RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE FOR QUEENSLAND

[raefpud]

I am curious to see what people think about the idea of having a compulsory recreational fishing licence in queensland, assuming that revenue raised from the rec fishing licenses was used to buy back commercial licences and fund restocking programs etc. Could it work, or do u think its a crime in itself to make someone have to have a license to go wet a line? I understand that you would need more fisheries inspectors than we have police to enforce the law, so perhaps this license could be restricted to boaties only, as they have unrestricted access to fisheries more so than the person fishing the bank or jetties.
I think that a rec fishing licence might be a good way to keep track of rec fishers movements, as they could be contacted to supply valuable scientific information, and fisheries managers could get a better idea of the totat impact and economic input of the recreational fisher into the economy and the environment.

Stocked impoundment permits asside (SIPS) do you think this is a viable idea????
I'm very interested to hear what KC and the fishing party have to also
Raef

[SeaHunt]

I don't like it.. Most of the revenue raised would probably go towards enforcing it.
We are already regulated to death in just about every part of our lives..
Those poor mexicans (NSWers) would have to get another one when they come up here for a holiday. Would not be good for tourism.
The Gov has already got squillions of dollars from any number of taxes. They just need to put some of it to a good use instead of wasteing it on ridiculous studies, ministerial travel expenses etc. etc. etc..

[northsboy]

I agree with seahunt [smiley=thumbsup.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

[NQCairns]

I second northsboy.

[CHRIS_aka_GWH]

and so say all of us

boaties already have it - called rego - & look at the fine secure ramp facilities it has bought us !

i shouldn't be sacastic - maybe a walk over that friggin' footbridge partly funded by my boat rego will calm me down.

[Kerry]

Really an absolute ridiculous suggestion/thought [smiley=thumbsdown.gif].

All been said before and based on the southern experience people have short memories, very short memories.

Forget it .......

Cheers, Kerry.

[kc]

That pretty well covers it. The Fishing Party draft policy already opposes RFL. www.thefishingparty.inf We already pay enough tax and that is all this is..a tax. It is all about beaurocracy feeding off itself and bugger all to do with improving fisheries. Any thoughts we may have had about supporting an RFL have been blown away by the reality of what has happened down south.

KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[harryhoy]

Post removed at the request of the Member

[Kerry]

Look, ask someone in Victoria what they think of their RFL and the fact that the funds are being "redirected" to bush fire disaster relief for the next 2 years.

Honestly, it's an absolute joke #[smiley=laugh.gif] #[smiley=laugh.gif] much like the blind leading the blind with suggestions about a Qld RFL [smiley=wiseguy.gif]

Cheers, Kerry.

[Dug]

I'm going to jump in the deep end here [smiley=anxious.gif]
If it could work I would be for it it should be like an endorsement on your drivers license so when that is renewed (Do you fish?, Yes, OK, extra 50 bucks for 5 years) It would never be like that though it would need another department to look after it and would end up like the shooters license pointless unenforceable and costing Billions rather losing money rather than gaining revenue.

User pays is OK by me and if we could control some of the ratbag eliment out fishing it would be great but I'm dreaming again [smiley=sleeping.gif]

[peterbo3]

What is next? A Tax on breathing? This would help help fund a buyback of those fume belching vehicles that pollute the air. ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[trevcob]

We already pay 45% on petrol.oil .inport tax and GST on line .hooks outboards and take in other hidden costs like trailers. tyres. ice boxs.(NO MORE)

[Gazza]

$$$ to pay to fish ,what you already have for free....
That's a hard one.


Money to spare #??? , donate it to the "Fishing Party" or (your choice)

Donate, by not fishing #;) to the really terrific, proactive idea of SIP 8) ,in general put 'n take, and even allowed, encouraged even, to choose 'where' YOUR preference is preferred by U, which I fully support 110% [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
No SIP where your fishing #??? ???
Tough luck ,it's FREE


yep, poor ol QLD behind the times again #:'( :'( :'( :'(

[RASA]

Hi Harry

On checking your arguments about this same issue back in Feb when the poll was done, all the arguments are based on funding and how it was managed to so-call enhance recreation fishing. Your crusade is wholly based on this idea and based on a NSW model
For a simple answer of 'yes' or 'no' to a couple of questions:


Could your same scenario have been achieved with the same amount or more funding from another source.

If there was another source of funding would you still want an RFL

Does having an RFL give you anymore access rights than not having one.

Do you understand how the pie-chart money is spent in real terms in NSW.

If there were 1 mil anglers accessing the resource and only 480,000 were eligible to purchase an RFL would that be a fair user pay system

I am a born and bred Bully mullet fisho and a diehard Rock Blackfish fisho and an occassional Game fisho, does an RFL enhance my fishing

If there was not a $200 fine for not having a RFL do you think compliance would be so high.

Do you think that the RFL is holding anglers to ransom

Do you think now that budgets have been cut RFL money will be used to offset those costs


BOB SMITH

[jaybee]

I went yes, as most of the guys i fish with in NSW are all for it, granted it leaves a little to be desired, however, in the appropriate hands of people that are held responsible, ie, not sunfish or the government then i can see good things coming from it, especailly lincenced recs having a say on an RIS instead of being snowballed. I know we already (power boat owners pay a ppv) this would have to be dropped, before i was in favour. however, feedback from my sources, say it is going to happen anyway, ( qld rec licence) so the next best thing is who do we get to control it, the fishing party, I THINK NOT. oh by the way Fitzy i cant see how all the lakes would collapse if this money was held by a responsible party, and from my understanding as it stands now, most of the work is voluntary as with the funds, am i right here or is someone pulling the wool over my eyes? because this is what i read in magazines, my two bobs worth.
cheers
Joe.

[kc]

Harry if party membership voted that they really did want a RFL then yes, we would support it, but only after laying all the facts on the table.

Personally, and I don't think this has yet been discussed at a policy level, I think the SIP is great. These are artifically created waterways, recreational only fisheries and if ""we" want healthy fish stocks in them then we should be prepared to pay for them. The guys who put in all the hard work making them a reality should be applauded. I have both a SIP and always chuck my loose change in the donations tin which sits on the counter at the local tackle shop.

A RFL for salt water however is a very different matter.

This is a natural resource, already owned by the public has no exclusitivity and anyone who trusts the government to use funds purely for the enhancement of the fishery, is, lets say...a bit more trusting than many of us.

The outcomes of the RFL's down south have not been accepted and numbers of RFL's are dropping. No on knows if this is because compiance is falling or people are just sick of it all and are leaving the sport.
So....what will the Government do....put up the fines and put on even more inspectors (paid for by the RFL funds) to make sure people are complying...so more people say F$#@^this....I go fishing to get away from this crap and now I get hassled every bloody time I go fishing so I give up too!!
I don't know about you guys but I fish for the peace, quiet and relaxation just as much as the hope of catching a few.

You can't trust the Government to use the money properly or honestly, they aready tax the living hell out of us (2nd highest taxed country in the Western world) and all this is about is increasing the funding for fisheries "management" and "enforcement" while getting us mugs to pay for it.

I recon that the government really hates beach/rock fishermen, sailors and push bike riders because other than the GST we are about the only buggers in the country that can actually enjoy ourselves without the Government getting into our wallets.

REgards

KC

[Fitzy]

I went yes, as most of the guys i fish with in NSW are all for it, granted it leaves a little to be desired, however, in the appropriate hands of people that are held responsible, ie, not sunfish or the government then i can see good things coming from it, especailly lincenced recs having a say on an RIS instead of being snowballed. I know we already (power boat owners pay a ppv) this would have to be dropped, before i was in favour. however, feedback from my sources, say it is going to happen anyway, ( qld rec licence) so the next best thing is who do we get to control it, the fishing party, I THINK NOT. oh by the way Fitzy i cant see how all the lakes would collapse if this money was held by a responsible party, and from my understanding as it stands now, most of the work is voluntary as with the funds, am i right here or is someone pulling the wool over my eyes? because this is what i read in magazines, my two bobs worth.
cheers
Joe.
Joe I'm saying that without the Stocked Impoundment Permit, there would be many lakes that wont get stocked. It is the major source of funds for stocking most lakes. If it (the SIP) is removed then all of the fingerlings released each year will also be removed. Stocking groups are run by volunteers, but I'll be buggered if I'll give any more time to doing chook raffles as we did for over a decade in the past. Many of us would just throw in the towel & everyone is the looser because there would be no fish.
The SIP is guaranteed to only going back into participating locations. Not sending pollies on junkets to Hong Kong or to keep jobs for the boys. Its a pure & simple user pays system, unlike saltwater environments where fish naturally reproduce. Funny how some users just dont want to pay thier way.... :'(

Fitzy..

[jaybee]

Fitzy, i hear they have been trialling, releasing fingerlings into botany bay, (Jew, Snapper) with some success. Isnt there stocked impoundments in NSW, is it working down there or do you need a separate license to fish fresh. ?
cheers
Joe

[propdinger]

i totally agree with the freshwater licences as i fish maybe 12 times a year in freshwater and i can catch and release 50+ fish easily i think it cost bugger all seeing that they cant breed in the dams if we want to fish them we need to restock it. but for saltwater i beleive there could be a better way other than charging us.
i dont now what it would be but i am sure there is another way.

jeff

[NQCairns]

I actually read Gazza's reply regarding the SIP as a [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]?nq

[raefpud]

hmmm, correct me if i'm wrong, i could very well be. I started this post because someone had told me that revenue from NSW RFL had gone to buy out the quotas/rights/licences of the commercial mackeral ring-netters in NSW, which explains why the school/spotty mack fishing has dramatically improved up here this year, it is just something i've heard and not actually researched, so please if anyone knows anything to the contrary.

Mind you, if the rec fishers take advantage of this, as I have also heard many stories about, and go out every day and get their bag as the fishing is so good, and fill their freezer full of very average eating fish, then they are no better than the ocean rapist ring netters then are they???

Am i well informed or just another player in a game of chinese whispers?

[NQCairns]

Raef wrote:Mind you, if the rec fishers take advantage of this, as I have also heard many stories about, and go out every day and get their bag as the fishing is so good, and fill their freezer full of very average eating fish, then they are no better than the ocean rapist ring netters then are they

IMHO what better way to justify the continuation of that practice in the minds of the average rec angler than to force payment for what was/is a free pastime/resource. NQ

[Kerry]

So hasn't mackeral ring-netting already been handled in Qld, even without a RFL ???

Somebody like like to confirm or clarify.

Cheers, Kerry.

[kc]

Yes commercial ring netting & gill netting has been banned (for spotted grey and school mackrel) in Qld. I understand they can (& do) still gill net spanish in the gulf.
Spanish are under review with a reduced TAC as well as big rec bag limit reductions

KC

[Gazza]

I actually read Gazza's reply regarding the SIP as a #[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]?nq

Your right NQ , edited out the TIC stuff #;) i.e. re-read #[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

p.s. you 13 ~ ? people ,for the time being send it to SIP ,as well ;D

[Cheech]

I pay nearly 30K in direct taxes, then god knows how much in indirect taxes. May only be talking about less than $100.00 for a fishing licence, but,,,

"I'M MAD AS HELL AND NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANY MORE!!!!"

Fair suck of the sav. Where will it ever end.

Statistically you have to work for nearly four months just to pay your tax bill. Back 50 years ago you only had to work less than one month.

When I lived in Melbourne and before I became fanatical,,, I was actually put off of fishing as I may have only been in the position to consider it once or twice a year, but then never did as I did not have a licence.

Is easy for us that are in to it all the time to think it is easy enough to plan and get a short period licence, but for those that are not into it and do not know the rules like the back of our hand, it is all quite daunting and really discouraging.

I remember wanting to go once and didn't because I knew I needed a licence, didn't have one, so didn't go fishing.

Before introducing such a licence, I hope they consider the non normally fishing father that would not bother taking there kid for a fish once or twice a year for the same reasons I mention above.

Will get off my soap box now.

Cheech

[Kerry]

That's what I thought as one really doesn't need the excuse of a RFL to make a decision, simply make the decision and probably the right decision with re Qld ring netting has been made as really there's not an issue with traditional mackeral fishing.

Cheers, Kerry.

[webby]

Sorry Kc but school mackeral are still allowed to be ring netted, and i think with a bycatch of 15 spotties.
the ring netting only applies to spotted mackeral.
regards

[Fitzy]

Gazza,
Humble appologies if I misinterpreted your post re SIP. #:-X

Regards,

Fitzy..

[kc]

Thanks Webby,

Didn't know that...live & learn.

Regards

KC

[BOMBER]

I would have to say I have no problems in paying a SIPS nor would I have a problem with paying a saltwater fishing fee. we all jump up and down everytime beer goes up or fuel or cigs but after a very short period of time and I mean literally seconds we are back buying smokes, beer and fuel for our cars. If a all waters licence came in or even just a saltwater licence was proposed and all the facts were laid out on the table then I would consider all points and if I could see the benefits for the fishery I would have no hesitation in paying a fee . I remember a similar uproar when the SIPS was proposed some years ago now certain people were screaming why should we pay to fish BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH much like this debate here, now nobody worries about it at all and actually as some of you have said on this forum what a great idea it has been.
Like I said when the info is available look at it decide then, we have had it too easy here for too long with free fisheries for everybody to flog to death and then have a whinge about no fish, I include rec anglers in this along with the pros ever been to Fraser Island and watch the pros drag in a Mullion Tons of Tailor and hear the recs standing around TUT TUT TUtting only to find the same recs up the beach the next day with 500 other recs slaughtering just as many then gloating about what a good day we have had, yes I have done it along with I am sure a few of you here. If paying to fish has to be done well so be it if it improves the fishery so much the better, just my opinion.

Regards,

THE BOMBER.

[nonibbles]

It doesn't matter whether you would consider paying a fee. I a RFL comes in you will have NO CHOICE and that is the biggest problem I have with it. I enjoy fishing, I don't get out as often as I'd like and most trips are not planned in advance, being at the behest of the weather and other influences thus a short term licence would not work for me. But why would I pay for a full year if I'm only going to get out half a dozen times? The added cost upon what I've already paid in taxes associated with my fishing would not be economical when weighed up against other expenses. I am already paying to go fishing. I don't want or see the need to pay more. Maybe the government needs to look a bit harder at how it divvies up its money that it already gets.
If there were more privately owned boatramps then I'm sure that I would be happy to use those ramps and facilities at a fee so the owner could maintain/repair/upgrade them as required because I'd know where my money is going but I'm damn well not going to pay into a slush fund that will either only benefit highly populated areas (SE Qld) or not be wholly utilised for recreational fishing activities.
If I had to buy a licence I would probably end up opting out and so would have to stop fishing, sell the boat, deny my kids etc. etc. But I suppose the anti fishing lobby would be smiling.
Don't screw yourselves over lads!

[Gazza]

Bomber ,SIP gives 'enhanced' opportunity to catch a fish in the fresh, that IS a good idea.
Paying to fish elsewhere is good for the single guy , but horrendous to a 4,5,6 person family and ad-hoc friends , who may not wish to 'chuck a line in' because of the 'paperwork' #:'(

Mate, If you propose that they 'charge ALL households ,ala ambulances situ' and drop the PPV and the SIP

i.e. SI guys are allocated a significant budget of $5M~10M to cover say 100 dams,places ,hey even RIVERS #;)

Nearly forgot ,ALL fish-related FINES go to this same TRUST ::)

In Essence ALL the community , I'm all for it !!!
Say $10.00 per household ,per year. #;)

[BOMBER]

Like I said would have to see a draft on the table for me to have a look at would not be for it if it was just forced upon us with no consultation and to date this has not been done at all as yet and I am not even sure if it has been put forward by any authority that matters. For the record I have 2 kids and a wife and a boat and 2 cars and a mortgage and pay tax like everybody else and yes pay pay pay like all of you but would still have no probs paying a saltwater fee if it improved the fishery plus the policing of it, I pay $35.00 per year now so would have no probs with paying another $35.00 per year which I see as a fair price. The problem here in Australia as I stated earlier, we are not used to user pays for our recreation when it comes to our sports activities yet we have no probs rocking up to Seaworld and paying $158.00 for a family for 1 day out yet alone a year but we scream about a fee to go fishing for 365 days per year if we so wish far better value than Seaworld I feel.
As I will state again would have no probs paying a fee PROVIDED THE FISHERY BENEFITED IN ANY FORM,whether it be policing, stocking better boat ramps whatever, if this was not going to be the case I would not be for it I am not one to shoot ideas down before they even get going if there is even the slim chance of making the saltwater fishery a better place.

Regards,

THE BOMBER

[straddie]

Direct user pays systems are pretty much standard these days. I see a Queensland RFL as being inevitable, it's just a matter of when it is introduced.

Kicking and screaming about it will delay the introduction, but when it eventually comes in and you decide that you now want a say on how it is operated, how do you think your opinion will be treated?
Something like this maybe,

You were against it from the start, you caused the implimenters problems along the way, you delayed the introduction, you are probably trying to sabotage the the process now, why should we listen to anything you want or have to say!

Fighting against something also gives your opponents (anti fishing groups) the opportunity to highlight your worst practices and weaken your postion in other areas. So the potential is there for even further losses down the track.

When you see the inevitable, take the lead and support it, hell even promote it, so you have a say in how the legislation is written and a continuing voice in its implimentation and operation.

If you think you can stop an RFL go hard against it, if you don't think you can stop it, then go hard with it and try to achieve the best possible outcome.

[harryhoy]

Post removed at the request of the Member

[Gazza]

User-pays Straddie , ALL for it...... [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
Fish Fee of $1.00 per export Kilo ,and $0.50 per Kilo for local consumption , sold by Commercial channels.

I'll still pay the other fee(s)/GST component of any fishing I do whatsoever ,and gladly pay the 'Fish fee' of any local produce I purchase.

ALL for it , bring it onnnn!!
Regards
Gazza [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[Kerry]

Gotta question for all you pro RFL people #::)

After all the warm and fuzzy hoo haa has subsided and all in place the implementers then decide in their own characteric way to say direct all these RFL monies for the next few years to something entirely irrelvent to fishing, would you then agree with that or not?

Not really talking about maybe's here but actual events that right now are occuring in other states. # #

As for fighting against something, this is a right everyone has in this country, to voice ones opinion and quite frankly for anybody to suggest otherwise is being hyprocitical or simply coming from someone that will lay down and be walked all over, not really knowing why.

As for suggesting it as being inevitable what a defeatist attitide that is #[smiley=thumbsdown.gif].

Cheers, Kerry.

[dazza]

i dunno if it would be a good or a bad thing.
bit difficult to debate something that hasn't been formally proposed yet :-/

depending on what form a rfl takes and what it is used for.
if the govt quarantined the money for rec fishing uses only etc it could be benificial.

who in their right mind would trust any govt to play by the rules, is that a core promise or an election promise ??? ???
sorry guy's your rfl money is for the funding of ..........,
but not fishing

i agree with bomber, lets see what is put on the table then
make a decision.
when it is formally proposed (sorry kerry- defetist yes, but realistic) is when we will really have to lobby our local members, and politicians.

remember mr beattie made a few concessions to the fin fish because of the loud voice of a small group of pros up north. (there was a post on the boards about it, sorry cant find it.)

cheers
dazza

[Gazza]

RFL won't happen Kerry, fish levy's will ,no policing necessary ,just like GST :-X :-X

[RASA]

Firstly, crusade is too stong a word don't you think. I have given rational explanations to everything I have said about this topic. Let me go through your dot points one-by-one ok?
Ans
Sorry Harry, Hoodwinking might have been better.
Rational explanations depend upon the spin given for a desired answer.

1) Yes at the expense of health, police, education - which no government in their right mind will do, so it is ridiculous to entertain the idea that what has occurred in NSW (re: estuaries being closed to pro fishing) would have occurred without an RFL
Ans
Yes is correct, but not at the expense of health, police or education etc but maybe when the Feds announce that $1 Billion is set aside to buy 20 and 30 year old defence toys there would be room to accomodate a piddling amount for the marine resource. I reckon even you could list where this money could come from without impeding the necessities.

2) Yes
Ans
No wonder anglers are easy targets and get led around by the nose!

[3) YES Ans
So you think anglers will be able to say where they want to go and fish after they are forced to buy an RFL!

4) It looks simple enough so Yes
Ans
Simple yes, Deceiving also yes

5) Why would 480,000 be eligible - all are eligible aren't they? You fish you pay, simple
Ans
No! it appears that exemptions outnumber the eligible

6) Silly question. It will certainly enhance your mullet fishing if the money is used to buy pro netting licences out of estuaries, allowing more mullet to be caught by you. It may not benefit you directly but what about the other 879,999 anglers in Qld? Selfish view you hold there, mate
Ans
Harry,nothing selfish here or silly, it is obvious you don't realise that the Mullet get the same slaughter now by less commercial fishers, i.e example 1200 used to take 1000 ton now 1000 take the same 1000 ton. Where is the green dividend now that the angler has paid out for 200 licenses.I know who is grinning.
The biggest threat is QLD freezer trucks here.
How does it benefit my rock fishing and gamefishing down here in NSW I would like to know.

7) No - so what? I'm sure if the fine was zero, not many people would pay for a licence. I would still pay however
Ans
The point is Harry, that why the bureaucrats can publically say there is a 99% compliance is obvious, rather than acceptence. There is a fairer system where all will share in the financial responsibility. I.E the more you access the resource the more you pay and the more taxes the Gov collects from all beneficiaries that are associated with this activity , would that be a fair user pay system. Example, the more times you are driving on the road with your registered car the more tax (fuel,tyres,repairs etc and tolls you pay.

8) Why is it holding anglers to ransom - pay and you can fish? Is car rego holding drivers to ransom?
Ans
The ransom is don't pay and we won't do anything for you or don't pay and you you will get fined. Comparing this to car rego is like comparing oranges to elephants. A car gets registered so it is safe to go on the road but I can buy a licence for my dog (and he wouldn't pass the mannerism test)if I fill in the details and why can't I use my mates license when he is not.

9) As I have said elsewhere - I would only support an RFL if it could be shown that the money is being spent appropriately. If the money went into con rev, I would oppose an RFL, like everyone else should. If it is spent correctly, it would be beneficial. (I believe anyway)
list] Ans
[/list]That is how it was introduced in VIC and now this money funds the Country Fire Association there ($2million)
In NSW the funds were used to borrow $20 million from guess who! with about $30million to be paid back by you to the treasury (stung again, silly me)
How gullible does that make anglers and now you know where the term leading by the nose comes from.

Sorry Harry there must be a line drawn in the sand sometime and now is as good as time as any to get proper funding from ALL who benefit from a better recreational fishery not just you!

Bob Smith

[trevcob]

hay the Government has already got 9 Billion this year it dose not know what to spend it on and we are talking about giveing it more . I now no were the term ###### comes from

[straddie]

Heya Kerry,

I try to take a realistic approach to the things I do. If something can only have a seriously negative impact I will fight tooth and nail against it regardless if I think I can win or not. If I believe I can't stop something but the potential for a positive outcome is still there I will go with it and try and influence it.

"As for fighting against something, this is a right everyone has in this country, to voice ones opinion and quite frankly for anybody to suggest otherwise is being hyprocitical or simply coming from someone that will lay down and be walked all over, not really knowing why."
Well said I couldn't agree with you more. I applaude those that take the time consider issues and have their say whether I agree with them or not.

We have the good and bad history of other states RFL's to look at and learn from, and pollies are always going to try and redirect monies into things that they weren't meant for if they think they can get away with it. Therefore one of the aims should be to lock up any monies from an RFL for the exclusive benifit of recreational fishing in any legislation.

That's my opinion, but as I said previously, If you think you can stop an RFL go hard against it, if you don't think you can stop it, then go hard with it and try to achieve the best possible outcome.

[Kerry]

Straddie, the Victorians all thought they were on a realistic thing as well, positive outcome and were expecting "their" $$'s to be put back into "their" future recreation expectations, you know all the things that gov don't/never have the money for but they got shafted, left right and centre, money is money and the ones that make the rules simply break the rules.

As mentioned elsewhere one doesn't need the excuse of and/or existence of a RFL to make decisions.

Either the people who are supposed to manage the fishery either can or they can't and if they can't then pi.. em off. Let someone who can without the exuse of requiring a RFL to actually do it.

One of the first aims should be to actually spend ALL the money that is "currently raised" from anything fishing related in fishing related activities then when that's actually achieved then lets see what the situation is.

Really if the gov want to do something then it really doesn't matter what you or I actually think or what evidence there is (or is not) to support it, they will do it anyway. One only has to take a peek at the Victorian Marine Park fiasco, or the GBR green zones, pure polictical decisions, nothing more.

What is now rubbing salt into the wounds of the Vic fisho's is after the gov pulling all this marine park BS over people's heads the gov is now going to actually dredge and blast shipping channels through areas that they claimed to be "pristine" along with all the little endangered sea critters. Now the same gov 6 months latter wants to blast the crap of everything without even the resemblance or requirement of a EIS.

Obviously reality is something that many keep looking at through rose coloured glasses.

Cheers, Kerry.

[straddie]

"One of the first aims should be to actually spend ALL the money that is "currently raised" from anything fishing related in fishing related activities then when that's actually achieved then lets see what the situation is."

It's a nice thought but you and I know that will never happen, it's consolidated revenue.

"Really if the gov want to do something then it really doesn't matter what you or I actually think or what evidence there is (or is not) to support it, they will do it anyway. One only has to take a peek at the Victorian Marine Park fiasco, or the GBR green zones, pure polictical decisions, nothing more."

That's right, the descisions will be made regardless, and as in all things the strongest input on legislation will come from those that support the issue not those that oppose it. I just hope the draft strongly favors recreational interests if it comes about and isn't hijacked by anti fishing interests while we squable between ourselves like usual.

[kc]

Straddie I'm a bit more sceptical than you. I believe that governments make decisions based on where they think the votes are, not just which lobby group agrees with their preferred outcome. Clearly at all levels it is now politically expedient to be "seen to be green" and rec fishers have never got their collective crap together as a voting block to do anything about it. Without wanting to draw too many parallels have a look at the political clout of the NRA in America if you want to see the political muscle flexing of a sporting body and its influence over government policy. It is alawys all about votes!!

They will never fear the political "wrath" of the rec fishing "voting block" until their actually is one, and its numbers are demonstrated at the ballot box. Governments don't support green movements out of any social or moral obligation....they support them because there is votes in it and preference deals which help keep them in their cozy offices and parlimentary dinning rooms. If they had any fear of "us" they would be asking what we thought and actually taking some notice instead of the sham which is suppossed to be "public consultation".

& Harry, Like I said, the will of the membership determines the pollicies of the Fishing Party. If you would like to know more about the state executive and the totally democratic nature of our organisation visit our web site on www.thefishingparty.info and look at the Qld branch and our state constitution. All the executive is is a collective of those voted in each year by the members to represent them, nothing more, nothing sinister and nothing secret. Dave is probably our most high profile exec member, along with Brian Pickup from Townsville but actual membership of the party includes guys like John Mondora.......straight up, no BS, JP. who is not going to get involved with anything dodgy. The foundation exec is really made up of the few good people prepared to get off their arses and have a go rather than sit on the fence whinging about the state of the fishery and throwing hand grenades but never pulling out the pins. We don't have answers, only opinions, we don't know everything but collectively we hope our members do. There will be strenght in numbers and hopefully enough votes to make a difference but even if there is not, it feels better to go down screaming than just fade away without a fight.

Regards

KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[Fitzy]

Great topic for debate folks. Its great to see so many ppl who are passionate about our sport/hobby/recreation.
I dont think we're going to ever get 100% of ppl agreeing on 100% of issues.
I'm personally opposed to any RFL, but I'm wrong as often as I'm right. :-X
I think its will take a very gutsy poitician to be the one who, throws the issue up, potentially political suicide yet not a big enough issue for a referendum.

No matter how you feel, if and/or when the time comes, put pen to paper & write your local MP. I've seen far too many issues get pushed under the rug or forgotten about by angler apathy (She'll be right mate). Dont let this one slip by without having a say. It's far too important!

Cheers All,

Fitzy..

[jockey]

I think the option for boaties only would be a good one. I fish from a boat but I've never paid for any license fees. (I fish from someone else's boat). I reckon for every rec boat there are ten people who fish from them. As for people who always fish from the shore, with a few exceptions they hardly catch anything. Perhaps it should be boaties and anyone who fishes from islands (who need a boat to get there).

I support the RFL simply because we would get out a lot more than we put in.

I suggest people actually vote on the boaty idea. It would be interesting to see how many of the people who support the RFL would want it for boaties only. Maybe there would be more support because the people who only fish a few times a year wouldn't be affected.

Anyone who owns a boat but is complaining about the cost of an RFL is crazy. The RFL would probably be around 1% extra outlay but for a huge increase in catch. Most boaties I know own the boat because they want to catch more fish, so why not the same argument for an RFL?

[jockey]

Just figured out that you have to vote to see the results.

Why is there a turn around in the results? I think that the people against the idea will keep at it (as you can see from the posts) but the people for it will vote once and then not be bothered.

[Gazza]

Maybe there's just more people against than for?

And just for your cynical mind Jock ::)

"Try" to vote again, now that you can see the results ::)

[jockey]

If there are more against then for, why did the first poll come out in favour?

I did not mean that people were voting twice in the same poll, although I'm sure they could. I was referring to the pattern of behaviour I've seen on this site. The first time an issue comes up you get some good debate and a cross section of views. When that discussion finishes another soon starts up but this time it all seems one sided. If it is not then when the discussion finishes someone will start another one and so on until the discussion is predominantly onesided. Anyone who hadn't seen the first discussion would be led to believe that the members of this site (most of them anyway) were all agreed on the issue. In general it is the 'anti-government' side that keeps at an issue. What is most interesting is that they carry on as if the previous discussion did not exist and as though most recreational fishermen agreed with them.

[where_is_dave]

The buy back of commercial licences is an excellent proposition. I don't think their would be meny rec fishers that would disagree. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the results of this in NSW has been very positive eg. Botany Bay.
How the buy back is funded is the point in question. As many have said I would like to see details of any proposed RFL. If you could guarantee the funds improve the quality and quantity of the catch, facilities etc with results like that achieved off the back of the SIP then I would be all for it.
Once the govt decides that it should happen then it is almost inevitable (shades of defeatism???). It is then up to those with a vested interest to ensure the most favourable outcome.
Summary - resist/fight it like hell, then when the bully boys get their way influence the drafting of legislation the best we can.

[jockey]

Why oppose it if you think it is a good idea? The best way to make sure we get the most favourable outcome is to support the idea and push for it ourselves, with the condition that we get it our way.

Am I right in assuming that most people who want an RFL would only want the money spent on pro buybacks? Or those opposed to it would be less opposed?

[kingmad]

I say you should be paying just like us(NSW). Preserve the fish stocks a bit better so we can all move up there and fish. :) ;) :D ;D ::) :-*

[Kerry]

Maybe there's just more people against than for?

;) could even be better informed this time ;D.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

I wasn't aware of any new information that has been added. I don't think anyone said they posted differently in the two polls. Has anyone changed their mind? A lot of people probably think this is the same poll resurfaced.

If you voted in this poll but not the first one please vote in the first one as well (IF YOU FISH IN QLD - maybe that has something to do with the different results). I'll start another poll for NSW.

This is what I was talking about with all the threads:

started Jan 19 Poll RFL for QLD? last post Feb 29

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=10744778 95

started March 23 Help save NSW Rivers!

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=Freshwater;action=display;num=10800 05957

started March 25 Richmond River mullet haul reopens

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=10801827 36

started March 26 Qld RFL - yeah right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=10802734 05

started May 6 Poll RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE FOR QUEENSLAND

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=10838313 53

[straddie]

Heya Jockey,

I hadn't voted when this stalled on the 9th but did so to see what the vote was, when the numbers where 64 votes - 21 for - 43 against. When the thread was resurected 2 days later there were 84 votes - 23 for - 61 against.
Interesting the late numbers I thought ;D

Pro buybacks were not the only reason for me voting for a RFL, I think research, education, enforcement, and where viable restocking should be part of it. Anything that promotes a sustainable fishery in other words.

Current fisheries descisions appear to be being made on weak research, but if it is all you have then that is what is going to be used.

[dasher]

Jockey, just one simple question. Just a yes or no is all I want mate. ;)

Do you trust all forms of our Government. ::) Remember, I'm asking for a yes or no answer thanks. :)

[dasher]

Just as an aside those with a pension card are not required to purchase an rfl as is the case for under 16? and of course we can't forget the indigeneous fishos that won't be included. Hmmm how many are left ??? ??? ???

[imported_admin]

Jockey

I think you have missed the point on these issues.
Your poll on Jan 19th asks a different question so I can not see how you can say people have changed their mind. Two different questions, two different responses.

Your initial question was "Would you support an RFL for QLD to buy out pros etc"

So when people answered the poll they agreed only to the poll question. It would appear that most rec fishos want pros bought out as your question specificly asked if they wanted a RFL to do so.

This current poll just asks the question of do you want an RFL. Obviously the answer would be NO. But we already have one, well at least those that own a boat do, as they are already paying a PPV Levy which SHOULD be going back into our recreation.

I am not sure why the "for boaties only" option is there, as said above they are already paying for one.

If we can not find out where the PPV is being spent or even have a say in it, how do you expect us to be able to have any confidence in the allocation and spending of an RFL.

[imported_admin]

Heya Jockey,

I hadn't voted when this stalled on the 9th but did so to see what the vote was, when the numbers where 64 votes - 21 for - 43 against. When the thread was resurected 2 days later there were 84 votes - 23 for - 61 against.
Interesting the late numbers I thought ;D



When someone votes the thread is not reserected, as in pushed to the top of the page. It is only reserected if a post is made to the thread.

[jockey]

Ausfish - hopefully we would have a say in it because it (like the NSW one) would be administered by rec fishers who were voted for by rec fishers. I take your point about the different question though. I am still a bit surprised at the different results.

Dasher governments should never be trusted. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

[straddie]

Heya Steve,

I'll clarify what I was saying, the last post on the 9th was made by Fitzy around the time I voted, the next post almost 2 days later was made by Jockey between which time another 20votes had been registered at a ratio of 2 for and 18 against without any comment being made.

I'm not suggesting any impropriety. In my mind it gives the impression that a voting block appears to have been displayed eg an email is sent to a number of members of a group stating a certain thread is in progress and if they have an opinion they should vote accordingly. Nothing wrong with that.

[peterbo3]

AHHHAAAH!!!
JFK & the second (third, fourth, fifth, etc) sniper. ??? ??? We need to get ASIO 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) onto this straight away afore it gets right out of hand. To the Batmobile!!!

[banshee]

Geez Jockey,Quoting from the great Irish emancipator Phillpot Curran,deffinately lifted the class of this debate!!

[Gazza]

Gee Wiz Jock ,wouldn't it be great to now have a $10M RFL DEBT ,and as John Olsen said(in Jaybees' post) "hundreds of MILLIONS" RFL DEBT.

Q to Gazza: Do I trust the guv't ???
A. to not spend 'their' ::) monies , YEP I DO!!


Gazza ;)

[Kerry]

Hey Gazza ??? $10M RFL debt, shouldn't that be $20M RFL debt :o that the NSW treasury "kindly" loaned the ACoRF, along with all the loan repayment issues.

At the time of this "advance" there was apparently some concern by the committe members about the ability to repay especially if the RFL fee is withdrawn at some point.

Really it's an absurd situation that a committe of recreational fishing persons have to lumber the implications of a $20M debt. Trust the gov ??? are you serious ::)

Cheers, Kerry.

[Gazza]

Oops forgot about 'that' $20M debt ,in NSW ,TOOOOOOOOOO the RFL #'t-r-u-s-t ::) :P
That 'DEBT' that at say 5% equals $1,000,000.00 per year interest (reducing)to borrow their own monies!!! ,to VOLUNTARY O-N-L-Y payees of the pension ...oops RFL fund #:-X :-X :o ;)

Now that's a 'system' that 'I' would really want to blot out ,wouldn't you!! ?? #:-X
;D :D :D :D
Regards
Gazza

[jockey]

What's this about $100s of millions RFL debt?

Gazza would you support an RFL if you thought the money would be spent appropriately and we would get our money's worth?

Did anyone vote differently in the two polls? Did anyone vote in this poll but no the first because they aren't from QLD? Did anyone get a PM or email or other communication asking them to vote? Did anyone join this forum so they could vote?

[Kerry]

Did anyone vote differently in the two polls? Did anyone vote in this poll but no the first because they aren't from QLD? Did anyone get a PM or email or other communication asking them to vote? Did anyone join this forum so they could vote?

Just what is it you don't get?


What's this about $100s of millions RFL debt?

No it's not 100's of millions (well not yet anyway) but is certainly $10 of millions of NSW RFL debt, so go do some research as obviously you are knowing less and less about more and more every day.

As for getting value, go beat a dead horse, the end result will be probably much the same.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Kerry I'm just trying to figure out why the results changed between the two polls. I'm not saying that anyone has done anything improper, but it would be good to know what happened.

Doesn't the fact that I questioned the comment about $100s of millions indicate that I have done a bit of research?

The fact that you are turning to personal abuse must mean that I am getting at something you want to keep hidden. Or is it something else?

[Kerry]

The fact that you are turning to personal abuse must mean that I am getting at something you want to keep hidden. Or is it something else?

And the fact that you've tried this load of hidden agenda BS before and come off second best before leaves you rather exposed so why try and pull this type of crap on again, move onto something that YOU can provide some substance.

As for the voting results, well that's what people are allowed to do, have opinions. So get over it.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Kerry it draws the whole voting thing into question when you have pretty much the same issue being voted on within a few months but get completely different results and not one person says they voted differently.

"And the fact that you've tried this load of hidden agenda BS before and come off second best before leaves you rather exposed so why try and pull this type of crap on again, move onto something that YOU can provide some substance.
"

I have no idea what you are talking about there. Just another slanging attempt? This is getting pretty poor Kerry. Do you know how to have a civil discussion?

[imported_admin]

Jockey

Looks like you didn't read my post from a few days ago. Here is a copy of it again for you.

---------------------Copy follows -----------------------------------
Jockey

I think you have missed the point on these issues.
Your poll on Jan 19th asks a different question so I can not see how you can say people have changed their mind. Two different questions, two different responses.

Your initial question was "Would you support an RFL for QLD to buy out pros etc"

So when people answered the poll they agreed only to the poll question. It would appear that most rec fishos want pros bought out as your question specificly asked if they wanted a RFL to do so.

This current poll just asks the question of do you want an RFL. Obviously the answer would be NO. But we already have one, well at least those that own a boat do, as they are already paying a PPV Levy which SHOULD be going back into our recreation.

I am not sure why the "for boaties only" option is there, as said above they are already paying for one.

If we can not find out where the PPV is being spent or even have a say in it, how do you expect us to be able to have any confidence in the allocation and spending of an RFL.
-------------------Copy Ends------------------------------

Why would you vote for a boaties only RFL, were you not aware that we already pay a PPV Levy on top of boat rego ?

[jockey]

I do remember your post. I understand that the two questions were different, but I don't think they are different enough for people to vote differently. Perhaps there are a heap of southerners voting in this one but not the first. Perhaps you got 40 new members over this issue, which would be great for your site. Or perhaps some people are voting twice, which would be bad. I'm surprised your not more interested in this. It has certainly caught my attention. I hope you don't mind me trying to get a feel for what caused the dramatic change in results.

On a different (I hope) topic, I'd like to draw your attention to the personal nature of Kerry's recent posts here and in 'barra boys take jonny to court.' I usually find this forum a pleasure to use and I know you like to keep that sort of thing under wraps ;)

[Gazza]

Kerry I'm just trying to figure out why the results changed between the two polls. I'm not saying that anyone has done anything improper, but it would be good to know what happened.

Doesn't the fact that I questioned the comment about $100s of millions indicate that I have done a bit of research?


No Jock ,no research because you haven't read this ;D

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfish/board/YaBB.cgi?board=General;action=display;num=10845466 84

Now , if you go down the RFL pays the Commercials out path ::) , you must read that John Olsen reckons the QLD people owe the Seafood industry 100's of millions of $$$.

Now the Guv't can pay 'em , whatever they bloody well want to , but to shaft a (new) QLD RFL with 100's of millions of $$$DEBT!!! , you are joking.

[Daintreeboy]

I'd only vote yes if they started taking our opinions seriously and started recognising us as a genuine sport and so on......

[jockey]

Gazza no-one is suggesting that the money Jon Olsen is talking about would come out of an RFL. The RFL would be used to buy out pros from estuaries (to make RFOs), not from offshore fisheries. Jon olsen was talking about compensation for those commercial fishers affected by new fishing bans on the Great Barrier Reef.

Interestingly, I think we could probably afford over the long term to buy out some of the offshore fisheries as well. In NSW the RFL brings in $8 million a year I think. So if we could save up enough we could have as many RFO's as there are green zones. I realise there are probably a few holes in this logic and we may not be able to afford, or even want to buy out offshore fisheries, but there is a huge potential benefit however we choose to spend the money.

[Kerry]

probably a few holes in this logic yeah and big ones at that as evidenced by activities in other states with RFL's but then who gives a rats, it's only money, tell some tales, re-direct it to other "needy" areas, which of course the gov doesn't need any permission to do anyway # ;D


I usually find this forum a pleasure to abuse and I know you like to keep that sort of thing under wraps #:D #:D #:D :P

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Just in case anyone was wondering Kerry misquoted me.