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 and suitably credentialled) candidates should be easy enough to find, one would think.

RecFishCentral - the organisation`s website categorically states they have over 2,000 members, and one would presume the Minister would have been made aware of this in any dealings to date. Once again, 2+1 should not be a problem.

South Australian Fishing Alliance - the Board composition is unknown, but they do have over 100 Financial Members. A smaller pool than the two preceding organisations, but 2+1 should nonetheless be quite feasible.

RecFishSA (SARFAC Inc) - No current female board members (there was one for a while in recent times though) and I am not aware of the current Financial Ordinary Member figures - possibly similar to SAFA? But RFSA do have Organisation Members which should have between them a reasonably large pool of total members, so 2+1 should work there too.

The Minister has perhaps set out, particularly given this day and age, to challenge and change the historical paradigm of recreational fishing representatives in SA being pretty-well invariably male. As an aside, usually over 50 (if not over 60).
Given all of the above, by any logic the 2+1 is both warranted and achievable?

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/or once their funding is (presumably) pulled? Hardly think so. Then who will do all this and how will it be done? Or is it expected that "someone" will carry out all these tasks without any operational expenses funding support...from their loungeroom whenever they (hopefully) have a spare half hour here and there?

- No mention of ANY funding for recfishing representation other than reasonable travel reimbursement for any regional members of the MRFAC.

All I am seeing is an umbrella coalition with a specific role of a Ministerial advice council - this is not a VRFish, RecFishWest, AFANT etc "peak body" representative organisation which has to deal with the daily/weekly grind of multitudinous matters.
It very much appears that we may have gone down the road of "never mind the quality, feel the width"...

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 indicator perhaps, even at this stage?] flagged by TPTB at this time does not fill me personally with much confidence in that regard.

Those issues aside, RJ nailed another matter of relevance;

 

Quote

May be worth remembering that every person who becomes seriously involved in rec fishing representation in this State is a volunteer *, and we will need them all if we're going to progress. There really aren't that many - never has been.

Finally, seems we may be waiting a little while yet for any substantial outcomes - from the latest PIRSA "Fish Facts" advice;

"Recreational fishing groups and the broader community will soon be engaged in consultation regarding the process of formation, structure and function of the new body."

All rather wet cement. And to those, even altruistically, pushing for a "change" - careful what you wish for.

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 cheaper to go to a seafood outlet than do it from your own boat.

3. There is a difference between being "as firm as circumstances allow" and "absolutist-combative on principle" when it comes to representation. The latter, whilst all well and good in a sympathetic audience echo-chamber, is hardly an advisable approach to take (for the sake of professional image and credibility for a start) when dealing with the likes of government departments.... who are the ones who will make final determination regarding any rule changes in any case.

To add another consideration to what Wahoo said - those who constantly push the theme of "what have RFSA done for us" would do well to keep in mind that, for instance, the RFSA rep at the much-derided Marine Parks "secret meeting" was in no small measure responsible for SA ending up with closer to 6% than 10% SZ content.
But the nature of the beast is what it is - "wins" are relatively infrequent, at best the wolves are kept from the door for the most part.
The new RFC (or is it RFAC now?) will have to put up with all the same stuff...

"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.
 

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 FWIW - and based on a little personal experience and happenstance scuttlebut here and there, nobody don`t shoot me y`all...


 

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) individuals, primarily from 4 groups/organisations, meeting somewhere a few times a year, on their own time of course (albeit surely not at their own expense!?), with who-knows-what funds to play with for the betterment of recreational fishing in SA.
(It is interesting to note that a RFL is concurrently being flagged, will that be the funding source for Council operating expenses?)

Indications that the Council will be reporting direct to the Ministers office is certainly an improvement (on paper anyway, it will be interesting to see how that works in practice as a counterpoint to any PIRSA-driven imperatives), but that aside I don`t see too much more worth celebrating for now.

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;

"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 vectors, it would appear.

Fact_Sheet_-_White_Spot_Disease_information_for_recreational_fishing_-_Jan_2018_.pdf

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 handover including any ongoing projects and initiatives.
If anything happens my guess is that it will take months, quite possibly into 2019.

And a bag limit of one tuna seems to be more of a priority for the government at the moment...!

Jay R

Quote

Of note, I see PIRSA will be for the better word, the gate keeper's.

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