Some stats :-
49,818 registered Ausfish members
1045 Views on this thread since posting
75 replies - quite a few multiples
Total of 60 Votes so far
Come on - get off the fence - Scotto
Some stats :-
49,818 registered Ausfish members
1045 Views on this thread since posting
75 replies - quite a few multiples
Total of 60 Votes so far
Come on - get off the fence - Scotto
you don't seem to get it Scott:
This Govt has wasted money everywhere with bugger all to show for it. What makes you think they would leave money in a trust fund? They make the laws and they can change the laws.
A buy back of licenses..what a joke...please have a look at what is happening in Moreton bay in this regard.
Once again..how much income did the NSW system get from licenses only in 2007?
it appears you are very trusting of this current Govt...I know I am not.
I would be happy with the way Qld fisheries were managed if:
1. Everyone has to abide by the same size and bag limits.
2. Any closures are based on actual research and results on the specific areas not on so called worlds best research and guesswork.
This idea that by paying a fee we then become stakeholders in the fisheries is ludicrous. We are all stakeholers now..whether you fish or not..all citizens own it now.
With your proposed model who would control these trust funds? Who would select the so called experts to be on these boards? What would constitute an "expert" to be able to be part of these boards? Would the "stakeholders" get a vote for them or would they be appointed by some faceless beaucracy?
I really don't need any more jobs for the boys thanks...and if I become a "stakeholder" by paying a fee would I have access to these boards to voice my concerns. or do we just have to follow along and abide by what they decide. Just more rules and regualtions in our lives..as if there are not enough already.
I think you would need to start at a minimum of $100 per annum for any fee to have any benefit in Qld.
Hi Pinhead
Take the time to look at the NSW fisheries website - http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/...rf/about-acorf
you will get a much better idea of the facts ...... you should be also able to find how much money was raised & how & where it was distributed.
Be aware that the funds do not go into consolidated revenue
There are no jobs for the boys ...... Its actually run by fishoes
Fishing Clubs or groups can apply for funding for worthwhile projects Cleaning tables , habitat regeneration , creation of artificial reefs etc
Anyhow ..... As per what Scott has said - If we stick with the how the NSW model works - Its not open to conjecture.
Finally , I will say - The immediate benefits will be difficult to see . However after a few years they will be significant ( particularly licence buyouts)
Chris
Give a man a fish & he will eat for a day !
Teach him how to fish
& he will sit in a boat - & drink beer all day!
TEAM MOJIKO
nagg...I have looked at their website..I could not find actual income from license fees..appears not to be all that transparent to me.
The funds go easily go into cons rev by a stroke of a pen by Cabinet...have a look at what this Govt here did with regards to FOI.
back to my previous question...and how do these fishos get on these boards? appointed or elected?
The NSW model will not work here unless the fee is ridiculously high.
License buyouts,,they aren't working here so why would the introduction of a fee make it work?
Try this link for more info about Advisory Council on Recreational Fishing
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/...rf/about-acorf
Give a man a fish & he will eat for a day !
Teach him how to fish
& he will sit in a boat - & drink beer all day!
TEAM MOJIKO
I have read that previously..still does not answer any of my questions..it tells who the members are ut who selected them?
No mention of total income from license fees either.
No one seems to be able to answer my questions.
I'm sure I read recently of a similar licensing trust fund being folded into CR in Victoria.
That is the issue. I'm for a license (on our own model, form of which to be arrived at with extensive consultation with QLD stakeholders) but there is no way to protect the content of that trust fund from some rampaging thief like, oh, say, Anna? How can it be properly protected?
And should Anglers trust our Government, or a roll over patsy that rubber stamps Government policy because if it doesn't it might not get it's fat salary next year, like... say... Sunfish?
And as FNQ said, we are paying top dollar now. Our rego fees, the stamp duty skim on our insurance, and a bunch of tax $ from our fuel usage should be paying millions into an account for the benefit of the fishery.
So let's just roll over and pay a little more? A little more, a little more... one last straw and the camel will fold.
You can take the NSW license idea and... well... how do I say this nicely... scarper.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Slowly but surely the fee's would add up and we would see the benefits. I would be prepared to spend much much much more if everyone also would do the same to have the changes happen much more quickly but we cant ask that of everyone so it has to be a gradual progression.
Mate I'm not having a go at you and I am in difference with Scotty also on some areas also. But sitting back and saying that we have a crap government that should be doing better is not going to achieve anything. There are so many issues we need to sort out in our fishery right now and this could solve a lot of them giving the body a lot more time and leverage to fight these guys on the issues of Marine Parks and polution etc.
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Oh and Scott, having 10% going to admin costs to GOVERNMENT employees is just stupid...... I am happy with 10% admin costs but to even contemplate that they go to any sort of Government run anything is just asking for trouble. Allow the commitee's to use 10% sure but to allow our money to be used to finance inefficient government employees is just crazy!
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Hi Scott,
Great to see this topic raised again and can't wait to see a recreational licence scheme introduced into QLD based upon the NSW model.
I would be more than happy to contribute to a scheme clearly aimed at improving recreational fishing in QLD, the same as it has done in NSW.
$30 a year would go along way and would be a great start.
Regards Cameron.
Forget the $30 a year..that is nothing...based proportionally (sp) the fee would start at about $300 per annum. Still want a license?
read this Chris: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...6-3102,00.html
sell your license..then buy one at a cut price because it was not being used and back fishing you with a pocketful of cash.
The Govt could not even get this right and people want them to implement a rec license scheme..haha
Scott,
to answer your question with a question. Since the introduction of the fishing licence in NSW and the buyout of the commercial licences, what research has been done to validate any conservation information to say that the reduction in commerical / recreactional activities has had an impact on the fish stocks? Where are the scientific facts and where are the study methods?
So the licence has done great things for our NSW brothers, Just explain to me how " taking control" of our own future by going down the licensing path helped the NSW guys, Like the proposed green zone stretching for 50% of the coastline, what does the licence fee do for them.
Nothing not a thing. what use are cleaning tables in a green zone?? So they pay there licence fee to fish while the goverment and the greenies lock up more areas in green zones. Where is the justice in that?
Have a look at the consultitive process that has gone on for Nth QLD or Moreton bay for that matter and explain that?
I am not opposed to green zones, based on true scientific research as opposed to the garbage the DPI have provided the QLD people.
You seem to be pressing a very specific agenda here and I am keen to understand who and why you are pressing your argument so hard when there is no evidence to suggest that "taking control" and "being proactive" will have any other effect than revenue raising for the government, it certainly will not help rec fishos in any way shape or form.
PS. we already are one of the most heavily taxed countries in the world, we pay for the infrastructure already, if we could streamline our government bodies we could truly put the taxation money to proper use, not for political and personal gain as goes on in every goverment department Australia wide.
Regards
Honda.