Speeding boatie cops a fine and then some !

[oldboot]

I think you will find that they will consider to fast as bieng over 6 knots, that is pretty clear.

As for plane or displacement.

The will probably say that you are in displacemant if the boat in down in the water and running level, more or less as the boat would sit stationary.

if the bow is up or the stern is down you will be considered to be not in displacement

In boating we would not consider this to be properly " on the plane".... but as soon as the boat starts to climb out of the water it can be argued that it is no longer operating in displacement.

they may also call production of certain wash as an indicator of not being in displacement.

for some boats this will be very slow indeed...... for a lot of boats this will be in gear at idle or little more.

There is very much a perception ( i think correct) that this is designed to make you keep out or go arround those areas.

cheers

[FNQCairns]

I think you will find that they will consider to fast as bieng over 6 knots, that is pretty clear.

As for plane or displacement.

The will probably say that you are in displacemant if the boat in down in the water and running level, more or less as the boat would sit stationary.

if the bow is up or the stern is down you will be considered to be not in displacement

In boating we would not consider this to be properly " on the plane".... but as soon as the boat starts to climb out of the water it can be argued that it is no longer operating in displacement.

they may also call production of certain wash as an indicator of not being in displacement.

for some boats this will be very slow indeed...... for a lot of boats this will be in gear at idle or little more.

There is very much a perception ( i think correct) that this is designed to make you keep out or go arround those areas.

cheers

This is very true also true of the green zones up where fisherman and their boats are a little ugly for the tourist eco experience.

Still the tougher/dogmatic they get the more irreverent it makes me, others too very often. Kangaroos of the ocean, never hit one or heard of anyone hitting one outside of the media nor have I ever known anyone convicted of a murder or been convicted and sent off to the house while I have known them - it's a big place society.

That bloke was just plain silly, more fool him, a persons word means squat in court, he should know that to be an individual regardless of any reasonable logic that surrounds a regulated issue will be stomped on with jack boots, individuality is an absolute no no.

Still a fine is only as effective as the persons income/bank balance, it may mean near nothing to him verses the fullfilling experience of putting up at least some fight from an individual standpoint.

cheers fnq

[Lucky_Phill]

The following is from the report ( 2004 )

This core area of dugong mortality is intersected by the path of the ferry to the surrounding Bay Islands. The ferry passes through the area 60 times per day.

Further into the report a recommendation is made for Go Slow Zones... here is one finding:-

Clearly the stakeholder most affected by such a measure would be the ferry company. A rudimentary examination shows that imposing such a go-slow zone would result in an increase of approximately 10 minutes in the travel time each way. Given the likely increase in cost of this impost, we suggest that the QPWS should consider employing an expert in Operations Research to work with the ferry company to optimise ferry services to minimise the cost of the ‘go-slow’ zone on the ferry company.



Again, I am not sure what is going on. Everytime a decision or recommendation is made by a Government Funded Department in relation to activities on the water...... the only people up for compensation or assistance is the bloody commercial industry.

The mother and calf pair were within the channel known as the “Ws” through which the ferry to Russel and Macleay Islands passes 60 times daily. A photo was taken of a recreational boat travelling at planing speed passing within approximately 20m of the surfacing pair (Figure 4) on 16th May 2004. Soon afterwards, the ferry was observed to pass directly over a position where the pair had surfaced.

During our survey period, there was an unambiguous incident of boat strike mortality (Figure 5). A mother and calf dugong (given the low numbers of animals seen and the location, we consider that it is highly likely that they were the same pair we photographed) were struck by a vessel on May 18th 2004. The mother had fatal propeller cuts across her head and back. She was found at 2:45pm approximately opposite the jetty at the southern end of Macleay Island. She was struck while still alive as indicated by the fact that her wounds were bleeding when she was recovered. She was lactating. The 1.6 m calf which also had fresh propeller wounds was found two hours later two kilometres west-southwest at the southern end of Garden Island.

I will not get into a debate over this issue, but through the report the wording of incidents state " Boat Strike " and the " Propeller Cuts ". I will not even get into a blame game, but when and if a private vessel ( outboard, leg ), should strike a dugong or any object in the water it would result in " Skeg " marks and a secondary possibility of propeller cuts, but highly unlikely. IMO....

The cuts shown in the photograph in the report show no skeg impact area. IMO...again.

Only a vessel with exposed propellers ( shaft ) would be able to inflict a direct " propeller cuts " to an animal or object in the water.

To round it up, I whole heartedly support the Go Slow Zones and the policing of those Zones. Anyone caught disregarding the rules in relation to this deserve what they get.

Phill
.
.
.
.
.

[finga]

Good on the EPA on that one.

I just wished that the other authorities were as accommodating to the rest of the wally's on the water.
You know the ones...the ones who go full noise 3m off your gunnel (this especially peeves me when we're 8 miles offshore...gees isn't the ocean big enough to go around??)...the ones that go full noise 5m from a beach or bank....the ones that have 37 kids in a 13' tinny....the ones with no paddles or lifejackets... the ones that rob your pots and leave dirty nappies in them (yep, it has happened to us)....the ones that....the list can go on and on.

[choppa]

haven't read the entire thread but,,,,, turtle/dugong strikes are based on the area that the animal is found to have the evidence of being struck

that is,,,, an animal that ""may"" have been struck in my back yard,,,,, but survived long enough to float into your backyard will have your backyard posed as a high risk zone for strike

when you have the ""said"" population of dugong within the pumicestone passage,,, any animal that is struck,,,,, whether over or under speed,,,, may in reality be spotted within the bay environment and then of course,,,,,, it becomes a bay casualty

turtles are the same

i state this more on dugong simply because of there feeding patterns,,,,,,, a territorial animal will normally feed and stay within its own environment,,,, unless it becomes aged and forced out,,,, or is sickly and moves out,,,,,,

with dugongs diet being consistent of seagrass etc etc,,, it will move to an area that can still accomadate this,,,,, doesn't mean that is where the incident occured,,,, just means that is where the animal is,,,

turtles are the same,,,,,,, they travel,,,,,,there not territorial

a case in the U.S.A was proven,,, when a tagged fish was recaptured with strike evidence,,,, on the first capture it had none,,, recapture it did,,,,,, problem,,,,

it was recaught 87 miles away,,,,,,, guess which zone bore the strike rate??

choppa

[Moonlighter]

Hi all

During the MBMP rezoning MBAA did a heap of research into this dugong strike issue and I recall that the evidence is that larger vessels 8 m upwards that draw far greater depth than typical fishing/planing hulls were almost the only culprits proven to be involved in fatal dugong strikes in recent times.

This can be determined by measuring the size of the cuts on the poor sods and I understand that in the case of the mother and calf killed in the W's it ruled out strike by a prop of a diameter & pitch found on any recreational trailable planing boat. For once, fishermen proven not guilty!

For these larger vessels that clearly pose the main threat, this development of a new propellor style/system mentioned in an earlier post might be an excellent solution or at least an advance and is to be applauded.

Also, you might recall the posters we distributed that showed, using the Government's own data, that despite significant increases in trailerable boat registrations in recent decades, the number of dugong deaths due to boat strike was static and in the whole of Qld was less than 3 on average per year, and showing absolutely no trends to be increasing.

And a final point: the major real threat to the survival of dugong anywhere in Qld (including the Bay) is loss of seagrass habitat. Human involvement (boat strike, caught in nets or trawlers or "other" factors pale into insignificance when there is no food for them to eat.

I was talking to one of the State's most respected authorities on turtle and dugong and he confirmed that the last time we had major floods in SEQ (in the 80's I think) it was followed by a significant decrease/deaths in the dugong population: because the silt flowing into the Bay choked the seagrass beds and the dugong then had nothing to eat. You might recall that the same thing happened in Hervey Bay some years ago following a series of major flooding events up there.

The latest data shows the dugong populations in both Hervey Bay and MB have recovered well from those events when their numbers were maybe down to under 200 in Moreton Bay - now estimated up somewhere near 800 I think. Maybe they're a tad more resilient than some would have us believe....

Of course anything that affects seagrass health will also impact on dugong. I understand that the spread of fireweed is a real problem for seagrass and dugong, one that is related to water quality/pollution and nothing to do with fishing at all, of course.

Regards

Grant

[choppa]

grant i thank you 100% for your response

but albeit,,,, the response that the media responds on relates to the damage that the """serious""" rec fisho does to the environment and unortunately the exact facts are often forgotton or disregarded,,,, which simply means,,, the general public is educated that it is US who create the problem

there is a couple of current threads,,,, one is relating to a fish that was weighed in here in australia,,,, but caught outside of our waters,,,,,, the other is in regard to waste on a recreational beach,,,,,,,,,,,,, guess who created both problems

your points re the size and angle of cuts is definately true,,,,, no standard recreational boat could inflict such damage,,,,,,,,, but there i go,,,, recreational

i place the media (all types) within the same pigsty,,,,,,,,, to state in media that this damage could only come from one source without 100,,,,no 200% conclusive proof means that the reporter may end up with more egg on his/her face thats really warranted,,,, easier to cover the spectrum,,,,, and say its recreational,,,,shit recreational covers me,,,,you,,,,charter,,,,liner,,,,, depends on everyones interpretation

i am yet to see a report of any kind that states that the struck animal could have come from one area,,,, and ended up in another,,,,,, and with that i mean aquatic

choppa