Are we with or against

[Searaider 2]

Horse ,
Although I dont always agree with the Pro's , I do at times & think the Rec Fishermans best option is to join in with all parties that would be effected by closures .

Is the Moreton Bay Alliance group still up & running ?

They are the ones who organized the previous ( Road ) boat rally from both the North & Southside .

* I believe that the Alliance has a committee with representatives from :-
* Rec Fisherman
* Pro Fisherman
*The Seafood Industry
* & a number of other area's that I cant think of at the moment .
( Sorry if I have forgotten you )

As others have stated :-
Quote:
United we stand: Divided we fall

[BAT]

,,,,,,mmmmmmm wheres kingtin,,,, i'm sure he had some figures here on an old thread he held,,,,,,

choppa[/quote]

Relying on this guy is like relying on a rotton stick!.

Cheers BAT

[choppa]

,,,,,,mmmmmmm wheres kingtin,,,, i'm sure he had some figures here on an old thread he held,,,,,,

choppa

Relying on this guy is like relying on a rotton stick!.

Cheers BAT[/quote]

depends BAT,,,,

on whether the stick is shaped as a support so it holds ya,,,, or whether its shaped with a point and stabs ya in the back,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[4x4frog]

United we stand: Divided we fall.

This analagy has got me worried though...all anything 'union' does is line the pockets of the organisers and forgets about the little bloke.


We do need a concise organised voice that hopefully speaks for all of us not just the majority or the noisy minority.
There would appear to be division or confusion even here at ausfish about which group to back...(my 2c worth)

[DR]

This analagy has got me worried though...all anything 'union' does is line the pockets of the organisers and forgets about the little bloke.


We do need a concise organised voice that hopefully speaks for all of us not just the majority or the noisy minority.
There would appear to be division or confusion even here at ausfish about which group to back...(my 2c worth)

4x4, the saying has nothing to do with unions, they just use it..

Aesops fable

'Four Oxen & a Lion'
A Lion used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them. At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.
“UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.”

pretty well fits what goes on with some discussions on here

[BigE]

you can aline yourself with atilia the hun if you want , but if you can not deliver a solid block of votes like the greens ..... your history. pure & simple

BigE

[craftycarp]

This is very true and we fishermen a very rarely united on anything.

[4x4frog]

It's all good guys, we do need a united voice that's for sure.
I for one hope when the time comes for this to be nutted out that it's done in an open and honest way. (hope I am not kidding myself asking for that)











I am glad that the 'union' line has been defined as I wouldn't want anything to do with anything union at all. This is not a political statement by any means just that over the years any dealings I have had with unions or their lackies has been negative 100% of the time, and I am only a working class bum too

[minno]

Fishing bank! Money means power!

OH! By the way! PRO,S DONT LIKE REC FISHO,S.

Minno

[Scott nthQld]

Fishing bank! Money means power!

OH! By the way! PRO,S DONT LIKE REC FISHO,S.

Minno

Hit it in one minno. That waas the main trouble up here the pro's were blaming rec fisho for the so called "decline" in habitat and numbers and vice versa. That why the north got screwed over, the main players opposing the plan could not work together to get a better outcome.

This is what will happen on the bay and by the time the pro's and rec's agree on anything, it will be all over and done with, and too late to do anything about it.

I vote the pro's and rec's should join forces but atm the way thing are going it already looks too late to sway the Govt, as they've got their deal with the greens.

About the only way to stop the Greens using their prefernces to lure the Govt is to stop giving them to them (if that makes sense, don't use your prefernce votes for the greens). When voting, just put the number 1 in the box corresponding to the candidate and leave the others blank, after all if the greens lose their prefernce votes they have nothing to bargain with, and can't wreak havoc on anything else.

[billfisher]

The greens and environmentalists will play one group off against another. Look at the way they are using divers and the grey nurse issue to ban angling. Heres an article from the US which is of relevance:


In a recent article in the journal, “Science”, an ever popular and receptive forum to stage advocacy positions, a recent “study” suggested that recreational fishermen are responsible for harvesting more fish than originally thought and, worse yet, were responsible for harvesting more fish of concern because of dwindling stocks to an alarming degree.
This might come as a surprise to any recreational fishermen or group representing recreational fishermen if they have had their heads buried in the sand for the last several years.
For those who are experienced observers of the strategies of the anti-use non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and the foundations that fund their campaigns, this was the long anticipated next move in the pincher effect of controlling the world’s marine resources by these groups, by their followers in the various regulatory bodies, and by the all too easily manipulated voting public.
One has to understand that many of these groups and foundation truly believe that they are betters keepers of the planet’s resources than anyone else. Many in fact believe that man is nothing more than a pestilence on the planet and all of the flora and fauna take precedent over man. The latter is a condition they are determined to make that happen.
Think back a few years and history will portend the future. First, the anti-use advocates had to establish the fact that our oceans, rivers and lakes were in trouble from a resource standpoint. That did not take too much effort. Then they had to establish health concerns with trace levels of PCBs’, mercury and the like. (Remember, that the ability to even detect some of the elements was unavailable up until recently. And, they never bother to clarify that because one can measure something it may not necessarily be bad. It is the “dose” of any chemical even oxygen that determines toxicity.) Next they had to define a villain. The poster boy for the villain became the commercial fisherman.
As we have always reported, any advocacy issues has to have some basis of fact, albeit old, obsolete, insignificant, or not even a real threat to point to in order to establish the perception of credibility.
Here are the facts. Our oceans have been abused. Commercial fishing fleets are too many, chasing too few fish. The definitions of “depleted” and “over fished” and “fully utilized” are confusing and almost misleading to the average person. Our rivers and lakes have been used as toilets by every one from business to agriculture to our cities and suburbs.
So, indeed, there is some basis in fact for the NGO allegations. But their next steps were all too clever in their design and strategy. First, they used recreational fisherman as a tool to go after the commercial fisherman. The recreational folks were all too eager to help. They saw more fish for them to catch. By using stereotypical advocacy campaigns, funded heavily from sympathetic “green” foundations, the case was made that our oceans were on the verge of collapse from a marine resource standpoint.
Perhaps one of the most effective and biggest “slam dunk” made by the coalition of environmental NGOs and recreational fishermen was the ballot initiative along the Gulf and South Atlantic states. In these states, the voting power of the millions of recreational fishermen and the sympathetic public, absolutely crushed the few thousand commercial fishermen fighting for the economic livelihoods. Florida, as an example, saw 72 percent of voters (not marine biologists nor fishery management agencies) make the determination by ballot that gill netting was no longer wanted.
Longlining in millions of square miles of ocean around Hawaii was eliminated because of questionable concerns about sea turtles, and in particular, about a species (the leatherback) that neither eats longline bait nor finds itself in lethal entanglements despite NGO rhetoric insinuating otherwise.
There were a few of us who tried to moderate the enthusiasm of the recreational groups and magazine editors by warning that this was the first step in the attempt to regulate them. Naturally, they scoffed. Even when told the strategy that would be used against them!
Now the stage is set. After years of promoting NGO claims against commercial fishermen, the prestigious publication “Science” is suggesting that perhaps the real cause of the marine resource decline is the recreational fishermen. Once that claim is made, the logical next step is the demand that these same recreational fishermen (and former allies against the commercial sector) must be controlled or stopped!
Interestingly in the “Science” study, the authors checkmated the natural response of many recreational “catch and release” fishermen by stating that such tactics still affects the health of the fish and must be counted as a kill.
Press about the “Science” study piled on other long-running NGO-instigated allegations about the “dangers” of eating fish because of the possible contamination by mercury, PCB, etc. This is the “health” card played by the environmental community so effective. Who could possibly object to efforts to halt the endangering of our children with poisonous seafood?
Ironically, those same press accounts contain comments from the commercial fishing groups supporting the study. Now, the shoe is on the other foot! Guess who might support this initiative?
The next move is to slowly close the pincher and begin restricting and controlling the recreational fishermen as has happened to the commercial groups.
Soon we will begin to see more and more “studies” revealing the amount of fish harvested by the recreational fisherman. Sport fishing’s former allies will feign surprise at the realization that, oh my goodness, the recreational toll on fish species is much more than thought and even more in some cases than those nasty commercial guys.
The new NGO campaign against recreational fishermen will find the same group who once were lionized by environmental groups as concerned champions of marine life being characterized as rich, spoiled fat guys with big, high dollar, gas guzzling boats, who enter tournaments where they can win hundreds of thousands of dollars by torturing a fish on the end of a line, and dragging it back to a dock to be weighed and have a picture taken with rod in hand and a cigar in the other only to have the fish is tossed into a dumpster (with pictures to support all of the above.) Voters will be a simple, very effective question: “Should the oceans be the exclusive playground for rich guys?” As predicted, the public will answer: “Of course not!”
The NGO campaign will reveal that more hooks are dragged behind recreational boats on a long weekend that behind all of the longline boats in a year! Irate calls will demand this wasteful, unregulated, greed-driven practice must be stopped.
Finally, after beating up the method of catch, the cruelty, the wasted resource, and the vast numbers of fish being killed by people in fancy boats, the environmental activists will once again play their health card portraying any and all fish taken by recreational fishermen as an unsafe food source that is endangering your children’s health because of some rich mans game.
In states where ballot initiatives are allowed, you will see the NGO list of demands against recreational fishing on the ballot. In other states, you will see it introduced via legislative action by the political water carriers of these groups. These groups will call for more NGO representation (the folks who love he planet) on marine resource management councils replacing the recreational and commercial representation (the environmental bad guys).
This is the typical “peel the onion” strategy that these groups use against hunting. Get one hunting group to do the dirty work for the anti-use NGO on another hunting group. After there is only one of two groups standing, the NGO takes them down.
I will bet you my next seafood meal that there will be factions within the recreational groups that will side with the anti-use NGOs because they think it will benefit them. I know many of the NGOs are betting on it!

[minno]

Without a solid leader in the fishing community, Someone to look up too, someone that has the power to move mountains, The people will feel lost and wont be motivated to get up and fight. But I guess the effort thats been made is better than nothing.

In the next election, maybe the fishing community should profile candidates and vote for ones that fish. Lets face it! The government members all do the same job, but to have a few that fish, well! it can't hurt.

Just a thought.



Minno

[Shane_78]

The pros are against us. If you look at the seafood industrys annual report from 2006 it indictaes us for catching more fish then them. If push comes to shove we are the ones that will be shoved! I don't trust them at all

[billfisher]

Its probably true Shane 78. For a lot of poular species at least the recreational take equals or surpasses the commercial take.

[craftycarp]

I dont trust the pros either.. maybe we hould align with the greens against the pros?