What are your thoughts on the idea of a General Recreational Fishing licence ?

[Lovey80]

Deep fried, I believe it was me who brought up the susgestion about a body that is totally independant of Govt getting the money. And seeing that you brought it up, the third option WAS an alternative view. That my friend IS an alternative. And IMHO is 100% better than the NSW model.

Cheers

Chris

[deepfried]

PPV = $16.65

We are all adults and can put forward our own views...not guided by someone elses view on most subjects...did you not notice in the first post the word "debate"..that is what is happening. Yeh OK ? :-/

As I have said before..if a license was introduced then anyone that was on any committee would do it gratis. I find it appalling that people would take money from those fees for themselves. if you stand for the committees then you recognise that you do it for nothing. As soon as you receive any compensation you have lost all neutrality. If you are so keen on helping fellow anglers then do it for nothing. All good.

BUT..I am against an RFL is any form. No one says the fisheries is managed well at the present but why would an RFL make it change? Funds for meetings? Funds for conferences? " No one says the fisheries is managed well at the present " ? :o :o What can you not see the poll options to vote on and what option is leading the poll :-/ . It is exactly what that option says and it is what the majority have voted for, what am i to assume, people dont understand a multiple choice question where there is really no correct answer but choose the one that says its all hunky dory. I do get what you are saying though and that is why i stated that i dont think this poll is reflecting people true opinions.
For starters a RL will be cheaper and if based on the polls original idea is run by independant committees, it is others that have suggested other wise.

The Govt needs to be told what to do as is their obligation. They need to manage the fisheries, manage the facilities associated with those fisheries and control size and bag limits. It is the Govt's obligatoion to fund these items from the taxes they already receive. It is not our fault they are an incompetent bunch and listen to Anna's left wing too much..why should we pay more money to bail them out..we pay enough as it is. You are right it should be funded from taxes. The point is you currently pay more than a rec licence will cost and going by the poll results the majority are happy to pay it.

The reality is that Scott will keep pushing for his RFL and those of us against it will keep fighting against it. I know I wont be changing my stance. Fair enough. Like wise, i prefer the cheaper NSW system myself i wont change my mind on that unless the licence is dropped altogether which we both know wont happen just like Qld will have all of its fees dropped.

I was going to attend the Sunfish conference until I saw that they wanted me to pay $50 to attend yet they are already using OUR money from the PPV for this conference..talk about misuse of funds. They should all resign..no confidence in them whatsoever.

yes it should be free but not all on the Sunfish committees would have decided in favour of the cost to attend or even had a say ( for good or bad i guess ) so why should they all resign ? To please you. Nah

[deepfried]

Deep fried, I believe it was me who brought up the susgestion about a body that is totally independant of Govt getting the money. And seeing that you brought it up, the third option WAS an alternative view. That my friend IS an alternative. And IMHO is 100% better than the NSW model.

Cheers

Chris

I stand corrected on the independance point. No it wasnt mentioned in the first post.
Sorry chris i have looked through my posts quickly and dont understand what you mean about the third option. I may have done a typo and will check. Did i say something diffferent to what you posted. Yes the third option is an alternative view and it is the one with the LOWEST ( thought i would go capitals since you did ;D ) number of votes which is a suprise to me as i thought i had posted before. The third option however can be stand for what ever the individual voter wants it to be, not just as you have stated above. Its an alternative to the 2 other choices not a specific policy, plan or idea, it covers everything else.

BTW what is your alternative view that is so good. If it includes no fees at all it isnt better than the NSW system it is just a fairy tale.

Look, until some one can give me a reason why the current Qld system is better than the current NSW system you really have nothing. You pay more ( we will prob even use your snapper research payed by you and it wont cost us a dime ) and will continue to and have no say even when hard working individuals try to make a change for Qld fishos. That is why i though option 3 would be the hands down winner but i guess not. Option 3 would at least cover those voters that want no fee at all but it appears that is not the prefered option.

[PinHead]

yes it should be free but not all on the Sunfish committees would have decided in favour of the cost to attend or even had a say ( for good or bad i guess ) so why should they all resign ? To please you. Nah



why should they resign?

They lose all independence and credibility when funded by the PPV. It is not there for them to have a meeting..it is there to provide facilities etc for the rec angler.


If they are on the committee and did not have a say then what is the point of being on a committee if you sit there like a stunned mullet.

They way I look at it is that I pay $16.65 PPV..I think that ia bit cheaper than the proposed 30 bucks

[deepfried]

why should they resign?

They lose all independence and credibility when funded by the PPV. It is not there for them to have a meeting..it is there to provide facilities etc for the rec angler.


If they are on the committee and did not have a say then what is the point of being on a committee if you sit there like a stunned mullet.

They way I look at it is that I pay $16.65 PPV..I think that ia bit cheaper than the proposed 30 bucks

Are you giving up trying to catch that trophey snapper ? Hope you dont catch the trophy fish when you havent payed your snapp research fee. Be a shame to throw him back in. Also dont think about a trip to catch an impoundment barra. Also dont put your boat into any fresh water, i wonder what will be next. If we keep this thread going for long enough it may be more than two extra fees since it started. Look if your happy with $16.65 to have no say and be very limited in what you can catch good on you.

Sorry still no leg to stand on.

I am done now or or all of you will have to give up all the above to make it cheaper to fish in Qld.

[Lovey80]

Going back to the original post it is clearly stated that it would be run by independant committees, no mention of Sunfish, Eco fishers just independant. All of the speculation is pointless. I dont understand the negativaty to a RL based on conjecture that independance is unatainable.

It was in response to your comments about original posts and the poll. The options in the poll were worded VERY poorly. The big problem with it is worded leadingly. While many don't like the current managent they hate the idea of paying more money. So many would have voted they are happy with the current system just because the other option of a RFL under a NSW system is worse than what they have now. It Implied that if you don't want NSW style licence you must be happy with the current system which of course is crazy and not fair.

As stated in earlier posts option 3 was always going to be the lowest count as it required the voter to have a better plan ready to go. On the history of this site left the poster open to a flaming. Most unlike me aren't prepared to do that.

I'll state again, I would not mind a RFL but certainly not on the NSW model and certainly not managed by fisheries or any gov't body! Hence why I mentioned ECO.

Cheers

Chris

[PinHead]

where did i say a trophy snapper..see..reading things that have never been said.
never been interested in going fishing for barra but i do have a SIP but that is a separate issue imo.
I have every leg to stand on...I just want the Govt to do what they are supposed to do...and don't preach about the NSW license..snouts are obviously in the trough there and that is my major objection...people taking money for themselves from any license fees.

In reality..ppv and SIP are still dirt cheap..far cheaper than a tank of fuel i nthe boat AND..no so called do gooders dipping into the funds.

[deepfried]

Going back to the original post it is clearly stated that it would be run by independant committees, no mention of Sunfish, Eco fishers just independant. All of the speculation is pointless. I dont understand the negativaty to a RL based on conjecture that independance is unatainable.

It was in response to your comments about original posts and the poll. The options in the poll were worded VERY poorly. The big problem with it is worded leadingly. While many don't like the current managent they hate the idea of paying more money. So many would have voted they are happy with the current system just because the other option of a RFL under a NSW system is worse than what they have now. It Implied that if you don't want NSW style licence you must be happy with the current system which of course is crazy and not fair.

As stated in earlier posts option 3 was always going to be the lowest count as it required the voter to have a better plan ready to go. On the history of this site left the poster open to a flaming. Most unlike me aren't prepared to do that.

I'll state again, I would not mind a RFL but certainly not on the NSW model and certainly not managed by fisheries or any gov't body! Hence why I mentioned ECO.

Cheers

Chris

Thanks Chris,
Although i dont think it was really worded badly. we had three choices and was was very broad and that should then be the on eto get the most votes. That third option could include the : No i dont want a system based on NSWs or any system it should be funded by current taxes and should be run properly, it could have included an option just like yours above, it could also be that the individual voter likes the WA model better. Any of these would shut me up quick smart as they are somebodies personal view. To have the vote being led by option two though has to appear odd and to have so many going on about management of it, extra costs etc has got me baffled when the vote clearly shows the majority prefer the current system ( option 2 ) that would cost me a lot more.

Like i said before it is easy to shut me up, anyone just tell me why the current system in Qld is better than that on offer in NSW.

[deepfried]

where did i say a trophy snapper..see..reading things that have never been said.
never been interested in going fishing for barra but i do have a SIP but that is a separate issue imo.
I have every leg to stand on...I just want the Govt to do what they are supposed to do...and don't preach about the NSW license..snouts are obviously in the trough there and that is my major objection...people taking money for themselves from any license fees.

In reality..ppv and SIP are still dirt cheap..far cheaper than a tank of fuel i nthe boat AND..no so called do gooders dipping into the funds.

you really are grasping at straws Pinhead. The snapper jibe is because if you dont pay that fee you wont be allowed to fish keep them, i would like to know if you would even be able to target them C & R. Read into it what you like. Its just an option i have that you wont.
And snouts in the NSW trough, seriously ?. You just winged about the Sunfish conferance, it is any differant in your mind. Your paying for snapper research ( well maybe not you ) isnt that a huge snout in the trough and you have no say. There was a post about the SIP and the costs to run it. Seems the original poster thought there was a huge snout in that trough as well. Did you have a say when it was introduced. Mate we have one fee with one set of snouts. You have many and just dont want to talk about it. Let it go, you guys get ripped off or you get very limited access to your states fishery if you choose not to pay and have no say at all. You really are talking shite now if you think any different.

[TheRealAndy]

You honestly believe that "we" the wider rec angling community stand any chance of lobbying the government to allocate more no-strings-attached funding to DPI&F in order to better manage our states fisheries sustainably ::)

Sure they should & it would be great to know exactly what rec angling boat rego's actually contribute the PPV levy as well - but is it going to happen ?

I rest my case it you can show me how that's achievable ! Please excuse my scepticism - I don't know how I would arrive at such a conclusion after this poll :P

Regards Scotto

Mate, take a look at what the greens acheive. They get you locked out of 16% of moreton bay, with no credible science or no green levy. They have a successful model, we dont. Take a look at the NRA in US, they have the government shit scared. Take a look at ECOFishers, a fledgling org who has already toppled 3 seats. If you think it cant be done you are wrong.

[Scott Mitchell]

Mate, take a look at what the greens acheive. They get you locked out of 16% of moreton bay, with no credible science or no green levy. They have a successful model, we dont. Take a look at the NRA in US, they have the government shit scared. Take a look at ECOFishers, a fledgling org who has already toppled 3 seats. If you think it cant be done you are wrong.

Andy - I wish you Good luck with that venture ;)

I don't know what I was thinking :

* I pay $16.65 for the PPV levvy - but we're not really sure how much gets back to DPI&F :-/

* I pay $35- PA for my SIP's permit - of which they take 25% out for admin :'(

* Now they want us to pay for a snapper permit to fund the $500,000 research program - beacuse they have NO MONEY :-X

It's all good - Scotto

[Scott Mitchell]

why should they resign?

They lose all independence and credibility when funded by the PPV. It is not there for them to have a meeting..it is there to provide facilities etc for the rec angler.


If they are on the committee and did not have a say then what is the point of being on a committee if you sit there like a stunned mullet.




Pinhead - Have you ever sat on any committee's - for anything ?

Out of curiosity - Scotto

[deepfried]

Pinhead - Have you ever sat on any committee's - for anything ?

Out of curiosity - Scotto

Is that a committee that its elected members should work for out of the goodness of their heart and not have any of their costs covered. It kind of leaves out the average Joe that may have a lot of positives to contribute but cant afford the travel, accommodation and time of work. That sort of committee sounds like a rich boys club to me as they are the only ones that can afford it over time.

[TheRealAndy]

Andy - I wish you Good luck with that venture ;)

I don't know what I was thinking :

* I pay $16.65 for the PPV levvy - but we're not really sure how much gets back to DPI&F :-/

* I pay $35- PA for my SIP's permit - of which they take 25% out for admin :'(

* Now they want us to pay for a snapper permit to fund the $500,000 research program - beacuse they have NO MONEY :-X

It's all good - Scotto


OR you can be a cop out and pay more because it might get you a FAD or a "rec haven" or a cleaning board at your local ramp... I'll take my chances and fight to solve the real problems. I have already spent more on rec fishos rights than I would in a lifetime of rec licences, but I dont care...

[PinHead]

Scott..i have been on several committees for schools and sporting groups over the years..never accepted a single cent for anything like that..plus I have given my fair share for various causes on this site also so don't try and make an attack on me over that. Now how much have you taken out of rec fishos pockets????

[Scott Mitchell]

OR you can be a cop out and pay more because it might get you a FAD or a "rec haven" or a cleaning board at your local ramp... I'll take my chances and fight to solve the real problems. I have already spent more on rec fishos rights than I would in a lifetime of rec licences, but I dont care...



Yeah - your right - there's no benefit in creating a dozen or more rec fishing havens across the state - where ALL commercial fishing is removed - for good :-X

Maybe you can lobby the government to provide an extra - say $20 million to do this because it would be great for rec fishing & we pay our PPV levy in any case ;)

That's Not living Andy :P

The arguments are now wearing thin - Scotto

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott..i have been on several committees for schools and sporting groups over the years..never accepted a single cent for anything like that..plus I have given my fair share for various causes on this site also so don't try and make an attack on me over that. Now how much have you taken out of rec fishos pockets????

No persona attacks Pinhead - are you working currently or retired ?

Regards Scotto

PS:I received a sitting fee & travel expenses for being on ACORF - never had a single rec angler question it in 12 years while running my own tackle business at the time.

Regards Scotto

[PinHead]

No persona attacks Pinhead - are you working currently or retired ?

Regards Scotto

PS:I received a sitting fee & travel expenses for being on ACORF - never had a single rec angler question it in 12 years while running my own tackle business at the time.

Regards Scotto

working..about 70 hours a week.

see..you received a fee..and that is something I disagree with.

[TheRealAndy]

Yeah - your right - there's no benefit in creating a dozen or more rec fishing havens across the state - where ALL commercial fishing is removed - for good :-X

Maybe you can lobby the government to provide an extra - say $20 million to do this because it would be great for rec fishing & we pay our PPV levy in any case ;)

That's Not living Andy :P

The arguments are now wearing thin - Scotto

I agree. Its like talking to a brick wall. You keep lobbying for your licence, I will keep lobbying for the rec fisho.

[Scott Mitchell]

working..about 70 hours a week.

see..you received a fee..and that is something I disagree with.

Thanks - every one is entitled to thier opinion.

Regards Scotto

[Scott Mitchell]

I agree. Its like talking to a brick wall. You keep lobbying for your licence, I will keep lobbying for the rec fisho.

This is where you have it wrong - I am not lobbying for a license - I am after a "realistic" way to fund better / sustainable fisheries management for the state. Which you can see they clearly need. If this could be achived with out a license - I would be all for it ;)

But based on the current state of play - I would prefer to be paying $30 PA to fish anywhere in the state - with the knowledge that my money was accountable in a trust account & spent by rec anglers :o

I'm currently paying $46.65 PA to fish in Qld & look like being charged for a snapper permit next >:( - What are you lobbying for again ?

Regards Scotto

[TheRealAndy]

This is where you have it wrong - I am not lobbying for a license - I am after a "realistic" way to fund better / sustainable fisheries management for the state. Which you can see they clearly need. If this could be achived with out a license - I would be all for it ;)

But based on the current state of play - I would prefer to be paying $30 PA to fish anywhere in the state - with the knowledge that my money was accountable in a trust account & spent by rec anglers :o

I'm currently paying $46.65 PA to fish in Qld & look like being charged for a snapper permit next >:( - What are you lobbying for again ?

Regards Scotto

I am lobbying for you not to pay the snapper permit ;)

[STUIE63]

and Scott do you really believe that the government will accept that you only pay $30 a year instead of the $46.65 that you currently pay and will let you decide how that $30 will be spent
and you reckon we live in dreamland
Stuie

[deepfried]

and Scott do you really believe that the government will accept that you only pay $30 a year instead of the $46.65 that you currently pay and will let you decide how that $30 will be spent
and you reckon we live in dreamland
Stuie

Well i think you live in dream land and are happy in it paying for all those fees to the right to fish anywhere in Qld. It would be a broad based fee that doesnt only tax the minority users of the states resources which is a typical labour party ideal and many seem to support it. Those that currently pay for all options in qld should pay less under a RL as we do in NSW and that is what the original question proposed. In previous posts i had said that if you do not fish for snapper, own a boat wish to fish the impoundments it would be expected for you not to be in favour of a RL. My idea is that it is you that lives in dream land if you think that these current taxes will be dropped or even at best not increased over time and focused on minority users that the labour gov see as wealthy.

Scotto,
I think if you called it the " PTYCPL;D NBNSWM;) WNFTALNSW:o BDQLD8-) " you would be supported by everyone. BTW its the, Pay less Then You Currently Pay Licence Not Based on the NSW Model With No Further Taxes Added Like in NSW But Different for QLD.

[STUIE63]

all the way through this thread it has been said that there is not enough money to look after the fishery and this RL will give the extra money to the fishery and now the statements coming out are that it will be cheaper for the fisherman in Qld . what a load of crap I have never seen this government cancelling taxes
Stuie

[deepfried]

all the way through this thread it has been said that there is not enough money to look after the fishery and this RL will give the extra money to the fishery and now the statements coming out are that it will be cheaper for the fisherman in Qld . what a load of crap I have never seen this government cancelling taxes
Stuie

OK, well then be happy that you are supporting the taxes that your current Gov has on fishos while you have no say in the matter.

Also i never said it would be cheaper for all fishermen. It is a broad based fee therefore many that are not currently paying any sort of fee to use the states resource would start paying a fee instead of a minority of users that i feel the Gov sees as the wealthy. I have also said if you want to shut me up its easy, there is two ways. Tell me that you currently and dont intend in the future to own a boat, you also dont fish from that boat in fresh water in the impoundments to catch barra, sooty grunter etc or that you will target snapper therefore it is cheaper for you to leave it as it is.
The other way is to clearly tell me how the current system in Qld is better than the current system in NSW. Bear in mind our fisheries are improving, NSW has had an endangered fish brought back to sustainabilty and hopefully will be a C & R target through RL research, We have bought out pro licences from estuaries, created fishing havens for rec fishos only, have a say in how the money raised is spent, have had only minor price rises since its introduction that are far below CPI and no new taxes ( 2 possible new ones in Qld since this thread started ), many inland water ways and coastal estuaries are stocked at no extra cost, we have no PPV, angel rings are provided at many dangerous rock ledges, dont have to pay for snapper research ( we will prob use yours) i could go on but you get the picture.

Answer either of those clearly and honestly and beaing in mind you think that the gov wont drop taxes so funding is going to have to come from somewhere ( fishos ) and i will shut up.

[STUIE63]

I pay 2 boat regos
2 trailer regos
will pay a sip for a 10 day holiday at christmas for me and my son
an extra ambulance levy on my fishing weekender
plus all the stamp duties on the purchases of these things
so I think I pay enough and do not accept another fee for an RL as I don't think the other charges will come off
if you can actually guarantee that they will then I am all for it as it will save me about $200.00 a year but I think what will happen is I will end up paying $230.00 a year
Stuie

[deepfried]

I pay 2 boat regos
2 trailer regos
will pay a sip for a 10 day holiday at christmas for me and my son
an extra ambulance levy on my fishing weekender
plus all the stamp duties on the purchases of these things
so I think I pay enough and do not accept another fee for an RL as I don't think the other charges will come off
if you can actually guarantee that they will then I am all for it as it will save me about $200.00 a year but I think what will happen is I will end up paying $230.00 a year
Stuie

Based on the NSW system i can say that we do not pay a PPV, Snapper Fee, SIP and Fresh Water Boat Fee and we do gain a say in how our RL money is spent. No promises on your rego and ambulance cover though . No one can guarantee anything but the original question isnt about that. It is nothing more than a simple question asking for us to vote on one of three option in the poll. Nothing more nothing less, based on what happens in NSW. So like i said above we dont pay all the individual fees that are in Qld so i thought the yes vote would be better supported or the alternative opinion, its the 2nd vote option tally that has me baffled as i think a lot that voted that way either do not understand the NSW system or have concerns that are far more complex and outside the simplicity of the polls intent.

I think if you lived in NSW and want to have no restrictions on your fishing other than the $30 fee it is cheaper than it would be in Qld to gain the same access, albiet with no guarantees of prices rises but Qld doesnt have that now and you have no say. If you never fish freshwater in Qld it would be cheaper than the NSW Fee depending on the final cost of the Snap fee.

Cheers
scott

[PinHead]

deepfried..you don't mind funding from your RFL going to Universities, Recfish and many other institutions that do nothing for facilities for rec fishos???

You are paying for research which should be covered by the Unis and other taxes.

[deepfried]

deepfried..you don't mind funding from your RFL going to Universities, Recfish and many other institutions that do nothing for facilities for rec fishos???

You are paying for research which should be covered by the Unis and other taxes.

Honestly. I wish the Gov departments where fully funded and able to do beneficial research without tapping into the RL funding much the same as many Qlders thoughts on your snapper research, SIP, PPV and now fresh water boat fee. It should be covered by existing taxes but that is not the case in either state and i cant see it changing and us debating that will not change a thing. It is what it clearly is, a user pays resource that we all pay for on top of our taxes. My arguement is not whether we should pay it but whos current system is cheaper for me and gives me some say and that is NSWs for what i fish for.

As for universities gaining access i have no issues with it as long as the research is at the RL committees request ( a partnership of sorts which is common in many areas/ sectors ) and not at the urging of a gov department. It is a cheap way of gaining independant research. Infact i find it a better option that rec fishos pay for it than to have research stuffed down our throat from a Gov dept, at least i know it is independant. What i have posted earlier about the Eastern Cod is not BS. That outcome was due to the combination of research from DPI& F and Universities and hard work from individuals ( one of which i know ) and Recfish. To be considered as a catch and release species after being considered on the verge of collapse is nothing short of brilliant and it would be hard to find a similar outcome for any other fish in Aust. The bulk of the momentum to achieve this came about after the NSW RL was introduced and funding was made available. I will admit though that not all spending decisions have been as well thought out, thats a part of life in all states.

Recfish ? well some one has to run it and if that means a quasi Gov department which includes elected members of the general fishing public it is still better than the system in Qld were it is fully run by Gov. It sounds like Qld has hard working individuals that are consulted but i wonder how much is decided before they even sit at the table and it seems to have had no effect on fees involved. The Qld system has resulted in higher fees than in NSW if you want to be granted full access to Qlds fishery and with very little angler say if any. So i guess maybe not ideal but still a far better option than currently in place in Qld. I am sure everyone would agree that an independant group of committees would be by far the most favoured as lovey ( chris ) suggested, no arguements there from me. I dont however have the same belief as you that it should be at your own expense to be on these committees as that would limit the talent able to afford the time off work, plane fights, accommodation, costs involved. turning it into a rich boys club out of reach of many which could contribute with financial support.

The whole thing with the NSW licence is that it has managed to keep fees for NSW anglers low compared to other states while maintaining full access and has had its share of successes. The improvement to fishing in Botany Bay, Lake Macquarie etc, the Eastern Cod, well you get the idea i have already posted them up. Now i ask you what does Qld fisheries have to offer that is similar to those ( this is not a case of which state has the best fishery its about which state has improved what it has the most ).

How much say do Qld anglers have in the outcome of anything involved in fishing, how much do they pay for full access, what will you be expected to pay for next and who in the end runs it all.

[Lovey80]

I think limiting the talent isn't a a real issue. Passion to do the work and the integrity to put the Rec Angler first, first and first is of paramount importance in all this.......finaly! This isn't rocket science and set up how I understand ECO is heading has the neucleus for doing that. If Rec Anglers all over the state feel they have a voice through ECO they'll have confidence to contact ECO with ideas on how they want their money spent and where. They don't really need 'talent' to tell them how their money will be spent They will tell ECO.

Cheers

Chris

P.S. When I first mentioned ECO, it was a on the spot thought but now I have thought about it more it makes more and more sense. Who knows maybe the good people at ECO are against a RFL all together and don't want that responsibility to manage. All I know is if a RFL should be implemented I want it run and managed by independant volunteers.

[Scott Mitchell]

All I know is if a RFL should be implemented I want it run and managed by independant volunteers.



Funded by membership money :P

I would never agree to puting a single lobby group in charge of our money - better managed by "independant" reps from each region across the state - selected because they want to contribute & have some form of expertese/exteriance in fishing their regions. This is not to say that couldn't be members of eco however ;)

Regards Scotto

[Xahn1960]

Funded by membership money :P

I would never agree to puting a single lobby group in charge of our money - better managed by "independant" reps from each region across the state - selected because they want to contribute & have some form of expertese/exteriance in fishing their regions. This is not to say that couldn't be members of eco however ;)

Regards Scotto

So how do you compensate these "independant" reps from each region???? Obviously you can't pay them or they are no longer "independant".

Bill.

[Scott Mitchell]

So how do you compensate these "independant" reps from each region???? Obviously you can't pay them or they are no longer "independant".

Bill.

They are "compensated" for their time away from their businesses & travel - that's it. I do not see how this changes the way they conduct themselves on the committee's. I was on the peak committee in NSW - ACORF for 12 years & we had some excellent anglers on that committee along with the expenditure committees in that time.ie: Steve Starling, Ian Miller, Peter Goadby, Jim Harnwell, Neil Ryan, John Dunphy etc,etc

These guys are all passionate about their fishing & there was always plenty of strong discussion - there was never any change to their view because they received compensation for being there ::)

Regards Scotto

[FNQCairns]

Why do they need to be compensated in any form this would not be a commercialist venture, if they are serious they will do it for free if not they where not needed.

Always today right from the outset in these things plans are made to exclude the mass by promoting egos and quietly held elitism.

Sunday meeting is easily done and seriously in just the southeast there would be a thousand + blokes with enough grass roots angling knowledge/interest to easily take a seat and own the desire ....if they where not effectively excluded by design and i bet they would travel 'just in time' on their Sunday to do it, further afield we now have communications technology.

No one group should have control, none can be trusted even remotely that is not entirely independent...how could it be any different and besides they would loose all of their credibility, anyone ever actually lived in Australia? I cannot remember a committee that was not stacked right from the get go either through original design or worse.

I am not saying we 'should' have one or even less that we 'need' one in any form, just chewing the cud.

cheers fnq

[Xahn1960]

They are "compensated" for their time away from their businesses & travel - that's it. I do not see how this changes the way they conduct themselves on the committee's. I was on the peak committee in NSW - ACORF for 12 years & we had some excellent anglers on that committee along with the expenditure committees in that time.ie: Steve Starling, Ian Miller, Peter Goadby, Jim Harnwell, Neil Ryan, John Dunphy etc,etc

These guys are all passionate about their fishing & there was always plenty of strong discussion - there was never any change to their view because they received compensation for being there ::)

Regards Scotto

I'll agree to disagree with you on this one:) Suffice to say my view of "independant" committees varies a little from yours.

Bill.

[deepfried]

Good to see that people are running through how a RL could be manged even if you do or dont agree with one. It was just a poll after all so throw some ideas around. You should have plenty as some floors in the NSW system have been brought up and also with the Qld system. I will stay out of it now unless pinhead has any more questions.

Going to chase some snapper and kingies out of port stephens so everyone is free from my shite stirring.

[Lovey80]

Yeh right Scott, how can any organisation be even remotely independant when a politician can stack the commitee how ever he likes? It defeats the whole meaning of independant. 'independant' being independant of Govt meddling! as soon as you 'compensate' someone for their 'time' you lose that also.

While it shouldn't cost a member to volunteer they also shouldn't be paid for their time.

Cheers

chris

[Scott Mitchell]

While it shouldn't cost a member to volunteer they also shouldn't be paid for their time.

Cheers

chris



Chris - Isn't that contradictory :-/

Have a look at the names of those who have stood on the expenditure committees & ACORF in NSW & tell me if you believe they have been stacked in favor of fluffing the governments sneaky approach to underhandedness ::)

Fair dinkum - Scotto

[Black_Rat]

Anyone that has there fingers in the pie is tainted for my mind ;)

You can't trust the current government to listen to the people that vote them in.

They will do as they want, period ! >:(

Damo

[Lovey80]

Scott, maybe I should have been more clear. I understand how that sounds but it wasn't what I meant.

For example, I don't think committee members should be paid to attend meetings. They should make their way to the meeting at their own expense. However things that are required to run the organisation like stationary for example shouldn't come out of the members pockets. Does that make sense?

If your on one of these committees you should do at as a volunteer just like you would as say a fishing club member. That way there can be no suspicion to your motives as to why you are on the board in the first place and most importantly there is nothing that can be taken away from you if you stand by your values and respect your own integrity.

I don't need to look at any of the names and there may not have been any stacking in the past. That isn't the point. The system is a bad one that has the ability to be manipulated.

Cheers

Chris

[sleepygreg]

I am a delegate for my fishing club for a State association, we have another delegate for the other State association we are affiliated with. We have to attend Conferences to represent the views of our members, and to report back to our club information to come out of these conferences. The club pays for our accommodation and travel costs associated with these events, it does not however..nor do i think it should...compensate us for out time. I use RDO's/Annual leave to cover my time, as does the other delegate. I dont agree with people being 'paid' to attend, but i do believe in them having their out of pocket expenses (as outlined above) covered. And just like any business...no justified receipt...no compensation. I certainly can't afford to pay for the accommodation and travel associated with it, but it doesnt make me any less committed or passionate.

Its a fine line being trod. Are the 'right' people to be reperesenting us only the ones that can afford to do so by fully funding their involvement?

Greg

[Lovey80]

Thanks Greg thats what I meant, just bad at getting it out.

For an organisation to represent us properly they just have to listen to the anglers themselves and do as they wish.

For example, regardless if ECO was to get the cash from a RFL or not should not change ECO's inherrant resposibility to lobby the QLD government to employ more Fisheries officers. Wether ECO were to fund or part fund Fisheries officers employment would be seen as a completely independant decision (agree or not agrre with it, it would be an independent decision) Now if Sunfish were to get the cash they could easily be pressured by the Gov't to fund them out of RFL monies and make it look like it was done by the body representing Rec Anglers. If Sunfish deemed the money was to be spent on more important projects the threat of a cut in funding could be applied by the Gov't. That Ladies and Gents is not independant and clearly shows how Sunfish could be seen as a Govt puppet.

After their support to the MBMPA debacle either one of 2 things happend: Something similar to the above or the people at Sunfish at the time had their heads so far up thier own proverbial asses they had no idea what the people they represented thought.

Cheers

Chris

P.S. Scott, I suppose now that you have been exposed as a new senior member of Sunfish it was all designed in someway from the start for Sunfish to lobby for a RFL so these so called independant committees could give you more cash to play with hey? And knowing how the greenies work I suppose in your submission to Gov't to implement it you will use the statistics of the two dodgy polls you did on other sites and say that 'extensive surveying' was done and 92% of Rec Anglers actually support the introduction of a RFL?????

Cheers

Chris

[Tangles]

Chris, and no doubt Scott will also tell us how he has our all best interests at heart, while lobbying for the fees and taking compensation when it comes in..

only person your representing Scott is yourself, just dont pretend your doing it for others as your not.

[PinHead]

I am a delegate for my fishing club for a State association, we have another delegate for the other State association we are affiliated with. We have to attend Conferences to represent the views of our members, and to report back to our club information to come out of these conferences. The club pays for our accommodation and travel costs associated with these events, it does not however..nor do i think it should...compensate us for out time. I use RDO's/Annual leave to cover my time, as does the other delegate. I dont agree with people being 'paid' to attend, but i do believe in them having their out of pocket expenses (as outlined above) covered. And just like any business...no justified receipt...no compensation. I certainly can't afford to pay for the accommodation and travel associated with it, but it doesnt make me any less committed or passionate.

Its a fine line being trod. Are the 'right' people to be reperesenting us only the ones that can afford to do so by fully funding their involvement?

Greg

Greg..there is a bit of a difference. With your club delegates, your club members have a say and if they do not agree with the expenditure I am sure they would be able to voice their concerns at a meeting or resign from the club if they felt strongly enough about it. You are in a club where membership is voluntary and the members have a say.

With an rfl, it is a compulsory item if you want to fish therefore no people should be getting any of that money to attend anything. There are plenty of ways of making decisions without travelling to meetings. Simple webcams and mics can achieve results without anyone leaving home.
ALL funds from an rfl should go to facilities for the rec anglers..not to Unis for research or anyone else for research...most results from research is ambiguous to say the least..
And that is my problem with an rfl..the anglers pay yet they get little return..funding some research and funding those with egos and snouts in the trough is a definite no no.

I could seei t know how much Sunfish would siphon from an rfl..they will probably agree to one as they will rub their hands with glee at the amount of money they could get from it. They are already getting funds from our PPV...which is totally wrong. I would rather the PPV money went to VMR than to that mob.

[sleepygreg]

The point I am trying to make, probably very poorly, is that both of these State associations would no doubt be a part of any body that determines/administers funds based on the model suggested (no I am not offering an opinion pro or con the RFL), just thinking about the ramifications IF it was introduced along those lines, meaning I would be a part of the decision making process. My own morals and ethics would NEVER allow me to swayed from my point of view(or that of the majority vote when representing my clubs view) just because my expenses were being covered by the Govt. or any other third party. And I am sure that same secenario would apply to the majority of people in a similar position ( I wont say ALL, because human nature being what it is...there are exceptions to every rule).

IF and a big IF, they are thinking of introducing species specific permits and fees, which I totally object to, then I would much prefer a generic RFL to prevent that...administered along SIMILAR (note...not the same) lines as the model proposed.

I dont agree with people being compensated for their time, I do however agree with it not "costing them" anything to be a part of the process. And...wait for it.....its going to happen...pains me to say it........................I totally agree with Pinhead about modern technology via video conferencing, teleconferencing etc negating the need for what can be fundamentally 'pain in the arse' face to face meetings that achieve no more than can be achieved via electronic media. Also allowing these things to occur on weekends to lessen the impact on peoples working life (rather than pander to the 9-4 mon-fri mentality of the public servants).

I also distrust this current government to get ANYTHING right.......but will always look for ways to TRY to "keep the bastards honest".Maybe it will happen in my lifetime....heres hoping.

Greg

[JIMBO99]

JIMBO99.
RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCES are a crock of brown stuff, if we get licences in qld we will find that they increase rapidly each year from the initial licence fee and after ten years we will be paying three times the original licence fee:o How much have boat and trailer registrations risen ?? a sight faster than pensions that's for sure. I got 43cents rise in pension and about six dollars rise in both registrations?? I may be wrong but it seems to me that 43 cents wont help me much with my registrations, I can't buy a banana for 43 cents so who is the monkey in all this;D I think me and you and you and you. Love Jimbo99

[JIMBO99]

Jimbo99. hi scotty, first of all there is no such thing as a transparent government trust account, in fact there is nothing transparent in anything the government does.
second 10% will soon be 50% and so on. and for what?? we don't need another fee so that we can use our basic right to fish and provide food for our families. And as for kicking professional fishermen out of areas they have fished in for generations (5 generations in my family)it would be like telling an accountant whose family has practiced accountancy in Brisbane for generations that they must move to mount Isa if they want to work as a mob of amateur accountants wants to work in Brisbane and they will have sole right from now on.
Forget amateur licences they will be a really heavy sinker from the time they are introduced. Love Jimbo99.

[Scott Mitchell]

P.S. Scott, I suppose now that you have been exposed as a new senior member of Sunfish it was all designed in someway from the start for Sunfish to lobby for a RFL so these so called independant committees could give you more cash to play with hey? And knowing how the greenies work I suppose in your submission to Gov't to implement it you will use the statistics of the two dodgy polls you did on other sites and say that 'extensive surveying' was done and 92% of Rec Anglers actually support the introduction of a RFL?????

Cheers

Chris

Chris - It was a very informative weekend that I feel proud to have been involved with. What I saw where a lot of passionate & dedicated recreational anglers from across our state working towards determining the future of recreational angling in Queensland.

Discussing a rec license actually fell into the subject of "who pays" & "how do we fund these initiatives" in many of the working groups. Just about everything that we need to have implemented will cost money & the current system is not working in relation to supplying DPI&F the funding required. "I" also believe it does not give recreational anglers "ownership" .

Sunfish discussed the topic of a recreational angling license & I can confirm that not all the members where in favor of this option. Sunfish have decided to hash out the pro's & cons of such a system & will take these to their branches for more discussion with their regional members & fishers. I believe this is what needs to be done & was "my" driving reason for this poll.

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Deputy Director-General Jim Groves told me that the department would not consider a general rec license system unless it came as a recommendation from the majority of the Queensland recreational fishers.

There will be a document published by Sunfish on the weekends proceeding after the working groups put their papers together & this will appear in the Sunfish magazine & Sunfish web site.

As this poll is soon to wind up I believe it is now timely to discuss the pro's & cons of a general rec license in point form & look forward to some further constructive debate ;)

Regards Scotto

PS:It was good to meet with TheRealAndy from Eco - finally putting a face to the type

[Scott Mitchell]

RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCES are a crock of brown stuff, if we get licences in qld we will find that they increase rapidly each year from the initial licence fee and after ten years we will be paying three times the original licence fee:o
* Has NOT BEEN the case in NSW after over 15 years ;)

How much have boat and trailer registrations risen ??
* Yep & we still DO NOT have control over the expenditure
a sight faster than pensions that's for sure. I got 43cents rise in pension and about six dollars rise in both registrations?? I may be wrong but it seems to me that 43 cents wont help me much with my registrations, I can't buy a banana for 43 cents so who is the monkey in all this;D I think me and you and you and you. Love Jimbo99
* Pensioners get a concession in NSW - all they need do is produce their card ;)

Jimbo - It costs A LOT OF MONEY to run DPI&F - so who should pays for it ? How can this best be administered - allowing recreational anglers ownership ?

Regards Scotto

[Lucky_Phill]

How about the GST paid from every registered retail tackle shop, every registered retail chandlery and every retail boat retailer in Queensland.

Simple..... the collection service is in place, the management is in place and the administration is there. All that needs to happen is the business's send their GST payments to the recreational fish managers instead of the Fed Govt.


how hard can that be ????????????//

No more #####ing taxes.......... >:( >:( >:(

All, IMO.


Phill
.
.
.
.

[Scott Mitchell]

We are the 'Users" of this resource - so why should we rely on government funding ? There appears to be many who say we can't rely on rec anglers who are funded to provide input on the management of our fisheries - because they are payed by government to attend meetings & conferences ?

So why not take ownership of our future & work towards funding our own destiny. I do believe a general rec license is only a matter of time - So I want to be apart of taking control of that process in delivering the best possible outcome for rec fishers.

Regards Scotto

[Scott Mitchell]

How about the GST paid from every registered retail tackle shop, every registered retail chandlery and every retail boat retailer in Queensland.

Simple..... the collection service is in place, the management is in place and the administration is there. All that needs to happen is the business's send their GST payments to the recreational fish managers instead of the Fed Govt.


how hard can that be ????????????//

No more #####ing taxes.......... >:( >:( >:(

All, IMO.


Phill
.
.
.
.

So your happy with the way our funds are current collected & administered - you just want to see more money given to the department ?

Regards Scotto

[TimiBoy]

So your happy with the way our funds are current collected & administered - you just want to see more money given to the department ?

Regards Scotto

Just don't listen, or just ..................

Point is, we already pay, and pay, and pay, specifically to use the resource. THAT money should be better managed, directed, whatever you want to call it.

We should not be hit with ANOTHER fee, ON TOP OF WHAT WE ALREADY pay to fish/boat.

No, we are not friggin' happy with the way it is currently done. Your default position, Scott, "if we don't agree with you then we are happy with things as they are" is clearly crap.

Far better to start putting together the numbers, and marshalling the support, to demand from a position of strength that what we already pay should be managed MORE EFFECTIVELY. I believe this is in train.

Tell you what. Why don't you just cease and do what you want, and stop trying to convince people. Those who want it your way will support you. Those who don't, won't. You have proven yourself to be utterly inflexible - you believe you're right. Fine. Every man and his dog can see that this is all about Scott. You go build your precious ivory tower, and leave folks alone will you?

just my opinion.................

Thanks,

Tim

[Stuart]

Couldnt have said it better myself Timiboy.

Stu

[Scott Mitchell]

Phil - The 3.8 million from the current PPV is a drop in the ocean & we DO NOT have clear representation on how it is being spent. I have heard estimates on what a general rec license "could potentially " generate in the realms of $12+ million PA - taking into account international & interstate visitors as well

Lets start to outline the "real" pro's & cons of a general rec license along the lines of :- PRO's

* PPV levy would be removed
* The current SIP's program would be removed as it currently sits - taking an average of the last three years monies raised being transferred across to the freshwater trust account to kick off with.
* A number ( ? ) of Recreational angling only area's be identified - where ALL commercial effort could be brought out.No further commercial fishing can take place in these areas again.
* ALL the money raised will go into two TRUST ACCOUNTS - one for freshwater & one for saltwater
* TOTAL administration fee to run the program will be capped at 10% of total revenue raised & allocated to DPI&F
* ALL venue raised under via "the proposed" general rec fee/license would be managed by expenditure committee's consisting of key user groups with representatives from across the state.
* These trust expenditure committees WILL DECIDE where the money will be best spent & will direct DPI&F on how we would like to see our fisheries managed & will appoint research priorities to be conducted by "independent" biologists.
* Taking ownership of our recreational fisheries

Con's -

* Receiving "even- balanced" input on how the money will be best spent ?
* Selection & the process for selecting the recreational angling only area's
* Costing the real value of commercial effort to be brought out of teh rec fishing only areas.
* re-location of commercial effort from the rec fishing only areas
* Managing compliance


That's a start - Scotto

[PinHead]

" have heard estimates on what a general rec license "could potentially " generate in the realms of $12+ million PA"

there are those magical words again..realms and estimates..let's do it all by guesswork????

How many were at the conference? 50?..representing ALL rec fishos in Qld..what about those if us that don't want Sunfish representing us? Green zones acquiescense shoul;d be enough for no one to want to be represented by them.

[PinHead]

Here is your big opportunity Scott.
You have joined and taken a position form the mob that reckons they represent rec anglers.
Your poll on here shows that a majority are not in favour of an RFL based on the NSW system. As a so called representative of rec anglers, is it now not your duty to represent said anglers and stand up and say that an rfl based on the NSW system is not what the majority wants???

Make the call on a democratic poll that you initiated.

[FNQCairns]

We are the 'Users" of this resource - so why should we rely on government funding ? There appears to be many who say we can't rely on rec anglers who are funded to provide input on the management of our fisheries - because they are payed by government to attend meetings & conferences ?

So why not take ownership of our future & work towards funding our own destiny. I do believe a general rec license is only a matter of time - So I want to be apart of taking control of that process in delivering the best possible outcome for rec fishers.

Regards Scotto

Anglers are not the owners of the resource never have been, never will be, we make zero royalties, the owners have a sovereign responsibility to manage and collect their due royalties on the fishery and they DO collect these!...we have no ownership.

This concept of ownership is gullible in the extreme.....we are but citizens nothing more under law....Angling which by force of the very owners regulations is to exist only as a line fishery (at any level), line Angling is entirely sustainable...sustainable into the very far future too if the point needs to be pressed.....do not confuse the word sustain with preserve like most of those within and without do.

The owners allow us to partake in the pastime of angling, what do they get from allowing this? growth and tax's due as a direct result, they already have their cut.

On the fishing licence, please lets raise the bar over what it is we are really we talking about and why, i understand that emotive rallying words like ownership and phrases like "best possible outcome" but so far everything to do with a license has been scraping the bottom of the barrel...given an understanding of how it works....what would be the best possible bottom of the barrel outcome ::)

cheers fnq

[TheRealAndy]

Scott, correct me if I am wrong, but from the workshops one of the common themes I got that everyone agreed one was INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT of the resources was crucial??

In my opinion, without this any money spent is a complete waste of time. Until such time as this occurs you will not get my support.

[ifishcq1]

seems to be a whole lot of uninformed crap flowing with people reading between the lines and interpreting another conspiricy theory
while I have no side as yet, I will say that senior sunfish members organised public meetings in Rocky to put us on the same page when our green zones were put in place they even helped us get the numbers needed to push our point
the end result was a lot less painful to us than other areas that were unorganised
our club has always had sunfish delegates including Bill Bowtell and Tony Austen whose honesty and integrity is beyond reproach
if you think all sunfish members are after a free ride then let go of yourself, take your hand off it long enough to open your eyes and your mind before passing judgement
if there is a proven hidden agenda then I for 1 will be sticking it right to who ever it is regardless

cheers

[TheRealAndy]

seems to be a whole lot of uninformed crap flowing with people reading between the lines and interpreting another conspiricy theory
while I have no side as yet, I will say that senior sunfish members organised public meetings in Rocky to put us on the same page when our green zones were put in place they even helped us get the numbers needed to push our point
the end result was a lot less painful to us than other areas that were unorganised
our club has always had sunfish delegates including Bill Bowtell and Tony Austen whose honesty and integrity is beyond reproach
if you think all sunfish members are after a free ride then let go of yourself, take your hand off it long enough to open your eyes and your mind before passing judgement
if there is a proven hidden agenda then I for 1 will be sticking it right to who ever it is regardless

cheers

Mate their is some really good sunfish guys out there, and I will never speak badly of them. They are the ones that get out there and really represent the rec anglers. You are fortunate, as you have some of the best in your region. I will never discredit what they do.

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott, correct me if I am wrong, but from the workshops one of the common themes I got that everyone agreed one was INTEGRATED MANAGEMENT of the resources was crucial??

In my opinion, without this any money spent is a complete waste of time. Until such time as this occurs you will not get my support.

Andy - Can you explain this concept for me please ?

Regards Scotto

[Scott Mitchell]

Mate their is some really good sunfish guys out there, and I will never speak badly of them. They are the ones that get out there and really represent the rec anglers. You are fortunate, as you have some of the best in your region. I will never discredit what they do.


Regards Scotto

[TheRealAndy]

Andy - Can you explain this concept for me please ?

Regards Scotto

Integrated management: One organisation managing the resource. Combine EPA, GBRMPA and DPIF, or whatever they are all called now.

[Scott Mitchell]

Integrated management: One organisation managing the resource. Combine EPA, GBRMPA and DPIF, or whatever they are all called now.


Thanks.



Co - management was raised & I believe at the bottom of each discussion was - " how do we fund" these initiatives ;)

Thanks - Scotto

[PinHead]

Co - management was raised & I believe at the bottom of each discussion was - " how do we fund" these initiatives ;)

Thanks - Scotto

that's easy..use the PPV instead of on some of the unnecessary stuff it is being spent on now.

So you are not following the majority path Scott..hell bent on your own agenda?

[Scott Mitchell]

that's easy..use the PPV instead of on some of the unnecessary stuff it is being spent on now.

So you are not following the majority path Scott..hell bent on your own agenda?



No I am not the majority - nor am I hell bent on any agenda - other than ensuring rec angling has a future .But I would not say the majority are happy with the current system either ;)

Regards Scotto

[PinHead]

No I am not the majority - nor am I hell bent on any agenda - other than ensuring rec angling has a future .But I would not say the majority are happy with the current system either ;)

Regards Scotto

and you don't want to listen to the majority...it was your poll you started..look at the results..the majority is against an rfl based on the nsw system..rather simple to see that yet you don't want to accept that fact.

With that attitude I reckon you will fit in real well at Sunfish.

have you asked them how or why they come up with their wonderful ideas on the Moreton Bay green zones? dollars perhaps ? Certainly did not listen to any rec anglers on that issue so I doubt the leopard will change its spots. Hence the reason why the majority has no time or trust for Sunfish.

[Scott Mitchell]

and you don't want to listen to the majority...it was your poll you started..look at the results..the majority is against an rfl based on the nsw system..rather simple to see that yet you don't want to accept that fact.

With that attitude I reckon you will fit in real well at Sunfish.

have you asked them how or why they come up with their wonderful ideas on the Moreton Bay green zones? dollars perhaps ? Certainly did not listen to any rec anglers on that issue so I doubt the leopard will change its spots. Hence the reason why the majority has no time or trust for Sunfish.

I truly object to that statement - because I know you have not spoken with Sunfish OR understand the work they contributed ::)

It's easy to sit on the key board !

Regards Scotto

[Tangles]

Scott,
your doing the politics now, everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how much you object to it, nor do they need to be a member of an organisation to comment on it,

thought Pinhead asked some questions, your a rep with a keyboard.

[PinHead]

I truly object to that statement - because I know you have not spoken with Sunfish OR understand the work they contributed ::)

It's easy to sit on the key board !

Regards Scotto

wow..that is the statement to end all statements..you have absolutely no idea who I have spoken to or what I understand..probably a bit more that some fly in that appears to want to take control.

Object all you want Scott..you have absolutely no idea nor do you care for anyone elses view if it does not agree with your self appraising attitude.

[Lovey80]

Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries Deputy Director-General Jim Groves told me that the department would not consider a general rec license system unless it came as a recommendation from the majority of the Queensland recreational fishers.

This is what worries me Scott, no matter what the MAJORITY of anglers truely want. With members like you behind Sunfish it will be articulated to DPI-F that Rec Anglers are truely in favor of a RFL. Your own track record speaks for itself just in this thread. Hell I seriously considered voting yes at the start of this thread after reading all the crap you were throwing around, so what about the other 42% that really didnt know better before voting. A lot has come out that shows the NSW system stinks since then.
As for Sunfish and their track record, as the body that CLAIMS to represent RecAnglers in QLD they supported the proposal of MBMPA. I dont give a rats ass how much work they did because the end result was down right discusting. The caved into the Labor gov't for what ever reason so that Bligh could claim that Rec Anglers wanted it.

Now you expect me to sit back while you give DPI-F 'comprehensive' polls from online sites (2 of which are yet to be revealed by you) and were doctored in your favor from the start by the wording AND the BS you fed about the NSW system??

How exactly would DPI-F come to the conclusion that the majority wanted a RFL?

This really does stink!

As said with the GST, they take 10% of GST on all things bought in this industry. How about we lobby for 3% and Consolidated revenue 7% using the argument that the huge increase in the effectiveness of the fishery should see a big rise in overall sales and service and that 7% would total more than what they are getting right now? Its a win win situation for all? Gee even with Labors track record how could they refuse the potential for more monies in the coffers to waste on junkets?

Cheers

Chris

[Scott Mitchell]

wow..that is the statement to end all statements..you have absolutely no idea who I have spoken to or what I understand..probably a bit more that some fly in that appears to want to take control.

Object all you want Scott..you have absolutely no idea nor do you care for anyone elses view if it does not agree with your self appraising attitude.

Pinhead - If you had spoken with Sunfish or any of their members you would know how much work they really contributed on the Morton Bay marine park issues - This is not to say DPI&F listened however ::)

Regards Scotto

[PinHead]

Scott..no need to speak to anyone from there about that issue..it is all there on their website all bar the pics of them dropping their dacks.

Tell ya what Scott..you just run along and play your lil power play with your buddies at Sunfish but always remember one thing..there is a hell of a lot of rec anglers that Sunfish does not represent and we have no desire to come under the banner of Sunfish.

I actually asked an old woman at Blue Fins but she was too busy playing the poker machine....she must be one of those 5000 members they have.

[FNQCairns]

Scott..no need to speak to anyone from there about that issue..it is all there on their website all bar the pics of them dropping their dacks.

Tell ya what Scott..you just run along and play your lil power play with your buddies at Sunfish but always remember one thing..there is a hell of a lot of rec anglers that Sunfish does not represent and we have no desire to come under the banner of Sunfish.

I actually asked an old woman at Blue Fins but she was too busy playing the poker machine....she must be one of those 5000 members they have.

Seriously LMAO

The 'what is' we are expected to just shut up and accept surrounding Angler representation couldn't have been typified better.

cheers fnq

[Chimo]

This thread deserves to be consigned to a dark corner, never to be heard from again; can time be spent on more useful subjects please!

Its obvious that a Qld licence is neither needed nor desired.

Scotto, do something useful and get stuck into Gold Coast City Council for their fraudulent use of the Open Space Preservation Levy funds. This money was extracted from the people of Qld to buy greenspace for posterity. Instead they used ratepayers / taxpayers funds to purchase a commmercial operation, Tipplers on Sth Stradbroke island and then proceeded to destroy it so it could no longer be used by the people of Qld.

Chase up this double case of fraud 1 as above and 2 the forgone opportunities due to the initial $8m plus the ongoing costs also diverted from Qld public benefit.

Stop with the licence stuff Scotto, deal with GCCC on this issue Scotto and people may indeed be impressed with you.......

Cheers
Chimo

[deepfried]

Jesus you guys still on about this. Just got back and it seems a lot of the arguements are still the same as on the first few pages. I am not going to add much more as it is pointless other than a few things.
First the money raised through the GST on fishing gear should go to fishing is absolute crap. How then would the police force be paid, by fines given. Could go on about that and list many examples like health, education etc etc but i really hope you get my point.
The RL licence being an extra fee on top of what you pay. Seriously some guys need to go back to school and scrub up on their comprehension and research skills. The NSW system has no other fees you gumbies. If you want to have access to the entire fishery it is CHEAPER in NSW. Very simple guys but some dont seem to be able to do the math.
A RL run completely by an independant org, get real. Yeh sure then you will want to set your own tax rates. Not going to happen but keep dreaming. As it stands Qld fishos have no say now. NSW does. At best you could have a group of orgs on a board but there will be some Gov say. Dream on if you think different.
Lastly the critisism of Scotto for not listening. Jesus where do you guys come from if you think he has to change his mind because a vocal few have supposedly made it up for him. This is a forum and only represents a minority groups ideas, hell only a minority of ausfish members even posted. No one has to change their minds but as it stands i feel the NSW system is better than what is currently on offer in Qld. You guys just keep paying all those fees and be happy that it doesnt look anything like the NSW system and have no say what so ever. You will always pay no matter for access to the fishery no matter how much you deny it Eco or any org for that matter will not change that. Hell a post from a member on the inside has already said that a RL may be an option down the track.

Some members should spend a lot more time on the water than here, me included. That is all from me finally.

PS : If you want any fund to be run independantly Eco etc etc should look at a levy on all tackle and ask for all other fees to be wiped out. It is the only option that will be considered by any Gov to be run independantly. Much like the Nursery levy i raised in a post a while back but it didnt seem to excite to most.

[PinHead]

well DF..seeing as how we are gumbies then I fail to see how the maths retarded NSW folk work out that $30 a year is cheaper than $16.65 a year...it wasn't when I went to school.
Can you tell me when you voted for your representative on the ACORF board?
If you are happy with your system then all well and good...maybe we don;t want to follow NSW on this one.
Do you really think that the GOvt would drop the PPV if they brought in an RFL..not going to happen.
Do you have a say as to which stocking group your money goes to if you fish in freshwater..those that pay a SIP have that choice here.
SIP would not be dropped either..any RFL they bring in here would be a saltwater one only..you can put money on that.
How about you let us worry about what happens here and you worry about NSW..you have more people and less coastline as stated previously so let us deal with our State.
But you obviously don't mind people with their hands in your rfl money???

[FNQCairns]

Didn't the coral see preservation zone just get passed? I Wonder how many fishing licences it would have taken to beat the surety of that legislation.

cheers fnq

[FNQCairns]

So who has the gonads to create a non partisan/non political NGO/association charged with no powers or opinions above the ability to create and manage a round table of truly representative Angler groups and only angler groups???????...and even Angling individuals most important if we are talking true representation.

cheers fnq

[Scott Mitchell]

well DF..seeing as how we are gumbies then I fail to see how the maths retarded NSW folk work out that $30 a year is cheaper than $16.65 a year...it wasn't when I went to school.
Can you tell me when you voted for your representative on the ACORF board?
If you are happy with your system then all well and good...maybe we don;t want to follow NSW on this one.
Do you really think that the GOvt would drop the PPV if they brought in an RFL..not going to happen.
Do you have a say as to which stocking group your money goes to if you fish in freshwater..those that pay a SIP have that choice here.
SIP would not be dropped either..any RFL they bring in here would be a saltwater one only..you can put money on that.
How about you let us worry about what happens here and you worry about NSW..you have more people and less coastline as stated previously so let us deal with our State.
But you obviously don't mind people with their hands in your rfl money???

If you add the $30- PA to fish in the SIPs dams - your looking at $46.65 in my maths book ;)

If we worked on the Pro's & Con's concept you may find a balanced model to support. I propose the PPV levy is dropped & the SIPs program is still run as is - with an initial starting point of the highest average revenue raised over the last three years. This could be reviewed annually - anglers can still select the dams for teh money to go towards & if more money is required they can apply for more funding form the saltwater trust ;)

Regards Scotto

[deepfried]

well DF..seeing as how we are gumbies then I fail to see how the maths retarded NSW folk work out that $30 a year is cheaper than $16.65 a year...it wasn't when I went to school.
Can you tell me when you voted for your representative on the ACORF board?
If you are happy with your system then all well and good...maybe we don;t want to follow NSW on this one.
Do you really think that the GOvt would drop the PPV if they brought in an RFL..not going to happen.
Do you have a say as to which stocking group your money goes to if you fish in freshwater..those that pay a SIP have that choice here.
SIP would not be dropped either..any RFL they bring in here would be a saltwater one only..you can put money on that.
How about you let us worry about what happens here and you worry about NSW..you have more people and less coastline as stated previously so let us deal with our State.
But you obviously don't mind people with their hands in your rfl money???

Pinhead you genius i have already shown your math to be crap in this thread and then you give me more examples and also for your comprehension skills.
I have stated that " $30 for FULL access to our fishery is cheaper than in Qld ".
So please do add your SIP PPV and then the 2 new ones coming your way. Please do show your working though so i can double check them as you have been known to slant figures to suit your opinion as shown again above.
Speculate all you like on what the Gov would or wouldnt drop if a RL was introduced, hell you could speculate anything but it is not answering the thread is it because it is not based on the NSW system.
Stocking groups, what the. They put fish in and we go and try to catch them, simple. How many groups do you need to stock a dam in Qld, prob about the same as the number of fees you have in Qld to fish there.
Why shouldnt i worry about what happens in Qld. I fish up there at times so i deserve a say as i would have to pay. Remember its not a tax on Qlders it is a fee to fish the Qld resource that would payable by all who wish to use it. More people less coastline ? so what, like i said previously when i last had to correct your math large portions are uninhabited, large portions come under native title and large portions are relatively unfished so that means SFA to the arguement.

You keep grasping at straws and they keep crumbling so you try to find some thing new. Full access in NSW $30, what does it cost in QLD.

[PinHead]

df and Scott..if I go to NSW to fish on a weekend I have to buy a license...you come to Qld..costs you nothing.

Costs for fishing in Qld..free..SIP if you want to fish some impoundments.

Speculation df??? what are these 2 new fees you talk about..what are they for and how much ??

do you need a geogrpahy and demographics lesson to realise that Qld has a lot more coast than NSW and a lot less people therefore more money required.
I think you will find that the vast majority of the qld coast is fished.

Anyway..you are happy with your rfl..i donlt want one...why?

I object to people havingtheir snout in the torugh..takes away all visions of independence...how much did Scott receive from hsi time on the board??

I want the Qld Govt to manage ALL the requirements of the State as they are supposed to.

They have recieved vast sums of money over the last few years and have wasted it on mismanagement and corruption..so why should I be slugged with another tax.

I am not grasping at anything and nothing is crumbling so find something else..once again for your benefit..

to fish in NSW ..the cost of an rfl
to fish in Qld..free.

[Scott Mitchell]

df and Scott..if I go to NSW to fish on a weekend I have to buy a license...you come to Qld..costs you nothing.



QGFA estimate 200,000 international & interstate rec anglers fish in Qld each year - AND PAY NOTHING - unless they fish a SIP's dam ;)

Just think about what revenue "could" be raised to directly fund fisheries into the future - Then start thinking about how it can be achieved ;D

Regards Scotto

[PinHead]

they "estimate"..how the bloody hell can anyone estimate something like that..pie in the sky is all that is. I have never been asked if I am a local or from interstate..that is the only way you would find out.
If changes are to be made then let's make them based on fact..had enough of guesstimates and dribble with the green zones.

You going to answer my question Scott?

[Scott Mitchell]

You going to answer my question Scott?



Pinhead - If you truly want to engage on these issues - I suggest you talk with your local QGFA club. The QGFA saw the importance of taking ownership a long time ago when they started collecting member log book catch/effort data & their own tagging program - independently.

Regards Scotto

[deepfried]

df and Scott..if I go to NSW to fish on a weekend I have to buy a license...you come to Qld..costs you nothing.

Costs for fishing in Qld..free..SIP if you want to fish some impoundments.

Speculation df??? what are these 2 new fees you talk about..what are they for and how much ??

do you need a geogrpahy and demographics lesson to realise that Qld has a lot more coast than NSW and a lot less people therefore more money required.
I think you will find that the vast majority of the qld coast is fished.

Anyway..you are happy with your rfl..i donlt want one...why?

I object to people havingtheir snout in the torugh..takes away all visions of independence...how much did Scott receive from hsi time on the board??

I want the Qld Govt to manage ALL the requirements of the State as they are supposed to.

They have recieved vast sums of money over the last few years and have wasted it on mismanagement and corruption..so why should I be slugged with another tax.

I am not grasping at anything and nothing is crumbling so find something else..once again for your benefit..

to fish in NSW ..the cost of an rfl
to fish in Qld..free.

No geography lessons needed ph. I actually did very well in school at that subject ;) . Why do you need to spend money on areas that are very lightly fished or not fished at all. The whole arguement has nothing to do with the size of the coastline, it is just another attempt by you to find a negative in the system much like your little catch phrases like snouts in the trough. You looking for a job as a labour party spin doctor ;D .

Speculation on my behalf or lucky phils and dayoos as they are the two that brought up the new fees. Take it up with them.

To fish in NSW for a weekend will cost $6 for 3 days and that entitles you to fish for any species in fresh water or salt water. No other costs. Now how much for that same unrestricted access would it cost in Qld now and in the future when these " speculated " new fees are in act. Like i have said ph if you dont own a boat, fish feshwater impoundments and intend to fish for snapper in qld i would expect you to be against a RL. Never hid that but i guess you didnt read those lines and you thought you just had me. what i have also said is if you want full access to the fishery it is cheaper in NSW and you cant show any proof to disprove that. You came up with a comment that SIP is a different matter in a previous post but its not, we dont pay it in NSW and many waterways are stocked.

I agree with with your feelings on mismanagement but your comment about being slugged with " another tax " is more negative spin doctoring on your behalf, it also appears that you do not want at look at an alternative that may improve the situation so you mustn't be too worried about it. If based on the NSW system you would have no other fees to pay because we dont. Speculate all you like on what the Gov would or would not drop but that is not in the original question if it is comprehended as it should be.

" Once again for my benefit " ? ;D ::) ph i have been answering your questions if you look back over the thread and it is there for all to see. It now appears that we are back at the start, so for whos benefit.

[PinHead]

Scott..how about answering my question..how much did you receive when on the Board in NSW.

DF...When I visited Yamba for a weend it cost me $12 for the wife and I to fish for 3 days.
If you and your wife/partner came to Qld to fish it will only cost you $7 for a week for both of you to fish anywhere.

Forget specualted new gees..that means nothing at present.

Anyway..tired of beating my head against a brick wall with people that are happy to just pay more taxes and dip their nose into the pig trough.

I will reitierate one more time..I am against any form of extra tax to do what I have been doing all my life..they can shove their heads up their butts as far as I am concerned..and as for Sunfish..parasites on the PPV..the buggers are as bad as the pollies..and if they take offence to that I make no apologies..just more snouts in the trough once again.

"negative spin doctoring on my behalf"..it is called reality..a tax to go fishing but you are obviously happy to pay it..bloody dumb in my opinion.

Take ya rfl and shove it where the sun don't shine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scott is not even game to make public how much he got from being on that board..if anyone is so keen to be on those types of boards..they should do it for nothing..not one cent taken by them..if they take ANY money they are just doing it for their own benefit and nothing else.

end of my rant on this once and for all...an rfl is just another f*****g tax administered by a bunch of bloddy parasites.

[deepfried]

Scott..how about answering my question..how much did you receive when on the Board in NSW.

DF...When I visited Yamba for a weend it cost me $12 for the wife and I to fish for 3 days.
If you and your wife/partner came to Qld to fish it will only cost you $7 for a week for both of you to fish anywhere.

Forget specualted new gees..that means nothing at present.

Anyway..tired of beating my head against a brick wall with people that are happy to just pay more taxes and dip their nose into the pig trough.

I will reitierate one more time..I am against any form of extra tax to do what I have been doing all my life..they can shove their heads up their butts as far as I am concerned..and as for Sunfish..parasites on the PPV..the buggers are as bad as the pollies..and if they take offence to that I make no apologies..just more snouts in the trough once again.

"negative spin doctoring on my behalf"..it is called reality..a tax to go fishing but you are obviously happy to pay it..bloody dumb in my opinion.

Take ya rfl and shove it where the sun don't shine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Scott is not even game to make public how much he got from being on that board..if anyone is so keen to be on those types of boards..they should do it for nothing..not one cent taken by them..if they take ANY money they are just doing it for their own benefit and nothing else.

end of my rant on this once and for all...an rfl is just another f*****g tax administered by a bunch of bloddy parasites.

Gee wiz it sounds like i am getting to you. Oh well :'( .

At least you passed the math on this post. Now can you show me the cost of fishing for 2 weeks in a Qld impoundment or how about 1 year. Bet you dont reply to that one hey because you know it costs more in Qld. Then add in your PPV if you own a boat plus the extras that are " speculation " and mean nothing until they are introduced ( wonder how soon that will be ). I like how they " mean nothing at present " to you even though they show how much you may be screwed under your current system without a say but hey if it doesnt worry you it shouldnt worry anybody. To me it seems like it is very meaningfull as i wonder where it will stop.

Know what you mean about a brick wall :P . I am smart enough to understand that one even though i am happy to pay my RFL " Tax " to feed those pigs with their " snout in the trough ". You see i really like paying less in NSW to have full access and have it run with input from fishos.

Anyway ph thanks for the fun since that was your last post on this thread. Should be mine too. ;D

[goldfish]

yeah i think we should charge for a permit to fish & why not make it $1000, a week, as it is a lot of people can't aford to go anyway.
this is my rough break down of fishing costs v& taxes i pay,

gear, bait ect $1000, tax $100 gst
fuel, (car & boat) 3000, tax $600+
rego on boat $300 tax $300
maitance $2000, tax $200
Mariner fee's $6000 tax $600.
then there is the food, booze, ect i spend in local business ec but at least $1800 from 1 person some spend more some spend less but when its all added up its a lot already & SFA is spent on the water, well wisly spent anyway. So yeah lets sting the little kid that wants to through a hand line off a jetty $12 who knows he might think its not worth it & go try drugs or something.

come on people no everything has to be charged for.....
ok now i feel better. :-)

[deepfried]

yeah i think we should charge for a permit to fish & why not make it $1000, a week, as it is a lot of people can't aford to go anyway.
this is my rough break down of fishing costs v& taxes i pay,

gear, bait ect $1000, tax $100 gst
fuel, (car & boat) 3000, tax $600+
rego on boat $300 tax $300
maitance $2000, tax $200
Mariner fee's $6000 tax $600.
then there is the food, booze, ect i spend in local business ec but at least $1800 from 1 person some spend more some spend less but when its all added up its a lot already & SFA is spent on the water, well wisly spent anyway. So yeah lets sting the little kid that wants to through a hand line off a jetty $12 who knows he might think its not worth it & go try drugs or something.

come on people no everything has to be charged for.....
ok now i feel better. :-)

Kids dont need a licence in NSW. They are free ;) . So they still have money for the drugs :-X and can go fishing.

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott..how about answering my question..how much did you receive when on the Board in NSW.

Scott is not even game to make public how much he got from being on that board..



Pinhead - I apologise for delay in response - I actually work for a living outside of communicating with yourself here.

From memory I believe we where paid $150- sitting fee for the day plus travel & this would generally be for 3-4 meetings a year. I actually believe you could do away with a peak advisory committee ( ACORF ) in review for a Qld based system & work with only the two trust account expenditure committee's due to the fact that Qld has a number of rec fish organisation to work on other issues effecting rec anglers across the state IE: Sunfish, ANSA, QGFA, Eco etc

Regards Scotto

[Mrs Ronnie H]

Hi All

I have been following this thread with some interest and might I say my opinion about introducing a RFL has still not changed- NO - But i am yet to see any other suggestions.
Sott as you are now an "official " member of Sunfish then why did you not state the real reason behind starting this poll. That is truly deceitful to the members of ausfish.

I cannot see how inflicting a RFL on the majority of people a worthy course of action when it is plain to see we don't want it. I don't care whether you call it a RFL or a tax you people are taking our rights away or leaving them but we are the ones ultimately paying the price for some top knotch know it all to make a decision we have no say in it yet again.

I can only agree that most of us think that currently funds are not being used appropriately or are mismanaged or diverted to areas that are not as legimate than others. The answer i don't know but what i do know is a RFL is not an answer or a solution to the problem as I see it of mismanagement in many areas including the DPI&F, to name only one.

To adopt a stance and base an RFL on a model that works in another state is also incorrect. What works down there may not necessarily do the same here and you would have to agree the Needs and problems in QLD will differ greatly from those of other states. We are independant of NSW and other states so do not reflect the NSW model on QLD when it may not be relevant.

As I have said i do not have an answer for correcting everything we think is wrong but I ask you all to to honestly ask yourselves this question.

Is another fee going to solve the problem or protect our fishery to the extent we would like.
Some may say sure it will help but if we can't manage things right now we may be just adding to the problems we are already experiencing.

We all have differing opinions and this has been reflected sometimes very negatively throughout this thread but not one of you as i see it has come up with something more or offered to sit down with one another and look and everyones point of view, be objective and COMPROMISE so we all end up with a WIN WIN outcome. There is far too much of everyone taking a stance, and only looking at things with a one sided view --- their own.
What would it be like to live in a perfect world where we all got what we wanted even if it were wrong.

Ronnie

[Scott Mitchell]

Hi All

Sott as you are now an "official " member of Sunfish then why did you not state the real reason behind starting this poll. That is truly deceitful to the members of ausfish.

Ronnie

Ronnie - How have I acted deceitfully ?

There is NO conspiracy in my intentions - if you have truly been following this poll , you would understand that. You would also see that people are still voting in favour of a RFL based on teh details here - although not the majority - it is no way a landslide of opposition either.

It is clear to say that the majority in any case want to see some change in how our fisheries are managed & it has been a worth while cause in getting anglers to comment.

Regards Scotto

[Gazza]

I like the system , that QUEENSLAND uses......FREE to all Australians ,in the Salt and the Rivers...good for tourism ,good for locals.

NSW pay to throw a line in the water ANYWHERE in NSW charge ,is a basic reason why nsw NOW has ~5% compliance of buying a NSW-RFL ,by population....prove me wrong :-/

Paying to fish in QLD , in stocked "put 'n take" impoundments is still a choice whether to pay (and fish there) or not to pay (and fish somewhere else)

[Gazza]

I like the system , that QUEENSLAND uses......FREE to all Australians ,in the Salt and the Rivers...good for tourism ,good for locals.

NSW pay to throw a line in the water ANYWHERE in NSW charge ,is a basic reason why nsw NOW has ~5% compliance of buying a NSW-RFL ,by population....prove me wrong :-/

Paying to fish in QLD , in stocked "put 'n take" impoundments is still a choice whether to pay (and fish there) or not to pay (and fish somewhere else)

We don't need an RFL ,I won't pay for an RFL ,
manage me with bag 'n size limits............. :-* end-of-story. :-*

[bluefin59]

The people i know that fish and dont use ausfish so are non the wiser to this RFL rubbish and from speaking to them they totally disagree with the idea so at the end of the day scott you only have 82 people who support this crap idea . So if you are so into this idea why dont you go out to areas far and wide and ask the people who it is going to effect the most ,thats the fishing public that dont use this site, your servey is way wrong and not a true measure of support you think you have . You have now gained some sort of measured power in sunfish and have decided that we all need your ideas on how to manage it well in my books you are wrong you have minnimal support so until you do a real servey amongst the fishing public you should totally drop this rediculious idea of a fishing liscence after all it has been proved time and again that sunfish DO NOT represent the fishing public and only cowtow to the government of the time so they can recieve funding ,if you ask the average bloke they dont even know you exist you really it would be funny if it wasnt so serious a problem that you are going to cause ...matt

[Lovey80]

Scott you were down right deceitfull when you started pushing this crap Knowing full well you were going to be announced as head of the Sunfish branch. You made out you were floating the idea as just an average Joe bloe angler it wasn't until you were pushed that you made available that you were even member of sunfish let alone about to be anounced to a senior position.

But I guess political types like you wouldn't see that as deceit I suppose.

[Mrs Ronnie H]

Scott you were down right deceitfull when you started pushing this crap Knowing full well you were going to be announced as head of the Sunfish branch. You made out you were floating the idea as just an average Joe bloe angler it wasn't until you were pushed that you made available that you were even member of sunfish let alone about to be anounced to a senior position.

But I guess political types like you wouldn't see that as deceit I suppose.


Scott i think the above says it all. :-X

I can see that throughout this thread the majority of people would like to see some change and I think we are all in agreement that things are entirely mismanaged at present but there is no way you can say that we are in agreement of introducing a RFL as a way and means to fix the problems so many have highlighted here.

Sorry but I don't agree that we have to be continually penalised for what we enjoy doing. What happenned to peoples rights. Apparently we have none anymore unless we pay for it and I am sick to death of it.


Ronnie

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott you were down right deceitfull when you started pushing this crap Knowing full well you were going to be announced as head of the Sunfish branch. You made out you were floating the idea as just an average Joe bloe angler it wasn't until you were pushed that you made available that you were even member of sunfish let alone about to be anounced to a senior position.

But I guess political types like you wouldn't see that as deceit I suppose.

I object to your statement - And only took the job of chairperson for Sunfish Fraser Coast when asked about four weeks ago !

I believe a RFL is only a matter of time for Qld - And would prefer to be a part of the process & take control - rather than stick my head in the sand.

Regards Scotto

[Lovey80]

Object all you like Scott, you were shady when spruiking about transparent Trust accounts that actually waste millions. You were shady when starting this poll by stacking it in your favor. You just accepted the nomination of a senior post to an organisation that not only condoned one of the biggest injustices to Rec Anglers this state has ever seen but they ENDORSED IT.

Now you want us to believe that you started these polls in good faith and that the appointment after the fact is a coincidence???? Yeh right scott. And I suppose you would like us all to fill out the Recfish survey and tell them where all our favorite spots are so we can lock in now where the next greenzones are going???

Your actually getting laughable

Cheers

Chris

[Xahn1960]

I don't want a RFL and I don't think much of Sunfish either, but to attack someone because there a member of an organisation is getting silly. Just because Sunfish is on the nose dosn't mean that every member is. I've seen nothing here to suggest Scott has done any more than present options for discussion. With the way things are in Queensland right now, I for one would be seeking common ground and trying to put together a united front, this bickering is getting us nowhere.................

IMO

Bill.

[Scott Mitchell]

Has any one else notice the voting numbers - been pretty much the same difference for some time now ?

Must be all this talk of conspiracy - Scotto

[TheRealAndy]

Has any one else notice the voting numbers - been pretty much the same difference for some time now ?

Must be all this talk of conspiracy - Scotto

Scott, please answer the following questions.

1. How many of the votes are from Queesland members?
2. What percentage of votes are from the entire queensland rec fishing community
3. How many ausfish members are from queensland?
4. What is the percantage of ausfish members are from the entire australian rec fishing community.

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott, please answer the following questions.

1. How many of the votes are from Queesland members?
2. What percentage of votes are from the entire queensland rec fishing community
3. How many ausfish members are from queensland?
4. What is the percantage of ausfish members are from the entire australian rec fishing community.



Unfortunately Andy - I do not have the figures requested - that would be a job for the Moderators ?

In any case the poll is from Ausfish members - And the result are there for all to see ;)

Regards Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

Yes it is a poll for Ausfish members but not exactly comprehensive or properly condusive of the sentiment towards an RFL as there are many members from abroad as well as interstate and those members are free to vote in these polls.

[Lovey80]

I think the new poll started will be more conclusive of Ausfish members anyway.

Cheers

Chris

[Scott Mitchell]

Lets Revisit the the "real" pro's & cons of the "proposed" general rec license along the lines of :-

PRO's

* PPV levy would be removed
* The current SIP's program would be removed as it currently sits - taking an average of the last three years monies raised being transferred across to the freshwater trust account to kick off with.
* A number ( ? ) of Recreational angling only area's be identified - where ALL commercial effort could be brought out.No further commercial fishing can take place in these areas again.
* ALL the money raised will go into two TRUST ACCOUNTS - one for freshwater & one for saltwater
* TOTAL administration fee to run the program will be capped at 10% of total revenue raised & allocated to DPI&F
* ALL venue raised under via "the proposed" general rec fee/license would be managed by expenditure committee's consisting of key user groups with representatives from across the state.
* These trust expenditure committees WILL DECIDE where the money will be best spent & will direct DPI&F on how we would like to see our fisheries managed & will appoint research priorities to be conducted by "independent" biologists.
* Taking ownership of our recreational fisheries

Con's -

* Receiving "even- balanced" input on how the money will be best spent ?
* Selection & the process for selecting the recreational angling only area's
* Costing the real value of commercial effort to be brought out of teh rec fishing only areas.
* re-location of commercial effort from the rec fishing only areas
* Managing compliance


Regards Scotto

[Xahn1960]

Scott I really think your flogging a dead horse with this issue, perhaps given your links to Sunfish you might look at starting another thread giving the Sunfish attitude to some of the more pressing issues affecting recreational fishing in this state....

Bill.

[honda900]

Please be aware Scotto promotes himself as a freelance journalist.

Regards
Honda.

[Xahn1960]

Please be aware Scotto promotes himself as a freelance journalist.

Regards
Honda.

:D I don't mind if he's a freelance Astronaut;) ....... I'd just like to hear the Sunfish view on some of our more urgent issues........

Bill.

[Lovey80]

Please be aware Scotto promotes himself as a freelance journalist.

Regards
Honda.

ha ha ha that explains it all. Modern journalism is dead! Today trying to find a journo that reports an even balanced view and not a pre determined agenda is as rare as rocking horse sh!t.

[bluefin59]

More a freelance real estate agent than a jurno ..::) ::) ::) ::) matt

[Blusta]

I think the statements with the poll are poorly set up. Whether there is an agenda with the wording I don't know. It seems to me (it is my perception) if you disagree with a licence set up as in NSW then you vote No. So the assumption is then that you are not happy with the current fisheries management . So yes voters want a licence and no voters are unhappy with the current situation. Perhaps there are not enough choices and many people may not accept either and thus choose to abstain.
I have not voted because I find the wording restrictive which would force me to take a position I am not happy with.
I guess now we will have some respondents asking suggestions about what I think might have been included. This is not my issue. If a poll is set up to be responded to then it should be carefully worded to include all readers who take an interest. So many reads, not a high percentage of responders.

[TheGurn]

Ahh, I feel this thread has almost run it's course.
But before it's all over....
As mentioned by many, it is undeniable that the poll options excluded many members from participating.
The reasons are obvious, and don't need reiterating.
Unfortunately, it's quite conceivable that the excluded members could represent the vast majority.

As it can never be determined exactly how many members were excluded,
and how many eligible members chose to abstain, overall participation rates
can never be calculated, unless you utilise manipulative conjecture.
And no-one would do that, right ?

Does this necessarily render the poll useless and a waste of time ?

I read somewhere on this forum that Ausfish membership is around 20,000.
(If you feel the need, confirm the actual number)
It is indisputable that the option to vote "In Favour" was available to each and every member.
It is therefore also indisputable that, from a POSSIBLE audience of 20,000 -- only 83 members have voted "In Favour"

And that, in it's simplest form and by itself, is a pretty damn conclusive result.

Thanks for all the fish

Edit: Current membership is actually 43,079

[Scott Mitchell]

Ahh, I feel this thread has almost run it's course.
But before it's all over....
As mentioned by many, it is undeniable that the poll options excluded many members from participating.
The reasons are obvious, and don't need reiterating.
Unfortunately, it's quite conceivable that the excluded members could represent the vast majority.

As it can never be determined exactly how many members were excluded,
and how many eligible members chose to abstain, overall participation rates
can never be calculated, unless you utilise manipulative conjecture.
And no-one would do that, right ?

Does this necessarily render the poll useless and a waste of time ?

I read somewhere on this forum that Ausfish membership is around 20,000.
(If you feel the need, confirm the actual number)
It is indisputable that the option to vote "In Favour" was available to each and every member.
It is therefore also indisputable that, from a POSSIBLE audience of 20,000 -- only 83 members have voted "In Favour"

And that, in it's simplest form and by itself, is a pretty damn conclusive result.

Thanks for all the fish

Edit: Current membership is actually 43,079

You have quite a handle on things for a new member - great initial post ;)

Regards Scotto

[TheGurn]

Good God Scott, my first post, go easy on me.

You didn't really think I was being serious did you ?

Everyone knows that nothing useful can be derived from a poll that has a participation rate of 0.46%, no matter how you portray it.

Oh, and might I suggest you use a disclaimer to divorce your opinions from those of Sunfish, when required.

As you've pointed out, one voice is easily dismissed

Cheers

[Tangles]

Lets Revisit the the "real" pro's & cons of the "proposed" general rec license along the lines of :-

PRO's

* PPV levy would be removed
* The current SIP's program would be removed as it currently sits - taking an average of the last three years monies raised being transferred across to the freshwater trust account to kick off with.
* A number ( ? ) of Recreational angling only area's be identified - where ALL commercial effort could be brought out.No further commercial fishing can take place in these areas again.
* ALL the money raised will go into two TRUST ACCOUNTS - one for freshwater & one for saltwater
* TOTAL administration fee to run the program will be capped at 10% of total revenue raised & allocated to DPI&F
* ALL venue raised under via "the proposed" general rec fee/license would be managed by expenditure committee's consisting of key user groups with representatives from across the state.
* These trust expenditure committees WILL DECIDE where the money will be best spent & will direct DPI&F on how we would like to see our fisheries managed & will appoint research priorities to be conducted by "independent" biologists.
* Taking ownership of our recreational fisheries

Con's -

* Receiving "even- balanced" input on how the money will be best spent ?
* Selection & the process for selecting the recreational angling only area's
* Costing the real value of commercial effort to be brought out of teh rec fishing only areas.
* re-location of commercial effort from the rec fishing only areas
* Managing compliance

Regards Scotto

Scott im wondering if you have read the Governments discussion paper on establishing Recreational Fishing Trust in Queensland, (ie your beloved Fishing Levy)

If a levy or Trust comes in the Fishos arent going to control it, they will be on a committee yes.. but they wont control it and your notes above are IMO wishful thinking.

NO PPV? They will never throw out that. I quote (p5):

Since recreational fishers already contribute significant funds through GST, fuel taxes, PPV levies and a Freshwater stock impoundment fee to Government revenue, these are of course the first areas which should be examined as a source of funds.

However, given government’s likely continuing tight budgeting constraints it is clear that these funds may not be made available by Government.

Possible additional sources of funds would include:
- An increase in the PPV levy
- Additional taxes on (?imported) fishing tackle sales
- The creation of a recreational fishing licence
- Private bequests and corporate funding

Dont see the PPV levy going do you?

Who would run it, well of course the Minister (p6)

A trust fund would be established which would be overseen by the Minister for Fisheries but controlled by a Recreational Fishing Trust Expenditure Committee.

Capping fees to 10%? wishful thinking Scott, this is how they would propose to spend it

There would be paid out of the fund, only:
- Costs of taking measures to enhance recreational fishing
- Costs of carrying out research into recreational fishing
- Costs of management and administration of recreational fishing
- Costs of consultative and educative arrangements for recreational fishing

All a bit vague as they could make it. They do suggest admin fees of only 10% but well... start adding consultants etc, well im pretty sure the line items taken out would easily exceed 10%

And what they suggest as likely fees for a levy/trust? here you go (p6):

If a recreational fishing licence were established what funds could be generated?
As an Example if annual fees were to be set at $30 per year or $10 for a one month
short term licence, with a 25% discount for certain concession card holders, income
might be expected to be

Full price 200,000 @ $30
Concession 200,000 @ $22.50
Short term 300,000 @ $10
Total $13.5 million

Administration fees would be fixed to a maximum of 10% of monies received.

That 10% doesnt cover the consultants gravy train, to tell how we can enhance our fishing experience no doubt.

Now these guys already know that we pay through the nose, ie page 4:

Recreational fishers already pay significant amounts in order to enjoy their sport.
The most direct of these is through the personal pleasure vessel levy which currently
raises about $3 million per year via a levy on private boat registrations.

The second is the Fresh water stock impoundment permits (currently one year $35,
concession $31.50, or one week $7.00).

Direct GST revenues to Government on Recreational Fishing activities and equipment
such as tackle sales are estimated at $32 million per year without factoring in multiplier effects within the economy.

There are significant tax imposts on the purchase of new pleasure boats as well as taxes on fuel, oil and other consumables.

And of course I love how the Govt knows what fishing brings to the State:

Economic activity in Queensland related to recreational fishing has been estimated at around $1 Billion dollars per year when factors such as accommodation, food, fishing related tourism and charters are included.

A policy which results in Improvements in fishing experiences through encouraging more robust fish stocks is likely to lead to increases in fishing activity and participation rates with subsequent flow on effects to the economy and subsequent increases in
Government revenues. One only has to look to the success of the Northern Territories
policy with regard to Barramundi sports fishing and the resulting tourism and other
economic benefits that have flowed from that decision.


CAnt see how the fishos will be allowed to take control of such a resource like you suggest.. the Govt knows we already pay substantially , there is no reason for a levy.

[STUIE63]

Mike thank you for finding this government discussion paper and posting it here as it does back up what has been said by alot ahow come you haven't seen usfishers on this thread .
Scott how come you haven't seen this discussion paper in your position in sunfish or have you and decided to ignore it
Stuie

[Scott Mitchell]

Mike thank you for finding this government discussion paper and posting it here as it does back up what has been said by alot ahow come you haven't seen usfishers on this thread .
Scott how come you haven't seen this discussion paper in your position in sunfish or have you and decided to ignore it
Stuie

I have not seen this discussion paper - how do we get ahold of one ?

If it is for general discussion it must be on the DPI web site :P

*Disclaimer - ALL of "my" comments here are my own & not that of any group or organisation ;D

Regards Scotto

[Tangles]

Scott,

I have tried attaching it as a Pdf but it doesnt seem to want to play the game, i think its a doc people should see, i will try later tonight again when i get home, failing that i will happily send it to people via email

mike

[Scott Mitchell]

Mike - Is it this doc http://www.recfish.com.au/projects/p...ary%202009.pdf ?

Thanks Scotto

[Black_Rat]

It's a 12 page PDF file Mike, it won't upload but a very interesting read ;)

Damo

[Scott Mitchell]

It has been a long 3 months since I raised this topic & I appreciate the comment & time from all who responded.This is not a conclusive discussion by any means - rather a way of getting the angling community to discuss their options.

I believe the next 12 months will be an important period for the rec angling community in Qld & I hope to see as much participation when it counts.

Regards Scotto

[jason p]

this is a tough 1 but no for now

[Black_Rat]

The thing is the current government is broke !!

Yep, needing more money for this and that !

Whilst the concept is valid, too many $$$$ will be wasted.

Damo

[Scott Mitchell]

Some good reading on Alternative funding solutions can be found @ http://www.recfish.com.au/old%20site...Associates.pdf (http://www.recfish.com.au/old%20site/projects/pdf/Scoping%20Paper%20-%20by%20Marsden%20Jacob%20Associates.pdf)

Quote:

"Recommendation 1: Roll out of licences at State/Territory level subject to public benefit test findings.

State/Territory Governments should roll out recreational fishing licences (RFLs) where they are deemed to pass a public benefit test – potential benefits include: (i) enhanced ‘beneficiary pays’/equity; (ii) greater management control; and (iii) greater transparency in funding decisions. This will be offset by implementation and annual administration/compliance costs. A licence – quite apart from raising revenue – is considered an important first step in being able to understand the potential impact of these fishers.

As an example, there are up to 750,000 recreational fishers in Queensland, and establishing a firm database of all fishers greatly facilitates surveys which, in turn, support improved understanding of the social and economic value of the sector as well as impacts on fish resources."

It's all about "options" ;)

Regards Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

I'm sure I read this on another thread......

[Scott Mitchell]

I'm sure I read this on another thread......

Yep - I posted it in the "new" license Poll as well - so those interested in teh future of rec fishing in Qld can make an informed decision.

If you stick to the facts - you have less to remember - Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

Yep - I posted it in the "new" license Poll as well - so those interested in teh future of rec fishing in Qld can make an informed decision.

If you stick to the facts - you have less to remember - Scotto

What are you implying?

[Scott Mitchell]

What are you implying?

Just that Chris - I will "always" stick with the facts - as far as I can ascertain. How can any one make an informed decision with out having all the available facts presented for review ?

This has been the whole point of "this" poll - getting the wider rec angling community to review the way our fisheries are being managed & have a say in how "they" would like to see them improved in future ;)

Regards Scotto

[dayoo]

Scott,

Naturally most freshwater fishos will vote for a general recreational licence as most of them already pay the SIP fee. Fishntales is only a local website based on Hervey Bay. Even Ausfish with its many thousands of members only recorded 202 votes in total on this poll carefully worded by yourself.

The poll on the other thread kept it simple YES or No to a general recreational fishing licence yet you dismiss the outcome.:wut:

Fisheries own statistics state that there are approx 750,000 recreational anglers living in Queensland. The total that voted in the four polls is less than one tenth of one percent (0.01%) hardly a representative sample of the angling community in this State.

The only poll that would have any relevance would be a Yes or No tick box on the boat registration renewal notice. Even this would only pick up those anglers who fish from a boat (about 35%).

Queensland has the highest boat and car registration fees in Australia by far and a percentage of the fees collected is SUPPOSED to be spent on upgrading infrastructure like roads and boating facilities (boat ramps, landing pontoons, toilets, lighting etc) in addition to the boating PPV levy which is collected and forwarded to Fisheries.

The State Labour Government announced prior to the last election that $35,000,000 would be spent on upgrading boating facilities commencing with the upgrading of the Bundaberg boat ramp. Boat ramps are located on Crown land or Reserves under the trusteeship of the Local Authority. Money is usually paid direct to a contractor by the State Government or to the Local Authority to carry out the work.

Rather than having meetings to decide when the next meeting will be SUNFISH should be proactive in making sure the State Government allocates and spends the funds already budgeted for.

The question of whether a general fishing licence is supported by the angling community is just a useless distraction. Sunfish should be concentrating on more important issues which could have an enormous impact on recreational fishing in the next 12 months (e.g. Coral Sea Legislation, Rocky Reef fishing restrictions {snapper}).

These possible restrictions will diminish offshore fishing along the entire Queensland coastline and place further pressure on inshore fishing areas like Hervey Bay, Moreton Bay and Great Sandy Straits.

Bill Corten and I have had a battle on our hands with Fisheries over the past 18 months on the RRFF working group. We need the support of the recognised fishing associations and groups at the Port meetings in early 2010 or we will end up with regulations like WA's with area closures, no fishing months and greatly reduced bag limits.

Not having a go at you personally Scott but someone needs to rattle a few windows at Sunfish.

Cheers
Barry

[Scott Mitchell]

Barry - A simple Yes/No poll on a rec license WITH OUT EXPLAINING HOW THE "PROPOSED" LICENSE COULD BE STRUCTURED & WHAT IT COULD ACHIEVE - Is a waste of time.

I also suggest that if the rec angling community where going to be pro-active in lobbying for a better revenue system - I would be asking for the PPV levy to be dropped along with the current SIP's program & replace BOTH with ONE general rec license as has been "discussed" in detail here.

Every one is entitled to "their" opinion & mine is the current revenue system is flawed on so many levels & the government is struggling with financing the state generally - So I will push for a general rec license that the wider angling community CAN have control over.

Just my opinion - Scotto

[TheRealAndy]

Barry - A simple Yes/No poll on a rec license WITH OUT EXPLAINING HOW THE "PROPOSED" LICENSE COULD BE STRUCTURED & WHAT IT COULD ACHIEVE - Is a waste of time.

I also suggest that if the rec angling community where going to be pro-active in lobbying for a better revenue system - I would be asking for the PPV levy to be dropped along with the current SIP's program & replace BOTH with ONE general rec license as has been "discussed" in detail here.

Every one is entitled to "their" opinion & mine is the current revenue system is flawed on so many levels & the government is struggling with financing the state generally - So I will push for a general rec license that the wider angling community CAN have control over.

Just my opinion - Scotto

You just dont get it do you? Did you actually read Barry's post?

[Scott Mitchell]

You just don't get it do you? Did you actually read Barry's post?

What part of "They have no money" don't you understand Andy - It is no good pushing for the work that we know/want to be done - when the department HAS NOT GOT ENOUGH FUNDING.

Yes we can push for better management of the current revenue sources - OR we can push for a better system that would allow the rec community more control over our future ::)

Based on the history to date - I'll review fisheries position in 12 months :P

Going out to spend our SIP's money this morning & put 15000 barra in Lenthals - Scotto

[TheRealAndy]

Scott what has become clear here is that you are only interested in pushing your own agenda, and you have no interest at all in listenining to what other people have to say.

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott what has become clear here is that you are only interested in pushing your own agenda, and you have no interest at all in listenining to what other people have to say.

Andy - If you actually took a collective view of the 3 Qld polls that have been run - there is significant support for a general rec license based on a "similar" model to that discussed here ;)

We're not just canvasing the members of Asufish in this debate - this is a state issue & I believe you'll be hearing it come up more often over the next 12-24 months.

Regards Scotto

[bluefin59]

You scott have done a great job of pushing YOUR agender on the wider fishing community without consulting the majority of fisher people ,its a shame you havent gone out of your way to find out what the real consensus of the fishing public is on this issue . A true poll would include some sort of poll in one of the larger fishing publications ,at least you would have got a true indication as to what people want instead of foistering your ideas on us with your sudo poll that is misconstrude with people of other web sites that you have secondered to vote in other polls { refer fishntales wheelhouse} ,at the end of the day you will be seen for what you are by people here and the wider fishing community and you will be seen as the reason why a person who wants to take their child or grand children have to also fork out more money just to indulge in one of lifes simple pleasures . THANKS for that scotty you are going to leave a community of people poorer to satisfy YOUR aspirations whether they be political or not ....Matt

[FNQCairns]

Funding is not the problem and never was it's the political will ..always has been.

If/when a licence comes along this will not change, the licence will be forced upon the generally uneducated ANGLING public because of this lack of political will, not because of any fair minded approach...then we will be forever stuffed....the fishing elite will hold all of the card all of the time not just most of the time like it is now....but changing.

Effectively the licence is now a sprinters attempt to keep unjust and unrepresented control of the Angling fishery because the 'politics' are already just starting a change for the better for MAJORITY of Anglers...it's important to recognise what these underminers (actively pro licence) are actually all about and why.

cheers fnq

[Scott Mitchell]

THANKS for that scotty you are going to leave a community of people poorer to satisfy YOUR aspirations whether they be political or not ....Matt

Matt - I am not sure where you heard "I" have complete control over how fisheries are to be managed in the future OR how this poll has changed fisheries infrastructure ?

I any case we're currently being charged $16.65 for our PPV levy - apparanetly , plus "I" pay $30- PA for my SIP's license - of which fisheries filter off 25% for admin - AND NOW fisheries are "proposing" species specific "permits" at a "proposed" cost of $30- $60 starting with snapper - so if you partake in these fisheries you'll be paying approx $76.65 PLUS "potentially" in future ::)

I "personally" would rather be paying $30- PA for a general rec license that covers the lot AND gave me better ownership & control over the expenditure - But Hey - It's just my opinion :P

We're all entitled to an opinion - Scotto

[bluefin59]

Thats very good scott but again you just dont get it i pay into the ppv ,fine $16.65 but my children and grand kids dont but under YOUR proposed idea i will have to pay multiple times . GReat idea mate thanks for that anyway ..matt

[Scott Mitchell]

Matt - I would "propose" a general rec license would have the following
consesions as they do in other states ;)

You are required to pay the recreational fishing fee to fish in fresh and salt water - unless you are:

Under the age of 18.
An adult assisting a person under the age of 18 to take a fish using a single rod or to take prawns using a single dip or scoop net.
A person fishing in a private dam with a surface area of two hectares or less.
An Aboriginal person fishing in freshwater; or, when fishing in saltwater, an Aboriginal person that is a party to a registered native title claim, or is taking part in a traditional cultural activity as a member of their local land council, or in the company of a member of the local land council.
The holder of:
current Commonwealth Pensioner Concession Card issued by Centrelink
current Commonwealth Pensioner Concession Card issued by the Department of Veteran's Affairs.
Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs Gold Treatment Card endorsed "Totally and Permanently Incapacitated";
Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs Gold Treatment Card endorsed "Extreme Disablement Adjustment";
letter from the Commonwealth Department of Veterans Affairs stating that the person receive a disability pension of 70 per cent or higher, or an intermediate pension. Please note that Senior's Cards, Health Care Cards and Repatriation Health Cards will not exempt you from paying the fishing fee.


Centrelink advises that only the person who signs the card where it reads "Signature of cardholder" is the holder of that card. If an additional person is listed on the card (usually a spouse), this relates to health care benefits and not to other exemptions/concessions available to the pensioner concession card-holder.


This is not a new idea - Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

You keep mentioning other states yet only ever refer to Nsw as the model. WA is being looked at seriously as the model, but because it doesn't match the NSW one you have written it off. It still seems like the only model acceptable to you, and thus the sunfish Fraser coast branch will be that one. Is that a fair summation?

[Scott Mitchell]

You keep mentioning other states yet only ever refer to Nsw as the model. WA is being looked at seriously as the model, but because it doesn't match the NSW one you have written it off. It still seems like the only model acceptable to you, and thus the sunfish Fraser coast branch will be that one. Is that a fair summation?

Chris - Have you looked at the WA model ? I personally would NOT support anything alomg the lines of what they have just served up :o

"I" believe the NSW model is a pretty good example of what can be done - I know if has it's flaws , but we could work towards tweeking those if / when needed.

If given a choice from the current systems in place in NSW, VIC & WA - I am in favour of the NSW model with some revision.

"I" speak for myself only in this context - but will happily discuss the options with any one who wishes to go into detail.

Regards Scott

[FNQCairns]

Chris - Have you looked at the WA model ? I personally would NOT support anything alomg the lines of what they have just served up :o

"I" believe the NSW model is a pretty good example of what can be done - I know if has it's flaws , but we could work towards tweeking those if / when needed.

If given a choice from the current systems in place in NSW, VIC & WA - I am in favour of the NSW model with some revision.

"I" speak for myself only in this context - but will happily discuss the options with any one who wishes to go into detail.

Regards Scott

Yeah serious revision!!!!!, just imagine a grass root angler with something to say getting an open ear from any representative on that group, pretty much unless there is some elitist or fractional component within their voice they will be completely ignored.

There is not a single mechanism to represent the majority of anglers and the argument so far, is that it's the majorities fault due to their inflexibility or resistance in being forced to indenture support to one of the practising elite 'in' groups of which they cannot personally stomach.

Seriously I simply cannot see why anyone would be bothered to push a QLD licence onto the gagged majority unless as in the NSW model the elite will retain all power and speak for only themselves.

Sunfish has been bad enough over the years, without some form of personal payback I struggle to see why those who consider themselves elite and a cut above the ordinary angler would even be interested in a QLD licence??

It's not about the fish that has been proven...what is it really? and more to the point the personal political gain....... really all about.

cheers fnq

[PinHead]

Matt - I am not sure where you heard "I" have complete control over how fisheries are to be managed in the future OR how this poll has changed fisheries infrastructure ?

I any case we're currently being charged $16.65 for our PPV levy - apparanetly , plus "I" pay $30- PA for my SIP's license - of which fisheries filter off 25% for admin - AND NOW fisheries are "proposing" species specific "permits" at a "proposed" cost of $30- $60 starting with snapper - so if you partake in these fisheries you'll be paying approx $76.65 PLUS "potentially" in future ::)

I "personally" would rather be paying $30- PA for a general rec license that covers the lot AND gave me better ownership & control over the expenditure - But Hey - It's just my opinion :P

We're all entitled to an opinion - Scotto

some flawed maths there...currently pay $16.65 PPV..now that is on the boat..if i take 4 people out then the cost is $16.65 for 4 people not $120 for 4 people.
I pay $35 for an annual SIPS..as my wife is always with me in the yak then the individual cost is $17.50.
Therefore: total cost- $51.65...as 2 people always fishing $25.83 each..not the $30 you propose...so it is cheaper in Qld.

a few bucks is neither here not there.
what about the new rules relating to yellow zones that are in the wind???

[Chris Ryan]

Chris - Have you looked at the WA model ? I personally would NOT support anything alomg the lines of what they have just served up :o

"I" believe the NSW model is a pretty good example of what can be done - I know if has it's flaws , but we could work towards tweeking those if / when needed.

If given a choice from the current systems in place in NSW, VIC & WA - I am in favour of the NSW model with some revision.

"I" speak for myself only in this context - but will happily discuss the options with any one who wishes to go into detail.

Regards Scott

Yes I have seen it. Yes I agree it is not a great example of an RFL at all but IT IS THE ONE Fisheries Qld are watching......not NSW.

[Scott Mitchell]

Yes I have seen it. Yes I agree it is not a great example of an RFL at all but IT IS THE ONE Fisheries Qld are watching......not NSW.

Where have you heard that ?

Regards Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

I'm not going to divulge that information to you Scott but I am not the only one that has stated that information here on Ausfish.

It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to work it out either. Their reef fisheries and a species called the Dhufish is one under lots of pressure from various sectors (mainly rec according to their Fisheries Department) and thus have introduced the species specific permits and closures to try and resurrect that biomass. Does that sound familiar to anyone???

[Scott Mitchell]

I'm not going to divulge that information to you Scott but I am not the only one that has stated that information here on Ausfish.

It doesn't take a Rhodes Scholar to work it out either. Their reef fisheries and a species called the Dhufish is one under lots of pressure from various sectors (mainly rec according to their Fisheries Department) and thus have introduced the species specific permits and closures to try and resurrect that biomass. Does that sound familiar to anyone???

Yes - The snapper "proposal" - So what is Eco's position on a "species Specific" permit ?

Regards Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

We don't like it at all. We don't want a rule for some fisherman (snapper/rocky reef) and another for everyone else. It will drive offshore fishing business down, it will affect charter operators, it will affect local businesses focused on deep sea fishing products and in some areas impact the townships significantly. We prefer to get the use of PPV sorted out and used for what it was intended to, not pay for administration or other purposes as outlined by the late Tom Burns who created the model.

[insideout]

like it or not, until you get a LAW , stating that no politician be it from the lower or upper house, premier or prime-minister, or anybody from any political party can get there hands on the money, you will probably get not much backing for the fee.

People are tired of getting screwed over, i know i am , and im getting used to seeing my good money getting wasted on things that i have no control over, ie traverston dam ect ( but thats another debate)

650 million dollars of our money went into that white elephant before the soil was even disturbed.... what a waste.

What plans do you have in place to stop the powers that be ( that be the ones that we have no power over) from trying to use these monies for there own use???

That be the same powers that be that would try to recoupe as much of that 650 million dollar mistake by tapping every resource they had to fill that void.

Im not going to watch more of my money get wasted , either way you go, i would rather take the pineapple once by not paying the levie, and watch our money get used in a stupid way,.... rather than take it twice, by paying the levie, and watch twice the amount of our monies being used in a stupid way...

and no amount of eyebrow beating by people with an agenda will change my view about that :wink:

[sleepygreg]

Heard on the grapevine that we are going to be copping the WA version.....and its a reliable grapevine source...confidential of course...looks like we are going to be screwed regardless of anything ANY rec or psuedo rec group comes up with. Guess its time to bend over and open the Vas jar.

Greg

[deepfried]

some flawed maths there...currently pay $16.65 PPV..now that is on the boat..if i take 4 people out then the cost is $16.65 for 4 people not $120 for 4 people.
I pay $35 for an annual SIPS..as my wife is always with me in the yak then the individual cost is $17.50.
Therefore: total cost- $51.65...as 2 people always fishing $25.83 each..not the $30 you propose...so it is cheaper in Qld.

a few bucks is neither here not there.
what about the new rules relating to yellow zones that are in the wind???

Yes me again. You and math again hey greg. I really hope your wife isnt fishing with you as from what i can see anyone fishing an impoundment where they are required needs to pay for a SIP. Are you sharing a licence ? not really good math again from you but i guess it is how you try to bend things your way. The cost of an anual SIP is more than the cost of the NSW RL and the NSW RL allows us to fish anywhere in the fresh or salt ( besides green zones of course ) and it also covers stocking of waterways both fresh and salt. If you can share a SIP or if its a fee per boat or yak please show me the link. If you can show me that link i will apologize for this post but if you cant it would be nice to see you redo your math once again.

[Scott Mitchell]

some flawed maths there...currently pay $16.65 PPV..now that is on the boat..if i take 4 people out then the cost is $16.65 for 4 people not $120 for 4 people.
I pay $35 for an annual SIPS..as my wife is always with me in the yak then the individual cost is $17.50.
Therefore: total cost- $51.65...as 2 people always fishing $25.83 each..not the $30 you propose...so it is cheaper in Qld.

a few bucks is neither here not there.
what about the new rules relating to yellow zones that are in the wind???



Yep - And you have no way of accounting where that money goes or how it will best be spent & 10-25% vanishes in admin ;)

Heaps better system - Scotto

[FNQCairns]

Heard on the grapevine that we are going to be copping the WA version.....and its a reliable grapevine source...confidential of course...looks like we are going to be screwed regardless of anything ANY rec or psuedo rec group comes up with. Guess its time to bend over and open the Vas jar.

Greg

well if that's the truth it's expected, where there's smoke there's fire and with government 99.9% of the time it's pretty easy to see through their haze.

It's the right timing and expedient for government now to look to shore up it's controlling power base as good things are just starting to happen for Anglers, good things that will force a say in directions that actually matter and will impact against the now common zealot like Angler management.
So great:'( another irrelevant, unfeeling, fire walled, inward looking and elitist level of government for the little bloke to deal with.

Our enemies will continue to remain within more so than without! we where just starting to gain the front foot after so long on the back, this new political alliance is politicly designed to make it harder to right the gross past wrongs but with luck as in every other state it will rally a few extra troops against this new level of systemic oppression.

Time always tells all.

cheers fnq

[Chris Ryan]

Heard on the grapevine that we are going to be copping the WA version.....and its a reliable grapevine source...confidential of course...



Good to see that I'm not the only one hearing this.

[Scott Mitchell]

Good to see that I'm not the only one hearing this.

You should share this information with your members Chris ( RealAndy ;) ).

Regards Scotto

[PinHead]

Yes me again. You and math again hey greg. I really hope your wife isnt fishing with you as from what i can see anyone fishing an impoundment where they are required needs to pay for a SIP. Are you sharing a licence ? not really good math again from you but i guess it is how you try to bend things your way. The cost of an anual SIP is more than the cost of the NSW RL and the NSW RL allows us to fish anywhere in the fresh or salt ( besides green zones of course ) and it also covers stocking of waterways both fresh and salt. If you can share a SIP or if its a fee per boat or yak please show me the link. If you can show me that link i will apologize for this post but if you cant it would be nice to see you redo your math once again.

big sigh..really should get ya facts before trying to shoot others down:

On SIPS: "You only need one permit per couple (married or de facto)"

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_13268.htm

Are you convinced yet that the NSW system is a rip off and you should be pushing the Govt there to get rid of the thing.

and that is only for stocked impoundments..any others or other streams it is free to fish there..free to fish from shoreline.

I don't know where Scott intends going with this...Sunfish is not interested in pushing the rfl barrow at all.

[Chris Ryan]

You should share this information with your members Chris ( RealAndy ;) ).

Regards Scotto

Maybe you should listen to your organisation too - "Sunfish Qld is definitely not pushing for licenses and won't be doing so anytime in the foreseeable future"...

;)

[deepfried]

big sigh..really should get ya facts before trying to shoot others down:

On SIPS: "You only need one permit per couple (married or de facto)"

http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_13268.htm

Are you convinced yet that the NSW system is a rip off and you should be pushing the Govt there to get rid of the thing.

and that is only for stocked impoundments..any others or other streams it is free to fish there..free to fish from shoreline.

I don't know where Scott intends going with this...Sunfish is not interested in pushing the rfl barrow at all.

Like i said if you can shown me a link i would be happy to apologize.

I apologize pinhead. There we go. You had to get your math right sooner or later.

Am i convinced the NSW system is a rip off. Hey !! why because you keep going on and on and on etc. NO. Happy to keep it. Happier than you guys will be when your system is based on the WA system like i said it looked like it was way back in this thread.

[Scott Mitchell]

Maybe you should listen to your organisation too - "Sunfish Qld is definitely not pushing for licenses and won't be doing so anytime in the foreseeable future"...

;)

It's NOT up to Sunfish to decide whether the "state" wants a general rec license or not - from what I have seen here - who listens to them anyway ?????

And if there is nothing wrong with the current system & the majority recon it's all good - I rest my case & will just go fishing - while it lasts ::)

Regards Scotto

[PinHead]

Like i said if you can shown me a link i would be happy to apologize.

I apologize pinhead. There we go. You had to get your math right sooner or later.

Am i convinced the NSW system is a rip off. Hey !! why because you keep going on and on and on etc. NO. Happy to keep it. Happier than you guys will be when your system is based on the WA system like i said it looked like it was way back in this thread.

never anything wrong with my maths...how about you just worry about life in Cockie land and leave us to worry about paradise..we really don't need southerners trying to dictate on every little whim..look out..your new premier might just snaffle your rfl money and then wherewill you be..all speculalion just as everyone is specualting about what may or may not happen here..how about sticking to what is actual now.

We may even have rec fishing only areas quite soon which is something that Scott has been harping on about..and without an rfl..amazing huh ???

[FNQCairns]

It's NOT up to Sunfish to decide whether the "state" wants a general rec license or not - from what I have seen here - who listens to them anyway ?????

And if there is nothing wrong with the current system & the majority recon it's all good - I rest my case & will just go fishing - while it lasts ::)

Regards Scotto

Here we go this getting closer to the mark, what is not to last I do ask? is all this about some sky is falling scenario you personally believe is true.

We (Anglers) have been and still are under attack form radical decision makers although everywhere else, natural sustainability, available money, whatever is pretty much dandy, of coarse the political will to loosen money our direction is lacking but the licence cannot fix that, neither can it make the sustainability more sustainable::) because the Angling industry has been managed with a fervour closer to preservation than sustainability and still is.

A few in the past have tried the spin on ausfish but they have always got called out for it or relegated if they kept it up, you have already been relegated even weeks ago but you can change that.

What really is your agenda? i mentioned way way back that it must be akin to the acclimatisation committees of days past, without the spin what is it really??

cheers fnq

[deepfried]

never anything wrong with my maths...how about you just worry about life in Cockie land and leave us to worry about paradise..we really don't need southerners trying to dictate on every little whim..look out..your new premier might just snaffle your rfl money and then wherewill you be..all speculalion just as everyone is specualting about what may or may not happen here..how about sticking to what is actual now.

We may even have rec fishing only areas quite soon which is something that Scott has been harping on about..and without an rfl..amazing huh ???

Run out of things to say so you bring in the old NSW v Qld crap. Fair enough but i wont be taking that track, all yours mate so go for it. Cockie land ???? Never heard that one before ::)

Why do i deserve a say anyway ? because any fee payable in any state is payed for by those that fish there no matter which state you come from. So with that in mind i will keep posting if it concerns a state i fish in. Qld is one of those and i just returned from Cairns, Port Douglas and the Daintree on monday and plan to get up there again in may. Did get a shock to see that charter prices include a fee to go to the GBRMP.

So you know a little about NSW pollitics. Well as you can see and as has been stated in this thread our Gov is way worse than yours and yes the RFL money hasnt been diverted to cons revenue in the years so far. As you are a person that has payed our fee i do like your interest in the matter.

Speculation. Yes. It is what the entire thread was based on. If you want to talk about the actual here and now how about you start a new thread. A very good one may be what all the Rec fishing orgs be it sunfish or ecofishers etc are doing about PEW.

Good luck with the yellow zones and i mean that as i may one day fish in them. As we already have them i know they work. No RL needed as well but you still pay for a few other things dont you so dont get too emotional about it.

I did apologize for my previous post and i hope you saw that. Math was still wrong for me though as my wife never fishes and i wonder what percentage of wifes do fish with there husbands, some for sure no doubt but not the majority. Cost in Qld for me is still higher.

See yah

[Scott Mitchell]

What really is your agenda? i mentioned way way back that it must be akin to the acclimatisation committees of days past, without the spin what is it really??

cheers fnq

Agenda ? Give it a break ::)

If you can't see the government is broke - commercial fishing is fairly much open slather & Qld has one of the highest migration levels in the country !

The current funding system via the PPv levy is flawed & I don't believe the government is capable of re-modeling it to make if fairer. This is "my" view - NOT agenda.

I'll leave it at that - Scotto

[Scott Mitchell]

Maybe you should listen to your organisation too - "Sunfish Qld is definitely not pushing for licenses and won't be doing so anytime in the foreseeable future"...

;)

I didn't join Sunfish to be build numbers - I joined a "local branch" & intend to provide feedback from "our" area - although based on the feedback & sentiment here it may just be a waste of time in any case ?

Regards Scotto

[FNQCairns]

Agenda ? Give it a break ::)

If you can't see the government is broke -

No it's not, the political will is all that's missing, they always have the money to prop up or spend trying in vain to justify past regulation and ideologys eg the millions just granted to a UNI for monitoring...again it's the political will that is missing, nothing else.

commercial fishing is fairly much open slather

No it's not, it's not ideal and can never be but it is not open slather,the fishery has remained easily sustainable and better ...but again not ideal from an ideological viewpoint.

& Qld has one of the highest migration levels in the country !

True but with the great zealot based job fishery's management and other departments have done to decrease amenity, pressure will remain artificially low well into the future, assumed objectively and when related to the pacific reef fish take we recreational fishers are conservatively (grossly conservative) at around 1/200 (actually 0.077% I think) of bordering any unsustainable position..can you envisage a 200++++X increase in recreational fishing pressure any time soon......seriously!??? we have around 4 - 4.5mil people ATM....do those sums for perspective.

The current funding system via the PPv levy is flawed & I don't believe the government is capable of re-modeling it to make if fairer. This is "my" view - NOT agenda.

Possibly flawed but so is 70% of all government regulation when viewed objectively....the PPv levy alone is not a credible trigger for the forced introduction of this huge disenfranchising white elephant.

I'll leave it at that - Scotto

No dont, it seems you have a lot of energy and dare I say it aspiration, funnel this into less extremist directions, directions that will solidly benefit upcoming genrations of anglers, all of the very good work being quietly done ATM for all Anglers and these organisations DO NOT have the resources to fight new extremist attacks from the inside at the same time.

IMHO this is bigger than you or me, join ECO and tow thier party line or join the AFLP and tow theirs, the AFLP will have the corporate and political muscle to achieve results even more so into the future and ECO will have the duty of care to ensure the little angler bloke doesn't get forgotten within it all.

We have literally blanket upon blanket of upcoming zealot based legislation that will cover in multiple every single bit of marine fishable/campable/visitable water in QLD and without real political change these regulations will all be treated identical throughout as in the GSS, GBR, MB. wild rivers, coral sea and all the other debacles from the very political top (federal) to the political bottom (council).





Seriously anglers are just now starting to get powerfully ORGANISED there will be a time into the future to go feral on personally important ideology (we all have them) it's just not now and 'not now' like never before.

cheers fnq

[Scott Mitchell]

*commercial fishing is fairly much open slather

No it's not, it's not ideal and can never be but it is not open slather,the fishery has remained easily sustainable and better ...but again not ideal from an ideological viewpoint.

http://www.fishntales.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7881.0;attach=1027 7;image
http://www.fishntales.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7881.0;attach=1027 8;image


No zoning & questionable monitoring - not to mention the harvesting of premier sports fish for the sake of it ie:Golden trevally & snub nosed dart. I have witnessed this locally & question the value of these species as a commercial product as opposed to sport fishing species ?


I recon there's plenty of room for improvement - Scotto

[mowerman]

Scott.

I have seen those photos.

Have you asked these pro netters why they are doing this?
Without the attitude?
Probably not.

Maybe you should try to find out how hard it is to make a buck in their industry.
How many controls and regulations are placed upon them.
After all, its not real estate.

I recognize the nets. I have known these blokes for over 30 years. Maybe you should go and see them in their million dollar houses. Not.

Mate, I have a lot of friends and some rellies from Tin Can to Toogoom and YOU need to do more research.
Without the attitude.


Rod

.

[FNQCairns]

*commercial fishing is fairly much open slather

No it's not, it's not ideal and can never be but it is not open slather,the fishery has remained easily sustainable and better ...but again not ideal from an ideological viewpoint.

http://www.fishntales.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7881.0;attach=1027 7;image
http://www.fishntales.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7881.0;attach=1027 8;image


No zoning & questionable monitoring - not to mention the harvesting of premier sports fish for the sake of it ie:Golden trevally & snub nosed dart. I have witnessed this locally & question the value of these species as a commercial product as opposed to sport fishing species ?






I recon there's plenty of room for improvement - Scotto





I agree, the value of those fish as a meat product is lacking compared to what could be achieved otherwise weight for weight in this day and age. Although I guess zoned green they would both obtain a value of nil.

I don't really know what to say, the harvest is probably LOCALLY sustainable as it is not a new venture in the region nor would the method have changed much over time I suspect, cannot speak of the effort involved past and present. I know the Trevors will range widely but the dart?

Is there not a simple sport fishing charters available already that offer the option to target these species recreationally as in other regions?

Anyway is it the crook way they designed the zones down that way that is the problem. I seem to remember something strange along the lines of locking Anglers out but allowing commercial fishing in certain areas??.

i dunno what to say.....

What do you think would be a fair solution to the problem as you see it ATM??

cheers fnq

[Scott Mitchell]

Scott.

I have seen those photos.

Have you asked these pro netters why they are doing this?
Without the attitude?
Probably not.

Maybe you should try to find out how hard it is to make a buck in their industry.
How many controls and regulations are placed upon them.
After all, its not real estate.

I recognize the nets. I have known these blokes for over 30 years. Maybe you should go and see them in their million dollar houses. Not.

Mate, I have a lot of friends and some rellies from Tin Can to Toogoom and YOU need to do more research.
Without the attitude.


Rod

.

Rob - Just because it's been "done" for a long time - does not make it right.If the industry is not coping or is not sustainable - why continue in it ? I am also told that this type of netting is actually illegal & these details where given to DPI&F.

I have nothing against sustainable commercial fishing - BUT believe this is NOT the case in a lot of estuary environments. Ask your mates what they think about the other commercial operators who have arrived in the straights over the last couple of years - 50+ netters operating in this area at present I'm told ?

I believe the government really need to look at zoning commercial activity & buy out ALL commercial effort from key recreational angling area's like Hervey Bay / Great sandy Straights.

FNQ - Yes we still have zoning discrepancies like any marine park - hopefully we'll address these with the next review.

Regards Scotto

[Chris Ryan]

There is another first step BEFORE zoning or RFL's to fund buy-outs.......maybe if the DPI&F stopped releasing permits (or even reduced permit numbers) for these areas to allow the growth it may help not only the fishery be more sustainable but also the industry.

On the zoning in the Great Sandy Straights.....it is coming and be very very careful what you wish for because there will probably be a fair increase in no-take green zones in that area without a doubt.

[Scott Mitchell]

.......maybe if the DPI&F stopped releasing permits (or even reduced permit numbers) for these areas to allow the growth it may help not only the fishery be more sustainable but also the industry.



Chris - I believe the industry has been caped - no more permits/licenses ? The BIG problem is they are NOT ZONED - so they can be used with-in their regulations any where they are allowed in the stage !

To reduce permits/license - you have to "buy" them out - as they are businesses & should be sold as such. This requires money - so how do you raise it ?

Regards Scotto

[finga]

Oh come on guys.
I have just spent the last 3 hours reading the pages that appeared since I had a little departure from the net and it can't just end like that.
I feel let down, disappointed and plainly peeved that I have wasted those 3 hours.

Hey Scotto....a simple question if I may?
What position do you hold with Sunfish??
How many people nominated for that position?

Fact...more people do not want a license. That should be end of story.

Poor Scotto is starting to sound like the real estate agent I spoke to a couple of weeks ago about buying another farm. Just would not take no for an answer.
I did not matter that I thought the farm was crap and too expensive. I was from Brisbane and should not have known any different.

[Scott Mitchell]

Hey Scotto....a simple question if I may?

What position do you hold with Sunfish??
* Chairperson for Sunfish Fraser Coast - as declared previously
How many people nominated for that position?
* I was asked to join the local sunfish branch over 12 months ago - just as I was asked to join Eco at the start of this thread. I was nominated by 5 existing members & voted in unanimously

Fact...more people do not want a license. That should be end of story.

*Fact - If you take the total of all three polls I ran - the majority are in favor ;)

This will be my last reply on this poll/topic - Thanks Scotto

[finga]

How many people nominated for that position?
* I was asked to join the local sunfish branch over 12 months ago - just as I was asked to join Eco at the start of this thread. I was nominated by 5 existing members & voted in unanimously


No, no, no, no....I'll rephrase that. How many people ran for that position?
Do Sunfish have the minutes of their meetings available on the net??

[PinHead]

fact..Sunfish are NOT in favour of an rfl.