Extinction on Key’s watch?

44 comments on “Extinction on Key’s watch? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. blue leopard 1

   21 September 2012 at 11:22 pm

   Thats clean green lil ol New Zealind for ya

   Squeak (Last Dolphin crying)
2. Jared 2

   22 September 2012 at 12:08 am

   Well shit, a bill co sponsored by WWF, Iwi and Forest and Bird suggest the following:
   “The World Conservation Congress, at its session in Jeju, Republic of Korea, 6–15 September 2012:
   1. URGES the New Zealand Government to:
   a. Urgently extend dolphin protection measures, with an emphasis on and in particular to banning gill net and trawl net use from the shoreline to the 100 meter depth contour in all areas where Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins are found, including harbours;
   b. To increase immediately the level of monitoring and enforcement with an emphasis on requiring and to require 100 percent observer coverage on any gill net or trawling vessels allowed to operate in any part of the range of Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins until such bans can be implemented; and
   c. To report such action and monitoring and enforcement results;”

   Now consider that Maui’s Dolphins are found between Dargaville and New Plymouth, if the Government (ignoring the fact that you know, the other countries don’t mean shit) would have to agree to pretty much shutting down fisheries down the entire coast of the north island I can sorta see why they are reluctant to vote for this motion.

   Id prefer they took a scientific approach on their own accord, than by being strong armed into a damned if you do damned if you don’t motion.

   http://www.niwa.co.nz/publications/wa/water-atmosphere-1-july-2010/balancing-act-for-hector%E2%80%99s-dolphins

   “The results from the proposed satellite-tagging project will help to develop models of coastal habitat use by the animals. By combining these models with information on known threats and risks (such as set-net fishing, mining, and acoustic surveying), NIWA scientists will be able to design GIS maps showing areas of conflict that require protection, and areas of non-conflict that can potentially be open to activities such as fishing. The dynamic nature of the maps will foster a more flexible approach to management, taking into account seasonal changes in dolphin distribution and resource use. The goal of this project is to reduce conflicts between people and marine mammals and improve management of multiple-use marine areas. It will help find the balance between potential economic benefits – such as fisheries, aquaculture, and mining – and conservation of an iconic species.”
   • blue leopard 2.1

     22 September 2012 at 12:15 am

     Squeeekurgle (A dolphin crying while drowning)
   • BernyD 2.2

     22 September 2012 at 12:27 pm

     Even a smaller area would be good, they aren’t stupid
     • Jokerman 2.2.1

       22 September 2012 at 1:17 pm

       within; sheep
       (good things need time)
       sometimes the “civilised” world just makes one want to “scream”?
       • BernyD 2.2.1.1

         22 September 2012 at 3:08 pm

         Evil civilised versus good civilised, worth knowing/portaying the difference.
         “Lead by example” has it’s drawbacks under a microscope
         • Jokerman 2.2.1.1.1

           22 September 2012 at 3:35 pm

           every body has a past-and a future
           (consider the nonsense the “Laws” of this country spout)=hypocrisy and division
   • Bill 2.3

     22 September 2012 at 2:41 pm

     So okay. Why not lay down a conservation area and let scientific data be applied to rolling it back where appropriate?

     And as for ‘shutting down fisheries’. Isn’t that happening anyway due to the incursion of foreign vessels and factory ships off shore? (Y’know, they kind of ‘clean up’ fish stocks and knacker the food chain via by catch, dredge netting and what not in the process.)
   • BernyD 2.4

     22 September 2012 at 3:05 pm

     do they fish north of reinga? anyone?
   • Populuxe1 2.5

     22 September 2012 at 10:57 pm

     I can see room for the government to be doing more, such as investing in the development of less dangerous fishing techniques and perhaps reducing the size of fishing areas, but I agree with you. Not just the West Coast of the North Island, but much of the South Island would be affected – with significant detrimental effects to coastal communities.
     And who gives a fuck what 574 countries voted, we are a sovereign nation and this really has very little effect on them (and most of them a hypocrites given what goes on in their own territories)? If 574 countries voted that NZ should become a nuclear waste dump or a penal colony we wouldn’t be hanging our heads in shame for having not voted against our interests. We are the ones that should ultimately be making these decisions and finding solutions that will not fuck up the country even worse, and that may very well take three years of research.
3. Psycho Milt 3

   22 September 2012 at 6:59 am

   It’s worth noting that “clean, green New Zealand” always was a straightforward lie, whether it was National or Labour doing the lying. And whoever came up with that “100% Pure” slogan (which, to be fair, turned up under Labour, not National) must have to carry a fire extinguisher at all times in case their pants need putting out.
   • IrishBill 3.1

     22 September 2012 at 7:07 am

     For a first world (just) nation we are clean and green. That, however, has more to do with the fact we’ve only got four million people in a country the size of the UK and we’ve not had anywhere near as much time to fuck it up as older nations have.

     That said we’re getting close to having used all that environmental capital up which means we either change the way we operate or we give up any right to the green claims. It’s clear which way this government wants to go.
     • Psycho Milt 3.1.1

       22 September 2012 at 8:44 am

       Yes. Britain was way more “clean and green” than us back when it had a population of 4 million – ie, back in Shakespeare’s time. Didn’t have much to do with their awesome environmentalist sensitivities, more to do with a lack of the kind of technology needed for making big messes.
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

         22 September 2012 at 9:01 am

         Sure they were more clean and green, if you liked open sewers, slop being poured on to the streets, and occasional outbreaks of bubonic plague.

         More seriously, the number of people multiplied by their resource and energy use, tends to describe very accurately the demands and waste they put on to their environment. Today each modern person uses more energy in a month than a Shakespearan Briton would have used in a life time.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.1.1.1

           22 September 2012 at 1:10 pm

           Today each modern person uses more energy in a month than a Shakespearan Briton would have used in a life time.

           And yet the English still ran out of trees. Of course, they weren’t using them solely for energy.

           Stuart England was so widely deforested that it depended on the Baltic trade for ship timbers, and looked to the untapped forests of New England to supply the need.
           • Populuxe1 3.1.1.1.1.1

             22 September 2012 at 11:02 pm

             Very true DTB – hence the creation of the New Forest. France was much more careful and I suggest reading the relevant section in Simon Schama’s Landscape and Memory for the broader context.
             While the resource needs of a society change over the centuries, the rapacious greed remains much the same.
     • Murray Olsen 3.1.2

       23 September 2012 at 12:45 am

       I’m not so sure we’re clean and green even for a first world nation any more. From what I’ve seen in Germany, for example, they might be ahead of us by now, and they’re working on improving things. We’re working on making things worse, especially with not upsetting dairy farmers. Denmark and Norway are possibly also at least as clean and green as Aotearoa. In my opinion, we have no right to be making green claims whatsoever.
   • Jokerman 3.2

     22 September 2012 at 9:42 am

     thats something funny from you Milt
4. Sanctuary 4

   22 September 2012 at 7:03 am

   To paraphrase Steven Joyce – those dolphins are all well and good, but what do they actually do?
   • IrishBill 4.1

     22 September 2012 at 7:12 am

     They’re “nice to haves”
   • Jokerman 4.2

     22 September 2012 at 9:44 am

     thats funny too!
   • blue leopard 4.3

     22 September 2012 at 5:30 pm

     “To paraphrase Steven Joyce – those dolphins are all well and good, but what do they actually do?”

     click click click-click click click-click-click-click click-click-click-click click click click
     (Sorry had better not translate this dolphin…might get banned)
5. Di 5

   22 September 2012 at 7:25 am

   Tourists pay money to go on boats hoping to glimpse these rare dolphins.

   Steven Joyce has obviously never seen the tourists clamouring to take photos of these beautiful animals and their delight at watching the dolphins surfing the bowwaves.

   At least dolphins are able to live in their environment without destroying it which is more than humans like Steven Joyce can do.
   • mike e 5.1

     22 September 2012 at 4:02 pm

     I suppose they can watch the dinosaurs that run the national Party instead!
     • blue leopard 5.1.1

       22 September 2012 at 4:10 pm

       Not a bad idea…probably noone would believe that any country was run by dinosaurs without witnessing it for themselves! …I think you’re onto something there mike e
   • Populuxe1 5.2

     22 September 2012 at 11:04 pm

     Do tourists pay enough money to see them, especially when in all likelihood they can’t tell the difference between a dolphin and a porpoise? I suspect the bulk of tourists – which are definitely not ecotourists – would rather be swimming with dolphins on the Gold Coast.
     We really are going to have to move beyond using tourism to justify environmental protection – the tourists will dry up with the oil.
6. muzza 6

   22 September 2012 at 9:07 am

   And what are the sheep going to do about this…….

   They put in place policies which kill human beings, put more into poverty and ruin the environment, so why on earth would anyone expect that duty of care might be extended to the animal world!

   This is a rather vile example at face value!
   • Dr Terry 6.1

     22 September 2012 at 4:47 pm

     muzza, exactly!
   • Populuxe1 6.2

     22 September 2012 at 11:06 pm

     The resolution would have put more people into poverty too!
7. captain hook 7

   22 September 2012 at 11:23 am

   this a government that believes people can eat money.
   • Draco T Bastard 7.1

     22 September 2012 at 1:13 pm

     +1

     Things is, Labour are no different in that regard.
   • Populuxe1 7.2

     22 September 2012 at 11:07 pm

     I think you’ll find they believe people eat fish and that this fact is rather important to our economy.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.2.1

       23 September 2012 at 3:08 am

       There’s a difference between the economy and money. Neither NACT nor Labour seem capable of comprehending this difference which is why they keep looking to have more money while the economy crashes from the “rapacious greed”.
8. infused 8

   22 September 2012 at 8:50 pm

   Actually read why it happened instead of copying and pasting you douche.

   “The government said action had already been taken to protect the endangered dolphins, and the recommendation was not backed by scientific evidence.”

   Also

   “The article has since been edited to make it more sensationalist. Before it said that there were already measures in place to protect them from trawling and that there was no evidence that the fact they were still in decline was due to was they were proposing against (somtheing about fishing). So yeah, it looks bad but there were reasons for the no vote.”
   • Populuxe1 8.1

     22 September 2012 at 11:08 pm

     Agreed. But National are still a bunch of bastards for many other reasons and more should be done to protect Maui’s and Hector’s Dolphins.
9. Populuxe1 9

   22 September 2012 at 11:28 pm

   What about the rest of the fishermen who are surplus or cannot easily be retrained? Replenishing fish stocks where exactly? And what are you going to do when the handful of eco-tourists dries up with the oil?
   • xtasy 9.1

     23 September 2012 at 2:36 am

     Go to CUBA!
     • Murray Olsen 9.1.1

       23 September 2012 at 2:41 am

       Cuba is on my bucket list. Fidel Castro has a son who is a nuclear physicist. He visited part of our quantum research group, in Canberra. I have no idea how many diplomatic messages were exchanged over this. I wonder if Key would let him into Aotearoa, or is Australia more independent these days?
       • xtasy 9.1.1.1

         23 September 2012 at 1:26 pm

         Admittedly Cuba has human rights issues, but apart from that, anything that may be positive in any humble way about that country and it’s people, it is ignored, rubbished and instead quashed by the usual “cold war” type propaganda, putting it in line with North Korea and the likes. Nothing new, especially in NZ and Australia.
10. mike e 10

    22 September 2012 at 11:29 pm

    All they have to do is buy some quota and few fishermen out set up a marine park of the coast of Taranaki to the shelf, get those fishermen trained up as eco tourist operators , marine park workers, work on cleaning up environment,developing tourism fish breeding and replenish the other fishing grounds to keep fishermen onside!
    • mike e 10.1

      22 September 2012 at 11:40 pm

      sailing boats , but countries like the West Indies have a more modern approach to replenishing fishing grounds and we should move from a second world exploitation to the max and a wing and prayer method,like the possibility that we are fishing stocks dangerously to the point of extinction like the possibility with the tooth fish.
      Lots of species aren’t as abundant now as they were in the past that’s a fact look at some early fishing history around New Zealand and the catches of those days were phenomenal!
11. xtasy 11

    23 September 2012 at 2:34 am

    Suppose to Key and sorts it is just like: “Fish and Chips”, the cheaper the better.

    But John, dolphins are NOT fish! Well, bugger off, what can we sell them like then, whales?
12. Feargal 12

    23 September 2012 at 12:49 pm

    Clean Green = 100% Pure Bullshit, when the foreign press wake up to the Bullshit Green Lie. We’ve had rammed down our collective throats. Then we’ll see how good the Dairy Cheque is to the economy. – – – – Wake up NZ It’s GREEN because of all the imported Grassland and imported Fertilisers, and 40 million bloody old Heiffers shitting all over it. Oh and it Rains alot here.

    Never was a Island so changed from its’ natural state to its’ present so quickly In the entire History of Humanity.
    • blue leopard 12.1

      23 September 2012 at 12:56 pm

      …Yeah I liked the way PsychoMilt (above comment 3) put it: “It’s worth noting that “clean, green New Zealand” always was a straightforward lie…”

      …I wonder whether one of the numerous people who have moved their entire lives to NZ will ever sue NZ for false advertising? I am aware of numerous people in this position who feel rather ripped off on this count.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS