Jump to content

Enviromentalists Turn Out In Force In Bega


Recommended Posts

G`day Fellas ,

Enviromentalists in the coastal town Of Bega , turned out in their Hundreds protesting against a wood chipping mill in the area on the weekend .

So , how is it , that In a litle coastal Village of less than 5,000 , approximately 300+ or More People turned out to protest against a "woodchip Mill" , BUT good old Sydney , with a population Of 4 MILLION , could only muster 60 odd people to turn up for a protest At the Sydney Town Hall against the closures of Vast Areas of the Coastline which were about to become Marine Parks .

Just goes to show does it not , that one never knows what one had , till it was gone .

Mick

Edited by OWZAT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest madsmc

Not surprising really. The greenies are very well organised, but then again, they've been doing the protest thing for years so it's to be expected that they run like a well oiled machine.

I didn't attend the protest at the Town Hall as I didn't know it was on until fairly late in the piece, and as a result had other things planned for me that I couldn't get out of ( :wife:). It's not like I've been standing idly by though, I have collected quite a few signatures on the ECO Fishers petitions and sent them off, as well as the usual emails and letters to the pollies concerned.

Of course, I will be part of the greatest protest of all, and that is by voting Liberal at the next state election.

I would consider attending a protest rally if another one is organised, as long as there is a bit of notice so I can get myself organised to make the drive down from Newcastle.

How do you think the rally went Mick? Did you feel a bit underwhelmed that you were there with only 60 odd other protesters?

Shane

:1fishing1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G`day Fellas ,

Shane , I`m up on the mid North Coast mate , so I wasn`t ever going to be there in Sydney , but I had intended to attend the rally at Forster , but that fell through as well , although it appears just as well , because Our local Activist turned up and no one showed .

But this Rally at Bega was not down to the greenies , rather it was reported as being the locals , trying to stop a wood chip mill.

Marvellous how a bit of self interest can get the juices flowing , look at the Polls released today showing Beasly ahead of Howard for the Ist time in 3 Years , and why is that ?.

It`s because John Citizen , has finaly realised that Howards new IR policies have begun stripping their working entitlements , and when its your own pocket that is being picked , you soon sit up and take Notice ,as the polls now show.

But he wont be around to take the Blame , because he`ll be gone By The end Of August , and thats why Cozzie is So animated Lately , coz he`s got the Nod.

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think chopping down forests is definately alot bigger issues than banning recreational fishing in small areas, thats why so many turn up for those things.

I personally didnt go to town hall because the marine parks dont bother me at all, I know alot of people disagree with this, but i think its a good idea. There is plenty of water on the earth to share between the greenies and the fisho's and i personally wont miss fishing where these marine parks are going. There are plenty of other places to wet a line, so im not really fussed...

Just my two cents, good luck with the rallies/protests :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think it is great that fisho's like yourselves wish to stop these marine parks but i don't think the section "Fishing Chat" is the right place for politics. When i see strong political views like the above it definately takes away from what i think makes this site great. Simple fisho's who love fishing and talking about fishing.

Thats my 2 cents worth

Edited by netic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think chopping down forests is definately alot bigger issues than banning recreational fishing in small areas, thats why so many turn up for those things.

I personally didnt go to town hall because the marine parks dont bother me at all, I know alot of people disagree with this, but i think its a good idea. There is plenty of water on the earth to share between the greenies and the fisho's and i personally wont miss fishing where these marine parks are going. There are plenty of other places to wet a line, so im not really fussed...

Just my two cents, good luck with the rallies/protests :thumbup:

yeah locking up coastal areas where the towns that occupy them rely on fishing tourism to stay alive is a tops idea.

Just because it doesnt directly effect you doesnt mean it wont have an effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gibbofisho, what town relies on fishing tourism to keep it alive? and how is this marine park going to affect it? I am from a small coastal town, i am unaware of any town primarily funded by fishing tourism, please elaborate...

My point is its such a small part of the waters we have to go fishing, let the greenies have the little marine park and we can have the rest of australia!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seal rocks springs to mind firstly, there are plenty others, i know i wont visit there anymore, now that the pinacle will be off limits and sawtooth and seal rocks itself due to cocked up research regarding the grey nurse shark population. There's not much there except for a few shops and a camping ground. Not for much longer though.

What fisho's are up in arms about is not nescesarily the loss of top fishing spots, but the lack of reputable research done. Anyone can clearly see its a desperate grab to get cheap green votes from the likes of self righteous sydney green voters that like to feel they are doing the right thing, without knowing the massive impact they are going to have on the large number of small fishing villages along the coast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest madsmc

I didn't start this thread, but I'm happy to see any of the mods move it to the Fisheries New and Politics section.

As for not posting political views (re: Marine Parks) on this forum, I MAKE NO APOLOGIES, and will continue to do so within the rules of this forum. The proposed Marine Parks will have a direct and/or indirect effect on everyone that uses this forum, and I for one refuse to stick my head in the sand on this issue.

This is a fishing forum, where issues relating to fishing can be discussed openly. Marine Parks are an issue that relates directly to recreational fishing and should be discussed here. If anyone isn't interested in protecting their right to fish where they want, then don't read the political threads. Simple.

Shane

:1fishing1:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah locking up coastal areas where the towns that occupy them rely on fishing tourism to stay alive is a tops idea.

Just because it doesnt directly effect you doesnt mean it wont have an effect.

mate its nothing to do with that, i dont want to hear political views when i am hear to read about my hobby and something i love which is fishing.

Quote

"Marvellous how a bit of self interest can get the juices flowing , look at the Polls released today showing Beasly ahead of Howard for the Ist time in 3 Years , and why is that ?."

Quote

"But he wont be around to take the Blame , because he`ll be gone By The end Of August , and thats why Cozzie is So animated Lately , coz he`s got the Nod."

If i want to hear politics i will watch a political show and if you want to discuss politics there is a section called Fisheries News & Politics created for it, not the fishing chat section.

The reason why this thread was placed here is because not as many people will read it in the political section because the majority of people just want to discuss fishing and not politics.

I know you guys are passionate about these issues and you all have the right to be passionate, its what makes this country great, and it shows how diverse we all are as members of this site, I presumed thats why Ken has created different sections of this site to appeal to all personalities and fishing types.

so use the relevant section, and people who wish to read political views will and those of us who dont will not click into that section.

MADSMC

Mate i am not having a go at you and please dont't think i am, i have a great deal of respect for you as i can see how much you contribute to this site and also remember your support during the jewknob incident where i revealed jew spots.

But i am at times forced to hear and listen to politics, marine parks are now a fact of life, i hate taxes but i have to pay them, some people hate marine parks ut they are now a fact of life.

And your comment "If anyone isn't interested in protecting their right to fish where they want, then don't read the political threads. Simple." is my point exactly. and thats why it shouldnt have been placed in here, I never enter the politics section and that is my choice, but people are reading this like me who never would have read it if we knew it was about politics.

Edited by netic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seal rocks springs to mind firstly, there are plenty others, i know i wont visit there anymore, now that the pinacle will be off limits and sawtooth and seal rocks itself due to cocked up research regarding the grey nurse shark population. There's not much there except for a few shops and a camping ground. Not for much longer though.

What fisho's are up in arms about is not nescesarily the loss of top fishing spots, but the lack of reputable research done. Anyone can clearly see its a desperate grab to get cheap green votes from the likes of self righteous sydney green voters that like to feel they are doing the right thing, without knowing the massive impact they are going to have on the large number of small fishing villages along the coast.

What makes you think the research is not reputable? What if it is the facts, what we are stuffing up the enviroment in these particular areas?

I dont think any coastal town is going to see a large income impact from these marine parks being set up, i think the majority of tourists that go to seal rocks and other small coastal towns dont actually fish at all.

(Im not trying to put wind up anybody here, just want a better understanding of what other people think about the affects of marine parks, so no hard feelings and i respects everbodys opinions :biggrin2: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seal rocks springs to mind firstly, there are plenty others, i know i wont visit there anymore, now that the pinacle will be off limits and sawtooth and seal rocks itself due to cocked up research regarding the grey nurse shark population. There's not much there except for a few shops and a camping ground. Not for much longer though.

What fisho's are up in arms about is not nescesarily the loss of top fishing spots, but the lack of reputable research done. Anyone can clearly see its a desperate grab to get cheap green votes from the likes of self righteous sydney green voters that like to feel they are doing the right thing, without knowing the massive impact they are going to have on the large number of small fishing villages along the coast.

Gibbo what about the Sydney commercial fishos that lost their livelyhoods, i didnt hear any of us complaining, we all thought "hey great more fish for us".

and wetting lines is right how many tourists actually fish, not many i'd say, most people go to those coastal towns to relax and enjoy the beach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What makes you think the research is not reputable? What if it is the facts, what we are stuffing up the enviroment in these particular areas?

I dont think any coastal town is going to see a large income impact from these marine parks being set up, i think the majority of tourists that go to seal rocks and other small coastal towns dont actually fish at all.

(Im not trying to put wind up anybody here, just want a better understanding of what other people think about the affects of marine parks, so no hard feelings and i respects everbodys opinions :biggrin2: )

Mate i used seal rocks as an example as i know the bloke who runs the camping ground there, he's petrified about having to return to sydney for work once he goes out of business, lol.

As for the research, the studies that have been used for the draft zoning for the parks has been locked up and is not allowable to be cross examined by independant researchers, smells fishy to me!

I'll give you a rundown of something a fellow spearfisher sent to me;

The scientific evidence about GNS is under lock and key... definitely not available to be studied by us or any non-government people ... Then when the parks are fully established... it is illegal to conduct any research in them. Actually you will also not be able to take photos without written permission. So if you do have a day out at Big Sealies where there are over a hundred GNS in the one spot... and it has happened. You will not be able to take a pic of it... or study/research it in any way. How is that for sewing up our options.

The Spill Over Scam

We are being sold on the fact that sanctuary zones create a spill over of big fish into the outlying or inbetween zones. I was chatting with Bob McCombe the other day, who has studied this area of park management. He filled in the gaps for me about this. It is really quite logical and it is demonstrated clearly in the Shelly Beach Sanctuary Zone:

--> The big fish stay in the area as there is the biomass to support them. Plenty to eat, why should they move on

--> As the population of fish increase it is not the big fish that spill out into the outlying areas... it is the juveniles who are forced out by the mature fish

--> check out Shelly Beach, the snapper, bream are big and we are often seeing 2 -3 kg spangles there. But round the corner towards Bluefish Point you are very lucky to see a spangly let a lone a big one. The other fish are a few sizes smaller and we don't see the whalers that are prevalent in the bay.

--> We know that it doen't work despite convincing arguments, we see it with our own eyes. It will blow your mind if you are not used to it. The fish life in Shelly is something else... and they are not over spilling into surrounding areas.

The majority of the greenies will not even be out there looking at it. They will sit in their lounges warmed by coal fired electricity, eating tuna salads, wearing their sweatshop constructed Nikes dreaming of a natural world where man doesn't interfere... actually where he doesn't exist.

Gibbo what about the Sydney commercial fishos that lost their livelyhoods, i didnt hear any of us complaining, we all thought "hey great more fish for us".

and wetting lines is right how many tourists actually fish, not many i'd say, most people go to those coastal towns to relax and enjoy the beach.

Unfortunatly wettinglines is wrong, i'll hunt down the stats when i have more time, but Coastal towns like Naroona rely on fishing tourism, check out any of their pamphlets, you'll see a dirty great big kingfish on the front page.

And as for commercial fisho's, sure they had a liveleyhood, but if any of them were too naive to see the end of their profession coming round when they were killing it in the 90's, its their own stupid fault for not divesting their fortunes into something more viable on a long term scale, never was it going to be sustainable. And they put ridiculous amounts of pressure on fish stocks. Just look at Botany bay, you can catch nearly anything in that waterway nowaday's, 5 years ago was a different story however. I have little sympathy for pro fisho's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mate i used seal rocks as an example as i know the bloke who runs the camping ground there, he's petrified about having to return to sydney for work once he goes out of business, lol.

As for the research, the studies that have been used for the draft zoning for the parks has been locked up and is not allowable to be cross examined by independant researchers, smells fishy to me!

I'll give you a rundown of something a fellow spearfisher sent to me;

The scientific evidence about GNS is under lock and key... definitely not available to be studied by us or any non-government people ... Then when the parks are fully established... it is illegal to conduct any research in them. Actually you will also not be able to take photos without written permission. So if you do have a day out at Big Sealies where there are over a hundred GNS in the one spot... and it has happened. You will not be able to take a pic of it... or study/research it in any way. How is that for sewing up our options.

The Spill Over Scam

We are being sold on the fact that sanctuary zones create a spill over of big fish into the outlying or inbetween zones. I was chatting with Bob McCombe the other day, who has studied this area of park management. He filled in the gaps for me about this. It is really quite logical and it is demonstrated clearly in the Shelly Beach Sanctuary Zone:

--> The big fish stay in the area as there is the biomass to support them. Plenty to eat, why should they move on

--> As the population of fish increase it is not the big fish that spill out into the outlying areas... it is the juveniles who are forced out by the mature fish

--> check out Shelly Beach, the snapper, bream are big and we are often seeing 2 -3 kg spangles there. But round the corner towards Bluefish Point you are very lucky to see a spangly let a lone a big one. The other fish are a few sizes smaller and we don't see the whalers that are prevalent in the bay.

--> We know that it doen't work despite convincing arguments, we see it with our own eyes. It will blow your mind if you are not used to it. The fish life in Shelly is something else... and they are not over spilling into surrounding areas.

The majority of the greenies will not even be out there looking at it. They will sit in their lounges warmed by coal fired electricity, eating tuna salads, wearing their sweatshop constructed Nikes dreaming of a natural world where man doesn't interfere... actually where he doesn't exist.

Unfortunatly wettinglines is wrong, i'll hunt down the stats when i have more time, but Coastal towns like Naroona rely on fishing tourism, check out any of their pamphlets, you'll see a dirty great big kingfish on the front page.

And as for commercial fisho's, sure they had a liveleyhood, but if any of them were too naive to see the end of their profession coming round when they were killing it in the 90's, its their own stupid fault for not divesting their fortunes into something more viable on a long term scale, never was it going to be sustainable. And they put ridiculous amounts of pressure on fish stocks. Just look at Botany bay, you can catch nearly anything in that waterway nowaday's, 5 years ago was a different story however. I have little sympathy for pro fisho's.

mate i dont have much sympathy for them aswell as they have raped my fav waterway pittwater, but what about there families, their children. You cant have double standards mate. Unfortunately the world is so that things change, and with change there is always a group that benefits and a group that doesn't.

In regards to the comm fishod we as rec fishos benefitted, in the way of marine parks we as rec fishos lose out, I fish jervis bay atleast 10 times a year and hate the marine parks they have put in place there but i have no choice to respect them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No double standards mate, Comm fisho's have had the opportunity to get out of their ever dying business and invest in something more viable and dare i use the term 'green'. Rec fisho's are being barged out of our recreation with no say, yet we are still paying licence fees?

You do have a choice, protest or chuck the blinkers on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Aron

I have heard that the greens want all waters adjoining national parks fishing free zones, which includes part of the Hawksbury-cowan creek etc.

And its not just the greens we have to worry about, for those Snapper fishermen Optus want to ban anchoring near its underwater cabling to new Zealand - from near Newport outwards on a V towards the south east, taking away a major proportion of Sydney snapper grounds.

Plus the animal liberationist who want to ban line fishing.

Edited by Aron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wetingaline,

The professionals who are bought out are well compensated and many of them are happy to take the money. They can always buy a license in another fishery if they wish to stay in the industry. Not so for the businesses affected indirectly by Marine Parks. The Qld government is being sued for 90 million dollars for damage to businesses in coatal towns due to the great Barrier Reef Marine Park.

As to your comment "let the greenies have their little park" are you really just trying to wind people up? In places like Byron Bay fishing is banned in virtually every inshore reef and the Byron Bay park is said to be the model for all new parks. People have bought boats and houses in these coastal towns with a view to fishing in their retirement. How do think they feel about these marine parks. Also note that the National Parks Association has a target of 20% lock out zones for all coatal waters in NSW.

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wettingaline

i found those stats i was talking about, it was in the letter to the premier from Bruce Schumacher, Chair, Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing.

May I remind you that more than 1,000,000 people recreationally fish in NSW each year, and conservatively expend more than $500,000,000 directly on their sport. A recent study showed that recreational fishing generated regional economic benefits of more than $36 million in Port Macquarie and $34 million in Narooma and Bermagui alone per year. Restricting access to fishable waters to the degree proposed by the Sanctuary Zones within Marine Parks will lead to many people giving up fishing as a lost cause and will have profound social and economic consequences for regional NSW. The resulting economic impact on the services and industries that support the angling community will be disastrous. This is especially true for small coastal towns where good recreational fishing opportunities are what attracted most people there in the first place and are essential for tourism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

" People giving up fishing as a lost cause".

This is what the greens want. It will be death by a thousand cuts. Aside from 20% sanctuary zones the NCC (one of the main groups pushing for Marine Parks) have these polices on angling:

- Substantial license fees

- Bag limit of one fish per day

- Oppose the creation of recreational fishing havens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G`day Fellas ,

Well Put Gibbo and Billfisher.

My original post , ( although branded political ) was trying to point to the fact that most rec fishos have become Lazy , and as such , have just snoozed away whilst the the Gov has launched all these Marine Parks regardless of the consequences to all concerned .

And as Pointed out ( using the latest polling Figures ) was the case with the NEW Fed IR Laws , most people mistakenly believed that it did not affect them personally , so who cared ?.

SO , only when the full consequences of the changes became apparent , and it was going to affect them big time , did the working masses begin to stir , so it is with these Marine Parks .

These parks are the Ist of many steps of a long march for the greenies , and they must be stopped , and its up to us all , to do something .

But I am now able to report , that after a Total Of 14 Odd letters sent to Various Ministers over the last month or so , some hand written , some emailed , I have finally had one reply , and that was not from the Relevant Minister , but form another of the cabinet , and from his secretary acknowledging my concerns .

Fellas , this sort of Arrogance will surely be rewarded soon.

Mick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The greens want to eliminate angling as a source of food, yet health authoratories recommend we eat fish at least twice a week. There was a doco recently on SBS regarding omega 3 fatty acids in the diet - of which fish is the major source. They found that high intake of omega 3 greatly reduces the incidence of heart disease and stroke. It also promotes better brain developement and function. Countries with high level of fish in the diet have greater life expectancy, lower level of depression and lower homicide rates. There was one case study where a man with severe depression which had resisted conventional treatment was put on a high omega 3 diet and not only was his depression cured his brain actually increased in size!

Perhaps this is why the greens are so stupid, they live on a diet of beans and lentles and don't have there senses sharpened by interacting with the environment the way we fisherman do!

Edited by billfisher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...