>In regard to your message I understand what you are saying, though I feel
firearms are
>not necessarily issue. The problem stems for the "NUT BEHIND THE BUTT", who
are
>misdirected, thoughtless and irrisponsible. Somewhat similar to the Druken
Driver
>behind the wheel of an automobile. The LOOSE NUT BEHINDE THE WHEEL!.
Generally most
>people including fishermen are responscible people. After all is said and
done it is
>their livelyhood and reputation that is at stake ! Surely?
>Lets work together to Educate or irraditcate these individuals for the
betterment of all
>concerned, be they Fishermen, Conservationists or Albatrosses.
>Lindsay.
This is the same situation as the Port Arthur one and we know what happened
there. Firstly I would like the answer to a few questions
1. Why do they need guns on board. Is there a valid purpose?
2. What type of weapons are they?
3. Is it only the skipper that has the weapon and therefore the licence?
4. Are the crew allowed to fire the weapons too?
4. Do some of these boats have more than one weapon?
Trying to educate the one or two irrisponsible is not easy. Its a bit like
telling them not to speed in their cars. If guns are not available the problem
is removed, but is it practicable to remove them? Personally I hate all guns
and would like to see the lot removed. But before I write and complain I would
like all the facts because if it is not feasible I will be wasting my time.
Can anyone help here?
>We currently collect sufficent data as is necessary to detemine origns, sex
and age of
>all birds captured. To date we have captured almost five thousand
individuals, Ten
>Thousand times, "Twitcher's we're Not"
I think Lindsay is trying to say that the book is already closed and there is
no longer a need for blood samples? "Twitcher's we're Not" is not necessarily
something to be proud of. (just winding you up Lindsay)
Regards
Tony
|
