Qld Recreational Fishing Licence ?

[Noelm]

Yeah, sorry, bad choice of words!

[tug_tellum]

It appears to be dead in the water now Minister saysthat they are against a RFL.
https://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries...eries-strategy
Cheers
Ray

Do you believe it. If it came out of a politicians mouth ,there is a good chance it is a lie. Didnt John Howard say " There is no way GST will ever be part of our policy. " Didnt Bob Hawk say that "By 1990 no Australian child will be living in poverty" And these guys were Prime ministers on national tv, not lowly little ministers who come and go and never be remembered again.
DONT TRUST THEM.
Mick

[NAGG]

One of the things I remember about the introduction of the NSW licence was the level of discussion & engagement ....... There were meetings at fishing clubs etc plus the airplay that it got on the radio via a popular weekend fishing program called "High Tide" was great
I was a skeptic too (along with the majority of the callers) ...... but listening to the argument & hearing what was being proposed gave me an open mind -
What did convince me was one of the very first initiatives was the buyout of the commercial trawl licences on Botany Bay ..... gone were the days of seeing a line of prawn trawlers (20-30) dragging their nets .... destroying habitat & killing masses of bycatch. It was literally within a couple of seasons the fishing was improving . Next came the reef balls within the bay ..... The transition was amazing ..... in 5 years you went from fishing in a waste land to having good consistent fishing . Today the Bay , Georges & Cooks river (which feed the bay) consistently fish well for Mulloway & Kingfish .... let alone bream , trevally , whiting & flathead ...... A sure sign that removal of the fish killing , habitat destroying prawn trawl nets has worked in a busy port like Botany bay . The same can be said for Sydney Harbour ...... where you have successful fishing guides operating.

This is just an example & explains why I am all for an effective RFL (if it is used for the enhancement of recreational fishing)

People should take the time to research the NSW fisheries web site & just see for themselves what initiatives have been completed or are underway.

Chris

[NAGG]

I guess this says it all ......

http://www.daf.qld.gov.au/fisheries/...tional-fishers

[Lovey80]

Here's another question nobody likes to ask, if Recreational Anglers do have to pay a fee to fish, should Fishing Charter Operators have to pay a higher fee to operate and profit, from the fishery created by a Recreational Fishing Fee? A few of my friends probably won't like this, but why should someone at the moment be able to set themselves up as a Guide on a freshwater impoundment, with a fishery funded by the SIP Scheme, and make a profit from it? Similarly, Fishing Tournaments held on Stocked Impoundments which do not assist in the funding of the fishery.

The punters on board Charter boats would have to have a licence just like the charter bloke would. Fresh water guide and his punters also have to pay a SIP. I think those guides are a great thing for the fishery. Let's face it, 99% of stocked impoundment fisho's do it for the love of the sport as 99% of the fish taken from an impoundment taste like shit. Those guides should only be seen as a good thing for the fishery. They are the pointy end when it comes to encouraging Rec Angling and can be the best people to educate regular punters on things like fish handling and caring for the environment. Some people wouldn't fish impoundments at all if it wasn't for guides giving them a head start on how to fish. Adding SIP payers to the system can only be a good thing. Sure if you want to regulate guides to ensure that their punters present a paid SIP slip before their punters get on the water I am happy but am all for their existance.

[chris69]

The Queensland Government does not support the introduction of a recreational fishing licence.

Recreational and commercial fishers already contribute around $5 million each per year through commercial licence fees and the recreational use fee on boat registrations as well as the stocked impoundment permit scheme.



Recreational use fee, you see were already paying for our RFLs just worded differently.

[Lovey80]

One of the things I remember about the introduction of the NSW licence was the level of discussion & engagement ....... There were meetings at fishing clubs etc plus the airplay that it got on the radio via a popular weekend fishing program called "High Tide" was great
I was a skeptic too (along with the majority of the callers) ...... but listening to the argument & hearing what was being proposed gave me an open mind -
What did convince me was one of the very first initiatives was the buyout of the commercial trawl licences on Botany Bay ..... gone were the days of seeing a line of prawn trawlers (20-30) dragging their nets .... destroying habitat & killing masses of bycatch. It was literally within a couple of seasons the fishing was improving . Next came the reef balls within the bay ..... The transition was amazing ..... in 5 years you went from fishing in a waste land to having good consistent fishing . Today the Bay , Georges & Cooks river (which feed the bay) consistently fish well for Mulloway & Kingfish .... let alone bream , trevally , whiting & flathead ...... A sure sign that removal of the fish killing , habitat destroying prawn trawl nets has worked in a busy port like Botany bay . The same can be said for Sydney Harbour ...... where you have successful fishing guides operating.

This is just an example & explains why I am all for an effective RFL (if it is used for the enhancement of recreational fishing)

People should take the time to research the NSW fisheries web site & just see for themselves what initiatives have been completed or are underway.

Chris

If a RFL does come in there has to be some massive improvements on the NSW model. This was a post of mine from way back and only looked at one year when Scott was pushing for Sunfish to get monies from a RFL. Conflict has already been discussed here so I'll leave that alone. I am sure there would be much more that NSW fishers would be pissed about if they knew what their money was being spent on.

Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:

Things like:

$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!

$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?

$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?

$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.

$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?

$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.

$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!

$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.

$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?

$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?

$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.

$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey

I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:

Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.

Just to name a few

You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!

Cheers

Chris

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...80#post1099228

[NAGG]

The Queensland Government does not support the introduction of a recreational fishing licence.

Recreational and commercial fishers already contribute around $5 million each per year through commercial licence fees and the recreational use fee on boat registrations as well as the stocked impoundment permit scheme.



Recreational use fee, you see were already paying for our RFLs just worded differently.

The difference is that we as the fishoes really dont know how much is coming in or going out (being spent) ...... additionally it does not capture anything from interstate or international tourism ...... $5m isn't that much really considering that there are $15m worth of grants available from the NSW RFL this year alone .

Chris

[NAGG]

If a RFL does come in there has to be some massive improvements on the NSW model. This was a post of mine from way back and only looked at one year when Scott was pushing for Sunfish to get monies from a RFL. Conflict has already been discussed here so I'll leave that alone. I am sure there would be much more that NSW fishers would be pissed about if they knew what their money was being spent on.

Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:

Things like:

$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!

$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?

$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?

$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.

$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?

$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.

$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!

$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.

$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?

$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?

$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.

$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey

I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:

Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.

Just to name a few

You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!

Cheers

Chris

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...80#post1099228

& I agree with you ..... there is certainly a bit of WTF expenditure - But what would things be like if NSW didn't have an RFL ....... fishing outcomes (results & expenditure ) were on the decline during the 70s-2000s . There were no salt water stocking programs / facilities were crap ...... freshwater fishing was hopeless (specially Cod) .

This is worth looking at

www.forestrycorporation.com.au/?a=565207

[SchmucK]

If a RFL does come in there has to be some massive improvements on the NSW model. This was a post of mine from way back and only looked at one year when Scott was pushing for Sunfish to get monies from a RFL. Conflict has already been discussed here so I'll leave that alone. I am sure there would be much more that NSW fishers would be pissed about if they knew what their money was being spent on.

Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:

Things like:

$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!

$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?

$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?

$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.

$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?

$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.

$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!

$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.

$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?

$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?

$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.

$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey

I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:

Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.

Just to name a few

You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!

Cheers

Chris

http://www.ausfish.com.au/vforum/sho...80#post1099228

Unfortunately the reality is there will always be some inefficiencies in terms of fund management in the NSW program, and that would certainly occur, particularly in it's infancy, with a QLD RFL aswell. It is inevitable. The admin costs and logistics in implementing a state wide program will always reduce the % of funds that goes to actual angler/catch related benefits - but those benefits don't organise themselves, and you don't attract a decent management team with peanuts. Same issues occur in the major charity groups aswell but at the end of the day they still manage to do good. In the list above, you might see a list of almost 3 million dollars in poorly spent funds, and I would probably agree for the most part, but that's 3 million dollars spent entirely, even if indirectly, on the fishery that wasn't there before. If the funds weren't well spent, then they can always be redirected into the trial of other programs the following year - at least they were available in the first place.

[aussiebasser]

The punters on board Charter boats would have to have a licence just like the charter bloke would. Fresh water guide and his punters also have to pay a SIP. I think those guides are a great thing for the fishery. Let's face it, 99% of stocked impoundment fisho's do it for the love of the sport as 99% of the fish taken from an impoundment taste like shit. Those guides should only be seen as a good thing for the fishery. They are the pointy end when it comes to encouraging Rec Angling and can be the best people to educate regular punters on things like fish handling and caring for the environment. Some people wouldn't fish impoundments at all if it wasn't for guides giving them a head start on how to fish. Adding SIP payers to the system can only be a good thing. Sure if you want to regulate guides to ensure that their punters present a paid SIP slip before their punters get on the water I am happy but am all for their existance.

Sorry Lovey, from our surveys, the majority of recreational anglers on lakes Somerset and Wivenhoe, (the two most fished impoundments in Queensland) are fishing to catch a feed of fish. They are catching Golden Perch, Bass and Silver Perch for the table. That is the reason the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme was implemented, to maintain put and take fisheries so that people could target table fish.

[tug_tellum]

I have worked out a way to please 100% of the people. Dont make it compulsory. That way people who disagree with it wont have to contribute and those who totally agree can donate to it. Why does it have to be compulsory? I rarely ever go fishing and admit I am not a good fisherman,but I dont mind occasionally ( a few times a year)sitting on a chair on a beach ,contemplating my navel while I drown a worm or two and this is the extent of my fishing. I fish more to relax,not to feed a multitude. I have a 10 ft boat which hasnt been in the water for the last 12mths but I keep it just in case on the spur of the moment I decide I want to go fishing or more likely,just boating as I dont usually catch fish.
How about that for an idea? Why MUST it be compulsory. If its a case of user pays then as a small user I shouldnt have to pay as much as a big user! People only wants to bring out user pays senarios when it suits them. Why do my rego fees get gobbled up by bicycle lanes etc when I dont even own a bicycle. Why dont they have to contribute to road funding. Why arent they paying rego and compulsory 3rd. party insurance. They dont even use fuel so they dont pay excise,fuel levys and gst like we are screwed with.
RFL no thanks. I decline,even thou I am almost at the age where you say I wouldnt have to pay. Please contribute only if you feel obligated.
Mick

[aussiebasser]

In my opinion the new SIP for the fresh is a disappointment for all members of the previous scheme .
To be part of the new scheme all groups have to sign a nondisclosure statement preventing them from disclosing their new funding arrangements.
this reeks of collusion so much for open government policy)
The government will now cream off 30% of monies raised for admin.
No complaint about the funding that new SIP groups will receive they were devastated by the newman government..
I also have concerns about the manner that stocking groups will be allowed to utilize funds. I would now appear that the stocking groups may be forced to pay for signage etc at dams.
With the composition of the proposed board giving fisheries a 50% membership certainly gives them an unfair advantage and in my opinion will result in any changes to current funding practices will possibly only advantage the fisheries budget rather than be to the benefit of the fishery.
I have not been privileged to study the proposed sip document in full but what little I have seen there will be more losers that winners and much more pressure is going to be exerted on stocking groups to expand their resources into fundraising activities instead of actual stocking.
Cheers
Ray

Ray, SWFSA Inc have just signed their new Stocked Impoundment Grant Deed. There is no "nondisclosure" statement in it anywhere. This year we will receive $64988.00 for Somerset and $58845.00 for Wivenhoe, plus GST.
I'm not sure which group told you about the nondisclosure clause, and the suspicion of "collusion" but it is totally false, in fact, whatever group is was should have already received the Outcomes from Meeting 1 of the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme Working Group, held on April 5th, this year.

[NAGG]

Ray, SWFSA Inc have just signed their new Stocked Impoundment Grant Deed. There is no "nondisclosure" statement in it anywhere. This year we will receive $64988.00 for Somerset and $58845.00 for Wivenhoe, plus GST.
I'm not sure which group told you about the nondisclosure clause, and the suspicion of "collusion" but it is totally false, in fact, whatever group is was should have already received the Outcomes from Meeting 1 of the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme Working Group, held on April 5th, this year.

Hey Dale

Just a quick one .... how does Wivenhoe gain such a large portion of the SIP funding ? - I would have thought that it would have been a fraction of Somerset

Chris

[NAGG]

I have worked out a way to please 100% of the people. Dont make it compulsory. That way people who disagree with it wont have to contribute and those who totally agree can donate to it. Why does it have to be compulsory? I rarely ever go fishing and admit I am not a good fisherman,but I dont mind occasionally ( a few times a year)sitting on a chair on a beach ,contemplating my navel while I drown a worm or two and this is the extent of my fishing. I fish more to relax,not to feed a multitude. I have a 10 ft boat which hasnt been in the water for the last 12mths but I keep it just in case on the spur of the moment I decide I want to go fishing or more likely,just boating as I dont usually catch fish.
How about that for an idea? Why MUST it be compulsory. If its a case of user pays then as a small user I shouldnt have to pay as much as a big user! People only wants to bring out user pays senarios when it suits them. Why do my rego fees get gobbled up by bicycle lanes etc when I dont even own a bicycle. Why dont they have to contribute to road funding. Why arent they paying rego and compulsory 3rd. party insurance. They dont even use fuel so they dont pay excise,fuel levys and gst like we are screwed with.
RFL no thanks. I decline,even thou I am almost at the age where you say I wouldnt have to pay. Please contribute only if you feel obligated.
Mick

When has a fee ever been about pleasing anyone ?

There are national parks here in NSW that you have to pay an entrance fee ...... you have a choice pay it (& enjoy it) or not pay it (& dont enjoy it) ....... or enjoy it & dont pay for it - then risk a fine.
how can you expect some to contribute to the betterment of a fishery by paying & then have others gain the benefit & not contribute . I dont think it works that way . ...
I wouldn't expect to benefit from the members facilities at some club - if I wasn't a member

Chris