A Few Question TFP

[webby]

Seeing as your the only one that shows their head on this site, although others might be shy and are hiding in the wiring and not posting anything. So this is directed at you.
1. What agenda or proposals if any, (besides trying to get a few pollies on side)Wether by you or Sunfish or BIAQ or affiliated bodies have been laid on the table regarding the bay.
You may not want to answer that, if there's any Caspers watching.
2. Is scientific evident being sought or already at hand, that supports the proposed closures.
3. There are rumours that water clarity, silting etc are one or the major reason for these proposed closures.
4. If so, has the reasons or whereabouts as to where its coming from or being produced been tabled, as 99% comes from the mainland Industry and development or are some being paid to turn a blind eye about the crap that pours into the river and suborninated creeks.
5. There would i'd say still be 40-50% of those that use the bay, have no idea as to what is happening.
So are fishing clubs and other fish related websites, fishing magazines, bayside papers, tackle stores etc being asked to assist in spreading the news.
6. to all the offshore brigades, freshwater and beach fishos, you may be sitting on the wayside thinking this will have now effects on us. WRONG.. If Bay fishos bare the blunt of closures and it dramatically effects where and what we can do and go, where do you think the majority will head.
THat right, to the areas you fish, and most of these locations are being pounded now.
So dont think it wont effect you.
7. Mr lamming and other associated pollies, where have you gone or have you done your bit and reckon you've received some slaps on the back, and gained a few more votes, so you've now melted back into scenery.
I Thing AUSFISH needs to move "The Moreton Bay Closures" back to General CHat, so it hits everyone in the face when they visit.
regards

[skippa]

I Thing AUSFISH needs to move "The Moreton Bay Closures" back to General CHat, so it hits everyone in the face when they visit.
regards

Yep, gotta agree Brian.

[Big_unit]

I know its not an answer to your questions Webby although its a quick plug for -

The Fishing Party Queensland

They have a Forum board running as some people already know.

Click here to go and have a look at it.

http://www.fishingparty.com.au/forums/viewforum.php?f=1

Join TFPQ's forum and have your questions answered.

Cheers
James

[Adamy]

2. Is scientific evident being sought or already at hand, that supports the proposed closures.
3. There are rumours that water clarity, silting etc are one or the major reason for these proposed closures.
4. If so, has the reasons or whereabouts as to where its coming from or being produced been tabled, as 99% comes from the mainland Industry and development or are some being paid to turn a blind eye about the crap that pours into the river and suborninated creeks. [/b]regards

Excellent questions Brian.... and a good jumping off point for research of "our own" for instance if the greens are saying that they want to exclude rec fishos because we somehow kill dugong - then we should gather some figures to see how our fishing really affects the sea moo cows. If they're claiming we run them over in our boats - then how is stopping rec fishers, going to stop water skiers, divers etc running them over too. - If they're saying that we destroy marine grass - How are allegedly destroying this marine grass and what evidence do they have - and what evidence can we present to the contrary?

I am an economist and one thing I know is that there are lies damn lies and stats - if they are using the stats to prove one thing I can use the exact same stats to prove another. Which is what I can guarantee you is happening - they have a small portion of information and are using it against us.... If we gather additional evidence - we can point it back at other sectors (if we want) or just use the information to prove that we arent the baddies... as in your run off argument. Its not the manipulation of the data - it the context in which it is being used - and I believe they are using what we call "skewed"data - or skewed results - If I can defrag their "stats" then we can undo their argument.

If anyone is willing to do the groundwork - send me the stats (and the verified source) and I'll turn it into a report that can be tabled. You can always start by using the figures that the greens use - then work it backwards. I can also do a report on the economic impact of fishing closures and the sustainability on the areas that are left open.... i.e your argument about additional pressure on the outside reefs... we can argue that from both an economic and environmental sustainability standpoint.

Sounds like hard work??? You bet it is - but its that kind of work that the greens have already done. I'm willing to have a crack at it - as I have the time - but need help on doing the initial research.... so if you need a homework assignment... pm me. (you watch ppl run for cover now)... ;D this will effectively shut down this topic..... but I hope not!

[tshort]

"Stats" as I've mentioned on numerous occasions when dealing the powers to be on the GSS I questioned some paticular stats in a bar chart relating to a fishery and % catch (they are protecting the pro fishery in the GSS). My question couldnt be answered by those present, who had been working on the project over the 2 years and still hasnt been answered, they dont have to answer little me and they know it. These are the stats there using as evidence??? and dont talk to me about EIS, tell the enviro. engineers or whoever what you want and they will write up the favourable repoprt using pages of stats to support it. No-one will listen to any "evidence you provide" it needs a name behind it, I realy believe you need to engage someone with the knowledge and reputation to prove you are right and they are wrong, and good luck with that one, they may need to be retired and not wanting any more work. Thats if as a group you can all agree on the same issues to start with. Remember they are well organised and have been for years. Make no mistake it fun to join the fight anyway if you have a ligitimate and well presented argument.

[stevedemon]

Hi all
Excellent questions Brian and will worht some answers just to add to further disccusion the night of the meeting when i spoken to the minster there where some point on the same subject but like a few other there i made a point to one of them that over the last 10yrs some of the school from around Logan to the Gold Coast were doing studies on the water from Logan river the the Nerang river and found that without rain the salinity in the water was not only caused by Factories but also due to the lack of rain these test where done by yr 10 to 12 children if the rain was plentiful the salinity measures drop along with colour of water from brown to greenie/blue like most of us know lack of rain brings out the phosphorus in the water.

these kids in different schools and from different ages all came up with the same theory lack of rain this also has and affect on the sea grass as the temperator raise in the water and it all adds up they even sent there theorys to an uni along with test results

as for the killing of our dugongs it would have to be a big Vessel to do that the smaller crafts would feel the affect of hitting some thing that big the same as hitting a turtle (place hole in boat) like hitting a rock wall.

the more rain we get the better the water quality I'm no rocket scientst but like most fisho's even we know that rain keeps the sanilty down and better water quality.

just some ore info for these that care


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

[kc]

Webby has asked some good questions and one which, from a Fishing Party (Qld) perspective, I will try my best to answer.

What agenda or proposals if any, (besides trying to get a few pollies on side) Wether by you or Sunfish or BIAQ or affiliated bodies have been laid on the table regarding the bay.

The prime purpose of TFPQ is to get votes. End of story. We are a political party, not a recreational fishing lobby group or peak body. We are a political party. The more votes we get, the more influence we have on the political will of both Governments and opposition parties.
Moreton Bay and the rezoning of it will be a political decision, NOT and environmental decision.
The Greens will apply political pressure to have the requirements of the environmental lobby groups and peak bodies (the equivalent of Sunfish/BIAQ/Recfish?QSIA) adopted, as Government policy and this will revolve around preference arrangements. If the Government thinks the political fallout for adopting such measures is too great. i.e. the loss of votes outweighs the advantages of the preference deals, then the Bay rezoning will be benign.
So the agenda of TFPQ, in regards both Moreton Bay and fisheries management in general, is to make the "fishing Vote" a more powerful political weapon than the "green vote". That is just the reality. In a perfect word Sunfish would make the bullets and TFPQ would fire them....we don't however, live in a perfect world which is why TFPQ also lodges detailed submission documents on rezoning issues (like GSS). Ideally, all we would be doing is devoting all energies to the gathering of vots, not to producing researched submission documents....and in due course, we probably will also on Moreton Bay. In the meantime our "job" is to put this issue fairly and squarely "ON" the political radar...and it now is.

Is scientific evident being sought or already at hand, that supports the proposed closures.

Not to our knowledge. Nor was it in the GBR.
The policy of TFPQ is to support sustainable fishing practices and also support management initiatives which ensure sustainability. We remain of the view that recreational fishing and line fishing is totally sustainable. We also support management regimes. Like slot sizes and closed spawning seasons (i.e. Barra closed season....a fish that WAS in trouble in Qld, and the protection of female breeders...barra and flathead)

There are rumours that water clarity, silting etc are one or the major reason for these proposed closures

During the reef rezoning the then environment minister Kemp was quoted as saying "Ending overfishing on the reef will ensure the reef can better withstand the effects of global warming and soil washed down the rivers during floods..... :o Somewhere out there is a "soil eating refrigerator fish...I wonder what they taste like :P

If so, has the reasons or whereabouts as to where its coming from or being produced been tabled, as 99% comes from the mainland Industry and development or are some being paid to turn a blind eye about the crap that pours into the river and suborninated creeks

Hate having to hark back "up North" but this is where we have experience to date and see the same "logic" being trotted out by the environmental lobby in Moreton Bay.
Recreational fishers are made the scapegoats while the real villains get off scot-free. Typically all the MPA's do is shut out fishing while allowing the Government to trumpet their achievements and "Save Moreton Bay"...sorry but they save nothing and achieve nothing and the answer is no, They won’t target industry, just fishos.

There would I’d say still be 40-50% of those that use the bay, have no idea as to what is happening.

Probably right and if not for the efforts of TFPQ there would be 90% who did not know. This is not an overnight process and we few are doing all we can. Never enough but at present, everything we can. Particular credit should be given to Shane and his team in Brisbane. Join this branch guys. It is REALLY important they have some help.

Fair to suggest Q 6 & 7 are not really aimed at us or for us to answer.

Hope this sheds some light on your questions Webby.

Cheers mate

KC

[kc]

Transcipt from Hansard Today 9th August

Moreton Bay Marine Park
Mr HORAN: My question is to the Minister for Environment, Local Government, Planning and
Women. Minister, I refer to the review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park and the extreme greens push for
recreational and commercial fishers to be locked out of up to half of the bay. In March I asked the
minister a question about the government’s plan for the Moreton Bay Marine Park which she refused to
answer. In estimates last month I asked the fisheries minister about the government’s plan for the
Moreton Bay Marine Park and he refused to answer. In light of recent fishing meetings and growing fear
amongst recreational fishers, will the minister now give a guarantee that she will not close down a huge
chunk of Moreton Bay to commercial and recreational fishers?

Ms BOYLE: I do thank the honourable member for the question. I am having trouble getting a
very simple message across and I do not know why. The government does not have any plans because
the review has not begun yet and it will not begin until 2007. Precious park that Moreton Bay is, it does
need to be reviewed statutorily every 10 years. Therefore, that review will take place in due course and
must be completed by September 2008. We have more than two years from now to complete that
review. As far as my department and I are concerned, it is a matter to place on the agenda for 2007.
That will still give ample time for all of those, including commercial fishers, recreational fishers, boaties
of all kinds, the conservation movement, those who live on the islands and all of the people of Brisbane
and the south east who so love Moreton Bay, to make sure they have their say. I absolutely guarantee
so far as it is in my power that there will be a transparent and full consultation process.
I am pleased therefore to say again today, as I did in the media release last week, that no
decisions have been made. The review has not even been started. I understand the fishers’ angst about
this to some extent because of the green zones on the Great Barrier Reef—because of that process—
and because of the strong stand taken by conservation groups about green zones in marine parks. No
wonder this is a matter for some concern on their part. But conservation groups will always look for
areas to be set aside to be protected areas of high priority. That is their mandate. That is their job. When
they do that, we should not be surprised. Equally so, fishing groups—commercial and recreational—will
lobby hard to continue the fishing that is enjoyed by so many as well as providing employment for many
others. All of those positions are predictable. The important thing for the fishers to be reassured about at
this stage is that the government has not commenced any review. No review will commence until next
year. When it does, there will be full and transparent public consultation in which they will be included.


Regards

KC

[kc]

Our letter to Minister Boyle on this issue

Hon Desley Boyle MLA
Minister for Environment & Heritage
Government House
Brisbane

8th August 2006

Dear Minister Boyle,

You are no doubt aware of the growing angst among the fishing community, and associated businesses, which service this community; in regards the statutory review of the zoning regime for the Moreton Bay Marine Park due in 2007.

This angst is due, in no small way, to the activities of a number of environmental lobby groups such as the NSW based Australian Marine Conservation Society, who are agitating for 30 to 50% of the park to be made no-take areas and exclude all fishing activities.

While it does not need to be spelt out how valuable the bay is, both in terms of lifestyle and the economy, what needs to be articulated is the level of distrust, which exists amongst the fishing community, towards Governments of all persuasions.

We are politically astute enough to understand the importance of preference relationships and the power that minor parties can exert in regards Government policy making. We also understand the historic relationship Labor has with the Greens and this further fuels our concerns.

The history of the Great Barrier Reef rezoning and the subsequent State based “complimentary zoning” is evidence enough that these are politically based decisions, not science based.
The fishing community “sat on its hands” during the GBR review process while the WWF worked hand in glove with the bureaucracy to our ultimate disadvantage.

We will not make the same mistake again.

That the flawed outcome of the GBR rezoning is now held up by the environmental lobby as a benchmark for future rezoning is a travesty of science and a slur on all the lives and businesses severely impacted by this zoning. This was never about the environment but always about a clear demonstration that the environment lobby, using its political influence, can ride roughshod over the concerns of ordinary Australians.










The rezoning of Moreton Bay is now on the political radar and this organization will keep it there.

You are no doubt aware of the recent forum hosted by Federal member for Bowman, Andrew Laming and attended by Federal Fisheries Minister Abetz and Senator Boswell, which was attended by some 300 local residents.
As the issue grows in profile we would expect future meetings to be attended by thousands, just as 4000 attended a public meeting in Townsville during the RAP review.

An outcome of the meeting was the formation of an advisory board made up of a full cross section of fishing interests, both commercial and recreational.
The Fishing Party (Qld) will look to this advisory board to come up with workable suggestions in regards the zoning review of Moreton Bay. Suggestions which protect both the environmental integrity of the bay but do not exclude sustainable use.

The fishing community is a large and valuable constituency, which has for too long relied on Governments to make decisions based on best outcomes, not on political trade-offs.

To date the input of this party, which officially represents the rights of the 30,000 Queensland voters who supported us at the last election, has had some positive responses from your Department.
This growing relationship was soured somewhat by the 11th hour access, given to the environment lobby, by DOE, to the final draft of the GSS zoning plan. A plan we were advised was “cabinet in confidence”.

Without revisiting this issue, we call on your Government to undertake real community consultation and apply weighting on the input, based on numbers, science and reason, not as a result of minor party influence and historical preference dealings with the greens.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Minister (Who is watching the watcher) …..we are!

Yours Faithfully

Kevin Collins
Chairman

[PinHead]

You might like to try a straight forward approach to asking the question:

Dear Minister,

Dsiregarding the answer you gave in Parliament on 9th Ausgust, 2006, my question to you is:

"Does the current Labor Party Government have in its agenda, plans to close areas of Moreton Bay to fishing and boating? "

I am not interested in review dates or any other such nonsenical retorts... there is an election due therefore what is the party's agenda on this.

Please note, your reply will be publsihed in various online forums for all to see your response or lack thereof. The average fisher is not interested in perceived dates for reviews or any other convoluted response. Maybe you need to check with the Left faction first but once you have then a simple yes or no will suffice in response to the above question.

[kc]

The day one of these guys give a yes or no answer to a complex question...I'll give up fishin'....never going to happen!!

Interestingly our letter was written before Minister Boyles speech in parliment today.

The message IS getting through and she IS watching the ball.

KC

[imported_admin]

I Thing AUSFISH needs to move "The Moreton Bay Closures" back to General CHat, so it hits everyone in the face when they visit.
regards

Yep, gotta agree Brian.


Currently waiting on a post/text from a Member that will be put in the Fishing News section. Will follow them up on it tonight. Once that is done I will then be putting a sticky on every board directing people to this post, not just the General section as not everyone visits the general section. I will also look at sending an E-mail or PM to all 14000+ members depending on the response. Sadly though there will be those that think it is not their concern or that there is nothing they can do about it, no matter how many posts or links are there for them to read.

[choppa]

MODIED BY MRS CHOPPA

[hicksy]

7. Mr lamming and other associated pollies, where have you gone or have you done your bit and reckon you've received some slaps on the back, and gained a few more votes, so you've now melted back into scenery.

As predicted Laming makes a big hoorah thinks he has won a few votes and goes into hiding. We definately can't rely on Laming for this fight, probably doesn't even know what a pilchard is.

[Adamy]

Great work KC.... Love the letter - will fire off one of my own in the same vein.

Excellent work Steve (AUSFISH) for increasing access to the rest of the members to this valuable discussion - although you are absolutely right - some wont do anything regardless of the consequences.

Oh and thanks Brian (Webby) you're a pretty big name on here (and in Bay fishing in general) and it adds weight to the discussion when you throw yours into the mix.

Pinhead... I hope you sent the minister that exact email.

I think the minister has to know that we know that these are stall tactics which will be used against us after the election - if we allow her to push the subject off the radar until after the election - then they have us by the "short and curlies". We HAVE to make this an election issue.

Keep up the good fight guys.....

To quote Edmund Burke: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

Lets not do nothing!

[Argle]

Great idea to make it a sticky on all boards too Steve, this is important to all of us. Keep up the good work K.C Hopefully you guys will have candidates up and running prior to the election which we all know is coming sooner rather than later. Come on guys lets support this NOW not later when its all done and dusted!

Cheers and beers
Scott

[sealife]

Regarding the silting mentioned by webby. Maybe a bit off track but, what the hell!

Has anyone else noticed that since the start of construction of extension to the mouth of the Brisbane river, dumping of dredge spoil has ceased around mud island at the spoil ground. It is all going into reclamation of land for the extension. Funny enough though, the water clarity, coral growth, and fishing around mud Island and the mouth of the Brisbane River has ,IMO, improved significantly.

5 years ago, to even mention that you caught a dozen good sized squire in the brisbane river would have incurred a mandatory stay in the funny farm, yet currently it is quite common.

My concern is, where will they dump the spoil when the extension is finnished? If they start to use the Mud island spoil ground again, will they do any studies to see what effect it has on the habitat of the area?