PDA

View Full Version : Qld Recreational Fishing Licence ?



Lucky_Phill
24-05-2017, 07:50 AM
I would like some discussion on this subject. Constructive or critical ? up to you, but have a think about this.

I am not saying a licence will be introduced here in Queensland and I will state that " I AM NOT IN FAVOUR " for various reasons, but !

If a licence was on the agenda and would be introduced, under what circumstances would be acceptable ?

To simply hand over a licence in exchange for money is a nonsense and should not be encouraged. Doing this generates apathy towards the fishery and disdain towards the licence issuer ( State Government ). To receive a licence should be considered a privilege and to accept one is to accept responsibility not only for your actions upon the fishery, but for the sustainability of the fishery, habitat and environment that harbors your attraction.


A licence is a responsibility more like a stewardship, whereby you utilise the fishery and care for it at the same time. Care encompasses the species of fish and other animals in that habitat, the responsible travel within that environment and the awareness of the impact we have.


There are 2 x 2 types of fishing, generally speaking. Land-based or vessel and fresh or saltwater.


Land-based fishing can be from various platforms including, beach, river bank, jetty or rocky headland and vessels including boats, kayaks or jet skis. Fresh water lakes, dams, rivers and to river deltas, bays and oceans for the salt.



Fishing not only touches the participants, but a plethora of indirect and or innocent bystanders, so to speak. Indirectly we have bait and tackle shops, fuel stations, accommodation, food shops and media platforms all benefiting from this activity. The innocent is the fishery, habitat, environment and any place in between.


The issuing of a Recreational Fishing Licence must be subject to conditions to make sure the holder of the licence is aware of their responsibilities as a Recreational Angler.



Conditions.:-:-


A test to identify a certain number of fresh water and salt water species, including crustaceans, molluscs and invertebrates .



A test to identify a certain number of bag limits of species.



A test to identify a certain number of size limits of species.



A test to ascertain the understanding of Green Zones, No take species and seasonal or physical closures.



A test to ascertain the understanding of fishing equipment regulations.



A test to ascertain the duty of care to the fishery, habitat and environment.



A test to ascertain the understanding of handling fish species in regard to catch and release.



A multiple choice type questionnaire is advisable with a correct percentage required to achieve a pass and hence, a licence being issued.


Further conditions which could be voluntary, would be to provide the issuer with contact details for future reference in regard to data collection to assist research.


The funds attained from the licence must at all times, be held in trust and used solely for the purpose of funding the licence itself, funding the enhancement of the recreational fishing activity by licence holders and research activities in respect of a sustainable fishery. A licence should only be issued to those who are also eligible to hold a drivers licence or recreational marine licence and those under that age, should not be made to obtain such licence. A licence fee must represent good value in the eyes of the recreational fishing public, must be made available online and must be accessed via an app or virtual form. Licence renewals must be sent via email address provided at the time of application and a systematic awareness program undertaken to keep this obligation visible.


A completely transparent accounting system must be accessible via the web-based site that not only provides monetary details but spending and physical assets or accomplishments . This must be available in a summary page updated annually. Persons responsible for the trust and disbursements must also be made known to the licence holders at all times. The trust members are to be determined by eligible licence holders on an annual basis through online voting system, with all nominees being named and their associations, affiliations or interests identified.


Fisheries Queensland must be appointed managers of the trust in association with private members to sustain continuity of management and structure. No trust monies are to be used to fund the Fisheries Queensland managers and only trust related expenses paid to private members.


All decisions in regard to disbursements or funding must be passed by a majority vote of all Trust members. Ideally, there would be 4 FQ members and 4 Private members. Ideally these members need only meet face to face once a year, due to the current technology available in todays communication environment. Certainly the members numbers should be spread enough to represent the entire state and not SEQ bias. In my opinion. 1 x NQ, 1 x CQ, 1 x SEQ and 1 x Fresh for private members. This number is the minimum required and certainly more can be added to achieve a large knowledge base to assist the fishery and licence holders.

I would really appreciate any responses, ideas or suggestions... :)

I know I have not covered all aspects, so here is your chance to have a say on those and anything else that comes to mind...8-)

Cheers LP

Sheik
24-05-2017, 08:54 AM
Not in favour. Under any circumstances. Current situation wrt dam licences works.

Dirtyfuzz
24-05-2017, 10:43 AM
Sounds good in theory but I just can't see how it Wouldn't end being just another fee for the bureaucrats to exploit and put their hand in the cookie jar


Sent from my iPhone using Ausfish forums

chris69
24-05-2017, 10:44 AM
No dont want a licence for salt the fresh water one is great for the stocking,and to do a test for a licence well its a sport its a food gathering thing that we do to eat and i dont think you need a licence to catch something to feed your self or the family.

Camhawk88
24-05-2017, 01:32 PM
The government don't own the resource and have no right to tax it as their own.
A rec licence is just another tax on freedom as far as I'm concerned.
The SIP is a different story as the fees pay for the stocking.

rayken1938
24-05-2017, 01:33 PM
In my opinion the new SIP for the fresh is a disappointment for all members of the previous scheme .
To be part of the new scheme all groups have to sign a nondisclosure statement preventing them from disclosing their new funding arrangements.
this reeks of collusion so much for open government policy)
The government will now cream off 30% of monies raised for admin.
No complaint about the funding that new SIP groups will receive they were devastated by the newman government..
I also have concerns about the manner that stocking groups will be allowed to utilize funds. I would now appear that the stocking groups may be forced to pay for signage etc at dams.
With the composition of the proposed board giving fisheries a 30% membership certainly gives them an unfair advantage and in my opinion will result in any changes to current funding practices will possibly only advantage the fisheries budget rather than be to the benefit of the fishery.
I have not been privileged to study the proposed sip document in full but what little I have seen there will be more losers that winners and much more pressure is going to be exerted on stocking groups to expand their resources into fundraising activities instead of actual stocking.
Cheers
Ray

Lucky_Phill
24-05-2017, 02:39 PM
Thanks for the input so far.

In response to Camhawk88, and don't get me wrong, I am still not in favour, but.... if a large chunk of the funds for a saltwater licence went into building and deploying artificial reefs, would this sway your thoughts ?

I do understand the SIP and re-stocking of freshwater, but I have discussed " wild stocking " saltwaters with FQ and they say it is not viable... I disagree, but to assist the fishing pressures, would not deploying a multitude of arti's be of great benefit to the fishery, almost like " re-stocking ".. almost :)

Yes, certainly chris69, I understand what you say about a feed, but let's remember not all rec fishos keep their catch. It would be nice for all rec fishos to understand their " duty of care " to the fishery, ie:- handling live fish, C & R techniques, responsible anchoring, bag and size limits to avoid confusion and possible legal implications and so much more.

Yes, Ray, I agree on the " FQ management fee " and there should be none, IMO.

Dirtyfuzz , you are correct and that is one of my fears. Any licence fees are to be banked into a trust and that trust used ONLY for the purposes of recreational fishery management and advancement. There has to be clear cut and transparent accountability at all times.

Keep the comments comping guys (y)

Camhawk88
24-05-2017, 04:16 PM
Thanks for the input so far.

In response to Camhawk88, and don't get me wrong, I am still not in favour, but.... if a large chunk of the funds for a saltwater licence went into building and deploying artificial reefs, would this sway your thoughts ?



Not at all Phil. 2 reasons (Im going into SatNAv mode here)
1) The government has proven time and time again they are incompetent and wasteful dealing with OUR money. IF (big if) any money was to go into arties it would be a very small % of the total collect. Administration, jobs for the boys and long lunches would gobble most of it up.
2) Arits would only be rolled out in a few spots in Morton bay etc.so only a portion of the fee paying population see any benefit.

rayken1938
24-05-2017, 04:56 PM
"I do understand the SIP and re-stocking of freshwater, but I have discussed " wild stocking " saltwaters with FQ and they say it is not viable..." or read that it will not buy any new votes.
NSW fisheries have successfully bred and stocked whiting and jew into the wild and the Fisheries research station at Bribie have done a lot of work on other species. The technology is available all it needs is the drive which is sadly lacking.
Let us face it we fishos are an apathetic lot and do not get wound up on an issue and by then it is too late and has already bitten us on the bum.Have a look at the Frazer coasts efforts and how little results they have achieved.Cheers
Ray

rayken1938
24-05-2017, 05:08 PM
Whilst in principle i could support a licensing scheme in QLD i would hate to see some of the expensive and restrictive practices that exist in other states introduced into Qld.
Cheers
Ray

Lucky_Phill
24-05-2017, 05:16 PM
Not at all Phil. 2 reasons (Im going into SatNAv mode here)
1) The government has proven time and time again they are incompetent and wasteful dealing with OUR money. IF (big if) any money was to go into arties it would be a very small % of the total collect. Administration, jobs for the boys and long lunches would gobble most of it up.
2) Arits would only be rolled out in a few spots in Morton bay etc.so only a portion of the fee paying population see any benefit.

I sat on the Arti Reef working group that oversaw some arti's get deployed in SEQ. Myself and ALL other members ( non Government ) did this for free, ah yes, we did get a cuppa tea and piece of cake.

We recently deployed a couple of artificial reefs in Hervey Bay and outside Moreton Bay. There is other work being done to get some deployed off Weipa.

The thing is with Arti's, we need local people to make the applications and there is currently funding available for these. A good offshore arti is small change, compared to the return they provide.

The idea behind an Arti is to locate them where the most fishing pressure is and that is adjacent to high population areas.

Have a look at what is happening in WA in this link... http://recfishwest.org.au/

It's not a matter of funding for these, I think it is the will power or lack of it from the pointy end of town.

cheers

JulianDeMarchi
24-05-2017, 05:32 PM
Where does all the $ go from our expensive boat regos?

nsw has this http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/maritime/registration/fees.html

I don't support any salt water fishing license if the qld government is in control.

If boat regos went down and a transparent fund was setup, it might be a different story.

JulianDeMarchi
24-05-2017, 05:33 PM
I sat on the Arti Reef working group that oversaw some arti's get deployed in SEQ. Myself and ALL other members ( non Government ) did this for free, ah yes, we did get a cuppa tea and piece of cake.

We recently deployed a couple of artificial reefs in Hervey Bay and outside Moreton Bay. There is other work being done to get some deployed off Weipa.

The thing is with Arti's, we need local people to make the applications and there is currently funding available for these. A good offshore arti is small change, compared to the return they provide.

The idea behind an Arti is to locate them where the most fishing pressure is and that is adjacent to high population areas.

Have a look at what is happening in WA in this link... http://recfishwest.org.au/

It's not a matter of funding for these, I think it is the will power or lack of it from the pointy end of town.

cheers

I applaud the work you do Phil. Politics has a tendency to destroy any fun of a hobby. I did this in the IT scene and it's now no fun.

Bremic
24-05-2017, 06:34 PM
I would support a licence if it was used to buy out or purchase commercial fishing quota, reducing commercial fishing effort. Not suggesting rec bag limits should be increased, but should result in a greater biomass available for recs.

But in reality, I would expect the funds to be wasted by the bureaucracy.

Re the tests, the same people that abuse bag limits and sizes would not bother obtaining a licence.

preso
24-05-2017, 06:50 PM
Ever fished a snag filled river in nsw. Been to the boat ramps. I'm in favour, as long as the money goes to the right places.

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

tunaticer
24-05-2017, 10:34 PM
Bring it on.
Use all of the money raised to fund a heap of inspectors, then use all the moneys from convictions and penalties to upgrade facilities.
In Victoria you can expect to be inspected every four hours or so from my experience........the way it should be here.

kc
24-05-2017, 10:50 PM
Have to say I am fundamentally opposed but for reasons not yet articulated. It just becomes an impediment; another imposition. A reason not to bother. ......Dad, can you take me fishing (instead of me sitting on my arse playing video games)?....No son, I can't be f##ked. It's too hard, I don't have a license. It used the be, when I was a boy, that going fishing was one of life's simple easy pleasures and a chance to be free. Bit by bit, things I used to do are now against the law, and are we (or the fishery) really better off as a result? They (being the government and its mean, green masters) just want to make it all too hard. They really want to impose rules, regulations and roadblocks. They want to take one of life's simple pleasures and make it so difficult that we give up. It is the agenda. I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory but I have sat in the same rooms and listened. I am opposed to a fishing license, not because it will impact me. I am a fisho, and if I had to buy a license to do what I do, it would be no different to buying a block of pilles or a tank of fuel, but, it is not about me. It is about the future. It is about keeping fishing a part of our culture. Keeping fishing as something we still do as part of what it is to be an Aussy. So; quiet frankly F%%^ 'em. No RFL. We have to resist this. For all the good arguments which can be mounted about the good that will come from funding, nothing will overcome the damage done by making fishos require a license to undertake the simple right to participate in the hunter/gatherer lifestyle which is part of our culture. Don't fall for this. We don't require a license to play cricket or footy and we already pay more than our fair share in fees. charges and taxes.

Camhawk88
25-05-2017, 11:02 AM
I sat on the Arti Reef working group that oversaw some arti's get deployed in SEQ. Myself and ALL other members ( non Government ) did this for free, ah yes, we did get a cuppa tea and piece of cake.

We recently deployed a couple of artificial reefs in Hervey Bay and outside Moreton Bay. There is other work being done to get some deployed off Weipa.

The thing is with Arti's, we need local people to make the applications and there is currently funding available for these. A good offshore arti is small change, compared to the return they provide.

The idea behind an Arti is to locate them where the most fishing pressure is and that is adjacent to high population areas.

Have a look at what is happening in WA in this link... http://recfishwest.org.au/

It's not a matter of funding for these, I think it is the will power or lack of it from the pointy end of town.

cheers

I think your last sentence sums it up Phil. The argument (and I realise you aren't pushing the argument but playing devils advocate) for a RFL to fund artis is null and void because money isn't the issue. we dont need a RFL to get aris we need some motivated parties.

BigE
25-05-2017, 06:47 PM
Nice drugs Phil ........ where did you get them?

wouldn't support it even if I was getting a cut.

BigE

TheGurn
25-05-2017, 07:49 PM
I'm with kc. An rfl would be pandoras box. Fine at first, then the additions would start. Regional specific, one for nth qld. Another for central, and so on. Then species specific, the dodgy numbers and research brigade will justify it all in the name of sustainability. I simply don't trust any of them to do anything in our favour without them getting a big spoonful first.

kc
25-05-2017, 09:08 PM
Gurn, it is a death by a thousand cuts. First the license, then the log book, then the course you have to do to get the license in the first place. Think that is far fetched? Have a look at Germany. An RFL is the start of a slippery slope which says, I accept the governments right to impose itself on my lifestyle. Once they get a leg in, when does it stop? What regulations is ever wound back once imposed? I know there is an argument for quantifying our numbers and a specific funding pool but to me, NO WAY. We pay GST on our gear, our boats and our bait. We pay road tax for the fuel in a boat which will never use a road, we pay rego and PPV levy and a SIP. How much is enough. An RFL has nothing to do with making fishing better and everything to do with making fishing less popular, less convenient and something kids are less likely to do. Look into the motivations of groups lobbying for an RFL and in most cases they end up a potential beneficiary. As to individuals lobbying to an RFL, they are, in my opinion, niave and misguided. What "scheme" cooked up by a Government department, ever end up fulfilling its goals? To paraphrase the late great Kerry Packer, "Anyone who doesn't pay as little tax as legally possible, should have his head read, because let me tell you, you bastards don't do a very good job of spending it." The simple and indisputable fact is that an RFL will just stop people fishing, particularly the occasional fisher, and far more importantly it will stop kids starting.

Triple
25-05-2017, 10:14 PM
And to add to that above it also won't stop the people who are abusing current size and possesion limits because they do not care about any laws.

TheGurn
25-05-2017, 10:20 PM
Well put kc. Totally agree. Overseas examples of fishing permits and licences are mind boggingly restrictive and expensive. We really don't want that for our kids. Don't let 'em get their foot in this door or they'll eventually go down the same road.

Noelm
26-05-2017, 06:26 AM
I don't quite get the comments about how a fresh water license is OK because it helps with restocking, but a salt water license is out of the question, why can't a salt water license be the same (or similar)? We (NSW) have had salt water licenses for a long time now, and I reckon most of the money goes to administration, Gov departments and Christ knows where else, but at least some of it goes back to fishing facilities and so on, what percentage? don't know, probably bugger all, but, at least a bit does. I think a rec license to fund some sort of inspectors would be a good thing, the license fee in the big scheme of things is pretty small really, and there is lots of ways to take a kid fishing without a license, pensioners are exempt, 3 day licenses are available for low use types. All that said, I am not fully convinced that the actual license idea is great, can't say that it imposes on my freedom to fish or my personal life any more than my drivers licence! maybe something like your boat licence could include a small fishing "levy"?

Scott Mitchell
26-05-2017, 07:03 AM
Time I will never recover and some back ground on this topic - http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php/154653-What-are-your-thoughts-on-the-idea-of-a-General-Recreational-Fishing-licence?highlight=fishing+license+scotto

The main issue is the well founded "distrust of government" - you only have to look at what happened with the PPV levy ( Now RUF - where did that go again ?.... )

The reality is the government is NOT going to allocate enough funding to do ALL the great stuff we know should be done to protect & enhance recreation fishing across our state ....

EVERY major recreational fishing group in Queensland NOW has a position that they would be prepared to support with ALL of them being along these lines :- http://www.qrfn.org/-rec-fishing-licence.html

The key is "trust accounts" and it will need to be "sold" with the benefits that WILL come with having one in Qld .....

Regards Scotto

kc
26-05-2017, 09:14 AM
Noel, I take your point about SIP being "OK" but if you don't have a SIP then you can still "easily" go for a fish in salt water. Stocked impoundments are created specifically for rec fishing with a direct "pay for play" ethos. It is a fishery which was not a birthright for all Australians, like, I believe our natural fisheries are. This is all about "show me the money", just another tax. It will fund a few more government employees and pen pushers, it will fund a few recreational fishing "peak bodies" with grants and conferences to attend, heck, it might even fund a few more fisheries officers, or not. Will it improve the experience? I live within 1/2 hour of Prossy Dam but never fish it. I can't be bothered, on a spur of the moment, to have to go buy a 7 day SIP when I think about heading out to the dam, so fish the saltwater almost exclusively. Maybe I'm a little bit lucky to live in an area which gets relatively little pressure so can shoot out for a day and hardy see another boat and don't see the fishery being abused due to lack of enforcement, but, a tax, and RFL will just be, as has been demonstrated everywhere it has been brought in, the precursor to a decline in the numbers of people going fishing. The push for an RFL has the absolute support of the green lobby; that alone should ring alarm bells.

Noelm
26-05-2017, 09:59 AM
Yep, I can see exactly what you're saying, but, I don't think the door should be just shut and locked, I have been involved in enough Gov initiatives to know that for every good thing that MIGHT come from it, there will be a dozen steering committees, working parties and God knows what else that eats dollars like lollies at a kids party, dwindling available funds to near nothing, but it can work, as I said, the actual money involved for a license is nothing compared to what we spend to go fishing, and if it helps even a bit, it just might be worth it!

Hambone
26-05-2017, 11:38 AM
"To be part of the new scheme all groups have to sign a nondisclosure statement preventing them from disclosing their new funding arrangements.
this reeks of collusion so much for open government policy)
The government will now cream off 30% of monies raised for admin."

Do you just make this up Ray, because it is absolute rubbish.....

JulianDeMarchi
26-05-2017, 12:07 PM
"To be part of the new scheme all groups have to sign a nondisclosure statement preventing them from disclosing their new funding arrangements.
this reeks of collusion so much for open government policy)
The government will now cream off 30% of monies raised for admin."

Do you just make this up Ray, because it is absolute rubbish.....

Do clear the air then sir?

Sheik
26-05-2017, 12:19 PM
No number of proposed advantages to the fishery or to the facilities I may or may not use compensates me for the intrusion of being regulated in the future when I am unregulated now.

Noelm
26-05-2017, 01:19 PM
You are regulated now, bag limits, size limits, fishing methods, green zones, boat rego and on and on, plenty of regulations there I reckon.

kc
26-05-2017, 03:14 PM
Yep....drip, drip, drip, drip. Bit by bit they make is harder. less enjoyable, more regulated and comes a time when fishing becomes the socially unacceptable pastime of grumpy old men (like me). The history of RFL's is that occasional fishers stop and less people take it up in the first place. Like I have said, it won't effect me but it will effect the industry and the outdoors lifestyle/ culture of our country. Any tackle company signing up to this is signing their own long slow suicide note. If you make things harder to do, people then just do something else. The consequences and cost of RAP in the GBR was a prime example. People gave up fishing and many businesses fell over as a result. This is not anecdotal, this is demonstrable fact.

Lovey80
27-05-2017, 07:39 PM
I am for a RFL if and only if 100% of the monies went towards stocking, habitat regeneration and administration of recreational catch cards so that recreational catch data could somehow become close to credible with regards to fisheries management because at the moment FQ rec catch data is a joke.

That said. When it comes to Arty reefs there is a better way. We currently have 2 full time Army Combat Engineer Regiments in QLD alone. Add to that an Engineer Constuction Regiment in Brisbane, another in Sydney and another Combat Engineer Regiment in Darwin. These Regiments have Army Working Divers (Commecial Divers) integral to them and a significant Watermanship capability (think barges capable of carrying Leopard tanks on them).

At any one time when I was in there was a construction regiment building Aboriginal homes in NQ/WA/NT. There's no reason that one of these Regiments couldn't be constantly deployed when in peace time to building artificial reefs. Identify the reefs and the requirements, give them some land to stage from where they can build the reef items and deploy them. Get local populations in each area to dump appropriate building materials at the sites (concrete pipe, heavy steel, concrete mixer barrels, etc) and let them go.

They have environmental officers already imbedded to them and can take advice/additional training from marine environmental officers on deployment of things like cars/boats in making them safe for deployments. Each reef could be detailed surveyed once finished and handed over to the public. Name each reef after a significant battle or VC winner. Start in Brisbane, once complete move to the Gold Coast, then the Sunshine Coast, then move north working on centres based on population size.

Once up and running with the bureaucracy sorted out you would be astounded at how fast each reef was deployed and put into service. The soldiers would love doing it. They get to keep/gain/maintain skills that are integral to their job functions while in peace time and above all improve the communities they already serve.

rayken1938
27-05-2017, 08:18 PM
Thanks Lovey 80 for some constructive advice and a little thinking outside the box people have to realize that things in his world are changing and we have to react in a constructive manner it is so easy to criticize and refuse to change and before we are aware there will be no recreational fishery left to fight about.
With the sips in qld certainly there are holes in both the new and old schemes but overall it has been a success both for recreational fishers and rural communities.
If all rec fishos have the will and commitment to move forward and drive a RFL I am of the belief that a scheme similar to a combined sips and NSW style RFL would be a resounding success story.
The current fisheries minister in QLD at least appears to give a sympathetic ear to the rec fishos so in my opinion now is the time to move forward and not to dig our heads in the sand and refuse to change.
This should not become a political item and all partys including the so called dreaded greens should be involved in the move for a RFL.
So lets hear more of what we would like to see in a RFL and how it should be introduced and administered.
Cheers
Ray

Sheik
27-05-2017, 09:23 PM
Refusing to change is not always a negative. Being panicked into change is nearly always a negative. The fishery with current regulations is quite healthy. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Sheik
27-05-2017, 09:24 PM
You are regulated now, bag limits, size limits, fishing methods, green zones, boat rego and on and on, plenty of regulations there I reckon.
True Noel, true.

NAGG
28-05-2017, 08:36 AM
I'm totally in support of recreational fishing licences . The NSW one has worked very well over the past 15 years or so .... It's not perfect but goes a long way to maintaining & improving the fisheries.
The key is always in how the fee's are to be used ..... In NSW it was focused on fishing Pro licence buyouts - the results were undeniably beneficial to the fisheries. Facilities have improved & there is stocking (both fresh & salt) ... It works - just as long as the Government(s) stick with the spirit of the intent.

I certainly don't believe it is a given right to fish for nothing - it's not a infinite resource ..... A well run licence scheme can only be a good thing.

kc
28-05-2017, 10:38 AM
What will be, will be, but like the old saying goes, "careful what you wish for". Not ever going to really worry me, but!!

Lovey80
28-05-2017, 03:28 PM
Oh and to add to my previous. Significant safeguards would have to be put in place to ensure that we didn't end up with the NSW model.

chris69
28-05-2017, 06:06 PM
Dont you all think that the qld goverment makes enough out of boat and trailer rego! other than introduceing a fishing licence to get more money out of us.

NAGG
28-05-2017, 06:31 PM
Dont you all think that the qld goverment makes enough out of boat and trailer rego! other than introduceing a fishing licence to get more money out of us.

So where does the boat & trailer rego get spent ? ..... on everything other than fishing related (not all boaters fish) .....

Qld also has a lot of tourists who come from interstate (& overseas) to fish ...... do you not think that Qlders should gain a benefit ?

Chris

bluefin59
28-05-2017, 06:52 PM
Dont you all think that the qld goverment makes enough out of boat and trailer rego! other than land fishing a fishing licence to get more money out of us.

Actually i find the boat and trailer fairly priced $101.70 for my bluefin4.5 is fair and my trailer is $195 .20 for a year and o be honest some sort of seperate fishing licence would be acceptable to me if the funds where used to improve Queensland fishing for rec anglers , it seems to work in other states . Let the stoning begin . Matt

NAGG
28-05-2017, 08:27 PM
It's funny .... when I lived in brissy , I had to pay a huge annual fee to run my boat on Lake Somerset - along with a SIP ...... Why?

& yet people don't want to pay for a rec fishing licence .....

The SIP works ...... dont people think that the salt water fisheries could also benefit - through stocking & commercial closures

Sorry , I just dont get the attitude of some

Chris

chris69
28-05-2017, 10:06 PM
Well Matt with the influx of southener's comeing and have come into qld we should have someone launching our boats at the boat ramp for us with all the extra money being raised but at peak times there's no car parks for miles to park your car and trailer,and i dont think they can or will improve things with raiseing more money from a salt water licence for fishing,but if you want to volunteer your hard earned money go right ahead i wont be giveing them any to fish.

When i was young we would find some fishing line cash in a coke bottle to by some hooks and find some bait of the jetty and catch butter bream some of the best fun as a kid so why ask a kid to get a licence to do so to have some fun.

Nagg i do think that qld will benifit, but the government will and waist most of it look how the split of the freshwater licence's has ended up there takeing more and give back less and the same thing will happen if a saltwater fishing licence is bought in

bluefin59
29-05-2017, 05:32 AM
Well Chris I actually get around a fair bit with my boat and have seen quit a bit of improvement of the facilities as in boat ramp widening,pontoon installation and filleting tables as well as toilets . If you want someone to put the boat in and park your car no problem but everything has a cost .
The fact is the price of having a boat is reasonable and if you don't like it don't do it but really it is quit reasonable mate ,I used to wind my line on my coke bottle as it made for easier casting and retrieving but that was just me mate .
As for boat ramps the only time I find the parking rediculious is on a beautiful weekend and public holiday if you get there late ,I guess it's a bit like event days trying to get a park near Southbank or Lang park .

rayken1938
29-05-2017, 07:05 AM
Part of your boat rego fees is supposed to provide ramps etc.
Juniors would be exempt of a RFL
in NSW pensioners etc are also exempt.
Should rfl fees be used to provide infrastructure when this has traditionally been provided by local councils and other Government depts.
Would it not be great if QLD RFL was recognised in other states?
Cheers
Ray

NAGG
29-05-2017, 08:38 AM
Well Matt with the influx of southener's comeing and have come into qld we should have someone launching our boats at the boat ramp for us with all the extra money being raised but at peak times there's no car parks for miles to park your car and trailer,and i dont think they can or will improve things with raiseing more money from a salt water licence for fishing,but if you want to volunteer your hard earned money go right ahead i wont be giveing them any to fish.

When i was young we would find some fishing line cash in a coke bottle to by some hooks and find some bait of the jetty and catch butter bream some of the best fun as a kid so why ask a kid to get a licence to do so to have some fun.

Nagg i do think that qld will benifit, but the government will and waist most of it look how the split of the freshwater licence's has ended up there takeing more and give back less and the same thing will happen if a saltwater fishing licence is bought in

It really does boil down to how the funds are dispersed ..... & what is the intent of a licence .
I agree that it shouldn't go into infrastructure like boat ramps ...... but fish cleaning facilities is a different kettle of fish (excuse the pun)

First up ... like NSW there should be pro licence buyouts of all estuaries near to large population centers ( no netting) . Fish stocking of estuaries (like NSW has done ) - some goes for areas like Moreton Bay / Great Sandy straights etc

It's a long term process - that is for sure but it needs the right input from the right people (not just government)

Chris

Camhawk88
29-05-2017, 09:27 AM
Boat ramps are the domain of DTMR- they get enough funding through regos of vehicles to supply infrastructure. More than just fishos use ramps so they alone should not be funding them.
Still very much opposed to an RFL but if there were to be one then funds would need to be funneled into tangible fisheries benefits such as habitat restoration, stocking and more importantly increased fisheries compliance. Not sure about the SE which tends to get all the riches but the fisheries guys in the north are so underfunded and stretched that they have almost 0 presence. Not much point having rules without someone to police them. On the plus side, if it remains this way then I'd probably get away with not getting an RFL anyway.

aussiebasser
29-05-2017, 12:50 PM
It's funny .... when I lived in brissy , I had to pay a huge annual fee to run my boat on Lake Somerset - along with a SIP ...... Why?

& yet people don't want to pay for a rec fishing licence .....

The SIP works ...... dont people think that the salt water fisheries could also benefit - through stocking & commercial closures

Sorry , I just dont get the attitude of some

Chris

The Somerset Boating Permit has now gone. It was for maintaining the public areas run by SEQWater and did nothing to stock the lakes.

aussiebasser
29-05-2017, 12:54 PM
Do clear the air then sir?

I've heard that there is currently a committee discussing changes to the SIP Scheme, the members of that committee have been asked to sign a non-disclosure statement so that incorrect and non-final decisions don't get passed into the hands and heads of people who post on public forums without knowing the full facts. As Secretary of the Somerset and Wivenhoe Fish Stocking Association, I can say that I have not been asked to sign anything. If Ray has for one of his groups, I'd love to know why?

aussiebasser
29-05-2017, 01:28 PM
In my opinion the new SIP for the fresh is a disappointment for all members of the previous scheme .
To be part of the new scheme all groups have to sign a nondisclosure statement preventing them from disclosing their new funding arrangements.
this reeks of collusion so much for open government policy)
The government will now cream off 30% of monies raised for admin.
No complaint about the funding that new SIP groups will receive they were devastated by the newman government..
I also have concerns about the manner that stocking groups will be allowed to utilize funds. I would now appear that the stocking groups may be forced to pay for signage etc at dams.
With the composition of the proposed board giving fisheries a 50% membership certainly gives them an unfair advantage and in my opinion will result in any changes to current funding practices will possibly only advantage the fisheries budget rather than be to the benefit of the fishery.
I have not been privileged to study the proposed sip document in full but what little I have seen there will be more losers that winners and much more pressure is going to be exerted on stocking groups to expand their resources into fundraising activities instead of actual stocking.
Cheers
Ray

Ray, which groups have been notified of this? Was it by letter or email? SWFSA Inc. have not been advised of this.

Lucky_Phill
29-05-2017, 04:07 PM
Thanks guys... this is bubbling along nicely with good ideas, comments and I love the passion from some of you .

To clear my thoughts on any proposed RFL, the funds should NOT go into boat ramps and facilities, as this is quite rightly pointed out, what the RUF was supposed to support. Unfortunately, the RUF has ended up in " General revenue " and we see little of it.

My thought on a RFL would be for funding, research by private entities supported by Fisheries, Artificial reefs, Wild Stocking, Kids education & fishing clinics, Rec fishing havens and more..... Trying to say...... the funds should be directed at the Fishery, rather than the fishermen and their wants. We all take, take and take, with nothing being given back.. ( Fresh water SIP's etc excluded )... Yes we are regulated by size and bag limits and Yes, the science to support these is not " great ", but with no or very little input from recreational catch data, the best they can do is guess. It is NOT their fault this happens, it is ours, Recreational fishers.. Having said that, there are many great people doing great work in regard to tagging, research, boat ramp catch data etc etc....

Yes, I am still against a RFL..... but I do like to be open minded and am quite keen to hear ideas.

Someone above mentioned they are happy with boat rego and trailer rego fees........ understand this..... these costs have increased over 200% in the last 5 years or so... well above inflation rates and the RUF has NOT increased.. you are being taken for a ride here my friends. In the NT there is NO trailer regos, there have been massive net buy backs and commercial restrictions and huge recreational fishing promotions which have bolstered the economy and the fishery there... some good lessons to heed.

I have found the lack of media attention that recreational fishing has received over the last couple of years is worrying , no press releases from Govt other than fishers ( pro and rec ) getting fined from the courts. Don't get me wrong, we don't need another Fishery review... :( I just have this feeling those in power have turned a deaf ear to our industry.

Despite what some may think. our inshore, estuary, bay and beach fisheries are in danger. Yes, you can still catch a feed, but anecdotal evidence is clear and does show a huge decline in numbers and quality. Commercial data also shows decline in many species.

I think the question must be put... " What can be done to stop the decline and also improve the fishery ? . Building toilets at boat ramps will not ! New bag and size limits will not ! Increased fines for undersized fish will not !

Keep on posting away guys..... good reading :thumbsup:



cheers LP

Matt_Campbell
29-05-2017, 04:44 PM
Which research providers are you referring to here, Phil? Infofish?

NAGG
29-05-2017, 06:10 PM
The Somerset Boating Permit has now gone. It was for maintaining the public areas run by SEQWater and did nothing to stock the lakes.

Thanks Dale

I understand that it had nothing to do with fish stocking ..... but it was a hell of a sting - particularly when you used the launching facility at the camp ground (whilst paying camping fees) . You certainly didn't get much for that huge fee at the time.

Chris

aussiebasser
29-05-2017, 07:24 PM
Thanks Dale

I understand that it had nothing to do with fish stocking ..... but it was a hell of a sting - particularly when you used the launching facility at the camp ground (whilst paying camping fees) . You certainly didn't get much for that huge fee at the time.

Chris

true Chris, but you were subsidising all the other SEQWater lake users. North Pine had a Boating Permit and a SIP, but the Stocking Group got all the funds, Hinze Boating permit funds went to the Stocking Group, Maroon and Moogerah were free to use but you needed a SIP. Somerset was the best bang for their buck. Skiers and the most fished lake in the State.

Lovey80
29-05-2017, 08:53 PM
Which research providers are you talking about here, Phil? Infofish?

Im guessing ones that don't try to tell us what the biomas is using data that is highly dodgy.

kc
29-05-2017, 08:59 PM
Kind of like Phil's "sum up".

I have found the lack of media attention that recreational fishing has received

Pretty much says it all. In a past life I/we had a red hot go at making fishing and "the fishing vote" an issue. We failed. We might have had a few little wins along the way, but what it proved, Just as Scott is finding out with his GSS net ban, is that it is a sideshow issue in the grand scheme of things. My advice, looking back, is stop your whinging, enjoy what you have and be happy that despite everything, we still have amongst the best managed fisheries in the world. License, no license, bag limits, commercial catch quotas ...bah humbug. Enjoy what you have already got because a bad days fishing in Australia is better than a good days fishing in most of the rest of the world. We don't care enough to vote for it because we have a first world problem.

bondy99
29-05-2017, 09:52 PM
Those that think Qld will do the same as NSW does are dreaming. I for one will not support it. Saltwater revenue in Queensland will go straight into consolidated revenue . Freshwater dam licence works well as it is and that's where it should stay.

Payments coming out of vessel registration should be enough.

Scott Mitchell
30-05-2017, 06:52 AM
You only need to see what NSW & Vic are achieving with their licenses to understand what we are NOT getting in Qld :-



http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/recreational/recreational-fishing-fee/licence-fees-at-work
http://agriculture.vic.gov.au/fisheries/recreational-fishing/target-one-million



I "personally" support and have been involved with the QRFN notion of a Recreational Fishing Licence (or permit) for Queensland, only if it meets a strict set of conditions. Following is the QRFN policy statement regarding a Rec Fishing Licence:

A recreational fishing licence/permit for Queensland is supported conditional on it being structured in order to ensure all funds raised are directed solely for the benefit of recreational fishing and fishers by way of a Trust Fund overseen by a stakeholder Board comprising a majority from the recreational fishing sector that manages the prioritisation and expenditure of the funds raised from the scheme


QRFN has identified a set of 10 conditions as follows, which it believes must be met by any government looking to introduce a recreational fishing licence into Queensland.


10 CONDITIONS REQUIRED for a Recreational Fishing Licence


1. Licence fees collected must be quarantined in a Trust account and cannot be used by government for any purpose other than those items approved by the appropriation/expenditure/review board and used to directly benefit recreational fishing in Qld above what would be normally expected of government.


2. All other existing Queensland government fisheries related fees, licences, permits and levies on recreational fishers to be removed immediately or phased out, including but not limited to SIP (Stocked Impoundment Permit) and RUF (Recreational Use Fee). However a commitment must be made to maintain at least previous funding levels to the SIPs and Suntag schemes.


3. RFL to be all species, areas, gears, and fisheries involving recreational fishing (freshwater and saltwater)


4. An appropriation/expenditure/review board with an independent chair to be created with a majority of board members to be recreational fishing representatives from across the state. A process is put in place to ensure that different recreational fisheries and different regions across the state are represented on the Board.


5. Conditions of expenditure/distribution to be determined prior to the introduction of a licence. All monies collected are to specifically benefit recreational fishing with unspent monies to carry over from year to year.

6. Qld Fisheries Management [or controlling authority] and government shall receive total funds at a maximum of 10% of monies received annually from the RFL scheme to fund administration and collection costs.


7. A major priority of funding to be the buying out and compensation of commercial netting in priority recreational fishing areas, especially adjacent to population centres.


8. A commitment from Government that ongoing progress will be made each year on the creation of net free areas with priority given to all previously identified priority net free areas, with at least 2 - 3 per year for the first 3 years.


9. A RFL to apply to all individuals fishing recreationally in Qld waters (apart from age and pension exceptions), with fees to be reviewed annually after a fixed initial 3 year period.


10. Provision of a limited annual grants program available to Queensland recreational fishing organizations.

I believe Sunfish, ANSA, QGFA, QAFCA , FSAQ ALL have a similar model they also WILL support if the Government of the day "commits" to these points above and "sells" the benefits that WILL COME with having the funds to do what we all know needs doing to protect & enhance recreational fishing in Qld .....

Regards Scotto

tug_tellum
30-05-2017, 09:21 AM
NO! NO! NO! Not now, Not later, Not ever. We do not need another TAX (and lets face it, thats what it is). Another trough for public servants and pollies to put their snouts into. Once upon a time it was a cheap holiday to go camping and fishing. Now it is as cheap to rent a motel and they want the fishing to be more expensive as well. They will suggest a trial period. Do you think any government will give up any revenue source and say it wasnt worth it. Even if it wasnt effective the lisence will remain in place. Because they will rely on the income.They will try to say "its only a small amount of money" But after a few years of being indexed to cpi or inflation and dont forget to add gst or whatever excuse they wish to increase the cost before long it will be too expensive to go fishing. They can then put a spin on it and say that it has put less pressure on fish stocks (because it will be a costly exercise to go fishing).
Look at the effect that beach permits have had on Noosa to Rainbow beach. It almost broke some of the Rainbow shop keepers as people stayed away in droves. Shop owners didnt require as much staff due to lower numbers of tourists.It effectively put more people on the dole. I know from my own experience that I personally dont go for a run up the beach anywhere near as often as I used to. Some councilors suggested if you vote for them,they will remove the permit. NEVER HAPPENS! Once any revenue stream is in place it will be set in stone and will increase over time. Governments are never afraid to put their prices up without considering what their customers can afford.
Thats my rant. I know this is only an idea put forward for discussion but you can guarantee that some public servant will be gauging the response to see if they can maybe be able to get away with it.
DONT GIVE THEM A FOOT IN THE DOOR. LEAVE ME AND MY FISHING PASTIME ALONE.
Mick

kc
30-05-2017, 12:48 PM
10. Provision of a limited annual grants program available to Queensland recreational fishing organizations.

I believe Sunfish, ANSA, QGFA, QAFCA , FSAQ ALL have a similar model .


& there., ladies and gentleman, is the issue writ large. Money. Sell your soul for it.

It is called "conflict of interest".....how can any group campaign for a license fee/tax which they will ultimately financially benefit from? Have you no shame? No matter the excuses, or being an NFP, or even if it will be put to good use. It IS a gross conflict of interest and this is how the steady drip of corruption starts. Find a "well funded" NFP and you will find infighting, stacked board elections and playing favourites with the projects being funded. Don't sell your soul to the devil. It is not worth it. Better to live with your principles.

chris69
30-05-2017, 01:11 PM
Good one Scott you can start running the state too if you like, what would we have done before you moved to qld if you want to sit around with your mates and start dictating to us queenslander may be you should move back to were you came from or do they hate you there too.

What right does the QRFN to bring forward this notion for all recfishers and only if it meets strict set of QRFNs conditions.

rayken1938
30-05-2017, 02:03 PM
"Good one Scott you can start running the state too if you like, what would we have done before you moved to qld"

So if you are not born in Qld you have no right to think or bring forward a proposal?


" I believe Sunfish, ANSA, QGFA, QAFCA , FSAQ ALL have a similar model .


& there., ladies and gentleman, is the issue writ large. Money. Sell your soul for it."
I have little knowledge of the composition of the boards of the above organizations but from what I have observed to me they seem to be pretty dedicated to the recreational fishing movement and mainly consist of volunteers from all walks of life so how could they possibly get a financial gain from government assistance.
Lets leave personal attacks out of the debate and concentrate on the debate which is should we have a RFL in qld and if so how to bring it about .
Cheers
Ray

SatNav
30-05-2017, 03:17 PM
1. All those boards are dedicated to their own so called organisations and the point missed was organisations like this receiving funds from any such RFL is a conflict of interest when these same boards are pushing for and backing the same.

2. The tone of the recreational brigade is coming across very strong as a self righteous lot who don't give a dam about anything or anybody else other than there own self interests.

aussiebasser
30-05-2017, 03:21 PM
I'm sure some of the organisations are in it for their own rewards. Even though they are non-profit some of the Executive members get paid to sit on the groups. Infofish wanted around $2000 from the Somerset and Wivenhoe Fish Stocking Association for the tag return details from Somerset. We stock the lake and they wanted to charge us for the return information. I don't see that as a co-operative arrangement for improving fisheries.

bluefin59
30-05-2017, 03:24 PM
It's a bit rough taking a jab at Scott for being passionate about recreational fishing and saying your not from qld doesn't cut it he has business and has a true interest in fishing and Hervey Bay from what I have read over the years .
At least he puts something on the table and try's to do something that may benefit the many who do nothing. And I mean to say even state of origin has non Queenslander s playing for them look at GI come on let's play nice here guys and great work Everyone for putting up ideas. Matt

kc
30-05-2017, 03:52 PM
Ray I am not having a shot at Scott, or anyone else on a personal level. I just have a big issue with conflict of interest and know full well, as just about everyone who has ever worked on a committee or elected board which is flush with cash will have experienced. Money changes everything and everyone. It in itself, causes conflict, jealously and lobbying. Whose pet projects get funded and whose don't. Then the jockeying for board elections so that such and such gets shafted because he/she is doing something else. You would turn the Recreational fishing lobby into a cashed up version of a bowls club. Get out CrakerJack and watch the video. It is not satire, it is a documentary. When the gloves were off a few years ago and the fishing vote was making serious headway at a political level, Sunfish could never get involved because it didn't want to put its funding at risk, even with fights they should have been having. In my not so humble opinion, as soon as all these organisations are relient on Government handouts, they cease to be effective. Again, I am not into personal attacks but everyone, doing this with all good intent will be damaged, both in deed and reputation, if they hitch their wagon to funding via an RFL. If we have to have one, so be it, and by all means lobby for worthy projects to spend the money on, but don't accept a cent of it. Good people will get burnt and be replaced by people attracted to the "sugar on the table"

Camhawk88
30-05-2017, 03:59 PM
1. All those boards are dedicated to their own so called organisations and the point missed was organisations like this receiving funds from any such RFL is a conflict of interest when these same boards are pushing for and backing the same.

2. The tone of the recreational brigade is coming across very strong as a self righteous lot who don't give a dam about anything or anybody else other than there own self interests.

1.Perhaps not so much that they are pushing for it- I cant see that as being a COI. However if an RFL was rolled out as per Scott's model, who would be representing the rec fishers on the committee? That's right- those in the above mentioned groups. And therein lies the COI.

2. It seems most feel that their way of life shouldn't have yet another government tax and layer of bureaucracy thrust upon it. If that makes me self righteous and selfish then I will wear that label.
Whose other interests should be considered here Satnav? The only ones I can see are the government and, well... F*&K them.

tug_tellum
30-05-2017, 04:09 PM
Those who are for it have their opinion and that is their right. I am sure if they ask enough pollies or nfp organisations they will find somebody who will be only too pleased to make their donations disappear. Give them every dollar you can afford and then give some more .Then you can feel warm and fuzzy all over after doing your good deed. But that doesnt mean I have to be included as well in donating more of my hard earned towards their cause. I cant help every charitable institution & I dont wish to pay another new tax out of my already pre taxed dollars, I dont have enough money. You are more than welcome to put some in if you feel that it is a good idea. But I dont think it is a good idea,so I dont want to contribute. Thanks for the opportunity but this time I will pass.
Mick

rayken1938
30-05-2017, 05:16 PM
Ok lets us agree that some people are against funding be given to recreation fishing organizations same as some do not monies from licenses be spent on infrastructure such as ramps etc.
Where do you think that members of the trust fund should be drawn from?
What selection process?
Qualification needed.
Cheers
Ray

Noelm
30-05-2017, 06:34 PM
I guess the whole thing is like the rec fishers movement in general, everyone is in a flap about their own backyard, and want pros banned, ramps built, fish restocked and everything else, as long as it doesn't interfere with their privacy or cost them a few dollars, if all the rec fisher folk were united statewide and then nation wide, we might have a slim hope of getting "things" done, but as it is, just arguing about everything will get nowhere.

NAGG
30-05-2017, 06:39 PM
Any licence fee would need to be put into trust - first & foremost ...... that is the only way that it can be quarantined from consolidated revenue .

As for the grants ..... as in NSW & as per Scotts suggestion - that could come many years down the track once the pro licences have been acquired & stocking programs well underway - these two initiatives alone would make a licence fee well worthwhile. - The creation of more artificial habitats would be also on the agenda .

I reckon you could see 10-15 years worth of licence fees put to great use to help improve the Qld fisheries & put it in a better position to help deal with the increased pressure placed on the fisheries through population growth , tourism , technology etc ....... it's either that or catch rates will continue to fall & or bag limits will be slashed ! The proof of the success in NSW can be seen in the turnaround in highly pressured fisheries like Sydney Harbour & Botany Bay over the past decade ....

Chris



...

chris69
01-06-2017, 12:10 PM
You lot just dont get it its a food source too and to pay for the right to gather food to eat dose add up, ausfish don't repersent all of the receational fishers out there so have a think about that when a few want to force 99.9% of the rec fishers out there to pay to go fishing to catch something to eat,fishing is a food source first and a receational sport second this about someone trying to force something on everyone for the greater good of a few end of story.

TheRealPoMo
01-06-2017, 06:03 PM
It's certainly not a food source for me. In fact I should get paid for feeding the fish.

NAGG
01-06-2017, 06:29 PM
You lot just dont get it its a food source too and to pay for the right to gather food to eat dose add up, ausfish don't repersent all of the receational fishers out there so have a think about that when a few want to force 99.9% of the rec fishers out there to pay to go fishing to catch something to eat,fishing is a food source first and a receational sport second this about someone trying to force something on everyone for the greater good of a few end of story.

That's an interesting take on the matter Chris

dont Qlders pay for a shooters licence ? ..... to knock over a pig etc ..... $30 something pa - same deal isn't it ?

Wouldn't you like to see funding go into making it a sustainable source of protein ? ..... $35 pa seems like a small price to pay for what could be thousands of dollars worth of seafood in a year .

I just paid my $100 ish dollars for a 3 year NSW licence ...... I keep fish rarely but now after a recent trip to Evans head - I got that back 10 fold just in crab & fish.

No one likes paying a new tax .... (I thought the same thing when NSW introduced ours ) but when the bigger picture is seen along with improved results - hell it is a small price to pay.

Why wouldn't you expect results like those achieved under the SIP ...... an absolute Qld success story.

Chris

chris69
02-06-2017, 01:19 PM
No not the same deal Nagg shooting happens on private property and the gun licence is to keep track of things, the ocean and bays and creeks should be free to use we pay enough for fuel and fishing gear and rego as it is,the SIP is great because the dams aren't naturally stocked with most fish species.

Ive spoken to a guy at the bribie aquaculture center and he did a restocking program for the Maroochydore council a long time ago and he said he would not do it again and the finerlings cost heaps not all species are easy to reproduce as you have to grow the food to feed those little things.

NAGG
02-06-2017, 05:16 PM
No not the same deal Nagg shooting happens on private property and the gun licence is to keep track of things, the ocean and bays and creeks should be free to use we pay enough for fuel and fishing gear and rego as it is,the SIP is great because the dams aren't naturally stocked with most fish species.

Ive spoken to a guy at the bribie aquaculture center and he did a restocking program for the Maroochydore council a long time ago and he said he would not do it again and the finerlings cost heaps not all species are easy to reproduce as you have to grow the food to feed those little things.

does all hunting occur ob private land ? ..... what about Crown land ? -
as for the gun licence - really (keeps track of things ?)

NSW fisheries stock waterways with Jewfish ( a real success story) - Kings prawns have even been stocked - on top of Murray & Eastern Cod , bass , trout (rainbow, brown & brook) , silver perch , atlantic salmon ....... so if it works down south why wouldn't it work in Qld ? - Barramundi are relatively easy and Gladstone hatchery were even breeding Mangrove Jack when I had a tour of the place

Sorry - I'm just not seeing a strong argument other than ..... not wanting to pay a fee to go fishing

Chris

Ducksnutz
02-06-2017, 05:45 PM
What stronger argument would you like Nagg?

Opening the wallet to pay another "fee" is enough for me to say "get stuffed" to the bastards who take enough taxes, rego's and whatever else the mongrels take! Bloody hell bloke, do you or any one else really want to give your hard earned to the knobs that have proven time and time again they have know idea how to manage this great land of ours!

Sorry for the rant Nagg,
Drives me bloody nuts that a one time favourite pastime of this country has to put up with crap like this.

Noelm
02-06-2017, 06:35 PM
I think you have to look at it slightly differently, rather than a "fee" to go fishing, think of it as a way to at least get something positive done for our recreational fishing, not saying it's right or wrong, but, no one is trying to invade your privacy, or say you can't fish or anything else, it's just a "user pays" way to perhaps better our current fish stocks!

Ducksnutz
02-06-2017, 07:08 PM
Or........ Noelm,

you could say enough is enough of piss poor management with our taxes, rego's etc,etc,etc......

I am all for user pays when it is of significance such as tolls on new infrastructure such as roads, tunnels etc.....

My opinion is a RFL would do nothing more than create more wasted revenue for any government that holds power.

rayken1938
02-06-2017, 07:40 PM
A lot of people seem to be missing the point that one of the key points of the proposed RFL is that it will be managed by a trust and all monies raised will be quarantined from the governments sticky fingers.
You may save a miserable 70 to 80c a week but unless some regulation and management structures are put in place and effectively enforced in10 years there will not be a viable fishery near to major population areas.
As for the costs of fingerlings last time i looked the cost of bass and yellowbelly fingerlings was just over 30c and there are plenty of hatcherys making a good living.
You cannot use the cost of fingerlings from the Bribie research centre as a valid cost . They put in an enormous effort to develop methods of producing fingerlings and once they have perfected the method they give the results at no costs to anyone.
I think that it took them over 5 years to crack the secret of producing jungle perch fingerlings.
"I am all for user pays when it is of significance such as tolls on new infrastructure such as roads, tunnels etc....." that you are already paying for in your regos and fuel excise.
Cheers
Ray

Ducksnutz
02-06-2017, 08:09 PM
Ray,
My point is why add another tax,fee etc...or whatever you want to call a RFL......to an already over burdened taxpayer.

As for missing the point, call me cynical, but the trust you mention will ultimately be handed to a government bureaucracy.

Lovey80
03-06-2017, 12:02 AM
A lot of people seem to be missing the point that one of the key points of the proposed RFL is that it will be managed by a trust and all monies raised will be quarantined from the governments sticky fingers.
You may save a miserable 70 to 80c a week but unless some regulation and management structures are put in place and effectively enforced in10 years there will not be a viable fishery near to major population areas.
As for the costs of fingerlings last time i looked the cost of bass and yellowbelly fingerlings was just over 30c and there are plenty of hatcherys making a good living.
You cannot use the cost of fingerlings from the Bribie research centre as a valid cost . They put in an enormous effort to develop methods of producing fingerlings and once they have perfected the method they give the results at no costs to anyone.
I think that it took them over 5 years to crack the secret of producing jungle perch fingerlings.
"I am all for user pays when it is of significance such as tolls on new infrastructure such as roads, tunnels etc....." that you are already paying for in your regos and fuel excise.
Cheers
Ray

You know what I think would unite every single fisho on this forum and with enough sustained pressure from a united front could actually work?

A united lobbying of the QLD government to turn over the RUF fees to a trust and have committees set up to ensure that 100% of the funds are going towards the facilities the RUF was designed for. Pretty soon the facilities would get built all the way up the coast and surpluses begin to build. Then we can lobby for those surplus funds to be spent on artificial reefs and stocking efforts.

chris69
04-06-2017, 02:25 PM
does all hunting occur ob private land ? ..... what about Crown land ? -
as for the gun licence - really (keeps track of things ?)

NSW fisheries stock waterways with Jewfish ( a real success story) - Kings prawns have even been stocked - on top of Murray & Eastern Cod , bass , trout (rainbow, brown & brook) , silver perch , atlantic salmon ....... so if it works down south why wouldn't it work in Qld ? - Barramundi are relatively easy and Gladstone hatchery were even breeding Mangrove Jack when I had a tour of the place

Sorry - I'm just not seeing a strong argument other than ..... not wanting to pay a fee to go fishing

Chris
Sorry to disappoint you Nagg for not putting up a stronger agrument but you don't live here so your opinions don't count im my book.

P.S. thanks for the jew that are traveling up from NSW.

aussiebasser
05-06-2017, 06:41 AM
Although I'm not a fan of a Recreational Fishing License for Queensland, (Vested interest and all that.) The licensing systems in place in NSW and NSW don't seem to have an effect on the number of people enjoying recreational angling. I do notice a lot more enforcement officers on the water in NSW and Victoria when I fish there. The Victorian Angling fees have helped in the massive effort of resurrecting Trout Cod and more recently Macquarie Perch as a viable angling target. While I don't believe it should be the rec. anglers responsibility, an RFL could assist with the Mary River Cod program. (Personally, I believe the decline in Mary River Cod was not due to rec angling effort, but by degradation of fish habitat, and anglers shouldn't have to pay for that.)
If the money is quarantined and only used for the benefit of recreational angling, and the current SIP scheme is not robbed of funds, I can only see an RFL as a good thing.

NAGG
05-06-2017, 02:33 PM
Sorry to disappoint you Nagg for not putting up a stronger agrument but you don't live here so your opinions don't count im my book.

P.S. thanks for the jew that are traveling up from NSW.

I dont live there any more .... that's true but I travel to Qld for a fish a couple of times a year -
I have a SIP & I would have no problem with paying for an RFL ..... but then again I can see the bigger picture

NAGG
05-06-2017, 03:02 PM
What stronger argument would you like Nagg?

Opening the wallet to pay another "fee" is enough for me to say "get stuffed" to the bastards who take enough taxes, rego's and whatever else the mongrels take! Bloody hell bloke, do you or any one else really want to give your hard earned to the knobs that have proven time and time again they have know idea how to manage this great land of ours!

Sorry for the rant Nagg,
Drives me bloody nuts that a one time favourite pastime of this country has to put up with crap like this.

we all pay a raft of taxes and fees ..... from parking on a street through driving and owning a car - it's the way of the world . in the case of many of these what do you get for it ? I don't like paying these any more than the next person . But when it comes to paying a fee to go fishing ..... & where the fisherman benefits , that's different . For less than $0.08 / day for my 3 year licence ..... I like the idea that my fees have helped lock out commercial fishing from many of the destinations that I fish or that when I go up the snowy mountains there is good fish management and stocking - giving me the chance to land that trophy fish or my local waterways have good stocks of bass . ..... & that is only a start .
The benefits are real - if it is done properly .

Chris

Lucky_Phill
05-06-2017, 05:49 PM
Ive spoken to a guy at the bribie aquaculture center and he did a restocking program for the Maroochydore council a long time ago and he said he would not do it again and the finerlings cost heaps not all species are easy to reproduce as you have to grow the food to feed those little things.

Yes Chris, the exercise of growing fish in Aquaculture is an expensive one. I am fully aware of the costs, but that was some time ago. The Bribie Centre have now produced many species at their research centre.

The Cost Benefit Analysis favours wild stocking in todays environment. Whether it be Summer Whiting or Snapper, or Mud Crabs or Cobia, there is evidence the return far outweighs the expense.

It is very difficult to gather qualified data to back this, but all we have to do is look at how the NT have enhanced their reputation and fish stocks.

I spoke with the people in the know and they believe the recruitment of wild stocking would be less than 1% to maturity. Now considering that natural occurring recruitment of say Snapper, is also at less than 1% , why is wild stocking such an issue ? Let's understand from a Snapper point of view, that over 1 million eggs are produced by each Female. The economic input to the State coffers on a per fish basis on Snapper is hard to gauge, but no doubt with the recreational economic input touching 1 billion dollars a year, you can easily see how spending several thousand dollars to produce a season of Snapper can be extrapolated into a windfall for the Govt. AND, the fishery, and the fishoes. Add to this the deployment of artificial reefs that harbour these demersals and I can clearly see a fishery on the verge of being not only sustainable, but an attraction to tourist fishers as well, not to mention the benefits to the local fishers.

It takes a lot of foresight to envisage a fishery on the east coast of Queensland being a World Wide destination due to an expansive, diverse and highly sustainable bio-mass of all species.

Is a RFL the answer though ?

I think it is still a question of an organisation to represent Rec fishers with enough clout and punch to make things happen at State and Federal levels of Government.

Trying to convince some Leather Shiner, that plonking a few million dollars into the rec industry will return many times that amount in time, is the problem.

Maybe employing the Greens to lobby around town on this could work ? After all, saving the oceans creatures is what we are talking about here, are we not ?

77 posts down and a lot of good talk and to & fro'ing :)

IN the end and I know what some are saying.... it is hard to believe we all would benefit from a RFL... but if seeing the evidence of spending was clear cut, would this help ?


cheers LP

SUPERDAFF
06-06-2017, 12:53 AM
There may be one fishing 'tax' that might perhaps gain some support - the introduction of serious fines and actual confiscation of fishing equipment, including boats. No more theoretical maximums - time for some scary actuals. Found in court to have done the wrong thing? Your gear is sold, you are seriously fined and the proceeds from their sale are put into fish stocking and assets, rather than into consolidated revenue. You want to take under-sized fish? You're going to pay. You're a repeat offender? You're going to pay heaps into restocking and infrastructure. You're a pro who repeatedly does the wrong thing? Your boat is sold and you can't fish again. Ever. No licence again. Zip. Nada. Current fines for recreational evil-doers are a joke. 38 crab pots, a $6,000 fine and no conviction recorded. Oh, and if I'm in ever in the magistrate's chair, don't think you are going to walk away with just a bond after belting some poor innocent on his way home just because you are full of jungle juice and poor attitude. Old school time. Enough of the 'I made a poor choice" excuses. Time for some 'I made a bloody expensive choice' responses. Let's call it a 'Remediation Fishing Tax." Now that's a tax I'd support. Forget a monetary clip over the ear - let's go for distance!

Ducksnutz
06-06-2017, 05:08 AM
we all pay a raft of taxes and fees ..... from parking on a street through driving and owning a car - it's the way of the world . in the case of many of these what do you get for it ? I don't like paying these any more than the next person . But when it comes to paying a fee to go fishing ..... & where the fisherman benefits , that's different . For less than $0.08 / day for my 3 year licence ..... I like the idea that my fees have helped lock out commercial fishing from many of the destinations that I fish or that when I go up the snowy mountains there is good fish management and stocking - giving me the chance to land that trophy fish or my local waterways have good stocks of bass . ..... & that is only a start .
The benefits are real - if it is done properly .

Chris

With respect Nagg,

anyone can can quote figures and costs to support an argument. Could you tell me if it costs more for a rec licence per day if you pay monthly, quarterly or annually rather than every 3 years?

Assuming the cost is 8 cents per day and my math is correct, that amounts to $87.60 for three years which doesn't seem a lot. Now throw in mum, dad, little johnny and sally it becomes $350.40 if you pay the discounted price for three yearly licence. (See what I did with quoting figures to suit an argument) For the record my kids have moved out of home but having raised a family for more than 20 years on a single pay cheque every dollar counts and fishing for our family was an affordable pastime.

Call me cynical but I can't see how another tax on the working class will be of any benefit other than revenue for the knobs in power to waste.

My idea to support funding for our fisheries and waterways is for a tax on imported fishing equipment suppliers such as Daiwa and Shimano. Specifically gear made in China that produce massive amounts of profit for little return in regards to the health of the system. The tax would go into a trust managed by an organisation that ispecifically has fishing as its priority. These importers could in return advertise that they are partners in helping the future.
I know that ultimately it will be passed on to the customer, but it also might make fishos think about buying Aussie made products which has a domino effect on the economy.

Noelm
06-06-2017, 06:04 AM
Not exactly sure making fishing gear more expensive would be a big hit, people whinge now about our prices and buy direct OS, causing tackle stores to close all over the place.
Seems like the biggest hurdles are 1) where will the money go. 2) who will look after it. 3) no one wants an extra "tax" or to pay to go fishing. 4) invasion of privacy. 5) what will the money be spent on. Some those would be easy to put in place, the last 2 points will take some selling by either Government or some appointed representative "body"

chris69
06-06-2017, 12:27 PM
Yes Chris, the exercise of growing fish in Aquaculture is an expensive one. I am fully aware of the costs, but that was some time ago. The Bribie Centre have now produced many species at their research centre.

The Cost Benefit Analysis favours wild stocking in todays environment. Whether it be Summer Whiting or Snapper, or Mud Crabs or Cobia, there is evidence the return far outweighs the expense.

It is very difficult to gather qualified data to back this, but all we have to do is look at how the NT have enhanced their reputation and fish stocks.

I spoke with the people in the know and they believe the recruitment of wild stocking would be less than 1% to maturity. Now considering that natural occurring recruitment of say Snapper, is also at less than 1% , why is wild stocking such an issue ? Let's understand from a Snapper point of view, that over 1 million eggs are produced by each Female. The economic input to the State coffers on a per fish basis on Snapper is hard to gauge, but no doubt with the recreational economic input touching 1 billion dollars a year, you can easily see how spending several thousand dollars to produce a season of Snapper can be extrapolated into a windfall for the Govt. AND, the fishery, and the fishoes. Add to this the deployment of artificial reefs that harbour these demersals and I can clearly see a fishery on the verge of being not only sustainable, but an attraction to tourist fishers as well, not to mention the benefits to the local fishers.

It takes a lot of foresight to envisage a fishery on the east coast of Queensland being a World Wide destination due to an expansive, diverse and highly sustainable bio-mass of all species.

Is a RFL the answer though ?

I think it is still a question of an organisation to represent Rec fishers with enough clout and punch to make things happen at State and Federal levels of Government.

Trying to convince some Leather Shiner, that plonking a few million dollars into the rec industry will return many times that amount in time, is the problem.

Maybe employing the Greens to lobby around town on this could work ? After all, saving the oceans creatures is what we are talking about here, are we not ?

77 posts down and a lot of good talk and to & fro'ing :)

IN the end and I know what some are saying.... it is hard to believe we all would benefit from a RFL... but if seeing the evidence of spending was clear cut, would this help ?


cheers LP

Phill you mentioned its about saveing our oceans creatures but the most productive layer of ocean is from the surface down to 12 feet they say that's were a lot a larvie develops so for all of use to be running around in a boats with props spinning around chopping up this larvie so we are probably doing more to add to the depletion to our stocks from boating so getting the greens involved might not be a great idea.

The other issuse i have with a RFL and were moneys will be spent is how things have gone in the past with the allowcation of artificial reef it seems that certain lobby groups have more persuasion of were reefs go i dont want my money going to southen end of the bay like it has in the past and thats the problem that will happen if the RFL come into play who gets what first and who get what.

Camhawk88
06-06-2017, 03:11 PM
Phill you mentioned its about saveing our oceans creatures but the most productive layer of ocean is from the surface down to 12 feet they say that's were a lot a larvie develops so for all of use to be running around in a boats with props spinning around chopping up this larvie so we are probably doing more to add to the depletion to our stocks from boating so getting the greens involved might not be a great idea.



I'm sorry mate but this is laughable. Your point of not involving the greens is correct in so far as they will never support fishing but boat propellers causing mass planktonic mortality is one of the funnier things I have read on these forums in some time.

Lovey80
06-06-2017, 04:58 PM
DucksNutz,

can you please lead me to an Australian reel manufacturer that is on par with Shimano or Diawa? If there was an Australian manufacturer on par with quality and price I would buy it. If not taxing the import of such items will only be detrimental to the Australian economy.

a real pipe dream but something that would be awesome to see is 1% of the 10% GST on recreational fishing items ring fenced and put into a fund to fund these things like stocking, reefs etc. If rec angling is worth over 1bn a year in related sales. That's 100m in GST. If 10m annually had to go back to the fishery that would be an awesome start.

TheRealPoMo
06-06-2017, 05:19 PM
Devil's advocate here.
If this is about generating revenue to bolster fish stocks, why should people like me who fish for the sake of it and catch bugger all pay the same as blokes who fill 200 litre eskies with fish? No accusations of environmental terrorism intended.
How about 2 separate bag limits? A reduced limit for sad people like me with no fee and a paid license for those who take more from the supply up to the current limits ?
Then families can still enjoy the casual experience and the guys that get stuck in regularly put something back - because going on some of the posts and pictures on this forum, it certainly is a food source for some. Again, not saying anyone's doing wrong.
Cue hate mail...

Ducksnutz
06-06-2017, 05:42 PM
Sorry lovey, I don't know of an Aussie reel manufacturer that is on par with Daiwa or Shimano. It's a shame we don't have one but I guess the point I was trying make is big time business in the fishing retail industry doesn't in my opinion do their part for a sustainable future.

Agree with you on the GST point. Would be a great idea.

SchmucK
06-06-2017, 06:36 PM
I'd rather have a RFL under our terms, rather than one forced onto us. With the right management, allocation and use of funds, a RFL would be a great investment into the future of QLD fishing, aquaculture and tourism. For those folks blowing up about how it has always been their right to fish freely, think of it as protection (from the Greens) to continue doing that and giving back to a fishery which has provided you more than you've put back in. Generally as individuals you tend to care for things more if you have to pay for them, and even if the bureaucrats take 50% of the cut then it'll be worth it in the long run

Scott Mitchell
06-06-2017, 07:14 PM
Ray I am not having a shot at Scott, or anyone else on a personal level. I just have a big issue with conflict of interest and know full well, as just about everyone who has ever worked on a committee or elected board which is flush with cash will have experienced. Money changes everything and everyone. It in itself, causes conflict, jealously and lobbying. Whose pet projects get funded and whose don't. Then the jockeying for board elections so that such and such gets shafted because he/she is doing something else. You would turn the Recreational fishing lobby into a cashed up version of a bowls club. Get out CrakerJack and watch the video. It is not satire, it is a documentary. When the gloves were off a few years ago and the fishing vote was making serious headway at a political level, Sunfish could never get involved because it didn't want to put its funding at risk, even with fights they should have been having. In my not so humble opinion, as soon as all these organisations are relient on Government handouts, they cease to be effective. Again, I am not into personal attacks but everyone, doing this with all good intent will be damaged, both in deed and reputation, if they hitch their wagon to funding via an RFL. If we have to have one, so be it, and by all means lobby for worthy projects to spend the money on, but don't accept a cent of it. Good people will get burnt and be replaced by people attracted to the "sugar on the table"

Just to be clear I & ALL of those who I work with on the QRFN group are Volunteers who dedicate hundreds of hours ( years in some cases ) of non -paid volunteer work on these groups and committees. We genuinely act in what we believe is in the best interest of the wider recreation community. This is a task in itself as every time you ask the rec community for input all you get is a deathly silence ...... Until they get the the boat ramp or pub !

Apathy is one of our biggest challenges - along with division in our sector. And to clarify the QRFN is NOT funded by any one - neither is Sunfish any longer either ....

Regards Scotto

Scott Mitchell
06-06-2017, 07:19 PM
Sorry to disappoint you Nagg for not putting up a stronger agrument but you don't live here so your opinions don't count im my book.

P.S. thanks for the jew that are traveling up from NSW.

I'll second Nagg - And I live here NOW - But earlier :-)

Go The Blues .......

Scotto

Scott Mitchell
06-06-2017, 07:29 PM
1.Perhaps not so much that they are pushing for it- I cant see that as being a COI. However if an RFL was rolled out as per Scott's model, who would be representing the rec fishers on the committee? That's right- those in the above mentioned groups. And therein lies the COI.

2. It seems most feel that their way of life shouldn't have yet another government tax and layer of bureaucracy thrust upon it. If that makes me self righteous and selfish then I will wear that label.
Whose other interests should be considered here Satnav? The only ones I can see are the government and, well... F*&K them.

All the models I have seen clearly state that the expenditure of funds raised by the "proposed" general rec license or permit system for Qld - must be consulted with and approved by a committee made up of mostly rec anglers from across the state. The key rec organisation should have a place on that table as they are genuinely representing their membership - or they would not have any support. This is not to say other key rec representatives cannot secure positions on these committees - So I will ask those who have already contributed to this thread/tropic - Would YOU be prepared to go out into your local communities and ask for feedback on key rec issues effecting YOUR areas and then formally report back on a regular basis to the department or peak body voluntarily ?......

Scotto

aussiebasser
07-06-2017, 08:39 AM
Here's another question nobody likes to ask, if Recreational Anglers do have to pay a fee to fish, should Fishing Charter Operators have to pay a higher fee to operate and profit, from the fishery created by a Recreational Fishing Fee? A few of my friends probably won't like this, but why should someone at the moment be able to set themselves up as a Guide on a freshwater impoundment, with a fishery funded by the SIP Scheme, and make a profit from it? Similarly, Fishing Tournaments held on Stocked Impoundments which do not assist in the funding of the fishery.

Ducksnutz
07-06-2017, 10:38 AM
Would people living in southeast Queensland and northern NSW who fish either side of the border have to hold two rec licenses?

chris69
07-06-2017, 10:51 AM
I'm sorry mate but this is laughable. Your point of not involving the greens is correct in so far as they will never support fishing but boat propellers causing mass planktonic mortality is one of the funnier things I have read on these forums in some time.

I did not mention plankton, try googleing the life cycle of a mud crab and find out were female mud crabs spawn.

chris69
07-06-2017, 11:11 AM
Here's another question nobody likes to ask, if Recreational Anglers do have to pay a fee to fish, should Fishing Charter Operators have to pay a higher fee to operate and profit, from the fishery created by a Recreational Fishing Fee? A few of my friends probably won't like this, but why should someone at the moment be able to set themselves up as a Guide on a freshwater impoundment, with a fishery funded by the SIP Scheme, and make a profit from it? Similarly, Fishing Tournaments held on Stocked Impoundments which do not assist in the funding of the fishery.

What Steve Morgan doesnt donate to the local stocking when he runs a bass comp?
And they would have contributed to the impoundment because they need a SIP to be fishing there be it a guides customer or a competition fisher and yes i can see were your comeing from and it does open another can of worms that i don't want to see the government getting involved in, as we all know you get more than you bargined for.

Camhawk88
07-06-2017, 01:56 PM
I did not mention plankton, try googleing the life cycle of a mud crab and find out were female mud crabs spawn.

Larvae are plankton mate. Fully aware of the life cycle of the mud crab and many other inshore (and offshore which utilise inshore waters in the larval stage) species.
The premise that boat props have any measurable impact upon mortality and survivorship of planktonic species is a bit ridiculous.Natural predation on plankton would be infinitely higher in comparison.

Lucky_Phill
07-06-2017, 03:12 PM
The other issuse i have with a RFL and were moneys will be spent is how things have gone in the past with the allowcation of artificial reef it seems that certain lobby groups have more persuasion of were reefs go i dont want my money going to southen end of the bay like it has in the past and thats the problem that will happen if the RFL come into play who gets what first and who get what.

Chris.... There have been in recent years, 7 artificial reefs deployed by NPWS... which changes it's name all the time and this entity had a working committee made up of rec fishers, spearos, club fishers, game fishers and more, even a Green rep... 7 reefs deployed.

In the southern bay we had East Coochie, West Peel and off South Straddie ( not in the bay )
In the middle, we had Harry Aitkinson reef
In the north of the bay we had Wild Banks ( off Bribie ) , North Moreton ( nth end Moreton Island ) and Turner reef, being the latest one deployed near Scarborough

To me that looks like the northern end of the bay got a good deal. ??

Then we also deployed a couple of arti's in Hervey Bay.. obviously hoping to do more, but that seems to negate the " south vs north " question ?


cheers LP

aussiebasser
08-06-2017, 08:33 AM
What Steve Morgan doesnt donate to the local stocking when he runs a bass comp?
And they would have contributed to the impoundment because they need a SIP to be fishing there be it a guides customer or a competition fisher and yes i can see were your comeing from and it does open another can of worms that i don't want to see the government getting involved in, as we all know you get more than you bargined for.

Since SEQWater have started charging Tournament Organisers a fee to run their tournaments, none of them donate to either Somerset or Wivenhoe anymore. Steve Morgan with ABT was the only one who really acknowledged the efforts of the volunteer Stocking Groups.

chris69
08-06-2017, 10:25 AM
Chris.... There have been in recent years, 7 artificial reefs deployed by NPWS... which changes it's name all the time and this entity had a working committee made up of rec fishers, spearos, club fishers, game fishers and more, even a Green rep... 7 reefs deployed.

In the southern bay we had East Coochie, West Peel and off South Straddie ( not in the bay )
In the middle, we had Harry Aitkinson reef
In the north of the bay we had Wild Banks ( off Bribie ) , North Moreton ( nth end Moreton Island ) and Turner reef, being the latest one deployed near Scarborough

To me that looks like the northern end of the bay got a good deal. ??

Then we also deployed a couple of arti's in Hervey Bay.. obviously hoping to do more, but that seems to negate the " south vs north " question ?


cheers LP

No quite a good deal Phill the Bill Turner artificial reef is the only usefull one in the northen end of the bay althought the cages out off the wild banks fish well its outside the bay.

Now if you fish from the shore or off the beach why should there RFL fees go towards artificial reefs when they can not make any use of them because they don't have a boat to get to them,mum and dad wont wont to take the kids fishing if there RFL fees go towards the boating group getting more out of it.

jackson4300
08-06-2017, 11:04 AM
No quite a good deal Phill the Bill Turner artificial reef is the only usefull one in the northen end of the bay althought the cages out off the wild banks fish well its outside the bay.

Now if you fish from the shore or off the beach why should there RFL fees go towards artificial reefs when they can not make any use of them because they don't have a boat to get to them,mum and dad wont wont to take the kids fishing if there RFL fees go towards the boating group getting more out of it.

You don't have to fish from a boat to make use of them. The artis aren't there simply as a FAD for boaties. Promoting better fish numbers in the area and supporting juvenile fish benifits the greater area. So the shore fisherman could potentially be seeing increased fsh numbers and reaping the rewards from artis.

If I can see a well laid out plan (short and long term) with some evidence supporting the ideas, I would be happy to pay for a RFL. It is a hobby that I have participated in for most of my life and if I can give something back, why not?

Noelm
08-06-2017, 11:08 AM
You see, this is what I was getting at, "we" can't agree on anything, the more bickering goes on, the less will ever get done or be heard, regardless of what happens, we can't all be 100% happy, there will always be someone who says "but" an overall fee that benefits fishing in general cannot be just ruled out, there is dozens of reasons why it will be great, just as there is dozens that are not so flash, we need to meet somewhere in the middle!

Lucky_Phill
08-06-2017, 03:22 PM
No quite a good deal Phill the Bill Turner artificial reef is the only usefull one in the northen end of the bay althought the cages out off the wild banks fish well its outside the bay.

Now if you fish from the shore or off the beach why should there RFL fees go towards artificial reefs when they can not make any use of them because they don't have a boat to get to them,mum and dad wont wont to take the kids fishing if there RFL fees go towards the boating group getting more out of it.

No worries Chris... Artificial reefs are NOT only deployed in offshore and close to land areas, Artificial reefs are also things like Piers ( disused ), Rock Groins, and for instance in the Northern Bay. the old Hornibrook highway, which has a number of dedicated fishing platforms for recreational fishers, as does the new Ted Smout bridge.

I do understand what you're saying, but again let me say I do not support the RFL, but with close to shore arti's, arti's with tangible access by land and more, the fishery is supported and therefore grows, thus it expands and becomes benefit to all areas of the habitat. Take the Northern Bay area of Clontarf. In recent years there has been 3 arti's or recreational fisher only sites established. I have attached a couple of photos. There are the two groins / breakwalls near the boat ramp that provide excellent fishing opportunities for landbased fishers, same as the Ted Smout bridge platform and the Hornibrook Hwy platform. Long ago, we were promised the old concrete pylons from the Hornibrook Hwy from demolition, but some Green folks had a hissy fit and believed this would be akin to " dumping " into the ocean / bay. I am amazed by the short sightedness of some extreme Greens. They didn't want to relocate these pylons a few hundred meters ( to in front of the Ted Smouth fishing platform ) from where they were already in the water, but yet, not a peep was heard when Brisbane Airport Authority got the tick of approval from the State Government to extract 50 million tons of sand from Moreton Bay in an area that had 10% seagrass coverage.. " Dugong habitat and food source ". :( :( Chris, we have had success ( I believe anyway ) with artificial reefs being deployed, but it seems it may be just a vote buying exercise ?? dunno. What I am getting at is, there has been good outcomes for the northern bay and in the photos attached, you will note the MBMP Zoning map, which clearly indicates the Wild Banks and North Moreton arti's within Moreton Bay, as legislated by the State Government.

Can funds raised by a RFL increase the number of deployments ? Are arti's the best way of protecting and enhancing the fishery ? Do we need or want a RFL ?

If we can deploy 9 arti's in the last couple of years, can we continue with the struggle to get these done without a RFL and shear pressure on sitting Governments ?

I appreciate the responses and thoughts Chris


cheers LP

chris69
09-06-2017, 10:38 AM
Gee Phill there idea of were moreton bay is and were the partially smooth water line is varies greatly lol.

Lucky_Phill
09-06-2017, 10:41 AM
Yeah I know.... it's all in the details :) :)

I did notice about 12 rec fishers on the Hornibrook platform this morning (y)


cheers

NAGG
09-06-2017, 03:50 PM
With respect Nagg,

anyone can can quote figures and costs to support an argument. Could you tell me if it costs more for a rec licence per day if you pay monthly, quarterly or annually rather than every 3 years?

Assuming the cost is 8 cents per day and my math is correct, that amounts to $87.60 for three years which doesn't seem a lot. Now throw in mum, dad, little johnny and sally it becomes $350.40 if you pay the discounted price for three yearly licence. (See what I did with quoting figures to suit an argument) For the record my kids have moved out of home but having raised a family for more than 20 years on a single pay cheque every dollar counts and fishing for our family was an affordable pastime.

Call me cynical but I can't see how another tax on the working class will be of any benefit other than revenue for the knobs in power to waste.

My idea to support funding for our fisheries and waterways is for a tax on imported fishing equipment suppliers such as Daiwa and Shimano. Specifically gear made in China that produce massive amounts of profit for little return in regards to the health of the system. The tax would go into a trust managed by an organisation that ispecifically has fishing as its priority. These importers could in return advertise that they are partners in helping the future.
I know that ultimately it will be passed on to the customer, but it also might make fishos think about buying Aussie made products which has a domino effect on the economy.

Kids dont need to have a licence in NSW & I'm pretty sure that you can have your missus on the licence too - for the same fee
(dont quote me on that one though)
It is certainly cheaper to buy a 3 year licence - than 3 x yearly ($20 ?)

A licence fee did not reduce fishing participation in NSW

Gotta fly ... literally

Chris

rayken1938
09-06-2017, 03:55 PM
It appears to be dead in the water now Minister saysthat they are against a RFL.
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-legislation/sustainable-fisheries-strategy
Cheers
Ray

bluefin59
09-06-2017, 04:05 PM
Well looks like the end of this discussion, at least in the short term . Funny how passionate the discussion becomes and although we all have the same passion, we are really worlds apart on this issue . Enjoy fishing everyone . Matt

Lucky_Phill
09-06-2017, 05:46 PM
OH dear......... A politician makes a statement that something is no going to happen....... We'll run with a " Friday Funny " on that one. :vrolijk_26:

The current crop of pollies of all persuasions do not want to touch an RFL due to lack of support from the rec fishers. It is a vote killer.

This discussion is still worthy of input, as it will be here when people come looking for it. What happens on the internet, stays on the internet :)

There are easier ways to sequester funds for rec fishing items, and a simple increase in the RUF and those funds be removed from general revenue and back into a trust for the purposes in which they were intended, is a start. That is only a matter of a stroke of a pen ( keyboard ).

A sad reflection on Government happened today.

Fisheries Queensland have a facebook page and that is a good thing and they use it for good reason. On their page I asked them if there is any proposal for them to deploy more artificial reefs in Qld.

They responded that " MSQ looks after the reefs "..... Well shave my beard and call me normal... ::-? I didn't know that. BUT, I do know the NPSR ( old QPWS ) deployed most of the arti;s. So I contacted MSQ and they responded that they do not " look after " the reefs........ so what chance have we got if one Govt department doesn't know what the next one does or looks after or ??????????

Oh well, at least the footy is on to distract me from the incompetence of our apparent leaders !!!

LP

Ducksnutz
09-06-2017, 05:57 PM
A last word from this bloke,
Having been a staunch anti RFL I have enjoyed reading the opposite side of view to the point where a change in my opinion is perhaps on the cards.
I humbly accept that if it is for the greater good of a pastime that I have loved and enjoyed than so be it.

Noelm
09-06-2017, 08:19 PM
That's the way to think about it, to just say NO, because.....is not right, everyone needs to see all sides of such an issue. Having seen the days of no license in NSW and absolutely jack sh1t being done to ramps, facilities, stocking programs or anything else from the Government, to currently having a license and at least seeing some small odds and ends being done, makes it kind of worthwhile, sure, lots gets used by committees and groups with probably personal agendas, and possibly administration costs, at least we have seen improvements across the entire state. The license is pretty simple, pensioners are exempt, under (I think, will have to check) 16 and adults supervising kids are exempt, licences are available for 3 days, 3 months, 1 year or 3 years, all that said, it needs careful consideration, you have to be carful what you wish for, as they say!

NAGG
09-06-2017, 08:56 PM
That's the way to think about it, to just say NO, because.....is not right, everyone needs to see all sides of such an issue. Having seen the days of no license in NSW and absolutely jack sh1t being done to ramps, facilities, stocking programs or anything else from the Government, to currently having a license and at least seeing some small odds and ends being done, makes it kind of worthwhile, sure, lots gets used by committees and groups with probably personal agendas, and possibly administration costs, at least we have seen improvements across the entire state. The license is pretty simple, pensioners are exempt, under (I think, will have to check) 16 and adults supervising kids are exempt, licences are available for 3 days, 3 months, 1 year or 3 years, all that said, it needs careful consideration, you have to be carful what you wish for, as they say!

Something like 5 million fished stocked over the last year is a bit more than small odds & ends

fishing compliance in NSW is much better too

Having just got back from Evans head ..... I was really pleased with the facilities - particularly a nice covered fish cleaning table where 4 fishoes can go to work on cleaning fish . Evans Head is not exactly a major city either

chris

Noelm
10-06-2017, 06:05 AM
Yeah, sorry, bad choice of words!

tug_tellum
10-06-2017, 08:28 AM
It appears to be dead in the water now Minister saysthat they are against a RFL.
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-legislation/sustainable-fisheries-strategy
Cheers
Ray
Do you believe it. If it came out of a politicians mouth ,there is a good chance it is a lie. Didnt John Howard say " There is no way GST will ever be part of our policy. " Didnt Bob Hawk say that "By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty" And these guys were Prime ministers on national tv, not lowly little ministers who come and go and never be remembered again.
DONT TRUST THEM.
Mick

NAGG
10-06-2017, 09:04 AM
One of the things I remember about the introduction of the NSW licence was the level of discussion & engagement ....... There were meetings at fishing clubs etc plus the airplay that it got on the radio via a popular weekend fishing program called "High Tide" was great
I was a skeptic too (along with the majority of the callers) ...... but listening to the argument & hearing what was being proposed gave me an open mind -
What did convince me was one of the very first initiatives was the buyout of the commercial trawl licences on Botany Bay ..... gone were the days of seeing a line of prawn trawlers (20-30) dragging their nets .... destroying habitat & killing masses of bycatch. It was literally within a couple of seasons the fishing was improving . Next came the reef balls within the bay ..... The transition was amazing ..... in 5 years you went from fishing in a waste land to having good consistent fishing . Today the Bay , Georges & Cooks river (which feed the bay) consistently fish well for Mulloway & Kingfish .... let alone bream , trevally , whiting & flathead ...... A sure sign that removal of the fish killing , habitat destroying prawn trawl nets has worked in a busy port like Botany bay . The same can be said for Sydney Harbour ...... where you have successful fishing guides operating.

This is just an example & explains why I am all for an effective RFL (if it is used for the enhancement of recreational fishing)

People should take the time to research the NSW fisheries web site & just see for themselves what initiatives have been completed or are underway.

Chris

NAGG
10-06-2017, 11:38 AM
I guess this says it all ......

www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/consultations-and-legislation/sustainable-fisheries-strategy/what-it-means-for-recreational-fishers

Lovey80
10-06-2017, 07:52 PM
Here's another question nobody likes to ask, if Recreational Anglers do have to pay a fee to fish, should Fishing Charter Operators have to pay a higher fee to operate and profit, from the fishery created by a Recreational Fishing Fee? A few of my friends probably won't like this, but why should someone at the moment be able to set themselves up as a Guide on a freshwater impoundment, with a fishery funded by the SIP Scheme, and make a profit from it? Similarly, Fishing Tournaments held on Stocked Impoundments which do not assist in the funding of the fishery.

The punters on board Charter boats would have to have a licence just like the charter bloke would. Fresh water guide and his punters also have to pay a SIP. I think those guides are a great thing for the fishery. Let's face it, 99% of stocked impoundment fisho's do it for the love of the sport as 99% of the fish taken from an impoundment taste like shit. Those guides should only be seen as a good thing for the fishery. They are the pointy end when it comes to encouraging Rec Angling and can be the best people to educate regular punters on things like fish handling and caring for the environment. Some people wouldn't fish impoundments at all if it wasn't for guides giving them a head start on how to fish. Adding SIP payers to the system can only be a good thing. Sure if you want to regulate guides to ensure that their punters present a paid SIP slip before their punters get on the water I am happy but am all for their existance.

chris69
10-06-2017, 07:57 PM
The Queensland Government does not support the introduction of a recreational fishing licence.

Recreational and commercial fishers already contribute around $5 million each per year through commercial licence fees and the recreational use fee on boat registrations as well as the stocked impoundment permit scheme.



Recreational use fee, you see were already paying for our RFLs just worded differently.

Lovey80
10-06-2017, 08:18 PM
One of the things I remember about the introduction of the NSW licence was the level of discussion & engagement ....... There were meetings at fishing clubs etc plus the airplay that it got on the radio via a popular weekend fishing program called "High Tide" was great
I was a skeptic too (along with the majority of the callers) ...... but listening to the argument & hearing what was being proposed gave me an open mind -
What did convince me was one of the very first initiatives was the buyout of the commercial trawl licences on Botany Bay ..... gone were the days of seeing a line of prawn trawlers (20-30) dragging their nets .... destroying habitat & killing masses of bycatch. It was literally within a couple of seasons the fishing was improving . Next came the reef balls within the bay ..... The transition was amazing ..... in 5 years you went from fishing in a waste land to having good consistent fishing . Today the Bay , Georges & Cooks river (which feed the bay) consistently fish well for Mulloway & Kingfish .... let alone bream , trevally , whiting & flathead ...... A sure sign that removal of the fish killing , habitat destroying prawn trawl nets has worked in a busy port like Botany bay . The same can be said for Sydney Harbour ...... where you have successful fishing guides operating.

This is just an example & explains why I am all for an effective RFL (if it is used for the enhancement of recreational fishing)

People should take the time to research the NSW fisheries web site & just see for themselves what initiatives have been completed or are underway.

Chris

If a RFL does come in there has to be some massive improvements on the NSW model. This was a post of mine from way back and only looked at one year when Scott was pushing for Sunfish to get monies from a RFL. Conflict has already been discussed here so I'll leave that alone. I am sure there would be much more that NSW fishers would be pissed about if they knew what their money was being spent on.

Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:

Things like:

$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!

$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?

$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?

$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.

$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?

$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.

$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!

$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.

$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?

$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?

$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.

$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey

I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:

Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.

Just to name a few

You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!

Cheers

Chris

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php/157478-Sunfish-to-push-for-rec-licence?p=1099228&highlight=Lovey80#post1099228

NAGG
11-06-2017, 07:46 AM
The Queensland Government does not support the introduction of a recreational fishing licence.

Recreational and commercial fishers already contribute around $5 million each per year through commercial licence fees and the recreational use fee on boat registrations as well as the stocked impoundment permit scheme.



Recreational use fee, you see were already paying for our RFLs just worded differently.

The difference is that we as the fishoes really dont know how much is coming in or going out (being spent) ...... additionally it does not capture anything from interstate or international tourism ...... $5m isn't that much really considering that there are $15m worth of grants available from the NSW RFL this year alone .

Chris

NAGG
11-06-2017, 08:02 AM
If a RFL does come in there has to be some massive improvements on the NSW model. This was a post of mine from way back and only looked at one year when Scott was pushing for Sunfish to get monies from a RFL. Conflict has already been discussed here so I'll leave that alone. I am sure there would be much more that NSW fishers would be pissed about if they knew what their money was being spent on.

Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:

Things like:

$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!

$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?

$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?

$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.

$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?

$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.

$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!

$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.

$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?

$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?

$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.

$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey

I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:

Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.

Just to name a few

You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!

Cheers

Chris

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php/157478-Sunfish-to-push-for-rec-licence?p=1099228&highlight=Lovey80#post1099228

& I agree with you ..... there is certainly a bit of WTF expenditure - But what would things be like if NSW didn't have an RFL ....... fishing outcomes (results & expenditure ) were on the decline during the 70s-2000s . There were no salt water stocking programs / facilities were crap ...... freshwater fishing was hopeless (specially Cod) .

This is worth looking at

www.forestrycorporation.com.au/?a=565207

SchmucK
11-06-2017, 10:49 AM
If a RFL does come in there has to be some massive improvements on the NSW model. This was a post of mine from way back and only looked at one year when Scott was pushing for Sunfish to get monies from a RFL. Conflict has already been discussed here so I'll leave that alone. I am sure there would be much more that NSW fishers would be pissed about if they knew what their money was being spent on.

Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:

Things like:

$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!

$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?

$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?

$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.

$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?

$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.

$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!

$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.

$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?

$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?

$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.

$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey

I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:

Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.

Just to name a few

You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!

Cheers

Chris

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/showthread.php/157478-Sunfish-to-push-for-rec-licence?p=1099228&highlight=Lovey80#post1099228

Unfortunately the reality is there will always be some inefficiencies in terms of fund management in the NSW program, and that would certainly occur, particularly in it's infancy, with a QLD RFL aswell. It is inevitable. The admin costs and logistics in implementing a state wide program will always reduce the % of funds that goes to actual angler/catch related benefits - but those benefits don't organise themselves, and you don't attract a decent management team with peanuts. Same issues occur in the major charity groups aswell but at the end of the day they still manage to do good. In the list above, you might see a list of almost 3 million dollars in poorly spent funds, and I would probably agree for the most part, but that's 3 million dollars spent entirely, even if indirectly, on the fishery that wasn't there before. If the funds weren't well spent, then they can always be redirected into the trial of other programs the following year - at least they were available in the first place.

aussiebasser
12-06-2017, 06:53 AM
The punters on board Charter boats would have to have a licence just like the charter bloke would. Fresh water guide and his punters also have to pay a SIP. I think those guides are a great thing for the fishery. Let's face it, 99% of stocked impoundment fisho's do it for the love of the sport as 99% of the fish taken from an impoundment taste like shit. Those guides should only be seen as a good thing for the fishery. They are the pointy end when it comes to encouraging Rec Angling and can be the best people to educate regular punters on things like fish handling and caring for the environment. Some people wouldn't fish impoundments at all if it wasn't for guides giving them a head start on how to fish. Adding SIP payers to the system can only be a good thing. Sure if you want to regulate guides to ensure that their punters present a paid SIP slip before their punters get on the water I am happy but am all for their existance.

Sorry Lovey, from our surveys, the majority of recreational anglers on lakes Somerset and Wivenhoe, (the two most fished impoundments in Queensland) are fishing to catch a feed of fish. They are catching Golden Perch, Bass and Silver Perch for the table. That is the reason the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme was implemented, to maintain put and take fisheries so that people could target table fish.

tug_tellum
12-06-2017, 09:03 AM
I have worked out a way to please 100% of the people. Dont make it compulsory. That way people who disagree with it wont have to contribute and those who totally agree can donate to it. Why does it have to be compulsory? I rarely ever go fishing and admit I am not a good fisherman,but I dont mind occasionally ( a few times a year)sitting on a chair on a beach ,contemplating my navel while I drown a worm or two and this is the extent of my fishing. I fish more to relax,not to feed a multitude. I have a 10 ft boat which hasnt been in the water for the last 12mths but I keep it just in case on the spur of the moment I decide I want to go fishing or more likely,just boating as I dont usually catch fish.
How about that for an idea? Why MUST it be compulsory. If its a case of user pays then as a small user I shouldnt have to pay as much as a big user! People only wants to bring out user pays senarios when it suits them. Why do my rego fees get gobbled up by bicycle lanes etc when I dont even own a bicycle. Why dont they have to contribute to road funding. Why arent they paying rego and compulsory 3rd. party insurance. They dont even use fuel so they dont pay excise,fuel levys and gst like we are screwed with.
RFL no thanks. I decline,even thou I am almost at the age where you say I wouldnt have to pay. Please contribute only if you feel obligated.
Mick

aussiebasser
13-06-2017, 07:09 AM
In my opinion the new SIP for the fresh is a disappointment for all members of the previous scheme .
To be part of the new scheme all groups have to sign a nondisclosure statement preventing them from disclosing their new funding arrangements.
this reeks of collusion so much for open government policy)
The government will now cream off 30% of monies raised for admin.
No complaint about the funding that new SIP groups will receive they were devastated by the newman government..
I also have concerns about the manner that stocking groups will be allowed to utilize funds. I would now appear that the stocking groups may be forced to pay for signage etc at dams.
With the composition of the proposed board giving fisheries a 50% membership certainly gives them an unfair advantage and in my opinion will result in any changes to current funding practices will possibly only advantage the fisheries budget rather than be to the benefit of the fishery.
I have not been privileged to study the proposed sip document in full but what little I have seen there will be more losers that winners and much more pressure is going to be exerted on stocking groups to expand their resources into fundraising activities instead of actual stocking.
Cheers
Ray

Ray, SWFSA Inc have just signed their new Stocked Impoundment Grant Deed. There is no "nondisclosure" statement in it anywhere. This year we will receive $64988.00 for Somerset and $58845.00 for Wivenhoe, plus GST.
I'm not sure which group told you about the nondisclosure clause, and the suspicion of "collusion" but it is totally false, in fact, whatever group is was should have already received the Outcomes from Meeting 1 of the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme Working Group, held on April 5th, this year.

NAGG
13-06-2017, 08:22 PM
Ray, SWFSA Inc have just signed their new Stocked Impoundment Grant Deed. There is no "nondisclosure" statement in it anywhere. This year we will receive $64988.00 for Somerset and $58845.00 for Wivenhoe, plus GST.
I'm not sure which group told you about the nondisclosure clause, and the suspicion of "collusion" but it is totally false, in fact, whatever group is was should have already received the Outcomes from Meeting 1 of the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme Working Group, held on April 5th, this year.

Hey Dale

Just a quick one .... how does Wivenhoe gain such a large portion of the SIP funding ? - I would have thought that it would have been a fraction of Somerset

Chris

NAGG
13-06-2017, 08:36 PM
I have worked out a way to please 100% of the people. Dont make it compulsory. That way people who disagree with it wont have to contribute and those who totally agree can donate to it. Why does it have to be compulsory? I rarely ever go fishing and admit I am not a good fisherman,but I dont mind occasionally ( a few times a year)sitting on a chair on a beach ,contemplating my navel while I drown a worm or two and this is the extent of my fishing. I fish more to relax,not to feed a multitude. I have a 10 ft boat which hasnt been in the water for the last 12mths but I keep it just in case on the spur of the moment I decide I want to go fishing or more likely,just boating as I dont usually catch fish.
How about that for an idea? Why MUST it be compulsory. If its a case of user pays then as a small user I shouldnt have to pay as much as a big user! People only wants to bring out user pays senarios when it suits them. Why do my rego fees get gobbled up by bicycle lanes etc when I dont even own a bicycle. Why dont they have to contribute to road funding. Why arent they paying rego and compulsory 3rd. party insurance. They dont even use fuel so they dont pay excise,fuel levys and gst like we are screwed with.
RFL no thanks. I decline,even thou I am almost at the age where you say I wouldnt have to pay. Please contribute only if you feel obligated.
Mick

When has a fee ever been about pleasing anyone ?

There are national parks here in NSW that you have to pay an entrance fee ...... you have a choice pay it (& enjoy it) or not pay it (& dont enjoy it) ....... or enjoy it & dont pay for it - then risk a fine.
how can you expect some to contribute to the betterment of a fishery by paying & then have others gain the benefit & not contribute . I dont think it works that way . ...
I wouldn't expect to benefit from the members facilities at some club - if I wasn't a member

Chris

Lovey80
14-06-2017, 04:35 AM
Sorry Lovey, from our surveys, the majority of recreational anglers on lakes Somerset and Wivenhoe, (the two most fished impoundments in Queensland) are fishing to catch a feed of fish. They are catching Golden Perch, Bass and Silver Perch for the table. That is the reason the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme was implemented, to maintain put and take fisheries so that people could target table fish.

I have released every fresh water fish I've caught since I took a few Bass from Sommerset many years ago. The people you survey mustn't have taste buds. I was guilty at taking a few 50+cm Bass as two spoons worth were eaten before they were binned.

NAGG
14-06-2017, 05:32 AM
I have released every fresh water fish I've caught since I took a few Bass from Sommerset many years ago. The people you survey mustn't have taste buds. I was guilty at taking a few 50+cm Bass as two spoons worth were eaten before they were binned.

A bit like impoundment barra ..... you need the right recipe - soak the fillets in diesel & milk over night (something like that) :D

I tried to eat a bass out of Somerset once too ..... only once

Chris

Lovey80
14-06-2017, 06:24 AM
A bit like impoundment barra ..... you need the right recipe - soak the fillets in diesel & milk over night (something like that) :D

I tried to eat a bass out of Somerset once too ..... only once

Chris

does that recipe end with throwing the rest away and eating the cardboard?

aussiebasser
14-06-2017, 07:15 AM
Hey Dale

Just a quick one .... how does Wivenhoe gain such a large portion of the SIP funding ? - I would have thought that it would have been a fraction of Somerset

Chris

Surface area, it's 11,000 hectares although the cap is 4,000. With the now discontinued preference ticks, Wivenhoe was second and Somerset was first in the State. We fought for years to get Wivenhoe opened to outboards, and when it was, the usage escalated substantially. Garry Fitzgerald's, years long promotion of Kayak and Canoe fishing had a massive impact on the use of Lake Wivenhoe too. It was a concerted effort by a few blokes on the local stocking group, promoting the destination. Tho stock Wivenhoe to it's maximum potential, like some smaller dams have been stocked, we'd need about $3,000,000.00 per year.
The whole system is being revamped, with 30 odd new lakes being added and the preference ticks being dropped, next year will see a difference to the funding.

The 2015-16 preferences were;


Bjelke Peterson
4.88%
$33,202


Boondooma*
5.13%
$28,218


Borumba
4.15%
$16,877


Burdekin*
1.37%
$32,654


Callide
1.60%
$13,767


Cania
2.40%
$12,633


Connolly
1.68%
$2,468


Cooby*
4.54%
$4,542


Coolmunda
3.55%
$24,111


Cressbrook*
5.08%
$4,924


Eungella
2.75%
$18,164


Fairbairn
1.66%
$34,345


Fred Haig
2.64%
$43,616


Glenlyon
2.65%
$25,425


Gordonbrook
1.31%
$5,589


Kinchant
3.67%
$20,808


Lake Dyer
1.70%
$3,670


Lake Gregory
1.33%
$5,852


Lake MacDonald
1.86%
$7,625


North Pine
2.59%
$26,595


Lenthalls
1.65%
$10,865


Leslie
5.16%
$33,784


Maroon
5.07%
$16,051


Moogerah
4.71%
$24,455


Peter Faust
2.77%
$37,865


Somerset
7.64%
$64,226


Storm King
1.44%
$5,988


Teemburra
2.89%
$19,776


Theresa Creek
1.62%
$7,295


Tinaroo
2.53%
$39,294


Wivenhoe*
6.12%
$58,050


Wuruma
1.84%
$17,599

aussiebasser
14-06-2017, 07:24 AM
I have released every fresh water fish I've caught since I took a few Bass from Sommerset many years ago. The people you survey mustn't have taste buds. I was guilty at taking a few 50+cm Bass as two spoons worth were eaten before they were binned.

Most anglers chase Golden Perch, and many specialise in Silver Perch. The 12' tinnies with 10hp motors make up the majority of SIP purchasers, and they are chasing a feed.

As for taste, Fish wish naturally predate on Boney Bream will have a muddy taste, so Bass from Somerset, Wivenhoe and Moogerah are not all that nice, although if you trim the fat off them they are OK. Bass from Hinze, Maroon and other dams with fish having a more terrestrial diet have a much milder taste. It's the same with impoundment Barra, however, prepared properly, ie. bled at capture, chilled before filleting, all fat trimmed and properly sliced, again, they are quite presentable on the table. Any fish left in the boat at ambient temperature for more than half an hour will substantially deteriorate in eating quality.