kon

nok   - I most certainly did not insinuate that anyone was trying to mislead, read again what I wrote.   - How did you get "dubious" out of "technically correct based on" ?   - Your statement "no re-adjusted harvest weight for the recreational snapper catch in 2000/2001 was calculated in that report. You "chose" to determine that value (153 tonnes), based on assumptions, which apparently are incorrect." and the rest of your post dealing with that was exactly my point in my previous post. ie my "assumptions" are based on trying to make sense of an anomaly whereby the average weight for a (rec) caught fish "fell" from 3.6 (3.2?) kg, in 8 years, to 1.8 kg.   I am missing something here...from the 2007/08 RFS   p57 - the overview explanation in relation to the re-analysis   p64 - 2000/01 figures   p39 - 1.82 kg mean live weight   Finally, I did state  
...which means that effectively one of three things is applicable to this whole construct;   - the 00/01 catch tonnage is incorrect because the average fish weight was grossly overestimated OR - the 07/08 live mean weight is incorrect because 1.82 kg is too low OR - the average snapper weight, as caught by recs, reduced by 50% over 8 years.   So, to justify your position in terms of your scathing response to my last post - which one of the three is it? If the last option can be categorically verified, then I stand corrected.

nok   - I most certainly did not insinuate that anyone was trying to mislead, read again what I wrote.   - How did you get "dubious" out of "technically correct based on" ?   - Your statement "no re-adjusted harvest weight for the recreational snapper catch in 2000/2001 was calculated in that report. You "chose" to determine that value (153 tonnes), based on assumptions, which apparently are incorrect." and the rest of your post dealing with that was exactly my point in my previous post. ie my "assumptions" are based on trying to make sense of an anomaly whereby the average weight for a (rec) caught fish "fell" from 3.6 (3.2?) kg, in 8 years, to 1.8 kg.   I am missing something here...from the 2007/08 RFS   p57 - the overview explanation in relation to the re-analysis   p64 - 2000/01 figures   p39 - 1.82 kg mean live weight   Finally, I did state  
...which means that effectively one of three things is applicable to this whole construct;   - the 00/01 catch tonnage is incorrect because the average fish weight was grossly overestimated OR - the 07/08 live mean weight is incorrect because 1.82 kg is too low OR - the average snapper weight, as caught by recs, reduced by 50% over 8 years.   So, to justify your position in terms of your scathing response to my last post - which one of the three is it? If the last option can be categorically verified, then I stand corrected.

nok  
  I`m admittedly not sure what the "your" refers to, but the RFSA graph is technically "correct" based on the 2005 MSF re-appraisal - it certainly is not correct looking at the 07/08 RFS readjustment of the 00/01 NRIFS...which would have been, to me, more of an apples/apples approach, resulting in an approximately horizontal line at just under the 200 tonne mark for recs.   One would hope the information source chosen for the 00/01 amount in the graph was for a reason other than to merely cherry-pick "to advantage"...then again the 2010 SAR also mentions the 42% figure for recs!   To me, it would have been more appropriate to stick with the 07/08 RFS and go with about 153 tonnes for 00/01 and 177 tonnes for 07/08 - unless of course the average weight of rec-captured snapper was in fact halved from 3.6 kg to 1.8 kg over an 8 year period !!?? And even then the number of fish estimated to have been caught by recs would have remained about the same, ie 85K > 97K. Okay, let`s even use 115K > 97K, still within a bull`s roar given CLs?   The MFA (Development RFC predecessor) at around the same time actually came up with a draft position paper on snapper management including the graph below.   [And oops, my bad, the latest Snapper SAR was 2013, not 2014 as a I had stated!]

TB  
  This is where it gets a little tricksy. Numbers or weight? Or should that be...supposed weight...   Note the sentence in the first para on p3 of the attached.   "It was assumed that the size structure of the fish taken by recreational fishers was the same as that taken by the commercial handline fishers in the same region..."   And this 2005 follow-up gives 115,000 harvested by recs - yet the "re-analysed" data for 2000/01 in the 2007/08 RFS states there were 85,000 harvested. As compared to 97,000 in 07/08.   Except, the 2005 re-appraisal of the 2001 NRIFS ascribes a weight of 3.6 kg per fish...but it`s only 1.8 kg per fish in the 07/08 RFS.   Confusing, much? Have I missed something?   SARDI 2005 Snapper re NRIFS.pdf

nok  
  As I previously indicated, the graph from the RFSA site (April 2013 from memory) has now been supplanted by the SARDI 2014 SAR (for commercials at any rate), and the rec extraction...toss a coin...to be advised.  

The thing is that it`s somewhat dated information re commercials, if you superimpose the actual 2014 SAR figures there is an obviously declining pro catch.
 
As far as "only two data points" for recs are concerned - those are the recfishing surveys, and for better or worse that is what advises management decisions and sector allocations. Unfortunately this is the only source of formal or "official" information available to PIRSA...or whoever...to inform any directions or positions.
 
And as I have said in a previous post, there may (or may not) be a nasty surprise for recs arising from the latest recfishing survey in terms of extraction percentage.

Preaching to the converted there TB

Supposedly "robust" statistical analysis techniques and methodologies, but when you consider the extrapolated conclusions given the sample size...ya gotta wonder.

Fishingmad  
  Have had similar thoughts folks - a few weekends ago on a Sat drove over the bridge late AM and then mid arvo. Nobody downstream of the bridge, but I swear there were chair people every 30-ish metres upstream. Hey, it was a nice day and all... not a mullie dude myself, but is that the best time of day to catch those in that part of the world?

Del, try this
 
BTW - for the last (invariably RFSA trashing) poster in the screenshot, my information is that ANSA have responded to the Council and RFSA will be responding.

 

Ranger
There may be some scientific background to some people in AMWRRO (and they milk their association with the very highly credentialled Roger Byard for all its worth) but they do seem to have anti-boating and anti-fishing activist inclinations.
Think of them as a marine-specific RSPCA...

Seem to be metaphorical "drinking mates" with Port River Dolphin Watch too, sure I`ve seen at least a couple of news articles over the years where people from both organisations are quoted or interviewed.

Anyone who boats or fishes at Westlakes....
 
A feedback form link
 
http://yoursaycharlessturt.com.au/review-of-council-by-laws?tool=survey_tool#tool_tab
 
 
25 JULY DEADLINE
 
Read the attached pdf, particularly the definitions section, and the parts pertaining to
Boat Ramps
Closed Lakes
Use of Boats
 
FYI, the section referred to at the end of the pdf as Section 246(3)(e) of the Local Government Act 1999 states
 
provide 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 time
 
Get onto it folks...you only have a few days left.

 
 
 
 

LOCAL_GOVERNMENT_LAND_BY-LAW_2014.pdf

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?

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?

A point was made (pertinent to the magazine subject matter as it happens), and responded to.
It was laid to rest thereafter.
Then someone not making the original point, nor responding to it, chooses to resurrect the subject matter that had been laid to rest two months earlier.....
Never mind.

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?

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...

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.

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...

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.

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.

Yep, I agree Kon, and let’s remember that the people who choose to partake on this forum from all the relevant departments aren’t necessarily the ones making the rules or even understanding why they are there.If I was made to go on a forum that had members seeking questions on mineral processing plants, I may be able to answer some questions, may even know why some things are so, but there would things I wouldn’t understand or be able to answer.I guess it all needs to be kept in perspective and I think “balance” is the right word here.Thanks to the likes of yourself and the organizations you’re a member off, I believe the info to draw opinions from and get knowledge is there , we don’t have to dig too deep , and for what it’s worth, I lift my hat to the likes of yourself. I know as I type this, others elsewhere will be saying how SH admin are zealots, and in PIRSA’s pockets etc, but the reality is far from that.We try to provide an open forum where anybody can join up and be involved in discussions, mainly around recreational fishing!If we have someone with a “different” point of view join, its welcomed, and as long as discussions are kept respectful (and we all walk the line at times) and no rules are broken, they continue.In this case, a scientist has asked ( thru the right avenues) if there is any chance members of the forum could help him with any info on a rare skate, nothing more.If he has worked alongside other groups, so be it, SH , is just another group .Let’s keep in mind that all the “nasties” we’ve been dealt as recs are part of a much bigger and convoluted picture, a picture that just about every rec has played a part in somehow.

TBInteresting 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

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.

I couldn't give a rats razoo about the history. It's the outcome of this mess that needs fixing.Reading all the crap stored in Sarfac, pirsa or most other organisations dusty safes would be a waste of my life.Send a quick email off to Tom Kousantonis and tell him to stop saving all the revenue to pay off his speeding fines so we can keep the ramp going!

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