chevin,

 I think you have hit the nail right on the head, I for one, will copy the letter and send to the Minister, worth a stamp, for that letter. Just printed copies off, have done one for a mate of mine and will be posted tomorrow July 14th 2009.

Thanks, Jim.

Hi Jim,

I hope a lot of others do the same.  I was hoping that tackle dealers, boat dealers and other concerned parties might launch a legal action against this legislation which has been based on a survey lasting TWO DAYS.  Unfortunately it seems that that is not  going to happen.  I just can't believe that something that has caused so much criticism looks as though it will become law because of the apathy of those who should be contesting it.  If this goes through without opposition then we can expect more and possibly even more draconian measures to be levelled against us in the future.

yep have printed a few copies and will hand them to the boys at the office to fill out whether they fish or not

 Hi Chevin,

Unfortunately, I do have to agree with your comments, its like we live in a world of make believe, when a lot of criticism is pointed at the Fisheries Minister and nobody is willing to get off their collective arses and take a stance on this draconian proposal.

I did however, see in last Saturdays West Australian, fishing section, a very well written letter, I think by Mike Roennfeldt. I would have thought, that his Open Letter, might have jarred a few people into reality, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears,as you say, because of the apathy, that exsists in our fishing and general community. I am also of the opinion that poaching will take on a whole new meaning and I hope Fisheries will have the "resources" to police the legislation to the highest level and prosecute to the absolute hilt.

 Jim.

Surely there is someone within the ranks here who has professional legal experience.  I know that lawyers also fish and they too must be concerned about what is being done to our sport.  We need advice of every kind if we are going to stand any chance of opposing these new laws.  Like most, I have no problems with paying a licence fee but there other ways of ensuring conservation without using a means of financial exclusion which is the way Mr Moore has gone.

have made copies and 6 friends also have letter and are sending also & just heard they have also given a copy to their friends.  Good letter.

Edited .......... got a phone call last night have to make up 10 more letters just call me secretary Roberta

TODAYTONIGHT

I'm sorry Saltatrix but I am not quite sure of what you are saying, or trying to say.

The survey on which this legislation was based lasted two days and no anglers, angling associations or boating associations  were involved. The information I have on who did the survey is purely hearsay and so I am reluctant to repeat it here, but if it is true, and I do believe that it is, those involved may have beliefs that are not in the favour of angling.  Perhaps if Mr Moore had been courteous enough to involve all those who are going to be impacted by the laws he is introducing a far more reasonable solution might have been found.

on which this decision was made goes back a long way.Yes the money is a bit steep but we need something to be done.My question is why have all these people come out of the woodwork now and gone all proactive ?I feel it is because all of a sudden it hits in the hip pocket.There have been a hell of a lot of interaction between scientists,Fisheries and rec anglers over a long period of time.Most of the people complaining now are doing so with no prior history in the gathering of info that has arrived at this end.If you want to send a petition there is nothing stopping you but if you want to make a difference to the whole deal find out where and when the meetings are and attend just like the greenies do.If as rec anglers and outdoorsy people if we get organized we will be a force to be considered by the powers that be.If you sit back and do nothing but send a letter or two dont bitch and moan that it doesnt go your way.I personally dont think that when they intro the new laws they will NOT be as steep as first presented .The old trick of this is what we are going to do so we all get angry and pissed off then they intro less fees and we all think we got a great deal .If you think the tackle industry is being quiet do you think that may be because they are fighting against full closures of the fishery that would mean the crippling of their businesses .Think about it from this point of view turn around and look at all the fishing gear you own and think about the fact that alot of you will have reels with more than $150 worth of braid on it.If the money was going to things other that the fishery i would be pissed off too but as it is i will find the money and pay for the privilege of fishing off our fantastic coast and think about how lucky ive been to enjoy it for so long without paying for the right.

Allrounder.  There is no doubt that Mr. Moore has taken notice of a recent survey that lasted two days.  Nobody else was notified of what was being done.  I don't think that anyone objects to paying for a fishing licence but what is objectionable is the way the matter has been approached beyond the basic $30.00 licence.  Personally, I am not bothered about fishing for dhufish they are not a fighting fish and I prefer to eat whiting anyway, but I am trying to do exactly what you suggest and get anglers, boaters and whomever to work together to protect our sport from interference from those who know nothing about it.

as interference i think of it as a payment to further the research and enforcement of a fishery that has required assistance for many years.Like i said i think that the price is steep but if it was bought in ten years ago we would not be playing catch up now.If it waits another ten years the fish will be screwed how will we all feel then?

allrounder;  I quite agree that something needs to be done.  All I am saying that it could be done in different ways.  Ways that also took into account the views and needs of those impacted and not just what a group opposed to angling wanted to see introduced.  Perhaps even more money could have been raised by applying the $30.00 fee to all anglers - land based anglers too!  Unfortunately I am not trusting enough to believe for a moment that very much of the money raised will be put back into angling or its protection.  On one point I well agree with you and that is if it hadn't been for the greed of some anglers we wouldn't be in this situation.  I have frequently been astonished by demonstrations of that greed and on occasions wished that there was something I could do about it.  However, what is done is done and now, somehow, we are now going to have to make amends, but conservation through financial exclusion is not the way to do it in my opinion.

Allrounder,

 You mention about people coming out of the "woodwork", I for one, have been waiting for a public forum to come to light about fishing activites in Western Australia and this current proposal has got my hackles up quite a bit. A number of years ago, I took part in a voluntary, large survey, that was conducted by Fisheries and the survey was in large bookform. At the moment I can not remember how many questions that it contained, but Fisheries requested input, from anglers, choice of fishing, ie demersal or pelagic. Within the survey, it was aimed at specific areas and asked peoples opinions on reducing bag limits. These survey books were available only from Tackle shops and then were returned to Fisheries, when survey was complete. I received a letter of acknowledgement from Fisheries and never heard anything else about the survey. Its all well and good, suggesting that people attend meetings, but they are very rarely made public, and hear about that meeting after it has taken place. At times this State, can be so secretive, its like the place is run by a bunch of hypocritcal political, ex KGB agents, not the so called free democratic society that they allegedly, would have us believe we live in.

I dont have any problem at all with paying for an anual fishing licence, provided its not at an extortinate cost. As said above, I feel that the vast amount of money that,will come from the proposed fees ,will be going straight into the debt fund, that this goventment is creating.

Jim.

 by the way, nice breeding size jewie your cuddling in your avatar.

i was part of that survey too as well as the log book as well as sambo science as well as tagging  dhu in the first round that was dismissed because we released the fish too well as well as tagging dhu to this day and into the future .Ok first question how do the greenies find out about the meetings?Has the minister already stated that the money from the license is going into a fishing based fund.How many 20 kg dhu have you caught ?How many dhu have you released at 20 kg or bigger?How many dhu have you tagged?Not having a shot at you just stating that if i had a choice in letting that fish go it would not have been my avatar for the simple reason it would still be swimming today i would hope.That fish was dead before it hit the surface Heart attack or a stroke i dont know all i know is that it was F U B A R and did not even kick on the deck.My answers to the questions i have asked you are 5 of which 4 are still swimming 2 of which would have been well over 20 and i have lost count of tags in fish .My advise is that if you do get a dhu over 18 kg put it back when pos because they dont taste that flash they go all tuff and stringy .That fish was not wasted in any part right down to the skin which is in my freezer cryo packed until i can find someone to make it into a wallet.So in the end i regret that he kicked it but will not be made to feel guilty for the fact because in a small way that fish has gone to research in the hope that the info gathered will help make a difference to the bag limit and size limits in the future .In saying that if it was over a size limit it would have been devastating to watch it go to waste.

Allrounder,

No insult was intended, with the comment about, the breeding size dhufish in your avatar, it was merely a comment, that has been misconstrued by yourself.

To be honest, I have no idea how many dhufish I have caught, probably nowhere as many, as your esteemed self. How many have I tagged?? none, to be truthful. I never fished exclusively for dhufish, or for that matter anything else, all my fishing captures were all a bonus and if were of table quality, they were taken home. I was never interested in taking "trophy" sized dhufish, I personally never saw the sense of that. I also firmly believe in much smaller bag limits, Fisheries used to have a slogan,"fish for the future" never hear or see that anymore, I know why, not enough money, its called expenditure restructuring.

As for the comment, has the Minister,already stated, that the money will go to a fishing based fund?? Who knows where that money will go, its general public perception, that money, generated from any licence revenue, would go where ever the government deems it necessary.

Jim.

Believe me.Dhu fish would have to be one of the easiest fish to catch if that is all you want to target and as for big dhu they taste like string.Fisheries are under the same pressure as all gov dept to reduce expenditure thats why they havent printed a great deal of late .From the info i have been told all money raised will go to the fishery.If this turns out not to be the case i will be the first in line to protest very loudly lets see how long it takes to remove an old timber cray boat full of concrete from the steps of parliament house .

General question, has anybody noticed the link in the fishing section of todays West Australian newspaper, regarding these new propsals. Have a good read through this

www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/pub/RecFishArrange

Then have a look at the pdf files ,for more information, especially the Frequently Asked Questions. These proposals have far more reaching implications, than people realise, also read carefully, all costs, to be a licenced fisherperson in Western Australia.

Jim.