More Top Stories

National
Rugby league

Moana target 2025 World Cup

11 November 2022

Business

Moment of truth at COP27

12 November 2022

Local

We’re halfway there!

16 November 2022

Paddling

From the river to the ocean

18 November 2022

Anonymous criticism by Te Ipukarea Society ‘misguided’

Wednesday 24 February 2021 | Written by Gerald McCormack | Published in Editorials, Opinion

Share

Anonymous criticism by Te Ipukarea Society ‘misguided’

I would like to comment on the various Te Ipukarea Society (TIS) criticisms (Cook Islands News, February 20) of my article about the possible impacts of seabed mining on nodule-associated benthic megafauna (Cook Islands News, February 11), writes Gerald McCormack of Natural Heritage Trust.

I would like to comment on the various Te Ipukarea Society (TIS) criticisms (Cook Islands News, February 20) of my article about the possible impacts of seabed mining on nodule-associated benthic megafauna (Cook Islands News, February 11), writes Gerald McCormack of Natural Heritage Trust.


To continue reading this article and to support our journalism

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE NOW
for as little as $11 per month.

- Up to date and breaking news
- Includes access to Premium content
- Videos and online classifieds

Already a subscriber, click here

Our people. Our news. First.

Comments

kelvin passfield on 24/02/2021

I want to clarify that our article was not anonymous. I emailed Gerald before submitting our article to let him know we had issues with several of his points and would therefore be replying in the newspaper. I also said I hoped he would not take it personally. I received a cordial response from him. I could have put my name to the article but it also had input from a number of other Te Ipukarea Society members, so we signed off as TIS. We regret that Gerald has perceived our response as a personal attack on him - it was not. Our main issue, as stated clearly in our article, was that the Seabed Minerals Authority shared, in a post they paid to promote, his opinion and conclusions, which we believe are flawed, without first having them vetted by deep-sea scientists.