Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by mmm....shiney!, Apr 7, 2015.
don't forget the soy sauce
We don't sell flake any more. The net bans introduced by the Labor government put our local fisherman out of business and none of the product we can get readily from elsewhere is of the same quality. Sorry, but you as the consumer are bearing the final cost of their decision to favour recreational anglers over non-anglers. And we don't do dim sims or fish cakes either.
We've got mackerel, whiting or barramundi at the moment. The mackerel is the most popular, I'd recommend it at it's price point v value, especially if you want battered fish.
$28 all up please.
Buy your own fkn soy sauce!! :lol:
I'm a beer battered flathead man meself
Hardly worth going fishing these days, if you follow the new rules here in the socialist hellhole called Victoria, not allowed to catch f all
Its lucky I cant read
When I lived in Enzed, my fave fish from the local F&C shop was Tarakihi.
I would, a couple of days per week after finishing work, bag some Tarakihi and chips from a lovely Indian couple in Rotorua, then head home to my little house overlooking Laka Tarawera, where I would eat with my fingers, sat on a jetty watching the trout leap and the sun go down.
Aaaaaah, I miss Enzed.
Why would you try to localise facility costs v boat users for one ramp? You have to look at it state wide. Yes sure metro users are subsidising rural users as many more people in the Gold Coast to Sunshine Coast region use ramps that get a lot more use. But the bush subsidies the city in many other ways. There's something like 275,000 registered recreational boats in QLD, all paying between $250 to over $500 a year to register their boats depending on size of the boat. Even if all those boats were paying an average $250/year, we are talking just shy of $70 million. 1% of that for a regional boat ramp that will last many years of use is hardly outrageous. With these net bans in place, they'll need to spend a lot more in coming years to accomodate the influx of recreational tourists coming in at holiday time.
Of course we can't determine it accurately now as it will be a number of years before the fishery recovers to the point where fishery's biomass stabilises under the vastly reduced effort.
All we have to compare it to is the NT fishery that has effectively done the same thing. From memory there were something like 110 netting licences which has been vastly reduced to 10-15 and the recreational fishery promoted. The NT claims that the recreational tourism industry is worth in the vicinity of 26million annually. I'm not suggesting that CQ will receive the same level of tourism but it's something that has the potential to happen if it is managed well. With Barra travelling hundreds of km there could also be a spill over effect to the other netted areas now that there is a huge nursery in your back yard.
Why should it be Statewide?
In order to determine whether the cost of construction of that facility is borne by users or non-users. Or in other words, whether recreational anglers who use that facility are externalising the costs for its construction and maintenance.
Crystal ball gazing?
We can come back to that in 10 years and see.
I don't recall reading about the validity of the economics of any "swings and roundabouts theory" in any texts. Sounds more like rob Peter to pay Paul.
So on my figures alone for just barramundi, not accounting for inflation or the potential growth in market demand as consumer preference for food provenance increases, 10 years will see the loss of $60 million in value added product. And you expect a bunch of anglers flying in to Rockhampton to add more value than that? And in the mean time non-angling consumers will continue to subsidise anglers.
I preferred it when the whole basis for your argument was any potential or possible environmental values, at least there's some scientific data about the effects of commercial and recreational fishing on fish stocks there. The economic data is not available to back the claims of the recreational fishing lobby. It would have been a far better outcome if the State government allowed a free market solution, this would allow users to assign value according to their own needs and desires. The result? A management system that truly reflects the assigned value and doesn't externalise costs, extinguish any property rights of commercial fishos, nor one that forces a value system onto local non-angling consumers and their providers - which is me.
Mate, I am finding it really hard to keep this civil. You are being deliberately antagonistic because you've lost the debate. I've shown in black and white you are dead set wrong on non-angling consumers subsidising anglers. Yet even after being show this you keep repeating the line you started with.
My original argument on environmental values were directly related to economic values. Ie the mullet netters decimating the tailor recreational angling industry. We may not have definitive recreational estimates on recreational fishing but we can be most absolutely sure that the dollar value per kg is worth a hell of a lot more to the economy for recreational users than it is for commercial users and I'll take Rutledge et al 1990 and others over your back of the envelope value added estimates.
Economic contribution of recreational fisheries
Fishing authorities around Australia have only recently begun to collate reliable statistics on recreational fishers to include the number of days spent fishing per annum, the nature of the catch, the location of the catch as well as information about expenditure on this popular leisure activity. It is important to note at the outset of this information that recreational fisheries are valued here as expenditure on the activity of fishing for recreation and should not be compared with the value of commercial fisheries, valued as landed catch.
Participation rates in recreational fishing
An Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey of the number of people engaged in certain recreational activities during 1999-2000 indicate that recreational fishing ranked fifth highest for its participation rate out of fifty recreational activities reported. Highest levels of participation in recreational fishing were found in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory. The participation rates for these states were 7.6%, 7.6%, and 7.0% respectively .
Economic value of recreational fishing
Some indication of the value of recreational fishing to regional economies can be ascertained by considering the results of a survey of Queensland residents on their participation in recreational fishing. The survey revealed that approximately 33% of Queensland's households had at least one member over the age of five who had engaged in recreational fishing at least once over a 12 month period. It was further found that 60% of the catch was sourced from estuaries. Fishers are estimated to spend approximately $1,000 per annum on their fishing activities, including tackle, boats, travel and accommodation . Using these estimates, the contribution to the Queensland economy from individual fishers is approximately $880m, with $528m of this attributable to fishers in estuaries.
One of the most important target fish for recreational fishers in North Queensland is the Barramundi fishery. Of the estimated 867 tonnes of Barramundi caught by commercial fishers in 2000, an additional 289 tonnes is likely to have been caught by recreational fishers . According to Rutledge et al. (1990), fillets of Barramundi are worth considerably more to a recreational fisher than to a commercial fisher. Estimates of the direct cost or expenditure for recreational fishers targeting Barramundi, including travel costs, suggest a value of approximately $51 per recreational fish and approximately $19 per commercial fish (assuming the fish weigh approximately 3kg). The study goes further, and estimates the flow-on or multiplier effects to the state and regional economies in Queensland from recreational Barramundi fishers to be approximately three. According to Rutledge et al. (1990), a single Barramundi caught by a recreational fisher could be worth $153 to the economy of Queensland . This suggests that the recreational fishing of Barramundi in Queensland is estimated to be worth in the vicinity of $22m per annum.
However, these estimates are somewhat inflated. Rutledge et al. (1990), did not provide sufficient detail about the source of expenditure by recreational fishers, specifically, what part of expenditure was directly transferable to government as taxes or charges or what part of expenditure by fishers was on imported goods and services. In addition, a multiplier of three is quite substantial and as Rutledge et al. (1990), indicated a previous study by Hundloe (1985) had suggested a multiplier of two for a regional economy in North Queensland. This figure might have been more appropriate than a multiplier "borrowed" from an economy that may not bear any resemblance to the Queensland economy . Typically, expenditure by fishers on locally produced goods and services, net of taxes and charges, is only 50% of actual expenditure . This being the case for recreational Barramundi fishers, and adopting the more conservative multiplier, recreational Barramundi fishing in Queensland would be worth in the vicinity of $15m per annum.
Two recent surveys of recreational fishers have been undertaken in Queensland, one in Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Straits area and the other in the Pumicestone Passage region . Murphy estimates that fishers spend $38m to go fishing in the Hervey Bay and Great Sandy Straits area whilst fishers visiting the area are estimated to spend an additional $102m on accommodation. These estimates are for direct expenditure and do not include expenditure on capital such as boats, trailers or boat storage facilities. When the direct expenditure is considered together with the flow-on effects to the regional economy, assuming that 50% of the expenditure is sourced locally and an output multiplier of two, then the total impact on output in the region is considerable.
In the Pumicestone Passage region of southeast Queensland, recreational fishers are estimated to spend $8m per annum on fishing associated items .
In the Northern Territory, a total of 430,000 days are fished annually by recreational fishers responsible for an estimated $30m per annum of direct expenditure . Information is not available to identify what part of the catch was sourced from estuaries. As for the estimates of flow-on benefits to the economy from Barramundi fishing, this level of expenditure needs to be considered in terms of what proportion of this stays in the regional economy.
Western Australia's recreational fisheries are claimed as a major community asset and are estimated to contribute over $500m a year to the State's economy . About 600,000 people or 34% of the population are estimated to fish. The coastal area between Kalbarri and Augusta attracts the highest level of recreational activity in the State with around 380,000 anglers responsible for a catch of approximately 400 to 500 tonnes per annum, mostly sourced from the Peel-Harvey Estuary .
Direct expenditure by recreational fishers in the Gascoyne Coast bioregion on the central Western Australian Coast is estimated to be in the order of $50m per annum. This industry, together with tourism is the biggest industry in the region. According to the Australian National Sportfishing Association (2001), the recreational fishing industry in Australia is worth over $2.9bn per annum . It is likely that over 60% of this will have been sourced from estuarine fisheries. The value of expenditure on recreational fishing in Australian estuaries, excluding flow-on impacts, is in the vicinity of $1.7bn per annum. It should be noted however, that estimates of expenditure on recreational fishing encompass the total experience of taking a holiday where recreational fishing is available as well as the expenditure on actual fishing trips. Further work is required to distinguish between expenditure by those who undertake recreational activity where fishing is the prime activity and those who go boating for whom catching a fish is not the prime motivation for being on the water.
Back to top of page
Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2000. Participation in sport and physical activities. Canberra. Catalogue number: 4177.0
Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Fishweb. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/
Rutledge, W., Rimmer, M., Russell, J., Garrett, R. and Barlow, C. 1990. "Cost Benefit of Hatchery-reared Barramundi, Lates calcarifer (Bloch), in Queensland". Aquaculture and Fisheries Management, 21: 443-448.
Hundloe, T. 1985. "Fisheries of the Great Barrier Reef." GBRMPA Special Publication Series (2). GBRMPA, Townsville.
West, G. 1993. "The Economic Significance of Tourism in Queensland." Annals of Tourism Research, 20: 490-504.
Murphy, I. 2000. "Spending Habits of Recreational Fishermen and their Contribution to the Economy, Pumicestone Passage." Report to Sunfish, Margate.
Murphy, I. 2001. "Spending Habits of Recreational Fishermen and their Contribution to the Economy, Hervey Bay and the Great Sandy Straits Area." Report to Sunfish, Margate.
Opcit. Murphy 2000.
Department of Primary Industries (Qld). 2001. http://www.dpi.qld.gov.au/fishweb/ Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries (NT). 2001. http://www.nt.gov.au/dpif/fisheries/
Fisheries Western Australia. 2001. http://www.wa.gov.au/westfish
Australian National Sportsfishing Association. 2001. http://www.ansa.com.au
Just briefly until I give your post the attention it deserves later.
Suffice for now, non-angling consumers in CQ are subsidising anglers because they can no longer consume net-caught fish from an area in excess of 2000 square km. They are now forced to consume fish caught in other regions or fish caught using other methods ie reef fish or trawled product. And there are no trawlers catching fish in the region that I know of. Consumers and their providers, which is me, are subsidising a few anglers who are demanding sole access to a resource, but expect non-anglers to bear the burden of that claim. And the recreational fishing lobby wants to expand its governments protected monopoly over the resource!
You are finding it difficult to remain civil? That's a fkn joke. Imagine how the commercial fisherman feel that you have put out of work, or how I feel every time a customer walks into our shop asking if we've got any local flake yet, and then walks out when we say no. You're finding it difficult to remain civil because your hobby is threatened? You've stolen the resource for your own ends and it's come at the expense of others.
The rest of your post I'll respond to when I have time, I owe you that much.
And the figures you cite about the value of a 3 kg barramundi don't take into consideration the added value that is applied by processors and retailers.
A 3 kg barramundi is worth $123.75 in value added product to us. Significantly more than your $51 to a recreational fisherman.
So non-anglers are actually subsidising recreational anglers to the tune of $24.25/kg going on the report you cite!!
Changed your tune on how you estimated the subsidisation. It was quite clear earlier why you thought the subsidisation was happening but kept the same attitude. That's why I was finding it difficult to remain civil.
Most of the whiting caught in QLD comes through trawl, but I don't think they ever operated up that far. I could be wrong though.
What has flake got to do with these NFA's? There is a 1300t TAC on shark harvest in QLD. You should find a different supplier if you can't get shark.
90% of the submissions from your area were for the NFA's. Obviously 90% of your potential customers don't care where the product comes from as long as it's quality. As for the net fishermen, they were always on borrowed time and now have compensation packages that will allow them to transition into an industry that 90% of your region will support.
Have you been drinking? It was a report from 1990. So you are comparing an actual published university paper that valued the 3kg Barra @ $19 in 1990 to how much you sell what 1.8kg of fillets in 2016? 26 years later? How does a 3kg barramundi come to $123.75?
To save me time, how did Rutledge arrive at his figure? I'll look it up myself if I have but it would save time if you could explain how he managed to get that figure, seeing as the fact remains that the data on the recreational impact upon the fishery is scant. As i said, when I have more time I'll give your post the attention it deserves.
How I arrived at my figures. A 3kg barra will yield about 1.5kg of fillets. We get about 5 portions from 1kg of fish, sell them for $16.50/portion, that's $123.75.
I've got no idea what you're talking about.
If you are referring to commercial catches of whiting then you are correct. Most whiting harvested commercially by trawler are those little deeper water things, I've forgotten their name.
Just quickly, if you've ever bought wholesale fish you'll understand the difference in quality out there from suppliers. We had a local supplier who sold us high quality fish. He lived 600m from us, he would come home, process his catch and we'd have it that day or the next in our fridges and freezers. Other suppliers sold us rubbish. Thanks to the recreational fishing lobby successfully gaining sole access to the local resource, our supplier was forced to shut down. Much of the flake available is from fish that we consider too large and tough. It's not worth the complaints to stock it just to satisfy a few.
Most of my customers probably never even put a submission in. Most of them probably weren't even aware of the extent of the recreational fishing lobby's influence in enhancing their values at the expense of others. i know I wasn't, I assumed that sense would prevail. I was wrong. The media was full of lies from the lobby representatives and the politicians were simply out to feather their own nests. The vast majority of those submissions would have come from those who have in interest in gaining a government granted monopoly access to the resource.
There was no suggestion from an environmental point that net fisherman were always on borrowed time. That is just your opinion, it is not backed by fisheries data.
So tell me about Rutledge.
Yes you do, your argument went from
And when I said
So you went off on a tangent about not being able to consume net caught fish from your area
If you're going to claim lies from the lobby you're going to have to back that up. This was big news in 2015, if this was such a big issue to eat net caught Barra in your region, then more than 10% of you would have made your voice heard.
I haven't gone through the Rutledge or Murphy papers in detail. Merely countering your claim there was no data backing the claims on the economics of recreational fishing. If your plan is to dig into the data and try to debunk it and somehow come out on top with $for net caught Barra being higher, save your time. No one but you, including Fisheries have even the slightest notion that commercial catch drives more economic activity.
It appears that the NFA's had an immeaditate effect for other business.
Thought so, you don't really know what you're talking about. Trying to claim that recreational angling will bring economic boom times to a region by citing data on amateur activity gathered from over a quarter of a century ago, that both the recreational lobby group and the commercial sector acknowledge is incomplete and doesn't represent the true impact of amateur angling on the resource, while at the same time stating that it will bring more money into a region than the currently known economic returns of a known commercial activity? And you wonder why I keep saying that the rec angling lobby groups peddles lies.
And quoting a Mr Atherton now? A member of the Caravan parks Association? Who would've thought. One of the lobby groups that pressured the labor government into granting a monopoly on local resources to a special interest group at the expense of non-anglers. Absolutely disgraceful.
Enjoy your angling in your government granted playground lovey.
Separate names with a comma.