I've read the fauna reports Reg and I'm still not sure what you are
getting at.
If this is an issue about the BBBQ, then I don't see a problem with
experts looking at the available evidence and taking different views.
Having been involved in expert witness reports (in my particular
specialist field, which isn't birds) my tendency was always to be
conservative and stick with hard and fast facts rather than get into
supposition, which can easily be pulled apart.
That conservative approach appears to be what Dr Watson has done in
this case. It may seem like he's not done the campaign against the
site any favours, by not accepting the site is important for BBBQ but
to be honest if he'd over stretched his statements beyond what was
supportable by the available evidence I don't think that would
necessarily have helped the cause much either. I suspect the appeal
court would have taken a dim view of such an approach.
I'm sure when you are so close to it it is hard to be dispassionate,
but passion doesn't hold sway with the court. Science, evidence,
reason however will.
All that said I maintain my original position that the area is an
outstanding place, BBBQs or not, it would be a crying shame to lose
another inch of SEQ coastal habitat to yet more holiday development.
Best of luck with the court case Reg.
On 19/05/2011, at 7:57 AM, Reg wrote:
Hi,
All the fauna reports are now available on www.saveinskip.org.au/
experts.html
People can read the reports and see what the problem is that BA
refused to address. The court case is continuing.
Reg Lawler
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
