Brown’s Coral Sea plan more bad news for fishermen

Greens Leader Bob Brown’s announcement today that he would seek a 100% ban on fishing across nearly one million square kilometres of the Coral Sea was another warning bell for the future of recreational and commercial fishing right around Australia, Senator Ron Boswell said today.

Senator Boswell said Mr Brown had previously announced that the Greens would seek fishing bans across at least 30% of the vast network of marine reserves now being planned around the country.

Carefully chosen closures on anything like that scale would be sufficient to virtually end commercial fishing in Australian waters, and drastically reduce recreational fishing opportunities.

Senator Boswell said the potential for the Greens to achieve a major part of their goals was high if Labor won the federal election on August 21.

“The preference deal recently done between Labor and the Greens virtually assures the Greens the balance of power in the Senate from mid next year,” Senator Boswell said.

“The preference deal was cemented after Environment Minister Peter Garrett went angling for Green preferences using fishermen as bait. He has been pandering to extreme Green sentiment on marine issues, especially in relation to the Coral Sea, for over a year.”

Mr Garrett has conceded that two environmental groups – the U.S. based PEW Foundation and the Australian Conservation Foundation – were the only stakeholders consulted last year before Mr Garrett provided the entire Coral Sea with interim protection using the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. Ocean acidification was the only threat that he specifically identified to justify use of the Act’s interim protection regime. This year he declared the entire zone an area of great interest for longer term protection.

“The Green groups that back the Greens party have now got everything they wanted from Peter Garrett on the Coral Sea, and they will now no doubt seek big closures across the entire marine park network.”

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott has unveiled a Coalition Marine Protected Areas policy that would call a halt to Labor’s processes in order to reinstate wider stakeholder consultation and to ensure science based decisions in the development of marine reserves.

ENDS

____________________________________________________________________________

Moderator. Proud member of the Fishwrecked "Old Farts". Make sure your subscribed to Fishwrecked Reeltime http://fishwrecked-reeltime.com/


Posts: 1072

Date Joined: 30/03/08

Ocean acidification was the

Tue, 2010-08-10 16:04

Ocean acidification was the only threat that he specifically identified to justify use of the Act’s interim protection regime.

 

Amazing isn't it when you consider the rest of the world is in front of Australia on emissions because they have modern Nuclear power.

Now rather than taking on modern technology like the rest of the world Garret and the Green Brown would rather the coal solution which has the equivalent carbon burn of 10 trees which is showing Benzine turning up in water supplies.

So what Bob Brown and Peter Garret do is put a line around a million square kilometres so rather than anglers catch and release fish; Brown and Garrets coal plan poisons the fish via ocean acidification as we watch before our eyes unable to sustainably access the area.

And these people are leaders?  Pure f@$@$@ genius!!!!

____________________________________________________________________________

Angling tourism is worth $10 billion to the Australian economy - 90000 jobs; more than any sport; spread the word

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4290

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Thats because most greenies

Tue, 2010-08-10 16:16

Thats because most greenies base their decisions on ideological reasons, not rational, evidence based reasons Wink.

 

As long as they think they're doing it for the environment, thats all that matters, never mind doing things which are actually best for the environment.

 

As you mentioned, nuclear is a good example. Ok, so they might not like nuclear, but is it worse than coal?

 

 

The reason they want to shut off so many areas is not because they want to preserve stocks (which I am fully for), but because they want to stop people hurting the 'sea kittens'. It wouldnt matter if fish populations were all increasing, they'd still want to ban everyone from fishing (commercial, recreational take, or recreational catch and release).

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

having lived a large portion

Tue, 2010-08-10 16:44

having lived a large portion of my life in a town with a nuke plant, I remember the hesteria when it opened...we where all going to die and have seven fingers and none toes...
now close on 40 years later, not one extra fingered person has arrived around town...lol

Nuke is as safe as you want it to be, but lets put it into perspective.
3 million people a year die of lung and breathing disorders from coal fired power stations and chemical plants in developed countries, god knows how many die of it in china and other places.
How many die from nuke plants??? per year, less than 100 from Chinobal and other incidents. Last year Poland identied that they lost more children to lung issues from pollution than from any other poisening issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_development

a good read on Wikipedia

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4290

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Chernobyl only happened

Tue, 2010-08-10 17:27

Chernobyl only happened because they were idiots and not following proper safety protocols. Stick to procedures and use a modern plant and you're just not going to get a meltdown.

 

Also, keep in mind that coal powered plants output radioactive ash. The effective radioactive dose from living near a coal plant compared to a nuclear plant is 100 times more.

Thats right, its 100 times more radioactive near a coal plant than a nuclear plant!
(source)

Of course, uranium is much more radioactive, but its all contained, not spewed out into the atmosphere. And in the coal case, its not like its deadly levels or anything.

flangies's picture

Posts: 2540

Date Joined: 11/05/08

Uranium may not be spewing

Tue, 2010-08-10 17:36

Uranium may not be spewing out.. But everyone seems to forget what happens to it afterwards and where it is deposited.

hlokk's picture

Posts: 4290

Date Joined: 04/04/08

Storing a few tonnes of

Tue, 2010-08-10 17:59

Storing a few tonnes of spent uranium is a lot better for the environment than spewing out thousands of tonnes of ash and CO2. I'd hardly say its forgotten either, there are tight regulatory controls about where it can go, how its handled, etc, etc, etc. Of course, if you have CO2, go ahead, pump it out, you dont need to do anything about it.

 

Plus, again, it is all the people going "oohh, its nuclear, we'll start glowing and get 6 fingers" and whinge about it being put in the desert where its completely fine.

Of course, these people happily fly everywhere.

Besides, most is low level waste and more safe han other stuff we transport on our roads. link.

People are so scared of anything with the word nuclear or radioactive in it, that they oppose it without actually checking whether it is as dangerous as they expected.

Posts: 9358

Date Joined: 21/02/08

Haha but as they point out

Tue, 2010-08-10 18:07

Haha but as they point out correctly, you can't use a by product of a solar installation to nuke your neighbours.

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday's picture

Posts: 2500

Date Joined: 14/06/07

Hokk I'm with you, Chenobyl

Wed, 2010-08-11 09:08

Hokk I'm with you, Chenobyl was a beaucrat from Moscow over riding system checks and balance to test a pump on the cooling water circuit, there by over riding fail safes and pushing them into deadly steam blow off. Many people don't read the facts before they run off crying nukes are so dangerous quoting Chenobyl.
Rather look at other major chemical spillages like Union Carbide and others and see who many died in those F-ups!

I have worked both uranium mining and concentrations plants, as well as nuclear gas plants, so I have a pretty good idea what goes on and the risks.

I'd still work 20 years in a nuke plant, before I again work on a coal power station, or iron ore smelter & coke ovens plant! Seen more of my staff die in their early 60's & 70's from bodies ravaged by coal and emmissions dust on a Steel works than I'd like to remember.

ps some reading:
http://www.argee.net/DefenseWatch/Chernobyl%20Reality%20and%20Myth.htm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/778477.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

point of interest is the number of accredited deaths:
quote:
Health of plant workers and local people
In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months.[76][77] Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous exposure to the radiation in the smoke was. Whereas, the World Health Organization's report 2006 Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group from the 237 emergency workers who were diagnosed with ARS, ARS was identified as the cause of death for 28 of these people within the first few months after the disaster. There were no further deaths identified in the general population affected by the disaster as being caused by ARS. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non cancer deaths are attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure is 10 or more years, thus at the time of the WHO report being undertaken the rates of solid cancer deaths were no greater than the general population.Some 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from Pripyat.
"

now compare that to India and Union Carbide, where deaths have been estimated as high as over 30,000 in the first year alone! and many covered up by the goverment.

Quote:
A government affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125 injuries: minor - 516,406 (92.5%), temporary partial disablement - 38,478 (6.8%), and severely and permanently disabled - ~3,900 (0.7%). The government's classification was criticized after the deaths of people who were classed as having minor injuries.[5]

Chemicals (~390 tons) abandoned at the plant continue to leak and pollute the groundwater.[6][7][8] Whether the chemicals pose a health hazard is disputed.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster
http://www1.american.edu/ted/bhopal.htm

I'd rather have been near Chenobyl, than Bhopar thank you! ( if you had to choose ...)

____________________________________________________________________________

Tony Halliday: ~Meals on Reels ~

 It takes a strong fish to swim against the current. Even a dead one can float with it

"It is always in season for old men to learn." Aeschylus (525-456 BC)

"In a mad world only the mad are sane." Akira Kurosawa (1910-1998)

cuthbad's picture

Posts: 1266

Date Joined: 22/04/09

I dont think 100% ban for

Tue, 2010-08-10 16:57

I dont think 100% ban for recreational fisherman is actually the proposal.

from: http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/greens-call-for-mining-ban-in-coral-sea-20100810-11xbw.html

"Senator Brown said under the plan, oil and gas extraction would be banned and recreational game fishing would be limited to the western region (near Cairns) of the one million square kilometre park"

Also: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/federal-election/greens-launch-coral-sea-protection-plan-20100810-11xib.html

Greens Queensland senate candidate Larissa Waters said the area also housed some popular recreational fishing spots, which would not be affected by the change.

"What we'd like to see is recreational game fishing continue on the western border of the Coral Sea where most of the fishing happens," she said.



Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15607

Date Joined: 29/11/05

problem

Tue, 2010-08-10 19:46

Problem that I see is how can they patrol it?  You block Australian's from being able to use it and then its plundered by internationals as they realise that it's still pristine.  It really is easy pickings with little security and also presents difficulties with prosecutions.

I'm not against the marine park, as long as there is serious consultation with the stake holders and we as Australian's and owners of this area aren't dissadvantaged and loose out as a result.

____________________________________________________________________________

Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Posts: 59

Date Joined: 02/08/10

Hi everyone You can't

Tue, 2010-08-10 20:44

Hi everyone

You can't support the greens (or labour due to preference deals) in the federal election if you want to protect the fishing stocks for your children (as your children will be banned from fishing)

Having said that - check out the way the State Liberal Party is messing with our "fishing rights" here

Who can we trust?

Adam Gallash's picture

Posts: 15607

Date Joined: 29/11/05

lib or labour

Wed, 2010-08-11 06:54

It wouldn't matter who was in power for the state, its the fisheries department recommending the changes.  Its simply the pollies that have to deliver them, remember Jon Ford was going to implement more severe changes, 6 month bans wasn't it going to be?

____________________________________________________________________________

Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Posts: 59

Date Joined: 02/08/10

I agree that lib and labour

Tue, 2010-08-17 13:57

I agree that lib and labour are effectively the same

but fisheries aren't law makers... they're only advisers (them and those feral uni greenie "researchers")

the powers that be can interpret the info they're given and make appropriate decisions

I do personally prefer the libs though... I just can't trust a party that is in bed with the greenies (alp)

a greenie who isn't a member of peta is a fake - and check peta's stance on fishing - they think we have small rods for wanting to inflict pain on sea kittens via our rods

haha