Jump to content

Mud now covers 98 per cent of Moreton Bay's floor, choking out plants and animals, UQ researcher finds


Recommended Posts

Somewhat debatable some of the statements.

Weed beds are flourishing in some areas that have not seen weed beds in many decades....between Deception Bay and Scarborough plus Hayes Inlet.

We have had very large flushes in the Pine River numerous times since 2011....2011 saw every worm bed upstream of Deepwater Bend scoured to rock or gravel. Yet the weed beds are thriving in Hayes Inlet.

In the deeper parts of the bay it has been a lot of mud on the bottom from before the 50's when my uncle was operating a prawn trawler. He targeted the mud bottoms for the prawns then.

Yes there is a lot of siltation in the bay but this guy overstates the amounts.

There is more sediment appearing in front of Redcliffe these days....but that was really first noticeable when Fishermans Island was created and we lost directional tide changes north of Margate Beach...resulting in nearly all water movements there being a slow north to south current.

The flats in front of the airport through to Eventide is still the same dirty sand I always remember, no muddier.

North Pine Dam and Wivenhoe Dam catch most of the siltation upstream of their catchments. So really most of the siltation of the bay is coming from below those two dams.

The weed beds between Deception Bay and Bribie are constantly refreshing themselves....yes they do have a bit of die back after a flush but return quickly with new growth in the months afterwards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anything to bring in more climate change BS, I can't trust the "research" done by scientists these days, every result is about getting grants and furthering the agenda.

I miss the days when scientists had to actually defend their findings.

They completely stuffed up darwin harbour with the dredging for the LNG export, but they don't dare research that, or even look into it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can already guess that the blame is going to be put on farmers and the agricultural industry.

As has been previously mentioned the big dam's mitigate the soil run off from farming, but development of flood land to residential areas, and the government's unwillingness to build new dams and other measures to both mitigate large floods and control developed areas run off won't get a mention. Or yearly dredging for the port and pollution from urban areas for that matter.

It's going to be the fault of man made climate change due to industry and the farmers that feed us. It always is, actual proof is never required as long as it fits the narrative.

Things are changing, but we will never understand the real reasons why, not until we remove the politics from science. But as things stand ATM, you don't get funding unless you tell the people providing it exactly what they want to hear.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a science background that is blended with hands on, and I come from a family of teachers. I have not read old mate's entire report,only the bits that were reported in the article above. That means my understanding of his report is limited. @mangajack, @Junky and @Bob9863 all make valid considerations and points. I straight away question limits, definitions and parameters of the study (for which i would need to read the complete report).

Don't get me wrong, I am all for supporting and maintaining aquatic systems for the future. It does seem these days however like it's a little too easy for actual science to be overrun by funded political agenda, which is sad and ultimately disfunctional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm definitely for helping not only the marine ecosystem, but our entire ecosystem in general.

We just can't do that when instead of impartiality looking at the root causes, our experts instead look for easy answers that suit a political agenda rather then the actual cause.

We can't fix things without the most accurate and unbiased information to work with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AUS-BNE-FISHO said:

I know the Brisbane River definitely has 100% mud bottom 😂.

I doubt the Brisbane River will get another absolute gully raker again.

Wivenhoe will moderate the flows effectively so minimal mud is scoured out on the city to port reaches.

The Pine and Cabo get pretty harsh flushes that scour the bottom to gravel or rocks every decade or so.

If you seriously want to help the Brisbane River then de-centralise Qld away from SEQ. Slowing the growth rate of the area will undoubtedly be a benefit for the river and bay.

Just have a look at the population forecasts for your and your surrounding suburbs in the next 30 years....My area will treble in 20 years. I really do not like that thought at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will bet you an eyebrow that the river floods again, they can't stop it without building more dam's, putting in more mitigation measures like flood relief channels ect and even then that will only limit the floods effects.

Mother nature doesn't give a crap what we do or think, be it fire, drought, cyclone or flood, if she wants her way then there's nothing we can do about it.

But we need to decentralised every major city, and not just build out on good farming land, we need to build up central Australia, if you want wind and solar that's the place for a city, if you want room to build, that's the place to do it.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Bob9863 said:

I will bet you an eyebrow that the river floods again, they can't stop it without building more dam's, putting in more mitigation measures like flood relief channels ect and even then that will only limit the floods effects.



It will still flood as always, but at a more controlled rate due to Wivenhoe.

Without Wivenhoe and Somerset I think the Brisbane River would have far less siltation and deep mud areas.

We need the fresh water supply though and the dams do control the flooding speeds and heights by slowing and prolonging the flood water rather than a full torrent that is shorter lived.

I don't understand why in drought years SEQ Water does not permit siltation removal from the dams to increase storage capacity. It is a saleable commodity that some businesses would exploit if given the chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would make sense even to let an approved company remove the silt for free.

Growing up on the farm we used to get fellas out that would remove all the sheep s#!+ out from under the shearing shed, they did the work and got to keep the crap.

Much better deal then crawling around under the shed with a shovel, filling up bags and dragging it out.

Especially when it was next to impossible to sell like that.

I think the same should apply to carp, you should be allowed to catch and sell them for fertiliser ect without any licensing, just for the environmental benefits.

If companies bought them like bottles and cans, then we would have the carp population soon under control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...