Rec Fisho V's Rec Fishos

[Gorilla_in_Manila]

SMH Article 30 March 2006.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/w...441212601.html

Seems he wants national parks to buy out farmers so he can have access to go fishing?
Yet he's a rec Fisho who wants a marine park to stop other rec fishos, and he feels he should fight against the other rec fisho's.
WHAT THE F@#%???????????
Understand the point about the thoughtless littering pigs; but what is his proposed solution? Apparently getting a bunch of mates and chipping in and picking up the rubbish (urine and faeces aside) hasn't occured to him.
Still wondering what the point of the whole article is, and why a major newspaper thought it worth publishing.
But with friends like this, who needs enemies?

========================================

Until anglers clean up their act, we have to fight them for the beaches
March 30, 2006

A marine park is a statement about our respect for the sea, writes James Woodford.

BEHIND every big conservation decision is a henhouse worth of Chicken Littles and an army of naked emperors. If the screeching static of these doomsayers had been heeded we would have no Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, the Franklin River would have been dammed and much of the NSW coastline would still be in private hands.

If politicians listen to the outcry from recreational fishermen we will not get the Batemans Marine Park, which promises to be a significant tourism asset.

Only a little over a quarter of a century ago much of the NSW coastline between Batemans Bay and the Victorian border was in private hands. Farmers used to graze their cattle down to the ocean's edge, destroying vegetation, causing erosion and disturbing Aboriginal artefacts as old as the Egyptian pyramids. It was the way things were done.

Visitors trying to reach favourite beaches and fishing spots had to jump over barbed wire fences and dodge landholders who refused to share the shore.

When the State Government began to acquire some of this coastal land so that it could be enjoyed by everybody, there was an outcry. The sky was falling, lawyers were hired and pages of ink were spilt moaning about government interference.

But it was a courageous action and as a result we now have some of the state's most precious and popular coastal national parks. An intergenerational pattern of coastal degradation was halted and the public's right to the beach was guaranteed.

History is repeating itself in the present debate over the proposed Batemans Marine Park. Recreational fishermen are trying to kill a plan by the State Government to gazette the park in the next week. They say zoning, to be decided in coming months, will shut them out of popular fishing spots.

The Government has guaranteed that most of the 85,000-hectare park will be open to recreational fishing and that very few of the most popular spots are likely to be closed.

I am a South Coast angler - my son and I fish from a favourite wild beach and I hope it remains open after zoning is completed. But there is a reason I fish from the beach and not at the more popular spots on the headlands where my son and I would have a much better chance of filling the freezer. It is because many recreational fishermen are wilful litterers and/or their behaviour is antisocial.

Based on the mess left by some of my fellow fishermen, it is amazing the Government is not banning the pastime. Walk around any popular fishing headland along the coast in the area proposed for the marine park and the picture is the same.

At one headland this week, there were rockpools filled with urine and faeces, smashed stubbies, at least a dozen stinking plastic shopping bags and too many bait and tackle bags to count. Tangled fishing line had been discarded, posing a hazard to seabirds and sea life for years. A bollard at the headland's car park had been pulled out because many of the anglers do not want to walk 50 metres to where they cast their lines. How can a father safely take children to such a place?

The same fishermen who are complaining about being shut out of their favourite spots have effectively shut me out.

Even though anglers pull out fish after fish and I would love to be able to cast a line there, I cannot. The story is the same up and down the coast.

Such littering and filth shames those of us who bring our stinking bait bags home and dispose of them properly. Unless recreational fishermen clean up their act they have no credibility.

A large number of fishermen are like me: they treasure the time in the presence of the marine environment, the spectacular sunsets, the surprise wildlife encounters and the excitement of a child hoping to land a fish.

A marine park is a way to ensure there are some places fish are safe from fishermen for future generations, but more than anything it is a statement about our respect for the sea.

James Woodford is a Herald writer and the author of The Secret Life of Wombats and The Wollemi Pine.

[el_carpo]

I see what you mean. He seems to be talking out of both sides of his mouth. He argues for public access, then says there shouldn't be any because some fishos are slobs (and sadly, some are), then he says:

"A marine park is a way to ensure there are some places fish are safe from fishermen for future generations, but more than anything it is a statement about our respect for the sea."

Sounds like any other anti-fishing comment you hear from a member of the,"flat bread society." a.k.a. (P*TA) Understand, I'm not accusing him of being a P*TA-head pretending to be a fisho, it just sounds kind of like it the way he wrote it.

The whole thing kind of had a "Lord of the Rings", Gollum/Smeagol vibe to it. >>>>>"Fishos are good! --- NO, THEY'RE BAD! --- I like to fish with my kids. --- BUT WE SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO GO!

If he ever tries to lead you into Mordor via a cave, run away!

I think he could have achieved a lot more by just saying, "Don't pollute" or "The authorities should bust the polluters."

I'm far from being a great writer so I can't be too judgemental here but yeah, I agree with you, it's not really a print quality article. Ah well.

Why did they print it? I wonder.

[kc]

What's called by the paper an "opinion piece". I have sent Mr Woodford a polite and informative email and hopefully he will respond.

KC

[wayne_cook]

kc is the email worth posting.Interested in your response to him.
Interesting how every other angler seems to be a polluter other than him and his son.
Also like the bit about filling the freezer if he fished the rocks.Hasn't he heard of bag limits or don't they apply to him?
I believe M.Ps. will add undue pressure on the remaining reefs & headlands.
Getting cranky gotta go.