PDA

View Full Version : QLD RFL How Soon ???



jaybee
10-04-2004, 04:39 AM
Just found this on the NSW Fisheries Site, wonder if there is anything in it ?

If you're planning to fish from a charter boat or go with a fishing guide, ask the operator if you're covered by their exemption certificate. If the operator has paid an annual fee, you may not need to purchase your own fishing licence. A 50 per cent concession applies to people who only fish in the tidal waters of the Tweed River and prescribed adjacent beach areas. The Tweed Concession Area is a transitional arrangement pending Queensland's introduction of an equivalent licensing scheme.


Here is the link that also shows a map.
http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/lol/home_licence.htm

cheers
Joe

Gazza
10-04-2004, 11:38 AM
old hat Jaybee ,NSW's way of saying they're very embarrassed to even charge-2-fish in the first place. ::) ,being close to the QLD border.

They can't wait , until pigsfly and we have a RFL ,to charge their residents of the Tweed , even more-2-fish.

They can stick their 'pending ' up their arse, forever And A DAY. >:(
Plain 'n simple.
Regards
Gazza

jaybee
10-04-2004, 12:47 PM
gazza last meeting with my local member suggests something different mmmmm, and or more closures, or are they trying to keep us from the real truth, u know, don't let the left hand know what the right is doing.
cheers
Joe

RASA
10-04-2004, 02:06 PM
Hi JayDee

The Fishing Party has been contacted with information that the famous Frazer Island is under threat of fishing closure (by way of no roads) and that the only way of the future will be through the resorts or tours.

Is this correct and does anybody know what is happening there. This does just not affect QLD'ers

The RFL is a ransom, don't let it happen

Robert Smith
Federal Party Chairman
www.thefishingparty.info [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

Gazza
11-04-2004, 04:31 AM
Jaybee , I wouldn't have a clue who your 'local member' is ? , and don't really care.
The next time ,just say "that's a stupid idea" , and see what they say :o ;) ;D

And mate ,that pending "proviso" has been up on the web ,since day dot of the NSW Really Friggin Lousy idea. :P

No pigs flying yet mate ,but lots of red-herrings swimming about ;)

Regards
Gazza

jaybee
11-04-2004, 04:49 AM
Robert just wonder how many more closures are coming? Gazza i don't trust any government never have and never will.
cheers
Joe

Gazza
11-04-2004, 04:54 AM
No probs there Jaybee......don't change a thing!
I don't believe all I hear either ,or waste energy ,focus,time,etc.

Regards
Gazza

jeffo
11-04-2004, 10:48 AM
the sooner they decide to have a RFL in QLd the better i say! i (and many others i know) would be more than happy to fork out to go fishing each year :D....the biggest worry is where would the money go? would it be government revenue raising or would it be put back into the fishery>? is there much re stocking being done in NSW?... similar to the fresh water set up here?

jaybee
11-04-2004, 11:46 AM
Jeff this debate come up once before on who would handle the money, Sunfish said they didnt want it and the government shouldnt handle it either, but, instead use an independent corporation, That is both accountable to the recs and government to keep them honest??? I support the license idea, but the ppv needs to be dropped as well, and the license should cover both fresh and salt, however, i cant see it happening that way.
cheers
Joe

jeffo
11-04-2004, 02:44 PM
would be interesting if the matter was put in the hands of the people...

Jeremy
11-04-2004, 03:02 PM
Jaybee,

I do remember this issue coming up once before. I'm with Jeffo. I am all for a licence if the money goes back into fishing in some way. The fact that we will then have to pay for it will then give us some 'ownership' of our share and might give us more political influence. In the meantime, go the Fishing Party.

Jeremy

Fitzy
11-04-2004, 03:04 PM
For God's sake dont even mutter RFL & freshwater in the same sentence if you're talking Qld. Shove that up ya clacker. We worked long & hard to get a genuine user pays system in place on Qlds Lakes & a RFL would screw it up for sure. The SIP is applied to ONLY participating locations that can drop out if so desired. All monies after admin go directly to the participating locations for fisheries enchancement, not into Treasury's bottomless pockets where a RFL will undoubtedly go. Will also be up for grabs by those within QFS to keep "jobs for the boys" going on ad nausem.

I'm 100% opposed to any RFL in Qld period & will fight it tooth & nail. The whole concept is a trumped up, rebadged TAX, pure & simple. I've read the proganda from the spin doctors & proponents of a Qld RFL; IMHO it dont hold water & stinks like last weeks bait. Sorry if I'm treading on toes here, but that's my slant on it.

I've said it multiple times, please people, dont ever give up YOUR right to YOUR past time. We've been fishing since we emerged from caves & climbed down from the trees. Its our right to do it for a feed and for sport. Sell yourselves out at your own peril people.

History is a very fair judge. Lets not look back & regret on what is potentially the biggest ever threat to recreational fishing in Qld.
A 100% outcome should be our goal, its mine.

fitzy..

jeffo
11-04-2004, 03:12 PM
fitzy... if the money was put back into rec fishing i cant see a problem. ie- policing rules and regs, fish research and most important of all (IMO) fish stocking in the rivers...

peterbo3
11-04-2004, 04:01 PM
Suck a Surfski,
If anyone thinks a RFL is going to give them any say in Fisheries Management or a better fish resource they are a six-pack short in the carton.
We have bag limits, overall & by species. What more do you think will happen.
Now our good buddy Premier Pete has stated that there will be NO new taxes in Qld this term. Do you want to make him look like a ########???????If you really feel the need to pay more to fish then pay me $20 per year. PM me & I will provide payment details ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

PS. I have just paid out over $13000 for a new clean & green 4 Stroke OB. I reckon that should give me some input into Fish Management but it won't even though the Qld Govt will get about $1200 direct from me via GST. So don't give me any wank about RFL = input. You want to pay more to fish then see above.

Fitzy
11-04-2004, 04:39 PM
fitzy... if the money was put back into rec fishing i cant see a problem. ie- policing rules and regs, fish research and most important of all (IMO) fish stocking in the rivers...
Hey Jeffo, It would be good if it can be guaranteed to go directly back to the resource, however largely unlikely.
On stocking rivers, there shouldn't be a need. Wild fish breed naturally if suitable habitat & conditions are available. Should we be paying for habitat restoration when rape & pillage on land clearing & irresponsible development is still running rampant? No way!
We already pay taxes to the state & federal govt for policing, research etc etc. It is part of the QFS charter to provide for the above mentioned services from their allocated budget, if this is not being done, then heads should roll. I dont see why we should pay the same tax twice, or should I say three (3) times considering the PPVL we pay from boat rego.
There's a stack of money out there for research already, however almost all of it is being spent on finding ways/techniques to make commercial enterprises more profitable.
We already are stakeholders in our fisheries resources (dont be conned into thinking you're not), shelling out more dollars wont give you any more say than you already get. The SIP on Qld lakes hasn't given permit holders any more say, the same decisions are getting made by the same people, however it HAS provided a vastly improved fishery.
IMHO the best way to get attention to your problems is by getting involved in lobby/representative groups, writing to relevant pollies & by sending them a message next time you vote.

Cheers,

Fitzy..

jeffo
11-04-2004, 04:40 PM
bag and size limits are only as good as their weekest link.... fisheries and boating patrol.
the amount of illegal fishing i see up here is unbelievable! i have even gone as far as calling the hotline to report it. only to get the same response everytime -"we dont have any officers in that area today". >:(

Muddie
11-04-2004, 09:28 PM
im a NSW fisho and ive never seen anything being done >:( its just a way for the government to get more $$$ in their pocket to buy them 20 grand hammers and the 50 grand paper clips,everything they have ever said is a lie.they get a bulls##t amount of $$$ from the RFL and if they put the $$$ back into the waterway it would be a hell of a lot better >:(

Barrymundi
12-04-2004, 02:33 AM
No need for a RFL, just use the money we pay for Regos on the boat and trailer plus all the GST we pay.

Surely there must be plenty of money in that little kitty.

It only has to pay for Roads, Boat Ramps, Ramp Toilets, Ramp Maintenance, Queensland Fisheries Services, Navigation Aids, Education, legislation etc.

Then you spent it where the population is the greatest because they contribute the most money, oops, that already happens............

Just make sure none of OUR money goes to pay for Police, Schools, Health etc

Al

jeffo
12-04-2004, 02:49 AM
ok thanks guys... that answers my question... basically trying to get the money to go back into rec fishing is like trying to push shit up a hill with a toothpick ::)

harryhoy
12-04-2004, 07:14 AM
There's a stack of money out there for research already, however almost all of it is being spent on finding ways/techniques to make commercial enterprises more profitable.
There is a stack of research money? Please tell me where.

A very large proportion of QLD's research money is handed out by the federal government using funds provided by commercial fishers from levies, fees, etc. So obviously they get the lion's share of research because they pay for it.

If the Beattie govt were to guarantee that the funds generated from an RFL would go to research, policing, etc and not into con rev would you reconsider a RFL?

lordy
12-04-2004, 09:06 AM
fitzy... if the money was put back into rec fishing i cant see a problem. ie- policing rules and regs, fish research and most important of all (IMO) fish stocking in the rivers...

The problem is how do you ensure that it does? The government would appoint a bunch of addition fisheries officers funded by the all waters licence. Sounds reasonable, but then they would slowly shift more and more fisheries officers salaries from Gov coffers onto rec license fees. Boat ramps would get built from the funds, etc. If they feel the need to buy out pros in GBMP area, they will take it from the rec fishing licence then in 10 years close the area to rec fishos anyway.

It wouldn't surprise me if in 10-20 years fishos get 0% more services than they get now, only they get to pay for it.

Fitzy
12-04-2004, 10:41 AM
There is a stack of research money? Please tell me where.

A very large proportion of QLD's research money is handed out by the federal government using funds provided by commercial fishers from levies, fees, etc. So obviously they get the lion's share of research because they pay for it.

If the Beattie govt were to guarantee that the funds generated from an RFL would go to research, policing, etc and not into con rev would you reconsider a RFL?
PPVL for one. No one can get a straight answer where the $ from that goes. Payed for by "non-commercial" ie recreational boaties/anglers.
FIDC, QFIRAC blah blah blah rarely allocate anything for recreational projects. Cant seem to get any research on Jungle Perch for one. The reason being they arent a commercially targetable species.

Cheers,

fitzy..

Kerry
12-04-2004, 04:42 PM
One could say some are in fairy land, take Victoria for example, take NSW for example, nothing more than another tax that's doing jack schitt for fishing.

Cheers, Kerry.

klyons
12-04-2004, 06:13 PM
Fitzy
I could not agree anymore with your first post.
The current SIP scheme was a badly needed system to ensure a fishery existed and continues to exist in freshwater impoundments. People often don't know, or forget, that the major species in these impoundments can't breed in them.To ensure the fishery continues they have to be continually restocked. The initial stocking and indeed a lot of the continuing stocking was(is) done by volunteer local fish stocking groups who spent their weekends selling raffle tickets to put fish in only to see these fish being ripped out by people who had not contributed. The SIP helps to rebalance this.
Coastal fishing on the other hand has declined through habitat destruction, inappropriate and unsustainable commercial harvesting and the take everything I can rec fisherman. The gov does not need any more of our money to stop the first and the third are hopefully thinning out. Changes to commercial fishing is a slow and hopefully ongoing process.
In the meantime, follow the rules/regs ,don't give the govt any ammunition and there is no need at all for a RFL.

Kev

bugman
13-04-2004, 07:46 AM
Pete,

Actually Mr Beattie never went to the election this year with a "no new taxes" mandate.

Believe me it was the first thing mentioned at our recent MAC meeting - you could see the glint in the eye of those none rec anglers around the table.

I've got no doubt my MAC will be making a recommendation on that issue probably earlier next year.

Bugman

jockey
14-04-2004, 08:01 AM
popular topic this one, but some people have a short memory

If your from QLD and hoven't voted yet then have your say here:

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

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

RASA
14-04-2004, 06:39 PM
10 Quick reasons for a NO RFL

1) There is no reciprocity between the states

2) Touted as a user pay system- false.
Only some users pay, which is possibly the minority and all beneficiaries of increased fishing activity pay zilch

3) Touted as a tool to calculate the number of fishers-False,
RFL's give a limited indication and anybody could give a more accurate guess because not all users are known.

4) You already contribute to the resource by way of multiple GST to a resource you already own. You should be pushing for this money (or a percentage) to be legislated to be returned to the resource. SEE LETTER TO FED GOV IN THE FISHING PARTY WEBSITE.

5)The biggest demand on the resource (the consumer) pays ZILCH to it's sustainable management. WHY?
With all this so-called better fishing the government is soliciting they will surely collect more taxes on what you will spend more often, but guess what?

6)Why is it the responsibility of a few anglers to pay the commercial fishers retirement fund. Anglers are being held to ransom and you are being discriminated against for being made to do this. Does this now set a precedent for creating a new form of SOLICITED TAX. Recreational fishers stocking saltwater with RFL money is only helping the commercial sector! isn't it. Why isn't the commercial sector doing this.

7) If you think having an RFL gives you the right to determine how the resource is managed then you are wrong. You have no rights under Australian Constitution. There is no bill of rights here so you do what ever the government tells you to do that suits their agenda. Lump it. If they want to close you out of fishing there is ZILCH you can do except blockade the highways. Incidently a drivers license doesn't give you any rights to where your license money is spent on the roads does it!

8) Your consultation is only recognised if it suits the bureaucratic agenda. The Australian Acts only state that there will be consultation, they do not commit anybody to listen or act on what you say

9) Anybody can obtain a RFL. You can get one for your dog or your grandmother, you don't have to be able to read signs, know what a garbage bin is or know what type of fish you are catching (it could even be poisonous) You don't even have to prove that you are worthy of holding an RFL and you can share it amongst your mates on different weekends. You can get one or give one for a christmas present. Why do you need an RFL to chase Marlin/Tuna/Gamefish and what benefit would there be.

10) You don't even get to select the representatives that are spending your money on RFLEC's. It is a secret society. The 10% administration costs are decoyed under whatever heading you can dream up.
The Government now has the mandate to not finance projects that they would normally be committing to from consolidated revenue. The fines from court proceedings that you now pay compliance officers to enforce goes back into consolidated revenue and not to the resource or trust accounts


RFL a good deal, I think not and as Kerry inferred earlier where is the green dividend. Now there are less commercial fishers doing the same thing with less competition! or more confined to a smaller area

What the bureaucrats/anglers should do instead is set up another trust and all the anglers who are believers can contribute as much money as they like voluntarily, when they like and then you could dictate where to spend YOUR money on what and when. Run some raffles etc.

I already pay too many taxes on taxes on taxes!


Bob Smith [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

jockey
15-04-2004, 08:01 AM
In response:

1) There could be if we demanded it.

2) The pro's pay for a licence, rec fishermen pay (where there is an RFL), the only ones who don't are fishing illegally - are they the majority?

3) How could anyone give a more accurate estimate?

5) The consumer (people who buy fish?) pay GST and contribute to the licence paid by pros

6) The commercial fishers can already sell their licence on - the only difference with an RFL scheme is that rec fishos effectively buy the licence of them rather than another pro fisherman. All rec anglers should contribute, not just a few. It is helping the rec sector.

7 and 8) As indicated in the second link I posted above, recreational fishermen in NSW get to choose where the pros are bought out from.

9) You can't share an RFL around. It is in your name. An RFL is not about stoppinjg people fishing (as you indicated). This is a good thing. It's about recreational fishermen all contributing to improvements we benefit from.

10) Anyone can get on the selection comittee. I get the impression that they are having trouble getting people to join up rather than turning people away.

Could you get a $20 000 000 loan to buy out pros and pay it back from volunatary donations and a few raffles? An RFL works. It gets rec fishos what they want. Nothing else does.

lordy
15-04-2004, 09:28 AM
popular topic this one, but some people have a short memory

If your from QLD and hoven't voted yet then have your say here:

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

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

It depends how you phrase it. Provided that 100% of the money would be used to buy out the pros and I'd support it (and tick the approved box). Of course I'd expect it to be done away with when there aren't any more pros to buy out. Of course the state gov wouldn't cancel a revenue raiser and we'd be stuck with it forever, and the $ would just go into general revenue.

On the other hand I don't want it, because it won't be used to buy out pros, or at least the active ones. See the other states experiences and you know its not going to favour rec fishos.

It is only acceptable if the funds are given to a body governed and 100% controlled by rec fishos. That won't happen, gov stooges will use our money "for us" ie to pay out pros kicked out of the GBMP by them. Why should we pay for that?

lordy
15-04-2004, 09:47 AM
In response:

1) There could be if we demanded it.


It makes sense to you, me and most people. However every state wants to rip as much money off as many people as possible. Why would they give up the right to screw over someone from another state? Its not as if their vote counts in that state. More money and no lost vote = a WIN for a state gov.




2) The pro's pay for a licence, rec fishermen pay (where there is an RFL), the only ones who don't are fishing illegally - are they the majority?


Do what they did with the milk industry: put a levy on the sale of goods. So put a levy on the sale fish and other seafoods, collect that revenue and pay out the pros that way. Don't screw the rec fishos when its the general public who buy the fish that should be paying for the pros retirement funds.





3) How could anyone give a more accurate estimate?



I agree. But a licence just to get a head count is not a good reason. Just wait for the next census and ask a question to that effect.





5) The consumer (people who buy fish?) pay GST and contribute to the licence paid by pros


Food is not charged GST unless its fast food type stuff. So the consumers are not paying for it via the GST. The pros do however pay a licence fee. See point 2 for a better solution.




6) The commercial fishers can already sell their licence on - the only difference with an RFL scheme is that rec fishos effectively buy the licence of them rather than another pro fisherman. All rec anglers should contribute, not just a few. It is helping the rec sector.


How? Unless the revenue provided via RFL is ADDITIONAL to the existing government spending its not going to do anything. All that will happen is the Gov slowly shifts the existing salaries and expenses from its depts onto the RFL scheme. #Unless the RFL funds are kept 100% seperate, used for 100% complementary activities, and 100% admisinstered by rec fishos for rec fishos the RFL will just go into consolidated revenue and disappear.




7 and 8) As indicated in the second link I posted above, recreational fishermen in NSW get to choose where the pros are bought out from.






10) Anyone can get on the selection comittee. I get the impression that they are having trouble getting people to join up rather than turning people away.


Not true. Is the scheme majority controlled by rec fishos?




Could you get a $20 000 000 loan to buy out pros and pay it back from volunatary donations and a few raffles? An RFL works. It gets rec fishos what they want. Nothing else does.

Will it end after enough pro's are bought out and its "purpose" ceases to exist. I seriously doubt that. Let the fish buying public pay a 5% levy on seafood sales and buy the pros out with that. It makes much more sense. Its worked for Dairy Deregulation Scheme.

basserman
15-04-2004, 11:26 AM
well nsw has used the money for the rfls to do some thing that some of the people seem to have a short memory have forgot like
1 buy out pro fishermen from many of our rivers
2 habitat resoration
3 more stocked dams
4 educationail things for both kids and adluts alike
5 seniars for kids on how to fish and look after fish
6 more inforcment officers which means more illagal fishing being found

so it is going to use it may not be going to use to how every one wants it but atleast it is there and i know alot of people down in my neck of the wood have notaiced the diffrence ;D
i would like to see more done with my rfl and i would also like to see a more accrate account of how the money is being spent!
but one thing i'm sure of is that the RLF is doing more good than damage and if you can't find a lousie bloody $25 per year then there is something wrong!
we all have to think out the futrue of fishing for our kids and grandkids
the days of filling a frezzer of fish is over so we need to look after our breeders and limit our kill not kill our limit ;)

Kerry
15-04-2004, 11:57 AM
And don't forget the cleaning tables, taps and lighting #;D.

Anybody ever see what these cost #:o would have almost had to be 24ct gold plated. Geez, some contractor would have been thankfull for the RFL.

Cheers, Kerry.
#

jockey
15-04-2004, 12:20 PM
Lordy I agree that it seems 'right' to tax the pros to fund a buyout, but that is not politically realistic. We are the ones that will benefit so people will see it as our responsibility to pay for it. Estuaries free of commercial fishermen are a luxury that we will have to fork out for. There is no precedent of this being our right. A tax on fish will harm the pros financially (and this is their livelihood we are talking about) and they will not get any benefit in return. An RFL has a chance because over 50% of rec fishos are in favour of paying for it. How many pros will be in favour of them paying for the buyout?

If we demand the RFL, we can set the conditions, such as who controls the funds and reciprocity between states. I would expect that NSW and QLD will accept each other's licences because I would expect the licence to only apply in SEQ where most of the rec fishos are and where overfishing is worst.

Basserman I think you will find that most people opposed to the RFL are mainly opposed because they are completely against any new tax. As far as I know the support for the RFL in NSW went up after it was implimented and people could see the benefits. I don't know where some people got the idea that there were no real benefits.

Kerry these things cost money to do right. With both state parties focussing on health, education and transport I don't see them spending big on recreational facilities. I guess the motto is let future governments deal with the health impacts of a fat lazy society. No point encouraging people to get out and about now.

lordy
15-04-2004, 12:23 PM
well nsw has used the money for the rfls to do some thing that some of the people seem to have a short memory have forgot like
1 buy out pro fishermen from many of our rivers
2 habitat resoration
3 more stocked dams
4 educationail things for both kids and adluts alike
5 seniars for kids on how to fish and look after fish
6 more inforcment officers which means more illagal fishing being found




I wonder how much of that is being shifted from other areas on to the RFL? When you see enforcement officers being funded from the RFL you know its being used as consolidated revenue.

I still think the best way to buy out pros is with a levy ala the dairy industry.

Kerry
15-04-2004, 12:35 PM
Then of course there's the Victoria situation where all the RFL funding (I believe for the next 2 years) is being channeled into helping re-build recent bush fire damage.

Certainly didn't take the good old Vic's long to smash the piggy bank, yet all those users forced to pay the RFL were actually thinking they were going to get some long needed benefits out of "their" money.

Kerry these things cost money to do right. everything costs money but not the hideous amount of money these facilities cost. Rort might be a better term than cost.

Cheers, Kerry.

JB
15-04-2004, 12:40 PM
Geeze kerry, every time i check here uve posted something political and longwinded, i'm waiting for the day we see some photos in fishing reports section, or something a bit more exciting for a change :-X

RASA
15-04-2004, 12:47 PM
It.s amazing how things get one sided in a predetermined agenda

When the RFL was first mooted by the dollar signs flashing in front of bureaucratic eyes and vote catching headlines, the deliberate question was "Would you support the introduction of an RFL if the money was dedicated to improving recreational fishing" (or similar).
Now you would not have to be a rocket scientist to know what the answer would be would you. After 200 years of total fishery mismanagement the chance of this happening would seem a wonderful idea to most.

Let me be the one to phrase a similar question

"Would you support legislation that would see a percentage of monies raised from the increased tax revenue that you now pay from a GST on all recreational fishing associated activities if it was dedicated to improving recreational fishing and placed in a trust controlled by your selected recreational representatives"

OR

"Would you support legislation that would see levies placed on the sale of seafood where the monies were placed in a trust controlled by your selected representatives to be used to compensate displaced commercial fishers due to restructure of the industry for sustainable purposes"

Or

" Would you support legislation that would ensure developers of coastal and statewide destructive habitat environments pay for restoration work to maintain the waterways in a sustainable manner."

Or

"Would you support legislation that would ensure all beneficiaries to an improved recreational fishing management program contribute to it's financial control so as to not cause any discrimination as to who pays"


As far as I am concerned anglers have been hoodwinked by vote catching promises and decoyed by hidden agendas.

A quote I heard once is "the abnormal will become the normal if let continue"


Bob Smith (again) [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

basserman
15-04-2004, 02:08 PM
so to all of youz how are tottaly against any tax or rfl or any other thing that helps to pay for work done for you to enjoy your fav pasttime i would like to know how would you pay for restocking or habitat restoration or other projects??? or do you think we should leave everything the way it was like in vic or NSW where some rivers were almost void of fish life???
with everyone crying out of their peice of the tax pie and after it goes around there sure isn't much left!
i'm not saying the rfl is the best system but if we want they types of fishing our fathers had for our kids then don't we need to do something???

so just like if we want to drive on the better roads we need to pay the tolls then if we want better fishing in all our waters then maybe we need to pay our way!
sure it is only the fishermen paying for the licence and not the people that buy it from the fish mongers but hey if don't want to py if (nsw) then buy your fish at the markets but i'm going to pay because i enjoy the fishing more than just buying fish!

if we look at most sports the members need to join a club and those fees helps pay for their fields upkeep! maybe thats what the rfl is just to pay for upkeep and not just a tax!

Kerry
15-04-2004, 03:50 PM
Basserman, I believe restocking (as it really only practical to impoundments etc) is a completely different issue and if you think we should leave everything the way it was like in vic or NSW where some rivers were almost void of fish life then maybe we might have just about stuffed every waterway along the east coast with more dams, impoundments, weirs, barrages and the like and nobody is going to deny that stuffing up just about every waterway has totally changed the normal environment in these waterways and fishy things obviously know when things simply aren't normal.

So why should the people who want to fish in these restricted waterways have to pay for the privilege when the whole community are the ones benefiting from the water supplies created by this mass of artificial flow barriers. The whole system suffers right through to commercial fishing both in the river systems and offshore yet the same old lame brain excuse about there being no fish is this crap about overfishing, commercial activities etc etc.

One needs to stem the problem at the source not some convienient horse called the rec fisherman that gets flogged whenever the authorities need somebody to blame for bad planning, bad management and basically bureaucratic incompetence in many areas. #

Cheers, Kerry.

Kerry
15-04-2004, 03:59 PM
Geeze #kerry, every time i check here uve posted something political and longwinded, i'm waiting for the day we see some photos in fishing reports section, or something a bit more exciting for a change #:-X

You'll be waiting :-X do I really need some photo's in the fishing reports section ;) Not that I couldn't, just won't, just don't see the need.

I'm normally not into this crapy political stuff but sometimes one has to do what one has to do ;D

So what would you suggest would be more exciting?

Cheers, Kerry.

basserman
15-04-2004, 04:11 PM
if you think we should leave everything the way it was like in vic or NSW where some rivers were almost void of fish life then maybe we might have just about stuffed every waterway along the east coast with more dams, impoundments, weirs, barrages and the like and nobody is going to deny that stuffing up just about every waterway has totally changed the normal environment in these waterways and fishy things obviously know when things simply aren't normal.

So why should the people who want to fish in these restricted waterways have to pay for the privilege when the whole community are the ones benefiting from the water supplies created by this mass of artificial flow barriers.

not all river on the east coast are damed or restricted i live on the mid north coast and the closest damed rivers are ether in SEQLD or in the hunter region

sure the whole cominity benifits from the dam but that why we all pat rates water and electricity
but i was saying that it is the fisherman that get the joy out of catching the fish not the avrage joe blow that hasn't touched a rod in his life (and doesn't know what hes missing)
i am the first to admit that since the RFL i have seen a HUGE diffrence in the fishing on the hastings river
from when once we had weed bed getting destroyed and lucky to catch a 40cm bream in a year to now the 40cm bream is just the normal size and we are now getting the big bluenose 50cm on the lures! ;D
i do agree dam so make rivers suffer (murry and snowy rivers)
but that why it is more important to have the RFLs so the goverments can't have the excuse of 'it will cost $XXX to fix and we don't have that cash' now we can demand the problem get fixed as the money should be there
as i sayed oragainly i would like to see in more detail where the money is getting spent and our system is not the best yet but it is far from the worst or a sysetem where no one has a say!
but i would like to here how we could fix the fisherys with out a RFL that will put money back in to some thing we use!

the saying has never been more true than now day "you get nothing for nothing" ;D

banshee
15-04-2004, 06:04 PM
As Basserman has stated,the proof is in the pudding.Fact is in N.S.W. there are twenty three waterways that have either no commercial or restricted commercial activity in them,this would not have happend with out an RFL.The money is under the control of the Rec Fishing Trust Expenditure Committee,who by the way are fisherman elected by fisherman,ten percent of the money goes into admin the rest goes into Rec fishing.Once we have payed back the initial loans that were needed to kick this off(four years) there will be further buy backs,more pros gone,more good news.I see the $25 soon to be $30 I spend a year as money well spent.The way I see it is either you Queenslanders get with the program and get the best representation you can for your license fee or be prepared to be locked out of more fishing areas.

Fitzy
15-04-2004, 09:59 PM
I still cant for the life of me see why rec anglers should be paying for pros to be bought out. Bull$h1t at its extreme. Sure we may well want their numbers/activities reduced for whatever reason, but if our fisheries had been effectively managed by our fisheries managers, then there wouldn't be a chance of an excess of licences, there wouldn't be a chance of an over quota & therefore no need for buy outs. Have the pros simply been providing a service to the community for the past 20 decades in Oz? No, they do it for the $$$.
When I became redundant in the meat game, no recreational hunters had to pay me out, people who eat meat weren't nailed with a levy, my employer who made money from the business paid me out. (they could have paid me a bit more BTW #;D).
We've had the propoganda run up the flag pole in the past about voluntary license buy outs. The spin doctors plastered it everywhere in the media, but upon a closer examination of the facts it was realised the total catch quota was the same as before, just divided up amoung a smaller group. Same size pie, just bigger slices for the remainder.
Dont get me wrong, I've worked on commercial boats & probably will do again in the future, it pays the bills & feeds the kids. But I wont be running around, cap in hand, crying poor wanting handouts if there's no work any more. I'll move on.
If there's a need to have quotas reduced due to declining stocks, then it falls back upon fisheries managers to explain why the stocks have declined ie over fishing, habitat degredation, illegal fishing, disease, pestilence, natural disaster etc.
If I dont do my job properly I face the sack, yet it seems the only way to get some folks out of fisheries is in a body bag. Its seriously a standing joke amoung many of them. It is their role to ensure sustainability of the primary resource for commercial primary industries (eg farming, fishing) and for the continuity of the various species.

Basserman. You omitted to mention, in your dot points about the NSW RFL, that NSW are now planning to sell off many NSW rivers. Great news, not. #::) Me being a predominately sweetwater angler these days, I'm rather pissed that I pay my NSW RFL & now face the future of reduced access & reduced water levels/environmental flows in many rivers I like to go chase cod. I've also noted that since the NSW RFL was introduced, several TSRs (travelling stock reserves) in great river country have been shut to anglers. I'll trust you if you say its been an overall good thing, but from my persective it hasnt shaped up to the promises made then & now.

It's not about just forking out $25. It's about the principle of the issue. IMHO anyone, anywhere, anytime should be able to just decide to go for a fish & not have to pay for what was once in NSW/Vic (any other states?) & still is in Qld, a God given right to do. And who is to say a RFL is going to stay at $25?

In any system there needs to be performance indicators in place with public access to the findings, not just glowing press releases from spin doctors. The whole thing MUST be 100% transparent to keep public confidence on side. If we ever find the money is getting siphoned off for non-assosciated things, we would need to have a referendum or make it a major election issue to get it stopped. Not easy to do.

I'm a skeptic, but not a born one. I've been shafted far too many times by fisheries managers & am very very wary of carrots held up. If something looks to good to be true, it usually is........

Better shut up now.

Fitzy..

bugman
16-04-2004, 04:33 AM
Gentlemen,

Just a couple of points of interest. No-one has mentioned the need for extra research into the fishery.

Stock assessments on most species are almost non existent or years out of date. There's no credible figures on the take impact of recreational fishers and there's little or no research being done on the impact of closures or reduced fisheries on the social structure of communities.

Without this "evidence" it's hard for fisheries or the government to make any decision without taking an educated guess. (And you guys all agreed with the educated guess taken with the GNS closures ;))

I personally would agree to anything that sees more guaranteed money going to research because it just aint there at the moment and it's hurting us all.

On another note - a little birdy told me that around 40% of all N symbol (net) pro licences could be removed in the near future. But as Fitzy said it won't reduce the overall catchrate but at least it's a start.

Bugman

JB
16-04-2004, 06:18 AM
I suggest , less time typing and more time fishing kerry ;)

RASA
16-04-2004, 01:27 PM
Response to Jockey


In response:

1) There could be if we demanded it.

Rep: Why didn't you demand that taxes already collected be used instead of creating a new one

2) The pro's pay for a licence, rec fishermen pay (where there is an RFL), the only ones who don't are fishing illegally - are they the majority?

Rep: Nothing to do with pro's. The minority I am talking about is out of the 1 million anglers in NSW that access the resource only 400,000 qualify for licenses! Is that a minority user pay system.

3) How could anyone give a more accurate estimate?

Rep: The National estimate is close to 4 million
The original dollar signs in NSW estimated 2.5 million anglers fished at some time in NSW. Why do you want a more accurate number. It is stated at federal treasury level that recrearional angling activities generate $3 billion to the national economy. Can't the national census determine how many people go fishing when you tell them everything else and that would be more accurate for no cost.

5) The consumer (people who buy fish?) pay GST and contribute to the licence paid by pros

Rep:The consumer pays ZILCH to manage the resource and if they are classed as doing so then we must be paying more than once. The consumer demands more so the management lets more of the resource be harvested, a vicious cycle don't you think.

6) The commercial fishers can already sell their licence on - the only difference with an RFL scheme is that rec fishos effectively buy the licence of them rather than another pro fisherman. All rec anglers should contribute, not just a few. It is helping the rec sector.

Rep: What is the difference whether 2,000 pro fishers catch 1,000 ton or after you have paid out half you now have 1,000 pro fishers catching the same 1,000 ton?

7 and As indicated in the second link I posted above, recreational fishermen in NSW get to choose where the pros are bought out from.

Rep: It seems that way but think about the two biggest areas in that lot Lake Macquarie was a heavy metal problem waterway where now this problem has been removed under false accolades, and Botany Bay is now going to be designated for a major container terminal including extensive dredging. The Minister has now publicly stated that there will be no more havens created.

9) You can't share an RFL around. It is in your name. An RFL is not about stoppinjg people fishing (as you indicated). This is a good thing. It's about recreational fishermen all contributing to improvements we benefit from.

Rep: You need to check that answer. I believe any number of people can use one license between them on different days/weekends. This licence does not require all recreational fishers to contribute does it when all recreational fishers don't have to buy one even at a reduced rate.

10) Anyone can get on the selection comittee. I get the impression that they are having trouble getting people to join up rather than turning people away.

Rep: You are mistaken or lied too if you believe you select your representatives. My understanding is that the more hands you put up and the more brown your nose is the better chance you have of getting on these committees

Could you get a $20 000 000 loan to buy out pros and pay it back from volunatary donations and a few raffles? An RFL works. It gets rec fishos what they want. Nothing else does.

Rep: I did not give my permission for anybody to borrow money on my behalf and I certainly would not give my borrowed money to commercial fishers even if I did.

The end result of my arguements here is that, all that is happening could have been accomplished in other ways than involving an RFL and you the angler should have used your numbers to ensure that happened, rather than give in so easily and be led around by the nose.


Bob Smith (again)

Gazza
16-04-2004, 02:28 PM
So it's agreed ,no RFL necessary ;D

banshee
16-04-2004, 03:18 PM
Fitzy the reason that Rec fishos should buy out commercial licenses is because no one else is going to do it,it's as simple as that.This country has an incredible amount of infrastructure for it's population,it is to be expected that the govt of the day is going to pilfer what they can,with commitment from govt in the form of legislation and a committee of fisherman overseeing expenditure the RFL is working in N.S.W.,it may be a bastard,but it's our bastard.In my opinion if it were not for the anglers of this region having a vested interest,I would be currently enjoying a no take zone that would stretch from the Tweed to the South Wall of the Richmond including all rivers and extending varying distances out to sea(what the Greens want).No one likes taxes but the bitter pill is sweetened some if you can see benefits flowing from it.

Gazza
16-04-2004, 04:14 PM
banshee , I think i've invented a new word vigilante-ism ;D ,it is :o , i claim copyright(s)

not enough police ,let's shoot em ourselves.

more doctors.....let's do bush medicine.
buyout Pro's......your fn joking

banshee
16-04-2004, 05:22 PM
I guess your right Gazz,you guys have had a dream run in the past and things aren't looking that bad,I can only relate to what has happened here,so if it's not broke don't fix it,if it is broke,I'm sure some one will look after it for you.

Kerry
17-04-2004, 02:17 AM
I suggest , less time typing and more time fishing kerry #;)

Might have to get you a suggestion box ;D

Cheers, Kerry.

jockey
17-04-2004, 12:59 PM
What matters is whether we would get value for money. It looks like the rec fishos in NSW did. I am prepared to have some of my money wasted on admin if I get out more than I put in. $25 isn't much. If there is a lot more fish around we could end up spending less on bait, gear, boats to get us out to the only decent spot etc. It could end up saving us money. It could save us a lot of money. A new tax is worth it if you get something good back for it.

I am also concerned about the money being spent on stuff that would otherwise come out of consolidated revenue, and the rec fishos from NSW may get screwed over this. But that can be dealt with. Either demand that the money only be spent on buying out the pros, or demand dollar for dollar matching (or dollar for two dollar) if the money is spent on something else like research or better policing. That's extra money from the consolidated revenue above what's already spent. Maybe you guys from NSW should start raising this issue.

Maybe we would get rec fishing only areas one day even without an RFL. Or maybe not. Without an RFL there would be a lot less and I think it is worth paying for to get them earlier.

As for the pro effort simply being shifted, that is not exactly the case whne you buy out an estuary. Sure some of the fish swim out and get netted, but you also get a lot more fish coming in - like the large predators - if there are more fish in the estuary. Flathead don't migrate (as far as I know). Also its better to have the pros net the fish on the outside where they won't get as much bycatch and rip up the bottom. In any case we get first dibs on them and the pros get them if we don't catch them all. Fine by me. The more rec fishermen use the estuary, the less the pros get on the outside.