Fishraider Official Marine Park Poll

[double pluggers]

G-day all as we have over 7500 members it would be great to see a few more votes, keep them coming.

[mrsswordfisherman]

Thanks to everyone who has voted or indeed had input via post, email or pm. Stewy and I are working non stop since this poll started to answer the emails and enquiries.

The response has been massive and overwhelming. It is interesting to note that there are many people posting in this thread that have NEVER posted before on fishraider, some joined us 2 years ago even. We invited all members and if that is their first contribution to our community then so be it.

The poll questions were presented to us by a very active and learned fishraider member. We believe it is giving an indication of the angling community's feelings on the basic issues. Let's not get into the wording or people's ability to interpret the questions.

I see this thread as being very important for many reasons. I am quite sure that this link will become available to the politicians to run their eye over. This is grassroots stuff from the real people. By posting your comments and feelings you will be giving them real insight into the public opinion. If I were a part of the decision making machine I would be very happy to read what fishraider members have posted. This is preferable to a whole stack of identical letters which only gives a numerical indication.

We would like to congratulate all members for their input thus far. Our community is a well informed and active one. The comments so far have been civil and intelligent with no real personal attacks or infighting. Keep up the good work everyone.

Remember fishraider is a vehicle for you to express opinion on this matter. We can also use our live chat area to host a speaker at a scheduled time should any of the representatives like to take us up on that!!

Stewy and Donna

[nemu]

I would support a marine park if allowed angling rights still we already adhear to restrictions and limits with the use of high carbon hooks that deplete within days and catch and release with circle hooks but these parks would have to have a purpose i.e seagrass protection or release of particular specsified species (no take)not just any willy nilly reason without founded reason we don't want to curtail to these guys just for the sake off amicable relation if they use thier ad hoc opinionated consensus reprior I'll fix bayonets at these guys.

[mattalley]

i love fishing. full stop. i also am a conservationist. concentrated fishing in a concentrated area is harmful.

marine parks... i like the idea. yet even now with bag and size limits, i wonder how it will be policed. i have seen too many wankers take home under size fish. it kills me to watch.

the notion of sanctuaries within marine parks is an idea needing further thought.

it is too simple to ban fishing in designated places.

i propose a system whereby the sanctuaries within parks are rotated on a 2-3 year cycle. imagine there where 6 sanctuaries within a park. of the 6 zones, 2 were strictly no fish zones for a season or two. anyway... i voted.

m

[chapmanm]

I'm not sure what the poll is expected to measure, or what was the prompt to conduct the poll. There is a number of classifications of Marine Parks, Sanctuary is the most restrictive on activities. I for one am very pleased that a location like Cabbage Tree Bay near Manly has such protection. It is a fantastic location for snorkelling and experienceing a marine environment. It couldn't work if fishos were motoring about.

Other zonings allow recreational fishing and it is these zonings that should be persued when the area doesn't have other exceptional qualities. I can't see why the beaches themselves need to be included in Marine Sanctuaries. I think the poll needed to address the issue along the lines of using the lesser protective zonings in preference to Sanctuaries where the environment is not unique or not prone to damage due to the nature of the fishing.

The NPA policy is for the NSW Government to adopt the NPA 'The Torn Blue Fringe'. This policy document was tabled at a recent meeting of Manly Council and was solidly supported by the dominant Liberal Party. This action was taken by Manly Council without consultation with other coastal/harbour based Councils. This will surely be the thin end of the wedge and the NPA policy will move in via Liberal Party support. I bet the local zombies when they voted in the Council elections didn't know the Liberals would act to remove our right to fish.

Here's what they voted on:

That Manly Council:

1. Publicly supports the creation of a Sydney Marine Park with increased sanctuary areas for Manly's marine waters.

2. Calls on the NSW State Government (Ministers for Environment and Fisheries) to act on the findings and recommendations contained in the NPA report "The Torn Blue Fringe" for creation of a Sydney Marine Park.

3.Copies the above-mentioned correspondence to the Sydney Coastal Council Group

For the Resolution: Councillors Elder, Heasman, LeSurf, Griffin, Aird, Burns and Macdonald.

Against the Resolution: Whitting, Murphy, and Norek

So now you know the policy of the Liberal Party. Do you know what to do to stop them.

[Red]

G'day Raiders,

Well i finally got through! After numerous attempts ringing ph-02 9299 0000 to speak to someone at the MPA, a poorly informed man answers and proceeds to try and baffle me with total nonsense, thinking i was as un-informed as he. Initially i pretented to be a greenie wanting to make a donation. He was very forthcoming with their master plan.

He was delighted to informed me that no fisho's were included in their survey. He couldn't even name a credible scientist, and proceeded to admit that they want 25% of the proposed Marine Park to comprise of exclusion zones........that's right, a staggering 25%

I asked him "what he thought of line fishermen?" I can't give you the answer here, as it would break the site rules.

I then asked him what he thought of Valerie Taylor? He said she was a delightful icon to the green movement. Christ, i near fell off my chair!

I asked him how could a person who has confessed to the senseless slaughter of numerous Grey Nurse Sharks, go on to be labelled a "delightful icon" to the green movement, when hypocrit of the highest calibre seems more appropriate!

He hung up!

But that's ok, i'll ring him again tomorrow and ask for more info.....stay tuned.

Regards

Red

Edited December 17, 2008 by Red

[Mik]

G'day Raiders,

But that's ok, i'll ring him again tomorrow and ask for more info.....stay tuned.

Regards

Red

Sik'um Red

Surprising what info you get when someone thinks you "One of them"

[Bentstik]

Well done ang you sort them out.

Cheers Silvo - Bentstik

[Jewhunter]

Keep the votes coming Raiders!

Cheers,

Grant.

[neilm]

Nice work Red.

[bloodshot]

I voted

Didn"t it used to be that all Aussies owned the coast & river systems. I dont think this as changed

therefore we should be allowed to recreational line fish where ever we please as long as we stick to

the bag & size limits. I believe the Americans can rec fish where ever they like be it marine park

santuary zone or what ever

How can a state government change our federal constitutional rights.

Cheers & Merry Xmas to all

Bloodshot

[Alby]

Have voted

Alby

[andrew@walkerjohnstone.net]

Hey my 2c:-

Whilst i whole heartedly believe that things are moving in the correct direction - I also would hate to see some of our favorite land based spots to be no longer available for recreational fishing due to a sanctuary being set-up.

I think that there needs to be compromise and much input from the whole fishing community.

Look whats happened at JB - a number of the good land based rock fishing spots have been stopped.

I think a number of levels need to be setup:-

1) No access - 100% sanctuary.

2) No commercial fishing, No anchoring, catch and release only....

3) No commercial fishing, No anchoring

4) No commerical fishing

We need to look after our fish and create sanctuary zones however lets be smart about it and no wipe out some of the best fishing spots - there are plenty of suitable area's to put into sanctuary's that don't have suitable or safe access to recreational land based fisherman.

Anyway Long live the fish

[YODA52]

I support recreational and pro fishing controls, such as Green zones & Yellow zones, Bag Limits, Size Limits and ever spawning closuers est. But the point of these is to improve fishing for everyone by protecting the natural stockes in any given area NOT to create another place WE can't use or by the sound of it even go.

To quarantine a area by making it a sanctuary, such as a individual "eco-zone", such as mud flats, grass bed or a river or a reef or any other combination of these habitats for the betterment of that area is a noble endeavour. Howerver without our interaction there can be no concise sensis except for the few scientists who we have to pay to send in to collect the limited infomation in those areas and then only at the time allotted to them.

Perhaps these Marine Parks people sould be looking harder at the TRUE PROBLEM which is, in my opinion, POLUTION. Polution of our rivers, coastal fringes and indead our reefs both by industrial and human interaction is still one of the major factors in our declining fishery.

I would like to know the areas propose as "Sanctuary Zones" and the Resons that these areas have been chosen so that we can make a more educated and therefore acurate respons.

May the fish be with you

Yoda

Edited December 18, 2008 by YODA52

[Luringbream]

This is getting too me so much now, more than words can say.

I'm ready for a protest, a riot, something which will make them lose their confidence for good.

I tell ya, i will not stop fishing ANY of the waterways i do, be it marine park or not. I am not going to give in to this horse ****.

And to all those "fish-traders" who voted for the marine park, shame on you!

Regards,

Daniel

[Keflapod]

This is getting too me so much now, more than words can say.

I'm ready for a protest, a riot, something which will make them lose their confidence for good.

I tell ya, i will not stop fishing ANY of the waterways i do, be it marine park or not. I am not going to give in to this horse ****.

And to all those "fish-traders" who voted for the marine park, shame on you!

Regards,

Daniel

Hey Daniel,

Mate I'm as peeved off as you are but the difficult thing we face is that if we lose our mind and riot, then the rest of the world will think that all fishos are a violent bunch of nutcases prepared to address issues with fists. While we want to do that, we can't - we have to be smart. It's a big mindgame. Only those of us who take a step back, think about a clever way to counterattack the threat and expose their science for the crap that it is, only then can we beat them. Look at what Red did with that phone call. That was sheer brilliance. A super sleuth and reporter rolled into one. We need to do our research. For those of us who are knowledgeable and well networked in the relevant areas, these people could provide some leadership and direction to the rest of us who don't really know what to do. If these leaders suggested who to email, call or meet, or put forward some sort of game plan to gather info and use it where it's most effective, then that might work. Preferably, if we can indicate to pollies that this is going to prove one hell of a community-dividing fight, then they will think twice as to whether or not to support this park because the votes will be divided too. We need to get big names involved to put revenue loss figures together which will ruin the relevant economies and tie politician names in with that. I believe that names must be named to get their attention. Indicate how much money will be lost in each industry and that the local pollies will be blamed - equate the marine park introduction with lost pollie votes and they will listen. Can we put an article in each of our local papers with info we have gathered? Can we make some worthwhile points for people to read that suggest a fair compromise between marine lockout and wipeout? We need to inform the community at large of both sides of the debate - show the pollies that voters are wised up based on our research...that's how to change the world - not by beating them up with bare knuckles- we gotta beat them up with words - a good poker game - the pen is mightier than the sword, so we'll whack them with a pen...in the paper where people can read it at home, on a train, bus, ferry, online or on the toilet !

[gregg.michael]

I stand by Fishraider's decision to support the park in theory. I see myself as a moderate environmentalist. I believe the coastal environments need protection from that which seeks to destroy it, pollution and commercial fishing. But i think banning people from fishing in a recreational fashion will sever the connection we all feel for marine environments and will ultimately alienate future generations from the wonders of the ocean.

[Malcolm Poole]

Hi Guys,

Good to see so much discussion, however confusion still reigns.

What is it that recreational fishers want?

I thought this was 2 simple questions, testing if you supported Marine Parks in their current form (i.e. with fishing exclusions zones) and do you support the basic Principles of Marine Parks if fishers were not restricted. Marine Parks around the world do allow catch & release fishing with good release fish handling practices in their sanctuary zones.

I personally don’t think it is great to tackle Commercial Fishers per say, yes some of their fishing practices have changed, others are changing, the majority of guys are doing their fair share in making such change happen as it is their livelihood, ‘no fish no income’, or ‘no habitat no fish’. There has to be room for us both to share the publicly owned fish resource equitably.

The issue here is really, What are Marine Parks Designed for? and Do They Achieve This? or What Changes can be Implemented? Rather than the current lock it up and throw away the key mentality!

[pjbink]

A no/yes vote is really just a vote for defacto recreational fishing havens and as such seems rather transparent and self interested. Maybe differently worded questions might have put our case in a better light.

Edited December 18, 2008 by billfisher

[Berleyguts]

A no/yes vote is really just a vote for defacto recreational fishing havens and as such seems rather transparent and self interested. Maybe differently worded questions might have put our case in a better light.

My votes in but I agree with Billfisher in a way. I'm not against marine parks per se but they should be managed effectively for all users, not totally excluding recreational anglers from key areas.

Baz

[peeko]

Cheers guys

[mrsswordfisherman]

A no/yes vote is really just a vote for defacto recreational fishing havens and as such seems rather transparent and self interested. Maybe differently worded questions might have put our case in a better light.

Thanks for your comment billfisher. Voting always has a "self interest" component. This is giving an indication only of people's feelings and is not meant to "put our case in a better light"

If we were intending to run a campaign here and get out on the hustings we certainly would be using very different means of preparing our case. This is a simple poll to gauge opinion.

Perhaps you or any other member would like to email me the questions you feel need to be addressed and let me know in who's interest they would be.

Lets keep the comments coming folks - perhaps we will scrap the poll and just leave this open for comment posting.

mrsswordfisherman

[BIGPETE]

done

[jimnicdusty]

I voted

[slinkymalinky]

All members are reminded to keep this discussion RESPECTFUL AT ALL TIMES.

There are many members with many different opinions and as long as they do not breach site rules and remain respectful of differing views themselves, they have every right to have those views.

Personal criticism, running down other members, or any other similar lack of respect WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.

If any member has a problem with a post or has a complaint of any kind it is to be directed to a site moderator or admin. NO EXCEPTIONS.

KEEP IT NICE PEOPLE.

Slinky