Fishraider Official Marine Park Poll

[bart]

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....

Barts reply,

Compromise ? Why,at this stage if at all. Discussion yes and plenty of it. There is more to this than meets the eye. It is common sense that if you hunt a species (overfish)as is being done by some ,that it will come under stress.The Humpback Whale was a prime example. Given a break as has happened, the benefits of replenishment have flowed.

I believe that the proliferation of supermarket outlets and get as much as you can mentality is one of the subjects that should be addressed. ....How much waste is there ?????

If we can get a viable and safe Fish farming industry happening pressure will come off our natural marine resources.

Please be aware that as ASIA developes and their people become more affluent as is now happening , demand for marine products will increase dramatically.

So my friends ,we as recreational fisho's have pressure on us one way or the other.I firmly believe that we should not be scapegoats but let us keep an eye on the ball and not be hoodwinked.

We must do it smarter!!!!!!!!!

CHEERS BART. .

Edited December 16, 2008 by bart

[dandas]

OK, my vote is in !

[arkedup]

The simple answer to the problem is ban trawlers from these areas not recreational fishermen!

In one night a trawler would catch more fish than all the fishraiders could catch in a lifetime not to mention the damage that is caused by the nets trawlers use

Arked

Edited December 16, 2008 by arked

[VA911]

Voted.

although.. which voted the other way?

[Mik]

Damn, I thought this was going to be a great way for us to get our opinions hear, but alas even fishos can't agree on this subject.

I'm sorry Swordies but I can't vote on this poll as I don't agree with either answer to either question. It is as has already been stated a very complex issue.

I for one think there is a place for some sanctuarys however the mentality of those that push the entire sanctuary debate seem to have their facts wrong or at the very least have been misguided by information that is more often based on emotion rather than fact.

I'm sure 90% or greater of fishos in this country are frustrated by the amount of misleading information out there on marine species, habitat & whats required to ensure we can all enjoy the marine environment, fishos, divers, conservationist all alike.

Someone said it earlier about compromise, yup, there is alot of that required from all parties concerned. But until I see real facts that I can understand & from a trusted source my vote is still in my pocket. This issue has wrecked my head. I may be naive to sit back at this stage but I'd rather that than give a vote to a section I didn't really want to.

[supermario]

I missread the 2nd question !!!

i voted no by accident on Q2 !!!

I am suprised by the number of friends who fish (that i didn't know they fished) who all know about this and have already sent off emails and letters to MPs outlining their disgust at this lobby groups "plan"!!!

[bayrunner]

Ideally, I'm all for marine parks too but can you trust any government to stick to sound science and leave conservation free of other agendas. I can't anymore so I'm opposing marine parks in total.

The extreme greens made a fatal error when they lobbied to kick us out of our best country based on the "fraudulent science" of the Marine Park Authority. We could have been the NPA's strongest ally but they saw fit to alienate and villainise us instead.

[kkw]

vote is in

[brickman]

[slicendice]

vote in

[Keza]

voted.

i'd like to think that they would work with us to protect the fishery but i think this will only happen if they think they won't get it through otherwise.

[Bentstik]

Vote in

[jlloyd]

having just got back into fishing to be told it may be taken away from our doorstep is a little rude. Also having seen the Kingfish population recover so well with minimal intrusion why interfere any more, as it currently stands a large portion of Sydney Harbour has fishing banned anyway.

Voted and against the exclusion of recreational fishing in any marine park.

[MrChipsnSalad]

This whole MP idea is great, but rec fisherman should not be excluded. The commercial fisherman should be targeted. Breeding areas should be made exclusion zones for high powered water craft. Bag limits on each species should be reduced, as well as size limits increased. There should be more strict control of these limits, and the penalties for failure to comply should be harsh. But stopping the sport entirely, is a ridiculous notion. Fisho's, as I seem them, are as concerned about over-fishing as the next person, and given their unique relationship with the fish and their habitat, we are in many cases more concerned than others. This draconian idea has been talked about by Jim Harnwell in his editorials (Fishing World) for years. I have followed the discussion with interest, but I never thought that our doorstep would be targeted in such a broad and ill conceived manner.

[Red]

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.

DAVE

Gee i don't know about that one mate. I'd say the trawler ban is what really saved the bay, not the closure of Quibray/Weeny Bay.

Some here would remember the days where there'd be trawler after trawler leaving through the Cooks Breakwall. These trawlers would flog the bay daily for hours on end.......BIG DAMAGE!

Who here is old enough to remember all the uprooted sea grass that used to line the foreshore between Kyeemagh and Dolls Point?

Cheers

Red

[alecat]

Hi fishraiders

thanks for giving me a chance to vote, i don't know what the solution is, but i will support anything that enables my kids to enjoy our favorite sport when they grow up. It's such a shame that it has been open slather for so long.

Maybe rather than banning fishing in certain areas they could introduce (catch and release only) and have very large fines for rule breakers. Anyway there is nothing better than seeing a nice jack or jew swim away to be caught again...

[DarkHorse]

My vote is in. Thank you for the opportunity. Will be sending emails to various members of parliament shortly protesting against closures as well as encouraging friends and family to do like wise.

Regards,

Rob

[catch this]

I voted with the majority, but probably for different reasons.

I wasn't sure if I should vote as it all seemed quite black and white and in reality its not. We shouldn' delude ourselves into thinking we are the good guys just because we fish. I see plenty of irresponsible behaviour on the water and I wish some of theose performing certain acts were banned for life.

But...

Is fishing a right or a privilege?

Very few of us (probably none) actually need to fish because we have no other means of putting food on a table (which is a right).

So I think in this osciety its a privelege and there are people who don't fish who probably think more of the bad than the good. Educating both sides (discussion, not compromise) makes more sense to me. And if more extreme elements on either side can't talk then they should be excluded from the debate.

Wow, if only the world lived in my head time for a

[baznjack]

G'day raiders, this is my first post, and yeah ! i'm peed off, these greenies wouldn't even know how to tie a hook let a lone bait one ! the only agenda these boofheads have is they don't have a life and all they want to do is make sure we don't either ! MY VOTE IS IN, IS YOURS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[pauljm]

Hi all.....life would really suck if you couldnt even go fishing without big brother watching. What's next????????????????????????

Voted

[SwampyWolf]

Done voting.

[mrsswordfisherman]

Thanks all for voting so far......

Some interesting emails and communications have been sent to us.

This poll is different in that it is real anglers voting. Only one vote per member can be made. There is no stacking of votes here. It will show how fishraiders feel about the issue on a general level only. As others have pointed out it is very complex but a poll is only meant to gauge public opinion. The results of a poll form the beginning of public debate. That will certainly happen in a formal sense down the track.

It is NOT meant to cause division amongst us - that solves nothing.

Our aim is to ensure every member is kept abreast of any activities by relevant groups. You will see the communications sent to me by Anglers Action Group and Recreational Fishing Alliance. Please read them to see what those groups are doing or have done.

I am sure other groups will be contacting us. I will endeavour to pass all information on through fishraider forum. There will be enough information to make informed decision one way or the other I am sure. If anyone else has any info or ideas please pass it on to us.

On another note it is good to see inactive members checking in to vote and comment. An mass email was sent to all members this afternoon and the response has been massive. Activity on the board has been huge with members and guests pouring in.

Regards mrsswordfisherman

[Red]

Is fishing a right or a privilege?

Very few of us (probably none) actually need to fish because we have no other means of putting food on a table (which is a right).

So I think in this osciety its a privelege

Mate, you are obviously not a pensioner counting every penny.

If you are comfortable with paying $40 a kilo for flathead fillet, go for it! If you are comfortable paying $14 a kilo for the filthy (should be banned) Mekong Catfish.....go for it. If your happy paying $28 a kilo for calamari.....go for it too. Even mullet and slimey mackerel sell for ridiculous prices at the fish market.

Fact is there are loads of people who would probably never eat seafood if they had to buy it because its too bloody expensive.....my dad happens to be one of them. The only quality meal he gets to enjoy is the fish catches.

In the last depression, the people around Malabar survived predominately on wild rabbits. Heaven forbid we don't end up with another depression......and fishing closures on top!

Cheers

Red

Edited December 16, 2008 by Red

[sanger]

voted!

[lavoon]

Just voted, thanks for letting us know Mrsswordfisherman