Monday, December 31, 2012

Commentary on NPRSR Operational Policy ? Rock climbing on ...

posted by Dave Reeve

The Department of National Parks, Recreation, Sport and Racing (NPRSR) recently?released its new?Operational Policy - Rock climbing on QPWS managed areas. The document is dated 27th July 2012?and can be viewed here.

This document represents a significant milestone in the management of rock climbing by QPWS. Just how significant a step this is, I?ll endeavour to explain by examining the steps and mis-steps taken along the way, and the societal changes that influenced this outcome.

the changing demographic

Over the past fifty years, the trend in the climbing community has been one starting with a mere handful of climbers, anarchic by nature, certainly unmanageable by external dictate, and growing to a few thousand folk, individualistic, but receptive to appeals from reason. Indeed, it is good fortune that the vast increase in popularity of climbing has been accompanied by a shift to a demographic more understanding of the need for management.

Something else was changing as well over this period, and that was the very nature of the sport itself.? In the fifties and early sixties, rock climbing could best be considered as an extension of bush walking, steep bush walking if you like, where the object was to proceed from bottom to top overcoming such obstacles that lay on the chosen path. A form of adventure seeking that is still preserved on some routes today.

By the late sixties, however, non bush walking climbers were appearing on the scene. These newcomers were increasingly interested in climbing only for what it offered technically. The focus on technical ability, plus the impact of strong technical climbers from overseas rewrote in several decades what it meant to be a rock climber. Add to this process the recent explosive growth in indoor climbing, a substantial percentage of whose participants?will venture outdoors, and it is easy to understand that modern sport climbing brings a radically different demographic to the crags.

And, most importantly for the discussion in hand, sport climbing means bolted routes, no ifs, no buts, no exceptions. The vast majority of modern climbers will be climbing routes narrowly delineated by a line of bolts placed in the rock at roughly 2 to 3m intervals for a height of 20 to 30m.

Several other societal trends over this period play into the story. In the fifties, such National Parks as existed were managed by a state apparatus whose motivation was primary production and the exploitation of the state?s resources. Under these circumstances, located as they were on ?worthless? land, NPs inevitably acquired Cinderella status, and there was no clear vision and no underpinning legislation to guide their management.

However, with growing affluence came ?green? ideology, which began to impact the political discourse. In 1975 the National Parks and Wildlife Service was formed leading to the Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service a few years later. Although, no clear legislative framework was in place as to how QPWS should manage the parks under its supervision, a shift occurred within the public service whereby conservation values gained primacy in the formulation of management policy. There followed a phase of management best likened to locking the public library for fear of people damaging the contents through the willful act of reading.

In 1992, the Nature Conservation Act came into force, and for the first time, we see articulated in the state legislation a clear vision for the role of National Parks, and the principles by which they should be managed. Underlying this legislation, one of several eminently practical principles can be seen at play. Namely, the best outcome for the preservation of the natural environment within the National Parks will ensue if every effort is made to present to the public that which is considered worthy of preservation.

If management decisions are based on a logical appraisal of the balance between preservation and presentation, I believe, perhaps naively, that the Tragedy of the Commons can be averted. Where management chooses to present the conservation values of the park in a way that?engenders within park visitors a sense of stewardship, we begin to shift park visitors from being part of the problem to part of the solution.

If the climbing community wishes to access crags on the public estates, then all aspects of that access have to be evaluated within the context of the NCA. Like that for?any other visitor, climbing access needs to be managed?so that climbers?are empowered to become part of the solution. For those who love the great outdoors, I don?t think this is such a bad place to be after the decades of neglect.

A further societal trend worthy of comment is as follows.? With growing affluence there has been a parallel growth of the Nanny State, and with it, a shift in society?s perceptions of negligence and public liability. When I was a lad in the fifties, we were well warned of the hazards of diving into swimming holes, and yet everyone knew of someone, who knew of someone now wheelchair-bound, serving as testament to the folly of such actions. These people received no financial recompense, and nor did anyone think that they should?.. it was simply what happened when you did stupid things.

However, within a matter of decades the landscape shifted to embrace a new idea whereby people weren?t always responsible for their own judgment calls, and the land manager was negligent if he failed to warn of even the most clear and evident danger. Couple this with an unending supply of youth, a percentage of whom will always rise to the dare of their peers, and you have opened a channel by which the more entrepreneurial of the legal profession will help themselves to the largess of the state. A situation was created under which young men still continued to break their necks by diving into rock pools, but the state now compensated them and their families for those fleeting seconds of errant thought.

The debate about how much of a Nanny the state should be is not relevant here. What is relevant is the fact that the apparatus of state needs to manage the estates for which it is responsible in a way that does not result in a bleeding of the public purse through liability claims. As we will see, this one issue rose to dominate the discussion of management of climbing on the public estate.

enter the demon bolt

Up until the development of modern sport climbs within our parks, such hardware as was affixed to the rock for purposes of protecting the lead climber was removed by the seconder. Maybe the situation was not quite as cut and dried as this, but it suffices for the point I am making, which is that the advent of sport climbing with its dependence on permanently fixed bolts signalled a huge increase in the number of fixtures placed throughout the public estate, and a concomitant increase in the number of people placing their trust in a fixture not of their own devising.

The thought that there could be many hundreds of such bolts out there on the cliffs,?all of uncertain heritage and all deteriorating with each passing year, each and every one a possible magnet for a public liability claim, was certain, sooner rather than later, to ring alarm bells in the offices of the responsible state department.

In 1997 we see a the ?South East Queensland Rockclimbing and Abseiling Risk Management and Litigation Conference? being convened in Brisbane. Viewed today, perhaps a little unfairly because the intervening fifteen years grants me the luxury of hindsight, the published proceedings of this conference create a distinct impression that the layers of public servants really had no idea of what it was they were attempting to manage, but they were unified in the belief that, whatever the nature of beast, it needed regulating. Margaret Laurence, the then Principal Legal Officer, Queensland Dept of Justice and Attorney General, concludes her contribution -

This brief overview of the relevant legislation demonstrates the limited scope for allowing activities such as rockclimbing and abseiling on public land. ? Margaret Laurence1

I guess that it is always easier to shut something down? than make the effort to understand it. But, such an approach comes at a cost to the conservation values of the park, where the ever arising novelty of recreation must be embraced and integrated by management if damage is not to ensue.? I believe the public should call out such failures for what they are, ?lazy management?, and? demand better for our National Parks. I could elaborate, but there is an entire blog post waiting to be written here, so I?ll leave it for now and move on.

It was commendable that representatives of the climbing community participated in the conference. However, with the notable exception of Gordon Brysland, all seemed as incapable as the public servants of articulating what it was that everyone was intent on fixing. Fortunately, Gordon Brysland, being both an active climber and legal expert in matters of public liability, was able to ?bell the cat? in his awesome contribution,? ?Waiting for Romeo?.

As a general proposition, it is arguable that in some cases the risk that a bolt may fail in the absence of negligence by anyone is an inherent risk of climbing. In others, a practice of land managers not to become involved in climbing may operate to protect them from liability. It is also possible that a greater proliferation of bolted routes will make it impossible in practice for a duty of care to be imposed which requires inspection and maintenance. There remains also the ability of land managers to avoid liability for bolts by entrenching appropriate policy decisions in management plans. ? Gordon Brysland2

Over a decade later, when Adam Gibson and I fronted up at our first meeting with DERM, having just kicked-off the fledgling ACAQ, it was clear that the cat was no longer belled, and quite a lot of time and effort was expended getting to the heart of the matter at this and the subsequent meetings. However, while attending a meeting some twelve months on, sudden inspiration moved me to ask,? ?Suppose for now we could wish away the problem of public liability that attaches to climber-installed bolts ? are there any other problems associated with climbing on the public estate that are intractable, or could not be managed by the available mechanisms?? People thought for a while and then one by one chimed in with a chorus of ?No, no there is nothing else that is a problem?. The sense of relief was palpable?.. yes, we can fix this, surely we can?

land managers go bolting

This heading is taken from Gordon Brysland?s? ?Waiting for Romeo?. In it he says -

Contracting recreational climbers to do the work, or permitting the same under familiar ?nod and wink? arrangements, would not shift legal liability from the land manager. Once a land manager makes an operational decision concerning climber safety, its duty of care is likely to be non-delegable. The duty is not just to take reasonable care, but to ensure that reasonable care is taken. ??. Were a climber to be injured as a result of bolt failure in these circumstances, and negligence was shown, the land manager could be legally liable, and damages awarded. ? Gordon Brysland2

The land manager is in a bind. In managing sport climbing he needs to be able to say ?don?t bolt there, bolt here instead? as a means of ensuring that impacts fall on areas where they can be best sustained. However, in prescribing where climbers may or may not bolt he is implicitly directing the placement of bolts and concomitantly increasing his exposure to the public liability they attract.? On the other hand, if he turns a blind eye to climbing activity at a particular crag, not only will he be willfully unaware of the placement of bolts , but also of the state of the environment at that particular site ? something that, under the NCA,?ought to be his primary concern.

three outcomes

It is not surprising, therefore, that we find a number of parks having management plans that take the option of proscribing rock climbing. At first brush, this makes sense in terms of the NCA, which makes it clear that in any contest between conservation and recreation, conservation wins (see section 17(a) of the act). Thus, if the only way of managing rock climbing is to turn a blind eye to it, with the consequent risk to conservation values, it might make more sense to ban climbing altogether. Such is the case for the latest Lamington NP management plan, and the blanket ban it places on all climbing within the park, including the substantial climbing resource of Poondarah. The ban on climbing at Poondarah works not because it is policed, but because the aspirations of the climbing community don?t extend to it. In fact it is largely unknown to the current generation of climbers. However, given that management plans run for 10 years, and in 10 years the aspirations of the younger generation will certainly have extended to Poondarah and beyond,? it is seems to me we have set the stage for a policy that serves neither the recreation nor the conservation values of the park. Thus are sown the seeds for future environmental damage at this site.

Where an area has a long and continuing tradition of climbing, it is not so easy for a land manager to shut-down climbing, especially when it is not proscribed by the existing management plan. Any new management plan attempting to do so is likely to be hit with a barrage of opposition during the public consultation phase. The Glasshouse Mountains NP is such an example, and with the exception of the ban on Mt Coonowrin, which is a matter apart, climbing has been managed in this park in a fairly hands-off manner. Here, on Mt Tibrogargan, the managers can quite reasonably claim ignorance of the host of climber-placed bolts, immersed as such bolts are, in a veritable sea of steep rock. Such distancing from the act of bolt placement carries the distinct disadvantage that the land manager is the last to know of damage being done by access to any recently opened sport crag.

The third type of outcome is illustrated by the unique situation that has occurred at Frog Buttress. Because this crag exhibits a very specific and unusual rock structure, one that favours a style of climbing where the use of bolts for protection is spurned, we have what is essentially a bolt-free climbing venue. Relieved of the bogeyman of bolt liability, the land manager has been able to step in and actively manage this park for climbing. This isn?t to say there aren?t ever issues between climbers and managers, but as someone who knew this crag from its inception 45 years ago, the positive benefits to the environment of managing visitor impacts is striking.

losing sight of what matters

To be sure, what matters is easy to grasp? our too few, too fragmented, National Parks ought not be trashed, or loved to death, by mismanagement of visitor traffic. Since 1992, land managers have had clear direction on this matter under the NCA. The spirit in which this act was drafted is abundantly clear. And yes, there is a pile of stuff in the act to?hold the rapacious and the exploitative elements in check, but none of this is germane to the current argument. What we are trying to hold in focus is the problem of managing visitors rightfully enjoying what is, after all, a publicly owned asset of the state. What the?NCA says about management of National Parks under sect 17,? is very straight forward -

A national park is to be managed to?

(a) provide, to the greatest possible extent, for the permanent preservation of the area?s natural condition and the protection of the area?s cultural resources and values; and

(b) present the area?s cultural and natural resources and their values; and

(c) ensure that the only use of the area is nature-based and ecologically sustainable.

(2) The management principle mentioned in subsection (1)(a) is the cardinal principle for the management of national parks.

- Nature Conservation Act 1992 sect 17

Note that visitor safety is not up there in bright lights. Note also that the cardinal principle is flagged, and it is not visitor safety. However, in providing for the chief executive to draft subsidiary regulations of the act for purposes of its administration, we do find visitor safety gets a mention. Under ?sect 175 2, we have -

(1) The Governor in Council may make regulations under this Act.

(2) A regulation may be made with respect to any of the following matters?

(a) access to protected areas by persons or animals;

(b) the use of land, and activities, in protected areas;

(c) providing for the safety of persons in protected areas, including the regulation of access to, and activities in, protected areas by persons or classes of persons; Example for paragraph (c) A regulation might regulate camping in a protected area by children, or adults accompanying children, to protect children from injury by animals.

- Nature Conservation Act 1992 sect 175

It has to be believed that such regulations, as are created under sect 175, are pursuant to the primary aims of sect 17, and not arbitrary or self-serving in any shape or form. However, as we shall see,? it was too much to hope that regulations, being the lantana of the public affairs landscape, would stay subservient to the primary legislation.

With the passage of time, various regulations accreted themselves to the NCA. No doubt all were borne out of good intentions to support sect 17, no doubt all were abundantly clear in their purpose, but, fourteen years after the NCA passed into law, when the Nature Conservation Regulations 2006 were signed off by the Governor in Council, one wonders how clear the intent of much of the minutia was to those authorising them. This four part gift-set for insomniacs includes amongst its number?Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2006 (NCR) .? In this we see formulated a number of mechanisms designed to regulate access to the public space. Two of them show that the bogeyman of public liability was causing the regulators to lose sight of what really matters.

Firstly, restricted access areas. Under NCR sect 74 we have -

(1) The chief executive may declare a protected area or a part of a protected area to be a restricted access area only if the chief executive reasonably believes the declaration is necessary or desirable?

(a) to secure the safety of a person or a person?s property; or ???

(c) to conserve or protect the cultural or natural resources of the area or native wildlife ??;

or??.

(f) for the orderly or proper management of the area.

- Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2006 sect 74

I can understand 1(c), but what is safety doing up there as the first point?? In what way does this regulation help management to carry out its obligations under sect 17 of the NCA? As the for the final point 1(f), this is the epitome of a self-serving regulation. It is laziness writ large.

Secondly, special activities. Under NCR sect 79 we have -

The chief executive may declare only 1 or more of the following activities to be a special activity for all or part of a protected area?
(a) an activity that will, or is reasonably likely to, have an unusual or significant impact on the cultural or natural resources of the area or part;
(b) an activity for which special training or supervision is needed before a person can safely engage in the activity;
(c) an activity that will, or is reasonably likely to, involve a risk to the public.
Examples of activities that may be declared as special activities?
rock climbing, white water rafting

- Nature Conservation (Protected Areas Management) Regulation 2006 sect 79

Again, I can partially understand point (a), though I am struggling to grasp exactly how any activity that causes ?unusual or significant impact on the cultural or natural resources? would ever be acceptable. But points b) and c)? Whatever has that to do with sect 17 of the NCA? And then to make rock climbing exemplar of a special activity? It is clear that the understanding of the true risks and attendant public liability exposure presented by sport climbing, as well as the appreciation of the aspirations of the burgeoning sport climbing community was at a nadir within the state bureaucracy when these regulations were drafted.

So we see that by 2006, matters had come to a pass whereby land managers were losing sight of the cardinal principle. Fear of litigation and minutia of regulation having displaced the issues of rightful concern. Hindsight is a harsh judge, but I can?t help but think that a simple snapshot of the situation at climbing crags throughout Europe and the United States would have alerted all but the willfully blind to the recreational demand that was heading our way.

closing the gap

In the closing days of 1999, a profound hiatus opened between the climbing community and land managers when Mt Coonowrin, a major and unique facet of South East Queensland climbing, was closed to public access. The closure was pre-emptive, with no public consultation period, and I believe, without the knowledge of the public servants who were actively engaging the climbing community via the South East Queensland Rockclimbing and Abseiling Site Management Forum. This unfortunate mis-step destroyed the trust that had been built up, and pushed? the new surging interest in sport climbing ?underground?, with the subsequent development of sport crags being carried out ?below the radar? of the land management.

Such a situation was less than ideal in that management lost track of where new climbing development was taking place. Even more important was the fact that management was left nursing an increasingly irrelevant understanding of rock climbing, one that might be applicable to the ?bolt-free? climbing at Frog Buttress, but left them ill-equipped to cope with the burgeoning growth of sport climbing. ? This state of affairs persisted for ten years, and might have continued longer if it were not for an event that forced the climbing community to stand-up and be counted. A number of climbers were fined by QPWS for fixing bolts at Mt Flinders. The validity of using the NCR for this purpose is a subject apart. What matters for the purposes of this discussion was that it provided the catalyst for the formation of a climbers organisation capable of engaging the state bureaucratic apparatus. Thus, the ACAQ was born out of this one act of bureaucratic overreach, and formal communications with the Department of Environment and Resource Management (DERM) commenced.

I don?t believe anybody, climber or public servant, wants to see the environment trashed, or more pointedly, wants to be the person responsible for a policy that has such an outcome. So, by keeping this one thing,? the only thing that really matters,? in the centre of the negotiating table,? progress was relatively straight forward.

Kudos should go to the public servants who took on board the new information ACAQ was able to provide, and to come up with a policy draft for cliff-based activities on the estates managed by DERM. And, it was with as much surprise as pleasure for me to discover that the many hours ACAQ had invested in reviewing drafts had finally made it into an official QPWS Operational Policy (OP) some three years later. All this despite hiccups along the way which included contention over the Draft Mt Coolum NP Management Plan, and tumultuous changes in the structure of state departments following the state elections.

where are we now?

There is plenty not to like, or to push back against in the new OP, but it would be churlish to do so without pausing to consider what is good, if not great, about this document.

This is the best bit ? right at the start, where it should be -

1.1 QPWS will allow rock climbing in appropriate areas, consistent with the protection of park values.
1.2 QPWS will accommodate a diversity and range of settings and opportunities for rock climbing activities at appropriate sites across the State.
- Rock climbing on QPWS managed areas 2012

Not impressed? Well you should be. Whilst most climbers have no doubt of their basic right to climb within a National Park, there are still? QPWS officers who view rock climbing as the deviant behaviour of a reckless minority.? In all fairness, in times past (I hope they are past) there were members of the climbing community whose cavalier behaviour showed they had no notion of the concept of a national park, so the above prejudice may well be justified. However, what this OP does, is provide guidance for QPWS officers on the ground, and right there at point 1, it is recognizing recreational rock climbing as a valid activity within the framework of the NCA sect 17. Beyond this point we are, as they say, just messing with the details.

The second best bit is here -

6.1 QPWS acknowledges that permanent fixed protection and other permanent climb aids (including anchors and chains) already exist at many sites within QPWS managed areas and that these are necessary for maintaining a range of climbing opportunities.

- Rock climbing on QPWS managed areas 2012

There, at last, they have gone and spoken the unspeakable. I guess this became easier with the realisation that with the growth of sport climbing came an evolution in safety systems. Bolts became much safer, and the exposure to single point failure diminished, taking it out of the extreme sport classification. Climbing no longer was the edgy, high stakes game it was decades ago.

So we come to a pass, exactly twenty years after a legislative mechanism suitable for the management of recreational climbing within the protected estates was signed into law, to a point where we can actually use its framework in a way that ensures the best for both climber and environment.

References:

1.? Laurence M. 1997, ?Common and Statute Law Relevant to the Management of Public Land?: in Proceedings of the South East Qld Rockclimbing and Abseiling Risk Management and Litigation Conference ISBN 0-7242-7992-X

2.? Brysland G. 1997, ?Waiting for Romeo?: in Proceedings of the South East Qld Rockclimbing and Abseiling Risk Management and Litigation Conference ISBN 0-7242-7992-X

Source: http://www.qldclimb.org.au/2012/12/commentary-on-nprsr-operational-policy-rock-climbing-on-qpws-managed-areas/

nicki minaj miguel cabrera Karrueche Tran dodd frank Lark Voorhies Jennifer Livingston Orlando Cruz

Pediatricians say kids need recess during school

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A group of American pediatricians is telling school districts that children need recess and free time during the school day, and it should not even be taken away as punishment.

"We consider it essentially the child's personal time and don't feel it should be taken away for academic or punitive reasons," said Dr. Robert Murray, who co-authored the new policy statement for the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The statement, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, says recess is a "crucial and necessary component of a child's development."

Recess helps students develop communication skills, such as cooperation and sharing, and helps counteract the time they spend sitting in class, according to the statement.

"The cognitive literature indicates that children are exactly as we are as adults. Whenever they're performing a complicated or complex task, they need time to process the information," said Murray, a professor at Ohio State University in Columbus.

"Kids have to have that time scheduled. They're not given the opportunity to just get up and walk around for a few minutes," he added.

Previous research, according to the statement's authors, found children pay closer attention and perform better mentally after recess.

Last January, a review of 14 studies found kids who get more exercise from - among other things - recess and playing on sports teams tend to do better in school (see Reuters Health story of January 3, 2012 here: http://reut.rs/UcJhV0.)

But a 2011 survey of 1,800 elementary schools found about a third were not offering recess to their third grade classes (see Reuters Health story of December 5, 2011 here: http://reut.rs/UcOqwt.)

Murray told Reuters Health that schools in Japan offer children about 10 minutes of free time after every 50 minutes of class, which he said makes sense.

"I think you can feel it if you go to a lecture that after 40 to 50 minutes of a concentrated activity you need to take a break," he said.

Currently, the American Heart Association calls for at least 20 minutes of recess every day, but Murray said recess needs depend on the child.

"Most schools - on average - are working on the framework of 15 to 30 minute bursts of recess once or twice a day," he said.

There is, however, consensus on when in the day children's recess should take place.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the U.S. Department of Agriculture both recommend schools schedule recess before lunch.

Previous studies have found that children waste less food and behave better for the rest of the day when their recess is before their scheduled lunch, the pediatricians' statement notes.

The statement also says schools should not substitute physical education classes for recess.

"Those are completely different things and they offer completely different outcomes," said Murray. "(Physical education teachers are) trying to teach motor skills and the ability of those children to use those skills in a bunch of different scenarios. Recess is a child's free time."

The pediatricians also warn against a recess that is too structured, such as having games led by adults.

"I think it becomes structured to the point where you lose some of those developmental and social emotion benefits of free play," said Murray.

"This is a very important and overlooked time of day for the child and we should not lose sight of the fact that it has very important benefits," he added.

SOURCE: http://bit.ly/HjQ8dI Pediatrics, online December 31, 2012.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/pediatricians-kids-recess-during-school-054737400.html

new smyrna beach st. joseph puerto rico primary manning peyton florida state meghan mccain

Saturday's local college basketball roundup: ODU women rout S.C. State

Women's basketball: Shae Kelley had 20 points, 14 rebounds and four blocks to lead Old Dominion past South Carolina State 79-63 Saturday at the Constant Center.

Jackie Cook added 16 points for the Lady Monarchs (9-2), who began the second half on an 11-0 run to pull away from a 34-29 halftime lead. ODU stretched its lead to as many as 25 points with 10 minutes left.

More women
Tabb High alum Tia Perry scored 12 points and Camry Green added 12 points and 11 rebounds to help CNU (9-0) stay unbeaten with a 71-48 win at St. Mary?s (Md.). ...

Ataira Franklin had 12 points and nine rebounds to lead Virginia past Xavier 54-45 in the Cavalier Classic championship game. ...

Batavia Owens led Norfolk State with eight points, but the Spartans lost 69-38 to Northern Illinois in a Cavalier Classic consolation game. ...

Tysheka Simpson led Apprentice with 17 points and Shanae Hilliard added 13, but the Lady Builders lost to The College of New Jersey 73-51 at York (Pa.).


Men
Marcus Thornton led William and Mary with 21 points and six assists, but the Tribe?s four-game winning streak ended with a 73-66 loss at Purdue. ...

DeShawn Painter led ODU with 16 points, but the Monarchs lost 55-54 to Fairfield at the Ted Constant Center. ODU led by 10 with 8:23 left in the game. Marcus Gilbert?s free throw with 2:39 left broke a 52-52 tie and gave Fairfield the lead for good. ...

Troy Daniels scored 27 points to lead VCU past Fairleigh Dickinson 96-67. ...

Pendarvis Williams had 15 points and seven rebounds and Rashid Gaston added 12 points and seven rebounds for Norfolk State, but the Spartans lost 74-63 at East Carolina.

NOTE: Comments area is for meaningful discussion. Readers are reminded to post comments that are germane to the article and write in a common language that steers clear of personal attacks and/or vulgarities. Readers may report comments by clicking report abuse. Once a comment has been flagged, a Daily Press staffer will investigate.

Source: http://www.dailypress.com/sports/dp-saturdays-local-college-basketball-roundup-odu-women-rout-sc-state-20121229,0,4664689.story?track=rss

case mccoy case mccoy UFC 155 Jack Klugman weather channel weather forecast merry Christmas

The Truth About Hypnosis | Self Development Thoughts

Posted on 30th December 2012 in Hypnosis

?There are so many people out there who have so many misconceptions about hypnosis, and it is really time that someone got the truth out and helped people to learn what hypnosis is really all about and why they should not be scared about self hypnosis or any other type for that matter.

The reason why many people seem to have misconceptions about hypnosis is largely due to the way it has been portrayed in various forms of the media. You may have seen the much stereotyped depiction of hypnosis on television or in the movies, complete with the tall hat and the swinging watch. Stage hypnotists and some magicians add to this image by making spectators do things, apparently against their will. Even though this is far from the truth ? you can be hypnotised only if you are willing at some level to go through the experience. If you are made to do something completely against your will or against your innate values, the protection mechanism in your subconscious (or unconscious) mind kicks in and you will wake up immediately.

Hypnosis ? The Real Story

Hypnosis, especially hypnotherapy, is an approach that can be used in a variety of different situations. The subject or the patient?s experience can vary quite significantly depending on a number of factors ? like their suggestibility, the skill of the hypnotist, how committed the subject is to the targeted change, and so on. It is important for the subjects to take the approach seriously. Or they may just be wasting their time.

Nowadays, hypnosis is used for the treatment or mitigation of a number of health conditions from cancer to dementia. It can also be used to reduce a number of physical symptoms such as pain in cancer patients. It has been used to replace anaesthesia by some dentists. It also has tremendous value in treating conditions like anxiety, panic attacks and phobias. It can also be used in tackling social issues like stage fright, social anxiety and also to improve self confidence & self esteem.

Almost everyone can be hypnotized, although there are people out there who think that they would be able to keep themselves from getting hypnotized. In fact one study shows that pre-adolescent children are in a state of waking trance 60 to 70% of the time. ?This is the time when they learn the maximum from their environment and their personalities get established.

If you learn how to do self hypnosis, there are a number of benefits that you can get out of this experience.

If you choose hypnotherapy as an approach to tackling some of your problems, it is important that you approach a good hypnotherapist preferably with some experience in handling your specific problem. Though it is very unlikely that hypnosis can do you any harm, you may not get the results that you are looking for if you work with a not-so-competent hypnotherapist. Hypnosis is a powerful tool in the hands of an expert and can give you tremendous benefits and perhaps even change your whole life for the better.

Share on Facebook

Source: http://www.selfdevelopmentthoughts.com/hypnosis-3/the-truth-about-hypnosis-7136730/

Zach Parise Spain Vs Italy Euro 2012 tiger woods erin andrews erin andrews Pepco tour de france

Pakistan-India match: Jamshed guides Team Green to ODI win

Pakist?an win by six wicket?s, with 11 balls remain?ing.

Pakistan win by six wickets, with 11 balls remaining. PHOTO: AFP/FILE

CHENNAI:?A stellar batting performance from Nasir Jamshed, who scored 101 runs off 132 balls, led Pakistan to its first victory on Sunday in the current Pakistan-India ODI series.

Team green won by six wickets, with 11 balls remaining.

Earlier, Jamshed and skipper Misbahul Haq took Pakistan to 172 score off 38 overs.

Before the skipper came in, Jamshed and Younis Khan ? with their 112 runs partnership ? got 133 runs on the score board in 30 overs, with the loss of two wickets. Khan was then dismissed on the third ball of the next over.

In the beginning of the second inning, India got the upper-hand when Bhuvneshwar Kumar got Muhammad Hafeez out for a diamond duck.

The devastated Pakistani side crawled to the score of 52 runs after 16 overs at the loss of two wickets but the following Jamshed-Khan partnership brought the ball in Pakistan?s court.

Following the 1-1 Twenty20 win between Pakistan and India, the cricket rivals are back in the ground in the Indian city of Chennai.

Pakistan had won the toss and chose to field first.

First inning

India?s MS Dhoni led the team across the 200 runs line, finishing the innings at 227 runs at a loss of six wickets in the first Pakistan-India ODI on Sunday.

Partnered with Ashwin, Dhoni not only earned a century, but also crossed the 7,000 mark on runs in his ODI career.

Suresh Raina and MS Dhoni?s partnership came to an end at 102 runs when Muhammad Hafeez bowled Raina out in the 33rd over.

With only six overs left, India had scored 165 runs at the loss of six wickets.

In the first 10 overs, Pakistan ? with its intense bowling attack ? managed to bowl out the first five batsmen. India stood at 59 runs after 15 overs, with Mahendra Singh Dhoni and Suresh Raina on the crease.

Magnificent Junaid Khan took four wickets in just six overs, knocking down Virendar Sehwag, Virat Kohli, Yuvraj Singh and RG Sharma.

The India tour, the first by Pakistan since 2007, began with two Twenty20 internationals with each won by both the teams.

Pakistan team: Nasir Jamshed, Younis Khan, Mohammad Hafeez, Misbahul Haq, Kamran Akmal, Azhar Ali, Shoaib Malik, Junaid Khan, Umar Gul, Saeed Ajmal, Mohammad Irfan

Indian team: G Gambhir, V Kohli, V Sehwag, Yuvraj Singh, SK Raina, RG Sharma, MS Dhoni, B Kumar, I Sharma, AB Dinda, R Ashwin

Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly mentioned Muhammad Hafeez as Pakistani skipper. The error is regretted.?

Source: http://tribune.com.pk/story/486618/first-pak-india-odi-after-15-overs-india-stand-at-59-5/

matthew broderick tax refund calculator huntington disease west memphis three taxes game of thrones season 2 trailer sag award winners

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Mandela visited by family in hospital | NWOTruth

Ailing Nelson Mandela was Tuesday visited in hospital by his wife Graca Machel and family as he spent Christmas Day on his sickbed, said President Jacob Zuma who joined the family.

?We found him in good spirits,? said Zuma in a statement.

?He was happy to have visitors on this special day and is looking much better. (Read more?) The doctors are happy with the progress that he is making,? said Zuma.

Mandela, 94, was admitted to a Pretoria hospital on December 8. He has been treated there for a recurrent lung infection and underwent surgery to remove gallstones.

On Monday, Zuma?s office, which is tasked with issuing updates on his condition, said doctors had confirmed that he will not be home for Christmas.

But there was no indication of when he might be discharged.

His grandson Mandla Mandela earlier told eNCA television that the family was saddened by his absence from home this Christmas.

?We are greatly saddened by his absence?we didn?t anticipate that he would be away for so long,? said Mandla from Mvezo village, where he is the local chief.

He said the family was hopeful that the much loved elderly statesman will be home soon, adding that his presence was enjoyed by the family and the community of Qunu, the rural village where he grew up and later retired to.

Before his retirement in 2004 Mandela used to host a Christmas feast for impoverished children in Qunu, which was a highlight for many.

Since retiring from public life, Christmas has been a more low-key affair, spent with family.

Mandela, who became South Africa?s first black president after the country?s first all-race elections in 1994, has a long history of lung problems, dating back to the time when he was a political prisoner on Robben Island.

In January 2011 he was hospitalised two nights for an acute respiratory infection.

This is his longest hospital stay since coming out of prison in 1990.

[Image via Agence France-Presse]

Read the full story...

[VIA The Raw Story]

Source: http://nwotruth.com/mandela-visited-by-family-in-hospital/

raul ibanez completely wrong hayden panettiere mila kunis stacey dash christopher columbus columbus day

Sunday, December 16, 2012

PFT: Giants to support Sandy Hook with decal

ShermanGetty Images

After Sunday?s game against the Bills, half of cornerback Brandon Browner?s four-game suspension will have been served.? And cornerback Richard Sherman?s appeal hearing will not have even happened ? even though both players generated their positive samples on the same day.? (Allegedly.)

As confirmed by Eric Williams of the Tacoma News Tribune, Sherman?s hearing didn?t occur as previously scheduled on Friday, December 14.? Per Williams, there is no new date for the hearing.

Of course, Browner could be in the same position, if he had opted to fight.? And the Seahawks would have then faced not having both players for the same four games.

In most cases, the appeal process unfolds without the media knowing that the player faces a suspension.? Thus, the wheels often turn slowly, since there?s no external pressure or attention.

As NFL spokesman Greg Aiello told PFT in 2010:? ?It?s not unusual for some cases to take a lengthy amount of time from specimen collection through the appeals process and the announcement.? All of the time periods and protocols in place are designed to ensure that the result is accurate and the player has every appropriate due process protection.? Requirements such as notice, independent verification, additional investigation, hearing rights and lab procedures ensure these objectives, but they also add steps and time.?

For example, Texans linebacker Brian Cushing generated a positive urine sample in September 2009, and his suspension was not finalized until the following offseason.? Last year, Broncos linebacker D.J. Williams and defensive lineman Justin Bannan saw their potential suspensions linger through the postseason, prompting a not-so-subtle suggestion from Williams? lawyer that the league tapped the brakes in order to avoid disrupting Tebowmania.? In both cases, no one knew the players were facing suspensions.

The difference here is that the media and the fans are watching and waiting for Sherman?s appeal to be completed.? As of right now, he?d miss at least up to two postseason games, if the suspension commences by next Sunday.? Given that we currently can recall no four-game PED suspensions spilling into the postseason (feel free to refresh our memory in the comments, as if you need an engraved invitation), the league could be inclined to find a way to defer punishment until 2013.

Either way, it?s good that the Seahawks have Sherman today.? Browner?s replacement, Walter Thurmon, won?t play due to a hamstring injury suffered in practice on Wednesday, forcing rookie Byron Maxwell into the starting lineup.

Source: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/12/15/giants-to-honor-sandy-hook-elementary-school-with-helmet-decal/related/

red wings penguins the band colton dixon houston weather dwyane wade the night they drove old dixie down

Thursday, December 13, 2012

Fish have enormous nutrient impacts on marine ecosystems, study finds

Wednesday, December 12, 2012

Fish play a far more important role as contributors of nutrients to marine ecosystems than previously thought, according to researchers at the University of Georgia and Florida International University. In a pair of papers in the journal Ecology, they show that fish contribute more nutrients to their local ecosystems than any other source?enough to cause changes in the growth rates of the organisms at the base of the food web.

Jacob Allgeier, a doctoral student in the UGA Odum School of Ecology, and Craig Layman, associate professor at Florida International University, led the study, which took place in the waters of a large bay on Abaco Island, Bahamas.

Most tropical coastal ecosystems are nutrient limited, meaning that the system's primary food sources such as algae and seagrass need to have enough nitrogen and phosphorus?in the right proportions?to grow and thrive.

"We've been thinking about the role of fish and the nutrients they're excreting in these ecosystems for a while now," Allgeier said. In marine food webs, fish are usually thought of as predators, he explained, consuming microorganisms, plants and smaller animals. But fish have another important, although often overlooked, role in the system. Through excretion, they recycle the nutrients they take in, providing the fertilizer sea grass and algae need to grow.

To determine the impact of nutrients from fish, the team needed to compare sites with fish populations of different sizes. Knowing that fish tend to congregate around reefs?the larger the reef, the more fish it attracts?they built a series of artificial reefs of two sizes, large and small, and selected a number of control sites with no reefs at all.

Over the course of two years they surveyed each site periodically to record the number, size and species of fish present. Allgeier created models to estimate the supply of nutrients from all species of fish at the various sites.

The researchers also measured the nutrient content and growth rate of seagrass. They weren't surprised that seagrass at the large reefs grew faster and contained more nutrients than seagrass at the small reefs and control sites?but they were surprised at the magnitude of the difference and the extent to which it occurred.

"The rate of daily seagrass growth ranged from 37 square millimeters at large reefs to 10 square millimeters at control sites?nearly a four-fold difference," Allgeier said. "Fish are putting an enormous amount of nutrients into this system?it appears to be even more than all other sources, including runoff from golf courses and all other human caused impacts, combined."

The effect extended for roughly three meters around each large reef. The fish were contributing more nutrients than the seagrass could take in, allowing the excess nutrients to drift further away from their source, fertilizing seagrass and algae in ever-widening areas. The researchers anticipate this effect to extend further with increased time.

Allgeier described the large reefs as "biogeochemical hotspots"?areas with particularly high rates of chemicals cycling between organisms and the environment.

"The reefs are nodes within the ecosystem matrix," he said. "They're increasing productivity around the reefs by orders of magnitude. If there are enough of them (reefs), then they may be increasing productivity at the ecosystem level by orders of magnitude as well. That's something we're going to be looking at next."

Allgeier said the team's findings further point to the importance of maintaining a healthy fish community, explaining that different types of fish contribute different amounts of nutrients.

"Even if you have large numbers of fish, if they're dominated by one species, they're filling just one nutrient cycling niche in that ecosystem," he said. "That's not how these systems are used to being fed nutrients."

###

University of Georgia: http://www.uga.edu

Thanks to University of Georgia for this article.

This press release was posted to serve as a topic for discussion. Please comment below. We try our best to only post press releases that are associated with peer reviewed scientific literature. Critical discussions of the research are appreciated. If you need help finding a link to the original article, please contact us on twitter or via e-mail.

This press release has been viewed 41 time(s).

Source: http://www.labspaces.net/125880/Fish_have_enormous_nutrient_impacts_on_marine_ecosystems__study_finds

carlos pena amanda bynes arrested f 18 jet crash in virginia beach john tortorella nicki minaj beez in the trap video food network