I say protect all creatures great and small. #(QUOTE)
Well don't let catch you swatting any midges or stepping on any ants. I'm all for enforcing sustainable practices in relation to the environment, but when there are soooooooooooo many important issues that are given token gestures or swept under the rug by the politicians (Air Pollution, Global Warming, Hazardous Waste, Ozone Depletion, Water Pollution, Overpopulation, Rain Forest Destruction, Drought and Public Health to name some) due to the cost and effort involved, the reduced revenue due to funding or taxing(eg-fossil fuel alternatives) it seems that the fishos are given the short end of the stick. #[smiley=behead.gif]
It's obvious that politicians are aware that a major attraction of Australia is the Great Barrier Reef and so they are attempting a short term solution to prolonging it's current condition but if you ask any scientist (seen a few on this site so please correct me if needed) the destruction of the reef is primarily going to be caused by global warming, and that's not too far away at all. #[smiley=end.gif]
So I ask you all this, When the world came together to sign an agreement to take steps to reducing the output of environmentally dangerous chemicals and gasses into the air, why did the politicians decide not to partake and why does our great country produce these chemicals at one of the highest rates per pop. in the world. Because we allow F*C**NG IDIOTS to run it. #[smiley=dizzy.gif] [smiley=confused.gif] [smiley=freak.gif] [smiley=freak.gif] [smiley=greedy.gif] [smiley=hammer.gif] [smiley=hammer.gif] [smiley=huh2.gif] [smiley=huh2.gif] [smiley=oops.gif] [smiley=worried2.gif] [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]
When the is no living reef to fish and the fish have all found a new home somewhere far away, watch the politicians then beg us to come back and fish the area to see all that money$$ the rec fishos roll into the economy. [smiley=oops.gif] [smiley=help.gif]
My 3 bob.
Irrespective of the distance from bundy to cape york the key word is "COASTLINE" which includes bays,inlets, islands and beaches of our coastline, when measured im sure youll be surprised at the total. eg how many ks is there in hinchinbrook island alone!...foxy
I believe the change only effects the bit between low water and high water mark, not creeks or rivers and is reflective of the GBRMPA zone that touches that area. There are some areas of green that reach the shore, but most things wont change. (Yet) Cheers Budgie
I think in stead of putting these BS laws in place why not spend some money on catching the guys that break the rules by exceeding bag limits and size limits.
I think generally we as a "Body" do the right thing. It is a shame IMHO that we are being hit as to where and when we can fish. Bring it On Megafish!!! you have found aleast friend on here today, I would like my kids to be able to enjoy what the water and fishing has given me. It sure beats the hell of of the Sh*t we see on TV these days.
Why dont we have more inspectors out policing what is actually coming out of the water on to the plates!!!!!!!!!! Lets try there and see how the stocks go.
This post, like another that suggested it was now illegal to fish on 3600 klm of beach, really amazes me.
My job, yes I do have one, requires me to interpret legislation and policy. What has been published is very clear but to me it seems that no-one here has really read what has been published. All thats happening here on this post is a lot of rumour spreading, inuendo and scare mongering #from people who dont know what they are talking about.
I would suggest that you all get a copy of what is published and read it in it's entirety, not pull out little bits and change it to suit your own thoughts.
Healthy debate is good and encouraged but please stick to the facts.
Amazing .................. really amazing.
Derek
Derek,
I don't know much about the issue and I wouldn't really care if it meant that they are increasing the area we are allowed to fish or taking away only 1 square metre. I believe almost all politician decisions are solely driven by greed for money or votes in the end. Greed is a huge part of human nature but it always seems to be amplified with the people in power. This reef issue is not a major issue in my life at this time, but at some time in everyones life there will be an event which shows you how the decisions of the politicians are not for the average person (eg-health care system, education and poor vs. rich tax rates to name a few).
I thought this issue is a good chance for me to get on my soap box and say F*** the politicians.
p.s. I hate pumpkin fruit muffins!
p.s.s. If you're going to delete me from this site, then I'm only joking. I luv pumkin fruit muffins
Hopefully the ones with the big stick (pollies) have there heads screwed on right ??
Damo
PS It is my 199 post so why not make it an issue ! ARRRRRGGHHHH #[smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=angryfire.gif] #
I agree that there needs to be more policing of catch limits, and illegal fishing, BEFORE more restrictions are put in place.
Mick
PS Derrik... Have you got a reciepe for those Pumpkin Fruit Muffins handy??
Can someone - Derek - post a link to the media release or proposed legislation so we can educate ourselves about what it does mean? I am very concerned!
Jeremy
"The underlying spirit of angling is that the skill of the angler is pitted against the instinct and strength of the fish and the latter is entitled to an even chance for it's life."
(Quotation from the rules of the Tuna Club Avalon, Santa Catalina, U.S.A.)
Apathy is the enemy
Derek,
As I understand it pls correct me if I'm wrong but if the Whole thing is now a Marine National Park then the restrictions are quite severe. This is based on info found at (i don't know how to turn it into a link)http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/m...ctiveGuide.pdf
Great forum this turned it into a link for me - genius.
p.s. I hate pumpkin fruit muffins!
Fishinmishin
While I acknowledge your cullinary qualifications I seriously doubt that
you are justified in making such a statement !
As Derek suggests collect all the facts, (try a variety of muffins), be sure of your detail, (have you tried camp oven muffins ?) and then be prepared to accept that there may be a pumpkin fruit muffin that's right for you even if you haven't found it yet.
PS May I suggest a fruity port as an accompaniment ?
I am sure I am not the only one who is scratching their head over the new Marine Park proposal by the State Government. Quite confusing to say the least! Like most of you, I want to know where I can or can't fish and if I can't fish in a spot i was fishing last week, I want to know why!
I have read as much material as I can find on this subject and even rang the National Marine Coastal Authority for more info.
I will try and put my understanding of the proposed Marine Park forward as simply as I can.
Basically, the Commonwealth Government has juristriction on the waters surrounding the Great Barrier Reef and State Government is responsible for the coastal waters along the QLD coast.
The QLD government wants to mirror the Zoning that the Commonwealth introduced on July 1.
After the new zoning was introduced by the Commonwealth, the State Government realised there were some conflicting circumstances along the coastline.
For example, 2 blokes go beach fishing and cast their lines. It's low tide and one has a stronger casting arm then the other. One fisherman could be fishing legally while the other is fishing illegally.
The QLD Government is trying to illiminate problems like this but unfortunately the quick fix is to stop fishing altogether in these "controversal areas"
The areas of coast most likely to be closed to fishing will be adjacent to National Parks or where Green Zones are nearby (good example is cape upstart, a small strip of yellow zone surrounded by a green zone. The reason why the press have stated that people who fish rivers, creeks, channels, etc will not be effected is because these areas are not green zones or national parks. (Plus, the government does not want to jeopardise the mudcrab industry.)
As for now, I don't want to comment if this is a bad thing or a good thing until everything is laid out in front of me in proper English.
Just some thoughts...
Mick thank god you speaka tha englisha till now iwasnt real shore on how it all worked but you have made it a bit easyer to undastand thanks for the insight
......notts so
Australia is closer to meeting it Kyoto target than some of the countries that have signed on. The gov hope to hit the designated figure (108%) in 2012 instead of 2010 (110% in 2010). Its just hasn't signed the paperwork (it should >Originally Posted by Fishinmishin
) unlike some who have signed and aren't meeting targets.
Only problem with Kyoto agreement is it will only deliver global reductions in emissions of 1 per cent, when many scientists say reductions in the order of 60 per cent are needed if global warming is to be addressed.
If you think we are bad check out China's increase in oil/energy consumption. Makes you wonder why we'd bother. Its effectively us installing a water saving shower head while the neighbours washing his car, sprinkling his lawn and taking 3 hour showers. But hey we saved a cup of water.
http://www.iseas.edu.sg/29sep04.ppt
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
