kon

Pirie?

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 an

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/o

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

The new representation model has been released for consultation today. Have a read of the Consultation Paper fine print, and draw your own conclusions as to the improved representation vehicle we have been given. https://yoursay.sa.gov.au/decisions/ministers-recreational-fishing-advisory-council/about

AussieDave, your "representation firmness" post well received. Just a couple of real-world pragmatic points; - In my (albeit rather limited) personal experience, the "just say no" approach is futile and, in fact, counterproductive. - "playing the game of politics" and an absolutist "not one step back, comrades" are, with respect, mutually exclusive concepts in a PIRSA office. Been there, I can assure you the latter is not an option, it is what it is. Maybe the new RFAC can somehow do better for some reason, who knows... but the "feedback and advice" duty statement [hmmm, a caveat indica

Rotare touched on three things which seem to be under the radar for most people; 1. I have always cringed at the supposed argument of "get a feed of fish for the family" - it is a recreational pastime, not some form of subsistence necessity. 2. Likewise, the bleating about "not worth putting my boat in the water for X whiting or Y snapper" - it is a recreation, not an expense-neutral exercise let alone a defacto money-making venture. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a $50K (or whatever) boat in the first place. And if cost per se is the main determinant in terms of "a feed of fish", much

"The Minister’s Recreational Fishing Advisory Council will provide feedback and advice to government on recreational fishing development issues and initiatives and big picture policy issues that impact the recreational fishing sector." http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/publications/fishfacts_e-newsletter/fish_facts_august_2018/new_ministers_recreational_fishing_advisory_council_for_south_australia

Some might suggest such a release would probably not be the most politically savvy action at this juncture. Never mind. But this does add a little "hmmm" factor... Where does a "South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council" ring a bell from? Seat/popcorn/watch... http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/publications/fishfacts_e-newsletter/fish_facts_august_2018/new_ministers_recreational_fishing_advisory_council_for_south_australia

Work considerations aside - Tumby Bay could be worth a look if you are even remotely considering Eastern EP. Last drove through there a few years ago without taking a great deal of notice, but it certainly has got a LOT more "modern" than it was in the 80s! At a drive-through glance anyway. Worth a few street views if nothing else. Strokes for folks, but personally; Port Lincoln - has a bit of a "Geelong" feel to it for some reason Cowell - nice enough coastal town, but rather more shall we say "rustic" than Tumby Whyalla - has got really busy compared to 15-20 years ago Just FW

Ah, funding. Stand to be corrected, but... With the new government there has been no flagging to date of funding specifics for either the proposed Council, OR recreational fishing initiatives overall. The former not so much of an issue (assuming a pool of dedicated volunteer individuals), the latter gives some cause for concern. I can`t recall a dollar amount being mentioned pre/post election? Given all the information to date, one would be forgiven for thinking that the new Council representing the purported 277K will be comprised of circa 8 - 12 appointed and/or elected (somehow) ind

I think "imported to SA" crabs is the issue - lots of concern in recent times about White Spot. BUT having said that, something to note from the attached pdf; If catching your own prawn or crab bait in South Australia, use it only in the water from where it came. You could be fined if caught depositing species not native to the area you are fishing in. "not native to the area" meaning the immediate vicinity presumably? So stuff caught in GSV can`t subsequently be used for berley at Turton is the inference? They really are getting concerned about any possible spread vecto

Straight from the PIRSA website. For the purposes of this thread it seems a fish is not an animal. "If you're berleying, don't forget that there are rules around where and what you can use. You must not use any part of the body of an animal (other than a fish, worm or insect) as berley within 2 nautical miles of the mainland or any island or reef that is part of South Australia and exposed at the low water mark." http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/fishing/recreational_fishing#toc1

From Tim Whetstone`s FB page, posted this afternoon, a little more info;

An update arising from Tuesday night`s RFSA Forum, from Upper Spencer Gulf RFC Rep.

Tim Whetstone (no longer the pre-election David Ridgway) is now the go-to person. Tim Whetstone is a busy man. https://www.facebook.com/TimWhetstoneMP/photos/pcb.1525638990833377/1525638944166715/?type=3 Tim Whetstone`s priority list of "things to do" may very well not have the implementation of a new RFC towards the top of the page. And, just maybe, Tim Whetstone is starting to realise what is involved in creating (essentially) a completely new representative body in terms of legislative, regulatory, administrative and departmental considerations, not to mention functionality handove

Jay R Yup, first thing I noted when the policy was originally released. That, and bringing back the Fisheries Council of SA.

I am still seeing "peak body" in two places on their FB page... ??

It would appear so from this press release? http://www.recfishcentral.com/web-content/press_release/rec_fishers.pdf

Correct. But technically any dinner prep or refreshments on deck after sunset = lifejacket on. Even more ludicrously - a leak over the side in the wee hours [see what I did there? ] = lifejacket on. The original proposal put up for public consultation only had "under way" - some bureaucrat idiot, for whatever reason, sneaked in "at anchor" on top of that.

Sleeping overnight. This is where it might start getting ludicrous with the "at anchor" business. Given this definition, it would appear "anchoring" is a subset of "mooring"... moor means to make fast to the shore, a buoy, a jetty or a wharf or to anchor So... Tied up to a mooring buoy in a bay - no probs. Anchored in the same bay (even with two anchors for arguments sake, bow and stern) - have to wear a lifejacket all night. ??

"or at anchor" Seriously? Nanny State strikes big time. http://dpti.sa.gov.au/ondeck/news?a=389610 I wonder how many of Mr Mullighan`s circa 3.5 "boating and watercraft" drownings per year involved a vessel at anchor?

I think Underpants nailed it with You don`t go fishing to save money. Certainly not Adelaide coastal metro landbased...I am guessing not too many people consistently walk away from a metro jetty having caught a couple of flathead or snapper(!?) or whiting or snook over an hour or three. The only way one might conceivably "save money" is catching one`s own bait (eg squid), living close to reasonably productive waters in the first instance (regional rather than metro), and either inheriting a cartopper rowboat(!) or having access to a worthwhile jetty or beach... and even then su

An instance where Regs (from the Aquatic Reserves instrument) make for simpler reading than public information brochures... Doesn`t get much clearer than this; 5—Authorised fishing activities in aquatic reserves (1) For the purposes of section 76 of the Act, a person may engage in a fishing activity in an aquatic reserve as follows: (d) Port Noarlunga Reef Aquatic Reserve—taking fish by using a hand line or rod and line, but not— (i) from within 25 metres of any part that becomes exposed at low water of Horseshoe Reef, the northern Port Noarlunga Reef or the southern Port Noarlun