This Is Frustrating And Needs Fixing

[NEWBY]

I have read many many posts to date about the many political and non political based groups/organisations that are pro fishing, pro shooting/ pro 4WD or pro outdoor lifestyle. If you look into them, they all have a few common points that they all agree on. I and many others have made mention that if ALL the heads of the groups get together and just push, as a consolidation, those few points to get people to vote that way, SURELY as KC has mentioned before, there can be a real dead set run at a seat on the cards...
We just need somene of a personable and honest nature to represent this conglomerate of parties/groups and 1 or 2 meetings of the heads to agree on the agenda.

Every post on this I have read has been met with the same crap....YES we all agree that what should happen BUT, MOST say it wont work. Thats the great aussie spirit at force right there. Imagine if they said that at ANZAC or our sporting hero's said it?

Personally, I would love to do this myself but my temper and past history suggests I am far from the person that should be a public figure.

If we can find the right person, I will throw all my personal experience, knowledge and enthusiasm their way not to mention resources.

Are there any suggestions or nominations?

Oh, and please dont try and hijack this thread to make it into a sheet fight as in previous threads of similar nature. There is not enough time to fight about it, only time for action. Positive action.

[Derek Bullock]

Newby

An admirable suggestion for sure and I wish you well with it. One thing you need to remember though is that the three political parties will have their own agendas and their own egos and you will most likely find they will not want to be part of it. What you have to remember is that two of the parties went to court in recent times and it may take a long time and possibly changes at the top of at least one of them to heal that rift.

About the only agreement that you possibly may get out of the three groups is where preferences will go and I am not so sure that they could all agree on that.

In saying all of that I wish you well in what you are trying to achieve but I think you may find that it is far to late now for this election.

Cheers


Derek

[kc]

Hi Newby,

I watch and read and shake my bloody head sometimes too, thinking why don't people get it! The biggest issue is that (IMO), by and large the average fisho/outdoors lover really does not think much about politics and understands our system even less. For those who Poo Poo the chance of a "fishing/outdoors" vote ever getting someone elected......look at NSW, look at Family first (2%), look at the numbers I posted in that other thread about the shooters and fishers party....these are REAL numbers, not made up. We got very close last time and after coming out of left field at the first senate election, the majors were not about to let us have a free swing last time. THEY know we have great potential, it is just a pity we don't collectively realise it ourselves.

I am still going to keep my head out of this debate as much as I can BUT it needs to be said AGAIN.

It doesn't matter how many groups, or for that matter micro parties bang the drum about "outdoor recreation" in all it forms. Just like their are 101 different environmental lobby groups running around, each with their own agenda and style. The point with the environmental lobby is that they unite come election time with devestating efficency.

Every WWF, Greenpeace, Save the planet activist is out on polling day handing out how to vote cards. They all vote green.

If the political landscape is fractured by a number, at this stage maybe even 3, "fishing parties" it can work to our benifit. We will get plenty of media attention, most of it however as a laughing stock. We will be taken less seriuosly by the majors (and they may just leave us alone) and we have a chance to work with the other minor parties to form a decent block come preferance time. The big issue here, IMO, is the skills, ethics and potential lay with AFLP, while the "brand recognition" is with TFP (as a direct result of all the work done by The Fishing Party (Qld), before it changed its name , not Bob Smith. Real pain in the bum. The shooters also clearly have some good skills and experience but a "brand" that exposes them to public hysteria, just like we have seen on our own threads. "Shooters" is a bugger of a brand to sell to the wider public.

It would be my advise, and it is not my place to offer it, to just make sure the preferance deals are well organised and rope in other like minded parties, the numbers are there. The "redneck vote" (for want of a better term), and I will add I once saw redneck described as "a person displaying a glorious lack of sohistication" (guilty as charged:D )

Does not have Pauline this election and a rights based, I'm angry, conservative leaning "party" has every opportunity to attract the "redneck" vote. This may even be the shooters if they play their cards right, or it could also be AFLP if they want to go down this road.

Simple fact of the matter is the system is absolutely primed for "our" type of voter block to win a/some senate seats if we get our collective sh&^ together.

The numbers don't lie.

KC

[finga]

Simple fact of the matter is the system is absolutely primed for "our" type of voter block to win a/some senate seats if we get our collective sh&^ together.

The numbers don't lie.

KC
The big word there is IF
I, for one, hope the poo gets gathered.

[FNQCairns]

Knock me over with a feather! last night on the local evening news was Dr Starke and the AFLP candidate also a doctor but for humans (sorry forget his name) being interviewed in front of GBRMPA over the green zones and the crock they are still via the use of corrupt science etc....granted this only made the news because they where also calling for the sacking of Garrett who was on his extreme green propaganda trail in Cairns of late, but still it got out there, who cares why or who did it...the dissatisfaction and an Anglers issue/voice actually got out there!

How rare is that in this country!!

cheers fnq

[John L]

KC,

Good post , I think the first thing we all need to learn is tolerance of other's lifestyles and interests. As an example as most know I am a principally a shooter as well as a hunter, fisher, 4wd'er,boater. One of the problems our shooting club has is young blokes on trail bikes cutting the fences at the back of our range and sneaking in to ride thier off road motorbikes in the projectile fallout zone.

Now obviously we can not tolerate that from the safety view point, but at the same time we don't want to make enemies of them as they are also outdoor users.

The solution is to support them in finding thier own offroad park were they can ride to thier hearts content . a win , win for both party's. Our range also backs on to a river with a small reserve area that fishermen use but the access road runs through rifle range property along our boundary.We had some issues with people leaving rubbish and broken stubbies,etc in the reserve and shooting range property.

Yes, we could legally shut them out but we choose to allow them access to the reserve as long as they stay out of the projectile fallout zone. Once again we are all outdoor users and have many common issues. We can not punish good people for the actions of a few idiots.

I personally intervened when some member's wanted to shut them out as I was on the executive at the time and managed to keep thier access open.

The real test is if we are prepared to support each other even if we may not personally like thier particular activities, causes us grief, or it even crosses our personal beliefs in some cases.

[John L]

My apologies. My last post should have been directed to Newby not KC.

[ubdkdd]

This is just my two cents, but a fishing / shooting / outdoors type political party will always struggle to get elected or to have any type of real political influence as they are always seen as a single issue party.

If such groups want to get elected, they need to develop a party name and platform that doesn't have the words 'fishing' or 'shooting' etc in the title, and that party needs to have a range of policy positions on all major issues.

Why would an average Joe vote for a single issue party? What is a Fishing party representative going to add to a parliamentary discussion on education or health? Look at the Greens as an example. Whilst the rise of the Greens as a force in Australian politics correlates to the narrowing of the gap between the libs and labour, they only started being taken seriously once they moderated their green positions somewhat. The best thing to happen for the greens will be the retirement of Bob Brown and his replacement by someone like Nick McKim from Tas. the more moderate they get and the broader their policy platform, they bigger their vote will be.

All successful political parties can and do push specific causes, but those causes are secondary to the primary business of being in power. You got to be in the game to play, and you'll never get in the game yelling from the sidelines about a single issue.

[bigbrian47]

mate you don't have to be in power
the legitimate hunters are getting a better deal in nsw since the shooters/fishers party have two elected people in the decision makoing ranks

[kc]

& the fishos got a better deal (at a federal level) once TFPQ stuck their head in as well. Parties don't need to be in power, or even get someone elected to influence political decisions. Just being there, collecting and "trading" votes is a hell of a start. The more votes they "collect" the better.

KC

[PADDLES]

if the agendas of these parties would just stick to recreational access issues for outdoor pursuits then it's all good, and they'd get my vote. trouble is, if the shooters still persist with lobbying to try to somehow relax weapons (not necessarilly guns) controls then it's going to be a very difficult pill to swallow for an awful lot of people. we've already seen in another thread on here the conflict that can be caused.

i agree with newby though that a single entity would be excellent, but it must deal with common recreational access issues only and not turn into anything else. ie. we're all outdoorsmen and women and that's what we should be sticking to, not pushing some self defence weapons agenda.

[Mike Delisser]

I think a party that mainly delt with access issues may have some appeal with a decent section of the public including myself. I doubt if the already strong Shooters party would amalgimate with that though. They're proud of what they've achieved (and rightly so) and would prob say "if it ain't broke don't fix it".
Every group has its baggage.
KC I work with so many who fish but will never vote for any party with the word Fishing in it's name after the party's actions following the 2004 Fed election and what it ended up costing those workers (Ron B on tv thanking the the Fishing Party and it's preferences for giving Howard full control of the Senate). That may change in time but for now I recon an Access to Recreation Party sounds good to me.
Cheers

[kc]

Piont taken Mike but you miss a very fundamental issue. The "job" of the/a fishing party is to get the best deal possible for its voters on issues relating to its policy platform, which were very specifically fishing.

Yes we preferenced that Nationals, after Labor didn't even want to talk to us, in fact hung up the phone, and as a consequence extracted certain agreements from the Nationals they they would take up several issues on our behalf.

They did, the biggest being compensation payments for those effected by the GBR green zones. They also "eventually" got criminal convictions recinded, had a public inquiry into the GBR zoning and a few other issues run up the flag pole on our behalf.

Did we know, or could we have even expected that our votes would be so important in the end result. Of course we didn't. Did we know anything about work choices? Of course bloody not, it was none of our business.

Lets just say, had we decided to preferance Labor, even though they hung up on us, then Drew Hutton would have won the last Qld Senate seat and Bob Brown would have been in control of the Senate..................NEVER labor.

We may never had had work choices, never heard of Barnaby again, Howard or Costello might still be PM.....................in essence.....none of OUR business and who was ever to know.

You can not hold a "fishing party" over a barrel because we undertook a preferance arrangement strictly for the betterment of our members and voter base. If you are a died in the wool Labor man, who happens to fish...then that's your decision. I happen to be a died in the wool fisherman, who happens to vote'.

I have been a swinging voter for most of my like but with 60 staff now in my employ have become more and more conservative leaning over the years. This is just a natural progression and not up for debate. If you have a large staff team you tend to favour conservative.

Despite my personal leaning however, if you look at the preference deals done by TFPQ/AFLP over 2 elections you can see that we did not direct preferances straight to the conservative but tried to use them to our best advantage with a number of small to medium parties first, as detailed in another thread.

This is why Family First also champion issues on our behalf.

Looking at what Garret is up to and with Brown in charge of ther Senate after the next election fills me with dread.

I fish and I vote...............not the other way around.

KC

[Mike Delisser]

Good thread Newby, I don't want it to deviate so I'll just quickly add that I think you're missing the issue KC.
I said it's some of my workmates have probs voting for a Fishing Party; if I could vote for a fishing party I would (you guys don't stand in my electorate). And because of what they tell me I formed my view (right or wrong) that an Access to Recreation party and platform would do better than a party with the word fishing in it. I was at the Tinny & Tackle show last week and noted it was much more crowded down in the 4x4 section of the show than up in the fishing and boating section, I'm sure some of those guys would have more interest in a access party than a fishing party. They could run in many seats as well, not just the coastal ones. Sorry KC but that's my view.
As I said sorry Newby
Cheers

[TheRealAndy]

Good thread Newby, I don't want it to deviate so I'll just quickly add that I think you're missing the issue KC.
I said it's some of my workmates have probs voting for a Fishing Party; if I could vote for a fishing party I would (you guys don't stand in my electorate). And because of what they tell me I formed my view (right or wrong) that an Access to Recreation party and platform would do better than a party with the word fishing in it. I was at the Tinny & Tackle show last week and noted it was much more crowded down in the 4x4 section of the show than up in the fishing and boating section, I'm sure some of those guys would have more interest in a access party than a fishing party. They could run in many seats as well, not just the coastal ones. Sorry KC but that's my view.
As I said sorry Newby
Cheers

Have to disagree with you there. I spent all 3 days at the T&T show and the most crowded place was the gate between the 2 shows, where the prawn peeler was being sold. I would say it was fairly equally distributed between the both, and if anything was lighter on the 4*4 side. Infact I had lunch each day down the 4*4 side because there was less numbers.

[Derek Bullock]

Were the Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party and The Fishing Party at the Show Andy??

[kc]

Hi again Mike,

You, and your workmates could vote for a "fishing party" in your electorate. Everyone could. AFLP stood for Senate seats only. Also some of the rational behind the name change was to incorporate 4WDers, campers and the like, hence the new party logo with the 4WD and tinny on the roof.

Your mates are somewhat typical of the issue I alluded to earlier. Very few people in our deomgraphic understand our political system.

No one has to follow our preference flow and just because someone wanted to park a protest vote with a "fishing party" does not mean they can't control where their vote ends up.

I saw a pretty sad enditement of the general knowledge of politics among the "sports" types with a piece on ABC Insiders this morning when about 10 current AFL players could not even name 5 prime ministers, most could even name 2 and one thought George Bush was an ex prime minister of Australia.

This is not a critisism of your mates, just a fact of life. Most people who are in the "get away from it all crowd", don't give a rats about politics where-as the environmental lobby live and breath it.....to our ultimate peril.

I don't have any clue how to fix this. Part of the very reason we fish is to get away from the pressures of modern life in the first place.

KC

[NEWBY]

Newby

An admirable suggestion for sure and I wish you well with it. One thing you need to remember though is that the three political parties will have their own agendas and their own egos and you will most likely find they will not want to be part of it. What you have to remember is that two of the parties went to court in recent times and it may take a long time and possibly changes at the top of at least one of them to heal that rift.

About the only agreement that you possibly may get out of the three groups is where preferences will go and I am not so sure that they could all agree on that.

In saying all of that I wish you well in what you are trying to achieve but I think you may find that it is far to late now for this election.

Cheers


Derek
Thanks for keeping it positive in the very first post Derek.
Appreciated. >:( NOT..... First reply I get and its a NEGATIVE???? Back it up.

Someone of your experience and years should be onto this mate. Dont let your past let downs and bad experiences interfere with a positive future or we wont have ANY hope of having one mate.

"If at first you dont succeed, TRY TRY AGAIN"
NEVER GIVE UP for whats worth fighting for and WINNING.

[NEWBY]

Folks, this has been great so far without a single harsh word spoken. Thank you all.

KC, Mike, Andy etc, the debate on what a party should be called etc etc is irrelevant in this case. Its about a combined vote. Did the FP have a candidate? I dont know. ECOFISH doesnt have a candidate as it is a "non political" based group. My point is that AFLP stands for "Australian Fishing and Lifestyle Party" It is a credible group that has fought hard and despite legal crap, has gone forward. It stands for what we ALL want. LIFESTYLE....ACCESS....FISHING....4WD'ing etc etc...

KC, your spot on mate, I dont understand the voting/political system. Wouldnt have a clue. It was formulated and then bastardised to make it such by politicians that dont want us to know. Maybe a post on how it works would help. In fact that would be great. I havent voted since 1983. I voted for Hawke...After that HUGE mistake, I dont want to make it again.

And , the preference system, I vote for a person and they give my votes to someone else and then before you know it, I have actually voted for Garret????? Arghhhhhh No wonder the country is stuffed up.
If people knew how it all works, and believe me they dont, there would be more like me, NON VOTERS....
I would top myself if I thought I had inadvertantly voted for Rudd,Garret etc...

So Chris, Andy, KC even DEREK, how about we at least TRY and get all these people together, even on a conference call to see if we can agree on just 3 things that all the groups/parties want and like I said in another post, get some contributions together from RETAILERS AND WHOLESALER, even IMPORTERS in a joint effort to get our bloody rights back.

If it is all to get AFLP in then so be it. A joint meeting in Brissy or Sydney etc.

LETS DO SOMETHING POSITIVE....NOW...

[kc]

Hi Newby,

The main reason I have been staying out of political debates is that there is nothing more pathetic than ex leaders snipping from the sidelines. Just watching Keating & Fraser snipping away leaves me cold. It is just not my place to arrange or be involved in anything. I had my go and failed and it is now up to the new guys at each organisation. Some felt it was AFLP's "fault" that the fishing vote was split...hence my withdrawal opened the way for new blood and no personaility conflicts. TFP however hasn't changed a thing.

Really up to current management to make the decisions but I do know funding and industry support are at the top of their agenda, I also know that they don't share my views on participation on internet chat sites, trade and consumer shows and the like.

That said AFLP members are regulars on Ausfish and the Senate candidate Mike Mansfield is a sharp guy and good communicator so maybe word will filter back that sites like Ausfish are good sounding boards and places to get a handle on what really matters to fishos.

It does need to be said however that Ausfish users are not your typical "get away from it all" rec fishers, they are far more in tune with what is happening than most.

I have a lot of thoughs about direction strategy and tactics but it is just none of my business anymore.

Just nothing worse than a bitter and twisted old has-been:-X

KC

[PADDLES]

hey newby, i don't think derek was necessarily being deliberately negative with his post. i honestly believe he has hit the nail on the head and has been completely realistic. you only have to go back through some of the threads that have been on this forum that show the differences between the agendas and personalities in these parties to see the real issues.

what you are suggesting though (an amalgamation of some sort) is the necessary way forwards, but it'll be extremely difficult given the differences in agenda of the parties.

[Chris Ryan]

I have a lot of thoughs about direction strategy and tactics but it is just none of my business anymore.

Just nothing worse than a bitter and twisted old has-been:-X

KC

KC,

Firstly your experience and understanding of these matters is enormous and I don't think you should look at it as none of your business because it is as much yours as any of us. You mention Fraser and Keating, yep annoying snipes from the sidelines in the media but they are part of the machine in developing the strategy and maybe just use these comments as an interference mechanism to give them time to work with the parties.

Secondly - bitter and twisted? Bitter about what happened to you and the way the AFLP was treated I can understand. Twisted - well you gotta be to do what you did for so long. The old has-been though I can't accept.... :)

[NEWBY]

hey newby, i don't think derek was necessarily being deliberately negative with his post. i honestly believe he has hit the nail on the head and has been completely realistic. you only have to go back through some of the threads that have been on this forum that show the differences between the agendas and personalities in these parties to see the real issues.

what you are suggesting though (an amalgamation of some sort) is the necessary way forwards, but it'll be extremely difficult given the differences in agenda of the parties.

Its not an amalgamation of parties/groups as much as issues/pollicies. Obviously we all have different ideas and agendas its what makes us unique eh? But we also have the same ideas on a few things.
I am all for 3 or 4 real pressing issues EG Coral Sea, being agreed upon by ALL the heads of the parties/groups and getting all their members behind the candidate most likely to succeed. At this stage I would suggest the good doctor from AFLP as he is the only one I have heard anythng about and seems to be noteworthy and popular within the general community.
And Derek was negative. And as much as I understand why he is, I also think its time for the past to stay where it is, behind us all. If we keep dwelling on the past, we cannot seriously look to the future. It is why I asked at the beginning of this thread for POSITIVE input... There are many many threads for negatives.

Derek, dont take my comments as attacks as they are not. But, it is time to hold that old head of yours up again...

F the Fing Fers.... F em all.... The only knockers we should take any heed of are the ones held up by a bra. :o
That got your attention didnt it ?

[TheRealAndy]

Were the Australian Fishing & Lifestyle Party and The Fishing Party at the Show Andy??

Derek there was one guy there handing out stickers and coral sea fact sheets. I dont think they had a stand, or if they did I did not see it (I was only looking for boats and camping stuff).

[Chris Ryan]

Someone did mention that an AFLP person was at the show to me. I think he came looking for me at the show on the Saturday but I wasn't there due to kids sporting commitments.

Newby does have a point and it is one most of use everyday in life and that is we can't change what happened yesterday only what happens today and plan for tomorrow.

We have limited time available now for these AFFA's and for the Federal election looming to work some things out BUT we need to have a national viewpoint in this because WA are getting smacked harder than the East Coast and NT are coping a flogging too. I expect that tradition to continue around the Southern side of the country. We have a few groups that are running in the election supporting outdoors lifestyle in various states and I feel that either Recfish or the new Australian Fishing and Boating Council are the only ones in a position to bring this together as they are the national bodies currently.

From ECOfishers perspective we are already seeing cooperation between us and Sunfish Fraser Coast on the petition and I would like to offer our support and assistance where we can to fight that battle in Hervey Bay and surrounds with them. Viewpoints on other topics may be different, but they are irrelevant now as this is bigger than any one of us. If that can continue between political parties and our rep groups and flow through to the top if makes a lot of noise.

HOWEVER anything that is done has to have the involvement of not just the representative bodies out there but the general public too.....and that is outside Ausfish. Could that be coordinated? Maybe. Would it work? Possibly.

Do you want to try?

[Mike Delisser]

Thanks for the reply KC, I think their main issue was the immediate cheering and back slapping of TFP when Bos announced full control of the Senate.

Chris by the sounds of it, if there was a united national Fishin/outdoors/4x4 political party or even loby group, they would be supporting every opposition in the country! Scarry place to be, not sure either if this wouldn't be a permanent thing no matter who is in power!!!!
Like to here your thoughts on that Chris.

[Chris Ryan]

Well there is always the risk of that Mike considering a lot of the Australian psyche is anti-authoritarian to some degree. People these days are wondering what it is like on the other side of the fence and if the grass is indeed greener. The mobile workforce is a good example where not many are sticking to the same company for more than 2-5 years.

To reflect that to where the ideas for the fisheries and the best deal is for the users of them those that understand the political sphere see the alignment between some of the Labor party to that of the Greens. That is not to say that the 'conservative' side of politics doesnt have similar alignments along the way. If the politics develops a support structure which shows a strong support for the requirements for the users then I don't see why that wouldn't get support be that Labor or LNP or whomever. A single issue group will influence the outcome based on support for that issue; nothing more and nothing less. The other thing is fishing is a part of the lifestyle we select but there are many other factors involved in making a voting decision.

At the end of the day a lobby or representative group is there to promote the ideas and strategies to solve issues and even though it still has some influence in the political process it should be focused on the long term outcomes; not every three years of resurrection.

As a concept, would some energy focused on teaching people how the voting system works be beneficial so they can make a proper decision and understand how preference voting flows. That way they can learn to vote below the line for their own benefit, rather than rely on a party telling them what is best.

[NEWBY]

HOWEVER anything that is done has to have the involvement of not just the representative bodies out there but the general public too.....and that is outside Ausfish. Could that be coordinated? Maybe. Would it work? Possibly.

Do you want to try?

Well its like this, I got a Chris Trevor (Local Labor Fed) flyer in the mail last night telling everyone how good he has done. That tells me, were going to the poles very very soon guy's and gal's.....

So in answer to your question Chris, "do you want to try" You bet your arse i do...

I have a member down here that just got edged out by CT last election so just think what those votes would have done for him...No CT...No F*****G LABOR...
Just think about the other few that JUST missed out.....

This is the BEST election by far to get OUR people in. Our word and arguments heard. Our rights ammended....


NEWBY IS IN.....

[Mike Delisser]

This is the BEST election by far to get OUR people in.
NEWBY IS IN.....

Who are OUR people Newby? are you talking about the TFP?

[NEWBY]

Who are OUR people Newby? are you talking about the TFP?
OUR = combined mass agreeing on the major issues. US OUR, NOT THEM....
THE MAJORITY of voters that want the radicals stopped.

[moater]

I've been thinking about the whole thing for some time now and my opinion is that we need a party called something like The Traditional Values Party,with an emphasis on traditional values,which fishing,hunting,camping etc etc etc are long held as being part of.The long-held belief that you should be able to take your kid(s) camping and catch a few fish,after driving your 4wd into your favourite spot,and so on.Traditional values are pretty much held (to a larger extent than greenies and other 'radicals') by people that want to do these types of things ie fishing/camping etc.Of course it's far more than these pursuits but central to society's well being that there are tried and true values regarding everything that affects us.The reason Family First has gained so much clout is not just because of Christians but of an overall NEED to have some return to VALUES THAT MATTER,whether it's giving someone a fair go,or locking up child-tamperers for a very long time.Society is screaming for a return to decency and leadership,backed by strength in enforcement where needed,and with a sensible and fair understanding & priority given to those that need some help.Absolutes must be adhered to and genuine change,not spin,implemented.If the people want certain things done then the pollie has to bloody well do it!

By the way,if anyone thinks that I'm suggesting we go back to the 'dark ages' or that I'm some sort of redneck,then I would say to them that they've become victims of the brainwashing that has permeated through.The brainwashing that says that it's "uncool" to have decency.

Darren

[PinHead]

decency is good..but Family First is draconian ..how they got anyone there is beyond my comprehension.

the "traditional Values" ...seems to me like it sounds like a Party for Indigineous people.

I have no idea what to do about the current situation..I doubt anyone has and the BIG problem when people are standing for election is the egos. We have seen what happens in that respect.

[Big Deez]

OUR = combined mass agreeing on the major issues. US OUR, NOT THEM....
THE MAJORITY of voters that want the radicals stopped.
Hi Newby
From this post I assume that the radicals are the conservationists?

[Mike Delisser]

OUR = combined mass agreeing on the major issues. US OUR, NOT THEM....
THE MAJORITY of voters that want the radicals stopped.

Yeh I don't follow either Newby, you're a little too cryptic for me (prob my falt not yours),
Does "get OUR people in" mean TFP, LNP or is anyone but Labor "OUR people"

Cheers

[Chris Ryan]

Mike I take the Our People to mean those who are promoting the benefits of our outdoor lifestyle and are willing to work hard to make sure the right things are done to keep that going and not sell out the users on a factional whim. I don't think it is an attempt to pigeon hole a party as the preferred/best/only option moreover a reflection on what the original post is about and that is getting the groups together to work on a common direction/goal.

I might be wrong but that is my take on it.

Have a Happy Easter all and stay safe on the roads and water if your traveling.

[Jabiru658]

The Traditional Values Party,with an emphasis on traditional values,which fishing,hunting,camping etc etc etc are long held as being part of.

I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions.

I fish, I hunt, I camp... but I also hold what are almost certainly non-traditional values because my views are not influenced by the religious right.

I do believe in abortion (with suitable controls in place)
I do believe in legalised euthanasia (again with suitable controls in place)
I am not a regular church goer and I'm agnostic.
I don't believe gays should be discriminated against in law (and yes I'm married with kids).

What I believe in is freedom of choice (where it doesn't hurt others) and I think 'traditional values' restricts various groups activities, in a similar way to that which the greenies (and no I'm not a greenie either) are currently restricting ours.

Australia is moving steadily down the nanny state path but that's just a symptom of erosion of freedom of choice not the cause.

[Mike Delisser]

Thanks for your take on it Chris but I was asking Newby what he means.

Quote=NEWBY;1147574]
This is the BEST election by far to get OUR people in. Our word and arguments heard. Our rights ammended....[/quote]

Cheers

[Big Deez]

Newby
I will assume that you are referring to the conservationist/green movement when you talk about radicals. If so, I think it may be a good idea to reconsider who are in the majority. I actually feel that the rec fishers are the minority in this debate and the average citizen is all for the conservation of the environment. This, of course, is up for debate. However, I think that if you sampled the broader community, rec fishing won't be seen as important as conservation. Therefore, we are the radicals, not the conservationists. We are the zealots not the conservationists!
Deez

[kc]

That's making an assumption that fishers are not conservationists and environmentally aware. I would generally be of the opinion that those of us who actively participate in outdoor recreation, be it fishing, hiking, camping or even, dare I say it "hunting" , have a greater appreciation of and respect for the environment than most "inner city greens" who wouldn't know a real environmetal issue if it bit them on the arse. Conservation is just a nice conversation topic over a cafe latte with the Hummer parked out the front.

The "radicals" are those that attempt to force their ideals onto others.
Be that the vegan rabid green evangalist, the god botherers or the communists or whoever.

Locking one sector out of a tradional australian way of life on the basis of an ideology which is not supported by evidence is one such example.

Another is an ideology which appears to say it is better to let a house burn down than cut down a tree and better to let people go thirsty or hungry than build a dam.

Noel Person puts it very well in respect to the wild rivers legislation where it appears better to put in place stupid anti development laws than let aboriginal people better themselves.

Radicals, at all levels, are those who wish to force their own ideology onto everyone.

Thankfully, at a government level, we have some degree of democracy and that at least is a "check and balance".
When Howard sought to "radically" impose his industrial relations ideal on "all of us", he got the boot. Now the current "d*^&^&head" is pursuing his ideals and the worst part of that is the relationship his party has with the "radical" greens and this will quickly become more obviuos if he wins the next election and Brown has the keys to the kingdom of heaven (the balance of power in the senate)

Are rec fishos "radicals".........I don't think so. We are trying to protect "our" traditional lifestyle, not convert the masses to our way of life.

KC

[Big Deez]

The "radicals" are those that attempt to force their ideals onto others.

Radicals, at all levels, are those who wish to force their own ideology onto everyone.

KC
Hi kc
Thanks for the reply. Do you not see SOME rec fishers, especially some from this site, as radicals given your own definition in the above post? I have seen some very forceful posts from individuals from this site who bullied other members from the site - forcing their ideologies onto others as you say.

Point taken with resepct to fishers having a "greater appreciation of and respect for the environment". This may be true to some extent. However, my point is that rec fishers are the minority given the number of greens/conservationists in the electorate these days. Most wouldn't care if we couldn't fish any more.

My take on all of this is that it will be very difficult to form a party that caters to the interests of all fishers and brings "...groups together to work on a common direction/goal..". My wants/needs do not align with those of any "lifestyle" party and I would wager that the silent majority on this site feel the same. Admittedly, I am on the very inner left, which doesn't correspond to those on the near- to far-right that start the so-called life-style parties, which makes it difficult for me.

As for a Family First-style party... Well Steven Fielding was found out the other night on Q&A - it was embarassing to watch him clutch at straws when asked if he believed the Earth was 10,000 years old. I'm all for values in society, but religion needs to be excluded from politics in my opinon.
Deez

[kc]

I actually don't agree and note as a "new member" you may just be "fishing" but I welcome a bit of debate at an idealogical level with an alternate view.

It is one thing to have a strong opinion, and yes more than a few ausfishers have strong opinions, I don't see them trying to convert others, they just try to convince "others" that "I am right and you are wrong". I don't believe I have ever seen a string of posts trying to convert the wider community to accept "our" way of life or our ideals. In essence "we" just want to be left alone and be allowed to continue a lifestyle which is, at its core, an important part of just who we are, not argue a position which says "everyone should fish/hunt".

As to numbers.

The only time "The fishing Vote" has gone head to head with "the green vote" on anything like an equal footing was the 2006 Qld state election when both the green vote and the "fishing vote" ran at about 7%. In "Barron River" the "fishing vote" actually beat the "green vote" 12% to 7%. In Townsville, Cairns and Cleveland it was neck and neck. These were all in targetted seats where fishing is an important part of the social mix. Had the poll been in Brisbane central then the results would be different. Had it been in Darwin I would suggest the result would be heavily pro fishing....like in Weipa at the 2004 Federal election with the fishing vote 22% and the greens less than 2%.

Clearly the green vote has $$$$, media profile and credibility in the urban areas which fishing may never have. We are a coastal based, mainly outside the CDB/urban areas (where most voters live) and most people who regularly fish, don't believe it is the "be all and end all" and certainly not important enough to vote for. It is however more than 25% of the population (those who fish) and more then 30% of the population if you add camping and other outdoor pursuits.

The demographics of the "green voter" is heavily influenced by a number of factors, not the least being age. They are younger, they are often university educated, or complete alternate lifestyle hippy types and mainly they are urban and have spent a (very short) lifetime being indoctrinated by the green mantra and influenced by a complient media. They also attract the gay vote (& no I am not intending any to imply this is you...it is just a fact that they do) and this again is a significant number by virtue of the fact that to many gay people, being gay is THE most important thing to them , there fore they vote for "their" party, whereby for fishos, being a fisho is not THE most important thing to them so it does not influence their vote to the same degree.

I happen to be older, been round the traps a few times and be old enough and well read enough to have formed my own opinions, not be a parrot for others.

What the greens do have over "us" is 20 years head start in terms of political awareness and activism, a core voting block to whom the green party and its policy platform is of sufficent importance to them personally that they vote that way.

May green voters have the unwavering passion of a zealot and a social system which allows our society the luxury to vote for things more important than lifes nesessities.

KC

[FNQCairns]

IMHO never confuse conservation with preservation and also never confuse naturalist with environmentalist within today's common terminology's.

Once one has a grasp of the differential contained within each term it's very easy to identify the Zealot for what they are and how they behave and their runs on the board to date. Irrespective of who's side of the argument one 'chooses' a brief look back at history will tell all.

History doesn't suit well what constitutes a self proclaimed 'conservationist' these days, to look deeper than the propaganda, a very different animal will be looking back.

Interested......just where should this personality think he 'in the real world' sits? with or against his family and all other anglers family's? I know as per the science and most importantly today the politics but do you think he would?...he should or at the very least could?? but may consider the issue not in his personal best interest to educate himself at the level necessary.

Quote;

"Look I am a really big believer in fish management so I think the zones play their part so our kids and my kids kids will have fish in the future to catch."


Scott Hillier (sp), 7 local news 1/4/10


cheers fnq

[trymyluck]

Hi all


No offense meant but i'm sitting here reading this and thinking you have got to be kidding me, you are all sitting here debating whether we are radicals or not or what the combined party should be called if it ever got that far and all the while people who might be interested in this thread tune in and then tune out thinking this is just too hard and a load of crap. Lets keep it simple.

We need to attract a large enough voter block to enable our issues to be put on the table and taken seriously. Thats all. No running the country, just enough votes to be able to counter the effect of the greens. Balance things up.

Will it ever happen, well if given the way this is going probably not.

Mark

[FNQCairns]

Hi all


No offense meant but i'm sitting here reading this and thinking you have got to be kidding me, you are all sitting here debating whether we are radicals or not or what the combined party should be called if it ever got that far and all the while people who might be interested in this thread tune in and then tune out thinking this is just too hard and a load of crap. Lets keep it simple.

We need to attract a large enough voter block to enable our issues to be put on the table and taken seriously. Thats all. No running the country, just enough votes to be able to counter the effect of the greens. Balance things up.

Will it ever happen, well if given the way this is going probably not.

Mark

I agree, the trick is to understand that discussion like this are mostly smoke and mirrors, a little bit of drama and chirl for pretty much the hell of it.
The real stuff happens elsewhere outside of these discussions, PMs, real life etc

It's just a game being played tea party dress up style, a smattering of spoilers, stand ups and then there are the moles even.....all a wonderful insight into human nature but not very real, still things do become from stuff like this, nothing gets delayed or stopped because of it....so that makes it all ok by me.

cheers fnq

[Mike Delisser]

I would generally be of the opinion that those of us who actively participate in outdoor recreation, be it fishing, hiking, camping or even, dare I say it "hunting" , have a greater appreciation of and respect for the environment than most inner city greens.
KC

Big gains here over the last 15 years and I would agree to an extent but there's still a long way to go for many anglers. Just ask if you think we should phase out the sale of old tech 2 strokes and see what some of our environmentaly aware anglers have to say. You could add lead sinkers and jigheads (which I use) here too, it will become a cross for us to bear one day (esp in dams that hold our drinking water) but i don't here too many anglers calling for them to be prohibited.
Personally (and it's probably 10 years too late for this) I would love to see rec-anglers setting the restrictions for our pastime rather than defending ourselves against them.
This is a great thread hope it continues, quite constructive.
Cheers

[Rowdy1]

okay ... in my opinion .... Voting for a party such as AFLP ...which may not attract enough votes to win a seat in House of Reps or in senate ....but directs its votes to a member of a political party (particularly in a marginal seat) which would support or defend our right to Fish (or other Recreational access if you wish) is still a positive move.

1. It can get us support for issues close to our heart.

2. If a good voter percentage could be obtained particularly in marginal electorates ....then the messages will get through ...to the policy makers that ... these Rec fishers do have numbers that count .... and should be considered

3. In a marginal seat .... The chance of increasing the vote by attracting the "I fish I vote crowd" would be attractive but only if that person thought enough votes could be obtained to swing the seat their way ... . If that person was convinced to some degree that the Fish vote was influential ...then we would have strong support from that person. ( Q. How to provide the numbers??? Petitions ?? Local interest groups).

4. I am a swing voter ...... Green so far as maintaining healthy waterways by reducing chemical runoff and trying to prevent illegal effluent disposal in waterways .... but still support the right to use herbicides,pesticides and fertilisers for crop production etc ....... Moderation

5. I would support a fishing biased political member ..... but would like to feel his commitment and take his other key ideals into consideration before lodging my vote.

If any such member is going to be at Melbourne Boat Show i'd be interested in their viewpoint .... prove to me your the right person for the Job ... House of Reps or senate ...and you'll get my vote.

[moater]

I think you're making some unwarranted assumptions.

I fish, I hunt, I camp... but I also hold what are almost certainly non-traditional values because my views are not influenced by the religious right.

I do believe in abortion (with suitable controls in place)
I do believe in legalised euthanasia (again with suitable controls in place)
I am not a regular church goer and I'm agnostic.
I don't believe gays should be discriminated against in law (and yes I'm married with kids).

What I believe in is freedom of choice (where it doesn't hurt others) and I think 'traditional values' restricts various groups activities, in a similar way to that which the greenies (and no I'm not a greenie either) are currently restricting ours.

Australia is moving steadily down the nanny state path but that's just a symptom of erosion of freedom of choice not the cause.

No I don't believe I've made any "unwarranted assumptions",maybe it's been read that way?To use the word "traditional" is not to pertain to aborigines,churchgoers,wowsers or any similar "assumptions".I was simply stating that there IS a huge need in everyday life for a return to better standards.If that idea is unpopular with some well that's something they'd have to deal with in their own way.I also don't regularly go to church but have my beliefs.I too believe in controlled (necessary) abortion & not allowing people to waste away with horrific,incurable illness.I also believe in gays having some legal rights as in access to a partner's superannuation and other benefits of commited relationships,but NOT to allow gay marriage as such,at least not under the same bracket as traditional marriage,more like a separate,but recognised,civil union.These people are not answerable to me as long as I'm not having it forced onto me,the same goes for many other lifestyles.Live and let live yes,but at the same time you have to be able to collectively say "FFS this is crap and we don't want it in our society"..to do so is to weed out things that are just no good when it's said and done,and help to keep society healthy.A bit like infection,if you let any crap enter your body you'll get bloody sick.I don't subscribe to the view that if it feels good then do it which is one of the main reasons there's so much crap in the world and so many a#$eholes that it's coming from.

I believe the "nanny state" is not because of a lack of freedom of choice but because of making too many WRONG choices unchallenged.Things go rs up and kneejerk pollies/beauracrats implement stupid laws as a result.If there was a bit more sense of right and wrong then we might not have pollies making such stupid decisions.We'd also get off our backsides and get pretty organised against injustice,political or other.There's no quick-fix but without a basis to live by there's stuff all to go by,just conflicting interests.

[NEWBY]

Hi Newby
From this post I assume that the radicals are the conservationists?
Not ALL conservationists are radical mate.
I mean the radicals like PEW etc.
"Close the whole Coral Sea" is radical. Then we have Garret that almost did it.

RADICAL

[NEWBY]

So once again the thread is turning into a shit fight over silly things and maybe Derek is right.....It cant be done......
My ideas are for the groups that are fighting for our lifestyles, to join together on a few issues and make it happen....SO SIMPLE REALLY.....
We all agree that we should be doing proper research into impact of fishing etc on the reef. But EVERYTHING needs to be looked at...Not just fishing....RUN OFF....OIL SPILLS...etc etc.... And done by INDEPENDENT sources, not someone funded by the government and told what to say.
So if AFLP, TFP, SUNFISH, SHOOTING PARTY, 4WD clubs and parties etc etc etc agreed upon a few things, combined their member bases and encouraged them to vote for their lifestyle protection by voting for XXXXXXX? we would have massive numbers and the government would simply have to listen.... How do you think the greens did it in the first place?
Maybe form a new party that the others all fund or support etc. I was thinking "The Australian Lifestyle Party" but that would be "ALP" shortened and I don't think that would do us any good....
Something like that though.
Fishing, shooting, camping and 4wheel driving all included on the agenda.....

Now that has merit.

I dont think a name should involve "fishing" or "shooting" etc

"The Australian Outdoor Lifestyle" party????

SO once again, lets stop the arguing and get on with HOW we can make this happen eh?
The fundamentals of who is right and wrong have no place here. That debate is for the heads of the parties to argue about on our behalf. Our job is to pressure these heads into actually doing it and meeting to discuss the merits of a merger.

Sooner the better.....Election very soon peoples.

[Lucky_Phill]

For what it is worth fellas, and gals, the voice of the recreational angler IS being heard in places that matter.

All major parties are " talking " about us and some with us. Not as an alternative political party , but as a block of votes that can make or break a parties hold in specific areas.

Let's all remember that there is a Senate and from this place, legislation can be approved or tossed in the too hard file. Local MP's also have an obligation to re-elect themselves and in doing so inform their bosses of what it will take to do this.

Currently, the Federal and State Governments are looking at the recreational angling experience in terms of economic benefit, health and wellbeing, social impacts on family and communities and more. There is a concern within the ranks of all levels of politics that if ever the rec fishing lobby ( and included is ALL outdoor recreational activities ) gets it shit together, the direction, shape and outcomes of elections will change forever.

Recreational Fishing and all outdoors activities undertaken by Australians will be acknowledged as Culturally Important to our Heritage over time, with the fishing aspect being significant.

Recreational Fishing has a history of being the longest form of recognised recreation undertaken by mankind, yet it fails to be addressed by all levels of government. Government, being the body that controls our recreation through laws and policing of those laws. Government also fails to recognise the social and economic benefits arising from this wonderful outdoor activity.

IMO............................


LP.
.
.
.
.
.
.

[kc]

Phil is on the money here and I remember lamenting (in an Ausfish post) some years ago, about the time of a US election, when Bush and the other guy with the long chin?? Carey was it? ....both had photo opps with the "good old boys" out hunting.,

I mussed that, one day, maybe the "fishing vote" would be such that the pollies needed a photo opp with fishos.

Low and behold it happened at the last state election.

In the election before...whatever year it was, all a bit of a blur, the "fishing vote" racked up an average of 7% across the 4 seats it ran in, about the same as the greens and the following election both Bligh and Springborg get the photo opps with fishos, down on the pier at redcliffe from memory. The mainstream press even coined the phrase "The Fishing Vote" and all sides of politics are now aware of its existance.

Some credit for this has to go to TFPQ/AFLP because they were able to demonstrate that rec fishing was enough of an issue to 7% of the population to change their vote. So yes, they are listening, they are aware of us but still not much beyond lip service because the green vote is far better organised , better funded and far more politically important, particularly to Labor. If both sides are seen to be fisho friendly it nullifies the number so you can bet Bligh in particular will trot out the artificial reef, more boat ramps stuff just before the next election while the LNP will blast labor about unsupported green zones etc.

I rember fondly a quote in the Courier Mail, from the Greens, along the lines that The Fishing Party QLD was a "minority interest group with too much influence over coallition policy".............well F&% Me. We hit a nerve, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. They really didn't like us playing in their sand pit!!

And so back to Newby's frustration. Take it from me. It is just TOO HARD, TOO EXPENSIVE AND TAKES TOO MUCH TIME to start "another" party, no matter what you want to call it. Embrace those you have and applaud those brave souls who have the mechamisms in place already.

If you inclined to vote in a particular direction, for a particular "lifestyle" party then take the next step and join up. From within you can direct your energy to bettering what already exits and pressuring executive decisions, particularly on THE BIG issue of preference arrangements. Just make sure you join a party who actually give members democratic involvement, have AGMs and a real constitution.

You don't need another party, the existing parties don't need to agree on everything, or work together but what they do desperately need to do is come together at a preference level come polling time and my personal concern is that this is not going to happen. If they don't come together as a block and demonstrate some solidarity as a voting block and political force then an opportunity will be lost. AFLP and the Shooters understood that at the last election but others either did not or had a very different motive. A motive NOT in the best interests of its voters.

I have been reading this thread daily and trying to keep my head out of it as much as possible but it needed, IMO, to be brought back to basics.

Forget forming a new party. It's too hard.
Forget name changes. It doesn't work and you lose the power of the "brand".
Join up and become involved in what already exists.
The only time variuos interest groups need to come together is with preferences.
If you are running in state elections where preferences are pretty much useless then target seats with issues and post numbers they can't ignore because every vote a "lifestyle" party gets is a vote one of them have lost.

KC

[Big Deez]

Hi kc
Thanks again for your replies. I have been "fishing" with a rod and reel rather than the way you suggested and hopefully my opinion as a "new member" are as valid as anyone else's?

The political environment is a difficult one to understand from my point of view so thanks for explaining a few things as you have done throughout this thread.

I have been reading the numerous threads on this site regarding Ecofish and quite alot of the people posting as Ecofish members make it very difficult for me to align myself with such an organisation. One thread that was posted here by a member of Ecofish (that has now been deleted for some reason) pointed people towards signing a petition accompanied by a letter by someone saying something along the lines of "don't let the hairy armpit, lezzo get her way" (I'm paraphrasing). I cannot align myself with an organisation who has members who think this sort of bigotry is ok and actually perpetuate this type of nonsense. It's all very well to have a message but name-calling helps nobody. Also the numerous hyperlinks to right-wing online "journals" don't really help the cause in any way. I think its important to remember that not all fishers are aligned to the right of centre and, in fact, most are probably to the left given most are keen to maintain the environment in which they fish, as I am.

Having said all of that I understand that its difficult to align every fisher into one organisation and I personally don't have an answer. In the past rec fishers have fought against green zones etc along side commercial fishers yet most rec fishers see commercial fishers as the enemy so this type of hypocrisy needs addressing also. I have seen a couple of posts on here saying we should fight against commercial fishing as well as the environmentalists. Not sure what you have to say about this kc but I'd be very interested in your personal opinion given you are no longer in politics.

Thanks for your replied so far.
Deez.

[kc]

Hi Deez,

I "think" I can stand behind 99% of the things I said or did during my "political" phase...some may call it my mid life crisis, the perhaps enjoy being able to choose my words far less cautiously these days. II can even "let the cat out of the bag" on a few things I have always kept close to my chest without having to worry about the fall-out. I still suspect your are "fishing" but really don't mind open intellegent debate at an ideological level.

I take your point about some of the more colourful retoric used by some here, and elsewhere ,and you are also right to suggest that with "blue collar roots" a majority of rec fishers and more left leaning than right. Funnily enough one of the great anomolies of our system is that, lets call them "blue collar voters" vote labor but really don't like the political relationship they have with the greens and "fishing voters" vote for "us" but really don't like the relationship "we" have with the conservatives. Just strange bedfellows.

In an ideal world "we" would be left leaning but find "ourselves" unwelcome by the left because we are anti green. Bear in mind this is anti green politics, NOT anti conservation. It's actually one of the tricks of our political system. The greens collect votes from the affluent leafy suburbs (who are clearly conservative) and position them to the left, due mainly to the ignorance of the voters to our political system, and the "fishing vote" collects blue collar votes and positions them to the right, again due to ignorance. It is part of the reason "we" are really important to the conservatives and why they bend over backwards for us. Before "we" came along they had nothing to counter the greens. Hanson was useless (in respect of the political mix) because she just took right leaning voters further to the right and didn't really achieve anything in terms of the percentages. I met with Pauline several times in the lead-up to the last election and she never understood the system herself and why she did not get support from the right.

As to your next question.

The TFPQ/AFLP has always struggled with the resource sharing conflict with the commercial sector and took a view, as reflected in our official party policy, that we supported commercial fisheries which were sustainable and focussed on domestic supply. Our policies clearly had issues with exploitation of high end pelagics, such as tuna and billfish. It had problems with inshore beam and otter trawl and it had MAJOR problems with fisheries which focussed on export. I would assume, but don't know, that these remain the official policies of ther AFLP and would be available on line. Haven't looked!

S%# , as I type this ACA on channel 9 just used the headline about the ship stuck on the sandbar...........IS THIS OUR GREATEST ENVIRONMENTAL DISSASTER. They just can't help themselves. The bloody cyclone last week did 1000 times more damage to the reef.

Anyhow, back to your questions, I am personally in a somewhat hypocritical situation and I have made this public knowledge so it never came back and bit me on the arse.

I an an unashamed passionate recreational fisher who lives and breaths it. I hate seeing nets, I hate even more seeing nets target "my" fish.........that is to say the deliberate targetting of schooled up big barra. At the same time I own 3 large seafood restaurant/bars and buy about 7 tonnes of barra a year. I make my living off commercial fishing and so, in essence do my 50 staff. The one thing I have achieved is to convince the commercial guys who supply me NOT to even try to supply me female barra. I go crook at them every time they try. It probabely just means they still do the same thing but sell the females to someone else.
I have also lobbied like mad to have the size limit dropped back to 1 meter and have a few local pros (who supply me) signed up to the same submissions. The big problem they all have is a view that "if I don't target them then some other pro will" and this is part of what we worked for in respect of commercial fishing policy. The restriction of licenses to limited areas so they act like farmers and look after their patch, rather than the rape and pillige blow in who don't give a bugger about what they leave behind.

Anyhow, I'm waffeling on. The AFLP policy, during my stewardship, was balanced and fair and took into account the needs of recreational fishers and small scale commercial fishers, it was less sympathetic to large scale commetcial fishing and destructive practises like inshore trawl.

It is not my place to say what direction the party is now heading but I also have faith in the current management team and Dr Mansfield, their named Senate candidate is an articulate and well educated professional with the interests of both fishers and the environment at heart. I look forward to seeing the direction his campaign takes.

KC

ps :THE OTHER THING I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYMORE IS SPELL CHECK AND PROOF READ 4 TIMES EVERYTHING I COMMITT TO WRITTING;D

[Chris Ryan]

I have been reading the numerous threads on this site regarding Ecofish and quite alot of the people posting as Ecofish members make it very difficult for me to align myself with such an organisation. One thread that was posted here by a member of Ecofish (that has now been deleted for some reason) pointed people towards signing a petition accompanied by a letter by someone saying something along the lines of "don't let the hairy armpit, lezzo get her way" (I'm paraphrasing). I cannot align myself with an organisation who has members who think this sort of bigotry is ok and actually perpetuate this type of nonsense. It's all very well to have a message but name-calling helps nobody. Also the numerous hyperlinks to right-wing online "journals" don't really help the cause in any way. I think its important to remember that not all fishers are aligned to the right of centre and, in fact, most are probably to the left given most are keen to maintain the environment in which they fish, as I am.

You were indeed paraphrasing and using the words and actions of a single member against an organisation would be unfair. Also the posts referring to as you say "right-wing online journals" being used to brand the organisation is again unfair. These are posts and opinions provided by members (and non members) for many reasons and I will not tell people what to think and what to say because as an individual this is a free and democratic society and each member has the right to feel and say whatever he/she wants about their feelings towards a topic, a collective or political leanings as long as they follow the rules of this or any site. The reason that post was pulled was because those rules were broken and users of the site had suspensions put in place.

However do supporters of Labor who always vote Labor whine about Labor policies and politics from other parties - yes, do LNP members/supporters to the same - yes. Do they have very vocal and passionate supporters that may not conform to the "party line"? - sure do and the Greens have just as many as anyone else. So will you brand them with the same tar brush you are trying to brand ECOfishers with?


Having said all of that I understand that its difficult to align every fisher into one organisation and I personally don't have an answer.

I saw the political masterminds at work; I am still amazed at how KC and some other dedicated people you will never know of or see put in. The personal monies spent by all, the late nights, the hours of campaigning and then watch all of that crumble when the power plays drunk on the idea of political fame came in and diluted it all. I know all of this because I was a member of the AFLP and was recruited by KC to coordinate what the AFLP needed in SE QLD.

After that federal election and after wondering what happened and how to keep momentum going I came up with my answer. It was to get off my butt to find and work with a group of like minded people to form a group that was different and went to great lengths to ensure it was not aligned to political parties. Its modus operandi is to find the truth under the rhetoric in politics and work on the science based methodology and mix it with common sense to work on solutions that allow rec anglers to be able to use the same resource as a commercial fisherman and a charter operator in a fair and equitable manner in coordination with the fisheries and environmental managers. We started by protesting in Brisbane on the Moreton Bay closures and that pollution was killing the habitats, twice. We raised awareness and even got the event on all major TV news groups, mainstream radio picked up the story and we were on the highest ranking breakfast FM radio station in Brisbane as well as on the ABC. We got the state election Fishing Vote on the front page of the Sunday Mail and had Labor and LNP fighting for a slice in their election funding promises to get that important vote. We felt at the time the LNP had a better policy on fishing and boating, that became evident in the turnover of a few bayside Labor MP's to LNP with Bayside voters making their choice.

For all that effort we have done (there are a few involved including TFPQ, AFLP, ECOfishers and others) for getting more people to come on board and realise that if they direct their anger/passion/energy into a group working together they can make a difference, we end up being smeared as someone who is OK with bigotry and promotes nonsense. It is no wonder we as fisherman are so inept and fighting for the causes of our angst because we are better at fighting each other than agreeing on fighting what is restricting our lifestyle choices. So if that is how others think of the organisation that has my name to it is what your views are Deez, then that work and effort counted for nothing. Maybe I should say thank you on behalf of my wife and two little kids, because they will get to see me more often now.

[TimiBoy]

Deez,

If you're so keen to stay away from EcoFishers, do so. Obviously something you have the right to do.

It's correct to point out that pulling all Fishos together is difficult, and it is attitudes like yours that make it just that little bit harder.

Why, instead of whingeing about what other people are doing, don't you stand up and do something yourself? What's that? Haven't got the time? Make it, bud, like the rest of us do. But wait, there is a kind of person in this world that gets his or her jollies by stirring the pot and acting up again). Seems maybe you belong to that club.

Hope you have a nice day. You thought about moving? I recommend anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere...

Tim

[trymyluck]

Deez,

If you're so keen to stay away from EcoFishers, do so. Obviously something you have the right to do.

It's correct to point out that pulling all Fishos together is difficult, and it is attitudes like yours that make it just that little bit harder.

Why, instead of whingeing about what other people are doing, don't you stand up and do something yourself? What's that? Haven't got the time? Make it, bud, like the rest of us do. But wait, there is a kind of person in this world that gets his or her jollies by stirring the pot and acting the grub (damn, there's that word again). Seems maybe you belong to that club.

Hope you have a nice day. You thought about moving? I recommend anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere...

Tim

Don't you hold back there Tim...;D

We seem to have a termite chomping around, well seems like it to me.

Chris , KC and Newbs don't give up, we need people who are prepared and capable to stand up and have a go at getting across a rational argument against the green agenda.

Mark

[Big Deez]

Kc
Thanks again for the interesting reply. A frank and honest discussion is worth so much more than being told to pi$$ off - even if its said in a round about way...

The issue you have regarding buying commercially caught fish must be a real headache for you. Given your obvious affection for rec fishing, you are indeed between a rock and a hard place when buying fish caught by pro's. Good for you for ensuring the fish are caught to your standards rather than those of the commercial fishers. All rec fishers should be thinking this way when purchasing anything from fish and chips at their local outlet to bait at the bp on the way up the coast. Perhaps without a bait market, there would be no beam trawling?

Chris
Don't be offended by my comments and take them personally. I have a huge problem with some of the posts on this site and feel they only detract from the credibility of Ecofishers rather than enhance it. I have an enormous amount of respect for people of your ilk and to be honest would probably vote for a candidate should one run in my electorate. However, before doing so, I feel it is necessary to garner his/her opinion on some of the issues I have raised in these last few posts. Of particular concern is the rec v pro debate and the right wing rhetoric sprouted by some of your members. Rational debate wins out in my mind any day and name calling and bullying has no place in the debate. I know that the anonymity of the internet and the lack of consequences probably enboldens these people but nevertheless I feel that such rhetoric is damaging to your cause in the minds of most reasonable people? Or perhaps not? Maybe I am wrong about such things but I would certainly think twice before voting even if it sends a message. I am but one person though and you probably aren't concerned about one person's opinion and that's ok. I just thought I'd add something to the debate and hope you see it as constructive rather than destructive - the way it is meant.
Deez

[Mod11]

I have a huge problem with some of the posts on this site and feel they only detract from the credibility of Ecofishers rather than enhance it. I have an enormous amount of respect for people of your ilk and to be honest would probably vote for a candidate should one run in my electorate.

You seemed to have missed the point Big Deez. ECOfishers are not and will not ever run a political campaign to get a member elected into government. We are a non-political, not for profit, privately funded organisation established by recreational fishermen who simply had enough of the Federal and State government secrecy, inaction, blunders and continued disrespect shown towards our like.

We will and in fact ARE sitting at the tables of all levels of government right beside commercial operators, charter, tourism, dive, club , game fishers and groups like WWF, AMCS etc. Why ? because unlike what has been suggested, we ( ECOfishers ) do not subscribe to the “ us Vs them “ anthem. That is old school and outdated.

Of particular concern is the rec v pro debate and the right wing rhetoric sprouted by some of your members Could you enlighten me as to where this refers to ?

Our Motto is :- Recreation Education Conservation.

One our most valued possessions are our members and our members rights to express their thoughts and opinions to and where ever they see fit. It is our job to pass on all information they require to participate in a logical debate with those that are ignorant of the way we are governed, the reasons behind legislation affecting angling and the very essence of Australias most participated in pastime.

As Aussies and in particular Aussie Fishermen, we will not be shackled by left / right / centre factional restraints. That sort of pettiness is for political animals and their minions.

I will defend my fellow anglers right to be heard in any medium they can get their voices attached to and to be heard without fear of being labeled, miss quoted or judged by others that know little of what they want for themselves, their mates, their families, their friends and most importantly, the environment in which they will continue to actively support through self-imposed stewardship.

chilli

[NEWBY]

I have been reading the numerous threads on this site regarding Ecofish and quite alot of the people posting as Ecofish members make it very difficult for me to align myself with such an organisation. One thread that was posted here by a member of Ecofish (that has now been deleted for some reason) pointed people towards signing a petition accompanied by a letter by someone saying something along the lines of "don't let the hairy armpit, lezzo get her way" (I'm paraphrasing). I cannot align myself with an organisation who has members who think this sort of bigotry is ok and actually perpetuate this type of nonsense. It's all very well to have a message but name-calling helps nobody. Also the numerous hyperlinks to right-wing online "journals" don't really help the cause in any way. I think its important to remember that not all fishers are aligned to the right of centre and, in fact, most are probably to the left given most are keen to maintain the environment in which they fish, as I am.

Having said all of that I understand that its difficult to align every fisher into one organisation and I personally don't have an answer. In the past rec fishers have fought against green zones etc along side commercial fishers yet most rec fishers see commercial fishers as the enemy so this type of hypocrisy needs addressing also. I have seen a couple of posts on here saying we should fight against commercial fishing as well as the environmentalists. Not sure what you have to say about this kc but I'd be very interested in your personal opinion given you are no longer in politics.

Thanks for your replied so far.
Deez.
Deez, I have refrained from commenting on your posts so far because I am one of the name calling, hairy arm pitted lezzo haters you are referring to. Although I am not sure who you are referring to with the "lezzo" statement. I think I have read most posts and dont remember anyone here referring to anyone in that fashion. Maybe it;s the paraphrasing I am missing or misunderstanding????Of corse, misunderstandings CAN happen eh?
You are incorrect with your statement that it is difficult to align every fisher into one organisation, you just have to, as KC say's, get back to basics.
One of the basics is "everyone's right to freedom of speech" and if that means a bit of name calling, so what? Does that make me a non desirable allie for you? Do we not want the same end result? Mate, it's the Aussie way. Always has been. The blue collar workers language of choice. The MAJORITY of Australians actually speak this way.
So if you do not wish to align yourself with the typical Aussie, then Timmi is right. And as far as the "RIGHT WING LINKS" that point us to various internet organisations and right wing groups, have you been to any GREEN motivated forums bud? We are "pussies" compared to them. When was the last time a fisherman was arrested for chaining themselves to a tree, or in our case, a "spotter plane" that clearly is out to "get" the fisher who has drifted, or even purposely, gone into a green zone? Remember just recently, the radical efforts of the GREENS to disable a Japanese Whaler by trying to entangle the props in a net? Deez, we are truly soft compared to these people. We just verbalise.
Just because we express ourselves in a slightly different way TO YOU does not make us aliens. What your suggesting here is that we have different "classes" of members am I right?
One can be called ECOfish QLD and the other can be called UpperclassECOfish QLD.
Slightly different from the lower grade of person you don't want to be aligned with.

This leads me to just 1 question for you Deez if I may....
If not ECOfish, what organisation or group would you align yourself with RIGHT NOW, that suits your ideals? That has your type/class of people fighting for EVERYONES right to fish and enjoy an outdoor lifestyle. That you would happily CONTRIBUTE FUNDS to and VOLUNTEER to help out in....Which one Deez?

[Horse]

For what it is worth fellas, and gals, the voice of the recreational angler IS being heard in places that matter.

All major parties are " talking " about us and some with us. Not as an alternative political party , but as a block of votes that can make or break a parties hold in specific areas.


IMO............................


LP.
..


This is where I see the value in groups like Ecofishers making their mark. A powerfull lobby group that can work with either of the major parties in power. This keeps the group relevant in the decision making processes rather than just coming out to beat their chest around election time.
It is not in our interest for a group representing rec fishos to be alienating specific political parties in line with a few indeviduals personal political beliefs.
A powerful block of votes who are willing to support fishing positive agendas will be of greater value than an occassional flash in the pan run at a senate seat. Working with both major parties will see more long term impact than throwing in with one group who may be in the political wilderness for extended periods.
I for one would be reluctant to vote for a single issue candidate unless I felt their viws on other issues reflected my own.

[kc]

Horse, no offense mate but your view, IMO, is dead wrong. Why do you think the environmental lobby has so much power. They align themselves with one side, Labor and the conservatives deal with tem as well because they are scared of the green vote. Lobbying, without a stick to wave is IMO a waste of time. God knows I've done enough of it pre TFPQ days. It was the absolute failure of "lobbying" that got me off my bum in the first place at a political level and thankfully a few people agreed enough to do the work and form the party.
Things changed dramatically because you can both collect and trade votes (preferances) and at a state level quantify the size of the "fishing vote", which had never been done before.

Fishos proved that 7% of the population (in targetted seats) care enough about fishing to vote to protect it, just like 7% of people feel strongly enough about environemental and or gay issues to vote green.

This is my view having been involved in recreational fishing "activism" for almost 25 years as one of the original rec fishing representitives on the Whitsunday LMAC and heavily involved during RAP.

I have used the line before but absorb it.

"If you lobby, offering nothing in return, then all you are really doing is begging".

KC

[Chris Ryan]

Chris
Don't be offended by my comments and take them personally. I have a huge problem with some of the posts on this site and feel they only detract from the credibility of Ecofishers rather than enhance it.

Deez - the problem is I do take things personally because I, like many others with me and before me, put in huge amounts of time, effort, money and sweat into what I do because I am a selfish person; I want to fish, I want my kids to fish, I want my mates, their kids and all our grandkids to fish. It is an amazing lifestyle and one that is so undervalued in mainstream society yet we as fisherman (including you) contribute now to a $3b industry in this country called Recreational Fishing. The credibility of ECOfishers is built upon the recognition by industry and government that we have a lot to offer and continue to get invited to participate in workshops, discussions, meetings, chats, etc.


Of particular concern is the rec v pro debate and the right wing rhetoric sprouted by some of your members. Rational debate wins out in my mind any day and name calling and bullying has no place in the debate. I know that the anonymity of the internet and the lack of consequences probably enboldens these people but nevertheless I feel that such rhetoric is damaging to your cause in the minds of most reasonable people? Or perhaps not? Maybe I am wrong about such things but I would certainly think twice before voting even if it sends a message.

Voting is of no concern to ECOfishers as we are not politically motivated. We are motivated by 3 things which make up the motto which Chilli put up - Recreation, Eductation and Conservation. We have members who come from pro backgrounds, we have recreational and charter members too - do they comment about each other sector? Too right they do and sometime the language used would make even Newby blush but that doesn't stop them participating but that is their way, that is their methods of communicating and that is what they think is the best way forward for them. Just like you think the best way forward is to have none of that. Its the individuals choice.


I am but one person though and you probably aren't concerned about one person's opinion and that's ok. I just thought I'd add something to the debate and hope you see it as constructive rather than destructive - the way it is meant.
Deez

I care a lot about 1 persons view and what I take things so personally. It takes just one person to stand up and start something positive towards the betterment of the majority. It takes just one person to talk to thousands. If I can't get one person to see the future beyond the statements, the comments, this website, or even my involvement and want to be involved in the growing noise being made by the humble fisho, then I have failed.

[Horse]

You may be right KC but I feel that being bilateral and working with whoever is in power is a still a valid method to support recreational fishing aims and objectives in the long term.
I personally saw more attention to rec fishos causes in the Tom Burns years than any others and that was under a Labor regime so with the right motivation either party can improve the situation. We just need to find that trigger and you can either work with the majors or against them.
By all means run the political activist angle and put fishing related parties to the right of the Liberals but just remember around half of rec fishos probably voted Labor and a far right orientation will not sit well with them.
There is a place for both approaches but I feel that any group who wishes to be involved in the decision making processes outside election times should not have a unilateral bias.

[FNQCairns]

Hi kc
Thanks for the reply. Do you not see SOME rec fishers, especially some from this site, as radicals given your own definition in the above post? I have seen some very forceful posts from individuals from this site who bullied other members from the site - forcing their ideologies onto others as you say.

Point taken with resepct to fishers having a "greater appreciation of and respect for the environment". This may be true to some extent. However, my point is that rec fishers are the minority given the number of greens/conservationists in the electorate these days. Most wouldn't care if we couldn't fish any more.

My take on all of this is that it will be very difficult to form a party that caters to the interests of all fishers and brings "...groups together to work on a common direction/goal..". My wants/needs do not align with those of any "lifestyle" party and I would wager that the silent majority on this site feel the same. Admittedly, I am on the very inner left, which doesn't correspond to those on the near- to far-right that start the so-called life-style parties, which makes it difficult for me.

As for a Family First-style party... Well Steven Fielding was found out the other night on Q&A - it was embarassing to watch him clutch at straws when asked if he believed the Earth was 10,000 years old. I'm all for values in society, but religion needs to be excluded from politics in my opinon.
Deez

Trouble is deez you are deliberately ignoring science to hold your 'chosen' ideological line, history shows well that ideology pales in the face of science, in ignorance of science much ideology is needed...take the entire Anglers lot into consideration and the zealots are easy to define as devoid of any real science...ie coral sea, no science GBR green zones....the list is as long as the rise in blatant 'environmental' religions.

It's disgraceful and characterless but that's the nature of this ideological beast...all politics of self interest with no recognisable substance.

cheers fnq

Edit* or you don't give a hoot and the discussion direction is just a bit of sport....kept in play so far by not much more than the good manor and character of some others??

[Big Deez]

The credibility of ECOfishers is built upon the recognition by industry and government that we have a lot to offer and continue to get invited to participate in workshops, discussions, meetings, chats, etc.




I care a lot about 1 persons view and what I take things so personally. It takes just one person to stand up and start something positive towards the betterment of the majority. It takes just one person to talk to thousands. If I can't get one person to see the future beyond the statements, the comments, this website, or even my involvement and want to be involved in the growing noise being made by the humble fisho, then I have failed.

Chris
Thanks again for your reply.

I do appreciate your position. I see that you are between a rock and a hard place. You need people to jump on your bandwagon but at this stage you can't afford to be choosy as to who jumps on. I get the feeling that you would prefer not to be associated with the more right-wing views expressed here by those that professs to be Ecofishers. I honestly hope you and your organisation thrive and you become a stakeholder that is included in discussions concerning the state of fisheries in Queensland.

Can you give those of us on this site that are not up to date with Ecofishers' policies an idea about a few important issues please. I see the following as important issues that you as leader of Ecofishers will have to address:
1. Pro v rec fishing - once the 'fight' against the green 'zealots' is sorted out, will you continue to work with commercial fishing interests or will you then focus your efforts at removing commercial fishers from Queensland, particularly inshore trawling and netting?
2. Recreational fishing licence - I see a rec fishing licence as something that will become an imprtant issue in the next few years. Do you totally oppose a rec licence? Wouldn't it be better to talk about it now so that Ecofishers can have some say in the implementation of a rec licence rather than opposing it and having a rec licence thrust upon us? Negotiating your position may be a better method so that, for example, commercial fishers bought out can't then work another licence as is the case in NSW. Isn't it better to remove commercial effort with monies generated by a rec licence so that can exit the indusry with some security?

I look forward to your reply.

Deez.

[Chris Ryan]

Deez,

To answer your questions

1. Pro vs Rec - I prefer to not call it one sector vs another and both sectors are reliant on the same thing. A valid, strong and vibrant ecosystem able to support everyone. As for the professional seafood markets, it seems there is a push and some funding allocation for the increase in aquaculture methods and models. I personally envisage a place in time where the majority of seafood is 'farmed' in some shape or form. Until that point though there needs to be solid discussion and agreements moving forward that stops the us vs them attitude and allows a take of the biomass which supports both sectors. This is why the new methods of workshops with Fisheries involves everyone to discuss their needs openly and get agreements in moving forward.

2. An RFL is something I am against and do not see beneficial outcomes from having one in place. We already have had an increase in income from the changes to boat registration here in QLD which added $33m to the kitty for the Government and a best guess in an RFL would generate only $10-$13m so pales in comparison. For members of ECOfishers the latest newsletter has my thoughts on this on the front cover and opens the doors for members to give the committee feedback on the matter. If the majority of members want us to prepare for an RFL, then we will and we have a great set of business oriented people who have already put some thought into collection, management, direction etc. My question though is why does anyone need to pay for access to a resource we already own via the Crown? The RFL in NSW has had mixed responses and generated a lot of cleaning tables and some buy backs of commercial licenses but NSW does not have the compulsory PPV levy which we pay in QLD to cover such expenses. RFL's, like MPA's, are seen as a quick fix........how an RFL would stop the cyclone damage, the boat strikes, the run aground vessels, the pollution in the waterways and the removal of habitat by foreshore development etc is beyond me because it wouldn't and these are the real risks to the fishery.

[Mod11]

Chris
Thanks again for your reply.

I do appreciate your position. ( don't think you do )I see that you are between a rock and a hard place. You need people to jump on your bandwagon but at this stage you can't afford to be choosy as to who jumps on. ( not OUR bandwagon, but recreational Fishers bandwagon ) I get the feeling that you would prefer not to be associated with the more right-wing views expressed here by those that professs to be Ecofishers.( wtf.... we associate with all recreational fishers that have the guts to say something, stand for something and be heard , more so... profess ? what does that mean, members either ARE or ARE NOT...simple.... ) I honestly hope you and your organisation thrive and you become a stakeholder that is included in discussions concerning the state of fisheries in Queensland.( maybe you didn't read previous posts or simply care not to take notice... ECOfishers ARE A STAKEHOLDER AND ARE INCLUDED IN DISCUSSIONS AT ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT AND IN MANY DEPARTMENTS........... CAN YOU HERE THAT ?????? )

Can you give those of us on this site that are not up to date with Ecofishers' policies an idea about a few important issues please.( Have you tried looking at our website ? ) I see the following as important issues that you as leader of Ecofishers will have to address: ( wrong, ECOfishers committee and members have equal responsibilities to address or inform anyone of our ideas etc )


1. Pro v rec fishing - once the 'fight' against the green 'zealots' is sorted out, will you continue to work with commercial fishing interests or will you then focus your efforts at removing commercial fishers from Queensland, particularly inshore trawling and netting?
2. Recreational fishing licence - I see a rec fishing licence as something that will become an imprtant issue in the next few years. Do you totally oppose a rec licence? Wouldn't it be better to talk about it now ( obviously you haven't been here for long and missed the indepth discussions on this subject. Try the search here on AF to find pages and pages of discussion )so that Ecofishers can have some say in the implementation of a rec licence rather than opposing it and having a rec licence thrust upon us?( We are currently in discussion with this very subject with DPI&F, DERM, DEEDI etc..... we have made our position clear. Until a reasonable, transparent and accountable reason is put forward by any Governement Department in regard to an RFL.... we are not interested. ) Negotiating your position may be a better method so that, for example, commercial fishers bought out can't then work another licence as is the case in NSW. Isn't it better to remove commercial effort with monies generated by a rec licence so that can exit the indusry with some security? ( NO, absolutely not, why should recreational fishers pay the pros to get out of the industry ? It is a matter of compensation and all pro's make money out of fishing, recs do not and in fact we put so much more into the industry and economy, WE should be paid to continue our amateur status as marine stewards. This Government has the power to make decisions regarding commercial fishing, recreational fishing etc. The commercial fishing industry is on notice, that it cannot continue in the same way as it has. )

I look forward to your reply.

Deez.

As stated by Chris Ryan , this ( unaccountable ) state government increased recreational boat and trailer registration by over 200% in the last 2 years and gained a $33 mill plus windfall. That buys a lot of pro licences. It should also be noted that the PPV did not increase. The problem is not so much the fishery managers, but the blood sucking amateurs that are running ( and ruining ) this great state.

As a voter, Australian, Queenslander, Rec fisho, father, brother, son, mate etc, I am fed up with being sucked dry by this incompetent bunch of misfits, called Qld ALP.

chilli

[Big Deez]

Deez,

To answer your questions

1. Pro vs Rec - I prefer to not call it one sector vs another and both sectors are reliant on the same thing. A valid, strong and vibrant ecosystem able to support everyone. As for the professional seafood markets, it seems there is a push and some funding allocation for the increase in aquaculture methods and models. I personally envisage a place in time where the majority of seafood is 'farmed' in some shape or form. Until that point though there needs to be solid discussion and agreements moving forward that stops the us vs them attitude and allows a take of the biomass which supports both sectors. This is why the new methods of workshops with Fisheries involves everyone to discuss their needs openly and get agreements in moving forward.

2. An RFL is something I am against and do not see beneficial outcomes from having one in place. We already have had an increase in income from the changes to boat registration here in QLD which added $33m to the kitty for the Government and a best guess in an RFL would generate only $10-$13m so pales in comparison. For members of ECOfishers the latest newsletter has my thoughts on this on the front cover and opens the doors for members to give the committee feedback on the matter. If the majority of members want us to prepare for an RFL, then we will and we have a great set of business oriented people who have already put some thought into collection, management, direction etc. My question though is why does anyone need to pay for access to a resource we already own via the Crown? The RFL in NSW has had mixed responses and generated a lot of cleaning tables and some buy backs of commercial licenses but NSW does not have the compulsory PPV levy which we pay in QLD to cover such expenses. RFL's, like MPA's, are seen as a quick fix........how an RFL would stop the cyclone damage, the boat strikes, the run aground vessels, the pollution in the waterways and the removal of habitat by foreshore development etc is beyond me because it wouldn't and these are the real risks to the fishery.

Thanks again Chris for your considered opinion. Good to know where Ecofishers stand with regard to the subjects mentioned above.

As for aquaculture, perhaps a bit of research into the pros/cons of aquaculture will give you a better idea of how to move forward on this subject. The cost of land close to high quality water combined with the problems associated with bio-remediation have slowed the freight train that was aquaculture in Australia. The importation of cheap prawns from south-east Asia has also put a dent in the viability of prawn aquaculture in Australia.

As for the PPV - I understand your stance on the subject of a rec fishing licence. I think it should be noted that PPV is generated from all vessels and not just fishing vessels. The PPV is used for a varitey of things - mostly enforcement. I for one would be happy to pay $35 or whatever it is per year if it allowed for a reduction in such practices as inshore tunnel netting and beam trawling, but again thats just me. If a reasonable, transparent and accountable reason is put forward by a Governement Department in regard to an RFL would your stance change?

It is very refreshing to see your attitude toward the commercial sector. The co-operative approach is the best way to go. How do your members feel about this?

Once again thank you for indulging me and replying in a rational and considered manner.

Deez

[TheRealAndy]

Thanks again Chris for your considered opinion. Good to know where Ecofishers stand with regard to the subjects mentioned above.


Hi Deez. If you don’t know me, I am Andy, the secretary of ECOFishers. My knowledge on all things fishing is pretty limited. However knowledge is power, and as I learn to fish, I learn the great injustices put on us rec anglers by the government. I grew up in a pro fishing community, and I think between my mates I am one of the rare ones who did not work on commercial boats growing up. However I spent many hours with pro fisho's, the lived in my street, they were my mates and I also drank plenty with them up the local pubs. I have seen the damage done by pro's, but I have also seen great work done by pros in promoting sustainable fisheries. As commercial fishing died in my area (due to buy backs) so did my interest in fishing. A few years ago that interest returned. It was probably a year or 2 before the Moreton bay marine park draft planning.



As for aquaculture, perhaps a bit of research into the pros/cons of aquaculture will give you a better idea of how to move forward on this subject. The cost of land close to high quality water combined with the problems associated with bio-remediation have slowed the freight train that was aquaculture in Australia. The importation of cheap prawns from south-east Asia has also put a dent in the viability of prawn aquaculture in Australia.


I am a scientist at heart. I understand science, and I take great pleasure in learning about the new things science presents us every day. As an apprentice, I spent a lot of time working on instrumentation used in aquaculture. I understand that currently there are many issues with aquaculture, however I believe it is only a matter of time before these issues are overcome. We as rec anglers should be promoting investment and research into aquaculture.



As for the PPV - I understand your stance on the subject of a rec fishing licence. I think it should be noted that PPV is generated from all vessels and not just fishing vessels. The PPV is used for a varitey of things - mostly enforcement. I for one would be happy to pay $35 or whatever it is per year if it allowed for a reduction in such practices as inshore tunnel netting and beam trawling, but again that’s just me. If a reasonable, transparent and accountable reason is put forward by a Government Department in regard to an RFL would your stance change?


I find it interesting you comments on using a RFL to reduce tunnel netting and beam trawling. You commented before "Perhaps without a bait market, there would be no beam trawling?" So how do you suggest that an RFL will resolve this issue? Do we slog the mum and dad grassroots fisho with an RFL fee then tell them they can’t buy a bag of prawns from the servo because they paid for all the beam trawler's licence's?





It is very refreshing to see your attitude toward the commercial sector. The co-operative approach is the best way to go. How do your members feel about this?


As you stated before, I think the relationship between rec and pro is misguided. People are happy to bag pro's (and vice versa), but they are also probably happy to buy fish from their local stores, and bait from the local service station. Same with charter fisherman. It’s actually the rec angler that gives the charter operators a job, with no rec fisho, there is no chater operator.

In saying that, all use of fisheries must be controlled so that it is sustainable. This includes all users of the resource, not one or the other. We cant outright ban pro fishos, without banning rec fishermen. To do so would be hypocritical.



Once again thank you for indulging me and replying in a rational and considered manner.

Deez

Perhaps it’s time you spilled your guts on your knowledge and history in the fishing industry now deez. You seem quite knowledgeable. Perhaps we can work together, even if you do not wish to be a part of ECOFishers?

[Chris Ryan]

If a reasonable, transparent and accountable reason is put forward by a Governement Department in regard to an RFL would your stance change?

We'll wait and see.


It is very refreshing to see your attitude toward the commercial sector. The co-operative approach is the best way to go. How do your members feel about this?

No point me answering this. Send some messages to the people with ECOfishers in their signature and ask them.

I think that we should get back onto Newby's topic now. People have heard enough of me answering questions now.

[NEWBY]

Chris
Thanks again for your reply.

I do appreciate your position. I see that you are between a rock and a hard place. You need people to jump on your bandwagon but at this stage you can't afford to be choosy as to who jumps on. I get the feeling that you would prefer not to be associated with the more right-wing views expressed here by those that professs to be Ecofishers. I honestly hope you and your organisation thrive and you become a stakeholder that is included in discussions concerning the state of fisheries in Queensland.

C
Deez.
Deez, once again.....WE DO NOT HAVE "CLASSES " OF PEOPLE IN AUSTRALIA. Maybe immigration to the UK so you can join the house of lords would be appropriate?

You are now getting to the point of ignorant and rude, not to mention "left wing"

You still haven't answered my question.....
If not ECOfish, what organisation or group would you align yourself with RIGHT NOW, that suits your ideals? That has your type/class of people fighting for EVERYONES right to fish and enjoy an outdoor lifestyle. That you would happily CONTRIBUTE FUNDS to and VOLUNTEER to help out in....Which one Deez?
Or shall I/we just assume that it, if any, is NOT aligned with a pro rec fishing view?

[castlemaine]

Interview with a mate (staunch Labour voter)

Me: Who will you vote for in the next Federal Election?
Him: Labour of course.

Me: But what if they do a deal with the Greens and close off your fishing spots?
Him: So you think Liberals will be any different?

Me: Will you vote for a Lifestyle Party?
Him: No, only a major party will get things things done.

Me: Are you concerned that your lifestyle(fishing) may be affected?
Him: Fishing is my recreation not the be it and end all. If the Liberals got in, they'd introduce Work Choices again and I'd lose all my entitlements. Besides how are the Liberals any different to Labour (doing deals with the Greens)?

Me: What would make you change your mind and vote differently?
Him: Nothing!

I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST! HE'S A GREAT MATE AND/BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS TRADITIONAL VALUES.

Cheers
Ivan

[TheRealAndy]

Interview with a mate (staunch Labour voter)

Me: Who will you vote for in the next Federal Election?
Him: Labour of course.

Me: But what if they do a deal with the Greens and close off your fishing spots?
Him: So you think Liberals will be any different?

Me: Will you vote for a Lifestyle Party?
Him: No, only a major party will get things things done.

Me: Are you concerned that your lifestyle(fishing) may be affected?
Him: Fishing is my recreation not the be it and end all. If the Liberals got in, they'd introduce Work Choices again and I'd lose all my entitlements. Besides how are the Liberals any different to Labour (doing deals with the Greens)?

Me: What would make you change your mind and vote differently?
Him: Nothing!

I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST! HE'S A GREAT MATE AND/BUT HE'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE HIS TRADITIONAL VALUES.

Cheers
Ivan

Tell him to go speak to his union...

[castlemaine]

Tell him to go speak to his union...

Andy
I believe his union (transport) would support him in his opinion but I haven't put the question to him. What do you reckon he needs to ask his union? I'd be interested in the response.
Cheers, Ivan

[TheRealAndy]

Andy
I believe his union (transport) would support him in his opinion but I haven't put the question to him. What do you reckon he needs to ask his union? I'd be interested in the response.
Cheers, Ivan
Sorry mate, tounge in cheek. I should learn to use smileys a bit more::). What I was suggesting is how much the unions (most anyway) hate the current labour government due to the selling of state assests. Totally off topic though.

[kc]

Don't despair. (about)45% of people will AWAYS,ALWAYS,ALWAYS Vote Labor and (about) 45% of them will AlWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS vote Liberal. Those with the real power are those in the other 10%.

KC

[sleepygreg]

Couldnt agree more with that statement KC. I come from a family of tradies and truckies....ALL of them staunch unionists and labor voters, my father was a TWU delegate. I got the rounds of the kitchen from my mother the other day when i made a comment about Krudd that was negative....she is 72...and wont be changing her vote! (and yes she likes her fishing as much as I do). And the worst part is .....ALLL the family love their fishing as well......and if i add up all the 'assets' (boats 4wds etc) they have......we are talking well over the $1million mark....probably closer to $2m. And thats only counting siblings and cousins. this is what we are up against.

Greg

[Chris Ryan]

The problem as I see it Greg is the Labor Party whom the unions and the worker had an affiliation with, where the party started from, is no longer there. The current Labor mob are so far removed from the original intent of the party it isn't funny. With that, the Labor voter of old maybe doesn't see that because of the years of doctorine instilled in vote Labor.

I too come from a long line of blue collar workers and in fact my brother and I are really the first white collar guys in our family. I always voted Labor because Dad & Mum did, my grandparents, uncles etc all did because of the labour movement. It really wasn't until before the last federal election I saw what the picture was compared to the stories I was told. This is where education of the voting process and the parties stance is needed.....but it will depend on people listening.

Just my opinion for the $0.01 its worth.

[NEWBY]

So anyway, back to the issue at hand here, Chris, did I see right, the heads of certain parties are indeed talking?
And are they trying to amalgamate the rest?
Tell us more.
LEN????? Do you know more about this?

[Chris Ryan]

Not so much heads of parties/groups but some individuals have indicated some willingness to start. Still not enough to get excited by yet Newby. My door is open if others are reading this.

[kc]

For what its worth, I think if you made contact with AFLP and said you would be interested in manning the polling booths come election day if AFLP would take up some of your important issues for policy development it would be a flying head start. Once AFLP and Ecofishers were seen to be working towards common ground I believe other organisations would follow your lead. Maybe even Shooters and fishers at a preferance level!

KC

[scifly]

Newby, I mentioned the alliance - The Boating and Fishing Council of Australia which is essentially a lobbying group comprising recreational fishers (Recfish Australia), tackle and fishing trades (AFTA), outboard engines (AMEC and OEDA), Boating (AMIF and BIA NSW). The group employees a spokesperson in Canberra who sets up meetings with pollies and senior officials and drafts media releases.

Industry representatives are there in their own capacity and still issue their own media but have agreed to unite on common issues. It is a positive first step but is not without the teething (and sometimes biting) issues that besets our industry but overall, it is promising. More info www.bfca.com.au (http://www.bfca.com.au)

Cheers
Len

I also dont think that the Council is the answer to all our prayers or is the only solution. I think there is a need for a whole lot of activities and hopefully I can provide some more info in the next few weeks.

[Chris Ryan]

For what its worth, I think if you made contact with AFLP and said you would be interested in manning the polling booths come election day if AFLP would take up some of your important issues for policy development it would be a flying head start. Once AFLP and Ecofishers were seen to be working towards common ground I believe other organisations would follow your lead. Maybe even Shooters and fishers at a preferance level!

KC

Hi KC,

I've been in pretty constant contact with Wayne for a few months now and discussing bits and pieces. We are on a very similar page but still more than can be done working together.

Cheers,
Chris

[kc]

:)

Nice to hear Chris,

Good luck with it.

KC

[NEWBY]

Newby, I mentioned the alliance - The Boating and Fishing Council of Australia which is essentially a lobbying group comprising recreational fishers (Recfish Australia), tackle and fishing trades (AFTA), outboard engines (AMEC and OEDA), Boating (AMIF and BIA NSW). The group employees a spokesperson in Canberra who sets up meetings with pollies and senior officials and drafts media releases.

Industry representatives are there in their own capacity and still issue their own media but have agreed to unite on common issues. It is a positive first step but is not without the teething (and sometimes biting) issues that besets our industry but overall, it is promising. More info www.bfca.com.au (http://www.bfca.com.au)

Cheers
Len

I also dont think that the Council is the answer to all our prayers or is the only solution. I think there is a need for a whole lot of activities and hopefully I can provide some more info in the next few weeks.

Mate thats excellent.
Great to hear.
Like you say, its not the be all and end all but its a hell of a start.
Election time very soon I would think.