Tackle Industry Election Advert

[Ian Sewell]

Just got this sent to me so thought I would post it up in case you do not get to see it on the TV.

www.fishingdvd.com.au/tv_ad2.html

[aiden]

Would have thought this was worthy of being viewed by more members . I know politics is a subject that many people are not interested in and that is fair enough but make no mistake, if the Labor Party wins the election and the greens have the balance of power in the senate the "back room deals" that will be done will impact on fishing and other recreational activities more than most of you could ever comprehend. Fact and not just my opinion

[Ian Sewell]

Bottom line is voting at an election is the easy way to change the course of what a political party wants to do to our sport, hobby or livlihoods.

Fighting against a party when they are in the process of making the changes is almost a futile effort.

At the election is the time to stand up and make your vote count.

It has been said before. "I fish and I vote"

[Jethro]

I understand the passion that most (if not all) of us have for our sport...... but to base your vote on fishing policy alone seems a little bit crazy.... Surely policies on the economy, infrastructure, crime, hospitals, etc must be as, if not more, important

Personally I still don't know who Im going to vote for.... but I will be taking into account, overall, who I think will do a better job for our country...

A lot of the Greens policies are very scary and not just for us fisherman... But if you have a read of some of the Shooters Party's policies, past and present, it might make you think twice...

I would hate to see us loose any more of our waterways to green zones.... but for me there is just more to it...

Either way I will be putting the Greens LAST in the senate... and I suggest people take the time and fill out below the line, then your preferences go where YOU want them

[stompy]

Hey,

Nice and simple, the Greens have already gone into print with 30% Marine parks.

This will be aired in most marginal areas. My main concern is many young voters simply view a vote for the Greens as a vote for good environmental policy. The truth is that is far from the facts, Greens are a very idealistic group and have little scientific base for policies and have no idea of the economic flow on effect of most policies.

Unfortunately I think most fisho's are viewed as simple gathers of food with little thought for the environment. Anywhere people fish there is usually rubbish, discarded line and decaying bait/ fish waste. The fact is that the vast majority of fishers repect and cheerish the environment, but the actions of few hurt the majority.

Whilst the message aired in the advertisment is good, it sends a family message. I think it misses the mark from turning any potential Green voters, a message that shows fishers as environmentally sustainable would have hit the mark IMO.

There was a group of commercial fishers on the local radio a few weeks back warning of potential increase in Shark attacks if fishing is restricted, again the message missed the mark. Instead of talking about sustainability and referenceing some research a message thats sounds like sour grapes was aired.

I'm not bagging the adds, its great something is being funded and aired. I just think it would have more impact if there was a sustainabilty or ecomonic flow on message in there some where.

Regards,

[Kingpin]

This has been sent around from AFTA today: interesting reading

MPAs and Other Environmental Excesses
The recent policy announcement by the Coalition regarding Marine Protected Areas is a hopeful first step in the direction of a return to environmental reality and away from political pandering to the eco delusions of the Greens. It is important to recognise a few home truths regarding MPAs:
• They are a costly hypothetical solution to a problem which doesn’t exist.
• They have no effect on pollution or climate change and the possibility of overfishing is already more than adequately addressed by the most costly and restrictive fisheries management in the world.
• There is no threat to marine biodiversity. We have never lost even one marine species from any human cause and none are threatened with extinction.
• he Law of the Sea Treaty under which we claim EEZ rights provides that other nations may petition to access our resources if we are not utilising them. It would be difficult for Australia to sustain an argument that vast no-take MPAs are a “use” of fisheries resources.
• Holders of fishing rights have committed to large investments in both money and years of their lives on the assurance that their rights were, secure, permanent and tradeable. Their licenses are in fact a contract with government and the terms and conditions of their rights cannot be legally changed without either their full knowledge and individual consent under contract law, or fair and just compensation.
• he Biodiversity Treaty which has been cited as requiring the declaration of MPAs, also requires that traditional uses be protected. Recreational and commercial fishing are traditional uses going back to first settlement by both indigenous and colonial peoples.
• At present, no need for or benefit from, extensive MPAs has been shown to exist and it would be prudent to await the accumulation of further knowledge to implement them over time in accord with increasing knowledge. Current scientific understanding is simply not adequate for a soundly based large scale implementation of MPAs at this time. The crash program of MPA implementation amounts to large scale environmental meddling with no proper assessment of either needs or consequences. It is simply cheap pandering for green votes.
• Over recent years numerous large scale clinical and epidemiological studies published in the world’s leading medical journals have found significant health benefits from increased seafood consumption for a broad range of neurological, cardio-vascular and immune related conditions. Translated into reduced health care costs, it could save Australia billions of dollars per year not to mention the improved quality of life for millions of Australians. We need to be looking at how to expand our underutilised fisheries and aquaculture potentials, not seeking to find more imaginary reasons to close them down.
• Fisheries have by far the lowest impact of any form of food production. To replace global fisheries production with beef would require conversion to grazing of an area about 15 times larger than the whole of Australia.

Beyond the matter of fisheries management, ill-conceived environmental restrictions have become a major impediment to almost any productive activity involving use of land or natural resources. An expansion of the Coalition’s MPA policy to offer a similar rethink on excessive environmental restrictions in general as well as a strengthening of property rights would strike an overwhelming chord of popularity. The anti ETS sentiment in the electorate which was the propelling force for the Coalition’s change of leadership and public approval is but an exposed seam. A mother load of resentment against environmental nonsense is just beneath the surface and a rousing chorus of agreement awaits only a leader willing to say that this emperor not only has no clothes, he is disgusting. The political pandering for green votes at the expense of the livelihood of thousands of fishing families and the health of millions of persons is tantamount to treason.

[Craig]

Jethro

While most would agree that in general Health etc outweigh fishing - the lack of recognition fishing gets means it is often overlooked and there are direct correlations between the social wellbeing of a population and their health.

Health etc will still get high priority whichever main party is in and they will have to wrestle with the same health issues such as aging population, aged care beds, overcrowding in Emenergency rooms, lack of primary health care (GPs etc).

But do not ignore the chance to have a say/impact on another important issue that will directly effect us - Greens last.

[aiden]

Jethro,

I would only base about 10% of my vote against the Labor Party / Greens (same thing) on fishing policies. Don't get me started on the other 90%

[dawson]

Im not totally against marine parks. Look at Ningaloo, there are many sanctuaries and it still offers arguably the best fishing in WA despite not being able to fish every part of the coast/reef. I would not be against similar parks in the metro and south of WA, even if that meant I could no longer fish some of my favorite spots as long as these sanctuaries were put in the right place for just cause.

JMO

[Cortinaboy]

Well said Dawson. There's little point in battling extremist views with extremist views in the other direction. Marine parks are good, conservation is good, but fishing's good too. There needs to be a balance and the equation needs to include the views and needs of fishermen (rec and professional), general public and conservationalists. Its the balance that's the tricky part of course and the 30% numbers for marine parks seems a bit high and somewhat arbitrary. Better to do those sorts of things on a case by case basis I reckon with plenty of time to let people argue their case. Though that's probably too much trouble for political groups looking for the quickest and easiest way to please voters.

personally, I agree with those earlier who said there's more important things than fishing to consider when deciding which party and which person should run the country. The Greens policies are seen as ambit claims and won't get up simply because they hold the balance of power in the senate (which they undoubtedly will). They make noises and push policies toward their own views but the ALP or Libs don't pass Greens policies like that unless they (ie libs or ALP) also support the general concept. The greens can get sometimes get minor amendments put in to get bills passed, but its the big parties that are in charge and there's simply no logic in either of them supporting a policy they disagree with. For example, look at the climate change bill - greens held the balance, demanded stronger legislation and both libs and labor told them no. Fishing and marine parks issue will make little difference to my vote because both libs and labor have effectively ruled out anything like the Greens 30% proposal being approved.

[Bear]

Keep the personal stuff out of it or join the line of 'heel coolers'.

[Alex]

I was listening to a radio interview Darren Hinch / Bob Brown yesterday and B.B. confirmed on air they are for 30% of marine parks.

His argument was that we need more "fish nurseries" because if there are no nurseries, there will be no grown fish.

What would stop the government then to declare the whole of the Port Philip bay for example the "fish nursery" based on the fact that snapper enters the bay every october to spawn?
Impossible scenario you think? Think again. There are marine parks and "No fishing" zones in the places that nobody would have thought of 10 years ago.

How do the fish stocks sustain their current level in the meantime without a 30% of Australian waters closed to fishing then? There are plenty of mechanisms in place that help to control and prevent the overfishing.

And who said they would stop at 30%?

Absolutely ridiculous

Alex

[Zenburger]

I hope my opinion is not seen as being personal so if I'm banned for what I'll say again then so be it.

The Australian Tackle Industry are telling us not to vote labour because there worried about their profits not that our wonderful way of life is under threat, they give us the choice to vote for the ultra right wing conservative Tony Abbot and that most certainly doesn't sit well with me.

There are 2 incompetent people who haven't displayed leadership qualities needed to be the Prime Minister of this country IMO so neither get my vote, the day there's a leader does show these qualities that will be the day someone gets my vote but until then my vote goes as invalid.

Zen

[Cortinaboy]

Alex, i know you're a reasonable fellow, but I honestly don't understand the logic of saying.. ' the Greens said they'd like to do A B and C, but what if they did X, Y and Z as well!!! Shock!! Horror!! Firstly, they aren't going to be able to do the A, B, C bit (in this case, the 30% marine parks) because neither of the major parties agrees with them. Secondly, its ridiculous to start making up possibilities about what they might do based on nothing at all. There's no mention anywhere of them shutting Port Phillip Bay so why mention that? You might as well argue that they want to make everyone a vegetarian and that they get dressed up at night as the boogey man and go around scaring young children. And frankly, I don't understand what the problem is with the logic of saying there will be less adult fish if there are no fish nurseries. Seems perfectly obvious to me. The matter is one of balance though. Ridiculous to have nowhere to fish and ridiculous not to have any restrictions. Middle ground is where people need to work to. I don't agree with the 30% proposal and it sounds very much like a guess at a figure by the greens, but happy to engage in a debate as the facts generally win out. its when people simply refuse to talk that the unbalanced policies get in.

To say fish stocks are manitaining themselves now is pretty naive. Of course there are exceptions in every area, but as a rule, catch quotas are being slashed all the time because there's no fish. Last newsletter I got on breamfishing (via Iceman dude - forgotten the name of it) detailed the amazing loss of bream in waterways throughout victoria over the past 20 years. As has been pointed out many times before - can anyone name a place where the fishing is better than it was 20 years ago with bigger fish and more fish to catch? Much easier to name places where the opposite is true isn't it. Regulation is needed and fishermen are going to have a much bigger chance of having a real and positive influence on the rules if they engage in the debate and discuss compromises with logic, rather than demonizing people with a different perspective and declaring everyone who talks about regulation as a crazy greenie. If people go the later route, those in power will simply make the rules without you.

I know there are a lot of people on this site that disagree and i stress I'm not having a go at Alex in particular - his views reflect those of a lot of people and I know he's a pretty reasonable person from what I've read on the site. I'm arguing that the debate is best won using logic, discussion and compromise though, because the public, who probably don't care either way about issues like marine parks, will not side with fishermen if it looks like we are only looking after our own interests and ignoring the legitimate concerns of other people.

[Craig]

The big problem with the Greens policy is that they see marine Parks (read as no fishing areas) as the only solution.

They refuse to recognise the other management techniques that are utilised throughout WA - spatial, temporal restrictions, bag limits, size limits etc etc. - take the DohDohDohDohburn Sound (C-ckburn Sound) closure as an example, it works but does not mean no fishing forever in the sound.

Get onto the Fisheries WA website and read some of the research papers - there is clear evidence that Marine Parks as a single solution do not work!!!!!

There needs to be a suite of management options that are structured to deal with specific locations and species - which is what is being done.

But once the waters are locked up and we are locked out there will be little chance of undoing the damage.

By the way - locking us out of large chunks of water just increases the pressure on a smaller area and may well escalate the depletion of stocks.

Read up on it and get informed then make your judgement.

Read:

1. Fisheries Research Report No. 169, 2010, "The efficacy of sanctuary areas for the management of fish stocks and biodiversity in WA waters." 48 pages available from http://www.fish.wa.gov.au/docs/frr/f...index.php?0401 and

2. "Report on the Scientific Basis for and the Role of Marine Sanctuaries in Marine Planning." by the Marine Scientific Panel. Both the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department of Fisheries are named on the front cover. 96 pages http://www.dec.wa.gov.au/content/category/40/952/2323/