Sign in to follow this  
rexaway1234

Know your vote this month's election if you dont want our entire coast SHUTDOWN!

Recommended Posts

KNOW WHO TO NOT VOTE FOR IN THE ELECTION THIS MONTH UNLESS YOU WANT THE ENTIRE COAST LOCKED DOWN TO FISHING

We need to spread this to as many people as possible


NSW Opposition Leader LABOR Luke Foley’s fishing policy. Yes, the Libs and Nats have been disappointing. But if this extremist greenie nutbag takes control of state parliament, we’re done for:

++++++++++++++++
Subject: Thank you for your email regarding recreational fishing in NSW

NSW has nearly 800,000 adult recreational fishers, they take part in a healthy outdoor activity that brings themselves and the State great benefits. Labor has always actively encouraged recreational fishing and we have a strong record of introducing policies and programs to promote fishing, fish stocks and facilities and safety.

Recreational fishing brings much more than just economic benefit but on its own the economic impact of recreational fishing is significant estimated at more than $3.4 billion in economic output and over 14,000 full time equivalent jobs.

Labor in Government introduced the recreational fishing licence fee and with it Labor was able to create all of NSW’s recreational fishing havens, invest in habitat protection and improvement including in inland waterways, introduce artificial reefs and fish aggregation devices, improve facilities and infrastructure for fishing across the state, undertake record stocking programs along with a range of other initiatives like safe fishing and ‘get hooked’.

Labor has consistently invested in the future of fishing as well as the current. We recognise that having plenty of fish available for recreational fishing means we have to protect and improve habitat and put in place scientifically based bag limits and sometimes restrictions to ensure long term stocks. We also value our commercial fishing industry and recognise that it must be able to have a long term viable future as well – not everyone can catch their own fish and NSW people should be able to get quality fresh fish at shops, markets or at the local fish and chip shop.

We also all have an obligation to protect our marine environment, marine parks play a role in that but Labor also recognises that the health of our marine environment relates to many other things including run off into our estuaries, development and many other activities. Labor values marine parks but we also know that protecting vital fisheries from industrial pollution or oil slicks is just as important.

Office of The Hon. Luke Foley MLC
NSW Opposition Leader
Shadow Minister for Infrastructure
Shadow Minister for the Environment
Shadow Minister for Western Sydney
PH: (02)9230 2310 FAX: (02)9230 3355

post-16878-0-12594500-1425807697_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They did ban commercial fishing of Port Botany. Is that Bad?

And how's the fishing up in Port Stephens? Isn't that a marine park.

Might be better to investigate and find out the details, before we paint the devil onthe wall.

And would such a marine park stop trawlers getting into Pitt water? I heard many complaints of angler, about poor fishing after the trawlers came in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labor has announced they will introduce a marine park for Sydney. They don't tell you the details, cameldownunder,

until it's to late to mount much opposition. Are you implying that there will be better angling because of a marine park,

with your references to Port Stevens and theoretical trawling bans in Pittwater ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest no one

Port Stephens has marine parks and is a fishing Mecca! Do you really think they would ban Rec fishing all up the eastern coast of nsw?

More likely a ban on commercial, long liners, netting etc. I think you're being very sensitive about an issue which isn't really confirmed or researched. The image you've posted isn't an official Labour image so I wouldn't take it as 100% true.

I'd think it would be better to get actual info before continuing this discussion... Labour aren't the evil monsters people make them out to be, this story has more than likely been blown out of proportion by the negative end of the world people, I really don't think labour are that stupid!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Port Stephens has marine parks and is a fishing Mecca! Do you really think they would ban Rec fishing all up the eastern coast of nsw?

More likely a ban on commercial, long liners, netting etc. I think you're being very sensitive about an issue which isn't really confirmed or researched. The image you've posted isn't an official Labour image so I wouldn't take it as 100% true.

I'd think it would be better to get actual info before continuing this discussion... Labour aren't the evil monsters people make them out to be, this story has more than likely been blown out of proportion by the negative end of the world people, I really don't think labour are that stupid!

30% of NSW waters are marine parks. Usually with at least 20% so called green zones (no fishing commercial or recreational). Not satisfied with this it is offiical Labor policy to bring in one for Sydney - it is confirmed.

Port Steven's was a fishing mecca before the marine parrk - it is hardly likely it is more of one now. In fact anglers tend to avoid areas hosting a marine park, eg research done by Tim Lynch on recreational effort in the Jervis Bay marine park has shown a huge drop in rec fishing effort since the park was established, eg the fishing effort in Feb 2009 was 88% less than in Feb 2000!

It's not likely you will see better fishing either. Eg there have only been modest increasing in fish no's inside green zones in the Bateman's Bay marine park (remember that these areas are lost to fishermen). Likewise the controversial 33% green zones on the GBR don't appear to have led to an overall increase in fish numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Port Steven's was a fishing mecca before the marine parrk - it is hardly likely it is more of one now.

In fact anglers tend to avoid areas hosting a marine park,

Eg there have only been modest increasing in fish no's inside green zones in the Bateman's Bay marine park

Might be, that the idea behind marine park, is to preserve exisiting fishing. I heard it so many times, from older fisho's, how great fishing was 20 years ago. If I want my son to have any chance in catching something decent in 10 years, I have to agree to a limitation now.

For the avoiding part, maybe the people avoiding the place are not informed enough of where the no-fishing-zones are, and want to avoid fines. Get a map, study the map, and you can avoid the fines.

So there have been modest increases in Bateman's bay. I think modest increases are much much better then severe decreases.

More people will access the water, from the shore, from boats. The people in charge need to be proactive.

You don't want run out of fish, like the Koalas did run out of trees. Do you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Might be, that the idea behind marine park, is to preserve exisiting fishing. I heard it so many times, from older fisho's, how great fishing was 20 years ago. If I want my son to have any chance in catching something decent in 10 years, I have to agree to a limitation now.

For the avoiding part, maybe the people avoiding the place are not informed enough of where the no-fishing-zones are, and want to avoid fines. Get a map, study the map, and you can avoid the fines.

So there have been modest increases in Bateman's bay. I think modest increases are much much better then severe decreases.

More people will access the water, from the shore, from boats. The people in charge need to be proactive.

You don't want run out of fish, like the Koalas did run out of trees. Do you?

The researchers didn't show an overall increase in fish nos, just some increases in green zones relative to fished areas. Remember that green zones tend to displace fishing pressure. As one of the reasons for the modest results they cited the light fishing pressure/ effectiveness of existing traditional fisheries regulations. This all goes against you theory of "severe declines' without marine parks.

Edited by billfisher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest no one

Look, realistically... Labour are not going to put a total ban on fishing in nsw, that's absurd to assume that!

It wouldn't just effect the anglers, but too many business would shut down, boat brokers, marine repairs, tackle shops, bait shops, bait manufacturing places... It wouldn't happen! Simple!!!

Although putting a further ban on commercial fishing in these areas would see a lot less people out of work.

Look this is all speculation... Until there's a real report on it then it's hardly even worth debating!

Alternatives are tighten up the bag limits again... A great idea if they invest in people to check catches at the ramps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alternatives are tighten up the bag limits again... A great idea if they invest in people to check catches at the ramps.

Been fishing for ( only ) 5 years with a boat, and NEVER been checked at the RAMP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest no one

How easy would it be to hire 2 people to check all catches at ramp? If there's a refusal then cancel the boat rego... It would be so easy!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How easy would it be to hire 2 people to check all catches at ramp? If there's a refusal then cancel the boat rego... It would be so easy!!!

Wouldn't I love to see that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeez,people have short memories-have a look at the old posts regarding the introduction of the Bateman's Bay Marine Park by Labour-very illuminating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The posts are one thing but if you have a look at the restricted areas it's not that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of political preference, marine parks should not apply to recreational fisherman until a few other critical issues are sorted by our so called leaders.

1) The most common fish that are targeted are migratory (snapper, kingfish, tuna, marlin, mahi mahi and even bream). Restricting a recreational fisherman from targeting say, kingfish which may inhabit a sanctuary zone for several weeks, only to be slaughtered like lambs by a commercial drop liner when they move on is kind of pointless. Perhaps we should look at closed seasons during breeding like they do in South Australia. Bream are such an example - which congregate at river openings at certain times of year to spawn. At this time the population is concentrated and full of eggs and very vulnerable to exploitation.

2) The current bag limits and size limits are not regulated. Now, obviously there are laws but I fish at least once a week and in the past 8 years I have been checked 2 times!!!! More needs to be done to enforce current regulations as at the moment the fishery is really 'self regulated'

3) What the hell is the point of having marine parks when our government (both labor and liberal) would allow a foreign owned super trawler to operate in Australian waters if not for mass public outcry. I suppose the right economic figure will always outweigh the need to conserve our environment

We need to employ conservation techniques which have science related to specific species of fish (not just the little colourful wrass which stay on the same reef their entire life that the greenies like to look at when diving). We need to enforce current regulations and not have double standards for commercial operations the minute a few dollars are on the table!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1) The most common fish that are targeted are migratory (snapper, kingfish, tuna, marlin, mahi mahi and even bream). Restricting a recreational fisherman from targeting say, kingfish which may inhabit a sanctuary zone for several weeks, only to be slaughtered like lambs by a commercial drop liner when they move on is kind of pointless. Perhaps we should look at closed seasons during breeding like they do in South Australia. Bream are such an example - which congregate at river openings at certain times of year to spawn. At this time the population is concentrated and full of eggs and very vulnerable to exploitation.

2) The current bag limits and size limits are not regulated. Now, obviously there are laws but I fish at least once a week and in the past 8 years I have been checked 2 times!!!! More needs to be done to enforce current regulations as at the moment the fishery is really 'self regulated'

3) What the hell is the point of having marine parks when our government (both labor and liberal) would allow a foreign owned super trawler to operate in Australian waters if not for mass public outcry. I suppose the right economic figure will always outweigh the need to conserve our environment

We need to employ conservation techniques which have science related to specific species of fish (not just the little colourful wrass which stay on the same reef their entire life that the greenies like to look at when diving). We need to enforce current regulations and not have double standards for commercial operations the minute a few dollars are on the table!

I totally agree with you. You have put down more important issues then the marine parks itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we have more to worry about with marine parks than some of the non issues mentioned.

Eg the rec take of kingfish (and a lot of other popular species) is similar to the commercial take in

NSW and the kingfish are recovering quite well.

ABARE have looked at compliance by rec fishermen and have found it to be quite high. Fisheries also

rely on tip offs and checks on fish shops and markets for black market fish.

The supertrawler is only allowed to take the quota set by AFMA and at only 7.5% of the stock is actually

very conservative. We have had a successful smal pelagic fishery for years which takes more from a

smaller area in the form of the sardine (pilchard) fishery.

Edited by billfisher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest no one

The super trawler is only allowed to take 7.5% but that doesn't include the juvenile fish it wipes out which in fairness is a boat load of waste itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of political preference, marine parks should not apply to recreational fisherman until a few other critical issues are sorted by our so called leaders.

1) The most common fish that are targeted are migratory (snapper, kingfish, tuna, marlin, mahi mahi and even bream). Restricting a recreational fisherman from targeting say, kingfish which may inhabit a sanctuary zone for several weeks, only to be slaughtered like lambs by a commercial drop liner when they move on is kind of pointless. Perhaps we should look at closed seasons during breeding like they do in South Australia. Bream are such an example - which congregate at river openings at certain times of year to spawn. At this time the population is concentrated and full of eggs and very vulnerable to exploitation.

2) The current bag limits and size limits are not regulated. Now, obviously there are laws but I fish at least once a week and in the past 8 years I have been checked 2 times!!!! More needs to be done to enforce current regulations as at the moment the fishery is really 'self regulated'

3) What the hell is the point of having marine parks when our government (both labor and liberal) would allow a foreign owned super trawler to operate in Australian waters if not for mass public outcry. I suppose the right economic figure will always outweigh the need to conserve our environment

We need to employ conservation techniques which have science related to specific species of fish (not just the little colourful wrass which stay on the same reef their entire life that the greenies like to look at when diving). We need to enforce current regulations and not have double standards for commercial operations the minute a few dollars are on the table!

Totally agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The super trawler is only allowed to take 7.5% but that doesn't include the juvenile fish it wipes out which in fairness is a boat load of waste itself.

Are you talking about bycatch? The way the target fish school in mid water means that there is likely to be very little bycatch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I received that exact copy of email after contacting the NSW Opposition Leader while trying to figure out who to vote for. None of my specific questions were even attempted to be answered. While Labor have yet to release any specific details on fishery policies, I am 100% sure rec fishing will not be banned in that ridiculous map showing most of Sydney included while leaving the Hawkesbury to cop the absolute commercial hiding that it does now.

A rec fishing ban of that size is not only not viable it is so unlikely that I have never taken its proposal of having any serious chance of happening, Even if Labor win the election.

Where have there been any specifics on rec fishing being banned in these areas? And I mean specific detail showing where banning will take place and what the banning will actually entail. Not just a map with shaded areas not detailing what is even being banned (Hopefully just commercial nets!). I suppose if they get in they could potentially make lockouts afterwards but I still can't see mass rec lockouts occur especially when they recognise our economic contribution to the state which just happens to be vastly bigger than the commercial sector. Imagine the uproar?? Rec fishing has also proven to be sustainable if size limits are adhered to.

A lot of scare mongering with no actual rec ban facts is what im seeing.

Don't get me wrong I personally have never voted Labor in my life, However am open to change particularly if any government is willing to take the commercial pressure of the Hawkesbury and let the system rebuild. Current NSW government have 'recognised' Mulloway stocks are screwed and done NOTHING besides make a rec minimum size limit increase while netting flogs the breeding stock and prawn trawling does its best to collapse the juvenile stocks.

Something needs to be done and I for one can't wait to see the nets out of the Hawkesbury and Pittwater. We need to look at countries like the USA and what they have done with important species such as white sea bass where they have put in place actual restrictions to allow the population to rebuild despite upsetting the commercial sector. Something of that nature clearly needs to be done with Mulloway in NSW. Currently our fishery is run more like that of a 3rd world country allowing fragile estuaries to be hit so hard with nets.

Edited by AGP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size limits on mulloway also apply to the the pros AGP. The rec take of mulloway is actually 5 times the pro take,

so it might not be a good idea to use phrases like flogging and collapse to describe the latter. Fisheries also are trying

to mitigate the bycatch from trawlers. Places like the Hawkebury weren't done any favours by the establishment of the

State's 30 rec fishing havens which have tended to displace the commercial effort. Note though the government is

adopting all of the main recommendations of the Steven's report which will include the buy out of a lot of commercial

licences. Even then NSW imports 92% of it's seafood and the harvest rate is many orders of magnitude below the world

average for fisheries - hardly third world management.

Regarding Labor's policy of a marine park for Sydney it's not surprising that they are keeping quiet about the actual zoning -

it's hard to oppose the concept if it is kept general and unspecific to start with. If it takes the form of other NSW marine parks

then there will be 20% no fishing zones.

As to the relative economic benefit of rec fishing verses commercial fishing the former is merely in the form of discretionary

spending. Would less be spent if there were a few less fish around or would it be spent on some other recreation anyway?

Edited by billfisher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The size limits on mulloway also apply to the the pros AGP. The rec take of mulloway is actually 5 times the pro take,

so it might not be a good idea to use phrases like flogging and collapse to describe the latter. Fisheries also are trying

to mitigate the bycatch from trawlers. Places like the Hawkebury weren't done any favours by the establishment of the

State's 30 rec fishing havens which have tended to displace the commercial effort. Note though the government is

adopting all of the main recommendations of the Steven's report which will include the buy out of a lot of commercial

licences. Even then NSW imports 92% of it's seafood and the harvest rate is many orders of magnitude below the world

average for fisheries - hardly third world management.

Regarding Labor's policy of a marine park for Sydney it's not surprising that they are keeping quiet about the actual zoning -

it's hard to oppose the concept if it is kept general and unspecific to atart with. If it takes the form of other NSW marine parks

then there will be 20% no fishing zones.

As to the relative economic benefit of rec fishing verses commercial fishing the former is merely in the form of discretionary

spending. Would less be spent if there were a few less fish around or would it be spent on some other recreation anyway?

Fair call mate, We are all bound to have different opinions but I would like to reply and explain my thinking a little more.

I am aware that the commercial sector also have the 70cm minimum rule apply to them however the 10 fish by-catch allowance of fish under 70cm is a real disappointment and not enough of a deterrent for the gill netters.

A senior Fisheries official explained to me that the 70cm minimum size was put in place to specifically deter the commercial sector from targeting Mulloway. Allowing the 10 fish by-catch of under 70cm I and many others believe is just a band aid style action and not enough to protect a species that Fisheries admit is in fast decline and in need of recovery for a positive future outcome.

As far as that whole rec's taking 5-1 Mulloway volume compared to the commercials I believe this is a seriously poor reflection of the true state of things. A close friend of mine has worked both in the prawn trawl fishery and also had some experience in estuary netting along with working on off shore commercial boats in NSW.

We got talking and he said that while obviously the commercial operators want a long term healthy fishery, He witnessed some pretty shocking by-catch that is a very grey area in regards to comparing who takes more stock. At times vast numbers of juvenile Mulloway so small they were hard to identify were taken. These were discarded as rubbish fish or wastage and not recorded as an official Mulloway take. When a situation like this occurs how can Fisheries determine this 5-1 claim?

Do you think by-catch like this is some rare event?? Do you also think all Mulloway too small tossed back dead are recorded with accurate numbers passed onto Fisheries?

A recent article such as this http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/fisheries-confirms-jewie-bycatch would indicate this is a State wide problem and a major contributor to future generations of Mulloway stock.

I completely agree that neighbouring rec havens have created more pressure on places such as the Hawkesbury and this is a shame. However it is now up to NSW Fisheries to actually manage the problem rather than continue doing the same thing that clearly isn't working. That is why I mentioned a 3rd world style management when they know full well and report that the stock is in trouble, Yet continue managing it in a way that just sees more of a decline in stock. It is not proactive management and in need of a major change. To me the 70cm minimum size increase was not anywhere close to being serious about rebuilding the stock. All of the techniques that contributed to the decline are still happening. Maybe we will need to get to a point where this is a total no take period for the species. I'm sure many guys who actually seriously target the species would welcome such a recovery period. Obviously the commercials would not like this..

Lastly if you have time please read the following written by a Hawkesbury Jew angler that has allegedly caught more big Jew than anyone in the country. He has written extensive detail from a period of 1960-2012. He tells a story going back decades of what the fishing was once like in the region, Plus what it is like now. Learning from people who have witnessed the decline first hand is hard to beat.

http://yaffacdn.s3.amazonaws.com/live/fishing/files/dmfile/Broken-Bay-Mulloway-Original1.doc

Yes recs have contributed in a major way especially in years gone by but now that there is a recognised problem, A more serious action plan needs to be in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like us legitimate recreational fisherman actually have the power to make some serious change, but don't realise what we are capable of. I think that it's high time we flexed our muscles. Imagine if we ceased spending our hard earned $$$ on just fishing licenses alone, let alone the greater fishing industry. I think it would be a matter of weeks before our demands for a crackdown on both commercial and recreational fishing were met. I am of the opinion that the majority of fishing license holders not only respect the size and bag limits, but actually catch and release a significant proportion of fish which they could legally keep. Its the ones without licenses that have no regard for the size and bag limits. Although admittedly that's just the instances I have witnessed personally. It may require some short term pain for everyone, but I think the stocks would replenish in a very short time. This would mean better quality fishing for everyone. Both commercial and recreational fishing would flourish. Everyone would spend shorter sessions on and getting to the water if the density of fish increased. This would cause less pollution from boats and cars etc, which in turn would increase the fish numbers again. Wouldn't it be nice if there was a snowball effect for something positive to do with the environment for a change.

Anyhow just some food for thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Labor have just announced if elected they will declare Sydney Harbour a permanent recreational fishing haven. No lockouts or the like mentioned. Unfortunately the coalition have not yet released any information on their stance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65,211
    • Total Posts
      523,434