Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

[chris69]

Hi Chris the pumicerstone passage has been net free for many years now and ive fished it when the pros were netting it and after they were kicked out and guess what..... no change..... not at all ,the only thing that has changed is more fishers and not one oyster lease is alive,a creek that was 40foot deep with bombies is now 10foot and other deep holes are half as deep as they use to be all thanks to the pine forests,pros know were the fish are they can read a bank and tell you whats been feeding there and ruffly how many fish are there,they catch the fish that rec fishers dont even know are there, bait soakers sit in one spot and complain when they catch no fish, makeing net free zones wont help those that complain catch any more fish,to me this is no different to when germany did not like the jews or when a developers whats to buy someone out of they home and land so they can gain financially.
When the Rabey bay canal estate was developed the southen tiger prawn fishery dropped by 2/3s a very big mistake and so did the fish stocks because they eat prawns too and lived in the same mangroves nurseries as far as the mulloway stocking down south, well the Dip up are is takeing sample of fins for Dna to determne weither they have move north as they think they are so not all fish stocking can or will be successful.

Many years ago the maroochydore council got bribie Dpi to restock whiteing and flathead and they were very dear fish over $1.00 each or more and look what happened there not much for over $300,000 worth of finglings as you very well know how much barra cost and they dont just fill a dam with them theres a science to it with the food source so to do it in the salt will take a long time to achive some good results for everyone to stop whinging if they ever do and lets say this happend and things dont improve what next only the people that live in the area get to fish it were will it ever end this could just turn out like the mob that wanted the trawlers out of the bay well we all got green zones out of that and restriction on some fish limits and everyone that wanted this and campained for this are still belly acking about itor have there heads still burried in the sand,its not prefect for everyone but i can catch a feed any time in my area, so why would i have to pay for the privelage other than going to the fish and chip shop if i chose too to by a fish that a pro netter as many tourist do in my area and like others do in other sea side places,cheers Chris.

[NAGG]

I cant comment on either pumicestone or Raby - Is the passage a fish breeding / nursery area ?
How long have the nets been out of the area ? - that makes a difference.

As I said - dont know and can only comment on areas that I fished before and after closures / buyouts.
But it would be hard to believe that the removal of commercial netting will not have medium & longer term benefits.

Chris

[Black_Rat]

Kid to mum or dad or aunty or uncle "Let's wet a line today"or "Let's go fishing?"

Sorry kid ya have to pay to do that these days .........................................

ummm yeah ................

[Slider]

Mum, Dad, Aunty, Uncle to kid - "No, we can't afford the $5 for the rfl, so you'll just have to stay at home and play that new $80 computer game". And depends what age the kid is as I gather that under a certain age won't require a licence.

Chris69, you are the first person that I've ever heard state that the Pumicestone hasn't improved after the banning of nets. It so happens that every area has more fish in it after nets are removed - which is hardly surprising and also supported by all of the available evidence.

To compare a push for net free regions to allow for sustainable fisheries for both rec and pro, to the Nazis, is just a tad over the top.

To state that there won't be Australian seafood or bait for Australian consumers is simple scaremongering and incorrect. You haven't researched any of this have you, or even read some of the posts and attachments in this thread?

I would think that healthy wet seasons would be a positive for fish stocks not a negative as Chris69 claims.

Let's talk about greed Chris 69.

Is it greedy to want to protect fish stocks with money out of our own pockets? Is it greedy to want rec and pro fishers to catch more fish? Is it greedy to expect that recs should have fair access to fish stocks? Is it greedy to want net free regions that would attract tourist dollars and then have to share these regions with the tourists? Is it greedy to want marine biodiversity to have a chance?

Then - is it greedy to continue netting a location that you know is running out of fish, so that your licence will be worth as much as possible when gov is forced to buy out your licence after fish stocks have collapsed? Is it greedy to net locations where recs fish, even though you know that your net is going to spook the fish that the recs hope to catch?

But don't get me wrong, I have no gripe with pro fishers. They're generally earning a living the best way they know how and generally within the guidelines set out by FQ. It's just that the guidelines are all buggered up. But when you state that recs are being greedy for wanting net free regions that would slow the inevitable depletion of our marine animal populations, you have assessed things, once again, incorrectly.

[Andy56]

What makes you guys think your immune from fishing licenses?
Your state gov is sacking everyone in sight and pretty soon, when this con is shown up for what it is, they are going to raise revenue from everything!
Be prepared!

[daki23]

YES, as this will teach people the rules and responsibilities.

[d-man]

Big YES from here. I've seen what rec fishing licences can produce in the USA. Ask them how they feel about it after 20 odd years. There won't be many negatives. We just have to suck it up and realise that there has to be some big bucks sunk back into the fishery here, and there ain't nobody else gunna want to do it except those who will benefit.

[malby]

Great point Rainbow runner!!!

In NSW the fishing licence has bought out numerous pro licences and brought a host of tributaries back to life and if it meant stopping the fishing nets in SE Qld I would back it to the hilt. Lets get the Politicians to make an 'in writing' iron clad promise and lets do it.

I believe we need to pressure the Politicians in Qld and get behind guys like slider (Lindsay Dines) and work toward seeing Recreational Fishing Zones started across the State and become leaders in change. If we don't act soon there will be no fishing for future generations.

I'm not suggesting we rush in but carefully get the many tens of thousands of Recreational Anglers across our State to sign petitions and bring pressure to bear on our Poly's and at the right time yes,... offer money such as a fishing licence which is only about $75 for 3 years in NSW and has brought about HEAPS of change and buy backs!!

[Johnm]

Dead against any licence. What will it produce for the state remember it extends past Caboolture. There is a lot of talk about the benefits for the southeast which is where any money will be spent with the rest of the atate paying as happens with everything now. Any restrictions will grow and we will end up paying more and getting less. Just look what has happened with the shark areas in Moreton Bay.
How about putting pressure on the politicians to do there job without offering to pay them more.

[PinHead]

the northern end of Pumicstone Passage is worse off these days than the 60's and 70's. Reason..development. Nothing whatsoever to do with netters or fish sounds or anything else. Development and run off. No license will alter those issues.

[finga]

YES, as this will teach people the rules and responsibilities.

How????????

You need a license to drive a car and look at the fools driving who do not know the rules and the fools who know the rules but couldn't give A Jack Poo about them.
The freshwater license makes me know the rules alright. I go to the shop. I hand over some cash. They give me a license. I go and throw my bait in the creek. Yep. Learnt me those darn rules real good I did.

[goat boy]

You guys advocating a licence because of what you're THINKING (or hoping) it will provide. Go look at what the NSW licence has provided, yes, it has had some benefits in some areas, but a whole host of that money may as well be flushed down the crapper for all it's used for.
It's the equivalent of shutting your eyes and sticking your fingers in your ears shouting LALALALALALALALALALA after you quietly say 'licence istheanswerforeverything'
For what everyone thinks a licence would provide (or like it to provide) you'd be better off setting up a trust that is solely for buying out pro licences. Not advocating that at all, just my view on what people are saying they want...
And yeh, there's a whole heap of reasons why fishing ain't what it used to be, pro's aren't the be all and end all contributor there.

[Slider]

Of course there are other factors placing pressure on fish stocks. But how many of these can we actually do something about and why is it that fish universally return to locations where nets are banned and where scientifically analysed, are bigger than before the ban? We can't stop human population growth and urban run off, we don't want to stop recreational fishing, so what alternatives would you propose Goatboy.
Lacking any other means to buy out netting licences and create net free regions, the rfl is the only means it seems to not only hoping things will improve, the evidence tells us that things will only improve. Which is so logical it doesn't require any expertise to assess.

Greg - to expect the fishing to be better now at the northern end of the passage than the 60s and 70s due to the netting ban is probably an unrealistic expectation. If a rfl allows more net licences to be bought out, then this is the only compensatory method available for increased development.

[Lucky_Phill]

Thanks Lindsay,

As you know I am against a RFL, for a number of reasons.

BUT, I could support one under certain circumstances.

One being, legislation put in place BEFORE the RFL comes into play. That legislation needs to address the issues such as you have on the North Shore / Tewantin/ DI areas. I am talking about Recreational Fishing Havens.

Although the RFL could possibly support all Qld rec fishing areas and agendas, the majority of funding would need to be spent in the places of most concern, and that is heavily populated areas.... SEQ / CQ and to the lessor extent ( but no less important ) NQ and FNQ. Let's also not forget the Freshwater Guys and what would happen to the SIP program.

Although my sources inside FQ tell me that a RFL is not even on the " to do " list for the future, it could come to this, if the present Govt get their act together and get some science behind the adacdotal evidence and more claculated evidence ( such as your observations etc ).

This Govt has put aside that 120mill for Marine Infrastructure, so it will be interesting come the budget. At that stage we should see where the money will be spent. I am more than hopeful that we'll get upwards of 5mill for Artifical Reefs in the SEQ region.

Think the Budget gets tabled on Tuedsay 11th.

I also think that if a RFL ever comes in the RUF ( Recreational Use Fee ) attached to vessel regos be scraped.

Alll IMO only.......


cheers LP

[goat boy]

Of course there are other factors placing pressure on fish stocks. But how many of these can we actually do something about and why is it that fish universally return to locations where nets are banned and where scientifically analysed, are bigger than before the ban? We can't stop human population growth and urban run off, we don't want to stop recreational fishing, so what alternatives would you propose Goatboy.

I already said it, make it a trust for the sole purpose of buying out licences. Everything else is a waste and a rort. As mentioned several times already, an RFL is not on the cards, so time to move on and look into other avenues. What is wrong with a rec trust that is used solely for buying out licences? Just saying..