In response to Neill Bell’s letter ‘Issue with Parks’ (The Islander, 26/4/12), I would like to make the following points on behalf of KIMAG.

The LAG process was a community-based process in which all views were taken into account. On this basis the LAG members made recommendations for the location of each sanctuary zone. Each recommendation was made with a significant majority. This was the most democratic way for all views in the community to be expressed.

While KIMAG is made up of representatives mostly from the four KI action groups representing the interests of recreational fishermen, it also has members representing commercial fishermen and the KI Council. At the last Council meeting, KIMAG asked the Council to give their support to KIMAG’s proposal of making sure the LAG recommendations are adopted by the state Labor Government.

Notice of this proposal to the Council was made public at least a week before the Council meeting so plenty of time was given to those wanting to oppose the proposal. At the meeting alternative opinions could have been offered to the Council by any person but none were offered by anyone let alone Eco-Action KI. The Council unanimously agreed to the KIMAG proposal.

Neill Bell’s argument seems determinedly one-sided. While Eco-Action KI and other groups were listened to in the LAG process, the majority democratic view disagreed with them. Having not got his way, Neill now wants to make use the government’s distorted process whereby ‘environmental’ groups get another separate chance to lobby the Government with their own views. This can only be viewed as profoundly undemocratic.

Finally I need to make the point the KIMAG and its supporters want to protect the environment. We want clean, pristine seas and we support Marine Parks. What we disagree with Eco-Action Ki about is the means of maintaining this by using Sanctuary zones. Perhaps if Eco-Action talked to us we might just come to an agreed community view.

Paul Davies
On behalf of Kangaroo Island Marine Action Group (KIMAG)

“It is significant that the Motion, which Councillors were not given time to research or even digest, was prepared well in advance of Mr Gilfillan’s deputation, suggesting the possibility of collusion in order to pre-empt a result.”

You may want to explain what you mean here as I can not see where collusion could have been interpreted.
Finally can I assure you I have no vested interest in this, I have no political connections and am very keen that the community fully understand what the implications are for future marine conservation.

Andy Gilfillan
Chair KIMAG

Perhaps you could enlighten me?

David

This note is just to confirm that the issue is still very much ‘alive’. Bight Petroleum Corporation has not submitted their referral yet – we don’t know why. Perhaps the extra conditions attached to their permit are too difficult for them to meet. Perhaps they are waiting for the results of the BP surveys further west (in the middle of the Great Australian Bight). Perhaps they are waiting for us all to forget they are there … Right now we can only guess.

What is important is for Minister Burke to continue to hear from the Island – that we think the risk is too high, and we want more than political assurances. We want the progress to be right and transparent. We want our say.

So, we urge everyone to keep the letters to the Minister flowing, and to contact us if you wish to have further information about what is happening.

As I see it Mssrs Cowans, Renfrey, Black, Bates, Denholm and Clements etc… your continued denigration of reality and waste of public funds is disgusting… as is your continued promotion of unrealistic, financially unviable and unsustainable Island infrastucture.

There is no such thing as a free lunch – and never will be!

I also suggest you check your ability to afford any unjust criticism you may aim at me for my above mentioned comments – and disregard any grammatical errors which my retarded wobbly typing finger may have committed!