John H wrote: ] The 2014/15 annual report from the WA Department of fisheries says. The amount the Government spent on managing commercial fishing and aquaculture around the State was $76 million. The amount the Government spent on managing recreational fishing around the State was $18 million. (corrected) " 752,000 was number of West Australians estimated to have fished recreationally in the reporting period. Recreational fishing in Western Australia continues to have considerable social value as a popular WA lifestyle activity. " 170,094 was the number of recreational fishing licences we issued for specific recreational fishing activities. All revenue raised from licence fees goes back into recreational fishing management." It is not clear how much commercial fishers pay towards fisheries management.
|
It wasn't clear from your
post above however I presume it was directed at me to make comment.
Clearly there is an
imbalance between number of West Australians estimated to have fished
recreationally during the reporting period and the number of recreational
fishing licences issued for specific recreational fishing activities and I
guess this was your point. Based on the
figures provided only 22.6% of the estimated total number of recreational
fishers were licensed. However this
doesn't necessarily mean that 77.4% of the estimated recreational fishers
failed to purchase a fishing licence as perhaps was your inference. In WA persons under the age of 16, persons of
aboriginal descent, all shore based anglers and persons fishing from an
unpowered boat are all exempt from purchasing a fishing licence. Whether the exempt group make up the total of
the 77.4% to which I refer I don't know and I don't have any facts to support
this one way or the other.
The other point you raised
was how much commercial fishers contributed towards fisheries management? Once again this had me searching for info and
I was unable to locate any estimated values.
This search was useful however as it did provide me with some
information with respect to how the commercial fishing in WA is structured,
something which I had little knowledge of previously. In short commercial fisheries are licensed by
the Dept of Fisheries and annual lease / access fees apply and I would expect
these fees to be proportionate to the size of quota. Once again I do not have exact figures of the
magnitude of the fees however from more general comments from others they don't
come cheap. The following is a cut and
paste from the Fisheries website.
"Commercial fishing Licences
Operators in commercial
fisheries and aquaculture in Western Australia must be licensed by the
Department of Fisheries.
Licence fees ensure an
appropriate return to the community for a degree of exclusive access to
community resources (fish or water) for commercial purposes. Industry also
benefits from our management and research to help ensure Western Australia’s
fisheries remain sustainable and profitable.
All the funds raised from
commercial licences are used only for the purposes set out in the Fisheries
Research and Development Account (established under the Fish Resources
Management Act 1994), which includes commercial fishing and aquaculture
management, enforcement, community education, research and monitoring of
fishing activity. The funds cannot be used for recreational fishing."
I also came across a paper
titled "Improving Commercial Fishing Access Rights in WA" which I
found rather interesting. Two sections
within the paper address 'Ownership of Fish' and 'Fishing Access Rights'. Whilst I have no first-hand knowledge of how these
are addressed in NZ I suspect a somewhat different approach has been adopted. Link to document added below.
http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/Documents/occasional_publications/fop102.pdf
John H wrote: ]MB LegaSea is not doing nothing. See our Annual Report The profile of recreational fishing in NZ has never been higher. We supported a feature film on Recreational fishing on the Kiapara Harbour called THE CATCH on in cinemas now. Last night there was an hour long ITM Fishing Show featuring LegaSea on prime time TV1 and a paid TV ad. We have a Fish Care campaign starting soon and have been talking to politicians in the build up to election year. What you can do is sign up as a LegaSea Legend to make LegaSea more effective. Or keep up to date with WHAT IS BEING DONE by subscribing for free |
Tzer wrote:
John so what has Legasea actually achieved for recreational fishes of NZ. All I seemed to read is a lot of Pr rhetoric. |
Tagit wrote: I think a lot of people suffer from impatience when it comes to achieving results for rec fishing. That is behind a lot of the calls for more direct action etc. As many people, including myself. have pointed out in various posts, our countries record to date in rec angling is the rec sector giving, giving, and giving, whilst what we so far count as achievements is anything where the 'giving' is reduced or not as big as the government and comm sector are trying to demand. They of course then use this 'concept' in their future demands. The perfect example seems to be the new MPA proposals where we have very large MPA's proposed and smaller ones also proposed as being the less intrusive options. In reality this is just game playing with the non-rec sectors trying to force these through as the compromises the rec sector must make before they will do anything about their own damage to the fisheries. By listing both large and small MPA options they are trying to position the 'small option' as what they will accept as a compromise when the rec sector agree to compromise on whatever they are trying to achieve. Accepting the 'small options' is in fact yet another 'give' by the rec sector, but it has been positioned so that it won't appear that way. It is in fact all about forcing the rec sector to agree to the other parties not making any substantial contributions, but at the same time positioning the rec sector to be seen as the bad guy. This is the rubbish that I personally really hate, and is in fact my fear about been represented when it is obvious that the rec representatives are being politically circumcised by the way the representative forums are being set up. What this means to me is that the only real fix to our issues is a political one. Until we create enough political clout to make the government take notice, all the detail type stuff around MPA's and trawl areas etc are just battles that we must fight, but will never win. Best case at the moment is damage limitation until we get the political influencing sorted. Can a ragtag bunch of rec groups become a political force, NO. Can a consolidated push behind one organised representative party work, yes, but it will take time, and we will all be very frustrated along the way. Is LegaSea the right group to support, that is a question for each person to decide for themselves, but personally I am not judging their success on what has been achieved to date, but more about how they are handling the path into the future. |
I think we should pay for an individual/rec fishing license
and also have boat licenses. I don’t think
Legasea is the correct organisation to administer this. Anyway I think it needs to be set up by the
clubs in NZ and administered by them. Maybe everyone needs to join a club to
rec fish in NZ this includes boat, shore and fresh water. Each registered club should
provide e.g 2 rangers (club members) for their boundary and issue fines/information
similar to parking wardens. In addition to rangers perhaps a voluntary support
system from club members also needs to be implemented.
Money from the licenses should be used to increase
signage/awareness, pay rangers all costs associated with rec licenses but no
profit. Clubs would need to make sure
their members are correctly licensed. Fishing license fees should be incorporated
into membership fees paid to the club via their subscriptions….
Having a single organisation administering Rec Fishing licenses
for all rec fishers in NZ would make it easier for people to comply/buy licenses.
I think rec fishing licenses are inevitable, it’s just the format and who
manages the admin that needs to be sorted. Times are changing and we are at the
point we as rec fisherman can make a change. I also think rules and regs need
to be the same across the board. Look at what has happened in the snap 1 – rec fisherman
are screwed no win or gain for any one, should have stayed as it was. No matter
what is put in place it should be a non-profit organisation running.
LegaSea Community Builder wrote:
If I could help answer, John will probably also have his own comments. A voice. Evident by the growing support from individuals and industry and submissions to govt. The What's Fishing Worth study was a landmark achievement. In other countries the same type of report brought about policy changes and developments that valued rec fishing. Establishing the economic value of rec fishing has never been accomplished before. We have always been trying to convince govt of the economic benefits of rec fishing without being able to give hard data. We have the facts now to back up the arguments. From my perspective, part of the reason I joined LegaSea was because I could see an advocacy group becoming more organised and recognised and I couldn't remember seeing that before through out the last 40yrs of my rec fishing history. There have been organised fights like Option 4, but the reach, longevity and community getting behind LegaSea is in a whole different league now. |
Tagit wrote: We need to accept that for as long as the government see themselves better off aligning with the comm sector, the rec sector will continue to lose ground. We have a major issue in population growth that nothing in the current QMS or government attitudes will fix. The only true fix is going to be when the government finally believe that it is in their own personal best interests to align themselves and their decision making with the rec community. That means that until they truly fear the backlash from future decisions that go against the rec community, they will continue with their current process of supporting the commercial industry at the rec industries expense. Right now they still back themselves to produce enough 'spin' to confuse enough people in the rec community to make any backlash negligible. The release of their Fishing Park plan at the last minute during the last election campaign was a classic example. There were people on these forums and all over the place saying what a great thing the government was doing. As we now know, these proposals were not properly thought through and are probably now going to be implemented at significant cost to the rec community (again). Even all the various study forums etc being implemented by council and government badly marginalise the rec community by design. Bottom line is that the only real solution for rec fishing is to get the government making decisions that properly reflect the importance of rec fishing to the people of this country. That is only going to happen once we have a decent degree of unity amongst ourselves. As I mentioned before, why would this government implement a recreational fishing licence so that the rec community could have enough funds to properly challenge the government and comm industry through the courts? The only reason will be if we can make them politically uncomfortable enough to question whether there are too many votes at risk for them to carry on as they are. |
Tasman and Golden Bay snapper still running hot We are not far away from daylight... Read More >
Variety is the spice of life On one recent trip, the plan was to spend a... Read More >
Fish where the fish are! Catching fish or just going fishing? I tackle this issue... Read More >
Thoughtful tactics required for better fish Over the course of each year the fishing varies,... Read More >