PDA

View Full Version : Nomination of Senate Candidates



kc
18-06-2004, 11:52 AM
Nominations are sought for suitable persons to stand for pre-selection for the senate ticket of The Fishing Party (Qld).

Applicants will have a high level of both written and oral communication skills, be highly experienced in matters relating to recreational fishing at all levels and have a history of involvement in clubs/committees and MAC's. Media experience would also be well regarded.

Nominations will close on June 30th, and pre-selection, as outlined in the party constiution, will take place on or before July 3rd.

Applicants deemed to be suitable for consideration will be provided with video conferencing facilities to facilitate any interview process.

For additional information please contact Kevin Collins. Chairman. The Fishing Party (Qld) email kc@whitsunday.net.au

MY-TopEnder
18-06-2004, 12:22 PM
He hasn't been around for a while... (maybe the mafia got him) but i nominate Gary Fooks.

kc
19-06-2004, 11:58 AM
Just sticking this one back up the page so it gets seen by a few more people.

KC

rickraider
19-06-2004, 03:33 PM
what does the fishing party stand for besides fishing.maybe enviromental issues or roads or low income families or diesel trucks blowing crap into the air. i must have missed the post on what the fishing party stood for .please explain ??? ???

sharkbait
19-06-2004, 05:44 PM
rickraider, email the above address, and you will be provided with a wealth of info, rather than have someone type it all out again.

Kris.

kc
19-06-2004, 06:11 PM
Thanks Kris,

If you want to know more, send me an email. I am getting RSI from the amount of words I have spewed forth in the last 3 months.....could have written a bloody book. This post is really part of the constitutional process for those who have an interest and involvement in the organisation.

One regular "ausfisher" has "stuck his toe in the water"already, which is great. As a group, you guys are generally more involved, informed and active than any other group of rec fishers I am involved with.
You don't always agree with each other but you sure as hell never die wondering!!

So like the man said rickraider..........my email is kc@whitsunday.net.au

Regards

KC

raefpud
19-06-2004, 09:02 PM
well ur a bit late for Peter Garrett - but what about angus young from AC/DC - yeah baby

no on a serious note, is there anyone with a bit of PR pulling power like ettinghausen or old rexy hunt that might jump aboard?? have u considered contacting anyone like that to see if theyre intrested in supporting a good cause?

Brett_Hoskin
20-06-2004, 03:46 AM
As I remember the fishing party in NSW was heavily stacked by members of FCA who's methods of competition seemed old fashioned.(more fish, more weight , more better) and pro fishers.

I have not considered the Fishing Party since that time as it appeard their policies seemed too polarised.

I haven't looked at the fishing party for some time but make sure you become aware of exactly what and who they represent.

kc
20-06-2004, 05:07 AM
Times have certainly changed Brett. And we are not (yet) asking for votes, just letting those who are and have been interested in the formation of this organisation, that if they want to get involved in the next step, to let us know. I would think anyone interested in actually nominating would have a pretty good idea as to who we are, what we stand for etc.

AS we move past the process of candidate selection and commence campaigning we will make sure ausfish & every other medium of communication with rec fishers is well aware of what we stand for.....and I have to say, it is not an FCA off-shoot. If you have been following any of the green zone discussions you will have some understanding of our leanings.

Regards

KC

jockey
20-06-2004, 10:29 AM
I think the fishing party is completely opposed to green zones as fisheries management tools, and as conservation tools would put a burden of 'proof of necessity' on those wanting them (sort of the opposite of the precautionary principle). Just trying to sum it up KC, no restart the debate here.

kc
20-06-2004, 10:56 AM
Yes, I think we have kind of reached agreement here.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is controlled and managed by 2 seperate acts of parliment. These are the LAWS which govern use of the park.

The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1992, which includes a clause "Allowing reasonable use" and the Environment Protection & Biodiversity Act 1999, which says as part of clause (b) "Allowing sustainable use of the natural resource".

These are the laws. No mention of the precautionary principle within the framework of the law.

By inference, the removal of a large user group, from 30% of the park, must mean, according to the interpretation of the laws, that recreational fishing is not "reasonable" nor "sustainable". GBRMPA nor the Federal Environment Department has ever answered this question (which we have put to them), nor presented evidence to show that recreational fishing is having an unsustainable impact on the park or is an unreasonable use.

It was this ignorance of the law which was the route cause of initial problems with RAP.

REgards

KC

jockey
20-06-2004, 11:02 AM
You can fish in 67% of the marine park. I'd say they thought that was reasonable, but didn't wat to argue about it.

There was a fishermen at David Kemp's big press release who obviously asked something about rec fishing. The official record says 'inaudible question,' but Dr Kemp started saying something pretty meaningless about rec fishing. Was that you who asked the question?

kc
20-06-2004, 12:47 PM
No

KC

Kerry
20-06-2004, 01:07 PM
You can fish in 67% of the marine park. I'd say they thought that was reasonable, but didn't wat to argue about it.

BS, I'd suggest you think again sunshine, 33% green zones and as usual pricks like you completely ignore ALL the other extra categories.

67% is what is not green zones but includes ALL the other zones. Get your facts right sunshine instead of misinformed BS.

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
20-06-2004, 02:18 PM
I thought you could fish in the other zones?

Robbo_Townsville
20-06-2004, 03:21 PM
Not in all of them buddy.

Pink = No go represents 1% of reef
Green = No take 33%
Orange = No take 1%
Olive Green = Only trolling 2.9%
Yellow 1.5%

jockey
20-06-2004, 03:32 PM
So 35% is completely no-take?

Robbo_Townsville
20-06-2004, 03:37 PM
For recreational users. Yes, not sure about the commercial guys.

kc
20-06-2004, 07:39 PM
The other little gem you forgot to mention guys is the "reef protection markers", these are located in about 20% of the zones which actually allow fishing but by having reef protection markers, inside which you can not anchor, they are effectively making those areas also no fishing...if you can't anchor all you can do is drift and this is virtually impossible over coral.

Having a quick look at MPZ10, The detailed new map for the Whitsunday region and deciding I wanted to have a day out fishing the likely spots around the Islands. It was a typical winters day, 15 knot SE winds, clear skies and warm enough to be worth living up here.
As a fisho with a half a clue,I wanted to float out a livey for a spanish while I fished the bottom for a trout I would want deep edges and , I would have to avoid, green zones, yellow zones, areas with reef protection markers and would want to fish the NW edges to avoid the sea/weather conditions. I am about to be excluded from just over 90% of all areas within a 20 nautical radius of my home port. Kind of brings home the message that the ex chairman of AMPTO sprouted when he said he would like fishing banned in 90% of the park.

AS far as things go here, he just about got his way. It is a whole lot more than 30% Jockey, you have to be here to appreciate that and this is part of the reason for the general hostility towards your continuing defence of the RAP/Green zone debacle from guys who have to live with this. Unless you are actually experiencing what is really going on you can not fully understand it.

KC

jockey
21-06-2004, 09:50 AM
I'm just as critical of it as you are. I even told everyone about the liess etc. I think they should be used as fisheries management tools to make things easier for rec fishos, not harder. That is what I have been trying to promote. People just don't seem to see the difference between what I am proposing and what you have on the GBR.

PinHead
21-06-2004, 10:55 AM
"BS, I'd suggest you think again sunshine, 33% green zones and as usual pricks like you completely ignore ALL the other extra categories."

Kerry, would I be correct in assuming from the above quote that ya really don't like jockey all that much...not your favorite drinking buddy huh?

KC..pick me..pick me..I can make myself known at the Members Bar in Parliament House and tell a few yarns and drink cheap piss with the rest of them.

Barrymundi
21-06-2004, 11:39 AM
So 35% is completely no-take? Jockey

Do you actually think 100% of the Marine park is fishable ?

A lot of the Marine park is just plain old open water with not fish, should we be greatfull we still have those areas to fish.

Like all numbers, they can be twisted to come to different conclusions.

Jockey please crab a map and have a look at the zones, green, pink etc, the whole picture.

Yellow Zones can be changed to Green Zone ? Yellow Zones are still restrictive,

any way, what has my rambling got to do with posting ?]

ba229
21-06-2004, 01:20 PM
I live in NSW and don't have the knowledge of the local areas in the GBR like you locals do, but can I say this...

How can you remember where you are and aren't allow to fish?

Seems f...ing confusing to me. Good luck.

jockey
22-06-2004, 01:09 PM
Wait a minute, wasn't Kerry saying that not enough actual reef was protected? Al is saying that they protected the good bits and left a lot of open water without many fish. You can't really tell from a map what are the good fishing spots. You can tell if they closed off huge areas right beside population centres though.

Here's an interesting (though largely academic) exercise:

If you were in charge of chosing the 33% of the reef to be designated as green zone, how would you have done it differently?

blaze
22-06-2004, 01:38 PM
We have 1 marine park in my local area, its in a place largely inacessable to small boats (under 25'). It was deemed to be a place of importance by scientific data. I think thats good. BUT the problem I have is with netting (both commerial and ammature) and would like to see a netting ban for 5km from any land mass in TASMANIA. I would not like to see any other areas closed completely, maybe have some closed seasons on some species. IMO netting does more damage than any form of ammature fishing.
Looking from an outside point of view the closures up there were done without a lot of thought by any one and there is certainly a lot to be said about fishing people be apathectic and while there is so much infighting by various groups of people representing the fishing public there will be no good outcomes.
I am not happy about all outcomes in my area, but understand sometimes there is a need to settle for less in one area and make gains in others.
Maybe if you guys caint change the reefr closures it is time to put a combined effort to maybe stop netting and all get behind it as a united front
there is always room for thoughts, these are my ramblings
cheers
blaze

nonibbles
23-06-2004, 07:03 AM
Back to the thread...Anybody putting their hand up for a nomination?

kc
23-06-2004, 12:48 PM
A mate of mine I fish with a bit up in weipa has coined a phrase for the way King salmon bite.

It starts with a jarring hit....followed by nothing, then (we think) a very tentitive bit of a touchup with its whisckers which is quite distinctive through braid, then a steady take.

Jim calls the touchup after the belt a "little lick"....moral of the story...we are getting a couple of "little licks".

Cheers

KC

jockey
23-06-2004, 02:13 PM
"Looking from an outside point of view the closures up there were done without a lot of thought by any one "

That's not exactly true. There was a lot of thought behind it (ask the WWF if you are interested). Its just that most of the thought was about how to protect biodiversity, not how to benefit fishing.

PinHead
23-06-2004, 04:25 PM
"(ask the WWF if you are interested)"

Is the WWF the World Wrestling Federation or the World Wildlife mob..if it is the latter I really don't give a rats what they say..this is Australia..we make the decisions..not some overseas bunch og greenies...the ones here are abd enough.

Cheech
23-06-2004, 04:44 PM
Maybe we don't care what they say,, but maybe we should have cared and we would not be on the back foot now.

The days of "shee'l be right mate" are over.

Unfortunately whether we like it or not, we need someone to watch over us.

Perhaps the fishing party??

Can I just comment though that I think that Jockey has seemed to have toned down a bit. Good on yah. We all need to be pulling in the same dirction. Is good to have someone being the devils advocate, as long as it is with good intentions.

Cheech

Gazza
23-06-2004, 05:00 PM
Here's an interesting (though largely academic) exercise:

If you were in charge of chosing the 33% of the reef to be designated as green zone, how would you have done it differently?

Yeah I'll bite Jock....... #::)

IF I was in charge of the largely academic dumbskulls , who thought they
HAD TO designate 33% of the Reef....... [smiley=bomb.gif]

I'D SACK 'EM [smiley=behead.gif] for lack of justification,
and for just picking an unscientific number [smiley=hanged.gif].......promise!! # [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

As for FishingParty candidates , they too,
don't need anywhere near 33% of votes ,too be successful. #[smiley=bomb.gif]


[smiley=guitarist.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif] [smiley=guitarist.gif] ;D

kc
23-06-2004, 09:13 PM
Jockey!! You've finally done it. Ya' got me! Pulled my chain, pressed my button, call it what you like. Up till now I always thought there was some hope. How, for f%$#^sake, can you think the WWF and biodiversity protection are behind RAP and think it was in any way designed or even as a bi-product of could it enhance fishing. Up till tonight I thought you were listening!! maybe playing devils advocate but still listening. maaate!! This was never about biodiversity protection by WWF. GBRMPA, QCC, the government or anyone else. Dont you get it?? Its about votes. If any of those pricks, yes pricks....I have tried to refrain from this type of launguage to date but like I said, ya' got me....had any credibility they would have been pushing pink zones not green zones......
Have you ever read the reasons the SSC (Sceintifics Steering Committee) put forward as the reasons we needed green zones to protect biodiversity? No!! Why am I surprised.

While they are a bit long winded, let me write them down, verbatim!

& Stop me any time you disagree with our thoughts (in brackets) on each item. Up to the brackets this is THEIR REASONS WHY WE NEEDED GREEN ZONES

1. Six of the worlds seven species of marine turtles all of which are lsited as threatened (major impacts from boat strike, inshore gill nets and traditional hunting....virtually zero impact from rec fishing, boat srike & tradtional huning will continue in green zones)
2. One of the worlds most important duging populations. (not effected by recreational fishing, boat strike and traditional hunting will continue in green zones)
3. More than 30 species of animals (not effected by recreational fishing, but any impacts will continue in green zones from tourism and general visitation)
4. 2200 species of plants, some 25% of Qld's total native plant species( not effected by recreational fishing but impacts from tourism will continue in green zones)
5.Over 1500 species of fish ( recreational impact restricted to less than 20 targeted species, less than 2% of available fish stocks are even targeted)
6. Over 1500 species of molluscs (very limited and strictly controlled effect on 1 of the 1500 species (oysters))
7. Over 1 third of the worlds soft coral and sea pencil species (Not effected by recreational fishing but a clear impact from tourism and dive operations which will continue in green zones)
8.Over 200 species of birds and one of Australia's most significant seabird rookeries (so what!! Not effected by recreational fishing and yet seabird rookeries ie Michalmeas Quay(that's THE one) remain tourism destinations in green zones, also impacted by day trippers and campers)
9. Approximately 2900 coral reefs built from 360 species of hard corals (minimal impact from recreational fishing/anchors, major impact in some areas by commercial vessel large anchors and chains, diver and snorkeller damage and this will continue to occur in green zones)
10. 800 Speciea of sea stars which is 13% of the world total (not effected by recreational fishing)
11. Over 3000 square kilometers of mangroves including 54% of the worlds mangrove biodiversioty (again, not effected by recreational fishing, pity about the mainland development)


The out of bracket words are not mine. These are the reasons the SSC and GBRMPA decide to close 100,000 square kilometers of the park to fishing......but let everything else continue. Do you get it?? It is not often I really get the shits but ya' got me.

Jockey if you still believe that this was done to protect biodiversity I am at a loss. Not even wankers like the WWF can justify their position. If they were ever seriuos they would have been pushing for pink zones (like us). The only reason we think theyl ike green zones is that it happens to be their favourite colour.

& PLEASE!! don't come back and argue this post. READ the reasons posted by the GBRMPA, SSC and take a good hard look at it. If you honestly think that green zones are going to protect biodiversity, which is their stated aim, then you are dead set f....................no. It's all right! I have calmed down!

Read enjoy and argue, as is your way! I just have to keep reminding myself this is all good practice.

KC

jockey
24-06-2004, 09:07 AM
1 There will be fewer boats in the green zones so fewer boat strikes, but yes pink zones would be better (are you allowed to travel through them?)

2 same

3 not sure what the recomendation was

4 They will be affected by the population density of target fish. That is how green zones benefit the whole ecosystem. They restore the balance. Probably the same argument on 3.

5 same as 4

6 same

7 same

8 getting pretty far removed so I agree there

9 same as 4

10 same

11 agree

The key word is resilience. Removing large quantities of a few key species upsets the balance and makes everything more susceptible to the problems that are harder to control (bleaching, runoff)

Runoff is being dealt with, just a bit slower

Tourism I don't know. I hear a lot of complaints about damage from it, and it has registered on the conservation radar. But does anyone have any measure of the extent of the damage? I thought it was just a few heavily used reefs, not everywhere like fishing effort. Plus tourists pay a lot more compared to the damage they do.



The WWF (the wildlife crew) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) have been heavily involved in setting conservation goals and strategies worldwide (including Australia). They have developed the methods used for choosing which sites to protect. I don't think fisheries management is part of that, which is why we need to have some constructive input into the process.

baldyhead
24-06-2004, 11:58 AM
This is possibly a little off topic but I feel that Jockey needs to read this submission by AMPTO as GBRMPA is FULLY AWARE that RAW UNTREATED SEWAGE is being dumped DAILY in Reef channels and also in the proposed GREEN ZONES.

Sewage Submission by Ampto



COMMENTS ON MSQ
VESSEL - SOURCED SEWAGE
REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT


Background

1. AMPTO is the peak marine tourism body in QLD and its members take more than 95% of tourists to the Great Barrier Reef. Our industry is worth over $1.5 billion per year to QLD and is one of the largest employers in the state.

2. The vessels that are owned and operated by our members range from 40m wave piecers to 7m bareboat charter vessels.

3. Our industry consists of the following main groups:

a. Day Charter.

b. Short Term Overnight (3 to 4 nights).

c. Long Range Rovers (5 to 10 nights).

d. Bareboat Charters (1 to 14 nights).

4. While this submission only deals primarily with the day charter group and specific problem areas for the other groups need to be canvassed directly from them, we have also commented on some general problem areas for those other groups.


Interest Areas

5. Nearly 100% of the day charter vessels carry over 15 passengers and are class 1 vessels.

6. In the main, we will be able to comply until 2007 when the “nil discharge” provisions will commence.

7. Most already are fitted with sewage holding tanks.




8. The most significant problem after 2007 will be lack of in port pump out facilities and the inability of councils to handle large amounts of salt water. Currently there is only one port with facilities north of Gladstone and that it Port Douglas which is still having major problems with its system.

9. Cairns City Council when sent a copy of the RIS by AMPTO simply replied – Whats this got to do with us? The new Cairns City Port project installed brackets for a pump out facility but did not install pipes, as the Cairns City Council has no plans to offer a treatment for vessel sewage.

10. For the RIS it simply state that pump out facilities will be provided by marinas and councils at no or little cost in at best naïve. There is no doubt that to install the facilities will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in each marina as well as increased costs for the council to treat it once pumped out. No rational person would believe the statement in the RIS that it would be a service provided free if you purchased fuel.

11. Long Range Rovers and the Short Term Overnight vessels will be able to comply up until 2007 when they will have special problems in that even if there is port facilities available, the size of the holding tanks needed to keep all sewage on board until the vessel returned to port would be enormous and in fact unlikely to be fitted in the space available. There would undoubtedly be a stability problem. The only solution here would be to fit a treatment system but size, cost and installation space will all be difficult problems and may well prove impossible to rectify.

12. Some of the Short Term Overnight vessels stay at sea for a month or more and transfer passengers on day vessels. It has been suggested that to overcome the problems in the above paragraph, the day vessels could be fitted with holding tanks and take sewage on board to be pumped out in port. Two problem areas here are of course, no port facilities and the risk of spillage.

13. Bareboat Charter vessels will have extreme difficulty in complying at all because of the 1000m from land issue. For vessels operating in the Whitsunday Islands this will be very difficult. The vessels are typically very small and the additional space for increased sullage tanks just does not exist. Some WH&S implications exist here as well with untrained personnel operating the on board systems.

Recommendations

14. It is recommended that each vessel whose owner feels it can not meet the requirements because of design limitations, get an exemption certificate from a naval architect that explains why the vessel is unable to comply with either fitting large sullage tanks or a sewage treatment system. The vessel should then be allowed to operate under the 2006 rules.

15. All new vessels should be constructed to comply as from 2004.




16. Discuss the new technology breakthrough being studied by the Great Barrier Reef Research Foundation with Mr David Windsor, their Managing Director. 07 3211 8890.

Summary

17. While lack of facilities and cost are the most significant factors, many vessels will be unable to comply because of design limitations and operational use. Some allowance here is needed.

18. Industry accepts the need to address this problem but it cannot afford expensive fixes for what is really not a major problem.




Col McKenzie 20 April 2003
Executive Director

jockey
24-06-2004, 01:40 PM
I once had a long conversation with a boat driver about this issue. The boat took roughly 30 tourists out on day trips. The boat could only hold half a days sewage so they dumped on the way out, the way in and probably when they switched between reefs. You might as well not get back on the boat and dump straight into the water. I personally find it hard to believe that they have storage problems as most of the torusits are snorkelling most of the time and would just urinate in the water.

Anyway, his bright idea (which no-one listens to) is for a poo boat that cruises out each day and sucks the poo of all the boats and brings it back in.

There is still a problem of no sewage facilities at the docks. This is also hard to believe. A city can provide sewage for all its residents but not for the boats? Why is there a salt water problem?

The boat driver complained becuase they pay a huge levy ($5 per customer I think) which is meant to go towards improving tourism and should be enough to fund the sewage facilities. It built the docks in Cairns I think.

I didn't know about the nil discharge law in 2007. Great idea. Don't let them put any loopholes in it.

nonibbles
24-06-2004, 04:34 PM
The WWF is not just a bunch of greenies it is a major multinational corporation which has the ability to outfinance the political efforts of many small countries. #And when it comes to our political efforts with regard to our own natural resources we are indeed a small country (financially anyway). #The WWF and its friends seemed to believe in the old tactic of making it appear that most of the work has been done (and probably will continue to be done) by them so most of the people with the rubber stamps will just use them without doing anymore! #Add to this the apparrent public support that flows on from a very highly pollished PR stunt and the parties say yippee - thanks for the votes. #Unfortunately thats exactly what happened when the RAP went to the senate vote. #Not even the ministers who told us they would fight it opposed it.
So are you gonna sit on your hands and hope that the government admits to its error in judgement and does a backflip? #If so my little boy would like a subscription to the fairy tale books you so obviously believe in.
I have no political clout, but I know when the interests of my country's people have been bargained out for self serving politicians desires to retain their jobs. #I wish I could stand for a seat. #But I have not the energy, nous or time. #I wish whoever does put their hand all the best. #
Even if its Jockey (why not? he's certainly can spur on an entertaining debate) #
The issues relate to much more than fishing or any singular person it is about losing the basic fabric of our freedom and the erosion of our great democratic society a bit at a time. #If we don't do something, each step they take, sets a precedent for whatever lies around the corner.

baldyhead
24-06-2004, 06:08 PM
Hey Jockey, I sent the Rap from AMPTO (posted above) to the WWF on 2 occasions and was deafened by their silence. Not even the courtsey of a reply.

NQCairns
24-06-2004, 07:02 PM
Jockey wrote: Plus tourists pay a lot more compared to the damage they do.

Not true Jockey, 3 times in the past I visited North QLD with boat in tow for a couple/few weeks holiday each trip cost between $3500 and $5000. I only went there to visit as a rec angler.
I only visited because of the reef. My spending would never have been included on any balance sheet RE recfishing dollar value but would have been included on many typical tourist speradsheets I am sure.

I did absolutly no damage at any time either lasting or noticable straight away (trust me I do know ::)).
Total = 2 people, 3 trips, aprox value of injected cash into economy - only because of the reef =$12000 (approx 10 to 12 times the average tourist spend on holidays).
Would I consider these same trips now under RAP etc NO WAY! - northern territory I would go.
If I visited as a typical tourist just my share of the antifoul leachate on a commecial reef boat would have done more real damage to the reef than all my trips combined :o.

jockey
25-06-2004, 09:35 AM
GBR tourism has 47660 employees and contributes $4.2 billion to the gross value of production in the GBR catchment. Recreational fishing contributes $187 million and commercial fishing $118 million.

Three guesses as to where that came from. If you have different figures show them.

Baldyhead I've spoken at length with WWF people. They will argue a point almost as long as I will. Did you ask them anything or just send it to them for their information?

dasher
25-06-2004, 02:44 PM
JOCKEY/ KERRY and others that feel compelled to answer some of the crap that is being posted. PLEASE go back to the subject of this post and only answer regarding the subject matter of this post. The fishing party is looking for candidates not wankers that want to try and fuel their egos with crap. Go to another post to spew out your BS. Lets see if we can get some sensible people to stand for the party. Thank you for your attention. ;D

jockey
26-06-2004, 07:49 AM
Now now dasher lets not let this degenerate into an insult competition. Would you prefer we let this drop off the bottom of the page?