Make all green zones NO DIVE ZONES

[Jackinthebox]

Guys,

Since the more green friendly Dive groups have mostly jumped into bed with AMCS, etc ......

I'm sure support for Green Zones would dry up pretty quick from all the diving/greeny fraternity if they were also banished from these areas due to harassment/disruption of Grey Nurse sharks & other wildlife etc. (Which divers have admitted to)

If it needs so called protection, it should be "ONE OUT - ALL OUT!"

I'm sure it would stop a lot of the effort to get more green zones in the future if they realised they couldn't have it all to themselves.

If we are going to lose these areas anyway, I have put in my submissions that divers should be excluded from green zones as well.

Mick

[disorderly]

C'mon Mick,lay off the wacky backy mate.

[PinHead]

if these areas need this urgent protection then they should be no go zones..no fishos, no divers, no tourist boats..nothin.

[Jackinthebox]

That's right Greg,

see how they feel when they lose these areas too! I feel it's a bit of insurance against future increases, currently they lose nothing with the green zones.

Sorry to alienate the divers that also fish, but don't you think they would be against any further stupid closures if this was the case? Would there be further support for the greens who are pushing this.

They (rabid greens)don't care who gets hurt, as long as it doesn't affect them. About the only thing some greenies do out on the water is dive. This would certainly pull them up in their tracks!

Then wouldn't the non rabid green divers start standing up & saying that these areas are healthy & further restrictions are not necessary because they are "underwater & can see what is going on"

Mick

[Didley]

Sorry Mick, the idea isn't to spoil people's fun, as it is being taken by a lot of fishos, but to protect these areas from predation. If the divers start grabing hold of and riding turtles, rays, sharks ect. then fine the pricks or something. Its a bit like saying all fishing should be band because some fishermen do the wrong thing.
A bit of balance is what is needed in this type of issue, not extremism. It's not a matter of locking the whole country up as national park, nor is it, screw the environment lets get what we can now, and stuff everybody who comes after.
It's about balance, and just because it effects you, it does not mean that balance is wrong.
Now let me hear the abuse boys.:rifle::whip: :behead:

[craftycarp]

Let me guess diddley you dive also?

Pinhead you are right its what should be going into all submissions. Dive groups have been against from when all this started would be interesting to see how they go if they start getting banned.

[Mike Delisser]

I agree Didly, sorry Mick. As soon as our position on a science based sustainable outcome turns into "if we can't use it the way we want to no one can" we may as well hand the the whole east coast over to the extreme conservationists. I also don't think the diving/greeny fraternity will flock to help us fight the EPA if we manage to lobby their exclusion from green zones.
Mike

[disorderly]

Guys,

If we are going to lose these areas anyway, I have put in my submissions that divers should be excluded from green zones as well.

Mick

You do know what you are asking for don't you,Mick?
That is turning green zones to pink zones(preservation zones) which are exactly as Pinhead suggests..total no-go zones.
Great thinking fella's http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/../yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/rolleyes.gif lets help the greens get their way.http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/../yabbfiles/Templates/Forum/default/tongue.gif

Scott

[Sandman]

I actually suggested that in my submission(s), however i agree with Didley's comments but have very mixed reviews as i to also enjoy diving. The reality is why "green" a zone if you are allowed to anchor on these sites, i would prefer to see permanent anchorage and restrict boats from anchoring as this does far greater damage than the genral fisho would have on taking fish?

My view anyways
Mick

[Didley]

Let me guess diddley you dive also?

Pinhead you are right its what should be going into all submissions. Dive groups have been against from when all this started would be interesting to see how they go if they start getting banned.

No Crafty, Haven't been diving in 15 years, did it a couple of years before that then gave it away. IF u banned the divers , Yes they would change their story, because, as a group, they are full of self interested people just like the fishos. Stuff what is best for all, just look after number one. Get enough people on side and the politicians will change their story too, because they will lose votes. Good old number one again. That is how the world works, that's why your all being asked to contact your political representatives about this. Nothing to do with what is the best thing to do for the whole community. It's all about number one. Lots of thing are worth someone else doing, just as long as it doesn't effect me adversely, hey boys!

[Didley]

"if we can't use it the way we want to no one can"

Well put Mike. If you want to stop this, come up with some scientific reasoning behind your argument as to why it is not in the community interest, and you might get some numbers on side, instead of carrying on like spoilt kids and getting no where.

[Fafnir]

Well put Mike. If you want to stop this, come up with some scientific reasoning behind your argument as to why it is not in the community interest, and you might get some numbers on side, instead of carrying on like spoilt kids and getting no where.

Scientific arguments have not made one scrap of difference as far as I can tell. If an area is that sensative that you cannot drop a line there then maybe it should be pink. IF an area is so sensative then no anchoring would make sense, as would making them all go-slow zones. I don't think it's unreasonable to make them No Recreational Diving areas as well. That's of course on the assumption that any areas in Moreton Bay are that sensative that they would warrant a green zone in the first place.

As for the point about "if we can't use it the way we want to no one can", well that's fair enough. That's no different to dive groups saying 'People shouldn't be allowed to fish in these areas but still let us dive there".

I think Mick's on the right track here.

[scoota]

Hang on Mick, not all divers or dive groups support the green zone submissions.

Turn it up!

What about the fishing organisations and Ausfish members who have supported the green zones?

Lynch them!:hanged:

Trying to work together for common interest rather than a [if we can't have it you can't have it] school boy attitude and stand together with everyone that doesn't want green zones, we hopefully may turn some of the tide our way.

Scoota...

PS:- I'm not a diver........yet;)

[Mike Delisser]

One of the corner stones of our argument against the green zones is the potential adverse economic impact on local small businesses, inc fuel, marine dealerships, chandlery, outboard servicing, food ect ect. Didn't I hear that at the rally? Has this changed? Did I miss something?

If the goal of our campain has changed from an outcome exceptable to anglers (I know, not you Pin H) to a revenge trip please let us know, some may want to get off the bus.
Mike

[Horse]

If these areas are so critical to the Bays ecological survival then surely they must be protected to the maximum extent as no go zones.
If, however, the areas are being designated green to stop recreational fishers access in order to pay back political deals between Labor and the Greens then it is a sad day for our political processes.

Neil

[Chris Ryan]

One of the corner stones of our argument against the green zones is the potential adverse economic impact on local small businesses, inc fuel, marine dealerships, chandlery, outboard servicing, food ect ect. Didn't I hear that at the rally? Has this changed? Did I miss something?

If the goal of our campain has changed from an outcome exceptable to anglers (I know, not you Pin H) to a revenge trip please let us know, some may want to get off the bus.
Mike

No Mike, that is still one of the corner stones of the argument. With $4.7b in revenue to QLD from rec fishing and its directly associated tourism, and just fishing alone contributing to $440m+ compared to the almighty eco-tourist dollar of $500m, they are playing with an awful lot of money being taken out of the system.

Chris

[Derek Bullock]

One of the corner stones of our argument against the green zones is the potential adverse economic impact on local small businesses, inc fuel, marine dealerships, chandlery, outboard servicing, food ect ect. Didn't I hear that at the rally? Has this changed? Did I miss something?

If the goal of our campain has changed from an outcome exceptable to anglers (I know, not you Pin H) to a revenge trip please let us know, some may want to get off the bus.
Mike

I think a lot of people, myself included, got off the bus a long time ago.

Some of the comments on here and the slander towards good honest people including politicians and public servants are a disgrace.

There is no room on here for open comment and discussion anymore.

There are many amongst you who should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Jackinthebox]

I agree Didly, sorry Mick. As soon as our position on a science based sustainable outcome turns into "if we can't use it the way we want to no one can" we may as well hand the the whole east coast over to the extreme conservationists. I also don't think the diving/greeny fraternity will flock to help us fight the EPA if we manage to lobby their exclusion from green zones.
Mike

M62, mate i don't hear too much support from them at the moment?

Scott, they may as well be pink zones to us

Didley, "IF u banned the divers , Yes they would change their story, because, as a group, they are full of self interested people just like the fishos." You put it so much better than me.
As Fafnir said, Scientific arguments don't seem to be making much difference.

Scoota, I never said all dive groups or divers support the green submissions, but i know a hell of a lot do because it means 100% exclusive access to all their favourite areas.
What about just the Grey Nurse Shark Aggregation sites we have been booted out of for a long time? Not even trolling for pelagic fish is allowed, how do a few fishos towing baits or lures around up on the surface pose so much of a threat to GN sharks when divers are allowed to annoy the crap out of these sharks when they are resting up in the gullies & known spawning/feeding aggregation sites?

I knew i would touch a nerve with this thread. Maybe i'm just thinking like a politician. Isn't that what they do, use other people to get what they want?

Mick.

[Horse]

I think a lot of people, myself included, got off the bus a long time ago.

Some of the comments on here and the slander towards good honest people including politicians and public servants are a disgrace.

There is no room on here for open comment and discussion anymore.

There are many amongst you who should be ashamed of yourselves.

Would you like to elaborate on these comments and clarify what exactly you are saying please Derek

Cheers

Neil

[Didley]

Could someone give me a brief out line of this “scientific argument”? I admit ignorance to this. The only argument I’ve heard is “I’m not going to be able to fish in my spot X, what right do they have” and the so called “corner stone” of the argument economic that sounds like utter crap. The “scientific argument” sounds a bit like the evidence against global warming, you have hundreds of reputable scientists saying one thing and a few the others and which ever agrees with you is the one who is right. I’m one of those who are here to listen if you’ve got good science.



So convince me, I’m a fisherman for god’s sake, I’m one of the easy ones.

[Chris Ryan]

So, since the announcement of the Draft Zoning in December 2007, you have made it all the way to March 2008 and 3 days before public submissions either for or against these zoning changes you now admit "ignorance to the science". That's tops. Great effort. Glad to see you are on top of the game. There is enough information in and around this site to fill that scientific argument you want.

As for the economic argument, you don't think that sucking that amount of money out of the system that fishing generates is not going to have an effect on the small business owners that run bait & tackle stores, mechanics, chandlery, electronics, upholsterers and more? That's fine, I am sure some of them will be thanking you for your support of them when their businesses suffer and more closures of stores occur.

Your comments are just astounding to me.

[Tangles]

There is no room on here for open comment and discussion anymore.

Derek, what does this mean?

Personally I subscribe to the view that if we have to accept Green Zones then they should be exactly that, ie no access other than accredited researchers ie no public, no tourism..I would of thought that was the point of having a Green Zone?

mike

[Mike Delisser]

Didley said "Could someone give me a brief out line of this “scientific argument”? I admit ignorance to this. The only argument I’ve heard is “I’m not going to be able to fish in my spot X, what right do they have”

http://www.frdc.com.au/pub/news/154.php?article=4

Also the MBAA proposal http://www.vision6.com.au/download/files/08120/416631/FRDC+FINAL+REPORT.pdf

Mike

[banshee]

Divers.......you've gotta love them,this group of people many of whom now profess to have the Grey Nurse interest foremost are the exact same imbosiles (theCropp's,Taylors & co) that,in the 60's,brought about the demise of the species with powerheads for no other reason but to feed their ego's,of course they should be kept out.

[Didley]

No Chris, in the last two and a half months, my life has not been filled with “draft zonings legislation” and public rallies as has yours. I have been going on with my life putting my efforts into the things I deem important to me and my family. Sorry that the lack of value I have placed on this subject upsets you. I can understand if you are passionate about something like this, someone like me would piss you off. This is why the greenies get so pissed off with complacent, undriven members of the public, who ignore there causes. So you are in good company.

As for the “economic argument”, I obviously misunderstand it, are we talking about closing down some areas around Moreton Bay to fishing or banning fishing in Qld altogether? I didn’t know all these people were going to go belly up. If people can’t fish in one spot they will go to another, take the blinkers off mate. Exaggerating the effects of it doesn’t help the cause. You have become obsessed with your cause and can’t see reality. Life will go on.

Cheers Mate

Ps Thanks Mike I’ll take a look

[Luc]

If these areas are so critical to the Bays ecological survival then surely they must be protected to the maximum extent as no go zones.
If, however, the areas are being designated green to stop recreational fishers access in order to pay back political deals between Labor and the Greens then it is a sad day for our political processes.

Neil

IMO, the second sentences explains the justification for the green zones.

There is no scientific evidence to support them.
DPI&F report shows that the bay fisheries are managed sustainably.
Green zones to protect the environment are pointless when the biggest problem to the health of the bay is habitat degradation due to polution, runoff and over development.

Luc

[billfisher]

No Chris, in the last two and a half months, my life has not been filled with “draft zonings legislation” and public rallies as has yours. I have been going on with my life putting my efforts into the things I deem important to me and my family. Sorry that the lack of value I have placed on this subject upsets you. I can understand if you are passionate about something like this, someone like me would piss you off. This is why the greenies get so pissed off with complacent, undriven members of the public, who ignore there causes. So you are in good company.

As for the “economic argument”, I obviously misunderstand it, are we talking about closing down some areas around Moreton Bay to fishing or banning fishing in Qld altogether? I didn’t know all these people were going to go belly up. If people can’t fish in one spot they will go to another, take the blinkers off mate. Exaggerating the effects of it doesn’t help the cause. You have become obsessed with your cause and can’t see reality. Life will go on.

Cheers Mate

Ps Thanks Mike I’ll take a look


Actually the greenies like the complacent, undriven members of the public, because they are easy to influence by their slick misinformation claims. Also there is plenty of scientific information on these threads. I find it hard to believe you don't have time too look at them when you have time to make numerous posts which seem just intended to wind people up and not contribute anything useful.

As for the economic argument just look at the socio-economic disaster the GBRMP has been. And at least they are getting compensation up there (200m and rising). The state government is not offering anything for the effects of its marine parks.

[Sandman]

Divers.......you've gotta love them,this group of people many of whom now profess to have the Grey Nurse interest foremost are the exact same imbosiles (theCropp's,Taylors & co) that,in the 60's,brought about the demise of the species with powerheads for no other reason but to feed their ego's,of course they should be kept out.

Banshee, i disagree with your comments regardings "many" i dont think this is the case at all in fact its their own interests not the sharks, apart from Crop and Taylor who have never hidden their love of sharks and marine diversity in general, very much like you and i who love our fishing and wish to continue doing this in a responsible way.
I also am also very much against the greenzones as proposed i have put in my submissions and commented on all areas but mostly the ones that effect me and the people i fish with.

In my opinion no science has been used in the green zone proposals and that also goes with the GN protection zones established in the past, i am yet to see a GN come up and take a lure while trolling, i see more footage of "some" divers grabing these sharks poking them if they get to close etc personally i hate diving with the buggers but i could see the atraction to "observing them.

[Sandman]

Didley ,
Just out of curosity what part of the bay would you fish if the proposed green zones were put in place ? I would imagine if all of these zones were in place alot of individual would seriously consider selling their beloved boats and not bother.
The old attitude of its not my area and it wont effect me is harsh because it doesnt just stop here , in another couple of years we will be protesting again and again, now is the time to put your thoughts down on paper and submit them!!

[Didley]

Sandman, I've had a good look at the EPA map and your correct it doesn't effect me with the exception of perhaps Scotts Point MNP12, I thought on last look Scarborough Reef area was in the areas to be closed off, is this not so? With all the reefs along the Redcliffe foreshore I don’t think I’ll have trouble getting around that one. Mud Island is Ok, Curtin is OK, all my Jack creeks and rivers are OK. I think your right, it probably isn’t going to effect me so I should keep my opinions to myself. After all if something isn’t going to harm you personally, don’t get involved, that’s right isn’t it.
If you blokes were serious about this you’d want to involve and educate as many people as possible.

[Sandman]

Didley,
Its that attitude that doesnt help, your sarcasm really hasnt added to the discussion. Mate all i am saying is put your comments on paper you either disagree with what is going on or you dont !!!
You are likley to get frustrated with any feed back off here i certainly have been and i have been very active in all protests and actions against these closures.

Put your thoughts in only 2 days to go

[Fafnir]

If you blokes were serious about this you’d want to involve and educate as many people as possible.

That's assuming people have the mental capacity to be educated in the first place. No point wasting time on the dumb ones. But at least they are easy to identify.

[Fafnir]

good honest people including politicians and public servants


good honest people including politicians and public servants


good honest people including politicians and public servants

Sorry, still trying to get my head around that comment.

[Didley]

Didley,
Its that attitude that doesnt help, your sarcasm really hasnt added to the discussion.


“That's assuming people have the mental capacity to be educated in the first place. No point wasting time on the dumb ones. But at least they are easy to identify.”

“Sorry, still trying to get my head around that comment.”

I think my comments are far more productive than some, perhaps. The message on this site is Green zones are a disaster, say it or shut up.

[Fafnir]

Not only do you have productive comments, but a wonderful sense of humour as well. Bet you're just a blast at parties.

[PinHead]

One of the corner stones of our argument against the green zones is the potential adverse economic impact on local small businesses, inc fuel, marine dealerships, chandlery, outboard servicing, food ect ect. Didn't I hear that at the rally? Has this changed? Did I miss something?

If the goal of our campain has changed from an outcome exceptable to anglers (I know, not you Pin H) to a revenge trip please let us know, some may want to get off the bus.
Mike


why am I being singled out..I do not want green zones..i cannort see any evidence that they are required...AND..if there is any evidence then why won't other activities be banned in these areas. I am sure a tourist boat dropping its anchor on the bottom and then a swag of people diving there and touching everything is more detrimental than some rec fishos.
The only outome acceptable to most rec anglers is no green zones..forget the MBAA..they don't care about rec anglers..they are proposing green zones also.
No one is after revenge..just to be left alone to participate in the pastime we enjoy.
Greenies and their activities have never been logical in anything they do..take a look at the plastic bags in supermarkets bit..there is another piece of illogical garbage yet people are once again being hoodwinked into the warm and fuzzies thinking they are doing some good.

[PinHead]

“That's assuming people have the mental capacity to be educated in the first place. No point wasting time on the dumb ones. But at least they are easy to identify.”

“Sorry, still trying to get my head around that comment.”

I think my comments are far more productive than some, perhaps. The message on this site is Green zones are a disaster, say it or shut up.

cannot say it..therein lies what I have been saying all along..we do not know..there has NOT been any research into Moreton Bay...so even when these zones are implemented they do not even have a starting point to know further down the track what has been happening. Now please explain why the EPA can push for these ones yet let Mud Island area be a spoil ground for dredging..and let huge amounts of sand be dug out for the airport runway and also foreshore degradation in the way of development. It he Bay as a whole needs protecting..it is already a marine park then the removal of all this sand and foreshore development should be banned also...once again greens making no logic and just making the little bloke suffer. My question..why?????

[Mike Delisser]

why am I being singled out..I do not want green zones..i cannort see any evidence that they are required...AND..if there is any evidence then why won't other activities be banned in these areas. I am sure a tourist boat dropping its anchor on the bottom and then a swag of people diving there and touching everything is more detrimental than some rec fishos.
The only outome acceptable to most rec anglers is no green zones..forget the MBAA..they don't care about rec anglers..they are proposing green zones also.
No one is after revenge..just to be left alone to participate in the pastime we enjoy.
Greenies and their activities have never been logical in anything they do..take a look at the plastic bags in supermarkets bit..there is another piece of illogical garbage yet people are once again being hoodwinked into the warm and fuzzies thinking they are doing some good.

You answered your own question there Greg. I said "an outcome exceptable to anglers" Hypothetical but if that entailed a compromise that most anglers found palatable I'm sure you would still be dead against it as you are rock solid in your stance of 0% green zones. You should be pleased I singled you out, at least that shows I've been reading your posts;)

And I've only ever been snorkling on a reef once (out from Port Douglas) Saxin Reef I think, the dive boats hooked up to permanent moorings and we were all told look but don't touch, and you know what, no one touched.

From what I've read on these chat boards a lot of the submisions to the Draft Plan would make interesting reading. Oh and I'm not pro diving in any way, have you tried fishing when they're around, may as well pack up and go home, or start jigging;) .
Mike

[Horse]

Probably the most important areas which should be protected are those that will be making up the new runway:(
I love the EPA's attitude which basically says don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. To me it seems their story is a fairytale about the three little endangered animals, the dugong, the turtle and the migratory bird. The big bad fisherman is going to somehow blow their houses down by going fishing
I'm getting sick of people who are not going to be affected playing academic exercises with my lifestyle:P


An increasingly irate>:(

Neil

[Horse]

slander towards good honest people including politicians and public servants are a disgrace.

There is no room on here for open comment and discussion anymore.

There are many amongst you who should be ashamed of yourselves.

I'm waiting to hear your explanation of your sweeping comments. It would appear that you are the one slandering the rec fishos who are opposing the Labor/Green deals that are going to impact negatively on our rights and freedom for little or no environmental gain

I for one am not ashamed of myself for calling into question the honesty and intelligence of those proposing these green zones and closing off areas to us that will have no impact on the overall viability of our fishery

Derek, shame on you for your comments

Neil

[Derek Bullock]

I'm waiting to hear your explanation of your sweeping comments. It would appear that you are the one slandering the rec fishos who are opposing the Labor/Green deals that are going to impact negatively on our rights and freedom for little or no environmental gain

I for one am not ashamed of myself for calling into question the honesty and intelligence of those proposing these green zones and closing off areas to us that will have no impact on the overall viability of our fishery

Derek, shame on you for your comments

Neil

(Perhaps for the last time as those that cross the mighty Derek are soon to be banned)

Start reading all of the threads about the Moreton Bay Marine Park and see how many times the word corrupt appears in reference to various people. That my friend is slander.

This place is full of keyboard cowboys.


Derek

[Fafnir]

That my friend is slander.

Assuming it's incorrect, or unable to be proven.

[billfisher]

Politicians are used to being called names. I have heard unionists and Labor supporters call these marine parks a corrupt policy. The GBRMP came about as part of a deal with the Democrats done by the Howard government to get the GST passed. That could be called corrupt to. The way the science is maninpulated and misrepresented by the government and the EPA and other MPA's sounds pretty corrupt to me too.

I'd spare more thought for the 320 anglers given criminal convictions for fishing (usually accidently) in these sacred green zones. The people who have lost their livelyhoods. The anglers discouraged from going fishing anymore or those that are contantly fearful of the sight of an MPA boat.

[Tangles]

Lets be clear on Slander

Defamation is defined as “communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation.” There are then two sub-categories of defamation — slander and libel. Slander is spoken defamation and libel is written defamation.

SLANDER - A false defamation (expressed in spoken words, signs, or gestures) which injures the character or reputation of the person defamed; distinguished from libel. A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV. -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience.

1:Truth is always a defense to slander. . In fact, establishing that a statement is accurate is a complete defense to a slander suit.
2:t is also a complete defense if the statement made was asserted as an “opinion” (i.e. saying “I think” versus saying “He is”).
3:The standard used in slander cases that the comments must reach are that they must be so reprehensible and false that they affect your reputation in your community. The defamation also must have long-lasting and definite consequences.

I think its too much of a broad brush to label all these thread comments as slander Derek, most likely be seen as libel if that as broadcast over the internet.. hope this helps to clear it all up. Couldnt help myself, used to be in the profession until i got some sense;D

Mike

[billfisher]

Here's a good explanation on how the political process can become corrupted and how politicians, bureaucracies and interest groups can all work together to consolidate their own powerbase. Its called the Iron Triangle and is recognised by political scientists. It applies rather well to whats going on with marine parks:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle


Iron triangle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle#column-one), search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_triangle#searchInput)
This article is about a political term. For other meanings, see Iron Triangle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Triangle).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/Irontriangle.PNG/400px-Irontriangle.PNG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irontriangle.PNG) http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/images/magnify-clip.png (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Irontriangle.PNG)
Iron Triangle diagram


In United States politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_States), the iron triangle is a term used by political scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientists) to describe the policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policy)-making relationship between the legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature), the bureaucracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureaucracy) (sometimes called "Government Agencies"), and interest groups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_group).
In the federal government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_government_of_the_United_States), the phrase refers to the United States Congress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress) (in particular, the congressional committees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_committee) responsible for oversight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_oversight)) along with the federal agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_agencies) (often independent agencies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_agencies_of_the_United_States_governme nt)) responsible for regulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation) of those industries, and the industries and their trade associations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_association). One of the earliest formulations of the "iron triangle" concept was by political scientist Grant McConnell, in Private Power and American Democracy (1966).
An often-used example of the term is with reference to the military-industrial complex (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-industrial_complex), with Congress (and the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Armed_Services) and Senate Committees on Armed Services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services)) , defense contractors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_contractor), and the U.S. Department of Defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Defense) forming the iron triangle. The term iron triangle has been widely used by political scientists outside the United States and is today an accepted term in the field.



//
Central assumption

Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this view an agency's power is determined by its constituency (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constituency), not by its consumers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer). (For these purposes, politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a government bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement.)
Much of what some see as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_alliance) formed between the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to serve.

[Charlie]

"if we can't use it the way we want to no one can"

Well put Mike. If you want to stop this, come up with some scientific reasoning behind your argument as to why it is not in the community interest, and you might get some numbers on side, instead of carrying on like spoilt kids and getting no where.

Certainly some evidence from NSW divers can have an effect.
I'm sure most divers would be so called greens however surely their not all bad.

From Michael Mcfadyens webite

http://www.michaelmcfadyenscuba.info/viewpage.php?page_id=302

"So far I have visited this location in excess of 15 times and until recently we have seen between 4 and 18 sharks on each dive. See the table at bottom for dates of dives and numbers seen. The cave seems to be the home to female grey nurse sharks, up to 10 or even 15 at some times. None of them are huge but a couple are large. Most are small and on all but one dive, we have seen one or more very small females (say one metre). There have been reports of more than 20 sharks here. We have mostly seen around 13 sharks in this cave. I have only seen males here twice, including in May 2002 when there were at least 5 in this cave.
On 9 February 2003 after at least six charter boats dived at least 55 divers here in about 90 minutes, I only found four sharks. This was the lowest number I had recorded here in all my dives. Since then I have seen four and one and I have been advised by other divers that many times in 2003 and 2004 there were none at all. In my view, certain dive charter boats have killed this site, taking too many divers and too inexperienced divers and scaring the sharks away. This is a view I have made to State Fisheries as well. These charter operators need to either create a strict roster for visiting the sharks, severely limited the number of divers that they take there and perhaps they might recover to the 2000 and 2001 numbers. "

[Mike Delisser]

Hi Charlie, I found the spot he's talking about on youtube, Magic Cave.
Video was taken 3rd March 2007, I think I can make out 7 or 8 grey nurses in one pans of the camera so maybe a few have come back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdYepMez9kg

Mike

[Sandman]

Probably the most important areas which should be protected are those that will be making up the new runway:(
I love the EPA's attitude which basically says don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. To me it seems their story is a fairytale about the three little endangered animals, the dugong, the turtle and the migratory bird. The big bad fisherman is going to somehow blow their houses down by going fishing
I'm getting sick of people who are not going to be affected playing academic exercises with my lifestyle:P


An increasingly irate>:(

Neil

Neil i couldnt agree with you more regarding the habitat around the runway, not to mention were the fill is comming from and what is also being dumped!! There is even a pathetic statement from an Environmental Lawyer on savemoretonbay site talking about out buetifull mangrove nurseries, that what she enjoys when she goes out in the Bay. She obviously hasnt been down that way for awhile.
Ignorance , pure Ignorance!!

Mick

[Chris Ryan]

Mick,

That would be the savemoretonbay site that the AMCS run, I don"t have an environmental lawyer on saveourbay.org.au that I am aware of.

Chris

[Sandman]

Your correct Chris :) have changed it

[Chris Ryan]

cheers mate :)