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's picture

Posts: 2016

Date Joined: 14/10/12

Not making themselves any

Fri, 2017-10-06 12:55

Not making themselves any friends here.

Tom M's picture

Posts: 219

Date Joined: 22/09/15

 My 1st choice would be to

Fri, 2017-10-06 15:48

 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's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

My small protest today

Fri, 2017-10-06 16:45

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's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

I'd take a stab that your

Fri, 2017-10-06 20:36

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.

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Alan James's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

And on cue

Fri, 2017-10-06 22:23

you surmise wrong.  Best you refrain from commenting on conversations you were not privy to.     

____________________________________________________________________________

                                                                          

                 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

.

Sat, 2017-10-07 09:53

 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.

 

Posts: 797

Date Joined: 22/01/10

.

Sat, 2017-10-07 18:59

 beat me too it Rob

Jackfrost80's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

 *to*Good thing you can chop

Sat, 2017-10-07 19:08

 *to*

Good thing you can chop onions

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Posts: 797

Date Joined: 22/01/10

looking

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:06

 looking for a bite... not going to happen

Jackfrost80's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Not even if I referred to you

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:18

Not even if I referred to you as a camp cook?

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Posts: 797

Date Joined: 22/01/10

um

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:22

  now you are breaking my heart jack.. didn't know you knew i was camp...

 

as if.. you have no chance

Jackfrost80's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Haha how else am I supposed

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:25

Haha how else am I supposed to test the waters

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Posts: 797

Date Joined: 22/01/10

lol

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:28

 after 20 plus years in kitchenscommercial,restuarants and offshore it takes a bit more than that 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

.

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:55

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's picture

Posts: 14837

Date Joined: 29/11/05

Lol

Thu, 2017-10-12 18:54

 Theres always one or two lurking.

____________________________________________________________________________

Site Admin - Just ask if you need assistance

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Campain against the minister

Fri, 2017-10-06 18:03

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's picture

Posts: 219

Date Joined: 22/09/15

 I will ask around some tech

Sat, 2017-10-07 08:46

 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's picture

Posts: 12633

Date Joined: 11/03/08

 im no diver but i can

Sat, 2017-10-07 07:46

 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

Posts: 302

Date Joined: 24/04/11

details

Sat, 2017-10-07 16:38

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's picture

Posts: 9858

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 I would love to as well

Sat, 2017-10-07 17:09

 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's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

Guys it's all about precedence

Sat, 2017-10-07 18:14

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's picture

Posts: 9858

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 But the legislation will be

Sat, 2017-10-07 18:20

 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's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

I am of the view

Sat, 2017-10-07 18:39

there will be no change to legislation in the event Fisheries succeed in their prosecution of Bret.  I have not seen anything from Fisheries that suggests changes to legislation.  RecFishWA have made various statements recommending the same rules apply to divers as they do to potters and they have also requested Fisheries clarify their position but zip from Fisheries. 

____________________________________________________________________________

                                                                          

                 

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 9858

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 Fuck!! A very frustrating

Sat, 2017-10-07 19:06

 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!

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

99.9 percent of the time

Sat, 2017-10-07 16:45

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's picture

Posts: 327

Date Joined: 28/05/10

random question: how many

Sat, 2017-10-07 17:23

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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

3 divers with only 2 catch bags.

Sat, 2017-10-07 19:41

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's picture

Posts: 327

Date Joined: 28/05/10

 So 3 divers coming up with

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:03

 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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

Maybe.

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:19

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's picture

Posts: 327

Date Joined: 28/05/10

 2 blokes come up with 20...

Sun, 2017-10-08 04:55

 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's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

"Getting your head around it"

Sat, 2017-10-07 20:36

The court transcript states that the first two divers surfaced with one catch bag and sorted their catch on the boat returning crays to the water leaving them with 14.  When Bret surfaced some time later the Fisheries approached the boat and prevented Bret from sorting his catch.

____________________________________________________________________________

                                                                          

                 

Jackfrost80's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

 Of 25?

Sat, 2017-10-07 23:15

 Of 25?

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Swompa's picture

Posts: 2016

Date Joined: 14/10/12

 Been there, done that. Get

Sun, 2017-10-08 06:14

 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'

 

 

Posts: 302

Date Joined: 24/04/11

That's a lot

Sun, 2017-10-08 06:55

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.

Posts: 795

Date Joined: 05/12/09

 What next?not allowed to

Mon, 2017-10-09 08:15

 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.

Posts: 795

Date Joined: 05/12/09

 What next?not allowed to

Mon, 2017-10-09 08:15

 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's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

unsure if posted - but get

Wed, 2017-10-11 20:47

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's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

Not posted before

Wed, 2017-10-11 21:57

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's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

The facts are still there of

Thu, 2017-10-12 22:21

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's picture

Posts: 40

Date Joined: 19/08/11

'Out of the water 6 minutes already'

Fri, 2017-10-13 12:17

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's picture

Posts: 2016

Date Joined: 14/10/12

 So, the first people were

Wed, 2017-10-11 21:36

 So, the first people were allowed onto the boat to sort their crays and put back excess/undersize/protected but not Bret. 

 

 

Alan James's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

..

Wed, 2017-10-11 22:12

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's picture

Posts: 40

Date Joined: 19/08/11

Inconsistent

Fri, 2017-10-13 13:32

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.

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Need new deckie

Wed, 2017-10-11 23:41

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's picture

Posts: 824

Date Joined: 31/01/10

copy and search

Thu, 2017-10-12 10:41

 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

Notorious's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

 Not really mate - measure

Thu, 2017-10-12 22:22

 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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

easy aye

Fri, 2017-10-13 14:45

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's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

 @ Scotto - me too mate, the

Sat, 2017-10-14 21:51

 @ 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's picture

Posts: 1319

Date Joined: 11/01/08

  Is he running a "Go fund me

Thu, 2017-10-12 12:06

 

 

Is he running a "Go fund me Page" ??

Posts: 38

Date Joined: 17/08/11

Recfishwest

Fri, 2017-10-13 18:37

 Just noticed this on the Recfishwest app. 

 

 

  • Divers will now be provided 5 minutes to sort and recheck crays once safely on-board the boat following their dive.

 

 

Don't know if this is a new thing or has been there for a while

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 9858

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 Pretty sure that's new

Fri, 2017-10-13 20:07

 Pretty sure that's new

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Posts: 11

Date Joined: 23/01/13

Recfishwest

Fri, 2017-10-13 20:11

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's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Notorious

Fri, 2017-10-13 20:44

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's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

20 would be within the

Fri, 2017-10-13 21:52

20 would be within the combined bag limit of 2 people though

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Notorious's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

 I agree there should be some

Sat, 2017-10-14 21:59

 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's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Fisheries have fined a fair

Sun, 2017-10-15 05:50

 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's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Exactly

Fri, 2017-10-13 23:10

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's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

 The act is clear what the

Sat, 2017-10-14 22:07

 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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

Clear aye?

Sun, 2017-10-15 14:30

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's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

According to the regs when it

Sun, 2017-10-15 19:23

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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

I don't buy it.

Mon, 2017-10-16 12:27

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. 

 

 

Posts: 48

Date Joined: 16/12/14

Scotto, does it pertain

Tue, 2017-10-17 13:24

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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

he WAS let off

Tue, 2017-10-17 14:23

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's picture

Posts: 443

Date Joined: 10/02/12

"According to the regs when

Tue, 2017-10-17 12:44

"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's picture

Posts: 567

Date Joined: 14/03/14

Dtrain

Tue, 2017-10-17 13:15

 within 5 mins of the cray being taken

____________________________________________________________________________

 My spots are so secret even the fish don't know about them !

Posts: 48

Date Joined: 16/12/14

So if you have any doubts

Tue, 2017-10-17 13:25

So if you have any doubts about a crays size underwater, then you shouldnt be bringing lobster to the surface?

Oldbull's picture

Posts: 89

Date Joined: 21/09/15

 Will need to check the new

Sat, 2017-10-14 07:24

 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's picture

Posts: 1195

Date Joined: 23/07/12

Just bait up a pot, chuck it

Sat, 2017-10-14 09:28

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's picture

Posts: 228

Date Joined: 15/10/16

 Need to find the neatest

Mon, 2017-10-16 10:30

 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...

Posts: 48

Date Joined: 16/12/14

Im not a diver, so I dont

Tue, 2017-10-17 13:28

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.

Posts: 90

Date Joined: 17/08/14

 On friday I received an

Sat, 2017-10-14 11:25

 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. 

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Has anyone got any idea

Mon, 2017-10-16 12:42

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's picture

Posts: 947

Date Joined: 14/11/10

 Come on Notorious lets not

Mon, 2017-10-16 07:40

 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's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

LIKE

Mon, 2017-10-16 16:19

 

Posts: 251

Date Joined: 10/12/07

Quotas

Mon, 2017-10-16 20:47

 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's picture

Posts: 1004

Date Joined: 27/11/09

also like timboon !!!it

Mon, 2017-10-16 21:18

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's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

 @ TimboonThe commercial guys

Mon, 2017-10-16 21:19

 @ 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's picture

Posts: 1004

Date Joined: 27/11/09

notorious given the value

Tue, 2017-10-17 01:35

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

 

Posts: 48

Date Joined: 16/12/14

I guess if you have 20

Tue, 2017-10-17 13:35

@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's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Yesterday snared

Mon, 2017-10-16 08:18

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's picture

Posts: 9858

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 That's it LJ you've just

Mon, 2017-10-16 09:09

 That's it LJ you've just launched a 1000 ships with that white cray comment ;) 

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Posts: 48

Date Joined: 16/12/14

lol  Thousand ships launched

Tue, 2017-10-17 13:33

lol  Thousand ships launched

Notorious's picture

Posts: 834

Date Joined: 23/02/12

I admit, measuring in the

Mon, 2017-10-16 21:22

I admit, measuring in the water is harder and awkward. 

____________________________________________________________________________

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/174055815943047/?fref=nf

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Nah

Mon, 2017-10-16 10:28

1 off. No others , just thought it was strange. Reds had no double shells at all. ?? Weird

Walfootrot's picture

Posts: 1195

Date Joined: 23/07/12

Still a loooooooong way off

Mon, 2017-10-16 13:37

Still a loooooooong way off John, still say first full moon in December.

____________________________________________________________________________

More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!

timboon's picture

Posts: 947

Date Joined: 14/11/10

 West Coast i'm well aware of

Mon, 2017-10-16 21:26

 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's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 It is not commercial

Mon, 2017-10-16 22:15

 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's picture

Posts: 3658

Date Joined: 07/05/12

Talking in riddles again big

Mon, 2017-10-16 22:39

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?

____________________________________________________________________________

If catching wrasse is cool, consider me Miles Davis

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

.

Tue, 2017-10-17 00:53

 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.

 

Posts: 251

Date Joined: 10/12/07

 Ok you want a 12 month

Tue, 2017-10-17 08:02

 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.