Reply With QuoteMmmm. maybe I should sign off as Ando?Originally Posted by Sea-Dog
Cheers,
Andrew
Scott,
Just an observation - You are the only one that adds an 'O' after your name.
The 'O' suffix is generally a sign of friendship or camaraderie (a spirit of friendly good-fellowship).
Notice whats missing?
This post is not meant to be pissy, but rather as an encouragement to reflect.
"He who has ears - let him hear"
Mmmm. maybe I should sign off as Ando?
Cheers,
Andrew
I can't help but feel that if half the effort went into finding common ground as went into finding faults, we as a group would be in a much better position..........
For what its worth...........
Bill
Of course there will always be strings attached when the Minister that controls it has the decision on who is on the board of these committees. Take a 5 second look at what the cash went to just for one reporting period and that becomes failry obvious strait away. As posted on the other thread:That's a great case - what are your thoughts on the Qld government being capable of provide the same sort of no-strings-attached funding to achieve it ?
I believe we'll have more chance of doing it ourselves
Regards Scotto
Things like:
$30,000 just so the trust fund can be a member of RecFish. I would be screaming blue murder if Sunfish got 30K to represent me on their current record!
$16,000 for ACoRF mettings-What the?
$5,000 for defining a Quality Recreational Fishing Experience- What the?
$163,000 for Eastern King Prawn Stocking- For stocking a Prawn that will leave the river and get caught by prawners when they come back to breed in other systems. If all inshore prawning was banned then I'd be fine with that.
$28,000 for expendiature commitee meeting expenses. What the?
$1,458,000 - For fisheries officers - I agree that QLD state gov't are pathetic with funding fisheries officers and am the first to tell people we need more. But again the perfect example how a Gov't will not do the right thing if they know the average angler will pay for it.
$750,000 fishing survey for just greater Sydney-What the? Refer to my comments on ECO getting the money and ECO monitoring the RRFF mandatory catch cards. How far would $750,000 go? (not that ECO have said they want to take on the resposibility) but 750k going to an organisation would surely be enough to cover data entry of every Rec catch in the state!
$6,000 for Coffs Harbour fish cleaning facilities- Again something that should have been provided by the state gov't. There is enough going through state coffers to supply all ramps state wide just out of boat and trailer rego.
$114,000 for Charter Boat consultation and monitoring-What the?
$79,000 for recreation fishing in Shoal Haven river-What the? Research and works shops for what?
$148,000 for the Trust Executive Officer-Jobs for the boys eh? Big dollar jobs at that.
$122,000 for the Recreational Research Project-What the? See comments of the Greater Sydney Survey
I have only brought up the ones at a glance were a waste of money or could have been spent on much more needed projects......ONLY to emphasize why the NSW program is a crap program. Also the only reason I didnt mention some of the good things the money was spent on. As I have said in the past I'm not opposed totally to a fishing licence and things like:
Rec fishing Havens
Artificial Reefs
FAD's
Salt Restocking Programs (like NSW Mulloway)
Inshore Trawl buy outs and Beach netting buy outs in certain areas.
Just to name a few
You can't sit back and talk rubbish about no strings attached funding, when your supporting the NSW system. The above were detailed by me after only a few mins of looking. You can't tell me NSW has no strings funding looking at that crap!
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
SO.... we need to go away and come back with a shrubery,,,,, by that time they will have changed form the the knights of Nii to the knights that say Eki Eki FTang.....come up with even more silly requests.....and we can then say Nii to them.
And you thaught the Knights of Nii was a silly comedy sketch, when if fact it is a sofisticated political parody.
So you walk onto one of Pinhead's job sites.....how do you know which one is him......."You'll know he's the boss, because he hasn't got S##T all over 'im."
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
So we have "some" Con's there & a few Pro's - How could the NSW system be made better from these points ?
Thanks Scotto
hey dicko, ya can't use the NT model argument. why not you ask?
qld population 2009 - 4,279,411
nt population 2009 - 223,079
there is a factor of almost 20 in population difference so regulation is maybe not as necessary there as it is here.
by the way, i don't agree with a fishing license because the admin costs far outweigh the benefits, like it's been said on here before there's other taxes included in our boat regos and more importantly existing collection and management (or mis-management) schemes in place, why do we need another scheme? i do however agree with regulation of fishing, there's no way with our population that we could have no regulation like the NT, there's simply too many of us.
btw, the holy grail is dead set the funniest movie ever made, and your alignment of the black knight to sunfish is brilliant .............. i'll take ya, it's just a fleshwound!
That is the typical response from a public relations person or a politician..........this is a response not because you want to know....... but because you already know what is wrong and you ... just want people to think you are listening.
Let me tell you Snotto up here we are sick to the back teeth of condecentive southerners comming up here, moving into popular seaside locations then proceeding to tell us how we should be doing things.....if you think the NSW system is so wonderfull....why don't you go back there.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
There is a fundamental democratic concept here.
Is the fishery managed on behalf of the whole population or only for one or two groups of people?
This is where the whole user pays mentality has gone too far, there are a great many things that this (and other governments) manage, that should be managed in the interests of the whole community, but the government expects a small group of so called users to bear the majority of the cost of that management and in return they get a token input into the process.
Regarding the NT model......there are a great many good things about things done in the NT fisheries......but remember they don't even have boat regestration up there for small craft.
Oh and they suffer a lot less from interfeering southerners up there.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
Pretty much head back to that massive thread it's all there.
In synopsis = scrap the NSW model in it's entirety, ensure non corrupt political processes, ensure transparency, ensure Anglers only are represented, stop the pigs at the trough...ahhh!! heaps more...it's all there in my my first 5 or so posts in the poll and within others also...repeated adnauseium and almost infinitum.
Nothing has changed and the same basics will forever apply.
I notice no-one is interested in building a truly independent organisation/ngo charged with ONLY managing just this issue....says it all really, all sides ATM is posturing (for what it's worth on Ausfish) for their own self interested/controlling view of what they will will personally gain to the detriment of all grass roots out of any alleged licence.
Who is properly on the Anglers side even in this....as any line is becoming increasingly blurred.
cheers fnq
Who is properly on the Anglers side even in this
cheers fnq
I am
Damo
NQ, I Have decided to bail out on the debate at this stage. I have put my point foward, and I will leave it out there for people to discuss. I am still folowing the debate very closely.Pretty much head back to that massive thread it's all there.
In synopsis = scrap the NSW model in it's entirety, ensure non corrupt political processes, ensure transparency, ensure Anglers only are represented, stop the pigs at the trough...ahhh!! heaps more
Nothing has changed and the same basics will forever apply.
I notice no-one is interested in building a truly independent organisation/ngo charged with ONLY managing just this issue....says it all really, all sides ATM is posturing (for what it's worth on Ausfish) for their own self interested/controlling view of what they will will personally gain to the detriment of all grass roots out of any alleged licence.
Who is properly on the Anglers side even in this
cheers fnq
What I have also done is made a point to get out the and speak to a few people who are not on the internet and AF and ask their opinion. Oddly enough I have heard support for green zones and no support for a rec licence. My opinion had been formed from talking to my mates and their mates, and from people at the boaties market.... The support for green zones comes from a lack of understanding of the real issues. People acknowledge a problem, but they dont know what it is. That is beside the point.
The only supporters of the rec licence I have met so far are people who are quite well off, and people from interstate. If that is the majority of rec fishos in Queensland then I will step down of my high horse and shut up, and you will not hear another word from me. However, from my observations this is not the case, I am happy to be proven wrong.
Scott, the only PRO the NSW model has is that there are some certainly worthy projects getting done. These IMO are not enough to persuade me to adopt the system as it is more hassle than it is worth currently. There is a huge waste of money just in keeping the animal fed.
How can it be made better? I know I have already answered this once before but ill say it again in brief and make a few more points as well Not that you will even consider it a valid point because you will not benefit from it.
Firstly ECO (or similar detached from government body) is handed the funds from the Licence and is free to do with it as they please. When I say detached from Government I mean in a way that 1. No politician or Govt employee has any say over where the monies are spent and can not pressure the Org into anything.
The members of ECO, and the board remain unfunded as it is now.
ECO takes the responsibility for catch monitoring and funds it from within the licence. Starting off with the RRFF recording of ALL RRFF species. Of course ECO will have to employ data entry people etc to maintain the monitoring but would be sourced through employment agencies etc. (No jobs for the boys there either) Annually, Fisheries is given the catch data from the program to assess from the data provided to them. As ECO will have the details, they will not give fisheries any info on peoples favorite fishing spots etc to be used against them later on like what happened in the GBRMP debacle.
The money is spent where and how ECO chose to spent it. How will ECO chose? A core set of priorities(big picture items) will be debated and spoken about at a ECO special AGM so they have some sort of "Mandate" from the members on where they want the fishery to be heading in the future. Big picture stuff like arti reefs in SEQ or Barramundi stocking in NQ what ever?
From there the public can write/call/email ECO with suggestions on where THEY would like THEIR money spent. From there it will soon become evident if ECO is truly representing the grass roots angler. If they do a bad job or are seen to have their priorities wrong they will soon be replaced at the next AGM? Get it Scott? ECO will have to be answerable to the people they represent unlike Sunfish that are Gov't run Puppets!
If ECO(the public) were to decide that say, the Noosa river and north along the coast (beaches) to the tip of Fraser Island was to be a RFH, they could save the funds for the Pro buy out. Get a rock solid agreement from Fisheries that if bought out no more licenses would be issued and bang that area is a RFH. Part of the agreement would also be that the Pro's bought out in that area would never be issued another NEW licence in another area. If they decided to move areas and buy an existing licence then fine. Just had to make that point so there wasn't an ever revolving buy out of licences by Recs as fisheries just re issued more licences in other areas. We would see the Tailor return on mass to the area and maybe with it the fiberglass forest photos on the beaches we have all seen from the past.
Do you see my thinking Scott? I'm not opposed to a $30 yearly licence (or shorter day licences for infrequent Anglers). Because the funding could really go to some great projects. I just want it to be run from and for Rec Anglers. Not the Gov't, not a Quasi gov't org that can be dictated or pressured by the Gov't of the day. Sunfish has PROVEN to be a Gov't pawn and has no real power.
WE ARE THE LARGEST STAKE HOLDER, NUMERICALLY AND FINANCIALLY! WE SHOULD BE THE ONES PRESSURING FISHERIES ON POLICY CHANGES. NOT THE OTHER WAY ROUND.
You see mate I'm half way between where you stand and the majority of Rec Anglers. While the majority will appose the concept on pure principal of having to pay it, i think my way would be a whole lot more palatable for the masses.
Just my thoughts, what do you think Scott, is that a better way of doing it compared to NSW? Or does that achieve the same goal too efficiently without building your ivory tower?
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Chris...I think yours is the first post that actually addresses Scotts question about how the NSW system could be altered to suit the Qld situation. I am originally from NSW, and was there when the intitial system was introduced. We had a freshwater licencing system for many years prior to that. When the general licence was introduced it didnt bother most of the people I knew because it was now cheaper to fish the freshwater (and the saltwater under the new scheme). I am viewing this debate as an alternative to having certain speciaes specific licences/permits for certain areas. I agree the government gets enough of our taxes to fund this....but they dont do it...and while ever politics is involved...the green movement will beat us hands down everytime....for the exact reasons there are so many differing opinions on OUR OWN FORUM. Like i have said in other posts...unti the rec fishos unite....we are stuffed.
Greg
Chris,
Like your suggestion but in the real world the only way recreational fisho can have a say in allocation of funds is to work with Fisheries.
There is an existing fund called the Fisheries Research Fund established under section 117 of the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994. This fund allows for fees collected to be spent on scientific research and other recreational fishing activities. I am pretty sure this is the controlled fund into which the PPV levy is paid.
A stakeholder group comprising reps from Eco, Sunfish etc can be engaged to provide advice to Fisheries on proportional expenditure of the funds.
Watch this space
Cheers
Barry
Posting Permissions
