Fishing licence equals pro buy out

[Member]

Sounds great on the surface but all they did was divide that same quota among those pros remaining. The total catch stayed the same so there was no improvement to recreational fishing; our money payed for that.
Fitz,
True sentence. The total catch still remains hey. Buy outs won't work, as its not the full picture.
J

In other situations, the rec take is already greater than the commercial take, so the word balance isn't easy to pen.
The other issue is product demand. A demand will still remain if commercial pressure is reduced. There will be no prizes for guessing how that gap is filled.
What I believe is worth focus is spawn closures for all fish who's numbers are rocky. Commercial and rec closures. Both rec and commercial fishing takes place in many fisheries during spawn periods or in lead up to the events. If sustainability is the key, closures are important. If a rec angler wishes to have fisheries to themselves without commercial pressure, they're not fitting the shoes of futuristic smarts. Why don't we just close areas for good- that'll sustain a lot of fisheries......... but the rec angler won't be happy. Without pros, rec fishing might not be as honky dory as many expect it to be. Come fighting time, the commercial sector does a great deal to keep Australia fishing. There's plenty of anglers who want pros out, but I'll post a photo of the Christmas line up at Seafood outlets here in Gladstone. That's the double edge of the sword.
There is NO simple strategy to this topic.
Johnny Mitchell

[Member]

There is no doubt that the NSW model works  ( just like the SIP scheme in Qld)   
The wholesale buyout of commercial licences in the various estuary systems has been a great thing -  particularly the recruitment of certain fish stocks and the flow on effect where little tackers can grow up without having to deal with nets strung or hauled left right and centre.
Botany Bay during the 90s was a tough fishery ......... Sitting at a Brighton Le Sands restaurant on the new moon during a summers night one could see why   -  the pretty coloured lights with a catastrophic end result - anywhere between 20 & 30 little prawn trawlers dragging their chains / nets from one end to the other -  the bay was decimated.
The funds raised from the new licences went straight into buying out the Pro licences ........  the fishing improved within a few years  & today 10 years later fishing segments are filmed within the system .
How can that be a bad thing ?

We should see the same thing happen up here with Systems like the Goldcoast / Moreton bay , Noosa  , Burrum , Mary etc 

To think that this type of thing isn't coming would be pretty naive ........

Chris

[Member]

As I see it the Queensland SIP system is a good one that applies only to stocked impoundment of which Quld has more of than any other state. The License system that operates in NSW works extremely well and apart from obvious things like pro buyouts, there have been numerous other benefits from the idea. The success of the system comes from the fact that there IS input from rec anglers, or at least their reps, as well as qualified people like Fisheries scientists etc. The problem in Queensland has been a devisive rec angle population that almost never gets together. I agree with Harro that parades of boat trailers don't cut it, and the license is a good way to quantify the numbers of anglers who are out there. The sticking point as I see it is that us rec anglers basically don't trust the Qld government to spend the money wisely. There MUST be an oversight to go with this as I believe a fishing license is money held in trust by the government to be used for the benefit of those who paid the money. Restocking non impounded fisheries should not be neccessary if all the other factors are favourable. Basically there is a great difference between impoundments that are subsidised by SIP and "wild" fisheries that should be self sustaining given the right balance. A properly managed license system will work. Good post Harro.
JD

[Member]

Well call me naive then (call me what ever you want), but I've got a mind & a voice & I will use the lot to stop, oppose or delay an all waters licence in Qld. Even if its only to stop the SIP from being screwed up. Now you can call me arrogant as well...  But you'll need some better arguements to make me think otherwise.

I'm still absolutely & diabolically opposed to paying out pros with my money, when there's a fishery management system in place that can & should be managing it better, in a sustainable manner.

I'll play the silly game, give up on my beliefs & agree an all waters licence is inevitable. It still doesnt mean I cant go down fighting.

Riddle me this then Batman
So,,, once all the pros are payed out, where THEN will the licence fees collected go in 5 years or 10 years, 50 years?
Will recreational bag limits be raised since the world will once again be a garden of eden with pros a thing of the past?
Will size limits be reduced once the pros are extinct?
And at the end of it, where are all the people who want a feed of fish or prawn etc get them with pros being nothing but a memory?


To think everyone that wants to eat seafood is going to be able to go fishing, & then catch their own... now THAT'S naive.

A licence is forever; never to be undone.

I'm all for improving out fisheries, but I'm not keen to pay for someone elses mistakes, poor management & bad practices.

As always, I'm happy to be convinced otherwise, but I've not read or heard anything from here or the various bodies / groups / committees and so on that I work with to make me consider an all waters licence is anything other than another tax of possibly limited short term use when long term solutions are required.

Interesting discussions, thanks for the efforts.

Fitz..

[Member]

Imagine possibilities like this-
No pro fisherman-  no fishery officers to protect rivers- (possible job extinction).
No pro fisherman- no experienced persons on the water 24/7 keeping tabs on anything fishy.
No pro fisherman- no quick reporting to customs of wrong doing- especially in remote coastal areas.
No pro fisherman - no prawns for the table or for your hook.
No pro fisherman- less studies on fisheries and management.
No pro fisherman - a weaker voice for rec fisherman when major waters want to be closed to fishing.
No pro fisherman- a demand for yummy fresh fish- rec anglers netting rivers because there is $ to be made, no fisheries exist, no one beside them will complain as they have a net too. ( possible).
No pro fisherman- as above- a black market will thrive. There are thousands of anglers who already sell fish illegally, imagine the freedom available if the above possibilities are true.

I'm not looking for negatives- they just hit you in the face.
Cane toads- lets do that- that'll fix the little beetle problem- Oops!

[Member]

I am sorry but I dont see how you can compare cane toads to the buy out of professional fishers.Apples and oranges.
There are plenty of examples both here and OS where pro fishers have been excluded from particular areas in favor of rec fishers/tourism.So why wont it work here in Queensland?Are we that backward here?


Toddy

[Member]

I am sorry but I dont see how you can compare cane toads to the buy out of professional fishers.Apples and oranges.
There are plenty of examples both here and OS where pro fishers have been excluded from particular areas in favor of rec fishers/tourism.So why wont it work here in Queensland?Are we that backward here?


Toddy

Don't think it was comparing apple and oranges.  More like comapring potential mistakes with mistakes already made at a higher level.  The cane toads issue was one of looking at a small part of the overall problem and implementing a fix that ultimately made things worse.....much worse because not all the impacts of the introduction were considered or even taken into account in the first place. 

So having no Pro's might help in some respects but what ramifications will that then cause.  Having said that they have done it in NSW and that could be used to build a better model given it actually works.  If there are less Pro's in NSW who are they relying on to get the population the seafood they want.  Other states ?? more pressure means more loss in fish stocks.

Would half the amount of Pro's working on the same limits and quota's work?  If not half is there a balance that can be reached?  I guess you would need to make sure that the industry doesn't get taken over by a group like the big W and they monopolise the industry.

Cheers Geoff

[Member]

If they are going to pay Pros to not fish, I'd better start drafting a letter, because I'm planning to not net Bream, Whiting and Flathead in the Pine River on my way to work each day.  I'll probably not net any Bass either.  The main thing I won't net is Snapper, especially during February and March next year.  I'm not sure how I'll not run my net to specifically not catch Snapper, but I'm sure the Minister will be able to tell me that.  I believe there are farmers out west who were offered money to not grow cotton.  I'm seriously considering not growing cotton as a career.  If I decide to not grow 15,000 hectares of cotton, how much will I get, will they pay me more to not grow 20,000 hectares?

[Member]

I don't really believe for one minute that ALL pro's will become extinct. No-one really wants or believes that. However, we would all agree that netting rivers and estuaries is unsustainable. The issue at hand is how to manage the fishery both pro and rec, not just wipe out the pro's overnight so we rec fisho's can live in some fishy nirvana. I believe it's all about balance; and anyway what would be wrong with dropping bag limits? In NSW you can take home 20 legal sized Bream but only 5 legal sized flathead. Firstly who really needs 20 bream given that they are much slower growing than Flathead. Then there's the bycatch of spawning Bass in the rivers and estuaries. Unfortunately the Killit and Fillet mentality is still alive and well. Witness the elderly couple I spoke to recently on the ramp at Baffle Creek. Compaining that the fishing was bad the old lady said the "last year we had to go home after 10 days because our freezer was full." Duh!! IT should also be remembered that most of the seafood we eat in this country comes from overseas, no wonder we have longliners gutting our coastal waters.
JD

[Member]

I don't really believe for one minute that ALL pro's will become extinct. No-one really wants or believes that. However, we would all agree that netting rivers and estuaries is unsustainable. The issue at hand is how to manage the fishery both pro and rec, not just wipe out the pro's overnight so we rec fisho's can live in some fishy nirvana. I believe it's all about balance;

Well said Takrat,I was going to reply on the same lines but you've saved me doing it.

I believe selective buy out could be done to increase tourism there is more money generated for the local communities in fishy areas and surrounding regions from tourism than commercial fishing.

I've never said get rid of the lot of them as we do need commercial fishers,but to net species like I mentioned earlier that aren't good table food and to net rivers is unsustainable I believe.

Spottie numbers have increased since ring netting them has ceased,the pros still catch fish by doing the without nets why not other species?

I believe  with no history in commercial fishing in  a area by a commercial fisherman for target species there would be no payout but if the govt took away your livelyhood you would expect some sort of payout just like when they resume land for something.
Paul

[Member]

Thanks Paul, at risk of oversimplifying matters, the success of any scheme lies in the correct administration of it. As Harro pointed out in the beginning there is too much fragmentation among rec fisho's, and so there is a need to not only become better organised, but get some political nous as well. It is no longer good enough to want things the way they have always been because we live in a changing world. We either learn to live within that changing world and make things happen for us or we simply go the way of the dinosaurs. We think nothing of paying small fortunes for a reel or a rod, or heading to fish at a guided operation for over $1000 per day, yet we baulk at the idea of a license system that if properly administered would guarantee fishing into the future, not just now but for our kids. I don't want to be part of a generation that allowed fishing to become something we speak of in the past tense in years to come. Take a leaf from the trade unions and organise or perish.
JD

[Member]

Its amazing that there has been little mention of environmental restoration being funded from a general fishing licence. Southern states have used licence fees collected to add fishways to barriers, redesign culvert to improve fish passage, replant riparian vegetation and resnagging work.

For all those banana benders who have seen a distinct lack of adequate fishways, particularly in southern Qld, the prosepect of a fishing licence offers (done properly) offers alot of advantages over the obvious restocking of lakes, buying out pros and boat ramps.

Once there's a honey pot, there will be alot of fingers dipping in for a taste, the driver of the licence (as was seem with the SIP) will have a greater voice in where the honey goes. If recreational anglers are the drivers of an all waters fishing licence in Qld, then there will remain a greater opportunity to have a measure of representation in the allocation of funds to various projects.

Who among the supporters would be willing to run the ball up & push the barrow??

[Member]

Might the licencing fees be used for research aswell for finding the achillies heel of noxious fish ? just the word about was that someone is working on a type of "Myxomatosis" for noxious fish please correct me if i am wrong just what i have heard.


There is certainly little limits into what feilds that licence funding can go towards it would just be a juggling act with whome gets how much for what wich creates a problem in itself.


Steve

[Member]

Its amazing that there has been little mention of environmental restoration being funded from a general fishing licence. Southern states have used licence fees collected to add fishways to barriers, redesign culvert to improve fish passage, replant riparian vegetation and resnagging work.

For all those banana benders who have seen a distinct lack of adequate fishways, particularly in southern Qld, the prosepect of a fishing licence offers (done properly) offers alot of advantages over the obvious restocking of lakes, buying out pros and boat ramps.

Once there's a honey pot, there will be alot of fingers dipping in for a taste, the driver of the licence (as was seem with the SIP) will have a greater voice in where the honey goes. If recreational anglers are the drivers of an all waters fishing licence in Qld, then there will remain a greater opportunity to have a measure of representation in the allocation of funds to various projects.

Who among the supporters would be willing to run the ball up & push the barrow??

I often wonder who Editor is, you should post some more.  Not just the media links

[Member]

Deja Vu ?

How about we abolish the PPV levy scam & roll the SIP's scheme into a general rec license & place all the money into trust accounts ( One for Freshwater kicked off at the highest average raised by the SIPS scheme over the last 3 years & the balance going into a new saltwater trust ) so that ALL of the money can be manged/spent by rec anglers in order to carry out what we all know needs doing !

There's currently talk of a snapper permit - And I'll say it again - "a species specific permit/licence is the beginning of the end" ........

Regards Scotto