fragmeister Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 38 minutes ago, PaddyT said: Respectfully Jim, I am going to have to disagree with you on this one- part of the problem is this- the lockout zones can be changed with a tick of a pen and I cant imagine that a Labor/Green govt wouldnt do exactly that. I will also add that as usual- we get absolutlely nothing in exchange for a loss in fishable area-no extra artificial reefs, no extra fisheries patrols - zip. This is a one sided "negotiation" , by filling in the survey and joining the FB page you will add weight to at least getting a substantial compromise. I too have nothing against marine parks persay- BUT i dont view rec fishing as a key "threatening process" - we are part of the solution when it comes to improving fish stocks and the general environment. Sure have lock out zones- but move them every 5 years (allowing stocks to locally replenish) and when they are lockouts- lock everyone out - divers/swimmers the lot. I think the idea that this proposal will stop here is wrong- the greens and anti's will want us shut down in as many places as they can. Now I am confused... Lockout zones are a problem because they can be changed at the tick of a pen but you propose another type of lockout zone which can be moved and presumably not changed at the tick of a pen? Moveable lock out zones are an interesting concept and perhaps they may help remediation of certain areas -I am not sure how you would administer that though. I believe that our collective position should be as you have mentioned, 1 million recreational fishermen are arguably of net benefit to the marine environment , but in addition, the science behind the lockouts has either not been provided or is questionable and , in relation to any existing marine park proposed, changes put up for community consultation should be clearly defined. BTW I have already registered my objection in every avenue I can think of. Cheers Jim 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddyT Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Fair call Jim- my suggestion of movable lockouts was simply to address that I am not against looking after our oceans and fish stocks but simply to illustrate that the way this has been done is simply to whack some lines on a map and exclude fishos because we "are a key threat", the real issues lie with commercial overfishing,habitat degredation and poor development plans in the creeks and tributries of the river systems that run to the sea. The science is very questionable thats for sure . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JewCraze Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, PaddyT said: The science is very questionable thats for sure ??? using questionable "science" is a common streak in modern day activists. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kracka Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Politics... Bunch of *insert something colourful*. Royce has listed really good main points. Hopefully we will see this proposition revoked. Here's to hoping anyway. Glad to see raiders are rebuting it and putting their voices out there. It's worth a shot. Fill out the online survey form if you haven't already. More and more of these marine conservation parks will keep popping up over time (seems to be a bit of a developing trend) and our angling spots will become more and more limited in the Sydney region. Personally I think these parks, although good for us to an extent, is overkill with each park addition now. Invertebrate no take zones are enough to significantly boost fishes food resources which support a larger and healthier population of fish. It's simple food chain mechanics. This in conjunction with reduced bag limits and the abolition of netting and trapping has certainly boosted fish numbers. I honestly question if this is more "conservation" or purely a nice little cover up for a revenue raising scheme. It would be nice for them to tackle pollution which decimates marine health and in term our health too. But nope...that will put too much of a dent in the government's pocket.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, Kracka said: . I honestly question if this is more "conservation" or purely a nice little cover up for a revenue raising scheme. Good points but I don't think it is a 'revenue raising scheme'. One of the main arguments against this is marine parks are not very cost effective. A lot of public money has to be spent on buy outs, additional administration/ enforcement and loss of revenue from taxes generated by fishing related industries/ economic activity. You can do more by tweaking traditional measures at practically zero cost. Edited August 23, 2018 by kingfishbig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kracka Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Yeah getting a bit carried away there with the revenue raising lol. Just can't quite get my head around the logic behind it all. I would like to see the stats and research they base these changes on. Might have another, more thorough read of the articles rather than a skim over. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingie chaser Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 9 hours ago, Berleyguts said: I don’t normally discuss politics but I do not want to be represented by a Fishers and Shooters party, or anything like that. I am a recreational sportfisherman, that’s all. I generally don’t give my vote to minor parties with narrow-minded goals, with no real plan for, or experience in running a state or country! Having said that, I wish both major parties would just focus on doing the jobs they were put there to do and stop squabbling and in-fighting over their damn leadership! Sorry Baz, I cant agree with you there. I always vote Shooters, fishers & farmers party even if they done have the experience to run a state or country! They are never going to get into a majority situation but we vote for them to be able to at least get a seat on the senate or anywhere so at least someone like the greens don't have the balance of power which is where all this shit tends to come from. I always vote SFFP #1 on the list & the rest down the page, all this preference crap can go to hell really & give the greens nothing!! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fragmeister Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 hours ago, PaddyT said: Fair call Jim- my suggestion of movable lockouts was simply to address that I am not against looking after our oceans and fish stocks but simply to illustrate that the way this has been done is simply to whack some lines on a map and exclude fishos because we "are a key threat", the real issues lie with commercial overfishing,habitat degredation and poor development plans in the creeks and tributries of the river systems that run to the sea. The science is very questionable thats for sure . Can't agree more. Ther are so many examples of fisheries bouncing back when commercial fishing is removed. Clearly, commercial fishing is the significant factor. The proposed protected areas inside Sydney harbour are virtually unfished for anything but Squid. The Chowder Head area, the east side of Shark Bay at Neilsen Park and I think the western side of Camp Cove. Presumably, they have all been identified as habitat areas needing protection and depleted in fish... but you rarely see any body fishing there except for squid. If there is a lack of biodiversity and fish numbers at these locations it more likely to be damage to the environment due to chemical runoff than fish being taken. Science, schmience I say! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, fragmeister said: Can't agree more. Ther are so many examples of fisheries bouncing back when commercial fishing is removed. Clearly, commercial fishing is the significant factor. Actually the rec take is as much or more than the commercial take for many popular species in NSW - so 'it's not us it's them' style arguments will be quickly seen through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckWild Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 I've joined the FB group and just looking at some of the comments, the biggest impediment to our cause are fishermen themselves. As a group, we are so fragmented that the other side will be rubbing their hands with glee. One poster sent a message to MP Felicity Wilson saying he hoped she died of stomach cancer. That'll do wonders for our cause?♂️?♂️ What we need is to formulate an articulate response (something like what luderick -angler posted) when filling out the surveys, so that we can all copy and paste, rather than shoot from the hip like Mr Stomach Cancer Guy Cheers Col 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekD Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) 21 minutes ago, kingfishbig said: Actually the rec take is as much or more than the commercial take for many popular species in NSW - so 'it's not us it's them' style arguments will be quickly seen through. Hi Kingfishbig, Just curious where you got your numbers from on the commercial versus recreational fishing takes. While I have found some (specifically Mulloway) I've been struggling to find concrete data. Is it data for a specific area or is it based on say the recreational anglers for the whole of NSW? I don't have the data but I fish a lot in my spare time and usually keep an eye on what other people are catching and keeping or releasing out of academic curiosity. When I am at the boat ramp packing up I also see people at the cleaning tables. Rarely do I see people with what I consider to be excessive quantities of fish. Multiply that by the same sort of numbers for people fishing from other locations in the region and I think it would still be less than a good catch from a vessel using nets. The people I fish with are mostly catch and release with one or two sometimes taken for the table. I think I'd keep maybe between 20 and 30 of the fish I catch each year. Last year I caught 17 kings and kept just one but to be fair 16 were very close but not quite legal. Regards, Derek Edited August 23, 2018 by DerekD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekD Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 3 minutes ago, BuckWild said: What we need is to formulate an articulate response (something like what luderick -angler posted) when filling out the surveys, so that we can all copy and paste, rather than shoot from the hip like Mr Stomach Cancer Guy Hi BuckWild. I agree with you about the articulate response but I'd also want to see each person send something in which is fit for their situation rather than a mass mail out of the same reply. It is why I'd like to compile a list of reasonable arguments so that people can pick and choose what suits them. As we have till the 27th of September I'm holding off for another week or so before sending my responses out so I have a chance of putting my best arguments forward based on discussions I've had with other like minded people. Regards, Derek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 5 minutes ago, DerekD said: Hi Kingfishbig, Just curious where you got your numbers from on the commercial versus recreational fishing takes. While I have found some (specifically Mulloway) I've been struggling to find concrete data. Is it data for a specific area or is it based on say the recreational anglers for the whole of NSW? I don't have the data but I fish a lot in my spare time and usually keep an eye on what other people are catching and keeping or releasing out of academic curiosity. When I am at the boat ramp packing up I also see people at the cleaning tables. Rarely do I see people with what I consider to be excessive quantities of fish. Multiply that by the same sort of numbers and I think it would still be less than a good catch from a vessel using nets. The people I fish with are mostly catch and release with one or two sometimes taken for the table. I think I'd keep maybe between 20 and 30 of the fish I catch each year. Last year I caught 17 kings and kept just one but to be fair 16 were very close but not quite legal. Regards, Derek You should be able to find a list on the DPI site. Remember that there are a million rec fishermen and 1,000 commercial fishermen in NSW, so it is not surprising. Also NSW imports 92% of the fish sold and consumed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolongeramember Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 If the population is always increasing then that means the amount of people out fishing are forever increasing. The fishing waters are not getting any bigger to suit, so what do you expect will eventually happen? Less fish and more fishing pressure. Something has to be done right? The lock outs might help the immediate area but they will put more fishing pressure on the remaining areas so will lead to more lock outs until eventually everything is closed. Inevitable in my eyes, but I wonder, when (if) the stocks or whatever they are trying to preserve recover will the area be reopened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fragmeister Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, kingfishbig said: Actually the rec take is as much or more than the commercial take for many popular species in NSW - so 'it's not us it's them' style arguments will be quickly seen through. Sure I agree but, as you say yourself those arguments are quickly seen through ... The impact on fish stocks from commercial fishing is not just about individual species it's about the total fish population and it's about degradation to the marine environment by the fishing methods used. The devastation to Snapper populations in Port Phillip Bay was as much about taking too many snapper as it was about damaging marine and crustacean growth on the sea floor by dragging nets around. Sure , there are few species which are caught in greater numbers by recreational fisherman but on the whole its the other way around and to a significant degree. The return of fish into Port Phillip Bay, Botany Bay and dozens of other estuarine environments can be directly attributed to supporting commercial fishing. There is even real science to back this plus the anecdotal evidence of recreational fisherman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfishbig Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 6 minutes ago, Hateanchors said: If the population is always increasing then that means the amount of people out fishing are forever increasing. The fishing waters are not getting any bigger to suit, so what do you expect will eventually happen? Less fish and more fishing pressure. Something has to be done right? The lock outs might help the immediate area but they will put more fishing pressure on the remaining areas so will lead to more lock outs until eventually everything is closed. Inevitable in my eyes, but I wonder, when (if) the stocks or whatever they are trying to preserve recover will the area be reopened? That's far fetched. They usually try to get around displaced fishing effort by using buy out of pros, bag limits, closed seasons etc, ie traditional fisheries management. In that scenario it is quite possible that it is really fisheries management that is boosting fish stocks and not the marine park. This is probably the case for the GBR marine park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fragmeister Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 Further to my last email I did find some old stats about some of the fish where rec fisherman actually took more fish than the pros although I believe the article I got this from admitted that because recreational fishos don't report on their catch it was all done on some "modelling" Goodness knows how that worked or, from a cynical perspective, who paid for the report to be done. Suspect science at the very best I think. I think these stats were from 2005 so a little out of date and if you dissect the information a little you can see why the recreational catch could be higher. Some are simply not good targets for commercial fisherman - Annual Tonnes Commercial catch Recreational catch Dusky Flathead 120 570-830 Mahi Mahi <5 100 Mulloway 40 100-500 Yellowfin Bream 360 820-1070 Bluespotted flathead 125 320-450 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerekD Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, kingfishbig said: You should be able to find a list on the DPI site. Remember that there are a million rec fishermen and 1,000 commercial fishermen in NSW, so it is not surprising. Also NSW imports 92% of the fish sold and consumed. Hi again, In that context it is a fair observation and I'd almost agree with you but we also come back to that expression "statistics and lies". Unfortunately this is where part of the problem (well at least one of the ones I have with the arguments for the Marine Parks) stems from - interpretation of the data. Those 1 million people fishing are spread across the whole of NSW and not fishing Monday through Friday as it is not their primary source of income. A lot are practicing catch and release and maybe keeping a few for the table. The load on the environment is spread across such a large area that it shouldn't require any recovery time thus the idea of a marine park becomes redundant. Purely academically lets look at the 1,000 commercial fisherman. How much would they have to catch each day to be commercially viable? Assume they are all using nets and pulling in 1 to 2m³ of fish (including by-catch) a day. Allow for body density and swim bladders can we take it they catch 1,000kg of fish each day out. Alternatively, lets even be conservative and say 400kg per trip but multiply that by 5 working days a week. By the end of the week they have caught 1,000 x 400kg x 5 = 2,000,000 kg of fish or two kg of fish per recreational fisherman (assuming every one of the million went fishing that weekend and did pretty well). There are catch quotas and a lot of data I don't have access to but if you start to play around with scenarios it can be a bit of an eye opener. Unless every one of the recreational fishos submitted a years worth of data I don't think it is a fair comparison. The above was a bit of a side discussion relating to your us versus them comment. I think it had more significance when we had commercial fishing inside Sydney harbour and I think you have a very valid point when you say it is not what we should be focussing on. I fish Sydney from the shore, off a kayak or a boat (at least when it is fixed). One of the places planned for full fishing lockout is Chowder bay and in to Clifton gardens with the pool structure/wharf being the exception. On the times I head past there on the kayak I'd be surprised if I see any more than 6 or 8 hard core bush walking people fishing down there. Not likely to put a heavy load on the aquatic system especially as they are probably chasing bread and butter species and not things like sea turtles or sea horses. I believe one of the other arguments I have heard is an intention to protect the sea grasses. I suspect some boat anchors (social or rec fishing) might cause some damage but I fail to see how a fishing line will achieve this. Regards, Derek 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nolongeramember Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 22 minutes ago, kingfishbig said: That's far fetched. They usually try to get around displaced fishing effort by using buy out of pros, bag limits, closed seasons etc, ie traditional fisheries management. In that scenario it is quite possible that it is really fisheries management that is boosting fish stocks and not the marine park. This is probably the case for the GBR marine park. The fisheries managent helps for sure, but it can only do so much. With more and more people going out fishing (which is what is continually happening) there has to be a point where they say enough is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckWild Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 1 hour ago, DerekD said: Hi BuckWild. I agree with you about the articulate response but I'd also want to see each person send something in which is fit for their situation rather than a mass mail out of the same reply. I Yep, totally agree with you. My comment was more targeted at those who can't come up with a coherent non-emotive argument. There's a lot of abuse going on over that FB group so I'd rather a mass copy and paste than some of the vitriolic drivel that's coming out right now. These are scary times for us fishos and we need unity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berleyguts Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 I am still travelling, so am yet to read through the whole proposal to make my comment. However, I have just received the RecFisher newsletter from the RFA of NSW and AFTA. They are asking anglers to send a short but polite email to their local member of parliament. Here is a link to the contact details for each electorate in NSW. However, I suggest you find out who your local member actually is and which party they represent (if you don’t already know) and address them by name. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/pages/electorates.aspx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berleyguts Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Berleyguts said: I am still travelling, so am yet to read through the whole proposal to make my comment. However, I have just received the RecFisher newsletter from the RFA of NSW and AFTA. They are asking anglers to send a short but polite email to their local member of parliament. Here is a link to the contact details for each electorate in NSW. However, I suggest you find out who your local member actually is and which party they represent (if you don’t already know) and address them by name. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/pages/electorates.aspx And here’s a link to the list of all members of NSW parliament, their name, position, electorate, email etc. Remember, keep your letters polite. ? https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/members/Pages/all-members.aspx?&house=both&tab=browse Edited August 24, 2018 by Berleyguts 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrsswordfisherman Posted August 24, 2018 Share Posted August 24, 2018 I am removing some comments and warning some members. Please keep this to the issue at hand. This and other posts on political stuff needs to be inside News and Politics not Fishing Chat. Thanks all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingie chaser Posted August 27, 2018 Share Posted August 27, 2018 Hi guy's, I found another petition to sign to help try to stop the lockouts- https://www.ldp.org.au/stopmarinelockouts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaniSS Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) All this lockout BS has shown me one thing and that's the method Greenies use to get their message across. The days of protesting on the streets with flowers and sandals are gone. They have infiltrated government now, using authority to ban all the activities we enjoy. We fisho's are too soft, we still have the "She'll be right mentality" we should up in their faces. Edited September 7, 2018 by kaniSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now