Australian Politics Forum - Sydney Harbour productivity

Big Dave

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2164
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #15 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:28am

Bobby. wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

I wouldn't eat fish from Sydney harbor -
it could be full of poisons - lead for one.

Maybe someone could provide a whole list of different poisons
& toxins that the fish could contain?

The fishing has got better because they've taken most of the industry off the harbour and river. At Homebush where the olympic park is used to be was the industrial centre for Sydney in the 50's. Union Carbide was even in that area. They pumped all sorts of shite in the Parra River. Dioxins, heavy metals. Now that's gone it's stormwater run-off, pooh in times of big rain. Just the usual stuff that all big rivers get but more of it because of the population. What's sitting in the silt would be bad stuff. I believe you can eat the fish that move in and out of the harbour but resident species, shellfish etc would be iffy. They reckon you've got to eat loads of it to get crook.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 95493 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #16 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:42am Hi Dave, so you would eat it? - but not shellfish. Sounds like Port Phillip bay in Melbourne - filthy. The place to catch fish is the ocean or from the ocean shores. I used to use a 100 hook kontiki when I was a kid but now they only allow 3 hooks so it's not worth the time & effort.
Back to top	IP Logged

Big Dave

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2164
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #17 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:53am

Bobby. wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Hi Dave,
so you would eat it? - but not shellfish.

Sounds like Port Phillip bay in Melbourne - filthy.

The place to catch fish is the ocean or from the ocean shores.

I used to use a 100 hook kontiki when I was a kid but now
they only allow 3 hooks so it's not worth the time & effort.

100 hooks. jesus!! Those were the days.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 95493
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #18 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:58am

Big Dave wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 11:42am:

Hi Dave,
so you would eat it? - but not shellfish.

Sounds like Port Phillip bay in Melbourne - filthy.

The place to catch fish is the ocean or from the ocean shores.

I used to use a 100 hook kontiki when I was a kid but now
they only allow 3 hooks so it's not worth the time & effort.

100 hooks. jesus!! Those were the days.

Yes - it was great -
I always got at least one fish & normally 3 to 6 fish.
Sometimes there was only the head of a fish left as another
fish or shark would eat the hooked fish.
That's not bad for 90 minutes fishing.

I hope they allow 100 hook long lines on Kontikis again.
I had too many times with a rod where I'd be there all day & get nothing -
a waste of time.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #19 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 12:35pm

1372554116] Quote:

When they survey other areas they are asking the fishermen that are fishing there - so there is no selection bias. The salient point is that Sydney Harbour rates highly compared to other areas (also well know anecdotally in angling circles, including my own experience).

What is the comparison?

Well, they do the same survey in different areas, ie of fishermen fishing in different areas.

Quote:

They also have a more empirical measures when they survey what the fishermen are catching and how long it took them to catch them.

Are you able to find them?

I could, I'm just going by the article - good enough for here seeing that your assertions have no support whatsoever.

Quote:

We already covered this - the ban didn't come into effect until 2006 and that's when the survey started. Ie no time for an increase in fish numbers

Are you saying the public were unaware of pollution problems before then? Are you suggesting that banning commercial fishing would not have an immediate effect on recreational fishing?

I don't think there was much alarm. The problem with fish contamination only came to light lately, hence the commercial fishing ban.

Yes, banning commerical fishing would not have an immediate effect on recreational fishing. There are numerous references which say that with a total ban, ie marine park, you have to wait five years before you can say anything about an increase in fish numbers. Where talking about immediately after a partial ban. Also the commerical effort was fairly small/ well regualted.

Quote:

You keep using the word spin to describe and empiricle survey when your ignorant, unreferenced remarks are somehow gospel

No PJ, I use the word spin to describe what the politicians said. You seem to be having trouble telling the difference between the spin and the actual results. You make a habit of this.

There is a contact number if you want more information or the report - the link to the report is not working anymore. Why don't you ring him up? The articel quotes actual survey figures - how is that spin?What possible reason would there be to put spin on the results? Ie favour one area over another?

Quote:

Yes we know all that but what has this got to do with the productivity of fishing near our large cities/ need for marine parks?

What it means is that it will be easier to catch fish, but you probably wouldn't want to eat them. It says pretty much nothing about the overall productivity of the area.

I would have thought than an area under a lot of man made pressure still fishing well says a lot about the productivity of the area.

Quote:

PS: Other areas of Sydney also fish well eg offshore, Botany Bay, Port Hacking etc. Youe pollution red herring hardly applies here.

Why not? Because toxic fish don't move around? And what is your point? You originally brought up this issue when I suggested fishermen might prefer to go offshore than fish the harbour.

If you keep track of your own B/S you will recall you said that Sydney is the most overfished region in Australia, passed aspersions on the quality of fishing in Sydney Harbour, and said the area was crying out for marine parks.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 30^th, 2013 at 1:51pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47469
At my desk.

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #20 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:09pm

Quote:

Well, they do the same survey in different areas, ie of fishermen fishing in different areas.

So how does it compare PJ?

Quote:

I could, I'm just going by the article - good enough for here seeing that your assertions have no support whatsoever.

So you read the article?

Quote:

I don't think there was much alarm.

Except of course, that the fish were toxic and people stopped eating them.

Quote:

There are numerous references which say that with a total ban, ie marine park, you have to wait five years before you can say anything about an increase in fish numbers.

Let's start with one.

Quote:

There is a contact number if you want more information or the report - the link to the report is not working anymore. Why don't you ring him up?

I am just pointing out your confusion. No need to hassle the guy.

Quote:

The articel quotes actual survey figures - how is that spin?

Like I said, the spin is what the politician said, and what you interpretted. Do you seriously think that throwing in a number or two means it is not spin?

Quote:

What possible reason would there be to put spin on the results?

You don't understand why a politician responsible for fisheries would want to spin the results of such a survey?

Quote:

I would have thought than an area under a lot of man made pressure still fishing well says a lot about the productivity of the area.

You mean the area where there is now a ban on commercial fishing and where people have known for years that the fish are toxic?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Big Dave Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2164 Gender:	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #21 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:15pm Sydney Harbour had a prawn fishery only up to about 15 years ago and people weren't dropping dead from eating them. If the fish in Parra River were that toxic they'd die.
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47469 At my desk.	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #22 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:36pm Dave you do realise that dioxins do not cause people to "drop dead" don't you? They are not like Salmonella. They are bioaccumulative and also affect children.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #23 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:47pm

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Dave you do realise that dioxins do not cause people to "drop dead" don't you? They are not like Salmonella. They are bioaccumulative and also affect children.

The source of the pollution is upstream, FD (west of the Harbour Bridge), so the guidlines are progressively more relaxed the closer you get to the heads. Similarly you can eat more of pelagic species than those more likely to stay in the Harbour. Outside the Harbour you don't have to worry.

Back to top

IP Logged

Big Dave

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2164
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #24 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:54pm

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:36pm:

Dave you do realise that dioxins do not cause people to "drop dead" don't you? They are not like Salmonella. They are bioaccumulative and also affect children.

You are probably right. Most rivers in aus that have agriculture along it's banks are polluted. Even open water fish accumulate heavy metals. What are we importing? I try not to think about it. I dive in Sydney Harbour all of the time looking for old bottles and pottery and I'm still going. That my explain some of my behavioural difficulties though. Shocked

I caught some nice Hairatil the other night. There's plenty of fish down here. But eat at your own risk!!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47469 At my desk.	Re: Sydney Harbour productivity Reply #25 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:59pm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychlorinated_dibenzodioxins
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #26 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 5:14pm

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2013 at 4:09pm:

[quote]Well, they do the same survey in different areas, ie of fishermen fishing in different areas.

So how does it compare PJ?

Do you mean catch rates or angler satisfaction? If it's not in the article you will have to try the contact number. PS there is also the remarks of the fisheries manager on TVS the other night.

Quote:

I could, I'm just going by the article - good enough for here seeing that your assertions have no support whatsoever.

So you read the article?

I put it up, remember?

Quote:

I don't think there was much alarm.

Except of course, that the fish were toxic and people stopped eating them.

'Stopped eating them' when they were sell them commercially?

Quote:

There are numerous references which say that with a total ban, ie marine park, you have to wait five years before you can say anything about an increase in fish numbers.

Let's start with one.

Start? I have put up several such references, eg Ray Hilborn's article.

Quote:

There is a contact number if you want more information or the report - the link to the report is not working anymore. Why don't you ring him up?

I am just pointing out your confusion. No need to hassle the guy.

Projection on your part, poor clueless FD.

Quote:

The articel quotes actual survey figures - how is that spin?

Like I said, the spin is what the politician said, and what you interpretted. Do you seriously think that throwing in a number or two means it is not spin?

If it's spin then prove it - ie how is it misleading, how do the numbers lie?

Quote:

What possible reason would there be to put spin on the results?

You don't understand why a politician responsible for fisheries would want to spin the results of such a survey?

No. Especially since I know for a fact that Sydney Harbour does indeed fish well!

Quote:

I would have thought than an area under a lot of man made pressure still fishing well says a lot about the productivity of the area.

You mean the area where there is now a ban on commercial fishing and where people have known for years that the fish are toxic?

We have covered all that - you cant use the pollution issue to explain away why the fishing is good in Sydney Harbour.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47469
At my desk.

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #27 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 5:29pm

Quote:

I put it up, remember?

Sorry I thought you meant the scientific one, not the newspaper article about what the politicians said about it. If your only point was that the politician made those claims, that would be good enough, but what you are claiming is not even in the newspaper article and was not even claimed by the politician.

Quote:

Start? I have put up several such references, eg Ray Hilborn's article.

What does it actually say?

Quote:

If it's spin then prove it - ie how is it misleading, how do the numbers lie?

He describes one of Australia's most polluted fishing spots (perhaps the most polluted), where the fish are too toxic to eat, as a great spot to fish. That's pretty much the definition of spin PJ.

Quote:

We have covered all that - you cant use the pollution issue to explain away why the fishing is good in Sydney Harbour.

Yes you can. By your own admission there was a heavily publicised scare and ban on commercial fishing as early as 2006. I'm not sure how good your maths is, but that is more than 5 years ago, and was not the first time people realised it is a bad idea to eat fish from there.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #28 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 5:53pm

#27 date=1372577343] Quote:

I put it up, remember?

Sorry I thought you meant the scientific one, not the newspaper article about what the politicians said about it. If your only point was that the politician made those claims, that would be good enough, but what you are claiming is not even in the newspaper article and was not even claimed by the politician.

I is not a 'newspaper article' it is an official departmental press release posted on the DPI website! Who is guilty of spin? It included remarks from the Minister, along with some results of the scientific survey.

Quote:

Start? I have put up several such references, eg Ray Hilborn's article.

What does it actually say?

Exactly what I said.

Quote:

If it's spin then prove it - ie how is it misleading, how do the numbers lie?

He describes one of Australia's most polluted fishing spots (perhaps the most polluted), where the fish are too toxic to eat, as a great spot to fish. That's pretty much the definition of spin PJ.

Liar - as I and others have pointed out, it's just west of the Bridge you are not recommended to eat fish.
PS: What do the fishermen express such high satisfaction?

Quote:

We have covered all that - you cant use the pollution issue to explain away why the fishing is good in Sydney Harbour.

Yes you can. By your own admission there was a heavily publicised scare and ban on commercial fishing as early as 2006. I'm not sure how good your maths is, but that is more than 5 years ago, and was not the first time people realised it is a bad idea to eat fish from there.

Yes and the survey started in 2006, the article was from 2008, the comments from the fisheries manager on TVS were from the 1990's!

PS: the toxicity results/ commercial ban cause such a stir at the time because people didn't know about the toxicity issue!

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 30^th, 2013 at 6:03pm by pjb05 »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47469
At my desk.

Re: Sydney Harbour productivity
Reply #29 - Jun 30^th, 2013 at 6:21pm

Quote:

I is not a 'newspaper article' it is an official departmental press release posted on the DPI website! Who is guilty of spin? It included remarks from the Minister, along with some results of the scientific survey.

What it does not include is any statement about productivity. That is entirely your own confusion, and I do not need to ring the guy up to point this out. It does however describe toxic fishing grounds as "good quality".

Quote:

Exactly what I said.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Liar - as I and others have pointed out, it's just west of the Bridge you are not recommended to eat fish.

Here you go:

"Sydney fishers have overwhelming declared Sydney Harbour as a great spot to fish"

Quote:

PS: What do the fishermen express such high satisfaction?

Because so few people eat the fish, and because commercial fishing is banned, so it is easy to catch them.

Quote:

PS: the toxicity results/ commercial ban cause such a stir at the time because people didn't know about the toxicity issue!

So in the two years following this "revelation", the government conducts an opinion based survey of only 408 fishing parties who had chosen to fish in the area, concluding that the harbour is a great spot to fish and good quality, and you need me to explain how it might be spin? Not only that, you reach conclusions about the productivity of Sydney harbour that are not actually stated anywhere. In your mind, if it is a fishermen's opinion, then it must be true.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged