Conserve & Manage Private Fisheries

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #882491

    woody-wood
    Participant

    I think you need to research the cost of fishing for salmon in Scotland, trout in England and trout in private ranches in the US before promoting privatising public water.

    There is a reason most UK fishermen angle in lakes and Scots can’t afford to fish for salmon.

    It might be OK for you to afford a few days here or there to pay for access but the locals who want to fish every weekend can’t afford to. Try and book a week on the Spey river in Scotland on a prime beat during the prime salmon run. Then convert the UK pound to AU$. As a fisherman I’d hate to live next to the river but never afford to fish it.

    #882495

    butch
    Participant

    Hear, hear,

    Who made the Rivers and Lakes in the first place anyway, God given as far as I can remember. Restricted access my Arse! Just because you have the money doesn’t give you the right to lock us out of a country we all pay for in one way or another. If anyone is going to make claim to those natural resources they can keep up with the maintenance like any property of ownership. And when we suffer from flood or drought you can bet there’ll will be a class action for over supply or withholding of services.            Sign me up for that!

    #882537

    Greywulff
    Participant

    Rent seekers are welcome to privatize waters that are presently public, but they should pay for all the fish in these waters and their water should be screened from said public water.  There will always be rent seekers and spivs looking to make a buck in this way and they should be resisted at every turn.

     

    Gary.

    #882560

    flylife
    Moderator

    How long have you got?

    In theory we have the best of both worlds: public access to the vast majority of lakes and streams for the masses, and a select few private developments for those who appreciate and can afford it.

    The latter generally involve relatively small stillwater fisheries built on private land with visitor accommodation. In Tasmania such private fisheries are licensed, regulated and pay substantial annual fees. That said, there is nothing to stop you stocking a dam on your own land and keeping the fishing for you and your mates (but remember, you are paying for every fish).

    The grey area here and in NZ is where vast riverside properties effectively control access and do backdoor deals for exclusive use. Against the rules but hard to stop.

    In my opinion, wherever feasible, public waters should be managed on a wild, sustainable basis with licence fees and govt expenditure directed at tackling the big issues like access points, boat ramps, water surety and management of crown reserves and instream habitat. This is by far the weakest link in the system at present, and it is poor river management that has generally led to calls for ‘privatisation’ (even from the likes of David Scholes), incentivising landowners to take good care of our (their) waterways. There must be other ways we can achieve this?

    In terms of stocking policy, intensive ‘put and take’ fisheries management is expensive and only really sustainable on a user-pays basis. If you want easy fishing, a constant supply of fish, and a limited number of anglers, then the UK reservoir system is the one to adopt. You buy a day ticket, hire a boat, get a coffee and bacon sandwich, and keep everything you catch. It’s quite civilised, but far removed from a stroll in the Western Lakes.

    #882566

    Theophilus
    Participant

    Great post, flylife, you and other posters make some good points.

    “In my opinion, wherever feasible, public waters should be managed on a wild, sustainable basis with licence fees and govt expenditure directed at tackling the big issues like access points, boat ramps, water surety and management of crown reserves and instream habitat. This is by far the weakest link in the system at present, and it is poor river management that has generally led to calls for ‘privatisation’ (even from the likes of David Scholes), incentivising landowners to take good care of our (their) waterways. There must be other ways we can achieve this?”

     

    I agree that from the standpoints of net cost and a notion of ‘equity’, government management would most likely win against other systems. But to your point above, the weak points of government management are numerous and significant. Depnding on one’s perspective, these supposed failures of management call for less govenment control, or an improvement of government. A common charge against government controlled departments and enterprises is their inefficiency – it is entirely reasonable to ask why we don’t try improving the way government works instead of reducing its influence.

    It is unhelpful to label any government program or intervention as the ‘deep state’ or socialism gone mad; likewise, it serves no purpose to shoot down any propised market solution as corruption or some conspiracy to disenfranchise the masses.

    Angling pressure is a function of population density, culture, and ease of access. In Australia, we are comparatively fortunate in having a vast network of fisheries at our disposal relative to our population. To a certain extent that affords us opportunities in a relatively unrestricted environment that simply wouldn’t be there if applied in other places.

    One would pay handsomely to access the chalksteams of England and yet, given the popularity of game fishing and the delicacy and rarity of these fisheries, placing such a premium on access is understandable. In a more open system, such environments may not cope with the pressure, good govenance or not.

    We have only spoken of the monetary barriers each system would impose, but there are other mechanisms employed to restrict angling pressure. I have seen some call for exclusive C&R fisheries, some for ‘fly only’ waters. Just because these would be imposed by the government at no monetary cost to fishermen does not mean they do not deter or set up barriers to those that would otherwise fish there. We sometimes forget that not everyone takes the pursuit of fishing as more of a sporting and aesthetic venture as many who fly fish.

    I tried to find the numbers of game fishermen in England and Australia wihout much luck, but know that there are hundreds – perhaps thousands – of private trout fisheries in the UK. Based on my browsing of UK forums and the breadth of online content being produced over there, I don’t believe that they have a smaller or limited pool of fishermen. Rather, it seems that the current system is able to sustain a sizeable pool of fishermen, many I’m sure grudingly accept the limitations their system places on them.

     

    #882568

    micmac3701
    Participant

    The grey area here and in NZ is where vast riverside properties effectively control access and do backdoor deals for exclusive use. Against the rules but hard to stop.

    This is a key point, we have access in theory but in practice….

    The negotiated, sign posted and resourced (gates or stiles) like those found in Southland NZ are a model for what we might want to advocate for here in Australia.

    #882572

    BarryJ
    Participant

    The negotiated, sign posted and resourced (gates or stiles) like those found in Southland NZ are a model for what we might want to advocate for here in Australia.

    Already happening in Tassie:

    https://www.ifs.tas.gov.au/anglers-access-program

    #882573

    taupofish
    Participant

    Ah yes maybe but locally in North East Vic there are a couple of anglers access areas with stiles but once you climb over them you are just faced with a barb wire fenced paddock which does not offer water access – Oh for a pair of sidecutters!

    #882596

    micmac3701
    Participant

    Already happening in Tassie:

    Great to see the Apple Isle leading by example.

    Are the mapped access points sign posted and resourced (stiles / gates) .

     

    #882644

    BarryJ
    Participant

    Already happening in Tassie:

    …………

    Are the mapped access points sign posted and resourced (stiles / gates) .

    Yep; check out the individual brochures in the link. In some cases, the land owner has requested that they be contacted to get permission but in the small number of cases where this is required, numbers are given in the brochures and are on the sign-posts.

Viewing 10 posts - 16 through 25 (of 25 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.