How Good Is this

[Louis]

Thanks for the reply Nslfishing.


Louis

[mortyb]

Another point of the view to the points raised.

Gladstone Harbour development and dredging had plenty of environmental conditions.......

Once approved (even with conditions) there is no going back. There use to be a precautionary principle in the considerations ie if unsure, then don't risk it. They could dump it on land, but no, too expensive (so the economics don't stack up) and people would not like it in their back yard etc etc. The dredge material won't stay where it is dumped, I'm with Nathank. Also I feel for the tourist operators in the area. Anyway, my 2 bobs worth as part of this thread.


http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate...-is-wrong.aspx
http://www.swindonclimate.org.uk/200703ggws
http://www.gladstoneobserver.com.au/...ushed/2154396/

[tunaticer]

I don't think you can compare Gladstone Harbour dredging to Abbot Point dredging because of the differences in environment.
Gladstone Harbour is an enclosed, heavy industry port since 1960 and in total is about 150 years old. In those years all types of pollutants have been introduced into a confined environment and silted over. The dredging disturbed all of that.
Abbott Point is a relatively new, open water environment port that has only shipped coal. The areas to be dredged are native substrates with little industrial pollution traces. The dredging is also well offshore further reducing industrial contaminants.

Where exactly is the Great Barrier Reef? Think about that also.....

I am sick and tired of all the half cocked green jump up and downers screaming this or that for something to do.

[Louis]

Valid points Jack.



Louis

[STUIE63]

People please note Tunaticers points they are correct in regards to what is being dredged .gladstone had all sorts of heavy metals,what they are talking about is virgin sea bottom in Bowen.the green bs that it is being dumped on the gbr should read inside the gbrmp zone.

[Damned67]

You're asking us to trust the governments (any government) decision?
I would love to think that they've made the right choice that was not influenced by kick backs. Indeed, I would love to live in a country where all (relevant) government decisions are made in the absence of any financial influence.
Sadly, I just don't trust that is the case.

[RICKTA]

Here is how good our good our government regulators are,remember the dredge behind st Helena island????
Now its a green zone. FN no idea.

[manta man]

Is'nt the Company who owns Abbott Pt Coal already under investigation for Breaching Environmental Guidelines at the above location!

[mortyb]

My point was not comparing AP to Gladstone Harbour regarding the dredge spoils. My point was that don't hang your hat on these 'strict' environmental conditions being the protector of the environment and fishery. They have to be realistic, easily measureable, adequatley monitored and most of all, enforced. It costs $ to the Port and the government, so I don't have confidence on all this happening.

And last time I looked AP is also enclosed, by a large barrier, the Great Barrier Reef.....

The area is huge for sure but the dumping/spoil will cause increased turbidity (the main issue) over time and will be spread out long distances. The same happens when one pumps for yabbies (but obviously on a very small scale) in the water on a sand bank. After a short while the dirt and silt has spread all around and you have to move to another area to see the yabby holes because of the turbidity in the water.

I am sick and tired of all the short sightedness, people who think they understand the science, and beleive that all development should go ahead at any cost because it brings in a few short term bucks from jobs and is so critical, or the economy will implode. I do hope I am proven wrong one day that the waters we fish in can cope, as you can't eat money.

Don't get me wrong, I am not against the port expansion and jobs. Just the choice of dumping the dredge spoils within the GBR zone when there were other options.

[Louis]

The best thing the government can do to increase recreational anglers fishing is to buy out some commercial licences.

I think economically it would make sense as well if licences were bought out in the more populated parts of the state.

Let the commercial fishers have licences in the less populated areas but in the likes of Brisbane, Gold Coast and towns etc I say a lot more revenue would come in from the Rec angler and there would be so many more of us if every rec angler no-matter his skill level and knowledge was able to gain a decent catch worthy of his efforts and have some fun.


Louis