Fishing Licence Yes Or No

[castlemaine]

Maybe the poll should be ... 'If a fishing licence is introduced, do you trust the government to use the money in the right direction (ie boat ramps, fishing facilities, etc)?'

My answer ... No!

Dayoo, I hear you. Tip of the iceberg.

Cheers

[fanplastico]

Yes, if we can gaurantee the money will stay in independant non-government hands.

Unfortunately we can't so it's NO.

Lez

[Lovey80]

My thoughts exactly FanPlastico, for same reasons I vote NO!

[Aunty Jack]

No Way, No How
Absalutly Not,
No Thanks
No

[TimiBoy]

Nup. Nein. Nicht. Zip. Zero. Null. Nill. Doughnut. Zilch.

FRIGGIN' NO.

Tim

[ozassassin]

to hell with it !NO

[Fishmatics]

If it means no commercial fishing in our estuaries and rivers then yes otherwise NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[Scott Mitchell]

Lets outline the "real" pro's & cons of a "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

[Gazza]

NEVER Ever !!

[Lucky_Phill]

Since there seems to be a difference of opinion on results of surveys, here is a simple one want QUEENSLAND fishos to vote,

• yes. for fishing licence and control of this licence in the control of sunfish, government, eco, or any one else.
• no for no licence.

Simple, no long comments we already got that going on another thread just yes or no in ten words or less.
lets see what everyone thinks?

i will start. NO.

OK, so some can't read... NO.
.
.
.
.

[kc]

Thank heavens for this. The poll we actually wanted, not like the last bloody fiasco which was a bit like the republican referendum. Didn't want a rec fishing license but hard to vote "happy with the way government is managing the fishery".

Already made my position clear. NO

KC

[oddbudman]

Yes to fishing license

[supa29]

Lets outline the "real" pro's & cons of a "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 no offence TEN WORDS OR LESS. NO PREACHING just look at the results.

[mod5]

OK, so some can't read... NO.
.
.
.
.

Want me to moderate those posts more than ten words.

[Tangles]

Mod5, your over if smilies count

ps NO