4 Mil , Marine Parks & I.mc On Radio

[Geoff]

I posted this under another topic but thought it may be of interest as a seperate subject

A few comments were made a few weeks back by the Chairman of the Trust Fund.

There is currently $4,000,000 now available for further buy outs

Inittally buy outs will be on a volentry basis. Not sure I agree with that.

The loop hole where dorment or low value liences appears to have been pluged as all transfers / sales need to be first approved by the goverment

A bigger threat is not the pro's but the ever increasing number of Marine Parks.

Those pushing that wagon argue M.P's will only cover 20% of the waterways. The problem is it is 80% of the popular fishing spots.

The flow on then becomes greater pressure on the remaining 20%.

As a side aspect I understand The NSW Minister , Mr McDonald will be on 2SM (1269) for an hour , Sunday 16/10/05 , 6.00 - 7.00 AM

Geoff

[kevvie]

properly researched and debated MP's seem as an ideology a positive step forward. Trouble is that the rec sector seem to be excluded or at the very least muffled in their voice. The arbitrary nature of thier selection process is what frustrates me most of all.

I think that a sector as large as the rec fishing sector is we should unite as a voice against this. Problem is that unless it affects us personally we seem to sit idle by and let govt. take thier course.

[Guest Jocool]

I think that a sector as large as the rec fishing sector is we should unite as a voice against this.

71146[/snapback]

Tell us how that can be achieved, and I will be the first to put my hand up!

Historically, rec fishos are a very apathetic bunch. Like you said, if it doesnt affect us directly, we don't give a stuff!

You mention that the idealogy behind MP's is good...I agree...But where it all falls down is the positioning of these MP's and how they want to manage them. Whats the point of having a MP in a particular area, but you allow tracts of it to still be exploited by the pro sector?

[Guest bluecod]

Kevvie,

A properly researched and informed MP doesn't exist - they are only as good as the information fed to them by the beauraucracy who are guided by policy and there own personal interpretation of it - Fisheries are facing the same battle as NPWS - those who are for commercialisation and the rabid green element that wants to stop all public use of the resource. There is no mid-stream.

Tasmania had a problem with the introduction of imported salmon species and through a long, drawn out battle, 2 or 3 individuals managed to put a stop to the importation of salmonoid species into that state for the benefit of all rec and commercial fisheries.

One of the blokes involved in that battle was awarded an OAM [Order of Australia Medal] for his services to recreational angling and has volunteered his services to assist NSW anglers to obtain a similar result.

The two major issues are complacency and the lack of unification amongst the recreational fishing groups - if the unification issue can be resolved, there is a chance for rec anglers to be a very powerful resource that any MP would not chance their electorate against.

There are extremely well educated, informed and respected fishermen currently working towards the rec fishing interest but they do not have the backing of a unified rec fishing community.

I might add that the pro fishermen have managed to do it and employ very well heard lobbyists who work on their behalf.

Who has spare time to devote [in a dedicated form] to the recreational angling cause? This would mean self funding and a lot of time spent in research and public relations in an attempt to bring together the disjointed rec angling forum into a major unified body capable of challenging the commercial fishing interest.

10 or 20 supporters could do it, but if 30 or 40 dedicated anglers push the barrow for long enough amongst the various fishing interests and clubs then a result could be achieved. No promises and its probably a long shot, but is your fishing lifestyle worth it??

[Geoff]

Tell us how that can be achieved, and I will be the first to put my hand up!

Historically, rec fishos are a very apathetic bunch. Like you said, if it doesnt affect us directly, we don't give a stuff!

You mention that the idealogy behind MP's is good...I agree...But where it all falls down is the positioning of these MP's and how they want to manage them. Whats the point of having a MP in a particular area, but you allow tracts of it to still be exploited by the pro sector?

71209[/snapback]

I get the impression that action is occuring slowly but surley. Over the past 5 years or so there has been a lot more activity via fishing mag's , web site forums & in particular the Rec Anglers Committe who control our $10 million PA from the licence fees.

One of the side benifits of the licence is that we now have an active group emerging with an increasing voice in the right places

There are regular meetings with goverment & other interested parties on topics effecting rec fishing.

The problem is , unless we are tuned into 2KY at 5.00 am on a Saturday most , perhaps all of the weeks activities are missed. :thumbdown

For example , representivies of the committe met this week at Parliment House with pro fisherman to discuss further buy outs.

Also , those pushing the Marine Park wagon are coming under increased pressure from local communities .

Bluecod hit the nail on the head when he wrote ,

"A properly researched and informed MP doesn't exist - they are only as good as the information fed to them by the beauraucracy who are guided by policy and there own personal interpretation of it "

In addition to the local comunity , this situation is now being activelly challenged , again by the rec anglers committe.

In referenc to your question, "

Tell us how that can be achieved, and I will be the first to put my hand up! "

I don't have a good answer other than to say, as more & more fisho's become aware of the events then the wave tends to increase in size & those who make the descissions will (should) take more notice.

It will be interesting to listen to the Minister next week on 2SM when he is questioned about these & other rec fishing issues.

Geoff

[Guest Jocool]

It will be interesting to listen to the Minister next week on 2SM when he is questioned about these & other rec fishing issues.

Geoff

71305[/snapback]

It WILL be interesting, but I'm afraid rather disheartening. Ronald Macdonald does not change his mind easily. And at this point, I get the impression that he has it in for the recreational sector.

I have had the dubious pleasure of attending a meeting with him. And I tell you....I came away from the meeting VERY worried and concerned.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Jocool

[Guest iain]

The Marine Parks are merely collateral used to buy the support of the greens. It's called politics. If you think the Government harbours some deep seated desire to spend millions of dollars developing Marine Parks for the benefit of the environment, think again.

So here's how the contenders line up:

In the red corner we have the Greens. They have global presence and a fanatical left wing following. They have the ear of the media and will do anything for publicity. They are are real a political force with real 'clout' and are an active, funded, motivated and noisy minority group prepared to play the political game as well as take direct action.

In the Blue corner we have The Fishing Party, represented by a couple of old fuddyduddys with nothing else to do. They are disorganised and for all intents and purposes invisible, have no media presence whatsoever, no money, pose no threat in any house of parliament at any level of Government and represent an apathetic constituency that couldn't be bothered defending their pastime.

Sorry for the bluntness but that's the cold hard reality of the situation and why we all get f**ked over.

[Geoff]

Iain In principial you may well be correct but would suggest , be via the Fishing Party whom I was not aware of until a week or so back or the representivies of the Rec Fishing Trust it is better than having nothing.

If we can put it in perspective , the pro association has been active since the early 1900's , the Greens , at a guess 20 - 30 years & Rec Fishing less than 5 so there is a lot of catching up to do.

For me , I'm just one of many fisho's out there trying to remain positive & encouraged that whilst the steps may be small they appear to be moving forward all be it a bit slower than we may like.

Regards

Geoff

Edited October 11, 2005 by Geoff

[Guest iain]

My criticisms of TFP are made in the context that at least they have got off their backsides and done something to protect our pastime but I’ll openly question their approach and execution.

As much as anoyone I'd love to see our cause defended but I simply don't reckon TFP are up to it. Here's why:

Fishing Questionnaire.

Again, it’s a noble intent but the execution is terrible. If research is to be objective, credible and valid there are strict principles and techniques that need to be adhered to. This ‘questionnaire’ is biased, amateurish, poorly formatted, poorly executed and the questions are loaded. If this were to be subjected to any form of scrutiny it would be torn to pieces.

It is damaging to the credibility of TFP and the recreational fishos they claim to represent. The results and the exercise as a whole is a complete waste of time and will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Agenda

My main criticism of The Greens is that they use the facade of the environment to promote their radical left wing agenda. This explains why they have policy position on the Iraq war, education, industrial relations, taxation etc.

I’d love TFT to explain the following from their mission statement:

“To pursue the need to lower taxes and make sure foreign owned companies pay appropriate Australian Taxes.”

And:

“To have educational facilities available to all Australians, with an emphasis on work and social skills and environmental care”

Why the f**k do a fishing party have policies on tax and education? TFP are a SINGLE ISSUE PARTY asking for my primary vote and as such they should ONLY become involved in issues specifically relating to fishing and stay the hell out of everything else. I don’t want a bunch of antiquated fishos determining policy on these matters thank you very much.

Website

The ‘temporary’ website (which has been there for years) is poorly designed and pretty well breaks every rule in the book. It would take no time at all to tidy it up and make it look at least half professional.

Why can’t I join-up online? More to the point, how do you pay your fees or make a donation? Show me the link that clearly explains this. It takes no time to engage a bank to set up a merchant facility and payment gateway to accept credit card payments over the phone and online.

License

Why the fundamental opposition to the fishing tax? The real issue is the misappropriation of this revenue which is criminal. Again TFP has completely missed the point and show a fundamental lack of understanding in that most fisho’s don’t mind paying a modest fee IF it’s spent on initiatives that demonstrably improve the fishing.

Visibility

Where are you blokes? I’m prepared to bet that if I randomly approached an ‘average’ fisho, there would be a 75% chance they have never heard of TFP. I read the Telegraph and SMH daily and I can’t recall seeing too many articles mentioning TFP.

[kevvie]

That's quite a lucid remark on the state of things, but entirely accurate. I hope that we are able to improve the visibility of TFP in the first instance so we can eventually have clout in policy making long term.

I must agree also that i only want to see TFP commenting on issues that directly affect it's nature.. leave other politics to the pawns.

[bung]

on the topic of marine parks there has been extensive discussion here: http://s8.invisionfree.com/Sportfish_Extre...hp?showforum=32

(sorry if the link is offensive Ken, far too much info to copy over).

a group has been formed called $%^&* with the objective of banding together all the isolated local fisho groups along the NSW coast. it is still early days for this group, although things are slowly getting organised. the guy heading this is Rod Burston, he is working on this full time. if anyone wants his contact details let me know.

the local Forster group from what I understand is being fairly active in lobbying against the MP. so are groups in Port Mac area.

[BOB_SMITH]

Reply to Iain

My criticisms of TFP are made in the context that at least they have got off their backsides and done something to protect our pastime but I’ll openly question their approach and execution.

Iain. Seeing you write so well what about rectifying things by

a) Donating money

Provide organisational skills

c) Contributing your obvious literary skills

d) Generally helping out

e) Convince 20,000 dedicated fishos to pay just $22.00 for a 3 yr membership

f) Help pick up all the rocks thrown, from the safety of the bar stool politics

Now lets all be critical and present the facts:

You have the right to say and do what you please Iain. Anglers of this Nation are mostly common folk who hate getting screwed. The approach and amateurish execution is what started TFP off and that was the fishing tax final straw on a mismanaged resource. The Fishing license stinks and it has been like that since it’s inception and the 120 people that attended the very first TFP meeting in Newcastle deplored the idea and created the mandate to oppose it. You can rant and rave all you like but if you get your head out of Sydney and consider the whole concept of the process of getting this thing off the ground you will see that f% all support or ideas eventuated from Sydney and still does. This project was an idea started by a bunch of mug amateur fishos who were sick of getting screwed by politics and smart arsed so-called angler representatives who made money from the media commercial interest in fishing and are still doing it. Everybody criticizes and boo’s from the grandstand but nobody wants to play the game. The first initial period, TFP could not get any support because it was a ONE ISSUE PARTY about fishing. TFP was a hotly debated item on other chat sites long before it started here AND I MEAN PAGES OF ARGUMENTS. Don’t give me any crap about nobody doing anything or trying to be noticed, TFP was promoted everywhere by piles of press and news releases which I have to say was not picked up by Sydney media but most other areas have supported us. I am sorry you were asleep as many others were as well. Mostly as it is stated here “nobody was prepared to get up off their arse” But the supporters acknowledged the reasons behind it all. You are right when you say it’s all-political and I would even go as far and say underhanded if not conspiracy based against recreational fishers because it is all about votes.

As much as anyone I'd love to see our cause defended but I simply don't reckon TFP are up to it. Here's why:

Is this a case of “as long as somebody else is trying to do something” we will just condemn. The ‘FUDDYDUDDIES IS A BIT MUCH Iain don’t you think. Our blokes have never said they could walk on water have they.

Fishing Questionnaire.

Again, it’s a noble intent but the execution is terrible. If research is to be objective, credible and valid there are strict principles and techniques that need to be adhered to. This ‘questionnaire’ is biased, amateurish, poorly formatted, poorly executed and the questions are loaded. If this were to be subjected to any form of scrutiny it would be torn to pieces.

Please enlighten the readers on how “terrible this is” because there have been many good comments in the survey responses

It is damaging to the credibility of TFP and the recreational fishos they claim to represent. The results and the exercise as a whole is a complete waste of time and will accomplish absolutely nothing.

Lets start on the survey: You filled one in Iain. Why??? Are your answers biased??

The survey is trying to get the honest opinion of anglers on the RFL and some other basic statistics on the person filling it in. It is not an in-depth fishing survey and never was intended so and is no different in direction to any other survey put out by government/fisheries. How does TFP survey differ from the Fisheries bag and size survey?? How can any survey, not be interpreted by some as biased?? A simple yes or no cannot be biased as long as in an overall program there is information in addition to what has been previously advertised by others is made known. (never known to be done by government spin doctors) Bias is somewhat eliminated. Please highlight a question or questions to prove your point.

The survey has been formatted to a proven evaluation computer system program that has been used many times before by competent users. As an aside, so far over 90% want a better and fairer financial contribution system rather than the fishing tax (RFL). That is in line with what TFP has been told since inception. The Marine Park question has a varied response so how do you call that biased. Amateurish or not the results will be used and until the ‘NON AMATEURS DO THEIR BIT WE HAVE TO MANAGE WITH WHAT WEV’E GOT”. What are you doing

Agenda

My main criticism of The Greens is that they use the facade of the environment to promote their radical left wing agenda. This explains why they have policy position on the Iraq war, education, industrial relations, taxation etc.

Are you saying that the tree huggers no longer hug trees and have progressed from the rent a crowd hippy status to getting 20% of the vote all in 15 yrs with major parties chasing their preference deals!!!!!!!. TFP in Qld stopped the greens from getting ANOTHER SENATOR IN THE HOUSE. WHOOPEE

I’d love TFT to explain the following from their mission statement:

“To pursue the need to lower taxes and make sure foreign owned companies pay appropriate Australian Taxes.”

And:

“To have educational facilities available to all Australians, with an emphasis on work and social skills and environmental care”

Why the f**k do a fishing party have policies on tax and education? TFP are a SINGLE ISSUE PARTY asking for my primary vote and as such they should ONLY become involved in issues specifically relating to fishing and stay the hell out of everything else. I don’t want a bunch of antiquated fishos determining policy on these matters thank you very much.

Wake up Iain and understand how the Senate works. TFP if ever one was elected would not just turn up and vote on a fishing matter out of the blue would it. How would you direct or expect the party to vote on other issues that take up the majority of Senate time. Oh Madame President we can’t vote on that because we are only a one issue party. Your statement is foolish so get real. At some time or other the party would have to discuss other matters that effect anglers other than fishing. Anyway fishing does not just encompass catching fish does it. Any candidate who publicly stated that they were a one issue person would not get much support.

Website

The ‘temporary’ website (which has been there for years) is poorly designed and pretty well breaks every rule in the book. It would take no time at all to tidy it up and make it look at least half professional.

Yes I agree here Iain. The website is poor and it has been there too long and needs upgrading. Calls have been put out for assistance on this but after a few nibbles from capable persons it has failed. The one you see is a DYI site based in USA and is cheap and relatively easy to look after. The AGM will have this item on the agenda because our Qld branch have kicked off their website which is more professional. I confess to doing this site on the cheap just as a place for access information for people to read. Here’s the chance for someone to come on board and fix it, ANY TAKERS and who is paying for this.

Why can’t I join-up online? More to the point, how do you pay your fees or make a donation? Show me the link that clearly explains this. It takes no time to engage a bank to set up a merchant facility and payment gateway to accept credit card payments over the phone and online

Firstly the last time I checked it would cost $500 per month and $5000 software development, easy for a bank!!!!

If you understand how the State Electoral Commission wants membership forms filled in then it has to be done by hand in your own handwriting. Faxes. Copies. Emails are not accepted by them and the slightest discrepancy is knocked back. There is probably a method in their madness because it shits minor parties off with the paperwork and makes life more difficult for the volunteer secretariat.

You can download the appropriate form from the website and follow the directions Is that hard, or I can email forms out on request and simply fill in and return. Donations are simply just sent to the Head Office and a receipt is sent back. Is that too hard to read.

I would surely like to see the party at a stage of online banking and I would envisage that in the magical future when all the experts come on board.

License

Why the fundamental opposition to the fishing tax? The real issue is the misappropriation of this revenue which is criminal. Again TFP has completely missed the point and show a fundamental lack of understanding in that most fisho’s don’t mind paying a modest fee IF it’s spent on initiatives that demonstrably improve the fishing

No RFL means no misappropriation of our funds. The RFL has not enhanced fishing. You are confusing allocation of funds, which can come from a variety of fairer sources. True expenditure from License trusts is hidden. Please show some facts to disprove this and show us how the RFL has improved fishing compared to having the same funds allocated from say the GST. Are you saying that only compulsory license holders are supporting the resource. I am saying that all benefactors and users should be supporting the financial management of the resource.

Sorry but there are a lot of unhappy forced license holders. The RFL needs a proper public debate. Lets lay ALL the cards on the table as we are trying to do with the survey. No more bullshit and lies and look at all the facts. TFP has never denied that ALL users should contribute to the management of the resource and will promote a fairer system that achieves that. Anything that can be related to fishing tax can just as easy be related to another source of income. The ones saying that by having a license gives them a sense of ownership are in fairy land.

The system now is jobs for the boys. The RFL has done bugger all to enhance fishing, it is the small percentage of funds collected and the rorted expenditure that has been promoted as enhancing the fishery, all in all the angler has been hoodwinked and so called representatives are letting it happen to boost egos.

Visibility

Where are you blokes? I’m prepared to bet that if I randomly approached an ‘average’ fisho, there would be a 75% chance they have never heard of TFP. I read the Telegraph and SMH daily and I can’t recall seeing too many articles mentioning TFP.

I will bet the SMH and the Daily Tele have a pile of paperwork from TFP that would keep you busy for a week. If you have any ideas or contacts with this media then the media job is yours.

We are just getting the media onside now because they actually ring for comments and interviews.

Bob Smith

One of the fuddy-duddies that doesn’t do anything.

[Guest iain]

Single Issue Party

You’re confusing two mutually exclusive issues. One is how you get support (i.e. votes) and the other is how you use your position to best effect once elected.

Bob, take me through your thought process when you say that by diversifying your policies you will somehow grow your support base. I have never seen a pastime with a more culturally, economically and socially diverse following. Most fisho’s can’t agree on fishing related issues let alone tax or education. By having crackpot policies on unrelated matters your will only serve to fragment and marginalise your support base not grow it.

Once elected the single issue party then prostitutes it’s Parliamentary vote on unrelated issues in exchange for favourable policy outcomes on the party’s core issue. It's about using the balance of power you hold to your best advantage. I never said you would abstain from voting on non core issues.

Media Exposure

I don’t care how many press releases you put out, I read the two major metropolitan newspapers every weekday and you are invisible. You might get a run in the Northern Star or the Bullamakanka Examiner but there’s a metropolis called Sydney which contains 25% of NSW anglers that don’t know you exist.

Fishing Questionnaire

It is terrible and I clearly stated why. If you wanted objective feedback from individuals why did you load the questions so strongly? If you were after qualitative feedback why so many yes/no answers? Yes/No’s are only useful for quantitative measures.

Is this a loaded question?:

35) Do you consider that the creation of recreational fishing havens is a pre-cursor and a payoff to reduce and soften the backlash from affected recreational anglers when massive coastal no fishing zones are created. Yes _ No _

eCommerce

I happen to know something about this and you can set up a payment gateway for a few hundred bucks and a monthly charge in the region of $50 which includes your first 300 transactions. $5k is bullshit.

License

I understand that the license is a con, just like petrol excise and the road levy in your rego. Despite this I maintain that the majority of fisho’s (including myself) will put up with that con IF the money is effectively channelled into worthwhile initiatives. This also explains why I currently don’t hold a license.

I have no doubt you and others in TFP are working hard, I just don't see the results. Jon Jenkins/Outdoor Recreation Party has been successful, I'm guessing as a result of a focused, strategically sound and results driven plan.

[Kingy]

Love this thread - heated debate - passionate views - politics, all we need now is beer and we've got a pub brawl yeeeeeehahhhhhhhh

Seriously though, on a slight tangent it would be great Iain if you could enlighten me on your stance when you get picked up for not having a licence. Do you fight it in court, cop it sweet? I'd possibly like to be a consciencious objector, but what is the ramifications?? I'm sure you've thought this out so your views would be good.

Cheers

Fence sitter for now

[Grantm]

What a hot topic. The good news is were all on the same side. Its this type of passion that will ultimately get a result.

Dont know a great deal about TFP except what ive read here, but I do know that its great to have a group who is prepared to do something and the efforts of Bob and our own Jocool need to be recognised even if huge results cant be seen yet.

I agree with Iain about the survey though, it was pretty loaded and lost a bit of credibilty to me. It was a good read with a lot of info but not what I expected in a survey. More like an information pack.

I only need to be asked one question. Do you want your licence funds to be used to buy out pro fishing licences as the main and first priority ? The answer is yes.

When our main NSW coastal waterways are protected from the slaughter i'll be happy.

I know im over simplifying the whole thing but this seems to be the biggest problem.

Bob, how can TFP help solve this issue. How do the funds get properly allocated so the pro's get bought out ? Whats the game plan ?

Iain remind me never to get in an arguement with you.

[Guest iain]

Unfortunately Grant, it's the core issues that seem to get lost and you are absolutely right in what you say. The pro's are the biggest single threat to the fishery and removing them from our estuaries is the number one priority. Everything else is secondary.

Believe it or not I support TFP which included handing out 'how to vote' cards for Joe last election. I think I might have even slung him a modest amount of cach to help with costs I can't remember.

[Geoff]

"" Quote "

License

Why the fundamental opposition to the fishing tax? The real issue is the misappropriation of this revenue which is criminal. Again TFP has completely missed the point and show a fundamental lack of understanding in that most fisho’s don’t mind paying a modest fee IF it’s spent on initiatives that demonstrably improve the fishing

True expenditure from License trusts is hidden. Please show some facts to disprove this and show us how the RFL has improved fishing compared to having the same funds allocated from say the GST.

The system now is jobs for the boys. The RFL has done bugger all to enhance fishing, it is the small percentage of funds collected and the rorted expenditure that has been promoted as enhancing the fishery, all in all the angler has been hoodwinked and so called representatives are letting it happen to boost egos.[/color]

Having a look around the Fisheries Web site came accross the Trust Fund Report 2003 / 2004. Would be interested to have pointed out where the "Misappropriation of this revenue" has occured. Perhaps there is an argument for misdirection but misappropriation ??? ..

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreation...fishing-fees-go

"True expenditure from License trusts is hidden." Where is it hidden , the list & accounting appears quite comprehensive.

"The RFL has done bugger all to enhance fishing" So what are you saying the buy out have been a waste of money???

"it is the small percentage of funds collected" . I would not call $10,000,000 PA a small percentage.

"same funds allocated from say the GST." Perhaps your correct but unlikely we would have the same expenditure visibility or perhaps the same ammount of income available annually

Why dose the Fishing Party have policies on tax and education? TFP are a SINGLE ISSUE PARTY asking for my primary vote and as such they should ONLY become involved in issues specifically relating to fishing and stay the hell out of everything else.

Iain I agree

Geoff

Edited October 13, 2005 by Geoff

[Guest iain]

Geoff,

Unfortunately the buyouts were largely a waste of money as the pro's were able to re-purchase latent licenses and resume their destructive practice. Maybe 'misappropriation' is not strictly speaking the most accurate term. 'Diabolical waste of money due to lack of attention to detail on the part of DPI' would probably be closer to the mark.

Buyouts should be the number one priority as long as there's no loophole allowing these mongrels to buy back into the trade.

[Guest Jocool]

Guys, if you think that you may vae some input into how TFP does things...Then go to their first AGM! That way you can see what they think, and have your say as well.

Its at....

NEWBOLDS BOWLING CLUB

Fifth St, Mayfield, Newcastle, NSW

Sunday 23rd October

9.30am to 5.00pm

There is a post that I put up a while ago to explain it all. CLICK HERE!

[Geoff]

Geoff,

Unfortunately the buyouts were largely a waste of money as the pro's were able to re-purchase latent licenses and resume their destructive practice. Maybe 'misappropriation' is not strictly speaking the most accurate term. 'Diabolical waste of money due to lack of attention to detail on the part of DPI' would probably be closer to the mark.

Buyouts should be the number one priority as long as there's no loophole allowing these mongrels to buy back into the trade.

Iain I don't think too many would agree it was waste of money when an additional 11 sites were converted to Rec only , in particular , for those in Sydney , Botany Bay.

The latent license issue has left a bad taste with Rec fisho's which I include my self . The situation occured several years ago , what happened , happened & we can't change the past. so suggest it's time to move on

From what I understand the loophole has been pluged.

If we want to bang the drum to a new tune then I will throw 2 items on the table.

** The fund currently supports 9 coastal & 6 inland Fishing officers costing approx $2.0 mill PA. On the surface this is good , the problem is , the revenue generated from fines goes to the State Goverement. This revenue should come back to the fund.

** As mentioned in my origional post the Trust Fund has just over $4.0 mill available for further buy outs

The plan appears to be to do buyouts on a volenter basis. To me this seem a waste of time as it will simply leave the "cake" in any given area to be split into larger portions & will do nothing to improve rec fishing.

The alternative , I think an area should be selected & all the licences be purchased.

Once that area has been converted then move onto the next.

TFP These sorts of items should be HIGH on your agenda not where the funds are comming from

Geoff

[zook2001]

One question Bob,where does the continual rants against the RFL leave anglers who support a RFL? Is the Fishing Party party or not,leaving aside the incompentence of the buyouts the fact is many anglers fought for the reintroduction of the RFL .

Regards Charlie

Edited October 14, 2005 by zook2001

[BOB_SMITH]

Single Issue Party

You’re confusing two mutually exclusive issues. One is how you get support (i.e. votes) and the other is how you use your position to best effect once elected.

I would like to test that out with a public debate ( if these questions are not loaded )

1) Would you vote for a single issue party i.e Fishing or 4wd.

2) Would you vote for a party without having a rough idea of how it stands in the community on other general issues.

3) What would expect from a party once it was elected

Bob, take me through your thought process when you say that by diversifying your policies you will somehow grow your support base. I have never seen a pastime with a more culturally, economically and socially diverse following. Most fisho’s can’t agree on fishing related issues let alone tax or education. By having crackpot policies on unrelated matters your will only serve to fragment and marginalise your support base not grow it.

Firstly, don’t confuse TFP as not primarily and firstly being about fishing.

Every argument I put up is about fishing or associated spinoffs. I challenge anybody to identify interviews or TFP documents that contradict that, other than having some policy wording in our statements and a few answers to other areas of core political nature in some radio interviews.

You hit the nail right on the head about getting rec fishos organised. As I heard somebody say “it is like herding cats”. My thought process is about fishing, fishing and fishing and I have never swayed from that. I live and breathe fishing and have done so for 40 yrs. My thought process also believes that by not showing our standing on issues other than fishing, people values of everyday living outshines the value of just fishing, even though they support the fishing ideas they give you a miss. Yes fishing is a culture but unfortunately other priorities prevail in the majority. Out of the supposedly 1 million anglers in NSW (I believe that is understated) less than 4% are organised and fully informed other than the purposely directed bureaucratic spin.

I have previously made election statements that if TFP was elected here in NSW, then the first priority was to set up a stakeholder advisory committee that would decide policy direction to be presented to parliament. Fishing or other.

Once elected the single issue party then prostitutes it’s Parliamentary vote on unrelated issues in exchange for favourable policy outcomes on the party’s core issue. It's about using the balance of power you hold to your best advantage. I never said you would abstain from voting on non core issues.

That surely works and imagine if TFP were in a Barnaby Joyce position in NSW parliament and with the above commitment of direction. The reference to not voting was more directed at the idea of having supporter backing on prior non-fishing statements.

Media Exposure

I don’t care how many press releases you put out, I read the two major metropolitan newspapers every weekday and you are invisible. You might get a run in the Northern Star or the Bullamakanka Examiner but there’s a metropolis called Sydney which contains 25% of NSW anglers that don’t know you exist.

Yes as a new tactic it has been suggested we sign up Kate Moss now she has some free time, and her half dressed might get us some attention. Does not having TFP on the front page of Sydney media (or even the back page) indicate anything other than fishing being politicised doesn’t warrant the attention or maybe other factions are in play. I don’t seem to be getting any sure-fire solutions on how to get that media attention from anybody. Anybody prepared to walk down Macquarie St naked carrying a rod (fishing) and a Fishing Party sign let me know.

Incidently, the Manly Daily Newspapers have had many articles on TFP with photos and most stories for as far back as 2003

Fishing Questionnaire

It is terrible and I clearly stated why. If you wanted objective feedback from individuals why did you load the questions so strongly? If you were after qualitative feedback why so many yes/no answers? Yes/No’s are only useful for quantitative measures.

Exactly. You still get to say yes or no which is binomial and this is what counts

Is this a loaded question? 35) Do you consider that the creation of recreational fishing havens is a pre-cursor and a payoff to reduce and soften the backlash from affected recreational anglers when massive coastal no fishing zones are created. Yes _ No _

Definitely not because you have the chance to say yes or no as the survey has shown. Saying and referencing the Marine Park/no fishing zones is fact not fiction. To me a loaded question would be > Do you want to pay a)$20 for an RFL or $50 for an RFL, NO AVENUE TO SAY NO TO ANY OF THEM.

eCommerce

I happen to know something about this and you can set up a payment gateway for a few hundred bucks and a monthly charge in the region of $50 which includes your first 300 transactions. $5k is bullshit.

Our Quote for front end development at mates rates was $5000 (secure gateway) Understand that the other SEO requirement slows the whole process. The handwritten form has to be received anyway so the only advantage would be quicker deposit and clearance. We can overcome the deposit part if we supply the account number for direct deposits or transfer of funds might be an alternative.

License

I understand that the license is a con, just like petrol excise and the road levy in your rego. Despite this I maintain that the majority of fisho’s (including myself) will put up with that con IF the money is effectively channelled into worthwhile initiatives. This also explains why I currently don’t hold a license.

Of course it is a con. Any other business that tried that on it’s customers would be investigated for possible misleading solicitation. That’s why there should be a better and fairer system. If it is a user pay system then there is something drastically wrong. (further explained in reply to Geoff below).

I have no doubt you and others in TFP are working hard, I just don't see the results. Jon Jenkins/Outdoor Recreation Party has been successful, I'm guessing as a result of a focused, strategically sound and results driven plan.

I do not intend to have a blue with Jon Jenkins but I challenge your statement. Firstly Jon has not been elected into parliament but rather slipped in because of a vacancy caused of shrouded ICAC investigations. ORP only gained election from masterminded preference deals from receiving only 7,000 odd votes, that no longer exists. Jon or ORP success will only be measured after the 2007 election. Also being in the system advantages any player.

The coming 2007 election will see most minor players going fishing and chasing fishing votes (any bets)

Bob Smith

[BOB_SMITH]

What a hot topic. The good news is were all on the same side. Its this type of passion that will ultimately get a result.

Dont know a great deal about TFP except what ive read here, but I do know that its great to have a group who is prepared to do something and the efforts of Bob and our own Jocool need to be recognised even if huge results cant be seen yet.

I agree with Iain about the survey though, it was pretty loaded and lost a bit of credibilty to me. It was a good read with a lot of info but not what I expected in a survey. More like an information pack.

Can you honestly answer any survey that doesn’t give you any prior information

I only need to be asked one question. Do you want your licence funds to be used to buy out pro fishing licences as the main and first priority ? The answer is yes.

Now that is a loaded question

What about what TFP originally proposed. Do you want the State Government (not anglers) to offer ALL the NSW Commercial fishos a buyout (and then place a TAC on the remaining)

When our main NSW coastal waterways are protected from the slaughter i'll be happy.

I know im over simplifying the whole thing but this seems to be the biggest problem.

Yes, there are many other factors that affect our fish stocks that everybody including anglers are avoiding (except TFP) Where was the angler outrage when all the big fish kills of ALL stock occurred on the north coast? Bugger all, forgotten about and will occur again.

Bob, how can TFP help solve this issue. How do the funds get properly allocated so the pro's get bought out ? Whats the game plan ?

There needs to be an honest Government commitment that gives a fair deal instead of this divide and conquer and hold to ransom tactic that is going on now. Iain said we are being conned, anglers recognise they are being conned so why is there not a revolt. I don’t believe that recreational species are under threat and I would go as far as saying there is evidence of plenty of stock. See any fishing mag that has a commercial interest in rec fishing. I believe that all this rhetoric and spin is just to get the angler voting attention and is governed by political agendas rather than any science or sense. As I said above why is it the responsibility of less than 50% of the recreational angler users to pay commercial fishermen compensation. It seems that there are a lot of benefactors from recreational fishing expenditure that are winners without any financial commitment to it’s management WHY?? In my opinion the pandering to the bureaucrats with the acceptance of this license just gives them more leeway to drop budgets and get more fees. What happens next review. The Government coffers are growing at your expense all the way to the bank. TFP promoted a game plan over a 10 yr period (would be 6yrs to go now)which had the latent licenses removed first at a cheap price (no room for deals or misdirected money)

Iain remind me never to get in an arguement with you.

I also will argue till the cows come home on this one

What about a public debate on camera and lets bring it all out on the table

Bob Smith

[BOB_SMITH]

Having a look around the Fisheries Web site came accross the Trust Fund Report 2003 / 2004. Would be interested to have pointed out where the "Misappropriation of this revenue" has occured. Perhaps there is an argument for misdirection but misappropriation ??? ..

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreation...fishing-fees-go

"True expenditure from License trusts is hidden." Where is it hidden , the list & accounting appears quite comprehensive.

Firstly I believe that anglers were hoodwinked when the statement “Administration costs would be capped at 10%” were blasted out.” Now that is interpretted as only collecting the money and nothing else. Headings were invented to disguise ‘Normal Administration costs” that most would believe as par for the course and were thought to be incorporated in the 10%.

Secondly, the statement that funds could be used to retire commercial fisherman was misleading AS no mention of borrowing $20 mil from treasury and anglers paying back interest for 15 yrs out of the trust was promoted. We had Blue Papers and White papers if I recall that did not mention the extra interest payable. I cite more Minister Obeid misleading statements>

To achieve the necessary reduction in commercial fishing adjustment to benefit recreational fishing, affected commercial fishers who have most of their fishing entitlements in a proposed recreational fishing area, and have catch history in that area, will be offered a compensation package. If too many fishers wanted to take the compensation package, then the fishing businesses bought would be those that offered the best value for money for the trust. It will be necessary to buy back sufficient businesses to ensure two things: firstly, that each recreational fishing area is implemented in full within the nominated time frame; and, secondly, to ensure that commercial fishing effort does not simply transfer from one area to another. For this reason the Government cannot guarantee that there will be no compulsory buy-backs of fishing entitlements, but we do guarantee that fair compensation will be paid for any fishing entitlements cancelled as part of this process.

The Government is proposing that the relevant fishers will initially be offered compensation at twice the value of the fishers' catch history, averaged across their best three consecutive years between the beginning of 1986 and the end of 1999. A fisher who wanted to accept this compensation offer would need to exit the fishery immediately, and could not continue to fish once they had been paid. An amount of up to $10,000 would also be available for retraining or relocation, and a further amount of up to $10,000 would be available for accelerated depreciation of their fishing equipment, such as boats and gear. Alternatively, if a fisher decides to continue fishing until the date when the changes are due to come into effect, the sunset date, the compensation package would be based on the market value of their fishing entitlements, along with the retraining and relocation, and accelerated depreciation payments. Where entitlements are cancelled under this part of the process, there will be a right of appeal relating to the amount of compensation to the Valuer-General and the Land and Environment Court. Hansard> 2/11/2000

The list and accounting shows a figure of expenditure. Looks fine because of the heading. Lets have a look at the breakdown of those expenses and see how much has gone to fund the department or better still lets see an audited statement of how much the department no longer has to find money for because anglers are now financing fisheries. I reference our question in the survey that points to there being 88% oncosts> that is the hidden expenses I refer to. My source on this is reliable that is why TFP has unsuccessfully called on the audited trust be made public with the breakdowns, not the internal/external departmental staff audit that you see.

"The RFL has done bugger all to enhance fishing" So what are you saying the buy out have been a waste of money???

No. I want to see how much of angler money has actually enhanced rec fishing compared to how much is collected. Following is what can be spent from the trust>

235 Recreational Fishing (Saltwater) Trust Fund

(2) There may be paid out of that Fund:

(a) the costs of taking measures to enhance recreational estuarine and marine fishing, and

( the costs of carrying out research into estuarine and marine fish and their ecosystems, and

© the costs of management and administration of recreational estuarine and marine fishing, and

(d) the costs of ensuring compliance with recreational estuarine and marine fishing regulatory controls, and

(e) the costs of consultative arrangements with recreational estuarine and marine fishers.

I SAY THAT THIS LEGISLATION IS OPEN TO ANY INTERPRETATION THE GOVERNMENT WANTS WHEN IT JUSTIFIES THE MONEY SPENT AND IS PART OF THE HIDDEN EXPENDITURE.

"it is the small percentage of funds collected" . I would not call $10,000,000 PA a small percentage.

I believe the trust fund is propping up budget shortfalls. Trust funds are supposedly invested to give a return to use in ongoing expenditure or maybe offset interest rates!!

The breakdowns of expenses will show how much of that 10 mil enhances recfishing.

"same funds allocated from say the GST." Perhaps your correct but unlikely we would have the same expenditure visibility or perhaps the same ammount of income available annually

Why not. If angler revolt at the ballot box occurred or stand up for your rights prevailed there is no reason this could not happen. Now anglers have shown weakness they have got you by the proverbials.

Why dose the Fishing Party have policies on tax and education? TFP are a SINGLE ISSUE PARTY asking for my primary vote and as such they should ONLY become involved in issues specifically relating to fishing and stay the hell out of everything else.

Iain I agree

As I have proclaimed Fishing is the main platform and there are many who disagree with your beliefs. Time will tell and I’m sure that as we grow this will either be the case or we will have to expand what core issues we would support.

Sorry for being long winded but you ask the questions and I will answer them when I can

Ask Joe about being a one issue candidate and whether there is enough support at a electorate level on fishing or are other core issues valuable. He has been there in the spotlight

Bob Smith

[BOB_SMITH]

One question Bob,where does the continual rants against the RFL leave anglers who support a RFL? Is the Fishing Party party or not,leaving aside the incompentence of the buyouts the fact is many anglers fought for the reintroduction of the RFL .

Regards Charlie

Charlie

I guess if you felt strongly enough you could donate $25-$200 to the grants and donation income file of the trusts. It all goes into the one bank account and the interest payments on the 20 mil could be paid off quicker. 12yrs instead of 15 yrs. Marine Park buyouts coming up, Marine Park Offices will need funding and compliance needs to be paid to keep you out.

Funnily enough not many survey respondents said there should be extra taxes to prop up the police force, why would that be do you reckon.

Bob Smith