Conserve & Manage Private Fisheries

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #882442

    Theophilus
    Participant

    Many on this forum are probably aware that in England, most inland fishing is under the control of private businesses, clubs and syndicates. The predominant form of fly fishing is in lakes, where fish are regularly stocked on a mostly ‘catch and take’ basis.

    Perhaps an odd question, but if private trout fisheries started opening on a larger scale in Australia, would you patronise such a business? Why or why not?

    #882448

    Chris Beech
    Participant

    Depends on the cost vs access to wild fisheries that are stocked with the proceeds of licence fees. I personally would not want to pay much to fish a farm pond, although I have on occasion.

    #882449

    vestige
    Participant

    The issue for me is public land and fisheries being sold and privatised. Lake Malbena should be a warning for every fly fisherman. Next they might come for Fergus or the Pine. If they can move lines on a map once they can do it again.

    #882455

    chf
    Participant

    No

    I think right of public access is too  ingrained for me , to the extent that I’ve never made it onto the few private farm dams that are run as private fisheries here in Vic ( which I have no opposition to btw & think is a legitimate use of a private individuals land )

    Have to acknowledge my conflicted position of happily paying to access water overseas where it is the “traditional” way and to use a guide there also , and not even going to try and justify it , its a vibe thing  , though I don’t think I could ever be a client of a Malbena style setup here in Aus ,  and I’m pretty sure I’m their target audience.

    #882457

    BarryJ
    Participant

    It’s a big NO from me too! Like chf, the right of public access is ingrained in me.

    I can’t see public access disappearing in what remains of my lifetime but if it does occur, I will stop fishing.

    #882458

    micmac3701
    Participant

    Personally, no I would not be a patron…. yet.

    Maybe in my dotage, when a walking frame is required.

     

    #882463

    DrGraham
    Participant

    I regularly fish at Currawong Lakes, a private wild trout fishery.  I do so because there is a limit to the number of rods.  I can fish one of three lakes in peace without bothering or being bothered by another angler.  I also fish Penstock when I can as I access to a shack there.  On my last trip before Christmas, I counted more than 15 anglers on the eastern shore, some of those started fishing within metres of me.  There was 20 boats on the water, many ignoring the 100 m distance rule to a shore-based angler.  As for my other favourite waters, I can’t get access to the western side of Sorell without a hard slog from Dago Point via Kemps Marsh, Bronte Lagoon suffers irregular water level fluctuations and the Tyenna is either choked with willows or polluted with silt or rubbish.  Tasmania’s popular public waters are not as well managed as they were 30-40 years ago, and fishing pressure is clearly increasing as more people retire and have spare time.  It will only get worse, without appropriate staffing and increased funding to the Inland Fisheries Service, or more regulation and limitations which no one wants.  Private fisheries may well alleviate that pressure.

    #882465

    Theophilus
    Participant

    Interesting responses, and what I was expecting from most. I have only ever fished in Australia, so can understand the aversion to a private ownership model.

    A common charge against the English style fisheries is that they are more akin to trout farms than proper fisheries. This may well be the case, however the extent to which the experience is ‘shooting fish in a barrel’ may vary widely between venues.

    From my perspective, I would be curious to try a private fishery in the English mould if one opened in Vic. That being said, I do understand concerns with privatising public waters, so I will apply the caveat of the fishery being on private property.

    1. Perhaps a controversial thought, but these types of venues may widen the appeal of fly fishing by offering alternatives to harder to access public waters or the limited number of lakes in some areas (of course, the local climate and propensity to drought will be limiting factors for all types of fishery). They would also offer a place where people can take fish without the concern of sustaining limited wild populations.
    #882477

    dynaflow
    Participant

    Not on my watch either,frankly the Private Water concept is an English institution bought about largely by Class culture.

    #882478

    wyldone
    Participant

    From my perspective, I would be curious to try a private fishery in the English mould if one opened in Vic. That being said, I do understand concerns with privatising public waters, so I will apply the caveat of the fishery being on private property.

    1. Perhaps a controversial thought, but these types of venues may widen the appeal of fly fishing by offering alternatives to harder to access public waters or the limited number of lakes in some areas (of course, the local climate and propensity to drought will be limiting factors for all types of fishery). They would also offer a place where people can take fish without the concern of sustaining limited wild populations.

    We already have “Private Property” fisheries in Vic… it’s called Millbrook… of which I’m a fan.

    However you cannot keep a fish… which is fine with me.

    #882482

    Theophilus
    Participant

    I’m aware of Millbrook Lakes, although I haven’t tried it. And to wyldone’s point, they maintain a C&R fishery, which from what I’ve read, holds a good stock of ‘wild’ trout.

    The main appeal of these types of fisheries would be to have alternatives to public waters, and perhaps have waters more carefully maintained and stocked. And as I wrote in an earlier post, I think having places where one can fish without the pall of trout C&R evangelism hanging over them would be welcome (don’t misunderstand me, I know that wild river trout are under pressure and need to be looked after).

    #882486

    vestige
    Participant

    Private fisheries belong only on private property. The Tasmanian government is hell bent on selling what is currently public land. Like I said, Fergus or Little pine could be private next. Privatising water for the rich to fish alone does not alleviate angling pressure on other waters, it increases it.

    There is plenty of amazing water and huge fish in Tasmania, just walk further, fish longer and try harder. F#ck private fisheries and those trying to make a buck by exploiting Mother Nature and locking the gate.

    #882487

    micmac3701
    Participant

    Private fisheries belong only on private property.

    Absolutely, and we should never take free public access for granted and be prepared to oppose privatisation by stealth and duplicity.

    But yeah, operations like Millbrook and London Lakes  (is that still a going concern?) where people buy/lease property and develop a fishery for paying customers is another thing altogether.

     

    #882488

    Theophilus
    Participant

    The passion around this topic is understandable, and to be clear I was referring to fisheries developed on private property in my last post. That being said, we cannot dismiss any system out of hand without considering its merits and downsides.

    For instance, while we Australians enjoy ample fishing options relative to our population, that is not the case in many countries. How can fishing pressure from a large popultion be effectively managed? Assuming waters are fully public, two options are to increase licence fees, or increase funding for fishery maintenance from the general tax pool. Other options could be to impose access fees to pressured waters, stricter regulations or a combination thereof. In any case, the intent is to limit pressure using restrictions or a price signal of sorts, as well as to raise funds to maitain fisheries.

    If many or most fisheries exist on private property, then the price for access is determined by the market. Given that private operators want to make a profit, it is reasonable to assume that the ‘price signal’ per visit will be higher than in the former scenario. However, the profit incentive and competitive forces will incentivise fisheries to provide as good a fishery as possible. The question is to what extent these forces produce better fisheries, if at all. To me, it isn’t clear that one is obviously better than the other.

    If the objection to private fisheries is that they impose a price barrier to access for profit, would your objection still hold if similar price barriers were imposed by the government in the form of increased taxes, licence and access fees? Ultimately a cost is incurred in maintaining fisheries, public or private. In the former, some of the costs are imposed on the general public, while in the latter most of the costs are imposed directly on those using the ‘goods’ provided.

    #882490

    vestige
    Participant

    Most public fisheries (non hydro storage) in Tasmania require no specific management to improve trout fishing. We simply need to stop destroying our environment and wasting resources. A side effect of a more environmentally friendly ways would be improved waterways and In turn improved trouting.

    Trout are like rabbits. They don’t need to be stocked. They thrive in clean cold water.  The IFS does next to nothing for wilderness anglers, nor do I expect them to for $80 a year.

    London lakes, Millbrook etc are all on private land and well established. There is nothing preventing this model being repeated, providing it makes the owner money. I have no issue with people building new private fisheries on their private land. <mark></mark>But public land is public land and there is precious little as it is. We must save it.

    Anyone who thinks there is angling pressure in Tasmania should buy a few maps. There is empty water, seething with fish, everyday of the year. For free.

     

     

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.