RFL for QLD?

[jockey]

Or do you think we can get the pros out of our estuaries without and RFL?

RFL = Recreational Fishing Licence ($25 per year in NSW)

Queenslanders only please (for the poll that is).

[Duncs]

Lobby groups have been trying for years to have the pros removed and it hasn't got us very far, $25 is not that much, just so long as it is directly spent on improving fishing. Friends in NSW reckon the fishing has improved out of sight in the rivers where the pros have been bought out. The price of fish in the shops never did go up either (funny that).

See 'Saltwater Sport Fishing' issue 23 (Spring 03) for Gary Brown's article on Botany Bay-
"Not expecting a great change, I can say that I was staggered at how the fishery has rebounded....Even though the winter of 2002 would have to be the worst on record there was not a day when we could not find plenty of fish in Botany Bay!"

Considering thats on the doorstep of 4 million people, imagine how good moreton bay could be!

Cheers

Duncan

[charleville]

A fishing licence to help pay for stocking and dams is a sensible thing but to levy a new tax (ie a licence) for fishing the open estuaries and oceans is a bit like taxing air.

Yes- ostensibly, the licence fees would fund the buying out of commercial licences but I fear that any new tax will end up becoming just another source of general revenue and that will offer future governments the opportunity to increase the tax at will. It would be harder to create a new tax line a recreational fishing licence than increase the fee once it is introduced.

Happy to pay my way but I am aghast when I visit Victoria and see parking meters at every beach; when I hear of boat ramp fees without any real visibility of better boat ramps; and when I hear of recreational fishing licences in the south that would force the once a year impulse fisherman to have to plan ahead to take the kids fishing on a lazy Sunday arvo.

We are a tourist state - let's not make recreation something hard to do. The government will already be making enough tax from the tourism industry to justify upgrading all boat ramps to the same magnificence as the one beside the Nerang River Bridge. If we then want them to buy out commercial fishers, then let that be a statement of election policy and funded from general revenue.

[Gazza]

Chuck-in a $10.00 hunting-option to "use a lock-it-up greenie for crab-bait" and i'll buy 2 (different names of course ;D )

[spike2]

i think the licence is a good idea it puts a definite number on the people fishing and that gives us political clout ,and it quantifies the commercial value of amatuer fishermen #From what l have seen in nsw the money collected from licencse is not going into general revenue but is only being used to improove fishing #. l get alot of pleasure out of the bay and dont mind cotributing to its benifit , at $ 25 #it only represents a couple of lures or a days fuel its not going to break the bank but it has the potential to do a lot of good

[imported_admin]

Anyone that owns a boat already pays $12.00 per year PPV levy with their boat rego. This goes to fisheries, so they would have to get rid of that $12.00 off the rego first and then charge every angler the new tax.

If the fee was guaranteed to be used 100% to improve the fishery, buy out active commercial fisherman, etc, I think people would support it. But if it was used to buy out commercial licences that are not being used then what is the point. The government would just get the kudos of saying they have bought out X number of commercial licences to help improve the fishery.

The current government has a NO New Tax Policy so I can't see how they would be able to get it through without breaking their policy, not that that will stop them. ;D

As spike said though it would give a definite quantity and economic value on the number of rec anglers.

What about the SIP ?
It would have to be a Saltwater licence, or all waters except Stocked Impoundments, as there may be confusion between the SIP and new licence. Either that or they would have to make it an All Waters licence and fund the Stocked Impoundments out of it at the same level, with yearly increases, they currently are.

I would be more than happy to pay an annual fee providing the above could be fully answered by the government first.

[Gazza]

ya dreamin' :P , doesn't less trawling, same quota ::) , mean more hands on deck ??? to feed the masses.

Extinguish TONNAGE ,not licence numbers latent-crap >:(
That costs nothing ,as the commercials are restructuring to maintain quotas ,if price goes up a notch , so what? ,the consumer can pay ??? ??? ???

KEEP the SIP ,stick the RFL where it don't SHINE!!!!

[jockey]

What does SIP stand for - stocked impoundment ..... ? Why would they have to drop the boat licence? Is this licence specifically for boats used for fishing, or is it for all boats? I'd assume more than half of anglers don't have their own boat (like me)

Is there a different licence for fresh and saltwater in NSW?

I'd assume that they would 'join up' with the NSW licence so the one licence works everywhere - people would probably buy the licnece in the state where they do the most fishing. That would take care of NSW tourists.

I think the NSW pollies had to include clauses that ensure that the money is only used to improve rec angling, we could do the same.

Gazza some fisheries have a TAC, some work by licences etc. I'm pretty sure kicking the pros out of estuaries reduced the actual amount caught by pros - if they improvement noticed by rec anglers is anything to go by.

[imported_admin]

SIP - Stocked Impoundment Permit

Not talking about boat licence. Was talking about the $12.00 PPV (Personal Pleasure Vehicle) fee included in boat rego. Everyone that has a boat/pleasure vehicle registered is already paying this fee which goes to fisheries, so therefor already paying a form of fishing licence. Just that no one knows exactly what this fee is used for. I think it just goes into the coffers for running fisheries, commercial, rec, etc.

[jockey]

I would assume that QLD has a much lower ratio of recreational to commercial fishermen than NSW. To buy out all the pros in the state's estuaries would probably require a much larger fee than in NSW. The population generally decreases as you head North. This means that the number of recreational fishermen decreases, but not necessarily the number of pros. If we looked at the numbers it may be obvious that an RFL scheme would make sense in the south but not in the north. What we need is for some body (govt, sunfish, ansa?) to look into the figures and come up with some estimates. That is, for a few different areas (such as I indicated in the poll) and perhaps also a few different RFL fees, what would the outcome be? How fast could we buy out the pros?

Until we can get these estimates then this debate cannot go much further. If the poll results so far reflect the general fishing public's attitude to the idea then I think there is a definite mandate for sunfish or some other group to look into it. Was there a similar investigation in NSW before they introduced the scheme and if so, were the results made public?

[Lucky_Phill]

Once a ' tax' is introduced, it will never be repealled.

The Ansett tax is an example, that ' one off' rise in vehicle regos about 3 years ago. etc

I, likemost people, won't be offended by the introduction of a licence, but would like full and open accountability on such a fee.

It is NOT to be used to buy out commercial licences.

It is to put facilities at boat ramps, patrol officers in the field, fund research in fish stocks, boating education, fishing education, VMR assistance, fishing regulation education and more worthy causes than assisting a few ' sea rapers '.

If such a licence should appear, let's not hope that it takes 50% of the monies collected to manage it. There is departments in place already for this.

Cheers Phill

[Gazza]

Lucy #:P :P Pill #:P :P

Mate ,one transitional issue that IMHO ,you i.e. NSW/VIC/smart-state RecFishos ,continue to 'overlook'.....

Admincosts?....and of no benefit bar , bank the money!!

UNNECESSARY time-wasting focus on "do you have an RFL" ,rather than bag & size (fishery focus ,for your kids,kids children #::) ::) ::) ),geez I hate that crap #[smiley=thumbsdown.gif]

Mate ,fred 'criminal' will have a bloody RFL ,and still mince away, and keep more than he should.

And a 'previous' recreational fisho with occasional wife,mate,deckie on-board ,and not to mention families, get togethers with multiple mixes ,to have a fish #,becomes a nightmare of logistics ,to say FRIGGIN ,what ,sorry "you can't fish" mate.......

I'm now the GESTAPO /criminal kinghitter ,on a family outing ........ pointing out like those poor paranoid pricks in NSW/VIC , saying "betcha that bastard doesn't have a RFL"

Like C'mon

IN FRIGGIN QUEENSLAND !!!!!
No-way do we need , do we want ,this.....

Bullshit!!!!!

p.s. phil ,not at ya mate ,but spellun ain't a strong pint!! #[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[peterbo3]

Well,
This heap of crap idea rears it's ugly head once again. Why not a tax to access Internet Fishing sites? >:( #>:( Why not a tax to swim in the surf? ;D ;D Governments get heaps of money- OUR money. The problem is in how they spend it. The
boating fraternity pay enough as it is. And as the Minister for Huge Smiles (Peter Beatty) has already stated...........
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY NO NEW TAXES & we wouldn't want to turn Pete into a liar would we? ::) ::) ::)
Although there was this Ambulance Levy (Tax) that was introduced when the "No new taxes" promise was in force last year :-X :-X

[webby]

Well Stated Peter. "Shove the Licences and Shove the Taxes", as sure as shit if they were introduced we'd see 10% returned to the Rec side and the rest disolved into the Govt' Coffers.

regards

[Gorilla_in_Manila]

Hmmm .... Beware the thin end of the wedge. ;)

[SteveCan]

Mate - you will not see me voting for a new tax.

I agree that $25 is not a great impost - for the amount of fishing I do it is sweet bugger all. I think that there are a lot of well meaning fishoes in this site who probably feel the same. But what about all the the tens of thousands of 'hardly ever' anglers who only drop a line in once in a blue moon? What about the kiddies who take a hand line down to the local creek to try an hook one - only to get hooked by the sport themselves?

I DO think buying out commercial licences and reducing commercial catch is a good thing.

I do NOT think that putting a cover charge on fishing would be a good thing.

The longer it takes to bring it in (coz they will eventually get us >:() #the BETTER!

Cheers
Steve.

[PinHead]

An RFL in Qld...then we could be like Vic...pay for the use of boat ramps etc..no bloody way. My local member would be bombarded day after day with emails if they introduce a RFL.
NO BLOODY RFL AT ALL

[sharkbait]

For me, it boils down to this. I'm not happy with the way the fisheries resource is managed in QLD. I see the RFL as a way to improve this. I don't believe in QLD being the major seafood supplier to japan, norfolk island and wherever else exported seafood goes. I believe cutting back the commercial effort will not mean 'no fish for the average joe' who doesnt fish himself. I also think more beginner fishos are put off the sport by not being able to catch a scale than they would be by having to pay $5 to fish for the weekend.

[Gazza]

"I also think more beginner fishos are put off the sport by not being able to catch a scale than they would be by having to pay $5 to fish for the weekend."
----------------------------------------------


With a guarantee to catch fish, I'm sure the Pumicestone Passage (RFHaven) would gladly pay $5.00 ,just like the 483,000 Sydneyites , who have to pay to fish Sydney Harbour & Pro's

Comes with a bait/$5.00 refund of course , sounds fair ,I'm in ;)

[Brett_Hoskin]

I don't think we should contribute to the Pros compensation.
Their own mis management and greed has probably been one of the highest factors contributing to the reduction in profitable work and effort ratios. I ahve not read a lot about the QLD situation(doesn't seem to get a lot of press in Mackay) but I know that once a buyback was touted around in NSW pros came out of the woodwork and declared huge incomes for the #period leading up to the advertised assesment date. Read into that what you wish.
The bottom line is that each and every Australian owns the fish in the ocean that the pros take and I disagree that a reduction in local catch will set retail prices upwards. Look at the local content of fish in the supermarkets..mostly imported..lots of our fish ends up overseas.
I say ban all commercial fishing in Australian waters , import retail product, encourage families to get out and catch a fish. and build our resourse for the future once systems can be put in place for fish to be harvested commercially for consumption by Australians.

[PinHead]

Brett..you cannot ban all commercial fishing anywhere..that is ludicrous. That is akin to saying that because so much land has been cleared that we need to get it back to the way it was..therefore no more cattle farming..we will import all our beef. Managed resources is the key..and not by way of an RFL to fund it either...the Govt wastes so much money as it is they could easily fund it from consolidated revenue.

[Kerry]

Honestly some of the suggestions are off this planet.

Qld being the "smart state" it would be a very uninformed gov that would try and pull this one especially considering the crap from down south.

Shove it [smiley=greedy.gif]

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Well well well looks like its exactly 50/50 at the moment. Remember in NSW a lot of people who originally opposed it now think its a good idea....

Another thought - how long have these pros had their licences? If they went back several generations then I guess its fair to compensate them, but if there has been a lot of expansion recently then they should have realised that it wasn't going to last.

Does anyone know how much they pay the pros in NSW? Do they just give them the market value of their licences, or do they calculate the payout from the pros income?

[Gazza]

Well well well looks like its exactly 50/50 at the moment. Remember in NSW a lot of people who originally opposed it now think its a good idea....

Another thought - how long have these pros had their licences? If they went back several generations then I guess its fair to compensate them, but if there has been a lot of expansion recently then they should have realised that it wasn't going to last.
Does anyone know how much they pay the pros in NSW? Do they just give them the market value of their licences, or do they calculate the payout from the pros income?

do you mean ,IF we employed them ,like Gov't (taxpayer funded)staff? ,that we owe them long-service leave and super and holiday pay?

when you say 'they' should of realised ? ,do you mean like....

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news/newsreleases/13821.html

or maybe...

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news/newsreleases/13576.html

or like this...

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news/newsreleases/11882.html

and this...from the competition #;) #:-X

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/news/newsreleases/12468.html

As the trawling market is employing less ,doesn't this mean the 'handlining' opportunities are increasing ?

as for "support of the RFL vote" , maybe that's just the SIP people ,wanting to pay ONLY $25.00 #??? :o #;D ;D

or maybe the PPV is dropped ? #;)

just some angles to work on.........enjoy #[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[jockey]

No Gazza I wasa referring to whether we were taking away an 'historical right' or just putting a stop to a recent trend. It really comes down to how the licences are traded and how the compensation is calculated. From my limited understanding, I think that there is a limited number of licences in each estuary and that these are freely traded - so it is a simple matter to buy them back. If they were handed out for free (based on participation) a long time ago that doesn't really matter. If they aren't traded very often then there may be a difference between the market value and the value calculated by the government.

[Gazza]

I see ,so since recreational Fishing has occurred in the GBR for the last 200+ years , and 'they've' taken away 30% from Recreational fishing 'historical fishing grounds' we should ALL be due for a cheque in the mail i.e. $4billion by 30% divided by 600,000 equals....
$2000 each. #:o [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
Yep , i think i can afford an RFL now #;) ;D ;D

[bugman]

Nice debate fellas - my we've become a socially minded organisation over the years.

Anyway for those that didn't know. Fisheries over the past 10 years has set about reducing latent effort for commercial fisherman. This is "what currently isn't being caught with the licences currently held but what in theory be caught if they all tried."

At the same time if any fisherman decides to upgrade (especialy regulated sections like East Coast Trawl) then they are forced to give back quota units to account for the less time they'll spend at sea as a result of their better gear.

I'm not defending the problems with fisheries - however I think most people should realise that about 10 years ago it was finally realised by some that the sh@t was about to hit the fan and they decided to reign in the industry.

I would argue they were 15 years to late and the progress has been too slow but the mindset is there for change. I don't think a RFL will have a greater impact on this mindset either way.

A viable commercial fishing sector is always going to remain but with stricter regulation. I think the thing that many of us recreational fishermen struggled to come to grips with is the fact the recreational sector is also going to remain but with stricter regulation as well.

Here's to the future.

Brett

[jockey]

Of course there will always be commercial fishermen but where they compete most with a growing rec sector they should be stopped completely. I think its reasonable (and inevitable) to completely stop pro fishing in our more populated estuaries, don't you Brett?

[bugman]

Jockey,

With my rec angler hat on of course I agree with that opinion. However a rec angler hat might mean that I have a very narrow view of the situation. If a sustainable commercial sector can be maintained in a heavily populated area there is no real reason - other than the wishes of rec anglers - for the practise to stop.

If it's unsustainable - well that's another issue.

Brett

[Lucky_Phill]

I habe to back Brett up here, in one sense, that this debate is opening up and more are having a say. This type of discussion is great, some be wrong some be right, but most important, YOU HAVE AN OPINION !

What you must do , is turn that opinion into something. Don't tell ya mates you're unhappy about something regarding ya favourite passtime, tell your local member, state member, federal member, local newspaper editor, next door neighbour and your dog.

This way you'll get good info, more feedback and facts rather that speculation !

OH, Brett, about the hats you wear ( rec fishing being one ), I like the Yellow one with the 2 beer can holders each side ;D ;) ::) :P ;D

Cheers Phill

[jockey]

Brett do you also wear a pro fishing hat (wouldn't want you to get sunburnt out there)? If so, what sort of commercial fishing are you into - estuaries? Can you explain how the licensing system and trading of licenses works, or how the compensation for the NSW pros was calculated?

Suppose a sustainable pro fishing industry was operating in Moreton Bay and bringing in a grand total of $50 per year in profits, while at the same time reducing the value of the rec industry by $50 000, then it would make sense to stop the pro fishing. Its not just that the rec fishos want it, its that they value it a lot more.

[Brett_Hoskin]

Metaphorically speaking.

A sheep farmer has to:
buy his land, buy stock, enter into a breeding program to increase his investment, grow feed to feed them, water them , treat with chemicals to reduce disease, then he has to endure drought and or flood etc then he employs people to shear the sheep, and send stock off to market paying transport costs etc etc etc all for thae average return of about $2.00 per kilo with the average lamb weighing 20kilo.

A pro fisherman buys a boat and buys the right to operate #an annually renewable #fishing license . He then must follow some rules regarding size of fish and where he can fish. There is absolutley zero contribution to stock replenishment. It is all take, take, take. Now that the fish numbers have decreased the pros are kicking up about the management of areas under commercial #pressure. And I bet he gets more that $2.00 per kilo.


Would it be incorrect in saying that, regardless of the rules or laws of the day, that the reduction and necessary "hard line" that is now being taken is a direct result of overfishing .

I think the pro fisherman should not be eligible for any compensation as it would appear that they have done nothing of note to maintain the longevity of the resource.

[Graham_N_Roberts]

Yep ... RFL for sure, so long as it's used for enhancement of the fishery.

At least the reco will be on a par with the pro in one respect (and flaten one of their arguments for special treatment) ... we ruddy well pay for fishin' to! ;D

[bugman]

Jockey,

Sorry mate but a pro fishing hat certainly wouldn't fit on this head and I don't think I'd like to try one on. However I am involved to a small degree with Fisheries policy here in Queensland like some other members of this site.

Through that association I'm able to gain a wider understanding of the complete fishing industry (rec/pro) in the state.

Too often I think we see things as black and white and therefore like to see actions that resemble that point of view. Trouble is, in my career and through fisheries I've never seen anything that is black or white. Therefore a lot of the decisions that are made don't satisfy the majority of people.

Personally I've put forward a proposal to make Moreton Bay a Marine Reserve free of commercial activity other than tourism. Use of the reserve would be on a user/pays system. I think 100 years from now if that decision was taken our great/great grandchildren will be thanking us. However the leap to that position is massive and must be made in tiny little steps that take a great deal of time.

Brett,
Your argument certainly has merit but I'm afraid the Federal and High Court of Australia don't quite see it that way. I think you'll find there are precedents set for the compensation of the withdrawal of someone's livelihood through government aquisition. (obviously on a case by case basis). I'm afraid neither you nor I nor the state government has the will nor the money to challenge such precedents. Who am I to argue with the law.

Brett

[jockey]

Lobby groups have been trying for years to have the pros removed and it hasn't got us very far

How come I've never heard of these lobby groups?

Brett how long do you think it will be before Moreton Bay becomes a no commercial fishing reserve? By user pays, do you mean by way of a licence or on a per use basis? Rather than having a separate scheme for one bay, wouldn't it be better to have a state wide (or 1 1/2 state wide) system?

Do you know if anyone has looked into the numbers for a QLD RFL? ie how much can we as rec fishos get for $25 each pa.

[peterbo3]

Suck a SurfSki!!!
Brett,
You will open a 44 gallon can of worms with the proposed closure of the Bay to all but Tourist activities. >:( >:( >:(

We have the Port of Brisbane & transit of the bay by cargo vessels. Where do they go? Or are only Cruise ships allowed in?

As for fishing, large areas of the GBR are closed to all fishing but still open to tourism. So fishing is banned? And is it banned from Redcliffe jetty or can I fish if I pay?

A minority section of the population has been granted certain hunting & fishing rights in the bay via a number of High Court decisions. What happens here?

People actually LIVE on a large number of islands in the bay. They sure aren't tourists. Are we going to resume their property so we can have a pristine environment for tourists/visitors?

I live in Brisbane. I have been fishing & boating on the Bay for 30+ years. I am not a tourist & I am not a visitor. Just as citizens of this country have certain rights (implied & actual) that non-citizens do not have, residents of this part of the woods should be higher in the pecking order than someone just off the tour bus.

As for fees, has the GBRMP visitor levy reduced the amount of nutrient or soil runoff onto the reef? No science out there yet on this one. ;) ;) ;) ;) Nor will there be. :o :o :o :o :oAnd do you really believe that GBRMPA will stop at 30% lockup when they & the "do not touch under any circumstances" conservation groups that back them declare that 50% lockup would not be a bad thing. And all this from an unelected, unaccountable body. So will the GBRMPA be the model for the body to CONTROL, not manage, Moreton Bay? Hope not!!!

And as for paying to fish, well, Govt must be able to pay the Inspectors/Patrol Officers who will be out there checking to see if you have paid so that they can be paid so they can check if you have paid so they can be paid....................................... ::) ::) ::)

Australia has a taxation system that a lot of people complain about so it must work to a degree. Govt gets the MONEY already. They need to spend it more carefully. We do not need more locked-up park areas. Govt needs to manage the EXISTING areas properly with the money that they already have.

[Kerry]

How come I've never heard of these lobby groups?

Lobby groups :-X Gee, where ya been these last few years.

For one the WWF (and comments by Imogen Zethoven) would have the whole Qld coast closed to all fishing tomorrow if they could. That is ALL fishing, 100% closure.

No differentiating with this lot but they must simply love the in fighting with Recs trying to outst the pro's. At the end of the day some better believe that what they percieve as the enemy might in fact be an ally when it comes to some of these lobby groups.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

Perhaps that's why Kerry, you didn't give the name of the lobby group. Is it like a secret club? In case we have crossed wires, I was asking about the lobby groups acting on behalf of rec fishos trying to oust the pros, not the WWF.

I'm not really afraid of the greens as you seem to be. Maybe I see threats to the presence of the fish we want to catch as more significant than threats to our right to catch them.

[SNELLY]

For mine I think we should have a RFL. It is the only way we can get a combined voice and get some action.

My view on buying out licences - The value should be like any other business ie a multipile of the profit - Lets see your tax return for the last 5 years and work out a firgure based on that - Bet that would get a few people jumping

[bugman]

Jockey,

Sunfish is the most obvious but there are other regional and private groups which also have their say to Government when they feel the urge. You can and should as well.

Settle Pete, ;)
My one line of "proposal to make Moreton Bay a Marine Reserve free of commercial activity other than tourism." is obviously not long enough to explain the full detail of my thoughts. However it is a very good example of the black/white/grey argument. There is plenty of room for commercial activites which meet much stricter guidelines in my master plan ;D - HOWEVER they ALL would be subject to the user pays system with the majority of the cash going back into the park.

I'm only thinking of the future mate - and when I say that I don't mean 20 years I mean 100 years. I'm also not talking about locking it away for no-one to use but for it to be used at a level which means it - as a total resource - does not diminish. Which I'm afraid is happening now. :'(

In answer to your question Jockey. I consider my self young ;) and I'll be old before I ever see it. Some people on this board probably will never see it. :-/

Brett

[jockey]

Lets hope it doesn't take that long. From what I've seen in NSW it can happen in a very short time, once the right people decide to run with it.

That's 22 votes for, 20 against.

[Gazza]

Hate to be hanging by the 'short and curlies' for 10years

22 votes for ......Wahoo :D , that's the quickest $550.00 you'll ever get , minus ;D the 19 people who want to pay $25.00 for the SIP ,instead of $35.00 , so the bank is 550-190 , $360

10 cartons of piss ,beaudy ,i'll drink to that ;D :D :D :D

[PinHead]

"user pays"..shove that idea..all citizens already have a stake in these areas as we are taxpayers. I am sick to death of this user pays crap..some States you have to pay to enter a National Park. Why the hell should anyone pay to use these areas when we already pay for their upkeep. If the best shot the beaurocrats have is "user pays" then perhaps they should seek alternative employment. I have no intention of ever paying any license fee etc to fish in the oceanic waters off our coast..if it costs me fines then so be it..I will fight it all the way.
Perhaps some "Public Servants" need to get a grip on reality and not keep grovelling to their political masters all the time.

POST EDITED BY ADMIN - Please refrain from personal insults on this chat board.

[Jeremy]

The best argument I have heard for the RFL is that it gives the rec anglers 'ownership' of the fishery in the eyes fo the pollies. The money it could raise and the various things it could be spent on are worthwhile, but by far the most importat reason is political. By paying a licence fee to use the resource, it would give rec fishoes a form of "ownership" which we do not currently have. This would in turn give us a much louder political voice in things such as the GNS closures and the green zones on the GBR.

Jeremy

[bugman]

PinHead,

People that fail to grasp the concept of change and live in the world of "it's my world to do as I please" are the reason nothing ever gets done.

They drag societies normal thinking process down to there level and slow up processes to the point where things get stalled to cater for the minority 5 per cent who don't have a brain big enough to understand the idea or comprehend the benefits.

It's no use blaming the bureaucracy for you user pays (it would help if you could spell it too) because people having been paying way before the Romans refined the bureaucratic system.

Maybe they should research something one day and expand their inteligence.

Brett

POST EDITED BY ADMIN - Please refrain from personal insults on this chat board.

[imported_admin]

Guys, please refrain from personal insults on the chat boards. You are entitled to have your say but please do it in a curtious manner.

[bugman]

Sorry Steve,

Blood was up at the time of posting.

[jockey]

I don't get this opposition to 'user pays.' In the end, the user pays for everything, whether it be directly, via a tax or via a licence. The only thing open to debate is how the tax burden is distributed (ie on the rich or the poor) and the total tax burden.

When the government wants to change the tax system there will inevitably be winners and losers. Some people will pay more than they used to, some people will pay less. But it is not usually an increase in the total tax burden or a shift to taxing the poor proportionally more that people oppose. Usually its just the 'losers' kicking up enough of a stick and the winners not getting involved or (more often) mistakingly thinking they are the losers.

BTW I see an RFL as a largely 'win-win' proposition.

[BeachBait]

Let’s just sit back and let everyone else pay for the resource we are using. $25 a year, it would be worth it just to show the Government how many Rec fishers we have in Queensland. But then I can’t talk because I “need to get a grip on reality“ and I spend all my time grovelling to my political masters.

BeachBait

[PinHead]

Oh my, my spelling is atrocious now..how can I survive?

Jockey..I can tell you why I am against user pay systems. We already pay..it is called taxes...introduction of a "user pays" system is money grabbing due to the inefficiencies of Governments with the taxes they already receive.

And..it appears by the innuendo that I am in the low intelligence category...that is great. Much rather languish in the lower sphere of intelligence than mix with the so called intelligentsia that permeats the political sphere these days. A good example would be the Directors-General of most Departments. A fistful of Uni. degrees yet most would have no idea of how to run their Department due to the fact that they have not had to work thier way up through the Department and understand the operations of same.
I can give you a fantastic example of the inadequacies of Government Departments and how nothing even gets done internally to solve a problem let alone anything outside...but I won't do it here.

I don't have much time to do much research at the moment Brett..to busy running my business and paying all my taxes so the political masters can waste it all...like the Goodwill Bridge..or Coronation Drive..or floating walkways along the river..maybe some rational and logical thinking in all levels of Government will resolve the need for costly overruns on projects and minimal interruption to the citizens not to mention the ridiculous waste of funds. Plus..a good weeding out of the deadwood that resides in the ranks of the Public Service and there would be ample funds left over to carry out research and provide facilities without additional taxes.

[rainbear]

I lived in CQ for ten years and for the Yeppoon area there were more thieving pros per square mile than anywhere else in Australia. There were some good ones there but not very many. When one of them goes to court for a boatload of illegal barra and all it does is stop him drinking bundy for the weekend your recreational fishing licence is going to do nothing. While the yuppies are buying Moreton Bay bugs off the pros and fishermen are sitting on their bums in boats nothing's going to get done. If you want to fix Queensland's fishery problems you've got to care as much about your fishery as you do the State of Origin and be just as vocal about it. You've got to stand up and yell and scream at your local MP's and tell them you're not going to vote for them if they're not going to listen. If you can't find one that will listen hold a raffle to raise some money and nominate your best mate for parliament. I've been living in Darwin now for four years, the last of the pros have just been taken out of the rivers, the fishing is fantastic. If Queensland's going to follow anyone's lead when it comes to fishing it's got to be the NT.
No it's not bloody perfect up here they televise that aerial pingpong not Rugby League. Go the Blues!!!!
Regards
Grant

[Gazza]

Hi Rainbear , mate except for that 'blues' comment ,you were doing o.k. ;) ;D :D :D

NT is a non-RFL required ,place to fish.
similar to QLD ,tourist/rec/taxpayer fishing $$$ ,pay the bills.

[NQCairns]

No. No, No been there done that, got nothing for it, one of the many reasons I left that overmanaged state, The licence was and probably always will be a con down there for the vast majority of anglers. Fisheries can and should JUST manage the fishery, another tax would never be the answer - worst case if it were ever to happen it should be managed directly outside of fisheries and govt by a recfisherman advocacy group. Those that donot profit from a resource should never be taxed for the right, just managed.nq

[Kerry]

Just another tax yet some people simply don't get that part of the equation.

Now if only people actually told both sides of the story as for for story against there's also several others that convientently get forgotten.

Actually in Rocky a little while ago one could walk into any pub and get 2 crabs for 10 bucks, what did fisheries do? absolutely nothing, lets just say the sellers used to work for a local establishment that had been closed.

It's simply quite amazing that when there's apparently no fish, tehre's always others to blame.

Well these days I'll blame (blame appears to be in fashion) those ars..holes who want a lifestyle that doesn't match the environment.

Cheers, Kerry.

[z17813]

A fishing licence to help pay for stocking and dams is a sensible thing but to levy a new tax (ie a licence) for fishing the open estuaries and oceans is a bit like taxing air.

Yes- ostensibly, the licence fees would fund the buying out of commercial licences but I fear that any new tax will end up becoming just another source of general revenue and that will offer future governments the opportunity to increase the tax at will. #It would be harder to create a new tax line a recreational fishing licence than increase the fee once it is introduced.

Happy to pay my way but I am aghast when I visit Victoria and see parking meters at every beach; when I hear of boat ramp fees without any real visibility of better boat ramps; and when I hear of recreational fishing licences in the south that would force the once a year impulse fisherman to have to plan ahead to take the kids fishing on a lazy Sunday arvo.

We are a tourist state - let's not make recreation something hard to do. The government will already be making enough tax from the tourism industry to justify upgrading all boat ramps to the same magnificence as the one beside the Nerang River Bridge. # If we then want them to buy out commercial fishers, then let that be a statement of election policy and funded from general revenue.

I agree with that.

[Fitzy]

I refuse to EVER endorse a levy/fee/tax/permit paid by the taxpayers to buy out pro fisherman.
It is the govt who issued the licences in the first place, it is the govt who sets the quotas which in some cases has been too high & cause stocks to decline, it is the govt who regulates the apparatus used (which in cases causes damage to the environment), it is the govt who raked in the taxes from the industry, it is the govt job to ensure the industry is/was sustainable, so why the hell should the average joe have to be lumped with the burden of buying out any pro!
Its the biggest con since Jack Boot Johhny sold Telstra back to us when we already owned it!!!! What a crock of $h!t.
Come on folks, take a good look at this & when you realise you are getting conned, put pen to paper & tell every polly going what you think.
Some fisheries are on a downward sprial similar to that of the arctic cod fishery that collapsed leaving many a pro to simply walk away after they'd raped the fish for every cent they could. Let em do the same here, once it becomes unprofitable they'll throw in the towel & the fish can recover again once the pressure is off them, just as the arctic cod are doing now.
Also read the fine print, not just the glowing press releases. We had some propganda force fed to us a few years ago that they'd reduced the pro licences in the gulf. Sure they did, but what the spin doctors didn't bang on their proverbial drums was the fact that the quota remained the same, simply divided by fewer pros to make them more profitable.

I'll bet my left one that if a fee/permit/levy (read TAX) is introduced, its here forever folks. Opose it with your very essense.

History is the proganda of the winning side. Adolt Hitler 1937. Lets not go down in history as selling ourselves out to something that is our god given right to do; going fishing.

Some folks have mentioned that the RFL could be utitilised for boat ramps as well. NO WAY! We already pay taxes for these as well as the PPV levy in our boat rego. It is the responsibility of Qld Transport to provide & maintain ramps. If you've got a shocker in your area, get onto them & the local member. We shouldn't have to pay twice, or should I say three times folks. & I'm loath to see MY dollars get spent providing facilities for boaties that dont fish. I'm certainly not fond of ski boats & PWCs,, bugger em!

Thems be my thoughts anyway.

Fitzy..

[PinHead]

My sentiments exactly, Fitzy. NO MORE TAXES !!!!!!

[BurdekinBob]

Well said Fitzy!!
Bob

[dasher]

RFL's to help fishing ::) You're bloody dreaming. I lived in Victoria and saw the promises of improved bloody everything and nothing was delivered. Guys it's just a big con. You definately won't get improved ramps because they come under another gov authority, so will need a further levy for that!! Same in Vic. they pay RFL, boat/trailer rego but still have to pay to launch at poorly maintained ramps (around $10 a pop) Marine Parks have been put into play where most of the good fishing spots are. Most of the RFL money is absorbed by collection and administration costs and for the remainder to even get to the fishing fraternity a group must make application for funds to utilise for worthwhile projects.

Sorry fellahs but not for this (already burnt) black duck. >:(

[dasher]

In addition this little gem. Hmm I wasn't great on maths but even I can see this don't quite add up.

Boat Ramp Expenditure.
In reply to a question on notice by the State Member for Maryborough, Mr. Chris Foley, regarding boat ramp expenditure over the past 3 years, the Minister for Transport and Main Roads (Mr Bredhauer) answered as follows on 11/11/2003

"I am pleased to say that over the last 3 financial years, a total of $1,763,000 was spent by Queensland Transport on the planning, design and construction of new public boat ramps throughout the state". (Approx $590,000 per year)
In 2002-2003 Queensland Transport upgraded or installed new boat ramps at the following locations - 17 locations listed
In 2001-2002 - 7 locations listed
In 2000-2001 - 18 locations listed.
There are currently around 177,000 registered boats in Queensland and increasing rapidly.
On the surface this would seem to be a considerable amount of expenditure to ensure anglers are well serviced but how does it stack up with previous expenditure or in deed, what is available in other states.
In answer to a similar enquiry in 1992, the then Minister The Hon D J Hamill said in his letter of 23rd November " The total funds spent on boating facilities for the year 1991/92 was $2,398,940". Further amounts are then quoted for navigational aids, dredging etc.
There were approx 110,000 boats registered at that time.
It does not take too much "figuring out" to see that even after a large increase in the number of boats, there is only $590,000 per year or approximately 25% of what was being spent in 1991/92 now being invested into boat ramps. In proportion to the registration numbers, there should be in the order of $4 million being spent without even allowing for 10 years of inflation.
In relation to the quality of facilities. I recently visited Perth and looked at the boating facilities available for 100 kilometers north and south of the city.
· safe launching harbors with huge protection walls against waves
· 8 lane boat ramps - 4 for launching and 4 for retrieval
· tie up jetties between every 2 ramps
· non skid ramps
· ample rigging areas
· wash down facilities
· parking areas for 100 or more cars and trailers
These were not isolated instances as previously (1997) I had seen these facilities in Geraldton approx 400 kms north of Perth.
The new ramps in South east Queensland are quite reasonable but even the best falls well short of those above.
Anglers and boaties should be discussing this matter with their local Members and asking why the same proportion of their boat registration monies are not being spent now in comparison with 10 years ago.

Articles highlighted are interesting aren't they. ??? :o

[Gazza]

Hi & welcome to 'reality' ;D ,whoever you are ;D :D :D :D

[harryhoy]

Post removed at the request of the Member

[Kerry]

Well someone should ask the Vic's who have to pay an RFL who is listening to THEIR money talk for the next few years, ALL going towards bush fire repat.

Some down that way starting to feel a little shafted after expecting that RFL money should at least be spent doing what the whole mess was originally sold on.

Cheers, Kerry.

[peterbo3]

We are already paying a defacto RFL. :o :o :o :o :o :o
Everything you buy-boats, engines, fuel, bait, tackle, etc, etc
has 10% GST imposed which is returned to each State Govt by a fairly complicated formula. But it is returned.
If some States want to double dip to prop up their poor financial management then so be it. #
If you think that a RFL is going to be used as other than a cash cow, then you are living in a fool's [smiley=clown.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] paradise.
Govt gets the money now from boat rego. All they need to do is apply it to where it is needed.
And as for buying back pro licences-are we including Gulf, Torres Strait & East Coast Trawl? How about line fisheries & crab? Plus a heap of others.There are about 1200+ licenced primary vessels in Qld. Any idea of the cost involved here? You would need a RFL so pricey that no bugger would be able to afford it :'( :'( :'( :'(.

[dasher]

Errr sorry Harry, but unless there is an election the money will be swallowed in red tape as is the case in Vic and NSW. Anyone that thinks more than $2 of their RFL will go toward fisheries is on drugs and should seek help.

[argonautical]

If you do what you always do, you will get what you always get.

Money talks and bullsh*t walks.

I consider the above to be truths beyond question.

I am prepared to risk (and I repeat risk) the cost of a RFL if there is the slightest chance that the improvements that have been bought by the RFL in NSW could happen in QLD.

I respect the views of those who say we shouldn't have to pay for what is ours. But we are not paying to use it, we are paying to fix it.

In the alternative, make the RFL non-compulsory. Many of us donate to those causes we believe to be worthwhile. This could satisfy both sides.

Argo

[sharkbait]

. But we are not paying to use it, we are paying to fix it.





Reckon that sums it up nicely Argo.

[dasher]

Argo, no disrepect meant mate but giving those clowns 25 bucks is like shouting them a bottle of wine to have with their meal. I agree all rec fishos can put money towards having our fishery improved. Why not join or donate to sunfish, they at least stand up and have a go on our behalf. Apart from broken promises it's a lot more than our pollies.

[Kerry]

Could also fix most of the problem by moving most of the "lifestyles" away from the coast.

Non-complusory of couse :-X so where's all the volunteers, how about 15% in the first year and double the next ;D.

Cheers, Kerry.

[argonautical]

Sharkbait,

I was just going to quote your post, but wanted to have my say.

Dasher,

I know little about Sunfish, but accept your point.

Kerry,

Afraid I don't get your point.

Argo

[harryhoy]

Post removed at the request of the Member

[PinHead]

"but I just think the fact that rec fishers contribute in some way to the management of Queenslands fisheries"....I already contribute..I pay taxes. I am not interested in giving any more money into the consolidated revenue cesspit of funds...which never gets spent where needed so why give them more. It is a far flung dream to even consider that any monies from a RFL will have any impact. Think about it...the population here as opposed to NSW..the income would eb minimal in comparison and owuld not buy out many licenses after admin costs are taken out. I have never seen so many people as here so keen to add to the Govt. coffers so readily. Once again...NO MORE TAXES.

[Gazza]

I'm not sure about Vic, but the NSW rec licence goes toward buying out pro licences and creating rec fishing havens (among other things). The licence is NOT swallowed by red tape in NSW, it is, as far as I can see, working well and distributed to causes that deserve funding. Am I wrong? #If administered correctly, a rec fishing licence will only improve the rec fishing in Qld. What does everyone else thiink?


Harry , back-up the red tape bit ,give you 2 links to work on.....

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/gen/news/fb_04feb_12_study.htm (read the last para ,as well)

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/rec/!rec-home.html
(look at the pie-charts ,and particularly note, and don't be confused with the terminolgy of "buyback loan repayment" , and note it was for ONLY 200 voluntary pro's w-a-n-t-i-n-g to be bought out)

Anyways ,back-up the red-tape BS bit of your post >:(

[rainbear]

We left qld 4 years ago for the nt, we'll be back at the end of the year for good. Except for to go fishing ! .
Up here there's no licence for fishing, theres no licence for boat, theres no rego for boat. There is for trailer .
Theres no pro's in estuaries and there is plenty of fish. The gov up here make more money on tourism from fishing than from netting ing qld. I am curious to see why qld gov cant add up the figures when qld has more types of fish to catch than the nt.
I was talking to a skin diver over coffee the other week. He's 70 years old and can't go out as far as he used to go. He's says thanks to the trawlers now having to stay offshore ther is as much to see as there was 20 years ago .It's not to the stage it was 30 or 40 years ago but it is a start. Maybe the qld, oops maybe the state govs aus wide should ask the older fella's that do know what they're talking about. The nt's not perfect but it is a start .As much as we love qld qld fisheries suck.
Can't wait to get a decent feed of whiting but i'm buggered if i'm going to pay for a licence because some greeny's got his dick in his hand.
Ezmay

[harryhoy]

Gazza - not sure of your point, mate. The first link sent me to a page about how there is research going into the RECREATIONAL FISHING HAVENS that were procured with funds from the RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE. This lends weight to my argument that a RFL will increase the research into recreational fishing.

The second link sent me to a page describing how the RFL is spent. The page mentions the Recreational Fishing Havens. When I clicked on this link I was greeted with this (and I quote) "The introduction of a recreational fishing fee heralds significant changes to the way we manage fisheries in NSW. A component of this change has seen 30 locations set aside and protected from commercial fishing. These areas mean that 27 per cent of estuarine waters are substantially free of commercial fishing (up from three per cent).

Commercial fishing was banned from these areas from May 1, 2002, except for the Clarence River haven which came into effect on September 1 2002.

The purpose of these areas is to improve recreational fishing by banning commercial fishing in key areas of significance to recreational fishers.

Commercial fishers were treated fairly through a buy-back process where commercial fishing entitlements were surrendered in exchange for fair compensation. This compensation was funded through a loan and the Trust is repaying the loan on an annual basis.

This compensation is being paid by the Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust which is funded by the general recreational fishing fee.
The 30 locations have only been chosen after a transparent selection process, which ensured that the community's social, economic and ecological issues were considered.".

Can you please explain to me how this is a BAD thing. You are using an argument for a RFL not an argument against one. The fact that the government paid for the commercial licences in the first place and is being paid back annually from the RFL shows that the RFL IS working, surely.

Other areas where the RFL is spent includes:
Fisheries Officers
Fish aggregating devices
Recreational Fishing Havens
Essential research
Gamefish tagging
Communication and education
Fishcare Volunteer Program
Recreational fisheries management
Fish habitat restoration
Recreational fishing platform
Small grants
Committee Meeting Expenses
Angel Rings

Once again, I would ask you to point out an area above that isn't good for coastal recreational fisheries, because I certainly can't pick one.

Further, the NSW licence is used in inland (freshwater) fisheries in the following ways:
Fisheries Officers
Fish stocking
Fish stocking Draft Fishing Management strategy
Essential research
Communication and education
Fishcare Volunteer Program
Fish habitat restoration
Recreational fisheries management
Cessation of the inland native fish commercial fishery
Small grants
Committee Meeting Expenses

Once again please tell me how this is an argument against an RFL.

I don't see a category called RED TAPE in either of the above lists.

Even administration costs are kept below 10% in NSW.

I understand that you, personally, don't want a RFL but the majority of fishers that contributed to the poll DO want to see an RFL - all I ask is that you (and everybody else) have a good read of the info in the links you sent me and have a good hard think about the pros and cons of an RFL. Please read the info in PDF's at the bottom of the page - they detail where EXACTLY the money was spent (http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/lol/where.htm). I look forward to hearing more about this topic.

Pinhead - I think I mentioned that I would support an RFL providing the funds were administered by a trust/board like the NSW model. Also, Sunfish has quoted that Qld has 880,000 recreational fishers that they represent. At $20 a pop that works out to be $17.6million annually - once the 10% admin fee comes out there is still in the order of $15.8 million left, enough to buy a few licences.

Now rainbear - who are you calling a greeny? All recreational anglers should be greenies in my opinion. You say that the inshore fishing in the NT is better because the trawlers stay further offshore - a QLD RFL would fund the buyback of trawl licences and reduce trawler numbers!

Further you state that there are no pros in estuaries in the NT, and although that isn't strictly correct, there also no pros in 29 NSW estuaries because the RFL funded the buyback of commercial licences!

All three of you guys are opposed to RFL's but you throw up opinions that provide ammunition to those of us that think there should be one. Once again, I'd ask you to read the info in the links that Pinhead asked me to have a look at.

How about someone else that agrees with a RFL saying something?? I'd appreciate some support.

I look forward to more discussion - I think that we are airing some very interesting and relevant information to those that aren't exactly sure about what a RFL could do in QLD.

Harry

[Gazza]

Harry , a very good response from your perspective ,and that's o.k. #[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

Except for some rubbery $14~$16M #imaginary honeypot #::)

Harry ,we may be viewing different pie-charts ? #??? , but which bits do you think aren't 'red-tape'........ #???


Harry: A component of this change has seen 30 locations set aside and protected from commercial fishing. These areas mean that 27 per cent of estuarine waters are substantially free of commercial fishing (up from three per cent).

Harry, not sure where you live? , if NSW ,what region? ,so all I will point out, is that, you claim as an improvement(s) can $20M of RFL money :o , be measured in "reduction of TONNAGE" taken from NSW waters by Comms. i.e. has 'pressure' been allocated elsewhere or has it dropped? or reduced or been extinguished (sp?)

QLD has for "mines bigger than yours category" , I'd say with our coastline ,50? RFH's , and reef wise , given it's sheer awesome size ,1000 mutually-fished areas productive for RecFishos.
(relating to Area)
And then there's the IMPOUNDMENTS......

Harry ,the above is today and yesterday ,when NSW ever pretends to catch up , lemme know #[smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[harryhoy]

Gazza - i have no idea what you are saying. The only thing I can say to you is that I am from Queensland. Sorry.

[harryhoy]

Another point is that the commercial pressure from nearly 30 estuaries has been TOTALLY removed (this still excludes the Clarence I believe) in NSW. Gazza did you read where the money goes in those PDF's?

[Gazza]

So the Clarence is Pro-free? and an RFH in the Clarence covers ALL the estuary? ,with RFL spent only on the 'haven' part? i.e. this year ,next year or the year after that?

[harryhoy]

Only some sections of the Clarence are rec-only, as I implied in my last post. Not to mention the 28 other estuaries that are TOTALLY PRO FREE

[dasher]

G'day Harry, sorry if that remark offended you, but was not directed personally at you, was just meant as a general observation. I have made a mental note to be aware some people are more sensitive than others and will be more careful in future with my generalisations. ::)

As for any figures relating to expenditure released by gov. on a gov. site, well all I can say is I've got photoshop on the computer and can show pictures of me catching anything of any size. ::) The end total may be correct but as I used to do when I was in a gov. dept. just swap a few figures around to make sure you got next years budget increased. Same total but different columns.

By the way the vic licence went up this year by $5 to allow for CPI. Geez the cost of living in Vic must be skyrocketting. ??? ;) ;D

[stark]

The major concern I have with a RFL is that the cost of it will increase very quickly when a Government is given the opportunity to impose a license. A good example is the Vic increase of $5.00 and overseas, Florida charges an absolute fortune for a ‘visitors’ license.

One main concern seems to be the amount of pressure Pros put on the fish stocks of any given area. One solution is to place a ban on a given area. The problem with this is that once enshrined in legislation the area of concern will be locked away forever.

Fish and the marine environment have a marvelous ability to recover if left alone for several years. To this end an obvious solution is for the ability of the manager of the resources to be able to impost a temporary ban on areas in which the fish stock has a chance to recover. For example, a ban on all commercial fishing east of Mud Island and west of Morton island with a boundary width of 6NM or so for the period of 1 July 2004 to expire 30 June 2007.

Our illustrious leaders could enact legislation so that the manager of the resources was able to impose such bans from time to time with limits on the size of the areas and time limits for the expiry of the ban

Cheers
John