SUBMISSION ON "KEY THREATENING PROCESS"

TO THE FISHERIES SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON HOOK and LINE FISHING PROPOSAL TO BE LISTED AS A KEY THREATENING PROCESS IN SCHEDULE 6 OF THE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT ACT 1994.

Prelude:

A recommendation against this single (minor) element of perceived threat has to be treated with suspicion in the course of discrimination and unequal opportunities with fishers being a deliberate target.

Here again we see the direction of decision making being made by stealth and emotion and not put into the correct perspective.

Firstly, when a statement like this KTP is released to the public, and immediately or even prior to this release there is a Ministerial mass-media explanation of denial of interpretation with the Director of Fisheries flooding the fishers also with explanatory notes, fishers should panic. Is there no end to this con in consultation or dis(g)us(t) in discussion?

Next, there is another con job being denied by saying this listing will not put bans (general) on fishers. What a load of rot! There is a sleeping dog appeal about this proposed new listing.

As soon as hook and line fishing is listed as a KTP in the Fisheries Management Act, fishing spots will/can be terminated by the stroke of a pen. Examples of this would be the Cabbage Tree Bay no take zone and the Penguins in North Harbour at Manly NSW, where fishers were the minor influence but suffered the most, all because of unsubstantiated radical green pressure. This was assisted by a Government backed, elected representative prior to an election.

This recommendation has unimaginable and unlimited ramifications that have the potential to close down fishing in NSW if were taken and became law.

Anytime pressure is delivered by the conservation and radical greens, the Fisheries Act will prevail. Fishers will have no recourse (not that they have any now).

These latest events coincide with the Grey Nurse Shark discussion paper, where public emotion is sought to play a big part in decision-making.

There is a list of processes as long as your arm that could be legislated as more important than hook and line fishing as a Key Threatening Process. Governments avoid dealing with these, as they are costly and more provocative.

This is dangerous when a Minister by law must create an Abatement Plan for the KTP if finally recommended by the Scientific Committee.

Once this plan is put out to the public for consultation the radicals pounce to make sure the numbers add up. Just because the law says that consultation must take place there is no law to say (as we have witnessed previously) that the Minister has to listen, especially if the outcome has already been decided.

The Scientific Committee states that general banning of hook and line fishing is not warranted nor proposed, so why pursue this matter any further? The Minister already has more power than God to regulate the resource.

The Fishing Party opposes Hook and Line Fishing being listed as a Key Threatening Process until all other processes are attended to equally and with the same urgency.

Points that need to be addressed in the Key Threatening Process

The Scientific Committee should seek further studies into why species are threatened. Hook and line fishing currently has a law that can be regulated at the time to suit the individual circumstances, but is not set in concrete.

 The Minister, especially by way of single issue and single outcome objectives, should not direct the Scientific Committee.

More independent studies, results and direction should be taken into account rather than in-house activities. The judge, jury and executioner style decision-making makes way for manipulation and is seen just as a formality to satisfy the ACTS and LAWS. A good example is that this current submission is to be returned to the same judge, jury and executioners!

 Submissions are being asked to be made, without the Fisheries Scientific Committee displaying publicly their scientific evidence that initiated the issue in the first place.

 Hook and line fishing should not be grouped as one process because different methods and styles of fishing either create or dont create a threatening process. Again, this can be controlled by already existing regulations/access/closed seasons/climate conditions.

 Key Threatening Processes should involve Whole of Government Commitment participation and not be just Fisheries responsibility.

 As seen in past and present consultation and submission papers, there is no criteria as to what constitutes public support. Do a few submissions of support overrule or dictate how the final decision is made, when the majority are not supportive.

Examples of Key Threatening Processes that must be treated with equal importance:

Development consent should be part of this process i.e. gold/coal mines with huge salinity potential should be scrutinised more rigorously.

 Derelict mine run-off contamination should be included in the process.

All aspects of the resource should be treated with the same urgency (i.e. the oyster/molluscs etc should have their KTP looked at because this would also impact on the finfish KTP).

Government funded beach protection nets should be considered KTP if the GNS is threatened

 Eco-Tourism in the form of scuba diving should be included as a KTP.

 Sewerage outfalls and chemical/toxic runoffs need consideration

 Major fish/oyster kills have a reason. The reasons should be listed as a major KTP.

Sedimentation and water usage is a priority

Dams and cold-water bottom releases into streams and their effect need investigation.

Flood plain/creek (altering, blocking, mesh fencing) modifications/destruction is of a high importance.

(Information compiled by Robert Smith on behalf of The Fishing Party from comments fielded from groups and individuals throughout NSW)