Nomination of Senate Candidates

[Gazza]

Here's an interesting (though largely academic) exercise:

If you were in charge of chosing the 33% of the reef to be designated as green zone, how would you have done it differently?

Yeah I'll bite Jock....... #

IF I was in charge of the largely academic dumbskulls , who thought they
HAD TO designate 33% of the Reef....... [smiley=bomb.gif]

I'D SACK 'EM [smiley=behead.gif] for lack of justification,
and for just picking an unscientific number [smiley=hanged.gif].......promise!! # [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

As for FishingParty candidates , they too,
don't need anywhere near 33% of votes ,too be successful. #[smiley=bomb.gif]


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

[kc]

Jockey!! You've finally done it. Ya' got me! Pulled my chain, pressed my button, call it what you like. Up till now I always thought there was some hope. How, for f%$#^sake, can you think the WWF and biodiversity protection are behind RAP and think it was in any way designed or even as a bi-product of could it enhance fishing. Up till tonight I thought you were listening!! maybe playing devils advocate but still listening. maaate!! This was never about biodiversity protection by WWF. GBRMPA, QCC, the government or anyone else. Dont you get it?? Its about votes. If any of those pricks, yes pricks....I have tried to refrain from this type of launguage to date but like I said, ya' got me....had any credibility they would have been pushing pink zones not green zones......
Have you ever read the reasons the SSC (Sceintifics Steering Committee) put forward as the reasons we needed green zones to protect biodiversity? No!! Why am I surprised.

While they are a bit long winded, let me write them down, verbatim!

& Stop me any time you disagree with our thoughts (in brackets) on each item. Up to the brackets this is THEIR REASONS WHY WE NEEDED GREEN ZONES

1. Six of the worlds seven species of marine turtles all of which are lsited as threatened (major impacts from boat strike, inshore gill nets and traditional hunting....virtually zero impact from rec fishing, boat srike & tradtional huning will continue in green zones)
2. One of the worlds most important duging populations. (not effected by recreational fishing, boat strike and traditional hunting will continue in green zones)
3. More than 30 species of animals (not effected by recreational fishing, but any impacts will continue in green zones from tourism and general visitation)
4. 2200 species of plants, some 25% of Qld's total native plant species( not effected by recreational fishing but impacts from tourism will continue in green zones)
5.Over 1500 species of fish ( recreational impact restricted to less than 20 targeted species, less than 2% of available fish stocks are even targeted)
6. Over 1500 species of molluscs (very limited and strictly controlled effect on 1 of the 1500 species (oysters))
7. Over 1 third of the worlds soft coral and sea pencil species (Not effected by recreational fishing but a clear impact from tourism and dive operations which will continue in green zones)
8.Over 200 species of birds and one of Australia's most significant seabird rookeries (so what!! Not effected by recreational fishing and yet seabird rookeries ie Michalmeas Quay(that's THE one) remain tourism destinations in green zones, also impacted by day trippers and campers)
9. Approximately 2900 coral reefs built from 360 species of hard corals (minimal impact from recreational fishing/anchors, major impact in some areas by commercial vessel large anchors and chains, diver and snorkeller damage and this will continue to occur in green zones)
10. 800 Speciea of sea stars which is 13% of the world total (not effected by recreational fishing)
11. Over 3000 square kilometers of mangroves including 54% of the worlds mangrove biodiversioty (again, not effected by recreational fishing, pity about the mainland development)


The out of bracket words are not mine. These are the reasons the SSC and GBRMPA decide to close 100,000 square kilometers of the park to fishing......but let everything else continue. Do you get it?? It is not often I really get the shits but ya' got me.

Jockey if you still believe that this was done to protect biodiversity I am at a loss. Not even wankers like the WWF can justify their position. If they were ever seriuos they would have been pushing for pink zones (like us). The only reason we think theyl ike green zones is that it happens to be their favourite colour.

& PLEASE!! don't come back and argue this post. READ the reasons posted by the GBRMPA, SSC and take a good hard look at it. If you honestly think that green zones are going to protect biodiversity, which is their stated aim, then you are dead set f....................no. It's all right! I have calmed down!

Read enjoy and argue, as is your way! I just have to keep reminding myself this is all good practice.

KC

[jockey]

1 There will be fewer boats in the green zones so fewer boat strikes, but yes pink zones would be better (are you allowed to travel through them?)

2 same

3 not sure what the recomendation was

4 They will be affected by the population density of target fish. That is how green zones benefit the whole ecosystem. They restore the balance. Probably the same argument on 3.

5 same as 4

6 same

7 same

8 getting pretty far removed so I agree there

9 same as 4

10 same

11 agree

The key word is resilience. Removing large quantities of a few key species upsets the balance and makes everything more susceptible to the problems that are harder to control (bleaching, runoff)

Runoff is being dealt with, just a bit slower

Tourism I don't know. I hear a lot of complaints about damage from it, and it has registered on the conservation radar. But does anyone have any measure of the extent of the damage? I thought it was just a few heavily used reefs, not everywhere like fishing effort. Plus tourists pay a lot more compared to the damage they do.



The WWF (the wildlife crew) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) have been heavily involved in setting conservation goals and strategies worldwide (including Australia). They have developed the methods used for choosing which sites to protect. I don't think fisheries management is part of that, which is why we need to have some constructive input into the process.

[baldyhead]

This is possibly a little off topic but I feel that Jockey needs to read this submission by AMPTO as GBRMPA is FULLY AWARE that RAW UNTREATED SEWAGE is being dumped DAILY in Reef channels and also in the proposed GREEN ZONES.

Sewage Submission by Ampto



COMMENTS ON MSQ
VESSEL - SOURCED SEWAGE
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT


Background

1. AMPTO is the peak marine tourism body in QLD and its members take more than 95% of tourists to the Great Barrier Reef. Our industry is worth over $1.5 billion per year to QLD and is one of the largest employers in the state.

2. The vessels that are owned and operated by our members range from 40m wave piecers to 7m bareboat charter vessels.

3. Our industry consists of the following main groups:

a. Day Charter.

b. Short Term Overnight (3 to 4 nights).

c. Long Range Rovers (5 to 10 nights).

d. Bareboat Charters (1 to 14 nights).

4. While this submission only deals primarily with the day charter group and specific problem areas for the other groups need to be canvassed directly from them, we have also commented on some general problem areas for those other groups.


Interest Areas

5. Nearly 100% of the day charter vessels carry over 15 passengers and are class 1 vessels.

6. In the main, we will be able to comply until 2007 when the “nil discharge” provisions will commence.

7. Most already are fitted with sewage holding tanks.




8. The most significant problem after 2007 will be lack of in port pump out facilities and the inability of councils to handle large amounts of salt water. Currently there is only one port with facilities north of Gladstone and that it Port Douglas which is still having major problems with its system.

9. Cairns City Council when sent a copy of the RIS by AMPTO simply replied – Whats this got to do with us? The new Cairns City Port project installed brackets for a pump out facility but did not install pipes, as the Cairns City Council has no plans to offer a treatment for vessel sewage.

10. For the RIS it simply state that pump out facilities will be provided by marinas and councils at no or little cost in at best naïve. There is no doubt that to install the facilities will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in each marina as well as increased costs for the council to treat it once pumped out. No rational person would believe the statement in the RIS that it would be a service provided free if you purchased fuel.

11. Long Range Rovers and the Short Term Overnight vessels will be able to comply up until 2007 when they will have special problems in that even if there is port facilities available, the size of the holding tanks needed to keep all sewage on board until the vessel returned to port would be enormous and in fact unlikely to be fitted in the space available. There would undoubtedly be a stability problem. The only solution here would be to fit a treatment system but size, cost and installation space will all be difficult problems and may well prove impossible to rectify.

12. Some of the Short Term Overnight vessels stay at sea for a month or more and transfer passengers on day vessels. It has been suggested that to overcome the problems in the above paragraph, the day vessels could be fitted with holding tanks and take sewage on board to be pumped out in port. Two problem areas here are of course, no port facilities and the risk of spillage.

13. Bareboat Charter vessels will have extreme difficulty in complying at all because of the 1000m from land issue. For vessels operating in the Whitsunday Islands this will be very difficult. The vessels are typically very small and the additional space for increased sullage tanks just does not exist. Some WH&S implications exist here as well with untrained personnel operating the on board systems.

Recommendations

14. It is recommended that each vessel whose owner feels it can not meet the requirements because of design limitations, get an exemption certificate from a naval architect that explains why the vessel is unable to comply with either fitting large sullage tanks or a sewage treatment system. The vessel should then be allowed to operate under the 2006 rules.

15. All new vessels should be constructed to comply as from 2004.




16. Discuss the new technology breakthrough being studied by the Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation with Mr David Windsor, their Managing Director. 07 3211 8890.

Summary

17. While lack of facilities and cost are the most significant factors, many vessels will be unable to comply because of design limitations and operational use. Some allowance here is needed.

18. Industry accepts the need to address this problem but it cannot afford expensive fixes for what is really not a major problem.




Col McKenzie 20 April 2003
Executive Director

[jockey]

I once had a long conversation with a boat driver about this issue. The boat took roughly 30 tourists out on day trips. The boat could only hold half a days sewage so they dumped on the way out, the way in and probably when they switched between reefs. You might as well not get back on the boat and dump straight into the water. I personally find it hard to believe that they have storage problems as most of the torusits are snorkelling most of the time and would just urinate in the water.

Anyway, his bright idea (which no-one listens to) is for a poo boat that cruises out each day and sucks the poo of all the boats and brings it back in.

There is still a problem of no sewage facilities at the docks. This is also hard to believe. A city can provide sewage for all its residents but not for the boats? Why is there a salt water problem?

The boat driver complained becuase they pay a huge levy ($5 per customer I think) which is meant to go towards improving tourism and should be enough to fund the sewage facilities. It built the docks in Cairns I think.

I didn't know about the nil discharge law in 2007. Great idea. Don't let them put any loopholes in it.

[nonibbles]

The WWF is not just a bunch of greenies it is a major multinational corporation which has the ability to outfinance the political efforts of many small countries. #And when it comes to our political efforts with regard to our own natural resources we are indeed a small country (financially anyway). #The WWF and its friends seemed to believe in the old tactic of making it appear that most of the work has been done (and probably will continue to be done) by them so most of the people with the rubber stamps will just use them without doing anymore! #Add to this the apparrent public support that flows on from a very highly pollished PR stunt and the parties say yippee - thanks for the votes. #Unfortunately thats exactly what happened when the RAP went to the senate vote. #Not even the ministers who told us they would fight it opposed it.
So are you gonna sit on your hands and hope that the government admits to its error in judgement and does a backflip? #If so my little boy would like a subscription to the fairy tale books you so obviously believe in.
I have no political clout, but I know when the interests of my country's people have been bargained out for self serving politicians desires to retain their jobs. #I wish I could stand for a seat. #But I have not the energy, nous or time. #I wish whoever does put their hand all the best. #
Even if its Jockey (why not? he's certainly can spur on an entertaining debate) #
The issues relate to much more than fishing or any singular person it is about losing the basic fabric of our freedom and the erosion of our great democratic society a bit at a time. #If we don't do something, each step they take, sets a precedent for whatever lies around the corner.

[baldyhead]

Hey Jockey, I sent the Rap from AMPTO (posted above) to the WWF on 2 occasions and was deafened by their silence. Not even the courtsey of a reply.

[NQCairns]

Jockey wrote: Plus tourists pay a lot more compared to the damage they do.

Not true Jockey, 3 times in the past I visited North QLD with boat in tow for a couple/few weeks holiday each trip cost between $3500 and $5000. I only went there to visit as a rec angler.
I only visited because of the reef. My spending would never have been included on any balance sheet RE recfishing dollar value but would have been included on many typical tourist speradsheets I am sure.

I did absolutly no damage at any time either lasting or noticable straight away (trust me I do know ).
Total = 2 people, 3 trips, aprox value of injected cash into economy - only because of the reef =$12000 (approx 10 to 12 times the average tourist spend on holidays).
Would I consider these same trips now under RAP etc NO WAY! - northern territory I would go.
If I visited as a typical tourist just my share of the antifoul leachate on a commecial reef boat would have done more real damage to the reef than all my trips combined .

[jockey]

GBR tourism has 47660 employees and contributes $4.2 billion to the gross value of production in the GBR catchment. Recreational fishing contributes $187 million and commercial fishing $118 million.

Three guesses as to where that came from. If you have different figures show them.

Baldyhead I've spoken at length with WWF people. They will argue a point almost as long as I will. Did you ask them anything or just send it to them for their information?

[dasher]

JOCKEY/ KERRY and others that feel compelled to answer some of the crap that is being posted. PLEASE go back to the subject of this post and only answer regarding the subject matter of this post. The fishing party is looking for candidates not wankers that want to try and fuel their egos with crap. Go to another post to spew out your BS. Lets see if we can get some sensible people to stand for the party. Thank you for your attention.

[jockey]

Now now dasher lets not let this degenerate into an insult competition. Would you prefer we let this drop off the bottom of the page?