Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 345678910111213
Results 181 to 195 of 195

Thread: Science behind the proposed closures

  1. #181

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    GREENIES should be BANNED from Moreton Bay , fishing only!!

    Stop annoying the dugongs/turtles/whales you sight seeing dimwits!!

  2. #182

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Hey Lefty,

    Am stil waiting for a reply to my views on whaling

    thought you must have gone on school hols


    Cheers Mick

  3. #183

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    oh..stupid and dim witted am I now? I have been called a lot worse..now lefty..what makes you think that conservationists have more support than rec fishos..is that because a guesstimate of 100 mill watched the memorial service..in your own words that does not make them conservationists so where do you get the figures to prove your statement.

    Thats easy. If you read one of my earlier posts. The greens got 122983 senate votes in QLD. The fishing party got 29034. That represents a 1.28% swing to TFPQ and a 2.09% swing TO THE GREENS. The fact is, at the moment, the greens have more support than rec fishers.

    god lefty..you are doing so well at putting up ludicrous posts and baiting people..so bloody funny...the greens and labor have the majority..dunno where you live but the greens did not get even one seat in the Qld election recently so how the hell does that make them any part of a majority? The anser to this one should be a corker.

    Read the above figures greens + labor = majority

    Hey Lefty,
    Am stil waiting for a reply to my views on whaling
    thought you must have gone on school hols
    Cheers Mick


    I am deadset against the killing of whales using explosive tipped harpoons - I dont care if there are millions of whales and they need to be culled. The methods used to harvest whales are barbaric.

  4. #184

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Quote Originally Posted by lefty_green
    [quote author=billfisher link=1157429646/165#175 date=1159241824]Lefty,

    The federal election was about 2 years ago. The state results reflect more what the support is 'at the moment'.

    In any case fisheries managment should not be conducted on the basis of popularity polls. It should be about doing the right thing for the right reason at the right time.
    Unfortunately, democracy is one big popularity contest. The majority get to decide whats best. At the moment, the greens and labor are in the majority. [/quote]

    the above is the biggest pile of uneducated crap I have ever read...how do you fathom that greens and ALP are in the majority...you quote last Federal election figures for Qld...Greens - 5.4% of primary Senate votes...ALP - 38.29% of primary..Liberal Party - 38.29% of primary..Libs got more primary Senate votes than the other 2 combined by way of percentages...make up of Qld's 6 Senate seats arew - Liberal 3, ALP 2 & Nationals 1.

    Get real lefty...you have no idea..you keep putting up dribble but that is be expected of a green supporter...they thrive on it...I have better things to do than continue in a debate with someone as mindless as yourself...there are fish to catch.

    Get a life lefty....or at least base your arguments on fact..at the moment you have absolutely no idea.

  5. #185

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Quote Originally Posted by PinHead
    [quote author=lefty_green link=1157429646/165#176 date=1159243247][quote author=billfisher link=1157429646/165#175 date=1159241824]Lefty,

    The federal election was about 2 years ago. The state results reflect more what the support is 'at the moment'.

    In any case fisheries managment should not be conducted on the basis of popularity polls. It should be about doing the right thing for the right reason at the right time.
    Unfortunately, democracy is one big popularity contest. The majority get to decide whats best. At the moment, the greens and labor are in the majority. [/quote]

    the above is the biggest pile of uneducated crap I have ever read...how do you fathom that greens and ALP are in the majority...you quote last Federal election figures for Qld...Greens - 5.4% of primary Senate votes...ALP #- 38.29% of primary..Liberal Party - 38.29% of primary..Libs got more primary Senate votes than the other 2 combined by way of percentages...make up of Qld's 6 Senate seats arew - Liberal 3, ALP 2 & Nationals 1.

    Get real lefty...you have no idea..you keep putting up dribble but that is be expected of a green supporter...they thrive on it...I have better things to do than continue in a debate with someone as mindless as yourself...there are fish to catch.

    Get a life lefty....or at least base your arguments on fact..at the moment you have absolutely no idea.
    [/quote]

    I was merely pointing out that the Green/Labor parties (the two parties colluding over the alleged closures in MB) have the majority of voters in their camp. Your figures indicate that these parties attracted 43.69% of primary votes in the last federal election, the TFPQ attracted 1.28%. Therefore they are in the majority - as I have pointed out, legislation is decided by the majority via RIS's and if the voters respond to RIS's the same way they vote then the greens will have their way, will they not?

  6. #186

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Quote Originally Posted by lefty_green
    [quote author=billfisher link=1157429646/165#175 date=1159241824]Lefty,


    Unfortunately, democracy is one big popularity contest. The majority get to decide whats best. At the moment, the greens and labor are in the majority.

    The federal election was about 2 years ago
    Also you brought up the federal election not me.

    Lefty,

    So what you are saying in your usual clumsy way is that the majority is always right. Is this because all your other arguments have been shot down? What do you think about this comment on democracy:

    "Everyone is entitled to their beliefs and uninformed opinions,
    but these must not be used to harm others. "- democratic obligation.

    PS, the Coalition polled 10 points ahead of Labor in NSW in the last opinion poll. They promise to review marine Park zonings.


  7. #187

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    So what you are saying in your usual clumsy way is that the majority is always right. Is this because all your other arguments have been shot down?

    I dont think any of my arguments have been shot down. You may think they have been shot down but I still haven't read anything showing me that rec fishers DO NOT contribute to the decline of fish stocks.

    The majority is not always right. However, the majority get their way in a democracy. Simple.

    PS, the Coalition polled 10 points ahead of Labor in NSW in the last opinion poll. They promise to review marine Park zonings.

    Good

  8. #188

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Did you not read my post about the rec fishing havens in NSW. Angling increased by 20%, yet just 2 years after the pros were bought out catch rates for popular species up 100 - 300% and average sizes well up too. Hardly a sign that angling has an adverse effect on fish stocks.

  9. #189

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Hi Lefty [smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif] [smiley=rifle.gif]

    [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif] Delusions of grandeur mate

    let me get this right...... [smiley=end.gif]
    A vote for Labor was "really" a vote for the Greens

    [smiley=guitarist.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif]

  10. #190

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Gazza you speak like a pair of polaroid glasses on a sunny day.



  11. #191

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Hi Lefty,

    (A) for persistance

    (C) for presentation

    (D) for structural content

    (F) for research/knowledge

    And the winner is


    THE MAJORITY

  12. #192

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Hey Lefty.... I'm not 100% sure on this and would be delighted if anyone will correct me. Pinhead (Greg) seems fairly knowledgeable on this types of topics?.... But you stated:

    ...as I have pointed out, legislation is decided by the majority via RIS's and if the voters respond to RIS's the same way they vote then the greens will have their way, will they not?
    I dont think that is at all an accurate statement! First of all: RIS's (Regulatory (or Regulation) Impact Statements) are the primary tool for the federal Government, not State Legislative Bodies. And while RIS's may provide an opportunity for the public to respond to the proposed changes, its not a voting process. Just because one side makes more noise than the other doesnt mean that either side will win.

    At the end of the day legislation and their changes are voted on in Parliament (NOT BY THE GENERAL PUBLIC) and yes the numbers in Parliament are important - thats why a Government is able to stay in power, because they have the numbers to pass legislation, it the very nature of our system.

    But it has nothing whatsoever to do with the RIS's and the responses from the general pubic. Were that the case, the GRMPA would never have been able to close parts of the GBR and the Great Sandy straits would not now be closed in some areas and heavily restricted in the rest.

    The main problem is not the numbers, as we have numbers on our side, its the vocality of those numbers. The vegans and the greenies are far more vocal and better organised than we are. Plus they know how to attract funding from the Govt. and other charities which makes them well resourced.

    We are the silent majority, unfortunately we are also fairly lazy, and I mean that in the nicest possible way, the 'she'll be right attitude' is what will lose this for us, not the numbers.

    Oh sorry I started to rant and forgot my points

    Yeh... so RIS's dont really affect state legislation that much in any case and even federal legislation doesnt take the weight of opinion of the general public as a matter of serious consequence. It is highly considered in political circles, that the people (us) dont know whats good for them and so we need "them" the pollies, to make decisions that may be unpopular.

    If RIS's really considered the opinions of the voting public... we wouldnt have the GST or IR laws or any other form of detestable legislation.

    So sorry mate, that argument doesn't, cant and wont hold water.


    Next topic: TFPQ Votes:


    I have been waiting for someone to say something about the results of the election - TFPQ did NOT have a "swing" of 1.28%. For a start it was the fist ever election contested and therefore you cannot have a "swing".

    State wide we MAY have attracted 1.28% of the primary vote (I havent actually done the numbers - just using yours) But that is in the 4 seats contested - so compared to the Greens? Its not an apples for apples comparison. You can only compare the 4 seats we actually contested and then take into consideration the time TFPQ has been around verses the Greens and how much primary support there was generated there. I believe an apples for apples comparison is quite favourable for TFPQ taking into account all considerations (variables).

    Then IF you like you may do a statewide extrapolation of that vote (I dont like to do that, its not scientific and can lead to errors due to different seat demographics and issues). I still believe even in its raw state, that this comparison is favourable.

    Sorry for the long winded post guys - just some house work type stuff that needed clearing up.

    Adam


  13. #193

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    The main problem is not the numbers, as we have numbers on our side, its the vocality of those numbers. The vegans and the greenies are far more vocal and better organised than we are. Plus they know how to attract funding from the Govt. and other charities which makes them well resourced.
    Hi Adam ,never a truer word was spoken.......

    The greenies for the 1st. time ran in all? vic. seats last State Election ,because each vote , from memory attracted $2.15???/vote

    the money-making scam ,was extended to Qld. and it seems 79? seats contested @ $$$'s windfall ,of our hard-earned!!...for $1.35?/vote....

    hopefully , in the future, TFPQ/N/V/S/W can play the "game" ,and we can ALL go fishing in peace....

    p.s. FNQC...not sure what you mean , but enjoy your fishing mate.


  14. #194

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Quote Originally Posted by Adamy

    I dont think that is at all an accurate statement! #First of all: RIS's (Regulatory (or Regulation) Impact Statements) are the primary tool for the federal Government, not State Legislative Bodies.

    Yeh... so RIS's dont really affect state legislation
    RIS's are used in Queensland. In fact, a RIS was used to close Baffle creek to beam trawlers a few years ago. An example of how these things work. Anyway, this has gone on long enough. Good luck for the future everyone. Lets hope things work out for the best.



  15. #195

    Re: Science behind the proposed closures

    Yes maybe... BUT this is what you said:

    legislation is decided by the majority via RIS's and if the voters respond to RIS's the same way they vote then the greens will have their way, will they not?
    RIS's are NOT a voting system, they are an INPUT/FEEDBACK system, legislation is decided in Parliament, through the parliamentary process and nowhere else, that was my point.


    Anyway - Glad that argument is over Maybe we can get back to some real discussion

    Adam


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