Thread: Catalyst - 4WD's on beaches

Originally Posted by drivesafe

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.

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!

Originally Posted by 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!

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

"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.