Green Wars

[Mondo Rock]

The local fishing community was naturally fearful about the project - but what evidence is there that the fears were founded?

No evidence at all - although since the mill hasn't actually been built yet it's probably a bit early to be calling for proof that it has adversely affected the marine environment around it. Here's hoping that you're right though and it is able to run without emitting damaging pollution - Turnbull has, after all, apparently placed 48 strict conditions on its operation.

You might, however, want to think about how many of those conditions would have made it through without pressure from the Greens.

We need jobs to go to support our hobby - not to mention our families. A lot of us would be described as blue collar workers. The Greens would be happy to see an end to (or at least severly restrict) a lot of the industries which provide our jobs, eg coal mining, forestry, farming etc. A lot of us work in the private sector too - the Green's economic policies have been described by those who should know as economic vandalism.

No argument from me there billfisher - the Greens have a decidedly anti-industry slant to many of their policies.

But we're sort of veering off into a completely different topic now, aren't we? It's a bit hard to see how your objection to marine parks, and simultaneous defence of the coal mining, forestry and farming industries (which between them have devastated much or our marine environment), is consistent with a desire to protect and conserve Australia's recreational fishing stocks. In fact it seems somewhat more closely aligned with a desire to pursue individual and industrial interests at the expense of our recreational fishing stocks.

Billfisher, I think you've made it pretty clear that your opposition to the Greens stems from significantly more than just their behaviour in relation to recreational fishing. It's not entirely honest of you to use this forum as a platform to pursue a much wider ideological opposition to a political party.

But I reserve the right to scream bloody murder when the very people we pay handsomely to represent our interests ride roughshod over them WITHOUT valid evidence at the behest of a lobby group which at present can only be considered inimical to our interests.

And I absolutely support you in that right Dave! I too, was very unhappy with the lack of consultation and valid scientific theory that went into the marine parks.

But we don't have to like everything the Greens do to realise the potential benefits of working with them when our interests do coincide. It's everyone's personal decision how much 'weight' they give to each issue, and therefore how they will use their vote come election time, but personally I put a lot of weight in the preservation of our fish stocks.

Then ask yourself,what about if one of these parks impacts on me.Won't I want to be sure the restrictions on me and future fishos at least have a scientifically validated foundation?

They do impact me Dave.

I basically grew up at a holiday house in Bawley Point and some of my favourite fishing grounds fall within the BB marine park. Fortunately, though, the sanctuary zones only cover a small area and I am still easily able to wet a line whenever I want in some extremely productive areas.

[Guest]

Keep the personal attacks out of this debate please and we will let it run its course.

Cheers Stewy.

That would be telling Billfisher ,

It's not entirely honest of you to use this forum as a platform to pursue a much wider ideological opposition to a political party.

You get my drift

debate away!!!

[davebrewer]

.

They do impact me Dave.

I basically grew up at a holiday house in Bawley Point and some of my favourite fishing grounds fall within the BB marine park. Fortunately, though, the sanctuary zones only cover a small area and I am still easily able to wet a line whenever I want in some extremely productive areas.

Then don't you care if the lockouts have a valid basis?Or are you suggesting it's in our interests to cop whatever the government of the day feels like throwing at us without question?Your seeming acquiesence would carry more weight if you actually lived in an affected area.I think we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on ths issue,Mondo.It's been diverting,to say the least.

Cheers,

dave.

[pjbink]

No evidence at all - although since the mill hasn't actually been built yet it's probably a bit early to be calling for proof that it has adversely affected the marine environment around it. Here's hoping that you're right though and it is able to run without emitting damaging pollution - Turnbull has, after all, apparently placed 48 strict conditions on its operation.

You might, however, want to think about how many of those conditions would have made it through without pressure from the Greens.

No argument from me there billfisher - the Greens have a decidedly anti-industry slant to many of their policies.

But we're sort of veering off into a completely different topic now, aren't we? It's a bit hard to see how your objection to marine parks, and simultaneous defence of the coal mining, forestry and farming industries (which between them have devastated much or our marine environment), is consistent with a desire to protect and conserve Australia's recreational fishing stocks. In fact it seems somewhat more closely aligned with a desire to pursue individual and industrial interests at the expense of our recreational fishing stocks.

No Mondo, you made the link between an industry proposal and the marine environment and fishing, don't blame me for expanding on it. Your zero sum equation doesn't add up. These industries meet the needs of society (including the 20% who wet a line). Coal mining and forestry generally do not have any effect on the marine environment in our country. Agriculture can have some effect on our coastal rivers through run-off and flood mitigation strategies, but I wouldn't call it devasting. Work is being done to reduce these effects.

Concern for the environment is mainstream now. All sides of politics must pay homage to it. The Green's are only self appointed saviours of the environment and by no means always have the best policies.

Billfisher, I think you've made it pretty clear that your opposition to the Greens stems from significantly more than just their behaviour in relation to recreational fishing. It's not entirely honest of you to use this forum as a platform to pursue a much wider ideological opposition to a political party.

For someone who claims not to be a Greens member or supporter you sure sound like one. Yes I'm part of the 92% of voters who don't vote Green. The 8% who do vote Green do so safe in the knowledge that they are not likely to form a government and be in a position to actually impliment their policies. They are more a protest party than an alternative government.

But we don't have to like everything the Greens do to realise the potential benefits of working with them when our interests do coincide. It's everyone's personal decision how much 'weight' they give to each issue, and therefore how they will use their vote come election time, but personally I put a lot of weight in the preservation of our fish stocks.

What does 'working with' the Greens actually mean? Preference deals? Voting for them? Do you mean the Greens Party or environmental groups like the NCC or NPA?

Why do you chose the word 'preservation' with regards to fish stocks. This implies extreme green ideology and the associated lock outs we are facing with marine parks. I would think as fishermen we should be favouring conservation rahter than preservation. Ie sustainably using the resource.

[Penguin]

Come to think of it Penguin when those greenie blokes had a few puffs my eyes started to water and when they walked off they wobbled so much it looked like they were riding a cow.

Cheers

jewgaffer

Cracked me up.