Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Fishing oz style _ Lets Talk Fishing _ Commercial Fishing In The Harbour
Posted by: hustler57 Feb 13 2010, 10:04 PM
was listening to high tide this moring at about 4.30am driving home from work there was a short discussion about how the government is talking about bringing commercial fishing back to the sydney harbour,
did any 1 else hear that or any one else know anything about it ?
they said they would talk about it in more detail next week,
Posted by: hustler57 Feb 14 2010, 12:05 AM
jg have you heard of anything along these lines ?
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 14 2010, 01:17 AM
commercial fishing never left the habour to begin with
The whole scam about our licence fee's buying out LFB's was bullshit & just a way to raise $$'s so the existing LFB's in Botany Bay wouldn't take legal action against the gov for loss of revenue due to all the port works.
Was @ a meeting where a DPI rep got hammered with criticisum after admitting no future licences would bought out
Posted by: Christos Feb 16 2010, 06:06 PM
I do not think that they should bring back commerical fishing in the Harbour.
Posted by: bafoo Feb 17 2010, 01:45 AM
I heard the same thing on high tide mate.
This is not good at all, the fishing at the moment has been red hot with the ban on the traps etc.
It would be a shame to see them get more freedom and reck the fishing for the average joe blo.
Bafoo
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 17 2010, 04:31 PM
Keep the pros out.
Hopefully due to the dioxins they'll keep them out of certain areas for sure, i.e. Parramatta River and maybe some of the harbour proper.
The dioxin levels have not gotten any better since when they first closed the harbour to commercial fishing. They're still sitting there in the sediment, it hasn't gone anywhere.
Hopefully the greenies (let's face it, they pull a lot of weight) can jump on board and target the pros and keep them out. I just hope they don't go overboard and start taking on recs as well, but personally that's a risk I would be willing to take.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 17 2010, 11:50 PM
Actually Googlefushy is sort of on the right path.
I was discusing this 2day with a few of the boys & I was pretty much spot on with wot I'd initially said
LFB's weren't bought out in the habour by the DPI , but a few did cash in on the buy back.
From wot I gathered today the only ban imposed on the Pro's in the habour was from Gladesville upwards due to toxins in the water
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 18 2010, 12:31 AM
Are you sure? All the info I have from the fisheries website says the pros have been banned from the harbour, not just from Gladesville up.
I also haven't seen a single pro working in the harbour anywhere since the ban. Doesn't mean they're not there, but to have never seen one seems odd.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 18 2010, 12:42 AM
No I'm not certain & did say wot I posted last was only discussed today
BUT
I CANT SEE HOW THE PRO'S COULD'VE BEEN BANNED FROM FISHING THE HABOUR UNLESS LARGE COMPENSATION WAS PAID TO THEM ???????????????
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 18 2010, 12:45 AM
Some quotes from Fisheries:
"The Government has announced a $5.8 million package that includes a voluntary buy out of commercial fishing businesses, further testing for dioxins in the fish, and a public information campaign to advise recreational fishers and the community about the risks of eating seafood caught in the Harbour."
"All commercial fishing has been banned in the Harbour, including prawn trawling."
"$5 million was allocated to buy out Port Jackson estuary prawn trawl fishing businesses and estuary general businesses with a history of operating in Port Jackson. The program was designed to enable commercial fishers to exit the industry with a fair ex-grata payment (note estuary fishers can operate in one of seven regions along the coast)."
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 18 2010, 12:45 AM
NO IT DOSEN'T SEEM ODD @ ALL
They're not going to be out there in the middle of the day they wait till dark b4 heading out
No different to when the trawlers worked in botany bay, you'd never see them of a day only @ night
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 18 2010, 12:49 AM
"The Government has announced a $5.8 million package that includes a voluntary buy out of commercial fishing businesses, further testing for dioxins in the fish, and a public information campaign to advise recreational fishers and the community about the risks of eating seafood caught in the Harbour."
"All commercial fishing has been banned in the Harbour, including prawn trawling."
"$5 million was allocated to buy out Port Jackson estuary prawn trawl fishing businesses and estuary general businesses with a history of operating in Port Jackson. The program was designed to enable commercial fishers to exit the industry with a fair ex-grata payment (note estuary fishers can operate in one of seven regions along the coast)."
Very sketchy in wot they're saying
I do know a few of the pro's who work out of Botany Bay I'll ask them when next I C them
Better still I'll get a more accurate story next wednesday if I visit the club
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 18 2010, 01:04 AM
They're not going to be out there in the middle of the day they wait till dark b4 heading out
No different to when the trawlers worked in botany bay, you'd never see them of a day only @ night
Not a trap, not a net, no sign of them working in the harbour at all. Yeah I know most of them work during the night, but not all of them. Bate Bay, Long Reef, I've seen them in the middle of the day plenty of times. They weren't trawlers though, they were setting traps or lines.
Not only that, but everyone else who fishes the harbour regularly can't see them. If the pros were working in the harbour it would be known, unless they've managed to avoid recs completely for the past few years.
It doesn't make sense to ban them purely from Gladesville up. Buy outs, compensation, to me it sounds like tomato-tomato and that they've been banned and have gotten $$$ in return.
I smell another debate! Face it, they aren't allowed to fish in the harbour.
I'm going to email fisheries next week when I'm back from Port Stephens and get a definite answer.
Posted by: Fed Feb 18 2010, 01:17 AM
Well I think you're wrong.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 18 2010, 02:19 AM
Googlefushy when are ewe going to learn never take on Jumpus in a debate
That's wot they said about Botany Bay, Wun of the pro's I know sold his LFB to fisheries for $240 k two weeks later he purchased the exact same licence back for $60 k.
He paid of his house & comented
Thanks all ewe idiot rec fishermen
And googlefushy thinks he's going to get an honest answer from fisheries
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 18 2010, 03:57 AM
That's wot they said about Botany Bay, Wun of the pro's I know sold his LFB to fisheries for $240 k two weeks later he purchased the exact same licence back for $60 k.
He paid of his house & comented
Thanks all ewe idiot rec fishermen
And googlefushy thinks he's going to get an honest answer from fisheries
Fine, there are pros fishing all over the harbour. Even though nobody sees them and there's no trace of their activity, they're crawling all over the place.
Even though fisheries have stated they've banned ALL COMMERCIAL FISHING in the harbour, somehow that means that they are in fact allowed to work in the harbour and they haven't been banned at all.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 18 2010, 04:22 AM
Geez ewe can be a twit googlefushy
Dont know where ewe get your info from cause I searched the DPI site & couldn't find wot ewe posted but if ewe think $5.8 million is anywhere near enough to buy out all the LFB licences in Sydney harbour then you're mistaken.
It cost DPI sum ting like $12 million in botany bay & there's LFB's in the habour than BB
There was a temp ban like I initially said due to dioxines
The closure is effective as of today, and will remain in force for three months, or until further expert advice.
“Test results have revealed elevated levels of dioxin in bream across the harbour,” Minister Macdonald said.
“As a precautionary measure, the State Government has acted immediately to close commercial fishing in the harbour.
“I have also asked the chief scientist from the NSW Department of Primary Industries to review current world standards for dioxins in fish and report back.”
“It’s important to note there is no national acceptable level for dioxins in foods in Australia. However, test results of fish from Sydney Harbour indicated dioxin readings well above World Health Organisation and European levels.
The closure will not impact on the supply of fish to local seafood shops and markets, as finfish from Sydney Harbour account for less than 2% of the total amount sold in NSW.
Today’s move follows the closure of prawning operations in the Sydney Harbour last month. At that time the NSW Government ordered additional finfish tests. It also established an independent expert panel to provide scientific analysis of the full test results. The panel met late yesterday and provided its assessment to the NSW Food Authority, which today recommended that the temporary ban be put in place.
The expert panel has previously advised that Sydney Harbour prawns caught for sale as bait only did not pose a risk and can therefore continue.
Minister Macdonald said recreational fishing from the Harbour was not banned but urged fishers to follow strict dietary advice.
“The expert panel has recommended anglers eat only 150g serve of fish caught from the Harbour per month,” Mr Macdonald said. “Anyone concerned can also follow a simple ‘catch and release’ policy.
“I would like to point out that water quality in Sydney Harbour is the cleanest it has been in decades. The issue is with sediments on the harbour floor, which have been exposed to industrial pollution dating back over the past 100 years, and the migratory patterns of fish from polluted areas like Homebush Bay into the cleaner waters of Port Jackson.
“The Government has been working for years to clean up Harbour pollution at former industrial sites, such as Union Carbide at Homebush Bay, to help address this legacy.”
But that was back in 2006
I attended a meeting addressed by a DPI rep last year & he said there would be no more buying of LFB licences in the Harbour, Broken Bay or anywhere else cause it was just going to cost to much.
That guy got heckled by angry fisho's wanting to know why we are still paying for rec licences
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 18 2010, 04:58 AM
Must not have looked very hard for the info.
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/recreational/info/sydney-closure/Questions_and_Answers
Of course it's a temporary ban. It started in 2006 and has been scheduled to be lifted in Feb next year unless they find a reason to keep the ban in place, i.e. the dioxins are still there....which they are.
"This fishing closure took effect at 5:00pm on 10 February 2006 and remains in effect until 9 Feb 2011, unless sooner amended or revoked."
The buy out was voluntary, some of the pros just started fishing other locations like longy or further north/south. I know 5 mil is not very much.
Tell me what info or proof do you have to say that the pros have been allowed to fish in the harbour for the past 4 years? Because everything I've found is saying the opposite.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 18 2010, 05:21 AM
I'll ask them in person as I know quite a few of them
As far as that link ewe supplied well I read through it & again I'm falling back to wot I originally said simply because info on that page is very vague Sydney Habour is a big place & DPI are putting the emphasis west of the Habour bridge.
Bigger boats can fish offshore BUT there's alot of small LFB that cant venture outside they net the shallower waters.
You've got species like Kungys etc that wont venture up the river & I'll quote this from that page
Not all fish just a number of species
Posted by: Christos Feb 18 2010, 07:46 PM
So are they in the Sydney Harbour or not.
Then again is there a place next to the harbour.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 19 2010, 12:53 AM
Christos I've allready said this
BUT I'm not going to accept there has been a total ban regarding the whole of Sydney Harbour the maths just dosen't add up
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 22 2010, 06:22 AM
What maths are you talking about? Buy outs? Remember they were voluntary.
DPI says no commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour, it's there in black and white. Anything west of the heads is Sydney Harbour, the Parra and MH are just tributaries that make up the harbour itself.
Email to fisheries has been sent.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 22 2010, 08:32 AM
Yeah right & ewe're going to believe wotever DPI tell ewe
I recall sending an email to the twits in regards to ID'n a marlin
They ID'd a Striped as a Blue simple because it was blue in colour
Posted by: hustler57 Feb 22 2010, 09:04 AM
well aint tis a hot topic,
all the sites ive seen say that there is a ban on commercial fishing in the harbour... but it doesnt add up and
the whole thng smells just a little fishy to me
and every 1 i speek to says there is a ban but jg ur the only 1 saying the opposite now you may be right ( doesnt happen often ) but where are you getting ur info from and do you have any actual hard proof of that that we could view
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 22 2010, 02:06 PM
Well maybe JG is wun of the very few who uses his noggin & dosen't believe everything others say
If sum ting dosen't add up then I'll question it simple as that
$5 mil over 4 years is peanuts in terms of paying/buying out the LFB's that fush the harbour
They keep refering to Sydney Habour as having a ban imposed BUT wot about Middle Habour & further up like sugarloaf bay/spit etc
They say it's OK to eat fish east of the Habour bridge
That's just a few points I find contradictive of DPI's claims of a total ban
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 22 2010, 05:32 PM
They say it's OK to eat fish east of the Habour bridge
It's all still Sydney Harbour. Middle Harbour, Parramatta River, Lane Cove, Iron Cove.....it's all still part of Sydney Harbour.
You're also only supposed to be eating certain amounts of certain species east of the bridge, they aren't just saying that eating fish east of the bridge is fine. There is a dietary guide that would be impossible for pros to work around for species like bream, mullet etc.
I'm curious to know exactly how many boats accepted the buy out. If it was only a few then 5 mil may be enough.
Posted by: Joey Feb 22 2010, 11:35 PM
I havent been fishing long and may be missing the point but if dioxins were the problem that lead to them stopping the commercial fishing of the harbour and we still have dietary restriction notices all over the north side of sydney where its meant to be "safer" to consume fish, why would they be considering or if what Jumpus has said is true continue to fish the harbour.
And further to that is there anything that can or IS being done about cleaning up the dioxins so we can at some stage say its safe to eat fish.
Personally I dont eat fish and do it because I love it, but it would be good to catch a nice feed of something from the harbour and take it home for the missus without calling past the fish markets.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 23 2010, 12:05 AM
Sierra Foxtrot Alpha
And that's my whole point BUT the wuns who held onto their LFB's needed to be compensated & over 4 years $5 mil is no where near enough
The whole buying back of LFB's was aimed @ the trawlers in Botany Bay cause the government didn't want to compensate them & conned the angling faternity that paying a fishing licence fee was a good thing.
DPI are raking in the $$$$'s but are doing nothing in return for our $$$'s so I make no apologies for continually shooting them down
2 years ago we were told that 130 underwater fads would be placed in botany bay I've seen no sign of them & I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for the offshore underwater artificial reef either
Nothing they have to rely on rain to eventually wash the river clean
They're all a bunch of clowns with no sense @ all
Fish dont live in wun spot, they move around in search of food
Fish that are feeding up the river today can very easily be @ the heads of Sydney Habour next week BUT they'll still have the dioxins in their systems wont they ???
So ewes tell me is the DPI full of shit with wot they say
I watched a velly intering prog on the ABC last night
Twas about natural [questionable] dioxins killing oyster farming in tasmania due to plantation forests reason I said questionable was because these weren't natural trees planted they were genetically modified to grow quicker.
Posted by: Joey Feb 23 2010, 12:57 AM
Can they dredge the crap out mate?
do they give a time frame of how many years that sh*t is going to be lying there, I am imagining it will be hundreds
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 23 2010, 03:59 AM
Dredging would make it worse + impossible to do
If ewe catch any fishys that have 3 eyes & 2 bums ??
Dont Eat Them
Posted by: Christos Feb 23 2010, 04:14 AM
If you catch a fish then put it back.
Posted by: fishkiller Feb 23 2010, 04:34 AM
Not only that, but everyone else who fishes the harbour regularly can't see them. If the pros were working in the harbour it would be known, unless they've managed to avoid recs completely for the past few years.
It doesn't make sense to ban them purely from Gladesville up. Buy outs, compensation, to me it sounds like tomato-tomato and that they've been banned and have gotten $$$ in return.
I smell another debate! Face it, they aren't allowed to fish in the harbour.
I'm going to email fisheries next week when I'm back from Port Stephens and get a definite answer.
yeah i agree mate peeps wouldnt take the risk i reckon any hows
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 23 2010, 04:53 AM
Fish dont live in wun spot, they move around in search of food
Fish that are feeding up the river today can very easily be @ the heads of Sydney Habour next week BUT they'll still have the dioxins in their systems wont they ???
So ewes tell me is the DPI full of shit with wot they say
Have you seen the dietary guides? For example, 150g of bream per month is what they recommend, and that's for fish east of the bridge. That's f*ck all fish, might as well just not bother.
Yes fish move about, but some more than others. Bream may spend most of their lives in the Parra because there's always food there for them, but fish like kingies and other pelagics are highly migratory and may be spending next to no time in the Parra. Fisheries have made it clear they recognise that and hence implicated the guide that's specific for different species.
"The issue is with sediments on the harbour floor, which have been exposed to industrial pollution dating back over the past 100 years, and the migratory patterns of fish from polluted areas like Homebush Bay into the cleaner waters of the Harbour."
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 23 2010, 05:11 AM
Almost forgot, fisheries emailed me back and basically said what I've been saying. ALL COMMERCIAL FISHING HAS BEEN BANNED FROM SYDNEY HARBOUR. That means anything west of the heads (North and South) is no go.
When you're talking to your pro mates tell me exactly how many were bought out, had to stop fishing all together or were really hit hard by the ban. Plenty of fishing spots outside of the heads.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Feb 26 2010, 12:03 AM
Just have to clear a few tings up 1st
Nope your sole purpose here is to be the sites resident TWIT
And to embarass your mum by doing Wee Wee's in your pants
Googlefushy when will you learn that ewe'll never win an arguement with the Great Jumpus GooDarus ???
Like I said in a previous post DPI is full of shit & twits like ewe should start using your noggin B4 ewe decide to take me on
Unlike yourself I dont believe wot I hear esp on the internet cause there's that much bullshit posted it could fertilise the sahara dessert.
I had a word with wun of the DPI guys 2day, not his department in regards to licencing he's more on the in charge of FADS etc
Wot was banned in the harbour were the trawlers & all forms of netting
Trapping was never banned & is still going on 2day
LFB's were purchased back off the fishermen & not for wot they were worth cause we all know LFB fishermen dont sell on the black market & allways declare 100% of their earnings on their tax returns
So final verdict is Jumpus was spot on & didn't make nonsense claims like that goose Googlefushy
who didn't do his homework B4 opening his big mouthTraping is a form of commercial fishing so how can DPI claim that all commercial fushing was banned in the Harbour ??????????????????????????????????????
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 27 2010, 01:21 AM
If trapping's allowed in the harbour then where are the traps? And don't say the whole night time thing, if they're tapping then I would have seen at least one of them.
I will send another email detailing that you've said trapping is allowed. The word of a DPI email is worth just as much as from the guy you talked to (and what does the FAD's have to do with Sydney Harbour? Not his area hmmm?).
Posted by: catchnrelease Feb 28 2010, 11:05 PM
HEY JG! You're either wrong, fibbing or your DPI friend has some info on illegal fishing. Here's the reply from another email from fisheries (I explained that you said that a DPI bloke said trapping was still allowed).
"Hi Alex,
Sydney Harbour is totally closed to all forms of Commercial fishing.
You can report illegal or suspect fishing activities to your nearest Fisheries Office or use the Fishers Watch Phoneline on 1800 043 536.
Illegal fishing information received are investigated by Fisheries Officers and where an immediate response is not possible
Due to conducting of other operations or safety considerations, information received will be used in targeting on-going
surveillance and enforcement activities.
When lodging any report please be prepared to provide the following information:
- type of activity
- time, date and location of activity
- number of people involved, identity if known and descriptions
- registration numbers of any boats or cars involved and their descriptions
- your own name and contact details to further substantiate your report and provide you with follow up information.
All information provided will be treated, and remain, absolutely confidential.
Regards
George Mannah"
So who told you trapping was still allowed? And what boats are still trapping, if they're doing it illegally. I would like to report them, if it is true.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Mar 1 2010, 02:23 AM
Like I've allready said Googlefushy you're the sites resident twit
1stly JG does not bullshit & that's why I come down hard on those who do & make idiots of them
2nd of all the DPI guy I spoke to was spot on the $$'s when he told me + I also heard it from other sources & I speak to these peeps in person not via emails.
Difference between ewe & me is velly simple Jumpus knows the right questions to ask & ewe dont simple as that
Ewe go back to your new best mate George Mannah & ask him if Lobster pots are allowed in the habour
And why he dosen't deem lobsters as part of our fisheries ???????
Posted by: hustler57 Mar 1 2010, 03:23 AM
well i dunno what the hell is going on but i do know 1 ting for sure
never believe 100% of what you read of hear... exp when it comes to government deprtments....
i know from personal experience that in the departments the left hand doesnt know what the right hand is doing,
so whats really happening here ?? where are being told that commercial fishing has been banned.. ok so that may be true by the law.. but what type of fishing are they doing with in the eye of the law isnt commercial fishing ????
there are many different types of fishing.. for example for arguments sake...
the law can say that fishing with a net over 60cms is illegal so i fish with a net thats 60cms long.. there for what i am doing is legal.... but the gvernment can say thay have made all fishing nets OVER 60cms illegal
there is always a loop hole or back door to do anything these days
Posted by: catchnrelease Mar 1 2010, 05:13 AM
Sent another email asking specific questions specifically regarding crayfish and whether it does or does not fall under the term commercial 'fishing'. You said yourself trapping is a form of commercial fishing. However you suddenly and conveniently just made it known you were talking about crayfish, and not fin-fish. But of course you were talking about lobsters the whole time?
What's the word of the DPI guy you talked to against the word of Mr. Mannah? Both part of the same system. Just one's face to face and another's over the net. Of course you said it yourself, the guy you talked to doesn't work on harbour matters or commercial fishing matters, he's a FAD guy.
JG where's some actual proof that lobster trapping is still going on? There must be documentation somewhere, actual physical evidence, not just word of mouth. I've supplied plenty to support my case, how about you?
Posted by: catchnrelease Mar 1 2010, 05:19 AM
OH LOOK WHAT I FOUND! Two minutes of searching and I've blown your whole lobster trap theory out of the water:
http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/info/closures/commercial/lobster/location-closures/waters-in-which-the-use-of-a-lobster-trap-is-prohibited
"The waters specified in the table below (Schedule 1 of the Lobster Share Management Plan) are waters in which the class of commercial fishing that consists of the use of a lobster trap or commercial lobster trap to take fish is prohibited."
And look what body of water is banned.....
"Port Jackson (Sydney Harbour)
The whole of the waters of Port Jackson and its tributaries, upstream of a line drawn from the northern extremity of South Head to the southern extremity of North Head."
Unless you can find something wrong with that of course.....but honestly, how can you argue against that? You can't put up this kind of information available to the general public if it's simply not true.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Mar 1 2010, 12:39 PM
Of course I can argue with that
I see no mention of Botany Bay on that list & we all know our licence fees bought out all the lfb's in the bay
The only thing that I agree with is wot hustler said
I have wun DPI guy telling me wun thing & you're using couriour pidgeons with notes tied to their legs telling ewe sumting else
Posted by: hustler57 Mar 1 2010, 01:04 PM
i think what needs to happen here is every 1 just accepts that we well they have different views on whats happening and leave it at that....
whether commercial fishing is happening or not in the harbour can be put in the bag of lifes great mysteries.....
Posted by: catchnrelease Mar 1 2010, 03:10 PM
I see no mention of Botany Bay on that list & we all know our licence fees bought out all the lfb's in the bay
SINCE WHEN ARE WE TALKING ABOUT BOTANY BAY???
I have been talking about Sydney Harbour, and nothing else. That's what this whole thread is about, not Botany Bay. Sydney Harbour was banned because of the high levels of dioxins in the interest of public health. That's why they can't fish there, the reason they were payed compensation was because of the ban that was always going to be put in place - compensation or not. It's not the pros that are in the harbour that are banned, it's the harbour that's banned meaning nobody can fish in there.
Stop avoiding the issue at hand. Do you think commercial fishing is allowed in Sydney Harbour or not, now that you've seen fisheries pages, emails etc. Hell you can call Mr. Mannah if you want. I won't because I don't want to waste his time - it's obvious no commercial fishing is allowed in the harbour.
I'm done here, fact is I have info supporting my case and you have to ramblings of a few people. I see NOTHING in writing that states anything other than commercial fishermen being totally banned from the Harbour.
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Mar 1 2010, 10:08 PM
Wake up to yourself googlefushy
Who controls commercial fishing anywhere ?
DPI does
My comments in regards to Botany Bay are very justified simply because our licence fees were to stop all commercial fishing in Botany Bay & I saw no where on that link any mention of the Bay being protected from lobster trappers
Personall y I dont really give a shit, haven't fished the place for 20 years & from the very start of this thread I did say that I wasn't sure if it was banned
Now we have 2 conflicting DPI guys saying different things & if they cant get their own house in order I cant see why I should believe anything thats said
Just because it's written on the DPI site dosen't mean that's it's true clever wording can depict different versions of wots true & false
My arguement here is with peeps like ewe who want to jump in & believe wotever DPI has to say & never Questioning wot is accurate just remember wun thing the guy who replied to your emails is most likely just a pen pusher without to much knowledge on the matter.
I copped the same thing when trying to get info of the trailers I built from the RTA a whole lot of bullshite so I went down in person to speak to wun of the inspectors to get correct info
Posted by: catchnrelease Mar 1 2010, 10:43 PM
Likewise I don't give a shit about Botany Bay. This whooooooole thread is about commercial fishing in Sydney Harbour. I said they are banned, which they are, but then you started talking BS about maths and how they aren't banned at all!
"BUT I'm not going to accept there has been a total ban regarding the whole of Sydney Harbour the maths just dosen't add up"
All you have is one DPI guy who is involved with FADs, that is completely unrelated to any matters revolving around commercial fishing in the harbour.
It's very convenient to just dismiss any publication by the government. However, now that it's in the public domain it can't be a lie. That would open up grounds for legal action. Likewise, they haven't tried to cover it up with clever wording to avoid this legal action. Tell me, how can these statements in particular be interpreted differently than that commercial fishermen have been banned?
"A total ban has been placed on commercial fishing as a precautionary measure after test results revealed elevated levels of dioxin in a number of species of fish and crustaceans in Sydney Harbour."
"A total ban on commercial fishing has been implemented to ensure the safety of consumers and the integrity of the seafood industry."
You said yourself you haven't fished the harbour in 20 years. This whole thread is about the harbour. Not Botany Bay, so why even bring it up?
You also avoided the question at hand (very polly-like).
Hustler, to answer your initial question: Commercial fishing of any kind has been banned in the Harbour until, at the earliest, Feb next year (unless it is extended).
Posted by: Rumpus Mar 1 2010, 10:46 PM
f**K, would yas get over it...
Posted by: jasonb Mar 1 2010, 11:34 PM
was thinkin the same thing to rummy,,,,if there doin it dob em in if ya want ,if not then why worry about it ,,,jas
Posted by: Fed Mar 2 2010, 12:08 AM
If you don't like it then don't read it, simple.
Posted by: hustler57 Mar 2 2010, 12:38 AM
like i said a few posts back... we need to just accept that we have different views on it and put it into the bag of lifes mysteries
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Mar 2 2010, 02:13 AM
Ewew really dont get it do you Googlefushy ??????????
Yes this thread may be about Sydney Habour BUT I brought Botany Bay into the equation for a reason
If DPI is bullshitting to us about the Bay then wot makes ewe think they aren't Bullshitting about Sydney Habour ????????????????????
And that's why I cant believe there's a total commercial ban in the habour
Posted by: Rumpus Mar 2 2010, 03:34 AM
As far as im concerned ya both talking out ya ass's... Jumpy knows people in the industry, maybe they right, maybe they wrong.. Catch surfs the net for all his info and a few emails and gets his side, really i couldnt give a shit who is right... But the carrying on is ridiculous.. Seriously Catch, stop trying to big note yourself by reading all this shit, and Jumpy, Why bother arguing your side..
Just go fishing!!!
Posted by: Jumpus GooDarus Mar 2 2010, 04:06 AM
Just go fishing!!!
Simple answer to that Spud
Wot do ewe think would happen to just about all the threads if sum wun like me didn't argue ?????????
You'd be lucky to get 3 or 4 replies to them that's wot would happen
This thread has now gone 3 pages I do tire of argueing BUT it's like talking to brick walls some times but I try to open peeps minds by putting up an arguing side of the story.
Then peeps can make up their own minds wot they want to believe
Like I said I dont fish the habour & really dont give a shit but I do fish the bay & have listened to so much bullshit I cou;ld've fertilised your potato paddock
Posted by: catchnrelease Mar 2 2010, 04:43 AM
If DPI is bullshitting to us about the Bay then wot makes ewe think they aren't Bullshitting about Sydney Habour ????????????????????
And that's why I cant believe there's a total commercial ban in the habour
Talk to some pros that used to fish the harbour, ask them if they can still fish in the harbour, then you'll see that I'm right.
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)