Australian Politics Forum - another ban on snapper fishing

It_is_the_Darkness

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #30 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:26pm

Me too. I love to eat Fish.
I don't need 'Science' to prove to me what Common Sense can.
Throw in Pollution into the Waterways and everything the Old Timers say about how the waters around Mooney Mooney used to be helluva lot clearer than today because of less impact by Farming methods and hoofed livestock, etc, etc.
Look around to what's happened to other Nations and the surrounding seas ...Australia better change its ways 'radically' towards a more 'conservative' approach or it will just be the same.
Scientific Proof? Well I suppose you want me to bring up heaps of Docos, Reports, Links, etc ...but I've been over all of them heaps previously. It all just tells the same story although many so-called Scientists will be paid to say otherwise as well like a 'dis-informer'.

Back to top

SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #31 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:30pm

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

LOL. Yeah dude, I was a much better fisherman when I was 8.

That's exactly what it is. Nothing at all to do with ocean life being pillaged for material gain.

If there was 'nuthing left' as you claim I wouldn't matter how good a fisherman I was, would it? PS how do you figure that having the least fished waters in the World equals 'pillage'?

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #32 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:39pm

pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:30pm:

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:22pm:

LOL. Yeah dude, I was a much better fisherman when I was 8.

That's exactly what it is. Nothing at all to do with ocean life being pillaged for material gain.

If there was 'nuthing left' as you claim I wouldn't matter how good a fisherman I was, would it? PS how do you figure that having the least fished waters in the World equals 'pillage'?

1.I live several thousand kilometers from you. Even though you are lying about there being a plentiful catch (admit it, we all know) even if it were true, it has no bearing on my situation here. I digress, there IS something left, but on dives, there is visibly less life than even 5 -10 years ago. What used to be teeming with fish of all shapes and sizes, there are now just a few isolated fish swimming around in loneliness.

2.So the rest of the world pillaged them too. Doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes.

Sounds like another case of the 'great herds' of bison all over again. "There's so many of them, we could never kill enough so that the species would be under threat...oh wait."

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #33 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:49pm

Wonder why the Fishing Industry can't pour its $$WEALTH into 'producing' more Fish Stocks than were available 'naturally' before the Havesting commenced.
I'm pretty sure you don't need a Scientist to tell you that you gotta produce the crop before you harvest it.
At the moment, its just been a few centuries of pure Harvest.
...and no, I don't mean 'production' of bland, fragile, immunised, grain-fed, pen-kept inferior fish.

Back to top

SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #34 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:52pm

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:39pm:

pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:30pm:

[quote author=WESLEY.PIPES link=1307150085/15#29 date=1307431371]LOL. Yeah dude, I was a much better fisherman when I was 8.

That's exactly what it is. Nothing at all to do with ocean life being pillaged for material gain.

If there was 'nuthing left' as you claim I wouldn't matter how good a fisherman I was, would it? PS how do you figure that having the least fished waters in the World equals 'pillage'?

1.I live several thousand kilometers from you. Even though you are lying about there being a plentiful catch (admit it, we all know) even if it were true, it has no bearing on my situation here. I digress, there IS something left, but on dives, there is visibly less life than even 5 -10 years ago. What used to be teeming with fish of all shapes and sizes, there are now just a few isolated fish swimming around in loneliness.

You said there are no fish left around our metro areas. Sydney is the largest metro area so if anywhere is overfished then it would be Sydney by your reasoning. If you think I am lying then why don't you look at one of the local fishing sites such as 'Fishraider' under the reports section.

PS you sound more like a diver with an anti-fishing bias from your comments than a fisherman.

2.So the rest of the world pillaged them too. Doesn't mean we have to repeat their mistakes.

We have 30x less than the World average fishing pressure, so how do you figure that.

Sounds like another case of the 'great herds' of bison all over again. "There's so many of them, we could never kill enough so that the species would be under threat...oh wait."

Just showing your ignorance. The marine environment and fisheries are fundamentally different to you example.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #35 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:54pm

Quote:

Just showing your ignorance. The marine environment and fisheries are fundamentally different to you example.

So please enlighten me.
The only fundamnetal differnce is that one example is on land, the other is in the sea. That's it. Both fish and land animals need time and habitat to reproduce, to offset the numbers that are killed before their time. Mankinds evergrowing popualtion, and their appetite will make sure that increasing numbers of fish are taken, without regard for preserving their numbers.

I might point out that I advocate a ban on COMMERCIAL fishing, not angling. When more fish = more $$$, the fish are always going to lose out to greed.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:01pm by ... »

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #36 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:22pm

... wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:54pm:

Quote:

Just showing your ignorance. The marine environment and fisheries are fundamentally different to you example.

So please enlighten me.
The only fundamnetal differnce is that one example is on land, the other is in the sea. That's it. Both fish and land animals need time and habitat to reproduce, to offset the numbers that are killed before their time. Mankinds evergrowing popualtion, and their appetite will make sure that increasing numbers of fish are taken, without regard for preserving their numbers.

I might point out that I advocate a ban on COMMERCIAL fishing, not angling. When more fish = more $$$, the fish are always going to lose out to greed.

To start with you have been nailed on several points you now choose to ignore.

As to the fundamental difference between the land and sea is that the sea can never be reclaimed by man as for instance a forest can be clear-felled. Regarding fish - unlike land mammals they are extremely fecund and usually fast growing. They live in an environment where predation is extremely high. Fishermen are just another snout in the trough. The ocean is vast - they have a lot of places to hide and evade. No fish species has ever been fished to extinction.

If you think that the dollar is the sole driver of commercial fishing then why does Australia spend 1.7 billion dollars a year importing 70% of it's seafood? If we ban our commercial fishing how long do you think we will hang on to out 200m EEZ.?

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #37 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:26pm

Quote:

To start with you have been nailed on several points you now choose to ignore.

I have?? That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman. Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4000 in a ReTardis Gender:	Re: another ban on snapper fishing Reply #38 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:29pm Sorry PJ, The Ocean may be VAST as you say, but Life in the Ocean isn't - 90% live (as the Scientific reports suggest) in the upper 400 metres and along the Continental Shelves. The open ocean Oceanic White-Tip Shark eats Whale Poo, such is the scarcity of food 'out there' in the ...vastness.
Back to top	SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO. IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #39 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:33pm

] Quote:

To start with you have been nailed on several points you now choose to ignore.

I have?? That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman. Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

Have a look at the first parts of my post #34, ie the ones you chopped out in your reply.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

I have offered some convincing evidence - your case is only backed up by a few dives in some undisclosed location.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #40 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:12pm

pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

] Quote:

To start with you have been nailed on several points you now choose to ignore.

I have?? That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman. Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

Have a look at the first parts of my post #34, ie the ones you chopped out in your reply.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

I have offered some convincing evidence - your case is only backed up by a few dives in some undisclosed location.

post 34, post 34...ahh post 34.

*reads over*

Nope. nothing ground breaking, or 'nailing' there. Your impression of your own debating skills appears to be over inflated.

Look, if you'd seen what I have seen, you'd be convinced too. I won't waste anymore time with this....but why do I get the feeling you'll NEVER be convinced, no matter what?

Quote:

Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature.

"From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

Quote:

Our oceans are in trouble. Three quarters of global fish stocks are fully exploited, over-exploited or
depleted and Australia’s Bureau of Rural Sciences has declared that almost half of Australia’s 70 principle
fish species are fully fished or overfished.
http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/coasttocoastproceedings/BOHM_Craig_paper.pdf

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:37pm by ... »

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #41 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:38pm

/30#40 date=1307437935]pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

] Quote:

To start with you have been nailed on several points you now choose to ignore.

I have?? That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman. Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

Have a look at the first parts of my post #34, ie the ones you chopped out in your reply.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

I have offered some convincing evidence - your case is only backed up by a few dives in some undisclosed location.

post 34, post 34...ahh post 34.

*reads over*

Nope. nothing ground breaking, or 'nailing' there. Your impression of your own debating skills appears to be over inflated.

You have done it again. Do you call totally avoiding these points 'debating'?

Look, if you'd seen what I have seen, you'd be convinced too. I won't waste anymore time with this....but why do I get the feeling you'll NEVER be convinced, no matter what?

I am supposed to believe your 'evidence' which consists of undocumented dive observation limited to one location in a metropilitan area? Who is kidding who? I think your last statement is you projecting your own faults back on to me.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #42 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:44pm

[ Quote:

Only 10 percent of all large fish—both open ocean species including tuna, swordfish, marlin and the large groundfish such as cod, halibut, skates and flounder—are left in the sea, according to research published in today's issue of the scientific journal Nature.

"From giant blue marlin to mighty bluefin tuna, and from tropical groupers to Antarctic cod, industrial fishing has scoured the global ocean. There is no blue frontier left," said lead author Ransom Myers, a fisheries biologist based at Dalhousie University in Canada. "Since 1950, with the onset of industrialized fisheries, we have rapidly reduced the resource base to less than 10 percent—not just in some areas, not just for some stocks, but for entire communities of these large fish species from the tropics to the poles."

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/05/0515_030515_fishdecline.html

As yes, the Worm/ Meyers paper. This has been totally debunked by senior fisheries scientists such as Prof Ray Hilborn.

Quote:

Our oceans are in trouble. Three quarters of global fish stocks are fully exploited, over-exploited or
depleted and Australia’s Bureau of Rural Sciences has declared that almost half of Australia’s 70 principle
fish species are fully fished or overfished.
http://www.vcc.vic.gov.au/coasttocoastproceedings/BOHM_Craig_paper.pdf

Fully fished just means we don't want to fish them any further. Also your quote shows that over half of the principle fish are in fact underfished. Also 'overfished' does not mean that they are in any danger or threat.

Back to top

IP Logged

...

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 23673
WA
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #43 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 8:49pm

pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 7:38pm:

/30#40 date=1307437935]pjb05 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 6:33pm:

] Quote:

To start with you have been nailed on several points you now choose to ignore.

I have?? That's news to me, but I'm a sporting kind of gentleman. Bring these points I have been 'nailed' on to my attention, and they will be addressed.

Have a look at the first parts of my post #34, ie the ones you chopped out in your reply.

While I understand that fisherman are 'just another snout in the trough' I don't think you comprehend just how big a snout it is.

I have offered some convincing evidence - your case is only backed up by a few dives in some undisclosed location.

post 34, post 34...ahh post 34.

*reads over*

Nope. nothing ground breaking, or 'nailing' there. Your impression of your own debating skills appears to be over inflated.

You have done it again. Do you call totally avoiding these points 'debating'?

Look, if you'd seen what I have seen, you'd be convinced too. I won't waste anymore time with this....but why do I get the feeling you'll NEVER be convinced, no matter what?

I am supposed to believe your 'evidence' which consists of undocumented dive observation limited to one location in a metropilitan area? Who is kidding who? I think your last statement is you projecting your own faults back on to me.

One does not need to avoid that which is not there. No salient points means there is nothing for me to address. I hardly think that 'I live in sydney and I catch fish' is the point to end all points.

But anyhoo, I giveth not a rodents derriere whether you agree with me or not. I thought 'the science was settled' in that fish stocks the world over are under severe stress, but I see there are still pockets of dissenters. Regardless, when I dive in the same spots year after year, and year after year remark that there doesn't seem to be as much life as the last time, I do not need to google a study to confirm what I have seen with my own eyes.

Back to top

In the fullness of time...

IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male

Re: another ban on snapper fishing
Reply #44 - Jun 7^th, 2011 at 9:19pm

Same here and that's just the Recreational Zones.
Luckily there are some NoTake Zones and the fish seem to 'appear' in abundance as if like ...at least 50 years ago, from what I'm told by those who actually got to see it.

'Science' is not the last/only say upon the matter. Even the Art industry, with all its 'photos' is proof just as much.

Back to top

SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO.

IP Logged