FYI, the Gold Coast are looking at establishing their own network of arti's to offset the damage created by the inshore Charter debacle that has been happening over the last 10 years or so.
Tim
FYI, the Gold Coast are looking at establishing their own network of arti's to offset the damage created by the inshore Charter debacle that has been happening over the last 10 years or so.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
To get back to what seems to be the real point of this post by Phill, the issue to me can be boiled down to this:
The artificial reef program was negotiated by MBAA and supported by others as an offest to recreational fishers for the loss of productive areas to the green zones. Pro fishers are not fishing recreationally and also were compensated with $ so MBAA said they must be excluded, divers get exclusive and priveleged access to all the GZ's at our expense so we said that they must be excluded because they have lost nothing and gained much.
So, the intended beneficiaries of this program were and remain as: Recreational Fishers.
Last time I checked, recreational fishers can fish from land, from onboard their own boat, a mate's boat, a kayak or by paying for a ride on a licenced charter boat, just to name a few ways.
Given the above quite obvious statements of fact, it is pretty hard to try to sustain a position that allowing recreational anglers who are fishing from a charter boat to access the artificial reefs is somehow inconsistent with the intent of the artificial reef program!
In fact, it is pretty obvious that allowing recreational fishers like you and me to fish artificial reefs from on board a chater boat IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT with the objective of providing a benefit to recreational fishers.
Otherwise, you would really be saying that recreational fishers who fish from Charter Boats are some kind of second-rate or lower form of recreational fisher - would that be the argument??
Sure, the Charter skippers get an indirect benefit too because they can take ther recreational fishing clients there too, but that is incidental to the main objective of the program, surely!
If anyone can point out a flaw in my logic on this point, please go right ahead.
What I think that you guys are really objecting to (and I object to these things too) are 2 things:
1. The arragements to apply in these circumstances really must be made crystal clear when the arrangements are negotiated, and there should be no deviation from that from that point onwards.
I have learnt that the key to achieving that starts out with everyone being very clear about the intent (sometimes called the objective) of the program and making clear statements in writing about the intent. Get that right and everything else falls into place pretty easily. Plus, it is also very obvious if someone tries to implement something that is out of line with the original intent.
I was part of the process at the time and was right in there when the artificial reefs proposal was raised with the (then) EPA. I have a very clear recollection about the intent of this program, and it was as simple as I stated above: the artificial reefs were there to benefit recreational anglers as a small compensation for the loss of GZ's. There was never any mention of excluding people from the arti's based on whether they were fishing from their own boat, land, a kayak, a charter boat or from any other kind of fishing platform.
If you need someone to blame, then blame those of us who were there at the time from not spelling out the intent of this program in more detail in those heady days. In our defence, all I can say is we were working our ar$es off to get the principle of compensation for the recreational sector accepted by the Government, and this detail slipped through - and as a result the intent didn't get passed on very clearly to those workhorses like Phill who subsequently picked up the ball and did such a great job. Sorry.
Bottom line: in this case I think that Fisheries/DERM have actually kept pretty well in line with the intent of what we set out to achieve from recreational fishers.
2. When any large vessel, charter or otherwise, sharks in on a spot where recreational anglers are already fishing. This to me is an issue about courtesy and the conduct of the skipper, regardless of whether they are a charter boat, a pro boat, or another recreational fishing boat.
We have all had this happen to us, it is not just charter boats, I had a large 10m+ recreational cat shark in on me at Square Patch a while ago and proceed to back up into the current right in front of our drift line, less that 30m away from us! What a tosser! It's damn poor form on the skipper's part and disrespectful of the people who are already there. But unfortunately, you can't easily legislate to stop stupidity or bad manners.
Finally, all the other issues raised in earlier posts about Charter getting recognised as a legitimate sector by fisheries and getting property rights etc etc are important issues in their own rights, but in the context of this discussion about recreational anglers who choose to fish on an artificial reef off a licenced charter boat etc, they are IMO, just red herrings.
For what it's worth.
Grant
Note to self: Don't argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience....
Hi Grant.
Your post reads well. There is no flaw in your logic. Recreational fisherman utilise charter boats - Fact.
Do you think this outcome is the best option? or an option that limits issues between recs and charter boats? Becuase I don't.
Where my main objection is (and it’s an objection of many others), is the sense of entitlement some charter operators have over spots - and this is on an open reef system kms long, let alone an arti (relatively confined space). Yes,I have had recs come way too close whilst i was fishing...but the intent is very different from the professional operators who try to muscle smaller boats out of spot by intimidation - at the end of the day, they are running a business, and etiquette will fall to the dollar every time with some operators.
I like the initial proposal where charter operators would be confined to certain artis....its a lot easier to police the regulation as well.
Personally, I can’t see myself fishing these artis, but that said, i can see the proposal in Phil's attachment potential causing issues.
As I said, I don't think you can agrue for charter to be excluded, because them being able to access arti's is entirely consistent with recreational fishers benefiting from artificial reefs, simple as that. What you are describing is a problem of behaviour of (probably) a minority, not all of them, surely.
And I am heartened to hear that we agree that the real problem is the poor behaviour of some people, charter operators included, who shark in on others who are already in a spot.
Poor behaviour is poor behaviour - eg some people also seem to regard some specific locations, whether they be arti's, reefs, beacons, or GPS marks as somehow their own personal property! I recall fishing offshore Moreton at a mark that I've had for quite a few years that not many people seem to know about, no-one was within sight, when this other boat came over the horizon and roared right in at us, charged right up to my stern and demanded to know where I got the GPS mark from etc. Like I was somehow violating his personal property. What a tosser!
Perhaps re the Charter question, it might help if Charter Operators who have permits to operate in the MBMP had to sign up to a Code of Conduct or something similar, and this issue of sharking in on reefs, whether artificials or not, and other anti-social behaviour could be included in that Code. Too many complaints about Code breaches by an operator, maybe their permit doesn't get renewed??
Cheers
Note to self: Don't argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience....
Every boat should have air horns. When a certain Charter Operator monstered me, I just made sure his punters couldn't hear. He soon moved, just far enough that we could keep drifting our spot, though (accidentally) a few of our rigs ended up on his anchor rope, and I believe his Deckie paid the price for that. They're not hard to fit, and very effective.
Thanks Grant, a measured response, as usual, and probably spot on.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Yep, not too many charter reps there Phil. And how were these stakeholders "identified", etc, etc. But thanks for the clarification. So where are we on this?Originally Posted by Lucky_Phill
In fact this is a really interesting read which sums up the lay of the marine landscape quite admirably.
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02763aa.pdf Here is the ultimate clarification from DERM in the FPBT for the MBMP, 2008. Please tell me where you can find charter fishing in this bag of puss. And if you haven't read it, now would be a really good time. Because otherwise you are labouring under the completely wrong ideas.
I am with Grant. There are wankers everywhere. Some have big boats. And some of them are charter operators. But this is a debate about the improper allocation of a compensation to the "blue eyes" while the "brown eyes" miss out. And along with Grant, Bruce Alvey, Jeff Sorrell, MBSIA, etc through the MBAA I spent a lot of time in 2006/ 2007 trying to get a good result for ALL fishos. This process for charter morphed into the MQ charter operators Division. For recs it went nowhere, to be brutally honest. Another decision which could be "lived with". as long as the pros copped more shit than recs. Not good for recs mind you, simply just less shit than the pros.
It is not a good look for the representation on this DERM committee, again, however they were "handpicked" to try to split asunder the efforts at co representation made by the MBAA. I note that the MBAA were not asked to provide membership to the DERM artificial reef committee. That in itself speaks volumes to those who worked within DERM's deeply flawed & divisive MBMP process. Looks like DERM still has the naive on its side......................
Re: Rec anglers rogered again. MBMP arti's
Time for some statesmanship.http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/register/p02763aa.pdf
1. A press release thanking DERM for the "good start" they have made on their artificial reef program.
2. Requesting a meeting with DERM to discuss the roll out of more artificial reefs as well as the identification of further sites for artificial reef development over a ten/ twenty/ thirty year period.
3. Conducting on line polls on Nuggets & Ausfish as well as a series of public meetings to find out where rec fisheres would like more arti reefs as well as increasing the density of deployments in these areas. (Both DERM & Fisheries invited to attend & participate.)
4. Release the findings of your consultation publicly. Request meetings with the Premier & relevant Ministers to discuss the arti reef roll out. Seek a "whole of Government approach" to the artificial reef program rather than as the sole responsibility of DERM.
5. Conduct a public information campaign on the benefits of arti reefs to fishos & non fishos.
6. Seek additional funding from the gambling, tobacco, mining, etc Industries to defray the costs of arti reefs.
7. Continue the above process as a co- management exercise with stakeholders, relevant Departments & Government with demonstrated community benefit outcomes.
This would be a far better utilisation of stakeholder time & effort rather than squabbling like pigeons over the artificial reef crumbs which have been currently deployed.
Areas for further artificial reef development on the Northern end of MBMP would include:
1. Pearl Channel. (Cod, small mackerels, long tails)
2. The western ledge of Moreton Island between Tangalooma & Combi Corner. (Everything!)
3. Between the shipping channel & the Eastern beach of Bribie. (Long tails, small mackerels, cobia)
4. West of Hutchies then south to West of Brennans. (Everything)
5. The entire trench "wall" west from Hutchies to the NE2, then north to the Hamilton Patches.
I reckon that with a defined & agreed process for the roll out of this amount of arti reef development we could feel that we have achieved something really special, not only for this generation of fishers but are also leaving a legacy for the next generations as well.
Leaving the fishing world better than we found it would be a special achievement.
And in the interim we could then re-focus on the real issues of going fishing & having fun.
I fully support your call for an audit of stakeholder representative groups Lampuki. I would include Sunfish, Ecofisherers, MQCVD, QCVA, QSIA, MBSIA, East Coast Crabbers in this audit. Bring it on in fact. Immediately. Financially, operationally, representatively, etc, etc. Bring it on now.
The more open & transparent the process of this claimed "representation", the better it is for stakeholders. And while we are at the audit process, let's also get an audit of how Government Departments "select" their stakeholder reps. Its no good being above reproach as a stakeholder group if you are never asked to represent.
I would also suggest you "name & shame" these five operators you allude to. Five out of five is a great strike rate for the misbehaviour & illegality you allege, especially in regard to "cooking lunches" & the crew retaining undersized fish for their own use. Serious allegations indeed if proven. So name them. Were they members of the MQ charter Division? Did these alleged activities take place in the MBMP?
And if you can't or won't name them, then pull your head in. If you want to test your allegations in five separate defamation suits, then knock yourself out.
Its now YOUR credibility on the line. Name them & provide the details or shut up. It is a real character test for you now, Lampuki.
Not bad that the only honest "charter" you have been on did not conduct fishing activities. Love your work. Would your opinion have been different if you had fished on this charter?
And again, as I have said to the ignorant, read the MBMP EPA FPBT. At least you will in part have the background to understand the "blue eyes, brown eyes" approach by DERM and some rec stakeholder reps to arti reefs in the MBMP. If you care to read it.
Keith.
I don't want you to support my request for an audit into your division, I want you to action it as "Chair of MQ charter division". Supporting is a way of saying, i agree, but I am not going to do anything about it, instead, ill throw mud at every other division within the industry by suggesting that they need to be audited.
I have witnesses to the events i mentioned, so if they want a court case, in your own words, "bring it on".
If you are serious about following up and having a word to those in your division, pm your mobile phone number and i will call. You can question my character all you like,I don't really give a $hit, but I know what I am saying is right and true, and I know that you/and your Division needs a serious attitude adjustment! They are sending the wrong message, particularly to those who don't know better.
Were they operating in MBMP - Yes, some of the instances occurred within the mbmp (including the taking of illegal fish).
With regard to:
"
Not bad that the only honest "charter" you have been on did not conduct fishing activities. Love your work. Would your opinion have been different if you had fished on this charter?
"
No, it wouldn't have been any different, because Bill (who offers fishing charters) wouldn't indulge in the illegal/inappropriate behaviour mentioned previously.
"Love your work"...has nothing to do with me - its not my work, its the division you chair. If you were bluffing, I call. Speak soon - it will be interesting to see what you do - the only character in question here will be yours.
I have to ask..why do you do it, Keith ?
From the Public Benefit test report for MBMP.
The provisions of the new zoning plan have not changed substantially from those existing under the current zoning plan. However, the increase in the extent of zones which are restrictive has increased significantly. Marine national park, or “green zones”, have increased from 0.5 per cent to 16 per cent of Moreton Bay Marine Park, to address the significant deficiencies of the current zoning plan with regard to meeting current standards for marine conservation in marine parks. This increase means around 540km2 of the 3400km2 marine park allows uses that are non-extractive in nature, leaving the remaining 2860km2 or 84 per cent with zoning arrangements that provide for a range of extractive uses
2.4.1 Commercial fishing
Commercial fishing inside Moreton Bay Marine Park has an extensive history, with many operators able to trace their families’ involvement in the industry back several generations. On average, 410 commercial fishing licences were used to access the marine park annually during the three-year period to the end of 2006.
These vessels landed approximately $24.1 million gross value of product (“GVP”, or the wharf price paid to commercial fishers) from within the marine park each year. These vessels also land an additional $22.6 million each year from fishing operations outside of Moreton Bay Marine Park.
Commercial fishing activities undertaken in the marine park include, trawling, netting, spanner, mud and blue-swimmer crab fishing, line fishing and collection fisheries, harvesting species such as bait and aquarium fish. Within the collection fisheries, aquarium fish collection has the highest GVP, generating approximately $800 000 each year in the marine park.
2.4.2 Recreational fishing
Recreational fishing is an important activity in the Moreton Bay Marine Park. Recreational fishing in the marine park includes shore and boat based line fishing, crabbing and bait gathering. Around 60 per cent of Queensland’s recreational anglers live in the Moreton Bay region, with 432 000 anglers or 18.4 per cent of the south-east Queensland population aged over 15 years harvesting approximately 3500 tonnes of fish, crabs and prawns each year. Recreational fishing was reported to have generated $194 million in related expenditure in south-east Queensland annually in 2000-
2001.
Unlike the commercial fishery where the objective is to maximise the catch, recreational anglers have a range of objectives or motives to go fishing; such as escaping routine, experiencing nature, or for rest and relaxation. The diverse motives mean that recreational anglers may be more likely to find substitute locations that fulfil both their catch and non-catch related motives.
There are 34 marine national park (green) zones under the new zoning plan. There is no significant difference between the restrictions that apply to these zones under the existing and new zoning plan. The key change is the increased number and coverage of marine national park (green) zones, which provide greater habitat protection( so why can't we troll here for pelagics ) ?
5.1.5 Recreational fishing – potential costs
The EPA collected and analysed information from a range of sources to ensure that the potential impacts of green zones on the recreational fishing sector were minimised. An analysis of this information showed that the draft zoning plan had a direct impact on approximately five per cent of recreational fishing trips conducted inside the marine park.
5.1.1 Commercial fishing – potential costs
Commercial fishing occurs across all 16 broad-scale habitat types in Moreton Bay Marine Park. As a result, it is the industry most affected by the new zoning plan. Commercial logbook data has been used to calculate the potential impacts of the draft zoning plan on commercial fisheries. This modeling indicates a total potential impact of 17 per cent, or $4 million of the $24.1 million annual average GVP generated within the marine park.
So, in my words now.
Charter Operators are not even mentioned in this report. Seriously, you guys need to get representative people into the right place........ TOURISM..... which is worth about $500mill a year in SEQ.
Now, for the simple maths:-
Commercial fishers get a $4mill package representing a 17% loss in their $24 mill business
Recreational Fishers get a $1mill arti ( ended up with 2 mill ) despite a $9.7mill reduction in benefit ( 5% ) in a $194,000,000 related expenditure environment.
I repeat, Recreational Fishers get rogered again.
LP.
Kingfisher Painting Solutions:- Domestic and Commercial.
For further information, contact details, quotes or advice - Click Here
To be honest Pinhead, this is the worst, & best timed question I have ever been asked.
After spending today in at Fisheries discussing the options for charter management into the future, your question has especially bitter relevance.
I have been wasting my time trying to create a charter sector point of difference from the general recreational fisherman for the past four years. I believed that recognising the business component of charter businesses was important.
It probably ain't gunna happen in my lifetime in Qld I now realise. Without political will there will be no charter sector. And which politician will push for fishing businesses?
Apologies to all for wasting all our time. Yours AND mine.
Keith
I spoke to Lampuki tonight. Thanks for your call.
I think we agreed on a lot of points. And that we all need individually to be responsible as charter operators, commercial fishermen & rec anglers for our actions as sectors will be judged on the behaviour of individuals.
I will speak to the one individual we discussed who is left in the industry as to what construes "best practice". Without prejudice.
What is it about Bill Corten that ticks off charter operators?Is it tall poppy syndrome or other factors at play?
Now that I have spoken with Keith, he knows that the instances I raised aren't fabricated. 5 out of 5 is not a good look for the industry.
To clarify, of the 5, 3 are no longer in business. Of those that remain, one operates outside the mbmp. Both took illegal fish. In fairness, the instance that occurred within the mbmp, only one illegal fish was taken as opposed to the other instance, where a haul was used to feed a crew. Regardless, IMO, this needs to stop....so I thank Keith for following up on this.
Given Grant's valid points, it is not logical to argue for exclusions for charter operators to the artis imo. Time will tell as to how this plays out.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
