[Jewie Time]

Well done mate ! Great work ! Gotta get me one of them ! Maybe tomorrow ????

[Magnificent Pretty Beach We May Never Fish There Again]

Hi guys,

Long time no post.

Of course the other thing you can do is join the Fishing Party & either run as a candidate in one of the labor seats or at least help out at the polling booths next March, you don't even have to join if you want to help out during the campaign.

I live in Qld but will be down to help my southern brothers in Tweed so that labor gets the message where it hurts most, at the poll.

Les

[Avoca]

Like most places the harder to get to spotrs fish best. If you walk right around the rocks south form Avoca you can get to a dead end sout of Winnie Bay. THe walk deters a lot of people. You used to be able to drive down there via a track from up at the water tower but I don't think you can anymore (few years since I fished there).

We used to get heaps of bonito there plus tailor, the odd snapper or jew & groper, plus there are usually a few kings around in summer if you want to live bait. Have also caught blackfish back in the bay near the stormwater outlet.

If you dont' want to walk that far you can usually get some blackfish & pigs around Jacksons (the first bay after the main platform) but these are low ledges & only for the experienced.

Good luck.

Les

[Over-fished Or Over-regulated]

Although i can see your point mate ... If your asking me to vote liberal .. NOT WITH A BLOW TORCH TO MY FEET AND MY HEAD IN A VICE>..

Everything going to plan you won't have to mate. The fishing Party is planning on running in the senate. You can vote for whoever you like in the house of reps. If TFP can get a similar percentage of votes nationally to what they did in the seats that TFP independants stood in the recent Qld election then they would get at least 1 senator in parliament. This would give us the voice & clout that we need. The major parties will be beating a path to TFP's door.

Les

[Ecofishers]

my comments in red

Les, and others I agree that almost all rec fishos support conserving fish stocks & habitats and that the majority or fishers try to do the right thing to make this happen. Education and research into exactly what the right thing is needs to continue and expand. I too want to see more informed people.

The management of our marine waters as a commons is outdated and destined for disaster. This statement is not supported by any facts, it is a blatantly misleading generalisation. We need to establish intellectual ‘ownership’ of our marine environments from all users, this is why I support RFHs, Restricted entry commercial fisheries, spatial management of marine environments (at a general access and commercial licensing level) and Marine Protected Areas. I know that sanctuary zones will put some rec fishers out, the impost can be minimised and agree there should be scientific basis to zoning decisions. Exactly, you hit the nail on the head and really a large amount of what follows is made redundant by this statement. The largest benefits from the marine parks will come from the restrictions on commercial fishing and (to a lesser extent) other industry. Recreational fishers have to accept that new management strategies are needed and rather that assigning blame for the problems work to be part of the solution. . . . and we're not ??? MPAs are one of those and I see that a couple of the posts here support that widely held view.

MPAs are not going to work in isolation and must be part of wider management of marine ecosystems and impacts.

The argument here seems to be about NSW sanctuary zone location and fear that the parks are not about conservation but about politics? It is not a fear mate it is a fact ! If this is the case why the anti parks talk? Most (all?) of us are not anti park & to say so shows ignorance of our oft stated view. The vast majority of fishos would support parks which were PROVEN to be necessary to protect species &/or habitats. Why not campaign for the rezoning of sanctuary zones you disagree with or the political party of your choice rather than opposing the whole Marine Protected Area concept?

I would be interested to hear of peoples local experience with sanctuary zones (actual and proposed) and which they don’t support and why. There are not that many no fishing areas that have been around for a long time in Australia, it is my experience that they are generally well supported by local fishers (even though many of them initially opposed their introduction). Take a look at Botany Bay. The ban on commercial fishing has seen an improvement in fish numbers despite continued dredging, containerport & airport impact, & a huge amount of recreational fishing

The old way of thinking is that if catching one type of fish is the goal you manage catch of that fish and nothing else. The concept of sustainable can have different meanings in this context. If a fishery can catch fish every year that is sustainable right? No, if there is a decline trend then it is clearly not sustainable. If it can be maintaineed at a reduced level then that is possibly acceptable. To expect that man can survive on this earth without impacting upon the environment is naive. We are part of the ecosystem not observers. But if that fishery is at a drastically lower level of abundance than the unfished state the whole balance of the system they live in is changed. Maybe the predators of the target fish are also reduced in numbers, maybe another non target species thrives, if the ecosystem balance is tipped major changes occur and this may be to the detriment of other fisheries or non fished species.

The new way of thinking is that to have a sustainable future the need to retain balance in the ecosystem as a whole and that piecemeal management is ineffective. Having areas protected from impacts like aquaculture, mining and fishing is about allowing area where natural processes are less impacted by human influence. This protects the diversity and integrity of ecosystem processes and acts like an insurance policy for the future of marine life as we know it. The protected areas buffer the marine environment against the known and unpredictable impacts of humans and climate (not sure I need to separate these). Having some relatively un-impacted populations and habitat areas increases the resilience of the environment as a whole. Highly protected areas are not about the old ‘will we catch more fish?’ management they are about the new ‘lets make sure there is a healthy diverse environment in the future to support fish and all marine life’ management. This will benefit fishers and everybody else in the long term, in the short term it seems fishers must bear the brunt of the immediate burden of change.

Do you really think that stopping fishing in some areas, setting aside some areas in as natural state as possible for the future is a bad idea? No, but quite possibly pointless at the expense of those who wish to share that environment Probably not but the fear is that the restriction will be in your ‘backyard’ or favourite spot. I, and many others, would find this statement offensive. It implies that fishos are self interested & in my experience this is not the case. The concernes that I have heard raised from local fishos are the same as those raised by other informed persons. For sanctuary zones to work on a large scale they do need to protect a proportion of all of the habitats in the marine environment and there must be large areas protected. This is not incompatible with reasonable fishing access (I accept that poor planning could result in unreasonable local situations and would be happy to discuss specific examples).

This is not the time to argue about the comparative impacts of rec vs commercial fishing. Why not ? it is clear that commercial fishing has much more impact than rec fishing. I disagree with lumping commercial & recreational fishing together - there is a vast difference in impact & from a political point of view . I agree that rec fishing is relatively benign when compared to dredge trawling. Just because rec fishers aren’t the biggest part of the problem doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be a big part of the solution. Let's stick with facts not slogans . It does take a big picture long term view to support restrictions on our favourite pastime and benefits that might be measured in the timescale of decades not years.

Did I compare marine parks to terrestrial ones? The ecosystems they protect are very different, the concept of protecting nature by restricting human impacts on areas is comparable. Your statements regarding mobility and fecundity are true of many marine species (they are also true of some terrestrial species). There is good evidence of spill over effects for less mobile species No I'm afraid there is just as much evidence to question spillover as there is to support it. and also evidence of the effectiveness of spatial management for more mobile species. Even less to support this theory But, that’s really not the point, until we know a hell of a lot more about the marine environment than we do today I don’t think we can afford to not act to protect our marine habitats. We stand to lose a whole lot more by not supporting MPAs than we do by supporting them. Hello !, how many times do you need to be told, most fishos are not against MPA's !!! They just want properly conducted research, proven scientific evidence and consultation to support them before accepting them. It is not hard for this to be done properly, in which case recommendations for MPAs will be accepted by the majority. It is aso widely known that MPA's & other impositions have been the result of trade in preferences between the major parties & the greens - this stinks & no one should be expected to accept any restrictions on their liberties on this basis.

I believe I have an opinion and I believe you have an opinion and that you believe in that opinion, yes I use those words a bit. Would you prefer me to state my opinions as immutable facts or my beliefs as commandments from on high? (I wouldn't be the first). I have seen the state of marine environments decline in my lifetime, I know that history paints a picture of a more vibrant marine environment with fishing we can only dream of in many areas of Australia. Something has to be done to arrest this decline and acknowledge that ‘shifting baselines’ can lead to acceptance of degraded environments.

FYI I have no commercial interest in MPAs and I am not currently doing any paid MPA research. I do not expect to quickly change the opinion of someone as clearly fervent as you but I do ask that you consider changing the focus of your opposition from opposing MPAs in general to opposing the aspect(s) of MPA zoning you disagree with.

I reckon the civil disobedience line that a couple of posters are advocating is madness and would be highly detrimental to public perception of rec fishers and your cause of sanctuary zone change. I can see the mental news headline now - ‘Redneck Fishing Cowboys Flout Local Laws’ - almost as good for Rec fisho PR as shooting seals. I think your imaginery headline is a bit Freudian in that it reveals your real opinions of the fishing majority .

Happy to debate the point with anybody but personal attacks and unfounded assertions there are plenty of these in your statements are not appreciated. Glad to read that not everybody on this thread opposes marine parks and I look forward to hearing more about the flaws in the NSW process and about other areas.

[Queensland Election]

I know most of you guys are in NSW but if there are any Brissy fishos out there then listen up

Shane Boese of The Fishing Party is running in the Cleveland electorate. Unfortunately the government calling a snap election and the delay in registration (deliberate ? never!) of The Fishing Party for state elections has meant that he has to run as an independant although he is promoting the TFP platform.

Anyone registered in Cleveland please put in a vote for Shane if you don't want to lose 50% of Moreton Bay to unjustified marine parks. Put whoever you like as second preference. This vote is not anti coalition or labor but a way of showing all pollies the magnitude of the fisho vote.

Shane will not get elected and ultimately whoever you mark as second choice will get your vote. BUT if Shane polls well, and particularly if he polls ahead of the Greens candidate then it puts fishos on the map as a more important minority group electorally than the Greens. The major parties will then be lining up to find out what they need to do to get the fishing vote in future.

If you have the time to help out on election day even better. People are required for handing out how to vote cards & for scrutineering. If you can assist please call Shane at Water Tower Bait & Tackle 07 3396 1833.

Thanks, you won't reget it.

Les

[Ecofishers]

Hey Sweep,

Don't take it personally, just do your research & you will see that the comments expressed are supported by fact and correct. What we want is more informed people & that applies to EVERYTHING not just marine parks.

There are too many groups with hidden agendas. Fishos that support ecologically sustainable recreational fishing are not one of them.

[Ecofishers]

Sweep, if you read any of the fishing forums with any diligence you will note that all ( and in my experience I mean 100% !) fishers agree with conserving fish stocks & habitats.

Afterall it is in everyone's interest except perhaps commercial fishos who need to make a living now & maybe aren't too concerned about 50 years hence.

Most recreational fishos believe in thorough scientific investigation, consultation with ALL stakeholders and responsible decisions based on conservation NOT politics. We are not anti marine park per se and believe in ecologically sustainable recreational fishing.

Your oblique generalisations add nothing to the debate. There is no band wagon it is just a matter of previously apathetic fishos finally getting together & having their say.

[Queensland Election]

Thanks Shane, appreciate your support.

It doesn't look good up here because Beattie looks like p1ssing it in again. Maybe it is better that way coz he won't rely on preferences so much & is less likely to make preferecne deals ?????

Hopefully plenty of concerned fishos have made their opinions clear to their local members & the gov't & further BS restrictions will be avoided - not to mention the Spit cruise ship terminal.

[Queensland Election]

With a Qld state election now imminent I thought I would pass on to all of you the responses I have received from the relevant state ministers in regard to my letter of concern regarding marine park issues.

Firstly, Tim Mulherin, Labor Minister for Primary Industries & Fisheries, replied with a letter which included the following statements:

“. . . I would like to assure you that the Queensland Government certainly recognises the importance of recreational fishing to the many thousands of Queenslanders and visitors who enjoy our marine and freshwater fisheries each year . . . The challenging objective (?) is achieved primarily through applying the framework of ecologically sustainable development (ESD) and precautionary principle.

ESD promotes the use, conservation and enhancement of our fisheries resources and habitats in such a way that the ecological processes upon which they depend are maintained, and improved in the future.

The precautionary principle means that where there is a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage, lack of scientific certainty may not be used as a reason to postpone intervention. . .

”

That last paragraph is the killer. My interpretation is that the Beattie Government believe they can nominate areas for protection just because there is the merest suggestion of a threat without having any scientific support for this argument. So, for example, if some environmental or anti-fishing group were to say, without any scientific evidence, that they thought an area or species was threatened then a Labor government may decide to make this a fishing exclusion zone using their “precautionary principle”.

This is in stark contrast to the Government’s position on the Gold Coast cruise ship terminal. All of the research suggests that there is at the very least a possibility of a threat to the ecology of the terminal area. You would expect then that the Government would cancel their plans for the terminal by adopting their “precautionary principle”. However this is not the case. The precautionary principle only seems to apply when it suits.

The response I have received from the opposition is more encouraging, although one would expect that from a party trying to get into power. I quote the following from the Shadow Minister for Primary Industries & Fisheries, Mike Horan.

“The coalition believes very strongly in the rights to fish for recreational fishers. Like you, we do understand the need to conserve fishing.

This can be done by using actual science and working closely with recreational fishing groups which have the experience and local knowledge to advise on other systems, such as bag limits, fish size and short term closures during breeding times.

The coalition has a very strong view on recreational fishing for family, social and economic reasons and that will be the thrust of our policy.”

Mike Horan also raised the following Question without Notice in parliament on 28th March following is his question & reply by Desley Boyle, Minister for Environment:

Mr Horan: “My question without notice is to the honourable minister for the environment. I refer to the review of the Moreton Bay Marine Park and a push by the Greens to lock out recreational anglers from up to 50% of the bay. With the review due to be finalised just after the state election, is the grubby preference deal between the Greens and Labor for the Gaven by-election based on the Beattie Labor government delivering on Moreton Bay lock-out zones ?”

Ms Boyle: “There is no such deal. The question should not be dignified by further answer.”

From my viewpoint the Labor Governement are offering no guarantees to recreational anglers that they will not expand existing marine exclusion areas or add new exclusion areas regardless of whether there is sound scientific support for such a decision.

I think most anglers share the opinion that they would not object to exclusion zones if it was proven that they would have a significant benefit to fish species or habitats but they don’t want to be kicked out of their favourite fishing spots just because some group, extreme green or otherwise, have some anti-fishing agenda. If Labor agree to the demands of theses groups just to gain preferences at election time it smells even worse.

Hope this is of interest.

Les

I am a member of $%^&* and have no affiliation with any political party in any way.

[Don't Let It Happen In Qld]

Yes we have marine parks already - based on the same science, or lack of, used in NSW.

What I am specifically referring to is the need to avoid similar deals between the govt & the greens coming into the next election which is not too far away. Queensland fishers need to get their 2 bob's worht in first.

Les

[Don't Let It Happen In Qld]

Hi guys,

You are no doubt aware of the situation in NSW where recreational fishers have been locked out of popular fishing areas by the introduction of marine parks which have no scientifically proven benefit. The only ones to benefit are the politicians who are gaining green preferences in exchange for their support.

You should also be aware that the so called conservation groups pushing for the exclusion of recreational anglers contain extreme elements including animal rights activists who would have fishing banned completely !

With a Qld state election likely to be called at any time we need to let the pollies know that we will not tolerate exclusion from our fishing spots based on extreme green whims.

Please let your local member know how you feel about this issue. We need to get off our bums if we are to avoid the nonsense that has gone on down south.

Below is an example email that you can send & following that a list of email addresses for your local member.

For more information on this issue a good starting point is $%^&* www.fishnitis.com/fishing-board/index.php/board,2.0.html

Sample email

I am writing to you to request clarification of your position in regard to marine parks and more particularly marine sanctuaries. As a recreational fisherperson I am concerned about the possibility of exclusion areas being introduced which may impinge upon my freedom to fish where I choose.

I fully support the conservation of fish stocks and habitats but do not support the imposition of marine parks which are totally lacking in scientific foundation as has happened in NSW and I am worried that Qld political parties may be prepared to back marine parks at the request of extreme “green” groups in exchange for preferences at the next state poll.

I would like to know where you stand on this issue as you will not receive my vote next election should you support unsubstantiated closure of marine areas to the recreational fishing public.

Stand up or you'll get trodden on.

Les

QldGovtContacts.pdfRe previous post, having trouble with the attachments. Here it is I hope.

[Letter To The Premier]

Hi guys,

As Jeff Fenech says "I love youse all !"

We need to get something like this going in Queensland. With an election likely to be called at any time we need to get in the pollies' ears BEFORE they make commitments to the green groups.

I'll do some research on who to send emails to etc & get back to you. Hopefully Qld fishos can avoid the grief our brothers down south have had to suffer.

Lez

[Marine Park Rally, Sydney Town Hall]

Hi guys,

For an example of the effect of recreational fishing have a look at Botany Bay. There is more and more recereational pressure every day & despite this pressure & continued dredging & other activity related to the container port the fishery is in good shape. The difference is that commmercial fishing has ceased. There has been significant improvement in seagrass & fish nursery areas. This would seem to support the proposition that responsible recreational fishing is generally sustainable.

Les

[Want To Make A Difference?]

Good one Gibbo.

Does anyone have the same info for Queensland govt ? It's time to get ahead of the game up here because Beatty's likely to call a poll soon & he's going to be looking at making some deals with the Greens for preferences. Marine sanctuaries could be on the agenda.

When I get the info I will post it so Qld fishos can get in early to prevent this BS.

Les

[Marine Park Rally, Sydney Town Hall]

Hi guys, this is my first post. I decided to join as this issue gets me fired up.

I agree with Mondo BUT it is up to the authorities, scientists, whoever to prove that there is a benefit to the fishery in proclaiming sanctuaries. Up to this point there is no evidence of any benefit.

If it was proven that your favourite jewie spot was a breeding ground & they propose a sanctuary then that's a different story.

It seems from all evidence so far that the main proponents are environmental fundamentalists whose ability to influence government through the green groups preferences at poll time gets these things legislated. None that I know of are informed users of these resources, ie fishos, divers, etc.

I am in Queensland & I am concerned the same thing will happen up here because it looks like Beatty will not p*** it in this time around & will need green preferences.

Les