Daly River land claim

Talk about bungled boat ramps, net buybacks, marine no-go zones, mining disasters etc here.
Post Reply
User avatar
theodosius
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 pm

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by theodosius »

Hopefully this goes better than the Finniss!
User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Dalyu River land claim

Post by dannett »

Anyone ever seen a traditional owner in a dugout canoe at the mouth fishing with a spear?
User avatar
Jeno
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Wulagi NT
Contact:

Re: Dalyu River land claim

Post by Jeno »

No, I have never seen that.....I have seen them chase down turtle and dugong in tinnies with outboards though!
No matter where you go, there you are!
User avatar
theodosius
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 pm

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by theodosius »

The TOs should have control of their land if the claim is ratified. They should also be allowed to hunt and fish how they want, but all waterways connected to the sea should remain shared use for recreational fishos. There is a continued use and connection that fishermen have with that river, and without rec fishing there's not much economic activity to be had out there
User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by dannett »

Forget about economic activity for a second, the best way to divide this nation is to lock out a demographic based on their race. The use of outboards, nets, four wheel drives, shot guns etc is not traditional and frankly, the Aboriginal people were not the first inhabitants either. But that is why the clown who ran gill nets off the Shady boat ramp and across the Howard river continues to get away with it. He is not the only one using the banner of "traditional owner" to justify absurd behaviour that does not bode with what the community expects is reasonable.

I don't have the answer, I wish I did. But a policy that excludes one group for the benefit of another is definitely not the correct solution. Especially when additional concessions such as immunity to closed seasons and bag limits are granted as well.
User avatar
theodosius
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 3258
Joined: Mon May 18, 2009 10:46 pm

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by theodosius »

Traditional owner still means owner so why shouldn't they be able to use modern techniques? It's a bit absurd to expect people to use bone hooks and hand weave nets mate
Marro
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 153
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2015 9:18 am
Location: Darwin

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by Marro »

Some years ago I was involved in a similar process in queensland. The term "traditional" was one of the contentious issues raised by the commercial sector. I recall during that time someone being engaged to look at the term and provide some guidance as to what traditional actually means in respect to fishing. The conclusion of that report was that "tradition" has no time parameters. The act of fishing and the use of equipment for fishing by traditional inhabitants/owners is ever evolving. No beginning, no end. I know this probably sounds very lose for some but I thought I would throw it out there as a bit of food for thought. I'm very much in the Theodosius camp. Hopefully common sense will prevail.
User avatar
dannett
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1195
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 10:37 am

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by dannett »

Marro wrote:Some years ago I was involved in a similar process in queensland. The term "traditional" was one of the contentious issues raised by the commercial sector. I recall during that time someone being engaged to look at the term and provide some guidance as to what traditional actually means in respect to fishing. The conclusion of that report was that "tradition" has no time parameters. The act of fishing and the use of equipment for fishing by traditional inhabitants/owners is ever evolving. No beginning, no end. I know this probably sounds very lose for some but I thought I would throw it out there as a bit of food for thought. I'm very much in the Theodosius camp. Hopefully common sense will prevail.


I heard that recently too, I think it was the fishery in NSW where that came up. I believe it's a poor decision in the terms of the law because arguably these new "traditional" methods enable much better catch rates. Which brings me to this.

theodosius wrote:Traditional owner still means owner so why shouldn't they be able to use modern techniques? It's a bit absurd to expect people to use bone hooks and hand weave nets mate


Yes I do actually. I would 100% respect that and say "you should be allowed to do that regardless of any white man law". Because it is sustainable. Modern techniques are not. And it's reasonable, that's what was happening before we arrived.

We have closed season, protected areas, bag limits, commercial fisheries and licensing. Modern techniques are effective and are rapidly improving with more technology. To not have these rules would result in over catching whether intentionally or just through participation rates. Million Dollar Fish is a prime example of that, through participation 13% of the fish were recaptured in just a few months.

I was always taught that the Aboriginal people were not owners of the land, rather caretakers of it. Under their traditional law no one owns any of the land, it can't be bought or sold, you can't lock the other clans out. In our law pastoralists do not own the waterways that cross their lands, they have to allow access to it and are permitted to only take a quantifiable amount of the resource so much from it.

It seems that we both have a common law, and even constitutional right to access land and water.

So, I am for any decision that grants everyone the same level of access to our waterways. If they want to set aside areas for traditional fishing only, then that is reasonable. Do that, make decisions for the effective conservation and sustainable use of their land. And apply it equally to everyone. If that means that I then get to go and access new areas in more traditional methods, great. Maybe I can use a modest pre-described limit on modern gear (like at the barrage) and with take limits.

Make it so that if you want to go an area you need to go on a traditional 3 day walk about first so you understand the area. That would be a permit worth paying for.

Equal access to Aboriginal managed waterways would benefit the Aboriginal people more than any segregation action ever has.

Dan
User avatar
scottmac
Jedi Seadog
Jedi Seadog
Posts: 1637
Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 12:30 pm

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by scottmac »

If you use the ’modern’ gear, then you should be subjected to the ‘modern’ rules. Simple!
newfisherman
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 152
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2011 9:02 pm

Re: Daly River land claim

Post by newfisherman »

According to the NLC webpage there are 20 year agreements already in place to access the Daly River area and Anson Bay areas, both expire in 2032 and 2033

https://www.nlc.org.au/uploads/pdfs/NLC ... r-2017.pdf

Do these agreements not include the lower part? Does anyone know?


Did it not come out after old mate was being a dick with nets recently at the Howard and Shady that "traditional" referred to the use of fish or eating fish and not to the way in which the fish are caught? either way, probably view as many as unaccepptable ways to fish.

It sounds like access to water ways and fishing grounds is going to be a hot topic in the coming months/years
Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Fishing Politics”