Criminal, Pro Fisher or Rec Fisher?

[Tacklebags 404]

Why specify this bloke didn't have a recreational licence? This bloke didn't have a commercial licence either but that wasn't stated in this article from the VIC fisheries department?Should both media and gov departments be asked to explain their reasons for linking these actions with recreational fishers?We all know how such terminology gets twisted by the conservation groups etc....http://www.dpi.vic.gov.au/about-us/news/media-releases/category/fisheries/derrimut-man-jailed-for-abalone-theftTB

[urhookedfish 12]

Hi TBmI'm sure its not intended to bring dis-repute to rec anglers, they are just pointing out that he had neither a rec or commercial license.In Victoria as you know recs are required to pay an annual fishing license. He failed to pay.Had he had a recreational license and had he not been banned for previous offences, he as a recreational fisherman would have been able to take x number of abolone provided it was from a legal location to take said abolone.So to use a similar analagy this is like the police saying he was unregistered, that is all.In my opinion even with them mentioning this, it doesnt bring harm to rec anglers as he was clearly operating outside of the scope of a recreational license. Brett.

[Tacklebags 404]

Hi TBmI'm sure its not intended to bring dis-repute to rec anglers' date=' they are just pointing out that he had neither a rec or commercial license.In Victoria as you know recs are required to pay an annual fishing license. He failed to pay.Had he had a recreational license and had he not been banned for previous offences, he as a recreational fisherman would have been able to take x number of abolone provided it was from a legal location to take said abolone.So to use a similar analagy this is like the police saying he was unregistered, that is all.In my opinion even with them mentioning this, it doesnt bring harm to rec anglers as he was clearly operating outside of the scope of a recreational license. Brett.[/quote']I understand your perspective but read this section quoted below....

No invertebrates, including abalone, can be taken from water less than two metres deep in Port Phillip Bay."Fisheries Officers will continue to respond to major breaches of fisheries regulations that threaten the sustainability of Victoria's fisheries."This is a strong reminder to all recreational anglers that breaches can result in serious outcomes," he said.

This is unacceptable because....1) Whether you have a rec licence or not in Port Phillip Bay is irrelevant in waters less than 2 meters for abalone.2) Regarding that last statement, this bloke was not a non licenced rec fisher or a licenced rec fisher he was a criminal.TB

[jaffa 81]

Afternoon all, come on TB, I know you`re anti everything commercial but be "objective". The laws that he broke were fishing without a RECREATIONAL licence,fishing in a prohibited area,exceeding the RECREATIONAL catch limit & breaching previously imposed court orders for the same offences. Geez, man you been watching too much Democrat hype from America or something. They claimed this morning that Republicans attacking Susan Rice, the UN ambassador, for her incompetence for putting out a phoney/doctored report about what went down at the Libyan embassy where the American ambassador & 3 other Americans were killed (so as not to harm Obama`s chances of re-election) was code for "sexism" & "racism". Just about as big a stretch as what you`re alluding to IMO. How about attacking the guy with the same enthusiasm as you would have if he`d been a commercial fisherman doing the wrong thing. Take the blinkers off occasionally at least. Cheers ppl.

[Just Me 0]

"Fisheries Victoria Regional Fisheries Officer, Paul Millar said the man was previously subject to a five-year court order that meant he was not allowed to be in possession of abalone or be within 1km of marine or estuarine waters until 2015."Whether he had a license or not is redundant, he was not allowed to be in possession at all.Your question TB is a fair one.

[Tacklebags 404]

Afternoon all' date=' come on TB, I know you`re anti everything commercial but be [b']"objective"[/b]. The laws that he broke were fishing without a RECREATIONAL licence,fishing in a prohibited area,exceeding the RECREATIONAL catch limit & breaching previously imposed court orders for the same offences. Geez, man you been watching too much Democrat hype from America or something. They claimed this morning that Republicans attacking Susan Rice, the UN ambassador, for her incompetence for putting out a phoney/doctored report about what went down at the Libyan embassy where the American ambassador & 3 other Americans were killed (so as not to harm Obama`s chances of re-election) was code for "sexism" & "racism". Just about as big a stretch as what you`re alluding to IMO. How about attacking the guy with the same enthusiasm as you would have if he`d been a commercial fisherman doing the wrong thing. Take the blinkers off occasionally at least. Cheers ppl.

I am not condoning his actions in any way and your assertion that I am because he didn't have a commercial licence is untrue.I have stuck up for commercial fishermen especially regarding MPA's on many occasions. In many instances it is the relevant authorites lack of management which has resulted in poor environmental outcomes and % allocation of marine resources for rec fishers not the pro fishers themselves.Jaffa, you will have to do better than a strawman argument.TB

[jaffa 81]

The article said "man" jailed for abalone theft did it not? It did not say commercial fisherman jailed for abalone theft which I`m sure it would have had he been commercial. So if he wasn`t a commercial fisherman HE WAS A RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN WAS HE NOT ? and he was fined/jailed for fishing without a rec licence, exceeding the rec limit, taking abalone from a prohibited zone & breaching court ordered penalties for the same offences. END OF STORY. It was reported CORRECTLY.

[Tacklebags 404]

The article said "man" jailed for abalone theft did it not? It did not say commercial fisherman jailed for abalone theft which I`m sure it would have had he been commercial. So if he wasn`t a commercial fisherman HE WAS A RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN WAS HE NOT ? and he was fined/jailed for fishing without a rec licence' date=' exceeding the rec limit, taking abalone from a prohibited zone & breaching court ordered penalties for the same offences. END OF STORY. It was reported [u']CORRECTLY.[/u]

So you see any 'non' commercial fisheries crime as being conducted by 'recreational fishers' not by 'criminals' even in a state where both sectors require a licence? IMHO there are commercial fishers, rec fishers and criminals that should not be classified publicly as either sector.End of story!TB

[weaver 271]

End of story!

Hooray Hahahahaha

[jaffa 81]

Evening ppl, TB, don`t try & wiggle out of it by diverting the subject, yes the guy is a criminal but he is also a RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN. You tried to imply that all rec fishers are somehow damaged by the story & should be able to get compensation (on the other website) for the manner in which it was reported. Hooey, by that logic then all "men" should be angry & deserve compo coz their integrity & ethics have also been questioned by the story not saying "person" instead of man? And I`m the one with "Strawman argument". Have said it before & will say it again, "There are none so blind as them that will not see." You & everyone else destroy any credibility you may have or had when you are not OBJECTIVE. Anything that you perceive as contrary to your standpoint you rubbish & refuse to admit you got it wrong. Why don`t we poll it & see? & that will end the story. Cheers all.

[Just Me 0]

The guys a thieving dog. He is not not a rec fisher, he a criminal gathering and most likely selling illegal abalone.He's no more a rec fisher than a syndicate of hydroponic dope growers are horticulturists.

[kon 300]

People...with respect, I fail to pick up on the semantics which have generated this rather esoteric discussion!"The man was interviewed and admitted taking 20 abalone – he also did not hold a valid recreational fishing licence."Shows a complete disregard of the law by the individual and restates to everyone that a recfishing licence is required. Thus it made the offences even worse for that reason alone. Don`t see a problem there.Mr Millar said as well as the jail sentence the man was fined $1000 for not having his recreational fishing licence and taking invertebrates from the inter-tidal zone.Restates a recfishing licence requirement again and refers to more lawbreaking by the individual. Once again, no issue there."Fisheries Officers will continue to respond to major breaches of fisheries regulations that threaten the sustainability of Victoria's fisheries.A proforma warning to all, nothing snide or subliminal..."This is a strong reminder to all recreational anglers that breaches can result in serious outcomes," he said.In other words - do the right thing, in all respects, we are highlighting this case because of its severity, etc.I honestly cannot see the problem here folks...time for I think...

[Tacklebags 404]

Evening ppl' date=' TB, don`t try & wiggle out of it by diverting the subject, yes the guy is a criminal but he is also a RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN. You tried to imply that all rec fishers are somehow damaged by the story & should be able to get compensation (on the other website) for the manner in which it was reported. Hooey, by that logic then all "men" should be angry & deserve compo coz their integrity & ethics have also been questioned by the story not saying "person" instead of man? And I`m the one with "Strawman argument". Have said it before & will say it again, "There are none so blind as them that will not see." You & everyone else destroy any credibility you may have or had when you are not OBJECTIVE. Anything that you perceive as contrary to your standpoint you rubbish & refuse to admit you got it wrong. Why don`t we poll it & see? & that will end the story. Cheers all.[/quote']I never said we deserve compensation Jaffa, just a fair definition of terms and the right to be seen as seperate from career criminals in the media/public. I think Just Me's last post explains my initial point perfectly.TB

[jagger 24]

End of story!

Hooray Hahahahaha

[Just Me 0]

Again, the fact he does not have a rec license is redundant simply for the fact he is not allowed within 1klm of marine or estuarine waters. How the fork in hell is an RFL gonna help him in that case? It's simply another offence thus fine to add to his tally.I'm off to grab a bottle of plonk.

[jaffa 81]

Evening ppl, TB you are unreal. these are your words are they not? "Shouldn't we as recreational fishing stakeholders who seek to remian legal in our actions and public perception have a legitmate case against the media or any fisheries department who press releases such definitions?" YES or NO. You feel your image,integrity & ethics were questioned by the story saying the "man" was a RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN? HE WAS PROSECUTED FOR NOT HAVING A RECREATIONAL LICENCE,EXCEEDING REC BAG LIMITS, fishing in a prohibited zone, & breaching court imposed orders for the same offences previously. I agree the man is a CRIMINAL LOW-LIFE, but no matter how you look at it he is STILL A RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN, what are you saying ,that the truth can`t be printed coz it offends YOU. Give me a break here. Hell I don`t feel any shame from the reporting in that article & I`m a RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN, coz I don`t hold a commercial licence & I fish. I don`t feel slagged,misrepresented,tarnished or in anyway associated with career criminals by the reporting in that article so if you do IMO you`re being just a little over sensitive. Cheers

[jaffa 81]

SO TB, was that a yes,you did say we should "HAVE A LEGITIMATE CASE AGAINST THE MEDIA",does that not mean you think your reputation has been harmed by that story & you think you should be compensated for it? YES OR NO. Don`t beat around the bush or try to divert/beat up what I said & you said. THE STORY WAS ENTIRELY FACTUAL. It stated what he was prosecuted & jailed for TRUTHFULLY. YES OR NO. Straight answer, no more politician type ducking & weaving. YES OR NO.!!!Cheers ppl.

[Just Me 0]

Steeple Jack Shiraz 2010, $8, nice tannins, lingering mellow flavours, goes down nice/If i get busted speeding in my Clubsport does that make me a V8 Supercar driver?

[Jack. 10]

Why not ;)My view;The story is factual and there does not appear to be any Rec bashing by the journo.The fact is though, that had the clown held a rec license, he would have still been breaking the law. I get that TB.I would also conclude that the amount of abalone and the prior convictions suggest a criminal venture... Ie Illegal commerce... Ie commercial activity (illegal).You could make an argument that the fella was not a recreational angler. So when it comes to tacking on an extra fine.... The fisheries could likely have gone down the unlicensed commercial fisho track.The trouble with that is the commercial activity point of sale wasn't legal, and probably not known.So for ease of admin, and not in error, the authorities have gone for an easy no rec licence fine.Hey, the dude is not a fisho... Rec or commercial... Just a crim ;)The fact that there's mention of rec fishos in the story is just as unfortunate as it would be to mention commercial fishos.Not defamatory or insulting in my opinion.... Just unfortunate :(Cheers

[silaflex 103]

If i get busted speeding in my Clubsport does that make me a V8 Supercar driver?

No' date=' but if your Clubsport wasn't registered when you got done, even though the fact you aren't registered does not affect you getting busted for speeding, you [i']will[/i] get busted for an unregistered vehicle as well. And if you ran someone over and killed them while you were speeding, the newspaper report would say "Speeding unregistered driver kills pedestrian"

[Just Me 0]

...the newspaper report would say "Speeding unregistered driver kills pedestrian...

...then reverses over the victim, chucks it into 1st, drops the clutch amd does a burn out on his head".

[jaffa 81]

Hey ppl, my contention is the article was factual, he was a "man". He fished, so he`s a fisherman, & he did not hold a commercial licence at the time. SO HE IS A RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN at that point, correct or not? Then comes the offending, which makes him a criminal as well. So what the hell do you classify him as that won`t offend other sections of society, by TB`s logic if you call him a "person" then women will be offended & so on & so on. What TB is trying to gain support for (Action against the media as he put it) is story tampering/media censorship & contravenes my & everyone else`s civil rights. Last time I looked this was a free country where everyone is entitled to their opinion & we have "Freedom of the Press" right? So in trying to get support for altering the "definitions"/"classification" of the individual concerned he is attempting to tamper with everyone`s civil rights to read whatever they want/freedom of the press/express and or form their own opinion on topical articles, purely because it offends him or contradicts his own ideology/agenda. I for one am offended by this but I haven`t sought to suppress his viewpoint by proposing he be censored or that what he wrote be altered or tampered with. He dug the hole & is doing everything possible to back away from what he said originally. He seems IMO to have an obsession with pushing the RECREATIONAL FISHING/FISHERMAN BARROW at all costs & my argument is not at the cost of my civil rights. All I want is ppl to be objective & take the blinkers off occasionally, it destroys individual credibility to post crap that is not factual,truthful in the pursuit of pushing one`s own barrow/agenda. Cheers

[Jack. 10]

Hey ppl' date=' my contention is the article was factual, he was a "man". He fished, so he`s a fisherman, & he did not hold a commercial licence at the time. SO HE IS A RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN at that point...[/quote']Incorrect. He holds neither a Commercial Licence or a Recreational Licence.So to be pedantic about it.... The only correct statement is that he was a fisherman/poacher/illegal fisherman/ unlicensed fisherman/criminal.To use the term Recreational Fisherman, the article is (likely inadvertently) placing the man in a legally defined group within the subject state. Playing devils advocate, an entity with Recreational Fishing/ers in its title, could have argument that the term Rec. Fisherman has legal definition in that state, therefore it was inappropriately suggested that the man was a Rec Fisherman.Here in SA, there is no such legal definition. IE no licence requirement that outlines the activity, so recreational fisherman means no more that it's dictionary definition at best.Regardless though, I can't see any deliberate sinister intent by the media in this case.

[4THALOVE 45]

Just a straight out criminal ,was fishing with out a license which is required to be a recreational fisherman in Vic.Magnanimous ,incomprehensible and onion are my three big letters I want to add so I look a tad smarter hope that helps Justme your answers have me in raptures ,classic Cheers 4THA

[Ugly4Life 41]

Sorry Jaffa, I am a little concerned about what your agenda is here? Forgive me if I am judging you a little harshly but it seems you're less concerned about the article itself and more concerned about what TB has to say about the article (which as you've pointed out, everyone has a right to their own opinion).

Hey ppl' date=' my contention is the article was factual, he was a "man". He fished, so he`s a fisherman, & he did not hold a commercial licence at the time. SO HE IS A RECREATIONAL FISHERMAN at that point, correct or not?[/quote']I'd say incorrect. To be classified as a Recreational Fisherman in Victoria you need to hold a Recreational Fishing Licence. Otherwise you are a poacher.

Then comes the offending, which makes him a criminal as well. So what the hell do you classify him as that won`t offend other sections of society

A poacher.

Poaching is the illegal taking of wild plants or animals; the law concerned may be e.g. the law of property or local or international conservation and wildlife management laws. Violations of hunting laws and regulations are normally punishable by law and' date=' collectively, such violations are known as poaching.[/quote']

What TB is trying to gain support for (Action against the media as he put it) is story tampering/media censorship & contravenes my & everyone else`s civil rights. Last time I looked this was a free country where everyone is entitled to their opinion & we have "Freedom of the Press" right?

Yes, you're right. We do have freedom of press in this country. However if the press reports something that blatantly goes against hard facts or is deliberately misleading then I see no problem in questioning them.Whether or not that's the case with this story comes down to personal opinion I think.

So in trying to get support for altering the "definitions"/"classification" of the individual concerned he is attempting to tamper with everyone`s civil rights to read whatever they want/freedom of the press/express and or form their own opinion on topical articles, purely because it offends him or contradicts his own ideology/agenda.

Disagree and I think you're taking it entirely too far, but that's my opinion. By your logic there, I would be tampering with your civil rights if I attempted to get a page promoting pedophilia removed from Facebook.

I for one am offended by this but I haven`t sought to suppress his viewpoint by proposing he be censored or that what he wrote be altered or tampered with. He dug the hole & is doing everything possible to back away from what he said originally. He seems IMO to have an obsession with pushing the RECREATIONAL FISHING/FISHERMAN BARROW at all costs & my argument is not at the cost of my civil rights.

Again, I see no civil rights violations here. As far as I can see, TB has taken issue with they way Rec Anglers were portrayed in the original article (I take a little bit of offence at being lumped in with a crim as well) and that's his civil right, as you so nicely pointed out above. If he wants to seek action against the media outlet, he's within his rights and he's not violating yours whether you disagree with him or not.

All I want is ppl to be objective & take the blinkers off occasionally, it destroys individual credibility to post crap that is not factual,truthful in the pursuit of pushing one`s own barrow/agenda. Cheers

You haven't taken your own blinkers off here, or at least you have an opinion and you're sticking to it, exactly the same as TB.I don't want to seem like I am totally ripping on you and siding solely with TB but when I see your calls for objectivity after reading everything else you've posted in this thread my brain goes, "Whoa! Hold on a second!"

[jaffa 81]

Evening all, OK. Prepared to concede that in the state the offence took place he is not a rec fisherman coz he did not hold a rec fishing licence but he was prosecuted for failing to get a rec fishing licence, & yes "U4L" the word "poacher" is spot on. I don`t agree that aspersions were cast on Rec Fisho`s however. I also don`t see how Rec Anglers were portrayed in an unfavourable light in the article when all that was said is that breaches will result in serious outcomes. Nor do I see how you can take offence at being "lumped in with a crim". If a man is booked for whatever crime you feel some/any offence when the media reports it coz you`re being lumped in with crim`s. Just can`t get my head around that one I`m afraid. "U4L", removing "pages promoting paedophilia from Facebook" couldn`t infringe my civil rights coz it`s illegal & shouldn`t be there in the first place & besides I`m not on Facebook & NO I don`t think ill of you for judging me harshly,you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I still believe the article was factually correct & as it did not call him a rec fisherman it merely stated what he was prosecuted/jailed for, they did not in this case report anything that was blatantly incorrect either, yes TB is within his rights to take action against the media outlet if he chooses, but they`ll laugh if he does. Happy to stand corrected ppl. The guy was jailed for breaching the Recreational Fishing Act & as a poacher he got entirely what he deserved. Yes I concede having re-read all that I posted I was not entirely objective either,but I still believe that story tampering/ censorship breaches everyone`s civil rights if in fact that was TB`s intent.(which I guess I`ll never know, will I?) Cheers.

[Ugly4Life 41]

If a man is booked for whatever crime you feel some/any offence when the media reports it coz you`re being lumped in with crim`s. Just can`t get my head around that one I`m afraid.

Well' date=' for example: A man is arrested for going to peoples houses and presenting himself as a 'plumber'. He has no licence and no qualifications. The headline should not read, "Plumber fined for not having qualifications." or anything similar because the man has no association with real plumbers. It should read, "Con artist scamming people by pretending to be plumber" or something like that. Neither should the story contain a warning such as, "The federal plumbers association chief warns all plumbers to make sure their qualifications are up to date." because this guy is [u']not[/u] a plumber and has no association with them. Do you get me? The man in that story has no association with me. I am a recreational fisherman and he is a poacher, hence there should be no mention of recreational fishermen in that story, only poachers. There should be a warning saying, "You bloody poachers better watch out because we'll get you." not, "Recreational fishers are warned to make sure they have licenses."This is all getting down to semantics and personal opinion now and like Jack said, I am fairly certain that it's all inadvertent, but I just wanted to illustrate how a story like that could offend someone like me by 'lumping me in' with a criminal.

[jaffa 81]

Yeah, "U4L" I do get it. I have buried the hatchet with TB elsewhere, as he has conceded some of the stuff he posted was not exactly correct or written poorly as well. Cheers.

[Tacklebags 404]

Sorry I didn't get the time to post on here as well earlier...kids kept me busy.Jaffa certainly got me thinking this arvo that's for sure!I think the title and content of my first post was terrible in hindsight and for that I apologise. I don't want to advocate media censorship like some marxist and my advocacy for rec fishing gives me no right to imply that this would be acceptable. I can see how people would have seen my post in such a manner and taken offence.As a relatively young bloke its all a learning experience that 'hopefully' will sink in so I can become one of those old n wise coots later.... :whistle: Sorry for stirring up the masses...again!TB

[jaffa 81]

All good TB,having re-read all of it I did go overboard & I concede in the state the offence was committed he was technically not a REC FISHO at the time, I also accept that you were not advocating media tampering/censorship. Likewise I will attempt to fish & chill more. Apologies ppl.

[Ranger 48]

[Fishie 98]

What happened to the good ol days when us men just gave a good firm handshake and made up.. Geez! Now we're expected to give each other a girly hug and a quick cuddle :ohmy: :S :whistle: :whistle: