Page 7 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 215

Thread: Re: For Moreton Bay Users

  1. #91

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Dr Robert Kearney, Emeritus Professor of Fisheries at the University of Canberra, recently wrote to the NSW Premier about the marine park following a series of exchanges between the Minister and members of the far South Coast community. Dr Kearney wrote:

    On October, 2007, I wrote, to you concerning the deception of the people of New South Wales by the process used by your Government to justify the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park. The reply I received on your behalf did not address the fundamental issues raised in my letter. It merely stated that my approach would be brought to the attention of the appropriate Ministers. It did, however, assure me that my comments would receive close attention.

    To date I have received no response from any of the Ministers referred to in Mr Cameron's letter (who wrote on behalf of the Premier?) and so have no direct indication of what attention they may have given to my comments.

    In the light of a copy of a letter of 18/12/07 to Mr Jack Tate from Minister Firth forwarded to me by Mr Tait, I am writing to enquire as to the exact nature of the "close attention" given to my comments.

    In her letter to Mr Tait, Minister Firth refers to me and to my paper, a copy of which was attached to my letter to you of October 3. The Minister makes the totally unsubstantiated statement that there are many scientists who disagree with my views as expressed in that paper. She goes on to imply that I am opposed to the wise use of marine protected areas. These assertions are, unfortunately, in keeping with the consistently deceptive conduct by officers of your administration that has characterised the declaration of the Batemans Marine Park.

    For a Minister to make an authoritative statement that many scientists disagree with my views she should have received testimonies from many suitably qualified and experienced scientists. I would have thought that I, or at least the recipient of the Minister's statement, in this case Mr Tait, would have been advised of the exact sources and given details of these testimonies before a Minister of your Government used the authority of her position to assert to third parties that I was in error.

    In accordance with established scientific practice my paper was peer reviewed before presentation. It was also given and discussed, as an invited key contribution, to approximately 70 scientists at the Australian Society of Fish Biology's conference on area management for aquatic resources. The overwhelming response to my paper at that conference and since, by appropriately qualified scientists, has confirmed the validity of my assessments. These scientists include many of Australia's most relevant and appropriately qualified people, including numerous of the most appropriate in your Government, the senior fisheries scientists such as the Chief Scientist, in the New South Wales Department of Primary Industries.

    A second particularly disturbing aspect of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait is that her assertion that there are many who disagree with my views is followed by deliberately misleading use of the statement, "world-wide scientific support for marine protected areas". The unambiguous inference is that I am again wrong and acting contrary to worldwide consensus in that my paper is opposed to the use of marine protected areas. This inference grossly misrepresents the truth.

    My paper frequently acknowledges the benefits that may come from well designed and managed marine protected areas. It even gives examples where well designed area management of aquatic systems may work in New South Wales. What my paper does uncover is orchestrated bias and abuse of the accepted principles of science, and of the use of science for management, in the Marine Parks Authority's Science Paper and other documents used to justify the creation of the Batemans Marine Park. As such, it provides a darning assessment of the administration of one of your Government's agencies.

    My paper demonstrates that the Batemans Marine Park is so badly conceived and designed that it will not bring the possible benefits on which international support for marine protection is based. Put simply, the Batemans Marine Park is not a marine protected area. It fails to provide the protection of biodiversity, and individual species, conservationists and fisheries managers expect in a marine protected area. No significant protection is given against even the key threats identified by the Marine Parks Authority. Even its sanctuary zones are nothing more than fisheries allocation mechanisms, and extremely poorly designed ones at that. No amount of wishful reference by the Minister, or the Marine Parks Authority, to the benefits that might have flowed had the Park been well designed, will change the fact that it is not.

    The remainder of Minister Firth's letter to Mr Tait repeats the misinformation on the management of marine ecosystems contained in much of the Marine Parks Authority's documentation The Minister repeatedly misrepresents the intentions and possible benefits of well designed marine protection in an apparent attempt to cover-up the gross deficiencies with the justification for, and design of, the Batemans Marine Park. In reality this park does not comply with even the Marine Parks Authority's own design requirements, let alone with those that would be necessary to efficiently achieve desired objectives. I would be pleased to provide details at your request.

    In my letter to you of October 3, I stated that the people of New South Wales had been deceived and called for this deception to be corrected immediately. Minister Firth's more recent letter to Mr Tait confirms that the people of New South Wales continue to be deliberately misled. It also shows that this has now gone to the extent of Ministers using misinformation in an attempt to discredit those who point out errors or mal-practice in relation to marine parks in New South Wales. I trust your Government does not condone such actions.

    I stand by my request to you of October 3, that because of the abuse of science and of the science management process by the Marine Parks Authority, the zoning plan for the Batemans Marine Park should be immediately annulled and an independent inquiry into all present and proposed marine parks in New South Wales initiated a soon as possible.

  2. #92

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by billfisher View Post
    Tripcony, how many fisheries biologists are on your esteemed panel.
    Is Starck a "fisheries biologist" ?

  3. #93

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    Is Starck a "fisheries biologist" ?
    well trippers..how many on the so called expert advisory panel are marine biologists...the Chair is a chemical engineer...with some searching you can find out about all the others...AND..where is the research results in both qualitative and quantative form of the research this group has conducted in Moreton Bay.

    I will save your time on that one...NONE...they have not done any..all they ave done is follow somew stupid UN notion and think it applies world wide...where they think they have to save everything..total BS.

    To put it bluntly Tippers..you are nothing short of being inept at listening to fact and doing some basic research of your own. It is people like you that are assisting these stupid grren movements in attempting to ruin people'e lifestyles...so how about you, and people like you go back to watching yout TV and let the rest of us live the lifestyle we want to live without inteference from doddering old fools and others with like thoughts as the EPA and the not so expert panel.

    It was a waste of money even having this panel..all they had to was say..This is the green zones we are having because we owe the greens and the socialist left faction of the ALP.
    Last edited by Lucky_Phill; 04-03-2008 at 07:51 PM.

  4. #94

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Typical cock-up. See below.
    Last edited by Tripcony; 01-03-2008 at 04:24 AM.

  5. #95

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by billfisher View Post
    Tripcony, how many fisheries biologists are on your esteemed panel.
    ......................................

    Billfisher and Pinhead seem to be suggesting that, despite their impressive academic standing,
    because some of the Expert Advisory Panel may not be "fisheries biologists",
    their collective opinion has no value.

    But it is somehow OK if the oft-quoted infallible authority Starck
    may not be one either ?
    Last edited by Tripcony; 01-03-2008 at 04:39 AM.

  6. #96

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    read appendix 8 of the draft zoning plan tripper...that should tell you enough about the research carried out prior to releasing the plan...NONE. All based on so called worlds best practises and UN conventions.

    It is obvious that you have come on here in support of green zones without even reading the draft plan..until you do, you are just making yourself look more stupid.
    Last edited by Lucky_Phill; 04-03-2008 at 07:53 PM.

  7. #97

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    ......................................

    Billfisher and Pinhead seem to be suggesting that, despite their impressive academic standing,
    because some of the Expert Advisory Panel may not be "fisheries biologists",
    their collective opinion has no value.

    But it is somehow OK if the oft-quoted infallible authority Starck
    may not be one either ?
    What do you mean 'somehow' tricony. Walter Starck offered reasoned and qualified arguments - which you haven't even tried to counter. Also recall it was you who made a big deal about the scientific credentials of the panel in you first post!

    PS, what about Richard Tizley and Prof. Bob Kearney's arguments?

  8. #98

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony,

    Any comments on my previous posts?

    Daryl

  9. #99

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    has anyone got a map of the proposed green zones in the pumicestone passage? If you could pm me it or post it up that'd be awesome

  10. #100

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    ......................................

    Billfisher and Pinhead seem to be suggesting that, despite their impressive academic standing,
    because some of the Expert Advisory Panel may not be "fisheries biologists",
    their collective opinion has no value.

    But it is somehow OK if the oft-quoted infallible authority Starck
    may not be one either ?
    Here's just some of his biography:

    Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs. He grew up in the Florida Keys and received a PhD in marine science from the University of Miami in 1964. He has over 40 years worldwide experience in reef studies and his work has encompassed the discovery of much of the basic nature of reef biology. In this process over 100 species of fishes, which were new to science, were found as well as numerous, corals, shells, crustaceans and other new discoveries.

    In 1958, while still an undergraduate student Dr. Starck began what was to become a 10-year investigation of the fish fauna of Alligator reef in the Florida Keys. As this was one of the first extensive uses of scuba diving for marine biological research it resulted in many new discoveries regarding reef biology. Over 20,000 scientific specimens were collected. This work recorded what is still the greatest number of fishes known from any single locale in the New World. The total was five hundred seventeen species, sixty of these had never before been found in U.S. waters and 19 were previously unknown to science.
    In the early 1960’s he began the first extensive exploration of coral reefs at night. His photo story on this work in the January 1964 issue of National Geographic Magazine sparked the beginning of recreational night diving on reefs. In conjunction with this work he was among the first to adapt and use SLR cameras and electronic flash underwater. This in turn enabled the first underwater macro photography.

    Dr. Starck has participated in numerous other marine biological expeditions around the world including the Bahamas, the Caribbean, the Mediterranean, the Indian Ocean and the Eastern and Western tropical Pacific. Since 1978 his home has been in the far north of Queensland in Australia. From here he carried out ten years of work on the Great Barrier Reef.

    In addition to his extensive coral reef investigations Dr. Starck has also conducted long term studies on the biology of the lemon shark and on the worldwide distribution of the billfishes (i.e. the marlin, sailfish and spearfish family). His research has been carried out under grants and contracts from the National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding.

  11. #101

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    National Science Foundation, the Office of Naval Research, the National Geographic Society, the Engelhard Foundation, the Marine Research Foundation and his own personal funding
    Surely he could have found some easier grant money than that. He just needs to start telling a few lies and painting a bleak picture.

  12. #102

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by billfisher View Post
    Walter Starck is one of the pioneers in the scientific investigation of coral reefs.
    .....
    In addition to his extensive coral reef investigations Dr. Starck has also conducted long term studies on the biology of the lemon shark and on the worldwide distribution of the billfishes.....
    Should be of enormous relevance to Pumicestone Passage.

  13. #103

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    He wrote a piece on Moreton Bay and the Pillard paper, remember tripcony? You have have studiously ignored it and prefered to make schoolyard remarks.
    Last edited by billfisher; 02-03-2008 at 09:44 AM.

  14. #104

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony, i have avoided this thread for a few days as it was obvious that there was no more substance to your argument.

    You have not addressed Daryl, produced no MB evidence that supports your closures. Cannot say which species are under threat. And cannot tell us how any species will be better off from these closures.

    The saddest part is, you have tried harder than the epa and the minister to prove relevence to us and failed.

    Stop taking childish pot shots and address issues. There are hundreds of people listening to your argument and currently it is laughable. ADDRESS ISSUES.

    What is under threat.......

    What will be saved....

    Where is the MB evidence supporting your findings.........

    Address Daryl......

    Jim

  15. #105

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Guys,

    just forget this Tripper .... he is obviously misguided and a bit out of his depth.

    Stop wasting your time on him and focus your energies on the right people.

    Mick.

    Seeya Tripper
    Check out my boat for sale in the classifieds

    • 469 Stacer open Seahorse/Nomad
    • 50hp 4 stroke tiller Mercury
    • Heaps of extras, in top condition
      [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

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