Catalyst - 4WD's on beaches

[WhiteD3]

In case you missed the show and enjoy the odd beach drive....



YouTube - Catalyst - 4wd on beaches (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vY_-R73MhA)

[long stroke]

Far out didn't have the slitest idea that there was so much life in the sand!
Looks like they will probably start pushing to get 4wd of our beaches:mad:

[harry]

well, that's nice.
we can send that one back, to see what his people have done to his original country.
now off to tugun to rip up the new highway, as i'm sure it stuffed some sort of invisible critters.

[drivesafe]

Well they could start by banning foreign tourist ( German, like the scientist ) from driving on our beaches and that would not only give the microbes a bit better chance but would also protect us locals. ;)

[procrastination inc]

microbes aren't the issue, insects, crustacea and molluscs are what they were counting.

Knowing this sort of stuff is useful in making informed decisions about our behaviour.

Dismissing off hand new information that conflicts with your current opinion or preferences is pretty arrogant.

[29dinosaur]

Yes I saw the program and it made interesting viewing. How many days before the whole beach is repopulated with the crustacea etc? after 4wd leave the area?? In other words is impact long term? How deep did the effect go and does it really matter?

[disco2hse]

I am not a Bhuddist and I do not feel guilty about squishing sand bugs. On the other hand there are beaches where the locals voluntarily put restrictions on access to ensure that shell fish are not destroyed. Also, there are places where vehicles should just not go, like into unstable sand dunes or bird nesting areas.

But, it does look like the creatures are not under any real threat. There are gazillions of them, just look at the extent of the Barrier Reef.

I do get sick of the human haters who see that anything that humans do is detrimental to nature and that humans need to be eradicated, because "nature is good" and "nature is the best" and "humans hurt nature", so "humans must go".

Alan

[100I]

I wouldn't like to see the beaches closed to 4WD, but I have no problem with well managed restrictions.
That beach in particular is disgustingly over abused in peak times and is not satisfactorily managed.
Look at the way Moreton is now regulated, sure you can't just hop a barge any more at a whim, but when you get there it's a much more enjoyable place with realistic numbers, and the campsites have a real chance to recover.

[RonMcGr]

Send him to the Mary Valley with a copy of Bligh's idiotic plans for a dam.
That will keep him busy..

[waynep]

Good on you ( and brave ) for posting that up, hope we can all keep an open mind.

[101 Ron]

This is a easy problem to solve.
Ban people off Bondi beach as the microbe testing will prove the human foot print contact pressure will be doing more damage than any 4by.
Might lock up all the beaches and that will save lives by stopping people drowning.
Ban kids from building sand castles too.
Might save money from reduced hospital costs of peole hurting them selves at the beach.
250000 cars a year over a beach at Noosa..........a joke .
The extra nutrients we pump into the sea from our sewage ocean out falls will give the the tiny bugs plenty to eat.
I AM SICK OF THIS S#it and the people who fall for it and dont let the truth or a small part of a overall story spoil a good story of ratings.
Did any one test the recovery rate of these bugs ?

[drivesafe]

I do get sick of the human haters who see that anything that humans do is detrimental to nature and that humans need to be eradicated, because "nature is good" and "nature is the best" and "humans hurt nature", so "humans must go".

Alan

Could not put it better, had a gut full of the ****** fringe who think they have the right to screw everybody else’s way of life because it ALLEGEDLY has some effect on the environment.

I wonder if these same ******* have corks jammed up their A'holes to make sure THEY don't pollute the atmosphere. I don’t think so and these same ******* still have cars and everything else we have that contribute to global warming or what ever the trendy issue is this week.

When some prove that we are causing revisable damage then do something about it but to make out that there is a problem when the clown himself states that they don’t know what is going to happen appears to me to be nothing more than a ****** trying to get his fifteen minutes of fame and nothing more.

Cheers.

[vnx205]

..... ..... .... appears to me to be nothing more than a ****** trying to get his fifteen minutes of fame and nothing more.

Cheers.
I was left with a different impression.

I saw it as the results of some research being released as part of a continuing process of trying to understand the world we live in.

As is so often the case, such research raises more questions than it answers.
As people have quite rightly pointed out, there needs to be further research to compare the damage done by 4WDs with other factors that impact on these creatures as well as further research into their recovery rate and the impact on other organisms that might be dependant on or preyed on by these creatures.

While we might feel threatened because of the particular subject of the research, it's not the research which is the problem. The problem lies with people who do not understand the way scientific research works jumping to some unwarranted conclusion because they think there is always a simple black and white answer to a complex problem.

I didn't feel that the program tried to give the impression that this was the end of the matter and that no more research needed to be done.

[Utemad]

Could not put it better, had a gut full of the ****** fringe who think they have the right to screw everybody else’s way of life because it ALLEGEDLY has some effect on the environment.

I wonder if these same ******* have corks jammed up their A'holes to make sure THEY don't pollute the atmosphere. I don’t think so and these same ******* still have cars and everything else we have that contribute to global warming or what ever the trendy issue is this week.

I did notice the 100 Series Cruiser they drove on the beach. Had a good laugh about that. Plus there would have been a camera vehicle too.

I think it is great that people find this stuff out but as said it is just a tiny snapshot in time of something and does not really prove anything right now. So to use this tiny snapshot to ban vehicles from beaches or any other such thing would be stupid.

[drivesafe]

I saw it as the results of some research being released as part of a continuing process of trying to understand the world we live in.

The research itself is not in question, but the alleged effects are.

This is no better than when George Stephenson Rocket carried passengers at speeds up to 25 miles an hour and prominent doctors of the day stated that this kind of speed would result in the deaths of the passenger, for all sorts of ridiculers reasons.

Here we are, nearly two hundred years later and it’s the same old same old.

[100I]

So we should just leave it open slather until serious side effects are suddenly & dramaticly obvious and irreversable? And then the answer will be immediate knee-jerk total bans.
OR do we keep an open mind and a finger on the pulse and monitor these environmental impacts, and then choose to act early and make small changes so that everyone can enjoy it into the future.

The research is fine, it is how that information is then used and descisions made that is important. "Don't shoot the messenger", he is just raising the issue, now.

[vnx205]

The research itself is not in question, but the alleged effects are. ..... ..... ...
Surely it's not a case of the effects being questioned, but the significance or relevance of those effects.

I thought that his scientific method was pretty sound so there seems to be a strong argument that 4WDs reduce the number of those critters.

What is in question is what, if anything should be done about it.

I am prepared to accept that the effects are real, but I'm not yet sure what, if anything should be done about it. Further research will hopefully provide the answer.

[mcrover]

I wonder how many Microbes and crustations were injured or killed in the making of that episode of ACA.........Oh I mean catylist.....:wasntme:

Bloody joke.....you guys who are agreeing with that rubbish may as well sell your 4wds and go back to walking eveywhere as your damagine microbial living beings everytime you start it as it will suck them in the intake and burn them in the engine, it will splat them on your windscreen while going to you green rally and not to mention the millions of ants that you squash with you oversized tyres while driving to work.

It is not just the beach that this sort of thing relates to, those particular crustations maybe but are they saying that they dont populate other areas that are not driven on an HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO RECOVER.....? is it when the tide comes in and then goes back out so every 12 hrs that it is all regenerated.

If it were so bad then there would be nothing there now to test, so there must be some regeneration not to mention that there is thousands of Km's of beachs in australia that isnt driven on due to already being band or not being accessable to 4wd's so how much do the greenies actually want.

Why not leave something to the people who enjoy this sort of beach play, it isnt going to change that much in the grand scheme of things no matter what some off with the fairies over educated so called expert says.

Everything in moderation.............yes if it is getting thrashed then regulate useage but these close this and ban that is just scare tactics by single minded extemists that refuse to see that there is a different life other than what they live.

I could go on a lot longer but that will do for now.

Bloody stupid

[vnx205]

I wonder how many Microbes and crustations were injured or killed in the making of that episode of ACA.........Oh I mean catylist.....:wasntme:

Bloody joke.....you guys who are agreeing with that rubbish may as well sell your 4wds and go back to walking eveywhere as your damagine microbial living beings everytime you start it as it will suck them in the intake and burn them in the engine, it will splat them on your windscreen while going to you green rally and not to mention the millions of ants that you squash with you oversized tyres while driving to work.

It is not just the beach that this sort of thing relates to, those particular crustations maybe but are they saying that they dont populate other areas that are not driven on an HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO RECOVER.....? is it when the tide comes in and then goes back out so every 12 hrs that it is all regenerated.

So can we assume you have seen the results of some research that show the extent of regeneration over a 12 hour period?


If it were so bad then there would be nothing there now to test, so there must be some regeneration not to mention that there is thousands of Km's of beachs in australia that isnt driven on due to already being band or not being accessable to 4wd's so how much do the greenies actually want.

Yes, I'm sure there is some regeneration, but wouldn't you feel happier knowing just how much and how quickly. It is only through such research that you are likely to get an answer.


Why not leave something to the people who enjoy this sort of beach play, it isnt going to change that much in the grand scheme of things no matter what some off with the fairies over educated so called expert says.

Everything in moderation.............yes if it is getting thrashed then regulate useage but these close this and ban that is just scare tactics by single minded extemists that refuse to see that there is a different life other than what they live.

I could go on a lot longer but that will do for now.

Bloody stupid

You seem to be assuming that some sort of regulation is necessary. How do you know? It might be that things recover so quickly that it isn't needed.
Has it occurred to you that further research might lead to the conclusion that we might as well drive up and down the beaches as much as we like?

Those of us whom you have attacked as "bloody stupid" are for the most part simply arguing that we need to know what is going on around us to better manage our environment.

The alternative surely is to remain ignorant and prejudiced.

I would like to know whether there is a problem with 4WDs on beaches.
The Catalyst program gave me just one very small piece of information which if properly followed up will go part way towards answering that question.

Diatribes from people with closed minds contribute a lot less to my understanding of the issue.

[vnx205]

Just in case it isn't obvious from my previous posts, I will state clearly and simply that I am not advocating a ban on 4WDs on beaches. I am simply supporting scientific research.

[100I]

I don't want to be banned from the beaches either.
I love Teewah and surrounds, but I miss it;)

[disco2hse]

Some of our local councils have been meeting with interested groups to decide on whether regulation of vehicles is warranted and what kind if there is any. Participants have included locals who live nearby, greenies, local and central govt. reps, police, 4WD associations, local tribal reps, and individuals.

So far the general impression I have is that they are pretty happy with 4WDs on the beaches, but there are idiots who need to be restricted. The biggest problem is with motorcyclists who rip the s**t out of sand dunes, go places where they are restricted from (and are sign posted), kill pedestrians, and generally create noisy mayhem. The initial outcomes seem to be that motorbikes are being limited further and speed restrictions are being put in place to stop people from killing themselves.

The issues related to fauna have been addressed previously here (in NZ) and it has been noted that there are certain times of the year where vehicles should not go certain places. In most cases it is the local inhabitants who tell people they can and can't go. Generally people are happy to comply but you do always get fools who insist on "being different" and doing whatever they want, when they want.

Having no restrictions on collecting shellfish and driving over their breeding beds led to widespread population drop offs, especially in the '80's. Since then, with people taking an active interest in their growth and survival, numbers are now very healthy in most areas. This is normal people doing it for themselves. I don't need socialist do-gooders telling me why I should be feeling guilty about this thing this week, or that thing next. Cripes, I'm not even Catholic :angel: :wasntme:

The interesting thing is that with measures in place to protect one species, for example the Toheroa (largish shellfish, and very sweet :) ), other species also rebound.

Alan

[101 Ron]

Ever seen a beach after a rock show or sports event.
The sand is a lunar landscape.
Will the do gooders stop this damage......I think not.
And that is my point.....two sets of rules .
Why dont they get money to check this and will it make it to TV.
I think not.
Because the greenies and experts will look bad.

[mcrover]

Some of our local councils have been meeting with interested groups to decide on whether regulation of vehicles is warranted and what kind if there is any. Participants have included locals who live nearby, greenies, local and central govt. reps, police, 4WD associations, local tribal reps, and individuals.

So far the general impression I have is that they are pretty happy with 4WDs on the beaches, but there are idiots who need to be restricted. The biggest problem is with motorcyclists who rip the s**t out of sand dunes, go places where they are restricted from (and are sign posted), kill pedestrians, and generally create noisy mayhem. The initial outcomes seem to be that motorbikes are being limited further and speed restrictions are being put in place to stop people from killing themselves.

The issues related to fauna have been addressed previously here (in NZ) and it has been noted that there are certain times of the year where vehicles should not go certain places. In most cases it is the local inhabitants who tell people they can and can't go. Generally people are happy to comply but you do always get fools who insist on "being different" and doing whatever they want, when they want.

Having no restrictions on collecting shellfish and driving over their breeding beds led to widespread population drop offs, especially in the '80's. Since then, with people taking an active interest in their growth and survival, numbers are now very healthy in most areas. This is normal people doing it for themselves. I don't need socialist do-gooders telling me why I should be feeling guilty about this thing this week, or that thing next. Cripes, I'm not even Catholic :angel: :wasntme:

The interesting thing is that with measures in place to protect one species, for example the Toheroa (largish shellfish, and very sweet :) ), other species also rebound.

Alan

Spot on :D

If anyone will know what is happeneing with the local enviroment it is the locals not some bloke who comes in and has a look for a miniute and then says that Im the expert and this is what to do.

Im all for managment of wilderness areas BUT im not a greenie by any stretch of the imagination.

To me it is common sense to look after what you have so it is there for later generations but there are over educated gits out there that get the air play on TV like this bloke who have the idea of this is bad so stop it, not manage it and not think of it in any other way than that.

Yeah go ahead and do scientific studies but just like any sort of statistics there is no truth in the translation as they can basically take the information they collect and tell the public what ever they want about it.

The problem is that the scientist that do this dont do it maliciously as they really believe that they are right in what they think but in reality you wouldnt know until years later when then the status quo has changed and you then cant get back what youve lost.

[procrastination inc]

"greenie" "conservationist" "environmentalist" are all labels that seem to have attracted an extremist persona. I think some guys here mightn't be aware that Four Wheel Drivers, Dirt Bike riders and Shooters are similarly stereotyped as Red neck Hooligans...

The truth is that only a minority of any of the groups above fit the stereotypes. Most people are considerate and able to recognise the needs and concerns of others and negotiate mutually tolerable behaviour.

[mcrover]

"greenie" "conservationist" "environmentalist" are all labels that seem to have attracted an extremist persona. I think some guys here mightn't be aware that Four Wheel Drivers, Dirt Bike riders and Shooters are similarly stereotyped as Red neck Hooligans...

The truth is that only a minority of any of the groups above fit the stereotypes. Most people are considerate and able to recognise the needs and concerns of others and negotiate mutually tolerable behaviour.

So this is why the Green fuzzy feel good groups get the air play of the main stream media yet you wont see the hooligan red neck groups saying anything to anyone else other than their own groups.

Is this because us rednecks are too lazy to push our message into the main stream or is it that the mainstream media has an idea of what they want to sell to the pubic and have an idea of what they want us to think and force their ideal onto us.

I dont like people wrecking the enviroment but it is all a 1 sided fight when you get these self proclaimed experts involved and the media.

[drivesafe]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous threads yet.

Some ****** takes 5 minutes and does some research, which may or may not have any relevance to anything at all, let alone 4x4 use, tries to make a name for himself by making a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE, I’ll repeat that for those do gooders that missed in in the clip , this ****** made a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE effecting fish and bird life, yet gave not one single shred of evidence to back his totally unsubstantiated statement.

His research was done over what period of time, 5 minutes, yet to my knowledge, these beaches have been used by 4x4s for at least 50 to 60 years and there is, even by his own words no proven evidence of any form of damage, so why did he make such a totally fabricated statement in the first. Maybe he is looking for more funding and he sees 4x4 bashing as a way of getting it.

After 50 years of use there would be by now, evidence of 4x4s effecting this crap he is making a big note himself over and if there was any real evidence, this s%#tfaced ****** and every greenie this side of the black stump would have already tried to use it to stop 4x4s using the few beaches they can.

Folks, get a reality check, this is nothing more than a bit of media hype.

[100I]

Don't wrap it in cotton wool Tim

:lol2:

[vnx205]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous threads yet.

Some ****** takes 5 minutes and does some research, which may or may not have any relevance to anything at all, let alone 4x4 use

Yes, that's right (apart from the 5 minutes). His job is to do the research. Don't attack him for doing the research. It is up to others to make a decision about its relevance, hopefully based on a more complete picture resulting from further research.


tries to make a name for himself by making a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE, I’ll repeat that for those do gooders that missed in in the clip , this ****** made a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE effecting fish and bird life, yet gave not one single shred of evidence to back his totally unsubstantiated statement.

If he said that 4WD beach use MIGHT be having some sort of effect, I'm quite comfortable with that because that statement also implies that they MIGHT NOT. What is wrong with that?

I suppose if he had evidence he would have made a stronger statement. However it is quite a common phenomenon for an effect on one part of the ecology to impact on other parts and for increases or decreases in the numbers of some organisms to affect other organisms in the food chain. That seems like a perfectly good basis for further research and a reasonable thing about which to speculate.



His research was done over what period of time, 5 minutes, yet to my knowledge, these beaches have been used by 4x4s for at least 50 to 60 years and there is, even by his own words no proven evidence of any form of damage

The fact that something has gone on for 50 to 60 years is no guarantee that it is not harmful. We often don't learn about the harm until someone does the research, unless of course the harm is so disastrous that Blind Freddy can see it.
After all people happily smoked tobacco in pipes and cigars in the 15th and 16th centuries and in cigarettes from the late 18th century, quite oblivious to the myriad of medical problems they were creating for themselves and those around them.


so why did he make such a totally fabricated statement in the first. Maybe he is looking for more funding and he sees 4x4 bashing as a way of getting it.
I hope he does get more funding. That way we will find out the facts. With any luck, you will be proved right. However if it happens that you are wrong, we probably should try to address the problem .



After 50 years of use there would be by now, evidence of 4x4s effecting this crap he is making a big note himself over and if there was any real evidence, this s%#tfaced ****** and every greenie this side of the black stump would have already tried to use it to stop 4x4s using the few beaches they can.
The evidence is sometimes obvious, but sometimes it is less obvious and if we can find the evidence that harm is being done, early intervention may be beneficial. If the evidence uncovered by the research shows no harm is being done, it may help silence the critics.



Folks, get a reality check, this is nothing more than a bit of media hype.

Discovering the truth and distinguishing between fact and fantasy is one way to get a reality check. Research helps us learn what is real.

What the media has chosen to do with the information has little to do with whether or not it is useful research.

I can understand that we should be concerned that people might misuse this information either because of their own prejudices or their ignorance of how scientific research proceeds. However that is not a reason to denigrate the researcher.
His method seemed sound and his statements, from my recollection and from your account are certainly much more reasoned than some of the comments on his work, and the things he actually stated as results of his research are certainly better substantiated than some of the hysterical responses it has provoked.

[drivesafe]

The argument is not that he has done some research, the argument is about the credibility of the statements he made about 4x4s and their mythical effect they are having on the fish and bird life, while at the same time he states he has found no evidence to back his statement, in other words, this creep is doing nothing more than lying through his back teeth to get his 15 minutes of fame and the ABC must be having a shortage of store content for catalyst.

vnx205, if you think there is any reason for him to make such unsubstantiated ( mythical ) statements, I’d sure as hell like to hear them.

[CaverD3]

Even if 4x4s have an effect on these life forms and they do affect other life forms, what percentage of the Australian coastline with sand has a significant use by vehicles?
So probably about a gnats dicks worth of damage.

Give way to the thinking of greeenies and we will be banned from all but tarred roads.;)

[WhiteD3]

Even if 4x4s have an effect on these life forms and they do affect other life forms, what percentage of the Australian coastline with sand has a significant use by vehicles?
So probably about a gnats dicks worth of damage.

Good point.

[vnx205]

vnx205, if you think there is any reason for him to make such unsubstantiated ( mythical ) statements, I’d sure as hell like to hear them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/08/768.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/56494-catalyst-4wds-beaches-3.html#post744181)
tries to make a name for himself by making a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE, I’ll repeat that for those do gooders that missed in in the clip , this ****** made a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE effecting fish and bird life, yet gave not one single shred of evidence to back his totally unsubstantiated statement.

I'm assuming my recollection and your description of his statement about the broader effect of 4WDs are correct.

If he said it might have an effect on fish and birds, I would expect that his reason for saying that would be that it is extremely common for creatures both up and down the food chain to be affected by significant changes to the creatures that either prey on them or are their source of food.

I'm sure you are aware of a number of examples of where this has occurred.
I guess you are familiar with the effect on native species of the introduction of foxes to Australia and the build up of feral cat numbers.
You may also know that it is probable that one of the causes of eucalypt die-back in some areas is the eradication of a wattle that was considered a bit of a pest. It appears however that the eucalypts then suffered because they were attacked by increasing numbers of beetles that were normally kept in check by possums that needed the wattles as a source of food for the part of the year when the beetles weren't there. So, no wattles, no possums, more beetles, eucalypts die.

As it is such a common phenomenon, not only do I think it is probably the reason he suggested the possible link, but I would have been astonished and thought he was blind to a quite credible possibility if he didn't make that connection.

John Donne said, "No man is an island," and it seems that the same observation can be made about creatures up and down the food chain. They all affect and are affected by other creatures.

So the reason he said that might happen is that something like that almost always does.

At least that is my impression.

Please remember though that none of this is inconsistent with my hope that further research will show that the impact of 4WDs is not great enough or long lasting enough to justify any radical change to the best examples of what is happening at present.

[Tombie]

My oh my are we a pedantic bunch on the forum this weekend...

Is it a FULL MOON or something outside?

[Hunchy]

Meh.

We kill millions of microbes every time we dump. Even greenies, USC researchers & 4WD'ers. But all we feel is relief, not guilt.

And for all the dead crustaceans in the sand, there's a million more to eat them up. That's the life cycle.

This is simply not an issue, IMHO. We may upset the balance of big critters vs little critters, but nature corrects it all beyond our ability to predict or even understand. I have to side with many in this thread, who've pointed out this is just sensationalist journalism, designed to keep our attention on the screen until the next ad break.

[drivesafe]

Hi vnx205, you can have what ever impression you want but neither you or the scientist have produced one shred of any ill effects being carried out on anything other the microbes, nor any legitimate reason to think 4x4s have been causing any ill effects in the manor being touted even after 50 to 60 years of actual use of 4x4s in these areas.

In the case of this scientist, the truth seems to be nothing more than something that gets in the way of a good story.

[WhiteD3]

My oh my are we a pedantic bunch on the forum this weekend...


Agree.....but I am quiet proud of this thread:wasntme:, as it's generated so much debate when I actually didn't have to say anything!

[vnx205]

Hi vnx205, you can have what ever impression you want but neither you or the scientist have produced one shred of any ill effects being carried out on anything other the microbes, nor any legitimate reason to think 4x4s have been causing any ill effects in the manor being touted even after 50 to 60 years of actual use of 4x4s in these areas.

In the case of this scientist, the truth seems to be nothing more than something that gets in the way of a good story.

Does anyone actually read my posts or do they just assume that I will have taken a contrary view and just take a guess at what I might have said.?

I didn't think I needed to produce any evidence of damage for the simple reason that I am not making the claim that there has been any damage to other creatures.

Some people seem to know for sure that there can't have been any damage.

On the other hand, I have just taken the view that it is worth looking at the evidence to learn whether or not there has been any damage.

[vnx205]

Drivesafe, in answer to your second question, I thought I had offered a legitimate reason to think that it is possible that 4WDs have caused some ill effects.

I thought my argument about creatures on the food chain being affected by what happens to other creatures on that same chain constituted a reason to say it might happen.

I also thought my specific example of how what had happened with eucalyptus die-back was a fairly good piece of supporting evidence that such effects can happen.

Obviously you disagree. I respect your right to do so.

[vnx205]

After all the abuse directed at the researcher, I thought it might be worthwhile refreshing my memory about what he actually said about fish and birds.

Here it is from the transcript:

Assoc. Professor Schlacher: The fuel comes in from the surf zone as little algae being deposited on the beach. And the little critters take on that intermediate role of processing that material and passing it on the fish and birds.

The reporter was a little more critical of 4WDs than that. If you want to check the whole transcript, it is here:

Crushing Critters (Catalyst, ABC1) (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/2239409.htm)

It seems we all owe the researcher an apology. He didn't even say 4WDs might affect fish and birds.

It's a pity to have to spoil a good argument by injecting a few facts, but there you have it. All he did was give a description of the role of these invertebrates.

[drivesafe]

After all the abuse directed at the researcher, I thought it might be worthwhile refreshing my memory about what he actually said about fish and birds.

So what your saying is that the reporter made up his own story and had no input from our illustrious scientist.

Right!

Again, there is nothing in this report that indicates that there has been any evidence found that 4x4s in this scenario have effected the fish or bird life.

A scare mongering remake by the reporter that the “effect on the fish and bird life is anyone's guess” is you and a number of others have based your argument on and again the remark has had no evidence of any form put forward to substantiate the remark in the first place.

Just repeating the views of myself and others, like it or not, this is nothing more than media hype.

[vnx205]

So what your saying is that the reporter made up his own story and had no input from our illustrious scientist.

Right!

Again, there is nothing in this report that indicates that there has been any evidence found that 4x4s in this scenario have effected the fish or bird life.

A scare mongering remake by the reporter that the “effect on the fish and bird life is anyone's guess” is you and a number of others have based your argument on and again the remark has had no evidence of any form put forward to substantiate the remark in the first place.

Just repeating the views of myself and others, like it or not, this is nothing more than media hype.

Help me out here.

Quote the parts of my posts where I said 4WDs affect bird and fish life.

I'm having difficulty understanding why you think I have said that.

[mrapocalypse]

The reason why everyone gets so sensitive is that info like this gets into the wrong hands, and while the people who drive 4x4's are busy working real jobs, Advocacy groups have jobs specifically to be a pain in the A** and try to make gigantic changes for minorities. AND they pretty much have a free reign.

The journo KNEW it would get a run if he pitched the research at lefty herbal, camry driving ABC Executive producers if it had a 4x4 bashing side. Hence his use of strongly vague language in the story.

If I was that researcher I would be pretty ****ed off at the ABC for making the conclusions they have. As a beach driving 4x4 owner, I am pretty ****ed off at the ABC for letting a reporter draw those conclusions.

As a group we tend to chat while at work, or relaxing at home,. These Advocacy and Environmental groups organise meetings, gather research, and then F*** us over. But then they drive home in cars they don't pay for with free pretrol on bitumen roads to their timber and steel houses on former forested land and say to their same sex partners what a good job they have done.

That's what I think!

[vnx205]

The reason why everyone gets so sensitive is that info like this gets into the wrong hands, and while the people who drive 4x4's are busy working real jobs, Advocacy groups have jobs specifically to be a pain in the A** and try to make gigantic changes for minorities. AND they pretty much have a free reign.

The journo KNEW it would get a run if he pitched the research at lefty herbal, camry driving ABC Executive producers if it had a 4x4 bashing side. Hence his use of strongly vague language in the story.

If I was that researcher I would be pretty ****ed off at the ABC for making the conclusions they have. As a beach driving 4x4 owner, I am pretty ****ed off at the ABC for letting a reporter draw those conclusions.

As a group we tend to chat while at work, or relaxing at home,. These Advocacy and Environmental groups organise meetings, gather research, and then F*** us over. But then they drive home in cars they don't pay for with free pretrol on bitumen roads to their timber and steel houses on former forested land and say to their same sex partners what a good job they have done.

That's what I think!

That's pretty much what I think too, which is why I made no attempt to defend what the narrator or the reporter said.

Like you, I believe that what we should be concerned about is not the research itself, but how the narrator and reporter tried to give it the ACA or 60 Minutes treatement and how some people might misuse it.

Although some others seem to have completely misunderstood my posts, I was responding to what I believed was an unwarranted attack on the researcher.

However looking on the bright side, I suppose this thread would have been rather short and a bit of a fizzer if some people had bothered to read my posts instead of responding with the knee-jerk reaction and invective we have seen. :p

[foz.in.oz]

Just read the transcript and to be honest the evidence and the collection methods seem reasonably sound, however there is one thing I would like to comment on.

According to the text the Prof. reckons 250,000 vehicles a day use that beach. That's 2.89 cars per second, over 24 hours. Now I know most people don't use the beach at night so it's more like 4 cars a second. That's more than on the Bruce highway on a public holiday weekend:o

Now hopefully that is a typo and the good 'ol ABC will submitt an apoplogy to avoid confusion (spoken in a sarcastic voice with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

If it is not a typo then there's a lot more people out there who would like to continue using the beach than there are against it and in a democracy votes count:D

[Tote]

Having watched a couple of other episodes of Catalyst it would seem to be not much better than ACA or Today tonight and merely a vehicle for the presenter to push her vehicle hating views. The episode on car lovers a few weeks ago quickly turned into a "defend your right to destroy the world by driving a V8" session with the somewhat bemused guests forced to defend their lifestyle choices on a program that was promoted as debating the fascination Australian culture has with performance vehicles as a passtime.

Regards,
Tote

[XSiV]

Personally I can't stand being on a beach that has so much traffic. I totally agree with everything vnx205 has said. Most of the other kneejerk posts have been no better than the type of reaction they alledge would be the result of this story by the 'greenies' and 'do-gooders'.

As far as I am aware nobody has suggested banning 4wds on beaches, however having some form of regulation as to how many vehicles are on a beach at any one time would not be a bad thing.

From the recent images and videos I've seen of Fraser Island and other popular beach 4wd destinations, I couldn't think of a worse place to be. I got my 4wd to get away from the crowds and explore some of the amazing sights this country has hidden away. Sharing a once beautiful beach with hundreds of 4wds is not what I call a relaxing break.

I appreciate that there are some out there that think that this is the perfect way to spend their break and I respect their opinion. I wonder how much those same people would enjoy it when there are no fish left to catch and the sand is no longer a brilliant white but more a ruddy brown.

This story only shows a study of the decline a large number of some very small creatures. Banning anything because of a first study is rediculous no matter what the findings. Doing further research to identify the actual causes and as mentioned in this thread, the recovery rate of these small creatures would be the logical progression. It could be dicovered that all that may be required is a little management which would only be a good thing for everybody.

Nobody on this forum wants to see any banning of 4wds but flat out rejecting any study that may 'threaten' your way of life is not the answer. We should be interested in these studies. Knowledge is power and if used wisely we may be able to put it to our advantage. Simply rejecting any view other than your own as a that of a 'greeny do-gooder' is just the same as what you are afraid of them doing.

[drivesafe]

XSiV, you have just used the very info that I and other have been berating because of it’s total lack of any form credibility, to put up an argument against what we have been saying.

Thank you very much for proving my point that any scum bag can say anything they want and there will be plenty of people with their own barrow to push, who will use the info, no matter how much of a lie it is based on, in an attempt to prove there own weak point.

Again, thank you very much and cheers.

[numpty]

Take a chill pill Tim, or better still have a beer with Ron.:D

"Greenies and Do-gooders". Boy I hate this response. They might not be everybody's cup of tea, but where would Fraser Island be now without their input. A lot less forest and a lot more mined beach I would suggest. And what of all the remnant rainforest and old growth hardwood forests, all over the country, which are now still around for future generations. Not to mention the still wild Franklin River etc etc. They don't win all the time though.

Programs like Catalyst have their place, after all, a balanced view is what we're after, even if it does interfere with some of the things we hold dear.

[XSiV]

XSiV, you have just used the very info that I and other have been berating because of it’s total lack of any form credibility, to put up an argument against what we have been saying.

Thank you very much for proving my point that any scum bag can say anything they want and there will be plenty of people with their own barrow to push, who will use the info, no matter how much of a lie it is based on, in an attempt to prove there own weak point.

Again, thank you very much and cheers.

In all honesty I have no idea what you are going on about?

It's obvious you seem to be missing the point on several fronts. You seem very angry and I think you might have some deeper issues you may need to have looked at.

Try sitting down, make a cup of tea take a deep breath and re-read the posts, and perhaps have another look at the actual video clip, you might realise the whole world really isn't trying to take your life away.

I appreciate that you feel the 'info you've been berating totally lacks any credibility', but I disagree with you. The fact that your only response is to abuse anybody with an alternative perspective to your own simply shows how incredibly ill informed and ignorant you truly are.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Please correct me if i'm wrong,,
but wont the seawater itself, when the tide comes in, put the little creatures under pressure?

I'm sure one of you clever fellows can work out the comparison;)

[XSiV]

Please correct me if i'm wrong,,
but wont the seawater itself, when the tide comes in, put the little creatures under pressure?

I'm sure one of you clever fellows can work out the comparison;)

Most surely Pedro but I beleive the little critters could swim in the water and thus relieve some of the pressure.

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Backstroke perhaps?:angel:

[WhiteD3]

Please correct me if i'm wrong,,
but wont the seawater itself, when the tide comes in, put the little creatures under pressure?

I'm sure one of you clever fellows can work out the comparison;)

Try this experiment:

1> Wait till the tide comes in, wade out to the same spot and sit on the sand:).
2> Wait till the tide goes out, walk out to the same spot and lay on the sand, then have your Mrs run over you with the 4WD:angel:.

I think the latter will hurt more.....but your Mrs would probably get a laugh.:D

[mcrover]

Try this experiment:

1> Wait till the tide comes in, wade out to the same spot and sit on the sand:).
2> Wait till the tide goes out, walk out to the same spot and lay on the sand, then have your Mrs run over you with the 4WD:angel:.

I think the latter will hurt more.....but your Mrs would probably get a laugh.:D

Now thats a scientific load of crap.......:o

[Pedro_The_Swift]

Try this experiment:

1> Wait till the tide comes in, wade out to the same spot and sit on the sand:).
2> Wait till the tide goes out, walk out to the same spot and lay on the sand, then have your Mrs run over you with the 4WD:angel:.

I think the latter will hurt more.....but your Mrs would probably get a laugh.:D


Now thats a scientific load of crap.......:o

yea,,
still funny though MC,,,:D:D

[WhiteD3]

Now thats a scientific load of crap.......:o


'twas a joke:)

[vnx205]

Take a chill pill Tim, or better still have a beer with Ron.:D

"Greenies and Do-gooders". Boy I hate this response. They might not be everybody's cup of tea, but where would Fraser Island be now without their input. A lot less forest and a lot more mined beach I would suggest. And what of all the remnant rainforest and old growth hardwood forests, all over the country, which are now still around for future generations. Not to mention the still wild Franklin River etc etc. They don't win all the time though.

Programs like Catalyst have their place, after all, a balanced view is what we're after, even if it does interfere with some of the things we hold dear.
Quite right and your mention of the Franklin gives me a good excuse to tell a story that I believe has a tenuous connection with this thread. Anyway relevant or not, I think it is a revealing story.
After enjoying a cruise up the Gordon about 18 months ago, I asked the very capable and articulate young lady who had been our guide what the attitude of the locals was now to the Franklin Dam issue. I asked her if there was anyone who still believed the dam should have been built.
Her comment about why some locals had been so enthusiastic about the dam was very interesting.
I think she used her own uncle as an example of someone who was desperate for the dam to proceed. Apparently he was one of the Taswegians who believed that because the Tas govt said it should be built and because the Hydro Commission said it should be built, that the project would go ahead.
It seems that on the strength of that he took out a huge loan to buy some very expensive earth moving equipment because he had reason to believe he would get some of the earth moving work.
He wanted the dam to go ahead because if it didn't, he would be ruined financially. His enthusiasm for the dam had nothing to do with the issue of whether the dam was needed or appropriate. He needed it to survive financially.
Apparently that was not an isolated case.
Sometimes people's support for or opposition to a project or philosphy is prompted by reasons that have nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the project itself.
I think the dubious connection with this thread is that sometimes it is necessary to read between the lines to understand what motivates someone's stance on an issue.

[mcrover]

'twas a joke:)


Derrrrrrrrrrrr ;)

[drivesafe]

Sometimes people's support for or opposition to a project or philosphy is prompted by reasons that have nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the project itself.
I think the dubious connection with this thread is that sometimes it is necessary to read between the lines to understand what motivates someone's stance on an issue.
Yes, I think you are in need of a mirror.

These two clowns have perpetuated a lie and some of you have taken it, hook line and sinker.

One provided the bullets and the other fired them, yet they have not given one shred of evidence that there is any problem at all.

Had they shown that there was a problem then I would be one of the first to voice my concerns and to ask if there was a remedy or solution.

The only real problem is that is that they have created a mythical problem that lacks any form basis to this mythical problem.

Point one, as already raised, the beach sand is still pristine and the birds and fish are still there and this is after 50 or 60 years of 4x4 use, so where are all these 4x4s causing any problem?

Point two, the story covers the beach during daylight hours but there is no mention of whether the beach microbe life is back to normal at night when there is very little to no 4x4 activity or would this upset the mythical problem causer?

Reality check, I hate liars and these two are nothing more than that. 4x4s may very well be killing these microbes but there is zero evidence that this is causing any other forms of problems, so if these two were fairdinkum, they would not have made out there was a mythical problem, BUT HAY this would have meant there program would not have of any interest to anybody, greenie or otherwise.

[XSiV]

What a poor attitude to take.
If all researchers had been bagged this way (hang on...they were...just look how they bagged Christopher Columbus when he said the earth was round) nothing would have been researched and then where would we be?

It's fact that alot of research starts from a somewhat dubious sounding idea. Just as well or we might not know half of what we know today.

OK...no one wants to lose access to beaches. But what if its true?

Could not have put it better myself!

[drivesafe]

a somewhat dubious sounding idea.


Hi NM, I’ll agree with this one, this is most definitely dubious to say the least.

Cheers.

[drivesafe]

Well it may be :) and someone will take the research further, study the critters over a period of time. Then they may find there is nothing to worry about...or equally they may find these critters to be a crucial food source and that all sea life is dependent on them. Either way, something will be discovered. Whether its what we want to hear or not remains to be seen.

I’ll drink to that.:D

[vnx205]

NM, you must let me in on your secret.

When I said this:

.... That seems like a perfectly good basis for further research and a reasonable thing about which to speculate.
.....
I hope he does get more funding. That way we will find out the facts. With any luck, you will be proved right. However if it happens that you are wrong, we probably should try to address the problem .
.....
If the evidence uncovered by the research shows no harm is being done, it may help silence the critics.
.....
Research helps us learn what is real.
....

- the response I got was irrational hysteria.

Yet when you said pretty much the same thing:

Well it may be :) and someone will take the research further, study the critters over a period of time. Then they may find there is nothing to worry about...or equally they may find these critters to be a crucial food source and that all sea life is dependent on them. Either way, something will be discovered. Whether its what we want to hear or not remains to be seen.

- you get toasted.
How did you manage that?:p

[abaddonxi]

NM, you must let me in on your secret.

When I said this:

- the response I got was irrational hysteria.

Yet when you said pretty much the same thing:


- you get toasted.
How did you manage that?:p

Have you seen the pictures of NM?

Cheers
Simon

[disco2hse]

Just read the transcript and to be honest the evidence and the collection methods seem reasonably sound, however there is one thing I would like to comment on.

According to the text the Prof. reckons 250,000 vehicles a day use that beach. That's 2.89 cars per second, over 24 hours. Now I know most people don't use the beach at night so it's more like 4 cars a second. That's more than on the Bruce highway on a public holiday weekend:o

Now hopefully that is a typo and the good 'ol ABC will submitt an apoplogy to avoid confusion (spoken in a sarcastic voice with tongue planted firmly in cheek).

If it is not a typo then there's a lot more people out there who would like to continue using the beach than there are against it and in a democracy votes count:D

Nah, I reckon the reason the Bruce is so empty on a public holiday is coz they're all at the beach, squishing little critters :D

[drivesafe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2016/08/768.jpg (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/general-chat/56494-catalyst-4wds-beaches-3.html#post744181)
tries to make a name for himself by making a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE, I’ll repeat that for those do gooders that missed in in the clip , this ****** made a totally unsubstantiated statement that 4x4 beach use MIGHT BE effecting fish and bird life, yet gave not one single shred of evidence to back his totally unsubstantiated statement.

I'm assuming my recollection and your description of his statement about the broader effect of 4WDs are correct.

If he said it might have an effect on fish and birds, I would expect that his reason for saying that would be that it is extremely common for creatures both up and down the food chain to be affected by significant changes to the creatures that either prey on them or are their source of food.

I'm sure you are aware of a number of examples of where this has occurred.
I guess you are familiar with the effect on native species of the introduction of foxes to Australia and the build up of feral cat numbers.
You may also know that it is probable that one of the causes of eucalypt die-back in some areas is the eradication of a wattle that was considered a bit of a pest. It appears however that the eucalypts then suffered because they were attacked by increasing numbers of beetles that were normally kept in check by possums that needed the wattles as a source of food for the part of the year when the beetles weren't there. So, no wattles, no possums, more beetles, eucalypts die.

As it is such a common phenomenon, not only do I think it is probably the reason he suggested the possible link, but I would have been astonished and thought he was blind to a quite credible possibility if he didn't make that connection.

John Donne said, "No man is an island," and it seems that the same observation can be made about creatures up and down the food chain. They all affect and are affected by other creatures.

So the reason he said that might happen is that something like that almost always does.

At least that is my impression.

Please remember though that none of this is inconsistent with my hope that further research will show that the impact of 4WDs is not great enough or long lasting enough to justify any radical change to the best examples of what is happening at present.
This sure reads like you are looking for every excuse in the book to try to give this DOCO’s statement that “4x4s MIGHT be causing a problem” some form of credibility, where as NM’s last post simply states more research is needed, with out NM trying to give any credibility or even reference to the DOCO’s statement that 4x4s MIGHT be causing a problem.

As posted repeatedly, not one shred of evidence was produced by the documentary to indicate there was any problems being caused by the 4x4s killing microbes even while there is 50 to 60 years of use that would have, by now shown, some form of problem(s) if there were going to be any.

This pair of clowns were doing nothing more than scare mongering it a vane attempt to give the doco more appeal than it genuinely deserved.

[foz.in.oz]

As posted repeatedly, not one shred of evidence was produced by the documentary to indicate there was any problems being caused by the 4x4s killing microbes even while there is 50 to 60 years of use that would have, by now shown, some form of problem(s) if there were going to be any.

This pair of clowns were doing nothing more than scare mongering it a vane attempt to give the doco more appeal than it genuinely deserved.

Maybe I watched a different docco to you but I thought the prof said that he had taken core samples from above, below and on the path where the cars were driving and on a beach that had not had cars drive on it. He said that he had found that the area where the cars drive was virtually devoid of critters compared to the other regions and that the 'virgin' beach that had billions of critters at all levels on the beach.

No I am not saying I agree with the presentation of these results and I too would like to further research done to identify the real causes of this decline if it is a decline at all, but I do feel your attack on the prof is a bit harsh considering that his research was probably a lot more extensive than what was shown in the clip. You should not be sledging some one for opening the can, rather you should take an open minded approach and encourage people like this to go away and find out whatever else there might be that is influencing the behavour of this ecosystem. You never know, maybe its because the beach is on the flight path to Brissy. Rather than shoot the scientist and pop a gasket in the process, take a chill pill and let the drama play out and when there is solid, undesputable evidence, sit down and produce a management strategy that addresses all the issues and not just what size shoes the presenter had on.

[drivesafe]

Hi foz.in.oz, the argument I put forward was that did not indicate that they had tested the same section of beach at night, that they were showing all the 4x4s on during the day.

Simply stating that a beach closed to 4x4s did not have the kill rate was only giving part of the store and a part that best suited they hype.

Cheers