Your Opinion - SWFL
I've been doing some thinking lately after reading a lot of fishing politics threads and wanted to get an idea from the general public and you guys that frequent the site a bit about the implications and advantages/disadvantages of the government implementing a Salt Water Fishing License. (SWFL) If say for example it cost you $25 a year to be allowed to fish the coastal waters, would you be happy to pay it, do you think it should cost more, do you think that it isn't necessary, what else should be considered and what do you think in general?
Theres no right or wrong answers and everyone's entitled to an opinion. There is a good chance that a discussion like this will stir ones emotions and thoughts, but, it is important because there are people out there fighting for this to come in and there are opponents. I will refrain from voicing my opinion until I hear what you guys have to say, but just remember to keep it friendly and respect others thoughts.
Cheers,
Adam
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
sherbert
Posts: 4717
Date Joined: 10/09/06
I think its a good idea
I think its a good idea, Then we can put money back into looking after the waters[rivers as well] What can you get for free/Not a lot our days/In uk they stock lakes and ponds. Is there anyway it can be done here or is there 2 much rubbish flowing into them that would kill the fish.
steve
It would be nice to sit by lake mongor fishing with the family
Born to fish forced to work
Assassin landbase fishing club
Nealez
Posts: 1220
Date Joined: 08/05/06
I don't see or hear of the
I don't see or hear of the fisheries doing a great deal down this way but if a fee would go towards the hiring of more fisheries officer's meaning the people doing the wrong thing have a much higher chance of getting stung then im all for it, fairs fair but people certainly wont like a change like this, but if its for the better and not just revinue raising then maybe.
On the other hand there are plenty of people doing the wrong thing on the freshwater side like spearing/netting trout at harvey dam for instance where a licence and fee is required, i understand that part of the fee (possibly all would of it) would go toward yearly stocking but there hasn't been much enforcement.
Long story short: If a fee would help to protect our preciouse recource then so be it
Just my opionion of course
Tackle Dangler
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Ive put my point of view
Ive put my point of view across the forums about policeing and greater fines for people doing the wrong thing before. I think that a fishing license is a great idea and $25 per person is a reasonable cost as well. Even $50 a family ( two adults,two kids) is a great option as well. Im sure the money will be put to great use as there is alot of issues that need to be addressed! Not the folt of the people incharge but the general fishing community need more education on whats right and whats not. As there is a growing interest in fishing that i have noticed in perth in the laast few years, theres alot more people around that dont know the rules and regs. There still is no exuces i believe as there is infomation at all destinations were fuel, equipment and bait is bought so they must know or dont wont to know! A license is a great way to enforce the rules on the person as they pay! The info can be given to them then. It is still cheap enough that the average angler can pay and only fish a few times a year to make it worth while. I think that no one would mind paying to fish as they have to to get abs and marron etc now! Up the fines and the info over and pay the licence three things i belive will help fisging in the future possible. Shit id even be happy to put my time in to help people understand why this is needed and what you and your family can get out of doing the right thing, i bet all would understand if not you could try to make em ! What you reacon streetfighter we'll sort them out hay. Actually i hope there not bringing in this licence to pay Adams wages for the year!LOL
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Its proberly not worth it
Its proberly not worth it for the guys that only have a few years left in them to fish! You know guys like sherbert, andy mac maybe LOL!Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
bouttime
Posts: 703
Date Joined: 27/07/06
Coming from fishing the
Coming from fishing the waters around NSW where a fishing license was required you can see where some of the money goes. I am not sure as the exact figures but there is nowhere near the amount of pros working the waters of NSW. Since the buy out of many of the longline contracts on the south coast a few years back the yellowfin tuna and billfish are starting to return. Around Narooma where they bought out contracts the tuna and billfish can be found as close as 10km from shore where if you go back 5 years you needed to head out 60-100km to find them.
Where will the money go.
I think in NSW you still pay $25 year, $10 month or $5 for a week which could suit everyone from us hardcore guys that head out once a week to your once a year fish with the kids.
A good idea as long as the money goes back into the waters of WA and not into the pockets of the guys in suits.
mitch
Posts: 1285
Date Joined: 14/08/05
i think a recsalt license is
i think a recsalt license is a good idea as long as all the revenue goes back into the rec fishery ,either more officers more studies more re stocking what eva .i would not like to see the money dwindle away with pro fishing concerns .they have plenty and seem to get looked after not looked over .may sound a bit harsh that last bit but im not going to get caught up in it .
if it did come in ide hate to see the family man down the beach getting fingered bye an officer for not having a license ,specialy if he only has a crack at it maybee once in a blue moon, or a couple of kids dropping a line of a jetty .its a harde this one .maybee put an extra dollar on sold bait .and the gov can get the coin that way.i dont know i just know it will be messy
always in it just the depth that varies
deefa
Posts: 642
Date Joined: 09/09/05
$25/year is a pittance
$25/year is a pittance compared to what a lot of us spend on tackle/bait/gear etc, and as long as my fee was going towards the long term sustainability of w.a. fishing, i'd have no drama what soever. What concerns me though is, who is held accountable for our fees, what "reporting back" is done for us, Joe Public, to ensure our money is well spent.
If there was some sort of annual report/audit that would be made available for those interested, to see where there hard earned was spent, that would make it easier for a lot of people to part with their cash.
The long term benefit of a RFL is only good. There is no negative whatsoever in my mind........... as long as the funds rasied are spent wisely.
Vander72
Posts: 433
Date Joined: 20/10/06
like bouttime said
they do it over east and it dont seem that bad.my bro has a license and he renews it every year but only fishes once in a while.handy thing to have he says as he has been pulled up numerous times...id get one if i had to....i enjoy fishing just like the next fisho and dont have a problem with it......and like every1 has said if the revenue was put back into the fishing side of things well that can only be good thing......
he who dies with the most toys wins
lighterthief
Posts: 167
Date Joined: 10/11/06
There are so many reasons
There are so many reasons why we should have one, id gladly pay $25 or more.
some bream i caught..http://s620.photobucket.com/home/lightertheif/allalbums
MASA - Marine Aquarium Societies Australia http://www.masa.asn.au/masa/index.html
sid
Posts: 104
Date Joined: 09/11/06
"It would be nice to sit by
"It would be nice to sit by lake mongor fishing with the family"
been there done that,youd be suprised whats allready in there..
id be wiling to pay a liscence fee,especialy if it put more fisheries people on the front end of things catching people with over the limit etc....bloody good idea...sid
sherbert
Posts: 4717
Date Joined: 10/09/06
My 2 year
Its my 2nd year trout fishing but only bein one time and i dont mine payin it
steve
Born to fish forced to work
Assassin landbase fishing club
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Downfalls
So are there any obvious problems with doing this apart from what has been mentioned?
I like the ability to be able to pay on a monthly/weekly/yearly basis. I suppose it really needs to be scaled so that those that don't use it so often aren't being slugged with hefty fees and those that are able to get out once, maybe even more often per week pay accordingly. I see the problem with that being the enforcement side of things, like Mitch has said, it complicates matters quite a bit.
Is it fair that some pay and others think they can exploit it by not paying. Will the costs involved with hiring officers to enforce the license be the primary source of where the revenue is going to be spent. It does have the potential to get messy, but surely if they have the other licenses in place, freshy, marron, abs, crays etc, then a saltwater usage fee can't be too far from being implemented?
Also, do you think that if people had to pay to use the resource it would reduce the pressure placed on stocks as a result of the occasional angler not bothering having to pay the license along with the potential costs involved with being fined as a result of not having one?
All hypothetical of course.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Andy Mac
Posts: 4778
Date Joined: 03/02/06
I'm all for a license
However it won;t work unless you use the money generated to police the waterways. Otherwise as Adam eluded to, the chances are a guy who rarely fishes will not bother with buying a license and risk it..then the next guy will risk it and pretty soon its open slather.
I had the fortunate experience of catching a train into town the other day. 12 months ago half the passengers wouldn't have bought a ticket but now since they have resourced the policing of it, everyone buys a ticket.
I'm not saying a closed environment like a train is anything like the vast coastline we have but the fact remains if its policed people will fall into line and the bad guys will get caught and rightfully dealt with.
Research is the other big thing and moneys need to be channelled into that area too. A license will help raise that money and I'm happy to pay it if it means I can catch big dhuies with my grand kids 20 years from now.
Cheers
Andy Mac (Fishwrecked Reeltime Editor & Forum Moderator)
Youngest member of the Fishwrecked Old Farts Club
Jimmy Jordan
Posts: 22
Date Joined: 30/01/07
Why not?
I would have no worries in paying that or even more, but I would like to see it go to the right places, I am very much in for alot more laws keeping tabs on who is out there fishing the waters,I belive that somthing is so much better than nothing.
Nealez
Posts: 1220
Date Joined: 08/05/06
There needs to be alot more
There needs to be alot more places that you can aquire a licence as well, in bunbury the only place you can get one is at the main post office in town (on a week day) so if a once a month fisher decides to go for a fish on a satuday or sunday then he/she's far more likely to say 'bugger it i'll risk it'
Tackle Dangler
Andy Mac
Posts: 4778
Date Joined: 03/02/06
Policing
If the policing of our waterways is considered a "joke" then people will treat the laws governing them as a "Joke" and subsequently be tempted to flaunt them. (Just my opinion.) License or no license.
Ask yourself why 80% of us all speed in our cars at one time or another? Its because we think we can get away with it ("what's an extra 10kmph on the freeway, nothing"....wrong). As soon as you get a fine or see a speed camera you slow down. I'm as guilty as the next man, that's why I think it will only work if the policing is visible and people think they will get caught if they do the wrong thing.
I would definately not want to hear on the radio that "today we have reports of fisheries at hillaries, mindarie and two rocks marina's, so make sure you do the right thing." All that will do is tell the crooks where they can get away with it.
Interesting topic.
Cheers
Andy Mac (Fishwrecked Reeltime Editor & Forum Moderator)
Youngest member of the Fishwrecked Old Farts Club
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Thats a good comment nealez,
Thats a good comment nealez, you have to make it assesable fro people to get one or stick to the one a year payment plan so your covered.
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Policing
The reason I think people think they can get away with it is because there isn't enough enforcement, but also because the penalties aren't harsh enough. If you knew you were going to get slapped with a $500 fine for not having a license, then the risk of not having one is too great not to, especially when its say, only $25 to hold one for the year.
The same goes with theives and home burglaries, if crooks knew that they were going to lose their hands (like medieval times, muslim countries) I'd bet there would be a lot less crimes of that nature occuring. These days they seem to get a slap on the wrist and theyre back out re-offending because the punishment doesn't match the crime. Bit overkill I know, but a closer example is speeding over east, their fines are $500 + and upwards for small infringements, now that would certainly be enough to deter me from pushing those extra few kmsPH.
Anyway, a bit offtopic. I agree with what you have said about notifying where fisheries are Andy, I guess it comes down to the government $ allocation and how important they think the fishery is, especially when theres so many other things going on, not enough police officers, not enough teachers etc.
Surely the money from a SWFL could go to focusing on components of the fishery that require it, then I guess it comes down to prioritising which is most important. That then opens a whole new ball game of satisfying the different stakeholders I guess...
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
Agree
I'd definitely Pay for one. If it means my 2 year old son has a chance of going out and catching fish as good as the ones that get posted here then I'm all for it!
I agree with all of the points above as well.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
I have a different opinion
I have a different opinion on RFL's and I think there is more to the whole idea of funding than just forking out extra fees and thinking RFL's will provide fish for your kids.
There are many issues and alternatives that will do that.
Some of you will know from other debates my views and I don't mind being in any sensible debate about it.
First off I come from NSW where some RFL realities exist.
Secondly I am leading a charge to get fishing political over and above lobbying, and that does not include an RFL but rather to get proper funding returned to the resource where every benefactor pays his share.
Thirdly it matters not whether any sympathy exists for a $2 license or a $200 one.
That should set the cat amongst the pidgeons to start a sensible debate off.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
Wa not NSW
Who says it has to based on the nsw model. We are putting our support behind a licence that would return funding directly into the fishery. Not 50% or 75% but 100% back in to the fishery. Sure it might not happen but that is what we want.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
So why wouldn't you campaign
So why wouldn't you campaign (the same as campaigning FOR a license)to just get an equivalent increase in fisheries budget and achieve the same thing, whether you are in WA or NSW.
I saw that WA Gov gets $54 million in taxes returned from your fishing spending. Why would you want to contribute more on the assumption that 100% would be returned to rec fishing?
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
Its not an assumption. We
Its not an assumption. We are advocating the use of a RFL/SWFL on the condition that the money/profits get used for the furthering and bettering of our fishery. This isn't a thread about TFP bob it is about recreational fishing licence's. If you want to know about that then start another thread or read the comments on other sites. If you or anyone else can make the government put more money into rec fishing then more power to you but until that day we have to deal with what we have and put forward other ideas.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
LukasIt's not meant to be a
Lukas
It's not meant to be a thread about TFP or difference of opinion between east and west, it's a response to find the reasonable debates about RFL's and why there is a one-eyed push for one.
I want to know why there is not a push from groups, individuals, celebrities, wannabes and everyone else to get more funding for the resource WITHOUT the necessity for extra (taxes, RFL,s, levies, fees and charges)
I want to know why just rec anglers are going to pay towards the resource when there are (Environmentalists, Businesses, General Public, Governments) all hugely profiting out of it.
The simple fact is that the resource is being neglected no matter how much tax the government collects. If you or anybody else does not want to challenge that, then you will forever be divided and conquered and I don't know about you but I have had enough of being hoodwinked when it relates to fishing.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Push
There is no one eyed push, these are opinions from a whole variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds, with a variety of experience. Everyone is entitled to say nope, don't like them, don't want them, but it seems from this small segment people don't have a problem with paying a license that supports our fishery.
What makes the fishing party any different from any other political party when they don't want to consider the options for a state that is on the other side of the country and requires different management techniques to help supplement the ones already in place?
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
Hi Adam As you know from
Hi Adam
As you know from other areas and why I refer to it as "one eyed"-as a figure of speech, in the debates so far there does not seem too many from the limited different replies on sites, that want to have existing money returned to the resource or are prepared to even try. That has me baffled.
What makes it any different for WA to need different management techniques to supplement anything in place than other places. Asking for fisheries resource management (recreational) to receive a better funding deal is a National ask I would think and worth fighting for, it's no different to fighting for any funding supplement for any department or infrastructure is it. Or do they need to pay another tax as well.
TFP hasn't done anything in WA yet so you really can't compare apples with oranges. Is there or has there been another "political party" who has fishing as the number one objective and the fortitude to have a go outside the lobbying or begging arena
In my debates so far I have not seen any real reason to support any RFL. Empire builders, as what has occured in other state's RFL implementations seem to prevail.
I thought somebody might have come up with a list of why an RFL is better than getting more funding ploughed back.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Wally
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 13/09/06
assuming
Bob your the one that is assuming. your telling us that YOU will get the money from the government/s Promises promises. you haven't got a red cent for recreational fishing/ research and compliance across this whole nation, especially QLD where you have a foot in the door, ( your 100 grand doesn't cut it either) , but a licence in NSW/ Vic has generated that money ( over 5 mill in NSW thats right over 5 mill ) through a licence,which have benefited recreational fishing to no end, all through a trust all spent by recreational fisherman
Check this out guys. bob will come up with some crap about that all money isn't directed to recreational fishing but the majority of guys that we have spoken too across the nullabor think its great.
http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreational/where-fishing-fees-go
back on the topic, the best thing about a licence is compliance, you sign your bit of paper saying you understand the rules under the fisheries act.You don't abide by those rules you forgo your right to access this fishery, first offence 3 months then 1 year then so on do it too many times your gone. Sadly we are the ones that have to put up with others that don't give a toss, but your fishery is loosing out because of others, why not weed these guys out
Also I already pay 70 odd bucks a year for licences, why should we, who get the blanket have to cover those who dont, hell some of those fisheries I dont participate in, ya can stick your trout, should be all pay to access all pay for research/ compliance/ education
Wally
thanks Adam and to anyone one else I apologize, you wont cop any crap from me anymore ( wink)
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
WallyYou have a remarkable
Wally
You have a remarkable talent for not telling the story. I will debate anyone on the merits of the NSW RFL including you, but this post is about WA I am told and I am trying to find out WHY an RFL is so important here over proper sought funding.
Your reference to where your license money goes in NSW is a joke, it looks good some would say but start pulling it apart and you would hide under the blanket. When you mention the oncosts and interest on loans and Admin costs you would wonder why there has not been a rebellion.If you did the same thing in the real world you would be arrested.
Where do you get off saying that "I" will get the money. I thought it was all about getting a "united threat" to get the money amongst many other important things. Until that happens it's still L plates. I can't make that happen just yet but the crowd is building. It took the Greens 15 years to be the threat they are now.
A license really doesn't have anything to do with compliance. Ya Granmother can buy one for your birthday and if your dog likes eating pippies or crabs you can buy one in his name as well.
It's about revenue and budget cuts first and you second.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
OX
Posts: 198
Date Joined: 29/11/06
I for one would gladly pay
I for one would gladly pay for a license for the ability to fish in our great waters.I already pay for the right to crayfish so no different for a fish.At the end of the day the main aim is to plough money back into the development of a fisheries resource that will not only last for our generation or our children's but for their grandchildren and further.We can debate forever and a day about politics but all this "talk" really does not achieve much in the end until someone gets off their ass and does something about helping out our fishing environment.
Bob what we are doing is asking a general question on a public forum to see the views on how people react to a possible license fee for the right to fish.I find generally by putting a monetary figure on something most people will adhere to the laws and regulations pertaining to that activity (especially if the laws are backed up by severe punishment if they are breached).The paying for a license will assist in providing for a certain amount of funding for extra staff to enforce the polices, etc.
This surely can only be a good thing, after all are not we all trying to protect the hobby/sport that we all love and enjoy!I know I am , so in that regard I am willing to pay a fee for a license that will ultimately assist in the prolonging and protecting of our fishing environment!
End rant here!lol
Cheers OX
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
Hi OXIt is hard to argue
Hi OX
It is hard to argue that "extra" funding is not a good thing and I don't know of anybody who has ever advocated that. I certainly never have, as what my debate is about is where and who provides that necessary funding (not necessary extra but essential). I don't want to keep talking about it either as I want WA and all fishers to campaign 'en bloc'to get the proper funding to manage their side of the resource, hence the debate that nobody seems eager to do.
RFL's should not be confused with drivers licenses either as not everybody can drive or pass the test.
Bank robbers and thieves have no compliance no matter how many police there is either.
Excuses of taking away RFL's is lame duck also if comparing with driving licenses. The same can be said about firearms, the crooks still have them and honest people don't. My politics is about applying the pressure to not just get proper funding but many other things seen wrong with the resource, but they are many and long posts in the making.
There seems to be a sheep like approach to participating in this wonderful recreation and existing management, nobody wants to upset the apple cart.(except me)So in IMO nothing will change.
Remember this: The more money you spend on your recreation the more is returned to your state government for you to continue to prop up and I am saying that it is about time that some of everybodies share was returned instead of being made emotionally responsible for their dereliction.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
RFL
Yep agree with you ox and wally. By paying for a licence you are willing to abide by the laws and rules of the licence. No different to a drivers licence. If money can be obtained from other sources for the fishery then that is also a good idea. It seems to me that most people have no problem paying for a licence and earning the right to fish in our waters. If they breach the laws then the licence can be taken away from them. As Ox said he pays for the right to crayfish. The crayfishery in WA has been proven to be the only sustainable fishery in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong. How can that be a bad thing. It stops every tom dick and harry from taking as many as they want as often as they want and ensures all licenced fishers know the rules.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
jay_burgess
Posts: 4648
Date Joined: 18/08/05
" It seems to me that most
" It seems to me that most people have no problem paying for a licence and earning the right to fish in our waters."
Don't forget that the people who respond to topics like this only represent a small proportion of recfishers in WA.
Unofortunately I think there would be heaps of people that wouldn't support an SWFL.
-----------------
Jay Burgess
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
I understand that as Bob
I understand that as Bob smith has pointed out. If people ar serious about conserving the fishery a SWFL can't be ruled out. Sure if someone like bob can get more money out of the government for conservation then lets do that too. A licence isn't just about the money it is about proving you have knowledge of laws, rules and restrictions and if you breach the rules then you can have your licence taken away. A SWFL doesn't even have to cost anything to do its job of providing info and a course of justice if the rules are breached.
____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
Wally
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 13/09/06
http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreational/where-fishing-fees-go
hopefully this link worked
Bob rebellion. pardon, if it is that bad, surely the recreational fisherman would of come out and said this is a scam. Not what we hear, we hear lots of stories and the majority is great best thing we ever did.They say we have recreational fishing zones only, Havens where we can catch fish in a an area that has NO commercial pressure, not to mention the fantastic fish stocking that goes on in Dams in NSW /VIC, even QLD has to pay to access their dams, WHAT THIS ISN'T SOME SORT OF LICENCE.
A licence can be linked to compliance Bob, just you are that against it, you only see a speed humps, the positives totally out way the negatives. so what if the money raised pays for a few more compliance officers out of our funds or even a few admin costs, as you can see through these posts most would gladly pay for it if it means they get the scum sucking dirt bags that spoil it for the rest of us.Even Lukas suggestion if it was free you still can use this as a compliance measure
Again bob this is all to do with you want us to follow in your footsteps abide by your rules. Hell if we become members of the fishing party, you have been quoted as saying you must post your membership number on each post, on any Fishing forum. What a joke, dictatorship at its finest
How many members Bob have you signed up for WA, you said you would post it up after a last week. Please answer this question with honesty, nah you would doge it like the rest of the serious questions
Wally
great to see people do support this. Jay I am sure if you do ask around the numbers of support are gaining strength
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
WallyThe link works ok and
Wally
The link works ok and there is plenty of reading there even though I have tried to avoid getting out of WA.
Answers in WA so far want 100% of monies returned so NSW must be the laughing sock of being conned under those assumptions. Sheep!
and I might add there is a likely rebellion beginning in NSW now over it all.
Remember my referencing the 80-88% Department and others oncosts, Interest on loans, Departmental budget cuts, Redundencies replaced by FO's paid for by anglers, Compliance fines into consolidated revenue,Admin costs (shown and hidden), Legislation about Public Servants wages and their infrastructure etc. Yep a good link! and the winner is 20% to the good guys and 80% to NSW Govt plus the $84 million tax return from your spending. Yahoo! (sorry) OH I forgot-you can access back your money in grants if you match it with dollars or in-kind. Yep Councils, Greenies, and anybody can access your money under those circumstances(approved by Ministerial appointees-{paid for by you} of course )
I don't agree that licenses are linked to compliance but only as evidence that you have been honest and paid rather than risking being fined. FO's don't need that as an excuse to check you out.
Wally: This is what I said in reference to your above quote on "Dictatorship" > Quote:
"One thing that will be established is that any member "MIGHT" have to display his TFPWA member number when commenting on forums as to abide by a code of practice."
In relation to answering your serious questions what are you talking about?
There has not been any more memberships from WA since we posted last.
Here's one for you Wally and maybe something for a statewide census > If an RFL generated $6 million to be put back into rec fishing would a $6 million budget increase to be put back into rec fishing achieve the same thing. Yes or No (as in a court of law, as we can argue about conditions for hours)
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Maverick
Posts: 1260
Date Joined: 06/06/06
YES
Even a NOB like me knows it will be of assistance to have a licence for every fisher .
______________________________________________________
Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's
The lying scumbag that I am .
And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFW member 088
Sponsored by no one and I work for myself so my comments are my own.
OX
Posts: 198
Date Joined: 29/11/06
Fair comment m8
Understand and at least we can move forward and try to get something started to preserving what we have at present with a view to improving it for the future.
And yes it would be good if some of the funds that are spent by recreational fishermen sre reinvested back into the conservation of our favorite pastime.
Cheers OX
Bugger this I'm off fishing (well maybe later).
Stingray
Posts: 188
Date Joined: 05/01/07
Licence :-(
I personally think that a mandatory fishing licence would be a disappointment for those who rearely fish.
Q: Would I be happy to buy a licence for my 9yr old niece when she comes to visit from South Australia to use the her favourite rod (which I got her for about 5 Christmas' ago)?
I get to fish with her once every couple of years; so I don’t think I’d be too happy getting the licence for one - two trips.
Specialised fishing maybe (shell fish), but not for a couple of herring or gar's.
Cheers Jason
Wally
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 13/09/06
There has not been
Bob i read all forums that are relevant and I have never seen a figure. So please enlighten us on WA memberships
As for your last comment Bob the answer is NO. I would rather the money raised for rec fishing to be decided by us, if it came from government coffers you could bet they would say how and when it was spent, If we paid, then we get to say where and when it is spent,
Bob you need to come up with some better argument then the government raising funds for rec fisherman, the chances are none.
Why do so many golfers pay green fees, hell they buy clubs, balls/ bags shoes all taxed. you could just about say they spend the same amount of money ( excluding boats) for their favorite past time, just like we do. but you don't see Government coffers taking care of golfers.
I am working on your 80% figure, please bare with me on this, your sums don't add up to what is in the funds and spent from the funds
I think your so called 80% comes from compliance officers that are paid by the fund, then you may pull out a bit of research/ scientists money, Then there is travel expenses form the guys who sit on the board. this list could go on,
If there is a so called rebellion Bob against a licence in NSW we would see it on other forums around the country mate, so don't bullsh&t us with propaganda. we do read other forums as well, including the one in QLD where they were thinking of going it alone because they didn't want to be dictated by some fat cat in NSW
Wally
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Good point
You make a good point Jason, it would have to fair for those that don't use the system as much as others. It is one of the biggest problems that I could see with the license, but I'm sure that there must be a solution to make it fair and equitable for all.
Lots of people are scared of change, hell, we already pay a lot to go fishing as it is. But if we have a fund that can be used by fisherman for fisherman to help improve the areas which we believe are being over-looked or not focused upon enough by those in government, then that surely is a good thing in my mind. Maybe the absence of a political party which is devoted to fishing, whilst still being conservation minded to some degree, is what is needed. But, the unwillingness of your supposed party to consider any options outside the box doesn't appeal to me, even if it is in place in other states. I can understand where your coming from Bob, but if you said, once we have a party established we will consider it, rather than a flat out no, that would mean a lot more to me. You are going to have a party of 500 members, if you obtain them, why not let them decide rather than the 'dictator' dictating terms, or is that part of members posting their serial rank and file numbers when voicing an opinion?
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
Hi AdamI am certainly aware
Hi Adam
I am certainly aware of where RFL advocates are coming from and I am sure that if there were 500 members or more in a WA Branch then they would argue for what's best for WA. Any reference to NSW by Wally or me or others is purely an example of how you are getting screwed by stealth, arrogance and hidden agendas, and what you are not being told. My argument is based on the fact that nobody has applied the pressure that could come from a reported base of 643,000-680,000 anglers who should be interested in their future and the future resource management.
I don't care how much research Wally does into the NSW RFL it will not make any difference to my opinion or written facts, but I hope he can get better breakup audits than me.
There is no dictatorship but a course of action that we have established to get proper funding. As soon as you get into extra funding, extra fees, extra levies, self funding and any other emotional compromises you will get screwed.
What I would say as we have said about lock up areas and no-take zones is that they should be last resort implimentations after all the alternatives have been given a good chance. Without TFP getting that chance with the help of the fishing community then we will never know and you will always be under the rule of extra taxes, levies, fees and charges.
Please don't be fooled by the terms "If you pay you have a say" as that only works when it favours governments or chest beating empire builders.
I think the fishing participants already paying enough for little return
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Shag
Posts: 776
Date Joined: 15/10/06
I believe any monies be it
I believe any monies be it from government or rfl is only going to benifit our pristine marine life as long as it is used properly .Im not going to get intoall this political crap I just want my children and grandchildren to being able to enjoy the same fishing lifestyle as we have if not better. I am sick and tired of having my kids ask me why some people rape the system taking anything over or under size .Im proberly like alot of people on this site and sick and tired of the abuse and on occasions assults when these pricks are not happy with you having ago at them about this issue .the bottom line is I will continue to do this untill there is a greater presance of officers to police this sort of abuse to our marine system .I have not once been checked by a fisheries officer on my catch. I would gladly pay a fee to see these other perthetic wankers get caught for raping the system. I knowthis is only one issue that funding for our marine system needed but it is such a personel issue .Think how much we spend on our gear and a fee is not going to hurt us much.Although if we dont its only our future generations that will be hurt . CHEERS SHAG
Before you can become a Master Fisherman You must be a Master Baiter
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
I perssonally dont give a
I perssonally dont give a shit what they do over in nsw as i live and fish here in wa! And wa is what we are talking about. This bluddy argueing over something that doesnt really concern the original topic and people not allowing others have there say pisses me off. I fish and i vote to and instead of winging about it i try and assist in anyway i can. The more funds the better i beleive, but thats my opinion no one elses. Comment on that! Bob if your chasing a debate come around to my place and ill give you one!
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Chill Chill
Chill chill, no need to get riled up Spess. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, it is likely to get emotional and firey because it touches on something sensitive to all of us that care about our fishery.
Bob makes good points in terms of having to pay more isn't neccesarily the best option in terms of management. That is his opinion and what he is fighting for by creating a fishing party which acts in the political arena.
This was purely about seeing what people thought about a SWFL, but is easily subverted onto other topics closely related.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Im not having a go at him!
Im not having a go at him! After re reading my thread i realize thats it sounds harsh. I Apoligise for that. What i was saying is that everyone can put there point across without the need to stray from the original comment and attack others say. Ill be more than willing to have a debate when it concerns the fishery in wa. We need to keep it as substainalbe as possible and maybe the licence is the way to go! It all comes down to those who do the right thing and those who dont give a rats arse about keeping that way. Politics, politics we can go on all day about this. Im sure fisheries try there best almost all of the time, the times they dont well we all slack off at times. $25 dont be so tight! Its a couple of beers. Cheers adam thanks for making me review my comment.
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
Andy Mac
Posts: 4778
Date Joined: 03/02/06
politics
I am not sure if I am willing to trade my vote on other important political and economic issues just yet. Even though I am a very passionate fisherman, I am still a businessman, a father, a road user, a tax payer etc. My vote gets considered based on a number of competing issues not just one single issue. I think I am not alone in that situation (643000 - 680000 anglers, how many are in the same boat as me?).
Therefore I believe that lobbying is still our best method of influencing the government with regards to recreational fishing. With a SWFL possibly used as a bargaining chip in the process.
Just a thought.
Cheers
Andy Mac (Fishwrecked Reeltime Editor & Forum Moderator)
Youngest member of the Fishwrecked Old Farts Club
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Anything to help hey Andy!
Anything to help hey Andy! Trying is all we can do. Ihavent got kids yet but not to far away, i cant wait to get them out there on one of them secret dhuie spots.
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
More funding...
I would have no problem paying for an RFL - i think it is potentially a great idea, but has quite a few problems as others have said. Like Bob, mentioned the inefficiencies in money flows through Govt Depts - $1 into the fund wont result in $1 going into an officers salary, or scientists research, it will get spliced and diced in various directions. If those directions were well integrated and coordinated into the overall effort to conserve the fishery thats OK but it reality this doesnt happen, in any Govt agencies, methinks...
Unless it was a dedicated fund for research, with all the other admistrative overheads covered by increased funding from the Govt - we can't rely on an RFL to deliver what we want, and it is unlikely that the Govt are going to cough up the shebang needed to employ more officers, do more research etc...I think both would be required.
It is like having to pay to go into National Parks these days...we shouldnt have to - i was born here, this is my land, i should not have to pay to go onto public lands - the money needed to manage it should come from normal taxes - but at the same time if this isnt the reality, then at least me paying entry fee money is helping out, and at the end of the day I just want these beautiful places, or to get back on topic, this excellent fishery, protected - whatever the cost, yes whatever the cost. It is more important than money - we are killing it dead. There will be TWICE as many people fishing with high-technology in only 30 years...30 years ago there were half as many people fishing, with handlines and compasses, and look at the degradation we see now...
There are dangers with user-pays management models...if we have to pay for the licence does that give us a say in the management? if the bag limit was dropped from 1 dhuie to 0 dhuies, for a year or two - will recfishers have more political power to say "this is bullshlt, we pay good money to fish, we should be able to fish, dagnammit" and thus take away from that management strategy? Or "we are paying for your research, you should do it in such and such a way" etc etc...? It creates an automatic lobby group, with a direct interest in extracting fish/etc from the oceans...an lobby groups have a tendency to be one-eyed and uninformed IMO
Then of course, occasional fishers will be stung proportionately more...if i pay $25 and catch 100kg of dhufish over the year, compared to mum and dad having to pay $100 for the whole family to go crabbing on boxing day and they got 2 bluies and 10 blowies, then i think the political pressure back on the govt to reduce the licence or take it away would end up doing more harm than good...the govt that was proactive and introduced the RFL would get voted out and the party that maintained the status quo would get in and then we are back to square one...
Another point - what would be the point in putting more officers on and enforcing poor limits and restrictions...for eg the Shark Bay snapper fishery was nearly cactus (still yet to be proven otherwise) before fisheries did anything about it, despite many complaints etc over many years...dhufishing is all but finished close to Perth or Bunbury, without big boats, whereas you used to need a dinghy, the list can go on...the regulators literally dont know enough about the fisheries to manage them...by and large they are managed based on catch rates etc, not science...for eg the first reasonably comprehensive, scientific, peer reviewed study published on Dhufish biology was in 2002 - ahem, a good many fishey policies had been decided upon before then - yeah i know DoF do their own research but you can see what i mean. There is alot of effort going into the sambo aggregations etc...but again, only since the 2000's...compare the amount of research going into fish biology compared to the amount of research going into GPS, echo sounder, outboard motor technology, fishing reel development and marketing etc etc etc...
The answer to effective management lies first in understanding the things that drive the biology of these species, and the interactions between them, then in the appropriate limits and restrictions based on this science, and on to the politics involved in setting such restrictions fairly etc - why should i throw back undersized fish when a trawler kills thousands in bycatch? Questions like that...
At the moment, we are not yet at that first stage of understanding...this requires highly substantial investment in integrated research, through Fisheries Dept, DEC, Universities, CSIRO etc, through large-scale policies directed towards marine research and conservation...I think this is beginning to happen, but it is just starting...another example...what is the point in paying $25 for an RFL, which goes into research which ends up in telling us we should raise the Spangled Emperor min size in Exmouth Gulf, and then allow the Straits Solar Salt project to undermine it all...(ooopsy, that just slipped in there ;) ). People automatically assume that conservation = greenie/hippy or that it means fishing closures...but it is not, it is simply the last resort in preserving the things that ultimately sustain us, in the face of development proposal after development proposal, technological advancement after technological advancement, and exponential population growth.
I think the money and effort required to manage our whole fishery would be so big that money raised through an RFL would be chicken-feed. Show me a fishery anywhere in the world that is 'managed' without a decline in target stocks over time. Dont cite the WA Rock Lobster fishery - this is helped ALOT by good ol mother nature giving us the Leeuwin Current which lets us catch them down here whilst they are replaced by spawning up there - all we gotta do is protect the stock up there and we can ravage the stock down here...but this WAS discovered after alot of money spent on research, cos it is worth so much money to the economy.
So in conclusion my point is that we need bucketloads of money to be spent on science as the basis for management, then a greater understanding/education of the need of conservation measures, including marine reserve creation as well as fishery management (with the two integrated), then onward and upward towards generally greener policies all round, not just on the fishing front.
An RFL would help raise this money, and if done nicely would educate people about the need for it, or rather the need for the research etc. If it is slapped on people they will resist and vote accordingly (but there was opposition to national park fees that i dont think made it to the polls?). If it is the only way that money is raised for said research etc then it will be wasted. Better education and understanding about all environmental issues will help stop people pillaging more effectively than compliance enforcement, and would come from broad policies. More officers might do the same thing but it is not likely that enough would be put on to do this...most pillaging happens in remote areas like Steep Pt or Ningaloo etc...and population centres get hammered anyway just because of population pressures...what is the point of having the same bag limits apply across the state when there are population density differences??
Bob why dont you join your party with the Greens, or another one - or perhaps i should first ask - do you speak with the other parties to try and get them to incorporate your ideas into their own? our fishery does not operate on its own...if we really want to help it out we also have to work towards better land management practices etc etc etc...
~650,000 recfishers? puh-leeez - this number should be revised to "how many would vote according to fishing related policies", then it would be a real number, ~650,000 is a bluff used by lobbyists...there might be 650,000 people who fish each year but only 20,000 will care about it...lets get real...if it were a real number the Govts would do anything we tell them to...
cant write anymore but want to...
Ewan
Scaly
Posts: 22
Date Joined: 04/05/06
"Bob why dont you join your
"Bob why dont you join your party with the Greens"
Did you have a smile on your face when you wrote that?
"~650,000 is a bluff used by lobbyists"
Incorrect Ewan- this figure along with half a dozen variations are from Fisheries/ some other govt agency. The figure was and is used extensively by NGO's in pushing for fishing closures and figures revised downwards seem to be used when working out resource allocations
Wally
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 13/09/06
Bob the admin costs are
Bob the admin costs are capped at 10% fact , which includes your name in a data base, your plastic card etc.
You 80% as I expected comes from costs from scientists that work for Fisheries NSW and compliance officers paid by the trust,
an eg: would be, we wish for more research on Herring the most important species to recreational fisherman in this state. We pay DR Rod Lenanton ( fin fish man)to do this research, well he needs to be paid his wage/ super/ etc plus the costs of doing this research all paid by the trust.
Bob you have grabbed this figure and added this to get your 80%.
Then you have compliance paid by the trust, Same thing these guys need a wage/ super and costs associated by the compliance.
grabbed another 20%
You figure of 80%, has come from what we are all saying on this thread, we don't mind paying for this,so your argument of the 80% is garbage.In actual fact its what we want.
Bare in mind for all who read this. this is a good point.Remember the trust board is decided by NSW recreational fisherman, and they are recreational fisherman on the board .To get these projects or any submission approved they must meet the guide lines set out, so if these proposals seem extreme in costs, or not worthy, the board has the power to knock these back. they don't have to except a submission.
If WA had the same set up, you don't necessary have to get the fisheries department to do the research, which may cost a bit more, you could get Murdoch Uni for an example to do the research at a lower cost
so Bob, hopefully that has cleared a bit up for you, we don't have a problem in paying to access/ research fish that we target, we don't have a problem with paying for compliance to manage these fish
If you would be so kind to answer the BLOODY question. How many members in WA Bob, or should I address this to DR Smith from Lost in Space, oh and where is there a rebellion against the NSW licence, care to give us a few links
sorry Spess for continuing with the NSW thing, this is a good system. we may need to tweak it a bit but its a great starting point for a SWRFL
Wally
for the record who on here pays the whole shootn match the 70 odd bucks a year
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
WallyYou are determined to
Wally
You are determined to shoot Bob Smith down at every chance. By the way there are also no 'Fat Cats'in TFP as everything is VOLUNTARY. I reckon that there has been enough links supplied by you for anybody to do their own research about what I have eluded to in this post and others. You really need to peer a little bit deeper into the whole hoodwinking exercise that is happening in NSW, as there are some pretty headlines. WA certainly and surely would not fall for what you see I would hope. I stick to my figures of 20%to the good guys and 80% to the government.
Wally, just a few facts > Admin costs are not capped at 10%. That figure is misleading as it is now shown that is just for "collecting" the license money in paper form (not plastic) and besides that you know quite well from our prior correspondence that there is "Contingency fees $300,000.00, Management fees of another 12% = $1.2 million, "Reminder notice fees", "Ads","Fishing license promotions", "Other databases" "Magazine inserts","Other salaries", "Signs", as just some OTHER ADMIN misrepresented charges. And it is linked to CPI AND is under review.
Wally another misleading statement > The trust board is not decided by rec fishers, they are Ministerial appointees purposely selected just the same as the process for selecting the government recognised peak angling body and advisory group.(Now we don't want to go there do we) Nothing to do with recfishers at all. The Nature Conservation Council (Greenie) has a rep on there deciding how to spend your money.
As far as how many people have signed up for WA you will know that when they get enough to kick it off. At this stage there is not enough for a team.
Question? If you already pay $70 a year what the hell do you want to pay more for. What are you getting for the $70
By the way the rebellion is 10 TFP candidates in Labor held seats and 15 candidates in our Upper House Senate ticket ( still time to double that before 24th March)
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Continuing with it fine as i
Continuing with it fine as i can now relate to were you are going, lets just see if you can do it better than them. Take what they got and improve on it. Knowbody minds improvements.
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
TFP letters have been
TFP letters have been displayed in some WA papers that I know of over the last week (Mandurah, Bunbury, Merredin, Esperance)and this one in the West Australian today (which went to all WA papers and radio) should get anglers on a wider range than chatsites thinking about RFL's and potential funding > http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=93&ContentID=20591
This should be a statewide topic if you want something or someone to make some changes in the future.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Ewan
Posts: 271
Date Joined: 15/05/06
Numbers numbers numbers...
Scaly...
haha yes i did have a little smile on my face when suggesting a merge with the Greens i dont think recreational fisherman are a traditional Greens power base somehow...my point was that all of this is a subset of a broader issue...if we want to protect our fish stocks into the future, it is not going to happen by thinking solely in terms of fishing vs fish - our world is a very complicated place, the protection of fish stocks (which is what we are all arguing for, ultimately) wont happen just by putting more fisheries officers on, or by introducing an RFL - but it could help out with getting the money and putting it in peoples minds through their wallets.
A single issue party will do a good thing for raising issues (if they had enough members to have a voice) but as we see here on this forum it can also divide if has one opinion only and in the end can end up shooting itself in the foot and putting off potential supporters...
as for the 650,000 figure. Well i am sure that that many people pick up a fishing rod at least once a year. But they are not all going to vote as recreational fishers on recreational fishing issues now are they?? Which means that this figure is meaningless when talked about politically. A political party or a lobby group shouldnt claim to represent the interests of 650,000 people if they only have 100 or 1000 members. They represent their members, and the interests of their members only.
i think the majority of those 650,000 would buy their fish from a fish shop, and couldnt care less about bag or size limit changes, or no-take zones etc. Those that are very occasional fishers wont be wanting to pay for an RFL and the extra officers that are put on will have their hands full processing all of the people that they catch without licences, not doing what we want them to which is bust the baddies.
Just because you kick the footy with your mates at a BBQ doesnt mean you are a footballer now does it?
The people who read and post on this website care about the issues and so most seem to support an RFL - we fish alot and see the problems etc - but we are a very biased sample of the whole population. Other people who buy Rex Hunt Specials from K-mart and fish off the jetty with the kids once or twice a year just care about getting outdoors and enjoying it - as a cheap wholesome activity. Another licence fee should be very carefully considered and implemented, or risk voter backlash and undo any good it might do.
I have the full $70 licence, rarely fish for any of those species, but at least i dont have to think about it anymore and can fish for what i want when i want to...within restrictions of course...i dont catch anywhere near the value of the licence but consider it a donation and extremely cheap compared to any other recreational activity.
Ewan
tangles
Posts: 1367
Date Joined: 17/12/06
fishing licence
im all for it guys, 25 buck a year! you go out on the piss and spend easy 2wice that much a night and the rest, you go to maccas and spend half that in one hit and the list goes on, u dont c that money coming back to us! At least the money put in for the licence would benefit the fishery and coming from someone who has been crayfishing longlining and wetlining it would be great to c the recreational community putting back what they take out. I know for a fact that there are bad apples out there especially in the commercial sector as ive seen first hand, wouldnt it be great for the rec sector to show the pros that we care about the fishery as well and probably more so than some of they do! As some of you know up here in kalbarri there are about a million minimi mullaway in the river and surrounding areas of the coast at the moment. During the recent school holidays i was witness to such a total disregard for the fish stocks up here by people and especially families with kids, they were keeping everything and i was going up to a few of them and asking them if they know what the legal size of some of the fish they were keeping was especially the mullaway and the answer 9 times out of ten was no! A couple of nites ago i was down at chinamans fishing for tailor and getting busted up mind you!! not happy!! and a guy next to me caught a small mullaway about 20cm and procceeded to put it on his balloon rig and send it out, now i tried to be nice about it but he gave me the biggest serving and basically told me to piss off and have a good nite, no fisheries officers up here nothing, even when you live here and try and tell people about size limits and catch regs they give you a serving!. If paying 25 bucks a year means more officers on the beat policing places like kalbarri and catching these rapists!! which is what they are then ill pay double if I have too! Wa has one of the best managed fisheries around and for us to put a bit back into it to maintain that is a big step in showing everyone that we care and are prepared to pay to protect and conserve our stocks. have fun boys!!!!!!! tangles
Wally
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 13/09/06
exactly Bob why would I
exactly Bob why would I worry about paying another 25 bucks to fish the Salt, hell I don't go fishing for trout but fish illegally stocked goodoo's. I haven't been Marroning. I may put a net out every now and then, its there really for insurance, if I want to go I am covered and my money goes back into the fishery
See Bob again your missing the point, this thread was started because Adam wanted to know peoples thoughts on a SWRFL. You come on here and say that we shouldn't have one.We should join you and lobby the government for more funding even thou we are the most heavily licened state in WA when it comes to recreational fishing.
Have you read todays west, There is a teacher shortage in WA, people are waiting in cues for treatment at our hospitals. Police are screaming they are over worked, the list for more money is endless, And you come on here and rant and rave that you will are starting to sound like a politician now, please, we aren't Muppet's Bob, there are more important things to worry about then fishing, that's why there hasn't been not one, negative post on a SWRFL on this thread, so why don't you listen to the people on these forums in WA that a SWRFL is the way forward.Change your policies to suit us, listen to us and you may get our support, coming out with claims that we have to respect the fishing parties policies and toe the party line with our membership number on our posts is outrageous. I for one under these guide lines would not even contemplate signing up just for this reason even if you did support a SWRFL.
As for the numbers, can you please answer the question, you said you posted a figure last week, well where is it.How many you got, what are you trying to hide, that you haven't even got fifty.my guess hahhaha
Whats your thoughts on commercial fishing Bob, just curious
Wally
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
TFP letter in the West Australian???
Sorry to disappoint you Bob, but that letter is not in "Letters" pages 16 and 17 of Tuesday 6 Feb printed version of the West Australian which was delivered to my home in a suburb of Perth........
Wasn't in Monday 5 Feb West either. Or last Saturday's. Or last Friday's.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
TerrySo what does this link
Terry
So what does this link go to > http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=93&ContentID=20591
I thought it was the West Australian, Letters to Editor? or is there another one
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
The West Australian newspaper letters
Bob
I have a paper copy of The West Australian, dated Tuesday 6 Feb 2007 in my hands, and the Letters are on pages 16 and 17.
None of the letters on the right hand side of that web page, including yours, were published in the paper version dated 6 February.
The real "West" can be read online if you subscribe see https://enewspaper.thewest.com.au/Login/APDWAN/Site/index.php
I will check if your letter is in published in some future physical paper edition of the West Australian.
Not sure what readership that particular web page gets, but it is not likely to be anything like the readership of the physical paper or the electronic version of the paper.
TerryF
=====
Beavering away in the background......
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
Thanks TerryI wonder why
Thanks Terry
I wonder why the difference
Sent same to enewspaper, See what happens
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Represent
So who exactly does the TFP represent Bob? Are recreational fishermen and commercials mutually exclusive or does the TFP represent both?
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
MaverickTFP has been a
Maverick
TFP has been a registered Federal Party since 2001
Adam > link to WA News re: Bruce Alvey letter
http://www.thefishingparty.info/wst_page19.html
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
Maverick
Posts: 1260
Date Joined: 06/06/06
WHY
BOB SMITH, CHAIRMAN
THE FISHING PARTY
SINGLETON, NSW
Why are you so worried about what we here in WA want ?????
Shouldn't you worry about your own state or are you looking to head a national party.
If YOU went down any boat ramp or fishing spot IN WA and polled the fishermen wether they would want a lic so the money can go back into making OUR fishery better , I don't think you would get many saying NO .
______________________________________________________
Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's
The lying scumbag that I am .
And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFW member 088
Sponsored by no one and I work for myself so my comments are my own.
dogsoldier
Posts: 943
Date Joined: 04/11/05
I am all for it as long as
I am all for it as long as the funds dont get slowly redirected to somthing else or the government decide that they suddenly need to build some more roads and then pilfer the money
Maverick
Posts: 1260
Date Joined: 06/06/06
Federal
I would of thought FEDERAL meant all the states ????????
so we should have something allready happening here in WA for it to be regarded as federal .
GEEZZZZZZZ I hate politics no wonder most sites ban the shit from their forums , must check if it's on the not to be posted or discussed list on this site ;)
______________________________________________________
Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's
The lying scumbag that I am .
And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFW member 088
Sponsored by no one and I work for myself so my comments are my own.
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
So WHY are you posting on a
So WHY are you posting on a POLITICAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE FORUM POST
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
BQ544
Posts: 361
Date Joined: 22/10/06
Not Sure?
I have no problem paying, but I don't see how that will solve any of the problems we have.
I think most people are concerned about fish stocks? $25 per fisher isn't going to improve fish stock! We need smaller bag limits on most reef fish, and boat limits not per angler limits. We need to look at no fishing times during each month. And yes we probably need sanctuary zones.I don't think our dwindling stocks are from people breaking the law, so extra fisheries on the beat may not be the answer. But if it is $25 @ 680K anglers is only 17 mill. It a big state, how many extra officers do you want? A 150 more officers would be about the max for the budget.
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
Maybe 1 or 2 at each main
Maybe 1 or 2 at each main marina might be the go there but i hear what your saying BQ544. The only thing about no fishing times is that youll get every tom dick and harry all going out at once! Pretty hard gettin in and out then! But maybe!
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15647
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Steer Away
Normally I don't like having too much political discussion as it turns into bum fights and annoys those that want to just see and talk fishing. But I do think that this is a pretty important discussion, even thou we have had similar before, there's a much larger audience allowing for a wider array of opinions.
So what is the TFP's stance on Marine Parks Bob? Will you be supporting them or opposing them?
I don't think the money from a SWFL will just be used for compliance officers, there's fish impoundments, aquaculture development and surely a lot more that I'm just not thinking of at the moment (damn flu). As long as the money doesn't go into government coffers I can see it being of great assistance to rec fishermen in any number of areas.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
AdamThanks for the chance
Adam
Thanks for the chance to get this debate out in the open. Politics as far as I am concerned is the last resort and unfortunately that's where all the decisions are made and that's where this is ending up.
A federal map of the future looks to encompass Australia in Marine Parks so unless there is a major revolution I don't think there is much you and I can do about it. The main issue that should be addressed and is getting confused (and I might just say deliberately from some avenues) is that protection of biodiversity to which it supposedly is all about is being confused with fisheries management. Some will argue it is the same but if that is the case then we won't be needing the fisheries empire or state and federal separate double standards or different Acts.
We get a Marine Park Authority costing another empire millions of dollars. Don't be surprised if entry fees or permits are on the horizon to access them like National Parks.
Legislation already exists that was developed to manage whatever situation arises and it would take you a month of sundays to read it all. So why are these Acts and regulations not enforced?
Firstly I don't think Marine Parks should be created if traditional methods are or can be used to their full advantage to protect whatever is in need for sustainable protection.
Secondly MPA's should be based on publicly displayed facts and evidence if needed, which as I keep on about is a lot more involved than targetting and dividing the fishing community.
Thirdly. Any MPA should be site specific based on local evidence. Just because an MPA showed improvement in the Philipines after years of dynamiting and cyanide poisoning was stopped is no reason to provide evidence that stopping fishing proves to work and should happen in Australia.
Next is the funding issue for existing controllers. This starts at federal level where huge budget surpluses exist but responsibility has just been handed down to the states and then to local government without any control or the necessary proper funding. (Maybe there are to many fingers in the pie)
Next ALL stakeholders (including independent) who have something to bring to the table should be involved in that management planning with no secret service or back room deals going on. The problem these days is that MPA commissioned and funded institutions have embarked on making it a viable business, just like Ministerial appointees and Cabinet controlled Public Servant heads.
As in farming I don't think paddocks or waterways should be locked up forever but maybe a rotational system would suffice.
For an answer I would say that I would push TFP to support (Marine Parks with sanctuary zones) as a last resort.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
holden2340
Posts: 38
Date Joined: 08/02/07
i reckon its a great idea
i live in rockingham and they have recently put a ban on catching any blue manna crabs in cockburn sound, i think that they have the right idea but have gone a little too far in a total ban. i think there should be a license say of $50-$100 a year or have a small open season.
on the subject of swfl i would gladly pay the money but im against it if they are going to put a maximum on the amount of licences available. this would cause the amount of fishos around to drop and make it difficult to get a license and the price will rocket. im all for it though if it will reduce the number of undersize catches and over the limit hauls as i have seen large amounts of both even in my limited time in fishing.
cheers bro
Bob Smith
Posts: 16
Date Joined: 22/01/07
Holden, On the other side of
Holden
On the other side of the coin how will a license reduce the number of undersize catches or over limits. That avenue already exists in compliance of bag limits and fines and slap on wrists. Compliance officers don't know whether you have a license or not until they check you out. An undersize bream or tailor remains undersize no matter what. An undersize dead bream or tailor floating away in the current is not much of an alternative either.
How do you rate the amount of undersize fish currently taken by rec fishers (and eaten or for bait) to what gets shovelled back from trawler etc.
If you fish in a known fish nursery or a seasonal run of small fish then surely the main catch will be undersize unless appropriate education is displayed i.e maybe bigger hooks or barbless hooks might make a difference in catch sizes as starters.
So I guess there is more to it than forking out for a license.
Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE
wrasse king 2
Posts: 33
Date Joined: 12/12/06
yeahh
i agree cobba
Wally
Posts: 116
Date Joined: 13/09/06
I don't know about that Bob,
I don't know about that Bob, how about if the licence was used as a access right, you break the laws you loose your licence, maybe some people would think twice about loosing their access if they new it would be taken away from them.
Here is one for you Bob, would the TFP support a free licence
Wally
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
Testing
With a test much the same as a drivers licence to get it?
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
lighterthief
Posts: 167
Date Joined: 10/11/06
haha yeh if you cant cast
haha yeh if you cant cast straight you dont get one
some bream i caught..http://s620.photobucket.com/home/lightertheif/allalbums
MASA - Marine Aquarium Societies Australia http://www.masa.asn.au/masa/index.html
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
Two hands
And you must keep both hands on the rod at all times!!!
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
Maverick
Posts: 1260
Date Joined: 06/06/06
.
And you must check your mirrors to see if anyone is behind before casting :0
______________________________________________________
Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's
The lying scumbag that I am .
And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OFW member 088
Sponsored by no one and I work for myself so my comments are my own.
holden2340
Posts: 38
Date Joined: 08/02/07
lol
u lot are mad
i reckon it will reduce the nuber of catches because people will be more afraid of getting caught but its food for thought
life's a game, fishing's SERIOUS!!
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
You can't wind in faster
You can't wind in faster than 5kms or else you risk having your fish confiscated...
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
SPESS
Posts: 3356
Date Joined: 29/12/06
MY FINAL SAY!
On a serious note, Pay to get the license, get the rules and regs information, learn them, get caught with or without a license and under size or overlimmit fish and get fined! Simple as that, get caught again and get suspended for however long, even try it without a payment for the first 12months then bring in $25 to get it. WHO CARES! ONLY THE ONES DOING THE WRONG THINGS. IF YOUR HONEST YOU WONT MINED PAYING OR DOING RIGHT WILL YOU? SHIT ILL EVEN PAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE "TIGHT AS A FISHES ARSEHOLE".
Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!
TerryF
Posts: 489
Date Joined: 11/08/05
Saltwater Recreational Fishing Licence
Saltwater Recreational Fishing Licence
There have been many threads on lots of forums which got on to the topic of a Saltwater Recreational Fishing Licence for Western Australia.
Finding those posts and the comments made in the past is not easy. Many questions get asked and answered, many points get raised, yet the same questions get asked again in some later thread.
I have posted a summary on the Western Angler Forum http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/fb.asp?m=134287 as a permanent, easy to access record and list of all the points / conditions /questions/ issues/ answers which people have raised.
I have split/ combined/ expanded some of the points for clarity.
I will update that list as required.
The thread is locked, not to prevent discussion, but ONLY so that the information will always be easy to find and read, and so it is not lost in and spread over pages of comments by different people.
Please use any of the existing threads (or start a new one) email or PM me to comment on this, or to suggest or ask for extra points or changes to this list if I have missed anything.
TerryF
Moderator, Western Angler Fisheries Management and Environmental Issues Forum
Beavering away in the background......
Lukas
Posts: 306
Date Joined: 03/12/06
Good work terry. Has some
Good work terry. Has some good points so far.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it
tangles
Posts: 1367
Date Joined: 17/12/06
bag limits
bag limits need to be looked at and changed. Size limits for certain fish should be put up such as mullaway and dhuis. How many fish do you need to eat anyhow. If you go out and get a feed of pinkiesm, do you really need to go out and get 4 pinkies! why not 2, and if those pinks are just size well thats a pretty good feed from 2 pinkies. I go out up here and will only catch what i am going to eat and thats not a bag limit. If we did that dont you think fish stocks would recover a little and maybe in time we would see a difference! Who needs a couple of 12kg dhuies? being pretty greedy i reckon! One good dhui would do anyone for a feed. And the list goes on and on, have a look at the bag limits and reduce and resize certain fish. Seems like common sense to me, if we want to protect our fish then we wont mind smaller bag limits surely.
Maverick
Posts: 1260
Date Joined: 06/06/06
EAT
MORE STEAK
OFW member 088
Sponsored by no one and I work for myself so my comments are my own.