kon

A few things.- We unfortunately have what is a PC-driven, legislatively enshrined and effectively racist construct here. Yes, the case was facilitated by the ethnicity of the defendants.- Anyone on this forum residing in Adelaide metro and interested in atavistically-driven outdoor pastimes has no more and no less "connection with the land" than someone who happens to be of aboriginal descent also residing Adelaide metro.- I have no more nor less "need" for self-procured personal consumption than any other metro resident, irrespective of ethnicity.Sadly, we as a society have generated a "too big to fail", so we are where we are.

KnackersThank you for your posts. I suspect there may be a lot of stuff tucked away in ILUAs to that effect.silaflexJust from a wiki extract, but have read this elsewhere in recent times.Judge Merkel in 1998 defined Aboriginal descent as technical rather than real – thereby eliminating a genetic requirement. This decision established that anyone can classify him or herself legally as an Aboriginal, provided he or she is accepted as such by his or her community.Not necessarily the whole story apparently, depending on the subject matter...The bottom line for me though is - I read of the $400K a government has to fork out for daring to enforce (presumably) conservation-informed regulations and being stymied by technical legal nuances where ethnicity is apparently the overriding consideration, with the outcome of (in the lawyers words, and what message does this send!?)"He'll be very keen to get his fishing gear back, he'll be very keen to go about his business without interference from the state" and then I read in the latest Fisheries Council minutesMembers noted the financial report and overview provided by Mr Gramola for the 2012/13 financial year including the covering summary advice. A summary of major expenditure and underspent allocations was provided. It was confirmed that the underspent money would not roll over into the 2013/14 budget. At its May meeting, Council noted that its budget will be reduced in the 2013/14 financial year. The mind boggles just a tad at the natural justice and commonsense disconnect.

And it gets better - you know those Sanctuary Zones coming in October next year?Only for white fella of course......from "Activities and Uses in Marine Park Zones"Exemptions- The Minister responsible for marine parks may provide a permit for any activity to take place that would not ordinarily be allowed in a specific zone in accordance with section 19 of the Marine Parks Act 2007.- The Regulations will also provide an exemption for any person acting in the course of an emergency. - The Regulations will not apply to a person exercising official powers or functions under a State or Commonwealth Act or an Aboriginal person acting in accordance with an ILUA or Aboriginal tradition.These instances will never get prosecuted because a dispensation has clearly been written in.Oh, I nearly forgot - they get to fish in Restricted Access Zones too.I guess we`ll just have to get into some personal, ahem, reconciliation with the status quo....

ActivitiesDec2012.pdf

Squid Flaps

I may have to take my Indigenous mate for a snapper fishing trip next week

Hell, as long as you don`t put a line in the water, looking at this outcome you guys would probably be able to come back with as many as you want?And size is obviously redundant too...just make sure he has the requisite cultural area connections.Easy as. .

From a couple of years backhttp://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/aboriginal-fishermen-in-mabo-court-battle/story-e6frea6u-1226167524436"Owen John Karpany, 59, of Kapunda, and son Daniel Thomas Karpany, 24, of Parafield Gardens, who belong to the Narrunga people..." :whistle:

So...what message does this send to any like-minded people of the same background?http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-06/native-title-abalone-owen-daniel-karpany-undersize/5072466?section=sa $400K of taxpayer money being put to great use there too... :vomit:

Spider crabs?

NTTThe rules were adjusted late 2012 to cater for exactly that sort of thing while still making it very difficult to hook (and stay hooked up!) to a big toothie. If the hook measures up okay and the mono diameter is less than 1mm - no probs.60lb should be well under a mil...

Seal numbers increasing metro - summer coming on - increased shark presence (little sharks and big sharks) - big sharks go yum-yum on seals - lots of people in the water...What could possibly go wrong? :evil: But seriously - what to do, realistically? :whistle:

Reeve

really dislike like a certain demographic of people that have 0 care for our fisheries.

Hmmm...a few years ago at Hallett Cove was fishing next to a group of...a certain "demographic"...who were filling a large department store bag (could have been two) with mussels obtained through sitting waist deep in water and casually feeling around. :whistle:

Archerfish - dunno where he caught it (bastard, our only ones have been the one and only time we`ve been to D`Entrecasteaux...and the biggest was three quarters of what`s in the photo!) but I could show you on Google Earth to within a metre of where the photo was taken. Does that help at all? Knackers - you utter, utter, utter sod! All those hours over the last few years spent trolling around the point, and whilst travelling from A to B - surface lures, divers...one hook-up (and immediate bust off) on something huge near the point being the score in the immediate environs to date...grrrr...But what else can one say, except

chuckembackAm I thinking what you`re thinking...in terms of karma...regarding his tie-ins with the Valentine`s Day [shark tackle restrictions] Massacre?

Further to the Nielsen poll above - just found this on a blogsite, someone having run the figures through an online election calculator and came up with this gem.It`s all about the preferences...remember how Fielding scored a senate seat for Family First with 1.9% of the primary vote?The Queensland Nielsen poll is extremely interesting, given the results for the Senate. The results of the poll were: ALP 31% LNP 45% GRN 8% PUP 8% KAP 4% OTH 4%I put those figures through Antony Green’s ”Senate Calculator” below. The results were amazing. There are 3 ALP senators and 3 LNP senators up for re-election. Now I don’t know the break-up of “Other Parties” (4%), but adjusted the prior 2010 figures already in the calculator as best I could. I don’t think they really make that big a difference. The results came out as follows: LNP ALP LNP ALP LNP PUP Glenn Lazarus of the Palmer United Party becomes a Senator for Queensland come July 1, 2014, and the ALP loses a Senate seat. The absolute irony is that the final seat came down to this: PUP KAP GRNThe Greens’ preferences (the smallest quota of the three) flowed to the Palmer United Party. So Sen. Christine Milne and her merry band of little green munchkins have elected a candidate of the “billionaire” coal polluting and CO2 producing baron, Professor Clive Palmer. I think the word I’m looking for is “irony”And it gets better - a bit of historical background from the calculator site;We have assumed that all votes are ticket votes. At past Federal elections, around 95-98% of mainland voters, and 80-85% of Tasmanian voters, fill in their ballot paper using the group ticket ('above the line') voting option. Given the number of candidates contesting this year's election, the rate of group ticket voting may be even higher in 2013.I personally am gobsmacked by that percentage. But congratulations, Mr Palmer. And thanks a lot, Chrissie. Not. :vomit:

TB

What about 'gamers for croydon' I hear they are all voting labor because they only care about the NBN....

Sigh. $40 Billion going on $80 Billion to have 97% of households being able to download a movie in three minutes...Ssshhh....don`t mention that Turnbull`s FTTN at 10-20 Mbps is the standard deal for Conroy`s FTTH - unless you are prepared to pay quite a few more bucks for 80-100Mbps "available" on the latter..."The best lies are based on half-truths"

Ugly

Sarah Hanson-Young's ads playing every 30 damn seconds aren't doing her any favours. I swear I'm gonna throw a brick at my TV the next time I hear that girl talk...

I know someone who was associated with the SA Greens on a professional (not ideological) basis - their SHY appraisal was ..."she`s not real bright"...

Eek. have a look at this (admittedly Bananabender-specific) polling.Palmer and the Greens have hopped into bed with cross-preferencing for tactical reasons, to give both LNP and Labor the big finger - BTW Comrade Milne says he`s no worse than the two majors in terms of pro-coal but their parties have a supposed commonality on asylum seekers, thus no reason for the Greens not to preference Palmer...convenient excuse.Both parties pandering of course to the LCD voters who would like "free stuff that Mr Nobody will pay for".Check out the Greens and PUP. After preference transfers, there`s gotta be a Queensland Senate seat in there for at least one of the loony twins...Take the time, vote below the line.

ausea, you said

It's the forum manufacturer/brand that's the problem.This forum is virtually dead only got a dozen people left on it.

Now, having logged on, I saw 45 members and 2462 guests online.My average observation seems to be about 30-60 members and 900-1200 guests.I am intrigued as to what may have been driving the assertions you make in both sentences... PS Dell laptop - Vista - Mozilla browser - no probs.

I have found Platypus Platinum good - but Kokoda GTR Ultra better still.

I did hear or read that if you use said video on a sponsored site . Then technically , i believe that lures or fishing gear given to you IS the financial reward . So my understanding is if you don't post videos to a sponsored site and don't get Lures fishing gear and the like (financial reward) then you are ok ?

I would like to think you nailed it right there JJ - if you haven`t, the world has just turned into a very insane place!

I`m a little confused here - is Dean Logan`s contention based on the argument that because videoing from a kayak is not actually defined as not being a commercial activity, then it could be by inference construed to actually be considered as such?Assuming I have the right references and documents...From the Act; 7 Definition of domestic commercial vessel (1) In this Law:domestic commercial vessel means a vessel that is for use in connection with a commercial, governmental or research activity.(2) The use of a vessel in connection with an activity that is not a commercial, governmental or research activity at the same time as the vessel is used in connection with a commercial, governmental or research activity does not prevent the vessel from being a domestic commercial vessel.(5) Despite subsections (1) and (2), the regulations may provide as follows:(a) that a specified thing, or a thing included in a specified class, is a domestic commercial vessel;( that a specified thing, or a thing included in a specified class, is not a domestic commercial vessel.From the Regs; 9 Definition of domestic commercial vessel—things that are domestic commercial vessels (1) For paragraph 7(5)(a) of the National Law, a vessel is a domestic commercial vessel if the vessel is a volunteer search, rescue or search and rescue vessel that undertakes searches or searches and rescues.(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply to a volunteer search, rescue or search and rescue vessel that is a surf lifesaving vessel operating in sheltered waters or within 2 nautical miles of the low water mark.10 Definition of domestic commercial vessel—things that are not domestic commercial vessels(1) For paragraph 7(5)( of the National Law, a vessel is not a domestic commercial vessel:(a) if it would, but for this section, be a domestic commercial vessel only because:(i) it is sponsored during a sporting event; or(ii) it is being used for a promotional activity, including an activity to produce an advertisement, or as part of a film set; oretc...

As it stands vessels involved in production of TV fishing shows are not considered promotional activity or part of a film set and so are not exempt from the legislation.

TV fishing shows could arguably be a "commercial" enterprise, although one would want to see the differentiating criteria applicable to a (presumably) commercial film set and a commercial fishing show, hmmm...in other words "not considered" on exactly what basis? - but that aside, a private individual fisher uploading onto youtube or wherever could hardly be considered "commercial" by any stretch of the imagination?Particularly given that there is no financial reward for the individual making the upload...This is almost like saying that because there is no law saying that I can take a smartphone shot of a group of friends in a beer garden and then put it up on a social facebook site (that just happens to be part-sponsored by Penfolds)...then I could be prosecuted for doing so? :whistle: More information required.

hc8721d3.doc

h55f8150.doc

bent87

That's interesting tony- does that mean a chunk of meat on a large hook for shark is acceptable (day light hours only of course)

You did mean "night time hours" I presume, if referring to the metro shark fishing tackle restrictions? Probably an irrelevant consideration, because there is actually nothing to stop you from fishing metro LB for shark during the day anyway - as long as you use nothing bigger than an 8/0 and mono trace no thicker than 1mm...although you would be guaranteed a hard time regardless, I suspect, given the political drivers for the introduction of those particular regulations...That aside, an extract from the fishing regs to ponder - note it refers to Berley not Bait;23—Berleying(1) A person must not use blood, bone, meat, offal or skin of an animal as berley (otherwise than in a rock lobster pot or other fish trap) within 2 nautical miles of—(a) the mainland of the State; or( any island or reef that forms part of the State and is exposed at the low water mark.Maximum penalty: $2 500.Expiation fee: $210.(2) A person must not deposit or use in marine waters of the State the body, or part of the body, of a mammal or bird.Maximum penalty: $2 500.Expiation fee: $210.Unless someone interprets the above as "no animal berley within 2nm of land" and "no use whatsoever (ie for bait) in all marine waters" ...thus completely disregarding that Reg 23 is specifically titled "Berleying"... it would appear by logical inference that a chunk of meat on a hook is fine...for Bait.However, the PIRSA interpretation of the Regulations pursuant to the Act appears to be a little different, looking at the last item on the FAQ link;What about the use of small amounts of meat for berley or bait when targeting fish such as mullet? The intent of the law is to minimise the impact berleying may have on attracting sharks to areas close to other water users. It is considered unlikely that these products will have significant attractant properties and so they will be dealt with in the same manner as commercial berley. Compliance officers will use their discretion in weighing up the circumstances of its use.Notice how "or bait" has subtly crept into their departmental interpretation of the Regs? :whistle:

Also from the linkThese aquatic reserves allow fish such as King George whiting, yellow fin whiting, blue swimmer crabs and western king prawns to mature and breed within a relatively undisturbed area.They have obviously assessed BSC as being okay to rake for, anything else to be left alone given the aquatic reserve considerations.Line fishing from both sides is I suspect merely an enforcement/administrative simplification, as anything away from the breakwater is still under reserve protection from extractive effort.

"...fishers now permitted to line fish from the breakwater in both directions when tide conditions are suitable."

"from the breakwater" - sounds pretty darn specific."when tide conditions are suitable" - meaning when tide conditions aren`t suitable...one obviously can`t fish from the breakwater. Reinforces the first bit.From the linkProhibited ActivitiesBait digging, fishing (other than land-based line fishing from the breakwater) and collecting or removing any marine organism (other than blue swimmer crabs) is not permitted.

WisdomJust to clarify - are you talking about the Australian Sealions or the NZ Fur Seals?The former are supposedly under population stress whilst the latter are the ones which seem to be breeding like rabbits - which is why DEWNR/greenies used that little sealion lever as an extra bit of ammo at every opportunity.Mind you, having said that, it was always a pretty tenuous argument for DEWNR to allege that no Recfishing in SZs would be of benefit to the sealions - Recs don`t use gillnets, I have never personally heard over the last decade of a Rec hooking a sealion or pulling one up in a lobster pot and I hardly think Rec fishing impact on sealion foodsources would be an issue.So back to certain commercial fishing practices and displacement by the fur seal population explosion as the most likely reasons for a sealion reduction?FWIW, from IUCN Redlist;The main threat to the Australian Sea Lion is bycatch in demersal gillnet and trap fisheries.It was always just another straw to grab at - same as "ooh, but there`s an osprey living in the cliffs nearby"...which would have been strangely unaffected by general boating, beachwalking, diving, snorkelling and surfing all being permitted in any proposed SZ...Never mind, DEWNR will be getting lots of pretty "change of branding" new region-specific logos now, it`s a breath of fresh air folks. :evil: BTW, the lobster pot thing - just received my renewal, and they are flagging recreational lobster pot changes for the 2014/15 season in the Northern Zone regarding "sealion exclusion devices and escape gaps".Being seen to be ticking all possible boxes in regard to a reducing sealion population is the driver, I suspect.Get those angle grinders and welders out come June next year, hey?

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/41664/0Listing recommendation — Populations of the New Zealand Fur Seal are presently increasing, and there is no evidence for sustained declines in any parts of their range. The breeding range of the species is still expanding in both New Zealand and Australia. Although the species is subject to by-catch in commercial fisheries in both New Zealand and Australia, these levels, at present do not appear to be inhibiting broad scale population recovery. The species should be categorized as Least Concern.But from October 2014 I won`t be able to fish recreationally in the Nuyts Reef and Cape Borda areas because that could contribute to compromising the intent of Biodiversity Conservation under the "Comprehensive, Adequate and Representative" Marine Parks approach.Obviously DEWNR have made the informed decision :evil: that the hundreds of recreational boats :evil: which constantly hammer those easily accessible areas :evil: would put too much extraction stress on the fish biomass on top of any seal-related depredations. :vomit: