View Poll Results: Would you like to see a state wide Rec Fishing Licence introduced in Qld

Voters
211. You may not vote on this poll
  • YES to the Qld Gov introducing a Rec Fishing Licence

    72 34.12%
  • NO to the Qld Gov introducing a Rec Fishing licence

    139 65.88%
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314 LastLast
Results 106 to 120 of 198
  1. #106

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Quote Originally Posted by Slider View Post
    I'm not really prepared here to argue every little intricacy of a rfl and its application, how it is to be set up, who manages the money and who makes the decisions on how the money is spent. I do have other things to do in my life like earn a living to fund what I do in fishery research. I will however argue til the cows come home the value of net free regions and the absolute necessity for them in Qld. However, if there is something that I'm not addressing, and someone feels that it is a really important point that hasn't been addressed, then remind me of it and I will address it if it falls into my field of expertise.
    Slider, you're obviously well versed in fisheries management but I wonder whether making an "absolute guarantee" is good scientific practice when dealing with the minefield of complicated ecosystems that are in a state of constant flux. For instance, i don't know whether Gladstone Harbour is no netting, but I don't know whether banning netting would make much of a difference at present. OK, you say that if netting doesn't then nothing will. That might be true, but the reverse is not. No netting will not neccessarily improve fish stocks.
    But let's say your absolute guarantee is correct. The question then becomes: why is an RFL the only way to deliver net free fishing? If enough people are motivated, you can be sure that a voting block will deliver an outcome if the science is put forward by that voting block ie funding delivering benchmarks in increased production as you say. Why link it to another imposte on our freedom to fish without having to employ more bean counters to monitor it? If it's an absolute guarantee, then the government should adopt it without an RFL with enough "encouragement" from members around the state.
    I know there hasnt been great success in fishing policies affecting elections, but with outcome driven funding, wouldn't it make a big stick for fishos to unite over? And there are other ways, like voluntary funding, or sponsorship deals by multinationals, maybe even carbon trading somewhere there or other new schemes for example.
    To summarise, I think it's drawing a long bow to say net free fishing is the holy grail but even if it is, it's not just an RFL that will deliver that.
    Hope that makes sense.
    regards jim

  2. #107

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Quote Originally Posted by Sheik View Post
    Slider, you're obviously well versed in fisheries management but I wonder whether making an "absolute guarantee" is good scientific practice when dealing with the minefield of complicated ecosystems that are in a state of constant flux. For instance, i don't know whether Gladstone Harbour is no netting, but I don't know whether banning netting would make much of a difference at present. OK, you say that if netting doesn't then nothing will. That might be true, but the reverse is not. No netting will not neccessarily improve fish stocks.
    But let's say your absolute guarantee is correct. The question then becomes: why is an RFL the only way to deliver net free fishing? If enough people are motivated, you can be sure that a voting block will deliver an outcome if the science is put forward by that voting block ie funding delivering benchmarks in increased production as you say. Why link it to another imposte on our freedom to fish without having to employ more bean counters to monitor it? If it's an absolute guarantee, then the government should adopt it without an RFL with enough "encouragement" from members around the state.
    I know there hasnt been great success in fishing policies affecting elections, but with outcome driven funding, wouldn't it make a big stick for fishos to unite over? And there are other ways, like voluntary funding, or sponsorship deals by multinationals, maybe even carbon trading somewhere there or other new schemes for example.
    To summarise, I think it's drawing a long bow to say net free fishing is the holy grail but even if it is, it's not just an RFL that will deliver that.
    Hope that makes sense.
    regards jim
    Some excellent discussion, both for and against going on in here lately. Good to see.

    Sheik, totally agree with what you're saying & in an ideal situtation would love to see that type of outcome without an RFL also. The only stumbling block is an organisational platform or voice to make that happen.

    There has been, and still is a handful of political groups, angler groups, marine boating groups or action groups on a particular issue all pretty well up the same path but none have or had the backing to do anything too significant in the long term.


    An RFL,... on our terms, is a defacto way of being more in charge of our destiny & more importantly having the $$ to make some changes.
    I'm right 98% of the time - who cares about the other 3%

  3. #108

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    i voted no i think we all pay to much now with everyday living now wheres it end next you will need a permit to walk on a footpath???
    been fishing for the last 30 years without having to have a permit to fish so why should my/our kids have to pay to fish from the the day they start
    fishing just my 2 cents worth cheers.

  4. #109

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    You might have to jump over to the "And Then There Were None" thread Quin Tin for the answer to your question. Or quite simply, it's called human population explosion.

  5. #110

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    I can guarantee that net free regions will improve recreational and commercial catches and I can support the guarantee with solid science and examples.

    As to how the net free regions are funded - I don't really care. But it is apparent that we can not expect to see the Government fund it. I've been going down that path for the last 10 years and I am no closer to a result. If other funding arrangements other than a rfl can be made, then well and good, but I won't be holding my breath for that either.

    The only vital thing is that net free regions are created soon and if the Government says it costs too much, then we have to take the ball in our own hands - for our sakes, for our children's and granchildren's sakes, and for the sake of keeping our marine environment alive. The longer we delay, the longer is the recovery and the more significant are the trophic cascades that will occur in the meantime.

  6. #111

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Gladstone Harbour

    I mentioned in the other thread about fish that are under chronic predation threat and how their fecundity is reduced - substantially - by up to 60% in actual fact. What also is known, is that fish that are under chronic predation threat are also increasingly vulnerable to habitat degredation, climate change and disease.

    So, in Gladstone Harbour where commercial fishing is intense, recreational pressure is intense, dredging is occurring, mangroves are being depleted and algal blooms kicked in after the floods, we have the perfect recipe for fish to become diseased. It isn't necessarily any single one of these factors that is causing disease, but the combination of fishing pressure and any of the other factors can trigger the problems that we've all seen. My bet is that algal blooms are the most likely cause in combo with fishing pressure.

    In all animals, stress causes an increase in stress related hormones from the hypothalamic-pituitary-andrenocortical feedback system. An increase in these hormones can cause reduced fecundity, infertility, increased vulnerability to disease and loss of mass (Boonstra, 1998a)

  7. #112

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Quote Originally Posted by QuinTin View Post
    i voted no i think we all pay to much now with everyday living now wheres it end next you will need a permit to walk on a footpath???
    been fishing for the last 30 years without having to have a permit to fish so why should my/our kids have to pay to fish from the the day they start
    fishing just my 2 cents worth cheers.
    Life moves on ......
    If we had this conversation during the 60's people would think we were off our rockers - fish were everywhere & the stories that went with them would have ones pulse racing - there was no need to even contemplating anything that resembles a conservation strategy ........... but how wrong they were !

    So rather than thinking - why should we ? ....... maybe we should be thinking what if we dont ?
    Do we really think that government has the will to do anything about it ? ........ specially with regard to funding . Hell CN just had the opportunity to sink a new arti reef off the Gold Coast - how did he respond ? a thanks but no thanks .... can't afford it !
    This type of thinking will only change if and when a keen fishoe becomes Premier ...... someone with a passion & the clout to change things - but I for one dont want to hold my breath on that one either.

    As for seeing my kids having to buy a licence ......... I'd rather know that they actually had something to catch

    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

  8. #113

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Well So much for Campbell Newman rescuing Queensland, I see he is going to sack Harbour and Marine staff now or so he said on a recent TV interview. So who knows what their policies are on other matters concerning our fish resources. It seems he isn't too concerned about fish stocks etc.
    If there was a fee where would it go?

  9. #114

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Lets assume no netting is the way to go . It is the quickest way to get fish stocks back up. Lets assume the science is 100% correct and it is obvious to the NSW RFL trust guys, DPI and state departments.

    Can you tell me how much has been spent last year on buying out commercial lic , reducing catch quotas in NSW where this marvolous RFL is in place?.

    So they raised 10-13 million. How much was spend doing buy outs ?

    Slider I noted my vested interest before and I know from the way you write you are passionate about both fishing and the science behind it but stating your vested interest in getting funding or any other interest would be a ethical thing to do.

    As for your question on what crap science I refered to I'll just say there seems to me to be a lot of small unlinked studies not done to the same standards and quality that don't really combine to end up with a better picture of the whole fishery and many are very short term ( becuase the funding is short term) and the data doesn't always end up being with the department for future review. We shouldn't have to reinvent a system of good science as Australia used to be quite good at it.

  10. #115

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Firstly Cormorant, my passion is derived from seeing nets spooking fish and wondering why that happens. Discovered that fish communicate audibly which answered part of the riddle, and kept digging because my curiosity was aroused til I knew enough to indicate that there are ramifications to the nets spooking fish. Once I had a basic knowledge of the entire situation and discovered that nobody in the world at that time was researching fish behaviour around commercial nets, other than how to prevent net avoidance of trawl nets with quieter gear etc, then I felt an obligation to share what I had found out in order for better management. I also desperately wanted the nets off this beach so that recs, incl myself, had a chance of catching fish and to stop the obviously declining fish, seabird, dolphin, shark pops here. It seemed important, but I had no idea how important until the research kept uncovering new things. Now I do feel obliged, driven almost, purely from a conservation perspective. Not just for fish, I spend a lot of time trying to reduce human impacts in Cooloola Nat Park generally - haven't you seen me on the news complaining about unnecessary back burns? I love Australia's native wildlife, terrestrial or marine, and if I can contribute to protecting some of it, then there is ample gratification in that alone. If I can protect a lot of it, as the net free regions would do, then that would give me a real thrill.

    As to vested interests - well I reckon this whole exercise over the last 10 years has probably cost me between half and a mil in lost income. I left a successful career in supplying product to the building industry to tackle this. Thought it might take me a year or 2 and then I could go back to my business. Never happened, and doesn't look like happening for some time to come. I don't stand to make anything as a result of this work that I'm doing. That doesn't concern me in the slightest. The only important thing is that there are fish, seabirds, dolphins, sharks etc in the ocean. The cynics would scoff, but that is the reality, that is my nature. I own my house at Teewah, my work of property maintenance is in Teewah, I don't have kids and I can live on very little - which is just as well.

    Will come back to answering the other aspects in a while.

  11. #116

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    I do agree with other's comments that the NSW RFHs could have been better designed and better results attained. But the results do tell us without doubt that they can be an effective conservation method that doesn't impact the commercial fishery supply of seafood. As to the structure of the rfl, there are better judges of that than I. As was mentioned, Qld has the opportunity to structure a rfl based on the experiences of the other states, which should enable us to get it right - one would think.

    Without looking into it, and my memory fails me, I don't know how much was invested into buying out the 209 licences for the 30 RFHs. Whether Qld needs to buy out that many licences, I wouldn't know, but I suspect not. But as a guide, to make the Noosa North Shore a RFH, is anticipated to cost in the order of 3 - $4 mil to buy out 17 licences with no shift in fishing pressure.

    No doubt that Australia is a world leader in many scientific fields. But in the field of fishery research, most relevent studies have originated in the U.S, Canada, Northern Europe - countries that fished down their fish populations before we did and had to strive for solutions. However, the crucial study in this instance was by Steffe et al 2004, into the pre and post NSW RFH catch rates. The NSW commercial catch statistics are the other important factor in determining the success of RFHs involving the species that we have in Qld. Pondella & Allen 2008 into net free regions in Southern California is also useful in providing direct evidence. But there are any number of papers that paint the picture, a few from Australia, but mostly overseas. I'm referring to about 100 separate research papers to build my arguments. But it is a diverse field and to have corroborating evidence for the various aspects involved, requires that many. I'm not inclined to grab a single paper and run with the findings of the authors - as somebody recently suggested I am doing. Cherrypick was the word used. I have to be satisfied that my arguments will hold up to scrutiny and thus the 10 years it's taken.

    I hope that answers your questions Cormorant, if it doesn't, let me know.

  12. #117

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Nets spooking fish:

    Doesn't matter where the net is shot, the Noosa North Shore, Sandy Cape, Moreton Bay, Trinity Inlet, anywhere. Every time a net is shot and fish caught in that net, alarm cues from the netted fish will cause all fish of the same species, or species that have a history of being netted, to bolt for the hills. Inavariably the bolting species are the same species that recs are chasing. Recreational prospects as a result, for generally the following week in the area that the net was shot are drastically diminished. No mysteries here, anglers all over the world have noted this one and they won't come to Qld because we don't have net free regions.

    So irrespective of whether you're a conservation minded person who would like to see our fisheries maintained for the benefit of biodiversity, or would like to see a prosperous commercial fishery, recreational prospects as things stand, are not what they should be. This is, at the end of the day, why more fish are caught by recs in net free regions. If there are no net free regions, and even if there is only 1 net operating in an area, then this fact has surely to be of concern to recreational anglers. The $9 mil buy out won't make the slightest difference because there will still be nets operating in all regions and every one of them will spook fish that recs are trying to catch.

    Why should the recreational sector have to put up with this fact alone? This fact alone means that resource allocation is substantially lopsided in favour of the commercial fisher and we as recs are being dealt a dud hand. This fact alone means that we can go fishing with an expectation that we are a chance of catching fish, when in reality, we aren't a chance at all when nets are operatng in the area that we're fishing. How is this fair? The expenditure in fuel, bait, time off work or whatever, is wasted, because the nets are spooking the fish.

    All this excitement about marine parks and not having access to fishing grounds. What's the difference? You may as well have inshore marine parks if you can't catch fish anyway and save your money and go to the football. Has Sunfish considered this part of the equasion when they decided on our behalf to put strict conditions on a rfl that make it prohibitive for a rfl to occur and subsequently for net free regions to occur?

    As I've said, I don't care how it's funded, but net free regions are a must for a number of reasons and I'm buggered if I'm going to sit back and let things fester along with no benefit for anybody or anything even attempted by the rec sector. The whole thing is just crazy.

    Speaking of Sunfish, where are they? I thought that they were going to be more proactive as far as engaging with the rec fisher. They began to on Ausfish last year when they were copping a flogging here from all and sundry. Did they decide the heat was off and that they can now relax. Where's Scott Mitchell? Remember how passionately Scott debated the need for a rfl? Sunfish must have gagged him. Toe the line or your out. Is that the way it works with Sunfish?

  13. #118

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    I've looked into it and can't find any history on the start of the NSW RFL. I don't know whether money from that trust was used to buy licences (unlikely, with the amount needed vs the money earned). Certainly when you look at the breakdown of the trust today you can't see any of that money put aside to buy licences. I'm aware that a loan may have been given by Govt to the trust that was/is still to be repaid? If that's true and it still is being repaid, the repayment figure doesn't appear in the readily available breakdown (that I can see).
    As of a parliamentary report in 2010 (not sure if there was a follow up) into the NSW rec fishing scene, there was (I think) 1.5 mil put aside for commercial buyback, not much (and again, unsure if this money was from Govt, or the trust itself).
    Now, as far as I can see the advocates for a QLD RFL are basing their ideals on the established NSW RFL with the 2 main 'fors' being:

    1. Commercial licence buyback

    2. RFHs

    As far as I can tell the NSW RFL trust isn't contributing to commercial buybacks ( or at most, is still repaying a loan given over 10 years ago whilst wasting good money on garbage), also, RFHs can be brought about by the sweep of a pen (just like a marine park).
    Why isn't the NSW RFL trust pushing for more licence buybacks?
    Vegetarian - Ancient tribal slang for the village idiot that can't hunt, fish or ride.

  14. #119

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Quote Originally Posted by goat boy View Post
    I've looked into it and can't find any history on the start of the NSW RFL. I don't know whether money from that trust was used to buy licences (unlikely, with the amount needed vs the money earned). Certainly when you look at the breakdown of the trust today you can't see any of that money put aside to buy licences. I'm aware that a loan may have been given by Govt to the trust that was/is still to be repaid? If that's true and it still is being repaid, the repayment figure doesn't appear in the readily available breakdown (that I can see).
    As of a parliamentary report in 2010 (not sure if there was a follow up) into the NSW rec fishing scene, there was (I think) 1.5 mil put aside for commercial buyback, not much (and again, unsure if this money was from Govt, or the trust itself).
    Now, as far as I can see the advocates for a QLD RFL are basing their ideals on the established NSW RFL with the 2 main 'fors' being:

    1. Commercial licence buyback

    2. RFHs

    As far as I can tell the NSW RFL trust isn't contributing to commercial buybacks ( or at most, is still repaying a loan given over 10 years ago whilst wasting good money on garbage), also, RFHs can be brought about by the sweep of a pen (just like a marine park).
    Why isn't the NSW RFL trust pushing for more licence buybacks?
    I think the buybacks go back to pretty well the beginning (2002/3 ?)..... something like $18.5M - 500ish licences .
    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

  15. #120

    Re: Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

    Quote Originally Posted by goat boy View Post
    I've looked into it and can't find any history on the start of the NSW RFL. I don't know whether money from that trust was used to buy licences (unlikely, with the amount needed vs the money earned).
    I looked as well, I found this report that mentioned 20mil. The report is a bit over my head and I only had time to skim through it, but it does seem quite interesting. Please have a read of it guys and tell me what you think.
    http://uow.academia.edu/alistairmcil...ew_South_Wales

    Cheers
    ~~~><))))*>

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