Dear Freediver
In response to the article (10/7/04) on Freedivers oz fishing site, by law, funds raised from the recreational fishing licence are placed into saltwater and freshwater recreational fishing trusts and can only be spent on projects that improve recreational fishing.

Expenditure from both trusts is overseen by angler based expenditure committees on behalf of the recreational fishing community. There are
two committees - one for saltwater and one for freshwater, made up of regional representatives from the fishing community with extensive experience in recreational fishing.

It is important that the trusts are accountable to the angling community for how licence funds are spent. For this reason, the trusts form a part of NSW Fisheries accounts which are subject to annual audit by the NSW Auditor-General. Regular announcements are made about licence
expenditure. Details regarding the trust fund projects are provided in NSW Fisheries Annual Reports (downloadable from the website) and are
described in detail on the NSW Fisheries (now a branch of the Department of Primary Industries) website. Minutes of expenditure committee meetings are also available on the website.

Information on total income received each financial year, total expenditure, number of licences sold etc is also published in the Annual Reports (check out the financial statements at http://www.fisheries.nsw.gov.au/pub/ar2003.htm)

If you need any more information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards.
Bryan van der Walt


Senior Manager-Recreational Fisheries
NSW Department of Primary Industries
PO Box 21
Cronulla
NSW 2230

Tel: 9527 8522
Facsimile: 9527 8536

also:

Hi
No objection to you publishing it. I agree we need to ensure that anglers are aware where their licence fees are being spent. DPI-Fisheries have put a lot of effort into advising anglers and we will continue to try and make improvements wherever we can.
Thanks
Bryan

I will forward you our full policy document in the next few days so you can understand it in context with our general position. In summary we believe green zones are the last resort of failed management which has let damaging fisheries/envoronmental practices go unchecked.

FD

Hi Kevin, I've updated my website again. As always you are welcome to submit a response.

www.freediver.bravehost.com

Please understand that I don't have anything against the party per se, but if they (like sunfish) have to lie to justify their own existence then we are better off without them.

You seem to have slowed down a bit lately, at least on the internet. Hope you haven't given up. I suggest you move on and stop worrying about me. It's making you look bad. Also, rather than focussing on reactionary poltics why don't you try to develop a 'grand vision' for the future of recreational fishing in Australia. Try to focus on what all fishermen want rather than criticising others. That's the only way to unite recreational fishermen. You also seem to be lacking someone to debate with. Shame that.

KC 10/8/04

Feel free to post this letter but ONLY in full. Selective editing would be a cowardly way of dealing with it.

I have attached a series of articles and reports for your information [FD: see my comments on these below]. Use them as you see fit..or ignore them. Doesn't really matter to me or our members. I took significant offence at your somewhat personal attacks...but..so be it. You obviously have an agenda and a personal barrow to push...so do I. They are just different. As to not taking up the issues effecting shore based fishermen? I don't know what part of our policy outlines that but again...so be it. This is your opinion. It certainly does not make it the truth. We remain the only political organisation calling for Pink Zones rather than green zones as the only method of affording full protection to areas which need it.

I have attached a report outlining the ABC web poll manipulation. This information and other documents have been placed in the hands of both ABC 7.30 report and Channel 9 60 Minutes, ultimately they will determine whether they are worthy of follow-up. personally I am disappointed with the lack of response from ABC after initially being very interested the story..but...that's life. It does not make the evidence any less compelling and a full review of the document and graph lead to no other rational conclusion that "someone" manipulated the poll. A simple phone call to ABC North will confirm this, just so you don't have to take the "lying" word of The Fishing Party (Qld).

I have also included a number of reports from Dr Strack, who I notice you denigrate and also the very report from Dr Tony Ayling which goes right to the heart of the Coral Trout numbers debate. This report speaks for itself. This particular marine research scientist has studied these reef and trout populations for 14 years.

As to the rec fishers who "waste our money" on fishing magazines, surely we are entitled to spend our money any way we want to. If this is on magazines which we use to increase our understanding of recreational fishing options, tackle and techniques then this is our right. If TFP uses these forums, as well as direct mailouts, BIAQ newsletters, Internet chat rooms, Tackle/boat shows, fishing radio programs and public meetings to promote and educate, then this is our call. If you don't agree, quiet frankly, tough luck.

Our members at the next AGM will decide if they agree or disagree with the direction the party has taken and vote in whoever they want to run the organisation for the next 12 months.....democracy.

Anyhow...enough of this. As I said, feel free to read and use any of the attached information or, feel free to discard & ignore it as it obviously will not suit your agenda. Also feel free to continue your personal attacks on me on your web site. It does your credibility no good as at least I am prepared to make myself, my phone number and private address a matter of public record. I don't hide behind the cowards castle of website anonymity.

Regards

Kevin Collins

FD

Thanks Kevin, I'll get it up with the next update. If I was wrong about the ABC poll issue then I apologise (I haven't read that stuff yet). Please resend those requests for info to this address. I honestly didn't get them. You'll notice that the ABC puts a disclaimer on the polls that they shouldn't be taken seriously.

KC

Our problem is not with the ABC. We know the poll are often innacurate. It is with who manipulated them to a point where GBRMPA could then use the results to justify the accptance of the maps.

FD 24/8/04

Kevin could you please send me a copy of your policy document and any research papers or other documents that you haven't already sent me. I have about 3.5MB left in my inbox but I can clear more room if that is not enough.

I trust that you have been keeping up to date with my website. Remember that I can only keep it honest and fair with feedback on any errors.

[recieved: POLITICAL ZONES.doc ( 92k) TFP Research paper 1.doc ( 61k) TFP research paper2.doc ( 47k) TFP Research paper3.doc ( 903k) tfpq research paper 4.htm ( 10k) THE FISHING PARTY POLICY review 1.doc ( 37k) THE FISHING PARTY POLICY RAP.doc ( 32k)]

FD 26/8/04

Hi Kevin,

thanks for those files.

Do you know that tomorrow is the deadline for submissions on the state government's complimentary GBR zonings? Check my site or the sportsfish soapbox or gutter fishing for more info. Can you let me know when you get this?

KC

We are not putting in a submission. No more lobbying. We believe it is a waste of time and resources. Our efforts are directed only at the election. I have not visited your site since your rather personal and insulting posts and do not intend to do so in the future.

FD

Do you mind if I publish the fact that you are not putting in a submission?

KC

Go for your life. We support in principle the Sunfish submission and have made this known to government and Sunfish. Our energy is saved for the ballot box and the negotiating power we have at the preference deal table....press release attached

FD

What sunfish submission?

Can I just publish your earlier email? Can I safely assume I can publish any of your emails to this address unless you ask not to? I'll take them down for you if you change your mind.

KC

To promote both yourself and your site as "the truth" of the RAP/marine park/no take areas debate and then ask...what sunfish submission? is bizzare.

Publish anything you like...it is not copyright...........your grasp on what is fact and fiction has never stopped you publishing it before.....thankfully not many people bother reading it. As I mentioned, your personal attacks leave me with no respect for your own credibility or that of your web sites.

FD

Righto Kevin I might publish the lot, just as a favour to you. FYI I don't just publish the truth, I also publish the lies.

Has sunfish made a submission specific to the state government proposal? I did check the website. There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.

Why did you call a boycott on a state government issue when you are only involved federally and most of your complaints have only been about the federal government? It is a different party in power so its not like you can apply pressure on the state government by criticising the federal government.

KC

The Sunfish document is extensive and in the main one we agree with. We are not a lobby group, this is why we will not be putting in a submission. We are a political party and our energies are directed to an election and getting votes. Votes alone are, we believe, the ultimate means of changing government policy, not submissions. The labour party is not a lobby group, it does not do a submission to state or federal governments during public consultation processes, neither do the libs and neither do we. TFPQ was born of the absolute frustration of an extensive, well supported and carefully researched public submission, which, for all intents and purposes, ended up in the bin!! I don't know how much plainer I can make it and I am not interested in another philosophical debate. Sunfish are the rec fishing peak body and lobby group. TFPQ is a stand alone political party which supports much of what Sunfish do. But WE ARE NOT A LOBBY GROUP.

Regards

FD 30/8/04

which sunfish document?

Perhaps you should give me a link or the name of the document. Is it on the net or is it something that is being emailed around?

Please stop being a politician and answer the question.

FD 26/9/04

Hi Kevin,

You never told me what sunfish submission the party supported on the state government GBR consultation. Would you mind telling me? I know you think this is a bizarre question from someone as knowledgable as myself, but I hoestly don't know. Also, you said you sent me some info a while back which I never recieved. If it is less than 20MB please try again.

I have updated my website and added an election guide and a feedback page containing the emails from you and Brian Van Der Walt. I hope you can find time in your busy schedule to check that I have not published anything misleading about your party.

yours sincerely,

Freediver

www.freediver.bravehost.com

KC

I have had a look at your site and remain offended by the tone of your "opinions", particularly given the information I have repeatedly supplied to support any position or comment I have made. You disappoint me greatly, particularly as I originally though you were genuinely interested in working to better the rights of recreational fishing. I have never been interested in "outing you" other than to identify your name and call you a coward for not having the moral integrity to post your own contact details when mine have always been made available. The anonymity of the cowards castle of an internet site allows people like you, with no integrity to flourish when you don't have enough faith in your own convictions to identify themselves.

If you want the Sunfish document...ask Sunfish...they are on line & in the phone book. As for wanting more information from me, quite frankly...Not interested. I know it must all bore you with nowhere left to pick a fight but please remove me from your address book, or, clean up the misinformation on your web site and then you might even be back in the loop and having input into a whole range of issues, including the adds we are about to start running ALL featuring shore based angling.

FD

Kevin I'm not asking you to supply the document from sunfish, I'm asking you to tell me which one it is so I know what to ask for. We have been going back and forth with this issue over many emails now and I don't see why you are trying to avoid telling me. You are the one who mentioned it in the first place.

As for that other info, I don't believe you even sent any. You have insisted many times that you did and sent me heaps of other info so I don't believe that you are not interested.

I am also working to better the situation for recreational fishermen and I think that you are doing more harm than good. I don't know what 'rights' you are referring to though and a lot of the rights some fishermen want are counterproductive.

Congratualtions for including shore based fishermen in your adds. I don't know if you are aware, but the federal government included shore based fishing in one of the 'enrol to vote' adds. That doesn't necessarily mean they support shore based fishermen. Same goes for any political party. You also say that you are interested in looking after the environment and the future of fishing, but I don't believe that.

I can't clean up the misinformation unless you tell me what the misinformation is. I will publish your comments for you to get some balance but unless you actually tell me then there's not much more I can do.

I have put my contact details on the website. Anyone who wants to contact me is more than welcome to. Obviously being a politician you have to make your contact details public, but most people recommend you don't put things like your phone number or home address on the internet. I've explained to you why and I don't believe that you don't understand that.

KC

While I have no trust of your ethics or honesty, none the less, here is the Sunfish submission which the fishing party, with some minor ammendment, supports. This is the draft form but is close to the finished product.

[forwarded from David Batemen: ]To all,

Please find attached the first draft of the SUNFISH Qld reply to the MP's RIS.

Any constructive comments on the content are welcomed. Ignore spelling/puncuation as it will be corrected for the final submission.

Members can use the whole or any part of the text for their own submission & it may be a source of information for any media comments.

Final will be sent to EPA on 23rd August so any comments need to be well before then.

David Bateman [FD: this went out on July 29, not sure who to]

[KC:] I have to tell you this is my last try.

I don't believe things dissapear into cyberspace they either get through OR they bounce back

FD

Thanks Kevin I got those attachments. I think it is the same lot I got from you recently. You need to be more specific when you claim to have sent me information.

KC

"As for that other info, I don't believe you even sent any. You have insisted many times that you did and sent me heaps of other info so I don't believe that you are not interested."..........your words

FD

You obviously interpret them (my words) differently to me. The 'information' I am referring to is going a long way back. I'll chase up your references to it and get back to you.

FD 30/9/04

Hi Kevin,

As it turns out you didn't claim to have sent me information I didn't receive, you claimed to have sent me a request for information which I did not receive. Sorry about that. As I said it was a while back so if you can't remember don't worry about it, but if there is any information you still want from me just ask. I think I have put links up to all the relevant information I have, except for some WWF brochures I have in hard copy, but I think I supplied enough information for people to obtain them from the WWF.

Anyway, back to the present...

You said you don't trust my 'ethics or honesty'. What's wrong with having ethics and honesty? If more people (especially politicians) had ethics and honesty then my website would be obsolete. My motives are to uncover the truth and look after the interests of recreational fishermen - motives that I have never found to be conflicting. If you don't trust that then that just reflects badly on you, not me.

I've had a look at that sunfish submission. It's obviously a very rough draft so I asked them for the final version but their inbox is full and their forum has 'disappeared'.

I'm not really sure how to say this. I'm a little confused. Actually I'm very confused. How come neither you nor sunfish went public with this? It didn't go up on the Sunfish website and still isn't there. You issued a press release the day before and the day of the deadline, plus you made several public comments, but never mentioned it even though you were 'onto it' ages ago. The Sunfish submission acknowledges that this (the state government proposal) affects 75% of fishermen while the federal government proposal (one they were very vocal about) affects only 20% of fishermen up there. Why would they make so much noise about the federal government submission but 'cover up' the state government submission?

This is one issue that could have united recreational fishermen. Even environmentally conscious fishermen such as myself would have supported it - in principle at least, maybe not the way Sunfish phrased it.

What exactly is the relationship between The Fishing Party and Sunfish? How much money has The Fishing Party given to Sunfish so far? You have only mentioned those donations once that I know of.

How many people did you or Sunfish inform of the imminent deadline?

What is the relationship between you and Peter Beattie? You made favourable comments and reassurances along the lines that you believed that he would ensure there was adequate public consultation over the state government proposal.

Hopefully there is a very simple explanation for all this otherwise people might start to think that something not quite above board is going on.

yours sincerely,

Freediver

KC

Hopefully I get to all your questions.

For a start post on your website a retraction of your staement about lying about sending you information, now that you appear satisfied that I have in fact already send you everything I said I would. That would be a good start. The perhaps I will learn to trust your motives a little more.

We made a public statement some time ago that we are not a lobby group....we stopped. It was deemed a waste of time and energy. We are a political party. We don't lobby. That is a Sunfish job.

We have no formal relationship with Sunfish. They are an apolitical lobby group. We are a political party. We have given no funds to Sunfish but did offer to help Sunfish Mackay with the expense of an FOI application to GBRMPA regarding some issues of RAP. That offer was not taken up as the FOI application was changed and did not require any funds.

We have no relationship with Peter Beattie or any political party. We do place some degree of faith in the word of the State Labor Government but this faith could be lost if they go back on their committment.

WE did not alert the rec fishing community more about the complimentry zoning submissions because we are not a lobby group, that is a Sunfish role, we are a political party. From a personal point of view I saw a substantial amount of information in the print media about the submission process. I would have expected any rec fishers keeping an eye on the press, or members of fishing clubs, or internet users would have seen likewise, but, as I said, we are not interested in lobbying. At the end of the day I know the 65,000 members of Sunfish will have seen the submission and approved whatever was the final submission. I am not a member of Sunfish and have not seen a final copy. Perhaps if more rec fishers joined Sunfish they would be better informed but this is a personal choice, just as it is to join The Fishing Party (Qld).

What is however unstaisfactory is to whinge that "no one told me" when "me" makes no effort to find out!!

Complimentary legislation is, we believe, a done deal and always was, the only win is the Government announcement that it will now not include mangrove wetlands which abutt the federal marine park and it will not now include creeks and rivers which run into the marine park.

You seem to keep looking for hidden agenda which just does not exist...there is nothing sinister about The Fishing Party and no secret deals. We are nothing more than a bunch of committed rec fishers trying to become the political wing of the wider rec fishing movement..just like the green party is to the environmental movement. The best part is we are now over 1000 strong and you may have noticed...or maybe you did not...that both major parties, for the first time in history, have announced a specific recreational fishing policy, and both of them announced it in Qld. We don't think that this is a co-incidence.

If you want additional information supplied, fix your web site, otherwise don't bother contacting me again. I will no longer respond unless you redresss the issues highlited.

FD

I have already posted a retraction - I put up a copy of the email I sent you which included an apology and an explanation.

I am not suggesting that The Fishing Party lobby the state government. I am just suggesting that you should have followed item 9 of your policy draft:

"Keep the Fishing community well informed on issues affecting this resource"

I read the papers every day and I keep a close eye on the fishing forums. That is how I found out about the deadline - it came up on two of the more obscure forums two days before the deadline. As you know I have been banned from the mainstream forums which is why I emailed the information to you, as I hoped it might at least get a mention. I believe that only a small fraction of Queensland's fishermen found out about this and that many more would have been very interested to know. You obviously made a conscious choice not to mention this which goes against everything you have appeared to stand for. There is no such thing as a done deal. Recreational fishermen had one win, I think we could have had more.

All political parties lobby. That's how they get members.

I'm glad you didn't give any money for that worthless FOI request.

I have noticed the attention we are getting from both major parties and I credit The Fishing Party with that. However I believe that The Fishing Party is posturing more than anything else and that is all the major parties are doing in response, but at least it is some recognition.

FD 4/10/04

Kevin I assure you that the sunfish submission did not reach 65 000 fishermen, and certainly wasn't approved by all of them before it was sent in. Furthermore there are more than ten times that number of fishermen in Queensland - around 880 000 according to David Bateman. He said that of this, 45 000 individuals are affiliated with sunfish's member organisations. There is no way of knowing how many of those people heard about it. Sunfish does not claim to represent all fishermen. I think that any other easy methods of reaching people on such an important issue should have been used.

KC 6/10/04

Unfortunately this is the only structure which exists. Sunfish pass it down to their branches, the branches in turn pass it down to membership and feedback comes back up the line. If rec fishers in general don't get involved in the process it can only be assumed that they don't want to get involved. Similar to membership of TFPQ. Those that are interested and care about outcomes and direction of the party, get involved, not just as members but even as protagonists like yourself....like it or not YOU are involved with TFPQ and your web site is just about devoted to us and my feedback...no one else seems to really care.

The system is clearly far from perfect, but it is, none the less, all we have to work with. We get involved and try, or we sit on the fence and whinge. What I don't abide by is moaning and groaning after the fact....there are about 1200 members of TFPQ and they trust us to take forward an agenda with no ulterior motives. If we stuff up, they vote us out...real easy!

I might add at this point your critique of our policy document, which I noted was rather sarcastically commented on by a Labor party underling. Why did you use some extracts of the old draft policy and some of the new adopted policy? Why did you add your opinion in a section that is supposed to be "The Truth" Surely this column should be called "If you ask me" or "the truth according to Freediver" and why not just publish the policy document and let your "readers" make up their own mind??

Once again, you have permission to publish this letter on your "feedback" page but ONLY IN FULL.

I have attached once again our policy document..not a draft but our actual policy document.

FD

The information on the page "The Election" should be based on what is on The Fishing Party's website. At the bottom of the "Feedback" page is some criticism of documents you sent me earlier. I will publish your feedback that addresses issues I raise, but I will not publish your policy document. I think it is your responsibility to get that published on the party's website. My reason for this is that it is too complicated to keep track of documents that aren't online. There would be too many versions and it is possible for you to send me a 'sanitised' version that is different from what you send party members. If there is anything specific that is wrong because it is based on an old document feel free to comment on it and if it is significant I will chase it up. I think it would be wrong for my website to have the current version of TFP policy while the party's website only has an old version. Once people join your party they are pretty much sold anyway, but the swinging voters and the people who support you politically but don't want to get more involved will only go by your website.

"The Truth" is called that because as far as I know it is the truth. I don't put anything on that page until I have chased it up fully. Perhaps it may help to think of it as a true refelction of scientific opinion, or a true reflection of what is on the NSW fisheries website. Perhaps I am guilty of framing what is there as an absolute truth, which doesn't exist in science, especially the biological sciences. I'll keep that in mind next time I am updating that page. I think I am justified in calling it the truth because it is so far removed from the blatant lies that are going round in fishing forums. I don't believe that calling one page "The Truth" and the other page "Lies" will prevent anyone from making up there own mind, but I do expect the content of those pages to change people's minds or at least encourage them to look into it further. I couldn't keep my opinions off that page, but I have tried to restrict it to opinions that are clearly based on the truths that are on that page.

The system/structure you refer to is not all we have to work with. There are plenty of online forums to use and they should be used to announce important deadlines. There's also the fishing magazines. While they are obviously slower they reach people who may not use those forums.

Other groups care about my website and I have received feedback from NSW fisheries and even gotten them to put more information on their website. There would be more about this but I have given it a low priority for the short term.

FD 21/10/04

What was on your how to vote cards and handouts at the election booths? Was there anything about the new bans?

FD 21/10/04

Where did you get this information from?

3. Coral trout are harvested (maybe wrong word) (Combined recreational & commercial catch) at a rate of less than 4% of available biomass each year (Ayling et al) and have the breeding dynamics to support harvest in excess of 25% of biomass each year....to whit. Coral trout are not under any pressure from overfishing..This has been one of the great myths of the GBR debate. Aylings studies over 14 years of research on fished and unfished reefs show no statistical differences and in fact support a position that the fishing pressure which does occur on the GBR is having an effect of actually slightly increasing coral trout density (large fish being taken are all highly territorial and highly predatory male fish & higer spawning recruitment occurs as a result of less of these big fish on fished reefs)

4. Recreational bag limits have been tightened and strict catch quotos on commercial fishers put in place by Qld Government to reduce take of this species already this year which should reduce combined recreational and commercial catch back to less than 3% of available biomass each year. So for every 100 adult trout, they need to produce just 3 surviving offspring to replace what is being taken (& their potential is 40 to 50).

11/8/04