kc
01-02-2005, 05:24 AM
For interested members and others the following letter has been forwarded to Nick Heath, senior advisor to Minister Boyle and follows a lengthy conversation with Mr Heath last week.
30th January 2005
Dear Nick,
Thankyou for your time recently discussing the issues important to our members and supporters regarding the rezoning of the Great Sandy Straights.
It is encouraging to see the state Governments commitment to protecting this important area for both current and future generations but several aspects of the draft plan require clarification. I am also pleased that the EPA acknowledges the public consultation phases of RAP were not as well accepted as they should have been and that the state EPA wishes to have a more open dialog with the public.
1. What is the actual intent of the restrictions being placed on recreational fishers reducing their effort to one line one hook in yellow zone? It is at odds with the method of fishing undertaken by the vast majority of users and, we believe, as has been the case in NQ, it will turn people away from the sport in large numbers or result in regular visitors to the area going elsewhere, with similar impacts on local businesses.
As discussed you will be aware that the structural adjustment package, offered by the Federal Government in regards RAP has, to date, paid some $32M to commercial fishers in NQ. Respected Auditors KPMG have been working with the recreational industry and will soon lodge the first in a series of claims on behalf of the recreational fishing industry which will significantly dwarf the amount paid to date.
It has been noted that, quite rightly, the State Government did not offer any compensation in regards its complimentary zoning legislation as these closures mirrored, and were caused by, a Federal issue. This is not the case with the Great Sandy Straights however and the EPA and Government needs to be put on notice that the impacts of aggressive closures and yellow zoning are real, measurable and do have a dramatic effect on the businesses which are supported by recreational fishers. Clearly compensation is a last resort, not a first one and it is the hope of TFPQ that we can work with the EPA towards a more sensible and mutually beneficial outcome.
2. It is noted with some surprise that restrictions are being imposed on recreational fishers in the proposed yellow zone but net fishing is to continue. This would appear to be at odds with the reasoning behind the yellow zone which articulates issues such as turtle and dugong protection. What is the point of placing restrictions on recreational fishing, a large economic driver for this community, while allowing commercial net fishing to continue?
3. I am pleased that your response to the question of moving the proposed green zones to areas less used by recreational and particularly the recreational charter fishing fleet was so positive. We are working with charter operators to come up with a plan which both achieves the 4% green zone protection levels and still allows these operators to continue in business.
As discussed the current draft locations effectively destroy the entire fishing grounds of some of these operators.
In closing Nick, I would request the following on behalf of our members and supporters.
1. An extension of the public consultation phase for an additional 30 days so TFPQ can lodge a fully researched submission on the Great Sandy Straights.
2. Provision of any information and research which shows a benefit of the one line one hook policy in the yellow zones as opposed to other fisheries management methods such as bag limits and seasonal breeding closures.
3. Any data showing fish stocks, commercial UPE for this region, or other studies undertaken on the health of the Great Sandy Straights fishery.
4. Any data relevant to turtle and dugong populations in the Great Sandy Straights, particularly any death or injury data including methods of death or injury.
5. Any data relating to seagrass beds in the Great Sandy Straights.
6. Any socio-economic studies carried out by Government as to the expected impacts on the businesses and community who participate in the sport of recreational fishing.
TFPQ, as you are aware, has a growing membership base and achieved a very significant result in the last Federal election. It was born entirely as a result of RAP and a general feeling within many of the 800,000 strong recreational fishing community in Qld that Governments at all levels were ignoring our input.
We have been encouraged to date following discussions with several ministers and MP’s that this is not the case in Qld and look forward to working with you towards a mutually beneficial outcome.
Regards
Kevin Collins
Chairman
30th January 2005
Dear Nick,
Thankyou for your time recently discussing the issues important to our members and supporters regarding the rezoning of the Great Sandy Straights.
It is encouraging to see the state Governments commitment to protecting this important area for both current and future generations but several aspects of the draft plan require clarification. I am also pleased that the EPA acknowledges the public consultation phases of RAP were not as well accepted as they should have been and that the state EPA wishes to have a more open dialog with the public.
1. What is the actual intent of the restrictions being placed on recreational fishers reducing their effort to one line one hook in yellow zone? It is at odds with the method of fishing undertaken by the vast majority of users and, we believe, as has been the case in NQ, it will turn people away from the sport in large numbers or result in regular visitors to the area going elsewhere, with similar impacts on local businesses.
As discussed you will be aware that the structural adjustment package, offered by the Federal Government in regards RAP has, to date, paid some $32M to commercial fishers in NQ. Respected Auditors KPMG have been working with the recreational industry and will soon lodge the first in a series of claims on behalf of the recreational fishing industry which will significantly dwarf the amount paid to date.
It has been noted that, quite rightly, the State Government did not offer any compensation in regards its complimentary zoning legislation as these closures mirrored, and were caused by, a Federal issue. This is not the case with the Great Sandy Straights however and the EPA and Government needs to be put on notice that the impacts of aggressive closures and yellow zoning are real, measurable and do have a dramatic effect on the businesses which are supported by recreational fishers. Clearly compensation is a last resort, not a first one and it is the hope of TFPQ that we can work with the EPA towards a more sensible and mutually beneficial outcome.
2. It is noted with some surprise that restrictions are being imposed on recreational fishers in the proposed yellow zone but net fishing is to continue. This would appear to be at odds with the reasoning behind the yellow zone which articulates issues such as turtle and dugong protection. What is the point of placing restrictions on recreational fishing, a large economic driver for this community, while allowing commercial net fishing to continue?
3. I am pleased that your response to the question of moving the proposed green zones to areas less used by recreational and particularly the recreational charter fishing fleet was so positive. We are working with charter operators to come up with a plan which both achieves the 4% green zone protection levels and still allows these operators to continue in business.
As discussed the current draft locations effectively destroy the entire fishing grounds of some of these operators.
In closing Nick, I would request the following on behalf of our members and supporters.
1. An extension of the public consultation phase for an additional 30 days so TFPQ can lodge a fully researched submission on the Great Sandy Straights.
2. Provision of any information and research which shows a benefit of the one line one hook policy in the yellow zones as opposed to other fisheries management methods such as bag limits and seasonal breeding closures.
3. Any data showing fish stocks, commercial UPE for this region, or other studies undertaken on the health of the Great Sandy Straights fishery.
4. Any data relevant to turtle and dugong populations in the Great Sandy Straights, particularly any death or injury data including methods of death or injury.
5. Any data relating to seagrass beds in the Great Sandy Straights.
6. Any socio-economic studies carried out by Government as to the expected impacts on the businesses and community who participate in the sport of recreational fishing.
TFPQ, as you are aware, has a growing membership base and achieved a very significant result in the last Federal election. It was born entirely as a result of RAP and a general feeling within many of the 800,000 strong recreational fishing community in Qld that Governments at all levels were ignoring our input.
We have been encouraged to date following discussions with several ministers and MP’s that this is not the case in Qld and look forward to working with you towards a mutually beneficial outcome.
Regards
Kevin Collins
Chairman