Australian Politics Forum - The schoolgirl courts the pimp

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp Reply #30 - Sep 11^th, 2010 at 6:01pm I wrote to the NSW liberal HQ asking them what coalition policy was on those two marine parks. I didn't get a response. Does anyone know?
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: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #31 - Sep 12^th, 2010 at 12:27pm

freediver wrote on Sep 11^th, 2010 at 6:01pm:

I wrote to the NSW liberal HQ asking them what coalition policy was on those two marine parks. I didn't get a response.

Does anyone know?

They may not have one, given we are still about a year out from the next election. There are certainly active on the marine park issue and no doubt it will feature in their campaign.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #32 - Sep 12^th, 2010 at 6:09pm

They used to have a policy, apparently. I could understand not having anything specific if they never did before, but to go from having a specific policy to no policy, without being able to clarify whether they have dropped the old policy is odd.

On top of that, it is not just a case of them not having a policy, it is a case of them being unable to respond. I can understand getting a non-answer. I get them all the time when I ask a politician a question. Getting a non-response on the other hand is rare.

Maybe it is just me. Would you mind emailing them and seeing if you can find out?

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: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #33 - Sep 12^th, 2010 at 7:38pm

freediver wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 6:09pm:

They used to have a policy, apparently. I could understand not having anything specific if they never did before, but to go from having a specific policy to no policy, without being able to clarify whether they have dropped the old policy is odd.

On top of that, it is not just a case of them not having a policy, it is a case of them being unable to respond. I can understand getting a non-answer. I get them all the time when I ask a politician a question. Getting a non-response on the other hand is rare.

Maybe it is just me. Would you mind emailing them and seeing if you can find out?

It's not unusual for political parties to hold off on defining their policies until fairly close to the election.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48816 At my desk.	Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp Reply #34 - Sep 13^th, 2010 at 10:24pm Of course. But it is unlike them to hold of of responding to people. Lack of policy has never been a reason for lack of response. Would you mind emailing them and seeing if you can find out?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #35 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 10:29am

I hve added another updated to the main page of OzPolitic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

and here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/fishing-party-courts-coalition.html

pjb05 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 6:32am:

The independent audit of NSW marine parks is out and I see a lot of FD's furphy's are shot down:

Audit recommends marine parks shake-up
20 Feb 2012
By Jim Harnwell

THE system of marine parks is NSW is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, an independent audit by a team of prominent scientists has found.

The 124-page Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in New South Wales was released on Thursday. It makes two main recommendations, namely that marine protection encompass the entire “marine estate” and that a scientific committee, including experts in socio-economics, be established to guide the future management of marine ecosystems.

The report calls for wide-ranging changes to marine parks management and structure and is critical of the system of marine protection introduced by the former state Labor government.

The current network of relatively small marine parks encompassing various “representative zones” was not effective, the report says. It recommends instead that this system

be scrapped

and replaced by a management regime which includes the entire marine ecosystem, called by the report the “marine estate”.

pjb05 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 3:49pm:

http://www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au/

Contrary to the implication by the article that the marine parks themselves be scrapped, the audit recommends keeping them and adding more:

page ix:

Quote:

The Audit Panel is of the further opinion that the current system of marine parks as
established in NSW be maintained and mechanisms be found for enhancing the
protection of biodiversity in the identified gaps, namely within the Hawkesbury and
Twofold Shelf marine bioregions.

Other interesting bits:

page x:

Here are some examples of fisheries scientists acknowledging that they do not have a good grasp on the threats posed by fishing and other impacts. They appear to be implying that the current regime merely assesses fish stocks in a reactive sense.

Quote:

Resilience and multi-stressor research is needed to better understand the response of
marine ecosystems to threat combinations.

Quote:

expanding the scope of ongoing assessments of fish stocks to assess ecological
sustainability and management of fisheries rather than just stocks

Quote:

estimating recreational fish catches (currently estimated to equate to around 30
per cent of the commercial catch in NSW).

page xii:

Quote:

Better information is needed on the ecosystem effects of fishing and the integration
of this information into the annual stock assessment of commercial and recreational
fishing.

This is a good sign:

Quote:

clarifying the role and purpose of the various types of zones currently in use

They got this wrong. Marine parks should also be assesses against fisheries management objectives. They appear to imply this with their other recommendations. It does not make sense to ignore the fisheries management impacts of a management tool whose only mechanism is the management of fisheries effort.

page x:

Quote:

The performance of the marine park system should be assessed against its primary
objectives of conserving biodiversity and maintaining ecosystem integrity and
function.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2012 at 10:45am by freediver »

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: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #36 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 12:12pm

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 10:29am:

I hve added another updated to the main page of OzPolitic.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/index.html

and here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/fish/fishing-party-courts-coalition.html

[quote author=746E663431040 link=1289082469/124#124 date=1329769930]The independent audit of NSW marine parks is out and I see a lot of FD's furphy's are shot down:

Audit recommends marine parks shake-up
20 Feb 2012
By Jim Harnwell

THE system of marine parks is NSW is flawed and needs a complete overhaul, an independent audit by a team of prominent scientists has found.

The 124-page Report of the Independent Scientific Audit of Marine Parks in New South Wales was released on Thursday. It makes two main recommendations, namely that marine protection encompass the entire “marine estate” and that a scientific committee, including experts in socio-economics, be established to guide the future management of marine ecosystems.

The report calls for wide-ranging changes to marine parks management and structure and is critical of the system of marine protection introduced by the former state Labor government.

The current network of relatively small marine parks encompassing various “representative zones” was not effective, the report says. It recommends instead that this system

be scrapped

and replaced by a management regime which includes the entire marine ecosystem, called by the report the “marine estate”.

pjb05 wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 3:49pm:

http://www.marineparksaudit.nsw.gov.au/

Contrary to the implication by the article that the marine parks themselves be scrapped, the audit recommends keeping them and adding more:

Wrong on both counts. Read it again it says that the system of representatve ares should be scrapped.

page ix:

Quote:

The Audit Panel is of the further opinion that the current system of marine parks as
established in NSW be maintained and mechanisms be found for enhancing the
protection of biodiversity in the identified gaps, namely within the Hawkesbury and
Twofold Shelf marine bioregions.

'Mechanisms' doesn't mean more marine parks FD, as the author has explictly pointed out when the same point was made by the Greens.

Other interesting bits:

page x:

Here are some examples of fisheries scientists acknowledging that they do not have a good grasp on the threats posed by fishing and other impacts. They appear to be implying that the current regime merely assesses fish stocks in a reactive sense.

Quote:

Resilience and multi-stressor research is needed to better understand the response of
marine ecosystems to threat combinations.

Quote:

expanding the scope of ongoing assessments of fish stocks to assess ecological
sustainability and management of fisheries rather than just stocks

Quote:

estimating recreational fish catches (currently estimated to equate to around 30
per cent of the commercial catch in NSW).

page xii:

Quote:

Better information is needed on the ecosystem effects of fishing and the integration
of this information into the annual stock assessment of commercial and recreational
fishing.

More reseach and better understanding - hardly an admission of failure. In fact The report said that there is no likely spillover benefit from NSW marine parks because the fishery is already well managed! Also NSW fisheries have been moving to a more ecosystems based fisheries managment for some time.

This is a good sign:

Quote:

clarifying the role and purpose of the various types of zones currently in use

They got this wrong. Marine parks should also be assesses against fisheries management objectives. They appear to imply this with their other recommendations. It does not make sense to ignore the fisheries management impacts of a management tool whose only mechanism is the management of fisheries effort.

See above, they have looked into this aspect.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05 Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1402 Gender:	Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp Reply #37 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 12:20pm Regarding the committee, how do you come to the conclusion it was 'stacked' or the scope was limited? Don't you remenber Labor had it's own scientific review panel on their marine parks and the scope was so limited they weren't allowed to say wether the parks were a good idea or not!
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #38 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 12:29pm

Quote:

Regarding the committee, how do you come to the conclusion it was 'stacked'

You have found so few real scientists that back your view in any kind of way that I recognise them when I see the name, like the guy from Tasmania, who was on the committee.

Quote:

or the scope was limited?

I read the scope. I have pointed out how it was limited. This is clearly stated in the scope.

The update I posted:

Quote:

Coalition marine park review released

We finally have an answer to questions raised earlier regarding the intention of the NSW state coalition for marine parks in the state. Prior to the NSW state election, the coalition courted the anti-marine park movement with a curious form of dog whistle politics. They had previously promised to abolish two marine parks if elected. This time they promised a review, which was enough to get the anti marine park movement on the coalition bandwagon. One can only assume that this gained more votes for the coalition than it lost, as they won the election and rewarded the supporters with a review of marine parks. They even stacked the review committee with scientists preferred by the anti marine park movement and controlled what scientific evidence the committee was allowed to consider.

The review is now done. Like all good committees, their first finding was that there should be a committee to carry on doing their job. Their main finding regarding marine parks is that there should be more of them.

Hooray.

The NSW coalition would like to thank the anti marine park movement for making this possible. Despite these sorts of outcomes, the relationship between the coalition and the anti marine park movement has been a long and fruitful one. After the federal coalition established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, The Fishing Party started a campaign against the park and against marine parks in general. They went into the next federal election with a scare campaign claiming that coastal recreational fishing would be banned outside of the south east corner of Queensland. They gained roughly half a per cent of QLD senate votes. Due to preference distributions, these votes went back to the coalition, helping to deliver them and extra senator in QLD and control of both houses of parliament. The Fishing party did not blink, as it was obviously the fault of the Democrats. They have since abandoned such subtle methods and instead posted banners on the Fishing Party website begging supporters to vote for the coalition and put Labor/Greens last.

Other recommendations by the audit committee include that someone should tell them what marine parks are for and that scientific research be expanded beyond merely monitoring fish stocks in a reactive sense to assessing the sustainability and resilience of our fisheries. Discuss.

Quote:

Wrong on both counts. Read it again it says that the system of representatve ares should be scrapped.

I have read the report recommendations. I quoted them. They say the current system should be maintained. You should try reading the actual report rather than fishing world articles. If I am wrong you should have no problem finding a quote from the actual report to back up your claim.

Quote:

More reseach and better understanding - hardly an admission of failure.

Not just more, but expanding the scope - to cover those questions you claim are already well understood, which is one of your justifications for opposing marine parks - because you think the scientists already have it all under control.

Quote:

In fact The report said that there is no likely spillover benefit from NSW marine parks

No it does not. Neither does the fishing world article. Try reading what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 26^th, 2012 at 12:36pm by freediver »

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: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #39 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 1:06pm

[link=1281669694/38#38 date=1330223371] Quote:

Regarding the committee, how do you come to the conclusion it was 'stacked'

You have found so few real scientists that back your view in any kind of way that I recognise them when I see the name, like the guy from Tasmania, who was on the committee.

That's just your lazy/dishonest stock postition - dismiss any scientist I quote as part of a mere handlful or not even a scientist at all. PS: who is 'that guy from Tasmania' do you mean Proffessor Colin Buxton?

Quote:

or the scope was limited?

I read the scope. I have pointed out how it was limited. This is clearly stated in the scope.

No you merely said it was limited but not how. In fact the report seems to cover all possible bases.

The update I posted:

Quote:

Coalition marine park review released

We finally have an answer to questions raised earlier regarding the intention of the NSW state coalition for marine parks in the state. Prior to the NSW state election, the coalition courted the anti-marine park movement with a curious form of dog whistle politics. They had previously promised to abolish two marine parks if elected. This time they promised a review, which was enough to get the anti marine park movement on the coalition bandwagon. One can only assume that this gained more votes for the coalition than it lost, as they won the election and rewarded the supporters with a review of marine parks. They even stacked the review committee with scientists preferred by the anti marine park movement and controlled what scientific evidence the committee was allowed to consider.

The review is now done. Like all good committees, their first finding was that there should be a committee to carry on doing their job. Their main finding regarding marine parks is that there should be more of them.

Hooray.

The NSW coalition would like to thank the anti marine park movement for making this possible. Despite these sorts of outcomes, the relationship between the coalition and the anti marine park movement has been a long and fruitful one. After the federal coalition established the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, The Fishing Party started a campaign against the park and against marine parks in general. They went into the next federal election with a scare campaign claiming that coastal recreational fishing would be banned outside of the south east corner of Queensland. They gained roughly half a per cent of QLD senate votes. Due to preference distributions, these votes went back to the coalition, helping to deliver them and extra senator in QLD and control of both houses of parliament. The Fishing party did not blink, as it was obviously the fault of the Democrats. They have since abandoned such subtle methods and instead posted banners on the Fishing Party website begging supporters to vote for the coalition and put Labor/Greens last.

Other recommendations by the audit committee include that someone should tell them what marine parks are for and that scientific research be expanded beyond merely monitoring fish stocks in a reactive sense to assessing the sustainability and resilience of our fisheries. Discuss.

Quote:

Wrong on both counts. Read it again it says that the system of representatve ares should be scrapped.

I have read the report recommendations. I quoted them. They say the current system should be maintained. You should try reading the actual report rather than fishing world articles. If I am wrong you should have no problem finding a quote from the actual report to back up your claim.

Your being deliberately evasive and I have already pointed out where you are wrong. They are not saying there should be more marine parks and that the system of zoning should be scrapped.

Quote:

More reseach and better understanding - hardly an admission of failure.

Not just more, but expanding the scope - to cover those questions you claim are already well understood, which is one of your justifications for opposing marine parks - because you think the scientists already have it all under control.

They have already been looking into ecosystems based management - remember the Pitcher and Forrest paper?

Quote:

In fact The report said that there is no likely spillover benefit from NSW marine parks

No it does not. Neither does the fishing world article. Try reading what it actually says, rather than what you want it to say. [/quote]

Yes it does.

Back to top

IP Logged

pjb05

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #40 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 1:16pm

Here FD have another read. I have even put the most relevant bits in bold. Are you really going to stick with your black is white argument?

From the Fishing World article:

In a further blow to extreme green groups seeking to ban fishing, the report quashed the benefits of the much-lauded “the spill-over effect”. Marine parks activists have long used the “spill-over effect” – which is based on the supposition that no-go zones produce more and bigger fish – as justification for locking anglers out of traditional fishing grounds.

“The Audit Panel concluded that where there is adequate fishery management, as is clearly the case for the majority of fisheries in NSW, it is misleading to espouse that there will be a large fisheries benefit from spillover,” the report says.

In an interview with Fishing World following the official release of the report, Professor Beeton rejected claims by NSW Greens MP Cate Faehrmann that the report advocated more marine parks.

“What we said was that steps should be taken to protect biodiversity in the Hawkesbury and Twofold bay areas,” Professor Beeton said. “It didn’t say that we should put marine parks there. The report also says there is very significant change required for the NSW marine estate and while the Government is getting itself organised to do that that it should maintain the current system. That should be a holding position; it’s not at all endorsing the current system. In fact the report says quite the opposite.”

Professor Beeton said one of the main findings of the report was that the structure of marine parks in NSW was flawed. All of the six mainland marine parks in the state are based on “CAR principles”, which involve creating different zones which either allow or don’t allow fishing.

“Strict adherence to CAR principles in small marine parks (as in NSW) doesn’t really work that well,” Professor Beeton said. “You can manage things a whole lot better if you manage the whole coast properly.”

The professor said that decisions about banning recreational fishing in NSW’s marine parks had been made “from a very poor knowledge base” and that future decisions regarding marine planning “be made with anglers’ aspirations in mind”.

The report recommended that fisheries management strategies be improved and that the NSW Government “move away from the representative type model as it really doesn’t suit marine protection”.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #41 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 2:45pm

Quote:

That's just your lazy/dishonest stock postition - dismiss any scientist I quote as part of a mere handlful or not even a scientist at all.

Well I can count them on my fingers. I only discount the pretend scientists as pretend scientists. It seems you still can't tell the difference.

Quote:

No you merely said it was limited but not how.

You will have to quote me then. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

Your being deliberately evasive and I have already pointed out where you are wrong. They are not saying there should be more marine parks and that the system of zoning should be scrapped.

You pointed out a contradiction. That does not mean I am the one who is wrong. After all, I am the one who is quoting the actual report.

Quote:

They have already been looking into ecosystems based management - remember the Pitcher and Forrest paper?

You seem to be missing the point PJ. I did not refer to expanding the scope to include ecosystem based management.

Quote:

Yes it does.

So why are you unable to quote the section of the report where it says what you and the journalist claim it says? Why is it that I am the only one who can quote the actual report to back up what I claim the report says?

Quote:

Here FD have another read. I have even put the most relevant bits in bold. Are you really going to stick with your black is white argument?

From the Fishing World article:

You are confused PJ. I meant quote from the actual audit report. Fishing world is known for getting these things completely backwards. It is not my fault you keep wasting your money on a publication that just makes you look silly.

I'll give you a tip - don't bother trying to search for the direct quotes that the Fishing World article implies come directly from the report. They are not in there. Not that it is surprising, as they are sloppily written.

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: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #42 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 7:03pm

link=1281669694/41#41 date=1330231550] Quote:

That's just your lazy/dishonest stock postition - dismiss any scientist I quote as part of a mere handlful or not even a scientist at all.

Well I can count them on my fingers. I only discount the pretend scientists as pretend scientists. It seems you still can't tell the difference.

So what is 'wrong' with the scientists who wrote the report. What is the difference between a real and pretend scientist (and what does that make you).

Quote:

No you merely said it was limited but not how.

You will have to quote me then. I have no idea what you are talking about.

BS. If you think the scope was limited then explain how.

Quote:

Your being deliberately evasive and I have already pointed out where you are wrong. They are not saying there should be more marine parks and that the system of zoning should be scrapped.

You pointed out a contradiction. That does not mean I am the one who is wrong. After all, I am the one who is quoting the actual report.

There is no contradiction. You have merged scrapping the zoning system with scrapping the parks.

Quote:

They have already been looking into ecosystems based management - remember the Pitcher and Forrest paper?

You seem to be missing the point PJ. I did not refer to expanding the scope to include ecosystem based management.

Quote:

Yes it does.

So why are you unable to quote the section of the report where it says what you and the journalist claim it says? Why is it that I am the only one who can quote the actual report to back up what I claim the report says?

The journalist quoted the report ie when the put up these " " followed by the report says.

Quote:

Here FD have another read. I have even put the most relevant bits in bold. Are you really going to stick with your black is white argument?

From the Fishing World article:

You are confused PJ. I meant quote from the actual audit report. Fishing world is known for getting these things completely backwards. It is not my fault you keep wasting your money on a publication that just makes you look silly.

I'll give you a tip - don't bother trying to search for the direct quotes that the Fishing World article implies come directly from the report. They are not in there. Not that it is surprising, as they are sloppily written.

It's very clear what comes from the report, it also gives and attributes quotes not from the report but from an interview.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48816
At my desk.

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #43 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 7:11pm

PJ, how about instead of digging yourself in deeper without knowing what you are talking about, you stop responding, take your time and read the report. You have put yourself in this position before by taking Fishing World articles a little too seriously.

Quote:

So what is 'wrong' with the scientists who wrote the report. What is the difference between a real and pretend scientist (and what does that make you).

That was a reference to Walter Starck and his ilk. As far as I know the scientists on the panel are practicing scientists.

Quote:

BS. If you think the scope was limited then explain how.

Please quote where I said the scope was limited. You will have a hard time leaving out the bit where I explained how. Unless of course you are referring to something else, in which case I have no idea what you are talking about.

Quote:

There is no contradiction. You have merged scrapping the zoning system with scrapping the parks.

The Fishing World article uses the term 'scrapping'. The actual audit report uses the term 'maintain' instead. Any rational person would call that a contradiction.

Quote:

The journalist quoted the report ie when the put up these " " followed by the report says.

That's what they want you to think. Except it is not in the actual report. Check for yourself.

Quote:

It's very clear what comes from the report, it also gives and attributes quotes not from the report but from an interview.

I thought it was clear too, untill I checked the report.

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: 1402
Gender: male

Re: The schoolgirl courts the pimp
Reply #44 - Feb 26^th, 2012 at 7:47pm

You said this FD:

They even stacked the review committee with scientists preferred by the anti marine park movement and controlled what scientific evidence the committee was allowed to consider.

So what was wrong with the scientists and how was the scope limited with repect to the scientific evidence?

Then there was this outrageous lie:

Their main finding regarding marine parks is that there should be more of them.

The Prof. who headed the committee has said this is not their finding (main or otherwise)!

Back to top

IP Logged