NO!!! to recreational fishing licenses!

[Ranger 48]

Recreational fishing licenses are a topic which has been discussed over and over!There are those who say YES because they believe it will give the recreational fisherman a voice!There are those who say NO because we already pay enough fees, taxes, levies and charges!There are those who say MAYBE but with conditions!Everyone knows MY stance on the issue, as I've said many times I'm opposed to the idea, and I've given my reasons why.I just heard our premier Mike Rann on the radio who said "I've never heard such a silly idea, and there will be no fishing licenses introduced as long as I'm premier of this state!"I would imagine we'll hear more about this in the news tonight!

[rocket102 0]

I come from NSW where they have compulsory fishing licences I didnt have a problem with it, but had no choice anyway, if I wanted to fish I had to have one. I dont think that there are anymore fishing inspectors in NSW per capita that there are in SA (or it seems that way from the number of times Ive seen them). Id be interested it some numbers though and where the money goes if not to fund inspectors etc to regulate the industry. I know some of the money is used to breed fingerlings(trout,callop,cod,bream etc) to repopulate different areas but not sure what percentage of licence fees used for that.Anyway Ranger at the momment Im with you NO UNLESS THE LICENCE FEES ARE USED FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE INDUSTRY. EG BETTER REGULATION,BREEDING PROGAMS ETC.Dont just make it another fee for the sake of it.Id hate to see it introduced and the money eaten up by administration.

[coonta kinta 1]

I'm guessing this was as a result of the article in todays Advertiser where the conversation council have suggested that recreational fishers in this state should pay a licence to contribute towards the ongoing reasearch into those species at the most risk through the pressure we place upon them. Namely Snapper and King George Whiting.I agree that we should have an ALL WATERS licence here in SA. My reasoning being that payment WILL give us, or at least give us the right to expect, a voice in regard to legislature concerning us and our sport. It will also provide funds for greater education and compliance.I do not agree with the conservation councils stance on using funds solely for education and reasearch as was suggested in the article, but rather a diverse range of activities that would see our fishery prosper and ultimately the industries which support it!Any monies raised would need to be administered by fishers for fishers in my view and not simply put into general revenue.I'm not sure of how it works in NSW/VIC but it seems to me that most in those states agree that since the inception of the licence things have since been on the improve for fishers in those states.

[spinyeel 2]

Another potential friggin cash cow. :thumb: Stamp duty,Emergency services levy,alco-pop tax,GST.Give me a break. > > Pick an easy target and tax the crap out of it.How much of the money collected will be put back into replenishing fish stocks and preserving what environment we have left? Not much is my guess.Let's tax lattee's and holiday McMansions instead. Rant over. >

[finatic 1]

A slightly different angle on this one. YOU ARE ALL ALREADY PAYING FOR IT, a catch though, nobody is accountable for it.Buy bait from a tackle shop, you pay GST, in turn the store pays GST, buy it from a fish monger & you don't pay GST nor do they.Register your boat or Yak, pay a levy & GST, the catch, nobody is accountable.Simply put, we are all already penalized to do our favourite leisure time thing, but nobody is accountable for the cash cow & the way it is dispersed because we don't have a formal structure for the funds.A License or permit system will ensure a structure that is accountable & somebody in parliment to cop the rap from mismanagement.Funny that statement from our good Premier, I wasn't aware of an election just around the corner.Finatic

[finatic 1]

Just received from SARFAC'No' to recreational fishing licences SA Premier Mike Rann rejects the idea of fishing licences for recreational anglers. (ABC News: David Burge)Audio: The Conservation Council's Jamnes Danenberg says recreational anglers should be licensed. Related Story: Licence push for recreational anglers South Australian Premier Mike Rann has ruled out introducing recreational fishing licences.The Conservation Council says licences could help stop recreational anglers depleting species numbers, and the money raised could go towards researching the effects of climate change on fish species.But Mr Rann says there are already enough laws to limit what people can catch and a licence is unnecessary."To create a giant bureaucracy to administer a licensing scheme that would effectively be a tax on mums and dads going out in their small boats and sitting on the end of a jetty, totally unnecessary and we're not going to be doing it," he said.To administer???? somebody would be accountable & we couldn't have that now.Finatic

[afishyfish 4]

Register your boat or Yak, pay a levy & GST, the catch, nobody is accountable.Simply put, we are all already penalized to do our favourite leisure time thing, but nobody is accountable for the cash cow & the way it is dispersed because we don't have a formal structure for the funds.Finatic

And there's the Irony of it all.You can see why the Govt doesnt want us to have a licence, coz tehn they would beaccountable, and the cash cow would be well and truly exposed.

[Highfly 0]

CK MATE ! WHAT R U SAYING DUDE !Everytime that line in the sand moves over it never comes back.U guys see any new stuff with all the other levy increases in the boating/fishing industry. About the only thing it may fund will be officers to police the bloody thing ??? :thumb:NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

[codmac 0]

No licence, no voice,no more Murray Cod fishing.Rod Mac.

[Ranger 48]

I like this arguement which says "If we have rec licenses we'll have a voice!"Just wondering if those who believe this statement also peruse interstate sites where they DO have licenses? Coz I've been checking out interstate sites for years now, and I gotta say the troops as a whole aren't happy, and they don't believe they do have a voice which is being listened to. There are literally hundreds of quotes from disgruntled fishermen wanting to know what they're paying a license fee for and why they aren't being listened to!Also, I don't see any interstate fishermen standing up saying to the disgruntled "It's OK guys, we pay for licenses so we now have a voice, everything is cool!"If it isn't working there, why would things be so different here?

[Grumps 0]

My answer to rec licenses[move]NO...NO...NO...NO...NO...[/move]

[Brooksey_134 1]

im not paying to frigin fish wat do those idiots think this is!

[davidbloop 0]

wait so let me get this straightif i go on a holiday interstate I may not be able to go fishing without getting a licence first? :icon_e_surprised:

[Guest matty_G]

I make an effort to take alot of the kids in my family fishing,their is a few foster kids as well,i find thats its a good time to talk to them about school and whats goin on for them in their lives and try and advise them to do the right thing, while teaching them about the great outdoors and conservation,if this licensing comes in does this mean that i would have to make sure that they each have a license to fish?That would turn an act of goodwill into an expense.Doesnt seem fair,let each one reach one and teach one,bugger the licensing fees i reckon....

[carps 1]

where would this leave a person like my dad who only gets the chance to head out about twise a year.he would have to pay for that privalage through the nose its not so bad for us that fish reguarly cos the cost of each trip would be minimal,but for those who only fish a couple of times a year it would be deemed an expensive exercise,and may also make some reconsider there holiday locations if they are forced to pay for the once a year trip to take the kids to the beach fishing.this will inturn take money away from some coastal towns and inturn again put up the price of accom and the likes for those who still choose to go :thumb: :thumb: :thumb: as these towns will need to recoup the costs somewhere.. my answer would def be NO NO NO NO NO NO the whole argument behind marine parks has been save some for our kids well wat if the av joe now cant afford to take the kids fishing cos lets be honest who is gonna spend after bait and licensing around the hundred $ to take the kids out for the day,cheaper to let them stay a home on the computer :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[Leethal 1]

There is too many recurring problems and situations if there were a license to come in that would mostly all be a negative towards the recreation and everything involved with it. Unless I saw something really beneficial coming out of it for fishing and even the local fish population them selves eg. restocking programs, research development etc my answer would be NO!

[pescados 1]

Audio: The Conservation Council's Jamnes Danenberg says recreational anglers should be licensed. The Conservation Council says licences could help stop recreational anglers depleting species numbers, and the money raised could go towards researching the effects of climate change on fish species.

The above from finatic's postMaybe this guy Daneberg should take his blinkers off and have a look at the real world.And as far as the Conservation Council goes, we don't need to donate any more money the the general revenue.We don't need a voice, we never had one and never will have one and paying a license fee will not change one iota.Pollies don't take notice on far more serious issues sothey certainly would not on what they class minor issues.And why should I pay a licence fee for undersize fish ??because that's all I been able to catch lately being land based.NO NO NO NO NO to licenses.

[tully 4]

Living in NSW as I do, I can offer responses to some of the points raised so far, as we have had to cough up $ for a few years now.It does NOT give anyone a "voice"It can be purchased in various forms ie..1 day, 3 days, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year, 3 years etc.They can be bought from service stations, tackle shops, even K-mart.Kids up to a certain age are covered by the license held by the adult present.In NSW all the money goes into a trust fund (not general revenue.The money is then spent on restocking programs, offshore FAD deployment, artificial reefs, rockfishing safety, research, fisheries officers and a lot of other stuff.The money is NOT spent on things like boat ramps etc. they are the responsibility of local councils, and always will be. It does cover cleaning tables and other facilities though.My take on the whole thing is, I begrudge paying it because I think all the benefits that come from it (and there are plenty which are quite tangible) should be ours anyway...we pay enough money to the gummint now!!On the other hand, ya can't fight it, and none of the benefits would exist otherwise, because the NSW Govt. is stuffed.The trust funds in charge of the money are overseen by a group of rec anglers, and the way the money is spent is very transparent and available to the public. Here's a link, have a gander.http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/your-fees

[hugh 0]

I'm all for recreatition fishing licenses. The money could be used to buy back pro licenses which would help fish stocks.I also believe that upon purchasing a license the person buying the license should have to give a signature sating they will follow all size and bag limits. This takes ignorance as an excuse out of the equation making it harder to get away with taking too small or too many fish.As far as licenses for kids your'e taking fishing, You don't need one if you're under seventeen in victoria and i'm sure it would be similar here.

[Ranger 48]

But we've already had a pro license buyback, and the pro's are now banned from certain areas of our gulfs.They will never buyback MORE pro licenses, because whether we like it or not, the seafood industry is important for the state economy, and non fishers demand seafood for their table.Likewise, if a buyback scheme is to continue, why should WE be the one's to pay for it? We are not responsible for the licenses being sold in the first place!In regards to size and bag limits, they are legislation.....THE LAW! We do not need to sign papers stating that we will abide by any of the other laws of the state, why should fishing laws be treated differently? We all have driving licenses, did we have to sign a piece of paper saying we will not exceed speed limits?Those who intend to break the law will do it anyway, in fact, they will more than likely break it by refusing to buy a fishing license in the first place.Of course you're welcome to your opinion on this, I just don't quite understand the benefits behind the reasoning you've used to make your decision!My belief is that we are already slugged enough times as it is, and if we have to cop another hit in the pocket (which I'm against), it should be for benefits DIRECTLY to us. Not to buyback nets, not to pay enforcement officers, not for monitoring projects, but to provide benefits directly to recreational fishermen only! Fishing platforms, fish restocking projects (for recs NOT pro's to take) rockwalls, weigh stations, cleaning tables, etc, etc.