Most casual anglers fish off the shore. To buy a boat means you have a signficant comitment to the sport, otherwise you wouldn't go to the expense and trouble.

What's this about expense and trouble? Why would you go to expense and trouble when you can catch just as many fish from the shore? Do you like the idea of fishermen having to prove their committment with the expense and trouble before being able to catch as many fish? Or do you think fishermen just buy a boat to prove they are committed?

Its like anything else in life - you get out what you put. You have dreamed up a half baked theory with no understanding of the sport whatsoever. Its a policy which is another variation on the old leftist idea of offering people something for nothing by punishing the successful. In the end it will benifit no one.

freediver wrote on Feb 25^th, 2008 at 11:26am:



The bag limits are quite generous. Who needs more than five kingfish, twenty bream and so on? A lot of successful anglers practice catch and release most of the time and only keep a couple of fish for the table. I find it hard to believe that you think that bag limits are more of an impost than no fishing zones.

PS Just saying over and over that shore based anglers will benfit from your policy doesn't make it true. The benifits of your policy are theoretical and a doubtful theory at that.

From PJ (and RecFisher) on the 'lightly fished' thread.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1203945184/6#6

Your distinction beween boat and landabased anglers is a totally artificial one.

So what? How does it differ from gear restrictions or other management tool? This seems like a totally meaningless statement. It is the only management tool designed to actually increase convenience for fishermen.

Often they are one in the same people.

As I have had to point out countless times already. So what if some fishermen use boats some of the time? It will still make shore based fishing more productive and reduce the need for a boat.

There are no major obstacles to people fishing in an estuary from a boat.

Getting your hands on a boat is the biggest obstacle. It is not insignificant, however you go about it, both in terms of financial and time costs. To suggest it isn't a major obstacle is just absurd.

In contrast good landbased spots in estuaries are limited due to private property, mangroves, mudflats, bushland and so on.

Again, so what? This policy would apply to the accessible land based spots, not to the inaccessible ones. Is there a point to this comment? Next you'll be pointing out that the sky is blue.

The former don't restrict where you can fish or detract in any serious way from enjoyment of the sport.

Right, but they restrict other things. They won't detract from your enjoyment any more than other management tools, once you get over the whole 'change' thing.

as I pointed out (and you deleted from the quote) you don't have to BUY a boat

Like I said, however you get your hands on one, it is still an obstacle.

The accessible spots are few.

You still aren't making a relevant point. The strategy would only apply to the accesible spots, however many there are.

Those which are productive fishing spots are fewer.

Which is what this strategy will change.

You want to take away the best options and leave us with fewer options.

As IQ pointed out in the other thread, these are not the best options. In fact, people always complain that the best spots are chosen for NTZs, as IQ has done somewhere here. This is the opposite. You even said yourself that few of these spots are productive. Now you also claim they are the best. They can't be both. You and IQ have argued both ways on just about every single point you make. They shouldn't be NTZs because they are the best spots. They won't make any difference because they are the worst spots. It will be a huge impostion on boat fishermen. No boat fishermen fish there anyway. etc etc

IQ I think it was you who made the complaint about the GBR process. You had some conspiracy about the best spots being taken as NTZs based on submissions. I might start a new thread on that. I'm keen to see the evidence. You can go ahead and start it if you want. Do you agree that these spots would tend to be the worst ones from that same perspective?

I agree that both of them are as bad as each other from a conservation of biodiversity POV

You appear to have misunderstood the question. I just found that it was PJ who brought the issue up. Perhaps that explains your confusion. Are you interested at all in the value of potential NTZs as fishing spots and the 'loss' or inconvenience to fishermen.

Do you think your corridors idea is better than the shore based fish zone strategy? Do you just like it because it avoids tough decisions on where to put the NTZs?

Do you believe that the no boat fishing zones would achieve what NTZs were 'designed to do'.