Leaderboard

one of my favourite books.

Options 1 and 2 appear to me to give PIRSA too much say...........

Apologies all, I don't know how, but I screwed up and uploaded the same file 3 times. Correct versions are attached for those interested. I think that if you're confronted with a brick wall (PIRSA), it's better to try and find a way around it rather than to continue to bash your head. I don't think that anyone outside of the organisation really knows why PIRSA act as they do, and I guess they have their reasons. But even so, a way has to be found to improve things. Perhaps one way would be to change the reporting structure at the top (political) level so that alternate voices can be

I don't think you'll find too much argument with that point of view AD, but whether that situation persists in this brave new world seems to depend upon the structures that are put in place by the Govt. and the way that these are organised. As things have so far been described (very sparsely), RFSA will become just one input into the decision making process, rather than the only input. But it's how the overall new fisheries management structure is designed that will make the biggest difference. For example (similar to RFSA), if PIRSA themselves were to become one shared input into the par

I think the difference between our viewpoints is that I am commenting on what I believe a rec fishing peak body should be and I understand that you guys are talking about the reality of the current situation and the compromises that you have had to make just to have some skin in the game. These compromises are why I don't think the new Rec Fishing Council will make any difference what-so-ever, the main problem is that RecFishSA is entrapped by PIRSA and PIRSA don't have the best interests of rec fishers as a priority. PIRSA have set up RecFishSA to deliberately be a toothless tiger