RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE FOR QUEENSLAND

[BOMBER]

I would have to say I have no problems in paying a SIPS nor would I have a problem with paying a saltwater fishing fee. we all jump up and down everytime beer goes up or fuel or cigs but after a very short period of time and I mean literally seconds we are back buying smokes, beer and fuel for our cars. If a all waters licence came in or even just a saltwater licence was proposed and all the facts were laid out on the table then I would consider all points and if I could see the benefits for the fishery I would have no hesitation in paying a fee . I remember a similar uproar when the SIPS was proposed some years ago now certain people were screaming why should we pay to fish BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH much like this debate here, now nobody worries about it at all and actually as some of you have said on this forum what a great idea it has been.
Like I said when the info is available look at it decide then, we have had it too easy here for too long with free fisheries for everybody to flog to death and then have a whinge about no fish, I include rec anglers in this along with the pros ever been to Fraser Island and watch the pros drag in a Mullion Tons of Tailor and hear the recs standing around TUT TUT TUtting only to find the same recs up the beach the next day with 500 other recs slaughtering just as many then gloating about what a good day we have had, yes I have done it along with I am sure a few of you here. If paying to fish has to be done well so be it if it improves the fishery so much the better, just my opinion.

Regards,

THE BOMBER.

[nonibbles]

It doesn't matter whether you would consider paying a fee. I a RFL comes in you will have NO CHOICE and that is the biggest problem I have with it. I enjoy fishing, I don't get out as often as I'd like and most trips are not planned in advance, being at the behest of the weather and other influences thus a short term licence would not work for me. But why would I pay for a full year if I'm only going to get out half a dozen times? The added cost upon what I've already paid in taxes associated with my fishing would not be economical when weighed up against other expenses. I am already paying to go fishing. I don't want or see the need to pay more. Maybe the government needs to look a bit harder at how it divvies up its money that it already gets.
If there were more privately owned boatramps then I'm sure that I would be happy to use those ramps and facilities at a fee so the owner could maintain/repair/upgrade them as required because I'd know where my money is going but I'm damn well not going to pay into a slush fund that will either only benefit highly populated areas (SE Qld) or not be wholly utilised for recreational fishing activities.
If I had to buy a licence I would probably end up opting out and so would have to stop fishing, sell the boat, deny my kids etc. etc. But I suppose the anti fishing lobby would be smiling.
Don't screw yourselves over lads!

[Gazza]

Bomber ,SIP gives 'enhanced' opportunity to catch a fish in the fresh, that IS a good idea.
Paying to fish elsewhere is good for the single guy , but horrendous to a 4,5,6 person family and ad-hoc friends , who may not wish to 'chuck a line in' because of the 'paperwork' #

Mate, If you propose that they 'charge ALL households ,ala ambulances situ' and drop the PPV and the SIP

i.e. SI guys are allocated a significant budget of $5M~10M to cover say 100 dams,places ,hey even RIVERS #

Nearly forgot ,ALL fish-related FINES go to this same TRUST

In Essence ALL the community , I'm all for it !!!
Say $10.00 per household ,per year. #

[BOMBER]

Like I said would have to see a draft on the table for me to have a look at would not be for it if it was just forced upon us with no consultation and to date this has not been done at all as yet and I am not even sure if it has been put forward by any authority that matters. For the record I have 2 kids and a wife and a boat and 2 cars and a mortgage and pay tax like everybody else and yes pay pay pay like all of you but would still have no probs paying a saltwater fee if it improved the fishery plus the policing of it, I pay $35.00 per year now so would have no probs with paying another $35.00 per year which I see as a fair price. The problem here in Australia as I stated earlier, we are not used to user pays for our recreation when it comes to our sports activities yet we have no probs rocking up to Seaworld and paying $158.00 for a family for 1 day out yet alone a year but we scream about a fee to go fishing for 365 days per year if we so wish far better value than Seaworld I feel.
As I will state again would have no probs paying a fee PROVIDED THE FISHERY BENEFITED IN ANY FORM,whether it be policing, stocking better boat ramps whatever, if this was not going to be the case I would not be for it I am not one to shoot ideas down before they even get going if there is even the slim chance of making the saltwater fishery a better place.

Regards,

THE BOMBER

[straddie]

Direct user pays systems are pretty much standard these days. I see a Queensland RFL as being inevitable, it's just a matter of when it is introduced.

Kicking and screaming about it will delay the introduction, but when it eventually comes in and you decide that you now want a say on how it is operated, how do you think your opinion will be treated?
Something like this maybe,

You were against it from the start, you caused the implimenters problems along the way, you delayed the introduction, you are probably trying to sabotage the the process now, why should we listen to anything you want or have to say!

Fighting against something also gives your opponents (anti fishing groups) the opportunity to highlight your worst practices and weaken your postion in other areas. So the potential is there for even further losses down the track.

When you see the inevitable, take the lead and support it, hell even promote it, so you have a say in how the legislation is written and a continuing voice in its implimentation and operation.

If you think you can stop an RFL go hard against it, if you don't think you can stop it, then go hard with it and try to achieve the best possible outcome.

[harryhoy]

Post removed at the request of the Member

[Gazza]

User-pays Straddie , ALL for it...... [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]
Fish Fee of $1.00 per export Kilo ,and $0.50 per Kilo for local consumption , sold by Commercial channels.

I'll still pay the other fee(s)/GST component of any fishing I do whatsoever ,and gladly pay the 'Fish fee' of any local produce I purchase.

ALL for it , bring it onnnn!!
Regards
Gazza [smiley=2thumbsup.gif]

[Kerry]

Gotta question for all you pro RFL people #

After all the warm and fuzzy hoo haa has subsided and all in place the implementers then decide in their own characteric way to say direct all these RFL monies for the next few years to something entirely irrelvent to fishing, would you then agree with that or not?

Not really talking about maybe's here but actual events that right now are occuring in other states. # #

As for fighting against something, this is a right everyone has in this country, to voice ones opinion and quite frankly for anybody to suggest otherwise is being hyprocitical or simply coming from someone that will lay down and be walked all over, not really knowing why.

As for suggesting it as being inevitable what a defeatist attitide that is #[smiley=thumbsdown.gif].

Cheers, Kerry.

[dazza]

i dunno if it would be a good or a bad thing.
bit difficult to debate something that hasn't been formally proposed yet

depending on what form a rfl takes and what it is used for.
if the govt quarantined the money for rec fishing uses only etc it could be benificial.

who in their right mind would trust any govt to play by the rules, is that a core promise or an election promise ??? ???
sorry guy's your rfl money is for the funding of ..........,
but not fishing

i agree with bomber, lets see what is put on the table then
make a decision.
when it is formally proposed (sorry kerry- defetist yes, but realistic) is when we will really have to lobby our local members, and politicians.

remember mr beattie made a few concessions to the fin fish because of the loud voice of a small group of pros up north. (there was a post on the boards about it, sorry cant find it.)

cheers
dazza

[Gazza]

RFL won't happen Kerry, fish levy's will ,no policing necessary ,just like GST

[RASA]

Firstly, crusade is too stong a word don't you think. I have given rational explanations to everything I have said about this topic. Let me go through your dot points one-by-one ok?

• Ans

Sorry Harry, Hoodwinking might have been better.
Rational explanations depend upon the spin given for a desired answer.

1) Yes at the expense of health, police, education - which no government in their right mind will do, so it is ridiculous to entertain the idea that what has occurred in NSW (re: estuaries being closed to pro fishing) would have occurred without an RFL

• Ans

Yes is correct, but not at the expense of health, police or education etc but maybe when the Feds announce that $1 Billion is set aside to buy 20 and 30 year old defence toys there would be room to accomodate a piddling amount for the marine resource. I reckon even you could list where this money could come from without impeding the necessities.

2) Yes

• Ans

No wonder anglers are easy targets and get led around by the nose!

[3) YES

• Ans

So you think anglers will be able to say where they want to go and fish after they are forced to buy an RFL!

4) It looks simple enough so Yes

• Ans

Simple yes, Deceiving also yes

5) Why would 480,000 be eligible - all are eligible aren't they? You fish you pay, simple

• Ans

No! it appears that exemptions outnumber the eligible

6) Silly question. It will certainly enhance your mullet fishing if the money is used to buy pro netting licences out of estuaries, allowing more mullet to be caught by you. It may not benefit you directly but what about the other 879,999 anglers in Qld? Selfish view you hold there, mate

• Ans

Harry,nothing selfish here or silly, it is obvious you don't realise that the Mullet get the same slaughter now by less commercial fishers, i.e example 1200 used to take 1000 ton now 1000 take the same 1000 ton. Where is the green dividend now that the angler has paid out for 200 licenses.I know who is grinning.
The biggest threat is QLD freezer trucks here.
How does it benefit my rock fishing and gamefishing down here in NSW I would like to know.

7) No - so what? I'm sure if the fine was zero, not many people would pay for a licence. I would still pay however

• Ans

The point is Harry, that why the bureaucrats can publically say there is a 99% compliance is obvious, rather than acceptence. There is a fairer system where all will share in the financial responsibility. I.E the more you access the resource the more you pay and the more taxes the Gov collects from all beneficiaries that are associated with this activity , would that be a fair user pay system. Example, the more times you are driving on the road with your registered car the more tax (fuel,tyres,repairs etc and tolls you pay.

8) Why is it holding anglers to ransom - pay and you can fish? Is car rego holding drivers to ransom?

• Ans

The ransom is don't pay and we won't do anything for you or don't pay and you you will get fined. Comparing this to car rego is like comparing oranges to elephants. A car gets registered so it is safe to go on the road but I can buy a licence for my dog (and he wouldn't pass the mannerism test)if I fill in the details and why can't I use my mates license when he is not.

9) As I have said elsewhere - I would only support an RFL if it could be shown that the money is being spent appropriately. If the money went into con rev, I would oppose an RFL, like everyone else should. If it is spent correctly, it would be beneficial. (I believe anyway)
list][*]Ans[/list]That is how it was introduced in VIC and now this money funds the Country Fire Association there ($2million)
In NSW the funds were used to borrow $20 million from guess who! with about $30million to be paid back by you to the treasury (stung again, silly me)
How gullible does that make anglers and now you know where the term leading by the nose comes from.

Sorry Harry there must be a line drawn in the sand sometime and now is as good as time as any to get proper funding from ALL who benefit from a better recreational fishery not just you!

Bob Smith

[trevcob]

hay the Government has already got 9 Billion this year it dose not know what to spend it on and we are talking about giveing it more . I now no were the term ###### comes from

[straddie]

Heya Kerry,

I try to take a realistic approach to the things I do. If something can only have a seriously negative impact I will fight tooth and nail against it regardless if I think I can win or not. If I believe I can't stop something but the potential for a positive outcome is still there I will go with it and try and influence it.

"As for fighting against something, this is a right everyone has in this country, to voice ones opinion and quite frankly for anybody to suggest otherwise is being hyprocitical or simply coming from someone that will lay down and be walked all over, not really knowing why."
Well said I couldn't agree with you more. I applaude those that take the time consider issues and have their say whether I agree with them or not.

We have the good and bad history of other states RFL's to look at and learn from, and pollies are always going to try and redirect monies into things that they weren't meant for if they think they can get away with it. Therefore one of the aims should be to lock up any monies from an RFL for the exclusive benifit of recreational fishing in any legislation.

That's my opinion, but as I said previously, If you think you can stop an RFL go hard against it, if you don't think you can stop it, then go hard with it and try to achieve the best possible outcome.

[Kerry]

Straddie, the Victorians all thought they were on a realistic thing as well, positive outcome and were expecting "their" $$'s to be put back into "their" future recreation expectations, you know all the things that gov don't/never have the money for but they got shafted, left right and centre, money is money and the ones that make the rules simply break the rules.

As mentioned elsewhere one doesn't need the excuse of and/or existence of a RFL to make decisions.

Either the people who are supposed to manage the fishery either can or they can't and if they can't then pi.. em off. Let someone who can without the exuse of requiring a RFL to actually do it.

One of the first aims should be to actually spend ALL the money that is "currently raised" from anything fishing related in fishing related activities then when that's actually achieved then lets see what the situation is.

Really if the gov want to do something then it really doesn't matter what you or I actually think or what evidence there is (or is not) to support it, they will do it anyway. One only has to take a peek at the Victorian Marine Park fiasco, or the GBR green zones, pure polictical decisions, nothing more.

What is now rubbing salt into the wounds of the Vic fisho's is after the gov pulling all this marine park BS over people's heads the gov is now going to actually dredge and blast shipping channels through areas that they claimed to be "pristine" along with all the little endangered sea critters. Now the same gov 6 months latter wants to blast the crap of everything without even the resemblance or requirement of a EIS.

Obviously reality is something that many keep looking at through rose coloured glasses.

Cheers, Kerry.

[straddie]

"One of the first aims should be to actually spend ALL the money that is "currently raised" from anything fishing related in fishing related activities then when that's actually achieved then lets see what the situation is."

It's a nice thought but you and I know that will never happen, it's consolidated revenue.

"Really if the gov want to do something then it really doesn't matter what you or I actually think or what evidence there is (or is not) to support it, they will do it anyway. One only has to take a peek at the Victorian Marine Park fiasco, or the GBR green zones, pure polictical decisions, nothing more."

That's right, the descisions will be made regardless, and as in all things the strongest input on legislation will come from those that support the issue not those that oppose it. I just hope the draft strongly favors recreational interests if it comes about and isn't hijacked by anti fishing interests while we squable between ourselves like usual.