Page 6 of 50 FirstFirst 12345678910111213141516 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 748

Thread: LNP Fishing policy

  1. #76

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Any RFL funds will not be spent on research, unless you can convince the powers that those funds allocated to research be passed onto a private entity. FQ is funded by general revenue.

    Sure, RFL funds can be spent on rec fishing, but what ?

    Chris,

    can you show us a program of spending ?

    you'll need to sort how many RFL's will be purchased ?

    You'll need to show funding available to manage the RFL funds.

    You'll need to show funding allocations to police RFL's.

    You'll have to provide management protocols for P.O.S of RFL's and any retentive fees by said P.O.S operators.



    example is.... figures suggest at least 750,000 people fish at least once a year in Queensland. A NSW day licence is $6.00, we'll use that example.

    $4.5mill.

    The #@####y RUF rakes in that amount now, and the management protocols are in place. Why try to re-invent the wheel ?

    I do understand what you mean in regard to " start a fresh " and yes, something simple and fully funded with those funds being re-allocated back into the industry would seem like a great idea.

    But is it reality ? I am all ears.......... seriously, I take opinions on board and love fresh ideas.


    LP
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  2. #77

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Quote Originally Posted by rando View Post
    The point I am making, Tim, is the amount of services being supplied is not proportionate to the contribution made.Therefore we are being screwed.And my understanding of GST revenue is that the states get the gst collected therein.
    You're right. But the amount of taxation generated from people living in say Woodridge is probably not commensurate to what they spend on Social Security, Health and so on, either. The argument doesn't stack up. Shit happens, sadly.

    Yes, GST is paid back to the States. But it replaces the old grants system, so again, it really doesn't work, it's just too complicated to bear simple arguments.

    Cheers,

    Tim
    Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.

  3. #78

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Lovey80 View Post
    I think 100% of all boat and trailer regos should go towards, fishing/boating related projects. Fisheries, Boat ramps etc etc etc. Not into consolidated revenue.
    What about about to the VMR's and Coast Guards as they each receive $20,000 per yr since 1999 never heard of CPI. They have been told bluntly by the minister there will be no increase.

  4. #79

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Yes Bros, that is a sticking point and one the Govt should get off their backsides and fund properly.

    47 squadrons ( vmr and Coast Guard ) = a measley 940,000 a year. Peanuts.

    grab $10.00 from the rego ( increase RUF ) and bingo..... 2.3mill going to service a much needed , life saving community group of volunteers.

    Again, doesn't cost the taxpayer or Govt anything....... just dirverts a few $'s in another direction.


    LP
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  5. #80

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Bros View Post
    What about about to the VMR's and Coast Guards as they each receive $20,000 per yr since 1999 never heard of CPI. They have been told bluntly by the minister there will be no increase.
    If 100% of all Boat and Boat trailer regos actually went into a budget for Mark to spend how he sees fit then I would find it highly incompetent for VMR not to get a nice chunk of that money. Thats right all 50 million or what ever it comes to EVERY YEAR.
    Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.

  6. #81

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Quote Originally Posted by Lucky_Phill View Post
    Any RFL funds will not be spent on research, unless you can convince the powers that those funds allocated to research be passed onto a private entity. FQ is funded by general revenue.

    Sure, RFL funds can be spent on rec fishing, but what ?

    Chris,

    can you show us a program of spending ?

    you'll need to sort how many RFL's will be purchased ?

    You'll need to show funding available to manage the RFL funds.

    You'll need to show funding allocations to police RFL's.

    You'll have to provide management protocols for P.O.S of RFL's and any retentive fees by said P.O.S operators.



    example is.... figures suggest at least 750,000 people fish at least once a year in Queensland. A NSW day licence is $6.00, we'll use that example.

    $4.5mill.

    The #@####y RUF rakes in that amount now, and the management protocols are in place. Why try to re-invent the wheel ?

    I do understand what you mean in regard to " start a fresh " and yes, something simple and fully funded with those funds being re-allocated back into the industry would seem like a great idea.

    But is it reality ? I am all ears.......... seriously, I take opinions on board and love fresh ideas.


    LP
    Hi Phil

    Just look at the NSW model ........ It has worked for years and has brought good results (stocking , research ,buybacks , facilities etc).
    As for funds raised ...... dont sell it short as NSW brings in something like $10M+ pa . Qld could raise that and them some on the back of traveling anglers (interstate) - at present Qld get's nothing from fishing tourism unless someone is fishing impoundments of pays a reef tax.

    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

  7. #82

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Thanks Chris and I am aware of what happens in NSW.

    Things to consider.

    NSW permits sold...330,000 yearly................ ( Qld none... but SIP funds & $51mill from regos )
    NSW population is 7.41 mill......................... ( Qld 4.56 )
    NSW coastline length...1200k's ....................( Qld 6973k's )
    NSW stocked impoundments 90.....................( Qld 32 )
    NSW registered boats..230,000.....................( Qld 237,000 )
    NSW rivers ( not all enter sea )..439..............( Qld 132 )

    NSW rec fishing participants... technically..... 1.4 million but only 330,000 purchasing an RFL.

    Qld rec fishing participants..... 1.14 million... you'll get 253,000 purchasing an RFL.

    253,000 x $30 = $7,590,000

    or............$1,088 to manage each kilometer of coastline

    or............$6.65 per rec angler spent.
    or............$32.00 per rec fishing vessel


    and I haven't even considered the removal of the SIP and then replacing those funds from the RFL.


    NSW........ get $8,333.00 to manage each kilometer of coastline

    or.....................$7.14 per rec angler
    or.....................$43.45 per rec fishing vessel


    The Qld State Govt has been ripping us of over $100 / year on boat and trailer regos. Put that into the equation and you get:-


    $23,700,000 per year
    or.................$3,398 to manage each kilometer of coastline

    or.................$20.78 per rec angler
    or.................$100.00 per rec fishing vessel


    To achieve the same income as a $30 / year RFL you simply need to double the RUF already in place. Make it $36.00 contribution and you get...$8,532,000. You see Chris, this is my point. This , IMO , is about the funding. I keep asking for someone to give me a good reason for a RUF. I haven't heard it yet. There is a philosophy that as a user pays ( RFL ) you become a stakeholder and as such are recognised by Government. I am not 100% convinced of this, but it does have merit.


    The RUF system is in place and managed. A RFL will have to form a committee, put legislation through parliament and other management tools to get it going. I see ego's flourishing. Again, are we trying to re-invent the wheel with an RFL ?



    Now it's your turn Chris.


    How many commercial operators in Qld. Trawl, line and net ( licence numbers will do with Quota and product value )


    Now do the sums for NSW.


    The above info took me about 8 -12 minutes to gather. I just want to make sure we are comparing apples with apples.

    I look forward to some facts and figures....




    cheers LP
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  8. #83

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Phil

    You obviously are over-flowing with the milk of human kindness - maybe as a result of the impending Christmas.

    However, as a result, you have not held the government to account on two other major fishing/boating cost related issues:

    - The additional 8 cents a litre for petrol which we've been paying since the last state election despite the promise that this subsidy would not be removed.
    - The roads infastructure component of fuel taxing which is paid on every litre of fuel used by every boat permanently moored, but which never is towed on a trailer.

    Makes the PPV levy or a recreational fishing licence appear to be a mere thimbleful of money in a swimming pool of rip-offs.

    However, I do admire your generosity of spirit.

    Regards

    SUPERDAFF

  9. #84

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    even though you are correct to query about road infrastructure funding. the intent of phil's post is for marine infrastructure and waterway management funding and this is very independent to road funding even though the mismanaged funds ultimately end up in the same place.

    i actually see some benefit in having a RFL, and i know that there's plenty who will disagree (gazza for starters), and also others like phil who to his credit keeps an open mind on it.

    i see a couple of benefits with a number of spinoffs:

    - it would create a sense of ownership of the recreational fishing management process. RFL holders should be given the opportunity to vote for representation with governement (using a sunfish type representative body) or even get the opportunity to be an elected representative.

    - it exactly quantifies the sheer numbers of recreational anglers in this state. this gives political clout by galvanising a bunch of recreational anglers together to form a powerful lobby group that could now have the power to steer fisheries management

    - it raises money for management, i agree with phil's numbers though and given the size of our state and the relatively low population, funds would probably still have to be pulled from elsewhere to pay for research and other management activities.

    i personally disagree with using boat rego money for fisheries management, it should all be spent on boating infrastructure/management and not fishing.

    one thing to remember though is that it is not in a government's interest (either LNP or ALP) to create another lobby group (such as the SSAA) and so i don't think we'll see either party push the RFL as an agenda.

  10. #85

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    There is a quick and easy way to identify numbers of Qld fisher boats.

    When your rego comes, tick a box either yes or no... " I use my boat to go fishing ".

    If you tick Yes. you get a Green sticker .......... no.... you get a red one.

    This way you identify the exact numbers of fishing boats instead of overall, you also get to grab extra dollars from the PPV for recreational fishing activities ( say and extra $20.00 for ticking the Yes box ) and it gives you that " sense of ownership ", in that the Govt will see the numbers in a lobby group, should we want representation.

    This also allows for very easy policing.......... Fisheries or Water Police see Green sticker on a boat that is fishing....... no need to ask for fishing licence..........

    This also becomes a data base. Maybe we can you further than stickers......... you have a number of fishing boats registered, now you can plonk a survey form in the mail to them and try and get some data out of them for Fisheries or water infrastructure ideas. It all comes down to removing, as much as possible, the guess work out of funding, research and legislation.

    I have said the FQ for a long time, that one of the best data bases you want is already in place........ registered boats !!!!!!!!!!!! but apparently one Govt department would have to talk to another Govt department............. and then the fight started !!!!!!!!


    LP
    Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.

    For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here





  11. #86

    RFL

    - it exactly quantifies the sheer numbers of recreational anglers in this state. this gives political clout by galvanising a bunch of recreational anglers together to form a powerful lobby group that could now have the power to steer fisheries management
    , this "myth" always makes me smile



    i.e
    guesstimate 100,000..so what happens
    237,462..so what happens
    guesstimate 700,000..so what happens

    722,458...so what happens?? .......baglimits reduced to 1.... or is it 2.456

    suggestion...just "tick" fishing or pleasure ,as the primary use of the boat...simple maths
    tic suggestion , C&R only fishing boats should have "0 tolerance baglimit Lic.No. " on their rigs ,and get a 37.145% discount on their rego

  12. #87

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    agreed boys, very simple solution using currently employed management systems and it also gives direct feedback on quantities of boat based recreational anglers. good solution, i'm all for it. what's the proposal for those who own 2 boats? for instance we have a family boat that isn't really a fishing boat but it's nice to drop a line off the back whilst having a quiet beer when anchored up, i also have a little tinny that is specifically for fishing, do i pay twice?

    hey gazza, do you reckon that a 253000 member lobby group doesn't have political clout? how many members does the queensland greens have?

    part of me would like to see land based anglers contribute, but you're right, it's probably easier to give land based anglers complete unpoliced (other than bag/size limits of course) access to 100% of the state's coastline and river banks.

  13. #88

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    I wonder why we are all trying to work out ways to fund the services and infrastructure we should already have.
    Is it our responsibility to manage the budget as well as provide the funds.?
    The only reason the state is broke is the management team is completely incompetant.
    This State and WA are the economic engine room for the country and yet we are broke.
    Go Figure!!!!
    rant over spleen vented. But it really makes me boil.

  14. #89

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    Quote Originally Posted by PADDLES View Post
    even though you are correct to query about road infrastructure funding. the intent of phil's post is for marine infrastructure and waterway management funding and this is very independent to road funding even though the mismanaged funds ultimately end up in the same place.

    i actually see some benefit in having a RFL, and i know that there's plenty who will disagree (gazza for starters), and also others like phil who to his credit keeps an open mind on it.

    i see a couple of benefits with a number of spinoffs:

    - it would create a sense of ownership of the recreational fishing management process. RFL holders should be given the opportunity to vote for representation with governement (using a sunfish type representative body) or even get the opportunity to be an elected representative.

    - it exactly quantifies the sheer numbers of recreational anglers in this state. this gives political clout by galvanising a bunch of recreational anglers together to form a powerful lobby group that could now have the power to steer fisheries management

    - it raises money for management, i agree with phil's numbers though and given the size of our state and the relatively low population, funds would probably still have to be pulled from elsewhere to pay for research and other management activities.

    i personally disagree with using boat rego money for fisheries management, it should all be spent on boating infrastructure/management and not fishing.

    one thing to remember though is that it is not in a government's interest (either LNP or ALP) to create another lobby group (such as the SSAA) and so i don't think we'll see either party push the RFL as an agenda.
    how would buying an RFL make a lobby group?

  15. #90

    Re: LNP Fishing policy

    If the government already recognises there are about 3/4 of a million anglers and we still get treated with contempt, would anything improve if either fishing boat numbers or licenced anglers were confirmed?
    Perhaps it would simply highlight the existence of a cash cow waiting to be milked some more.

    Fee increases bolstered up with typical gov't spin, broken promises, half truths, outright lies and shameful waste, and nothing (or very little) finding its way back to where it should go..

    Not trying to knock anyones ideas, but bloody hell.... What made me such a cynical, sceptical old coot?

    Gurn

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Join us