Fair points Lovey, but I don't see it that way.
Firstly, the reason why I'm pushing so hard for rec fishing havens, is so that the decline in various surf species, which has been universally noticed, and whose populations may or may not be collapsing, can recover. I expect that recreational fishing and subsequently tourism and economic returns from recreational fishing will benefit in the process. The buy back of licences, lacking a recreational fishing licence to fund it, would be at the expense of taxpayers. Taxpayers would then have a reasonable expectation that recreational fishers will not simply make hay and negate the potential conservation benefits that rfh have promised them. We certainly want families that irregularly fish, as well as the top flight anglers, to be able to come to this region and catch a feed. But we do not want truck loads of blokes coming here for a slaughter as would happen if fish populations started recovering.
Secondly, it would seem that fish that have been under constant commercial pressure for decades, would reduce their antipredator vigilance once netting ceases in rfh and thus become more vulnerable to recreational capture. This being the case, then it would seem prudent to ensure that large recreational catches are not premitted in an area designed to improve populations. As mentioned, recreational fishing tourism can be expected to escalate in rfh and therefore there would be increased numbers of anglers that can cumulatively contribute to the failure of rfh to deliver the conservation benefits promised.
Personally, I think bag and size limits are currently far too generous for most surf species anyway. But I doubt whether the majority of Queenslanders would be in favour of stricter limits for surf species throughout the state when rfh, that they have paid for, are supposed to be improving populations with the promise of spill over. Convincing QF to implement stricter limits state - wide would seem to be a futile exercise as they assess that everything is fine.
Tailor are a key species in this exercise and require far greater protection than they are currently receiving. Should Noosa River to Sandy Cape, the main region for tailor spawning, be established as a rfh, then particular care should be made to ensure that the greatest possible benefits be attained. Being a schooling fish, one school can allow a number of rec anglers to take their bag of 20 and that would most likely occur during the spawning migration and even if populations are excessively low. Same can be said for bream which are hardly ever caught here anymore, but a spawning school could allow anglers to take their bag of 30 when in the right place at the right time following a netting ban. This, in effect is a significant reason why hyperstability occurs.
I see a bag of 5 tailor within a Cooloola/Fraser rfh and 10 outside; 10 bream/tarwhine within and 20 outside; 10 dart within and 20 outside - for instance, as being ample to satisfy most people's wants and wishes in this day and age of poor catches generally from the surf.
Critical to all of this, is the fact that there is a push from certain sectors for Cooloola and Fraser to be designated Marine Park status where no fishing from the beach is allowed. None of us want to see this occur, which places greater inference on rfh to deliver the conservation benefits that everyone wants without the social and economic consequences. It would be my hope that successful implementation of rfh in this region will lead to many more rfh around the state.