Thread: Catalyst - 4WD's on beaches

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

a somewhat dubious sounding idea.

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

Cheers.

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

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.

NM, you must let me in on your secret.

When I said this:

Originally Posted by vnx205

.... 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:

Originally Posted by Numpty's Missus

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?

Originally Posted by vnx205

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?

Have you seen the pictures of NM?

Cheers
Simon

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

Originally Posted by vnx205

Quote:
Originally Posted by drivesafe
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.

Originally Posted by drivesafe

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.