Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
Send Topic Print
Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen (Read 39077 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #90 - Mar 19th, 2012 at 7:30pm
 
Quote:
So you are asking for a yes/ no answer. Why is that?


After 6 pages I think something a bit more substantial than 'a reasonable argument can be made' is in order. For example, would you agree with such an argument? Is the 'reasonable argument' the one that I have made, or something different?

Quote:
Sure sounded like it.


Not sure why. It is not what I posted.

Quote:
It at least represents a double standard


PJ, the only thing it 'depicts' is what it actually says. The rest is your imagination.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #91 - Mar 19th, 2012 at 7:40pm
 
[link=1330690120/90#90 date=1332149457] Quote:
So you are asking for a yes/ no answer. Why is that?


After 6 pages I think something a bit more substantial than 'a reasonable argument can be made' is in order. For example, would you agree with such an argument? Is the 'reasonable argument' the one that I have made, or something different?

I have made many substantive points over the last six pages. If you are refering to you silly diversion (taking one part of your marine park plan in total isolation), that only came up after several pages.

Quote:
Sure sounded like it.


Not sure why. It is not what I posted.

Quote:
It at least represents a double standard


PJ, the only thing it 'depicts' is what it actually says. The rest is your imagination.

Well can you elaborate as to what this meant? :

"PJ, the article is not a prediction of what will happen. It is a suggestion of what should happen".

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #92 - Mar 19th, 2012 at 8:58pm
 
Quote:
I have made many substantive points over the last six pages.


I am sure you consider your points to be substantive, but that is not the same thing as answering the question that was put to you - do you support the principle of excluding shore based spots from NTZs? No amount of pertinent point making can make up for you inability to give a straight answer to such a simple question.

Quote:
If you are refering to you silly diversion (taking one part of your marine park plan in total isolation), that only came up after several pages.


Do you think the question of excluding shore based fishing spots is irrelevant?

Quote:
Well can you elaborate as to what this meant? :


OK PJ I will go over it bit by bit for you.

You said this:

Quote:
Then again you can make a case for safe easily accessable boat fishing spots to have a priority too. These will be NTZ's under your plan.


Then I said this:

Quote:
No they won't. If you actually read the article you will see it states the opposite.


Then you said this:

Quote:
No, you just made the bland assertion they won't.


If my article asserts that such fishing spots should be left open, then there is nothing more I can add. For you to insist that my 'plan' is the opposite of what my article states is absurd.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #93 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 12:03am
 
link=1330690120/92#92 date=1332154688] Quote:
I have made many substantive points over the last six pages.


I am sure you consider your points to be substantive, but that is not the same thing as answering the question that was put to you - do you support the principle of excluding shore based spots from NTZs? No amount of pertinent point making can make up for you inability to give a straight answer to such a simple question.

Your a bit simple aren't you?

Quote:
If you are refering to you silly diversion (taking one part of your marine park plan in total isolation), that only came up after several pages.


Do you think the question of excluding shore based fishing spots is irrelevant?

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.

Quote:
Well can you elaborate as to what this meant? :


OK PJ I will go over it bit by bit for you.

You said this:

Quote:
Then again you can make a case for safe easily accessable boat fishing spots to have a priority too. These will be NTZ's under your plan.


Then I said this:

Quote:
No they won't. If you actually read the article you will see it states the opposite.


Then you said this:

Quote:
No, you just made the bland assertion they won't.


If my article asserts that such fishing spots should be left open, then there is nothing more I can add. For you to insist that my 'plan' is the opposite of what my article states is absurd. [/quote]

Your forgetting the little matter of the maps you have put up in the past - where it looks very much like the safe boats spots close to shore are off limits. As to your article there is a contradiction between shore based fishermen casting towards NTZ's near the shore and then saying you will allow boat fishing near the shore!

PS: you still haven't explained what the statement in bold means.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2012 at 12:08am by pjb05 »  
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #94 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 8:31am
 
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 the fact that so many people want to fish from these locations means it is irrelevant whether they are banned from doing so?

Do you only care about yourself?

Quote:
Your forgetting the little matter of the maps you have put up in the past - where it looks very much like the safe boats spots close to shore are off limits.


Those maps are still there and have not changed since I first put them up. Most are in enclosed waters. Feel free to suggest any improvements. Just because it is close to the shore does not mean it is a particularly safe spot for boats.

Quote:
As to your article there is a contradiction between shore based fishermen casting towards NTZ's near the shore and then saying you will allow boat fishing near the shore!


There is no contradiction because it does not actually say that boat fishing will be allowed near the shore. It syas that boat fishing spots that are protected from the prevailing winds etc should be left open. This does not apply for the vast majority of the shoreline. Where it does it is simple to accomodate.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Mar 20th, 2012 at 8:39am by freediver »  

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #95 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 3:56pm
 
link=1330690120/94#94 date=1332196294] 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 the fact that so many people want to fish from these locations means it is irrelevant whether they are banned from doing so?

It's more of a case that such spots are limited, eg due to private property, lack of accessability, natural features like shallow water, mangroves etc.

Do you only care about yourself?

There are plenty more like me, that's why boating is popular.

Quote:
Your forgetting the little matter of the maps you have put up in the past - where it looks very much like the safe boats spots close to shore are off limits.


Those maps are still there and have not changed since I first put them up. Most are in enclosed waters.

Enclosed waters can be rough if you fishing from a kayak for instance.

Feel free to suggest any improvements. Just because it is close to the shore does not mean it is a particularly safe spot for boats.

If the wind is blowing from the shore then you get a lee effect.

Quote:
As to your article there is a contradiction between shore based fishermen casting towards NTZ's near the shore and then saying you will allow boat fishing near the shore!


There is no contradiction because it does not actually say that boat fishing will be allowed near the shore. It syas that boat fishing spots that are protected from the prevailing winds etc should be left open. This does not apply for the vast majority of the shoreline. Where it does it is simple to accomodate.

It's not simple at all. The 'prevailing wind' changes from day to day. Also the reason you buy a boat is for mobility and you want to take that away.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #96 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 3:57pm
 
[
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #97 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 5:55pm
 
Quote:
It's more of a case that such spots are limited, eg due to private property, lack of accessability


I am having trouble figuring out what your point is. Are you trying to say that easily accessible shore based fishing spots are difficult to access, or that they are irrelevant because they are not many of them?

Quote:
There are plenty more like me, that's why boating is popular


I have not come accross any other boat fishos who argue that shore based fishermen don't count because they don't try hard enough. Some may think that, but they would be too smart to actually say it.

Quote:
Enclosed waters can be rough if you fishing from a kayak for instance.


Not in my experience. I often take my fishing kayak through the surf. It would be hard to imagine any enclosed waters coming close. In any case, all of the examples I gave from enclosed waters are for a small fraction from a large body of enclosed water. The first thing I would do in a yak in these enclosed waters is get away from the most heavily fished spots, and the proposals do not cut out any sites that are unique in terms of protection from wind or chop from any direction. If you can suggest any ways that the proposals could be improved from the perspecvtive of kayak fishermen, go ahead.

Quote:
If the wind is blowing from the shore then you get a lee effect.


And if you have a boat you have the entire shoreline available to you and would usually choose a spot that is not as heavily fished by shore based anglers.

Quote:
Also the reason you buy a boat is for mobility and you want to take that away


No I don't. That is a stupid conclusion to draw.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #98 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 6:27pm
 
] Quote:
It's more of a case that such spots are limited, eg due to private property, lack of accessability


I am having trouble figuring out what your point is. Are you trying to say that easily accessible shore based fishing spots are difficult to access, or that they are irrelevant because they are not many of them?

I merely pointed out they are prone to overcrowding because they are limited in number.

Quote:
There are plenty more like me, that's why boating is popular


I have not come accross any other boat fishos who argue that shore based fishermen don't count because they don't try hard enough. Some may think that, but they would be too smart to actually say it.

Don't project you own faults on to me. Remember your the only one deciding who can fish where.

Quote:
Enclosed waters can be rough if you fishing from a kayak for instance.


Not in my experience. I often take my fishing kayak through the surf. It would be hard to imagine any enclosed waters coming close. Quote:
If the wind is blowing from the shore then you get a lee effect.


There often shallow so the wind can whip up steep waves. These waters can be more dangerous than the ocean.

And if you have a boat you have the entire shoreline available to you and would usually choose a spot that is not as heavily fished by shore based anglers.

Then why do we need your micro management?

Quote:
Also the reason you buy a boat is for mobility and you want to take that away


No I don't. That is a stupid conclusion to draw. [/quote]

You want to limit where you can use the boat.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #99 - Mar 20th, 2012 at 7:44pm
 
Quote:
I merely pointed out they are prone to overcrowding because they are limited in number.


And we have come full circle, back to the original idiotic statement that started this:

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.


Can you explain (without going off on a tangent about why they are popular) how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs? Is it back to the argument that it is irrelevant because the people don't matter because you have no respect for them as fishermen?

Quote:
Don't project you own faults on to me
.

You are the one who argued that these fishermen don't count.

Quote:
These waters can be more dangerous than the ocean.


Only in very large bays - in which case there would be plenty of other boat fishing spots around.

Quote:
Then why do we need your micro management?


Why do you keep using the term need? Are you suggesting that the selection of specific locations for NTZs is the sort of micromanagement we should not even bother with and we should leave it up to the vagaries of bureacracy instead? We do not 'need' good management that takes the interests of fishermen into account, but it is a lot better than what you appear to propose.

Quote:
You want to limit where you can use the boat.


This has no impact at all on the ability of a boat to move. If anything it would encourage boaties to take more advantage of the mobility by not anchoring up in front of the boat ramp if there is a bunch of people shore fishing there.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #100 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 6:48pm
 
[] Quote:
I merely pointed out they are prone to overcrowding because they are limited in number.


And we have come full circle, back to the original idiotic statement that started this:

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.


Can you explain (without going off on a tangent about why they are popular) how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs? Is it back to the argument that it is irrelevant because the people don't matter because you have no respect for them as fishermen?

Your hare-brained scheme is about having the whole design of NTZ's to favour landbased fishing, not quite the same as what you have just depicted. On top of that you haven't demonstrated any likelyhood they will benefit.   

Quote:
Don't project you own faults on to me
.

You are the one who argued that these fishermen don't count.

No thats what you have attributed to me. I don't want to stop them fishing.

Quote:
These waters can be more dangerous than the ocean.


Only in very large bays - in which case there would be plenty of other boat fishing spots around.

Quote:
Then why do we need your micro management?


Why do you keep using the term need? Are you suggesting that the selection of specific locations for NTZs is the sort of micromanagement we should not even bother with and we should leave it up to the vagaries of bureacracy instead? We do not 'need' good management that takes the interests of fishermen into account, but it is a lot better than what you appear to propose.

How would you know what our interests are given that your not a fisherman (ie angler)?

Quote:
You want to limit where you can use the boat.


This has no impact at all on the ability of a boat to move. If anything it would encourage boaties to take more advantage of the mobility by not anchoring up in front of the boat ramp if there is a bunch of people shore fishing there.

They tend to give shore anglers a wide berth anyway without your silly rules.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #101 - Mar 21st, 2012 at 7:46pm
 
PJ you still haven't been able to explain what this comment means:

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.


Can you explain how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs?

Quote:
On top of that you haven't demonstrated any likelyhood they will benefit.


Are you denying that they would benefit from not having their fishing spots banned?

Quote:
How would you know what our interests are given that your not a fisherman (ie angler)?


You really don't mind making it up as you go along do you?

Quote:
They tend to give shore anglers a wide berth anyway without your silly rules.


So why complain so much about them? If boat fishermen tend to avoid these spots anyway, doesn't that make them ideal locations for a fishing ban?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #102 - Mar 22nd, 2012 at 4:45pm
 
[link=1330690120/101#101 date=1332323169]PJ you still haven't been able to explain what this comment means:

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.


Can you explain how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs?

I don't want to make them NTZ's. PS: 'overcrowded' is not synonomous with 'popular'.
Quote:
On top of that you haven't demonstrated any likelyhood they will benefit.


Are you denying that they would benefit from not having their fishing spots banned?

I don't want to ban them. What sort of twisted logic is that?

Quote:
How would you know what our interests are given that your not a fisherman (ie angler)?


You really don't mind making it up as you go along do you?

You have never given any idication you are an angler or that you have an more than a superficial knowledge of the sport.

Quote:
They tend to give shore anglers a wide berth anyway without your silly rules.


So why complain so much about them? If boat fishermen tend to avoid these spots anyway, doesn't that make them ideal locations for a fishing ban?

I was responding to your point about boat fishermen stopping to fish right next to the boat ramp. You plan involves far more than that.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #103 - Mar 22nd, 2012 at 5:59pm
 
Quote:
I don't want to make them NTZ's.


You have a knack for appearing to have no clue what the question is PJ.

This is what I actually asked, in response to your claim that they are less relevant:

Can you explain how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs?

How many times do I have to ask the same question before you can give a straight answer? This entire thread has been nothing but an elaborate game of backpedalling by you on every issue.

Quote:
PS: 'overcrowded' is not synonomous with 'popular'.


In this context it means the same thing. Having lots of people in the one spots means both that it is overcroded and that it is popular. Try arguing your way out of this one. I imagine it will be as much fun as you trying to backpedal from your claim that they ae irrelevant because they are popular.

Quote:
I don't want to ban them. What sort of twisted logic is that?


Again PJ, you appear to have forgotten what we were actually talking about. The question was specifically about whether they would benefit, in response to you bringing this up. Were you asking me to prove something that you already agree with, or do you actually think these fishermen would see no benefit in having their spots kept out of NTZs?

Quote:
I was responding to your point about boat fishermen stopping to fish right next to the boat ramp. You plan involves far more than that.


It is a set of principles, not a plan and does not have any scope at all.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
pjb05
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male
Re: Marine Parks mean simpler rules for fishermen
Reply #104 - Mar 22nd, 2012 at 6:27pm
 
] Quote:
I don't want to make them NTZ's.


You have a knack for appearing to have no clue what the question is PJ.

This is what I actually asked, in response to your claim that they are less relevant:

Can you explain how the popularity of these spots makes them less relevant rather than more relvant when it comes to deciding whether they should be excluded from NTZs?

How many times do I have to ask the same question before you can give a straight answer? This entire thread has been nothing but an elaborate game of backpedalling by you on every issue.

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.

Quote:
PS: 'overcrowded' is not synonomous with 'popular'.


In this context it means the same thing. Having lots of people in the one spots means both that it is overcroded and that it is popular. Try arguing your way out of this one.

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!

Quote:
I don't want to ban them. What sort of twisted logic is that?


Again PJ, you appear to have forgotten what we were actually talking about. The question was specifically about whether they would benefit, in response to you bringing this up. Were you asking me to prove something that you already agree with, or do you actually think these fishermen would see no benefit in having their spots kept out of NTZs?

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

Quote:
I was responding to your point about boat fishermen stopping to fish right next to the boat ramp. You plan involves far more than that.


It is a set of principles, not a plan and does not have any scope at all.

At some point it has to become specific.

PS: have you forgotten that you drew up maps?

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 12
Send Topic Print