nok
-
Content Count
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Recent Profile Visitors
667 profile views
-
snapper15.4kg reacted to a post in a topic:
so you want a rec fishing license?
-
snapper15.4kg reacted to a post in a topic:
so you want a rec fishing license?
-
snapper15.4kg reacted to a post in a topic:
so you want a rec fishing license?
-
BarneyB reacted to a post in a topic:
so you want a rec fishing license?
-
samastini reacted to a post in a topic:
so you want a rec fishing license?
-
Deliberately and out of respect for Bjorn and the S&H team I have not named any rec fishing organisation nor any person in my posts on this subject. I am totally disinterested in any argument between any of them - couldn't care less. Is that honest and transparent enough? Like you Nok, my attention is very firmly fixed on the well-being of the SA rec fishing community and the fishery itself. At this time and on this subject, there is only one question that needs to be answered IMO:- "Should the organisations and rec fishers interested in representation issues in SA get t
-
If you are to achieve what you propose, I feel you have to be honest and transparent in your comments. Failing or not acknowledging known problems does nothing for potential joiners. Yes, no one can claim to represent anglers in SA, but there are clear differences between the organisations engaged in this way. If you cannot even bring yourself to admit this openly and why, openess is gone before we start. when you say "At the moment whenever one group says "A", the other is very likely to say "B".", you are incorrect in an unacceptable way. That reflects on the issue of transparency, or
-
Too many Nok. And I think we're never going to progress by concentrating on the past. All that does is continue with the sense of injustice that everyone (on all sides) is currently feeling. Hard to imagine I guess, but there are many SA rec fishers who feel that they've been wronged, and they aren't all in one camp - or two camps. What's done is done, and can't be completely undone, but I really believe that it's the future that we should all be concentrating on, and learning from what has gone before. I'm a bit curious to see how many others out in the world feel the same way, because if
-
How many attempts at resurrection of the phoenix is it now? RJ several years ago you said anglers now had a choice between SAFA and RFSA. You joined RFSA. Did you find everyone was "equal" in RFSA? Obviously not. At SAFA they know their goal, and it is certainly not appeasing and grovelling to PIRSA. Who by the way have no respect for the angling fraternity whatsoever.
-
Have picked up a lot of those rowing buoys over the years. Actually the metal parts were the first to go. Very surprised at the choice of placement. Right in front of the main area used at WL, and not exactly that far from the rocks. Moreover the presence there will cause even more congestion with the rowers, who at times will occupy the whole area, preventing people from being able to fish. If they placed it directly East, in front of the no-fishing area, I feel many potential problems may have been obviated. Also cannot imagine the rowers will not eventually 'clean it up' many are you
-
Must say I saw some good submissions from organisations/groups with different goals. The SAFA submission was obviously more encompassing due to the brief of the organisation. Looking forward to the RecFish SA submission, and the way PIRSA ultimately deals with this matter.
-
nok reacted to a post in a topic:
SAFA Submission to PIRSA
-
nok reacted to a post in a topic:
SAFA Submission to PIRSA
-
nok reacted to a post in a topic:
KGW PIRSA's COMMERCIAL CATCH
-
nok reacted to a post in a topic:
KGW PIRSA's COMMERCIAL CATCH
-
Very poorly I think is the answer to that one. Essentially they survey a small percentage of people over a small percentage of fishing days and estimate the factors to multiply the results by. I don't think there's an easy answer to getting more reliable data than what they're getting but they shouldn't be promoting it as accurate data by any stretch of the imagination. The Survey type is not designed to reliably estimate angler catch. This is well known. To get accurate recreational catch a survey specific for that purpose is required. The problem is the gov is unwilling to fund it
-
Yes, you are quite correct and a good pick-up I was at the meeting also and the presenter said the CPUE (kg KGW per fisher day) had fallen recently. If you go to the KGW 2014 publication by SARDI [p14 Fig 3.c] you'll see the graph used. Ignore the line for gill-nets because it is based on limited data. Well if that CPUE handline graph is not in a steady even climb between 1984 (minimum value) and 2013 (maximum value), then ? I noted the slight inflection in the presenter's voice as he ran his pointer along the most recent years and said it had fallen. I felt he could not really believe wh
-
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even one so obviously biased as yours. The page is providing a direct link to all relevant topics of interest to anglers. It is not a Forum. However at least SAFA is promoting attendance at tonight's meeting, and irrespective of your "opinion" on the aesthetics of the FB page (somewhat, if not totally irrelevant) not many of the main angler organisations like RFSA are even bothering to mention the metro meeting is on today, where a huge number of anglers can attend. Nevertheless your acknowledgement of people working to improve the position of rec
-
nok reacted to a post in a topic:
New AlexsFishin channel Intro
-
If you go to the SAFA FB page, https://www.facebook.com/pages/South-Australian-Fishing-Alliance/775479249198686 which has been going for a considerable time, you will find answers to your questions. As to backing from the commercial sector, very unlikely if you examine the SAFA position and their numerous posts on the present bag/size limits topic.
-
Far as I can make out, the base problem is lack of rec fisher data, and how the very small existing sample can be used in any effective manner to guide policy. IMO, interpreting two rec fisher samples over 13 years (no matter how it's done) is hardly likely to result in any kind of usable outcome for decision makers. If Kon is "very wrong on this whole topic", perhaps you'd care to set the record straight. In your opinion, what needs to be corrected, in what way should it be corrected, and what conclusion(s) do you arrive at? If anyone's interested, it's my belief th
-
Finally clarity emerges. Please read the following statement carefully In any statistical context, cherry-picking always has negative connotations, because it subverts the normal goal of accurate analysis. In a scientific setting 'cherry-picking' is almost akin to 'misconduct'. However your lack of knowledge in this area (stated as a fact and not as a put down) allows you to actually believe 'cherry-picking' is sometimes "valid". Whether you want to take notice or not, I am telling you that you are very wrong on this whole topic.
-
I am at a loss why you continue to engage on an issue where you are so clearly struggling. First, is it not a fact that you used the following phrase, other than to merely cherry-pick "to advantage" and its attendant implication, in relation to the 2000/2001 snapper harvest weight in Brenton Schahinger's graph? And was that 'barb' merely invoked because "your" figure of 153 tonnes for 2000/2001 was not used, even though "your" figure is unsubstantiated and has never appeared in the literature? So again how can anyone possibly "cherry-pick" when only TWO (2) values are available (4
-
I think you should exercise more restraint before insinuating someone has tried to misled readers. The graph in question (see earlier post) was from an article written by Brenton Schahinger (Chairman, Recfish SA) on p11 of the Black Point Progress Association, Spring 2012 newsletter. You then presented a similar graph (from the MFA?) which had a substantially lower snapper recreational harvest weight for the 2000/2001 survey, deemed 'correct' by yourself and the Brenton Schahinger value 'dubious'. Your position and conclusions however are unsound based on the published record. Scha
-
I showed the graph given by the Chairman of Recfish SA, where he plots the weights of snapper caught by reccos. Yes, I assume these values were from the 2000/2001 and 2007/2008 surveys, and on checking appear close to the values stated. Your value for 2001 is not correct according to the original survey. I have not misled anyone, and the graph was produced by Recfish SA. I am unsure what I have to exactly explain. I just thought the graph would be useful to reccos.
- 36 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- Snapper Fishing
- Adelaide Snapper
- (and 3 more)