Reply With QuotePersonlay i'm not reel keen on Mr lamming....... however.....he does have a big mouth and is influential in the liberal party.
If he is behind the moderate fishing cause....we should be speaking with him.
cheers
Hey guys and gals,
Just spent some more time on the net to dig up some more info for the fight!! At least I seem to have found the rules of engagement and possibly a way of engaging some actual and meaningful structuring of the required arguments to which we face and need to address with the relevant authorities. I still believe that we need a public face to enhance the message we are trying to portray.
Possibly a letter of introduction to Andrew explaining our wishes might not go astray. He might even be able to get us some help….
http://www.andrewlaming.com.au/icreate/default.asp?q=69
EPA’s guidelines maybe??
I haven’t read the whole document as yet, but this seems to be the guidelines that have been used to facilitate the latest zonings and there seems to be a definite pressure placed on the ‘fishing activity’. I still cannot find any info out on what is being done to curtail the environmental, ecological issues with water quality, habitat loss and land degradation.
http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/fisheries/publications/pubs/guidelines.pdf
At least with the GBRMPA there is at least this website which seems to explain away the decision making and science. It appears to be at least informative.
http://www.reef.crc.org.au/research/fishing_fisheries/elfreefsopen.htm - just follow the effect of line fishing experiment link.
Maybe someone with a few more brain cells than myself can read the guidelines and pick out some specific items/points that we may be able to question.
Cheers
Shane
Personlay i'm not reel keen on Mr lamming....... however.....he does have a big mouth and is influential in the liberal party.
If he is behind the moderate fishing cause....we should be speaking with him.
cheers
I've just had a quick look at the links posted.......some interesting background.....I need to sit down somwhere quiet woth a cuppa to digets the contents properly.
The fisheries guidelines document looks interesting...... in the early pages I can see where the regulators are getting some of their attitude from.
the guidelines recomend a " conservative" approach...... more or less if we don't know, restrict fishing..
I can see how that could be easily taken too far, and it typical of many management approaches these days.....
I can also see a significant flaw in that as a concept.....in the absesce of good science, shut it up, close it down or ban it.
These is s distinct posibility that a measure could be taken for no good reason in the absence of science.
If we all took this approach in eveything we did in life we wouldnt get out of bed in the morning.........because there is no science to prove my slippers are under the bed, I will not get up because without the protection of my slippers I might stub my toe and bleed to death....... silly and extreem but you get the idea.
It upsets me that the regulators see it as better to take a "conservative approach" and lock everthing up than to spend some money an time on some proper science.
cheers
Conservative approach=precautionary principle. It has been in the Fisheries Act in Qld since the early 90's from memory......and nobody blinked an eyelid as nobody thought it would ever amount to meaning anything.
I think it is wise to follow a slogan as advertised on The Discovery Science Channel in their own adverts...."QUESTION EVERYTHING".
Cheers,
Chris
I was also doing some digging around and was going to post later with more but may as well start the ball rolling: I mainly have concentrated on the conservation movement AMCS, well I forgot about the Queensland Conservation Society. Here are a few facts for you all to look at yourself.
I dont know if most of you are aware but the EPA proudly donated around $577,0000 to the Qld Conservation Council this year, ( SImon Baltais is the Secretary).
The interesting thing of course is the list of the Member Groups, check out the full list on their site and you will see the full list of green groups your supporting as a taxpayer. The following are just some;
Animal Liberation ( objective is to promote veganism etc)
AMCS: ( Moreton Bay Green Zones)
CAFNEC ( GBR Green Zones)
Friends of the Earth
Environmental Defenders Office: ( This organisation is well worth looking at yourself, the info on their site is all there for you to see, its their legal arm )
But on the small matter of our tax money to go to the QCC here is the Ministerial Release:
Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation
The Honourable Andrew McNamara
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Corrected Statement: State Government funds the Queensland Conservation Council
Corrected Statement:
The Queensland Conservation Council will receive $577 500 in funding from the State Government to continue its environmental protection work across Queensland.
Minister for Sustainability, Climate Change and Innovation, Andrew McNamara said the conservation council was Queensland’s leading non-government environment and conservation group.
“The funding will ensure the conservation council remains a strong and viable organisation,” Mr McNamara said.
“As the voice for more than 400,000 Queenslanders interested in our environmental future, the funding will allow the council to continue to be a key advocate for environment and conservation issues.
“This funding allows the council to develop strategic alliances with government, industry and the community to achieve practical outcomes for our environment.
“Members of the QCC contribute their time and expertise to protecting Queensland’s natural environment, and the Queensland Government is pleased to support them in their endeavours.”
Mr McNamara said funding the conservation council was important because it played a role in increasing awareness of environmental issues in Queensland.
“The council provides valuable education campaigns that have a positive impact on people’s attitudes and behaviour towards the environment,” he said.
“The climate change awareness, liveable communities and save our bush campaigns are examples of the successful education initiatives run by the council.”
Funding for the program will be administered through the Environmental Protection Agency’s Conservation Organisations Funding Program.
Media contact: Peter McCarthy 3336 8004
The Environmental Defenders Office ( I suggest you go to their website and look at all the stuff, great stuff but heres a brief rundown.
1 ( provides free legals for activists and fact sheets for activists how to avoid Defamation and SLAPP suits etc).
2: Also provides info fo activists how to get info on others, legal tools for prying etc,, Its a legal toolkit for the activist ( well worth having a look!)
3: they even have legal strategies to fight a conservation battle penned by a barrister
Their helpful advice on seeing info from the EPA:
ie Access to documents held by the EPA: phone the EPA on (07) 3227 8185 to arrangeinspection and copying under section 542 of the Environmental Protection Act 1994 (Qld).Documents available include EIS, development approvals for ERAs, other environmentalauthorities, EPOs, EMPs, mining documents, codes of practice.
3: provide free law workshops throughout the state.
I will say there website is very helpfuland i take back my comment last night on oldboots post about secrecy etc,,, in fact I have downloaded everything of value to have a good old read tonight. I particularly like their fact sheets
cheer
Mike
Tangles KFC
Aigutso,
I think this just shows how well heeled the green movement is. Which just adds to my thought that we have to be united and as organised. Anything we eventually say will have to carry the very best practices and backed up with reliable and undeniable scientific proof. Otherwise it will just be buried under the green arm of the law never to be taken seriously by jo public.
Shane
Mike,
The Environment Defender is actually Ms Larissa Waters......she was the green senate candidate in the last Federal Election.
Chris
Cheers,
Chris
Was she one of the greens the fishing vote helped kept out of the senate last election??Originally Posted by Chris Ryan
cheers fnq
When the QLD government is giving over half a milion dollars to a green group we get an idea of how deep all this runs.
As I have mentioned else where this "PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE" (remember that), has a lot to answer for and has been used to justify all sorts of things.
This " precautionary principle" pops its head up in a great many government documents and guidelines at all levels and ranging over a great many subjects.
This "precautionary principle" is a great indicator of public and political outlook and has the same roots as all the nanny state concepts, public liability issues, the desire for security and protection and is a real fun killer.
However.... the government waves it selectively as it suits..... this is one concept that needs to be pushed...... there is already a great amount of backlash in the community to things resulting from this concept.... almost all outdoor or adventure persuits are effected by it.
It either needs to be pushed in the direction it is traveling on issues that are inconvienient for government and other parties till it becomes unworkable or it needs to be chalenged head on or both.
Unfortunately the vast majority of its victims do not recognise it as the main culpret or even know it exists.
It is very easy to sell the "precautionary principle" and its derivatives because the masses crave security and protection and are affraid of any form of fear, uncertainty or doubt.
Any high power sales text or lecture will tell you that you should raise fear, uncertanty and doubt against opposing products and concepts and provide a perception of protection and security as part of your own concept or product.
In recent years I nave noticed a massive increase in fear / protection selling particularly on radio and very much so in government polocy.
listen to your radio and look at all this material we get from the government and see how mnay times the word "protection" comes up.
The masses want "protection" and are very happy to believe in all sorts of false fears.
Remember the Dennis Furgeson thing......there he was locked up in a house full of coppers and the local community were happy to believe he was going to come into there houses and molest their children.
They knew who he was and where he was........ but they wern't affraid of the hundreds of other pedofiles in the community they didn't know about.
The greater uneducated masses want to hear bad news, want to feel pasionately about any sort of threat that can be invented and are very ready to demonise people andthings
Our community greatly gesires protection and security and the "precautionary principle" plays to that
We need to consider this " precautionary principle" at the core of our strategies, what it can do for us and what we can do about it.
cheers
I dont remember the details FNQ but the one and the same Environmental lawyer Larissa Waters who also made that wonderful statement about ignorant 4wd drivers and taxing them as well leading up to the election,
Anyway I suggest looking at the EDO website, very informative especially their fact sheets.
Tangles KFC
Yes mate, she was. Was also the one as Aigustso mentioned, called all 4WD owners ignorant during the lead up to the election last year. Claims she was misquoted......
Cheers,
Chris
This is one of the best lines I have read in a while and it means everything now.
Everything is political. It starts and ends at the ballot box (last time or next time).
Cheers,
Chris
Absolutely correct Chris.....which is why we have to be clever and put as much political pressure on Labor. There is an election forthcoming and we cannot waste this opportunity to show them just how valuable the recreational vote can be.
Posting Permissions
