Science behind the proposed closures

[Gazza]

but there is a large majority of once/twice a year fisho's with no idea about catch care or awareness of the surrounding environment. Some of these guys are a bad advertisement for rec fishing and if a licence helps reduce that latent effort than it will be good for the fish IMHO.

That's ANOTHER REASON for no rfl...

p.s.overbag/undersize...$$fine$$ 'em...tourists included

[lefty_green]

As part of another discussion; Licences dont actually help estimate the recreational catch - all they do is provide revenue (which is often used to regulate/police closures) what licenses can do is estimate how many fishos are out there (in possession of the licence), but they cant estimate how often the licence is used - i.e how many time the licensee goes fishing within that licence period and how effective they are during each outing - so they cant estimate catch rates... by any stretch of the imagination. So licences are not the answer to estimating the rec catch. #Anyway, a 2005 DPI& fisheries survey, (but who knows how correct the findings were) found that the vast majority of rec fishos (or rather this group made up "the biggest group of anglers") were aged 5-14, this age is exempt from licencing laws - so the results of any estimation due to licencing, would be skewed in any case.

I agree with that to an extent Adam. However, if a rec licence was introduced and the funds went back to rec fishing, i.e. not to internal revenue, then funding would be available to research rec fishing. For example, i have it on good authority that DPI&F are including the rec fishing sector in its long term monitoring program. If a rec licence were intorduced, with a substantial increase in available funding to the monitoring program, they could get many more bodies in the field collecting vital data to help reduce the (probably huge) standard errors on some of that catch and effort data I mentioned in an earlier post.

Also, I believe that there should be an eductaion program aimed at the 90% of fishers that catch 10% of the fish. Thats still alot of fish being caught and alot of undersized and non-targetted fish that should be returned alive. Not to mention the vast amount of research that could be done on rec species to ensure that the relevant data is being used to model the stocks, providing accurate info re: bag and size limits.

A rec licence also gives rec fishers a say in what happens to the fishery - a tangible stake in the fishery. If a rec licence generates a pile of money then surely the govt will want to maintain this source of funding and ensure stocks are managed accordingly.

Whats everyone else think?

[billfisher]

You don't hear many people complain about the rec license here in NSW. The revenue is fully audited and all goes back into rec fishing. Eg through the establishment of rec havens, fish stocking, artificial reefs, fish ladders and removal of weirs.

It shouldn't go into general fisheries research I don't think, the DPI have their own budget for that, but be used for direct improvements like those above. Its a pity that the state gov is ruining all this good work in their rush to lock anglers out with their marine parks.

[Adamy]

Point taken regarding licences.... however I think we should also take a lesson from the NSW experience You may not hear many people complaining about the licenece - but as Billfisher indicates, it hasnt stopped the greenies moving in and pressuring the government to close vast areas to fishing within their marine parks.

For example - I used to fish a place at broken head, we would drive 21/2 hours from Brisbane to fish the one spot, it took 20 minutes to walk in from the gravel road and the walk out was horrendous as it was up a very steep hill - so needless to say its wasnt exactly a popular fishing spot but the views were breathtaking and the place pristine, the anglers who did frequent this place respected it and kepy it tidy - there was never and rubbish lying around and the fishing - fantastic, was a very reliable place for tailor, jew, bream even pelagics. There was no risk to overfishing due to remoteness - but they closed it down anyway. How much "research" was done there?? It was just done to satisfy a rabid bunch of greenies. Its not only northern NSW - its state and nationwide, the green effort is highly advanced and highly coordinated - they are slowly closing all the available fishing areas and wont be satisfied until there is a complete lockout and we are all turned vegan... thats my major objection... its almost like the Christian crusades of the middle ages - they want to convert everyone into their "religion" ... by force if necessary.

The rec licence didnt help keep my fishing spot open... so why should we support one here? If we are to support rec licenses they have to offer something in exchange for it - and I dont think monitoring and policing activities is enough.

I agree with you about the 90%, It sickens me when I see some fishos keeping every little fish that comes out of the water and you always ask why there isnt an inspector around when you need one. But thats not the issue I am trying to address at the moment... its the proposed closures the greenies are trying to enforce on us. - And their supposed science which they use to back up their ambit claims.

If we win the fight to force back the green advance - then there will be plenty of time to address education, rec licences, monitoring and policing of size limits etc. However if we dont win the fight - then the argument is academic - because there will be no areas left to fish to "legally" anyway. Its about putting the cart before the horse.

Oh yes and I stayed out of it - but I dont believe that requiring everyone to carry log and data books on every landed fish is a very good way to go - might as well be fishing in Stalin Russia... I go fishing to de-stress and enjoy myself - not so that I can help some DPI guy complete data and catch rates. If I'm going to be expected to do that - then I'll take up some other form of relaxation... or maybe just lie on the reports... like everyone else.

Just my rant for the day...

[lefty_green]

It shouldn't go into general fisheries research I don't think, the DPI have their own budget for that,

In Queensland, 90% of research funding comes from the federal government. There is NO budget for fisheries research!


Oh yes and I stayed out of it - but I dont believe that requiring everyone to carry log and data books on every landed fish is a very good way to go - might as well be fishing in Stalin Russia
I agree - I dont want to be filling out log books at the end of a days fishing, even though every commercial fisher in queensland is required to do so.

[billfisher]

I found an article which explores the motives of the greens. Here are a few exerpts:

The extent to which green-left thinking on the environment has taken hold in the mass media and at all levels of education has made it the dominant voice in the so-called environmental debate. There is not one opinion leader or political party, especially the shrinking Democrats, that has not been heavily influenced by it one way or another.

To them socialism has not failed, it just has not been tried. Hence conservationism is just another weapon in their ideological war against capitalism, which really amounts to war against our civilisation. To these socialist cultists “conservationism” will provide the regulatory noose that will strangle capitalism herald a new world.

What is really striking, however, is the resemblance of the green movement to revolutionary millenarianism — with one crucial difference: the top echelon of the green movement consists largely of intellectuals, the spoiled and selfish offspring of an affluent and indulgent capitalist society. In one subtle ideological move, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” has been transformed into the dictatorship of the lumpenintelligentsia.

So basically the Green movement has been formed by intellectuals for intellectuals. And this brings us right back to their hatred of capitalism, or should I say economic growth. They hate it because it gives the masses what they want rather than what they, the intellectuals, think they should have.

When they graduate they find that their ideology and ‘education’ has made them superfluous to the cultural, intellectual and economic needs of the progressive economy that nurtured them. Having been made psychologically unfit for physical work, and painfully aware of their own intellectual inadequacies, they will become progressively alienated.

In short, they won’t feel needed. But what they mean by needed, however, is being put into positions in which they can exercise power and influence over others. The kind of positions that only a Soviet-style state could provide. It really is no accident that they strongly support interventionism and totalitarian states.

Capitalism is the real enemy because it serves the masses, it challenges class structures and pulls them down; it subverts the status quo; it is blind to race, creed and class; it has made rich men poor and poor men rich; it has created unprecedented wealth and raised the living standards of the masses to a level undreamt of even forty years ago.

One thing is certain: green utopians will continue to have successes against economic growth until the masses are made aware that it is their welfare, their jobs, their living standards and their families that are being sacrificed to satisfy the greens’ utopian fantasy.

The greens, like the communists and Nazis before them, are inordinate, i.e., there is no limit to their demands. Each demand, when met, will be followed by more demands. They are only interested in total and unconditional surrender. No public relations campaign, no matter how clever, how expensive, how intense can beat them. Orthodox PR is simply powerless in the world of ideas and the battle for minds.

It is vital that the defenders of economic progress recapture the moral high ground. This requires moral certitude, determination and intellectual rigour, very little of which is found among Australia’s so-called rightwing.

[lefty_green]

Was that written by Andrew Bolt? Cant really see the point in countering one extreme left-wing argument, with an even more extreme right wing argument? From what publication is this quote taken?

which really amounts to war against our civilisation Thats a really strong and offensive statement. Do you condone such a sentiment bill?

[seatime]

billfisher, love it,

The description of the 'intelligentsia' perfectly fits the motives behind the 'Green' movement. If I ever experienced a green movement, I'd be straight to the quack.

Some of those 'intellectuals' are even posting on these boards, under the guise of ecologically concerned fishermen.

They'd have us all living like the Amish, except the Amish used beasts of burden. Wonder what there plans are for after they've brought down capitalism, they'd turn on each other would be my guess.

They, the 'Greens', really think the world would be a better place if we could return to the pre-industrial age.

I'm concerned the wider public won't wake up to their true motives.
They compare closer to a Central African Dictatorship than they do to socialism or communism.

Thanks again for the post, it made my day.

regards
Steve.

[billfisher]

Lefty_green,

The quote is from an article by Gerard Jackson the Brookes News economics editor.

I'm sure some greens are well intentioned and don't want to overthrow our civilisation. But there is no doubt that there is a hard left element in the green movement who see it as a way of pushing their socialist ideals. A lot of ex Communist party members have joined the Greens. The article rings true to me in a lot of ways.

I had a look at the Aust. Greens website and their economic policies sound like a war on capitalism to me. They want higher company tax, higher income tax for the higher earners and more tax brackets. Also a fossil fuel tax plus a carbon tax as well a 'finite' resource tax for use of forestries and fisheries.

The inordinate and limitless demands described in the article sound familiar with the marine park experience in NSW. As soon a park is declared with 20% or more sanctuary zones the greens will immediately demand more sanctuaries. They have even cited that extra fishing effort displaced from their sanctuaries to the areas left open is justifcation for more sanctuaries (so much for the spillover effect).

The way we are lied and dictated to in the marine park process definitely sounds like the intellectual elite described in the Brooks article. #

[Adamy]

Hey Bill couldnt agree more.... We used to call the greens a watermelon party... green on the outside..... you get the picture!

# The description of the 'intelligentsia' perfectly fits the motives behind the 'Green' movement. If I ever experienced a green movement, I'd be straight to the quack.

thats funny stuff right there!! Thanks Steve - needed a laugh!

The article whilst perhaps biased to the extreme right, does highlight some good points. The "conservationist" mindset is merely a tool for these guys to pry their own doggma into the lives of ordinary people. Not saying that all conservationalist are like that at all - just the extreme tree hugging, anti-social, anti-economic progress, hairy armpitted VEGANS. #That was what my comment about PETA was all about on another thread - they dont really care about animals - its just being used as a divisive wedge.

I had a look at the Aust. Greens website and their economic policies sound like a war on capitalism to me. They wan't higher company tax, higher income tax for the higher earners and more tax brackets. Also a fossil fuel tax plus a carbon tax as well a 'finite' resource tax for use of forestries and fisheries.

Totally correct there Bill. #The one thing they keep asking for is for companies to be charged the full social cost of their "production". As an economist, we know there is a fine line between a balance of marginal social cost and marginal social benefit. #To charge a company for the full social cost of production means that it wipes out the social benefit of that production. #

Which means if the Greens actually get their way, they would tax all production out of existence. The consequence of course is no clothes, shoes, food, cars etc... basically a subsistence lifestlye except you wouldnt make a bow and arrow because that might hurt a poor bunny rabbit - all farming (with no tools) and dont dare cut down a tree to make a log cabin (because thats tree felling... which to some greenies is worse than killing a human). #So where does it end??? either the greens havent fully thought through this policy...which is dumb... or they have which is much worse - its dangerous!!

What we need is a balance between the extreme left and the extreme right (I guess that obvious) but it means that ordinary guys like us have to fight the green incursion.

Just my thoughts on a very interesting topic.

Adam

[Gazza]

Oh yes and I stayed out of it - but I dont believe that requiring everyone to carry log and data books on every landed fish is a very good way to go - might as well be fishing in Stalin Russia

I agree - I dont want to be filling out log books at the end of a days fishing, even though every commercial fisher in queensland is required to do so.

Lefty ,
RecFishos , by law ,have to cut the pectoral fin off of most?? reef species.

Commercials keep logbooks ,because ,they ,and only they ,have the right to sell their fish , and hopefully generate a profit for their business. It also ensures ,assuming logbooks are "accurate" that they don't sell surplus on the black market....in a perfect world

A licence is "to sell" , NO RFL ,and "no right to sell" ....sounds fair to me

[lefty_green]

there is no doubt that there is a hard left element in the green movement who see it as a way of pushing their socialist ideals. A lot of ex Communist party members have joined the Greens. The article rings true to me in a lot of ways.

Is a hard right element any better? The fact that there are people who support the right wing crap squawked by people like Gerard Jackson is a bit of a worry. I would have thought that this site caters to people of all social and political backgrounds but the majority would be a bit to the left, rather than the right. Seems I was wrong.

Gazza the pectoral fin thing is to stop recos selling their product. this legislation was brought in to stop shamateurs. That is recos doing the wrong thing.

[RASA]

The Fishing License (RFL) opens up many discussions and if anybody is interested in a NEW post and new debate on the matter just say so. I have plenty of arguments against the license and I reckon what you see about it as being accepted is NOT what you get. Especially any reference to audits (internal). It was also carefully introduced BEFORE no-take zones hit the fan.



Bob Smith

[billfisher]

Is a hard right element any better? The fact that there are people who support the right wing crap squawked by people like Gerard Jackson is a bit of a worry. I would have thought that this site caters to people of all social and political backgrounds but the majority would be a bit to the left, rather than the right. Seems I was wrong.

[/quote]

Lefty_green,

The article didn't seem to be 'hard right' to me. Its pro economic growth and pro capitalism, but most Australians feel this way. Most of us like our jobs and our prosperity. The main left of centre party, the Labor party, has a similar view. When they campaign they just say they are superior economic managers to the Coalition.

The Brookes article was a quite accurate description of the extreme green movement. They do hate economic growth and they do have inordinate and limitless demands.

[madmix]

Hey there Lefty,

what a hypocrit, if it is to the right of centre and does not suit
your personal opinion, then it is CRAP, the article in question
has as much validity as the so called scientific reports used to
shut down the barrier reef. The same reports which were
sponsered by extreme left wing groups such as WWF, I note
these groups no longer have direct internet links to GBRMPA site.

So where do you want us all to stand???

If we all move to the left and adopt your ideologies, the world
will quickly suffer from an extreme lentil shortage, or are you only
a lefty green when it suits you.

Cheers Mick