Dave Nugget Downie's thoughts

[ellicat]

Dave Downie, who many will know as Nugget, has given me permission to reproduce this article here.

It's a bit more info for the interested members (be they for/against/fence sitters).

It's very late in the struggle against oppression and deceptive and misleading conduct by the EPA and QGovt, so I hope it can inspire some last minute energy and action.

Thanks to Nugget for the permission.

By Nugget - Dec 2007

My thoughts on the proposed zoning of Moreton Bay

This has never been about fishing - anglers are just the pawn in a political chess match. Look at the logic (read that as excuses) behind the closures.

The Bay is over fished:

Moreton Bay's fish stocks are not in any danger - professional catch records clearly show no decline in the past 10 years. Yes there was a problem prior to that - just too many pro fishos but that problem was rectified.

If they were seriously concerned about overfishing we would have seen bag and possession limits on inshore finfish introduced when they were fist suggested by Tom Burns in the early 1990s. We (the fishos) have been pushing for these bag and size limits for a long time - it is the authorities that have been holding back on their introduction - if they were seriously concerned they would have done something long ago.

The dugong and turtles need protecting:

There's not one proposed closure in the draft plan that is aimed at turtle or dugong protection. Preventing fishing in areas does not prevent ‘boat strike' which EPA claims is their claimed worst enemy.

Protecting the environment:

This is laughable. The EPA's web site states one of the biggest environmental threats to Moreton Bay is pollution.

Last year submissions were called for and grants were awarded for projects that would improve Moreton Bay and its foreshores.

One of the few submissions rejected was a simple plan (costing a pittance, not tens of thousands) to pick up rubbish around the Bayside foreshores.

EPA's web site also states that silt from urban run off and dredging is another problem for the Bay.

It was the EPA that approved dredging millions of tonnes of sand from Middle Bank for the Airport parallel runway extension. It is the EPA that approved the mining of one of the last rainforest habitats in the Bay district at Mt Cotton - millions of tonnes of gravel extracted that will decimate the environment.

No this has never been about protecting fish, the environment or anything else.

The reason we are presented with these closures is because a small minority group funded by extremist anti fishing association lobbied the Greens who in turn did a deal for preferential votes at the last election.

"We (the Greens) will give you (Labor) our preference votes if you bring in these closures."

This is the most important part of this post...

The only thing politicians care about is bad publicity, mass disagreement from voters.

Mr Rudd does not want unrest, bad publicity, strikes, parades, and end up on the front page of newspapers and Tv seen in a negative light.

Anna Bligh does not want bad publicity, strikes, parades, and end up on the front page of newspapers and Tv.

If you do not agree with these closures then yell your loudest, attend every rally you can, write to your local member - make as much noise as you can.

[kriso]

well said i say!

[benno573]

As usual, Nugget is bang on the money.

The biggest problem of the whole thing comes under the category of political bullsh!t. No-one listens to the people who actually know what they are talking about and the government as usual has paid some clown to produce the results the government wants. i think 99% of fishos support tougher restrictions on bag limits and sizes, which, if the greenies are concerned about fish stocks, will have amuch more positive effect overall. The government need to pull its head out of the green's nether regions and listen to the people for a change, if not (and if we have an opposition) they may well find themselves out of a job.