Qld Rec Fishing Licence? Yes or No

[PinHead]

Thanks Lindsay,

As you know I am against a RFL, for a number of reasons.

BUT, I could support one under certain circumstances.

One being, legislation put in place BEFORE the RFL comes into play. That legislation needs to address the issues such as you have on the North Shore / Tewantin/ DI areas. I am talking about Recreational Fishing Havens.

Although the RFL could possibly support all Qld rec fishing areas and agendas, the majority of funding would need to be spent in the places of most concern, and that is heavily populated areas.... SEQ / CQ and to the lessor extent ( but no less important ) NQ and FNQ. Let's also not forget the Freshwater Guys and what would happen to the SIP program.

Although my sources inside FQ tell me that a RFL is not even on the " to do " list for the future, it could come to this, if the present Govt get their act together and get some science behind the adacdotal evidence and more claculated evidence ( such as your observations etc ).

This Govt has put aside that 120mill for Marine Infrastructure, so it will be interesting come the budget. At that stage we should see where the money will be spent. I am more than hopeful that we'll get upwards of 5mill for Artifical Reefs in the SEQ region.

Think the Budget gets tabled on Tuedsay 11th.

I also think that if a RFL ever comes in the RUF ( Recreational Use Fee ) attached to vessel regos be scraped.

Alll IMO only.......


cheers LP

agree totally with that. As I have said, we have decimated certain environments with development. About time we started creating others..maybe not for the species removed by development but a resource for any species is better than nothing.

[NAGG]

At least with a RFL - you are getting funds that can be put back into fishing ....... be it buyouts , habitat reclamation , stocking etc .
Right now what do we have ?.
We will achieve so much more if we as fishoes take control of it via a RF trust .
RFLs work if they are managed & not just a source of revenue .
Creating recreational fishing havens is a no brainer - Tweed , Moreton Bay , Noosa , Sandy Straights , Curtis Island , Hinchinbrook , Daintree all come to mind ( there would be others) - make RFH close to the most populous areas up and down the coast ! ....... the benefits will far out weigh the loss of commercial fishing. If this included the stocking of suitable species then not only would the fishoes be on a winner so too would the local communities .
Eventually over time - once the easier projects have been instigated or completed ..... efforts can be put into more ambitious projects .
we need to be thinking more tomorrow & the future than right now . Unfortunately - None of our political parties have that much foresight ........ no RFL was an easy & popular line to spruik

Chris

[Slider]

I agree also Phil - it would be a tragedy if we were all coughing up with no assurrance that the funds would be used constructively for conservation and recreational fishing benefit. I do question however the requirement that net free regions be near major poulation centres. I feel that the criteria for a net free region be principally for the maintenance of species, then commercial requirements, suitability as a recreational fishing haven and proximity to population centres. The maintenance of species of course, enhances commercial and recreational fishing across the board and as such should be the main criteria.

Major spawning grounds should be identified and protected from netting and if these are in remote locations then tourism to these areas will benefit and there are possibly indigenous communities such as Aurukun (for example) where a rfh can have multiple benefits to society. You just have to look at Weipa as an example of rec fishers willingness to travel for a remote fishing experience and the jobs that are created as a result. Weipa would be a prime location for a rfh and Nagg has mentioned a few others amongst many.

I would think that a process of identifying suitable locations along the entire Qld coast should occur. But we firstly need the rec fishing community to express to gov a desire for a rfl and at this stage we're adopting a 'heads in the sand' approach in this regard. How do we get the ball rolling when Sunfish appear not to have their boots on and the LNP have given themselves a 4 year suspension in fear of upsetting rec fishers? I think we'd find that FQ are all for a rfl.

[PinHead]

some good points there slider re: sourcing the correct areas for protection.

Fishing is a recreational activity..those that have trailer boats already pay and additional fee.

A rfl is simply a user pays system which is something I am dead against.

if a rfl is applied for my recreational activity then I would expect similar fees for other recreational activites:

a fee for all 4WD that drive state forests and beaches
a fee for all cyclists riding on bikeways
a fee for all joggers
a fee for all walkers
a fee for all ...whatever.

Why should one recreational activity have to pay a fee?

The role of government is to provide services for the community and this includes for recreational activities.

NO rfl for me thanks.

[Slider]

I can fully understand Greg why boat owners in particular would be against a rfl, especially when net free regions are more likely to be of benefit to land based fishers. The existing levy attached to trailer registrations should probably be removed on the introduction of a rfl.

Gov aren't going to cough up the coin to buy out commercial net licences to create net free regions, though I agree they should for the purposes of conservation and sustainable fisheries. So if we are to be any chance of net free regions being created and recreational fishing to be a worthwhile pastime for ourselves and future generations, then it seems that we have to take the bull by the horns and come up with the money ourselves. I would prefer not to have to, but the stark realities of the situation have left us little option. I spose you have to look at the bright side - for the sake of $30 a year, we'll catch fish worth more than that, see more dolphins and seabirds, have healthier marine ecosystems, have more and cheaper fresh commercially caught seafood and more viable commercial fishers as a result of net free regions. We should also have better boat ramps, cleaning facilities, fads, artificial reefs, and as a financially contributing stakeholder, a greater say in how our fisheries are managed.

I would gladly drop the rfl agenda if someone could convince gov to create net free regions without it.

[finga]

Why not solve the problems at the source.
Development is a huge problem. Make them pay fees instead of relying on everyone else to fix their problems.

[NAGG]

some good points there slider re: sourcing the correct areas for protection.

Fishing is a recreational activity..those that have trailer boats already pay and additional fee.

A rfl is simply a user pays system which is something I am dead against.

if a rfl is applied for my recreational activity then I would expect similar fees for other recreational activites:

a fee for all 4WD that drive state forests and beaches
a fee for all cyclists riding on bikeways
a fee for all joggers
a fee for all walkers
a fee for all ...whatever.

Why should one recreational activity have to pay a fee?

The role of government is to provide services for the community and this includes for recreational activities.

NO rfl for me thanks.

The role of government is to provide services for the community and this includes for recreational activities.

I would have liked to have thought this was true but in this day and age with the type of governments that we have - it's just a dream.

PH there is one difference between our recreation and the others you have mentioned "FISH" !..... it might only be a minor thing but it's probably worth considering.
Our pastime really doesn't exist without them - does it ?... Additionally we (if we wish) get to take something home to feed our family at the end of a day out .
So $30 or whatever to me seems like not a lot of coin to ensure that we still have a recreation that is worth pursuing .
For all the money that we spend on this pastime - tackle , boat's , tow vehicles , fuel , bait - Travel (accommodation) I just cant see why we would not want to put something back that will benefit a vast majority of us - the equiv of 2 blocks of pilchards , 3 pkts of soft plastics or 20lts of fuel is all worth foregoing !

I dont know about you but I want to know that if I just go up the river or tow my boat 2000km (each way) that it's going to be worth while.

Chris

[finga]

I would have liked to have thought this was true but in this day and age with the type of governments that we have - it's just a dream.

PH there is one difference between our recreation and the others you have mentioned "FISH" !..... it might only be a minor thing but it's probably worth considering.
Our pastime really doesn't exist without them - does it ?..For me it can. Fishing can quite easily exist without fish . Additionally we (if we wish) get to take something home to feed our family at the end of a day out .
So $30 or whatever to me seems like not a lot of coin to ensure that we still have a recreation that is worth pursuing .
For all the money that we spend on this pastime - tackle , boat's , tow vehicles , fuel , bait - Travel (accommodation) I just cant see why we would not want to put something back that will benefit a vast majority of us - the equiv of 2 blocks of pilchards , 3 pkts of soft plastics or 20lts of fuel is all worth foregoing !

I dont know about you but I want to know that if I just go up the river or tow my boat 2000km (each way) that it's going to be worth while.
Chris

And what about the many who fish 2 or 3 times a year with tackle worth $23.50 and the biggest expense for the day is a $6.50 packet of frozen prawns from the servo?
Those people would be in huge numbers as compared to the numbers as dedicated as you Chris.

[NAGG]

And what about the many who fish 2 or 3 times a year with tackle worth $23.50 and the biggest expense for the day is a $6.50 packet of frozen prawns from the servo?
Those people would be in huge numbers as compared to the numbers as dedicated as you Chris.

My sister in law fishes with a bit of line wrapped around a coke bottle ....... so what ?
she still fishes and has her NSW RFL ....... she can take her grand kids fishing whenever she likes and it doesn't cost her any more . A one weekend a year fishoe would only pay a few dollars anyway. It's not a big impost

Chris
Regardless - everyone that dangles a line would benefit one way or another because of a RFL ..... be it 1 day a year or 365.

[finga]

Looks like the NSW fees are used to 'subsidise' Government responsibilities a fair bit.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/...nal/fees/rules
$2,340,108 spent for inspectors
Money spent on fishing facilities. Looks like DPI are winners again
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/...ess-facilities
Lots of good reading here
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees
How much was spent on education or restocking or building arti's etc??

It looks as though NSW are getting rid of the 3 day license. That's handy for the once every blue moon fisherpeople

[NAGG]

Looks like the NSW fees are used to 'subsidise' Government responsibilities a fair bit.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/...nal/fees/rules
$2,340,108 spent for inspectors
Money spent on fishing facilities. Looks like DPI are winners again
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/...ess-facilities
Lots of good reading here
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/fees
How much was spent on education or restocking or building arti's etc??

It looks as though NSW are getting rid of the 3 day license. That's handy for the once every blue moon fisherpeople

I dont really want to try to defend the NSW model - We want our own .

I personally dont like how some of the money has been spent - However all expenditure still went through the committee for approval ...... so it just hasn't been siphoned off.
Regardless ..... there has still been massive benefits for NSW fishoes over the last 11 or so years - & we can learn and build on it !

Chris

[finga]

we can learn and build on it !

Chris

And here lies the problem. Learning from other's problems and building towards something really worthwhile.
And if Sunfish has anything to do with it.....well????

[NAGG]

And here lies the problem. Learning from other's problems and building towards something really worthwhile.
And if Sunfish has anything to do with it.....well????

It is when you start with nothing ........
The SIP scheme is a great example of going from very little to having a serious improvement - Some people have the vision to do something worthwhile and it worked .

It would be difficult for someone to convince me that doing nothing will have a greater outcome than doing something . I know very well that the inshore , estuary & freshwater fishing has improved in NSW

Chris

[conco46]

NO, fishing should always be free, we pay enough on gear fuel bait ice that all = tax
i have a nsw license cause sometimes i fish tweed, and iv never seen any upgrades!
all iv noticed is more dpi patrol waters,

[mangomick]

Definately against. We pay an extra 10% on our safety jackets, flares, bait, tackle and rods, boats, trailers, fuel,sounders and the list can go on. Surely a small portion of that can go towards whatever they plan on using the money from a fishing licence for.It's time governments started to look at how they are spending the public purse instead of stealing by stealth all the time.