kon

The news article is exactly how "it" starts...and what did I say about bipartisan political support?pikkOn
Forum posting of latest C&R efforts unfortunately in the same category as I too am tempted to say "Move it for now or lose it"...except I suspect that unfortunately the real miscreants would probably not visit this forum anyway - even if everyone reading this site applied more discretion for a while there are others out there for whom that word probably does not exist..."Not doing nothin illegal, maate, wot ya gunna do about it!!??"And they would be strictly speaking correct - for now, but watch this space fellas...just one shark attack or even a couple of close-to-shore sightings (whether fishing related or not) and I have a feeling you will see some pretty impressive regulatory "fast-tracking"...It is a rather PC 21st century world we are living in, sad to say a minority don`t realise it.Wise words - certain parties would love to get some publicity to support their cause given that the MP zoning Public Consultation period is imminent.Timing is everything... they will be very grateful for the opportunity an over-publicised verbal altercation has given them to possibly escalate that to the next level of "violent redneck fishos" belting someone.Speaking of zoning - have a look at the attachment. Would not be hard to permit shore based fishing (including jetties, that one has been repeatedly promised ad nauseam!) but how about a HPZ up to 1km offshore between Christies and Wirrina where targeting sharks specifically is precluded?Could be considered given recent events.They can`t use that rationale for metro thankfully because there are no MPs in that part of the world...then again, a little change to the Fishing Regs...not to mention the Council By-Laws vehicle???"But it`s legal, maaate!" won`t cut it thereafter....MPA_15_E_BW_Geo_A4.pdf

The news article is exactly how "it" starts...and what did I say about bipartisan political support?pikkOn
Forum posting of latest C&R efforts unfortunately in the same category as I too am tempted to say "Move it for now or lose it"...except I suspect that unfortunately the real miscreants would probably not visit this forum anyway - even if everyone reading this site applied more discretion for a while there are others out there for whom that word probably does not exist..."Not doing nothin illegal, maate, wot ya gunna do about it!!??"And they would be strictly speaking correct - for now, but watch this space fellas...just one shark attack or even a couple of close-to-shore sightings (whether fishing related or not) and I have a feeling you will see some pretty impressive regulatory "fast-tracking"...It is a rather PC 21st century world we are living in, sad to say a minority don`t realise it.Wise words - certain parties would love to get some publicity to support their cause given that the MP zoning Public Consultation period is imminent.Timing is everything... they will be very grateful for the opportunity an over-publicised verbal altercation has given them to possibly escalate that to the next level of "violent redneck fishos" belting someone.Speaking of zoning - have a look at the attachment. Would not be hard to permit shore based fishing (including jetties, that one has been repeatedly promised ad nauseam!) but how about a HPZ up to 1km offshore between Christies and Wirrina where targeting sharks specifically is precluded?Could be considered given recent events.They can`t use that rationale for metro thankfully because there are no MPs in that part of the world...then again, a little change to the Fishing Regs...not to mention the Council By-Laws vehicle???"But it`s legal, maaate!" won`t cut it thereafter....MPA_15_E_BW_Geo_A4.pdf

The news article is exactly how "it" starts...and what did I say about bipartisan political support?pikkOn
Forum posting of latest C&R efforts unfortunately in the same category as I too am tempted to say "Move it for now or lose it"...except I suspect that unfortunately the real miscreants would probably not visit this forum anyway - even if everyone reading this site applied more discretion for a while there are others out there for whom that word probably does not exist..."Not doing nothin illegal, maate, wot ya gunna do about it!!??"And they would be strictly speaking correct - for now, but watch this space fellas...just one shark attack or even a couple of close-to-shore sightings (whether fishing related or not) and I have a feeling you will see some pretty impressive regulatory "fast-tracking"...It is a rather PC 21st century world we are living in, sad to say a minority don`t realise it.Wise words - certain parties would love to get some publicity to support their cause given that the MP zoning Public Consultation period is imminent.Timing is everything... they will be very grateful for the opportunity an over-publicised verbal altercation has given them to possibly escalate that to the next level of "violent redneck fishos" belting someone.Speaking of zoning - have a look at the attachment. Would not be hard to permit shore based fishing (including jetties, that one has been repeatedly promised ad nauseam!) but how about a HPZ up to 1km offshore between Christies and Wirrina where targeting sharks specifically is precluded?Could be considered given recent events.They can`t use that rationale for metro thankfully because there are no MPs in that part of the world...then again, a little change to the Fishing Regs...not to mention the Council By-Laws vehicle???"But it`s legal, maaate!" won`t cut it thereafter....MPA_15_E_BW_Geo_A4.pdf

Tread warily, people...This forum would be watched by various parties.One or two more "high media profile" shark C&R efforts in the metro area and there could be a game-changer scenario in terms of fishing regs - I can think of something along the lines of "no intentional targeting of sharks within XXX metres of a jetty or patrolled/designated/popular swimming area", for a start. Assertions of public safety requirements and all that.Heaven forbid an attack or fatality this summer whilst there are a couple of heavy duty rods (and balloons) at a jetty in close proximity...all it would need is a little indirect inferred attribution.Blatant berleying techniques aside...whether for sharks or tommies... :whistle: And yes, I am about to generate screams.And no, it is not illegal.Yet.Join the dots. A little discretion goes a long way...

AFF, you beat me to it, you sod!!From chrisjc
For those who keep repeating "but it`s legal" - keep in mind all it takes is a stroke of a regulatory/legislative pen and you won`t even have the option of exercising a bit of restraint or discretion. Keep in mind the times we live in.Won`t happen?Mid 80`s, bicycle hemet implementation, someone wrote in to the Tiser saying why the hell are we doing this, motorcyclists have a dispensation for 25 kmh without a helmet. The minister or a department representative replied (paraphrasing from memory)"The government approach is nothing if not consistent - we intend to remove the 25kmh dispensation for motorcyclists at the same time"And they did. Too easy.How hard would it be to slip in something simple like "no balloons or any float with a volume greater than XX permitted in the following areas, blah, blah".Or "no overnead reels permitted for jetty or landbased use in the metro area between locations X and Y, etc".Or "during daylight hours".There goes the justification on the grounds of supposedly (hmmm) fishing for tuna or kingies... :whistle: Yeah, it really does stick in the craw to tip-toe around when one is technically supported by the law and regs, but if a publicity push came to a legislative shove I know who would come off second best...and I have a feeling there would more likely than not be a bipartisan support on something like this.

AFF, you beat me to it, you sod!!From chrisjc
For those who keep repeating "but it`s legal" - keep in mind all it takes is a stroke of a regulatory/legislative pen and you won`t even have the option of exercising a bit of restraint or discretion. Keep in mind the times we live in.Won`t happen?Mid 80`s, bicycle hemet implementation, someone wrote in to the Tiser saying why the hell are we doing this, motorcyclists have a dispensation for 25 kmh without a helmet. The minister or a department representative replied (paraphrasing from memory)"The government approach is nothing if not consistent - we intend to remove the 25kmh dispensation for motorcyclists at the same time"And they did. Too easy.How hard would it be to slip in something simple like "no balloons or any float with a volume greater than XX permitted in the following areas, blah, blah".Or "no overnead reels permitted for jetty or landbased use in the metro area between locations X and Y, etc".Or "during daylight hours".There goes the justification on the grounds of supposedly (hmmm) fishing for tuna or kingies... :whistle: Yeah, it really does stick in the craw to tip-toe around when one is technically supported by the law and regs, but if a publicity push came to a legislative shove I know who would come off second best...and I have a feeling there would more likely than not be a bipartisan support on something like this.

AFF, you beat me to it, you sod!!From chrisjc
For those who keep repeating "but it`s legal" - keep in mind all it takes is a stroke of a regulatory/legislative pen and you won`t even have the option of exercising a bit of restraint or discretion. Keep in mind the times we live in.Won`t happen?Mid 80`s, bicycle hemet implementation, someone wrote in to the Tiser saying why the hell are we doing this, motorcyclists have a dispensation for 25 kmh without a helmet. The minister or a department representative replied (paraphrasing from memory)"The government approach is nothing if not consistent - we intend to remove the 25kmh dispensation for motorcyclists at the same time"And they did. Too easy.How hard would it be to slip in something simple like "no balloons or any float with a volume greater than XX permitted in the following areas, blah, blah".Or "no overnead reels permitted for jetty or landbased use in the metro area between locations X and Y, etc".Or "during daylight hours".There goes the justification on the grounds of supposedly (hmmm) fishing for tuna or kingies... :whistle: Yeah, it really does stick in the craw to tip-toe around when one is technically supported by the law and regs, but if a publicity push came to a legislative shove I know who would come off second best...and I have a feeling there would more likely than not be a bipartisan support on something like this.

AFF, you beat me to it, you sod!!From chrisjc
For those who keep repeating "but it`s legal" - keep in mind all it takes is a stroke of a regulatory/legislative pen and you won`t even have the option of exercising a bit of restraint or discretion. Keep in mind the times we live in.Won`t happen?Mid 80`s, bicycle hemet implementation, someone wrote in to the Tiser saying why the hell are we doing this, motorcyclists have a dispensation for 25 kmh without a helmet. The minister or a department representative replied (paraphrasing from memory)"The government approach is nothing if not consistent - we intend to remove the 25kmh dispensation for motorcyclists at the same time"And they did. Too easy.How hard would it be to slip in something simple like "no balloons or any float with a volume greater than XX permitted in the following areas, blah, blah".Or "no overnead reels permitted for jetty or landbased use in the metro area between locations X and Y, etc".Or "during daylight hours".There goes the justification on the grounds of supposedly (hmmm) fishing for tuna or kingies... :whistle: Yeah, it really does stick in the craw to tip-toe around when one is technically supported by the law and regs, but if a publicity push came to a legislative shove I know who would come off second best...and I have a feeling there would more likely than not be a bipartisan support on something like this.

Mr_Willy
Well said. This is the biggest problem, and unfortunately it is likely to trump any rational appraisal or risk analysis. The more C&R 3 metre bronzie (let alone GW) efforts at Brighton or Henley or down South reported with footage on the 6 o`clock news, the more calls there will be to "do something". As if we need more rules as it is... :dry: Yes, it is legal, but for it remain legal for as long as possible it would be worth considering the pragmatics of the situation. An in-your-face attitude of "get stuffed, I can legally do this anywhere, anytime" by the keener and more hardline sharking bods could ultimately bite all land-based sharkers on the arse in terms of restrictions being implemented.

Tread warily, people...This forum would be watched by various parties.One or two more "high media profile" shark C&R efforts in the metro area and there could be a game-changer scenario in terms of fishing regs - I can think of something along the lines of "no intentional targeting of sharks within XXX metres of a jetty or patrolled/designated/popular swimming area", for a start. Assertions of public safety requirements and all that.Heaven forbid an attack or fatality this summer whilst there are a couple of heavy duty rods (and balloons) at a jetty in close proximity...all it would need is a little indirect inferred attribution.Blatant berleying techniques aside...whether for sharks or tommies... :whistle: And yes, I am about to generate screams.And no, it is not illegal.Yet.Join the dots. A little discretion goes a long way...

Tread warily, people...This forum would be watched by various parties.One or two more "high media profile" shark C&R efforts in the metro area and there could be a game-changer scenario in terms of fishing regs - I can think of something along the lines of "no intentional targeting of sharks within XXX metres of a jetty or patrolled/designated/popular swimming area", for a start. Assertions of public safety requirements and all that.Heaven forbid an attack or fatality this summer whilst there are a couple of heavy duty rods (and balloons) at a jetty in close proximity...all it would need is a little indirect inferred attribution.Blatant berleying techniques aside...whether for sharks or tommies... :whistle: And yes, I am about to generate screams.And no, it is not illegal.Yet.Join the dots. A little discretion goes a long way...

Tread warily, people...This forum would be watched by various parties.One or two more "high media profile" shark C&R efforts in the metro area and there could be a game-changer scenario in terms of fishing regs - I can think of something along the lines of "no intentional targeting of sharks within XXX metres of a jetty or patrolled/designated/popular swimming area", for a start. Assertions of public safety requirements and all that.Heaven forbid an attack or fatality this summer whilst there are a couple of heavy duty rods (and balloons) at a jetty in close proximity...all it would need is a little indirect inferred attribution.Blatant berleying techniques aside...whether for sharks or tommies... :whistle: And yes, I am about to generate screams.And no, it is not illegal.Yet.Join the dots. A little discretion goes a long way...

Tread warily, people...This forum would be watched by various parties.One or two more "high media profile" shark C&R efforts in the metro area and there could be a game-changer scenario in terms of fishing regs - I can think of something along the lines of "no intentional targeting of sharks within XXX metres of a jetty or patrolled/designated/popular swimming area", for a start. Assertions of public safety requirements and all that.Heaven forbid an attack or fatality this summer whilst there are a couple of heavy duty rods (and balloons) at a jetty in close proximity...all it would need is a little indirect inferred attribution.Blatant berleying techniques aside...whether for sharks or tommies... :whistle: And yes, I am about to generate screams.And no, it is not illegal.Yet.Join the dots. A little discretion goes a long way...

SighI`ve always been amazed by the mentality of the lights off brigade. Wonder if there was a blitz by Mr Water Plod whether things would change, at least for a while, with word getting around of a few people getting busted?What part of "Vessels at anchor, either sail or power-driven, must show a single white light visible all round."is so bloody hard to understand...Not that a blitz is ever likely to happen, one could be forgiven for thinking they save their efforts up for checking boats re having snapper on board before midday on season opening day.And frequently maintaining a presence on the North coast of KI, obviously lots more people fishing there than Adelaide metro or SVG... :whistle:

Possibly another thing to add here, is why contemplate going solo at night unless you really have no other option?In all my years of boating and solo trips, I have never been out alone at night, and it's nice to know that you have a second pair of eyes and someone else to rely on just in case anything did happen to go wrong at night.

FWIW...http://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/379263-indotackle-store-scam.html

FWIW...http://www.thehulltruth.com/boating-forum/379263-indotackle-store-scam.html

PeopleHaving watched this thread and pondered some on the various thoughts presented I would like to share a (most likely) controversial consideration. My attitude to SZs, HPZs etc and the "process driven, science is settled" approach thereto is well known in these hallowed halls, but this is something which requires a "tread warily" attitude and I really do think that in this instance it`s a matter of Let Sleeping Dogs Lie. Deep breath...- The jetty in question has been a de-facto SZ for donkeys years- One of (effectively) three areas in the "metro" region, from a shore/jetty based perspective?- By all accounts, the biodiversity aspect is a major counterpoint to the fishing pressures the Gulf overall is subjected to- There are adverse non-fishing environmental impacts on the Gulf, removed from that location- I would hate to envision a situation whereby there would be an archetypal "plonker" and "no spik ingrish" rape-the-sea approach which is, at the very least anecdotally, so much the meme with our other metro jetties- This existing relatively small environmental microcosm is exactly what the middle-of-the-road marine scientists advocate in terms of localised appropriate small pockets for the purposes of biodiversity protection and conservation- PIRSA, with all due respect, would in all likelyhood not be able to maintain a sufficiently robust enforcement presence given their staffing limitationsSo, I say, let us leave it be. I stress this is being pragmatic and is far removed from the Wilderness Society, DENR et al approach of blatantly ideological and convention driven across-the-board "preservationism", for which I have the utmost contempt.Donning the helmet and flak vest...

PeopleHaving watched this thread and pondered some on the various thoughts presented I would like to share a (most likely) controversial consideration. My attitude to SZs, HPZs etc and the "process driven, science is settled" approach thereto is well known in these hallowed halls, but this is something which requires a "tread warily" attitude and I really do think that in this instance it`s a matter of Let Sleeping Dogs Lie. Deep breath...- The jetty in question has been a de-facto SZ for donkeys years- One of (effectively) three areas in the "metro" region, from a shore/jetty based perspective?- By all accounts, the biodiversity aspect is a major counterpoint to the fishing pressures the Gulf overall is subjected to- There are adverse non-fishing environmental impacts on the Gulf, removed from that location- I would hate to envision a situation whereby there would be an archetypal "plonker" and "no spik ingrish" rape-the-sea approach which is, at the very least anecdotally, so much the meme with our other metro jetties- This existing relatively small environmental microcosm is exactly what the middle-of-the-road marine scientists advocate in terms of localised appropriate small pockets for the purposes of biodiversity protection and conservation- PIRSA, with all due respect, would in all likelyhood not be able to maintain a sufficiently robust enforcement presence given their staffing limitationsSo, I say, let us leave it be. I stress this is being pragmatic and is far removed from the Wilderness Society, DENR et al approach of blatantly ideological and convention driven across-the-board "preservationism", for which I have the utmost contempt.Donning the helmet and flak vest...

There is a 'circular' water flow in gulf st vincent. The water comes in from the north of KI and along the western side till it gets to the top where it is pretty stagnant but it then flows out via the eatern (ie adelaide metro side) the out the bottom of the gulf again. Salinity levels are naturally higher north and east and fairly stable around KI. So at least they are putting the plant on the side of the gulf where water is leaving. But salinity levels are pretty high anyway so putting a desal plant in an inverse estuary (which the gulf is) that experiences dodge tides and where the whole water exchange cycle takes around 1yr seems pretty retarded . (most of that informaion is taken from a paper by Dr Jochen Kaempf of flinders uni who beleives the desal to be a bad idea.)Other papers i have read from some of the shallow basins in europe that recieve desal effluent state that salinity levels for around 100 m around the outflow can reach as high as 60ppt but after that distance the dispersal is pretty good. 60ppt would obviously kill any grasses and many organisms and deter fish from passing through that area.Like others storm water catchment seems such a better option, it has less long term negative effects and is much more sustainable. I cant see why youd put money into desal when in the long run you might have to chut it down because it cost too much or is having detrimental effects on teh environment. How long ie years do they think they can pump brine into teh gulf

Having looked into the numbers and design for the desal myself I have zero concern about the brine. The rate it diffuses and position and design of the outlet deals with it so that further than 20-50m from the outlet it is practically undetectable from normal natural salinity variations. Pretty much all the experts I've heard from don't have a major problem with the brine.The biggest concerns that I've seen the experts worry about is the cleaning chemicals that are used to treat the water and equipment mixed with the brine and dissolved metals that it picks up passing through the machinery. But that can be managed by rigorous water quality testing and treatment. The other really big concern is the inlet sucking up large amounts of larvae from crabs/shrimp/krill and other juvenile stage sea life. Again, good design of the inlet so it has minimal intake velocity and is placed in a zone with minimal spawning characteristics.My greatest concern is quite simply efficiency. Salt water desalination is EXPENSIVE. It is one of the most expensive ways to get fresh water in both capital and energy.However you can blame you average suburbanite for it. Because everywhere they have tried to introduce treated storm-water and effluent as a water recycling method to secure supplies cheaply and efficiently there is a backlash against it on the unfounded concerns of "our sewage and waste was mixed with that at some point". Hence why politicians go for the expensive, but more politically and emotionally palatable option, of salt water desalination. Plus currently treated storm-water is a political hot potato due to the potential risk for heavy metal contamination.Hell, it would be cheaper more efficient just to pump the treated effluent and storm-water through the desalination plant and would produce just a pure water, but again, people vote with their hearts and not their heads.And no politician is willing to take an avoidable risk or face public backlash from their cotton-swaddled suburbanite constituents.

I know mate i was just taking the piss out of the study

WoodyThe Penn330 will catch most things, so unless you intend to specifically target the big boys it`s certainlynot a bad reel. Seen a 5ft bronzie brought in on a 320 without too much drama...I am almost tempted to suggest you having a look at the Shimano TR2000LD but, not having owned one - anyone here have shark experience with one of those, boys and girls? [um, I am talking 4-5ft, not 8-9!] :whistle:

Well spotted, kon...

sbarnden...where to start...I am sooo over people quoting papers at each other on both warmist and sceptic websites (yes, I did at the very least read the abstracts if not the papers until I got sick of it - and woke up to the SZ thing last year) and the conclusion I have come to is that, to say the least, the science is far from settled.Without turning this thread or site into yet another pro/anti AGW discussion vehicle, I have seen posters in other fora address some of the points you have made by quoting papers presenting contrary opinions. Lots of "he said, she said". I don`t get paid to do this, so you will have to excuse me for not quoting papers by link, nor are there enough hours in the day for me to do so...I recall a poster elsewhere countering the ARGO warming indications with a response to the effect that the calibration adjustments have been called into question by another scientist.Cherry picking swings both ways.Poorly calibrated datasets - whoa, let he who is without sin etc...I have seen the "oceans absorbing half of all human emissions" thing both supported and debunked, there are atmospheric CO2 residency period considerations and controversy, non-oceanic carbon sink issues, purported oceanic CO2 outgassing is in the mix as well, there is even argument over isotopic signatures for goodness` sake!Atmospheric vs dissolved levels of CO2 in relation to future modelled changes also rings a bell as a limited parameter modelling consideration.You speak of projections, would you care to "project" the last 12-13 year GMT record trend?And is it not trumpeted IPCC "projections", to use your definition, that we are currently and incessantly being bombarded with, almost daily? (Shhh, don`t use the "modelling" word)I suspect we will have to agree to disagree, but what really scares me is that I have seen so many parallels between the AGW and MP SZ sagas - not least of which is the indignant and self-righteous proponents resorting to "scientific consensus" and literally Goebbels-esque tactics to browbeat the lowly, ignorant and misled "denier" rabble.I am cynically over the AGW thing, but I am very concerned that the same signals have appeared in our more cloistered area of interest.