Jump to content

Ranger

Members
  • Content Count

    9,771
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    70

Ranger last won the day on July 21 2014

Ranger had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Ranger

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Seems quite "up to date" data (only 5 years old) and collected in another area (Torrens Island), doesn't it! Convenient....but that relates to West Lakes in 2014 how? Maybe a recent study at the West Lakes area would be a little more convincing and less worthy of my scepticism! Forget the anecdotal evidence of "it appears likely" or "may" and possibly just stick to facts if you want to be taken seriously as convincing researchers guys....otherwise you'll only ever be known as "activists" with an agenda!
  2. Exactly mate! I too could travel to West Lakes, see the tangled lines hanging from the power lines and say it entangles and endangers birds...............yet from my own observations, the birds aren't that stupid, so where is the included proof of these claims? There is no methodology included in the report, no data, nor statistical surveys or methods of sampling that can be examined, no author or their qualifications provided....it hardly seems a valid or verifiable scientific report at all! Yes, I've seen birds entangled in discarded line (also plastic bags, beer bottle holders, and other detrius, pollutants and rubbish), yet show me the proof this is happening within close proximity to recreational anglers as stated, and is not instead something the birds have been entangled in elsewhere, or anywhere, possibly even while swimming off shore, while visiting the McDonalds carpark for a chip, alighting on a boat, or even in a residents yard. It seems to me, that a lot of conclusions are being drawn, with no evidence supplied to back up the claims....possibly with preconceived notions which NEED to be verified, resulting in conclusions being skewed to back these notions. I've read a lot of scientific reports in my time, this one hardly seems worth the paper it's printed on. I'm glad that it's been published in a Veterinary magazine, so that it will be opened up to peer review...as all scientific papers should. I'd also be very interested to read some of the peer reviews! It also seems to come at a very convenient time, just when Charles Sturt Council is proposing possible closures to West Lakes.....nothing like adding a bit of fuel to the fire, even if that fuel is not 100% legitimate!
  3. The only thing I can't find about that article is any information in relation to the author(s), apart from a brief mention of the Adelaide School of Medical Science. If it's a valid paper, names and academic qualifications will be put to it......or is this instead something written by a student who had to complete a project and write his findings as part of a learning outcome for one of his modules?
  4. A good berley should contain different densities of ingredients, so that it completely fills the water column. -cockle or crab shells which sit in the bottom -fish flesh which suspends mid water -cereals which float near the surface -oil to bind the berley and spread the scent A berley trail must be ongoing and unbroken, which the fish can follow to your boat, so if berleying by hand, small amounts frequently. A berley should be used to attract the fish, not feed them, although it can contain chunks of whatever bait you are using to help hide the fact that some pieces will contain hooks. For my berley I always used whtever was at hand at the time. Old bait, out of date fish, cockle or crab shells, prawn heads and shells, then I'd raid the pantry to add cereals (bread, corn flakes, etc), cans of sardines, dog food, whatever I could find. I'd shred my berley in the wifes food processor, add some tuna or fish oil, then freeze it in individual containers which were the right size to fit into my berley pot.....as the berley thaws in the water a constant trail is let out.
  5. It's under discussion here: http://www.strikehook.com/index.php/topic/24891-boating-and-fishing-at-westlakes-under-threat/ I think a little more information is relevant and pertinent before views are expressed. When they say "at certain times" what times are they considering, and for what specific reason. I'm sure some reasons and times would be quite legitimate and pertinent, kie: maintenance of drains, divers checking things such Caleurpa toxifolia, large organised on water events such as dragon boat racing, etc. What I fear is that it instead simply provides unlimited power to the council, to close the lake off at will, for whatever reason they come up with, ie: complaints from residents, litter left behind, noise, dont want non-residents hanging around the area, or simply for no stated reason whatsoever.
  6. In my view Nannygai is even better than snapper, and lends itself well to whole baked fish. Even with snapper I always prefer the smaller 40cm ones over the larger ones. Whenever I get a small snapper or nannygai, I always bake them whole wrapped in foil. My own preference is for asian style, with ginger, lemongrass, chili, coriander, lime, etc. Slice the flesh to allow even cooking and the flavours of the spices to permeate, fill the gut cavity with the herbs, and even add a drizzle of white wine or soy.
  7. I can tick all those boxes: http://www.strikehook.com/forum/64-buy-sell-swap-or-trade/254698-quintrex-4-8m-centre-console
  8. A local lad with a background in sales, an active interest in local sporting clubs, and a stable marital status............goes a long way to understanding the person behind the name, especially for those of us who intend to vote BELOW the line.
  9. I recently expressed similar myself: The two candidates at the last election were Neil Armstrong and Paul Tippet, I too am interested to know a little more background as to potential candidates representing the interests of fishermen.I don't access facebook, so I am unaware as to any further information in regards to candidates which may be posted there.
  10. I don't see political posts to be advertising as such.This is a minor political party working for an interest which directly relates to fishermen.If it's relevant to us, I am certainly happy for it to be posted on our forums, where you can find information, ask questions, or converse with candidates and/or party members.We attempt to provide a broad spectrum of diversity here, hence the involvement of DENR, PIRSA, RECFISH SA (formerly SARFAC), DRFC, angling clubs, tackle stores, bait suppliers, manufacturers, workshops, and any other relevant group of interest to rec fishermen and boaters........SAFLP is no exception to that.All we request in return, is that they each make an attempt to be active participants, for the benefit of site members. SAFLP in my own view is another group working for your interests, so should you wish, it is also in your interest to enter discussions with them, seek information from them, and air your views and opinions with them.Should the political side of the sport not interest you, we make attempts to confine it to limited areas of the forum, so that you as a member may overlook the posts and simply move on to something of greater personal interest.No member is in any way obliged to support, fund, or join any group, club, business or party you may find contributing on these forums......yet they are all here for your interest should you wish to explore them further.
  11. Rocket, firstly WELCOME!Please look at my own input, as that of a fellow fisher and a voter, not as that provided by a site staff member (as I wear two hats here).I have been to your website, and have read both your mission statement and your position statement on the new marine parks.Apologies that I am not on facebook to peruse any information provided there.Firstly let me address your position statement: Unlike your own party line, as a fisher I have never been against or totally opposed to marine parks....and will not cast a vote basely solely on that issue.I firmly believe that with increasing population, increasing pressure, and increasing degradation, there is certainly a need for parks, both on land, and on water, to protect and to conserve valuable, delicate and endangered areas/habitat/species. ie: national parks, conservation parks, sanctuaries, marine parks, etc.Like other fishers, I have been deeply concerned as to the lack of scientific evidence and the implementation process of the proposed marine parks, believing it to be an area which certainly does need to be addressed.My own belief is that waters first need to be successfully mapped, with firm data collected to support implementation of valuable areas which are in NEED of protection for the future.The closure/restriction of any other areas either on land or water, utilising a "precautionary" principle I find to be nothing but a breech on libertarian rights, for people to freely utilise the environment and resources on hand.....something which needs to be fought, hence I understand your stance on park zoning and closures.I note your mission statement: You make specific mention of "to represent the rights of Fishing and Recreational users of the Great Australian Outdoors" going on to specifically mention "The Great Australian Outdoors, sustainable use of the environment, recreational pursuits of the public, outdoor lifestyle, outdoor activities, Australian lifestyle"Hence the party name, Fishing AND LIFESTYLE Party, suggesting you aim to represent much more than solely fishing based activities.I understand that the marine park issue is one of great current importance, yet I also note, that I have been able to find no reference to any other outdoor activities, plans, closures, proposals or concerns, in relation to the environment or outdoor and lifestyle based activities.My question revolves around discussion as to your aims and plans for action on other areas of concern, apart from solely marine parks. ie, the LIFESTYLE portion of your party: hunting, bowhunting, bushwalking, camping, shooting, swimming, environmental closures, conservation, pollution, degradation, development, etc, etc.To clarify, are you actually a lifestyle (libertarian type) party, or a fishing party with a sole concern of marine parks?What I am seeking is a little more background as to the party itself. The people representing the party, their own background, experience, qualifications. The numbers currently on board of which the party consists, their own goals for the future of this state, and their vision for the entire outdoor environment, and the liberties of the populous who utilise this environment.When I vote, or what party I support, will be due to the vision and policies expressed for the future of the state, not merely a vote against marine parks.....even though I do share what I perceive as a very valid common concern on the marine park issue.I have posted here, as I believe many others in our demographic group would also benefit from further background on what can be considered a relatively new political party claiming to represent the voice of the fisher and the outdoorsman....if you claim to represent me and expect my support, I need to know who you are, what you are, and where you are headed, on a more broad scale than someone facelessly calling themselves "Rocket" fighting against marine parks, coz I just cant vote for an "Anti-Marine Park Party".Do you actually represent me, my views and my lifestyle, in an ongoing manner, or is your sole intent only to prevent marine parks?In regards to the party, its success, numbers and voting, I have recently posted my own concerns in another similar thread, which I would also like to draw to your attention, and request your view in reply: http://www.strikehook.com/forum/5-general-fishing/255055-south-australian-fishing-lifestyle-party?start=15I wish you well for the future of the party and its successes, and look forward to hearing your reply. As a voter I am currently unsure on where my vote, loyalty and support will best lie for any upcoming election......I'd like you to convince me that I'd be making the correct choice should I cross the SAFLP box, and I trust you would remain the "voice" of the voter should my vote contribute to putting you into a trusted position of influence.
  12. My post was not intended as an attack on anyone, a question on self-interest, or to stir trouble.I simply see two small single platform parties, with similar aims and goals, both struggling to gain numbers.The SAFLP is seeking that we join them to provide numbers and support, while the SP is currently also facing a number crisis in attempting to be renamed to include fishers (from the Shooters Party to the Shooters & Fishers Party).I saw it as only logical that these two minor parties consider an amicable meet for discussion, as to mutual gain, especially given that the SP is currently in the process of organising a recruitment meeting here in Adelaide.............have the parties ever made an approach to discuss mutual benefit, similar goals, or even a combined voice at the polls?Wouldn't both parties benefit from shared co-operation? The shooters party has been around a lot longer, with the strength of interstate compatriots and political experience, the SAFLP may have a closer finger to the pulse in regards to local issues.As a fisher (and a shooter myself) the big question for me, is do I throw my own support to the Shooters & Fishers, or to the SA Fishing & Lifestyle?..........after all, I do have to make a decision come time to cast my vote, and I currently see two parties fighting for the same purpose, and both struggling with numbers.Which of the two will provide greater benefit, which of the two has a greater chance at gaining a seat, are they currently depriving each other of numbers, will this split path see failure for both, is there a better way? Geez, on that note would they also benefit from discussions with other "libertarian" groups/parties (Liberal Democratic Party, Australian Sex Party, Australian Libertarian Society, etc)?I'm just looking at the picture as an outsider, and an outsider with a vote to cast. Now I've never been a big fan of single platform parties. In the past I've always considered education, employment, infrastructure, healthcare, etc, to take presidence over any of the single issue parties, hence my vote has always gone towards a major party based on their current policies.Yet I currently have shooters telling me I MUST become a member of the Shooting Party to provide strength and support.I currently have the fishers telling me I MUST become a member of the Fishers Party to provide strength and support.I currently have big concerns over shooting related issues, government restrictions, overbearing legislation, and the way legal licensed shooters are being portrayed and condemned in this country. I currently also have big concerns about fishing related issues, the marine parks, and management of our resources.So what do I do?1) Decide my shooting is currently at greater threat and requires representation2) Decide the marine park fiasco needs to take presidence over my shooting concerns3) Toss a coin4) Vote for the one who will represent both shooters and fishers 5) Decide neither party have the numbers to make any difference, so again vote for one of the major parties insteadI gotta say, at the moment I'm preferring a party which will represent both fishing and shooting, but with numbers being so poor (for both parties), I recon I'll probably end up again voting for one of the big two instead.......I'd like to see that change, so that a preferred party at least stands a fighting chance where my vote would actually be worthwhile if thrown to them, rather than wasted.I currently see Labor too busy infighting to worry about governing.I currently see Abbott hiding behind a no policy policy, instead directing all his efforts to tell us how bad the other party is.I currently see the Greens living in fairyland.I currently see SAFLP & SP both asking for my membership money, vying for the same vote, but neither telling me exactly what they intend to do if given the chance.At the moment no party has won me over, yet I have excluded no party (well, except for the greens).Whatever your party, whatever your platform, I wanna see names, I wanna see numbers, I want you to explain EXACTLY what your policies are, EXACTLY what it is you intend to do, EXACTLY how you intend to go about it, and EXACTLY what is your vision for the future. I want this up front, and I want this without having to pay to join any party first.As a voter you get elected to represent ME.....I'm a voter, not a puppet, nor a charitable contributor/funder.I wanna vote with my head, not my heart, and I want my vote to make a difference..........convince me!
×