It seems like you just cant please some people. They whinge because decisions are made 'not based on scientific eveidence' yet wont co-operate with people who want to gather scientific evidence. Mabe you guys should just get out the jar of Vas and prepare for what is inevitable given your stance. Should provide you with whinging rights for the rest of your life.
Greg
The collection of data is essential to the understanding and sustainability of the species. To refuse to collect/disseminate data is to give in to the "Precautionary Principle". I am not in that boat. Not for a second.
The provision of catch location, on the other hand, is fraught with peril. If we provide such information with anything more accurate than a regional ID, we are asking for trouble. Look at GBRMP.
That Scientists won't lie is a furfy. I have to agree with Shane on this one - Scientists have, over the last 20 years or so, shown themselves to be quite happy to put out work that satisfies the financial and political agenda of the time. Who can blame them? They get fired if they don't. The CSIRO is guilty of sacking/censuring it's own if they don't toe the political line on AGW. I don't see they would be any different on Fishing.
I now trust the CSIRO as far as I could comfortably spit out a rat. (Thanks to Zaphod for that one!)
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Shane, I love the quote and if it is yours, may I have permission to use it? You are dead right and its time for us to start spinning in the same way that Pew does. We also need to draw out those opposing scientists (shock to the system - some are rec fishos) and get them to challenge the other supposed objective scientists that receive funding from Pew. One such report has recently been prepared which proves that the entire basis for declaring the Coral Sea Conservation Zone was based on Pew funded "research" which has since been discredited.Originally Posted by ShaneC
Any scientist can write an opinion piece in scientific journals and get away with zero facts and we need to open this discussion about why science has sold out on marine parks- especially in this country. Right now, if I had a child that was at uni, I would be very worried about what they are being taught. Even at school. This is my personal opinion by the way but from what I have heard, there is nothing objective or balanced in lesson plans and its all about how to save the environment from evil humans by locking it away. Again, I may be wrong and it is a personal opinion.
Len
Greg,
Unfortunately the Government of the day is able to manipulate the data in any way shape or form that they so choose, as these scientists are employees. The political structure within these government departments always works towards the governments agenda's.
When a new government is put in place (commonwealth) the secretaries of the departments are replaced with high ranking public servants who are sympathetic to the governments stance / agenda of the day, handpicked to "deliver the right result".
As tim has alludeded to these are not independent bodies in any way shape or form. A vast majority of these government bodies have there own, political agendas, that defy logic.
I take your point about providing the information, but quite frankly it is a dangerous game, they will use it the information against us. No consipiracy, just plain fact.
As you have seen with the RRF review, public consultation = JOKE. They presented the only 4 options palatable to them, not interested in our ideas or possible solutions to the problem.
Off the soap box now..
Regards
HOnda.
Honda,
I have a tertiary education, so i am well aware of the methods of manipulating data to suit the desired outcome....restrictive terms of reference...and taken to new levels by spin doctoring and postulating by zealot self interest groups.
The point I was trying to make was.....if you want to build your protest/argument/discussion based on the stand of 'lack of data/evidence/scientific facts'..then your credibility is totally shot if you refuse or publicly discourage the provision of the very data that you accuse the govt of not having/using.
What needs to happen is for the data to be provided, and the raw data made available to the fishing movement, so that 'our' scientists/spin doctors can use it to our advantage. In other words....we get to use the same data to promote our cause (unless of course the data is going to tell us something we dont really want hear...sometimes raw data can do that).
There are a number of extremely qualified, and passionate, scientists with in the fishing movement...though they are scattered through out the various organisations....and until the bodies come together and can unify the expertise, and get access to the data (once it is gathered)....then all we are doing is engaging in rhetoric, and we will be screwed over everytime.
Cheers
Greg
Greg,
I value your opinions and experience however;
These highly educated, well paid people have not be able to develop the appropriate methodology / techniques in which to study and gain from the study factual based evidence to prove their theories, whilst being publicly funded organisations.
In the same breath these organisations ar penalising us the Rec fishos and Taxing us to the "proverbial".
I think ShaneC's statement captures the current state of the political movements that are occuring within our community at the present time.
"I am sorry to say that I think that any info given by the educated will be manipulated by the uneducated to appeal to the stupid."
PS. I have no formal tertiary qualifications.
Regards
HOnda
Scientist gain credibility by publishing reports in respected journals. All data is available for peers to review and criticise. Publishing a paper does not always mean you are correct, but nontheless it is in the scientific community for evaluation. At uni, you get credit only for providing fact or reference. Eitherway, both have to be backed up with references or observations. This is the standard and accepted process for academics. Failing to provide reference or observations means you lack credibility.
Now in complete contradicition to this, we take what the Queensland state government used for the moreton bay green zones. Where is the data? Why wont they release it. They say the have credible evidence yet they wont let it be peer reviewed. This is not science, this is politics. Same goes for pew the coral sea, its emotion and politics, not science.
There is two things that corrupt real science, politics and religion..
PS, I am a year 10 dropout with a trade (instument fitter) who went back to study at uni as a mature age student. I studied electrical engineering.
Even peer review's under the hammer these days.
Each Scientific discipline is developing it's own language set, which allows them to use jargon specific to the discipline. Thus it is getting harder to develop a panel for peer review which is outside the discipline.
Once you reach a stage where those outside cannot review your work (or don't want to because it's too much work to understand it), you develop a field where you are in a group of isolated experts, and as long as you have consensus on a political or financial motive, you can say whatever you want.
This has happened in one other field recently, and I read the other day is happening more and more across the Scientific Community.
Even so, I think Greg's right. We will never gain credibility if we don't help at all. But withhold detail on WHERE the fish was caught? Absolutely!
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
yeh why trust research done by a fisho funded by rec fishing orgs and associations that is for our benefit. more x files stuff hey
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote