Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 82

Thread: RFL for QLD?

  1. #61

    Ramp promises for QLD?

    Hi & welcome to 'reality' ,whoever you are


  2. #62
    harryhoy
    Guest

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Post removed at the request of the Member

  3. #63

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Well someone should ask the Vic's who have to pay an RFL who is listening to THEIR money talk for the next few years, ALL going towards bush fire repat.

    Some down that way starting to feel a little shafted after expecting that RFL money should at least be spent doing what the whole mess was originally sold on.

    Cheers, Kerry.

  4. #64

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    We are already paying a defacto RFL.
    Everything you buy-boats, engines, fuel, bait, tackle, etc, etc
    has 10% GST imposed which is returned to each State Govt by a fairly complicated formula. But it is returned.
    If some States want to double dip to prop up their poor financial management then so be it. #
    If you think that a RFL is going to be used as other than a cash cow, then you are living in a fool's [smiley=clown.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] [smiley=clown.gif] paradise.
    Govt gets the money now from boat rego. All they need to do is apply it to where it is needed.
    And as for buying back pro licences-are we including Gulf, Torres Strait & East Coast Trawl? How about line fisheries & crab? Plus a heap of others.There are about 1200+ licenced primary vessels in Qld. Any idea of the cost involved here? You would need a RFL so pricey that no bugger would be able to afford it .
    ROLL TIDE, ROLL.................

    Regards,
    Peter

  5. #65

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Errr sorry Harry, but unless there is an election the money will be swallowed in red tape as is the case in Vic and NSW. Anyone that thinks more than $2 of their RFL will go toward fisheries is on drugs and should seek help.

  6. #66

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    If you do what you always do, you will get what you always get.

    Money talks and bullsh*t walks.

    I consider the above to be truths beyond question.

    I am prepared to risk (and I repeat risk) the cost of a RFL if there is the slightest chance that the improvements that have been bought by the RFL in NSW could happen in QLD.

    I respect the views of those who say we shouldn't have to pay for what is ours. But we are not paying to use it, we are paying to fix it.

    In the alternative, make the RFL non-compulsory. Many of us donate to those causes we believe to be worthwhile. This could satisfy both sides.

    Argo


  7. #67

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Quote Originally Posted by argonautical
    . But we are not paying to use it, we are paying to fix it.


    Reckon that sums it up nicely Argo.

  8. #68

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Argo, no disrepect meant mate but giving those clowns 25 bucks is like shouting them a bottle of wine to have with their meal. I agree all rec fishos can put money towards having our fishery improved. Why not join or donate to sunfish, they at least stand up and have a go on our behalf. Apart from broken promises it's a lot more than our pollies.

  9. #69

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Could also fix most of the problem by moving most of the "lifestyles" away from the coast.

    Non-complusory of couse so where's all the volunteers, how about 15% in the first year and double the next .

    Cheers, Kerry.

  10. #70

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Sharkbait,

    I was just going to quote your post, but wanted to have my say.

    Dasher,

    I know little about Sunfish, but accept your point.

    Kerry,

    Afraid I don't get your point.

    Argo

  11. #71
    harryhoy
    Guest

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Post removed at the request of the Member

  12. #72

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    "but I just think the fact that rec fishers contribute in some way to the management of Queenslands fisheries"....I already contribute..I pay taxes. I am not interested in giving any more money into the consolidated revenue cesspit of funds...which never gets spent where needed so why give them more. It is a far flung dream to even consider that any monies from a RFL will have any impact. Think about it...the population here as opposed to NSW..the income would eb minimal in comparison and owuld not buy out many licenses after admin costs are taken out. I have never seen so many people as here so keen to add to the Govt. coffers so readily. Once again...NO MORE TAXES.

  13. #73

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry_Hoy
    I'm not sure about Vic, but the NSW rec licence goes toward buying out pro licences and creating rec fishing havens (among other things). The licence is NOT swallowed by red tape in NSW, it is, as far as I can see, working well and distributed to causes that deserve funding. Am I wrong? #If administered correctly, a rec fishing licence will only improve the rec fishing in Qld. What does everyone else thiink?
    Harry , back-up the red tape bit ,give you 2 links to work on.....

    http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/gen/...b_12_study.htm (read the last para ,as well)

    http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/rec/!rec-home.html
    (look at the pie-charts ,and particularly note, and don't be confused with the terminolgy of "buyback loan repayment" , and note it was for ONLY 200 voluntary pro's w-a-n-t-i-n-g to be bought out)

    Anyways ,back-up the red-tape BS bit of your post >



  14. #74

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    We left qld 4 years ago for the nt, we'll be back at the end of the year for good. Except for to go fishing ! .
    Up here there's no licence for fishing, theres no licence for boat, theres no rego for boat. There is for trailer .
    Theres no pro's in estuaries and there is plenty of fish. The gov up here make more money on tourism from fishing than from netting ing qld. I am curious to see why qld gov cant add up the figures when qld has more types of fish to catch than the nt.
    I was talking to a skin diver over coffee the other week. He's 70 years old and can't go out as far as he used to go. He's says thanks to the trawlers now having to stay offshore ther is as much to see as there was 20 years ago .It's not to the stage it was 30 or 40 years ago but it is a start. Maybe the qld, oops maybe the state govs aus wide should ask the older fella's that do know what they're talking about. The nt's not perfect but it is a start .As much as we love qld qld fisheries suck.
    Can't wait to get a decent feed of whiting but i'm buggered if i'm going to pay for a licence because some greeny's got his dick in his hand.
    Ezmay

  15. #75
    harryhoy
    Guest

    Re: RFL for QLD?

    Gazza - not sure of your point, mate. The first link sent me to a page about how there is research going into the RECREATIONAL FISHING HAVENS that were procured with funds from the RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE. This lends weight to my argument that a RFL will increase the research into recreational fishing.

    The second link sent me to a page describing how the RFL is spent. The page mentions the Recreational Fishing Havens. When I clicked on this link I was greeted with this (and I quote) "The introduction of a recreational fishing fee heralds significant changes to the way we manage fisheries in NSW. A component of this change has seen 30 locations set aside and protected from commercial fishing. These areas mean that 27 per cent of estuarine waters are substantially free of commercial fishing (up from three per cent).

    Commercial fishing was banned from these areas from May 1, 2002, except for the Clarence River haven which came into effect on September 1 2002.

    The purpose of these areas is to improve recreational fishing by banning commercial fishing in key areas of significance to recreational fishers.

    Commercial fishers were treated fairly through a buy-back process where commercial fishing entitlements were surrendered in exchange for fair compensation. This compensation was funded through a loan and the Trust is repaying the loan on an annual basis.

    This compensation is being paid by the Recreational Fishing Saltwater Trust which is funded by the general recreational fishing fee.
    The 30 locations have only been chosen after a transparent selection process, which ensured that the community's social, economic and ecological issues were considered.".


    Can you please explain to me how this is a BAD thing. You are using an argument for a RFL not an argument against one. The fact that the government paid for the commercial licences in the first place and is being paid back annually from the RFL shows that the RFL IS working, surely.

    Other areas where the RFL is spent includes:
    Fisheries Officers
    Fish aggregating devices
    Recreational Fishing Havens
    Essential research
    Gamefish tagging
    Communication and education
    Fishcare Volunteer Program
    Recreational fisheries management
    Fish habitat restoration
    Recreational fishing platform
    Small grants
    Committee Meeting Expenses
    Angel Rings

    Once again, I would ask you to point out an area above that isn't good for coastal recreational fisheries, because I certainly can't pick one.

    Further, the NSW licence is used in inland (freshwater) fisheries in the following ways:
    Fisheries Officers
    Fish stocking
    Fish stocking Draft Fishing Management strategy
    Essential research
    Communication and education
    Fishcare Volunteer Program
    Fish habitat restoration
    Recreational fisheries management
    Cessation of the inland native fish commercial fishery
    Small grants
    Committee Meeting Expenses

    Once again please tell me how this is an argument against an RFL.

    I don't see a category called RED TAPE in either of the above lists.

    Even administration costs are kept below 10% in NSW.

    I understand that you, personally, don't want a RFL but the majority of fishers that contributed to the poll DO want to see an RFL - all I ask is that you (and everybody else) have a good read of the info in the links you sent me and have a good hard think about the pros and cons of an RFL. Please read the info in PDF's at the bottom of the page - they detail where EXACTLY the money was spent (http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/lol/where.htm). I look forward to hearing more about this topic.

    Pinhead - I think I mentioned that I would support an RFL providing the funds were administered by a trust/board like the NSW model. Also, Sunfish has quoted that Qld has 880,000 recreational fishers that they represent. At $20 a pop that works out to be $17.6million annually - once the 10% admin fee comes out there is still in the order of $15.8 million left, enough to buy a few licences.

    Now rainbear - who are you calling a greeny? All recreational anglers should be greenies in my opinion. You say that the inshore fishing in the NT is better because the trawlers stay further offshore - a QLD RFL would fund the buyback of trawl licences and reduce trawler numbers!

    Further you state that there are no pros in estuaries in the NT, and although that isn't strictly correct, there also no pros in 29 NSW estuaries because the RFL funded the buyback of commercial licences!

    All three of you guys are opposed to RFL's but you throw up opinions that provide ammunition to those of us that think there should be one. Once again, I'd ask you to read the info in the links that Pinhead asked me to have a look at.

    How about someone else that agrees with a RFL saying something?? I'd appreciate some support.

    I look forward to more discussion - I think that we are airing some very interesting and relevant information to those that aren't exactly sure about what a RFL could do in QLD.

    Harry

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