RFISH - Recreational Fishing Information System

[fish-n-dive]

OK, so I just got my boat rego renewal notice today and stuffed in the envelope along with a couple of "U-bute" insurance offers and an application for a credit card, was a flyer from the DPI&F asking me to participate in something called the Queensland Recreational Fishing Diary Program

(more info here) http://www2.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/16303.html

I guess my question is, "Will this info be used to help the recreational fisho or hinder us?"

The enticement of freebies and prizes will certainly attract some; but at what cost I wonder?

[GES]

Mate, A year or two ago, I got phoned up by a nice lady from the DPI & F who asked me to participate in a recreational fishing diary program. She told me that there were prizes to be won and all that same stuff you have been told.
She also told me the information that was being collected from recreational fishers was to be used by DPI & F to better manage the fishery for our benefit.
So, I agreed and kept the DPI & F recreational fishing diary for a year.
I diligently sent in my monthly information sheets with accurate records of when and where I fished, what money I spent etc. ...and ... (Guess what) 90% of the places I nominated in my diary entries as my favourite fishing spots are now marked as proposed green zones by the EPA.

Don't trust 'em mate. The information will be used to our detriment. They already intend to green-zone 15% of the Bay which involves much of the best fishing grounds and the Minister is already talking about 30% closures in the Bay.

GES

[BrewGuru]

Mate, A year or two ago, I got phoned up by a nice lady from the DPI & F who asked me to participate in a recreational fishing diary program. She told me that there were prizes to be won and all that same stuff you have been told.
She also told me the information that was being collected from recreational fishers was to be used by DPI & F to better manage the fishery for our benefit.
So, I agreed and kept the DPI & F recreational fishing diary for a year.
I diligently sent in my monthly information sheets with accurate records of when and where I fished, what money I spent etc. ...and ... (Guess what) 90% of the places I nominated in my diary entries as my favourite fishing spots are now marked as proposed green zones by the EPA.

Don't trust 'em mate. The information will be used to our detriment. They already intend to green-zone 15% of the Bay which involves much of the best fishing grounds and the Minister is already talking about 30% closures in the Bay.

GES

The Minister for sustainabilty Mr Macnamara is already touting that a percentage of submissions is asking for 30% of the Bay, I suggest his "science" will be based on the same data he recieved from the DPI&F, they freely admitted that the information was based on a previous survey conducted by the DPI&F.
So be ware give the RFISH document the flick.

[FNQCairns]

Don't do it, until they embrace chain of responsibility legislation as a wothy ideal.
Till then they are free to embrace any ideology they manic without ever having the justify any decision above an arrogant stance, just like the DPI of now and of coarse the EPA, they are not the peoples friend, why trust the enemy?

cheers fnq

[ellicat]

If you had attended the boat rally the other month you would have heard the Greens/ALP coalition's Macnamara state that the DPI&F data is openly/freely provided to the EPA.

Whilst the DPI&F seem to have sane people in their ranks, whatever info you give to them will end in the hands of the thieving lying pricks in the EPA.

Participate to your own (& our) detriment.

[fish-n-dive]

If you had attended the boat rally the other month you would have heard the Greens/ALP coalition's Macnamara state that the DPI&F data is openly/freely provided to the EPA.

Whilst the DPI&F seem to have sane people in their ranks, whatever info you give to them will end in the hands of the thieving lying pricks in the EPA.

Participate to your own (& our) detriment.

Attending a rally would be nice if I lived near one!!!!!!;)

[ellicat]

Attending a rally would be nice if I lived near one!!!!!!;)

Oops. Sorry FnD. When I saw Central I automatically thought centre of the universe - which we all know is the SE corner:P

Guess I should apologise to FNQ too:-X;D

[stuart29]

Hi all. I also participated in the DPI survey conducted a couple of years ago and surprise surprise most of the areas that I frequented during the 12 months of submitting reports have been identified as areas of interest. I'm certainly not the only one who fishes these spots and I'm only one of numerous fishers who participated in the survey.

We are however in my opinion in a cath 22 situation. If we want the DPI to continue to regulate the fisheries they need this sort of information to make logical and sound decisions. The problem however is the EPA has the ability to obtain this information for their own evil purposes.

How about everyone enrol in the survey, submit one report a month for a spot X that is in the middle of the bay and devoid of any fish life and sit back and see how long it takes the EPA to identify it as an area of interest!

[ellicat]

Stuart, I like the idea, except the deceptive scum are likely to use that spot devoid of fish as an example the bay is fished out.....another catch 22.:-X

[Scott nthQld]

Exactly ellicat, there's nothing you can say to curb the EPA from taking over the fishery, you be honest and tell them your spots, its under too much fishing pressure and needs to be protected, you give them a baron mark and they use it as an example to slosh us through the mud and protect the spot anyway, but not before putting in an arti, saying look how well we treat the fishing community and then closing it down once the fish start to move in.

BTW FnD, if you do participate in this 'diary' and more of my local fishing areas are closed down, you better look out, I'll be coming for you>:(......don't forget who's taking you fishing next weekend....:D

[imnotoriginal]

Just to clear up something here, this diary program isn't going to reveal any particular secret spots. The reporting only asks you to indicate a square on one of their maps where you fished, and these aren't small squares. Roughly 80% of Bribie Island is covered by two squares to give you an idea of their size.

I can understand why some of you would be particularly worried about the information you give, but they already know where the most popular spots are. There's other info being asked which also suggests they're looking beyond just how many fishos and how much they take home. They ask for estimates on money spent on fuel, accommodation, bait etc.. which will obviously give them a basic idea of just how much money fishos spend in pursuit of their quarry. They also ask about what ramps are being used, how long you spend fishing, how many other fish you catch and why you choose to release fish. I'm part of this program (as a participant) and I'm happy to do it.

I'll admit a little bias here, as I've done research of this variety before and know just how frustrating it is trying to get accurate data. I just can't see the point in deliberately flawing research which could also help us. The battle should be fought against the interpretation and usage of their findings, not by sabotaging their data or refusing to participate. Just my humble little opinion folks.
Joel

[BrewGuru]

Just to clear up something here, this diary program isn't going to reveal any particular secret spots. The reporting only asks you to indicate a square on one of their maps where you fished, and these aren't small squares. Roughly 80% of Bribie Island is covered by two squares to give you an idea of their size.

I can understand why some of you would be particularly worried about the information you give, but they already know where the most popular spots are. There's other info being asked which also suggests they're looking beyond just how many fishos and how much they take home. They ask for estimates on money spent on fuel, accommodation, bait etc.. which will obviously give them a basic idea of just how much money fishos spend in pursuit of their quarry. They also ask about what ramps are being used, how long you spend fishing, how many other fish you catch and why you choose to release fish. I'm part of this program (as a participant) and I'm happy to do it.

I'll admit a little bias here, as I've done research of this variety before and know just how frustrating it is trying to get accurate data. I just can't see the point in deliberately flawing research which could also help us. The battle should be fought against the interpretation and usage of their findings, not by sabotaging their data or refusing to participate. Just my humble little opinion folks.
Joel

You have gotta be kidding buddy! this "research"s is going to provide what data?
and help who?
If you find that you need to provide the governemnt data tha they don't need or gunna use in future, I am sure that they will use that data for good and not evil.
What do you reckon it cost governemnet departments to print, collect and process the data you are so willing to provide.
We ahve all falen for this b4, you must be a newby to fishing, I also fell for the same government Survey on how thaey were gunna protect the squatters at North Point, they gathered the info and then used it against us.
Great Idea, fill out your survey, I am sure it will serve us all better in the future

[CreelReaper]

Hey Imnotoriginal,
I agree with you mate.....it is hard to get good reliable data for any worthwhile research. Unfortunately however the data they do have is being manipulated by the wrong people to give the best possible result for the same wrong people.
Brewguru you will probably find that there has been some substantial lobbying and a 'research fund' allocated to pay such expenses. Obviously aimed at making the donors of such funds happy. Its politics and will always occur. have you ever completed a National Census????
I believe its probably better to give no information than to flaw it. I don't know what the ultimate answer is. I do know that without a good solid backing from a number of high powered pollies from all parties concerned and a unified approach to protecting our waterways for all we will eventually lose out.
We were dark on fish size regulations in the early days. We were up in arms when bag limits were applied. In the end it has helped enormously especially with snapper in our bay.
Maybe having these green zones is the way to go but I would rather see them closed as a temporary thing and done on a rotational basis. It would give the restricted environs time to regenerate and grow. Make it last for 3 or 4 years and then reopen that section and close the next.

Shane