Reply With QuoteScott
Your suggesting that 6 different groups have a say in how the rfl funds be spent. I can see that’s going to run smoothly. I’m sure you will have a positive spin to this issue as well.
Stu
Chris - I do not believe the revenue raised should be controlled by any one group - any advisory/expenditure committee's need to be representative of the whole state ie: delegates from Eco fishers, ANSA , QGFA, QAFA , Sunfish, spear fishers etc - ensuring in put from all key rec area's.Originally Posted by Lovey80
The rest of the items raised show that we are starting to see the benefits of taking ownership of our fisheries & control of the future management.
Thanks - Scotto
Scott
Your suggesting that 6 different groups have a say in how the rfl funds be spent. I can see that’s going to run smoothly. I’m sure you will have a positive spin to this issue as well.
Stu
Dayoo, I'm actually happy for fisheries to continue down the current path by using funds from the PPV levy. Other water users like jet skiers, skiers etc shouldn't get a free ride. Monies used by ECO for catch monitoring are just that only. That info is then passed to fisheries for 'assessment'. That way these peanuts that continue to pluck numbers and estimates from thier asses have no grounds to do so as they will have hard data provided by recs not dodgy computer models and phone polls.
Scott, there is a very good reason I want one group to be in control and that's for the reason of control. All these other groups can make submissions for projects to be funded just like any regular Rec Angler can. That way we don't have these elitist groups or organisations with individual interests having larger say than the other. All have equal say! There are some very big issues that need addressing asap. Once these are sorted there will be pleanty to go around in the future.
It pains me to say it but why should say ANSA have more pull to have a project approved than say a submission from Pinhead? Sure ANSA are representing a group of anglers but for every Angler represnted by a fancy group there are 50 that are not.
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
This is a real issue with the fishos out there, over the last 3 days i have endeavoured to talk to as many friends and peoples i have run into, all of which bar one is in total disagreement to a licence, thats 25 people all of which are fishos. not one of them have even heard of one been talked about, so i think there is a long way to go to convince the general fishin public about the pros and cons of a licence.
i also had the pleasure of talking to my mate who is a fisheries officer, his comment was probably the best arguement for no licence. He informed me that the government is already putting in place the platform for a licence and has already got a model in place to start the licence.
He went on to say that most fisheries officers are against the licence as their workload is already massive and their resources are stretched to the limit. they are finding it hard to check their qouta and get to every complaint now. he also said they are geting more reports of illegal fishing every day and have not got the time or man power to get out to all of them. with this i ask if a licence would help with the extra money spent on manpower and equipment, but as he said the money will not see the areas it is needed and will be wasted by admin and studies. Also with the PPV being removed from jet skis and yachts and non fishing boats, it will be just he fishos that will shoulder the money needed to provide the resources.
i can see his logic and have one other thing to add, if the money is raised from a licence does eventuate how is this going to improve the fishing for all rec fishos, with the freshwater permit it was given to the dams association to use, how is the money going to help saltwater fishing considering the massive area in Queensland and thousands of ramps and reefs and beach and rivers to help.
I dont see how one organisation can controll this amount of money and say they are fair accross the board, money breeds corruption and this will be no different, i would rather have closed seasons and a better bag/size limit factor imposed before we even look at a licence.
supa............
I agree with this too.I dont see how one organisation can controll this amount of money and say they are fair accross the board, money breeds corruption and this will be no different, i would rather have closed seasons and a better bag/size limit factor imposed before we even look at a licence.
Yet none of this will help the real issues of pollution and habitat destruction. No amount of rec money will fix that, only governments and individuals can.
This has been my experience also.
I think this model may be the PPV? The government will not push a rec licence, they are waiting for the wider rec angling community to push it. I get the general feeling from talking to all and sundry in the various departments is that they have copped a hard time of various issues related to fishing, so they are not going to push thier luck.
Under resourcing has been raised by just about everyone I know. Are you happy for you rec licence fees to be put into funding more boating amd fisheries patrols? Enforcement is the job of governments and should be funded via taxes. That is why we pay taxes.
Stu - I am the eternal optimist
I believe we need as much input as is possible if we are to move away from the view that our fisheries are only being managed by a select few or group. BUT if anglers are not prepared to engage in comment - they only have themselves to blame when things don't go as they would have liked
Ignorance is no excuse !
Regards Scotto
Scott,
you positioned this weeks ago, claimed no affiliation or "political ties", doesnt look that way to me, specially after you hinted at your links with sunfish.
You got a result from your poll you you still continue to bang on about it. Sunfish is a toothless organisation, not supported by the majority of fishos.
Regards
Honda.
This debate highlights how divisive some of these issues can be. We should not let these issues polarise fishers to the detriment of our future. This has happened repeatedly in the past – the fishing party/ies debacle at the last election is just an example.
And look at the Greens, I am sure they have many differences of opinion within their ranks however they are able to present a united front on issues and in their lobbying to the powers that be and we can all see how effective this has been. We fishers need to do the same if we are to achieve the outcomes we want. A disorgansed rabble is not going to be effective in pushing our claims – look at the liberals in Qld – despite labor's performance the coalition will not get up at the next election if they can't stop arguing amongst themselves and present themselves as a united body with clear and unamimously supported (at least publicly) policies.
The debate in these threads seem to indicate that a considerable majority of fishers do not want the RFL at this point in time. This being the case, the proponents of the RFL should accede to the majority for the common good. I am not suggesting thse guys should change their view but accept the fact that we need to present rec fishers as a united body to have any clout. In time the landscape may change and the majority may agree that a RFL in some form is a good thing. So, let's have the debate (I think we've done it to death already), decide what the majority want and then come up with strategies to fight the anti-fishing mob. It is very hard to give up on something you believe in but we need to be realists and admit that our overall cause is more important than one issue like the RFL.
On the subject of organisations it is sad but true that you will achieve very little as an individual. I fish mostly on my own or with a mate and I'm not interested in joining a fishing club but I am a member of Ecofishers NSW, the Fishing party and have just joined Eco Qld. I have actively assisted their causes in various ways and will continue to do so.
In my opinion any fishers that want to have a say need to join some sort of organisation. The more that join, the more clout these organisations have – you can see from some of the previous posts that the ability to quote large memberships (even if a lot of the members do nothing) goes a long way to showing an ability to influence voting patterns and this is all that matters to governments.
That's my 2 bob's worth. I hope we can agree to disagree and compromise in order to secure the fishing future we want for our kids.
Lez
I can not believe the gross ignorance and arrogance this statement displays.Stu - I am the eternal optimist
I believe we need as much input as is possible if we are to move away from the view that our fisheries are only being managed by a select few or group. BUT if anglers are not prepared to engage in comment - they only have themselves to blame when things don't go as they would have liked
Ignorance is no excuse !
Regards Scotto
To this point the state government nor sunfish has made the slightest attempt to inform or engage with the general fishing public.......no wonder so many people members on this board encounter in public and speak with are totally ignorant of the issues.
They are quite happy to spend millions of saturation TV and radio advertising and full sized bilboards telling us how wonderfull their management is of the water crisis is, the water crisis that is completly their making...and how good for the state selling critical strategic assetts is.
But advertising of current fishing and boating laws is scant a feeble, and some would argue that promotion of of proposed changes to fisheries pollocy is deliberatly low key.
In short the government does not want these issues widely canvased and publicly debated.......this would impeed their ability to govern how they want.....yes the conduct their "consultation"........ that they are required by federal law... but only for the minimum period required.
Fisheries will continue to remain managed by a select few until the government makes a meaningfull effort at engaging the fishing public and backs that up with actions that show they have any regard at all for the opinion of the fishing public.
I am totaly gob smacked by your condecentive attitude, and if you and your opinions are any indication of the quality of sunfish representatives and the views of sunfish, I am not surprised large numbers of of those I speak with have no regard for sunfish at all.
Your presence and comments on this board guarantee a poor reception and a bad opinion of sunfish by readers of this forum.
And do nothing to further the interests of the general fisshing community.
I hope you are happy with that.
cheers
Its the details, those little details, that make the difference.
this whole thing makes me feel quite sick in the gut's.
if sunfish is going to be our knight in shining armour god help us, may as well call anna blight and tell her we are all bent over and ready- they dance the govt tune, always have, always will
we already pay a fishing/boating tax in the form of the PPV. all interest groups should be pressuring the govt to allocate and spend the money directly on fishing and or improving the facilities for all recreational users.
if you think the govt is going to hand over control/money to another organisation be it sunfish, eco or whoever- that aint going to happen.
especially our current govt.
the solution
not easy.
i believe water quality, development issues etc needs to be fixed, like it or not, the greenies will attempt to sort it out, we need to be supportive of that, but there is huge risks here. in the big scheme of things to the general public, rec fisho's are a bunch of beer swilling yobbo's. green has appeal, we need to use it in our favour
what we need to do is apply pressure in the right areas with informed debate, measured argument and solid member bases of whatever organisation is doing the speaking. in our case it will be a few organisations.
until the general rec fisho is informed and has an opinion and voices that opinion, we will be on a hiding to nothing. all gov't have an agenda and most times the deal is done prior to any consultation, we need to be organised enough that the commonest ground can be found, a concession here for a win there.
an example of this is the snapper fishery stuff barry has been involved with, from the thread, debate has occurred, negotiations etc. process still needs fine tuning but it is a start.
measured ballanced debate, until the govt comes to the table in good faith, and representitive groups do the same, we will continue to go backwards.
maybe i am dreaming and this will never happen, but as a minority group (rec fisho's) we have to yell louder and harder than others.
to put it in perspective
ask someone weather they would prefer the govt to spend money on health and schools or recreational fishing? exact same way they pushed the green zones etc, hence the liscence and user pays would have huge appeal to the non fisho's
cheers
dazza
I'm just wondering why so many anglers think that 800,000 people who all participate in the same event are seen as minority? Not having a go at you Dazza it is merely an observation.
We are only seen as minority whilst the users voices are not heard. If they are all heard, imagine the noise we could make and the pressure it would put on George St.
Cheers,
Chris
Chris, I think the point that Dazza is trying to make is that, up until recently, representative groups such as Sunfish did not voice or represent the opinion of the individual rec fisho. My understanding is that Ecofishers does just that - represents the "average" recreational fisherman. It should be a goal of rec fishos to join EcoFishers however the one problem I have is that we will have Sunfish claiming to represent rec fishos as will EcoFishers etc. thus confusing all arguments/opinions put forward to government. Once again - divide and conquer!!
Maybe the varius associations need to get their act together as to who they will or will not represent and once those parameters are set, then perhaps a structured debate can occur without any reason the Government to blow one off against the other.
I think Sunfish's track record speaks for itself whom they represent. It certainly isn't me.
Cheers
Chris
Democracy: Simply a system that allows the 51% to steal from the other 49%.
Posting Permissions
