Definition of "fishing"

[Kerry]

The act states "taking fish", "attempting to take fish" "searching for fish" "attempting to search for fish" and "carrying, processing, transhipping of fish" is fishing.

And what's this got to do with GBRMPA "green zones" ::) everything.

Cheers, Kerry.

[Lucky_Phill]

Sounds like you have a very very large axe to grind Kerry. Commo'n let's hear the whole story, and of course your view.

;D ;) Phill

[johnny]

8) yeh please tell us your view on this matter kerry

[Kerry]

Just outlining what the act defines fishing as, so whose grinding an axe. There's no story just a pure and simple definition. What my view got to do with anything, go and ask GBRMPA it's not my definition, go and ask them for thier "view" if that's the only concern.

Obviously some don't understand what that definition actually means.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jaybee]

Kerry The Merriam-Webster says practically the same thing except it doesn go as far as saying carrying, processing, transhipping of fish. I think if i went and looked that would probably come under transport, transportation. And or processing ???
cheers.

[Kerry]

Jaybee, someone who has gone into some of these issues in depth has basically confirmed what GBRMPA could technically do under the act.

There's cases where one can launch a boat and legally go catch some fish but be unable to return to point of departure as the only way home is through green zones.

This has apparently been acknowleged.

Cheers, Kerry.

[jaybee]

a lot of thought (NOT) has gone into this eh. So what your saying, the breakdown is, one can travel through the green zone as long as there is no fish in the boat.Someone has been paid a lot of dollars for not having any common sense ? Has the rezoning been put on hold subject to the new study or is it still going ahead?
cheers.

[Daintreeboy]

I've heard of someone who's pulled into a protected area of Reef (green zone)for shelter from foul weather and decided to clean some fish while doing so.
They got caught and fined.
Not much more to fine somone travelling through a green zone with fish caught elsewhere.
I have not seen anything concrete saying we are in the clear in these situatiuons?

[lordy]

"attempting to search for fish"

That would make it illegal for tourism and scientists to look for fish unless there is some exemption. ;D ;D

[imported_admin]

Lordy, the way I read it
"searching for fish" "attempting to search for fish"

Would mean that no fishing, diving, snorkelling, tourist boats, etc , etc, would be allowed in the area as they would be, or could have the intent to be, searching or attempting to search for fish.

[Fitzy]

Definition or not. There's the problem of "proving" the intent to .......

Oz law goes by the "letter of the law" where many other countries use "interpretation of the law". Still, they gotta make any charge (read accusation by officer) stand up in front of a beak and/or one's peers if challenged.
We've already seen one situation where QFS spent $9000 from their limited annual budget in prosecuting one individual only to see a $300 fine at days end. And the fine goes to treasury, not the dept budget. Immediately following that kuffuffle, there was a directive given to QFS staff to "back off" on the average punter unless it is a very serious offence.

Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that, if they "know" its a rediculous situation (eg travelling with fish through a green zone), yet very probable to get a fine/conviction on a technicality, I think they would be highly unlikely to persue it. Yeah I know GBRMPA aren't QFS, but the story is still the same; budget restaints & limited staff etc. I think the risk of setting precedence would have them worried enough to not push it unless totally necessary.

Maybe I'm wrong, :-/ but if it was me who got done in a similar scenario as above, I'd be taking it to a court/tribunal with a half decent barrister in tow.

Cheers,

Fitzy..

[Gazza]

Jaybee, someone who has gone into some of these issues in depth has basically confirmed what GBRMPA could technically do under the act.

There's cases where one can launch a boat and legally go catch some fish but be unable to return to point of departure as the only way home is through green zones.

This has apparently been acknowleged.

Cheers, Kerry.


Hi Kerry , that 'technicality' may well be the undoing of the present draft placement AND size of 'lock-it-up' zones.

Under that 'definition' , tourism and diving IS INCLUDED in the exclusion, as per the 'letter of the law'.

With this 'technicality' in mind ,the present 'green-blocking' ramp/boat access areas, simply has to go #[smiley=scholar.gif] , and the divers and tourism guys will want 'lock-it-up' zones. minimized for their own access. [smiley=dunce.gif] #[smiley=earmuffs.gif] -----> #[smiley=ears.gif] [smiley=scholar.gif]

Maybe an 'achilles heel' #[smiley=stop.gif] for our GBR-L.I.U , mates #[smiley=end.gif]

Regards
Gazza

[Kerry]

I'm sure these "Technicalities" will get some attention but once technicalities are left dormant in legislation then one might assume the "oh that was just a technicallity oversight" tag might disappear.

As per Fitzy's "interpretation of the law" there has been some changes apparently made to the law to close some of the holes.

Apparently no longer a requirement #"to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that an offence occured - only that it was "reasonable that an offence could have occured". They only have to prove "conduct and circumstance" ie you were there and you had fish on board with equipment.

Basically what was occuring was fishers were being caught red-handed but their lines had no hooks (oops the knife slipped again) so no offence could be proved. Not any more just prove "conduct and circumstance". In other words just being in the wrong place with fish on board appears to be "conduct and circumstance".

Also another definition that has some quirks, the definition of a "hook". Appears another one of these "technical oversights". It's technically legal to troll a mackerel bait using "ganged hooks" in a yellow zone (one line, one hook by definition etc) but separate a ganged set of hooks with even a swivel let alone a short connecting trace (as many do trolling wolf herring) and this rig is not a single hook rig (even though it doesn't fish any differenly) and technically illegal in a yellow zone.

One might say fisheries will not become pedantic with "technicallities" like these "apparent" oversights in the legislation, well if they're oversights then obviously the legislation will be corrected, we'll see.

Cheers, Kerry.

#

[Gazza]

........ Apparently no longer a requirement "to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that an offence occured - only that it was "reasonable that an offence could have occured". They only have to prove "conduct and circumstance" ie you were there and you had fish on board with equipment. ..........

That may also open a can of worms ,Kerry...... of the 'discrimination' type.
I can see some 'tweaking' may occur ,and I can see 'being falsely accused' with video, with independent 'witnesses' with stat.decs, setting up ,some interesting court-revenue-sucking challenges occurring ,in the not-to-distant future ;)

Regards
Gazza
p.s. a legally caught 'nsw jenny' WILL be one of 'em ,oneday ;)

[bugman]

Kerry,

Can you or anybody else explain how this would change from the current situation.

I've been in charter boats that regularly go through green zones to get to different areas of the reef - with lots of fish onboard.

How is it that there's never been a cause for concern before - or have I missed something.

Bugman

[Gazza]

....I've been in charter boats that regularly go through green zones to get to different areas of the reef - with lots of fish onboard.......

Fair comment Bugman , but as i mentioned (above?) too many witnesses too 'cola-berate' ;D ;D the FO's from laying a 'charge'

;)

Regards
Gazza

[jaybee]

Gentlemen, the law in Australia stands "One is innocent until proven guilty" however, the exception was in Queensland during Joh's days "One is guilty until proven innocent" From my interpetation of what has been said here, we are going backwards, yet again.
cheers

[Gazza]

Gentlemen, the law in Australia stands "One is innocent until proven guilty" however, the exception was in Queensland during Joh's days "One is guilty until proven innocent" From my interpetation of what has been said here, we are going backwards, yet again.
cheers


What tha !!! JB....."tink bout dis"

no way ,backwards ever, forever and a day ......
Forwards,onwards & UPWARDS!!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Splatttttt....... :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[jaybee]

I was thinkin gazza, thinkin about the law and how we seem to be going back to Joh dayz.
cheers

[PinHead]

bring back Joh's days...at least the Govt was always in the black..unlike now..hell..they will be flat out buying enough red ink soon.

[jaybee]

now now pin, behave yaself, we is talkin law :o and interpretation ;D not money to buy ink, damn i cant even afford ink for my printer now u mention it :'(
cheers
joe.

[peterbo3]

Evening all,
The Law has a number of scenarios NOW where one is deemed guilty per se. Go through a speed camera or red light camera & the onus is on the registered owner of the vehicle to PROVE that they were not driving if that was the case. NO proof (mate has returned overseas) & you wear it.
The introduction of "on the spot fines" for fishing & boating offences will only become one more revenue stream.

[stilltryin]

If you want to follow the letter of the law there are two standards of proof in modern law.

For a criminal offence the matter has to be proven 'beyond a reasonable doubt' and if any doubt exists or is raised and substantiated then the matter is thrown out...

The other one is for civil matters which requires a standard of proof of 'On the balance of probability'. this means that is a reasonable person would beleive it happened the way it is presented then you are found guilty.

Some still operate on the old english common law principle that 'might is right' so who cares if you did it, shoot em anyway......mmmm, might be something in that?????

[Gazza]

Evening all,
The Law has a number of scenarios NOW where one is deemed guilty per se. Go through a speed camera or red light camera & the onus is on the registered owner of the vehicle to PROVE that they were not driving if that was the case. NO proof (mate has returned overseas) & you wear it.
The introduction of "on the spot fines" for fishing & boating offences will only become one more revenue stream.

AHH Peter , 'video/time-stamped/evidence/actually-happened/photo/whatever'

Do you 'reallllly' believe "that system" ,can/could/would be adequately adapted for ALL "lock-it-up Zones"

i don't think sooooooo.......do you realllllly equate an 'offender' speeding, regardless of ownership of the car ,with a RecFisho fishing and 'travelling' thru a 'no-fish' zone.
I don't ,and neither should you ;)

[Kerry]

Bugman,

Based on some instances here as long as 5 or more years ago perhaps things will pick up. Up until now one really had to go out of the way to find a green zone but there was one in particular here that got "agressive administration". One particular case rods/reels etc were requested to be passed over for "safe keeping" but generally one was harrased just for having a rod in overhead rod storage with reel attached, while simply parked up for lunch.

Now that all the coastal (28 of them) and other sections (completed in 2000/2001) are now in "controlled hands" one might expect the whole shooting match to be rolled up into a combined enity instead of the hotch potch of zones strung together since, what since about 1983 (or there abouts?).

Most are probably expecting some changes after the combined 2003 zoning plan is complete in line with legislation and the apparent capability to enforce that legislation, technical or otherwise as and if required.

Cheers, Kerry.

[PinHead]

"beyond reasonable doubt".."Probability"..damn..I just wanna fish..I have enough legaleese every day with contract negotiations...my theory is..if there is water..then I may have a cast in there..if the upholders of the law ask me to move on.then move on I will (after some discussion of course)

[Kerry]

Any legal people know why there were amendments made to the act to recognise the "Commonwealth Criminal Code" notion of "strict liability".

As I understand it, "Strict liability" reduces the standard of proof that is required to affect a prossecution ???

Cheers, Kerry.

[peterbo3]

Hi Gazza,
Simply used this as an example of one aspect. You are guilty until proven innocent.
As for no-go or no-fishing zones, in the 80's they were few & far between. Now they are prolific. Will GBRMPA only be satisfied when the entire area of the reef is closed to all but "non-invasive" type activities?

[stilltryin]

Kerry,

Some or most of the areas have been designated through commonwealth law and therefore rely on Commonwealth statutes and standards of proof for a prosecution although they can be tried in a local court.

[PinHead]

In ALL instances under Australian law, you are innocent until proven guilty. Peter, your example does not prove otherwise. The speed camera instance still gives you the option of defending the charge in a court of law where you are innocent until proven guilty.The is the same with any speeding fine or other on the spot fine..always have the right to fight it in court.

[NQCairns]

Hi Pinhead, I have a longstanding mistrust of our innocent until proven guilty waffle. My question is under our lawfull system how can a person protect themselves from the system? My mistrust stems from 2 bored cops who decided to have ongoing fun with me a 19year old in my hometown and pulled me over every time they saw my vehicle and booked me (unlawfully) for whatever they needed to meet their quota I guess. This all stemed originally from a feet up and feet down sticker they made me remove on the spot from the bumper of my vehicle one dark and lonely nite. They made sure that all the fines I recieved were for instances relating to vehicles so I had no real and fair recourse in court. I luckily had enough street smarts at that age to recognise that if i did kick up a stink I would have also had all of the other local boys paying me back. Anyway i sold the car so they could not spot me and had no troubles thereafter from them. The law when it relates to those at the coal face is the law of the jungle. I can relate precisely to what i think Kerry is alluding to, it will be sad that the act of fishing lawfully will go the way of my experience - guilty right from the start with no way to prove innocence. The only way to protect onesself is to not go fishing, are there any other options? Very scary senario these green zones are going to create for the law abiding people out there, especially so if their boat is worth less than say $60000.nq

[Kerry]

This "innocent until proven guilty" comment obviously keeps coming up for a good reason and as I understand it is one of the reasons why changes were? made to the legislation as fisheries kept catching live trout boats in green zones, with fish on board BUT no hooks on line.

The obvious was obviously obvious (even to blind freedy) to all and sundry but as the law was these boats were doing nothing wrong, simply sitting in a green zone (with fish on board), not guilty, not fishing, no hooks, no case to answer, no fine.

As I've mentioned I understand this hole has now been plugged and the flow on is probably to all and sundry ???


Could also get into the definition of "mean low water" in the zoning plan in relation to landward boundaries in relation to "low water mark of Qld" but that's a nightmare in istself. Would like to see a fisheries officer take this one on in some of the larger tidal areas of Qld ;D.

Cheers, Kerry.

[imported_admin]

An interesting view of Intent. This is a joke that has been around for a long time but I thought it had a bit of relevancy on this topic. ;D ;D

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A couple goes on vacation to a fishing resort in northern Minnesota. The husband likes to fish at the crack of dawn. The wife likes to read.

One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a short nap. Although she isn't familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat.

She motors out a short distance, anchors, and continues to read her book. Along comes the game warden in his boat. He pulls up alongside her and says,"Good morning, Ma'am, what are you doing?"

"Reading my book," she replies, thinking isn't that obvious?

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"But officer, I'm not fishing. Can't you see that?"

"Yes, but you have all the equipment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with rape," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.

"That's true, but you do have all the equipment."

[stilltryin]

Geez Steve, everything was going fine, getting real serious and you had to bring SEX into it. Now what do we do to top it??????????? ???