Recreational fishing management

[Nugget]

The Dept. of Primary Industry manages rec fishing – why?

DPI’s portfolio is primarily farmers and agriculture.
Why does recreational fishing – an industry that by the Government’s own admission generate millions in tourism, come under the Primary Industry portfolio?
Commercial fishing fits well under the DPI banner – but rec fishing?

Would we as rec anglers be better off managed by a tourist focused Government body?
This is not my idea – it came about as the result of a discussion I had last week with Kevin Collins from the Fishing Party.
What do you think?

Dave ><>

[webby]

Once upon atime there us to be a Dept of fisheries, but now everything come under the DPI Banner.
Being on the Crabmac Committee and knowing how Dpi works, you would have one in bucklies now of getting a seperate Dept just to look after Rec fishing, especially if DPI was still going to manage the Commerical sector.
regards

[seatime]

well,
maybe another govt department could make as big a hash of it as dpi&f. there is the argument of the devil u know?
rec fishing(and comm) crosses the borders of more than just dpi&f, there's also msq, marine park authorities, councils (boat ramps, jetties etc). it would be nice to have someone with an interest in this industry to regulate it, but these are gov departments and nothing is done at breakneck speed. maybe our grandchildren will see some improvements. might need a new autonomus body under the umbrella of the dpi&f minister to administer it.
good move putting this post up, this is how changes can be instigated. steve

[imported_admin]

This is something I have been saying for years.

The DPI one day is discussing giving millions of dollars to cane farmers and the next talking about protecting the Great Barrier Reef by closing sections of it off to Rec Fishers. Yet the run off from cane farmers is causing more damage to the Reef than Rec Fishers.

So how can the one department represent both parties?

[seatime]

they don't seem to be too good at looking after their responsibilities equally do they?
should they seperate commercial and recreational fishing?. common sense would say yes, but that is not always the path taken.
might have to plant the seed in an officials head, cause they like new ideas to be their own.

[blaze]

I think the line of thought of fishing as a sport needs to be carefully considered, I feel if its seen and handled by a sporting body it will be easier for the greens to ban at least certain aspects of fishing. I have said before that I "hunt and gather" for food, release the small for another day, and also tag some to help with the development of the resource.
Now bite my head off, but its only my opinion
cheers
blaze

[thumps]

once again i "believe" fishing isnt regarded as a sport by the Aus Government

flycasting is...but as i posted in another thread....fishing comes under recreational activities...buggered if i know how this works.

i certainly agree that it needs to get out of the DPI portfolio

to me Primary industry is something that should cover things that are made by man..."primary" as in first.

wild fish stocks are not created by man as such should have there own heading.

probably be attacked for having "two heads" but the Tasmanian Government has a sperate Dept... in so much as The Inland Fisheries Dept....which makes all the descions for the inland waters.

all funds gathered by licences etc got to that Dept and are redistributed to that specific area.

anyone would have to agree that Tassies trout fishery is world class.

why cant we have a Dept of Fisheries....as a stand alone body??

[gif]

Have a look at the back page of "Fish" there is a list of all the department sections.

Look hard and you will see Rec fishing listed in the finest print - meaning it is not a department. not a sub department but a sub sub department.

I am trying to look into my crystal ball - but I dont think we need Rec fishing moved to Tourism. We need ALL fishing moved to Tourism. why?

1. The economic value of Rec Fishing is much higher - I analysed some FIRDC data and worked out the Rec Fishing community spends $65 per kg of fish caught.

2. can you imagine the fights between 2 departments of public servants ? nothing would happen and it would all bog down. This is not a guess - I have seen it happen.

Gary

[kc]

I remain a bit less sceptical than Gary. There is already significant cross-over between departments like Fisheries and EPA and EPA/Tourism.

Our position is this.

Both at state & federal levels Fisheries/DPI treat fish stocks as a comercial resource to be managed and harvested for commercial return.

Both at state & federal levels fisheries/DPI ministers have senior advisors skilled in commercial fisheries management....niether have any advisors skilled in recreational fishing.

Recreational fishing is clearly a tourism driver and lifestyle issue and does not belong in DPI.

We have clear and distinct differences in regards management and preferred outcomes to commercial fisheries.

The representation of recreational fishing at a Government level, both state & federal, is imporant to us and while DPI/Fisheries continues to be dominated by commercial interests "we" will continue to get the blunt end of the stick.

It must be stated that TFPQ is NOT anti-commercial fishing.....we share many similar views and suffer many of the same problems...BUT!! on a number of issues..like inshore trawl, longlining of billfish, fish exports and catch quotas...we are polls apart.

We look....longingly!! to the Northern Territory experience where a Government has clearly recognised the enormous economic and social value of recreational fishing as proof positive that fish are worth more as a recreational resource and not a primary industry.

It will be a hobby horse of TFPQ during the next 2 years and likely to be a critical factor in preference negotiations in the lead-up to both state and federal elections.

Regards

KC

[bugman]

Logistics and costs would mean it isn't possible - simple as that.

You would have two different departments working on the same issues, legal sizes, catch limites, closed zones, etc and who does the research?

So the new dept would also have to employ scientists to monitor and understand stock trends. Do the dpi study tailor from a commercial perspective and the tourism dept now goes out and does data modelling on tailor for rec anglers? - I think not.

The idea does have immediate appeal but when you boil it down; the practicality means no-one would seriously consider it to the extent where you would be happy.

Brett

[Billo]

Can anyone handle the portfolio properly ?
I think it is one of those areas that does not have it's own area to fall into , so they hand ball it to someone with a similar direction , being DPI

If looked upon as an industry , there is more money in it for the tourism side then the commercial side , so with that understanding , it does seem logical
But would Tourism be handling it properly ...doubt it ....can anyone handle it properly ...doubt that too ...its not the people who are handling it so much as the way they look at it.

I think fisherman will not be happy with the handling of it all unless there are some mighty big changes ..like taking it of a view of a recreational activity thats worth billions and stop looking at it as a commercial sector..regardless of who handles it

[gif]

maybe under Sport and Rec - and not tourism? worth thinking about

[Gazza]

I don't see 'tourism' as really "recfishing" to the avg. mum or dad
Whether it's called DPI or NFI doesn't really matter , IF there's nothing left to fish for....

Some species should be made "Rec-only" ,some species are dual-purpose
i.e. Recfishing & public-seafood-gathering

What you need, regardless of "who" ,is in power, is to have a "voice" to barter better deals for Recfishos.....

So vote for TFP (if in your area) ,and watch the fur fly
or let the lack of representation screw you ,in 101 different ways

plain 'n simple.....(& JMO)
TAC's for commercials ,bag & size limits for Recs ,whoever is "supposedly" speaking for you, whoever they are????

[redspeckle]

Just have look at who's doing the job at the moment for QLD goverment what a joke Nuttall Gordon, [Hon]Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries (Sandgate)( thats my opinion)
If we split the Fishing department like Bugman says You would have two different departments working on the same issues, legal sizes, catch limites, closed zones, etc and who does the research?
EG Like the Tangalooma wrecks they have about 13 different goverment bodies over it in less than forty years time going to be cover in sand (Moreton Island is growing a rate at 1m a year to the west )they all have to agree on getting it dregde before it happens what a joke
Mitch

[fish2eat]

Its totally impractical to have them seperated, do you have fisheries inspectors employed by one Dept for pro's and others employed by another Dept for rec fishing? I can't think of any significant example where the professional side of an industry is mamaged by a different department than the private/recreational side. Imagine if they were split for boating, main roads, it's crazy.

Just because its inefficent doesn't mean that it will become efficient under another structure. By the very nature of the beauracracy, all things are stuffed up equally. Health has a seperate department and look what happenned there. How about a dose of reality???