Free carp fishing!

[Mutley and Scruffy]

Hi all
After reading a brief but savage exchange on facebook (the usual happenings)...a debate regarding why freshwater fishos in WA should pay fishing license fees when all they can catch is redfin (a pest). So they believe they shouldn't have to pay a fee to remove an unwanted pest. I explained to them that there would be no way authorities could enforce any rules regarding license requirements as any person, when confronted by fisheries could say they don't have a license because they are only fishing for redfin...even if they were in cod waters!

So I started thinking (yes...scary), would it be a good idea to allow fishing for carp, without a RFL in some designated waters? As in carp infested waters where reality is no other species are likely to be caught. This may entice newcomers to have a go at fishing without having to stuff around and get a license. Not much stuffing around to get a license but to some people...maybe it is!

If some people have a go and like it (fishing in general) they may end up getting a license and chasing other critters. So, apart from the gov. possibly seeing it as a lessening of revenue, are there any other problems? Are there any 'carp only' waterways that could do with a clean up! Depending on what people say here, I may send an email to fisheries.
cheers
Jim

[Freshfishin]

I see where your coming from Jim but I think it would be too hard to enforce. I think the system we have currently works well, kids and pensioners fish for free the rest of us pay its simple but having a licence for some species but not all is just confusing. Good idea all the same I'm all for finding ways to eradicate carp.
Cheers Alex

[4liters]

There's pretty much just carp and redfin in most suburban lakes so why not make suburban freshwater fishing free? Family Fishing Lakes could still require a licence to help pay for all the trout.

[davek]

I'm with freshfishin on this one Jim, to hard to regulate, cheers davo

[skronkman]

Just a thought but is your conundrum much different to the species specific closed seasons we have now? As in, it is now illegal to fish for trout but it's not illegal to fish for river blackfish in Victorian rivers. As long as I return my bycatch (trout) to the river how can any fisheries officer discern what my target species is? Or once you have reached your bag limit of one species then start fishing for another species and return the now "untargeted" caught previous species to the water.

The targeting of Redfin and carp is a benefit to the environment and as such no one should be paying a fee. if they keep their bycatch (COD, trout, etc) then they are breaking the law, this is very easy to discern at time of inspection.

I do not like the principal that "it's too hard to tell the difference so we will just make it illegal". If anything, I prefer the idea to just increase water rates on every one by $2 or some such and abandon the Idea of fishing licenses all together. This is not such a wild idea and is similar to how the parks fees are collected now. After all, doesn't everyone benefit from the maintenance of our environment, sustainable fishing and the prevention of denuding or waters of life? And wouldn't it reduce the work load of the fisheries officers, who could now get on with more important duties than license checking....

This is one of those hairy subjects that is dangerous to discuss less it turns into an argument (like religion and politics) and I don't want to start a blue with anyone who disagrees but thought I'd throw in my 2 bob.

[ducky]

If you fish you pay the license fees. the reality is you aren't making any appreciable difference by killing 1-10 carp a day. if you are sitting by a lake, river, stream, pier whatever. You should have a license or be in one of the exempt categories.

If you make it convoluted you take power away from the authorities who are already undermanned and under resourced.

[greggo]

If you fish you pay the license fees. the reality is you aren't making any appreciable difference by killing 1-10 carp a day. if you are sitting by a lake, river, stream, pier whatever. You should have a license or be in one of the exempt categories.

If you make it convoluted you take power away from the authorities who are already undermanned and under resourced.

Yeah, I agree.

The cost of a licence is minimal, so there really is no reason to fish without one, and the proceeds go to an extremely worthy cause.

[chris srsc]

most people who have never fished, IMO would go to a landing or walkway jetty to try fishing for the first time, would that be their from proceeds of RFL or is it councils who make facilities to fish from.

[Boonanza]

If you fish you pay the license fees. the reality is you aren't making any appreciable difference by killing 1-10 carp a day. if you are sitting by a lake, river, stream, pier whatever. You should have a license or be in one of the exempt categories.

If you make it convoluted you take power away from the authorities who are already undermanned and under resourced.

Yeah, I agree.

The cost of a licence is minimal, so there really is no reason to fish without one, and the proceeds go to an extremely worthy cause.

I totally agree you fish you pay simple :thumbsup:

[gregmaka]

If you are targeting carp and carp only no licence would be a great idea. Correct me if i'm wrong but Aborigines don't need to pay for a licence even if they are fishing for trout,in alot of N.t and QLD waters. It should be the same rules for everybody.We are all Australians.