How To Win A Losing Battle?

[Fafnir]

After reading the various posts on this site, and attending a number of meetings regarding the proposed zonings for MoretonBay, it seems that what is happening here is happening exactly as it did up north and in NSW. The EPA list areas of interest, already knowing exactly what green zones they are going to put into place. They throw a few ‘dummy’ locations in there that they never intended to zone.

Recreational and Commercial fishermen then get up in arms about the proposed zonings. The government then make these groups look like greedy red necks through clever use of the media. Particularly as the government states that they only want to zone 10% of the marine habitats, leaving plenty of other places to fish. We all know that they are talking about most of the few fish holding areas of the bay, but the public sees them asking for ONLY 10% to be protected, leaving us greedy, ungratefuls with 90% of the bay to fish in. The broad public believe the government, and show little sympathy for outraged anglers.

To further make the government appear to be the good guys, they do not green zone all areas of interest, effectively giving back those ‘dummy’ areas they never intended to zone in the first place. The public then sees the whole process as being fair and reasonable.

From everything I have heard and read, it is pretty easy for us to be portrayed as being unreasonable. We all know that zoning is going to occur, regardless of the best efforts of organisations such as the MBAA, and yet we seem to be just against zoning full stop. Making us look like the bad guys in the eyes of the public. We seem to be playing into the governments hands.

Currently we appear to have a ROUGH outline of 24 of the proposed 35 ‘areas of interest’. I believe that public pressure counts for plenty in this campaign. And before someone says ‘Beattie doesn’t care, just look at council amalgamations’ if he doesn’t care, he wouldn’t be spending so much money in the media, trying to make the government look like the good guys, and us as the scaremongers. Clearly they care. And clearly they are winning the fight for public support.

Based on all of that, it seems to me that rather than fighting the zoning review process as a whole, we should instead be fighting for the top 10 fishing spots only. Joe Public would then see anglers saying, 'We are not against a review of marine parks, all we are asking are that these 10 areas be exempt. 10 small areas in such a large body of water is surely not too much to ask for'.

It’s basically using the governments tactics against it. They claim they only want to protect 10% of the bay, we should be fighting as hard as we can through the media, and by bombarding local members, lobbying and peaceful demonstrations, to have a measly 10 areas exempt from zoning.

Obviously trying to get everyone to agree on the top 10 areas might be like trying to heard cats, but I am sure there are a number of areas everyone would agree on. I can’t see how we can win trying to fight the whole process. By targeting only a handful of our best fishing locations, we might stand some chance of saving some worthwhile areas. Keen to know what others think.

[billfisher]

Fahnir,

Why not fight the whole process. Where the sensible fisheries goal of optimal sustainable yield is desired there is little evidence that marine parks are of any benifit over other less harsh restrictions over the whole fishery (ie what we have now). If the 'consultation' is anything like what happened on the GBR or in NSW it is just a sham. They will go ahead a close off what they wish. There is evidence that when anglers and commercial fishers were asked for submissions on their faviourite spots these were then deliberately targeted for closure by the GBRMPA. Both on the GBR and in NSW green zones were increased over and above what was proposed when the final zoning was announced!

[Fafnir]

From everything I have read and heard, the common practice has been to try and fight the whole process. It has never worked. Fighting from a 'lack of evidence' point of view has never worked previously either.

I am not suggesting that we go online and fill out their dodgy surveys and give away points. I am suggesting that we fight for the best areas through the media. We can't stop the process, but make enough noise and maybe they will see a back down on a handful of the better areas as an easier outcome for them.

[PinHead]

Fafnir..I AM Joe public..just because I fish does not take me out of being part of the public. Until there is extensive research done in Moreton Bay, NO to any closures.

[SgBFish]

Fafnir is right on the subject that politicians are sensitive to public opinion. Their print campaign at the moment is deliberately deceptive.
They have stated that families will always be able to fish from jetties. That is true but not from the one’s they used to. The Government is also prepared to sacrifice a few seats if need be, Lillian Van Listenburg in Redcliffe may feel uneasy if Hayes islet, North Reef and the Redcliffe foreshore goes, having already lost the Clontarf jetty.
If the proposed areas get up this will really punish land based and small boat fisherman.
There needs to be some evidence up in the media. Some photos of all the people who enjoy a day out on the Horneybrook Hwy bride that will no longer be able to wet line with the kids.
Maybe the time is right for another drive into town…
Scott

[Hunta]

That sounds like a good idea in principle Fafnir. But IMO its a bit like trying to take a big bone out of dogs mouth and replace it with a little bone. The dog wont give up the bone, no way Unless you divert his attention long enough to make him drop the bone. But I fear the EPA dog has a pretty tight grip of that bone.

Unless the EPA comes up with the idea themselves, I dont think they'll let it go. You are probly right they will make some of the areas smaller or delete some areas off their areas of interest and appear to give them back. Just my opinion but this is a political war. Beattie may be willing to sacrific a few seats but he wont be willing to sacrific them all.

If RUDD gets scared that there are people that wont vote for him because of this, then he will put some pressure on Beattie to keep a lid on it. I think we have to make Moreton Bay a federal issue, threaten their federal seats, we can probably start by voting enmasse for KC and the Australian Fishing Lifestyle Party in the senate. and tell everyone we know what we are doing and why, not just fishers, tell everyone. Theres nothing that scares politicians as much as the possibility of losing their jobs.

So lets hit them where it hurts and come this election we have a great opportunity.

[PinHead]

do you really think this is a federal issue? If there was anything that Beattie has done to annoy Rudd, it would be the local council amalgamations. That was probably a bit of payback fro mbeattie to Rudd for deeds of years gone by.
As for a lone Senator..that won't make a cracker of difference to anything...PLUS...the decisions on the bay closures are not until 2008..well past the upcoiming Federal election.

[Fafnir]

Fafnir..I AM Joe public..

I think in the eyes of the non-fishing, non-green public, you would be seen as one of the concerned parties. My comments relate more to those people who don't sit on either side of the fence, but do not like to see the government being unreasonable. Bit like a swinging voter.


Until there is extensive research done in Moreton Bay, NO to any closures.

I have not seen a case anywhere else that leads me to believe that research will make a difference in this case. As Hunta says, it's political. And as I mentioned earlier, I don't see how a blanket NO to ANY closures will make us seem reasonable in the eyes of the non-fishing (or very part-time), non-green public. The very people the government is trying to target with their advertising campaigns. History points to the battle being lost, I am suggesting that limiting these loses could be a win.

[shappy]

hi guys,

i would have to say no to closures of the bay aswell. i believe locking areas away from everyone to injoy is not the answer. i believe better managment would be more improvments of size and bag limits, squire and flathead are good examples of better planning. have a look at the reports of some of the squire guys are catching through out the bay. maybe even closed seasons on some fish if needed. areas of corals and reef can be protected by no anchoring zones, if you want to fish the area, it is drift fishing only. this would protect 100% of the bay and we can enjoy every bit of it. that would be managing the bay IMO

cheers, shappy

[Fafnir]

Is it really a question of yes or no to closures in the bay? Nobody is asking us, nor will they. We all agree, including a number of marine biologists, that bag limits, size limits and closed seasons is a far more effective way of managing the bay. But we are not going to get a say in it. The EPA will go ahead with zoning regardless of what we, or science says. They have done it before, they plan to do it here.

Simply saying NO to closures is not going to stop them it never has before.

[Moonlighter]

Fafnir

Good post, congratulations.

Firstly, some facts you might not know about:

There are only 2 cases that exist in Australia where fishos have had a “win” in getting sensible outcomes relating to Marine Parks – I’ve checked this with MBAA’s scientific advisors who live and breathe this stuff every day and they confirm the fact. Both cases have been because they had really good science and broad support and involvement from most, if not all industry sectors. They are:

1. A small sector of the GBRMP near Rockhampton where brilliant work was done, lead by Bill Sawynok (of recfish tagging fame), to turn around disastrous GBRMPA proposals and get a much more sensible outcome; and

2. The commonwealth south-eastern marine park, where a team lead by Prof Colin Buxton from the University of Tasmania, working with recreational and commercial sectors, was able to turn around a proposal that was released as a draft plan by the Feds which would have devastated fishing, into something that had minimal impact.


MBAA, not by coincidence, asked Prof Buxton to assist us with our project on the MBMP and he accepted that role.

I think you’re on the money when you suggest that there is no point fighting against the MP concept. Lots of people don’t know that all Australian Governments, State and Commonwealth, have signed up to the international convention on biodiversity that drives this process (google it and have a read), and for quite a number of years there has been in existence a joint Commonwealth/State agreement to implement marine protected areas in all Australian waters!

If you actually look at both sides of politics platforms on this matter, there is actually very little difference between them. This all strongly suggests that marine parks and protection zones are clearly a done and dusted argument.

So the real issue we have to face is working to make sure that the zones that are implemented have the minimum impact possible on fishing whilst meeting the obligations under the agreements.

MBAA’s view is that you not only need good science to do this, but you need to involve the fishing and other sectors that use the Bay in coming up with where those zones should be placed. This doesn’t mean just “consulting” them, it means getting them actually involved in a collective effort to work out where the zones should go with best science helping them along the way. Obviously, to be workable this has to be done by knowledgeable and experienced representatives of all the sectors.

That’s what MBAA's $230K research project, supported by rec and industry funds and some $ support from FRDC, is about achieving. As you say, it probably won’t be easy to get everyone to agree, and it won’t be without pain, but we are determined to achieve a result through that process that we all agree on. It also presents the Government with a solution that they can see is worthy of their support.

You’re also quite right, this then lets us argue from a position of strength, one where we are and can clearly be seen as being very reasonable people, and as you say its hard to attack reasonable people without appearing to be, well, unreasonable and unnecessarily argumentative.

Grant

[Fafnir]

Grant, thank you for your response. You're right, I wasn't aware of those victories. My one reservation is that both were Federal? That maybe a deal had not already been done with the Greens? I wonder in this circumstance how relevant the meeting of their obligations under International Convention on Biodiversity is to the government, compared to meeting their obligations under their voting preference agreements.

It's heartening to hear that Prof Buxton is involved, given his involvement in a previously successful campaign. And I admire the efforts that everyone involved in the MBAA are putting in.

[Moonlighter]

No worries.

My point was that the only victories achieved anywhere and anytime in Australia were with science and all sectors working together, so that's the proven successful course.

And as you've said in every other case where fishos have tried to go political they have never had any success. In business, when one strategy has been tried a couple of times without a glimmer of success it gets ditched for something else, preferebly something proven to work...


Grant

[billfisher]

Yes the UN has been got at by marine park advocates. I would point out that we break UN conventions all the time, eg with our treatment of asylum seekers. The Greens policy to decriminalise drugs would also break UN conventions!

In any case all the UN convention regarding marine parks says is that certain areas should be be aside for protection from high impact activities. Traditional, low impact activities should be allowed to continue. There is a good case that recreational fishing would fall into that category. There is no reason that we should just roll over and accept fishing bans. The UN is proposing a mild form of the precautionary principle. In a lot of cases our Governments have gone for an extreme application of precaution in designing these parks.

[Horse]

Its going to be a difficult fight. If we turn around and just say NO to everything I will bet that the issue will be steamrolled through in favor of the EPA. I feel that we need scientific backing to suggest alternative proposals. If we just blindly fight the concept of protective zones then I would hazard a guess that we will lack any significant political influence on the process. The reason the EPA released some shadowy concept zones was to get a reaction. When they "give back" some areas and lower the protection levels in others they will be seen by the public as meeting us 1/2 way. We will still be losing large areas of access but will feel that we have "won" because the restrictions are less than anticipated. Somehow we have to try to get the areas of particular intrest to rec fishos to be accessible and accept that some areas will be zoned for greater levels of protection.

Hopefully the EPA is considering low impact activities such as rec angling to be acceptable in most of the proposed areas. I for one would support the ban of some damaging commercial practices in specific areas of the Bay as well as some scientifically supported restrictions on rec fisho's if they are shown to have a serous impact on the area.

Cheers

Neil

[kc]

Really have to take issue here with what Grant has said


"And as you've said in every other case where fishos have tried to go political they have never had any success. In business, when one strategy has been tried a couple of times without a glimmer of success it gets ditched for something else, preferebly something proven to work..."


If the recreational fishing movement had not become political, there would not even be an MBAA...this was an initiate of Andrew Lamming and TFPQ (South Brisbane). Previuos Ausfish posts from the very start will attest to that. The first meeting was arranged by Andrew, in his offices.

What is being totally missed here is the "big picture".

Political activism is not the answer. It is part of the answer.

Just as the environmental lobby, as it grew in numbers and profile came to understand it needed a political "wing", so too is rec fishing (and other outdoor pursuits).

Alone, political activism does not change many things BUT what it does is impowers the lobby groups and peak bodies.

There can be absolutely no dispute that rec fishing, now including the bay, gets more political interest and comment than ever before.

Why?

Because it is a political issue and there are votes involved. It gets interest from all sides. The right who court us, the left who won't even talk to us and the greens who said at the last election....We are a minority interest group with too much power over coallition policy...and that...coming from the experts...was GOLD!!

We also get the interest of the press, who then look to the lobby groups for comment. The Greens have made environmetalism a political issue, which interests the media and hey presto, they look to the lobby group (AMCS) for comment.

This is never about what is right, fair, just or honest. It IS a political issue, regadless of what Grant says.

Lets talk about stategies and successes with a known outcome. The GBR rezoning. 30,000 submissions, some accompanied by 1000 signature petitions.

Blockades and boat rallies, some stretching for 15 kilometers.

Science based submissions, even using GBRMPA own research papers.

People power. Meetings attended by 4000...yes 4000 (not 200) people in Townsville.

Advisory boards like regional LMACS which totally supported one zoning plan while the GBRMPA went another way.

And all this achieved exactly NOTHING.

So...what has political activism achieved?

It resulted in the broadening of the compensation package offered to fishing industry from beyond its narrow scope of commercial fishing only to include rec fishing and land based businesses. The budget WAS $10M and the amount paid so far is in excess of $200M.

Political activism made it an expensive exercise and this money will, in the future, be better spent on hospitals and education, not bailing out an out of control authority.

It resulted in the rejection of a tourism pontoon in Cairns in a fishing zone, which would have resulted in a 1 kilometer exclusion zone.

It had a biaised marine park survey "pulled" with a slap over the wrist for those involved in a survey clearly full of leading questions and designed to achieve a specific outcome.

It resulted in a major review of the marine park authority with subsequent changes made to ensure it can not run amok again.

Now all these are Federal issues but Federally we have made a mark. At a state level we have yet to make a mark but this election is about posting a "number" which makes rec fishing news. It makes the political activities of rec fishers news and just watch what happens.

The fishing/boating/outdoors "lobby" need to learn from the experts.

Just as there are variuos coast care/wildlife society/land care/ AMCS/WWF/ National Parks Association etc etc etc..............they all come together as part of the overall environmental lobby and a piece of their broad church is a political wing...the Greens..and more power to them.

No doubt they have their share of little power games and internal struggles but THEY ALL GET IT!!

As yet, we don't quiet (but starting too).

Political activism is not the answer, it is PART of the answer. We are not a lobby group. Our job is to gather votes and these votes impower the lobby groups. We are not a threat. We are a stick to wave, a bargaining chip. As we poll votes we make every politician suddenly get a whole lot more interested in talking to the lobby groups.

If the lobby groups are the BBQ plate, who do all the work and have direct contact with the "meat"...votes, via an organised political wing is the heat that drives the plate. The more votes we get, the better the plate can do its job.

I was personally part of the "lobbying" during many years of association with marine park zonings up North. I dutifully sat in on every meeting and LMAC. I put pen to paper and I wrote to politicians. I researched, did submissions (including our LMACS GBR submission) and played the whole lobbying game. Back then if I wanted to speak to a polly it would take 3 calls, 5 letters and 8 emails to eventually get a call from the tea lady, to the advisor to the minister.

How things have changed. Rec Fishing is now a political force and the very access MBAA get is as a result of us, not despite "us".

The level of instant access "we" have to all sides of politics is amazing. Right from private meetings with all levels, including Mr Howard, Ministers Turnbull, Abezt, Campbell and shadow minister Garret.

We remain absolutely supportive of MBAA. The grant they recieved for the study, comes from funds which TFPQ had a lot to do with negotiating in the first place.

As a political organisation we need the lobby groups and MBAA appears to be a cracker. They however need to understand that they also need "us". We are ying and yang! Neither is effective without the other and the sooner the entire fishing/outdoors community takes a leaf from the environmental lobby's manifesto the better.

To say "in every other case where fishos have tried to go political they have never had any success", is, quite simply, absurd.

MBAA need to be aware of not falling into the same trap as other lobby groups who rely on Government funding, and then become beholden to the Government, rather than stand on its original principles. This is not about funding and playing little games to stay as a funded lobby group. It is about turning up the heat and MAKING this a political issue.

I have read Farfirs post with interst and like his "angle"...will it succeed? Not sure.
Has being politically millitant succeeded...not sure yet either, but we have certainly had some major wins along the way.

It has taken the environmental lobby, and its political wing, the Greens 25 years to work itself into this position of amazing power and influence. We don't have 25years. We have about 7 weeks for one really good roll of the dice.

Regards

KC
The Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party

[BigE]

less than 100 cars boats & trailers could cause havoc on the gateway on the weekend (heck 5200 could do it every weekend for a year)double it and you hit a freeway at the same time and since your wont be able fish in bay any more what else would do with the old boat on the weekend may as well get some value for our rego dollars. probably be just as effective and a dam site more cost effective then trying to engauge a goverment dept that has already made it mind up (nothing like public pressure to focus the foggy political mind)

just some babble from someone who Particpated last time around and got shafted with the RAP

BigE