Australia Plans More Protections For The Great Barrier Reef

[Kalkbreath]

Because no one has ever demonstrated how this would help the reefs.......or how current sport and commercial fishing {sportfishing is part of the commercial industry}..

."There are concerns that over-fishing has depleted the reef of marine life, threatening its delicate eco-balance".[END....Having concerns, does not equal scientific findings!....there is no food fishing taking place from within the coral reefs themselves {this has been banned for years} The only documented activities that are currently effecting the health of the reefs..... is runoff......and nothing has ever been done to curb this .............instead the Government continues to offer feel good measures instead of real change...........Like a cheating husband giving his wife a bunch of flowers to make her FEEL better ........al the while he continues to bump and grind with another woman..................it doesn't do any good to save the reef from remote possible threats ......while not addressing the obvious imminent threat to the well being of the reef.....[QUOTE}.There are other factors that damage the reef - global warming, which is believed to be to blame for coral bleaching, and chemical run-offs from cattle grazing, sugarcane growing and urban development. [END} Most of the 1billion in dollars generated yearly from the GBR... IS FISHING related!
How many cattle does one neeed to raise in order to raise 1 billion dollars? By forcing the fishing industry to find other incomes, And keep in mind the land based agriculture industry is the only other income stream in that area that can replace those kinds of numbers {$1,000,000,000.} And one billion dollars more output in cattle or suggar cane plowed fields is going to mean a lot more runoff......which inturn will effect the health of the reefs far greater then the hooking of sportfish as entertainment...... :wink:

 

[blue hula]

Then tell me what species of REEF FISH are collected commercially for food fish in Australia ?.......

The following is a quotation from the Queensland Department of Primary Industry's website (they are responsible for fisheries management in the State ... including the Great Barrier Reef) - www.dpi.qld.gov.au

"The Coral Reef Fin Fish Fishery comprises demersal (bottom dwelling) species of cods, tropical snappers, wrasses and sweetlips including principal species such as coral trout, red emperor and red throat emperor.

Emerging trends in the fishery’s commercial sector show a significant increase in total commercial catch and effort and a gradual decline in the catch rates of target species. Due to these increases in commercial catch and effort levels, action was needed to ensure the fishery and its key stocks such as coral trout were used sustainably. The new Management Plan deals directly with excess fishing capacity through a catch quota management scheme intended to reduce and cap the commercial harvest at 3061 tonnes down from catches in 2002 of 4500 tonnes."

So apparently there are reef fish caught commercially as food fish on the Great Barrier Reef ...

My guess is that the reason the commercial oeprators are upset about the extension of no-take areas is because .... there will be less area to fish.

Blue hula

 

[blue hula]

Because no one has ever demonstrated how this would help the reefs.......or how current sport and commercial fishing {sportfishing is part of the commercial industry}.."There are concerns that over-fishing has depleted the reef of marine life, threatening its delicate eco-balance"..Having concerns, does not equal scientific findings!....there is no food fishing taking place from within the coral reefs themselves {this has been banned for years}

First of all, there is commercial food fishing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for a range of reef species. In fact, a major concern is the impacts of commercial fishing on coral trout populations. See the websites of the Department of Primary Industry (www.dpi.qld.gov.au) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (www.aims.gov.au) for more information on this.

Second - you are claiming that no one has demonstrated how establishing no-take areas helps reefs or that fishing has an impact on reef fish populations ?

Wow

In a review of 80 scientific studies from no-take areas around the world (Halpern 2002, 2003), it was clearly demonstrated that biomass and abundance were approximately 2 x higher in no take areas than in fished areas and that size and diversity also went up significantly (20-30%). The fact that unexploitated populations are very different from exploitated populations suggests that fishing does have an affect on fish populations.

Moreover, in Florida, record size game fish are 7 x more common in areas adjacent to marine parks than in other areas where no marine parks are established. Again, this suggests that fishing (and hte absence of it) has an impact on fish populations.

There is also increasing evidence that fishing changes ecosystem structure i.e. the habitat composition. This has been demonstrated in Western Australia (Westera 2003), Jamaica, Kenya (McClanahan), the Philippines etc.

Think of ecosystem structure along the lines of that old song - "the shiin bone's connected to the knee bone .. the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone" ... you start mucking around with one set of species it has impacts on others, including corals and algae.

The only documented activities that are currently effecting the health of the reefs..... is runoff......and nothing has ever been done to curb this .............

In the Great Barrier Reef, you are right Kalk, it is a concern but primarily on the inner reef. There is also a fair bit of discussion that the effects of runoff are greater in areas where fish populations have been diminished due to overexploitation (www.aims.gov.au). All of these factors are interrelated and it is one reason why marine parks are established - so that there can be better OVERALL management of a range of human activities that affect reefs (including fishing).

Most of the 1billion in dollars generated yearly from the GBR... IS FISHING related!
How many cattle does one neeed to raise in order to raise 1 billion dollars? By forcing the fishing industry to find other incomes, And keep in mind the land based agriculture industry is the only other income stream in that area that can replace those kinds of numbers {$1,000,000,000.} And one billion dollars more output in cattle or suggar cane plowed fields is going to mean a lot more runoff......which inturn will effect the health of the reefs far greater then the hooking of sportfish as entertainment...... :wink:

It is actually tourism - some of which is fishing related and some of which is diving and non-extractive activities. Do you know how it breaks down Kalk?

My guess is that individuals displaced from fishing are more likely to get involved in the still growing marine tourism industry rather than buying land and becoming a farmer ....

Cheers,
Blue hula

 

[PeterIMA]

Kalk, I see that Blue Hula has effectively replied to your false assertions (there is no commercial fishing on the GBR). I agree with Mike Kirda that you continue to make false assertions even after they have been negated by those posting replies. For example, we had a long thread about the Frank Lallo mortality study, but you continue to attack it, after being corrected by Frank and myself. Likewise, you continue to argue that only a few hundred fish per kilometer square are removed from Philippine reefs by cyanide fishermen collecting marine fish for the aquarium trade. What about my reply that finally stopped you on the previous thread? By your own extrapolation using information I provided, you calculated that 80 million fish were killed to allow the export of 3 million fish per year from the Philippines. Where is your reply to that?

Peter Rubec

 

[clarionreef]

FINALLY THE BANS BEGINS....
Was it on fisheries deemed unsustainable? no.
Was it on illegally imported cyanide fish? no.
In all their wisdom, our state has seen fit to step in a put a stop to our POTENTIAL trade in glo-fish.
KALK...GO GET EM. THIS IS YOUR CHANCE...THIS IS YOUR CALLING...
Give Mike and Peter a break and don't waylay them into fruitless arguing for recreation and fun. You know they can't resist as you bait them. Things are going to happen soon and if they spend all their time fighting w/ you...the proxy boogie man, they'll miss the real thing.
Numbskull over regulators of GLO-FISH KALK. Get em! I'll support all you say...in advance... Its good sport and won't burn out the troops on trivial pursuit.
Sincerely, Steve
Finally reform gets real! And look how quickly it happened. PIJAC and MAC...WHERE WERE YOU???
PS. Anyone want to FED-EX me some good glo-fish to circumvent the "import" ban?
PS #2... Now do we get glo-fish inspections at the Arizona border?
ie. "Whatcha got in the plastic bag there buddy? Wouldn't be red glow zebra danios would it?"

 

[Kalkbreath]

Then tell me what species of REEF FISH are collected commercially for food fish in Australia ?.......

The following is a quotation from the Queensland Department of Primary Industry's website (they are responsible for fisheries management in the State ... including the Great Barrier Reef) - www.dpi.qld.gov.au

"The Coral Reef Fin Fish Fishery comprises demersal (bottom dwelling) species of cods, tropical snappers, wrasses and sweetlips including principal species such as coral trout, red emperor and red throat emperor.

Emerging trends in the fishery’s commercial sector show a significant increase in total commercial catch and effort and a gradual decline in the catch rates of target species. Due to these increases in commercial catch and effort levels, action was needed to ensure the fishery and its key stocks such as coral trout were used sustainably. The new Management Plan deals directly with excess fishing capacity through a catch quota management scheme intended to reduce and cap the commercial harvest at 3061 tonnes down from catches in 2002 of 4500 tonnes."

So apparently there are reef fish caught commercially as food fish on the Great Barrier Reef ...

My guess is that the reason the commercial oeprators are upset about the extension of no-take areas is because .... there will be less area to fish.

Blue hula

I still did not see anything linking grouper or codfishing to reef decline ........infact a read the whole report and did not see the coral reef mentioned.......There is no link between reef fish populations and cod ,trout of grouper collection..{YES i know codfish and snapper are considered reef fish .....but im speaking of the OTHER 1000 species of reef fish that make the reef exclusively their home.}...in fact the science shows that removing those predators results in More reef fish because less fish are eaten by the predators......Yes ,too many fish on the reef could result in problems ......but that has never shown to happen in the real world...............I found nothing in the new fishing legs is lation that points to the coral reef health.....only maintenance of fish populations of those fish that are targeted for collection . Seems people are attatching the fate of the reef to the food fish populations just for effect......Thats why almost every time I read an actual report {on any subject}......Its is usually quite different then the sound bite published by a spin columnest. looking to sell a story.....

 

[Kalkbreath]

Because no one has ever demonstrated how this would help the reefs.......or how current sport and commercial fishing {sportfishing is part of the commercial industry}.."There are concerns that over-fishing has depleted the reef of marine life, threatening its delicate eco-balance"..Having concerns, does not equal scientific findings!....there is no food fishing taking place from within the coral reefs themselves {this has been banned for years}

First of all, there is commercial food fishing in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park for a range of reef species. In fact, a major concern is the impacts of commercial fishing on coral trout populations. See the websites of the Department of Primary Industry (www.dpi.qld.gov.au) and the Australian Institute of Marine Science (www.aims.gov.au) for more information on this.

Second - you are claiming that no one has demonstrated how establishing no-take areas helps reefs or that fishing has an impact on reef fish populations ?

Wow

In a review of 80 scientific studies from no-take areas around the world (Halpern 2002, 2003), it was clearly demonstrated that biomass and abundance were approximately 2 x higher in no take areas than in fished areas and that size and diversity also went up significantly (20-30%). The fact that unexploitated populations are very different from exploitated populations suggests that fishing does have an affect on fish populations.

Moreover, in Florida, record size game fish are 7 x more common in areas adjacent to marine parks than in other areas where no marine parks are established. Again, this suggests that fishing (and hte absence of it) has an impact on fish populations.

There is also increasing evidence that fishing changes ecosystem structure i.e. the habitat composition. This has been demonstrated in Western Australia (Westera 2003), Jamaica, Kenya (McClanahan), the Philippines etc.

Think of ecosystem structure along the lines of that old song - "the shiin bone's connected to the knee bone .. the knee bone's connected to the thigh bone" ... you start mucking around with one set of species it has impacts on others, including corals and algae.

The only documented activities that are currently effecting the health of the reefs..... is runoff......and nothing has ever been done to curb this .............

In the Great Barrier Reef, you are right Kalk, it is a concern but primarily on the inner reef. There is also a fair bit of discussion that the effects of runoff are greater in areas where fish populations have been diminished due to overexploitation (www.aims.gov.au). All of these factors are interrelated and it is one reason why marine parks are established - so that there can be better OVERALL management of a range of human activities that affect reefs (including fishing).

Most of the 1billion in dollars generated yearly from the GBR... IS FISHING related!
How many cattle does one neeed to raise in order to raise 1 billion dollars? By forcing the fishing industry to find other incomes, And keep in mind the land based agriculture industry is the only other income stream in that area that can replace those kinds of numbers {$1,000,000,000.} And one billion dollars more output in cattle or suggar cane plowed fields is going to mean a lot more runoff......which inturn will effect the health of the reefs far greater then the hooking of sportfish as entertainment...... :wink:

It is actually tourism - some of which is fishing related and some of which is diving and non-extractive activities. Do you know how it breaks down Kalk?

My guess is that individuals displaced from fishing are more likely to get involved in the still growing marine tourism industry rather than buying land and becoming a farmer ....

Cheers,
Blue hula

There is no doubt that fishing rules helps maintain the fish populations of those targeted fish ......I released twenty grouper and snapper last week while fishing in Fla. Being that they were too small.....Although I personally feel that its the lage fish that should be protected .....not the undersized fish .........How large does a grouper need to be the become a female? Kinda seems backwards on some of protection measures........{Ps caught the large gray groupers on live grunts and Vermilion snappers as bait :wink: } The tourism industry is not that large in the area .....More people visit lake Lanier or Stone mountain parks in Atlanta then visit the Great Barrier Reef per year .........And besides,wrinked old Aussey sea men scare the crap out of Asian tourists! "So I dont think they would make very effective dive instructors ......

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk, I see that Blue Hula has effectively replied to your false assertions (there is no commercial fishing on the GBR). I agree with Mike Kirda that you continue to make false assertions even after they have been negated by those posting replies. For example, we had a long thread about the Frank Lallo mortality study, but you continue to attack it, after being corrected by Frank and myself. Likewise, you continue to argue that only a few hundred fish per kilometer square are removed from Philippine reefs by cyanide fishermen collecting marine fish for the aquarium trade. What about my reply that finally stopped you on the previous thread? By your own extrapolation using information I provided, you calculated that 80 million fish were killed to allow the export of 3 million fish per year from the Philippines. Where is your reply to that?

Peter Rubec

There is very little commercial fishing in the reef itself.......yes, the boundaries of the PARK include a great amount of open water......but long liners and barrier net fishing does not take place between the live coral.......The formula for 80 million to export 3 million was your concoction .......and I will take up that silly notion in the correct thread heading.....sea you there.....

 

[blue hula]

Kalk,
How can you say there is no commercial fishing on the reef itself. Where do you think they are catching coral trout which makes up the bulk of the catch of the so-called "coral reef fishery"?

Blue hula

 

[blue hula]

I still did not see anything linking grouper or codfishing to reef decline ........infact a read the whole report and did not see the coral reef mentioned.......There is no link between reef fish populations and cod ,trout of grouper collection..{YES i know codfish and snapper are considered reef fish .....but im speaking of the OTHER 1000 species of reef fish that make the reef exclusively their home.}...in fact the science shows that removing those predators results in More reef fish because less fish are eaten by the predators......Yes ,too many fish on the reef could result in problems ......but that has never shown to happen in the real world...............I found nothing in the new fishing legs is lation that points to the coral reef health.....only maintenance of fish populations of those fish that are targeted for collection . Seems people are attatching the fate of the reef to the food fish populations just for effect......Thats why almost every time I read an actual report {on any subject}......Its is usually quite different then the sound bite published by a spin columnest. looking to sell a story.....

Kalk,
Please see the long list of evidence I posted for the affects of removing predatory fish on community composition and habitat in the "Ecologically Sustatainble Yield" thread. Clearly, overfishing of top predators affects community structure.

If you read the info on the Australian Institute for Marine Science's website link I posted, you'll see that scientists are suggesting that overfishing in inshore areas has exacerbated the problems of nutrient loading ... that there are synergistic affects.

There is also some evidence that overfishing contributes to outbreaks of crown of thorn starfish which destroy coral reefs and yes, will thus have a negative impact on reef fish (e.g. coral eating butterflies)

So now you're claiming it's sound bites. Given your lack of enthusiasm for citing where your information comes from and the lack of support for your statements you claim as facts ... I find this statement ironic.

For instance, some where along this thread you claim that tourism is not important on the Great Barrier Reef relative to fishing. Well dahlin' ... the tourism industry generates approximately $1 billion annually (and fishing by tourists is considered small compared to commercial and recreational fishing by locals) ... the value of the entire Queensland fishery is estimated at $300 million ... the value of the Great Barrier Reef commercial fishery is $33 million for 4500 -5000 tonnes with the rec fishery bringing in 2000 t (they didn't specify a value) (all this info available at www.reef.crc.org.au). So I'd say tourism wins it for value added (DESPITE YOUR UNFOUNDED CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY)

And this is why the Australian gov't is willing to set aside 30% of the area as no-take - cause tourists taking pictures are more valuable than fishers catching fish.

Blue hula

 

[Kalkbreath]

Kalk,
How can you say there is no commercial fishing on the reef itself. Where do you think they are catching coral trout which makes up the bulk of the catch of the so-called "coral reef fishery"?

Blue hula

The same way I catch coral trout...on deep rocky reefs ......not coral reefs.......commercial .Long liners do not fish inthe live coral........they cant fish without ending up ith thousands of feet of tangled mess..........Fishing in Florida is the same ........they dont fish the coral reefs......they fish the ledges and rock out crops........Sport fishermen and party boats fish the reefs but the take is tiny if worked out per square kilometer. .....even you pointed out that the take is small ........60% of the total yearly catch is open water Mackerel fishing........and most of that fishing is far away from the reef..

 

[Kalkbreath]

I still did not see anything linking grouper or codfishing to reef decline ........infact a read the whole report and did not see the coral reef mentioned.......There is no link between reef fish populations and cod ,trout of grouper collection..{YES i know codfish and snapper are considered reef fish .....but im speaking of the OTHER 1000 species of reef fish that make the reef exclusively their home.}...in fact the science shows that removing those predators results in More reef fish because less fish are eaten by the predators......Yes ,too many fish on the reef could result in problems ......but that has never shown to happen in the real world...............I found nothing in the new fishing legs is lation that points to the coral reef health.....only maintenance of fish populations of those fish that are targeted for collection . Seems people are attatching the fate of the reef to the food fish populations just for effect......Thats why almost every time I read an actual report {on any subject}......Its is usually quite different then the sound bite published by a spin columnest. looking to sell a story.....

Kalk,
Please see the long list of evidence I posted for the affects of removing predatory fish on community composition and habitat in the "Ecologically Sustatainble Yield" thread. Clearly, overfishing of top predators affects community structure.

If you read the info on the Australian Institute for Marine Science's website link I posted, you'll see that scientists are suggesting that overfishing in inshore areas has exacerbated the problems of nutrient loading ... that there are synergistic affects.

There is also some evidence that overfishing contributes to outbreaks of crown of thorn starfish which destroy coral reefs and yes, will thus have a negative impact on reef fish (e.g. coral eating butterflies)

So now you're claiming it's sound bites. Given your lack of enthusiasm for citing where your information comes from and the lack of support for your statements you claim as facts ... I find this statement ironic.

For instance, some where along this thread you claim that tourism is not important on the Great Barrier Reef relative to fishing. Well dahlin' ... the tourism industry generates approximately $1 billion annually (and fishing by tourists is considered small compared to commercial and recreational fishing by locals) ... the value of the entire Queensland fishery is estimated at $300 million ... the value of the Great Barrier Reef commercial fishery is $33 million for 4500 -5000 tonnes with the rec fishery bringing in 2000 t (they didn't specify a value) (all this info available at www.reef.crc.org.au). So I'd say tourism wins it for value added (DESPITE YOUR UNFOUNDED CLAIMS TO THE CONTRARY)

And this is why the Australian gov't is willing to set aside 30% of the area as no-take - cause tourists taking pictures are more valuable than fishers catching fish.

Blue hula

The number one risk to the Great Barrier reef is runoff................Its been documented by ten time more scientists then the tiny group of fringe wackos that think grouper fishing somehow increases urchin populations and decreases reef fish populations...Scientist "suggesting something" is a far cry from documenting it" There are many documented case studies that on reefs with large populations of predators {groupers snappersetc.} there a far fewer reef fish hanging out with the "chompers and inhalers }Because they scare them away or eat them away. . The rescent ending of sport fishing collection in MPA s of Hawaii {Kona coast} is a perfect example of how when groupers return to an area........the number of reef fish DECREASES......Some people also feel that the natural number of fish on a reef.......is far fewer then assumed.. .. Because no one was counting fish in the 1800s Before over collection of reef predators........there have been too few reefs to study in a truly natural state........When diving a plane wreck or small structure area.....it usually contains a few large grouper and thats about it........but spear those fish and come back the nextday and it will be filled with many smaller fish ? that is until new groupers reclaim the area....The government of Australia is encouraging MORE land based development when they ban fishing ........more sewage ,more hotels etc.more land based agriculture........They are continuing to ignore the greater threat and charm people like you with impotent PR.

 

[blue hula]

The number one risk to the Great Barrier reef is runoff................Its been documented by ten time more scientists then the tiny group of fringe wackos that think grouper fishing somehow increases urchin populations and decreases reef fish populations...Scientist "suggesting something" is a far cry from documenting it"

Cite me ONE peer reviewed study publisheshed in a scientified journal that says the major threat to the ENTIRE great barrier reef is land-based runoff.

Your supposed wackos are senior scientists with the Australian Institute of Marine Science (among others).

They are continuing to ignore the greater threat and charm people like you with impotent PR.

Really Kalk - I would have thought you of all people would realise how irrelevant I think charm is.

Call me when you have some support for your lunacy.

 

[Fredfish]

When I was in Oz in August, several people pointed out to me that the majority of the new protected areas are actually open water outside the actual barrier reef. The actual increase in reef to be protected is minimal.

Does anyone have access to maps showing the proposed new protected areas?

Fred.

 

[Kalkbreath]

When I was in Oz in August, several people pointed out to me that the majority of the new protected areas are actually open water outside the actual barrier reef. The actual increase in reef to be protected is minimal.

Does anyone have access to maps showing the proposed new protected areas?

Fred.

I already pointed out that the new restrictions and paper dont even mention the reef area itself........Its the deep water fish like cod and mostly Mackerel fishing.........The new restrictions make no connection between the reef health and commercial fishing .........its the "sound bite" author which wrote the review paper that connected the two ...........for effect.....and now Blue hula.......

 

[Kalkbreath]

This is from the same bbc site:

The world's coral reefs, weakened by centuries of human exploitation and abuse, may disappear this century, researchers say.

[Corals NOAA]
Coral reef ecosystems will not survive for more than a few decades unless they are promptly and massively protected
John Pandolfi and colleagues
They believe the recent outbreaks of coral disease and bleaching could prove the final insult.

But another group says some corals are proving more resilient to damage than others.

Although no reef is safe, they argue, many are likely to change rather than simply disappear entirely.

The contrasting views are published in the magazine Science, which also includes research suggesting forest fires pose a growing threat to coral's wellbeing.

The historical review of what humans have done to the reefs comes from a team led by John Pandolfi, of the Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.

Age-old problem

They compiled records reaching back thousands of years, covering the status and trends of seven major groups of reef creatures - carnivores, herbivores and "architectural builders" like seagrasses and corals themselves - on 14 reefs.

[Fish shoal NOAA]
Overfishing is one culprit
They say the destruction began during the hunter-gatherer era of human history, leaving all the Earth's reefs substantially damaged "long before outbreaks of coral disease and bleaching".

Most were seriously degraded before 1900, through overfishing abetted, in some cases, by land-based pollution.

The authors conclude: "Regardless of the severity of increasing threats from pollution, disease and coral bleaching, our results demonstrate that coral reef ecosystems will not survive for more than a few decades unless they are promptly and massively protected from human exploitation."

Nerilie Abram, of the Australian National University, Canberra, and colleagues report their study of the 1997 Indonesian wildfires and their apparent link with coral death offshore.

That year stronger than usual south-easterly trade winds caused pronounced upwelling of nutrient-rich deeper water along the south-west coast of Sumat...........................Late in 1997 almost all the coral and fish in the reef ecosystem of the offshore Manawa islands died.

[Indonesian forest fire AP]
Fires may have killed reefs
The authors find evidence suggesting they were suffocated by a massive red tide of phytoplankton, tiny aquatic plants, extending for several hundred kilometres.

But the fossil record shows even higher upwellings in the past, which were not marked by coral die-off. The authors say the reefs' response in 1997 was highly unusual, but the upwelling itself was not.

The productivity of coastal systems during upwelling is limited by the availability of iron, and the researcherhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sc ... 151585.stm ......................................................................................................................

 

[Kalkbreath]

Australia slammed over environment
[Mount Isa - the most polluting source of greenhouse gases in Australia]
Australia refused to ratify the Kyoto agreement
Australia is in the grip of a vast ecological crisis caused by government inaction, a new report on the country's environmental record has warned.


I totally reject the notion that Australia is not being entirely responsible in an environmental sense and through its environmental policies

Environment Minister David Kemp
The report, commissioned by a number of environmental and conservation groups, describes Australia as being a "continent in reverse".

It highlights a loss of plants and animal life, the clearing of land, the degradation of inland waters and the burning of fossil fuels as major causes of pollution.

The government has dismissed the report.

'Overstated'

The report, entitled In Reverse, contradicts claims by the Australian Government that it has made considerable improvements in terms of controlling pollution and promoting sustainable land use.

"Per capita, Australians generate more greenhouse gases and clear more land than the people of any other wealthy nation," the report states.

"Internationally, Australia is a laggard state."

The report was written by Melbourne University's Doctor Peter Christoff to counter the official report due to be presented by the Australian Government at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa next week.

Dr Christoff says that the government's claims of progress regarding the environment are overstated. Emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide have risen by 17.4% since 1990, he says, and will rise by a total of 30% by 2012.

The Australian Government, in a report issued last week, said that emissions will rise by only 11% by 2012.

The government's calculations include projected figures for carbon sequestration - absorbing carbon dioxide from the air through planting trees - and stopping deforestation.

Many environmental scientists believe it is not valid to rely on such measures to reduce global warming.

Dr Christoff's report also says that the number of extinct, endangered or vulnerable bird and animal species has risen from 118 in 1993 to 160 in 2001, and warns that the country is now fifth in the list of countries accounting for the amount of land cleared annually.

Kyoto controversy

However the Australian Government has hit back at the report's statistics, with Environment Minister David Kemp saying that it had an "excellent" record on environmental issues.

"I totally reject the notion that Australia is not being entirely responsible in an environmental sense and through its environmental policies, both internationally and domestically," he told Reuters news agency on Monday.

Australia has faced criticism on its environmental record before, when in June Prime Minister John Howard refused to sign the Kyoto pact on climate control, which aims at cutting production of greenhouse gases blamed for warming the atmosphere.

Mr Howard said he agreed with the US opinion that the agreement was worthless unless developing nations such as China - a large producer of pollutant gases - were also included.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 202919.stm

 

[Kalkbreath]

I sea the green party agrees with kalk.........The Green Party said the plan needed to be backed up with action on land clearing and global warming, as chemical run-off from cattle grazing, sugarcane growing and urban development was polluting the reef.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 955798.stm

 

[Kalkbreath]

and lastly {at least for the nite}--------[QuoTE}-Global atmospheric change and inshore water quality deterioration with their associated impacts are regarded as the most important threats to the long-term survival of the Great Barrier Reef ecosystem. This document provides an overview of current issues and information concerning water quality in the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area, and provides the necessary context and background to support the Great Barrier Reef Catchment Water Quality Action Plan.{END .. ].............this above text is from the Great Barrier Reef site;http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/key_issues/water_quality/current_issuesThe whole site is covering water quallity issues ..........they make no link between reef health and fishing..........

 

[mkirda]

I sea the green party agrees with kalk.........The Green Party said the plan needed to be backed up with action on land clearing and global warming, as chemical run-off from cattle grazing, sugarcane growing and urban development was polluting the reef.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-p ... 955798.stm

Kalk,

You still fail to see the point.
Yes, land clearing, global warming and chemical runoff affects the reef.
No one in their right mind will argue with you (or the scientists whose research the news reports are based on) on that point.

But you brought up fishing. We've pointed you to paper after paper that shows how much of an effect fishing can have on the reefs. And you counter that with something that we agree on, but is completely irrelevant to the argument at hand. This is why we get so frustrated with you- You cannot seem to focus on what your own subject even is!

Regards.
Mike Kirda