Moreton Bay Closures - what's happening?

[gif]

Thanks to Steve for the invitation to lay out the facts - as unbiased as I can. #

What's all this talk about closures to Moreton Bay? # Well … no one knows for sure, but it is certain that there will be dramatic changes.

The facts as we know it:

1. Queensland Marine Parks must be reviewed every ten years and Moreton Bay is due for review in 2007. #This park covers from Caloundra in the north to the southern tip of South Stradbroke. #It includes the lower reaches of estuaries even as far as Coombabah Lake and at least 6 klm east of the islands.

2. Well organized and funded conservation groups have been lobbying for more than a year for 50% closures of the entire park. # #One Group alone, the ACF has a $7m annual budget.

3 There is a firm commitment to further restrictions and more parks. As the government web site says: #In keeping with the Queensland Government's commitment to establish marine parks from the Gold Coast to the Gulf of Carpentaria, a number of new marine parks are proposed.

4 The Government has made no announcements or plans. # With an election about to be called in Queensland we will not hear any unpopular news about closures until after the election.


If we don’t know what’s planned what we can learn from other recent Marine Park Closures/reviews?


1 There will be definite plans to significantly restrict recreational fishing. In the Great Barrier Reef they closed 33% in area but took nearer to 80% by taking the best areas. #They did this by asking “where do you fish so we don’t take it accidentally” then zoned those exact areas as green. (no fishing)

2 In the Great Sandy Straights Park (Hervey Bay) there will be large areas that are “protected” #from recreational fishing but open to commercial fishing and even aquaculture.


3 The decisions will be made in political deals and lobbying. # Science was ignored, damage to business and economy was ignored up north. #Petitions and protest meetings made little difference in the north. # The closure of 33% of the Barrier Reef was a political deal: # Howard did a deal with the Democrats to get the #GST passed in the Senate.



What is being done?

Various groups are meeting, forming alliances and making plans. # #The pity is that that means we are 2 years behind the better organized greenies. # #Sunfish, Some Clubs, The Fishing Party and individuals are all calling meetings and calling for help.


What can I do?

Get one of the experts like Rick Huckstepp or the Fishing Party to speak at your fishing club #- then get the club to decide to write or protest or help hand out how to vote cards at the election.

Organize letters to your local member - just say the Park needs to be fair and based on science #- and not just to get the Green preferences at election.

Think carefully about your vote at the next election. #It’s a tough choice.

Labor has changed from the workers party to a greenie party. #Remember the Tasmanian timber workers in the last election? #Labour said they would save the trees not the jobs.

Liberals and Nationals #also have some green policies but will probably reduce the closures.

The Fishing Party will never win government. # But if you decide to make your vote a protest vote at the other parties then they are the best choice. # The more votes they get the more the government will listen to us and the less to the Greens.

Greens and Democrats? # #If they win then take up Golf and sell the boat quick, before the price crash. #



For more government details and maps see http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/parks_and_forests/marine_parks/moreton_bay/


Thanks for reading this. # I am not an expert but have learned a lot about politics in the last year. # The above is a bland and I tried to be unbiased - accept it as that. # #I wont argue or comment further on this post except where clarification is sought. #

Gary

[hicksy]

Gary,
Thanks for your information you have provided. I think what you failed to mention in your summary for the political parties is this:

1. The current libs and nationals at the federal level are responible for the debacle in the Great Barrier reef marine park. So they won't be any help.

2. Labor certainly haven't gone form the workers party to the greenies party. Who is standing up to Howard on his anti-worker legislation? Labor is.

I agree with the seniment everyone is dispalying towards any proposed closure of moreton bay.

Just thought I would add my comment about your summary of the political parties.

[gif]

I think what you failed to mention in your summary for the political parties is this:

1. The current libs and nationals at the federal level are responible for the debacle in the Great Barrier reef marine park



I think I did when I write:



The closure of 33% of the Barrier Reef was a political deal: Howard did a deal with the Democrats to get the GST passed in the Senate.

[Camo]

2. Labor certainly haven't gone form the workers party to the greenies party. Who is standing up to Howard on his anti-worker legislation? Labor is.


That's all very well, what has the state labor government done for you lately, apart from running down essential services in the state. Lets face it if there is an extra vote in, it they will side with the Greenies, against workers every time, and too bad if that impacts on the economy, or an average persons pastime or employment. Get it though your head, the workers are taken for granted because they know they will get that rusted on vote. The swinging voters are the ones they listen to. You may never vote anything but labor, but the Labor party doesn't need to know that.

Camo

[Adamy]

Good work Fooksy (can I call you that?)

I couldnt have said it better or without emotion. Particularly your thoughts about what "we" can do. At the local level, if your local member receives a deluge of mail from local residents (from whom they wish to seek votes) then they will place pressure on the on the "minister for getting rid of the fishing fraternity". We have to do more than voice concern tho - we have to threaten their political livelihood (I dont mean threaten them physically) I mean threaten to take away your vote.

The very first role of Government is to stay in Government, the very first role of the sitting member is to retain their position i.e keep their job.

Its the only thing they understand....

[hicksy]

Gary,

Sorry mate. Your report did mention how Howard sold fisherman out in the GBR affair.

Hicksy

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

I can't understand why the labour govt in Queensland would need to side with the greens, or anybody for that matter. Sure they might get touched up a bit in the next election, but they will still walk in. They have absolutely no opposition. Why would they side for the green's support when it would put them out of favour with so many constituents? Can anyone answer this please? I honestly don't understand.

Cheers
Dave

[gif]

Dave

I think they side with the Greens Party to get their preferences. Yes you may have a point. I think you are saying they don't need then this time. But they will one day and these are long term deals.

But there is a green streak inside the Labor party - and streatk is now over 50% wide.

Gary

[Adamy]

I can't understand why the labour govt in Queensland would need to side with the greens, or anybody for that matter. Sure they might get touched up a bit in the next election, but they will still walk in. They have absolutely no opposition. Why would they side for the green's support when it would put them out of favour with so many constituents? Can anyone answer this please? I honestly don't understand.

Cheers
Dave

Sometimes it seems more like the greens are simply a extreme off shoot from labor - a vote for the greens is a proxy vote for labor...

Back to the pollies primary role - stay in Govt....

Even in the most blue collar died in the wool - safest labor seats - they always seek greens preferences - why?? see above.... its like insurance - you may never need it - but if you ever do -its nice to have it there ready.

I think you will find that labor does these preference deals at a national level... labor has a caucus and once the caucus makes a decision the rest of the party has no choice but to go along with it.... thats the purpose of the caucus.... rarely do you ever see labor cross the floor as the libs and Nats did today... Libs and Nats are allowed to vote or abstain on matters of conscious (the party doesnt like it - but are still allowed) labor pollies are not permitted the same privilege. Even if they can make these decisions at the State level, you will often find that party discipline will determine the outcome.

Sound like crap?? I've been there... done that I know... but if anyone still has doubts - feel free to collect a greens how to vote card at any election... prefs are always directed to labor and vice versa

[robyoung1]

Hi all, rob's the name. I joined many moon phases back, but forgot my password, so have just been sandbagging for years now. Just watchin and reading what you guys have had to say..

But I just had to re-register and mention my thought on this, and hope I don't become well hated on my first post here.

I wasn't aware of the news posted here on the thread regarding an aproaching closure, and I don't trust anything gov. does anymore. I did used to trust one in a fairly serious way, but frankly I just don't like any of am anymore. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

Anyway to the point. I've long believed giving the bay a break is a great idea. I don't mean from recreational fishing, while continuing to allow commercial fishing also though. that seems just too bizarre.

I worked on a trawler as a kid (very short time, it genuinely upset the hell out of me to do it), and for the claim to be accpted at any level that they don't destroy fish, because they're targetting prawns is incredible. No, not incredible, just straight out lie. We caught entire schools of 2-3 inch long mackeral. Probably spotties, maybe spaniards, I wouldn't be sure at that small a size. But it was heart breaking.

My thoughts of closing the bay off for a while is based entirely on the memory of how the fishing was as a kid, compared to now. I believe more fish are being caught in the bay this season than have been for quiet a while. But still, as hard as it would be to cop, and I'd hurt over it too. Maybe just a few (3) year total ban, by total I mean that of course commercial fishing (which ought to be banned in the bay forever); would give us back a better fishery. A few years of parent stock raising up, the breeding rate would benefit by more breeding age fish re-producing say 3 times, instead of just the once (if they're lucky).

I would imagine the fishing would continue to improve after the theoretical (my theoretical I mean) ban was lifted and we all went back hard at it, because there would simply be a larger adult pool to knock out youngsters.

My theory would also have to implement an irreversible and complete commercial ban, from trawling to drift netting etc..

Anyway, I don't get to make any rules so it's not like my thoughts would ever amount to anything, and I really enjoy bass fishing, so I'd have something else to do. I understand of course those who are keen on the very unique fishing style the bay offers, and don't get into creeks and such would suffer very harshly for those few years.

Just a thought anyway. I couldn't imagine myself supporting any of the plans I read here. That's pretty sure.

cheers all
rob

[Got_the_Fever]

Rob no one is going to hate you for having an opinion, we are all entitled to have one. I dont know if a full closure for 3 years would be the answer though. It would be to easy for the toads in parilment to turn around at the end of it and say, no sorry but we have decided to closure the area permanently. And it would place a great deal of economic hardship onto all those who make a living out of the bay, eg charter boats and the like.

I do agree with you about the slaughter caused by trawlers and the like. I did a short time on a trawler and was appalled by the murder of everything that came up in the nets. There has to be a better way to fish commercially and still manage not to kill everything. I was watching a program recently and instead of the diamond shaped netting that is used on most trawlers they where using square shaped which didnt close up. This allowed the smaller fish a chance to escape and to grow up and breed the next generation. This is only a small thing but one that imho would make a world of difference.

As I have mentioned in other posts, (Our Fishing Future) temporary rolling closures would allow our fishing stocks to recover and having read more and more recently I do think it would have a smaller economic impact on those who make a living on the water. These closures could be adapted to anywhere in australia and give the next generations a chance to inherit a fishery that we have done something to help preserve.

Not all of the population can get out and enjoy catching their own fish, eg elderly, health infirmed and our country bretheren. They are all entitled to enjoy a feed of fish which is their right, so some commercial fishing is a must. Having said that I do believe that trawlers and the like SHOULD be banned totally from esturarys. These areas are the breeding ground for a lot of different fish populations and the nursery to most of them.

We do need commercial fishing and to say otherwise would be daydreaming. Even with the level of commercial fishing that excists at present we are still being flooded with imports of fish and prawns that have the potential to hurt our fishing stocks with introduced virues and the like. I was in a supermarket the other day and saw in the freezer section flathead in beer batter, looking at the package i discovered it was a product of malaysia. What are we coming to when we have one of the most diverse fishing enviroments in the world and we import flathead and everyother fish.

To all those who have read my ramblings in the past I apologize for putting you through it again. I think that it is something that has to be put out there. It is too bad that the politicians dont come here to listen to the people who have a stack in the future and who could given them some sensible ideas others than those offered by the extreme greens. I know there are a lot more experienced fisho's in these pages than myself and a lot more intelligent and a lot better with expressing themselves.

This is just one persons opinion who enjoys being able to go fishing when I am physically able to or have the time away from work to be able to do so.


Kel

[Adamy]

Hey Kel... Well reasoned comments as always, I for one would be in favour of temporary rolling closures (rather than total bans) - although the policing and management... letting all stakeholders know the rules everytime they change could be an administrative issue that might need to be economically addressed before such as recommendation could become viable. Its much easier to perform (and police) a total and permanent lock out than it is to manage the whole rolling closure thing... from an administrative point of view...

But then again that would provide employment for another billion bureaucrats to manage the 3 parks and wild life officers doing the actual work... so perhaps this Govt might go for it :o :o

and yeh Rob - everyone is entitled to an opinion here.... thats why we put our stuff up... others are also entitled to disagree - thats the great thing about this site.... so welcome "back".

[T1]

Hi All

As a person who used to frequent Fraser quite regularly, i completely agreed with the restrictions they placed on Fraser Is. A 2 month ban from Waddy to Indian in spawning season and a ban on netters! This has and will continue to go a long way to ensuring our kids will enjoy the same elations as we enjoy in catching fish! It's not a total ban but a very sensible one!

In this, i support a similiar one for Moreton Bay! Something must be done to ensure future stocks and regeneration however i don't believe a TOTAL ban is necessary or required and one such ban is purely political for Beattie and his cohorts! Nothing more, nothing less! Banning of Trawlers in Estuaries is certainly one that should head the list!

We do need to gather a voice and maybe not just the regular fisho but how about some industry spokespeople and businesses from bait and tackle shops to marine suppliers and traders! They are the ones that really will hurt! It is a multi million dollar industry in this state and surely to god this must have an impact with the right spokespeople/representatives?!?!?

Just my opinion...

Take Care T

[ratherbefishin]

Guys, This topic sure is raising some emotive comments.

Just two points:

1. Dont forget how the water crisis plays into all this. All these near sighted fools who think we can solve our problems by building more dams and fitting water tanks to houses to further reducing the flow of the rivers & creeks are increasing the damage to the environment by not allowing the natural food flow down the estuaries. We need to reduce consumption or find other sources of water to preserve the rivers and creeks which feed our fishing habitat.

2. If you want to send a message but also want to retain your vote for your party, then take the time on the senate ticket to fill out all the boxes, put the Fishing Party 1 and then whatever preference you want 2 etc etc. That way even if the fishing party doesnt get a senate position, your preferences flow the way you want but the primary vote (which all the major parties analyse to death) shows what matters to you.

BTW, I am (am I expect a lot of you are) fully in favour of closures which are justified through scientific means as a process of management which will ensure the sustainability of our fishing resource.

[Got_the_Fever]

I know that this gov will try and pad the books if rolling closures where to come into affect. Beattie and his lot seem to be able to find money when it comes to their agenda but not for the important things that need addressing, eg health, education and the list goes on. With rolling closures a map could be drawn up and the date of closures could be published at the same time. This way the extreme greens and labour would have a limited window of padding jobs for their mates.

I am now off work for a few months with health issues so I am going to sit down with some charts and try to take this idea a little further. I would really appreciate any input that ppl here would like to offer. Once there is a consense of what we all consider a fair deal I would like to submit it to the fishing party and my local mp to see if this could be taken anywhere.

Permanent closures are NOT the answer to anything. A full scientific project needs to be set up to monitor these closures by an independent body. If permanent closures are going to be stopped we have to have a supporting arguement and plan, not just saying that they wont work. That isnt going to convince anyone.

Together maybe we can submit a plan that will stop this nonsense of permanent closures of OUR fishing grounds and give the younger and next generation something to be proud of. I am not saying I have the answer to everything, but I would like to think that maybe I have at least contributed in my own small way.

Please if anyone has any suggestions you would like to make dont hesitate to pm me.

Kel

[Juzo]

Hey Kel

I reckon your idea of rolling closures is one of the most sensible suggestions I have heard or read to date. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea, and look foward to hearing any developements on the issue.

My initial thoughts,

what do you consider a closer? All species in an area, or one species in all area's a certain times. I think something like the closure on Tailor at Frazer for spawning and barramundi for spawning makes sense. Gives a species the best chance to procreate if we're not hitting them when they are getting it on ;).

For instance I know the bream are targeted this time of year as they are getting ready to spawn, but shouldn't we let them do their business at this time of year, rather than catching them with a bellie full of babies :)
Same go's for the flathead in spring.

To me it seems if all fishing presure (comercial and rec) was taken off a species during thier spawning time it would greatly improve reproduction...

I would be more than happy to help you develope your idea Kel, if I can help in any way send me a pm.
cheers
Juzo

[hungry6]

The current Govt. of this state has a mean-green streak to them. They already know where we all fish and have the solution to resolve the situation. But by doing that doesn't appease the radical few greenie with political voices, so we got the rough end of the pineapple for the green votes they hope to obtain. What amazes me is that, there are hundreds of thousands of fishos out there, and we are force to live the way a few green minority want us to. I'm no political strategist, but milions petition signatures in a bundle of papers doesn't have the same impact on the 6 O'clock news as a few thousand thousands of boaties dragging there boats around the CBD on a friday arvo.
Just a thought.

Wayne.

[Got_the_Fever]

Mate I was thinking about total closure of any area at a time, eg the pin totally for 2 years and so on through the bay. Your thoughts have a lot of merit and I do think they would go a long way to helping the problems. I dont know how enforcement would go with closing the bay for certain species, you know how bloody sneaky we fisho's are. With the idea of closing a area totally then anyone caught in that area with fishing gear and the like could be fined with a pretty good confidence that they are poaching. I think that your idea is great for species like crabs and the like. They could have a set season other than the spawning times in late spring and early summer. This way we can sustain the species for years to come. And limiting the number of commercial fishermen that are able to catch crabs instead of the open slaughter that is in place now. Perhaps setting up commercial licences for crabbing alone and stopping the trawlers catching them altogether.

The more I think about this the more it starts making sense to me, why hasnt anyone else thought about this before.

Kel

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

From what I have read and listened to, the govt has not considered any sort of parital/total ban at all. In fact, if Minister Boyle is to believed, she has reiterated time and again that nothing will be considered until at least next year.

Ok, so maybe we are not getting the whole truth, if we aren't then I put forward the following question. If the Labor govt has federally detemined links with the greens, and even if it does so as insurance, how could TFPQ hope to influence the labor govt if it directed it's preferences in that direction, and if not, what assurances have there been from the Libs/Nats that they will listen to TFPQ? If historically the Labor Party tows the Green line, then surely it cannot also heed to the voice of TFPQ? So where does that leave our vote for TFPQ?

Please don't misinterpret what I am saying here, I mean no antagonism, I simply wonder.

Cheers
Dave

[Bundy_Burp]

Rolling closures are a stupid idea whats the point of closing an area only to have it picked clean by a rush of people when its open again .
All rolling closures are going to do is open the door for the greenies and other fringe elements to try and close the areas for good .
It will start with a month or two closures here and then 3 or 4 months there then they would close things for good .
What we have to be able to do is show people that as a group we can control the situation by ourselves .
I know that in the past there were many stories about the huge cacthes and such but that was then and this is now , and I also know that we have left this problem go on for far too long .
Maybe a greater presence on the water in terms of the DPI and maybe lowering of bag limits may help its a huge problem but if we dont start doing something about it soon the closures wont be far off .

Bundy

[kc]

Dave makes the valid point about TFPQ votes and preference arrangements and I have to say this is not an overnight or even 1 election issue. It will take years of concerted effort and to windback the historical Labor/Greens relationship will not be easy.

It should be said that in theory we are a working mans sport and should have a common bond with Labor. That they have, on some issues, deserted traditional roots in exchange for more radical environmental policy is strange, but power and the quest for power do stange things.

IF the Fishing Party vote exceeds the green vote in the electorates we stand in at the next election then eyebrows will be raised.

If next state election, instead of standing in a handful of seats we stand in 20 or 30 then TFPQ preferences become more "valuable" than green party preferences...that's when things change.

As to wether we can trust the conservatives to honour election promises I must say, to date, the federal Government has met every committment it made. Maybe we didn't actually ask for enough, but the issues we raised of importance to TFPQ membership were all ultimately accepted as reasonable and all enacted. Additional to this we have continued dialog and continued access to politicians and another major announcement in terms of recreational fishing will soon be forthcoming.

Our "best case scenario"

Stand in 7 to 9 seats.

Poll average of 8 to 10% in those seats (Greens average 4% in Qld seats)

Poll sufficfently well in Cairns that our preferences result in the Environment Minister losing her seat.

Become mainstream news as a result which builds awareness, profile, membership and industry support.

Be ready to run in 20 seats in 2010......and between now and then have a major bargaining position with the State Government, because 1 election starts the day after the last one finishes.

Hope that makes some sense Dave,,,,it took the Green Party over 20 years to reach this point. We have been at it for 1 1/2.

KC

[tehrah]

I agree with you rob i think it could be food for thought, but may be
a total closure of the bay to commercial fisherman and may be 3 months
a year to recreational fisherman we have to look at some sort solution
if you look at other places around australia n.t and s.a there closures have been very succesful and they have great fisheries we have to be
willing to sacrifice something and not be altogether greedy for the
almighty dollar we must stop thinking we are owed somthing lets
think of the future


terah

[robyoung1]

Yeah I can see your point about rolling closures rather than full blown, and reckon you're right. I have to admit I hadn't put a load of thought into it, but what thought I had put into it was cushioned by the fact that we now in Queensland have great freshwater fishing. Which we didn't have as a kid. That banning saltwater fishing in any degree would have been disasterous for closures of any sort. So even if one doesn't like bass, or Saratoga etc; they can get by trying it out for a while during any such closure these days.

Perhaps if a submission is going to be made to the gov on this issue, maybe closures oughtn't be considered too much until
A. Some rain puts a decent level of water back into the dams
and B. a serious upping of fresh water stocks if needed might be worth considering in anticipation, to offset the heavier fishing load such places as impoundments might experience when a closure does happen.

Maybe I am daydreaming, but I would like to see the end of commercial fishing, because I just can't see the value in it against the environmental (fishing sustainability). I can barely stand these days, I have degeneration of several discs in a row. One wave in the lap and I'm paralyised. A misballanced cast and I'll follow my pichard off the rocks and go swimming lol.

But before it all went sour (the fishing ), we all had such decent catches that no old codger I knew, or disabled person went without fish. if we could get the fishing back to some level of what it used to be, those who can no longer fish would still get a feed, from their neighbour's excess though, not dragged up in a net. And stopping the destruction of fish from those nets are a step in the right direction to making the fishing well enough to toss every old bloke in the street a few fish again aswell.

I do admit I'm "bloody minded" on this one point though.

A mate I used to see a bit of ( I haven't seen him for years now) was part of the Barra breeding program at Deception Bay some 15 years ago now. (didn't that do well).
I spent a fair bit of time hanging around there, and they were experimenting with breeding everything from whiting to mangrove jack. the jacks werre a monumental failure at that point, but whiting and flathead was pretty well sorted out, and as I understand it, the technology is available right now. (has been for years). In fact I vaiguely recall them releasing some in Pumistone Passage a number of years ago. (maybe 10 years back?)

Now what my hangd up is with nets ; is simply that to spend all that money of researching the breeding, and then to do the job (and they lost batch after batch to problems); only to finally release them and have them swim straight into a net is a nightmare.

Of course, closing a spot to netting while a potential stocking took place is as real as any other option I suppose. But they'd have to ban the fishing for as long as it took or those fish to reach breeding age to be safe i think, and that's quiet a while. But the thought of each fish having a $ value, and then having those fish thrown over as "trash" from a prawn shot really makes me wonder how we could ever influence a gov. to fund a stocking program of open water fish, while indiscriminate means of destruction exists.

Anyway, just a thought.
cheers all
rob

[hicksy]

Instead of rolling closures, why don't they put two permanent fisheries inspectors at every public boat ramp accessing Moreton Bay and check every single boat and their catch. Increase the number of boats & staff they have on the water.

It wouldn't take long for the grubs who take too much or take undersized fish, crab etc to be caught.
It might not be all a case of overfishing rather a case of too many people doing the wrong thing.

How many times have you been at the boat ramp and people have been showing mates their fish they have caught which are undersize or been fishing on a jetty or at the beach and seen people take undersize fish.

Obviously education plays a large part in this and a strong deterent such as huge fines or loss of fishing gear should apply. I for one would pay an extra $10 a year on both my boat and trailer rego just to see this happen.

What do you think?

Hicksy

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

Kev what you say makes a lot of sense, and if TFPQ's direction of preferences would result in the minister losing her seat that would indicate allocation of preferences to the Libs/Nats. If the Federal Labor Party directs all states/territories to work hand in glove with the Greens, and the states/territories have no recourse as has been mentioned, how could TFPQ swing the Labor Party away from the Greens? Surely this would have to done at a Federal level?

Cheers
Dave

[Bundy_Burp]

I think the idea of more DPI inspectors would make a lot more sense than rolling closures also decreasing bag limits and increasing minium size of fish would also make a big difference in my opinion.
Like I have said before whats the good of closing an area only to have it picked clean in a mad rush as soon as it is opened again .

Bundy

[madmix]

Hi all,

good to see some time and effort being put in to formulate
replies, I would like to think that all fishos enjoy some level
of affinity with the environment, however we can not allow this
government to pander to the whim of every extreme environmental
group that just happens along.

Mr Fooks esq (deserves a title as he is far more literate than I)
states that we are two years behind the extremists, and I would
suggest that this is at bare minimum.

Reel Nauti, you mention that we may not be hearing the full story
from Desley Boyle, re these pending closures, as the
review is not due to start until 2007,
While 2007 may be the official start, in the days following
the closures of the GBR, I spoke to the Member for
BURNETT, Mr Rob Messenger (opposition) who stated
that the GBR closures were nothing to what the state
government was intending. I would suggest that this
indicates that the government has been working towards
this end for some considerable time.

RobYoung, You mention that we have improved freshwater fishing
to look forward to. Yes but I do recall hearing an interview
or statement from a group of marine biologists, (About 12mnths
ago) in which it was stated that their scientific research
into the GBR was completed or drawing to a close, and they
were looking forward to extending their expertise into the
freshwater fisheries, Now I wonder why???

I am also of the belief that marine biologists etc are operating
in the Carpentaria Gulf attempting to locate uncharted
reefs, but Im almost certain this is out of the goodness of
their hearts, so the prawn trawlers dont run aground.

cheers Mick

[Sea-Dog]

Why not force the pro fishos to use EXACTLY the same methods and equipment that the recreational fishos have to use, when in the bay & rivers.

What's good for the Goose..........

Can u see the river trawler blokes standing on the front deck throwing cast nets. #8-)

They can still sell what they catch. Can't complain about that!

Maybe a yearly recreational fishing license fee for all waters. As long as the fees are used for buying back commercial fishing licenses, because the pros can't afford to use normal methods for commercial catches.

I'd be willing to pay.

Might be a big boost for aquaculture.

I don't think self-regulation works. Take a look at the banks, oil industry, fishos catching species with no bag limits etc.

There does need to be a lot more enforcement of catch and size limits - for both amateur and pro alike.
What about volunteer fisheries inspectors (VFI) - just like volunteer marine rescue.
Both organisations could get some funding from fishing licence fees.

Maybe enact legislation to empower the VMR guys and girls to enforce fisheries/boating laws.

That way, the VMR/VFI boats would be out on the water, where the fishos are. They would then be on the scene, when and if a tow job or rescue mission occurs. Quicker response times, and an educational role peformed at the same time.

I don't know...... I'm just ranting.

But I do think that the bay needs to get a rest from the heavy level of fishing that it currently gets.

[Gazza]

Labor will walk in..... that is not a negative towards the TFP ,just reality. :-?

if I can give(s) a 'local' vote to the TFP........great.
My fed vote(s) is in the bag ,happy to ;)


with moreton Bay , i spose it will "boil-down" to terminology of what "shafting" is proposed ,intended,and ear-marked :'(

My point :-? , is too make sure sh!t like a striped-yellow zone, 1 hook ,1 rod BS is just that, BS.

G'tees of multi-purpose use ,need to be gleaned from the libs/nats/labs to in effect "dilute" the TFP vote :-/ , even to the extent(jmo) of 50/50 preferences...or 100/0 and 0/100 in a few "key" areas ,just to beat the drum for RecFishos...

Decipher my mumble , and "do the right thing" !! 8-) ;D

[Adamy]

Reel Nauti (Dave) Raises some valid arguments which I have been a little to quick to be dismissive of in the past - sorry Dave!

From the TFPQ point of view they must first achieve legitimacy as a party.. Oh yes I know they are registered as a party and so you can vote for them - but real legitimacy comes from having a presence in parliament - any parliament - it doesnt matter that much. Think about the greens - how many seats do they hold in the QLD parliament? - none, NSW - none, VIC, none, NT, none, WA none, Federally (Lower House) none. However at the senate level (upper house) they have 4.

Having achieved a modicum of success at the senate level has given the greens legitimacy even at the State level where they have never had any success in any seat in any state - ever. so why would Labor support them?

I dont really know..... - but if you look at their policies - they have a similar social agenda (social justice issues etc.) to labor so have effectually fractured labors vote in the more socialist/green constituency. So it makes sense for Labor to court back these lost votes.

The way I see it - if TFPQ can win a few votes in any state election and gradually gather increasing support - perhaps they can then parley that into legitimacy through a senate seat (if not won before hand in any state seat). A senate seat will provide the resources the FP need to ensure they stay around long enough to have the desired effect (influence) over a sustained period.

Its not really a matter of FP chasing the majors to do preference swaps with - the majors will chase them. With legitimacy comes influence and I think that is what the FP is after - its not the preference swap which yields the power - its the big stick that TFPQ can carry around after they have achieved legitimacy - every time the Govt wants something from them - they wave the stick... its called politics ;) - and happens all year round - not just at election time.

This is a good discussion Dave (and others) there isnt enough people who really understand the political process and how it works so questions such as yours - even playing the devils advocate should be encouraged. I have certainly learned from this board - and I hope that others have got some small thing out of my contributions.

Thanks,

Adam

p.s. I'm not a FP member... yet... but after these discussions will certainly be joining.

[Grand_Marlin]

G'day All,

Some very valid points and reasoning amongst all this.

It is widely accepted that fishing pressure from both commercial and amateur influences is the cause of the depleted fish stocks.

And...

In my mind it is also obvious that there are only a certain number of fish to go around everyone - especially in the more heavily populated areas like Moreton Bay.

So...

Leave all areas open - don't close anything.

But...

1) Put in place a strict total allowable catch (TAC) for each species from set areas.
That way, once the quota is caught for that area, then thats it for the year.

2) Make the areas from say:
Noosa to Caloundra
Caloundra to Jacobs Well
Jacobs Well to Tweed Heads

3) It doesnt mean you cant fish, it just means that if the quota is caught for an area, then you have to put the effort in to travel to other places to fish.
That way it is spreading the load on the resources we have and stopping over fishing in concentrated areas.

4) Police it heavily, with huge fines and confiscation of fishing gear, including boats for people who choose to break the rules.

5) Introduce licences to fish to help cover the expense of what would essentially need to be 24hr surveilance at all ramps.
(please dont ask about the logistics of doing this at the moment, but anything is possible if the government wants it to be)

6) Mandatory log in and out when on the water with all catches presented to the officer on duty when returning.

or

Self regulating with log books for all catches ... again with huge fines for non compliance.

7) Maybe open and closed seasons for each species.

8) Maybe also a total allowable catch per angler per year for each species from each area ... that way it is not open to being flaunted by the greedy and also the lucky people that have more time on their hands than others to go fishing.

These are just basic ideas, not foolproof, but aimed at reducing the concentrated fishing pressure in certain areas to stop it being "flogged to death".

Make the commercial and amateur anglers responsible for conservation and actually do something towards helping, instead of complaining about possible closed areas and lack of fish.

Be responsible for our own actions.

Be prepared to travel a bit to help sustain the fish stocks and spread the load of fishing pressure.

Maybe this is the answer? Maybe its not the answer... but the fact remains that drastic change is needed to make the fishery sustainable long term.

So whats it going to be ... continue as we are and end up with closed areas (up to 50%)

or

Come up with some other ideas to make our fishery sustainable.

Now, before you throw crap at my suggestions, have some decent ideas of your own to replace mine.

That way we might just start to be productive in solving the problems associated with this topic and avoid the permanent closures that no body wants to see implemented if there is "another way"

Imagine seeing the headlines "Greens not needed - fishermen solve their own problems"

When writing to the ministers as others suggest, give them something positive to work with.

Whingeing that you dont want closed areas "just beacause you dont want closed areas" is really not going to help solve anything.

A million whingers is no substitute for one good idea.

There are real problems within the fishery that need managing effectively - so as a fishing community, lets grab this by the scruff of the neck, get the best ideas together and let us write the rules - not the greens.

Cheers

Pete

[kc]

What The?

Gender:
Re: Moreton Bay Closures - what's happening?
« Reply #30 - on: Yesterday at 5:33pm » G'day All,

Some very valid points and reasoning amongst all this.

It is widely accepted that fishing pressure from both commercial and amateur influences is the cause of the depleted fish stocks.

And...

In my mind it is also obvious that there are only a certain number of fish to go around everyone - especially in the more heavily populated areas like Moreton Bay.


One of the big issues for TFPQ is this type of question and blanket "I recon" statement......we just don't know!! Not having a go at you here. We are all guilty of this.

From our perspective it would be highly desirable if the numbers and breeding patterns were known and then used to determining the correct TAC and to see if slot sizing, bag limits and other management tools were better than closures. This should be the focus of Governments and fisheries managers NOW, not doing deals with the greens to stay in power.

For example....and on one of the few fish we have much info on.......Coral Trout.

Studies into Trout numbers. and there are a few, put the total biomass at around 2 millions tonnes and the current combined commercial and recreational catch was (pre commercial quota) estimated at 3% of that.

The world accepted standard for a sustainable fishery with breeding dynamics of this species is 20% i.e. if you take 20 out of every 100 fish out in a year, then the spawning recruitment will replace these 20 fish with new ones.

So, to "manage" this fishery we get 33% No Take Areas, a commercial TAC down from 4,000 tonnes to 1500 and bag limits of 8 per angler...plus 3 by 10 day spawning closures (when only 6 or 7% of trout actually attend a spawning aggregation in the first place)

And this for a fishery where the science indicates it is vastly UNDER fished. The GBR fisheries management, particularly on hard reef is politically motivated, not about protecting fish stocks.

So, to Moreton Bay. What is the estimated biomass of Bream, Whiting, Flathead, Jew, Tailor, Snapper etc etc.? What are their breeding dynamics and as such what is a sustainable fishery for each species? Is slot sizing and spawning closures an option for this species? What is the real and unemotive impacts of some commercial fisheries, such as beam and otter trawl.? This has to balance with an acceptance that the fish stock is owned by everyone and everyone, not just recreational fishers should have access to it. We need commercial fisheries, but what we don't need is any form of fishery which is unsustainable and inshore trawl MAY fall into this catagory.

It may (& this is just an "I recon " statement) be the case that the best way of keeping a breeding population viable is to harvest it. A bit like the best way to make grass grow is mow it.

Studies on trout on the GBR actually show a greater number of fish on fished reefs than on unfished reefs. The size on unfished reefs is bigger but density if greater (by a substantial margin) on fished reefs.

Dr Aylings theory appears to suggest that an unfished area establishes a stable population with very little spawning recruitment each season while a fished area has a very dynamic spawning population....nature working hard at keeping up with supply and demand.

Anyhow...rambeling...The point being. We need the science, not well intentioned best guesses.

If science supported closures, then so be it, but if there are other means of achieving the same end, without shutting people out and destroying businesses along the way, then they should be our first option.

At the end of the day, no one, and certainly not TFPQ wants the Bay degraded or overfished. It needs to be looked after for both present and future. This is an enourmous asset to Brisbane and needs the right management regimes put in place so it can still be enjoyed, but enjoyed in a totally sustainable way.

KC

[PinHead]

Pete...you have given the Minister the perfect reason to close the Bay. Give them an option that costs a fortune. Your idea of policing every ramp would cost at least $300,000 per annum per ramp...work out how many ramps between Caloundra and Southport and you will soon see how expensive it would be.

Given the option of :

a) pandering to the greens and closing the Bay for very little cost.

or

b) pander to the rec fishos by implementing some high cost option.

The answer is simple, option a.

You have given the Greens all the ammo they need...that rec fishos acknowledge that there is a problem...well I will not concede that until there is some definitve and long term research conducted which derives an absolute result. Until then I will oppose any closures and any license implementation.

[Grand_Marlin]

Pinhead

I said do not ask about the logistics of this at this time .. so you did.

I also said if you are going to throw crap, give some better ideas ... you didnt.

Just write a letter of whinge to the minister and be done with it, you have stood up to be counted... good on ya ;)

[gif]

I said that I wouldn’t join the discussion except to clarify.

Its important to understand these closures are as much about one Government Department vs another. And if you think that Government departments are coordinated between them you are sadly wrong. In fact I have had many issues to solve when different sections of the one Department don’t coordinate.

So what many of the above commentators have missed is the fight here is between Fisheries and Dept of Environment.

Fisheries look after management of fish stocks. So they come up with bag limits and size etc. Much of the discussion above is talking about managing stocks - but that is not even an option and so the discussioin is going off track

Dept of Environment doesn’t have inspectors or any “tool” to manage fish. They just apply Closed zones. Its the typical Greenie attitude that wants people locked out of nature

It is the Dept of Environment that manages Marine Parks, overrides Fisheries and will close out Moreton Bay. Just as they have from Hervey Bay to Cooktown.

And Fisheries will just sit by idle and say nothing. (again)

Gary

[madmix]

Hi Gary,

Your definetly right that the GBR closures had nothing
to do with the management of fish stocks, the only straight
answers I was able to get related to the protection of turtle
and bird nesting sites.
I fail to see how a few lines hanging out of a rec boat 40km from
nearest land was endangering these sites, especially when boat
loads of tourists are stil allowed to trapse all over the place.

Unfortunately it would appear that the fishos/boaties of moreton
region, stil have little idea of what to expect

If I may be so bold as to suggest some likely targets for major
closures will include areas of seagrass, areas frequented by
turtles and dugongs, bait grounds, sheltered waters and I would
predict that you will not be able to fish within at least one km
of any reef that currently attracts large clusters of boats.

Gary if you think this is way off mark or too alarmist, please have
Mr Ausfish delete, I would point out that I am not in the know
so to speak, But base my comments on experiece gained in
dealing with GBR closures.

If it was just about fish stocks, it would be nowhere near as
complicated.

Cheers Mick

[PinHead]

Pinhead

I said do not ask about the logistics of this at this time .. so you did.

I also said if you are going to throw crap, give some better ideas ... you didnt.

Just write a letter of whinge to the minister and be done with it, you have stood up to be counted... good on ya #;)





why make a statement if you have not thought the logistics through..that is just plain ludicrous.

I did not throw crap..you wrote it...I merely commented on it..I don't want any better ideas...I want things to stay as they are..you are basing your opinions on your thoughts..I want results of accurate research done prior to any changes to what the situation is now.

My opinions based on my fishing results are: there are plenty of fish so leave the situation as it is..there.you have based your opinions on your gut feelings and i have done likewise based on mine. If you feel so strongly that closures are definitely required then I suggest membership of the Greens ios what you may require...they will agree with any ideas of closures whereas the rec fishos should be totally opposed cos as soon as the Greens get an inkling that rec fishos are in favour of any form of closures then it is all over. Wake up and look at what has happened elsewhere and think again...before you start citing stupid ideas costing millions for people to stand at ramps etc come up with some facts..not your own feelings..some true scientific facts based on proper research..until then..leave the situation as it is.

Why the hell do people want to meet the Greens half way or any bloody way..shut them out of the picture wherever possible.

[robyoung1]

Gary Fooks has a good point regarding closures being as much about one political party verse another, as much or more as any "real" issues.

Take Nuke power for example. I joined into the pros and cons arguement of that when the gov. raised it. But then I read a very interesting article by a political annaylist who observed the Labor party has a split in it's ranks on this issue, and regardless of if, how,when, why, or never; John Howard wants to introduce Nuke Power, the real poliitcal benifit of his suggesting it isn't in trying to meet the needs and desires of the population- but instead, to exploit and widen the split in the labor party as the issue continues closer to election.
Divide and concour. Not concern and caring of a nation at all. (by the way it's this kind of goings on in politics than makes me more likely to become a "non-voter" every day. So please don't think I have a bias on this or any issue)

I just want to use that as an example, not an issue. My point is no matter what wonderful forward thinking, evidences or positive points might be projected, it can sometimes be completely in vain.

I suppose that's rather pessimistic, because in spite of that: I think we as a citizenry shouldn't ever be quiet on a subject because we think we won't make a dif. Perhaps one of the greatest problems we have in AUS. today in our indifferent attitudes to politics. (which is what forces me to cling to my right to vote)

IN defence of closures having no effect long term, because once the ban is lifted, it would potentially be picked clean; I think that beggars the fact such closures and re-openings can be managed (in whatever form they may ultimately take). Take the facts regarding Coral Trout presented by KC.

No matter what species is suggested, a similar ratio exists. Not similar in numbers, but in sustainability. The larger the adult base of gene pool for breeding, then the larger the amount of fish that can be removed without damaging the stable pool of bredders which naturally re-stock it.

So, as long as bag limits and size restricts are considered, the end result isn't a gluttonous free for all, destroying a few years re-stocking; rather, it offers a larger chance for people to relaibly catch the bag limit sustainably alotted them. That's all. But isn't that somthing?! It's a hell of a lot brighter outlook for all that fuel, bait and effort expended each weekend than present at least.

And personally, I know my opinion on policing undersize fish isn't going to be over popular either.

Of course undersize fish need to be returned, and bag limits observed. But I shudder at the thought of some poor bugga taking his kid fishing, and the sinle only fish the kid catches is a touch under sized, it being taken home so the kid can live the buzz a little longer and eat it; but instead having their arses busted at the ramp, fined into another orbit and loosing the car to boot.

All while trawlers toss over impossible to police ubelievable quantities of undersize fish every 90 minutes on avergae multplied by the amount of trawlers working at the time.

I recall growing up in a very successful morteon bay club, which A graders reliably caught 100 elbow slapping whiting, B graders maybe 50, C graders somewhere between a dozen a 50 and juniors the wild card. Every fortnight, a thousand or better (sorry i haven't done the calculations) fish were dragged out and taken home.

This was complicated by this style of competitive fishing working on speed, meant anything undersized and belly hooked was ripped to shreds with fingers of surgeons and the "protected" fish by law being tossed over the shoulder as if "so much" junk. Completely free of any fear of prosecution.

One day (out of many) I recall glancing behind us as we waded a sand bank between Redeers point and Strady, as I heard a strange "sucking" sound. The water was awash of undersize grass sweetlip, all gut hooked, all raked open, and tossed away. Between a dozen of us, in no time at all, the tide was carying at least a hundred sweetlip that would never see the table.Club rules stringently banning the taking of undersized fish closely adhered to but dead all the same.

No number of gov officials standing at boat ramps would change this, nor would on the spot inspections, unles they can prove who actually caught and killed what.

Morning times as the weigh in encroached, people hurredly measuring suspect fish kept in the bag all night, being meaured at the last moment and tosed into a pile, means I have memories of literally hundreds of bream and sometimes whiting piled or scattered all over the beach as the weigh in progressed.

I'm sure many people on these boards share the very same memories.

But I believe that this attitude has altered to some extent with time, and besides, my main point is I'm in full agreement that unrestricted limits, and killing undersized fish is shameful; but the only way of policing it is more likley than not only going to catch some poor kid who wanted to keep the first fish he ever caught, so he can show mum; and not the real cause of any limit restrcitions being abused.

Yeah, teaching him a lesson at 6 years old might set him straight the rest of his life, and I personally encourage my kids to toss back all their fish, but the idea of slapping people over the nose with a rolled up paper for an undersized fish, while as I say, trawlers dump hundreds of kilos of undersize fish over the edge every day unpoliced doesn't seem right. The recreational wastage has been altered to a large extent, but nothing has changed the way trawlers work away at destroying undersized fish like some mechanical beast. The prawns caught and presented to the customers weighed against the carnage out there is miles out of ballance.

If you haven't had the dis-pleasure of working a trawler, then you can't imagine what I mean. The picture of wasted sweetlip as I described is pale by comparrison.
One thing that turned me on about trawling was the excitement of the Tuna schools after every shot.

We'd run one direction for 30 minutes, then go back along the same run the opposite way, then back once more. Sort the catch, and for every few 9 litre buckets of prawns we'd get, we'd toss over a few100 litre crates of "trash fish. Maybe a dozen crates, but subtracting the Happy Moments and countless undersized crabs, and squid too small to mess with, a few crates would have been purely undersized fish.

As we dumped it over, the Tuna would appear from nowhere and feed like mad. It was heart thumping to watch and although that much was fun, consider the fact the fish werre on hand at any moment to eat the undersized fish, and you'll understand the Tuna at least know where the concentrations of "berly" exist.

When little kids wanting to impress their mums with a fish 22 and half centremetes long, risk being fined and loosing their fishing gear, while Tuna at least know where the abundant waste is perpetuating; I think it's just not going to have the effect desired.

Take care all
rob

[hicksy]

A lot has been written on this issue lately and it seems the gloves are certainly coming out.

The unfortunate part about this whole process is, if you don't agree with main stream everyone starts having a chop at you. If stead of being destructive ever thought about being constructive.

A wise old man once said no idea is a stupid idea.

I have stated before that I would support stronger policing of fish catches. (E.g. More Fisheries inspectors)

The potential impact on Moreton Bay is not the same as twenty years ago. All one has to do is check the ABS and see the population has increased in the moreton bay area and also check state government stats on boat registration. Then add in GPS's advances in fishing equipment etc

Despite what the majority seem to think Grand Marlin made some very valid points. As fisherman we also have a duty to ensure fish stocks will be around for generations. This doesn't mean we all suddenly turn green. All this means is we have to accept responsibilties for our actions.

No one should take undersize fish, whether you are seven or seventy. If you want to share the moment when your son and daugther caught a fish and it is undersize, carry a camera. We should act responsibly and teach our children to be responsible when fishing as well.

As a recreational fisherman, I try and do the right thing eaxch time I go fishing. I only hope that other fisherman do the same thing. If they don't then they should be penalised.

The thoughts of "there are plenty of fish so leave it be" only adds more wieght to the greens arguement and does diservice to fishermen.

If and when we have to run the arguement about possible closures we have to offer the government well researched, viable and funded alternatives. We can beat the opponents at their own game. It is not a matter of meeting them half way.

I will be fighting tooth and nail to stop any proposed closures of Moreton Bay but I am not opposed to alternative measures to look after the sustainibility of fish stocks so my children and my childrens children can do what i love to do and that is fishing.

If this means bigger fines for the grubs who constantly take undersize fish/crabs or being subjected to inspections each time I get back to the ramp then so be it.

Our bay our future, it all comes back to how we manage it.

HICKSY

[Cloud_9]

Just recently signs have gone up down at Paradise Point showing the new fish sanctuary for the Moreton Bay and Marine Parks.
it shows yellow areas from Coombabar Lakes to the bottom of Russel Island and around Saint Helena and from Peel to dunich and north to encompass all the sand bank areas to just past south passage.
while the sign says you can still fish these areas.
the Australian Marine Conservation Society which is the government body that lobbies to get these closures is looking at 30 to 50% closures from the 1 % we currently have.
while I don't know for sure it's only a pen stroke to close these santuaries and that's it for fishing the pin to the coomera or around Saint Helena
or the Rous Channel for that matter.
i have a Email from this Gov body and their reply is we dont have any plans as yet or maps of proposals but they said they well be pushing for 30 to 50% closures when the revue starts next year, they did say that they hope for a science based revue not a pollitical one.
our club has all reddy started getting together clubs on the gold coast to get something going we will be getting intouch with the fishing party to get pointers.
Cloud 9

[gif]

Cloud Nine said
"Australian Marine Conservation Society which is the government body that lobbies"

The AMCS is not a government body. As a not-for-profit charity, AMCS is a membership-based society which is managed by a group of dedicated volunteers and supported financially and participatory by thousands of people around Australia.
AMCS operates a head office in Brisbane,

AMCS are clever professional Greenies who are based in Brisbane and are the main or front group that wanst to close teh Bay and oceans to all fishing. No Marin park is tough enough for them. They have been clever enough to gain charity status ( which takes a lot of legal work) so any donation to them is tax deductible! I know real charities that can’t gain that status.


They also guard themselves. You can donate but you cannot join them. Very clever tactics.


Gary

[gif]

I am not supposed to say anything yet ....

But there is an overarching alliance being formed... What some are trying to do is get all the Clubs and TFP and commercial and industry - all together under one banner for joint efforts.

The idea goes liek this: You may not agree with all these but we need to bury our differences to fight for Moreton Bay . My enemies enemy is my friend

Watch this space for news.

But in the time ask yuor club to join or contact me

[ratherbefishin]

Kel,
I agree with the concept of rolling, or at least timed, closures. My old man used to talk about haveing a system where each river was closed for one year starting at the Nerang and the next year Coomera, then Logan etc etc until you got to Caboolture, then start at the Nerang again. This would give a rolling cycle of 7 years (much like the farmers old fallow field every 7 years). It would give the fish stocks a fighting chance and doesnt ban anywhere permanently. That was just his opinion and it wasnt based on any sort of research.
My biggest concern is that we need to ensure some scientific rigour in the process. We need to:
1. Have an aim for each and every measure taken. What SPECIFICALLY are we trying to acheive (eg increase the stocks of breed X to over size ABC cm to a number in this region). This needs to be very definite, not some generic greenie message used as justification for wholesale closures.
2. It needs to be measureable so we know whether it has been acheived or not. Maybe further methods are required, maybe it can be backed off a bit.
3. There needs to be other types of research done BEFORE the closures to establish baselines of what the measureables are at present. At to determine the causal factors. It may be that closures are not effective anyway. Often these causal factors will be different for different breeds.
4. All methods of menegement need to be examined, perhaps modified baglimits or size limits are more appropriate, perhaps just seasonal closures.

I guess my stongest point is that whatever managment is put in place it needs to be backed up by science not just rhetoric.

[Got_the_Fever]

Rather I totally agree with you. Scientific baselines and outcomes are a must to any measures taken in concern to our moreton bay. A tagging program or the like needs to be undertaken by DPI or another relevant authority. I dont know what other research can be done to quantify a baseline of fishstocks but I am sure there are a few programs that the science types could use towards this end.

I dont know about others but I am more than willing to have an area closed for a couple of years if in the end fishstocks are greatly improved. A program using the baseline evidence could then be undertaken before the next area is closed.

Once the science is established this program could be implimented anywhere at anytime to creat a sustainable fishing enviroment for us all.

I can already hear a few here going oh no, not this cr@p again. And I must admit that after the bagging I got by a few for suggesting it in the first place I was tempted to give up on the idea, but no, after talking to a few ppl here and elsewhere I have decided that im not going to make those few ppl that bagged me happy. I am going to push this idea as far as I can and I will listen to anyone who has an idea that contributes to it. What are you willing to sacrafice to save our bay for the future generations?

Uneconomical ideas like putting dpi instectors at every ramp is no solution to creating a sustainable fishing enviroment, the revenue is not there for it and even with fishing licences and the like the money will never be there. Extra dpi staff is important and I would like to see more on the water and patroling boat ramps, but to cover every ramp is just a joke.

Decreasing bag limits or introducing bag limits on some species is a must and long over due in my opinion. Bream and whiting in particular should have bag limits and an increase in the legal size. These are the species that most of us cut our first teeth on and need to be protected for everyones benefit. The limits placed on us re flathead was a great step forward but other species need the same in order to have them in the future.

To those who want to critise this idea are more than welcome if you have something better to put in its place, if you just want to bag it for the sake of bagging then why bother.


Kel

[PinHead]

I would love to be a member of any green group that is pushing for closures..just print out a lot of the posts on here and present them and say..look..rec fishos are also in favour of some of closures..talk about giving the enemy some ammo. or don't you think they may read forums like these..by all means have your opinions and ideas but do not put them on here for the green groups to use as ammo unless that is what u really want.

[Got_the_Fever]

where are we suppose to talk about these ideas? I dont care if ppl are green pink black or any other damn enviromental colour. this is a forum to discuss ideas and this one is about saving our bay for the future. Permanent closures are NOT an answer so we have to come up with ideas to fight them. Just saying they are no good isnt an arguement.

I have sent this forum addy to recfish to ask their opinion in regards to rolling closures. If they tell me they are not workable or ridiculas then I will drop it. But if they agree that it is worth going on with then I will.


Kel

[Adamy]

Whilst I applaud your efforts to come up with viable alternatives to closures which you can present to the pollies, it is vitally important that you understand the political process through which these proposals will go.

Gary Fooks is right; the subject matter is getting off course. The potical process does not allow for you to make alternative suggestions. I know this doesnt sound nice but its the truth. I will demonstrate this for you - but for those who wont read beyond these next lines - know this: It doesnt matter how good or how valid or well thought out your alternative proposals are - they arent worth anything (as yet) at the governement level.

The Governement isnt looking for alternatives - they are looking to shore up their own positions and they believe they can do this by placating to the extreme greens. What we have to do is prove to them that they are wrong. The ONLY way to prove to them that they are wrong is to threaten their voter base. #So we must show them that if they pursue this option - their jobs are in jeopardy.

Let me enlighten you as to the political process and why I say that alternatives are no use (yet).

When legislation is passed by an act of parliament, it is first "read" and debated in "the house" the subject of the debate is the terms of the legislation, there is rarely an opportunity to suggest alternative approaches here. #If the terms of the legislation dont survive the first reading and consequent voting they can then be amended - still only looking at the terms of the legislation - no alternatives. #They can then - once altered - or even unaltered be reread to the parliament - more debate... then voting... still no alternatives. #When these guys actually vote, it's based on a YES/NO system... They dont get to say No I dont like that idea - I have a better suggestion - they only get to say yes or no to the terms of the legislation as outlined in said legislation. #


So... its not until the legislation is defeated are there opportunities for alternatives. #So how do we get it defeated - or better yet never discussed (changed) in the first place? #Yes the review is due - but they CAN adopt a do nothing approach...

We get them so scared that if they pass the new "green" rezonings that they will lose their seats at the next election. Currently they fear losing the "green" vote - we have to make them fear losing our vote... its the ONLY thing pollies understand and the motivation for their existence.

The environment minister doesnt care how many other good ideas are out there - she only cares about her own job and thats it.... period.

Give you an example - when the Feds tried to push through taxation reform (GST) there were 2 alternative proposals that were dismissed out of hand - even though both of these proposals returned more revenue to the Govt. and reduced waste and retape and paperwork. #The problem was if the Govt adopted these measures they would have to reduce the size of the Tax dept. Losing many senior public servants - so instead they increased the size of the Tax dept and the rest is history.

They dont care about us.... they only care about whats good for them and their mates - its sad but true. #So to say that we should focus on viable alternatives - is all interesting and I support many of the ideas - but its not actually going to help much.... to fight a bureaucracy - you have to know how they think and operate.... Let KC and the boys help guide you through this process. #

Continue to develop alternatives - but use them when the time is right - not now. #The time will be right when KC and the FP say it's right - they will know when to develop policy and know when to implement it - and that will be after they have legitimacy (see my other post) which is after they have someone in power - a senate or state seat. #It could happen sooner - if we are able to help them get enough support that the Govt fear us more than the Greens - but thats the ONLY way.

Sorry to rain on anyones parade - but it had to be said... lets get back on track.

thanks guys,

Adam

[PinHead]

Alas Adam..TFP will not have a legitimate seat in the Qld Govt prior to the decison being made on the Bay. I also know how the system works and the only alternative is to be totally against any legislation for closures of any part of the Bay. The best bet at the moment would be to contact the candidates in your own electorate and ask how they view any closing of any areas of the Bay that may occur during their term if they are elected. For the majority of us, we cannot make a vote for TFP even if we want to so the next best thing is to try to ascertain what the candidates in your electorate have to say on the issue.

[Gazza]

For the majority of us, we cannot make a vote for TFP even if we want to so the next best thing is to try

Neither can I mate...DONATE..ease the financial pain ;)

JMO
Gazza

[robyoung1]

Hicksy, I don't know what you see as "the gloves are comming off", #I've thought this has been rather progressive and reserved.

As for missing my point about kids keeping undersize fish etc, I'm certain if you pay attention to what I wrote, not what you think I wrote, you'll see my point was that the exploitation of undersized fish, and excessive bag limits has to be addressed in other ways than simply more policing of the same. That by the targetting of boat ramps etc will not adress the more serious vilators of this issue. I then gave examples of the areas which were far more serious than (the alagorical) issue of catching some kid with a small fish.

I never condone, nor do I, nor will I; keeping undersize fish. So please, if anyone takes the gloves off, have the point straight first. Nothing worse than taking a swing at someone only to find you heard wrongly. Rather embarressing I think.

I'm rather moved my the stellar example you parade with self gratifying regailing of your fishing practices, but if I may join in your pride parade, I haven't kept a fish in nearly ten years, nor have my children; of any size. I think the wonderful ambition you have being sensible with fish reserves is well understood by most these days, least ways those whose posts I personally have read here. But it's really neato you mention it anyway. Just incase someone does in fact condone such things as keeping undersized fish.

As absurd as it may seem to many, growing up fanatical about fishing as I have, I'm not that turned on by the eating of them, and to be completely candor, my kids are more keen about fishing than eating fish too. So if you'd like to enter a "pissing match" of who's more conservative with their fishing catches than who; well...I hope you get my point.

Buying fish will always be more economical than catching them, and so I can only imagine that my extremes on this issue are echoed at least to some degree in all fishermen.

Anyway, all I wanted to clear up is I was attacking no-one, and I'm rather surpised that such defensiveness of such broad issues could be so defined; and that I don't condone destruction of undersize fish or excessive catching of legal ones.

If you read the post again (slower pehaps?); you'll discover I revealed #my distain (and there-fore agree in principle with marlin) for abuse and neglect of size and bag limit laws, and cited even more areas needing attention in such terrible abuse. Far from disagreeing, I expanded the paremeters needing policing, and the fact the plain conventional stepping up of watching boat ramps, jetties etc will only catch the occassion kid doing the wrong thing. The fact I know around the clock policing of boat ramps will never touch these perpetrators I mentioned is by no means an offense or quarrel over the principle at large.

Rightly said no-one should keep undersized fish, the education program has worked well it seems. Consider though doubling the fine on some kid with an undersized fish, and ask yourself what impact that will have on the points my post made.

What's being brought in at boat ramps by fools, and kids on jetties pales in comparrison to the evils being conducted "out there" which will never be caught by such methods as policing because these fish being destroyed by major offendors who do in fact impact the fishery very seriously- are never kept, never brought home, and are dumped AT SEA (or on beach at weigh in). Perhaps it's somthing you have to have actually seen to understand. I guess it is hard to get ya head around just what kind of waste I'm talking about without actually seeing it. I just assumed everyone had seen what I was describing.

But anyone here that's fished in moreton beach club scenes (attened SQAFCA comps etc) knows to some degree what I'm talking about. Or anyone that's done time on a trawler in the bay.

HOWEVER! My point about the little kid wanting to show his little fish to mum being caught by around the clock surveilance was not in defence of him doing so; as much as it was the awful expense of catching such an insignificant offender weighed againt the picture as a whole.

I don't mean to belabour the point, but I do dislike the taste of another's words in my mouth.

Besides, as mentioned, politics rarely has anything to do with what people really want, as pointed out at least three times in very valid ways in recent posts. What needs to be figured is what the fishing community wants, and then either supporting or fighting the legislation.

Argueing who's the better Rex Hunt than the other hardly rates.

Take care
rob

Hell I really didn't want to go that far into that, but gee..I thought the point was fairly straight forward in the first place. I hope it doesn't take that kind of effort to make every point.

[hicksy]

Hey Rob,

Geez haven't you gone off on a tangent.

My comments about the gloves coming off weren't directed at you. It wouldn't take a very wise or astute person to work out that my comments were about the dialogue exchanged between Grand Marlin and Pin Head.

So get off your high moral ground and perhaps take some of your own advice and read the post again (slower perhaps).

Hicksy

[robyoung1]

Well you have indeed my deepest and sincerest appologies if I wrongly accused you of misconstruding my point.

Being so gracious as you have been; if you would just explain how my point of all that which I had to re-define fits in with -


#Despite what the majority seem to think Grand Marlin made some very valid points. As fisherman we also have a duty to ensure fish stocks will be around for generations. This doesn't mean we all suddenly turn green. All this means is we have to accept responsibilties for our actions. #

No one should take undersize fish, whether you are seven or seventy. If you want to share the moment when your son and daugther caught a fish and it is undersize, carry a camera. We should act responsibly and teach our children to be responsible when fishing as well. #

As a recreational fisherman, I try and do the right thing eaxch time I go fishing. I only hope that other fisherman do the same thing. If they don't then they should be penalised. #

#
#

If I was the only person mentioning a kid keeping undersized fish, and this indicates assult on that point; who then should I assume you were addressing? #Was it not I? If not, how so?


It wouldn't take a very wise or astute person to work out that my comments were about the dialogue exchanged between Grand Marlin and Pin Head

Common....you can do it...admit it. The BS about oversimplifying the undersize fish issue was directly regarding my post; in an attempt to dodge the very essence of my point. That policing for undersized fish willonly catch the odd fool here and there, and some poor kid..

You say "I try to do the right thing" and so I suppose that implies you periodically "fail" from time to time to do the right thing. They are the ones such policing will catch, not the serial abusers who are beyond the reach of the law, and do the bulk of the damage.

The "gloves off" passing comment you made I have no trouble believing was to do with as you say. But then I never thought that was aimed at me. I just disagreed that a person strongly objecting constitutes a "fight".

Make ya a deal; I'll come down off the "high horse" when you can admit your guilt of oversimplifying what I said, or indeed, misdirecting the entire point. You know, once it's permanent, it's hard to get out from under.
Anyway, admit it or not, I hope you understand now.

rob

PS. I don't think this is "off on a tangent" at all. Keeping small fish and over filled creels are central issues. Dismissing the depth of the problem with false reasoning the way you did is seriously ignoring a very important part of protecting the fishery.

[Adamy]

What the??? are we in the twilight zone here?? Lets not slang off on each other.... imagine the greens or pollies or whoever is reading this... they'll be laughing their heads off - are we going to unite and fight against the potential loss of our right to fish the bay or are we going to bicker amongst ourselves?

Chill out... peace bothers ;)

[dasher]

Again we are wandering off to stupid litle disagrreeaments that are a waste of time. Please guys can you concentrate on the topic or at least use the PM option .!!!

[dasher]

What the??? are we in the twilight zone here?? Lets not slang off on each other.... imagine the greens or pollies or whoever is reading this... they'll be laughing their heads off - are we going to unite and fight against the potential loss of our right to fish the bay or are we going to bicker amongst ourselves?

Chill out... peace bothers ;)

So good, well done mate 8-)

[Bundy_Burp]

I'm sure the greenies are reading these forums and having a good chuckle to them selves after all we are probably lettting know which way we may try and fight the closures we all know they want .
But what makes me wonder is why all the talk about rolling closures like they are the be all and end all of the problem they will have to be policed which will mean more DPI officers and because they are rolling thats going to mean even more spending will be needed to move DPI officers and equipment from area to area , lets face it the government has never liked spending money on any project if it doesnt need to (look at the hospitals).
So all I see will happen with rolling closures is that they may be tried for a short time then we will be told they arent working and then it will be full time closures .
It doesnt matter whether or not rolling closures seem to be a good idea or not its what they may very easily lead to that concerns me .

Bundy

[gif]

Adam

I appreciate your explanation of the parliamentary process

But as Moreton Bay is already a Marine Park, due for a 10 year review. Then is it possible that the drastic changes will simply go through cabinet and be tabled in the House. IE no debate?

In other words we will lose Moreton bay by regulation not legislation?

Look fwd to your thoughts.

Gary

[fishingjew]

Simplicity

If you want a 50% closures of the entire park vote Beattie and his team

If you dont want a 50% closures of the entire park vote for the Fishing Party

Remember united you stand divided you fall

Time to send a message >:(

[PinHead]

You cannot vote for TFP in this election..they are not registered.

There 3 Independents who have allegiance to TFP..that is all...therefore the majority cannot vote for them...will have to make decisions based on what the local candidates stand for.

[PinHead]

Adam

I appreciate your explanation of the parliamentary process

But as Moreton Bay is already a Marine Park, due for a 10 year review. # Then is it possible that the drastic changes will simply go through cabinet and be tabled in the House. # IE # no debate?

In other words we will lose Moreton bay by regulation not legislation?

Look fwd to your thoughts.

Gary


Gary...As the current Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 1997 is under the Marine Parks Act of 1982 then hopefully any changes will have to be debated on the floor of the House.

[Adamy]

Adam

I appreciate your explanation of the parliamentary process

But as Moreton Bay is already a Marine Park, due for a 10 year review. Then is it possible that the drastic changes will simply go through cabinet and be tabled in the House. IE no debate?

In other words we will lose Moreton bay by regulation not legislation?

Look fwd to your thoughts.

Gary


Gary...As the current Marine Parks (Moreton Bay) Zoning Plan 1997 is under the Marine Parks Act of 1982 then hopefully any changes will have to be debated on the floor of the House.

Yes Gary after I had posted that I was thinking exactly the same thought - the rezoning isnt legislation - so the process is slightly different... have to do our homework and find out.... I think Pinhead might be right - but the voting part I'm unsure of.... will ask!

My main aim with the comment re process was to get the post back on track.... fully realising that TQFP isnt a registered party at the state level as Pinhead has pointed out - they are still the best forum to recommend policy changes at the govt level (in my opinion) because they are the only political body who stand to gain legitimacy in the Govts eyes. Without legitimacy you have no voice.

The only way to do this is to get right behind them - if you cant vote for them - volunteer some time to hand out how to votes at election time - spread the word anyway you can - preferably outside this forum... we already know this issue - get it out the amongst other fishos and boaties. Contact Shane Boese and his team and ask how you CAN help... I'm sure he would love a hand.

But the main thing... lets stop fighting amongst ourselves and do something real!

Adam

[kc]

Greg makes the point that the (now) 4 The Fishing Party (Qld) endorsed candidates in the state election will appear on the actual Ballot paper with the code IND and this makes our job more difficult. We have to ensure all booths are manned, all voters talked to, and How To Vote cards clearly identifying who to vote for. Name recognition will also be important.

He also makes a good point about checking the intention of local cadidates in regards the rezoning of the Bay.

By tommorrow I will draft, on TFPQ letterhead, a questionaire. Bombard your candidates with it. At least they will know we are watching over their sholders.

email me personally on kc@whitsunday.net.au & I will provide you with a pro-forma questionaire for your electorate. For the purpose of specifics this really should only be used in Bayside seats.

Greg is right in suggesting we can't make the type of impact which we ideally would have liked....BUT.

We make a huge impact in the one bayside seat we run in AND make sure every Bayside candidate gets a swag of member letters asking their intentions and they will get the message.

Read again Adams overview. He puts it better than me. This is about politics, not about fishing, not about environmental outcomes and definately not about what is fair, just or right.

KC

[stevedemon]

Hi all here is an e-mail that I received from Mr lawrence Springborgs office today concerning the moreton bay closures lets read an weep but lets send the message home




9 August 2006

Moreton Bay fishing ban feared

The Queensland Coalition fear recreational fishing will be banned in half of Moreton Bay if the Beattie Labor Government is re-elected at the next State Election.

Conservation groups have launched a campaign to have “at least 30 – 50% of Moreton Bay within reserves (protected areas closed to all extractive activities)”.

In State Parliament this week, Shadow Fisheries Minister Mike Horan asked the Environment Minister Desley Boyle to give a guarantee the Beattie Labor Government would not close half of Moreton Bay to fishers.

“The Minister refused to give that guarantee, saying only that the State Government would start a review of the marine park in 2007 to be completed by 2008,” Mr Horan said.

“With Labor currently trying to elicit preferences from extreme green elements ahead of the next State Election, this is a dangerous time for recreational fishers who are rightly suspicious of what Labor’s plans are for the future of Moreton Bay.

“Locking up half of Moreton Bay would anger a lot of people, with a 2001 State Government recreational fishing survey finding almost half a million South-East Queenslanders went fishing at least once a year.

“The Beattie Labor Government has a track record of introducing fishing closures with only token consultation, and has a track record of shutting down fishing in Moreton Bay, with bans in four key areas introduced in 2003 allegedly to protect sharks.

“Farmers, timber workers and horse riders have borne the burnt of Labor’s environmental extremism in the past, but now it seems it is the mums, dads and kids who just want to go fishing in Moreton Bay who will be affected.”

Media Contact – Scott Whitby 07 3406 7430 or 0402 109 549



Cheers ;D ;D
Steve 8-) 8-)

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

So for those of us that can't vote for TFPQ but don't want any more closures etc, are we supposed to vote for the bloody opposition. Would we be better off fishing wise? Yeah probably. Would we be better off in every other aspect of our lives.................I'm not so sure about that. Until the opposition can prove themselves with sound policies, strength in unification etc etc, I honestly don't see them as a sound alternative. So what do we do?.............Like I said in another thread, I really believe Qld's are shafted this time.

Dave

[hicksy]

Reel Nauti,

I agree with your comments in regards to the opposition; they are not a sound alternative.

If a miracle occurs they still can't decide who is going to be leader. If Libs win more seat then the Nats will Sprinborg still be leader?????????

Will the LIbs be concerned about Moreton BAy?

There are just too many question marks for it to be viable!

[Adamy]

So whats the alternative?? Better the devil you know?? OK... so now you KNOW your'e going to lose your Bay fishing rights. So.. LIVE WITH IT!!

OR...

IF you feel you have to vote for premier pete and his band of bay closure cronies.... Make sure Labor doesnt get your primary vote, make them fight for it through preferences... that will send a very small message (but as long as they win even by one vote - they dont care) but in the meantime get behind the Fishing Party add your voice to theirs - in the coming weeks they may be asking for your support - there will be something you CAN do to send the Govt a message.

Dont get resigned and sit in the corner felling sorry for yourselves - get up and go do something!! Right now this is a political battle - so do something political... the Fishing Party is currently our best avenue - lets give them all the support we can.

[Adamy]

Reel Nauti,

I agree with your comments in regards to the opposition; they are not a sound alternative.

If a miracle occurs they still can't decide who is going to be leader. If Libs win more seat then the Nats will Sprinborg still be leader?????????

Will the LIbs be concerned about Moreton BAy?

There are just too many question marks for it to be viable!


After thought.... Dont worry the Libs and Nats know exactly whats going to happen if they win - they know who's going to be leader - even if the libs win more seats than the Nats... they just dont want to say it on TV and I respect them for that.

They are trying to quash speculation and not heighten it..... Its a pity that this small issue (leadership) is all the media can focus on when the whole state is going to crap around us. Why arent they hitting Beattie about his record on health?... dont you remember that once upon a time he was health minister..... The fish rots from the head down - or so they say.

[dasher]

Well I have been sitting back watching the posts. Seems a lot have missed the point. A vote for the opposition will not get them into power, but it will send a strong message to the governing body. If we can get a reasonable swing and attribute it to TFPQ we will gain some respectability. Health, education and police etc. will be with us forever. Areas locked up to the public could be permanent, this is TFPQ's chance to show their strength, you only have one chance and it's your choice. Vote against Labour and send a message to Beattie to let him know why.

[Got_the_Fever]

Adam have you ever thought about running. You have a great deal of knowledge about palimentry procedure and a true gift with the words. I have listened to your suggestion and put the idea of rolling closures on hold for the moment. Im still working on it but more as a personal project than anything else at the moment.

I would think you would make a great candidate for the TFPQ.


Kel

[Adamy]

Adam have you ever thought about running. You have a great deal of knowledge about palimentry procedure and a true gift with the words. I have listened to your suggestion and put the idea of rolling closures on hold for the moment. Im still working on it but more as a personal project than anything else at the moment.

I would think you would make a great candidate for the TFPQ.


Kel
Thanks Kel!!! Been there done that.... and not at this time... I have however committed to them my assistance during this current campaign and I am going to become a member. Right now I think my efforts are best served "behind the scenes" I want to help TFPQ become a major party and not a novelty. To do this they just need a little help from those of us who have some experience in this field... Unfortunately politics is a dirty business and we have to play the game using the same rules as the big boys use - otherwise we risk going the way of all the other 'novelty parties'. I'm really impressed with the leadership of the party and I am pledging my support to them because I think it's the best option we have to make a difference.

Thanks for your vote of confidence tho Kel.... Hopefully we will be in a position sometime in the near future to develop yours (and other) proposals further and see if they make any sense both economically, politically and environmentally. At that time - the TFPQ can develop policy... till then we fight the good fight - to protect our rights!

Thanks,

Adam

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

Adam, I hope I didn't sound as though I was resigning myself to another term of the Beattie Govt, or to anything for that matter. But you've also got to be realistic.

TFPQ will probably only be fielding 3 or 4 candidates and it appears at this stage that they may not even be under the 'Fishing' banner. 3 or 4 out of how many seats??? I am not a defeatist, nor do I consider myself a pessimist, but I don't think this election is going to serve TFPQ justice. For those of us who can't vote for TFPQ, sure we can offer financial and ' in kind ' support, but the reality of the situation strongly indicates a return of Beattie.

If, by some pure stroke of chance the coalition takes the reins, I feel that Qld would suffer even further in some situations at the hands of rank amateurs who simply can't organise their own sh1t let alone run the state! (This may change in the future but certainly not in time for this election). I also believe that the majority of Qld's would not see a vote for the coalition as a vote for fishing rights, or a vote against closures of the Bay. It runs much, much deeper than that, and whilst I am sure there will be a protest vote against the govt, I can't see that it will defeat it.

I just hope that when the results are posted, and if the govt is returned, that nobody on this site takes it upon themselves to draw their canes against the backs of the members. This comment is not pointed in any particular direction, but mentioned in the hope that a return of the govt will be seen as a means for TFPQ to be even more prepared for the next election.

Cheers all
Dave

[kc]

Your points are well made Dave and be very clear we are not and never will be an alternative Government. 1 seat or 100 seats it does not matter. Our "job" is to combat the influence of the greens, who will also NOT WIN A SEAT.

The situation is clear cut. TFPQ will stand in one Bayside seat & 1 only. This seat will be a litnus test for the "fishing vote" in Brisbane. Post a big number, "we" get influence and credibility, fail and "we" have nothing the Government, either side, will fear.

Having "stuck out our chin" we can not afford to fail.

This really is "our" Franklin Dam. Either heros or zeros.

You are a realist dave. The bookies are too. Beattie is likely to win but he can not be allowed to win in a cakewalk. The Fishing party HAS to make its point in a way which can't be ignored and based on Boyle's press release today...we already are.

KC

KC

[tunaman]

I have scaned all the different opions, and this party wonts this, and this party wonts that. Sure every ones points are good. But what about the big picture. The planet is in bad sharp,and theres no easy solution to any of it. #If you retrace the posts I made in the past, there are some good solutions to some of the problems that face us. and unless we
all come together, and fight for our share of fairness, we have lost the fight before we have begun. But what is fairness? Some places have been shut down for a very good reason. the greenies see it, the polly,s
see it, and if you see how much nature has been distroyed, and the pollution, thats growing every day, we have to slow down, and put up with a bit change. I dont like it any more than you do, but it has to be
done. Beening one tracked minded, and looking at our own selfish
needs, is one of the biggest problems, that all partys need to get over.
A 1/10 of all fishing spots will be shut down, and for most of us , it will not even affect our fishing needs. But after we grow old and pass on, our children will pat us on the back, and say thanks for leaveing some for us. This is only my opion.


signed tunaman

[Adamy]

A 1/10 of all fishing spots will be shut down, and for most of us , it will not even affect our fishing needs. But after we grow old and pass on, our children will pat us on the back, and say thanks for leaveing some for us. This is only my opion.


signed tunaman

Dont worry about it Tunaman - our grandkids wont be patting us on the back and saying thanks... they'll be kicking us up the a@$# and asking how come they cant go fishing anymore cause the greens got the whole place shut down. Mate.. the greens arent saying.... lets leave some for later - they're saying... GET OUT NOW YOU DIRTY DISEASE RIDDEN MEAT EATING MAGGOTS..... AND NEVER - EVER - EVER COME BACK!!

Dont believe me?? - go to a site called fishinghurts.com Its got nothing to do with saving a few turtles and Sea moo moos - its got to do with their disdain for our way of life. They want you to stop eating ANY kind of meat.... period!! Today its the fish - because thats an easy target, tomorrow its your hamburger and the day after that you're eating grass!! Yup cant wait for my grandkids to pat me on the back for helping them into that one!

[Adamy]

Adam,
I just hope that when the results are posted, and if the govt is returned, that nobody on this site takes it upon themselves to draw their canes against the backs of the members. This comment is not pointed in any particular direction, but mentioned in the hope that a return of the govt will be seen as a means for TFPQ to be even more prepared for the next election.

Cheers all
Dave
Dave.... KC answered the rest of it quite adequately I reckon... as for my back... dont worry about it - my back is broad enough to take as many strokes as anyone wants to dish out... I wouldnt get involved in this fight if it wasnt. Meanwhile Dave - keep up the good work - no animosity to you at all!

[tunaman]

Yes I know the extreme greenies are a bunch of strange people, but they
will never get their own way. But they will try! Its must be fair for all,
like I said, theirs no easy solution. no one can have it their own way.




signed tunaman

[PinHead]

I can't understand why the labour govt in Queensland would need to side with the greens, or anybody for that matter. Sure they might get touched up a bit in the next election, but they will still walk in. They have absolutely no opposition. Why would they side for the green's support when it would put them out of favour with so many constituents? Can anyone answer this please? I honestly don't understand.

Cheers
Dave

a brief insight into the workings of the ALP..it consists of factions..the Ministers are decided along factional lines. There are 2 main right wing factions..AWU and Labor Unity and there are 2 main left wing factions ..socialist left and Labor Left.
The Socialist Left has a very strong green leaning and that is why the ALP tends to head down the green path at times..to appease this faction...most of their green ideas come from members of this Socialist Left faction..not so much from the Green Party. They then do a preference deal with the Green Party to once again appease this internal faction. Up until a couple of years back..the 2 men running Qld were Bill Ludwig (AWU faction) and Terry Mackenroth..both very powerful men at the time in the State Labor movement. If you delve into each Minsiters factional allegiance you will soon see which faction has the most power at any one time.

[Gazza]

I'm sure our kids will say "thanks Dad" :o >:( >:(

It won't be "remember the fish we used to catch" ,it'll be....
"remember when we COULD fish there!!"

Every Success to Shane

[Adamy]

Yes I know the extreme greenies are a bunch of strange people, but they
will never get their own way. But they will try! Its must be fair for all,
like I said, theirs no easy solution. no one can have it their own way.




signed tunaman

I think they're (extreme greens) pretty happy about the GBR result... sure its not 100% of the area - but its 80% of the good fishing areas... so I guess all in all its fair wouldnt you say? I guess we should just roll over and expect the same thing here - they dont want 100% of the bay - just the stuff we want to fish in... leave us the main shipping channels and the barren stuff... Yep gotta agree with you... its fair!!

And the minister is right - she doesnt want to lock recreational fishos out of the bay... we can have 70% of it... no problem - its which 70% thats the problem... Tunaman if you want to fish in the desert then thats up to you - I'll choose the fish highway and continue to fight for our access and our childrens access to this resource. Yes its about sustainability and this fight is not about our "rights" to rape and pillage the bay... no one has EVER said that. Its about continued and sustainable access... not lockouts.

[billfisher]

All these closures are is a barganing chip Labor hands to the greens in exchange for preferences. As Dr Starck (a prominent fisheries Professor), said of the GBRMP they are a cheap political shot and that for all the good they do they might as well be managing the moon.

Why we should 'compromise' to this I don't know. There are plenty of other real conservation options available IF a problem is identified without locking out anglers.

[FNQCairns]

Yes I know the extreme greenies are a bunch of strange people, but they
will never get their own way. But they will try! Its must be fair for all,
like I said, theirs no easy solution. no one can have it their own way.

They got their own way to a T on the RAP zoning, fair to none.

They will get their own way yet again whenever round 2 starts.......and it will no doubt about it....unless of coarse it is stopped at the political level because fairness has never been a political objective of any party......until TFP that is.

cheers fnq

[BGG]

Not sure if this has already been published but I e-mailed my local state member the following:
I am a life long resident of Wynnum/Manly and have spent over 40 years fishing in our beautiful bay. The last 10 years have seen a vast improvement in fish populations in the bay due to reductions of river silt, industrial run-off and the cessation of coral dredging. Finally, the Moreton Bay fishery is returning to how I remembered it from my childhood days.
I have read with interest and alarm that there is a proposal to close areas of the bay to recreational fishing and I believe that the push for this is coming from some so-called environmental groups. I'm sure you are aware that recreational fishing and boating in the South East generates a huge amount of tax dollars and lures tourists who in turn boost the local economy.
Can you please outline your party's stance on this issue for me. I'm a loyal Labor voter but if closing parts of Moreton Bay to recreational fishing is a Labor proposal, I'm afraid I will exercise my vote against any such proposal.
Please keep in mind that the wealthy will not be affected as they will continue to take their large craft offshore but the not so wealthy small boat owner might as well cash in their boat and look for another form of recreation.
& got a phone call and the following response:
further to our conversation this morning outlined below is the current policy regarding recreational fishing in Moreton Bay.

No ban on recreational fishing in Moreton Bay

The Beattie Government will not ban recreational fishing in Moreton Bay,
Environment Minister Desley Boyle said today.

“We will guarantee access to Moreton bay for recreational fishers.

“The Marine Park zoning plan has to be reviewed after 10 years, the review is due in 2008, and hasn’t even started yet.

“People who enjoy fishing should not be alarmed by a scare campaign.

“Mums and Dads and families who like to throw in a line can be assured that we will guarantee access for recreational fishing

“Our review will be open and transparent and based on science.

“Labor has a proven track record in looking after people who fish.

“In the lead up to the recent rezoning of the Great Sandy Marine Park, a similar fear campaign was mounted and proved untrue. We guaranteed continued access for fishers - with 96% of the Marine Park available to recreational fishers.

“Labor knows how loved Moreton Bay is and we reassure fishers they will always be a part of this paradise on Brisbane’s doorstep,” Ms Boyle said.

[Adamy]

No ban on recreational fishing in Moreton Bay

The Beattie Government will not ban recreational fishing in Moreton Bay,
Environment Minister Desley Boyle said today.

“We will guarantee access to Moreton bay for recreational fishers.

“Labor has a proven track record in looking after people who fish.




So.... How do you feel about these promises BGG (and anyone else)? What are the promises? You can have access to the Bay... yes thats right - but how much? Do you have access to the entire bay right now? No you dont... Can you fish flat rock anymore?

But you still have access to the bay - even if they close 100% of all fishing activities - you can still have access to the bay - you just cant fish in it. But we know they wont close the whole bay - thats absurd - just the 30% that has any sort of fish population. You dont have to close the whole bay to lock out 90% of the fishing areas... just have a look at it on the weekend - the whole bay isnt full of boats - just certain areas - the ones that hold fish.

The promises are empty and arent worth the 0's and 1's they're printed with (IT joke) ::) as for labors record on looking after people who fish... well that must be a labor joke..... just ask the fishos in Hervey Bay how they feel - or the guys who used to fish the other green zones.

This is my first real season on the bay and I love it... but now it looks like I wont get the chance to explore half the areas I have heard so much about. No they wont ban recreational fishing... just close the areas where we want to fish. This promise is just like Beattie saying He hadnt decided on an election date on Monday night - when the announcement was already in the mail... You just cant trust them!! Go TFP!!

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

Adam, you are even starting to sound like a pollie. Your quote of what I said earlier was not specifically addressed to you at all if anyone would care to read what I posted. You have created that yourself .

Dave

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

Pinhead, Is that the same Bill Ludwig (spelling?) who is Mayor of Livingstone Shire? That is local govt. When was he an MLA?

Dave

[hicksy]

Things are starting to get a little pear shaped here.

In real terms who stuffed the GBR? ANSWER the LIBERALS at the Federal level. Why should they be any different at a state level.

Why would any fisherman want to support liberals. Lets me honest, in rel terms beattie will win the state election. If you support liberals you will not have a voice in parliament.

Labor have committed not to stop recreational fishing in moreton bay. Sure some might have objected to they way they have said it but in reality if you support Liberal you will have no say on fishing in moreton bay.

If you vote Labor at least you are guaranteed you will be involved in the final outcome.

Hicksy

[tunaman]

I think shutting down 1/10 fishing spots is not so bad, yes 80% is a
bit much. The fair thing would 50%, and the benefits are, all the fish
etc, will have a refuge to grow and multiple, and once they have grown
and start to look for their own territorys, they will be big and fat,
and this is what all fisherpeople want. And this I think is sustainable
fish stocks management.
Again this is only my opinion.


signed tunaman

[Adamy]

Adam, you are even starting to sound like a pollie. Your quote of what I said earlier was not specifically addressed to you at all if anyone would care to read what I posted. You have created that yourself .

Dave
Hey Dave.... I didnt take it personally mate, I know what you said and what you meant by it - I know you meant no harm to me... its OK... really I promise - I'm just saying - if I enter a fight - like I have chosen to enter this one - then I'm prepared to take the consequences. Like I said Dave - I think you're doing a great job - keep it up, your comments are valid and I'm taking each one on board because it gives me the fuel I need to help develop strategy to help in this campaign any way I can. So is that OK?? Its not about me anyway... its much bigger than that... its about our fishing future. I have only just started in the boating game - I've been fishing all my life - but I just cant explain to you the joy I get out of boating and fishing and now some tree hugging, hairy armpitted, vegan greenie wants to take that away from me. Thats why I refuse: to back down, accept reality, theres no use, the opposition have no answers, play it fair etc etc ..type of attitudes.... Other people can have them - if so thats their right and they should keep it to themselves - this topic is about what we CAN do to protect our rights... not what we cant or wont do.

So if I sound a little militant or forceful about it - then I DONT apologise for that. If you see my comments on other topics - I am quite light and jovial - I dont try to sound like I know everything cause I dont. But in this topic - I know a little - mostly through hard earned experience. I care and I want to see that something gets done thats positive - thats why I am here and thats my contribution - anybody can knock me as much as they want but it wont change the way I feel or act on this issue. So Dave - once more mate - no problems - my only concern on this topic is to keep it on topic and working on what we CAN do...

My comments were not to be construed as a personal attack on you or anyone else... just trying to state the conviction of my beliefs - hope you can accept that... and yes if thats the perception - I have created that myself and I can live with it. Thanks!

Oh and to answer your question regarding Bill Ludwig... must be a different man. Bill Ludwig is/was National President and Queensland state secretary of the Australian Workers' Union (AWU), one of Australia's oldest and largest unions. It could be said that the AWU Faction dominates the Queensland branch of the Australian Labor Party but Pinhead may know more about this than me. Bill is/was also a member of the ALP National Executive and Vice President of the ALP's Queensland Branch. I think his son Joe, is a QLD ALP Senator.

[Adamy]

I think shutting down 1/10 fishing spots is not so bad, yes 80% is a
bit much. The fair thing would 50%, and the benefits are, all the fish
etc, will have a refuge to grow and multiple, and once they have grown
and start to look for their own territorys, they will be big and fat,
and this is what all fisherpeople want. And this I think is sustainable
fish stocks management.
Again this is only my opinion.


signed tunaman
Does someone else want to get this one??? I'm going fishing - while I still can - cause I know for a fact - my corner of the 50% is gonna get shut down - then I'm gunna come over and fish in your 50%.

[tunaman]

Addam Australia is a island, we are surounded by water. You are trying to tell me, that shutting down 1/10 in your area, and the one area
is only 50% shut down, this is going to affect your fishing?
Well can see your not happy about it , but who is.




signed tunaman

[Got_the_Fever]

Why would anyone believe what the libs/nats have to say? Look at what that little toad in canberra has done to us over the years. And remember that after little johnny has gone we then get pete the cheat, would you trust him..............I WOULDNT. I have never been political until now. Like most ppl I went and voted every couple of years for which ever yahoo was running and didnt think much about it. I have always been a labor voter because back in the day they where actually suppose to be the voice of the working class. What happened to them. But I digress of the topic.

We have to get past all the rheteric(if that is how you spell it) and start working together. Not everyone is going to agree with 100% of what TFP is saying or what Adam is trying to get across, after reading a lot of his posts I have found him a very passionate and thoughtful person who just wants to help us. I am at the moment tending to agree with the TFP because they havent become pollies yet, they are committed fisho's that want to fight to keep our rights alive. There is a quote that I like and seems to fit in well at the moment, "Man has only those rights that he can defend" it might not be PC but it does sum up the way I feel.

I cant see TFP ever becoming a party that could take power in QLD, but maybe that is a good thing. They can concentrate of looking after our rights and pushing the greenies further out of the power bargaining extremists that they have become.

I am not a member of TFP so I am not pushing their agenda because I am part of the party. To me it just makes sense. And maybe they can help us to keep OUR rights. As another ozzie said when he formed another political party was, he was there to help keep the bastards honest.


Kel

[kc]

Just a quick touch on Tunamans comments. It is not just the lock-outs which are the problem. It is the specific areas targeted and even more importantly the enourmous multi-media PR campaign which goes hand in glove with the rezoning.

While really only having the GBR rezoning to use as a benchmark (just as the green lobby are using the GBR rezoning as a benchmark)

* TV/Radio/Print media campign aimed at convicing the general public. Particularly the Non Fishing public that the sky is falling and it is all the fault of the dirty rotten fisherman.
* Teach our kids that fishing is bad for the environment.
* Make us feel guilty because we like to go fishing
* Lots of publicity (public shaming) of anyone caught breaching the laws (regardless of honest mistakes) & the criminality of the breaches (A breach of a GBR zoning law results in a court case and mandatory criminal conviction as well as a substantial fine.....all for what should really be a "parking ticket").

These factors combine to produce up to a 42% drop out rate in participation in recreational fishing (Qld DPI figures).

Fishing along the GBR coast has become more of a stress than a relaxation. That is what is looking over your shoulder in Moreton Bay.

All this could be avoided with management regimes which specifically target any overfishing or even potential overfishing issues.

1. Identify the fisheries issues and species health/breeding dynamics and sustainable harvest.
2. Adjust recreational harvest to sustainable levels using accepted norms such as bag limits, slot sizing and closed spawning seasons Where NEEDED.
3. Remove any unsustainable fishing activities......and clearly we have problems with inshore beam & otterboard trawl as a potential flashpoint.
4. Provide TAC quotas on all commercial fisheries, again based on sustainablity.

DON'T JUST LOCK US OUT & THROW AWAY THE KEY.

That is not "management" it is exclusionism..they are our parks too, not just the greens.

KC

[BGG]

I'd just really like to appeal to EVERYONE who has a concern to write or e-mail their local state member and tell them where their vote will be going unless assurances are given. It's a great time to strike when their futures are in the balance.

[madmix]

Hi Hicksy,

Sorry to say that Labour have not committed to anything, just because
they have conveniently released a statement.
Remember Paul Keatings, L.A.W. Law, Fiasco.

Cheers Mick

[Adamy]

Addam Australia is a island, we are surounded by water. You are trying to tell me, that shutting down 1/10 in your area, and the one area
is only 50% shut down, this is going to affect your fishing?
Well can see your not happy about it , but who is.




signed tunaman

Ditto to everything KC said in regards to Tunamans comment. However just to answer Tunaman in real simple terms... I dont know about you tunaman - but I have trouble accessing parts of port phillip bay, the great Australian Bight, the kimberleys and pretty much anywhere else I want to fish- thats not within an hours drive - I USED to be able to go to Hervey Bay... but not going there anymore - I wouldnt know where I can or cant fish. So your argument about Australia being an island and I can fish anywhere I like - doesnt make any real sense... or maybe I'm just slow - can you please explain in basic terms - really slowly... how I am supposed to get back from work (in Brisbane) - be in the water an hour after - Darwin Harbor is my chosen destination for this trip and be back in bed before midnight with a couple of keepers in the fridge?? Yep maybe I'm slow - but I cant see how it can be done - or maybe your boat has a rocket Tunaman??

Would love to tow my boat up to the GBR... but 80% of the good fishing areas are now closed. Did you hear how they nominated the closure areas? They asked the recs and the pros where they fished "just so we dont close those areas down" so the pros handed over detailed log books... guess which areas they closed???

[billfisher]

It looks like tunaman believes in the 'spillover effect' which still has yet to be proven. Even the extreme greens don't believe in it. In one of their submissions for the Port Stevens Marine Park (not satisfied with locking away many of our prime fishing spots) they are already eyeing off the remaining areas. Their justification more more closures is that the displaced fishing effort from the sanctuary zones might lead to overfishing in the areas still open! So there you have it in their own words.

Also it is their stated aim to lock anglers out of 50% of coastal waters (NCC policy). As anyone who has been affected by these parks knows that 50% sanctuary zones equates to 80-100% of worthwhile fishing locations. #

[Adamy]

Well thought out and well said Billfisher... its a matter of give an inch and take a mile... shouldnt have ever let them take that first inch :-/





We have to get past all the rheteric(if that is how you spell it) and start working together. Not everyone is going to agree with 100% of what TFP is saying or what Adam is trying to get across, after reading a lot of his posts I have found him a very passionate and thoughtful person who just wants to help us. I am at the moment tending to agree with the TFP because they havent become pollies yet, they are committed fisho's that want to fight to keep our rights alive. There is a quote that I like and seems to fit in well at the moment, "Man has only those rights that he can defend" it might not be PC but it does sum up the way I feel.

I cant see TFP ever becoming a party that could take power in QLD, but maybe that is a good thing. They can concentrate of looking after our rights and pushing the greenies further out of the power bargaining extremists that they have become.

I am not a member of TFP so I am not pushing their agenda because I am part of the party. To me it just makes sense. And maybe they can help us to keep OUR rights. As another ozzie said when he formed another political party was, he was there to help keep the bastards honest.


Kel

Thanks for the support Kel!! and by the way... the day that TFPQ becomes typical pollies is the day they wont get my support any more either. If they ever get funding... which comes by getting a member elected and start to employ real political strategists etc (and dont need me - I'm strictly volunteer) if those guys arent died in the wool fishos - then I'm out too. I dont want to be a pollie and I know the guys in the party dont want to be pollies either... but this is a fight we have been forced into - and we cant afford to let it slide. Keep your eye out for some events we have planned... cant say anything yet - just keep Sept 2nd free (its a no fishing day) - hope to have everyone there. (even tunaman ;) )

[Got_the_Fever]

I dont think I have anything on for that day, unless the dr wants to poke, prob and drain me some more.

Kel

[madmix]

Hi Kel,
Just bring the Doc with you.

Not sure if I,ll be in Brisvegas about the 2nd, but will
listen out just in case.

cheers Mick

[Got_the_Fever]

I keep trying to bribe my dr. Keep telling him if he can stop all the damn pain I will take him fishing and actually bring him back. Other wise I will take him out but maybe forget to bring him back.


Kel [smiley=2vrolijk_08.gif]

[Adamy]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Good work Kel ;)

[tunaman]

It was only an apinion to what I think is a fair thing, in the hope, that the people, that make these changes, see our anger in the currant way
they are doing things. I heard, that the polly,s and the greens, etc
read these posts, with very keen interest, and they also know how
much money fisherpeople put into the system. When they put out
in the news, that they are going close down or change some, they are
simply testing us to see how much of a stink we are going to kick up. They know we are an important element. I hope. for a lot of reasons.
Like I said befour, we all need to pull together, and raise our dislikes,
in the name of fairness, and if we dont, they will think we are happy
with what they are about to do. I have never seen or heard of any
protests in the name of fishing, like others have done for their causes,
and I mean big rallies, that hit the front pages, and seen on the news.
Why cant we hook up our boats , and pick up every fisherman we can find, and block a complete hi way for as far as the eye can see. Can this be done, or Iam I off the track, and should #stay out of , what dont understand. I wont take any offence to your replys.
Surely they cant shut down every fishing spot, they,ed be cutting their
own necks. If they make it so, and people start walking away from
fishing, a lot of people will be out of bizness, they must see that.

tunaman

[Got_the_Fever]

Tunaman the idea of hooking up the boats and having a protest rally is a good one, but acutally using them to block a highway would bring the boys in blue down on everyone as if it was the wrath of god and would put the general public against us for the inconvience that it would cause. Having the protests in the media would amplify what is happening and put the pollies on the spot.


Kel

[PinHead]

Pinhead, Is that the same Bill Ludwig (spelling?) who is Mayor of Livingstone Shire? That is local govt. When was he an MLA?

Dave

Bill Ludwig is the president of the AWU and Qld branch Secretary..a very powerful man in the Labor movement...one of the chief puppeteers in the Qld Labor movement.

[lunatic]

I like Tunamans idea of a trailer boat convoy, but not blocking a highway.
If we got enough people together to do it (maybe with pro fishing placards on the boats) it would make the news. I am pretty sure if it was big enough politicians, being interested in self preservation, would see potential votes rolling past in their cars and trailers. It would be a massive logistical challenge getting lots of cars and trailers together for just such an event, but if somebody is ready to make a date (it will have to be soon) and a rendezvous point (I reckon a long stretch of quiet road, maybe out near Pinkenba, we could park nose to tail until we are ready to roll) and we could drive somewhere that will give us maximum exposure without breaking the law.
Another thought, we could get a fleet of boats to drive up the river with placards. If we got enough boats involved we would be sure to get on the news, and it might be fun too! We could have the fleet go up the river through the city and west end.
Any takers??
Cheers,
Lunatic.

[Adamy]

Why cant we hook up our boats , and pick up every fisherman we can find, and block a complete hi way for as far as the eye can see. Can this be done, or Iam I off the track, and should stay out of , what dont understand. I wont take any offence to your replys.
Surely they cant shut down every fishing spot, they,ed be cutting their
own necks. If they make it so, and people start walking away from
fishing, a lot of people will be out of bizness, they must see that.

tunaman



Tunaman... are you starting to come around? or is someone else posting in your name? Its just that you are starting to make sense... I like it :D Welcome to "the fight"! Now I cant say too much right now.... just keep the date Sept 2nd open... I think you will like what we have planned!! We can all do our bit... and this will be your opportunity.

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

KC,

Please forgive my ignorance if I have missed something, but exactly where does Adam stand with the Fishing Party? In a recent thread I read where you said that only you (the chair), could post on behalf of the Party. I'm not knocking Adam's comments, nor his enthusiasm, but I just wonder where his position in the party sits. He has posted a lot about TFPQ recently. Adam, this is not intended to be a slur in any way against you, I am simply trying to clarify things.

Thank you

Dave

[tunaman]

No its me. sorry for clowning around in the past, Ill pull up, and in stead of
sitting on the fence, Ill be a little more usefull, and blocking the highway,
I think convoy would fo been a better word.Thanks. I think this will
work, and your right, we will be votes driving past, and the more noise
us fisho,s make, the more they will take notice, but like a lot of us, Iam
only one drop in the ocean, and the pain of it all, I see very well.
[In the past I have let other people on this site, this will not happen--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
again]. But getting everyone off their bottem,s is going to be very hard,
and this is one of the reason, for not being serious, and with all the
stressfull post I read when I first came on, I thought a couple jokes
would help. BUt the fishing life that I love, I take that very seriously.



signed tunaman

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

This is to you Adam

In your other thread about a PB and Premier Pete, I posted and you asked for the serious stuff to be posted here in the News section. Well here it is mate. How could you, with a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity to get up close and personal with the Premier and the Deputy Premier, forget, or not choose, to ask of their intentions of the Bay? You stated that there was no media present, yet footage was on the news last night. You imply that you knew they'd be there and you said " That's why I went down there". How did you know that? How did you manage to coincide your being there with their arrival? How could you possibly not ask them the entire breathings of this thread? If I sound sussy of you Adam then I apologise, but you've certainly lost me.

Cheers
Dave

[Adamy]

Tunaman... Welcome aboard mate ;D #

Dave.... Hmmm dunno what to say to you... yep I'm a labor party spy... I'm gutless and I dont really mean what I say - I just like posting stuff for the hell of it to stir people up. #Ummm and yeh... I knew they be there.... and timed my fishin trip just perfectly to pull my boat out of the water in time for the media circus... actually no thats not true - the whole thing was a lie... never went fishing - photo of my son was a photoshop deal - lied about meeting T1 there and yeh pretty much made the whole thing up - just to get a few laughs in the reports section. #efven dressed in my daggiest fishing clothes... just for a laugh haha... what a cad I am! :-? :o

The rest of this post has been self modified (deleted) in order to avoid detraction from the valuable message of this thread, that is saving our rights to access the bay for fishing. I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Adam

[jim_farrell]

Have kept my trap closed until now but here goes.
I think we have two issues here. The election firstly, and management of the marine park secondly.
Those of you who will vote Labor no matter what and can't post unbiased comments are not able to offer much here. The same goes for anyone who is anti labor.
This is about fishing and what is best for fishermen.

Personally I won't vote labor because of electricity, water, health, transport and marine closures of the bay. That may change next election. Just my opinion.
A vote for non labor this election would help TFPQ down the track and we must look beyond 5 - 10 years.

As Far as management of the bay goes, decisions must not only be based on scientific research, but it must be sound. Lets not forget that the GBR closures were based on 'Scientific research'.

In my opinion this can only be done through growth, number and reproduction rate surveys. Until these results are in, nobody should be talking closures, rollbacks or selective fishing.

If a change was to be made in the short term, (prior to conclusive results in the above areas) it would be to increase size limits to get a couple more breeding seasons in on target fish.

I also believe we need a united representative body of recs, clubs and pro's.
This body could be invovled with the government in the implementation of management rules regarding areas like the bay. This body could be part of a tagging program in the bay that could give us the desired results in a couple of years. For example, imagine 80% of squire that ausfish members have returned to the bay in the last 12 months had tags. It would number in the thousands.

There is no TFPQ backed rep in my electorate, so I can't vote for somebody like Shane. However I feel that a vote for labour will garauntee a bay closure of some sort.

All just my opinion. Lets try and stick together on this guys, and not lose sight of common goals.
Jim

[seatime]

Here-Here, well said flick.

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

Quote from Adamy
"Dave... yep - thats why I went down there - I thought it was going to be a media event - but all the cameras were inhouse - no media (reporters) -so no use. Anyway I know what the trite answer is..... The Beattie Govt will guarantee rec fishos access to the bay.... (yeh but which parts?) So it would have been a waste of breath... anyway lets save this sort of serious chat for the news section... "

Ok Adam I have no desire in trying to turn this into a shitfight so I will say my last piece to you and but out. You implied that you knew they'd be there when you said "That's why I went down there". (see quote from your own post above). I still don't understand why you feel a media circus has to be present before you'd ask a downright civil question about the bay. You chose not to, that's your call. I would have thought any of us would have asked that question if any of us were presented with your opportunity. Like I said, you've lost me.

Dave

[kc]

This thread has had its own legs and I have been basically keeping my over opinionated a^%$ out of it until...Flick...mate...& I note the "" made it tongue in cheek...Lets not forget that the GBR closures were based on 'Scientific research'.

Here is a little "snip" for anyone watching who thinks we are "guilding the Lily".

The definative research document on the GBR fishery is "Technical report 52. Reef CRC. Long terms effects of Line Fishing on the Great Barrier Reef".

Quotes

"It is important to note the status of coral trout populations in areas open to fishing remain relatively robust under all the stratagies we consider"

&

"Density on these 3 reefs has fluctuated over the years but has shown no downward trend as might be expected if coral trout were being consistantly overfished"

&

In Cairns section, counts were made on twelve reefs in 1983 (Ayling & Ayling 1986) and again in 1991(Mapstone & Ayling unpublished data). Common coral trout density increased over this period"

& & & & &. so on and so forth

The science actually refutes any claims of overfishing...yet these di*&^%heads persist in saying the reef was closed for science based reasons and the sky was falling.

The GBR closures were all about politics and so will the closures of Moreton Bay.....NOTHING to do with the environment and EVERYTHING to do with the preference deals which will keep politicians in power.


Never think science will save your rights to access the Bay...ONLY political will will.

(will will...now there is a line that I though could never be used correctly in the English langauge) ;)

KC

[fishingjew]

Ill say it well put kc

scientific research sustainable fishing ? more like political pragmatic propaganda

I put a post up in news called Coasts and oceans publications it has a link to all fishery reports just scroll down its on page two Commonwealth fishery reports

http://www.deh.gov.au/coasts/publications/index.html

[billfisher]

KC,

Were going through the same thing here in NSW. An anomous greens inspired report "Empty Oceans - Empty Nets" was given wide publicity here a while back and its validity was not questioned by the media. The grim picture it painted of our fish stock was used by the liars and chareletons of the green movement in their push for marine parks.

A scientific review of this document from the prestigious University of British Columbia has become available (ie was leaked!). It was scathing of the report. The UBC found it to be so deceptive and flawed that they recommended it should not be used or quoted. Do you think we can get the UBC report published in the media? No luck so far. Journos' contacted who published the original greens report say its now 'yesterdays news'.

Also the UBC report does not recommend large scale sanctuary zones as a management tool for NSW fisheries.

[kc]

Bill fisher can you send me that stuff or any links please....kc@whitsunday.net.au

One thing we expect to happen after the election (subject to how much impact we have) is the mainstream media will come "looking to see what all the fuss is about"....the more ammo we have the better.

TFPQ is well briefed on GBR issues and the political deals which were behind then but really does not have any expertise outside QLD.

& for Reel Nauti.....and your "relationship" with Adam.

My reading of what you both post is much of it is factual, much of it tinged with humour and really your both on the same side...rec fishing!!

Adam has offered his not insignificant political experience to help TFPQ through this election. It is a big job with way too few people actually prepared to help, while plenty of people are happy to backslap, or just sit on the fence throwing hand grenades.

Adam does not speak on behalf of TFPQ. Generally only the Chairman does and this role is expanded to include candidates, PR companies and candidate management during an election.
99% of what goes out still comes past my desk for approval but just running in 4 seats is a monster of a job.

Bear with us please if we make the occassional stuff up. We are all volunteers, all doing this because we believe in the cause and all doing it because we want our futures to still have a connection to our past.

It has come to mind of late that the Environmental Lobby want our National Parks and Marine Parks to actually be zoos, not parks. Fence them up, lock out the evil humans and lets all stand outside and look in.

We prefer that they are Parks. OUR parks. Playgrounds belonging to us all to use, enjoy and look after..

Maybe this is the fundamental difference.

KC

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

Hi Kevin I have no huge problem with Adam. He clearly doesn't like to be questioned and so I will not continue this on the thread. I will respond to his somewhat longwinded PM which he has sent me and leave it at that.

Cheers

Dave

[wobbygone]

The comment," think before you cast your vote", has a special place in shaping the future of this country. I love my fishing. And I would fish every inch of the day if I could. I fish for enjoyment as I hope we all do.
However, I have children and grandchildren, and a vote for the Lib/ Nats is a vote for the WorkChoice legislation that has already had a huge impact on those who can least afford to suffer. Sure, fight the good fight, protest, write to people who are in a position of influence, raise awareness
in the local paper, but don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Make no mistake, a state Lib/Nat government will walk in the footsteps of bigbrother and industry. If you honestly believe that your fishing will be better served by a change of government in QLD., thats one thing. But the future for my grandkids ranks light years ahead of the fishing that I enjoy very much.
Don't get sucked into any smoke screens, sort out the charf from the hay before you make a decision where your best value for money is when you cast your all important vote.
All minor parties who will never govern in their own right, will pace their preferences with there grass roots. At the day the greenies, fishing party, domocrats,family first ect., will lobby for, and distribute there votes,perhaps your votes somewhere. Who knows exactly where?
Thank to Hicksy for touching a cord with his comments earlier in the discussion.

Wobbygone

[billfisher]

KC,

You will find the UBC report on the ecofishers website as well as a lot of other scientific rebutal of the greens claims.

Ecofishers have proclaimed the offer of an olive branch to the greens. They have posted in full the Empty Oceans - Empty Nets report on their site. They have sent the UBC report to the National Parks Association and pointed out it would only be fair that they post the UBC report alonside the empty oceans report!

[kc]

Hi Wobbygone,

Hicksy & I have had this fundamental discussion before. The Qld system absolutely allows every voter to determine who gets their vote. Not us. No preference flows exist in the QLD system. If we produced a HTV card which directed votes, for example 1 Fishing Party 2 Greens, 3 Labor and 4 Libs. Voters are under absolutely no obligation to follow our suggestion and this is what is termed "preference leakage". You decide what order to put your vote. You are right about TFPQ, or other minor parties not winning seats (although some independants have and do).

It is still absolutely possible to send a protest vote by voting 1 for your protest party of choice and then 2 for who you personally want to run the state. Your choice, not ours. The senate system is a bit different but NOT THE STATE.

So, our suggestion would be, if you are fundamnetally opposed to one particular side or the other. Send a clear message that fishing is important enough to you to lodge a protest vote and then vote for the party you want to run the state.

KC

[Adamy]

Adam has offered his not insignificant political experience to help TFPQ through this election. It is a big job with way too few people actually prepared to help, while plenty of people are happy to backslap, or just sit on the fence throwing hand grenades.

Adam does not speak on behalf of TFPQ. Generally only the Chairman does and this role is expanded to include candidates, PR companies and candidate management during an election.
99% of what goes out still comes past my desk for approval but just running in 4 seats is a monster of a job.

KC

Thanks for the clarification Kev. All my comments made on this and ALL other threads are completely my own and in no way represent the views or opinions of the Fishing Party Queensland. I do NOT represent The fishing Party and do NOT speak on their behalf in any form whatsoever.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding any may have.

Thanks,

Adam

[Jeremy]

The comment," think before you cast your vote", has a special place in shaping the future of this country. I love my fishing. And I would fish every inch of the day if I could. I fish for enjoyment as I hope we all do.
However, I have children and grandchildren, and a vote for the Lib/ Nats is a vote for the WorkChoice legislation that has already had a huge impact on those who can least afford to suffer. Sure, fight the good fight, protest, write to people who are in a position of influence, raise awareness # #
in the local paper, but don't cut your nose off to spite your face. Make no mistake, a state Lib/Nat government will walk in the footsteps of bigbrother and industry. If you honestly believe that your fishing will be better served by a change of government in QLD., thats one thing. But the future for my grandkids ranks light years ahead of the fishing that I enjoy very much.
Don't get sucked into any smoke screens, sort out the charf from the hay before you make a decision where your best value for money is when you cast your all important vote.
All minor parties who will never govern in their own right, will pace their preferences with there grass roots. At the day the greenies, fishing party, domocrats,family first ect., will lobby for, and distribute there votes,perhaps your votes somewhere. Who knows exactly where?
Thank to Hicksy for touching a cord with his comments earlier in the discussion.

# #Wobbygone

#

The Workshoices legislation just shows how damaging it can be to have an overwhelming majority of either side in power. The opposition in Qld is generally weak and ineffective, and this allows the labour Government to do (or not do) whatever they want.

Best case scenario is for whichever side to have a small minority with the balance of power held by independents. Worstcase scenario would be to have Beattie returned with a big majority again - IMHO.

Jeremy

[wobbygone]

Thanks for your comments regarding my post. My intention was to keep a focus on the big picture, as I feel that is our only hope for a half reasonable result. I am not convinced that minority groups or independents serve us well though. Cast our mind back to the jelly bellys who sold us out on the GST and even worse, and more recent, the WORKCHOICE LEGISLATION.
As I mentioned in earlier post, the bay and I are joined at the hip and I will fish till the day I drop. Also being a fishcare volly with the dpi boating and fisheries, I frequently get to see the enjoyment that the bay gives to the fishing and boating public. We certainly don't want to loose that.
I believe this forum allows a healthy platform for meaningful discussion on subjects such as this.
Keep up the fight in an attempt to keep those elected to serve the people, a servent of the people.

Wobbygone ;)

[Hornblower]

Wobbygone has made a very good point with this comment: Keep up the fight in an attempt to keep those elected to serve the people, a servent of the people. There have also been very good points made by the others as well.

I guess the thing to understand about the Labor party is that they are really about four political parties rolled into one. This is due ot the factions within the labor party ranging from extreme left wing socialist to greeny - and each of these factions have their own set of politics and interests that vary more than labor does to the coalition.

How do they keep everyone happy - it is done by sharing the spoils and having a strict code within the party that if anybody dares to break it they are branded a "Rat" and are totally austracised from the party. Have you ever wondered why, with such a large majority in Queensland, their cabinet is continually made up of duds, and why Peter Beattie doesn't bring in new blood from his excess of MP's some of whom would do an infinitely better job than those they have? Well it is because of the factions. The only thing the factions hate more than the Coalition is each other.

Probably the worst kept secret in Queensland Politics is that Peter Beattie runs his cabinet, but he doesn't get a choice as to who is in it, and he definitely has no say in running the labor party. The thing old Apologetic Pete knows is that he is the best front man for the party and the rest of the party know it and so he is the only one who is really safe.

When you look at Peter Beattie - it isn't rocket science with how he cons people. Whenever something comes up for a specific location he will always personalise it by making a statement about himself and that location first e.g. If something comes up about Redcliffe, he will say first of all, "Well I have got a real soft spot for Redcliffe because that is where Heather and I got married."

When the issue of Moreton Bay comes to the forefront you can bet your bottom dollar that he will make a statement to the people prefixing what he is going to say by something like this "Well let me tell you that Moreton Bay is real important to me, because I taught my kids how to fish on Moreton Bay". That will tell the people who don't follow the issues that, "Oh he must mean well then if Moreton Bay is important to him" and straight away he has put the vast majority of people who don't fish right on his side. It is really elementary Psychology.

What has this got to do with the closures? Well, I am just demonstrating that we have to be smarter then him and the rest of the party. If I may suggest that possibly the best investment the Fishing Party could make would be bumper stickers such as the Police and ambo's used in their EB Campaign with a real good short caption which aims at the heart of the labor party and more importantly at Peter Beattie. You would be surprised at how many people will put them on their cars and you will see them everywhere. They are also relatively cheap to do.

That's my rant for the day,

Cheers ;) ;) ;) ;)

[jaybee]

Good Point wobbygone I recieved this today, sort of made me sit up and think a bit.

Whose side are you on Bruce? Email QLD Liberal leader Bruce Flegg now.

Dear friend,


Award pay and conditions could be slashed for up to 20,000 retail workers in Queensland as local employers begin a new push to take advantage of the Howard Government's radical IR laws.


Queensland Liberal leader Bruce Flegg is on the campaign trail. Email him now and ask him "whose side are you on, Bruce?"


Dr Flegg needs to come clean with Queenslanders in the lead up to the state election. Do the Queensland Liberals and Nationals support the push by retail traders and shopkeepers to slash award pay and conditions?


Weekend penalty rates, public holiday loadings and annual leave are all under threat by the Queenslander Retail Traders and Shopkeepers Association (QRTSA).


Even more unfairly, the QRTSA wants to make staff pay for any till shortages, buy their own uniforms and insist on costly medical certificates from workers that take even a single day of sick leave.


The QRTSA is even encouraging retailers to take advantage of the Federal Government's new IR laws to exploit young people by requiring juniors to work short shifts and avoid paying for a minimum block of 3 hours.


This is the ugly side of the Howard Government's new IR laws. #Employers are able to slash the take home pay of hard working Queenslanders by putting staff onto AWA individual contracts and removing important award conditions.


Cruelly, prices continue to go up, just as wages for working families are being pushed down by John Howard's IR laws.

Email QLD Liberal leader Bruce Flegg. Will he support 20,000 retail workers in his home state? Or will he allow the Howard Government's IR laws to be used to drive down their wages? Are you going to co-operate with the Howard Government to undermine workers' rights in Queensland?


Whose side are you on, Bruce? www.rightsatwork.com.au/campaigns/whoseside


Many thanks,


Sharan Burrow, Greg Combet, and
The Rights at Work campaign team


cheers
Joe

[Adamy]

Whose side are you on Bruce? Email QLD Liberal leader Bruce Flegg now.

Queensland Liberal leader Bruce Flegg is on the campaign trail. Email him now and ask him "whose side are you on, Bruce?"

Dr Flegg needs to come clean with Queenslanders in the lead up to the state election. Do the Queensland Liberals and Nationals support the push by retail traders and shopkeepers to slash award pay and conditions?

Sharan Burrow, Greg Combet, and
The Rights at Work campaign team


cheers
Joe


Hi Joe,

The IR laws are a federal issue... Flegg - even if he was premier (which he will never be) cant do anything about it (you have to have a voice in the Federal arena) - support it or not support it - it doesnt matter - You have more influence over IR laws - as it looks like you are in some kind of lobby group - so putting Flegg on the spot over this doesnt help the State at all. Thats the trouble with many people (not you Joe - I know you guys know) is "they" dont know the difference between Federal and State issues and confuse the two which allows the Feds to promote federal issues (like the IR debate) in a state election in order to influence voters.

However Flegg may have an interest in State issues such as the potential rezoning and closure of the bay - which is what we are all here for... perhaps we should find out more about that!?

lets support the one party that we KNOW has our best (fishing) interests at heart... yes there are other issues that rate more highly - like health... but supporting TFPQ (where you can) is a protest vote that shows the current Govt (in every issue) that they arent up to scratch and to pull up their socks. TFPQ has repeatedly said they cant and wont win a single seat - but its the numbers that count - once they have the numbers then they can have influence over decision makers - the greens have about 4% of the state vote if TFPQ can get 10% in the seats they run - this will dilute the greens influence and stranglehold over ministers ears.

The fishing party doesnt need comprehensive workable and costed policies on health etc. Thats an oppositions job - TFPQ will never be in opposition - so dont need to develop such. They just need to have influence... which in political parlance is called legitimacy the only thing that gives legitimacy is votes. So Vote 1 the fishing Party's preferred candidate.

[PinHead]

TFPQ has repeatedly said they cant and wont win a single seat - but its the numbers that count - once they have the numbers then they can have influence over decision makers - the greens have about 4% of the state vote if TFPQ can get 10% in the seats they run - this will dilute the greens influence and stranglehold over ministers ears.[/b]

The fishing party doesnt need comprehensive workable and costed policies on health etc. Thats an oppositions job - TFPQ will never be in opposition - so dont need to develop such. #They just need to have influence... which in political parlance is called legitimacy the only thing that gives legitimacy is votes. So Vote 1 the fishing Party's preferred candidate.

I was going to stay out of the political debate...but some things cannot go by without a comment...Adamy...Ministers or sitting Members in State Govt do not care about the losers..makes no difference to their decision making once in power. They will only pander to other groups nearing election time. Federally with the Senate is different as that is State wide vote and not just a local seat vote. As I have said previously, the ALP does not pander to the Greens when in power..they have to pander to their own Socialist Left Faction which has a strong green leaning. Beattie has made lots of decisions which the QLD Greens have no been happy about but internal dealings with their own factions have gotten these items approved. The main danger is from within the ALP itself.

[Got_the_Fever]

Im not a political animal, in fact I have tried to stay away from it all my life. I have to say that the political knowledge here is quite impressive. I have to think at the moment that it doesnt matter who is pushing these closures or who is fueling it to go further. What is important is that we have to stand together and fight as a team. From what I have reed so far we are far from that.

Yes I know everyone has their own opinion and no one has the right to tell someone else how or what to think and maybe im nieve or just a little thick, but how can we fight beatties bunch if we cant stop having digs at eachother or trying to score points on how much more someone knows as opposed to someone else. It is not time to score points of eachother, it is time to stand together as a united force and stick it up beatties backside and the extreme greens. My 2 cents worth.

Kel

[wobbygone]

I was pleased to read in Bayside Weekly magazine that the Beattie Government announced in both a public gathering and also in the media, that Moreton bay marine park would not change for rec anglers.
The enviornment minister, Desley Boyle, announced that government will "garentee continued access for fishers, with 96% of the marine park available to recreation fishers."
The statement referd to the scare campain that was generated after the AMCS outlined THERE proposal for up to 50% closure of the bay to rec fishing.
Why do people go off half cocked every time one sparrow in the flock breaks wind.
See you on the bay.
Wobbygone

[Adamy]

Hi Wobbgygone... Can you please dig up that quote and perhaps post here? Because I do believe that you have may misinterpreted the quote. I believe that what it said was that Beattie would guarantee rec fishos ACCESS to the bay.

Access is quite a bit different to fishing, access means you can look but not touch. Give you an example - John Tanzer - the chief in charge of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park still insists that ""no-take" areas were not closed off to the public". (courier mail 2002) and yet if you try and catch a fish in those areas - it is a criminal offence. It'll be like a zoo - look but dont touch. This subject has been covered adequately here in other threads. Oh by the way, according to the AMCS website only 1% is currently protected - the 96% access (you quoted) then seems to indicate that the size of notake - or green zones will in fact triple... Hope that's not in your favourite spot x. (actually I'd love a copy of that article - it may help our cause)

The statement in fact was referring to the scare campaign by recreational fishos regarding the lobbying by greenies such as the AMCS.... Sorry mate - I'm not trying to burst your balloon - but it is well covered here and also in the press.

I'm afraid that people are right to be concerned. Beattie ran a similar hose down campaign up north before he caused the closure of 1800kms of beaches to fishing with his complimentary zones policy. for reference please see an article in the Innisfail Advocate on3 February 2004 called: Clarity sought on fish zones. In this article it was just before the election and they refused to divulge their hand concerning the proposed closures, then bought in restrictions after the election.

In the meantime... and this goes for you too Pinhead... I encourage all to have a look at the Greens marine policy website: http://qld.greens.org.au/policies/marine-policy/ How do you think they are going to achieve these aims if not through preference deals???? Anyway it doesnt matter who pushes the button - once your rights are gone they're gone.

To tell the truth pinhead - I dont know what you're even arguing about... it didnt make sense.... but you think and know whatever you like - but when the signs go up that say no fishing - just ask yourself... what did I do to help?? Anyway Kel is right - why do we fight each other just to score a point over the other?? so you (or I) win a point - big deal - you get the biggest prize for knowing the most about the inner workings of the labor party.... is that doing anything to save our access to the Bay?

If what you say is true - then all Ausfish members should vote for the libs or Nats... and kick Beattie out - its our only choice... that is... according to your argument. I'm not getting into that one.... I'm supporting the Fishing Party.... sorry

[hicksy]

Adamy,

You post all these wonderful quotes and then say the problem with people is they don't understand the difference between state and federal issues.

Mate you haven't got a clue yourself!

If you dont think IR is a state issue you are kidding yourself. Or should I remind you what the Liberals did back in 1996 when they changed our state IR laws to mirror the Federal workplace relations act.

Over 90% of workers in Qld have been roped into the Federal system and the State Libs supported that.

If the Libs/Nats get in again they will do exactly the same thing.

So yes, Flegg can make decisions that will have a significant impact on peoples ability to earn wages and conditions including employers.

If the Liberals and Nats have their way there will be no penalty rates, more weekend workand less family time.

How big of an impact will that have on peoples fishing ability?

And no, before you start spruiking off. this isn't bullshit it is true.

It's been through the courts the ILO convention and many other institutions and organisations and they all say the same thing.

If you doubt me just do a search on the net. It is all fact not bullshit or propoganda. (Which we are getting plenty of lately)

Workchoices will have a negative impact on peoples capacity to earn money.

less money less fishing it's not rocket science!


Another thing who was resposible for the closures in the GBR. Wasn't that a federal decision.

Hicksy

[Adamy]

Hey hicksy... I dunno if you've checked lately mate but this is a fishing forum... the forum for IR workplace relations is elsewhere - suggest you go there and rant... This is about what we CAN do to save our fishing access rights... please check the initial post if you are unsure. What you are doing is called post hijacking... lets get back to the original issue - saving our fishing rights!

[PinHead]

okay Adam..you reckon I don't make any sense...politics is a numbers game so here are some numbers:

there are 89 seats in The Queensland Legislative Assembly.
The Fishing Party endorsed candidates are standing in 4 seats which equates to approx. 4.5% of the total seats.
If TFP candidates get the 10% in each seat as you mention then this is approximately 0.45% of the total vote in the State...hardly an earth shaking percentage.

I believe the Greens are standing in about 75 seats..which equates to approx. 84% of the seats...if they only get 2% in each seat that gives them 16.8% of the total vote..now..how does the 0.45% dilute the 16.8% ????

I am certainly opposing any closures in the Bay but I am afraid your aims are not realistic in this election.

My belief that more support for the Alliance will give better results at the present time.

I am not against TFP but I also do not believe they are prepared for this election in respect to numbers of candidates etc required to make any real impression.

I do commend you for your support to your chosen Party however one also has to be realistic in these.

And please adamy...cut out the "when the signs go up...etc" routine..you are sounding just like a pollie..we all know what may happen and we are just as concerned about it howqever, very few of us can vote for TFP even if we wanted to.


Hopefully some basic maths might make sense to yourself..politics is all about numbers..nothing else at all...when it comes to elections and the passing of Legislation...that is what they have whips for...number crunchers.

"To tell the truth pinhead - I dont know what you're even arguing about... it didnt make sense.... but you think and know whatever you like - but when the signs go up that say no fishing - just ask yourself... what did I do to help?? Anyway Kel is right - why do we fight each other just to score a point over the other?? so you (or I) win a point - big deal - you get the biggest prize for knowing the most about the inner workings of the labor party.... is that doing anything to save our access to the Bay? "

As per your above quote..resorting to personal attacks now are we??? If you cannot understand where your major green adversary is then perhaps you should delve a bit further than you presently are.
As for your patronising of myself...don't bother..your sarcasm is wasted on me...water off a ducks back.

The reality is...with the numbers of TFP candidates standing in this election..do you really think it bothers the major parties..not one iota..the numbers tell it all.

[marco]

:o

[Adamy]

Hey pinhead... have a look at the newly released Coalition fishing policy, have a look at labors new "life style policy"... neither of these parties have ever come out with anything that remotely resembles these types of policies - do you think they sit around and think these things up themselves?? or is it possible that there is some stuff happening in the back rooms that you may not be aware of?... The fishing party is having an impact whether you like it or not - they are getting some ears and making some noise - and they (both Govt and opposition) are listening... We have to keep the fight up - keep up the pressure - otherwise I'm afraid you will be right - it wont matter - we wont matter and the bay will be closed.

Sorry to detract from your post Marco - yes saw that... interesting huh?!! The greens are getting their ammo ready and thats just a fire across our bow to let us know that they have us in their sights....

[hicksy]

Hey Adam,

A little out of your depth are you?

Stepped into a swimmimng pool with all your fact and fiction and you cant even touch the bottom.

This forum is about fishing but when people like you post bullshit then it will be people like me that pull you into line.

You stated people don't know the difference between Federal & state issues. I put it back on you and you go to water. Taking the easy option of saying this is all about fishing and not answering the questions.

The reality is we are all concerned about access to fishing but I think a lot of us are getting a little annoyed with self appointed we will do this we will do that people.

How about you answer my questions?

Or was my post 100% correct?

Hicksy

[kc]

Having had too long off the boards due to some work issues it is time to throw a bit of water over this.

Greg has his points about the raw numbers and yes the greens will outpoll TFPQ by miles. So they should. They have been at it for 30 years and have the structure and funding, as well as, to use Adams words ,the credibility, to make it happen.

TFPQ has been at it for 2. Truth be known we started this as a straight out organised whinge session and now have a tiger by the tail & can't let it go.

We have to outpoll the greens significantly every time we stand in the same electorate. End of story. When we do the majors will consider the "what if this is a statewide trend" question. Greg (Pinhead) is wrong in his assumption that the only time minor parties get listened to is in the leadup to an election. We are living proof he is wrong. Some of the things TFPQ has acheived through our ongoing relationship with the Federal Government are remarkable, give our relatively insignificant numbers. From my/our experience an election campaign starts the week after an electiuon finishes and influence opportunities do likewise.
& as for Hicksy & his red undies. Maaate! This is a fishing chat board and I guess, politics really has no place here. I comment Steve for moving this whole issue to a "news" page. You can not keep bringing every topic back to work choices. I know this is your hobby horse but there is never any pretext to even try to talk fishing politics, just IR..... :( :(

At the end of the day everyone has an absolute right to disagree on all sorts of things so maybe, as a starting point, we decide what we do agree on.

1. If you can, a vote 1 for TFPQ and a vote 2 for whoever you want to run the state is a bloody good start.
2. TFPQ will never be in a position to run the state, or even win a seat, but neither will the greens or family first. This should not stop us having a good go.
3. Every election we stand in builds our media profile and credibility. THis HAS to be a good thing.
4. Fishing and access to fishing IS one of the major sideshow issues in this election. Beattie and Springboarg have both announced "fishing" policies. Beattie is in today's courier mail (1/2 page. full colour, with fishing rod in hand. THIS IS NOT A COINCIDENCE. Never before have they even HAD a fishing policy.
5. TFPQ has done more to make fishing a political issue and vote winner in the last year than anything done before.

So settle please guys. TFPQ is doing this for the right reasons, with no hidden agenda, is not a "johnny come lately" and all we are trying to do is redress what we believe is an imbalance in the political system where the environmental lobby, through its political wing, exerts too much influence. If we get luckiy, everyones a winner, if we crash and burn, then at least we went down swinging.

KC

[Gazza]

We have to outpoll the greens significantly every time we stand in the same electorate. End of story.Latest Centrebet odds..for a $1.00 outlay

Lab..... $1.02 :o :o
Coalition . $10.00 (ten) :P

THIS ELECTION "is a GOOD time" to give the four(4) TFPQ candidates ,your Nod, for your 1st. preference .....jmo

p.s. Pinhead, re your Greenie polling example.... :-? :-?
84% (of seats) by 2%(avg. vote/booth)
is 1.68% mate ,NOT 16.8% ....a BIG diff !!

[DaveSue_Fishos_Two]

I think some of us are and well and truly past settling KC. As you know, I have had my own issues with Adam and now it is clear others on the site have very similar problems.

Personally, I have had my own differences with Adam, which I had hoped had been settled through the PM,s. But clearly, this may have only settled some issues between he and I. How many members, KC, are you going to permit this jumped up little smarty pants to offend before you finally put a clamp on him or disassociate TFPQ from him completely. In my opinion, enough is enough. It would seem to me, that the longer this thread is allowed to continue, the more damaging it is becoming to TFPQ.

Just my opinion thank you

Dave

[kc]

Hi Hicksy...mate..you got me. Luckily I won a bag of minties off Gary so at least it won't cost me.

Just goes to show....politics is a funny game.

Happy to conceed. The greens did not preference Labor. Buggered if I know why. Maybe Beattie is so sure of winning he can afford to do without them. :-/ :-/

See tonight Fleggs chief of staff has pulled the pin. Didn't like the blonde joke... :o What a hoot. ;D

Anyhow Hicksy. See you at the boat show...plus anyone else who wants to talk fishing or politics...personally, I'd rather talk fishing.

Next bet we have should be to wear our undies on the outside for the day...you the red ones, Me the fishy ones and I'd recon Adams would be blue....as for Dave's...I'm not going there.

Don't know is he is a Jimmy Buffet fan but he has a song about........Now I get old I don't really care I don't go to church or wear underwear...............it's called "A pencil thin moustash"

Anoth JB song I really like is "A pirate looks at 40".......goes "yes I am a pirate, 200 years too late, the cannons don't thunder there's nothing to plunder I'm an over 40 victim of fate"

I think there's something in that for all of us ;D ;D

Anyhow.....another good day to be in TFPQ. The rally is gaining legs, fishing continues to be news and who knows, without the green preferences we might just roll a couple of seats.

Hope to catch up with a few of you at the boatshow Saturday arvo & Sunday morning.

KC

[Jeremy]

I really can't see what the problem is.

It is great to see people who feel strongly and passionately about fishing voicing their opinions. We may never think things should all be done the same way, but at least we are prepared to put our opinions forward and do something (most of us I hope).

The differences between you guys are tiny compared to what you have in common. Put the differences aside. All fishers badly need all of you on our side to fight the green lobby.

Jeremy

[Glind]

Just as the fishing vote is a "protest" vote against State Lab/Green and whoever, I think it will be John Howard who will judged over the IR laws.
The guys who bring up the IR stuff are using that as a "protest" vote against Little Johhny.
I thought we were voting on things like hospitals, roads, water, dams, Moreton Bay etc etc etc............
Dunno, I might be wrong.
Tim

[Batters_QLD]

hey would just like to add my opinion.
i think it is great to see that someone is taking an active role in conserving our fish stocks(you think it would be fishermen not politicions). closing of parts of the bay WILL allow substantially more fish to mature and breed greatly increasing juvenile recruitment in the entirety of the bay. sure you may not be able to fish in all the spots you would like to but i would rather only be able to fish in 50 percent of the bay then watch fish stocks continue to drop. without proper management there is not future fishing, this has been proven all around the world, im just glad australia is a world leader in fisheries management.

cheers
mick

[jim_farrell]

Your right mick, I don't know how we all missed that angle.

You've obviously done a lot of research, kept up with news articles, read most of the threads here before posting and are aware of the background of TFPQ.
If we had only spoken to the people whose life or work is based on fishing in CQ and FNQ, who have benifited from the GBRMP, we would've seen your point of view.
Also it is remiss of us to dismiss the science produced by the AMCS that has doubled the population of coral trout on closed reefs in 2 years. Their recommendation for 30% to 50% closures in the bay, without any form of study, shows that they have the most financially viable way of attaining proposals for marine park management.

Enjoy your golf in your steam powered golf buggy..... That is of course unless you believe a percentage of the golf course should be closed due to impact on fauna and flora.

Jim :)

[Jeremy]

hey would just like to add my opinion.
i think it is great to see that someone is taking an active role in conserving our fish stocks(you think it would be fishermen not politicions). closing of parts of the bay WILL allow substantially more fish to mature and breed greatly increasing juvenile recruitment in the entirety of the bay. sure you may not be able to fish in all the spots you would like to but i would rather only be able to fish in 50 percent of the bay then watch fish stocks continue to drop. without proper management there is not future fishing, this has been proven all around the world, im just glad australia is a world leader in fisheries management.

cheers
mick

Since when does the EPA have the role of managing fish stocks? It is the role of the DPI&F, and they are doing just fine with the current bag and size limits. There are no recreational species in Moreton Bay currently under any threat of extinction or even depletion. DPI&F figures show relatively stable catch rates of all major recreational fish. So why are the closures required? Answer - they aren't. This is simply a means by which the radical green groups can start to put and end to fishing.

Back in your box Mick, there's a good boy.

Jeremy

[Batters_QLD]

its not just the EPA there are many other organisations that influence these kind of things. Jim i am only really new to the subject but have learned plenty about the subject through fisheries science at uni, have definetly heard about the coral trout situation, they all claimed it they were ruining fishing at the time. jeremy where exactly have you gotten these figures from?? i would like links. you cant seriosly say that fish stocks havent been declining in the bay, maybe your not paying attention. were not talking about extinction here, if by depletion you mean declining stock numbers then there definetly is a risk.

"simply a means by which the radical green groups can start to put and end to fishing"

basicly the stuben view many have taken. fishing will never be banned so dont use that excuse, so as long as ther are fish in the water (the closures will help) we will all be allowed to fish.

mick

[DR]

its not just the EPA there are many other organisations that influence these kind of things. Jim i am only really new to the subject but have learned plenty about the subject through fisheries science at uni, have definetly heard about the coral trout situation, they all claimed it they were ruining fishing at the time. jeremy where exactly have you gotten these figures from?? i would like links. you cant seriosly say that fish stocks havent been declining in the bay, maybe your not paying attention. were not talking about extinction here, if by depletion you mean declining stock numbers then there definetly is a risk.

"simply a means by which the radical green groups can start to put and end to fishing"

basicly the stuben view many have taken. fishing will never be banned so dont use that excuse, so as long as ther are fish in the water (the closures will help) we will all be allowed to fish.

mick





of course fishing will never be banned, if the greenies get their way we will still be able to fish in all the barren/structureless, devoid of fish areas that we want to.

i don't think we all disagree with closures, so long as they are only temporary & they are opened again for us to use. i am sure most probably won't even disagree to seasonal closures during breeding.

the thing is that these people do not want that, they want it shut down completely.

[Jeremy]

you cant seriosly say that fish stocks havent been declining in the bay, maybe your not paying attention. #were not talking about extinction here, if by depletion you mean declining stock numbers then there definetly is a risk.
mick


You are in favour of these closures eh Mick! Lets start with you stating which species require additional protection than the bag and size limits already in place, and the evidence (catch raters or whatever) which backs this up. If you can do that, I will debate this issue with you sensibly.

Jeremy

[billfisher]

Battlers_QLD,

Just by typing something in capitals does not make it true! All you have stated is opinions with nothing at all to back them up. In almost all cases traditional management techniques are more effective than sanctuary closures (conclusion of our CSIRO, University of British Columbia and many other fisheries professionals). They conclude that large scale sancutaries are likely to just reduce the performance of the fishery through loss of productive areas and overfishing due to displaced effort in the areas left open.

You are wrong again if you think that 20 - 30 % sanctuary zones are anything other than a defacto ban on fishing. These zones are designed to put nearly all the worthwhile areas off limits to fishing. Its no wonder that 42% of anglers just gave up fishing in communities affected by the GBRMP. The draconian $25,000 fines and criminal conviction for catching a fish in the wrong place had something to do with this as well!

[jim_farrell]

Mick, I hate to get personal, but it is uninformed do gooding, politically correct, civil libertarians such as yourself who with a small piece of information can be responsible for some of the biggest stuff ups in the past.

Can you please share with us your knowledge of the cost financially to the tax payer of the GBRMP closures. Can you tell us the governments estimate of these costs prior to closure, and can you tell us who was involved in the 'science' that led to the closures, and the benifits they will produce. Can you produce evidence of declining fish numbers on the reefs that were closed.

Can you tell us how often on a yearly basis you fish the bay. Can you produce your diary that shows a decline in fish and catch rates #across the last 20 years. Can you tell me how many of the targeted fish breed in the bay. Can you show me the areas that they exclusively breed in so as those areas can be zoned. Can you tell me what fish you are likely to catch in the bay during summer and what type you are likely to catch during winter. Can you then tell me what areas and structure in the bay you are likely to catch these fish in. There are hundreds of people on this sight who can answer all those questions and still consider themselves enviromentaly friendly and conservationalists.
And as far as the politicians taking an interest, no party liberal, labor, or nationals gave a hoot about this issue until TFPQ stuck their hand up and said this will cost you votes.
Jim

Sorry Steve, red card me if you must, but i do feel better.


Edited ............. please moderate your language

[Adamy]

Hey Mick... you're not own of these Greenies just pretending to be a fisho are you??... Norty Norty mate - think you've been caught out!! [smiley=thumbsdown.gif] [smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=angryfire.gif] [smiley=angryfire.gif] If you can answer ANY of Flicks questions (with personal accounts) then you MIGHT get some credibility... MIGHT! By the way - your real name isnt actually Tony is it?

Heres a post I made in another thread - thought is was applicable here - given your application of Science and the "spillover effect"....

Yes... according to that "green" kind of logic - the "spillover effect" will have us catching coral trout off the beaches at the Gold Coast too... makes sense doesnt it? after all if there are so many coral trout and according to the greens they have increased in numbers by up to 60% in 2 years - at that rate of growth - 30% compounding per year - babies having more babies - we should be up to our ears in coral trout within 10 years..... Makes sense doesnt it?

Soon be catching coral trout in hinze dam - because the sea will be so full that that the trout will pack their bags and walk overland to find new swimming and breeding grounds. Dont leave your bath full in the year 2020 - otherwise you'll turn around and it will be full of coral trout... at least with the population explosion (IF you believe the greens) then it has to happen..... when will we ever learn.... dont take "science" at face value...

So close Moreton bay - close GSS close GBR... means more fish for everyone... yippeeeeee :o :o :o :o :o

[count_baysea]

Well said Flick

Adamy
I heard coral trout feed on dugong and sea turtles #;)

[madmix]

Well said Flick, Hope the blood pressure has settled down.

Bloody hell Adamy, now I've gotta buy another fish bat for the
bathroom.

Batters_Qld, The stuben view you speak of, is that some greenies report
that I have not read, or given the standard of our esteemed marine
universities, did you per chance mean Stubborn.

[kc]

Looks like you have opened a can of worms here Mick but don't let that stop you from putting in your 2 bobs worth. This would be a boring debate if it was all one way traffic and a few of the "boys" get a bit uppity.

So. on to the Bay and NTA's.

As to research...unfortunately none really exist on the Bay.

We do have a lot on the GBR and the main target species Coral Trout.

The definative study is Reef CRC technical report 52. Sometimes called the ELF study. Effects of Line Fishing on reef fin fish. a 12 year review.

This document, along with the unpublished (GBRMPA funded) reports from Dr Tony Ayling absolutely refute the latest AIMS reports...and these are 12 year not 2 year studies.

In summary; (and the reports are available on our website www.fishingparty.com.au as part of out GBRMPA review submission)
prove in part.

* The spillover effect is a fabrication.
* Overfishing on the GBR is a myth
* The combined commercial and recreational catch is less than 3% of biomass (so how the &%$# can they recover 60%)

& how absolutely bloody convenient that just 2 years after the zoning, when the "scientists" told us it would take 5 to 7 years, the "remarkable" improvement occurs just 2 weeks before an election..hmmm!!

Our problem is why just nominate a carte blanch 30 to 50%?????????????

What data supports that?????????????

Why do this if a closed season and slot size works(as has absolutely been the case with barra in NQ)

Why do it if a commercial catch quota can work??

Why do it if reducing habitat destruction can work??

Lets not even think about by-catch issues, urban run-off, tourism visitation impacts, recreational bag limits or other control mechanisms.

Our position has (& will likely always be) lock-outs are a last resort in a desperate situation, not a first/best option.

No one has suggested the situation in the bay is desperate.

Why close it down before other fisheries management options are given a chance.

The answer by the environment lobby seems always to be "The precautionary principle"

Mick, Mate, in times past the "precautionary principle" had another name

It was called "Common sense" and bugger all of that has been displayed by the environmental lobby so why should we trust them with the Bay.

You have a hard field to plow on this site. We have been burnt before and we might be a bit slow but we are learning.

We sat on our hands and trusted those in charge to do the right thing by fishos during the GBR review. We won't make the same mistake again.

Never again. To use one of "Pete's" own slogans...enough is enough...............well enough REALLY IS enough. Never again.

Sorry you are bearing the brunt of some seriuos frustration here but this site is dominated by those who have first hand experience or have at least done some homework and you are at odds with the majority of contributors.

You have your chance next Saturday to vote for the greens ....most here will not.

KC

[billfisher]

I think Mick might be happier joining a green group, he would certainly be welcome there with those opinions (Grand Marlin could join with him).

We have had greens posing as fishermen on other sites preaching their quasi-religious views. The get all indignant that someone might disagree with them and they are confronted with a few facts. They then disappear from the site with their tail between their legs when they can't defend the indefensible.

[madmix]

Hi KC,

Read first paragraph of your last post, and thought you
must have been mellowing.

Glad I took the time to read on.

Cheers Mick

[Batters_QLD]

ok if you have looked at my other post you would see that i actually am a fisherman and catch fish so stop talking garbage. #i no longer fish the bay as i now live in townsville, i also never claimed to fish in the bay. monitering fish stocks is extremely deficult and not an exact science thats what makes it so hard, it has been described as "fisheries management is like trying to manage the rational exploitation of a forest, in which all the trees are invisable, and continuously on the move" SHEPARD . so conducting a specific study over a number of years would be a complete waste of money.

just because the majority of you think you are right doesnt mean you are. basicly closures will be benificial to fish stocks, this is obvious, if you stopped hunting elephants in half a park numbers would increase - simple. #

here are some facts in general about world fisheries copied extact from jcu fisheries lectures, these figures include australia

# #"major over exploitation - 60-70% of stocks overfished"
# #"economic ineficantcy - current harvest levels require billions of dollars in subsidies"
# #"global marine fisheries catches have been declining since 1988"
# #"20000 to 35000 canadians in the newfounland fishing industry lost their jobs in 1992 to # # the collapse of the cod fishery"
# #Daniel Pauly, probably the worlds formost fisheries scientist, when asked how would you like to be remembered replyed "as the one who showed that the effect of fisheries on marine life is equillilant to that of a large meteor strike on terrestrial life"
# #"No take marine reserves" listed as number 1 in a list of possitive dirrections for fisheries science

so theres the facts
we are overfishing.
after a short term economic benifit, greatly reduced fish #stocks no require tax payers funded subsidies just to sustain harvists due to overfishing.
catches are declining
more people will lose their jobs if fisheries are not managed properly
no take reserves seen as a necsesity the maintain ing fish stocks.

ok you may say that this does not apply specificlly to the bay but it shows clearly the massive negitive effects that have, do, and will occour without proper management.

billfisher
"In almost all cases traditional management techniques are more effective than sanctuary #closures", you read these puplications? i am studing fisheries science as part as a marine bio/ aquaculture degree this is almost oppopite to the general belief of most individuals/authorities involved in the issue.

Adamy
not really worth replying to this is a nonsense post, the goldcoast, freshwater?? why did you make that post. the spillover effects reffers to the general take areas of the GBR and how their stocks will be bosted from the closed ares.

madmix
i cant spell so what #

kc
Why do it if a commercial catch quota can work??

Why do it if reducing habitat destruction can work??

Lets not even think about by-catch issues, urban run-off, tourism visitation impacts, recreational bag limits or other control mechanisms.

all these definetly help fisheries managent but many different approaches are required.

i didnt find that info on biomass on the website, is that 3% of overall biomass or biomass for a single species?

and no im not voting for the greens they cant run the state.
yes i am feeling a hell of a lot of this frustration but every1 needs 2 get fired up every now n then good fun. dont like you guys taking it personal tho, im a fishermen like the rest of you just giving my opinion.

cheers
mick

[edit] Edited. Please moderate bad language
[/edit

[Jeremy]

Mick,

again all you have put forward is some generalizations. I have a paper at work which makes an arguement that no take zones are not an effective fisheries management tool. I will post that next week.

There seem to be a whole lot of people at JCU who are preaching the need for no take zones to justify the farce of the GBRMPA. You should be intelligent enough to think for yourself and see past the hype.

You have not provided any evidence of any species which are under threat in the bay. Specifically, any evidence that current size and bag limits are not effective in managing the Moreton Bay fishery.

Without that evidence, there is no need for the additional no take zones in Moreton Bay.

Jeremy

[madmix]

Batters-Qld

I'm no rocket scientist, but to my way of thinking, the first paragraph
of your last post, totally negates the validity of the statistics you go on
to produce.

Have you ever considered that catch rates may have reduced, due to
proven fisheries management issues, such as increased size limits
and lower bag limits and quotas.

As far as the issue of spelling (so what), well the matter related to
basic fourth grade english and I would expect a budding university
student would be able to grasp such a concept, but I suppose we
are talking James Cook University. So just send me $20.00 and I'll
send you some letters to put behind your name.


Cheers Mick

[Adamy]

ok if you have looked at my other post you would see that i actually am a fisherman and catch fish so stop talking garbage. #
Adamy
not really worth replying to this is a nonsense post, the goldcoast, freshwater?? why did you make that post. the spillover effects reffers to the general take areas of the GBR and how their stocks will be bosted from the closed ares.

madmix
i cant spell so what #

cheers
mick

Of course it isnt worth replying to Mick..... it was a joke ;) Hmmm joke... joke how do I explain to this guy what a joke is?? Help anyone? perhaps the dictionary... ah yes... joke:something which is said or done to cause laughter or amusement... does that help?? #Mick I have an economics degree - I know what spillover effect is...I was JOKING... J-O-K-I-N-G! nice and slow - so that should help! #And um yeh... if you're a student then spelling would definitely be an advantage!

Hey Gelsac:
I bet you're typing your posts on your laptop at some cafe on the Strand, with your f@g mates looking over your shoulder. #Thats pretty funny stuff right there ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

But other than that Mick - I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt about being a fisho... you just arent as well educated or informed regarding the issues as you think you are... Dont believe everything your greenie lecturers tell you!

Cheers

Adam

[Batters_QLD]

ok guys basicly you belive that no fishing zones are a bad thing for our fish stocks, i cant for the life of me see how anyone can think this, but think what you want. all im saying is look at all the fishing industries around the world that are completely stuffed by bad management i guess none of you want this either.

as for jcu it is without a doubt the leader in australia in marine biology the others dont come close, also probably the second best in the world behind florida.

"There seem to be a whole lot of people at JCU who are preaching the need for no take zones to justify the farce of the GBRMPA. You should be intelligent enough to think for yourself and see past the hype". this is crap so theres some kind of scientific consipicy? there all hiding the scientific facts to tell a lie? making up all their research figures to show their right?

"I have a paper at work which makes an arguement that no take zones are not an effective fisheries management tool" there is debate but the general current view is they are effective.

this is a forum i dont bother checking spelling or typos. if im writing anything offical i can spell as good as anyone else. and to tell you the truth i wouldnt want to have anything to do with people that have a go at someone because of something like this.

"you just arent as well educated or informed regarding the issues as you think you are... Dont believe everything your greenie lecturers tell you! "

most people who have posted here have little to no knowledge on the subject but yet are completely assuming that the closures will have a negitive effect.

so we'll just leave the bay as it is, contiue taking more and more fish from the bay, (you cant argue more fishermen wont = more fish taken) they'll just keep making more babies for us, yer thats what will happen, so sounds like it'll be just fine in 10 - 20 years down the track

also nice of you to assume the kind of person i am based on the fact that i think the closures will benifit the fisheries so continue havin a sook if you want i'm over it.

mick

[Adamy]

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Seeya Mick.... No offense mate!! ;D ;D ;D ;D


There seem to be a whole lot of people at JCU who are preaching the need for no take zones to justify the farce of the GBRMPA. You should be intelligent enough to think for yourself and see past the hype". this is crap so theres some kind of scientific consipicy? there all hiding the scientific facts to tell a lie? making up all their research figures to show their right?

Ummm... YES thats EXACTLY what we're saying. BAD science to justify BAD decisions!!!

[billfisher]

Battlers,

You haven't got any facts. What relevance has overfishing in other parts of the world got to what is happening here? The GBR was being harvested at 1% of it sustainable level before the closures. In what way would call this overfishing.

Yes the greens do grossly misquote reports and even make up there own reports. They were that desperate for some 'evidence' to justify marine parks in NSW they even concocted their own report "Empty Oceans - Empty Nets". It has been slammed by experts as erronious and lacking in scientific rigor and recommended that it should not be used or quoted. #

The quote that closures are not generally as effective as traditonal management techniques come from our CSIRO after reviewing all the available research on the subject in the year 2000.

[Batters_QLD]

if you fail to see the evidence thats your problem

[jeffrey_h]

I can't find the driving directions from the Cleveland ramp to the city. I have seen them in a post somewhere, anybody know?????
I know we can follow others, but directions would be better.



Jeffrey

[tincanpeter]

What confuses me is the talk of the percentage of Moreton Bay's preposed closures. These go as high as 50%. I don't know the area except for the top end of pumminstone passage. In this area there would be only a small percentage fished due to sandbanks etc. Therefore if you take away 50% of the bay you could quite possibly include all possible fishing areas and leave only the sand banks. So do they mean all the bay or popular fishing areas.

[billfisher]

Battlers does not seem to know the difference between catch rates and catch per unit effort. Catch per unit effort has been steadily rising in the last decade in NSW. Same goes for the GBR line fishery before the closures. Hardly signs of a declining fishery.

[madmix]

Battlers_Qld

Is that the invisable evidence that keeps moving.


No we are not against green zones, per se.
Green Zones/Yellow Zones etc etc, have been in existance for more
than ten years that I am aware of. We are however against the
continued implementation of such zones, based on highly suspect if not
intentionally flawed science.

Are you at Uni to be taught or to learn?????
???
??
?
If you don't understand the difference, then you had better choose a
shovel and start digging holes for a living.

cheers Mick

[Gazza]

Hi Batters ,
What the SEQ guys won't accept ,is more pre-fabricated BULLsh!t from the "lock-it-up" mob (you included) that unnecessarily reduces reliance on Fisheries Management policies to adequately manage the biomass of individual species.

FISHING is a sustainable "harvest" and healthy to boot !!

jmo...bag & size is the "key" , not off-limit areas ,because of some loose comparison with overseas stats ,UNRELATED to "here"

[PinHead]

Quote from Batters:

Ok if you have looked at my other post you would see that i actually am a fisherman and catch fish so stop talking garbage. #i no longer fish the bay as i now live in townsville, i also never claimed to fish in the bay. monitering fish stocks is extremely deficult and not an exact science thats what makes it so hard, it has been described as "fisheries management is like trying to manage the rational exploitation of a forest, in which all the trees are invisable, and continuously on the move" SHEPARD . so conducting a specific study over a number of years would be a complete waste of money.

just because the majority of you think you are right doesnt mean you are. basicly closures will be benificial to fish stocks, this is obvious, if you stopped hunting elephants in half a park numbers would increase - simple. #

here are some facts in general about world fisheries copied extact from jcu fisheries lectures, these figures include australia

# #"major over exploitation - 60-70% of stocks overfished"
# #"economic ineficantcy - current harvest levels require billions of dollars in subsidies"
# #"global marine fisheries catches have been declining since 1988"
# #"20000 to 35000 canadians in the newfounland fishing industry lost their jobs in 1992 to # # the collapse of the cod fishery"
# #Daniel Pauly, probably the worlds formost fisheries scientist, when asked how would you like to be remembered replyed "as the one who showed that the effect of fisheries on marine life is equillilant to that of a large meteor strike on terrestrial life"
# #"No take marine reserves" listed as number 1 in a list of possitive dirrections for fisheries science
#
so theres the facts #
we are overfishing. #
after a short term economic benifit, greatly reduced fish #stocks no require tax payers funded subsidies just to sustain harvists due to overfishing.
catches are declining
more people will lose their jobs if fisheries are not managed properly
no take reserves seen as a necsesity the maintain ing fish stocks.

ok you may say that this does not apply specificlly to the bay but it shows clearly the massive negitive effects that have, do, and will occour without proper management. #

billfisher
"In almost all cases traditional management techniques are more effective than sanctuary #closures", you read these puplications? i am studing fisheries science as part as a marine bio/ aquaculture degree this is almost oppopite to the general belief of most individuals/authorities involved in the issue.

Adamy
not really worth replying to this is a nonsense post, the goldcoast, freshwater?? why did you make that post. the spillover effects reffers to the general take areas of the GBR and how their stocks will be bosted from the closed ares.

madmix
i cant spell so what # #

kc
Why do it if a commercial catch quota can work?? #
#
Why do it if reducing habitat destruction can work?? #
#
Lets not even think about by-catch issues, urban run-off, tourism visitation impacts, recreational bag limits or other control mechanisms. #

all these definetly help fisheries managent but many different approaches are required.

i didnt find that info on biomass on the website, is that 3% of overall biomass or biomass for a single species? #

and no im not voting for the greens they cant run the state.
yes i am feeling a hell of a lot of this frustration but every1 needs 2 get fired up every now n then good fun. dont like you guys taking it personal tho, im a fishermen like the rest of you just giving my opinion.

cheers
mick "

"i cant spell so what"..
If, as you say, you are undertaking tertiary education then a good grasp of the language is an absolute necessity. I have helped you Mick by highlighting some of your errors, not bad for a dumb tradie to help a Uni. student out on some basic English skills. Oh, I didn't bother about the grammatical errors, too numerous to even start. # #

"this is obvious, if you stopped hunting elephants in half a park numbers would increase - simple. " #

No all that simple at all Mick...I agree, if you close half the park the elephant numbers will increase but let's extrapolate a little past your simple explanation. We now have increased numbers in that half of the park. Now what ? They need food, therefore they will destroy the environment in that half of the park in search of food, then either leave the park or die of starvation or have to be culled by man to save the environment in that part of the park. #My assumption on your theory is that the closure of that half of the park is an absolute failure as you have not only lost your elephants but also the environment they were living in. The easiest solution would be not to close any of the park but only let the hunters hunt those of certain age and only by limited numbers, the same as existing size and bag limits of fish.

[bidkev]

What confuses me is the talk of the percentage of Moreton Bay's preposed closures. These go as high as 50%. I don't know the area except for the top end of pumminstone passage. In this area there would be only a small percentage fished due to sandbanks etc. Therefore if you take away 50% of the bay you could quite possibly include all possible fishing areas and leave only the sand banks. So do they mean all the bay or popular fishing areas.

Mate, the closures relate to Moreton Bay Marine Park.....that could take in anything from the Broadwater to caloundra........The Tempests, Cape, Hutchies....the whole bloody caboodle!

kev

[Adamy]

"this is obvious, if you stopped hunting elephants in half a park numbers would increase - simple. "

No all that simple at all Mick...I agree, if you close half the park the elephant numbers will increase but let's extrapolate a little past your simple explanation. We now have increased numbers in that half of the park. Now what ? They need food, therefore they will destroy the environment in that half of the park in search of food, then either leave the park or die of starvation or have to be culled by man to save the environment in that part of the park. My assumption on your theory is that the closure of that half of the park is an absolute failure as you have not only lost your elephants but also the environment they were living in. The easiest solution would be not to close any of the park but only let the hunters hunt those of certain age and only by limited numbers, the same as existing size and bag limits of fish.



Very simple logic - explained extremely well - couldn't have put it better myself!! [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

Additionally... arguing spillover doesn't work... if the species is non migratory. After species numbers have increased - then the species will simply fight for existing resources - just as in Pinheads elephant park example - destroying their present environment through resource depletion and eventually killing themselves. It makes sense to cull some of the herd in order to ensure a balance - nature has a similar thing - thats why big fish eat smaller fish - or do the greens want to ban that too?

Thats why we say your "science" is flawed - it hasn't considered all the different angles - Fishos know that one day a certain part of the reef holds large numbers of fish - and the next day those fish aren't there... because fish can swim... an observation lost on your "science" just because your scuba divers count lots of fish one day and very little the next - doesn't mean they've all been caught (or not caught as the case may be)... it just means they weren't there that day... might have been down the shops - or visiting the relos...

[bidkev]

[quote author=PinHead link=1155192328/165#170 date=1157168080]
"this is obvious, if you stopped hunting elephants in half a park numbers would increase - simple. "

<snip>

Thats why we say your "science" is flawed - it hasn't considered all the different angles - Fishos know that one day a certain part of the reef holds large numbers of fish - and the next day those fish aren't there... because fish can swim... an observation lost on your "science" just because your scuba divers count lots of fish one day and very little the next - doesn't mean they've all been caught (or not caught as the case may be)... it just means they weren't there that day... might have been down the shops - or visiting the relos...


Now this is beginning to get ridiculous.................any fool knows they're round at their mate's watching Big Brother.

kev

[Batters_QLD]

ok as far as spelling goes i counted at least 2 people on her that cant even copy a name that son the same page (madmix, billfisher) "battlers", "battlers_QLD", i also found just as many errors you pointed out in my post in others posts, yer the rest of you are all so good at spelling.

pinhead
it is obvious these are spelling errors i write in short hand the majority of the time, this doesnt mean i cant spell. also maybe you should wait until your doing my tertiary level maths/chem/bio/zoology exams as well as my scientific reports before you start calling me stupid.

adamy
"Additionally... arguing spillover doesn't work... if the species is non migratory"
based on your logic i guess?? seeing you have no idea on the subject i'll explain. the vast majority of angling species (i cant think of any that dont) have planktonic larvae, their movements at this time are only controlled by the currents, therefore larvae from protected areas can disperse 100's of kms away into non-protected zones.

"Thats why we say your "science" is flawed - it hasn't considered all the different angles - Fishos know that one day a certain part of the reef holds large numbers of fish - and the next day those fish aren't there... because fish can swim... an observation lost on your "science" just because your scuba divers count lots of fish one day and very little the next - doesn't mean they've all been caught (or not caught as the case may be)... it just means they weren't there that day... might have been down the shops - or visiting the relos... "

um sorry to tell you this but any scientific study takes many variables into account, scientists also take this into account. unless the experiment was conducted enough times (rulling out that the fish have gone out for the day) it wouldnt be given scientific merit.

and about the fish overpopulating and destroying the environment this would not happen unless other species were arificially removed from the food web. fisheries management is now moving into food web models as opposed to single species models, there the whole system is being studied not just single species.

by the way just so you know im not saying we need a 50% closure, i can guarantee that will not happen, but am agreeing with the idea of closures as a successful management tool.

mick

[billfisher]

Batters (Battlers),

How come I am left out from your little critique (apart from getting your name wrong)? Battlers must have been some sort of Freudian slip I think, because you are really battling to make a case!

Is it because you can't rebut any of my points? Like a true greenie you just ignore anything that contradicts your beliefs.

[PinHead]

"pinhead
it is obvious these are spelling errors i write in short hand the majority of the time, this doesnt mean i cant spell. also maybe you should wait until your doing my tertiary level maths/chem/bio/zoology exams as well as my scientific reports before you start calling me stupid. "

I am not the one espousing that I am going tertiary studies...I wish you will in it..I pointed out that for one embarking on such a path it may be wise to address one's literary skills in the early stages so that your exams and reports are legible to those that matter.

Oh...and your comprehension may need a little work also..nowhere did I say that you were stupid...is that a scientific assumption on your behalf???

"by the way just so you know im not saying we need a 50% closure, i can guarantee that will not happen, but am agreeing with the idea of closures as a successful management tool. "

I am wondering how you can guarantee this ?

As for scientists taking variables into account...I think that means that when they cannot arrive at a conclusive result then just make a guess to suit your own purposes or the the purposes of those that are paying for the study to give the desired result. Who cares if is wrong..they are scientists...they have to be right.

[theoldlegend]

Kingtin put up a post somewhere, but I can't find it. He is thinking along the same lines as me.

The Premier keeps assuring us there will be no BAN on fishing in Moreton Bay, but won't give a categorical assurance that there won't be CLOSURES.

There's a big difference between the two.


TOL

[kc]

Dear me,,

batters...and please don't be put off by some of the flack you cop. I can't type for squat either so many of my posts are full of spelling mistakes.

You do however show a remarkable lack of understanding of the issues in regards marine science, and given this is to be your chosen field, I would suggest you dig a little deeper before you wade into the lions den.

As to spillover

and your quote

"the vast majority of angling species (I cant think of any that don’t) have planktonic larvae, their movements at this time are only controlled by the currents, therefore larvae from protected areas can disperse 100's of kms away into non-protected zones."


The definative research on this issue, with regards Coral trout, the most highly researched and heavily targeted species

Reef CRC (Goggins & Green et al).........Since these tiny fish can swim at high speeds for long periods they can escape the ocean currents and stay close to where they were born"

Now this research did not suit the agenda of the GBRMPA and RAP so the research was actually changed to appear in the GBRMPA RAP substantiation documents as

"Coral Trout lava are able to swim actively in search of a reef on which to settle".

The numbers in regards % of available biomass taken form part of the unpublished 14-year study of Ayling and Mapstone et al. I have these if you want them (just ask) but they are too volumous to post here. In simple terms they have estimated the total biomass at 2 million tonnes, of which we know the harvest is 6,000 tonnes.

The studies of tagged Coral Trout on Sudbury reef confirm the earlier research that Coral Trout are domercial. They are born, grow, live and die within the same reef. They do not "spill-over", the Reef CRC technical report 52. Also called the ELF study (Effects of Line Fishing) also confirms this hypothosis. This document also includes in its preamble the line

"It is important to note that the status of coral trout populations in areas open to fishing remains relatively robust under all the strategies we consider".

You will also find actual counts for Coral trout on 17 reefs, both fished and unfished, which form part of the Ayling/Mapstone 14 year studies (unpublished).

They actually show higher densities of fish on fished reefs.

The hypothesis for this being to do with spawning recruitment/available habitat and the predation of small trout by large male trout.

To Whit...an unfished reef is FULL. It has a stable population of adult fish and very little spawning recruitment occurs. As trout are 100% domercile only those fish "lost" to a reef, by way of natural predation or old age, are replaced, based on available habitat.

On a fished reef the average size is less and much more available habitat means a much greater spawning recruitment, hence the higher density of trout, in some case double and unfished reef.

Batters, one thing top be aware of if you venture on to this site with your 2 bobs worth, you are dealing with the more educated and less emotive sector of the rec fishing community.

Your "side" discredited themselves by telling so many self-serving lies that it will take a very long time to repair the damage.
The science community has become like any other "expert witness"....for sale to the highest bidder, and in this case it has been the GBRMPA.

BY all means involve yourself in the debate and enjoy your studies at JCU, (my son is there too), but the hallmark of excellence in academia is not to follow blindly the teachings, but to question, dig, probe and ultimately find your own "truth".

You might just be surprised.

My offer to make available all we have stands. If you really want to know!!


Regards

KC

[Chaz]

Thanks to Steve for the invitation to lay out the facts - as unbiased as I can. #

The above is a bland and I tried to be unbiased - accept it as that. # #I wont argue or comment further on this post except where clarification is sought. #

Gary


Gary,

Good try but it appears to me that it didn't work. I have read the whole thread and am now more confused than ever. I still don't understand the issues clearly (been trying) and many of the posts are not worth reading. Every post is biased and many are no more than a rant with little effort at logic. The use of personal insult simply tells me the poster either cannot make or offer a point in legitimate argument, or is just a stirrer. I'd be happy to join the argument but I figure no one here respects the right of others to make a point so I choose to sit out.

And by the way, I support catch and release, pick up discarded plastic from the foreshore, and teach my kids to respect and protect what they came to enjoy - by my definition - I'm a Greenie.

Brenden

[kc]

Funnily enough Brendan, your opinion of a greenie, makes most of us greenies.....just a pity it is a dirty word these days.

If you want a greenies definition of a greenie you should visit the PETA web site and check out the "fishing hurts" section. The "pointy end" of the green movement actually opposes catch and release, as a pointless exercise in animal crulety for the pleasure or enjoyment of an individual.

The only (in their eyes) justification for fishing is food...............so....how green are you really??

I guess, like the rest of us, you care about the environment too, look after it and genuinely want to see it managed both for now and the future.

All we can say is ...here, here...you won't get an auguments on this site, about this issue.

KC

[Chaz]

your opinion of a greenie, makes most of us greenies.....just a pity it is a dirty word these days.

I guess, like the rest of us, you care about the environment too, look after it and genuinely want to see it managed both for now and the future.

KC
Yes KC, that was my point. We, on this site, preach sustainability and care for what we want to enjoy and in that way we are Greenies. A further point I wanted to make is that Black and White opinions and an Us against "Them" does not seem to take the debate forward and does not present the recreational fishing position with credibility. On the face of it, I do not support large closures/exclusion zones in the Bay. But what is the detail? And even more importantly, how does any closure fit into an integrated management plan? I see the destruction of mangroves and urban development to the water's edge as contributing to Bay problems. I would ultimately prefer to be involved in designing a management plan for the Bay rather than being positioned alongside extremist naysayers. My argument is that an Us against Them strategy always results in a winner and a loser. Continued access to the bay and a sustainable resource is too valuable to me to risk being on the losing side.

And PETA - extreme views mostly based on emotion and distorted logic don't move me. I have actively countered their point of view in my house by discussing the PETA position with kids and grandkids. It did not take long for the kids to see through the crap and equally acknowledge a need to treat animals (including fish) with respect.

Brenden

[Adamy]

Brenden, I cant talk for KC... But I think he might tend to agree with you - I know I do! Us verses them isnt the optimum solution. However we can only work with the cards we have been dealt, at this point in time it has to be us verses them, we are in election mode - everyone is in it for themselves... sounds rude but thats the harsh reality.

TFPQ is in it to save and secure our right to fish, The greenies and greens have their own agenda which may include veganism for the whole planet (at least going by the way they are headed) Libs and Lab?? Dont get me started!! There isn't one truly altruistic group out there - if there was/is then they wouldn't be contesting an election.

These are the cards we currently have - if we are able to really send Beattie a message - then we may be invited to the bargaining table IF/When this occurs we can address a wholistic management plan. But for now we must highlight the differences to provide the voters choice.

Right now we are fighting to have a place at that table and they dont want to give us one without a fight - they are doing everything they can to shut us out so that we have no say - so that our voice wont be heard on election day.

Right now there has to be winner and losers...Thats the nature of elections, if you look at the numbers come election night - we may look like we've lost - but if the numbers are large enough (even if we dont win) then we can leverage the short term loss into long term gain.

Alas in politics the optimal solution may not to have win/win, but lose/lose, we may have to give some concessions which we will not like - in order that the other side do not get all the things they want. (I'm not talking for the powers that be here... its all just supposition). In short in order to win, we may have to lose a little - its the amount we lose or are willing to lose thats the question. But if we dont make an oppositional stand now - then we are losers by default.

Again, just my personal thoughts on the situation.

Adam

[fishingmaddad]

The 3rd Rally night in Bundy & attended finally by Team Beattie Candidates was a RIP (short for REST IN PEACE) GOOD FISHING BUDDIES. :'(

Neither ALP Candidate for either Bundaberg or Burnett gave a comittment to take on board our cause nor bring to the attention of the overlords in Brisbane the socially unjust zoning processes that Bundaberg Region has been subjected to, or that incorrect GPS points have been posted . >:(
In fact a simple yes or no response was even TOOOOOOOOOOOO HARD TO ELICIT. :o

A threefold increase in Great Sandy Straits Marine Park has taken place under caretaker Government (so much for previously accepted Conventions for Caretaker Governments) - YES THREEFOLD

BEWARE BRISSIE ........ MORETON BAY IS NO DOUBT NEXT ON THEIR AGENDA.


To our fishing compatriots down BRISSIE way fight hard, fight loud and make your Votes mean something this weekend. :)

Ministerial Forums with the Minister for the Environment via your local state members may well be the next avenue to get consultation if the pollsters are correct team Beattie will romp in the Election.

They may try to IGNORE US NOW, BUT LIKE A FESTERING SORE WE WILL BE NOT IGNORED LONGTERM !!!! WE FISH WE VOTE AND WE DEMAND SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED DECISIONS WITH MEANINGFUL LOCAL CONSULTATION NOT BACKDOOR DEALS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL ZEALOTS.

[ziggy.]

Yes fishingmaddad, I have to agree with you in that the meet was nothing short of a big brush off by all the Labor candidates, being told that we are making a fuss over two small areas that have been closed and saying nothing about the fact that not even a Billy Goat can access any of the areas left open. Go to Elliott Heads she said, yer with everyone else.

What was with that Greenie screaming at Rob Messenger the Nationals member for Burnett about preferences? He said , what deal between the Greens and Labor I am a member of the Greens and I don't know of any deals. Maybe he missed his last newsletter!!

They covered other issues such as health and you will be happy to know that Labor will fix that hmm...........didn't they cause it?

[Chaz]

Right now there has to be winner and losers...Thats the nature of elections, if you look at the numbers come election night - we may look like we've lost - but if the numbers are large enough (even if we dont win) then we can leverage the short term loss into long term gain.


Adam,

Totally agree - elections have obvious winners and losers. It is the numbers on the night that will establish (objectively) the size of the power base collectively represented by the Fishing party.

My comment on Us and Them is more aimed at what happens next. My reading of the posts on this site suggests "we" are every bit as biased as the other side (I won't use the term Greenie for previously stated reasons); too much hearsay and some of the conspiracy theories the border on the silly. Extreme positions will not be able the offer credible input to a science based argument but may have power in a bargining situation. I'm not sure that power based bargining will lead to an optimal, sustainalble fishery in the bay.

Brenden

[Gazza]

Chaz, haven't read too many comments supporting :-/ (educated or layman)
MORETON Bay Closures , is there a chat-forum , where they do? :-?

:-? :-? :-? :-?

So WHO is attempting to alienate the MAJORITY ;) , and lock-up what doesn't need to be locked-up :-?

[Batters_QLD]

kc

"Reef CRC (Goggins & Green et al).........Since these tiny fish can swim at high speeds for long periods they can escape the ocean currents and stay close to where they were born"

the world fish indicates that they are talking about the fish after metamorphesis, before this stage they are referred to as larvae. so what if they can swim fast once they reach the fry stage, the larvae stage lasts for a number of weeks (3-4 for species i am fimiliar with)

"The studies of tagged Coral Trout on Sudbury reef confirm the earlier research that Coral Trout are domercial. They are born, grow, live and die within the same reef. They do not "spill-over", the Reef CRC technical report 52. Also called the ELF study (Effects of Line Fishing) also confirms this hypothosis."

i dont disagree with the fact that adult coral trout may live most of their lives in the same reef, but tagging studies only offer an indication of movements of the fish from a certain size (the size they are tagged at) and offers no indication of the movements of larvae and fry. so no, tagging studies cannot confirm that coral trout are born, grow, live and die within the same reef as you have stated.

also coral trout do not occour in the bay so regardless of wether larvae or fish move locations or not this means nothing as i was referring to the majority or species in the bay. eg bream are do not live their lives in the same area.

cheers
mick

[kc]

Your right mick,we don't know. We do know that science is often "adjusted" to suit the needs of the governing body. Plenty of cases like that. The issue with the study on trout movements (Goggins and Green) is that the resraerch says one thing, then the published words by the GBRMPA twist it to say something completely different. I personally know not wether trout larvae drift or not. I have read that they don't but really don't know. We also don't know nearly enough about bream/whiting etc in the bay. We are being told it is the best snapper season for years. anecdotal I know but still, rec fishers are catching more snapper.

I guess my point is that scientists are becoming a bit like professional witnesses in a court case....for sale to the highest bidder. Who do we trust??

In regards trout I think enough information is available to accurate describe this species as well studied and understood. This includes a belief that they are domercile from larvae to adult.

Not half enough is known about other species and the science should preceed closures. IMO.

The "managers" continue to use the phrase "precautionary principle" in regards marine park management......this term used to have another name...Common Sense...and bugger all of this is shown by them these days.

Anyhow. Tommorrow the voters will speak and winners are grinner and losers can please themselves...our aim is to outpoll the greens and if we do...after just 2 1/2 years in existance...the balance will shift significantly back towards "common sense".

KC

[Gazza]

Anyhow. Tommorrow the voters will speak and winners are grinner and losers can please themselves...our aim is to outpoll the greens and if we do...after just 2 1/2 years in existance...the balance will shift significantly back towards "common sense".

KC

And if you don't KC...don't give up.

WHY....BEE-cause you now have thirteen(13) greenie-preferenced electorates to-do ,in 2010......IF NECESSARY ;)

p.s. MAGNUMS to all who "tried" , congratulations to all , who supported your "lifestyle" approach

Kind Regards
Gazza

[Adamy]

also coral trout do not occour in the bay so regardless of wether larvae or fish move locations or not this means nothing

cheers
mick

Sorry Mick.... You're wrong Coral Trout do exist in the Bay - they are often caught around Peel as a bycatch. Where did they come from? Well they didn’t drift from the GBR or from any other spillover effect.

I'm no scientist but I watch David attenborough and the world around us and I've seen Finding Nemo 127 times :D ;) So I know there is this great ocean current thingy that sweeps down the East Coast of Australia and if the current thingy carrying larve to other areas was real - then there would be coral trout in Sydney Harbour and there isnt... well there is, but only in Doyles Resturant ;D.... end of jokes

The reason they are coming back in some size and numbers is because of the cessation of coral dredging in the bay. Since this has stopped the coral is beginning to rejuvenate which has helped improve the fishing in the bay immeasurably. Not just with coral trout either but also snapper, grinners, pike and whatever else eats the little bait fishies that hang around the coral

Now the lefty greenie types wouldn’t know about this - but the fishos who regularly fish the bay know how good it's getting - It goes to show that you don’t have to lock out rec fishos to improve fishing in the bay - you just have to improve the environment where the fish live - clean up industrial run off, improve water quality etc. and the fish will come back. It has very little to do with the fishing pressure from rec fishos... otherwise there would be a decrease in fish stocks - not an increase as is being demonstrated by increased catch rates and sizes as is currently happening in the Bay.

What the greenies have to do is come clean and admit that their agenda has very little to do with fish stocks and much more to do with converting the rest of the population into veganisim (see fishing hurts.com). It’s more of a religion than science - just using science to back up their rabid beliefs.

[mariner_22]

Not that this post needs it but though id throw my opinion in. I would not say i was a grennie slightly left wing maybe but i compltely understand the nefative feedback by dependant industries on the fishery I have an economics and politics back grounds so i know a bit about the importance of local economies. However, having said that i believe something needs to be done with our fisheries it is unsustainable practice to continue to exploit our fisheries the way we do. Im not saying close it down no fishing ever. But i do believe in protecting our fisheries through size limits and strict and enforced bag limits on our fish. I also think that the Qld government should imploy a policy to limit the amount of commercial fishing licences granted for the Moreton Bay fishery or even use a buy back and compensation scheme. Furthermore, i think that instead of closing huge portions of the bay there should be a number of protected zones that cover a range of different areas such as the closure of a river system for 5 years and then shift to a closure of an other river system. About a year ago i was chatting with a charter operator who believed that by doing this the protected nursery area would feed the bay area and help replenish fish stocks as each system has a natural rate of inhabitance before fish will move out of that river or structure and thus help feed the rest of the system. Finally, i think that this is going to be an ongoing issue that will require a number of stakeholders to work together of course there will be winneres and losers bu the main aim in the end is to see sustainable fisheries not only now but into the future.

[dazza]

hi all,
trying to do a bit of personal research to get my head around what body of evidence rezoning and mpa's (marine protected ares) etc will be based on. i wonder how impartial the "research" will be. an example is the sponsor of the following article.

www.premiers.qld.gov.au/.../3216/41.doc&str_title=Sue%20Pillans%20PIS%20Aug%202006.doc

i think our bay will look very different after the re-zoning, but will the whole community be better off??

can't find any specific studies on the bay relating to rotational closures.

interesting the dpi&f in response to a recent article related to northern hemisphere fisheries (see thread below) said that our stocks aren't under threat of collapse, due to already successful fisheries management . would it be safe then to suppose that the "precautionary principle" for mpa's is not an argument in relation to the bay?

cheers
dazza

[Shane_78]

I'm born and bred in Moreton Bay. My dad grew up here and so did my dad's dad. I definately don't want to see the bay locked up but I am worried about the amount of fish left. My grandad and even my dad talk about how much easier it was to catch a fish then it is today. Why is protecting certain habitats such an issue? My understanding of marine parks is that we still have access to most of the bay and then fish will spill over from the protected areas to where we fish. To me this means more fish and therefore more fishing :) How can we argue with that?