View Full Version : WA Fish foundation
Hey Guys, there is an interesting post on the DohDohDohDohDohDohDoh boards about a new stocking program for WA. Looks like they will be getting together a few bream to stock in the swan, and later move on to other species.
Check out
http://www.westernangler.com.au/forum/WA_Fish_Foundation_launched/m_11552/tm.htm
Cheers
James
Craig H
13-10-2003, 01:25 AM
Great news... thanks for that Jimi :)
No worries Craig. It's probably worth buying a few of the stickers they are selling as the funds go towards more fingerlings.I know
I'm going to buy a few. Maybe I can wallpaper the house with them!!
Want to have mad sessions on bream in the Swan in the future? Want your kids to be able to catch them in the future? Well your always asking what you can do to help, the time has come for you all to put your hand in your pockets to help out the bream.
I just spoke to Ian Stagles from Western Angler on the phone to lend all my support to this fund he has started, check out the link Jimi put up to the DohDohDohDohDohDohDoh site for more details.
In the Bream Master store all the money from the video hire service has been put aside and this will be donated towards this re-stocking program before the end of the year, there is about $400 there already.
You can now make all donations to this fund at the Bream Master store where Geoff has a tin, please stick your hand in your pocket to help out this fund.
Think about how much satisfaction bream have given you over the years and donate accordingly. I really don’t think $20 or more is too much to ask. If you can’t afford that at least stick all your change from purchases or change you have in your wallet into the tin every time you go into the store. I will personally donate $500 out of my pocket, WA BREAM Tournaments will also donate $500, Warren will also make a sizable donation as well and at the next tournament we will be passing the hat around for donations.
Hop to it guys, every $ you donate will put more bream into our rivers.
Craig H
13-10-2003, 02:03 AM
As a non-money-earning uni student, I think I'll hoarde all the 5 cent coins I come into contact with for the cause.
Two-tenths of f#ck-all, but it's something :p
With a possible caveat or two.
Are donated funds to be used to stock a river where pros still net legally? (Swan & Blackwood)?
Why not just take the money down to TP and hand it over rather than make him work every day to get it, i.e top up the Fisheries offer for his license to buy him out and THEN the fish would do naturally (breed) what we are going to subsidise these aquaculture factilities to do...(produce fingerlings).
See where I'm heading here?
Rec Fishers pay to keep aquaculturists producing fish - so they can be stocked so pros can net em and make a proft.
Again - it's rec fishers being shafted at the expense of aquaculture and pro fishing lobby.
If I painted a turd to look like a Mars bar - would you eat it?
No...
But you'll all swallow a metaphoric turd in mars bar wrapping because it's sold to you as a "tasty solution" to bream problems.
Will the re stocking, solve the fishkills problem in the Swan R.?
No.
Will the restocking allow you to FISH for them in the marine park that WILL be the Hardy Inlet / Walpole and Nornalup estuaries?
No
Willl the recs get any of the pro's profits from netting our fish?
No.
Little tip for you all.
When it looks like a turd, smells like a turd and tastes like a turd - it usually IS a turd! ;) :D
Anyone wondered why the supreme 'turd salesman' Kim Chance donated $25K toward the program?
Probably because it's funds pro fishing lobby gave to him to 'sell' their 'caddy shack turd in the pool' to the dumbass anglers swimming in the pool. :rolleyes:
Whered the pros get that 25K?
Netting 3 tonnes of bream from the Blackwood R. to sell at $8 bucks a kilo (you do the math!).
Our solution?
To Dig into our own pockets to help fund the provision of "free Turds for everyone!" :rolleyes:
Do these pro's pay any resource rent for the access to the bream lobsters scallops prawns and pearls they all make a $million a year each out of?
No.
Why are we going to effectovely give them scarce recreational angler funds then?
They net our fish - pay nothing for it - and take our fishing spots away for us as marine parks and we reward them with more money?
Talk about reinforcing bad behaviour.
If you trained your dog in such an inconsistent way - it would keep biting you - just like the pro's and theirtame Fisheries minister keep doing - and what do rec anglers do?...pat it on the head and give it a food reward.:rolleyes:
Being a recreational angler doesn't mean you have to check ya brains in at the front door you know!
So wiull it just be bream the funds are used for?
Nope, might restock so dhu fish as well!;)
That sounds good
Except of course the pro lobster boys will be catching em 22 a day on setlines to pay for fuel while pulling lobster traps each day.
They should do pretty well outta that.
Recs of course still won;'t be able to catch one for love or money...they will be just that much poorer, while the pro's who pay no resource rents will make a little more than the $1 million a year each they already make now! :rolleyes:
I sleep easy at night, knowng we have our best brains looking after recreational angler interests in this state.
How many Murray Cod we gunna stiock into lake Jasper with these funds and create a multiple tier fishery like Frank Prokop created over east with all the Black bass, yellow belly, reddies and trout etc?
What was that?.. NONE????????
But - it's OUR Money isn't it?
What - we can't use it fior anything that would so obviously enhance recreational angling while NOT providing a huge silent windfall for Pro fishers????
Gee - thats a funny recreational anglers fund - if you were a cynic - you'd almost think guy Leyland planned this little pantomime.
:D
Thats what I like about rec anglers - they are capable of thinking independantly for themselves. :(
Maybe the fund should be more appropriartely called :-
WA Pro Fish Foundation! ;).... or something wioth a catchty acronym.... Tricky Usurp Rec's Deposits...we could call it TURD for short!
Cheers!
Hey Shann I've been reading your long winded posts on here for months now and up untill now I can't be bothered replying to your long winded crap. If you put the same amount of energy you do typing posts into actually getting off your arse and doing something about stuff maybe things would happen.
If we all took your advice we'd all sit back and do nothing but whinge about this and that. At least Ian Stagles is doing something about it which is alot more than I can say for you.
You also bag out Frank Prokop on a regular basis, a man who has done more for Rec fishing then you could ever do in 10 liftimes.
Quite frankly mate I'm getting tired of listening to your bullDohDohDohDoh, all you do is talk and blow alot of wind. Why don't YOU get off your arse and get a fund going. What have you done for in the last few years to help bream? Except attend meetings and rant and rave, Bugger all, what initiatives have you started? Bugger all. Mate you talk the talk but you don't walk the walk.
Mate I don't care if Guy is the one behind it all this, if it puts more fish in the rivers I don't give a rats arse where the money comes from. How you can say that getting $25,000 from the minister is a bad thing is beyond me.
My advice is go do something useful and stop putting a negative spin on things that people are trying to be positive about. No one wants to hear your negative crap.
Lets say I'm a fisheries minister facing an election.
State Budgets stuffed - hospitals in crisi schools on strike - coppers too.
Anglers are getting resteless, as a voting block they could effectively change the election outcome unless they are satisfied in some way....given something.
Whats at risk of being cut as a govt service?..something that doesnt pay it's own way in a commercial sense - something thats a drain on the public purse.
Aquaculture facilitys...
Lets say I GIVE the anglers 25K as a gratn to kick off their own stocking funds, and THEY raose another 100K to pay for fish...
Thats a 75K saving for the Fisheries Budget now comming outta anglers pockets and they will vote for me into the bargain becuase I gave em 25 in order to get them to committ themselves to raising an extra 75K a year for me...to fund my aquaculture facility I can no longer afford.
Once I'm re elected I withdraw ALL Govt funding for the aquaculture facility and the rec anglers can make up the shortfall outta there own pockets.
Then the Pros catch rates will go up - and they will vote for me too.
Looks like a win win strategy for the Fsheries Minister to me.
Looks very much like a lose lose result for rec anglers tho.
With the 75 k a year I've saved funding aquaculture - I can employ 3 marine park rangers to keep those pesky bream fishers out of the new Hardy Walpole and Nornalup Estuaries marine parks!!!
Yep - we rec fishers know all about fishing and how it should be run.
I wonder if anyone knows where one can get CHEAP Vaseline in bulk - I think Rec Anglers have nbeen shafted and they are going to need serious lubrication to cope with the degree of shafting we just copped.
Luckily our Industry leaders looked after our best interests yet again. :rolleyes:
Yep, lets all get behind this program, sounds really great to me.:rolleyes:
Must be the right thing to do - everyone else is in support of it! (arent they?)..:confused:
Cheers!
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.......................
True to form just as I thought...............
Will the fish be stocked into rivers for pros to net?
Will it stop fish kills?
Will it stop Marine Parks in Bream Estuaries Hardy Walpole Nornalup?
Legitimate questions Ira - like it or not.
Sure "SOMETHING" has to be done.
Hats off to those who've got off their ass and done something.
I just hope it's the right something and we havent been led somewhere 'easy' that with a little forethought we might not have chosen to otherwise go.
Time will tell of course.
I'm not against stocking Ira - without it there would be no trout fishery period.
It has it's place - and that MAY include bream and other species restocking - who knows - maybe even barra into Lake Argyle, theres LOTs of possibilities for good use of it.
That remains to be seen whether it eventuates or not.
Remember that there IS a translocation policy in existence that for restocking will be like walking thru treacle for rec anglers.
I admit when I read it yesterday it sounded pretty good.
It has potential to be pretty good.
Whats it achieves however may have implications not yet fully appreciated.
Why not reserve your points for logical argument Ira - your a good edittor and capable of a reasoned debate on issues without resorting to personal attacks.
Isn't that what this forums for?.
Have a nice day Ira! :)
Cheers!
torvic
13-10-2003, 04:17 AM
I don't see how you can reject 25k worth of funds towards restocking bream populations. At the end of the day, if it puts more fish in our waters then its something good. To do what you did and try to slash the incentive of breamers into donating for the cause is beyond me...:(
.......
Trouty,
Just a couple of points:
- You've mentioned on many occasions that pro fisherman don't pay royalties on the resource they use, unlike miners and loggers. Fair point, but us recs are also resource users and we don't pay any direct royalties either at the moment. Think of this fund as a royalty. This is better than a fishing licence, as the money goes directly into fish stocks with no admin fees taken out. Who cares if we don't kill the fish, we are still using a resource that belongs to the whole community. We just have to get the pros to pay their fair share now :D
- I agree that management of the catchment is the long term way to ensure the fish can survive on their own. However, improvements from better catchment managment are much harder to measure and will take many years to take effect. If rec and pro fishing catch doesn't decrease in that time (that won't happen if human populations keep increasing), how are the fish stocks going to survive without our help?
Cheers
James.
Trouty and I don't often see eye to eye, but before you nail him to the cross, have a real good think about aleast some of the points he makes. some are very valid.:)
Samurai
Yes Trouty does raise some scary points. The thing is we're all looking for a solution to declining fish stocks, and here is one neatly wrapped for us and all we have to do is put a few dollars in a tin. Doesn't get any easier.
However, this isn't supposed to be a magic bullet (and won't be). It's just one small step on the way to improving the fishery. All the letter writing, attending meetings, reducing fertiliser use, etc, etc must still go on.
Cheers
James.
I don't think I'm the only one questioning stocking rivers that are netted bye pro's.
It should be remembered, that recreational anglers, also net some rivers (like the Hardy) so in fairness some of the stocking efforts would actually benefit those anglers who net recreationally.
It cuts both ways - as Jimi points out rec anglers don't pay royalties on our catch either (but, i'd point out the don't exploit the species for commercial gain either) ;)
I'm not anti the fund - it's better than nuthin which is what we have now - Hats off to Stages as well - he got another run on the board.
As Fa Cranky Frank, hell - I still communicate with him quite often as well - I don't have any axe to grind with eithr of em.
Ira's just had a little hissy fit for whatever reason - but i wouldn't let it ruin y day - he does it occasionally as do I, and it letting off steam makes him feel better then thats Ok - I got broad shoulders, and he wouldn't be the first! ;)
Ira does a great job of his editing and his bream comps etc - I'll forgive him a sudden rush of blood to the head, happens to the best of us on some occasions.
Lifes to short to harbor grudges and theres too many fish out there to not get along with other anglers.
Opinions are like azzholes, and like everyone else - mines no prettier than anyone elses.
Cheers!
torvic
13-10-2003, 05:09 AM
If I painted a turd to look like a Mars bar - would you eat it?
Well, from that description it looked like you WERE anti the fund.
Opinions are like azzholes, and like everyone else - mines no prettier than anyone elses.
And that !! Haha, thanks for painting such a...lovely picture that can accompany me while I'm working on this Lit essay... !!
bubba
13-10-2003, 07:01 AM
On the subject of recreational lisence, heres an idea I have been toying around to put forward to Recfish.
While we dont have a salt water fishing lisence, what is to stop anglers from creating a "self funded" lisence scheme with monies raised going back into the rec fishing sector for stocking, education etc. it gives the government the true impression that we seriously care about our fishery and are keen to help the community. Perhaps then they will take us seriously with other concerns we have like slot limits for our comps.
We are already showing self regulation so why try get all the angling community involved (those that want to) and it can be the first part of combing our collective might.
Perhaps WA, DohDohDoh and Recfish could all put their heads together.
Just an idea
Who would manage the dollars though Bubba?
I think this has been the problem all along.
canerod
13-10-2003, 08:22 AM
Trouty paints an ugly picture, but to my mind if he's even half right we rec anglers should be going purple with rage rather than supporting the painting of such a picture. The point made about resource royalties not being paid by either pro or rec fishers is an easy one for us to quantify, do pros spend as much on equipment and other costs PER KG OF FISH TAKEN as we rec anglers do and are they therefor contributing as much to the public purse in GST, or are they making the money while we keep shelling it out. We pay much more than our fair share already especially for a resource that as catch and release anglers we dont take but only borrow short term.
imho as a complete amatuer in these matters.
Craig_S
13-10-2003, 10:04 AM
Who would manage the dollars though Bubba?
Bear, Bear, Bear...no problemo. Send em to me, I'll make sure they're looked after...honest:)
millie
13-10-2003, 11:50 AM
Good on ya Ira you have my support
As you say its a start and anything that puts more Bream in the River just has to be good.
And the minister cant support stocking and commercial netting if we pay for the restocking he could look pretty stupid in the press Right now I would say its half time and were ahead by 10 points.
Yehaaa
Fluff Chucker
Millie
A lot of folk here keep bringing up catch & release, as a reason why the gov should support them, and as good a reason as that is, we tend to forget that we as c&r anglers are a minority among Aust. anglers.
And I think if you looked at the reality of who spends the most bucks on gear overall (Australia wide) we the anglers would loose out badly to the pros. Not to mention the fact that the pro fishing group have the advantage of being able to say, that they are fighting for our livelyhood while anglers are fighting for their sport or hobby.
And no gov is ever going to put some ones sport or hobby in front of some ones liverlyhood.
But the most important factor in all of this is that as long as the pros, how ever small a op he might run, have the backing of a fully professional organization, while we the anglers have a mish mash of groups through out the country pulling in every which way but the right one, ok some of them have their hearts in the right place but that's never going to be enough, sad but true.
I commend Ira and anyone for that matter for trying to raise money for restocking, atleast it's some thing, but again the sad facts are that restocking any water where pros can net never works. For years the c & r anglers in FNQ put money into restocking the Herbert River the main feeder river to the Hinchinbrook Channel and it was not until two or three years after we had pro netters banned from the channel, that the restocking started to show any results.
Cheers Samurai
bubba
13-10-2003, 06:15 PM
We have a governing body.. Recfish. They are crying out for funding so why not use them? They are responsible (in most things) and providing they can be held accountable there should be no problem there
Sorry Bubba, but Recfish is a toothless tiger, they have no clout against the pro lobby, surely you can see the difference between a paid professional group and a volenteer group like Recfish.
Recfish have been around a long time and done very little to change anything, like I said before their hearts maybe in the right place but when it comes to the crunch it amounts to very little.
Samurai
Matt Ireland
13-10-2003, 08:07 PM
Hey
I agree with trouty to an extent, restocking isnt a magic solution. Sure it works good in dams which are essentially a closed system, but there is some doubt about whether it will work well in complex, open marine systems although i think it has been used succesfully in the us with red drum, which are similar to our mulloway/jewfish. I honestly dont know enough about this argument at the moment but i might see if i can do some quick research and post back here to give you guys some more info.
And yes trouty's arguments about water quality, netting of estuaries etc are good, relevant arguments. In my opinion one of the most important things that can be done to protect our fisheries is to restore riparian vegetation (plants growing on riverbanks) of our waterways. This reduces sedimentation of rivers (i dont know about wa but where i live our rivers are absolutely choked with silt). They also provide excellent buffers to enhance water quality, and enhanced habitat for juvenile fish (especially in the case of mangroves). IMO if we get netting out of our estuaries and begin to restore the habitat by enhancing riparian vegetation stocking would be unnecessary (especially with the growing c&r movement).
Oh and a little advice for trouty, i think you are a very intelligent guy, with a lot of experience and knowledge in fisheries management, but try to restrain yourself from writing essays. I for one value what you have to say, but sometimes theres just too much ranting and raving between the real information.
sorry if ive wrote too much here, thanks for reading
Matt
bubba
13-10-2003, 08:15 PM
While it may seem like that, the only reason from bringing Recfish into this was because it is an established body and it generally speaks for the greater recreational fisherman. The control of funds needs to be done something by such a body. We could give funds raised by this to Craig S but apart from him having a nice new boat for Karri Valley there is no way of tracking what stocking the money is going towards.
Ive started the idea.. This is were the intilectuals broaden or refine the idea to suit OUR needs.
Remember this is for the stocking of fish AND to show the government that we are NOT an unruley mob but a committed group of recreational fisherman that are concerned for the presevation of our most treasured asset
Matt Ireland
13-10-2003, 08:23 PM
Hey samurai
I have actually seen figures of the money put into the economy by commercial and recreational fishers and the recreational fishers put a whole lot more in than commercial !
thanks
matt
So have I matt, so let's just agree to disagree:D
Samurai
The thing is we're all looking for a solution to declining fish stocks, and here is one neatly wrapped for us and all we have to do is put a few dollars in a tin. Doesn't get any easier.
Jimi,
My real fear, and the reason Im not initially overly chuffed with the new proposal fro rec anglers to fund a lot of stocking of natives, is that we may just fall into the trap of believing just what you've written above.
That is - that the easy answer (panacea) for our fishstiocks problems is to stock.
If there were some natural phenomenon which for some reason stopped a year or so's natural recruitment of fish - then stocking of open systems might have more merit.
What worries me is that we ALL start puting those few coins in the tin at the tackle shop - fully believing that it will solve the problem of a shortage of fish to catch.
For a while it might.
However, in truth - if it blinds us tpo the fact that development, and clearing, and groundwater pumping & contamination as well as over exploitation of the fishstocks themselves are killing off our breeding fish - and not allowing then to recruit (breed) naturally - then we will have done our rivers a diservice.
While we turn a blind eye - the over exploitation (read pro netting) will continue unfettered, along with urnab development, and in the end - the health of the river will eventual;ly decline to a point where it can no longer even sustain the healthy fingerlings that aquaculturists produce and release into thise waterways.
Stocking on it's own isn' the panacea unfortunately.
It does do wha Ira said - it puts more fish in the water to be caught.
I guess ifyour whole business is geared aroud an american style bass tournamensts circuit then antything that puts fish in the water IS good thing (for the pro's who earn their livelihood as pro bass fishers).
If it makes us take our eye off the ball however - it may not be such a good thing IMHO.
Do we REALLY want to follow the US example so closely?...
I mean - look at their trout fishery, their season opens, the day the hatchery truck drops all the trout in - and anglers "big opening season weekend: consstes of following the hatchery truck around catching the just released farm raised fish before anyone else gets em and before the fish learn to feed for themselves and become more difficult to catch.
I'm not sure that this is what we should be inadvertantly aspiring too for our own wild fishery.
I can think of many many good examples of where stiocking could improve the hell out of rec fishing inland waters in WA, but unfortunately Fisheries WA and CALm et al have deliberately closed the door on stocking East coast natives over here with their translocation policy document.
It's OK to have trout fron America and England in our waters and English roach (redfin perch) as well, but heaven forbid we should try an Australian Native like Murray Cod or Black Bass or even Callop (yellowbelly).
There ARE totally 'closed systems like' Lake Jasper (Springfed Perched lake - 12 square kilometers of fresh water 40 ft deep with it's own boatramp) that would make IMHO ideal multiple tier fisheries, just like the successfull ones Frank Prokop established, so successfully over east.
It appears we are going to plough mponey into stocking bream (which I'mNOT totally against if it's rivers which arent netted by pros...even if recs do net them)...
I would think theres "better" thi9ngs we possibly could do is all.
Barra into Lake Argyle is a classic example - because they are natives that once swam that far up the Ord R. - theres at least a chance that proposal MIGHT get past the translocation policy hurdle.
The Experience in Qlds with stocking big lakjes with barra proves the Argyle Barra experiment HAS to be worth the risk.
Hats off to Stagles and everyone else involved if they pull that one off - I doubt ANYONE could do more for WA freshwater angling than achieve that milestone - and it looks like it has a better than even chance of becomming reality.
I would tho - hate to see us take our eye off the ball - and lose sight of the fact that our rivers generally are in serious trouble from the wheatbelt mainly, and that spending dollars on restocking - (and even marine parks at the mouths of the rivers) WON'T stop our rivers dieing from the salt runoff from upstream.
As yet o ones come up with a commercially viable tree crop for salt affected low rainfall areas like the wheatbelt where our major river health problems originate.
The Farmers themselves can't afford the $ to fix the environemental problems.
Goovt seems to talk a heck of a lot about the problems - even have research done and landcare groups etc...
The problems a 100 year fix IF it's funded properly and it's so big no ones game to fund it...yet we keep throwing small change at the lower end of the rivers (marine parks) in the mistaken belief if we lock anglers out of the river - somehow it will recover.
The truth is it won't unless we address whats wrong upstream - in the wheatbelt.
Of the poisons (algae, nutrients, heavey metals & salt) keep comming down the river worse and worse each year, then the rivers and all the fish in them (including those we've paid to restock ourselves, and those supposedly protected bye the marine park) will still die - just like the ones in the Swan river did last summer.
I'm not against good stocking proposals - the Foundations a good idea - I just hope it really "thinks thru" what stocking proposals it fnds and supports and maybe thinks a little more latterally about what "non stocking" proposals it might also support.
I would think fencing off riparian vegetation along our streams for example (to stop livestock grazxing them off as seedlings , not to metion their hooves destrying the banks and adding to stream siltation) would be ONE sound use of SOME of the available funds whether it's from the Foundation - or the Fisheries grants funds.
Yet another diatribe.
Cheers!
Craig H
14-10-2003, 01:36 AM
*scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll*
*scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll*
:rolleyes:
Richo
14-10-2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Craig H
*scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll*
*scroll, scroll, scroll, scroll*
:rolleyes:
hahahaha I was scrolling on by when I saw that.
Made me laugh CraigH.
cheers
Ahahahahaahahahaha....lol
Same here richo...love it!
One point to make guys...
one of the ways we have judged the effect of netting was the changes in numbers of fish caught in the system. By stocking the river...the numbers will increase and we will have no basis for getting rid of netters! I think the swan needs stocking for sure to replce the fish lost from hte fish kill...but i'd rather see funds go to paying out netters aswell. Anyone else see my worry.
Other than that...Im stoked to see this start. I'll be putting as much money as my very limited uni budget will allow!
Dave
The pros in WA must be rubbing their hands together with joy:(
Samurai
TheJigJedi
14-10-2003, 10:44 AM
Ha Ha...I normally do the old Scoll job on those ones too.
But I normally read the 1st couple of lines of trouty's 1st post in a thread....this one made sence....its is feeding the pros, but like he said, it wont solve any long term problems but it's better than nothing.
Shane "I agree with a couple of other bits too, lol" Healey.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.