Bret Carter
So, by reading the facebook updates, it seems Fisheries are finally showing how spiteful they really are, and after nearly 3 years, are finally going after a conviction against Bret Carter.
Even though the Fisheries Minister has acknowledged an issue with the legislation (he has demanded Fisheries and RecFishWest review the legislation to make it more equal, before October 15th), Fisheries are opting to push for a conviction as soon as possible. By the sounds of things, he now has 2 options:
1). Cop a reduced (but still very hefty) fine, or
2). fight the charge again in the magistrates court.
He is apparently starting up a go-fund-me page to fight the charge (again...), and when it pops up, I will post it up here as soon as I see it.
I'm hoping there is a few people on here that will dig as deep as they can to help not just him, but the cause, and the injustice. Even if its only a few $$$'s will help, especially if everyone jumps on board.
Swompa
Posts: 3786
Date Joined: 14/10/12
Not making themselves any
Not making themselves any friends here.
Tom M
Posts: 662
Date Joined: 22/09/15
My 1st choice would be to
My 1st choice would be to start a social media campaign to oust Dave Kelly the fisheries minister letting him know that his efforts to quash this have been noted by WA fishing fraternity.
Tom M
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
My small protest today
Some months ago I was selected as a participant in the Fisheries Survey of Recreational Fishing WA 2017 / 2018. Today I received a call from the research team (Curtin University) and they wanted feedback on my recent fishing activites. I explained I was unwilling to share my results with them as I had a gripe with Fisheries. Before I could explain why they hung up. Most discourteous.
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
I'd take a stab that your
I'd take a stab that your initial phone manner had a lot to do with the abrupt termination of the phone call but not being there I can only surmise.
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
And on cue
you surmise wrong. Best you refrain from commenting on conversations you were not privy to.
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
.
Alan he works for Local Government, nuff said...
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Shane O
Posts: 926
Date Joined: 22/01/10
.
beat me too it Rob
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
*to*Good thing you can chop
*to*
Good thing you can chop onions
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Shane O
Posts: 926
Date Joined: 22/01/10
looking
looking for a bite... not going to happen
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
Not even if I referred to you
Not even if I referred to you as a camp cook?
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Shane O
Posts: 926
Date Joined: 22/01/10
um
as if.. you have no chance
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
Haha how else am I supposed
Haha how else am I supposed to test the waters
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Shane O
Posts: 926
Date Joined: 22/01/10
lol
after 20 plus years in kitchenscommercial,restuarants and offshore it takes a bit more than that
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
.
FW resident troll, who occasionally has a brain snap and accidentally posts up some interesting stuff.
At one time I thought I was the only one who noticed this.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Adam Gallash
Posts: 15610
Date Joined: 29/11/05
Lol
Theres always one or two lurking.
Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
Campain against the minister
I think that is a good idea, these people have these jobs to put in place legislation that is going to have a positive affect on protecting our, our fishing resources.
If such measures can be shown to be flawed, as I believe the inspect the catch whilst under water requirement is then they should take action that is going to correct what has been show to be a major problem with a piece of legislation that falls under their powers. Think of the potato board and what a fiasco that bit of legislation (growing to many potatoes) turned out to be. It would not be precedent setting to drop charges when legislation has changed to remove a previous requirement (as per A P B case against a certain individual) and the heavens have not fallen in and the price of spuds hasn't gone through the roof.
From what I have seen online the requirement to inspect your catch of crays whilst under water and before you catch another is going to remain in force for the forthcoming season. There is only 9 days left before the season starts, it ain't going to happen, sadly.
At the recent boat show, in a respectful manner I made my views of the requirement to inspect your cray catch whilst under water to be prejudice against divers and extremely difficult to enact, also that potters were allowed 5 minutes to undertake the same requirement.
I explained the method available to divers did not, to me any way appear to cause damage to the crays when captured. So just what was the reason for the under water inspection requirement, if it is to prevent the "taking"excessive of crays aboard your vessel what about the crays a potter pulls on board his boat. Isn't he doing the same thing, sorting out the catch ie: legal crays for illegal and only retaining those he is lawfully allowed to keep.
The reply was swift and assertive I'm not going to discuss that subject.
So just were do we go from here, I'm not a diver by the way.
Tom M
Posts: 662
Date Joined: 22/09/15
I will ask around some tech
I will ask around some tech savvy people on how a campaign could be initiated people will either support it or not, could send a powerful message. That said there maybe that person is a FW member?
Tom M
Faulkner Family
Posts: 17867
Date Joined: 11/03/08
im no diver but i can
im no diver but i can understand the dificulties the divers would confront to try and measure under the water. there is an everpresent danger of sharks out there and you need to minimise the time you are able to look around.
i personally cant see any prob with the divers taking their catch to the boat to check the size as they are a hardy creature and will survive quite some time out of water.
for the safety of the divers checking the catch on the boat should be allowed. its not as tho the divers are going to catch undersize where as the pot will hold all sizes and therefore putting undersize crays at risk..
the prob i see is they are trying to set an example of what they can do to the ones that do the wrong thing intentionally, i dont know the full story behind this case but it does seem unfair to make a big deal out of this
RUSS and SANDY. A family that fishes together stays together
bsir
Posts: 569
Date Joined: 24/04/11
details
I havent followed the details of this, but i would love to hear the other side of the argument.
In most (all) of my dealings with fisheries, they have been pretty good.
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
I would love to as well
I would love to as well mate, there's got to be more to it for them to be so vigorously pursuing a conviction. Don't get me wrong I totally agree with the common sense approach of a 5 min catch inspection boatside. But I reckon there's more to this particular case.
Love the West!
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
Guys it's all about precedence
Fisheries are pursuing a conviction so that it sets a legal precedence supporting their interpretation of the word 'TAKE' contained within the rules and regulations. Bret just happens to be the unfortunate individual that is on the receiving end of the Fisheries efforts to set that precedence. At the present time it is one all. The decision went in Bret's favour in the District Court and that ruling was overturned in the Supreme Court. jmo.
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
But the legislation will be
But the legislation will be changed Alan to allow for 5 min sort boatside? If that's the case then they are just gunning for him before the law is changed. Will stand corrected.
Love the West!
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
I am of the view
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Fuck!! A very frustrating
Fuck!! A very frustrating situation for everyone. My oldest boy wants to dive for them this year for the first time and I'd really like some clarification. Thanks for the feedback!
Love the West!
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
99.9 percent of the time
They are good to interact with, it just appears that the legislation in regards to examining your catch of crays must be done whilst in the water.
My view is that this is not practical and is not consistent with the requirement for ascertaining if the cray is legal that potters are required to comply with, at least that's my understanding of the situation.
Quobbarockhopper
Posts: 391
Date Joined: 28/05/10
random question: how many
random question: how many people held cray licences on the boat and how many crays were in his bag when he surfaced?
not trying to start I bun fight- just seeing if there were other reasons why fisheries are after his ass so badly
I know that the amount of crays in a pot can be monitored/ controlled etc as well, but just putting it out there
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
3 divers with only 2 catch bags.
and the 2 other divers surfaced with 1 catch bag containing approx 20 crays, of which fisheries were right next to them when they sorted and clipped their 16 legals, before throwing back the remainder. Bret surfaced with approx 24 crays (group effort), and as he boarded the boat, fisheries charge in and seize his bag, before charging him with excess.
Quobbarockhopper
Posts: 391
Date Joined: 28/05/10
So 3 divers coming up with
So 3 divers coming up with approx 44 crays after a group effort (indicating they were working together in close proximity)?
Perhaps the fisheries thought they might be pulling the piss a bit with at least 20 crays over quota if they’re saying that they weren’t sure with that kind of margin for error of just under/ oversized or tar spotted or whatever?
Sorry, just trying to get my head around it all
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
Maybe.
but then why did fisheries allow the other 2 divers sort their catch, but not Bret? Why did they not board the boat when the other 2 divers surfaced, but wait for Bret before pouncing? Why did fisheries even change their view on this anyway?
Quobbarockhopper
Posts: 391
Date Joined: 28/05/10
2 blokes come up with 20...
2 blokes come up with 20... keep 14... acceptable margin for error..?
Theyve been working together while under, so would have had a rough enough idea of what was in both bags
Brets still down, so wouldn’t have known what they kept.
im a self confessed pleb of a both free and tank diver but don’t think I would have gone that far over suspecting we could be 40%+ out in our estimatations on what’s legal and what’s not
maybe fisheries saw the 2 boys sort there bag, thought “fair enough, they were close on and reasonable” so let them do their business, then saw Bret come up with a bomber load and though “hang on a sec, that’s not quite right” (even if he was part of the group or going solo) so went over and got into it
not saying they should have thrown the book at him like has happened, far from it, given the ambiguity of the rules and all, but looking at it like that, it looks slightly suss at least
anyway, I’m done, was just trying to be informed and “get my head around it” as Alan so nicely pointed out below.
Cheers Scotto for the reasonable comments bud, hope sensibility prevails either way
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
"Getting your head around it"
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
Of 25?
Of 25?
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Swompa
Posts: 3786
Date Joined: 14/10/12
Been there, done that. Get
Been there, done that. Get into a cave and just stuff the bag. Get back to the boat and go "holey crap", size and check, tag the keepers and put the remaining back, move onto the next activity.
It has not been illegal. There will be plenty of people who mis count whilst managing the underwater environment. Plenty of 'we only got 7, I'll just go back down, alone, and try to get another'
bsir
Posts: 569
Date Joined: 24/04/11
That's a lot
25 Crays in a bag means they must be small.
Taking over 40 Crays between 3 people is a bit excessive.
They aren't that hard to count or size underwater.... and you don't need to size everyone, just the first couple to get your eye in.
I keep my gauge on a retractable cord attached to my BC.
All that said, I'm still surprised fisheries threw the book at him.
Doooma
Posts: 791
Date Joined: 05/12/09
What next?not allowed to
What next?
not allowed to land a fish if its undersized, and must be measured in the water before bringing onto the boat?
its a croc, and if fisheries are considering changing the size limits to fish, to make it easier for fishers to stay within the rules/limits, this should also be extended to crayfish with allowing 5 mins to release etc, (although I believe the standardising and reducing of size limits is to aid the commercials fight to bring in fish traps and eliminate the underside fish dieing argument. Just my opinion though.
Doooma
Posts: 791
Date Joined: 05/12/09
What next?not allowed to
What next?
not allowed to land a fish if its undersized, and must be measured in the water before bringing onto the boat?
its a croc, and if fisheries are considering changing the size limits to fish, to make it easier for fishers to stay within the rules/limits, this should also be extended to crayfish with allowing 5 mins to release etc, (although I believe the standardising and reducing of size limits is to aid the commercials fight to bring in fish traps and eliminate the underside fish dieing argument. Just my opinion though.
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
unsure if posted - but get
unsure if posted - but get the truth of what really happened here http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2017/182.html
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
Not posted before
as I understand it. The link you have referenced is the Appeal Judgement which was not in Bret's favour. The transcript from the original trial judgement where the magistrate ruled in Bret's favour was very critical and damning of the Fisheries actions.
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
The facts are still there of
The facts are still there of what happened on that day.
I was a big supporter of Bret - until I read the transcript that he was well over the boat limit - not to mention the fact that fisheries approached his vessel after he had been out of the water for 6 minutes already.
As they say, there are two sides to every story.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
MT
Posts: 53
Date Joined: 19/08/11
'Out of the water 6 minutes already'
Whats the issue with this?
Under the law he, as in his person, is entitled to be out of the water for 6 days if he so chooses before bringing the catch out to determine if any totally protected animals are contained within it and clip the tails of any he intends to keep.
The 5 minute rule applies only to the catch, not to the person.
As for being over the bag limit that is the key issue at play here. I'd argue, having just read the transcript and the four reasons outlined by the presiding magistrate for his decision to convict, that there are holes in his reasoning so large that one might describe them as being big enough for a jumbo cray to escape from..
Swompa
Posts: 3786
Date Joined: 14/10/12
So, the first people were
So, the first people were allowed onto the boat to sort their crays and put back excess/undersize/protected but not Bret.
Alan James
Posts: 2206
Date Joined: 30/06/09
..
Correct, however the other two persons kept 14 crays and according to the Fisheries interpretation they were permitted to surface with 16. If they returned any more than 2 to the water then they risked being charged similar to Bret.
MT
Posts: 53
Date Joined: 19/08/11
Inconsistent
This is clearly a subjective interpretation on behalf of fisheries in Bret's case as in the testimony of the other two presented to the court they admitted to returning 'about half a dozen or so' crays back to the water before settling on the 14 that were kept.
Why was diver number three subjected to an alternate reading of the law?
I'm not a lawyer per se, but i've been reasonably extensively exposed to it both professionally and through various uni studies and in my opinion the other big flaws in the appeals court judgement, beyond the one above, are that;
1) A craypot offers a means of escape for a lobster by way of an escape hatch and therefore cannot be deemed to have been taken by a pot fisher at the time of its entry. ('Take' given to meaning that an animal is, accornding to section S.4 of the act to include "catch, capture, entrap, enclose, gather, remove, poison, stun, kill or destroy an animal by any means") This arguement falls down when you consider that escape hatches only allow for the escape of significatly undsized animals, a legally sized but totally protected lobster would not have the means to escape and is therefore 'captured, entraped, enclosed' in a pot. By way of example, a large berried female lobster caught in a pot isn't going to get itself out of its own accord. The first presiding judge acknowledged this inconsistency between the rules for divers and the rules for potters as a key reason for her decision, but the appeals magistrate overuled it in what seems to be a misunderstanding of the capacity to escape for all lobsters, thus has therefore erred in his assessment of what could be said to be 'taken'.
2) That forcing an animal into a catch bag causes distress to an animal as cited in by reason 3 of the appeals court's and that this should be avoided by having the animal assessed underwater by the diver for its legality. This is a highly dubious arguement, professional crayfishers keep their catches stored in baskets, which are basically large plastic crates with lids over them. The storage involves keeping a large number of animals in a small space in close contact with one another, very much akin to the environment a recreational lobster would encounter within a catch bag. With the difference being that professionals sometimes store their catch like this for days as opposed to recreationals who would rarely keep them in ths state for more than one hour. The question needs to be asked therefore, if it a practice that is good enough for a multimillion dollar export industry, why is it unnacceptable for the reactional one? Again here I would argue that there was information that the judge was unaware of an thus has erred in his ruling.
Finally from reason 2 cited by the judge, that the task for a diver to ascertain whether an animal is legal is simple in an underwater environment.
This assessment relies on the testimony of one man only, fisheries officer Gogoll. Evidence contradicting ths point of view was brought by a number of individuals who were described as 'experienced divers' by the defense. It was also contradicted by testimony given by experts from recfishwest. The judge seemingly placed no weighting on the opinions of these people. To my mind this a significant oversight and one that should be assessed in more detail by any future court that hears this case.
There is a lot more that argueably could and should be brought to the attention of a court about the process of crayfishing both by pot and by diving before another ajudication is brought down on this case in my opinion as it seems apparant that the honorable magistrate was basing his judgement on quite a limited understanding of the way in which the rock lobster fishery actually operates.
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
Need new deckie
For the forth coming cray season I'm looking for a deckie,
Must be a fully qualified the following qualifications,
Be a fully qualified Queens Council,
Thoroughly conversant with interpretation of Fisheries WA legislation particularly with the taking of rock lobster.
I say this with tongue in check, however this scenario may become something of a reality if this abysmal mess is not sorted out and quickly.
Can anyone post up a link to the court transcript of the first court case on this matter as well as the fisheries appeal, the link above doesn't want to work for me and I am not a member of Facebook.
tot
Posts: 1150
Date Joined: 31/01/10
copy and search
Meglodon highlight the link and google search it, should work.
edit - www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/wa/WASC/2017/182.html
Reverse cycle a/c supply and install - Ducted and wall splits
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
Not really mate - measure
Not really Megalodon - measure and check each cray as you loop them and dont go over your limit, quite simple really.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
easy aye
Aleks, you know my history with crays and diving. I catch A LOT of crays diving, to a point where I'd consider myself a very competent cray cathing diver...
almost every time I dive, I loose count of the number of crays I have in my bag, and more so with the more I catch.
I also always check crays for setose/spots/etc whilst underwater, but yet still come up with crays with some hairs on their legs, and the occasional tarspot.
FYI, I always double and sometimes triple check my boats catch, before we head in, but noting what I have mentioned above, if Fisheries get their way with this whole shebang, if I come up again with excess or setose/tarspot whilst fisheries are present, I WILL BE FUCKED.
Do you think that is fair?
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
@ Scotto - me too mate, the
@ Scotto - me too mate, the amount of times my buddy and I lose count, its pretty much every dive in previous seasons. However, I think what Fisheries are trying to do with this case is put the onus on us, the diver, to be responsible for our catch. Namely making sure we are strictly keeping to the rules.
Rightly, or wrongly so, this case will make me be extra careful with checking and keeping count, which as previosuly stated, may be the underarching intent of Fisheries pursuing Bret.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
Brock O
Posts: 3163
Date Joined: 11/01/08
Is he running a "Go fund me
Is he running a "Go fund me Page" ??
battjn
Posts: 42
Date Joined: 17/08/11
Recfishwest
Just noticed this on the Recfishwest app.
Don't know if this is a new thing or has been there for a while
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
Pretty sure that's new
Pretty sure that's new
Love the West!
blu2fish
Posts: 74
Date Joined: 23/01/13
Recfishwest
Came up on Recfishwest FB page that taking sestose crays will be allowed BUT definitely NOT tar spot or berried, would still go to Fisheries to have that verified.
little johnny
Posts: 5330
Date Joined: 04/12/11
Notorious
That’s crap. I’ve met many divers over the years. Catch what you want ,sort once in boat. Clip ones you want , throw rest back in . Been that way ever since I have dived never been issue. Doesn’t matter if it’s 30 or 2 . Pretty sure diver in this case surfaced 20 meters plus from boat. ( also seen fisheries there) Soon as he hit boat they where taken from him. Within a minute or so ( could be wrong).also seems funny around same time other divers approached by different officers where given 5 mins to sort and get there kits off. It’s a load of crap in my books( only my opinion) not trying to change minds of anyone. At the time all officers had different opinions on take rule. Let’s go the contribute rule. Let’s say 65 year old scooping while son swimming just out from him in mangled bay. Let’s say same officers approached scooper and said no way did you scoop 10 of your combined catch of 20 . Really .to many grey areas. No digs at anyone at all. Take, contribute can mean many many different things in different minds and education levels. “Once snare around crayfish” you have taken it. Should apply to Marron also I gather. But no you bring on dam or river bank. Gauge and return or keep. Crab scooping once you scoop it you have taken it . I don’t think so . Doesn’t and has never worked that way ever. Any way nuff said everyone enjoy last few days of dermersal fishing cheers:):)
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
20 would be within the
20 would be within the combined bag limit of 2 people though
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
I agree there should be some
I agree there should be some form of leniance in certain situations. But being 5-10-15 or 20 crays over your limit is pulling the piss. I believe this is what fisheries are suggesting Bret has done. Being 8 crays over his/the boats limit and after having had 6 minutes pass after being on the boat (from case transcript)
As we all know, looping crays can damage a cray, particularly if they are a soft shell. Packing excess crays into a bag over an extended period can damage crays also. So one shouldnt take excess Crays if one knows they will be released. Also, excess crays in bag will only encourage upgrading also. Allowing excess Crays to be damaged then returned to the water may hurt the fishery, at the end of the day Fisheries are only concerned for the resource, and they have my support.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
Fisheries have fined a fair
Fisheries had fined a fair few others as well but still did not think it worthy of making a public announcement.
Sorry but what you are saying is well meaning but bollocks.
Traffic cops can't just decide "we're seeing lots of broken tail lights so we'll just jail this prick so everyone has a look at their tail lights".
They can't just make it up as they go along, it's not Indo or Afghanistan.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
little johnny
Posts: 5330
Date Joined: 04/12/11
Exactly
but Because scooper never got as many as diver they tried it on. Same 2 officers. Never went much further than that. Just goes to show how contribute can be twisted if they want. Like there trying to twist the word take (atm).Good on Brett for standing up for his rights . And also standing up for all divers rights at the same time. My biggest fear in diving is coming up no boat. My opinion even if there boat sitting ( Crays , crabs ect), they are contributing. And even if they never caught ,snared anything at all , they should be able to take there limit home also. It’s called safety . I 100 percent bet some others think different, same as 2 names on cray floats. Allowed 3 license holders on board. When whites run not hard to have 30 plus crays a pot. But can only take limit of who’s names on floats. So that would be 16. Then pull another pot with your other deckie name on it. Just to many ways for the people to get done for honest mistakes, without fisheries the fishery would be stuffed 100 percent agree. To many grey areas need addressing just my opionion. If you steal pots ect. Should be done. If you come back to ramp with hidden excessive goods . Should be done. Agree 100 percent . But this happened on water on someone’s meaning on the word take. That’s bull s—t. Go means go . Stop means stop. Never assume nothing words can be twisted. “ ASSUME “ makes an ass- u- me. Let’s see how the courts see it , all we can do is sit and wait.
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
The act is clear what the
The act is clear on what the defintion of take is - take, in relation to fish, includes catch, capture, entrap, enclose, gather, remove, poison, stun, kill or destroy fish by any means;
s4 Fisheries Resources Management Act 1994
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
Clear aye?
so when is a cray taken Aleks, when it's removed from the reef or removed from the ocean?
so if the rules are clear, and crays that are "entrapped" in a cray pot, why aren't potters getting fined for not checking their pots every 5 minutes?
I've read the transcripts too. All of them. There's more holes in Fisheries arguments than a purse sein net.
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
According to the regs when it
According to the regs when it is looped.
Regarding the cray pot question, it was answered in the case,“27 Fisheries Officer Demir was asked in cross examination about fishing for rock lobsters by pot. Her evidence was that with the use of pots, the rock lobster is able to escape after being attracted to entering the pot by the bait”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
I don't buy it.
So here is when the fun starts...
My understanding of "take" as I read it from the FRMA, is when the cray is "removed" from the ocean (when you surface), not when it is looped.
Where you are also wrong is bret had been up for 6 minutes, but he had only JUST pulled up his catch bag (it was clipped to the anchor line, underwater) when fisheries pounced. That in itself is a contravene of the FRMA.
Also, you know as well as I do that crays don't escape from craypots.
dawsy
Posts: 65
Date Joined: 16/12/14
Scotto, does it pertain
Scotto, does it pertain though to the the undersize crays escaping? So anything undersize, theoretically goes through an escape with a designated size for undersize crays to escape?
I guess the other, is when humans handle the crays. So once the crays are in possession, they must be assorted?
Where you are also wrong is bret had been up for 6 minutes, but he had only JUST pulled up his catch bag (it was clipped to the anchor line, underwater) when fisheries pounced. That in itself is a contravene of the FRMA.
So why wasnt Bret let off if fisheries had contravened FRMA regs? Just asking. They broke the rules in prosecution.
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
he WAS let off
the original magistrate's decision was that he was innocent.
Fisheries then took it to the supreme court, on a re-definition of the word take.
the whole issue is that the FRMA/legislation is too ambiguous, with too many loop holes for fisheries to try and exploit or corner someone, who has (as a result of the poorly worded FRMA..) interpreted their wording differently.
DTrain
Posts: 486
Date Joined: 10/02/12
"According to the regs when
"According to the regs when it is looped."
Your supposed to measure the size before you 'take' the cray right? Or else your breaking the law.
How can you do that if you've 'taken' the cray the moment you put a loop on it?
Your interpretation of the law would make it impossible for any diver to catch a crayfish without breaking the law, unless they can somehow convince the crayfish to stay still long enough to be measured before it's looped.
Marineboy
Posts: 839
Date Joined: 14/03/14
Dtrain
within 5 mins of the cray being taken
My spots are so secret even the fish don't know about them !
dawsy
Posts: 65
Date Joined: 16/12/14
So if you have any doubts
So if you have any doubts about a crays size underwater, then you shouldnt be bringing lobster to the surface?
Oldbull
Posts: 175
Date Joined: 21/09/15
Will need to check the new
Will need to check the new interpretation but it seems that although you have 5 min to sort your catch you still cannot surface with more than your 8 crays. Cant surface with 10 or 12, check for U/S or setose and release any and keep 8. You cannot keep setose but now have 5 min to check. Could always go for 2nd dive to top up to your bag limit but gone are the days of snaring 10 or 12 and keeping the best 8.
Walfootrot
Posts: 1386
Date Joined: 23/07/12
Just bait up a pot, chuck it
Just bait up a pot, chuck it in, go for a swim pull your pot, hey look 28 crays, sort them out, take them home, cook some, eat and drink beer. the end
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
gruntre69
Posts: 533
Date Joined: 15/10/16
Need to find the neatest
Need to find the neatest smallest collapsible pots. I have a feeling there will be some demand as I'm with you and other divers I know also like this idea...
Marine trimmer NOR (available for clears, tops, carpet, upholstery, custom equipment covers)
dawsy
Posts: 65
Date Joined: 16/12/14
Im not a diver, so I dont
Im not a diver, so I dont need to know. Its sound like you need to ascertain the size well and truly before surfacing. If you are second guessing size underwater, then the lobster shouldnt be going to the surface?
There is pros and cons to both diving and pots.
Sam57
Posts: 104
Date Joined: 17/08/14
On friday I received an
On friday I received an email from recfish about new rules for divers stated divers have 5 mins to sort catch when safe back on board their boat. which makes sense . Also that setose crays can now be kept.
meglodon
Posts: 5981
Date Joined: 17/06/10
Has anyone got any idea
Has anyone got any idea when Brets case goes to court again.
This is like a very bad festering boil, the quicker it is lanced the better, what mental stress Bret is under is any bodies guess.
timboon
Posts: 2924
Date Joined: 14/11/10
Come on Notorious lets not
Come on Notorious lets not wank on.....
I also can somewhat see how Bretts actions ( taking 20 crays in a bag ) may have raised alarm bells with the fishpigs but IMO if he goes back to the beach with his 8 then thats all that really matters...
You're statement
"As we all know, looping crays can damage a cray, particularly if they are a soft shell. Packing excess crays into a bag over an extended period can damage crays also. So one shouldnt take excess Crays if one knows they will be released. Also, excess crays in bag will only encourage upgrading also. Allowing excess Crays to be damaged then returned to the water may hurt the fishery, at the end of the day Fisheries are only concerned for the resource, and they have my support "
Is to be honest a load of shit mate....
Are you talking about the same Fisheries that have now given their endorsement to the opening of the cray season for the entire year.... Oh hang on no they actually havent though have they, because its only open to those that commercially fish for them, yes thats right those that already take 97% of the TOC.....
Its baffling isn't it....
Why would those that take the 97% be allowed to fish all year yet those that enjoy the catching/eating of OUR resource aren't even allowed to follow suit, please don't tell me its to protect the resource...
So now over the winter months when the weather is shit but the price is good, even if they can only get out a few days a week they'll do it.... Why wouldn't they, the fisheries have allowed them to do so....
Bummer about the Setose/Spawies that come off the bottom and get turfed back, also the Occys, Schooling snapper gosh even the old Grey Coats must be following the boats around nowadays loading up on the crays that go over board....
I'm interested in your opinion now after a couple of points i've highlighted whether you still firmly beleive that Fisheries have the resources best interest in mind and do you still give them your full support??
While they keep smashing a devisive wedge between the Commercial sector and the Amatuer sector i have zero time/respect for them, fuck em......
scotto
Posts: 2470
Date Joined: 21/04/08
LIKE
West Coast
Posts: 331
Date Joined: 10/12/07
Quotas
Pro's can fish all year but all fish to quotas which from memory are currently set at about 50-60% of the long term average catch so shit loads of crays left in the water. I think you will also find that although they can fish all year round the average days actually spent on the water is considerably less than when it was a set season. So not sure your point. Perhaps fisheries could let us fish all year as well. Can't see how it would have a massive impact on catch. Perhaps something for the future.
hezzy
Posts: 1519
Date Joined: 27/11/09
also like timboon !!!it
also like timboon !!!
it needs to be remembered brett was not the only diver who put crays in that last catch bag he surfaced with ..so he was not solely responsible for the ''take ''of so many over his bag limit if you read the script of the case his share was from memory only about 4 crays over his share of 8,,if you split the catch with his dive buddy
unfortunate for him his dive mate and 3rd diver , both surfaced first , as they had time , checked the first bag and took a legal bag limit each
this shared dive then went south for brett as he surfaced alone, brought the catch bag onboard and got immediatly into a situation with fisheries , and an altercation developed as they attempted to isolate him and make him soley responsible for the whole bag
now fair crack of the whip ..most blokes might react to that type of scenario right out of the blue on what had been a good day , by a bloke with no record or intent to break the law . but hey suddenly he was accused of exactly that intent
was it right ,,,imo no , would I react like he did >> highly likely if I was accused of the same and the officers took such an attitude to isolate me and lay sole responsibility of such an act on me ?? especially when their interpretation of the whole dive groups process was coming from left field and was contradictory on any prior dive info or education
he won on the local court .now that may not seem much ...but to me that is the real test of the gov law and how it is meant to be applied to the common man who is subject to it
the local magistrate recognised bret is a decent bloke a law abiding bloke who had shown no intent under the law to break the rules ,,he was with his mates relaxed , enjoying himself and following what was their normal dive process when he was isolated and made responsible for a new interpretation by fisheries officers ..who then went on to acosst him and challenge him outside the court when he won ,,,
the bloke deserves the right to a fair go and benefit of the doubt here
compare bretts case to this ''kid ''charged in rockinham for the assault on an 80year old woman ??
it is laughable ....this kid will walk away scott free ,while brett is copping the depts. full weight to punish him emotional and financially
that really is an absurd situation imo
just shows how as a society we are totally warped in accepting some crimes but intolerant of others much less serious wasting tax payer money
hezzy
OFW 11
evil flourishes when good men do nothing
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
@ TimboonThe commercial guys
@ Timboon
The commercial guys do take a massive amount of the resource there is no denying. However, they are limited by a catch quota of crays, unsure if you're aware of that. So they can smash their quota in a few months or take their time and catch it during the course of the year. At the end of the day the commercial guys pay the state generously for their rights to fish, and I'd dare say give the state more revenue than us recreational guys. Not to mention the associated benefits of commercial fishing, employment, services etc
Sure, WA Fisheries managment isnt perfect, but I figure they are doing their best with the resources they have allocated to them.
Its up to you, and our peak body Recfishwest, to loby fisheries in an effort to change the rules. An all round reason for rec's is a good idea.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
hezzy
Posts: 1519
Date Joined: 27/11/09
notorious given the value
notorious
given the value of the catch the commercial guys get , id say they pay a pittance for their
95% share of the resource to be honest
recs financial contribution to the economy would be as high if not higher then the comms ...
56000 licenced rec fishermen just for crays compared to 250 comms ??
about 7% of recs are divers so that equates to about 90000 -100 000 pots being made or bought ,. bait , fuel ,licences gear etc etc engine services , oil , etc etc
we on the recreational rock lobster committee have asked for an all year round rec season , same as we voted this year for the removal of setose from the protected species list ..this will ehlp potters and divers as it wont have blokes getting caught up in disputes with fine haired setose crays being taken or thrown back ..it will remove the risk of accidental prosecution around this issue
the up shot of the increase in season and other rec changes is coming though in the form of us reaching our TAC of just 5% ....as we do in the next year or so , then what ?? will you blokes want to give up bag limit ?? reduce season again ?? reduce pot back to one per person ??
or seek to increase recs 5 % share of the catch ??
OFW 11
evil flourishes when good men do nothing
dawsy
Posts: 65
Date Joined: 16/12/14
I guess if you have 20
@timboon and @broaderaudience, I guess if you have 20 lobsters underwater and you are second guessing their size, then best leave them down there?
You would presume that you can be sure with 20 crays as Bret Carter did, that you have already established with diving skills that some are bigger than others? These are the biggest ones.
There is pros and cons of both diving and pots.
little johnny
Posts: 5330
Date Joined: 04/12/11
Yesterday snared
Gauged and put in bag.lost 2 trying to take out of snare to gauge correctly( loop was in way). Normally I would open snare in bag to get them off. Doing it way they want I found I done more damage to cray ( lost more legs than normally would). Double handling . Pain in ass . But was good fun to get wet once again. Only dived shallow. I was amazed to get 1 white cray.( wasn’t coral cray).
sea-kem
Posts: 14857
Date Joined: 30/11/09
That's it LJ you've just
That's it LJ you've just launched a 1000 ships with that white cray comment ;)
Love the West!
dawsy
Posts: 65
Date Joined: 16/12/14
lol Thousand ships launched
lol Thousand ships launched
Notorious
Posts: 914
Date Joined: 23/02/12
I admit, measuring in the
I admit, measuring in the water is harder and awkward.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf
little johnny
Posts: 5330
Date Joined: 04/12/11
Nah
1 off. No others , just thought it was strange. Reds had no double shells at all. ?? Weird
Walfootrot
Posts: 1386
Date Joined: 23/07/12
Still a loooooooong way off
Still a loooooooong way off John, still say first full moon in December.
More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!
timboon
Posts: 2924
Date Joined: 14/11/10
West Coast i'm well aware of
West Coast i'm well aware of the quoata system as I was involved in the Southern Zone fishery in SA, We were the first in the country to introduce a quota system and yes although the Pro's all screamed blue murder and they were all going to fold they didnt..... 25 years on and they are now earning more money than they ever have and are fishing less days also than ever... Well done to the Fisheries for having the balls to get it happening and not bowing down to those putting pressure on them to put $$ before sustainabilty....
Now.....
I think you missed the point, and that point being.....
Actually lets go the other way... When something is working perfectly ( as in the pros are making very good money AND most importantly the fish stocks are maintaining/improving ) why fuck around with it....
Its a very simple answer...... GREED
A Professional Cray fisherman now has the ability to make the most of the price fluctuation over a 12 month period instead of the set season....
IF..... The Fisheries had come out and said "look there is a shitload of crays out there now, all our indicators show we are all benefiting from quotas to the pros so we are going to open the season to all and sundry all year " then i wouldn't have so much of an issue with the decision to allow the take of crays all year - BUT of course they didnt did they.....
They open it to those that take the 95% of the TOC but they dont open it to those of us that dont even go close to taking the 5% we are allowed???
Weird eh!!
Yep sure the pros still take the Tonnage allowed but why should they be allowed to fish when the ammos cant?
I'll say it again - GREED
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
It is not commercial
It is not commercial fishermen who have anything to do with decision on a rec 12 month season.
In fact to the best of my knowledge they have not raised any objection to it.
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
Jackfrost80
Posts: 8050
Date Joined: 07/05/12
Talking in riddles again big
Talking in riddles again big fella?
Why don't you just point out that Boon has misread the situation and that the proposal is actually around allowing charters to take out rec divers all year round to dive for crays rather than bringing sarcasm into the conversation?
Officially off the Pies bandwagon
Rob H
Posts: 5745
Date Joined: 18/01/12
.
You might have taken 1 too many knocks mate, your going in circles and theres no sarcasm there.
Or more likely just trolling away again...
Give a man a mask, and he'll show you his true face...
The older you get the more you realize that no one has a f++king clue what they're doing.
Everyone's just winging it.
West Coast
Posts: 331
Date Joined: 10/12/07
Ok you want a 12 month
Ok you want a 12 month season for the recs. Fine. I haven't given that a lot of thought, but I can't see any major problems. Happy for someone to point out otherwise. But I still do not get what you are on about regarding the pro's. You say it is about GREED. Depends on your definition of GREED. If you define GREED as working half as many days, leaving 50% of the long term average catch in the water and maximizing the beach price they receive for those crays then they are GREEDY MF's.