RAP Buyout.

[Draco]

Im sure a lot of you people out there have read in the news ( ie , saturdays townsville bulletin front page ) about the pro netters that had opted to leave the industry and be bought out and hand thier licences in, only to use a small portion of the money to buy another licence ( cheap too ) and return back netting again ?...

It seemed to me that GBRMPA doesnt seem that overly concerned about them doing this as they arent doing anything illegal ? So why on earth did they even bother with the representitve areas program at all ? I thought some of it was about taking the pressure off fish stocks.... but clearly all us taxpayers just gave them a nice little bonus for no reason at all. Only to have the same amount of netters in a small area.

Shows they are wasting taxpayers dollars , and arent managing the marine park very well., i feel very mislead.

I would have thought they would have taken back thier boats and gear once bought out , and with a clause of not going back into that line of work for at least quite a few years ?

would like to hear everyones thoughts.

[agnes_jack]

Doesn't surprise me at all!
I don't think the RAP was ever about getting rid of pro's!
Or spending our tax dollars wisely!

Regards, Tony

[devocean]

Yep has happened where I live to once again GRUMPA showing they have got it all under control

[Mad_Barry]

and with a clause of not going back into that line of work for at least quite a #few years ?



That's the mistake. The legal department at GRUMPA need a bullet. (As well as the psuedo political , wwf, scientific department but that's been well covered elsewhere). A school kid could've drawn up a better buy out contract by the sound of it.

You can't really blame the pro's, it's human nature to take advantage of a money making deal sitting under your nose. ie. sell something to someone for a hundred grand and buy the same thing off someone else, the next week for 10 grand. Who wouldn't ?

[agnes_jack]

Yep
They would be mad not to cash in on the stupidity of our wonderful powers that be!!

Regards, Tony ::) :-X

[Derek Bullock]

Here is the article.

Fishy flaw
By DANNY MORTISON
19feb05
PROFESSIONAL fishermen who were each paid more than $100,000 of taxpayers' money to leave the industry are back on the water fishing.

The fishermen are exploiting a loophole in the Federal Government's contentious buyback scheme that allows them to sell their licence and then buy a cheaper one on the open market.

Professional barra fisherman Bill Patience said he knew of at least three local net fishermen who had been paid out, accepting $100,000 or more in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority's RAP buyback, only to use part of the money to buy similar licences.

They were able to buy the licences as cheaply as $10,000 to $20,000 and then continued to fish in the same areas, he said.

"People have been getting between $50,000 and $250,000 to sell the whole of their business and they're back in the industry like a flash," Mr Patience said.

"It's a dead-set joke. We've been fighting for 30 years to get a compensation package.

"This scheme was designed to get half the fishermen to leave and now we've got blokes abusing it."

Mr Patience said fishermen had been forced into one small area and the buyback had not eased the numbers competing for the catch.

[Derek Bullock]

Townsville Bulletin Editorial

Loophole find 'no surprise'
NEWS that commercial fishermen have found a loophole in the Federal Government's licence buyback scheme will surprise few people.
The buyback was designed to reduce the amount of effort in the Great Barrier Reef fishery commensurate with the one-third of the fishing grounds closed by the GBRMPA Representative Areas Program.

The only trouble is that some fishermen who have been paid out but who have kept their boats and gear have found another way to keep fishing - by buying cheaper licences still available on the open market.

While there is nothing illegal about this - the licences are available on the open market, after all - their purchase by fishermen who have already been "bought out" of the industry defeats the spirit of the buyback.

If the Federal Government was serious about reducing the effort surely it could have included clauses in the buyback contract which stipulated that recipients not enter the industry for a period of five years, just for starters.

[Draco]

this is all true, and yes you cant blame the pro's...

Dicko hit the nail on the head , a schoolkid could have thought better. Why on earth are the people in the job of making these decisions have no idea of what they are doing ?.. And then again trying to be "smart alecs " in showing how difficult they have now made the rules ( ie ,,zonings ) when they really needed a "KISS" method ( keep it simple stupid ) ..... I have heard some fantastic ideas from around the place and on here as to how we can manage this fishery better than these clowns running it at the moment. From breeding fingerlings with money raised from the industry itself ( ie boat rego's ) to be constantly released into the wild , giving mother nature a hand and creating jobs from it as an example.

Not locking everything up and throwing away the key ? The amount of confusion going around at the moment with all the rules among anglers is quite incredible.

Would love to see the results from the future eye survey conducted on GBRMPA which are to be released shortly.. or will they be dodgy'ed up behind the public's back before they are released ?????? hmmmmm

[agnes_jack]

Draco
I'll put my money on them being dodgied up before release.
They are not going to allow the public to know the truth, thats for sure ::) ::)

Regards, Tony

[Derek Bullock]

Isn't the number of licenses the issue here. Less licenses = less pro fisherman.

The Govt controls the number of licenses issued but a fisherman can sell his license if he wishes.

In these cases the pro fisherman sells his license back to the Govt (one less license out there as the Govt will retain it) so the pro fisherman goes out and buys someone elses license. The guy he buys the license from is now no longer a pro fisherman so there are no extra pro fisherman and no extra licenses.

If that is the case it doesnt matter who owns the license as there are still fewer licenses. Wasnt that the reasoning behind the buyback - less licenses.

So this is nothing more than someone making a good business deal and the articles in the Townsville Bulletin nothing more than sensational journalism.

My thoughts anyway.


Derek

[agnes_jack]

Derek
So why didn't the government buy the $10'000 liscence instead of the $100,000 ones!

# # # # # # # #Regards, Tony

[Draco]

good point derek,
but think about the amount of licences out there that will be bought back for quite a large amount of $$$ , when it isnt reducing the fishing effort at all ?,,, if the person that sold the licence to the " bought out pro" for quite a cheap sum for the reason that maybe the licence holder didnt qualify to be bought out... then how many other licence holders out there that arent pro's are going to sell them to bought out fishers whom will then keep on fishing ? ,,, it is true , it was a great business deal for them ,, in the end its just a heap of wasted money , and keeping the same amount of pro's on the water.

it will only reduce the licences to the same amount of full time pro's. There will still be a lot of licences out there that wont be bought back.

my 2 bobs worth anyway !

[Daintreeboy]

Derek is onto it here. If a few pro's are making some quick bucks during this process, good on em (lucky buggers). Hopefully the buyback scheme is reducing the overall amount of licenses around so is therefore working. To me it doesn't matter if a pro get compensation then buys another license again and continues on, as long as the overall numbers are down and catch quotas accordingly, it's worked.
Cheers, Mark.

[Derek Bullock]

There are most likely thousands of reasons why those guys didnt sell to the Govt. If the Govt were offerring to buy licenses at $100,000 and someone chooses to sell for $10,000, they are either totally dumb or thats all that particular license is worth.

Remember a lot of people out there dont trust the Govt so wouldn't sell to them in a fit yet would be happy to sell to another person.

Don't have the answers on what your asking Tony but look at it from a business perspective. Someone sees an opportunity to sell a business for $100,000 and makes a healthy profit. Being thats the only industry that person knows well they see an opportunity to buy back into the industry at a lower level.

Seems reasonable to me.


Derek

[Draco]

seems quite reasonable to me too, business wise ,,, cant blame them for doing it , the thing that annoys me its just they claim it will reduce the fishing effort , when quite publicly it hasnt shown that , with regards to the fishery its just reckless use of our ( taxpayer ) money !....

In the end they will have a heap of licences bought back , all good there , but all pro's left out there with the cheap licences , well they are going to keep on doing what GBRMPA was supposed to be trying to stop. ?

[agnes_jack]

As I said earlier in this post they would be mad not to cash in on it,I am not holding the blame against the pro's. I just don't see what the government has achieved by paying out that money. I was under the immpression that the buy-back money was supposed to be used to help these guy's get out of the industry without too much financial hardship, not just give them a free lotto win!
The same result (less licenses) could be achieved at way less cost.

Regards, Tony

[Mad_Barry]

From what I understand, the buyout figure of each pro was based on their recent turnover, hence, an active fisherman showing good figures got top $.

There are a lot of licences still out there being held, but for whatever reason, they were not actively fishing or running a business with them, so they weren't worth much under the buyback program.

The end result, as shown, an active fisherman could take up the buyback option & get top dollar, then buy a licence back of an inactive pro for bugger all.

Of course there's now less licences out the Derek, but we (as the taxpayer) allowed GRUMPA to spend a bucket load of money, for basically no reduction in fishing pressure, just shuffling licences around and lining a few guys pockets.

You can call that reasonable if you wish, I'd call it downright irresponsible.

Wasn't this about reducing fishing pressure ?

You can make it sound as good as you like, as no doubt the official line from GRUMPA will also need looking at through rose coloured glasses. #

[Derek Bullock]

Does anyone know for sure on this ......

It is my understanding that a fishing license allows a pro fisher to conduct a particular type fishing activity restricted to a certain region or area.

From what I understand a pro fisher cant fish in Moreton Bay or the Great Sandy Straits with a license granted for the Cairns District.

If that is the case then GBRMPA have dont the right thing.


Derek

[Daintreeboy]

Ultimately the actual fishing pressure needs to be reduced and hopefully this exercise has done so, can't quite follow here whether it actually has. Looks like a few people exploited the government during this exercise but that's their fault for not covering all the bases, typical really.
Cheers, Mark.

[dfox]

Derek- the liciences that were most sought after were east coast barra net symbols. The quoted prices on this thread seem inacurate to what ive heard from people who sold them.
Most of these liciences are worth a lot more.
Pro's working these areas also suffered from this stuff up.
Pro's that decided to hang onto there licience and not put it up for purchace did so with the understanding that there fello pro's would no longer be competing for the same resource. Now these handful of fishermen find themselves still fishing the same locations along side cashed up pro's that shouldnt have been permitted to resume back there.
Sure there is less liciences on the east coast of this symbol.
All liciences have a history of total yearly catches and areas that it was taken, liciences arent cheep and i would expect an east coast barra symbol would exceed a lousy $10 000, im not sure of the current values but something like $50 000 plus sounds more accurate...foxy

[Gazza]

Isn't the number of licenses the issue here. Less licenses = less pro fisherman.

Derek ,you ain't stupid ,but that's stupid :P

Mate , "the issue" is TONNAGE/TAC Reduction

I'M happy , that a QLD rfl ,hasn't worn that BS cost.... ,of ZERO? tonnage reduction.

Make me wrong...please!!

[Draco]

something also that i have been made aware of , is that back during the 80's , early 90's , getting a netting licence was easy as getting your speedboat drivers licence.

Im not sure which government it was , either under hawke or keating , cane farmers were given barra licences to help them create a steady income during the quiet parts of the cane season. Now i dont know for sure on this , maybe someone can quote me wrong ?..... but if thats true , then there would be shitloads of licences kicking around out there. Now to a cane farmer or someone else who holds one of these licences , but isnt using it , and cant be bought back for good money under the buy back scheme would be laughing as well seeing they will have the bought out pro's wanting to buy the licences off them.


The whole idea of the buy back scheme was to reduce fishing pressure , simply it hasnt , GBRMPA has stuffed up with this loop hole and one would think they would be doing something to fix this asap. But it appears not ? :-/

[kc]

Lots of you are partly right but no one seems to have the whole deal

The issues are in dot point.

*There is no cap or quota on East Coast Barra fishery.
* Licenses offered up under the Structural adjustment package (a package/compensation designed/intended to help people/pros adjust to life after fishing were typically those of the greatest catch rates: therefore most value.
* Those taking the payout: intended to have them adjust to life after fishing, have purchase East Coast barra license only being partially used or those used by inefficient/lazy/unskilled/part time commercial fishers and as such had much lower catch rates and much lower value
* These licenses are at times referred to as latent capacity....a "buzz word" amongst fisheries managers.
* A "skilled/hard working" pro, taking a payout, can then buy a latent permit and go straight back to catching the same amount as he was before....as such the reduction in effort is just the small amount being taken by this latent permit holder.
* The comment about buying out the latent permits at a rate of 10 for every $100K is very valid. Couple this with a catch quota and you actually have a real reduction...a la what the QLD Government has done with the live trout trade....pity we can't afford our own fish anymore but that is a whole different story.
* It is also highly possible that a "cashed up"" hard working/skilled pro now has the financial wherewithall to buy better equipment, employ more staff and fish even harder. This is a fishery not capped in any way...the harder and smarter you work..the more barra you catch.

Was this a cock-up???

From a TFPQ perspective...........ABSOLUTELY.

Did we expect anything better.....NOT FOR A SECOND!

Regards

KC

[Draco]

Well said KC.

I feel it is a cock up , because in the end of this story was there any need to pay them out ?. It hasnt changed anything for the fishery. Its just made the pro's more cashed up , and as KC said , more money , better equipment , more employee's , working harder and smarter, equals more barra. Not to mention keeping a large number of pro's that will now be working in a smaller area ? competeing with recreational anglers thanks to the yellow zones that dont extend into rivers and creeks.

This is where i thought GBRMPA would be coming into it ,, to " MANAGE " the fishery.

Instead they have just given away cash for licences that were held by big time pro fishers , whom have now bought dorment licences held by "joe blow" who dont use them ? to continue thier lively hood.

The monster has reared its ugly head. !!

[cooky]

someone mentioned "commercial reality" that a fisherman would look at this as a good opportunity. In the commercial sector "buying / selling businesses" RESTRAINT OF TRADE clauses are almost expected (probably 90+% of businesses sold would have a restraint of trade) - usually consisting of both TIME, BUSINESS TYPE, DISTANCE. eg. 24 months, Commercial fishing, 70kms radius from current license.

I can't understand why restraint of trade clauses weren't added - because these really are business sales.

Unfortunately the people at GBRMPA most likely didn't think about it, because they're not experienced at selling businesses. I'd say it was a stuff up. idiots

[CFisher]

Hello fellow fisher-folk!

I would just like to correct a few pieces of mis-information contained in both the Townsville Bulletin article and some of the posts here.

The RAP buy out of commercial fishing licences only bought out licences that had significant catch history within areas closed by the new zoning.

56 net licences with catch history on the east coast were removed by the RAP buyout.

Licences with little or no catch history were not purchased as these licences will be removed by the QFS Removal of Latent Net Fishery Licences Policy (see below for more detail).

Some of the fishers who sold their netting licences are looking to buy new licences. The fishers I personally know who are attempting to re-enter the fishery are looking to buy reef fish or Spanish mackerel licences. They are not looking to buy another net licence.

The value of a netting licence prior to RAP was around $40-50K. The market value is now around $70-80K.

There are no licences being bought and sold for the reported $10-20K.

The aforementioned QFS Policy is currently dealing with the latent effort referred to by KC. If a net licence did not record 3,000kg of catch between April 1998 and April 2002, they will not be renewed by the QFS. So this policy is effectively removing the latent effort from the east coast so it cannot re-enter the fishery as reported.

This QFS Policy will remove approximately 40% of the netting licences on the east coast.

So after the RAP buyout and the QFS Policy has run its course, there will be considerably less netting licences remaining on the Queensland east coast. Hence the current higher market value for netting licences.

The article spawning this thread is nothing more than sensationalised journalism.

For the record I am a commercial fisherman based in Townsville. I net and crab for 6 months of the year, and fish Spanish mackerel and reef fish for the remaining 6 months.

Cheers
Andy.

One more point ……..

Although the east coast barramundi (or net) fishery is not capped by quota, the fishery is tightly managed by restrictions on number of nets, length and mesh size. There is also the 3 month spawning closure, weekend closure on netting in rivers and creeks, and following RAP and the GBRCMP (State zoning) many many area closures.

The RAP buyout and the QFS Policy will significantly reduce the number of netting licences on the east coast. This will without doubt result in a significant drop in the catches recorded by the net fishery in future years.

[agnes_jack]

Thanks for straightening that out Andy.
I spose we shouldn't take what we read so seriously ::)

Regards, Tony

[whiteman]

Andy

So how did two pros operating north of Townsville in unrestricted zones sell their licences so easily? Both of these guys were part time (one retired actually). Both received very good money and made extra selling their fishing hardware. If you know Townsville pro fishos you should know who I'm describing.

[nulla]

Andy

Thanks for some info from the commercial perspective. It would be good to get more of your views (on gill netting in particular).

How many licences exist and what is the 'average' catch. What percentage of the avereage gill netter's income comes from barra? Would the commercial industry support a quota - given that the size was reasonable, and would they support a much narrower geographic restriction on the licence eg east coast be broken up into smaller regions?

Looking at barra in particular I note the DPI info states in 2000, 205 boats reported a catch of 225 tonnes barra for an average of 1.05 tonnes each. If the 56 licences bought out were average fishers, that amounts to about 56 tonne of barra but still leaves 149 boats netting for barra who could 'make up for this'.

The point is if the best fishermen sell their existing licence and then buy licences that were not catching much the total take will not change much. Even if half the boats left the industry 100 boats only have to catch 2.25 tonne each for the total barra catch to remain unchanged. I wouldn't think it would be hard for a good netter to catch 2.25 tonne of barra in a season.

Would be great to hear your thoughts on this

Nulla

[CFisher]

Whiteman,

I am pretty sure I know one of the pros to which you refer.

The history of catch considered was throughout the time period April 1998 to April 2002. Most of the fishers I know who operate along the northern beaches also fish in other areas throughout the year, or alternatively lease their licences out to others who fish in different areas throughout the year.

Two of the licences bought out in the Townsville region were owned by people with more than one licence, and often the second licence was leased out to other fishers who worked in other areas.

Also worth considering is that the buyout process gets a little more complicated when fisheries other than inshore net are considered. A licence bought out may have had net history only in areas unaffected by the RAP zoning, however the licence may have also had Spanish mackerel or reef fish quota that was also targeted by the buyout process. In such a case, two birds have been killed with the one stone so to speak. The licence has been bought out because the price was right for the purchase of reef quota and net fishery licences.

Just as an aside, 10% of reef quota and Spanish mackerel quota was bought out during the process.

[Mad_Barry]

Andy,

Good to see your input on here.

[Kerry]

....The article spawning this thread is nothing more than sensationalised journalism....

Your not wrong there and this sensationalistic trend does appear to be on the increase. Whats got into journo's these days, they bored, inexperienced, don't have anything else to write about or simply don't/can't and won't tell it for what it is.

Some maybe have no idea what they are reporting about anyway.
#

Cheers, Kerry.

[Draco]

Bloody good to see some input from a commercial fisherman.

And after reading the last handfull of posts, there are some intresting points that show it was maybe sensationalised journalisim.
Maybe the pros that were talked about in the article could have a bit of biff with the publishers.?

[devocean]

In the end there are still to many pros anyway and dont give me this crap about domestic seafood prices will rise because that is crap all the live trout caught in my area go straight overseas. I was in the back of the pro shop th other day they had over 2200 live trout in the tanks and not one of those fish will ever be eaten by an Australian unless you go to Hongkong.

[Draco]

To me it still seems as though there will be just as many pro's on the job after the buyout as there was before the buyout?.. doesnt matter if they change from netting barra to a different licence,, there is still pressure on fish stocks.

[kc]

Yes there are maybe too many pro's but this is a regulation issue.............not a individual issue.

The Government made overnight millionaires of the 350 commercial fishers with a history in the live trout trade on 1st July.......just like it did with the Abalone divers, Tuna fishermen and cray fishers in years gone by..............all in the name of "balance of payments".

These guys where just in the right place at the right time and good luck to them........and bad luck for the fish.and "us".

No use just whinging about it.......you should expect better for your tax dollar than the inadaquacies of the current system.

Will you get better??..........depends on wether the government ever stops taking the rec fishing vote for granted!!

KC

[bugman]

Gang I've been away and missed this thread.

From memory (bit hazy) the QFS Removal of Latent Net Fishery Licences Policy that Andy mentioned will remove around 400 netting licenses or endorsements from the Queensland fishery.

Fisherman had to prove a total of 2,000kg of catch between April 1998 and April 2002 or a minimum of I think 500kg in 3 of those years.

The whole plan was to remove the "latent effort" KC's buzzword so serious management can take place. There was little point in managing those fishers already in the industry when there was this massive unkown out there that could enter at a late date and mess all the figures around.

Once that has taken place I think more management tools will be put in place in order to ensure greater regulation of both pros and rec fishers going forward.

As for the journalism - well - I read with interest the article came from a weekend paper - I say no more.

Bugman

[CFisher]

Nulla,

In regards to the remaining fishers increasing their annual catch in future years such that overall east coast catch levels remain constant - yes in theory it is possible, but in reality my opinion is it would be highly unlikely.

Most east coast fishers who land barramundi throughout the year do so as part of a diversified fishing operation. Much like the one I run. They fish for barramundi for a certain period of the year then move onto crab, mackerel, or reef fish. It is a very different operation to Gulf or NT barramundi where most of those fishers target barramundi for 6 to 8 months of the year.

The QFS are the folk to question about the number of barramundi licences left on the east coast (N2 endorsements), which is exactly what I did last week. No definitive answer at this stage as the removal of latent effort policy still has another 4 months to run. It is something I will certainly be chasing up, maybe at the next meeting of the inshore fin fish MAC.

In reality, the number of fishers selling their netting licences through the RAP process and buying back in would be all but a handful - I guess at no more than 5 or 6 on the whole east coast. The large majority of fishers who sold their licences have genuinely left the industry - they will not be back. So the potential impact of a "cashed-up pro" buying another licence and better gear to catch more fish is an unlikely scenario.

Contrary, to the increase in effort proposed by KC, most east coast barramundi fishers operate by themselves and occassionally with 1 deckhand. The limit of 3 nets in the water at any time, and their associated length restrictions effectively limits fishing capacity. Employing more people will not help you catch more barramundi, rather it will cost your business more money.

Catch quotas - I would ask why they are needed? Quotas are generally introduced if there are concerns about the sustainability of current catch levels. Quota could be introduced to stop any further creep in annual landings or could be used to reduce current catches. I personally do not see a concern with current catch levels of the east coast net fishery. I would be very surprised if catch levels do not fall in the coming years due to the QFS Policy and RAP buyout. I would argue that a time of consolidation is needed now, and lets see what catches do over the next 2 years.

Area restrictions - some fishers would support them (I do), while some are adamantly opposed. I am personally rather proactive in what I do. If I am working a particular area I will introduce myself to any recreational fishers I see and let them know what I am doing. I personally believe that the best way forward for the industry is to take a proactive approach at the local level. With commercial fishers working with local levels of government, management, enforcement agencies, and of course recreational fisher representatives (if they were so inclined). Often decisions are made in Brisbane about what is best for regional centres, and I believe that a core group of locals could do a better job.

Anyway, hope that answers most of the questions in your post

Cheers
Andy.

[kc]

Well put Andy, Your input is very benificial to this and any other debates regarding commercial/recreational issues.

While I don't share your optimism in regards falling catch rates and or reduced Catch per unit of effort time will tell.

The buyout of latent effort is a great step, both for recreational and for commercial operators actually working the fishery...what is a pity is that more commercial operators don't take your attitude towards regional communication and too many recreational guys just rally to any call to "Ban the nets".this country needs a well managed commercial fishery just as socially and economically it needs it rec sector to remain strong and viable.

The fisheries arm of the Queensland Government seems to be doing a good job while the EPA is merrily trying to white ant it.

KC

[devocean]

Andy I wish there were more pros like yourself. Do a lot for there reputation

[luigi]

In reality, the number of fishers selling their netting licences through the RAP process and buying back in would be all but a handful - I guess at no more than 5 or 6 on the whole east coast. The large majority of fishers who sold their licences have genuinely left the industry - they will not be back. So the potential impact of a "cashed-up pro" buying another licence and better gear to catch more fish is an unlikely scenario.

Andy.

Aaahhh so, now we have our commercial fishing friend conceding that some commercial fishers have re-entered the industry after having their licences bought out by the Government.

So perhaps the press articles weren’t sensational journalism after all????

To me, this whole thread makes interesting, if not at times amusing reading. To maybe put things into some sort of perspective, I make the following points:
· Even if the RAP buy-back has been rorted by only 5 or 6 pro’s, this could represent some $500,000 of taxpayer dollars.
· Whilst apparently not unlawful under the Act, it certainly goes against the intent of the Act & that is to reduce the commercial catch amount & effort.
· They are in fact, ripping off the Australian taxpayer.
· Frankly, this whole RAP process seems flawed from whichever way you look at it. It is a sad indictment on the GBRMPA, Commonwealth Fisheries & relevant lawmakers. It appears to be nothing short of window dressing IMHO.
· To produce a Law which allows obvious loopholes to rort the process is scandalous & amateurish to say the least.
· To think that catch amount/rates can be reduced by reducing the number of licences is ludicrous considering the amount of unused or latent effort attached to existing licences. For goodness sake, even Qld DPI & F have come to realise that a TAC (Total Allowable Catch) or similar, is necessary for good fishery management.

I reckon that it’s in the interests of all fishers both rec & commercial to make these d*** heads come up with a system which will allow ecologically sustainable use & in the case of the commercials, a financially sustainable use of the fishery also.

[CFisher]

Lou

You are getting a little carried away with yourself.

I know ZERO fishers who have sold out to buy back in. No conspiracy theories here. The 5 to 6 possibilities were suggested to make a point that I gather you have missed.

You have not read the post very well making such a comment about latent effort. Read again - the QFS Policy is removing latent effort from the net fishery.

The article was sensationalised journalism. The facts are these - NO Townsville net fisher who sold their licence through the RAP buyout has bought another to re-enter the fishery, NO licences are available for purchase at $10 to 20K.

And Lou, I will be a friendly commercial fisherman whether you like it or not

Cheers
Andy

[luigi]

G’day Andy,

Firstly, I had no intention of being facetious with the use of the word “friend” – sorry you have taken umbrage at its use.

As far as the handful of rorters (my descriptive word) are concerned, mate, you made the statement not me. Have another read of your statement that I quoted & as far as I can see, it was basically unqualified – where this happened is immaterial from a reporting point of view or from a fishery viewpoint.

Re latent effort, yes I am aware of the QFS policy. Perhaps you can explain how any fishing licence can have no unused/latent effort at all times. Surely different operators will put in more effort than others? How does this regulate or control the amount of fish taken from the fishery?

I repeat, the use of a TAC system seems to me to be the best & most practical management tool available.

[Draco]

"The article was sensationalised journalism. The facts are these - NO Townsville net fisher who sold their licence through the RAP buyout has bought another to re-enter the fishery, NO licences are available for purchase at $10 to 20K."


Just wish to add a fact that i know , but CANNOT prove it on here ... # but i do know of 2 here in townsville that have re-bought into the same licence that they were bought out of. # #I know this for myself as i have seen them with my own eyes. #

Im not going to name names , #and in fact they arent doing anything illegal.

Just adding this for reference.

[Gazza]

Lou ,Andy & Draco...
Andy ,you "wish" to be friendly, and I do wish you 'n family a prosperous 2005...
Draco, you have(2) ,known to you ,of re-entering the sellers market.

Lou ....TAC!! is the go [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] ,if we supposedly must-have imposed bag/size for EVERY specie ,then collectively comms. MUST come into line to be profitable(via licence availability) and maintain the resource ,well below the effective biomass.

or the guys dicking around with Recfishos bag/size should be SHOT!! [smiley=2thumbsup.gif] ;D ;D

[Draco]

couldnt agree more with the TAC. And yes , its only 2 of them known by me.. 2 aint much , but one wonders how many others will take up this same approach ?.

This has been an intresting discussion , id like to see this as more of a discussion and hopefully not by others as a whinge.

What ever we will say aint going to change much as what is happening now , I am still waiting anxiously to see the future-eye survey that was conducted on GBRMPA on how they went about the public consultation process.

There have been some great ideas posted on here that dont have " Loop Holes "..

[CFisher]

No worries Lou - just having a grumpy day and read your post as having a direct jab at me.

Draco, I would be interested in who these folks are, perhaps you could PM me their names?

Cheers
Andy

[Draco]

As much as i would love to let you know , i dont wish to start something that might come back around one day ... # it will also prove nothing as has been said before , they arent doing anything illegal. # I wish to prefer concentrating on the bigger picture....

Its not those 2 commercial fishermen that annoy me , its more the government that makes these decisions.

Andy if you are a responsible commercial fisherman , i applaude you on doing so , as said in previous posts #i wish too that there were more of them like you. I feel that there are better ways to manage the fishery for commercial and recreational anglers. I certianly know and understand how much it means to commercial fishers to make a living.

Once again , i would love to tell you who they are, #but in this day and age its not a #wise thing.

[CFisher]

No problem Draco, though I would not have asked if I thought it might get you into trouble.

I am interested to know because I still can not confirm any fisher who has sold out and bought back in. There is one in the Burdekin region who sold out and has leased a licence to continue fishing for time being. There were a couple of licences bought from fishermen in the Townsville region and these fishers are still working, not because they bought back in but because they owned more than 1 licence in the first place.

The QSIA (Queensland Seafood Industry Association) will be meeting in Townsville later this week to discuss a few issues including this one. If any fishers have sold out to buy back in, it will come out in the wash sooner or later.

Just for the record the QSIA on behalf of commercial fishermen argued strongly with the federal government about this potential problem when the buyout package was being put together 6 to 12 months ago - the need to include a no re-entry clause. The QSIA even suggested to the gov that the buy back include the purchase (for a minimal price) of boats and gears that could have then been donated to countries in need such as Solomon Islands, PNG (this was before the tsunami). The fed gov did not want a bar of it unfortunately. Apparently, the idea was good but legally it was not possible.

Cheers
Andy

[Gazza]

There were a couple of licences bought from fishermen in the Townsville region and these fishers are still working, not because they bought back in but because they owned more than 1 licence in the first place.

The QSIA (Queensland Seafood Industry Association) will be meeting in Townsville later this week to discuss a few issues including this one. If any fishers have sold out to buy back in, it will come out in the wash sooner or later.

Just for the record the QSIA on behalf of commercial fishermen argued strongly with the federal government about this potential problem when the buyout package was being put together 6 to 12 months ago - the need to include a no re-entry clause.

Andy ,
Wouldn't that be self-regulation ??? ??? ,do you guys need the Guv't , to ensure some guy with 2,3, 4 ??? lics. , didn't abuse the funding to the detriment of some "poor" bastard ,who ,wouldv'e genuinely given up "effort" and history ,to REDUCE the take ,or make remaining Pro's more viable ,economically and sustainably ;)

$honeypot$ comes to mind..... :-X

[luigi]

Andy & Draco,

I seem to recollect the Minister calling for a search of departmental records to identify any abuse of the buyback system. He called for the info soon after the press got hold of it so by now the results should be in his hands.

Of course, thats not to say he will release the details to the public. We are usually treated like mushrooms (kept in the dark & fed BS) but it would be nice to see the occasional exception ay. ::)

[blaze]

Hi All
Been following this thread a bit, interesting
What they did in tassie was
C class licence without catch history were cancelled and the rest made non transferable
B class I believe those without catch history were also cancelled or reduced to c class (not 100% on that)
A class not sure,
but it took a lot of licences out and did not cost $
They also increased restrictions on the licences the ones left
cheers
blaze
Maybe cause we have 2 heads we may be smarter

[Draco]

i agree on what has been said since my last post , some good ideas there.

I would hope to see some changes made after they look at whats going on with those records of abuse to the buyback system

They brought in these regulations with the thought in their heads that the ALL commercial fishers were going to be in the spirit of staying out once bought out..

[bugman]

Gazza,

"or the guys dicking around with Recfishos bag/size should be SHOT!!"

Will that be firing squad or single bullet in the back of the head. Just wondering so I can inform the family ;)

[Gazza]

Gazza,

"or the guys dicking around with Recfishos bag/size should be SHOT!!"

Will that be firing squad or single bullet in the back of the head. Just wondering so I can inform the family #;) # #
CRAB-BAIT!!...nothing less #;D