Archived page, Submission to Policy 18 - Recreation, Tourism and Visitor Services

Recfishwest wishes to respond to the abovementioned policy statement. We apologise for the lateness of this response but point out that the required timelines for submission were quite unrealistic.

We are the peak body representing the interests of the estimated 645,000 recreational fishers in Western Australia. We are formally recognised and funded by the Government in that role and have regular meetings with the Minister for Fisheries and with the Minister for the Environment as well as interaction with other Ministers and Government agencies on a range of topics.

Recfishwest is only concerned with those aspects of Policy 18 that are relevant to access to marine or freshwater resources, whether they be the aquatic environment itself or access to that environment through CALM managed lands. A broad reading of the document in relation to these key issues provides us with some concerns.

These concerns should be read in the context of very extensive interaction over the past five years between our organisation, CALM's Marine Planning Branch and the Minister for the Environment. It is not too blunt to say that we have been, and are becoming increasingly dismayed with the impact of CALM's initiatives and proposals on access to aquatic resources for recreational fishers.

Proposal after proposal is being put before us, and with each proposal, our stakeholders' interests are being systematically ignored. The establishment of the greatly flawed Jurien Marine Reserve is the most obvious example of our concerns, but similar biased outcomes are predicated for Dampier Archipelago, Capes to Capes, and Rowley Shoals to nominate just the most recent and important. We view with considerable concern the apparent inability in CALM/MPRA parks to impose zones that would impact on commercial fisheries or aquaculture, commensurate with the impacts falling on recreational fishers.

In addition the Western Australian government system (over successive governments) has completely failed to integrate the responsibilities and contributions of the two key departments, CALM and the Department of Fisheries in relation to fishing impacts in marine reserves. It seems to us, time after time, that CALM elects to take an exclusionist approach where proper application of powers under the Fish Resources Management Act 1994 would result in a better outcome for all stakeholders including the environment.

Recfishwest believes there is an over-concentration of marine conservation effort by CALM on Marine Parks and in particular via sanctuary zoning. This should not be taken to mean that Recfishwest is opposed to marine sanctuary zoning per se. Simply that we believe that CALM has demonstrated systematic and ongoing bias. Please see below for our articulated views on this matter. Copies of our extensive correspondence with CALM will be accessible from your files.

It is in the above context that we are inclined to make only brief comment regarding Policy 18.

Given Recfishwest's very jaundiced view of CALM's bona fides, we are very sceptical about Policy clause 4.9: "The Department will endeavour within the resources available to it to provide an appropriate level of supervision of activities on the lands and waters it manages. This is particularly important where natural and cultural values may be impaired. If this cannot be done, the activity should where practicable be restricted, relocated or eliminated".

It is our strong view that CALM subscribes to a 'lock it up mentality', frequently without credible rationale for the exclusions it proposes, and then when proposals are implemented, utterly fails to resource the very things on which the exclusions are supposedly predicated.

Therefore we strongly object to the implication of this clause that activities should be restricted, relocated or eliminated in cases where there are concerns that natural and cultural values may (italics added) be impaired.

This clause as drafted is simply a license for CALM managers to take an over precautionary view in cases where as is common only a suspicion, or even worse prejudice, exists against the impacts of a particular activity such as recreational fishing.

Rather we contend that the onus must be on the manager, CALM, to justify the restriction; not simply implement such 'on suspicion'.

The policy guidelines relating to recreational fishing appear unproblematic, referring mainly to the existing legislative base - it is not the legislative base which is the problem. Rather, Recfishwest's difficulties lie with CALM's relentless inability to apply the legislative base in a fair, unbiased manner.

Recreational fishing is either the second or third most popular activity in parks where this activity is possible, yet there is never an explicit acknowledgement of the needs of this group (as opposed to the smaller distance hiking groups that are extremely well serviced) or an attempt to provide specific access or facilities.

Instead we are increasingly frustrated at attempts to portray the unacceptable activities of a tiny minority of recreational fishers as typical of the entire recreational fishing community when an increasing majority are actually at the forefront of aquatic conservation. Indeed it was recreational fishers who proactively implemented a seasonal closure for snapper in Cockburn Sound, protection for hump head Maori wrasse and are currently lobbying for total protection for lampreys, Queensland groper and the barramundi cod.

Unfortunately Recfishwest believes that there is a culture within CALM to continue to victimise recreational fishers and we hold out little hope that a largely cosmetic policy such as this will be able to address the more fundamental problems.

We trust that our comments will assist in the review of the Policy Guidelines for recreation, tourism and visitor services. We look forward to your advice on the outcomes.



This page last updated February 2004.