| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| do you find the report satisfactory |
| yes |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
| no |
|
50% |
[ 1 ] |
| needs more work |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 2 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Mattyelvins
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Posts: 6
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pale ale
Joined: 29 Apr 2007
Posts: 2218
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 18, 2012 11:37 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Looks like no one can be bothered reading it.
Can you give us a condensed version eg, 3 or 4 of the main findings? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rodtip
Joined: 23 Feb 2007
Posts: 735
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Typical Government Bureaucratic Document …Written to confuse too achieve a result in line with their hidden agenda.
Then when it’s to late, they quote from the document and point thier finger at sentances saying, that its been misinterpreted .... then they put thier own spin on what they really want. This translates to ‘what they really wanted anyway’ which translates further to ...
"ya-just got screwed" 
_________________
"STOP KIDS FISHING"
Vote GREENS! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fisherman_dan
Joined: 25 Oct 2005
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| looks like a step in the right direction to me |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ecofreak
Joined: 22 Apr 2006
Posts: 1844
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 06, 2012 11:03 am Post subject: Re: |
|
|
| fisherman_dan wrote: |
| looks like a step in the right direction to me |
Perhaps a re read in is order then Dan, did you miss the part where they mention overfishing and poor fisheries management without being able to show evidence of either, I also note that they have conveniently left out the most recent research and perhaps the most important. They fail to recognize that in the most recent species census, all of the species in the proposed area are on the increase with no immediate threat to any of them. It should also be noted that without providing a list of the species they are trying to protect with current numbers of their biomass they will have nothing to measure against in the future. In short the report calls for many varied marine parks but can not explain in any section of this document how fishing will effect them. It does go into indepth detail about what overfishing is they do forget to show any overfishing. So what are they protecting? This document to me shows that they are going to protect the ocean from something that does not even exist yet and may never occur. Aside from that they are protecting it against global warming, so the secondary function is to protect the environment from the environment - yeah good luck with that - pft.
There are many threats listed that are detrimental to the marine areas and they do have evidence of this, this is stuff like farming, coastal development etc etc etc. So how many of the scientists that compiled this document do not live in coastal areas. In fact the group who is lobbying the most The Protect Our Coral Sea group has built its new offices on recently reclaimed land on the coast, seems its ok to blame fishermen for every thing without taking any of the blame on them selves.
Any fishermen who READ this entire document and believe it to be a good and accurate report have not really read it or they are against recreational fishing.
_________________
When some one says "you have changed!" it simply means you have stopped living life their way
Best regards
Paul Carter
AKA ecofreak |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
