Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

[Mike Delisser]

Simple question for all Qld anglers, do you want a state wide Rec Fishing Licence in any form?????? Yes or No

Cheers

[onerabbit]

Im not a Queenslander, so I didn't vote.

The NSW fishing licence scam has done very little/nothing for us but make it illegal to fish without one.

If I was asked if I support a NSW fishing licence, I would say NO.

Muzz

[Lucky_Phill]

I notice your quote has Licence spelt License.......... that may be the loophole. In Australia, it is spelt Licence.

I will vote no.

LP

[MudRiverDan]

Lets face it, a person would spend more on fishing gear..

But is the money going somewhere?

I would rather spend 20 a year if I knew it went directly to restocking.. or would the government simply fob it off to slack assed wages and other crap?

BTW ATM it is a no for me.

I have no probs with the current QLD freshwater permits.

[Chimo]

ise verb
ice noun

C
C

PS No

[Mike Delisser]

I notice your quote has Licence spelt License.......... that may be the loophole. In Australia, it is spelt Licence.
LP

Thanks for the heads up Phill, I hadn't noticed but to be accurate (and I do like to be accurate) I cut n pasted MP Mark's exact comments and that's the way the MP with 100 Uni degrees spelt it in his post, twice. Though I shouldn't be critical of his spelling, I'm a shocker without spellcheck, it's his honesty I'm critical of. This is his post re Rec Fishing Licences, and true to form he tells Ausfishers that the Labor Government are considering bringing in a rec licence but the LNP Opposition have RULED IT OUT.

I believe govt considering rec fishing license as extension of snapper tax in RIS.
LNP have ruled out rec fishing license
Mark
It was post no 25 here http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?180468-Should-govts-that-dishonour-election-promises-to-rec-fishers-be-returned&p=1335034#post1335034

And again here, once again tell us we'll get a Rec Fishing Licence in Qld under Labor but not under an LNP Gov

9.40pm 12/12/11 Mark P
Happy to state that the cost to fish in Qld will be less under an LNP govt than under the Labor govt.
Off the top of my head, 3 reasons:
1. No carbon tax under Fed and state LN/P.
2. No rec fishing licence under LNP. I believe state Labor are considering one - the snapper tax was a community feedback exercise.
3. No hike in boat rego - state govt has almost doubled their revenue from boat rego fees over last 4 years.
Hope that helps,
Mark



BTW please Phill could you make this thread a "sticky" , I've got a feeling this issue will topical for a fair while. Thanks
Cheers

[Steeler]

Mark who ?. You mean the one people were tripping themselves over to back all the way to bank and accused those questioning his motives as being ALP hacks.

Is this the same Mark who conveniently went MIA during the campaign then pleaded he didn't see it coming just days after of his non appointment.

I am not a labor hack but FFS please don't for a moment try and tell me CN and co are the ducks nuts, only the gullible still swallow that LNP propaganda crap.

Anyway Mike i thought it was a 1000 degrees in the world according to Timi.

[Ausfish]

We already have/had one, it is called the PPV levy that every boat owner pays in their rego. Millions of dollars over the years.

Where is that going? Boat ramps and facilities or gold plated paper clips?

Would you trust that a fishing license fee would not be put into consolidated revenue and disappear?

[gruntahunta]

Steeler... this is ONLY a discussion, NOT legislation....NO onw has said they ARE going to implement it in this term...NOT LIKE the PRIME MINISTER which WAS a lie.

So knocking our new Govt for doing their job in planning ahead is pretty dissapointing for even a NSW.

[Axl]

I have voted no as I dont believe that the funds raised would go to the right places.

[Steeler]

Steeler... this is ONLY a discussion, NOT legislation....NO onw has said they ARE going to implement it in this term...NOT LIKE the PRIME MINISTER which WAS a lie.

So knocking our new Govt for doing their job in planning ahead is pretty dissapointing for even a NSW.

BS artists know no boundries state or federal and both sides at that. Sorry pollies and honesty is an oxy, well you know.

Surely you have been around long enough to realise discussion on forms of raising revenue don't stop there, even over the border.

[snodger77]

Id only vote yes if the funds raised went into worth while things like filleting
tables and various facilities

[Still_Dreamin]

Only if is legislated that it must be spent on fisheries officers boat facilities etc

[Basstones]

Decided to vote yes, but it really comes down to where the money goes and how reasonable the cost is. I don't really want to see it go up every year like every other bill ::)

Ideally I would like to see it go directly to decent long-term fishing orientated projects - artificial reefs, fishing platforms, etc.. as opposed to items that should be included within the budget anyway. Ie, fisheries patrols.

[Rainbowrunner]

Had to vote yes, I lived in Sydney before and after they closed botany bay to commercial fishing by buying the pro licenses with money from rec license funds. Also fished St Georges Basin alot in this time,
The fishing improved incredibly in both locations after pros were bought out.
I think about 30% goes to "admin" fees tho but the rest goes straight into rec fishing.
If I remember right Im sure that it was only approved in NSW as long as it didnt go into "consolidated revenue"

Imagine Moreton Bay and its rivers with no pro fisherman and more artificial reefs :o

[caravellerob]

just another way to tax us in my opinion, money will be wasted like the rest of the money we already pay!!!

[honda900]

Mike,

quite frankly the QLD government has not shown that it is capable of managing the money or delivering the infrastructure that should result from such a license. The snapper debarcle and the ongoing "phone poll" is really indicative of the ingrained issues within the core fisheries management organisations that really needs addressing. While there is within these organisations people with the "want" to change current practices, the realitly is that the rest of the monolith "cow tows" to the whims of political minorities without factual evidence, as a result trust in the organisations is at an all time low.

Regards
HOnda.

[SUPERDAFF]

'Scuse me???!!!!

You don't think that increasing my boat rego by 95%; my trailer rego by 35%, removing the 8c a litre petrol subsidy was enough? Those imposts now cost me almost $500 more a year. You don't think a few shekels from that could be re-directed to offset a fishing licence??

May I refer all you fine folk and piscatorial bretheren to The Courier-Mail report last week about us paying almost $1,000 for a toilet seat - not the entire toilet, just the seat and lid - for a Minister in the previous Government. You want another example - I've got 12 closely typed pages of them. (And let's not even start on the now billion dollars required to fix the Health Department's computer stuff-up. Not the department - its inadequate computer system.

Let the austerity start with Government spending. Let it cut to the bureaucratic bone. Let the fines be rolled out fast and furiously for the fishing rule breakers and apply that money to whatever a licence fee would have been spent on.

After that, and I mean only after that, should anyone consider rattling the bikkie tin front of fisho's.

For those without boats who didn't get slugged mercilessly by the increases above - good luck to you. I don't begrudge a fishing licence missing you at all either. That's because you're already contributing local knowledge, tagging information, voluntary labor on stocking programs and a squillion other things, free of charge.

I will happily be in the front row of a full public daily media, social media and personal networking attack on any such additional impost.

Folks, it's time to put on the Che Guevera t-shirts and berets, show some gonzolas and demand some real accountability for the squillions which we already have contributed. Capiche??

SUPERDAFF

[Crunchy]

No thanks - its a trust issue, I dont have any.

[Qlder1]

All I see from this is the usual "collect money from all over the state, then spend it all in SE corner"... regional Qld will get nothing from this except more green zones, coal ports and lock outs..

hmm maybe I am feeling a bit cynical today :P

ps I voted no but I would like to see the govt costs of managing rec fishing, and existing revenue from rec fishers. If there is a requirement for more funding maybe I would change my mind. I don't think it should fund buy backs etc, unless it was a one off levy and was used in the locality it was collected from. .

[Big_Bass_Fisherman]

I have to agree with rainbow runner, i grew up in NSW and as kids we would only ever get small bream, flatties and whiting. Since the licences came in and they bought out a lot of the pro's everything you catch is much larger then average and you catch jews. I didnt know what a jew was until about 8 years ago after the pros were kicked out. There have also been other things like structure rehabilitation in rivers, artificial reefs and fads installed with the licence money. I can see the big differences the licences have made in NSW to rec fishing, with the right management licences here in QLD would be a good thing.

Problem is getting the right management...

[pescados]

Not a QLD'er.
If money was used for fishing yes but we all know pollies speak with forked tongue
so fishing license money probably finishes up in general revenue. NO

[Sheik]

Please please please don't allow one in. There are good reasons to have one, but in the end it's another loss of personal freedom. I'd like to think we can pop down the creek or the river or the dam or the beach here in Qld and throw a line in without someone regulating us. It's not even a financial issue with me. It's an issue of lifestyle.

[Camhawk88]

I vote- GFY

[Peter4]

I vote- GFY

Great, fantastic, yes??..;D;D

[Steeler]

I vote- GFY

Thats gold and leaves nothing to add

[allanbruce52]

I would say yes if they did buy out some pro fishermen but targeted the ones who decimate the sea mullet & bream migration stocks (along with others), and assisted in policing of size and bag limits would help also. I never see a harbour and Marine inspector at the boat ramp these days.

[tunaticer]

I would happily pay the fee for a licence if it funded a LOT more fisheries inspectors 7 days a week and they enforced the laws effectively. As for ramps and facilities, I think they should be a local council perogative and local fundraising could go a long way towards bettering the infrastructure available. The govt handouts need to be better controlled so the moneys promised reach the correct destinations without being used for all the red tape the last govt created in order to satisfy her jobs promise.

[cormorant]

You'll reget it. You don't need a lic to enforce laws that already exist. It is a con.

We have a fishing tax . It is gst on every part of your fishing gear. If you fish more you pay more.

Nothing stops a government buying out fishing lic they should never have issued and why should rec fishers foot the bill.
If fishing be it commercial or rec then change size limits, catch limits , bag etc.

Environmental damage - christ 99% is coming from land based activity.

Facilities - hell have you seen how much we pay for fuel for boats ,- yep with all that road tax - more than enough to pay for access with decent ramps.

Do the study on what the recreation and sport of fishing is really already paying to these grubby governments and tell me it isn''t enough.

Do I really want to see a bunch of office administraters govt employes to collect and manage money - no. Don't even start with me on the 9X % goes back etc etc. That 10% is a big number.

Governments need to enforce existing rules with appropriate staffing and technology levels and continue education.

We need smaller government not larger government.

If you see the reports in NSW the lic is used as a tool so people have comitted a offence for not carrying it etc. They are spending all their time taking the easy money and lic checks not solving the fishing issue. Easy money for a govt and produces very pretty statistics and figures that justify jobs but not good in the long term for respect of fish and the environment.

Just remember how you'll feel when ya money goes to some feel good research by some bullcrap green bent group rather than to proper scientists. Look at how fisheies NSW has been decimated , dept of AG decimated. So many more votes in schemes than real long term quality science.

[PinHead]

I would say yes if they did buy out some pro fishermen but targeted the ones who decimate the sea mullet & bream migration stocks (along with others), and assisted in policing of size and bag limits would help also. I never see a harbour and Marine inspector at the boat ramp these days.

how about an extra $50 per year on top of your drivers license to pay for more police.
how about an extra $50 per year fee on each school kid to pay for more teachers.

The laws are there..it is a Govt's responsibility to police them and uphold them. Not the public duty to pay extra for that.

[Greg001]

how about an extra $50 per year on top of your drivers license to pay for more police.
how about an extra $50 per year fee on each school kid to pay for more teachers.

The laws are there..it is a Govt's responsibility to police them and uphold them. Not the public duty to pay extra for that.

Ahh No
and Pinhead, Please stop giving him ideas......lol

[Owen]

I vote- GFY

I concur
(can't vote from my phone)

[Black_Rat]

No No & No Period !!!

If/when the LNP go down this road one Mr Robinson will here meprotetestswt.
Thats right :D consult ?

[SUPERDAFF]

Pay more via a licence to improve the situation?

Just like paying the 3c a litre for 3 years petrol subsidy sorted out NSW's roads - that was 25 years ago and now it's 50 Forever; just like the $80 per property a year ambulance levy in Qld totally sorted out the shortage of ambulances, just like diversion of the GST-generated financial war chest to roofing insulation sorted out the economy and how the $23 a tonne carbon price is going to sort out the environment. But somehow a recreational fishing licence fee is going to sort out fishing issues?????

Earth to dreamers, Earth to dreamers ... Come in dreamers. Over. Kssshhhhhhh.

Knowledge, leadership and commitment sorts out problems - not levies !!!

[allanbruce52]

We certainly do pay enough toward the government departments who should be using this money directly to make changes, so I agree.
I have sort of given up on believing any government will do the right thing.
The money just gets sucked up into their wages, lurks & super, then bureaucracy. What chance is there of being anything left for the environment?
Then some university graduate without the appropriate real knowledge and experience decides where the last dollars go.

[tunaticer]

Well should policing the fishery be privatised??
Somehow there needs to be a presence to stop the illegal activities......if the govt cant administer it, should it go to the private sector?
Even the traffic police force......could or should that be privatised?

[Platitudinus]

I vote yes for a simple reason - make it just $5 or something simple, then chase up all the 'imported anglers' who take fish below our minimum size limits and pretend they don't understand. Take away their licence if they misbehave and make the fines large if they continue to abuse our regulations.
If we believe the regulations are basically correct then we need to police with a few examples.
Plato

[Mike Delisser]

I vote yes for a simple reason - make it just $5 or something simple, Plato
At the moment they're talking $35 to $40.


A few guys have mentioned money from a new Rec Fishing Licence funding a buy back of commercial licences? What the hell for, we had this promise from Campbell before the last election (from the LNP website)
The LNP is committed to the health and wellbeing of our fisheries and will undertake a $9 million voluntary buyback program in consultation with the industry. In addition, to ensure the long term sustainability of our fisheries, we will invest up to $1 million in a range of sustainability measures including enhanced monitoring of fisheries on a regional basis.

The LNP made those promises at the same time they were promising not to introduce a Rec Fishing Licences in Qld.

[cormorant]

You know you can always trust a government

Here is another good one

They had a opportunity to spend now and seriously stop carp degrading our waterways ( you know the ones we fishermen are degrading) and allow native fish to have a chance ( you know the fish we are depleting off the resource - copping smaller bag limits - not the resource shrinking)

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2012/s3550676.htm

Seriously it has nothing to do with money it has to do with the funding of departments and scientists and politics.

To think in the last 12 months the government was considering allowing squirrels into Australia as domestic pets - they haven't said 100% no yet.

[NAGG]

I'm all for a RFL ...... As long as it is it is run via a well organised Trust -
I know I saw a huge improvement in the fishing in the years after the introduction of the NSW Licence .
In addition to raising funds to be spent on fishing only projects - Qld should also take advantage of those that cross the border to fish ...... there are a hell of a lot of tourists that plonk their van in some location and literally harvest the place - so why shouldn't they pay for the privilege ?

Chris

[Dan5]

Nagg ya PM box is full bud,

Dan

[NAGG]

Nagg ya PM box is full bud,

Dan

Cleared ...

[Haji-Baba]

Have any of you people paid to renew your gun licence yet?

The cost has skyrocked and we get sfa for our money. No ramps, nav. lights,
Trailer parking, buy backs, Nothing.

No Rfl. licence for me, look at all the costs that have gone up, power, water, insurance, phone,
medical insurance, rates, etc. each has gone up and not in conformity with c.p.i.

As someone said paying for a $1000.00 toilet seat.

All the new "Boards" must be financed and as is the case they will all need new headquarters and more and more staff.

Just hope "Can Do" gets it right or we have no hope.


Haji-Baba.

[Slider]

Listening to the NSW guys seemingly universally stating that they caught more fish after implementation of rec fishing havens, then the cost per fish for these guys may have come down. I'm not necessarily pro or anti rfl, but what's the point in going fishing for free if you catch nothing anyway.

[cormorant]

Listening to the NSW guys seemingly universally stating that they caught more fish after implementation of rec fishing havens, then the cost per fish for these guys may have come down. I'm not necessarily pro or anti rfl, but what's the point in going fishing for free if you catch nothing anyway.


That really is dependent on what type of fishing they were doing and in what systems. The biggest change to many waterways has been the reduction in pollution , stopping industrial waste and silt in some systems. Yep the harbour got better but in reality the bought out fishing lic
in a large part were lic that were not being used and in areas where they stopped trawling the trawling effort has moved to other systems and is gradually decimating them.

If you want to play to a small group of Nimby city fishers then get a Lic and charge heaps for it and fix up a localised city fishery problem but if you want real change and a sustainable fishery Australia wide grab a pollitician and a department head by the nuts and get a serious long term answer by doing propper science and correct allocation to long term researchaend set limits accordingly and actually police the limits . You don't need a lic to police fish limits. Stop allowing politicians placing all of us in the lowest common denominator box by calling us thieves and assuming we are out to break the rules just cause some nimby green group ( better funded and organised than fishing groups) says so.

Now in my extended family we have hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in boating and fishing. ya telling me I can apply to be bought out and compensated for the loss of a fishing area that becomes a marine park or a non take species and new size limits. Nah i'm not commercial and I can't put a value on my enjoyment and the fish I put on my table knowing they are fresh and been treated well.

Don't get sucked into a fishing lic - it's a fraud.

[Gazza]

DAFF's objective is too MAXIMUM harvest ,across all A&F&F sectors....above minimum biomass...of course ::)

NO RFL will occur , SIP will remain.
RFL is a 'scare' to make you accept lower bag/size...simple 8-) , and Commercials "MAINTAINING" >min biomass...even simplier.
jmo ;)

[Almako]

another useless tax

no thanks

[NAGG]

That really is dependent on what type of fishing they were doing and in what systems. The biggest change to many waterways has been the reduction in pollution , stopping industrial waste and silt in some systems. Yep the harbour got better but in reality the bought out fishing lic
in a large part were lic that were not being used and in areas where they stopped trawling the trawling effort has moved to other systems and is gradually decimating them.

If you want to play to a small group of Nimby city fishers then get a Lic and charge heaps for it and fix up a localised city fishery problem but if you want real change and a sustainable fishery Australia wide grab a pollitician and a department head by the nuts and get a serious long term answer by doing propper science and correct allocation to long term researchaend set limits accordingly and actually police the limits . You don't need a lic to police fish limits. Stop allowing politicians placing all of us in the lowest common denominator box by calling us thieves and assuming we are out to break the rules just cause some nimby green group ( better funded and organised than fishing groups) says so.

Now in my extended family we have hundreds of thousands of dollars tied up in boating and fishing. ya telling me I can apply to be bought out and compensated for the loss of a fishing area that becomes a marine park or a non take species and new size limits. Nah i'm not commercial and I can't put a value on my enjoyment and the fish I put on my table knowing they are fresh and been treated well.

Don't get sucked into a fishing lic - it's a fraud.

Dont kid yourself ...... !!!!!
Most of the estuaries on the NSW coast had all of the commercial licences bought out ........ That means no nets killing gazillions of juvenile fish ........ That means Prawns , SNAPPER , JEWFISH , BREAM .... some of the most popular species targeted by rec anglers in the estuaries , beach & offshore .
The improvement in the fishing that is reachable to a vast majority of rec anglers is real ...... you lock out the pros from the estuaries and the improvement follows rapidly . - All courtesy of the NSW RFL

Chris

[goat boy]

Dont kid yourself ...... !!!!!
Most of the estuaries on the NSW coast had all of the commercial licences bought out ........ That means no nets killing gazillions of juvenile fish ........ That means Prawns , SNAPPER , JEWFISH , BREAM .... some of the most popular species targeted by rec anglers in the estuaries , beach & offshore .
The improvement in the fishing that is reachable to a vast majority of rec anglers is real ...... you lock out the pros from the estuaries and the improvement follows rapidly . - All courtesy of the NSW RFL

Chris

You said most; however, not all (anyone know how many commercials are in use in NSW?). And I guess it depends on where you fish if an RFL (in your model) will have any perceived benefit other than the fuzzy feel good one. You mentioned about QLD taking advantage of the border crossers if an RFL was introduced yet a perfect example (in reverse) of an RFL not doing that is in the Tweed/Byron area. Tweed river is still raped by netters yet how many border crossers pay an RFL only to fish in a system where the pro's rape it constantly (crabs and fish)? The beaches around there are still netted as well so....
Another example is the Cooloola stretch, not long ago that had a tax bought in to drive on it, wtf for? There was (hopeful) whispers that too might be used to buy out commercials....but people are just shelling out the fee cos they have too and govt is laughing it's a$$ off.....now if an RFL was brought in tommorow and I wanted to go up the Northshore for a few days I'd have to pay
1. Vehicle Fee
2. Camping Fee
3. RFL
Not withstanding the usual costs involved in such a trip, what benefit would an RFL have me? The commercials would still be netting (let's not kid ourselves) there would be no new facilities, the dunes would still be a garbage dumo and (literal) cess pool and I may or may not catch a few fish.
An RFL will benefit a few waterways, I have no doubt, but the many will be paying for the small benefit of a few, and yet more public money will forever disappear into the vortex of govt coffers. JMO but happy for someone to give me a red hot go at proving otherwise, thus far, not even close.

[Mike Delisser]

Dont kid yourself ...... !!!!!
Most of the estuaries on the NSW coast had all of the commercial licences bought out ........ That means no nets killing gazillions of juvenile fish ........ That means Prawns , SNAPPER , JEWFISH , BREAM .... some of the most popular species targeted by rec anglers in the estuaries , beach & offshore .
The improvement in the fishing that is reachable to a vast majority of rec anglers is real ...... you lock out the pros from the estuaries and the improvement follows rapidly . - All courtesy of the NSW RFL

Chris

So do you want a pro buy out Nagg or do you want a state wide Rec Fishing Licence? The two are not a job lot you know, we've been promised a $9mil pro buy out regardless.
Can I refer you to my post on the previous page.
From Campbell's web site before the last election (and I think it's still there) and while we're being promised NO REC LICENCE from the LNP.
LNP Website December 2011 - The LNP is committed to the health and wellbeing of our fisheries and will undertake a $9 million voluntary buyback program

[Slider]

You are correct Mike that it is not a job lot and that's the reason why I've sat on the fence regarding a rfl. We need to have comittment from Gov for net free regions first before a rfl can be worth anything tangible to any of us. Once the comittment is there, then the process of how to fund it brings into play a possible rfl if there is no other means of funding.

When Mark Robinson was Shadow Fisheries Minister Goat boy, I met with him along with Glen Elmes (Member for Noosa) and Ted Sorensen (Member for Hervey Bay) at Parliament House. It was agreed at that meeting that the vehicle permit revenue can be used to buy out commercial licences on the Noosa North Shore. Mark directed Glen Elmes to look at further methods of funding as well, because this revenue would be insufficient to buy out all the licences. Well, it all went nowhere as we all now know and evidence of better management of Cooloola Recreation Area is now pretty thin on the ground. I was an advocate of the vehicle permit, but with the benefit of hindsight, I'd probably present a different view.

If net free regions are at the core of a desire for a rfl, then let's get the political will for net free regions happening first and worry about the funding aspect when that has been achieved.

Mike, the $9 mil won't do anything at all - it's a furfy, but the politicians can't actually know that and FQ don't seem to be advising a better strategy. And in actual fact, all that this expenditure is doing, is delaying any effective measures (RFHs) that will actually help rebuild fish pops.

Email from a scientist in California overnight who authored the research paper "The Decline and Recovery of Four Predatory Fishes from the Southern California Bight." They banned nets in specific areas of the Bight because of the decline, but not recreational fishing. Rec catches improved, scientific surveys showed a marked increase in pops and individual size and the commercial fishery outside the net free areas began catching more and bigger fish. No coincidence that exactly the same thing happened in NSW post RFHs. It's that simple. So wtf are WE doing?

[NAGG]

So do you want a pro buy out Nagg or do you want a state wide Rec Fishing Licence? The two are not a job lot you know, we've been promised a $9mil pro buy out regardless.
Can I refer you to my post on the previous page.
From Campbell's web site before the last election (and I think it's still there) and while we're being promised NO REC LICENCE from the LNP.
LNP Website December 2011 - The LNP is committed to the health and wellbeing of our fisheries and will undertake a $9 million voluntary buyback program

I want both ...... In NSW the RFL was used initially to buyout the pro's.
You know as well as I do that a voluntary buyout is just a stunt (if it happens) those that would sell would be those that are probably ready to retire or are just not making the money that they would like to - a golden parachute so to speak.

Chris

[NAGG]

You said most; however, not all (anyone know how many commercials are in use in NSW?). And I guess it depends on where you fish if an RFL (in your model) will have any perceived benefit other than the fuzzy feel good one. You mentioned about QLD taking advantage of the border crossers if an RFL was introduced yet a perfect example (in reverse) of an RFL not doing that is in the Tweed/Byron area. Tweed river is still raped by netters yet how many border crossers pay an RFL only to fish in a system where the pro's rape it constantly (crabs and fish)? The beaches around there are still netted as well so....
Another example is the Cooloola stretch, not long ago that had a tax bought in to drive on it, wtf for? There was (hopeful) whispers that too might be used to buy out commercials....but people are just shelling out the fee cos they have too and govt is laughing it's a$$ off.....now if an RFL was brought in tommorow and I wanted to go up the Northshore for a few days I'd have to pay
1. Vehicle Fee
2. Camping Fee
3. RFL
Not withstanding the usual costs involved in such a trip, what benefit would an RFL have me? The commercials would still be netting (let's not kid ourselves) there would be no new facilities, the dunes would still be a garbage dumo and (literal) cess pool and I may or may not catch a few fish.
An RFL will benefit a few waterways, I have no doubt, but the many will be paying for the small benefit of a few, and yet more public money will forever disappear into the vortex of govt coffers. JMO but happy for someone to give me a red hot go at proving otherwise, thus far, not even close.

The Tweed is closed to commercial fishing .
I cant remember the exact figure but it is in excess of 80% of the estuary systems that were closed off along the entire coast ....... so it's a bit more than a warm and fuzzy . Closing off such a number of systems certainly benefits more fishoes than you could imagine & certainly improves the biomass .

Here is the list of closures
North Coast




Tweed River and Cook Island (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/tweed-river)
Richmond River and Wilsons River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/richmond-river-wilsons-river)
Evans River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/evans-river)
Clarence River and Iluka (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/clarence-river)
Lake Arragan (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/lake-arragan)
Coffs Harbour, Arrawarra Creek and Solitary Islands (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/coffs-harbour)
Boambee Creek, Bonville Creek and Pine Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/boambee-creek,-bonville-creek-and-pine-creek)
Bellinger River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/bellinger-river)
Kalang River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/kalang-river)
Nambucca River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/nambucca-river)
Deep Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/deep-creek)
Macleay River, South West Rocks, Green Island and Yarrahappinni Wetlands National Park (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/macleay-river)
Korogoro Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/korogoro-creek)
Killick Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/killick-creek)
Camden Haven (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/camden-haven)
Crowdy Head (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/crowdy-head)
Manning River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/manning-river)
Wallis Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/wallis-lake)
Port Stephens (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/stockton-beach-to-big-gibber-hawks-nest)
Hunter River & Tributaries (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/north-coast-index/hunter-river-and-tributaries)


Central Coast




Lake Macquarie (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/lake-macquarie)
Lake Munmorah and Budgewoi Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/lake-munmorah-and-budgewoi-lake)
Tuggerah Lakes (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/tuggerah-lakes)
Wamberal Lagoon and Terrigal Lagoon (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/wamberal-lagoon)
Avoca Lake and Cockrone Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/avoca-lake)
Hawkesbury River, Brisbane Waters, Bouddi and Pittwater (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/hawkesbury-river)
Longneck Lagoon (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/longneck-lagoon)
Bungan head and Mona Vale headland (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/bungan-head)
Narrabeen Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/narrabeen)
Dee Why, Curl Curl and Manly (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/dee-why,-curl-curl-and-manly)
Fishing Closure - Ex-HMAS Adelaide Reserve (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/404918/Ex-HMAS-Adeliaide-Reserve.pdf) http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/specific_doco_types/application/pdf.gif 224.5 KB
Shelly Beach Headland (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/shelly-beach-headland)
Sydney Harbour - Port Jackson (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/sydney-harbour-port-jackson)
Bondi - Mackenzies Point (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/bondi-mackenzies-point)
Clovelly Bay and Gordons Bay (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/clovelly-beach-and-gordons-bay)
Long Bay (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/long-bay)
Botany Bay & Georges River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/botany-bay-and-georges-river)
Port Hacking (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/port-hacking)
Wattamolla Lagoon (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/central-coast-index/wattamolla-lagoon)


South Coast




Bellambi Point (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/bellambi-point)
Para or Fairy Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/para-or-fairy-creek)
Port Kembla (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/port-kembla)
Lake Illawarra (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/lake-illawarra)
Minnamurra River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/minnamurra-river)
Shoalhaven and Crookhaven River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/shoalhaven-and-crookhaven-river)
St Georges basin and Swan Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/st-georges-basin)
Lake Conjola and Berringer Lake - Caulerpa taxifolia (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/lake-conjola-and-berringer-lake)
Narrawallee Inlet - Caulerpa taxifolia (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/narrawallee)
Canal Lagoon or Berrara Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/canal-lagoon)
Burrill Lake - Caulerpa taxifolia (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/burrill-Lake)
Tabourie Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/tabourie-lake-nets)
Butlers Creek (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/butlers-creek)
Willinga Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/willinga-lake)
Willija (or ‘Y’) Swamp (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/willija-or-y-swamp)
Moruya River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/moruya-river)
Wagonga Inlet (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/wagonga-inlet)
Wapengo Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/wapengo-lake)
Bega River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/bega-river)
Wallagoot Lake - Caulerpa taxifolia (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/wallagoot)
Sandy Beach Creek and Bournda Lagoon (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/sandy-beach-creek-and-bournda-lagoon)
Merimbula Lake (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/merimbula-lake)
Wonboyn River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/wonboyn-river)
Nadgee River (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/rec-sw-loc/south-coast-index/nadgee-river)







Chris

[Mike Delisser]

The Tweed is closed to commercial fishing .
Chris

Are you sure about that Chris? I could be wrong but I think your link only refered to a few sections and side tributaries of the Tweed and certain types of commercial fishing.

I'm sure I saw pros travelling on the river last year andI know for sure there's a weekend ban on netting everywhere on the Tweed, why would a weekend ban be in place if there was a total ban on commercial fishing?

Cheers

Edit - Turns out around 15% of the Tweed system is closed to the pro's

[NAGG]

Are you sure about that Chris? I could be wrong but I think your link only refered to a few sections and side tributaries of the Tweed and certain types of commercial fishing.

I know there's a weekend ban on netting everywhere on the Tweed, why would it be in place if there was a total ban?

Cheers

Hi Mike

No I'm not completely sure about the Tweed closures , you could be right - I didn't look deeply into it except for a cut and paste out of the DPI fisheries website (Commercial fishing section) - If you click on the link you'll see what closures are in place for the the system

Chris

PS - Here are the specifics of the Tweed ...... so as you said It is still open to commercial fishing with limits
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/commercial/eg/bullet_list_1_az_dcr5/tweed-river

[goat boy]

The Tweed has several commercials operating in it, they are bound by areas (mostly up around the mouth area and inwards, to be pretty general). Pros rape the river there on a daily basis. And as previous stated, the beaches are netted as well. So what is my RFL paying for when I cross the border and fish at Tweed? Oh yeh, probably closures elsewhere in the state that benefited someone else...
Not having a go at you Nagg, my point is that an RFL will only be of benefit to some, and the idea you put forward about the border crossing benefit is flawed by whats already in place on the Tweed border. Untold fishers in that region are paying for an RFL that isn't buying out the pro's in that area, but they still pay up. I worked on the Tweed for 3 years until end of last year and saw the pros there constantly.

[NAGG]

The Tweed has several commercials operating in it, they are bound by areas (mostly up around the mouth area and inwards, to be pretty general). Pros rape the river there on a daily basis. And as previous stated, the beaches are netted as well. So what is my RFL paying for when I cross the border and fish at Tweed? Oh yeh, probably closures elsewhere in the state that benefited someone else...
Not having a go at you Nagg, my point is that an RFL will only be of benefit to some, and the idea you put forward about the border crossing benefit is flawed by whats already in place on the Tweed border. Untold fishers in that region are paying for an RFL that isn't buying out the pro's in that area, but they still pay up. I worked on the Tweed for 3 years until end of last year and saw the pros there constantly.

Fair point ...... if that was the only place that you fished - what about the next estuary system ? I travel all over the shop to go for a fish and that is a common thing for rec anglers.
Dont you think that it would be far better to get those aweful nets out of some systems than none at all ? - I'm sure you would find fishing would improve if you could stop the netting of even 25% of the systems on the Qld coast - starting with the majors around Moreton Bay , Noosa , Bundaberg , Gladstone , Rockhampton , Mackay , Proserpine , Townsville , Cardwell , Cairns ........ that would cover a great deal of the population but the benefits extend even further afield as these systems are the nurseries for many offshore species.

Chris

[cormorant]

Not kidding Nagg

Is there any single thing the RFL in NSW has done that a department couldn't /shouldn't have done anyway? Like serously forget the piece of paper and get the departments off their bums and implementing the correct science to create both sustainable catches for rec and commercial.

We need the pros to put fish on the table and a source of healthy food so it shouldn't be a pro v's rec fish debate. There needs to be a change in methods and a combined front to getting the adminstration to sort out long term solutions.

Surprised no one has suggested a % tax on all fish at the markets and that way the consumer who wants fish pays.

The fraud of the NSW buyout of stale unused pro lic was disgusting and to see old lic and old boat payed out was a joke.

A FISHING LIC IS NOT A CURE ALL FOR FISHING STOCKS AND FACILITIES let alone cleaning up degrading waterways

[NAGG]

Not kidding Nagg

Is there any single thing the RFL in NSW has done that a department couldn't /shouldn't have done anyway? Like serously forget the piece of paper and get the departments off their bums and implementing the correct science to create both sustainable catches for rec and commercial.



Coulda , shoulda , woulda .......
At least the funds raised by the RFL are going into fishing related projects ...... money that would not have been coughed up by government. This includes grants to fishing groups for localised projects .... cleaning up waterways , cleaning tables , angel rings , arti reefs etc
Sure some money has been used to buy out old clapped out boats ...... but the licence is out of circulation . Botany bay is a great example - it had
a substantial trawl fleet during the 90's ..... they are gone and the fishing has improved substantially . Add to that the stocking of mulloway into the system and you end up with a pretty decent fishery in suburban Sydney ...... this would never have happened without an RFL. This type of improvement has been seen up and down the NSW coast - so yeh I'm all for it.

Chris

[cormorant]

I'll take that as a No then.

Giving the govt depts a backdoor and a option of taking credit if a RFL does some good still doesn't solve the underlying problem inside the department. Just gives the department which has major issues a way of looking good by having dumb punters pay a fee for feel good projects that they half fund etc and may not give long term ongoing benefits.

I would say heaps of people who fish do so 90% of their time( fishing effort) in one water way or 50 mile stretch of the coast. we don't all travel everywhere fishing comps etc etc.

I still say that boat owners pay more than enough on GST on initial purchase of boats , rego and ongoing fuel taxes to get better facilities and the whole waterways and fish management shouldn't fall on fishermens pocket to pay.

How about all those kayakers , rowers, snorklers, divers, surfclubs , surfers , sailing clubs etc contribute for the improvement in waterways?

People love setting up groups to divide users and start charging them fees. The accounability should all be on the govt department and they should be funded appropriately from tax we already pay to make the right decisions.

[NAGG]

I would much rather see actions improvements that are fully or partially funded by fishermen than sit back holding my breath and waiting for government to do it through their own initiative .
I used to travel 1000's of kilometers to fish the Qld impoundments ..... all because great fisheries were created via a Stocked Impoundment Permit ( a licence) - many others too. This is a great example of what was achieved because of a user pay system ..... it worked ! - I doubt very much if we would have seen this without the introduction of a SIP

Chris

[tunaticer]

Where does the future lay for our fish that most australians buy from the local shop and the supermarkets??
If we kill off the commercial fishers in this country all of our market demand will be met by external sources dumping thier less than ideal wares onto our shelves. Eventually into our waterways as the nonthinking average joe buys some bait to go fishing with.

Where is our national security for our environment protected by removing the commercial sector?

I think that if we make a move to stop all imports of seafoods into the country and minimise exports, our environment and our fishery will be best protected.

Places can be set aside as commercial farming areas and commercial fishing areas and we could have secured zones free from commercial impact as well to protect stocks and breeding cycles.

There is a need for a commercial fishery regardless of how we recs would love there to be none around but the reality is it is for our best future if it is managed in a way to solely meet local demands, not overseas demands for fresh fish.

That leads to another point to be discussed. Should our commercial sector develop a massive canned fish export to compensate for the fresh fish export market that currently exists?

The licence sheme is there to get discussion for minimal real benefit, the big benefit comes from correctly managing the way our country sources its seafoods and how it sells its seafoods.

In my view, there need not be an import or an export market for seafoods in Australia.

[Slider]

As stated earlier in the thread - net free regions in NSW and California which are the only scientifically researched net free regions that I'm aware of, have led to improved commercial catches. The statistics don't lie. And the commercial fishers in these regions have a future whereas Qld's is becoming increasingly uncertain.

With suitably located RFHs, there should be more local seafood available to the general public and it should be cheaper. The pros will make more money and the recs will catch more and bigger fish.

I'm just going to keep saying it until the message gets through.

[Slider]

I'm assuming the link below will work - is the commercial catch statistics for all species. Keeping in mind that RFHs were implemented in 2001 and there were 209 licences bought out and 30 RFHs in which the pros couldn't operate. But still the catch stats look like this and at the same time recs were catching more and bigger fish. It's quite simply a no brainer as to what we need to do in Qld and I don't care how it's paid for.

Click on - Status of Fisheries Resources in NSW 2008/09

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/research/areas/systems-research/wild-fisheries/outputs/2010/1797

[Lucky_Phill]

FYI>

the following is from Fisheries Queensland. 24th July 2012.

There has been consideration given regarding the introduction of recreational fishing licence in Queensland. Discussions were held with Sunfish Queensland as the peak recreational representative body. However, at this time, it has been decided that a general recreational fishing licence will not be introduced.

There is an existing election commitment for a netting buyback, and preparations for that process are well underway. The buyback will occur in three stages over the next three years and will focus on purchasing as many licence packages as possible with the available funding. The process will be administered by QRAA and will be a voluntary competitive tender process.


I guess that puts this baby to bed. ;D 8-) 8-)


LP

well blow me down..... a pollie that kept a promise......... who'd a thought............. me for one ! :P

[Steeler]

Thats wonderful news Phill, great to see em governing for all Queenslanders. Or is that just the employed ones they have not yet shafted.

[Mike Delisser]

Good news Phill, but I will be happier once we're past the 2013 state budget, that's when I'm told they wanted to announce it. Who from Fisheries put that statement out Phill? or is the info on Fisheries web site?

[Lucky_Phill]

The statement was sent to me from senior management, that's all I'll say, but they were adarment, it will not happen in the forseable future as far as LNP and FQ are concerned.

Yes Steeler, there are many in FQ who are not sure if they'll have a job at the end of this week.

The culling of the Public Service was part of the LNP plan to get Qld back on track, so no one should be surprised at the numbers being bandied around. Yes, there will be some very good people lost to Qld, but who makes the decisions is usually not the Govt but senior managers of those departments and if they have an agenda or a dislike for someone, you are in the firing line, unfortunately.

LP

[Sheik]

I think the stocked impoundment scheme is fantastic, but that is not the same as a fishing licence. A fishing licence is a broad brush; the SIP is user pays. And SIP works because hundreds of people give their time for $0. They do that so their local regions can attract people to the area. A fishing licence to me is just socialism, with central control and few if any improvements for a loss of personal freedom.

[NAGG]

I think the stocked impoundment scheme is fantastic, but that is not the same as a fishing licence. A fishing licence is a broad brush; the SIP is user pays. And SIP works because hundreds of people give their time for $0. They do that so their local regions can attract people to the area. A fishing licence to me is just socialism, with central control and few if any improvements for a loss of personal freedom.

A Licence where fees are managed by a trust can be just as effective as the SIP scheme particularly over time .
To say few if any improvements are achieved is just wrong ...... talk to any one who fishes places like lake Macquarie , Botany Bay , Lake Illawarra , Port Stephens etc and ask if they have not seen improvements over the last 12 or so years . Add to that the stocking of freshwater waterways and impoundments ..... particularly the work on natives
If you were to spend some time looking at the NSW DPI website - you can see over the years just what has been done .......... certainly many times more than if there was no RFL.
If we continue down the path with blinkers on we are sure to see recreational fishing deteriorate further specially if you are waiting for government to do it all themselves.

Chris

[Slider]

I know the exercise is now purely academic, but the links below are the scientific assessments of recreational catches pre and post recreational fishing havens from Lake Tuross and Lake Macquarie - for those that actually give a shit.

Improved recreational fisheries and improved commercial fisheries - well we wouldn't want that now would we? Don't worry, we aint getting them. :smash:

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/137797/An-assessment-of-changes-in-the-daytime,-boat-based,-recreational-fishery-of-the-Tuross-Lake-estuary-following-the-establishment-of-a-Recreational-Fishing-Haven.pdf (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/137797/An-assessment-of-changes-in-the-daytime,-boat-based,-recreational-fishery-of-the-Tuross-Lake-estuary-following-the-establishment-of-a-Recreational-Fishing-Haven.pdf)

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/138154/An-assessment-of-changes-in-the-daytime-recreational-fishery-of-Lake-Macquarie-following-the-establishment-of-a-Recreational-Fishing-Haven.pdf (http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/138154/An-assessment-of-changes-in-the-daytime-recreational-fishery-of-Lake-Macquarie-following-the-establishment-of-a-Recreational-Fishing-Haven.pdf)

[Mike Delisser]

FYI>


well blow me down..... a pollie that kept a promise......... who'd a thought............. me for one ! :P
[/SIZE]

Before the recent election the LNP stated they had ruled out a rec fishing licence, then in the first few months after the election we hear, quote "[I]There has been consideration given regarding the introduction of recreational fishing licence in Queensland". We must have different ideas of what a promise is Phill, and breaking that pre-election promise and rerevisiting a RFL in such a short time was my main beef. I'm glad this tread has raised quite a few good points for and against the introduction of a state wide Rec Fishing Licence, (Slider's & Goat Boy's in particular). I recon it will come in one day, but hopefuly at a time, in a form, and at a cost the majority of Qld anglers can live with.
Cheers

[Lucky_Phill]

To clarify that Mike,

FQ was the ones that had asked for " consideration " and NOT the LNP. 2 Different entities, let's not confuse them.


I certainly agree about the RFL........... as you said.......... " at the right time ".


cheers LP

[cormorant]

Hi Nagg

I know what you are saying and understand you arguement but in principal I refuse to play the game where I pay twice ( tax and lic) just to get the govt to do what they should be doing to start with. Yep a RFL short circuits the slow govt system but for how long. I'd rather see the underlying system have a shakeup - yeah I know I am probably dreaming but after a RFL comes in it is unlikley to ever be stopped- ie a tax. I don't comp fish I do it for a meal ,enjoyment and relaxation. The amount saved by lesser burden on the govt medical health system by me being active and relaxed more than makes up for a RLF.

The problem I see in the future with the RFL is that it eventually becomes just as useless / hamstrung as the part of the fisheries and enviro departments it displaces. Yes there is some improvements but it is a extra cog in the system so to speak. Yeah I know you feel the existing system in the department is screwed ( can't realy say it isn't) but that shouldn't be the reason to have to throw in cash and make fish lic mandatory and create a new department / trust. We need to make existing govt departments more accountable, cost effecient and get the budget they require.

The RFL is a tax under a different name to try and fix up bad govt decisions.

Now if there is enough people that believe in paying extra to do what a govt department should already be doing then they should start a group ( call it a RFL QLD trust if you want ) , collect the money, get 50:50 funding for projects and lobby etc and it could even be tax deductible. . Yep that is what the existing political ( fishing and shooting party) and all the fishing groups, clubs, formus should be doing and then money could be apportioned to the areas people want reform in.

As for commercial lic and buyback. If it was tendered well than the existing profitable fishers would do well to put money into the buybacks to up the value of their existing Lic and get rid of all the stale lic in the system. Buy em back with a tax credit not cash and that way if they were never profitable then they will be forfeited or do like with pokies that evertime they are transferred 20% gets lost on a quota. Buying back unused unprofitable lic does stuff all other than as Nagg says give people a golden parachute and nothing for the fishery as they were never again going to be active or profitable. To use rec money to buy em out - sheeesssshhh - the government overallocated them, didn't manage the waterway and fishstocks and somehow the rec fisher foots the bill on the basis that they are then a stakeholder and will somehow in the future be better able to stop bad govt decisions??? The same structure in the govt dep that issued the quotas and lic still exists god help us.

Thanks for the links slider. There is so many simple thing that can be done.

[Mike Delisser]

[
To clarify that Mike,

FQ was the ones that had asked for " consideration " and NOT the LNP. 2 Different entities, let's not confuse them.


I certainly agree about the RFL........... as you said.......... " at the right time ".


cheers LP

Phill ask your mate in Fisheries about Campbell's razor gang's suggested ways of that department attacking it's budget shortfall.

[Slider]

[QUOTE=Mike Delisser; I'm glad this tread has raised quite a few good points for and against the introduction of a state wide Rec Fishing Licence, (Slider's & Goat Boy's in particular).

I think you've been a bit hard done by there Naggs. I thought you made some excellent points and constructed a quality argument in favour of a rfl. Bit of a shame it's all in vain.

[Sheik]

A Licence where fees are managed by a trust can be just as effective as the SIP scheme particularly over time .
To say few if any improvements are achieved is just wrong ...... talk to any one who fishes places like lake Macquarie , Botany Bay , Lake Illawarra , Port Stephens etc and ask if they have not seen improvements over the last 12 or so years . Add to that the stocking of freshwater waterways and impoundments ..... particularly the work on natives
If you were to spend some time looking at the NSW DPI website - you can see over the years just what has been done .......... certainly many times more than if there was no RFL.
If we continue down the path with blinkers on we are sure to see recreational fishing deteriorate further specially if you are waiting for government to do it all themselves.

Chris
Sorry Chris, I can't agree with you, although in a perfect world I would. As it is I would rather have our current setup than again pay x groups of consultants to do another study on another system in order to recommend y outcome, and all within the realms of qangos and their inefficiencies. Having seen what state govt has done to DPI and other departments in the bush, I don't have any faith that an anti fishing government would screw down fishing if it was in their interests to do so.
And while I understand that funds might be segregated, I don't have the faith that those funds would not be raided.
But it's not the money, it's the principal of being on another list.
Let me explain it this way. It shoots me to tears that I have to pay the road toll people $20 to have a buzzer in my car. If I have to backpay, ie pay over the internet if I gothrough a toll without a buzzer, they've made it so bloody impossible that it's a joke. So you virtually have to have a pass. When I buy that pass, I have to give them $20 to start off and if I go below $10 they top it up. So they have $20 of mine for nothing to do with what they will. For ever. Unless I cancel it. I find that unfair.
So when I say I am against a licence, it's because I'm finding myself more and more tied down by rules and regulations. Gone are the days when I could largely do what I wanted, when I wanted. Fishing is my last freedom, where I can get in a boat and get the hell away from everyone. Will having to pay a licence change that. Fundamentally for me...yes. It would be another tooth on the cog of government control.
I amn't trying to downgrade your point of view at all. I think I can understand your arguments. It's just that to me, the argument is not about fish stocks, it's about lifestyle, and what I see as a right of a Qlder to do what I want without a shiny arse regulating me. Again.
Hope that makes sense
regards Jim

[Mike Delisser]

[QUOTE=Mike Delisser; I'm glad this tread has raised quite a few good points for and against the introduction of a state wide Rec Fishing Licence, (Slider's & Goat Boy's in particular).

I think you've been a bit hard done by there Naggs. I thought you made some excellent points and constructed a quality argument in favour of a rfl. Bit of a shame it's all in vain.

Ok ok Nagg too lol, despite his Tweed faux pas. You could add points by Cormorant, SuperD, Pin, Tuna and others also, but I think Camhawk88's post was certainly the most precise and conveyed his position clearer than anyone else.
Cheers

[NAGG]

Sorry Chris, I can't agree with you, although in a perfect world I would. As it is I would rather have our current setup than again pay x groups of consultants to do another study on another system in order to recommend y outcome, and all within the realms of qangos and their inefficiencies. Having seen what state govt has done to DPI and other departments in the bush, I don't have any faith that an anti fishing government would screw down fishing if it was in their interests to do so.
And while I understand that funds might be segregated, I don't have the faith that those funds would not be raided.
But it's not the money, it's the principal of being on another list.
Let me explain it this way. It shoots me to tears that I have to pay the road toll people $20 to have a buzzer in my car. If I have to backpay, ie pay over the internet if I gothrough a toll without a buzzer, they've made it so bloody impossible that it's a joke. So you virtually have to have a pass. When I buy that pass, I have to give them $20 to start off and if I go below $10 they top it up. So they have $20 of mine for nothing to do with what they will. For ever. Unless I cancel it. I find that unfair.
So when I say I am against a licence, it's because I'm finding myself more and more tied down by rules and regulations. Gone are the days when I could largely do what I wanted, when I wanted. Fishing is my last freedom, where I can get in a boat and get the hell away from everyone. Will having to pay a licence change that. Fundamentally for me...yes. It would be another tooth on the cog of government control.
I amn't trying to downgrade your point of view at all. I think I can understand your arguments. It's just that to me, the argument is not about fish stocks, it's about lifestyle, and what I see as a right of a Qlder to do what I want without a shiny arse regulating me. Again.
Hope that makes sense
regards Jim

Jim

I certainly appreciate what you are saying - I'm certainly not a fan for handing money over left right and center ..... particularly when it's hard to see where the benefit is .
These days it's hard not to be cynical - specially if government is involved but sometimes you have to consider what would the best outcome be - pay a toll or deal with the traffic ( I mean worst traffic) etc etc .
I guess when it comes to fishing outcomes the best thing I have seen was the introduction of an RFL when I lived in NSW - I literally watched my local waters improve year in year out ..... I didn't have to look out over Botany bay during a new moon period and see dozens of prawn trawlers raping the bay . I saw the system turn into a consistent jewfishery , the installation of the fish ball arti reefs.
Having traveled to quite a few systems up and down the coast - I saw the marked improvement......... I could go on .
Now I can tell you , when the proposal of a RFL was first put forward during the late 90's - I too was all against it (along with most others) ....... but it changed when I started to see the benefits (FADs , Arti's , cleaning tables , angel rings etc) . I took a tour of the Cronulla fish research facility and saw What they were doing ..... at the time work on Snapper & jewfish - these were partially funded by the RFL. The Gaden fish hatchery was saved because of the RFL
Yes - In some ways you should expect this stuff should be funded by the government - but the reality is it wont! ...... So yeh now I live in Qld and have fished far and wide but with the exception of the SIP scheme - all you hear is pretty well the same whinge & whine about the state of the fisheries - I've witnessed netting in areas that should never be netted ...... I hear so much negativity . So maybe I'm an optimist - but having seen what a reasonably well run scheme has achieved in NSW ( not perfect) - I feel that it could work here in Qld

Chris

[cormorant]

In NSW ther is 12million raised - 400,000 anglers at $30 a year

Have a look at the list of expenditure and structure and think how many of these things should be being done by the department with hundreds of mill in budget in the first place.

I agree with Nagg that things have been done but to see so much of the funding going back into employing fisheries officers , million bucks as rebates to fishing shops for administering lic and the mass of administraion it takes to assess projects by non professionals just doesn't do it for me.

Yeah I have a dream that the DPI / fisheries should actually do thier job a legislated in the first place and a minister should not have the role of approving expenditure of RFL trusts.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/309568/RFT-Investment-Plan-Nov-11.pdf

[NAGG]

In NSW ther is 12million raised - 400,000 anglers at $30 a year

Have a look at the list of expenditure and structure and think how many of these things should be being done by the department with hundreds of mill in budget in the first place.

I agree with Nagg that things have been done but to see so much of the funding going back into employing fisheries officers , million bucks as rebates to fishing shops for administering lic and the mass of administraion it takes to assess projects by non professionals just doesn't do it for me.

Yeah I have a dream that the DPI / fisheries should actually do thier job a legislated in the first place and a minister should not have the role of approving expenditure of RFL trusts.

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/309568/RFT-Investment-Plan-Nov-11.pdf

As I said - it's not perfect! - but there are outcomes......
Believe it or not ..... it's the rec anglers that asked for more compliance officers .....
While I am no too happy to see where some of the funding is going - it's the representatives of the various stakeholders that agree & have to decide where and how much .
Personally I think - we could do better from what we have seen from the NSW model ......

Chris

[Greg P]

I agree Chris and i am not anti permit as I can see some benefits for rec anglers if we look at set ups in other states and takes the best ideas for a QLD version.The Victorian model delivers - have a look at operation rotor

http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/about-fisheries/legislation-and-regulation/illegal-fishing/getting-serious-about-snapper

[Slider]

Just an observation of the different attitudes I see expressed on this site by recreational fishers -

70% of members who participated in the poll are opposed to paying an extra $30 a year for a rfl - whether it be because they see it as an extra tax, or because they see it as an infringement to their freedom.

But of these members, how many have a boat worth tens of thousands, will put a hundred or more in the boat fuel tank each time they go fishing offshore, have thousands worth of rods/reels/tackle on board, stay in accommodation on trips away worth another grand, have a 4wd worth tens of thousands, put another hundred in the 4wd fuel tank to tow the boat to the boat ramp up or down the coast, get another hundred worth of bait for the day, etc etc you get the point. But that $30 for a rfl, even if it can mean the difference between net free regions or not, and an improving recreational and commercial fishery or not, gets their back up. Now let's say on average you get out 10 times per year = $3 per trip or about the price of a can of coke these days. Or another way of looking at it = 8 cents per day - kind of negligible isn't it? Just doesn't make a lot of sense to me why there would be such opposition when you can catch more and bigger fish for that $3 per trip.

It is likely that with more fisheries inspectors that each of us would be checked for compliance more regularly. So what - if you're doing the right thing then it's a couple of minutes out of your day. Times have changed, there's 7 billion people on the planet, you're just going to have to accept that reality.

Then you see threads all the time with members complaining bitterly about some dude with undersized fish, or fishing in green zones, and where the hell are the fishery inspectors to ping these bastards. But 70% of members aren't prepared to tip in $30 per year - 8 cents per day - to facilitate an increased presence by fishery inspectors - as well as have more and bigger fish in their own bucket.

I know that, as Mike pointed out, a rfl doesn't necessarily equate to net free regions. But there's a fair likelihood it would, because rec fishers become a stakeholder with clout when they are directly funding to the extent of probably $10 mil or so each year. And the rec community, on contributing this $10 mil are going to be pretty passionate about demanding net free regions as penance for the 'tax' that has been forced upon them. The Fisheries Minister is probably going to accede to the want of the rec community because there's over 500000 voters out there who are opposed to this tax and every LNP Member of parliament is going to be mightily displeased if a rfl can possibly undermine their chances of being re-elected at the next election.

So, wouldn't it make sense for the recreational fishing community to demand a rfl, providing there are net free regions set aside and there is an increased fishery officer presence - because we know that net free regions will make for a better recreational fishery and we hate seeing people keeping undersize fish?

I know what the response to this post will be - no change in attitude from the 70% of members. So what chance have we got when there is no actual desire from the rec sector to improve the recreational fishery. Cause the government is not going to do the things we want them to and anyone who pushes that barrow is fooling themselves. We (the rec sector) are not helping our own cause - it's insane.

[NAGG]

Well said Slider :)
I've never been able to fathom the reaction Qlders have to an RFL :-? Some discussions I've had with blokes who are opposed to it have either a boat in a storage facility / mooring..... or go out to Lake Somerset where they pay a astronomical annual permit fee to use the place :o
Certainly there is a lack of trust in the government of the day - so why not a change in attitude with a change of government ?
Let's face it - will the LNP loose votes in 33 months if they put a licence in place ? .... I doubt it would loose many specially if in that period the RFL was able to deliver some measurable outcomes.
I'm sure fishoes would prefer a transparent Licence / funding system than some mickey mouse one tied up to trailer registrations.

Chris

[SUPERDAFF]

SLIDER
Perfect ... in theory. It's people's absolute distrust in politicians and bureaucrats to spend money how they say they will, which is at the core this issue.

It is also how the department misled, misrepresented and arrogantly treated fishers during the snapper and CRFFF 'consultations' announcing decisions before the scheduled meetings were even completed, which also is at the core of the problem.

Fix the trust issue and you can fix the licences. Until then, it simply equates to giving a financial druggie $30 for another hit.

[Slider]

Yes, I can understand the lack of trust in politicians Superdaff, I have a healthy amount of that also. Therefore it is up to the 750000 Queenslanders to insist on a structure that doesn't permit the misuse of rfl revenue. Not my field of expertise to state what that structure needs to be. But I don't hear too many complaints from south of the border with the way things are structured there.

As stated, the exercise is academic anyway and I can't see Sunfish insisting on a rfl. So round and round we go with an end result which we all now know - ie further depleted fisheries.

I should clarify that I was on the fence re the rfl - I fell off and now, given the current circumstances of a future with no funding likely to be made available for net free regions, am well and truly in support of the recreational fishing sector insisting on a rfl and insisting on net free regions. It is the only answer.

[Dicko]

Yes, I can understand the lack of trust in politicians Superdaff, I have a healthy amount of that also. Therefore it is up to the 750000 Queenslanders to insist on a structure that doesn't permit the misuse of rfl revenue. Not my field of expertise to state what that structure needs to be. But I don't hear too many complaints from south of the border with the way things are structured there.

As stated, the exercise is academic anyway and I can't see Sunfish insisting on a rfl. So round and round we go with an end result which we all now know - ie further depleted fisheries.

I should clarify that I was on the fence re the rfl - I fell off and now, given the current circumstances of a future with no funding likely to be made available for net free regions, am well and truly in support of the recreational fishing sector insisting on a rfl and insisting on net free regions. It is the only answer.

Very much agree with this & your previous posts.

I don't see it as a tax either. When properly set up it can't just be spihoned off to general revenue.

The number of backflips I've seen over the years from those in NSW who were opposed to it, and who are now seeing the benefits is considerable. Most don't mind admitting it either.

No system will ever please everyone, but a starting point is to review the NSW model, find what's working & what isn't, then create our own to put forward. Better than waiting for some half arsed bureaucratic brainfart to be forced upon us.

[SUPERDAFF]

Slider you do make good points and contextually, I agree with your direction. It's the mechanics of the system where I need the reassurance. I think fisheries themselves have a lot to answer for in terms of generating much of the current mistrust. As well as the obvious cases, there are the not so public ones of them demanding monies from proponents of projects, so fisheries can prop up its own resources. That's 'cash for consent approval' as it were and I find that a particularly distasteful modus operandi. Regards

[cormorant]

Lots of very strategic words talking down the 70% here and saying how uneducated and unknowledgable we are but........... just maybe we have seen it all before and are or different ages and backgrounds. I always love the - were doing it for your own good. You don't have to talk down to the 70% as we have a opinion - it just doesn't line up with yours.

Why not just get fisheries $10m in funding?? Lobby the crap out of politicians etc etc . Yeah I hear ya - too hard? It would mean instantly a extra 20% going direct to projects through lower administration for a start.

Well because there is vested interests and trust issues.

Why not use the existing menbers of fishing clubs and competitions participants and collect the 10 mill? Set up a comittee and a trust and spend it how you like.

More fisheries officers. God lets have a small part of reality here - how much time do they actually spend out there ? Why not train and authorise other departments like Nat parks, police, customs, maratime etc? Oh thats right we are all separate departments and we want to build our own empires and our own enforcement statistics and fine income.. Change some legislation and make long term difference - too hard.

I could go on about Gaden but I'll leave that alone.


Yep it could all be done better - the problem is that it doesn't end up being done any better.

I'll decare my interest - I never needed a lic to do the right thing to the environment , fish, fish sizes or waterways. I don't want picnic benches , taps , cleaning stations as I and self reliant. I think more money should be spent on core research porjects not on pissy little unlinked poor science that should have been uni funded to start with.

It is a extra payment and should be voluntary . If you are doing nothing outside the law you shouldn't need a lic so you can prove it. I am sick of every part of my enjoyment requiring some for of officialdom and oversight.

Can anyone point me to a fishery that has been wrecked soley by rec fishermen who kept withing bag limits ? If so why wasn't the science and bag limits done earlier?

[Slider]

So I'm wondering, what percentage of those that voted in this pole, are predominantly boat fishers and what percentage are predominantly land based?

Because there is a difference, and a difference in perception, when it comes to the potential benefits fish quantity/quality wise that offshore fishers are likely to receive from a net free region, as well as the fact that boat owners believe, and supposedly are already contributing to fisheries management. It would be perfectly understandable that boat owners who fish away from areas that are most likely to benefit from inshore net free regions, would vote against a rfl. Throw in green zones and why would you support it?

Now I can't possibly speculate as to the ratio of boat vs land based voters in the pole. But would I be correct in assuming that the type of fisher that is most likely to follow a thread like this, is a fairly experienced angler who has gotten past the passionate phase of just wanting to talk about fishing and how to catch fish? Most likely to have been fishing for a fair few years, has accumulated enough knowledge and coin to chase the better fish - offshore. And the guys that are least likely to participate in a thread like this are the younger guys still with the passion for catching fish who are more interested in the act of fishing and couldn't care less about the politics?

And then I wonder, how many voted in this pole before they found out that net free regions in NSW turned a seriously depleted fishery state-wide, into a vastly improved fishery for both recreational and commercial fishing, with the indesputable evidence in post #s 64 & 71.

Yet, the percentage in favour of a rfl is still at 32% and climbing and the result to date might only be lopsided because of the type of fisher that is voting and when they voted.

The stance that Sunfish have taken and the conditions they have imposed on their support of a rfl, makes we wonder also. Who at Sunfish drew up those conditions? Was there a meeting held and these conditions arrived at? What would Sunfish's members like to see happen? I wasn't consulted, were you?

But this is just a bit of a discussion with a fun sort of pole that doesn't really mean anything on a social networking site - isn't it? Or is it an actual reflection of the recreational fishing community's attitude to a rfl and a fair percentage may actually want one?

But who would actually know what the breakdown of yay and nays for a rfl would be? Sunfish haven't done any research, haven't consulted any of us, and I can be fairly certain that no anglers that aren't members of Ausfish have been consulted either.

I thought that Sunfish represented the anglers of Qld. What if the anglers of Qld do want a rfl? Government would surely want one and so do FQ (personal communication). The only reason why Gov wouldn't want one was if there was a voting backlash from the recreational fishing sector. But what they perceive as a potential backlash, could in fact be a significant vote winner.

At worst, it could be a stand-off in that 50% of recs are in favour and 50% are against a rfl. And particularly if they are provided with all the facts associated with net free regions and improved fisheries for recs and pros, the success of RFHs in NSW and the acceptance of RFLs by anglers in NSW. At worst 50/50.
The anti/non-fishing general public, when informed that recreational fishers are now going to have to pay to go and kill fish and litter our waterways, are going to think - "about time, I'm happy with that."

Now, I am not happy that we will not receive any net free regions in the next 4 years at least. Who's to say it will happen in the following 4 years, or the 4 years after that? I think it is incredibly absurd that $9 million is being invested in a measure that seems destined for failure, when NSW has shown us what needs to be done. I'm not suggesting that the $9 mil should be directed towards a couple of net free regions as I'm sure there would be problems with shifting fishing pressure. But I am suggesting that Sunfish should reconsider their position and propose to Gov/FQ, that we do want a rfl, let's work out how it can be done.

I know that a lot of people, and probably particularly on this site, would not agree. But I also know that a lot of people do agree. There's winners and losers no matter which way you look at it. But the importance of looking after our estuaries and inshore regions generally, is such that it overrides the objections of the predominantly offshore brigade who are most likely to be able to afford a rfl, and will see benefits in the form of some species quantity/quality, FADS, boat ramps and cleaning facilities - and will inevitably fish inshore and especially if the fishing was better. Also contributing is that the main beneficiaries in the rec sector are the land-based fishers. The families, young children, the youth who we want to drag away from the computer games and the tv. There are also more land-based fishers than there are offshore fishers.

So shouldn't we, the average recreational fisher with a real concern for the future of our fisheries, be demanding that Sunfish instigate the process towards a recreational fishing licence?

[NAGG]

Lots of very strategic words talking down the 70% here and saying how uneducated and unknowledgable we are but........... just maybe we have seen it all before and are or different ages and backgrounds. I always love the - were doing it for your own good. You don't have to talk down to the 70% as we have a opinion - it just doesn't line up with yours.

Why not just get fisheries $10m in funding?? Lobby the crap out of politicians etc etc . Yeah I hear ya - too hard? It would mean instantly a extra 20% going direct to projects through lower administration for a start.

Well because there is vested interests and trust issues.

Why not use the existing menbers of fishing clubs and competitions participants and collect the 10 mill? Set up a comittee and a trust and spend it how you like.

More fisheries officers. God lets have a small part of reality here - how much time do they actually spend out there ? Why not train and authorise other departments like Nat parks, police, customs, maratime etc? Oh thats right we are all separate departments and we want to build our own empires and our own enforcement statistics and fine income.. Change some legislation and make long term difference - too hard.

I could go on about Gaden but I'll leave that alone.


Yep it could all be done better - the problem is that it doesn't end up being done any better.

I'll decare my interest - I never needed a lic to do the right thing to the environment , fish, fish sizes or waterways. I don't want picnic benches , taps , cleaning stations as I and self reliant. I think more money should be spent on core research porjects not on pissy little unlinked poor science that should have been uni funded to start with.

It is a extra payment and should be voluntary . If you are doing nothing outside the law you shouldn't need a lic so you can prove it. I am sick of every part of my enjoyment requiring some for of officialdom and oversight.

Can anyone point me to a fishery that has been wrecked soley by rec fishermen who kept withing bag limits ? If so why wasn't the science and bag limits done earlier?

Hi Cormorant -

Question ...... Do you actually fish ?
I notice that you hale from good old Sydney - so if that's the case & you fish then you would have a RFL ... or do you ?
I'm assuming that you do because you state that you do the right thing - Even though you say that you dont need this and that because you are self reliant :thumbsup: - Great to hear! . That said in one way or another you are a recipient of the benefits associated with the RFL - tell me you are not (but also tell me where you fish)... If you wouldn't mind .



Chris

[Spin]

Well that would make everybody a pro fisher person
and they would be able to sell here fish to the fish markets
Sold
how much is it?

[cormorant]

Chris - yes & yes . Have I benefitted , yep. Do I think it coulda shoulda been done without a RLF - Yep Do I like comittees and pet projects - nup. Do I like long term serious research - Yep
Will I ever be convinced a extra tax is the way to go - no way.

Edit

One of the many pain in the bum of the lic is that if you have relos, mates, neighbours etc etc come for a fish - yep a once a year - you have to piss around getting a lic for them for the day. You can't buy 4 for the boat as a example so it doesn't matter who is on the boat
Having to carry it.
Not having it attached to your boat or driv lic.
Having enforcement more interested in fines and statistics.

[Slider]

I reckon it'd be a bigger piss around to constantly catch nothing when you do go fishing. But I spose we're 8 cents a day better off so can't complain.

[NAGG]

Chris - yes & yes . Have I benefitted , yep. Do I think it coulda shoulda been done without a RLF - Yep Do I like comittees and pet projects - nup. Do I like long term serious research - Yep
Will I ever be convinced a extra tax is the way to go - no way.
.

I guess that's my point - If you fish you will benefit in one way or another ....... & that goes for the once a year fishoe too (yes it is a pain in the butt getting a weekend RFL) . These days I fish maybe 4 or 5 days a year in NSW but I still get a licence ....... & have no qualms about it ..... Whether I go fishing up the Snowies for trout or go offshore fishing for Marlin at Port stephens or bassin up the Nepean River - all have been influenced by the RFL.
When you go trout fishing in NZ - you pay a bomb for their Licence ........ it makes a $30RFL look like peanuts .
I still think that what was learned from the NSW version could be improved up here in Qld ....... a little less of the BS & greater outcomes

Chris

[cormorant]

Slider - What is the maximum you would pay a year and how many days a year will it cover for you? What is the actual cost a day whan you invite a mate out - not 8c ?

NSW
Licence fees are:


$6 - 3 days
$12 - 1 month
$30 - 1 year
$75 - 3 years

What would you say to a $500 a year fee? Are your kids going to be able to afford that?

It is not about the $ as much as the principal of the matter and the ineffeciency of the govt. So they are ineffecient and throwing more money and taking up and doing their job is the solution? .

Can you seriously tell me over the whole budget of fisheries they can put up 10 million for these projects or are you just saying that you have no influence in a fisheries department and feel a bigger stakeholder when you can participate in a comittee and get the projects you want done?

We all know that fisheries knowing funding will come from the trust will put money and resources elsewhere and we rec fishermen will have footed the bill - yep a tax. It's Ok we have a table and a fishcleaning bench with a RFL plaque on it and some very average research that isn't always big picture .

[NAGG]

Just remember it's not the government that decides where the NSW RFL funds go ! (ministerial review after recommendation) ...... they have representation but it is still the stakeholders that have to agree.


http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/302194/Recreational-Fishing-Trust-Guidelines-Dec-2011.PDF

[Slider]

I don't have to tell you that FQ/Gov can't/won't come up with the money for net free regions. They aren't.

Not sure I'd be too keen at $500 (???), you are right, and it's only me I have to worry about.

I can't answer the allegation that FQ would put the money elsewhere to where it should be going. It's up to Sunfish to ensure that the structure is such that it does.

If your mates don't fix you up for the price of a licence then they can't be very good mates.

What 'average research' are we talking about?

[Mike Delisser]

I don't have to tell you that FQ/Gov can't/won't come up with the money for net free regions. They aren't.


This was from the ABC news in May 2012 Slider, I've highlited what I think is the most interesting part esp as this was just before the Qld Gov contacted Sunfish saying they were considering introducing a state wide RFL. Anyone joined the dots yet?

The Queensland Government has promised it will deliver on a $10 million election commitment to the state's fishing industry.
Premier Campbell Newman promised $9 million to fund a voluntary buyback of east coast inshore commercial netting licences, removing up to half in areas of high conservation or recreational fishing value.
Another $1 million was earmarked to fund related measures, including monitoring fisheries.
Queensland Seafood Industry Association president Geoff Tilton says they've met with the new Fisheries Minister John McVeigh to discuss the LNP policy.
"He said that they would honour their commitment, it's part of their 100-day plan," Mr Tilton said.
"It's dependent on financing, but he assured us that this process will go ahead and the mechanisms for it are still to be worked out, but yes it's a commitment they intend to fulfil."
The amount of money the LNP will pay for individual licences is yet to be determined.

[goat boy]

I'm not against an RFL, as been stated in previous posts and threads, 'right time, right place'. The RFL as talked about here is flawed, especially when (constantly) referred to the NSW one as a model.
Not all fisheries/recs will benefit - This is a BIG question, I understand totally that SOME waterways HAVE benefited. Not all, however. How do you justify everyone paying to fish, when only selected fisheries benefit. You can't, plain and simple. As an example (and yes, I fished the Tweed area alot, but also fished around Ballina,Coffs, Mylestom and freshwater areas around Ebor) why haven't the licences been bought out in the Tweed/Byron area (river OR beach). Are there plans too, or, as mentioned in the link to trust guidelines, is the geographic area not of benefit to the many? Understand funding gets placed where max benefit is, that's Govt. But this is a supposed rec trust fund, paid by ALL fishing within NSW....
Also as mentioned, why should rec funds go to enforcing what is and always should be Govt responsibility ie licence enforcement. Read the trust split on how much is spent JUST ON LICENCE ENFORCEMENT (not including other fisheries officer jobs). I think when mentioned that people want this, they mean it in a sense that anyone wants Govt (local or otherwise) to step up and take control of whats theirs (Everyone hates crime but I don't see a calling for a rec police fund to fund more officers doing their job). It's absurd that so much of the fund is spent on officers making sure people have their licence....I'm paying for a licence to make sure someone is checking to see I paid my licence????
Also, that link to trust guidelines is a bit misleading, it doesn't really say how funds are split up, really just on how to apply for funding. I paid a licence fee for years and never once did I see a bit of paper or somebody ask, or some mail arrive asking me to vote on how the money was spent. If I'm paying into a supposed trust fund that benefits all, I'd rather see some of the money spent on advising stakeholders (anyone that pays a damn licence) how to have a say, rather than automatically channelled off to a division that occasionally checks to see if I have a licence....as example
Why is so much still spent on document based education? This is the digital age, pretty much everyone uses the internet. Rules, guides, how-to's could all be placed there and no need to waste $$$ printing garbage that 90% of the time winds up in the bin. Yep, some is still needed, majority no. It's too easy a budget waster, publication of documents.....
An RFL is a TAX, plain and simple. Another tax added onto countless others that people are rightly p!ssed off when faced with. It was mentioned why people are against it when they spend $$$ already in purchases of this that and the other? Because they already spent $$$ (which included taxes) on this, that and the other. And all the other taxes that are already paid.
Lindsay/Slider, you already mentioned how you (now) lament the Northshore/Vehicle tax, yet previous to it you weren't totally against it. What will be your stance if an RFL was introduced and the Northshore didn't benefit from any of it? serious question, and it IS plausible).
I don't have the answers and don't wish to pretend I do, what I do know, however, is that an RFL is a plain, simple tax that would see some benefit to highly populated areas (can we see another snub here to FNQLD'ers, ala funding for everything else) and some creative accounting seeing funds off into 'admin' etc.
Going by a licence system that fed into a trust fund, it would seem to be more fair that individual areas have associated fees that stayed within that area, thats not going to happen.
I don't want an RFL because it's a bandaid solution to a problem everyone knows exists, but rather than fix it like they bloody should, Govt treat you like fools and throw a bone to keep you occupied for awhile.
I would much rather see maybe a half/half system, where Govt go dollar for dollar (you could make the RFL voluntary, how many do you reckon would pay then???)
Or maybe Govt calling for volunteers in programs that benefit rec fishing?? (restocking, clean up days/weekends etc)
These could be starting points to base some kind of RFL on, maybe.
Anyway, respect people like Naggs and Sliders view points and ideas, they're both obviously passionate and give a sh!t.

[Sheik]

Yeah I agree with you Goat Boy. It's a very broad statement to say that the NSW RFL has led to huge improvements. Furthermore, could proponents of a qld RFL say it would improve qld, which has probably three times the coastline of NSW and three times the river systems(rough guess-dont pick me apart on that) with probably less people?
I tend to think that the way we're currently moving is efficient. We've cut back on tailor takes. We've stopped a few harvesters who would move to hervey bay and fill their fridges with winteries every year. We've upped the size of bream. We've protected sp like mary river cod. Most people out west are very conscious of the murray cod. as landholders we spend many hours and thousands of our own dollars making sure carp are killed, yellowblly and cod and catties are translocated to new systems when our perennial creeks dry up. We stock creeks and billabongs with our own money.
We've restriced reef fish takes. We've increased the min and max of flathead and this has made a massive difference to flattie stocks where I fish. We've looked at muddies, and decided not to adopt the NT jenny rules. And don't even start me on places like Awoonga, or the work done by people like Bill Sawynock and Kim Martin in CQ. Legends.
All this and hundreds of other things have been done without resorting to an RFL. Proponents seem to say the system needs fixing; but will an RFL fix it quicker than we're already doing?
People that rip off the system will do it with or without a piece of paper. There's been a massive increase in the last ten years of catch and release and general caring for the environment by fishos over the last ten to fifteen years. I for one am very proud of how perceptions have changed.
But it is changing. And I don't feel like handing over another "freedom" for a questionable result.

[Slider]

Ok, I've just put a post up on the "And Then There Were None" thread which is extremely relevent here. That post delves into fish behaviour and reproduction and explains why net free regions work. I'm not going to write it twice so do us a favour and read it.

It is mentioned that there's no guarantee that funds from a rfl and the creation of net free regions will do what we hope they will do. Based on what you will read on the other thread, I can guarantee that if net free regions won't work, then there is no other measures available to fishery managers, apart from marine parks, that will work. Absolutely guaranteed.

In today's society of human overpopulation and demand for protein to feed the masses, and the necessity for a commercial fishery, we can't close down all areas to net fishing. There has to be a balance so that fish populations can be maintained and the commercial sector also maintained. This means that there will be areas that are closed to nets and recs that fish those areas will do well, and areas that aren't closed to nets and recs in those areas won't do so well. It's an unavoidable fact of life that all of us have to accept. Do as Nagg has suggested - if you want to catch fish, go to the areas that aren't netted.

So what you're pointing out Mike, is that there may not be $9 mil for a voluntary buy back of commercial licences? Is that the point you're making? Because there is no intention of complete removal of nets from strategic regions anywhere that I can see.

Half the pressure in an area doesn't mean there will be more fish and in fact, it means that there definitely won't be more fish. This is the crux of my argument. Again, read the post on the other thread and that statement should make sense to you. If not, I will explain it further. Also contributing here is commercial fisher behaviour - the half that remain in a region, will simply fill the void vacated by the bought out half which were the inefficient half, and the remaining half are the efficient commercial fishers.

I'm not really prepared here to argue every little intricacy of a rfl and its application, how it is to be set up, who manages the money and who makes the decisions on how the money is spent. I do have other things to do in my life like earn a living to fund what I do in fishery research. I will however argue til the cows come home the value of net free regions and the absolute necessity for them in Qld. However, if there is something that I'm not addressing, and someone feels that it is a really important point that hasn't been addressed, then remind me of it and I will address it if it falls into my field of expertise.

Where is Scott Mitchell in all of this? Have you been gagged Scotto?

[NAGG]

I keep referring to the NSW model as it's the only one that I know & have lived with for 9 years before moving to Qld .
The improvements to Rec fishing is not based on anecdotal evidence - It's real
Take the nets out of the system & you will see a dramatic improvement in that fishery & the surrounding area ...... The data exists if anyone cares to look . The salmon stocks improved from being taken to the brink to now being abundant - just by stopping beach netting (I cant remember if it was state wide or region specific) .
It's just one measure (buyouts) but it is an important one . We still need professional fishing of estuary species but this day and age we shouldn't be doing it in & around higher population centers . Once removed the benefit to rec fishing and tourism will follow .
After spending some time recently in caravan parks in north / central Qld (Fishery falls ,Cardwell , Lucinda & Conways beach) you get chatting to nomads and other fishoes and the percentage that were from the southern states was mindblowing ...... certainly more than those from SEQ - These people as a majority travel to these locations (stay) and fish - often for weeks and months. We via an RFL need to capture this group .......... fishing should never be a free for all & something always needs to go back .
With more people fishing & with the newer technology fishoes are becoming more efficient at catching fish ..... if nothing is done ( stocking , commercial closures , habitat destruction etc) fish stocks can only go one way :smiley_down:

For me it's not about passion or something like that ....... It's the realisation that things need to be done & that unless fishermen take control & have some ownership a decline can only but continue. With money in a trust you know that there is the means to start the process & keep it going) The SIP scheme shows exactly that - It doesn't raise the money that an RFL would but the results are undeniable :)

Chris

[nigelr]

I too would have to agree with Goatboy as far as the NSW RFL goes; there are still plenty of Commercial licences that could be bought out to very good effect and hopefully going forward into the future they will be. To my mind infinitely better way to spend the collected revenues than new fish tables etc......
What I will say though is that I believe the NSW RFL, warts and all, is better than nothing. Just my personal opinion.
One problem is I think, and this could occur in a similar fashion in Qld, that the resources collected tend to be spent more in those regions which have higher populations of fishers, ie the metro areas.
I seem to recall a figure of $10 mill being bandied around by the Qld Gov for licence buy-out etc, I wonder what in reality, could actually be accomplished with this piddling (in the scheme of things lol) amount?

[Out-Station]

It would seem to me that the question isn't a yes or no on the fishing lic, its yes or no can the gov't be trusted to channel funds appropriatly and efficiently. I recon there's a heap of fisho's who wouldn't mind makeing a modest "user pay" contribution in form of a lic or similiar if they could see their funds hitting the water and makeing a difference but would say no pureley on the back of governments (all of em) track record on miss use and wastage of these type of funding sources. I would support a lic but not untill i saw some credibility/accountability/efficiency in the spending of such funds. A good way for the gov't to re establish some credibility with us first is to show us some return on our boat lic fees in terms of marine facilities, ramps etc.

Scott

[Sheik]

I'm not really prepared here to argue every little intricacy of a rfl and its application, how it is to be set up, who manages the money and who makes the decisions on how the money is spent. I do have other things to do in my life like earn a living to fund what I do in fishery research. I will however argue til the cows come home the value of net free regions and the absolute necessity for them in Qld. However, if there is something that I'm not addressing, and someone feels that it is a really important point that hasn't been addressed, then remind me of it and I will address it if it falls into my field of expertise.
Slider, you're obviously well versed in fisheries management but I wonder whether making an "absolute guarantee" is good scientific practice when dealing with the minefield of complicated ecosystems that are in a state of constant flux. For instance, i don't know whether Gladstone Harbour is no netting, but I don't know whether banning netting would make much of a difference at present. OK, you say that if netting doesn't then nothing will. That might be true, but the reverse is not. No netting will not neccessarily improve fish stocks.
But let's say your absolute guarantee is correct. The question then becomes: why is an RFL the only way to deliver net free fishing? If enough people are motivated, you can be sure that a voting block will deliver an outcome if the science is put forward by that voting block ie funding delivering benchmarks in increased production as you say. Why link it to another imposte on our freedom to fish without having to employ more bean counters to monitor it? If it's an absolute guarantee, then the government should adopt it without an RFL with enough "encouragement" from members around the state.
I know there hasnt been great success in fishing policies affecting elections, but with outcome driven funding, wouldn't it make a big stick for fishos to unite over? And there are other ways, like voluntary funding, or sponsorship deals by multinationals, maybe even carbon trading somewhere there or other new schemes for example.
To summarise, I think it's drawing a long bow to say net free fishing is the holy grail but even if it is, it's not just an RFL that will deliver that.
Hope that makes sense.
regards jim

[Dicko]

Slider, you're obviously well versed in fisheries management but I wonder whether making an "absolute guarantee" is good scientific practice when dealing with the minefield of complicated ecosystems that are in a state of constant flux. For instance, i don't know whether Gladstone Harbour is no netting, but I don't know whether banning netting would make much of a difference at present. OK, you say that if netting doesn't then nothing will. That might be true, but the reverse is not. No netting will not neccessarily improve fish stocks.
But let's say your absolute guarantee is correct. The question then becomes: why is an RFL the only way to deliver net free fishing? If enough people are motivated, you can be sure that a voting block will deliver an outcome if the science is put forward by that voting block ie funding delivering benchmarks in increased production as you say. Why link it to another imposte on our freedom to fish without having to employ more bean counters to monitor it? If it's an absolute guarantee, then the government should adopt it without an RFL with enough "encouragement" from members around the state.
I know there hasnt been great success in fishing policies affecting elections, but with outcome driven funding, wouldn't it make a big stick for fishos to unite over? And there are other ways, like voluntary funding, or sponsorship deals by multinationals, maybe even carbon trading somewhere there or other new schemes for example.
To summarise, I think it's drawing a long bow to say net free fishing is the holy grail but even if it is, it's not just an RFL that will deliver that.
Hope that makes sense.
regards jim

Some excellent discussion, both for and against going on in here lately. Good to see.

Sheik, totally agree with what you're saying & in an ideal situtation would love to see that type of outcome without an RFL also. The only stumbling block is an organisational platform or voice to make that happen.

There has been, and still is a handful of political groups, angler groups, marine boating groups or action groups on a particular issue all pretty well up the same path but none have or had the backing to do anything too significant in the long term.


An RFL,... on our terms, is a defacto way of being more in charge of our destiny & more importantly having the $$ to make some changes.

[QuinTin]

i voted no i think we all pay to much now with everyday living now wheres it end next you will need a permit to walk on a footpath???
been fishing for the last 30 years without having to have a permit to fish so why should my/our kids have to pay to fish from the the day they start
fishing just my 2 cents worth cheers.

[Slider]

You might have to jump over to the "And Then There Were None" thread Quin Tin for the answer to your question. Or quite simply, it's called human population explosion.

[Slider]

I can guarantee that net free regions will improve recreational and commercial catches and I can support the guarantee with solid science and examples.

As to how the net free regions are funded - I don't really care. But it is apparent that we can not expect to see the Government fund it. I've been going down that path for the last 10 years and I am no closer to a result. If other funding arrangements other than a rfl can be made, then well and good, but I won't be holding my breath for that either.

The only vital thing is that net free regions are created soon and if the Government says it costs too much, then we have to take the ball in our own hands - for our sakes, for our children's and granchildren's sakes, and for the sake of keeping our marine environment alive. The longer we delay, the longer is the recovery and the more significant are the trophic cascades that will occur in the meantime.

[Slider]

Gladstone Harbour

I mentioned in the other thread about fish that are under chronic predation threat and how their fecundity is reduced - substantially - by up to 60% in actual fact. What also is known, is that fish that are under chronic predation threat are also increasingly vulnerable to habitat degredation, climate change and disease.

So, in Gladstone Harbour where commercial fishing is intense, recreational pressure is intense, dredging is occurring, mangroves are being depleted and algal blooms kicked in after the floods, we have the perfect recipe for fish to become diseased. It isn't necessarily any single one of these factors that is causing disease, but the combination of fishing pressure and any of the other factors can trigger the problems that we've all seen. My bet is that algal blooms are the most likely cause in combo with fishing pressure.

In all animals, stress causes an increase in stress related hormones from the hypothalamic-pituitary-andrenocortical feedback system. An increase in these hormones can cause reduced fecundity, infertility, increased vulnerability to disease and loss of mass (Boonstra, 1998a)

[NAGG]

i voted no i think we all pay to much now with everyday living now wheres it end next you will need a permit to walk on a footpath???
been fishing for the last 30 years without having to have a permit to fish so why should my/our kids have to pay to fish from the the day they start
fishing just my 2 cents worth cheers.

Life moves on ......
If we had this conversation during the 60's people would think we were off our rockers - fish were everywhere & the stories that went with them would have ones pulse racing - there was no need to even contemplating anything that resembles a conservation strategy ........... but how wrong they were !

So rather than thinking - why should we ? ....... maybe we should be thinking what if we dont ?
Do we really think that government has the will to do anything about it ? ........ specially with regard to funding . Hell CN just had the opportunity to sink a new arti reef off the Gold Coast - how did he respond ? a thanks but no thanks .... can't afford it !
This type of thinking will only change if and when a keen fishoe becomes Premier ...... someone with a passion & the clout to change things - but I for one dont want to hold my breath on that one either.

As for seeing my kids having to buy a licence ......... I'd rather know that they actually had something to catch

Chris

[allanbruce52]

Well So much for Campbell Newman rescuing Queensland, I see he is going to sack Harbour and Marine staff now or so he said on a recent TV interview. So who knows what their policies are on other matters concerning our fish resources. It seems he isn't too concerned about fish stocks etc.
If there was a fee where would it go?

[cormorant]

Lets assume no netting is the way to go . It is the quickest way to get fish stocks back up. Lets assume the science is 100% correct and it is obvious to the NSW RFL trust guys, DPI and state departments.

Can you tell me how much has been spent last year on buying out commercial lic , reducing catch quotas in NSW where this marvolous RFL is in place?.

So they raised 10-13 million. How much was spend doing buy outs ?

Slider I noted my vested interest before and I know from the way you write you are passionate about both fishing and the science behind it but stating your vested interest in getting funding or any other interest would be a ethical thing to do.

As for your question on what crap science I refered to I'll just say there seems to me to be a lot of small unlinked studies not done to the same standards and quality that don't really combine to end up with a better picture of the whole fishery and many are very short term ( becuase the funding is short term) and the data doesn't always end up being with the department for future review. We shouldn't have to reinvent a system of good science as Australia used to be quite good at it.

[Slider]

Firstly Cormorant, my passion is derived from seeing nets spooking fish and wondering why that happens. Discovered that fish communicate audibly which answered part of the riddle, and kept digging because my curiosity was aroused til I knew enough to indicate that there are ramifications to the nets spooking fish. Once I had a basic knowledge of the entire situation and discovered that nobody in the world at that time was researching fish behaviour around commercial nets, other than how to prevent net avoidance of trawl nets with quieter gear etc, then I felt an obligation to share what I had found out in order for better management. I also desperately wanted the nets off this beach so that recs, incl myself, had a chance of catching fish and to stop the obviously declining fish, seabird, dolphin, shark pops here. It seemed important, but I had no idea how important until the research kept uncovering new things. Now I do feel obliged, driven almost, purely from a conservation perspective. Not just for fish, I spend a lot of time trying to reduce human impacts in Cooloola Nat Park generally - haven't you seen me on the news complaining about unnecessary back burns? I love Australia's native wildlife, terrestrial or marine, and if I can contribute to protecting some of it, then there is ample gratification in that alone. If I can protect a lot of it, as the net free regions would do, then that would give me a real thrill.

As to vested interests - well I reckon this whole exercise over the last 10 years has probably cost me between half and a mil in lost income. I left a successful career in supplying product to the building industry to tackle this. Thought it might take me a year or 2 and then I could go back to my business. Never happened, and doesn't look like happening for some time to come. I don't stand to make anything as a result of this work that I'm doing. That doesn't concern me in the slightest. The only important thing is that there are fish, seabirds, dolphins, sharks etc in the ocean. The cynics would scoff, but that is the reality, that is my nature. I own my house at Teewah, my work of property maintenance is in Teewah, I don't have kids and I can live on very little - which is just as well.

Will come back to answering the other aspects in a while.

[Slider]

I do agree with other's comments that the NSW RFHs could have been better designed and better results attained. But the results do tell us without doubt that they can be an effective conservation method that doesn't impact the commercial fishery supply of seafood. As to the structure of the rfl, there are better judges of that than I. As was mentioned, Qld has the opportunity to structure a rfl based on the experiences of the other states, which should enable us to get it right - one would think.

Without looking into it, and my memory fails me, I don't know how much was invested into buying out the 209 licences for the 30 RFHs. Whether Qld needs to buy out that many licences, I wouldn't know, but I suspect not. But as a guide, to make the Noosa North Shore a RFH, is anticipated to cost in the order of 3 - $4 mil to buy out 17 licences with no shift in fishing pressure.

No doubt that Australia is a world leader in many scientific fields. But in the field of fishery research, most relevent studies have originated in the U.S, Canada, Northern Europe - countries that fished down their fish populations before we did and had to strive for solutions. However, the crucial study in this instance was by Steffe et al 2004, into the pre and post NSW RFH catch rates. The NSW commercial catch statistics are the other important factor in determining the success of RFHs involving the species that we have in Qld. Pondella & Allen 2008 into net free regions in Southern California is also useful in providing direct evidence. But there are any number of papers that paint the picture, a few from Australia, but mostly overseas. I'm referring to about 100 separate research papers to build my arguments. But it is a diverse field and to have corroborating evidence for the various aspects involved, requires that many. I'm not inclined to grab a single paper and run with the findings of the authors - as somebody recently suggested I am doing. Cherrypick was the word used. I have to be satisfied that my arguments will hold up to scrutiny and thus the 10 years it's taken.

I hope that answers your questions Cormorant, if it doesn't, let me know.

[Slider]

Nets spooking fish:

Doesn't matter where the net is shot, the Noosa North Shore, Sandy Cape, Moreton Bay, Trinity Inlet, anywhere. Every time a net is shot and fish caught in that net, alarm cues from the netted fish will cause all fish of the same species, or species that have a history of being netted, to bolt for the hills. Inavariably the bolting species are the same species that recs are chasing. Recreational prospects as a result, for generally the following week in the area that the net was shot are drastically diminished. No mysteries here, anglers all over the world have noted this one and they won't come to Qld because we don't have net free regions.

So irrespective of whether you're a conservation minded person who would like to see our fisheries maintained for the benefit of biodiversity, or would like to see a prosperous commercial fishery, recreational prospects as things stand, are not what they should be. This is, at the end of the day, why more fish are caught by recs in net free regions. If there are no net free regions, and even if there is only 1 net operating in an area, then this fact has surely to be of concern to recreational anglers. The $9 mil buy out won't make the slightest difference because there will still be nets operating in all regions and every one of them will spook fish that recs are trying to catch.

Why should the recreational sector have to put up with this fact alone? This fact alone means that resource allocation is substantially lopsided in favour of the commercial fisher and we as recs are being dealt a dud hand. This fact alone means that we can go fishing with an expectation that we are a chance of catching fish, when in reality, we aren't a chance at all when nets are operatng in the area that we're fishing. How is this fair? The expenditure in fuel, bait, time off work or whatever, is wasted, because the nets are spooking the fish.

All this excitement about marine parks and not having access to fishing grounds. What's the difference? You may as well have inshore marine parks if you can't catch fish anyway and save your money and go to the football. Has Sunfish considered this part of the equasion when they decided on our behalf to put strict conditions on a rfl that make it prohibitive for a rfl to occur and subsequently for net free regions to occur?

As I've said, I don't care how it's funded, but net free regions are a must for a number of reasons and I'm buggered if I'm going to sit back and let things fester along with no benefit for anybody or anything even attempted by the rec sector. The whole thing is just crazy.

Speaking of Sunfish, where are they? I thought that they were going to be more proactive as far as engaging with the rec fisher. They began to on Ausfish last year when they were copping a flogging here from all and sundry. Did they decide the heat was off and that they can now relax. Where's Scott Mitchell? Remember how passionately Scott debated the need for a rfl? Sunfish must have gagged him. Toe the line or your out. Is that the way it works with Sunfish?

[goat boy]

I've looked into it and can't find any history on the start of the NSW RFL. I don't know whether money from that trust was used to buy licences (unlikely, with the amount needed vs the money earned). Certainly when you look at the breakdown of the trust today you can't see any of that money put aside to buy licences. I'm aware that a loan may have been given by Govt to the trust that was/is still to be repaid? If that's true and it still is being repaid, the repayment figure doesn't appear in the readily available breakdown (that I can see).
As of a parliamentary report in 2010 (not sure if there was a follow up) into the NSW rec fishing scene, there was (I think) 1.5 mil put aside for commercial buyback, not much (and again, unsure if this money was from Govt, or the trust itself).
Now, as far as I can see the advocates for a QLD RFL are basing their ideals on the established NSW RFL with the 2 main 'fors' being:

1. Commercial licence buyback

2. RFHs

As far as I can tell the NSW RFL trust isn't contributing to commercial buybacks ( or at most, is still repaying a loan given over 10 years ago whilst wasting good money on garbage), also, RFHs can be brought about by the sweep of a pen (just like a marine park).
Why isn't the NSW RFL trust pushing for more licence buybacks?

[NAGG]

I've looked into it and can't find any history on the start of the NSW RFL. I don't know whether money from that trust was used to buy licences (unlikely, with the amount needed vs the money earned). Certainly when you look at the breakdown of the trust today you can't see any of that money put aside to buy licences. I'm aware that a loan may have been given by Govt to the trust that was/is still to be repaid? If that's true and it still is being repaid, the repayment figure doesn't appear in the readily available breakdown (that I can see).
As of a parliamentary report in 2010 (not sure if there was a follow up) into the NSW rec fishing scene, there was (I think) 1.5 mil put aside for commercial buyback, not much (and again, unsure if this money was from Govt, or the trust itself).
Now, as far as I can see the advocates for a QLD RFL are basing their ideals on the established NSW RFL with the 2 main 'fors' being:

1. Commercial licence buyback

2. RFHs

As far as I can tell the NSW RFL trust isn't contributing to commercial buybacks ( or at most, is still repaying a loan given over 10 years ago whilst wasting good money on garbage), also, RFHs can be brought about by the sweep of a pen (just like a marine park).
Why isn't the NSW RFL trust pushing for more licence buybacks?

I think the buybacks go back to pretty well the beginning (2002/3 ?)..... something like $18.5M - 500ish licences .

[Mike Delisser]

I've looked into it and can't find any history on the start of the NSW RFL. I don't know whether money from that trust was used to buy licences (unlikely, with the amount needed vs the money earned).

I looked as well, I found this report that mentioned 20mil. The report is a bit over my head and I only had time to skim through it, but it does seem quite interesting. Please have a read of it guys and tell me what you think.
http://uow.academia.edu/alistairmcilgorm/Papers/1471526/Lessons_from_Inter-Sectoral_Fishing_Access_Re-Allocation_in_New_South_Wales

Cheers

[goat boy]

I looked as well, I found this report that mentioned 20mil. The report is a bit over my head and I only had time to skim through it, but it does seem quite interesting. Please have a read of it guys and tell me what you think.
http://uow.academia.edu/alistairmcilgorm/Papers/1471526/Lessons_from_Inter-Sectoral_Fishing_Access_Re-Allocation_in_New_South_Wales

Cheers

Thats the figure I came across too (quoted in a QLD game fishing paper on the advocacy of an RFL, if I remember correctly). It also stated the amount was a loan and that the trust was (still is?) repaying it. I can't see anywhere that the loan repayments are accounted for (and by that, I don't mean dodgy book keeping but in the readily available split of how trust funds are spent). I also saw quoted in a parliamentary paper that as of (sometime in) 2010 1.5 mil was put aside for licence buyback. There was no mention if this was a loan, or money from the trust.
That same report quoted that as of 2010 the annual amount earned from licence fees was '12-13' mil and that the income generated from fees rose from inception to a peak and plateu around 05/06. So as a rough figure, say 10 mil a year from 02 to 12, thats 100 mil. After those initial buybacks, what happened? is that loan still being repaid? why is not more money put aside for commercial buyback? why is money in a trust being wasted on govt priorities? why isn't the benefit of the RFL spreading over the state as time goes on (rather than staying in the same general areas, but that's another gripe). It seems the RFL had a significant impact in it's beginnings, but has tapered off into not really providing anything substantial anymore?
Rather than just say 'oh, a RFL is the answer to all our problems'! the mechanics of existing RFLs should be examined beyond their 'feel good' exteriors. Devils advocate and all that..

[NAGG]

Thats the figure I came across too (quoted in a QLD game fishing paper on the advocacy of an RFL, if I remember correctly). It also stated the amount was a loan and that the trust was (still is?) repaying it. I can't see anywhere that the loan repayments are accounted for (and by that, I don't mean dodgy book keeping but in the readily available split of how trust funds are spent). I also saw quoted in a parliamentary paper that as of (sometime in) 2010 1.5 mil was put aside for licence buyback. There was no mention if this was a loan, or money from the trust.
That same report quoted that as of 2010 the annual amount earned from licence fees was '12-13' mil and that the income generated from fees rose from inception to a peak and plateu around 05/06. So as a rough figure, say 10 mil a year from 02 to 12, thats 100 mil. After those initial buybacks, what happened? is that loan still being repaid? why is not more money put aside for commercial buyback? why is money in a trust being wasted on govt priorities? why isn't the benefit of the RFL spreading over the state as time goes on (rather than staying in the same general areas, but that's another gripe). It seems the RFL had a significant impact in it's beginnings, but has tapered off into not really providing anything substantial anymore?
Rather than just say 'oh, a RFL is the answer to all our problems'! the mechanics of existing RFLs should be examined beyond their 'feel good' exteriors. Devils advocate and all that..

I think you'll find that there have been some decent outcomes each and every year .... aside from the buybacks. The arti reef projects have been a bit of a priority.
here is a link that contains the latest info on expenditure - http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/309568/RFT-Investment-Plan-Nov-11.pdf
As I said - it's not a perfect scheme ..... but it is a scheme

[Slider]

You just have to look at commercial catch statistics to see that the rest of the state is benefitting from net free regions in NSW. Granted, the benefit is certainly going to be less for recs than from within the RFHs, but there is a far better balance of resource allocation occurring.

$20 mil hey? Drop in the ocean.

Have just been down to the shop at the Beachfront Caravan Park at the 3rd cut and asked John whether anyone is catching anything. His response was an emphatic "No, nobody is even losing a bait". Then I asked the pro who lives in the park whether they're getting anything. "No" was all he said.

Nobody was fishing at all within sight to the north of Teewah this morning and nobody fishing between Teewah and the 3rd cut. Understandable, but on the first good weekend weather wise for quite a while, still there are no recs coming here to fish. But it's not just Teewah Beach suffering, Fraser is equally as serious, as is the entirety of the Sunshine Coast and Gold Coast and it seems the rest of the state.

So what we have occurring is, a reduction in participation, a reduction in tourism, a reduction in business in local economies, a reduction in our quality of life and a reduction in marine biodiversity. Can't get any worse and there's no prospect of it getting any better. I shake my head again at FQ statements that everything is fine.

[Gazza]

Have you 'pro-RFL' bible-bashers finished patting each other on the back yet ?? :-*

[Slider]

Nothin to celebrate Gazza. Quite the opposite. :'( Think you summed it up with your post earlier in the thread.

[NAGG]

Have you 'pro-RFL' bible-bashers finished patting each other on the back yet ?? :-*

Why do you refer to pro RFL supporters as bible bashers ? ........ as far as I'm concerned I see it as a better way forward ......... sorry , I should say "a way forward"

I'm still yet to hear a sound argument for not having an RFL -- The best that they come up with is that "Government can't be trusted , It will go into consolidated revenue , we already pay GST on our fishing gear or that we already pay a amount when we register our trailers / boat's.......or - wait for it - - - - - Government should already be doing something" :LMAO:
Yeh what ever! "

Chris

[Black_Rat]

So we have had 200 years + in this country to get it right, how is a fee in any guise going to fix things now?

[Slider]

Think that should be 200 yrs and we still can't get it right.

[NAGG]

So we have had 200 years + in this country to get it right, how is a fee in any guise going to fix things now?


More like 200 plus years to stuff it up .......
It's only in the last 20 years that we started to even think about the implications.

If the government were to inject $10M pa - and allow the expenditure to be determined by a committee of stakeholders & the government supports their decisions ......... then you dont need a RFL (in theory) .
I just cant hold my breath that long

Chris

[Gazza]

Hi Nagg/Slider (or others :thumbup: ) , simple clarification m8(s)....call it a 'bible-bashing' Q. from Gaz

Q. IF we need more docs/nurses or police (given the $$horrendous state of affairs$$ ), left by the ALP, should we have a Doc/Nurse and/or Police tax/Lic/levy ???

Just trying to 'Quantify' your 'pro-RFL' logic :-*

[NAGG]

Hi Nagg/Slider , simple clarification m8(s)....call it a 'bible-bashing' Q. from Gaz

Q. IF we need more docs/nurses or police (given the $$horrendous state of affairs$$ , left by the ALP, should we have a Doc/Nurse and/or Police tax/Lic/levy ???

Just trying to 'Quantify' your 'pro-RFL' logic :-*

We do ...... It's called Tax's - Tax's are paid to provide essential services ... somehow improving fishing doesn't quite fall into the category . Then under this government even essential services are under attack .
Even look at roads ....... you want improved roads - we pay for it via tolls . You want to camp in a national park - you have camp fees.
I'd like nothing more than see things change for the better without paying extra for it !

Chris

[Gazza]

you want improved roads - we pay for it via tolls . You want to camp in a national park - you have camp fees.
Respect your perspective Nagg :thumbup: ,and agree with your pov :thumbup:

you also agree then , that you "CHOOSE" whether to pay a toll or camping "fee"...agreed??

as it exists.... :-*:laola:
we presently have a SIP/ppv , note "S" equals "Stocked" , RFL does not equal "stocked" ....you agree ??

DO you further agree 'I' can choose whether to fish a "stocked impoundment" for a ....yep 110% worthy-fee concept that includes your wife ' n 2kids? (if <18)...mine R grown up ,or we CAN camp on a river reserve AT NO CHARGE , and fish Freshwater rivers AND Saltwater estuary/ocean ..... IF WE CHOOSE for no fee/tax/levy......"CHOOSE" is my keyword of choice.

jmo , sorry for the bible non-rfl bash ;D
I've waffled on enough, BB rfl brigades turn :P

[Slider]

Thanks Gazza..... I think. Certainly the first time that a bible and myself have had anything to do with each other.

I'd really like to know, at this point, how are we to recover the Noosa North Shore and Fraser Island recreational fisheries? Something has to be done and we all know what that something needs to be. If the government isn't going to fund it, as they've said they won't, how then is it to be funded? Surely we can't just sit back and watch a tragedy of this proportion go through to the keeper without some sort of effort on the part of the rec community. I feel that I'm doing my bit, what can the rest of you do? Or is apathy the real enemy here? Remembering that the tailor that are netted here are the same tailor that won't be caught at Fraser, or the Goldy, or Newcastle . ...

[Gazza]

If the government isn't going to fund it, as they've said they won't, how then is it to be funded?hmmm , maybe Mark can give us some input on LNP guv't FAILINGS, maybe you can vote "Greens" next time m8, they'll shut-it-down for us all ??

[Slider]

The Green representative for Noosa is already on side actually. I've done a fair bit of legwork in ensuring that the State Greens understand that a RFH is an effective conservation measure for Cooloola and Fraser Island.

[Qlder1]

My thoughts are that if an amount of money is required for managing fisheries and boating etc it would be far better to be a levy added to boat rego. Maybe it could be described as waterway users tax or something, If they went the RFL way probably half of the revenue would be wasted on management and enforcement of the licence. I thought Campbell Newman was about removing the red tape....

[cormorant]

Think of really effective groups that get gov funding and decisions

I'll start the list

Cycling - No lic ,no fee, nadda. They are a very focused and well organised group who force existing expenditure to be used for their advantage.


The problem with adding it to boat rego ( ski, pleasure,sailing cruiser) is that there are a lot of boats that are not used for fishing and many fishing boats have more than one person on board. I'm not sure on teh numbe rof boats compared to current lic fishermen in NSW . Land based fishers also wouldn't be contributing.

[NAGG]

Respect your perspective Nagg :thumbup: ,and agree with your pov :thumbup:

you also agree then , that you "CHOOSE" whether to pay a toll or camping "fee"...agreed??

as it exists.... :-*:laola:
we presently have a SIP/ppv , note "S" equals "Stocked" , RFL does not equal "stocked" ....you agree ??

DO you further agree 'I' can choose whether to fish a "stocked impoundment" for a ....yep 110% worthy-fee concept that includes your wife ' n 2kids? (if <18)...mine R grown up ,or we CAN camp on a river reserve AT NO CHARGE , and fish Freshwater rivers AND Saltwater estuary/ocean ..... IF WE CHOOSE for no fee/tax/levy......"CHOOSE" is my keyword of choice.

jmo , sorry for the bible non-rfl bash ;D
I've waffled on enough, BB rfl brigades turn :P

Gazza

2 key objectives to come from a RFL are Commercial buyouts & fish stocking (they would be mine anyhow) . The mulloway stocking in NSW has been a great success & I know that fisheries (NSW) were also looking into prawns & snapper (plus the 2 freshwater hatcheries)........ So yes fish stocking should be high on any list .
I'm not too sure about what work the Qld government has done on fish stocking ( except for barramundi research many years ago) but there are private enterprises that could be supported initially.

Chris

[NAGG]

My thoughts are that if an amount of money is required for managing fisheries and boating etc it would be far better to be a levy added to boat rego. Maybe it could be described as waterway users tax or something, If they went the RFL way probably half of the revenue would be wasted on management and enforcement of the licence. I thought Campbell Newman was about removing the red tape....

The trouble is (IMO) when you link fishing with ownership of a boat you miss a massive slice of the fishing public - sure there a lot of boats in qld ...... but there would be several times more fishermen fishing as deckies , fishing landbased , out of a tiny / yak that may not require registration .... or those 100,000 odd that cross the border to fish in Qld .
In reality a RFL is in no uncertain terms a revenue stream . That revenue can be used directly for fishing outcomes ....... & if set up correctly allows our representatives to best determine how we would spend this income.

Chris

[Slider]

We might need to have a few fishos starve to death from lack of fish Cormorant to get the funding the cyclists do. :)

And herein does lie a problem. Cyclists are non-polluting road users that don't suck up big licks of health care funds. Fishos are polluting, drinking, smoking, resource consuming, habitat damaging .....

And fishos only comprise about 16% of the Qld population.

So it's kind of understandable that the perception of the other 84% of the population is that we shouldn't be receiving government funding for our pleasure to further go about polluting, drinking, smoking ......


And the government's ear would be leaning the way of the 84%.

So although we might expect gov to come up with the funds, why would they? They don't know that net free regions are a conservation measure that will improve the commercial fishery. They don't know that our fisheries are even in trouble - FQ seem to be keeping that from them and there might be a motivating factor for that. They (gov) don't know that fishos from all around the world are going to come to fish our net free regions - or that they won't because we have none. They don't know about nets spooking fish and evolutionary changes and reduced fecundity.

[banshee]

Anyone waiting for Fisheries/govt to lessen the impact of commercial interest should understand a very important point,fisheries charter and duty of care (so to speak) lies soley with the commercial fishers.Rec fishers are goverened so as not to impact on commercial catch......not the other way round.I don't care which side of the fence your on up there (for or against), but you are sadly mistaken if you think you are going to get more than a couple of crumbs that fall from the table without a vested interest in the fishery.

[Qlder1]

The trouble is (IMO) when you link fishing with ownership of a boat you miss a massive slice of the fishing public - sure there a lot of boats in qld ...... but there would be several times more fishermen fishing as deckies , fishing landbased , out of a tiny / yak that may not require registration .... or those 100,000 odd that cross the border to fish in Qld .
In reality a RFL is in no uncertain terms a revenue stream . That revenue can be used directly for fishing outcomes ....... & if set up correctly allows our representatives to best determine how we would spend this income.

Chris

My point was that an RFL will rake in more money, but the sheer scale required to police it will negate any benefit of the extra dollars. I personally have no probs with land based fishers not paying,(except in stocked impoundments) and pleasure boaters and ski boats still use the water and ramps etc.

I can also see no reason why a levy on rego would be easier to divert to general revenue than a RFL... rather than have a whole new govt. dept. managing this RFL we already have a perfectly good transport dept..

It would be interesting to see the expected revenue less costs of admin and policing...I really hate the thought of money from fishing licences wasted by beaurocratic govt departments.

[NAGG]

My point was that an RFL will rake in more money, but the sheer scale required to police it will negate any benefit of the extra dollars. I personally have no probs with land based fishers not paying,(except in stocked impoundments) and pleasure boaters and ski boats still use the water and ramps etc.

I can also see no reason why a levy on rego would be easier to divert to general revenue than a RFL... rather than have a whole new govt. dept. managing this RFL we already have a perfectly good transport dept..

It would be interesting to see the expected revenue less costs of admin and policing...I really hate the thought of money from fishing licences wasted by beaurocratic govt departments.

I'm a bit open minded to how an RFL is spent & would love to see any admin cost minimised too ....
I do see policing / enforcement as important as there are a hell of a lot of people out there that will either not buy an RFL or break the law ( how often do you hear the yellow raincoat brigade mentioned or share farmers) . Having fisheries flying squads hitting boat ramps or doing under cover work will quickly see the level of complience rise not just for buying a licence but also for bag and size limits .
Now I wouldn't want to see government turn around and just use the RFL to fund fisheries but wouldn't mind if it meant that they spent some of it for additional measures .
The same goes for fisheries research ...... yes additional funding could come for an RFL for say research into snapper , mangrove jack , mulloway or barramundi stocking as these will have a direct impact in future years ...... and we as fishoes can see the benefit .
One of the downsides of any licence is the administration (collection / processing) The smaller the revenue stream the worst it will appear . Unless you can use some existing agency or online if possible ........ It's never going to be easy .

Chris

[cormorant]

We might need to have a few fishos starve to death from lack of fish Cormorant to get the funding the cyclists do. :)

And herein does lie a problem. Cyclists are non-polluting road users that don't suck up big licks of health care funds. Fishos are polluting, drinking, smoking, resource consuming, habitat damaging .....

And fishos only comprise about 16% of the Qld population.

So it's kind of understandable that the perception of the other 84% of the population is that we shouldn't be receiving government funding for our pleasure to further go about polluting, drinking, smoking ......


And the government's ear would be leaning the way of the 84%.

So although we might expect gov to come up with the funds, why would they? They don't know that net free regions are a conservation measure that will improve the commercial fishery. They don't know that our fisheries are even in trouble - FQ seem to be keeping that from them and there might be a motivating factor for that. They (gov) don't know that fishos from all around the world are going to come to fish our net free regions - or that they won't because we have none. They don't know about nets spooking fish and evolutionary changes and reduced fecundity.

Slider - here in lies the problem - perception.

Fishermen may make up 16%. but their families make up a hell of a lot more and people who have enjoyed the freedom of fishing if only for a couple of days make up a hell of a lot more.

Everyone cycled as a kid - it was a freedom and people enjoyed it. It was for most of us our freedom

Look at the actual % of people who seriously cycle as a commute - not many, but they demand huge respect and resource from every level of Govt as they are well organised. As soon as you mention that they should be Licensed they immediately say it will cost more than any possible benefit followed by the "look at the health benefits etc etc" and totally ignore the road space they utilise, it's capital cost and it's possible ecconomic value in increasing productivity.

It is about perspective , how you target your campain and not about money raised. Money raised and Lic schemes box you in.

Look at the green groups and teh way they lobby.

Banshee comments on the whole fisheries charter and the commercial side show that no matter how much raised you are pushing crap uphill whan the original base policy is against you.

There is a huge difference between being recogonised as a stakeholder ( and being walked over whilst doing fluffy things on the side) compared to being a key effective stakeholder who can affect wide ranging long term effective change . Once you start down one path it is very difficult to change and go down the longer term path.

Here is another thing to consider.

Lets say you spend 2 mill on extra fisheries staff and that is ongoing ( perpetual) of your 10 mill budget . You are locked in 100% forever as you can hardly ever in the future say that you don't need those officers and the govt doesn't up it's numbers ( or reduces them) and the RFL can be seen as reducing it's spend on enforcement. Fund ramp surveys - sheeeshhhhhh.

So you are doing the govts money collecting, paying some of it's staff, paying for part of their program responsibilities and you are doing it to get a seat at the table to allocate a small protion of the overall fisheries budget.

Have a good read of Rec fish SA today as they have just had rec fishers in posession limit added to their rules but no similar rules on commercial fishers. They have a seat at the table but it is not the main table .

[Slider]

I'm only going by the stats - 750000 fishers out of a pop of 4.5 mil. And the cost of healthcare for smokers and drinkers is rather large. Rec angling does destroy habitat, kill fish, consume fossil fuel - you're not getting this point are you Cormorant?

I did say earlier in the thread - think it was this thread anyway - that the rec fishing sector need to become more organised. But when Sunfish can only rustle up 4 paragraphs for their pre-election submission, then you can see we're in trouble straight away on that front. And they're not going to get organised, so what then are we supposed to do? Wait for gov to volunteer the funds when they aren't really even being asked for them? So no money coming from either of those sources, ahh bugger it we'll just let the fish stocks disappear - it's all too hard.

Btw, cyclists - school age, commuting to work, cycling for fun/exercise, are road users. No infrastructure = deaths. Thus my point about us needing a few deaths from starvation - but you would have got that one surely.

[Sheik]

Why do you refer to pro RFL supporters as bible bashers ? ........ as far as I'm concerned I see it as a better way forward ......... sorry , I should say "a way forward"

I'm still yet to hear a sound argument for not having an RFL -- The best that they come up with is that "Government can't be trusted , It will go into consolidated revenue , we already pay GST on our fishing gear or that we already pay a amount when we register our trailers / boat's.......or - wait for it - - - - - Government should already be doing something" :LMAO:
Yeh what ever! "

Chris
Hey Chris
That's not my argument at all. I don't have an issue with trusting the government. Well I probably do, but it's got nothing to do with why I don't want a licence.
I don't want to licence because it's another method of any qld government, labor or lnp, being able to control what I do.
I already feel constricted enough without having to pay for what i consider my right. To fish where and when I want, within reason, so long as I'm not impacting on the environment.
hope that makes sense

[Sheik]

Hey Chris
That's not my argument at all. I don't have an issue with trusting the government. Well I probably do, but it's got nothing to do with why I don't want a licence.
I don't want to licence because it's another method of any qld government, labor or lnp, being able to control what I do.
I already feel constricted enough without having to pay for what i consider my right. To fish where and when I want, within reason, so long as I'm not impacting on the environment.
hope that makes sense

Sorry, I know i'm going to be impacting on the env to some degree. My point is, within the realms of approved fisheries guidelines.

[NAGG]

Hey Chris
That's not my argument at all. I don't have an issue with trusting the government. Well I probably do, but it's got nothing to do with why I don't want a licence.
I don't want to licence because it's another method of any qld government, labor or lnp, being able to control what I do.
I already feel constricted enough without having to pay for what i consider my right. To fish where and when I want, within reason, so long as I'm not impacting on the environment.
hope that makes sense

Rights ..... yeh we all feel that we have a right to fish - cant argue there ........ but maybe in this day and age it's probably a privilege rather than a right - and just maybe we need to be putting something back .
This is were I sit these days .... we just cant continue to take fish out of the system without doing things to preserve or restore or even improve things.
Freshwater fishing in NSW is where I cut my teeth & it's where I have seen what can be achieved via a RFL - I saw a decline & then an improvement (NSW had a freshwater licence many years before it ever brought in an RFL) - Today you can head up the snowies or new england area and catch some great trout ( I wont argue to fors & against about trout as an introduced species ). Murray cod fishing has improved significantly - Eastern cod have been brought back from the brink , bass fisheries are on the improve & now work is being done on restoring stocks of silver perch.
I know that I can take my kids out freshwater fishing today & they will probably have better results than when I was their age .
Now maybe I'm a bit of a dreamer ...... but why couldn't we see something similar in the salt ( I actually know we can - Botany Bay in Sydney is the poster boy for a fishing turnaround)

Chris

[chris69]

NO,as all the moneys raised will only buy back inactive licences up for sale anyone that is useing there licence wont want to sell,the only thing this will achive is no fresh bait or fresh fish and more imported frozen bait,what you all got to consider is how would you like someone affecting your livley hood when all the recfishers only make up a very small percentage of the population and want to dictate to the many that want to eat some fresh seafood and have fresh bait that they will have to eat frozen imports, its a very greedy attitude to have to want it all to them selves,over population and development is the real cause to the decline of the fish population so were all to blame, some just want to pass the buck and blame a few, the only way to stay ahead of it is to restock,but whats the point when mother nature dictates whats happens with 2 flood 2 years running things arent good and will take time to recover.

[NAGG]

NO,as all the moneys raised will only buy back inactive licences up for sale anyone that is useing there licence wont want to sell,the only thing this will achive is no fresh bait or fresh fish and more imported frozen bait,what you all got to consider is how would you like someone affecting your livley hood when all the recfishers only make up a very small percentage of the population and want to dictate to the many that want to eat some fresh seafood and have fresh bait that they will have to eat frozen imports, its a very greedy attitude to have to want it all to them selves,over population and development is the real cause to the decline of the fish population so were all to blame, some just want to pass the buck and blame a few, the only way to stay ahead of it is to restock,but whats the point when mother nature dictates whats happens with 2 flood 2 years running things arent good and will take time to recover.

Any buyback that is voluntary is a waste of money ..... no two ways about it ! - buyouts need relate to entire systems and make them recreational only.
You are quite correct lives will be affected but lets face it - a indiscriminate method like netting should not be used on inshore / estuary waters anyway. In this day and age we should be look more to aquaculture as a means of providing seafood. That episode of the pro's moving in to Gladstone and targeting the barra that come over from lake awoonga was disgusting ..... specially when most of the thousands of fish were dumped .
As far as Rec fishers making up only a small part of the population goes ...... we need to keep in mind what recreational fishing does for local economies in tourist dollars - take away the fish and you loose the fishing tourism ....... 2 or 3 pro licences will have a lesser effect .
It's not about passing the buck - it's about what is sustainable .......... and yes we do have to be mindful of what impact we all have on a fishery.

Chris

[chris69]

Hi Chris the pumicerstone passage has been net free for many years now and ive fished it when the pros were netting it and after they were kicked out and guess what..... no change..... not at all ,the only thing that has changed is more fishers and not one oyster lease is alive,a creek that was 40foot deep with bombies is now 10foot and other deep holes are half as deep as they use to be all thanks to the pine forests,pros know were the fish are they can read a bank and tell you whats been feeding there and ruffly how many fish are there,they catch the fish that rec fishers dont even know are there, bait soakers sit in one spot and complain when they catch no fish, makeing net free zones wont help those that complain catch any more fish,to me this is no different to when germany did not like the jews or when a developers whats to buy someone out of they home and land so they can gain financially.
When the Rabey bay canal estate was developed the southen tiger prawn fishery dropped by 2/3s a very big mistake and so did the fish stocks because they eat prawns too and lived in the same mangroves nurseries as far as the mulloway stocking down south, well the Dip up are is takeing sample of fins for Dna to determne weither they have move north as they think they are so not all fish stocking can or will be successful.

Many years ago the maroochydore council got bribie Dpi to restock whiteing and flathead and they were very dear fish over $1.00 each or more and look what happened there not much for over $300,000 worth of finglings as you very well know how much barra cost and they dont just fill a dam with them theres a science to it with the food source so to do it in the salt will take a long time to achive some good results for everyone to stop whinging if they ever do and lets say this happend and things dont improve what next only the people that live in the area get to fish it were will it ever end this could just turn out like the mob that wanted the trawlers out of the bay well we all got green zones out of that and restriction on some fish limits and everyone that wanted this and campained for this are still belly acking about itor have there heads still burried in the sand,its not prefect for everyone but i can catch a feed any time in my area, so why would i have to pay for the privelage other than going to the fish and chip shop if i chose too to by a fish that a pro netter as many tourist do in my area and like others do in other sea side places,cheers Chris.

[NAGG]

I cant comment on either pumicestone or Raby - Is the passage a fish breeding / nursery area ?
How long have the nets been out of the area ? - that makes a difference.

As I said - dont know and can only comment on areas that I fished before and after closures / buyouts.
But it would be hard to believe that the removal of commercial netting will not have medium & longer term benefits.

Chris

[Black_Rat]

Kid to mum or dad or aunty or uncle "Let's wet a line today"or "Let's go fishing?"

Sorry kid ya have to pay to do that these days .........................................

ummm yeah ................

[Slider]

Mum, Dad, Aunty, Uncle to kid - "No, we can't afford the $5 for the rfl, so you'll just have to stay at home and play that new $80 computer game". And depends what age the kid is as I gather that under a certain age won't require a licence.

Chris69, you are the first person that I've ever heard state that the Pumicestone hasn't improved after the banning of nets. It so happens that every area has more fish in it after nets are removed - which is hardly surprising and also supported by all of the available evidence.

To compare a push for net free regions to allow for sustainable fisheries for both rec and pro, to the Nazis, is just a tad over the top. :-?

To state that there won't be Australian seafood or bait for Australian consumers is simple scaremongering and incorrect. You haven't researched any of this have you, or even read some of the posts and attachments in this thread?

I would think that healthy wet seasons would be a positive for fish stocks not a negative as Chris69 claims.

Let's talk about greed Chris 69.

Is it greedy to want to protect fish stocks with money out of our own pockets? Is it greedy to want rec and pro fishers to catch more fish? Is it greedy to expect that recs should have fair access to fish stocks? Is it greedy to want net free regions that would attract tourist dollars and then have to share these regions with the tourists? Is it greedy to want marine biodiversity to have a chance?

Then - is it greedy to continue netting a location that you know is running out of fish, so that your licence will be worth as much as possible when gov is forced to buy out your licence after fish stocks have collapsed? Is it greedy to net locations where recs fish, even though you know that your net is going to spook the fish that the recs hope to catch?

But don't get me wrong, I have no gripe with pro fishers. They're generally earning a living the best way they know how and generally within the guidelines set out by FQ. It's just that the guidelines are all buggered up. But when you state that recs are being greedy for wanting net free regions that would slow the inevitable depletion of our marine animal populations, you have assessed things, once again, incorrectly.

[Andy56]

What makes you guys think your immune from fishing licenses?
Your state gov is sacking everyone in sight and pretty soon, when this con is shown up for what it is, they are going to raise revenue from everything!
Be prepared!

[daki23]

YES, as this will teach people the rules and responsibilities.

[d-man]

Big YES from here. I've seen what rec fishing licences can produce in the USA. Ask them how they feel about it after 20 odd years. There won't be many negatives. We just have to suck it up and realise that there has to be some big bucks sunk back into the fishery here, and there ain't nobody else gunna want to do it except those who will benefit.

[malby]

Great point Rainbow runner!!!;D

In NSW the fishing licence has bought out numerous pro licences and brought a host of tributaries back to life and if it meant stopping the fishing nets in SE Qld I would back it to the hilt. Lets get the Politicians to make an 'in writing' iron clad promise and lets do it.

I believe we need to pressure the Politicians in Qld and get behind guys like slider (Lindsay Dines) and work toward seeing Recreational Fishing Zones started across the State and become leaders in change. If we don't act soon there will be no fishing for future generations.

I'm not suggesting we rush in but carefully get the many tens of thousands of Recreational Anglers across our State to sign petitions and bring pressure to bear on our Poly's and at the right time yes,... offer money such as a fishing licence which is only about $75 for 3 years in NSW and has brought about HEAPS of change and buy backs!!

[Johnm]

Dead against any licence. What will it produce for the state remember it extends past Caboolture. There is a lot of talk about the benefits for the southeast which is where any money will be spent with the rest of the atate paying as happens with everything now. Any restrictions will grow and we will end up paying more and getting less. Just look what has happened with the shark areas in Moreton Bay.
How about putting pressure on the politicians to do there job without offering to pay them more.

[PinHead]

the northern end of Pumicstone Passage is worse off these days than the 60's and 70's. Reason..development. Nothing whatsoever to do with netters or fish sounds or anything else. Development and run off. No license will alter those issues.

[finga]

YES, as this will teach people the rules and responsibilities.
How????????

You need a license to drive a car and look at the fools driving who do not know the rules and the fools who know the rules but couldn't give A Jack Poo about them.
The freshwater license makes me know the rules alright. I go to the shop. I hand over some cash. They give me a license. I go and throw my bait in the creek. Yep. Learnt me those darn rules real good I did.
:-?

[goat boy]

You guys advocating a licence because of what you're THINKING (or hoping) it will provide. Go look at what the NSW licence has provided, yes, it has had some benefits in some areas, but a whole host of that money may as well be flushed down the crapper for all it's used for.
It's the equivalent of shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears shouting LALALALALALALALALALA after you quietly say 'licence istheanswerforeverything'
For what everyone thinks a licence would provide (or like it to provide) you'd be better off setting up a trust that is solely for buying out pro licences. Not advocating that at all, just my view on what people are saying they want...
And yeh, there's a whole heap of reasons why fishing ain't what it used to be, pro's aren't the be all and end all contributor there.

[Slider]

Of course there are other factors placing pressure on fish stocks. But how many of these can we actually do something about and why is it that fish universally return to locations where nets are banned and where scientifically analysed, are bigger than before the ban? We can't stop human population growth and urban run off, we don't want to stop recreational fishing, so what alternatives would you propose Goatboy.
Lacking any other means to buy out netting licences and create net free regions, the rfl is the only means it seems to not only hoping things will improve, the evidence tells us that things will only improve. Which is so logical it doesn't require any expertise to assess.

Greg - to expect the fishing to be better now at the northern end of the passage than the 60s and 70s due to the netting ban is probably an unrealistic expectation. If a rfl allows more net licences to be bought out, then this is the only compensatory method available for increased development.

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks Lindsay,

As you know I am against a RFL, for a number of reasons.

BUT, I could support one under certain circumstances.

One being, legislation put in place BEFORE the RFL comes into play. That legislation needs to address the issues such as you have on the North Shore / Tewantin/ DI areas. I am talking about Recreational Fishing Havens.

Although the RFL could possibly support all Qld rec fishing areas and agendas, the majority of funding would need to be spent in the places of most concern, and that is heavily populated areas.... SEQ / CQ and to the lessor extent ( but no less important ) NQ and FNQ. Let's also not forget the Freshwater Guys and what would happen to the SIP program.

Although my sources inside FQ tell me that a RFL is not even on the " to do " list for the future, it could come to this, if the present Govt get their act together and get some science behind the adacdotal evidence and more claculated evidence ( such as your observations etc ).

This Govt has put aside that 120mill for Marine Infrastructure, so it will be interesting come the budget. At that stage we should see where the money will be spent. I am more than hopeful that we'll get upwards of 5mill for Artifical Reefs in the SEQ region.

Think the Budget gets tabled on Tuedsay 11th.

I also think that if a RFL ever comes in the RUF ( Recreational Use Fee ) attached to vessel regos be scraped.

Alll IMO only.......


cheers LP

[goat boy]

Of course there are other factors placing pressure on fish stocks. But how many of these can we actually do something about and why is it that fish universally return to locations where nets are banned and where scientifically analysed, are bigger than before the ban? We can't stop human population growth and urban run off, we don't want to stop recreational fishing, so what alternatives would you propose Goatboy.

I already said it, make it a trust for the sole purpose of buying out licences. Everything else is a waste and a rort. As mentioned several times already, an RFL is not on the cards, so time to move on and look into other avenues. What is wrong with a rec trust that is used solely for buying out licences? Just saying..

[PinHead]

Thanks Lindsay,

As you know I am against a RFL, for a number of reasons.

BUT, I could support one under certain circumstances.

One being, legislation put in place BEFORE the RFL comes into play. That legislation needs to address the issues such as you have on the North Shore / Tewantin/ DI areas. I am talking about Recreational Fishing Havens.

Although the RFL could possibly support all Qld rec fishing areas and agendas, the majority of funding would need to be spent in the places of most concern, and that is heavily populated areas.... SEQ / CQ and to the lessor extent ( but no less important ) NQ and FNQ. Let's also not forget the Freshwater Guys and what would happen to the SIP program.

Although my sources inside FQ tell me that a RFL is not even on the " to do " list for the future, it could come to this, if the present Govt get their act together and get some science behind the adacdotal evidence and more claculated evidence ( such as your observations etc ).

This Govt has put aside that 120mill for Marine Infrastructure, so it will be interesting come the budget. At that stage we should see where the money will be spent. I am more than hopeful that we'll get upwards of 5mill for Artifical Reefs in the SEQ region.

Think the Budget gets tabled on Tuedsay 11th.

I also think that if a RFL ever comes in the RUF ( Recreational Use Fee ) attached to vessel regos be scraped.

Alll IMO only.......


cheers LP

agree totally with that. As I have said, we have decimated certain environments with development. About time we started creating others..maybe not for the species removed by development but a resource for any species is better than nothing.

[NAGG]

At least with a RFL - you are getting funds that can be put back into fishing ....... be it buyouts , habitat reclamation , stocking etc .
Right now what do we have ?.
We will achieve so much more if we as fishoes take control of it via a RF trust .
RFLs work if they are managed & not just a source of revenue .
Creating recreational fishing havens is a no brainer - Tweed , Moreton Bay , Noosa , Sandy Straights , Curtis Island , Hinchinbrook , Daintree all come to mind ( there would be others) - make RFH close to the most populous areas up and down the coast ! ....... the benefits will far out weigh the loss of commercial fishing. If this included the stocking of suitable species then not only would the fishoes be on a winner so too would the local communities .
Eventually over time - once the easier projects have been instigated or completed ..... efforts can be put into more ambitious projects .
we need to be thinking more tomorrow & the future than right now . Unfortunately - None of our political parties have that much foresight ........ no RFL was an easy & popular line to spruik

Chris

[Slider]

I agree also Phil - it would be a tragedy if we were all coughing up with no assurrance that the funds would be used constructively for conservation and recreational fishing benefit. I do question however the requirement that net free regions be near major poulation centres. I feel that the criteria for a net free region be principally for the maintenance of species, then commercial requirements, suitability as a recreational fishing haven and proximity to population centres. The maintenance of species of course, enhances commercial and recreational fishing across the board and as such should be the main criteria.

Major spawning grounds should be identified and protected from netting and if these are in remote locations then tourism to these areas will benefit and there are possibly indigenous communities such as Aurukun (for example) where a rfh can have multiple benefits to society. You just have to look at Weipa as an example of rec fishers willingness to travel for a remote fishing experience and the jobs that are created as a result. Weipa would be a prime location for a rfh and Nagg has mentioned a few others amongst many.

I would think that a process of identifying suitable locations along the entire Qld coast should occur. But we firstly need the rec fishing community to express to gov a desire for a rfl and at this stage we're adopting a 'heads in the sand' approach in this regard. How do we get the ball rolling when Sunfish appear not to have their boots on and the LNP have given themselves a 4 year suspension in fear of upsetting rec fishers? I think we'd find that FQ are all for a rfl.

[PinHead]

some good points there slider re: sourcing the correct areas for protection.

Fishing is a recreational activity..those that have trailer boats already pay and additional fee.

A rfl is simply a user pays system which is something I am dead against.

if a rfl is applied for my recreational activity then I would expect similar fees for other recreational activites:

a fee for all 4WD that drive state forests and beaches
a fee for all cyclists riding on bikeways
a fee for all joggers
a fee for all walkers
a fee for all ...whatever.

Why should one recreational activity have to pay a fee?

The role of government is to provide services for the community and this includes for recreational activities.

NO rfl for me thanks.

[Slider]

I can fully understand Greg why boat owners in particular would be against a rfl, especially when net free regions are more likely to be of benefit to land based fishers. The existing levy attached to trailer registrations should probably be removed on the introduction of a rfl.

Gov aren't going to cough up the coin to buy out commercial net licences to create net free regions, though I agree they should for the purposes of conservation and sustainable fisheries. So if we are to be any chance of net free regions being created and recreational fishing to be a worthwhile pastime for ourselves and future generations, then it seems that we have to take the bull by the horns and come up with the money ourselves. I would prefer not to have to, but the stark realities of the situation have left us little option. I spose you have to look at the bright side - for the sake of $30 a year, we'll catch fish worth more than that, see more dolphins and seabirds, have healthier marine ecosystems, have more and cheaper fresh commercially caught seafood and more viable commercial fishers as a result of net free regions. We should also have better boat ramps, cleaning facilities, fads, artificial reefs, and as a financially contributing stakeholder, a greater say in how our fisheries are managed.

I would gladly drop the rfl agenda if someone could convince gov to create net free regions without it.

[finga]

Why not solve the problems at the source.
Development is a huge problem. Make them pay fees instead of relying on everyone else to fix their problems.

[NAGG]

some good points there slider re: sourcing the correct areas for protection.

Fishing is a recreational activity..those that have trailer boats already pay and additional fee.

A rfl is simply a user pays system which is something I am dead against.

if a rfl is applied for my recreational activity then I would expect similar fees for other recreational activites:

a fee for all 4WD that drive state forests and beaches
a fee for all cyclists riding on bikeways
a fee for all joggers
a fee for all walkers
a fee for all ...whatever.

Why should one recreational activity have to pay a fee?

The role of government is to provide services for the community and this includes for recreational activities.

NO rfl for me thanks.



The role of government is to provide services for the community and this includes for recreational activities.

I would have liked to have thought this was true but in this day and age with the type of governments that we have - it's just a dream.

PH there is one difference between our recreation and the others you have mentioned :scholar:"FISH" !..... it might only be a minor thing but it's probably worth considering.
Our pastime really doesn't exist without them - does it ?... Additionally we (if we wish) get to take something home to feed our family at the end of a day out .
So $30 or whatever to me seems like not a lot of coin to ensure that we still have a recreation that is worth pursuing .
For all the money that we spend on this pastime - tackle , boat's , tow vehicles , fuel , bait - Travel (accommodation) I just cant see why we would not want to put something back that will benefit a vast majority of us - the equiv of 2 blocks of pilchards , 3 pkts of soft plastics or 20lts of fuel is all worth foregoing !

I dont know about you but I want to know that if I just go up the river or tow my boat 2000km (each way) that it's going to be worth while.

Chris

[finga]

I would have liked to have thought this was true but in this day and age with the type of governments that we have - it's just a dream.

PH there is one difference between our recreation and the others you have mentioned :scholar:"FISH" !..... it might only be a minor thing but it's probably worth considering.
Our pastime really doesn't exist without them - does it ?..For me it can. Fishing can quite easily exist without fish :(. Additionally we (if we wish) get to take something home to feed our family at the end of a day out .
So $30 or whatever to me seems like not a lot of coin to ensure that we still have a recreation that is worth pursuing .
For all the money that we spend on this pastime - tackle , boat's , tow vehicles , fuel , bait - Travel (accommodation) I just cant see why we would not want to put something back that will benefit a vast majority of us - the equiv of 2 blocks of pilchards , 3 pkts of soft plastics or 20lts of fuel is all worth foregoing !

I dont know about you but I want to know that if I just go up the river or tow my boat 2000km (each way) that it's going to be worth while.
Chris
And what about the many who fish 2 or 3 times a year with tackle worth $23.50 and the biggest expense for the day is a $6.50 packet of frozen prawns from the servo?
Those people would be in huge numbers as compared to the numbers as dedicated as you Chris.

[NAGG]

And what about the many who fish 2 or 3 times a year with tackle worth $23.50 and the biggest expense for the day is a $6.50 packet of frozen prawns from the servo?
Those people would be in huge numbers as compared to the numbers as dedicated as you Chris.

My sister in law fishes with a bit of line wrapped around a coke bottle ....... so what ?
she still fishes and has her NSW RFL ....... she can take her grand kids fishing whenever she likes and it doesn't cost her any more . A one weekend a year fishoe would only pay a few dollars anyway. It's not a big impost

Chris
Regardless - everyone that dangles a line would benefit one way or another because of a RFL ..... be it 1 day a year or 365.

[finga]

Looks like the NSW fees are used to 'subsidise' Government responsibilities a fair bit.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees/rules
$2,340,108 spent for inspectors
Money spent on fishing facilities. Looks like DPI are winners again
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees/access-facilities
Lots of good reading here
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees
How much was spent on education or restocking or building arti's etc??

It looks as though NSW are getting rid of the 3 day license. That's handy for the once every blue moon fisherpeople

[NAGG]

Looks like the NSW fees are used to 'subsidise' Government responsibilities a fair bit.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees/rules
$2,340,108 spent for inspectors
Money spent on fishing facilities. Looks like DPI are winners again
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees/access-facilities
Lots of good reading here
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees
How much was spent on education or restocking or building arti's etc??

It looks as though NSW are getting rid of the 3 day license. That's handy for the once every blue moon fisherpeople

I dont really want to try to defend the NSW model - We want our own .

I personally dont like how some of the money has been spent - However all expenditure still went through the committee for approval ...... so it just hasn't been siphoned off.
Regardless ..... there has still been massive benefits for NSW fishoes over the last 11 or so years - & we can learn and build on it !

Chris

[finga]

we can learn and build on it !

Chris
And here lies the problem. Learning from other's problems and building towards something really worthwhile.
And if Sunfish has anything to do with it.....well????

[NAGG]

And here lies the problem. Learning from other's problems and building towards something really worthwhile.
And if Sunfish has anything to do with it.....well????

It is when you start with nothing ........
The SIP scheme is a great example of going from very little to having a serious improvement - Some people have the vision to do something worthwhile and it worked .

It would be difficult for someone to convince me that doing nothing will have a greater outcome than doing something . I know very well that the inshore , estuary & freshwater fishing has improved in NSW

Chris

[conco46]

NO, fishing should always be free, we pay enough on gear fuel bait ice that all = tax
i have a nsw license cause sometimes i fish tweed, and iv never seen any upgrades!
all iv noticed is more dpi patrol waters,

[mangomick]

Definately against. We pay an extra 10% on our safety jackets, flares, bait, tackle and rods, boats, trailers, fuel,sounders and the list can go on. Surely a small portion of that can go towards whatever they plan on using the money from a fishing licence for.It's time governments started to look at how they are spending the public purse instead of stealing by stealth all the time.

[SunnyCoastMark]

I am against a RFL - absolutely. For a couple of reasons:-

1) Greenies don't have to have a license to spout the nonsensical diatribe that they do and engage in their favorite pastime - making life miserable for all and sundry - so why should we?

2) We pay car rego every year and that goes towards up keep for our roads and infastructure. - What do they do with our boat rego fees? - Keep boat ramps poorly maintained; steal boat ramp car parks; Hit us with more rules and regulations - give a token amount to the Coast Guard. Until the government can allocate funds proportionately where they are actually needed - they won't get another cent out of this little black duck.

3) No matter how reasonable the initial yearly fee is - it will go up and it will continue to go up. It will be a self perpetuating beast that has to continue to pay for itself.


Mark

[wetnwild11]

An emphatic NO

[finga]

What's the point now seeing there are no fishing related services the fee will go towards.

[PinHead]

"In the past week Sunfish has been advised by Fisheries Queensland that the $4.6m of the monies levied on boat owners for special purpose recreational initiatives would be cut by $2m and reallocated to employ fisheries staff and fund government business.:

The above is from Phill's thread.

Now does anyone still think an rfl is a good idea and the Govt will leave the funds alone? If so, I think you need to spend some time at the bottom of the garden with the pixies to clear your head.

[NAGG]

"In the past week Sunfish has been advised by Fisheries Queensland that the $4.6m of the monies levied on boat owners for special purpose recreational initiatives would be cut by $2m and reallocated to employ fisheries staff and fund government business.:

The above is from Phill's thread.

Now does anyone still think an rfl is a good idea and the Govt will leave the funds alone? If so, I think you need to spend some time at the bottom of the garden with the pixies to clear your head.

It will never be transparent if it is part of another fee - It needs to be an isolated payment and managed via a trust ......... otherwise it will not work imo

[Johnm]

It will be just another fee going into consolidated revenue or all spent in the south east. We don't need it.

[wayno60]

NO............

[mustang5]

A big fat HELL NO. Pollies, Tree Huggers & Dugong Kissers get enough of my hard earned.. And do SFA with it that helps ME...

What I would pay for however, is a membership fee to a well organised & run petition group against these clowns, scrutinizing & emphasizing their uselessness. Where do I sign up?

[NAGG]

I've been a big advocate for an RFL ....... but what this LNP government has just done to the $18 RUF taken from our boat registration - not a chance in hell they could be trusted to manage it.

Chris

[cormorant]

I've been a big advocate for an RFL ....... but what this LNP government has just done to the $18 RUF taken from our boat registration - not a chance in hell they could be trusted to manage it.

Chris

The levy is the best possible thing as you can hold it asa noose around Gov't neck and get them to prove where it goes and lobby. The fishing groups have no idea how to lobby well. Pro's with less members, less funding have a greater voice.

Come on ya can't bring in politics as well. The RFL you support is run by a independent trust structure and there is no political influence is what it's supporters try and tell me. So the people on that board yadda yadda yadda are able to make loads of great decisions like funding govt paid positions, govt projects the Govt should have funded in the first place. Spend heaps on projects that are great for the ribbon cutters to get their heads in teh media - yep the politicians. The trust is just so independent and accessable to all.

Would you rather a govt in the future that could ( if lobbied properly) actually change things and offer long term funded solutions or the basket case you had sending the state broke .

Said it earlier that the fishing lobby is not focussed and has no respect of a vast majority of day to day fisherpeople who just want the opportunity to have a occasional fish. The Fishing retail industry etc etc are lazy. Any other group with as main participants and retail value of goods has so much more power in influencing funding / projects but the 1000 odd small fishing lobby groups all trying to have a voice and protect their NIMBY projects who won't work together.


Here is a good read

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php?187436-Fisheries-Queensland-feeling-the-force-!/page2

[aus2045]

I'm all for it 100%. Just as long as there is a guarantee that the money is used to buy out Pro licenses, improve facilities such as boat ramps, fund more fisheries checks and law enforcement, but mostly develop an effective estuary fish and crab restocking programs for the hardest hit systems such as the Fitzroy Delta, Baffle Ck, Burnett R, Mary R & Tin Can. Etc.

[timddo]

Do politicians actually keep their promises?

Lol

[Lucky_Phill]

I'm all for it 100%. Just as long as there is a guarantee that the money is used to buy out Pro licenses, improve facilities such as boat ramps, fund more fisheries checks and law enforcement, but mostly develop an effective estuary fish and crab restocking programs for the hardest hit systems such as the Fitzroy Delta, Baffle Ck, Burnett R, Mary R & Tin Can. Etc.

NO GUARANTEES, that is the problem.

There was a Recreational Fishing Haven set up in NSW with funds from their licence. Not long ago, some pollie, with the stroke of a pen, changed that.

Further, I still do not undertsand people saying that a licence is OK to buy back Pro Licences ???? NO NO NO.................. The pro's paid money to the State Govt for that licence, therefore the Government has the money to either A, buy them back .. or B...... TAKE them back ( un-used ones ) .. or..C... legislate a sunset clause and tell the " identified " licence holders, you have 5 years to get out, sell out or suffer the consequences.

We have a RUF ( Recreational Use Fee ) that takes a tad less than $20 out of every registration fee for recreational boats in Qld. THAT money is supposed to go things like, improvements in boat ramps etc etc.......... Why double up the tax ? No need to create another tax !!!

The only way another tax , Tarrif, Fee, Permit, Licence can be introduced is via Legislation and that legislation ensures the whole amount be used for the intended purposes, hence that tax etc has to be " set in stone " .......... included in the constitution.

Rec fishos are the easiest target for Governments as we have no representation, yet we contribute over $1 Billion to the Qld economy every year.,

We deserve better, but we get SFA.

Until such time we get a passionate rec fishing State Premier, our cause will suffer the indignity of being treated like a second class citizen. All the lobbying will not help. All the stats will not help. All the effort by anyone less powerful than the State Leader, will not help.

All Governments take notice and appease the minority groups........ happens every day, but majority groups like Rec Fishos have concerns that fall on deaf ears.

If you really want action........... make it abundantly clear what you want.

There are many ways to do this..



LP

[FTW]

I support RFL if funds are invested back into RF not gonna happen.
Commercial licence fees should also be invested back into improving, managing and restocking of the fish they are taking. Isn't that common sense.

[Ellemcbeast]

Does NSW have A Fishing Licence?

No it doesn't

When the fishing licence was originally brought in to NSW, it was interpreted to be a contract between recreational fishers and the NSW Government.
As such, the rights and obligations under the licence(read contract) could not be unilaterally changed without agreement of both parties.
The NSW Government, however, wanted to be free to change the terms and conditions of licences at their sole discetion.
That is why in NSW, you are now issued with a fishing fee receipt, not a licence.
Read it, its true.
As for a licence or fee receipt in Queensland, No! No! No! No! No! No!

[aus2045]

On a lighter note, if there were a fishing licence in Qld, and I went and fishing and caught nothing as I so often do these days, maybe I could sue the State Govt for providing an inadequate fishery ?

[rayken1938]

Here is an extract from Marine Business.

Victorian recreational fishing nets a $1.6 million boost

21 May 2013

THE Victorian Coalition Government has approved more than $1.6 million in new funding for a range of projects that will improve recreational fishing opportunities across the state.

Agriculture and Food Security Minister Peter Walsh said money from the sale of Recreational Fishing Licences had been allocated to 12 new projects across Victoria that would improve fish habitat, build stronger fisheries and improve facilities for fishers of all abilities.

This year's round of large grants allocated under the Department of Environment and Primary Industries' Recreational Fishing Grants Program include:

$300,000 over three years to the East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority to improve fish habitat and build fish populations in East Gippsland waterways;

$263,206 over three years to Fisheries Victoria to better understand the recreational catch of snapper in Victorian waters;

$150,000 over three years to improve Murray cod fishing in Victoria;

$115,667 to Lake Purrumbete Angling Club Inc. to assess the performance of recently stocked chinook salmon into Lake Purrumbete and Lake Bullen Merri;

$114,000 over three years for the Victorian Fishers for Fish Habitat Program;

$113,500 over three years to Fishcare Victoria Inc. to conduct 300 FishRight workshops around Victoria;

$58,510 over two years to Monash University to improve the Macquarie perch fishery;

$38,800 to VRFish to conduct a recreational angler awareness campaign to reduce released snapper mortality;

$45,000 to improve fish migration through the Broken River Weir;

$40,000 to build an all-abilities fishing platform on the northern breakwater at St. Helens Boat Harbour at Geelong;

$39,426 to the Association of Geelong and District Angling Clubs Inc. to build an all-abilities fishing platform at Aire River, Glenaire; and

$22,000 to develop a recreational fishing strategy for the Docklands precinct.

Mr Walsh said a further $224,000 of Recreational Fishing Licence Trust Account funds had been allocated for a range of recreational fisheries education and communications materials.

These include funds to produce and circulate 300,000 copies of the 2013-14 Victorian Recreational Fishing Guide, 200,000 fish length ruler stickers and 500 metal fish length rulers, 20,000 abalone, rock lobster and spiny crayfish rulers in three languages, 1,000 abalone dive tags and 30,000 Know your (fish) limits pocket cards in four languages.


Very interesting reading.
They state that monies come from the sale of rec fishing licenses which only cost $24.50 per annum.
( Obviously they do nor cream off 20% like what happens in QLD)
They recognize the multicultural diversity of the general population by printing their brochures in 4 languages which the no understand excuse.
With all the monies going into a trust there is no possibility of ministers with sticky fingers raiding the fund to make up shortfalls in other areas,


Have a look at the Victorian website,
http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/fisheries/recreational-fishing
Nice and easy to use.
Cheers
Ray

[Mike Delisser]

Hey Ray, I don't know if 100% of the monies raised from the licences goes back into improving their fisheries, or how many licences are sold, but I thought $1.6mil seemed a little low for a state as populous as Vic. Especially as some of that $1.6mil is allocated to be spent over 3 years. I've found that usually when a politician or a Government is saying they are doing something good for anglers, a closer look will find the devil is in the detail.
In the past, other Vic Governments have allocated more, much more from the licence fees to their Fisheries Grants Program.
2009/10 $2.0mil
2010/11 $2.5mil
2011/12 $1.2mil
2012/13 $1.3mil
2013/14 $1.6mil
Also if you adjust the monies allocated over 3 years in the 2013/14 grants program it's actually only $0.7mil spend for the next year. I could certainly be wrong but this info is from the figures on their Fisheries website.