KEEP AUSTRALIA FISHING!!!!!

[tonyb 1,017]

PLEASE take the time to read this stunning report by Martin Salter!This is SOLID GOLD for all thinking fisherpeople every where, in my opinion and hopefully yours.Try not to bring your fixed angling opinions and read it all with an open mind?Very refreshing and exactly what Rec. Fishers in the whole of Australia need to embrace, again in my opinion.I look forward to some good healthy debate on the issues and solutions proposed Cheers, tonyb.http://bia.org.au/boat-users/rec-fishing/Exec-Summary-2011.pdf

[Ugly4Life 41]

Great link Tony. It good to see someone who is a true advocate of our sport doing something about it.The only issue I would have is with the line which reads: or voluntary or compulsory levies on the boating and tackle trade.It is hard enough for all of us at the moment without introducing new levies/taxes on us. I think it would be detrimental to a lot of small businesses if it were not handled very carefully.Otherwise I am in full support of fishing licences etc being introduced.I especially agree with recommendations 1 & 2.

[tonyb 1,017]

Great to find someone committed enough to work through it and basically agree with the overall thrust of the article mate. I would be very surprised if anyone totally agreed with the whole thing without quite a few misgivings.The gnawing problem to advance our Sport and its supporting bodies is and always will be, one of FINANCE IMO.The Interstate fisherys are ALL in an incredibly good condition simply because they work under the proven system of "User Pays". Unfortunately, in our world, it's impossible to get something for nothing!

[Boyington214 0]

Hey Tony & U4L,I agree in principal. Yes, something needs to be done. I don't necessarily have an issue with RFL's either. What I do have an issue with is how monies generated from the RFL will be handled. With the track record of this government and past governments, I, like many others, have serious concerns with where the money will actually go and be used. Providing there were written guarantees that the monies raised would NOT go back into general revenue or other government department and was utilised for Recreational Fishing only, then there would be a lot less resistance. Having said that though, Us rec fishers already pay through the nose with bait costs, facilities management costs, registration, Insurances, Fuel, Maintenance costs etc, A further charge may make this pasttime unaffordable for some that may well be stretched enough already. Introduction of such as written in the report, will need to be undertaken very, very carefully.

[Ugly4Life 41]

+1 Boyo +1.The last time I had to purchase a fishing permit was in Kiama when I went on holidays. It cost me $5 for a three day fishing licence which I thought was quite acceptable and was sold to me at a local tackle shop. As long as the costs are not exorbitant and those sort of licences (couple days, couple months, couple years, lifetime) are in place and monitored then I think it's a good idea.I don't like the idea of ridiculous fines for fishing without a licence either as I don't think fines ever really prevent people from doing the wrong thing. I would rather see compulsory education classes or confiscation of tackle than another fine to pay.

[tonyb 1,017]

Hey Tony & U4L' date='I agree in principal. Yes, something needs to be done. I don't necessarily have an issue with RFL's either. What I do have an issue with is how monies generated from the RFL will be handled. With the track record of this government and past governments, I, like many others, have serious concerns with where the money will actually go and be used. Providing there were written guarantees that the monies raised would NOT go back into general revenue or other government department and was utilised for Recreational Fishing only, then there would be a lot less resistance. Having said that though, Us rec fishers already pay through the nose with bait costs, facilities management costs, registration, Insurances, Fuel, Maintenance costs etc, A further charge may make this pasttime unaffordable for some that may well be stretched enough already. Introduction of such as written in the report, will need to be undertaken very, very carefully.[/quote']Hi B214,I hear your objections and it is a strongly voiced one, on the many discussions that I've had on this issue.However, if you could please go back to the Document and inspect page 3, option 3, it makes reference to"Ring Fenced Fees" a new term to me and probably a few others, but meaning that ALL permit fees go solely to a "ring fenced" Trust fund set up for the sole purpose of Rec Fishing funding and it makes the pointthat "Revenue can not be diverted from it" A near ideal solution to the question you asked don't you think?

[afishyfish 4]

Hey Tony & U4L' date='I agree in principal. Yes' date=' something needs to be done. I don't necessarily have an issue with RFL's either. What I do have an issue with is how monies generated from the RFL will be handled. With the track record of this government and past governments, I, like many others, have serious concerns with where the money will actually go and be used. Providing there were written guarantees that the monies raised would NOT go back into general revenue or other government department and was utilised for Recreational Fishing only, then there would be a lot less resistance. Having said that though, Us rec fishers already pay through the nose with bait costs, facilities management costs, registration, Insurances, Fuel, Maintenance costs etc, A further charge may make this pasttime unaffordable for some that may well be stretched enough already. Introduction of such as written in the report, will need to be undertaken very, very carefully.[/quote'']Hi B214,I hear your objections and it is a strongly voiced one, on the many discussions that I've had on this issue.However, if you could please go back to the Document and inspect page 3, option 3, it makes reference to"Ring Fenced Fees" a new term to me and probably a few others, but meaning that ALL permit fees go solely to a "ring fenced" Trust fund set up for the sole purpose of Rec Fishing funding and it makes the pointthat "Revenue can not be diverted from it" A near ideal solution to the question you asked don't you think?

Not ssure if this is the same thinbg as a ringed fence Tony, but Ive been told that interstate the rec fishing bodiy(s) must agree where the funds are spent before any Govt departments makes any allocations of the funds raised by an rfl

[Boyington214 0]

Yeah, Tony, it would be. Trouble is I doubt the government will accept it. They are cash-strapped at the moment, so they'll take cash from anywhere for their pet projects. Do you know what other representation we Reccies have other than SARFAC?

[tonyb 1,017]

Yeah' date=' Tony, it would be. Trouble is I doubt the government will accept it. They are cash-strapped at the moment, so they'll take cash from anywhere for their pet projects. Do you know what other representation we Reccies have other than SARFAC?[/quote']I can't say too much at the moment but I can promise all South Australians Anglers that 2012 will be a momentous year for Recreational Fishers, both the salties and freshies

[Tacklebags 404]

Yeah' date=' Tony' date=' it would be. Trouble is I doubt the government will accept it. They are cash-strapped at the moment, so they'll take cash from anywhere for their pet projects. Do you know what other representation we Reccies have other than SARFAC?[/quote'']I can't say too much at the moment but I can promise all South Australians Anglers that 2012 will be a momentous year for Recreational Fishers, both the salties and freshies

Most definately.The conservationists have rec fishing in their sights and are backed up by alot of navel gazers in society who fall victim to their smear campaigns and selective science.TB

[Ranger 48]

I am certainly in favour of:A range of policy demandsPublic narrativeEnvironmental issuesAccountabilityWe would be silly and irresponsible not to!I would also agree that we have a definate need for networking between angling groups and clubs, and importantly, a peak angling regulatory/representative body, to represent the voice of the anglers themselves.The policy demands, environmental issues and accountability would then show US to also be a conservation group, caring for the resource we utilise, sustaining the resource, and leaving us free from the need for further external regulation or interference, other than current fisheries legislation.This type of self regulatory and representative body is nothing new, and it has already been done effectively by other sporting/recreational groups...ie: Sports Shooting Association, Australian Bowhunting Association, etc, so why not also a Recreational Fishing Association, as we already have a basic framework in place...ie: SARFAC.Everyone by now must be aware of my opposition to the introduction of fishing licenses though, as I believe we are already paying far too much in associated fees and the GST forced upon us, which came with the promise of replacing all other fees and taxes. The promised "user pays" system!To me it seems that all of us have concerns as to how a proposed license fee may go into general coffers, and be left to the discretion of the government as to how funds would then be used and distributed.Due to this I reject the idea of the introduction of a second "user pays" fee being placed upon us. The GST is already in place as our promised "user pays" system and we are keeping our side of that bargain, along with additional levies, licenses, registrations, excise and fees, all above and beyond the implemented "user pays" system.However, a simple rejection with no other suggestion also seems inappropriate, as being responsible and concerned anglers, we also have a duty to look towards the future of our sport and it's sustainability.If required, I would instead suggest a "self funded" scheme, rather than a "user pays" scheme, whereby WE pay a membership fee, WE then make the decisions, WE oversee how and where the dollars should be spent most wisely, and WE decide the rules which should be placed upon our members!For this I would much rather see a representative/regulatory body (such as SARFAC for example). Representatives of the angling community, with their finger on the pulse of the needs, wants and requirements of the anglers, along with consideration to the needs and sustainability of the resource and environmental concerns/issues.It then becomes OUR money, OUR views, OUR decision and OUR future we are looking out for, with US calling the shots and US benefitting from our own actions, with OUR input and OUR funding, rather than the government once again making all the decisions, setting the fees and calling all the shots.This Representative body would also become a "self regulatory" body, setting a code of conduct and best practice outline, to ensure WE are held responsible and accountable for our own actions while persuing our sport, and promoting a positive image to John Public.....It's up to us as to how we are perceived and how we conduct ourselves as a condition of membership.This would not affect or cost John Citizen who buys a rod at K-mart,knows little about fishing, rarely catches a fish, and only takes the kids fishing once per year on their annual holidays, but is instead is directed at us who consider ourselves more serious "anglers" and sportsmen. Angling clubs can support the scheme by making a condition of club membership that all must be members of the "association" (as is currently done by other sporting groups) abiding by association rules and regulations, while in the process also gaining a voice and voting rights within the association.Tacklestores and industry can support the scheme by promoting the angling association to clients as a method of having their voice heard, and becoming a responsible recreational angler through following association rules and regulations, while also contributing to sustainability of the resource through membership fees which go towards restocking, improvements and other required projects.I am a responsible shooter and also a member of SSAA. I was a responsible archer and also a member of ABA. I am a responsible angler.......so why not also a member of XXXX? It's all for MY benefit, the sustainability of MY sport, yet I have the option to be a member or not based upon my own needs and usage, rather than having it imposed upon me as another compulsory fee or license.The problem I can see, under either a "user pays" or a "self funded" scheme is that we will always share the resource with the commercial sector.Why should the recreationalists be paying to sustain and improve the resource, while the commercial sector then benefit, drain and profit from that same resource? ie: I pay for restocking programmes, the commercials reap the rewards and take that stock for profit, I pay again, they reap again, improvement does not occur, we are back to square one with emptier pockets, while the commercial sector smile and again fill their pockets.A shared resource requires shared costs, shared concerns and shared input. Unfortunately I cannot see this ever working successfully, as both groups have entirely different ideals and views, both groups will come to loggerheads, ultimately the government will again set the terms and regulate as they see fit, taking economic and business interests into account while thanking us for our compulsory donations, while double dipping and then charging us both GST and licensing.The commercial sector buy a license for the right to take and to profit. Recs cannot take and profit, but are still currently contributing to the resource through GST.A large portion of our community now also practice C&R, taking minimal stock, which would make the license an "entertainment" fee imposed on them, while they still contribute to "user pays" through the imposition of the current GST.Drop the compulsory GST as the current user pays system, and I would be far more receptive to the introduction of another user pays system. Until then, I hold the government to the promise they made me, and continue to uphold my end of the bargain!

[tonyb 1,017]

Thanks Ranger, it took you quite a while to rise to my bait but it was hell worth the wait A brilliantly innovative and well thought out treatise mate AND, should it ever come to be OUR VERY OWN Recreational Group, I reckon you'd make an awesome President/Chairperson! I'd be the first one to put my hand up for you too :woohoo:

[Piranha 76]

In principle i'm for a rec license but have the same concers as many ie, money not allocated properly.On the freshwater side I have seen the benifits in other satates of improved facilities, environmental management (re-snagging ect) and the stocking programmes as well as more money into fisheries research, the only problems with this in SA is that PIRSA have policies against stocking, have almost non existent background research into fw fisheries accross the state, apart from the info recieved from nsw and vic fisheries ie, the murray.Some serious policy change and re-thinking would need to be carried out by Pirsa BEFORE any benifit would come from a rec lic in SA IMO.

[tonyb 1,017]

In principle i'm for a rec license but have the same concers as many ie' date=' money not allocated properly.On the freshwater side I have seen the benifits in other satates of improved facilities, environmental management (re-snagging ect) and the stocking programmes as well as more money into fisheries research, the only problems with this in SA is that PIRSA have policies against stocking, have almost non existent background research into fw fisheries accross the state, apart from the info recieved from nsw and vic fisheries ie, the murray.S[b']Some serious policy change and re-thinking would need to be carried out by Pirsa BEFORE any benifit would come from a rec lic in SA IMO.[/b]

Spot on Wes and one of the real scary things that I found out about SARFAC when I joined up is that it is totally funded by...... c'mon you can guess?... No?..OK Ill tell you then, its PIRSA the "Regulatory Body" for both Commercial and Recreational fishing and including Aquaculture!!I'd have to wonder how keen guys would be to have a RFL managed by an organisation with a foot in many Camps?"Ranger's" suggestion of "OUR" own (REC Fishers) Organisation, self run and self funded makes a heck of a lot of sense to me?

[Piranha 76]

Spot on Wes and one of the real scary things that I found out about SARFAC when I joined up is that it is totally funded by...... c'mon you can guess?... No?..OK Ill tell you then, its PIRSA the "Regulatory Body" for both Commercial and Recreational fishing and including Aquaculture!!I'd have to wonder how keen guys would be to have a RFL managed by an organisation with a foot in many Camps?"Ranger's" suggestion of "OUR" own (REC Fishers) Organisation, self run and self funded makes a heck of a lot of sense to me?

Is that funded or underfunded Tony Pirsa unlike other states have a massive job regulating commercial fishing and aquaculture which doesn't leave much for the rec side of things.If a rfl was in gov hands it would need to be seperate from Pirsa and run soley to improve rec fishing accross the state Yeah Rangers idea + gov funding to follow through with the native fish strategy would be better

[Ranger 48]

I reckon you'd make an awesome President/Chairperson! I'd be the first one to put my hand up for you too :woohoo:

My own suggestion would be to use the resources, knowledge and commitment already in place!We already have SARFAC committee, with an office, with experience, with commitment, with the networks already in place, and with the required expertise.If things were to ever change to a combined regulatory/representative body/association my first thoughts would be to approach Gary Flack and the SARFAC group, and put our support behind them as the logical choice.This would simply mean a restructure to their current methodology, to play a much larger role in the future of recreational fishing for this state, rather than a complete implementation of another group/body to serve a similar role.I believe SA currently has one of the best managed fisheries in the country, so I feel no need to follow the lead of the pack interstate, but instead work independantly with our own ideas and ideals, to remain the leaders in fishery management around the country. The others can continue looking to US to see how it should be done!Don't fix what isn't broken, and make use of what's already available!

[trihull 177]

This is all great,. but have you seen what NSW is actually doing with its license feesHave a look at thisartificial reefsJust imagine if they put these along the metro areas and country areas in both gulfs....Also this is the $$$ getting spentHow the money is spent

[Piranha 76]

I believe SA currently has one of the best managed fisheries in the country, so I feel no need to follow the lead of the pack interstate, but instead work independantly with our own ideas and ideals, to remain the leaders in fishery management around the country. The others can continue looking to US to see how it should be done!

I totally agree that we have one of the best managed commercial and rec sector salt water fisheries in Aus, we set the standard for the other states in that regard ,unfortunately on the flip side we also have by far the worst managed and resourced freshwater fisheries in the country yet we still don't follow the lead of the states that have improved their FW fisheries out of sight in the last 10-15 years :S we are fishing in the dark ages by comparison and nothing looks like happening to fix the problems any time soon.cheers

[tonyb 1,017]

Here here Wes!,this is the pecking order:NUMBER ONE... Commercial sector ie Aquaculture, line and net and pot fishing!NUMBER TWO....Recreational sea angling.NUMBER THREE...The "poor cousin" Recreational freshwater angling with ONE paying permit fishery at Warren Reservoir for two species of fish, both of which are a declared "noxious" species!