Recreational Fishing Havens - Cooloola and Fraser Island

[Slider]

Having gone through the exercise of spelling out how fish behave around nets, the attributes that the fish have that causes this behaviour, the impact to the recreational fishery and the stock depletion that results from netting, it's time to spell out what can be done to remedy the situation.

It is really quite obvious that if nets are causing the problems that have been outlined in the Soniferous Fish of SEQ thread, then some nets need to be taken out of the equasion.

And there is no point in taking out a few nets here and there, entire regions need to be set aside where there is no netting allowed. This allows for fish to spawn and feed unmolested by nets and the area avoidance, altered migrations and spawning behaviour that they cause.

No netting zones will have benefits to other inshore region's fish stocks due to the migratory habits of some of the affected species and the general movement of fish in their feeding and breeding activities.

Fishing related tourism would prosper in these net free areas as the fish return in numbers and which will cause for those jobs lost in the commercial sector to be replaced.
The remaining inshore commercial fishers will have improved viability, improved catches and jobs created (or not lost) resulting.

Cooloola and Fraser Island have been selected to be the first areas in Queensland to be proposed as Rec Fishing Havens. There are a number of reasons for this which I can go into during the course of this thread. But I believe that it is important that people be aware that these 2 areas haven't been selected by just me. I have certainly been the one pushing for these regions, but Sunfish, Ecofishers and I have been communicating on this matter since around September last year. It has been agreed between us and with significant input from Bruce Alvey that these be the target regions.

One of the main reasons for this, is the fact that the government doesn't have the funds to be buying back commercial licenses anywhere. However, the introduction of vehicle access permits for Cooloola, potentially provides a revenue base for the buy back of the 17 K8 licenses that are currently permitted to net between the mouth of the Noosa River and Inskip Point. Similarly, vehicle access permits and camping fee revenue from Fraser should partially be directed towards the buy back of licenses currently working there.

There is another potential source of funding that can be derived from abandonning the closure of 14km of beach to 4wds at the southern end of Fraser Island for tern and shorebird protection. There are better ways of protecting these birds that doesn't cost so much and cause for human recreational activities to be squandered in the process.

So let's have this discussion about these proposed RFH's. Let me hear your thoughts - good, bad or ugly.

Lindsay Dines

[goat boy]

G'Day Lindsay,

While I am whole-heartedly behind the process to come into being I have a few questions.
If the government doesn't have the outright funds to buy back the net licences what is the contingency to put this in motion? I've tried to find out and have asked before exactly what the veh permits on Teewah (my main area of interest) actually fund other than overflow into existing govt coffers.
You say it potentially provides a revenue base, do you know exactly what this fund is for? Other than maybe a lazy attempt at curbing numbers on the beaches there. Otherwise, if the govt says this fund is for 'maintenance' of the area etc, how else do you to propose to turn these areas into RFHs by ousting the local pros?
While it seems a great idea to me, I can't really see it happening as the pros won't go easily and the govt really doesn't have any way of compensating them (and lets be real, any compensation offered will be laughed and derided at by the pros).
I love the areas and wish this to become reality, am willing to get behind it any way I can. If it happens, the only way I can see it coming to fruition is by fees to access these areas increasing to a point where it becomes a luxury area and I think this is not the ideal behind a RFH?
Thanks for all your efforts and posts though, I appreciate all the info and work.

Ben

[Ian445]

If compensation/purchase can achieve this, the benefits to recreational fishers will be very worthwhile. I've been fishing the Tib Can Bay/inshore Fraser area fror quite a few years now, and have seen the results (or lack of them for us line fishers) of the sand bank/gutter netting practices. I agree that it won't happen without funds being made available from a government source. I doubt that the vehicle permit stram would be sufficient on its own, even if the parks would allow this to happen without an almighty fight.

[theoldlegend]

Having gone through the exercise of spelling out how fish behave around nets, the attributes that the fish have that causes this behaviour, the impact to the recreational fishery and the stock depletion that results from netting, it's time to spell out what can be done to remedy the situation.

It is really quite obvious that if nets are causing the problems that have been outlined in the Soniferous Fish of SEQ thread, then some nets need to be taken out of the equasion.

And there is no point in taking out a few nets here and there, entire regions need to be set aside where there is no netting allowed. This allows for fish to spawn and feed unmolested by nets and the area avoidance, altered migrations and spawning behaviour that they cause.

No netting zones will have benefits to other inshore region's fish stocks due to the migratory habits of some of the affected species and the general movement of fish in their feeding and breeding activities.

Fishing related tourism would prosper in these net free areas as the fish return in numbers and which will cause for those jobs lost in the commercial sector to be replaced.
The remaining inshore commercial fishers will have improved viability, improved catches and jobs created (or not lost) resulting.

Cooloola and Fraser Island have been selected to be the first areas in Queensland to be proposed as Rec Fishing Havens. There are a number of reasons for this which I can go into during the course of this thread. But I believe that it is important that people be aware that these 2 areas haven't been selected by just me. I have certainly been the one pushing for these regions, but Sunfish, Ecofishers and I have been communicating on this matter since around September last year. It has been agreed between us and with significant input from Bruce Alvey that these be the target regions.

One of the main reasons for this, is the fact that the government doesn't have the funds to be buying back commercial licenses anywhere. However, the introduction of vehicle access permits for Cooloola, potentially provides a revenue base for the buy back of the 17 K8 licenses that are currently permitted to net between the mouth of the Noosa River and Inskip Point. Similarly, vehicle access permits and camping fee revenue from Fraser should partially be directed towards the buy back of licenses currently working there.

There is another potential source of funding that can be derived from abandonning the closure of 14km of beach to 4wds at the southern end of Fraser Island for tern and shorebird protection. There are better ways of protecting these birds that doesn't cost so much and cause for human recreational activities to be squandered in the process.

So let's have this discussion about these proposed RFH's. Let me hear your thoughts - good, bad or ugly.

Lindsay Dines

Hi Lindsay,

Good thread. There are a couple of things I'm struggling with and I've highlighted these in red and green.

Bear with me Lindsay, I'm old and slow.

In one of the red para's you say there should be no netting in whole areas.

In the green para you say that the remaining netters would have improved catches etc.

That's the bit I'm struggling with.


TOL

[Slider]

Is the poor way that I phrased it TOL which will have caused your confusion.
"The remaining inshore commercial fishers" are those that fish areas outside of the RFH boundaries. So as a result of the migratory habits and general movements of fish that improve in number as a result of the RFH's, the commercial fishery outside of the havens will improve. As per NSW where following the removal of 209 licenses and the creation of 29 RFH's, the remaining inshore commercial fishery has seen a stabilising, or improvement in commercial catches.

Ben, the vehicle access fees were established with the intent of reducing vehicle numbers on the beach and provide a revenue base with which to fund infrastructure, maintenance, conservation and an improved visitor experience.
The areas that have been nominated so far for these funds to be used are - the increase in size of Freshwater Camping Area and the addition of 6 extra Rangers.
The introduction of permits appears to have reduced vehicle numbers based on barge crossings since introduction. This negates to some extent the need for 6 extra Rangers.

So aside from an increase in Freshwater's camping capacity, we are all wondering where these funds can be spent.

My advice is that there is no reason why these funds can't be utilised to buy back commercial fishing licenses in order for conservation and visitor experience objectives to be met and that the revenue pool is sufficient for a buy back to occur.

[Apollo]

Lyndsay

I will watch this one with interest as it affects an area local to me. I am concerned about the funding and whether the linkage to an improved fishing environment for recreational anglers resulting from the buyout of commercial K8 fishers (and subsequently leading to any increased number of rec anglers) is not counter to the purpose of the beach permits, which as you said was to reuce the number of vehicle on the beach. The economic justification is that the dollars associated with the commercial fishing will be atleast replaced by the increased recreational fishing/tourisim dollars. If this is against the charter of the beach permit, then a problem exists in using the funds for the buyout.

I hope there is a fair solution.
Steve

[Just_chips]

Lyndsay

I will watch this one with interest as it affects an area local to me. I am concerned about the funding and whether the linkage to an improved fishing environment for recreational anglers resulting from the buyout of commercial K8 fishers (and subsequently leading to any increased number of rec anglers) is not counter to the purpose of the beach permits, which as you said was to reuce the number of vehicle on the beach. The economic justification is that the dollars associated with the commercial fishing will be atleast replaced by the increased recreational fishing/tourisim dollars. If this is against the charter of the beach permit, then a problem exists in using the funds for the buyout.

I hope there is a fair solution.
Steve

In my opinion I don't think it was ever the fishermens vehicles that they were trying to reduce on the beach, more like the tools in the lifted luxs doing circle work whilst sucking on a stubbie and putting families at risk with erratic driving. If you make it hard for these clowns to gain access to an area they will simply stop coming but the serious fishos and genuine campers who want and enjoy the cooloola experience will always pay the dollars and wade through the red tape. I don't how you would be able to estimate an increase in visitors just as they probably wouldn't have known how to estimate a decrease with the introduction of the permits but they just bit the bullet and did it, and it seems to have worked. I don't think the numbers will ever really hit the peaks that they were though, provided it is regulated/monitored properly to prevent those without permits just arriivng and doing their own thing again.
Kev

[the gecko]

Can we include the Mary and Burrum rivers in this no netting zone please? Why pros can net in a river is beyond me..........

Andrew

[Slider]

I can appreciate what you're saying Steve and there is a potential escape route for governments not wanting to sustain our fishery. However, I'm sure that any government would gladly take any increase in revenue derived from vehicle access permits irrespective of how it came about or the actual intended reason/s for implementation in the first place. As long as there is sufficient justification to alter the circumstances on environmental, social or expenditure grounds, then there should be no impediment to do so. Especially when there are good environmental, economic and social reasons for the creation of rec fishing havens in Cooloola and Fraser Island.

And let's face it, there are a number of excellent reasons to create rec fishing havens in appropriate locations throughout the state. The costs associated are piddling in the scheme of things and should be funded by government. I'm just trying to make it easier for them to cover the costs and give them less excuses not to do so in Cooloola and Fraser.

[theoldlegend]

What colours are the local state members in that area Lindsay?

TOL

[Slider]

Tol, Glen Elmes is the member for Noosa and he is LNP - and is particularly eager to assist in every way that he can. Glen of course has to convince Campbell though and nobody seems to know where he stands on the issue.
The Qld Greens are right behind me also - which I think is a coup for any rec fishing proposal. This is largely due to the fact that there are multiple species that stand to benefit from a RFH.
Other organisations that have proffered 'in principle' support for the proposal so far are - Fraser Island Defenders Organisation, Sunshine Coast Environment Council, Fishers for Conservation, Coolum Coastcare, Noosa Integrated Catchment Assn, Tourism Noosa and as mentioned - Sunfish and Ecofishers Qld, along with fish, tern, turtle and dolphin scientists and tackle shops in the Noosa district.
The support garnered so far is terrific, but I believe that it is of the utmost importance that the rec fishing sector demonstrate their enthusiasm for the concept via sheer weight of numbers. This seems to be a difficult thing to attain gauging from what I have read, but is of course critical in motivating politicians to do what we want them to do.

I would be interested in suggestions on how best to promote the proposal and how best to invite and receive feedback. There will certainly be media releases and Glen Elmes and the other organisations and individuals will do their bit, but should there be a website for the public to view the proposal - which will be in the order of 10000 - 15000 words - and to provide feedback to?? And naturally, the next question is, who out there can set up a website for me that will cost me .... well nothing would be the hope?

[Lovey80]

Lindsay, this is a fantastic initiative that is win win for all involved.

The 17xK8 Licences are they the only licences that actually net the said area? I would hate to see these funds go to just increasing the belts of other netters. IE NSW beach netters that flog the RFL stocked Jew as they leave the river. When you said other "Commercial" fishers did you only mean line etc? Or are there actually other netters in the area other than K8?

[Slider]

Lovey, there's the 17 x K8's, (probably 6 of which are latant) but there's also any number of N1's that can net Cooloola also. This is the reasoning specifically behind a RFH in that the use of commercial gear would be banned within the confines of the haven. I didn't want to see millions spent on buying out the K8's, only to have other fishers come into the area and no benefit gained. There are added spin offs associated with the title that assist marketability of the concept and drawing tourists which 'cushions the blow' to gov of losing a commercial fishery - albeit a rather small one.
With regards Fraser, there are several pros on the western side that would require being bought out, but the 2 that net the eastern and northern sides are K8 fishers that are at retirement age and whose licenses for Fraser are non - transferrable. These guys have indicated that they would retire on selling their K8's which would mean that it is likely that there would only be 3 or 4 western side licenses requiring compensation. This in turn could have benefits to the Sandy Straights fishery in that there would be less commercial competition in that fishery.
The remaining commercial fishers I refer to are the ones that net elsewhere outside of the proposed RFH. As indicated by NSW RFH's and the stabilising or increase of inshore commercial catches by an inshore fleet depleted by the 209 licenses bought back by gov in 2001 in creating the 29 RFH's, the 'remaining fishers' can expect improved catches due to 'spillover/migration.

To give some idea of the impact of nets on tourism - I have been speaking to Paul Dolan, a well known and top of the range fly fishing guide at Hervey Bay. Paul tells me that his clients love the location of fishing for permit, bonefish and goldens on the west side of Fraser, but won't be returning unless the nets are removed as results are diminished by nets compared to what could otherwise occur. His booking agent in the U.S. confirmed this with me and so did another from New Zealand. These tourists are well aware of the affect that netting has on rec fishing and are actively choosing locations that are net free to spend their money at. Paul also tells me that he is giving the game away due to a lack of clients and will be seeking 'normal' work elsewhere. When you hear of that sort of thing going on and the ramifications to accommodation bookings, hire cars, food and grog sales etc, then it makes one wonder who is really putting who out of work by not creating RFH's. Paul certainly won't be compensated for his loss of employment.

[Apollo]

My two concerns are that it becomes a RFH today and then the Greens force it to a Green Zone tomorrow. I find it very hard to trust them given their past behaviour and their stated wish to have the Sandy Straits changed to a green zone. My second one is the Western side of Fraser/southern Sandy Straits. Once there is a sniff that a buyout is on the cards, then anyone with N1 will flog it senseless to build up history in the area to increase the size of their buyout. This has occurred elsewhere and I would hate it to be repeated again. This could decimate this area.

One question: If the area was made a RFH, does that exclude all commercial fishing activities? Does this include guided fishing activities?
Another question: Has David Gibson been contacted?

Thanks for your efforts.

[Slider]

I think it would be of greater concern Apollo if Cooloola and Fraser were made green zones before the rec sector managed to tie them up as RFH's. Sections of Cooloola and Fraser are potentially earmarked for green zones which was an aspect of motivating me to pursue RFH's in order for a better outcome for recs, species and the economy. There may be a case for green zones in reef areas, (and I mean may) but there is not for inshore areas as long as nets are taken out of the equasion. The green zones at Moreton Island are I believe, pointless and absurd.
Of course, in order to prevent any chance of green zones occurring in Cooloola or Fraser (or other inshore areas), then it needs to be demonstrated that rec fishing is a sustainable practise which allows species such as terns, turtles, dolphins along with fish to flourish. What I am doing is going a long way to enhancing that fact and thus the support of the Qld Greens and other conservation groups for rec fishing havens in Cooloola and Fraser.
It is likely Apollo that the pros would thrash a location if they find out that the location may be taken away from them in order to increase their license value. Though, how much more of a thrashing than a 'conventional' thrashing can occur and still remain under the TAC, I couldn't guess. However, if RFH's actually occur after a 'thorough' thrashing, then the thrashing will have been worth the pain.

My understanding is that Glen Elmes has dicussed this issue with Dave Gibson. I know Dave a little and have spoken to him a couple of times re Cooloola RAM - I am confident that Dave would be eager for RFH's to be created. However, I'll touch base with hime personally soon to keep him in the loop.