Draft management Plan For State Fisheries.
Submitted by Howard George on Fri, 2013-06-28 02:21
On the 24th June 2013 a draft management plan for our fishery was released for public consultation and can be viewed online by going to the fisheries web-site and clicking on legislation and then on Draft Legis. on the left hand side.I'm sure Recfishwest would welcome feedback from the fishing community.
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
The Link
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/legislation/aquatic_resources_management_bill.pdf
As usual, 5 trillion pages..............get the hi-liter out
lastcast
Posts: 216
Date Joined: 04/04/13
it's a con job
check section 28: "Method for allocating shares under aquatic resource use" (between recreational and commercial sectors" which says that allocation is to be Based on 'history'. Very interesting. This is in the context of the whole Document being about taking away freedoms from the public and granting Powers to the fisheries department and the minister. Central to this is the Limitation of the 'fishing effort' ie capping how many fish can be caught. What has happened is that the pro sector has noticed that The recreational take is increasing. They have also noticed that the greenies are dead keen to stop all fishing. so, very Cleverly, the pros have hijacked the policy process to ensure that when the total Catch hits the greenie limit, it is the rec sector that takes the pain, not the pros. the Pros have their 'entitlement' enshrined thanks to the 'historical' aPproach. to me, this involves a perculiarly Ideological view of 'history' - they have considered the take at a point in time and ignored The trends. suits the govt as they will never be exposed to a compensation claim. look at how the process ascribes 'value' to fishing. if I take my son to meelup and We buy fuel, fishing gear, bait, accomodation, and catch + cook a salmon, well that Has no 'value'; as the fish was never sold. its ridiculous. this is just one example.The document ignores the fact that, for example, salmon are netted and Sold for cat food for less than a dollar per kilo, when there could Alternatively be a huge tourism industry based on catching salmon on fly Et cetera. why do you think that the advisory committee was run by a Kailis ?
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Pro's
ensuring they will have to be paid out not shut down is the ay I read it.
Also as Lastcast has mentioned, having the likes of Kailis and at a guess ex minister moore hovering in the background is favouring the outcome.
Tourism is what brings the serious dollars to coastal communitys but we must not forget the "Locals" that deserve their right to access the shared resourse.
tangles
Posts: 1367
Date Joined: 17/12/06
history
licence history! i knw a commercial fisho generation island fisherman who because he couldnt show the history of catch for his licence lost it n hes a fella who was at the islands round start of the 50's. you sound like a disgruntled south coast fisho havn a swipe at the pro fishos. the ones who knw me knw i will defend the commercial guys cos i did it for 12 yrs n have seen generation fishermen gone! do yr research and make sure you know what yr talkn about b4 you swipe!
lastcast
Posts: 216
Date Joined: 04/04/13
tangles I have a fair idea
what I am talking about, I am not arguing about history, although it would be easy here to win an argument about historiography (the ways in which the study of history are used and misused); rather, i am suggesting that a far better policy process and outcome was and is possible.
Howard George
Posts: 544
Date Joined: 10/03/11
section 72-73 interesting
As far as I can read into relevent section 72-73 first offence for fishing in marine reserve $40000 fine and second offence $80000 and I recond this is just about what this draft management plan is all about.They change names but its all about complience in MPAs and penalties to both Commercial and Rec-fishers.
squidder
Posts: 457
Date Joined: 03/09/10
Marine Parks
are ok "IF Warranted" with proper research.
These current ones are nothing short of millitism by the extreme green faction which most/all do not like anglers or any sort of hunt and gather recreation.
It's beyond me that the government doesn't step in with dollars and buy the areas that are heavily apposed to commercail fishing and have a high recreational activity.
The government is about to spend 30 odd million dollars on a weed problem FFS that is a developers problem.
Get their priorities in order.