Clover Moore

[Nete-Quette]

Ms Clover Moore, MP
Member for Sydney,
58 Oxford Street,
PADDINGTON NSW 2021

Dear Minister,


Re: Marine parks in the Hawkesbury Bioshelf

I refer to your web site http://www.clovermoore.com/main/?id=1840 where you espouse the benefits of no-take marine sanctuaries in the push for marine parks off Sydney in the Hawkesbury Bioshelf. Would you be able to:

1.   Accurately confirm your facts and figures that you mention from original sources?

2.    Comment on Prof. Kearney's analysis that the marine parks process is ?hoodwinking? the gullible public? (in case you are unaware of his latest presentation at Cronulla this year I have enclosed)

3.    Explain how you know for sure that you are not the one being hoodwinked, and so, inadvertently, hoodwinking us?

In a response to Professor Bob Kearney?s criticisms of the lack of science used in NSW marine parks, Professor David Booth, chair of the Sydney Institute of Marine Science?s Scientific Committee, said ?There appear to be a lot of charlatans in this debate. If you want sensible comment about marine biological issues, you should go to professional marine biologists. If not, comments should be taken with a grain of salt.?
 
Does this mean the public of NSW should take your comments regarding the benefits of marine parks ?with a grain of salt?, or would you be willing to see an independent review of the science behind NSW?s marine parks and their zoning, as indicated by Professor Kearney and former Climate Change and Environment Minister Verity Firth?

Yours sincerely

Phillip Ingram
President
Anglers Action Group

CC Robert Brown MLC

[ACTAngler]

I sent this today:

Dear Minister,

I refer to your eNews #419 (http://www.clovermoore.com/main/?id=1840 ) espousing the benefits of ?no take? marine sanctuaries and calling for support for a Marine Park for the Hawkesbury Bio-shelf. 

I am currently studying an MBA in Marine Resource Management at the University of Tasmania.  I am considering a dissertation topic on the realised (compared to theoretical) benefits of marine sanctuaries, but I am having difficulty finding relevant research on these benefits, both worldwide and particularly in Australia.  Can you please provide me references or links to the studies that show that ?no take? marine sanctuaries can:

a)     double fish and invertebrate densities,
b)     triple biomass,
c)     increase mean fish sizes by 20 to 30 per cent,
d)     boost the number of species by 23 per cent,
e)     quadruple catch-per unit efforts in nearby waters, and
f)      make marine ecosystems 21 per cent less vulnerable to environmental changes.

These results sound exactly like what I am looking for.


Thanks

[Open Oyster]

   Try Disney Land

[ACTAngler]

Sorry Ken, perhaps you can request the moderator to edit my post and replace the offensive word with "bottom", or "rear end".

I received this reply today.  Typical politician's response of not actually answering the question:

Dear sender

I refer to your email about my support for a marine park for Sydney.

I have supported establishment of a marine park following extensive consultation with community groups, stakeholders and scientific experts to ensure that protection is achieved. The proposal would include a number of different management zones and only the areas declared sanctuaries would totally ban any extraction of sea life.

I share widespread community concern that the Government should protect marine ecosystems, including addressing damage caused by urban development, agriculture, pollution, climate change and other major threats. While marine parks can play a vital role in protecting marine biodiversity, I believe that a multifaceted response to all threats is the best way to ensure the long-term sustainability of our waters.

You may wish to contact your local MP to express your views about this matter.

Yours sincerely
Clover Moore MP
Independent Member for Sydney
58 Oxford St, Paddington NSW 2021
Tel 02 9360 3053
Fax 02 9331 6963
www.clovermoore.com

[ACTAngler]

I noticed that pissing is ok though, in another thread?

[CEO]

 ACT Anger: We've always enjoyed vigorous debate on this website and will continue to do so - with or without you. However, once you resort to offensive language, you have lost the argument  - and lots of ECOfishers, straight away. I have no brief for Clover Moore - none whatsoever, but what you said was highly offensive and the source of a series of complaints.
  It is clear Clover Moore is using what Prof Kearney calls "faith based" ideology, not sound science. So I suppose it behoves organizations like ECOfishers to set the record straight. Nothing is achieved by crude insults. Lots of government departments use our website. We have standards. We are credible. ECOfishers won't post anything here that can't be substantiated - and that's one of the reasons we are highly respected by all, including bureaucrats and government departments.
  I will accept your apology again this time but many won't. You know you have embarrassed yourself and made a fool of yourself here. So let's move on and keep it vigorous, without crude insults.  CEO 10/12/08.

[ACTAngler]

Just ask the moderator to remove it then!

[Dr. Phil]

Greetings All

I am disturbed by an apparent outbreak of dissent amongst a couple of members. 

Could I most strongly suggest that we ALL accept that the common goal is the denigration of the Fundamentalist Greens specious arguments about Marine Parks and some of the the so called "academics" (Booth and Davis).

I post freely on 7 fishing websites.  I have not criticised an individual, for a post, even the ones who argue that ALL commercial fishing should be banned.  I have tried to keep my criticism of the message they are trying to espouse.

Perhaps in the media you may have noted that the criticism of organizations such as this (rednecks etc, etc) and the individuals ie. Bob Kearney, myself and others down here, has generally come via personal villification.  This is the STRENGTH of our argument ... they can't criticise the argument so lets go for the personality.

I predict that Bob Kearney will come under increasing personal attack from a few Marine scientists (Booth, Davis and Kelaher) over the next few months ... an attempt has been made to denigrate myself and Richard Tilzey in the local paper, I will be replying in spades .

For what its worth I didn't find ACTAngler's description of Clover Moore crude ... I personally would not have said that, however I am MORE than happy to allow it to go through to the keeper.  I CERTAINLY do not think it has lowered the "tone" of the ecofishers website, political correctness should not be a function of our fight.

As I said before, out of the 1.5million anglers in NSW there are precious few who are willing to take the fight right up to the Greens, we cannot afford to weaken our single pronged attack.

I include amongst these people, NeteQuette, CEO, ACTAngler, Billfisher, Rod Burston, Phil Ingram, Jack Tait and MANY others.

[ACTAngler]

Thanks for that Phil.  I was feeling a little un-loved.  You are right that a united front is needed and I am willing to work towards that.  Compromise has to come from both sides though.  I don't want infighting either, but you would have to get all parties to agree.  I don't appreciate insinuations that other groups, some of which I am also a member, have anything but the best interests of anglers at the front of their mind.

I note that on the other sites, differences of opinion are also aired, things do get personal too.  A fact of human nature I suspect.  I'm sure everyone realises that it is counter-productive.  If we knew how to avoid it, we wouldn't be in the position we are, I suspect.

Cheers.

[ACTAngler]

Ms Moore,

Thanks for your response to my email, which unfortunately didn?t answer my question.  In fact, it closely resembles a previous ?cut and paste? job I received from the previous NSW Environment Minister.  I will ask them again, and add another, since your reply makes some more interesting assertions.  Surely you must have the evidence to back your assertions:

Can you please provide me references or links to the studies that show that ?no take? marine sanctuaries can:

a)   double fish and invertebrate densities,
b)   triple biomass,
c)   increase mean fish sizes by 20 to 30 per cent,
d)   boost the number of species by 23 per cent,
e)   quadruple catch-per unit efforts in nearby waters, and
f)   make marine ecosystems 21 per cent less vulnerable to environmental changes.

Also, can you please back up your claim of ?widespread community concern??  Just how many people have expressed their concern?

Thanks