All political parties
have been invited, come and hear from those that have given their time to
listen and talk to you and find out which ones count be bothered. This rally is supported
by all peak fishing and boating bodies, as well as the industry. This will be the
biggest anglers rally yet, and for once we are all united and stand as one, it’s
time we stop playing the defensive game every time they try taking something
away from us, and start demanding that we are consulted, have proper representation
and we get a fair go!
Join Rex Hunt, Lee Rayner , Adam Royter and Dale McClelland
Bring
the family and the kids after all its there fishing future we are fighting for!
There will also be fishing tackle give aways for the kids and opportunities
to get a photo with one of the TV fishing celebrities.
On the 12th March the government tabled the marine park management bills. They allow 15 sitting days to put a disallowable motion for any bill. This time runs out on the 4th June for the commonwealth marine parks management bills, just a couple of days after the rally.
For any disallowance motion to pass we will need both Tony Windsor and Rob Oakeshott to support it.Get ready, this Thursday is the time to contact both these independent members of parliament to ask them if they support recreational fishing in Australia or not! (more information to come)
The June 2ND rally is our last chance to have our voices heard before this bill is written in stone, making it harder for any future government to make changes to it. Bring your family there will be giveaways for kids and you will have an opportunity to have your concerns heard by the politicians attending, politicians from all parties have been invited.
This is more than just being unfairly locked out, this is about fishing being used as a scape goat, if this anti-fishing propaganda continues who knows what will be next!
Come and hear how
Minister Burke’s commonwealth marine parks management plan that bans fishing
from IUCN Category II(National Parks), means that fishing is not only banned
from marine national parks but possibly from terrestrial National parks as
well.
This entire marine
parks process has been nothing but an elaborate anti-fishing campaign, they
claim that these areas are now fully protected, but all they have done is ban
anglers, and in the same breath they also claim that these marine parks will
not affect recreational anglers and we don’t go there and it will only affect
1% of commercial fishing.
So what have they done
to claim these areas are now fully protected?
In Australia we have
some of the best fishing management in the world we should be used as an
example for the rest of the world and not attacked for it. Almost the entire
conversation from the Government and our environmental NGOs during this marine
park process was about fishing, nothing about the real threats our marine environment
is facing, not one thing about the threat of shipping even though during this
process we had two ships that if not for pure luck would have ran aground in
the Coral Sea, let alone any of the other threats!
It’s very clear to
anyone that spends even the smallest amount of time looking into the treats on our
marine environment that the threats are from land based activities and not from
what we do on the water.
If we want our kids and
future generations to enjoy what we all enjoy today we need to speak up now, we
need to let the general public know that our government and our environmental NGOs
wasted an opportunity to offer real protection to our marine environment and
used this opportunity to attack fishing something that is clearly not a threat to
our marine environment in Australia!
But this rally is so much more than just the
marine parks!
Spirit of Tasmania
The federal government subsidy (the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme)
The Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme (BSPVES) was introduced in September 1996.
The scheme assists in alleviating the cost of sea travel across Bass Strait for passengers accompanying an eligible vehicle. It assists with the cost associated with the transportation of passenger vehicles interstate across Bass Strait.
In 2011–2012, the Australian Government provided assistance for over 164,613 vehicles eligible vehicle crossings.
The scheme is demand driven and uncapped with no upper limit to the total annual payment. In 2011–12, the Australian Government spent $34.5 million under the scheme.
The following rebates are available from 1 July 2012:
• Up to $199 each way for cars
• Up to $398 each way for motor homes
• Up to $398 each way for eligible vehicles towing a caravan
• Up to $100 each way for motorcycles
• Up to $28 each way for bicycles
BUT NOT FOR TRAILER BOATS!
The federal government subsidy (the Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme)
The Bass Strait Passenger Vehicle Equalisation Scheme (BSPVES) was introduced in September 1996.
The scheme assists in alleviating the cost of sea travel across Bass Strait for passengers accompanying an eligible vehicle. It assists with the cost associated with the transportation of passenger vehicles interstate across Bass Strait.
In 2011–2012, the Australian Government provided assistance for over 164,613 vehicles eligible vehicle crossings.
The scheme is demand driven and uncapped with no upper limit to the total annual payment. In 2011–12, the Australian Government spent $34.5 million under the scheme.
The following rebates are available from 1 July 2012:
• Up to $199 each way for cars
• Up to $398 each way for motor homes
• Up to $398 each way for eligible vehicles towing a caravan
• Up to $100 each way for motorcycles
• Up to $28 each way for bicycles
BUT NOT FOR TRAILER BOATS!
EBBC
act amendments
Why
have the EPBC act(The Environment Protection and Biodiversity
Conservation Act 1999) amendments as recommended by Dr Allan Hawke, in
the Hawke review, commissioned by the Minister for the environment,
heritage and the arts in 2008, not been implemented yet?
The failure to make the amendments recommended by the Hawke review and agreed by the government, puts at risk any recreational species that is migratory and listed by the Convention on Migratory Species as Appendix II. (a species that would benefit from management, like we already do in Australia with our fishing regulations). Under the current EPBC act these species would be fully protected and thus an automatic fishing ban would apply, as happened with Mako sharks in 2010, and we would have to fight to get an exception for every species.
further information
The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), has two categories that they can list species on,
Appendix I – Endangered migratory species, Migratory species that have been categorized as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant proportion of their range are listed on Appendix I of the Convention.
Appendix II - Migratory species conserved through Agreements Migratory species that have an unfavourable conservation status or would benefit significantly from international co-operation organised by tailored agreements are listed in Appendix II to the Convention. For this reason, the Convention encourages the Range States to conclude global or regional Agreements for the conservation and management of individual species or, more often, of a group of species listed on Appendix II.
Basically species listed on Appendix 1, should be highly protected ie no fishing, species listed on Appendix 2, need to be just need to be managed effectively, fishing with regulations as we have in Australia already.
The Australian EPBC act 1999, which is our tool for implementing the CMS requirements, has only one category fully protected or nothing, it does not differentiate between Appendix 1 and appendix 2 categories.
In December 2008 the porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako shark were listed in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), which covers migratory species conserved through agreements. Under the EPBC Act it is a legal requirement, with no flexibility, that CMS Appendix I (which covers endangered migratory species) and Appendix II species must be listed as protected species. Accordingly, these species were listed under the EPBC Act on 29 January 2010.
Hawke review
Recommendation 17
The review recommends that the provisions of Part 13 of the act relating to migratory species listed on Appendix ii of the Bonn convention be reviewed and amended to allow the take of appendix ii migratory species, subject to management arrangements demonstrating that the take would not be detrimental to survival of the species. A any such amendments should ensure that the act provides appropriate protection consistent with Australia’s international obligations.
Government response: Agreed
The government notes the intent of the Bonn Convention to differentiate between Appendix I and II listed species. Under the Convention, Appendix I species are categorised as endangered. Appendix II species are categorised as having an unfavourable conservation status and require international agreements for their conservation and management, or species with a conservation status that would significantly benefit from international cooperation.
The government notes that the (EPBC) Act currently does not differentiate between Appendix I and Appendix II species in its level of protection, and that the level of protection provided to Appendix II species may be higher than appropriate in some cases.
The government will amend the Act so that within 12 months of a Bonn Convention Appendix II listing coming into effect, the minister will consider the listing under the Act of any Appendix II species for which Australia is a range state. The consideration will include whether there are conservation programs, management plans, policies or other circumstances that ensure that the long term viability of the species is maintained or enhanced, and any take would not be inconsistent with any agreements concluded in accordance with the Bonn Convention. In doing this, the minister must seek the advice of the proposed Biodiversity Scientific Advisory Committee (see Recommendation 68). The minister wills then either:
1. list the species under the renamed category of ‘protected migratory species’(Appendix I equivalent) under the Act—that is, as a matter of national environmental significance, with take of the species prohibited under Part 13 of the Act;
2. list the species under a new category (which the amended Act will provide for) of ‘managed migratory species’(Appendix II equivalent), under which the species will not be a matter of national environmental significance. This category will allow for take of the species under approved management arrangements; or
3. decide that the species should not be listed
Currently listing Appendix ii species under the EPBC Act means that, unless an exemption applies, it is an offence to kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move these shark species within a Commonwealth area, or trade, keep or move species that have been taken in a Commonwealth area.
In response the government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Act 2010 (the amendment) into parliament. The amendment provides an exception to the offence provisions in Part 13, Division 2 of the EPBC Act for recreational fishing of mako and porbeagle sharks. The amendment is to ensure that international changes to the status of mako and porbeagle sharks will not unfairly impact on recreational fishing activities in Australia, while ensuring that Australia complies with international obligations for the conservation of migratory species.
The amendment was introduced on 25 February 2010, passed the House of Representatives on 15 March 2010, and the Senate on 21 June 2010. The legislation came into effect on 15 July 2010.
Federal
The failure to make the amendments recommended by the Hawke review and agreed by the government, puts at risk any recreational species that is migratory and listed by the Convention on Migratory Species as Appendix II. (a species that would benefit from management, like we already do in Australia with our fishing regulations). Under the current EPBC act these species would be fully protected and thus an automatic fishing ban would apply, as happened with Mako sharks in 2010, and we would have to fight to get an exception for every species.
further information
The Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), has two categories that they can list species on,
Appendix I – Endangered migratory species, Migratory species that have been categorized as being in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant proportion of their range are listed on Appendix I of the Convention.
Appendix II - Migratory species conserved through Agreements Migratory species that have an unfavourable conservation status or would benefit significantly from international co-operation organised by tailored agreements are listed in Appendix II to the Convention. For this reason, the Convention encourages the Range States to conclude global or regional Agreements for the conservation and management of individual species or, more often, of a group of species listed on Appendix II.
Basically species listed on Appendix 1, should be highly protected ie no fishing, species listed on Appendix 2, need to be just need to be managed effectively, fishing with regulations as we have in Australia already.
The Australian EPBC act 1999, which is our tool for implementing the CMS requirements, has only one category fully protected or nothing, it does not differentiate between Appendix 1 and appendix 2 categories.
In December 2008 the porbeagle, shortfin mako and longfin mako shark were listed in Appendix II of the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), which covers migratory species conserved through agreements. Under the EPBC Act it is a legal requirement, with no flexibility, that CMS Appendix I (which covers endangered migratory species) and Appendix II species must be listed as protected species. Accordingly, these species were listed under the EPBC Act on 29 January 2010.
Hawke review
Recommendation 17
The review recommends that the provisions of Part 13 of the act relating to migratory species listed on Appendix ii of the Bonn convention be reviewed and amended to allow the take of appendix ii migratory species, subject to management arrangements demonstrating that the take would not be detrimental to survival of the species. A any such amendments should ensure that the act provides appropriate protection consistent with Australia’s international obligations.
Government response: Agreed
The government notes the intent of the Bonn Convention to differentiate between Appendix I and II listed species. Under the Convention, Appendix I species are categorised as endangered. Appendix II species are categorised as having an unfavourable conservation status and require international agreements for their conservation and management, or species with a conservation status that would significantly benefit from international cooperation.
The government notes that the (EPBC) Act currently does not differentiate between Appendix I and Appendix II species in its level of protection, and that the level of protection provided to Appendix II species may be higher than appropriate in some cases.
The government will amend the Act so that within 12 months of a Bonn Convention Appendix II listing coming into effect, the minister will consider the listing under the Act of any Appendix II species for which Australia is a range state. The consideration will include whether there are conservation programs, management plans, policies or other circumstances that ensure that the long term viability of the species is maintained or enhanced, and any take would not be inconsistent with any agreements concluded in accordance with the Bonn Convention. In doing this, the minister must seek the advice of the proposed Biodiversity Scientific Advisory Committee (see Recommendation 68). The minister wills then either:
1. list the species under the renamed category of ‘protected migratory species’(Appendix I equivalent) under the Act—that is, as a matter of national environmental significance, with take of the species prohibited under Part 13 of the Act;
2. list the species under a new category (which the amended Act will provide for) of ‘managed migratory species’(Appendix II equivalent), under which the species will not be a matter of national environmental significance. This category will allow for take of the species under approved management arrangements; or
3. decide that the species should not be listed
Currently listing Appendix ii species under the EPBC Act means that, unless an exemption applies, it is an offence to kill, injure, take, trade, keep or move these shark species within a Commonwealth area, or trade, keep or move species that have been taken in a Commonwealth area.
In response the government introduced the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Recreational Fishing for Mako and Porbeagle Sharks) Act 2010 (the amendment) into parliament. The amendment provides an exception to the offence provisions in Part 13, Division 2 of the EPBC Act for recreational fishing of mako and porbeagle sharks. The amendment is to ensure that international changes to the status of mako and porbeagle sharks will not unfairly impact on recreational fishing activities in Australia, while ensuring that Australia complies with international obligations for the conservation of migratory species.
The amendment was introduced on 25 February 2010, passed the House of Representatives on 15 March 2010, and the Senate on 21 June 2010. The legislation came into effect on 15 July 2010.
Federal
Proper funding for a Federal recreational peak body, recreational
fishing in Australia is worth $10 Billion annually,
Federal recreational Peak body
Proper funding for a Federal recreational peak body,
recreational fishing in Australia is worth $10 Billion annually.
Proper funding for a
Federal recreational peak body, recreational fishing in Australia is worth $10
Billion annually.
Recfish Australia needs to be properly funded by the Federal government, the Recfish office has to be located in Canberra, so that it can properly represent all Australian recreational anglers federally.
Recfish Australia
Formed in 1983, under the Hawk Labor government, Recfish is or was the peak national body for recreational and sport fishing in Australia. Its mission is to act with ‘One voice promoting sustainable fishing and representing recreational fishers at a national level.’
In the past partial funding for Recfish has been provided by the Federal government but the current Federal Labor government discontinued that funding.
It is estimated that over five million Australians take part in recreational fishing in Australia as a leisure activity. Recreational fishing also supports about 90,000 Australian jobs. Two main industries are involved, the Australian fishing tackle and bait industry (with an annual turnover in excess of $170m), and the recreational boating industry, (with an annual turnover of around $500m of which 60% is related to fishing in one way or another). It is estimated that international tourists spend over $200m on fishing in Australia each year.
Recfish Australia needs to be properly funded by the Federal government, the Recfish office has to be located in Canberra, so that it can properly represent all Australian recreational anglers federally.
Recfish Australia
Formed in 1983, under the Hawk Labor government, Recfish is or was the peak national body for recreational and sport fishing in Australia. Its mission is to act with ‘One voice promoting sustainable fishing and representing recreational fishers at a national level.’
In the past partial funding for Recfish has been provided by the Federal government but the current Federal Labor government discontinued that funding.
It is estimated that over five million Australians take part in recreational fishing in Australia as a leisure activity. Recreational fishing also supports about 90,000 Australian jobs. Two main industries are involved, the Australian fishing tackle and bait industry (with an annual turnover in excess of $170m), and the recreational boating industry, (with an annual turnover of around $500m of which 60% is related to fishing in one way or another). It is estimated that international tourists spend over $200m on fishing in Australia each year.
Proper representation
We need a federal government recreational fishing and boating advisory panel or a recreational fishing and boating minister, so we get to have a say as do those that are trying to shut us down.
Consultation, Representation and a Fair go!
more information
http://www.facebook.com/Anglers2013FederalElectionCampaign
http://www.facebook.com/KeepAustraliaFishing
We need a federal government recreational fishing and boating advisory panel or a recreational fishing and boating minister, so we get to have a say as do those that are trying to shut us down.
Consultation, Representation and a Fair go!
more information
http://www.facebook.com/Anglers2013FederalElectionCampaign
http://www.facebook.com/KeepAustraliaFishing
