The Green's policy towards fishing

[Atriplex]

What's happened? We were having a good debate before.

I think it's about time we got back on track enough of the personal attacks. Let's stick to being polite about what we're saying and think through what we want to say.

To begin with, even if Co2 levels are not having a very big impact on the global climate, 6 billion people is not a sustainable population. Even if the earth can deal with high Co2 concentrations it can't deal with the destruction that is happening to all our ecosystems everyday. Forests don't grow on trees!! We can't just plant trees and expect everything to be alright, we have to conserve our ecosystems, because once they are destroyed they are gone forever. I’m sure we all agree on this point so I’ll continue.

Like forests marine ecosystems should be protected and cared for if they too are to still produce fish.

It was mentioned (by Chris Ryan I think) that Australia only emits 1.5% of the planets total emissions well, that seems insignificant but when we only make up about .5% of the world’s population that figure reflects very poorly indeed. Perhaps we just don’t care and most of us are selfish pigs that care more about ourselves than anything else. But, the question has to be asked: why aren’t we motivated towards preserving our beautiful ecosystems?

We would all love to see the Great Barrier Reef the Blue Mountains, Kakadu and places like those live on forever. Is anyone here arguing that those places should be sacrificed for the betterment of the economy or so we can all get a few tax cuts?

I want to go fishing and know that the spot I’m fishing will still be there – fishing as good as ever in 1000 years time. Right now when I go fishing it’s great, it’s beautiful, it’s perfectly Australian, but I always experience a sense of sadness when I leave; because I can’t be sure it will be the same next month, in a year, in 5 years time, in 10 years time, and when I die.

[TimiBoy]

What's happened? We were having a good debate before.

I think it's about time we got back on track enough of the personal attacks. Let's stick to being polite about what we're saying and think through what we want to say.

To begin with, even if Co2 levels are not having a very big impact on the global climate, 6 billion people is not a sustainable population. Even if the earth can deal with high Co2 concentrations it can't deal with the destruction that is happening to all our ecosystems everyday. Forests don't grow on trees!! We can't just plant trees and expect everything to be alright, we have to conserve our ecosystems, because once they are destroyed they are gone forever. I’m sure we all agree on this point so I’ll continue.

Like forests marine ecosystems should be protected and cared for if they too are to still produce fish.

It was mentioned (by Chris Ryan I think) that Australia only emits 1.5% of the planets total emissions well, that seems insignificant but when we only make up about .5% of the world’s population that figure reflects very poorly indeed. Perhaps we just don’t care and most of us are selfish pigs that care more about ourselves than anything else. But, the question has to be asked: why aren’t we motivated towards preserving our beautiful ecosystems?

We would all love to see the Great Barrier Reef the Blue Mountains, Kakadu and places like those live on forever. Is anyone here arguing that those places should be sacrificed for the betterment of the economy or so we can all get a few tax cuts?

I want to go fishing and know that the spot I’m fishing will still be there – fishing as good as ever in 1000 years time. Right now when I go fishing it’s great, it’s beautiful, it’s perfectly Australian, but I always experience a sense of sadness when I leave; because I can’t be sure it will be the same next month, in a year, in 5 years time, in 10 years time, and when I die.

You're not listening, Atriplex. I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

What people are saying is that things are being "managed" (taken away) on the basis of bad science and political expediency, not because it is actually necessary.

What people are saying is that there is a great deal of scepticism in the Scientific Community regarding the science of man made climate change.

What people are saying is that we fishos are very much interested in preserving our fishing spots for the future, but the choice is being taken out of our hands by people who think they know better, when they often don't even get on the water themselves!

In other words we are sick and tired of do gooder (Greenie) idiots telling us what they think is fact, when it is quite obvious to Blind Harry with his a$$ in a sling that they are talking garbage.

If you think we all favour burning the planet and raping the sea, you have not read what has been written critically; you have read it from a predetermined perspective - which may make you as bad as the Greenies we keep bagging. Sure hope you aren't...

Cheers,

Tim

[Atriplex]

You're not listening, Atriplex. I don't think anyone disagrees with you.

What people are saying is that things are being "managed" (taken away) on the basis of bad science and political expediency, not because it is actually necessary.

What people are saying is that there is a great deal of scepticism in the Scientific Community regarding the science of man made climate change.

What people are saying is that we fishos are very much interested in preserving our fishing spots for the future, but the choice is being taken out of our hands by people who think they know better, when they often don't even get on the water themselves!

In other words we are sick and tired of do gooder (Greenie) idiots telling us what they think is fact, when it is quite obvious to Blind Harry with his a$$ in a sling that they are talking garbage.

If you think we all favour burning the planet and raping the sea, you have not read what has been written critically; you have read it from a predetermined perspective - which may make you as bad as the Greenies we keep bagging. Sure hope you aren't...

Cheers,

Tim

I'm not listening? What? What have I not heard?

If you don't mind I would like to question everything that you've said and continue to say. This time I'll stoop a bit lower so I don't bash my head on the brick wall.

"What people are saying is that we fishos are very much interested in preserving our fishing spots for the future, but the choice is being taken out of our hands by people who think they know better, when they often don't even get on the water themselves!"


What are you actually saying here? I’m baffled? Are you saying that you can no longer preserve your fishing spots because you can’t choose to any more? Who’s taken the choice away from you I wonder? Could you clarify this for me?

“In other words we are sick and tired of do gooder (Greenie) idiots telling us what they think is fact, when it is quite obvious to Blind Harry with his a$$ in a sling that they are talking garbage.”

You don’t make much sense here either. What exactly is the garbage that I/they speak of? Am I missing something here; is it just common knowledge - should everyone automatically know what you’re talking about when you refer to the garbage, that the do gooder idiots speak. Because, if not, why haven’t you explained what’s so garbage about what they are saying?!!

“If you think we all favour burning the planet and raping the sea, you have not read what has been written critically; you have read it from a predetermined perspective - which may make you as bad as the Greenies we keep bagging. Sure hope you aren't...”

I don’t think that at all. Read my posts and this will be clear to you. And I have never heard of a predetermined perspective before. And by the way the Greenies that make you so angry seem pretty good to me.


I've asked a lot of questions. But I'm genuinely seeking answers. What I've said above may not show you a lot of respect but, mate, to be frank, you're not coming across very well. Perhaps you could save face and answer a few of my questions with a bit more thought?

[PinHead]

I'm not listening? What? What have I not heard?

If you don't mind I would like to question everything that you've said and continue to say. This time I'll stoop a bit lower so I don't bash my head on the brick wall.

"What people are saying is that we fishos are very much interested in preserving our fishing spots for the future, but the choice is being taken out of our hands by people who think they know better, when they often don't even get on the water themselves!"


What are you actually saying here? I’m baffled? Are you saying that you can no longer preserve your fishing spots because you can’t choose to any more? Who’s taken the choice away from you I wonder? Could you clarify this for me?

“In other words we are sick and tired of do gooder (Greenie) idiots telling us what they think is fact, when it is quite obvious to Blind Harry with his a$$ in a sling that they are talking garbage.”

You don’t make much sense here either. What exactly is the garbage that I/they speak of? Am I missing something here; is it just common knowledge - should everyone automatically know what you’re talking about when you refer to the garbage, that the do gooder idiots speak. Because, if not, why haven’t you explained what’s so garbage about what they are saying?!!

“If you think we all favour burning the planet and raping the sea, you have not read what has been written critically; you have read it from a predetermined perspective - which may make you as bad as the Greenies we keep bagging. Sure hope you aren't...”

I don’t think that at all. Read my posts and this will be clear to you. And I have never heard of a predetermined perspective before. And by the way the Greenies that make you so angry seem pretty good to me.


I've asked a lot of questions. But I'm genuinely seeking answers. What I've said above may not show you a lot of respect but, mate, to be frank, you're not coming across very well. Perhaps you could save face and answer a few of my questions with a bit more thought?

You epitomise what the rest of us cannot tolerate..greenies that follow along blindly. Just do some searches on the proposed green zones and all will become apparent..I hope

[4x4frog]

you stated that if the greens were in "power", meaning they have control of the Government therefore they could pass anything they want.
The current Govt does not have a majority in both houses but the previous one did.
I am very afraid what would happen if the greens ever did get into power.

I am sure there are more than one of us worried about this. Theer's only so much vegetation we can eat on this continent.
If this were to eventuate and it's highly likely that it will because the young generation as awhole is embracing the whole green push too readily and the spin doctors are gaining more ground thanthe level headed side.
Atriplex, your view is more rounded than many of your piers, I personally wish more would look at both sides closer. Yes we do need to be more environmentally friendly but with the EPA backing all the plans for the bay that they do, how can the so-called affermative be so great?

[TimiBoy]

mate, to be frank, you're not coming across very well. Perhaps you could save face and answer a few of my questions with a bit more thought?

Pretty articulate for a school kid, aren't you? Anyway, I'll leave that one alone Mr Triplex...

The fact that you can't comprehend anything I've said merely demonstrates my point, that Greenies don't have the capacity to understand anything they don't agree with.

Thanks for straightening out where you come from, Son.

Tim

[blackjack]

been watching this debate for a few days now, just thinking about the posts.there is a great deal of angst about the greens political party

Atriplex you need to separate that concept from your thinking about being environmentally aware and active

whenever we are too defensive and have our backs up, it is impossible to see the forest for the trees

pardon the pun

it's no good fighting against your own side
just my thoughts of course

blackjenny

ps honestly Atriplex i cannot help but wonder if you have a hidden agenda. i hope not.

[Atriplex]

Pretty articulate for a school kid, aren't you? Anyway, I'll leave that one alone Mr Triplex...

The fact that you can't comprehend anything I've said merely demonstrates my point, that Greenies don't have the capacity to understand anything they don't agree with.

Thanks for straightening out where you come from, Son.

Tim

It's a pretty funny thing to say really, telling a kid that they're not a kid; based upon what they've said over the internet. Talk about predetermined perspectives.

How come it's fact that I haven't comprehended anything that you've said? When was this established? For God's sake, you haven't made a proper argument against what I've said yet!!

Some Scientific evidence has been brought forward stating that the earth is not warming. That may be true this year - there has been no evidence of global warming for the year. But, the overlying trend is that the world is warming. We may have above average rainfall in Perth (La Nina anyone??), one year but that does not mean Perth will head away from the trend. There are no cases that I am aware of that cannot be explained by the Theory of global warming. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?

And by the way don't go calling me son, 'Boy.

[TimiBoy]

Atriplex, given that I'm sick of the debate, and that everything has been explained by a whole lot of people during it's course, I have reached the conclusion that you, son, were not looking for comment originally, rather you were looking for an opportunity to subject the Fishing Community to Greens ideology, without being prepared to consider the alternatives.

And now when we refuse to accept it, you get all arced up.

I feel no need to explain my and other people's comments, it has all been made clear, but not abridged to a point where you are capable of understanding it, obviously. Maybe you'll be able to in a few years.

I have better things to do, think I'll go fishing.

Cheers,

Tim

[Atriplex]

Atriplex, given that I'm sick of the debate, and that everything has been explained by a whole lot of people during it's course, I have reached the conclusion that you, son, were not looking for comment originally, rather you were looking for an opportunity to subject the Fishing Community to Greens ideology, without being prepared to consider the alternatives.

And now when we refuse to accept it, you get all arced up.

I feel no need to explain my and other people's comments, it has all been made clear, but not abridged to a point where you are capable of understanding it, obviously. Maybe you'll be able to in a few years.

I have better things to do, think I'll go fishing.

Cheers,

Tim

Originally I was looking to explain that fishing would indeed be better under a Greens party. That should have been understood from my very first post. Given that you have not argued (there's a difference between arguing something and saying something) otherwise I'm at a total loss.

Now that I've finally established myself could you have a go at presenting a proper argument.

"Do you think Fishing would improve if the Greens fishing policies were implemented?" This was my opening question; correct me if I'm wrong but I think you said that it wouldn't be. Why is that? Because all Greens are crackpots; you must have better justifications than that?

As I said before I'm genuinely seeking answers.

[Jeremy]

a bag of monkey buttock puss!...That takes a lot of imagining but seems like your up to the job FNQ ! Of course AIMS scientist wouldn't at all be interested in the welfare of the reef and it's fisheries (or have a clue of course according to you) - so you better tell us how it should really be managed?

Lots will keep this bullbog belief - well if its lots, don't sound like a minority to me..
maybe you actually represent the vocal minority yourself - cause if you were really the majority then the government would listen...too bad about all those misguided people hey? Shame they don't have your insight!

Corrupt is the only word for the system today, no one is looking after the people any more - what a system based on science and data instead of your ranting - don't sound too corrupt to me - what people is it that needs looking after / same said vocal minority - now that sound smore corrupt to me - not to mention the amount of taxpayer hand out $ - fishing associated industries have been putting their hands up to claim since they've been so hardly done by....now that what I really call...what was it oh yeah a bag of monkey buttock puss!...

Jim, not directly relevant but closely related is the 'science' behind the grey nurse shark protection areas. They claimed that the science showed that there was only 500 (is was it 300) GNS left on the east coast of Australia. What they didn't tell us was that the counts were taken over a limited period of time by SCUBA divers. They took the counts at the popular dive sites only. They can't possible hope to make an effective count over a broad range of possible habitats and are restricted in how deep they can dive. This 'science' was the basis of the 1.5 km fishing restrictions around 5 of the most popular shallow reef fishing spots in SEQ and included trolling . A more recent estimate was over 6000 GNS on the East coast. Look up all the facts for yourself if you want. They have been discussed on Ausfish many times.

It is this same science (and people eg Trevor Long) who are behind the green zones in SEQ. That is one of the reasons I am worried and why I don't believe them. Think about it.

Jeremy

[Jeremy]

O
"Do you think Fishing would improve if the Greens fishing policies were implemented?" This was my opening question; correct me if I'm wrong but I think you said that it wouldn't be. Why is that? Because all Greens are crackpots; you must have better justifications than that?

As I said before I'm genuinely seeking answers.

Tripcony/Atriplex whoever you are or claim to be:

I believe fishing would get alot worse. In fact it would be completely banned within a few years of the greens coming to power. This is because of the minority interest groups like AMCS, ACS and PETA who have a lound voice in the right ear of Bob Brown.

Jeremy

[Tangles]

Far better than being called a girl Atrip

There are no cases that I am aware of that cannot be explained by the Theory of global warming. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?

Perhaps you should enlighten us as to your theory of Global Warming and how its responsible for everything. Anyone can drive a truck through that grand statement.

You want an example.. here is one, the humble frog.

Atrip, previously over the past 20 years or so the best of the worlds eminent scientists placed the reason for the accelerated extinctions squarely at the feet of Global Warming. They have now dug a bit deeper.

Problem was these frogs also are disappearing from totally pristine environments without climate and measurable human impact at all. This caused them to dig a bit deeper. They recently discovered the underlying cause, the culprit was disease, not Global Warming as originally believed.

Most of these frogs are facing extinction from disease not Global Warming,, now the fact is that this disease originated from another continent. Human activities, ie a transport system, boats planes etc has allowed this disease to more easily travel the world but they cant measure that but only can assume its likely human transport systems allowed this disease to escape from this other continent. But who knows if the disease wouldnt have travelled without our transport network, its feasible as well. All they can say is we helped accelerate its spread.

But it illustrates my point, its sometimes easier to follow an agenda or a likely theory which fits and explains all than follow the facts. These leading scientists changed their minds after 20 years of research trying to make it all fit but they couldnt.

Read all the latest scientific journals for yourself and inform yourself rather than swallow a political line of its all down to Global Warming etc. I like to operate on facts not agendas, but your entitled to be misinformed, its your choice.


PS, what about declining pirate numbers, Hows that for a grand theory, it explains all

mike

[Atriplex]

Far better than being called a girl Atrip

There are no cases that I am aware of that cannot be explained by the Theory of global warming. Perhaps someone will enlighten me?

Perhaps you should enlighten us as to your theory of Global Warming and how its responsible for everything. Anyone can drive a truck through that grand statement.

You want an example.. here is one, the humble frog.

Atrip, previously over the past 20 years or so the best of the worlds eminent scientists placed the reason for the accelerated extinctions squarely at the feet of Global Warming. They have now dug a bit deeper.

Problem was these frogs also are disappearing from totally pristine environments without climate and measurable human impact at all. This caused them to dig a bit deeper. They recently discovered the underlying cause, the culprit was disease, not Global Warming as originally believed.

Most of these frogs are facing extinction from disease not Global Warming,, now the fact is that this disease originated from another continent. Human activities, ie a transport system, boats planes etc has allowed this disease to more easily travel the world but they cant measure that but only can assume its likely human transport systems allowed this disease to escape from this other continent. But who knows if the disease wouldnt have travelled without our transport network, its feasible as well. All they can say is we helped accelerate its spread.

But it illustrates my point, its sometimes easier to follow an agenda or a likely theory which fits and explains all than follow the facts. These leading scientists changed their minds after 20 years of research trying to make it all fit but they couldnt.

Read all the latest scientific journals for yourself and inform yourself rather than swallow a political line of its all down to Global Warming etc. I like to operate on facts not agendas, but your entitled to be misinformed, its your choice.


PS, what about declining pirate numbers, Hows that for a grand theory, it explains all

mike

That's very interesting. I'm glad you mentioned that case. But I'm quite troubled now; because for as long as I can remember, I've never come across a case where science has failed us.

Jeremy: thanks for answering my question truthfully. Is there anything wrong with listening to radical groups? In some cases it probably would be; but if your a political party you have to listen to everybody; like TimiBoy said before you have to listen to the people not just the majority but everyone.

Of course I'm in no way defending PETA policies; or the others that you've mentioned. I know a bit about PETA; some of what they do seems quite reasonable, even honourable: they've prevented some cruelties that I can't fathom. But you don't have to look very far to see the hypocrites and the corrupt. I know that.

As for corruption in the Greens party, as I say, I haven't heard anything about it. I know that the total Greens budget is only about $150,000. And I highly doubt any of that has come from organisations like PETA.

P.S. I would hate to take all the humour out of your hilarious joke Aigusto, but I'm sure piracy has increased greatl since the 1800s

[Chris Ryan]

"I know that the total Greens budget is only about $150,000"

Really now......how do you know?

How do they pay their lobbiests is Canberra?
How to they pay their admin staff in their HQ?
How do they pay for their advertising campaigns?

Think it is a lot more than $150k.

Their federal based AEC funding for getting over 4.5% of the primary vote is around $180k per annum per person......how many got above that in the last federal election?