KIWI`s to charge more for Tourist Fisho`s

[Gad]

Taken from FW email newsletter

Aussies to pay more to fish NZ

21 Aug 2014

THE announcement of a new trout licence fee in New Zealand for visiting overseas anglers has sparked an online debate.

Fish & Game New Zealand this week announced its decision to launch a new non-resident season licence of $160 - a third more than the equivalent for New Zealanders.

The special licences will be available from the start of this year's fishing season on October 1, and are aimed at visitors intending to fish for an extended period. Non-resident anglers will also still be able to buy 24-hour licences.

According to the NelsonMail, http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/10403032/Fishing-licence-fee-hike-welcomed local fishing guides from Nelson and Tasman have welcomed the move.

Richmond fishing guide Tony Entwistle said the fee rise was a positive move that the New Zealand Professional Fishing Guides Association had been lobbying toward since the late 1980s.

Richmond hunting and fishing guide and Tasman District councillor Zane Mirfin said he did not think the hike would impact on tourism much.

"Most of the overseas people are more than happy to pay their share."

Australian fishing identity Frank Prokop supports the fee rise. "I personally support non-resident licences and feel that about 25 per cent or so is a reasonable extra cost as visitors do not pay taxes to support the infrastructures that they also use," Prokop wrote in a circulated email.

"I have long advocated for a non-resident barramundi licence for the NT and perhaps a specific non-resident impoundment licence for Lakes Kununurra and Argyle that are now being stocked with barra," Prokop added.

The response to the licence hike on the nzfishing.com Facebook page appears largely mixed with some comments claiming it will harm NZ tourism, while others say it will have no effect.

[Binder]

Well it all depends on what the money is used for doesn't it.

If it goes in to research in to the industry, infrastructure, fingerlings, etc etc, thats a lot different than it going in to their Govt coffers for what ever they please.

[motu]

Good stuff look what the aussie govt does to the Kiwi's . you would not believe what tourist fisher's have done to our water ways .

Looks like my post as been Edited . I cant believe you left the original heading to this thread for so long . :woohoo:

Mod Note

Thread title has been changed to remove any confusion and prevent conflict. If anyone has a problem with that, then I guess they are choosing to be confused or are seeking conflict.

As to time taken - it's a voluntary position that has to fit in with real life - comprendo ?

[spearo]

I think its a top idea. From my experiences in the cape- tourism anglers are usually self contained and have very little to contribute to the local economies or these rural fishing hotspots. On the same hand its not un-common to see tourist anglers pillage the land and fill 12V freezers with fillets and the like.

Whilst it does hurt catch and release fishos a bit, I would welcome the move in Australia in a heart beat. Due to the nature of accessibility and technology in traveling these days, I think for us as anglers, perhaps we should have to pay something to go to these amazing fishing destinations provided the money is redirected into areas of industry sustainability.

Feel free to open up the topic but while we're at it, what does everyone think about QLD having fishing licenses? Kakadu charges $25 a head for non residents to enter. I was more than happy to pay it. I would be in favour of there being a similar measure to go say north of the Daintree.

Thoughts blokes?

[Gad]

Having read the 2 articles, it would appear that for too many years NZ Fish & Game/Government have been aware of an ever increasing degradation/sustainability problem in their fragile back-country fisheries, and have sat back and allowed it to become a major problem.

quote { …. overseas anglers put pressure on New Zealand's fragile back-country fisheries, which were expensive to maintain….. }

. it would seem that the base problem is the number of people/anglers having access to these areas and not the amount of tourist dollars being spent.

now, you can charge people as many $$ as you like and you can allow into these areas as many as will pay, but are those $$ going to solve the base problem or are the $$ only going to prop up these areas at a certain level with continued degradation.

‘Nelson and Tasman fishing guides have welcomed a move to make sure foreign anglers pay more for their trout-fishing licences’ …. Would these guides have welcomed a quota system that would only allow them to take a restricted x amount of anglers per season,into these fragile back-country fisheries,

[motu]

as a keen 'off the tourist track' trout fisherman I am not a catch and release angler - I take my usual 1 fish for a feed . Most fish I catch are a result from stopping for a break when out hunting . As for the survival rate for released fish its not good if they are not handled correctly . I have found a lot of dead trout down stream from angler access points . I was back last month and was disgusted at the amount of rubbish left by over night campers in there hired camper vans one spot there was a toilet across the road but that must have been to far for for the 50 or more people the decided to use the car park GRRRR and its park rangers etc that have to clean it up who pays them ? and yes it was at a access point .Tthe restocking programs are not cheap to run fair enough they make what they can from visitors going through to see how it is done but that's just a tip of what it cost to run . we have a culture of just go down the road to get a feed from the rivers / hills hunting etc but over seas pressure is taking its toll on stocks and make it hard for locals who rely on " just go down the road " to get a feed the less the locals have to pay the better . and yes sum locals abuse that privilege but that cost money to police and monitor same as - gee sir I did not know I was only allowed 2 trout from sum foreign tourist . Enough said . yes I do agree with user pays when it comes to aussie out back users as well . a permit to pass the Daintree shit yes lucky I have photos from the bouncing stones I don't think you are allowed there any more ? why because tourist took the bloody stones home with them .

Cheers for reading my Rant

[Egg Beaater]

Yea I have no idea. I am all for a user pay system and as someone else said if the money is put back in to stocking and making things to encourage more then I see it as a good thing.

[rayke1938]

Nothing in this world is fair.

What about all the people who reap the benefit of Stocking groups and people who pay for SIP permits by fishing for stocked fish that have escaped over the spillway in overflow events.

There is apart from the Noosa catchment no such thing as a genuine wild bass in SEQ and definitely no wild yellas or wild silvers in any river east of the great divide.

There may be some recruitment of bass in some streams but they will still be the offspring of stocked fish.

Then there are the dams such as soon to be raped Kurwongbah that are not on the sip scheme .

Stocking groups have for years been trying to get these dams on the sip list but all they get are delays and excuses.

Cheers

Ray