# Greens want Lab and Libs to apologise to the rec fishermen



## Batron (Mar 3, 2012)

Came across this today thought i would share. :? 
http://mps.tas.greens.org.au/2012/09/labor-liberal-must-apologise-to-rec-fishers/


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

It's a strange statement from the Greens.

The real problem with this whole debate is the way it's been hijacked by the anti-lockout groups.

I admit that the logic behind some of the proposed lockouts is questionable, but I don't think any sensible argument would suggest that lockouts don't have their place in a sustainable approach to managing fisheries.

To suggest that it's bad to have a super-trawler but good to have open slather for fisho's is counter productive. Fishing needs a serious PR overhaul.

Of course, the Labor government should hang their heads as well. Isn't it counter-productive to create extensive networks of no-fishing zones then open the door for the super-trawler?


----------



## Rick (Dec 19, 2006)

I find it incredible that the Margiris is coming into OZ on the Greens watch so I am also totally :? 
It is not as though it was a surprize as the real green guy made the news when he chained himself to the bloody thing in Holland when it was leaving for OZ.


----------



## paulb (Nov 12, 2006)

A glimmer of hope - or a lone voice in the pack ?

"What we've realised along the way is that the Greens and recreational fishing groups have a lot in common, and that we share a deep conviction that fishing should be sustainable, and that future generations should also be entitled to catch a fish when they drop a line in the water."


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

paulb said:


> A glimmer of hope - or a lone voice in the pack ?
> 
> "What we've realised along the way is that the Greens and recreational fishing groups have a lot in common, and that we share a deep conviction that fishing should be sustainable, and that future generations should also be entitled to catch a fish when they drop a line in the water."


We can but hope.
This is of course how it should be.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

keza said:


> paulb said:
> 
> 
> > A glimmer of hope - or a lone voice in the pack ?
> ...


Here, here.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

punchanello said:


> keza said:
> 
> 
> > paulb said:
> ...


I'm tempted to suggest that Father Christmas might bring this gift... But I shouldn't be so glib or cynical. Greens would find natural support from farmers, rec fisho's, timber fellers, and even shooters if they were serious about gaining support from people who actually get off their backsides and get into the environment.

But I fear most greens simply hunch down in front of the Telly while texting ideas for further restrictions to those of us out there doing it.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

dru said:


> I'm tempted to suggest that Father Christmas might bring this gift... But I shouldn't be so glib or cynical. Greens would find natural support from farmers, rec fisho's, timber fellers, and even shooters if they were serious about gaining support from people who actually get off their backsides and get into the environment.
> 
> But I fear most greens simply hunch down in front of the Telly while texting ideas for further restrictions to those of us out there doing it.


There is of course a big difference between many farmers, timber fellers and shooters and rec fisho's. It's the intention to do it sustainably.

I'm green and I fish.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

So what makes you think that timber fellers, farmers and shooters aren't green?


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

dru said:


> I'm tempted to suggest that Father Christmas might bring this gift... But I shouldn't be so glib or cynical. Greens would find natural support from farmers, rec fisho's, timber fellers, and even shooters if they were serious about gaining support from people who actually get off their backsides and get into the environment.
> 
> But I fear most greens simply hunch down in front of the Telly while texting ideas for further restrictions to those of us out there doing it.


It works in other countries, it is the ozzie greens party that seems to be confused.
I've had meetings with one of their candidates and she was totally in line with my way of thinking.
I think they have built up their numbers with extremists and ignorant s who don't understand the planet unfortunately but I still think if it works in places like NZ, then they can be brought into line.


----------



## Bludymick (Apr 5, 2012)

Im green 
and i work in the mining industry
Yeah coal aint helping the enviroment, but this boom aint going away if i dont take a good job in it.

greens have many great policies which are lost amongst a lot of childish ideas.
on this though they are right
how dare the government say I cant fish this spot or any but let this monster trawl the ocen dry
im not alowedto paddle up to a whale but this monster is alowed to kill a few each trip in its bycatch
its nothing but disgusting
shame labor shame


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

im a hunter and a fisho, and im a huge conservationist. i find that most fisho's are f*#king hypocrites and should learn to put back what they are not going to eat on that day.
there are idiots going out catching 20 bream, even up to 45cm and not returning them back to the water. maybe you people should think of the crime your committing before passing the buck just to make yourself feel better. as far as im concerned this ship is sustainable as most rec fishos do more damage in creeks and rivers then what one huge boat can out in the open ocean.

how many of you people can actually admit to your wrong doings from the past. I bet not 1


----------



## GregL (Jul 27, 2008)

:
:
:
:
....bombs away....


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

keza said:


> dru said:
> 
> 
> > I'm tempted to suggest that Father Christmas might bring this gift... But I shouldn't be so glib or cynical. Greens would find natural support from farmers, rec fisho's, timber fellers, and even shooters if they were serious about gaining support from people who actually get off their backsides and get into the environment.
> ...


Kerry That could interest me if it happens. Dont doubt your Kiwi experience. Otoh Our local Green Council is a disaster.


----------



## dru (Dec 13, 2008)

wetbeaver said:


> im a hunter and a fisho, and im a huge conservationist. i find that most fisho's are f*#king hypocrites
> 
> how many of you people can actually admit to your wrong doings from the past. I bet not 1


A tad rough on reflection don't you think? Don't disagree with the thinking, but do with the target. You are right on hunting though, I've never met a hunter who wasn't sustainably minded.

Bet lost though, I'm more than happy to admit my past wrongs.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

wetbeaver said:


> im a hunter and a fisho, and im a huge conservationist. i find that most fisho's are f*#king hypocrites and should learn to put back what they are not going to eat on that day.
> there are idiots going out catching 20 bream, even up to 45cm and not returning them back to the water. maybe you people should think of the crime your committing before passing the buck just to make yourself feel better. as far as im concerned this ship is sustainable as most rec fishos do more damage in creeks and rivers then what one huge boat can out in the open ocean.
> 
> how many of you people can actually admit to your wrong doings from the past. I bet not 1


Not sure who you are trying to accuse of what with that.
I'm happy to tell you anything you want, I have nothing to hide. 
I don't like the taste of bream by the way and think some bag limits (that one in particular) are outlandish and need an overhaul.
This for me would be a better approach than a lot of the marine parks and there are other things that can be done too, but that's another topic.

So back on topic, show me where the excess of bait is ? I haven't seen any baitfish washed up or dead from old age. The either breed or get eaten and hopefully both.
There will be 18,000 tonnes less food for the pelagic fish to eat and that is the bottom line. If you think they wont mind and things will remain the same, then you have a very unusual viewpoint.
Some fish species are just starting to recover from over fishing in the past, bluefin tuna is one of them. These fish are being taken from there migratory route, how wont that effect them ?

If you come back with stats that show these fish are too fat and need to be on a diet, fair enough but in that case, why aren't these fish being caught by our own commercial fisherman ? how many of them is this boat taking work from ?

All that aside, have you seen what this vessel has done around the world ? it's disgusting and the thing should be scuppered to create an artificial reef.


----------



## Guest (Sep 6, 2012)

Maybe it should start neting great whites to make crocodile feed. Apparently they are in plague proportions.


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

this machine is a contradiction on its own. it would have to work world wide just to fund its labour and fuel cost along side keeping up its particular fish species, or its whiskers investment. 
I recon its just one big storage unit. 
i wouldn't be surprised if this machine is running on a very minimal profit.


----------



## MrFaulty (May 15, 2008)

Wetbeaver, first I would (in all seriousness) like to congratulate you on your dramatic improvement in grammar and spelling! seriously.

I began reading your first post in this thread thinking, yeah, you have a point, I get very annoyed with people keeping more fish than they can eat in a day, especially slow growing species like bream. Unfortunately, from there we went our separate thought paths!

How can you state that a fisherman in a creek will do more damage than this monstrosity? I have read they will be licenced to take 18,000 tonnes of their target species - that is a lot of fish and the potential ramnifications up the food chain are unknown but the potential for food chain collapse is frightening!

Also, re your comments on operating on minimal/no profit, I would have to question this - I don't think the owners of this vessel are a charity or even a not for profit organisation; shipslike this are built to reap (huge?) profits and quite simply the more fish they can catch the bigger their profits, and it it means raping the oceans, well they will recover, eventually ........ won't they!??? Ever heard of the scientific principle? Maybe it should be applied here!?

Lifes never dull


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Occulator said:


> keza said:
> 
> 
> > If you come back with stats that show these fish are too fat and need to be on a diet, fair enough but in that case, why aren't these fish being caught by our own commercial fisherman ? how many of them is this boat taking work from ?
> ...


Occy, you seem to be going from one thread to the next, trying to pick a fight with people.
I don't think I need to add links to support stuff that anyone with half a brain would understand but here is one just for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

Have you tried a hormone patch ?


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

as Mr faulty i notice your mouth has premature ejaculated typically once again. i have noticed with you buddy your a hear and see man. if you haven't seen or heard of it, it doesn't exist. 
up here in qld they use cast nets to catch there bait along side 1000s of other fishos. Mr faulty up here in the tropics there is no surf, so the community is not divided by the 2 like nsw.
also hens the reason i like crocs, it gives fish a safe haven, almost could say a natural green-zone.

how many fish do you think this ship could land dragging a net from like Brisbane to Perth, that's its fishing ground its aloud to fish.
its also hens the reason this boat is here. there probably is millions of tones out there.

also to Mr faulty you should learn to think positive and never negative. how long will it take to fill this ship with stock then the diesel it will chew coming back to dock and out again, then keeping the stock fresh, like i said Mr faulty there only takers of there produce is probably whiskers pet food and china. 
Mr faulty if our coastline was that bad with fish stocks and not scientifically researched like it is, i doubt it very much that our government would let this monstrosity in our waters.

evidence tells me Mr faulty that you believe more then what you should and that you always have a tunnel vision opinion and you dont have an understanding. 
i think you need to stop reading into it to much as the harder you think the more you start to convince yourself that you are right.

in my spare time over the last month, when im not working im researching mud crab behavior and on the weekend shooting my bow. im in the process of making crab pots 
you need to get out and smell the air more dude


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

Hey wet beaver, you're a legend mate! You crack me up with you wordsmithmanship but I notice your first post on this topic was Thursday, you knock off early for the week or something?


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

yep i ask the boss at 1 and he said, well it is Friday. but its amazing how all these little jobs take it out of you more then the bigger ones. i then checked my crab pot and did not have any to celebrate the early day with. 
so for the rest of the day mended my crab pot and went and through it in. IL check it in the morning mate and hopefully iv got a buck to share with my daughter


----------



## Barrabundy (Sep 29, 2008)

I hope nobody else knocks it off and you get some crabs.


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

i have a trick now, and it works a treat. no strings attached with the adjustable 4 prong boat anchor with a 10m rope.
im actually lifting crabs up. i learnt NOT to throw my pot near rocks


----------



## sbd (Aug 18, 2006)

Your argument that these fish are not being targeted anyway is farcical, shortsighted & stupid Occy. Your lack of concern about the presence of these ships in our waters is unfathomable.

I completely fail to understand why the onus of proof of sustainability or otherwise should be placed on those who are concerned about factory ships in our waters. The track record of the factory ships speaks for itself, let them prove they won't root our fishery for ever, just as they've done with their local waters. If they come here, we and subsequent generations will regret it.


----------



## Wrassemagnet (Oct 17, 2007)

My thoughts on this are summarised by this quote: "We should not be treating these animals as a highly productive resource on which we experiment with super trawlers, but rather as valuable wildlife in Australia's low-productivity southern oceans."

The quote is from the following article: http://theconversation.edu.au/one-f...science-doesnt-support-the-super-trawler-9143

There are bits in the article which may provide Occy with some misgivings about his position, for example: "...we are largely ignorant about the effective population structure of these species. Of the four species considered for exploitation, the population structure of blue mackerel is uncertain, and jack mackerel and redbait are believed to have eastern and western subpopulations. No dedicated population studies have been conducted on redbait nor is any information available for Peruvian jack mackerel. Moreover, little is reported about adult movements of any of these species except that larger jack mackerel are found in deeper waters."

Although the article is not referenced so the statements made by the author would take a bit more time than I have to double check,

The author of the article is:

Jessica Meeuwig, Research Professor, UWA Oceans Institute at University of Western Australia.

Her bio: A marine scientist by training, I have conducted research in the Caribbean, North Atlantic, Baltic Sea, Philippines, Vietnam, Western Pacific, British Indian Ocean and Australia over nearly 25 years. First hand experience of the dramatic changes in our oceans in so many parts of the world, particularly with respect to declines in fish abundance, has focused my research on understanding how fish communities respond to human activities, including both extraction and protection.
Experience
•Director, Centre for Marine Futures, Oceans Institute, University of Western Australia - present
Education
•McGill University, Montreal, Canada, PhD with Distinction, 1998
Research Areas
•Fisheries Sciences (0704)
•Conservation And Biodiversity (050202)
•Marine And Estuarine Ecology (Incl. Marine Ichthyology) (060205)

I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt even without detailed references, especially as most of what she is saying aligns with my understanding of "common sense", although when I get a chance I will have to check Keza's link in case I'm mistaken as to how that's defined


----------



## ArWeTherYet (Mar 25, 2007)

How much is 18000 Tons, hard to visualize?
If a Olympic swimming pool holds roughly 2 500 000 ltrs of water = 2 500 tons, divided into 18000 works out to be roughly 7 two meter deep Olympic sized swimming pools.......thats a lot of fish. Have I made a mistake it seems too much?


----------



## sbd (Aug 18, 2006)

Think 9,000,000 blocks of pillies.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

I've kept my mouth shut on this topic because there's no point communicating with recreational anglers that are too stupid or lazy to apply thier own political voice at a time when we need it most.

The Commonwealth Marine Park public submission process ends tomorrow and if ordinary Australians can't convince Burke and Ludwig to recognise the absolute hypocricy of locking out ordinary recreational fisherfolk through unfair zonings in the planets largest marine park while permitting whole areas to be stripped of baitfish (in the remaining recreational fishing zones) thanks to foreign rape ships, you should probably not call yourself a recreational fisherman or recreational angler. In fact, you probably do not deserve to eat local Australian seafood or have access to fishing forums like this either.


----------



## MrFaulty (May 15, 2008)

Well Beaver, you disappoint me, whatever happenned to your previous efforts? get your dictionary - I am not having a go but it is a lot of effort to try to determine exactly what you are saying when you arent careful with your grammar and spelling! now, for the rebuttal......



wetbeaver said:


> as Mr faulty i notice your mouth has premature ejaculated typically once again. i have noticed with you buddy your a hear and see man. if you haven't seen or heard of it, it doesn't exist.
> up here in qld they use cast nets to catch there bait along side 1000s of other fishos. Mr faulty up here in the tropics there is no surf, so the community is not divided by the 2 like nsw.
> also hens the reason i like crocs, it gives fish a safe haven, almost could say a natural green-zone.
> 
> ...


How are you researching mud crab behaviour - if you are doing proper research then maybe you could share your methodology with us and any hypothesis you may have - or is researching behaviour a euphemism for crab fishing. I will take your advice and try to get out more - maybe you have some directions to this mythical place you go where fish stocks are endless.

Thanks again for the entertainment and though provoking discussion Beaver


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

Occy - What do you think historically happens with the scientists that are appointed to be "On Watch" on these types of vessels?

Here's what I've heard: The most greengutted scientist usually gets the gig because they are most likely to spend the entire journey at sea spewing thier guts out instead of counting dolphins. That scientist then gets airlifted off the vessel and is replaced by a similarly green gutted greenhorn scientist.

Don't bother answering because I'm just going to ignore the rest of your froth and bubble like I've done in the last few weeks. ;-)


----------



## Guest (Sep 10, 2012)

Occulator said:


> And whilst I appreciate it is hard not to fall into the trap of using overly emotive language (rooting, rape etc) when one is trying to make ones point forcefully, I really don't think it helps their argument one bit. I have already pointed out that apparently (that's what I've read) this vessel is so far ahead of other commercial fishing methods it's a no contest. By catch rates are already tiny compared to traditional smaller vessel arrangements, and they can only improve with the added restriction/conditions the government has imposed. For example, in net video cameras will be installed, exclusions zones imposed following unintended species catches, and a full time government monitor will be on board the vessel 24/7. Worlds best practice they call it.
> 
> I know this isn't going to go down well with the opponents of the vessel, but it is arguable this vessel will be much more efficient and far more environmentally friendly than any other type of commercial fishing enterprise we have ever seen in this country. Now, if people want to debate the rights and wrongs of taking the fish in the first place that's fine, but they really should come up with something to support their position don't you think. Because so far all the science/statistics (as approved by the Fisheries authorities) is on the side of sustainability. Doubt it if you want, but don't ignore it.


I see the "but it'll catch dolphins and seals" catch cry as emotive to get the general public onside. The in-net cameras are placed to downplay this argument and you yourself are highlighting it. I think the concern for most people is the super efficiency this vessel brings to the table. The vessel may be sustainable in terms of lowered by-catch but is it sustainable in terms of its intended catch? This for me is where the issue lies. It may have world leading best practice in minimising the direct harm to anything other than its intended catch, but if you remove a food source, what is the rest of the food chain going to eat? What is the indirect cost of allowing this vessel to ply the Australian coast? It may not be this year, it may not be next year but over time the fishery will be degraded. It flies in the face of everything the government is trying to achieve with its green zone agenda.


----------



## Wrassemagnet (Oct 17, 2007)

I seem to remember in the fine print that the monitors are only going to be aboard for the first 6 months. I remember thinking to myself that this was therefore just a cynical exercise in public relations, I mean there is no other logical explanation for limiting it to 6 months. If the other ways the magiris is to be monitored beyond 6 months are effective, why even bother with the expense of 24/7 onboard monitors for a limited period? Even if they are 100% effective while aboard I bet it'll be open season once they leave and to think otherwise reveals a better opinion of human nature when it comes to profits than I have. Especially given this vessel's track record.

The following comments use analogies which are intended to put the above argument in an emotive way. Please don't read on if there's a risk you'll find the argument less convincing (yes Occy I'm taking the piss mate, seriously I don't mean to offend you but I do find this whole situation emotive).

Or put it another way, if you thought your daughter needed a chaperone while going to the movies with someone who has been convicted of having sex with ladies against their will (I'll try not to use the word rapist), would you go home at the intermission?? Because the lad promises to be good this time and besides he's on parole and if he re-offends his ass is going back into the slammer?

Actually, I apologise, that analogy is not strictly speaking correct.

This bloke is actually paying you to have consensual sex with (I won't say root) your daughter but promising not to get her pregnant or hurt her in any way and he's shown you his prophylactic (is condom an ok word? not sure, anyway...) and promised to use it every time they have sex. You have thoroughly researched the human reproductive system and understand that there is a known risk of pregnancy with these prophylactics, even if used correctly (and it's written on the prophylactic packet!) but what the heck, let's give it the benefit of the doubt and see how we go. She's an unexploited resource after all. Everyone agrees that if everything goes swimmingly you'll stop checking that he's wearing a prophylactic each time after say...6 months.

Ok, the analogy is still lacking, let's see if I can make it a bit more realistic.

We all know the lass is not really an unexploited resource and you've sold her services to other lads before. Their peckers to date however have been of regular size and efficiency so it's reasonable to assume that the risk of things going awry with prophylactics if used correctly is as small as the packet claims. This new bloke however is a *mutant *with a pecker which has been genetically engineered to be huge, super efficient and with amazing stamina, a bit like crossing an elephant on Viagra with Ron Jeremy.

Well perhaps I exaggerate, but perhaps not. Either way, once pregnant it's too late to undo the damage! Once the bait's been rooted ahem decimated it's too late to undo this failed experiment.


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

Mr faulty its getting very old and no i dont need to show or tell, i will say one thing is at night there is a bug that lights up in the night. awesome to see heaps of them at once.

i have just had some information told to me that it will affect the local trawlers, but not by much. to any other grub that thinks this topic is all about them or the rec fisho's, think again.
this is purely political and i guess you have to understand politics to even have a valid opinion. im not the kind of person to just use the governments for scape goats, i try to learn and find out why the reasoning behind it. i cant see this being a government knee jerk reaction, its obviously purely based on business. of course we are going to have our biased opinions and our understandings and our know alls.
we should think ourselves lucky we ain't like other countries where they only have small coastlines. what the governments trying to say is we need to share this and there is plenty for all of us.


----------



## paulb (Nov 12, 2006)

So this super trawler will always be restricted to it's quota of 18,000 tonnes, it won't be allowed to increase it's quota in the future? It won't be able to target different species in the future ? ( perhaps a quick salmon run up the east coast?). It won't use Australia as a base simply so that it's closer to international waters and perhaps have different restrictions once outside our waters?

Will this set a precedent allowing other supertrwalers into our waters ?

I'm sure the scientists will monitor the catch and if stock depletion happens, they'll eventually build a strong enough case to prevent the trawler. But this would be after the fact.

Why bother letting such a big vessel register and work our waters, is the return to our economy and local industry that great?

I just think there is more at play here, than a single boat taking an 18,000 tonne quota and we'll only wisen up after a few years.


----------



## scater (Nov 24, 2007)

Looks like it's getting knocked on the head - http://m.brisbanetimes.com.au/environme ... 25oib.html


----------



## MrFaulty (May 15, 2008)

Beaver, I really think you should get back on your meds


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Jim, can you show me the evidence that she will get pregnant ?
If she hasn't been pregnant before, there can't be evidence that she will get pregnant now. Until I see this evidence, it is just your opinion.
The cinema staff said it wont happen and no one has got pregnant in their cinema before.
Looking at this scientifically, she needs to get pregnant so that we know the movies was a bad idea.
If she dies in child birth, it would be unfortunate but it would still only be one example and just because it happened in this cinema doesn't mean it would happen in other cinemas.

Or am I being really thick


----------



## Wrassemagnet (Oct 17, 2007)

No Kerry, that's what you call reasoning absent of sense.

Even if it's a costly backflip the minister should have the guts to renege, it's the best thing to do in the long run. You know, I think he would go up a few points in my kudos meter if he did, as I dare say the only thing worse than a fool is a stubborn fool and someone who admits to making a mistake is at least redeemable.

By the way, and this is definitely just hearsay, I've heard the sterilisation of the earlier conquests of the Magiris is on account if its mutant pecker having a massive dose of the Clapitos :lol:


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

Wrassemagnet said:


> Even if it's a costly backflip the minister should have the guts to renege, it's the best thing to do in the long run. You know, I think he would go up a few points in my kudos meter if he did, as I dare say the only thing worse than a fool is a stubborn fool and someone who admits to making a mistake is at least redeemable.


I sent him an email yesterday, saying pretty much just that.
I'm expecting cinema tickets in the post.


----------



## MrFaulty (May 15, 2008)

Using the Precautionary Principle, then we should asume that since it is not certain if she can or cannot get pregnant, we can't take the chance. Seriously, if the fisheries and all the other powers that be have got it wrong, then what is the cost (not just financially)? and let's face it, with regard to fisheries, decisions are made on educated guesses, there is a small degree of science involved but we are still only guessing how many straws it will take to break the camels back.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political ... 25oib.html

Love the way Seafish Tasmania seem to think the Australian people shouldn't have a say in it, they are our fish you tossers.
Looks like we are getting somewhere anyway.


----------



## Adam95 (Jun 11, 2011)

BREAKING: Super trawler to be banned from fishing Australian waters until expert panel examines its impacts. Process to take 2 yrs. Announced by Environment Minister Tony Burke this morning.

Edit - Keza beat me by a minute, haha.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

Great news.

One of the most disappointing aspects of this whole debate has been the use of the trawler to argue against marine parks. Much of it has been tantamount to "if they can rape the environment why can't we?". That is a really childish stance and belongs in the climate change bin of shame. I'm annoyed by the rec-fishing industry's hijacking of the topic.

I don't have the expertise to analyse the green zone strategy of the government but I do know that in many cases lock-outs (both rec and professional) are an important part of fisheries management. If people are really serious about fishing sustainably then there needs to be some acceptance of fisheries regulation as well as opposition to things like the super-trawler.

Rec-fishing really has to come out of the dark ages and this cold war era type "reds under the bed", I'll do what I want, anti-green paranoia.


----------



## MrFaulty (May 15, 2008)

I couldn't agree more punchanello, and maybe going off on a tangent, but I reckon we need a lot more no take areas, where people can fish with lure or fly only and must release all they catch - I believe USA has quite a few of these areas and they are very successful; this would also (IMO) be a great bonus for tourism.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

punchanello said:


> Great news.
> 
> One of the most disappointing aspects of this whole debate has been the use of the trawler to argue against marine parks.


Yes! Great news about the Trawler- Beyond that, when are some of you thickheads going to get it straight that the majority of Rec Fishers ARE NOT against Marine Parks. We are against hypocricy and marine park zonings that do not present a reasonable level of social equity or site specific science in proposed closure areas! We are also against relentless political manipulation by environmental extremists whose only directive is to lock Australian fishers out of Australian waters under the veil of so called, "protection" when fishing is only one part of the larger environmental debate.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

There is a lot that can be done to improve the fishery before locking out rec fisherman.
There doesn't seem to be much point in cracking down on re fisherman when 90% (occy, this is a figure of speech, I have no proof) of the rec fishing damage seems to be done illegally. Tighter regs, smaller bag limits, no anchoring, no bait collecting from shore, a review on what tackle is bad for the long term etc etc, all essential I think but all a waste of time if it isn't being policed.
Next: wild fish is too cheap in the shops, double the price and halve the quota.
Ban practices that damage the sea floor and habitat.
Rules like longliners being allowed stripe marlin but not others don't work, all fish on the longline are dead, so blues etc get dumped.
Subsidies fishing of species that are out of balance and causing issues (yes leather jacket, I'm looking at you), etc etc.
How to prevent fish like tuna being wiped out on their migratory paths, I might be wrong (I'm sure someone will point it out) but I think a lot of our yellow fin get mowed down in Papua New Guinea. 
Lots to do on a big scale that would a lot more impact than locking out rec fisherman on such a large scale.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

keza said:


> There is a lot that can be done to improve the fishery before locking out rec fisherman.


I agree Keza, but as has been the case in so many regulatory fields, the most succesful type of regulation is self regulation.

That is, the rec-fishing community needs to be seen to go above and beyone what is required by law by its own free will.

For example, why do I see rec-fishers bag out on 40cm + bream for the slaughter? Or people keeping 80cm + flathead? It's legal, but it's crap practice. I suspect that these same people would rabidly oppose marine parks and feign indignation at the super-trawler.

On a slightly different tangent, we have a very lucky cultural quirk in Australia. By and large people respect the regulations. Go to South America (where my famil are from) or Asia and nobody gives two hoots. So we are starting from a very good point and need to keep improving. I have hope for the future.


----------



## keza (Mar 6, 2007)

I don't know how you alter the mindset of these people, it is pretty ingrained. It's like people leaving rubbish, hooks etc on wharfs and then they wonder way it is closed to fishing. I still feel that policing is the only way in the short term. 
You can change any rules but a small majority will still do all the damage.


----------



## spooled1 (Sep 16, 2005)

punchanello said:


> I agree Keza, but as has been the case in so many regulatory fields, the most succesful type of regulation is self regulation.


Punch - I'm not intending to single you out and I totally agree with self regulation as a principal, but:

In the UK, environmentalists actively work with rec fishers because they know they have a better collective chance at achieving shared positive political outcomes. Here in this country, the anti-fishing mob encourage disruption and inflexibility to ensure the highest degree of conflict is maintained at every political process. Our personal willingness as rec-fishers to self-regulate could just as easily be offset by the sheer volume of flack and bad press that we get from those that are determined to ban fishing. Rec-fishers have sacrificed a lot of freedom to maintain their ability to fish and no doubt there'll be more sacrifices to come. At the same time, Governments can't expect us to self regulate while anti-fishing extremists keep throwing the punches at rec-fishos while also manipulating the political shots from the party sidelines. The take, take, uncompromising, Australian Environmental activism system doesn't foster anything but resentment.


----------



## punchanello (Oct 6, 2011)

spooled1 said:


> punchanello said:
> 
> 
> > I agree Keza, but as has been the case in so many regulatory fields, the most succesful type of regulation is self regulation.
> ...


I think it goes both ways. I've met a lot of fisho's who aren't reacting to green extremism, but a long held world view that won't change.


----------



## wetbeaver (Nov 26, 2011)

mr faulty, brain not sparking. im glade i take a lot of your time and brain thoughts to try to insult me. im going to take that as a complement.
i guess that means if me and you were face to face, that your trying to say that you would like to give me a hand shake and a man cuddle, oooh shucks Darline. mmmwwwwwaahhh
you surly know how to make a man feel good about himself.


----------

