The Recreational Fishing Licence (RFL) Debate.. YOUR THOUGHS PLEASE!

[Cossie]

G'day Everyone,

The RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCE debate has been simmering away for years now - for my experience, back into the mid 90's and Dave Donald recently wrote he has been a part of discussions on this way back into the mid/late 80's!

Its not new. What is new however is a verified surge of interest in RFL's within Government ranks. That's right, QFS - whether officially or otherwise - is interested in bringing RFL's to light.

Now, to the educated among us, that's a VERY SCARY PROPOSITION! I personally know that the Department is losing funding hand over fist, and as logic would dictate, the hands have got to come out of the pocket looking for more income, hence the Government's (somewhat clandestine) interest in the subject.

In short, if the Government can develop this RFL and impose it as they see fit, well.. er.. we're stuffed! Frankly, very little (of the income raised) might ever make it back into improving or protecting the fishery. Lets face it, thats what we - as conscientious stewards of our fisheries resources - are interested in, PROTECTING AND IMPROVING OUR FISHERY.

It's worth noting that the TOURISM fraternity, particularly that of North & Far North Queensland, need to stop riding on the back of our Fishery and get behind a common sense and unified approach to the long term sustainability of our Fisheries - becuase as the fishery improves, so will their income... conversely, as it wanes - well, you do the maths!

(SUSTAINABILITY - perhaps an overused, but rather poignant catchword, is part of a larger phrase 'ESD - Ecologically Sustainable Development', in laymans terms means: "preserving and improving our natural resources for current and future generations")

As many well-respected Recreational Fishers (Dave Donald; Kim Martin; Bill Bowtell; Warren Steptoe; John Mondora; and the list goes on) before me have stated, an RFL can be a blessing for all recreational fishers - IF its designed by fishers, for fishers. Meaning - you put some bucks in.. you get some more fish out.. simple philosophy! (and nobody can deny how well this philosophy works for Stocked Impoundments re the SIP Scheme.

I have penned an article covering RFL's - an issue that is rumbling like an grumpy Volcano with crook guts I might add(!)- which has appeared in two parts over the last 2 issues of Fish & Boat (Jul / Aug).

It has received quite a bit of feedback apparently, but I think this is the most relevant forum to seek the opinions of keen recreational fishers with a genuine interest in the North & Far North particularly (even though its a Statewide issue).

Later today I shall post a full copy of the article hereabouts (with the Editors permission):

PLEASE LEAVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THESE PAGES!

After all, what im keen to see is some kind of a unified approach by recreational fishers, as would many other motivated individuals.

Lets get motivated and pre-emptively organised on this subject, lest we face the Government beating us to the punch.. and if they do, it wont be just our noses that is bloodied, but the environs of our beloved fishery.

Cheers,

Cossie

[spoons]

Cossie,

Having once lived in NSW (shhh, keep that one quite, dont tell anyone) where RFLs are in use I would not have a problem paying for a licence IF:-
The money was used to improve facilities i.e. boat ramp pontoons, more FADs, research into sustainability, more inspectors (we might see one once in a blue moon), a more aggressive approach to illegal fishing activities from foreign countries (like shoot the bastards) and anything else that benefits us, as recreational fishermen, so we can enjoy our past time now and far into the future.

What should the fee be? Something affordable to everyone with the usual discounts to pensioners and kids (maybe free). Something that applies to every person who wants to fish in our waters - no exceptions.

Who should administer this licencing system? Perhaps the local fisheries department looks after their own little area with some input from local fishermen, provided the locals were not just rubber stamps for the department. Perhaps elected reps from local fishing clubs.

These are just a few quick thoughts on the subject. More to follow.

[Flying Ant]

Cossie, Great idea and you have my permission to go ahead with the full reprint.

I think there are an increasing amount of anglers out there that are looking at RFL's a little more seriously but it really does depend on just how it is structured (both on an organisational and financial side) and lets hope that this thread opens up that discussion.

[Scott NQ]

I'll support the licence to the conditions as spoons has listed above, that any and all monies raised through the scheme goes back into fisheries, research, buyback of commercial licenses (the right ones that will have the most impact, not licences that an old bloke has had for 50 years and never uses it), more inspectors, better facilities and most important of all, 100% transparency and accountability from the Govt, every year, incomings and outgoings should be made available to the pubilc so they can see where their money is going.

I too was a New South Welshman until I saw the light and moved north, about 2500km north in fact, and we had a Rec licence down there, the introduction did reduce participant numbers though, which inturn will lead to a smaller voice in the eyes of the Govt, not that what we have to say now has any bearing whatsoever. NSW licence is about $30 pa I think, which I think is reasonable

[Flying Ant]

Scott NQ and Spoons,
It is good to have input from you guys who have seen life from the other side. It is hard from someone like me who has spent his whole life in NQ to comment on what it would be like to have a RFL. You two have seen it implemented from the southern states so you both have some valuable input here.

[jamie]

hey guys.
im for the licence, BUT it should not be used for infrastructure like ramps pontoons etc the bloody gov should be paying for that as stated with our rise with rego

[Cossie]

G'day all,

many thanks for your continued input on this subject.

Please find the full article that appeared in the last 2 issues of Fish and Boat where I've attempted to demystify the science & mechanics behind a potential 'Fishers' RFL, and provided some ideas about effective management of such a thing.

Hi Scott NQ & Spoons. I think you guys are pretty well on the money, have a read of this following blurb and you will get an idea of my approach, which, I guess, comes from being a fisher since day dot, a keen sport fisher since I was a young buck, an EX Qld Fisheries Inspector (joined the job out of passion to make a positive difference for the next generation = my & your kids), and having studied Fisheries/Marine Resource Management at UQ.

You will note I make mention of improving facilities (such as boat ramps) in a separate than that which should benefit from RFL Funding. Specifically I said that all funds should go to protecting and improving the fishery (which by definition discludes the former).

Already, I can see that two really big side issues have opened up here as a result of discussion about RFLs so far, the first being that our Facilities - particularly Boat ramps and secondarily jetties suitable for fishing, are either poorly maintained or simply non-existent. I am 100% behind making as big a push as possible to rectify this, as I know many other well qualified, motivated and interested people would be. Again though, I see it as a separate issue.

The second big side-issue I see is the need for a unified forum of recreational fishers. This is the difficult one! (and potentially could see me writing about for many hours that I dont have!). Essentially, a number of state and national groups exist now but simply dont have the punch that big membership numbers provides. Look at the Lobby groups in the US.. the Government punches them in the nose.. and they punch back twice as hard! So how do we get to 'muscle up' here in Queensland?

Im not sure of the legal or constitutional issues created by suggesting that all purchasers of an RFL consider that part of their fee goes to purchasing membrship of a Recreational Fishers Orgaisation (eg. Sunfish; a Qld Fishing Party - Political; or an entirely new organisation run by a combination of new and well-experienced faces). Anyhow its worth thinking about. Even if the membership were to be complimentary with the purchase of the licence, then donations sought by members? My suspicion is that a fresh approach is warranted, but lets leave that up to the masses to ponder for now.

Perhaps the RFL will indirectly influence much needed development in fishing & boating infrastructure - by seeding a new Rec Fishers Organisation which puts pressure to bear on the Government to get our facilites right! I reckon that wouldnt be the only positive side-benefit!

Ok, I'll stop waxing lyrical and paste that article into my next post in a few minutes.

Cheers,
Cossie.

---

RECREATIONAL FISHING LICENCES (RFL's) - WHAT THEY ARE AND WHY WE NEED THEM: (Published in NQ Fish & Boat Magazine, July/August 2009).

1999: I remember when Stocked Impoundment Permits (SIP’s) became an impending reality. Arms were thrown in the air, angry debate raged over fishers’ rights and many believed that it would be the end of the world as they knew it - well, they were wrong!

I was lucky enough to be able to participate in a small way in the SIP education process way back then when I was studying Fisheries & Marine Resources Management at UQ. I remember travelling to various small communities and helping people to understand the mechanics of the SIP scheme and what positive outcomes they could expect from it and funnily enough, when it was demystified and people understood the benefits, they almost immediately developed a very positive outlook.

Ten years on and Queensland has the most amazing recreational impoundment fishery, which is producing life-long memories for so many people and generating an incredible amount of tourism revenue for our local economies.. and it keeps getting better!

2009: Enter the maturing Recreational Fishing Licence debate. Again the frantic types are jumping up and down but truly, there isn’t a darn thing that's repulsive about a Recreational Fishing Licence (RFL) when you understand the positive benefits they can potentially have for EVERY Queensland Fisher, if implemented and managed properly.

If you’re one of the many who are confused with all the politics and opinion on this subject that's bouncing around like tracer ricochets at the moment, then read on because I’m going to demystify the concept, mechanics and benefits of such a Licence in simple terms so hopefully you will have the ability to express your own opinions about RFL’s without having to rely on pub rumours and force fed opinions.


What is an RFL? The concept is that a Recreational Fishing Licence is legal Authority that you pay a fee for, which entitles you to engage in fishing in Queensland and take fish for your own consumption.

Should an RFL replace the Stocked Impoundment Permit scheme? I don't believe that an RFL should interfere with the SIP scheme. RFL’s should be required to fish in all Queensland waters except those that are subject to a SIP. Stocked impoundments are thriving and their management is very successful and they should be left well alone.

What is the philosophical basis of an RFL? There is a core philosophy in Fisheries Management that if you give a fisher a sense of ownership of the resource, it immediately bestows an improved sense of responsibility upon them to be a good steward of that resource.

I’ll put it this way, if Joe Bloggs – a relatively unconscientious recreational fisher – was on a fishing holiday to an interstate fishing haven (where no licences were required), do you think he would care nearly as much about how many fish he keeps, about how he treats the fish he releases & their survival rate, or his impact on that marine environment, compared to when he’s fishing in his own back yard? Do you think he would care more about how interstate fishers treated his local fishery, particularly if he had to pay a fee to fish, maintain and improve it?

Many have taken the position that being able to fish should be an unfettered right and not a privilege. Well I’m here to tell you that it is a privilege, and a privilege that many have worked bloody hard for to provide for the masses. An RFL is the individual’s material realisation of that privilege and should invoke pride of possession. Importantly, RFL’s should be revokable for the miserable minority who steal from the rest of us – yep, when you own part of a resource and someone else is knocking it off, they’re knocking off something of YOURS, something that you have tangible ownership of, remember that!

We all can take better care of our fisheries resources, we all can be more pro-active in protecting the resource from the pillaging minority, we all can stand up for our legal right to fish in our waters because, damn it, we’ve paid for the privilege and we won’t let others take it away without bloody good reason and science! Crikey, I was starting to climb up on my podium for a moment there!

So how can RFL’s benefit fishing in Queensland? The underlying goal is that revenue raised from RFL’s should go directly towards IMPROVING & PROTECTING THE FISHERY. This means that there should be more fish for you to catch. Achieving that goal can involve a number of significant measures, some of which I will list as follows.
• Buying out certain commercial fishing Licences: Fore mostly I believe all beam trawl licences should be bought out ASAP, despite their sunset clause (meaning they can’t be on sold, handed down to family, or fished by anyone else but the licence holder); in many places the gill-net and other commercial fisheries exist in conflict with recreational fishing also, so they are worth investigating further to determine what licences in what areas can be bought out fairly;
• Education & better signage: There is potential to support the Queensland Boating & Fisheries Patrol’s diminutive education budget. They do great work at schools, boat shows, regional shows and so on, on limited funds. Signage and educational ‘Interpretive’ displays could be further funded at boat ramps and popular fishing locations;
• Restocking waterways with native fish: This already occurs on a small scale but imagine if barra, jacks and other freshwater & saltwater species were restocked in big numbers on a widespread scale? I’m really excited about how much things could noticeably improve in less than ten years even!
• Improving / repairing fish habitat: Restoring damaged mangrove forests or wetlands; developing and improving fish ladders on existing dams & weirs; investigating and tackling water quality issues; fighting for the protection of and restoration of proper riparian vegetation etc;
• Increased funding for enforcement: This is a big one because from my experience, fisheries enforcement funding is grossly inadequate. I am particularly interested in seeing funding go to the QB & FP specifically to enable them to respond to callouts after hours. The number of reports that go to the Fishwatch Hotline, and aren’t followed up, is abhorrent. QB & FP Managers are faced with massive budgetary constraints that simply don't allow for Officers to be deployed after hours in all but the most explicit circumstances that near guarantee successful interception of offenders. Funding for extra patrolling of known problem areas should be supported by RFL income.

Some have suggested that certain funds could go to improving fishing facilities such as boat ramps and jetties and other peripheral things, but I don’t agree with that – as much as it's an important cause in its own right. Funding for these peripheral things should principally come from the Queensland Department of Tourism, Regional Development & Industry, local Governments and/or other State & Federal Government grants. I’m a firm believer that every cent not spent on administering the fund be spent on IMPROVING & PROTECTING THE FISHERY otherwise the impact of funds raised is at risk of becoming too diluted to be noticeably effective.

Who should be required to have an RFL? I believe that all people who fish in Queensland who are 16 years or over should have an RFL. I also believe that a concession rate of around 20% for 16 to 20 year olds and Pension Concession Card holders should exist.

Not everyone who fishes will be a happy to throw their own money into the kitty, but if those same folks consider the phenomenal amount of people who visit Queensland and fish our waters every year, particularly in north Queensland, surely they’d all love to see something in place to compel visitors to contribute financially, after all, they’re fishing our waters catching our fish! Well, same theory applies to all locals – you’re using a community owned resource so you should contribute.

Those who scream blue murder that they already pay their taxes, boat rego’s, blah blah have just got to stop and understand that those revenue streams are allocated to other things. The Government simply doesn't allocate enough revenue towards fixing and improving our fisheries – so we have to – but importantly it must and should only occur in a way that benefits fishers, not bureaucrats.

How much could we expect to pay? An RFL shouldn’t be a significant financial imposition, after all many of us are struggling as it is. However, if you ‘take’ then you could ‘put back’ and if we all put something financially tangible back into the fishery then the gross revenue could be more than meaningful (the put and take concept works extremely well for our stocked impoundments). I believe that around $50 per year for individuals (that's merely the cost of just a four lures!) and around $100 per year for a family of two adults and up to two 16-20 year olds.

Some might say it’s cheaper in other states, others may say SIP’s cost much less than that - but other states have less to lose and there are limited funding priorities for Stocked Impoundments as nearly all free revenue is spent on restocking. Rivers, estuaries, bays and wetlands are environments with much more complex issues, both environmental and sociological. When you consider the variety of ways listed in this article that we can spend the money to improve the fishery, it makes sense that the financial requirement to achieve these things will be a somewhat greater. We also need to consider setting the fee in concrete for a period of say ten years so it can’t be increased in some ad hoc fashion.

I’d like to add that if anyone reckons I have no idea what it’s like to do it tough and try to find another $50 or so bucks a year then you better think twice, enough said.

How could RFL’s be structured and managed? Some of the things I’m hearing make me wonder if people forget that there is an exceptionally good template for this Licence already in place – the Stocked Impoundment Permit.

I believe, as for the SIP, there should be an Annual RFL and a Periodic RFL (of one week’s duration to be fair to holiday makers and people who fish once in a blue moon). The temporary RFL could be around 30% of the annual fee and be in the form of a paper permit that MUST be carried when you are fishing, exactly as for the SIP.

The annual RFL, however, could be paperless – another cost effective measure! Once you pay the fee you are issued with a receipt, then your details are entered into a database (updated weekly) with the Queensland Fisheries Service so all your local Fisheries Inspector has to do is identify you then check the database – either while they’re with you or when they get back to the office – simple! I don't believe fishers should have the imposition of having to carry a physical licence every time they fish – it’s worth noting that if you are required to carry it, you are committing an offence if you don't carry it. I for one don't want that worry just because I couldn't find my RFL that morning, or left it at home or whatever. If I’ve paid for it, and it can be checked up on, that should be good enough. Some in enforcement circles might reasonably suggest you carry ID when fishing.

Ideally you would purchase your RFL from any of a variety of sources such as Australia Post, your local Queensland Boating & Fisheries Patrol Office, tackle shops and specific stores, fuel stations or Police Stations in remote areas.

Will the Government get to spend our RFL funds on other things? No, they shouldn't. As for Stocked Impoundment Permits, the money needs to be managed independently as a standalone purse, not merely rolled into the Government coffers. That should be easy to achieve given the SIP template. Ideally the money would be securely located in an interest earning Trust Fund (or similar) and disbursed periodically to beneficial projects.

The SIP scheme has a maximum limit of 25% of funds raised that can be utilised to manage it. There should also be a limit to the administrative fees payable on managing the RFL also which would be better set at 20%, given the greater total amount of revenue that would be raised. I got to the end of writing this article then read John Mondora’s article in May’s Fish & Boat, rang him, and as a result wanted to add that the 25% allowable for administrative fees of the SIP scheme is set in Legislation to protect it from greedy hands who might seek to raise it then siphon off the dollars – thanks John. I believe that needs to occur for RFL’s also.

How could the money be spread fairly across Queensland? My suggestion and I believe this is logical (which might not work for Government!), is that the money is distributed equally between these major Queensland bioregions: Far north-east Queensland; north-east Queensland; Central-east Queensland; Central Queensland; West Queensland; and South-east Queensland. I’ve included a map showing these regions. I believe they provide an excellent balance of population distribution vs. fishing effort & other pressures - so funds are effectively disbursed.

To determine how the money is spent in each bioregion, community consultation should occur on an annual basis (through something as simple and cost effective as an online feedback form, or the establishment of Locked Mail Bags in each bioregion for the submission of printed feedback forms which can be made available at all RFL purchase points, saving mail out costs). Naturally the feedback of non-Government organisations such as stocking groups, fishing clubs, Indigenous communities; environmental restoration groups for example and regional offices of Government groups such as Fisheries Research, Queensland Boating & Fisheries Patrol, the Environmental Protection Agency and the like would carry relative weight.

I support ensuring that the democratic right for every person to have their say regarding ongoing funding be guaranteed, so that all the input doesn't come only from well organised stakeholder groups or significant individuals of any given region. This feedback can then be collated and scrutinised to determine funding priorities in each bioregion.

Who should manage the disbursement of RFL funds? I believe that there should be one (1) ‘Committee’ of individuals to manage the fund who would get together annually to decide on what specific projects the money should be spent in each coming year.

The individuals with the Authority to make funding decisions could – and in reality, should – include: A representative of Recfish; a representative of Sunfish; a Fisheries Manager from Queensland Fisheries Service; a completely independent Fisheries Management expert (e.g. from the Australian Maritime College); and a Fish Habitat expert (such as a senior Marine Biologist from JCU).

Separate from this I think that a supplementary group of Individuals could exist in unison to provide advice only to the decision makers, and could include: an Officer of the Queensland Boating & fisheries Patrol; a representative of the Queensland Commercial Fishermans Organisation (essential for working with the Commercial Sector to identify & work through the buying back of commercial fishing licences); and a representative of the Queensland Fishing Tackle Retailers Association (among limited potential others).

It’s fair to summarise that too many cooks spoil the broth. The one Management Committee should be able to make funding decisions for all bioregions. Within each bioregion every person or group should have the right to provide input to the Committee, thereby negating the desire of every type of stakeholder in every bioregion to be represented on separate regional sub-committee’s.

Are there any other issues? There will be plenty of concern raised as to as to how we can ensure that the funds sit over and above existing Government Fisheries funding, rather than becoming an excuse for the Government to rely on RFL income and thereby reduce their input to Fisheries below existing poor levels even. I suspect that something will need to be written into any Legislation governing RFL’s that sets minimum levels of Government Fisheries funding, if at all possible.

Also, I believe that the one licence should cover all saltwater and (non SIP managed) freshwater fishing activities. Funding disbursement should be applicable to supporting restocking and fish habitat improvement in both environs equally to the benefit of people who specialise in one or the other, given that most native species move from the salt to the fresh at differing stages of their life cycles. Improve one and by default, you help improve the other. Separating the Licence would risk creating issues of enforcement (e.g. in brackish zones) and unnecessary confusion amongst average fishers.

In conclusion: Where the issue of Recreational Fishing Licenses has become confusing for the average fisherman is in argument over the mechanics of RFL’s and whether there is actually gain in the concept for fishers versus Government. I will reiterate that the Stocked Impoundment Permit scheme has been a wonderful success and it serves as a perfect template for RFL’s which could enjoy the same success. Many good people put a fantastic amount of effort into developing that template, so let’s not forget their fantastic efforts or that they’ve paved the way for us to purchase ourselves a potentially stunning recreational fishery for just a small annual investment.

Let’s get positive about RFL’s – our fishing future depends on it!

Cheers & good fishing,

Cossie

[Scott NQ]

(08-11-2009 08:27 PM)jamie Wrote:  hey guys.
im for the licence, BUT it should not be used for infrastructure like ramps pontoons etc the bloody gov should be paying for that as stated with our rise with rego

Yes I agree with that, but how long has it been since the Govt forked out for ramps etc in Queensland, let alone NQ? They increase our rego but we get nothing, sounds like a private health fund to me, they put up the fees, but take away the benefits. At least the RFL will be money raised by fisho's , for fisho's, another step that may just be a pipe dream, but if fisho's are funding new facilities, then fisho's should be able to take advantage of them FOC, those that don't have a RFL will have to pay a fee to use the facilities, say like $5 a boat per day, soon people who don;t like fishing will be getting an RFL just for the ramps, which can only make our participation rates look better and give us more clout. No idea how that would be funded or policed, but it seems like sly underhanded technique we are all familiar with, after all, how many times has every level of Govt done something similar to us?

[Cossie]

Here's the map I created that I refer to in the article.

Cossie.

[Leakerty Split]

[i]Giday All,

Cossie, I think the RFL is something we rec fishers will see come to fruition within a few years....the difference in the 'debate' on the RFL this time, as opposed to others as stated over the past 20 years or so, is the fact that this time round, the groundswell of support of the implementation has come from the rec fishers themselves. We all know of the lip service given in the past was just that........ at the time, the pollies wanted nothing to do with an RFL as it would be political suicide for that party to implement such an unpopular impost on the voting Qld fishers, the rec fisher 'leaders' & fishermen themselves as always - very disorganised & wouldn't know where to start anyway, a couple of goes at getting a fishing political party off the ground was ultimately sabotaged by the 'greeens' (the very people who should be helping with sustainability issues), there are always the knockers & doubting joe's...so it's pretty fair to say that in the past, any moves to get a RFL in place has been nothing short of a disorganised, non-unified rabble.

I became involved in the RFL issue through dealings with Kim Martin & Bill Bowtell some time ago & I gotta admit I'm pretty disappointed at progress to date – particularly after the recent State Election. Both Kim & Bill did a lot of hard yards prior to the election, lobbying Local MP’s Schwarten & Hoolihan as well as other interested parties ie. fishing clubs/groups etc. The MP’s have been a little quiet of late but (pardon the pun) I guess they’ve got bigger fish to fry with the impending fallout through Mrs Bligh wanting to sell off State assets. Bill Bowtell even flew to Brisbane with a local commercial fisher to have an audience with the Minister & in hindsight; this may have been a waste of plane fares & their valuable time for all the good it did. Part of my involvement was emailing a large cross-section of people to gauge the perceptions & reception of a RFL should one be invoked. From feedback I received, I can categorically state that if my little survey represented the wider rec fishing community & in a perfect world, than around 97% would support the concept to some degree. However with a purported 850,000 rec fishers, it’s nearly impossible to gauge the sentiment of the whole state……But nearly all feedback I’ve received has been positive.

A lot of what you say in the July/August editions of NQF&B has already been said. See “Rec Fishers Save Sustainability of East Coast Fishery” on page 2 of General News/Announcements in this forum. It has been one of the biggest threads to date with 101 replies & about 2,280 odd views. That says a lot about the passion some people have on this subject. Incidentally, I fundamentally agree with all you’ve written to date & I’m sure you’ll agree with what I’m on about also. My passion is the continued sustainability of the industry as a whole & if that requires a RFL for rec anglers, then bring it on. The commercial backyard will also need to be revisited again as the last round of rule changes implemented by fisheries managers have done naught in helping augment sustainability of species targeted within the fishery.

One thing I note that is never mentioned nor discussed in the RFL saga is the management &/or administration of the RFL when it happens. These issues will need to be addressed at some stage & unless some homework is done, when the time comes, we’ll all look like the unprofessional rabble we’ve been in recent years.

There are 2 small hurdles I see in getting the RFL up & running:
First is the initial financial outlay that will be needed & second will be suitably qualified personnel to administer & manage such a venture. It's all well & good touting the benefits of a RFL without some consideration of whom will operate it.

It has to be set right from the outset as once there is a RFL, that's it......no licence - no fishing. In my dealings with the general populace re this very matter, it's all too common to hear "Yeah I'd support a RFL - as long as.............!!!!!!". Support must be unconditional & that's why it needs to be setup correctly.

Cheers,

Leakerty.