|
pjb05
|
They would make statements like—‘he is only one scientist and we have many scientists who will disagree with him.’ (When your job depends on it then I guess you would disagree).
Precautionary Principle
No one will forget the bare faced lies the GBRMPA conned us with. How they led us to believe during the second submission process, that if we showed them our most important fishing areas and safe anchorages they would give them a wide birth in their
final draft plan. Then they betrayed us. They used this information we gave them, all in good faith, as a basis for their green no go zones. Let’s face it, how else could a body of academics with no knowledge of the fishing industry or fishing in general know where to put fishing no go zones without this information?
Bill Izard is a trawler operator in Cairns specialising in catching brood stock for aquaculture. He received the full brunt of the GBRMPA’s deceit. Bill is the last small trawler operating in the Cairns local area. At the conclusion of the GBRMPA’s first draft plan for the RAP. GBRMPA personal approached Bill and told him if he
would show them the area he worked they would make sure he would retain 100% of the area. Bill sat down with the personal and drew the areas on a map and you guessed it!!, when the GBRMPA released their final plan, 92% of the area Bill worked was made green. You can speak to any fishermen that fish the Great Barrier Reef, commercial and amateur alike and you will get a similar story.
We are all aware that the RAP was legislated without one shred of scientific evidence, it was all based on the precautionary principal. Locking everything up and calling it sustainable is irresponsible. The precautionary principal is something these authorities revert back to when they are challenged and forced into a corner without
an answer. No science is involved.
Dr Starck has not been alone with his criticism Professor Robert Kearney Bsc (Hons),PhD, DSc—Professor in fisheries management—Institute of Applied Ecology—University of Canberra Australia. (They deal with Ecological Solutions for a Healthy Environment.) Professor Kearney has released a 17 page damming paper condemning the falsehoods and poor science involved in establishing Australia’s Marine Protected Areas. (MPA’s) http://aerg.canberra.edu.au/php/showstaff.php?usercode=kearney)
Professor Kearney infers that the placing of the (MPA’s) lacks scientific credibility.He advocates that some may be doing more harm than good, and said they may even be creating the very problem they are supposed to be preventing. He uses similar terminology in describing MPA’s in NSW, as Professor Starck used when he condemned the GBRMPA’s-- RAP on the GBR. Both of these senior scientists have
been highly critical of the poor science used to support MPA’s. Dr Starck has said he has many colleagues who shared his views, but are unwilling to go public in fear of losing their funding even their jobs. Perhaps, now that such a high profile figure as
Professor Kearney has spoken out, other scientists will begin to voice their dissent and stem the flow of taxpayers money being wasted on unwarranted MPA’s.
Australia’s MPA’s now comprise of 1/3 of the global total and with the planned additions this is set to soon become close to half of the world’s MPA’s.—Not a single marine species has been lost in Australia and no reduction in marine biodiversity has ever been found or even suspected. MPA mania has become detached from both
|
Forum
Pages: 1
equity and cost of marine parks (Read 2296 times)
