The Shooters Party & Preferences

[SideCast]

Hi Guys & Gals,
it has come to my attention that there seems to be a smear campaign running at the moment, helped being spread by some members of this forum.  This misinformation is obviously being spread for their own personal gain.  To be expected in politics I suppose,.... still, it's disappointing that some choose to act this way.  I am posting here for the first time to set the record straight.

To be upfront, I am a campaign manager for The Shooters Party.   Like most shooters and hunters, I fish.  It is a recreation that I would sorely miss if further restrictions were to be placed on it.  This seems to be the intent of extreme Green policies.

The misinformation that is being spread on this, and other forums, says that The Shooters Party is giving it's preferences to NSW Labor - this could not be further from the truth!!!!   The Shooters Party is not giving preferences to anyone.
This is why the party line is to vote 1 above the line.

Why vote for The Shooters Party?
It's simple really - it is the only political party representing the rights of fishermen, shooters, 4WD'ers and others wishing access to public lands that has a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.   Although I hate to say it, the other parties with an interest in fishing, 4WD'ing & horse riding only received approx a third of the vote of The Shooters Party at the last election - and that was when they combined their efforts!!!   

Even though the name says The Shooters Party - it has moved beyond just looking after the interests of shooters.
As mentioned, 99% of shooters are fishermen and 4WD'ers as well.  I would place money on a name change sometime soon to reflect this.

To vote for anyone else except The Shooters Party means splitting the vote for fishermen.

[Nete-Quette]

Welcome to the forum Sidecast. I don't think anybody is running a smear campaign against you or your party but I do recall a question in the topic who to vote for being asked: http://www.fishnitis.com/fishing-board/index.php?topic=639.msg4824#msg4824
The question was "Didn't the Shooters Party support Labor's marine park legislation in the Upper House in 2000?" Maybe you could answer on the shooters party behalf as I am sure that would generate further questions from the many fishers who visit this forum.

[ACTAngler]

Welcome aboard Sidecast.  Any chance of a response to these questions, which the Anglers Action Group posed to the major political parties:

1. What is your vision for recreational fishing in NSW?

2. If elected, what one thing will your party do during its first term to improve recreational fishing for future generations?

3. What do you believe is the best structure to represent the interests of the recreational fishers in NSW? Do you believe recreational fishing licence fees should be used to fund the interests of recreational fishers?

4. How would you reduce the apparent conflict between the interests of commercial and recreational fishers in NSW? How would you reduce the apparent conflict between the interests of Commonwealth commercial fishers (eg bait gathering) and recreational fishers in NSW?

5. How would you improve the use of recreational license fees so they would offer greater benefit to recreational fishers in NSW?

6. What is the single biggest environmental issue facing NSW that your party feels it could directly influence and what will you do about it?

[bayrunner]

I think the shooter's party should answer the question. Did the party support the marine park legislation in 1997 and 2000. (It's in Hansard and anybody can look it up.)

Quoting trends from the last election is irrelevent. Fishers weren't locked out then, and most still aren't now. Had they suffered to the extent as shooters, the voting trends would have been very different. In addition, I believe allot of the shooters vote was disaffected farmers, former Nationals, and, fishers that aren't put off by shooting, like me!!!

I agree that most shooters fish. On the other hand, most fishermen don't shoot. A name change would have solved much of the problem years ago.

I also believe that there are enough voters out there to get a second Shooters Party rep in and either a TFP or ORP elected if we campaign hard enough. TFP and ORP are needed to pick up the majority of fishing vote that wouldn't back TSP in a fit.

And that raises the issue of preferences. TSP surplus vote will die if voters follow party recommendations. It would be a great pity if the TSP fell 10,000 short of the quota and 160,000 votes died. How valuable would the ORP and TFP preferences be then?  For the life of me, if all shooters fish, why wouldn't they preference The Fishing Party instead of throwing their vote away in adverse circumstances?

TSP needs to change its name, put other outdoor pursuits at the top of its agenda as an act of good faith, resist horse trading for favours and play a lead role in unifying the outdoor movement.

PS: There is a significant difference between fishermen and shooters. Fishermen have common law rights. Rights cannot be traded. Other than that we both kill things for food. TSP need to adjust its mindset to deal with the rights issue.

[CEO]

G'day Sidecast. I'm Overhead. You say, you fish. "It's a recreation that I would sorely miss if FURTHER restrictions were to be placed on it." Well mate, you've answered you own question for recreational fishers! Your answer is loud and clear. You're only interested in "FURTHER," restrictions! Recreational fishers are concerned about the EXISTING restrictions your mob helped get thru the Upper House in 2000 by supporting lying Labor! You may not remember it. Let me remind you. It was called "Marine park legislation." A search of Hansard shows dramatically, how your mob stuck up for the state's one million recreational fishers. And it's all posted here on this and other websites! So that's why they won't support you or the Shooters Party. Simple isn't it.
  Secondly, you say, "The party line is to vote 1 above the line." What you didn't say, was that your "How To Vote Literature," says in white on red, "Vote for the local candidate you want in Government, eg Liberal, Labor, National or Independent." Understand Sidecast, the states one million recreational fishers have been shafted by the Labor government with their lies and lockouts and marine parks, which you supported! And now you want recreational fishers to vote for the Shooters Party? You must be dreaming! This is NOT misinformation mate. Nor is it scaremonering. It's fact! I won't address the perception the public have of the Shooters Party in this post. I'll leave that for another time.
  So I have one final word of advice for you Sidecast. You supported the marine parks legislation in the Upper House (2000) So did the Greens! You both have a lot in common. So seek their support. And we all know you've got about as much chance of that, as getting recreational fishers to vote for your party.
  PS I have a large box full of your posters and how to vote pamphlets, forwarded to ECOfishers by tackle retail proprietiors. No, Im not going to dump it in the re-cycling bin. I'm going to dump the whole lying, lot in the GARBAGE!
  PPSS.  The Shooters Party IS NOT the only party representing the rights of fishers. (You never have!) So keep dreaming.

[row]

Why vote for The Shooters Party?
It's simple really - it is the only political party representing the rights of fishermen, shooters, 4WD'ers and others wishing access to public lands that has a snow balls chance in hell of being elected.   Although I hate to say it, the other parties with an interest in fishing, 4WD'ing & horse riding only received approx a third of the vote of The Shooters Party at the last election - and that was when they combined their efforts!!!   

If this is true, why have not the ORP and the Shooters party combined policies and resources and ultimately, political grunt in times gone by, both these parties have been around for a while, surely this would be the way to go if the interests of both parties are synonymous, it seems like common sense to me if we are fighting a common enemy for a common goal. So there must be a reason that this meld has not occurred in the past.

[CEO]

ROW, the answer is all inHansard. The ODP has consistently supported recreational fishers, no matter what the issue! The Shooters Party supported Labor and the Greens on Labor's marine park legislation, to get it thru the Upper House! That's how we got locked out! That's how we've got more marine parks at Byron Bay, Port Stephens, and Batemans Bay. The Shooters Party doesn't and hasn't ever, represented NSW recreational fishers. They've only ever represented Labor and supported Marine Parks legislation. Recreational fishers won't ever vote for that! And certainly not at this election. They would have supported Labor in some backroom deal. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours! We can't support people who "lock us out and needlessly lock-up the environment for family recreational fishers!" So can they be trusted in the future?  Who knows?

[CEO]

Folks, it's now clear, the BENT record has  been straightened!

[SideCast]

Gentlemen,
I'm not here to get into a slinging match with anyone, so apologies for upsetting the sensibilities of anyone here as I seem to have.

The purpose of my post was to point out that The Shooters Party will not be giving preferences to anyone.  Unfortunately Robert Brown and TSP lead candidate, Roy Smith, are not available to address this themselves at the moment as they are out and about regional NSW on the campaign trail.     In regards to detailed matters of TSP policy, I will not presume to be party spokesman, I'm someone who organises meetings, volunteers and the distribution of election materials... however this does not preclude me from correcting blatant inaccuracies regarding preferrences.

I personally think it would be great idea if the political parties representing shooters and fishermen got together, however I doubt that this will be happening anytime just yet.   In my experience it seems that shooters are still considered to be lepers to quiet a few fishing groups.  A shame really, seeing that we have so much in common.  After all, those fishing for a feed are just underwater hunting.  If you think the Greens view recreational fishing differently to that of recreational hunting then I feel you would be gravely mistaken.   To my eyes recreational fishers are where shooters were 15-20 years ago.

Thankfully not all fishing groups have a negative view of their land based cousins.   

It would be great if the +1 million NSW recreational fishermen I keep hearing about were able to support TFP to the same extent as 170,000 odd licensed firearms owners in NSW support TSP, if they did then TFP would be unbeatable.    I wish TFP all the success in the world - really I do.  If TSP doesn't get up then it would be great to see either TFP or another party with the same goal in mind doing so,.... just as long as it's not the Greens.  There should be no reason that if TSP and TFP both had someone in the Upper House that they couldn't work together,... it would make practical sense to do so IMHO.   Unfortunately past elections show that the likelihood of having a TFP member elected is very remote.  Subsequently to my way of thinking, it is best putting a vote to where it can serve your interests best.

Regarding the list of well thought out questions posted by ACTAngler - I hope to have an answer from Robert or Roy shortly, however due to the election being almost upon us, and the fact that they are on a hectic schedule around the state until then, I cannot guarantee a reply in time.  I will do my best.

In the interim I will quote TSP policy - "Conservation & environment:  Environmental lasw should be framed with the regard to the greater good and not to placate a monority pressure viewpoint.  All law preserving the environment should recognise the need for compromise between responsible usage and development, and preservation for future generations."

"Marine Parks: The Shooters Party supports the protection of Marine Biodiversity.  However, methods of protection should only be put in place after proper scientific investigation, and meaningful consultation with all stakeholders.  Socio-economic impacts must be fully considered before declaration of any "no-take" zones".

Further information on TSP policy, including an article by Kaj Busch can be found at: 
http://www.ssaansw.org.au/SSAA%20team2007.htm
I urge all fishers to take the time and look it over.

[CEO]

                                                                   SHOOTERS  PARTY  SHOOT  THEMSELVES  IN  THE  FOOT  -  AGAIN!

 Poor old Sidecast. Shot himself in the foot, again. He says " other parties with an interest in fishing etc, only received approx a third of the vote of the Shooters Party at the last election - and that was when they combined their efforts."  It's patently obvious from that information, the Shooters Party  doesn't need the support of the states recreational fishers. And they aren't going to get it anyway. Any Party, like the Greens that supported Labor's marine park legislation in the Upper House, can't realistically expect ANYTHING from recreational fishers. Recreational fishers are very angry about that! If the Shooters Party supported recreational fishers, they would never have betrayed us and sold us out. They can't have it both ways! Without the Shooters Party support for Labor, we would not be enduring Labor's locked-up, locked-out marine parks today, at Byron Bay, Port Stephens and Batemans Bay! The Shooters Party are "johnny come latelys," after the recreational fishers vote. Bad luck fellas. You should have thought of the consequences BEFORE you voted with Labor & the Greens in the Upper House, to impose unnecessary, unscientific, unrealistic and untenable so called sanctuary zones on the one million NSW recreational fishers, their families and friends! And you have the hide to ask us to support you in the Upper House on 24th? You've got to be dreaming! Forget it Sidecast. You did your dash well and truly in 2000 when you betrayed one million of us. Move on.  You can't be trusted!   Overhead.
  PS Sidecast, this is not a "slinging match," nor a slanging match. You asked the question. We are replying in a frank, open and honest way. You need to understand and appreciate what recreational fishers think of your mob, after you betrayed us and sold us out, to the Greens. That is unforgiveable. Don't ever forget it!
  PPSS. And finally, your Shooters Party has a serious image problem among the wider community. ECOfishers won't be aligned with that either! So, back to your original question, "Why vote for the Shooters Party?" It's not even an issue for recreational fishers. WE WONT BE VOTING FOR OR SUPPORTING THE SHOOTERS PARTY! Got it!

[CEO]

 READING the second and third last paragraphs of the Shooters' Party's last post, concerning their "policy" and marine parks, I really have to wonder if they had honoured and adhered to their policy, how the hell could any one, honestly support Labor's marine park legislation? Or is it a case of publish one thing and do another? Anything for a deal with Labor!
                                                                               YOUR COMMENTS ENCOURAGED & INVITED.

[Spiney]

I personally think it would be great idea if the political parties representing shooters and fishermen got together, however I doubt that this will be happening anytime just yet.   In my experience it seems that shooters are still considered to be lepers to quiet a few fishing groups.  A shame really, seeing that we have so much in common.  After all, those fishing for a feed are just underwater hunting.  If you think the Greens view recreational fishing differently to that of recreational hunting then I feel you would be gravely mistaken.   To my eyes recreational fishers are where shooters were 15-20 years ago.

Nothing in common with me. Any fish I catch that is in excess to my need is released unharmed. I pose no danger to others pursuing my sport. I do not have to have my fishing gear licenced to protect it from criminal hands. The more the perceived image of recreational fishers can divorce itself from shooters the better.

Spiney

[maniak]

Hi all,
       I would point out that the sheer number alone of recreational fishers is the rescource that should be utilised. When the situation arises we shouldn't have to rely on preferences. It will take time and alot of work but the giant has awoken and is beginning to stir. If the funding available to organisations such as the NCC with 26 paid employees was available to ecofishers for example the job would be a fait acompli. I believe it is funding that is the critical point. money = power.
Maniak

[CEO]

  AND.....the clock is still ticking! Not much point in preaching to the converted, we still need to reach the "unconverted." And the clock is....

[maniak]

Yes, CEO.
            The clock is ticking and will continue to do so until tackle and bait companies or others with vested interests in the rec-fishing industry fishing come to the party and provide enough MONEY to allow a full time employed lobbyist to organise more funding to employ more fulltime lobbyists and so on and so on just like the green organisations do now.You will achieve much more than relying on the same few individuals to give up their free time for no pay. Fishers have the political power it just needs proper organisation and will.
Regards
ManiaK