I believe there is a lot of confusion around about the Bioregional Planning Process (BRP). Some fishers believe that its all about locking up our top fishing spots to somehow punish us. With some of the media campaigns being waged at the momemt, its easy to jump to that conclusion.

I, however, believe that the process can be positive and its a chance for the Australian Government to really engage (not consult) with all resource users and come up with a plan that protects Australia’s wildlife for future generations.

The big word is Trust - will govt take the chance and trust us to work with them? Will fishers trust that govt will listen and not disregard our comments and input? It is a big gamble but guess what? Around the globe its a model that works. Just ask Elinor Ostrom - Elinor is the first woman ever to win the Nobel Prize for Economic Science (2009). Elinor has spent her life researching how to manage common property and resources (like fish and forests) and her principles make a lot of sense. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elinor_Ostrom or http://www.cogs.indiana.edu/people/homepages/ostrom.html for more information

Maybe someone needs to buy her book and send it to Minister Garrett. In fact, dont stop there - send it to every politician. Lets work this out together.

Well, its nearly been 12 months since I took on the role of CEO and while I can say that its been a busy 12 months, there are several areas of concern which we have not progressed to the extent that I thought possible.

One of my first charters was to secure funding for the organisation - losing our long serving (suffering) Office and Project Manager Rhonda last month suggests that I have failed in this activity. Despite repeated calls to government to discuss our funding situation, we are in a no better position than we were in this time last year.

Time is running out for Recfish Australia and while we now have regular dialogue with the federal fisheries department, we can make no headway in presenting a value proposition for funding a peak organisation for recreational fishers at a national level.

Yes, times are tough and we are looking elsewhere for funds but despite attractive sponsorship and donation options, input from private industry is slow on the uptake.

The argument that is thrown our way is that Recfish is not representative and needs to change. Yes, we need to change the way we do business but I cannot accept the claim that we dont represent the vast majority of recreational fishers in this country. Out of eight states and territories, we have five as members. Out of the three biggest national organisations for recreational fishers, we have two as members. Yes, we can do better and yes we need to build better linkages with industry but this takes time and will not happen without resourcing.

On the positive we continue to make significant input to public consultation processes such as reviews of biodiversity strategies, biosecurity risk assessments and national action plans for climate change. We continue to serve recreational fishers in a representative capacity on national committees and working groups and our work is recognised and valued by federal government agencies and departments.

We continue to develop policy and lead innovation and research priorities for recreational fisheries and our national conference proceedings are now available which chart the sector’s vision of the future.

Still a rocky road ahead but we must prevail

Len