Reply With Quotesurely you jest Steve...Paul Burt hardly rates dandelion status let alone tall poppy.Originally Posted by gelsec
agree or disagree, he is right in one sense - the gold coast has gotten off lightly in regard to proposed closures. that is my backyard and when I scanned the map there were very little changes to my fishing areas. now don't take this the wrong way, I am still against the proposal and know it is due to a backdoor preference deal, and is based on poor science. got me thinking though, did they do that to create apathy among the gc fisho's??
I don't doubt once they get 15% closures of the bay, the next target will be 50%.
marty
surely you jest Steve...Paul Burt hardly rates dandelion status let alone tall poppy.
What they need to do is not let any vessel from overseas dump their balast water in to our waters if they do they get fined......tat will stop most of the polution
There's a system in place for a change-over of ballast water at sea before vessels enter Aus ports. In certain cases it can be a complicated exercise that can exert stresses on the hull.
Ballast water from some overseas ports, particularly river ports, can contain pollutants, though nasty organisms are more of a threat.
{Australia signed the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, subject to ratification, on 29 May 2005.
The Convention will enter in force 12 months after 30 States with combined merchant fleets constituting 35% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping have signed the Convention.
The Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) has primary responsibility for implementation of this Convention in Australia. AMSA is providing advice and assistance to DAFF in working towards Australian ratification of the Convention. It is likely that AMSA will play a role in implementing the Convention, primarily through port State control. On 22 June, an AMSA officer attended a Joint Standing Committee on Treaties hearing, which is expected to approve Australian ratification of the Convention}
When you buy a new Alvey reel, Paul Burt does the attached Alvey video. Wonder how Bruce Alvey or Peter Pakula would view his comment? Cheers.
Paul was not misquoted. I saw him say exactly that, when he did last fridays fishing report on local GC television.
He said 'it was good, the GC got off lightly, and he was in favour of the MB closures to protect the dugong and our fishing futures'. First thing I thuoght of, was he must be a mate of brownies...
I was stunned that he would say that, but then again he is heavily sponsored in a lot of areas. perhaps the greenies have taken to getting some more sponsorship to ease thru their plans?
those few words alone really do show the intelligence level of the bloke.
Thats the line the Green machine is pushing. Shows this d#$% head could not come up with an original thought to push his position.
I think we will see a lot of people who rely on Gov funding promoting the EPA's point of view. The other source of influence will be the Labor Party who owe favours for preferance deals in the recent election
A Proud Member of
"The Rebel Alliance"
Paul is a nice enough bloke to talk to, decent and has never seemed up himself. But that's not to say he is the sharpest knife in the rack.
I get the feeling that he wants to grow into a tv personality, beyond simply doing fishing reports. I also believe that most media outlets, be it tv, radio or press, have a lean towards green. I would not have thought Pauls supportive comments would have hurt his career aspirations. This highlights the challenge faced with getting an identity onboard to fight against the green zones. You need to find one with balls and integrity. Fortunately Paul is pretty much an unknown even among many anglers, but other higher profile people would perhaps think twice before speaking out against this review.
Interesting thought Marty, it would make sense to let the GC off lightly this time around in the hope that they sit back and fail to support Brisbane based anglers, and then hit them harder in 5 years time. Hopefully their plan will fail and GC anglers will be up in arms with the rest of us.agree or disagree, he is right in one sense - the gold coast has gotten off lightly in regard to proposed closures. that is my backyard and when I scanned the map there were very little changes to my fishing areas. now don't take this the wrong way, I am still against the proposal and know it is due to a backdoor preference deal, and is based on poor science. got me thinking though, did they do that to create apathy among the gc fisho's??
I don't doubt once they get 15% closures of the bay, the next target will be 50%.
marty
This is how the greenies succeed world wide. Just bight off a little at a time. Therefor their huge amount of funding can be used against small interest groups individually. 99% of action they take has nothing to do with us taking to much from the ecosystem. They are against us being their full stop.
I wonder how doug burt feels about his brothers point of view.
I agree fafnir, paul is a nice enough bloke and usually (?) knows his stuff. Im wondering WHY he thinks the closures are good for fishing. If he has a point of view, then I wanna know if he can substantiate it or not...
I also agree with martys point. The GC is now a lib stronghold, and Anna doesnt seem to wanna give them an excuse to bash her, yet. She will pick her time to repay the greenie debt. As Sun Tzu says, choose your battles wisely.
Andrew
He wouldnt no shit from clay.
But seriously when they close the Bay off lets all go fishing on the Goldie.
Cheers
Guys no point in turning this into a Brissie Vs Goldie battle
We're all in it together and regardless of what has been said, I'd say most fisho's on the Goldy are strongly in favour of creating a balanced sustainable fishery for all regardless of location, with scientific rationale behind any changes.
If we allow ourselves to get sucked into in-fighting and bickering then the Dark-Side has already won the battle.
you'll probably find there's a lot of guys on the Goldy that make an effort to also fish the lower end of the bay ........ its a beautiful area to be in.
So lets keep united on this one regardless of whatever was said on tv.
Lets stand together and May the Force Be With You.......
Last edited by Franco; 13-12-2007 at 06:50 PM.
I hear you Franco,
But as a scientist I would be very remiss if I didn't point out there is bugger all good science behind the rationales given for most if not all of the proposed no take zones. A little pseudo science maybe, but its almost entirely a political process. These green zones are only being put there to honour some agreement Aussie pollies signed up to decades ago, you'd have to be a fool to actually believe that excluding recreational fishing from these areas will make any difference to the sustainability of the entire fishery - the main problems facing the fishery (habitat destruction/ eutrophication/siltation and other forms of human induced pollution) will remain after they are closed to fishing. Exclusion of trawling from a wider area will certainly do some good for the bottom and juvenile fish populations, but the rec fishers are getting a very large object inserted up the nether regions on this one because green factions such as the AMCS believe there is no place for fishing period and the real truth is these people would love to see all fishing banned.
Posting Permissions