RJ5023

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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

55 minutes ago, BarneyB said:

Our economic value to the state is actually far higher than that of the commercial sector.....

Reckon you're right Barney, but no-one seems to want to run an economic survey, and maybe the only way to prove it's true would be to get bums on seats in an environment where the Govt will have to listen - eg as members of their own RF Council.

Cheers,

RJ

1 hour ago, AuusieDave said:

Sorry guys, we've had some urgent issues with some of our largest clients this week so I've been flat out all week at work.

It looks like you guys have put in some great work there RJ in terms of rec fishing representation for rec fishers.

I kind of think we need to be looking at making a real peak body for rec fishing and the rec fishing industry. I believe our position is undermined by the fact that the commercial sector is regarded as more important than rec fishing as they are an industry while we are just hobby fishers exercising our hobby and not really creating any economic value to the state. I believe we need a peak rec fishing body which represents rec fishers and fishing clubs but also the rec fishing industry, i.e. the bait/tackle/boat stores, caravan parks/motels/holiday house owners and regional business councils.

I'll try and find some time to knock up a bit of a diagram of how I believe it would be structured over the weekend.

I think we are at a critical time where if rec fishers stay divided rec fishing in this state will be dead but if we can unite and try to understand each others positions and compromises to work together we can ensure the future of rec fishing and hopefully improve it vastly.

All of them live in the box labelled "Others".

IT people love Flow charts and Org charts and Gantt charts - just about any kind of chart.

- mostly because we only speak Geek 

Cheers,

RJ

Apologies all, I don't know how, but I screwed up and uploaded the same file 3 times. Correct versions are attached for those interested.

I think that if you're confronted with a brick wall (PIRSA), it's better to try and find a way around it rather than to continue to bash your head.

I don't think that anyone outside of the organisation really knows why PIRSA act as they do, and I guess they have their reasons. But even so, a way has to be found to improve things. Perhaps one way would be to change the reporting structure at the top (political) level so that alternate voices can be heard, and that's what I'm suggesting here.

Thanks for your time.

Cheers,

RJ

Org Chart 1.pdf

Org Chart 2.pdf

Org Chart 3.pdf

2 hours ago, AuusieDave said:

These compromises are why I don't think the new Rec Fishing Council will make any difference what-so-ever, the main problem is that RecFishSA is entrapped by PIRSA and PIRSA don't have the best interests of rec fishers as a priority. PIRSA have set up RecFishSA to deliberately be a toothless tiger and give rec fishers an impression only that they have some representation enabling PIRSA to work against the interests of rec fishing while saying that they are helping rec fishers.

I don't think you'll find too much argument with that point of view AD, but whether that situation persists in this brave new world seems to depend upon the structures that are put in place by the Govt. and the way that these are organised. As things have so far been described (very sparsely), RFSA will become just one input into the decision making process, rather than the only input. But it's how the overall new fisheries management structure is designed that will make the biggest difference.

For example (similar to RFSA), if PIRSA themselves were to become one shared input into the parliamentary decision making process rather than the only input to the Minister (or delegate), we might see a whole range of other social and economic issues gain much more precedence in future Government policy considerations. 

I've put together several different "possible" crude organisational charts <attached> to try and demonstrate how this could occur.

It seems to me that right now we have an opportunity to reform this system completely (assuming a Government committed to reform - which seems to be the case).

Although crucial to everyone here and in urgent need of fixing, the issues within the rec fishing community are not part of this.

For whatever it's worth, I believe that individual issues such as SBT, KGW, Carp virus, Coorong Seals or even equitable allocation of resources between sectors should be put on the back-burner until this new management structure is sorted out - after which (hopefully) the right people will be making decisions for the right reasons and will be agreed by the majority.

Could it happen? I don't know.

Cheers,

RJ

Org Chart 1.pdf

Org Chart 2.pdf

Org Chart 3.pdf

46 minutes ago, AuusieDave said:

Unfortunately our representatives need to be a squeaky wheel as it's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil not the one that is fair and not squeaky.

With respect AD,

To achieve any outcome at all, the place to do that would be in the yet-to-be-created Fisheries Council - not social media - and in order to achieve a good outcome for rec's, the arguments put to that overriding Council by our representative(s) will need to be 100% valid, supported by facts and (somehow) agreed by the majority of recs's.

With the election of a new Government the entire face of fishing politics in SA has changed, and we need to change with it. There is no place for continued attacks between members of the rec fishing community. Different points of view should result in respectful discussion and eventual compromise, not short term point scoring.

May be worth remembering that every person who becomes seriously involved in rec fishing representation in this State is a volunteer *, and we will need them all if we're going to progress. There really aren't that many - never has been.

I believe that we have from now until the official formation of the Recreational Fishing Council to get our act together, else the current divisions between our existing organisations will simply be carried into the business of that Council - to the detriment of the entire SA rec community.

Right now the primary focus of our existing organisations should be on overall organisation of the SA rec sector, not individual fishing issues (KGW, SBT etc). We get one chance to get the foundations right.

Cheers,

RJ

* For about 40 years, the only paid rec fishing representatives in SA have been the successive Executive Officers of SARFAC/RFSA.

Not allowed to use pillies or snook and whiting heads for crab bait? <confused>

as usual...

 

What does give me some heart is perhaps we can bypass the duds at Pirsa if we can get Rural councils like Tumby ,Pt Broughton etc to ban netting in their surrounding

waters,any local council knows how much money the rec sector/tourists can bring into a town and if we can get them onboard then half the battle is won.

                    cheers b

That sounds great, but I don't think local Councils have any jurisdiction beyond the high water mark, and any regulation would need to be implemented by a Govt Department and/or legislated by politicians? (ie - via the existing Fisheries management system).

For whatever reason, I don't think that anything has been done to bring the representatives of each sector together and attempt to come up with a solution, even though that may be the only way this can be resolved without years of ongoing dispute - during which time the fishery will continue to suffer (ie business as usual).

But it may be that SA's fisheries management system is FUBAR and incapable of undertaking this type of initiative (PIRSA?). 

If the management system proves itself unable to cope, I think this really should be the top political issue for the fishing community of SA (rec and pro), because a review and rebuild of SA's dysfunctional(?) Fisheries management system would be much more important than anything else. The issue of netting in GSV might be the final straw to expose a failed system and force a review at the political level - and everyone (including the fishery itself) might actually gain something from this dispute.

2 bob's worth.

Cheers,

RJ

Just a word please (or several).

Some time back I decided to no longer be involved in the politics of fishing in SA - but this current situation is a step too far.

This issue is not between recs and pro's. It's about Govt policy and PIRSA's implementation of that policy.

It's really about what's best for everyone involved and (primarily) for the SA fishery itself.

I'm absolutely certain that there are pro's who are just as concerned about the future of the SA fishery as any rec fisher - probably even more so. There are also some pro's who will take advantage of any opportunity to legally make a large profit from this public resource. Nothing wrong with that either - provided the focus is on the long term well-being of the SA fishery itself.

We seem to have run off the rails a bit lately though because the fishery is undoubtedly suffering, and the finger of blame is being pointed in every direction. Talk of blanket bans for pro's and over extraction by recs is counter productive unless there is a clear understanding of the fishery itself, and of each sector.

We are chasing around at the grassroots level and demanding that each other give way. But there are organisations in place on both sides - and with PIRSA in the middle - who have taken on the responsibility of representing their own sector's interests. It seems pretty clear that it is the management level of these organisations who need to be currently taking the lead - in conjunction with PIRSA - to get together and establish some form of agreement. If possible. Even if an agreement is not possible, the reasons why should be clearly defined, and the problems that need to be addressed should be clearly documented for immediate action. This should be a PIRSA responsibility, and should be expected to lead to political intervention at PIRSA's own initiative.

The current emotive environment is not helped by errant fishers (on either side) who have added to the fire through selfish activities, and is being further fueled by aggressive personal interactions on social media - which by themselves cannot possibly achieve a lasting solution.

If everyone truly holds the future of the SA fishery above all else, there is no good reason for the continued "them and us" environment that currently exists within fisheries management in SA, and has for many years. With a fundamental belief in the long term well-being of the SA fishery as the only focus, the logical next step would be for PIRSA to call a summit at the management level of each sector and to then (if necessary) take the outcome of that summit to the political level and sort this out. 

Please note that I'm not making any distinction between RFSA and SAFA as legitimate representatives of rec fishing in SA. Each have their own following, each has a right to be heard.

My 2 bob's worth - thanks for your time. My opinion, and I could be wrong.

RJ

I'm still watching this, but not to get involved snapps. But your question is fair and needs to be answered.

If I had identified the organisations by name I think it would have already resulted in an enormous (and pointless) shit-fight on S&H, resulting in this thread being (rightly) locked by the Admins - and I didn't want that to happen.

Some members of several organisations have become expert at arguing from behind keyboards, and no result is ever achieved from that other than they continue to do the same thing. Every online discussion is driven around and around in circles by them until it disappears - and with no result for the rec fishing community other than frustration. And more division.

I think it's hardly surprising that this thread has had about 2,000 views and that very few people have become involved. I really do get it.

Perhaps nok and the others who are anonymously involved in S&H for political reasons will be good enough to identify themselves and their organisation(s)?

- then let the cards fall where they may... 

I think that would be the first tiny step towards bringing the SA rec fishing community together, and it's long overdue. But it's no longer my battle.

Cheers,

RJ (gone fishing)

 

Yes, you are correct, just a rehash of past failures, with nothing new.  Just a call for "faith". Waste of everyone's time.

 

Can't have failed, it's never been tried, and If you have your way, it never will be.

"Just a call for "faith". Waste of everyone's time."

The silliest statement from a member of an anonymous "representative organisation" ever. 

Since there are no office holders, no elections, no meetings and you insist on remaining anonymous -  your entire organisation is relying on "faith" .

Your anonymous computer game is based on the hope that maybe you can achieve some kind of change without ever meeting with the wider rec fishing community to confirm that they agree with what you're doing. At the same time you aggressively (and anonymously) attack anyone who tries to tell you that they don't agree or suggests another way.

At some point you will all have to come out from behind the keyboard. Or fade away, having created a huge division in the SA rec fishing community, increased conflict with the commercial sector and Govt Departments, and not much else.  

Please don't waste time comparing each organisation. That would simply be more distraction ("look over there!") when the only thing you can directly change Nok, is the fact that your own organisation is not working as you always promised it would - and your Constitution may as well not exist.

But your organisation has had one "success" Nok - after my years of direct face-to-face involvement, your organisation has finally succeeded in turning me off anything to do with rec fishing representation in SA. Just one more rec fisher among the very large number in SA who will not get involved.

Well done.  I'm going fishing.

RJ

Failing or not acknowledging known problems does nothing for potential joiners.

 

If you are to achieve what you  propose, I feel you have to be honest and transparent in your comments.

Yes, no one can claim to represent anglers in SA, but there are clear differences between the organisations engaged in this way.

If you cannot even bring yourself to admit this openly and why, openess is gone before we start.

when you say "At the moment whenever one group says "A", the other is very likely to say "B".", you are incorrect in an unacceptable way.

That reflects on the issue of transparency, or lack of it at any round-table discussion.

SAFA is continually citing serious errors and misinformation by PIRSA, which undermines their claims wrt the bag/size limit cuts.

RFSA is saying nothing at all, and is very compliant to the PIRSA policy line.  They never criticise PIRSA for their unwarranted actions to anglers

Reminds me of the time PIRSA convened the "Change Champions" to spearhead rec progress.

RJ to convene your meeting all those old ideas/loyalties have to be gone.  The one and only loyalty is to the rec fishing sector.

PIRSA, etc is not a part of it whatsoever.  The group must assert their independence and PIRSA has to wear it.

Now RJ are you willing to do that?  There must be actual change.

 

Deliberately and out of respect for Bjorn and the S&H team I have not named any rec fishing organisation nor any person in my posts on this subject. 

I am totally disinterested in any argument between any of them  - couldn't care less. Is that honest and transparent enough?

Like you Nok, my attention is very firmly fixed on the well-being of the SA rec fishing community and the fishery itself. 

At this time and on this subject, there is only one question that needs to be answered IMO:-

"Should the organisations and rec fishers interested in representation issues in SA get together to achieve one common purpose?"

Seems pretty straight forward to me.

Cheers,

R.

 

Fair enough RJ.   But nothing will change until the toxic culture of PIRSA Fisheries changes.

But you already know this, but rarely push the most important issue.

They have to be held to account for all the falsehoods and misinformation they continually spread.

Remember they abolished the "recreational fisheries manager" position within PIRSA in 2001.  That's how much recreational fishing means to them.

And they really DON'T want to deal with any independent angler groups.

They want people who follow orders, and are happy to do so.  Plenty of those around.

Only when they realise they ARE in fact 'answerable' and willing to 'respect' SA anglers things might change.

When you are committed to true change -  at the moment you are regurgitating failed past pathways - can I take your comments seriously.

In that context an RFL or similar 'old' ideas are an impediment.  What we want is simply our rights, then all will progress.

BTW it won't be easy to achieve at all, especially if our mindset does not change.

 

At the moment there is no group in SA who can claim to represent the entire SA rec fishing community.

At the moment whenever one group says "A", the other is very likely to say "B".

Faced with that kind of approach, politicians and would-be politicians can have the luxury of ignoring both while using either one (or both) as a get-out-of-goal card and doing nothing. Currently we are our own enemy in achieving any kind of long-term political commitment for rec fishing in SA.

Personally I think it's great that there are alternative plans such as yours out there Nok, and I also think that these plans should be presented to the "rec fishing community" to see how they feel about them and to gather their support. You might be surprised how people react when they are not stuck in the trenches.

In order to share opinions and plans, there needs to be a common forum (meetings) where this can occur. A no-man's-land if you like.

All I'm doing here is trying to get things started so that those meetings can actually take place. What will be proposed and agreed at those meetings is yet to be determined, but as the politicians love to say "everything should be on the table".

I think it's vitally important that we get our act together in order to present a "united" front to the political candidates prior to the next election. Essential that we are all asking for the same thing(s) so that we - as a united group -  can nail their feet to the deck and hold them to account.

Question is - can we do it? I think so, but it needs a bit of goodwill and trust (plus a bunch of hard work).

Cheers,

R.

 

How many attempts at resurrection of the phoenix is it now?

RJ several years ago you said anglers now had a choice between SAFA and RFSA.

You joined RFSA.  Did you find everyone was "equal" in RFSA?

Obviously not.  At SAFA they know their goal, and it is certainly not appeasing and grovelling to PIRSA.

Who by the way have no respect for the angling fraternity whatsoever.

 

Too many Nok.

And I think we're never going to progress by concentrating on the past. All that does is continue with the sense of injustice that everyone (on all sides) is currently feeling. Hard to imagine I guess, but there are many SA rec fishers who feel that they've been wronged, and they aren't all in one camp - or two camps.

What's done is done, and can't be completely undone, but I really believe that it's the future that we should all be concentrating on, and learning from what has gone before.

I'm a bit curious to see how many others out in the world feel the same way, because if there isn't sufficient will, I think we're going to keep on like this until someone steps in and makes our decisions for us - and I think it's very likely that won't be a good day for rec fishing.

You could say that PIRSA and DEWNR are doing that already, and with a very mixed bag of results for both the fishery and rec fishers. It's my belief that won't change unless the rec fishers of SA combine our strengths and make it change.

Just my view....

Cheers,

R.

That was another miscommunication Wade. I didn't intend the second pat of that post to be directed at you. My bad.

This is what I intended:-

 Everyone,

I think that there are far more things that bind all rec fishers together rather than keep us apart, and it's time we all made the most of that. History very clearly shows that we can't rely on anyone other than rec fishers, and when we publicly fight among ourselves over differences in how to get things done and what should be done, we only succeed in shooting ourselves in the foot.

We all need to get together and get started, face-to-face. But that has to be a commonly agreed goal, with no encouragement for spectators or anyone who's not prepared to work as a team and contribute their own personal skills and effort. Meetings are wonderful things for everyone to get the measure of everyone else present, but IMO they lose most of their value if the meeting doesn't result in agreement and action.

Anyone who might choose attend such a meeting:-

• Should be fully prepared to leave it with a job to do (with their agreement) - and do it willingly.
• Everyone is equal
• Any organisational differences are left at the door.
• Everyone's opinion is listened to and respected.
• What is agreed and decided at a meeting will be published and feedback sought.

 - this was/is the fundamental meeting rule of the MFA, CRG and DRFC, and it works.

Should we try to arrange an initial combined SA rec fisher meeting on that basis?

Cheers,

Roger.

0438 020 858

Drat. Thought you'd heard something else Wade. No apology needed.

Problem with communicating only via social media - messages can easily be misunderstood.

 - and often are :-(

I think that there are far more things that bind all rec fishers together rather than keep us apart, and it's time we all made the most of that. History very clearly shows that we can't rely on anyone other than rec fishers, and when we publicly fight among ourselves over differences in how to get things done and what should be done, we only succeed in shooting ourselves in the foot.

We all need to get together and get started, face-to-face. But that has to be a commonly agreed goal, with no encouragement for spectators or anyone who's not prepared to work as a team and contribute their own personal skills and effort. Meetings are wonderful things for everyone to get the measure of everyone else present, but IMO they lose most of their value if the meeting doesn't result in agreement and action.

Anyone who might choose attend such a meeting:-

• Should be fully prepared to leave it with a job to do (with their agreement) - and do it willingly.
• Everyone is equal
• Any organisational differences are left at the door.
• Everyone's opinion is listened to and respected.
• What is agreed and decided at a meeting will be published and feedback sought.

 - this was/is the fundamental meeting rule of the MFA, CRG and DRFC, and it works.

Should we try to arrange an initial combined SA rec fisher meeting on that basis?

Cheers,

Roger.

0438 020 858

The direction for a rec fish council has been given RJ. Funding to facilitate needs via the 3rd round of grants etc. Thats the advice.

 

Well that's a relief. Be good to know that this is fact though.

Who has given this "direction", and who has allocated the funds from the Grants? Who is going to put together the "rec fish council", and when?

If this is really happening, there's no need for any other arrangement in SA because (I'd guess) the people who would want to be involved will already be part of the "rec fish council". To attempt to do something else at the same time would simply muddy the waters.

I've been around this too long to believe every rumour though because most simply never happen, and I think this one needs some proof.

Be a very happy chappy if it's true.

Cheers,

Maybe try again....

Whenever this subject (representation) is discussed, it invariably becomes a debate about the merits (or not) of what we currently have, and of what might be - usually focused on all the possible negatives.

As a result, there is a lot of passion and opinion expressed, but no progress is made.

If we want change (and I'd say that everyone does), surely the first step is to agree on that one point - change is needed - and then to get as many people as possible working on what that change should look like. If we are going to continually try to guess what the future will look like and to find reasons not to do anything simply because our crystal ball views don't agree with each other, we'll be stuck in the endless loop forever.

We've already been doing this for far too long. For a change, we need to find some trust in our own abilities (and each other), and accept that whatever future direction is determined by our own rec fishers, it will always have some components that won't be completely agreed by everyone. In those circumstances we will all need to trust in the majority view and give it a chance to succeed.

If there's another way, please speak out. But let's not get bogged down in detail that may never apply to our situation in SA.

That's the future, and it's up to the rec fishers of SA to create it. 

Might be time to take a deep breath I think.

From the time of settlement of SA, we (all) have caught fish. In earlier times there were many more fish to catch, and fewer people who wanted to catch them. You only need to look at some of the pictures and read the stories from 100 and more years ago to see that fishing was "better" back then. From that time, the marine environment around Adelaide has been steadily degraded by runoff and pollution, while the number of people who want to catch fish has steadily increased. And so the fishing has become harder for everyone.

It's been the same story for the past 50 years until fairly recently when the number rec fishers has decreased significantly. I think that's happened simply because the fish are harder to find. The Commercial sector has followed the same trend, and probably for the same reason. Overall there are fewer fish to be caught, but this is masked by the widely used "sustainable" label, which has the simple goal of preventing different species of fish from being wiped out entirely while still allowing them to be caught. I think this is a "have your cake and eat it" approach, and it isn't working in a way that will allow the fishery to recover to what it was even 50 years ago.

Pollution and runoff are not really rec fishing issues, but we have to suffer the consequences. For that reason we should have a very loud voice in any issue that is going to increase either pollution or runoff, and an equally loud voice in pushing to have them reduced from what they are. We should also have a loud voice in promoting remediation projects that will help to return the marine environment back to something like it used to be - such as the current EPA project to re-seed sea grass along the inshore Metro waters. IMO recreational fishers should be the guardians of our marine environment rather than the conservationists who have claimed that role for themselves - and made such a mess of it.

But since we can't change history:-

• What is the rec fishing community going to do to change this situation, and how are we going to do it?

• As things stand we have very little (if any) influence on decision making in SA - and what needs to be done to change that?

• Will anyone in Govt make decisions to specifically benefit rec fishers if we have no way of persuading them that they must?

 - Many other questions that could/should be asked, but that's just my take on the situation.

Cheers,

There are many questions that can be asked about what the future holds for rec fishing in SA, but there is one thing that we already know - without any doubt.

And that is: If we do nothing, nothing is going to change.

Change won't come about solely via social media debates, particularly if those debates don't involve the decisions makers themselves. It will only happen if the rec fishing community takes action. I believe that the coming election will provide the best opportunity for change that we have seen for decades, and the rec fishing community (as a whole) needs to bite the bullet, get our act together and ensure that we put our case to the intending politicians.

We should not assume that the people (rec fishers) who will be selected by the rec fishing community and charged with driving the future of rec fishing in SA will be incapable of considering and dealing with issues of the future. But unless we have the opportunity (and that means funding) of putting those people in place we will continue just as we always have. To me the only issue at hand is to establish a means of funding and to put in place a broad-based (and agreed) organisational structure that will allow those people to get the job done.  Done correctly, there should be opportunity for any SA rec fisher with experience, knowledge and passion to be directly involved in the decision making of the future, which is how those future questions will be resolved.

I believe that we need to find some trust in ourselves and try not to raise all manner of potential problems that will prevent the rec fishing community of SA from doing anything at all while this election opportunity slips past; just as so many others have done before. 

 

 

One of the major problems we face here in SA is that the government has created a "peak body" to "look after the interests" of rec fishers and they refuse to deal with anyone else. I am not against a licence in principle but it cannot be a first step, there are a lot of other issues to deal with first.

 

The Govt has to face the voters. At that time, all bets are off...

 

 

A change of government only means a change of minister, all the infrastructure remains, PIRSA, RecFishSA etc.

 

Very true Barney. Govt departments will remain in place after every election, and that's a good thing for continuity and stability. I think it would be total chaos if the whole State abruptly changed direction when a different political party is (or could be) elected every 4 years. 

What can make a difference though, is when the electorate (or part of the electorate such as rec fishers) gets their act together and seek and receive a commitment from (hopefully) all political parties that they will implement change If they are elected. Subsequent to the election, Govt departments (PIRSA, SARDI, DEWNR etc) have the responsibility of enacting the policies set by their relevant Ministers and in accordance with legislation. Assuming that promises are kept, this how the system can be changed and how the role of Govt departments can be changed via the ballot box.

I believe that the key to it is to ensure that recorded commitments are made by candidates prior to the election.

The key to that is to ask - and there's no point in asking after the election.

There are many very capable rec fishers in SA (in ALL organisations) who understand how to get the best out of the political system, and they know more than I do on the subject. The real magic trick would be to pull these currently disillusioned people together so that their voluntary skills can all be combined for one purpose. The purpose of gaining a permanent level of funding that would enable professional representation and management of the rec sector in SA.

Have faith, these people really do exist in SA, and they do understand how to create a truly open, accountable and democratic representative committee to manage the funding once achieved, or to work on what a RFL in SA should look like. Whether they would want to take on all the stress and hard work it will involve is another question entirely, and there are a lot of bridges needed to be built within the rec community - and that would need to be done yesterday.

As always, look to receive any feedback good or bad. <Bad is more important>

Cheers,

ps. Thanks Bjorn,

One of the major problems we face here in SA is that the government has created a "peak body" to "look after the interests" of rec fishers and they refuse to deal with anyone else. I am not against a licence in principle but it cannot be a first step, there are a lot of other issues to deal with first.

The Govt has to face the voters. At that time, all bets are off...

since we're all together in the one spot...how about we start coming up with ideas how to make the recfish license a happening thing...now that we're all aware of the various problems associated with getting one off the ground...together we can make magic happen...peace

Tacklebags is right. Money is not a silver bullet and it cannot solve every problem that confronts the SA fishery.

Without it however, we will continue on just as we always have  - and the current situation is not a good recommendation for doing that.

How to make it happen? Lot of different opinion from lots of experts, but I think that the rec sector needs to get together in whatever rag-tag form can be achieved quickly and in the short term, and put a pre-election question to each of the political parties. That question would be coming from just one source - the entire recreational fishing community of SA. Not a matrix of questions that inevitable leaves wriggle room for Politicians, just one question in two parts.

Perhaps something like:-

"If elected, will your Party provide funding for the Recreational Fishing sector in SA  - such that we will be able to work effectively with all other stakeholders in order to maximise the financial and social returns that recreational fishing provides to this State.

We have two equally preferred options for this funding (in no particular order):-

1. A Recreational Fishing Licence designed and agreed in partnership between the Recreational Fishing Sector and the Government and administered by a Committee in which Recreational Fishing Representatives are guaranteed a majority.

2. Recurrent funding of $5 million per annum indexed to CPI, and administered by a Committee in which Recreational Fishing Representatives are guaranteed a majority.

Which of these (or any equivalent proposal) are you able to commit to?

On behalf of 237,000 Recreational Fishers of SA.

- or something like that.

I really believe (based on random arse-pluck and watching what's going on elsewhere) that this coming election is likely to be the most competitive that we've had in SA for many decades, and that all Parties will need to be mindful of keeping every single vote. It's not likely that the SA voting population will put rec fishing very high on their priority list (power, healthcare, employment etc etc) - but if there is very little to choose between the policies of each Party and the candidates they put forward, lower priorities will come into play when we come to decide who to vote for - priorities such as funding for recreational fishing. I think that those votes could be enough to decide who wins a Seat in the coming election.

If you want funding for recreational fishing in SA, I think that there has never been a better time to ask for it.

- But we'd need to pull our digits out, there's a lot to be done.

Coupla bob.

 

 

 

There is no way that this situation (both the submission and the video) should be accepted as a reason not to implement a RFL in SA  - despite the fact that some people (probably a minority?) have strong opposition to the RFL and will attempt to use it for that purpose. 

 

My 2 bob. Thank you.

 

I have "liked" your post and enjoy your point of view but

 

I guess this is aimed at me? I have already stated that I am NOT against a RFL and attempted to supply something I found to this forums members. 

I don't know if I will bother again

 

Absolutely not Poppa, and I'm sorry if I unintentionally gave that impression.

I think it's a good thing that a video such as this is shown to a wider audience within the rec fishing community so that more people are able to view it and make up their own minds.

I think you did everyone a favour, and the resultant conversation about it has been well considered and balanced.

In the end, whether we have a RFL or not is going to come down to the opinion and support of the majority, and every discussion like this allows everyone to raise any concerns or support that they may have without being bashed over the head. We're all learning.

In my view this particular video is extremely one-sided and designed to generate opposition to a RFL based on scare tactics alone. I'd like to see a future video from the same source presenting the positive aspects of an RFL in SA.

That would be a balanced way to approach the issue. This video is not.

Cheers,

This was presented to the Committee more than 6 months ago (July 2016), and hasn't been mentioned since (to my knowledge). It was not a formal submission by the MFA, although one presenter was/is a Board member of the MFA. There is no indication that this submission was or is supported as official policy by the Commercial sector as a whole.

Everyone will take what they want to see from this submission, but for mine it was a group of Commercial fishers complaining about the lack of support for their sector from PIRSA and the Govt. - which is exactly the same complaint the recreational sector has put forward for decades.

In addition, there has been loud and continuous attack of the Commercial sector by some rec's for more than a year, and this seems to have had the result of causing some in the Commercial sector to lash out in response. The submission proposes to implement many controls on rec fishers that are already in effect for the Commercials, and asks that the recreational sector pay for a licence. In the past 6 months, there has been no indication that anyone in Fisheries management in SA has taken any of it to heart, much less any attempt to actually implement it.

Overall it's a storm in a teacup, but the overall environment of the fishery as a shared resource in SA is repeatedly damaged and the divide between sectors is increased every time a submission is made or video such as that shown in the original post is presented to the public.

Bottom line is that the Commercial sector seems to be every bit as fed up with PIRSA and Govt as the recreational sector. It does no good for anyone if the sectors keep chucking bricks at each other - the only result is that it takes the focus away from PIRSA and the Govt. and wastes a whole lot of time and energy.

There can probably never be a close relationship between the Commercial and Recreational sectors because we are all competing for the same resource, but (IMO) there is no reason why a professional level of interaction can't be established between the sectors in order to achieve common goals. As this submission very clearly shows, one of those common goals (and probably the most important) is a change in the manner in which the fishery in SA is managed by PIRSA/SARDI and the Government. But before any progress can be achieved on that front, I believe that the recreational sector needs to overcome our own divisions so that we are able to present a united front with one agreed position - on any subject.

There is no way that this situation (both the submission and the video) should be accepted as a reason not to implement a RFL in SA  - despite the fact that some people (probably a minority?) have strong opposition to the RFL and will attempt to use it for that purpose. 

My 2 bob. Thank you.