Page 6 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 215

Thread: Re: For Moreton Bay Users

  1. #76

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Hey Paddles and Fafnir -
    I drew no conclusions about those numbers.
    We had been discussing these allegations about preference deals between the Greens and Labour
    and I merely thought the actual figures might be helpful.

    I fully accept that the voting choices of the 700,000 anglers cited by DPI could be influenced by many, many factors other than fishing zones.

    Flick's irrational rant is barely worth comment.
    " 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... "
    You have no idea what my thoughts might be on those subjects mate.
    Totally irrelevant anyway.
    Nor do you have any idea what my or my family's links to the Bay might a have been over the last century and more.
    As for membership of clubs, I recently attended the 40th Anniversary of the Fishing Club of which I was a foundation member.
    And I was in others well before that one.
    Whilst my recent fishing has been almost exclusively in Pumicestone Passage with very occasional forays north, for many many years I fished Moreton, Straddie, The Pin, Coochie etc etc and bought land at Point Lookout in 1962.
    My father fished the Bay from about 1920 and his brother was a pro operating out of Sandgate.
    All of which is equally irrelevant.

  2. #77

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Hey Paddles and Fafnir -
    I drew no conclusions about those numbers.
    We had been discussing these allegations about preference deals between the Greens and Labour
    and I merely thought the actual figures might be helpful.

    I fully accept that the voting choices of the 700,000 anglers cited by DPI could be influenced by many, many factors other than fishing zones.
    Just keeping you on the straight and narrow.

    I am more interested on your thoughts on the most recent points raised by billfisher, points that had already been made by Dr. Daryl McPhee in relation to Pillans study.

  3. #78

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony,

    Watched this argument stroke your ego, as an aside, enlighten me, what you think of the 2nd runway for the Airport and and its implications for Moreton Bay?
    Tangles KFC


  4. #79

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    tripcony if you drew no conclusions with the figures then why did you put them up there to back up you statement that the green vote is a minority compared to the fishing vote. i was more getting at the fact that the 2 figures you have put up there bear no relation to each other. and you would have to be blind freddy to think that a link between the greens and the labour party was only a "conspiracy theory".

    our local state member (obviously your local member too) has found herself being voted in because she basically had no opposition, or nothing worth voting for anyway, much the same as her husband (federal member) got voted in by riding the crest of a protest vote wave. neither of them needed the green vote but they're now stuck with having to pay the green "price".

    flick, you're right there's no better conservationist than someone who uses/lives/survives on the bay, but i do get to see people who don't care about the bay at all and still use it and that's when we have to have rules unfortunately. it can go back to something as simple as having a campfire to warm up my frozen toes after a surf fish up the top of bribie, i can't do that now because idiots didn't do the right thing. i did, i take my own timber, i put my fire out properly and made it safe so kids didn't get burnt, but at the end of the day not everyone did so wham, a no fires rule. looking after the bay is the same thing, unfortunately not everyone is as committed to doing the right thing as you or i so we get hit by rules.

  5. #80

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by PADDLES View Post
    our local state member (obviously your local member too) has found herself being voted in because she basically had no opposition, or nothing worth voting for anyway, much the same as her husband (federal member) got voted in by riding the crest of a protest vote wave. neither of them needed the green vote................
    I could not agree more !
    But it relates not only to Pumicestone.
    At neither the last State or Federal election did Labor need Green references to win government. Not even close to needing them.

    " ....but they're now stuck with having to pay the green "price".
    Well UNTIL any of you lot produce the teensiest weeniest bit of evidence that such a deal exists, I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

    But the poor old State Member has got herself into a bit of a bind on this.
    One would expect that she'd be out there defending the proposals or at least the process.
    But the Save our Passage liars have stirred up so much ill-informed local rage that she's not game.
    So she's pledged to "fight for our rights", intercede with the Minister etc etc.

    But she has obviously been kept out of the loop on many previous issues.
    She had no idea what was going on with the Caboolture Hospital closures.
    And she MUST have squirmed having to defend the indefensible sell-off of Little Goat Island.

  6. #81

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Question for the scientific people ?
    If Tripconys is such a successful green zone being mainly mud and weed banks, why make the width of the passage across to Bribie green when it has mainly sandbanks and deeper channels through it?
    It's not the same bottom structure as Trips.
    Wouldn't it make more sense to green zone say no mans land (that's if there has to be a trade off) as it is very similar to Tripconys ........or is it just simply easier to extend the existing green zone to grab more area from us.
    I think all the scientific research is all just some sort of smoke screen to hide the simple fact that it's easier to extend what's there.
    Next time they will simply extend again and then change the yellow to green
    Wonder if they have ever driven through the passage at night and had a little look see at what's around...I doub't it very much.

    Col

  7. #82

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    I could not agree more !
    But it relates not only to Pumicestone.
    At neither the last State or Federal election did Labor need Green references to win government. Not even close to needing them.

    " ....but they're now stuck with having to pay the green "price".
    Well UNTIL any of you lot produce the teensiest weeniest bit of evidence that such a deal exists, I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.

    But the poor old State Member has got herself into a bit of a bind on this.
    One would expect that she'd be out there defending the proposals or at least the process.
    But the Save our Passage liars have stirred up so much ill-informed local rage that she's not game.
    So she's pledged to "fight for our rights", intercede with the Minister etc etc.

    But she has obviously been kept out of the loop on many previous issues.
    She had no idea what was going on with the Caboolture Hospital closures.
    And she MUST have squirmed having to defend the indefensible sell-off of Little Goat Island.
    is this a weeny bit of evidence:
    "Across the country, we can be very pleased with an increased vote that has delivered a swag of seats - 21 on some estimates - to Labor that they most likely would not have won without our preferences. Importantly, that includes Bass, Braddon and Bennelong." which is from this :
    http://greensblog.org/2007/11/27/a-m...in-the-senate/

    or this:
    "At the 2004 election, Premier Pete polled 58.3% of the primary vote, winning easily in his own right. This time round, his primary vote was reduced to 49.8%, requiring Green preferences to get him over the line. Let him remember this as he takes his Labor government into a record 4th term." from this:
    http://mike.brisgeek.com/2006/09/11/...o-preferences/

    and don't you like the last line?

    "Deal with mutual benefits likely in NSW, Qld: “Greens supporters want a change of government but they see Kevin Rudd going to Tasmania and saying he is 100 per cent behind the Prime Minister on forests and pulp mills,” Senator Brown said. The Greens want all of Labor’s preferences in the Senate. They would then direct their preferences to the ALP in 18 marginal electorates, including seven in Queensland, which are critical to the election result. A similar deal is believed to have been struck in NSW.
    The Sydney Morning Herald, 11/9/2007, p. 6"

    Plenty more available if you take some time and look.

  8. #83

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    MPAs – A Problem Not a Solution
    Walter Starck, PhD.

    Australia has the largest per capita marine area in the world and vast areas of coastal waters un-impacted by human activity. We have far more and larger Marine Protected Areas than any other nation with about 1/3 of the global total. We also have the world’s lowest fishery harvest rate and 70% of the seafood we consume is imported. All comes from areas far more heavily fished than our own. These imports currently add some $1.8 billion annually to a foreign debt that is growing twice as fast as the economy and the cost is rapidly increasing. Continuing to add to an ever growing morass of restrictions on our own fishing is unneeded, unethical and unaffordable.


    Ongoing expansion of MPAs have become a problem, not a solution. Their environmental benefit is dubious and unevaluated under our lightly impacted conditions. We also know from wide scale experience with the Great Barrier Reef Green Zones that they have seriously degraded the marine experience available to the public and the socio-economic impact has been a hundred times higher than originally estimated by GBRMPA. Their advice with respect to Moreton Bay should be regarded with great caution.

    Under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to which we are signatory, Australia is required to protect and encourage customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices that are compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements. It is important to be aware that “customary” and “traditional” in this context is not limited to indigenous people. The obligation to protect and encourage the customary practice of non-indigenous Australians is in no way different from that of indigenous Australians. It is further important to recognize that recreational fishing and boating is a very low impact activity. It is not incompatible with the purposes of conservation and sustainable use.

    In addition government’s own guidelines also require that procedural steps for good regulation should include:

    · Definition of the problem and objectives in addressing it.


    · Determination of practical alternative solutions.


    · Evaluation of probable risks, costs and benefits of different solutions (including nonaction).


    · Monitoring of actual outcomes.


    · Adjustment of measures in accord with results.



    All points of these guidelines have been slighted or ignored in establishment of MPAs. The fundamental purpose of management is the determination and assessment of options with the aim of maximizing total value. Simply claiming to be saving the environment while imposing more and more restrictions with no regard to the broader consequences is a travesty of the very concept of management. Our economy and quality of life are being increasingly burdened by a proliferation of poorly conceived regulations which provide little or no actual benefit. Environmental regulation in particular has come to be dominated by a narrow illinformed environmentalist ideology and political pandering for green votes. We are paying for this incompetence with our health, happiness and pocketbooks. Australia deserves better and voters must begin to demand it.


    Last edited by billfisher; 28-02-2008 at 09:19 PM.

  9. #84

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Great post billfisher, but I fear that you may have scared Tripcony off for good with that one.

  10. #85

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Fafnir View Post
    Great post billfisher, but I fear that you may have scared Tripcony off for good with that one.
    Thanks Fafnir. So far he has been ignoring me and popping up on a different tangent. Other members have dealt with those rather well I might add!

  11. #86

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Nahhh - not "scared off". Just that Billfisher's posts are meatier and warrant a bit more research for this geriatric non-academic.
    Most of the others are like SHOOTING fish in a barrel.

    And of course I am spending some time on my submission ..............

    Now I'm still trying to balance the credibility of this Floridian Starck guy against the EPA's Expert Advisory Panel - four professors from several unis, a bunch of bods from the CSIRO, all those PhDs within the EPA and so on .......
    Someone made a point earlier that their opinions were suspect because of grants they received
    but I note that Dr Starck has received funding from many sources as well.
    One site mentions that he
    " ...began catching fish in salable quantities off the family dock at age five"
    and it appears that he has earned a pretty good living saying those things which industry and commercial exploiters want to hear.

    Whilst it seems he's been in Aus since 1979, I note that he began scuba diving and underwater photography in 1954 and wonder just how OLD he is ??


    " His research interest has centered on coral reef biology... " and my particular interest (as I said from the outset) is Pumicestone Passage wherein there is precious little coral reef.


    One blogger said of him
    "
    I suspect he is yet another acolyte of Ayn Rand for whom profit and domination become a quasi-religious quest.
    He should feel right at home here amongst the rednecks. Give his name and address to the Institute for Public Affairs. I'm sure they'd sponsor him for more fuel for their neo-con fires."
    AND ANOTHER

    " And for Dr Starck: surely creative name calling such as 'doomscryer', and calling another researchers analyses as 'prophesies' and further references to 'sheeps entrails' etc is beneath someone with a doctorate when they are commenting on another's research?"

    That Expert Panel is looking better and better ...........



  12. #87

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Really Tripcony is that the best you can come up with - a character assasination? So what he sold a few fish when he was 5 or is a bit old. You have ignored all his pertinent comments of the subject in question. Eg can you deny that we have the lightest fished waters in the world?

    His knowledge and experience extends far beyond coral reefs. And it was you who brought up the example of the GBRMP as a successful model!

  13. #88

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony,

    This is a free world and you can believe who and whatever you want. If you think the EPA are the ducks nuts, off you go skipping into the sunset and enjoy your life with their rules & regulations of what/when/where you can go in the Passage. It might not matter with the amount of nutrients running into that area from the chicken farms up that way from run-off they have, or is it still the chemical cocktail from the fire a few years ago which the EPA keep extending the deadline for the final cleanup.

    As for the rest of us, well we will believe that this is a based upon only one flawed non reviewed paper, but done with a preference deal. Even Jacinta Wheeler, Greens spokesperson at the last State election let these closures out of the bag - way before they were even considered or indeed tabled for investigation by Labor.

    So mate, thanks for the debate and to see your views. It is healthy for us to see these views; all helps us understand the other side of the fence as well as gives us the information needed to continue the pressure for our side of the argument.

    Chris
    Cheers,
    Chris

  14. #89

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony,
    It is one thing to denigrate someone's credibility (as you have just done), but nowhere have you tried to rationally debate/defend the rezoning proposals against the logical criticisms posted here by several different people, let alone highly accredited and recognised people in their fields such as Sir Walter Starck, Bob Kearney, Ern Grant. Why? You would rather duck and weave and dodge the hard questions, and throw a few red herrings around to distract people from the fact that your defence of the green zoning has no credibility.

    You continue to ignore my repeated requests to produce the scientific evidence you claimed to have read in your first post. Why is this? Is it non existant? Are you unable to back up your claims? ARE YOU A FRAUD?

    Lets see some substance, lightweight...

    Jeremy
    Last edited by Jeremy; 29-02-2008 at 10:38 AM.

  15. #90

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony, how many fisheries biologists are on your esteemed panel. In all your 'research' haven't you found out that many have been scathingly critical of our marine parks?

    Mr. Richard Tilzey ... "Marine Park a Mess" ... Narooma News 10th October 2007. "Letters to Editor"

    Dr Fleming's article in last week's Narooma Times is another example of NSW government bureaucratic spin-doctoring. As a correspondent who earlier commented on the lack of scientific rationale with the site selection and creation of the Batemans Marine Park (BMP), Professor Kearney's scathing and informed criticism of the NSW government's marine park program came as no surprise to me. Let's cut to the core of the debate and not nibble around the edges of scientific rationale. From the start of the NSW marine park process, politics have driven the agenda and common sense has been left behind. Earlier deals between Carr's Labour Government and the Green Party for preference votes have created a marine park juggernaut that rolls on regardless of mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness, inequality and adverse socio-economic impacts. The current government, if you can call it that, chooses to ignore these issues.

    Professor Kearney highlighted the fact that fishing activity was unfairly targeted as the major threat to marine habitat and other, more detrimental, environmental threats were ignored during the site selection process. This illogic still persists. Fishers are the "evil ones" despite no corroborating evidence, other than bottom trawling is a habitat damaging and non-selective fishing method. A well researched fact. The only merit with the BMP is that it has banned trawling within its boundaries. It should also be noted that the initial zoning for the BMP permitted trawling over much of its area, illustrating the lack of logic in the park's conception and planning. From a fish conservation viewpoint, the other no-fishing "sanctuary zones" are a joke. They represent a 20% spatial grab-bag to placate the "Greens" and will do little, if anything, to conserve fish stocks.

    This political agenda has disadvantaged local residents, be they fishers or traders, and will continue to do so unless the lack of common sense in the BMP zoning is driven home to the bureaucrats and politicians responsible for creating the mess. If we don't do this, worse may come. For example, there is an ongoing push by the NSW Nature Conservation Council to ban baited line fishing within a one kilometre zone around Montague Island because of the so-called endangered status of the eastern grey nurse shark population. As a fisheries scientist, it behoves me to say that the current (low) population estimate of grey nurse off eastern Australia is based on a very dodgy study full of assumptions. There is no hard evidence that such a closure would improve the grey nurse shark population. Recreational fishing is an important component of the south coast tourism industry and these no-take zones are having, and will continue to have, an adverse impact on tourism revenue. They also severely disadvantage local fishers adjacent to them.

    As a final point to illustrate the absence of scientific logic, the political wheeling and dealings behind the BMP zonings and the horse-trading and collusion between the government departments responsible for this morass; How come Narooma fishers have lost about 20% of Wagonga to no-take zones whereas Tuross Lakes remain untouched? This is purely because the latter is a NSW DPI designated "Recreational Fishing Haven". Minister McDonald must have stuck it up Debus on that particular night. Ministers Koperburg and McDonald, please try and sort this mess out.

    Richard Tilzey

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