Moore softens line on fishing fees
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/5901690/moore-softens-line-on-fishing-fees/
Fisheries Minister Norman Moore has given ground in the row over fishing licence fees, signalling yesterday he would consider a compromise from key recreational fishing groups.
The plan centres on cutting the number of dhufish anglers can catch and recommending all boats carry a device to help return to the ocean floor undersize demersal fish suffering trauma from being brought to the surface.
These fish are crucial for the breeding population but if not returned to the depths quickly, they suffer "barotrauma" similar to the bends in divers and often die.
The fishing groups also want fees put on hold for two months so a public consultation process can explore ways to better research the industry, such as using voluntary logbooks.
Mr Moore has been under pressure from Liberal backbenchers and their constituents from the day he announced the fees in July in a bid to crack down on recreational fishing and save vulnerable species.
Unless changes are made, from the middle of next month, anyone using a boat to fish must pay an annual licence fee of $30, plus extra to fish for demersal scalefish in the West Coast region.
Fishing for demersal scalefish would be banned from October 15 to December 15.
Mr Moore met peak group Recfishwest yesterday to discuss the deal hammered out among industry groups late last week.
"They have acknowledged the science and agreed that a 50 per cent reduction (in the recreational catch) is necessary and they put forward a number of alternative ways we could achieve that," Mr Moore said.
"I have agreed with them that I will take on board their suggestions and have them analysed and assessed by the department to see whether they meet our objectives.
"I gave them no commitment at all other than to say I will have it assessed by the scientists to see how the numbers pan out."
Mr Moore did not say how long the analysis would take.
Recfishwest executive director Frank Prokop welcomed the move.
"The Minister set us a challenge to come up with a proposal to cut the catch by 50 per cent and we think we have done that and it will be more strongly supported by the industry," he said.
"We'll wait and see what Cabinet's view is on those proposals."
Mr Prokop said bag limits for the most threatened species - dhufish - would be cut to one per angler and two per boat, down from the current limit of four per boat. The seasonal ban would stay.
He said Recfishwest deliberately focused on dhufish because the industry believed other species were at less risk and sufficient conservation measures, with slight changes, were already in place.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
Highlander
Posts: 151
Date Joined: 02/07/09
It has taken the Minister
It has taken the Minister long enough to agree to a compromise, I agree fully with the suggestion of dhufish per person and two per boat.
Jim.
fishing, that used to be free!!!!
wadetolley
Posts: 2258
Date Joined: 27/06/08
Yes
Fully agree with you Highlander! We new it was coming.
Highlander
Posts: 151
Date Joined: 02/07/09
Wade, I notice in the above
Wade,
I notice in the above article, that the Minister, is prepared for Public Consultation, I wonder will he be so kind and advise, when that is going to happen and of any venues that might be used for the process.Hopefully held in friendly time frames.
Jim.
fishing, that used to be free!!!!
wadetolley
Posts: 2258
Date Joined: 27/06/08
i heard
I heard the meeting was at 0200 in Northam..ha ha ha Hopefully highlander the have it in the city the weak prickles.
UncutTriggerInWA
Posts: 2692
Date Joined: 05/09/08
I doubt it...
IMO I think he is saying he will consult with Recfishwest and his scientists and let them take the initiative (and the blame for any further decisions made). It's the people who have made this happen thanks to so much protesting in whatever form, whether it be "consitutionally allowable" or just sheer weight in numbers. It's just lucky he has a little time to run yet.
More power to the people and to sites like this!
Vince.
Work smart and fish often.
Member and die-hard supporter of the mighty West Coast Eagles.
gregk
Posts: 169
Date Joined: 03/02/09
cutting my own throat
why ban the windiest time, if we are for real ban march through till end of april
Faulkner Family
Posts: 18027
Date Joined: 11/03/08
possibly some good news
possibly some good news then, 2 dhuies p/boat is a good idea and putting a stop to the $150 demersal licence would be even better
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
Blackbetty-50
Posts: 96
Date Joined: 17/08/07
Fees and Rules
Cutting the bag and boat limits is the easiest and only way to reduce the recreational catch by 50%. It will look after the very special fishery here in WA instead of the double tax system. Fees and charges only raise revenue and have no bearing on conservation what so ever. If Norman Moore is totally committed and serious about this whole matter of conserving our vulnerable fish species he will put a blanket ban on these species for the two month closure mid October to mid December. This includes Pros, Recreation and Charter Boat Operators. What is the point allowing the Pros to run 7-10 Kms of net out during one of the prime spawning times, this is murder not conservation, lets be serious if we want to have these fish around in ten years time everyone needs to do it tough !!!!!!
carnarvonite
Posts: 8669
Date Joined: 24/07/07
2 per Boat
The proposed 2 dhueis per boat will not work because if you have 2 just legal size fish in the icebox and nothing else you are going to keep fishing in the hope of catching other quality fish to get somewhere near to your limit.And you pull up a big dhuey with its eyes popped out along with its bag hanging out of its mouth you know that any amount of release weights are not going to revive it in a month of Sundays,whats going to happen is one of the little one from the eski is taking a trip back to the bottom----out of sight out of mind and some more burley/craybait goes drifting off.
The extra cost will no deter the ones who can afford it but will severely hurt the pockets of the rest ,which was Norman's aim to begin with,in an attempt to reduce the actual number of fishers.
IMO a longer ban than the 2 months is needed and it has to be later in the year to cover the whole of the breeding season not just the first two weeks of it,It should start at the start of November and finish at the end of January.The proposed $30 fee/licence is reasonable and should pay for the extra research and for additional fisheries officers
Yanni
Posts: 12
Date Joined: 17/07/09
carnarvonite, I do agree
carnarvonite,
I do agree with you on the bag limits and upgrading.
The only way to help our fish is to stop fishing for them.
A scientifically based closure for rec and pro fishers from boat and from shore is needed which comes to my question.
How far does 30 dollars go, do we believe that a one off payment will give us the required amount of fisheries officers and give us any reasonable data on the fish we need to save?
To me the $150 annual payment that would give us better data, maybe more officers and a healthy trust fund may of had a better chance in protecting our fish.
Because this is all about fish not money!!
Highlander
Posts: 151
Date Joined: 02/07/09
Carnarvonite, I agree with
Carnarvonite,
I agree with your comments, all makes sense,your comment about a longer ban, I feel would be the start of a better way to try and conserve fish stocks. I have no idea how we can reduce the actual number of fishers, introducing expensive fishing fees, will not help, it will turn people into poachers, there are already comments to that effect in all the posts on this issue. Also,the so called experts, cannot keep blaming technology for the falling fishstocks. The conservation should have been introduced long before now and then we would not be in this situation.
Jim.
fishing, that used to be free!!!!
Zorba
Posts: 35
Date Joined: 24/09/08
This mornings Headline
Check the West out,
Hopefully some sense will be made of all this and a reasonable license fee will be introduced,
Also some restraint on the taking of fish when you have enough to eat. Not enough to sell.
Catch your Limit,Or Limit your catch,Your Choice.
Zorba
Bob
DhuBoi
Posts: 896
Date Joined: 25/05/09
I think the bag limit still
I think the bag limit still should remain the same, but make a rule similiar to pinkys , any dhufish over the 85 , 90cm mark must be returned . This will keep the bigger breeders in the water :)
living is fishing
DAVOSNUTS
Posts: 6
Date Joined: 14/01/09
2 Dhuies per boat is plenty
Lets all use our brains and fish forever instead of just the next 5yrs, I would like my kids to grow up and be able to go out and catch a dhuie when their older. So 2 Dhu's are plenty who really cares if there just legal or if there 10kg + . Its not the good old times anymore and alot of crew can not come to grips with this.
Highlander
Posts: 151
Date Joined: 02/07/09
The last sentence in the
The last sentence in the above post, is,very,very true, I agree entirely with that last comment.
Jim.
fishing, that used to be free!!!!
DhuBoi
Posts: 896
Date Joined: 25/05/09
Yeh i mostly agree with
Yeh i mostly agree with carnavonite he does have some really good points, maybe to stop the smaller dhufish being put back , we can propose a ban to taking dhu fish bigger then 90 cm or something , and it is true that only two dhufish per boat will have a more significant pressure put on other species as some people will not be willing to go home with just two decent fish, and fish harder and longer to extend there capture of decent eating fish. Yes you guys are right fishing is not like the old times, populations are growing and seafood is on higher demand each year, and the numbers of fishers are growing aswell. Also with the closure ban it needs to be longer then a few months, yes a few months will help the species, but a few months ban is not the solution, needs to be longer. and there could also be problems with that aswell, because as soon as the closure is over , there will be a masss adventure to go out and fish. all in all , its one problem leads to another there is no quick fix to this situation.
living is fishing
roberta
Posts: 2773
Date Joined: 08/07/08
Totally agree
with you Carnarvonite.
Ginger Tablets Rock
Paul G
Posts: 5215
Date Joined: 12/12/07
I wonder if the one dhuie
I wonder if the one dhuie per person ,means three people three dhuies and so on or an all out two per boat no matter how many on board.will have to wait and see. its a hard one ,will people keep on fishing after they have there one dhuie ,try to get a snapper or groper.will this result in many more dhuies being thrown back dead ,i think many will have to change there fishing ways and learn to bring fish to the top a lot slower,even give the fish a decompresion stop at 5m for a couple of mimutes to help with there release.most fish will release well if brought to the top slowly,and i do meen slow.
Active Gyp-Rok solutions ,Residential and commercial ceilings and walls
Brucesta
Posts: 1721
Date Joined: 29/05/09
finally a little common
finally a little common sense prevailed.
the licence per boat is good and i really couldn't care if it was more than 30 bucks, man i'd pay up to 100 a year to fish from a boat as long as it covers everyone onboard.
Max size on dhufish/snapper/baldies etc makes good sense too. as well as banning EVERYONE for the two months
Las Vegas - Rolling the dice and trying your luck. 1M+ Barra summer target. 100kg Black Marlin winter target
shammy
Posts: 231
Date Joined: 03/07/09
A win for fishers
Firstly I'm surprised that Yanni is still for the $150 fee per person.
We pay some of the HIGHEST taxes in the world. We regularly get double taxed, with additional levies that then, never disappear........ Why pay a government for a service that you have already paid for in your initial taxes??
Just about every service that was free with half the population we now have, is a "fee for service". How do you figure that? I can think of about 4 or 5 major projects that have benefited the state in the last 25 years, in one of the richest states in the country and one of the richest countries int he world.
Where has all that money gone? These governments cannot seem to think or have vision past the next 3 years.
If your that way inclined then just set up a direct debit into your bank account for every new fee, tax or levy they come up with..... They'll not complain.
The good thing is the reduction on the bag limit but I agree 100% with Black betty-50 ref ALL fishers being accountable. Dhuboys maximum size is another good idea as long as the fish is returnable.
The win for fishers is that the Government was MADE to listen, and HELD accountable. From what I saw on this and other sites, in the papers and the general media the backlash was considerable. The fee is still higher than other states -however it's workable.
So for all those people who wrote to their Ministers on both sides of government, who signed petitions, who phoned Minister Moore's office to complain, I've got to say well done.
We still had "Boats in the city" campaign plus some other initiatives to drag out but it seems phase one may have stopped the rot.
"Life wasn't meant to be a spectator sport"
Yanni
Posts: 12
Date Joined: 17/07/09
Hello Shammy, The reason i
Hello Shammy,
The reason i am in favour for the $150.00 fee is that it was going to a fund that was to be spent on research.
It would of given us a healthy opening ballance. One of the biggest problems is that we need accurate data and with accurate data comes a large bill.
The last thing us fishers need is in 12 months down the track is smaller bag limits, a longer closed season and maybe no go zones because we are still using the same old data that tells us now that we have a demersal problem.
As it stands, the money that will be generated with the new licence (State boat fishing licence) will be spread across 4 regions. The $150.00 would of been a demersal licence so one would hope it would of been directed for research on demersal's.
It was stated that the $150.00 was a starting point to be reviewed in 12 months so it could of been a one off payment or it may of stayed, we will never know.
I can't see an extra 4 or 4.5 million going to far in our state with the new licence.
And i agree with you that we allready pay our fair share in taxes and we are a very rich state but we have the other problems on land and i can't see the government putting there hands in there pockets and giving us more money!!
From Frank...
"We will be monitoring the impact of the licence system on recreational fishing and will be ensuring that the benefits from the licence funded projects as well as the impacts of the new fees are analysed as part of the next review in 12 months." Mr Prokop concluded.
We may end up paying more..
iana
Posts: 652
Date Joined: 21/09/09
150 dollar fee
Reading what you are all saying is that you presume all persons fishing from a boat are out to catch Dufish, so we should all be taxed. It may surprise you to know that some go fishing just for Herring and Garfish. But they should subsidize those with big flash boats, owners with such fat wallets they wouldnt enevn notice the fees (taxes).
The problem is not just those specified demersal fish, but an overall situation of over fishing, pollution, destroying sea grass etc etc, the whole food and life chain of our sea.
It is my opinion, that all who catch fish whether from the shore of from a boat, or putting pollutiom into the sea or ripping up the sea grass, should contribute to a fix solution.
An easy fund raiser, just put a levey on fishing tacle and bait, the more you use the more you contribute.
Andy Mac
Posts: 4778
Date Joined: 03/02/06
Quote
"An easy fund raiser, just put a levey on fishing tacle and bait, the more you use the more you contribute."
We have one of those already iana, its called the GST.
Cheers
Andy Mac (Fishwrecked Reeltime Editor & Forum Moderator)
Youngest member of the Fishwrecked Old Farts Club
shammy
Posts: 231
Date Joined: 03/07/09
Fees
iana, wouldn't be a politician by chance would you???
I've never caught a Dhu fish, my sons and I have a couple of mackeral, tuna and ONE decent Snapper. We go out to enjoy the fun of it, be together and have a laugh.
I really don't see the need to pay $150 each; for the privilege of spending time with my family enjoying a bit of bottom fishing..............
If you want to see destruction of sea grass just wait till the government starts dredging cockburn sound .
"Life wasn't meant to be a spectator sport"
Shorty
Posts: 1549
Date Joined: 10/05/08
Does anybody know the
Does anybody know the latest, have the new proposals gone through parliment or are we still waiting ?
iana
Posts: 652
Date Joined: 21/09/09
Am I a politician
Am I a politician? no I'm not, if I was, I would bring out a $10 licence fee for everyone who wants to fish. That woud bring in more funds that this bullsh-t setup the government wants to bring in.
Shammy, I havn't caught those fish either yet. However I am going to get taxed for the thought.
As far as dredging the sound, I rest my case! your Honour.