Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Member Run Boards >> Hunting and Fishing >> NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1289082469

Message started by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:27am

Title: NSW coalition, re: Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:27am
Prior to the last state election, the NSW coalition promised to abolish the marine parks at Batemans and Port Stephens. I wrote to the NSW opposition a while back asking them whether they had abandoned this policy. I still haven't recieved a response. Does anyone know what their policy currently is?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694/26#26

More recently, the NSW coalition released a policy which they claimed put new marine parks 'on hold'. However, the details of the plan appear to involve more marine parks, which merely require the same sort of review that both Labor and the coalition have done before every new marine park in Australia. The plan also involves $15 million in handouts for the sector. $10 million will go to aquaculture and $1 million will go to the recreational fishing sector to establish and promote a 'peak body'.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:48am

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 8:27am:
Prior to the last state election, the NSW coalition promised to abolish the marine parks at Batemans and Port Stephens. I wrote to the NSW opposition a while back asking them whether they had abandoned this policy. I still haven't recieved a response. Does anyone know what their policy currently is?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1281669694/26#26

More recently, the NSW coalition released a policy which they claimed put new marine parks 'on hold'. However, the details of the plan appear to involve more marine parks, which merely require the same sort of review that both Labor and the coalition have done before every new marine park in Australia. The plan also involves $15 million in handouts for the sector. $10 million will go to aquaculture and $1 million will go to the recreational fishing sector to establish and promote a 'peak body'.


Could you put up a link to this policy FD. I'd be surprised if they were offering more marine parks.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:19am
It is in the link I posted. The one about the new policy is one post up. You posted it.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:05pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:19am:
It is in the link I posted. The one about the new policy is one post up. You posted it.


Well it doesn't sound like we have been reading the same statement if you think there is no difference between the coalition's proposed review and Labor's version.  

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:08pm
You are right. They spin their policies in completely different directions. So they sound completely different, until you stumble across the actual detail of the policy.

Now, abolishing Batemans and Port Stephens would be an actual difference in policy. Any idea where they stand now on that one?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:15pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:08pm:
You are right. They spin their policies in completely different directions. So they sound completely different, until you stumble across the actual detail of the policy.

Now, abolishing Batemans and Port Stephens would be an actual difference in policy. Any idea where they stand now on that one?


So you point is that there is no difference in policy? Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you? What about the Coalition's marine park in SE Australia - with no rec fishing bans within 100km of the coast?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:59pm

Quote:
Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you?


Sure. Especially when it is in context.  ;)

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:02pm

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:59pm:

Quote:
Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you?


Sure. Especially when it is in context.  ;)


Then how can you say that there is no difference between the Coalition's proposed review and Labor's?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:04pm

pjb05 wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:02pm:

freediver wrote on Nov 7th, 2010 at 1:59pm:

Quote:
Doesn't the phrase 'last resort' mean anything to you?


Sure. Especially when it is in context.  ;)


Then how can you say that there is no difference between the Coalition's proposed review and Labor's?


Please quote the statement I made that you would like me to clarify.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:11pm
[quote author=freediver link=1289082469/0#8] date=1289102679Please quote the statement I made that you would like me to clarify.[/quote]

Well how about this one. PS this is part of a recuring theme with you. Ie an appeal to the 'bandwagon effect'.



You are right. They spin their policies in completely different directions. So they sound completely different, until you stumble across the actual detail of the policy.

Now, abolishing Batemans and Port Stephens would be an actual difference in policy. Any idea where they stand now on that one?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:21pm
I did not say there is no difference.

If you were referring to the comment in the article you posted, it does not say that marine parks will be a last resort.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:33pm
[quote author=freediver link=1289082469/0#10 date=1289103706]I did not say there is no difference.

You implied there was no difference, ie to support your bandwagon theme.

If you were referring to the comment in the article you posted, it does not say that marine parks will be a last resort.

This is what it said:

"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.


Now to me that looks like traditional methods would be looked at first before locking out fishing, ie green zones would be a last resort.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 2:50pm
To me it looks like buisiness as usual.

It is not saying that marine parks will be a last resort. It is saying that compensation payments will be a last resort. As far as I know, the coalition is the only party that has implimented policies with marine parks in Australia that required compensation, so it hardly distinguishes them from Labor.

Of course, they spun it to make it sound like 'no more marine parks'.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Nov 7th, 2010 at 4:03pm
[quote author=freediver link=1289082469/0#12 date=1289105414]To me it looks like buisiness as usual.

There is nothing to suggest that - this is just pure fantasy on your part.

It is not saying that marine parks will be a last resort. It is saying that compensation payments will be a last resort.

More like measures restrictive enough on fishing to require compensation would be a last resort.

As far as I know, the coalition is the only party that has implimented policies with marine parks in Australia that required compensation, so it hardly distinguishes them from Labor.

Labor just decided not to compensate for the impacts of their marine parks - do you call that a good thing?





Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Nov 7th, 2010 at 10:17pm

Quote:
Labor just decided not to compensate for the impacts of their marine parks


Is that the only difference you see?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 2nd, 2011 at 10:42pm
bump

Any word yet on what they have planned for these two marine parks?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 6th, 2011 at 10:26pm
I put this up on the site front page:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 7th, 2011 at 4:28pm

freediver wrote on Feb 6th, 2011 at 10:26pm:
I put this up on the site front page:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/



FD, do you think 3nm is out of reach of recreational fishermen?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 7th, 2011 at 8:02pm
It depends on the boat, the weather, and the location. (To give you the simple answer).

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 7th, 2011 at 8:20pm

freediver wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 8:02pm:
It depends on the boat, the weather, and the location. (To give you the simple answer).



And how about 100 km?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 7th, 2011 at 8:38pm
Is this going anywhere?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 8th, 2011 at 6:15am

freediver wrote on Feb 7th, 2011 at 8:38pm:
Is this going anywhere?


If you recall your own post (front page), you said it was nothing for fishermen to crow about that Commonwealth marine parks off Tasmania are a long way offshore. You said that being in Commonwealth waters they have to be a long way offshore. What you fail to mention is that Commonwealth waters start at 3 nm out, making you point a spurious one (and the fact the marine parks are at least 100 km out).  

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 8th, 2011 at 7:52pm
When you say 100km out, are you excluding the landmass of Tasmania from your measurements?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 8th, 2011 at 7:57pm

freediver wrote on Feb 8th, 2011 at 7:52pm:
When you say 100km out, are you excluding the landmass of Tasmania from your measurements?


You said yourself that Tasmanian marine parks are a long way offshore are you just going to continue to answer a question with a question?. My understanding is that none of the Commonwealth marine parks in SE Australia are within 100km of the shore. My point stands - if they wished they could put them as close a 3 nm offshore.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 8th, 2011 at 8:09pm

Quote:
My understanding is that none of the Commonwealth marine parks in SE Australia are within 100km of the shore.


That is not correct. I am not sure how close they are to the nearest boat ramp, but they are certainly within 100km of the shore of Tasmania. One I looked at had green zone right along the border of the state/federal waters.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 9th, 2011 at 6:11am

freediver wrote on Feb 8th, 2011 at 8:09pm:

Quote:
My understanding is that none of the Commonwealth marine parks in SE Australia are within 100km of the shore.


That is not correct. I am not sure how close they are to the nearest boat ramp, but they are certainly within 100km of the shore of Tasmania. One I looked at had green zone right along the border of the state/federal waters.


Well I just looked at the map. most of the parks are well offshore and this is even without allowing for the fact that a minority of their area will be green zones. You are just being misleading to score a point.

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/index.html





Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 10th, 2011 at 9:36pm
I am the one being misleading? What exactly have I said that is misleading?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 11th, 2011 at 6:16am

freediver wrote on Feb 10th, 2011 at 9:36pm:
I am the one being misleading? What exactly have I said that is misleading?


Don't be so obtuse FD:

The fishing party and the various lobbies opposed to marine parks must be getting so desperate for validation that they gloat over any crumbs the major parties will feed them. They even hold up some recently created marine parks in Tasmania as evidence of the coalition's pro recreational fishing stance, because they are so far offshore that they don't bother most recreational fishermen. Of course, these parks were established by the federal coalition government in federal waters and were never going to be close to shore anyway.

Now Federal waters start at 3nm. This is not far offshore at all and Federal marine parks therefore have plenty of potential to bother fishermen. In the next breadth you even mention the GBRMP which has caused a great deal of angst amonst fishermen. Don't you realise it took you the next few sentences to contradict your own argument?  

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:42pm
Before we go any further, do you now concede that the green zones are not all more than 100km out and even go right up to the border of the state/federal waters?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 12th, 2011 at 6:46am

freediver wrote on Feb 11th, 2011 at 9:42pm:
Before we go any further, do you now concede that the green zones are not all more than 100km out and even go right up to the border of the state/federal waters?


No, because you haven't proven they do. Even if they do - big deal. The map shows a few of the parks go up to the 3nm mark but do not show the green zones. You can also see the park area is only small in that close and increases further offshore. Also where the parks come close to shore the area is very remote. On top of that I qualified the remark as something I heard and relating to SE Australia.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2011 at 8:08am

Quote:
The map shows a few of the parks go up to the 3nm mark but do not show the green zones. You can also see the park area is only small in that close and increases further offshore.


Not sure what maps you are looking at. Try this one. Massive dark and light blue area with a narrow pointy bit going close to shore, as you described. There is one green zone in the whole thing. Have a look where it is:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/tasman-fracture/pubs/southeast-tasman-fracture-map.pdf


Quote:
On top of that I qualified the remark as something I heard and relating to SE Australia.


Then you will have no problem retracting it will you? I have seen the same comments all over the fishing forums, unchallenged, so I don't blame you. They seem to be a misinformation machine when it comes to marine parks, except it's more about plugging the coalition than attacking marine parks.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Feb 12th, 2011 at 8:31am
I have heard nothing from either party on this topic.

I would assume that Labor will just continue as they have been which in my opinion has been very poor in this area; the implementation in both BB and PS was abysmal.

On the other hand the Liberals are still playing small target and do not really have any policy at all, I know you can scrounge their web site and find a variety of waffle but nothing meaningful on almost any topic.

It looks to me like the coalition’s current policy is to not tell anyone what their policy is, if they even have one.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2011 at 8:39am
Actually Port Stephens was the marine park where I suggested moving one of the green zones late in the feedback process as I thought fishermen would be better off that way. It was in a spot that was sheltered in a southerly, yet still fairly productive. I encouraged others too also. They changed it, pretty much to exactly how I had suggested.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Feb 12th, 2011 at 8:49am

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 8:39am:
Actually Port Stephens was the marine park where I suggested moving one of the green zones late in the feedback process as I thought fishermen would be better off that way. It was in a spot that was sheltered in a southerly, yet still fairly productive. I encouraged others too also. They changed it, pretty much to exactly how I had suggested.



That is the first example I have heard of a good experience dealing with these people, shelted from a southerly may have appealed for safety reasons?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2011 at 9:09am
Yes safety, plus it was a great spearing spot in a big southerly swell and you could get to it in a boat fairly easily. It was also possible to walk there, but it was a big hike. I think there were line fishermen there fairly often too.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 12th, 2011 at 9:47am
double post

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 12th, 2011 at 9:48am
/30#30 date=1297462108]
Quote:
The map shows a few of the parks go up to the 3nm mark but do not show the green zones. You can also see the park area is only small in that close and increases further offshore.


Not sure what maps you are looking at. Try this one. Massive dark and light blue area with a narrow pointy bit going close to shore, as you described. There is one green zone in the whole thing. Have a look where it is:

http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/southeast/tasman-fracture/pubs/southeast-tasman-fracture-map.pdf

Just backs up my point FD. In this case the green zone is close to shore but it would appear to be in a remote area and is tiny compared to the rest of the park. It doesn't look like it would upset recreational fishermen too much. My argument id internally consistent - unlike yours.


Quote:
On top of that I qualified the remark as something I heard and relating to SE Australia.


Then you will have no problem retracting it will you? I have seen the same comments all over the fishing forums, unchallenged, so I don't blame you. They seem to be a misinformation machine when it comes to marine parks, except it's more about plugging the coalition than attacking marine parks.

All this is just a smokescreen. Why don't you either defend your staement or retract it.

PS: you also make to not too subtle inference of pork barreling regarding the $15 million on the table for compensation. Do you have that much contempt for fishermen that they don't deserve compensation? What about the millions that goes to green groups to fund their lifestyle and amoung other things promote marine parks?  
[/quote]

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2011 at 12:37pm

Quote:
It doesn't look like it would upset recreational fishermen too much. My argument id internally consistent - unlike yours.


You are now saying the same thing as me. I was not arguing that being 3nm offshore would be a problem for fishermen.

There are other green zones within 100km of the shore.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 12th, 2011 at 1:22pm
[]
Quote:
It doesn't look like it would upset recreational fishermen too much. My argument is internally consistent - unlike yours.


You are now saying the same thing as me. I was not arguing that being 3nm offshore would be a problem for fishermen.

It would help if you didn't chop out the rest of the papragraph.

There are other green zones within 100km of the shore.

It's the extent and siting that is of most relevance. A sense of proportion is a quality you seem to lack.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2011 at 1:51pm
You seemed to think the 100km thing was important before. Anyway, at least we got that resolved.

Now, any news on the NSW coalition policy?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 12th, 2011 at 3:13pm
]You seemed to think the 100km thing was important before. Anyway, at least we got that resolved.

Now, any news on the NSW coalition policy?

Now, do you intend to defend any of the drivel in your front page article?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 12th, 2011 at 3:33pm
What is it that is bothering you now?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 19th, 2011 at 6:20am

freediver wrote on Feb 12th, 2011 at 3:33pm:
What is it that is bothering you now?


What's this 'now' business in aid of? You haven't settled anything of substance. Your harping about whether any green zones are within 100 km of shore doesn't prove anything. Especially when your article implied that the GBRMP caused a lot of angst amoungst rec fishermen.
Let me ask you this - which do you think affected/ upset rec fishermen more - the GBRMP or the SE Australian Commonwealth marine parks, and why?

Also what about you ridiculous pork barelling allegation over the compensation money?    

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 19th, 2011 at 9:13am

Quote:
Your harping about whether any green zones are within 100 km of shore


You brought it up. I was just correcting you, and I only continued it for as long as it took for you to realise you were wrong.


Quote:
Especially when your article implied that the GBRMP caused a lot of angst amoungst rec fishermen.


It did.


Quote:
Let me ask you this - which do you think affected/ upset rec fishermen more - the GBRMP or the SE Australian Commonwealth marine parks, and why?


The GBRMPA, on the NIMBY principle. I don't think recreational fishermen tend to go as far opffshore around Tasmania.


Quote:
Also what about you ridiculous pork barelling allegation over the compensation money?    


I don't think pork barrelling is the correct term. It's more like vote buying, or divide and conquer.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 20th, 2011 at 6:13am
[]
Quote:
Your harping about whether any green zones are within 100 km of shore


You brought it up. I was just correcting you, and I only continued it for as long as it took for you to realise you were wrong.

For starters I wasn't 'wrong' at all as I just said it was something I heard. Maybe it was true at the time the quote was made. The real point is that the SE Commonwealth parks have little impact on rec fishing and appeared to be have designed with this purpose.


Quote:
Especially when your article implied that the GBRMP caused a lot of angst amoungst rec fishermen.


It did.

And SE marine parks didn't.


Quote:
Let me ask you this - which do you think affected/ upset rec fishermen more - the GBRMP or the SE Australian Commonwealth marine parks, and why?


The GBRMPA, on the NIMBY principle. I don't think recreational fishermen tend to go as far opffshore around Tasmania.

Rubbish, plenty of fishing trips in SE Australian waters take place in Commonwealth waters.


Quote:
Also what about you ridiculous pork barelling allegation over the compensation money?    


I don't think pork barrelling is the correct term. It's more like vote buying, or divide and conquer.

And what about all the money that goes to green groups? Also the fact that commercial fishermen can sell their licence/ share to get out of the industry - they don't need to wait for a marine park buy out.  

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 20th, 2011 at 8:19am

Quote:
For starters I was 'wrong' at all as I just said it was something I heard.


In any case I thought it was worth correcting, as you hear a lot of misinformation about marine parks.


Quote:
Maybe it was true at the time the quote was made.


Doubt it. Why are we still discussing this?


Quote:
And what about all the money that goes to green groups?


Is this something else you 'heard about'?


Quote:
Also the fact that commercial fishermen can sell their licence/ share to get out of the industry - they don't need to wait for a marine park buy out.
 

That is probably a good idea, provided the latent effort is cut back first.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 20th, 2011 at 9:19am
[]
Quote:
For starters I was 'wrong' at all as I just said it was something I heard.


In any case I thought it was worth correcting, as you hear a lot of misinformation about marine parks.

Now thats an ironic statement.


Quote:
Maybe it was true at the time the quote was made.


Doubt it. Why are we still discussing this?

It's largely true now. Ie there is little in the way of green zones in SE Australia with 100 km of the coast.


Quote:
And what about all the money that goes to green groups?


Is this something else you 'heard about'?

Don't be silly - it's a matter of public record.


Quote:
Also the fact that commercial fishermen can sell their licence/ share to get out of the industry - they don't need to wait for a marine park buy out.
 

That is probably a good idea, provided the latent effort is cut back first.[/quote]

The point is it undermines your pork barreling theory.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 20th, 2011 at 10:16am

Quote:
Don't be silly - it's a matter of public record.


Perhaps you should be a bit more specific. I still have no idea what you are on about. Also, can you explain how this is relevant? Is it OK for the government to buy votes from the anti marine park lobby because they also buy votes elsewhere?


Quote:
The point is it undermines your pork barreling theory.


No it doesn't.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 20th, 2011 at 5:04pm
[]
Quote:
Don't be silly - it's a matter of public record.


Perhaps you should be a bit more specific. I still have no idea what you are on about. Also, can you explain how this is relevant? Is it OK for the government to buy votes from the anti marine park lobby because they also buy votes elsewhere?

Don't just minlessly throw the faults in your own argument back at me. In any event you can't compare the Coalitions 15 million compensation fund to the pork barelling to greens.

For example the NSW Government has been funding green groups to the tune of around 24 million year after year to do with as they please. The Coalition's compensation fund on the other hand is a one off. Do you understand what the term compensation means? They are only paying to compensate people for the loss of their livelyhood - ie there is not likely to be any net gain for them.  



Quote:
The point is it undermines your pork barreling theory.


No it doesn't.

What a brilliant retort - you must have put some thought into that!

See above.


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 20th, 2011 at 7:45pm

Quote:
For example the NSW Government has been funding green groups to the tune of around 24 million year after year to do with as they please.


Can you elaborate please?


Quote:
Do you understand what the term compensation means? They are only paying to compensate people for the loss of their livelyhood


My criticism was directed at the 'representative body' funding, not the payouts to commercial fishermen. I have heard just as much criticism of government funded representative bodies from the other side of this debate.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 3:52pm
[quote]Do you understand what the term compensation means? They are only paying to compensate people for the loss of their livelyhood[/quote]

My criticism was directed at the 'representative body' funding, not the payouts to commercial fishermen. I have heard just as much criticism of government funded representative bodies from the other side of this debate.[/quote]

Then why did you mention the compensation money?

PS: How would the relatively small amount of funding for the representative dody have any undue influence?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 7:08pm
All you had to do is have a bit of patience, FD:

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/coalition-releases-rec-fishing-policy-in-election-lead-up

Coalition releases rec fishing policy in election lead-up
22 Feb 2011


THE NSW opposition today released its recreational fishing policy titled “Restoring the Balance”.

Shadow Minister for Primary Industries Duncan Gay said today at Port Macquarie the NSW Liberals & Nationals Marine Parks policy claims to outline: “Positive, practical plans based on independent, scientific evidence to give local communities a proper say in decisions that affect their livelihood and lifestyle.”

"The NSW Liberals & Nationals policy “Restoring the Balance” finds the right balance between allowing fishermen appropriate access to fishing spots and protecting the marine environment,” said Gay.

The Coalition policy includes:

* Not abolish any of the existing six marine parks and continue our moratorium on the creation of new marine parks and fishing closures, pending the outcome of our independent scientific audit.
* Immediately commission an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of existing zoning arrangements in meeting domestic and international commitments to the conservation of marine biodiversity.
* A separate audit to examine which lead agency (Fisheries or the Department of Environment and Climate Change) is more appropriate to manage Marine Parks.
* Trial appropriate recreational fishing techniques in marine parks under review.
* Expand the current Habitat Protection Zones within marine parks subject to the results of the scientific independent audit.
* Local Community Social and Economic Impact Statements included in the audit.
* Commit to removing pressure on our fish stocks and marine environment through a $16 million, 4-year commitment for a commercial fisherman buyout policy.
* Audit the current management of NSW Fishing Trust funds and the process by which trust funds are allocated.
* Create a new Joint Recreational and Commercial Fishing Advisory Committee including stakeholders from the fishing industries.
* Improve the awareness of anglers of zoning arrangements so fines are not handed out to unsuspecting people drifting into restricted areas.
* Improve the current system of compliance.

"Fishermen in NSW have long suffered under NSW Labor's failed marine parks policy which was designed to achieve a political outcome rather than an environmental evidence-based outcome," said Gay.

"The NSW Liberals & Nationals do not believe that Labor's approach of locking communities out of their waterways is the answer to protecting our marine environments.

"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."

Stay tuned to fishingworld.com.au for more related news in the lead-up to the NSW election.


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 10:13pm

Quote:
Then why did you mention the compensation money?


You will have to be more specific.


Quote:
PS: How would the relatively small amount of funding for the representative dody have any undue influence?


By getting the leaders of the anti marine park movement on side. Given the small number of people actively involved in the movement it would be pretty cheap to buy them off with an official position on a meaningless body.


Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Are they suggesting they can make marine parks do those other things better than labor?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 6:35am
1298376816]
Quote:
Then why did you mention the compensation money?


You will have to be more specific.

You mentioned the figure of 15 million dollars didn't you?


Quote:
PS: How would the relatively small amount of funding for the representative body have any undue influence?


By getting the leaders of the anti marine park movement on side. Given the small number of people actively involved in the movement it would be pretty cheap to buy them off with an official position on a meaningless body.

Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well? Also tell me; who are the leaders of the 'anti marine park movement'. Give me some names. And what makes you think it is a top down organisation? In fact it is grassroots, and real grass - not the astroturf of the pro marine park lobby.


Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Are they suggesting they can make marine parks do those other things better than labor?[/quote]

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 23rd, 2011 at 7:49pm

Quote:
You mentioned the figure of 15 million dollars didn't you?


Yes. That was for context. You would have equally criticised me for leaving that out.


Quote:
Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?


I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.


Quote:
Also tell me; who are the leaders of the 'anti marine park movement'. Give me some names


Sorry, I don't pay that much attention.


Quote:
And what makes you think it is a top down organisation?


I don't. But leaders are inevitable. The movement is fringe enough as it is. If you take out the few sane sounding people it will become even more fringe.

Are they suggesting they can make marine parks do those other things better than labor?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 24th, 2011 at 3:51pm
quote]You mentioned the figure of 15 million dollars didn't you?[/quote]

Yes. That was for context. You would have equally criticised me for leaving that out.

It has nothing to do with context - more like for the sake of exaggeration.


Quote:
Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?


I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

How do you know it will be meaningless?


Quote:
Also tell me; who are the leaders of the 'anti marine park movement'. Give me some names


Sorry, I don't pay that much attention.

If your theory has some basis in fact you would know who these so called leaders are.  


Quote:
And what makes you think it is a top down organisation?


I don't. But leaders are inevitable. The movement is fringe enough as it is. If you take out the few sane sounding people it will become even more fringe.

Bandwagon device. As to the 'sane sounding' jibe you have quite some hide given your pathetically inept missives.

Are they suggesting they can make marine parks do those other things better than labor?

Wouldn't be hard. At least they are showing signs of seeing beyound the anti fishing bias that surrounds Labor's marine parks.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:44pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:
All you had to do is have a bit of patience, FD:

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/coalition-releases-rec-fishing-policy-in-election-lead-up



It seems to me that they have gone to a lot of trouble to say they either do not know what their policy is or they are not going to tell us.

They have pages and pages of policy on this issue now but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 24th, 2011 at 6:17pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 5:44pm:

pjb05 wrote on Feb 22nd, 2011 at 7:08pm:
All you had to do is have a bit of patience, FD:

http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/coalition-releases-rec-fishing-policy-in-election-lead-up


It seems to me that they have gone to a lot of trouble to say they either do not know what their policy is or they are not going to tell us.

They have pages and pages of policy on this issue now but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get.



Actually there are quite a few specifics in the policy. Also it is quite reasonable that they haven't gone into the details of actual zoning at this stage.  



Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Feb 24th, 2011 at 9:08pm

pjb05 wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 6:17pm:
Actually there are quite a few specifics in the policy. Also it is quite reasonable that they haven't gone into the details of actual zoning at this stage.  



The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.

The rest is pretty much empty rhetoric which could lead to any result.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 24th, 2011 at 10:57pm

Quote:
How do you know it will be meaningless?


History repeating.


Quote:
Wouldn't be hard. At least they are showing signs of seeing beyound the anti fishing bias that surrounds Labor's marine parks.


So you think the coalition will use marine parks for "addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development"?


Quote:
but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get


The bit about not abolishing any marine parks is substantial and definitely needed to be cleared up given what they said last election. The rest does barely differentiate them from Labor on the marine park front - the devil is in the detail, which they are not providing.


Quote:
The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Feb 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Quote:
[quote]The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.


I sort of understsand this position but they have had about 7 years to make up their mind about their general or prefered direction.

They have been paying a shadow minister and a leadership team to develope policy and even went to the trouble of producing a substantial policy document which really gives little indication of what they will do.

Why would you create a policy document when you have no prefered policy to put into it?

I still do not really know what either side will do, I suspect they are both going to continue as is full speed ahead.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:25pm

Dnarever wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 11:56pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 24th, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Quote:
[quote]The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.


I sort of understsand this position but they have had about 7 years to make up their mind about their general or prefered direction.

They have been paying a shadow minister and a leadership team to develope policy and even went to the trouble of producing a substantial policy document which really gives little indication of what they will do.

Why would you create a policy document when you have no prefered policy to put into it?

I still do not really know what either side will do, I suspect they are both going to continue as is full speed ahead.



They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:34pm
]
Quote:
How do you know it will be meaningless?


History repeating.

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.  


Quote:
Wouldn't be hard. At least they are showing signs of seeing beyound the anti fishing bias that surrounds Labor's marine parks.


So you think the coalition will use marine parks for "addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development"?

More like they won't rely on the green placebo of marine parks while ignoring these problems.


Quote:
but they all say about as close to nothing as you can get


The bit about not abolishing any marine parks is substantial and definitely needed to be cleared up given what they said last election. The rest does barely differentiate them from Labor on the marine park front - the devil is in the detail, which they are not providing.

They have said quite a bit, eg that they will expand habitat protection zones, offer 16 million to buy out pros and a lot more. Sure they haven't drawn lines on maps, but the basis of their argument is that Labor's marine parks have little basis in science or consultation. It would not be consistent for them to claim the former and then present a detailed plan without going throught the latter.


Quote:
The way I read it thay are saying they will put a hold on everything and tell us what they are going to do after the election when they work it out themselves.


Kind of what you would expect them to do, but it leaves just about every option open to them, and they have made no indication of changing their view on anything.

Just seeing what you want to see.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 27th, 2011 at 9:45pm

Quote:
Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.
 

Youa re confused PJ.

Quote:
More like they won't rely on the green placebo of marine parks while ignoring these problems.


So the coalition are the real envuironmentalists? Are they addressing for example climate change better than Labor? Can you explain this bit:


Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Is this just meaningless drivel?


Quote:
They have said quite a bit, eg that they will expand habitat protection zones, offer 16 million to buy out pros and a lot more.


Their marine park policy says nothing meaningfull about no take zones. Does this not concern you at all, coming from the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world? It leaves things wide open.


Quote:
Just seeing what you want to see.


But that's just it PJ - there is nothing to see. Do you think that is what I want to see?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 28th, 2011 at 6:21am
]
Quote:
Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.
 

Youa re confused PJ.

Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive?


Quote:
More like they won't rely on the green placebo of marine parks while ignoring these problems.


So the coalition are the real envuironmentalists? Are they addressing for example climate change better than Labor? Can you explain this bit:


Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Is this just meaningless drivel?

Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.

PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).  



Quote:
They have said quite a bit, eg that they will expand habitat protection zones, offer 16 million to buy out pros and a lot more.


Their marine park policy says nothing meaningfull about no take zones. Does this not concern you at all, coming from the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world? It leaves things wide open.

Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review. They have also said the enforcement will change. An expansion of habitat zones may also effect the proportion of sanctuary zones. Stop being so obtuse.


Quote:
Just seeing what you want to see.


But that's just it PJ - there is nothing to see. Do you think that is what I want to see?[/quote]

Duh, of course you want to see nothing.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 28th, 2011 at 8:37pm

Quote:
Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive?


Perhaps it will help if I repost the conversation for you:

PJ: Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

FD: I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

PJ: How do you know it will be meaningless?

FD: History repeating.

PJ: Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.

FD: Youa re confused PJ.

Got it now? I am not being evasive. I'm just getting bored.


Quote:
Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.


Are you suggesting labor does not recognise pollution and global warming as a problem?


Quote:
PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).
 

It is equally stupid to sugggest that marine parks will prevent pollution, introduced species, etc. Yet this is exactly what the NSW coalition is claiming they can do.


Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Does that make sense to you? Do you think the NSW coalition can magically make their marine parks prevent agricultural runoff of foreign species? It looks to me like the marine park policy of the NSW coalition amounts to nothing more than the regurgitation of the empty headed spin coming from the anti-marine park movement. And the anti marine park movement are yet again being duped into thinking the coalition will stop marine parks. It is comical what some people will fall for - like the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world suddenly doing a backflip and opposing marine parks, even if they don't actually say that. At least Julia Gillard lied about a carbon tax. The coalition did not even have to promise you lot anything and you suddenly turn into lapdogs.


Quote:
Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review.


;D So naive.


Quote:
They have also said the enforcement will change.


Change how? More fishermen getting fined, or less?


Quote:
Duh, of course you want to see nothing.


No PJ. What I want to see is the coalition taking a public, principled and rational stance on marine parks. No matter what I think of the anti marine park movement, I don't think it is fair for the coalition to take advantage of them like this. If a politician is going to impliment a policy you don't like, they should be upfront about it and tell you, not promise meaningless reviews.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 1st, 2011 at 6:16am
quote]Well what 'past experience' are you refering too. Why do you feel the need to be so evasive? [/quote]

Perhaps it will help if I repost the conversation for you:

PJ: Are the Coalition's policies meaningless as well?

FD: I don't think you can lump them all together like that. The represntative body one is pretty meaningless.

PJ: How do you know it will be meaningless?

FD: History repeating.

PJ: Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the design and implementation of existing Labor marine parks.

FD: Youa re confused PJ.

Got it now? I am not being evasive. I'm just getting bored.

I'd get bored too if I just repeated drivel.

Consider this:

- Firstly the past is not an infallable guide to the future.
- The meaningless representative bodies and their interaction with marine parks argument applies to Labor's marine parks.
- If your going to rely on the past then surely the more recent past is more reliable than something that happened two decades ago. Ie the fact recent Commonwealth marine parks showed good consultation and outcomes concerning rec fishing.  



Quote:
Recognising the real problems affecting the marine environment is at least a start and puts them ahead of Labor.


Are you suggesting labor does not recognise pollution and global warming as a problem?

They are neglecting them in preference to drawing lines on maps.


Quote:
PS to suggest a NSW government can do something about climate change is drivel (and also irrelevant).
 

It is equally stupid to sugggest that marine parks will prevent pollution, introduced species, etc. Yet this is exactly what the NSW coalition is claiming they can do.

Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the Coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems?


Quote:
"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and diseases, some agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development."


Does that make sense to you? Do you think the NSW coalition can magically make their marine parks prevent agricultural runoff of foreign species?

See above.

It looks to me like the marine park policy of the NSW coalition amounts to nothing more than the regurgitation of the empty headed spin coming from the anti-marine park movement. And the anti marine park movement are yet again being duped into thinking the coalition will stop marine parks.

They haven't said they will stop marine parks.

It is comical what some people will fall for - like the party that gave us the biggest marine park in the world suddenly doing a backflip and opposing marine parks,

Do you call 20 years 'suddenly or yet again?

even if they don't actually say that. At least Julia Gillard lied about a carbon tax. The coalition did not even have to promise you lot anything and you suddenly turn into lapdogs.

Tesky FD. Are you a bit miffed at seeing the writing on the wall?


Quote:
Yes they have - they are all up for (proper) review.


;D So naive.

So what should they do - announce zoning with no consultation of scientific review?


Quote:
They have also said the enforcement will change.


Change how? More fishermen getting fined, or less?

Make it more lenient and understanding of navigation errors/ inadventent breeches.


Quote:
Duh, of course you want to see nothing.


No PJ. What I want to see is the coalition taking a public, principled and rational stance on marine parks. No matter what I think of the anti marine park movement, I don't think it is fair for the coalition to take advantage of them like this. If a politician is going to impliment a policy you don't like, they should be upfront about it and tell you, not promise meaningless reviews.[/quote]


Pot kettle black. The Coalition's policy is balanced and rational. Your arguments don't even show any internal logic. And what gives you the omnipetence to know of some secret agenda on the part of their marine parks?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Mar 1st, 2011 at 7:47am

pjb05 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:25pm:
They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.



The way I read it the direction is that general that it falls short of even saying which direction they are going.

The libs have many pages which boil down to we will put a hold on the current position till we get advice, that advice could be to go in any direction from dismantling the current parks to extending them to 100% of everything. While neither of these options look probable it is the range they have clearly left open.

Full speed ahead - which direction - they don't know and they don't care.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 1st, 2011 at 4:20pm

Dnarever wrote on Mar 1st, 2011 at 7:47am:

pjb05 wrote on Feb 25th, 2011 at 5:25pm:
They have offered a general direction, it looks lke your both just seeing what you want to see.



The way I read it the direction is that general that it falls short of even saying which direction they are going.

The libs have many pages which boil down to we will put a hold on the current position till we get advice, that advice could be to go in any direction from dismantling the current parks to extending them to 100% of everything. While neither of these options look probable it is the range they have clearly left open.

Full speed ahead - which direction - they don't know and they don't care.


They have offered the direction - you just can't just mindlessly repeat rubbish when there is abundant evidence to the contrary.

What do you suggest they do? And please give it a bit of thought and don't make the same post once again.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 1st, 2011 at 8:16pm

Quote:
Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems?


They criticised the operation by Labor of marine parks for failing to address those problems. Is this is a valid criticism, they obviously think they can operate marine parks in a way that does. I think it is just meaningless drivel. How about you?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 6:09am
]
Quote:
Thanks for helping my argument by pointing out the limitations of marine parks. Now where does the coalition say they will use marine parks to fix these problems?


They criticised the operation by Labor of marine parks for failing to address those problems. Is this is a valid criticism, they obviously think they can operate marine parks in a way that does. I think it is just meaningless drivel. How about you?[/quote]

It's only obvious to you. What is stopping them using another more appropriate arm of government? Talk about tunnel vision!

PS: how is a 'valid criticism' also 'meaningless drivel'?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 7:15pm

Quote:
What is stopping them using another more appropriate arm of government?


Nothing. It just means that their criticism of labor's use of marine parks is meaningless gibberish. They might as well complain that labor's traffic laws don't stop domesitc violence. It is not the sort of thing you expect to see in an official policy release.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 2nd, 2011 at 7:40pm
=1299057302]
Quote:
What is stopping them using another more appropriate arm of government?


Nothing. It just means that their criticism of labor's use of marine parks is meaningless gibberish. They might as well complain that labor's traffic laws don't stop domesitc violence. It is not the sort of thing you expect to see in an official policy release.

This is ludicrous, even by your usual standards. It's a fisheries policy. A subset of that is marine parks, as is introduced species, marine pollution and degradation. By the was so is funding of a rec fishing representative body and buy out of commercical fishing licences. You didn't see fit to go off on the same tangent with these did you?

Also the point is that their marine parks and their over emphasis on fishing as a threat are a distraction from these other problems.



Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 7:26pm

Quote:
You didn't see fit to go off on the same tangent with these did you?


If the coalition criticised labors use of pro buyouts for example because they didn't prevent introduced species then I would also criticise them for putting meaningless gibberish in their policy. The fact that both are part of fisheries policy doesn't make it any less meaningless. We are only going off on this tangent because you tried to argue that it was not meaningless gibberish. These simple points only become long drawn out tangents because you try to argue against the bleeding obvious.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 7:57pm
85]
Quote:
You didn't see fit to go off on the same tangent with these did you?


If the coalition criticised labors use of pro buyouts for example because they didn't prevent introduced species then I would also criticise them for putting meaningless gibberish in their policy. The fact that both are part of fisheries policy doesn't make it any less meaningless. We are only going off on this tangent because you tried to argue that it was not meaningless gibberish. These simple points only become long drawn out tangents because you try to argue against the bleeding obvious.[/quote]

The meaningless gibberish is on your part. If you want to argue about these problems then why don't you instead on harping on with this stupid construct? Don't you understand that marine parks in their present form are a distraction from the problems mentioned in that statement and that was the meaning of the phrase in question?
It's not just the Coalition that have pointed this out but fisheries biologists such as Richard Tizley and Prof Bob Kearney.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 8:57pm

Quote:
Don't you understand that marine parks in their present form are a distraction from the problems mentioned in that statement and that was the meaning of the phrase in question?


So you think that coalition policy does not mean what it actually says?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 10:01pm

freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2011 at 8:57pm:

Quote:
Don't you understand that marine parks in their present form are a distraction from the problems mentioned in that statement and that was the meaning of the phrase in question?


So you think that coalition policy does not mean what it actually says?


No I'll leave it to you to be able to find totally hidden agendas.

Here is the relevant section:

"Fishermen in NSW have long suffered under NSW Labor's failed marine parks policy which was designed to achieve a political outcome rather than an environmental evidence-based outcome," said Gay.

"The NSW Liberals & Nationals do not believe that Labor's approach of locking communities out of their waterways is the answer to protecting our marine environments.

"Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development"?

You insipidly weak argument focuses on the fact that marine parks don't have full jurastiction over areas where these threats arise. Big deal. This does not mean they can't make recommendations or interact with other arms of government, or the government taking advice from fisheries scientists like Prof Kearney and address these problems.

You are also only covering one side of the issue - so whaterever argument you had falls down. Namely if fishing is over-emphasised as a threat then it is well within the marine parks jurastiction to treat it less proscriptively.  

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:01pm
PJ you are the one offering the real meaning of what the coalition says, not me.

I think the coalition deliberately avoided directly accusing Labor of failing to address those other threats because it would make them look like hypocrits. This left them little room to saying anything with meaning - hence the meaningless gibberish.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 8:56am

freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2011 at 7:01pm:
PJ you are the one offering the real meaning of what the coalition says, not me.

I think the coalition deliberately avoided directly accusing Labor of failing to address those other threats because it would make them look like hypocrits. This left them little room to saying anything with meaning - hence the meaningless gibberish.



That's all meaningless gibberish FD.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:29am
Can you find an example of the coalition accusing Labor of not addressing those issues that is not limited in scope to marine parks?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:45am

freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:29am:
Can you find an example of the coalition accusing Labor of not addressing those issues that is not limited in scope to marine parks?


What difference does it make if they mention marine parks in the same statement?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2011 at 9:55am
None, if they merely mention it. But if you look at what they actually said they limited the scope of their criticism to marine park policy. This is so they can 'say' something that is not true, without actually saying it, because they phrase it in a way that gullible people will think they said it.

That is why you cannot find an example of the Coalition actually saying what you think they say. This is because if they actually said it, they would open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and turn public attention to how well they compare on those other issues. So instead they quietly slip in a bit of meaningless gibberish that they cannot be held accountable for but which will pick up a few votes from those who see what they want to see.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 10:10am
]None, if they merely mention it. But if you look at what they actually said they limited the scope of their criticism to marine park policy.

Rubbish, the policy covers quite a few areas. Yes, marine parks, but also, pollution, dregradation and introduced species and also other issues like buy out of commercial licences and a representative body.

This is so they can 'say' something that is not true, without actually saying it, because they phrase it in a way that gullible people will think they said it.

Now that's weird.


That is why you cannot find an example of the Coalition actually saying what you think they say.

Weird again. Do you know what your saying in your posts. They don't have any internal logic and are now descending into the incomprehensible.

This is because if they actually said it, they would open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy and turn public attention to how well they compare on those other issues. So instead they quietly slip in a bit of meaningless gibberish that they cannot be held accountable for but which will pick up a few votes from those who see what they want to see.

How exactly will they be hypocrites?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2011 at 12:16pm

Quote:
How exactly will they be hypocrites?


Because labor has a better record in dealing with those other threats to the marine environment. That is why the coalition is not prepared to say that Labor has failed to address those issues. They are only prepared to say that labor's implimentation of marine parks has failed to solve problems that marine parks are not intended to solve in the first place.

That is why they rely on people like you to 'interpret' what they say - because they cannot honestly say it themselves and cannot risk the inevitable accusations of hypocrisy.

This is why you cannot come up with an example of the coalition actually saying what you 'interpret' from their meaningless gibberish. This is why the coalition had to resort to putting meaningless gibberish in their policy statement.


Quote:
Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 12:52pm
[]
Quote:
How exactly will they be hypocrites?


Because labor has a better record in dealing with those other threats to the marine environment.

Doubful. What has Labor done exactly? And how do make a comparison when the Coalition hasn't been in government for 16 years?

That is why the coalition is not prepared to say that Labor has failed to address those issues. They are only prepared to say that labor's implimentation of marine parks has failed to solve problems that marine parks are not intended to solve in the first place.

Another way of looking at it is you have a comprehension problem. Also what about the other half of it - ie that fishing is over empasised as a threat.

That is why they rely on people like you to 'interpret' what they say - because they cannot honestly say it themselves and cannot risk the inevitable accusations of hypocrisy.

This is why you cannot come up with an example of the coalition actually saying what you 'interpret' from their meaningless gibberish. This is why the coalition had to resort to putting meaningless gibberish in their policy statement.

Is that all you can contribute - sophist nonsense and chanting 'meaningless jiberish'?

[quote]Marine parks as operated by the Keneally Labor Government concentrate solely on restricting fishing rather than addressing pollution, introduced species and agricultural substances and inappropriate coastal development.[quote]

It would help if you would leave the sentence within in the quote instead of chopping the rest out - a habit of yours.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm
So can you find an example of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 5th, 2011 at 4:43pm

freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 1:16pm:
So can you find an example of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?


They just have in their new policy.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 5th, 2011 at 7:09pm
Can you quote them for me? Do they limit the scope of their criticism to Labor's implimentation of marine parks?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 9th, 2011 at 7:38pm

freediver wrote on Mar 5th, 2011 at 7:09pm:
Can you quote them for me? Do they limit the scope of their criticism to Labor's implimentation of marine parks?



I already have and no they don't. No one says this issue is entirely limited to marine parks - it's just a sophist ploy you have dreamed up.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 10th, 2011 at 9:04pm
I can't see it.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 13th, 2011 at 9:13pm
I have updated the site home page regarding the new policy release.

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

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 14th, 2011 at 6:35am

freediver wrote on Mar 13th, 2011 at 9:13pm:
I have updated the site home page regarding the new policy release.

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



Pretty much the same rubbish you posted originally. You have some hide putting it back up seeing you haven't been able to defend it on this thread.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 14th, 2011 at 9:06pm
Can you quote an example, not limited to marine parks, of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 15th, 2011 at 6:21am

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2011 at 9:06pm:
Can you quote an example, not limited to marine parks, of the coalition accusing Labor of failing to adress those other issues, or claiming to adress them better?


Anyone without an axe to grind will realise that it's not limited to marine parks - you have just siezed on some imprecise wording. One of their main points is that drawing lines on maps as Labor has done does nothing about these problems. In a bit of projection you have spun this around and thrown it back!

PS: I saw archive footage Barry O'farell criticising rampant/ uncontrolled developement under this Labor government. This certainly wasn't limited to marine parks - they weren't even mentioned.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:22pm

Quote:
you have just siezed on some imprecise wording


You think the coalition was careless with the wording of their policy statement? Kind of naive don't you think? I think it is the opposite. They carefully crafted the degree of ambiguity in their statement so that naive people would read what they wanted into it without the coalition actually saying it. If they actually said it, it would come back to bite them, because it would make them blatant hypocrits. That is why, even though you insist it is what they meant to say, you cannot find one single example of them actually saying it.

It is not the ambiguity I am drawing attention to, but your naivete in interpretting the ambiguity.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 15th, 2011 at 7:34pm
]
Quote:
you have just siezed on some imprecise wording


You think the coalition was careless with the wording of their policy statement? Kind of naive don't you think? I think it is the opposite.

I didn't say it was careless.

They carefully crafted the degree of ambiguity in their statement so that naive people would read what they wanted into it without the coalition actually saying it. If they actually said it, it would come back to bite them, because it would make them blatant hypocrits.

How would they be hypocrites? Wouldn't they be hypocrites if they came out with a detailed zoning plan before doing the consultation and science first? What would you have them do?

That is why, even though you insist it is what they meant to say, you cannot find one single example of them actually saying it.

I just gave an example.

It is not the ambiguity I am drawing attention to, but your naivete in interpretting the ambiguity.

And I have shot all this down - zomby like you keep repeating it.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 15th, 2011 at 9:05pm

Quote:
I just gave an example.


Touche. The 'archive footage'. I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 16th, 2011 at 6:15am

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2011 at 9:05pm:

Quote:
I just gave an example.


Touche. The 'archive footage'. I suppose I'll have to take your word for it.


It was on the ABC a few days ago - a lengthy piece on NSW planning and developement. Must have been Stateline.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Dnarever on Mar 16th, 2011 at 6:45am
Unfortunatly with an election which is a foregone conclusion this is a nothing issue which they can all get away with just paying basic lip service to.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 16th, 2011 at 6:34pm
I found this in their policy release as well. Give up now FD?


• Ensure that the NSW Liberals & Nationals Marine Parks Policy will be in accord with future fisheries reforms and greater integration with urban planning, including issues surrounding agricultural land use and water run-off from urban areas.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 16th, 2011 at 11:49pm
Marine park policy in accord with urban planning? Do you even know what that means?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am

freediver wrote on Mar 16th, 2011 at 11:49pm:
Marine park policy in accord with urban planning? Do you even know what that means?


It means more than just drawing lines on maps. In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:45pm

pjb05 wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am:
In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.



But only if it is a marine park?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:59pm

freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:45pm:

pjb05 wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am:
In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.



But only if it is a marine park?



30% of NSW waters are marine parks!

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 17th, 2011 at 7:25pm
Are you avoiding the question? Are you suggesting the coalition is only going to care about damage to the marine environment if it is in a marine park?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 17th, 2011 at 7:44pm

freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 7:25pm:
Are you avoiding the question? Are you suggesting the coalition is only going to care about damage to the marine environment if it is in a marine park?



No, are you?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 17th, 2011 at 8:58pm
No. I think it's just more meaningless gibberish in coalition policy.

Feel free to 'interpret' it for us again.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 17th, 2011 at 11:29pm

freediver wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 8:58pm:
No. I think it's just more meaningless gibberish in coalition policy.

Feel free to 'interpret' it for us again.



And what are you doing if not interpeting it? Time and time again you show you don't have any arguments of substance so you just project your own faults back onto your opponents.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on Mar 18th, 2011 at 6:56pm
:)


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 18th, 2011 at 9:00pm

Quote:
And what are you doing if not interpeting it?


I think there is nothing there to interpret. Tell us what you think it means in practice PJ.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 19th, 2011 at 11:18am

freediver wrote on Mar 18th, 2011 at 9:00pm:

Quote:
And what are you doing if not interpeting it?


I think there is nothing there to interpret. Tell us what you think it means in practice PJ.


Yes, well I suppose something that doesn't involve the most costly and inconvenient solutions to purely hypothetical problems is too much for your minset to comprehend.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 19th, 2011 at 11:24am

pjb05 wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am:
In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.



But only if it is a marine park?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 21st, 2011 at 8:27pm

freediver wrote on Mar 19th, 2011 at 11:24am:

pjb05 wrote on Mar 17th, 2011 at 6:07am:
In this case if an urban developement was going to have an adverse effect of the marine environment then the marine park authority can have some input on it.



But only if it is a marine park?


There are plenty of other arms of government to concern themselves with other areas. Plus there is the rec fishing consultaive body you saw fit to malign.

PS even some greens are now saying they may have got it wrong with their obsession with fishing bans rather than looking at pollution and degradation.  

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 23rd, 2011 at 10:08pm
So we should have two separate government departments to assess development applications depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Is this you 'interpretting' coalition policy again, or are you just making it up as you go along?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 24th, 2011 at 6:05am

freediver wrote on Mar 23rd, 2011 at 10:08pm:
So we should have two separate government departments to assess development applications depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Is this you 'interpretting' coalition policy again, or are you just making it up as you go along?


No you are. Eg who said that marine park authorities would assess developement activities?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 24th, 2011 at 7:15pm
OK. They would 'have some input' into DAs, depending on their proximity to marine parks.

Would this be a rubber stamp, or would it actually have teeth? And if so, why deny the level of protection to other areas?

What is the point of having a different process for DAs depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Does the coalition policy, or your naive interpretation of it, actually mean anything at all? Or is it just more meaningless waffle?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 24th, 2011 at 7:34pm
OK. They would 'have some input' into DAs, depending on their proximity to marine parks.

Would this be a rubber stamp, or would it actually have teeth?

It's a question of balance. Plus you keep ignoring the other half of the statement, ie they will remove the over emphasis on fishing as a threatening process.  

And if so, why deny the level of protection to other areas?

It's only natural that marine parks will have interest in and knowledge of areas within their jurastiction. You seem to have contradicted yourself too - your whole philosophy is one of total protection for some areas and even a relaxing of restrictions for the remainder.


What is the point of having a different process for DAs depending on their proximity to marine parks?

Ironic given you views on how fisheries should be managed.

Does the coalition policy, or your naive interpretation of it, actually mean anything at all? Or is it just more meaningless waffle?

It's your magical thinking regarding marine parks that's naive.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 24th, 2011 at 7:53pm
So what does it actually mean in practice PJ?


Quote:
It's only natural that marine parks will have interest in and knowledge of areas within their jurastiction.


Their jurisdiction is the marine parks, or the marine environment. There is no good reason for the government department responsible for marine parks to have any authority over DAs, because their is no good reason to have different standards based on proximity to marine parks.

Perhaps you should give an example.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on May 26th, 2011 at 7:33am
This makes your front papge article look more than a bit stupid, FD:


Minister to overturn recent changes to Marine Parks
25 May 2011


THE NSW Government is set to abolish changes to the zoning plans for the Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks made by the former Labor Government, Minister for Primary Industries Katrina Hodgkinson and Minister for the Environment Robyn Parker said today.

Minister Hodgkinson will today move in the Legislative Assembly that Labor's recent zoning regulations be disallowed.

The decision means fishing rules in both marine parks will revert to those in place before March 2011, which have been in place since 2002. The use of the marine park for recreational purposes is unchanged.

The Ministers said there will be thorough community consultation before any future zoning plans for Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands marine parks are implemented.

"The NSW Government is committed to commonsense marine parks policy that is based on science, not politics," Minister Hodgkinson said.

"We will disallow these most recent changes, overturning Labor's politically motivated plans for Jervis Bay and Solitary Islands.

"This will ensure the fishing rules revert back to those that have been in place since 2002, which the community, in particular the fishing community, had only just become accustomed to.

Minister Parker said the NSW Government has also committed to an independent scientific audit of the effectiveness of the existing zoning arrangements within marine parks.

"Any marine park policy must find the right balance between protecting the marine environment and providing opportunities for fishing, diving, whale watching and other activities that generate opportunities for tourism," Minister Parker said.

Minister Parker also welcomed greater scrutiny of marine parks.

In a press release the Australian Marine Conservation Society has slammed the government's decision, which it says will see the percentage of sanctuary zones in the Solitary Islands Marine Park reduced from 19 to 12 per cent, and trawlers allowed back into Jervis Bay Marine Park.

Spokesman for the Nature Conservation Council, Pepe Clarke, has also condemned the zoning decision, saying complaints about inadequate consultation are ridiculous.

"In the case of Solitary Islands more than 6500 submissions were received in response to the draft zoning plan. There were dozens of stakeholder meetings and community information days . The consultation extended over a three month period," Clarke told the ABC.

"So any claim that this zoning plan was rushed through in the dying days of the previous government is unfounded."


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on May 27th, 2011 at 1:29pm
Ok. It seems I loose.
The Libs have opened up a lot of Reserves/Santuaries/etc for Fishing.

Guess I'm gonna have to don my scuba gear and start drilling holes in boats for some more wreck dives ...especially French Fishing Boats. Shouldn't be any different to when I used to wear black trackies and get around all of Sydney city upon very rainy nights - even in front of unseeing cops. Even the Lodge was not spared when a mate and I lived at Kirribilli (that old white buiding that housed junkies/alcos/hookers). Kinda helped when Keating's security guards were asleep though ;).

Is what I am doing wrong and detrimental to the wellbeing of this nation's future in a most selfish way? Quite possibly. :-/
I'll stop at x100 Fishing Boats as if I too am 'restricted' from going over a quota. Its a 'sustainable' amount I'm sure.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on May 28th, 2011 at 8:36pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=033_7A35xls

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on May 28th, 2011 at 8:41pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192TX8vI6Q8&feature=related

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on May 28th, 2011 at 9:22pm
Is there some point to posting these videos on a thread about NSW marine parks?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on May 30th, 2011 at 12:04am
Yeah - how pathetic Politics (and Military) is at protecting the 'future' of this part of the World. ::)


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 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”.

In a blow to anti-fishing groups which have long campaigned for increases in no-go zones, “solid scientific and socio-economic reasons” would be needed for any area to be closed to recreational fishing activity, Audit Report chairman Associate Professor Bob Beeton said.

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”.

Socio-economic assessments should have been part of any decisions to ban anglers from fishing traditional areas, Professor Beeton said. “Costs and benefits need to be associated with any decision made on marine parks. Recreational fishing is a big business – we have lot of evidence that there are costs (to the community) if fishing access is restricted.”

Professor Beeton was highly critical of the level of “consultation” carried out by government officials before marine parks were created. “In some cases this consultation was simply (the officials) telling you what they were going to do.”

Maintaining and developing fish habitat was key to any meaningful marine protection and enhancement, Professor Beeton said. The report had as one its main recommendations the development of a new government agency which would encompass fisheries, the environment department and catchment authorities along the entire NSW coast.

Failing to ensure habitat protection is more of a long-term problem (than fishing),” Professor Beeton told Fisho.

The current system of marine parks in NSW was “done far too quickly”, the professor said. “That’s why you’ve got the divisive situation you’re in now.”

It would take at least 10 to 15 years to develop an effective marine protection network, Professor Beeton said. “(By then) the marine estate in NSW will be managed properly, threats will be managed and the various user groups will be catered for.

“At the end of this process, done properly, you’d expect recreational fishermen to feel that they have ownership of the protected areas as much as they have ownership of other areas,” Professor Beeton said.

There would be solid scientific and socio-economic reasons for any area to be closed off, not just because a certain percentage of water or habitat is required to be closed off. Our argument is that any closed area should be for a specific objective.”

Submissions and representations made by anglers and angling groups during the audit board’s inquiry “were of value”, Professor Beeton said. “The fact that we had a diverse range of recreational fishermen, as well as various other groups, including conservationists, talk to us gave us the evidence to see that the system wasn’t in great shape.”

Anglers have until June 30 to make comments on the Audit Report. NSW Fisheries Minister Katrina Hodgkinson said the Government would “stand by the existing moratorium on the declaration of new marine parks, alteration of sanctuary zones and review of zoning plans” and “will formally respond to the Audit Report in due course”.

View a copy of the Audit Report HERE. Public submissions can be made via yoursayonmarineparks@dpc.nsw.gov.au.


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 7:31am
What a lot of absolute crap!
Those Scientists would say anything to keep themselves on the pay-packet.
They're no different that the Doctors who look at your broken leg and say it isn't broken when making a Compo claim.

I've dived the Poor Knight Islands and seen the 'difference' that 'No Take Zones' make.
Its just a shame there isn't more of them to be more effective.
Report in Dive Pacific this month shows how Fish stay away from areas known for SpearFishing, etc.
The fish react differently by fleeing rather than hiding in rocks, etc - under such a circumstance.
That's Fish behaviour PJ ;) Obviously some form of intelligence ...as is their ability to locate a Bommie out in the middle of nowhere over many kms.

I think the world is stuffed because everything is around the wrong way.
We should be making 'small' Fishing Zones ...10% out of the 90% No Take Global Zone isn't that bad is it?

Those Scientists are stupid. ::) No common sense.
They are obviously the 'Replicant' learners at Uni and not the original thinkers. ;D

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Jasignature on Feb 22nd, 2012 at 7:38am
By the way.
I've dived around Bateman's Bay.
Its empty and devoid of a lot that Jervis Bay has.
Wonder why is that?
Nothing but urchin barrens at Bateman's Bay and small fish.
Hence why Jervis Bay is a Dive mecca and Batemans Bay is just fish and chips.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 9:05am
You should include links PJ. A link to the original report would be handy.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Feb 23rd, 2012 at 3:49pm
http://www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au/

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by pjb05 on Mar 13th, 2013 at 5:37pm
Well the rollback has started, effective immediately all the land based recreational fishing bans have been recinded (except for one location). Expect more to follow.

Makes your earlier musing look silly FD!

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 14th, 2013 at 12:23pm
That's great news PJ. I'm glad they are not going overboard. Do you have a link to the details?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:15pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..



Not if you can appreciate nature without having to kill it.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:29pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..



Not if you can appreciate nature without having to kill it.


I like to camp, fish, hunt (occasionally) and go 4wd driving..

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:33pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..



Not if you can appreciate nature without having to kill it.


I like to camp, fish, hunt (occasionally) and go 4wd driving..


You like to camp, kill, kill and go 4wd driving.

I like to camp and go 4wd'ing without being shot at too.


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by FriYAY on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:42pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..



Not if you can appreciate nature without having to kill it.


I like to camp, fish, hunt (occasionally) and go 4wd driving..


You like to camp, kill, kill and go 4wd driving.

I like to camp and go 4wd'ing without being shot at too.



WTF is wrong with catching a fish and feeding your family with it?

Or popping a few rabbits in the scone for a nice stew?

Are you vegan?

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:42pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..



Not if you can appreciate nature without having to kill it.


I like to camp, fish, hunt (occasionally) and go 4wd driving..


You like to camp, kill, kill and go 4wd driving.

I like to camp and go 4wd'ing without being shot at too.

Yes, that's basically it...I eat meat and dairy products too, and wear leather shoes, belts and jackets...

And NOW, I can fish, hunt and 4wd drive again..YIPPEE ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:46pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:29pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:15pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 2:13pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 1:41pm:
The shooters and fishers party is running the state.


Yeah, great isn't it??
A nice change from the environazis running it..



Not if you can appreciate nature without having to kill it.


I like to camp, fish, hunt (occasionally) and go 4wd driving..


You like to camp, kill, kill and go 4wd driving.

I like to camp and go 4wd'ing without being shot at too.


So don't camp or 4wd in posted hunting areas.....or if you do, don't piss the hunters off, and they won't shoot at you

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:01pm
I remember a camping trip I did out west. I was on the ground in a tent in a bit of a depression. It was a heavily used campsite with car tracks everywhere. The others were sleeping on the roof of their 4WD. Around 2am some local bogans started doing burnouts just up the road. The others asked me if I was feeling safe down there on the ground, which was nice of them. Then around 3am the bogans started shooting, so it was my turn to ask the others how safe they were feeling up on the roof.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by FriYAY on Mar 14th, 2013 at 8:43pm

freediver wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 6:01pm:
I remember a camping trip I did out west. I was on the ground in a tent in a bit of a depression. It was a heavily used campsite with car tracks everywhere. The others were sleeping on the roof of their 4WD. Around 2am some local bogans started doing burnouts just up the road. The others asked me if I was feeling safe down there on the ground, which was nice of them. Then around 3am the bogans started shooting, so it was my turn to ask the others how safe they were feeling up on the roof.


I thought they just would have laughed at you because you were sleeping in a depression.

:-/


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:06pm
We did a thorough risk assessment before setting up camp and decided that it was the most comfortable looking spot.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:06am

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:06pm:
We did a thorough risk assessment before setting up camp and decided that it was the most comfortable looking spot.


You keep sleeping in ditches then.

;D ;D

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:18am

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
So don't camp or 4wd in posted hunting areas.....or if you do, don't piss the hunters off, and they won't shoot at you


What are these "posted hunting areas" ?

Are they easy to identify for me, and hunters ?


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:49am

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:18am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 14th, 2013 at 3:46pm:
So don't camp or 4wd in posted hunting areas.....or if you do, don't piss the hunters off, and they won't shoot at you


What are these "posted hunting areas" ?

Are they easy to identify for me, and hunters ?


Well given that there aren't all that many areas that allow hunting it shouldn't be hard to work out..

Here's a list of places in NSW
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=WhereCanIHunt

But really, almost all serious hunters won't shot near camping areas, and regardless of what the Wilderness Society says, they don't wander around, blasting away at shadows,and noises...Ammo is way too expensive, for a start and in Australia hunter 'cred' is built on accuracy (one shot kills, clean head shots etc) so serious hunters don't fire until they're sure of the target.

The occasional random bogans who DO do stuff like that are at more risk from the serious sportspeople, than you would be.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Doctor Jolly on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:12pm

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:49am:
Well given that there aren't all that many areas that allow hunting it shouldn't be hard to work out..

Here's a list of places in NSW
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=WhereCanIHunt

But really, almost all serious hunters won't shot near camping areas, and regardless of what the Wilderness Society says, they don't wander around, blasting away at shadows,and noises...Ammo is way too expensive, for a start and in Australia hunter 'cred' is built on accuracy (one shot kills, clean head shots etc) so serious hunters don't fire until they're sure of the target.

The occasional random bogans who DO do stuff like that are at more risk from the serious sportspeople, than you would be.


Its the bogan shooters I'm worried about.

Ive done a fair bit of shooting in my younger days, and its all fine outback on private farms where you know there are no people just wandering around,  but in more built up areas like Wattagans near sydney which is a big 4wd'ing and camping site, it can only end in tears.  Some very good hunters may follow your 'cred' ethic, but even then its easy to be focussed on your target that you forget what is behind it, or what a ricochet off a rock might hit.

Guns, forest and people just dont mix, IMO.


Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by gizmo_2655 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:42pm

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:49am:
Well given that there aren't all that many areas that allow hunting it shouldn't be hard to work out..

Here's a list of places in NSW
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=WhereCanIHunt

But really, almost all serious hunters won't shot near camping areas, and regardless of what the Wilderness Society says, they don't wander around, blasting away at shadows,and noises...Ammo is way too expensive, for a start and in Australia hunter 'cred' is built on accuracy (one shot kills, clean head shots etc) so serious hunters don't fire until they're sure of the target.

The occasional random bogans who DO do stuff like that are at more risk from the serious sportspeople, than you would be.


Its the bogan shooters I'm worried about.

Ive done a fair bit of shooting in my younger days, and its all fine outback on private farms where you know there are no people just wandering around,  but in more built up areas like Wattagans near sydney which is a big 4wd'ing and camping site, it can only end in tears.  Some very good hunters may follow your 'cred' ethic, but even then its easy to be focussed on your target that you forget what is behind it, or what a ricochet off a rock might hit.

Guns, forest and people just dont mix, IMO.


Well they did mix, successfully for many decades, with very little problem, so why they wouldn't now, I don't understand.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by freediver on Mar 23rd, 2013 at 4:41pm

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:06am:

freediver wrote on Mar 15th, 2013 at 7:06pm:
We did a thorough risk assessment before setting up camp and decided that it was the most comfortable looking spot.


You keep sleeping in ditches then.

;D ;D



It wasn't a ditch. It was about 30m wide.


gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:42pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 1:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:49am:
Well given that there aren't all that many areas that allow hunting it shouldn't be hard to work out..

Here's a list of places in NSW
http://www.gamecouncil.nsw.gov.au/portal.asp?p=WhereCanIHunt

But really, almost all serious hunters won't shot near camping areas, and regardless of what the Wilderness Society says, they don't wander around, blasting away at shadows,and noises...Ammo is way too expensive, for a start and in Australia hunter 'cred' is built on accuracy (one shot kills, clean head shots etc) so serious hunters don't fire until they're sure of the target.

The occasional random bogans who DO do stuff like that are at more risk from the serious sportspeople, than you would be.


Its the bogan shooters I'm worried about.

Ive done a fair bit of shooting in my younger days, and its all fine outback on private farms where you know there are no people just wandering around,  but in more built up areas like Wattagans near sydney which is a big 4wd'ing and camping site, it can only end in tears.  Some very good hunters may follow your 'cred' ethic, but even then its easy to be focussed on your target that you forget what is behind it, or what a ricochet off a rock might hit.

Guns, forest and people just dont mix, IMO.


Well they did mix, successfully for many decades, with very little problem, so why they wouldn't now, I don't understand.


Perhaps he meant Gunns and forests don't mix.

Title: Re: NSW coalition, Batemans and Port Stephens
Post by Lionel Edriess on Apr 21st, 2013 at 5:18pm
Don't see a problem with it. Been shooting for over 40 years and never shot anyone yet.

Once qualified as a range officer and can hit 3 out of 5 stubby caps laid on their side on the 90m rail.

Usual alarmist bullshite.

What about insisting that hikers wear high visibility clothing, just like our road-workers? After all, they're the worried ones.

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