Fishraider Official Marine Park Poll

[mrsswordfisherman]

The members of Fishraider support the concept of preserving our marine habitats so that future generations can enjoy the great outdoors and one, if not the most popular of pastimes, recreational fishing.

Fishraider members are therefore not against the concept of Marine Parks, but rather a system within Marine Parks where Sanctuary Zones are used to exclude recreational fisherman from the most accessible and productive areas.

So we ask you for your input on what is being proposed by the so called "National Parks Association" lobby group.

[Hodgey]

Hmmmm 46 views and only 5 votes?

Take the time to vote gang. Imagine what an outsider would think of these figures. This is a fishing site, which has started a poll regarding FISHOS reaction to MPAs, and only 5 people out of 46 thought it worthy of a response?

Cheers

Hodgey

[jewgaffer]

My vote and LittleJG 's vote are in.

This is a very important poll. Everyone who votes should post a reply for the record.

Cheers

jewgaffer

[abiasin]

done, come on guys let your voice be heard.

[Red]

Raiders, what exactly is a Marine Park? Especially one without exclusion zones?

Do you honestly think the GREENS would be happy with that? What will they have achieved? It would be a disasterous failure to them!

Its obviously all or nothing to them and i'd bet London to a brick they would make swift changes easily if and when a so-called "Marine Park" without exclusion zones were introduced. I personally cannot trust them and this is the reason why i oppose Marine Parks.......period. We have little to gain and potentially too much to lose.

Cheers

Red

[digger]

done

[NAUTIGLASS15]

Done,

Lets be heard now guys & gals,

Its now or never,no use in whingeing later.

Its all up to us,every vote counts

GOODLUCK.

CHEERS

SHANE.

[craigtempo]

all done

[glennmreid]

my vote is in

[sadamson]

my vote is in

[jahajo]

voted

[Keflapod]

Guys,

I'm not sure how effective this poll will be.

Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

We need to state unequivocally that sanctuary zones are unconstitutional (or something like that) and that we have a right to access any area. We have shown we are responsible in our use of the areas and can demonstrate their sustainable use. If any form of ban is in order to preserve the area, then the danger must be identified and banned - ie commercial netting.

They should not be called marine parks or sanctuary zones - they should be called net-free zones.

Any users of that water must be restricted to line fishing methods only, bound by size limits. Bag limits apply to recreational fishos as per usual. This is a fair compromise and involves no more work to police than a marine national park. Government can still claim a big victory, the greens could still be happy that the major destructive force has been removed and rec fishos still can access their best spots and be bound by their usual bag and size limits.

We should be proposing a compromised solution - it may make more sense to all as there are no outright losers - everybody compromises a bit - it's like being married....

[bart]

Voted. Thankyou for the opportunity to voice my opinion.

Cheers BART.

[Josh88]

They should not be called marine parks or sanctuary zones - they should be called net-free zones.

Any users of that water must be restricted to line fishing methods only, bound by size limits. Bag limits apply to recreational fishos as per usual. This is a fair compromise and involves no more work to police than a marine national park. Government can still claim a big victory, the greens could still be happy that the major destructive force has been removed and rec fishos still can access their best spots and be bound by their usual bag and size limits.

We should be proposing a compromised solution - it may make more sense to all as there are no outright losers - everybody compromises a bit - it's like being married....

Well said I think.

Voted with the majority.

For the people that voted as the minority, by voting that way are you saying you think rec fishos should be banned or just that the question is not the right solution and you think a different one is necessary?

Cheers

Josh

[mrsswordfisherman]

More information LOOK HERE

mrsswordfisherman

[rob boban]

DONE

[achjimmy]

voted thanks

[Davemmm]

I voted in the appropriate manner but I think the question is too closed.

I actually believe that there are some areas probably should be closed to all types of fishing and in some cases completely closed to any human presence. Perhaps if we had the complete National Parks proposal including which areas would be closed and which areas would be open we could make a much more informed decision.

Do you honestly think the GREENS would be happy with that? What will they have achieved? It would be a disasterous failure to them!

Its obviously all or nothing to them and i'd bet London to a brick they would make swift changes easily if and when a so-called "Marine Park" without exclusion zones were introduced. I personally cannot trust them and this is the reason why i oppose Marine Parks.......period. We have little to gain and potentially too much to lose.

I have spoken to a number of people over the years about the closure of Quibray/Weeny Bay within Botany Bay. Many people have claimed that the closure has actually saved the fishing in Botany Bay by allowing a prime breeding area to remain semi-safe. One of the districts keen environmentalists (read Greeny) has actually campaigned strongly against a large number of proposals within the Bay including a variety of developments that have varied the wave patterns to the extent that they began to cause Quibray to salt up. One of the results was the Groynes at silver Beach that now direct some of the waves away from the entrance.

One of the arguments that he and other Green minded people have continually used is that most of these developments have a direct effect on recreational fishing.

Before we make sweeping statements and label any group as "The Enemy" perhaps we should actuall study fully the reasons for any statements they make.

DAVE

[stoney]

Done

[pjbink]

I voted in the appropriate manner but I think the question is too closed.

I actually believe that there are some areas probably should be closed to all types of fishing and in some cases completely closed to any human presence. Perhaps if we had the complete National Parks proposal including which areas would be closed and which areas would be open we could make a much more informed decision.

I have spoken to a number of people over the years about the closure of Quibray/Weeny Bay within Botany Bay. Many people have claimed that the closure has actually saved the fishing in Botany Bay by allowing a prime breeding area to remain semi-safe. One of the districts keen environmentalists (read Greeny) has actually campaigned strongly against a large number of proposals within the Bay including a variety of developments that have varied the wave patterns to the extent that they began to cause Quibray to salt up. One of the results was the Groynes at silver Beach that now direct some of the waves away from the entrance.

One of the arguments that he and other Green minded people have continually used is that most of these developments have a direct effect on recreational fishing.

Before we make sweeping statements and label any group as "The Enemy" perhaps we should actuall study fully the reasons for any statements they make.

DAVE

Well, I actually spoke to the fisheries scientist behind the Quibray Bay closure. He said he once tagged 400 flathead in Quibray Bay! He told me though he doesn't think the closure does all that much in terms of fishery wide (ie Botany Bay) benifits.

PS: In a lot of these cases no-one knows where these 'prime breeding grounds' are, or they change from year to year. Closed season are probably a better measure if you want to protect breeding fish. And then again there are plenty of sustainable fisheries built on targeting breeding fish. Often its the only time when they are concentrated enough to warrant commercial fishing. The trick is of course not to overdo the fishing effort.

Edited December 16, 2008 by billfisher

[Maxi111]

extremely important to vote on this ... thanks for the oppourtunity and the reminder mrs swordfish.. excellent stuff..

maxi

[Bar-garse]

Thanks for the chance to have a say.

[Dang Boy]

Hi All,

This is my first post, but it is a very serious issue.

The proposal by the NPA is only a wish list but it could have drastic consequences should government pick up on the proposal.

The opinion of some friends at DPI is that it will never happen. You have got to remember that some of these DPI guys fish as well and love to dangle a line in their spare time. Conversely the representative for NPA interviewed for TV was asked if he was a fisho. It is no surprise that his answer was NO.

The loss of recreational fishers tourism dollars in some coastal areas verses the marine park dollar exceeds your local MP's annual income + allowances !!!

Too much publicity has been given to NPA but if you feel strongly about the issue let your local MP know through email.

Cheers

AC

[dsorongan]

Voted

[Seafarer]

Vote now, let your voice be heard, it's our fishing future at stake.