This is dodgy!
Has anyone got a map of the proposed bay restrictions?
This is dodgy!
Has anyone got a map of the proposed bay restrictions?
Greg Haines said while the proposed no-go zones represents 30% of the Moreton Bay area it covers about 80% of fishing spots in South East Queensland used by families and recreational fisherman.
public disobedience. nothing else for it. bad luck, just fish there. fight every fine in court. buy some night vision goggles, and fish at night.
This was the Moreton Bay Draft zoning plan that came out last year for public consultation. There's lots of different provisions, but for recreational Line fisherman (most of us) this is what the colours mean.Originally Posted by Nicko
Light Blue: No more then 3 handheld rods or lines, with a total of of not more then 6 hooks attached to the lines per person.
Dark Blue: same as above
Yellow: No more then 1 handheld rod or landline with no more then 1 hook per person.
Green: No fishing.
I just had a looksy, thankfully the new restrictions won't really affect me because I mostly just go out on my own and fish with one rod.
Still, I'd rather they don't change any of these zoning laws because sooner or later they'll probably try jack it up a notch again and introduce tougher restrictions.. One thing leads to another.
nicko. by jacking it up a notch, they will probably add more green zones in overnight and let you know with a piece of paper with a fine on the bottom of it.
up here in CQ. we have had green zones for a long time. and really there just isn't enough fisherman/women to stop the go ahead of these things. pollies want, pollies get... one of those silly thing where they say they are doing it for the greater good. but probably only 1 in 10 fish. so they are protecting the people who don't fish...
jimbo99
The quality of fish in the bay has declined along with the quantity,as you would expect with a population of over ten times what it was 50 years ago. And remember it took all day to get to moreton in our slow boats with put put engines in them.
But the single most devestating cause (particularly on the western side of the bay) was the coral dredging on mud, st helena and at ormiston. when I was young there was a massive reef system in all these places as well as at green and king island with niggerhead and plate coral of all sorts. now all of this coral has been covered by silt on the ebb and flow tides. If you looked at it from the air you could see the massive silt trail, from ormiston to tangalooma.
But coral is resiliant and now the small coral clumps are rejuvinating (Albeit slowly) and fish like snapper, lipper etc. are slowly returning to the spawning habitat. It will take time but the reefs will return, just as they rejuvinate themselves after bleaching and crown of thorns up north. I will never see it, as it will take many years, but Mother ocean will prevail come what may. Jimbo
anyway a crook day on the bay is better than a good day at work, let there be water.
These EPA restrictions on recreational fishos really get to me,
I have nothing at all against pro fishermen out in the ocean, I dont agree with trawlers operating in the Bay & for years beam trawlers have been in the pine river etc , what are pro fishos doing in rivers?
The EPA should be restricting these guys as they would be pulling up juvenile fish and most thrown back would be dead or taken by predatory fish., I once spoke with a fisheries guy who boarded our boat about this, i said here you are looking at our empty bucket when the beam trawler came through this morning and killed heaps of juveniles, his reply was they dont catch much decent fish - My point exactly.
Recreational fishos dont really take a lot of fish especially with bag limits etc.
Spinner
Mate, you won't hurt them one little bit by getting yourself pinched and fined.
Fines only provide more revenue for the EPA to use for their own purposes and they can also use the statistics of apprehensions for illegal fishing to convince the Government how "bad" the rec fishos really are and ask for more National Parks Officers (paid for by the fines).
It will be helping them create an "industry" and allowing the EPA managers to get upgrades in salary because of the increase in responsibility and work-load and the pollies will use the stats to prove how thet were "right" in protecting the Bay with green zones.
Maybe the way to go is if everyone achores in the green zones with rods in holders but no lines in the water.
Parks Officers will have to check you but no fines and no statistics to show for their efforts.
All cost to EPA and no financial return or apprehension statistics to crow about.
GES
better still..lots of boats in the green zones..all fishing..have no GPS on board..do not pay any fines, and go to court.Spinner
Mate, you won't hurt them one little bit by getting yourself pinched and fined.
Fines only provide more revenue for the EPA to use for their own purposes and they can also use the statistics of apprehensions for illegal fishing to convince the Government how "bad" the rec fishos really are and ask for more National Parks Officers (paid for by the fines).
It will be helping them create an "industry" and allowing the EPA managers to get upgrades in salary because of the increase in responsibility and work-load and the pollies will use the stats to prove how thet were "right" in protecting the Bay with green zones.
Maybe the way to go is if everyone achores in the green zones with rods in holders but no lines in the water.
Parks Officers will have to check you but no fines and no statistics to show for their efforts.
All cost to EPA and no financial return or apprehension statistics to crow about.
GES
I'll represent you Greg, "Pro Bono"
M62
I don't know if you are a solicitor or not. But, if you are, I'd be interested to know what defence you could use to beat a prosecuters case in which EPA has indisputable prima facie evidence that someone was apprehended deliberately fishing inside a Marine National Park Zone (green zone) without a valid excuse (remembering, of course, that ignorance of the law or not knowing where you are is not a defence to this charge).
Going to court to defend yourself is the right of every citizen but you have to have a reasonable defence to the charge. If you are found guilty, you will be up for the fine, the court costs and the prosecution expenses of the EPA for running the case.
If you don't have a fairly reasonable defence to offer in court, the Magistrate could view your efforts as defiance and deliberately wasting the courts valuable time. In that instance you'll get knocked for six when he imposes the fine and costs.
As for "Not paying the fine".
When a person is convicted of an offence in court, the Magistrate will impose a fine and costs against that person with the option of going to jail for a specific period in default of paying the imposed fine and costs, usually with an agreed time allowed for the person to pay.
If the fine is not paid within the stipulated time, the Department of Public Prosecutions can take out a warrant against you and you'll be in more trouble with more expense.
You wouldn't be the first one to try and avoid paying a fine and then end up with more trouble than you ever expected.
There are no repercussions for EPA if they prosecute you and lose. But have everything to gain if they charge you and then beat you in court.
Don't give 'em the funding or the satisfaction is my view.
GES
Jimbo, that is a sad state of affairs for your family. All that history. All the best.
You can be sure that all the greenies that are thinking of shutting down fishing to parts of Moreton bay are the same people that think Carbon trading is a good idea.
defence is: I do not know where the boundaries are..i do not have a GPS..so the Govt should buy me one. Ignorance may not be a defence but not knowing where you are should be. I think I would just ask the Magistrate to give me the GPS point of where he is sitting...see what eh says then.
reality is: get several hundred doing that and cluttering up the courts and see how long before they change things. BUT..some could not be bothered and some could not afford it and i can accept that.
In defending PinHead I will leave no stone unturned, obviously my client will be pleading insanity and throwing ourselves at the mercy of the court.
Cheers
Mike Denuto- BA LLB Dip LAW LLM BEc(Hons) LP BS JP(Hons) QC of BCF
(as seen in "The Castle")
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote