Press release from the Federal Fisheries Minister

[Guest fishum]

Press release from the Federal Fisheries MinisterRudd Government invests in recreational fishing industryThe Rudd Labor Government will invest $2.0 million over three years to help secure a sustainable recreational fishing industry for the future.Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke said the Government would deliver on its election commitment to fund a new Recreational Fishing Industry Development Strategy.?The recreational fishing industry is an important drawcard for regional Australia, underpinning tourism and boosting regional economies,? Mr Burke said.?More than five million Australians go fishing each year; they book local accommodation, purchase goods and services and participate in other tourism activities.?This new strategy will contribute to the long-term sustainable management of Australia?s fisheries resources and ensure regional economies continue to benefit from the industry.?I will establish a national advisory committee for the recreational fishing sector, including a voice for the fishing tackle and tourism sectors, to advise the Government on a review of the 1994 National Recreational Fishing Policy and the development of a new Recreational Fishing Industry Development Strategy.?The committee will also make recommendations on the funding of specific initiatives to encourage the promotion of sustainable fishing, education and awareness and best-practice environmental standards for recreational fishing.?It is part of the Government?s overall plan for sustainable fisheries into the future.?A job for ranger

[Ranger 48]

This opens a plethora of questions for me!

the Government would deliver on its election commitment to fund a new Recreational Fishing Industry Development Strategy.............This new strategy will contribute to the long-term sustainable management of Australia?s fisheries resources and ensure regional economies continue to benefit from the industry.

What does this actually mean for us? Does that mean they're gonna spend money instituting marine parks and closed areas to fishermen in their feeble attempts to sustain what we have left, or does it mean they're gonna spend money on ramps, facilities, marinas, etc, FOR the fishermen? Maybe it means they're gonna spend millions on forming "strategies" but then have nothing left to spend on actually doing anything to institute their strategies.Who's gonna be on this committee, what experience do they have, and what do they know about our needs here in SA?Why is it now federal instead of state? How will the funds be spread amongst the states? Who's gonna gain and who's gonna miss out?What was wrong with the advisory comittee's we already have, ie: SARFAC, VRFish, etc,acting at state level? After all, each state has quite different needs and expectations. Here in SA do we wanna see money being spent on the Barramundi fishery up north? Maybe the Coral Trout population in Qld? The Marlin fishery in Bermagui? How about Brown Trout in Tasmania? Or are we really more concerned with our own local KG Whiting, Snapper and Mulloway populations and sustainability? Maybe cleaning up the Caleurpa in the port, saving the Murray River and Cod populations, or restocking native fish in our rivers and dams. How about stopping the pollutants pumped into the gulf which are decimating our seagrass habitats? All local issues relevant only to SA!How are they gonna develop this strategy for the long term sustainability and management of recreational fisheries, when it's actually a shared resource, and the commercial sector are drawing from this resource? ie: We pay and restock, and the pro's rub their hands together, take and increase their profits while they drain the resource!$20m over 3 years nationally. That's then split between 6 states and a territory, so it equates to $95,000 per state per year! Hardly enough to change the world is it? $95k! Is that enough for a boat ramp, a jetty, a restocking project? And how much of that will be left once the committee has taken it's own costs out? Will it pay wages for an extra fisheries inspector or two, maybe some fishing size/bag limit brochures, or a TV ad or two promoting country holiday destinations? Just think about what we're likely to actually get here as our cut of this $20m!I'd want a lot more answers before I got behind this plan, even though it all sounds great on the surface. Doesn't everything a politician say sound great on the surface though?Having said all this, I'm pretty happy with what our new PM has been doing so far, so I'm willing to give him a chance and hear more about all his new comittees he's so proud of, but I want answers from em first, instead of just empty promises to change the world and save our resources with more comittees and strategies. I'm also not so sure a federal body is the way to attack this, and I definately do not want to see the pro's profitting from the rec efforts to increase stocks.Of course I'm not gonna knock anything we can get, but I don't wanna see some sorta ineffectual band-aid treatment designed to placate the masses. Instead I wanna see real ongoing comitment from our government to do something about protecting, promoting and sustaining this resource of ours, and I believe that's gonna take a darn site more than $6.7m federally per year for three years!Answers please Mr Prime Minister! Who, what, when and why! Cold hard facts we can consider, not plans for committees to debate over endlessly while they chew up all the dollars set aside for funding of projects. {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifI'm very interested to find out much more about this, and follow what transpires as the plans are instituted and the funds are broken down to state levels!

[pescados 1]

Says Ranger: $20m over 3 years nationally. That's then split between 6 states and a territory, so it equates to $95,000 per state per year! Hardly enough to change the world is it? $95k! Is that enough for a boat ramp, a jetty, a restocking project?Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.Pensioners of which I am got " Sweet Didley Squat " {SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif:(" title="Angry" />

[Ranger 48]

Says Ranger: $20m over 3 years nationally. That's then split between 6 states and a territory, so it equates to $95,000 per state per year! Hardly enough to change the world is it? $95k! Is that enough for a boat ramp, a jetty, a restocking project?Don't look a gift horse in the mouth.Pensioners of which I am got " Sweet Didley Squat " {SMILIES_PATH}/angry.gif:(" title="Angry" />

Also says Ranger:

Of course I'm not gonna knock anything we can get, but I don't wanna see some sorta ineffectual band-aid treatment designed to placate the masses. Instead I wanna see real ongoing comitment from our government to do something about protecting, promoting and sustaining this resource of ours, and I believe that's gonna take a darn site more than $6.7m federally per year for three years!

I'm more than aware that pensioners got diddly-squat, but are we here to discuss fishing and fishing related issues, or the breakdown of the federal treasury? Coz I believe this thread was about rec fishing benefits, not concessions for pensioners.I'd also like to see better healthcare, more hospitals, cheaper tertiary education, more jobs for South Australians, tax breaks for small businesses, housing affordability, decreased fuel excise, less imports, benefits for Australian primary producers, etc, etc, but they're hardly issues relevant to fishing or this thread!Sorry ya got diddly-squat. Maybe next budget will be kinder to pensioners. If ya wanna discuss pensions though, start a thread and I'll gladly discuss it with you there, coz I also believe pensioners got a raw deal.

[niftrev 2]

Fishum posted

The Rudd Labor Government will invest $2.0 [/color:2vsaveim] million over three years to help secure a sustainable recreational fishing industry for the future.

Posted by: Ranger

$20m [/color:2vsaveim] over 3 years nationally. That's then split between 6 states and a territory, so it equates to $95,000 per state per year!

So is it 2 million or 20 million. Which one of you blokes is working for the ugly duckling I mean swan? Apparently his figures don't add up either??????????$2 million NATION WIDE over 3 years will do squat. 2 million statewide over 3 years will do squate. This government is so out of touch it's not funny. If it's $2 million that probably equates to less than $1 per fisher over 3 years nation wide. Ranger with your mathamatics you could be recruited for the next treasurer either State or Federally. {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifHow does $20m over 3 years nationally thats then split between 6 States and a Territory equate to $95,000.00 per state per year?Cheers niftrev

[Ranger 48]

Ranger with your mathamatics you could be recruited for the next treasurer either State or Federally. {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gif {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifHow does $20m over 3 years nationally thats then split between 6 States and a Territory equate to $95,000.00 per state per year?

Is there a flaw in my basic mathematics? And what's zero between friends! Let me correct that then, $95,000 per state per year if it's $2.0m, or $950,000 per state per year if it's $20m! {SMILIES_PATH}/embarrassed.gifRegardless, t'aint enough either way, and it ain't gonna bring back what we've destroyed! Let's face it, if we forget all other fishing here in this state, and just look at the Murray alone, how much difference will this investment make?

[niftrev 2]

Gday Ranger {SMILIES_PATH}/grin.gifSo it should have been 20 million, and not 2.million as fishum reported in his first post.Ranger you posted

$20m over 3 years nationally. That's then split between 6 states and a territory, so it equates to $95,000 [/color:10hx1esr] per state per year! (and did you forget Canberra)

$950,000.00I would say it would be divided differently than this at any rate and South Australia would receive aprox 1/14th of whatever the figure =$1.4million over 3 yearsRanger, I'd like to give you $ 0.95m and then you give me $95,000,000.00 {SMILIES_PATH}/wink.gif

[Ranger 48]

So it should have been 20 million, and not 2.million as fishum reported in his first post.

Dunno mate, fishum's post is the first I've heard of this one! I just screwed up and wrote 20 instead of 2.0.

I would say it would be divided differently than this at any rate and South Australia would receive aprox 1/14th of whatever the figure =$1.4million over 3 years

I tend to suspect you are correct, and a reason why these matters should be handled by state, not federally.

Ranger, I'd like to give you $ 0.95m and then you give me $95,000,000.00 {SMILIES_PATH}/wink.gif

Rub it in! Anyway, that's two zero's not one! {SMILIES_PATH}/tongue.gif

[fishnfreak 0]

Hey ranger mate, you have come up with some great questions. Why not forward them to the decision makers. I did, when i heard they wanted to install weirs on a certain section of the murray, which would have hurt fish stocks in this area. I dont know if it helped but i got a got a letter explaining their veiws, and i continued to converse with them about it. If i was you i would send them an email, you may get some answers to your questions.

[Guest fishum]

Guys its 2 million for a advisory committee.To work out how to spend future funding.

[Ranger 48]

Hey ranger mate, you have come up with some great questions. Why not forward them to the decision makers. I did, when i heard they wanted to install weirs on a certain section of the murray, which would have hurt fish stocks in this area. I dont know if it helped but i got a got a letter explaining their veiws, and i continued to converse with them about it. If i was you i would send them an email, you may get some answers to your questions.

Don't worry mate, decision makers are used to hearing from me (by phone, email and letter) in regards to our fishery! {SMILIES_PATH}/wink.gifIn this instance though, I don't know who the decision makers are yet. In fact, I don't think anyone knows yet, including the government.Also, I commend you on putting your own viewpoint across on an issue relevant to you. For a long time now I've been trying to push anglers to be a bit more pro-active about issues which affect us, and it's about time we all started to question these decision makers and get our own views across, coz it's the only way we'll ever have a chance at getting satisfaction.I think in the past, rec fishermen have been considered a disorganised and apathetic rabble who can simply be cast aside and ignored. Unless WE do something to change this, we'll always be seen in that same light. That's one of the reason's why I jump onto topics like this one.

[Ranger 48]

Guys its 2 million for a advisory committee.To work out how to spend future funding.

Thanks bloke, that sounds more betterer! Sorry I put a zero in the wrong spot! {SMILIES_PATH}/embarrassed.gifCan ya tell me where ya heard about this, and where we can find out more info on it?

[samsson 0]

Hi Guys, 20, mil over 3 years devided by 7 {SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif??? would SA get one seventh? {SMILIES_PATH}/huh.gif or would we get some proportional amount because we are only small fish in a big pond. Also as has been mentioned the old saying "talk is cheap" does not apply to politicians, their talk can be very expensive.

[Guest fishum]

quote author=Ranger Don't worry mate, decision makers are used to hearing from me (by phone, email and letter) in regards to our fishery! {SMILIES_PATH}/wink.gifYou can email,phone or stand out front of any federal/state steps holding a banner with no pants on and nobody cares.They don't want to here from you or care what you think or want.Sorry thats the way it is and it won't change..Sent to me by email..

[Ranger 48]

They don't want to here from you or care what you think or want.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean that they WONT be hearing from me!

[Guest dabilda]

2 million over 3 years divided by 6 states & 2 territories, what a joke. It's pathetic and will achieve nothing.

[fishnfreak 0]

and thats the way it will change, unless we become an united group, and everyone begins voicing their opinions. Its no good sitting in front of your computer whining about the state of things, if you are not prepared to be involved in changing things, send an email, or give your local member a call, and tell him 5 million australian rec-fishers are backing you up. What Politician doesnt want 5 million voters backing him/her?

[Guest fishum]

Just think sitting in canberra in the receive/complaints room/I want..Thousands of emails per week wanting something done about iraq,roads,pensions,water,wage increases.fishing..Fishing now that sounds like a major problem..right.These people who take these wish list emails are bored with there jobs and put in an appearance every day without care.When you can get 1 million turn up protesting then they will take notice.Until then zippo.