RJ5023

Something needed to be done, and unfortunately the lag in the internal processes made it take this long.
Opening up the previously restricted zones is weak imo. Let's take it bloody seriously and let the stocks recover instead of doing some musical chairs swaps of spots.
 
If anyone followed the management of the prawn industry, where the fishery was closed entirely for a period before resuming, the stocks bounced back well But still got hit hard by the reopening.
 
Snapper will take longer, and without further amendment we'll end up in the same place we are now once both sides of the fishery (pro and rec) begin to rape it to the point that got us here in the first place. 
 
I highly doubt we reach the virgin biomass % targets with these measures tbh.
 
Would rather them bite the bullet and restrict both pro and rec fishing to bare minimum and get them back on track. It is a major ecologically important species, not just a commodity.

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

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

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"...

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

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

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

Hi guys, sorry I haven't been able to get back to this, the shit has hit the fan at work and my internet activity at work is now being monitored and I usually only use the internet at work, it's fair enough I guess. Generally I have family commitments until about 9PM each night so it's hard to find time.
What I wanted to say is what we really need is a real Rec Fishing Peak Body that represents not just rec fishers but the rec fishing industry (tackle/bait/boat stores, caravan parks/hotels/motels/holiday house owners, regional towns (the pub, bakery, servo, supermarket, coffee shops). This rec fishing peak body should be independent of government but should be able to lobby the tourism and sports and rec departments for them to pressure PIRSA/Primary Industries department to take them in to consideration when deciding on fisheries matters or preferably a seat at the table in decision making.
What suprises me is that the rec fishing industry doesn't seem to be able organise itself to do this, they are the ones with the most to lose. I don't believe the government will make any economic considerations in favour of the rec fishing industry unless they have faces themselves, it is obvious that actual rec fishers can scream about economic return until the cows come home but we aren't the ones economically effected so it is ignored.
I think a new real rec fishing peak body is also needed as there is a lot of bad blood between the different groups, RecFishSA/SAFA/RecFishCentral, and neither will accept anything other than an equal place at the table, this could be achieved by placing the new real peak body and a neutral coordinator above them. I believe that all of these groups have the best interest of rec fishing at heart although compromises have been made in order to have a seat at the table to try and have at least some influence.
So what I see that we need is a new real rec fishing peak body that has two representatives.
One for rec fishers that liaises with groups like SAFA, RecFishSA, RecFishCentral, Northern Districts Sports Fishing Club, SAAFWA, etc., treats each group equally and each group gets equal representation for decision making. I think individual rec fishers should also be included here but there would have to be some type of weighting as SAAFWA for example represent many rec fishers.
Another representative for the rec fishing industry that liases with groups like tackle stores, boat stores, caravan parks, i.e. those that benefit financially from rec fishing. All groups would receive equal status which would also be equal status with the previously mentioned actual rec fishers.
The thing is that the more I think about this issue the amount of work explodes and who is going to do the work?
Each group/member would need some type of membership to allow them to log in to a website and vote for issue they want the peak body to represent them on, i.e. a democratic system.
The peak body can then represent rec fishers and the rec fishing industry both to the media and to lobby the government.
At the moment we have a system where hobby fishers are opposed to well funded union/association(business union) representation from commercial fishers and we don't stand a chance.
 
Just my thoughts guys.
 
Dave

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

After reading all of the comments posted lately it seems to me that there's a perception that because things didn't go the way some people wanted them to then RecfishSA didn't fight on their behalf and just rolled over and let PIRSA do what they want. Were you there? Were you in the room during these negotiations? I was in the room at the bag & boat limit discussions and had to sign a confidentiality agreement to be there, as did everybody in the room. All I can say is that RFSA fought their arses off to prevent the KGW bag limit reduction as did I and just about everybody else that was present. PIRSA went ahead and reduced them anyway. 
The Libs have stated that RFSA will be part of the new recreational fishing council, personally, if I were part of RFSA I would be thinking long and hard about whether I wanted the continued grief and hand it all over for someone else to cop it all. 'Coz make no mistake, the new team will cop it just as much as the old team when things don't go our way, and there will be things that go against our collective wishes, that's the nature of the beast. Having just potentially burned my bridges with the above disclosure I may well not be accepted anyway were I to be dumb enough to put my hand up. Why dumb? because I'm too thin skinned to cop the online abuse when things go awry.
No offence to anybody is intended, if any is taken I apologize in advance.
Go for your lives, I won't be back online 'til next Wednesday. 
Cheers
Wahoo

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

I am still seeing "peak body" in two places on their FB page...
??

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