Australian Politics Forum - The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #15 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:23am

freediver wrote on Mar 19^th, 2008 at 5:16pm:

Oh, how nice. BTW, can you give a link to where you got that from, or to the table pj mentioned?

Shows they are learning at least.

www.mpa.nsw.gov.au, if they haven't removed it like they did with some other stuff that people had questioned or criticised them for (such as their woeful "science paper").

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy Reply #16 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:26am Is the batemans info in the bioregional assessment here? The connection I'm on at the moment is a bit too slow to download that. http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/bmp.html
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #17 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:36am

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:26am:

Is the batemans info in the bioregional assessment here? The connection I'm on at the moment is a bit too slow to download that.

http://www.mpa.nsw.gov.au/bmp.html

The habitat percentages should be, don't recall. The zoning percentages won't be. It's worth a read anyway.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:46am by RecFisher »

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy Reply #18 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:54am So the zoning percentages - are they based on information that is no longer available? Any idea where the figures given were copied and pasted from, or who they originally came from? It looks to me like they were made up, or at best guessed.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

RecFisher

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 347

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #19 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 11:06am

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 10:54am:

So the zoning percentages - are they based on information that is no longer available? Any idea where the figures given were copied and pasted from, or who they originally came from? It looks to me like they were made up, or at best guessed.

The zoning percentages won't be in the Bioregional Assessment, because it was written BEFORE the zoning was done.

I don't know why the stuff was taken down from the MPA website, call them and ask them why.

FFS, do you have to question and doubt everything that anyone else posts up? Why do you think this stuff was made up? I know for a fact it wasn't made up, or even guessed. It was taken from material published by the MPA, which, for whatever reason know only to the MPA, is no longer on their website.

If that isn't good enough for you, then stiff sh*t.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 11:15am by RecFisher »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #20 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 11:48am

Of course it isn't good enough for me. You can't expect someone to take numbers posted to an online forum seriously if they can't be verified in any way. Only a fool would simply take your word for it. Do you know anyone that saved a copy of the website when it was up? I'm not going to ask a government department about information that I have only the most vague description of.

I have been following the implimentation of these marine parks. I doubt they would have put such useful information up without me ever finding out about it.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

RecFisher Senior Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 347	Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy Reply #21 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:13pm freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 11:48am: I have been following the implimentation of these marine parks. I doubt they would have put such useful information up without me ever finding out about it. Well, you did miss it, just how closely were you monitoring things?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53182 At my desk.	Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy Reply #22 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:26pm I find it hard to believe that no-one saved a copy of the pdf of such useful and interesting information.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #23 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:29pm

RecFisher wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 2:13pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 11:48am:

I have been following the implimentation of these marine parks. I doubt they would have put such useful information up without me ever finding out about it.

Well, you did miss it, just how closely were you monitoring things?

We've already established that FD has never looked at any of the NSW fisheries assessments or the associated EIS statements so I wouldn't be surprised.

Even if you do provide the information FD demands he will either question its validity or ignore it.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #24 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:52pm

So you're back to arguing against providing supporting information again because you don't like my response to it?

Perhpas you think the world revolves around me and the only good reason for backing up your claims is to change my mind - never mind what all the other forum readers end up thinking.

Or is it just that you are afraid the facts might not support your argument as strongly as you make out?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 6:07pm by freediver »

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

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #25 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 6:09pm

freediver wrote on Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 5:52pm:

So you're back to arguing against providing supporting information again because you don't like my response to it?

The problem is you don't respond with anything useful. Any computer literate 14 year old would know how to find the fisheries assessments. Just google NSW Fisheries, DPI or DEH (Dep of Environment and Heritage).

Rgarding the % habitat table it was on the MPA site but was pulled. Its quite obvious that reef areas are over represented in most marine parks in any case. If you don't agree FD why don't you provide figures that prove your case?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:13pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #26 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:02pm

Any computer literate 14 year old would know how to find the fisheries assessments.

Sure, but can he find information that doesn't exist because it was made up? The onus is always on the person providing the statistics to back them up. Expecting other people to find it for you is absurd. People constantly make up stuff and post it online. It is not my job to prove them wrong. I would be here all day just chasing up the dodgy numbers posted to this site. It is sufficient to merely point out that the numbers cannot be verified.

Rgarding the % habitat table it was on the MPA site but was pulled.

So I've heard, but even if it was pulled there would be some evidence of it's previous existence, as I have already pointed out.

If you don't agree FD why don't you provide figures that prove your case?

It's not that I don't agree. I just see no point in deluding myself that I have evidence to back up my suspicions when I don't. I want to have the information. I don't want to make a fool of myslef by believing some conspiracy about information disappearing from a government website with zero evidence that it ever existed. I may even agree with you, but I don't want to come across as you are coming across right now.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #27 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:24pm

Any computer literate 14 year old would know how to find the fisheries assessments.

Sure, but can he find information that doesn't exist because it was made up? The onus is always on the person providing the statistics to back them up. Expecting other people to find it for you is absurd. People constantly make up stuff and post it online. It is not my job to prove them wrong. I would be here all day just chasing up the dodgy numbers posted to this site. It is sufficient to merely point out that the numbers cannot be verified.

Who's absurd? Your the one who has formulated a policy on fisheries which will effect people's pastimes and even livelyhoods. You have seen to have done remarkably little reseach on the subject, apart from reliance on an overseas (so called) consensus.

Rgarding the % habitat table it was on the MPA site but was pulled.

So I've heard, but even if it was pulled there would be some evidence of it's previous existence, as I have already pointed out.

If you don't agree FD why don't you provide figures that prove your case?

It's not that I don't agree. I just see no point in deluding myself that I have evidence to back up my suspicions when I don't. I want to have the information. I don't want to make a fool of myslef by believing some conspiracy about information disappearing from a government website with zero evidence that it ever existed. I may even agree with you, but I don't want to come across as you are coming across right now.

Well the zonings are pretty real. If you have any knowledge of these areas you will know the eye teeth have been picked out of the good fishing spots and reefs are over represented. Eg in Byron Bay virtually all the inshore reef is a green zone, Cairns lost most of its reefs, etc.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:53pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53182
At my desk.

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #28 - Mar 22^nd, 2008 at 7:47pm

You have seen to have done remarkably little reseach on the subject

You're basing this on my unfamiliarity with imaginary statistics? Or just my refusal to accept claims you can't back up?

If you have any knowledge of these areas you will know the eye teeth have been picked out of the good fishing spots and reefs are over represented.

I heard similar claims about the GBR, but they couldn't be verified, even though it was in the itnerest of those making the claims to put in the effort to back them up.

It is however inevitable that if you do a proper public consultation there will be some people, generally the best fishermen, who end up seeing it like you do.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1404
Gender: male

Re: The GBR marine park site selection conspiracy
Reply #29 - Mar 23^rd, 2008 at 3:24pm

You have seen to have done remarkably little reseach on the subject

You're basing this on my unfamiliarity with imaginary statistics? Or just my refusal to accept claims you can't back up?

Mainly on your earlier denial of my reference to NSW fisheries reviews and the fact that you apparently have never looked at then.

If you have any knowledge of these areas you will know the eye teeth have been picked out of the good fishing spots and reefs are over represented.

I heard similar claims about the GBR, but they couldn't be verified, even though it was in the itnerest of those making the claims to put in the effort to back them up.

Why don't you tell us then what proof will satisfy you. If not then I suggest you drop this silly argument.

It is however inevitable that if you do a proper public consultation there will be some people, generally the best fishermen, who end up seeing it like you do.

What proper public consultation? The submissions I know of have been overwhelmingly against the zonings and they went ahead anyway. In Byron Bay they even closed off extra areas for good measure.

Back to top

IP Logged