North Australian FISH FINDER TM forums

AFMA has produced a Key Rec Species Survey.
This survey is designed to find out what is important to you when you go fishing. Do you go fishing to be alone? Spend time with family? To get a feed? Which fish do you most enjoy catching and why?
The survey is also designed to find out specific issues that may be impacting on your fishing experience.

Answers from this survey will be used by recreational fishing organisations around Australia to better represent your needs and desires when dealing with local councils, Federal, State and Territory governments.

The enjoyment we get from fishing is facing pressure from many different sides including habitat loss, water quality issues, impacts from fishing and social pressure. We need to know more specifically what those issues are, where are they happening and what we as recreational fishers want to see done to protect recreational fishing for current and future generations in Australia.

Recreational fishing contributes billions of dollars to Australia’s economy and governments need to invest in recreational fishing to ensure future generations derive the same and better benefits from fishing than we do.


https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/keyrecspecies

So now afant want all our fishing information after the rules change, not before.. .!?
I can see who this will benefit and who it wont.!!!

So if we all say we enjoy catching pikey bream in the dry season, for example, does this mean we can expect to see more stringent rules in place for that species?????

Who/what is AFMA?

Is Australian Recreational Fishing Foundation another self-appointed peak body?

The last self appointed national peak body was Recfish Australia which disgraced itself by advocating a levy on recreational fishing equipment with the proceeds to go towards keeping Recfish in the style to which it wanted to become accustomed.

Once that proposal became known and fishos reacted, there was a rush for the exits by board members and affiliated industry organisations.

Here we go again? Same horse- different name?

AFMA stands for Australian Fish Management Authority which is a federal body administering the federal Australian Fish Management Act.

Under the Aus Constitution, the AFM Act cannot and does not administer any legislation in State or Territory waters. Its role is confined to the Aus Fishing Zone waters. Therefore the AFMA has no constitutional right to become involved in State matters (unless requested by the States - either jointly or severally).

The ARFF website can't be accessed but other websites refer to ARFF as having a Canberra address and being tied up with the Fed Govt's Fish Management Authority.

So what's going on??

A bit of advice for the trollers.

Better to say nothing and let people think your an idiot than to speak and prove it.

wonderwobler wrote:A bit of advice for the trollers.

Better to say nothing and let people think your an idiot than to speak and prove it.

Physician heal thyself.

These "peak body" organisations spring up from time to time trying to access the taxpayers' funding trough.

Recfish Australia was the last one.

ARFF is the latest and appears to be recommending federal govt intervention into state and territory waters. It also appears to be recommending that ARFF be included in the AFM Act as Aus's peak body for recreational fishermen.

We should always be wary about these types of organisations whose interests usually turn out to be their own.

Unfortunately their activities cross state and territory boundaries and affect ALL fishos (not just the NT).

My advice is to go and find out all you can about this organisation for yourself and if you still want to give them info then go ahead.

I won't be taking up their offer.

Some interesting discussion here. Surveys like this inform representative groups which are then used to provide information to government to craft legislation or address key issues (in this case nationally) affecting you and me and our fishing. Quite simply if you participate, you will be heard and if you don't, decisions may be made which will have a negative impact on you.

May I point out guys if you have any questions regarding this issue or any other please call me.

tristan.sloan wrote:Some interesting discussion here. Surveys like this inform representative groups which are then used to provide information to government to craft legislation or address key issues (in this case nationally) affecting you and me and our fishing. Quite simply if you participate, you will be heard and if you don't, decisions may be made which will have a negative impact on you.

The federal govt doesn't have the constitutional legislative muscle to unilaterally legislate anything relating to fishing unless its within territorial waters (outside state waters). The comment is indeed relevant to state/territory issues however.

The states (which have the biggest impact on recreational fishing matters) don't have the funding for "peak bodies" except the NT Govt provides annual funding support for AFANT and the WA Govt has a funding arrangement with ResFish West. Must be pretty good in WA as RecFish West is advertising a vacancy for yet another paid full-time employee. (6 or 7 now)

To AFANT's credit there is transparency in its financial reports. Not so in WA. Its money directly from the public purse in AFANT's case and indirect public money in WA. In both cases its difficult to dispel the public perception that the acceptance of money carries with it tacit compliance with Govt wishes.

These peak bodies which crop up from time to time go for the national interest because that's where the money resides (in the federal piggybank).

RecFish Aus tried to do that but the Federal grants arrangement had a 4 year sunset clause. RecFish had to fund itself after that so it came up with the politically naïve national recreational fishing levy proposal. There was $198,000 given to RecFish to scope the issue before the then Federal Fisheries Minister (Eric Abetz) intervened.

So that's the conundrum.

Support the succession of wannabe self appointed peak bodies which have very little to offer in terms of here-and-now fishing issues or ignore them to put your trust in lower level state activities.

ronje wrote:AFMA stands for Australian Fish Management Authority which is a federal body administering the federal Australian Fish Management Act.

Under the Aus Constitution, the AFM Act cannot and does not administer any legislation in State or Territory waters. Its role is confined to the Aus Fishing Zone waters. Therefore the AFMA has no constitutional right to become involved in State matters (unless requested by the States - either jointly or severally).

The ARFF website can't be accessed but other websites refer to ARFF as having a Canberra address and being tied up with the Fed Govt's Fish Management Authority.

So what's going on??

Under the Australian Constitution any legislation can be prescribed over a territory. Fisheries is an easy area to get around constitutional powers because it isn't so hard to invoke Section 51 powers relating to foreign affairs where the commonwealth can impose juristiction over the states. It is dependent on on our International law obligations but I dare say we have some in the area of fisheries. Precedent for Section 51 powers was set by the High Court in the Tasmanian Dams case 1984.

Sec 51 (xxix) external affairs eh? Point agreed Rug.

Yep. That was indeed used during the Tasmanian dramas.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about foreign affairs powers being used in circumstances relating to these sorts of issues though, Rug.

There is only 1 way that the Feds can directly legislate on matters not allowed for in the constitution is by state invitation and then it only applies to the state that issued the invitation. Other states can adopt the legislation if they wish.

Sec 51
xxxvii ........matters referred to the Parliament of the Commonwealth by the Parliament or Parliaments of any State or States, but so that the law shall extend only to States by whose Parliaments the matter is referred, or which afterwards adopt the law;

State's rights is what old Sir Henry was mindful of all those years ago. States didn't then and still don't want the Feds unilaterally imposing jurisdiction on their patches.

Similarly, fishermen don't want to have bodies like ARFF, RecFish Aus or any other "peak body" foisted upon them.