PDA

View Full Version : Eis Snapper cages Moreton Bay (Download)



jaybee
15-07-2003, 02:20 PM
From Save the bay: http://www.qccqld.org.au/savethebay/index.html

Well the day is finally here the Sunaqua EIS has been released. And I need all of you to
comment. This is the only chance you have to make your comments count on the sea cage
project in Moreton Bay and these comments legally have to be taken into consideration in
the decision making process. In South Australia at Kangaroo Island a Sea Cage development
proposal was thrown out the window partly because the government recieved over 1000
submissions. We need to do the same. This will be your only chance in the government process to have your say. Therefore we urge you to make a submission.

You can download a free copy of the EIS from SunAqua (www.sunaqua.com.au) You have until the close of business on 21 August 2003 to make your comments. Please Click On This Link (http://www.qccqld.org.au/savethebay/documents/How%20to%20Write%20a%20Submission%20on%20the%20Sea cage%20EIS.doc) for a guide to writing your submission. All submissions should be sent to the address below:

The Coordinator General
c/ Project Manager - Sea Cage Aquaculture project
Department of State Development
PO BOX 168
Brisbane Albert St QLD 4002
Fax: (07) 3224 5289
email:seacageaquaculture@sd.qld.gov.au

Wesley_Pang
15-07-2003, 02:41 PM
Jaybee,

Thanks for your post.

I'll be writing a submission.

Its encouraging to hear that the Premier talking about setting a "high hurdle" for the project to get the go-ahead.

I'll punch in the lat and long into my GPS and go over and have a look at where the proposed site is.

It's very important for everyone who cares about our lovely Moreton Bay to have their say.

Wes

P.S. Don't forget to get your submission in for the Great Barrier Reef too.

jaybee
15-07-2003, 03:13 PM
Already done, as i personally believe moreton will be next, have been talking to people thru emails for nearly 12 months on this (snapper cages) now, and with mr beattie talking about high hurdles, the opposition has been on his back today to say no, ( he didnt mention that on the news) i personally believe from feed back the labour gov wants this project, but to stop it we need people to fill in the eis.
cheers
joe.

Lucky_Phill
15-07-2003, 04:31 PM
Had a bit of a read of the EIS summary.

All sounds so ' glossy '.

some interesting notes.

$33,000,000 worth of Commercial Product is harvested in Moreton Bay each year. The tonnage was 3,200, which equates to $1.03 per kilo. That doesn't sound right to me ?

Further, rec fishos in Moreton Bay account for 30% of the States fishos ?

Pulling in 2,000 ton of fish. That equates to 6.6kg of fish each per year.

Are you getting your 6.6 ?

The more I read the more I feel some people are getting paid good " sea grass " to to say what Sun Aqua wants them to say.

I cannot believe that the EPA has been by-passed and are only to give their opinion on the EIS to the Department of State Developement.

Don't get me wroung, I believe in Aquaculture and Fish Farming, but , let's get it in the right place. I know your saying " the old, it's OK but not in my backyard routine ". Nah ! it's not that.

As the Sun Aqua spruiks, 30% of rec fishos play in the Bay and 382 commercial guys are plundering it too. Can our Moreton Bay ( which just happens to be a Marine Park ), handle another invasion ?

Me thinks not.........my response and submissions are on their way.

I want to know how much, and which ministers are getting in on the act ?

Phill

jaybee
15-07-2003, 04:54 PM
Phil it has gone through the epa, the federal gov was suppose to release back in february for sunaqua to put it to the people in march, some dealings (from what i have heard between sunaqua and state gov held it up). I also see sunaqua have changed the dates for the proposed shedule on their web site. Also why is it the eis isnt on the government dpi web site?
cheers
joe.

Lucky_Phill
15-07-2003, 05:05 PM
It may have gone through the EPA, BUT, the EPA has not done the EIS and THAT is the EPA's job.

Money has spoken here and the Department of State Development has taken over from the EPA's role and handed the EIS to the Developer.

It's a bit like the Law Society situation. Asking the Lawyers to judge the Lawyers !

As far as I know.........that is !

Phill

jaybee
15-07-2003, 05:11 PM
Deals done dirt cheap hey phil. still think you can trust the person you was telling me about. you know me i am a cynical bathtub, and i dont trust n e government
cheers
joe.

Wesley_Pang
15-07-2003, 07:15 PM
Phil,

I have to disagree.

Aquaculture is NOT the answer.

Netting 5 tonnes of bait fish off Peru to produce 1 tonne of snapper doesn't make sense to me. Or the slimies caught off NSW used to feed the Tuna off SA.

I can see them netting the all the baitfish(slimies/yakka) around Moreton Bay and feeding the Snapper and Kingfish in the cages.

I had a very enjoyable day on the bay yesterday. Saw schools of tuna, turtles, very friendly dolphins, heaps of birds. We caught 4 Longtail Tuna(kept 1 - 10kg).

Wes

Lucky_Phill
16-07-2003, 12:51 PM
Hey Wes, I know I said I believe in Aquaculture, and as you said " it is not the answer ", which in turn brings us to the question of " What is the answer ? ".

I still believe in the theory of Aquaculture etc. It may not be the answer in all situations. Is it better than what we have now ? Do we just stop all commercial fishing ?

I no no............? Do let the greenies have their way and stop ALL forms of fishing ?

That way we can polute our wtares with the waste from tourists, boats and divers by the millions.

I no no ............><> ><> ><>

Fish stocks declining at a rapid rate, Reef systems disappearing fast. Does anyone have any sort of answer ?

AH, freshwater fishing...... :P maybe not.

Phill

Lucky_Phill
16-07-2003, 12:54 PM
Is it possible to farm fish inland ?

Not using other fish species as feed ?

Not producing 2 headed fish ?

Lake Berley ( spelling is correct by me ) Griffin could be a good place to start !

Phill ;) ;D ::)

Jack_Lives_Here
16-07-2003, 01:33 PM
I'm putting my hand up here and saying that aquaculture WILL have to be the way of the future. I say this because in it's current form not acceptable BUT purely through evolution of technology it HAS to get better. (How long ago was it when people were walking around with mobile phones the size of house bricks)
Now saying that, it is VERY alarming that State Development is shouldering the EPA out of one of it's primary functions. I smells a rat.

Big_Kev
16-07-2003, 02:13 PM
RAT. I smell a bull.
My dad always told me the closer you get to the truth the more you can smell the bullshit.
All sounds a bit suss to me and Beatie smells bad.
Cheers Kev

jaybee
16-07-2003, 04:01 PM
Frequently asked questions

Frequently Asked Questions


Isn't this fish farm good because it will be replacing the natural fish numbers that existed in Moreton Bay before European settlement?

No. Compared to the pre-European state, Moreton Bay is currently in poor environmental condition, the western areas of Moreton Bay, such as Bramble Bay are very badly degraded. The cause of this degradation is excess nutrients and silt. The additional nutrient input into the eastern side of Moreton Bay bysuch large fish numbers associated with this development may cause severe damage in what is recognised as the most pristine area of the Bay. Although this fish farm will be putting a large number of fish into the Bay, these fish will be concentrated within a confined area, not evenly distributed through the Bay. This will result in the build-up of large amounts of waste and pollution that will take a considerable amount of time to flush out of the Bay.


Is sea cage aquaculture a more sustainable means of obtaining fish than wild harvesting?

No. Sea cage fish farming is not as environmentally friendly as people think. As these fish are carnivores, they are fed on a protein-based diet predominantly made from wild caught fish. Anywhere from 2 kg up to 12 kg of wild fish are used to produce 1 kg of farmed fish. This unsustainable farming technique does not replace trawling and fishing of wild fish stocks, but in fact results in more wild fish and by-catch being harvested from oceans.


Can animals get trapped in the cages?

Yes. Many marine animals are attracted to the fish being farmed within sea cages. Dolphins eat snapper and this attraction can drive them to jump into cages to get at the fish. Both dolphins and sharks have been found trapped within South Australian sea cages. Once inside a cage it is near impossible for them to get out on their own, and this usually results in drowning. The hard cage structure can also cause serious injury to dolphins and sharks that try to break in by ramming a cage with their head and body. By using shade cloth over sea cages birds such as cormorants, turns, pelicans and other water birds which dive for food can become entangled within the cloth, trapped inside the cage and die.


Will sharks be attracted?

Yes. Sharks are attracted to both dead and alive fish, especially to schooling fish. By having a large number of fish in a concentrated area, sharks will inevitably be attracted for a feed. This is supported by findings of sharks trapped in South Australian Tuna cages. Increased shark numbers in Moreton Bay could severely impact on the tourism industry and threaten Bay users.

What about dugong and turtles?

The main food source for both dugongs and turtles is seagrass. Nutrients and pollution produced by excess feed, fish wastes and deaths, cleaning products and other harmful chemicals have been known to destroy seagrasses. Major seagrass beds lie to the south (Amity and Moreton Banks) and within areas adjacent to the site and along Moreton Island coastline. The tidal action within Moreton Bay will result in some, if not all of these areas being impacted by the development, and subsequently may reduce food availability for these endangered turtles and dugongs. Dugong numbers within Moreton Bay are declining, and increasing numbers of young calves have been washing up dead on coastlines. It is believed that Lyngbya, a toxic algae that is promoted by nutrients and iron, is responsible. Lyngbya can smother and kill seagrass through excessive growth and release toxic chemicals. These animals may also become trapped within the cage.

Could the farm cause a new disease outbreak?

Yes. Normal fish populations are prone to disease outbreaks if environmental conditions are unfavorable. When large numbers of fish are densely confined in a small area, such as in cage farming, the likelihood of an outbreak is increased dramatically, especially if water quality or other environmental conditions are poor. In NSW, three major diseases have already been identified in sea cage farmed Snapper. Substantial disease problems have been identified overseas with Kingfish culture, the most serious in Japan with infection introduced from Southeast Asia. Disease outbreaks can spread from farmed fish and seriously impact wild fish populations. The use of antibiotics to treat these outbreaks is also cause for concern, as over-use can lead to disease resistance and unknown health effects in humans through consumption of treated fish.

What about genetic modification?

Although the use of genetically modified fish have not been proposed for farming in this development, selectively bred fish will be used. This means that fish that have fast growth rates, are bigger than normal, more resistant to disease, and have other features that make them important for export and sale are chosen from the local fish stock and bred intensely to amplify these attributes. By doing this, the genetic makeup of the fish is different to that of the natural local population, essentially creating a "new strain" of the species. If released and allowed to breed with the wild population, they may introduce harmful genes and physical characteristics which could put the survival of that species in jeopardy. Although not stated at their commencement, many sea cage farms have the reputation for introducing genetically modified stock over time. As the farm is already established and running, approval is generally easily granted.

jaybee
16-07-2003, 04:05 PM
5 fundamental flaws of fish farming (http://www.qccqld.org.au/savethebay/documents/Euro_Paper_5_Fundamental_Flaws_of_Sea_Cage_Fish_Fa rming.pdf) Opens in Adobe Acrobat

jaybee
16-07-2003, 04:07 PM
One more, i read somewhere where sweden pioneered the way in fish farming, and today its totally banned. ???

Wesley_Pang
16-07-2003, 04:13 PM
Phil and Dave,

If we had a salt eating microbes(reduce salinity) that could be feed to coral trout/red emperor we'd be laughing ;D

Those pellets don't come out of thin air. They are made out of "trash" fish. We are still hammering the oceans.

"Soylent Green" may be the answer ??? Go down to your local video store and ask for it.

Maybe I should just tie some "pellet" flies and make the best of a bad situation. I haven't got a snapper on fly yet and a brood female kingfish would be fun.

There is no easy answer :'(

Wes

jaybee
16-07-2003, 04:27 PM
some more reading

http://www.lib.noaa.gov/docaqua/hooarrprept.htm

http://www.fao.org/focus/e/fisheries/sustaq.htm

http://www.splash.net.au/aquaculture.html

Kerry
16-07-2003, 05:16 PM
Well until somebody actually comes up with some advancement in technology (and many have tried and failed) who really wants to be the guinea pig.

NO, acquaculture isn't the answer but it certainly sounds good by those that want to believe but then they never tell the whole story either, too many negatives.

Cheers, Kerry.

jaybee
16-07-2003, 05:18 PM
Fish farms accused of spreading disease
15jul03

FISH farms such as the one proposed for Moreton Bay increase the potential for spreading disease and depleting wild fish stocks.

The findings, from a world-first study, were released as Premier Peter Beattie hinted that the Sun Aqua sea-cage farm might not proceed because it faced regulatory obstacles.
"This project will require a significant, a very significant, a very, very significant and if you have missed the point, a very, very, very significant hurdle . . . to be successful," Mr Beattie said.

Fish biologist Tim Dempster said his studies on a sea-cage kingfish farm at Port Stephens in NSW and on Mediterranean farms showed they attracted vast numbers of wild fish which fed off uneaten fish food and faeces.

Sun Aqua has proposed raising up to three million kingfish and snapper in cages off Moreton Island, although the first stage would be only half that size and scaled up over five years.

Mr Dempster said fish which would be drawn to the sea cages included common recreational species such as bream, wild kingfish, tailor, mullet and yellowtail.

"Certainly the number of wild fish immediately under sea cages can be hundreds to thousands of times above normal levels," he said.

Mr Dempster, who works for the Queensland Seafood Industry Association but carried out the research while at the University of Sydney, said there was potential to fish down wild stocks.

"People know these are good places to fish but they tend to attract adult fish and when they're caught that draws even more wild fish in from surrounding areas," he said.

Sun Aqua has said recreational anglers could move between its cages.

A Sun Aqua spokeswoman said the figures quoted by Mr Dempster were absurd and based on one study in one location in the Mediterranean.

"There is no evidence of large wild fish in those sort of numbers aggregating around cages in the snapper, salmon, or tuna industries in Australia.

"The cages will be stocked with low fish densities to ensure healthy fish. You will not be able to tell a Sun Aqua fish from a wild fish."

She said Mr Dempster's research did not look at fish parasites at all so his comments were purely speculative.

Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said leaflets would be sent to 6000 people who had signed petitions against the development, encouraging them to fight the project.

jaybee
16-07-2003, 05:42 PM
this bit will be interesting Opposition Leader Lawrence Springborg said leaflets would be sent to 6000 people who had signed petitions against the development, encouraging them to fight the project.
I signed an online petition a fair while ago and recieved a reply from both parties, i will let you all know if i recieve anything from Mr Springborg.
cheers
joe.

jaybee
16-07-2003, 06:29 PM
Last couple of paragraphs from a story

“We used to catch 20 to 25 salmon in the week and 60 to 70 sea trout.

The best sea trout we caught was 17lbs. Five or six pounders were nothing.

“That was up until 1990 when they put the sea cages into Lough Feyne. And then in the space of two years it was destroyed by sea cages and sea lice.

“It was one of the biggest tragedies in Scottish fishing. But, the same could have been said on quite a lot places like that in Scotland.

It wasn’t on its own, there were other places as good as that, but we just happened to find it when no one else was fishing it. It’s completely ruined now.

“Last year, they had one fish out it.’’

You can access the whole story from here

http://www.irishnews.com/current/fishing1.html

jaybee
16-07-2003, 06:45 PM
Thursday, January 17, 2002 - 8:27:49 AM MST Alaska Bans Aquaculture

http://www.gofortbragg.com/Aquaculture-Jan17-02.htm

jaybee
16-07-2003, 06:47 PM
CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE SALMON AQUACULTURE REVIEW 29 January 1998

http://kafka.uvic.ca/~elc/SARMAS~1.htm

jaybee
16-07-2003, 07:02 PM
Aquaculture: Saviour or Villian?

by Jim Curtis


Aquaculture is currently being promoted as potentially one of the most commercially lucrative industries of the new century. It is also seen as a partial solution to problems associated with growing population numbers, declining food supplies and unsustainable wild fish stocks. But there are concerns that modern aquaculture activities may be a source of more problems than solutions, and will contribute to the already declining integrity of the world's oceans and river systems.

One of the simplest definitions of aquaculture is the farming of aquatic organisms. But such simplicity is not characteristic of today's aquaculture industry. A complex range of techniques are used for breeding, cultivating, harvesting and marketing varieties of aquatic plants and animals that include fish, molluscs, crustaceans and algae. Aquaculture operations may be freshwater, marine, land-based or open water activities, and typically involve controlled environments that 'assist' natural processes by employing artificial methods of stocking, rearing, feeding and protection. The concept and management strategies of aquaculture are therefore very similar to its terrestrial counterpart, as they both share the objective of maximising production and minimising costs for commercial gain.

Some recent global trends and issues have made justifying and arguing the need for aquaculture activities relatively easy. For example, many commercial wild fish stocks are currently in decline because they have been exploited at unsustainable levels for many years, and have been decimated by the impacts of pollution and habitat destruction. Combined with an ever-increasing world population and a growing appreciation for seafood, these pressures are creating demands and expectations that cannot be fulfilled by existing wild fish stocks. Aquaculture is therefore not only being promoted as a means of enhancing food production, but also a vital method of replenishing over-exploited species so they can recover to a sustainable level.

Although there are many persuasive arguments justifying the need for aquaculture, there are also numerous concerns regarding the industry's potential negative environmental impacts. These may include habitat modification or destruction caused by aquaculture developments, the pollution of the surrounding environment from wastes such as excreta, chemicals, uneaten food and dead animals, increased nutrient levels that can lead to excessive algal growth and the eutrophication of water resources, the introduction of disease and exotic organisms that may compete with native flora and fauna, and using unsustainable wild fish stocks as feed for aquaculture species. Another concern is the impact on natural predators, such as birds, seals, dolphins and sharks, that may get entangled in nets or are purposely killed to protect the 'products' being farmed. Conflicts may also emerge between the different uses of marine and coastal environments. While tourism, recreation, research, education and conservation activities generally prefer that the natural appeal and integrity of these environments are preserved, intrusive aquaculture operations will inevitably have a negative impact on wilderness values and the visual amenity. Given such competing interests, it cannot be simply assumed that such operations can be successfully integrated within a single environment or a responsible management plan.

There are numerous examples throughout the world where these 'potential' negative environmental impacts have unfortunately materialised. Some of the most well documented cases in recent years have been the detrimental effects of shrimp farms in Asia. These operations have been responsible for clearing huge areas of mangrove forests for the purpose of constructing a variety of aquaculture facilities. However, mangroves are an important natural resource as they provide a fertile breeding ground for many marine species, and help protect the terrestrial environment from the impacts of erosion and severe weather conditions. Mangroves also provide a natural filtration system for collecting sediments, pollutants and recycling essential nutrients. By removing them, it has not only disrupted the sustainable lifestyles of numerous small fishing communities that have traditionally relied on these mangrove ecosystems for food and other materials, but it has also threatened the future existence of the shrimp farms as many have since been ravaged by disease and floods. Further problems have arisen from the intense nature of these aquaculture operations, as the amount of chemicals used and the resultant waste has lead to the pollution, contamination and salinisation of the surrounding land and freshwater supplies, as well as poisoning native wildlife. Although such impacts must have been foreseeable during the design, construction and early operation of these aquaculture facilities, they were probably ignored given the allure of potentially massive commercial gains.

Australia has also suffered some recent aquaculture dilemmas. Over a two-year period, 32 dolphins and 5 seals died by getting entangled in the tuna farm nets that are part of South Australia's aquaculture industry. Along with Tasmania, South Australia is also currently experiencing problems with feral Pacific Oyster populations. This exotic species is considered a noxious pest in many parts of Australia where it threatens to prey, compete and breed with native species, and has the potential to introduce disease and adversely affect natural habitats. Although some Australian states banned the farming of Pacific Oysters in recognition of these dangers, South Australia did not because of 'scientific evidence' that claimed that natural inhibiting factors would prevent feral populations from ever breeding in the wild. But for scientists to make such assured predictions of nature's behaviour is very brave, and in this case they were also very wrong. The Australian government is now funding a research program to fully ascertain the environmental impacts of feral Pacific Oysters.

Despite such disasters, aquaculture continues to be one of the world's fastest growing rural sectors, with many governments remaining fearlessly committed to the industry's ongoing promotion and development. For example, the former government of South Australia's neighbouring state, Victoria, recently embraced a target to double the value of its aquaculture production by the year 2001. But concerns were instantly raised that the government may compromise environmental standards to achieve this target. It was soon discovered that these concerns were justified. As part of its commitment, the former government of Victoria conducted a regulatory review to identify impediments to local aquaculture growth and investment. The review suggested that current environmental standards were inhibiting the industry and that a simplified regulatory process should be embraced. One of the recommendations was therefore to replace legally binding EPA (Environment Protection Authority) licensing requirements with voluntary codes of practice for certain sectors. But such recommendations are environmentally dangerous, and illustrate the political context within which aquaculture operates. In the ongoing battle between economics and the environment, politicians continue to predominantly base their decisions on potential economic revenues rather than real environmental concerns. Although there has recently been a change of government in Victoria, these aquaculture-related concerns remain.

Population pressures, food shortages and declining marine and freshwater resources are serious problems that demand serious solutions. But aquaculture has yet to prove itself as such a solution because it currently has more of a reputation as an industry that is committed to maximising short-term commercial gains rather than achieving long-term economic and environmental sustainability. Unless this changes, aquaculture will become another chapter in a long history of human endeavours that have irresponsibly exploited and degraded the natural environment. Given that oceans and river systems are often described as the world's last great wildernesses, this is one chapter that should not be written.

Jack_Lives_Here
17-07-2003, 04:10 AM
While there's cash to be made there will ALWAYS be shortcuts taken and dodgy / false reporting - human nature.
Guys, you can't stick your head in the sand and just say NO, without proposing an alternative????
Ban commercial fishing??
Ban all fishing??
I don't have an alternative either. Who knows what advancements will be made in the next 10 years / 20 years - it's rub the crystal ball stuff.

Gazza
17-07-2003, 07:39 AM
Jack ,Jaybee has demonstrated severals cases of WHY it is "not an alternative" ,if in 10/20years time ,SUNAQUA (or anybody) can demonstrate "it is an alternative" to WHAT?? (Commercial fishing?)

Comms. just need direction(s) ,not extinction :o

So be it...... THEN!!!!...not NOW!!
p.s. you canNOT turn the clock back ,once it DOES goes belly-up, and destroys existing free range? stocks

Regards
Gazza

Jack_Lives_Here
17-07-2003, 08:15 AM
Hey Gazza you seen what a trawl net does to a sea grass bed???

I'm keeping my mind open.

Kerry
17-07-2003, 08:56 AM
Sea grass bed? Yes and also the effect of run-off, sedimentation, sewerage outfalls, fertilizer and general development that if the trawlers didn't get it first then the rest of the land dwelling angels who only build houses, flush toilets, grow their grass, water their plants, wash down driveways etc etc surely would, hence crap like fireweed and all the other "nutrient enrichment" bays that to many look wonderful but on the bottom completely full of "their" crap, devoid of life but hey don't look at us those trawlers did it ;D. Yes they had a hand but when will people (all people responsible) in general accept responsibility.

If only there was a $ for every sensational journo who ever mentioned trawlers fishing "on the reef", that would be quite an amount.

I has to have a total mind.

Cheers, Kerry.

Jack_Lives_Here
17-07-2003, 09:53 AM
Exactly, so the million dollar question what is the solution??? No one can say.

No one can honestly stand up and say technology will go nowhere in 10 years.

Gazza
17-07-2003, 02:18 PM
Hey Gazza you seen what a trawl net does to a sea grass bed???

I'm keeping my mind open.

Jack ,you 'identified' a problem ,nothing more ,agreed ???

solution: no destroying of seagrass beds ALLOWED!! ..simple ;)
result: seabeds grow back

Now IF Aquaculture destroys your wild fishstocks , as per examples from Jaybee/others.....think..and then answer me this.

HOW do you and IN PARTICULAR Mr. Gov't turn back the clock ???

(Jack ,nothing personal ,but just think it thru ,o.k.?)

Best Regards
Gazza

Kerry
17-07-2003, 03:57 PM
Well until somebody actually comes up with some advancement in technology (and many have tried and failed) who really wants to be the guinea pig.

Jack, but 10 years time isn't now right in your backyard. Like who does actually want to be the giunea pig RIGHT NOW based on all the actual overseas experiences.

And if they get it wrong in your backyard then they'll move on to the next, leave you with the dregs and attempt it all again, and yeah maybe in 10 years time they might have sorted out their mess, then maybe not.

So who wants to be the guinea pigs, now!

Cheers, Kerry.

jaybee
17-07-2003, 04:21 PM
Good debate guys, a fellow I would like to hear from on here is blaze who lives in tazzie, with first hand experience from diving around the sea cages down there, from what he has told me, it is a sad and sorry affair for quite a few kilometers around the cages, where once grew beautiful coral and wild fish stocks :'(

Jack_Lives_Here
18-07-2003, 07:02 AM
Gazza - I used your reference to commercials as just another contributing factor to the exploitation and degradation of the ocean, so yes it was thought through - I've just got my blinkers off and have an open mind AND NO you can't turn back the clock once it's screwed. Govt's need to be proactive not reactive. What is happening with the tonnes of nutrient rich, sea grass killing effluent, pumped into the ocean each day???? Why not be as passionate about that. Fishing folk, me included, seem very selective about issues to be passionate about - the old how does it affect me attitiude.

I'm hearin' Kerry - ride on the back of other countries research. I'm not supporting the cages in the bay.

It's amazing isn't it - thousands upon thousands of hectares of prime forests are cleared each day for housing farming etc and not a bat of an eye lid. Fence an area and put some sheep or cattle in it - yep that's OK - fence a section of the ocean and put fish in it - A BIG NO NO. Both methods are as destrcutive as each other yet one is so much more emotive than the other????????

blaze
18-07-2003, 07:58 AM
Hi Joe
It was Brian that was diving around the cages, my diving was done in pristine waters of the west and n/west coast of tassie, dont think I would like to dive around huge floating burley pots. I like the idea of fish farming BUT, dont like the thought of where the food to feed them comes from (sorta defeats the purpose) and I dont like the place they put some. We have a lot of oyster leases in our eustary systems here and we are trying to stop the spread of them. I must say though that they are naturally fed and if ya want a metre lizard or a feed of fish, thats the place to go, they are like artificial reefs in a way with there own ego system.
I think if they are going to have fish farming there is a real need to look at the supply of food ( if ya find some land grown product you can feed them with, then ya start putting fertilizer etc on the land and that runs into the rivers/estuaries and create problems and if ya feed them on pillies etc, then you deplete a already strained natural resoures).
Then where to put them, they need to be placed in fairlly sheltered waters to minimise damage to stop escapes etc, which no one wants in their backyard. so maybe islolated inlets are the go, but do we want them there even in unfished areas that are like heaven when ya find them.
I think at the end of the day, we need to have and utilise all methods of farming, be it on land or sea, BUT we need to utilise nature more. Why try to grow rice where there is a need for major irrigattion, we need to look at growing/farming in a less intrusive nature and in harmony with our natural resoucres and PEOPLE NEED TO STOP BEING SO BLOODY GREEDY AND MONEY DRIVEN AND WANTING THE BEST OF THE BEST AND BE HAPPY WITH GOOD HEALTH, FAMILY AND THE LOT IN LIFE THEY ARE GIVEN.
Sorry about the ramble but debate will always continue whilst man inhabits this planet
cheers
blaze

blaze
18-07-2003, 08:02 AM
Hi all
Think that maybe the longest thing ived typed for a long time
cheers
blaze

jaybee
18-07-2003, 01:22 PM
Sorry guys got the names mixed up oh duh!!!! That was well put blaze, ps have you heard from brian lately??

jaybee
18-07-2003, 01:26 PM
jack
What is happening with the tonnes of nutrient rich, sea grass killing effluent, pumped into the ocean each day go to the save the bay web site it covers all aspects of whats destroying the bay.

http://www.qccqld.org.au/savethebay/index.html

Kerry
18-07-2003, 03:59 PM
The whole issue of common sense doesn't really know where to stop. As Blaze mentioned greed is a major factor and some of these companies couldn't give 2 rats about much apart from their bank manager.

One can draw a lot of parallels from the irrigation debate. Charge more for the water; make farmers more water resourceful in reducing water wastage. What happens to the water they save, they still want it so they can further increase their cultivation areas.

Nothing gained what so ever but really it's a backward step, nothing actually is saved but degradation actually increases.

And why is it so? 'cause all those city people want their fresh produce and managers only ever think in never ending exponentional production increases. Simply must be a cut-off point somewhere and sometimes not even a starting point.

Cheers, Kerry.

jaybee
18-07-2003, 04:11 PM
Kerry
greed is a major factor and some of these companies couldn't give 2 rats about much apart from their bank manager. nor does the current government because they wont be around when the faeces hits the fan.
cheers
joe

Gazza
18-07-2003, 04:52 PM
Jack ,you thought it through ,and seem to have come to a sensible conclusion #;D

besides Kerrys/Jaybees valid comments ,there is a 'kingfish' farm in S.A. where the wildfish seem to be 'learning' to eat poo and pellets that 'drop' below the nets......
(have picture of pellets in a snappers guts)

this proposed concentrated poo-farm will/must also have extra 'pellets' being fed to local stocks #??? ??? ??? ,or how would "it NOT be so?"

I'm am not a NIMBY personality , this is just WRONG......Mr.Gov't

Regards
Gazza

jaybee
18-07-2003, 05:06 PM
guys i guess you could say all governments are like a person who lives with an intellectuall disability. Why you ask, well a person with an intellectual disability usually doesnt grasp the understanding of time, they live for the momement today, as tomorrow is too far away. the government is the same in that respect when i comes to money and then say look who we got to invest millions in the state. while they are in power they flaunt this issue, next you know they are gone, the next government then finds the mistakes but alas its too late. But what do they do, NOTHING BECAUSE ITS ALREADY TOO ENTRENCHED AND WE CANT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. too little, too late.
food for thought
cheers
joe.

Gazza
18-07-2003, 05:32 PM
Jaybee , nice 'angle' .....sheeeshhhh :D :D :D


Different perspective 'they' can choose.....
Mr.Gov't you represent the 'SMART STATE' , this is just WRONG!!

jaybee
19-07-2003, 04:23 AM
yeh i agree gazza, but i believe people power will win out in the end if enough people fill in the eis.
cheers
joe.