Fishraider Official Marine Park Poll

[kajiki008]

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.

I agree with some of the posts especially " Catch this ". Fishing is a privilege not a right. I can also see both sides of the argument and there have been times when I have observed the behavior of some recreational fisherman that makes me think that imposing such control may be good for us in the future but at the same time, why punish recreational fisherman because of a few bad ones. Why punish those of us who have tagged and released fish, use barbless or circle hooks and cleaned up rubbish be punished for this ? What about the developers of land , the commercial fishery who have decimated the environment and taken as much as they could.

There must be solution to this.

[Simda]

Who formed these questions, it would be very easy to misread and vote incorrectly,

I imagine that all fish raider support preserving the waters we fish in so we can enjoy fishing for ourselves and our kids but we can only do that if we are allowed to fish so how would vote against recreational fishing?

[Davemmm]

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

I dont think there has been any "division" Stewey just debate.

Maybe this over the top and unworkable proposal is just what it may take to have the debate moved into the wider public arena.

We have seen for years the debate to global warming bounce from "shut down every poluting industry right now" to "there is no such thing as global warming so lets do nothing". Kevin Rudds current plan seems to attempt to move australia towards a solution but not totally destroy businesses along the way. Perhaps the larger fishing fraternity can begin to take part in a more robust public debate that may see us move from "we arent the ones at fault" and see the more rabid green groups move towards "maybe theres more than one solution" and therefore find solutions that are good for everyone.

Dave

[mrsswordfisherman]

I dont think there has been any "division" Stewey just debate.

Maybe this over the top and unworkable proposal is just what it may take to have the debate moved into the wider public arena.

We have seen for years the debate to global warming bounce from "shut down every poluting industry right now" to "there is no such thing as global warming so lets do nothing". Kevin Rudds current plan seems to attempt to move australia towards a solution but not totally destroy businesses along the way. Perhaps the larger fishing fraternity can begin to take part in a more robust public debate that may see us move from "we arent the ones at fault" and see the more rabid green groups move towards "maybe theres more than one solution" and therefore find solutions that are good for everyone.

Dave

Ummmm that would be Donna - Stewy is out the back rigging up with 2 other raiders for a fishing trip in the morning

Seriously Dave this is to gauge public opinion - the debate in the "wider public arena" as you put it will happen for sure.

mrsswordie

[Davemmm]

Ummmm that would be Donna - Stewy is out the back rigging up with 2 other raiders for a fishing trip in the morning

My most humble apologies

[Roffo]

Done.

[McGinnis]

I'm all for extensive sanctuary zones - the more the better, infact (overfishing is a huge problem, and I'm sorry, but my concern for the industry/fish prices pales in comparison to my concern for marine ecosystems). However, excluding *recreational* fishers will accomplish nothing.

People will fish anyway, and it will do no harm.

What I'd like to see is exemption for recreational fishers (with a reasonable definition thereof) and perhaps heavier patrolling of popular fishing spots in order to diminish the number of people taking undersized/excessive catches.

[witchcraft]

I dont think there has been any "division" Stewey just debate.

Maybe this over the top and unworkable proposal is just what it may take to have the debate moved into the wider public arena.

We have seen for years the debate to global warming bounce from "shut down every poluting industry right now" to "there is no such thing as global warming so lets do nothing". Kevin Rudds current plan seems to attempt to move australia towards a solution but not totally destroy businesses along the way. Perhaps the larger fishing fraternity can begin to take part in a more robust public debate that may see us move from "we arent the ones at fault" and see the more rabid green groups move towards "maybe theres more than one solution" and therefore find solutions that are good for everyone.

Dave

voted

i dont think these people realise what finacial problems they are creating if this goes through charter boats gone, tackle shops gone marinas gone , fishing licence gone dad with kids fishing from the wharf gone this would account into millions of dollars in lost revinue

if these people are fair dinkum remove the net fishermen from the rivers & bays then the long liners . check lake macquarie since they removed the netters the place is booming

cheers steve

[roosterman]

my votes in,and is good to see a decent poll thats not allowing multiple votes so theres more weight to it as you cannot stack the votes to get an outcome..

good stuff guys...

debate is good i think and these issues are getting us all thinking and discussing things...

i think some sort of proper environmental scientifically proven mp areas is something i would not totally disagree with but the blanket ban to all with no real proof of the need for it concerns me....

keep debating this between yourselves,read the literature,get informed and voice your opinions be it one way or another....

there is alot of movement from everywhere on these issues so i think people power will overcome the silly proposal from the npa...

my fear is that they will end up installing a smaller version of whats been proposed then tell us how good they are for not doing the blanket bans and looked after us... the labor wallies have tested the waters so to speak and can see the outcry from us voters while keeping a safe distance... i hope im just being a sinic here but look at the longy debate also...

labor needs the greens but lets just hope they need us more....

cheers...steve.....

[bayrunner]

Fishing for sport may well be a privilege but fishing for food is definitely a right in Australia. The right to fish for food is recognized in the common law and is clarified in the objects of the NSW Fisheries Management Act.

The right to fish for food dates back to the Magna Charter which was signed off in 1215.

I raised these points when asked by Fisheries to contribute to the formulation of fishing competition guidelines. ACoRF Chairman Bruce Schumacher and Recreational Fisheries Manager John Diplop both confirmed my position.

As far as I'm aware Australians are not compelled to have a job and buy their food in a supermarket. Australians may choose to be a full time (or weekend) hunter-fisher-gatherers if they want too and hence the need for this right to be maintained.

By the way, catch and release fishing has been banned in Swissland and Germany after pressure was applied by the greens. Fishing for food is not banned. Anglers are required by law to kill all legal fish caught immediately.

All fishers need to be aware of their right to fish for food and be prepared to defend it.

Edited December 16, 2008 by bayrunner

[Tones]

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

I personally wouldn't trust them to have any concept of a fair and honest debate on this issue. They maintain that it is because of scientific research but I have yet to see any responsible and unbiased research on this. I am also wary of any of the major parties that get or seek preferences from the Greens.

All the best

Tone

[Keflapod]

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

G'day Red

I am old enough. About 14 years ago, while strolling through Silver Beach at Kurnell with my fioncee at the time, camera in hand taking romantic summer sunset photos of her, I noticed a multitude of mounds 2m wide by 2m high. The pro netters were dragging in their nets. I stood there with my camera and they gave me the look of death. The amount of uprooted seagrass was present by the tonne. It was this banning of netting that saved the bay, not the closure of Quibray bay - exactly as you say.

[Davemmm]

G'day Red

I am old enough. About 14 years ago, while strolling through Silver Beach at Kurnell with my fioncee at the time, camera in hand taking romantic summer sunset photos of her, I noticed a multitude of mounds 2m wide by 2m high. The pro netters were dragging in their nets. I stood there with my camera and they gave me the look of death. The amount of uprooted seagrass was present by the tonne. It was this banning of netting that saved the bay, not the closure of Quibray bay - exactly as you say.

Quibray was only used as an example

But the comments about sea grass and drag netting shows that there has to be more than just one issue addressed if fish stocks are going to be improved.

Dave

[robert magill]

Hi all

Marine parks are a bit like trying to understand the settings on your TV remote controls. By the time you figure it out, the fish or the boundaries have been changed. Thank you for the chance to vote. Stay united.

Robert.

[sails]

voted, but I think the wording of the first question is wrong.

If there is a sanctuary in a marine park that excludes fishing, then I would obey that request and I would expect other fishers to do so, including the commercial sector.

I have visited the sanctuaries at Coral Bay in WA, Shelley Beach at Manly, and Hammer Head Point and Warrain Beach down at Jervis bay and while I would love to fish those areas, I recognise the value of them as conservation areas. The size, number and diversity of fish in those areas shows their value to the system.

My concern is when groups decide that they want to exclude me from the area I fish - Long Reef - with erroneous arguements and faulty data.

If there is an arguement that needs to be carried forward, it should be about the commercial trawling of the esturies and rivers where many of the species that we fish for breed and grow. I have done my time on trawlers out of Mooloolaba for prawns, and Hervey Bay for scollops, back when there was a viable industry in Hervey Bay, and I have first hand knowledge of the damage to the by-catch and the sea bed and it is not good.

My opinion is that for a Marine Park to be of any real value it needs to be in an area where there is real control over the industrial polution / commercial harvesting that does untold damage to the ecosystem, which is how most land based national parks appear to be placed.

Sails

[Gasbagger1]

I live in Hervey Bay and have also done time on trawlers out of here and have also seen the waste and damage to the bottom here..Some years ago, trawlers dragged heavy chains between them to smash the corals and structures all through the bay to prevent 'hookups' of the trawl gear..Continual trawling means it has never recovered and the only thing there now is scallops, nothing else.. Ban trawling and net fishing, have heavy penalties for undersize and over limit catches and POLICE these rules..Voted..

[robeebee]

voted

[Paulf4456]

When are we recreational fisherman going to stop being punished and blamed for bad commercial fishery and illegal fishing practices. Recreational fisherman know the value of what we fish for. We're not in it for a quick buck. In fact it's just the opposite. All boaties know about that great hole in the water we pour money into, not to mention the cost of the lastest gear, charters and the trips away etc, etc. I fished off Wollongong before the advent of king fish traps and fondly remember the size and numbers of fish. We kept a feed but no where near what one kingfish trap held. The fish are finally starting to recover and some will say, that is why we need marine parks. I say why should I be excluded from an area because commercial fishers have just about wiped it out. Recreational fishers have bag limits and size limits that are designed to protect the target species, that is the ones that are taken. Don't forget how many practice release these days. When's the last time you saw commercial fishers releasing undersize fish alive and don't get me started on bycatch. Maybe our politicians need to be reminded how much money is generated by recreational fishers. We should have one of the biggest voices in Australia come election time.

[bluewater188]

I voted as per the majority.

One issue I would like to bring up is the quote below.

"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."

I was under the impression that membership to Fishraider was not dependant on conforming to the opinion of others. Whilst I happen to agree with the statement made, I do not appreciate being told that I already have an opinion as I am a member. By the voting results on your poll, of which I assume all are members, it would seem that your statement is not entirely correct, some members obviously disagree? I don't believe it does the creditabilty of this poll any good when statements like this are posted.

[the elk]

We can not allow the Greens to have any sway with this issue. They are irrational and a destructive organisation, ironically the antithesis of what their members purport to be.

I think as a community we should be instead debating how to put a stop to commercial netting, particularly in the hawkesbury. They are killing the river, yet the state govt seems oblivious to it... MUPPETS!

Forget marine parks and sanctuaries and exclusion zones and all of that. Lets debate the real issue that will deprive future generations of the enjoyment we receive today - ban the nets.

The Elk

[Mickeydub]

Ive Voted, seems we have a long way to go, to cover off all our menbers...

[neilm]

The caveat that needs to be added is that any Marine Park is established based on scientific data collected within the region - not anecdotal and non-scientifc evidence hearsay the current parks are based on.

Edited December 16, 2008 by neilm

[tuffy]

Question 1 - NO

question 2 - YES

Cheers, Tuffy

[Faulks]

voted

[Muddy]

I've done my bit guys. We'll get there, just keep encouraging all!!!

Cheers,

Muddy