Fishing closures

[jockey]

Yes Kerry my opinion - backed up by "all localities." There was nothing in the abstract about the green zones, but you seem to imply a strong connection.

Could you please reference your quotes (at least give us the link if you copied it off the web). If you provided the link then I may be able to follow it up and get the information you are after.

As for 4.5% not being enough I am not sure what scientific evidence backs that up. Maybe they asked scientists for their opinion. I'll look into it for you.

[Kerry]

Yes Kerry my opinion - backed up by "all localities." There was nothing in the abstract about the green zones, but you seem to imply a strong connection.

Well in the GBR there is, as the myth is that banning fishing (green zones) is going to cover all the other "anthropogenic" problems. Just the evidence isn't available to support this discrimination.

You also need to quote the whole sentence "The combination of these destructive factors has altered reefs in all localities" then your argument that banning fishing will stop "these destructive factors" gets a whitewash.

As for 4.5% not being enough I am not sure what scientific evidence backs that up. Maybe they asked scientists for their opinion. I'll look into it for you.

yeah you do that, yeah maybe they asked scientists for their "opinions", maybe they asked greens for their "opinions", maybe they asked tourist operators for their "opinions" maybe they asked lots of people for their "opinions" then why not come clean and say hey these decisions (that were always going to happen anyway) are totally based on opinions.

"Opinions" DO NOT EQUAL "Scientific evidence" and eventually you're going to have to realize this.

Could you please reference your quotes (at least give us the link if you copied it off the web). If you provided the link then I may be able to follow it up and get the information you are after.

Hey are you really this stupid, "reference your quotes" hey DH some are directly cut from your very own link, honestly you really are becoming a pathetic waste of time. The other one from the minister, like I said just how many times are you going to ask the same pathetic question, get the same answer then ask the same pathetic question over and over and over again. I'm not about repeating the same answer over and over and over again just for you ignorant benefit.

Now all you need to do is ask again is duh Whose the minsiter for the environment # #

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Kerry I'm not sure about this myth. Maybe some people are under that impression but I'm not and I don't think anyone in power is. I didn't argue that banning fishing would stop those destructive factors. Please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

The minister (do either of us know who he is?) may have asked a few scientists for their opinions on what the evidence indicates. This would be preferable to the minister
trying to read through all the evidence.

Yes Kerry please reference your quotes even if they are from a link provided by someone else. It has taken me eight pages to get you to be more specific about your questions. Most people would just ignore you. You have to realise that if you actually want someone to answer you're question there's no point in making it difficult for them. So if you want me to answer your question the provide the link, but if you just want to waste people's time then don't give your sources.

Gazza I will not reply to you as I assume you will just delete all your posts anyway.

[NQCairns]

Popcorn anyone?
seriously it's all good stuff IMHO, and these debates are much needed on a public forum.[smiley=book2.gif]

[Kerry]

No jockey your not too sure about much at all, are you.

Now how many times exactly would you like the same link quoted and as for the minister at least put your hands on the keyboard that might eliminate some of the problem.

How can anybody actually misrepresent what your saying, exactly what is it that you have said, SFA.

Scientific evidence, show us all where this evidence is and if it was only based on indications then why mention this weight of scientific evidence, many are still waiting for all this weight of scientific evidence to come forth and be known.

Quite frankly your got those hands under the table again, taken 8 pages to do what [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif] [smiley=laugh.gif]

Now what was it that you were saying [smiley=zzz.gif] [smiley=speechless.gif] again

Never seen anybody so unable to simply answer questions without all the piss poor excuses under the sun.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Kerry]

Come on jockey, yes 8 pages and still waiting for some of your constructive and riviting input

oh quote by jockey "Sorry alln not going to happen." yeah yeah yeah yeah can't even keep promises [smiley=thumbsdown.gif]

gee when one looks back there's an awful lot of untouched side stepped questions, now wonder why that might be?

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Sorry Kerry I have been given my final warning that I will be banned if I make any more 'argumentative' posts, which I can't seem to avoid if I respond to you. So I have decided not to continue this debate here. If you would like to do it anywhere else, name the site and I'll be there.

[Kerry]

Well you were fully given your chance to be constructive here and obviously that's not what your really on about and really that about all you've done is be argumentive for no results, not a dam thing. So good riddens, as types like you simply don't have much to offer no matter the site.

Cheers, Kerry.

[BurdekinBob]

As well as the public consultations, some of us here in the Burdekin had a private discussion with the wankers from the GBRMPA, where we offered them an alternative plan which gave them all the green that they wanted in the so-called bio-regions, but with limited impact on our fishing activities, both commercial and rec. They were not interested in our proposal, they had their own agenda, and they were following it to the letter!
They even said that the proposed closures were going to be put in place "just in case", they admitted that they don't have any scientific evidence to back their plans, and they also said that they don't need any, they can do it anyway.
As for the other clap-trap that everyones going on about, eg global warming, coral bleaching, crown of thorns, urban/rural run-off, farm chemicals, etc etc etc, all bullshit!!!
Global warming has not yet been proven, coral bleaching is bulldust, and crown of thorns is a natural thing which sometimes occurs. As for run-off damaging the reef, in spite of spending heaps of money trying to prove it, they still can't!
When the Burdekin floods, (not often, but it does happen), the sediment etc is deposited on Old Reef, the closest one to the river mouth. It is about thirty odd miles out to sea.
About 20 years ago AIM's collected a lot of core samples from the big bombies at Old Reef, and with the aid of ultra violet light they can go back hundreds of years with their weather predictions, by comparing the different band widths that show the amount of run-off from the Burdekin, with known events since records have been kept.
All of that run-off, all those hundreds of years, and Old Reef aint dead yet, in fact its in magnificant condition. Being the closest reef to home, any time I want to show visitors from down south the reef, I always take them there. Also being close, you would think it would have been impacted more than some further out, but this doesn't appear to be the case; beautiful coral, plenty of fish, bloody pristine... all this in an area of very high boat ownership!
Kerry,remember a few years back, (Jockey can't go back that far, he's still wet behind the ears), the AIM's scientists reckon that they had isolated the substance that actually prevents coral bleaching, and they were going to market it to the world's chemical companies to put in sunscreens. I wonder what happened to that idea? More fashionable now to forget that and concentrate on coral bleaching......
Anyway, back to you
Bob

[Kerry]

Bob, what many convieniently brush aside is that many of the situations are natural events that have been occuring for hundreds of thousands of years and nature being nature will go on occuring for the bext many years as well.

As for some of the myths about sediment, water turbidity, river run-off and affects on reef environments it quite interesting that only last year new reefs (northeast of Mornington Island and quite deep by normal coral reef standards) were actually discovered in the Gulf of Carpentaria and realizing just how turbid the warm water is in the gulf especially with the vast amount of sediment input then this surprised some, especially since these are healthly living, growing coral.

Cheers, Kerry.
# #

[Gazza]

Kerry/Bob, Angler 'Apathy' is dead [smiley=thumbsup.gif],and the RecFisho voice(s) are getting louder [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Jock ,go to that site you mentioned [smiley=thumbsdown.gif],please start without me [smiley=thumbsup.gif],and don't hold your breath waiting... [smiley=zzz.gif]

[PinHead]

"Global warming has not yet been proven"...Bob, you forgot the hole in ozone layer to go along with that one.

[BurdekinBob]

That too, is a natural phenomena, it opens and closes for God knows what reason. Last I read about it, it was almost closed.
Think about it Pinhead, most of the gases that the greenies claim damage the ozone layer, are heavier than air, so how they get way up there beats me!
One volcano can put more rubbish into the atmosphere in a day than all of us can in our lives.
I reckon that you are the victim of the great green con.
Bob

[PinHead]

"Think about it Pinhead, most of the gases that the greenies claim damage the ozone layer, are heavier than air, so how they get way up there beats me!"

That is easy...when sunlight hits those molecules the chlorine atom breaks away..which then supposedly does the damage to the ozone.

[NQCairns]

G'Day Bob I almost fell of my chair when you related Volcano's Vs Greenhouse gasses (various forms), I have not heard that rational argument since I first read about it 8 years ago, it is a sign of the times: here is an abridged (by me)excerpt from his book Don't Panic, Panic! The use and abuse of science to create fear The author Dr John L Farrands held a long and distinguished scientific career in Australia, and holds the order of Australia as a result.

Start:The ozone layer and the greenhouse effect are separate phenomena, the ozone hole is being attributed to clorine compounds, especialy related to the electronic industry, refrigerators, aircondioners, pressure packs. The total release of these per annum is only about 750 000 tonnes. Volcanoes produce about 36 million tonnes of contributing gasses per annum, and one of them, Mt Erebus, is probably emitting 1000 tonnes a day quite near the antarctic monitoring station.end

A lot of people are still skeptical of the greenhouse effect and also the ozone hole theory, it may be happening but the associated reasons are far more slanted toward natural occurances, unless of coarse a person makes their living from environmetal scare mongering ie GBRMPA and RAP, coral bleaching, runnoff, crown of thorns etc etc are as fine an example of this as a society can get #[smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=behead.gif]. nq

The Dr was also Chairman of the Australian institute of Marine sciences at one time also. I just reread the chapter on the GBR for the first time in many years and it could be taken almost as a prophesy in regard to the real reasons for the RAP shafting. If anyone wants the chapter (in jpg) email me with a related subject line (it's the era of viruses) and I will get back as soon as I can.