Sign in to follow this  
mrsswordfisherman

Interesting debate on life jacket laws

Recommended Posts

'General' rules or laws are made for the 'general' publics safety for a reason, its no different to say cyclists having to wear a helmet or having to wear a jacket if you are on a boat solo.

But we are lucky enough to live in a democracy so its our right to contest something the disagree about.

Personally I don't see why this fella has an issue with this as others may not be as good at a recovery situation as he is & you do have the option of deploying the lifejacket or not as conditions suit so swim away from the rocks then deploy!

Imo, just put it on mate ;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a bit like having headlights on,  mandatory for motorcycles.

I think its a good idea, and I'd be doing it anyway, I just don't want it mandated.

 

With rock fishing, I wear a pfd and have the boots too, but I don't see why i would get a fine

when someone else standing beside me with out a rod wouldn't.

 

cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the person standing next to you is assisting you, then they would get a fine...

If it was a random exploring the rocks, that person would not be fined as they are not rock fishing or assisting a person that is rock fishing...

Personally, I don't mind the laws to protect idiots from dying. I wear a PFD anyways so it doesn't bother me...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure we have much of any say in the matter, infact I see it as just another revenue grabbing idea. Some common sense by the angler or anyone else on the rocks through a little education is more appropriate. As stated above will this be enforced only upon anglers or will all those kids who jump off the rocks into the wash for fun or the surfers who enter from the rocks etc etc. 

Where are the boundaries to be made, if I'm on a low cliff photographing a sunrise at what height cliff do I need  a life jacket. Is a bar wall considered rock fishing and how far up a river do you need to be before it becomes a wall.

Down here in Narooma maritime have been handing out fines of $250 to people not wearing life jacket while on their kayaks. This is in water so shallow that at low tide it's sand, we even swim from our yaks right infront of our house on the lake. The same yaks we use for paddling on protected lakes we also use in the surf, only in the surf and around coastal bars and over shallow reefs etc we don't have to wear a jacket as they are seen as a surfing tool just like a surfboard.

Ive seen no consultation on the subject and my messages to maritime have been ignored. I'm all for safety and use pfd's most of the time even while in the boat in relatively calm conditions. I'm also a good swimmer and dive incredibly rough rocky washes, I also hold a gold medallion and regularly update my first aid. I fish with my daughter who also wears a pfd apart from when in the water, she's also a triathlete and has no issues with 10k + swims. With that in mind paddling over 30cm deep sand flats catching whiting and having to wear 4cm thick foam around us during summer or cop a $250 fine seems a little excessive.

Nanny state.:angry2: Check out the amount of deaths from drowning in baths per year in comparison.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon youve hit the nail on the head ! there is a heap of carry on in the media about "Australias most dangerous sport" pretty consistantly there are about 10 deaths a year rockfishing in ALL of Australia(I know you are a keen diver but they have about the same number- no push in the media about that!), there are about 50 drownings a year at surf beaches - no noise about that! Anyway the biggest safety message I can give is this- If the conditions arent right- go home-swells up-go home-wrong footwear -go home. I would bet 100-1 if the entire country is forced to wear jackets there will still be 10 rockfishing deaths a year-life is not without risk- if you want to wear a jacket -go ahead- just dont make me wear one when I dont want to and deem myself a sufficiently experienced water person that i dont need one until my judgement says otherwise.The only thing that this will do is make body recovery faster and cheaper.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/4/2018 at 12:28 PM, JonD said:

With that in mind paddling over 30cm deep sand flats catching whiting and having to wear 4cm thick foam around us during summer or cop a $250 fine seems a little excessive.

Standard inflatable , waist PFD or even careful wading will save the back, neck or shoulders from 4 cm foam.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, savit said:

Standard inflatable , waist PFD or even careful wading will save the back, neck or shoulders from 4 cm foam.

 

 

 

In all honesty they choose to not use the kayaks as much anymore rather than use floatations devices. You would still need to carry proof of purchase date with inflatable pfd's which is another rip off. 

Head down to your local boat store and pick up any pfd on sale then check the manufactures date, I recently bought two that were manufactured in 2012 which means I have to carry purchase date proof. Add to that 12 months after purchase date some pfd's allow the buyer to do the first service themselves, at 24 months they have to be tested by the manufactures at a cost often higher than new cost.

At a time when we are being encouraged to be less wasteful of plastics etc, we are left with a decision do we save money and pay for a continuous 12 month manufactures inspection after the first two years or go back to the old foam pfd's maritime are trying to discourage us to use ( because they can't fine you if they don't go out of date ).

Prawners will be next, wadding around in water after dark often in tidal rivers mouths is how the previous owner of my house died.

What ever happened to the saying " well he ( she ) died doing what he loved" let's keep the ever increasing population alive because our hospitals and doctors have nothing else to do. In nature wildlife learns from natural selection, the less than smart ones simply don't make it.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think that it should be compulsory to wear a PFD. I appreciate that a body floating wearing a lifejacket is a lot easier and safer for emergency services to retrieve but I don't think it increases the safety for all parties that it effects. I think that the life jackets unfairly remove some of the ability for experienced people to make their own decisions regarding their safety and put them at higher risk than they are without PFD. I do not think it is fair at all to place responsible and experienced people at higher risk than they need to be to protect a group of people who have negligently put themselves and others in situations that they should not be. I think primarily wearing a PFD when fishing off the rocks significantly increases the chances of emergency services finding your injured and unconscious or dead body,  in the water near the rocks or nearby where the current has taken you. It also saves the time and risk associated in sending divers down to find and retrieve your body.

Let's look at couple of scenarios and why the PFD helps the emergency services find and retrieve you each time.

1. You are not wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, hit your head and are unconscious. The retreating water drags your injured body back across the rocks, further scratching it and breaking it on the way and you are sucked down into the drain/sink zone and possibly under the ledge or wherever the waves and current take you next. Emergency services have difficulty finding your body because it is under the water.

2. You are wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, hit your head and are unconscious. The retreating water drags your injured body back across the rocks and you are sucked down into the sink zone. The PFD keeps you afloat in the drain/sink zone. The second, third and fourth wave smash you up the rocks and adding injuries including cuts and breaks on the way up and down each time. When there is a break in the waves or when emergency services get there they can retrieve your body.

3.  You are wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, may or may not hit your head but are conscious. The retreating water drags your injured body back across the rocks and you are sucked down into the sink zone. The PFD keeps you afloat in the drain/sink zone. The second, third and fourth wave (that you cannot dive under to save yourself) smash you up the rocks and continue to add injuries including cuts and breaks on the way up and down each time. If you didn't get knocked out on the first wave like in scenario 2 then your chances of that having happened by now are exponentially higher as the PFD keeps you in the danger zone for as long as possible while severely limiting your ability to take evasive action. When there is a break in the waves and someone can safely get to get to you or when emergency services get there it is easier for them to find and retrieve your body from the water near the rocks.

4. You are not wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, you may or may not have hit your head but you are still conscious. You may or may not be experienced at rock fishing but you at least have some degree of self preservation so you keep your head safe, as you wash down into the water, you dive through the second, third and fourth waves in the set and swim away from the rocks to the safer deeper water. You then swim to your pre-determined safe exit spot when the timing of the waves allow. In this scenario emergency services will not find your body in the water or near the rocks because it got in the car and drove home to its family.

Another important thing to remember is that just because PFDs are not mandated for rockfishing everywhere does not mean that people are not allowed to wear them if they think the situation is applicable for it. As with most of these Nanny rules, the people that the rules are designed to benefit won't abide by them anyway and the people that do follow the rules no matter how ridiculous they are, are the ones that are negatively impacted for no benefit.

I'm not anti compulsory PFD in general but i do think that people should be able to make their own decisions. Similarly with the boat length 4.8m and under rule in open water or at night. At least have the rule (only compulsory when under way).

If i take less experienced friends beach fishing and they want to wear my waders to stay warm i take a manual inflatable PFD  for them (sometimes also a glow stick ready to snap at night). Similarly a PFD for them fishing a breakwall entrance at night on a run out tide.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Captain Spanner said:

I don't think that it should be compulsory to wear a PFD. I appreciate that a body floating wearing a lifejacket is a lot easier and safer for emergency services to retrieve but I don't think it increases the safety for all parties that it effects. I think that the life jackets unfairly remove some of the ability for experienced people to make their own decisions regarding their safety and put them at higher risk than they are without PFD. I do not think it is fair at all to place responsible and experienced people at higher risk than they need to be to protect a group of people who have negligently put themselves and others in situations that they should not be. I think primarily wearing a PFD when fishing off the rocks significantly increases the chances of emergency services finding your injured and unconscious or dead body,  in the water near the rocks or nearby where the current has taken you. It also saves the time and risk associated in sending divers down to find and retrieve your body.

Let's look at couple of scenarios and why the PFD helps the emergency services find and retrieve you each time.

1. You are not wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, hit your head and are unconscious. The retreating water drags your injured body back across the rocks, further scratching it and breaking it on the way and you are sucked down into the drain/sink zone and possibly under the ledge or wherever the waves and current take you next. Emergency services have difficulty finding your body because it is under the water.

2. You are wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, hit your head and are unconscious. The retreating water drags your injured body back across the rocks and you are sucked down into the sink zone. The PFD keeps you afloat in the drain/sink zone. The second, third and fourth wave smash you up the rocks and adding injuries including cuts and breaks on the way up and down each time. When there is a break in the waves or when emergency services get there they can retrieve your body.

3.  You are wearing a PFD, you are knocked off your feet by a wave, may or may not hit your head but are conscious. The retreating water drags your injured body back across the rocks and you are sucked down into the sink zone. The PFD keeps you afloat in the drain/sink zone. The second, third and fourth wave (that

 

You have thrown a lot of scenario's out there but what are the statistics??

 

When you find out after the fact that the percentage of the survival rate is higher for someone wearing a PFD will you still have the same argument?

 

Its easy to contest something but its the numbers that tell the truth so let it go & see what those the actual truth of the matter is!

 

As I was implying earlier, laws are not made for individuals but for the masses for a reason, the general publics safety.

 

Another scenario, I would like to have a semi auto rifle in my safe & don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed one seeing as I am a law abiding citizen & licensed firearms owner.

 

So why am I not allowed to own a semi automatic rifle??

 

For the general publics safety regardless of me being able to provide assurances that I am ok & worthy of having one!

 

Ok I am anti that rule but understand where it comes from, rules are rule so get used to it!!!!!

Edited by kingie chaser

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonD said:

In all honesty they choose to not use the kayaks as much anymore rather than use floatations devices. You would still need to carry proof of purchase date with inflatable pfd's which is another rip off. 

Head down to your local boat store and pick up any pfd on sale then check the manufactures date, I recently bought two that were manufactured in 2012 which means I have to carry purchase date proof. Add to that 12 months after purchase date some pfd's allow the buyer to do the first service themselves, at 24 months they have to be tested by the manufactures at a cost often higher than new cost.

At a time when we are being encouraged to be less wasteful of plastics etc, we are left with a decision do we save money and pay for a continuous 12 month manufactures inspection after the first two years or go back to the old foam pfd's maritime are trying to discourage us to use ( because they can't fine you if they don't go out of date ).

Prawners will be next, wadding around in water after dark often in tidal rivers mouths is how the previous owner of my house died.

What ever happened to the saying " well he ( she ) died doing what he loved" let's keep the ever increasing population alive because our hospitals and doctors have nothing else to do. In nature wildlife learns from natural selection, the less than smart ones simply don't make it.

Jon,  I never purchased, used or serviced inflatable PFDs, so the mentioned service requirements are new to me. I am using foam Marlin PFD and quite happy with it though I rarely fish when the sun is high. Where 24 month compulsory  manufacturer PFD inspection requirement comes from?

I just googled PFD service.  And it looks like NSW maritime requires inflatable PFD serviced per manufacturer's instructions and nothing about 24 service by manufacturer.

http://maritimemanagement.transport.nsw.gov.au/lifejackets/lifejacket-servicing-and-maintenance/index.html

I googled Marlin PFD service and it is says that it is RECCOMENDED that accredited agent conducts full inspection of the PFD every 5 years. I did not check other PFD manufacturers requirements.

https://www.marlin-australia.com.au/servicing.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, kingie chaser said:

You have thrown a lot of scenario's out there but what are the statistics??

 

When you find out after the fact that the percentage of the survival rate is higher for someone wearing a PFD will you still have the same argument?

 

Its easy to contest something but its the numbers that tell the truth so let it go & see what those the actual truth of the matter is!

 

As I was implying earlier, laws are not made for individuals but for the masses for a reason, the general publics safety.

 

Another scenario, I would like to have a semi auto rifle in my safe & don't see any reason why I shouldn't be allowed one seeing as I am a law abiding citizen & licensed firearms owner.

 

So why am I not allowed to own a semi automatic rifle??

 

For the general publics safety regardless of me being able to provide assurances that I am ok & worthy of having one!

 

Ok I am anti that rule but understand where it comes from, rules are rule so get used to it!!!!!

Please don't take any of this to be argumentative or aggressive because it is not intended to be at all. I do sometimes just get a bit frustrated by this stuff. 

The gun example is a little different for various reasons as you have acknowledged. 

The people that I feel the most for in these situations is the emergency services that have to risk their lives to save/retrieve these people and also the victims families that have probably had no say in losing a loved one. I am definitely not unsympathetic to these effected groups and I do feel a level of guilt arguing against the compulsory jacket thing because it would make their lives easier. 

I don't have any statistics and I'm not going to pretend to. I am one of the people that just deals with the stupid rules and plays by them, including the stupid 4.7m boat one.

Even without the statistics I agree with you that IF EVERYONE, including the people that the rules have been designed for actually wear the life jackets then the fatality rate would likely drop, primarily because the people that shouldn't be on the rocks, (or even in the bath), will float. I think the rate of minor and major injuries would increase. I agree that the people getting washed in should be wearing jackets but I don't think they will. I don't think the rule will stop people fishing in stupid locations and conditions which is the main problem. You will never be able legislate or engineer stupidity out of society. 

There will be an argument that it won't effect experienced guys because they won't fall in anyway so they should just shut up and wear their jacket. But that's not fair for the one time in thirty or forty years that they do lose their footing and get their arms and legs broken and the eye socket fractured when they would have otherwise probably only had a few cuts on their hands and legs. All to save a guy that won't wear a jacket anyway. And if the experienced guy thinks he would be better off with a jacket in the spot that he is fishing I bet he already wears one. I'm not sure which area you are from so i'lol throw a few out there. If you asked a few surfers at random at Sandon Point, Headlands, Cronulla Point, Shark Island, Cape Solander, Maroubra, Bondi, Fairy Bower, Freshwater, Curl Curl, Dee Why, Avalon, Avoca,  Forresters beach if they had to jump if the rocks and swim to safety if they would prefer to be wearing a life jacket or not, or if they felt safer with or without a jacket  I think you would struggle to find one that would put the jacket on. If you asked the same guys what wothey kid make them safer, most will say a wetsuit, some will say booties, some maybe flippers and some will say a helmet if it's pretty rough. If they have done any cray diving they might say gloves too. If they could only pick one thing they would probably all say wetsuit and a few might pick the helmet if it's super rough but that should t be part of the equation because they should t be fishing then anyway. 

On a reasonably calm day watch some guys spearfishing or cray diving close to the rocks and imagine what would happen to them if they were wearing a PFD instead of a weight belt. 

The important thing to remember here is that we aren't deciding between banning them OR making them compulsory. You are still allowed to wear them even if it's not compulsory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Captain Spanner said:

Please don't take any of this to be argumentative or aggressive because it is not intended to be at all. I do sometimes just get a bit frustrated by this stuff. 

The gun example is a little different for various reasons as you have acknowledged. 

The people that I feel the most for in these situations is the emergency services that have to risk their lives to save/retrieve these people and also the victims families that have probably had no say in losing a loved one. I am definitely not unsympathetic to these effected groups and I do feel a level of guilt arguing against the compulsory jacket thing because it would make their lives easier. 

I don't have any statistics and I'm not going to pretend to. I am one of the people that just deals with the stupid rules and plays by them, including the stupid 4.7m boat one.

Even without the statistics I agree with you that IF EVERYONE, including the people that the rules have been designed for actually wear the life jackets then the fatality rate would likely drop, primarily because the people that shouldn't be on the rocks, (or even in the bath), will float. I think the rate of minor and major injuries would increase. I agree that the people getting washed in should be wearing jackets but I don't think they will. I don't think the rule will stop people fishing in stupid locations and conditions which is the main problem. You will never be able legislate or engineer stupidity out of society. 

There will be an argument that it won't effect experienced guys because they won't fall in anyway so they should just shut up and wear their jacket. But that's not fair for the one time in thirty or forty years that they do lose their footing and get their arms and legs broken and the eye socket fractured when they would have otherwise probably only had a few cuts on their hands and legs. All to save a guy that won't wear a jacket anyway. And if the experienced guy thinks he would be better off with a jacket in the spot that he is fishing I bet he already wears one. I'm not sure which area you are from so i'lol throw a few out there. If you asked a few surfers at random at Sandon Point, Headlands, Cronulla Point, Shark Island, Cape Solander, Maroubra, Bondi, Fairy Bower, Freshwater, Curl Curl, Dee Why, Avalon, Avoca,  Forresters beach if they had to jump if the rocks and swim to safety if they would prefer to be wearing a life jacket or not, or if they felt safer with or without a jacket  I think you would struggle to find one that would put the jacket on. If you asked the same guys what wothey kid make them safer, most will say a wetsuit, some will say booties, some maybe flippers and some will say a helmet if it's pretty rough. If they have done any cray diving they might say gloves too. If they could only pick one thing they would probably all say wetsuit and a few might pick the helmet if it's super rough but that should t be part of the equation because they should t be fishing then anyway. 

On a reasonably calm day watch some guys spearfishing or cray diving close to the rocks and imagine what would happen to them if they were wearing a PFD instead of a weight belt. 

The important thing to remember here is that we aren't deciding between banning them OR making them compulsory. You are still allowed to wear them even if it's not compulsory. 

 

The jackets for kayaking are compulsory, which was brought in without consultation. 

Down here I've been checked for safety gear three times in one day, twice the second day but never been asked to show a fishing licence.

I have been refused entry launching my boat for not having the original receipt after maritime inspection showed my new pfd's to have a manufacturing date of 2012.  Last year they checked for the 12 month inspection also the 24 manufactures full test, this may of changed but if so I hadn't been made aware of it.

Recently a friend was on a local inlet fishing alone and wearing an inflatable pfd, marintime came alongside to check his pfd was in current date etc. His boat motor trailer package is 9 months old, which came with two inflatable pfd's. The pfd he was wearing was given the all clear but the maritime officer wanted to inspect the spare which had only ever been stored under the cuddy, this one had slight signs of corrosion on the air cylinder, which landed the young lad (17 years old) a $350 fine, no warning.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Kingie chaser your analogy with being a firearms owner is appropriate- have a look at well giving away massive concessions to the anti's is going there- the antis just want to get rid of us. Anyway back to jackets and other nanny state rules- this is also thin edge of the wedge stuff- again i reiterate my point that in the ENTIRETY of Australia year in , year out about 10 or 11 people are killed rockfishing- this is about the same as killed SCUBA diving, about 6 or 7 are killed every year horseriding, 50-60 drown in inland waterways (usually off their face on grog)- the drive for jackets whilst rockfishing will end up like this;

SLSA (who are very anti fishing- cause we get in their way on the beach and occasionaly they have to zap around on their jet skis and pull some twit whos fallen in out of the drink) will announce in 4-5 years time that rockfishing deaths havent declined since the introduction of Jackets as a compulsory piece of equipment therefore rockfishing needs to be banned in certain areas- the pollies will jump on the bandwagon (cause its easier to ban things rather than be sensible) and next minute - there wont be any rockfishing- then I guess i can go to my offshore spots- oh wait the greens have banned me from fishing anywhere except on a 200m x200m patch of sand 20 miles up the coast and its to rough for me to go out today- bugger- think I will go to the range and plink a few targets- oh c!@p- i cant own a firearm anymore 'cause the funpolice have stopped me doing that too-sheesh.

 

Sorry fellas I will conceed nothing to those who want to pander lockouts, "safety measures" for my own good and other restrictions on what is already a very well regulated recreational activity (fishing that is)- compulsory jackets is NOT a safety measure- the safest thing you can do on the rocks is NOT FALL IN- so if conditions look like they could cause you to fall in- DONT FISH- go home instead where you will get to see your family again- if you are too uncoordinated to prevent your self falling in- DONT ROCKFISH (and that includes anyone who cant swim for 30 minutes without stopping). I am perfectly happy for someone who wants to wear a jacket to do so but I will not concede that rockfishing in itself is any more dangerous than walking out the front door and getting in a car BUT like driving a car if you do something dumb -you could get hurt- dont do anything dumb and its a perfectly safe activity. Our politicians will simply listen to the loudest scream and if the antifishing brigade are screaming the loudest guess what- they win - scream back. 

As a final point- for those who want some further evidence- I run a swim school and have done for 14 years- every year i get the Royal (not SUrf) lifesaving drowning statistics which give a true picture of how and where people die in water (nearly every cadaver found in the water will be called a drowning unless foul play is considered)- guess what Royal Life dont and never have considered Rockfishing to be a major area of concern in reducing drownings- hop onto there website and read the annual drowning report its a good read and makes you think

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I want to fish without a life jacket and risk my own life then why shouldn't I be allowed to? I feel perfectly comfortable kayaking around Sydney estuaries without a life jacket and am confident in my abilities to swim to shore if I was ever capsized, yet I am legally obligated to wear one.

When I'm rock fishing it really depends on the circumstances of whether I would put on a life jacket or not. Obviously if I'm standing on a precarious rock with wind blowing and waves crashing around me of course I would wear one, but I wouldn't fish in those conditions anyway. Most of the time I'm rock fishing I feel 100% safe that I won't be swept in, and even if I am I am confident I can make my way back to shore. It just ruins the experience, especially on a hot day, and even makes me feel less stable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JonD said:

 

The jackets for kayaking are compulsory, which was brought in without consultation. 

Down here I've been checked for safety gear three times in one day, twice the second day but never been asked to show a fishing licence.

I have been refused entry launching my boat for not having the original receipt after maritime inspection showed my new pfd's to have a manufacturing date of 2012.  Last year they checked for the 12 month inspection also the 24 manufactures full test, this may of changed but if so I hadn't been made aware of it.

Recently a friend was on a local inlet fishing alone and wearing an inflatable pfd, marintime came alongside to check his pfd was in current date etc. His boat motor trailer package is 9 months old, which came with two inflatable pfd's. The pfd he was wearing was given the all clear but the maritime officer wanted to inspect the spare which had only ever been stored under the cuddy, this one had slight signs of corrosion on the air cylinder, which landed the young lad (17 years old) a $350 fine, no warning.

 

 

I'm sorry to hear that Jon, I know the stupid rules already effect the poor kayakers pretty badly. I have been lucky enough so far to not have been that pumped with safety checks, they get annoying. I'm sorry to hear about your young friend. I keep 4 in date Inflatables for use, and 3 old bricks in the cabin (just in case) but i still have the 4 out of date inflatables in the cabin. I figured if we did end up having to go in the drink and had any available time then i would grab the bricks and the inflatables on the more buoyancy the merrier theory. Now i know they are fineable contraband i will remove them from the boat and we will have no reserve PFDs but at least i know my shed will float. Nice one Maritime. I think it is a similar story with the flares, I have been told by some officers in the past that i can keep the out of date ones on board and use them first as long as i have in date ones as well. I think these days you get in trouble for out of date flares too. I don't think the fine print on the details of the requirements (eg proof of purchase date for PFDs) is publicised well enough, there would be few guys as organised as you at having all of your stuff in order and you still get caught out by the rubbish bureaucracy. 

I have also heard the conspiracy theories about the lifejacket rule being pushed by the green tide as a stepping stone in fishing starting with banning rockfishing based on a safety concern. While it sounds far fetched to people that it doesn't effect i think it is not an unlikely theory, green people are extreme and do play the long game. But they will be hoping that the life jacket mandate doesn't decrease the death rate (in practice i don't think it will decrease much either because the people dying still wont wear them anyway, rules or no rules). They can then say that they tried to decrease deaths by making lifejackets compulsory and that didn't work so now the only option is to ban rock fishing to keep people safe.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Aardvarking said:

If I want to fish without a life jacket and risk my own life then why shouldn't I be allowed to? .

Just like you should be able to end your own life or your loved one via euthanasia if you decide to??

 

We reserve the right to be able to contest laws but if the number are against it in the legislation then there is no choice & the terms are being dictated to you unfortunately which is what governments do, this is modern life.

There will always be difference of opinion in any changes to laws & your vote goes to what side of the fence you are sitting on.

The effort of this bloke as an individual to contest this is his right & we are lucky to be able to even do this here in this place we call home as other people in other places of the world could be carted for even contesting the issue.

Signing off on this one now & hope this guys efforts are quashed as we need to think about the bigger picture rather than 1 individual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Aardvarking said:

If I want to fish without a life jacket and risk my own life then why shouldn't I be allowed to?

I think it's the same as wearing seatbelts. If you're injured or killed it doesn't just affect you. It affects your family and friends, if you need hospitalisation it going to cost the tax payers, it affects people who have to cut you out of a car (or rescue you if you go in the drink)

With the life jackets unfortunately I think you have to cater to lowest common denominator. If it's not law then no one will wear them. People who can't swim will be falling in and dying acknowledge that they might not help an experienced fisho/swimmer.

I don't think experienced fishos/swimmers can be exempt because who decides who gets exempted? Obviously self exemption isn't an option.

Just my two cents worth.

Richard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A couple of new kids tv shows about to start, the first " get arty" tommorow and another called "get clever"both have featured my kids paddling around our local lake without life jackets of any kind. Channel 7 tomorrow morning I believe.

Edited by JonD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill say it again - this isnt about safety- once you are in the water in rough conditions a jacket is not going to save you- the safest thing to do is NOT FALL IN-I will take anyones money at 100-1 that rockfishing deaths will not decline under this rule. I keep a fairly close eye on this area  and guess what most deaths occur on days when no one in their right mind should of been anywhere near the rocks. If you are not experienced enough to make the judgement call on what are safe conditions and what are not, then dont go rockfishing. Life is not without risk- but rockfishing is safe if carried out in a responsible way- the government doesnt need to be continuously telling everyone what to do- even this morning Royal Lifesaving were on the radio talking about the high level of drownings in rivers - 50-60 per annum and 70% of them are p@#$%d or on drugs- how about the do gooders concentrate on some real problems , not one with vested interests-like inventing reasons to stop an activity that gives a big part of the population a great deal of joy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JonD said:

A couple of new kids tv shows about to start, the first " get arty" tommorow and another called "get smart" both have featured my kids paddling around our local lake without life jackets of any kind. Channel 7 tomorrow morning I believe.

Gees Jon- someone will call the fun police if they see that- no jackets- how irresponsible !! 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, nutsaboutfishing said:

I think it's the same as wearing seatbelts. If you're injured or killed it doesn't just affect you. It affects your family and friends, if you need hospitalisation it going to cost the tax payers, it affects people who have to cut you out of a car (or rescue you if you go in the drink)

With the life jackets unfortunately I think you have to cater to lowest common denominator. If it's not law then no one will wear them. People who can't swim will be falling in and dying acknowledge that they might not help an experienced fisho/swimmer.

I don't think experienced fishos/swimmers can be exempt because who decides who gets exempted? Obviously self exemption isn't an option.

Just my two cents worth.

Richard

I think it is a little different to seat belts. I don't think wearing a seat belt increases someone's risk of injury. It would be like fining people for not wearing a seat belt while they are doing a river crossing in their 4WD.  I think that wearing a PFD increases your risk of injury in some cases as i have mentioned in earlier replies. I don't think it is fair to increase one person's risk of injury to attempt to decrease someone else's, who might not even abide by the rule anyway. Noone is stopping you from wearing a lifejacket if you want to.  Blast me for assumptions but I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of the people dying rock fishing had no fishing license either (I have no stats on this), which would help show that they have little regard for the rules in general anyway. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      62,453
    • Total Posts
      495,376