Ranger

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!

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!

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!

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.

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!

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!

A good starting point is the Berkeley Gulp range, as the fish will even pick it up off the bottom and eat it, even when you put your rod down.Gulp 6" worms are great for Bream, as are the pepper prawns and banana prawns.Squidgies have always been a firm favourite for many anglers, but there's any range of plastics out there which will all do the job.Don't go telling everyone, but I still use the trusted old Atomic 2" Fatgrubs, and they still pull fish.If you're new to plastics select anything with a curl tail, as the tail will impart a swimming action into the lure, even if your own technique is a little lacking.2" up to 3" for Bream, and try to "match the hatch"....if you see small baitfish, select a lure which looks similar to them.A big thing with soft plastics is to actually have confidence in the lure you are using, and fish it as if you know a fish is gonna take it.

Gilbert, blades and vibes are awesome for Bream (and for Redfin in the freshwater), especially in deep water.You do tend to snag up a bit though bouncing them off the bottom, so expect to lose a few.As recommended the Ecogear VX35's are awesome.As you lift you'll feel the thing vibrate. If you feel that vibe you're doing it correctly.In the colder weather (ie: now) the Bream tend to go deep, in holes, channels and around the base of pylons, etc, so blades are perfect for getting right down and just jigging near the bottom.The trick for Bream is to go very SLOWLY, with lots of pauses.If you want any tips or advice on lures and techniques for Bream, sing out and maybe we can get together sometime...it's a big learning curve when you're first starting out, so you'll need to learn a few different lines, knots, techniques, maybe even a whole new outfit specifically suited to the game.

Hi bjorn, it looks like a couple of the above links don't work. the ones for Shimsman and Station49 threads. great topic and comp btw. thanks.

I would agree this one may well be an honest mistake.I've lost count of the number of people I've talked with, who confuse Tommies with ST's.....in fact, my new neighbour is defence force, recently posted to Adelaide, who was telling me of the Tommies he caught at Pt Gawler the other day......I had to explain the difference tween the two fish to him.My own suggestion if you see something like this, is to have a "polite" word, explaining size and bag limits, and the difference between tommies and ST's.Don't place yourself in a position of arguement or interference if the person becomes belligerent, angry or arguementative.....you don't need the aggravation or repercussions from anything arising out of conflict. I must admit, I've become frustrated/angry and kicked a bucket into the water before. It was silly of me, it's not advised, it's not legal, I should have known better, and it could have gotten me into a lot of trouble.....I let my anger and frustration get the better of me, don't you go doing the same!Call fishwatch with details, as it's their job to deal with this type of thing, not ours, regardless of how frustrating and annoying it can be.

I would agree this one may well be an honest mistake.I've lost count of the number of people I've talked with, who confuse Tommies with ST's.....in fact, my new neighbour is defence force, recently posted to Adelaide, who was telling me of the Tommies he caught at Pt Gawler the other day......I had to explain the difference tween the two fish to him.My own suggestion if you see something like this, is to have a "polite" word, explaining size and bag limits, and the difference between tommies and ST's.Don't place yourself in a position of arguement or interference if the person becomes belligerent, angry or arguementative.....you don't need the aggravation or repercussions from anything arising out of conflict. I must admit, I've become frustrated/angry and kicked a bucket into the water before. It was silly of me, it's not advised, it's not legal, I should have known better, and it could have gotten me into a lot of trouble.....I let my anger and frustration get the better of me, don't you go doing the same!Call fishwatch with details, as it's their job to deal with this type of thing, not ours, regardless of how frustrating and annoying it can be.

Hmmmm, lemme think:PufferShittyPort Jackson SharkRock codRed MulletRayCarp

Hmmmm, lemme think:PufferShittyPort Jackson SharkRock codRed MulletRayCarp

Hmmmm, lemme think:PufferShittyPort Jackson SharkRock codRed MulletRayCarp

Correct.