backing up your useless claims as really your just continuing to run around in circles like a yapping dog and not saying one thing that could be called constructive.

Perhaps you should point out anywhere in this thread where you have actually posted information that has supported anything you have said. I suppose first you'll have to determine "exactly what have you said" #[smiley=laugh.gif] #[smiley=laugh.gif] and really that shouldn't be all that difficult to answer but I'm sure you'll BS your way around the circle again. #

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry

11-02-2004, 06:43 PM

http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/where_are_the_reef_studies.htm

Has anyone seen the reports Dr Stark is talking about? Are they available on the net anywhere? If someone was to obtain them through freedom of information, could they then be published online?

They are in the files at GBRMPA, unpublished. For two decades GBRMPA has funded extensive underwater surveys of coral trout and other commercial reef fishes. These reports show no significant statistical difference in fish populations between the supposedly heavily fished reefs and remote and rarely visited reefs or on protected reefs where fishing is prohibited.

"Unpublished" what part of "unpublished" don't you understand. Be constructive ask the man, that is if you really want to know. Pick up the phone, send the Dr an e-mail, go straight to the source, that's why he has provided his contact details so people like you can ask dumb questions querying his integrity.

You want the answers then simply contact him.

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry

12-02-2004, 04:25 AM

Come on Jockey, time for you to actually step up and be counted. No good you continuing this poor attitude of yours unless you can provide countering evidence against the information in the links provided. You do realize that to disprove claims made by people you actually have to provide the evidence to do that.

You actually need to counter the source of the information not those putting it before you as if you can't do that then you continuing attempt at trying to dodge the issues purely provides the evidence that you can't.

Really time you actually provided something constructive. don't you think? but then for someone who "wasn't aware they had opened any" along with the rest of your duck diving one probably shouldn't expect you to actually be constructive as your track record obviously points to a very hollow fact barrel. So counter the claims.

And as for you helpingfish, you've also got a bad case of answering objectively.

So both of you get to it, you're both running on hot air. #

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

12-02-2004, 05:39 AM

Kerry you are the one that has been going on about ethics. What is it that I have said that indicates I don't know what it is?

I never made any claims as to the extent of any extractive activities. I was just stating the obvious. Are you arguing that the extractive activities aren't extensive, or that extensive extractive activities would have no effect?

Digging up the reef will have an impact on biodiversity and I never said anything to imply that it wouldn't.

I will not bother substantiating the comment that extensive extractive activities will have an impact on biodiversity. It seems obvious to me and I'm sure its obvious to most people.

Kerry I'm not sure what link you are referring to about tourist operators claiming to have no impact. Could you please re paste it.

Kerry I also think destructive tourist activities need to be controlled.

As for providing coutering evidence. You have been making the wild accusations, but you have provided no evidence at all for me to counter. I've just been asking questions. I don't think I need to justify them. When people respond that way to mere questions it tends to indicate they are covering something up.

Unpublished reports doesn't neccessarily indicate a cover up, it could just mean no-one considered them worth publishing.

What's wrong with helpinfish answering objectively?

jockey

12-02-2004, 06:57 AM

http://www.coral.noaa.gov/bib/abstracts/author-s/sebens1.html

Just found this one. It's specifically about coral reefs and does mention overfishing.

"The combination of these destructive factors has altered reefs in all
localities, and many that were once considered protected by
distance and low population density are now being exploited as
well. On the positive side, improved understanding of ecological
processes on reefs combined with concerted conservation efforts
have managed to protect some extensive areas of reef for the
future."

Gazza

12-02-2004, 07:08 AM

Sounds U.S. local not global Jock , sorta like L.A. smog ;) when referring to pollution from cars.....

Kerry

12-02-2004, 07:13 AM

So where is your evidence to backup one line statements from overseas that actually relate to this part of the world, this is what you've got to get your head around and if you are having trouble actually understanding GBRMPA's own admissions then your credibility is out in the cold.

I will not bother substantiating the comment that extensive extractive activities will have an impact on biodiversity. It seems obvious to me and I'm sure its obvious to most people. so where are the EXTENSIVE EXTRACTIVE ACTIVITIES, where are the EXTENSIVE EXTRACTIVE ACTIVITIES, your comments, so simply explain where the hell these extensive activities actually are.

Unpublished reports doesn't neccessarily indicate a cover up, it could just mean no-one considered them worth publishing you obviously need to take that up with this man, http://www.sunfishqueensland.org/where_are_the_reef_studies.htm if you don't then you obviously aren't interested in anything apart from having a winge. Go talk to the gentleman, his contact is there, go straight to the source, he obviously has enough credibility to post his contact, go for it.

And as for just found one, gee whiz, #what do you have to look? hey I thought you'd don't some informing but really your starting to show you know less and less about more and more.

Come on get on with some facts and address the issues. You have the links, you have the issues, you have everything you need as you really need to ne doing more than asking questions as those that ask quesions actually need to have their own answers and you obviously don't, that's for sure.

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry

12-02-2004, 07:42 AM

Now just to get you back on track jockey the following is the essence of what it's all about.

- The RAP decisions have been sold to the public based on the weight of scientific studies.

- The scientific studies can't be produced to support this comment. If they could these studies would be available and would clearly show this reasoning.

- So if the RAP decision is purely based on environmental grounds then why not simply come out and speak the truth.

Why not indeed, why BS, why not simply tell the truth without all the excuses and green pandering.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

12-02-2004, 08:32 AM

Kerry I think this statement includes oz: "The
combination of these destructive factors has altered reefs in all
localities"

Kerry if you want me to back up a one line statement please quote it. As far as I know I haven't made any statements that need verifying.

My comment about extensive extractive activities was general in nature. I was not saying that there are extensive extractive activities in any specific place, but if there werte then they would have an impact.

Could you please show me where the RAP decisions have been sold to the public based on the weight of scientific studies. If it was in the papers or on the news then it would be on the web as well.

Kerry

12-02-2004, 09:28 AM

…. I think this statement includes oz: "The
combination of these destructive factors has altered reefs in all localities"

Includes Oz, does it #???, what your opinion #:-/ or is there something that supports your opinion in the statement. So where are these altered reefs in the GBR that is apart from the ones the Tourist industry wants to dig up. Yes there are issues with global warming, predators, hurricanes (now in oz we would call these cyclones), excess nutrients, occurances of high temperatures, pollutants, coral bleaching, COT etc etc #but then turn around and say 30% of the reef will be closed and come up with this lame blame excuse and banning fishing is an absolute joke.

My comment about extensive extractive activities was general in nature. I was not saying that there are extensive extractive activities in any specific place, but if there werte then they would have an impact.

NO you were just scare mongering and construing misconceptions based on nothing more than what’s been done to date. There are no facts to support this extensive extractive activity misconception, the experts can’t identify extensive extractive activity so really what’s the point, it simply doesn’t exist. Now digging up a reef now one might call that extensive extractive activity.

“weight of scientific studies”, honestly how many times have you got to ask the same pathetic question, what expecting a different answer.

"Only 4.5% of the Great Barrier Reef to date is protected from extractive practices such as fishing and collecting under current management arrangements. The weight of scientific evidence indicates this is not enough.”

Again exactly what part of the Minister’s comments is you don’t understand? Weight of scientific evidence, what scientific evidence, understand, what scientific evidence.

The point you are missing (entirely) is that based on these scientific “conceptions” about the future of the reef then until someone actually has a handle on the exact issues and they don’t #“the species diversity of reef-associated organisms is poorly understood because many of the species have yet to be collected and described.” # then either they go away and prove those issues and in the meantime if everything is so up in the air then either there’s no discrimination or the areas are closed to all users.

They are quite happy to affect change without even knowing why they are doing it let alone actually knowing what unknown future problems might arise from these green infested and political decisions.

So why not speak the truth and tell it exactly as they and the greens want it. These are the issues again

- The RAP decisions have been sold to the public based on the weight of scientific studies.

- The scientific studies can't be produced to support this comment. If they could these studies would be available and would clearly show this reasoning.

- So if the RAP decision is purely based on environmental grounds then why not simply come out and speak the truth.

Why not indeed, why BS, why not simply tell the truth without all the excuses and green pandering.

You problem is jockey you simply can't admit to the facts.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

12-02-2004, 09:44 AM

Yes Kerry my opinion - backed up by "all localities." There was nothing in the abstract about the green zones, but you seem to imply a strong connection.

Could you please reference your quotes (at least give us the link if you copied it off the web). If you provided the link then I may be able to follow it up and get the information you are after.

As for 4.5% not being enough I am not sure what scientific evidence backs that up. Maybe they asked scientists for their opinion. I'll look into it for you.

Kerry

12-02-2004, 10:07 AM

Yes Kerry my opinion - backed up by "all localities." There was nothing in the abstract about the green zones, but you seem to imply a strong connection.

Well in the GBR there is, as the myth is that banning fishing (green zones) is going to cover all the other "anthropogenic" problems. Just the evidence isn't available to support this discrimination.

You also need to quote the whole sentence "The combination of these destructive factors has altered reefs in all localities" then your argument that banning fishing will stop "these destructive factors" gets a whitewash.

As for 4.5% not being enough I am not sure what scientific evidence backs that up. Maybe they asked scientists for their opinion. I'll look into it for you.

yeah you do that, yeah maybe they asked scientists for their "opinions", maybe they asked greens for their "opinions", maybe they asked tourist operators for their "opinions" maybe they asked lots of people for their "opinions" then why not come clean and say hey these decisions (that were always going to happen anyway) are totally based on opinions.

"Opinions" DO NOT EQUAL "Scientific evidence" and eventually you're going to have to realize this.

Could you please reference your quotes (at least give us the link if you copied it off the web). If you provided the link then I may be able to follow it up and get the information you are after.

Hey are you really this stupid, "reference your quotes" hey DH some are directly cut from your very own link, honestly you really are becoming a pathetic waste of time. The other one from the minister, like I said just how many times are you going to ask the same pathetic question, get the same answer then ask the same pathetic question over and over and over again. I'm not about repeating the same answer over and over and over again just for you ignorant benefit.

Now all you need to do is ask again is duh Whose the minsiter for the environment #::) #

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

12-02-2004, 10:28 AM

Kerry I'm not sure about this myth. Maybe some people are under that impression but I'm not and I don't think anyone in power is. I didn't argue that banning fishing would stop those destructive factors. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

The minister (do either of us know who he is?) may have asked a few scientists for their opinions on what the evidence indicates. This would be preferable to the minister
trying to read through all the evidence.

Yes Kerry please reference your quotes even if they are from a link provided by someone else. It has taken me eight pages to get you to be more specific about your questions. Most people would just ignore you. You have to realise that if you actually want someone to answer you're question there's no point in making it difficult for them. So if you want me to answer your question the provide the link, but if you just want to waste people's time then don't give your sources.

Gazza I will not reply to you as I assume you will just delete all your posts anyway.

NQCairns

12-02-2004, 11:48 AM

Popcorn anyone? ;D
seriously it's all good stuff IMHO, and these debates are much needed on a public forum.[smiley=book2.gif]

Kerry

12-02-2004, 12:25 PM

No jockey your not too sure about much at all, are you.

Now how many times exactly would you like the same link quoted and as for the minister at least put your hands on the keyboard that might eliminate some of the problem.

How can anybody actually misrepresent what your saying, exactly what is it that you have said, SFA.

Scientific evidence, show us all where this evidence is and if it was only based on indications then why mention this weight of scientific evidence, many are still waiting for all this weight of scientific evidence to come forth and be known.

Quite frankly your got those hands under the table again, taken 8 pages to do what [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]

Now what was it that you were saying [smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=speechless.gif] again

Never seen anybody so unable to simply answer questions without all the piss poor excuses under the sun.

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry

12-02-2004, 12:33 PM

Come on jockey, yes 8 pages and still waiting for some of your constructive and riviting input ;D

oh quote by jockey "Sorry alln not going to happen." yeah yeah yeah yeah can't even keep promises [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]

gee when one looks back there's an awful lot of untouched side stepped questions, now wonder why that might be?

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey

12-02-2004, 01:10 PM

Sorry Kerry I have been given my final warning that I will be banned if I make any more 'argumentative' posts, which I can't seem to avoid if I respond to you. So I have decided not to continue this debate here. If you would like to do it anywhere else, name the site and I'll be there.

Kerry

12-02-2004, 02:01 PM

Well you were fully given your chance to be constructive here and obviously that's not what your really on about and really that about all you've done is be argumentive for no results, not a dam thing. So good riddens, as types like you simply don't have much to offer no matter the site.

Cheers, Kerry.

BurdekinBob

12-02-2004, 09:44 PM

As well as the public consultations, some of us here in the Burdekin had a private discussion with the wankers from the GBRMPA, where we offered them an alternative plan which gave them all the green that they wanted in the so-called bio-regions, but with limited impact on our fishing activities, both commercial and rec. They were not interested in our proposal, they had their own agenda, and they were following it to the letter!
They even said that the proposed closures were going to be put in place "just in case", they admitted that they don't have any scientific evidence to back their plans, and they also said that they don't need any, they can do it anyway.
As for the other clap-trap that everyones going on about, eg global warming, coral bleaching, crown of thorns, urban/rural run-off, farm chemicals, etc etc etc, all bullshit!!!
Global warming has not yet been proven, coral bleaching is bulldust, and crown of thorns is a natural thing which sometimes occurs. As for run-off damaging the reef, in spite of spending heaps of money trying to prove it, they still can't!
When the Burdekin floods, (not often, but it does happen), the sediment etc is deposited on Old Reef, the closest one to the river mouth. It is about thirty odd miles out to sea.
About 20 years ago AIM's collected a lot of core samples from the big bombies at Old Reef, and with the aid of ultra violet light they can go back hundreds of years with their weather predictions, by comparing the different band widths that show the amount of run-off from the Burdekin, with known events since records have been kept.
All of that run-off, all those hundreds of years, and Old Reef aint dead yet, in fact its in magnificant condition. Being the closest reef to home, any time I want to show visitors from down south the reef, I always take them there. Also being close, you would think it would have been impacted more than some further out, but this doesn't appear to be the case; beautiful coral, plenty of fish, bloody pristine... all this in an area of very high boat ownership!
Kerry,remember a few years back, (Jockey can't go back that far, he's still wet behind the ears), the AIM's scientists reckon that they had isolated the substance that actually prevents coral bleaching, and they were going to market it to the world's chemical companies to put in sunscreens. I wonder what happened to that idea? More fashionable now to forget that and concentrate on coral bleaching......
Anyway, back to you
Bob

Kerry

13-02-2004, 03:51 AM

Bob, what many convieniently brush aside is that many of the situations are natural events that have been occuring for hundreds of thousands of years and nature being nature will go on occuring for the bext many years as well.

As for some of the myths about sediment, water turbidity, river run-off and affects on reef environments it quite interesting that only last year new reefs (northeast of Mornington Island and quite deep by normal coral reef standards) were actually discovered in the Gulf of Carpentaria and realizing just how turbid the warm water is in the gulf especially with the vast amount of sediment input then this surprised some, especially since these are healthly living, growing coral.

Cheers, Kerry.
# #

Gazza

13-02-2004, 08:11 AM

Kerry/Bob, Angler 'Apathy' is dead [smiley=thumbsup.gif],and the RecFisho voice(s) are getting louder [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Jock ,go to that site you mentioned [smiley=thumbsdown.gif],please start without me [smiley=thumbsup.gif],and don't hold your breath waiting... [smiley=zzz.gif]

PinHead

13-02-2004, 03:15 PM

"Global warming has not yet been proven"...Bob, you forgot the hole in ozone layer to go along with that one.

BurdekinBob

13-02-2004, 06:53 PM

That too, is a natural phenomena, it opens and closes for God knows what reason. Last I read about it, it was almost closed.
Think about it Pinhead, most of the gases that the greenies claim damage the ozone layer, are heavier than air, so how they get way up there beats me!
One volcano can put more rubbish into the atmosphere in a day than all of us can in our lives.
I reckon that you are the victim of the great green con.
Bob

PinHead

13-02-2004, 09:34 PM

"Think about it Pinhead, most of the gases that the greenies claim damage the ozone layer, are heavier than air, so how they get way up there beats me!"

That is easy...when sunlight hits those molecules the chlorine atom breaks away..which then supposedly does the damage to the ozone.

NQCairns

14-02-2004, 09:16 AM

G'Day Bob I almost fell of my chair when you related Volcano's Vs Greenhouse gasses (various forms), I have not heard that rational argument since I first read about it 8 years ago, it is a sign of the times: here is an abridged (by me)excerpt from his book Don't Panic, Panic! The use and abuse of science to create fear The author Dr John L Farrands held a long and distinguished scientific career in Australia, and holds the order of Australia as a result.

Start:The ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are separate phenomena, the ozone hole is being attributed to clorine compounds, especialy related to the electronic industry, refrigerators, aircondioners, pressure packs. The total release of these per annum is only about 750 000 tonnes. Volcanoes produce about 36 million tonnes of contributing gasses per annum, and one of them, Mt Erebus, is probably emitting 1000 tonnes a day quite near the antarctic monitoring station.end

A lot of people are still skeptical of the greenhouse effect and also the ozone hole theory, it may be happening but the associated reasons are far more slanted toward natural occurances, unless of coarse a person makes their living from environmetal scare mongering ie GBRMPA and RAP, coral bleaching, runnoff, crown of thorns etc etc are as fine an example of this as a society can get #[smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=behead.gif]. nq

The Dr was also Chairman of the Australian institute of Marine sciences at one time also. I just reread the chapter on the GBR for the first time in many years and it could be taken almost as a prophesy in regard to the real reasons for the RAP shafting. If anyone wants the chapter (in jpg) email me with a related subject line (it's the era of viruses) and I will get back as soon as I can.

Kerry

20-06-2004, 01:15 PM

David Kemp and GBRMPA lied about the justification for the marine parks and tried to pass fisheries management advice off as conservation advice.

Considering the content of this discussion, anybody want to take a punt at who made this staggering admission.

Honestly one really has to read between the lines of what some people are actually doing here, what they are saying, why they are saying it and what they are trying to do and the method they are taking to achieve their own arogrant purpose.

As far as double faced hyprocrites go this character has to be the absolute pits [smiley=sneaky.gif]

Cheers, Kerry.

20-06-2004, 07:53 PM

Yeah!! It threw me too when I saw the post on Fishnet. I think I mentioned somewhere back in who remembers what post about him "opening the batting for our side".....funny old world.

Maybe he enjoys playing devils advocate or maybe...just maybe...some of the "discussions" we have had have changed his view a bit.

Anyhow Kerry, Live & learn. I do know I would love to be on the water tommorrow. It is going to be absolutely flat arse calm in the morning till about 11. Tides are right and the Spanish will be biting their heads off early....while I'm at bloody work!! F#@*%

Regards

KC

Kerry

21-06-2004, 06:59 AM

KC, yeah some people are the absolute pits when it comes to having any credibility, hiding behind aliases and will argue what is black is actually white and if white then its black they'll carry on and argue it's white. To make matters worse for someone to actually have the hide to quote FD really isn't even on this planet.

As for changing his view, well if one tells sombody the facts hard enough and often enough for long enough then any normal person one would think would start to see the light, in this case I wouldn't count on, simply argues for the sake of argueing.

Well if you've got the same 25 knot southerly (gusting 32 knots) that's going past here this morning then don't think work isn't all bad.

Cheers, Kerry.

21-06-2004, 07:32 PM

Fair call Kerry,

I did feel a bit better when I went to work EARLY and it was already gusting about 15SE. But typical by about 4pm it glassed out.....and I'm still f%$#@n' workin'.

No man ever said on his death bed....If only I'd spent more time at the office!!

I'm going fishing Tuesday no matter what.

KC

thargor

22-06-2004, 05:37 AM

With the run off issue...

I worked the on the GBR for about 6 years, logging up more than 1,400 seadays conducting commercial and rec fishing, semi sub and glass bottom boat tours and diving on many "inner" and "outer" reefs from the Torres Strait to Townsville. I have also worked around Lady Musgrave and Elliott.

Most of my time was spent working on reefs out of Cairns. Worked on Green Island, Norman and Moore. I have fished Upolo, Arlington, Sudbury, Moore, Tedford, Bat, Flora, Finn, Saxon, Pixie and heaps of others off Townsville.

From experience I have seen Green Island , Upolo and Michaelmas Reefs begin to die. It has been a gradual process with the plates and staghorns going first to be replaced with more and more soft corals. We thought they would come back but never did. When there were signs of it beginning to then the Crown of Thorns quickly finished them off. Some parts of Green and Upolo are in bad shape. Flora was devastated but I hear some of it is showing life, not much though.

Cairns inlet and Barron River flushes out to Green and Upolo while Mulgrave and Russel rivers flow out to the areas around Flora and the islands.

Within the tourism company I worked for, all of us could see the run off doing damage. Take the Barron River for example. It will run dirt red for all of the wet season and pretty well whenever there is good rain. Now history tells us that the Barron was not like that many years ago. It was far better than it is today.

Cairns Inlet has markedly changed over the years through dredging and the development around it. I have seen and worked on refits in Smith Creek and watched as blue rivers of antifoul is washed into the creek and we know where all that ends up eventually. Dont get me started on Chinamans Creek with the leakage from the Cairns dump and the sewage outlet there as well. This creek is also part of Cairns Inlet.

I realise that my experience is localised. However from what we have seen I have concluded that run off plays a big part in "inner" reef damage around the Cairns area. "Outer" reefs are fine.

Crown of thorns have also been a big problem as well. They tell me their numbers are cyclical but for the last 6 years their numbers have been going strong. We had a Killer of Crown of Thorns Starfish team (KOTS) working fulltime on both Moore and Norman and at times Green and it was always a battle. They would rack up good kills every day within a relatively small area. It just never let up. KOTS is now a good business running out of Cairns.

Within the tourism company I worked for there was an "old timer". He had worked for 36 years on the reef, started on Game Boats years back and then skippered tourism boats from that time on. He was convinced that there had been extensive changes to many reefs around Cairns. He believed it was mainly run off that caused it.

Fishing effort on the reef is the least of our worries. I believe that coastal development, erosion and polution has a lot to do with it (for Cairns that is). As for the rest of the reef you can make up your own mind.

Someone said that they found new reefs in the Gulf and I have also heard around Darwin as well. I know that the water is not clear up there but the reef survives well. I believe that that is natural sediment in the water, sediment that has been there for thousands of years, sediment that the coral has grown up with. However the sediment coming out of the rivers I have spoken about is not natural, its toxic due to high acid levels and pollution and it is a sediment that the reef has not seen before. I think you will find the soft corals will survive but the hards will die right off.

These Green Zones will do little for the GBR. What is needed is coastal management solutions.

Kerry

22-06-2004, 07:11 AM

Green Island is rather an interesting example. About 12ha in size, surrounded by approx 700ha of reef with the whole declared Marine National Park being some 3000 ha in all, which was declared in 1974.

And the coral is dying, acutally has been doing so for some time and I wonder if this is one of those examples that didn't fit the mould so lets not use these facts as they don't support the "intent".

This coastal issue to politicians and those with pre-conceived agenda's simply appears a non event.
Developers could basically be classed in the same way as some of the tourist "we don't do any damage to the reef" types.

Along some parts of the coast at this time of year water restrictions are already in place and it's just into winter, bloody hell and yet the same councils have this quest to approve development/subdivisions regardless.

Honestly people are getting sick and tied of living with a water system designed for a population some 20 years ago yet the only thing councils are concerned about is approving what they call "progress". Things on the coast simply can't keep going on the way it is.

Similar with fireweed in moreton bay, ever thought where that comes from? yet some can't see past their front lawn.

Cheers, Kerry.
#