Jump to content
Dangerous

End of RecFish SA?

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, AuusieDave said:

Sorry guys, we've had some urgent issues with some of our largest clients this week so I've been flat out all week at work.

It looks like you guys have put in some great work there RJ in terms of rec fishing representation for rec fishers.

I kind of think we need to be looking at making a real peak body for rec fishing and the rec fishing industry. I believe our position is undermined by the fact that the commercial sector is regarded as more important than rec fishing as they are an industry while we are just hobby fishers exercising our hobby and not really creating any economic value to the state. I believe we need a peak rec fishing body which represents rec fishers and fishing clubs but also the rec fishing industry, i.e. the bait/tackle/boat stores, caravan parks/motels/holiday house owners and regional business councils.

I'll try and find some time to knock up a bit of a diagram of how I believe it would be structured over the weekend.

I think we are at a critical time where if rec fishers stay divided rec fishing in this state will be dead but if we can unite and try to understand each others positions and compromises to work together we can ensure the future of rec fishing and hopefully improve it vastly.

All of them live in the box labelled "Others".

IT people love Flow charts and Org charts and Gantt charts - just about any kind of chart.

- mostly because we only speak Geek 🙂

Cheers,

RJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BarneyB said:

Our economic value to the state is actually far higher than that of the commercial sector.....

Reckon you're right Barney, but no-one seems to want to run an economic survey, and maybe the only way to prove it's true would be to get bums on seats in an environment where the Govt will have to listen - eg as members of their own RF Council.

Cheers,

RJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarneyB said:

Our economic value to the state is actually far higher than that of the commercial sector.....

Yes, I'm certain that would be the case, that's why I think it is imperative that that the rec fishing industry is included in anything we do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, the shit has hit the fan at work and my internet activity at work is now being monitored and I usually only use the internet at work, it's fair enough I guess. Generally I have family commitments until about 9PM each night so it's hard to find time.

What I wanted to say is what we really need is a real Rec Fishing Peak Body that represents not just rec fishers but the rec fishing industry (tackle/bait/boat stores, caravan parks/hotels/motels/holiday house owners, regional towns (the pub, bakery, servo, supermarket, coffee shops). This rec fishing peak body should be independent of government but should be able to lobby the tourism and sports and rec departments for them to pressure PIRSA/Primary Industries department to take them in to consideration when deciding on fisheries matters or preferably a seat at the table in decision making.
What suprises me is that the rec fishing industry doesn't seem to be able organise itself to do this, they are the ones with the most to lose. I don't believe the government will make any economic considerations in favour of the rec fishing industry unless they have faces themselves, it is obvious that actual rec fishers can scream about economic return until the cows come home but we aren't the ones economically effected so it is ignored.

I think a new real rec fishing peak body is also needed as there is a lot of bad blood between the different groups, RecFishSA/SAFA/RecFishCentral, and neither will accept anything other than an equal place at the table, this could be achieved by placing the new real peak body and a neutral coordinator above them. I believe that all of these groups have the best interest of rec fishing at heart although compromises have been made in order to have a seat at the table to try and have at least some influence.

So what I see that we need is a new real rec fishing peak body that has two representatives.

One for rec fishers that liaises with groups like SAFA, RecFishSA, RecFishCentral, Northern Districts Sports Fishing Club, SAAFWA, etc., treats each group equally and each group gets equal representation for decision making. I think individual rec fishers should also be included here but there would have to be some type of weighting as SAAFWA for example represent many rec fishers.

Another representative for the rec fishing industry that liases with groups like tackle stores, boat stores, caravan parks, i.e. those that benefit financially from rec fishing. All groups would receive equal status which would also be equal status with the previously mentioned actual rec fishers.

The thing is that the more I think about this issue the amount of work explodes and who is going to do the work?

Each group/member would need some type of membership to allow them to log in to a website and vote for issue they want the peak body to represent them on, i.e. a democratic system.

The peak body can then represent rec fishers and the rec fishing industry both to the media and to lobby the government.

At the moment we have a system where hobby fishers are opposed to well funded union/association(business union) representation from commercial fishers and we don't stand a chance.

 

Just my thoughts guys.

 

Dave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 01/09/2018 at 9:13 PM, brenton said:

well the current system has been really shit for us so i'm prepared to give anything a go......read it and done my submission.Give it a go and have your say.

                                      cheers b

Current system has only "failed" due to complete apathy by the recreational sector. Only have to look at the pathetic response to the various surveys and questionaires published in the last several years. Instead the process has been distorted by a few individuals who represent almost nobody, and distort the facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Folks, what I am seeing here seems very much to be at best a sideways step.
At best. May be actually a step backwards, ironically.
"Unintended" consequences potentially, albeit not entirely "unforeseen".
🙁
Start with the PIRSA masthead (a "hmmm" there for a start) and look through the highlighted bits in context.

 

180831 Subsequent Highlights - MRFAC Consultation Paper A4 74401.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evening all,

Agree with the previous posts, although I think 'apathy' might be a bit strong. 'Apathy' has been an overused cop-out term within SA Rec fishing circles for decades. Although it certainly does exist, "apathy' doesn't mean the same thing as "I want change, but I can't be buggered fighting with the SA rec fishing system", and if surveys are going to be distorted or ignored - why bother?

But regardless of anyone's level of interest, it's hard to engage with a representative system that didn't work very well and didn't welcome 'outsiders'. The SA rec fishing representative system was poorly constructed, poorly managed, completely underfunded and totally ignored by successive Governments, and there hasn't been much incentive for anyone to put their hand up to work within it. Those that have are truly dedicated and should be thanked instead of kicked.

Reckon people mostly want to do the right thing and would contribute where they can; especially on the issues that are directly affecting them - or will affect them. But no-one wants to become a punching bag for anyone in the rec community who disagrees with their views, while at the same time they have to try to promote their views into a system that simply doesn't want to have to deal with them. I don't think that's apathy - it's a sign of a failed system.

 

For what it's worth, a bit of a brain dump on the new Council (as described so far):-

Two biggest problems:-

1 No funding (Govt actually saves $125K per year)

2 No one to do the work.

Others

3. How will the RFC members meet outside of the 3 (whatever) times per year so that they can co-ordinate the workload (to be done by whoever), and raise new issues that are not on the Govt agenda?

4. No initiative to pull everyone together. Hostilities between the warring groups are continuing even now, and without some mediation to settle things down the infrequent RFC meetings will be unproductive shit fights.

5. There is no specification around organisational representative nominations to the RFC – do nominees need to be democratically elected by their membership?

6. PIRSA will “assist” at the infrequent meetings. But they should be a RFC member, with the Chair of the RFC reporting to (advising) the Minister of the agreed RFC outcomes. As it is, PIRSA retain their pre-eminent position and can block whatever they don’t like, regardless of the RFC's position. (eg to the Minister: "The RFC advises this, but PIRSA and SARDI recommend that instead".)

Overall the new RFC (as described) offers no change, backward step if anything.

  1. The 4 named RFC organisations represent (membership) about 20,000 rec fishers in SA (my guess), so there are still more than quarter of a million SA rec fishers who won’t be connected to the system.
  2. The RFC needs to have a fully funded portal that is independently and impartially run (website + forum) that will provide a connection that is open to all rec fishers in SA, so that anyone can raise any issue and state their own opinion without being censored.
  3. There need to be regular (monthly?) public meetings of the RFC that are open to all comers and fully documented to the public via whatever media is available. Probably won’t get much meeting attendance – but that’s not the point. Point is that any rec fisher can rock up, witness what goes on, and have a say if necessary.

I don’t think they really intended it this way, but the Govt's new RFC arrangement (as described) will just be a more effective ‘tick-the-box’ - with no improvement in representation for the bulk of the 277,000.

The people who agitated for change and fought the good fight didn’t do enough forward planning, just like George Bush’s victory in Iraq. Amendments to planning and design of the new system need to be done now – before the RFC is put in place, else we’ll quickly return to confusion and anarchy.

My 2 bob's worth, thanks for your time. Corrections very welcome.

Cheers,

RJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few more issues, expanding on previous items.

- This is a new body, no current organisations are being made defunct per se.

- It appears to be "merely" an occassional advice conduit to the Minister, and not much more. And an "add-on" organisation at that.

- Who will be performing the current peak body functionality and routine grunt-work of DEWNR and PIRSA departmental liaison, talking to SABCPFA, councils... dam access, artificial reefs, etc etc?

- Who will all those other parties approach as needed?

- Will RFSA be in a position to do this once the MRFAC is established, and/or once their funding is (presumably) pulled? Hardly think so. Then who will do all this and how will it be done? Or is it expected that "someone" will carry out all these tasks without any operational expenses funding support...from their loungeroom whenever they (hopefully) have a spare half hour here and there?

- No mention of ANY funding for recfishing representation other than reasonable travel reimbursement for any regional members of the MRFAC.

All I am seeing is an umbrella coalition with a specific role of a Ministerial advice council - this is not a VRFish, RecFishWest, AFANT etc "peak body" representative organisation which has to deal with the daily/weekly grind of multitudinous matters.
It very much appears that we may have gone down the road of "never mind the quality, feel the width"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points RJ and Kon,  as always, on point!!

You covered a whole lot of concerns and realityt that I’m sure many haven’t even thought about but will very well be part of reality.

 

In regards to elected members to sit on the council:

 

Last I read, The forum being included couldn’t agree on who was suitable to run for the council, they didn’t have a suitable female amongst their ranks, and their loyal leader is too busy collecting benefits and running the forum to do anything else.

They only had one person locked in, and he isn’t exactly a local.

 

As for the other 2 “organizations”, do they even have more than 3 members each to throw into the mix? I figured it was 2 guys, 2 separate organizations and a dormant laminating machine waiting for new member cards..

That’s unless they can put forward Facebook likes as sitting members?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jay R said:

Good points RJ and Kon,  as always, on point!!

You covered a whole lot of concerns and realityt that I’m sure many haven’t even thought about but will very well be part of reality.

 

In regards to elected members to sit on the council:

 

Last I read, The forum being included couldn’t agree on who was suitable to run for the council, they didn’t have a suitable female amongst their ranks, and their loyal leader is too busy collecting benefits and running the forum to do anything else.

They only had one person locked in, and he isn’t exactly a local.

 

As for the other 2 “organizations”, do they even have more than 3 members each to throw into the mix? I figured it was 2 guys, 2 separate organizations and a dormant laminating machine waiting for new member cards..

That’s unless they can put forward Facebook likes as sitting members?

 

Your a pig Mate,nothing short of it. All three groups that are on the council have more members than RFSA individually. What you need to get into your head is - SA voted- - RFSA is gone as the representative body July 1. The Ministers Recreational Fishing Advisory Council is on the table now. This Council and the Minister will then decide the best approach for forming the Representative body to replace RFSA. 

FB is only one avenue to communicate - but powerful enough to convince a Government to make change. 

We are having a get together night soon, all those that fought for change will be there. How about you Man up and come make those accusations face to face. Or, just hide and keep making gutless remarks about good people ! ?

This forum should be ashamed  of itself for allowing this behaviour !!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "female content" aspect is something new, but in theory quite legitimate and achievable.
The 2013/14 RFS indicates that approximately one third of the 277K are female, so the Minister electing to mandate a similar proportion in relation to the three MRFAC candidates from each of the four major organisations is quite understandable.

I stand to be corrected on the figures, but based on all publically available information I am aware of;

FishinSA - notwithstanding that it is essentially a fishing forum website, it has presumably thousands of members. Thus 2 male and 1 female (willing and suitably credentialled) candidates should be easy enough to find, one would think.

RecFishCentral - the organisation`s website categorically states they have over 2,000 members, and one would presume the Minister would have been made aware of this in any dealings to date. Once again, 2+1 should not be a problem.

South Australian Fishing Alliance - the Board composition is unknown, but they do have over 100 Financial Members. A smaller pool than the two preceding organisations, but 2+1 should nonetheless be quite feasible.

RecFishSA (SARFAC Inc) - No current female board members (there was one for a while in recent times though) and I am not aware of the current Financial Ordinary Member figures - possibly similar to SAFA? But RFSA do have Organisation Members which should have between them a reasonably large pool of total members, so 2+1 should work there too.

The Minister has perhaps set out, particularly given this day and age, to challenge and change the historical paradigm of recreational fishing representatives in SA being pretty-well invariably male. As an aside, usually over 50 (if not over 60).
Given all of the above, by any logic the 2+1 is both warranted and achievable?

😉
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Yelliwtail said:

This forum should be ashamed  of itself for allowing this behaviour !! 

5 hours ago, Yelliwtail said:

Your a pig Mate,nothing short of it.

 

We have nothing to be ashamed about as everyone is entitled to their opinions whether others agree or not.

Obviously you have strong views and others have strong views on this topic, but your other statement wasn't necessary.

Maybe everyone should agree to disagree.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, doobie said:

We have nothing to be ashamed about as everyone is entitled to their opinions whether others agree or not.

Obviously you have strong views and others have strong views on this topic, but your other statement wasn't necessary.

Maybe everyone should agree to disagree.

 

Yes it is warranted, as this bloke has repeatedly attacked me personally. His posts are slanderous !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 07/09/2018 at 12:59 PM, AuusieDave said:

Lets keep this on track guys, we're trying to improve representation of rec fishers not war between rec fishing organisations.

All this warring is just working against us.

Isnt that the whole reason for some of these new "organizations", all some have done is attempt to divide recreational fishers. Nothing to add to the discussion, agree with him or get either abuse or blocked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/09/2018 at 3:35 PM, Bait Caster said:

Isnt that the whole reason for some of these new "organizations", all some have done is attempt to divide recreational fishers. Nothing to add to the discussion, agree with him or get either abuse or blocked.

 

And in the mean time the rec fishing industry can't be bothered defending itself, we can scream until we're blue in the face but we're only hobbyists but if the industry screamed they would have a much better chance of getting some cut through with gov.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×