What are your thoughts on the idea of a General Recreational Fishing licence ?

[Scott Mitchell]

AT least you would get value for money that way. Funds controlled by rec fishos that care about what rec fisho's want.

I really take objection to that - I sat alongside plenty of dedicated rec anglers on the NSW expenditure committee's who worked tirelessly to improve rec fishing in their state - you would never want to look at their hourly rate !

Regards Scotto

[Lucky_Phill]

FYI.... deepfried.

I did offer something................ post numbers 2 and 3 of this thread.


I'll make it clear from my perspective again.

This current government are a bunch of thieving, lying and monetary mis-managers. They are driven by personal agendas and the radical green movement.

The only way forward to what we all want.................. a sustainable and well managed fishery..............is Co-Management of the fishery.

We have to establish sound science, transparent accounting, legitimate policy and commonsense approaches towards our fishery and its evirons. This...IMO... can only be achieved by a Co-management system where all stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide input for their particular needs and wants.

It is not rocket science........... chucking money at research will not provide us with a sustainable fishery........ this government has to get off their backsides and utilise what little kahunas they left and beat the living greenie out of the departments like DERM ( ex EPA ) to make them accountable for their portfolio / responsibility.

Fix the landbased problems and other external problems and let the DPI&F do their job.

This Government has to stop flushing millions down the porkbarrel toilets and do what they were voted in to do, and that is support the very people of Queensland that put a tick their box in the hope of receiving some recognition.

This current Governments demonstrable mismanagement of this state ranks in the all time Worlds Greatest Blunders. But, to be fair.................................... sorry, there is no fair.

Maybe some would suggest the Gov are not to blame for the issues we now have............ well.. prove me wrong. !!!! The total lack of understanding of the issues, extended committee procrastinations, the bleeding obvious ' buy a preference vote ', the race to see how many White Elephants they can produce, bureaucratic procreation and the old Head in the Sand approach are simply the highlights………….. wait for the full feature.

So, to repeat….

No rec licence will be supported by me as there is sufficient funding for the management of our fishing already in place. It is simply not being used for its intended purpose.

All………..IMO only.


Cheers phill.
.
.
.
.
.

[deepfried]

FYI.... deepfried.

I did offer something................ post numbers 2 and 3 of this thread.

I have read those and you weren't against a RL on the grounds that a new fresh water boat fee would be introduced, it wasmore based on how it would be run and that you thought there was enough funding available. Infact you freely admitted that the NSW system has had its successes. You did make it clear that there are enough current funds IYO to manage the fisheries correctly atm. Well i disagree and the new snapper fee and fresh water boat fee are proof of that. The proof may not be solid but if you think the Qld Gov is going to have a change of heart and drop your SIP, PPV, Snapper fee and fresh water boat fee and charge you nothing i will bet my house on it you are wrong. You are going to charged to fish in Qld like it or not.

I'll make it clear from my perspective again.

This current government are a bunch of thieving, lying and monetary mis-managers. They are driven by personal agendas and the radical green movement.

The only way forward to what we all want.................. a sustainable and well managed fishery..............is Co-Management of the fishery.

We have to establish sound science, transparent accounting, legitimate policy and commonsense approaches towards our fishery and its evirons. This...IMO... can only be achieved by a Co-management system where all stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide input for their particular needs and wants.

It is not rocket science........... chucking money at research will not provide us with a sustainable fishery........ this government has to get off their backsides and utilise what little kahunas they left and beat the living greenie out of the departments like DERM ( ex EPA ) to make them accountable for their portfolio / responsibility.

Fix the landbased problems and other external problems and let the DPI&F do their job.

This Government has to stop flushing millions down the porkbarrel toilets and do what they were voted in to do, and that is support the very people of Queensland that put a tick their box in the hope of receiving some recognition.

This current Governments demonstrable mismanagement of this state ranks in the all time Worlds Greatest Blunders. But, to be fair.................................... sorry, there is no fair.

Maybe some would suggest the Gov are not to blame for the issues we now have............ well.. prove me wrong. !!!! The total lack of understanding of the issues, extended committee procrastinations, the bleeding obvious ' buy a preference vote ', the race to see how many White Elephants they can produce, bureaucratic procreation and the old Head in the Sand approach are simply the highlights………….. wait for the full feature.


You may be right with everything you just said there but to remind you, NSW is also governed by labour and our economy is in a much worse position than Qlds and in NSW there is no need for all those individual fees / taxes that Qld currently has. A RL would be a cheaper option for many and it would give power back to the rec fisherman as it has done in NSW.

So, to repeat….

No rec licence will be supported by me as there is sufficient funding for the management of our fishing already in place. It is simply not being used for its intended purpose.

All………..IMO only.


Cheers phill.

If you think that the Qld Gov is going to give you back one cent of what you are currently paying and then hand over control to rec fishos good luck. The only way you will get control is through a RL run by rec fishos. If you think that the Qld Gov will drop all your fees and fund it themselves, good luck. It wont happen.

I would personaly rather face reality now and cop a cheaper RL that is run rec fishos than to be continually charged more in the form of PPV, SIP, Snapper fee, Fresh water boat fee, insert here your next fee, insert here the fee after that in the hope that the QLd Gov will have a change of heart and drop all those and do its job properly. Jesus since this poll started you have 2 new fees on the way.
.
.
.
.
.

To be very honest i think that this whole pole is not reflecting the true thoughts of what people feel, well i seriously hope so anyway. If everyone drops all the BS ( yes that is both sides of the arguement ) we have three options : 1) in favour, 2) No happy with current management and 3) alternative view.
Now i hope that the majority are not happy with current management as it includes all those fees (SIP, PPV etc ) mentioned above because that doesnt make sense. I think the bulk saw the NO there and just hit that button. The option that should be the clear hands down winner should have been number 3. It would cover those happy to pay a RL but not based on the NSW system, it also would have covered those not happy with current management but also not keen on a RL, it also would cover those that believe that the funding is or should be available already. So it really beats me why so many people voted option 2. I would love to here from some that did vote option 2 as to whether they are really happy to pay all the fees that are current in Qld and are happy with current management because that is clearly what option 2 is. I would also like to know how many people actually know how the NSW system runs and is operated first hand, not based on internet research. You will find posts through all of this from NSW members and the majority are happy with the system and outcomes.

In the end everyone does have there own opinion and deserves such. It isnt up to me and really it isnt up to any group like Eco or Sunfish. You will be slugged what the gov deems appropriate and only votes won or lost will change that.

IMO i think in reality you are going to be charged something and i prefer the cheaper option for me.. If you dont own a boat, fish for snapper, fish the impoundments i would expect you to be strongly against a RL.

I will give this thread a miss for a bit now as i am sure i am boring people and i am also sure that no Qlder likes to be ear bashed by a nsw cockroach. Make up your own minds but base it on the here and now not the fairy tale that doesnt exist.

cheers
scott

[Lucky_Phill]

No scott, stick around.... it's all good and the debate rages.... and rightly so.

I chose option 4.


cheers phill.

[Bill_Corten]

I have been watching this thread with interest.
The driver behind it is the concept of Fisheries wanting to introduce a fee for a permit to catch snapper and the issue that leads to is whether that is an appropriate action or not.
The situation as it stands is that fisheries get somewhere in the order of 3.7 to 3.8 million dollars annually from the PPV levy component of Qld boat registrations to manage recreational fisheries in Qld.
Fisheries initiated the snapper review because of their concerns about sustainability of the species following their stock assessment which highlighted a significant biomass reduction that is at a dangerously low level in their eyes.
They already collect a huge amount from rec boaters yet cannot find money to fund the administration of a program that would attempt to accurately determine the recreational catch of the species that they have identified as under so much threat that major corrective action is required of the rec, charter and commercial sectors.
As a member of the snapper working group it rubs me the wrong way that they want to impose a fee on top of what they already collect.
My view is either reallocate the dollars thay already collect to address these management issues (and let's face it they get a shyte load now and how is it used and where does it all go anyway????) or come up with another across the board way of funding rec fishing issues.
The reality is, there is not a political will to proceed with the recreational licence so it seems better to not reinvent the wheel.
Rather than create new levels of internal management with permits/licences, my suggestion is to use the present funding system, boost the fee slightly if necessary and stop procrastinating and get on with the job of managing fisheries as they should have been doing for the rec sector all along.
Barry Day and Phill Kleise are on the money for mine.

Cheers
Bill

[Scott Mitchell]

Rather than create new levels of internal management with permits/licences, my suggestion is to use the present funding system, boost the fee slightly if necessary and stop procrastinating and get on with the job of managing fisheries as they should have been doing for the rec sector all along.
Barry Day and Phill Kleise are on the money for mine.

Cheers
Bill

I agree with having the department better managed with funding from the current PPV levy & general revenue - if it can be achieved

Otherwise I am all for a new system where any money raised goes into trust accounts & the expenditure is signed off by rec anglers

Regards Scotto

[TheRealAndy]

I agree with having the department better managed with funding from the current PPV levy & general revenue - if it can be achieved

Otherwise I am all for a new system where any money raised goes into trust accounts & the expenditure is signed off by rec anglers

Regards Scotto

I am really struggling to understand what your motivations are here Scott. A few posts back you state, quote for quote.

So we pay to be members of Eco on top of a general rec license & then put them in charge of how our money is spent

Yet you are happy to continue to pay the goverment for something you are not getting, and you want to hand over more money to get what you are already paying for?

I would love to have you as a customer

[FNQCairns]

I am really struggling to understand what your motivations are here Scott. A few posts back you state, quote for quote.



Yet you are happy to continue to pay the goverment for something you are not getting, and you want to hand over more money to get what you are already paying for?

I would love to have you as a customer

It's a part of threaded topic evolution Andy, where you around when we used to chat to Pinhead in earlier days? we brain....er....we also helped him find some light.

It's good. give and take with time to re-read posts at leasure if necessary, far more efficient than our parliament in any case.

cheers fnq

[deepfried]

Sorry guys, back already.

Rather than create new levels of internal management with permits/licences, my suggestion is to use the present funding system, boost the fee slightly if necessary and stop procrastinating and get on with the job of managing fisheries as they should have been doing for the rec sector all along.

Those levels of management should largely be in place to admin the PPV. To increase the PPV would only tax the wealthy minority ( boat owners ) which as i stated before is what labour is about. You would be playing into the hands of the master you want defeated. Also as this thread will never decide the fate of a RL why does it matter what the political intent is. Use the question raised about the RL and compare it to what you currently pay. I dont think Scotto will go to the Gov and say look here introduce a RL based on this thread. Its just a debate.

Yet you are happy to continue to pay the goverment for something you are not getting, and you want to hand over more money to get what you are already paying for?

To me it sounds like you are the one who is happy to continue paying for what you are not getting and arent interested in a cheaper alternative in the form of a RL. A RL would would wipe out all other fees that many here seem to support.
I wish you were my customer. I could charge you to be my customer, charge you to step onto my business premises and then charge you to use my product. Then if you wanted to move it to another area i could charge you again. ( current rec fishing system )

Or i could be fair and only have one charge for the product. ( RL )

scott

[TheRealAndy]

Sorry guys, back already.


To me it sounds like you are the one who is happy to continue paying for what you are not getting and arent interested in a cheaper alternative in the form of a RL. A RL would would wipe out all other fees that many here seem to support.
I wish you were my customer. I could charge you to be my customer, charge you to step onto my business premises and then charge you to use my product. Then if you wanted to move it to another area i could charge you again. ( current rec fishing system )

Or i could be fair and only have one charge for the product. ( RL )

scott

OK, fair enough. If the governement removes the rego from my boat, I will happily support a Rec Fishing licence.. How does that sound?

BTW, the business model you suggested is the model I use for my business

[PinHead]

It's a part of threaded topic evolution Andy, where you around when we used to chat to Pinhead in earlier days? we brain....er....we also helped him find some light. ya what ?????

It's good. give and take with time to re-read posts at leasure if necessary, far more efficient than our parliament in any case.

cheers fnq

.................................................. .............................................

[Lucky_Phill]

OK, fair enough. If the government removes the rego from my boat, I will happily support a Rec Fishing licence.. How does that sound?

BTW, the business model you suggested is the model I use for my business

........... I like the way ya think Andy lol.

Just going back a tad to what Bill said.

The driver behind it is the concept of Fisheries wanting to introduce a fee for a permit to catch snapper and the issue that leads to is whether that is an appropriate action or not.

Interesting statement. Food for thought.




phill
.
.
.
.

[PinHead]

Sorry guys, back already.



Those levels of management should largely be in place to admin the PPV. To increase the PPV would only tax the wealthy minority ( boat owners ) which as i stated before is what labour is about. You would be playing into the hands of the master you want defeated. Also as this thread will never decide the fate of a RL why does it matter what the political intent is. Use the question raised about the RL and compare it to what you currently pay. I dont think Scotto will go to the Gov and say look here introduce a RL based on this thread. Its just a debate.



To me it sounds like you are the one who is happy to continue paying for what you are not getting and arent interested in a cheaper alternative in the form of a RL. A RL would would wipe out all other fees that many here seem to support.
I wish you were my customer. I could charge you to be my customer, charge you to step onto my business premises and then charge you to use my product. Then if you wanted to move it to another area i could charge you again. ( current rec fishing system )

Or i could be fair and only have one charge for the product. ( RL )

scott

Once upon a time there was johnnie and johnnie said "I am going to introduce a GST. To make it fair the States have to drop most of their other taxes and charges".
Now the nasty State premiers agreed with this and as soon as Johhnie brought in the GST they dropped SFA.

And you guys think they will drop the sip and ppv ????

The pixies in my front garden would be laughing at that fairy tale also.

I do have a problem with ppv funds being used for a Sunfish conference..that is one of the main reasons I am against an RFL..too many hangers on getting freebies at the average joe's expense.
If those that want to administe the funds will do it for nothing then that would be a start..BUT...every person that buys a license has the right to vote for the board members.

It will never happen...as soon as 1 cent goes to an individual then the whole thing stinks. eg NSW license system..snouts in the trough.

[FNQCairns]

For what it is worth I will throw my quietly held 2 bob in.

The problem with any one fishing oriented private or government organisation holding all of the cards (money and power) on a fishing licence is human nature.

There is a simple way for those with a stake to own an "Angler resource licence" that will cut through what is the side of human nature that does all Anglers over.

1.A new NGO enterprise: Powerless outside of it's contract/charter and unrelated to any government or fishing organisation, a contract manager/clerk, 1.5 assistants in whatever form that may take within a rented room/office within any of the multitude of offices that true charities run these days. Minimal costs and transparent in the real sense of the word not just the political.

This organisation is charged only with running the account/organising meetings/producing reports/ensuring compliance within the charter and signing away duly requested funds, legal compliance etc etc all the typical stuff seen anywhere.

2. The above is there for one reason only and that is to facilitate a panel of ANGLERS representatives, these are persons representing any Angler organisation in the state, the panel has total control over all funds and all matters irrespective of outside political wills, all advertising, all research from funds in short the panel is the licence everything to do with the licence and no 'human nature' can come into it that cannot be voted down or out.

It can easily be done although fishery's will loose a good degree of their forced power over the sector (money) and also be forced to do what was there core job in response and they will need for the first time ever to justify their decisions at any level of competence in management.

No single organisation should be charged with riding roughshod over the entire Angling community and this organisation includes any member base fishing advocate group...human nature will always remain human nature irrespective of the spoken word.

cheers fnq

[Scott Mitchell]

Andy - I am really struggling to understand what your motivations are here Scott. A few posts back you state, quote for quote.

* Andy - I am not sure why as they have not changed ? I don't necessarily want to pay for a fishing license - I just don't believe we'll get more funding from the government to allow DPI&F do the job

Yet you are happy to continue to pay the government for something you are not getting, and you want to hand over more money to get what you are already paying for?

* I am NOT HAPPY to pay more money to assist the government to fund DPI&F in order for the department to sustainably manage our states fisheries - BUT it appears that they are incapable of this ?

So "I" am in favour of taking control of our fisheries via a user pays system - THAT SEE'S ALL THE REVENUE RAISED GO INTO TRUST ACCOUNTS - with expenditure committees consisting of rec anglers controlling how it is spent

Regards Scotto