Printable View
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.;)
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CaverD3
Quote:Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
Originally Posted by drivesafe https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/im...016/08/768.jpg
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.
My oh my are we a pedantic bunch on the forum this weekend...
Is it a FULL MOON or something outside?
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.
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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tombie2
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.?Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
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.
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.
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)
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.