Friday afternoon missile launched: Please find attached the letter I emailed to the Minister on 1st June this year. Just wondering when I might receive something more than an automated response and, in particular, some answers to my three fairly straightforward questions. Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply. Yours sincerely, Steve Starling Begin forwarded message: Minister – I am writing to you as a keen recreational angler who, along with tens of thousands of other business people in this state, also depends in large part for his income on the health of our publicly-owned fisheries. Like many other recreational anglers in NSW, I have long been concerned at the level of commercial harvesting (particularly meshing, hauling and trawling) taking place in our fragile estuarine ecosystems. It is the belief of myself and many others in the community that the intensity and sophistication of this commercial harvesting effort has increased substantially in recent years, and that it has also been concentrated more heavily on specific waterways, especially since the creation of recreational fishing areas (RFAs) and marine park sanctuary zones. Many of us have very serious concerns about the long-term sustainability of this intense commercial harvesting effort. We also believe that there is a widespread (and growing) public perception of serious declines in estuarine and inshore fish stocks as a direct consequence of these highly visible commercial fisheries. That negative public perception is already impacting adversely upon our businesses, and we see this negative impact growing every year as disillusioned recreational anglers turn en masse to other hobbies, or choose alternative holiday destinations (many of them inter-state and overseas). As you will be aware, community passions are particularly strong at the moment in relation to the intensive commercial netting of relatively small estuary systems and coastal lakes that remain closed to the sea for lengthy periods of time (and therefore have extremely limited or non-existent stock recruitment of certain species). We would argue that the “precautionary principle” should apply in such fragile systems, with a moratorium being placed on ALL forms of netting in these closed waters until the sustainability of such activities can be scientifically assessed. (We realise that it has been argued that such activities have gone on for decades without the absolute collapse of fish stocks. We would counter that argument with our assertions that these activities have recently increased in both their intensity and sophistication, and that now only remnant stocks of certain species remain in many of these waters.) We accept the need to maintain a viable commercial fishing industry in NSW: to provide all-important regional employment opportunities, and also to supply fresh, local seafood to members of the community who don’t or can’t catch it themselves. But we question the economic and environmental sustainability of intensive mesh, haul and trawl netting in estuaries: practices that ceased years ago in many other developed nations. Furthermore, we argue that recreational fishing actually provides greater economic activity, generates more jobs in the regions, and returns a far higher level of social benefit to society in general than the specific forms of estuarine netting that we are objecting to. In light of the above, I would like to close by posing THREE important questions to you and your department. My questions are: 1. Will you agree to a moratorium on all commercial netting in coastal lakes and rivers that are currently closed to the sea until a detailed scientific assessment of the long-term sustainability of these forms of fishing in such enclosed waterways (at modern levels of intensity) can be undertaken? If not, why not? 2. Can you please explain why at least a part of the funds generated from the sale of recreational anglers’ licence fees are not being made available for the buy-out of commercial netters when many in this group (commercial fishers) have indicated their willingness to accept such buy-outs, and a majority of recreational anglers appear happy to have at least a part of their fees spent in this way? 3. Can you please explain how the reduced bag limits and other increased restrictions outlined in the latest discussion paper on recreational fishing regulations in NSW represent anything more than a re-allocation of publicly-owned resources from the many (rec’ anglers) to the few (commercial fishers), at the severe detriment of businesses dependent upon a viable, healthy recreational fishery? Thanking you in anticipation of your prompt reply. Yours sincerely, Steve Starling
Posted on: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 06:27:12 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015