RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE FOR QUEENSLAND

[kc]

Straddie I'm a bit more sceptical than you. I believe that governments make decisions based on where they think the votes are, not just which lobby group agrees with their preferred outcome. Clearly at all levels it is now politically expedient to be "seen to be green" and rec fishers have never got their collective crap together as a voting block to do anything about it. Without wanting to draw too many parallels have a look at the political clout of the NRA in America if you want to see the political muscle flexing of a sporting body and its influence over government policy. It is alawys all about votes!!

They will never fear the political "wrath" of the rec fishing "voting block" until their actually is one, and its numbers are demonstrated at the ballot box. Governments don't support green movements out of any social or moral obligation....they support them because there is votes in it and preference deals which help keep them in their cozy offices and parlimentary dinning rooms. If they had any fear of "us" they would be asking what we thought and actually taking some notice instead of the sham which is suppossed to be "public consultation".

& Harry, Like I said, the will of the membership determines the pollicies of the Fishing Party. If you would like to know more about the state executive and the totally democratic nature of our organisation visit our web site on www.thefishingparty.info and look at the Qld branch and our state constitution. All the executive is is a collective of those voted in each year by the members to represent them, nothing more, nothing sinister and nothing secret. Dave is probably our most high profile exec member, along with Brian Pickup from Townsville but actual membership of the party includes guys like John Mondora.......straight up, no BS, JP. who is not going to get involved with anything dodgy. The foundation exec is really made up of the few good people prepared to get off their arses and have a go rather than sit on the fence whinging about the state of the fishery and throwing hand grenades but never pulling out the pins. We don't have answers, only opinions, we don't know everything but collectively we hope our members do. There will be strenght in numbers and hopefully enough votes to make a difference but even if there is not, it feels better to go down screaming than just fade away without a fight.

Regards

KC
The Fishing Party (Qld)

[Fitzy]

Great topic for debate folks. Its great to see so many ppl who are passionate about our sport/hobby/recreation.
I dont think we're going to ever get 100% of ppl agreeing on 100% of issues.
I'm personally opposed to any RFL, but I'm wrong as often as I'm right.
I think its will take a very gutsy poitician to be the one who, throws the issue up, potentially political suicide yet not a big enough issue for a referendum.

No matter how you feel, if and/or when the time comes, put pen to paper & write your local MP. I've seen far too many issues get pushed under the rug or forgotten about by angler apathy (She'll be right mate). Dont let this one slip by without having a say. It's far too important!

Cheers All,

Fitzy..

[jockey]

I think the option for boaties only would be a good one. I fish from a boat but I've never paid for any license fees. (I fish from someone else's boat). I reckon for every rec boat there are ten people who fish from them. As for people who always fish from the shore, with a few exceptions they hardly catch anything. Perhaps it should be boaties and anyone who fishes from islands (who need a boat to get there).

I support the RFL simply because we would get out a lot more than we put in.

I suggest people actually vote on the boaty idea. It would be interesting to see how many of the people who support the RFL would want it for boaties only. Maybe there would be more support because the people who only fish a few times a year wouldn't be affected.

Anyone who owns a boat but is complaining about the cost of an RFL is crazy. The RFL would probably be around 1% extra outlay but for a huge increase in catch. Most boaties I know own the boat because they want to catch more fish, so why not the same argument for an RFL?

[jockey]

Just figured out that you have to vote to see the results.

Why is there a turn around in the results? I think that the people against the idea will keep at it (as you can see from the posts) but the people for it will vote once and then not be bothered.

[Gazza]

Maybe there's just more people against than for?

And just for your cynical mind Jock

"Try" to vote again, now that you can see the results

[jockey]

If there are more against then for, why did the first poll come out in favour?

I did not mean that people were voting twice in the same poll, although I'm sure they could. I was referring to the pattern of behaviour I've seen on this site. The first time an issue comes up you get some good debate and a cross section of views. When that discussion finishes another soon starts up but this time it all seems one sided. If it is not then when the discussion finishes someone will start another one and so on until the discussion is predominantly onesided. Anyone who hadn't seen the first discussion would be led to believe that the members of this site (most of them anyway) were all agreed on the issue. In general it is the 'anti-government' side that keeps at an issue. What is most interesting is that they carry on as if the previous discussion did not exist and as though most recreational fishermen agreed with them.

[where_is_dave]

The buy back of commercial licences is an excellent proposition. I don't think their would be meny rec fishers that would disagree. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the results of this in NSW has been very positive eg. Botany Bay.
How the buy back is funded is the point in question. As many have said I would like to see details of any proposed RFL. If you could guarantee the funds improve the quality and quantity of the catch, facilities etc with results like that achieved off the back of the SIP then I would be all for it.
Once the govt decides that it should happen then it is almost inevitable (shades of defeatism???). It is then up to those with a vested interest to ensure the most favourable outcome.
Summary - resist/fight it like hell, then when the bully boys get their way influence the drafting of legislation the best we can.

[jockey]

Why oppose it if you think it is a good idea? The best way to make sure we get the most favourable outcome is to support the idea and push for it ourselves, with the condition that we get it our way.

Am I right in assuming that most people who want an RFL would only want the money spent on pro buybacks? Or those opposed to it would be less opposed?

[kingmad]

I say you should be paying just like us(NSW). Preserve the fish stocks a bit better so we can all move up there and fish.

[Kerry]

Maybe there's just more people against than for?

could even be better informed this time .

Cheers, Kerry.

[jockey]

I wasn't aware of any new information that has been added. I don't think anyone said they posted differently in the two polls. Has anyone changed their mind? A lot of people probably think this is the same poll resurfaced.

If you voted in this poll but not the first one please vote in the first one as well (IF YOU FISH IN QLD - maybe that has something to do with the different results). I'll start another poll for NSW.

This is what I was talking about with all the threads:

started Jan 19 Poll RFL for QLD? last post Feb 29

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfis...num=1074477895

started March 23 Help save NSW Rivers!

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfis...num=1080005957

started March 25 Richmond River mullet haul reopens

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfis...num=1080182736

started March 26 Qld RFL - yeah right!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfis...num=1080273405

started May 6 Poll RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE FOR QUEENSLAND

http://www.ausfish.com.au/cgi-ausfis...num=1083831353

[straddie]

Heya Jockey,

I hadn't voted when this stalled on the 9th but did so to see what the vote was, when the numbers where 64 votes - 21 for - 43 against. When the thread was resurected 2 days later there were 84 votes - 23 for - 61 against.
Interesting the late numbers I thought

Pro buybacks were not the only reason for me voting for a RFL, I think research, education, enforcement, and where viable restocking should be part of it. Anything that promotes a sustainable fishery in other words.

Current fisheries descisions appear to be being made on weak research, but if it is all you have then that is what is going to be used.

[dasher]

Jockey, just one simple question. Just a yes or no is all I want mate.

Do you trust all forms of our Government. Remember, I'm asking for a yes or no answer thanks.

[dasher]

Just as an aside those with a pension card are not required to purchase an rfl as is the case for under 16? and of course we can't forget the indigeneous fishos that won't be included. Hmmm how many are left ??? ??? ???

[imported_admin]

Jockey

I think you have missed the point on these issues.
Your poll on Jan 19th asks a different question so I can not see how you can say people have changed their mind. Two different questions, two different responses.

Your initial question was "Would you support an RFL for QLD to buy out pros etc"

So when people answered the poll they agreed only to the poll question. It would appear that most rec fishos want pros bought out as your question specificly asked if they wanted a RFL to do so.

This current poll just asks the question of do you want an RFL. Obviously the answer would be NO. But we already have one, well at least those that own a boat do, as they are already paying a PPV Levy which SHOULD be going back into our recreation.

I am not sure why the "for boaties only" option is there, as said above they are already paying for one.

If we can not find out where the PPV is being spent or even have a say in it, how do you expect us to be able to have any confidence in the allocation and spending of an RFL.