New options for freshwater fishing permits

[Fitzy]

(DPI Press release)


2 April 2002

New options for freshwater fishing permits

The Department of Primary Industries is investigating a number of options to make freshwater fishing permits more accessible.

The options were discussed at the annual meeting of the Stocked Impoundment Permit Scheme Committee held in Brisbane on March 26.

DPI Queensland Fisheries Services senior policy officer, Michelle Hollaway, said the new options included expanding the small business network. This would allow fishers to access permits outside office hours.

“We are also looking at alternative options for the annual permit rather than the current paper permit and investigating the possibility of an on-the-spot fine for line fishing without the necessary permit,” she said.

The meeting considered the allocation of money to each impoundment involved in the permit scheme as well as refinements to the administration of the scheme.

Ms Hollaway said the committee agreed to maintain the previous commitment to spend no more than 25 per cent of the total money collected on administration costs.

“A total of about $379,000 is available to distribute among 25 dams under the permit scheme. This money will be provided to the local fish stocking groups and will be used for activities to enhance their local fishery,” she said.

“In most cases this will involve the purchase of fish fingerlings to stock in the local dams.”

The committee includes representatives with a background in fish stocking, aquaculture, and recreational fishing and QFS officers. It was formed to provide advice and recommendations to QFS on matters relating to the scheme.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Further information: Michelle Hollaway Ph: (07) 3227 7259 / 0428 715 498
Fisheries Media Coordinator: Lisa Connors Ph: (07) 3224 7757 / 0407 156 319
Department of Primary Industries Media Unit:
GPO Box 46 Brisbane Qld 4001 Fax (07) 3239 0860
DPI Call Centre 8am-6pm weekdays on local call 13 25 23

[Brian]

As a matter of interest how are the funds divided up, with $379.000 and 25 impoundments to allocate the funds to. I'm sure they would not split the funds even which would see some 15,000 + for each impoundment.

Has there been a formula set in place to allocate these funds. and do we get to see how much has be allocated to each impoundment?

At least with these funds it will make things somewhat easier on many stocking groups who have put in huge amount of hours (FREE) to ensure anglers are rewarded when they go fishing on an impoundment.

Skipper

[Fitzy]

Hi Brian,
Mate I'd like to know the same things. The allocation system that was run last year seemed to work just fine. There was one group that had a bitch so they're choppin & changin things to make them happy. In the process they've REALLY p***ded off several other groups.
I personally think they're silly for changing the allocation formula after only one season that had our minister amnesty running on it at the same time.
I think they should have waited for a pattern to form before didlling with things. You know what they say; "if it aint broke......."

Anyway, the one thing that IS guaranteed is that the money will be used for fish stocking. Let the selfish cry babies whinge for a bigger slice of the pie for thier area, it just makes them look petty & childish. Here I was thinking the SIP was all about improving the freshwater fishing opportunities in Qld. Obviously some don't feel the same way.

That's my view,

Fitzy..

[Brian]

Don't know who the whinges are but hey as they say the squeakie wheel gets the oil. In the end all i'm sure will sort out, "hopefully".

I just hope it will be available to the paying public who gets what, As in the end they should get the say as its what they indicate in the permit for as to wher the funds are directed ?????????? or is that just a feel good to the person who is getting the permit :)

One does have to wonder :)

[Fitzy]

Brian,
I think the start of all the hassle is the preferences.
The whole reason for the user pays system was to put fish back into replace the ones taken. Not to make an already popular spot more popular, much to the detriment of the not so popular, more remote or newly established fisheries.
While any prefernce system is in place, I can only see the gap between the established & popular spots & the rest widening. If we were to make the scheme 100% on preferences, we would see the collapse of the sheme. Some locations could well get no funding & therefore no fish. That is the true test of any of the variables involved.
On the other hand, if it was 100% based upon size of the location, ALL locations would get an amicable share of the pie. We would also see none of the squabbling over the scraps as is the case now.

The SIP is not there for the betterment of a few locations, it is there for ALL participating locations.
I'm not real impressed with this proposed 50/50 (preference/size) split. Not at all. >:( But supposedly wiser men than me have decided otherwise, so be it. That's democracy in closed committees at work for you.

I would also like to see a couple of locations removed from the SIP, namely Connolly Dam & Gordonbrook Dam as the access to these locations is extremely restricted. Far far worse than Big W who the whingers complained about to smoke screen their dash for cash. It seems to have worked on the not so quick on mind too.

That's my oppinion anyway.

Cheers,

Fitzy..

[Brian]

There has to be an even ground one that is fair to all parties and this must be sorted out ASAP. As you say the monies will be wasted on administration and not maximise the use of the monies raised via the SIP's for it's intended purpose.

As for what is a fair distrubution i don't know but if all the various groups and the governement cannot get it sorted out soon, the infighting i'm sure will get worse, and as you say devide and conquer.


Brian

[lordy]

Fitzy,

1. what percentage of SIPs are acutally ticked? Looking at prefence allocation by postcode would relevel some interesting thing I suggest. If some stocking groups got everyone in their area to tick the local dams, while other areas were happy to let people do their own thing or tick none them angler preference isn't worth spit.

2. Do 1 week SIPs carry the same voting weight at 1 year SIPs?


For example, is Brisbane & GC with 1.5-2 million people was split between Wivenhoe, Sommerset,Hinze, Moog and Maroon thats between 300,000-400,000 potential preferences. If lower population areas such as the Warick area had to split their vote between Connelly & Leslie they'd be flat out getting 100,000 potential preferences. The same applies to many of the smaller dams around SEQ. If some want to play funny buggers with the current stocking perhaps you could argue that SIP should be allocated on angler location.

If the stocking group that is kicking up a fuss doesn't like the current system then dump them from the SIP and let them raise their own money. I suspect they would be worse off, while the rest would be better off.

[Fitzy]

Lordy,
From memory, on the first round of SIP funds, the figure for those that ticked ALL + those that ticked NONE (means the same thing) was at around 35%.
You can bet you lefty that the ones from locations like the local tourist park at whatever location were very likely to have been filled in by the park owner when the purchaser left if blank. I know this has happened.
So the issue of angler preferences is invalid.

I don't know if it should be based upon the size of the local population.
However knowing that Somerset is Qlds most heavily fished dam/lake & is close to the major population areas of Brisbane & Sunshine coast area would support this.
We also need to consider access, facilities, stocking history etc to work out how or why anlgers drive past one location to go to another. I think this could make things even messier.

For mine I recon that the combined surface areas of all the dams should be added together & the funds divided equally on a per hectare basis. Then allocate the funds that way.
So that every hectare of participating water sould get eg $10, then multiply that by each locations size. It is the only fair & equitable way to do it, & one that will see no arguing.

But who am I to have an oppinion.

Cheers,

Fitzy..

[Brad_Mcalister]

Fitzy,
Have ya done any calculations about how that method would change current distrabutions, i would imagine it would give wivenhoe more funds (?) But how would somerset fare if it were change wholy to surface area, compared to what it gets now ?

Brad

[Brian]

Interesting to say the least, i don't beleive anyone felt what they ticked would all go to that particular impoundment. As you said some would suffer if that was the case.

As to how it is split not everyone will agree and there will be disagreements all the time.

I would say that dams that are allowed to dry or be lowered to such a level funding of these impoundments need to be considered in greater detail.

Skipper

[Fitzy]

Hi Brian,
If we agree that if the use of angler preferences at 100% of the fund would see some locations suffer, then is 25 or 50% then a fair distrubution?
I don't think so. Unfair is unfair no matter what percentage you pin on it. The angler preference should be abonded all together.

That would also remove the need for a review of the distribution every year as appears will be the case. This is a woeful waste of fisheries resources that could be far better spent on research & enforcement. It would also see the administrations costs come down resulting in more fish in the water. Again, that's the whole purpose of the SIP in the first place.

I believe QFS is fostering an environment for stocknig groups to bicker over the spoils.

Divide and conquer? hhhmmm

Cheers,

Fitzy

[lordy]

Hi Brian,
If we agree that if the use of angler preferences at 100% of the fund would see some locations suffer, then is 25 or 50% then a fair distrubution?
I don't think so. Unfair is unfair no matter what percentage you pin on it. The angler preference should be abonded all together.

That would also remove the need for a review of the distribution every year as appears will be the case. This is a woeful waste of fisheries resources that could be far better spent on research & enforcement. It would also see the administrations costs come down resulting in more fish in the water. Again, that's the whole purpose of the SIP in the first place.

I believe QFS is fostering an environment for stocknig groups to bicker over the spoils.

Divide and conquer? hhhmmm

Fitzy

Its a tough one Fitzy. Angler prefence to too open to abuse. Some dams may attract more weekly visitors than others. Angler preferences and days fished could be very different.

All dams on the SIP should be boatable to all SIP holders. Any dam that is club only to boat/fish should be off the SIP. It can raise its own funds.

No doubt there are young up and coming dams that need SIP support to get them going properly. Forcing all the SIP funds into the the currently popular dams is incredibly short sighted. SIP should be administered to benefit of all. Stocking these less popular dams is like spending money on education. You won't see any return for 12-15 years on the money you spend educating a 5 year old, but if you don't do you end up worse off. A SIP based purely on angler preference, is the equivalent of saying that the 5 year old contributes no tax money or votes so lets spend that tax money beautifying my street instead or upgrading my childs education. The rich and educated just get richer and poor go backwards. Spend the SIP money for greatest benefit to the most anglers, that might be tomorrow not today.

[Fitzy]

Brian & Lordy,
The only fair way as I see it, is to add all of the dams surface area together (keeping the size cap at 5000ha to keep the small dams happy) & divied the whole pie up in a dollars/hectare basis. This is exactly even to all parties & ensures that ALL locations get an even cut.
It was also suggested that each dams surface are be taken as the level at the start of the stocking season, or take a 5 year average. Some dams have never been full & others are empty more often than not. To give funds to these locations at times of low water is a waste. They can currently sit the money in the bank until water levels rise, however I think the money should be spent THAT year, not somewhere down the track. What if spot X has a 10 year drought? If it can't be spent due to low water, then that money should go back into the fund & be distributed to the other locations.

Cheers,

Fitzy..