Australian Politics Forum

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: marine parks
Reply #60 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 9:47am

True, but they didn't contradict it either. That statement of consensus is a pretty big call. It's like standing up in a crowded, rowdy bar and saying you could beat anyone there in a fight. If no-one disagrees with you, it's probably true.

Plenty are contradicting it, or at least the way it is being bandied around! Ray Hillborn, Bob Kearney, Walter Starck, the Burdens of Proof paper, Julian Peperell to name just a few.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49836 At my desk.	Re: marine parks Reply #61 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 9:54am Bob Kearney did not contradict it. Neither did the Burdens of Proof paper. You are confusing disagreement on the 'cutting edge' of science with disagreement on the fundamentals. This confusion has been skillfully promoted by the anti marie park movement.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: marine parks
Reply #62 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:08am

I said including the way it is being bandied around, ie to justify every half-baked, uneccessary and unscientific marine park in Australia.

Also you just said you wanted to be less vague. If you make it general enough its almost impoosible for anyone to be against marine parks in principle. Its the specifics I and a lot of others have a problem with.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49836
At my desk.

Re: marine parks
Reply #63 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:14am

I said including the way it is being bandied around

Well that's a strawman isn't it. Or at least a moot point. Note that the consensus does call for their immediate and broad use.

If you make it general enough its almost impoosible for anyone to be against marine parks in principle.

I often come across people who say they are not opposed on principle. yet it is almost impossible to get them to support any proposal or make one themselves.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1403 Gender:	Re: marine parks Reply #64 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:31am I put up my proposals for area management freediver and you ignored them. Anything else you don't like hearing if you don't ignore you reply 'strawman'.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49836
At my desk.

Re: marine parks
Reply #65 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:37am

You seem to have deliberately misinterpretted the question. The consensus calls for the use of no take zones. Rec only zones and temporary closures are not the same thing and do not achieve the same outcome. You couched your complete opposition to no take zones as a 'better suggestion.' It was just another excuse.

Also, I did not ignore you. Rather, you ignored my response. I'll repeat it for you:

You suggest other management tools are better, even though they have clear and significant flaws that no take zones correct.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: marine parks
Reply #66 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:47am

No my suggestions achieve a better outcome. They are a form of area managment just like marine parks but they protect the fishery without the negative socio-economic effects of total lockouts. They are better accepted by communities so compliance is higher. Being targeted and evidence based they have more positive effects on fish stocks for less community hardship.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49836
At my desk.

Re: marine parks
Reply #67 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:52am

They are a good idea, but they are not an alternative to no take zones because they don't do the same thing. No take zones do not have 'negative socio economic consequences' if done well. This is just a furphy made up by the anti marine park movement after realising they are unable to get decent scientific criticism of the idea or to show it reduced catches.

It's like saying we should have speed limits instead of seat belts. Both are a good idea, but to suggest that one is an alternative to the other is just silly.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: marine parks
Reply #68 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:53am

pjb05 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2007 at 9:39am:

Also Recfish members are government appointed.

No they are not! The membership criteria of Recfish is in their Constitution:

Quote:

5 MEMBERSHIP
a) The members of the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc. shall be:
(i) one State or Territory body from each State or Territory;
(ii) any national recreational fishing organisation;
(iii) any industry supplier or any other organisation satisfying the requirements of Full or Associate Member;
(iv) any company, corporation, unincorporated body or individual admitted by the Executive as an Affiliate pursuant to Clause 2(f).

b) All applications for membership shall be in writing on the prescribed form accompanied by the required information and admission to membership shall be decided by a majority of not less than seventy-five per cent of the voting delegates present at a general meeting.

Quote:

k) The Chief Executive Officer shall be a paid person appointed by and responsible to the Board for management of activities in the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Confederation Inc. business plan or other duties as defined in their contract of employment;

Quote:

9 DELEGATES AND VOTING
a) Each Full Member and Associate Member will appoint, annually in writing, two delegates to represent it on the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc.
b) Each Full Member delegate is entitled to one vote at general meetings.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49836 At my desk.	Re: marine parks Reply #69 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:54am Thanks for clearing that up.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: marine parks
Reply #70 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:02am

But the operative phrase is "if done well". The Earsnt and Young socio-economic report predicts a halving in the number of visits from anglers in the NSW coastal towns which host marine parks. The federal government is paying 200m dollars to shore based businesses in compensation for the effects of the GBRMP (still heading northwards). Claims of positive economic effects from marine park lobbies have been shown to be a gross misrepresentation.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49836
At my desk.

Re: marine parks
Reply #71 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:06am

The Earsnt and Young socio-economic report predicts a halving in the number of visits from anglers in the NSW coastal towns which host marine parks.

Could you provide a link or reference please? What did it assume? I've actually travelled to a NSW coastal town to check out the spearing beside a marine park.

The federal government is paying 200m dollars to shore based businesses in compensation for the effects of the GBRMP (still heading northwards).

How much has actually been paid out? As far as I can tell, they put the money aside to reassure people, but that doesn't mean they were expecting to hand it out.

Claims of positive economic effects from marine park lobbies have been shown to be a gross misrepresentation.

What claims? I haven't seen any such claims. It's the anti marine park lobby that uses this scare tactic. The pro marine park lobby has the advantage of being able to focus on the more direct and measurable effects.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: marine parks
Reply #72 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:10am

RecFisher wrote on Oct 15^th, 2007 at 10:53am:

pjb05 wrote on Oct 12^th, 2007 at 9:39am:

Also Recfish members are government appointed.

No they are not! The membership criteria of Recfish is in their Constitution:

Quote:

5 MEMBERSHIP
a) The members of the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc. shall be:
(i) one State or Territory body from each State or Territory;
(ii) any national recreational fishing organisation;
(iii) any industry supplier or any other organisation satisfying the requirements of Full or Associate Member;
(iv) any company, corporation, unincorporated body or individual admitted by the Executive as an Affiliate pursuant to Clause 2(f).

b) All applications for membership shall be in writing on the prescribed form accompanied by the required information and admission to membership shall be decided by a majority of not less than seventy-five per cent of the voting delegates present at a general meeting.

Quote:

k) The Chief Executive Officer shall be a paid person appointed by and responsible to the Board for management of activities in the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Confederation Inc. business plan or other duties as defined in their contract of employment;

Quote:

9 DELEGATES AND VOTING
a) Each Full Member and Associate Member will appoint, annually in writing, two delegates to represent it on the Australian Recreational and Sport Fishing Industry Confederation Inc.
b) Each Full Member delegate is entitled to one vote at general meetings.

Still not a democratic representative body for anglers. The head of Recfish is appointed by the minister, so I was told. They are also government funded. Many angling and industry groups want nothing to do with the body.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 49836 At my desk.	Re: marine parks Reply #73 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:13am Would you mind posting that here? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1192410766/0
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1403
Gender: male

Re: marine parks
Reply #74 - Oct 15^th, 2007 at 11:22am

[quote author=freediver link=1187314210/60#71 date=1192410379]The Earsnt and Young socio-economic report predicts a halving in the number of visits from anglers in the NSW coastal towns which host marine parks.

Could you provide a link or reference please? What did it assume? I've actually travelled to a NSW coastal town to check out the spearing beside a marine park.

I'll put up a link when I get time. Its on Walter Starcks Golden Dolphin website.

The federal government is paying 200m dollars to shore based businesses in compensation for the effects of the GBRMP (still heading northwards).

How much has actually been paid out? As far as I can tell, they put the money aside to reassure people, but that doesn't mean they were expecting to hand it out.

200m is what has been paid out to date. The GBRMPA said only 3 or 4 million would be needed when the 33% green zones were proposed!

Claims of positive economic effects from marine park lobbies have been shown to be a gross misrepresentation.

What claims? I haven't seen any such claims. It's the anti marine park lobby that uses this scare tactic. The pro marine park lobby has the advantage of being able to focus on the more direct and measurable effects.

They contibuted a 20% increase in business in Coffs Harbour to the marine park. They implied this was over a year when in fact it was over 5 years. A 4% p.a. growth is hardly startling and given it is a popular sea change destination so it is misleading to attribute this to the park. They quoted overwhelming positive responses from businesses even though on 15 actually responded positively. The green zones at this stage were only around 12% of the a park and in areas not overly popular with anglers.

Back to top

IP Logged