Reply With QuoteSo it's agreed ,no RFL necessary
Response to Jockey
In response:
1) There could be if we demanded it.
Rep: Why didn't you demand that taxes already collected be used instead of creating a new one
2) The pro's pay for a licence, rec fishermen pay (where there is an RFL), the only ones who don't are fishing illegally - are they the majority?
Rep: Nothing to do with pro's. The minority I am talking about is out of the 1 million anglers in NSW that access the resource only 400,000 qualify for licenses! Is that a minority user pay system.
3) How could anyone give a more accurate estimate?
Rep: The National estimate is close to 4 million
The original dollar signs in NSW estimated 2.5 million anglers fished at some time in NSW. Why do you want a more accurate number. It is stated at federal treasury level that recrearional angling activities generate $3 billion to the national economy. Can't the national census determine how many people go fishing when you tell them everything else and that would be more accurate for no cost.
5) The consumer (people who buy fish?) pay GST and contribute to the licence paid by pros
Rep:The consumer pays ZILCH to manage the resource and if they are classed as doing so then we must be paying more than once. The consumer demands more so the management lets more of the resource be harvested, a vicious cycle don't you think.
6) The commercial fishers can already sell their licence on - the only difference with an RFL scheme is that rec fishos effectively buy the licence of them rather than another pro fisherman. All rec anglers should contribute, not just a few. It is helping the rec sector.
Rep: What is the difference whether 2,000 pro fishers catch 1,000 ton or after you have paid out half you now have 1,000 pro fishers catching the same 1,000 ton?
7 and As indicated in the second link I posted above, recreational fishermen in NSW get to choose where the pros are bought out from.
Rep: It seems that way but think about the two biggest areas in that lot Lake Macquarie was a heavy metal problem waterway where now this problem has been removed under false accolades, and Botany Bay is now going to be designated for a major container terminal including extensive dredging. The Minister has now publicly stated that there will be no more havens created.
9) You can't share an RFL around. It is in your name. An RFL is not about stoppinjg people fishing (as you indicated). This is a good thing. It's about recreational fishermen all contributing to improvements we benefit from.
Rep: You need to check that answer. I believe any number of people can use one license between them on different days/weekends. This licence does not require all recreational fishers to contribute does it when all recreational fishers don't have to buy one even at a reduced rate.
10) Anyone can get on the selection comittee. I get the impression that they are having trouble getting people to join up rather than turning people away.
Rep: You are mistaken or lied too if you believe you select your representatives. My understanding is that the more hands you put up and the more brown your nose is the better chance you have of getting on these committees
Could you get a $20 000 000 loan to buy out pros and pay it back from volunatary donations and a few raffles? An RFL works. It gets rec fishos what they want. Nothing else does.
Rep: I did not give my permission for anybody to borrow money on my behalf and I certainly would not give my borrowed money to commercial fishers even if I did.
The end result of my arguements here is that, all that is happening could have been accomplished in other ways than involving an RFL and you the angler should have used your numbers to ensure that happened, rather than give in so easily and be led around by the nose.
Bob Smith (again)
So it's agreed ,no RFL necessary
Fitzy the reason that Rec fishos should buy out commercial licenses is because no one else is going to do it,it's as simple as that.This country has an incredible amount of infrastructure for it's population,it is to be expected that the govt of the day is going to pilfer what they can,with commitment from govt in the form of legislation and a committee of fisherman overseeing expenditure the RFL is working in N.S.W.,it may be a bastard,but it's our bastard.In my opinion if it were not for the anglers of this region having a vested interest,I would be currently enjoying a no take zone that would stretch from the Tweed to the South Wall of the Richmond including all rivers and extending varying distances out to sea(what the Greens want).No one likes taxes but the bitter pill is sweetened some if you can see benefits flowing from it.
banshee , I think i've invented a new word vigilante-ism, i claim copyright(s)
not enough police ,let's shoot em ourselves.
more doctors.....let's do bush medicine.
buyout Pro's......your fn joking
I guess your right Gazz,you guys have had a dream run in the past and things aren't looking that bad,I can only relate to what has happened here,so if it's not broke don't fix it,if it is broke,I'm sure some one will look after it for you.
Might have to get you a suggestion boxOriginally Posted by JB
I suggest , less time typing and more time fishing kerry #
Cheers, Kerry.
What matters is whether we would get value for money. It looks like the rec fishos in NSW did. I am prepared to have some of my money wasted on admin if I get out more than I put in. $25 isn't much. If there is a lot more fish around we could end up spending less on bait, gear, boats to get us out to the only decent spot etc. It could end up saving us money. It could save us a lot of money. A new tax is worth it if you get something good back for it.
I am also concerned about the money being spent on stuff that would otherwise come out of consolidated revenue, and the rec fishos from NSW may get screwed over this. But that can be dealt with. Either demand that the money only be spent on buying out the pros, or demand dollar for dollar matching (or dollar for two dollar) if the money is spent on something else like research or better policing. That's extra money from the consolidated revenue above what's already spent. Maybe you guys from NSW should start raising this issue.
Maybe we would get rec fishing only areas one day even without an RFL. Or maybe not. Without an RFL there would be a lot less and I think it is worth paying for to get them earlier.
As for the pro effort simply being shifted, that is not exactly the case whne you buy out an estuary. Sure some of the fish swim out and get netted, but you also get a lot more fish coming in - like the large predators - if there are more fish in the estuary. Flathead don't migrate (as far as I know). Also its better to have the pros net the fish on the outside where they won't get as much bycatch and rip up the bottom. In any case we get first dibs on them and the pros get them if we don't catch them all. Fine by me. The more rec fishermen use the estuary, the less the pros get on the outside.
Posting Permissions
