Media release. Net Buy Back.

[finga]

Gees it would be nice if Fisheries Queensland could clear up or explain some of our concerns.

[bg1000]

Those that want out ....... get a golden parachute.

I doubt that there is simply not enough cash to go round for the number of licenses that is being aimed for. That is why there are three rounds of buybacks, So the government can guage the result at the end of each round and adjust the tender process to in order to get the best value for money. Whether it will happen time will tell.

Some of the letters from the minister suggest that he is well aware of getting value for money.

Some people on here are so negative towards the government trying to do something to help all stakeholders in inshore fishing. It wasnt that long ago when there were over 1500 net fishing endorsements in QLD. Yet the government is always accused of doing nothing.

Why isn't there any quota's for the good old 'bread and butter' fishes?

Fisheries Qld monitors the yearly catch rates, to see what trend they are taking. You can refer to the Inshore Fin Fish Report which is produced each year by QF to look at tonnage, catch rates for both rec and pro sides.
Not sure why these species dont have quota's. Other than to say that they are being managed using other methods such as gear restrictions, closed area, closed seasons etc, etc. Also such quota's can be expensive and difficult to manage effectively. Especially where multi-specie fisheries exist, such as tunnal netting. At present the government looks to be trying to get the numbers right.

Still...what stops the remaining licenses from buying bigger nets and bigger boats so the overall net tonnage of caught fish remains the same.....or increases.
Net size is restricted by fisheries legislation, so by buying out licenses will not mean fishers can use larger nets to catch more fish.

In terms of bigger boats, well most net boats are built for a purpose to the where they are fishing. for instance flat bottom punts for working shallow water. Also, is has to be economical to run a bigger boat. Bigger boat = bigger costs.

The fishing effort will not diminish
I think you may be missing the point. For every license that is brought out it completey wipes out any chance of any extra effort being put into the N1 and N2 fisheries forever. How can this be a bad thing. Whether the fishers who choose to stay in the industry catch more fish or not, with the limtations on fishers such as weather, tides, gear restrictions, down time etc. 1 net license simply cannot put as much effort into an area than 2.

[Mark Robinson MP]

The LNP Government and minister McVeigh are implementing the fisheries plan that we announced when the election was called. We are making good on our net licence buyback plan, just as we said we would.

[cormorant]

Why not increase the net fees so stale lic get handed in. Why waste money buying back something that is simply unecconomic and is only being held as they knew one day there wuld be a buy out. Use it , pay for it or lose it. So as not to make fish expensive rebate the additional net costs against value of fish that get caught fish for the difference so no fisherman using his nest is disadvantaged and his fish will go through the market.


I find the political answer lame. Not like a politcian has never changed a policy or directon when a better solution is avaliable.

Guess it is just the publics money so doesn't matter and a politician can tick a box and say he did what he said he would rather than he did more and got a better result.

[finga]

[COLOR=red]
Still...what stops the remaining licenses from buying bigger nets and bigger boats so the overall net tonnage of caught fish remains the same.....or increases.
Net size is restricted by fisheries legislation, so by buying out licenses will not mean fishers can use larger nets to catch more fish.

What guidelines are there for restricting net size?
A link to the legislation would be nice.
Is the net size restriction dependent upon the size of the boat or is the size of the net dependent on other factors? What are these other factors?
Thank you.

[MudRiverDan]

Example:-

Beach netting, in particular Teewah. The facts are , after a net session, the bread and butter fish are no where to be found for weeks ( months... ) , leaving the recreational anglers angry and with empty creels, but the local non-fishers are happy about the cheap and fresh supply of local caught fish. Bugga !

Is this fact?
Is the fish sold locally at a cheap price?

Sure it isn't iced up and sent south, sold at normal prices?

I mean all is well it is just I am a bit over the nostalgic speil of "fresh fish for locals aussies", when in 99.9% of cases it just isn't true.

Dan

[bg1000]

Finga just google '2008 fisheries regulation'. Its quite a book. But its all in there. Different rules for different license symbols.

Boat size is irrelavent in terms of net size that may be legally used. A fisher may only use what is described in the regulations. Each symbol has different rules whether that be in a trawl, net, line or harvest fishery. The legislation decribes what apparatus may be legally used.

[Lovey80]

THE ONLY way this buy back is going to have an ounce of relevance to it's own stated outcomes, is if the currently unused licences are cancelled before any sort of tender process is moved forward. Simply state that any licences that have not been used in the last two years then they are now null and void.

Then and only then, can any buy back of licences actually reduce effort. That is of course, if those that do sell their licences (the working ones) don't split the cash with another licence holder and simply go into partnership with a current licence holder.... ie Netter1 makes a deal with Netter2 to split the cash of the sale of Netter2's licence and co-own Netter1's licence. They then simply double up on the one licence working in shifts so that double the effort is seen under Netter1's licence than before the buyback. So instead of having two licences each taking say 100t a year each there is one licence taking 200t.

The big one is to cancel any unused licences first though.

[finga]

Finga just google '2008 fisheries regulation'. Its quite a book. But its all in there. Different rules for different license symbols.

Boat size is irrelavent in terms of net size that may be legally used. A fisher may only use what is described in the regulations. Each symbol has different rules whether that be in a trawl, net, line or harvest fishery. The legislation decribes what apparatus may be legally used.

I had a look through the legislation but I have to admit I was a bit lost as the net sizes allowed seemed big but what would I know. I cannot even use a cast net.
So my question. What is the size of a net usually used by every day run of the mill dad and son sized trawlers...say....off the Gold Coast.

And a big thanks to the member who sent me the link to the information. It's very much appreciated

[Mike Delisser]

THE ONLY way this buy back is going to have an ounce of relevance to it's own stated outcomes, is if the currently unused licences are cancelled before any sort of tender process is moved forward. Simply state that any licences that have not been used in the last two years then they are now null and void.

Then and only then, can any buy back of licences actually reduce effort. That is of course, if those that do sell their licences (the working ones) don't split the cash with another licence holder and simply go into partnership with a current licence holder.... ie Netter1 makes a deal with Netter2 to split the cash of the sale of Netter2's licence and co-own Netter1's licence. They then simply double up on the one licence working in shifts so that double the effort is seen under Netter1's licence than before the buyback. So instead of having two licences each taking say 100t a year each there is one licence taking 200t.

The big one is to cancel any unused licences first though.

Too true, but working against that in this plan is the fact that the Government's buy-back is done in the order of the lowest asked price (tender offer from the pro) for a licence until the money runs out, and also that catch history will play no part in the buy-back process.

The buy-back plan is almost ideal if the Government wants to sure up the struggling pro fishing industry, which BTW needs to be done if there's to be a future for the netters and there families.
The only thing this buy-back has to do with rec-angling is the con job some are trying to put over anglers to make us feel warm and fuzzy, and keep us thinking this buy-back is for our benefit via a $9 million gift from Can Do "BCF kinda guy" Newman, the farm & commercial fishing friendly Fisheries Minister, and better not leave out the Minister for Misleading Ausfish.

[cormorant]

So the system was working how it was then. No need to waste taxpayers money.

Commercial fishers are giving up Net lic that aren't ecconomic to use . They are not being fished due to skill level, labour cost, fuel cost or state of fishery don't make it ecconomic. They are harmless and worthless.

Some smart commercial guys accumulated them when people were going broke , liquidated retiring etc on the fear that no new ones would be issued and to stop someone else getting it.

Now the Govt in all it's wisdom is paying to buy these worthless net lic?? Yep they aren't worth fishing so what are they worth??

Now smart mr commercial fisherman decides his net lic on his books he paid thousands for and gets a nice tax loss. He then fishes his 2nd bargain priced net Lic. yep he gets cash from the govt and a freeby tax loss to boot.
His business and fishing effort doesn't change.

What does the taxpayer get -no more fish, no less fish ,no new jobs , , no income tax paid, no new boats , no new infustructure to make the fishery more effecient, no more fishery research, no fish stocking -- a big round nothing apart from taxes to pay for the buyout and line the collective pockets of commercial fishers who are smart enough to lodge a net in the buyback and lobby really well.

What fishing effort is reduced - nadda nadda none. You can dream that diesel and labor are going to get cheaper and wet fish prices go up and the fishery get so much more productive that it is worth using another net lic but that may happen in very few fisheries if ever

Who seriously thinks this crap up and what business have they ever run as I have a big shiny bridge down here for them to buy the rights to use - going cheap ? Oh sorry the bridge is a bad example as it is actually useful and generates a toll income.

[Lovey80]

Too true, but working against that in this plan is the fact that the Government's buy-back is done in the order of the lowest asked price (tender offer from the pro) for a licence until the money runs out, and also that catch history will play no part in the buy-back process.

The buy-back plan is almost ideal if the Government wants to sure up the struggling pro fishing industry, which BTW needs to be done if there's to be a future for the netters and there families.
The only thing this buy-back has to do with rec-angling is the con job some are trying to put over anglers to make us feel warm and fuzzy, and keep us thinking this buy-back is for our benefit via a $9 million gift from Can Do "BCF kinda guy" Newman, the farm & commercial fishing friendly Fisheries Minister, and better not leave out the Minister for Misleading Ausfish.

I have no problem with the buy back as far as "lowest asked price" is concerned.... but only IF they are active licences. Once all the inactive ones are cancelled (without a cent paid in compo) then I am all happy for licence buybacks to occur. However, there then also needs to be something done to ensure that the effort in the remaining licences doesn't increase due to the same number of fisho's fishing less licences... It's like government mandated inflation but for fishing.

[PinHead]

I don't agree with cancelling inactive licenses..people paid good money for them..whether they use them or not is immaterial. Based on that principle, if you have a drivers license and do not use it then it should be cancelled? There should be a "market" price for the licenses and inactive ones paid that amount.

[Mike Delisser]

I don't agree with cancelling inactive licenses..people paid good money for them..whether they use them or not is immaterial. Based on that principle, if you have a drivers license and do not use it then it should be cancelled? There should be a "market" price for the licenses and inactive ones paid that amount.

Interesting point Greg.

[Horse]

Just put a market price value on a licence then put in place a sunset clause on the 50%-70% with the least catch history. Make it that these licences cannot be leased or sold on. The owner can work them as much as they like and has the option of handing it back whenever they like and be paid a fair price. The hardest worked licences can be transferred and continue to work. The others will be retired within one generation