By trying to discourage boating in favour of shore fishing may even do shore based anglers harm due to overcrowding of limited spots.

That doesn't make sense. More people would only fish from the shore if it became better. The proposals I put forward will only make a limited difference to boat fishermen. It doesn't make sense to oppose the improvement of shore based fishing just in case too many people take it up.

Duh, you calling for no take zones - ie zones that ban fishing.

Fishing is only banned within the zone. Referring to it as a ban on fishing is just silly. It is either lazy or misleading.

Ie more people will be fishing off the shore.

Yes, but not because of any real discouragement to fishing from a boat. Rather, because shore based fishing would be better. If the spots do become more popular because the fishing improves, this is a good thing. You try to create the impression it is a bad thing, just because there would be more people. You are clutching at straws for something to criticise.

Quote:


Simply not true. Very ignorant actually.

freediver wrote on Feb 16^th, 2008 at 10:10pm:


A lot of people buy boats to get away from the crowds you have to put up with when fishing off the shore. Another flaw in the 'arms race' theory you dreamed up is that not everyone has the physical fitness to access productive landbased spots. Eg to clamber over rocks or trudge up and down beaches. Rock fishing is the most dangerous sport in Australian with scores of fatalities.

The benifits to fishing of your policy exist only in your head. If my mention of the overcrowding issue is 'clutching at straws', why is it that you have not even adressed or the other objections I have made in recent posts?

I can guarantee you that if people could catch as many fish from the shore as they could from a boat, there would be far fewer boats on the water. To suggest otherwise is to deny reality.

You cannot make that guarantee. To even suggest this is a not only a denial of reality but of human nature as well- people don't purchase boats because it makes it easier to catch a fish. Your argument is ridiculous.

So why do people buy fishing boats? To go water skiing?

In some cases, yes- most boat owners use their boats as multi-purpose platforms

I'll state it once again- people do not buy boats because it makes it easier to catch a fish. People will still purchase boats and fish from them no matter how good the fishing is from shore.

It is a silly assumption to think otherwise

I'll state it once again- people do not buy boats because it makes it easier to catch a fish. People will still purchase boats and fish from them no matter how good the fishing is from shore.

Technically I agree with this. There are many reasons and a few use their boats for more than one purpose and could justify owning the boat based on more than one use (a small minority of course). It is not my intention to prevent people doing so nor do I think it would be possible. However, to equate this with improved shore fishing not reducing the need for a boat is wrong. To the extent you are correct, you are completely missing the point. The majority of fishing boats are bought for fishing by owners who wouldn't bother buying a boat if it wasn't for fishing and the improved chances of catching a feed they get with a boat.

Please don't insult other members IQ.

You appear to be trying to divide fishermen into two groups - those that will only fish from the shore due to the type of fish they target and those who will only fish from a boat due to the type of fish they target. The fact is, most fish species can be caught from both a boat and from the shore, especially if the boat fishermen targetting them are close enough to the shore to be affected by the proposal. The proposals I made will not stop people from catching those species that are genuine exceptions. A no boat fishing zone halfway up an estuarine river will not slow down a makeral fishermen. It will impact on on a boat fishermen who is targetting the same species sought by those fishing from the nearby shore, as is typically the case.

Remember that the NTZ will only divert a small fraction of spillover from boat fishermen to shore based fishermen. The majority of the spillover is still going to go to other boat fishermen, so it is not a disaster if the shore based fishermen will be unable to target them. The difference between my proposal and the more arbitrary strategy usually adopted is that as much of the benefit as possible goes to shore based fishermen, but there will always be an advantage to fishing from a boat.