Divers( important)

Scuba. Hooker.  Or free dive. Phantomcat won in local court. On take rule. Every diver knows almost impossible to gauge Crays underwater (depending on conditions). How would every diver like fisheries being on boat prior to all divers being on board. Apparently soon as diver lifts bag up, that's it. I don't think so. 5 min rule. (didn't happen) Also keep in mind this is the 1st case they have tried in court. also keep in mind this is 65 year old with support from recfish. (in court) poor guy also copped mouthful outside of court apparently in front of wife and lawyer.(unsure)??. fisheries taking to Supreme Court  Big big money, talking big lawyers. wouldnt be bad idea for few people supporting the guy. Stress and big bucks. 200 plus people in court would help. All divers look into this case. it will affect all of you in future. Up to to you guys. Some things kept out media :);)


Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Why

Mon, 2016-04-11 22:05

Why is it out of the media.
So when does it go to the Supreme Court, please keep every one in the loop on what is happening and when.

I'm not a diver but if you can tell me the date time etc I'll make every effort to be there. This is absolute crap what is going on here.

I think the term vexatious prosecution is the right term to use for this stuff. It will be very interesting to see on what grounds they are appealing the finding.

Auslobster's picture

Posts: 1805

Date Joined: 03/05/08

The sad thing is....

Tue, 2016-04-12 05:21

 ...even if this bloke "wins" in the end, fisheries will ultimately abolish the 5 minute rule. Crays, crabs, fish...everything. IMMEDIATE return to the water. And not because it's maximising the chances of survival...it will be all about a government department throwing its weight around

Read the fine print in the back of the WA rock lobster rec fishing guide...it states that it is NOT a legal document and cannot be used as evidence in court. So they've put themselves in a position to change the goalposts any time they feel like it..

 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

I have followed this a bit

Tue, 2016-04-12 07:21

I have followed this a bit also, but what I'd like to see is Phantomcat put up exactly what actually happened on the day, so we can see exactly how all this came to be.

It is an odd case, doesn't really make sense. 

I have had a look online but I haven't been able to find any court transcripts for this case.

but it shits me big time seeing fisheries throwing their weight around like 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.

 

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

3 divers

Tue, 2016-04-12 08:04

Sharing 2 dive bags. When 2 divers were on board they where checked by fisheries, no time given to sort catch out. (all good so far) They waited to check 3rd diver . On board. No time given. Total limit was exceeded. By how much unsure. As soon you put a cray in your dive bag they are saying you have taken it. No 5 min rule to sort on top. This is pretty hard to do underwater, deeper you go harder it gets. This is not stated anywhere in rules( hand book or legislation anywhere). When you gauge  cray and remove tail, that is when you have taken that cray. ( within 5 mins) This is a first ever tried by fisheries and they didn't win. So they are taking to high court to appeal decision.  Why unsure. I have also tried finding more about issue. No luck

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 yeah thats about as much as

Tue, 2016-04-12 09:12

 yeah thats about as much as I got, and just as vague.
Phantomcat, if hes serious about defending it and wanting support, needs to get off his bottom and write out the full story.

Because I still cant work out what exactly he has been charged with and why.
Everything I have read here and there is either him describing the court outcome, or people "filling in the gaps" who dont know anymore than the rest of us.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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: 2731

Date Joined: 03/03/10

reminds me

Fri, 2016-05-27 20:04

 i got nabbed in onslow for shooting a potato cod (suposably) by fisherys at the beadon creek boat ramp onslow , big argument between myself and fisheries officer as to what type of cod it was , tryed to explain it had been on ice for 5 hours and thats why it looked so pale , ended up they confiscated it and gave it to some oldys in the van park  we were staying at , never got a fine , must have realised  he might be wrong

scotto's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

generally,

Tue, 2016-04-12 09:03

I've read a little bit about this on here and another forum, and it sounds like an individual meat-head fisheries officer with a personal vendetta, but I wouldn't mind reading some actual court/legal documents on the case.

by all accounts, I hope this ends well for not only Phantomcat, but all us recreational divers that catch crays. it unfortunately sounds like an necessary evil, to get this finalised in the highest court. its just a damn shame an innocent recreational (IMO) law-abiding individual has been dragged into the whole scenario.

Chasin' Tail's picture

Posts: 36

Date Joined: 14/03/13

 So they can do me for

Tue, 2016-04-12 11:56

 So they can do me for pulling my pot into the boat with 30 keepers in the pot.... Absolute load of shit!! Agree with Rob about getting the full story out.

 

Fisheries love to keep the grey areas in the rule book!!

rigpig's picture

Posts: 458

Date Joined: 21/11/12

good point

Tue, 2016-04-12 12:37

Agree with you about the cray pot full of crays. They are on your boat and you do have to measure them so you put the undersize and over limit crays back. Why can't you do this with your dive bag full of crays. Load up your bag and sort them out on top..

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 thanks, but I disagree on

Tue, 2016-04-12 12:43

 thanks, but I disagree on one thing.
They cannot possibly put that on pots, hence its all telling me that we dont know the actual story.

There is more to this, from either or both sides.
Im curious why the person involved isnt putting it out there himself, with the facts.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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

Agree rob h

Tue, 2016-04-12 12:55

 Unsure myself. Been hearing bits and bobs ? Don't care to much about full story. it's about a fake rule  that isn't in any rule book. That's what has me interested. Thats why he would have won first case  I would imagine.????

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 yeah, thing is, I havent

Tue, 2016-04-12 13:02

 yeah, thing is, I havent even seen what he has ACTUALLY been charged with?

____________________________________________________________________________

 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: 2731

Date Joined: 03/03/10

when is his next court appearance

Tue, 2017-06-13 21:52

 when does he front court again what a waste of bloody tax payers money, this is time for lots of  phone calls to the new fisheries minister  to make him aware of this case 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 jeez Peter, youve been in a

Tue, 2017-06-13 22:32

 jeez Peter, youve been in a time warp?

Last year was the time for calls emails etc

Court cases are all over, right to the Supreme Court and now waiting for a verdict since Feb

____________________________________________________________________________

 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

Rob h

Tue, 2016-04-12 13:39

 Pm sent

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

This is how it happened

Tue, 2016-04-12 20:11

Firstly thanks for the support, not only from this site. Slowly getting the word out.

This is how it happened;

At the start of the 2014 season I was diving with 2 mates off Safety Bay.

We usually dive as a team, so crays can go into any bag.

We always believed that we had 5 mins to sort our catch and return the rest to the water, the same as the potters do.

We have all been checked before and there wasn't a problem with our method.

So I surfaced and saw the FMO's on their boat as I swam back to our boat.

My mates were already in the boat and had sorted there catch, kept 14 and returned the rest back to the water with no problem from the FMO's.

I left my bag and gear on the drop line and got in the boat and we discussed why the FMO's were hanging around. As we had not done anything wrong i then pulled in the rest of the catch. On emptying the catch into a tub the FMO's came along side and took all our catch. ( Both tubs)

They came back some 10 - 15 mins later, gave back the 14 crays from the 1st tub and I got on the fisheries boat and was interviewed.

At the end of the statement they said the reason I was being charged was;

FMO - A diver can only TAKE 8 crays

Me - -  I replyed I am only going to TAKE 8 crays.

FMO - Under the definition of the word TAKE in section 4 of the Fish Resources Management Act 1994, means to take of their environment.

Me - A few derogatory remarks about where they extracted that definition from.

I couldn't believe what I was hearing and argued that a potter is doing the same thing.There reasoning is that a potter has no control of what goes into their pot but a diver has control as to what goes into their bag.

I gave up and they dropped me back on to our boat with 8 crays.We discussed the events and it turns out that during the dive they estimated they put about 11 crays in my bag ( we only had 2 bags as one got left on the boat).

I was one of those days when we just kept catching so it turned out we had heaps . My bag had 25 of which 5 were undersize.

I didn’t get fined for the undersize as I had 5 mins to return them to the water only for TAKING more than 8.

I decided to take it to court on the principal of the charge.

In the court papers the fisheries changed the reason to – as I had put then in my catch bag I had TAKEN them.

The trial was interesting and it came down to the definition of the work TAKE and the ambiguity of the legislation. In the end the magistrate dismissed the case.

The sad part about the verdict day was when the Regional Manager or what ever his title is confronted me out side the court room, got in my face and threaten me. Raved on about how I wouldn’t get away with this and how they have changed the law and how the magistrate stuffed up. Complaints have been made to fisheries on the matter.

They have now appealed on the grounds the magistrate erred on the 5 min rule in regulation 12 and or regulation 31 of the act.

No where in the legislation does it say-

            A diver can only take 8 Rock Lobster.

            The definition of TAKE means to take out of their environment.

            No distinction between a diver or a potter.

It seems there is on definition of Take when referring to divers and one for potters.

I could go on an on with arguments.

I have approached a lawyer that deals with appeals and am waiting on his thoughts.

As far as I am concerned the manager is taking it personally and with unlimited tax payer funding is just going to keep on fighting ( word has it he hasn’t lost a case??)

I have approached the local papers, one reject and waiting to hear from the other.Also Today Tonight but its not really a “TV” thing. The West Australian is interested and will get back to me. A letter to the Minister on the ambiguity of the laws and still waiting to hear back from RecFish.

Even know I won the court case the costs awarded has left me out of pocket and now another $8k to fight the appeal. If I quit now I get a conviction plus $7k for lawyer costs plus modified fine of $5k. Where does one stop if they keep fighting? If we can get this out to as many Rec fishers as possible it would add weight to the case. Crowd funding has been mentioned but I will have to get advise about that.

Happy to answer any questions

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 good on ya mate, for getting

Tue, 2016-04-12 21:25

 good on ya mate, for getting on here and putting it out there.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

Mike17's picture

Posts: 218

Date Joined: 30/06/13

Crowd funding

Wed, 2016-04-13 11:12

 Mate you have my support if you go down the crown fund path and i dont dive. 

 

____________________________________________________________________________

 Use The Force

Swompa's picture

Posts: 2016

Date Joined: 14/10/12

 Well done for sticking to

Tue, 2016-04-12 21:17

 Well done for sticking to your guns. Looks like you got a fisheries bloke in a suspicious mood on a bad day.

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

2 questions

Tue, 2016-04-12 22:25

 How can they use 5 min rule to let small ones go??  And try to charge you for others .5 min rule should apply also.2 nd  they kept them out of water for 10 plus minutes?? .I have dived for few years in the past we come up take bc off . Pull deco line . Gauge and cut centre tail out . Then we have taken them . Return undersized or haired or extra back to water within 5 mins. Always been that way.all divers I know do same thing. Why is it a problem now? Also phone different fisheries branches ask how long have you got to sort Crays out when you Finnish dive. 5 mins  was answer .doesn't make sense to me.. Welcome to site.

sea-kem's picture

Posts: 9858

Date Joined: 30/11/09

 I guess the reginal mangaer

Tue, 2016-04-12 22:27

 I guess the reginal mangaer can say what he likes but it comes down to the gov prosecutor to proceed? Sounds like more of a battle of ego than the law. Waste of money imo, but I wasn't there on the day so don't know how the actuall exchange went down. You must've pissed them off to pursue it so far.

____________________________________________________________________________

Love the West!

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Hmmm very interesting

Tue, 2016-04-12 22:31

My take on the situation is this,
fisheries are waiting for you to come on-board after looking at the bag/s of 2 divers on the boat.

You come on-board with a bag holding in excess of 8 crays.

Arrh Ha says fisheries you have taken more than your allowance of 8 crays, I'm going to book you.

You reply whilst there may be more than 8 crays in my bag I have to check size and condition of crays and I have a 5 minute period of time to do that same as potters.

No says fisheries that doesn't apply to you.

Fisheries take umbrage at your questioning of their interpretation of the act, fisheries' know set out to become vindictive and peruse a vexatious prosecution (we'll show this smart arse).

Fisheries loose in court, fisheries, we have unlimited funding via the public purse and the H O D agrees we can't let this go as it could/would set a precedent regarding our interpretation of the act. And hell will freeze over before we accept that.

Fisheries are one department of enforcement that has legislation that is not well composed and has had their interpretation challenged on many occasions, that is why there nis the disclaimer on the back of all their publications (ie this document can not be blah blah) it's a get out of jail clause.

I wish you all the best on this situation and will attempt to be in court the day this comes up to offer you my moral support.

Sadly because of the culture of this department (compliance) you can bet your bottom dollar that the character lacking types that staff this section will already be writing amendment's to support their personnel and evil interpretations or how they believe things should be . To hell with what the minister (we will do a snow job on him) think and screw the great unwashed, (that's you me and all other members of the public)

Subaquatic's picture

Posts: 410

Date Joined: 23/04/11

Crowd fund it, and keep

Wed, 2016-04-13 06:31

Crowd fund it, and keep fighting.

Show them that divers are a united group.

Posts: 275

Date Joined: 13/12/12

The whole situation seems

Wed, 2016-04-13 08:33

The whole situation seems ridiculous and stressful enough for you as it is but for the guy not to respect the decision of the court and confront you outside afterwards is totally unacceptable.

All power to you for taking them on and defending what you believe is right.

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6606

Date Joined: 16/10/08

What the???

Wed, 2016-04-13 09:04

I don't dive anymore, but have previously dived heaps for crays. There is no way to 100% check a cray underwater for tar spot and/or setose. We roughly gauged them and if a true kakker it was let loose. Because we knew that some might be undersize on board with a "true" measure, and spotted or setose we always aimed at 2 extra in the bag, but knowing we could only keep the limit.
So onboard we checked, measured and returned.
So now it appears that we did something illegal BUT we have been checked by fisheries 3 times I recall off Rotto, twice they were already onboard our boat after the deckie invited them on, and the procedure was watched and they clearly stated that what we were doing was the correct way. I once got questioned as to why I had 2 more crays in the bag than the limit, but I simply replied that Its not always possible to remember exactly how many you have caught so far. She (nice officer) was happy with that aswell.
So why has this now changed when we did exactly what you did, have been checked 3 times and never even got a threat of doing something illegal.
We must have looked sus, being young and with a 28ft boat, because we were checked the 3 times in one week, so I presume we were targeted.

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

Phantomcat

Wed, 2016-04-13 09:48

Phantomcat, what we need from you is a name to identify you and your case, unless that is actually your name

first step is to get people writing to the relevant ministers, en mass

Following is the email addresses that I think should be used as a minimum.
But obviously it'll be pointless writing to any minister about "a bloke named Phantomcat who we think was in court somewhere"

Fisheries Minister Minister.Francis@dpc.wa.gov.au

Premier wa-government@dpc.wa.gov.au

Recfishwest  Matt Gillett

Minister Sport and recreation Minister.Davies@dpc.wa.gov.au

Need to also get it up on Facebook maybe, and via the dive pages etc

I think you really need to write a short, personal email, not abusive, stick to the facts, ask why this is so important and what harm its causing

Having said all that though, I can see how a single diver sufacing with 25 crays in his bag could raise suspicion or otherwise, however the principal at stake is whether you can bring more than a bag to the surface for sorting or not?

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6606

Date Joined: 16/10/08

Concur with Rob

Wed, 2016-04-13 10:38

And would be more than happy to email for your support.

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

scotto's picture

Posts: 2095

Date Joined: 21/04/08

awesome idea

Wed, 2016-04-13 12:27

I concur with Rob. if we can get your actual name and info, and A LOT of us can voice support, to A Loyt of peop;le and Organisations.

I will also be supporting your gofundme page, if it goes ahead.

hezzy's picture

Posts: 1004

Date Joined: 27/11/09

have to agree with rob here

Wed, 2016-04-13 12:38

have to agree with rob here above

there is a very importent principle at stake here

id also suggest some food for thought on this/ devils advocate

it seems they may have made it personal , as well they have decided to make a legal point hinging on their ability to prosecute offenders if the interpretation of the words ''take' '' control'' & ''enviroment '' are successfully challenged as you have done & had it dismissed in court

i know from personal experience they dont like to lose in court ,in your case they have decided to attempt to win on the principle and the repercussions that may have for them

looking at what you wrote id be exploring the simple definitions [laymans understanding ] of what those key words in their legislations regarding rock lobster mean

they could well be looking to tighten down on the rules for both potters and divers , this should not be alowed to happen

ibelieve if they win this they could apply it to potters if they choose given how it could be defined

defintion of take is as below

take/teɪk/

verb
1.lay hold of (something) with one's hands; reach for and hold.
2.remove (someone or something) from a particular place.
3.carry or bring with one; convey.
4.accept or receive (someone or something).
5.consume as food, drink, medicine, or drugs.
6.make, undertake, or perform (an action or task).
7.require or use up (a specified amount of time).
8.(of a plant or seed) take root or begin to grow; germinate.
9.have or require as part of the appropriate construction.


environment/ɪnˈvʌɪrənm(ə)nt,ɛn-/
noun
1.the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal, or plant lives or operates.
2.the natural world, as a whole or in a particular geographical area, especially as affected by human activity.

so if you look at that definition it could be possible to use no 2 to say both potters and divers ''
remove (someone or something) from a particular place'' putting crays in a catch bag or potters pulling the pot , are both removing from a particular place up into a boat

id be very inclined to look at how ''taking '' from their ''enviroment ''for rock lobsters would be defined , broadly speaking
their enviroment is in the ocean defined within their breeding , biomass range along the wa coast ,
in other words wherever they naturally occur in the ocean

so that becomes open to interpretation by a good defence lawyer on the wording ''take'' from their ''enviroment'' imo

as it could be argued that being on the boat for sorting /sizing /checking / may not be ''taking'' them from their ''enviroment'' in the natural world while they are still on the ocean alive ,

potters dont control how many crays go into their pots, but if the FMO wins your case , they could then use it to argue that potters by pulling the pot onboard have also ''taken '' lobster from their enviroment and ping us ,

id be also considering if you actually had control of your catch bag , given you said your mates put approx 11 crays into it while you where diving , does that equate to control or just carrying it ??

if it could be argued that you did not ''control'' that catch bag , then you may not be responsible for ''taking '' those crays as your mates put some in their as well

lots of points that might have an impact on the decision here , including your character and public standing in the community , if your records is clean then id consider introducing that your good guy intent was to follow the rule of fisheries law as you interpeted it from their guide , that there was no intent based on your charachter to break the law as you understood it

imo , present a well thought out case , raising as many factual sticking points as you can to convince the court magistrate / judges in their decision to dismiss

if you or your mates /anyone you know who has also been checked like this , but not charged and who is prepared to stand up in court as a witness giving evidence of that then id add them into your defence possibly

it is probably also a reminder to other divers to keep track of whats going into their catch bags , and some general agreed housekeeping rules on a dive

keep us posted on how this continues

hezzy

____________________________________________________________________________

OFW 11

evil flourishes when good men do nothing

 

barracuda's picture

Posts: 160

Date Joined: 01/09/13

Fisheries

Wed, 2016-04-13 13:39

 Are a business. The end

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6606

Date Joined: 16/10/08

Anyone know what

Wed, 2016-04-13 14:06

RecFish West's take on this is. I normally am all for fisheries Officers and the good work they do, but this just suxs IMO.
I think that if Fisheries had some common sense they would just drop this. If they continue on this pointless manhunt it will end up as a big PR stuffup.
Apart from the Taking, environment etc argument I think they are also trying to say it was your intention to keep more than 8, but how can they prove anything unless they allowed you the time to sort the crays.
Another thought I have is that a Pot is private property. It is created and baited with the intent of trapping crays. Because they enter the pot and then is trapped in "your private property" you have already "taken" them from their environment because they are now not free. So you have already "taken" them. As a potter you have no control over the crays entering, so you have to allocate some time to sort them, hence the 5minute rule.
So if this go through and the argument is that you took them out of their environment, every pot is already an alien environment, ie they are out of their environment being in a artificial area in the pot (as Hezzy points out).
From your description of the events you weren't given any time to return the crays or sort them. Their argument that you had "control" over what was in your bag is not valid if other contributed to it. There is no rule stating how many crays can be in a pot or bag, just how many you can keep.
So if you had 25 crays in the bag but kept 8 according to the rule as written you have done nothing wrong. They argue you have "taken" them from their "environment" so you are in possession of more than 8. If Fisheries win, then every potter you can easily argue is already braking the law if there is more than 8 trapped in an non natural environment. Then where does it stop.
The fisheries Officer took possession of the crays and gave you back 8. As I understand the rules if you violate a fishing rule all proceeds of that breach is confiscated. By giving you back 8 without allowing you to sort them is saying that they took possession, sorted the crays for you and as you have done "nothing" illegal gave you back your entitled 8. Nothing was confiscated so that means that nothing was breached.
Now a lot off the above can be seen as just gibberish, but this is the sort of stuff that legal arguments on definitions will be based on and the possible implications can be far reaching.

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Matt from Recfish appeared

Wed, 2016-04-13 15:56

 Matt from Recfish appeared at the first court case, explaining that what he had done was standard, normal practice and had always been so.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6606

Date Joined: 16/10/08

Thanks Rob

Wed, 2016-04-13 16:01

And I believe he is totally correct.
Also glad that they are involved because this can potentially blow up against law abiding fisherman.

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

Swompa's picture

Posts: 2016

Date Joined: 14/10/12

If one was to 'take' their

Wed, 2016-04-13 15:19

If one was to 'take' their wife's hand in marriage, do they then own her?

Just asking for a friend......

crasny1's picture

Posts: 6606

Date Joined: 16/10/08

you can always put her back

Wed, 2016-04-13 16:02

if she is undersize etc!!!!!

____________________________________________________________________________

"I would like to die on Mars. Just not on impact!!" _ Elon Musk

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

No they

Wed, 2016-04-13 16:21

 Own you:):):)And then TAKE everything

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

Letter to minister

Wed, 2016-04-13 17:31

This was the last bit in a letter to the Minister Joe Francis 

 

please go an voice your concern

 

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

"Unfortunately you will soon be getting an increasing number of correspondences in relation to this matter as more recreational fishers come on board in support of my concern.

If sincerely hope you take the time to read them."


Regards

Bret Carter

Email:  ( please dont  inundate me with emails if it can be said here)

 

 

 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 before you cut and paste,

Wed, 2016-04-13 17:39

 before you cut and paste, try changing from Rich text, it may work better!
I have already sent a couple of emails, but will do more tonite now I have your name.

Would be good if people post up here if they have done it so we can see whether apathy or action reigns...

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

Alan James's picture

Posts: 1753

Date Joined: 30/06/09

What was the charge?

Wed, 2016-04-13 17:47

 My apologies if I have missed it but are you able to inform us of what the actual charges laid by Fisheries were?

____________________________________________________________________________

                                                                          

                 

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

Cut and paste

Wed, 2016-04-13 17:44

i was just about to ask about that

Cheers

Posts: 170

Date Joined: 25/05/10

Free divers are going to have

Wed, 2016-04-13 18:16

Free divers are going to have to hold there breath a fair bit longer. Ridiculous.

Posts: 170

Date Joined: 25/05/10

Free divers are going to have

Wed, 2016-04-13 18:16

Free divers are going to have to hold there breath a fair bit longer. Ridiculous.

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

Work this out

Thu, 2016-04-14 12:40

 I have TAKEN a cray by putting it in my bag 

 Definition of TAKE in the act says -   Take , in relation to fish, includes catch, capture, entrap, enclose,
gather, remove, poison, stun, kill or destroy fish by any means;

Act then says

When lobsters are protected, you may not
TAKE them, have them in your possession, buy,
sell or consign them, or bring them into the
State or into WA waters.

So I cant snare or put a setose or undesize cray in my bag - ie cant TAKE them

If I am not allowed to TAKE these prohibited crays how can I be allowed 5 mins to return them to the sea?

This is where the ambiguity arises  - Our interpretation of the above is that TAKE means to keep

 

 

Kal's picture

Posts: 160

Date Joined: 30/04/07

 Sorry this is what I don't

Sat, 2016-12-03 04:56

 Sorry this is what I don't get , it looks like fisheries may have it wrong or your fishing out of season by your last comment?

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 I think you may be confused

Sat, 2016-12-03 10:45

 I think you may be confused Kal, not sure how you came to that conclusion?
The season is now, his comment was written last season but the actual aledged offence was during a season a couple of years ago.

How onj earth did you deduce that he might be fishing "out of season"?

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

Moist and Salty's picture

Posts: 106

Date Joined: 28/10/14

 This case has the potential

Thu, 2016-04-14 15:35

 This case has the potential to seriously affect so many of us divers.

 

I'll definitely be voicing my concern to the minister via email for you to add to the bulk of interest.

 

I'm also happy to assist through the crowd funding effort. Diving Facebook pages, as mentioned above, will be where the real weight of numbers can be gained. The sooner this is put out there in a professional and concise manner the better.

Posts: 3294

Date Joined: 01/02/10

 It's become very apparent

Thu, 2016-04-14 15:44

 It's become very apparent under this rule clarification that leaving someone on board minding the boat while 2 dive is definitely no longer legal. If you intend to keep close to 3 bag limits everybody must be diving. 

____________________________________________________________________________

Does anyone know where the love of god goes, when the waves turn the minutes to hours?

Swompa's picture

Posts: 2016

Date Joined: 14/10/12

 Pretty sure that has been

Thu, 2016-04-14 20:22

 Pretty sure that has been the case for a while. In order to claim the catch, you must take part in catching it....

Y_Knot's picture

Posts: 65

Date Joined: 05/11/10

interesting? ?

Thu, 2016-04-14 21:29

 so if this is truve for catching crayfish, what about catching undersize fish? will this become an issue? Even though we don't have a 5 min window to return them we are in effect Taking them from their environment? 

Posts: 1508

Date Joined: 30/12/08

I'm with you Bret.This is the

Thu, 2016-04-14 22:00

I'm with you Bret.This is the thin edge of the wedge. If you are beaten we will all suffer in some way. The cheek of them to go on and fight this after you came out of court clean..looks like a case of hate being beaten. [ Childish stuff really ] Who the F**k do they think they are.
The magistrate past his verdict end of case imo. And yeah I will email to all. Good luck in your endeavour for justice.

Matt T's picture

Posts: 844

Date Joined: 19/11/07

Fisheries work for us as a community

Thu, 2016-04-14 23:04

The worst part of this whole saga, excluding Phantomcat's time and costs, is that the government agency that relies heavily on support from us, the recreational fishers, to help them maintain our brilliant fisheries, has made an enemy out of all of us.

This guy was not doing the wrong thing. He was catching crays legally and without any fear of prosecution. He hauled in his catch in front of them for gods sake. Not the work of a poacher.

To pursue a legal fisher on a technicality is ridiculous when there are so many 'poachers', for want of a better word, that blatantly do the wrong thing. Focus on the guy that has 145 crabs. Or the guy with 26 undersize tailor at the cut. Or the clowns pulling 20 pots a day. These people wreck fisheries, not guys like Phantomcat.

Being law abiding recreational fishers and tax paying Australians, the fisheries officers work for us. I hope they realise that before an appeal. 

 

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Questions

Thu, 2016-04-14 23:24

Scenario 1

2 people in boat 1 puts cray pot rope around winch and winches up pot, both have cray licences 16 crays in pot.
Can they each keep 8 crays.

Scenario 2

Under new licencing laws 2 people can both have a licence for the one pot.
Ref: Page 5 of the guide for recreational fishing for rock lobsters.
"fishers are not permitted to bring home lobsters on behalf of the person who shares their pot and may only take and land their own bag limit"
Both fishers with licence for the same pot pull pot, 16 crays in pot, can they each keep 8 crays each

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 scenario 1yes.Just dont tell

Fri, 2016-04-15 00:07

 scenario 1

yes.

Just dont tell anyone to be safe

scenario 2

yes
As they are not bringing them in "on behalf of the other licencee"
But to be safe, dont tell anyone

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

Walfootrot's picture

Posts: 1195

Date Joined: 23/07/12

 What if 2 people went

Fri, 2016-04-15 07:40

 What if 2 people went fishing, both hook up and both get double headers of Dhus. That's4 Dhus 2 over the limit taken from their environment. The law is not an ass, just looks like some FMO don't understand it's intent.

____________________________________________________________________________

More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

 Scenario 1 No their interp

Fri, 2016-04-15 08:36

 

Scenario 1

No their interp is you must pull your own pot and you can keep 8 crays.

Your mate must pull his own pot and take his 8 crays

 

A bloke got fined up North of the river by admitting to FMO - so many crays we only pulled one pot for our 16.

How petty is that

 

Posts: 177

Date Joined: 30/12/08

 While we're discussing

Fri, 2016-04-15 08:54

 While we're discussing various aspects of interpretation, instead of just providing moral support why dont we all send mail- snail &/or email- to the Fisheries Minister and Fisheries of our concern with Fisheries attitude and their methods. The more concerns the Minister gets the more likely he'll get involved and do something.

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Agree. already done

Fri, 2016-04-15 09:26

 But it's only 1 officer who pushes take rule.( not all fisheries officers)  also not all fisheries board you when divers or diver still underwater.twin props low speed could still do damage to someone. What's the point of dive flag. Didn't even have my bc off .1 diver still on deco line. Same guy borded me and asked me to pull up deco line ( Crays still in water) only just got on boat . Less than a minute.?? Wtf vey unsafe in my books. 

Posts: 2731

Date Joined: 03/03/10

nah cant be true johnny

Sun, 2016-05-29 18:17

 surley they didnt want you to pull a diver up that was decoing on the deco line fucking dangerous if they did  , sorry only way i can descride it  if i was you i would take it further another case of some body given a uniform and some power and its gone to their head

hezzy's picture

Posts: 1004

Date Joined: 27/11/09

little johnny i would not

Fri, 2016-04-15 11:31

little johnny

i would not bother persuing the fact that fisheries came inside the dive flags 50 metre zone with divers below , it would just confuse the key issue and not imo be winnable as the law stands they are allowed to

one of the things that may help phantom cat here with his case imo is to get as many guys who have been boarded by fisheries in similar cicumstances to get in touch with him asap

i think it is important to document others experience in the same/similar circumstances and use that as a body of evidence presented to a court to demonstrate that in this one particular incident the officer concerned has not followed the fishieries dept own standard practice /interpretation of their act when it comes to how they procedd with other divers in a similar situation

hezzy

____________________________________________________________________________

OFW 11

evil flourishes when good men do nothing

 

Oldbull's picture

Posts: 89

Date Joined: 21/09/15

tail clip

Fri, 2016-04-15 11:48

 Phantomcat

 

Did they get you for not tail clipping them under water as well. ?    I know the brochures suggest that they be measured underwater and as divers we do not snare anything that is obviously undersize but surely this by fisheries is madness.  Next we will take 2 catch bags, surface with just 8 in a bag while leaving the other one on the ocean floor tied to anchor.  Measure the 8, throw back any U/S and go for a 2nd dive with the remaining 50bar to bring up the other bag with just the extra numbers to make up our legal 8.  That's how stupid this ruling is.

 

 

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

re Tail Clip

Sun, 2016-04-17 08:30

Oldbull,

This came up in court. They are saying that they we should be checking our catch underwater - undersize, setose, number taken etc, but as they dont know when we took them then they will give us 5 mins after we get back to the boat to return the prohibited crays and clip the tails on the keepers. If we come up with 8 and a say 2 crays are setose - fine hairs that couldn't be seen underwater, then you cant go back and get 2 more crays as you have taken 8 for the day.  So agree  -how stupid it that.

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

5 min

Fri, 2016-04-15 11:48

 Rule was my angle. All good

Walfootrot's picture

Posts: 1195

Date Joined: 23/07/12

 The more I think about this

Fri, 2016-04-15 14:50

 The more I think about this the more it sux. Let's look at pro boats trawling, everything that goes into the net comes onto the boat, most of the bycatch is dead and undersized so over it goes. It was still taken from its environment. We need to ask what the intent of the act is. Is it to preserve stocks. Or is it a way to try and punish the rec fisher. If the regs and act are not clear then it's time they made them clear. The first judge dismissed, if the second one finds in favor of FMO then IMO the act and reg needs to be revised so people have clarity and don't end up like our mate PC. On a side note where can we send some $ for the fighting fund.

Pete

____________________________________________________________________________

More drum lines, kill the bloody sharks!

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

If fisheries loose the appeal

Fri, 2016-04-15 21:16

If on appeal the judge throws the case out of court just watch how quick fisheries bring in an amendment to the regulations covering this event.

What was legal today sure as hell won't be legal tomorrow .

I have to say I don't think it is a problem with fisheries compliance officers per se, just one sanctimonious type of person who has a large personality flaw.

Posts: 96

Date Joined: 25/09/08

Re Dodg It's become very apparenty

Sat, 2016-04-16 12:17

I do not disagree with the person must be tghe fisher,in there catching,but why is it that when the Abalone season is on it is possible to see several people from one family rangeing in ages from 6/or 7 too 70 plus,O see them in the water,but not in the area were they would find Abalone,as it would not be safe,yet,when it comes to the licensed person must catch their own it is clear it would not be possible fror these people to do so,But for reasons I can only think and not state ,fisheries turn a blind eye to this.

Posts: 1508

Date Joined: 30/12/08

Laws for one group laws for

Sat, 2016-04-16 12:30

Laws for one group laws for the rest of us. We know it happens and it makes a joke of the fisheries dept and the minister of the day.

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

Update

Fri, 2016-04-29 16:05

Sorry my internet has been down for a week.

My appeals lawer just told me the WA fisheries are the worst for appealing and they just keep on going ( at our expense).

he thinks they dont care about loosing the case but are using me as a test case to get a ruling on the 5 minute rule.

Dont know why they cant just re word the rules so we are all on the same playing field?

So I am afraid that I cant pursue this on my own as my bank acct isnt large enough.

A few have pledged support but we need most of the 50,000 odd RL lic holders to get onboard.

If they get away with this then they can interpret the the rules as they see fit.

Anyone know anything about how to crown fund??

Also I havent heard back from the minister  - has anyone?

Will keep you posted

Cheers

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

Legal Aid

Fri, 2016-04-29 16:29


Have you tried for legal aid?

When is the case to be heard?
If not defending it is going to result in penalties from before then surely you are better off going ahead and standing up to defend yourself, and possibly explain to the judge why you cannot afford a lawyer and have been refused Aid?
It may well be that he will put forward a solution if your reasons are genuine?
 

____________________________________________________________________________

 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: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

I have no douibt at all that is exactly what they are doing

Fri, 2016-04-29 16:33

When you are using the tax payers funds to go to court it doesn't matter about the expense.

I guess I'm raking over old coals, but have you approached the Fishers and Shooters party MP, and pointed out to him the grave injustice that is perpetuated by fisheries as they have the funding (public purse) to bring about malicious prosecutions without accountability, and this is a perfect demonstration of their vindictive actions.

In the worst case scenario have you given any thought about going to court and defending yourself, a hell of a call I know. Or asking the labour MP (Quigley I think his name is)who is a lawyer and if he could look at doing the case pro bono I think they call it, basically for free.

Whilst in this case I think the fisheries are being vindictive surely this is a case where the minister can amend the ruling without making a court case about it and not make it retrospective.

Perhaps a face to face with him might be an idea.

I now have to give the local fisheries a pat on the back for the job they have done in rounding up a few more people for raping the local crab stocks, and that's the conundrum, most of them are good people and do a great job then you get the narcissistic type who give the department a black stain.

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

out of curiousity

Fri, 2016-04-29 16:39

 Out of curiousity, who here has ACTUALLY got off their ass and written an email?
I just re-read above and theres lots of "we should..." and "Im gonna..." but no "i have..."

Hezzy and I have both been doing a bit of work behind the scenes on this, but its a waste of time if we are the only ones actually doing anything?

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

gillyL's picture

Posts: 5214

Date Joined: 26/04/14

 i havent, i dont dive but am

Fri, 2016-04-29 19:12

 i havent, i dont dive but am willing to contribute to funding. what do you think an email will do? to me like all emails they get deleted. there has to be a better way. maybe attack the rule itself rather then defend what may be indefensible. 

____________________________________________________________________________

lucky i love to fish because i cant catch any.

 

BM294

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

emails are pressure, more so

Fri, 2016-04-29 21:51

emails are pressure, more so than signing a petition which nowadays are generated for the most most minor issues, on an industrial scale.
By the same token Gilly, just helping with funding, even if he wins the case it is merely a simple rule change to put it in place and the rest of us are back at square one.
While you and I can simply delete our emails, a politicians assistant who is instructed to delete emails on a large scale will possibly not be in his job for that long.
Remeber however, it was such petitions that got large scale marine parks etc brought in all around Aus, and mostly not even signed by Aussies!
 

Having said all that Gilly, I ring their office a week or so later and ask about whether it has been received and each time they have been able to go back and find it, THEN it is read!

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

abrohlosorbust's picture

Posts: 61

Date Joined: 08/06/12

i have

Fri, 2016-04-29 19:27

Rob sent one in got a read receipt and someone will be back in touch etc. etc. but no reply as yet

How many others have sent and had no formal reply. Perhaps as Gilly said perhaps we should be actually targeting the rule that is inconsistent and open to interpretation and aim to get it changed rather than defend its obscurity.

Surely Recfishwest would be all over this??

____________________________________________________________________________

 Getting wet is part of the Fun

Boston Whaler 235 Conquest

uncle's picture

Posts: 6455

Date Joined: 10/02/07

Rob is there a link

Fri, 2016-04-29 18:25

 We can email to at fisheries

____________________________________________________________________________

all aggressive fish love bigjohnsjigs

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

all here already

Fri, 2016-04-29 18:37

 I posted all the relevant contacts, Premier, Fisheries Minister, Sport and Rec Minister etc here nearly 3 weeks ago.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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: 80

Date Joined: 05/05/14

 Phantom Cat s there a

Sat, 2016-04-30 00:30

 Phantom Cat s there a template that we can use to email ? Some thing that we can cut and paste. I read through the thread and support your cause  but I am not good at putting a letter to voice m opposition to the fisheries . My email is  if you got a template I will add my name to it . Cheers Mike 

Posts: 80

Date Joined: 05/05/14

 Is there any funding going

Sat, 2016-04-30 00:31

 Is there any funding going on ? 

 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 Your email doesn't need to

Sat, 2016-04-30 15:00

 Your email doesn't need to be War and Peace, only needs to say you are concerned and confused as to why Fisheries are pursuing this.

And that they risk losing the confidence and respect of fishers for what appears to be a pointless prosecution.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

abrohlosorbust's picture

Posts: 61

Date Joined: 08/06/12

Reply recieved

Wed, 2016-05-25 18:03

Hey guys this has gone pretty quite has anyone else received a reply... Got mine today from the minister and it read as if it came straight out of the fisheries publications... Whilst the reply was appreciated do not believe it has been written by the minister or with any knowledge or consideration of the actual questions asked??

Await with interest others responses before I ask the questions again to see if they can explain why they are referring to taken as landing on the boat more than the daily limit and not affording a sort and return period as per most if not all other catching methods of any target species.
A reference to taking them out of their natural environment was stated.. Not sure a craypot hauled to the surface is their natural environment or significantly different to a catch bag...

Perhaps we can just drop a pot over the side of the boat when diving. Fill it to the brim and then when out of the water pull the pot and sort and return the balance. PS just taking the piss :) but this is how stupid the interpretation is.

____________________________________________________________________________

 Getting wet is part of the Fun

Boston Whaler 235 Conquest

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Not taking piss

Wed, 2016-05-25 19:24

 But your last statement prob what 80 percent of other people think.

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

Minister

Fri, 2016-06-03 13:54

I finally got a letter back as did 2 of my mates - Nothing out of the ordinary.

They were written by someone else and just signed by the minister. I wonder if he actually read them?

The next court case is set for Sept.

My only option is to represent myself.

Thanks for your support

Posts: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Will be supporting you in the gallery

Fri, 2016-06-03 16:02

I will be in the gallery supporting you by my presence, can you post up the date and venue when you get one thanks.
Keep the head up it isn't over till it's over.

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

 I have had 3 responses from

Fri, 2016-06-03 18:18

 I have had 3 responses from the Director of Fisheries regarding the case, which I have forwarded on to Phantomcat

____________________________________________________________________________

 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.

 

Rob H's picture

Posts: 4417

Date Joined: 18/01/12

There has been a fair bit

Fri, 2016-06-24 21:39

There has been a fair bit going on behind the scenes on this issue but Fisheries seem keen to dig their heels in.

After a fair bit of discussion and a meeting with some involved, it is time for those interested to ramp the pressure up a bit.

Following are the contacts to use

Premier Barnett-

Director of Fisheries

Minister for Fisheries

Shadow Fisheries Minister

Opposition leader 

Perhaps your local member whoever that may be.

Keep it polite of course but maybe emphasis the pointlessness of it and how unfair it seems

Doesnt matter if you have already, just resend it.

Would be good if you could link it on any other pages/forums you belong to.

____________________________________________________________________________

 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: 4391

Date Joined: 17/06/10

Roll on the state election FSS party

Sat, 2016-06-25 00:46

Just waiting for the next state election to use my vote.

To many shiny arse public servants in their drug castle (it's full of dopes) their budget should be cut as a debt reduction process.

Posts: 22

Date Joined: 12/04/16

  New Rock Loster Rules

Wed, 2016-11-23 12:10

For those that havent yet renewed their Licence for this year the following is new to the "guide for Rock lobsters" Statewide catch limits Bag limit (maximum Statewide) 8 rock lobsters per licensed fisher, per day, of which no more than 4 may be tropical rock lobsters (see page 3 for tropical species). After pulling a lobster pot, you must immediately and carefully release all rock lobster in excess of the bag limit. If diving for rock lobster, you must stop fishing immediately when the bag limit is reached. Nice of them to let us know. If I hadnt happen to have had a look then I wouldnt have known until late Dec when I would have got the guide with my new lic. Interesting to see if anyone gets busted as its not passed for legislation as yet??

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

read my mind phantom cat

Wed, 2016-11-23 12:20

 Just about to post . Now correct me if iam wrong . Fisheries under outh in court room when they lost . Stated its only a guide not in the fisheries act. So they put certain wording in the guide( which isn't in legislation yet.) hmmm ( hypocritical ) is the word iam thinking . 3 new cray renewals in mail other day( no guide???). Drive around rocko today . No new guides anywhere . ( dive shops or fish shops)??. Bit suspect in my books . Every year received guide. Not this year?

Posts: 46

Date Joined: 14/05/13

No guide for me either

Wed, 2016-11-23 12:45

Hey LJ - no guide with my renewal this year but got one from the 4wd show Fisheries display. Definitely as PC states, is how it is in the guide! Have had discussions with Fisheries at Mandurah boatshow and Perth 4WD show and they have the same line of take only 8, gauge and check all underwater. Tried to explain the fine hairs or parallax error to no avail. In my mind the biggest risk is going for a second dive for 1 or 2 crays and rushing things because you are pissed off. They told me to take it up with RecFishWest.

little johnny's picture

Posts: 2428

Date Joined: 04/12/11

Recfish

Wed, 2016-11-23 13:31

 New nothing of it moose. Under oath it's only guide. Lol . Can't change mind . Not in fisheries act . Not a rule. Guide is a guide only not law. Don't know what they are thinking . Anyone with explanation would be good

Tom M's picture

Posts: 219

Date Joined: 22/09/15

 LJ you will find that in a

Sat, 2016-12-03 11:53

 LJ you will find that in a court of law if the magistrate is unable to determine if it is legislated they will then cascade down through the following regulations, codes of practice and then guidelines. They have our balls in a noose with this. On reading all the above I would have taken my revenge on the threatening officer from outside the court with the threats causing mental anguish and stress, along those lines.

 

____________________________________________________________________________

Tom M