The future of fishing under labor and the greens ?

[Dusky]

[sweresy]

soooo true, love it, honestly things will keep going this way if greens get any votes

[Dusky]

From the AFTA....

Dear Member,

All is not well for industry as we head towards a Critical Federal Election!

We have been advised that Labour Are Preferencing the Greens and we have the Greens wanting and announcing that they want 30%? Of Australia’s waters closed to extractive uses i.e. Recreational Fishing.

This political football again will be at Industry expense and if you take time to think about it, disastrous for rec fishing let alone your business.

To fight this AFTA has acted where it can to get the message out there including a Television campaign focused on Marginal seats.

The TVC can be viewed on U Tube. Go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpxZv9aab1Q

Further, it really is also up to you to fight and we have various attachments you need to read and use in your business to get the message through to your customers and regional communities.

We feel there is no choice in this matter, we have support from the BIA’s, Outboard groups and industry to finally move forward to try and make a difference!

Please also help your cause and if you can assist by distributing the information “Don’t Vote Green! And Keep Australia Fishing, then you know that you have given it your best.

The attachments are, Understanding the voting system, Marine Parks Cartoon and flyer/ poster. Use them as you choose.

Regards,

Doug Joyner

AFTA

[Dusky]

[file name=Voting_to_fish_3.doc size=169984]http://www.australianfishing.com.au/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/Voting_to_fish_3.doc[/file]

Voting_to_fish_3.doc

[Hunter]

Just a bit of info to balance the debate and to always check the facts and real source of information.

MEDIA RELEASE The Hon Peter Garrett MP

Minister for Environment Protection, Heritage and the Arts

PG/83 15 July 2010

COALITION NEEDS TO REEL IN THE FACTS ON MARINE PLANNING

Federal Environment Protection Minister Peter Garrett today responded to the widespread campaign of misinformation from the Liberal and National parties on the Government’s marine bioregional planning process.

The facts are these:

• FACT ONE: The areas being assessed are part of a comprehensive program of work taking place in Commonwealth waters - which start around 5.5kms from the shore - right around the country, to assess the unique economic and environmental values of the Australian east coast marine environment. It was a process initiated by the Howard Government.

• FACT TWO: In designing marine reserves the Government is aiming to strike a balance between multiple use and highly protected areas. We want to work with stakeholders to secure a good conservation outcome while minimising social and economic impacts.

• FACT THREE: Consultation on ‘Areas for Further Assessment’ in the East Marine Region is now underway. These areas for further assessment are simply areas where more detailed information will be collected. Importantly, they are not proposed no-take zones - no proposed 'no-take' zones have been identified anywhere.

• FACT FOUR: The priority for the Government is to avoid or minimise impacts on existing users. However the Government is prudently also developing a displaced efforts policy that will guide the approach to any operations impacted after exhaustive consultations are concluded. A consultant's report has been received from MAXimus Solutions which contributes to this discussion, but it does not represent Government policy.

• FACT FIVE: A Stakeholder Advisory Group has been established to provide input from sectors that have an interest in the development of the policy, and staff from my department are travelling up and down the east coast now to meet with key groups and individuals.

• FACT SIX: The process has been extended to allow further and more thorough consultation, with industry, fishers and other users.

• FACT SEVEN: The release of each draft plan will be followed by a 90-day public consultation period where everybody – commercial, charter and recreational fishers, the tourism industry, the marine industries and other sectors, environment groups and the public – will have the chance to influence the final outcome.

Instead of running ill-informed scare campaigns the Liberal and National parties should deal in the facts.

[Malcolm]

Fact:Every time they say they will consult they do and do what they want

[Yellow Peril]

FACT 8: Labor and the Greens have a preference deal. Bob Brown has announced that they want 100% of the Coral sea closed to fishing and a minimum of 30% of all Australian waters closed to fishing. THEY WILL GET THIS IF LABOR GETS ELECTED.

FACT 9: Fishing is not a significant threat to biodiversity. Only a small proportion of all fish species are of commercial or amateur fishing interest and these are protected by some of the toughest size and bag limits in the world. The major threats to marine biodiversity are stormwater runoff carrying pollutants and fertilisers.

FACT 10: Vote for labor or the Greens and we are stuffed!

[dnr]

The fact that eludes us

I Fish and I just want to fish

If a recreational fisher is deemed to cause to much of a environmental impact then sue me.

why can't the government dig a big hole or buy back waterfront land that they sold to the highest bidder (generally brought by developers, that in turn buy the politicians, that in turn allow the destruction of important Eco systems or of fish breeding grounds)

and have fish farming to supply the commercial side and leave us "small guys" alone.

All over the world if the government treated its people with such little respect there would be no government. (of which i would not like to have here)

finally leave the politics to the d#@% H&^*s and leave the fish to us

[marty]

Without getting into a debate on which party is better, we all know how much "consultation" went into the rezoning of Moreton Bay. Fishos were asked to provide information on where they fished and then the govt turned those areas into Green zones. Same thing happened up north.

Fact is these closures are not driven by years of research and science but by Greens preference deals.

Closures are not the way to manage a fishery - size and bag limits are a much better compromise.

[crazywalrus]

Hunter have you read the greens policy statement. They state there that they have a policy of 30% no take marine parks. The Greens will probably end up with the balance of power in the Senate. We will have to see how we are fishing in the future hey. To late once we have lost our right to fish to say oh I did not know.

[Bait Waster]

Another case of political logic - Something needs to be done = I am doing something so therefore it is correct. Don't worry letting facts get in the way.

If the Greens could have their way we would all be living in caves. Only problem would be that unlike our ancestors is we wouldn't be able to hunt or fish or make fires. Unfortunately voters semm to be a thick lot in general & don't recognise stupid policies until they have to put up with the pain they cause.

[tugger]

because the greens may have the balance of power in the senate does not mean there policies will get up if labor wins the election they would put there policy up for debate in the senate not the greens policy which is by far more radical. there is alot of scare tactics used from both sides of politics and it would be nieve to think that fishos would have the entire coast locked out in green zones. i hope who ever is in power they use common sense and do what is right for all

[jeff f]

help keep the greens out of the senate vote for the australian fishing and lifestyly candidates
http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com'>/>http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/newmember.html'>/>http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/newmember.html

or at least have a read
/>http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com

[daveylad]

The future is in the hands of the voters, its them that elect use your vote wisely

[ellicat]

ALP has already done the deal with the Greens. With only 38% of the primary vote heading their way they have little option. The Greens will play a bigger role on the ALP/Greens coalition policies than the Nationals will play in the Lib/Nat coalition. It's not scare mongering it's a fact and it's a very risky proposition for anyone involved, by way of participation, in fishing.

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az6XW3LuNHM&feature=channel

[ellicat]

http://www.fishingandlifestyle.com/pdf/proposedmarineparks.pdf

[crazywalrus]

Whether you lean towards either party is not the question here. The Greens have written policy stating the minimum 30% no take areas. I do not think fishing sits well with their Ideology. I have friends that are quite green and we do not see eye to eye on my fishing activities. In their mind it is cruel to catch a fish and it should be banned. They are also vegans due to their principles. They are entitled to their views and so am I.

My concern is that there is a lot of people that do not take their right to vote seriously. I hear people all the time say that they are all no good so who cares. Well that is not true. I believe both parties do what they think is best and what will get them elected. Get yourself informed and place your vote carefully and correctly for you, your family, and the country. This is a great discussion and should fuel individuals to get themselves informed. Do not just read the propaganda from each side, read their policies, discuss with people with differing views.

The problem occurs when people give a protest vote to another party in this case without careful consideration. In the past this may have been an easier option but now the Greens may have balance of power in the senate and either political party will need to pander to these people to get their bill through. Think about your vote. The marine parks may not be an eventuality in the next term of government but if it is , it is too late to do anything about it then.

[jeff f]

well put ted but i still wish i could vote with a shotgun

[kriso]

i personaly think fishing is going to cop it in the ass as time goes on no matter who is elected, with politcs these days their all as bad as each other, you might as well be asked who is better a murder or a rapist imo. i'll vote fishing party and then rest of it will be vote 1 eoar the donkey as dont want to know as things get more and more screwed each year i helped some stupid ding bat get in the position to do it.

[Dusky]

Here is a paper by professor Bob Kearney on the THE PROS AND CONS OF MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN NEW SOUTH WALES: WHO’S BEEN HOODWINKED?

(Address to The Australian Society for Fish Biology, Canberra, 12/9/07)

[file name=2007_Kearney_pros_cons_marine_protected_areas_NSW.pdf size=83376]http://www.australianfishing.com.au/media/kunena/attachments/legacy/files/2007_Kearney_pros_cons_marine_protected_areas_NSW.pdf[/file]

2007_Kearney_pros_cons_marine_protected_areas_NSW.pdf

[David88]

I think that the "no-take" policy is indeed effective, as long as catch and release is still allowed. I mean, i love a good feed of fish, but in reality, i fish for the sport of it, and would be happy to give up a feed if it meant the regeneration of our fish stocks. It's at the point where i catch almost nothing but juveniles or barely legal fish in the bay, and I'd be happy to see a complete no-take policy on all species in most waters. But by far the most damage is caused by commercial activity, and thus this would have to apply for commercial fisheries as well. I understand that many have built their livelihood around this industry, but it is no different to a farmer that is impacted by severe drought.

As long as recreational catch and release fishing is still permitted, i would have nothing but praise for something like this, as i believe, as nice as it is to come home and have a feed of fresh fish, something needs to be done to counteract the immense fishing pressure our waters have faced.

In conclusion, if such drastic measures were needed to rectify current stock issues, so be it, though this should have no impact on sport fisherman who intend to take a photo and release their catch.

All the best fellas.

[ellicat]

David88 wrote:

I think that the "no-take" policy is indeed effective, as long as catch and release is still allowed. I mean, i love a good feed of fish, but in reality, i fish for the sport of it, and would be happy to give up a feed if it meant the regeneration of our fish stocks. It's at the point where i catch almost nothing but juveniles or barely legal fish in the bay, and I'd be happy to see a complete no-take policy on all species in most waters. But by far the most damage is caused by commercial activity, and thus this would have to apply for commercial fisheries as well. I understand that many have built their livelihood around this industry, but it is no different to a farmer that is impacted by severe drought.

As long as recreational catch and release fishing is still permitted, i would have nothing but praise for something like this, as i believe, as nice as it is to come home and have a feed of fresh fish, something needs to be done to counteract the immense fishing pressure our waters have faced.

In conclusion, if such drastic measures were needed to rectify current stock issues, so be it, though this should have no impact on sport fisherman who intend to take a photo and release their catch.

All the best fellas.

I think a little bit of research and even reading the "pdf" that Dusky attached as well as reading thru similar topics in the AFO Environment forum will see you come up with some alternative views on the standard myths you described above....especially the "immense fishing pressure" one.

Where/how would the demand for table fish be satisfied ?...from somewhere where there really is immense fishing pressure ?

I'm not having a go at you or disrespecting your opinion. Just prompting you and others to give your opinions a bit more thought. A lot of opinions are based on the "vibe" factor as seen in The Castle :laugh:

As well as Dusky's pdf have a squiz at the Walter Starck article here -
/>http://www.australianfishing.com.au/community/downloads/cat_view/70-newsletters-and-articles

Cheers