Australian Politics Forum - Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53184
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #105 - Mar 23^rd, 2012 at 8:26am

Quote:

It takes a special type of moron to persist with these sort of rhetorical devices. The thread was about marine parks giving simpler rules for fishermen as well as other benefits. You are the one who came up with the diversion of obvious rhetorical devices.

PJ we have been over this before. I have offered to start a new thread for you. Is that what it takes to get you to say whether you agree with the first principle I outlined in the opening post of this thread? Perhaps if you read the opening post (for the first time?) or check the seven pages of discussion you will realise that this is what this thread is about.

Quote:

It's quite simple; if the spots are limited in number and space it doesn't take many fishermen to overcrowd them does it? Try arguing out of that!

I am not saying they are not overcrowded. I am saying that they are popular. You appear to be under the delusion that being able to explain why they are popular means they are not popular. Can you explain how you go from being able to explainw hy they are popular to saying it doesn't matter whether fishermen get locked out of them?

Quote:

You really thought about that! You proposal is merely about keeping the status quo, there is therefore no direct benefit or detriment

No PJ. The principles I outlined will only come into play when there is a change happening, when a decision has to be made on whether to exclude shore based fishing spots from NTZs. This has not always happened. Furthermore, the later principles will result in an actual direct benefit and a change. I would like to discuss these with you also, but seeing as we have spent 7 pages going over your idiotic excuses for not admitting whether you support or oppose the first principle this may not happen for a few years.

Quote:

At some point it has to become specific

Sure, the principle can be applied in all sorts of circumstances. If you would feel more comfortable voicing your support for or opposition to it in specific circumstances, go ahead, but I can't see how you would support it in some situations and oppose it in others. Is this just another silly excuse for you being afraid to give your opinion?

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: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #106 - Mar 24^th, 2012 at 12:26pm

] Quote:

It takes a special type of moron to persist with these sort of rhetorical devices. The thread was about marine parks giving simpler rules for fishermen as well as other benefits. You are the one who came up with the diversion of obvious rhetorical devices.

PJ we have been over this before. I have offered to start a new thread for you. Is that what it takes to get you to say whether you agree with the first principle I outlined in the opening post of this thread? Perhaps if you read the opening post (for the first time?) or check the seven pages of discussion you will realise that this is what this thread is about.

As I recall you started up this thread after you were caught telling lies on the previous thread.

Quote:

It's quite simple; if the spots are limited in number and space it doesn't take many fishermen to overcrowd them does it? Try arguing out of that!

I am not saying they are not overcrowded. I am saying that they are popular. You appear to be under the delusion that being able to explain why they are popular means they are not popular. Can you explain how you go from being able to explainw hy they are popular to saying it doesn't matter whether fishermen get locked out of them?

If you recall you were using a weight of numbers argument. Just because these spots tend to be overcrowded doesn't mean that they are frequented by a large proportion of fishermen.

Also these spots are favoured by a segment of fishermen merely because they are easily accessible. They tend to be very casual fishermen and it is a valid argument as to why you would want to make fisheries management revolve around those with very little commitment to the sport. While your at it why don't you make tennis nets lower or snooker pockets larger?

Quote:

You really thought about that! You proposal is merely about keeping the status quo, there is therefore no direct benefit or detriment

No PJ. The principles I outlined will only come into play when there is a change happening, when a decision has to be made on whether to exclude shore based fishing spots from NTZs. This has not always happened. Furthermore, the later principles will result in an actual direct benefit and a change. I would like to discuss these with you also, but seeing as we have spent 7 pages going over your idiotic excuses for not admitting whether you support or oppose the first principle this may not happen for a few years.

Any high school debating team member would know what a false dichotomy like that is and would refrain from such tactic lest they be deducted points.And I have demonstrated why there would be no direct benefit to shore anglers

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53184
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #107 - Mar 24^th, 2012 at 2:35pm

Quote:

Just because these spots tend to be overcrowded doesn't mean that they are frequented by a large proportion of fishermen.

Again PJ, I did not say 'they are frequented by a large proportion of fishermen'. I said they are popular. How many times can you misunderstand such a simple statement?

Quote:

Also these spots are favoured by a segment of fishermen merely because they are easily accessible. They tend to be very casual fishermen and it is a valid argument as to why you would want to make fisheries management revolve around those with very little commitment to the sport.

Are you talking about your argument, the one you cannot make up your mind about whether to peddle backwards or forwards on? Didn't you disown this argument only a few posts ago? Can you spell it out for me so you don't have to keep denying that you said it?

Quote:

Any high school debating team member would know what a false dichotomy like that is

It is not false PJ, it is real. Marine parks are not imaginary and decisions like this are made all the time. Nor is it a dichotomy. It is a set of five principles that gives you an infinite number of options. Nor is this high school debating. It is about actual policy.

Quote:

And I have demonstrated why there would be no direct benefit to shore anglers

Can you spell this one out too please? Your arguments tend to vaporise into thin air the moment I try to criticise them.

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: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #108 - Mar 25^th, 2012 at 7:01pm

] Quote:

Just because these spots tend to be overcrowded doesn't mean that they are frequented by a large proportion of fishermen.

Again PJ, I did not say 'they are frequented by a large proportion of fishermen'. I said they are popular. How many times can you misunderstand such a simple statement?

You also used a weight of numbers arguement to justify shore based anglers being favoured.

Quote:

Also these spots are favoured by a segment of fishermen merely because they are easily accessible. They tend to be very casual fishermen and it is a valid argument as to why you would want to make fisheries management revolve around those with very little commitment to the sport.

Are you talking about your argument, the one you cannot make up your mind about whether to peddle backwards or forwards on? Didn't you disown this argument only a few posts ago?

Not at all.

Can you spell it out for me so you don't have to keep denying that you said it?

It looks perfectly clear to me.

Quote:

Any high school debating team member would know what a false dichotomy like that is

It is not false PJ, it is real. Marine parks are not imaginary and decisions like this are made all the time. Nor is it a dichotomy. It is a set of five principles that gives you an infinite number of options.

Duh, except not having a marine park!

Quote:

And I have demonstrated why there would be no direct benefit to shore anglers

Can you spell this one out too please? Your arguments tend to vaporise into thin air the moment I try to criticise them.

They vaporise because you do not respond to them.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53184
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #109 - Mar 25^th, 2012 at 7:17pm

Quote:

Also these spots are favoured by a segment of fishermen merely because they are easily accessible. They tend to be very casual fishermen and it is a valid argument as to why you would want to make fisheries management revolve around those with very little commitment to the sport.

Quote:

Well it's not particularly relevent. As I have pointed out a lot of these 'easily accessible landbased spots' aren't particularly productive and are prone to overcrowding. If you you expect me to be overjoyed at being thrown such a morsel you are mistaken.

So what point are you trying to make with these statements PJ? All I can make out is that you want to get as close to disagreeing with the principle as you can without actually saying that you disagree with it.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4000 in a ReTardis Gender:	Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen Reply #110 - Mar 26^th, 2012 at 7:45pm QUESTION: Why can't the Fishing Industry create more fish than there originally was 200 years ago, let alone what there is (left) today?????
Back to top	SUCKING ON MY TITTIES, LIKE I KNOW YOU WANT TO. IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53184 At my desk.	Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen Reply #111 - Mar 26^th, 2012 at 8:03pm They can, in farms.
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: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #112 - Mar 26^th, 2012 at 8:21pm

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

Quote:

Also these spots are favoured by a segment of fishermen merely because they are easily accessible. They tend to be very casual fishermen and it is a valid argument as to why you would want to make fisheries management revolve around those with very little commitment to the sport.

Quote:

Well it's not particularly relevent. As I have pointed out a lot of these 'easily accessible landbased spots' aren't particularly productive and are prone to overcrowding. If you you expect me to be overjoyed at being thrown such a morsel you are mistaken.

So what point are you trying to make with these statements PJ? All I can make out is that you want to get as close to disagreeing with the principle as you can without actually saying that you disagree with it.

It's fairly self evident isn't it? These spots aren't particularly high value and they won't fish better under your plan in any case.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1404 Gender:	Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen Reply #113 - Mar 26^th, 2012 at 8:23pm It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 7:45pm: QUESTION: Why can't the Fishing Industry create more fish than there originally was 200 years ago, let alone what there is (left) today????? The idea of fisheries management is not to maximise the fish population.
Back to top	IP Logged

It_is_the_Darkness

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 4000
in a ReTardis
Gender: male

Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #114 - Mar 26^th, 2012 at 10:30pm

I understand. Shame really, those 'grain' fed pens and grain fed live catches just don't taste the same.

Pity the Fishing Industry and humanity in general can't adapt to a natural world in a productive manner without compromising the 'natural' order of things.

All this 'harvesting' and no real 'sowing'. Quite 'stupid' really, if not 'backwards'. Huh

I'm sure though that things will eventually improve ...or humanity is just a precedence. Wink

for something better.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53184
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #115 - Mar 27^th, 2012 at 7:46am

pjb05 wrote on Mar 26^th, 2012 at 8:21pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 25^th, 2012 at 7:17pm:

Quote:

Also these spots are favoured by a segment of fishermen merely because they are easily accessible. They tend to be very casual fishermen and it is a valid argument as to why you would want to make fisheries management revolve around those with very little commitment to the sport.

Quote:

Well it's not particularly relevent. As I have pointed out a lot of these 'easily accessible landbased spots' aren't particularly productive and are prone to overcrowding. If you you expect me to be overjoyed at being thrown such a morsel you are mistaken.

So what point are you trying to make with these statements PJ? All I can make out is that you want to get as close to disagreeing with the principle as you can without actually saying that you disagree with it.

It's fairly self evident isn't it? These spots aren't particularly high value and they won't fish better under your plan in any case.

In what sense are they low value - ie how do you measure this value?

As for the argument that they won't fish any better, that is just stupid.

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: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #116 - Mar 27^th, 2012 at 3:59pm

In what sense are they low value - ie how do you measure this value?

Not generally very productive, limited space means overcrowding.

As for the argument that they won't fish any better, that is just stupid. [/quote]

Why is it stupid? As I have pointed out you are not going to get any significant spillover effect in fisheries that are already well managed, your NTZ's don't take into account the range and habits of popular species, and you ignore the fact that a lot of these areas are recreational fishing havens.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 53184
At my desk.

Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #117 - Mar 27^th, 2012 at 6:08pm

Quote:

Not generally very productive, limited space means overcrowding.

So you think the fact that they are popular is irrelevant? Does this mean we shouldignore issues like accesibility and popularity in choosing NTZs? Or is your comment about value a completely moot point?

Quote:

Why is it stupid? As I have pointed out you are not going to get any significant spillover effect in fisheries that are already well managed

What about transfer of effort?

Also, the most heavily fished land based spots tend to be the most prone to overfishing because the recreational fishing effort cannot be micromanaged the same way the commercial sector can, and the people fishing these spots obviously cannot respond to actual catch rate the same way pros do either.

Quote:

your NTZ's don't take into account the range and habits of popular species

The spillover effect (and any similar transfer of effort) tends to be highly localised. This is one of the most firmly established observations. Obviously if this were not the case it would decrease the effectiveness of the principles outlined. But is the case.

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: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #118 - Mar 27^th, 2012 at 6:49pm

] Quote:

Not generally very productive, limited space means overcrowding.

So you think the fact that they are popular is irrelevant? Does this mean we shouldignore issues like accesibility and popularity in choosing NTZs? Or is your comment about value a completely moot point?

I don't want to make them NTZ's.

Quote:

Why is it stupid? As I have pointed out you are not going to get any significant spillover effect in fisheries that are already well managed

What about transfer of effort?

What about it?

Also, the most heavily fished land based spots tend to be the most prone to overfishing because the recreational fishing effort cannot be micromanaged the same way the commercial sector can, and the people fishing these spots obviously cannot respond to actual catch rate the same way pros do either.

Recreational fishing is dilute, ie spread out in space and time. It doesn't need to be 'micromanaged'. Also how to you work out that htese spots are overfished when most of the species are wide ranging and we are talking about small areas?

Quote:

your NTZ's don't take into account the range and habits of popular species

The spillover effect (and any similar transfer of effort) tends to be highly localised. This is one of the most firmly established observations. Obviously if this were not the case it would decrease the effectiveness of the principles outlined. But is the case. [/quote]

Really? Give me some examples then. I will make it easier, tell me where there has been demonstrated a statistically significant increase in fish numbers inside a NTZ in NSW waters.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 53184 At my desk.	Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen Reply #119 - Mar 30^th, 2012 at 7:43pm pjb05 wrote on Mar 18^th, 2012 at 10:30am: You can make a reasonable case for that. Can you explain what that reasonable case is?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged