Page 8 of 15 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 215

Thread: Re: For Moreton Bay Users

  1. #106

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by flick View Post
    ...... it was obvious that there was no more substance to your argument.
    You have ..... produced no MB evidence that supports your closures.
    But, but, but ................
    we are clearly on common ground.

    From the large (expensive ) advert in the Sunday Mail on March 2nd.

    " The Environmental Protection Association wants to close 10% of Moreton Bay Marine Park to all fishing.
    Well, we support that goal. "

    I note that the advert was endorsed by MBAA, QSIA, AFTA, R.B.C. etc etc etc.
    all of whom seem to have had a sudden conversion on the road to Damascus.
    We are no longer even trying to argue about the effectiveness of Green Zones. Indeed we "support that goal ".
    We are only grumping about their LOCATION.

    It is hard to avoid the conclusion that there are not vested financial interests at play here.

  2. #107

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    The MBAA are supporting the closure of 10% of the environmental habitat types. There are heaps of sites in Moreton with the same habitat type, not just the ones where the fish are found for anglers.

    The MBAA reps, of which Daryl McPhee is one scientist who actually studied the area concerned, can commnet further on their statement. However if green zones are coming due to the majority rule the Labor government has and this is their grand plan (of which there has to be a review of the plan every 10 years) the why not use the MBAA science to show "you can shut this bit down, but leave that one alone" so they get their 10% and we get the fishing grounds still?

    The MBAA plan is one of common sense and reality showing that regardless of who you are and how hard you argue that the Bay is actually sustainable in its current form via reports, science, stats or whatever, then let them have their 'win' but keep the interests of the majority still open to enjoy. This isn't a sudden road to Damascus, it has been their on this jounrney the whole time.
    Cheers,
    Chris

  3. #108

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    " The Environmental Protection Association wants to close 10% of Moreton Bay Marine Park to all fishing.
    Well, we support that goal. "
    This has been the MBAA's line consistently throughout this process as Chris just pointed out. But is it because they believe that green zones are necessary? Or is it that they are resigned to the fact that the government are going to put green zones in Moreton Bay regardless of scientific evidence proving they are not required, and are just trying to minimise their impact on the various fishing industries and associated businesses?

    I personally think it's the later.

    My feeling is that most people will cop the MBAA's proposal, but anything more than that and the only option will be through legal channels.

  4. #109

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    It seems to me that every man and his dog has been telling me since the minute I arrived that you have an absolute WEALTH of scientific data
    to clearly demonstrate that the Green Zones have no value - anywhere.

    Instead of having the gonads to make that claim in the super-dooper advert
    where it could be "peer reviewed"
    YOU SUPPORT 10% CLOSURE ????

    Not neutral, not resigned to it, mind you - but actively SUPPORT it.

    You know what ?
    I really, truly was wavering.

    But if at this late stage, in the PUBLIC arena, you can't stand up and say
    "the Green Zones won't work because .......... "
    Well, I just reckon you can't be too sure of your ground.

    "The probablility that we might fail ought not deter us from the defence of a cause we believe to be just" Abe Lincoln

  5. #110

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I am not a part of the MBAA, just stating their position.

    As for me, well in the Public Arena I have been standing up and saying NO we don't need these green zones. I have said they don't work until I am blue in the face to media, I have released statements, most being factual, a lot highlighting the pitfalls of the Government plans, even some about the 2nd runway project taking away 150million tonnes of the Moreton Seabed to fill in a nursery creek, I have provided nominated research points and more, yet not one was published by the mainstream news. I have set up a web site, set up an association to fight this, I have written letters to Parliament that people can use as their own and more.

    I have even held two public lawful protests (one was Brisbane's first ever legal on water protest) which got us mainstream news on Ch 7 (thanks David) and highlighted this is simply not needed. Even after a 3-4 minute piece on Sunday night news I am still to see any increase in activity from fisherman to assist. Why, well when it comes to protesting or speaking out publicly it seems they would prefer to head out in the boat.

    Tripcony, mate you can do, say or believe anything you want to and if you want the top end of the passage shut down, get out there and promote that. Put your name up there for all to see who you are and promote the hell out of it.

    I am happy to put my name in this forum, on other websites, on news article, on TV, on Police and Government documents and more because I am not afraid to say to this Government and their 'expert' panel, the AMCS and any other group or person thinking we need to be shutting down a lifestyle and a major part of this economy are WRONG and WE DON'T NEED MORE GREEN ZONES.
    Cheers,
    Chris

  6. #111

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    It seems to me that every man and his dog has been telling me since the minute I arrived that you have an absolute WEALTH of scientific data
    to clearly demonstrate that the Green Zones have no value - anywhere.

    Instead of having the gonads to make that claim in the super-dooper advert
    where it could be "peer reviewed"
    YOU SUPPORT 10% CLOSURE ????

    Not neutral, not resigned to it, mind you - but actively SUPPORT it.

    You know what ?
    I really, truly was wavering.

    But if at this late stage, in the PUBLIC arena, you can't stand up and say
    "the Green Zones won't work because .......... "
    Well, I just reckon you can't be too sure of your ground.

    "The probablility that we might fail ought not deter us from the defence of a cause we believe to be just" Abe Lincoln
    Trip, it's hundreds of years ago, way off on the horizon there is a massive and strange pale of dust rising, the people of your peaceful village all see it, soon the advance scouts arrive and offer the ultimatum of how it is going to be, either surrender without a fight and allow the marauders to pillage and rape the women and children how ever they choose and many town folk will live to exist under the new rageim or resist and be wiped out but still at the marauders mercy an even crueler and agonizing death for almost all.

    Human nature when forced to face others, who's only standing is power, when given no good or honest option will take the one that will give them the best chance of surviving the troops.

    The recfishing groups did the same thing on the great barrier reef RAP and they got well and truly shafted for it.

    cheers fnq
    Last edited by FNQCairns; 03-03-2008 at 04:13 PM.



  7. #112

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Trippers...leave the "we" out..I have stated many times on here I am against green zones from any organisation...there is not one piece of evidence from any research carried out in Moreton Bay that states that they are required..not one. I have said again and again ..until proper qualitative nad quantative results are shown concering these areas then there is no need for any from of closures...just stricter enforcement of size and bag limits. But..we all know these green zones are a foregone conclusion..even more so once Capt. Bligh became Premier as she is from the Left faction and that faction has a little group in it called the Green Left..she will be dancing to their tunes as wel las the greens.
    If it is beyoine your ability to read and comprehend what is happening then perhaps you should do some more research...BUT...if it is your desire to push for green zones n your neck of the woods why not nick off and do it somewhere else..you will not change my mind whatsoever.

  8. #113

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    The Science Paper’s introduction to the “Threats to marine environments” states, “This document highlights some of the key threats to some marine species and their habitats and examines key benefits of marine protected areas in addressing these threats.” Five key activities, presumably these threats, are then listed: “coastal development, pollution, agriculture, recreational and commercial fishing, and introduced marine pests”. It is noteworthy that fishing is fourth on a list of five key threats. Then, dealing specifically with New South Wales, the Science Paper states, “approximately 60% of coastal wetlands lost or degraded over the last 200 years” and “Increased nutrient levels and turbidity from urban and industrial discharges and catchment usage are the key causes of increased turbidity and nutrient levels that often result in a decline of seagrass habitats and diversity of species in soft-sediment areas”. Here I am not trying to draw attention to the repetition, but rather to note that this pivotal listing of key and direct threats to coastal environments, which are reported to have resulted in serious damage to 60% of wetlands, does not include fishing. The Science Paper does, however, subsequently state that, “The overall pressures include some fishing activities”. The only specific fishing activity mentioned in the Science Paper is demersal trawling, which is, in this region, an offshore activity. Not a single estuarine or beach fishing activity is identified as being responsible for the identified declines, or even as being a threat.

    The actual title of this Science Paper is, “A review of benefits of Marine Protected Areas and related zoning considerations” (Marine Parks Authority New South Wales undated). Here the issue of balance, or lack thereof, begins to emerge; one may well question the objectivity in having “the Science Paper” on MPAs consider only the benefits.
    The Science Paper is attributed as, “Prepared on behalf of the Marine Parks Authority Scientific Committee”: an attribution which projects the full authorization of the Authority and the scientists therein.


    Another piece:-

    saltatrix is the same species as, or an extremely close relative of, our tailor (FishBase 04/2007). Curiously, as it is based on the same data as the 1991 paper, the 1993 Bennett and Attwood paper adds a third species, Umbrina canariensis, to this group and states, “The catch rates of the same three species…did not increase following the proclamation of the marine reserve, because they are migratory”. Why was this key information not mentioned in the ‘Science Paper’ presented as a basis for a marine park in the Batemans region, where migratory species dominate? The primary target species on ocean beaches in the Batemans Marine Park, Australian salmon, bream, flathead, mullet, mulloway, tailor and whiting are migratory, even if not all equally so. Incidentally, these same migratory species are dominant in the estuaries of the Batemans region.

    The relative size of the protected area in the De Hoop Nature Reserve is also noteworthy. Bennett and Attwood (1991) state, ‘The protected area of coastline is 46 km long’. Even a reserve of this size, more than six times longer than any of the beach sanctuary zones in the Batemans Marine Park, had no detectable impact on migratory species that are the same or similar as those that dominate in the Batemans region.
    Therefore, the logical conclusion, relevant to the Batemans Marine Park, from these two cited papers, is that the closure of ocean beaches as included in the Batemans Marine Park will have absolutely no demonstrable benefit, even for the CPUE,

    The above is just snippets from

    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

    I have the complete publication and have no trouble passing it onto whoever is interested in reading it. Obviously the EPA, AMCS, ACC, GREENS and Labour Government will be missing from the “ want to read “ list…….



    Phill
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  9. #114

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    · In well managed fisheries, there is little empirical evidence for fishery benefits as a result of spillover effects from MPAs. In terms of fishery benefits, MPAs are considered to be most effective for site attached reef fish in regions with little or no fisheries management. In contrast MoretonBay is a fishery for mostly migratory or wide-ranging species. It is managed through an adaptive management framework with a suite of controls that make it, by any standards, a well managed fishery.


     In the only study that has examined performance of the current no-take areas in Moreton Bay, a spillover effect (and a benefit to fisheries) was concluded to have occurred, but was not empirically demonstrated by the research.


     Conversely, studies have shown that the impact of fishing on areas adjacent to MPAs as a consequence of shifted effort can be detrimental to the fishery and the conservation of biodiversity as a whole.



    While an area of only 10% of MoretonBay in no-take area does not sound significant to a layperson, depending on where the areas are, the impacts on fisheries may be extremely significant and could result in significant geographical inequities in access.



    This from:-

    D.P. McPhee, M. Mills, T.J.A. Hundloe, C.D. Buxton, I. Knuckey & K.A. Williams

    On behalf of the MBAA


    Phill
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  10. #115

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    And on the other hand the AMCS on their website boldly claim that

    " They also said that presently less than 1% of the world’s oceans are protected in marine protected areas and this is the same in Moreton Bay Marine Park. "

    Well, this from the EPA:-

    "Moreton Bay Marine Park was declared in 1993 and extended in 1997 to cover most of Moreton Bay’s tidal lands and tidal waters seawards to the limit of Queensland waters. It covers about 3400 square kilometres. The boundary is generally three nautical miles off the east coast of Bribie, Moreton, North Stradbroke and South Stradbroke Islands. "

    Now does that sound like 1%.

    Nothing shits me like blantant lies proported by radical greenies intent on placing their names on the worlds environmental and political stage. The AMCS site needs to investigated by whatever authority there is available to shut it down or at least make it accountable for it's information ( lies ).

    Phill
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  11. #116

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    and here is the current protection zones for the Moreton Bay Marine Park.

    http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/media/park...arine_park.pdf
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  12. #117

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    and another thing................ I'm tired....

    BTW, tripper, the ad in the sunday mail cost just under 15 grand.

    I want to know how much money the EPA are spending on the proposals in direct contrast to the amount of compensation they have set aside for people that will be affected ?

    Phill
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  13. #118

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Don't forget Phill that the UN sanctioned agenda which Australia and QLD signed up to is asking for up to 30% zoning in national waters to be declared Marine Parks.........read that again, 30% of national waters and Marine Parks.

    Well we already have a Marine Park.

    Australia's NATIONAL waters are already supporting 30% of the WORLDS NO TAKE FISHING ZONES.

    Get that, Australia already has 30% of the WORLDS no take zones, yet these power hungry seaweed huggers want more and more and won't stop until they get it.

    But if you lot can't be bothered to know all that, or if the rest of you can't be bothered to address this and take a "she'll be right" by the end of this year, we will account for 50% of it with Moreton Bay and the Sth Aussie closures as well as the those in the NT and WA.

    Don"t worry, won't happen here. Won't happen to me. She'll be right.

    Bullsh!t.
    Last edited by Chris Ryan; 03-03-2008 at 06:59 PM.
    Cheers,
    Chris

  14. #119

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Trippo.

    Do not confuse the MBAA proposals with the general anti zoning issues being raised by rec fishos

    Most of us are smart enough to understand the factors that are of concern to the sustainability of Moreton Bay's various fisheries. Recreational fishing has been shown to have a negligible impact on either total biomass or diversity of species and it is not a significant factor in terms of environmental degredation.

    I do not support green zones as they are proposed. If any areas are in need of high levels of protection then they should be classified as no go zones and therefore exclude all potential for human impact from factors such as mechanical damage, human intervention and local pollution

    I do however support some of the EPA's restrictions on trawling as I believe that it does have a significant impact on the long term sustainability of our fishery due to environmental degredation of substrate and bycatch. Don't removeit completely just close enough areas so that in the future we can guage its impact.

    The major concerns facing Moreton Bay at the moment are all fully endorsed by the lying two faced scum who are masquerading as our environmental knights in shining armour. Until they clean up there own backyard they should leave rec fishos alone

    Neil
    Last edited by Horse; 03-03-2008 at 07:28 PM.
    A Proud Member of
    "The Rebel Alliance"

  15. #120

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I think you are either out of your depth and haven't got the balls to admit it, or you are just a fraud plant from the EPA – Jeremy

    Im sorry that the Burdens of Proof paper used too many big words for you Tripcony – Billfisher

    I guess those old timers are the ones that sit there during daylight hours and as soon as the sun looks like going down they head off home..I love that because by about 7pm in winter I am usually alone in the Passage...and that is when the fish start..winter before last..30 bream before midnight on one occassion..40 before 2am on 2 occassions...there are plenty of them there...maybe the old timers prefer the lounge chair once it gets a little cool and then sit and whine that there are no fish – Pinhead

    Tripcony, your point of view is narrow and uninformed – Flick

    How can I put it simply that even a pre schooler can understand – Pinhead

    you dumb buggers have been sucked in Tripcony – Pinhead

    It is fools like yourself who have the power to ruin this countries way of life – Flick

    To put it bluntly Tippers..you are nothing short of being a stupid old man...totally 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 – Pinhead

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

    G'day all,
    I have watched this thread with interest. I am amazed at the personal attacks levelled at tripcony (see above). This bloke has come on here to discuss his views and he has been abused (and remained calm to his credit). Its obviously a very emotive issue but I dont think personal attacks and name calling will do any of us any good?
    Matt C

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