Cockle footprint

[osd 1]

Hi I was thinking with the introduction of smaller bag limits for cockles planned in the future. How is this going to effect effort, energy and carbon outputs? The way I see it it will take twice as much carbon to obtain the same amount of bait eg 600 to 300 or one trip from where ever the cockler comes from, to two trips. So my rational is not only will it cost more from the petrol pump but what environmental cost will that humble little cockle have?

[carps 1]

or ya could sleep there the night and walla same amount i think its rediculas that its still 300 i mean really if they wanna get serious they should take it down to the hundred mark,,its the same old crap from weak political leaders to scared to upset anyone and doin bugger all to help our struggling species in the proccess get real people if ya wanna save some of something for the future take less of them now .................................................

[afishyfish 4]

So true carps. taking less now is a guarantee of mkore for the future.I can see osd's point about the carbon issue though.Bet teh pollies didnt give a thought to that when they were counting the xtra bucks theyre getting from the pillaging of the stocks !

[Gaffer 0]

Hey guys...At risk of plenty of scorn, and potential loss of any credibility I might have somewhere on this planet http://www.globalclimatescam.com/, during the version from 2007 of which I will provide a link below for, you can actually see the slide projections behind him, as opposed to the more updated version where you have to download them in pdf format and view them seperately.Movie here - http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524&ei=5Kv8Ssv1KZPSwgP5mNThAQ&q=lord+monckton+apocalypse&hl=en#Again... I am not trying to preach to you, and I really genuinely don't know what is going on. Some of you may already know this information, some of you may think it's a load of rubbish and I'm an idiot for doubting what we are told, but if you put the time in to have a look and make your own minds up, you might start to wonder like I did. I must admit to being extremely concerned that we are prepared to alter our way of life and then have to pay through the nose for our choice of lifestyle when there is plenty of evidence to suggest it is not necessary.I've sat on this for a few months because it really goes against the establishment and what we are told, and truth be told there is real risk of scorn and ridicule, but I think I've seen enough now to be convinced enough to risk my reputation by putting this out there. I'd be interested to hear some feedback either way. Just be gentle with me Gaff

[snapperhead 523]

You could be onto something Gaff, Ive always wondered why the fact that this planets temperatures which have been proven to fluctuate continually throughout time have never been taken into account with this argument.We are all aware of this fact and we all know that this planets climate is under constant changes. I guess the fear factor of finding out in 50 years time that we have stuffed things up and could have saved the situation if we acted now. Plus to then find the changes are irreversible hold us to the feelings we must act now.Im sure however that we all are also aware that some of practices in the way we treat our planet need to be changed such as the way we harvest the sea and land for that matter. Sustainable practices in these areas are far more important too me.Perhaps we are barking up the wrong tree and need to focus our concerns in more appropriate areas first.Food for thought as well as our bellies me thinks.BTW....you never had any credibility mate so dont worry about it now cheerssnapps

[Gaffer 0]

Yeah mate... there are lots of things that need to be addressed and nipped in the bud. Of course pollution cannot be allowed to continue unabated, but my worry is the damage to our country and our freedom, plus the cost to us as a nation and individually where it could potentially ruin the lives of so many based on what appears to be at this point (or to me anyway :silly: ), crackpot science coupled with media hype. It is now a scientifically proven fact that C02 does not damage the atmosphere or cause global warming and has been present at varying levels since the Earth began. naturally many of our practices need to be adjusted, but again, my concern relates only to C02, as this is what the Copenhagen Treaty and the ETS is using as its main argument.Incidentally... current figures show that we are putting 30 billion tonnes of C02 into the atmosphere every year. This actually means man made contribution of C02 is 2 parts per million into the atmosphere as a whole. Mathamatically speaking (apparantly lol), and using the figures put out by the IPCC and the UN against them, to reduce the temperature of the world by 1 degree farenheit, we need to reduce our input into the atmosphere by 1 trillion tonnes. To achieve that, we would have to shut down all industry, stop driving cars, and have no electricity for 33 years... all for a reduction of 1 degree farenheit! In 1975 there was an article in time magazine that said we were heading for another ice age. One of President Obama's present advisors blamed mankind for it. Seriously... they can't have it both ways can they? This treaty serves to transfer industry to the 3rd world, or developing nations such as... wait for it... India and China, who do not need to reduce their carbon emissions as part of the agreement, so in effect, will do nothing for the environment even if C02 was to blame.. which it isn't. It will simply shift the area of the world where the most emissions actually come from and has the potential to close down a large chunk of industry in Australia.Believe me... I hate smoke stacks and pollution and rubbish as much as the next man. Give me the clean fresh air and a day on the water anyday, but if we are going to sign our futures away, we should be sure we have ALL the facts, and not just the alarmist side that they want us to hear. As I see it, we cannot allow the ETS to go through. Barnaby Joyce, Nick Minchin, Cory Bernardi, are just some of the senators that want to stop this going through. I have given them my support and will continue to do so until ALL the science is in and the facts are totally irrefutable.I don't expect anybody that hasn't looked into this as much as I have to really grasp what might be going on as we only see what we are told. It all looks very credible when you see the ice caps melting, and glaciers collapsing, and polar bears swimming on the telly, and it all helps to create the fear they are now preying on... but the truth is very very different... the problem is, you have to look for it.Christ... I feel like Fox Moulder! Next up I'll be wearing a tin foil hat! hahahahaBy the way... thanks for the clarification on the credibility too mate.

[pescados 1]

I have got an open mind on Global Warming but would like some explanation on why the ice at the north pole and antartica is melting and huge slabs of ice are breaking away from the main body ???

[statesquider 0]

I too am not totally convinced on climate change being a human issue but I do feel that we have a responsiblity to keep our pollution to a minimum and to make our imprint on the world as minimal as we can. Issues such as overfishing and deforestation for example need to be addressed as well as a plethora of others.We have the technology and the knowledge to lessen the damage we are making on the planet so climate change or not we should be doing everything we can. Its a pity that at the end of the day money tends to win :(So I just do what I can and try and lessen my impact where possible. But if its "climate change" that makes the world change its ways for the good then maybe its a good thing..Cheers

[statesquider 0]

I too am not totally convinced on climate change being a human issue but I do feel that we have a responsiblity to keep our pollution to a minimum and to make our imprint on the world as minimal as we can. Issues such as overfishing and deforestation for example need to be addressed as well as a plethora of others.We have the technology and the knowledge to lessen the damage we are making on the planet so climate change or not we should be doing everything we can. Its a pity that at the end of the day money tends to win :(So I just do what I can and try and lessen my impact where possible. But if its "climate change" that makes the world change its ways for the good then maybe its a good thing..Cheers

[Gaffer 0]

Ok...Re the ice caps.First things first, there isn't or hasn't been an argument that suggests the earth hasn't been in a warming cycle. The argument is what is causing it. The polar ice caps do melt a bit, and they do come back again. It's happened many times over the history of the earth. In 1906 a sailing ship passed through the NW passage of the Arctic Circle and is documented as such.It then became inpassable until the 1940's when it was again navigatable, before freezing over and it is navigatable again now. It's part of the cycle of the earths fluctuating temperatures.It has much more to with the sun and the warm currents being pushed up, or down from the equator than anything else, but they don't tell you that bit. They just show you the pictures and tell you it's C02.There was an archaeological dig taking place in Greenland that has found 500 year old viking burial grounds well below the permafrost (which is soil that is permenantly at, or below freezing point all year round), proving that there was no permafrost there at the time, yet the permafrost is there today, which shows the earth is actually cooler now than it was then.What they don't tell you too often, is that the NASA has stated the eye on Jupiter has increased in size due to warming as has the temperature on many other planets in the solar system, but are we to blame for that? Also, the sun has been flaring or been more active since they began recording the suns activity that at any other time up until 1998. Since then, the activity has slowed, and lo and behold, the earths temperature has actually levelled and in fact cooled slightly.Again... I am only repeating what I have learned this past few months. I'm no expert. It just makes a lot of sense to me is all.Gaff

[Gaffer 0]

Statesquidder... I agree with you 100%Pollution sucks. It's an awful byproduct of industry, and it needs to be regulated. The problem is that if these laws are passed, you will be taxed more for driving your car, your boat, for eating meat, for using electricity or any form of power, in fact just about every facet of your life will be taxed higher to pay for your carbon footprint. All prices will go up. The cost of living and production could very well go through the roof and force those of us who obviously do OK onto the poverty line. Yeah OK... that may sound alarmist, but the potential is there, and once a global government is in place, if they decide to increase the tax on something we need or want, there is nothing you, nor I, nor our countries leaders will be able to do about it, so all I am saying is that if C02 is not the cause, why should we be the ones to pay for it? GaffPSThe words "Global Government" are in the treaty, I'm not making it up, although I grant you that I am repeating what I have heard from Lord Monckton, and have not seen it myself as such.I just think people should be aware of what might be going on.Actually... here's an idea I just hadHere's a link to Lord Monckton on the Glen Beck show in the USA. Watch all the 7 minute cuts and see what you think. You just have to deal with that "Typical American" type TV show at the very very start. Once the discussion gets going, it's informative and interesting.http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/30/monckton-on-glenn-beck-video-now-available/While you are watching it, remember that our government is pushing for an ETS to take to Copenhagen so we can be a part of this treaty, so although this show relates to the USA, it will also relate to us.

[snapperhead 523]

Sea levels have altered many times over the years remember inland Australia was once under water. The only way sea levels can rise and fall is through the melting or freezing of the Polar caps.This has been occurring since time began. We are also aware that rain forests were once where deserts are now and these things have been occurring since time began and mans influence was negligible.I think you have every right to be concerned at current trains of thought Gaff. Remember back in the late 70's the so called experts were telling us we would be out of oil by the now and we needed to find alternative means of transport well we are still driving around in our fossil fuel burning vehicles and I reckon the oil companies might have been behind those expert opinions. The price of crude oil skyrocketed much like it did recently when we were told we would be paying $200 a barrel by christmas last year. It never happened the oil companies once again made huge profits and we got sucked dry again.Media hype now I think you've hit the nail on the head there mate. Once the media grab hold of a topic the facts (well so-called facts) are rammed down our throats night and day.Once again it doesnt take much effort to get the media interested in a topic.Take a look at the hype recently over Miss Spears and how she lip sinks her concerts. WHAT THE that has been common knowledge for as long as I can remember yet we have over the past week or so had headlines and news stories daily concerning this. Is this really world shattering news, does it really deserve the headlines its been getting. With all the worthy events occurring in this world surely the fact that Britney mimes during her shows is not the best they can report on.Obviously not its just that this is the present topic that the media have latched onto and are force feeding us with mindless crap on an hourly basis.It really is quite tragic when you stop and look at it, the way we are being conditioned by people who decide what is news worthy. These people are brain washing our thoughts and fears. We are being led to believe that we are being over run with boat people but really when you look at the EXACT numbers of people that are flooding our country it really is insignificant but once again we see regurgitated pictures of a boat with people hanging over the side and given mindless loads of crap from various experts or opposition party members whose only concern is really to make political ground and not about the plight of human beings or their suffering.Remember how just before the last elections Global Warming was polled as being the biggest concern amongst Australian voters. Around the same time it was constantly being mentioned via media and Mr Gore was traveling the world spreading his gospel of doom. Now however it no longer is of such a concern to the average Aussie actually I think concern has halved, amazing how public opinion changes. Politicians obviously thinking back then that this will get us votes suddenly turn green to obtain power make huge lifestyle changing decisions in the process that will be affecting us for many years and bingo us fickle public have now changed our minds. What made Climate change so important the BLOODY MEDIA Bloody hell I feel like going to my window and throwing it open and screaming WE AINT GOING TO TAKE THIS NO MORE But thats already been done.I better stop now our else I will get onto the current financial woes and the cause behind that and then I will be here for another 10 pages Just one final whinge about the media .....why is that we get a report daily about stock market figures and who really cares if the market was down in Germany I couldnt give a DAX and what the current FTSE 100 is or how the Yen is going and how many cents the aussie dollar is getting in NZ. Why do they think we care it just gives some arrogant smug so called expert a chance to stand there in front of a screen and earn more money than you and I do for a week to give a 1 minute summary of the days financial results which are being driven by a greedy few whose stuff ups are bailed out by the government funded by us WHO SUFFER FOR THEIR GREED............. time for a sit down and take a valium

[Ranger 48]

Whadda ya mean, Britney lip Syncs?

[shane 0]

I new Britney would get a mention on a global warming topic Touchy subject really we all know the earth was warmer 250 millions years ago Around 6c Then something big hit the earth making an ice ageSo naturally the earth will won’t to warm back up, we most likely are helping that process a move little faster As for the cockle I always buy mine from my local ramp, I hope to help keep the local people in a job With everything going off shore these days I would hate to see the cockle guys go out of business or the local tackle shop But if you really won’t to go get your own cockles bag limits are bag limits Stay the weekend or take the family or friends and or both

[Gaffer 0]

Love it Snapps Especially the word "conditioning". That's exactly what is going on. We come home and sit down in front of the telly and download the latest propaganda update just about every single day. How easy is it to get us all thinking the same really? :S

[Gaffer 0]

Guys and gals... please read this article from the Herald. it will tell you how much you will paying when this ETS goes through. Remember again that C02 has been proven to not cause global warming, so why are we paying this -Andrew BoltWednesday, November 04, 2009 at 07:20am NEXT month Kevin Rudd flies to Copenhagen to help seal a United Nationsdeal to cut the world's emissions - and to make Australia hand over partof its wealth So keen is the Prime Minister to get this new global-warming treatysigned that he's been appointed a "friend of the chairman" to tie uploose ends. So here's the question: is Rudd really going to approve a draft treatythat could force Australia to hand over an astonishing $7 billion a yearto a new and unelected global authority? Yes, that's $7 billion, or about $330 from every man, woman and child.Every year. To be passed on to countries such as China and Bangladesh,and the sticky-fingered in-between. And a second question, perhaps even more important: is Rudd really goingto approve a draft treaty which also gives that unelected authority thepower to fine us billions of dollars more if it doesn't like our greenpolicies? It is incredible that these questions have not been debated by eitherthe Rudd Government or the Opposition, whose hapless leader, MalcolmTurnbull, on Monday admitted he did not even have a copy of this treaty.Australia's wealth and sovereign rights may soon be signed away, so whyhasn't the public at least been informed? In case you think what I'm saying is just too incredible - toofar-fetched- to be true, let me quote this draft treaty. Here is paragraph 33 of annex 1, which has already been discussed at UNmeetings involving Australian negotiators in Bangkok and now Barcelona.Brackets indicate phrases which still need final agreement: "By 2020 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation indeveloping countries must be [at least USD 67 billion] [in the range ofUSD 70-140 billion] per year." Plus, says paragraph 17 of annex III E, developed countries such asAustralia should "compensate for damage" to the economies of poorercountries "and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives,land and dignity" allegedly caused by our gases. And here comes the bill, in paragraph 41 of annex 1 of this extortionnote: "[Financial resources of the Convention Adaptation Fund"] [may][shall] include: (a) [Assessed contributions [of at least 0.7% of theannual GDP of developed country parties] ... " In fact, deeper in the draft our bill for our "historical climate debt,including adaptation debt" climbs to at "at least [0.5-1 per cent ofGDP]".Wow. Let's do the sums. Australia's GDP is about $1000 billion a year.So this demand for 0.7 per cent of our annual wealth works out to $7billion a year, to be handed over to a new global agency of the UnitedNations. That's your money, folks. Billions to be sent to Third World governmentsand authoritarian regimes to allegedly deal with a warming that actuallyhalted in 2001. And all funnelled through the UN, which brought us suchfast-money wheezes as the Oil-for-Food corruption scandal. Never have the Third World's demands for the First World's cash been sobrazen. But wait, there's more. Because never has the Left's mad goal of worldgovernment been so close, either. This draft treaty, on which Climate Change Minister Penny Wong hasworked, also calls for the creation of a new "board" of global warmingbureaucrats appointed by the countries signing the Copenhagen deal. The powers this board will have over us are astonishing. For a start, itwill check our emissions, and could "impose financial penalties, at aminimum of 10 times the market price of carbon, for any emissions inexcess". Work it out: if we exceed our emissions target by, say, as much as Ruddwarned two years ago we'd overshoot by 2012, we'd be up for a fine of$1.4 billion even with the very lowest carbon price under Rudd's plan. Even more outrageously, this new world body could impose "penalties andfines on non-compliance of developed country parties" such as Australiathat failed to honour "commitments to ... provide support in the form offinancial resources, technology transfer and capacity building". All this gives a remote and unelected world body a huge andunprecedented say in how we run our own economy and our foreign affairs.For instance, any Australian government that decided to keep gassycoal-fired power stations running to avoid blackouts or to saveAustralian jobs potentially faces huge fines from foreigners. Likewise, if it stopped handing over technological breakthroughs to aChina or some African leader it no longer trusted, it could be finedagain.But wait, there's still more. You'd think this draft treaty that Rudd has worked on would at leastgive us a say over how our billions are spent. But no. UN bodies are already notoriously hard for any one nation tosupervise or restrain. Even the United States, the biggest donor of all,could not stop the corruption at UNESCO two decades ago, and was forcedto walk out in protest. Nor could it stop dictatorships such as Libyaand Cuba from later holding key roles in the UN's human rights bodies. And with this new global warming body, the vote of the paying West willbe overruled even more decisively by the spending rest. Under this draft treaty, the new board's biggest spending arm - the"adaptation fund" - will be managed by a "governing board comprising three members from the five United Nations regional groups, two membersfrom small island developing nations and two members from the leastdeveloped countries". That formula means the industrialised nations which pay most could holdjust one of the nine seats on the body which will then spend their cash.Our cash. That's the treaty being prepared for the Copenhagen meeting. That's thebillions we risk having to hand over. That's the power we risk losingover our own affairs. Now ask: why hasn't this been the subject of furious debate? Where's theGovernment? Where's the Opposition? Well, here's Rudd's one response to this threat, given only this week:"At this stage there's no global agreement as to what long-termfinancing arrangements should underpin a deal at Copenhagen." That's a "trust me", with no bottom line. In fact, Rudd is alreadyreaching into his - your - wallet: "Australia, once a global agreementis shaped, would always be prepared to put forward its fair share."Buthow much? Seven billion dollars a year? Five? Three? Hello? As for Turnbull ... well, it's tragic. Badgered by Alan Jones on 2GB on Monday on this very point, he said: "Ofcourse the poorest countries are going to need assistance ... (But)there is no way that anything like this would be accepted withoutextensive debate." So where is that debate, Malcolm? Why aren't you screaming from therooftops for reassurances that our wealth won't be squandered and ourpowers handed over? Just this week the European Union said it would pay its share of an $82billion cheque to this new body if countries such as ours come on board,too - so who's applying the brakes? Not our politicians, for sure. So if you oppose this surrender of our billions and our freedom, betterstart saying so now, before it's all too late. http://blogs.news.com.au:80/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_will_rudd_pay_the_un_7_billion

[Gaffer 0]

So in a nutshell... we will be paying 7 billion per year to countries like China because our C02 emissions are too high, even though theirs are higher than ours, and even though it is now scientifically proven that C02 does not cause global warming, and all because they are considered a developing or third world nation and we're not.This could potentially drive our jobs and our industry overseas, or if industry chooses to stay in Australia they may tell us that in order to afford the hefty climate change taxes we will have to take pay cuts and therefore lower our standard of living to that of the countries to which we are sending our money. Again... based on something that doesn't exist.Just in case you don't know... nearly all climate change estimates are based on computer analysis. Computers can only tell you what you tell them to tell you. If you tell a computer that C02 is causing global warming and then set a trend for increased C02 in coming years, then naturally the computer will tell you the temperature will rise and that subsequent catastrophes are inevitable. Guys... seriously... be angry. If what I am saying makes sense to you, then email Rudd and Wong, sign the petition on Barnaby Joyce's website, and on Cory Bernardi's website. Make some noise. At the very least we deserve to see a debate of scientists live on TV from both sides where we can make our own minds up and then have a referendum on the subject rather than the current government making a decision that will put us into a situation that is almost communism, in that we will NEVER have a say who controls us and we will always have to do what they tell us. Remember that this is all based on something that we are not even responsible for!

[pescados 1]

Thanks for your latest post Gaffer unfortunately politicians have been screwing us since the the year dot and it ain't going to stop. As far as the UN is concerned, far to much say in other countries business.The point is if what you say is the truth and I have no proof that it is not,How the hell do we get rid of those parasites ?With a 2 party bizzo, both as bad as one an other, there is not much hopey for dopey.

[Gaffer 0]

I think very little changes from one party ot the next. If Howard and his cronies were still in, I have no doubt they too would be pushing the same agenda. I am starting to believe that we are only given the impression that we have a choice of government, but in fact they all think the same behind the scenes. The GST was a labour issue introduced by Paul Keating the first time I heard about it, the liberals called the idea crazy, then 10 or so years later the liberals get in on the back of the GST and labour are calling it crazy. HUH?? I don't think all pollies are crooked, but I reckon a nod's as good as a wink once you really get up there among the hierachy and they know a little bit more about what goes on.By chance I have been researching this global agenda for about 5 months. I accidentally stumbled upon it when I mis spelled something else I was looking for on the internet, and I haven't been able to let it go since. Not just the global warming, but the global agenda etc. It's very interesting, and so incredible that I keep reading more, originally because I couldn't believe it, so spent so much time trying to disprove it for my own sanity, but as yet I can't, and the more I try, the more I seem to be learning.An interesting quote I have picked up in my travels which ties in with this global warming farce is the following from a book put out in 1991 called "The first Global Revolution" The book was put out by a group known as the Club of Rome which was formed as a global think tank in 1968 and has members such as the Rockerfellers, Rothschilds, Gorbachev, Kissinger etc. The quote is as follows:“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention,” and thus the “real enemy, then, is humanity itself.”It does not matter if this common enemy is “a real one or… one invented for the purpose.” In the process of struggling against this implacable enemy, democracy “will be made to seem responsible for the lagging economy, the scarcity and uncertainties. The very concept of democracy could then be brought into question and allow for the seizure of power.”I am also led to believe that Al Gore is a member of the Club of Rome. Hmmm... Al gore, Global Warming, Invented for the purpose?? Very interesting. It's lucky Al Gore had the foresight to set up a carbon trading company some years back that will handle the carbon trading after the Copenhagen Treaty is signed, so he will be able to personally ensure that everything is done in the correct manner. It's a damn shame that he will make Billions a year from it, but hey... someone has to save the planet don't they!The reason this is all trying to pushed through so fast is that if they miss this opportunity while people are still divided, they may never get the chance again, as more and more scientists are coming forward discrediting the man made global warming theory.31000 scientists of which over 9000 are PHd's have lobbied the US congress in the hope of preventing this treaty from being signed, but still Obama and our PM turn a blind eye and push forward. Why? I now firmly believe that when the Berlin wall came down, our leaders didn't show how a democratic society works for the people, they instead learned how a communist government can work for them.God damn it I hope I'm wrong and you all laugh at me in years to come.

[shane 0]

I know that some people are getting very rich on this band wagon i.e. Al Gore Its nuts now there saying water vapour is the main contributor to global warmingAnd everyone has forgotten El NinoSo hydrogen cars are out now, we just can’t get it rightGaffer no matter how angry you get these pollutions have a different mindset to any normal person they seem to have a crap filter switched on in reverse Sure send them an email or blog them, but be aware some poor public servants screening all there stuff You would have to do a rally to get the press involved to make any dent to there filter And even then it still will go on deaf ears i.e. De Sal plant go figure, we pump all our storm water plus more into the gulf and now we wont to suck it back in Someone is making a lot of money, but they are creating new jobsIt’s got pros and cons At work we all do things, I call it the lost syndrome you have to push the button every 44minute I can’t remember the right time frame but you know what I meanAt my work we do gauge calibrations, all because some smart ass from a past customer just came out of uni and said your gauges have to be calibratedIt’s been over 15years and no one can tell me why we still do it If a gauge doesn’t work we replace it Ever since I found out my boy had autism I now look at life a bit differently time to smell the roses you don’t get what you really wont or do you I wanted a son that would love me and love to go fishing and I got one And yes I have been drinking Gaffer it sounds like you need to go out and relax and do some fishingDrive down and scoop up as many cockles as you can carryI might even join you

[Gaffer 0]

Thanks for the reply Shane.I only skimmed it and have to go out now, but will answer quickly as much to keep this thread in people's minds as anything.I agree that I need to get out and fish more, part of my concern is that in the future this may not be as easy as it is today, so I'm stressing a bit today and doing what I can so that maybe I don't have to stress as much tomorrow. The changes, if they go ahead, won't take place overnight, but within the next 5 - 10 years we could seriously be fighting for our liberty without a leg to stand on. My choice is to fight while I still have both legs. :cheer: I understand that a lot of what I say or send falls on deaf ears mate, but if enough people make enough noise then just maybe my contribution will be enough to make the difference.Unfortunately you are right about the job situation and more jobs will be created, but from what I read, most of them will be in China and India.I don't care that you've been drinking mate. You took the time to put your thoughts down and it's appreciated. Reckon I'll knock a few beers back myself tonight and do as you recommend. Enjoy good friends and family while I can. Top advice.

[Gaffer 0]

Hey folksI've taken this cause up elsewhere as although there was a lot of interest in numbers viewing here, there wasn't a lot of replies so thought maybe people weren't that interested.Anyway... an interesting development has taken place with Lord Monckton on 5aa this morning.You guys should give this a listen and start considering this whole affair as a very real situation.http://www.fiveaa.com.au/Audio_Lord-Christopher-Monckton-on-Climate-Change-Part-1_95421?s=29It's a 2 part audio section. You can link to part 2 from part 1.Gaff

[shane 0]

Funny only a couple of weeks have gone bye and a couple of leaked emails And the whole world has turned upside downGood on you Gaffer for keeping at it, and thanks for the link I enjoyed it What a character that Lord ChristopherAgain thanks, I myself was, what I really should say still a bit naïveAnd a bit more blasé about the whole thing Just hope Rude can see it for what it is

[osd 1]

Hi Gaffer The whole thing about cockle footprint was tongue in cheek.I was really having a go at to new rules, it seems like the fisheries take a knee jerk reaction and put in smaller bag limits as a "precautionary" measure, and I wonder if the cockles are under threat or they are just pandering to a growing food industry in an attempt to make more money somehow? Who's interest is it in to close rec cockling on the south side of the mouth? What was the total recreational catch of cockles in the previous year to the ban on the south side of the mouth? If you look at the distance to get there and previous bag of 600 I think it would have been a drop in the ocean. As for carbon causing climate change, I'm a bit of a skeptic, the world Eco system is complex. I agree our leaders shouldn't go jumping into any long term agreements and throwing bucket loads of money at it without thorough research and public support. cheers OSD

[osd 1]

Hi Gaffer The whole thing about cockle footprint was tongue in cheek.I was really having a go at to new rules, it seems like the fisheries take a knee jerk reaction and put in smaller bag limits as a "precautionary" measure, and I wonder if the cockles are under threat or they are just pandering to a growing food industry in an attempt to make more money somehow? Who's interest is it in to close rec cockling on the south side of the mouth? What was the total recreational catch of cockles in the previous year to the ban on the south side of the mouth? If you look at the distance to get there and previous bag of 600 I think it would have been a drop in the ocean. As for carbon causing climate change, I'm a bit of a skeptic, the world Eco system is complex. I agree our leaders shouldn't go jumping into any long term agreements and throwing bucket loads of money at it without thorough research and public support. cheers OSD

[shane 0]

Hi osdIn all fairness to gaffer, he did take this talk else were, I was hoping he wouldn’tBut my dribbling on probably put him off And we know you were more on about the cockles than the carbon foot print really I read the cockles are in trouble in a big way, I don’t think you could really call it knee jerk reactionCommercial catches have been down the last few yearsAnd I think there catch Quota has been almost halved (stand to be corrected unsure of real figures) As well and us recreational fishers I would rather the fisheries reacting now, then when it’s too late

[Gaffer 0]

Hey guysOSD... I knew what you were saying originally mate. To be honest, I just saw it as an "in" as it was kind of related to what I wanted to say.Shane... my moving it somewhere else was due to what appeared to be a lack of interest from everyone else. It feels like you're talking to yourself when people don't reply, or if only one or two are putting in occasionally you still have to wonder if you are talking about something the membership is interested in, but let me assure you that I GENUINELY appreciated your input mate. I should point out that I don't mind if people aren't interested. After all... it is a fishing site and not a political site, but you gauge interest by response, and if there is not much response you wonder if you are boring people :cheer: No biggy.Gaff

[shane 0]

Thanks Gaffer I have been taking to myself a lot lately, and I understand It’s the only time I can get a word in (What’s That!!! Nothing Dear) LOL I’m sure she can hear me typing, Just figured it out, she can read lips from down stairs I would have thought more people would as least piped up and said that’s more Garfish and Snook and even Blue Swimmers for me! bring it on ,but no I myself have a bit of a bug bear about bag limits and I try to go fishing just about every weekend which I haven’t been out for a month now, and my feet are getting very itchyI am not for catching my limit every time, but I would like to see my rights still there to catch if I ever wanted or needed too And cockles I have only ever gone down once for them and never came home with 600 That’s a lot of cockles and when you think about it it’s just under a dollar a cockle that’s no were near true just yet but close, so 300 = $300 still not bad in my book