|
Ken
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: October 03, 2006, 03:01:33 PM » |
|
Letter sent to Manly Daily today
2nd October, 2006
To the Editor,
Re: Article in Manly Daily (30/09/2006) on ?ENVIRONMENT Minister Bob Debus has ruled out the creation of a Hawkesbury marine park.?
We have researched the NSW Hansard record and find it accurately reported that Minister Debus said ??that the Government has no plans at all to create a marine park in the Hawkesbury bioregion?..?
Before anyone rejoices (or boos) I would point out that this Government ceases to exist on 22nd March 2007 and a NEW Government will be elected.
Minister Debus has NOT given any commitments on behalf of future NSW Labor Governments and is typical of the debus (nicknamed devious on some websites) comments that were made about Port Stephens, Bateman?s Bay and other MPs
Our organisation would be curious to see if Minister Debus, better still Premier Iemma, will respond with the same commitment (and published in this newspaper) of ?no marine parks in the Hawkesbury (Shelf Marine) Bioregion? as part of Labor?s election pledges for any future NSW Labor Government if elected say at the 2007 and 2011 elections?
Ken
Secretary,
Central Coast Recreation Conservation and ECOfishers Inc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
|
« Reply #16 on: October 06, 2006, 01:03:30 PM » |
|
CCRC &? ECOfishers ?Conservation through sustainable use? PO Box 8100 TUMBI UMBI 2261 2nd October 2006 To The Editor, We wish to respond to the Nature Conservation Council's latest misinformation concerning government marine parks and so called, "sanctuary zones." Coastal communities are constantly assaulted with emotional rhetoric masquerading as "science," from the "extreme Green preservationists", the Nature Conservation Council. This publicly funded group, in this case, is apparently deliberately using misinformation and misrepresentation, to peddle their political message. Their two latest efforts, the radio ad on the Weedy Sea Dragon and their media release on 26th September 2006 can both be proven misleading, if not a damned misrepresentation of the truth, and in fact there has been a request made to the NSW Advisory Council of Recreational Fishers (ACoRF) to censure the NCC?s Megan Kessler and that ACoRF ask the NSW Minister responsible to immediately issue a press release refuting the NCC stance in the light of the errors of fact contained in her media release. Over the years, we believe this type of tactic has undermined the validity of the real conservation message. The stunts of the Nature Conservation Council has, to many, left a legacy of confusion, frustration and gross mistrust in conservation objectives within the community.? ? As such an information meeting was held locally on May 8, on the implementation of National Parks lockouts and Marine Park sanctions that have been imposed by the NSW Government along the coast of NSW, and the probability of much of the same happening here. This meeting passed a resolution to set up a Central Coast Steering Committee of ECOfishers to put in place a local working body that will endeavour to achieve support from all interested parties that will be effected by over zealous closures by this present government. This working body has been called CENTRAL COAST RECREATION? CONSERVATION? & ECOfishers Incorporated and is a subset of ECOfishers Inc which was formed in June 2005. The object of the CCRC & Ecofishers Inc is to protest to the NSW Government of the imposition of National and Marine Parks onto our Central Coast community without full and transparent public consultation and to establish with Government authorities a proper process that will enable public input in the making of decisions on the location of Parks to the satisfaction of all parties. ECOfishers promotes, "conservation through sustainable use and makes people part of the solution."? ?We, at ECOfishers, will confront these extreme "preservationists," at every turn and expose and explode their Green myths. They are welcome to their opinion. But their opinion is not facts! Contact with this group?s president, Lindsay Walsh can be made via PO Box 8100, TUMBI UMBI 2261, mobile 0407 882 920 or the Secretary via the e-mail address attached. Ken Bond Secretary,? Central Coast Recreation Conservation & ECOfishers Inc e-mail:? kbon2017@bigpond.net.ausent to print media Sun Weekly and Express Advocate 3/10/06 |
|
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
|
« Reply #17 on: October 06, 2006, 01:06:39 PM » |
|
CCRC &? ECOfishers ?Conservation through sustainable use? PO Box 8100 TUMBI UMBI 2261 3rd October, 2006 To the Editor, Re: Article in Manly Daily (30/09/2006) on ?ENVIRONMENT Minister Bob Debus has ruled out the creation of a Hawkesbury marine park.? We have researched the NSW Hansard record and find it accurately reported that Minister Debus said ??that the Government has no plans at all to create a marine park in the Hawkesbury bioregion?..? Before anyone rejoices (or boos) I would point out that this Government ceases to exist on 22nd March 2007 and a NEW Government will be elected. Minister Debus has NOT given any commitments on behalf of future NSW Labor Governments and is typical of the debus (nicknamed devious on some websites) comments that were made about Port Stephens, Bateman?s Bay and other MPs Our organisation would be curious to see if Minister Debus, better still Premier Iemma, will respond with the same commitment (and published in this newspaper) of ?no marine parks in the Hawkesbury (Shelf Marine) Bioregion? as part of Labor?s election pledges for any future NSW Labor Government if elected say at the 2007 and 2011 elections? Ken Bond Secretary, Central Coast Recreation Conservation and ECOfishers Inc ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copy of Article in Manly Daily No' to marine park Andrew Tillett 30Sep06 ENVIRONMENT Minister Bob Debus has ruled out the creation of a Hawkesbury marine park. Pittwater independent MP Alex McTaggart asked Mr Debus in State Parliament on Thursday about speculation a park was going to be created on the Hawkesbury Shelf. But Mr Debus said the ``rumour mongering'' was wrong. He said the Hawkesbury's aquatic environment was already well-protected by the existing 27 marine reserves. ``I can say quite clearly to the honourable member that the Government has no plans at all to create a marine park in the Hawkesbury bioregion,'' Mr Debus said. ``The reason is quite simple: there are already a great many aquatic and other marine reserves in this area . . . with that degree of marine protection it is obvious that there is already a high degree of conservation of the marine environment.'' The marine parks issue has polarised coastal NSW communities, including the Central Coast and Port Stephens. Fishing is banned or severely restricted in parts of marine parks, pleasing conservationists but angering commercial fishers and recreational anglers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact Details Ken Bond e-mail: kbon2017@bigpond.net.au |
|
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
|
« Reply #18 on: October 08, 2006, 03:00:45 PM » |
|
Letter sent to the local newspapers ---------------------------------------------------------- CCRC &? ECOfishers ?Conservation through sustainable use? PO Box 8100 TUMBI UMBI 2261 3rd October, 2006 To the Editor, The Nature Conservation Council has sent out a Media Release claiming ?Marine Sanctuaries needed to protect the ?lungs of the sea?? (Seagrass meadows). The NCC must realise that the only significant recreational activity excluded from Sanctuary Zones in NSW Marine Parks (to date) is fishing.? They must also surely know that seagrass is not targeted by recreational anglers.? It is significant that the NCC fails to acknowledge in their Release that the two most significant real threats to seagrass meadows comes from climate change caused by global warming and water quality deterioration caused by LAND degradation, none of which is reduced in anyway by Marine Sanctuaries or even Marine Parks. They also state that ?The increasing number of boats along the coastlines disturbs dirt and sand on the sea floor limiting the amount of sunlight that the seagrass depends on for food and nutrients. Seagrasses also suffer from physical disturbance as a result of anchoring and boating.? We don?t understand why the NCC continues to mislead the public with unfounded claims that recreational anglers and now boaters are the enemy of the environment? Do they think that boaters deliberately drive thousand dollar motors into the seabed? What?s next? Maybe:- Surfboards cast shadows, depriving the seagrass from all important sunlight.? Get rid of them! Swimmers might accidentally step on seagrass, it is fragile and might break.? They need to be banned as well. Harbour ferries?? Lucky they don't operate in Marine Parks, they would have to go as well. Boats and ferries travelling through Marine Parks, ?off with their heads? 1 I've seen some seagrass TRYING its best to grow under the road bridges at The Punt Bridge, Woy Woy Road and Rail Bridges etc.? The sooner they pull them down the better!!!! Ken Bond Secretary, Central Coast Recreation Conservation and ECOfishers Inc PS quote 1 is from ?Alice in Wonderland? where the NCC apparently lives! PPS Fisheries has already got in place actions to protect seagrasses in NSW (see http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/aquatic_habitats/aquatic_habitats/Protection-plans ). Last Updated: December 13, 2005, 4:17 pm. Are the NCC not critical of the NSW Government, if these plans are inadequate, as they are funded by the government or is it just their bias against fishers and now boaters??? sent to newspapers 3/10/06 @ 4:25pm |
|
|
|
|
|
Ken
|
|
« Reply #19 on: October 08, 2006, 03:03:13 PM » |
|
The following letter has been sent to the local newspapers -------------------------------------------------------------------------- CCRC &? ECOfishers ?Conservation through sustainable use? PO Box 8100 TUMBI UMBI 2261 3rd October 2006 To the Editor, We have read about a radio ad from the Nature Conservation Council claiming that Marine Sanctuaries are needed to protect the Weedy Sea Dragon.? The NCC must realise that the only significant recreational activity excluded from Sanctuary Zones in NSW Marine Parks (to date) is fishing.? They must also surely know that the Weedy Sea Dragon is not targeted by recreational anglers.? Indeed, I doubt one has ever even been caught on a hook and line. It is significant that the NCC fails to acknowledge in their ad that the two most significant real threats to the Weedy Sea Dragon comes from climate change caused by global warming and water quality deterioration caused by LAND degradation, none of which is reduced in anyway by Marine Sanctuaries or even Marine Parks. We cannot understand why the NCC is not more honest in their endeavours to eliminate recreational fishing, maybe the fact that up to 25% of NSW residents do fish at one time or the other causes them to be dishonest as they would never know what their neighbours could do in reaction? We don?t understand why the NCC continues to mislead the public with unfounded claims that recreational anglers are the enemy of the environment? What?s next? Ken Bond Secretary, Central Coast Recreation Conservation and ECOfishers Inc PS Extract from The Australian Museum on line? ? http://www.amonline.net.au/fishes/students/focus/seathreat.htm? ? Potential Threats The aquarium trade is probably not a threat to this species because its temperate water requirement, diet and size make it difficult for the average aquarist to keep. Australian seadragons are not currently employed in traditional ethnic medicine, although dried and powdered seadragon can sell for up to A$200 per gram (Smith and Pollard, 1996). Fisheries impacts are minimal. The rocky coastal habitat of this species is not under threat from trawling and, owing to their feeding mode, this species is not caught by line fishers. A clear example that the NCC is not fair dinkum------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NCC of NSW ad.
"There are dragons in NSW.? Weedy Sea Dragons.
Our Coast is blessed with the world's most amazing underwater creatures.
But they are under threat.? Marine Sanctuaries are urgently needed to protect our unique sea creatures to make sure we don't lose them forever.
Please show your support by visiting www.marinesanctuaries.org.au
Authorised by the Nature Conservation Council of NSW."---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- sent 3/10/06 @ 3:35pm |
|
|
|
|
row
Development
Hero Member
 Offline
Posts: 521
|
|
« Reply #20 on: October 08, 2006, 03:23:14 PM » |
|
Posidonia or "ribbon weed" is continually dislodged by natural elements and replaced by new growth, you only have to walk along any estuarine beach in port stephens and there's tons of the stuff washed up everywhere, it's been happenning for thousands of years, the only endangered weed is the stuff these greenies smoke to give themselves these ridiculous notions.
|
"Try not. Do... or do not. There is no try"...
|
|
|
Tarki
Development
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 952
|
|
« Reply #21 on: October 08, 2006, 03:52:09 PM » |
|
LUNGS OF THE SEA NONSENSE: It wont be news to anybody else, obviously, other than the NO CREDIBILITY COUNCIL, but it is plankton that is the lungs of the sea, (and atmosphere, for that matter!) Two types of plankton, Zooplankton (animal) and Phytoplankton (plant) It is the Phytoplankton containing chlorophyll, that uses sunlight to manufacture the oxygen in the seas and atmosphere. Tarki
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nete-Quette
|
|
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2006, 11:43:16 AM » |
|
The Letters Editor,
The Manly Daily,
26 Sydney Road,
Manly NSW 2095
B Steele?s statements (MD 10/10/2006) that ?evidence that tells us that 90 percent of large fish (the ones we eat) are in serious decline? and that marine parks and the associated no-take zones ?give our marine resources a chance to recover? echo those of a report compiled by the Hunter Community Environment Centre ?Empty Oceans and Empty Nets? that alleges a decline in Australian fish stocks and was held up as proof for the necessity for marine parks and no-fishing zones. However, a review of this report by fisheries scientists from the University of British Columbia has slammed the HCEC report and repudiated their claims. Also, in response to the HCEC report, Dr Steve Keneally, chief scientists with NSW DPI (Fisheries) stated ?that no NSW stocks are under threat, nor in imminent danger of collapse. All stocks are being harvested sustainably and constantly monitored by the Fisheries managers.?
DPI Minister Macdonald, in correspondence with AAG, stated that ?NSW marine parks are declared under the principle objective of biodiversity conservation. Marine parks in NSW are not declared as a fisheries management tool nor for the purpose of protecting or enhancing specific fisheries.?
And more recently renowned Australian marine biologist Julian Pepperell has stated that ?There is a need for marine parks ... but we don't need to rush in, which has been the case for many parks. There needs to be more homework?. Dr Pepperell also stated: ?Another argument is that all fish are over-fished and marine parks are a saviour to fishing stocks. Their arguments are spurious. There is little proof this happens. Marine parks protect fish that don't move around like rock cod and grouper. Pelagic fish, which are surface dwellers like tuna, mackerel and marlin, pass through marine parks and are fished on the surface, and have no impact on biodiversity of reef areas.?
So why the haste in the push for marine parks? Especially as Minister Debus states, the aquatic and marine reserves already present in the Hawkesbury bioshelf provides a high degree of conservation of the marine environment, then why not use a similar model along the NSW coast rather than the sanctuary zones associated with marine parks, which are based on an extreme implementation of the precautionary principal rather than any scientific data.
There are currently 6 marine parks along the NSW coast, but how many contain Coalition held seats and how many have Labor seats? The coalition needs to gain 16 seats to win Government. If Labor loses 8 seats we may see independents having the balance of power. Couple this with a previous report in the national press (Sharri Markson 27th July 2006) that confidential Labor party notes show the NSW Greens negotiating preference deals with the ALP over policy issues that include marine parks, it seems the haste of creation, siting and zoning of marine parks are based more on political expediency rather than the protection of the marine environment.
Yours sincerely
Phillip Ingram
President
Anglers Action Group
|
|
|
|
Tarki
Development
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 952
|
|
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2006, 08:47:23 PM » |
|
Gee, I do hope they give it a run, Phil. It summarises the situation perfectly and asks the very pertinent questions. Tarki.
|
|
|
|
|
Tarki
Development
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 952
|
|
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2006, 11:35:38 PM » |
|
Great work CENTRAL COAST ECOFISHERS, Ken. You can stay on top of the issues, by introducing a new marine park topic every now and then in your letters to the Manly Daily. See TWEED ECOFISHERS page, for some clever, scientific ideas. Tarki
|
|
|
|
|
Pi
Development
Jr. Member
Offline
Posts: 57
|
|
« Reply #25 on: October 11, 2006, 07:28:18 AM » |
|
In the Manly Daily, Wednesday October 11 2006, p6
No marine sanctuary, govt says
Andrew Tillet
state parliament reporter
The State Government has moved to reassure fishing groups by ruling out a marine sanctuary that includes the northern beaches for the second time in just over two weeks.
Reports this week suggested the Government was considering establishing a Hawkesbury shelf marine park, which would stretch from Newcastle to Wollongong.
But Primary Industries Minister Ian Macdonald issued a statement yesterday declaring there would was no plan for a Hawkesbury based park.
?I cannot put it any clearer than that,? he said.
The statement echoes Environment Minister Bob Debus who ruled out the creation of a park two weeks ago in Parliament.
The non-government Recreational Fishing Trust was planning to carry out a three-year, $1.2 million study on the possibility of turning it into a marine park but this money is likely to be spent elsewhere now.
While Mr Macdonald said the Hawkesbury park was off the agenda, he defended the creation of marine reserves.
Marine parks have attracted criticism for locking out commercial and recreational anglers but green groups believe parks help aquatic life to recover and thrive.
Mr Macdonald described attacks on the science behind parks as ?uninformed scaremongering?.
He said 161 international marine experts found sanctuary zones had significant benefits, including ?rapid increases in the abundance, richness and productivity of marine organisms?.
?The fact is there are a number of credible scientific papers that have been published in support of marine sanctuaries,? he said.
Pittwater independent MP Alex McTaggart said he was opposed to the creation of a marine park off Sydney?s coastline. He said closing sewerage outfalls would produce greater environmental benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
maniak
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: October 11, 2006, 09:05:59 AM » |
|
Hi Guys,
Isnt it enshrined in federal legislation that ALL bioregions will have a marine park established???. This is the information given to attendees of Port Stephens Pro-Am from MPA reps at the infamous Sept 2005 meeting.The same meeting when we were assured personally by minister Macdonald that the marine park was at least five years away and possibly up to seven years before any moves to implement PS&GL MPA were to be made. It was announced by Devious six weeks later.
Hasn't the process has been started with the Hawkesbury Shelf bioregional assesment.
Devious is backpedalling because of the labour backlash. He is a compulsive liar and thinks less than nothing of dishonest tactics never hesitating to say or do anything that may enhance his self satisfying crusade of Marine Park empire building.
Regards
ManiaK
|
|
|
|
|
Tarki
Development
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 952
|
|
« Reply #27 on: October 11, 2006, 11:39:29 AM » |
|
MANIAK: They are all Labor Liars! The 160 marine scientists, Macdonald refers to is the "Consensus Statement." And all from the Northern Hemisphere! Not one world renown Australian marine scientist put their names to the document. The same document is designed for future Northern Hemisphere marine conservation efforts. Tarki
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tarki
Development
Hero Member
Offline
Posts: 952
|
|
« Reply #29 on: October 11, 2006, 03:43:38 PM » |
|
? KEN, not world renown marine scientists or biologists, mate. Not like Dr David Pollard; nor Dr Stewart Rowlands, or Dr Steve Kennelly, or our friend Dr Julian Pepperell etc, absolute world experts in their marine fields. Then there's Dr Walter Stark etc etc.? Don't forget to tune in and phone in to the Alan Jones Show tomorrow morning 7:10 am on the 2GB network. ECOfishes Ken Thurlow will be representing the state's one million recreational fishers, concerning the governments marine parks.? Tarki.
|
|
|
|
|
|
