Scientific advice on GBR closures

[jockey]

According to freediver's site (http://www.freediver.bravehost.com/truth.html 3/4 of the way down), the scientific advice on the GBR closure that David Kemp keeps mentioning comes from The Townsville Declaration on Coral Reef Research and Management.

[NQCairns]

Hi Jockey I only did a 3 minute scan but i couldn't see any scientific evidence quoted? Might have missed it of course, will come back when i get time.

I would have all sorts of miracle creams, pills, food, knives, plastic surgery etc, etc by now if I took the paid advice of experts on face value let alone scientist's offering personal paid views.
A personal view in the scientific world is ANY comment not backed up by research that HAS been peer reviewed and replicated at least(that does not mean in house peer review and or replication).

Give me 1 hour and I can find a scientist for hire that will say what I want him to say in his chosen field, regardless of nill real science to back him up.

A scientists opinion has as much weight in the real world as yours or mine on this forum. In science to disprove is impossible we cannot prove that real science (re RAP) doesn't exist, catch 22 for us.

If science was behind the RAP make no mistake the scientific community would know about it and therefore so would we, real science is transperent, we cannot find the science because it does not exist trying to prove it does not exist is a fools game an falls right into the hands of these con artists. Given the rules of science we can only be screaming why doesn't it exist and why then were we all sacrificed without reason.cheers Nq

[Kerry]

Well NQ I see something entitled "The Truth" and what follows is nothing more than a personal opinion or opinions of others and I'm not quite sure how one equates "opinions" as "truth"? but then coming from FD this is about par for the course.

As for all the hoo haa with reef research and really the Prof/Dr club and federal grants doesn't really reside with one single organisation one might have noticed that the federal government has rejected funding based on a "lack of commercialism".

So what the federal government is saying (and yes this is the same federal government prouting all the weight of scientific evidence :o) is that is has nothing to do with the environment (as such) and funding is connected to commercialisation prospects ::), the truth :-X yeah sure [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] that's a laugh

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

'as close as your going to get' - gotta read the fine print Kerry.

NQ this is where the 'best scientific advice' comments came from, not the comments about the vast weight of scientific evidence. Getting some scientist to say what you want doesn't give you the best advice. That's why each statement in the declaration is only signed off by the scientists that are experts in those specific fields. How much evidence there is behind that advice is still in question. I don't think anyone has gone to much effort to track that down, but there are four scientists listed there that might be able to fill us in. I'll keep an eye on the site and see if the actual evidence is forthcoming.

[Kerry]

'as close as your going to get' - gotta read the fine print
'best scientific advice'

Well if that's the "best" and "as close as your going to get" then maybe there's more to these funding knockbacks #;) Lets face it, opinions are get that, opinions and $$'s obviously haven't produced anything substantial, like how many times has this got to keep coming up, there is no actual evidence, and now there is no $$'s for basically anymore opinions.

Obviously no more funding, no more research $$'s says something, hey ;D well to most it would :D

Cheers, Kerry.

[NQCairns]

I just finished reading it all inc the link, freediver has a better idea than what we will have soon, but it is still pandering to the untruths and green fringe/tourist industry/bright green aspects of GBRMPA and their cohorts imho, any ground is given bag limits alone are more than capable of controlling any adverse effect resulting from recfishing into the future. It's never been where your boat is floating (lockout zones)it's about how much you take and what size, given the vastness of the reef versus the number of rec boats versus the number of trips the average fisho actually does in a year, again not about permanent lock out zones except on a bright green level.

Kerry, comercial all the way I just hate it, dont get me started on just how crooked federal $ scientific funding is, nothing scientific about the way they choose the project, there should be an absolutly independent panel and all results must be available on the public record regardless of it's political value for any side.

Jockey you are right it is where Kemps statement comes from, but that is all it is.
'Best scientific advice' comes from scientists that are relating the conclusion of an experiment and only that experiment and can back it up, with publication (without it being published in a respected journal it is low science) peer review and replication.
A gagle of western scientists on a paid junket here??? aint worth one crown of thorns on our reef.

Our reef is still a Rolls Royce that would have been serviced forever into the future by the dealership on any issue that relates to rec fishing without the lockout zones. Why a bunch of scientists would comment on the Rolls useing various 76 model datsun 120y's as their justification/experience is beyond me, well not really there is money/new jobs and standing in it. Gotta go now the sky is about to fall.
Gotta thank you for the link though Jockey, cheers nq

[Maxg]

I can't see why Rec angling Associations shouldn't use the professional guys figures. Like there are 4.5 million rec anglers in australia and they have an annual catch of 45,000 tonnes.
Which they say is too much and should be reduced, but if you crunch the nubers each rec angler catches 10kg of fish per year. If that is the case how can rec angling be dangerous for the GBR, there catch es are too low to be dangerous. Max

[Kerry]

But Max, using figures in that fashion don't suit the "ban everything brigade" and they'd probably also call that 45 million kilograms #;D 10 kg's or 1kg is really not their concern, it's expecting an outcome based on fabrication and deceit.

Cheers, Kerry.

[whiteman]

The latest mail is that Iraq has dumped its WMDs within the GBR and this is where the new green zones are allocated. The Government doesn't want anglers throwing anchors over the side risking hitting and rupturing the cannisters and releasing this biological warefare on the planet.

Scientists pushed for pink zones to also include dive operators in the exclusion zones but it appears some members of cabinet actually holiday in North Queensland and go out on dive trips for relaxation so this was vetoed.

Watch for future "WMDs overboard" scandals and remember you read it here first.

[budgie]

"As long as it isnt in my backyard" Live up here and see what it means! Those who make the decisions and try to justify this are living where??? The 'learned' experts are visitors, and as long as you can sensationalise the issue, votes will be won and grants given. Cheers Budgie

[jockey]

Check out the latest update on the main page - makes for some interesting reading.

www.freediver.bravehost.com