Oink! Oink!Originally Posted by SunnyCoastMark
Oink! Oink!
Okay so it has denegraded to the level a DH troll - I am out of this one - clown!
Cheers
Trev
I would like to unreservedly apologise for any implication that SunnyCoastMark or any other member of this forum is a pig. It was wrong and with the benefit of hindsight I would like to withdraw the remark. The “Oink Oink”, while comedic genius in its own way, further exacerbated my insensitive and reprehensible remark, and that, I also withdraw.
Last edited by cod_botherer; 10-10-2012 at 11:48 AM. Reason: typo
Geez , handbags @ 2paces girls *rolleyes*
The Abel Tasman was licensed to take 18,000 tonnes of mainly mackerel and red bait fish, using 600-metre nets.
Asked if the government's concern was about the size of the vessel or the quota, Mr Burke said a fishing ship with a large freezer capacity and the ability to stay in one place for a long period created “a different set of environmental factors”.
“It's not a small vessel going in and out of port.”
Did they reduce or increase the allowable catch quota for all trawlers in the area after it got banned or did the 18000 tonnes get added back into to the yearly limit down there for other trawlers? If not what is the difference between 1 super trawler or 25 smaller trawlers taking the same quota? Can someone explain “a different set of environmental factors” and the science behind that comment?
Re: super trawler? educate me or tell me your opinion please
See triple , we can rid ourselves of woolies/coles and have heaps more "Independent Operators" , or do we actually "need them".....and a fish-factory is the latest MUST HAVE ?
p.s. i believe zero/zip/NIL catch will be available to Oz residents ??
Isn't green the new religion! (Sorry OT I know).
Anyway back to the real topic, I have a pet piglet called Henry. He's 9 weeks old. When I showed him my original post he said he thought it was somewhat instructive of the argument but he was concerned about the subtlety. Further discourse revealed that he was uneasy that someone might reply to the effect that I was being emotive and without proof, thereby entirely missing the irony. Eventually I agreed with Henry, hence my earlier apology to him.
my god, CB i think i understand your comments and they're maybe not what people are thinking they are at face value, but frikken hell i haven't had to try this hard to interpret a post since some of FNQ's ones from a few years back.
am i correct in thinking that the real point of your post is that for the various unsubstantiated reasons you have listed, you have hypothetically created a knee jerk argument for recreational fishing to be banned? and you are using this to highlight how easy it would be for people to make an equally knee jerk decision to not allow mega trawlers to operate in australian waters.
well you'll get no argument from me my friend, knee jerks are bad, but unfortunately are the cornerstone of australian political survival, keep enough of the greater unwashed happy and you'll have a job for another few years.
my main argument is that if this ship being allowed to trawl were to pave the way for more of this style of ship to be allowed to operate, then how quickly would the reporting systems react to the damage that they may or may not be doing to the fishery? could the horse have actually bolted by the time we realise the gate's been left open?
^^^ thankyou- saves me having to think of something to write =)
Dont worry Trevally, there are others here that understand my point, including some fisheries scientists. Most don't bother posting anymore because they have been beaten up here in the past.He should be:-
Statistically we have had:-
1 person who said they didn't care whether it came or not but is convinced beyond reason that the science no matter how poor supports this coming - so it should be allowed.
14 others who are concerned at the damage it will do, see the science as shonky along with other problems such as bycatch and say we don't want it.
62 posts and 30% of them from the one person who doesn't care if it comes or not but continues to argue that the propaganda (i mean vague and sketchy science and poorly gathered one sided statistics) supports bringing it so let it in.
So put to a vote this thread statistically shows 30% support for the trawler, so lets do it!!
I think the picture is clear that the noisey minority will always get heard regardless of their grounds and whether they are right or wrong (usually wrong).
I had better go fishing before the noisey minority completely screw it for all of us - cheers
Like I said, the argument from science holds credibility, shouting it down based on opinion and hearsay is exactly what the greens do. My point was that it should be argued based on science (yup, even if discrediting the AFMA science, provided its done correctly) and/or economics. The rec fishing community should not lower themselves to the same standard as the greens, it makes us no better than them. I don't have an issue with people saying the science is not correct, or needs more information, but if you do, make sure you can back up what you are saying with fact, not opinion.
I like to use the example of the MBMP, yup there was "science" (and I use that term lightly in this context, perhaps I should say faux science) done, but it was just a research paper from a uni student. It was not real science because the state government refused to release teh paper, so how the hell could it be reviewed? The areas were shut down because the greens wanted it shut down, just in case there was a problem in the future. Ad ignorantiam or as its known in the green circles, the "Precautionary Principle". So when the rec fishing community say they don't want the super trawler here just because it might affect the fishery, it means they too are applying the precautionary principle, the great green fallacy.
CB, how many weeks before henry is big enough for an apple to fit in his mouth?
Excellent question. I love it when you ham it up.
Well, let's see...personally I always find a pig on a spit a bit distasteful, so usually I'd want to get Henry up to around baconer size, say 85kg with about 23mm back fat. Delicious.
Henry says he thinks you've got it.
The last time the horse bolted from here he tried to go with it but couldn't keep up. He agrees horses are an untrustworthy animal but he can't see how the farm would run without them.
Why? Have you got any reason for this, or just opinion once again?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote