I think its a good idea, Then we can put money back into looking after the waters[rivers as well] What can you get for free/Not a lot our days/In uk they stock lakes and ponds. Is there anyway it can be done here or is there 2 much rubbish flowing into them that would kill the fish.
steve
It would be nice to sit by lake mongor fishing with the family

Born to fish forced to work

I don't see or hear of the fisheries doing a great deal down this way but if a fee would go towards the hiring of more fisheries officer's meaning the people doing the wrong thing have a much higher chance of getting stung then im all for it, fairs fair but people certainly wont like a change like this, but if its for the better and not just revinue raising then maybe.
On the other hand there are plenty of people doing the wrong thing on the freshwater side like spearing/netting trout at harvey dam for instance where a licence and fee is required, i understand that part of the fee (possibly all would of it) would go toward yearly stocking but there hasn't been much enforcement.

Long story short: If a fee would help to protect our preciouse recource then so be it

Just my opionion of course

Tackle Dangler

Ive put my point of view across the forums about policeing and greater fines for people doing the wrong thing before. I think that a fishing license is a great idea and $25 per person is a reasonable cost as well. Even $50 a family ( two adults,two kids) is a great option as well. Im sure the money will be put to great use as there is alot of issues that need to be addressed! Not the folt of the people incharge but the general fishing community need more education on whats right and whats not. As there is a growing interest in fishing that i have noticed in perth in the laast few years, theres alot more people around that dont know the rules and regs. There still is no exuces i believe as there is infomation at all destinations were fuel, equipment and bait is bought so they must know or dont wont to know! A license is a great way to enforce the rules on the person as they pay! The info can be given to them then. It is still cheap enough that the average angler can pay and only fish a few times a year to make it worth while. I think that no one would mind paying to fish as they have to to get abs and marron etc now! Up the fines and the info over and pay the licence three things i belive will help fisging in the future possible. Shit id even be happy to put my time in to help people understand why this is needed and what you and your family can get out of doing the right thing, i bet all would understand if not you could try to make em ! What you reacon streetfighter we'll sort them out hay. Actually i hope there not bringing in this licence to pay Adams wages for the year!LOL

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

Its proberly not worth it for the guys that only have a few years left in them to fish! You know guys like sherbert, andy mac maybe LOL!Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

Coming from fishing the waters around NSW where a fishing license was required you can see where some of the money goes. I am not sure as the exact figures but there is nowhere near the amount of pros working the waters of NSW. Since the buy out of many of the longline contracts on the south coast a few years back the yellowfin tuna and billfish are starting to return. Around Narooma where they bought out contracts the tuna and billfish can be found as close as 10km from shore where if you go back 5 years you needed to head out 60-100km to find them.

Where will the money go.

I think in NSW you still pay $25 year, $10 month or $5 for a week which could suit everyone from us hardcore guys that head out once a week to your once a year fish with the kids.

A good idea as long as the money goes back into the waters of WA and not into the pockets of the guys in suits.

i think a recsalt license is a good idea as long as all the revenue goes back into the rec fishery ,either more officers more studies more re stocking what eva .i would not like to see the money dwindle away with pro fishing concerns .they have plenty and seem to get looked after not looked over .may sound a bit harsh that last bit but im not going to get caught up in it .
if it did come in ide hate to see the family man down the beach getting fingered bye an officer for not having a license ,specialy if he only has a crack at it maybee once in a blue moon, or a couple of kids dropping a line of a jetty .its a harde this one .maybee put an extra dollar on sold bait .and the gov can get the coin that way.i dont know i just know it will be messy
always in it just the depth that varies

$25/year is a pittance compared to what a lot of us spend on tackle/bait/gear etc, and as long as my fee was going towards the long term sustainability of w.a. fishing, i'd have no drama what soever. What concerns me though is, who is held accountable for our fees, what "reporting back" is done for us, Joe Public, to ensure our money is well spent.
If there was some sort of annual report/audit that would be made available for those interested, to see where there hard earned was spent, that would make it easier for a lot of people to part with their cash.

The long term benefit of a RFL is only good. There is no negative whatsoever in my mind........... as long as the funds rasied are spent wisely.

they do it over east and it dont seem that bad.my bro has a license and he renews it every year but only fishes once in a while.handy thing to have he says as he has been pulled up numerous times...id get one if i had to....i enjoy fishing just like the next fisho and dont have a problem with it......and like every1 has said if the revenue was put back into the fishing side of things well that can only be good thing......
he who dies with the most toys wins

"It would be nice to sit by lake mongor fishing with the family"

been there done that,youd be suprised whats allready in there..

id be wiling to pay a liscence fee,especialy if it put more fisheries people on the front end of things catching people with over the limit etc....bloody good idea...sid

Its my 2nd year trout fishing but only bein one time and i dont mine payin it
steve
Born to fish forced to work

So are there any obvious problems with doing this apart from what has been mentioned?

I like the ability to be able to pay on a monthly/weekly/yearly basis. I suppose it really needs to be scaled so that those that don't use it so often aren't being slugged with hefty fees and those that are able to get out once, maybe even more often per week pay accordingly. I see the problem with that being the enforcement side of things, like Mitch has said, it complicates matters quite a bit.

Is it fair that some pay and others think they can exploit it by not paying. Will the costs involved with hiring officers to enforce the license be the primary source of where the revenue is going to be spent. It does have the potential to get messy, but surely if they have the other licenses in place, freshy, marron, abs, crays etc, then a saltwater usage fee can't be too far from being implemented?

Also, do you think that if people had to pay to use the resource it would reduce the pressure placed on stocks as a result of the occasional angler not bothering having to pay the license along with the potential costs involved with being fined as a result of not having one?

All hypothetical of course.

However it won;t work unless you use the money generated to police the waterways. Otherwise as Adam eluded to, the chances are a guy who rarely fishes will not bother with buying a license and risk it..then the next guy will risk it and pretty soon its open slather.

I had the fortunate experience of catching a train into town the other day. 12 months ago half the passengers wouldn't have bought a ticket but now since they have resourced the policing of it, everyone buys a ticket.

I'm not saying a closed environment like a train is anything like the vast coastline we have but the fact remains if its policed people will fall into line and the bad guys will get caught and rightfully dealt with.

Research is the other big thing and moneys need to be channelled into that area too. A license will help raise that money and I'm happy to pay it if it means I can catch big dhuies with my grand kids 20 years from now.

I would have no worries in paying that or even more, but I would like to see it go to the right places, I am very much in for alot more laws keeping tabs on who is out there fishing the waters,I belive that somthing is so much better than nothing.

There needs to be alot more places that you can aquire a licence as well, in bunbury the only place you can get one is at the main post office in town (on a week day) so if a once a month fisher decides to go for a fish on a satuday or sunday then he/she's far more likely to say 'bugger it i'll risk it'

Tackle Dangler

If the policing of our waterways is considered a "joke" then people will treat the laws governing them as a "Joke" and subsequently be tempted to flaunt them. (Just my opinion.) License or no license.

Ask yourself why 80% of us all speed in our cars at one time or another? Its because we think we can get away with it ("what's an extra 10kmph on the freeway, nothing"....wrong). As soon as you get a fine or see a speed camera you slow down. I'm as guilty as the next man, that's why I think it will only work if the policing is visible and people think they will get caught if they do the wrong thing.

I would definately not want to hear on the radio that "today we have reports of fisheries at hillaries, mindarie and two rocks marina's, so make sure you do the right thing." All that will do is tell the crooks where they can get away with it.

Interesting topic.

Thats a good comment nealez, you have to make it assesable fro people to get one or stick to the one a year payment plan so your covered.

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

The reason I think people think they can get away with it is because there isn't enough enforcement, but also because the penalties aren't harsh enough. If you knew you were going to get slapped with a $500 fine for not having a license, then the risk of not having one is too great not to, especially when its say, only $25 to hold one for the year.
The same goes with theives and home burglaries, if crooks knew that they were going to lose their hands (like medieval times, muslim countries) I'd bet there would be a lot less crimes of that nature occuring. These days they seem to get a slap on the wrist and theyre back out re-offending because the punishment doesn't match the crime. Bit overkill I know, but a closer example is speeding over east, their fines are $500 + and upwards for small infringements, now that would certainly be enough to deter me from pushing those extra few kmsPH.

Anyway, a bit offtopic. I agree with what you have said about notifying where fisheries are Andy, I guess it comes down to the government $ allocation and how important they think the fishery is, especially when theres so many other things going on, not enough police officers, not enough teachers etc.

Surely the money from a SWFL could go to focusing on components of the fishery that require it, then I guess it comes down to prioritising which is most important. That then opens a whole new ball game of satisfying the different stakeholders I guess...

I'd definitely Pay for one. If it means my 2 year old son has a chance of going out and catching fish as good as the ones that get posted here then I'm all for it!
I agree with all of the points above as well.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

I have a different opinion on RFL's and I think there is more to the whole idea of funding than just forking out extra fees and thinking RFL's will provide fish for your kids.
There are many issues and alternatives that will do that.
Some of you will know from other debates my views and I don't mind being in any sensible debate about it.
First off I come from NSW where some RFL realities exist.
Secondly I am leading a charge to get fishing political over and above lobbying, and that does not include an RFL but rather to get proper funding returned to the resource where every benefactor pays his share.
Thirdly it matters not whether any sympathy exists for a $2 license or a $200 one.

That should set the cat amongst the pidgeons to start a sensible debate off.

Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE

Who says it has to based on the nsw model. We are putting our support behind a licence that would return funding directly into the fishery. Not 50% or 75% but 100% back in to the fishery. Sure it might not happen but that is what we want.

_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

Its not an assumption. We are advocating the use of a RFL/SWFL on the condition that the money/profits get used for the furthering and bettering of our fishery. This isn't a thread about TFP bob it is about recreational fishing licence's. If you want to know about that then start another thread or read the comments on other sites. If you or anyone else can make the government put more money into rec fishing then more power to you but until that day we have to deal with what we have and put forward other ideas.

_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

There is no one eyed push, these are opinions from a whole variety of people, from a variety of backgrounds, with a variety of experience. Everyone is entitled to say nope, don't like them, don't want them, but it seems from this small segment people don't have a problem with paying a license that supports our fishery.

What makes the fishing party any different from any other political party when they don't want to consider the options for a state that is on the other side of the country and requires different management techniques to help supplement the ones already in place?

Bob your the one that is assuming. your telling us that YOU will get the money from the government/s Promises promises. you haven't got a red cent for recreational fishing/ research and compliance across this whole nation, especially QLD where you have a foot in the door, ( your 100 grand doesn't cut it either) , but a licence in NSW/ Vic has generated that money ( over 5 mill in NSW thats right over 5 mill ) through a licence,which have benefited recreational fishing to no end, all through a trust all spent by recreational fisherman
Check this out guys. bob will come up with some crap about that all money isn't directed to recreational fishing but the majority of guys that we have spoken too across the nullabor think its great.
http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreational/where-fishing-fees-go
back on the topic, the best thing about a licence is compliance, you sign your bit of paper saying you understand the rules under the fisheries act.You don't abide by those rules you forgo your right to access this fishery, first offence 3 months then 1 year then so on do it too many times your gone. Sadly we are the ones that have to put up with others that don't give a toss, but your fishery is loosing out because of others, why not weed these guys out
Also I already pay 70 odd bucks a year for licences, why should we, who get the blanket have to cover those who dont, hell some of those fisheries I dont participate in, ya can stick your trout, should be all pay to access all pay for research/ compliance/ education
Wally
thanks Adam and to anyone one else I apologize, you wont cop any crap from me anymore ( wink)

I for one would gladly pay for a license for the ability to fish in our great waters.I already pay for the right to crayfish so no different for a fish.At the end of the day the main aim is to plough money back into the development of a fisheries resource that will not only last for our generation or our children's but for their grandchildren and further.We can debate forever and a day about politics but all this "talk" really does not achieve much in the end until someone gets off their ass and does something about helping out our fishing environment.
Bob what we are doing is asking a general question on a public forum to see the views on how people react to a possible license fee for the right to fish.I find generally by putting a monetary figure on something most people will adhere to the laws and regulations pertaining to that activity (especially if the laws are backed up by severe punishment if they are breached).The paying for a license will assist in providing for a certain amount of funding for extra staff to enforce the polices, etc.
This surely can only be a good thing, after all are not we all trying to protect the hobby/sport that we all love and enjoy!I know I am , so in that regard I am willing to pay a fee for a license that will ultimately assist in the prolonging and protecting of our fishing environment!

End rant here!lol

Cheers OX

Yep agree with you ox and wally. By paying for a licence you are willing to abide by the laws and rules of the licence. No different to a drivers licence. If money can be obtained from other sources for the fishery then that is also a good idea. It seems to me that most people have no problem paying for a licence and earning the right to fish in our waters. If they breach the laws then the licence can be taken away from them. As Ox said he pays for the right to crayfish. The crayfishery in WA has been proven to be the only sustainable fishery in the world. Correct me if I'm wrong. How can that be a bad thing. It stops every tom dick and harry from taking as many as they want as often as they want and ensures all licenced fishers know the rules.
_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

" It seems to me that most people have no problem paying for a licence and earning the right to fish in our waters."

Don't forget that the people who respond to topics like this only represent a small proportion of recfishers in WA.

Unofortunately I think there would be heaps of people that wouldn't support an SWFL.

-----------------
Jay Burgess

I understand that as Bob smith has pointed out. If people ar serious about conserving the fishery a SWFL can't be ruled out. Sure if someone like bob can get more money out of the government for conservation then lets do that too. A licence isn't just about the money it is about proving you have knowledge of laws, rules and restrictions and if you breach the rules then you can have your licence taken away. A SWFL doesn't even have to cost anything to do its job of providing info and a course of justice if the rules are breached.

____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/recreational/where-fishing-fees-go

hopefully this link worked

Bob rebellion. pardon, if it is that bad, surely the recreational fisherman would of come out and said this is a scam. Not what we hear, we hear lots of stories and the majority is great best thing we ever did.They say we have recreational fishing zones only, Havens where we can catch fish in a an area that has NO commercial pressure, not to mention the fantastic fish stocking that goes on in Dams in NSW /VIC, even QLD has to pay to access their dams, WHAT THIS ISN'T SOME SORT OF LICENCE.

A licence can be linked to compliance Bob, just you are that against it, you only see a speed humps, the positives totally out way the negatives. so what if the money raised pays for a few more compliance officers out of our funds or even a few admin costs, as you can see through these posts most would gladly pay for it if it means they get the scum sucking dirt bags that spoil it for the rest of us.Even Lukas suggestion if it was free you still can use this as a compliance measure

Again bob this is all to do with you want us to follow in your footsteps abide by your rules. Hell if we become members of the fishing party, you have been quoted as saying you must post your membership number on each post, on any Fishing forum. What a joke, dictatorship at its finest

How many members Bob have you signed up for WA, you said you would post it up after a last week. Please answer this question with honesty, nah you would doge it like the rest of the serious questions

Wally

great to see people do support this. Jay I am sure if you do ask around the numbers of support are gaining strength

Even a NOB like me knows it will be of assistance to have a licence for every fisher .

______________________________________________________

Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's

The lying scumbag that I am .

And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Understand and at least we can move forward and try to get something started to preserving what we have at present with a view to improving it for the future.

And yes it would be good if some of the funds that are spent by recreational fishermen sre reinvested back into the conservation of our favorite pastime.

Cheers OX

Bugger this I'm off fishing (well maybe later).

I personally think that a mandatory fishing licence would be a disappointment for those who rearely fish.

Q: Would I be happy to buy a licence for my 9yr old niece when she comes to visit from South Australia to use the her favourite rod (which I got her for about 5 Christmas' ago)?

I get to fish with her once every couple of years; so I don’t think I’d be too happy getting the licence for one - two trips.

Specialised fishing maybe (shell fish), but not for a couple of herring or gar's.

Cheers Jason

Bob i read all forums that are relevant and I have never seen a figure. So please enlighten us on WA memberships

As for your last comment Bob the answer is NO. I would rather the money raised for rec fishing to be decided by us, if it came from government coffers you could bet they would say how and when it was spent, If we paid, then we get to say where and when it is spent,

Bob you need to come up with some better argument then the government raising funds for rec fisherman, the chances are none.

Why do so many golfers pay green fees, hell they buy clubs, balls/ bags shoes all taxed. you could just about say they spend the same amount of money ( excluding boats) for their favorite past time, just like we do. but you don't see Government coffers taking care of golfers.

I am working on your 80% figure, please bare with me on this, your sums don't add up to what is in the funds and spent from the funds

I think your so called 80% comes from compliance officers that are paid by the fund, then you may pull out a bit of research/ scientists money, Then there is travel expenses form the guys who sit on the board. this list could go on,

If there is a so called rebellion Bob against a licence in NSW we would see it on other forums around the country mate, so don't bullsh&t us with propaganda. we do read other forums as well, including the one in QLD where they were thinking of going it alone because they didn't want to be dictated by some fat cat in NSW

Wally

You make a good point Jason, it would have to fair for those that don't use the system as much as others. It is one of the biggest problems that I could see with the license, but I'm sure that there must be a solution to make it fair and equitable for all.

Lots of people are scared of change, hell, we already pay a lot to go fishing as it is. But if we have a fund that can be used by fisherman for fisherman to help improve the areas which we believe are being over-looked or not focused upon enough by those in government, then that surely is a good thing in my mind. Maybe the absence of a political party which is devoted to fishing, whilst still being conservation minded to some degree, is what is needed. But, the unwillingness of your supposed party to consider any options outside the box doesn't appeal to me, even if it is in place in other states. I can understand where your coming from Bob, but if you said, once we have a party established we will consider it, rather than a flat out no, that would mean a lot more to me. You are going to have a party of 500 members, if you obtain them, why not let them decide rather than the 'dictator' dictating terms, or is that part of members posting their serial rank and file numbers when voicing an opinion?

I believe any monies be it from government or rfl is only going to benifit our pristine marine life as long as it is used properly .Im not going to get intoall this political crap I just want my children and grandchildren to being able to enjoy the same fishing lifestyle as we have if not better. I am sick and tired of having my kids ask me why some people rape the system taking anything over or under size .Im proberly like alot of people on this site and sick and tired of the abuse and on occasions assults when these pricks are not happy with you having ago at them about this issue .the bottom line is I will continue to do this untill there is a greater presance of officers to police this sort of abuse to our marine system .I have not once been checked by a fisheries officer on my catch. I would gladly pay a fee to see these other perthetic wankers get caught for raping the system. I knowthis is only one issue that funding for our marine system needed but it is such a personel issue .Think how much we spend on our gear and a fee is not going to hurt us much.Although if we dont its only our future generations that will be hurt . CHEERS SHAG

I perssonally dont give a shit what they do over in nsw as i live and fish here in wa! And wa is what we are talking about. This bluddy argueing over something that doesnt really concern the original topic and people not allowing others have there say pisses me off. I fish and i vote to and instead of winging about it i try and assist in anyway i can. The more funds the better i beleive, but thats my opinion no one elses. Comment on that! Bob if your chasing a debate come around to my place and ill give you one!

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

Chill chill, no need to get riled up Spess. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, it is likely to get emotional and firey because it touches on something sensitive to all of us that care about our fishery.

Bob makes good points in terms of having to pay more isn't neccesarily the best option in terms of management. That is his opinion and what he is fighting for by creating a fishing party which acts in the political arena.

This was purely about seeing what people thought about a SWFL, but is easily subverted onto other topics closely related.

Im not having a go at him! After re reading my thread i realize thats it sounds harsh. I Apoligise for that. What i was saying is that everyone can put there point across without the need to stray from the original comment and attack others say. Ill be more than willing to have a debate when it concerns the fishery in wa. We need to keep it as substainalbe as possible and maybe the licence is the way to go! It all comes down to those who do the right thing and those who dont give a rats arse about keeping that way. Politics, politics we can go on all day about this. Im sure fisheries try there best almost all of the time, the times they dont well we all slack off at times. $25 dont be so tight! Its a couple of beers. Cheers adam thanks for making me review my comment.

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

I am not sure if I am willing to trade my vote on other important political and economic issues just yet. Even though I am a very passionate fisherman, I am still a businessman, a father, a road user, a tax payer etc. My vote gets considered based on a number of competing issues not just one single issue. I think I am not alone in that situation (643000 - 680000 anglers, how many are in the same boat as me?).

Therefore I believe that lobbying is still our best method of influencing the government with regards to recreational fishing. With a SWFL possibly used as a bargaining chip in the process.

Just a thought.

Anything to help hey Andy! Trying is all we can do. Ihavent got kids yet but not to far away, i cant wait to get them out there on one of them secret dhuie spots.

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

I would have no problem paying for an RFL - i think it is potentially a great idea, but has quite a few problems as others have said. Like Bob, mentioned the inefficiencies in money flows through Govt Depts - $1 into the fund wont result in $1 going into an officers salary, or scientists research, it will get spliced and diced in various directions. If those directions were well integrated and coordinated into the overall effort to conserve the fishery thats OK but it reality this doesnt happen, in any Govt agencies, methinks...

Unless it was a dedicated fund for research, with all the other admistrative overheads covered by increased funding from the Govt - we can't rely on an RFL to deliver what we want, and it is unlikely that the Govt are going to cough up the shebang needed to employ more officers, do more research etc...I think both would be required.

It is like having to pay to go into National Parks these days...we shouldnt have to - i was born here, this is my land, i should not have to pay to go onto public lands - the money needed to manage it should come from normal taxes - but at the same time if this isnt the reality, then at least me paying entry fee money is helping out, and at the end of the day I just want these beautiful places, or to get back on topic, this excellent fishery, protected - whatever the cost, yes whatever the cost. It is more important than money - we are killing it dead. There will be TWICE as many people fishing with high-technology in only 30 years...30 years ago there were half as many people fishing, with handlines and compasses, and look at the degradation we see now...

There are dangers with user-pays management models...if we have to pay for the licence does that give us a say in the management? if the bag limit was dropped from 1 dhuie to 0 dhuies, for a year or two - will recfishers have more political power to say "this is bullshlt, we pay good money to fish, we should be able to fish, dagnammit" and thus take away from that management strategy? Or "we are paying for your research, you should do it in such and such a way" etc etc...? It creates an automatic lobby group, with a direct interest in extracting fish/etc from the oceans...an lobby groups have a tendency to be one-eyed and uninformed IMO

Then of course, occasional fishers will be stung proportionately more...if i pay $25 and catch 100kg of dhufish over the year, compared to mum and dad having to pay $100 for the whole family to go crabbing on boxing day and they got 2 bluies and 10 blowies, then i think the political pressure back on the govt to reduce the licence or take it away would end up doing more harm than good...the govt that was proactive and introduced the RFL would get voted out and the party that maintained the status quo would get in and then we are back to square one...

Another point - what would be the point in putting more officers on and enforcing poor limits and restrictions...for eg the Shark Bay snapper fishery was nearly cactus (still yet to be proven otherwise) before fisheries did anything about it, despite many complaints etc over many years...dhufishing is all but finished close to Perth or Bunbury, without big boats, whereas you used to need a dinghy, the list can go on...the regulators literally dont know enough about the fisheries to manage them...by and large they are managed based on catch rates etc, not science...for eg the first reasonably comprehensive, scientific, peer reviewed study published on Dhufish biology was in 2002 - ahem, a good many fishey policies had been decided upon before then - yeah i know DoF do their own research but you can see what i mean. There is alot of effort going into the sambo aggregations etc...but again, only since the 2000's...compare the amount of research going into fish biology compared to the amount of research going into GPS, echo sounder, outboard motor technology, fishing reel development and marketing etc etc etc...

The answer to effective management lies first in understanding the things that drive the biology of these species, and the interactions between them, then in the appropriate limits and restrictions based on this science, and on to the politics involved in setting such restrictions fairly etc - why should i throw back undersized fish when a trawler kills thousands in bycatch? Questions like that...

At the moment, we are not yet at that first stage of understanding...this requires highly substantial investment in integrated research, through Fisheries Dept, DEC, Universities, CSIRO etc, through large-scale policies directed towards marine research and conservation...I think this is beginning to happen, but it is just starting...another example...what is the point in paying $25 for an RFL, which goes into research which ends up in telling us we should raise the Spangled Emperor min size in Exmouth Gulf, and then allow the Straits Solar Salt project to undermine it all...(ooopsy, that just slipped in there ;) ). People automatically assume that conservation = greenie/hippy or that it means fishing closures...but it is not, it is simply the last resort in preserving the things that ultimately sustain us, in the face of development proposal after development proposal, technological advancement after technological advancement, and exponential population growth.

I think the money and effort required to manage our whole fishery would be so big that money raised through an RFL would be chicken-feed. Show me a fishery anywhere in the world that is 'managed' without a decline in target stocks over time. Dont cite the WA Rock Lobster fishery - this is helped ALOT by good ol mother nature giving us the Leeuwin Current which lets us catch them down here whilst they are replaced by spawning up there - all we gotta do is protect the stock up there and we can ravage the stock down here...but this WAS discovered after alot of money spent on research, cos it is worth so much money to the economy.

So in conclusion my point is that we need bucketloads of money to be spent on science as the basis for management, then a greater understanding/education of the need of conservation measures, including marine reserve creation as well as fishery management (with the two integrated), then onward and upward towards generally greener policies all round, not just on the fishing front.
An RFL would help raise this money, and if done nicely would educate people about the need for it, or rather the need for the research etc. If it is slapped on people they will resist and vote accordingly (but there was opposition to national park fees that i dont think made it to the polls?). If it is the only way that money is raised for said research etc then it will be wasted. Better education and understanding about all environmental issues will help stop people pillaging more effectively than compliance enforcement, and would come from broad policies. More officers might do the same thing but it is not likely that enough would be put on to do this...most pillaging happens in remote areas like Steep Pt or Ningaloo etc...and population centres get hammered anyway just because of population pressures...what is the point of having the same bag limits apply across the state when there are population density differences??

Bob why dont you join your party with the Greens, or another one - or perhaps i should first ask - do you speak with the other parties to try and get them to incorporate your ideas into their own? our fishery does not operate on its own...if we really want to help it out we also have to work towards better land management practices etc etc etc...

~650,000 recfishers? puh-leeez - this number should be revised to "how many would vote according to fishing related policies", then it would be a real number, ~650,000 is a bluff used by lobbyists...there might be 650,000 people who fish each year but only 20,000 will care about it...lets get real...if it were a real number the Govts would do anything we tell them to...

cant write anymore but want to...

Ewan

Bob the admin costs are capped at 10% fact , which includes your name in a data base, your plastic card etc.

You 80% as I expected comes from costs from scientists that work for Fisheries NSW and compliance officers paid by the trust,

an eg: would be, we wish for more research on Herring the most important species to recreational fisherman in this state. We pay DR Rod Lenanton ( fin fish man)to do this research, well he needs to be paid his wage/ super/ etc plus the costs of doing this research all paid by the trust.

Bob you have grabbed this figure and added this to get your 80%.

Then you have compliance paid by the trust, Same thing these guys need a wage/ super and costs associated by the compliance.

grabbed another 20%

You figure of 80%, has come from what we are all saying on this thread, we don't mind paying for this,so your argument of the 80% is garbage.In actual fact its what we want.

Bare in mind for all who read this. this is a good point.Remember the trust board is decided by NSW recreational fisherman, and they are recreational fisherman on the board .To get these projects or any submission approved they must meet the guide lines set out, so if these proposals seem extreme in costs, or not worthy, the board has the power to knock these back. they don't have to except a submission.

If WA had the same set up, you don't necessary have to get the fisheries department to do the research, which may cost a bit more, you could get Murdoch Uni for an example to do the research at a lower cost

so Bob, hopefully that has cleared a bit up for you, we don't have a problem in paying to access/ research fish that we target, we don't have a problem with paying for compliance to manage these fish

If you would be so kind to answer the BLOODY question. How many members in WA Bob, or should I address this to DR Smith from Lost in Space, oh and where is there a rebellion against the NSW licence, care to give us a few links

sorry Spess for continuing with the NSW thing, this is a good system. we may need to tweak it a bit but its a great starting point for a SWRFL

Wally

for the record who on here pays the whole shootn match the 70 odd bucks a year

Continuing with it fine as i can now relate to were you are going, lets just see if you can do it better than them. Take what they got and improve on it. Knowbody minds improvements.

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

TFP letters have been displayed in some WA papers that I know of over the last week (Mandurah, Bunbury, Merredin, Esperance)and this one in the West Australian today (which went to all WA papers and radio) should get anglers on a wider range than chatsites thinking about RFL's and potential funding > http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=93&ContentID=20591

This should be a statewide topic if you want something or someone to make some changes in the future.

Bob Smith
I FISH I VOTE

Scaly...
haha yes i did have a little smile on my face when suggesting a merge with the Greens i dont think recreational fisherman are a traditional Greens power base somehow...my point was that all of this is a subset of a broader issue...if we want to protect our fish stocks into the future, it is not going to happen by thinking solely in terms of fishing vs fish - our world is a very complicated place, the protection of fish stocks (which is what we are all arguing for, ultimately) wont happen just by putting more fisheries officers on, or by introducing an RFL - but it could help out with getting the money and putting it in peoples minds through their wallets.

A single issue party will do a good thing for raising issues (if they had enough members to have a voice) but as we see here on this forum it can also divide if has one opinion only and in the end can end up shooting itself in the foot and putting off potential supporters...

as for the 650,000 figure. Well i am sure that that many people pick up a fishing rod at least once a year. But they are not all going to vote as recreational fishers on recreational fishing issues now are they?? Which means that this figure is meaningless when talked about politically. A political party or a lobby group shouldnt claim to represent the interests of 650,000 people if they only have 100 or 1000 members. They represent their members, and the interests of their members only.

i think the majority of those 650,000 would buy their fish from a fish shop, and couldnt care less about bag or size limit changes, or no-take zones etc. Those that are very occasional fishers wont be wanting to pay for an RFL and the extra officers that are put on will have their hands full processing all of the people that they catch without licences, not doing what we want them to which is bust the baddies.
Just because you kick the footy with your mates at a BBQ doesnt mean you are a footballer now does it?

The people who read and post on this website care about the issues and so most seem to support an RFL - we fish alot and see the problems etc - but we are a very biased sample of the whole population. Other people who buy Rex Hunt Specials from K-mart and fish off the jetty with the kids once or twice a year just care about getting outdoors and enjoying it - as a cheap wholesome activity. Another licence fee should be very carefully considered and implemented, or risk voter backlash and undo any good it might do.

I have the full $70 licence, rarely fish for any of those species, but at least i dont have to think about it anymore and can fish for what i want when i want to...within restrictions of course...i dont catch anywhere near the value of the licence but consider it a donation and extremely cheap compared to any other recreational activity.

Ewan

im all for it guys, 25 buck a year! you go out on the piss and spend easy 2wice that much a night and the rest, you go to maccas and spend half that in one hit and the list goes on, u dont c that money coming back to us! At least the money put in for the licence would benefit the fishery and coming from someone who has been crayfishing longlining and wetlining it would be great to c the recreational community putting back what they take out. I know for a fact that there are bad apples out there especially in the commercial sector as ive seen first hand, wouldnt it be great for the rec sector to show the pros that we care about the fishery as well and probably more so than some of they do! As some of you know up here in kalbarri there are about a million minimi mullaway in the river and surrounding areas of the coast at the moment. During the recent school holidays i was witness to such a total disregard for the fish stocks up here by people and especially families with kids, they were keeping everything and i was going up to a few of them and asking them if they know what the legal size of some of the fish they were keeping was especially the mullaway and the answer 9 times out of ten was no! A couple of nites ago i was down at chinamans fishing for tailor and getting busted up mind you!! not happy!! and a guy next to me caught a small mullaway about 20cm and procceeded to put it on his balloon rig and send it out, now i tried to be nice about it but he gave me the biggest serving and basically told me to piss off and have a good nite, no fisheries officers up here nothing, even when you live here and try and tell people about size limits and catch regs they give you a serving!. If paying 25 bucks a year means more officers on the beat policing places like kalbarri and catching these rapists!! which is what they are then ill pay double if I have too! Wa has one of the best managed fisheries around and for us to put a bit back into it to maintain that is a big step in showing everyone that we care and are prepared to pay to protect and conserve our stocks. have fun boys!!!!!!! tangles

exactly Bob why would I worry about paying another 25 bucks to fish the Salt, hell I don't go fishing for trout but fish illegally stocked goodoo's. I haven't been Marroning. I may put a net out every now and then, its there really for insurance, if I want to go I am covered and my money goes back into the fishery

See Bob again your missing the point, this thread was started because Adam wanted to know peoples thoughts on a SWRFL. You come on here and say that we shouldn't have one.We should join you and lobby the government for more funding even thou we are the most heavily licened state in WA when it comes to recreational fishing.

Have you read todays west, There is a teacher shortage in WA, people are waiting in cues for treatment at our hospitals. Police are screaming they are over worked, the list for more money is endless, And you come on here and rant and rave that you will are starting to sound like a politician now, please, we aren't Muppet's Bob, there are more important things to worry about then fishing, that's why there hasn't been not one, negative post on a SWRFL on this thread, so why don't you listen to the people on these forums in WA that a SWRFL is the way forward.Change your policies to suit us, listen to us and you may get our support, coming out with claims that we have to respect the fishing parties policies and toe the party line with our membership number on our posts is outrageous. I for one under these guide lines would not even contemplate signing up just for this reason even if you did support a SWRFL.

As for the numbers, can you please answer the question, you said you posted a figure last week, well where is it.How many you got, what are you trying to hide, that you haven't even got fifty.my guess hahhaha

Whats your thoughts on commercial fishing Bob, just curious

Wally

So who exactly does the TFP represent Bob? Are recreational fishermen and commercials mutually exclusive or does the TFP represent both?

BOB SMITH, CHAIRMAN
THE FISHING PARTY
SINGLETON, NSW

Why are you so worried about what we here in WA want ?????

Shouldn't you worry about your own state or are you looking to head a national party.

If YOU went down any boat ramp or fishing spot IN WA and polled the fishermen wether they would want a lic so the money can go back into making OUR fishery better , I don't think you would get many saying NO .

______________________________________________________

Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's

The lying scumbag that I am .

And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am all for it as long as the funds dont get slowly redirected to somthing else or the government decide that they suddenly need to build some more roads and then pilfer the money

I would of thought FEDERAL meant all the states ????????

so we should have something allready happening here in WA for it to be regarded as federal .

GEEZZZZZZZ I hate politics no wonder most sites ban the shit from their forums , must check if it's on the not to be posted or discussed list on this site ;)

______________________________________________________

Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's

The lying scumbag that I am .

And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have no problem paying, but I don't see how that will solve any of the problems we have.
I think most people are concerned about fish stocks? $25 per fisher isn't going to improve fish stock! We need smaller bag limits on most reef fish, and boat limits not per angler limits. We need to look at no fishing times during each month. And yes we probably need sanctuary zones.I don't think our dwindling stocks are from people breaking the law, so extra fisheries on the beat may not be the answer. But if it is $25 @ 680K anglers is only 17 mill. It a big state, how many extra officers do you want? A 150 more officers would be about the max for the budget.

Maybe 1 or 2 at each main marina might be the go there but i hear what your saying BQ544. The only thing about no fishing times is that youll get every tom dick and harry all going out at once! Pretty hard gettin in and out then! But maybe!

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

Normally I don't like having too much political discussion as it turns into bum fights and annoys those that want to just see and talk fishing. But I do think that this is a pretty important discussion, even thou we have had similar before, there's a much larger audience allowing for a wider array of opinions.

So what is the TFP's stance on Marine Parks Bob? Will you be supporting them or opposing them?

I don't think the money from a SWFL will just be used for compliance officers, there's fish impoundments, aquaculture development and surely a lot more that I'm just not thinking of at the moment (damn flu). As long as the money doesn't go into government coffers I can see it being of great assistance to rec fishermen in any number of areas.

i live in rockingham and they have recently put a ban on catching any blue manna crabs in cockburn sound, i think that they have the right idea but have gone a little too far in a total ban. i think there should be a license say of $50-$100 a year or have a small open season.

on the subject of swfl i would gladly pay the money but im against it if they are going to put a maximum on the amount of licences available. this would cause the amount of fishos around to drop and make it difficult to get a license and the price will rocket. im all for it though if it will reduce the number of undersize catches and over the limit hauls as i have seen large amounts of both even in my limited time in fishing.

cheers bro

i agree cobba

I don't know about that Bob, how about if the licence was used as a access right, you break the laws you loose your licence, maybe some people would think twice about loosing their access if they new it would be taken away from them.

Here is one for you Bob, would the TFP support a free licence

Wally

With a test much the same as a drivers licence to get it?

_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

And you must keep both hands on the rod at all times!!!

_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

And you must check your mirrors to see if anyone is behind before casting :0

______________________________________________________

Strap yourself in , and feel the GGGGG's

The lying scumbag that I am .

And apparently I'm a nob !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

u lot are mad
i reckon it will reduce the nuber of catches because people will be more afraid of getting caught but its food for thought

life's a game, fishing's SERIOUS!!

You can't wind in faster than 5kms or else you risk having your fish confiscated...

_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

On a serious note, Pay to get the license, get the rules and regs information, learn them, get caught with or without a license and under size or overlimmit fish and get fined! Simple as that, get caught again and get suspended for however long, even try it without a payment for the first 12months then bring in $25 to get it. WHO CARES! ONLY THE ONES DOING THE WRONG THINGS. IF YOUR HONEST YOU WONT MINED PAYING OR DOING RIGHT WILL YOU? SHIT ILL EVEN PAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE "TIGHT AS A FISHES ARSEHOLE".

Keep it tight, reeeeeeel tight!

Saltwater Recreational Fishing Licence

There have been many threads on lots of forums which got on to the topic of a Saltwater Recreational Fishing Licence for Western Australia.

Finding those posts and the comments made in the past is not easy. Many questions get asked and answered, many points get raised, yet the same questions get asked again in some later thread.

I have posted a summary on the Western Angler Forum http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/fb.asp?m=134287 as a permanent, easy to access record and list of all the points / conditions /questions/ issues/ answers which people have raised.

I have split/ combined/ expanded some of the points for clarity.

I will update that list as required.

The thread is locked, not to prevent discussion, but ONLY so that the information will always be easy to find and read, and so it is not lost in and spread over pages of comments by different people.

Please use any of the existing threads (or start a new one) email or PM me to comment on this, or to suggest or ask for extra points or changes to this list if I have missed anything.

TerryF

Moderator, Western Angler Fisheries Management and Environmental Issues Forum

Beavering away in the background......

Good work terry. Has some good points so far.

_____________________________
You gotta be in it to win it

bag limits need to be looked at and changed. Size limits for certain fish should be put up such as mullaway and dhuis. How many fish do you need to eat anyhow. If you go out and get a feed of pinkiesm, do you really need to go out and get 4 pinkies! why not 2, and if those pinks are just size well thats a pretty good feed from 2 pinkies. I go out up here and will only catch what i am going to eat and thats not a bag limit. If we did that dont you think fish stocks would recover a little and maybe in time we would see a difference! Who needs a couple of 12kg dhuies? being pretty greedy i reckon! One good dhui would do anyone for a feed. And the list goes on and on, have a look at the bag limits and reduce and resize certain fish. Seems like common sense to me, if we want to protect our fish then we wont mind smaller bag limits surely.

MORE STEAK