Greens

[Gad]

political honesty,is what is surely missed in these times of division.

Now take it back to the days when big Russ Hinze was minister of everything and influential over a lot more.

Now with big Russ,you knew you were going to get screwed, often he would tell you,you were going to get screwed,but..he at least gave warning before the next screwing,so you could change the linen.

WTF was that all about....happy you got the washing machine fixed ,ellicat :laugh: :laugh:

[ellicat]

Actually Gad, he reported the washing machine was beyond repair . He did however fix the dish washer, so not all was lost :laugh:

Russ Hinze - the big Murray Cod of politics :laugh: Can't wait til Christie is that size :S

[Dooley]

So what you are saying, sounds to me like you agree with us.....but don't agree that rec fishing hasn't destroyed what used to be....or do you

rec fishers do have an effect on the bay. don't kid yourself we don't. whether or not it's marginal is something that is debatable. but do you gamble we don't have an impact and risk losing what little is left to fish for?

and please don't try and draw comparisons between me and your families inability to know the bay well enough to always be able to catch a feed the only times i remember coming home with donuts is after spending hours trying to chase down brawling spaniards in the northen part of the shipping channel a long time ago

the trouble with rec boat fisherman is the only time they see the shoreline is from the boat ramp so how would they know if the mangroves are in strife? the answer is they don't. you get the same view of the mangroves in a boat as a person driving down the highway looking at a forest. SFA. sorta like wearing blinkers.

more green zones - more fish. less green zones - less fish.

less fish + more fishers (rec and pro) = no fish

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

and i think your conjecture surrounding less fresh and more fresh is very confusing - what is it you are trying to say. is there more or less fresh in the river?

and does less fresh mean good or bad? and if less fresh is good, and the fish that are in the river are there because of the clean saltwater doesn't that mean that you're saying the river is better because there is less fresh. but then you say there has been plently of fresh going throught the river. does that mean the river is now good because of the fresh and the sludge that went through or? because historically speaking that isn't right fresh nearly always ran down the river and created brackish conditions well down past newstead with the wet producing brackish headwaters out to the mouth even at neap - thats why brisbane was prone to flooding before the dams went in. :S :S

the water was never - ever salty at jindalee reach when i used to water ski there as a kid. betcha it is now unless it rains then it'd quickly turn back within a week to salt.

[ellicat]

Well it's starting to sound more like an argument than a good debate now, but anyway here's my reply.

rec fishers do have an effect on the bay. don't kid yourself we don't. whether or not it's marginal is something that is debatable. but do you gamble we don't have an impact and risk losing what little is left to fish for?

If you are a believer in real SCIENCE, as you stated in your first post in this thread, then you must believe the research that says rec fishing has a benign effect. i.e. insignificant impact. The point is no longer debateable - it is the SCIENCE you believe in. Maybe you just pick and choose which facts you accept. Don't kid yourself.

Yes I do take the gamble. It is much preferable to your gamble to let the snivelling leeches keep taking more away without any real substantiation. Where will you fish in the bay if your gamble is the winner ?

I'll take my gamble as a win any day, because I love fishing and believe facts and question opinion.

and please don't try and draw comparisons between me and your families inability to know the bay well enough to always be able to catch a feed the only times i remember coming home with donuts is after spending hours trying to chase down brawling spaniards in the northen part of the shipping channel a long time ago

There were a lot more fish in the bay back then and green zones were in the last stretch on a Monoploy board. On the little personal flame, my uncle was a boat builder and avid fisherman, among other things, with waterfront property at Viccy Point with a very healthy knowledge of the bay. Your suggestion is ludicrous, or maybe your memory is failing. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

the trouble with rec boat fisherman is the only time they see the shoreline is from the boat ramp so how would they know if the mangroves are in strife? the answer is they don't. you get the same view of the mangroves in a boat as a person driving down the highway looking at a forest. SFA. sorta like wearing blinkers.

What a crock of rubbish. Your argument is faltering badly when you start to makeup rubbish statements like these. I'm pretty sure a lot of boating fishermen target the mangrove areas for a feed. Maybe you're just thinking of (or remembering) speeding off to the shipping channel and beyond to chase brawling spaniards. :whistle:

more green zones - more fish. less green zones - less fish.

less fish + more fishers (rec and pro) = no fish

That is surface logic only. The SCIENCE does not support the first segment.

The SCIENCE does not support the second segment.

The third segment is sensationalist poppycock. What the DPI&F (the fisheries managers) do is tailor the regulations to achieve a sustainable outcome. A better way to put it would be - More population having an increased effect on the waterways + Having the politicians make the EPA (now DERM) make political decisions = nowhere to fish.

Remember the biggest killer of fish is larger fish.

and i think your conjecture surrounding less fresh and more fresh is very confusing - what is it you are trying to say. is there more or less fresh in the river?

and does less fresh mean good or bad? and if less fresh is good, and the fish that are in the river are there because of the clean saltwater doesn't that mean that you're saying the river is better because there is less fresh. but then you say there has been plently of fresh going throught the river. does that mean the river is now good because of the fresh and the sludge that went through or? because historically speaking that isn't right fresh nearly always ran down the river and created brackish conditions well down past newstead with the wet producing brackish headwaters out to the mouth even at neap - thats why brisbane was prone to flooding before the dams went in.

I made no conjecture about more fresh/less fresh. My response was to you saying that all the salt species will be flushed out to the bay in the next rains. I disagreed and said that has been proven wrong with the evidence that they are still in the river despite the river having received a fresh flush or two over the last couple of years.

My original point on the river was about the environment the fish endure. I said the environment had improved since the 80's. Whether that be fresh or salt is irrelevant to my point - which is rec fishing is not to blame for reduced stocks in the bay; but other man made mistakes in planning and control. The history of the salinity in the river is a bit of a red herring to the direct debate.

Ray brought up the point about there being no dams built for about 40 years, to which you seemed to disagree by putting up the data on when all the dams were put in about 40 years ago :S I might have missed something there

the water was never - ever salty at jindalee reach when i used to water ski there as a kid. betcha it is now unless it rains then it'd quickly turn back within a week to salt.

Finally we agree :laugh:

So it's the dams to blame and not rec fishing afterall :pinch: :aussie:

If greenzones weren't permanent lock outs, but cyclic and analysis driven, they'd be a lot easier to swallow.

[Feral]

I give up trying to work out your position Dooley, about the only consistent theme in your posts is you support Green Zones (I think) otherwise your chopping and changing all over the place, blaming the lack of fish on everything from dam construction to mangrove degradation (all of which plays a part of course) to back up your call for fishermen to be banned from the areas where fish are to be found. Personally I can guarantee you if you let us do a bit of fishing here and there, All fisho's will henceforth stop using our spare time to built dams, cut down mangrove trees, pollute rivers and waterways, built canal estates etc etc. We have been very naughty doing all that to destroy our fishing.

I'll just take it your concerned about fishing, but unfortunately have been taken in by the "greenwash". Yes we need to do something, no it is not by following the current green agenda.

We need to look at areas such Salt water stocking, mangrove regeneration, (The greens will defend a mangrove branch to the death, but when was the last time you saw a Greenie actually plant a mangrove tree?) removal of commercial net fishing from rivers, beaches and estuaries, investigating whether boats used for recreational use only (IE Jetskis, ski boats, wake boats, anything with high speed large wakes) should be allowed over grass beds and in sensitive river environments. (Yes the go slow areas are a good start, except for the exemptions they allow)

We also need to start being very careful about how we participate in research, because the work of real scientists is now being used by the green brigade in the EPA. For instance I no longer am part of the Fisheries catch recording system, because strangely enough all the places I logged I caught fish seem to have ended up in green zones. These days I let the Greenies find the fish themselves!.

By the way anyone noticed the pig sty on the Bruce Highway near the Asphalt Plant at Bald Hills? Mud and dirt all over the road? You know what that is? Thats spill from the trucks dumping about 8000 tones of acid sulphate soil from the Tunnel. Its being "treated" then dumped on the banks ( in the old pits) of the Pine River in the old Gravel Quarry there.

Dont you think that might have slightly more impact than the recreational fisho's on the river system? Of course I am not sure what the fisho's are actually up to there at the moment, the fisho's finished building that dam about what, 40 years ago?

Perhaps its because they are doing despicable things like this? - Bloody fisho's dredging stuff off the bottom disturbing the acid sulphate soils. You wont catch any greenies doing that! Lets make some more green zones, that'll teach em!

But seriously dont expect to be catching to many fish on the Pine River system over the next 20 years or so as that leaches in to the rivers.

[baheath]

The water quality within the Brisbane River has been steadily improving over the last decade.

To give Brisbane City Council it's due they have been bringing polluting industries under tighter control - often with the help of the EPA regs - and the EPA have been looking after the "larger" industrial polluters to force them to discharge less pollution into the environment.

That being said, there have been some shocking mistakes made over the years which went largely unrecognised - the story goes that a certain large chemical company who shall remain nameless used to pump 98% sulphuric acid to a fertilizer company on the southside using an "undersea" (under river) pipeline - no harm there (under normal circumstances anyway). One afternoon in the late '80s the fertilizer mfg called up complaining that they hadn't received any acid during the week and were running low. Northside plant op "No - we pushed 80 tonne to you just yesterday!" [apparently there was a LARGE crack in the cross-river pipeline].

Can everyone please say "fish-kill" in unison! Strangely, I don't ever remember seeing the release of the acid reported

That's a large scale problem - the small scale ones are things like companies washing anti-foul wastes (copper / diuron) into the waterways for years, heavy metals from plating companies, etc.

I honestly believe taht the EPA try to due the right thing - they are just clueless as to the real problems and so chase after "perceived" issues and make stupid decisions based on only 1% of the real information.

[waldo]

Ellicat - if you have a link you could post supporting recreational fishermen have a benign effect or insignificant impact on fish populations or environment I would appreciate it.

Feral - not supporting fisheries research plays right into the greenies hands for two reasons. One, they point to the fact that recreational fishermen didn't support research of the fish they were targeting, black mark against us with public opinion. Secondly and most importantly in the absence of science the precautionary principal applies. Hence if there is even a remote threat then we lock it up and throw away the key till we are proven wrong by multiple peer reviewed research.

Dooley - while I also feel that the fishing is nothing like it was 30 years ago (and my logs prove it) I also don't have any faith that the green zones in Moreton Bay (I know them best) will help ot improve things even a little.

Rayke1938 - I mightn't be a card carrying member of any political fishing party or group but I do get involved rather heavily in fisheries issues, I just don't try to get myself on TV like the heads of some of those groups like to do.

[Gad]

ellicat wrote:

Actually Gad, he reported the washing machine was beyond repair . He did however fix the dish washer, so not all was lost :laugh:

Russ Hinze - the big Murray Cod of politics :laugh: Can't wait til Christie is that size :S

Hi ellicat,

one of my dictionaries says: fix(ed).. to put beyond repair

[ellicat]

waldo wrote:

Ellicat - if you have a link you could post supporting recreational fishermen have a benign effect or insignificant impact on fish populations or environment I would appreciate it.

The statement was made in a DPI&F report (or FRDC) that I'm sure I have "linked" previously ( maybe 18 months ago ??), but have not kept in my favourites. Working on finding it again for you, but you may have to wait until after I get back from Monduran. In the meantime you can have a look for it via here - http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/28_146.htm

I'm thinking it was in one of the Fisheries Longterm Monitoring Program reports. It was a report that also mentioned the C&R rates and drew comparisons between the rec and commercial sectors.

I'm off to the Classic now...already well late after spending too long trying to find the report :blush: :laugh:

Gad, I'm not sure if it's fixed or a similar sounding word starting with F finishing with D :laugh: I do know I'll have a new machine soon though.

[Gad]

waldo wrote:

Feral - not supporting fisheries research plays right into the greenies hands for two reasons. One, they point to the fact that recreational fishermen didn't support research of the fish they were targeting, black mark against us with public opinion. Secondly and most importantly in the absence of science the precautionary principal applies. Hence if there is even a remote threat then we lock it up and throw away the key till we are proven wrong by multiple peer reviewed research.

.

I,like Feral,no longer participate in any surveys/polls etc, years ago I had belief in, the info given and gained would be used for maintaining and/or the betterment of the environment both on the land and on the water and that, if managed properly,it was there for the respectfull enjoyment of all.

Unfortunately,grubby politics has reared its uncontrollable head.I do believe the original green movement(I don`t mean the wacky too-baccy,peace bro,rain!!goldie top mushie time.. movements)and some politicians of old were looking in the right direction,untill wannabe politicians 1980`s, wacky rabbids 80/90`s,for our agenda politicians 90/20`s,high jacked the whole green arena.

It can not be denied that,in this state a lot of the decisions made for the fisheries enviroment is done,not on full,if any, scientific facts obtained in research,but often on politically inspired agendas.

Add to this, governments not looking at the problem as a whole,but kneejerk reactions here and there, and lack of funding to research,EPA,DPI&F,etc.

[bogan]

wow, lots of comments/ideas/feelings.

some greenie probably saw a bunch of people fishing one day keeping fish under 10cm in their bucket, not 1, not 2, but 60 of them.

[Gad]

bogan wrote:

wow, lots of comments/ideas/feelings.

some greenie probably saw a bunch of people fishing one day keeping fish under 10cm in their bucket, not 1, not 2, but 60 of them.

probably did,probably didn`t,probably helped with the net to get the 60 for the bucket.

could have probably been his net.

Lot of probables.Just as many possibles

[ellicat]

C&R stats by fish

/>http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/CHRIS/

Click on the rec fish data link

[fishing_hardcore]

Feral wrote:

OK, had a long reply to the threadfin thread go up in smoke when it got locked during my typing, but probably better it goes here anyway, had nothing to do with that original thread. even if I do have to rewrite it all!

My take, position, what ever you want to call it is as follows.

It does not matter what your personal position is in regard to legal fishing activities. They are legal, which means allowed, people should not be pillared for doing them. Nor should they be nagged at because someone else does not agree with them, be it a rabid green, or another fisho.

I have no problem if you have an opinion in regard to changing legal fishing methods, good science to back it up etc etc. but go tell it to your politician, that is the only place it might actually be worth your effort to express it. I'll even come with you! (But I doubt it will do much good, politicians do not have a good current record for listening to well thought out ideas backed by genuine research).

The reason I say this is that currently whether you believe it or not, we are in the trenches fighting for the basic rights we have to fish. Every year these rights are eroded further, some years in big chunks (aka the recent Green zones introduction), other years smaller chunks, or if we are very lucky no change at all. Never do we regain any ground we have already lost.

My opinion is we must defend every legal fishing right / law/ ability we have as hard as we can. We must not give the greens any fodder to use against us, whether be be extreme fishing practices shown on the news or division within our ranks.

Here is a scenario to try and explain what I mean.

As a fisho you will all have various opinions on what you do in regard to fishing, many of you will have your own morale positions which govern how you fish, what and when you fish, mostly these will be on the legal side of the tally board, most fisho's do genuinly want to preserve the fish stocks, improve fishing etc etc (although some will be on the illegal side, there is always that element in any group of people). I'll call this your own "personal line in the sand".

So, you pride yourself on being a good fisho, look after the fishery etc etc. They change the rules on threadfin Salmon, making a closed season for 6 months because a minimal amount of science and a lot of opinions says fish have been seen with roe in them over a 6 month period.

Your happy with that, you dont target the fish, its not over your line in the sand. However that old bloke that used to go and get himself a salmon once a week for a feed no longer gets his feed, his is not to happy because the rules have been changed on poor science, but a lot of opinion. So he takes up knitting because he doesnt bother with his weekly fish anymore, he was only looking to feed himself and his family and doesn't really fancy eating catfish.

Anyway a few more changes are made, a few more small things are disappearing regularly, but its still not over your own personal "Line in the sand". However it is over the line for a few other blokes here and there, they are indignant, they have lost what they love above fishing, so they have also taken up knitting as it is no longer worthwhile fishing for them.

Anyway to cut my rambling short, the greens have had a few good small wins and the odd large win (once again just like those green zones) when they decide to lobby for the Model from certain European countries that they have managed to introduce. They target catch and release fishing practices.

Catch and release fishing is banned because it is cruel and barbaric, picture all those poor little "sea kittens" on the box flopping about struggling for their lives, then only to be callously tossed back in to the ocean, easy prey for predators when they have reached the point of exhaustion. (Green style embelishments there just to set the tone).

Your outraged! How dare they! Life as you know it has come to an end! YOu march on parliament house, you write to the paper, you jump up and down on forums, you do everything you can, but guess what, your all alone.

All the other blokes who's "line in the sand" has already been crossed have already given up in disgust and taken up knitting, because no one supported them (did you?). All the other blokes who are still fishing think your just a neanderthall from the past who has to get with the times, because their own personal "line in the sand" has not yet been reached.Fishing will be better off without you anyway!

The example we need to follow is the NRA in America, although I loath them and what they do, they are a perfect example of what a group of sportsman can do if they are unitied and defend their rights to the bitter end.

So that is why I am so passionate about defending the fishing rights of all fisho's and get pissed right off when when someone tries to undermine or weaken those rights, or has a shot at someone who exercises those rights. I probably do not agree with their activities, but to paraphrase a dead yank, I'll defend their right to undertake that activity to the end, because I want someone standing at my shoulder defending the rights that are important to me when the time comes.

By the way - Knitting classes are 7:30 wednesday nights at the CWA. I'll save you a seat. You'll be along to join me sooner or later.

(Pinched this of a kids website, it amused me!)

You have always been a freindly and humerous contributer to the forum.

But I resent your jibe at calling me "MR GREENIE", especially with threads like this one

being posted.

i AM NOT A GREEN VOTER, and I really think we should see some real DOCUMENTATION regarding these issues instead of calling everyone a Greenie.

cheers

[Feral]

A Green voter is not a greenie per Se, The Australian Greens are a rabid right wing group that belief in population control, zero immigration and a whole lot of other totally whacked out ideas. A green voter is just as likely to be a card carrying member of any of the looney parties that support similar ideals. They may be an extreme conservationist (which is my opinion of the wacko greens), or even someone who has a concern for their local environment and the Greens in the usually vote buying spree of elections have promised to use their "balance of power" to fix their problem, or just your average racist white supremest who likes the idea of no immigration, as all "reffo's" are Asian.

Sorry if I offended, I dont (usually anyway) mean to. I'm just rather pissed off with people who believe the crap the Greenies are pushing, but particularly those who accept the Greens way of fixing the problems as not just the best solution, but the only solution. None of us deny there is a problem, we just dont believe the solution is to wack us.

Waldo - I still do a lot of work with the DPI, I just dont give them catch reports anymore because I honestly believe the greens used this data to target locations for Green zones, and I dont mean the areas where it was reported there was no catch!

[brisbane_boy]

The sooner they bring in some restrictions on catching and slaying breeding size salmon the better the chance there will be reasonable fishing in the future, and feral, i dont care how greeny it sounds or if some old bloke who has no thought whatsoever about the future fishery has to change his diet to any number of other tasty species that are easily caught, releasing breeders or not targetting them is the norm in several other fisherys, life goes on.

Just to give some options to the harvesters dinner lets start with snapa flathead, whiting bream and jew, and if hes still hungry why not go and harvest the dams for bass and barra or silver perch or yellowbelly

[Feral]

ah - removed my response, its not worth arguing with banned idiots.

[MOC]

brisbane_boy wrote:

Just to give some options to the harvesters dinner lets start with snapa flathead, whiting bream and jew, and if hes still hungry why not go and harvest the dams for bass and barra or silver perch or yellowbelly

Not that I am against the introduction of a slot limit for king Salmon but I was of the understanding that a breeding size bream or snapper were potentially much older than a breeding size threadfin anyway so I don't see the logic in the statement.

Mick

[brisbane_boy]

Seeing bream snapper whiting are available in very large numbers over hundreds or thous of km of east coast beaches bays offshore and river areas comparing that to a stock of salmon which are not my any means in large numbers in the brisbane river and almost non existant in other areas in SEQ, for example you see it every week experienced anglers going 4-5 seshs in a row without catching 1 of any size and many who target them in the river have never caught 1, I cant see your logic

[fishing_hardcore]

Feral wrote:

ah - removed my response, its not worth arguing with banned idiots.

Well for somone that does not mean to offend... that is a pretty ripe post.

If you cannot handle the heat get out of the kitchen.

cheers

[Dooley]

quote]Well it's starting to sound more like an argument than a good debate now, but anyway here's my reply.

[tugger]

Greens you should always eat your greens

[bigtez]

tugger wrote:

Greens you should always eat your greens

They taste great when roasted on a spit and served with a Hickory Smoked BBQ sauce.

[Dooley]

Greens you should always eat your greens

They taste great when roasted on a spit and served with a Hickory Smoked BBQ sauce.

hello fella's - little stevie here, if your thinking of yours truly - just make sure the spit will take 110kg and it's close to 6 foot long. :)

[fishing_hardcore]

Acid sulphate can be very dangerous if not managed properly, I would say their management plan would be to partially neutralise the acid (8000 tonnes of lime would be quite expensive, or even 4000 tonnes) then allow it to gradually leach back into the system with out causing huge kills. Mind you high acidity can be dangerous in increasing the biological availability of heavy metals otherwise bonded with colloidal debris.

But in a slow release situation it can be managed (a fingers crossed situation I am guessing).

The removal of mangroves is simple, pure and simple, remove the mangroves, say goodbye to the fish.

Areas like Sydney harbour are very different from Moreton Bay, since Sydney is deep and open to the ocean, but the bay relies on a sedimentary detrius cycle to ensure the ecology and ultimately food and breeding for larger species and for their food (prawns and worms ect).

There is really nothing hard to understand here?

Just on a last note, mangroves do not really need to be propagated,well I do not think they do, they just need to be left alone.

Has not anyone noticed the huge influx of floating mangrove propaguls around the river mouth and Boggy creek in recent months, of course you have, they often get stuck in you fishing line.

cheers

Dan

[Dooley]

Just on a last note, mangroves do not really need to be propagated,well I do not think they do, they just need to be left alone.

agree with you on this, however where there is human traffic eg brighton foreshore dogs people, para/kite surfing, jet skiis, the re-establishment of the mangroves is a hard ask without providing some form of protection. they want to grow, you seen the propaguls starting to take but they have no chance against the impact occuring along the foreeshore here on the northside of the bay

[nadders]

ellicat wrote:

C&R stats by fish

/>http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/CHRIS/

Click on the rec fish data link

what makes you say that the figures in that report reflect a benign impact, or are you saying a benign impact when compared with the commercial sector?

also i am incredibly sceptical on that kind of estimation, how is an accurate estimate achieved

an example of the lolability of that graph to me is

Region Species Caught Harvested Released

Brisbane City Threadfins 251 0 251

the zero part makes me lol the most

[elops]

Hey Dan CHRIS makes some interesting reading unfortunately a lot of the data is a bit skewed particularly the threadfin data for brisbane as the diary participants are all catch and release anglers . From my own diaries total threadfin caught 117 retained 3 1 of which was only kept as I had no shotline. The data set you quoted is 2005 from my 05 diary 28 caught all released.

Regs Steve

[nadders]

yeah thats why i can't see the usefulness of that kind of data other than interesting reading lol, i wouldnt rely on those figures to paint an accurate picture of the state of things at all

[elops]

I thought I would add this as it is on topic .

A quote from a long term experienced bay fisho who will remain nameless.

"Green zone, Yellow zone, whatever coloured zone, there all black at night"

Regs Steve

[ellicat]

nadders wrote:

ellicat wrote:

C&R stats by fish

/>http://chrisweb.dpi.qld.gov.au/CHRIS/

Click on the rec fish data link

what makes you say that the figures in that report reflect a benign impact, or are you saying a benign impact when compared with the commercial sector?

also i am incredibly sceptical on that kind of estimation, how is an accurate estimate achieved

an example of the lolability of that graph to me is

Region Species Caught Harvested Released

Brisbane City Threadfins 251 0 251

the zero part makes me lol the most

That's not the report where they say rec fishing has a benign impact. I just put that up for interest sake.

Now I'm back from the BRC and Monduran, I'll spend a bit of time and find the one.

The bay fishermen data set should be more accurate as there is more chance people will eat fish caught in the bay :laugh:

[ellicat]

Still haven't got around to chasing up the "benign" report yet, but in the meantime (and back to the original thread topic) -

First article.
/>http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/boswell-delivers-coral-sea-warning

Boswell delivers Coral Sea warning

10 Dec 2009

The Nationals' Senator Ron Boswell believes a Coral Sea ‘No Take' zone is a very real threat after the Rudd Government's successful proclamation of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone.

Speaking at a public meeting organised by those opposed to the proclamation Boswell said "An Eastern Marine Bioregional Plan will be declared in 2010 and it is important that the Coral Sea area is not singled out within that plan as a no take zone in order to satisfy the ever increasing avaricious appetite of the green movement."

"This proclamation is a disgraceful abuse of power by the Minister for Environment who has unilaterally declared an area of nearly a million square kilometres of ocean as a conservation zone without any consultation with industry representatives at all."

Boswell revealed there was no consultation with any industry stakeholder by either the Minister or his Department before the proclamation of the Coral Sea Conservation Zone on 19 May 2009.

"A response by the Minister to a Question on Notice (2122) revealed that only two meetings were held by the Department prior to the proclamation, one with the Australian Conservation Foundation (19/03/09) and the other with Pew Charitable Trust (14/04/09) only a month before the proclamation."

"The employees of the fishing, charter boat, marine and tourism industries should be shuddering in their boots over this decision," Boswell said.

"The astounding part is that this decision has even upset the Green movement with an obvious split growing between the Pew Charitable Trust who want the area declared a ‘no take' zone and the WWF who think that a ‘no take' zone goes too far."

Senator Boswell warned that by separating the area the Minister has carte blanche to zone it however he wants.

2nd Article

/>http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/coral-sea-pew-allies-oppose-hardline

Coral Sea: Pew allies oppose hardline

07 Dec 2009

It seems not all green groups agree with the hardline stance taken by US-based conservation group Pew in its bid to turn the Coral Sea into a conservation zone.

The controversial ongoing issue, which has been covered by Fisho at length for some months, is turning traditional allies against one another and has formed unusual partnerships. A report in last weekend's Australian said a number of scientists and environmental groups, such as the WWF, are wary of the Pew proposal, with some warning that the US group's over-zealous approach risks derailing the entire process.

WWF says the Coral Sea is a thriving marine environment that presents the government with a "rare opportunity to protect and conserve habitats that elsewhere in the world have been depleted by human activities", but it disagrees with Pew's no-budge approach.

"Pew's approach has scared a lot of fishermen but we think sustainable fishing could be a possibility in the Coral Sea," said WWF spokesman Jonathon Larkin.

"Both Pew and WWF want to see the area turned into a world-class marine park, but the difference lies in the detail about how much is considered no-take.

"We recognise there may be a role for a sustainable future of the Coral Sea, whereas it seems Pew's stance is 100 per cent no take."

Pew's hardline stance was "completely unhelpful" and would never be accepted by the federal government, according to prominent marine biologist and documentary filmmaker Richard Fitzpatrick, who has been pushing for protection of the Coral Sea for more than a decade.

"It's ridiculous," said Fitzpatrick.

3rd Article

/>http://www.fishingworld.com.au/news/shark-fishing-ban-slips-in-under-radar

Shark fishing ban slips in under radar

10 Dec 2009

By Mick Fletoridis

In a controversial development, game fishing for popular shark species such as makos may soon become a thing of the past.

As Fisho reported late last week the taking of several shark species listed on an international migratory species protection treaty will be banned by the end of January 2010 - the exact details of how these bans will apply still remains sketchy at this stage.

In our last update on this issue we were told meetings were being held to discuss possible bans or restrictions on fishing for mako sharks. We reported early last month that federal Environment Minister Peter Garrett could be forced to ban all fishing for makos under international obligations under the Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Species treaty.

Fisho has been informed by a government official from the Department of Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) that the porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako will be listed as migratory species as of the end of January 2010, a listing that will have implications for game fishers, charter operators and commercial fishing operations.

Under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC) it is prohibited to kill, injure or take members of a listed migratory species in Commonwealth waters. This means it will not be permitted to take porbeagle, shortfin or longfin mako in Commonwealth waters, or to retain them if caught in Commonwealth waters - it is unclear at this stage how this applies to commercial fishing operations or if catch and release fishing for makos will be permitted under this treaty obligation.

Commonwealth waters extend from 3 to the 200 nautical mile limit of the exclusive economic zone, or the edge of the continental shelf (which may extend beyond the 200nm limit).

Recfish CEO Len Olyott told Fisho that he laments the fact DEWHA has taken so long to communicate the implications of this listing to the fishing community. He also gave a timely warning: "Rest assured that any species listed under either CMS [Convention on Migratory Species] or CITES [Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species] will receive protection under EPBC. In fact, there are moves to get the makos CITES listed, which will ban all international trade".

Of the shark species listed for protection under the treaty, the shortfin mako is likely to be of most concern to Australian game fishers.

"Probably the shortfin mako is of the most interest to recreational fishers and discussions with our members in Victoria suggest that there are competitions focused on catching makos." verified Olyott.

"Under EPBC, this is unlikely to be approved."

"On the positive side, DEWHA would like to work closely with Recfish Australia and the Game Fishing Association of Australia (GFAA) to ensure that all fishers are aware of the new restrictions, which will apply. We will be exploring with DEWHA legitimate ways (under EPBC) to allow research on makos to continue as clearly there is a need to collect more information on these species".

In discussions Recfish has had with DEWHA the subject of shark tagging was raised; the main government concern being the potential injury to sharks, if any, caused by tagging and handling. These concerns have been referred to Dr Julian Pepperell and international tagging researcher David Hall.

Julian Pepperell says that of the shark species affected, the shortfin mako is of most concern to game fishers as it is the most numerous of any species of tagged shark on the Gamefish Tagging Program. He cites as an example the continuing success of a mid-winter shark tournament off Sydney that targets makos and in the past three years has tagged and released approximately over 50 each year.

"This whole situation seems to be the result of a loophole in that, if a species is listed as threatened, vulnerable etc anywhere in the world, and it is then listed as migratory under the CMS, the protective measures apply to any signatory country. In this case, makos are listed in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, but the population in the eastern Pacific is stable and not listed, and there have been no assessments in the western Pacific or Indian Ocean. There is simply no way that the population in the Atlantic is connected with the population off eastern Australia. This loophole needs to be dealt with or other species will follow."

Fisho's Environment Editor John Newbery has contacted a government official for verification on how the shark fishing restrictions will apply and expects to know further details by the end of this week. We will keep you informed as information becomes available.

At the time of posting this story Fisho was awaiting comment from the NSW Game Fishing Association.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Top marks to fishingworld.com.au for getting these articles out.

[ECOfishers QLD Damo]

waldo wrote:

rayke1938 wrote:

There are a few different groups that are politically active in this arena who state they look after fishos interests.

Sunfish

Ecofishers

Australian lifestile and fishing party

Aust Shooters & Fishing Party

the last 2 are actual political parties.

The ASFP has a couple of members in NSW parliment ( I think)

Shame we cant be all coindinated.

Cheers

Ray

If you want to google them and see what they are all about.

AFLP used to the QLD branch of of the Australian fishing party which formed to try and fight the GBRMP zonings. In my opinion anyone that was worth supporting walked away from them.

Aust Shooters & Fishing Party in my opinion just added fishing to their name in the hope of picking up some stray votes at elections.

Ecofishers (qld) are little more than a month or two old. So far from what I have seen they are extremely anti green, anti labor, anti anyone that suggests old 2 stroke outboards cause pollution, anti DPI, anti RFL, anti sunfish, ........

Love em or hate them Sunfish at least have the runs on the board. They are the recognised peak recreational fishing representitive body in QLD.

I'm not a memeber of any of those mentioned nor will I ever be as they are.

Hi waldo,

ECOfishers QLD have been around for a while now in SEQ, we were known as SOBA (Save Our Bays Association) initially fighting for the rights of recreational anglers with regards to the Moreton Bay Marine Park (MBMP) proposals. We orginised several protests against the proposals from the onset. We dared to questiond the science behind these proposals and got no reply from the current government.

Our development as ECOFishers evolved from a meeting with ECOFishers NSW via a face to face meeting in Hastings Point. As a result of that meeting it was quite clear "we" as recreational anglers had to make a united stance

To lable ECOFishers QLD as anti-this and anti-that without being involved with the orginisation is naive in my opinion without knowing the facts.

We (ECOFishers QLD) are truly a 100% (nil-govenment funded) lobby group fighting for the right of all recreational anglers in this state, Mums, Dads, the kids and your right to have a voice !

Damo.

PS: Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !

[ellicat]

ECOfishers QLD Damo wrote:

Hi waldo,

ECOfishers QLD have been around for a while now in SEQ, we were known as SOBA (Save Our Bays Association) initially fighting for the rights of recreational anglers with regards to the Moreton Bay Marine Park (MBMP) proposals. We orginised several protests against the proposals from the onset. We dared to questiond the science behind these proposals and got no reply from the current government.

...............

We (ECOFishers QLD) are truly a 100% (nil-govenment funded) lobby group fighting for the right of all recreational anglers in this state, Mums, Dads, the kids and your right to have a voice !

Damo.

PS: Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year !

That's not quite right Damo. At the boat protest rally in the river, Andrew Macnamara, representing the government, did reply by saying words to the effect of "Protest and make submissions all you like, but the government WILL introduce more green zones regardless of any facts or science you throw at us" ........ :ohmy: :S

Good on SOBA for kicking off and let's hope the voice strengthens over time to a point where it is loud and clear and well heard - unlike Sunfish (the gummy mouthed pussy cat)

[ECOfishers QLD Damo]

A bit of a rant in my last post, apologies to all.

I'm passionate about this !

Damo

ECOFishers QLD