Jump to content

Port Stanvac Jetty - Do You Want it Open to Recreational Fishing


Pt Stanvac Jetty - Do you want it open to rec fish  

3 members have voted

  1. 1. Pt Stanvac Jetty - Do you want it open to rec fish

    • Yes, I would
      88
    • No, I would not
      37


Recommended Posts

Someone here before mentioned about the local council of onkaparinga city maintaining the jetty ,that is a big ask for a council although the size is large there is a lot of infastructure already to maintain.The council already maintians the osullies boat ramp even though it is owned by the dtri ,some say a levy for fishers to use it, what would be considered as a fair amount to charge ?Remembering that the structure must be maintained ,if you have a security guard there he must be paid ,there will be liability insurance in case said fisher hurts themself and tries to sue the council ,how do you protect the jetty from vandals ,you cant have security 24 /7 the cost would be prohibative ,police will do some patrols but cant be there all the time .What will it cost to bring it back into service and what modifications /changes will be need ed to get it to a satisfactory condition ,i see a lot of talk about what fish species that live there and what would happen to them but remember before you can charge a cent for anyone to fish of it there is likely to be a massive outlay to get it up and running for a minority group .The idea seen in the buselton jetty is a good one and if something like that could be done it would go a long way to help sway the councils descision i beleive ,i dont know if the state government is interested in assisting in this endevour a slice of 40 million would have gone a long way to help in this project but its better we get people across the torrens quicker and back to the casino after the footy and cricket ,i doubt i will ever use the bridge to knowhere but thats another story .I beleive that without state government assistance and a united front by all the fishing groups and bodies that this will ever get anywhere ,as i dont beleive the council would or have the funds required to go it alone ,but we shall wait and see . ,

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 161
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

G'day All (and not just Rec Fishers like me)As Mobil complete the remediation of the land, a Master Plan for future development of the land and its infrastructure will have to be developed. For such a

just 9 more no's...... :PSeriously, I wouldn't want it open for rec fishing. In a week or two the place would be raped.I reckon the below water structure should be left and open it to diving, that way

Posted Images

without state government assistance and a united front by all the fishing groups and bodies that this will ever get anywhere

I agree! If thats an offer of support then please direct all friends to www.facbook.com/savetheportstanvacjettyBasically at this stage we just need a show of numbers. When we get to 1000 the next step begins. The sooner the better as there is little time to waste. So please EVERYONE show your support and share this link around. There is a team WAITING to get to work on this; to take the next steps but we need support. After you 'like' the page you can sit back an leave it to us or write a letter to your local members or candidates. This is NOT IMPOSSIBLE.. but if everyone does nothing then it wont happen.WAKE UP SA FISHERS. ACT NOW. RIGHT NOW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Iv’e heard the jetty will have to stay as large naval ships can’t enter Outer Harbor due to being too shallow and the only other local jetty is Stanvac.They have used it before for that purpose.

That is interesting indeed. Back when I was in the Navy which was approx 1987-1990, the ship I was on pulled into O/Harbour and the crew took leave in Adelaide. was either the HMAS Swan or HMAS Brisbane.Do you know what date that O/H became too shallow for Navy warships?
Link to post
Share on other sites

With you on that one URH. Can't think of any RAN ships that would have a draft that exceeds that of a fully laden container vessel or those cruise ships that berth at OH. USN has warships that would be too large, but being nuclear powered they probably wouldn't be allowed in anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

G'day All (and not just Rec Fishers like me)As Mobil complete the remediation of the land, a Master Plan for future development of the land and its infrastructure will have to be developed. For such a large piece of land, this will include commercial and community spaces, and the land is large enough to be planned as a destination for the whole of SA.Now, if Mobil are required to demolish the jetty as part of exiting their lease, HOW MUCH WOULD THAT COST THEM?..... $10million? Why demolish a significant piece of infrastructure that was upgraded 15 years ago and, with some modifications, could be made suitable for public use!? So, Mobil pays the Goevrnment $10m to leave it there, the Government spends $1m - $2m to make it suitable for public use and puts the rest into trust for future upgrade and manitenance....... completely self funding!Link it to a major public destination on adjacent land and kids can learn to fish, divers can swim at the end, people can walk in the fresh air with their kids and their old and frail...... C'mon Lads, this is a "no brainer". Vote yes wherever you get the opportunity.j a n z

Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one refuse to make a permanent decision on the jetty until I see all the information on the table. That includes impact studies, fish stocks, proposed development, associated costings etc. I was under the impression that it was a demolish or restore scenario. would Mobil demolishing the jetty cause more harm to current aquatic life? I think a lot of people are looking at this from a purely fishing perspective. At some stage this area WILL be rezoned and redeveloped, whether that's in 2 years or 20 years. A community perspective needs to be taken - imagine glenelg or henley without jetties. As I said before - i have not leaned either way but for the interim THE JETTY NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED until further information about the scenario can be given

Link to post
Share on other sites
I for one refuse to make a permanent decision on the jetty until I see all the information on the table. That includes impact studies' date=' fish stocks, proposed development, associated costings etc. I was under the impression that it was a demolish or restore scenario. would Mobil demolishing the jetty cause more harm to current aquatic life? I think a lot of people are looking at this from a purely fishing perspective. At some stage this area WILL be rezoned and redeveloped, whether that's in 2 years or 20 years. A community perspective needs to be taken - imagine glenelg or henley without jetties. As I said before - i have not leaned either way but for the interim THE JETTY NEEDS TO BE PRESERVED until further information about the scenario can be given[/quote']That's one hundred per cent what this post is all about JB86 :)Yakattack just wants everyone's support, ie a vote, he has a team in place ready to go forward when his total of 1000 yes's are reached. Fence sitters will be very sad if the demolition goes ahead, the positive, proactive people will be gutted :ohmy:Please re-rerad the home post sticky on this Board? Cheers, tonyb.
Link to post
Share on other sites

H i W a s p e y ,I see you are concerned about funding, as so we all should be.Did you read my post about funding? - it can be self funding for upgtrade and maintenance. Do we pay a fee to go on the other Jetties - hopefully not needed unless there is a major project like at Bussleton.To refresh on the earlier post......."G'day All (and not just Rec Fishers like me) As Mobil complete the remediation of the land, a Master Plan for future development of the land and its infrastructure will have to be developed. For such a large piece of land, this will include commercial and community spaces, and the land is large enough to be planned as a destination for the whole of SA. Now, if Mobil are required to demolish the jetty as part of exiting their lease, HOW MUCH WOULD THAT COST THEM?..... $10million? Why demolish a significant piece of infrastructure that was upgraded 15 years ago and, with some modifications, could be made suitable for public use!? So, Mobil pays the Government $10m to leave it there, the Government spends $1m - $2m to make it suitable for public use and puts the rest into trust for future upgrade and maintenance....... completely self funding! Link it to a major public destination on adjacent land and kids can learn to fish, divers can swim at the end, people can walk in the fresh air with their kids and their old and frail......"...... for those things, free to the public with no financial stress to Council.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see you are concerned about funding, as so we all should be

That is my major concern - how much will this cost the tax payer. Let's be honest, there are much more important things as a state we need to be spending money on when you look at what is looming in the future...... healthcare, infrastructure, public housing etc. When you consider there are government cut backs taking place everywhere on projects that were already considered necessary and important, where does the buying of a dilapidated jetty and it's remediation, then it's ongoing maintenance so people can fish from it, fit into the order of priority when considering everything else that our tax dollars need to be spent on?I know you have suggested it could be self funding, but how much do you reckon it would cost to remove all the old fixtures and pipework and dispose of them properly (remembering they will be contaminated with chemicals), replace an extensive amount of the structure below and above the waterline that has corroded away, then make the jetty safe so it complies to all current OHS requirements, then ensure the rest of the infrastucture (like roads, toilet facilities, carparks, lighting and god knows what else) are adequate before it's opened to the public? $10-$12M you think? Who really knows, but at a guess I'd say $10M wouldn't get near what is actually required.... which means the tax payer will ultimately have to fund what's left to make it happen.

Do we pay a fee to go on the other Jetties

No, no-one has to pay to go on a metro jetty in SA. But I'm sure the cost to maintain the jettys are worn by those that live within that council. So are the residents of the Onkaparinga council happy to see their rates increase to cover the ongoing maintenance of the jetty? Perhaps rate payers would prefer to see some other Onkaparinga council projects slated to make room for this jetty project and it's ongoing maintenance?I guess it all comes down to what "we" can afford, and whether it's considered necessary or just a "nice" thing to have......
Link to post
Share on other sites
I see you are concerned about funding' date=' as so we all should be[/quote']That is my major concern - how much will this cost the tax payer. Let's be honest, there are much more important things as a state we need to be spending money on when you look at what is looming in the future...... healthcare, infrastructure, public housing etc. When you consider there are government cut backs taking place everywhere on projects that were already considered necessary and important, where does the buying of a dilapidated jetty and it's remediation, then it's ongoing maintenance so people can fish from it, fit into the order of priority when considering everything else that our tax dollars need to be spent on?I know you have suggested it could be self funding, but how much do you reckon it would cost to remove all the old fixtures and pipework and dispose of them properly (remembering they will be contaminated with chemicals), replace an extensive amount of the structure below and above the waterline that has corroded away, then make the jetty safe so it complies to all current OHS requirements, then ensure the rest of the infrastucture (like roads, toilet facilities, carparks, lighting and god knows what else) are adequate before it's opened to the public? $10-$12M you think? Who really knows, but at a guess I'd say $10M wouldn't get near what is actually required.... which means the tax payer will ultimately have to fund what's left to make it happen.
Do we pay a fee to go on the other Jetties
No, no-one has to pay to go on a metro jetty in SA. But I'm sure the cost to maintain the jettys are worn by those that live within that council. So are the residents of the Onkaparinga council happy to see their rates increase to cover the ongoing maintenance of the jetty? Perhaps rate payers would prefer to see some other Onkaparinga council projects slated to make room for this jetty project and it's ongoing maintenance?I guess it all comes down to what "we" can afford, and whether it's considered necessary or just a "nice" thing to have......
Thanks for your carefully worded and well thought out response Rotare that is the beauty of this Forum that we all have our own thoughts and opinions and everyone respects that.I can't help harping back to the essence of yakattacks post tho' and that is totally about do we want the use of the Stanvac Jetty for recreational purposes of all different sorts, or don't we?To my way of thinking the people who post on this thread are contributors who have covered off their fears, concerns and aspirations over the last 100 plus posts in an entirely democratic fashion which is admirable. For myself and I have already stated this elsewhere, the old song line that goes "you don't know what you've got 'til its gone" sums the whole issue up admirably ;)Cheers, tonyb.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Tonyb

I can't help harping back to the essence of yakattacks post tho' and that is totally about do we want the use of the Stanvac Jetty for recreational purposes of all different sorts, or don't we?

I agree that if you look at the OP's original question clinically and take it for exactly the question that it asks,then yes, the only responses in this thread should be yes or no.However, expecting people to answer "specifically" to "do we want the use of the jetty or not", without any other considerations or discussion is surely loaded? I mean this is a fishing forum so really how many people would say no? To have any relevance to people's responses and for this poll don't we have to gauge at what cost and how badly people want to have the jetty stay open? I can't see how you could gauge this by simply expecting people to give a yes or no answer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Tonyb
I can't help harping back to the essence of yakattacks post tho' and that is totally about do we want the use of the Stanvac Jetty for recreational purposes of all different sorts' date=' or don't we?[/quote']I agree that if you look at the OP's original question clinically and take it for exactly the question that it asks,then yes, the only responses in this thread should be yes or no.However, expecting people to answer "specifically" to "do we want the use of the jetty or not", without any other considerations or discussion is surely loaded? I mean this is a fishing forum so really how many people would say no? To have any relevance to people's responses and for this poll don't we have to gauge at what cost and how badly people want to have the jetty stay open? I can't see how you could gauge this by simply expecting people to give a yes or no answer.
I and all other thinking people fully understand your concerns Rotare, however, what yakattack did not make clear to the Forum readers is that he is a Member of the newly reformed Metro Recreational Fishing Committee (Metro RFC) and that he and his team have an enormous amount of horsepower behind them to drive issues like the retention of Port Stanvac Jetty IF and ONLY IF, there is sufficient support from rec fishers to gain leverage with the Politicians, who eventually will make the final decision?To gain over a 1000 facebook likes and to iron out a lot of concerns via the two main Fishing Forums in SA is an awesome way to make progress and I for one am encouraged greatly by this great initiative by the Metro RFC to get the ball rolling to gain fishing access and hopefully to turn their horsepower to further issues as they arise?All they need is what Yakattack has asked for, ie your vote and your support, they will do the get down and dirty stuff for you :clap::clap::clap: www.strikehook.com/forum/98-recfish-sa-f...stanvac-jetty-updateCheers, tonyb.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
To be honest this is a fishing forum' date=' I would be fairly surprised if there are any no votesEDIT: If this gets 10 or more no's I will jump off the Nth Haven breakwater in :c all clothes![/quote']did CallopHunter ever end up jumping of tha haven break wall or what :sos::sos: cheers 4THA
Poppa mentioned that in the minutes if the 1st meeting after you left.... We will have to get onto that issue \m/ \m/
Link to post
Share on other sites

Closing this jetty to recreational fishermen, to prevent or reduce the take of illegal size fish is;THE WRONG SOLUTION, TO A DIFFERENT PROBLEM!This is a prime public asset for our sport that must be preserved and made available to all. The bigger and more accessible our sport is to all the more important it will be to governments and the community at large.This probably needs to be started on a separate thread, But the correct solution to problem of indiscriminate fishing is education and proper policing.We need to start with a recreational fishing licence, with a reasonable fee. This will sort out some of the chaff from the wheat.Now the most critical aspect in my view, is to make sure people know the rules.They must sit for a written test when applying for their licence. Even if they take their size & catch limit pamphlet with them. So they write down and acknowledge the rules for this sport.Now they can no longer claim ignorance! Fish without a licence = ON THE SPOT FINEUndersize fish or over the limit = ON THE SPOT FINE plus a factor depending on the severity of the offence, at a predetermined escalating rate as the over limit quantity increases.This is nothing new. It works every day on our roads!So please I ask for some clear thinking on 2 very separate issues.Cheers, Des

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tinker go have a fish off Henley or grange and then think if you'd want that jetty to end up like they have.. I can just imagin the amount of undersized ruggers and stuff that'd get neckd on the daily... I'm sleeping easy knowing its still gna be full of fish in the future

I wouldn't sleep too easy there Pauly - At this stage unless nothing changes the Jetty will have to be removed as part of the remediation of the site.There are a lot of misconceptions about the waters around the Port Stanvac site, it is Not a Sanctuary it is an Exclusion Zone. This zone exists as a safety measure and has only been maintained (more accurately extended) because work continues on the wharf. This is why with the permission of the company certain people have been able to fish off of the platform in the past.The area faces difficulty to become a Marine Park Sanctuary Zone as it does not fit within an outer Marine Park Boundary and these are not up for review for 10 years anyhow. Possibly it could become a reserve (like Aldinga reef) but if the jetty is removed as per the current agreement then there will be little argument for conservation of a severely damaged area.Given the value of the land (it will be developed) and the proximity to metropolitan Adelaide (the community expects access to the beach) there are legitimate concerns about just allowing it to decay and fall apart. These concerns are shared by the Government (who are within their rights to ask Mobil to remove the Jetty before signing off on the lease) and by Mobil (who don't want the bad PR / responsibility down the track if something goes wrong) I agree with Des; about the confusing of issues; fisheries compliance or bag and size rules are completely different issues to this and they should be dealt with separately. In my view a Recreational Fishing License with fees held in trust to fund fishing education, greater access and opportunities for the average angler (jetties, reefs, fish stocking) as well as increased resources for compliance officers is the way forward.Cheers,Davewww.facebook.com/savetheportstanvacjettywww.savetheportstanvacjetty.com
Link to post
Share on other sites

The taking of undersized fish or not isn't the point I was putting across.. If it's been untouched for so long and supposedly full of fish WHY the :c would you want to open it to the public that will get fished hard day in day out and clean the place out ? Honestly guys I know where your coming from with the test on the rules and so on but really most people already know the limits and how to put there rubbish in a bin so whats going to change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The taking of undersized fish or not isn't the point I was putting across.. If it's been untouched for so long and supposedly full of fish WHY the :c would you want to open it to the public that will get fished hard day in day out and clean the place out ? Honestly guys I know where your coming from with the test on the rules and so on but really most people already know the limits and how to put there rubbish in a bin so whats going to change.

Hi mate please take the time to read my above post...I think I have explained clearly that it is not currently on schedule to be left as it is... Mobil are REQUIRED TO REMOVE THE JETTY. It is not a Sanctuary Zone.
Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not be a sanctuary zone but it has been a safe haven for fish for just about as long as i have been alive which is 53 years ,can you imagine the amount of boats josling for a spot if it was opened for rec fishing , remember once it is fished out then where will your money for up keep come from peopel wont pay to go onto a jetty they wont catch anything on,as for a special fund what a joke didnt someone say something about money missing from the fascilities fund through boat rego,

Link to post
Share on other sites

So............ we think it's all about getting a heap of fish?We don't get many fish off all the other suburban jetties, so should we demolish all of them too?This is more about recreation of all sorts - family day out, showing the kids/grandkids how to fish, time in the fresh air over the ocean, and time for a coffee or a snack at the end.Why demolish a significant piece of infrastructure that can add value to a development Master Plan for the whole Mobil site as a residential and recreational destination for the whole State. Let's lift our eyes Lads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta agree Janz -Its about providing access to fishers who dont have a boat, who want to take the kids to a local jetty to catch a fish or two.Its about saving a piece of infrastructure which can significantly value add to the area through recreation, industry and tourism.Its about listenting to the 1450 people on www.facebook.com/savetheportstanvacjetty who already have said they want it saved and opened to the public Its about listening to the 650 local households who have petitioned through their federal MP to have access to the jetty and beach for their community; to enjoy life, to teach their kids to fish, to spend an evening catching a feed of tommies or a couple of squid.I fish and walk the metro jetties a lot and the view that there are no fish there is mistaken. Its true people arent catching a heap of fish but kids, families, pensioners are there regularly taking part in the best pastime in the world -fishing!I see squid, tommies, garfish, yellow fin whiting, salmon, bream, mullet, snook, snapper, sharks and crabs being caught from these metro piers. Unfortunately many of the metro jetties have been severly shortened from their original lengh by storm damage over the years. The changed sand drift due to the boat ramp rockwalls and breakwalls being built has made Largs, Semaphore and Grange much shallower than they would naturally be.Urban stormwater, laden with nutireints have killed off the weed so that most metro jetties no longer reach the weedline. These are the main reasons that the quality of fishing is so bad. Kayakers and Boaties have no such problems getting a feed on the metro coast, but most fishers don't have a boat!People can say LEAVE IT ALONE, a valid opinion if put reasonably for sure, but that option is NOT CURRENTLY ON THE TABLE! -Why would the government let Mobil just walk away and leave the public with the clean up job when at present Mobil are obliged to either maintian or demolish the jetty???If you want the jetty saved but left closed to the public then dont waste your time on here, get out and fight for that outcome because if nothing changes then the JETTY WILL BE DEMOLISHED.Just for the record I dont live near Port Stanvac and I have plenty of fishing options personally, but I represent Metropolitan Recreational Fishers of Adelaide and they have spoken! We have consulted widely and a large number want the jetty saved (even this small poll has 70% support for saving and opening the jetty) -That ship has sailed, now we will do everything possible to see if the jetty can be saved or if it cannot.www.savetheportstanvacjetty.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously how long do you think that upkeep money would stay in the fund ? our hospitals emergency dept are over run ,we build bridges to no were across the torrens ,there is word that 4 milion is missing from the marine facsilities levy fund which is supposed to maintain ramps ect ,it would somehow dissapear into general revenue and when questions were asked were it went no one would know .If what oz says is true about no maintenance being done since mobil left the site then i dont think 2 million would bring it back to a safe and fit state and i would hate to think rate payers would have to foot the shortfall ,they tried to ofload it onto the local council and they got told to get lost .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...