A new law that begins in NSW on 1 December 2016

[mrsswordfisherman]

A new law that begins in NSW on 1 December 2016 makes it compulsory for anyone who is rock fishing anywhere in the Randwick local government area (including children), and anyone who is helping them rock fish, to wear a lifejacket.

http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/Pages/Rock-fishing/Rock-fishing.aspx

http://www.watersafety.nsw.gov.au/Documents/factsheets/factsheet-rock-fishing-safety-act-2016.pdf

[blackfish angler]

And so it should be all rockfisherman should have to wear them .

[Houdini]

4 hours ago, blackfish angler said:

And so it should be all rockfisherman should have to wear them .

I disagree it should be up to the individual to choose their own level of precaution/safety.

Laws don’t fix stupid people, Darwin does.

[Burger]

I can see this creating a false sense of security with inexperienced rock fishermen resulting in ppl fishing in dodgy conditions and ending up in the drink.

[macman]

47 minutes ago, Burger said:

I can see this creating a false sense of security with inexperienced rock fishermen resulting in ppl fishing in dodgy conditions and ending up in the drink.

Lots of things about it aren't ideal. I would be interested to see what the success/fail factors are around this "trial" I was also under the impression that they were talking about high risk areas only, but I notice that it includes all areas that adjoin water. Including Yarra Bay. This one affects me personally as I often fish there. It was one of the spots I was thinking of when I ask people to define what they mean when they talk about rock fishing. Anyway time will tell that is found from this "trial". 

Regards

[savit]

Here is some interesting survey report about rock fishing in Randwick area:

http://www.randwick.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/37639/130423-mmm-Randwick-Rock-Fishing-ReportFinal.pdf

[Cargo05]

I guess it depends on the value each person puts on their life.

[blackfish angler]

6 hours ago, Houdini said:

I disagree it should be up to the individual to choose their own level of precaution/safety.

Laws don’t fix stupid people, Darwin does.

 

So more people with out the knowledge of the water will drown as to what I said Lifejackets I think is a good idea and all Rock Fisherman should wear one .

 

[Guest Guest123456789]

This government sponsored initiative will save many more lives:

www.safefishing.com.au

the recreational fishing alliance are running workshops targeting oriental fisherman. They have guides and videos in oriental language too. Combined with life jackets hopefully the rock fishing fatalities will stop.

 

[austwave]

No one is saying you can educate everyone i get that but if they are forced by fear of putting their hand in their pocket and that gets a positive result I am for it.

These safety initiatives are great and have been around for years but they still die so new aproaches are required unless the bureaucrats will implement a a total ban to solve the problem.

I follow best practice when on the rocks life jacket included haven't been washed off yet but i'm very careful and pick my times well.

This is a hot topic and opinions are rife, but in the name of a family seeing the old man at the end of the day, fool or unfortunate i don't disagree with the process.

[JA1990]

On 12/2/2016 at 11:00 AM, Houdini said:

I disagree it should be up to the individual to choose their own level of precaution/safety.

Laws don’t fix stupid people, Darwin does.

 

You mean Darwin NT, the stupid dont last long up there  

But natural selection does play in effect to. Remember the Pokemon Go phase the world had unfortunately dealt with. People walking on to roads getting hit , playing it whilst behind the wheel.........people getting in to vans and disappearing.............Yeh the world host some pretty stupid people.

But unfortunately no-one wants to take responsiblity for their own actions. So they need laws to prevent these actions from ever happening. The law breakers do so because they think the law does not suit their needs, complain about democracy and want to live in an anarchy but when they injure them selves it seems to be everybody elses problem. 

These are the people who need to take a visit to countrys in anarchy....Like somalia.

[marlin99]

people need to understand what the wind weather does to the water conditions bit of education could go along way

[PaddyT]

I am going to put my cynical hat on and my experience in water safety (i have run a swim school for 14 years)right out there. This is a ploy by the anti fishing brigade to ban fishing from more spots- heres what will happen.>>>>> Currently about 10 people drown a year in ALL of Australia while rockfishing (dont believe me? I have the drowning stats in my office for the last 7 years- they are available on line on the Royal Life Saving website). About 10 people will continue to drown rockfishing every year- because life jackets still wont save the twits who go out in a 3 M swell and instead of drowning they will simply get bashed to death on the rocks (but the coroner will still say they drowned). SO - authorities will simply shut a whole bunch of spots down - to save rockfishos from themselves and voila a new No Fishing Zone will be created! What the authorities dont tell you is that 50 plus people die at surf beaches every year! The Surf Lifesaving (SLSA) is very anti rec fishing and they are driving this. Royal Lifesaving who look at ALL drownings - not just the ones in the surf zone DONT LIST ROCKFISHING in their top 5 areas of concern. Rant over- resume normal discussion!

[Novicefisherman]

So if i'm fishing on a rock ledge in middle harbour where there are no waves, Does that mean a lifejacket is required? if they pass this law for all areas and not just the randwick area.

[takethebait]

If I'm on my 4.3m tinnie on my own then I have to wear a life jacket.   Even in middle harbour where there's no waves.   Is it any different? 

Edited December 7, 2016 by takethebait

[shaune]

So if I have a fishing rod in my hand ( and no life jacket) I will be breaking the law.

If I am climbing over rocks collecting snails, or taking tourist photos, or even having a paddle in a rock pool I won't be required to wear a jacket.

Absurd law.

[antonywardle]

I think that wearing one is a good idea, I'm against the government forcing me to wear one.

I think that a boat is slightly different in that falling overboard  if you are by yourself can 

be a big issue, even in calm water, particularly if you were trawling and your boat carries

on without you. I also have my lifejacket on when I'm in my boat.

If I am on a beach that has rocks and not sand, I guess that counts as rock fishing or is it the size of the 

rocks that's important?

That was an interesting stat to see, that it is 10 people a year drown rock fishing.

 

If you climb over a rock to go to a beach, carrying a rod, then you need to wear a jacket while you are climbing over

one?

 

 

[PaddyT]

When we teach water safety we teach the priority list;

1. Supervision-kids need to be supervised- nearly all childhood drownings are due to lack of it

2. Barrier to entry-pool fences , close the bathroom door when running the bath etc

3. Learn to swim- PROPERLY- the ability to do the 10 M splash and dash in the backyard pool is NOT SWIMMING- if you cant swim 100M without stopping in a council pool how the hell are you going to survive in a high energy environment like the surf or near the ocean rocks?

4.Resus-last resort, most drownings dont get resus in time or need defib which is simply not available in 99% of circumstances- for every death of a child you hear about there are another 5-10 with brain damage to a varying degree- which is more tragic?

What does this have to do with rockfishing-lots- 80% of all drownings are males (every year, across all age groups , in all locations!) , 100% of rockfishing drownings are males (the odd female drowns whilst in the company of a male)- so males take more risks, they dont heed the weather , they dont know the terrain. Also all too many males dont think about what they would do IF they went in . Chances are if you are knocked in by a swell you are going to be hurt , possibly unconcious , possibly already dead. If you slip in you might be OK but why did you slip in the first place? A lot of spots are dangerous by their nature -The MUrk- no escape route, Yellow Rock- no escape route, Avoca- slippery and deceptive in a North Easterly sea, other spots depend on the tide- Terrigal Skillion- tricky in a rising tide but pretty safe- less popular than Avoca because it looks more dangerous. Lots of people dont understand their spot and stand in exactly the wrong place. 

Life jackets are the last resort-like resus they shouldnt need to be used - the simple fact is that nearly all the rockfishing deaths are on days of big swell and involve inexperienced folk who dont understand the high energy Australian coastline. The danger is that when deaths dont decline SLSA and various other government bodies will simply push for lockouts to happen. The fishing press themselves dont help when they use headlines like"Most Dangerous Sport in Australia"- just as many people die snorkelling and just as many die SCUBA diving but we let ourselves get smashed in the press. I rarely rockfish these days but will happily go solo- I dont beleive in fairies in the garden and I dont belive in "freak waves"- every wave can be explained by physics and the weather.

[Raymondo]

1 hour ago, shaune said:

So if I have a fishing rod in my hand ( and no life jacket) I will be breaking the law.

If I am climbing over rocks collecting snails, or taking tourist photos, or even having a paddle in a rock pool I won't be required to wear a jacket.

Absurd law.

I don't see a problem with wearing a life preserver, these days they come in many forms and are unobtrusive and comfortable. But the above quote raises a good point.To whom does it apply and why? The best way to mitigate a risk/hazard is to Eliminate it (basic hierarchy of control ). So does this mean in the future we wont have access to areas deemed as hazardous. This "Duty of care" only exists due to liability. If the government could publicly respond to a drowning death as "What a dickhead, they shouldn't have been out there in that weather "  these laws wouldn't need to be drawn up. RCA (risk cause analysis ) follow this far enough back and you will  find that it's Adams fault for picking the apple off the tree. ?

 

[fragmeister]

Tricky subject.

Lots of interesting and valid comments here on both sides.

My main resistance I think is about being told what to do and having to modify my behavior because others are careless or unprepared - having said that I am still in favour but its a personal thing.

You will always find contradictions in safety legislation though. Take these two for example.

Car drivers have to wear seat belt - no exceptions because it is clearly unsafe and unacceptable not to wear one yet you would clearly be safer in a car without a seat belt than on a motor bike. There is no easy solution to properly protecting motor bike riders (except to take them off the road) so we just accept the fatalities.

Train Stations. In the workplace there must be physical guards in place to protect users from moving equipment yet on a train platform 1000's of tonnes of moving equipment hurtle down the platform with the only thing protecting us is a yellow line that says "stand behind". This would not be acceptable in the workplace.

But, back to the life jacket thing, I guess as much as I hate the idea if rules being imposed on me it was a near drowning incident that probably had the most impact on my view now.

During the mid 80's I was rock fishing off the north end of Maroubra beach. In those days I wore as light clothing as the weather would permit, always shorts and rock cleats and I kept the uninflated bladder of wine cask in my pocket. Life jackets in those days were not conducive to fishing plus I probably didn't have the cash to buy one... plus I was 25 and invincible! Fortunately, I have always been a strong swimmer.

On this day the surf was washing over the rocks occasionally about knee high but there was a pole cemented into the rock and I always fished next to this for a quick hand hold. I would have called it a reasonably safe day.

After a time a young bloke came down to the rocks and slipped and slided his way out to the end of the rock platform. Clearly he had no rock cleats and should not have been there.

I was going to warn him away from the rock ledge but before I even got a chance he was knocked over and washed in by a bigger than usual wave. In the seconds that followed it became clear to me that unless I did something the guy was going to drown so I jumped in after him and pulled him away from the rocks further out to sea.

I have to say that this was very difficult and it completely exhausted me risking both our lives. All the Bronze Medallion training in the world is of little use when the person you are rescuing doesn't know the drill! He was panicked and clinging on to me, dragging us both under. I yelled at him to lay on his back and took him under the chin which made all the difference.

Further out from the rocks I had enough time and I inflated the wine bladder and gave it to him to hang on to and we slowly made our way back to the beach. I don't remember ever being so exhausted.

I have to tell you that it is a traumatic experience for the rescuer as well as the victim. You rarely see that kind of fear in another human and it sticks with you for life. Add your own fear and preservation instincts in and its a very confronting mix of emotions.

So, based on my experience I am in favour of saving the foolish (or unlucky perhaps)  from themselves if not just for the sake of those who witness the incident or the friends and family they leave behind.

Cheers

 

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2016 by fragmeister

[Guest Guest123456789]

Despite being a strong swimmer I've nearly drowned once. Happened surfing Avoca lake when it was let out. Fell off a wave and got washed by the lake out to sea. Ended up in a zone where I couldn't go back, forward, left or right and the 4 foot waves and sting current of the emptying lagoon kept pinning me underwater despite having the buoyancy of a board.

My point is in a big swell I can't see a life jacket being guaranteed to save your life. Particularly the inflatable ones or the ones where your face is underwater when unconscious. I fear it may give people a false sense of security and encourage even greater risk taking. But I couls be wrong, time will tell, maybe one persons life will be saved during the trial and if that's the case than I'll happily wear one.

[shaune]

6 hours ago, Raymondo said:

I don't see a problem with wearing a life preserver, these days they come in many forms and are unobtrusive and comfortable. But the above quote raises a good point.To whom does it apply and why? The best way to mitigate a risk/hazard is to Eliminate it (basic hierarchy of control ). So does this mean in the future we wont have access to areas deemed as hazardous. This "Duty of care" only exists due to liability. If the government could publicly respond to a drowning death as "What a dickhead, they shouldn't have been out there in that weather "  these laws wouldn't need to be drawn up. RCA (risk cause analysis ) follow this far enough back and you will  find that it's Adams fault for picking the apple off the tree. ?

 

I agree with you to a certain extent. If I were rockfishing on an ocean beach I would probably wear one but that should be up to me and my own "risk cause analysis". 

My gripe is , if I'm standing on yarra bay breakwall with the ocean as flat as a tack, with a fishing rod in my hand I can be fined.

Some bloke standing next to me with nothing but speedos on will not be fined.

What does it matter if I'm fishing or not?

By the way , this thing is suppose to be a "1 year trial" yet they state fines will come into affect from december 2017.

This suggests they already know it is permanent.

[Raymondo]

Give the rock fishing away people, its dangerous. Buy a boat and head offshore, its heaps safer.?

[PaddyT]

15 hours ago, Raymondo said:

Give the rock fishing away people, its dangerous. Buy a boat and head offshore, its heaps safer.?

Actually you are wrong- 46 people drowned while boating last financial year

[Raymondo]

Lol. I was being sarcastic. I'll try harder next time.