Sweetwater Fishing Forums

General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: rayke1938 on December 06, 2014, 03:28:03 PM

Title: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: rayke1938 on December 06, 2014, 03:28:03 PM
https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2211/view.html (https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2211/view.html)
https://publications.qld.gov.au/storage/f/2014-11-24T01%3A09%3A46.961Z/freshwater-ris-final.pdf (https://publications.qld.gov.au/storage/f/2014-11-24T01%3A09%3A46.961Z/freshwater-ris-final.pdf)
Lot of reading and thinking required and a month to do it.
Other changes also in the pipeline.
Cheers
Ray
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Sweetwater on December 08, 2014, 11:29:18 AM
I fully support the inclusion of stocked "impoundments" be they dams or weirs. I would however question the inclusion of Beehive Dam, Greenup Weir, Sunny Girl Weir, and Mt Crosby Weir. To the best of my knowledge none of these have public access to any part of the impounded waters. I'm happy to be corrected if someone knows there is in fact public access to those locations mentioned above.
Then again, if there's little or no access to a location, that location will receive little or no angler preferences.

I would encourage everyone with a thought on this to respond to DAFF.

HERE IS WHERE YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR FEEDBACK https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2211/view.html (https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2211/view.html)
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: StevenM on December 08, 2014, 07:44:56 PM
With Mount Crosby that would fall to BVA wouldn't it not and they can then stock anywhere between that and Big W wall?
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 08, 2014, 08:21:44 PM
I notice that FFSAQ want to get their sticky fingers on $50,000 of the SIP funds.  A disgusting and greedy grab for cash by a biased and superfluous body.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Nativeman on December 08, 2014, 11:58:49 PM
I notice that FFSAQ want to get their sticky fingers on $50,000 of the SIP funds.  A disgusting and greedy grab for cash by a biased and superfluous body.

If there is a fish stocking group in all areas, what purpose do they serve?

I  agree with the proposal, the addition of the other fishing impoundments will be tremendous for groups that are not currently funded by the SIP. In the future I will be able to tick Wyaralong Dam to  get my dollars, happy days, :youbeauty

I also like the addition that all people over 18 need to have a license, in a way it stops the likes of those people who take the missus along just so they can keep more fish. If they intend to do this they should have to pay for the extra catch.

The rise in fees every 5 years is good too.



 

Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Novice on December 09, 2014, 12:24:08 AM
This whole motion in regards to the smaller impoundments and rivers is a direct result of the current state Liberal National Party's removal of the RFEP grant that was the mainstay of funding for the stocking groups which stocked the smaller impoundments and rivers.

Would we be having this discussion if the Newman state government had not removed the grant? That $5500 which all the stocking groups used to apply for kept most of the small groups happy. Since it's been gone, it's become almost a mad scramble to get on the SIP.

This 'problem' is all of the state governments making.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Nativeman on December 09, 2014, 06:10:53 AM
$5500 come on mate, imagine the Wivy Group on $5500 without the SIP...new Dams should mean automatic inclusion to the SIP scheme.

So you are suggesting LAFMA and other similar groups, could survive on that plus proceeds of raffles and the like.

I think this whole proposal is the most positive news I've heard in years.

Cheers

Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Brad H on December 09, 2014, 06:56:32 AM
With Mount Crosby that would fall to BVA wouldn't it not and they can then stock anywhere between that and Big W wall?

Steven, BVA did have stocking responsibility for the river above Mt Crosby, back when I was with them. Not sure if anything has changed as such. While the waters below Kholo bridge are closed, there are numerous access points above there for the public.


Brad
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 09, 2014, 06:58:58 AM
The negatives that I see are, as Fitz has posted, waters with no public access getting SIP monies so that closed groups can fish them; honestly, I've tried to find Connolly Dam near Warwick and it's almost impossible to find yet it's on the SIP.  Why would Mt Crosby Weir be included?  Isn't it a no fishing or access zone up to Kholo Bridge?  Isn't it already stocked via the BVA and even moreso by the flooding events of the last few years? 
FFSAQ want $50,000 of SIP funds which would mean 200,000 less fish stocked, just so they can pay someone to write their emails and post their letters.  All the Stocking groups are volunteer groups, some choose to pay a fee to FFSAQ to be a supporter, SWFSA Inc choose not to, for many reasons, the main one being the fact that unpaid volunteers have to raise funds to pay to a body to pay a wage for a person to do what should be volunteer work.  The fact that they are trying to get their hands on that money reeks of an inside deal with someone in Fisheries.  Everyone who pays for a SIP should fight the theft of those fingerlings.  1666 SIPs will have to be sold to hand this money over to this group.  $50,000 is more than most VOLUNTEER Stocking Groups receive to buy fingerlings, and those VOUNTEER groups must account for every cent of their money, will FFSAQ have to do the same? 
If the $50,000 comes out of 25% of Administration funds, it will mean that DAFF loose funding for the control of the scheme, or maybe even enforcement of the rules, it makes no sense to give this large amount of money over to a small group.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Hambone on December 09, 2014, 08:59:46 AM
" The fact that they are trying to get their hands on that money reeks of an inside deal with someone in Fisheries. "

http://www.sweetwaterfishing.com.au/Forum/index.php?topic=7358.0 (http://www.sweetwaterfishing.com.au/Forum/index.php?topic=7358.0)

So if it's an inside deal, why is it included in the RIS....I'll tell you why, so that people can have their say about the issue...if it was an "inside" deal we wouldn't have bothered asking the question...There is no commitment to allocate the funds unless it is fully supported by stakeholders.

As for Connolly Dam, there is a big sign on the highway out of Warwick (heading towards Stanthorpe) that takes you there.....

Please don't make statements that are not supported by fact, it's hard enough to deal with real issues without having to fight imaginary battles.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 09, 2014, 09:19:00 AM
Sorry Tony, I followed the sign from the Highway and couldn't find another one anywhere to direct me to the lake. 
As for FFSAQ, would the money they want come from the 75% of funds that Stocking Groups have to account for or the 25% of funds that DAFF have to account for?  Have they advised "Government" what they need the funds for, and how they would spend the funds?  Isn't $50,000 more than most Volunteer Stocking Groups receive from the SIP Scheme?  Do FFSAQ actually stock any areas?
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 09, 2014, 09:33:43 AM
Tony, with regard the RIS, as President of SWFSA the first I knew of this was when Ray posted it here.  I suppose our Secretary has received notification.  With the short amount of time between this announcement and closure of input, you will get a very limited response from most groups.  SWFSA do not have a December meeting, similar to a lot of other groups.  We will not have the opportunity to assemble the executive and make a considered response to this RIS, and yet we are the largest recipient of funds from the SIP, and likely to be the most affected.  Do you consider the amount of time given, considering it is over the Christmas period, is sufficient to receive meaningful input from the Volunteer Stocking Groups currently on the SIP Scheme?
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Sweetwater on December 09, 2014, 09:42:36 AM
Steven, BVA did have stocking responsibility for the river above Mt Crosby, back when I was with them. Not sure if anything has changed as such. While the waters below Kholo bridge are closed, there are numerous access points above there for the public.


Brad

Yep, BVA stock the Mt Crosby Weir,  Mid Brisbane R. The river isn't an impoundment, the weir is.

Mt Crosby weir backs up to almost Kholo Bridge. All access from Kholo Bridge to Mt Crosby Weir is restricted.

To include the waters above the impounded waters opens a can of worms. Imagine including the rivers upstream of impoundments eg Burdekin Dam or Lake Maraboon? May as well run with a full state licence and be done with it.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 09, 2014, 09:48:17 AM
A small problem that I have encountered is that I have completed the RIS as myself, with my personal views, however it will now not let me go back and complete the RIS as President of SWFSA on behalf of SWFSA.  (And yes I can separate my views from the views of the group.)
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Sweetwater on December 09, 2014, 09:49:18 AM
I strongly believe that the simple solution to funding shortfall is to include cray fishing as requiring a SIP AND require all people to have their own SIP, no more sliding in upder the "de-facto / partner" radar.
That would see a significant increase in income and more than cover the shortfall from the vacuum left by the RFEP. Will be more than enough to go around.

Received a letter from state member around this saying that crayfish aren't restocked. Well they have been at Tinaroo and I believe there is an application for another stocking of redclaw there. Who is to say crayfish cant be restocked going forward should the need arise?
 AND, spangled perch, tandans, forkies (nor to mention pest fish) etc aren't restocked, but a SIP is required to fish for them in participating impoundments. Flawed reasoning IMHO
Sorry, only registered users can see this content. Please Login or Register.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Hambone on December 09, 2014, 10:18:11 AM
Sorry Tony, I followed the sign from the Highway and couldn't find another one anywhere to direct me to the lake. 
As for FFSAQ, would the money they want come from the 75% of funds that Stocking Groups have to account for or the 25% of funds that DAFF have to account for?  Have they advised "Government" what they need the funds for, and how they would spend the funds?  Isn't $50,000 more than most Volunteer Stocking Groups receive from the SIP Scheme?  Do FFSAQ actually stock any areas?

With respect, that wasn't the question raised in your post...that was an allegation of some back room deal that had already been done... I find that offensive and frankly as I am responsible for the SIP Scheme,  I wont stand for it. The question regarding funding was put to the Minister by FFSAQ and an undertaking was given that the question would be included in the RIS for public comment... end of story.

FFSAQ have indicated that the funds would be used in support of their lobbying activities for their member groups, no detailed expenditure has been provided at this point. There would be an expectation that as they are public funds they would be spent and accounted for, as all grant allocations are in Fisheries. Yes it is a larger sum of money that stocking groups receive...and no they don't stock waterways...as you well know.

As to the question regarding the timeframe...Yes. It's a short RIS, with very little content compared to another we have put out...there is 6 weeks from the opening date. There is no conspiracy about release times, no hidden agendas, no attempt to stifle input, unfortunately resources and work loads have conspired to get it done at this time....

I am always happy to discuss any issues with rec fishers...anyone who knows me will support that...I'm not hard to get in contact with.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 09, 2014, 10:37:58 AM
My apologies Tony, my comments were not intended to offend you, and yes, you are easy to contact. (Hopefully you got my earlier email.)  My comments did however achieve the information that I was looking for.  The RIS is very brief with the reasoning behind FFSAQ's request for funding, and does not outline it as you have done.  With the importance of these changes, what a shame that this information could not be conveyed to all SIP holders.  Surely there is a database available, just don't do what NSW did a few years ago when they emailed all Fishing License holders on an open email and handed out all the email addresses. To rush this RIS through, with what must be a minority of affected users' input will not get an output that will be agreeable to the majority of users.  While Fitzy has a large following with Sweetwater Fishing, and Ray had done a great thing by posting it here, I'm concerned that word has not gone out to enough recreational anglers.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Hambone on December 09, 2014, 11:28:28 AM
the 4 extra questions for consultation are not detailed as they are not regulatory changes proposed, unfortunately that is the process......They are asked to gauge the support (or lack of) for the idea..and we will deal with the responses we receive.

We have contacted as many stakeholder groups as possible, including all stocking groups.....so hopefully we will get feedback...info will go out on Social media sites this week as there have been some other issues burning up the airwaves and there is a link on  the DAFF Webpage...
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 09, 2014, 12:35:27 PM
Thanks for taking the time to answer the questions Tony.  Fingers crossed for a good result.  I've long held the belief that Queensland's SIP Scheme is one of the best schemes going for sustaining freshwater angling, let's hope for a long and happy future for the SIP.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on December 18, 2014, 06:24:12 PM
Received from DAFF today;

Quote

I would like to inform you that the deadline for submissions to the proposed changes to the SIPS and other matters related to freshwater fishing has been extended to the 27th of January 2015 due to complications with some stakeholders not receiving mail due to the Christmas period. 
 
Attached is the link to the RIS and submissions https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2211/view.html (https://www.getinvolved.qld.gov.au/gi/consultation/2211/view.html)

Thanks Tony.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Sweetwater on December 31, 2014, 09:57:14 AM
Some more thoughts.......

Border rivers already require a NSW Fishing License. There are several weirs mentioned for inclusion on the SIP (Highlighted below). If these are added, anglers will need a NSW & Qld permit.... double dip, double expense to anlgers. Could this possibly see anglers move upstream / down stream of the backed up waters of the weir to avoid the extra costs thus negating part of the reason for restocking the weir in the first place?

Aplins Weir
Atkinson Dam
Baroon Pocket Dam
Beebo Weir
Beehive Dam
Ben Anderson Barrage
Ben Dor Weir
Black Weir
Bonshaw Weir
Bowen River Weir
Bromelton Weir
Caboolture River Weir
Cecil Plains Weir
Charters Towers Weir
Chinaman Creek Dam
Chinchilla Weir
Claude Wharton Weir
East Leichhardt Dam
Ewen Maddock Dam
Gill Weir
Glebe Weir
Gleeson Weir
Glenarbon Weir
Goondiwindi (Hilton) Weir
Greenup Weir
Hinze Dam
Inglewood (Coolmunda) Town Weir
Jones Weir
Koombooloomba Dam
Lake Belmore
Lake Corella (Corella Park Dam)
Lake Julius (Julius Dam)
Lake Kurwongbah
Lake Moondarra (Leichhardt River Dam)
Lemon Tree Weir
MacIntosh Weir
Miles Weir
Moura Weir
Mt Crosby Weir
Sunny Girl Weir
Surat Weir
Talgai Weir
Whetstone Weir
Woodford Weir
Wyaralong Dam
Yarramalong Weir 
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Sweetwater on January 09, 2015, 10:31:47 PM
I think it was Q6 that I wrote an extra comment as follows.

Quote
1- Include the use of any cray fish traps/apparatus in SIP waterways to require a SIP as well.

2- if non impoundment waterways are added to the SIP permit scheme, an amendment to Section 13a of the Water Act needs to be undertaken to give SIP permit holders to right to travel the beds and banks of those waterways as their right. This would bring Qld into alignment with NSW laws which deem all non tidal waterways to be a highway for the purpose of fishing (which requires a NSW Fishing Permit). Section 13a of the Qld Water Act allows adjoining land holders to non-tidal waterways to deny access along the beds and banks of the waterway, even though the beds and banks are crown land.

Point 1 is up to you.... But on point 2, I would encourage everyone to write the same or similar. That section of the water act is the biggest enemy of sweet water fishing in Qld and pales in comparison to other states. If we're have a fishing license on a river, it should give us right to access the entire river, bed and banks included. If you cannot RE-write this into your own words, at least copy and paste it.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: A Marshall on January 10, 2015, 06:50:39 AM
Just read the statement & have submitted my thoughts. Should make for some robust discussion at the next stocking group meeting.

Cheers Andrew
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: aussiebasser on January 10, 2015, 06:16:18 PM
SWFSA submission was made before the extension of the closing date.
Title: Re: RIS on proposed changes to SIP Scheme.
Post by: Binder on January 11, 2015, 07:57:23 AM
I wouldn't get to worried about it, with the government now in caretaker mode, I'd expect at least another 6 months before you get any action. (If any).