Page 1 of 15 1234567891011 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 215

Thread: Re: For Moreton Bay Users

  1. #1

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I'm climbing into my flack jacket in anticipation of some reactions BUT
    I can't see much wrong with the new Green Zone in Pumicestone Passage.

    99% of the scientific stuff I can lay my hands on says that such zones will ultimately mean more fish for recreational anglers in nearby areas.
    So what's the problem.
    Now before you go bonkers, I know nothing about the other proposed Green Zones. Just talking about Pumicestone Passage.

    Sure, the few people who currently fish in there regularly will have to go elsewhere.
    Stiff !
    It is for the greater good.

    I don't believe that the EPA or anyone else is maliciously sitting around saying "what can we do to upset those bloody anglers this week".

    The qualifications of their 'Expert Advisory Panel' sound pretty impressive to me .
    Professor Hugh Possingham, The Ecology Centre, Uni of Qld
    Professor Russell Reichelt, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
    Professor Helen Ross, School of Natural and Systems Management , Uni of Qld
    Professor Paul Greenfield, Uni of Qld
    Associate Professor Rod Connolly, School of Environmental and Applied Sciences, Griffith Uni
    Dr Russ Babcock, CISIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research
    Dr Rodrigo Bustamante ditto
    Dr Sean Pascoe ditto
    Dr Eva Abal, Healthy Waterways
    Dr Peter Isedale, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Uni of Qld
    etc etc etc etc


    AND they are supported by a host of others who may not have been on the panel but sure seem to have some worthwhile local knowledge.
    Dr Sue Pilland conducted a THREE YEAR study in Tripcony Bight and Willis Island involving 65,000 fish, crabs and such.
    She found that they are significantly BIGGER in the Green Zones and MUCH more plentiful.
    How could that NOT have a positive impact on breeding and hence overall fish numbers ?
    She was also able to demonstrate that there is a clear spillover effect from those Green Zones to nearby areas - and even further afield.

    So why are we fighting something that will ultimately improve our catches and those of our children and their children.
    Or am I wrong ?

    I have found a tiny few scientists who disagree. But you could count them on one hand compared to the hundreds who say otherwise.
    Think I'll go with the flow.
    Last edited by Tripcony; 15-02-2008 at 04:16 PM.

  2. #2

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Good attempt. Unfortunately you will find that many members on here have done their research, and know that these proposed green zones represent no long term value to recreational angling. You may get a few bites though, which is obviously what you're after with this post.

    A tiny few scientists - that's the one that I like best. You mean HIGHLY qualified scientists who actually spend time out on the water. If 99% of the 'scientific stuff' you read supports green zones, then you're looking in the wrong places.

    As for quoting Dr Sue Pilland, well I think we have all seen the extent of her capabilities.

    But well done, you might suck a few into responding in more detail.

  3. #3

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    back under your bridge before we send the 3 billy goats gruff over....

  4. #4

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Thanks for the post tripcony and welcome to the site.

    If you want good research and you are a Government body then utilize ( use ) a Government paid scientist. I know I would.

    Us anglers do want Green Zones, they are an important tool in the Protection of the Environment......but have nothing of consequence to do with recreational fishing.

    Dr Pilland's research is flawed, sorry to say. Your statement as below :-

    Dr Sue Pilland conducted a THREE YEAR study in Tripcony Bight and Willis Island involving 65,000 fish, crabs and such.
    She found that they are significantly BIGGER in the Green Zones and MUCH more plentiful.
    How could that NOT have a positive impact on breeding and hence overall fish numbers ?
    She was also able to demonstrate that there is a clear spillover effect from those Green Zones to nearby areas - and even further afield.

    She is correct, the crabs and fish are bigger IN the Green Zone and the only ' spill over effect ' was from the Mud Crabs... WHY ? because Mud Crabs go offshore to breed, therefore rendering their inclusion in any statistics null and void. The big fish in the Green Zones end up munching on the fingerlings and the result is Green Zones with limited BIG Fish ( providing the fish species breed in that particular Green Zone, which most DO NOT ) and the Govt paid scientists end up with a pat on the back for producing great stats about big fish in Green Zones.

    You work it out, you fish area 'A' for say Whiting. Over a period you catch 40 whiting of which 25 or so are undersize, 10 -15 are 23cms plus and the ocassional 40cm Whiting makes it's way into your esky. In a Green Zone over the same period of time you will catch 20 whiting, but 15 of these are horses and the others are well and truely legal. Where are all the undersize whiting ? This is what Dr Pilland has produced but not say in her research. NOT that I am saying you fish in a Green Zone, but I hope you get my drift ??? I am no scientist but I have read the qualified peoples papers on this. I am also NOT saying there is NO spill over effect, I am saying it is very limited. There are different spill over effects for different habitats. Maybe my Whiting analogy is not quite on the money, but near enough.

    Trouble being, those Zones will NEVER be shifted or removed. The Greenies will say, " look what we done with 15% of the bay, now let's see what can happen with 50% ).

    Tripcony, your post is well intentioned and as I said, Green Zones are welcomed by Rec Anglers, but the positioning, borders, implimentation, effectiveness and political motivation of the current proposals are not in the interest of recreational anglers or the fishery as they DO NOT ADDRESS the problems in Moreton Bay.

    Cheers Phill

    ps. lure thrown........ fish nibbled
    Last edited by Lucky_Phill; 15-02-2008 at 05:20 PM.
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

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





  5. #5

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by Tripcony View Post
    I'm climbing into my flack jacket in anticipation of some reactions BUT
    I can't see much wrong with the new Green Zone in Pumicestone Passage.

    99% of the scientific stuff I can lay my hands on says that such zones will ultimately mean more fish for recreational anglers in nearby areas.
    So what's the problem.
    Now before you go bonkers, I know nothing about the other proposed Green Zones. Just talking about Pumicestone Passage.

    Sure, the few people who currently fish in there regularly will have to go elsewhere.
    Stiff !
    It is for the greater good.

    I don't believe that the EPA or anyone else is maliciously sitting around saying "what can we do to upset those bloody anglers this week".

    The qualifications of their 'Expert Advisory Panel' sound pretty impressive to me .
    Professor Hugh Possingham, The Ecology Centre, Uni of Qld
    Professor Russell Reichelt, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
    Professor Helen Ross, School of Natural and Systems Management , Uni of Qld
    Professor Paul Greenfield, Uni of Qld
    Associate Professor Rod Connolly, School of Environmental and Applied Sciences, Griffith Uni
    Dr Russ Babcock, CISIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research
    Dr Rodrigo Bustamante ditto
    Dr Sean Pascoe ditto
    Dr Eva Abal, Healthy Waterways
    Dr Peter Isedale, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Uni of Qld
    etc etc etc etc


    AND they are supported by a host of others who may not have been on the panel but sure seem to have some worthwhile local knowledge.
    Dr Sue Pilland conducted a THREE YEAR study in Tripcony Bight and Willis Island involving 65,000 fish, crabs and such.
    She found that they are significantly BIGGER in the Green Zones and MUCH more plentiful.
    How could that NOT have a positive impact on breeding and hence overall fish numbers ?
    She was also able to demonstrate that there is a clear spillover effect from those Green Zones to nearby areas - and even further afield.

    So why are we fighting something that will ultimately improve our catches and those of our children and their children.
    Or am I wrong ?

    I have found a tiny few scientists who disagree. But you could count them on one hand compared to the hundreds who say otherwise.
    Think I'll go with the flow.
    Dido with Phil and welcome to the site, no need for a flack jacket, maybe a life raft I thnk all members of the site respect comments that are made often the reaction to comments such as yours are because we do care and we want to get it right. You did discuss only one area and i guess this can be part of the frustration as we are talking about "all the bay" not one little area.
    Mick

  6. #6

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    The qualifications of their 'Expert Advisory Panel' sound pretty impressive to me .
    Professor Hugh Possingham, The Ecology Centre, Uni of Qld
    Professor Russell Reichelt, Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority
    Professor Helen Ross, School of Natural and Systems Management , Uni of Qld
    Professor Paul Greenfield, Uni of Qld
    Associate Professor Rod Connolly, School of Environmental and Applied Sciences, Griffith Uni
    Dr Russ Babcock, CISIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research
    Dr Rodrigo Bustamante ditto
    Dr Sean Pascoe ditto
    Dr Eva Abal, Healthy Waterways
    Dr Peter Isedale, Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Uni of Qld
    etc etc etc etc


    I myself wonder how much in grants this panel has recieved in funding from the gov't (or will in the future).

    Contemplate this seriously for one second. If the majority of marine research showed that most of the fisheries in australia were in fact quite healthy, how many scientists out there currently would be receiving the funding they currently get in the future.

    I'll tell you how many. There would be that few marine scientists out there it wouldn't be worth studying at UNI. If we had it right then there would be no point for further reasearch.

    How many scientists do you really believe knowing this begin thier research with an objective outlook..........? bugger all!!!! No problems = no funding = more dole bludging greenies out there.

    Google Walter Starck (PHD) and see what comes up. This guy has 10YEARS of study on the GBR and over 1000 dives. He denounces nearly everything that the EPA and the marine park wankers are saying. Why would another scientist agree with him knowing that if his work (the minority you speak of) would put them all out of a job. You seem to believe that because it is scientific research it is honest scientific research.

    Also large parts of very relevant reasearch that does not align with getting EPA and Marine parks more money, gets shelved in a library somewhere and the public doesnt hear about it!!!

    This crap makes me angry!!!

    Cheers Chris
    Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.

  7. #7

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony, the 99% figure is something you have just plucked out of the air. I would say most senior Australian fisheries scientists are highly dubious of the marine park mania going on here. Look up what the likes of Dr Julian Peperell, Dr Ben Diggles, Dr Wallter Starck, Prof Bob Kearney, Richard Tizley and Prof Colin Buxton have to say. They have in fact scathing criticism. If you can't be bothered doing that have a look in the thread here titled 'scientific evidence for green zones' for starters.
    Last edited by billfisher; 16-02-2008 at 09:45 AM. Reason: spelling

  8. #8

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I asked the question of why the existing protection zone should be increased at the EPA information session at Cleveland, a couple of weeks ago. Finally after about 5 attempts to drag out a reason one of them slipped up and told me it was because the Greens wanted a section of the passage protected that stretches from the mainland to Bribie! That is your answer



    Barralundee

  9. #9

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    whoopdedoo..a bunch of people with Uni degress...absolutely awesome..just a pity they did not have the single brain cell between them that says: Perhaps we should actually do some research in the area we have to make a decision on, namely Moreton Bay.

  10. #10

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripocony,

    I recommend that you read all the posts on this subject located on this site. The significant majority of the members agree that we should be working towards ensuring sustainability of fishing in Moreton Bay and the environs, however, the majority disagree with the means by which the green lobby groups and the Bligh Government wish to achieve this.

    Simply, the Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (DPI&F) has bag limits which are supported by most fisherman and they are constantly reviewed to ensure fish stocks are maintained and are sustainable.

    The majority of us believe that the Environmental Protection Authority(EPA) has a separate charter and that is managing the breeding areas for protected species such as Dugong, Turtles etc. and more importantly monitoring and managing water quality within the Bay and the water which flows into the Bay.

    Surely, if the EPA focused more on the quality of water that flows into the Brisbane River and the Bay, the Bay would be a healthier breeding ground for all species.

    I am not qualified to comment on the panel of scientists that you have listed but they appear to me to be aligned with environmental sciences and not fisheries science. The DPI&F have their own scientists and a formal consultation process involving other agencies and stakeholders which is used to determine the sustainability of fisheries throughout Queensland and any appropriate bag limits.

    The statement attributed to Dr Sue Pilland that fish etc. in green zones are significantly bigger and more plentiful is at its best only mildly fascinating as we will never get to see them. What did she expect when the Green Zones picked the eyes out of the best fishing grounds which naturally contained structures best suited for marine life?

    Let's get the the environmentalists to refocus on the problem of the quality of the storm water, road run off and sewerage that flows into the Bay and the Passage and I am sure that we will see more marine life breeding and surviving in the area.

    Cheers

    Mayney

    PS With your 99%, did you know that 86% of statistics are made up on the spot?
    Last edited by Mayney; 15-02-2008 at 10:07 PM.

  11. #11

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Tripcony, if you are a fisherman, then read on, if, as I suspect, you are a green wolf in sheep’s clothing then FO. The problem with rolling over and accepting the EPA's green zones without a fight, is probably best described in an old episode of Yes Prime Minister, where he was discussing the use of nuclear deterrent. Jim is strongly advocating it's effectiveness and is asked what would provoke him to use it. He is presented with a relatively harmless situation, a large fire in Western controlled Berlin, East German fire brigade crosses the border, some police to assist, no he wouldn’t use the bomb, the police get a little more re-enforcement to help quell civil disturbance, still no bomb, some militias cross to help stop looting, still no bomb. The scenario, gradually increases the force of Russian and East German troops in West Berlin, and each step is only small, and the escalation of the invasion appears minimal so he won’t use the deterrent. Eventually the scenario is one of a full Russian armoured division in West Germany. A scenario that if taken as the original step would have drawn strong reaction at least. This is the method being used by the EPA and their green friends. They initially floated the idea of green zones, they deliberately released the plan after the heat of a federal election had burst, a time when the public in general had enough of politicking and would not take any notice of our cries of concern. They will implement what appear minor and relatively reasonable infringements on fishing grounds. These will change a little, then a little more until effectually we will be all floating in bucket of water trying to catch one fish. The grennies and their mates will be buzzing around “viewing nature” in areas that we aren’t even allowed to enter because they have concern for the environment which we don’t. We and our children will loose. This government has no concern for the people of Queensland only the arrogant abuse of parliamentary power to ensure that they retain their grasp on the treasury benches by what ever means and deals necessary.
    This reply is mainly for those real fisherman who care about there continued access to some fishing grounds and not for you Tripcony, if you are as I strongly suspect you are a green dupe. If this Government was intent on preserving the environment And displaying an openness and honesty expected of our political leaders then this policy would have been debated openly, with clear visible input from all parties. The EPA would be responsible for the environment and be doing something to improve water quality that would greatly enhance the sea life of Moreton Bay. The policy of fishing restrictions would be jointly investigated by the NP&WS and the DPI& Fisheries, not by the greens in disguise the EPA. I also note that Bligh has announced that the NP&WS is being disbanded and the responsibilities are to be taken up by the EPA. A department with no relevant expertise in administration and control of national parks. Soon you will only gain access to the wild if you are a card carrying, certified rabid greeny

  12. #12

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    I came across this website by accident.

    antigreen.blogspot.com

    Just Google it up and read on.

  13. #13

    Cool Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    its sad to see that tripcony actually believes the sh** that comes out of the politians mouth. this movement has got to start lobbying the opposition so to get a policy change at next election. but back to fishing and the future i was talking to a mate in fisheries and he let slip that the fisheries are pissed that they are now responcable for the enforcing of these redicilous law changes. he also told me that epa are in the processof changing bag limits and size on some fish. the only ones he let out to me were

    bream 23 to 25cm. bag limit 20
    whiting 23 to 25cm. bag limit 20
    cobia bag limit 5
    dolphin fish bag limit 5
    snapper 40cm bag limit 3
    This is straight from fisheries mouth and he expects them to be in by september so that might get a few of you guys really heated but the thing that really got my blood boiling is that he told me that once they work the bay zones out they are already looking at zones for areas further out of the point of morten island and areas including wide caloundra and caloundra 12 mile and areas of gold coast close reefs. so this is there agenda to bend us over and then ram us good and proper.

    thanks for listening hope this enlightens people out there but i think this is only the start of bigger troubles

  14. #14

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    Quote Originally Posted by supa29 View Post
    its sad to see that tripcony actually believes the sh** that comes out of the politians mouth. this movement has got to start lobbying the opposition so to get a policy change at next election. but back to fishing and the future i was talking to a mate in fisheries and he let slip that the fisheries are pissed that they are now responcable for the enforcing of these redicilous law changes. he also told me that epa are in the processof changing bag limits and size on some fish. the only ones he let out to me were

    bream 23 to 25cm. bag limit 20
    whiting 23 to 25cm. bag limit 20
    cobia bag limit 5
    dolphin fish bag limit 5
    snapper 40cm bag limit 3
    This is straight from fisheries mouth and he expects them to be in by september so that might get a few of you guys really heated but the thing that really got my blood boiling is that he told me that once they work the bay zones out they are already looking at zones for areas further out of the point of morten island and areas including wide caloundra and caloundra 12 mile and areas of gold coast close reefs. so this is there agenda to bend us over and then ram us good and proper.

    thanks for listening hope this enlightens people out there but i think this is only the start of bigger troubles
    I think you need to read this because maybe your horses mouth has false teeth http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...d.php?t=120781
    Regards

    mod5

  15. #15

    Re: For Moreton Bay Users

    thanks for the link mod5 read it but there is nothing witten there that says definately it just says that submissions end march, he told me this is what is being talk about within the fisheries. i hope it is shit but he is a rec fisher out of brisy and isnt looking forward to all the future changes. we will have to wait and see

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