Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 215

Thread: Re: For Moreton Bay Users

  1. #61

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    If you feel the need to scream and shout Jeremy, it would suggest that you may be bereft of reasoned, rational alternatives.

    " You continue to ignore my request to back up this statement with facts."
    " 99% of the scientific stuff I can lay my hands on....... "
    is different from claiming that 99% of all scientific data supports one view or another. I never claimed that.
    It very simply means what it says - "that I can lay my hands on".
    Now, as you have no way of knowing what access I might or might not have to information,
    you cannot contend that my statement is wrong.
    Apart from which, might I suggest that to to obssess about that particular statement instead of, say, responding to the thoughts above - is ....... unfortunate.

    " How many of these studies are peer reviewed Australian studies, published in reputable journals?"
    Absolutely no idea, mate.I'mno academic. I'm a passionate recreational angler genuinely trying to get my head around all this.
    Best I can do is to read reports LIKE Spillans (AND OTHERS) and see if it seems to make sense.
    Whilst I agree that publication in "reputable" journals stimulates discussion and raises alternative views - it does not, in itself, guarantee that any proposition is sound.
    Why only "Ausralian" studies Jeremy ?
    Not by any chance afraid that casting the net a bit wider might provide some stuff you'd prefer not to know ?

    Now, the "fraud plant" suggestion says more about you than about me, sunshine.
    I became interested in this initially because people like you were scaremongering the masses with untruths like
    " anglers travelling up or down the passage and who have to pass through the green zones.... will have to de-rig all their lines and risk prosecution..."
    and the local "Save our Passage" bunch STILL claiming that the proposed changes will re-open the Passage to professional fishing,
    that people will not be able to anchor, swim, camp or do anything but traverse the zone
    and so on and so on .............

    Mate, I could be dead WRONG about all this.
    But if so, at least I am not deliberately lying to people and sucking money from pensioners and the like based on those lies.
    LOL That proves it for me. You claim to be a local rec fisher just trying to get your head around these proposals, yet despite all the effort gone to by at least a dozen different people in this thread to try to educate you as to why green zones are not what they are claimed to be by the EPA and the AMCS etc, you continue to defend them. You haven't learn't a thing have you?

    Pull your head out of the sand and open your eyes. "Minds, like parachutes, work best when open". You are in freefall.....

    Jeremy
    "The underlying spirit of angling is that the skill of the angler is pitted against the instinct and strength of the fish and the latter is entitled to an even chance for it's life."
    (Quotation from the rules of the Tuna Club Avalon, Santa Catalina, U.S.A.)

    Apathy is the enemy

  2. #62

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    jeremy your closed mind on your side of the argument with this issue is not doing you any favours. tripcony could quite easily be who he is claiming. i am a "local rec fisher trying to get my head around these proposals" myself.

    i'm sitting on the fence still on the issue of extending green zones because i don't have the information, and basically don't have the spare time to peruse the information and scientific papers (be they truth or bs) in order to make an educated opinion for myself yet. at the end of the day it's a done deal anyway with the alp/greens payback thing going down.

    what i do know is that my mad mate big col and myself used to fish an awful lot in the area tripcony is talking about. we fished there both before and after the current green zone was established. i reckon that something made a change for the better in this time, now i say "something" because i'm pretty sure that at the same time as the green zone was established, pro fishing was stopped in the passage too so who knows what made it fish better.

    so i'm a fence sitter, but an open minded one looking at both sides of the argument here. tripcony is asking some pretty good questions and whilst there are a few rational responses there's also a good amount of irrational. from where i sit though, i'm thinking that the quality of the scientific data and the methods and assumptions made in order to get the data sound pretty shaky. and if this data is the main basis for a major extension of green zones then it's a bit of a worry.

  3. #63

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    thing is Paddles, I am a professional scientist with a PhD. I have read as much stuff from both sides as I can get my hands on. I know what science is, and good science backing up the proposed green zones is severely lacking. Tripcony knows this. He claims to have read all this science backing the proposals yet when asked cannot name any of it.

    I have been following these issues for years. First the GNS zones, then the GBRMP, Jervis Bay, Bundaberg, etc etc. The pattern is exactly the same. They would have you believe that it is based on science, yet when you look deeper into the issues and the specifics of the areas, you find out the truth. In all cases, the fisherman get the rough end of the pineapple and just have to cop it sweet.

    Why not read the MBAA proposal on the zoning of Moreton Bay? It is very detailed and informative. It cites something like 160 peer reviewed scientific papers (most of them Australian? - can't remember) compared to a single paper cited by the EPA.

    Have you read:

    No Take Marine Protected Areas (nMPAs) as a fishery management
    tool, a pragmatic perspective
    A Report to the FishAmerica Foundation
    By Robert L. Shipp, Ph.D.


    THE PROS AND CONS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN NEW SOUTH WALES: WHO’S BEEN HOODWINKED?
    (Address to The Australian Society for Fish Biology, Canberra, 12/9/07)
    Bob Kearney PhD, DSc AM
    Emeritus Professor of Fisheries
    University of Canberra



    FISHING CLOSURES &
    DAMN LIES
    by Ern Grant*



    Great Barrier Reef threatened: so where is the evidence?
    Sir Walter Starck, PhD


    I know none of these papers are peer reviewed, but they are written by very senior and well respected people in their fields and highlight some of the discrepancies and lies fed to the fishers and general public.

    Let me know when you and Tripcony have read these and gotten educated and then come back and we can talk some more.

    Jeremy
    Last edited by Jeremy; 26-02-2008 at 08:28 AM.

  4. #64

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    i did read the mbaa proposal jeremy. haven't read the epa proposal though. like i said, i'd struggle to find the time to read all the papers and make an educated decision, but i do take note of peoples opinions and arguments on here (including both yours and tripcony's) and am trying to take it all in with an open mind.

    personally, i believe that stricter bag limits must be the best way to go to protect an area from overfishing, but green zones are inevitable.

  5. #65

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by PADDLES View Post
    personally, i believe that stricter bag limits must be the best way to go to protect an area from overfishing, but green zones are inevitable.
    Definitely agree with you re bag and size limits, and I also can see that the green zones are inevitable. It doesn't mean that we should just sit back and take it though. That means responding to the RIS, writing letters, going on the protest rallies, and also informing other fishoes and the public of the truth.

    It is imperative that we have a voice and make it heard. Very soon green zones will be coming to the near offshore reefs in SEQ, and I have heard that also some of the other rivers and creeks. In ten years time the MBMP will be up for review again and there will be renewed call for 'more protection' from the AMCS and other green lobby groups, and we will face losing more areas from fishing.

    Jeremy
    "The underlying spirit of angling is that the skill of the angler is pitted against the instinct and strength of the fish and the latter is entitled to an even chance for it's life."
    (Quotation from the rules of the Tuna Club Avalon, Santa Catalina, U.S.A.)

    Apathy is the enemy

  6. #66

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Only time for a quickie.
    I just LOVE all this paranoid, conspiracy theory stuff about the alleged deal between the ALP and the Greens.
    The entire Expert Advisory Panel was clearly party to this conspiracy as is the staff of the EPA and everyone who, rightly or wrongly, suggests that zoning might have value.

    One need only look at the numbers to see how ridiculous it is.
    This is a State initiative. Labour has a massive majority and has had for ages.
    They hardly needed Green preferences.
    If the Greens did not exist, it would make no difference.

    Blind Freddy can see that the proposals have aroused the ire of many thousands of anglers, pro fishermen and other Bay users.
    Far more, numerically, than the Greens represent.
    The potential loss of Labour votes is infinitely greater than the Greens could ever deliver.
    Perhaps we should be saying that the "scaremongers" promoting dissent are the ones who are politically motivated ?
    No, I don't really believe that. But one is about as logical as the other.

    IF this conspiracy were real, SOMEBODY should tell the Labour member for Pumicestone.
    Some readers here may have attended the meeting at the Toorbul Community Hall last Monday week.
    The Member has been out boating with the Save Our Passage stalwarts and reckons she will strongly put their views to the Minister.
    Most of the huge "Save Our Passage" signs are hanging off the fences of people whom you will see handing out How to Vote cards for the ALP at every election.
    Maybe the Grand Conspiracy just hasn't filtered down ?

    C'mon. This has arisen from a long scheduled ten-year review.
    No political party suddenly turned around to the EPA and said
    "OK fellas, lets antagonize hundreds of thousands of anglers to placate a handful of Greens".
    The EPA and its Expert Panel might be dead wrong.
    But part of a Machiavellian plot ............................ ?

    Those who have made such assertions here, with no evidence whatever,
    have served only to make one wonder
    "if they are THAT gullible, why should one take ANY of their claims seriously?"

  7. #67

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    you could be right, it could be a conspiracy theory, but it's very plausible don't you think tripcony?

    are you saying that there's no link between green votes and labour preferences?

    is there no chance that a link like this (if there indeed was one) would go unrewarded with green policy getting a sympathetic ear from a labour government?

    are you saying that there's no way that a government vying for re-election would want to have a green "trump card" up their sleeve as an insurance policy?

    agreed though, a political party didn't just cook this up from scratch and you are right, this has come from a scheduled 10 year review. it just so happens that this review presents an ideal opportunity for a state labour government to say thank you to the greens for all of it's support over the years.

    you only have to compare the green vote to the fishing vote to see that there is plenty more political clout to keep "a handfull" ?????? of greens happy as opposed to "many thousands" ?????? of anglers. i'm suggesting that you may have the numbers the wrong way around tripcony, or the last election certainly suggests this. whilst i do approach things with an open mind tripcony, there is considerable misinformation from both sides of this argument.

  8. #68

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I agree with Paddles on this. And in fairness, if the Libs were in there would still be green zones on the table as both parties commited to it some time ago. But the green movement is massive. And whilst labour would probably still get in without their preferences, I doubt they would want to try it. By sticking with the greens they stop the libs from doing deals with them that would see them get the majority of the preferences.

    There is mis-information on both sides. And there probably is a lot of bs being fed to green supporters from the more extreme members in the party. But the most extreme view point I have heard so far is that sections of Moreton Bay need to be locked away forever because they 'might' be overfished in the future. They clearly are not overfished now, but it has been decided to lock them away just in case?

  9. #69

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Isn't it funny how suddenly all these new members (Feb 2008, this month) are for the Green Zones. But hey! I'm paranoid.
    PS Oh let's not forget Lefty-Green
    Last edited by castlemaine; 26-02-2008 at 01:46 PM. Reason: Left out LG

  10. #70

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/cps/rde/xc...9_ENA_HTML.htm
    Queenslanders are keen anglers. Each year, more than 700,000 fish for recreation


    2006 State General Election - Election Summary
    Total Formal First Preference Vote by Party
    The Greens
    GRN
    175,798
    Last edited by Tripcony; 26-02-2008 at 01:57 PM.

  11. #71

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    we've gotta compare "apples for apples" though tripcony.

    how many of those 700000 people that fished for recreation last year felt passionate enough to vote for either of the fishing related political parties here in queensland at the last election? was it more than 175k?

  12. #72

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I think Tripcony already knows that Paddles, he seems to be dipping his toe into the lies and deception pool that he claims the Save Our Passage group are swimming in if you ask me.

  13. #73

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    if you doubt the affiliation between the Greens and the ALP just look at the attached link.

    http://qld.greens.org.au/about-us/di...election-2007/

  14. #74

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Pillans et al. Moreton Bay Reserve Studies


    • The marine reserves in Moreton Bay did not show significant increases in species richness.

    In other words, there was no difference in biodiversity. This directly contradicts the claim that more reserves are needed to preserve biodiversity.

    • An increase in evenness and mean size of nekton was found in the marine reserves compared to non-reserves.

    The actual differences were tiny. The size difference amounted to about 1mm in average length.

    • No difference in density of nekton was detected between reserves and non-reserves.

    In plain English, the survey found there were no more fish in the reserves than there were outside them, a finding clearly indicative of low fishing pressure.

    • It was concluded that the effects were subtle and larger marine reserve systems are recommended.

    It might more logically be concluded that as any benefits were hard to detect the value of the reserves in this situation is doubtful.

    • The mud crab study found fewer and smaller male crabs outside the reserves.

    The differences however were only modest and well within expected limits for sustainability. No indication of overfishing outside the reserves and no benefit from the reserves to the fishery was indicated.

    Although these studies purport to provide empirical evidence that the reserves provide conservation and fisheries benefits they fail to do so in several essential respects. They make no assessment of either fishing pressure or naturally occurring differences between the reserve and non-reserve areas but simply presume any differences deemed positive to be due to the reserves and any negative ones due to fishing. Even assuming that the differences are real and due to fishing they provide no evidence to indicate that the degree of effect is unsustainable or otherwise detrimental. They also offer no consideration of any alternatives such as leaving the whole area open but using more specifically targeted restrictions if needed.
    In short, the evidence does not support the conclusions and in fact shows little if any environmental benefit from the reserves. This is just another example of where the supposed scientific evidence for an environmental matter does not sustain what is claimed but actually indicates the opposite.

    Walter Starck

    PS from Billfisher: before tripcony complains about big words 'nekton' means all free swimming forms of life.
    Last edited by billfisher; 26-02-2008 at 08:49 PM.

  15. #75

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Sorry tripcony, I, amongst others have tried to open your mind and share the other side of this argument in a mature and healthy fashion.

    Bugger that. I love this country. I love the freedom to explore it, sample and be a part of it. I am very enviromentaly concious in every part of my life.

    It is fools like yourself who have the power to ruin this countries way of life for myself, my family and my families kids in the future.It is people like you who stop me driving my 4X4 on Fraser. Stop my kids riding horses in national parks. Stop the cleaning up of forestry areas and fire trails that could have prevented the loss of assets in canberra. Bla bla bla......Your narrow mindedness and lack of education on topics such as the one we are discussing, is the reason australians are being locked out of their own country. A little knowledge is dangerous.

    You are trying to argue against people who grew up on the bay. As did their fathers and grandfathers. They know the bay. They love the bay. Some even rely on it for an income. You will not find a group who care more or are more passionate about the bays future than those from seq on this website. We are part of fishing clubs, boating clubs, volunteer rescue groups. All of which have clean up days throughout the bay throughout the year. We talk about catch rate increases and decreases across seasons. We discuss fisheries proposals. We endorse bag and size limits. We come home from a weekend on the bay with more garbage than our own. We wish there was more fisheries patrols on the water enforcing the law.

    I could go on for hours, but won't. Don't come on here and tell me what is best for us all. In a fortnight you have not produced a shread of evidence to say how the bay will be better off under your proposal. If you believe that there is no such thing as preference deals in parliment you are a clown. If you believe that bream are on the verge of extinction and must be saved in the bight, you give good honest clowns a bad name.

    Greg may be furious, I am livid.

    Leave the future of the bay in the hands of those who actually care about it. Not those who read a paper on on a fishery elsewhere and haven't spent a week in the bay in their life.

    Jim
    Last edited by flick; 26-02-2008 at 08:11 PM. Reason: Wrote a line twice

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us