Recreational fishing is booming in Queensland, so should fishers pay a licence fee?

[Hweebe]

Interesting Read -  Article out yesterday.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/rural/2021-02-24/recreational-fishing-conservation-seafood-regulations-qld-fish/13180176

"Boat trailer numbers at nine of the 48 sites surveyed by Fisheries Queensland in those months were the highest recorded since data collection began in 2016, including ramps at Yorkeys Knob, Bowen, Mackay, Gladstone, Mooloolaba and Raby Bay." - explains the weekend ramp madness on a weekend with good weather

 

 

[The Mad Hughesy]

if the fee goes towards helping boost the rec industry like in other states, then absolutely. small price to pay for a better future. Same way fresh fishos pay for their SIP

[ellicat]

I'd only support a licence if there is a guarantee the revenue raised is 100% invested into improvements for rec fishers - e.g. better ramps, artificial reefs, fish restocking etc. I don't think it should be used to pay for research that is or should be undertaken by existing departments like DAF or EPA etc. Otherwise it would risk funds being directed to Green groups for their own self-serving surveys...blah blah blah.

I believe in a user pays system like the SIPS also..

[AUS-BNE-FISHO]

Hey Hweebe

Well I'd actually support this - providing it goes to more Fisheries Officers, and better facilities on the water. A small fee isn't much at the end of the day when it could help improve fish stocks, etc. 

I think a license would be good as well. They could show and give people brochures on size limits. Then, providing you had your license, you're going to get stung big time if you have undersize fish!

Cheers Hamish

[Kenne]

I'd be happy to pay for a license if it went to the right causes but like everything all good in theory. But the A-holes who don't give an F and take every thing and anything would'nt buy a license.

[benno573]

I pay for one in NSW anyway, even Vic when traveling so why not QLD? 

 

Use the funds for FADS, artificial reefs, better and addition patrols and better public facilities. In NSW a lot of the funds went to buying out estuary and inshore commercial licenses which has had a big positive affect on stocks, I’d support similar moves in Qld.

[Licespray]

Agreed, I’m fine with an annual fee. But as said above - as long as it doesn’t go to a greens group, because ultimately they’d want fishing banned anyway 

[Drop Bear]

100% yes from me. The benefits to fishing in the states that have the licences are really good and I want it in QLD

So yes... did I say yes? 

[Drop Bear]

6 hours ago, Licespray said:

Agreed, I’m fine with an annual fee. But as said above - as long as it doesn’t go to a greens group, because ultimately they’d want fishing banned anyway 

In NSW the funds go to fishing groups like OzFish and they use the funds to improve fish habitat. I hope it would be similar if we ever get licences in QLD

[Junky]

I'd want to read to fine print before I agree to anything that expects fisho's to dish out more revenue.  

I shell out enough money yearly to the government. They make huge amounts of money off fisherman as it stands (gst). 

 

Once it's introduced it never gets withdrawn so reading the fine print, and holding bureaucrats to their word is important. 

I will not pay an annual fee just so public servants can fill their back pocket. There is enough of this culture happening already. 

 

 

 

[SuperHans]

Not a fan of rec fishing licences. Feeling a bit jaded so I'm going to have a spray.

Rec licences deny most of us a birth right to harvest common property. (in NSW aborigines are exempt from licences but that's another story). No compensation is offered for denying rec fishers this right. Compare that with commercial fishers who have to have their licences bought out as compensation.

Funds raised don't always go towards rec fishery improvement. eg in NSW they were used for mulloway re-stocking. The funny thing about fish is that swim. Now this may have been an OK idea in a freshwater impoundment, but there's nothing stopping a rec-funded mulloway swimming in to a pro fisherman's net.

I would insist that all funds raised be used only for the buy out of commercial fishing licences.

Operational costs of Fisheries operations, education as well as compliance and admin should never be funded by rec licences. 

Fisheries departments don't have a great track record in fisheries management. In NSW Fisheries Dept research vessels sought and identified new fisheries for commercial fishermen to exploit, which they did enthusiastically! Not really management is it?

One eye opening experience for me was when training (mid 1990s) a senior NSW Fisheries bureaucrat was asked by one of us about the (then) fish kills in the Menindee Lakes that were a  result of low water levels. It was suggested to him that perhaps the Fisheries Dept (which was trying to limit fish  deaths)should liaise with the NSW dept of  Land & Water to increase the flows so that they survived. The reply was that this had been suggested but that the head of Dept of Land & Water advised his opposite number in Fisheries that he "didnt care about fish as fish occupy space that could be filled by water". 

No wonder the joke at the time was "What do you get when you Land to Water"/ Answer "Mud"!

NSW Fisheries role is to manage our fisheries, yet when a fishery struggles or collapses, no minister or official stands up to say that they are responsible for the failure and offer their resignation.

The science for minimum sizes is rubbery.

eg abalone. These grow at different rates in different places according to the nutrient content of their environment, so a small specimen in a nutrient-poor location may be older and have reproduced before a larger specimen elsewhere in a nutrient-rich location. Yet, it is an offence to take that smaller (but mature) specimen.

Similarly a study of (I think it was tailor) found that commercial harvesting in WA resulted in populations that were mature at earlier ages. (Specimens that were genetically prone to mature at a smaller size were favoured because they were returned on capture while others were not).

As an ex-NSW Fisheries Officer I could not reconcile the need to issue infringement notices to someone possessing an undersize fish (because they should be allowed to grow and spawn, right?) while allowing commercial fishermen to target and harvest entire spawning migrations.

Commercial fishermen's lobby groups had more influence than the rec and the role of the Department seemed to be maintaining the status quo.

A fellow officer told me about a beach haul operation that harvested migrating schools of mullet, removed the roes for export and bulldozed the remains into the beach.

One ineffective knee jerk response to appear to be 'managing' fish stocks was to decrease the bag limit. A joke really because so few people actually reach the limit and the effect is negligible.  

Qld (and belatedly NSW) finally adopted sensible management policies such as closed seasons (eg to allow barra to spawn), and limits on taking larger fish that have managed to survive to maturity and spawn. (fish produce so many eggs because so few of them will manage to get to maturity, so the rationale for returning undersized fish while taking the bigger ones was always crazy).

 

[BinaryFart]

@SuperHans - A balanced opinion! The pay walling of a "natural birthright" access to the common property is an interesting idea and I hadn't considered that angle before. I guess a counter to that argument is that the common property (fishing) could be said to belong to future generations as well, and licence fees (if used correctly) can help to safe guard future access to that same common property.

It really does come down to how the funds are used. I don't hold a lot of faith in politicians - either their honesty or competency. That's why I think the upsurge of new anglers as a result of the pandemic is an excellent thing! Every new angler is a potential (voting) advocate for fishing rights, and there's nothing politicians like more voters . Increased numbers of anglers has its down sides certainly, but with the increased fees comes the opportunity to educate these new anglers on things like size and bag limits (which are definitely not enforced very consistently in Sydney). 

I'm definitely not a fan of over regulation, but fishing licence fees seem to work well enough in NSW. They do seem to be invested back into the sport, and overall I think it is a net-positive. I guess it depends on how much weight you place on the principal of "access by birthright" - You've got me thinking about that now. 

[Gad]

hmmmm, fishing licence fees, hey.
over 250,000 recreational boats/crafts are registered in Qld (figure obtained from a govt. site in 2020) some time in the late 1970`s- early 80`s a recreational use fee (RUF) was introduced in our boating registration, etc. fees.
My current rego renewal notice, shows that to be $23.05 now. It was brought in so these fees could go specifically into recreational boating and fishing coffers: educational materials, programs/activities, printed boating and fishing guides, grants to recfishing groups, etc.
Then came the LNP government in 2012 with pre election promises of rose gardens for every boating rec- fisho...
what eventuated was the recreational use fee (RUF) was put into the general revenue basket with the loss of educational materials, programs/activities, printed boating and fishing guides, grants to recfishing groups, etc....

Now don`t get me wrong, I`m not an ageing cynical old **** but I wouldn`t trust any politician or government collection of liars with any additional, out of my pocket, fees, taxes, etc to add to the revenue for these services that they already provide (apparently) and often mismanage, through our present fees and charges.

eg: do we really need architectural designed additions to our boat ramp facilities... gardens etc, multiple pathways, awrd winning dunnies, that actually lessen the parking spaces in the area

.

[Angry51]

Yeah Gad, It would just be another TAX.

Say it however you want.

Were the govment and were here to help you.

[Drop Bear]

The evidence I see from NSW and Vic is that the money is often well used. 

I 100% agree that there will be huge amount of wastage and it would never be a perfect model but it would be better. 

Perfect is the enemy of better... I want to have better and I don't mind paying for this. 

Better fish habitat including shellfish reefs actually produce fish ie they make fish. For every hectare of shellfish reef we restore we produce 2.5 ton of fish every year... forever. 

Money produced by fishers will go towards projects like;

• Re snagging produces more fish.
• Riparian planting helps to stop bank erosion and reduces sediment going into the water and this produces more fish. 
• shellfish reefs produce fish
• coral restoration produces more fish
• seagrass restoration produces more fish
• purchasing commercial licences leaves more fish 
• Policing fishing regulations leave more fish

[Angry51]

Agree wholehearted with Dropbear, but will the money be

used like that or will it be used at Gov discretion.

And we all know about Government.

[Drop Bear]

4 hours ago, Angry51 said:

Agree wholehearted with Dropbear, but will the money be

used like that or will it be used at Gov discretion.

And we all know about Government.

I agree with you. It is a very valid concern. 

[rayke1938]

If it were set up as a separate licence with all monies to into a trust similar to the NSW model it would work very well, If it would make the sip scheme redundant great care would have to be taken so that the current level of funding to freshwater fishing is not diminished. The big thing to watch is that it is set up by legislation so that greedy fingers ala cando and his sticky fingered mates cannot touch it . It MUST be set up by legislation. When Bill Byrne was the fisheries minister I thought that we has another Tom Burnes to look after the interests of rec fishos but sadly he had to resign from his portfolio due to ill health. I do not think that any other polly will have the cojones to promote a rec fishing license in QLD as there are not enough votes in it.

[Gad]

The older I get the surer I am that Guy Fawkes was the only person to enter parliament with honest intentions......

[Kat]

On 02/03/2021 at 7:39 AM, Drop Bear said:

The evidence I see from NSW and Vic is that the money is often well used. 

I 100% agree that there will be huge amount of wastage and it would never be a perfect model but it would be better. 

Perfect is the enemy of better... I want to have better and I don't mind paying for this. 

Better fish habitat including shellfish reefs actually produce fish ie they make fish. For every hectare of shellfish reef we restore we produce 2.5 ton of fish every year... forever. 

Money produced by fishers will go towards projects like;

• Re snagging produces more fish.
• Riparian planting helps to stop bank erosion and reduces sediment going into the water and this produces more fish. 
• shellfish reefs produce fish
• coral restoration produces more fish
• seagrass restoration produces more fish
• purchasing commercial licences leaves more fish 
• Policing fishing regulations leave more fish

Do they publish figures of income and expenditure?

[BinaryFart]

2 minutes ago, Kat said:

Do they publish figures of income and expenditure?

Here is the link to the NSW DPI Fisheries page on licence fees usage:https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fishing/recreational/recreational-fishing-fee/licence-fees-at-work#:~:text=All money raised by the,improving recreational fishing in NSW.

I can't find anything that looks like a balance sheet accounting for all fees paid, but it does detail the projects and initiatives funded by the Fishing Trusts.