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