Closed to rec fishers but not US bombs?

[Kerry]

And I drank the water running off that hill for a few days[smiley=speechless.gif]

That water coming through that system would still probably be better than any city anywhere in Oz, there would probably be more background radiation from a household fluro Really I'd be more concerned with cattle in the area, that really spoils the tea

Cheers, Kerry.

[Glug]

Derek I read it in two places on the internet this morning but as I said earlier I can not find anything myself now. I just had another look and found this, it is not one that I seen earlier but content is close. http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...55E952,00.html
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_...55E421,00.html

I think yahoo had some thing earlier and then they had another news statement saying that the defense minister was now playing the story down about smart bombs being dropped on Australia. http://au.news.yahoo.com/

Nothing about the proposed agreements to test them that I seen this morning.

[Derek Bullock]

Glug

I think what we are seeing is a lot of newspaper sensationalism. Journos trying to sell news. If you look closely through each one of those articles they still both refer to the joint exercise in 2007.

Will see how this progresses but as indicated earlier, I dont think it has anything to do with rec fishing as the heading on this post suggests.

Cheers


Derek

[lordy]

If they were rearly smart bombs!

Wouldn't they just find their way to Parliament House

No. Parliment house is protected by its aura of stupidity. No signs of intelligent life to target.

[Glug]

Glug

I think what we are seeing is a lot of newspaper sensationalism. Journos trying to sell news. If you look closely through each one of those articles they still both refer to the joint exercise in 2007.

Will see how this progresses but as indicated earlier, I dont think it has anything to do with rec fishing as the heading on this post suggests.

You could be right Derek I ignored the one that suggested 30 new U.S bases as 30 seemed over the top and it could have just been a typo for 3 as this article dissapeared quickly. However, I do know that the present government is jockeying for U.S. Bases and any coastal or new bombing ranges would affect access to waters and the land around them.

I also know that the U.S. military stated that it was not interest in setting up bases in Australia, when it was suggested in the Japanese press that bases could be moved to Australia where there was more land for training. They were after the removal of 5,000 marines from Japan to Australia. Mr Howard replied at the time he would welcome any U.S. Bases.

One of any governments tricks is to leak news to the press and cause an over reaction so they can introduce an "acceptable" compromise later. The old saying still goes where there is smoke there is fire, as you say see how it progresses.








Derek

[Glug]

On the brighter side if this area wasn't under the control of the commonwealth (army, navy and airforce) then it would be a developers dream, thank heavens the developers sit on the other side of the fence [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]


Quite frankly I'd rather see the military control this place than it being stuffed up by arseholes.

I agree but depends who the arseholes are. I don't have any thing against the military as my father was in it for 20 years. Australian bases have never been as restrictive as the U.S. ones, most people don't even realise how much of Australia the military bases cover.

New Bases would not affect the big city dwellers much until they try to go to their favourite holiday spot. I can't say the same about the small town boys and a lot of them have more time for fishing. Rec fishing is facing closure in a big way, those that don't mind being finally penned to fishing in a concrete fish farm have nothing to worry about. Those that like to get out into the ocean and rivers have a lot to worry about.

Where I used to fish in Wollongong is all fenced off with notices promising a big fine to any one fishing there. The area is not used much just a few jetties but no reason on the notices is given. Possibly pollution or liability insurance costs, lots of lease holders, private land owners and government bodies are closing access to the public because of liability costs. If in doubt ask the 4WD drivers who are finding themselves using private 4WD parks, which for them is the same as concrete fish tanks.

Back to military bases; any new U.S. bases will take over large areas of land, access to any rivers or creeks in them will be closed. Navel bases will cause coastal restrictions and as you say more green zones will be created like the one you mentioned to keep people out of bombing approaches. Or possibly the green zones have already been created for these areas.

As I said before Australian bases don't worry me so much an increase would but the Australian public giving up access to Australian resource for a foriegn country does woory me. My logic is to shout before it happens not after, after is too late. Go back to 4WD drivers they left it to late and look that them now, they have fourbies with no where to go but their fourby farms.

[Derek Bullock]

Thats because fourby drivers went out there on seek and destroy missions as some of them even still do. Don't tell me I am wrong, I have seen it.

The restrictions we now see in place whether it be on land or sea are as a result of people doing the wrong thing and bad management in the past. It's now time to try and put it all right again but sadly in some cases we can't.

Your quote - "New Bases would not affect the big city dwellers much until they try to go to their favourite holiday spot. I can't say the same about the small town boys and a lot of them have more time for fishing. Rec fishing is facing closure in a big way, those that don't mind being finally penned to fishing in a concrete fish farm have nothing to worry about. Those that like to get out into the ocean and rivers have a lot to worry about." Thats purely unbased and in my opinion biased conjecture on your part.

It seems to me that some people will look for all sorts of reasons but the real ones when arguing against closures. To now try and blame the possibility of American Military Bases is total stupidity.



Derek

[Glug]

Thats because fourby drivers went out there on seek and destroy missions as some of them even still do. Don't tell me I am wrong, I have seen it.

To now try and blame the possibility of American Military Bases is total stupidity.



Derek

I agree some drivers. but to blame it all on stupidy is is just doing what you told me is total stupidy

Just hope I am stupid, only the future will tell Derek. But I'm not blaming it all on military bases it is government policies that make the closures. Most people blame the greens but if it did not suit the government of the time it would not happen.

[Derek Bullock]

It wasnt me who said it but I do recall somewhere that it went through parliament without one no vote from any of the parties.

Is that true??


Derek

[NeilD]

Just as long as they don't blow up Island head Creek and Im still allowed in there they can do what they like. As Kerry said it is only the army restrictions that keep developers out. I would have to say that the area is probably one of the most spectacular coastal areas in Queensland.

Cheers Neil

[Kerry]

As Neil noted it's places like this that will survive long after developers have stuffed what's left of the coast and for what? basically their own greed

There's no bombs here and quite frankly all this is a hysterical media beatup on the days in between important issues, like there's not even another footprint in the sand and for that if it takes a few bombs further north to keep it this way then so be it.

Cheers, Kerry.