MBAA Update on the Moreton Bay Marine Park Review

[Hunta]

PinHead and Why-Ting: Right on the money IMO.

The greenies goal isnt protection of a "small part" of the bay - its 100% lock out!!

If you look at the AMCS website - they now want the State Govt to close down the small areas of the GBR system that they missed the first time - including all the little creeks, rivers and bays. http://www.amcs.org.au/default2.asp?active_page_id=153

If we sit back and let them get their big toe in - then they'll take the rest before we know it. GBR is not isolated - they also want the rest of Cape Byron closed as well - have a look through the site - very revealing.

By the way - I have Simon Baltiases personal email address if anyone is interested - he will reply to any email sent... well he did mine anyway. pm me!

[flick]

I was once a Dick Johnson fan. Emailed my dissapointment to his website and got an email back stating fishos have nothing to worry about and links to all epa propaganda. Am now even more disgusted.

I would like to see how many boating and fishing clubs have been consulted personally by the minister or epa. Also how many tackle shops. That would be a good read in the paper considering how much the government is saying everyone with an interest is being consulted.

Jim

[Ausfish]

The sad thing is that a very large number of rec anglers are sitting back doing nothing and waiting for someone else to do something for them.

[dnej]

Did you know you can email John Howards office,and they gaurantee a reply.I have bought this issue to their attention.
David

[flick]

In my opinion, the only way we can influence change in Beatties opinion is to get the public behind us. The greenies always win because they take on minority groups. Such as horse riders, fishermen and so on. We are gradually being squeezed out of access to all public space one square meter at a time. The general public only see 10% of something being taken from a minority group. This doesn't affect them and they think it is probably a good and fair thing.

However, those little pieces all add up when you look at areas both on the mainland and at sea.

The only way to win is to influence the majority of voters.

I propose a T.V. add with a couple of high profile, yet very publicly popular personalities. Fishing in the bay, catch and release, putting our own spin on things. Possibly Roy and Haydos.

I would gladly make a contribution to that, and more so believe the boating and tackle industry should help fund it.

It is all about votes.

Jim

[Chris Ryan]

Jim,

You are right; its all about votes. We need to rally together under a common flag, one who understands what we are about and one who has the guts to take on the parties. The AFLP is IMO the only group out there wanting to do that so I have joined them. If we get a AFLP member to the senate, we reduce the Greens number of seats and remove their powerbase at a Federal level.

I went to the meeting at Cleveland last night and there are a heap of like minded fishos all wanting to do something but I don't think they know where to turn. Rick (the meeting opener) talked about the AFLP but if there was some form of mass communication we could get them to join forces PLUS maybe snag a few non fishos that are sick of being dictated to. I am sure KC and the party have that well under control. We can start by writing to the State and Federal members, and Local councillors letting them know of your stand and disgust. The more we mobilise the better.

We need to all pull together and tell the Government we are FOR Environmental Protection using mangement techniques NOT Environmental Prohibition using lock-outs!!! Get a voice all, do something and participate.

Cheers,
Chris

[Hunta]

Well spoken BPdaddy. the old saying rings true united we stand.... I think the idea of uniting under 1 banner is the right thing. Its time we put aside our petty jealousies and come together. Whether you like liberal, labor or whoever - we can still do our thing for fishing and our lifestyles. The way KC and the guys are doing it is a good idea... let people vote for who they like in the lower house, but we can make a difference in the senate.

"1 more senate vote for the major parties will not make any difference. A vote for our lifestyle in the senate, just might". Taken from an interview I heard

[ratherbefishin]

Fisho's all,
There are a couple of comments here that refer toi writing to ministers. I have to agree, they are all bound to reply and their replies can be very insightful.
Following is the text of a letter I have sent to the QLD Minister for Environment, Ms Lindy Nelson-Carr. I will publish any response I receive. I have snet copies of the letter to the QLD Shadow Minister for Environment, Senator Boswell, my local Federal member and several newspapers. I somehow doubt whether it will get published (2 reasons the letter is a bit lonbg for a Letter to the Ed, but mainly because the amount of $ spent by the EPA on full page ads with them). Anyway we'll see what response I get.

Three points on pushing our points through politics:
1. Disunity is death - I havent, but am about to read the threads on the TFPQ and AFLP, I really hope they can merge and present a single united front.
2. PLEASE ENSURE your preferences flow, even if wqe don't get a senator in, if the primary vote is high enough the major parties will take note, but ensure your preferences flow, 'cos otherwise your vote is wasted.
3. Write to all your local candidates and ensure they are aware of your opinion and evaluate their response to you (if they don't respond that'll tell you something too)

Text of letter:

31 Aug 07
Hon Ms L. Nelson-Carr
Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism
PO Box 15155
CITY EAST QLD 4002


Dear Minister,
I am writing in reference to the current review of the MoretonBayMarinePark for two reasons:
Firstly to express my opinions on the general management principles I feel should be employed in the management of the MoretonBayMarinePark (I trust that you will pass those on for consideration in the current review); and
Secondly to express my concern and request information from you about issues which appear to be unduly influencing the outcome of the review.
Opinions and Sentiment
I am keen to preserve the bay for future use of generations to come (indefinitely in fact). I am happy that such an organisation as the EPA exists and is actively managing MoretonBay. I acknowledge that there are many users and stakeholders of MoretonBay and that their interests must be balanced. I believe that the environment is there to be enjoyed (in many ways) and that managing interaction with the environment is FAR FAR preferable than restricting it (ie regulations of HOW rather than limitations on WHEN/WHERE).
Concerns
I am deeply concerned with the apparent political interference in the review process. In particular the 'behind closed doors' preference agreement between the ALP and the Greens which occurred just prior to the Sep 06 State Election. The Greens spokeswoman stated "… State Labor's plans for extensive re-zoning across MoretonBay" the day after the ALP announced they had done a preference deal with the Greens. This occurred at the same time that the Mr Beattie declared "the review has not even started yet, there are no plans".
Whilst these two statements are obviously in conflict, the coincident announcement of the preference deal indicates that there is more to the matter than simple wording issues. I am further concerned by a number of other irregularities which collectively amount to a considerable subversion of the review process. The detail of those concerns is given below, however due to my concern over the general influencing of the review process I would request Freedom of Information disclosure of the following information. Please provide detail of any and all guidance given by Mr Beattie to you or your department for the conduct of this review. Please provide detail of any and all guidance given by yourself to members of your department for the conduct of the review.
a. The EPAs has been reluctant to fully disclose current proposed zoning details, in particular zoning maps of the 35 proposed "areas of interest". These "areas of interest" were accurately defined enough to be displayed on a chart during the recent meeting with the QGFC, yet EPA claim that they cannot release this information. It is acknowledged that some detail has been disseminated by way of coordinates which the QGFC has had to plot themselves, but not all 35 areas of interest have been disclosed. (The distribution of coordinates could easily be considered as obfuscation since it both increases the possibility of mis-plotting, hence increases the probability of erroneous information and it adds unnecessary administrative burden and is therefore hardly conducive to maximising stakeholder input). Can you advise the details (to whatever level of detail is currently defined) of all “Areas of Interest” in the easiest format for widest dissemination so that all stakeholders can remain as informed as possible and provide the best level of input to review process? In particular can you release the chart used by the EPA during the briefing to the QGFC which showed all 35 Areas of Interest marked upon it? Can you further indicate what measures the EPA has implemented to ensure that their considerations during the review are open and transparent for all stakeholders?
b. The holding of public forums mid-afternoon on weekdays is hardly conducive to maximising stakeholder input, particularly since marine activities are relatively expensive and therefore the demographic who takes part is typically at work. Your public forums would achieve much better exposure, accuracy and participation if you specifically targeted them at bay users where and when they use the bay. (eg at boat ramps and clubs on weekends). Your current method I believe biases the input away from bay users and therefore opens the data up to the possibility of skewing by minority groups. Further, the recent advertising on both radio and in the printed press uses a tone and phraseology which is targeted at placating people with an interest in fishing, into trusting the review. Although it invites input, the 'feeling' of the advertisements suggest that input is not required because fisher folk’s interests will be represented rather than encouraging input. Again I consider this subversive in that it will skew the results of the survey against fishing stakeholders. (It is particularly notable that the level of advertising targeted at this particular stakeholder group far exceeds any general advertising of the review or anything targeted at other stakeholder groups). Please detail what safeguards have been implemented by your review to ensure that input to the review accurately reflects stakeholder demographics? In particular, please indicate what cross-checks are performed to measure the accuracy of stakeholder demographic representation and what feedback mechanisms are in place to correct and improve that accuracy?
c. The gathering of information through the online survey system is skewed towards gathering usage data rather than gathering public opinion on how, or to what level the bay should be managed. It does not appear to seek public consultation or input rather just usage data. Whilst there may be a scientific requirement for such data, there is a general scepticism, particularly amongst the fishing stakeholders that such data could and would be used to target zonings against their particular interests and in favour of other stakeholder groups. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence of that tactic being used during the Great Barrier Reef review process. What safeguards have been implemented to ensure that such a tactic cannot be used in the MoretonBayMarinePark review?
d. I am most concerned that there appears to be no consideration in this review of the recent DPIF "Fin Fish Review" which is currently examining fishing practices across a broad range of species including within the MoretonBayMarinePark. This DPIF review aims at altering fishing practices both recreational and commercial in order to ensure the ongoing sustainability of fish stocks. Whilst I acknowledge that the EPA review is not constrained by species, there is significant overlap in the two reviews. There is an extreme potential for the two reviews to derive different measures towards achieving the same result and therefore providing significantly more restriction on bay users than is necessary to preserve the environment. During a public forum for the DPIF review held at Cleveland, the question was asked whether the DPIF review would consider the findings, recommendations and ultimate measures imposed by the EPA review. The answer given was that “consideration of the EPA review was not within the terms of reference of the DPIF review.” It was then put to the DPIF as input to their review that it was considered that the DPIF should consider the EPA review and vice versa. This comment was echoed with considerable and vocal support from the crowd present. I can find no evidence that the EPA is considering the DPIF review in its deliberations on the MBMP. The scheduling of the two reviews at the same time and the limitation of the terms of reference could easily be considered mischievous at least, and a deliberate attempt to subvert natural justice in the review process at worst. What measures has the EPA implemented to ensure that it is aware of, and taking into consideration, other current government and non-government activities (and in particular the DPIF fin fish review) that will have a parallel or overlapping impact on the management of Moreton Bay?
I advise you that I consider the fairness, integrity and openness of government processes of the utmost importance and therefore will be providing a copy of this letter to the Queensland Shadow Minister for the Environment and Sustainability and a copy to local and state media, in an effort to widely publicise what I consider to be an apparent subversion of natural justice in the review process of the management of Moreton Bay. I look forward to your response and sincerely hope that you are able to provide me with convincing evidence that my concerns are unfounded.





Richard A. Priestly

[hondaguy]

The Epa has no breif in the reveiw for bag limits and seasonal closures for fishing. It is only able to restrict access to areas, re: closures. This maybe on the grounds of fishing pressure, sensitive habitat area, migrating bird rookeries and resting and feeding zones (Ramsars? treaty the federal government signed), turtle and dugon habitats, dolphins, whales, grey nurse sharks, rays, sea grass, corals and many other things are bought up as reasons for these closures. Yes, they restrict us fisherman as well. To fight the battle effectivly you have to know the enemies battle plan. No use taking guns and knives if the other side has cannons. I am trying to say look for other allies in current review process such as tourist groups, transport operators, boat builders, petrol wholesalers, ice manufactors and anybody else directly and indirectly that you support in your pastime leading to their employment and business. The Nth Qld's know the people and groups in the community that suffer from these excessive closures. Why these areas for closures? because it is where we fish. Unfortunitly this reveiw is political so let your state polly know your written opinion

[ratherbefishin]

Hondaguy, I agree with most of what you say but there is one issue that stands out. The "green zone" closures only prohibit fishing. The AMCS advocates closures on the back of dugong and turtle deaths, but they conveniently don't mention that they are not prohibiting boating, just fishing.
The radical green movement are hijacking the environmental debate and the 'silent' majority who are in fact good people and want to do the right thing but have other issues preoccupying their time simply hear a snippet of propoganda and agree. The challenge facing the moderate environmentalists who want to actually get out there and engage with the environment in a sustainable way without long-term detriment is that they are now faced with a tedious education campaign to demonstrate to the masses (who want it all summed up into a convenient 3 word catchphrase) that a balance is required.

[SgBFish]

Steve Brown.

Is it possible for Ausfish as a site to set up a petition that members can sign and have it submitted to the politicians. There are 500,000 odd members on here even if 10% voted for it that 50,000 votes. That would make any poly take notice.

The wording of it would have to be debated.

Scott

[SgBFish]

The game changes again with the resignation of the Premier.
Does anyone know Anna's position on this issue?
Scott

[Gary Fooks]

It was Anna Bligh that met with MBAA the day before the boat rally and a week or so before the election. She negotiated their 6 seats on the consultation panel etc.

so - no changes expected

[castlemaine]

Micheal Choi is the local ALP member in the Redlands Area, I'm sending him a letter that if there's closures affecting my family's recreational activity, he can put his head between his legs and kiss his behind goodbye next election. Doesn't matter if you're a ALP, Lib, Democrat or Green,supporter (just sent shivers down my spine), send one to your local member now. Keep the pressure on. Can anyone in the know put up the local Fed and State members around the Bay. I notice a lot of Ausfishers are also inland, so find your local member and give him/her the grill. Politicians only see a win in votes. Do it or live with it. Cheers

[kc]

Castlemaine,

The best way, in my opinion, to send them a loud message is certainly with your vote and letter to that effect do have an impact.

The problem is, the recreational fishing/outdoors vote is difficult, if not impossible to quantify. If the guy gets lots of letters from all sorts of individuals all saying do this or I will not vote for you...then gets 48% of the vote come polling day...he really can't tell how many of the votes he lost/got came from where.

This is why the environmental lobby is so effective.

The Greens post a "number"...about 7% so politician "know" there is 7% in it for them if they do the right thing by the environmental lobby groups.

The only way "we" get listened to, IMO, is do the same thing.

An organised collection of votes so we actually have a number to hang our hat on. A demonstration of how big the fishing/outdoors vote is.

We did that (to a degree) in North Queensland, at the last federal election, where manned booths polled 6.2%...that REALLY got their attention, especially the one booth where we polled 22.6% of a 1000 voter turnout.

We did it again at the state election with 7% average over 4 seats (about the same as the greens).

We have another chance to do it again, even bigger and better, this coming election with a senate vote. This may or may not be enough to win a seat but what it will do is post a "number" which shows politicians how many "real" (as oppossed to guessed) votes are in the "fishing lobby"

As well as the influence which can be exerted come the preference arranging stage, which can be significant, an organised vote empowers everyone who will ever write to a politician in the future. Suddenly, if the "fishing vote" is "worth" 7 or 8% it is a big deal and you get some attention. At present the AMCS/Green vote is a known entity, you/we are not.

This may not be right, fair or just....but it just how politics works.

Regards

KC