National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act - 12 February 2014. - The End?

[BuzzLiteBeer]

National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act (10/2004): Draft Alien and Invasive Species Lists, 2014 was published this week.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Byo...it?usp=sharing

[gkieser]

Reading the latest Blog Entry from Gink and Gasoline it hit me how to save trout/bass in SA.

Allow Cape Nature to tax us on tackle bought. If 10% of our purchases on fly gear went to a nature conservation body in order for it to improve habitats on trout, bass and indigenous fish rivers, it might just save the whole situation. Why not get the trout and bass fishermen to fund the rehabilitation of indigenous environments, and in order for that to be a constant flow of money to be pumped into those environments, bass and fly tackle has to be sold, and in order for it to be sold, the bass and trout fisheries need to remain so that people can use it.

This would probably be the best way to do something serious about our indigenous fish and ensure that the bass and trout industries are not left stranded.

Any thoughts?

[gkieser]

Bump. Anyone?

[smallstreams.co.za]

Great idea actually ....

[saml]

Also think it is a great idea, while it may be difficult to get a blanket tax on all fishing tackle as a law, maybe shops or brands can do it on their own accord like Columbia does (i think?) then they donate that "tax" to a conservation body of their choice. and then we hope that it goes further than being a marketing gimmick.

[BuzzLiteBeer]

Reading the latest Blog Entry from Gink and Gasoline it hit me how to save trout/bass in SA.

Allow Cape Nature to tax us on tackle bought. If 10% of our purchases on fly gear went to a nature conservation body in order for it to improve habitats on trout, bass and indigenous fish rivers, it might just save the whole situation. Why not get the trout and bass fishermen to fund the rehabilitation of indigenous environments, and in order for that to be a constant flow of money to be pumped into those environments, bass and fly tackle has to be sold, and in order for it to be sold, the bass and trout fisheries need to remain so that people can use it.

This would probably be the best way to do something serious about our indigenous fish and ensure that the bass and trout industries are not left stranded.

Any thoughts?

The funds generated this way must also be ring-fenced for activities that benefit rivers and fishing in general. Currently funds go into a pool for allocation anywhere.

[Korrie]

The funds generated this way must also be ring-fenced for activities that benefit rivers and fishing in general. Currently funds go into a pool for allocation anywhere.

Grant, great Idea,
But Buzz you have highlighted the biggest problem.

[gkieser]

Yeah i guess it would have to be marshalled in some way to ensure that the money spent by fishermen is spent on fisheries

[dlampert]

Reading the latest Blog Entry from Gink and Gasoline it hit me how to save trout/bass in SA.

Allow Cape Nature to tax us on tackle bought. If 10% of our purchases on fly gear went to a nature conservation body in order for it to improve habitats on trout, bass and indigenous fish rivers, it might just save the whole situation. Why not get the trout and bass fishermen to fund the rehabilitation of indigenous environments, and in order for that to be a constant flow of money to be pumped into those environments, bass and fly tackle has to be sold, and in order for it to be sold, the bass and trout fisheries need to remain so that people can use it.

This would probably be the best way to do something serious about our indigenous fish and ensure that the bass and trout industries are not left stranded.

Any thoughts?

Couple of things to consider:

1. Bass, trout and indigenous fish typically share the same rivers so in essence we would be funding Cape Nature to Rotenone our rivers and get rid of the species we all like to fish for.
2. Cape Nature has no shortage of money to poison rivers. They do however seem to have a lack of funds (and interest) when it comes to protecting them from pollution, water abstraction, introduction of invasive species from inter-basin transfers, introduction of invasive species like sharptooth catfish from pet shops and poaching amongst other things.
3. They have not demonstrated best scientific practice (according to their own EIA) in the rivers that they have already treated.
4. Since when did biodiversity apply only to fish?
5. They have not demonstrated good financial management so why should we give them more money?
6. The second Rondegat treatment killed hundreds of indigenous fish and not a single bass. Justified?

so in short, I think it's a bad idea ;-)

[MarkK]

There is so much irony in this issue. I have always believed that, one the whole, people who fish are quite sensitive to the environment and conservation thereof. Speaking for myself, I feel I have been alienated by the authorities that, just a few years ago, I was trying to assist. Again speaking for myself, I have lost all trust in their motives, their competency and their honesty. Another irony is that there are several cases where the presence of trout have safeguarded environments against far more destructive influences - pine monoculture, for instance. I think fishermen would still agree to a "conservation levy," but I for one would have a problem trusting the current conservation regime to be a good custodian of that fund.