Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
I do not agree with her's at all, it is however interesting to note this type of hype is given much more "air play" than the outdoors, fishing and hunting arenas ideas.
Why is it so, what is it they can do that we can't?
Do we not pull together for the common good of our way of life as well as the other side.
I know that I am not out there campaigning, writing letters to my local member and I suggest that there are many more like me. I have enough to contend with in everyday life, and when I get a spare moment I want to enjoy a day out on the water to enjoy my chosen activities.
Here in lies the problem, united action is needed, having 2 cents worth of ranting on Ausfish is not going to help 1 little bit, either is suggesting that someone is not worth the oxygen they breathe.
We need action and waiting for the other guy to do something will be too late.
I will be looking at myself and assessing what I have the capacity to contribute what about you?
Eamon
Eamon,Originally Posted by thephotoguru
Have you joined EcoFishersQld? Damn fine place to start!
Not just because that will be doing something, but also because if you decide to do more, you can do it in a coordinated and targeted fashion!
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Yep probably a little counter productive my comments but anyone worth thier salt would realise that she truely is an oxygen thief and isn't worth the print in quoting her. The journo that published it needs to give himself an uppercut too.
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
An associated link.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1895106.htm
There's an old saying. It takes all types to make this world.
And there's another...There's two sides to every story.
To the 'how fish can be caught and still be sustainable' story this lady is at one end of the spectrum of ideology and the people who keep all they catch...and them some, are at the other end of the spectrum of ideology.
It's a shame that some people (including policy makers) might read this ladies writings about her side of the story and believe her ideology and take no notice of any one else in the spectrum of stories. Except for the other extreme side of the story and tar everyone in the middle with that extremist bush.
Thankfully nobody (or nearly nobody) with normal beliefs believe the story from the other end of the spectrum (the keep all ya catch...and them some end) and we all think they're just plain nutters.
So how do the people who's story (or ideology) is in the middle of the spectrum get their side of the story across, and be noticed?? ie in the papers, journals etc.
More importantly, how do the policy makers who only believe the side of the story from this extremist lady take note of the real story...and forget about the two extremes??
Make sense?? I'm not real sure it does and I wrote it
I intend on living for-ever....so far so good
Actually Scott you are exactly correct, except that there are more than two sides. Look at the issue like a line. At one end, the argument is "eat nothing except air, water, anything that does not live." At the other, the argument is "eat what can be eaten, and care not for the method of extraction."There's an old saying. It takes all types to make this world.
And there's another...There's two sides to every story.
Make sense?? I'm not real sure it does and I wrote it
To the person who believes the first, everyone is awful. How could you eat that plant, it has feelings. So our Vegetarian friend is a monster to them. The one at the extreme Right who says "I don't care about the Law, I'll fish where I want, using whatever method I want, and keep what I catch" thinks nothing of a grenade over the side, and will probably fight to retain what he sees as his right to rape the resource as he sees fit.
We all sit somewhere on that line. Some towards the first (I call it the Left) position, some towards the (ipso-facto) Right.
We all tend to think our position is the best one, but to anyone at a different position on that "slide" we are either sissies or monsters.
I have formulated this view from a discussion with a Whale Biologist I met on a trip in Hervey Bay. His position is that while Whales are scarce, they should not be hunted. But once they have increased and are a safe population, limited hunting should be reconsidered. They are a valuable resource. I was up in arms! Disagree completely!!! He asked me why? "They are beautiful" So are cows. "They are majestic" So are trees. "They are intelligent" So are pigs. He showed me that once whale populations have been rebuilt, the only objection to hunting them will be emotional, and the further to the left you sit, the more emotional your argument becomes...
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
I agree that they should be hunted at some point in the future when populations have improved. I cant see it happening though by australian pro fishermen. The basis of this is that when we remove resources from the ocean it should be broad and not specific so as not to collapse a link in the food chain. IE take a bit from each level of the food chain not just as an example the Tuna or squid. In theory it should result in a more balanced eco system. A bit off thread but hey just a thought.I have formulated this view from a discussion with a Whale Biologist I met on a trip in Hervey Bay. His position is that while Whales are scarce, they should not be hunted. But once they have increased and are a safe population, limited hunting should be reconsidered. They are a valuable resource.
[quote=DR;1055873]If God did not intend us to eat fish & animals...why did he make them taste so good????
quote]
.... and give us Canine teeth
Hunt the whales?? Why?? We don't need to, they're mammals so if you want red meat "Have a cow,bro" thats all they are here for beef and milk. If we didn't eat them they wouldn't exist,nor sheep ,pigs,chickens the list goes on.Thats the trouble with the vego's they think these animals would just live along side us happily,merrily eating what, grass? whose?? They're domesticated animals bred and tended to by humans for?? consumption! Thank you and goodnight.
Paulo.
Couldn't agree more. From a financial perspective in this Country it's pointless. But as an export commodity, say to Japan? If the population will support it, and the money stacks up, why not, from a logical and emotionless perspective? That's the query. Again, keep the emotion out, what is the logical argument not to hunt them?Hunt the whales?? Why?? We don't need to, they're mammals so if you want red meat "Have a cow,bro" thats all they are here for beef and milk. If we didn't eat them they wouldn't exist,nor sheep ,pigs,chickens the list goes on.Thats the trouble with the vego's they think these animals would just live along side us happily,merrily eating what, grass? whose?? They're domesticated animals bred and tended to by humans for?? consumption! Thank you and goodnight.
Paulo.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Quite simple really,you'll stuff Hervey Bays economy,you hunt whales in a boat.No more whale watching, so I'll agree to disagree,They're clever animals and if a boat hurts them they won't come near a boat. Anyhoo theres too many humans how bout we start hunting them. Just because theres a lot of them, doesn't make them fair game.In my book theres things we don't need to..lets get it right ..kill,whales and elephants are top of the list. Do we need a quid that badly.Now crocodiles thats a different ball game.
Paulo.
I agree - all I'm demonstrating is that depending on where you sit on the "slide", one man's reason is another man's folly! I would never condone hunting them in Hervey Bay. I would probably never condone it anywhere.Quite simple really,you'll stuff Hervey Bays economy,you hunt whales in a boat.No more whale watching, so I'll agree to disagree,They're clever animals and if a boat hurts them they won't come near a boat. Anyhoo theres too many humans how bout we start hunting them. Just because theres a lot of them, doesn't make them fair game.In my book theres things we don't need to..lets get it right ..kill,whales and elephants are top of the list. Do we need a quid that badly.Now crocodiles thats a different ball game.
Paulo.
Cheers,
tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
So what's the difference between a whale and a crocodile....or a chook or a cow or a pig or a mackerel??
Marking something as been more worthwhile to live just because they give you that warm fuzzy feeling inside is not a reason that it has more of a right to live over a chook.
I intend on living for-ever....so far so good
We might not need it for a food source in aust but in japan and some other countries it is sought after. atm tuna are being fished to collapse while the whale population is rebounding. The basis of what some in marine biology are saying is that by harvesting whales ( and other lightly fished species ) it will take some of the pressure of other over fished food sources like tuna. Its not about having a farmed option like beef, its about balance within oceans entire eco system. Not a nice thing to think about and there is no way i could eat it but people in other nations do. I am not trying to convince anyone of this just trying to explain my first post a bit more.Hunt the whales?? Why?? We don't need to
what about if and when there are too many whales for hervey bay and none arrive? No food there for the vast numbers. A cull perhaps..same as we do for roos?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
