Ken A Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 The State Government will this year spend a record amount on a range of projects to boost recreational fishing across NSW. The projects include fish re-stocking, scientific research, public education campaigns, habitat restoration, and the continuation of the successful fish aggregating devices program All of these programs are funded directly from the sale of recreational fishing licenses in NSW. This is fantastic news for the more than one million people in NSW who wet a line at least once a year. Recreational fishing is one of the community’s favourite pastimes and supports many regional businesses and tourism in NSW. Since the sale of general fishing licenses began in March 2001, dozens of vital projects to protect and increase the number of fish in NSW waters have been carried out. Funds from the recreational fishing license are placed into two Recreational Fishing Trusts, overseen by expert angler committees – one for saltwater and one for freshwater. This means that the fishing community decides how every cent of the license funds is spent. Projects to be funded this year include: * More than $535,000 for fish re-stocking, including $200,000 for the highly successful dollar-for-dollar native fish stocking program; * $446,000 for the fish aggregating devices (FAD) program over the next three years, with the aim of increasing the number of devices from 15 to 20; * $554,000 from the saltwater trust for a new research program which will help maximise the survival chances of fish caught and released; * Almost $90,000 on a rock fishing safety awareness campaign, which includes brochures in a number of different languages, advertising, and a DVD on rock fishing safety; and * Nearly $700,000 for fish habitat restoration projects, including $200,000 for coastal fish habitats and another $200,000 for inland water restorations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluecod Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 The State Government will this year spend a record amount on a range of projects to boost recreational fishing across NSW.Projects to be funded this year include: * Nearly $700,000 for fish habitat restoration projects, including $200,000 for coastal fish habitats and another $200,000 for inland water restorations. 47978[/snapback] OK call me a cynic but $700,000 - $200,000 - $200,000 = $300,000 left to be spent on what? If its not coastal and its not inland where else can it be spent? Seems like that $300,000 could be spent funding the creation of Marine Parks [more commonly known as NO FISHING ZONES] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jocool Posted May 17, 2005 Share Posted May 17, 2005 This means that the fishing community decides how every cent of the license funds is spent. 47978[/snapback] I'm a skeptic too. I'm sitting on the side right next to George! I don't recall ANYONE ever asking for MY input on where the money should be spent! Has anyone here had direct input???? I don't believe that ACORF or any other body has TRULY got the best interests of rec fishing in mind when they make decisions. And the bodies that do have the ideas aren't listened too! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitto Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Bloody knockers The license has been a great thing for areas that were almost barren of fish only a few years ago ... education for adults, ethnic groups and children has been undertaken ... research into the needs of many fish species has been accomplished ... many hundreds of nets have been retired permanently.... many ongoing projects are being funded ... You guys are way off base ... Where is our money going? Anyone can make a submission for funds ... Guide for Applicants Have you a project in mind? Go on, make a difference ... instead of whinging or sitting on the fence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluecod Posted May 18, 2005 Share Posted May 18, 2005 Got to keep the bastards honest, particularly when there is a $300,000 shortfall in their accounting * Nearly $700,000 for fish habitat restoration projects, including $200,000 for coastal fish habitats and another $200,000 for inland water restorations. "$700,000 - $200,000 - $200,000 = $300,000 left to be spent on what?" Now who is going to provide the definition of a fish habitat restoration project, it won't be me and it won't be Joecool, Iain or Whitto NSW Fisheries is an inner budget Agency, which means they rely on Treasury for most of their ongoing funding and will need a massive injection of funds if they are going to support this :LINK in any sort of surveillance/compliance capacity. Swept under the carpet by other significant events is the forecast defecit in State Budget. That means there will be less cash for non-essential programs. To maintain ongoing programs or start new initiatives, inner budget agencies have to obtain funding from external sources or else they will have to cut back on what they want to do. Alarmingly the same bloke runs Fisheries and the MPA. Will he be able to keep his fingers out of the recreational angling funds till [an external source] particularly as he will be the one providing the definitions of projects where the funds are spent. As Whitto says, a lot of good has come from the fishing license fees and to ensure the status quo remains, public scrutiny is essential and one of the best forms of public scrutiny is open debate. That's my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitto Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Gotta agree Bluecod, being transparent is important … being accountable is critical too. Yes Iain the pros were mostly responsible for the state of our estuaries. The fishermen of today are being asked to pay for years of mismanagement of the entire system, as unfair as this may be at least it is happening … Perhaps the whole system should have been thrown into the sewer along with those responsible … While we are at it, let’s ban duck shooting, stop mining all natural resources, logging will be fully outlawed and jaywalkers shot on sight … we can give Australia back to the rightful owners too … Meanwhile back in the real world ….. Change can take time and the right sort of change may take a very long time, but change for the better is happening. I pay for my fishing licence, like I pay for my boat drivers licence … those who refuse to buy a licence face fines as they flout the law. Nothing would please me more than the TOTAL removal of all pros from every estuary and it will happen … one day. Being critical of the system on this forum will not get more pros off the water ... you could make a recommendation to the committee that they concentrate on buying the pros out ... I will support it wholeheartedly … and I would buy you a fishing licence For your sake and the sake of my children and their children I will continue to buy a licence ... it has helped a lot in only a few years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jocool Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Whitto...Perhaps we do take a hard line, and perhaps we do come across as zealots. But standing in their face is the only thing that seems to strike a chord. You ARE right, and things ARE happening. But what is really frustrating is the double speak and innuendo you get when you pose a straight question in any beauracracy. Way of the world I guess! Nothing would please me more than the TOTAL removal of all pros from every estuary and it will happen … one day. 48378[/snapback] And what you say here is right. But at what cost? Do we have to wait till they have completely denuded our shores of fish, and all the habitat before it happens? Cos at the rate its being decimated....thats what it will take! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluecod Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Do we have to wait till they have completely denuded our shores of fish, and all the habitat before it happens? Cos at the rate its being decimated....thats what it will take! 48380[/snapback] Joe, Having an involvement in natural resource management, I can tell you straight up, things have changed significantly in the last decade, moreso in the last five years and from those changes there have been noticeable improvements in estuary and tributary quality, not just in water quality but also habitat retention and protection. These changes may or may not accelerate at the level they have, however I sincerely doubt we will go back to where we were in the 70's and 80's. What concerns me is that once significant improvements to fish stocks are made, and there is some evidence in certain areas to suggest that parts of the fishery is on the incline, they will be made off limits to the recreational fisherman. I can see that in most cases decreased bag limits and restrictive size limits at both the lower and upper end of the size range are warranted and I can easily digest that, but what I can't stomach are "no fishing zones" such as happened in the Byron Marine Park area. I don't mind paying my share towards improved aquatic quality and have always had a current license but, as I said, I would strenuously object to license fees if they were being directed to a no fishing zone anywhere along the coastline. Generally speaking if a person in public office doesn't fully disclose what they intend to do in a good news story [which is what started this thread], they don't want you aware of what they are up to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bashir Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 For your sake and the sake of my children and their children I will continue to buy a licence ... it has helped a lot in only a few years 48378[/snapback] What about me, can you buy me one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bluecod Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Got a good chuckle there Bash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitto Posted May 19, 2005 Share Posted May 19, 2005 Nice try and full marks for effort Bashir It was getting a little too serious in here Now let me finnish trying to win Iain over with the proverbial glass bead necklace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen glover Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 I object to the lies The lies made to get the licence in place and the ongoing lies to maintain a facade of honesty and respectability of the scheme. Using typical govt duplicity they have designed a revenue raising scheme to meet there income shortfalls from the state Govt. They have also ( and are still) given it an environmental spin to ensure they have a defence to any arguement about what it truely is, an income raising venture. Since its inception I have directly seen the benifit of the licence in the very costly FADS deployment scheme. I have also seen a significanly increased inspector presence at ramps checking licenses presumably to ensure compliance to the defacto tax system. Ian is right in that NO 1 on recfishers list for licence fund usage is the removal of all pros from NSW estuaries, It always has been. If we saw hard descisions like this being made by those obligated to manage the fishery, then we may have a greater respect for the fun ticket. Until then though I dont think our opinion can be sidelined by seeing the negatives and under utilisation of this Tax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitto Posted May 20, 2005 Share Posted May 20, 2005 Allen, If you are going to complain about a tax ... try the fuel tax where every dollar you spend puts over 40 cents into the governments pocket .... these funds are NOT spent roads they disappear into revenue Fact ... all licence fees are placed into trust and ONLY spent on projects decided on by the revelant commitees ... OUR money spent on OUR fishery ... if you want to have your say on how it is spent follow the link I provided. How many people remember the outcry over the "collosal cost" involved in buying out the pros when the fishing licence was introduced? ... NOW they have not gone far enough and every pro should have been removed. Fair go! Perhaps the licence should be double what it is so the pros could be removed faster ... go on Allen ... tear your hair out Iain, I get so upset because I do genuinely care about this issue! So why no licence? ... at least then it will be OUR money being spent on OUR fishery If everyone had a licence there would be more money for buying the pros out ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allen glover Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 (edited) Whitto Im fully aware of the facts surrounding the licence. But like I said, I dislike the lies. Allen Edited May 22, 2005 by allen glover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitto Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 Using typical govt duplicity they have designed a revenue raising scheme to meet there income shortfalls from the state Govt. They have also ( and are still) given it an environmental spin to ensure they have a defence to any arguement about what it truely is, an income raising venture. Yeah, I can see how well you understand it. I'm glad it's not my license money, I'll never buy one. So, Iain, Is this how you still feel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jocool Posted May 25, 2005 Share Posted May 25, 2005 I got in the mail today a reminder to renew my fishing liscense...Yet we cant get a simple reply to a letter...Whats with that?? 49267[/snapback] I got so excited when I opened my mailbox! I thought...FINALLY...A reply to some of the letters I have sent! My wife asked me why I was laughing hysterically when I opened it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now