kon

Strange location indeed, I think all members live metro Adelaide or close to it. Minister trying to make it difficult?  Maybe he just wanted to get some Happy Birds chips...

Yep 
Plus it will require those that work to take a day off and by memory I think they only get compensation for the travel costs. 
Steve

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"...

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"...

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

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

Evening all,
Agree with the previous posts, although I think 'apathy' might be a bit strong. 'Apathy' has been an overused cop-out term within SA Rec fishing circles for decades. Although it certainly does exist, "apathy' doesn't mean the same thing as "I want change, but I can't be buggered fighting with the SA rec fishing system", and if surveys are going to be distorted or ignored - why bother?
But regardless of anyone's level of interest, it's hard to engage with a representative system that didn't work very well and didn't welcome 'outsiders'. The SA rec fishing representative system was poorly constructed, poorly managed, completely underfunded and totally ignored by successive Governments, and there hasn't been much incentive for anyone to put their hand up to work within it. Those that have are truly dedicated and should be thanked instead of kicked.
Reckon people mostly want to do the right thing and would contribute where they can; especially on the issues that are directly affecting them - or will affect them. But no-one wants to become a punching bag for anyone in the rec community who disagrees with their views, while at the same time they have to try to promote their views into a system that simply doesn't want to have to deal with them. I don't think that's apathy - it's a sign of a failed system.
 
For what it's worth, a bit of a brain dump on the new Council (as described so far):-
Two biggest problems:-
1 No funding (Govt actually saves $125K per year)
2 No one to do the work.
Others
3. How will the RFC members meet outside of the 3 (whatever) times per year so that they can co-ordinate the workload (to be done by whoever), and raise new issues that are not on the Govt agenda?
4. No initiative to pull everyone together. Hostilities between the warring groups are continuing even now, and without some mediation to settle things down the infrequent RFC meetings will be unproductive shit fights.
5. There is no specification around organisational representative nominations to the RFC – do nominees need to be democratically elected by their membership?
6. PIRSA will “assist” at the infrequent meetings. But they should be a RFC member, with the Chair of the RFC reporting to (advising) the Minister of the agreed RFC outcomes. As it is, PIRSA retain their pre-eminent position and can block whatever they don’t like, regardless of the RFC's position. (eg to the Minister: "The RFC advises this, but PIRSA and SARDI recommend that instead".)
Overall the new RFC (as described) offers no change, backward step if anything.
The 4 named RFC organisations represent (membership) about 20,000 rec fishers in SA (my guess), so there are still more than quarter of a million SA rec fishers who won’t be connected to the system. The RFC needs to have a fully funded portal that is independently and impartially run (website + forum) that will provide a connection that is open to all rec fishers in SA, so that anyone can raise any issue and state their own opinion without being censored. There need to be regular (monthly?) public meetings of the RFC that are open to all comers and fully documented to the public via whatever media is available. Probably won’t get much meeting attendance – but that’s not the point. Point is that any rec fisher can rock up, witness what goes on, and have a say if necessary. I don’t think they really intended it this way, but the Govt's new RFC arrangement (as described) will just be a more effective ‘tick-the-box’ - with no improvement in representation for the bulk of the 277,000.
The people who agitated for change and fought the good fight didn’t do enough forward planning, just like George Bush’s victory in Iraq. Amendments to planning and design of the new system need to be done now – before the RFC is put in place, else we’ll quickly return to confusion and anarchy.
My 2 bob's worth, thanks for your time. Corrections very welcome.
Cheers,
RJ

Current system has only "failed" due to complete apathy by the recreational sector. Only have to look at the pathetic response to the various surveys and questionaires published in the last several years. Instead the process has been distorted by a few individuals who represent almost nobody, and distort the facts. 

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;

 


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.

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;

 


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...

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...

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...

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...

G'day
I bought an el cheapo laminator about 12 years ago from dick smiths.  Still works like a treat and has done many laminated sheet including a4 marine charts, engine fault codes, safety gear, bag limits, etc etc etc
You can pick them up for around $20, great investment
Cheers
Rod

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 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
 

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
 

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

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