Lets Protect Our Sport!

[Yeeros]

Hi Guys

Not sure if this is the right place to put a topic like this but as the election is only 2wks away i thought somebody should start this topic as its really important!

Basically i think we should all think about who we will vote for in the senate. First of all let me start by saying i am not telling any of you guys how to vote and who to vote for in the upper house, liberal, labour whatever its up to you. In the senate though i think we should all look at supporting some parties that will be able to compete with the greens and if not get our ledges back at least stop this madness of lockouts from getting worse.

Its gonna take a bt more time but it'll be worth it in the end. Basically in my opinion there are two parties that I know of that will all hold together and have indicated as such, the shooters party an the fishing party. I'm also a shooter and feel very proud that in the NSW state election we got 2 seats! the greens got 4, but hey its a start and 2 is better that 0! Guys basically i'm gonna take the time to fill all 25 boxes on the bottom. I really don't care much for the middle but i tell you shooters 1 and fishing 2 for me and Greens dead last!

If we all do this then we have a descent chance! If you know anybody else thats effected i.e shooters, 4x4 drivers, boaters even mates that go outdoors once a year. Imagine taking your family on a holiday, throwing in a line and copping a fine cause 2mths ago somebody made an area a marine park! you might have fished their with your dad and grandpa all your life and now you can't! Is that fair cause a few want to impose their will on all the rest? SPREAD THE WORD, we all know we actually have the numbers to beat the greens, here's where we can prove it. Just fill in the bottom part, it takes longer but you won't get these greens getting preferences they don't deserve! Think about it what's 5mins? Fill in the box and lets see hoe we go in getting some numbers in the senate!

I'm also talking to my girlfriend, my family and friends. Guys think about it, its the upper house that gets the government, vote for whoever you want and whatever happens happens. BUT for the senate, who has to approve new laws and lockouts, fill in the 25 and block those greens out! let em know we have a voice, let em know its bigger and louder than their voice! Let em know we won't be pushed around anymore!

p.s i think this should stay in this forum, its an important issue that needs exposure!

[jewgaffer]

Yes they can do deals and lobby for a block and at the worse create influences towards cunning amendments in the Senate but they are unable to start anything whatsoever in the House of Representatives.

jewgaffer

[Robbielites]

Yes they can do deals and lobby for a block and at the worse create influences towards cunning amendments in the Senate but they are unable to start anything whatsoever in the House of Representatives.

jewgaffer

Not the case mate, party allegiances and preference deals are made irrespective of the upper and lower houses.

If party A has control of the Senate deals will be done to table legislation in the house of Reps. That’s polatikin

The important point is, regardless of your particular bent on politics think about where your vote will go and use it to have your say.

As they say 'Vote early and vote often"

Cheers.

Robbie.

[huntman]

It should be noted that jurisdiction for management of fishing waters for most of us is managed by the STATE government, and not the federal one. Federal issues with regards to fishing are more things like protection of our international waters (affecting tuna and marlin stocks). However the Howard government is over-zealous about protecting our waters from everyone and everything, and they still fail sometimes because enforcement is difficult, so policy is not as important in this area as it would be for state and marine parks.

What robbie says is true though, having a seat in the senate in a house where there is no majority gives some clout with regards to legislation. It's usually made up of minor parties with very different views (greens, christian democrats, shooters, family first etc.) so the major parties have to be strategic and diplomatic.

For me, federally, there are more important political issues than fishing, such as social policies, overseas aid and economic management... I will either vote for a major party above the line, or possibly the fishing party below the line, as I care about my preferences.

[pelican]

All federal parties have a fishing policy and they use the freshest bait avaliable- cash!!!!!!

I wish I could fish as well as politician, they sit on their butts patiently for hours or up to 3 years waiting and only fish the run out tide when you are trying to leave their casting range. Then whamo they cast a delicious morsel right in your path and instantly your exit is blocked by all the others throwing out a bait to catch you.

It's a casting frenzy with lines being pulled and rebaited with fresh cash dangling in front of you.

The main thing to remember is not to bite on all the little issues and get hooked as the big issues will remain unchanged as after all you wre swimming in the sewer with sharks with line tackle and bait.

I have my ballot paper in front of me and went to ABC links to all the party sites as there were several I didn't recognise. Don't be fooled by the names as some don't relate to what the parties are really believing in.

I say we start a party and name it "get rid of one level of government and it's huge expense" and I reckon it would get a good lot of support and actually do something positive not just talk about it. Would love to see the preference deal with them.

More action, decisions and implementation less talk and studies dear pollys

Is there anywhere where you can actually see the preference deals between parties on the net as I think we should know where our preferences end up before we vote??

Edited November 12, 2007 by pelican

[pjbink]

It should be noted that jurisdiction for management of fishing waters for most of us is managed by the STATE government, and not the federal one. Federal issues with regards to fishing are more things like protection of our international waters (affecting tuna and marlin stocks). However the Howard government is over-zealous about protecting our waters from everyone and everything, and they still fail sometimes because enforcement is difficult, so policy is not as important in this area as it would be for state and marine parks.

State waters end at the 3nm mark. Note though the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park is a Federal Government creation. 33% of the Reef was closed off in so called green zones for no proven benifit. The main criterion for the green zones seemed to be that they were popular fishing grounds. Eg the Cairns area lost 75% of its fishing reefs. The GBRMPA has been responsible for misleading parliament, cherry picking research to promote its existance and the criminal convictions of 320 anglers. Word is that the Park was established as part of a deal with the Democrats to get the GST passed.

[coastspinna]

not too start an argument.... but

i support the greens on the majority of their policy platforms....

with the exception of the marine park fiasco...

we need to let the greens know that we agree on a whole range of issues, except for this...

we obviously need to share our wealth of knowledge with them so they can see past irrational arguments put forth by extremist minority "professional" protest groups...

we need to unite against unsustainable fishing practices, both recreational and commercial....

what we don't need is to lose acces to our coastline and foreshore...no extreme green group, fisherman or politician owns this land.... its all of ours to share

[pjbink]

Flathead fanatic, you might have an uphill battle getting the Greens to change their mind regarding marine parks. From the Qld Greens policy:

.1Much larger areas of Queensland to be fully protected as National Parks to ensure that ecological and evolutionary processes can be maintained and that the natural dynamics at all levels of biological association can continue (target: 15% compared to current <5%).

3.1Prohibit recreational fishing in National Parks. NB: This would include most of Fraser Island, Lakefield National Park and much of Cape York, all of the Daintree and Kakadu.

& from another document:

Establish a continuous Marine Park from the NSW border to the NT border.

Once established, a comprehensive network of no-take zones should be established in the Park to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem values. (No take zones should be established in accordance with the IUCN standard of a 20-30% minimum) NB: no assessment of need just blanket ideology.

Introduce a saltwater recreational fishing licence to Queensland state

Waters.

A licensing system would provide revenue for research, education, habitat protection and rehabilitation. NB : Note this wording, there is absolutely no mention of using funds for stocking or to enhance the recreational fishing experience

Work with the National Oceans Office and the Northern Territory

Government to develop the Northern Regional Marine Plan that includes a comprehensive, adequate and representative network of marine sanctuaries which protect 20-50% of all bioregions in highly protected areas.

The NSW Green's policies are similarly draconian with plans for 30% of the state's waters to be locked up in so called sanctuary zones. They also plan severe restrictions on aquaculture even though it has the potential to increase productivity and thereby take pressure off wild stocks!

[pjbink]

Like other extremists the Green's demands are inordinate and never ending. Now they are after the whole Coral Sea:

Greens push for Coral Sea protection

Posted Tue Nov 13, 2007 4:21pm AEDT

Map: Bundaberg 4670

Greens leader Bob Brown is calling on the next federal government to extend the borders of the Great Barrier Reef National Park off Queensland to protect the Coral Sea from oil and gas exploration.

Senator Brown says the area is east of the Great Barrier Reef and covers about 800,000 square kilometres of ocean from Bundaberg to the tip of Cape York.

He says it has the potential to be the world's largest marine park, but it is under threat from potential fossil fuel mining.

"The prospect of it being opened up to oil explorers, multinational corporations in the future is real and we should settle the issue before we've got the problem," he said.

"Let's do the right thing here and protect this marvellous Coral Sea."

The World Wildlife Fund has echoed Mr Brown's calls for the area to be included in the Great Barrier Reef's National Park.

Queensland Greens Senate candidate Larissa Waters also says the area needs to be protected from a possible triple-threat of oil and gas exploration as well as fishing.

"There is a small amount of fishing going on at the Coral Sea at the moment and we'd want Government to have a look at that and do an assessment of whether that is sustainable or whether it needs to be looked into," she said.

"If areas need to be protected from fishing, that's certainly got to be part of the assessment."

[Ross Hunter]

My thoughts are to support the Government who put up 220 million dollars to buy out commercial licences reducing our long line fleet by 75% I too will support the Shooters and fishing party.

I am still fuming over the Marine Park lock outs created by a bunch of state wankers who haven't got a brain when it comes to understanding Mother Ocean and it's migratory species. That was the greatest political brown nose I have ever seen, snubbing the Aussie fisherman and their thoughts for Green preferences.

It's the Liberal government for me with no green vote at all

Ross(still cranky that I cannot fish MY FAVOURITE PLACE IN THE WORLD...Pretty Beach NSW)

[coastspinna]

i agree with you fellas 100%....

i have no solution to this problem but maybe we really need to start letting people know that we are environmentally aware. from what i've read the NPA want 50% of nsw waters to be no take...

i think our undoing is the fact that we are too time poor to campaign and whinge in boardrooms and at protest meeting and the like... we are too busy fishing.....

maybe the problem is we need a federal minister for fishing...someone to be accountable.

i'm pretty aware of both your views on this matter, but you would be perfect candidates to inform the npa and "state wankers who haven't got a brain when it comes to understanding Mother Ocean and it's migratory species" about this stuff. you guys have got some hours under your belt on the water. my point being that you and i are both too busy....

surely as a huge voting block, we could negotiate or lobby a better deal. as has been pointed out before, its hard to see how green preferences from urban hippys in newtown can decide the future of whole seaside communities....

our problem is we are on the outer of a tightknit group which includes dive operators, greens, npa, and any number of minority green groups.. and they are good at lobbying politicians.

[pjbink]

Some recently retired (therefore able to speak out) senior fisheries scientists have confirmed what we have suspected about NSW marine parks:

Richard Tilzey is a recently retired fisheries scientist with Bureau of Resource Sciences (Commonwealth).

This letter, published in Narooma News "Letters to the Editor" October 10, 2007.

"Marine Park a Mess"

Dr Fleming’s article in last week’s Narooma Times is another example of NSW government bureaucratic spin-doctoring. As a correspondent who earlier commented on the lack of scientific rationale with the site selection and creation of the Batemans Marine Park (BMP), Professor Kearney’s scathing and informed criticism of the NSW government’s marine park program came as no surprise to me. Let’s cut to the core of the debate and not nibble around the edges of scientific rationale. From the start of the NSW marine park process, politics have driven the agenda and common sense has been left behind. Earlier deals between Carr’s Labour Government and the Green Party for preference votes have created a marine park juggernaut that rolls on regardless of mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness, inequality and adverse socio-economic impacts. The current government, if you can call it that, chooses to ignore these issues.

Professor Kearney highlighted the fact that fishing activity was unfairly targeted as the major threat to marine habitat and other, more detrimental, environmental threats were ignored during the site selection process. This illogic still persists. Fishers are the ‘evil ones’ despite no corroborating evidence, other than bottom trawling is a habitat damaging and non-selective fishing method. A well researched fact. The only merit with the BMP is that it has banned trawling within its boundaries. It should also be noted that the initial zoning for the BMP permitted trawling over much of its area, illustrating the lack of logic in the park’s conception and planning. From a fish conservation viewpoint, the other no-fishing ‘sanctuary zones’ are a joke. They represent a 20% spatial grab-bag to placate the ‘greens’ and will do little, if anything, to conserve fish stocks.

This political agenda has disadvantaged local residents, be they fishers or traders, and will continue to do so unless the lack of common sense in the BMP zoning is driven home to the bureaucrats and politicians responsible for creating the mess. If we don’t do this, worse may come. For example, there is an ongoing push by the NSW Nature Conservation Council to ban baited line fishing within a one kilometre zone around Montague Island because of the so-called endangered status of the eastern grey nurse shark population. As a fisheries scientist, it behoves me to say that the current (low) population estimate of grey nurse off eastern Australia is based on a very dodgy study full of assumptions. There is no hard evidence that such a closure would improve the grey nurse shark population. Recreational fishing is an important component of the south coast tourism industry and these no-take zones are having, and will continue to have, an adverse impact on tourism revenue. They also severely disadvantage local fishers adjacent to them.

As a final point to illustrate the absence of scientific logic, the political wheeling and dealings behind the BMP zonings and the horse-trading and collusion between the government departments responsible for this morass; How come Narooma fishers have lost about 20% of Wagonga to no-take zones whereas Tuross Lakes remain untouched? This is purely because the latter is a NSW DPI designated ‘Recreational Fishing Haven’. Minister McDonald must have stuck it up Debus on that particular night. Ministers Koperburg and McDonald, please try and sort this mess out.

Richard Tilzey

[RockHoppin]

Still amazes me to think these morons can point the finger at the recreational fisho and blame them for a decline in our fish stocks. Some of the best platforms I know have been closed as 'marine parks' - stupid thing is you'd be crazy to dive these spots and I dont think many blokes would be willing to walk the 45+ mins to get there!?!?!? So whos really benefiting from this bullsh*t???!

If anyone wants to protect our fisheries its us recreational fisherman... this is clearly obvious by the fact that thousands of fishing licenses have been purchased since this policy was introduced. So what do they do? They close down a few popular rock ledges as 'marine parks' and pretend to be acting in our interest???

what a joke.....

[Yeeros]

Guys seriously I have decided that other fishermen don't really care what happens and that fisheries don't really care about what happens with us either. I am basing this on the fact that as soon as i put up this post in the main forum it was moved here.

I have also decided that i will vote with my pen and completely badger anybody that so much as mentions a peep about losing a spot if they didn't vote for the alternative cause its too f'n hard to fill out all the little boxes. As far as i'm concerned if you don't vote for what you want then you dont want it bad enough, so TOUGH!

I bought a licence as soon as they came out, full of optimism! Now i really don't care for them, and am seriously considering not buying another licence.

I will vote with my pen and my wallet. Everybody else can winge and whine but i have never been much for that, better to take action!

[jewgaffer]

We are all concerned about Marine parks but phony scientific evidence and ballony scientific findings will beat us all the time. Who are we to challenged the findings of all these moronic nurds who are employed to cater for a hidden agenda.

We are copping all this only because of little men on a power trip and a stupid system that permanently yieds an unbalanced majority so at this point of time we have to tolerate the decisions of a bunch of morons and cheats who are only out to feather there own temporary ridiculous nests and wouldnt give a damn about birds either.

They don't know the damage they do to our environment and they never will, because they know nothing whatever about it and do not even seek to learn the facts to improve their own general knowledge !!

That what I think !!

jewgaffer

[Little_Flatty]

Guys seriously I have decided that other fishermen don't really care what happens and that fisheries don't really care about what happens with us either. I am basing this on the fact that as soon as i put up this post in the main forum it was moved here.

Mate,

With all due respect it's probably a little harsh to think that other fishermen don't care. As far as I'm concerned fishing is important to me however I'm just as busy worrying about other things such as the interest rates staying down (and certain individuals not lying about their ability to influence them), the ability to get a decent education, the ability to get (and keep) a good job without heading overseas, being a citizen of a nation that is a responsible global player and internet access that is at least bearably fast!

It aggravates me when political parties make dodgy decisions regarding fishing and the environment without adequate research or due dilligence (or anything else for that matter). However fishing isn't going to be the only thing that will drive my decision this election, as with every other one I have voted in.

There's no simple solution to any of the political issues these days and that's why we all need to take a considered approach to voting. If fishing's the only thing on your agenda and you make your decision based soley on this, fair enough. Unfortunately that doesn't do it for me, and a whole lot of other people out there in Australian society.

Just my two cents worth.

Mike

[fishguts]

we have to face the fact that these folk mostly throw there weight around for there bit of

fame...$$$$$$ otherwise we would not even know they existed, rockstars,moviestars ETC.

but powerful they are because they are kin! lets just keep fighting for our rights, cause i'm sure

thats still legal in this here neck of the woods..(sic)

..cheers!..stevo!..

[Mike Armour]

Here is the Liberal policy regarding fisheries. So far the Labor party has kept very quiet about theirs. Why? Because they have made deals with the Greens which we will find out if they are elected.

The greens think fishing and hunting are barbaric and will never give up on the rec fisho.

b]Strengthening and protecting Australia’s fisheries [/b]

The Minister for Fisheries, Forestry and Conservation, Senator Eric Abetz, today announced that a re-elected Coalition Government will put in place a comprehensive plan to strengthen and protect Australia’s valuable commercial and recreational fishing sectors.

In addition, a re-elected Coalition Government will continue to build on our current highly successful approach to combating illegal foreign fishing.

“Australia’s fisheries are some of our most valuable natural assets,” Senator Abetz said.

“Our seafood industry generates more than $2.2 billion annually at the point of first sale, and supports tens of thousands of jobs, particularly in regional areas.

“And the health benefits of eating seafood are becoming increasingly apparent.”

A re-elected Coalition Government will further strengthen our seafood industry by:

• Developing a $10 million National Aquaculture Development Strategy to boost the value of aquaculture in Australia;

• Establishing a $4 million Environmental Recognition Fund to assist the Australian seafood industry to capitalise on its premium environmental

performance;

• Expanding fuel tax credits to provide for a 100 per cent credit for petrol used in eligible commercial fishing and fish farming activities from 1 July 2008, and a 50 per cent credit for previously ineligible activities such as processing and refrigeration of seafood onshore (with a full tax credit to apply for these activities from 1 July 2012);

• Establishing a Productivity Commission Inquiry into the regulation of Australia’s wild catch fisheries to ensure the regulatory frameworks across all States and Territories and the Commonwealth allow Australian seafood businesses to compete in the current economic environment while at the same time ensuring sustainability of fish stocks and the marine environment;

• Developing a National Climate Change Adaptation Plan for Fisheries;

• Changing Commonwealth fishing laws to improve the security of statutory fishing rights and streamline allocation processes;

• Providing funding of $7.9 million for a full buyout of non-islander licences in the Torres Strait fin fishery to provide for full islander ownership of licences in the fishery;

• Providing funding of $7.9 million to increase islanders’ share of the Torres Strait Tropical Rock Lobster Fishery while also managing Australia’s

obligations to Papua New Guinea under the Torres Strait Treaty; and

• Providing up to $600,000 over three years to encourage the development of a broad based and inclusive national seafood industry peak body.

“Recreational fishing is one of Australia’s favourite pastimes, with more than three million people wetting a line at least once a year,” Senator Abetz said.

“It’s also an important – and often underrated – contributor to regional economies.”

To further enhance the recreational fishing experience, a re-elected Coalition Government will:

• Provide an additional $15 million to extend the highly successful Recreational Fishing Community Grants Programme for a further three years;

• Update the National Recreational Fishing Policy to ensure it provides contemporary, practical guidance on issues important to the recreational fishing community;

• Provide up to $600,000 over three years to Recfish Australia – Australia’s peak recreational fishing body – to support its important role of providing high quality advice on recreational fishing issues to the Australian Government; and

• Oppose a levy on recreational fishing, or “tackle tax”.

“Since committing an additional $603.8 million to tackle illegal foreign fishing in Australia’s northern waters, sightings of foreign fishing vessels have declined by a massive 90 percent,” Senator Abetz said.

[Mondo Rock]

I see that the usual suspects are getting stuck into the Greens again - remaining deliberately blind to the fact that our primary interest as rec fishos, i.e. that of conservation, is exactly in line with Green policy.

Politics is a balancing act - it's not as simple as saying that one party is good and another one evil. Whilst it is true that the Greens have been responsible for some very aggravating policy as far as rec fishos go, in particular the approach taken to the marine parks (but not, I note, the marine parks in principle), they have also been natural and active allies of rec fishos in many of our fights to save fisheries.

Equally, whilst the Liberals have been responsible for the buyback of long-line fishing licenses, thereby supporting us rec fishos, they are also unashamed supporters of commercial fishing and related industries within Australia and would be the natural enemies of rec fishermen on many issues.

In other words - it's simply incorrect to declare the Greens to be our 'enemy' as rec fishos, just as it is to declare the Liberals our 'ally'. On some issues they are, and on others they aren't - just like all the political parties. It is our obligation to THINK about this dichotomy and not just apply a kneejerk reaction because one or two particular fishing spots have now been declared off-limits.

For example it cannot be denied that, as rec fishos, it is absolutely in our interests to ask:

• Which party will work hardest to protect our recreational fishing stocks for future generations?
  
• Which party will stand with recreational fishermen when objecting to destructive commerical practices?
  

Just as it is absolutely in our interests to ask which party will best protect our rights to continue fishing unmolested.

In other words - we need to strike a balance. We cannot take on an extremist position, such as advocacy for a right to fish anywhere we want regardless of the environmental impact, and expect to have a meaningful contribution to make in this debate. The same, of course, is true in reverse.

I guess that, in the end, it comes down to your personal priorities. To my mind conservation of declining fishing stocks is the primary issue threatening the future of our sport and not the lock out of small portions of our coastline from recreational fishing. That's not to say I'm thrilled with all the decisions made in relation to the marine parks - only that I see a more important issue at stake for our future as rec fishos.

[pelican]

The greens in bed with Labor this time scares the Bejesus out of me. That would be coastal labor councils, labour State, senate balance possibly held by Greens or Christians and to top it off a labor fedral govt that cares so little it won't publish it's dam policy. You could guess just how objective that situation would be as all interest groups will be thrown to the wolves.

I just wish all the parties would wake up and use science to determin fisheries and suitable rates of take so it is preserved and enhanced for the next generations. Penalising either commercial or rec fishermen is politics and it should be done with good science. That means funding so the right questions are asked so the right science is conducted.

Sate Govt reasoning behind marine parks is a joke and that is coming from me who actually believes some areea should be protected and the same state govt via fisheries does the most ridicioulous changes to size and bag limits and can't explain the reason why?.

We get the politicians we deserve

[Jewhunter]

Play nice please boys & this thread will remain open.

So far it has been an interesting discussion. Let's keep it that way.

Cheers,

Grant.

[pjbink]

Mondo,

I'm not sure how you can state that the Green's policies are compatible with recreational fishing. They are not about conservation but rather preservation, ie anti-use. If you are unlucky enough to live in an area which hosts a marine park you will know that commonly 50 - 75% of spots of value to anglers are off limits and that you will have to keep a close watch on a pretty smick GPS chart plotter not to wind up with a heavy fine and criminal conviction. The Green's want the same situation in all our waters as the policy statements I put up show.

You talk about saving our declining fisheries when the fact is that the problems of overfishing in Australia have or are being addressed. We have the lightest fished waters in the world with 1/30th of the world average fishing pressure. Our fish stocks are stable. In fact many we are harvesting at a rate less than their ability to reproduce themselves. Also it doesn't make much sense vilifying commercial fishing when the rec take is of a similar magnitude for a lot of species popular with anglers.

[Jewhunter]

No more warnings on this.

I asked you to play nice. Why does it always turn personal?

Topic closed.

Jewhunter,

Site Admin.