Undersize Abalone okay for some apparently

[kon 300]

So...what message does this send to any like-minded people of the same background?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-06/native-title-abalone-owen-daniel-karpany-undersize/5072466?section=sa $400K of taxpayer money being put to great use there too... :vomit:

[Tacklebags 404]

It ordered the South Australian Attorney-General pay the Karpanys' legal costs, which are believed to be about $400,000.

No right to challenge for you or me kon. Were these abalone extracted utilising indigenous methods as from memory this influences final sentencing?

[waspy 3]

When there gone there gone mate ,there is a reason why they have a legal limit .Most people would not have been able to afford a high court challenge if it was not payed for by some other person or government department . So now this opens the door to other indigenous persons to take undersized shellfish what will happen when the species is descimated there who will get the blame ?

[Squid Flaps 5]

I may have to take my Indigenous mate for a snapper fishing trip next week...

[kon 300]

From a couple of years backhttp://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/aboriginal-fishermen-in-mabo-court-battle/story-e6frea6u-1226167524436"Owen John Karpany, 59, of Kapunda, and son Daniel Thomas Karpany, 24, of Parafield Gardens, who belong to the Narrunga people..." :whistle:

[Squid Flaps 5]

"The federally funded Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement picked up the case "Seems like a Win-Win for all involved...I wish i could get in on these scams.

[kon 300]

Squid Flaps

I may have to take my Indigenous mate for a snapper fishing trip next week

Hell, as long as you don`t put a line in the water, looking at this outcome you guys would probably be able to come back with as many as you want?And size is obviously redundant too...just make sure he has the requisite cultural area connections.Easy as. .

[4THALOVE 45]

Just got this from this Australian Government Page ( or this link http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/35.%20Aboriginal%20Hunting,%20Fishing%20and%20Gathering%20Rights%3A%20Current%20Australian%20Legislation/-0 )South Australia 954. Fisheries Generally. Under the Fisheries Act 1971 (SA), Aboriginal people are subject to the same restrictions as to the numbers of fish caught, the size of fish caught and the methods of catching fish as are all other citizens. Aboriginal people require a permit to catch fish for sale. The Aboriginal Legal Services have received few if any complaints relating to prosecutions under the Act. Discussions have taken place between the South Australian Government and the Point Pearce Aboriginal Community over requests to close the stretch of water between Point Pearce and Wardang Island to trawlers engaged in net fishing, and to exempt Aboriginal people from commercial licence fees.interesting cheers 4THA

[waspy 3]

@tacklebags what is a indigenous method of extraction ,is that like a hammer from mitre ten? If i say i am from the morphett vale people do you rekon i can do this as well ,this is no more than blatant reverse rascism ,i think after 53 years i am a native of this country or am i an illegal immigrant oh no the dept of immigration will be trying to send me to manus island ,hmmm wonder what the fishing is like there?

[Tacklebags 404]

@tacklebags what is a indigenous method of extraction ' date='is that like a hammer from mitre ten? If i say i am from the morphett vale people do you rekon i can do this as well ,this is no more than blatant reverse rascism ,i think after 53 years i am a native of this country or am i an illegal immigrant oh no the dept of immigration will be trying to send me to manus island ,hmmm wonder what the fishing is like there?[/quote']Using traditional indigenous tools not a hammer or Haines Hunter for example....those aids are for us second class citizens.TB

[Squid Flaps 5]

@Waspy. You are not a native of this country, Were you born to indigenous Australians? You are a descendant of migrants. Seems the fisheries act of 1971 that 4Tha posted has been over ridden by the High Court of Australia.

[Boyington214 0]

What a sack of crap!! Native title or not, the law is there for a reason. Not to have double standards depending on race! I'm over this stuff happening. If you're indigenous, the laws seem to not apply. If you're an illegal immigrant, not only do you get huge support (monetary and service-wise) but they also seem to be above a lot of laws. Then there are us. Whom ALL laws seem to apply every time. Fisheries laws are fisheries laws and SHOULD apply to all equally!! And it seems that they will cost us tax payers a lot more money! This is nothing but double standards and a sick joke for (on) us non-indigenous people!

[waspy 3]

I must agree with boyington and yes i am born of migrants to this country who when arrived saw segregated toilets ,segregated cinemas and a whole host of other rules that have been revoked to try to make an indigenous person equal to us and for the betterment of there people ,these people have perverted the course of justice for there own ends and to abate prosecution by claiming indigenous hunting rights they are laughing all the way out of court "stupid white fellas" .

[colwrn 0]

Collected by that traditional method of Hooka diving. yeh right!

[kon 300]

And it gets better - you know those Sanctuary Zones coming in October next year?Only for white fella of course......from "Activities and Uses in Marine Park Zones"Exemptions- The Minister responsible for marine parks may provide a permit for any activity to take place that would not ordinarily be allowed in a specific zone in accordance with section 19 of the Marine Parks Act 2007.- The Regulations will also provide an exemption for any person acting in the course of an emergency. - The Regulations will not apply to a person exercising official powers or functions under a State or Commonwealth Act or an Aboriginal person acting in accordance with an ILUA or Aboriginal tradition.These instances will never get prosecuted because a dispensation has clearly been written in.Oh, I nearly forgot - they get to fish in Restricted Access Zones too.I guess we`ll just have to get into some personal, ahem, reconciliation with the status quo....

ActivitiesDec2012.pdf

[silaflex 103]

Journalist Andrew Bolt wrote an article about White being the new Black.He name some people that had no Aboriginal blood in them for generations, but played the indigenous card when it was convenient.He got sued and lost.If my great great great great grandpa was Aboriginal, am I excluded from fishing limits?

[wisdom 0]

Maybe with tongue in cheek Silaflex, I may be able to help you here. Many years ago a good friend of mine in Sydney ( artist, historian and journalist for Wacker Fairfax), often liked to stir the establishment using his historian background that he believed that if you have brown eyes then you likely have native ancestry ?

[Knackers 696]

Just calm down princesses.I'm 1/16th indigenous, great grandmother was half. From what tribe I have no clue. It seems it was rather embarrassing back then in SA but socially acceptable none the less To the point. I have no problem with indigenous persons being given some and limited exemptions from the regs. I have no problem with them taking undersize abs for instance if it is only for personal consumption and is not a commercial amount. I have dived and shelled abs all the way from north of Wallaroo (where the snapper are land based) to through to Port Rickaby. A few undersize abs here and there is a drop in the ocean. If this is going to be the norm then indigenous dudes then they need a specific licence relative to the area where their tribal association is with set bag limits and specific exemptions and limitations (in this instance snorkel only perhaps?). I reckon this could have been solved easily when the event happened with a few cool heads and some negotiation. Government departments approach court cases/litigation with a 'win at all costs' mindset to wear the opponents down. But it doesn't work when the defendants are funded by another government department :silly:

[Knackers 696]

If my great great great great grandpa was Aboriginal' date=' am I excluded from fishing limits?[/quote']No. You need to prove some connection to your aboriginality. See my post above. I don't feel aboriginal, have no real connection to their culture (however they may define it) so don't claim crap even though I am 1/16 and can gain all sorts of concessions by doing so.

[kon 300]

KnackersThank you for your posts. I suspect there may be a lot of stuff tucked away in ILUAs to that effect.silaflexJust from a wiki extract, but have read this elsewhere in recent times.Judge Merkel in 1998 defined Aboriginal descent as technical rather than real – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement. This decision established that anyone can classify him or herself legally as an Aboriginal, provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community.Not necessarily the whole story apparently, depending on the subject matter...The bottom line for me though is - I read of the $400K a government has to fork out for daring to enforce (presumably) conservation-informed regulations and being stymied by technical legal nuances where ethnicity is apparently the overriding consideration, with the outcome of (in the lawyers words, and what message does this send!?)"He'll be very keen to get his fishing gear back, he'll be very keen to go about his business without interference from the state" and then I read in the latest Fisheries Council minutesMembers noted the financial report and overview provided by Mr Gramola for the 2012/13 financial year including the covering summary advice. A summary of major expenditure and underspent allocations was provided. It was confirmed that the underspent money would not roll over into the 2013/14 budget. At its May meeting, Council noted that its budget will be reduced in the 2013/14 financial year. The mind boggles just a tad at the natural justice and commonsense disconnect.

[Knackers 696]

This is an interesting topic. An issue I would like to highlight is that the High Court decision is really about holes in the state government laws. It isn't about the character or ethnicity of the defendants. If any of us where in the same situation where we thought we were right in a legal sense then why shouldn't they have every opportunity to take it as far as they can? I am cognisant of the financial support provided though which the average racist anglo bogan wouldn't get (I'm one as well). An example of what I mean is the anti-bikie laws in QLD seemingly getting around laws, enshrined in UN charters that we have ratified and made as laws, like free association. I reckon there will be some new legislation being considered to close this loophole or at least to make it more realistic and pragmatic.

[kon 300]

A few things.- We unfortunately have what is a PC-driven, legislatively enshrined and effectively racist construct here. Yes, the case was facilitated by the ethnicity of the defendants.- Anyone on this forum residing in Adelaide metro and interested in atavistically-driven outdoor pastimes has no more and no less "connection with the land" than someone who happens to be of aboriginal descent also residing Adelaide metro.- I have no more nor less "need" for self-procured personal consumption than any other metro resident, irrespective of ethnicity.Sadly, we as a society have generated a "too big to fail", so we are where we are.

[Knackers 696]

I don't agree with you.What we have is a capitalistic greed driven industry that I have been involved in that makes millionaires, most who never don a mask, and are even syndicates, filthy rich. All to sell to SE Asian Millionaires a product that you nor I can afford to purchase. Same with crayfish. The reason why they probably took undersize abs is because people like me have been there before and taken all the good fish that the recs good can not get at due to the depth and time it takes to know where they are. I can expand on this if you want. What this case really represents is access to fish that we all might claim a right to where a government enacts laws to protect a few because their tax takes will be greater.

[Squid Flaps 5]

Well said Knackers.Atavistically. Nice word kon. Had to look that one up. Added that to my vocab. Cheers.

[Knackers 696]

My last comment was pretty poorly segued to the idea I was proposing. If the undersize and over the limit fish/seafood were tommies, KGW, squid, mulloway etc etc that those indigenous dudes were raping from the ocean it would have never reached the high court. I'm keen to discuss

[Squid Flaps 5]

My last comment was pretty poorly segued to the idea I was proposing. If the undersize and over the limit fish/seafood were tommies' date=' KGW, squid, mulloway etc etc that those indigenous dudes were raping from the ocean it would have never reached the high court. I'm keen to discuss[/quote']High dollar value resource. Understood. Certainly another angle to consider.

[Knackers 696]

My last comment was pretty poorly segued to the idea I was proposing. If the undersize and over the limit fish/seafood were tommies' date=' KGW' date=' squid, mulloway etc etc that those indigenous dudes were raping from the ocean it would have never reached the high court. I'm keen to discuss[/quote'']High dollar value resource. Understood. Certainly another angle to consider.

Just take it one step further. We as rec fishers have a right to access our fisheries. Fishing is a "worldwide human right" after all. Maybe except for the San (bushman is Southern Africa). Lets say a market develops for KGW and the quotas are tightened up so a very few profit at the expense of us all. You can see where I am going. As an example we recs are already screwed with snapper. We take SFU and cop all the restrictions for the avarice of the pros. This decision by the high court at least in the court of public opinion be used as ammunition for us to access fisheries.As for 20 abs - get real. Most fisherman I know will never get in the water because they are irrationally terrified (some call this piss weak), so their crocodile tears over these abs that they could never ever get, and will never effect the overall stock levels needs to be put into perspective. I do have ideas why this happened and it has nothing to do with compliance and all to do with powerful lobbyists and influence.

[Tacklebags 404]

My last comment was pretty poorly segued to the idea I was proposing. If the undersize and over the limit fish/seafood were tommies' date=' KGW, squid, mulloway etc etc that those indigenous dudes were raping from the ocean it would have never reached the high court. I'm keen to discuss[/quote']Getting done for taking undersized tommies.....now that would be a compliance issue non sequitur.On second thought though, most cases before the high court are a nonsense so it may get traction! :whistle:

[Guest]

I would've thought pretty much all abalone that are "high n dry" at low tide would be undersize. Nothing to do with commercial fishing but rather a natural phenomenon much like fish residing in shallow water when they're young and small.I don't like the reverse racism that occurs in this country today. It's as though the twits in canberra believe that the wrongs of the past can be rectified by treating white folk of today as second class citizens.Maybe the government is doing it to keep amnesty international off their back buy saying yes we treated aboriginals poorly in the past but it's all good now because we're now treating white people like shit too.

[silaflex 103]

If my great great great great grandpa was Aboriginal' date=' am I excluded from fishing limits?[/quote']No. You need to prove some connection to your aboriginality. See my post above. I don't feel aboriginal' date=' have no real connection to their culture (however they may define it) so don't claim crap even though I am 1/16 and can gain all sorts of concessions by doing so.[/quote']What concessions can you get being 1/16th?Even though you don't, do you think others should in your position?Is there a limit? 1/64th? 1/512th?Please take no offence, its just this whole situation seems cloudy to me.

[kon 300]

Knackers

If the undersize and over the limit fish/seafood were tommies, KGW, squid, mulloway etc etc that those indigenous dudes were raping from the ocean it would have never reached the high court. I'm keen to discuss

I would beg to differ, as the principle would surely have been the same - eg 30KGW of which most were undersize. Thus a fisheries access/regulations/enforcement scenario would have generated exactly the same outcome, I`d suggest.Fully accept the other points you make in relation to high-value resource and "interests" of some parties etc.Nanman

It's as though the twits in canberra believe that the wrongs of the past can be rectified by treating white folk of today as second class citizens.

You wouldn`t believe it, but completely unrelated and by chance last night I got these below from a non-fishing contact. Very poignant given this thread.As a result of this happening a couple of hundred years ago when the world was a vastly different place;we now have some who insist that this should apply as some sort of "recompense" owed;Of course, daring to suggest that we perhaps ought to "move on" has been known to generate riots... :whistle: