Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Hunting and Fishing >> The schoolgirl courts the pimp
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694

Message started by freediver on Aug 13th, 2010 at 1:21pm

Title: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 13th, 2010 at 1:21pm
http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/fishing-party-courts-coalition.html

The schoolgirl courts the pimp

The frog courts the scorpion

The Fishing Party Courts the Coalition


I have just finished looking through the senate group voting tickets for the upcoming election. I put together a guide for voters to let people know where their vote is likely to end up if they vote above the line.

In 3 out of 7 senate tickets, the fishing and shooting party preferences the coaltiion in second place, ahead of any other minor party. In other words, a vote for the fishing party is a vote for the coalition. In the remaining states the coalition is in close to second place, usually second only to the Christian Democrats. It is even more interesting in Queensland, where a competing fishing party lists the coalition second, but puts the fishing and shooting party in 7th place. This points to an ideological rather than strategic preference for the coalition. Even the Greens, who have a 'deal' with Labor that sees them in second place on the Labor ticket, put many other minor parties ahead of Labor on their ticket. The reason for this is simple strategy. It allows the Greens to collect preferences from a few minor parties to help them get over the line, but will not prevent Labor from getting the Greens preferences if the Greens candidate gets eliminated, because those minor parties will most likely get eliminated first. The website of the 'old' fishing party has on it's front page in large print a statement of support for coalition policy and a request that voters put the Greens and labor last, but does not even mention candidates from either fishing party.

What makes this ideological preference for the coalition so interesting is the rather 'chequered' history between the two groups. Consider some examples:

In the leadup to the 2004 federal election, the fishing party (at the time there was only one) ran a scare campaign claiming that fishing would be banned along the entire coastline of Queensland that is adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef. Although it was absurd and irrelevant in a federal election, it worked. The fishing party took nearly half a percent of the votes in the QLD senate (by my estimates that is a vote from about one in every 30 fishermen). These above the line votes went to the coalition which, thanks to the extra two senate seats they won in Queensland, gained control of both houses of parliament for the first time since 1981. The fishing party must have been overjoyed at playing a significant role in this outcome and anticipated a few favours. What they got instead was the Great Barrier Reef marine park network - at the time the largest in the world (recently overtaken by Hawaii). For a party whose catch cry is 'say NO to no take zones', this must have been a kick in the guts. They complained bitterly about it and to this day the GBR marine park network is a common complaint in their campaigning. Interestingly, they refuse to blame the coalition for their role in it, even though the coalition was directly responsible. They have tried to blame everyone but the coalition.

You would expect this to have made them 'twice shy' in their dealings with the coalition. Apparently not. They followed this up by declaring that the NSw coalition was going to abolish two of the state's marine parks. This claim did the rounds for a long time in the leadup to the state election and still gets trotted out, but no-one bothered to check whether it was true. The closest thing I have found is a promise to 'review' the marine parks. Neither the coalition nor the fishing party made any attempt to correct this misrepresentation, so one can only assume they both had an interest in perpetuating it. Fortunately the coalition lost that state election so there was no need for any embarassing attempts at blame shifting.

Recently, the federal government set up some large marine parks in areas of particular interest to scientists off the coast of Tasmania. The fishing party ran yet another scare campaign, but it must have been hard to get recreational fishermen wound up about federal waters off the Tasmanian coast. After the parks went in the fishing party was a bit more savvy and is now praising the coalition for not banning fishing close to the shore, even though these waters are the jurisdiction of the state government.

This praise coincides with recent claims that Tony Abbott is going to halt the marine park expansion if elected in 2010. In response, the Labor party has agreed to go into further consultation with the fishing community if elected, but the fishing party has suddenly acquired the ability to see through political spin and are describing this as empty rhetoric. Lengthy consultation processes are always part of the process. The fishing party discourages people from providing any details about what they want (other than no marine parks) in case their favourite spots get locked up. Then after the locations are selected they complain that they weren't listened to and that now their favourite spots have been locked up. Curious, I tried to track down the claim by Tony Abbott. What I found instead was a promise of more marine parks, but that there would be a temporary halt while they consulted with the public.

It makes me wish I was a cartoonist.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 13th, 2010 at 5:49pm
How about wishing for half a brain FD?

As to you series of strawman's do you think you can provide some evidence that the Fishing Party ran a scare campaign along the lines that "fishing would be banned along the entire coastline of Queensland that is adjacent to the Great Barrier Reef". While your at it could you provide some evidence that they don't blame the coalition for the GBRMP?

Regarding your main argument you ignore the fact that pressure from recreational fishing interests has in fact been shown to work. Ie in the case of state Tas marine parks and the NT. The Tas premier even wrote a letter to every angler in the state saying the will not be affected by the states new marine parks!

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by Cyberman on Aug 13th, 2010 at 11:36pm
Yet FD makes no comparison of the Greens courtship of the Labor party?

Your bias precludes you from making judgements when your left leaning ideology blinds you to the workings within the left.

I'm surprised you wasted any energy writing that tired and boring piece of biased crap... although, maybe not so surprised. You aren't all that bright to realise the irony

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 14th, 2010 at 9:10am

Quote:
Yet FD makes no comparison of the Greens courtship of the Labor party?


Actually I do. It is in the article.

The Greens get something in return. Are you suggesting they don't? I have certainly never seen them make up concessions from the Labor party.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 14th, 2010 at 10:49am
FD has also ignored the fact that conservation groups are up in arms regarding the Coalitions marine park policy. This sounds like the Coalition must be on the right track! At the very least it is an indication that there is indeed a difference between the policies of the major parties.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 14th, 2010 at 11:21am
Who in particular is up in arms?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 14th, 2010 at 11:23am

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 11:21am:
Who in particular is up in arms?


AMCS have issued a press release along those lines.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by Cyberman on Aug 14th, 2010 at 4:04pm
The wanderlust society also has a campaign against the coalition


Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 14th, 2010 at 4:23pm
I see. I guess that's the risk you take when you try to appeal to both ends of the spectrum at the same time.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 14th, 2010 at 6:20pm

freediver wrote on Aug 14th, 2010 at 4:23pm:
I see. I guess that's the risk you take when you try to appeal to both ends of the spectrum at the same time.


And how are they doing that?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 14th, 2010 at 7:27pm
Well, there is the GBR marine park - at the time the biggest in the world. Then the Tassie marine parks. The coalition was very busy weren't they? Then we have Abbott's pledge of more marine parks.

That's how they appeal to the pro marine park lobby.

They appeal to the anti marine park lobby by referring to the standard consultation process as 'putting an end to the expansion' process - that they happened to be responsible for and which didn't really go anywhere under Labor.

That's how.

Basically, they wind up the anti marine park lobby with lots of marine parks, then get that same lobby to vote them back in so they can have more marine parks, but this time they will take them seriously. I am surprised as you are that it works, but it does work.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 14th, 2010 at 7:56pm
[]Well, there is the GBR marine park - at the time the biggest in the world.

It's common knowledge that came about due to the unique political situation of the time. Given the cost and the outrageous behaviour of the GBRMPA I don't think they well be in a rush to do something like that again.

Then the Tassie marine parks. The coalition was very busy weren't they? Then we have Abbott's pledge of more marine parks.

I thought the Tassie parks had little impact on fishing, esp recreational fishing.  

That's how they appeal to the pro marine park lobby.

They appeal to the anti marine park lobby by referring to the standard consultation process as 'putting an end to the expansion' process - that they happened to be responsible for and which didn't really go anywhere under Labor.

What is the 'standard consultation process'? Is there is such a thing? Marine park outcomes can vary from all NTZ to defacto recreational fishing havens.  

That's how.

Basically, they wind up the anti marine park lobby with lots of marine parks, then get that same lobby to vote them back in so they can have more marine parks, but this time they will take them seriously. I am surprised as you are that it works, but it does work.

Firstly your rewritng history then you are predicting the future.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 14th, 2010 at 8:12pm

Quote:
It's common knowledge that came about due to the unique political situation of the time.


How was it unique?


Quote:
Given the cost and the outrageous behaviour of the GBRMPA I don't think they well be in a rush to do something like that again.


You mean like what they did soon after in Tassie?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 15th, 2010 at 10:06am
30]
Quote:
It's common knowledge that came about due to the unique political situation of the time.


How was it unique?

The Coalition was desperate to get the GST passed. The GBRMP was part of the deal with the Democrats to get them to vote for it.


Quote:
Given the cost and the outrageous behaviour of the GBRMPA I don't think they well be in a rush to do something like that again.


You mean like what they did soon after in Tassie?[/quote]

How do the Tassies MP's resemble the GBRMP?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 15th, 2010 at 10:10am

Quote:
The Coalition was desperate to get the GST passed. The GBRMP was part of the deal with the Democrats to get them to vote for it.


So only the specific details are unique? Isn't this kind of a moot point, or am I missing something? Are you perhaps suggesting that only that particular narrow combination of events could lead the coalition to screw the fishing party yet again?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 15th, 2010 at 10:58am

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2010 at 10:10am:

Quote:
The Coalition was desperate to get the GST passed. The GBRMP was part of the deal with the Democrats to get them to vote for it.


So only the specific details are unique? Isn't this kind of a moot point, or am I missing something? Are you perhaps suggesting that only that particular narrow combination of events could lead the coalition to screw the fishing party yet again?


What do you mean yet again? You still haven't explained how the Tassie parks resemble the GBRMP. Another point is the Fishing Party is only contesting a few seats. The campaign is more grassroots. You make it sound like were taking orders from the fishing party.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 15th, 2010 at 12:49pm
No matter how grassroots you are, you only have one option for the party's deals regarding senate preferences.

I still don't get how the political situation was in any way unique, other than the details. Are you suggesting it is not possible for the coalition to have motive to screw the party again?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 15th, 2010 at 7:30pm

freediver wrote on Aug 15th, 2010 at 12:49pm:
No matter how grassroots you are, you only have one option for the party's deals regarding senate preferences.

I still don't get how the political situation was in any way unique, other than the details. Are you suggesting it is not possible for the coalition to have motive to screw the party again?


Which party is that?

It was unique because it involved getting a single piece of leglistaion passed. They didn't go to the previous election with the GBRMP expansion as part of the platform. In this case we know what we are voting for with respect to marine parks. Of course you will have to hope the Coalition controls the senate.

PS: you still haven't provided any evidence/ quotes concerning your implausible musings.  

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 16th, 2010 at 5:57pm

Quote:
It was unique because it involved getting a single piece of leglistaion passed.


So you think the coalition has never before tried to get a single piece of legislation passed before and would never try it again, and that this is the only scenario where they would screw the fishing party over?


Quote:
In this case we know what we are voting for with respect to marine parks.


But you don't. You are being mislead yet again. You think Abbott has promised to halt the marine park expansion when in fact he has promised more marine parks. He has not even offered up anything specific that would allow you to accuse him of breaking promises if you don't like the outcome. All you have gotten is vague waffle that could mean anything in practice.

With the NSW state election, you were also totally confused about what you would have gotten, but you seem to think this doesn't matter because the coalition lost anyway. It does matter, because the coalition sees every single election how easy it is to string the anti marine park lobby along. They see how easy it is to trick them into thinking they are on the same side. If you repeatedly show a politician that all you need is words not actions, what do you think you will get?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 16th, 2010 at 6:01pm
Here's a more accurate description of the state of play:

In NSW the six Commonwealth 'Areas for further Assessment' are ALL adjacent to NSW State Marine Parks.

The Batemans 'Area' is in the Federal seat of Eden-Monaro held by Labor's, Dr. Mike Kelly. I prepared the following list of questions, with our answers.

Kelly maintains that we have "nothing to worry about" in relation to the 'No Take' zoning .. which we heard from the Labor Government in NSW when the Batemans Marine Park was zoned.

QUESTION:
What effect will the Coalitions Marine Park policy have on the area?
NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: If the Coalition succeeds on August 21 we expect a moratorium on producing the draft zoning (including ‘No Take’ zoning) in early 2011. We would expect a thorough study into what aspects of the Marine environment are threatened in the ‘Area for further Assessment’, and what it is threatened by. The present proposal by the Labor party will merely draw lines on maps based on a predetermined percentage closure listening to the advice from Minister Peter Garrett, Greenpeace and the PEW Foundation.

QUESTION:
What effect would the Greens policy of a 30% fishing closure of Australian Territorial waters have on the local economy?
NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: This will be an economic and social catastrophe for the Eden-Monaro electorate.

The Greens appear determined to declare an economic jihad on the South Coast of NSW, as well as all of regional and rural NSW.

Despite Australia having the most sustainable and regulated fishing industry in the world, the Greens have instead listened to the unrepresentative green environment groups and believe the best way to protect fishing is simply to ban it! No thought to the effects of pollution from land, sewerage or agricultural run-off .. The Greens will simply ban fishing .. This simply hoodwinks the public.
Measure #20 on their policy document states quite clearly:

20. Ensure that the National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas program has legislated targets of a minimum of 30% ‘no take’ areas per bioregion by 2012.

This means that NSW will have a 440% increase in no take fishing zones. This WILL lead to the closure of the Ulladulla, Bermagui and Eden Fishermen’s Co-ops. Fishermen will have no means to get their catch to the Sydney or Melbourne markets as Fresh fish, hence this completely ecologically sustainable fishery will wither and die after 140 years of existence.

QUESTION:
Dr. Kelly has repeatedly stated that the ‘Area for further Assessment’ is simply that. There may NOT be areas that are of significance or require protection, and hence there may not be any closures.
NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: The members of the Narooma Port Committee and every fisherman I have spoken to do NOT believe him on this point.

Without any doubt the external boundaries of the ‘Area’ will form the “Commonwealth extension of the Batemans Marine Park”

At a public meeting with Mr. Boxhall and Mr. Martin Russell, from DEWHA, it is patently clear that ‘no take’ zoning would occur within the established boundaries. Recreational, Charter and Commercial fishers were asked to provide details of areas that they ‘couldn’t afford to lose’.

It was also made clear that State Batemans Marine Park ‘sanctuary zones’ that went to the 3nm. Limit would be ideal to continue out into the Commonwealth area as a ‘linking’ or ‘connectivity’ of sanctuary zones. There is NO plausible science in NSW, or even Australia for this assertion.

If Dr. Kelly is so sure on this point then perhaps he could explain why each of the five Commonwealth ‘Areas for further assessment’ in NSW are ALL adjacent to NSW State Marine Parks?
Byron, Solitary Islands, Port Stephens, Lord Howe, and Batemans Marine Parks.

QUESTION:
Dr. Kelly also has stated that this process was started by the Howard Government in 1998, so Labor in fact is not to blame.
NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: He is correct.

However the Marine Protected Area program under the Howard Government started in the South-East Australia region, from the Victorian border around the southern tip of Tasmania to the mouth of the Murray. The ‘Areas’ were established in about 2002 and finalized in 2006.

Much input was done by DAFF, and little by DEWHA

Much consultation was done with Commercial fishers and fair and reasonable compensation figures were established. This continued onto land based industries affected by these Marine Reserves

There is NO Sanctuary zone, closed to recreational fishing, within 100kms of the Coast in the 13 Marine Reserves in Australia’s South-East.

QUESTION:
Surely, as has occurred with the South-East Marine Reserve system, there will be an appropriate compensation system in place?
NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: One does not even need to do a careful reading of the ‘Displaced Activities” report, available on the DEWHA website, to realise that the Government has commissioned a biased report to decide their policy on that. The report makes it absolutely clear that there is no requirement to compensate Recreational or Charter boat operators or associated businesses .. as these can ‘move’ to non affected areas. Commercial fishers are also due for an unpleasant surprise.

The Federal Labor Government will, as far as is possible, avoid paying compensation to affected industries.


Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 16th, 2010 at 6:03pm
In the case of the Howard Government, restructuring the South East Fishing industry during the South East Marine Reserve system cost about $200million in compensation. Restructuring industry affected by the increase in ‘no take’ zoning on the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park has cost taxpayers in the order of $240million.

QUESTION:
What is the problem with the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and Arts (DEWHA) being the lead authority in this issue?
NAROOMA PORT COMMITTEE: As with the NSW Government and its Marine Parks policy there are absolutely NO fishery scientists involved at the level of local Advisory Committees or input into zoning.

DEWHA, as it is a ‘conservation environment’ body, WILL attract environmental zealots, as the NSW DECC and Marine Parks Authority does. Could I refer you to Professor Booth and Assoc. Prof Andy Davis for evidence of that.

Finally the Minister is Peter Garrett. I have not heard of anyone who has confidence in his position or competence to do his job. To put it quite plainly he has been promoted way above his competency level.

It has been shown that he takes an inordinate amount of advice from the Pew foundation, and the Australian Conservation foundation.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 17th, 2010 at 6:51pm
Did this escape your attention FD?

There is NO Sanctuary zone, closed to recreational fishing, within 100kms of the Coast in the 13 Marine Reserves in Australia’s South-East.

Are you still trying to tell me that the Comonwealth marine parks subsequent to the GBRMP are equivalent to the GBRMP in their effect on fishermen?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 25th, 2010 at 6:58pm
FD, I have just noticed your post at the start of this thread actually features on the front page of this site. Seeing that you can't defend any of this purile drivel, why don't you take it down?  

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 25th, 2010 at 7:35pm
I tell you what, if you can demonstrate that the NSW coalition really did promise to remove two marine parks, I will take it off the front page.

Sound like a fair deal?

PS, check the link, I have added a lot more detail.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 25th, 2010 at 8:16pm

freediver wrote on Aug 25th, 2010 at 7:35pm:
I tell you what, if you can demonstrate that the NSW coalition really did promise to remove two marine parks, I will take it off the front page.

Sound like a fair deal?


Your article should stand or fall on it's own merits and how well it is supported by actual evidence. I have shown that it doesn't stack up - hence this red herring of yours.

By the way I can show that the Coalition promised to abolish 2 marine parks before the last election.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 25th, 2010 at 8:36pm
Here's something current regarding NSW:

Coalition angles for fishing vote
Gabrielle Dunlevy | 19th August 2010
  THE coalition has backed its promise to suspend the creation of marine parks with a $15 million fisheries policy that reaches out to both commercial and recreational anglers.

Concern over the marine parks issue has been evident in coastal seats throughout the election campaign.

An Australian Greens candidate was assaulted at a pro-fishing rally in northern NSW on the weekend and on Tuesday Opposition Leader Tony Abbott was presented with a dead fish by a protester on the NSW south coast.

The Narooma protest came as more than 100 environmental scientists urged the coalition to re-think its plan and return bipartisan support for the reserves, arguing the science behind them was watertight.

Coalition fisheries spokesman Senator Richard Colbeck on Wednesday released a $15.1 million plan, which he said would give greater representation to the fishing sector, Australia's sixth largest primary producer.

Senator Colbeck said Labor had also neglected 3.5 million recreational fishers, who contributed more than $3 billion a year to the economy.

The biggest spend in the policy is a $10 million, five-year fund to invest in sector-wide projects that support the sustainable growth of aquaculture in Australia.

Grants of up to $5500 would go to fishing business operators for advice and training on adapting to climate change, in a $5 million commitment to climate effects.

Industry bodies would get $3 million over four years to promote sustainable fishing, and in line with the coalition's agriculture policy, fisheries would get a dedicated minister and more money for research and development.

For recreational fishing, the coalition would establish a peak body, a ministerial advisory council, and provide $1.2 million over four years for promotion.

Also in the policy was more detail of the plan to put marine parks on hold.

Four advisory panels would be set up to advise on the areas under assessment, in consultation with the community and industry, who would have access to peer-reviewed scientific evidence of threats to marine biodiversity.

The panels would develop socio-economic impact statements for each area, as well as a "displacement policy".

"As a last resort, if such consultation and negotiation does not reduce impacts below levels that are reasonably compensable, then compensation, structural adjustment or other appropriate measures will be delivered before any constraints on fishing are implemented," the policy statement says.

The policy is funded out of the coalition's budget savings.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 25th, 2010 at 8:54pm
How about this FD?

http://nccnsw.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1477&Itemid=447

Environmentalists angry over coalition’s kneejerk announcement on marine parks        
Tuesday, 20 June 2006  


The National Party statement this morning that a coalition government would abolish the Port Stephens Marine Park is a cynical exercise in vote buying, the state’s peak environment group said today.

“The Port Stephens community has really got behind the marine park, recognising the benefits it will have to the area, both environmentally and economically,” Megan Kessler, Marine Networker at the Nature Conservation Council said today.

“A small number of politically interested people have been attempting to split the community by spreading misinformation about the marine parks.

“In fact, the marine park will have many positive impacts on the local area by boosting fish stocks, increasing tourism, and repairing the marine environment.

“The National Party should put the interests of the Port Stephens area above their own short term political interests,” Ms Kessler said.


Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 25th, 2010 at 9:20pm
Well now look what I just found:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200612/s1811264.htm

Batemans Marine Park zoning plan draws mostly positive response
There has been mostly a favourable reaction to the zoning plan for the big marine park on the New South Wales far south coast, released yesterday by the State Government.

All commercial fishing will be removed from the Batemans Marine Park, which Environment Minister Bob Debus says will pave the way for better access to fishing havens for recreational fishermen and improve the overall conservation of the marine environment.

Recreational fishing will be allowed in 80 per cent of the park, including fishing havens such as Tuross Lake and most of the waters of Montague Island.

Sanctuary zones will cover about 19 per cent of the reserve, habitat areas 43 per cent and general use 37 per cent.

Mr Debus says everyone should benefit from the plan.

"All commercial trawling will be removed from the park and that of course will reduce competition for recreation fishers and protect breeding and nursing for young fish and also commercial netting will be removed from the Clyde River at Batemans Bay at the request of both conservation and recreation fishing groups," he said.

Eurobodalla Mayor and Batemans Marine Park Advisory (MPA) Committee chairman Neil Mumme welcomed yesterday's release of the final zoning plan for the Batemans Marine Park, saying the community now has certainty.

New South Wales Environment Minister Bob Debus presented the final zoning plan to the advisory committee yesterday, ending months of uncertainty about the marine park.

Councillor Mumme says he believes the plan is a balanced outcome that will ultimately benefit residents, visitors and the environment.

He has particularly welcomed the MPA's decision to ban commercial trawl fishing in the park and remove commercial netting from the Clyde River and Durras Lake.

He says the moves will see recreational fishing thrive in the Eurobodalla.

However, the new zones will not come into effect until June next year, allowing council to roll out its $150,000 marketing campaign to inform residents and visitors about the benefits of the marine park.

The NSW Opposition says the Batemans Marine park will be abolished if it wins government in March.

"We don't believe this does anything to help the environment, as a matter of fact we believe it only harms the environment and we would remove it on the very first opportunity we have after being elected to government next March," Opposition fisheries spokesman Duncan Gay said.  

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Aug 28th, 2010 at 4:59pm
Well I'm still waiting FD. Are you going to pull the article down - or even respond?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Aug 28th, 2010 at 5:01pm
Thanks PJ, I have removed the link from the front page.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Sep 11th, 2010 at 6:01pm
I wrote to the NSW liberal HQ asking them what coalition policy was on those two marine parks. I didn't get a response.

Does anyone know?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Sep 12th, 2010 at 12:27pm

freediver wrote on Sep 11th, 2010 at 6:01pm:
I wrote to the NSW liberal HQ asking them what coalition policy was on those two marine parks. I didn't get a response.

Does anyone know?



They may not have one, given we are still about a year out from the next election. There are certainly active on the marine park issue and no doubt it will feature in their campaign.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Sep 12th, 2010 at 6:09pm
They used to have a policy, apparently. I could understand not having anything specific if they never did before, but to go from having a specific policy to no policy, without being able to clarify whether they have dropped the old policy is odd.

On top of that, it is not just a case of them not having a policy, it is a case of them being unable to respond. I can understand getting a non-answer. I get them all the time when I ask a politician a question. Getting a non-response on the other hand is rare.

Maybe it is just me. Would you mind emailing them and seeing if you can find out?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Sep 12th, 2010 at 7:38pm

freediver wrote on Sep 12th, 2010 at 6:09pm:
They used to have a policy, apparently. I could understand not having anything specific if they never did before, but to go from having a specific policy to no policy, without being able to clarify whether they have dropped the old policy is odd.

On top of that, it is not just a case of them not having a policy, it is a case of them being unable to respond. I can understand getting a non-answer. I get them all the time when I ask a politician a question. Getting a non-response on the other hand is rare.

Maybe it is just me. Would you mind emailing them and seeing if you can find out?



It's not unusual for political parties to hold off on defining their policies until fairly close to the election.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Sep 13th, 2010 at 10:24pm
Of course. But it is unlike them to hold of of responding to people. Lack of policy has never been a reason for lack of response.

Would you mind emailing them and seeing if you can find out?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2012 at 10:29am
I hve added another updated to the main page of OzPolitic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

and here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/fishing-party-courts-coalition.html


pjb05 wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 6:32am:
The independent audit of NSW marine parks is out and I see a lot of FD's furphy's are shot down:

Audit recommends marine parks shake-up
20 Feb 2012

By Jim Harnwell

THE system of marine parks is NSW is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, an independent audit by a team of prominent scientists has found.

The 124-page Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in New South Wales was released on Thursday. It makes two main recommendations, namely that marine protection encompass the entire “marine estate” and that a scientific committee, including experts in socio-economics, be established to guide the future management of marine ecosystems.

The report calls for wide-ranging changes to marine parks management and structure and is critical of the system of marine protection introduced by the former state Labor government.

The current network of relatively small marine parks encompassing various “representative zones” was not effective, the report says. It recommends instead that this system be scrapped and replaced by a management regime which includes the entire marine ecosystem, called by the report the “marine estate”.




pjb05 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 3:49pm:
http://www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au/



Contrary to the implication by the article that the marine parks themselves be scrapped, the audit recommends keeping them and adding more:

page ix:


Quote:
The Audit Panel is of the further opinion that the current system of marine parks as
established in NSW be maintained and mechanisms be found for enhancing the
protection of biodiversity in the identified gaps, namely within the Hawkesbury and
Twofold Shelf marine bioregions.


Other interesting bits:

page x:

Here are some examples of fisheries scientists acknowledging that they do not have a good grasp on the threats posed by fishing and other impacts. They appear to be implying that the current regime merely assesses fish stocks in a reactive sense.


Quote:
Resilience and multi-stressor research is needed to better understand the response of
marine ecosystems to threat combinations.



Quote:
expanding the scope of ongoing assessments of fish stocks to assess ecological
sustainability and management of fisheries rather than just stocks



Quote:
estimating recreational fish catches (currently estimated to equate to around 30
per cent of the commercial catch in NSW).


page xii:


Quote:
Better information is needed on the ecosystem effects of fishing and the integration
of this information into the annual stock assessment of commercial and recreational
fishing.


This is a good sign:


Quote:
clarifying the role and purpose of the various types of zones currently in use


They got this wrong. Marine parks should also be assesses against fisheries management objectives. They appear to imply this with their other recommendations. It does not make sense to ignore the fisheries management impacts of a management tool whose only mechanism is the management of fisheries effort.

page x:


Quote:
The performance of the marine park system should be assessed against its primary
objectives of conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem integrity and
function.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 12:12pm

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2012 at 10:29am:
I hve added another updated to the main page of OzPolitic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

and here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/fishing-party-courts-coalition.html


pjb05 wrote on Feb 21st, 2012 at 6:32am:
The independent audit of NSW marine parks is out and I see a lot of FD's furphy's are shot down:

Audit recommends marine parks shake-up
20 Feb 2012

By Jim Harnwell

THE system of marine parks is NSW is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, an independent audit by a team of prominent scientists has found.

The 124-page Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in New South Wales was released on Thursday. It makes two main recommendations, namely that marine protection encompass the entire “marine estate” and that a scientific committee, including experts in socio-economics, be established to guide the future management of marine ecosystems.

The report calls for wide-ranging changes to marine parks management and structure and is critical of the system of marine protection introduced by the former state Labor government.

The current network of relatively small marine parks encompassing various “representative zones” was not effective, the report says. It recommends instead that this system be scrapped and replaced by a management regime which includes the entire marine ecosystem, called by the report the “marine estate”.




pjb05 wrote on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 3:49pm:
http://www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au/



Contrary to the implication by the article that the marine parks themselves be scrapped, the audit recommends keeping them and adding more:

Wrong on both counts. Read it again it says that the system of representatve ares should be scrapped.

page ix:


Quote:
The Audit Panel is of the further opinion that the current system of marine parks as
established in NSW be maintained and mechanisms be found for enhancing the
protection of biodiversity in the identified gaps, namely within the Hawkesbury and
Twofold Shelf marine bioregions.


'Mechanisms' doesn't mean more marine parks FD, as the author has explictly pointed out when the same  point was made by the Greens. 

Other interesting bits:

page x:

Here are some examples of fisheries scientists acknowledging that they do not have a good grasp on the threats posed by fishing and other impacts. They appear to be implying that the current regime merely assesses fish stocks in a reactive sense.

[quote]Resilience and multi-stressor research is needed to better understand the response of
marine ecosystems to threat combinations.



Quote:
expanding the scope of ongoing assessments of fish stocks to assess ecological
sustainability and management of fisheries rather than just stocks



Quote:
estimating recreational fish catches (currently estimated to equate to around 30
per cent of the commercial catch in NSW).


page xii:


Quote:
Better information is needed on the ecosystem effects of fishing and the integration
of this information into the annual stock assessment of commercial and recreational
fishing.


More reseach and better understanding - hardly an admission of failure. In fact The report said that there is no likely spillover benefit from NSW marine parks because the fishery is already well managed! Also NSW fisheries have been moving to a more ecosystems based fisheries managment for some time.

This is a good sign:


Quote:
clarifying the role and purpose of the various types of zones currently in use


They got this wrong. Marine parks should also be assesses against fisheries management objectives. They appear to imply this with their other recommendations. It does not make sense to ignore the fisheries management impacts of a management tool whose only mechanism is the management of fisheries effort.

See above, they have looked into this aspect.


Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 12:20pm
Regarding the committee, how do you come to the conclusion it was 'stacked' or the scope was limited? Don't you remenber Labor had it's own scientific review panel on their marine parks and the scope was so limited they weren't allowed to say wether the parks were a good idea or not! 

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2012 at 12:29pm

Quote:
Regarding the committee, how do you come to the conclusion it was 'stacked'


You have found so few real scientists that back your view in any kind of way that I recognise them when I see the name, like the guy from Tasmania, who was on the committee.


Quote:
or the scope was limited?


I read the scope. I have pointed out how it was limited. This is clearly stated in the scope.

The update I posted:


Quote:
Coalition marine park review released

We finally have an answer to questions raised earlier regarding the intention of the NSW state coalition for marine parks in the state. Prior to the NSW state election, the coalition courted the anti-marine park movement with a curious form of dog whistle politics. They had previously promised to abolish two marine parks if elected. This time they promised a review, which was enough to get the anti marine park movement on the coalition bandwagon. One can only assume that this gained more votes for the coalition than it lost, as they won the election and rewarded the supporters with a review of marine parks. They even stacked the review committee with scientists preferred by the anti marine park movement and controlled what scientific evidence the committee was allowed to consider.

The review is now done. Like all good committees, their first finding was that there should be a committee to carry on doing their job. Their main finding regarding marine parks is that there should be more of them.

Hooray.

The NSW coalition would like to thank the anti marine park movement for making this possible. Despite these sorts of outcomes, the relationship between the coalition and the anti marine park movement has been a long and fruitful one. After the federal coalition established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, The Fishing Party started a campaign against the park and against marine parks in general. They went into the next federal election with a scare campaign claiming that coastal recreational fishing would be banned outside of the south east corner of Queensland. They gained roughly half a per cent of QLD senate votes. Due to preference distributions, these votes went back to the coalition, helping to deliver them and extra senator in QLD and control of both houses of parliament. The Fishing party did not blink, as it was obviously the fault of the Democrats. They have since abandoned such subtle methods and instead posted banners on the Fishing Party website begging supporters to vote for the coalition and put Labor/Greens last.

Other recommendations by the audit committee include that someone should tell them what marine parks are for and that scientific research be expanded beyond merely monitoring fish stocks in a reactive sense to assessing the sustainability and resilience of our fisheries. Discuss.



Quote:
Wrong on both counts. Read it again it says that the system of representatve ares should be scrapped.


I have read the report recommendations. I quoted them. They say the current system should be maintained. You should try reading the actual report rather than fishing world articles. If I am wrong you should have no problem finding a quote from the actual report to back up your claim.


Quote:
More reseach and better understanding - hardly an admission of failure.


Not just more, but expanding the scope - to cover those questions you claim are already well understood, which is one of your justifications for opposing marine parks - because you think the scientists already have it all under control.


Quote:
In fact The report said that there is no likely spillover benefit from NSW marine parks


No it does not. Neither does the fishing world article. Try reading what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 1:06pm
[link=1281669694/38#38 date=1330223371]
Quote:
Regarding the committee, how do you come to the conclusion it was 'stacked'


You have found so few real scientists that back your view in any kind of way that I recognise them when I see the name, like the guy from Tasmania, who was on the committee.

That's just your lazy/dishonest stock postition - dismiss any scientist I quote as part of a mere handlful or not even a scientist at all. PS: who is 'that guy from Tasmania' do you mean Proffessor Colin Buxton?


Quote:
or the scope was limited?


I read the scope. I have pointed out how it was limited. This is clearly stated in the scope.

No you merely said it was limited but not how. In fact the report seems to cover all possible bases.


The update I posted:


Quote:
Coalition marine park review released

We finally have an answer to questions raised earlier regarding the intention of the NSW state coalition for marine parks in the state. Prior to the NSW state election, the coalition courted the anti-marine park movement with a curious form of dog whistle politics. They had previously promised to abolish two marine parks if elected. This time they promised a review, which was enough to get the anti marine park movement on the coalition bandwagon. One can only assume that this gained more votes for the coalition than it lost, as they won the election and rewarded the supporters with a review of marine parks. They even stacked the review committee with scientists preferred by the anti marine park movement and controlled what scientific evidence the committee was allowed to consider.

The review is now done. Like all good committees, their first finding was that there should be a committee to carry on doing their job. Their main finding regarding marine parks is that there should be more of them.

Hooray.

The NSW coalition would like to thank the anti marine park movement for making this possible. Despite these sorts of outcomes, the relationship between the coalition and the anti marine park movement has been a long and fruitful one. After the federal coalition established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, The Fishing Party started a campaign against the park and against marine parks in general. They went into the next federal election with a scare campaign claiming that coastal recreational fishing would be banned outside of the south east corner of Queensland. They gained roughly half a per cent of QLD senate votes. Due to preference distributions, these votes went back to the coalition, helping to deliver them and extra senator in QLD and control of both houses of parliament. The Fishing party did not blink, as it was obviously the fault of the Democrats. They have since abandoned such subtle methods and instead posted banners on the Fishing Party website begging supporters to vote for the coalition and put Labor/Greens last.

Other recommendations by the audit committee include that someone should tell them what marine parks are for and that scientific research be expanded beyond merely monitoring fish stocks in a reactive sense to assessing the sustainability and resilience of our fisheries. Discuss.



Quote:
Wrong on both counts. Read it again it says that the system of representatve ares should be scrapped.


I have read the report recommendations. I quoted them. They say the current system should be maintained. You should try reading the actual report rather than fishing world articles. If I am wrong you should have no problem finding a quote from the actual report to back up your claim.

Your being deliberately evasive and I have already pointed out where you are wrong. They are not saying there should be more marine parks and that the system of zoning should be scrapped.


Quote:
More reseach and better understanding - hardly an admission of failure.


Not just more, but expanding the scope - to cover those questions you claim are already well understood, which is one of your justifications for opposing marine parks - because you think the scientists already have it all under control.

They have already been looking into ecosystems based management - remember the Pitcher and Forrest paper?


Quote:
In fact The report said that there is no likely spillover benefit from NSW marine parks


No it does not. Neither does the fishing world article. Try reading what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.[/quote]

Yes it does.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 1:16pm
Here FD have another read. I have even put the most relevant bits in bold. Are you really going to stick with your black is white argument?

From the Fishing World article:

In a further blow to extreme green groups seeking to ban fishing, the report quashed the benefits of the much-lauded “the spill-over effect”. Marine parks activists have long used the “spill-over effect” – which is based on the supposition that no-go zones produce more and bigger fish – as justification for locking anglers out of traditional fishing grounds.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.

In an interview with Fishing World following the official release of the report, Professor Beeton rejected claims by NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann that the report advocated more marine parks.

“What we said was that steps should be taken to protect biodiversity in the Hawkesbury and Twofold bay areas,” Professor Beeton said. “It didn’t say that we should put marine parks there. The report also says there is very significant change required for the NSW marine estate and while the Government is getting itself organised to do that that it should maintain the current system. That should be a holding position; it’s not at all endorsing the current system. In fact the report says quite the opposite.”

Professor Beeton said one of the main findings of the report was that the structure of marine parks in NSW was flawed. All of the six mainland marine parks in the state are based on “CAR principles”, which involve creating different zones which either allow or don’t allow fishing.

“Strict adherence to CAR principles in small marine parks (as in NSW) doesn’t really work that well,” Professor Beeton said. “You can manage things a whole lot better if you manage the whole coast properly.”

The professor said that decisions about banning recreational fishing in NSW’s marine parks had been made “from a very poor knowledge base” and that future decisions regarding marine planning “be made with anglers’ aspirations in mind”.

The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.



Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2012 at 2:45pm

Quote:
That's just your lazy/dishonest stock postition - dismiss any scientist I quote as part of a mere handlful or not even a scientist at all.


Well I can count them on my fingers. I only discount the pretend scientists as pretend scientists. It seems you still can't tell the difference.


Quote:
No you merely said it was limited but not how.


You will have to quote me then. I have no idea what you are talking about.


Quote:
Your being deliberately evasive and I have already pointed out where you are wrong. They are not saying there should be more marine parks and that the system of zoning should be scrapped.


You pointed out a contradiction. That does not mean I am the one who is wrong. After all, I am the one who is quoting the actual report.


Quote:
They have already been looking into ecosystems based management - remember the Pitcher and Forrest paper?


You seem to be missing the point PJ. I did not refer to expanding the scope to include ecosystem based management.


Quote:
Yes it does.


So why are you unable to quote the section of the report where it says what you and the journalist claim it says? Why is it that I am the only one who can quote the actual report to back up what I claim the report says?


Quote:
Here FD have another read. I have even put the most relevant bits in bold. Are you really going to stick with your black is white argument?

From the Fishing World article:


You are confused PJ. I meant quote from the actual audit report. Fishing world is known for getting these things completely backwards. It is not my fault you keep wasting your money on a publication that just makes you look silly.

I'll give you a tip - don't bother trying to search for the direct quotes that the Fishing World article implies come directly from the report. They are not in there. Not that it is surprising, as they are sloppily written.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:03pm
link=1281669694/41#41 date=1330231550]
Quote:
That's just your lazy/dishonest stock postition - dismiss any scientist I quote as part of a mere handlful or not even a scientist at all.


Well I can count them on my fingers. I only discount the pretend scientists as pretend scientists. It seems you still can't tell the difference.

So what is 'wrong'  with the scientists who wrote the report. What is the difference between a real and pretend scientist (and what does that make you).


Quote:
No you merely said it was limited but not how.


You will have to quote me then. I have no idea what you are talking about.

BS. If you think the scope was limited then explain how.


Quote:
Your being deliberately evasive and I have already pointed out where you are wrong. They are not saying there should be more marine parks and that the system of zoning should be scrapped.


You pointed out a contradiction. That does not mean I am the one who is wrong. After all, I am the one who is quoting the actual report.

There is no contradiction. You have merged scrapping the zoning system with scrapping the parks.


Quote:
They have already been looking into ecosystems based management - remember the Pitcher and Forrest paper?


You seem to be missing the point PJ. I did not refer to expanding the scope to include ecosystem based management.


Quote:
Yes it does.


So why are you unable to quote the section of the report where it says what you and the journalist claim it says? Why is it that I am the only one who can quote the actual report to back up what I claim the report says?

The journalist quoted the report ie when the put up these "     " followed by the report says.


Quote:
Here FD have another read. I have even put the most relevant bits in bold. Are you really going to stick with your black is white argument?

From the Fishing World article:


You are confused PJ. I meant quote from the actual audit report. Fishing world is known for getting these things completely backwards. It is not my fault you keep wasting your money on a publication that just makes you look silly.

I'll give you a tip - don't bother trying to search for the direct quotes that the Fishing World article implies come directly from the report. They are not in there. Not that it is surprising, as they are sloppily written.

It's very clear what comes from the report, it also gives and attributes quotes not from the report but from an interview.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:11pm
PJ, how about instead of digging yourself in deeper without knowing what you are talking about, you stop responding, take your time and read the report. You have put yourself in this position before by taking Fishing World articles a little too seriously.


Quote:
So what is 'wrong'  with the scientists who wrote the report. What is the difference between a real and pretend scientist (and what does that make you).


That was a reference to Walter Starck and his ilk. As far as I know the scientists on the panel are practicing scientists.


Quote:
BS. If you think the scope was limited then explain how.


Please quote where I said the scope was limited. You will have a hard time leaving out the bit where I explained how. Unless of course you are referring to something else, in which case I have no idea what you are talking about.


Quote:
There is no contradiction. You have merged scrapping the zoning system with scrapping the parks.


The Fishing World article uses the term 'scrapping'. The actual audit report uses the term 'maintain' instead. Any rational person would call that a contradiction.


Quote:
The journalist quoted the report ie when the put up these "     " followed by the report says.


That's what they want you to think. Except it is not in the actual report. Check for yourself.


Quote:
It's very clear what comes from the report, it also gives and attributes quotes not from the report but from an interview.


I thought it was clear too, untill I checked the report.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 7:47pm
You said this FD:

They even stacked the review committee with scientists preferred by the anti marine park movement and controlled what scientific evidence the committee was allowed to consider.

So what was wrong with the scientists and how was the scope limited with repect to the scientific evidence?

Then there was this outrageous lie:

Their main finding regarding marine parks is that there should be more of them.

The Prof. who headed the committee has said this is not their finding (main or otherwise)!

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 8:03pm
[quote author=50445353525F405344360 link=1281669694/43#43 date=1330247462]PJ, how about instead of digging yourself in deeper without knowing what you are talking about, you stop responding, take your time and read the report. You have put yourself in this position before by taking Fishing World articles a little too seriously.

I have had a look. I quick peruse was enough to find some of the Fishing World quotes and that they were 100% accurate (eg the one on spillover effect). The scope of reference was not limited at all - you still won't explain what they weren't allowed to look at.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2012 at 8:17pm

Quote:
So what was wrong with the scientists and how was the scope limited with repect to the scientific evidence?


Item 2 in the terms of reference:


Quote:
2.review the scientific data provided to the Panel by the NSW Department of Primary Industries and the Office of Environment & Heritage;



Quote:
The Prof. who headed the committee has said this is not their finding (main or otherwise)!


Yet that is what the report says. There is no mention of scrapping marine parks in the recommendations, even indirectly. Strange, hey?


Quote:
I have had a look. I quick peruse was enough to find some of the Fishing World quotes and that they were 100% accurate (eg the one on spillover effect).


Did you notice that the statement about the spillover effect does not actually say what you thought it said?

Can you find this in the report?


Quote:
The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 26th, 2012 at 8:36pm
link=1281669694/46#46 date=1330251434]
Quote:
So what was wrong with the scientists and how was the scope limited with repect to the scientific evidence?


Item 2 in the terms of reference:


Quote:
2.review the scientific data provided to the Panel by the NSW Department of Primary Industries and the Office of Environment & Heritage;


It doesn't say that the scientific data was limited to this source nor is there any indication it was.


Quote:
The Prof. who headed the committee has said this is not their finding (main or otherwise)!


Yet that is what the report says. There is no mention of scrapping marine parks in the recommendations, even indirectly. Strange, hey?

The point (yours) was that marine parks should be expanded according to the the report's recommendations. It does not say this at all. No one has suggested it says that marine parks should be scrapped either - get it?


Quote:
I have had a look. I quick peruse was enough to find some of the Fishing World quotes and that they were 100% accurate (eg the one on spillover effect).


Did you notice that the statement about the spillover effect does not actually say what you thought it said?

They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position. Plus you have changed the subject - you said the quote wasn't in the report at all.


Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 26th, 2012 at 9:38pm

Quote:
It doesn't say that the scientific data was limited to this source nor is there any indication it was.


Do you know how these things work? They are limited to the terms of reference provided.


Quote:
The point (yours) was that marine parks should be expanded according to the the report's recommendations.


If it wasn't for the silly Fishing World article, you would interpret the recommendation the same way and insist that the scientists must therefor be being paid to lie.


Quote:
They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position.


How so? I think they are well managed too. The recently created marine parks are a good example of that. You need to be more careful with reading too much into these vague generalisations.


Quote:
Plus you have changed the subject - you said the quote wasn't in the report at all.


I did not say that that particular quote is not in the report. Congratualtions on finding an accuracy in the Fishing World article. They must have slipped up. This quote for example is not in the report.


Quote:
The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.


Can you find it?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 27th, 2012 at 6:19am
link=1281669694/48#48 date=1330256309]
Quote:
It doesn't say that the scientific data was limited to this source nor is there any indication it was.


Do you know how these things work? They are limited to the terms of reference provided.

And you have sneakily taken one point in isolation, when in fact they looked at all aspects of scientific evidence, overseas data and submissions from green groups.


Quote:
The point (yours) was that marine parks should be expanded according to the the report's recommendations.


If it wasn't for the silly Fishing World article, you would interpret the recommendation the same way and insist that the scientists must therefor be being paid to lie.

What does that babble mean? No one has suggested that the report says that marine parks be scrapped - except you attributing it to FW mag.


Quote:
They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position.


How so? I think they are well managed too. The recently created marine parks are a good example of that. You need to be more careful with reading too much into these vague generalisations.

Obviously they mean apart from the marine parks. As to the marine parks they are saying they are poor management. More black is white double talk from you.


Quote:
Plus you have changed the subject - you said the quote wasn't in the report at all.


I did not say that that particular quote is not in the report. Congratualtions on finding an accuracy in the Fishing World article. They must have slipped up. This quote for example is not in the report.


Quote:
The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.


Can you find it?

So now only one quote is not in the report (maybe given there are 142 pages to go through). Have you considered it might have be said in the interview instead - if so a relatively minor slip up.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 27th, 2012 at 12:20pm

Quote:
As to the marine parks they are saying they are poor management.


Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.


Quote:
So now only one quote is not in the report


I did not say that. If you want to audit every quote to find which ones are made up, go ahead.


Quote:
(maybe given there are 142 pages to go through)


Please tell me you aren't looking for them manually?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 27th, 2012 at 4:05pm
link=1281669694/50#50 date=1330309226]
Quote:
As to the marine parks they are saying they are poor management.


Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.



Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 27th, 2012 at 4:11pm

Quote:
So now only one quote is not in the report



I did not say that. If you want to audit every quote to find which ones are made up, go ahead.

None are made up - some quotes are from the interview and not the report.


Quote:
(maybe given there are 142 pages to go through)


Please tell me you aren't looking for them manually?

I'm reading the report FD. I happened to come across the FW quotes.


PS: another interesting point in the report was there description of 'serious academic debate' on the fisheries benefits of marine parks. A bit different to your depiction of a handful of dissenters
.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 27th, 2012 at 7:06pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 27th, 2012 at 4:05pm:
link=1281669694/50#50 date=1330309226]
Quote:
As to the marine parks they are saying they are poor management.


Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.




That is not saying that marine parks are poor management. It is almost a tautology. It is a purely qualitative statement about the quantity of the benefit. Beyond that, it says little at all. Obviously you get bigger benefits from improved improved techniques if the previous management was worse.

You are yet again running into trouble by reading far too much into vague generalisations.


Quote:
PS: another interesting point in the report was there description of 'serious academic debate' on the fisheries benefits of marine parks. A bit different to your depiction of a handful of dissenters.


Not really. There is still serious debate on the extent of the benefit and for example what extent and distribution of no take zone maximises the benefit. This is not the same as saying that researchers are arguing over whether marine parks are necessary or an improvement on current alternatives.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 27th, 2012 at 7:25pm
[=1281669694/50#50 date=1330309226]
Quote:
As to the marine parks they are saying they are poor management.


Can you quote the bit in the report (not the FW article) that says that? The closest thing I found to a direct reference to marine parks in the recommendations was when the scientists recommended someone tell them what marine parks are for.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.


“ [/quote]

That is not saying that marine parks are poor management. It is almost a tautology.

Then what exactly is the benefit of this costly and divisive policy?

It is a purely qualitative statement about the quantity of the benefit. Beyond that, it says little at all.

And what else is there? The quality of the benefit is the nub of the issue.

Obviously you get bigger benefits from improved improved techniques if the previous management was worse.

You are yet again running into trouble by reading far too much into vague generalisations.

You are forgetting that they are also harshly critcal of the zoning according to representatve areas.


Quote:
PS: another interesting point in the report was there description of 'serious academic debate' on the fisheries benefits of marine parks. A bit different to your depiction of a handful of dissenters.


Not really. There is still serious debate on the extent of the benefit and for example what extent and distribution of no take zone maximises the benefit. This is not the same as saying that researchers are arguing over whether marine parks are necessary or an improvement on current alternatives.

Well if you make things general enough virtually no one is against marine parks. It's when you come down to specifics such as zonings and what the parks are likely to acheive you have considerable controvery.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 27th, 2012 at 10:18pm

Quote:
Then what exactly is the benefit of this costly and divisive policy?


Resilience, sustainability, more fish. It is not costly. It can save a lot of money. Divisiveness is a property of change, not the policy itself. I am going to write an article about this for you.


Quote:
And what else is there? The quality of the benefit is the nub of the issue.


It was a statement about the extent of the benefit that did not actually say anything meaningful about the extent of the benfit. It merely stated the obvious. Does that make more sense? It is not a question of the type of benefit, but how much difference it makes.


Quote:
You are forgetting that they are also harshly critcal of the zoning according to representatve areas.


I wouldn't say harsh. Note that I am also critical of that approach. Also, their actual recommendations include clarification of the purpose of marine parks. Asking what something is for is hardly a criticism.

In fact, their recommendations could well be interpretted as an endorsement of the specific suggestions I make.


Quote:
Well if you make things general enough virtually no one is against marine parks. It's when you come down to specifics such as zonings and what the parks are likely to acheive you have considerable controvery


Does the audit committee make any specific recommendations, other than the formation of another committee?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 28th, 2012 at 3:46pm
[link=1281669694/55#55 date=1330345136]
Quote:
Then what exactly is the benefit of this costly and divisive policy?


Resilience, sustainability, more fish.

With no signifcant spillover effect? Not likely.

It is not costly. It can save a lot of money.

I have presented ample evidence of the cost and all you have ever come up with is flat denials like this.

Divisiveness is a property of change, not the policy itself. I am going to write an article about this for you.

Apart from the parks themselves there are the lies told to justify them and the way they are rammed down our throats.


Quote:
And what else is there? The quality of the benefit is the nub of the issue.


It was a statement about the extent of the benefit that did not actually say anything meaningful about the extent of the benfit. It merely stated the obvious. Does that make more sense? It is not a question of the type of benefit, but how much difference it makes.

Doesn't the term 'no signifcant' mean anything to you?


Quote:
You are forgetting that they are also harshly critcal of the zoning according to representatve areas.


I wouldn't say harsh. Note that I am also critical of that approach. Also, their actual recommendations include clarification of the purpose of marine parks. Asking what something is for is hardly a criticism.

In fact, their recommendations could well be interpretted as an endorsement of the specific suggestions I make.

Your own zoning examples look equally arbitrary and ineffectual.


Quote:
Well if you make things general enough virtually no one is against marine parks. It's when you come down to specifics such as zonings and what the parks are likely to acheive you have considerable controversy


Does the audit committee make any specific recommendations, other than the formation of another committee?

Is that a criticism?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 28th, 2012 at 7:34pm

Quote:
With no signifcant spillover effect? Not likely.


Resilience and sustainability are not in any way related to the spillover effect. Unless you magically know what qualifies as significant then you have no way of knowing how many more fish the author thinks we will catch. Furthermore, an improvement is an improvement, regardless of the magnitude.


Quote:
I have presented ample evidence of the cost and all you have ever come up with is flat denials like this


Well done. I have refuted each example as they all had obvious holes. You seem to forget that bit.


Quote:
Doesn't the term 'no signifcant' mean anything to you?


By itself it is meaningless. Again you confuse yourself by reading far too much into vague generalisations. Can you interpret the extent of the benefit in any way from this statement?


Quote:
Your own zoning examples look equally arbitrary and ineffectual.


The principles on which the examples are based is clearly outlined in the other article.


Quote:
Is that a criticism?


It was phrased in the form of a question. Whether it is a criticism depends on the answer. I read through the recommendations and did not see anything other than the comment I quoted (more marine parks in specific regions) that relates directly to how fisheries are managed in practice. They all seemed to be along the lines of 'take this into account' or 'judge it on this basis' that were little more than ways to rephrase the questions that were asked of them, eg:

Q: How should economic issues be taken into account

A: Economic issues should be taken into account in selecting marine park zones. A committee should be established to figure out how to do this.

Perhaps the government got what it wanted out of the review, but I am not sure what that is, other than a licence for departmental shuffling.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 28th, 2012 at 7:59pm
link=1281669694/57#57 date=1330421669]
Quote:
With no signifcant spillover effect? Not likely.


Resilience and sustainability are not in any way related to the spillover effect. Unless you magically know what qualifies as significant then you have no way of knowing how many more fish the author thinks we will catch. Furthermore, an improvement is an improvement, regardless of the magnitude.

The theory of marine parks for fisheries management is that fish will build up in numbers in the no fishing zones and spillover and replenish the areas open to fishing - or have I missed something?

Furthermore you can't just get away with an improvement is an improvement as a justification. Any management initiative which reduces the ability of fisherman to catch fish will lead to an increase in fish numbers and by inference resiliance and sustainability. If we don't fish at all fish numbers would be much better off. The proper objective is to manage fishing sustainably, not to maximise the the fish population. 



Quote:
I have presented ample evidence of the cost and all you have ever come up with is flat denials like this


Well done. I have refuted each example as they all had obvious holes. You seem to forget that bit.

No, you have just come up with flat denials and/or ignored the examples completely.


Quote:
Doesn't the term 'no signifcant' mean anything to you?


By itself it is meaningless. Again you confuse yourself by reading far too much into vague generalisations. Can you interpret the extent of the benefit in any way from this statement?

Can you quantify the extent of the benefit of your marine park examples? Should I ignore them because you can't?


Quote:
Your own zoning examples look equally arbitrary and ineffectual.


The principles on which the examples are based is clearly outlined in the other article.

The so called principles were made up by you with no understanding of the issues and are invalidated by the audits finding that given that NSW fisheries are well managed there is likely to be no significant spillover effect from marine parks.


Quote:
Is that a criticism?


It was phrased in the form of a question. Whether it is a criticism depends on the answer. I read through the recommendations and did not see anything other than the comment I quoted (more marine parks in specific regions)

There is nothing in the report recommending more marine parks and this has also been emphased in an interview with the Professor who headed the audit.

that relates directly to how fisheries are managed in practice. They all seemed to be along the lines of 'take this into account' or 'judge it on this basis' that were little more than ways to rephrase the questions that were asked of them, eg:

Q: How should economic issues be taken into account

A: Economic issues should be taken into account in selecting marine park zones. A committee should be established to figure out how to do this.

Perhaps the government got what it wanted out of the review, but I am not sure what that is, other than a licence for departmental shuffling.

One of the audits critcisms was that the parks and zoning were implimented with indecent haste. It would be somewhat hypocritical for them to turn around and do the same.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 28th, 2012 at 8:35pm

Quote:
The theory of marine parks for fisheries management is that fish will build up in numbers in the no fishing zones and spillover and replenish the areas open to fishing - or have I missed something?


That is the 'catching more fish' bit. It has nothing to do with the other advantages like resilience and sustainability.


Quote:
Furthermore you can't just get away with an improvement is an improvement as a justification.


It wasn't a justification for anything. I was merely pointing out your tendency to read far too much into vauge generalisations. Why is it that you can point out the vagueness in my response but not in your original comment? Perhaps I should wrap it in more layers of convolution so we can waffle on all day without actually saying anything. Do we have to discuss this for ten pages for such a simple emssage to sink in?


Quote:
Any management initiative which reduces the ability of fisherman to catch fish will lead to an increase in fish numbers and by inference resiliance and sustainability.


True, but marine parks improve resilience through other important mechanisms that other initiatives do not replicate. Furthermore it does this, and increases fish stocks, without reducing the number of fish caught.


Quote:
Can you quantify the extent of the benefit of your marine park examples? Should I ignore them because you can't?


You are missing the point PJ. I am not arguing for marine parks on the basis of a vague and meaningless comment by some committee regarding the extent of the benfit. You on the other hand are trying to read something into a vauge and meaningless comment.


Quote:
The so called principles were made up by you with no understanding of the issues


Not true. If you can go beyond the vague and meaningless I might be able to give a mroe specific response.


Quote:
and are invalidated by the audits finding that given that NSW fisheries are well managed there is likely to be no significant spillover effect from marine parks


Again, not true. Can you point out where I have rested the argument in favour of marine parks on the magnitude of the benefit? Can you point out how a vague anbd meaningless comment regarding the magnitude invaldiates anything? Your argument here is incredibly stupid. You are doing nothing more than saying we should not follow through on a good idea because it is not a 'very' good idea.


Quote:
One of the audits critcisms was that the parks and zoning were implimented with indecent haste. It would be somewhat hypocritical for them to turn around and do the same.


They have taken this to an absurd extreme. Did they go to the trouble of pointing out where the haste had any impact on the outcome and how a better outcome may have been achieved? Or was it only the haste itself and not the final outcome they were criticising? Should we conclude that they would be happy with the same outcome achieved at a glacial pace after funding endless highly paid committees that are too timid to recomend anything other than a committee?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 28th, 2012 at 10:14pm
PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:


Quote:
This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.



Quote:
The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.


Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations:

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 29th, 2012 at 3:58pm
link=1281669694/60#60 date=1330431267]PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:


Quote:
This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.



Quote:
The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.


Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations:

Spatial management does not equal marine parks FD. We have had spatial management for years before marine parks in NSW. Eg large area bans for trawling and recreational fishing havens. The second quote is far more specific and also rather inconvenient for marine park advocates.


Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 29th, 2012 at 4:12pm
[link=1281669694/59#59 date=1330425330]
Quote:
The theory of marine parks for fisheries management is that fish will build up in numbers in the no fishing zones and spillover and replenish the areas open to fishing - or have I missed something?


That is the 'catching more fish' bit. It has nothing to do with the other advantages like resilience and sustainability.

If there is no significant spillover then where is the benefit? Can you explain the mechanism for these advantages without it?


Quote:
Furthermore you can't just get away with an improvement is an improvement as a justification.


It wasn't a justification for anything. I was merely pointing out your tendency to read far too much into vauge generalisations. Why is it that you can point out the vagueness in my response but not in your original comment? Perhaps I should wrap it in more layers of convolution so we can waffle on all day without actually saying anything. Do we have to discuss this for ten pages for such a simple emssage to sink in?

I can point out more than vagueness on your park. You have made several outright lies on this topic.


Quote:
Any management initiative which reduces the ability of fisherman to catch fish will lead to an increase in fish numbers and by inference resiliance and sustainability.


True, but marine parks improve resilience through other important mechanisms that other initiatives do not replicate. Furthermore it does this, and increases fish stocks, without reducing the number of fish caught.

That's just your magical thinking on marine parks. There is absolutely no evidence for that.


Quote:
Can you quantify the extent of the benefit of your marine park examples? Should I ignore them because you can't?


You are missing the point PJ. I am not arguing for marine parks on the basis of a vague and meaningless comment by some committee regarding the extent of the benfit. You on the other hand are trying to read something into a vauge and meaningless comment.


Quote:
The so called principles were made up by you with no understanding of the issues


Not true. If you can go beyond the vague and meaningless I might be able to give a mroe specific response.


Quote:
and are invalidated by the audits finding that given that NSW fisheries are well managed there is likely to be no significant spillover effect from marine parks


Again, not true. Can you point out where I have rested the argument in favour of marine parks on the magnitude of the benefit? Can you point out how a vague anbd meaningless comment regarding the magnitude invaldiates anything? Your argument here is incredibly stupid. You are doing nothing more than saying we should not follow through on a good idea because it is not a 'very' good idea.

Welcome to the real World FD. It's about cost verses benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit then it's not a good idea at all.


Quote:
One of the audits critcisms was that the parks and zoning were implimented with indecent haste. It would be somewhat hypocritical for them to turn around and do the same.


They have taken this to an absurd extreme. Did they go to the trouble of pointing out where the haste had any impact on the outcome and how a better outcome may have been achieved? Or was it only the haste itself and not the final outcome they were criticising? Should we conclude that they would be happy with the same outcome achieved at a glacial pace after funding endless highly paid committees that are too timid to recomend anything other than a committee?

Your being silly. They pointed out in great detail what is wrong with the zonings and the rationale behind them.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 29th, 2012 at 6:13pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 29th, 2012 at 3:58pm:
link=1281669694/60#60 date=1330431267]PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:


Quote:
This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.


[quote]The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.


Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations:

Spatial management does not equal marine parks FD. We have had spatial management for years before marine parks in NSW. Eg large area bans for trawling and recreational fishing havens. The second quote is far more specific and also rather inconvenient for marine park advocates.


Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.
[/quote]

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 29th, 2012 at 6:24pm

Quote:
If there is no significant spillover then where is the benefit? Can you explain the mechanism for these advantages without it?


Sure. As explained in the article on marine parks, marine parks are inherently more resilient than other methods because they become more effective rather than less as stocks get lower. They also do not undermine the fishery in the way minimum sizes do by reducing growth rates. Neither of these mechanisms rely on spillover. In fact resilience relies on some fish remaining within the no take zone - the BFFF argument.


Quote:
I can point out more than vagueness on your park. You have made several outright lies on this topic.


I am happy to explain where you have misunderstood. Obviously this requires more than merely making the accusation as I have idea what you are on about.


Quote:
That's just your magical thinking on marine parks. There is absolutely no evidence for that.


How would you recognise the evidence if you do not even understand the mechanism?


Quote:
Welcome to the real World FD. It's about cost verses benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit then it's not a good idea at all.


Almost all of the costs you attribute to marine parks are imaginary or misattributed. The rest are insignificant.


Quote:
Your being silly. They pointed out in great detail what is wrong with the zonings and the rationale behind them.


No they didn't. One of the recommendations was for someone to explain the rationale to them. How can they criticise it if they don't even know what it is?

Can you find a criticism that goes beyond a vague generalisation that you have to misinterpret? So far every time you have managed to do that it is a criticism that I have already made myself, yet you seem to think it somehow undermines my argument.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 29th, 2012 at 6:49pm

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.
[/quote]

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

So what if they contradict? The last two you have made up and I don't expect you to agree with any criticism of marine parks.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Feb 29th, 2012 at 7:10pm
30503880]
Quote:
If there is no significant spillover then where is the benefit? Can you explain the mechanism for these advantages without it?


Sure. As explained in the article on marine parks, marine parks are inherently more resilient than other methods because they become more effective rather than less as stocks get lower. They also do not undermine the fishery in the way minimum sizes do by reducing growth rates. Neither of these mechanisms rely on spillover. In fact resilience relies on some fish remaining within the no take zone - the BFFF argument.

Some fish always remain FD. The growth rates effect of fishing relies on the theory of genetic changes caused by fishing - which has been discounted in recent papers. You have taken a doubtful or a best highly contested theory and presented it as fact.


Quote:
I can point out more than vagueness on your park. You have made several outright lies on this topic.


I am happy to explain where you have misunderstood. Obviously this requires more than merely making the accusation as I have idea what you are on about.

You lied in your article when you said the main recommendation of the Audit was for more marine parks. You lied when you said the Fishing World article had said that the Audit recommended marine park be scrapped. You lied when you said that the Audit was hamstrung by limited terms of reference.   


Quote:
That's just your magical thinking on marine parks. There is absolutely no evidence for that.


How would you recognise the evidence if you do not even understand the mechanism?

See above.


Quote:
Welcome to the real World FD. It's about cost verses benefit. If the cost outweighs the benefit then it's not a good idea at all.


Almost all of the costs you attribute to marine parks are imaginary or misattributed. The rest are insignificant.

I think that can be just added to the list of your barefaced lies.


Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Feb 29th, 2012 at 8:14pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 29th, 2012 at 6:49pm:
Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.


I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

So what if they contradict? The last two you have made up and I don't expect you to agree with any criticism of marine parks.
[/quote]

I am suggesting to you that they do not contradict. I hope that by attempting to explain the apparent contradiction you will realise how you have misunderstood the statements in the audit report.


Quote:
You have taken a doubtful or a best highly contested theory and presented it as fact.


The theory of natural selection is neither doubtful nor contested.


Quote:
I think that can be just added to the list of your barefaced lies.


You mean your misunderstandings? Lets start with the apparent contradictions I asked you about earlier. Hopefully by now you have understood that I am asking you whether you see any contradictions and you will be able to give an answer that makes sense.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Mar 1st, 2012 at 3:52pm
link=1281669694/65#65 date=1330505353]
Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

These last two quotes do not appear to be in the Audit Report so I think you have some explaining to do.
[/quote]

I was asking you whether you saw any contradictions between the first two quotes from the report and the two subsequent generalisations.

They are just plain wrong FD.

So what if they contradict? The last two you have made up and I don't expect you to agree with any criticism of marine parks.
[/quote]

I am suggesting to you that they do not contradict. I hope that by attempting to explain the apparent contradiction you will realise how you have misunderstood the statements in the audit report.

What has this got to do with the 3 outright lies you told?


Quote:
You have taken a doubtful or a best highly contested theory and presented it as fact.


The theory of natural selection is neither doubtful nor contested.

Duh, were talking about as it applies to fisheries with respect to genetic changes effecting growth rates. The latest evidence is that is not a significant factor.


Quote:
I think that can be just added to the list of your barefaced lies.


You mean your misunderstandings?

No, lies.

Lets start with the apparent contradictions I asked you about earlier.

Why don't you address your lies instead of raising red herrings?

Hopefully by now you have understood that I am asking you whether you see any contradictions and you will be able to give an answer that makes sense.

The last two statements are incorrect - I suppose you term that a contradiction!

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Mar 1st, 2012 at 5:43pm
Because if you cannot understand plain english you are in no position to accuse others of lying about the science. You claim that the audit report comments somehow undermine my arguments, yet cannot point out a contradiction between what the report actually said and my position. This seems to be based on a misunderstnding of both my position and the report, but let's start with the report first.

After all, that is what this thread has been about for a few pages. You seem to have attempted to change the topic by making vague accusations of lying once it became obvious you misunderstood the audit report. No doubt once I pointed out that I was not lying you would change the topic back to your misunderstanding of the report and pretend the ast few pages didn't happen.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Mar 1st, 2012 at 6:18pm

freediver wrote on Mar 1st, 2012 at 5:43pm:
Because if you cannot understand plain english you are in no position to accuse others of lying about the science. You claim that the audit report comments somehow undermine my arguments, yet cannot point out a contradiction between what the report actually said and my position. This seems to be based on a misunderstnding of both my position and the report, but let's start with the report first.

After all, that is what this thread has been about for a few pages. You seem to have attempted to change the topic by making vague accusations of lying once it became obvious you misunderstood the audit report. No doubt once I pointed out that I was not lying you would change the topic back to your misunderstanding of the report and pretend the ast few pages didn't happen.



Whatever, nice person.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Mar 1st, 2012 at 9:12pm
PJ, just in case you are still confused about what that statement actually means, consider these two quotes from the report:


Quote:
This is not to deny that good fisheries management can make good use of various wellestablished
spatial techniques for the benefit of fish stocks. This issue is related to the
appropriate sustainable management of the marine estate and should be seen as synergistic
with the issues of spillover from marine parks discussed above.



Quote:
The Audit Panel
concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for
the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large
fisheries benefit from spillover.


Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations?

Marine parks result in fisheries benefits regardless of how well managed the fishery is.

The audit panel recommends the use of marine parks.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 6:18am
The first generalisation is not true. You could do more harm than good to the fishery with marine parks. PS in case you don't understand 'fishery' is a term describing the fishing industry.

The second generalisation is misleading . The audit panel does not recommend marine parks as they are in NSW. If you make it general enough then everyone supports marine parks. We have had a few small one for years in NSW with little controversy. To traslate a support or ambivalence for a general idea to support for 36% of NSW waters being marine parks with a dodgy zoning system is just trickery on your part. 

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 8:28am
This time I will post just the question in the hope you may see it. If you get confused about which statements it refers to, see the several previous posts where I have asked the same question.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 3:52pm

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 8:28am:
This time I will post just the question in the hope you may see it. If you get confused about which statements it refers to, see the several previous posts where I have asked the same question.

Can you see any contradiction at all between these statements above and the following generalisations?



Yes, thanks for highlighting your rhetorical device. You have resorted to a loaded question, ie one designed to deceive/ advance your agenda. Seeing that the quotes and generalisations deal with different topics one can't really say that they contradict each other. No doubt then you will make the leap that the audit supports the generalisations. Rather amusing seeing that you failed to make a case prior to this trickery.

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 6:19pm
I was just trying to figure out whether you understood it yet.

Can you explain what you mean by this,


Quote:
They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position.


keeping in mind that the statement does not contradict the generalisation that marine parks always benefit a fishery, regardless of how well managed?

What case do you think I am trying to make?

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by pjb05 on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 6:32pm
[link=1281669694/75#75 date=1330676368]I was just trying to figure out whether you understood it yet.

Can you explain what you mean by this,


Quote:
They say that NSW fisheries are well managed and it discounts any significant spillover effect. Pretty daming for your position.


keeping in mind that the statement does not contradict the generalisation that marine parks always benefit a fishery, regardless of how well managed?

What case do you think I am trying to make? [/quote]

Your trying to use a rhetorical trick because you have lost the argument. The statements are talking about different things - it's not a valid question to ask whether they 'contadict'. Recall that when I pointed out that spillover effect is used by marine park advocates as a mechanism by which a fishery will benefit. When I pointed out the audit panels statement about no large spillover you said marine parks give benefit by another mechanism. Ie avoiding genetic changes caused by size limits/ traditional management. I showed this to be discounted by the latest research. 

Title: Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Post by freediver on Mar 2nd, 2012 at 6:52pm

Quote:
Your trying to use a rhetorical trick because you have lost the argument. The statements are talking about different things - it's not a valid question to ask whether they 'contadict'.


Perhaps you have not noticed, but now that I have gotten a straight answer from you (it only took one page) I have moved on - ironically to another question you avoided earlier. It was not some grand scheme to trick you into anything.

I would post the question again for you, but it seems a bit silly seeing as you just quoted it.

Also, do you think there is a difference between 'well managed' and 'adequate fisheries management'?

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2017. All Rights Reserved.