freediver wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 1:34pm:

.
The senate doesn't work on a preferential voting system FD, and I doubt that fishing parties gave the coalition control of the lower house. As to your other inane suggestions, the GBRMP outcome was worse than the so called 'scare campaigns'.

All that is rather irrelvant now that a major party has come down against (to a large extent) marine parks. This torpedoes one of your main arguments, ie the 'bandwagon effect', so I don't know what your being so snide about.

] Quote:


Care to elaborate PJ?

Actually it does now that I think of it - but is quite complicated. In any case the Coalition did not go to the election with the GBRMP expansion as being their policy. Are you blaming the fishing parties for not having a crystal ball? 

Quote:


They boasted about giving them control of the senate and how it meant they would finally get listened too.

It looks like they are being listened to now! PS: polling in coastal seats shows tha Abott's marine park policy was well received.

Quote:


Sounds like a strawman to me.

It was one of your arguments that there is a politcal as well as scientific consensus against marine parks.

] Quote:


Just for being naive.

There was no way of predicting what happened regarding the GBR.

Quote:


You mean now that they barely exist any more? Or now that the coalition feels satisfied they have created enough marine parks to last a few terms?

Duh, I mean fishermen and small business owners in coastal towns. PS what marine parks have the coalition created outside the GBR?

Quote:


There is. Abbott supports marine parks. He is not going to remove any of them. Nor has he ruled out more after the next election. This is the sort of naivete that made the fishing parties look like schoolkids. They will clutch at any old straw for political vindication.

Sophist nonsense. Hardly anyone is against marine parks in principle - even I am not. It's the extent, nature and motives where the differences lie. The coalition promises to halt the planning process for any more marine parks, which is a major departure from the present policy. What happens to existing marine parks we will just have to see, but there are very few of these in any case.   

My only argument about the political consesnus was that it forces fishermen to face the reality of marine parks. That is, even if they don't support them, fishermen should at least play a constructive role in their implimentation. [/quote]

Which is an appeal to a bandwagon and a propaganda technique.

] Quote:


True. The exact manner in which people like that get screwed is always hard to forsee, and the spectacular extent of it took even me by surprise. Yet they still had naive branded across their forheads.

So we were screwed! I thought you said marine parks were good for us and are the ideal fisheries management tool? Also you are more than a bit naive to think that the political conditions that applied then also apply now.

Quote:


So you agree there is a consensus?

No, because there is considerable divergence on the extent to which marine parks are needed and to their effectiveness.

Quote:


LOL. What do you really expect? Be honest now. [/quote]

Well given you have just said that fishermen were screwed over by the GBRMPA there is certainly plenty of room for improvement. PS the NSW coalition promised to abolish 2 marine parks and review the zoning of the remaining ones.

[] Quote:


Sure they are, which is why those who oppose marine parks and spread their legs for any politician who will throw them a few platitudes is going to get screwed.

At the time the Howard government was desperate to get the GST passed. The Democrats had the balance of power and decided to support it - for a price. Part of the deal was the GBRMP. It's ridiculous to say this will political situation in perpetuity.

PS: Is this your line of argument now? Ie a political (and rather Lenininstic one), after you made a fool of yourself over Reefgate?

Quote:


So you keep saying. Would you mind posting these claims? All I have seen is a vague promise to 'look into it'. [/quote]

That was the last election so it's rather old news now. Though it seems that marine parks are even more central to their campaign this time around. I can keep you posted if you like.

] Quote:


Right, they will have to think of another excuse next time. It made me cringe how these people tried to absolve the coalition of any responsibility, like a rape victim speaking out in defence of the rapist "it's OK, it was convenient for him to do that to me at the time, I'm sure he won't feel the same need again..."

Well this time they have promised to at least halt the planning process for marine parks. In the case of Labor we know the planning is well underway and in the case of the Greens that want 30% of Aust waters NTZ.

Quote:


Still, I'd like to see the evidence. Not 'keep me posted'. Or was this more crystal ball stuff? Where is the promise to abolish 2 marine parks? Is this just more schoolboy naivete from the anti marine park lobby? [/quote]

Firstly I'm turning in and I am not about to dig it up for you now. Secondly the coaltion lost the last election so any promises made before are of limited relevence compared to current/ slash future ones.

PS I modified my last post so you might have missed this:

PS: Is this your line of argument now? Ie a political (and rather Lenininstic one), after you made a fool of yourself over Reefgate?

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 7:58am:


You assume too much. You didn't convince me. The front page didn't say they worked for the GBRMPA, merely they authored one paper. You also keep omiting the overt declaration of no conflict of interest or no mention of 3 of the 4 Pew connections.

freediver wrote on Aug 11^th, 2010 at 8:20pm:


Can you make a point without being so crude and obnoxious? Actually it's not much of a point anyway. Do you agree that we have to be guided by what a party is promising prior to an election? Getting back to the federal election, besides promising to delay the planning process for further Commonwealth marine parks they will use the delay to have a proper consultation process with fishermen. They are pointing to outcomes like the Tasmanian marine parks which had very little impact on recreational fishermen.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/coalition-fishes-for-coastal-votes-over-marine-parks-plan/story-fn59niix-1225897727616

LABOR is at risk of losing key coastal seats around the country as a result of a grassroots campaign by fishermen.
The fishermen are angry over the government's plan to create a large network of marine parks.

The issue has sparked an underground political movement driven by blogs and social media pages, targeting marginal seats in coastal areas.

Tony Abbott's pledge yesterday to put the parks on hold shows the Coalition is convinced this could be a pivotal issue in some seats.

The Opposition Leader pledged only to suspend the creation of the parks before consulting stakeholders, not to stop them altogether. But that was enough to trigger a favourable response yesterday among bloggers, a Coalition source said.

Environment Minister Peter Garrett has promised to consult further before making a decision next year, but fishing groups claim the consultation is not genuine.

Mr Garrett has proposed a network of marine parks covering an area of more than five million square kilometres, or 38 per cent of Australia's fishing zone.

Some of the parks would allow fishing to continue, but Mr Garrett wants a vast Coral Sea park covering one million square kilometres to be a no-take zone.

Complicating the issue is the creation of coastal marine parks by state governments. The NSW government is accused of consulting with fishermen about where they fish, and then shutting down the most popular areas.

In NSW, the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro, held by Labor, has extensive coastal areas, as does the marginal seat of Page in the north, also held by Labor. And four seats in Queensland affected by the Coral Sea park would be lost to the Coalition with a swing of less than 2.5 per cent.

Opposition spokesman for fisheries Richard Colbeck has been in contact with commercial and recreational fishing groups around the country. He said the recreational fishermen were "pretty filthy, quite animated" in their opposition to the NSW government's handling of the issue, and were "highly organised" in coastal seats.

Senator Colbeck said the Coalition would go ahead with the marine parks, but its consultation would be more inclusive.

"We will still be putting in place marine parks," he said. "But let's put a hold on this process, put in place bioregional panels, then start developing boundaries and a management plan based on the information on the table."

Senator Colbeck said the groups he had been in touch with were not opposed to marine parks, but they wanted to be part of the process and "have a genuine say".

Tasmania had proved it was possible to create marine parks and achieve a win for both the environment and fishing.

Senator Colbeck said his experience of the Tasmanian process five years ago had shown that with proper consultation the state government had created an even bigger marine park area, while cutting the impact on fishing by 90 per cent.

In Queensland, the Townsville-based seat of Herbert, which is held by just 0.4 per cent, would be left with a narrow corridor for fishing, the no-take zone starting 200km offshore and then stretching for about 1000km to the edge of Australia's maritime frontier.

The Gladstone-based seat of Flynn, held by 2.3 per cent, would also be affected

You missing the main point (a habit of yours). If the parks are like the Tasmanian marine parks (as suggested) then there will be lttle impact on recreational fishing.

date=1281570078]

And it gets even more absurd. Tell me PJ, why did the federal government put the Tasmanian parks offshore? Was it

a) because they didn't want to upset recreational fishermen who fish closer to the shore, or

b) because federal waters are way offshore and they have no jurisdiction along the shoreline

???

Wrong on both, twit. They don't have jurastiction close to shore but they do at the 3nm mark (hardly way offshore).

There is no discernable difference between how the two parties respond to the fishing lobby (based on actions and outcomes - words are a different matter).

Looking forward we only have their words to go by. The past is not a guide to the future (except for the simple minded like you).


Federally, the coalition has done far more against the interests of the anti marine aprk lobby than labor. For some reason, the fishing parties go through all sorts of tortuous mental gymnastics to avoid blaming the coalition for any of this, then latch onto any soothing words the coalition sends them, regardless of what the coalition actually does. Regardless even of what the coalition says.

What they say looks very good indeed. What they do is in the future, we have to be guided by what they say. If they pick up enough coastal seats over this issue to carry them over the line I hardly think they are going to shaft the people that helped them win office.

In this case, the coaltion has not actually promised them a single thing that is not already standard practice. They have merely promised them business as usual, but just wrapped it up in words that can allow the fishing parties to appear slightly less impotent to their devoted followers, even if it means leading them up the garden path once more.

It's a grass roots issue. Not one of devoted follows of fishing party.  Favouable treatment of fishing interest is not standard practice (except in Tasmania). You have yourself said that fishermen got screwed over in the GBR. Do you really beleive the drivel you post?

BTW, where is that promise the NSW coalition made to abolish two marine paks? Was it just wishing thinking after all?

I said that was before the last election.

Quote:


I said the fishing party got screwed. Nothing wrong with being fooled once of course. But being fooled the same way again and again and again is entirely different.

Quote:


So where is it? Can you quote the promise? Or is it unquotable now that they lost the election? I am not asking you to show that they kept their promise. I am merely asking you to show that they actually made their promise. After all, you are the one who brought it up. Or is this yet another example of you thinking a politician is saying something that they aren't actually saying?

Quote:


Sounds like a convenient way to ignore the fact that the coalition screwed over the fishing party in the past so they can keep falling for the same old lines. Those who don't learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. This example of latching onto Abbott's words, or rather what you think he said but didn't actually say, is a great example of history repeating.

Quote:


You want me to search for a quote that doesn't exist? Or will any old quote from any NSW coalition member that fails to make this promise do? You made the claim, so you back it up. I am not interested in whatever slate you keep with the coalition. I am just interested in your reading comprehension skills. I want to know whether you are able to see what a politician is actually saying rather than what you hope they are saying. Or did the words magically disappeared after the election?

Quote:




That's exaclt what they did, remember? But you think it's water under the bridge and it won't happen again because we should ignore their history and go by the promises you think they make but which they don't actually say?

Quote:


You don't appear to know what you are voting for this time either.

Quote:


Explain the difference to me. If it helps use quotes.