Fishraider Official Marine Park Poll

[elusiv]

OK, so, I would love to fish recreationally in theses zones, just for the shear pleasure of catching fish, but, lets be fair dinkum about it. The fish need protected areas to breed and live!

Vote NO! for fishing in protected sancuaries for all!

Why not then just allow dynamite fishing in such areas too. You are all pathetic.

The reason they have sanctuaries is to allow the fish that have reduced in numbers a chance to gain some ground back.

The only option for me would be a catch and release rule in such areas.

[Nagg]

My vote is in

Nagg

[topgun]

Ive done my bit fellow fishraiders, vote is in!

Come on everybody, put your votes in as we all know there is strength in numbers!!!

[Vladimir]

My vote is in.

Merry Christmas and a very plentiful New Year.

Fish responsibly.

Vladimir

[arif]

voted

[Maco]

My vote is in.

Cheers.

[craigtempo]

We can not allow the Greens to have any sway with this issue. They are irrational and a destructive organisation, ironically the antithesis of what their members purport to be.

I think as a community we should be instead debating how to put a stop to commercial netting, particularly in the hawkesbury. They are killing the river, yet the state govt seems oblivious to it... MUPPETS!

Forget marine parks and sanctuaries and exclusion zones and all of that. Lets debate the real issue that will deprive future generations of the enjoyment we receive today - ban the nets.

The Elk

i agree

craig

[Mysterythecat]

Thanks for the 'heads-up' Mrsswordfisherman. Don't usually respond to polls requested via e-mails but this is important.

For what its worth, I agree with all of those people here who have said something to the effect of "lets keep the commercial trawlers away from these areas". Someone made the point that one trawler in 1 run may catch as many fish as any single fisho in a lifetime. In my case thats probably 3 lifetimes . I can't help compare the state of the Harbour now the trawlers have stopped going through (but notably recreational fisho's have continued to enjoy wetting a line and catches have improved significantly in recent years and it keeps on getting better) to the Hawkebury which periodically gets cleaned out by a trawler or 6 and where we have constant references on this site to how it is not as plentiful as it once was - which is my usual excuse for an empty bag.

Total exclusions are not the answer. With it comes the issue of educating the public and then trying to police it. I would happily support tighter bag limits and/or catch size limits. Even bans on certain species during the breeding season if that helps. Most (I would hope all) the fisho's on this site would respect these measures but it would not detract from the enjoyment of actually fishing (catch and release is a viable option and one many here actively advocate).

cheers

Mysterythecat

[Paul1]

I agree with Red. I am opposed to Marine Parks in their current format, however there is a need to make our sport and way of life available to future generations. The Greens are just another political party and who trusts polititions? Managing fish stocks has to be through scientifically based decisions rather than emotive issues. Increase size limits so the fish have at least had a chance to breed. Very few species are sedentry, most move around so very few species are protected. Perhaps have an exclusion area/time when it is known they are spawning. There are many other ways to protect fish other than lock the public out of areas they are entitled to fish in.

Compare the marine parks to Land Based Parks. We have seen many areas closed off to the public for regeneration for many years, but I have never seen an area reopened after regeneration. Once they lock us out of our fishing spots we won't see them again.

Saying catch & release is the way to go will not work either. The greens have just had this banned in Germany and other parts of Europe as a cruel practice, but you are still able to catch and keep for food. I don't understand this as scientific evidence, Dr Jullian Pepperall, proves fish survive this practice very well. I do both and only ever take what I will eat in the next day or two and do not put any in the freezer. I realise for those that don't get to go very often may need to freeze for the future meals.

Perhaps the Greens should be stoppping the millions of lites of sewage pumped into our oceans and rivers every day destroying habitat rather than stopping families enjoying a healthy activity together.

[BalmainBob]

Gday Everyone,

I do believe that we need to protect the fish stocks in the ocean and by creating marine parks we can attempt to do this, but I also believe that the recreational fisher does little to interfear with the fish numbers.

However, I would not be opposed to reducing the bag limit by half for fish caught within these areas.

That way we may be able to plecate the "the greeny element"

What do you think?

Cheers

Balmain Bob

[cat-as-trophy]

Voted

Cheers

Mrs Flightmanager

[connolly]

Hello Fellow Raiders.

Couldn't help adding my 2 bobs worth.

I have worked in Government departments for decades and quit recently. Here is the way things are done.

Some politition comes up with an "idea" for their own political gain. They know it won't be popular with thinking intelligent people. So they propose something that is a blown up version of what they want, the people whinge, the polly "negotiates" and pats themself on the back for being such a good bloke who is so resonable and "listens" to others opinions. A "compromise" is reached, which is something like their original idea. It is implemented, the masses think they have had their say and the polly gets what he wanted in the first place and what appears to be a "consultative" process has taken place. When in fact the polly got what he wanted all along and the masses have been ripped off.

My message is don't budge a millimetre unless you are just happy to be a mushroom ie kept in the dark and fed s##t and doesn't know any better.

I am not against marine parks as such but I am sick to death of being ripped off and lied to. I also fear that our sport/pastime will soon be gone forever while we have just sat and watched it get taken away.

What are we going to tell our Grandchildren? "Oh it was so good but my fishing mates and I were too gutless and nonchalent to do anything and that's why we are not allowed to catch fish anymore. And that's why the fish that we now eat is this crappy fish farm stuff that is fed with chook pellets and tastes like mud!!"

I think the the band "The The" got it right when they sang "the beaten generation, the beaten generation. reared on a diet of prejudice and misinformation, the beaten generation, the beaten generation open your eyes, open up up your imagination."

Here endeth the sermon.

Reeltired

[albys12345]

they can stick the marine park

[spic]

Voted and couldn't resist adding to this discussion.

I'm not against comercial fishing but there must be a better way of managing it, for one how can we allow commercial fishing in our rivers we should learn a lesson from the europeans who have banned commercial fishing within their rivers!

This is a psssionate issue for me as I've wittnessed what has occured over the past few years. The buy out of licences in B Bay then the closure in the harbour, all good news for these waterways but all those pro's have just moved north to Broken Bay and are absolutley killing it. On numerous occassions I've planned a trip with my 2 sons and begin my trip out to Broken Bay wide just to be met with floating dead bycatch and have just turned back. I've seen 8 trawlers working a 200mt area how is that sustainable? In short I'm pleased that the BBay and the hrarbour have improved and and shows how a waterway can bounce back but the problem has just moved to another location. This process has been repeated right up the north coast, just look at the Richmond , Clarence etc.

I say ban commercail fishing in the rivers and have a seperate set of bag and size limits for rec fishing in the rivers.

I feel better now

[robertretired]

extremely important to vote on this ... thanks for the oppourtunity and the reminder mrs swordfish.. excellent stuff..

maxi

[size=3 I won't vote for these questions as they are. I will support a question that asks "should fishing be excluded from some areas in a Sanctuary"

[umpy]

hi ive voted agree with the rest an interesting topic

[Red]

I have worked in Government departments for decades and quit recently. Here is the way things are done.

Some politition comes up with an "idea" for their own political gain. They know it won't be popular with thinking intelligent people. So they propose something that is a blown up version of what they want, the people whinge, the polly "negotiates" and pats themself on the back for being such a good bloke who is so resonable and "listens" to others opinions. A "compromise" is reached, which is something like their original idea. It is implemented, the masses think they have had their say and the polly gets what he wanted in the first place and what appears to be a "consultative" process has taken place. When in fact the polly got what he wanted all along and the masses have been ripped off.

My message is don't budge a millimetre unless you are just happy to be a mushroom ie kept in the dark and fed s##t and doesn't know any better.

Reeltired

Reeltired,

You have nailed it! I've never doubted that this is indeed how they operate and i thank you so much for confirming.

Regards

Red

[Dave Robbo]

The members of Fishraider support the concept of preserving our marine habitats so that future generations can enjoy the great outdoors and one, if not the most popular of pastimes, recreational fishing.

Fishraider members are therefore not against the concept of Marine Parks, but rather a system within Marine Parks where Sanctuary Zones are used to exclude recreational fisherman from the most accessible and productive areas.

So we ask you for your input on what is being proposed by the so called "National Parks Association" lobby group.

Happy to be part of the vote.

Cheers

[pjbink]

This explains how the political process can become corupted and is very applicable to marine parks in this country:

Iron triangle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

This article is about a political term. For other meanings, see Iron Triangle.

Iron Triangle

United States politics, the iron triangle is a term used by political scientists to describe the policy-making relationship between the legislature, the bureaucracy (executive) (sometimes called "Government Agencies"), and interest groups.

In the Federal government of the United States, the congressional committees responsible for oversight along with the federal agencies (often independent agencies) responsible for regulation of those industries, and the industries and their trade associations.

Probably the earliest concept of the "iron triangle" was on January 17, 1919 by Ralph Pulitzer. It was the post World War I era when Pulitzer wrote a statement referring to the Paris Peace Conference between the allied Governments. He stated, “Three forces are laboring for such a sinister peace: (1,) the bourbonism of politicians…; (2,) the materialism of industrial…; (3,) the militarism of professional soldiers…” and “If the Peace Conference is allowed to remain between governments instead of between peoples it is apt to degenerate…”

An often-used example of the term is with reference to the military-industrial complex, with Congress (and the House and Senate Committees on Armed Services), defense contractors, and the U.S. Department of Defense forming the iron triangle. The term iron triangle has been widely used by political scientists outside the United States and is today an accepted term in the field.

Central assumption

Central to the concept of an iron triangle is the assumption that bureaucratic agencies, as political entities, seek to create and consolidate their own power base. In this view an agency's power is determined by its constituency, not by its consumers. (For these purposes, politically active members sharing a common interest or goal; consumers are the expected recipients of goods or services provided by a government bureaucracy and are often identified in an agency's written goals or mission statement.)

Much of what some see as bureaucratic dysfunction may be attributable to the alliances formed between the agency and its constituency. The official goals of an agency may appear to be thwarted or ignored altogether at the expense of the citizenry it is designed to serve.

Cultivation of a constituency

The need of a bureaucracy for a constituency sometimes leads to an agency's cultivation of a particular clientele. An agency may seek out those groups (within its policy jurisdiction) that will make the best allies and give it the most clout within the political arena.

Often, especially in a low-level bureaucracy, the consumers (the supposed beneficiaries of an agency's services) do not qualify as power brokers and thus make poor constituents. Large segments of the public have diffuse interests, seldom vote, may be rarely or poorly organized and difficult to mobilize, and are often lacking in resources or financial muscle. Less-educated and poorer citizens, for example, typically make the worst constituents from an agency's perspective.

Private or special interest groups, on the other hand, possess considerable power as they tend to be well-organized, have plenty of resources, are easily mobilized, and are extremely active in political affairs (through voting, campaign contributions, and lobbying).

Thus it may be in an agency's best interest to switch its focus from its officially-designated consumers to a carefully-selected clientele of constituents that will aid the agency in its quest for greater political influence.

Dynamics of an iron triangle

In the United States, bureaucratic power is exercised in the Congress, and particularly in congressional committees and subcommittees. By aligning itself with selected constituencies, an agency may be able to affect policy outcomes directly in these committees and subcommittees. This is where an iron triangle may manifest itself. The picture above displays the concept.

At one corner of the triangle are interest groups (constituencies). These are the powerful interests groups that influence Congressional votes in their favor and can guarantee the re-election of a member of Congress in return for supporting their programs. At another corner sit members of Congress who also seek to align themselves with a constituency for political and electoral support. These congressional members support legislation that advances the interest group's agenda. Occupying the third corner of the triangle are bureaucrats, who are often pressured by the same powerful interest groups their agency is designated to regulate. The result is a three-way, stable alliance that is sometimes called a subgovernment because of its durability, impregnability, and power to determine policy.

Consumers are often left out in the cold by this arrangement. An iron triangle can result in the passing of very narrow, pork-barrel policies that benefit a small segment of the population. The interests of the agency's constituency (the interest groups) are met, while the needs of consumers (which may be the general public) are passed over. That public administration may result in benefiting a small segment of the public in this way may be viewed as problematic for the popular concept of democracy if the general welfare of all citizens is sacrificed for very specific interests. This is especially so if the legislation passed neglects or reverses the original purpose for which the agency was established. Some maintain that such arrangements are consonant with (and are natural outgrowths of) the democratic process, since they frequently involve a majority block of voters implementing their will through their representatives in government.

[Youngdick]

It's a shame that the MPA doesn't respond to Professor Kearny research documents, just maybe they don't want to hear the truth.

Keep up the fight

Youngdick

[quaddy]

DONE

[catch this]

Mate, you are obviously not a pensioner counting every penny.

If you are comfortable with paying $40 a kilo for flathead fillet, go for it! If you are comfortable paying $14 a kilo for the filthy (should be banned) Mekong Catfish.....go for it. If your happy paying $28 a kilo for calamari.....go for it too. Even mullet and slimey mackerel sell for ridiculous prices at the fish market.

Fact is there are loads of people who would probably never eat seafood if they had to buy it because its too bloody expensive.....my dad happens to be one of them. The only quality meal he gets to enjoy is the fish catches.

In the last depression, the people around Malabar survived predominately on wild rabbits. Heaven forbid we don't end up with another depression......and fishing closures on top!

Cheers

Red

Hey Red,

Fair enough mate, your right, I'm not a pensioner. I have family members in a similar position to your dad in that they can't eat fish unless they catch it themselves due to the $$$$$$ (which as you pointed out is a joke in itself).

My point was more about mass poverty (which we don't have), but you're right its not cut and dry and it is more than a passion or hobby for some people.

Cheers

Phil

[rockyrocca]

Why do I bother with a fishing license if I'm not going to be able to fish anywhere.

Lets keep the bastards honest.

Keep the votes coming, it's important for us recreational fisho's.

[one fishes]

All Done, it will be interesting to see what our future has in store for us, hopefully more of this

[Carpe]

Hi,

Voted, Thanks for bring this to everyone's attantion.

Regards

Carpe.