TFPQ Great Sandy Straights Submission

[kc]

For anyone interested the TFPQ submission for the Great Sandy Straights is now available in draft format.

This is a 20 page document and too big to post here but any interested rec fisher who wants input should send me a PM on kc@whitsunday.net.au and I will send you a copy.

We have until only Wednesday to finalise input into this document so if you are interested, please don't delay.

REgards

KC

[dasher]

Tuesday night at 7pm at the Sportsmans Club in Urangan TFPQ -HB will hold a meeting to discus the draft. THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE.

[drb]

I thought submissions ended 28th Feb? Did they extend it?

[Whiley_Whiting]

Due date for Submissions has been extended to the 14th March.

It would be great for everyone to write a submission in respect of allowing commercial netting in the sandy straits area while the recreational fishers can only use 1 line and 1 hook !! They are saying that the govt is wanting to be consitent with the regulations outlined in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. So for all those recreational fishers in Moreton Bay how will you react when they propose the same principal down there ???

I was talking to the EPA this morning and they mentioned that new bag limits are on there way...

[SeaHunt]

What has the EPA got to do with bag limits ???
I thought that was under the control of Qld fisheries ...
How many people are f#*$ing this cat anyway. :-/

[Fisher_Boats]

As many as the cat can take by the look of it ::)
Don't you know that we (recos) are a minority that they want out of the way :(

[Derek Bullock]

KC

Are you going to post the final submission on The Fishing Party website?

Guys

We have known about the new regs coming for ages for both fish and crabs and yes it has nothing to do with the EPA.


Derek

[kc]

The submission document is available by request (kc@whitsunday.net.au). I will send it to the NSW federal office (who control the web site) for posting but they are not as active as they perhaps should be at getting things posted.

I have had a number of Ausfishers and interested locals getting copies and feedback so far has been very positive.

I am reasonabley happy with the content and thrust of this document and hope it represents a balanced community perspective that will get listened to.

I plan to have a final working document by Thursday so any input is required no mlater than Wednesday evening.

TFPQ (Hervey Bay Branch) will launch this to local media on Friday.....this is their baby and their input that produced this....all "we" did was articulate what the meeting in Hervey Bay on 16th Feb agreed to do.

Regards

KC

[Whiley_Whiting]

Fully aware that EPA has nothing to do with bag limits but was speaking to friend over there and he mentioned it...

It would have been best that the new limits come out prior to the submissions for the marine parks as first they limit the areas you can fish (and the methods) and then they limit the catch.

Can anyone tell me if they are aware of catch limits being placed on commercial fishers in the Sandy straits area under the current proposal?? It seem ridiculous that rec fishers and the biggest losers out of this when they (potentially) do the lesser damage to the environment.

I am currently drafting a submission on behalf of the fishing club I belong to.

[kc]

Hi Whiley....you seem really short on info at what is the 11th hour. Send me an email & I will copy you in to the TFPQ document. It will answer most of your questions and might save you trying to re-invent the wheel. All that is needed, from like minded individuals and clubs, is then just letters supporting the TFQP document.

Regards

KC

[kc]

The TFPQ Great Sandy Straights submission is now complete and lodged.

Anyone wanting a copy can PM me at kc@whitsunday.net.au.

Anyone wishing to lend support to this document, as oppossed to doing an individual submission can do so at ELGPW@ministerial.qld.gov.au

All submissions &/or letters of support(or otherwise) must be lodged by Monday 14th March.

[gif]

Executive Summary
The Fishing Party Queensland (TFPQ), received calls and complaints from many Queensland residents in relation to the Great Sandy Straights (GSS) zoning. In response we called a public meeting and on 16th February and over 500 people attended, including recreational anglers, commercial fishers and tourism business operators. Some travelling as far as Brisbane and North Queensland Subsequently a new Branch of TFPQ was formed.

Sunfish was the only group to accept our invitation and present their viewpoint. TFPQ presented a suggested outline for its submission, and at the conclusion of the 3-hour meeting received unanimous support for the key elements of our submission.

This submission focuses on several key strategies for the zoning which TFPQ believes is optimal. Our proposal delivers the best environmental outcomes for the park while avoiding negatively impacting on the very attractions which makes Hervey Bay such a popular holiday, lifestyle and retirement destination. All the benefits without the disastrous economic consequences.

During the public consultation process your Minister and the EPA have focused heavily on the contentious Yellow zone only effecting 12% of the park and indicated that recreational fishing is still permitted, albeit with a 1 line 1 hook rule.

First, this naively assumes that fish are evenly distributed throughout the Park and that all locations are safe for boating. That is plainly not true and the Yellow zone accounts for much more of the viable fishing grounds – at least 70%. The rest is essentially barren. The statement of “12%” is therefore deceptive and a misrepresentation of the true situation.

The particular 12% to be taken is the 12% offering most shelter and most significant area of use for recreational fishers. The exposed balance of the park is not heavily used. In effect the 12% planned for a yellow zone represents almost 70% of the regularly fished areas and this zoning will result in 70% restrictions. Stating that 12% will be taken is misleading and inaccurate.

TFPQ maintains that the one line 1 hook rule (1L1H) will dramatically effect the community amenity and enjoyment of recreational fishing and will, as indicated in a soon to be published report by KPMG , result in significant drop-out from this activity. The reasons for this may not be immediately obvious but are simple enough to understand.

In certain types of fishing anglers look for fish at different depths and so need to place more than one hook in the water. The alternate is to fish with one line but for much longer – burning up more fossil fuel in the park. As one angler said “it’s like playing golf with only 2 clubs – you can do it but it takes a lot longer”.

TFPQ believe that bag (catch) limits provide far better controls and environmental protection.

Bags limits are far more readily enforced in practice. Fisheries Inspectors can inspect a boat’s catch at any time, even on the drive home, which makes the detection of those that would flaunt the regulations relatively easy.

One Line One Hook Regulations require the law breaker to be caught in the act and observed at close range –fishing line is difficult to see from more that 50 metres distance. Detecting an offence under the regulations would be near impossible during the day and impossible from dusk to dawn.

This is one of many examples of apparently little or no consultation between EPA and Queensland Fisheries, who could have provided practical advice on workable practices and enforceability issues. It could be argued that Fisheries expertise is not necessary, simple common sense would be sufficient to make it obvious that enforcing 1L1H is obviously impractical because reliable observation would be extremely difficult.

TFPQ agues that the 1L1H is not in support of environmental protection but rather in support of the policies of certain environmental lobby groups that would see and end to all fishing. The 1L1H concept only discourages the honest angler without limiting catch. The law abiding angler will simply spend more time trolling the waters, burning more fossil fuels. Thus the environment loses.

Bag limits can be specified by species and are a far better targeted approach to responsible environmental control.

At our public meeting in Hervey Bay the local community sent a strong message that it supports zoning of GSS so it is protected for future generations. It does not, however, support management regimes which heavily discriminate against recreational use in favour of far more damaging commercial fishing.

The GSS zoning proposal makes little environmental sense. Commercial netting is far less discriminatory in its fish kill - yet it is allowed to continue unabated in most of the GSS. At the same time Recreational Fishers are required to practice in a way that will add to pollution without restricting the catch limits. We cannot fathom the logic nor understand how this set of strategies protects the Environment.

[gif]

Our submission seeks a workable outcome which recognises the value of both types of fishing to the local economy and lifestyle of Wide Bay – Burnett residents and Queenslanders.

What needs to be clearly understood is that, just as has been demonstrated in North Queensland, the State Government is about to send out a very clear message to the recreational fishing community of Australia.

Recreational Fishing is barely tolerated but not really welcome in Hervey Bay.

This may not be true. But the facts are irrelevant when it comes to this widely held public perception. Now that is a politically dangerous precedent when you consider that 25% of Queenslanders fish , (29% of all Households) and this percentage is higher in the popular fishing areas of Wide Bay Burnett, with its relatively high per capita boat ownership.

We quote from the most recent editorial of Queensland’s largest selling fishing magazine, Queensland Fishing Monthly:

“What the hell is going on in Queensland? Queensland is home to a huge population of recreational fishers. But does the Government actually give a damn about anglers?
The answer is plainly no”

The voter backlash will clearly be significant.

Treasury and good public management requires that a full Cost Benefit Analysis be prepared. The study presented by EPA falls well short of the standards set by Treasury, in the guidelines authored by Paul Radell (1992). One clear example is that there is no valid consideration of financial cost to local communities.

Analogous data can be sourced from the Industry restructure assistance program outcomes of the GBRMPA RAP zonings in North Queensland. KPMG has been engaged in managing the claims and has reported that the valid restructure assistance claims in progress for Recreational Fishing industry compensation is in excess of $100M. One one Senator has stated that the Government estimates puts the figure at just under $200m.

These are just the ambit claims. The actual cost to the economy over 5 years will exceed $600m.

The Queensland Government may refuse to entertain such an industry adjustment package for GSS. That is completely irrelevant to a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). A CBA must consider all costs and benefits to the community -whether that appear as a financial transaction or not. CBA is conducted from the Community’s viewpoint – not Governments.

In developing this report we have consulted an Economist who has worked in Queensland Treasury. He writes:
Based on the data available in North Queensland I estimate that the five year economic cost to the community from the zoning proposal for the Great Sandy Marine Park is reliably between $300m and $700m. This is the value that must be considered in any valid Cost Benefit Analysis, and is valid irrespective of any compensation or industry adjustment payments.

The issue of Industry restructure assistance is not our core concern; because our proposal is focussed on the continuation of reasonable access to the GSS. Failing that there is a strong and clear moral and political case for Industry restructure assistance.

Industry restructure assistance is, with the very vocal support of the Queensland Government, paid to fishers and support industries, affected by the Federal rezoning of the GBR.

The North Queensland complimentary zoning introduced by the Queensland Government was, quite rightly, as a result of the Federal zoning and any Industry restructure assistance paid remained the responsibility of the Federal Government. The Queensland Government refused to contribute to any Industry restructure assistance on the sole grounds that the regulations that caused the need for payments was Federal regulation.

The zoning of GSS is however totally a result of the EPA and Queensland Government. Given this Government’s vocal support for Industry restructure assistance for the GBR zoning, it would be completely contradictory to refuse a similar Industry restructure assistance package for businesses affected by the GSS zoning. This could cost at a minimum $40m.

TFPQ will offer support for any effected recreational fishing industries and businesses if the GSS zoning impacts poorly on their businesses. This is however a last resort; our desired outcome is a better, more balanced management plan.

We look forward to the suggested dialog with EPA and Minister Boyle during the final decision making process and working towards an outcome which benefits both the environment and the wishes of the local community.

[gif]

Proposal 1 Revise the colour coding

That a unique nomenclature and colour legend be employed in the discussions and Mapping for the GSS to avoid error, confusion and misinterpretation with the zoning legend used in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

The GSS Marine Park abuts the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. That Authority has chosen a zoning and colour scheme that has certain restrictions and obligations associated with each zone.

The EPA has adopted identical colours, for similar zones but with significantly different (proposed) regulatory requirements.

This can only serve to confuse the public. Communications strategies will fail because of this confusion. Public moneys will be wasted, and additional funds need be employed to educate the public.

One cynical but credible interpretation for the identical colours but different meaning is to intentionally confuse and discourage recreational fishing. Similar proposals have been mooted by the anti fishing lobby groups.

The majority of residents who use the waters of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, who live North of Bundaberg, are now familiar with the various rules applicable to the GBR.

The Yellow zone proposed for the GSS does not carry the same rules, particularly as they relate to commercial net and trawl fishing. This can and will lead to significant misunderstandings and otherwise avoidable political conflict between recreational and commercial fishers.

Confusion over what activities are and are not permitted are at odds with an integrated approach to Marine Park zonings.

It is readily conceivable that a visitor to GSS fishing in a yellow zone and abiding by yellow zone rules could observe a commercial net or trawl fishing operation being undertaken and feel that this was an illegal activity. He/she may report the activity, wasting Fisheries resources.

An equally likely scenario is a law abiding fisher who follows the yellow zone rules from one region, in a different region: unintentionally breaking the law.

There are Australian and world wide standard for traffic signs (red means stop) and in Maritime Transport (navigation beacons). EPA needs to adopt a colouring scheme that clearly communicates the unique nature of the specific rules.

The GSS proposed yellow zones should be re-coloured, to a colour not currently in use in the GBR (purple) so that all users are aware that a different set of rules apply to this park. TFPQ suggests a purple or red colour be used and rules specific to this colour zone be adopted for this and any future zoning which reflects rules different to the GBR zoning.

[gif]

Proposal 2 revise the Go Slow regulations

That a transit corridor, with due consideration of location and safety issues, be designated through go-slow areas

TFPQ, received feedback from many Wide Bay Burnett residents that the designated Go Slow Areas would impose significant time costs, and safety considerations.

While fully recognizing the importance of protecting marine life from potential boat strike injuries it is our advice that this is at worst a very rare occurrence.

Our research on the matter shows a great deal of unsubstantiated and emotional comment about boat strike. None of the available data supports this enthusiastic conjecture. This includes the references cited in the GSS Strategy Document. It seems that EPA plans to mandate Go slow areas without any supporting evidence or sound scientific research.

It is untenable and unmistakably discriminatory that commercial operators are not subject to the same conditions in the designated go slow areas as recreational fishers. It would seem obvious that large commercial vessels, with much deeper drafts, more and larger propellers (with significantly higher horsepower and momentum) and far less manoeuvrable ships, have a far greater risk potential for boat strike injury. We recognise that the commercial fleet is less in actual number; however they each spend many more hours on the water than the average recreational boat.

TFPQ would suggest that Maritime Safety (part of the Department of Transport) determine a safe travelling speed for all vessels and this will at times be well above the go slow designated speed, and that a travel corridor be designated through Go Slow Areas and speed limited to 20 knots.
This gives recreational fishers adequate time at certain stages of the tide to traverse sand flat areas, shorten travelling time considerably and travel in lanes which will, due to increased point to point traffic, create a level of boat noise obvious to marine life and as such reduce the risk of boat strike.
This will also reduce the consumption of fossil fuels in the Marine Park with resultant benefits to the environment.


Risk to human life must take precedence over potential animal strike.
All beach launching needs to be specifically exempted from the Go Slow requirements. To launch a small boat safely into beach waves means that the operator must apply full power until the beach break has been passed. Only then can they return to normal power. The reader has no doubt seen surf rescue boats launch in this manner. To launch at “Go Slow” speeds invites a capsize and is potentially life threatening.
And a capsize will leave fuel and other polluting material in the water.
Environmentally this suggestion to allow full power beach launching should not be a concern. Large and slow species like Turtles and Dugong do not inhabit the breaking waves.

Go Slow Areas: Nothing in this regulation shall inhibit the master of a vessel from applying full power or exceeding the Go Slow speeds if, in the opinion of the master there is a risk or potential risk to the vessel, another vessel, any passenger or person or property.
Examples: attending a rescue or stricken vessel; launching from a beach into surf; returning to port to avoid inclement weather.


There needs to be a further amendment to the proposed regulations. Local expertise has pointed out the danger of being restricted to Go Slow speeds when a storm or strong winds are approaching.
The Go-Slow areas are also at odds with Australian and International Maritime Laws as they pertain to the responsibilities of the master to operate a vessel with safety and to lend assistance to others.
The proposed amendment (above) attempts to cover these safety issues within the spirit of the Go Slow zones.
This whole topic seems to be another example of where the EPA documents are left wanting. The Go Slow areas seem to have been proposed without referral to Maritime Safety or any practical boating knowledge.
Again the cynical but plausible interpretation is that the intention of the regulation is not to protect the environment but to pander to the anti fishing political lobby groups. By making travel and beach launching unsafe, and rescue speeds illegal, you effectively stop the responsible angler from going to sea at all.

[gif]

Proposal 3 impose a TAC on commercial fishing and no new entrants

That a Total Annual Catch (TAC) is imposed on commercial fishers involved in sections v33 & v34 of the GSS Marine Park based on a sustainable catch ( determined by valid scientific analysis by Queensland Fisheries).

That only those commercial fishers, with a demonstrated history in this fishery be eligible for a catch quotas

TFPQ, its members and supporters, holds a view that while fully accepting of recreational bag limits as a method of managing the catch and subsequent health of the fishery in GSS this is worthless in terms of managing the impacts without a similar method of managing the size of the commercial catch. It would simply be a discrimination enshrined in regulation and may not stand up to scrutiny in the Higher Courts.

A strong and more importantly sustainable commercial fishing industry is vital in Wide Bay Burnett, both in terms of the direct impact on fishing businesses and families, but also to service the growing needs of the tourism/restaurant industry. Australians deserve to be able to buy fresh Australian fish.

TFPQ would support a regulated commercial fleet in Wide Bay Burnett with individual fishers operating on a catch quota system similar to that which applies to the GBR Coral Trout fishery.

TFPQ believe it is the role of Queensland Fisheries to manage and implement such issues and not that of EPA, and such inefficient duplication / overlap of regulation would be poor government.

TFPQ would support moves to determine, with adequate science, a sustainable level of TAC which gives commercial fishers adequate scope to maintain a viable business and at the same time ensure over-exploitation of fish stocks in the GSS yellow/(renamed purple) zone, did not lead to political conflict with recreational users.








TFPQ would support such catch quotas being made available only to commercial fishers with a demonstrated history in this particular fishery and that no displaced effort from other effected areas be allowed to enter this fishery in the future, unless they purchase an established catch quota.
In our experience there are two distinct categories of commercial fishers. The “home “group work and live in the one area – often for generations. Apart from regulation, they have a vested interest in longevity of the species and do not over exploit. They understand the local ecology and are a vital source of information on an area: eg they are the first to notice and report environmental damage. These commercial fishers are akin to farmers who look after their land. TFPQ feels that this category or resident, responsible and experienced commercial fishers should be encouraged.
We are less enamoured with the category called “exploiters” who come into an area for a short time, reap a great harvest and move on. These commercial fishing operations have no vested interest in the long term sustainability of individual ecosystems.
This is why we call for catch quotas - but only for those with a demonstrable local affiliation.

[gif]

Proposal 4 Beam trawling be phased out over 5 years

That Beam trawling be deemed as a use incompatible with the conservation values of the park and be phased out over a 5 year period.

Trawl fishery for Banana prawns has been described in the acclaimed David Attenbough “Blue Planet” series as “the single most destructive method of fishing ever devised by man”.

Clearly, Banana Prawns is a fishery with minimal economic value fishery in Wide Bay Burnett, as identified in the EPA’s “Strategy for declaration of zoning documents”, in sections V33 & V34 (The Great Sandy Straights) Yellow/Purple zone.

Despite significant advancements in by-catch reduction devices and Turtle Exclusion devices, Beam trawling still poses a significant and unacceptable risk to seabed communities, seagrass beds and juvenile fish stocks.

With due recognition of the financial and business investment of the GSS beam trawl fleet, a phase out of this method of commercial fishing in the GSS yellow/purple zone should be implemented by 2010. This gives adequate warning without the need for significant restructuring packages. It gives the fleet an option to maximize return on current investment, with due warning not to invest further in plant and equipment for this fishery.

TFPQ would support a buy-out for commercial operators choosing to leave this fishery at any time during the phase out cycle, at a rate deemed appropriate by the QRAA and strictly conditional on those fishers leaving the beam trawl fishery, and not re-entering this fishery in any other location.
This however does not exclude continuation in other commercial fisheries with less impact on fish stocks and marine biodiversity.

[gif]

Proposal 6 delete the one hook one line proposal

That the One Line One Hook policy drafted for the GSS yellow/purple zone by rejected in favour of recreational bag limits for all regulated finfish species and in tandem a TAC imposed on commercial fisheries working in the GSS Marine Park.

This one line, on hook policy seems to have been developed under a very simplistic approach and without true understanding of the issues and its logical conclusions.

It is a long held belief that 10% of the fishermen catch 90% of the fish. Our own version of the 80/20 rule of thumb.

Skilled anglers are just that, skilled, usually as a result of a lifetime of experience with the sport and a natural affinity with the water.

As an angler’s skill base improves they move away from the grass roots of the sport and move towards lure, fly and in many cases blue water game fishing.

Generally they retain a connection with the roots of the sport and take time out to enjoy the “fishing for food” aspect and when they do, it is usually with a great degree of success.

These are, by nature, 1 line, 1-hook fishers. They will carefully target a specific species and use their knowledge gained from years on the water to ensure success.

A particular stage of tide, moon or seasonal conditions, often pinpoint placement of bait, lure or fly, the skill the top 10% possess is typical of any sportsperson involved at the upper end of their field. By way of supporting evidence, Professional Bass Fishermen in the USA Tournament circuit, compete for $US17m in prize money. While they have perhaps 18 rods on board they only use one rod at a time.

The rest of us, the 90% mere mortals, fish for an entirely different reason and with much less intensity.

We fish to enjoy just being on the water, to hopefully locate an area with some fish holding potential and to spread our options, by way of 2 or 3 different rods/baits/lures in the hope of actually catching a fish.

It is not greed or wanting to catch more fish that encourages an angler to fish with more than 1 rod. It the hope of catching any fish or alternately a variety of fish which dictated the way the 90% of fishers enjoy their sport.

Fishers who own boats will often troll (motor slowly) with a line dragged behind. Multiple lines are used to run lures at different depths – in the hope of catching one fish not in the expectation of finding many.

The proposal to restrict recreational fishing to 1 line, 1 hook in Yellow/Purple zones displays both a lack of understanding on behalf of the law makers of just how and why people fish, as well as a lack of understanding as to how such restrictions will impact both environmentally and economically.

What the new zoning laws will mean is that a time honoured method of recreational fishing, enjoyed by the 90% majority of fishers, will now no longer be legal.

The activity of sitting in a boat along a sand bank on a falling tide, flicking a worm or yabby into the shallows in the hope of a whiting, while at the same time a cut bait drifts back on the drop off for bream and perhaps even a live bait is cast out into deeper water in the hope of a flathead.

For fishers in a reef environment this can manifest itself in a standard bottom fishing trip being supplemented by floating bait well behind the boat hoping for the rare mackerel.

This is a standard practice and how “we” fish. Do we catch more fish because of this…debatable? Do we target several different species in the same area…most definitely!

As an example if a 1L1H policy is put in place then average fisher will, if they still fish, spend all of their energy targeting the most common species, say whiting. They will catch more whiting as a result but likely very few of the occasional species targeted with alternate lines…flathead, bream etc.

A skilled angler using 1L1H will catch far more fish than the 90% of bait soakers who like to cover a few bases at once and enforcement of a 1L1H policy will lessen the impact on some species and heighten the impact on others.

The issue is, will people still fish in a 1H1L area?

Demonstrably the answer is no.

And if EPA is pleased with that response, or even just accepting then the hidden agenda behind the 1L1H policy is not to protect species but to effectively ban recreational fishing.

Our answer “no” is based on internal research and is consistent with the findings expressed by KPMG in regards the drop out rate and subsequent effects on business of the Great Barrier Reef rezoning.

If you take what was simple, easy pleasure to many people and then overregulate, complicate and demonize it, people leave the sport.

To use an analogy:
If you tell a golfer he/she can still play their favorite course, but with only 4 clubs you lessen their enjoyment of that course and leave them with three choices, vis
o still play golf but not enjoy it as much
o find a new course which lets you play the way you enjoy
o give up golf.

The message a 1H1L policy sends to the community is Recreational Fishing is actively discouraged. This is the message it sends our children, this is clearly the message it send to potential visitors and holidaymakers and it is a message you send to people intending to move to, and retire in, Wide Bay Burnett.

The EPA’s “Draft Public Benefits Test” document, on page 15, says in part “is expected to experience economic growth, including significant flow-on effects to related industries (e.g. bait & tackle shops)”

This “expectation” is in fact wrong….and demonstrably wrong. A similar “expectation” was put forward by the GBRMPA as part of its rezoning and now the irrefutable evidence is to hand which proves such moves are economically devastating for these economies. ( KPMG report appendix C)

Again, using a golfing analogy, it is better to play 9 holes the way you enjoy than 18 with 4 clubs.

This is the second most emotional and thus politically sensitive issue of all the GSS proposals. (Number one is the obvious discrimination in favour of commercial fishing.)

Let recreational fishers enjoy the way they fish but by all means, if and only if, robust reliable evidence exists which indicates we are placing too much pressure on the fishery, then restrict the number of fish we are able to catch by bag limits.

If restricting the catch is not the purpose of the 1L1H policy in Yellow/Purple zones, then what is the purpose?

The effect will be to severely curtail the involvement in the sport so to this end, will achieve a reduction in pressure but at what social and economic cost? And pandering to what particular lobby group(s)?
We have already, too many fat little kids sitting in front of TV sets and here is one family pastime, fundamental to the lifestyle of Wide Bay Burnett, about to be destroyed.

This is one of the very few cross generational sports in this country. A sport where 3 generations can sit, enjoy and more importantly, participate on an equal footing.

Time spent on the water connects people.






















Don’t destroy this please. It has been partially destroyed in NQ and people demonstrated their disappointment at the polls. And their anger continues.

[Daintreeboy]

absolutely brilliant!!

[gif]

Proposal 7 withdraw and redraft the entire strategy

The GSS strategy documents are fatally flawed and should be withdrawn and re written with more rigorous analysis and in significant consultation with Queensland Fisheries and Maritime Safety

The EPA Documents disappoint in so many fundamental areas that they are not robust nor sound.

Some examples include

• There seems to be little consultation with Fisheries. There are fundamental and inexplicable errors like the limit if 5 yabbies for bait taking and a lack of understanding of the consequences of 1L1H.
• There seems to have been no consultation on Maritime Safety issues, particularly in relation to Go Slow area consequences. The document is focussed on protecting turtles, but with evidentiary support and no consideration of human life. It is a narrowly thought ill conceived strategy.
• The research and data is lacking in depth and Breadth. Fisheries has considerable data that seems to have been ignored or never sourced. For example the
o annual RFish Diary Surveys
o Federal Government studies such as The National Recreational and Indigenous Fishing Survey FRDC Project No. 99/15.
o Maritime safety studies
o Qld Transport Boat registration data

None of these sources and titles appear in the References to the EPA documents. One of our team, a University lecturer has stated “if this were an assignment it would be graded a fail.”

• The Cost Benefit Analysis does not even attempt to quantify costs and benefits. It works purely in the qualitative level. CBA converts the qualitative to quantitative using shadow pricing and other techniques to deliver a true, calculated, numerate result. If you had found and used the data above you would have found that on average Recreational fishers spend $65 for each kg of fish caught on such things as accommodation, food fishing equipment and travel. That Federal Government published data shows how much they put back into the economy. On that basis Recreational Fishing is 4 times more important to the economy (and thus the CBA) than the equivalent fish caught in commercial fishing.


Conclusion

This submission is on behalf of the recreational fishing community of Wide Bay Burnett and the 30,000 Queensland voters who gave us the responsibility of representing their rights in the political process.

To date, TFPQ have been encouraged by the feedback received from Minister Boyle’s office and the acknowledgement that the GBR rezoning has distanced many individuals and groups from the public consultation process.

We call on the EPA not to make the same mistakes as GBRMPA.

To listen, evaluate and recognize sensible ideas, which strengthen the conservation objectives of the park without destroying the lifestyles of individuals and the businesses, which service the recreational fishing industry.

TFPQ is prepared to make itself available for personal interaction with the decision makers if and when required.

Yours Faithfully




Kevin Collins
Chairman

[Derek Bullock]

Gary

Thanks for postin that. Is that the full submission? I have asked KC to email to me but to my work address so wont get it till Monday.


Derek

[gif]

derek

its missing apendices and foot notes

I think the rest is there

Gary

[Derek Bullock]

Thanks Gary


Derek