Calling All Rock Fishos

[mrsswordfisherman 922]

We have been contacted to put this survey up. It is surveying rock fishermen and attempting to gather data on safety requirements and understanding of conditions and risk etc

It is important that we have some input to help make it safer. Below is the link and it will take about 10 minutes of your time. You can enter your details if you wish to win a $150 voucher for fishing gear.

Don't forget to add fishraider in some if those questions as sites that you use to get info

http://survey.ipsos.com.au/fishingsurvey

[flatheadluke 353]

I did it. Some of the questions were loaded with bias, it's obvious the researchers are looking for data to support a case to make life jackets mandatory.

[Guest 4myson]

Just did the survey , pretty straight forward . I don't see a problem with the wearing of life jackets while rock fishing . From my own personal experience / injury ( I strongly recommend life jackets ) there no where near as uncomfortable as what they use to be ...

[Guest no one]

I don't think so Luke. Yes it was obvious they were looking at life jacket rules but if you wrote a survey about license fees then it would be loaded with license fee questions! You have a choice on if you agree or disagree so there was no bias!

I did the survey honestly and the question that stood out to me was "who wears life jackets the most" inexperienced people? Experienced people... I know where my answer went!

[mrsswordfisherman 922]

The survey is being done on behalf of a govt organisation (SLSA) the surf lifesaving association.

I don't think it is biased, each question gives a wide range of responses and offers a text input (other).

There has been plenty of activity going on for a while regarding mandatory life jacket use. It is almost impossible to monitor and police though.

It is very sensible to find out why people do not wear PFD's so they can design something suitable. Anything that saves lives is a must. Not really sure why anyone would not support wearing of a lifejacket!

[fisholb 59]

Just did the survey

Hope it will help save lives

Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

[abecedarian 0]

I just filled it out, hopefully something useful comes out of it. It's interesting that the focus tends to be on life jackets with much less focus on other equipment like rock shoes. Life jackets only help when you're in the water, rock shoes help stop you being washed in in the first place!

[davebrewer 5]

I just want to point out that the SLSA is a totally independent oganisation with no government involvement or funding,relying on public donation ,I make a $24 contribution every 4 weeks and urge other Fishraiders,particularly the rockhoppers,to consider doing the same.It may well be you or a family member or friend who needs saving one day.

[flatheadluke 353]

i respect other's differing opinions, maybe im wrong but i dont think

Make it compulsory for kids no problem. Adults though, surely we are entitled to make personal safety decisions for ourselves. I don't like nanny state decisions, if i dont want to wear a helmet, life jacket, seat belt then thats my choice. its why i love going to bali, riding a scooter with my wife on the back, with a dodgy surfboard carrier parking on wierd angles on the footpath without wearing a helmet. If i did that in terrigal i'd be fined $20000 and thrown in jail for 10 years.

[Guest]

Well its not your choice to not wear a seat belt or helmet so get on with it Luke

[Scratchie 2,160]

Just did the survey

Hope it will help save lives

Sent from my C5303 using Tapatalk

Me too and I couldn't agree more!

[mrsswordfisherman 922]

I just want to point out that the SLSA is a totally independent oganisation with no government involvement or funding,relying on public donation ,I make a $24 contribution every 4 weeks and urge other Fishraiders,particularly the rockhoppers,to consider doing the same.It may well be you or a family member or friend who needs saving one day.

Good on you Dave - they do a great job. I grew up and spent most of my life at Coogee, Bronte and Maroubra beaches and saw many a person saved.

[Saboo 0]

SLSA have undertaken risk assessment on ledges up and down the coast being. The first step in the formal risk assessment process is to ELIMINATE the risk, i.e compulsory jackets.

I’m not a fan and won’t be wearing a jacket no matter the outcome.

How about instead of another nanny state approach we actually address the problem of over representation of anglers from Asian backgrounds in rock fishing deaths which is sharply driving up fatality figures. Unfortunately Rec Fishing bodies and even the SLSA have been working with anglers of Asian backgrounds but the message does not seem to be getting through. Deaths will occur if anglers continue to fish in in-appropriate conditions.

My opinion is that jackets are only going to encourage anglers of any nationality to fish in conditions they otherwise wouldn’t due to a false sense of security from wearing a jacket or floatation device.

Yes I have completed the survey…….

S

[macman 9]

I don't think so Luke. Yes it was obvious they were looking at life jacket rules but if you wrote a survey about license fees then it would be loaded with license fee questions! You have a choice on if you agree or disagree so there was no bias!

I did the survey honestly and the question that stood out to me was "who wears life jackets the most" inexperienced people? Experienced people... I know where my answer went!

Its well documented that SLSA support the mandatory wearing of lifejackets for rock fishermen. I have nothing but respect for SLSA and all of the volunteers that work for it. Also like many fishos and rock fishos I have donated to SLSA over the years.

I did the survey, I believe it was trying to be fair, but too many subjective questions that could be taken the wrong way, or at least used a certain way. Particularly questions around the images in the survey. I don't believe in mandatory wearing of lifejackets but often wear mine if the conditions warrant it.

I get a lot of opinions from people who don't even rockfish, same people don't even wear a jacket on thier boats. So, common sense is out the window on this already. You can't police it, you can't even define rockfishing for a start. Think about the south breakwall at somewhere like Yamba. If I fish half way out on the river side, am I rockfishing? Do I need a lifejacket? If I fish on the surf side, does that make it different?

The results of rockfishing deaths are devastating to all connected with them, I still believe that more can be achieved with education and subsidies than poorly thought out regulation. Poorly thought out regulation usually starts with poorly gathered or interpreted data.

Matt

[Crossfire63 2]

There are many arguments both for and against the wearing of Life jackets here are but a few

1) They save lives.....do they really. A life jacket only works when its inflated. If your knocked out who's going to inflate it.

2) Automatic inflating life vests will do one of two things. If your knocked out it will leave you bobbing around like a cork in the wash zone where you will get bashed against the rocks causing more injuries, or make it damn near impossible to swim out of the wash zone quickly to avoid being dashed against the rocks unless you abandoned the life jacket .

One thing and one thing alone prevents people dying while rock fishing.......common sense. I've been doing it for 30years never been washed in. Never came close and I wear a life jacket.

Seen the results of people who have been washed in and retrieved two bodies of rock fisherman off the Northern Beaches.

The life jacket argument is a knee jerk reaction by the NSW who know that it would be impossible to Police and administer. What about people who walk along rock ledges and fall in although not technically fishing. Should they be required to wear a life jacket. What about kids paddling through rock pools on headlands. Its just as easy for them to be washed into the ocean. Should they be required to wear a life jacket.

If you really want to save lives and stop people from taking stupid risks its quite simple. Make them or their families responsible for the cost of the rescue. Then they might stop and think twice before putting themselves in dangerous situations

Edited August 26, 2015 by Crossfire63

[mrsswordfisherman 922]

i respect other's differing opinions, maybe im wrong but i dont think

Make it compulsory for kids no problem. Adults though, surely we are entitled to make personal safety decisions for ourselves. I don't like nanny state decisions, if i dont want to wear a helmet, life jacket, seat belt then thats my choice. its why i love going to bali, riding a scooter with my wife on the back, with a dodgy surfboard carrier parking on wierd angles on the footpath without wearing a helmet. If i did that in terrigal i'd be fined $20000 and thrown in jail for 10 years.

Geez Luke I don't know what era you are talking about but Bali has a law that says motorbike riders need to wear helmets, protective footwear and a shirt! I am sure that you are one of the bogans that wear thongs, boardies and no shirt and no doubt the police have grabbed plenty of rupiah off you over the years. Unless you are in the village you have to wear helmets etc. If you do not then it is a clear sign to the police to pull you over and take your money. I have been going to Bali since the 70's, I speak Bahasa Indonesian and swordie and I just got back from 3 weeks there on Monday.

I also have colleagues that are teaching the Balinese/Indonesian nurses how to run their emergency room in BIMC and guess who their customers are? Foreigners who do not wear helmets etc coming off motorbikes.

The reason we have laws is because there are people who just want to make their own rules and jeopardize everyone else's safety.

This debate was exactly the same flavour as when they made seat belts in cars mandatory. Now everyone is used to just doing the right thing and following the law.

We will keep this debate open - very interested to see where it goes and it may help the decision makers if I send them a link

[macman 9]

We will keep this debate open - very interested to see where it goes and it may help the decision makers if I send them a link

Stupider decisions have been made on worse data.

[brad_tate 0]

I appreciate the Nanny State and personal responsibility/choice viewpoint but I don't think that those who profess it really think this through enough.

Let's take a couple of examples. A) I exercise my personal choice and don't wear a bicycle helmet, am involved in an accident and suffer a severe brain trauma. B.) I exercise my personal choice to not wear a life jacket or cleats and am washed into the ocean whilst fishing, requiring a rescue helicopter to pluck me out and medical treatment afterwards.

Example A. Taxpayers money now needs to fund my hospital care (likely hundreds of thousands) and disability pension for the rest of my life (millions).

Example B. Scant volunteer funding and effort is spent plucking me out of the water and then example A takes over.

I am certain none of the taxpayers who fund the above, or the other folk in trouble who are not rescued due to scant funds being wasted on my personal choice were asked if they agreed before I did something stupid.

The Nanny State is not just there to protect individuals from bad choices, it is also there to protect the rest of us from the consequences of those bad choices.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Edited August 26, 2015 by Tastee

[flatheadluke 353]

I don't think so Luke. Yes it was obvious they were looking at life jacket rules but if you wrote a survey about license fees then it would be loaded with license fee questions! You have a choice on if you agree or disagree so there was no bias!

I did the survey honestly and the question that stood out to me was "who wears life jackets the most" inexperienced people? Experienced people... I know where my answer went!

Maybe you're right, Im not 100% sure it just 'felt' a bit biased to me. I answered experienced people too. It's like the snow, you see all new skiers and boarders wearing beanies and the more experienced wearing helmets.

[flatheadluke 353]

Well its not your choice to not wear a seat belt or helmet so get on with it Luke

Doesn't mean I should submit to every new law the govt wants to impose, I was raised to have an opinion and fight for your rights.

[flatheadluke 353]

Geez Luke I don't know what era you are talking about but Bali has a law that says motorbike riders need to wear helmets, protective footwear and a shirt! I am sure that you are one of the bogans that wear thongs, boardies and no shirt and no doubt the police have grabbed plenty of rupiah off you over the years. Unless you are in the village you have to wear helmets etc. If you do not then it is a clear sign to the police to pull you over and take your money. I have been going to Bali since the 70's, I speak Bahasa Indonesian and swordie and I just got back from 3 weeks there on Monday.

I also have colleagues that are teaching the Balinese/Indonesian nurses how to run their emergency room in BIMC and guess who their customers are? Foreigners who do not wear helmets etc coming off motorbikes.

The reason we have laws is because there are people who just want to make their own rules and jeopardize everyone else's safety.

This debate was exactly the same flavour as when they made seat belts in cars mandatory. Now everyone is used to just doing the right thing and following the law.

We will keep this debate open - very interested to see where it goes and it may help the decision makers if I send them a link

Calling me a bogan is a bit harsh don't you think? I'm a very courteous and considerate person.

I just make the point that civil liberties in this country are all too often shoved to one side. 2/3rds of adults and half of kids are overweight, obesity is overtaking cigarettes as the biggest killer, why don't we ban sugar then? Shark attack deaths are on the rise, let's force surfers to wear chain mail wetsuits? Speed is a major killer on the roads, let's ban all cars except 4 cylinders? Where do you stop, why don't we just ban anything that's fun, dangerous or bad for you?

[mrsswordfisherman 922]

I appreciate the Nanny State and personal responsibility/choice viewpoint but I don't think that those who profess it really think this through enough.

Let's take a couple of examples. A) I exercise my personal choice and don't wear a bicycle helmet, am involved in an accident and suffer a severe brain trauma. B.) I exercise my personal choice to not wear a life jacket or cleats and am washed into the ocean whilst fishing, requiring a rescue helicopter to pluck me out and medical treatment afterwards.

Example A. Taxpayers money now needs to fund my hospital care (likely hundreds of thousands) and disability pension for the rest of my life (millions).

Example B. Scant volunteer funding and effort is spent plucking me out of the water and then example A takes over.

I am certain none of the taxpayers who fund the above, or the other folk in trouble who are not rescued due to scant funds being wasted on my personal choice were asked if they agreed before I did something stupid.

The Nanny State is not just there to protect individuals from bad choices, it is also there to protect the rest of us from the consequences of those bad choices.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well said thank you

[macman 9]

Well said thank you

Sorry, it wasn't actually that well said. (Sorry Tastee, I get what you are saying about nanny state to a point)

It used a poor analogy and suggested that we should make wearing cleats mandatory. It also suggested that the mandatory wearing of lifejackets would negate or lower the need for rescues. And then suggested that somehow that the state is paying for years of care after rockfishing accidents!

I agree with tastee that there needs to be some laws that save us from ourselves. But they need to be enforceable and have some common sense. The seat belt one is a good one. Probably saved many many lives. Its absolutely enforceable and completely commonsense.

Making lifejackets mandatory will NOT stop people making stupid choices and endangering themselves and others. I'm not sure why there is such a clamour to make this so. There should be a higher degree of care around people adequately fencing home pools.

The only way to significantly change the attitude of rock fishos is by education, convincing them not to fish the rocks when it is unsafe to do so, recommending that they wear a life jacket AND suitable footwear AND light clothing AND all of the other measures that keep one safe on the rocks.

Matt

[mrsswordfisherman 922]

macman that is my opinion (perhaps not yours) and no need to say sorry

"The Nanny State is not just there to protect individuals from bad choices, it is also there to protect the rest of us from the consequences of those bad choices."

In case you had not noticed, the education and change management tools the govt has employed for many years has not significantly reduced the deaths. It is probably now time to use enforcement strategies.

It can't hurt can it? The only thing it hurts is some people's egos.

[Zacnoel 0]

Macman , you are correct wearing "LIFE PRESERVERS" wont stop people from making stupid desicisions but it will help them to servive the consequences of those stipid desicisions.

I also read above that adults should have freedom of choice and that kids should be made to wear a life jacket. I may be incorrect but in memory, and mine has to stretch a long way back now, most if not all of the fatalities / drownings attributed to rock fishing were indeed adults.

As adults we tend to make sure our kids are safe , someone is just trying to make sure we are safe.