kon
-
Content Count
1,461 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Calendar
Articles
Store
Posts posted by kon
-
-
-
reelfun, an interesting observation.The paper obviously painted recfishers as the bad guys here (understandable because we are after all the source of fishing line and hooks)...however, and it`s a big however, bird aggregation around any people near the shoreline would surely be due also (at least in some measure) to associating all waterline and waterborne humans with a potential free feed?Fishers or otherwise.Unintended consequences of "ecotourism", feeding Stormboy`s cute little cousin?...the paper could have stressed that a little more methinks.Then again, bear in mind this is the same mob who generated the "dolphins and props" outcry a couple of years ago...
-
Via this linkFrom the attached pdf (also linked in the article)This study has shown that native estuarine and river birds are suffering significant injuries from fishing gear and that many of these entanglements appear to be related to foraging behaviour around active recreational fishing.A little presumptive but certainly not inconceivable?Regular removal of discarded fishing material along local shores resulted in no reduction in the numbers of entangled or hooked seabirds. It appears likely, therefore, that such injuries may result from seabird proximity to active recreational fishing, rather than from entanglement in discarded material.not sure that is a definitive cause/effect link, how thorough and complete is the "regular removal"?This had me raise my eyebrows...A field study was also conducted at various coastal and estuarine areas around the city of Adelaide counting pelicans in the presence of, or within close proximity (5 metres) to, active recreational fishing.Although this may certainly be worth considering, at least as a general principle...
A number of fishing-related injuries observed to silver gulls and pelicans in the study occurred near Bower Road bridge off West Lakes. Due to fishing practices in the area, numerous fishing lines have been cast over overhanging power lines resulting in masses of suspended line and hooks that entangle and injure birds.
-
Anyone who boats or fishes at Westlakes....A feedback form link
25 JULY DEADLINERead the attached pdf, particularly the definitions section, and the parts pertaining toBoat RampsClosed LakesUse of BoatsFYI, the section referred to at the end of the pdf as Section 246(3)(e) of the Local Government Act 1999 statesprovide that the by-law, or a provision of a by-law, applies only within a part or parts of the area as the council may determine from time to timeGet onto it folks...you only have a few days left.
-
Beach and Jetty fishing won't be effected.Metro, no probs, as above - but just to clarify, not quite correct if referring to all of SA.LB fishing with rod-and-line will only be permitted in some parts of some SZs.It`s all here
-
No SZs between Christies Beach and Middle Beach if you`re concerned about Adelaide metro LB.
marine-park-management-summary-14-upper-gulf-st-vincent-plan-1.pdf
-
Um...factor this into the Emergency Services Levy increase.Bonus...NOT.
-
Stand to be corrected, but trailer rego options are only 3 or 12 months as things stand?Besides which, not a bad idea to keep the trailer registered anyway...a winter service perchance, etc...The boat 6 months thing I thought from the start was just blatant electioneering - what does one do, having registered the boat Oct-Apr if there is a pearler of a week in May or Sep?Not to mention the fact that you`d be saving yourself a phenomenal "up to $26" per year on a tinnie or midsize runabout.Puhhhlleaaase.....whoopie doo...A la RJ, also just wondering.This wasn`t directed at the jetski brigade primarily ...by any chance?
- Poppa Snake and Lexi
-
2
-
-
Hey dylzz, and other subject matter experts, just wondering (I don`t do a great deal of LB...) - my beach rod is currently a 10ft Silstar Crystal, the only designation I can find on it is PC-1002 RSM.Seems a little "delicate" at the thin end, having said that a 50cm mully was a "meh, whatever" reaction from the rod, but I`m just intrigued as to what would be the realistic upper limit of beastie size with my Silstar?(without being stupid and trying to pole in something big with the drag wound up of course!)Mattyboy - Penn 950ssm, you said?
-
My compadre usually does the gaffing (has bigger guns than moi!) - techniques is to come in from underneath, towards the front of the fish (just think in terms of slightly forward of centre-of mass), lots of oomph and speed, straight up and importantly continue the motion up and into the boat without pausing.Two-handed use from go to whoa of course.We haven`t caught anything bigger than about 6ft but the technique seems to work consistently enough.A pretty darn sturdy home-made gaff about 5ft long with the point paralleling the shaft, but I can`t see why there would be any issue with a slight angle out.Sounds like you`re trying to do all the right things?As has been stated, the shark may of course part company with the gaff in very short order once in the boat(!) but we`ve never had any problems with one jumping off the gaff during the lift, due to the weight. Actually they usually tend to stay on long enough for someone to grab the tail, as long as the gaffer keeps the thing slightly off the deck.Heh heh - on one occassion things didn`t quite work out as planned, four people were sitting on the gunwales and watching a rather displeased beastie do two or three lizard thrash circuits around the esky in the middle of the boat, I seem to recall a small tackle box ended up a little second-hand and a rod standing up in a rear corner of the boat got a decent whack...that was one time when we thought a tail rope may probably not have been such a bad idea...
The rope proponents do have a point, on two counts - lifting-in insurance and assistance, and an initial handling aid.
-
TB - basically what you said. I would just like to point out that the tackle restrictions were reviewed after about 12 months to something a little more reasonable and practical than the initial knee-jerk fast-tracking - then about another 12 months later they actually became permanent. (2 year rule for temporary restrictions under the Fisheries Act, blah, blah...)BTW, I gained the impression that the whole exercise, whilst being PIRSA-actioned, did not smack of being PIRSA-driven.They just happened to be the gummint department told to "make it happen" - lobbying and contacts apparently trumped the advice of CSIRO and SARDI subject matter experts, not to mention the record of shark attacks in metro waters.
Looking at the anti-fishing and anti-boating history of certain action groups, and intriguing decisions made ostensibly by government departments in recent times, I too am just a little reticent to contribute any "citizen science" which may have potential unforeseen and unpalatable consequences.Sad to say, because the Donnellan enquiry seems to be a legitimate species-specific and research-related crowd-sourcing information request...
-
NanmanI must say that from my perspective it is, on balance, more of a pragmatic approach than paranoia.But rsk`s tinfoil hat quip is possibly not inappropriate...Prof Donnellan was no doubt doing a scattergun everywhere he could think of in genuinely asking for assistance regarding something pretty bloody rare by all accounts, but nonetheless a hypothetical - the next [insert a number] Magpie Fiddler sightings... all in the Port environs...ya gotta ask yourself the question re potential outcomes, hell, there`s been enough aggro from certain quarters regarding dolphins vs props for a start?
As you yourself poignantly said, think back to the SAMPIT business with MPs...once bitten, twice shy and all that?Sure, as with other critical/protected species, a "release immediately" requirement would be the commonsense outcome, but layer a few localised sightings over a few other local issues and ya gotta wonder.Re PIRSA - it`s a fine line with "hard questions". I have had a couple of "discussions" with them on here over the last year or two, but one has to be mindful of the fact that they are here to primarily explain background and clarify regulations, not to debate policies let alone gummint initiatives...however questionable some of those may be!And credit where credit due - they do make an effort to maintain a presence, I reckon it`s no bad thing?Labor - hmmm...purely a personal perspective based on various sources but, wash my mouth out with soap, I am actually thinking that the Libs winning would have seen SA reccos basically jumping from "frypan to frypan".I`m not entirely convinced a change of government would have necessarily improved things all that much.
-
rsk(at the risk of generating a little thread drift here...)I don`t know whether those operations are within a MP GMUZ or HPZ (in which case there`s effectively no issue with the Act) or whether they occur within a SZ...still in which case, from section 5 of any Marine Park-specific Management Plan;
5. GUIDELINES FOR PERMITS
The Minister may grant a permit to a person to engage in an activity within a marine park, or a zone or other area of a marine park, that would otherwise be prohibited or restricted.
A management plan for a marine park may provide guidelines with respect to the granting of permits for various activities that might be allowed within the park (section 13(1)(e) of the Marine Parks Act 2007). All applications for permits will be considered on a case-by-case basis, in accordance with section 19 of the Marine Parks Act 2007.
And...Favourable consideration should be given to the granting of permits for the following activities within the marine park:
- scientific research in a sanctuary zone or restricted access zone;
- competitions and organised events in a sanctuary zone;
- tourism operations in a sanctuary zone;
- commercial film making (including sound recording and photography) in a sanctuary zone; and
- installation of vessel moorings in a sanctuary zone.
Permits for other activities will be considered on merit, against the management objectives for the marine park.
Yup... -
Ta Bjorn, that would sort of make sense - if it`s individual browser cookies FWIW I was on both Lib and Labor sites in the last week or two.
-
And gone now...and a minute later it`s back...??????? :whistle:
-
Nothing wrong with discussing politics potentially affecting recfishing on a specific thread of a fishing forum site in the leadup to an election - but why am I seeing a multi-slide Labor ad on the Recent Topics Home Page?
-
BricksFamily First could be in the mix here with preference arrangements?Just pure speculation of course... :whistle:
-
Ale and Bjorn, points taken.Notwithstanding the (acknowledged) thread drift in this instance, regarding the statement
All well and good, but it`s also no bad thing to be aware of what is going on away from a jetty or boat. A little bit of information dissemination could potentially assist in raising awareness and thus possibly helping safeguard the recreation activity down the track?PIRSA - to be fair, there can be a grey area overlap between a simplistic explanation of "what" versus asking for (quite legitimately) an elaboration on the "why" of any given regulatory change...the difficulty is that the latter has the potential to get a little out of hand.I quick suggestion, maybe a bit more time on the water catching fish is the go here?Maybe when online, read/post some hints, post the odd report up?Just a suggestion that’s all, surely all this political jousting surely takes the fun away from something we are all trying to do “recreationally�
-
TB
Interesting that a couple of paras before that statement they quote SARDI who were suggesting food web cascades and recruitment issues as other causes...and that the 50% statement was in a July 2013 newsletter, GSV recreational bag limits having been halved a couple of months earlier...hmmm.Oh, and the commercial operators didn`t "stop" - there was a temporary six month closure.And I`m still scratching my head over this statement in the same article;It was also interesting that there was no obvious reference on the PIRSA Fisheries website to the closure of the crab fishery.Say what...?http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pirsa/media_list/fisheries/reduction_in_blue_swimmer_crab_fishing_limits_to_aid_recoveryand the Recfishing "home" pagehttp://www.pir.sa.gov.au/fisheries/recreational_fishing"It is estimated that up to 50% of blue swimmers caught in the gulf each year can be taken by amateurs (you and me crabbing) so we DO contribute to the decline in numbers. It is interesting that even though the commercial operators have stopped, there has been no call to the wider community to play its part?"
-
Ah, good old FOGSV - anti-shark fishing and pro-Marine Parks activists.Good mates with WACRA apparently.Here`s a little bit of history, from their Blue Swimmer newsletter No 20 - January 2012The hazard posed by shark fishing is totally unnecessary, not to mention illegal, and we will be actively seeking far greater compliance monitoring.The Friends of Gulf St Vincent urge anyone with good reason to think that shark fishing is occurring from near shore to notify PIRSA Fisheries immediately...The shark tackle restrictions were introduced on 14 Feb 2012.I`d trust this mob as far as I could throw them...from a letter to Caica in April 2011The Friends of Gulf St Vincent join with other organisations and individuals to support fully the South Australian Government’s proposed Marine Sanctuaries.We are fortunate in South Australia to have an active and dedicated marine research community and have confidence that world class science underpins the choice of localities for protection.Despite long term management of fisheries in South Australia there is known to be an alarming decline in the status of several commercial species. Recreational fishing contributes to this decline and we must acknowledge that this will not change without action.
- chuckemback, Tacklebags and rsk
-
3
-
Khombi, an interesting observation indeed...I haven`t heard Greenpeace or CCSA jumping up and down at PIRSA and the local pro industry over BSCs - maybe GSV crabs are not a high enough profile issue for them?Protecting the cute little seals and locking away already "pristine" areas is more their thing it seems... :whistle:
-
SpartanThe fact that there is either mass ignorance or mass deliberate non-compliance I think would hardly lead to a 24/7 shark tackle restriction extension.This BS was implemented to supposedly "limit interaction" between shark fishers and other beach users [ie "Yes Minister" speak for "politically driven"], thus I would suggest if there is such a level of non-compliance it is surely down to enforcement during the specified "sensitive" period...as there is hardly a great deal of potential "interaction" between 9pm and 5am?
-
Knackers
I would beg to differ, as the principle would surely have been the same - eg 30KGW of which most were undersize. Thus a fisheries access/regulations/enforcement scenario would have generated exactly the same outcome, I`d suggest.Fully accept the other points you make in relation to high-value resource and "interests" of some parties etc.NanmanIf the undersize and over the limit fish/seafood were tommies, KGW, squid, mulloway etc etc that those indigenous dudes were raping from the ocean it would have never reached the high court. I'm keen to discuss
You wouldn`t believe it, but completely unrelated and by chance last night I got these below from a non-fishing contact. Very poignant given this thread.As a result of this happening a couple of hundred years ago when the world was a vastly different place;It's as though the twits in canberra believe that the wrongs of the past can be rectified by treating white folk of today as second class citizens.
we now have some who insist that this should apply as some sort of "recompense" owed;
Of course, daring to suggest that we perhaps ought to "move on" has been known to generate riots... :whistle:
Boating and Fishing at Westlakes under threat?
in General Fishing
Posted
FWIW, from a facebook post