BIGFISH

An open invitation has been extended to recreational fishers to attend a talk by Robert Brown MLA on Thursday evening 19 August at South Sydney Amateur Fishing Association clubhouse on the cnr of Hastings Avenue and Macquarie St Chifley. The evening has been organised by the St George Hunters and Anglers Association. Robert will be speaking around 7pm. A BBQ and refreshements will be available following Robert's presentation. With the Shooters and Fishing party fielding Senate candidates in all states for the coming Federal election the evening will present all recfishers with the opportunity to personally raise their concerns with Robert and the party.

In this election there is 2 fishing parties to vote for and the shooters are fielding candidates in every state. The fishing party is not contesting and the Australian Fishing and Lifestyles Party(AFLP) is fielding candidates in QLD only. And by the way the shooters and fishing party have preferenced the AFLP first and the AFLP have preferrenced the Shooters Fishing no6 (nuts!). The only party to vote for in this election is shooters fishers.

hank you for the clarification Bob. I was under the impression that Paul Hennelly was running as an independent and I wasn't aware that the Australial Fishing & Lifestyle party was running federally. I have have had a look and you are correct. I am not affiliated to any political party and thought the shooters fishers was the only federal fishing party running, my apologies. My only concern is that yet again the vote will be split and this in simple basic politics 101. When you have inferior numbers (as the Greens do) to the total fisherman out there, then encourage the creation of many similar parties of your opponent to split the vote. And the Greens have done this to us masterfully, WHY? If you combined the Fishing party vote with the shooter party vote then we would of had 3 senators in the NSW parliament instead of 2. I just don't get it why can we not see the need for a single voice with a proper board of diverse fishing opinions to formulate good strong policy. Agree with the shooters or not, the NSW parliament took away the right to own self loading guns and a single party was formulated. I suspect they have their own internal battles however the policy and appearance to the community is one. I understand the amount of work behind the scenes that guys like yourself and others like RECFISH etc...do BUT unity can only be the way forward. You owe that to the millions of kids and parents that bond together through the time spent holding a fishing pole. I certainly don't understand the politics behind the fishing voice but till present it has not transformed into political success. My greatest concern is that in the NSW election there could be up to 5 fishing style parties to vote for and that will be catastrophic for our cause.

Problem for the shooters/fishing party is they cannot make deals with labour because the greens have stiched up all the preferences. That effectively means the shooters fishing party are out on their own for this election and will make it very hard for them to gain seats alone. My hope is that they can stich up some preference deals with the coalition to get a couple of senators in to spoil the green strangle hold on the balance of power. Lets not kid ourselselves a vote for Labour in this election is a vote for the greens and here comes 40% Marine parks, not in desert regions but in reef, wreck and fish rich grounds. Surely we have to stick together on this if you love fishing.

We have a decision to make in the next couple of weeks. Lets face it a vote for labour is a vote for the greens and that means bigger marine expansions. A vote for the coalition will mean at the very least a stay of execution and hopefully some input into the parks we want. Colbeck from the nationals did a hell of a lot with the support of the fisherman to overturn the mako ban and he was standing with Abbott at the announcement. I will be voting for the coalition in the upper house and the shooters and fishing party in the senate. Both these parties have at least made helpful comments for the fishing cause. The shooters and fishing party traditionally support labour however because of the deals between the greens and labour they have been left out in the cold. IT IS CRITICALLY impotant that the Greens do NOT hold the balance of power or then we really are sc....d. Think long and hard guys this is a pinnacle election. I must also profess to being an absolute swinging voter and have pretty much voted for all parties in the past, from my observation a coalition shooter/fishings vote is the best option. Cheers BIG

Congratulations to the raider site, it is sites like this that are finally getting the message across to the pollies.

Show your support and vote in the poll, REMEMBER IT IS ELECTION TIME They are proposing 20 new marine parks in Vic with overwhelming support to the greens because the fisho have only just found out about it There is a constant battle to preserve the right to partake in recreational fishing. The MPA group appear to be getting their way very easily. http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/article/2010/07/21/212001_fishing.html There's a poll there as well, get a vote in!!! http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/opinion/index.html Back to top

Labor lets down recreational fishers again, thresher shark fishing ban starts It has become clear today that despite soothing comments by the Federal Fisheries Minister in May, the recreational fishing of thresher sharks is now banned. This is the second major game fishing shark which has been banned for fishing by the Federal Labor Government after the mess it made of the mako shark. The thresher shark has been banned through Australia's membership of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). The thresher shark is a popular game fishing species, particularly off the coast of Victoria. A bag limit of one fish exists in that State. Fisheries Victoria – in the apparent absence of information from the Federal Labor Government – have issued the following advice: "Recreational and sport fishers may in no circumstances retain thresher sharks and must release them alive." Federal Coalition spokesman for Fisheries, Senator Richard Colbeck said many angry fishers had contacted him wanting answers on why the fishing of thresher sharks had been banned by the Federal Labor Government without adequate consultation. On May 25, Labor's Fisheries Minister Tony Burke said the Government "will do all it can to support recreational fishers to continue fishing thresher sharks." "But just 5 weeks later the Government's ban is now in place," Senator Colbeck said. "Like the mako shark, there is no evidence of any threat to thresher shark numbers in Australian waters, yet our recreational fishers are forced to accept the wishes of an international body "I had a briefing from the Federal Government on this matter some weeks ago where departmental officers suggested action was being taken, but have heard nothing since. "Fishers tell me that they too have received no advice on the status of thresher shark fishing from the Federal Government. "Yet again, recreational fishers have been left in the lurch by the Federal Labor Government. "Labor has displayed a complete lack of communication, a complete lack of consultation and a complete lack of consideration for recreational fishers." Senator Colbeck said Labor's failure on the thresher shark demonstrated its attitude to the recreational fishing sector. Over the past two and half years, Labor has: · Banned the fishing of mako and porbeagle sharks and then back-flipped following a national grassroots political campaign by fishers; · stripped the national peak body Recfish of all of its funding; · threatened massive new no-take marine parks around Australia; · allowed fringe environmental groups to unilaterally influence policy; and · the Fisheries Minister makes the fishing sector only his third or even fourth priority in his list of four portfolios. "Unlike Labor, the recreational fishing sector and its many millions of participants can be assured they will be listened to by a Coalition Government. "We will not place bans on fishing without very strong reason and, even then, not before genuine consultation. "The Coalition will give recreational fishing the respect and recognition it fully deserves as a contributor to the environment, to healthy lifestyles and to the nation's economy."

MAKO SHARK BAN NOW OFFICIALLY LIFTED Shadow spokesperson on domestic tourism, Joanna Gash says she is relieved that Parliament has finally officially lifted the ban on the taking of mako sharks. “The Minister’s rash decision in introducing the ban has caused a lot of unnecessary grief but it has been a revealing exercise. “It has revealed a Minister driven by dogma rather than facts, imposing his will without prudent consultation with the communities his decisions affect. “The revocation of the legislation is a sensible move and one we in the Coalition advocated from the start. “If it was allowed to stand it would have had a counterproductive effect on tourist destinations, like the area I represent, Gilmore, in which fishing plays such a central role. “I commend all those fishing organisations who supported us in having this very silly ban overturned”, Mrs Gash said. Media enquiries: 22 June 2010 Wal Styke 0431 160 642

Hi Ross I am attaching a document from garrett's office stating the ban to the mako shark cause minor disruptions to the recreational fishery. For those interested please read the crap below on the reasoning for this ban Amazing!!!!!!!! NATIONAL INTEREST ANALYSIS: CATEGORY 1 TREATY SUMMARY PAGE Amendments, done at Rome, Italy on 5 December 2008, to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals of 23 June 1979 Nature and timing of proposed treaty action 1. The treaty action concerns amendments to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (the Convention). The amendments were adopted by the 9th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (CoP9) to the Convention, held in Rome, Italy from 1 to 5 December 2008. The amendments to the Appendices list 11 additional species of migratory animals in Appendix I (Attachment A) and ten additional species in Appendix II (Attachment . Appendix I lists migratory species which are endangered and Appendix II lists migratory species which have an unfavourable conservation status. 2. Under Article XI(5) of the Convention, an amendment to the Appendices enters into force for all Parties 90 days after the meeting of the Conference of the Parties at which it was adopted, except for those Parties that make a reservation. The amendments to the Appendices entered into force on 5 March 2009. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts wrote to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on 4 March 2009 providing details of the amendments and advising that, due to the operation of Article XI(5) of the Convention, entry into force for Australia would occur prior to the usual treaty tabling requirements having been met. Overview and national interest summary 3. Australia is a Range State for three species of sharks (porbeagle (Lamna nasus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) and longfin mako (Isurus paucus)) that were added to Appendix II of the Convention. A Range State is defined in Article I of the Convention as any State that exercises jurisdiction over any part of the range of that migratory species, or a State the flag vessels of which take that migratory species outside national jurisdictional limits. The porbeagle, longfin mako and shortfin mako are all found in Australian waters. 4. Australia is committed to international shark protection and conservation efforts. Indications are that current approaches to shark management and conservation have proven ineffective in halting the decline of sharks globally. Sharks continue to be at risk internationally from over-fishing, illegal trade, habitat degradation, incidental bycatch and emerging threats such as climate change. The Convention provides the most accessible mechanism to facilitate international action for conservation of migratory shark species. The addition of these three shark species to Appendix II will facilitate such action and complement action already taken. Reasons for Australia to take the proposed treaty action 5. The Convention came into force generally in 1983 and Australia has been a party since 1 September 1991. The Convention focuses upon terrestrial, avian and marine species that migrate across or outside national jurisdictional boundaries. States Parties to the Convention must protect migratory species listed on its Appendices that live within, or pass through, their jurisdiction. 6. Article I of the Convention establishes two categories that define the conservation status of a migratory species - ‘endangered’ for a migratory species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant proportion of the area of land or water that it inhabits (its range), and ‘unfavourable conservation status’ where the following conditions for a favourable conservation status are not being met: (1) population dynamics data indicate that the migratory species is maintaining itself on a long-term basis as a viable component of its ecosystems; (2) the range of the migratory species is neither currently being reduced, nor is likely to be reduced, on a long-term basis; (3) there is, and will be in the foreseeable future, sufficient habitat to maintain the population of the migratory species on a long-term basis; and (4) the distribution and abundance of the migratory species approach historic coverage and level to the extent that potentially suitable ecosystems exist and to the extent consistent with wise wildlife management (Article I (1)©). 7. Appendix I lists migratory species that are endangered and for which Parties are obliged to provide immediate protection. Appendix II lists migratory species with an unfavourable conservation status and which require, or would significantly benefit from, international agreements for their conservation and management. 8. Australia is a Range State for each of the three species of shark added to Appendix II. Consequently, Australia has obligations with regard to these species. 9. The porbeagle is a wide-ranging coastal and oceanic shark, but with apparently little exchange between adjacent populations. Late and relatively low reproductive capacity and high commercial value (in target and incidental fisheries) of mature and immature age classes makes this species highly vulnerable to over-exploitation and population depletion. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers that this depletion, despite variations in availability of data and degree of depletion between the northern and southern hemispheres, warrants a vulnerable classification for the porbeagle. In Australian waters, the porbeagle is found off southern Australia from southern Queensland to southern Western Australia. 10. The shortfin mako is a wide-ranging oceanic and pelagic shark with high value meat, and is subject to significant bycatch and targeted fisheries in some areas. Most catches are inadequately or not recorded, and its relatively low reproductive capacity makes it very susceptible to depletion by these fisheries. However, the species is very wide-ranging and has a relatively fast growth rate. The IUCN has classified the shortfin mako as lower risk/near threatened. The shortfin mako is widespread in Australian waters (with the exception of the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait). 11. The longfin mako is a widely distributed but rarely encountered oceanic tropical shark. This species is known to be caught as bycatch in tropical pelagic longline fisheries for tuna, swordfish and sharks and in other oceanic fisheries, which operate throughout its range, but at much lower ratios than its smaller relative, the shortfin mako. Catches are inadequately monitored and underestimated due to common misidentification with shortfin makos and because landings do not reflect numbers of individuals finned and discarded at sea. Longfin makos are often caught in the same fishing gear as shortfin makos and therefore populations are considered also likely to have declined. In addition to the inferred declines, this is a species of conservation concern due to its apparent rarity, large maximum size (greater than 4 m), low reproductive capacity (2 to 8 pups per litter) and continued bycatch in intensive oceanic fisheries. The IUCN has classified the longfin mako as vulnerable. The longfin mako occurs in Australian waters south to Geraldton (Western Australia) to at least Port Stephens (New South Wales). 12. In addition to the three species for which Australia is a Range State, a number of other species were added to the Appendices of the Convention on the proposal of other Parties. However, Australia is not listed as a Range State for those other species and therefore does not have to take any further action. Obligations 13. All Parties to the Convention acknowledge the importance of conserving migratory species (Article II (1)) and the need to take action to avoid migratory species becoming endangered (Article II (2)). The Parties also agree to promote, cooperate and support research relating to migratory species (Article II (3)(a)) and endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included in Appendix I (Article II (3)(). 14. Article III(1) of the Convention provides that Appendix I shall list migratory species which are endangered. Article II(3)( provides that the Parties ‘shall endeavour to provide immediate protection for migratory species included in Appendix I.’ Parties that are Range States are required to endeavour to take specific measures to conserve the species and habitat, to prevent the adverse effects of activities that impede or prevent migration, and, to the extent feasible and appropriate, to prevent or minimise factors that endanger the species (Article III(4)). Article III(5) requires Range States to strictly prohibit taking of Appendix I species subject to limited exceptions. 15. Appendix II lists migratory species which have ‘an unfavourable conservation status and which require international agreements for their management’ and species ‘which would significantly benefit from the international co-operation that could be achieved by an international agreement’ (Article IV(1)). Unlike a listing in Appendix I, inclusion of a species in Appendix II does not entail an obligation to immediate protection. The principal obligation in relation to species included in Appendix II is that Parties must endeavour to conclude agreements where these would benefit the species and give priority to those species in an unfavourable conservation status (Article IV(3)). 16. The Convention does not affect the rights or obligations of any Party deriving from any existing treaty or convention (Article XII (2)). The Convention also does not affect the rights of Parties to adopt stricter domestic measures concerning the conservation of any listed migratory species (Article XII (3)). Implementation 17. In order to meet the international obligations that arise for Australia as a Range State for migratory species listed in Appendix II of the Convention, Australia must cooperate in the development of multilateral conservation agreements where these will benefit the species listed. Australia is meeting this obligation by participating in ongoing multilateral negotiations to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on the Conservation of Migratory Sharks under the Convention. 18. At this stage, negotiations are focussed on developing a MoU that covers the great white shark, whale shark and basking shark, (iconic species) with the potential to incorporate the porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako in the future. The scope of the MoU will remain under consideration as negotiations progress. 19. Domestically, listed species will be protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). Section 209(3)(a) of the Act specifies that the list of migratory species must include all species that are ‘from time to time included in the appendices to the [the Convention] and for which Australia is a Range State under the Convention’. As a result of the listing of the three shark species on Appendix II of the Convention, the list of migratory species pursuant to section 209 of the EPBC Act needs to be amended to include these species. An amendment to the list of migratory species contained in the EPBC Act is an amendment of a legislative instrument. 20. All provisions of the EPBC Act relevant to ‘listed migratory species’, in particular Parts 3 and 13, will apply to these species once the list has been amended. Costs 21. The amendments to the Appendices are not expected to impose any additional costs on Australia in terms of meeting its obligations under the Convention. Australia already has a strong protection and conservation management regime in place for migratory species, such as the three shark species recently included in Appendix II. The amendments may require domestic management arrangements to be put in place for commercial and recreational fishing operations that may interact with the three shark species, in particular to ensure compliance with requirements under the EPBC Act. It is anticipated that the costs for most sectors will be minor. However, where Australian fisheries take these species as a significant by-product this could impact on their profitability. There is likely to be some cost associated with changes required by game or charter fishing operators where they target the species concerned. 22. The development of multilateral conservation agreements (or MoUs) for the protection of these migratory species will require some resources. However the costs associated with the implementation of such agreements are likely to be negligible. Regulation Impact Statement 23. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts has assessed the implementation of the Convention against criteria in The Best Practice Regulation Handbook. This regulatory option has no impact on business and individuals or on the economy and a Regulation Impact Statement or Business Cost Calculator report is not required. The Office of Best Practice Regulation (OPBR) confirmed that no further regulatory impact analysis is required as the proposal has relatively minor impacts. The OPBR also advised that no further assessment is required in relation to the amendments to the EPBC Act as these changes are not discretionary. Future treaty action 24. States Parties to the Convention amend Appendices I and II (add to or remove species or populations) when information becomes available and / or action is required to meet the conservation needs of migratory species which are endangered, become endangered or are subject to an unfavourable conservation status. Migratory species may be removed from the Appendices once their conservation needs have been met. Any future amendments of the Appendices will constitute a separate treaty action and be subject to the usual domestic treaty making process, including the tabling of a National Interest Analysis. Withdrawal or Denunciation 25. Once amendments have entered into force for a Party, the only way to withdraw from them is by denouncing the Convention. Article XIX provides that a Party to the Convention may denounce it by written notification to the Depositary at any time. Such denunciation would take effect twelve months after the Depositary has received the notification and would be subject to the usual domestic treaty process including the tabling of a National Interest Analysis. Contact details Marine Biodiversity Policy Branch Marine Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts ATTACHMENT ON CONSULTATION Amendments, done at Rome, Italy on 5 December 2008, to Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals of 23 June 1979 Consultation 26. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts wrote to its State and Territory environment and primary industries counterparts seeking their views on the amendments to the Appendices to the Convention prior to the 9th CoP. A generally favourable response was received from the majority of jurisdictions, with South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia fully supportive of the proposals. 27. New South Wales and Queensland were not supportive of the proposals, based on concerns regarding the possible consequences of listing the shark species as migratory under the EPBC Act. Both New South Wales and Queensland were concerned that listing the shark species as migratory under the Act could lead to increases in monitoring and stock assessment costs. New South Wales was also concerned should the listing of the sharks as migratory under the Act result in the species becoming ‘no-take’ for fishers. 28. The listing of the shark species as migratory may require domestic management arrangements to be put in place for commercial and recreational fishing operations that interact with the species. It is anticipated that any associated increases in monitoring and stock assessment costs would be minor. The process will be incorporated into existing commercial fishery assessment and accreditation processes. Additions to Appendix I of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals adopted by the Ninth Conference of Parties (Rome, December 2008). MAMMALIA ORDER Family Scientific Name Common Name CETACEA Delphinidae Tursiops truncatus ponticus Bottlenose Dolphin (Black Sea) CETACEA Delphinidae Orcaella brevirostris Irrawaddy dolphin CETACEA Delphinidae Sousa teuszii Atlantic humpback dolphin CARNIVORA Felidae Acinonyx jubatus Cheetah (except populations of Botswana, Namibia, and Zimbabwe) SIRENIA Trichechidae Trichechus senegalensis West African manatee AVES ORDER Family Scientific Name Common Name ANSERIFORMES Anatidae Aythya baeri Baer’s pochard FALCONIFORMES Accipitridae Neophron percnopterus Egyptian vulture CHARADRIIFORMES Laridae Sterna lorata Peruvian tern PASSERIFORMES Muscicapidae Acrocephalus sorghophilus Streaked Reed-warbler PASSERIFORMES Emberizidae Emberiza aureola Yellow-breasted bunting PASSERIFORMES Parulidae Dendroica caerulea Cerulean Warbler Additions to Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals adopted by the Ninth Conference of Parties (Rome, December 2008). MAMMALIA ORDER Family Scientific Name Common Name CETACEA Phocoenidae Phocoena phocoena Harbour porpoise (North-West African population) CETACEA Delphinidae Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin (Mediterranean population) CETACEA Delphinidae Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin (Mediterranean population) CETACEA Delphinidae Stenella clymene Clymene dolphin (West African population) CARNIVORA Canidae Lycaon pictus African wild dog ARTIODACTYLA Bovidae Ammotragus lervia Barbary sheep PISCES (Elasmobranchii) ORDER Family Scientific Name Common Name LAMNIFORMES Lamnidae Isurus oxyrinchus #Shortfin mako LAMNIFORMES Lamnidae Isurus paucus #Longfin mako LAMNIFORMES Lamnidae Lamna nasus #Porbeagle SQUALIFORMES Squalidae Squalus acanthias Spiny dogfish (Northern Hemisphere populations) Note: # indicates a species for which Australia is a range state

You are correct with your interpretation of Commercial Tuna fishing, however all those bloody tags that have been put into fish and the data collected is being used against us. They can't stop commecial fishing but they sure as hell can recreational fishing and have stats to use against us as to how many fish we rec fishos catch. i for one will not be tagging anymore fish "IGNORANCE IS BLISS"

Peter Garrett is advised by three advisory commitees connected to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. The commitee that dealt with advising the decision with our makos is the Threatened Species Scientific Committee. If you do a little research for yourself by googling most of the committee members you will find are still or were connected with enviromental / greenie groups. they are also and i quote " distinguished dignitaries in their respected fields as Professors and PHD doctors." which the pollies love to have by their side. Anyway this committee represents in behalf of peter garrett / australian government at the Conservation of Migratory Species, an international committee put in place by the UN or a division of the UN being the United Nations Environment Programme. The members in this conservation committee are also connected to just about every sizable enviromental green groups in the world. this international group of people which are professors and phd doctors basically make the conclusion of what species should be protected. They make their decisions from " scientific research and data analysis" from research programs being conducted all over the world. One of the data analysis that they used is from our own country being the tag and release programs we have. After much reading on the net and all from the web sites associated with these committees not one sided agenda web sites you can find all the info they use to come to a decision. Basically it all comes down to international politics. if the UN or a part of it decides to implement new international species laws our own australian Threatened Species Scientific Committee agrees with the law and advise peter garrett to commit to making it a national law. Its unfortunate to see that the enviro / greenie organisations have put themselves in key positions internationally and nationally to have their agendas implemented. One of the things that peaked my interest was that the japanese government became a member of the Conservation of Migratory Species committee for migratory birds but not for Whales! So if pelagic species are in dire straights in other countries waters but not necessarily our own why does peter garrett agree to give a blanket ban on our favourite jumping shark. As far as other species being list, it looks like it could very well happen but not until next september when the UNEP reconveen for another round of bans.

Ross the coral sea has already been signed off - no more swains reef trips But of most concern Tuna and Marlin fisging are set to be banned September 2010 because thay also fall under the act as "migratory" species VERY VERY troubling "every fish deemed migratory by any overseas department listed as vulnerable or worse on the the ucn red list is effected this incliudes SBT mako marlins etc etc etc for example if a makos fall into this catagory and get banned so will all marlins and 90% of tunas Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 suspiciiously updated on the 25/11 2009 Subdivision C—Listed threatened species and communities 18 Actions with significant impact on listed threatened species or endangered community prohibited without approval Species that are extinct in the wild (1) A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the extinct in the wild category; or ( is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the extinct in the wild category. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; ( for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. Critically endangered species (2) A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the critically endangered category; or ( is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the critically endangered category. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; ( for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. Endangered species (3) A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the endangered category; or ( is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the endangered category. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; ( for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units. Vulnerable species (4) A person must not take an action that: (a) has or will have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the vulnerable category; or ( is likely to have a significant impact on a listed threatened species included in the vulnerable category. Civil penalty: (a) for an individual—5,000 penalty units; ( for a body corporate—50,000 penalty units."

nice lolly pops for jewie baits :1fishing1

Nothing wrong with a fish for the table and the one in the pic looks yummy Cheers BIG