Wild Rivers Bill 2005

[Daintreeboy]

I know this has already been raised a while ago but I was wondering what the latest is regarding this, particularly what the Fishing Party's stance is on it?
This could very well be another regulation by stealth issue and a lot of places will be once again locked out to the recreational fishing sector. The bill is due to be voted on very soon and perhaps the FPQ can draft up a petition/response tot he bill before it is passed?
Cheers, Mark

[Derek Bullock]

Hi

For those interested you can find a copy at http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/51PDF/2005/WildRiversB05.pdf


Derek

[Derek Bullock]

Also read this as it is the explanatory notes to the Bill. http://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/51PDF/2005/WildRiversB05Exp.pdf


Derek

[dasher]

I know this has already been raised a while ago but I was wondering what the latest is regarding this, particularly what the Fishing Party's stance is on it?
This could very well be another regulation by stealth issue and a lot of places will be once again locked out to the recreational fishing sector. The bill is due to be voted on very soon and perhaps the FPQ can draft up a petition/response tot he bill before it is passed?
Cheers, Mark

Mark I don't think it effects rec fishos mate, seems it is more about development around the rivers. Cheers Daryl

[dasher]

Mind you if anyone can come up with a case of us being locked out please post. :(

[NQCairns]

Dasher what about a track that has been non gazeted access for generations down to a crown land (or whatever)camping/waterside area is now within the 500m exclusion zone and therefore off limits to humans with stuff. Just a wild guess.nq

[Daintreeboy]

It is Dasher. This will stop us rec fishos going away on a camping trip and driving into these rivers and camping by the bank. And if you think they'll just stop at the first steps they've proposed, then we haven't learnt much from what's happened in recent times. This will affect me and a lot of QLDers big time. Inkerman Station (Nassau and Staaten Rivers) and Brooklyn Station (Mitchell River) have already been bought out and shut off, what's next. Thsi is exactly th etype of bill the FPQ needs to oppose, it's fundamental to it's cause.
Cheers, Mark.

[dasher]

Thanks guys, will chase up info on rec fishing and camping and will let you know.

[dasher]

By the way all, if you have any probs with fishing as such, please let us know and we'll do our best to look after the fisho. [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[Daintreeboy]

Thanks Dasher, I think TFPQ needs to get onto this as a matter of urgency. I know I can write a submission myself but I'd rather do it through you guys as it would clearly carry more weight.
Cheers, Mark.

[Jim_Tait]

What a bunch of paranoid clap trap!! :P

Has anybody stopped freaking for long enough to think that a bill that protects wild river values including the excusion of intensive development and water use levels detrimental to river ecology might actually help protect recreational fishery values???

No better to go with the fishing party and their conservative government mates (as demonstrated by the giving of their vote preferences last Federal election) and bring on the new water resource developments, dams, agricultural development, etc - that will help the rec fishery better !!

[Derek Bullock]

I think there is a need to be cautious with this one without going to the extreme. The conservation guys are well and truly behind it and althouigh the proposed Legislation seems pretty good on the surface it does leave it open up the way for further restriction on access to a lot of areas and you can bet that someone is already looking at it.

A good example of this is Fraser Island. I think most people were pleased when they stopped the sand mining and the logging but gradually over the years we are seeing more and more restrictions over there. The recent ones where you can no longer have a fire when beach camping is in itself just a start. Soon to commence is where generators and sand spears will no longer be alowed at some camp areas. You watch, and I'll bet my bottom dollar on it, that beach camping is close to also becoming banned as well. If some groups have there way four wheel drives will also be further restricted. They are already restricted in some areas up around the cape. Last I heard there was a push to ban vehicles on the beach from Hook Point up to Dilli Village.

Those who have been following the proposed Great Sandy Marine Park will have noticed areas on the beach look like being shut off. Once again I reckon that it is just the beginning of more to come. Some of it good, some not so good.

Think about it, the Wild Rivers Act may be the beginning of a slow erosion of access to some pretty good fishing places. Yes, there is nothing in the legislation about fishing at this stage but you possibly wont be able to get there to fish in the future.

Don't stick your head in the sand on this one.

Cheers


Derek

[dasher]

What a bunch of paranoid clap trap!! #:P

Has anybody stopped freaking for long enough to think that a bill that protects wild river values including the excusion of intensive development and water use levels detrimental to river ecology might actually help protect recreational fishery values???

No better to go with the fishing party and their conservative government mates (as demonstrated by the giving of their vote preferences last Federal election) and bring on the new water resource developments, dams, agricultural development, etc - that will help the rec fishery better !!

Jim maybe you missed the point mate. No one is against the principle of wild rivers, but we are wary of being locked out. Not every one is happy fishing stocked dams mate. ;D

[dasher]

I think there is a need to be cautious with this one without going to the extreme. #The conservation guys are well and truly behind it and althouigh the proposed Legislation seems pretty good on the surface it does leave it open up the way for further restriction on access to a lot of areas and you can bet that someone is already looking at it.

A good example of this is Fraser Island. #I think most people were pleased when they stopped the sand mining and the logging but gradually over the years we are seeing more and more restrictions over there. #The recent ones where you can no longer have a fire when beach camping is in itself just a start. #Soon to commence is where generators and sand spears will no longer be alowed at some camp areas. #You watch, and I'll bet my bottom dollar on it, that beach camping is close to also becoming banned as well. #If some groups have there way four wheel drives will also be further restricted. #They are already restricted in some areas up around the cape. #Last I heard there was a push to ban vehicles on the beach from Hook Point up to Dilli Village.

Those who have been following the proposed Great Sandy Marine Park will have noticed areas on the beach look like being shut off. #Once again I reckon that it is just the beginning of more to come. Some of it good, some not so good.

Think about it, the Wild Rivers Act may be the beginning of a slow erosion of access to some pretty good fishing places. #Yes, there is nothing in the legislation about fishing at this stage but you possibly wont be able to get there to fish in the future.

Don't stick your head in the sand on this one.

Cheers


Derek

Thanks Derek some valid points there especially re Fraser (more to come) May need to check this out further to ensure our access to these areas.

[Jim_Tait]

The Wild River Bill is what it is (not what it might become)- changes toward more restrictive controls would be something new and if they were proposed that is the time to get motivated and lobby if need be.

The way it stands at the moment the need for legislation to protect wild river values from over development is long overdue in this state - and don't get me wrong the last place I like to fish is impoundments and the first place I like to fish is Wild Rivers!

Rec fishers should be supportive of this legislation as it finally gives those intersted in teh natural values of rivers (including fish) a legislative tool to restrict intensive development including excessive water use and impacts to riparian areas within high value wild rivers - if rec fishers freak out - the baby will get thrown out with the bath water.

Better to be on board now and give the government support conditional upon continued use of the wild rivers resource - which if you look at the bill existing uses are protected!!

The equivalent examples overseas include the Heritage Rivers in Canada and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Legislation in the US - in both these countries it is rec fishers who are some of the strongest supporters of these management approaches as it protects riverine habitat - which any thinking fisher knows to be the genuinly greatest threat to our recreational fishery - particularly in freshwaters.

If fishers are so concerned about access to rivers - I hope they all responded to the State Leasehold land review - in my opinion gaining access to fresh water fishery resources on leasehold land (which belongs to the State remember - i.e. all of us! and NB pastoral use rights do not extinguish everbody else's access and use rights - something the Murris are starting to get p[roven through courts) is something that would deliver far better 'access outcomes' than freaking out over a bit of environmental legislation that actually stands to serve improved freshwater ecosystemm managagment (see how the Fishing Party's National Party mates respond to that one?). ;D

Regards and tight lines - Jim

[Daintreeboy]

I'm a bit concerned about the 'precautionary' approach they are taking. They are freely admitting these rivers are in pretty good shape as is. I would have thought there is already legislation around to help keep it that way. I'm also a bit concerned about the prevention of taking of natural resources form wild rivers. Fish are a natural resource and allowing this bit through will open the door as Derek points out to future closures.
As for the paranoia, you do have a point Jim but I think we have to look at it this way after the way we've been burnt in the past mate.
Cheers, Mark.

[Jim_Tait]

If you want to talk abbout being burnt in the past lets get real! >:(

I assume by being burn't your sooking about being locked out of some fishing areas by the RAP program (correct?).

In my 36 years of freshwater fishing in Qld I'd suggest some of the more serious examples of getting burnt (almost literally in some cases) include things like
the clearing and draining of productive floodplain habitats (Tully-Murray, Herbert, Burdekin - they're just the ones I know) for new caneland development (particularly the rampant development through the early 90's)
Modification of floodplain streams (barra creeks) to become irrigation supply channels
The citing of the world's second biggest zinc mine in the aquifer that feeds the Gregory and Lawn Hill River system in the Gulf,
The construction of weirs without functional fish passage on every major east coast barra river
The harvesting of overland flow for cotton irrigation in Qld's Murray Darling Basin

etc etc...

These actions genuinely 'burnt' freshwater fishing opportunities by destroying fish habitat and if you think that's all in the past I'd suggest you have a look at what Commonwealth Government programs (and pro-development forces in Qld) are proposing for our undeveloped northern rivers - you name it thay want to dam it and irrigate it, grow what ever where ever they can. Are you aware of the size of developments already being established on Gulf rivers like the Flinders?

Against that background - legislation like the Wild Rivers Bill is to be welcomed (with appropriate conditions) and used to secure as much of what we currently value about 'Wild Rivers'.

Regards again - Jim

PS attached a picture of the creek (Roundwater Hole Burdekin Floodplain 1970) where I caught my first barra aged four (picture in my signature) - and will post another following showing what it looks like today - maybe help understand what motivates me in wanting to work toward improved environmental protection!

[Jim_Tait]

Roundwater Hole Burdekin Floodplain - same site as photo above 1999.

[dasher]

Jim check your PM's

[Daintreeboy]

I hear you Jim, really. As long as they put the appropriate conditions on them then that's fine with me. It is a bit of a worry though with what is currently happening up this way. (and I'm not sooking btw)
Cheers, Mark.

[kc]

Sorry to come in late on this one guys but work has been frantic & I have just got a chance to catch up. We have had a look at "Wild Rivers" some time back and the legislation looked OK (from a laymans view) but it does ring alarm bells as to future adjustments (just like the original 4% GBR Green zones). If anyone with a greater understanding of access issues wants to get involved we will work up a submission on the entire Wld Rivers issue.

Jim I note your thinly vieled digs at TFPQ for giving preferences to the National; Party.....but let me make it really clear...AGAIN!! TFPQ has NO political alliance with ANY party.

During the leadup to the last election the Nationals were the ONLY party to take us seriuosly..the ONLY party not to virtually laugh in our faces and, more by good luck than good management, we now have a direct conjuit to Government and a very grateful one at that. To date we have asked the Nationals to intervien on 1 issue. The tourism pontoon on Arlington Reef and they delivered with flying colours. We are now working on a second and even more important issue with the Nationals which will be made public in due course & are equally hopeful of a positive outcome. Just be very clear before you sound off. We approached Labor...they brushed us...and IF our prefernces HAD gone to Labor, Drew Hutton (Greens) would be a Qld senator and Bob Brown would be in a balance of power position. Our preferences did the rounds of the minor parties BEFORE they got to the Nationals and they just got them before Libs and Labor...just how it worked out....any other flow would have given Brown control of the senate and if you view their recreational fishing policy it does not bode well for us.

But back to the subject. Any input is most welcome, from members and non members and we will devote as much time as we possibley can to a representitive submission....just like we did with the Great Sandy Straights when people got involved.

Regards

KC
TFPQ

[Jim_Tait]

Mark,
sorry mate meant no offence re: sooking understand your concerns - suggest you read up on the bill and if your still worried about it and are keen enough write a letter for to the minister concerned stating you support the potential benefits of the bill but want to be assurred that it is not going to impact upon your use rights as a recereational fisher and see what sort of response you get - I think it would be positive.

Regards and tight lines - Jim

[dasher]

Be assurred Jim, the submission seems great as long as there are no hidden agenda.

[Jim_Tait]

KC,

Lets see how proud the TFPQ are about helping deliver both houses of parliment to the Government with no balance of power in the Senate at the end of this term. I havn't looked at them but probably share some of your concerns re: emotive based green policies on fishing - but sure as S**t sticks to a blanket I'd prefer to have Brown in a balance of power scenerio than giving the current government un bridled power in the senate - given their track record on other things environmental - not to mention their cosy relationship with the commercial fishers :-/

Funny thing is one of the main things I've got against the Qld Greens and Drew Huton is that they gave their preferences to the Nationals /Liberals in the early 90's over a bloody Koala corridor in Brisbane (emotive based argument again)- cost us the the Goss government and brought in Borbidge who saw to it that leasehold land tree clearing guidelines were undone (which many incl. myself had worked on for ages) and consequently millions of hectares more of country including Koala habitat was cleared - bloody mad.

Don't really envy TFPQ having to make prefernce deals - just wish you'd focus more on habitat protection issues rather than lock out concerns - I think the former is still the biggest threat to recreational fishing and the 'develop at all costs, growth economy brigade within the conservative parties of Australia would still dig up the last tonne of coal, dam the last river and irrigate the last floodplain if given the chance - none of which serves recreational fishing unless we want to catch stocked fish in a big constructed puddle somewhere!

Regards - Jim

[kc]

Having to do preference deals Jim is all part of the grubby game....and grubby it is!! It also happens to be the only game which really counts. I don't know if you are across the latest recreational fishing survey figures released only last week, but these show a 42% reduction in participation in rec fishing in NQ. You may believe habitat issues are our biggest theat..personally I don't, I think it is green driven politics.

I guess, like many, we will watch the next 3 years, with a high degree of interest ,and see just how Howard uses, or abuses his senate position....then make a decision on wether it has been good or bad, both for Australia in general and recreational fishers in particular.

Clearly Jim you wear your political alliances on your sleeve, that is your right but TFPQ does and will in the future, go with whichever party offers the best hope for recreational fishing. That is our reason for being in existance.

That may be Labor, Liberal or Nationals but it will Never be the greens.


You may rather have Bob Brown controlling the senate but I doubt your views are representitive of the majority of recreational fishers.

If we got this wrong we will evaporate at the next election, if we got it right then our vote will grow...democracy at work.

The alternative was to do nothing and keep copping it on the chin & I for one was sick of it.

KC

[Jim_Tait]

I don't know if you are across the latest recreational fishing survey figures released only last week, but these show a 42% reduction in participation in rec fishing in NQ. You may believe habitat issues are our biggest theat..personally I don't, I think it is green driven politics.


KC

KC as you said you 'think' it is green driven politics - but show me one instance of a recreational angler say stuff it the greenies are giving me the shits - i'm going to stop fishing???

While your looking to do that I'll point out that in the floodplain creek where I used to catch barras as a boy - so did every other kid in the district, why because the fish were plentiful and accesssible and the country was healthy - until some very recent stocking efforts there has been no barra in that creek system for at least 10 years - why? because the creek had been flooged to death by agricultural land use imapcts - how many kids fish in that creek today? bugger all - except for the odd tarpon or spangled perch chaser - hardly the stuff to lead them onto a lifetime passion of recreational fishing. Its not greenie politics that have talken the fish and fishing away from the kids - quite the contrary it is a lack of greenie awareness about the need to look after habitat that has taken the opportunities for recreational fishing awya from that creek system. Scale up that impact by every equivalently affected creek and floodplain in the eastern seaboard - and you'll soon start seeing where your 42% reduction in recreational fishing participation is coming from!!

Yet, you'd rather get all worked up about the RAP and the boogey man posed by the dreaded greenies coming to 'lock you out of country' - what an easy scapegoat compared to the real challenges of getting fish habitat fixed and catchment land use sustainable.

I had a quick look at the TFPQ web site and although I didn't go into it too deeply I didn't find any ready mention of lobbying to protect wetlands, riparian areas, rectifying fish passage barriers, reducing commercial effort, limiting itensification of coastal land use or any of the real issues impacting on our recreational fish stocks - what I did find in my face is conspiracy theories about the greens and labour going to do this that and the other to shut down our fishery - wake up you mob - habitat loss has been shutting down our fishery for decades - so why don't you do something about that instead of greens under the bed!! >:(

[kc]

Jim I am not keen to get into a game of verbal tennis, particularly if it is pointscoring about particular political leanings....for the record..I don't have any. The ultimate swinging voter. I have always voted for who I personally think is the best party and have voted both left & right, I am not blinded by any ideolgical mindset.


The state government is udertaking further studies to find out why people have (suddenly...in the last 2 years) stopped fishing. I had this discussion with Minister Palaczcuk last November & told him it was happening & why. The DPI survey just supports what NQ marine industry had already told us. People stopped fishing....it was/is because they (the Government.....& I might add both the Howard Government & Beatie Government)...took one of lifes simple pleasures and overregulated, overrulled and generally stuffed it up...made it too hard, too complex and just too difficult for the occassional fishers & this is who has given up. You may not agree, that is your right but it does not change the feedback I am getting from those who make a living off our sport.

We share many (if not all) your concerns about habitat protection...we are..as I have said lots of times before..all green at heart..it is just a pity the word "greenie" has become a derogitory term.

You said you have looked at our web site & it is all about being paranoid the greens are out to get us....fair dinkum Jim, did you miss the bit about

3.It is the policy of TFP to ensure the protection, sustainability and sanctity of this nation’s fisheries through legal due processes against any exploitation, mismanagement or fraud by those governmental bodies or independent bodies responsible for the management of such waters.

or
Support for a fully classified system of management for inland waters

or

Support for programs which will enhance water quality in fresh & saltwater with due consideration to access and habitat issues.

or
-Support programs to reduce Marine Pollution

I am happy to enter into debate and at the end of the day our political success will depend on what we achieve and how we achieve it over the next couple of years. You don't have to like what we do or what we stand for...your right in a democracy. As to an instance when recreational fishers have given up fishing because of the greens?? That's a pretty long bow. What I am happy to show that green driven politics was behind RAP and in turn RAP has stopped people fishing...is that enough to see your fishing gear on e-bay??

Likewise if you are really interested I am happy to send you a number of submissions we have made regarding commercial fisheries, particular habitat and environmental issues.

There is absolutely no doubt in our minds that habitat protection is one of the key fisheries issues both now & into the future. Wether it is THE issue is clearly open to debate. I am old (& ugly) enough to remember the "good old days" before urban and agricultural development stuffed up lots of the rivers and wetlands, that is why, in principle we offer cautiuos support to the Wild Rivers plan....the original Wild Rivers plan however, framed by the Wilderness Society, called for recreational fishing to be "heavily restricted"...this has since been watered down AFTER we started talking to them about it.

I should at this point get back to the issue. If anyone wants TFPQ to get involved and frame a submission re the Wild Rivers legislation, get in touch and we are happy to work on it.

Likewise if anyone whats to see what we have been up to with variuos submissions to Governments at both state and federal levels PM me and I am happy to send out copies.

Regards

KC

[NQCairns]

Jim all the stuff you prattle on about is basic so basic and known today it is at the level of 1st year Tafe, 'statement of attendance' bushland regeneration level or a grade 8 assignment. It has even been done to death on "Totally wild" years ago!
Who can argue with such basic understandings when they are put forward. You and I both know what drives catchments to reach the level relayed in your pictures and it is not rec fisherman.

What the good people are on about here is a few grades higher.
It is about fighting political blanket cures (or fancys), when politics and poor decision making (because of a 'Totoally wild' level of comprehension at the political level) impacts upon common people who do no real measurable damage like recfisherman and RAP.

If you would like to foster a relatable position could you please put forward a case in say 'the top end' where 4 ausfish type fisherman spending 4 days beside a river (because they have access) will lead to that river being in any real way non wild or in any 'non green extreem' way worse off in the 12 hours after they packed up camp. I understand ther will be some transitiory and measurable Limnological changes close by but you need to do better than that if making a case against a campng trip by the river and anything even within cooee of real enviromnental damage.

Now I ask for no flights of fancy regarding real impacts in your reply and not too many big environmental industry words either, I don't want to go back to all my old text books and refresh my memory ::) happy to forget a lot of it. cheers nq

[Jim_Tait]

NQ maybe you should go back to your text books because your understanding of the position I've put forward re: the real issues threatening our recreational fishery is pretty confused!! ? ???

Jim all the stuff you prattle on about is basic so basic and known today it is at the level of 1st year Tafe, 'statement of attendance' bushland regeneration level or a grade 8 assignment. It has even been done to death on "Totally wild" years ago!
Who can argue with such basic understandings when they are put forward. You and I both know what drives catchments to reach the level relayed in your pictures and it is not rec fisherman.
I have not suggested that it is rec fishers that drive catchments to the level I've depicted (why would I ? I am one??) - if undestanding regarding the real impact of habitat loss on our fishery is so basic how come it is not reflected in the actions (& even words would do for a start) of rec fishing lobby groups and political movments?


What the good people are on about here is a few grades higher.

Don't patronise me with your amazing grasp of the world :P

If you would like to foster a relatable position could you please put forward a case in say 'the top end' where 4 ausfish type fisherman spending 4 days beside a river (because they have access) will lead to that river being in any real way non wild or in any 'non green extreem' way worse off in the 12 hours after they packed up camp.
Can you please point out where I suggested that camping fishermen would be a worry ??? Without knowing you from a bar of soap I'd hazard a guess I've done as much or more camping of the type you describe besides 'wild rivers' - the point I was originally making is that the Wild Rivers Bill is a legislative tool that will serve to keep those rivers wild for activities like camping and fishing instead of next time you get to your favorite wild river destination you find a bloody big irrigated farm or worse :-[

some transitiory and measurable Limnological changes .....and not too many big environmental industry words either, I don't want to go back to all my old text books and refresh my memory ::) happy to forget a lot of it. cheers nq
Sounds as though your a bit attached to your big words yourself - I had to go back to my text books to work out what your on about! ;D

[tshort]

Some good points scored from both corners, good to see and I think Derek is right on the money concerning Fraser Island, actually I'd put money on it. I think eventually they just want guided buses on the island and no individual 4bys. But if you eant to start debating these I reckon your at least 5 years too late.

[NQCairns]

Ok Jim I think I have the right dog but might be holding it by the wrong leg in this instance :-/ .
But pray tell what were you on about!! The scope of the discussion was not about bagging the wild rivers legislation, if it can stop the money makers from ruining our piscatorial ;D ecosystems in their pursuit who here as a recreational fisherman would argue against it ??? So what were you arguing over/for?

As I understood this string it was about ensuring that this new legislation now (or in the future) does not unjustly disenfranchise recreational fisherman YET AGAIN for Nil real environmental gain.

This is the area where only the Fishing Party can/has/did already make a difference for recreational fisherman because as we have seen with RAP :P laws get passed based solely on bright green ethos ignorant of competent management.
Based on past history one could believably assume the only reason rec fisherman seem to have been treated honestly within this legislation is the existence of the fishing party, without TFP it would have been no skin of any legislators nose to exclude us out of hand within wild rivers because we had a null voice.

[Daintreeboy]

Yes KC I would like the Fishing Party to put a submission in on this one. Did you contact the people in the email I sent you?
My major concern is the kilometre wide stretch of any wild river being part of the 'high preservation zone'. Will this mean 4WDs will be locked out? Most of these rivers can only be accessed by 4WD so rec fishing is effectively over if we cannot get to the bank.
Also, the taking of natural resources bit is also a concern. Fish are a natural resource so it does not look good, especially as you have pointed out the original paln was to heavily retrict rec fishing. Sure they may have watered it down but I'm not so sure. They have just been more cunning in the rewrite. Don't forget they are still talking about restricting the pros.
Basically there is nothing in the bill to say they will not restrict rec fishing in any way.
The general gist is okay and I applaud the bill for that but I still feel we need to get onto this and make our voice heard.
Cheers, Mark.

[Derek Bullock]

I think Derek is right on the money concerning Fraser Island, actually I'd put money on it. I think eventually they just want guided buses on the island and no individual 4bys. But if you eant to start debating these I reckon your at least 5 years too late.

Actually they are pushing for the removal of all 4X4's and buses and the construction of a light guage rail. For some good reading look at http://www.fido.org.au/

Cheers.


Derek

[Derek Bullock]

Below is a quote from the Friends of Fraser Island


The Queensland Government announced in September 2001 that it was implementing track closures on Fraser Island that were recommended in the Great Sandy Region Management Plan (GSRMP). The areas closed from September 3rd 2001 were Platypus Bay Road; the beaches from Platypus Bay Road to Wathumba Spit and Rooney Point north to Sandy Cape Lighthouse. This effectively closed ALL the west coast beaches, popular with families for day picnics because of their relatively calm waters and minimal through traffic.

The east coast didn't escape closure either, with South Waddy beach closed and the beach from Dilli Village to Hook Point to be closed once the old inland mining road is upgraded. This means that when you leave the barge at Hook Point you will no longer be able to follow the beach up the east coast.


The old mining road already carries considerable traffic accessing the central northern and western recreation areas. Substantial and expensive upgrading would be necessary to carry the enormous increase in traffic that would be generated.

They are at http://www.friendsoffraserisland.org/notmeanttobeeasy.htm

Go back and have a look at the maps released for the Great Sandy Marine Park proposals and you will see that this stretch of beach has been marked already. There are some good dart and whiting fishing along that section of beach.

Cheers.


Derek

[tshort]

Couldnt get into FIDO, didnt want to read past the waffle about air blowers. Its the closing of hook point etc. (haven't hear of the light rail though) that I feel is a definite.

[kc]

Thanks for the update Mark and you are dead right. What is the point of still having fishing access if you can't actually get to the rivers!! It is effectively stopping fishing by stealth. We deal with the same issues on the GBR where many Yellow & Blue zones have reef protection markers which ban anchoring & as such most fishing activity (except trolling) is therefore banned in these yellow & blue zones.

I tried that contact on Wednesday but no answer so will try again today.

TFPQ is just finishing a very large and detailed submission. We will make Wild Rivers our next issue...............one day we might have time to go fishin' again!!

KC

[Daintreeboy]

Top stuff KC, if you need a hand let me know, I'm in. I'm with Jim as to what the bill is supposed to do as long it is just that. I'm just a little skeptical about some of the open ended sections of it that may bite us.
Cheers, Mark.

[Derek Bullock]

The light rail for Fraser Island is being pushed by FIDO. Like all conservation issues they want a leg in then take the whole body. Look at the information on the link.

http://www.fido.org.au/education/Light%20Rail.pdf


Derek

[Daintreeboy]

The light rail for Fraser Island is being pushed by FIDO. #Like all conservation issues they want a leg in then take the whole body. #Look at the information on the link.

http://www.fido.org.au/education/Light%20Rail.pdf


Derek

Then make a huge profit at our expense.............

[Daintreeboy]

Any news on this yet lads?
Regards, Mark.

[tshort]

Jim_Tait, your two photos are a perfect illustration of what all recreational fishers should be helping to stop or to rectify.Can I copy these photos (photos only) for personal reference.